The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRes 03-405RESOLUTION N0.03- ~~ BY: /CC~rI!-rc c~C~ ~~-t~f r,~. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO PROVIDE FOR FINDINGS AND TO ESTABLISH THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO REPORT NO.1-2002 BY WASHINGTON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, INC. AS A PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council have the authority [pursuant to I.C. § 50- 302) to establish resolutions not inconsistent with the laws of the state of Idaho as maybe expedient, in addition to the special powers therein granted, to maintain the peace, good government and welfare of the corporation and its trade, commerce and industry; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho contracted with Washington Infrastructure Services, Inc. to study the transportation needs along the I-84 corridor; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have reviewed the published study; and WHEREAS, said corridor study is an essential planning document for the City of Meridian; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council have deemed it expedient and in the best interests of the City of Meridian to accept the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report No. 1-2002 as a planning document for the City of Meridian. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Idaho Code §50-301 et seq., the Mayor and City Council hereby accept the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report No. 1-2002, a copy of said Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report No. 1-2002 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and consisting of sixty (60) pages, and by this reference incorporated RESOLUTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION REPORT NO. 1-2002 PAGE 1 OF 2 herein, A copy of this Resolution and the attached Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report No. 1-2002 for the City of Meridian shall be held on file in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 2: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect on passage. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 3~ day of cJGyh.e_ , 2003. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this ~~~ day of c~Lr~,~ , 2003. ATTEST: Mayor Robe D. Corrie ~~ ~ ~ Fo City Clerk 9 1 ~r Sp '~~ ' ~~~~ .~ ~ yy Z:1Work1MlMeridianlMeridian 15360i411Resolutions City HeIR20031Re~91eti~~Q~~$~~,y, Plug Assoc Report Na. 1-2002 OS 13 03.dac RESOLUTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION REPORT NO. 1-20Q2 PAGE 2 OF 2 JlP - YR.:aN .~ - --- ,~ ~:~~• r ~ "' . , : ~fc~.,,~ •~tud ..ti .,fir ., .. , ..~ y - ~ Rny. ~ - r &' ., '~grurnlty,Planning'A~S~iat~on. ~• of Soulhwaat Mafia '+~ ~'.~ ~ ; ~ ~ . ~~= ".fin - '~+~ ~„ ~ ~ , W ~ . , ` '^ ,rr, `'~^~., RB~r104tAiG. 1``2Q.~2 kwi,, '.',~' ~ .'; ~ ., 3,~ .. `~ _,r A~' '~'' ~C'~M .4 p ~gi?7` ' r` f . ,~~ +. dye ~ tp..i'. .h ~., t ;b y~~• ~ t .. ~'t ~n' . ~ ~ ~~ A. , ~. f• f~^. ~• rr. ~XT .r1 •~'Stl.3I r~ it ~ Fig i ,~: ~ .~ { ° al~g.~" ~'. ,' Fr.#,, .ivy ~r k , ,. } lrrfra~trt~ctr{re S"arvreea; ~~. ~ • ..,;,~ '~: .a .. ~ 'i. ~ ' E.jjc t. Y ,~ , f ' ~ ~4' a . L , }'. 2 .7' .. '~ .A~.o~ted biy ~OI~IIP~A~S~ ~~ra, ~-Gt~t~ ~1~ 001 ± ~ ~ ~ . .- ..t~. .x • ~~ . Table of Contents Chapter Page Executive Summary 1 a. Study Areas 1 b. Planning Process 1 c. Cooperative Effort with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD} 2 d. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 5 e. Roadway Needs Assessment 5 f. Financial Element 5 g. Actions by the COMPASS Board b 1. Introduction 15 2. Corridor Planning Process 19 a. Land Use Plan 20 b. Transportation Planning Process 20 c. Public Review Process 20 3. Special Planning Elements 23 a. Analysis of Existing Interchanges b. Arterial Cross Street Improvements 24 c. Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Black Cat 25 Road Interchange Alternatives 27 d. Five Mile Road Interchange 31 e. Ten Mile Road Interchange 33 f. Intelligent Transportation System Review 36 4. Transportation Demand Management Elements 40 a. Background 41 b. I-84 Corridor TDM Elements 42 5. Roadway Needs Assessment 44 6. Recommendations far Further Study 53 Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report i ii) Course of Action The project team reviewed the original BenchNalley Transportation Study, the current COMPASS traffic analysis, and current design considerations that affect the decision on the construction of the Five Mile Road Interchange. The COMPASS Board's recommended course of action was: • Include the Five Mile Road Interchange in the overall I-84 Corridor Plan • Assign the new interchange to 2020 • The facility design and cost are to be determined at a later date The final COMPASS Board action was: June 18, 2001 COMPASS Board Minutes. "Dave Wynkoop moved and Roger Sammons seconded to concur with the 1"84 Corridor Study Stage 1 recommendations, with the exception that the Five Mile Road Interchange is to be retained as a partial interchange and the Transportation Demand Management Plan include the Pace Car concept limited in scope to a neighborhood project. " e) Ten Mile Road Interchange The COMPASS staff conducted two separate analyses to determine the location for the first new interchange in the I-84 Corridor. The background assumptions for both analyses include the following: • Karcher Road Interchange would be complete by the year 2005. • The Franklin Road Interchange (Exit 29) upgrade would be complete by the year 2010. • All the previously reviewed demographic and land use projections would remain unchanged to the year 2010. The first analysis was aimed at determining which, if any, of the western area interchanges had the market demand to justify a new interchange. John Church, Idaho Economics, completed this analysis. It was aimed at an evaluation of proposed interchanges at the following sites: Ustick Road, Middleton Road, Robinson Road, McDermott Road, and Ten Mile Road. The market analysis concluded that Ten Mile Road Interchange should be next. The results from the market analysis for the remaining interchanges need to be used with caution because; once an interchange is constructed the entire market will change. The reason; the analysis did not produce a list with a ranlting for each possible interchange. The second analysis was an iterative and more traditional process completed by COMPASS, which used COMPASS' travel demand forecasting model. This analysis included the following steps: • Add one new interchange to the model network in 2010 • Evaluate the traffic projections on the interstate and arterial roadway systems • Evaluate the impact of the interchange based on congestion, air quality, and cost • Follow these steps for evaluating each interchange for 2015 and 2020 ' Interstate 84 Corridor Study Ftnal Report -Page 33 This iterative procedure was completed for each of the Ustick Road, Middleton Road, Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Ten Mile Road Interchange alternatives (See Exhibit 17 on Page 3S). After an interchange was selected for 2010, the process was repeated for the years 2015 and 2020, as part of the phasing analysis. The results were reviewed by the I-84 Demographic Sub-Committee and discussed with the TVTT. The result of the analysis was to construct the Ten Mile Road Interchange by 2010. Apri117, 2001 TVTT Meeting: "Katey Levihn made an amendment to the motion and Pam Lowe seconded, to proceed with the variables that were used in Phase 1, include John Church's recommendations, proceed with the prioritisation process using Ten Mile Road as the first interchange, come back to a special meeting in two weeks to consider if there are any other variables that were left out, then come back to the TVTT to make a f nal determination on the first interchange to be constructed. Motion passed unanirnousdy. " May 3, 2001 TVTT Meeting: "Reconfirm the selection of Ten Mile Road as the first interchange priority: Erv stated the TVTT has acted on thas item subject to the results of the revised decision variables. No further discussion needed. Interstate 84 Corridor study Final Report -Page 94 '~ ~~ ~~ ~~ d ~, O •O i+ ~L ~ O ~ •~ ~ ~ v ~ L ~ ~ w Q o rr ~ a O N ~ e ~..~ W «., .., W .m .~ .~ ~a ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ate. .~ ~ 3 v ~,•~xr ~ --~ o o m c .~ ~ ~ Q ~ O ~QQ ~ C ~ N O q U4 ~ ~ E F. E y! M N ~ ~ et ~D o0 z c o ~ ~ ~ .E ~o ~ u E ~ ~ Y ~ U y O o ~ 0. O V ;D O Q A + .~ ~ v-. O _y ~ QQJ. ~. ~' ~.1 W N~ F F- r fV rn d' :>, ~ h m ~ ~ 'C! ~ ~~ ~ 0 U o O b ~ r ~i ~~ ~~ ~~