HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-405 Adopt Idaho Report No. 1-2002
RESOLUTION NO. 03- *5
BY: 7éÙn/nJ de we-l!h.:6
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 LC. § 50-
302] to establish resolutions not inconsistent with the laws of the state ofIdaho 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, cornmerce and industry; and
WHEREAS, the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho
contracted with Washington Infrastructure Services, Inc. to study the transportation needs along
the 1-84 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 §50-30l et seq., the Mayor and City Council
hereby accept the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report No. 1-2002, a
copy of said Cornmunity 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
PAGEIOF2
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.
.-? rd.-
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this .J - day
of c.I~ ,2003. -
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 3' reL
day of J (.v¡,J¿. , 2003. -
M:.~- :....
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE
COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION
REPORT NO. 1-2002
PAGE 2 OF 2
~
'"I...4C".md.o. .$t u d.y
, : Fln, å!liRè..p".O~rt. .. .... .
"If "" "" i, V '~'.. "'I'
"'.~".
.~
"... ""
~1
..
c .., ,.." ...~~~
," l' " . .Z~~i"" ..'
,Açló,st:d !?y,)O M PA:Y.S ":EJ~"rJ¡fb n qçtðl:Jir ~~!~,~ 001
"'"
Table of Contents
Chapter
Page
Executive Summary
a. Study Areas
b. Planning Process
c. Cooperative Effort with the Idaho Transportation
Department (ITD)
d. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
e. Roadway Needs Assessment
f. Financial Element
g. Actions by the COMPASS Board
1
1
1
2
5
5
5
6
1. Introduction
15
2. Corridor Planning Process
a. Land Use Plan
b. Transportation Planning Process
c. Public Review Process
19
20
20
20
23
24
25
3. Special Planning Elements
a. Analysis of Existing Interchanges
b. Arterial Cross Street Improvements
c. Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Black Cat
Road Interchange Alternatives
d. Five Mile Road Interchange
e. Ten Mile Road Interchange
f. Intelligent Transportation System Review
27
31
33
36
40
41
42
4. Transportation Demand Management Elements
a. Background
b. 1-84 Corridor TDM Elements
5. Roadway Needs Assessment
44
6. Recommendations for Further Study
53
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report
i
List of Exhibits
Exhibit Page
Exhibit I 1-84 Corridor Transportation Demand management Cost 3
Estimate
Exhibit 2 Transportation Demand Management Element - 4
Additional Services and Facilities
Exhibit 3 Roadway Needs Assessment - Project Description and 7
Cost
Exhibit 4 Roadway Needs Assessment - Committed Projects 9
Exhibit 5 Roadway Needs Assessment - 2010 Roadway Projects 10
Exhibit 6 Roadway Needs Assessment - 2015 Roadway Projects 11
Exhibit 7 Roadway Needs Assessment - 2020 Roadway Projects 12
Exhibit 8 Roadway Needs Assessment - Beyond 2020 Roadway 13
Projects
Exhibit 9 1-84 Corridor Funding Needs and District 3 Project 14
Available Interstate and Transportation Demand
management funding Through 2020
Exhibit 10 Study Area Map 17
Exhibit 11 Upgrade of Existing Interchanges - Summary of 24
Recommendations
Exhibit 12 Upgrade of Arterial Roadways - Summary of 26
Recommendations
Exhibit 13 Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Black Cat Road 28
Interchange Area
Exhibit 14 Robinson Road and McDermott Road Interchange 29
Analysis
Exhibit 15 Five Mile Road Interchange Analysis 31
Exhibit 16 Five Mile Road Interchange Area 32
Exhibit 17 2010 Interchange Priority Decision Variables 35
Exhibit 18 Ramp Meter Details at Key Interchanges 37
(1-84 Eastbound)
Exhibit 19 Prioritization of Ramp Metering Installations at Key 38
Interchanges (1-84 Eastbound)
Exhibit 20 Ramp Meter Details at Key Interchanges (1-84 39
Westbound)
Exhibit 21 Prioritization of Ramp Metering Installations at Key 39
Interchanges (1-84 Westbound)
Exhibit 22 1-84 Corridor TDM Needs Summary - 2004-2020 43
Exhibit 23 Existing Traffic Volumes 46
Exhibit 24 Daily Traffic Volume Forecast - 2010 47
[nterstate 84 CoITidor Study
Final Report
11
Exhibit
Exhibit 25
Exhibit 26
Exhibit 27
Exhibit 28
Daily Traffic Volume Forecast - 2015
Daily Traffic Volume Forecast - 2020
1-84 Project Priorities - Summarized by Cost and
Construction year
Emmett Highway Extension
Intmtate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report
¡ü
Page
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 1-84 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 1-84 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 lO-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-term needs; and
. Developed a financial plan to fund the anticipated system needs.
