HomeMy WebLinkAboutConcept 2003~~~~~~
Preliminary Concept Report
-84 -Ten Mile Interchange
Meridian, Idaho
Prepared for:
City of Meridian
Eastbourne Development Company
Prepared by:
Earth Tech
3071 E. Franklin Road, Suite 301
Meridian, ID 83642
(208) 855-2000
APR 2 9 2003
pity of 1Vieritfi~~
City Caerk (?i~fic;~:
~~
January 2, 2003
Revised April 16, 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................1
PURPOSE ...................................................................................................
................................................2
EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................:.................................................................3
LOCAL CONTACTS ..................................................................................................................................3
PREVIOUS STUDIES ................................................................................................................................3
I-84 Corridor Study ...............................................................................................................................3
City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan .................................................................................................4
COMPASS 2020 and 2025 Plan ...........................................................................................................4
Demographics Report ...........................................................................................................................4
Ten Mile Interchange Traffic Study .....................................................................................................4
DESIGN YEAR ...........................................................................................................................................4
BASIC DATA .............................................................................................................................................4
COMMITTED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................5
Locust Grove Road Overpass ...............................................................................................................5
Ten Mile Road, Franklin Road to Pine Ave .........................................................................................5
Ten Mile Road, Pine Avenue to Cherry Lane ......................................................................................5
Ten Mile Road, Cherry Lane to Ustick ................................................................................................5
Garrity Boulevard Interchange On Ramp Improvements .....................................................................5
PROJECTS 1N PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................................6
INTERSTATE 84 ........................................................................................................................................6
TEN MILE ROAD ......................................................................................................................................6
GEOMETRIC ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................................8
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ..................................................................................................................8
COST ESTIMATES ....................................................................................................................................8
STUDY ALTERNATIVES .........................................................................................................................9
Rejected Alternatives ............................................................................................................................9
Alternate 1 -Standard Diamond ........................................................................................................13
Alternate 2 -Offset Diamond .............................................................................................................16
Alternate 3-Modified Loop ...............................................................................................................19
Alternate 4-Offset Single Point Urban IC (SPUD ......................................................
....................... 22
Alternate 5 -Loop On Ramp ..............................................................................................................25
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................:.........................................................................................28
PROSECUTION OF WORK ....................................................................................................................28
CONCLUSION ...:.....................................................................................................................................28
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report has been prepared at the request of the City of Meridian and Eastbourne Development LTD
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc _ 1 _
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Ten Mile Road crosses I-84 at approximately milepost 42.0. It is classified as an arterial roadway by the
Ada County Highway District (ACRD) and currently consists of two, 12-foot lanes and shoulders which
vary from 1 foot to three feet. Since Ten Mile Road is centered on a section line, it is anticipated that it
will be widened to five lanes for the over pass, and in the vicinity of the interchange. Full widening of
Ten Mile Road between Overland Road and Franklin Road is included as part of the study, but access
points along Ten Mile Road are not part of the scope of this study. It is anticipated that the area north of
the Interstate on either side of Ten Mile Road will be subject to a master planning process, which will
include a traffic impact study. Ten Mile Road is under the jurisdiction of the Ada County Highway
District. ACRD is not a participant in this project at this time.
I-84 is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department. I-84 currently consists of two
through lanes in each direction at the location of the project. The I-84 Corridor Study states that I-84 will
require three lanes in each direction by 2010 and four lanes in each directly by 2020.
LOCAL CONTACTS
ACRD attended several meetings at the start of the project and has been advised of the progress of the
study. They are in agreement with the findings of the I-84 Corridor Study concerning the necessity and
importance of this interchange.
The City of Meridian is a co-sponsor of the report. Steve Siddoway with the City of Meridian Planning
and Zoning Department has been involved in the planning and preparation of the report. We have had
two progress meetings with the Meridian City Council to advise them of our findings, and will present
our report to them upon completion.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
I-84 Corridor Study
The I-84 Corridor Study prepared by the Washington Infrastructure Services for COMPASS, adopted in
October of 2001 studied the estimated needs of improvements to theI-84 Corridor. The study reviewed
the required number of lanes on the Interstate for all segments in the Treasure Valley, identified
improvements to existing interchanges, and identified the need for new interchanges. The report
estimated the cost of all improvements and prioritized them based on need. This report identified the Ten
Mile interchange as the highest priority new interchange in the corridor. Other interchanges were
considered at Middleton Road, Robinson Road, and Ustick Road.
The Corridor Study included extensive demographics study and modeling to compare impacts of
interchanges. It includes many elements, including extensive public hearings, required for a Location
Study for an interchange. COMPASS is of the opinion that the Corridor Study serves as a Location
Study. For this reason, it is proposed to submit the I-84 Corridor Study as the Location Study for this
project. The corridor study was used as the location study for the Karcher Interchange.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc _ 3 _
City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan
The Ten Mile Interchange is included in the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan for year 2020, the
most current plan.
COMPASS 2020 and 2025 Plan
The Ten Mile Interchange is included in the COMPASS 2020 Plan and 2025 Plan.
Demographics Report
A report on anticipated changes to demographics in the vicinity of proposed interchange was prepared by
Idaho Economics under a subcontract for this report. The report is included to this study by reference.
Ten Mile Interchange Traffic Study
A complete traffic analysis was completed using the demographics from the Demographics Report. The
findings of this study were published in a separate report. The report is included in this study by
reference.
DESIGN YEAR
The Idaho Department of Transportation has not assigned a design year for the Ten Mile Interchange.
The development interests are interested in having the interchange constructed as soon as possible. Since
the State Transportation Improvement Plan is completed for the next few years, we have assumed that
the design year will be 2005. The study years will therefore be 2007 and 2027. The traffic data is based
on COMPASS model years 2010 and 2025.
BASIC DATA
The study parameters included the following:
1. Minimum right-of--way needs to allow for future traffic projections
2 Provide for the future widening of I-84 to four lanes each direction by the year 2025
3. Provide an access road for future development between I-84 and Franklin Road
4. Relieve congestion for I-84 and existing interchanges in the area
The information used to develop this study included traffic and demographic data from COMPASS and
current aerial photographs.
The pavement sections are assumed for purpose of estimating quantities and costs of aggregate and
asphalt concrete. ITD standard budget costs for structures and roadway items were used and allowances
for mobilization, right-of--way, and displacement costs were included.
Each alternative provides for sufficient right-of--way between termini to accommodate the required travel
lanes, curb and gutter, turn lanes as warranted, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities as appropriate to meet
AASHTO standards.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc _ 4 _
Based on a fundamental analysis of intersection capacity, the new interchange facility would operate at
an acceptable level of service in the vicinity of the I-84 entrance/exit ramps. Please refer to the traffic
analysis for more details. The Overland Road intersection will be designed to meet AASHTO standards
for the proper level of service with sufficient right-of--way purchased to accommodate final design
considerations.
COMMITTED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
ITD and ACHD have several projects in the five-year programs, which may have an impact on traffic
patterns in the vicinity of the Ten Mile Interchange. These projects are discussed below.
Locust Grove Road Overpass
Locust Grove Road is located one mile east of Ten Mile Road. Locust Grove Road will be widened to
five lanes between Franklin Road and Meridian Road. The Ada County highway District sponsors the
roadway portion of the project and the overpass portion of the project is sponsored by the Idaho
Department of Transportation. The project will include an overpass of I-84, but no on or off ramps. The
project is currently scheduled for 2008. Since this project will not connect to the interstate, it will not
relieve any congestion on the Meridian Road Interchange or the Eagle Road Interchange. This
improvement will serve an industrial area of Meridian and provide a necessary north-south access across
the interstate.
Ten Mile Road, Franklin Road to Pine Ave
The Ada County Highway District has a project schedule for construction in 2007 for the reconstruction
and widening of Ten Mile Road ftom Franklin Road to Pine Ave. Ten Mile Road will be constructed to
five lanes and will include curb, gutter and sidewalk. The project includes a crossing of Ten Mile Creek
and a railroad crossing.
Ten Mile Road, Pine Avenue to Cherry Lane
The Ada County Highway District has a project schedule for construction in 2006 for the reconstruction
and widening of Ten Mile Road from Pine Avenue to Cherry Lane. Ten Mile Road will be constructed
to five lanes and will include curb, gutter and sidewalk. The project includes a signal at Pine Avenue.
Ten Mile Road, Cherry Lane to Ustick
The Ada County Highway District has a project schedule for construction in 2005 for the reconstruction
and widening of Ten Mile Road from Cherry Lane to Ustick Road. Ten Mile Road will be constructed to
four or five lanes and will include curb, gutter and sidewalk. The project includes a signal at Ustick
Road.
Garrity Boulevard Interchange On Ramp Improvements
The Idaho Department of Transportation has a project to improve the eastbound on ramp of the Garrity
Boulevard Interchange.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc _ g _
PROJECTS IN PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
There are several projects in program development, which will impact traffic patterns in the vicinity of
the Ten Mile Interchange. These projects do not have funding and have not been assigned a design year.
