The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution Adopt Idaho ReportInteroffice MEMORANDUM CEI`TED MAY 15 2003 To: William G. Berg, Jr.) City Of Meridian - From: Wm. F. Nichols City Clerk Office Subject: Resolution/Certificate of Clerk for acceptance of the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report No. 1-2002 Date: May li, 2003 Will: Please find attached the originals of the Resolution and the Certificate of Clerk, in regards to the above matter. This item is now ready for placement upon a City Council agenda. If you have any questions please advise. Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridiaa 15360MResoludons City Ha1B20031Berg acceptance of Community Ping Assoc of SW Idaho Report No. 1-2002 05 13 03.dac RESOLUTION NO. 03- 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 may be 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 day of , 2003. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this day of ATTEST: City Clerk ` OMI Mayor Robert D. Corrie Z:\Work\M\Meridlan\Meridlan 15360MTWsolutions City Hn11\2003\Reso1ution CommunityPing Assoc Report No. 1-2002 05 13 03.doc RESOLUTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION REPORT NO. 1-2002 PAGE 2 OF 2 Table of Contents Chapter Executive Summary Page a. Study Areas I b. Planning Process I c. Cooperative Effort with the Idaho Transportation 1 Department (ITD) d• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 2 e. Roadway Needs Assessment 5 f: Financial Element 5 9, Actions by the COMPASS Board 5 1. Introduction 6 2, Corridor Planning Process 15 a. Land Use Plan 19 b. Transportation Planning Process c. Public Review Process 20 20 3. Special planning 20 a. Analysis of Existing Interchanges 23 b. Arterial Cross Street Improvements 24 C- Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Black Cat Road Interchange Alternatives 25 d. Five Mile Road Interchange 27 e. Ten Mile Road Interchange 31 L Intelligent Transportation System Review 33 4. Transportation Demand Management Elements a. Background 36 b. I-84 Corridor TDM Elements 40 41 5. Roadway42 Needs Assessment 6. Recommendations for Further Study 44 53 Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report I Exhibit I Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit I1 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 List of Exhibits I-84 Corridor Transportation Demand management Cost Estimate Transportation Demand Management Element — Additional Services and Facilities Roadway Needs Assessment — pro ject Description and Roadway Needs Assessment — Committed Projects Roadway Needs Assessment — 2010 Roadway Projects Roadway Needs Assessment — 2015 Roadway Projects Roadway Needs Assessment — 2020 Roadway Projects Roadway Needs Assessment — Beyond 2020 Roadway Projects I-84 Corridor Funding Needs and District 3 Project Available Interstate and Transportation Demand management funding Through 2020 Study Area Map Upgrade of Existing Interchanges - Summary of Recommendations Upgrade of Arterial Roadways - Summary of Recommendations Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Black Cat Road Interchange Area Robinson Road and Analysis McDermott Road Interchange Five Mile Road Interchange Analysis Fide Mile Road Interchange Area 2010 Interchange Priority Decision Variables Ramp Meter Details at Key Interchanges (1-84 Eastbound) Prioritization of Ramp Metering Installations at Key Interchanges (1-84 Eastbound) Ramp Meter Details at Key Interchanges (1-84 Westbound) Prioritization of Ramp Metering Installations at Key Interchanges (1-84 Westbound) I-84 Corridor TDM Needs Summary — 2004-2020 Existing Traffic Volumes Daily Traffic Volume Forecast - 2010 Interstate 84 Corridor Snuffy Final Report ii 3 4 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 24 26 28 29 31 32 35 37 38 39 39 43 46 47 Exhibit 25 Exhibit 26 Exhibit 27 Exhibit 28 �xmuit -1- Daily Traffic Volume Forecast - 2015 Daily Traffic Volume Forecast - 2020 I-84 Project Priorities — Summarized by Cost and Construction year Emmett Highway Extension Interstate 84 Corridor Study Fina] Report iii 48 49 50 55 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community Planning Association (COMPASS) Board Action The Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) Board considered and adopted the key elements of the I-84 Corridor Study (the Study) at their regular meeting on October 15, 2001. The Board's actions included: • Formal adoption of the Study needs assessment and financial analysis; • Direction that the products of the Study be incorporated into the respective Transportation Plans for Ada and Canyon Counties; and • Direction that the COMPASS staff present the results of the Study to the Idaho Transportation Board for appropriate action a. Study Areas The Study examines the transportation system needs for the I-84 Corridor from the Wye Interchange east of Boise (east terminus) to State Highway 44 (west terminus) west of Caldwell. This area was termed the primary study area. The Study: • Examined the existing traffic operations; • Determined any short-term needed improvements; • Forecast traffic volumes for 10 -year, 15 -year, and 20 -year planning horizons; • Identified a list of projects needed for the long-term; • Examined long-term network alternatives; • Provided a cost estimate for those long -tern needs; and • Developed a financial plan to fund the anticipated system needs. A secondary study area included the portion of the I-84 Corridor east of the Wye Interchange. The long-term needs in this area were determined in the "I-84, Orchard Interchange to Gowen Interchange Concept Feasibility Study" completed by CH2M Hill Inc. The financial analysis of the I-84 Corridor Study included both study areas. b. Planning Process The COMPASS staff in cooperation with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) managed the overall planning process. Washington Group International, David Evans and Associates, Jeanne Lawson Associates, ASC Group, and Spatial Dynamics provided professional consulting services. The Treasure Valley Transportation Team (TVTT) provided technical guidance and acted as a sounding board throughout the entire planning process. The TVTT consisted of representatives from each of the affected local jurisdictions. The individual members were often technical staff (e.g. planning directors, city engineers, transportation planners, etc.) and elected officials who represented several agencies. The COMPASS Board received monthly status reports and periodic updates on the Study. I-84 Corridor Study Final Report I The Corridor planning process followed conventional planning procedures. The existing conditions were analyzed to identify any current operating deficiencies. A transportation demand management (TDM) element was developed to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation from 19% to 25%. A list of roadway network alternatives was developed (e.g. new interchanges, interchange redesigns, etc.) and travel forecasts were developed for each of the network alternatives. An assessment was made of the impact of each improvement or alternative. A draft of the Study was presented for public review. Following this review, a final Study was developed. The Study provides background information used in each stage and the final actions of the COMPASS Board. c. Cooperative Effort with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) was a full participant in this study. ITD provided representatives from both Headquarters and District 3. They provided important oversight in the preparation of the financial plan and cost estimating procedures. The Idaho Transportation (IT) Board was an integral part of the planning process. They received regular updates on the progress of the Study and gave helpful insight and advice. The IT Board accepted the Study Results at their November 15, 2001 meeting. d. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) A Corridor -wide transportation demand management (TDM) element was developed to reduce the number of vehicles using the road system while providing a wide variety of mobility options. TDM strategies are aimed at reducing travel demand by influencing people's travel behavior through one of the following methods: • "Passive" measures that include incentives designed to promote transit and rideshare as alternatives to the use of single occupant vehicles (SOV's); • "Economic" measures that create disincentives to driving alone such as roadway user or parking fees or subsidies for programs to encourage the use of other modes; or • "Administrative" mechanisms designed to coordinate TDM efforts. The TDM element of the Study is tailored to implement the region's goal of 25% of all trips via non -SOV modes by the year 2020. To meet this goal within the I-84 Corridor, the COMPASS emphasized the need to prioritize implementation of effective TDM measures. The TDM element is at the top of a long list of proposed interstate improvements. Travel demand analysis conducted by COMPASS in coordination with the Valley InterArea Transportation (VIATrans) and Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Commuteride staff assumed a TDM element targeted to peak period commuter trips within the most heavily traveled section of I-84 (west of the Wye Interchange). To attain the 25% goal by 2020 the following items need to be implemented: • Transit trips increase from 1% 1 to 5%; 1 According to 1990 Census information which provides the most current ridesharing data. I-84 Corridor Study Final Report 2 • Vanpoollcarpool increase from 10%2 to 12%; • Bike/walk remains at 3% and; • Work at home remains at 5%. The TDM element includes the addition of 18 park and ride lots, an ambitious marketing program, and implementation of the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Plan. Exhibit 1 presents cost estimates for the TDM element of the Study. The future TDM facilities and the potential rail corridors