A secondary study area included the portion of the 1-84 Corridor east of the Wye Interchange.
The long-term needs in this area were determined in the "1-84, Orchard Interchange to Gowen
Interchange Concept Feasibility Study" completed by CH2M Hill Inc. The financial analysis of
the 1-84 Corridor Study included both study areas.
b. Planning Process
The COMPASS staff in cooperation with the Idaho Transportation Department (lID) 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 individnal members were often technical staff
(e.g. planning directors, city engineers, transportation planners, etc.) and elected officials who
represented several agen::ies. The COMPASS Board received monthly status reports and
periodic updates on the Study.
1-84 CorTidor 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 ofthe Study was presented for public review. Following this review, a
final Study was developed. The Study provides background infonnation 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 (TOM)
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-SOY modes by the year 2020. To meet this goal within the 1-84 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 (VIA Trans)
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 1-84 (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 ride,haring data.
].84 Corridor Study
Final Report
2
. Vanpool/carpool increase ftom 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 I
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 fteeway mainline, the potential for high occupancy vehicle (ROV) 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.
ExÞJbit 1:.1-84 Corridejr Transportatiq:l1"J);~mand Management ,.
Cost Estimate
'" ."'" " .
J)e~,~i~!~Q~ .. rtype ' . T':,~lfql)st I
Express Bus Service Capital $15,050,000
(43 new buses) O&M $90,200,000
Park and Ride Lot Capital & O&M $16,000,000
(18 new lots)
Commuter Vans Capital $ 1,200,000
(34 new vans) O&M $ 6,800,000
Marketing and Employer Operations $12,000,000
Programs
Transit Intelligent Capital $10,000,000
Transportation System
Total $151.250.000
Note: All cost estimates are in 2001 dollars.
* Includes employer-based TDM incentive programs such as those currently implemented by ACHD Commuteride.
2 Ibid.
1-84 Corridor Study
Final Report
3
~
...J
"
'0
iŸ
oð
~
m
(L
~
"5
0
C<:
'B
CD
'"
'"
E!
$
.i.
'0
m
g
~
8<
~.
..
Æ,
n
<'
.~6
Ii
;;~
f,
!~
~i
/
..
;..~
"""
" ,
Iñ (;-
5E
] §
8~
.. .~
:f~
~
e. Roadway Needs Assessment
The roadway needs assessment element of the Study was based upon the caMP ASS'
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 individnal 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 CUITent
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, 2001) to sponsor a local policy-makers workshop to develop a [mancial
plan for the needed transit and roadway projects in the 1-84 ColTidor.
1-84 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 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 VIA Trans, Treasure
Valley Legislators, and Idaho Transportation Department policy makers to a
workshop to develop afinancial 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 1-84 Corridor Study Findings
and Conclusions as presented. "
The roadway needs assessment includes several important policies that were de\eloped
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 minllnize the future roadway development costs and any
disruption to existing businesses along the major roadway corridors.
Commercial developments typically ftont 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
among 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 infonnation and discussions are included in later sections of this report.