These projects are identified in the I-84 Corridor Study. Some of the major projects are:
Reconstruction of the Meridian Road Interchange
Reconstruction of the Garrity Boulevard Interchange
Construction of the Robinson Road Interchange
Widening of the Interstate from Garrity Boulevard to Eagle Road
INTERSTATE 84
The I-84 Corridor Study determined that Interstate 84 will need to be widened to six lanes between Ten
Mile Road and Meridian Road, to eight lanes from Eagle Road to the Wye by 2010. The study
determined that the Interstate would need to be widened to six lanes between Garrity Boulevard and Ten
Mile Road by 2015. The study also indicated that the Interstate would need to be widened to eight lanes
between Ten Mile and Eagle Road by 2020.
The Traffic Analysis concurs with the findings of the I-84 Corridor Study concerning lane requirements
for the Interstate. Our analysis determined the lane configuration would be required with or without the
Ten Mile Interchange for both years 2007 and 2027. The cost for this work is not included in the cost of
construction of interchange. For informational purposes, we have included a conceptual cost estimate of
the widening of Interstate 84 to six lanes in the appendix of this report. This estimate is based on a
review of the COMPASS topographic maps, the typical section of the existing highway, and field review.
We have not prepared a preliminary design of this work. We also note that it may not be possible to
widen the Interstate under the Meridian Road Interchange without structural modifications of the
interchange.
TEN MILE ROAD
The project must have logical termini for the project. This would require that Ten Mile Road be
constructed to logical termination points. For this project, Overland Road to the south of the Interstate
would be an appropriate termination of the project. There is no major development south of Overland
Road. The City of Kuna lies 6 miles to the south of the Interstate.
To the north, significant development is anticipated between the Interstate and Franklin Road. Franklin
Road is the first arterial east-west street north of the Interstate. ACRD has planned improvements to Ten
Mile Road north of Franklin Road. Therefore, the logical terminus to the north would be at Franklin
Road. The limits of improvements to Ten Mile Road as part of this project are shown in Figure 2.
The estimates for each alternative include improvements to Ten Mile Road. Improvements to Ten
Mile Road include widening to five lanes and bike lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, canal and drainage ditch
crossing, a bridge of Ten Mile Creek, and a signal and intersection improvements at Franklin Road. It is
anticipated that additional access will be required along Ten Mile Road for the development between the
Interstate and Franklin Road. It is anticipated that one additional signal will be required between the
westbound I-84 ramps and Franklin Road (a distance of about 2/3 of a mile). This area will be involved
in a master planning process and will be subject to a traffic impact study. The traffic impact study will
address the issue of access.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\I'relim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc _ 6 _
Figure 2 -Limits of Ten Mile Road Improvements
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\ConceptlPrelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc _ 7 _
GEOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Each alternative includes a new overpass structure to accommodate the future widening of I-84 to eight
lanes. In addition, all entrance and exit ramps are one lane only except at the ramp termini where turn
lanes are added where appropriate to accommodate future traffic projections. All ramp terminus will be
signalized as well as the intersection of Overland Road and Ten Mile Road. Overland Road and Ten
Mile Road has been included due to the proximity of Overland to the eastbound off ramp in three of the
alternatives. Ten Mile Road will consist of five lanes from Overland Road north through the interchange
area before transitioning to a three-lane section.- Additional turn lanes will be added where appropriate as
well as bicycle/pedestrian facilities, a storm water draining system, and curb and gutter. All design
elements met ASSHTO design requirements.
For detailed information about intersection layouts, refer to the Traffic Analysis report attached to this
study. For a detail estimate for each alternate, refer to the appendix.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A preliminary environmental review is included as part of this report. The environmental review is
included in the appendix of this report. The purpose of this review is to identify possible environmental
issues, which may affect the cost or location of the project.
It is anticipated that an Environmental Assessment will be required for approval of this project. The
Environmental Assessment will be completed as part of the preliminary design phase. A study of
secondary and cumulative impacts, throughout the project area, will be addressed in the environmental
assessment.
COST ESTIMATES
The cost estimates presented in this report represent the opinion of the engineer of the cost of
construction using year 2003 dollars. Every effort has been made to include all items normally
encountered in this type of construction. Our estimate was based similar estimates prepared for the
Karcher Interchange and the Franklin Road Interchange. Contingency factors have been included to
allow for unforeseen construction items. Earth Tech offers these estimates with the belief that they
represent realistic estimates of the cost of construction of the interchange. These estimates may be used
for budgeting purposes, as well as comparative evaluation.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\I'relim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc _ g _
STUDY ALTERNATIVES
Five conceptual interchange layouts were studied and compared for this report. A complete traffic
analysis for each alternative was included in the Traffic Analysis for the Ten Mile Interchange. A
complete analysis and cost estimate is included in this report. These alternatives are as follows:
1. Standard Diamond IC
2. Offset Diamond IC -Ten Mile Road shifted to the east
3. Modified Look IC -Loop design for eastbound exit ramp
4.Offset Single Point Urban IC -Eastbound entrance/exit ramps shifted to the north side of I-84
5. Loop On Ramp -Eastbound On ramp is looped in the southwest quadrant of the interchange.
Rejected Alternatives
Additional interchange alternatives were considered and found not acceptable due to extensive costs,
right-of--way requirements, or other considerations. A brief discussion of these alternatives is as follows:
Standard Single Point Urban Interchange
A standard Single Point Urban Interchange would typically have the single intersection located directly
above the highway. Single Point Urban Interchanges are usually installed where right-of--way costs are
high, such as in urban areas, and the right-of--way cost justifies the expenditure on structures. Since
right-of--way costs are not considered excessive at this location, a typical Single Point Urban Interchange
would not be a typical application. A comparative cost estimate was completed on this alternative and it
was found to be considerably more expensive that any other alternative. The offset Single Point Urban
Interchange was included because it provided operational advantages and was not as costly as the
standard interchange. The Standard Single Point Urban Interchange is shown in Figure 3.
.-,n,,~
Figure 3 -Single Point Urban Interchange
L:\WO1tK\57769_10-Mile)Trans\docs\ConceptlPrelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc _ 9 _
Ten Mile Road Off Ramp.
It was proposed to use the existing alignment of Ten Mile Road as an off ramp in conjunction with
offsetting Ten Mile Road. This alternative is shown in Figure 4. The advantage of this alternative is
that it would remove one of the three intersections from interchange, which would aid in the operation of
the interchange. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it was considered to
violate driver expectations by forcing drivers to the south when the wished to go north. Furthermore, the
resulting traffic patterns create severe operational problems for the new intersections on Overland Road.
Finally, Overland Road has some vertical problems near Ten Mile Road. These vertical problems would
need to be corrected with this option. Correction of these problems is complicated by the proximity of
the Ridenbaugh Canal and an existing farm that may have historical significance.
__._ _._=
_. ;~
_. _ _-_.
~--, , ~ ~
~ c
C9p~
Figure 4 -Ten Mile Road Off Ramp
x S ry
ii~
~a ~:~~
~<~
!" ~~""m'~ f .
c f.~:::
tlausQ RC>.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 10 -
Overland Road Off Ramp
An alternative to have the eastbound off and on ramps terminate on Overland Road was considered. This
alternative is shown in Figure 5. This alternative would provide signal spacing operational advantages
and reduce the impact on the subdivision. The disadvantages is that the alternative may confuse drivers
that are exiting to Ten Mile Road and are dropped on Overland Road. Drivers trying to go eastbound on
to the Interstate will may have difficulty in finding the on ramp. The traffic at all of the intersections
would involve a significant volume of left turning vehicles. Due to the inconsistencies in driver
expectations and operation difficulties, this option was not included for further consideration.
Figure 5 -Overland Road Off Ramp
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\1'relim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 11 -
Full Realignment of Ten Mile Road
An alternative, which included the full realignment of Ten Mile Road, was considered. This alternative
is shown in Figure 6. This alternative was considered to address problems created with the
disconnection of Ten Mile Road in other alternatives. This alternative also included a looped onramp for
eastbound traffic, which will help operations. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration
for several reasons. It has a significant impact on the farm, which may have historical significance.
Construction in close proximity to the Ridenbaugh Canal also poses serious concerns. Ten Mile Road is
undergoing a significant grade change at the southern end of the proposed realignment. Matching the
vertical alignment would require additional construction.
~~,,..
~,~"'',.
r ~ ~ ~°° A
~~`~'~
~~ c
`'
r~
G
h~
Lfi ":~
_ ~t „~ . ,
?~G.:^- -- __.w""~r":_..: --fir;.: ;~-,. -
be-' ~J e
~'a ~ ~ ~ }
~~ ] €~
~~
~ ~.
~ n
`'>.,
~~
.-~
El ~
;.
Figure 6 -Full Realignment of Ten Mile Road
~~
L:\WO1tK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc _ 12 _
Alternate 1-Standard Diamond
This alternative is illustrated in Figure 7.
The estimated cost associate with this alternative is:
Construction: $10,569,000
Right-of--way: $4,262,400
Other Costs $1,499,600
Displacements 13
Total Estimated cost for the construction is estimated to be $16,331,000, which includes preliminary
engineering and contingencies. Details for the estimate are shown in Table 1 at the end of this report.