are illustrated in Exhibit 2 (Page 4). The TDM policies support several other considerations in the Corridor. First, is the preservation of existing rail corridors in both Canyon and Ada Counties. Second, as new lanes are proposed for the freeway mainline, the potential for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes must be considered. Third, each new interchange shall examine the potential for adding a park and ride facility and ramp metering on the entrance ramps. Exhibit 1: 1:84 Corridor Transportation Demand Management Cost Estimate Description Type Cost Express Bus Service (43 new buses) Capital $15,050,000 O&M $90,200,000 Park and Ride Lot (18 new lots) Capital & O&M $16,000,000 Commuter Vans (34 new vans) Capital $ 1,200,000 O&M $ 6,800,000 Marketing and Employer Programs Operations $12,000,000 Transit Intelligent Transportation System Capital $10,000,000 Total _$151.2250 000 Note: All cost estimates are in 2001 dollars. : Includes employer -based TDM incentive programs such as those currently implemented by ACHD Commuteride. Z Ibid. I-84 Corridor Study Final Report 3 ti 0. h � �a o �j U y O > m 'a �' V K {� e. Roadway Needs Assessment The roadway needs assessment element of the Study was based upon the COMPASS' travel demand forecasting model. Separate model runs were made for 2010, 2015, and 2020. The travel forecasting model reflects the 25% goal of alternative transportation for 2020. For each model run, the projected traffic volumes were compared to the planning capacity for each segment of the roadway system. The comparison between the projected volumes and the roadway's capacity determined what projects will be "needed" for each of the planning years. The accumulation of these individual projects established the overall needs assessment. Exhibit 3 (Page 7) summarizes the needed roadway projects and their costs. Exhibit 4 (Page 9) illustrates the projects that have partially committed or full funding. Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 (Pages 10 through 12) illustrate the final roadway needs assessment for 2010, 2015, and 2020 respectively. The roadway needs assessment includes the 25% TDM element implementation. Exhibit 8 (Page 13) shows additional projects anticipated for the planning period beyond 2020. f. Financial Element The financial element of the Study was developed in three stages. In the initial stage, the cost figures for the individual needs assessment elements and a substantial transportation demand management (TDM) element were totaled. The cost of the needed improvements is estimated at $605 million, which is far above the estimated available funding level of $305 million. Exhibit 9 (Page 14) illustrates the total project costs and dentifies the estimate of available funding. In the second stage, an estimate was made of the available funding based upon current revenue sources. In Exhibit 9, the graphics show the available funding and the anticipated funding shortfall. This stage of the analysis identified approximately $305 million in available revenue through 2020. The $300 -million shortfall represents the need for a significant increase in funding. An increase of this magnitude may require local, state and/or federal legislation; and a number of new local administrative measures. In the third phase, the COMPASS Board has agreed (COMPASS Board meeting minutes for August 20, 200 1) to sponsor a local policy -makers workshop to develop a fmancial plan for the needed transit and roadway projects in the I-84 Corridor. I-84 Corridor Study Executive Summary - Page 5 g. Actions by the COMPASS Board The COMPASS Board has taken three specific actions on the Study leading to the completion of this project. They include: June 18, 2001 COMPASS Board Minutes. "Dave Wynkoop moved and Roger Simmons seconded to concur with the 1-84 Corridor Study Stage 1 recommendations, with the exception that the Five Mile Interchange is to be retahed as a partial interchange and the Transportation Demand Management Plan include the Pace Car concept limited in scope to a neighborhood project. " August 20, 2001 COMPASS Board Minutes. "Frank McKeever moved and Dennis Stegenga seconded that the COMPASS Board invite VL4Trans, Treasure Valley Legislators, and Idaho Transportation Department policy makers to a workshop to develop a financial plan to allow the timely implementation of both transit and roadway improvements in the 1-84 Corridor Study. " October 15, 2001 DRAFT COMPASS Board Minutes. `Martin Thorne moved and Dennis Stegenga seconded to approve the Final I-84 Corridor Study Findings and Conclusions as presented. ". The roadway needs assessment includes several important policies that were developed during the course of the Study. They include: • The ultimate roadway designs should allow the affected local jurisdictions and highway departments to reserve the needed rights-of-way before development occurs. This will help to minimize the future roadway development costs and any disruption to existing businesses along the major roadway corridors. • Commercial developments typically front the higher volume roadways. Residential land uses are often considered to be incompatible with commercial uses. It will be necessary to develop land use plans that minimize the conflicts anion-, the roadways and the various land uses. • The cost of the mitigation elements can often exceed the cost of the roadway improvements. It will be necessary to develop land use plans that maintain an adequate separation between sensitive land uses and the major roadways. • Any expansion of the roadway network or the public transit system should consider the impacts on future Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) facilities. Additional information and discussions are included in later sections of this report. 1-84 Corridor Study Executive Summary - Page 6 Exhibit 3: Roadway Needs -,assessment Project Description `ana' Cost, Upgrade the west ramps at the Gowen Road Interchange Signalize the south ramp intersection at the Eagle Road Interchange Construct the Locust Grove Road overpass Signalize the south ramp intersection at the Meridian Road Interchange Improve the eastbound on-ramp at the Garrity Boulevard Interchange Replace the Franklin Boulevard Interchange southbound overpass Construct the Karcher Road Interchange Reconstruct the Franklin Road Interchange (Exit 29) Widen the 1-84 mainline to 6 lanes from Centennial Way to the Notus Highway Total Cost of Roadway Projects in the Current Work Program $1,740,000 $260,000 $9,000,000 $225,000 $2,000,000 $10,000,000 $25,400,000 $15,000,000 $560,000 $64,185,000 2010 Roadway -Projects (See Exhibit 5) Project Dost' Reconstruct the existing pavement Broadway Avenue to Gowen Road Reconstruct the existing pavement and widen the mainline to 6 plus 2 lanes from Curtis Road to Broadway Avenue Reconstruct the Gowen Road Interchange Reconstruct the Broadway Avenue Interchange Reconstruct the Vista Avenue Interchange Reconstruct the Orchard Road Interchange, Widen the mainline to 8 lanes from Eagle Road to the Wye, including ramp widening at Eagle Road Reconstruct the Meridian Road Interchange Widen the mainline to 6 lanes from Ten Mile Road to Meridian Road Construct the Ten Mile Road Interchange Reconstruct the Garrity Boulevard Interchange (flyover from westbound I-84 to southbound Garrity Boulevard) Total Cost of 2010 Roadway Projects I-84 Corridor Study Executive Summary - Page 7 $11,000,000 $108,200,000 $23,500,000 $13,500,000 $15,200,000 $17,000,000 $21,300,000 $22,200,000 $5,000,000 $25,400,000 $7,200,000 $269,500,000 2015 Roadway Projects (See Exhibit 6), Widen the mainline to 6 lanes from Garrity Boulevard to Ten Mile Road $12,200,000 Construct the Robinson Road/Star Road Interchange $25,400,000 Widen the mainline to 8 lanes from Garrity Boulevard to Robinson Road $4,800,000 Reconstruct the Garrity Boulevard Interchange (replace the existing interchange $20,000,000 and widen Garrity Boulevard), and Widen the mainline to 6 lanes from Nampa Boulevard to the Karcher Interchange $2,400,000 Total Cost of 2015 Roadway Projects $64,800,000 2020 Roadway Projects (See Exhibit 7) Widen the mainline to 8 lanes from Curtis Road to Broadway Avenue $15,400,000 Construct the Five Mile Road Interchange $N/A Widen the mainline to 8 lanes from Eagle Road to Ten Mile Road, upgrade ramps $12,500,000 at Ten Mile Road Widen the mainline to 6 lanes from Nampa Boulevard to Garrity Boulevard $27,400,000 Total Cost of 2020 Roadway Projects $55,300,000 Total Cost of Roadway Projects $453;785;90, I-84 Corridor Study Executive Summary - Page 8 Exhibit 9 I-84 Corridor Funding Needs and District 3 Project Available Interstate and Transportation Demand Management Funding Through 2020 Needed: $605 Uniunded:. $300 m 3sd m (ti�;.�t�,d;p!isaa.�ty uas�trap%�t 1t��p=0# Projected - o avaalabie. $305 fll $ R Ht (SYa c Futt ec, i:e.,, ra fade yl Mich -,+,ate #A;&'Or-en I'm VA4vc„) r'&7,m (vmtpnob ,e[a+Juna reWmj 7;To.in,€7"� tZ;'.'is Wate. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 14 • 320 ao„(latal tte ;l cpera6afmc wppaTt thaw prmputy MXaiim-364(a sI0 to (ihf. , a2 vF view -in vChmme) —220 m tanddpaY�if”; sasm isAi�„ r.,.,,,E:M tuKemsrrnenYs its§41G sn xrIE pc-N<,�ra i r.n,-°nh adiu�tu� s M� ktitru srew'n,r To o w Ee ,isac,laaE 1) Introduction Interstate 84 Corridor Shady Final Report -Page 15 1) Introduction The 1998 Treasure Valley I-84 Corridor Study identified potential solutions to the traffic congestion anticipated in the next 20 years. That original Study (Phase 1) identified a wide range of Corridor improvements, leading to generalized conclusions about capacity needs on I- 84 and the surrounding arterial system. At the conclusion of Phase 1, it was determined that further study was needed to more specifically define a management program for 1-84. It was also concluded that the additional study should include policy direction, prioritized operational and capital improvements, and a financial strategy to address funding needs for improvements along the Corridor. The work plan for the Phase 1 effort integrated the efforts of the Idaho Transportation Department (PTD), the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), local agency staff, affected regulatory agencies, and stakeholders. Input from the group listed above produced a multi -step work program that developed and refined Corridor improvement alternatives. The original study was developed as a regional plan. The final project goals focused on developing a base Corridor Plan resulting in an efficient, environmentally sensitive transportation system within the Corridor. The Plan addressed intra- and inter -regional travel, supported economic vitality, and supported the individual character and planning efforts of the communities. The study resulted in a decision about where new interchanges will be needed in Canyon County, and defined the improvements needed to meet Level of Service standards for the freeway mainline throughout the Corridor (See Exhibit 10 on Page 17). The Phase I effort resulted in the decision to construct the Karcher Road Interchange first, followed by the Ustick Road and Middleton Road Interchanges. The Karcher Road Interchange is listed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and is currently under design. The project team developed and conducted a process for informing and updating elected officials and the public on study objectives, and for obtaining quality input from the public. The Treasure Valley Transportation Team (TVTT) will use this input for consideration at every key step in the study process. The main elements of this public outreach and involvement program were meetings of the Sounding Boards and conducting the open houses for the public in each county. The focus of Phase I of the Treasure Valley I-84 Corridor Study was to develop a prioritized and phased set of improvements to the freeway system, including parallel and intersecting arterial routes within the study area. Problem areas were first identified for the existing (1997) and future (2020) no -build conditions. Various alteratives and/or strategies were then developed to mitigate projected deficiencies of the major street system. The analysis of existing and future traffic conditions indicates a need for extensive improvements in east -west capacity between cities in Canyon County (Caldwell and Nampa) and Ada County (Meridian, Eagle, Garden City, and Boise). In Ada County, systemwide failure is expected along major east -west, and major north -south travel routes. A summary and evaluation of the various transportation system alteratives is provided in the Technical Appendix. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 16 In the context of the Phase I Study, a wide range of Corridor improvements were considered and refined, leading to generalized conclusions about capacity needs on I-84 and the surrounding arterial system. At the conclusion of that study, it was agreed that further study was needed to more specifically define a management program for I-84 that would include policy direction, prioritized operational and capital improvements, and a financial strategy to address funding needs for improvements along the Corridor. The current study, titled "I-84 Corridor Study," builds on the analyses and conclusions reached during the Phase 1 Study. This section of the Final Report briefly summarizes the prior analyses and major conclusions, as a reference point for refinement and further evaluation of management strategies for I-84. Given that this phase of the study focuses specifically on I-84, this discussion also serves to document the study results from Phase 1 that identified the need for improvements to the regional arterial system as well. One of the key conclusions from Phase 1 is that a balanced investment in both freeway and arterial improvements is needed, and that improvements to the regional arterial system directly affect the level of long-range investment needed for I-84. While this phase focuses on I-84, it has been assumed that future updates to the regional transportation plan will address needed improvements to the arterial system. 2) objectives of the I-84 Corridor Study The Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for Ada and Canyon Counties is one of the fastest growing regions in the nation. The MSA consists of five incorporated cities - Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian, Garden City, and Boise, and the counties of Canyon and Ada. The Phase 1 I-84 Corridor Study (1998) showed that the residents of this region could expect significant travel delays. The operating level of service will fall in ranges of E and F if substantial transportation improvements are not made in the next few years. This phase encompasses two study areas; a primary and a secondary study area. The primary study area examines the transportation system needs for the I-84 Corridor from the WYE Interchange in Boise (east terminus) to State Highway 44 (west terminus) west of Caldwell. The study accomplished the following: • examines the existing traffic operations • determines any short-term needed improvements • forecasts traffic volumes for 2010, 2015 and 2020 planning horizons • examines long-term network alternatives • identifies a list of projects needed for the long-term • provides a cost estimate for those long-term needs • develops a financial plan to fund the anticipated system needs A secondary study area includes the portion of I-84 Corridor from the WYE Interchange east to the Gowen Road Interchange. The long -tern needs in this portion of the secondary study area are determined in the "Interstate 84, Orchard Interchange to Gowen Interchange Concept Feasibility Study" by CH2M Hill, Inc. The financial analysis of this phase includes both the primary study area and the secondary study area. Interstate 84 Corridor Stzfdy Final Report-Page18 2) Corridor Planning Process Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 19 2) Corridor Planning Process The procedures used in this phase of the I-84 Corridor Study follow the standard regional transportation planning process. In general, local land use plans are used to determine the number and location of vehicle trips. The roadway system determines the routes of travel and the capacity of the roadway system. Trips are then "assigned" to roadway travel paths between their origins and destinations. a) Land Use Plans The land use plans are developed by the individual general-purpose governments (i.e., each county and each city) in their specific comprehensive plans. The approved land use plans are used to estimate both population and employment figures for each county. The population and employment figures are reviewed and approved by COMPASS' Demographic Advisory Committee. The COMPASS Board has the final approval of these figures. The population and employment data are used to estimate the number of personal and vehicle trips attracted to and generated by each area of the two counties. Local data determine the number of vehicle trips per person and per employee for each of the land use categories. COMPASS has already developed, calibrated, and approved a regional transportation planning model for the Destination 2020 Plan (i.e., the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan.) The model includes shorter -term planning models for 2010 and 2015 as well. b) Transportation Planning Process The roadway system's characteristics include the number of travel, capacity, and the signed speed limit. These characteristics are used to detennine the travel times on various portions of the roadway system. A computer program termed a "travel demand forecast model" replicates the land use and transportation system components to determine the travel times for each travel route between a trip's origin and its destination. Each trip is then "assigned" a travel route based upon the minimum travel time and the roadway system's capacity. All other successive trips are also assigned to their individual travel routes based upon the travel time criteria and the available system capacity. The summation of these individual travel assignments is the total traffic forecast for each roadway segment in the travel model. Separate roadway networks and population and employment data are developed for each model year (i.e., 2010, 2015, and 2020) by defining the year's individual roadway system characteristics and the local land use plans. c) Public Review Process The public review process was quite lengthy. The following discussion identifies the six types of meetings used in the process. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report-Page20 Treasure Valley Transportation Team (TVTT) Meetings. Monthly TVTT meetings were held. The TVTT was a group of representatives from each of the affected local jurisdictions. The individual members were often technical staff (i.e., planning directors, city engineers, transportation planners, etc.) although elected officials represented several agencies. The list of TVTT members is included in the Technical Appendix. In general, the TVTT members provided technical guidance to the consulting team in the management and decision-malcing process of the I-84 Corridor Study. More specifically, the TVTT members were full participants in the entire work effort. The group reviewed the data, suggested alternatives, reviewed proposed projects, and guided the development of the final I-84 Corridor Plan. Sounding Board Meetings. Individual Sounding Board Meetings were held prior to each open house. The Sounding Board membership included a range of interested citizen volunteers who reviewed various plan elements of the 1-84 Corridor Study. They provided vided input for the development of the recommendations, and acted as a public review committee. The Sounding Board meetings were usually held just prior to the public open house meetings. The Sounding Board provided excellent guidance in the preparation and presentation of public review materials • Open House Meetings. Two bi county open house meetings were held. The purposes of the public meetings included a public review of the process, solicitation of comments on needed Corridor improvements, and the development of recommendations on financial planning and the project timetable. The specific results of the open house meetings were the following: o First Open House Meeting — This meeting was held on March 21, 2001. The purpose of the meeting was to review the initial findings of the project team. The goal was to reconfirm the list of issues and identify possible solutions. The results were a public verification of the transportation issues, an expansion of the project team's understanding of the Corridor, and an initial set of Corridor improvement projects. In general, the public responses included: overwhelming support for the TDM programs, encouragement for more through lanes on the I-84 mainline, and recommendations for improving traffic operations at several of the existing interchanges. o Second Open House Meetine - This meeting was held on July 19, 2001. The purposes of the meeting were to review the financial elements of the 1-84 Corridor Plan, evaluate the proposed Corridor improvement projects, and comment on the draft Transportation Demand Management Plan. The results were supportive of some elements of the Financial Element, confirmation for widening the I-84 mainline, and modified the program for new interchanges in the Corridor. In general, the public responses included: strong support for the TDM programs that encouraged non drive -alone travel modes, disfavor for the Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 21 TDM programs that penalized drive -alone travel, and encouragement for widening the I-84 mainline to six lanes from Meridian Road to Garrity Boulevard. The public responses provided only mixed impressions on the interchange locations at Robinson/McDermott/Black Cat Road. In terms of funding the needed Corridor improvements, the public support was greatest for the statewide funding programs such as, an increased gas tax or higher registration fees. There was little general support for highway user fees such as, toll roads or local gas taxes COMPASS Board Presentations. The COMPASS Board received three major briefings on the study: 1) review of the technical analysis; 2) review of the initial recommendations; and 3) the initial Corridor Plan. The COMPASS Board both helped in the overall review of the project, and provided guidance in the project priority and financial planning elements of the Plan. The COMPASS Board took three specific actions on the I-84 Corridor Study prior to the completion of this project. They include: June 18, 2001 COMPASS Board Minutes. `Dave Wynkoop moved and Roger Simmons seconded to concur with the I-84 Corridor Study Stage I recommendations, with the exception that the Five Mile 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. " August 20, 2001 COMPASS Board Minutes. "Frank McKeever moved and Dennis Stegenga seconded that the COMPASS Board invite VIATrans, Treasure Valley Legislators, and Idaho Transportation Department policy makers to a workshop to develop a financial plan to allow the timely implementation of both transit and roadway improvements in the I-84 Corridor Study. " October 15, 2001 DRAFT COMPASS Board Minutes. "Martin Thorn moved and Dennis Stegenga seconded to approve the Final I-84 Corridor Study Findings and Conclusions as presented. " Idaho Transportation Board Presentations. The Idaho Transportation Board is the agency responsible for implementing many of the recommendations of the I-84 Corridor Study. The Idaho Transportation Board received regular progress updates and were asked to accept this study for implementation. The Idaho Transportation Board took the following action: November 15, 2001. The "Transportation Board made a motion to accept the I-84 Corridor Study for use as a guide for making decisions on future improvements to the Corridor. " • Individual Agency Briefings. COMPASS staff, with support from the consulting team, provided a number of briefings to the local jurisdictions providing an overview of the planning process and detailed the DRAFT I-84 Corridor Plan. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 22 3) Special Planning Elements interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 23 3) Special Planning Elements a) Analysis of Existing Interchanges This section of the project report provides an analysis of the traffic operations at the existing I- 84 interchanges within the study area. The analysis of existing conditions provides the basis for the subsequent needs analysis. The goal of this task was to review each existing interchange within the study area to determine the current conditions, identify if the respective interchanges conform to current design standards, and to verify the current and future level of service. Exhibit 10 (Page 17) illustrated the freeway and interchange locations within the study area. Exhibit I 1 summarizes the operational and design improvements recommended in this phase. Additional information is provided in the Technical Appendix. Exhibit 11: Upgrade of Existing Interchanges Summary of Recommendations nterchange pEagleRoad Recommended -Improvements Construct dual left -turn lanes for the westbound off -ramp's intersection with Eagle Road. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal intersection. • Construct dual left -turn lanes for the eastbound off -ramp's intersection with Eagle Road. Meridian Road/ Construct a loop ramp in the northwest quadrant of the interchange to Highway 69 accommodate the westbound-to�southbound movement. The new ramp will require widening the bridge structure to accommodate the merging traffic on southbound Meridian Road. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal intersection. Garrity Boulevard/ • Widen Garrity Boulevard to provide two southbound travel lanes for a Can -Ada Road greater distance if the westbound off -ramp is to be used effectively. This will require reconstructing the existing I-84 bridge structures. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal intersection. Franklin Boulevard Replace southbound overpass structure. (Nampa) Nampa Boulevard/ • None. Northside Boulevard • There is some operational opportunity for creating dual left turn lanes for the westbound off -ramp's intersection with Nampa Boulevard. Additional anal sis is re uired. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 24 Exhibit 11 continued: Upgrade of Existing,Interchanges Summary of Recommendations Interchange Recommended Improvements Franklin Road/ • Complete the installation of traffic signals at both ramp terminals. US Highway20/26 . Construct dual left -turn lanes on the ramps when Franklin Road is widened (Caldwell) to five lanes. Construct separate right -turn lanes on both ramp terminals. . . Construct a center tum lane in Franklin Road at the two ramp terminals. This will require a new bridge structure over I-84. Additional analysis is required. 10`x' Avenue/ There is some operational opportunity for creating dual left -tum lanes for Illinois Avenue the two off -ramp intersections. Additional analysis is required. These changes will not require a new bridge structure for I-84. Centennial Way • There is some operational opportunity for creating dual left -turn lanes for the two off -ramp intersections. Additional analysis is required. These changes should not require a new bridge structure for Centennial Way. U.S. Highway 20/26 Increase the spacing between the two ramp terminals to a minimum of 650 (Notus Exit) feet. . Increase the distance between the ramp terminals and Old Highway to a minimum of 650 feet. - . Align the two south ramp terminals. State Highway 44/ Increase the spacing between the two ramp terminals to a minimum of 650 State Street feet. b) Arterial Cross Street Improvements This section of the project report provides an analysis of the arterial roadway taking into consideration those decisions on new interchange locations or interchanges recommended for upgrades. Unfortunately, the construction of any new interchange or a major upgrade to any existing interchange will impact the traffic volumes on the adjacent arterial roadway system. These changes (i.e., new traffic volumes) require a re-examination of the arterial roadway system. The goal of this work task was to review the arterial traffic volumes; particularly those arterials near any new interchange locations. The objective was to determine if any arterial improvements are needed to support any of the new interchanges. The results show that many arterial roadways will require a major upgrading, particularly the east -west arterials. Exhibit 10 (Page 19) illustrated the arterial roadway system within the study area. A detailed list of those improvements can be found in the Technical Appendix. interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report-Page25 Exhibit 12 summarizes the recommended operational and design improvements to the arterial roadways. Additional information is provided in the technical appendix. ExWbitl2:; Upgrade of Arterial'Roadways Summary of Recommendations Interchange Recommended Improvements Eagle Road Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal intersection. • Construct dual left -turn lanes forthe eastbound off -ramp's intersection with Eagle Road. Meridian Road/ • Widening the Meridian Road bridge (overpass) structure to provide six Highway 69 travel lanes: two northbound lanes, one northbound left -turn lane, two southbound lanes, and one lane for the merging traffic from the westbound to southbound loop ramp. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal intersection. Ten Mile Road Widen Ten Mile Road to provide a minimum of three -lane roadway within. the interchange area: one southbound travel lane, one northbound travel lane, and a center turn lane. This will requite reconstructing the exiting bridge structures over I-84. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the ramp terminal intersections. Garrity Boulevard/ Widen Garrity Boulevard to provide a five -lane roadway within the Can -Ada Road interchange area: two southbound travel lanes, two northbound travel lanes, and a center turn lane. This will require reconstructing the exiting I-84 bridge structures. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal intersection. Franklin Boulevard . Widen Franklin Boulevard to provide a five -lane roadway within the (Nampa) interchange area: two eastbound travel lanes, two westbound travel lanes, and an eastbound/westbound left -turn lane. This will require reconstructing the exiting I-84 bridge structures. • Conduct a signal warrant analysis at both ramp terminal intersections. Nampa Boulevard/ • None. Northside Boulevard Franklin Road/ • Complete the installation of traffic signals at both ramp terminals. US Highway20/26 Construct dual left -tum lanes on the ramps when Franklin Road is (Caldwell) widened to five lanes. • Construct separate right -turn lanes on both ramp terminals. • Construct a center tum lane in Franklin Road at the two ramp terminals. This will require a new bridge structure over I-84. 10" Avenue/ • None. Illinois Avenue Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 26 Exhibit 12 continued: Upgrade of Arterial Roadways Summary of Recommendations Interchange Recommended 3mproveme ms Centennial Way None. U.S. Highway 20/26 • Increase the spacing between the two ramp terminals to a minimum of (Parma Access) 650 feet. • Increase the distance between the ramp terminals and Old Highway to a minimum of 650 feet. • Align the two south ramp terminals. State Highway 44/ • Increase the spacing between the two ramp terminals to a minimum of State Street 650 feet. • Align the two south ramp terminals. c) Robinson Road, McDermott Road, and Black Cat Road Interchange Alternatives This section of the project report provides an analysis of the potential interchange location alternatives at Robinson Road, McDermott Road, and Black Cat Road, Previous work in the I- 84 Corridor (Phase 1) identified the potential for a future interchange between the existing Garrity Road Interchange and the planned Ten Mile Road Interchange. The work effort for this phase included: • Determine if any interchanges are needed in the Robinson Road, McDermott Road, and Black Cat Road area. • Evaluate the impact of the new interchange on freeway traffic volumes. • Evaluate the potential for federal approval of an interchange at either location. • Recommend a course of action for this potential interchange area. Exhibit 13 (on Page 28) illustrates the Robinson Road, McDermott Road, and Black Cat Road Interchange locations. i) Background Phase 1 of the I-84 Corridor Study identified the need for upgrading the existing Garrity Road Interchange and recommended the construction of a new interchange at Ten Mile Road. A third recommendation of the Phase 1 Study was to examine the potential for a future interchange between the existing Garrity Road Interchange and the planned Ten Mile Road Interchange. There are four miles between the Garrity Road Interchange and Ten Mile Road and three section -line roads intersect the I-84 Corridor: They are Black Cat Road, McDermott Road, and Robinson Road. Black Cat Road and Robinson Road have bridge structures over I-84. Both are two-lane facilities without any ramp connections to I-84. McDermott Road has no overpass or ramp connections to I-84. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 27 Current land uses in the area are generally agricultural with some large -lot rural residential developments. A limited number of residential structures would be affected by the construction of an interchange at any location within this segment of the Corridor. The long-range land use plans indicate that a commercial/employment center is planned between Robinson Road and Garrity Boulevard on the north side of I-84. The areas near McDermott Road and Black Cat Road are anticipated to remain predominantly residential. u) Recommended Course of Action The Robinson Road Interchange is located near the major activity center in the Garrity Boulevard Corridor and therefore acts to mitigate and divert traffic from the congested Garrity Boulevard Interchange. An interchange at Robinson Road is expected to serve 11,000 vehicles per day in 2020 under the current set of land use assumptions. The Robinson Road Interchange will cost $25.4 million. The McDermott Road Interchange is located in an area with a lower development intensity dominated by residential developments. An interchange at McDermott Road will serve 3,600 vehicles per day in 2020 under the current set of land use assumptions. Any decision to locate a new interchange at McDermott Road could increase the area's accessibility and encourage a change of land uses. A significant change in land use would necessarily result in higher traffic Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 28 ION AILROAD xUJ RD 4 "RO NAIIFRANKON V/ERL D . Exhibit 13: Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Black Cat Road Interchange Area .......,.•...H,,.,_••. �. [F.'si?*k G:.'ICT'L'K'v=iR, PAJYS-Ertl L+xkltiLib�,Nd4k.: Current land uses in the area are generally agricultural with some large -lot rural residential developments. A limited number of residential structures would be affected by the construction of an interchange at any location within this segment of the Corridor. The long-range land use plans indicate that a commercial/employment center is planned between Robinson Road and Garrity Boulevard on the north side of I-84. The areas near McDermott Road and Black Cat Road are anticipated to remain predominantly residential. u) Recommended Course of Action The Robinson Road Interchange is located near the major activity center in the Garrity Boulevard Corridor and therefore acts to mitigate and divert traffic from the congested Garrity Boulevard Interchange. An interchange at Robinson Road is expected to serve 11,000 vehicles per day in 2020 under the current set of land use assumptions. The Robinson Road Interchange will cost $25.4 million. The McDermott Road Interchange is located in an area with a lower development intensity dominated by residential developments. An interchange at McDermott Road will serve 3,600 vehicles per day in 2020 under the current set of land use assumptions. Any decision to locate a new interchange at McDermott Road could increase the area's accessibility and encourage a change of land uses. A significant change in land use would necessarily result in higher traffic Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 28 volumes in the interchange area. The McDermott Road Interchange will cost $25 million. Because there is no overpass at the present time, construction of a two-lane overpass alone would cost approximately $4 million. Black Cat Road was examined as an alternative interchange location. However, the traffic forecast was very low and the topographic constraints to the south eliminated this option from further consideration. A mid -mile location between Robinson Road and McDermott Road was reviewed as another alternative. This site appears to attract an important amount of traffic but to a lesser extent. This location also aids Garrity Boulevard. The cost of the mid -mile location is somewhat higher than either Robinson Road or McDermott Road, since additional arterial roadways are needed to support a mid -mile location. A change in the land use plans would necessarily result in higher traffic volumes in the interchange area. The mid -mule interchange and supporting new roadways will cost $35 mullion. Exhibit 14 illustrates the decision criteria and data for the three interchange alternatives in the Garrity Boulevard to Ten Mile Road area. Additional information is provided in the Technical Appendix. The TVTT's recommended course of action was as follows: Plan for the interchange location near the Robinson Road/Star Road area. Plan for the new interchange for 2015. Exhibit 14: Robinson Road and McDermottRoal&bterchangel Analysis Discussion Element Robinson Road McDermottl1bad' Mid -Mile ? Interchange Interchange, t Interchange (l)' Interchange Traffic • 11,000 • 3,600 8,000 Volumes - Year 2020 Freeway Traffic Volumes • 93,800 • 92,200 93,000 - Year 2020 Number of Freeway • 6 (3 each direction) • 6 (3 each direction) 6 (3 each direction) Mainline Travel Lanes • 8 (4 each direction) — Year 2020 between Robinson and Garrity Number of Freeway • 6 (3 each direction) • 6 (3 each direction) • 6 (3 each direction) Mainline Travel Lanes — e 8 (4 each direction) Year 2020 between Robinson and Garrity Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 29 Exhibit 14 continued: Robinson Road and McDermott Road Interchange Analysis Robinson Road McDermott,Road Mi&Mile Discussion Element Interchange Interchange Interchange(]) Impact on Arterial • Reduces congestion • No reduction in • Some reduction in Roadway on most arterial congestion on congestion on System roadways. most arterial most arterial • Reduces congestion roadways. roadways. at Garrity Blvd • No reduction in • Some reduction in interchange. congestion at congestion at • Allows detour route Garrity Blvd Garrity Blvd during Garrity Interchange. Interchange. construction. • Allows detour • Allows detour route during route during Garrity Blvd. Garrity Blvd. construction. construction. Daily Vehicle Miles of • 776,500 • 772,300 • 775,000 Travel Daily Vehicle Hours of • 23,250 • 21,200 • 22,000 Travel Average Travel Speed • 28.9 • 29.1 • 29.0 (MPH) Construction Cost • $25.4 million • $25 million • $35 million (interchange) (interchange only) (interchange and • $2.4 million