[-84 Corridor Study
Executive Summary - Page 6
Exhibit 3: Roadway Needs Assessment
Project Description and Cost
Committed Projects (See Exhibit 4)
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
Project Cost I
$1,740,000
$260,000
$9,000,000
$225,000
$2,000,000
$10,000,000
$25,400,000
$15,000,000
$560,000
$64,185,000
2~IQ ;R~adw~yProjects (See Ex~¡i~~t$j
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 Irterchange
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 1-84 to
southbound Garrity Boulevard)
Total Cost of 2010 Roadway Projects
1-84 Corridor Study
Executive Summary - Page 7
ProjectCost
$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 ftom Garrity Boulevard to Ten Mile Road
Construct the Robinson Road/Star Road Interchmge
Widen the mainline to 8 lanes from Garrity Boulevard to Robinson Road
Reconstruct the Garrity Boulevard Interchange (replace the existing interchange
and widen Garrity Boulevard), and
Widen the mainline to 6 lanes ftom Nampa Boulevard to the Karcher Interchange
Total Cost of 2015 Roadway Projects
$12,200,000
$25,400,000
$4,800,000
$20,000,000
$2,400,000
$64,800,000
2020 Roadway Projects (See Exhib~t 7)
Widen the mainline to 8 lanes ftom Curtis Road to Broadway Avenue
Construct the Five Mile Road Interchange
Widen the mainline to 8 lanes ftom Eagle Road to Ten Mile Road, upgrade ramps
at Ten Mile Road
Widen the mainline to 6 lanes ftom Nampa Boulevard to Garrity Boulevard
Total Cost of 2020 Roadway Projects
$15,400,000
$N/A
$12,500,000
$27,400,000
$55,300,000
Total ()østofR,oadway Projects
[-84 Corridor Study
Executive Summary - Page 8
fi
.~
'"
....
...
...
'õ' ~
.. =
...;e¡
't: =
... :=
:t:"'-
'š -;
ë~
0 ..
U~
0
0-
!J,
;.,"
"Co.
~ t-
H
E §
00)
u V
" >
00."
..!. a
~
OJ
Co'"""~RJ
Interchange - Reconstruct (Add P and R Lots)
Interchange - New (AddP and R Lots)
1-84 ColTidor Study
Executive Summa')' - Page IO
1",,'"m.~Rd
Interchange - Reconstruct (Add P and R Lots)
Interchange - New (Add P and R Lots)
- Roadway Widening or HOV Lanes
1-84 Corrido, Study
Executive Summa')' - Page] ]
'"
'"
=
0:1
...¡
;;.-
0
==
..
0
IOIJ
=
'I:
'"
"0
~ ~
; [;'
~ ~
.. "0
'" 0:1
B ~
II
~
.¡;.W
.""
iÏi ~
.g g
§~
u
;J; .~
-'-'§
~
...
'C
Q:¡
-c
c
'"
~
..
'"
Q.;
'C
'C ..
-( 0
'-' ~
~ .5
... c
Z ~
I .-
~ ~
c ~
'" '"
.= ~
... 'C
~ '"
.... 0
.5 ~
~
,,!\t
-g¿:
ôõ¡:'
.§E
q
8'"
;¡; .~
-"5
~
~
'"
...
r::
'"
,..¡
;;..
0
=
II
Exhibit 9
1-84 Corridor Funding Needs and District 3 Project Available Interstate
and Transportation Demand Management Funding Through 2020
Needed:
$605 m
Projeçted
available:
$305 m
Unfunded:
$300 m
¡- $14", 1fT", Le",1
! ",",llo",,\
"~,
,"."""..",1
,"'i'ct,.,
r ~:~ ~,,;~~~~.~:~~¡¡,':~~;,~~::'" '~W-'"
-S10"'i'^" "",',:"'c;f'il,,,,¡'.,tc""L""'J',j
- ~ ;;:-:~;::~:~~~:~~~=:~~-
,"" ,," ¡"".""oo"
",,""'r"" pei"",
h.",*", ""','
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report - Page 14
1) Introduction
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report - Page 15
1)
Introduction
The 1998 Treasure Valley 1-84 Corridor Study identified potential solutions to the traffic
congestion anticipated in the next 20 years. That original Study (Phase I) identified a wide
range of Corridor improvements, leading to generalized conclusions about capacity needs on 1-
84 and the surrounding arterial system. At the conclusion of Phase I, 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 I effort integrated the efforts of the Idaho Transportation
Department (ITO), 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 deve loping 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 defmed the improvements needed to meet Level of Service standards for
the fi'eeway 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 1 of the Treasure Valley 1-84 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 fITst identified for the existing (1997)
and future (2020) no-build conditions. Various alternatives 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, system-wide
failure is expected along major east-west, and major north-south travel routes. A summary and
evaluation of the various transportation system alternatives is provided in the Technical
Appendix.