Description
The standard diamond includes directional on and off ramps in all four quadrants. The termini will
widen out to accommodate free right turn lanes in all directions. Additional left turn lanes will be added
to both exit ramps. The existing horizontal alignment for Ten Mile Road will remain the same while
minor adjustments to the vertical alignment will be required to accommodate the proposed structure over
I-84. Ten Mile Road, at the structure will have seven lanes to accommodate the necessary traffic
movements for the intersections.
The off ramp intersections will be located proper distance from the overpass structure to allow proper
sight distance and spacing for coordination timing.
Both off ramp intersections will be signalized and include left turn bays for left turns on to the on ramps.
Right turn lanes will be included for on ramps.
It is expected that the overpass structure will be required to be six lanes to accommodate two through
lanes of traffic in each direction, and dual left turn lanes for the on ramps. It is anticipated that the
structure will be two-span with a pier in the middle of the intersection. The span could be reduced with
the construction of retaining walls at the abutment as opposed to fill slopes.
Ten Mile Road will transition to a two-lane section beyond the interchange site to match existing
conditions.
It is anticipated that a noise barrier will be required in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. The
cost for the sound wall is included in the cost of the project, but the sound wall may be required and
constructed if the interstate is widened to three lanes prior to the construction of the interchange.
Advantages
The alignment of Ten Mile Road will remain in place, allowing a straight north-south movement.
Most of the right-of--way required for construction is currently undeveloped.
The off ramp intersections will not have opposing left turn or through movements in the east-west
direction. Therefore delay at these intersections can be minimized.
The off ramps may be spaced adequately for signal coordination.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\1'relim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 13 -
The proposed configuration of the interchange does not violate any driver expectations. All movements
are in conformance with typical interchange layout and design.
Disadvantages
The off ramp in the southwest quadrant will impact several existing residential houses, many of which
will require demolition and relocation of residents.
The east bound off ramp will intersect Ten Mile Road very close to Tasa Drive. Movements at Tasa
Drive may have to be restricted.
The east bound off ramp will be located about 700 feet from Overland Road. The intersection of
Overland Road and Ten Mile Road will need to be signalized along with the off ramp intersection. The
spacing of these two signalized intersections is not conducive to proper traffic operations.
Phasing Possibilities
If funding is limited, the project could be reduced in scope to accommodate the 2010 traffic for
immediate need with the understanding that the project will be widened for 2025 traffic when funding
becomes available.
The overpass structure could be reduced from six lanes to four for the short term. The bridge
foundations and abutments would have to be designed for six lanes, with only the decking being added.
Off and on ramps could be constructed for 2010 traffic conditions, resulting in a reduction in the number
of lanes. Storm drain systems, signals and other infrastructure items would be constructed for 2025
conditions. Right-of--way would have to be purchased for 2025 conditions. This phasing option would
reduce the amount of borrow required and the amount of paved surface.
Although the costs of phasing options were not estimated, the savings would not be significant. There
would be increased overall costs to implement the phasing.
L:\WO1tK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concep[\1'relim_Concept updated report 4-lb.doc - 14 -
Figure 7 -Standard Diamond Interchange
L:\WORK\57769_1 O-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\1'relim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 15 -
Alternate 2 -Offset Diamond
This alternative is illustrated in Figure 8.
The estimated cost associate with this alternative is:
Construction: $10,356,000
Right-of--way: $3,429,500
Other Costs $1,599,500
Displacements 4
Total Estimated cost for the construction is estimated to be $15,385,000, which includes preliminary
engineering and contingencies. Details for the estimate are shown in Table 1 at the end of this report.
Description
In order to lessen the impact to the residential development in the southwest quadrant, the alignment of
Ten Mile Road is moved about six hundred feet to the east. It will intersect at Overland Road in a T
intersection. This causes the overpass structure to cross I-84 at a skew, lengthening the bridge.
The offset diamond shares the same design feature as the standard diamond with respect to the entrance
and exit ramps. All land configurations for both the ramps and Ten Mile Road are the same as those for
the standard diamond.
Both off ramp intersections will be signalized and include left turn bays for left turns on to the on ramps.
Right turn lanes will be included for on ramps.
It is expected that the overpass structure will be required to be six lanes wide to accommodate two
through lanes of traffic in each direction, and dual left turn lanes for the on ramps. The eastbound off
ramp deceleration lane will pass under the overpass, so the structure will need to be twelve feet longer
than the other alternatives. It is anticipated that the structure will be two-span with a pier in the middle of
the interstate. The span could be reduced with the construction of retaining walls at the abutment as
opposed to fill slopes.
Ten Mile Road will transition to a two-lane section beyond the interchange site to match existing
conditions.
It is anticipated that a noise barrier will be required in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. The
cost for the sound will is included in the cost of this project, but the sound wall may be required and
constructed if the interstate is widened to three lanes prior to the construction of the interstate.
Advantages
This alternative will involve less impact on existing houses located in the southwest quadrant of the
interchange. This will reduce the cost of the project as well as the environmental impacts.
Most of the right-of--way required for construction is currently undeveloped.
The off ramps may be spaced adequately for signal conditions.
L:\WORK\57769_IO-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 16 -
The proposed configuration of the interchange does not violate any driver expectations. All movements
are in conformance with typical interchange layout and design.
Disadvantages
The relocation of Ten Mile Road requires a greater amount of right-of--way than the conventional
diamond interchange.
The overpass will be longer than the standard diamond interchange, which will result in more square
footage of structure and a higher square footage cost.
The realignment of Ten Mile Road will result in a disconnect for southbound Ten Mile Road south of
Overland. This may create additional traffic problems for traffic south of the interstate.
Phasing Possibilities
If funding is limited, the project could be reduced in scope to accommodate 2010 traffic for immediate
need with the understanding that the project will be widened for 2025 traffic when funding becomes
available.
The overpass structure could be reduced from six lanes to four for the short term. The bridge
foundations and abutments would have to be designed for six lanes, with only the decking being added.
Off and on ramps could be constructed for 2010 traffic conditions, resulting in a reduction in the number
of lanes. Storm drain systems, signals and other infrastructure items would be constructed for 2025
conditions. Right-of--way would have to be purchased for 2025 conditions. This phasing option would
reduce the amount of borrow required and the amount of paved surface.
Although the costs of phasing options were not estimated, the savings would not be significant. These
would be increased costs to implement the phasing.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\1'relim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 17 -
Figure 8 -Offset Diamond Interchange
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 18 -
Alternate 3- Modified Loop
This alternative is illustrated in Figure 9.
The estimated cost associate with this alternative is:
Construction: $9,325,000
Right-of--way: $3,045,700
Other Costs $1,500,300
Displacements 5
Total Estimated cost for the construction is estimated to be $13,871,000, which includes preliminary
engineering and contingencies. Details for the estimate are shown in Table 1 at the end of this report.
Description
The modified loop interchange uses a loop ramp for the eastbound off ramp. All other on and off ramps
will be constructed as standard diamond interchange ramps. The construction of the eastbound off ramp
as a loop reduces right-of--way requirements in the southwest quadrant of the interchange, reducing the
need for relocation of existing residents.
The eastbound off ramp is located coincident with Tasa Drive. This will avoid a poor alignment situation
with Tasa. The design speed for the loop ramp is 30mph and is one lane in width except for the terminus.
The intersection with Ten Mile Road will include a free right turn lane for northbound traffic.
Both off ramp intersections will be signalized and include left turn bays for left turns on to the on ramps.
Right turn lanes will be included for on ramps.
It is expected that the overpass structure will be required to be six lanes wide to accommodate two
through lanes of traffic in each direction, and dual left turn lanes for the on ramps. The eastbound off
ramp deceleration lane will pass under the overpass, so the structure will need to be twelve feet longer
than the other alternatives. It is anticipated that the structure will be two-span with a per in the middle of
the interstate. The span could be reduced with the construction of retaining walls at the abutment as
opposed to fill slopes.
Ten Mile Road will transition to a two-lane section beyond the interchange site to match existing
conditions.
It is anticipated that a noise barrier will be required in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. The
cost for the sound wall is included in the cost of this project, but the sound wall may be required and
constructed if the interstate is widened to three lanes prior to the construction of the interchange.
Advantages
This alternative will involve less impact on existing houses located in the southwest quadrant of the
interchange. This will reduce the cost of the project as well as the environmental impacts.
Most of the right-of--way required for construction is currently undeveloped.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\I'relim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 19 -
The free right turn on the east bound loop for north bound traffic will eliminate the need for a large left
turn movement, resulting in an improved level of service for the intersection.
The off ramps may be spaced adequately for signal coordination.
The proposed configuration of the interchange does not violate any driver expectations. All movements
are in conformance with typical interchange layout and design.
Since the loop ramp will be located further south than the eastbound off ramp of the diamond
interchange, the westbound off ramp could also be located further south. This would offset right-of--way
costs required for the loop.
Disadvantages
The loop ramp requires a greater amount of right-of--way than the conventional diamond interchange.
The eastbound loop off ramp intersection with Ten Mile Road will be located close to the existing
intersection of Ten Mile Road and Overland Road.
The Ten Mile overpass will need to be at least 12 feet longer than other alternatives, which will mean
more structure are and a higher cost per square foot of structure.