arterials) (freeway widening) Cost per Annual • $8.00 • $23.00 • $15.00 Vehicle Trip Air Quality Emissions • CO = 13,092 kg/yr • CO = 12,960 • CO = 13,000 • PM10 = 3,208 lcg/yr kg/yr kg/yr • PM10 = 3,224 • PM10 = 3,200 kg/yr kg/yr Design Considerations • May be too close to • No distance • Requires Garrity Blvd for conflicts with additional optimal ramp other arterial street design. intersections. system. • Require two additional lanes on the freeway. Note 1: Estimated Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 30 d) Five Mile Road Interchange This section of the project report provides an analysis of the proposed Five Mile Road Interchange. The goal of the analysis was to determine the potential for a new interchange at Five Mile Road. The analysis was also used to recommend a course of action for this potential interchange. i) Background The Five Mile Road Interchange was recommended as part of the Bench/Valley Transportation Study in 1995. The Bench/Valley Transportation Study was a semi -regional transportation study covering the area of Boise City, Garden City, and Ada County bounded by Orchard Street, Overland Road, Cloverdale Road, and Hill Road. Residential growth plus industrial and retail expansion has resulted in rapidly increasing traffic congestion within the study area. The goals of the 1995 study were to evaluate the current transportation needs, forecast future travel demands and to develop potential solutions for the 33 -square -mile study area. The study's product was a long-range transportation plan. Exhibit 15 summarizes the decision criteria. Additional information is provided in the Technical Appendix. Exhibit 16 (Page 32) illustrates the Five Mile Road Interchange location within the study area. Exhibit 15: Five Mile Road Interchange Analysis Discussion, Element With Interchange Without Interchange, Interchange Traffic Volumes • 41,000 in 2015 • None • 55,000 in 2020 Freeway Traffic Volumes • 161,000 • 130,000 Year 2020 (E/O Five Mile Road) Number of Freeway Mainline • 12 (6 each direction) • 8 (4 each direction) Travel Lanes (E/O Five Mile Road) Impact on Arterial Roadway • Reduces congestion on • Reduces congestion on System most arterial roadways. most arterial roadways. • Requires five lanes on • Requires five lanes on Five Mile Road. Five Mile Road. • Requires seven lanes on • Requires five lanes on Five Mile Road in Five Mile Road in interchange area. interchange area. Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel • 10,755,000 • 10,756,500 Daily Vehicle Hours of Travel • 374,500 • 374,900 Average Travel Speed (MPH) • 27.8 • 27,6 Air Quality Emissions • CO is 193,390 kg/yr • CO is 195,128 kg/yr • PM10 is 35640 kg/yr • PM10 is 36,315 kg/yr Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 31 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 Simmons seconded to concur with the I-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 ranking 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 Final 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 35). 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. April 17, 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 prioritization process using Ten Mile Road as the f rst 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 final determination on the first interchange to be constructed. Motion passed unanimously. " May 3, 2001 TVTT Meeting: "Reconfirm the selection of Ten Mile Road as the first interchange priority: Ery stated the TVTT has acted on this item subject to the results of the revised decision variables. No further discussion needed. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 34 e ]� $■ |2 J= ! 2 ! £ M )) ) E \\\\44 )F- 4 f) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Review This section of the project report provides a summary of the Treasure Valley Intelligent Transportation System Plan and provides any potential schedule adjustments appropriate to support the implementation of other system improvements. The goal was to determine if any critical elements of the ITS Implementation Plan may be needed ahead of other elements based upon the Corridor Improvement Plan. COMPASS completed the Treasure Valley ITS Study in March 1999. That study's purpose was to develop a strategic plan for the development and implementation of ITS technology in the Treasure Valley. The original study included a wide range of topics, including traffic surveillance, traffic control, driver information, and emergency incident management. The study included both the freeway corridor and arterial roadway systems in both counties. The ramp metering strategies tested in this study indicate ramp meters could be an effective tool in reducing or even preventing congestion along I-84 during future year 2020 peak hour travel times. Installed in a timely fashion, ramp meters could also be key in delaying the need for future freeway investments. In this study, the potential benefits of ramp metering are most clearly seen in improved travel conditions along the freeway mainline. Where individual freeway sections are projected to operate at Level of Service E or even at Level of Service F in the future "Base" condition, operations are shown to improve to Level of Service D or Level of Service E with the introduction of ramp metering at selected interchanges. Travel speeds are expected to increase at noticeable levels along the freeway, with subsequent travel time savings. The strategies tested also indicate that ramp meters can assist in the prevention of freeway bottlenecks by regulating the amount of traffic that can enter the system and by breaking up vehicle platoons. Potential negative effects resulting from ramp metering, as observed in this study, include increased delay for drivers waiting at metered on -ramps, the buildup of vehicle queues, and potential spillover into adjacent arterial intersections. To prevent or reduce the queuing effects at a meter, the physical characteristics of the on-ramp must be suitable for metering. This would include provisions for ample vehic le storage, acceleration and merging distances, and sight distance. These design characteristics can be accommodated as new interchanges are built and existing interchanges are modified when planned capital investments are made. To prevent spill over onto the adjacent surface streets, meter timing should be set so that traffic demand does not exceed the ramps finite storage. As a safeguard, queue detector loops can be installed at the entrances to the on -ramps to reduce or eliminate the metering rate when queues become excessive. Another possible consequence to ramp metering is an increased delay for the entire freeway system. It is possible that the total delay associated with ramp metering could exceed the reduction in total delay on the freeway mainline, causing a net increase in system delay. This was shown to be possible in the ramp metering strategies developed for the eastbound direction, and it is conceivable for the westbound direction as well. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 36 i) Eastbound Direction Apparently, the standards selected for implementing ramp meters will be satisfied for each of the six key interchanges tested in the eastbound direction. Ramp meters provided at the on - ramps of all six interchanges should contribute to reduced congestion levels along the freeway in the future. Exhibit 18 displays the ramp meter details for the six key interchanges in the Corridor. They are based on the results of Test #2. This strategy was seen as the most realistic as it balances the needs of reducing congestion on the freeway with the vehicle storage constraints on the on - ramps. It was assumed that two lanes would be provided on an approach if the selected meter rates were high (around 900 vph) or if the vehicle queue storage was exceptionally long. Exhibit 18: Ramp Meter Details at Key Interchanges (I-84 Eastbound) Ramp Meter Location: - .Future Demand -. (Vph) -Meter Rate (vph) - - - Meter- - Timing . (veh/sec) No. of (Storage, _=Lanes 'Max. Queue -- -storage :(ft/lane)* Total On -;9. '.Ramp LengthRamp,Length ,Neededtft)1* TotalOn- :. Adapt'(fit)**#-- US 20/26 (Franklin Road) 725 725 to 600 5.0 to 6.0 1 1,800 3,200 1,500 Karcher Road 1,375 1,375 to 1,240 2.6 to 3.0 2 1,710 3,110 NA Garrity Blvd./ Can -Ada Road 860 860 to 720 4.2 to 5.0 2 1,075 2,475 1,800 Ten Mile Road 850 850 to 600 4.2 to 6.0 1 2;125 3,525 NA Meridian Road (SB to EB loop) 520 520 to 450 6.9 to 8.0 1 1,300 2,700 1,900 Meridian Road (NB to EB) 1,075 1,075 to 900 3.3 to 4.0 2 1,340 2,740 1,200 Eagle Road (SB to EB loop) 1,245 1,245 to 1,030 2.9 to 3.5 2 1,565 2,965 2,000 Eagle Road (NB to EB) 755 755 to 685 4.8 to 5.3 1 1,900 35300 1,900 * - The maximum queue reflects the length of storage needed to accommodate 10% of the pre -metered traffic demand. * * -A length of 1,400 feet was added to the maximum queue length to account for the acceleration distance needed for a stopped vehicle to achieve a speed conducive for merging with freeway traffic. On-ramp distances were calculated from aerial photographs and account for the total distance from the adjacent arterial intersection to the freeway merging area. It should be noted that the ramp details shown in Exhibit 18 are for planning purposes only, and should be considered as approximate and subject to change in the design -level analysis. Sufficient vehicle queue storage and acceleration and merging distances can be provided along the on -ramps to the new interchanges at Karcher Road and Ten Mile Road. The preliminary design for the Karcher Road Interchange indicates additional storage may be available on the adjacent arterial (up to 1,330 feet for the northbound to eastbound right -turn lane). Use of this tum lane for vehicle storage would reduce the maximum queue storage shown in the above table. Proper ramp meter design characteristics can be achieved along the on -ramps of most existing