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report -Page 16
'^.~"
i"
¿;;:;
... '"
c ~
::1,,-
... ,
8 ::
~ ~
~ ~
ã~
~ ~
,\¡¡;;
..::
In the context of the Phase I Study, a wide range of CoITidor improvements were considered
and refined, leading to generalized conclusions about capacity needs on 1-84 and the
sUITounding arterial system. At the conclusion of that study, it was agreed that further study
was needed to more specifically defme a management program for 1-84 that would include
policy direction, prioritized operational and capital improvements, and a financial strategy to
address funding needs for improvements along the CoITidor.
The current study, titled "1-84 Corridor Study," builds on the analyses and conclusions reached
during the Phase I 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 1-84. Given that this phase of the study focuses specifically on 1-84,
this discussion also serves to document the study results ftom Phase I that identified the need
for improvements to the regional arterial system as well. One of the key conclusions from
Phase I 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 oflong-range
investment needed for 1-84. While this phase focuses on 1-84, it has been assumed that future
updates to the regional transportation plan will address needed improvements to the arterial
system.
2)
Objectives of the 1-84 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 I
1-84 CoITidor 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 tre transportation system needs for the 1-84 CoITidor from the WYE
Interchange in Boise (east terminus) to State Highway 44 (west tenrunus) 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 fman:;ial plan to fund the anticipated system needs
A secondary study area includes the portion ofI-84 CoITidor ftom the WYE Interchange east to
the Gowen Road Interchange. The long-term 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 Study
Final Report - Page J 8
2)
Corridor Planning Process
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report - Page 19
2) Corridor Planning Process
The procedures used in this phase of the 1-84 Corridor Study follow the standard regional
transportation planning process. In general, local land use plans are used to detennine the
number and location of vehicle trips. The roadway system detennines 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 govemments (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 detennine 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-tenn 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 tenned a "travel demand forecast model" replicates the land use and
transportation system components to detennine 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 tmvel 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 - Page 20
.
Treasure Valley Transportation Team (TVTT) Meetings. Monthly TVTT
meetings were held. The TVTT was a group ofrepresentatives 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-making process of the 1-84 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 1-84 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:
0 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 reconfinn the list of issues and identifY possible solutions.
The results were a public verification ofthe 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:
overwhehning support for the TDM programs, encouragement for more
through lanes on the 1-84 mainline, and recommendations for improving traffic
operations at several of the existing interchanges.
0 Second Open House Meeting - 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 1-84 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
Fino/Report -Poge2!
TDM programs that penalized drive-alone travel, and encouragement for
widening the 1-84 mainline to six lanes ¡Yom Meridian Road to Garrity
Boulevard. The public responses provided only mixed impressions on the
interchange locations at RobinsonlMcDermottIBlack Cat Road. In terms of
funding the needed Cmridor 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: I) 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 1-84 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 1-84 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 VIA Trans, Treasure
Valley Legislators, and Idaho Transportation Department policy makers to a
workshop to develop afinancial plan to aI/ow the timely implementation of both
transit and roadway improvements in the 1-84 Corridor Study. "
October 15, 2001 DRAFT COMPASS Board Minutes. "Martin Thorn moved
and Dennis Stegenga seconded to approve the Final 1-84 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 1-84
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 1-84
Corridor Study for use as a guide for making decisions on future improvements to
the Corridor. "
.
Individual Agency Briefings. COMPASS staff, with support ¡Yom the consulting
team, provided a number of briefings to the local jurisdictions providing an
overview of the planning process and detailed the DRAFT 1-84 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 1-
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 fteeway and interchange locations within the study area.
Exhibit 11 swnmarizes the operational and design improvements recommended in this phase.
Additional information is provided in the Technical Appendix.
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!
Highway 69
Construct a loop ramp in the northwest quadrant of the interchange to
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!
Can-Ada Road
Widen Garrity Boulevard to provide two southbound travel lanes for a
greater distance ifthe westbound off-ramp is to be used effectively, This
will require reconstructing the existing 1-84 bridge structures.
Conduct a signal warrant analysis at the southern ramp terminal
intersection.