Phasing Possibilities
If funding is limited, the project could be reduced in scope to accommodate 2010 traffic for immediate
need with the understanding that the project will be widened for 2025 traffic when funding becomes
available.
The overpass structure could be reduced from six lanes to four for the short term. The bridge
foundations and abutments would have to be designed for six lanes, with only the decking being added.
Off and on ramps could be constructed for 2010 traffic conditions, resulting in a reduction in the number
of lanes. Storm drain systems, signals and other infrastructure items would be constructed for 2025
conditions. Right-of--way would have to be purchased for 2025 conditions. This phasing option would
reduce the amount of borrow required and the amount of paved surface.
Although the costs of phasing options were not estimated, the savings would not be significant. There
would be increased costs to implement the phasing.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 20 -
Figure 9 -Modified Loop Interchange
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\1'relim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 21 -
Alternate ~ Offset Single Point Urban /C (SPUI)
This alternative is illustrated in Figure 10.
The estimated cost associate with this alternative is:
Construction: $13,301,000
Right-of--way: $1,736,600
Other Costs $1,800,400
Displacements 1
Total Estimated cost for the construction is estimated to be $16,838,000, which includes preliminary
engineering and contingencies. Details for the estimate are shown in Table 1 at the end of this report.
Description
A single point urban interchange is constructed so the off ramps coincide at one intersection instead of
two. The off ramps will then require one signal instead of two, making for easier signal operations.
Single point interchanges also use less right-of--way, so they become economical in urban areas where
right-of--way costs are high. In a typical single point interchange, the off ramps intersect above or below
the highway, again, to reduce right-of--way requirements. Since right-of--way costs are not critical in this
situation, the off ramp intersection is located on the north side of Interstate 84.
As a result, the eastbound ramp movements are shifted north and will require the addition of two multi-
span bridge structures. The off ramp structures would be one lane, but would cross the interstate at non-
right angles. This will result in longer structures. Retaining walls would also be necessary for the ramps
due to the proximity of the ramps to the interstate.
The overpass structure has six lanes because the double left turn lane for the northbound approach would
extend on to the structure. The length would be of the same length as the diamond interchange. The
length of the overpass could be shortened with the construction of retaining walls at the abutment as
opposed to fill slopes.
At the off ramp intersection and Ten Mile Road, Ten Mile Road widens to eight lanes at the ramp
terminus to accommodate right turn lanes. Both off ramps will require double left turn lanes. The
intersection has free right turns in all directions, and dedicated double turn lanes for north and south
approaches. This intersection will need to be signalized.
Ten Mile Road will transition to a two-lane section beyond the interchange site to match existing
conditions.
A noise barrier will be required in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. The elevated ramps may
function as a noise barrier. The noise barrier may be required for the widening of I-84. In this case, the
elevated ramps may reduce the need for noise barrier of that project.
Advantages
This alternative reduces the number of signalized intersections from Overland Road to Franklin Road
from four to three. The signalized intersection spacing could be at 1/3 of a mile, which meets ACRD
requirements with respect to signal spacing.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\I'relim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 22 -
The operational characteristics of the signals on Ten Mile Road would be improved with the signal
spacing. The proximity to Overland Road would not be a problem.
This alternative requires minimal displacements and right-of--way needs.
This option may have phasing possibilities.
Disadvantages
The additional structures result in increased cost.
Although this on and off ramp configuration does not violate driver expectations, having the westbound
on ramp on the north side of the interstate would be an unusual configuration in this area.
The overall delay on Ten Mile Road would be reduce, but the delay to the off ramps would increase due
to the accommodation of additional movements at the intersection. The additional delay at the off ramps
would not impact the interstate.
The off ramp structures would not only be long, but would be curvilinear, which will increase costs.
Phasing Possibilities
The off ramps could be constructed without replacement of the Ten Mile Road overpass, however, the
traffic projects indicate that the Ten Mile Road overpass would need to be widened by 2010. This would
only be an interim possibility.
The overpass structure could be reduced from six lanes to four for the short term. The bridge
foundations and abutments would have to be designed for six lanes, with only the decking being added.
Off and on ramps could be constructed for 2010 traffic conditions, resulting in a reduction in the number
of lanes. Storm drain systems, signals and other infrastructure items would be constructed for 2025
conditions. Right-of--way would have to be purchased for 2025 conditions. This phasing option would
reduce the amount of borrow required and the amount of paved surface.
Although the costs of phasing options were not estimated, the savings would not be significant. There
would be increased costs to implement the phasing.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 23 -
Figure 10 -Offset Single Point Urban Interchange
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report q-16.doc _ 2q _
Alternate 5 -Loop On Ramp
This alternative is illustrated in Figure 11.
The estimated cost associate with this alternative is:
Construction: $13,301,000
Right-of--way: $1,736,600
Other Costs $1,800,400
Displacements 1
Total Estimated cost for the construction is estimated to be $16;838,000, which includes preliminary
engineering and contingencies. Details for the estimate are shown in Table 1 at the end of this report.
Description
A loop on ramp interchange is constructed so the eastbound off ramp is a loop ramp. The movement
from southbound Ten Mile to eastbound I-84 is a large movement, and this configuration will allow a
free right turn for that movement. In this option, the northbound Ten Mile Road to eastbound I-84 is
shown as a left turn movement at the intersection. This can be made to function with a double left turn
lane. Another option for this movement would be a standard right hand on ramp.
In this alternative, Overland Road is shifted to the north and intersects Ten Mile Road at the I-84 off
ramp. Relocating Overland Road eliminates the problem of two intersections in close proximity to each
other, and instead creates one intersection. This intersection will need to be signalized. It is anticipated
that all approaches will have double left turn lanes. The through lanes on the off ramp and Overland
Road would be single lanes. Southbound Ten Mile Road would have a free right turn lane.
The on ramp is designed as a 25 MPH ramp. The ramp would need to be extended beyond the loop to
allow vehicles time to accelerate up to freeway speed. Since the on ramp will pass under the structure,
the structure will be longer than that of a standard diamond interchange.
Since the existing Tasa Drive neighborhood would be eliminated with this alternative, a noise barrier
would not be required.
Advantages
The largest on ramp movement would be accommodated with a free right turn. This would reduce delay
at the intersection.
The proximity to Overland Road would not be a problem.
This option may have phasing possibilities.
Disadvantages
The Ten Mile overpass will need to be at least 12 feet longer than other alternatives, which will mean
more structure are and a higher cost per square foot of structure.
This alternative has the greatest impact on the existing neighborhood located at Tasa Drive.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 25 -
Phasing Possibilities
If funding is limited, the project could be reduced in scope to accommodate 2010 traffic for immediate
need with the understanding that the project will be widened for 2025 traffic when funding becomes
available.
The overpass structure could be reduced from six lanes to four for the short term. The bridge
foundations and abutments would have to be designed for six lanes, with only the decking being added.
Off and on ramps could be constructed for 2010 traffic conditions, resulting in a reduction in the number
of lanes. Storm drain systems, signals and other infrastructure items would be constructed for 2025
conditions. Right-of--way would have to be purchased for 2025 conditions. This phasing option would
reduce the amount of borrow required and the amount of paved surface.
Although the costs of phasing options were not estimated, the savings would not be significant. There
would be increased costs to implement the phasing.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 26 -
Figure 11 -Loop On Ramp Interchange
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\Prelim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc - 27 -
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
At this time, no public meetings have taken place to discuss the proposed Ten Mile IC. Public meetings
were held with respect to the I-84 Corridor Study, which reflects the location of the Ten Mile IC. Please
refer to that report for more information. A public meeting for this project will be held with ITD has
reviewed and accepted the report.
PROSECUTION OF WORK
It is anticipated that Ten Mile Road will need to be shut down during the construction of the overpass.
The shut down will require several months. The likely alternate route will be Meridian Road located two
miles to the east. It can be accessed via Overland Road to the south of the freeway and Franklin Road to
the North of the freeway. The other alternate route will be Black Cat Road located one mile to the west.
It ca be accessed via Franklin Road north of I-84 and Lamont Road or Victory Road south of I-84.
Construction of the overpass will require removal of traffic from I-84 in one direction at various times. I-
84 will remain open by restricting traffic to one lane and moving it to the opposite side with the
construction of a cross over. Lane closures on I-84 will only occur during nighttime. Alternate routes
include Franklin Road, and Cherry Lane, both to the north of I-84.
Since this is a preliminary concept report, the Phase I Materials Report is not included in the work.
Preliminary environmental investigations have been completed but will require further development at
the Concept Report Stage and at the preliminary design state.
CONCLUSION
The need for an interchange at this location has been already been addressed through COMPASS. This
study demonstrated five different alternatives that meet the projected traffic needs in the design year of
2027. Each one having strengths and weaknesses associated with cost, right-of--way needs, or impacts to
the local community. With the neighboring interchanges already at full capacity and without the ability
to increase their capacity, the Ten Mile IC is amuch-needed asset to the I-84 corridor.