interchanges when future projects to widen I-84 are implemented. However, there may be design deficiencies at US 20/26 (Franklin Road) since there are no plans to widen I-84 in the Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report Page 37 vicinity of the interchange. It may be possible to provide a longer on-ramp when a planned project to retrofit the interchange with a new bridge structure is implemented. Design deficiencies may also be present at the Eagle Road Interchange (southbound to eastbound loop) where a longer on-ramp length would create the need for an additional lane under the overpass totaling five lanes. This improvement could be implemented with a planned project to widen the I-84 mainline at the interchange and retrofit the existing bridge structure. Aerial photographs indicate additional vehicle storage may be available on the adjacent arterial at the Eagle Road Interchange (up to 900 feet for the northbound to eastbound right -tum lane). Use of this tum lane for vehicle storage would reduce the maximum queue storage shown in the above table. Exhibit 19 displays recommendations for installing ramp meters at each of the six key interchanges in the eastbound direction. The priorities shown for installing ramp meters are based on the selected timings of the planned freeway investments in the Corridor. Exhibit 19: Prioritization of Ramp Metering Installations:* Key Interchanges (I-84 Eastbound) Project Priority Install Ram Meier - P - Comments: 1 Meridian Road Interchange Implement when freeway is widened to six lanes from Meridian (Both EB on -ramps) Road to Garrity Boulevard (within 5 years) 2 Garrity Boulevard/ Can -Ada Road Implement with interchange improvements Interchange (within 5 years) 3 Eagle Road Interchange Implement with internge improvements (Both EB on -ramps) (within 10 years) 4 Ten Mile Road Interchange Implement when new interchange is constructed (within 10 years) 5 US 20/26 (Franklin Road) Implement with interchange improvements Interchange (within 10 years) 6 Karcher Road Interchange Implement when freeway is widened to six lanes from Garrity Boulevard to Karcher Road (within 15 years) ii) Westbound Direction Projected peak hour travel demand in the westbound direction along I-84 is expected to exceed capacity between the Meridian Road and Ten Mile Road interchanges, even with full implementation of planned freeway system improvements. As a result, a bottleneck is expected to extend east of the Eagle Road Interchange with operations reaching Level of Service F. It was assumed that ramp meters would be installed at freeway interchanges upstream of the study area along I-84 and perhaps I-184 to reduce the traffic flow in the freeway within the Corridor. It appears that the standards selected for implementing ramp meters will be satisfied for the two interchanges at Eagle Road and Meridian Road in the westbound direction. Ramp meters do not appear to be needed at Ten Mile Road or any other interchange to the west. Exhibit 20 (Page 39) displays the ramp meter details for the two key interchanges in the Corridor. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 38 Exhibit 20: Ramp Meter Details at KeyInterchanges (I-84 Westbound) Project Install Ramp Meter at: Comments: , Priority Total On- Total On - Implement with interchange improvements On -Ramp Meter Rate Meter No. of Max. Queue Ramp Length Ramp Length - Meter Location: Demand (vph) Timing Lanes Storage - Needed. [Eagle (eph)- (veh/sec) (tUlane)* (ft)*" ' day (it)*** Today (ft)*** Road 585 585 to 525 6.2 to 6.9 1 1,450 2,850 2,600 eridian Road 530 530 to 475 6.8 to 7.6 I 1,325 2,725 1,500 * - The maximum queue reflects the length of storage needed to accommodate 10% of the pre -metered traffic demand. ** - A length of 1,400 feet was added to the maximum queue length to account for the acceleration distance needed for a stopped vehicle to achieve a speed conducive for merging with freeway traffic. *•* - On-ramp distances were calculated from aerial photographs and account for the total distance from the adjacent arterial intersection to the freeway merging area. Again, it should be noted that the ramp details shown in Exhibit 20 are for planning purposes only, and should be considered as approximate and subject to change in the design -level analysis. Sufficient length for vehicle queue storage and acceleration and merging distances can be provided along the on -ramps to the two existing interchanges (Eagle Road and Meridian Road) where planned freeway improvements could include longer on-ramp designs. Exhibit 21 displays recommendations for installing ramp meters in the westbound direction at the two key interchanges within the study area. The priorities shown for installing ramp meters are based on the selected timings of the planned freeway investments in the Corridor. Exhibit 21: Prioritization of Ramp Metering Installations at Key Interchanges (I-84 Westbound) Project Install Ramp Meter at: Comments: , Priority 1 Eagle Road Interchange Implement with interchange improvements (within 10 years) 2 Meridian Road Interchange Implement when freeway is widened to six lanes/ new westbound - southbound off -ramp loop is constructed (within 10 years) The results of this study indicate that the benefits of installing ramp meters at the above two interchanges cannot be realized unless ramp meter installations are constructed at existing interchanges immediately east of the study area along I-84 and perhaps 1-184. I-84 interchanges to be considered should include: • Cole/Overland Road • Orchard Street I-184 interchanges to be considered should include: • Franklin Road • Curtis Road • Fairview Avenue (downtown Boise) • Vista Avenue • Broadway Avenue Interstate 84 Corridor Stud, Final Report -Page 39 4) Transportation Demand Management Elements Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 40 4) Transportation Demand Management Elements a) Background The purpose of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is to reduce the number of vehicles using the road system while providing a wide variety of mobility options to those who wish to travel. TDM elements are aimed at reducing travel demand by influencing peoples' travel behavior through: "passive" measures that include incentives designed to promote transit and rideshare as alternatives to the use of Single Occupant Vehicles (SOVs); "economic" measures that create disincentives to driving alone such as roadway user or parking fees, or subsidize programs to encourage use of other modes; or "administrative" mechanisms designed to coordinate TDM efforts. The TDM element of the I-84 Corridor Study will need to be effectively tailored to meet the Treasure Valley region's goal of 25% of all peak period trips via non - SOV modes by 2020. In order to meet this goal within the I-84 Corridor, COMPASS has emphasized the need to prioritize implementation of effective TDM elements at the top of a long list of proposed interstate improvements that comprise the I-84 needs assessment. Travel demand analysis conducted by COMPASS in coordination with VIATrans and Ada County Highway District (ACRD) Commuteride staff revealed that a TDM program targeted to peak period commuter trips within the most heavily traveled section of I-84 (west of the WYE Interchange) could contribute to the achievement of the 25% goal by increasing transit trips from the current level of 1%3 to 5%, and by increasing vanpool and carpool use from the current level of 10%4 to 12% of all trips by the year 2020. Based upon discussions of the TVTT over the course of the study, the clear preference is for implementation of select passive TDM elements that would target cormnuter trips in order to meet the regional alternative mode share goal within the I-84 Corridor. The TVTT's second and third preferences are for economic measures and administrative measures, respectively. Both the economic and administrative measures potentially include incentives and disincentives. The goals of the 1-84 Corridor Study include the achievement of a 25% alternative mode share for the Corridor and for the Treasure Valley. This would be accomplished by increasing transit ridership from 1% to 5% and by increasing carpooling/ridesharing services to increase usage from 10% to 12%. TDM elements are discussed in the following sections according to these three categories (passive, economic, and administrative). The following narrative provides both general information on TDM elements and, where applicable, information on existing TDM programs and measures that are being implemented in the Treasure Valley. The narrative concludes with a list of TDM elements that the TVTT recommended for incorporation into the I-84 Capital Improvement Plan. 3 According to 1990 Census information which provides the most current ridesharing data. Ibid. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 41 b) I-84 Corridor TDM Elements The I-84 Corridor needs analysis indicates that over $605 million in improvements to the I-84 Corridor are needed from 2004 through 2020. This needs analysis accounts for an estimated $454 million worth of construction projects and approximately $151 million in TDM elements during this 17 -year period. This level of funding is an estimate of what would be expected to provide a comprehensive package of TDM elements that would support achievement of a 25% alternative mode share for the Corridor and for the Treasure Valley. The TDM elements for the I-84 Corridor were developed by COMPASS, VIATrans, and ACHD Commuteride staff, and supported by the TVTT. Emphasis is placed on substantial increases in express bus service and Commuteride Vanpool service throughout the Corridor. Express route needs have been identified between Canyon County and Boise, and between Meridian and Boise, and within the Boise City, including areas located east of the WYE Interchange. This increased level of transit and ridesharing services would be supported by a Park & Ride lot system, intensive marketing efforts and transit ITS strategies. Transit ITS could include such measures as ramp metering with traffic queue bypass lanes, variable message display, and `real tune" transit schedule and route capabilities. Exhibit 22 (Page 43) provides a summary of the TDM elements and conceptual estimates of probable cost as identified through the I-84 Corridor needs assessment. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report - Page 42 Exhibit 22:1-84 Corridor TDM Needs'Summary 2004 to 2020 TD1VlY�j?'„easuYe 2004 -2810 - 2011-2015 - :2916-2020 - a ` 200A-2020 Totals Item ' Est. Cost Item Est. Cost Item Est. Cost -Item 'Est.'Cost &press Bus Service Capital (New buses including spares) 21 new buses (3 spares) $7,350,000 12 new buses (2 spares) $4,200,000 10 new buses (1 spare) $3,500,000 43 new buses (6 spares) $15,050,000 Operations & Maintenance (O&M) $25.200,000 $ 28,000,000 $37,000,000 $90,200,000 Express Bus Sub Total $32,550,000 $32,200,000 $40,500,000 $105,250,000 Park & Ride Lots (Right -of -Way and Construction) 10 new lots $8,200,000 4 new lots $3,800,000 4 new lots $4,000,000 18 new lots $16,000,000 Commuteride Vannoot 14 new vans $490,000 10 new vans $355,000 10 new vans $355,000 34 new vans $1,200,000 Capital (New vans) O&M $1,720,000 $2,100,000 $2,980,000 $6,800,000 Vanpool Total $2,210,000 $2,455,000 $3,335,000 $8,000,000 TDMMarkedng& Other $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $12,000,000 Pro rums* Transit ITS $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $10,000,000 Estimatedi Cost Totals' $50;9601000 $45,455,000 554,8351000 $151,350,090 Note: All cost estimates are in 2001 dollars. * Includes employer -based TDM incentive programs such as those currently implemented by ACHD Commuteride. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 43 5) Roadway Needs Assessment Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Repot - Page 44 5) Roadway Needs Assessment The roadway needs assessment was determined strictly upon the capacity needs of the roadway system The following text and tables provide the Transportation Needs Assessment portion of the 1-84 Corridor Study. The needs assessment for the roadway system was determined by comparing the forecasted traffic volumes with the roadway capacities. An iterative approach was used, forecasting traffic volumes for the 2010, 2015, and 2020 planning years. For each planning year, the forecast traffic volumes were compared to the available roadway capacity. The list of needed projects was based upon the goal of providing a minimum volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio of 1.1. This means that the forecast volume can be as high as 10% (i.e., 1.1 times the available planning threshold) over the capacity of the roadway system., Traffic volume forecasts are provided in Exhibits 23 through 26 (Pages 46 through 49) on the following pages. Exhibit 15 (Page 33) illustrates the existing daily traffic volumes on the interstate system within the study area. These figures illustrate daily, two-way traffic volumes and are based upon recent ITD traffic counts. Exhibits 24 through 26 (Pages 47 through 49) depict the daily, two-way traffic volumes forecasted under 2010, 2015, and 2020 conditions respectively. The forecasts were developed with the COMPASS approved travel demand forecasting model using the approved demographics and land use. Exhibit 27 (Pages 50 through 52) is the cost and timetable for the roadway system improvements needed to provide a minimum volume -to -capacity (V1C) ratio of 1.1 for each of the three planning years. The table has been based on direction by the TVTT at the September 5, 2001 meeting, and was approved by the TVTT at the September 5, 2001 meeting. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 45 0 0 0 0 V N yl V' M' O p O O G p •' �- ,O p n N YQI M O Vl cr O O V n ea El 42 2T- ��P4 ro �.;oo;- ^ FL TJ T pCQ 9N �u. t a' y fs 4' GQry i.9.N 4 2: T O O O O o T S g pp O p La•'jy Vf Vi f9 fA fA '� w•A.Q c o p 0 c' o 0 - c b � O o � o 0 L � 8 O s N y b0 ,Paez h'i C s @ w 712 39C7X�_'wu 9 O O O O O O O".o O O O p..O.O G O o O ;G p•. 0.�. � p.y�O.-•N OOV Op mp O O.: E}OU 'A C�]i S O �Op O O-� 'O � H.S Ya pp gi z: w k s R , _16 fe z> Y +L+ e o 0 0 .L.�a 0. U N C � U 7-1 pG A p� a o C 0 E -^o .y, 4 U y O b O 0 N O c, N c O d O W us- r» «s. '- Fy fy yi Eq c , R r1. x w rj 5 _ n 9 �.- 6) Recommendations for Further Study Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 53 6) Recommendations for Further Study Emmett Highway (State Highway 16) Extension- State Highway 16 Exhibit 28 (Page 55) currently extends from State Highway 44 (State Street) to the north. Any regional traffic using I-84 must use either Star Road or Linder Road to cross the Boise River (see Exhibit 24 on Page 47). A possible connection between 1-84 and State Highway 16 has been examined a number of times since 1982. However, each of these earlier alternatives has assumed that only the Meridian Road and Garrity Boulevard interchanges are available as a connection to I-84. The present study has identified two new interchanges within the study area, one at Ten Mile Road and one at Robinson Road/Star Road. Any extension of State Highway 16 will necessitate the consideration of a connection between State Highway 16 and I-84. The Ten Mile Road and Robinson Road interchanges are only two of the four possible connections to the interstate system. The planning for the State Highway 16 extension may require reconsideration of the interchange locations east of Garrity Boulevard. This reconsideration will be important for two reasons: any new connection to I-84 will affect the travel forecast in the area, and any change in the roadway forecasts may impact the final roadway decisions. Land Use Planning Issues That Affect Roadway Development — There are several land use planning issues which might affect the future development of roadway projects within the I-84 Corridor. They include: • Corridor Preservation/ Right -of -Way Preservation. The ultimate roadway designs should be determined to allow the various highway departments to reserve the needed right-of-way before development occurs. This will help to minimize the future roadway development costs and any disruption to existing businesses abutting the major roadway corridors. • Compatibility Between Land Uses. Certain land uses, commercial activities for example, are compatible land major roadways and higher traffic volumes. Other land uses, typically residential developments, are incompatible with the higher volume roadways. Residential land uses are often considered to be incompatible with commercial uses. For this reason, it may be necessary to develop land use plans that minimize the conflicts among the roadways and the various land uses. • Separation of Sensitive Land Uses. Some types of land uses are particularly sensitive to the noise and air quality impacts of roadways. This is particularly true of residential developments. Because of this sensitivity, remedial measures such as noise walls are often required as mitigation for roadway improvement projects. The cost of the mitigation elements can often exceed the cost of the roadway improvements. For this reason, it is important to develop land use plans that maintain an adequate separation between sensitive land uses and the major roadways. For these reasons, it will be necessary to consider the land use issues of Corridor preservation, land use compatibility, and the separation of sensitive land uses in future planning efforts for the region. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Pa,-e54 Land Use Planning Issues that Affect Transportation Demand Management — The impact of various land use policies will also affect the development and operation of a transportation demand management system. In addition to the elements listed above, the list of planning issues includes: • Preservation of Existing Rail Corridors • Consideration for high occupancy vehicle lanes during any roadway widening project • Preservation of right-of-way for Park & Ride lots • Coordination of any Intelligent Transportation System Facilities Coordination of Roadway Improvement Projects with Local Comprehensive Plans - The hilt between land use developments and increases in travel demand are well known. Developments create travel demands and the roadway must be planned to accommodate those travel needs. Inversely, increased travel volumes on the major roadway encourage changes in land use. Interstate 84 Corridor Study Final Report -Page 56 CERTIFICATE OF CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN I, the undersigned, do hereby certify: I. That I am the duly appointed and elected Clerk of the City of Meridian, a duly incorporated City operating under the laws of the State of Idaho, with its principal office at 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho. 2. That as the City Clerk of this City, I am the custodian of its records and minutes and do hereby certify that on the day of , 2003, the following action has been taken and authorized. 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 may be 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 herein. A copy of this Resolution and the attached Community Planning Association of CERTIFICATE OF CLERK PAGE 1 OF 2 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. William G. Berg, Jr. STATE OF IDAHO, ss: County of Ada. ) On this day of , 2003, before me, a Notary Public, appeared WILLIAM G. BERG. JR., known or identified to me, respectively, to be the City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho, that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. SEAL) Notary Public for Idaho Commission Expires: Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360 4\Resolutions City Hall\2003\CERT of CLK for acceptance of the Community Ping Assoc ReportNo. 1- 2002 05 13 03.doc CERTIFICATE OF CLERK PAGE 2 OF 2