Franklin Boulevard
(Nampa)
Nampa Boulevard!
Northside Boulevard
Replace southbound overpass structure.
None.
There is some operational opportunity for creating dual left turn lanes for
the westhound off-ramp's intersection with Nampa Boulevard. Additional
anal sis is re uired,
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report - Page 24
. Exhibit 11 contlnJled: Upgrade of ExistiJ;lg' Interchanges
SulJll!lary of Recommendal;iojIs, ... ..
... ....
Interehange Recommended Improvements . .
Franklin Road! . Complete the installation of traffic signals at both ramp teoninals.
US Highway20/26 . Constmct 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 turn lane in Franklin Road at the two ramp terminals,
This will require a new bridge structure over 1-84. Additional analysis is
required.
10th Avenue/ . There is some operational opportunity for creating dual left-turn lanes for
Illinois Avenue the two off-ramp intersections. Additional analysis is required. These
changes will not require a new bridge structure for 1-84.
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 teoninals to a minimum nf 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 teoninals.
State Highway 44/ . Increase the spacing between the two ramp terminals to a minimum of650
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 detennine 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 - Page 25
Exhibit 12 summarizes the recommended operational and design improvements to the arterial
roadways. Additional infonnation is provided in the technical appendix.
Exhibit 12: Upgrade of Arterial Roadways
. Sm;nmary of Recommendations
..' Interchange Recommended IDlProvements
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! . 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 tum lane. This will require reconstructing the
exiting bridge structures over 1-84.
. 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
1-84 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 1-84 bridge structures.
. Conduct a signal warrant analysis at both ramp terminal intersections.
Nampa Boulevard! . None.
Nnrthside Boulevard
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
(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 1-84.
10'" Avenue/ . None.
Illinois A venue
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report -Page 26
Exhibit 12. continued: Upgrade of Arterial Roadways
Swnmary of Recommendatjol1$
Interchange Recommended lnIproveme nts
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 of650 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, McDennott Road, and Black Cat Road. Previous work in the 1-
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:
. Detennine if any interchanges are needed in the Robinson Road, McDennott 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, McDennott Road, and Black Cat Road
Interchange locations.
i) Background
Phase 1 of the 1-84 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 1-84 Corridor: They are Black Cat Road, McDennott Road, and
Robinson Road. Black Cat Road and Robinson Road have bridge structures over 1-84. Both
are two-lane facilities without any ramp connections to 1-84. McDennott Road has no overpass
or ramp connections to 1-84.
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
FinalReport -Pagel7
/'~'",
i
..
...
~i
z
...
..
i 00 I-
e ~u~...
i
,. ,"~
ç;:.~¡;,~t3~
(þ./ION
PACIFIC
Exhibit 13: Robinson Road, McDermott Road and Black Cat Road
Interchange Area
~---------
',.-c:' "
G WashingtuG
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 commerciaVemployment center is planned between Robinson Road and
Garrity Boulevard on the north side of 1-84. The areas near McDermott Road and Black Cat
Road are anticipated to remain predominantly residential.
ü) 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 resultin higher traffic
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Finol Report - Page 28
volumes in the interchange area. The McDennott 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 McDennott 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 McDennott 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-mile interchange and supporting new
roadways will cost $35 million.
Exhibit 14 illustrates the decision criteria and data for the three interchange alternatives in the
Garrity Boulevard to Ten Mile Road area. Additional infonnation 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.
Èj):jiÞtt.14: . Robi*,/iOJl,l\qad. a!l4 McDermottR!!:1lI ::J~terchange Analysis
I)lSc\Ìs~¡ò~!'1~!!!eqt
Interchange Traffic
Volumes - Year 2020
Freeway Traffic Volumes 0
- Year 2020
Number of Freeway
Mainline Travel Lanes
- Year 2020
Number of Freeway
Mainline Travel Lanes -
Year 2020
11,000
03,600
93,800
0 92,200
0 93,000
6 (3 each direction)
8 (4 each direction)
between Robinson
and Garrity
6 (3 each direction)
8 (4 each direction)
between Robinson
and Garrity
0 6 (3 each direction)
0 6 (3 each direction)
0 6 (3 each direction)
. 6 (3 each direction)
Interstate 84 Corridar Study
Final Report - Page 29
E;.hibit14 continued: RQbinson Road and .McDermott Road Interchange Analysis
Robinson Road McDermott Roac;l .. Mic;l-Mile
DiscussiQn Element Interchll!Jge Interc.luml!e Interchange (1)
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 kgIyr . CO= 12,960 . CO = 13,000
. PMIO = 3,208 kglyr kglyr kglyr
. PMIO = 3,224 . PMIO = 3,200
kglyr kglyr
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 recommenled as part of the BenchlValley Transportation
Study in 1995. The BenchlValley 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.