L:\WORK\57769_10-Mile\Trans\docs\Concept\I'relim_Concept updated report 4-16.doc _ Zg _
ITD0651 cRev.,,/oz) Conceptual Environmental Evaluation
Date District Route # City/County
4-16-03 3 I-84 Ada County
Project Name Project # Key #
Ten Mile Interchange
Work Authority Program Year Termini (Mp To Mp)
2005 41.5 - 42.5
Acres of New Public RNV Acres of New Private RNV Located on Indian Reservation, Tribal Lands, Etc.?
0.00 24.0 - 43. ^Yes ®No
Air Quality
^ Attainment Area ®Non-Attainment Area ®CO ^ PM 10 ^ PM 2.5 ^ Exempt Project
Type One Project (I. E., New Location, Substantial Alignment Change, Addition of aThrough-Traffic Lane):
® Yes ^ No
Construction Impacts Requiring Special Provisions (Enter Details on Separate Sheet )
^ Yes ®No
Project Purpose and Benefits
Double mark (xx) o~ the item that best describes the Primary Reason for Proposing this Project
Single mark (x) all Other Relevant Items
Maintain/Improve User Operating Conditions Enhance Accessibility for the Disabled/Safety
x Maintain/Improve Traffic Flow x Enhance Pedestrian Safety and/or Capacity
Time Savings x Enhance Bicycle Safety and/or Capacity -
xx Increase Capacity Traffic Composition Enhancement (e.g., Truck Route, HOV Lane, Climbing Lane)
x Reduce Congestion Visual/Cultural Enhancement (e.g., Landscaping, Historic Preservation)
Hazard Reduction Environmental Enhancement (e.g., Air Quality, Noise Attenuation, Water Quality)
Reduce Highway User Operating Costs Economic Prudence (e.g., Repair Less Expensive than Replacement, B/C Ratio)
Other, List (e.g., Driver Convenience and Comfort regarding Rest Area Projects)
Check Any of the Following That Are Adversely Impacted by the Project
Yes Unknown Yes Unknown
1. Noise Criteria Impacts ® ^ 18. Air Quality Impacts ® ^
2. Change in Access or Access Control ® ^ 19. Inconsistent With Air Quality Plan ^
3. Change in Travel Patterns ® ^ ^ SIP ^ TIP
4. Neighborhood or Service Impacts ® ^ 20. Stream Alteration/Encroachment ^
5. Economic Disruption ^ ® ^ IWDR ^ F&G ^ COE (404)
6. Inconsistent W/Local or State Planning ^ ® 21. Flood Plain Encroachment ^
7. Environmental Justice ^ ® ^ Longitudinal ^ Traverse
8. Displacements ® ^ 22. Regulatory Floodway ^
9. Section 4(f) Lands-DOT Act 1966 ® ^ ^ PE Cert. & FEMA Approval ^ Revision
10. LWCF Recreation Areas/6(f) Lands ^ ® 23. Navigable Waters ^
11. Section 106-Nat. Hist. Preserv. Act ® ^ ^ CG (Sec 9) ^ COE (Sec 10) ^ Dept. Lands
12. FAA Airspace Intrusion ^ ® 24. Wetlands ® ^
13. Visual Impacts ^ ® ®Jurisdictional (404) ^Non-Jurisdictional
14. Prime Farmland, Parcel Splits ® ^ 25. Sole Source Aquifer ^
15. Known/Suspected "Hazmat" Risks ^ ® ^ Exempt Project ^Non-Exempt
16. Wildlife/Fish Resources/Habitat ^ ® 26. Water Quality, Runoff Impacts ^
17. Threatened/Endangered Species ® ^ 27. NPDES-General Permit ® ^
^ Listed ®Proposed ^ ^ (If no, complete sediment-erosion control plan)
Prepared By D to
Comments
Page 1 of 1
Preliminary Environmental Evaluation
Attachment to Form ITD - 654
Rieht-of-Wa
It is estimated that between 24 to 43 acres of land would be needed to build the proposed interchange
at Ten Mile Road. The affected land is mainly rural with a small residential area located south of
I-84, west of Ten Mile Road. Displacements are anticipated with the construction of the proposed
interchange. Depending on the type of facility, 2 to 13 displacements can be expected.
The following comments are in reference to the impact section of Form ITD-654.
1. Noise Criteria Impacts
It is anticipated that the increase in traffic volume along Ten Mile Road will cause an adverse effect
on residences bordering its corridor. In addition, the traffic volumes in association with the exit and
entrance ramps of the proposed interchange may also contribute to noise levels above the abatement
criteria. A noise study will be required as part of the design for the proposed project.
2. Change in Access or Access Control
The State Highway Access Control policy will be followed for this project. The proposed
interchange will have Type V access which will include Ten Mile Road in the area of the I-84
Corridor.
3. Change in Travel Patterns
The proposed interchange at Ten Mile Road will give immediate access to the I-84 Corridor for the
neighboring public. As a result, it is anticipated that many persons will adjust their travel patterns to
take advantage of this access.
4. Neighborhood or Service Impacts
Access into and out-of existing neighborhoods may be adversely impacted depending on which
design alternative is chosen for this interchange project. Increases in traffic volume as well as the
proposed widening of Ten Mile Road have the possibility to decrease the service to the local
residential areas. Once a design alternative is chosen, a more detailed analysis, as part of the
environmental document, can be performed to assess the effects on the local community.
8. Displacements
Displacements will occur in order to develop the proposed interchange. Two homes are relatively
close to the north side of the interstate and in order to build exit and entrance ramps for the facility,
these residences would be affected. The possibility of more displacements may occur depending on
the layout of the interchange.
9. Section 4(f)
It is unknown at this time if lands protected by Section 4(f) exist in the project area. Once a design
alternative is chosen, a study shall be performed, as part of the environmental document, to see if
protected lands are adversely impacted by this project.
L:\WORK\57769 10-Mile\Trans\docs\Environmental\Attachment FORM ITD-651.doc
11. Section 106-National Historical Preservation Act
It has been noted by the Idaho Transportation Department (TTD) that one or more properties in the
project area may be eligible for Section 106. In addition, waterways, such as ditches and canals, may
also fall under Section 106 and Section 4(f). Amore detailed investigation is needed before definite
conclusions can be made.
14. Prime Farmland, Parcel Splits
The project area is composed mainly of a Rural to Urban Transition zone with one area in the
southwest quadrant zoned Residential. As a result, it is possible, depending on the layout of the
interchange, that farmland parcels will be split to accommodate the exit and entrance ramps to I-84.
At this time, it is unknown if the farmland in the project area is considered "prime" as described in
the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). In addition, with the project in close proximity to
Meridian City's area of impact, farmland may be exempt to the FPPA. Amore detailed investigation
is needed before definite conclusions can be made.
17. Threatened and Endan erg ed Species
A Biological Assessment of the project area will be performed as a result of this project.
18. Air Qualitypacts
The proposed interchange will have the affect of increasing traffic in the surrounding area. This will
bring with it the possibility of air quality standards outside of the acceptable range. Existing and
proposed air quality will be studied as part of the design for the proposed project.
24. Wetlands
In response to an early coordination letter sent to the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers,
they have determined that the proposed interchange project area may contain wetlands and waters of
the United States. These waters are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and would
require the completion of a wetland delineation study. Once the study is completed, it will need to be
submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers for review and approval.
27. NPDES -General Permit
It is anticipated that a NPDES permit will be required for this project. Refer to the NPDES Storm
Water Permit Project Checklist for Construction attached with this document.
L:\WORK~57769 ]0-Mile\Trans\docs\Environmental\Attachment FORM ITD-651.doc
ITD-2784 10-99 W
Project Number
NPDES STORM WATER PERMIT
PROJECT CHECKLIST FOR CONSTRUCTION*
Ten Mile Interchange Key Number
Location Ada County
Work Authority
An NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit is required for this project only if the answers to both
questions are yes.
Will there be 0.4 hectares of ground disturbance on the project? ®Yes ^ No
(To determine the total acreage of ground that will be disturbed, use
the Ground Disturbing Activities Checklist below to calculate the total
acreage of disturbance on the project.)
Will the project discharge storm water to waters of the U.S.?
(See the reverse side for Definition of Waters of the U.S.)
® Yes ^ No
If the answer to the second question is no, provide a written explanation in the Comments section on the
reverse side of this form as to why there will be no discharge.
(If the project does not discharge off-site to waters of the U.S., an NPDES Storm Water
Discharge Permit is not required.)
GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES CHECKLIST
Area Disturbed
Clearing: This includes areas of vegetative removal, topsoil removal,
(see Definition of Soil on reverse side), sideslope grading,
shoulder construction, and fence installation, removal, or
replacement. 0.2 hectares
Grubbing: This includes both hand- and machine-removed vegetative
materials such as roots and root balls. 0.2 hectares
Grading: All areas disturbed by grading must be included. 1.6 hectares
Excavation: Excavated areas are figured on the surface area of dis-
turbance, including that disturbed by heavy equipment
working in the area. 0.8 hectares
TOTAL AREA 2.8 hectares
*Construction does not include maintenance activities, such as ditch cleaning, shoulder reshaping, etc.,
unless there is new construction included as part of the maintenance project.