""Jj' .;.
, EJ"*bJtl~:; :f~ve Mile RQad Inte~ }~íW';~¡tÏíJysis ...
~t~~t~;~re:me!l,t ;" ..,"... ';. WitI¡IJ!tèrchll¡tg( ijj',n'Without Interchange
Interchange Traffic Volumes . 41,000 in 2015 . None
. 55,000 in 2020
Freeway Traffic Volumes
Year 2020 (B/D Five Mile Road)
Number of Freeway Mainline
Travel Lanes (EID Five Mile
Road)
Impact on Arterial Roadway
System
Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel
Daily Vehicle Hours of Travel
Average Travel Speed (MPH)
Air Quality Emissions
.
161,000
.
12 (6 each direction)
.
Reduces congestion on
most arterial roadways.
Requires five lanes on
Five Mile Road.
Requires seven lanes on
Five Mile Road in
interchange area.
10,755,000
.
.
.
.
374,500
.
27.8
.
CO is 193,390 kgtyr
PMIO is 35640 kgtyr
.
[nterstate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report - Page 31
.
130,000
.
8 (4 each direction)
.
Reduces congestion on
most arterial roadways.
Requires five lanes on
Five Mile Road.
Requires five lanes on
Five Mile Road in
interchange area.
10,756,500
.
.
.
.
374,900
.
27.6
.
CO is 195,128 kgtyr
PMIO is,36,315 kglyr
.
~h,f4~P"
~~~jJ í J
~ ~ r'~ ~ ¿ -
~~ ~~ J Þ
Q, 1 I
lfJSJr;E ----J..
), -
) -\--¡ - I
-~ - _ì- :::T --;- J ~
L J "-
- I. ) c . '-!:tf=
\v1( ~ ì " ~ ~I ~I
Tr"...... ":8
-L lJ .- : -L fW!:. L 1 1.
{F-r L
~ ~) i~h \ \
( I"" ""'~ /~!A p- I
I? '^""' /- -"
¡ - .°" Ll I
J¿ 2Y,'-
~J) 1-"""';1 I
\ ¡..¿ / "."r-r--
1f7b1. c ~
f~~ ~ ""'"
n
__-1'--- --~ 1 1
-
;)
/;
Vi
J
r---
\ I
]""
W2
~ '"
~d:
§ ~
U ...
~ ~
"'"
~ -
- ~
~ .
~¡¡;
.:;
ii) Course of Action
The project team reviewed the original Bench/Valley 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 1-84 Corridor Plan
Assign the new interchange to 2020
The facility design and cost are to be determined at a later date
The fmal COMPASS Board action was:
June 18, 2001 COMPASS Board Minutes. "Dave Wynkoop moved and Roger
Simmons seconded to concur with the [,84 Corridor Study Stage I 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 f1I"St
new interchange in the 1-84 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 -Page33
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 1-84 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 Meetiog: "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 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 final determination on the first interchange to be constructed. Motion passed
unanimously. "
May 3, 2001 TVTT Meeting: "Recorifìrm the selection of Ten Mile Road as the first
interchange priority: Erv stated the TVTT has acted on this item subject to the results of
the revised decision variables. No further discussion needed.
In/ers/ate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report -Page 34
Exhibit 17: 2010 Interchange Priority Decision Variables
For the purpose of determining the next interchange
2010 - Middleton Ie
I Resw~ I A Air nali Trans ortation
Raok Scenario CO da PMIO k da VM VHD VHD for los>D VHT
Middleton IC 25617 I 502473 287
2010 - Robinson IC
Air nail Trans ortation
COkda PMIO k da VM VHD VHD for los>D VHT
25411 391 I 502 729 1898 37.961
2010 - Ten Mile IC
Trans ortation
VM VHD VHD for los>D VHT Use Cost Cost I vehicl
2123 606 38.107 $25.000.000
2010 - Ustick IC
Notes:
1. 184 is assumed to have:
4 lanes from Canyon County line to Vstick Rd;
6 lanes from Vstick Rd to Meridian Interchange;
8 lanes from Meridian Interchange to the Wye.
2. The 'Cosf column iodicates estimates ooly
3, This analysis u""d a composite area from Exit 29 to the Meridian IC. 1/2 mile north and south of 184.
4. The lane miles for + I - 10% change in traffic projections is not applicable to this analysis. since the methodology used is different from Phase I.
lnterstate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report -Page 35
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 detennine 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 developme nt and implementation of ITS technology in
the Treasure Valley. The original study included a wide range of topics, including traffic
surveillance, traffic control, driver infonnation, 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 1-84 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 fteeway 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 Ie 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 shonld 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 conld 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.
Total On-
Ramp ù!ngtb
Aviúl.(ft)***
us 20126 (Franklin Road) 725 to 600 1,500
Karcher Road 1,375 1,375 to 1,240 2.6 to 3.0 1,710 3,110 NA
Ganity Blvd.! Can-Ada Road 860 860 to 720 4.2 to 5.0 1,075 2,475 1,800
Ten Mile Road 850 850 to 600 4.2 to 6.0 2,125 3,525 NA
Meridian Road (SB to EB loop) 520 520 to 450 6.9 to 8.0 1,300 2,700 1,900
Meridian Road (NB to EB) 1,075 1,075 to 900 3.3 to 4.0 1,340 2,740 1,200
Eagle Road (SB to EB loop) 1,245 1,245 to 1,030 2.9 to 3.5 1,565 2,965 2,000
Eagle Road (NB to EB) 755 755 to 685 4.8 to 5.3 1,900 3,300 1,900
- The maximum qneue 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 fteeway traffic.
*** - On-ramp distances were calculated ITom aerial photographs and account for the total distance ITom the adjacent
arterial intersection to the ITeeway 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 storag;: 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
turn 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 1-84 are implemented. However, there may be
design deficiencies at US 20/26 (Franklin Road) since there are no plans to widen 1-84 in the
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
FinalReport -Page37
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 1-84 mainline at the interchange and retrofit the existing bridge structure. Aerial
photographs incfuate 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-turn lane). Use of
this turn 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.
. É~\)ft 19: Prioriti?;lIfujno(RJí!Dp MeteringIIi$~'tjijÌíhtI<:ey Inter~banges
. (!.,~4 Eastbou,,!I) .'. ,...',
I.'rpJo!Ct~ '..,". .
Pri&¡'¡¡Y , Ins,oII RalOP Meter at: .r~lOlO.nts: '..,'
I Meridian Road Ioterchange Implement when fi'eeway is widened tn six lanes ITom Meridian
(Both EB on-ramps) Road to Garrity Boulevard (within 5 years)
2 Ganity Boulevard! Can-Ada Road Implement with interchange improvements
Interchange (within 5 years)
3 Eagle Road Interchange Implement with interchange 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 (Frankiin Roed) Impiement with interchange improvements
Interchange (within 10 years)
6 Karcher Roed Interchange Impiement when fi'eeway is widened to six lanes ITom Ganity
Boulevard to Karcher Road (within 15 years)
ü) Westbound Direction
Projected peak hour travel demand in the westbound direction along 1-84 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 1-84 and perhaps 1-184 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
, ExÏlfbit lÓ: :a.!ûAp Meter Details at Key tnterch~nges
<. (1-84 Westbound) ....
, Qn-Ramp Meter M~.. Qneoe Total On- Total On-
Merer Loca!loò: Demand Meter ¡{ate Timing No. of Stòr~ge Ramp .Length, Ramp Length
(vph) (vph) (vehlsec) Lanes (rtIla4e)* Needed Availahle
" (rt)** Today (rt)***
Eagle Road 585 585 to 525 6.2 to 6.9 I 1,450 2,850 2,600
Meridian Road 530 530t0475 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 accO1IDt 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 snbject 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.