ITD-2784 10-99 W
(Reverse Side)
DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE U.S.:
Waters of the U.S. essentially mean all lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mud flats,
sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and irrigation
canals that connect to any of the above and use degradation,
DEFINITION OF SOIL:
EPA Region X gives the definition of soil as "any unconsolidated material that will pass through a 4.75
mm or smaller sieve."
COMMENTS:
The proposed interchange project is located at Ten Mile Road and Interstate 84 near the Kennedy
Lateral. It is possible that storm water from the proposed project area will flow into the existing waterway
Name:
Dates I ~~ ~ 2~ /
RECEIVEII~
APR 2 9 2003
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
April 14, 2003
Mr. Bruce Harral
Project Manager
ITD District 4
P.O. Box 8028
Boise, ID 83707-2028
RE: Ten Mile Interchange
Dear. Mr. Harral:
We are in receipt of your letters dated, January 30, 2003, February 3, 2003, and March 28,
2003 which provide comments to the Demographics Study, Traffic Analysis and Preliminary
Concept Report for the above referenced project. In response to these comments, we have
modified our documents accordingly. Below is a summary of our responses:
Letter of January 30, 2003:
Environmental Comments:
1. We have added a full section addressing the environmental concerns. The note is
included in that section.
2. Form ITD-651 has been substituted for ITD 654
3. Item #4 has been checked YES for this submittal.
4. Item #9 has been checked YES for this submittal.
5. This area is located in the Area of Impact for the City of Meridian. It is included in
the Comprehensive Plan. Based on this comment, the box will be checked NO for
this submittal.
6. Item #17as been checked YES for this submittal.
7. We have added "none" to the existing Pedestrian/Bicycle Provisions.
8. New form is signed.
9. Item 11 in the attachment has been changed to include waterways such as ditches
and canals.
10. We have updated the form
11. Area in question is in acres. The form is modified to reflect these acreages.
L: I WORKI57769 10-Milel Transldocsl Concept l responses. doc 4/28/2003
Design Comments:
1. Pages are numbered. We apologize for this oversight.
2. Ten Mile Road is under the jurisdiction of the Ada County Highway District. It is
ACRD policy that all roads on section lines will be classified as arterial roadways,
and shall be assumed to eventually be five lane roadways at a minimum.
3. The existing structure was constructed in 1961, based on the stamp in the concrete.
This structure is 40 years old, and would only have another 10 years of design life.
There are only two lanes on the bridge and they are only 12 feet wide. Shoulders on
the bridge are not provided. The piers under the bridge will prevent widening of the
Interstate to three lanes. This information is added to the report on page 2.
4. The interstate will function at LOS F with or without the new interchange. The on ,
and off ramps will be designed to reduce impact to the Interstate. A full section has
been added to the report. The cost of widening I-84 are not included in the cost of
construction of the interchange, but an estimate has been included in the appendix of
the report.
5. The project has been extended to reconstruct Ten Mile Road from Franklin Road to
Overland Road. These cross roads are deemed to be logical termini, particularly
since ACHD is widening and reconstructing Ten Mile Road between Franklin Road
and Ustick Road. The cost of improving Ten Mile Road between Overland Road
and Franklin Road has been included in the cost of the Interchange. A full section
has been added to the report to address this issue. It is noted that access to the
anticipated commercial development along Ten Mile Road is not addressed in this
report. As requested by ACHD, this area is subject to a master plan. Access to Ten
Mile Road will be addressed in a Traffic Impact Study based on the master plan of
the site.
6. Drawings have been added and modified to show limits of improvements and
number of lanes.
Responses to comments on the letter of February 3, 2003:
Traffic Comments:
1. The modified offset diamond interchange was reviewed as requested. It is our
opinion that the traffic patterns created by this option result in serious operational
problems. We have included this option in a section discussing rejected alternatives.
However, based on this suggestion, we have developed a fifth alternative which is
included in the Preliminary Concept and Traffic Analysis reports.
Traffic Comments on Traffic Report"
1. The traffic projections have been revised to read 2007 and 2027 based on an
assumed programmed year of 2005.
L: I WORKI57769 10-MilelTransldocslConceptlresponses.doc 4/?8/2003
2. Traffic on Overland Road will decrease because people will use the Interstate and
the new interchange to access Ten Mile Road instead of Overland Road.
3. The numbers have been corrected.
Responses to comments on the letter of March 28, 2003:
1. The new high school is scheduled to open this fall. It has been included in the
COMPASS demographics for both the 2010 study and the 2025 study. Since our
traffic study was based on trip generation and distribution determined from the
COMPASS model, any traffic from the high school was included in the study. Also,
our study focused on the PM peak hour, which would be some time between 4:00
PM and 6:00 PM. According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, weekday, PM
peak hour of generation for a high school is between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM. Trip
generation rates between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM are about `/2 of the trip generation
rates of the peak generation. Therefore the impact of the high school during the PM
peak hour will not be as critical as those of a business park.
2. The Locust Grove overpass is a committed project scheduled for 2008. This project
will be an overpass only, with no connection to the Interstate. This system
improvement is included in the COMPASS model, and is therefore included in our
traffic study. We have added a section on system improvements to the
transportation system to our Preliminary Concept report which will discuss the
Locust Grove overpass.
3. A traditional SPUI was considered, but was determined to be too costly in early
comparative cost estimates to warrant further consideration. The offset SPUI was
analyzed further because it provided better spacing of the intersections. We have
included a section on several alternatives that were considered but rejected in the
Preliminary Concept Report.
4. All alternatives have an item for right-of--way costs, estimated relocations, and cost
of relocations. This issue is discussed in the Preliminary Concept Report.
John Church has informed us that the IDOC projection was an earlier projection
made for Idaho Power. The COMPASS projection was a more recent report. It is
not uncommon for projections of different vintages to vary as assumptions will
change. Also, the COMPASS projection is subject to review and revisions by the
COMPASS Demographics Advisory Committee. This Committee may make these
changes to the Demographics used in the COMPASS model, which would not be
reflected in the IDOC projections.
FHWA Comment Sheet
Comment 1 Modeling. No response is required.
L: I WORKI57769 10-MilelTransldocslConceptlresponses.doc 4/28/2003
Comment 2 - General
1. We concur that FHWA approval is required.
2. A paragraph is added to the Preliminary Concept report regarding the environmental
approvals. We anticipate that an EA will be required. The EA will require FHWA
approval.
3. The I-84 Corridor study was a comprehensive study to determine the needs of
transportation improvements to the interstate system through the Treasure Valley.
The ITD Board has accepted this study as the guide for location study. The corridor
study included extensive modeling and public hearings which are requirements of a
location study. We expect that some additional environmental review will be
necessary to meet the requirements of a location study.
Comment 3 -Executive Summary
1. The design year has been estimated to be 2005. The Traffic Analysis Report and the
Preliminary Concept Report have been modified to show 2007 and 2027 as the study
years.
2. A section has been added to the Preliminary Concept Report which includes four
possible designs that were eliminated from further study. Reasons for elimination
are included in the report.
3. We have reviewed the Access Request for compliance with Volume 63, Number 28
of the Federal Register, dated February 11, 1998. The request required only minor
modifications.
It is our intention that the Demographics Report, Traffic Analysis and the
Preliminary Concept Report should be considered as one document with three
volumes. We will include a copy of the I-84 Corridor Study with future
submissions to ITD.
Comment 4 -Access Request
1. The Preliminary Concept Report addresses all committed and proposed projects
in the vicinity of the proposed interchange. Justification for the Robinson Road
Interchange, and other system improvements were obtained from the I-84
Corridor Study. The 25% of traffic using alternate modes is also obtained from
the I084 corridor study. Alternate modes includes school bus transit and non
peak hour commuters. This document was included as an appendix to the
Preliminary Concept Report, but will be included in full with the final
modifications of the Preliminary Concept Report.
2. The City of Meridian does not support an interchange at Black Cat Road.
Therefore an interchange at this location was eliminated from further study in the
I-84 Corridor Study.
L: I WORKI57769 10-Mi[el Transldocsl Concept) responses. doc 4/38/?003
Comment 5 -Proposed System Improvements
This comment is still under review. It is obvious that if you add an interchange to an
otherwise uninterrupted segment of highway, there will be some deterioration in level
of service.
Enclosed aze copies of the Preliminary Concept Report, the Traffic Analysis, the
Demographics Analysis and the I-84 Corridor Study for your approval.
Sincerely,
EARTH TECH
Daniel A. Thompson, PE
RCE 7310
Senior Project Manager
Enclosures
L: l WORKI57769 10-Milel Transldocsl Concept lresponses.doc 4/28/2003
January 30, 2003
Mr. Dan Thompson
Earth Tech Retail West Properties
3071 E. Franklin, Suite 301
Meridian ID 83642
Subject: TEN MILE ROAD INTERCHANGE
Dear Mr. Thompson:
We received and reviewed your Draft Pre-Concept Report for the above proposed project that was
received on January 7, 2003. Listed below are the comments I have received to date. Please make
these corrections and resubmit your Pre-Concept Report.
Environmental Comments:
1. On page 3, under Basic Data, add a note that secondary and cumulative impacts will be
addressed in the Environmental Document.
2. Form TTD-654, Preliminary Environmental Evaluation is no longer being used for concept
reports. The new form is TTD-651.
3. On the ITD-654, Item # 4 Neighborhood or Service Impacts, this item may need to be
checked yes based on the alternatives presented.
4. On the ITD-654, Item # 9, Section 4(f), this needs to be checked "yes".
5. On the TTD-654, Item # 14 Prime Farmland, if this project is located in the cities area of
impact, then this maybe exempt.
6. On the TI`D-654, Item # 17 T&E Species, check the proposed box and select "yes".
7. On the ITD-654, Pedestrians/Bicycle Provisions, under existing write "none".
8. On the II'D-654, need a signature from the consultant on page 2. Note: new form is one
page.
9. On the attachment to the ITD-654, under Item # 11, add Waterways such as ditches and
canals may fall under Section 106 and Section 4(f).
10. On the ITD-2784, this form has been revised. Also, the statement: Will there be 2 hectares
of ground disturbance should read, Will there be 0.4 hectares of ground disturbance ...
l 1.On the TTD-2784, under areas disturbed, show units being used (acres, hectares).
Location Comments:
1. No comments.
Materials Comments:
1. No comments.
- An Equal Opportunity Employer -
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT 3 P.O. BOX 8028 BOISE, ID 83707-2028 (208) 334-8300
STATE OF IDAHO -TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
Design Comments:
1. Number all pages.
2. Page 1, second paragraph, why will Ten Mile Road be five lanes because it is on a section
line?
3. Page 1, second paragraph, add a discussion of the existing grade sepazation and weather or
not the proposed project will incorporate the existing structure.
4. Page 3, last pazagraph, add a discussion on how this project will affect I-84: What
improvements to I-84 would be part of this project? Are the improvements to I-84 included
in the cost estimate?
5. Page 1, second pazagraph, you state full widening of Ten Mile Road is not part of this study.
Federally funded projects are required to evaluate the "logical termini" of the project. It
would appeaz some work would be required on Ten Mile Road to meet this requirement. It is
unclear how much of Ten Mile Road you are proposing to widen and does your cost
estimates include widening Ten Mile Road to the Logical Termini?
6. On your drawings that are included with each alternative, show the limits of the areas that
will be improved and show the number of lanes that is proposed with this project.
Traffic Comments:
1. Have not received them at this time. I will forwazd these comments to you when I receive
them.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 334-8901.
Sincerely,
Bruce Harral
Project Manager
BQH: draft preconcept report comments
{
- ,
c-~+-•~+
d
A
d
.J
9
A
..J \~
.J \~_
J
_ a
7
J
7
N m
•arn~
f ~~
1 ~,
d
o
•Q~ a~iy~ ual
v
d }
a
a
~.
m~
~ ~
O L
m
~-
~ ~~
` O
0
p~ ~
fl
o Q
G7
J ~~`
5 Q b
pa
`.o
O
a 0
a
6 d
0
N
.a
0
A
H
W
w
w
O
Figure 3
February 3, 2003
Mr. Dan Thompson
Earth Tech Retail West Properties
3071 E. Franklin, Suite 301
Meridian ID 83642
Subject: TEN MILE ROAD INTERCHANGE, PRE-CONCEPT REPORT COMMENTS
Deaz Mr. Thompson:
We received and reviewed your Draft Pre-Concept Report for the above proposed project that was
received on January 7, 2003. Listed below are the Traffic comments that were not included in my
January 30, 2003 letter. Please make these corrections in addition to the previous comments and
resubmit your Pre-Concept Report.
Traffic Comments:
1. Based on the Traffic Data received, you may want to analyze a modified Offset Diamond. A
sketch and reasoning is attached.
Traffic Comments on Demographics Report:
1. None
Traffic Comments on Traffic Report:
1. Traffic projections should be 2 years and 22 yeazs beyond the programmed year.
2. On page 1, second bullet, why does traffic decrease on Overland Road?
3. On page 1, third bullet, the 39,700 vpd north of Overland Road should be 32,100 vpd to
match page 13.
For your information, the Demographics Report is being reviewed by Transportation Planning
Administration and is due back the week of February 10, 2003. Also, the Demographics Report and
Traffic Report are being reviewed by FHWA. After the comments have been addressed on the Pre-
Concept Report, the report will be forwarded to District Three Management and ITD HQ's for
review. If they find the report acceptable it will be forwarded the FHWA.
- An Equal Opportunity Employer -
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT 3 P.O. BOX 8028 BOISE, f0 83707-2028 (208) 334-8300
STATE OF .IDAHO -TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 334-8901.
Sincerely,
Bruce Harral
Project Manager
BQH: draft preconcept report comments traffic
ITD-500 4-93
.;.,:.
. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
Department Memorandum
DATE: January 31, 2003
TO: Bruce Harral
D-3 Project Manager
FROM: Dan Coonce
District Traffic Engineer
RE: TEN MILE INTERCHANGE
Please have the consultant reanalyze Alternate 2-Offset Diamond with two modifications as follows. The
eastbound off-ramp connects into Ten-Mile Road and not the interchange directly and the addition of an
eastbound on-ramp loop on the southwest quadrant of the interchange. This would eliminate the possibility of
having two signalized intersections in close proximity and the heavy eastbound on-ramp movement would be
provided a free flowing right hand maneuver. Please refer to the attached sketch for further details.
If you have any questions, please contact me at x8340
c..-
J ~~ ~~.
DISTRICT 3 P.O. BOX 8028 BOISE, ID 83707-2028 (208) 334-8300
March 28, 2003 --------- - -- ---- -- -- - - -____ _ - -
Mr. Dan Thompson
Earth Tech
3071 E. Franklin, Suite 301
Meridian ID 83642
Subject: TEN MILE ROAD INTERCHANGE, TRAFFIC AND DEMOGRAPHICS REPORT
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Your Traffic and Demographic Reports have been reviewed by I'TD Headquarters and by FHWA. Listed
below aze the comments from ITD HQ's:
1. Why wasn't there any mention of the effect that the new High School on Overland at Locust Grove
would have on traffic. (increase at Eagle and Meridian Interchanges and a decrease at the Ten Mile
overpass)?
2. Why wasn't there any mention of the requested Interchange or grade sepazation at the Locust Grove
location?
3. Why was the Offset SPUI the only type of SPUI considered? It seems that a traditional SPUI would
not take up any more right-of--way than some of the other considerations. But the Offset SPUI would
require three structures where a traditional SPL1I would only require one.
4. Was right-of--way acquisition a consideration in the design?
5. On the population projection for all of Ada County, John Church estimate provided by the Department
of Commerece is different. See attached sheet.
FHWA's comments aze attached. In regazds to comment 2, number 3 and comment 4, number 2, the Idaho
Transportation Boazd has approved the study as a guide.
Please add these comments to the District Three comments you have already received. Please resubmit your
reports after addressing these comments. A summary sheet of comments received and action taken should be
included neaz the front of the reports.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 334-8901.
Sincerely,
Bruce Hazral
Project Manager
BQH: traffic and demographic report comments
- An Equal Opportunity Employer -
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
1
J
7
O~ M O m V N Of m M O m n m .- ^ O m M O O O Q N M N r^~ V~ O N N N O O O~ r O O M
!~f ~~~ N N~ m n ~ ' m ~ V V ~ V ~
,ryI N
N
O` M< l7 NN {p (~ ~~ N O ~- N r O N O C'1 O) O N M O O O 4 N M V n W M M~ O N N O O O r O O
C OI r N N~ l7 r .- ^ m ~- ~-- M m N N m •t '- A N N ~ O
E C IV V] l'] N
N
O
O M M Y< m O ~ O n Of m W N O N r n M O .- ~ st N M~ n m N O m Ol O O O r 0 0~
W~ ~ m~ N N 1N ~ ao r ~ O n .~- < M m N N m o r m ~ 7 N
~ N
.~
O ~ N O m m O N n N W O m m~ m O O V O) ~ r a O V m M m N sf r N W rv O~ O~ r 0 0 0 T m 0 0~
U OI ~ ~~ f0 N m ~O m m ll``'7) N e- N m M ~ ~
O N Y
O
M
O
m
m
O~
V
b
N
t00
W
N
O N~ N~' O O Q m ~- M ~O O) M m N M O M N 0 N O m t~ O O m m m m 0 m m N v ~O N M O
O N 4D m N N N n ~f m (p N~ M M O 10 m N ~ o rn n ~{ OD m r r O~ ~ O m m N
NI M M M m .- ~ r r M O M ~ O) M l'0 m~ ~f V M ~ N N ~- ~ h r M m 11'i r r O M M m ~ .- r N ~ Y n N
lO N ~ V /7 r ~-- ~ a .- ~ V N ~ p
N ~
r
a'
M~ h 7 m 0 ~O aD m OD M O 10 10 N N r O ~O r V m N N N M M N 01 Y W N a C m m si M N
O Ol m n n O t0 r aa O Ol ro I~ M c9 O m {{~~ O N N N l~/ Y Y) pp W O M b m ~f m V 'C m m m W n Of b y
N N M N 7 O) O M m m ~ N ~0 1~ a0 M l"f ~~ V V M ~ N. N 10 ~O m m v_ r r m ~ M m ~ ~ 0 ~- .- M m n
o N v `T
a t
O a ~O r O M O N O N m W m m N w m Of W N i0 N N r O~ ~ O N h v O r r a 10 O m r m M h ~O M
O~ w Ol r p p~ O in N W Ol M O m N m c~ N m N Ol N N (y ~ }} W m Ol O/ p~ N t0 N 01 M N ~O m m m n m~ a
N N N Y Of O! ~ m m m ~- 10 V r M ~ c~ V V' M M .- N N N V m N u'1 O r ~ r O M m ~ ~ O ~ ~ M
p .- fV .- .- l7 P) m .- ~ V ~ .- ftl (V ~ ~
p ~ ~O W~~~ O~ (V ~ 10 N~ f0 Oa ~ N m N M N M N r r M M M N m r 1n N V m N N m O) M 10 m 01 ~
G ((~~ pppp 10 ~ O m m Y m~ N W N W r N r M m ~ m 01 1n ~ 10 n~ r~ m V ~/~,
O. OI N N N O ~ N N N E a0 r v m Y'1 N O O C M M N N O Q m N t0 Ol m m f~ N ~O ~- 01 ~ M m W W
p ~ N ~ '- N N V ~ ~ c7 r M r ~ H ~
N ~ ~./ ]
O N N N ~~pp .- m 0) m M M 0 cp n p ~p O N O N 10 T m O n Of i0 W O O YI m r T m O m M m N M M m r Y J
I n ~O n O b ~ N n 10 m n eh p 00 7 ~O O! ~< m W N m O N O N r O~ O) ~ O m N m m m V N ~ m N r O N O O
~ r M n .- m ~O ~ O N M m m '- W f9 ~ tV ~ ~ tV ~ N .- sf N r N K Ol ~ N ~ `- m ~ N N 01 (
O ~ ~ ~ N ~ M t7 0 l~ _ 1
N O I`
~ 7 V
10 m m W m O N Y N m m ~p m m N m M 01 r m m r N O M M n M m 0) m 0 O) In N N M N ~} N m' a m
hl 0 0~ aD m 'aT m V M 01 m a0 r ~ ~O N M~ M~ a r 01 m O m O) O ~O m r N ~- V N m V m m ff~91 m
N ~ ~ 1f1 O r V N N~ O ~ N N ~ Y ~O ~ .- ~ ~O N N Q N M m ~ N M ~ r
O r r r N r r
N
N
d
r
0 p n r m Oa O p M m m N r op p m 1n m M n ~ O r m M Y N O M 0 In r N tD O T O O N r W 10 r rn
9 O O O N m V Q~ M ~ v r t0 N O M t0 N M~ M~ V m m b n~ h W O) M V~ n~ a O M ~O m N h ~f1 N 7 N
O NI r '- ~- 1C1 Ol n N N O ~ ~ N ~ T V' "' ~ N '- R N N r ~ N M f- r vl
~ O r .- N ~- .- ~}
M N r
7
O
w W M . Wy~ M O Of N A m~yy m m N O m m N r m T O n m ~Op m M w M n M m N W m aa V m N
O NI O) W~ Iq Ol n M~ N N N O n O~~ M M N lri ~~ 0 7 m m m r ED N Of a0 lM'1 N r N r O N V' m~ ~O N N r~
` ~ r ~ ~ r
E `r
0
z _
9 ~!7 Y N Of m m O N N ~O m N M 1q ~ n M~ m O r 'Q N M N ~} m O) M yy~~ V V 01 N V Ol a .- u~
W r m m m m ~ W W~ V r M T m W m M~ .- Ol v m n~ m n N 00 m O) O m O m Ol O~ ~ N O! V' N .- N O~
M m N M ~ m m ~- a V' ~~ ~ ~~ N N N N '- N r r r
O r O
N H
a pppp p~
~ r N 0 f0 Of M W m N 0 l7 mw ~~ ~O O~~~~~ N n O m N n m O> V ^ O r O~ r O O m a n M m
OI r Ol m m O ((~~ M m V N m m r m M V' M N. m M •f m M u> m of
O h~ N ~ M m ~- N M ~ M e- ~ N ^. M N N V
O t'!
N ~
W N
O C
mLa}~}}} }}}}
g ~ m
c c E
o m m o a o r rn m W in rn m w M m M o a
~1 ~O~yy m ymy~~ M O N R O ~O O m~ m O/ 0) m n 00 01 m m m~ a g m Oi m sf ~ O Ol W V N n~ N O n aD M
U V N OWD V ~`'1 N N N V c7 fm0 aMD ~ N M m N N Y~~ N N N N N N~ If ~~~ N .-~ M M N fM0 M N~ O fmD M ~ r m
a
M N
I ~O m r m 0) O N M ~O m n m m N M~ N n m m 0 N O O O O O O O O ~ N M~ 1q m r m O1 N~~ L G
NNQ rrrnnmaomm~mmmmmgirnrnw rn`Sirno~rnooo
F N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M l'7 M M M l7 c~ M f0 ~ M M M~ ~ C
O O
t u
U W
c ~
t t
O A
'~ V
U,S. Department of Transportation Route
Federal Highway Administration [X] ITD Roadway Design
Idaho Division [X]ITD District Office
[X] ITD Environment
Project Development, Design and [X] ITD Materials
Environmental Document Review Report [ ILHTAC
[X]HFO-ID.
[X]Reading File
REVIEW TYPE: Preliminary Design [X]D.O. Files
DATE KEY # REPORT # MADE BY:
03-14-2003 NA 1 Paul C. Ziman/Operations En ineer
PROJECT #: LOCATION/DESCRIPTION:
I-84 General File Demo ra hic and Traffic Anal sis Review; I-84, Ten Mile Interchan e
ITD PROG. YR: NA FHWA OVERSIGHT: Full Oversi ht
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
DATE: NA Draft
Comment Page
No. No. Remarks
We have reviewed the Demographic and Traffic Analysis for the I-84, Ten
Mile Interchange Project. The following comments are offered:
1 Modeling
As discussed with District 3 personnel when we recently reviewed the
draft demographic information, for planning purposes we find the
procedures used by the consultant for using COMPASS'S modeling procedures
and results to be acceptable.
2 General
1. The FHWA Division Administrator approval of the Interchange will be
required.
2. While not specifically described in the document, the approval of the
environmental document is needed before the interchange can be approved.
6 What class on environmental action is being proposed?
3. The document relies heavily on the I-84 Corridor Study. Page 6
indicates the Corridor Study is the location study for the interchange.
Has ITD determined that, based on the corridor and other studies, an
interchange at Ten Mile is the best location to address future traffic
circulation?
3 $xecutive Summary
1. The document includes an analysis for 2010 and 2025. At no point
does it advise that 2025 is the design year, when it is proposed to
construct this project, and what the design year actually is.
2. The document includes the study of four interchange alternatives and
indicates that others were eliminated. The selected alternative will be
the one that meets the purpose and need and has the least environmental
impacts. Therefore, the alternatives that were eliminated should be
1 mentioned and a brief discussion on why they were eliminated.
3. The document includes a brief discussion of the required eight
points to add additional interchanges to the Interstate system. The
document should reference and address the February 11, 1998 policy, not
the 1990 policy.
2
Also, this analysis references material not included in this
document and summarizes other data without including the technical data.
Any requests for additional interchanges must be a single, stand-alone
document from which FHWA can perform an independent analysis. All
technical information and data submitted to support a conclusion need to
be included.
4 44 Access Request
1. The document indicates that COMPASS is studying a new North/South
Corridor with the study to be completed in 2003. In addition, Page 20
indicates that by 2025, 25 ~ of traffic will be using alternate modes and
will have a significant effect on traffic in the area of the 10 mile
interchange. The document needs to include all proposed facilities that
could be constructed in the analysis and clearly show how this traffic
will affect the operation of the Interstate and interchange. Lastly, all
statements such as the Robinson Road Interchange will be necessary by
2015 will also need to be supported.
2. Has the proposed connection to Black Cat Road been eliminated from
consideration? This would alter the traffic patterns considerably.
5 16 Proposed System Improvements
I-84
No documentation was included for the effect of the interchange if only
3 lanes on I-84 are provided. The included analysis indicates that the
interchange will function at an acceptable level of service (LOS) if four
lanes are provided within 20 years on I-84 Clarification as to what is
in the TMA's 20-year plan should be addressed.
pcz(des)-Demographic and Traffic Analysis Review; I-84, Ten Mile Interchange, 03-14-2003.doc
Franklin Road
~ ~ ---..
~ ~ i ~`~
Q ~~ ,,, o
~ ~ ~~ ~~
® ,~.~\ ~
~ ~_ ~ - .
..-A
J_
\~~~
~ -~
~~ o
-~ t -~
Proposed
Ten Mile Road
Interchange ~
~ ~ , ~ ~,"
,`~
P,, ~ ~~
1 ~~~ A
-s= ;' _,
\ ` ~,
m
Limits of
'Ten Mile Road
~ Improvements
~/
1
I
~ i
r ~~ r
~~~ / _
y0verland Road