Implement with interchange
(within 10 years)
Implement when freeway is widened to six lanes! oew 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 1-84 and perhaps 1-184.
1-84 interchanges to be considered should include:
Cole/Overland Road
Orchard Street
Vista Avenue
Broadway Avenue
1-184 interchanges to be considered should include:
Franklin Road
Curtis Road
Fairview Avenue (downtown Boise)
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
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 (TOM) 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. TOM 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 (SOV s); "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 TOM efforts.
The TOM element of the 1-84 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-SOY modes by 2020. In
order to meet this goal within the 1-84 Corridor, COMPASS has emphasized the need to
prioritize implementation of effective TOM elements at the top of a long list of proposed
interstate improvements that comprise the 1-84 needs assessment. Travel demand analysis
conducted by COMPASS in coordination with VIATrans and Ada County Highway ~istrict
(ACHO) Commuteride staff revealed that a TOM program targeted to peak period commuter
trips within the most heavily traveled section ofI-84 (west of the WYE Interchange) could
contribute to the achievement of the 25% goal by increasing transit trips from the current level
of I %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 TOM elements that would target commuter trips in order to
meet the regional alternative mode share goal within the 1-84 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 I % to 5% and by increasing carpooling/ridesharing services to increase usage
from 10% to 12%.
TOM elements are discussed in the following sections according to these three categories
(passive, economic, and administrative). The following narrative provides both general
infonnation on TOM elements and, where applicable, infonnation on existing TOM programs
and measures that are being implemented in the Treasure Valley. The narrative concludes with
a list ofTDM elements that the TVTT recommended for incorporation into the 1-84 Capital
Improvement Plan.
3 According to 1990 Census information which provides the most current ridesharing data.
4 Ibid.
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report - Page 41
b)
1-84 Corridor TDM Elements
The 1-84 Corridor needs analysis indicates that over $605 million in improvements to the 1-84
Corridor are needed ftom 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 1-84 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 Boi;e 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 time" transit schedule and route capabilities.
Exhibit 22 (Page 43) provides a sununary of the TDM elements and conceptual estimates of
probable cost as identified through the 1-84 Corridor needs assessment.
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Fino/Report -Poge42
,
...
TD~~easÍlr.
...
ExDress Bu., Service
Capital (New buses
including spares)
Operations &
Maintenance (O&M)
Express Bus Sub Total
Park & Ride Lots
(Right-of-Way and I
Construction)
Commuteride Vanoool
Capital (New vans)
O&M
Vanpool Total
TDM Marketine & Other
Proemm,*
Transit ITS
~~jint~W\jç~~rè~~t
Note: All cost estima
. Includes employer
ExlIibit22: I~4 C:orridor TDM Needs Summary 2004 to 2020
2004'2010 2011-2015 2016.2020 2004-2020Totals
Item Est. Cost Item Est. Cqst Item Est. CoSt Itein Est. Cost
21 new $7,350,000 12 new $4,200,000 10 new $3,500,000 43 new $15,050,000
buses buses buses buses
(3 spares) (2 spares) (1 spare) (6 spares)
$25.200,000 $ 28,000,000 $37,000,000
$90,200.000
$32,550,000 $32,200,000 $40,500,000 $105,250,000
0 new lots $8,200,000 4 new lots $3,800,000 4 new lots $4,000,000 18 new lots $16,000,000
14 new $490,000 10 new vans $355,000 10 new vans $355,000 34 new vans $1,200,000
vans
$1,720,000 $2,100,000 $2,980,000 $6,800,000
$2,210,000 $2,455,000 $3,335,000 $8,000,000
$4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $12,000,000
$4,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $10,000,000
~5a!~~~90:Y: :
tes are in 2001 dollars.
-based TDM incentive programs such as those currently implemented hy ACHD Commuleride.
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
FinalReport -Page43
5)
Roadway Needs Assessment
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Final Report - 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 (VIe) 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 (VIe) 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
i'",
òõ:
'- '"
~~
ð 'ë
;¡; ~
~~
~ .S
~"-
.s
-6'
" "-
~.".
~ ~
"- "-
, ,
è 1:
'" C
"0 &
~ '"
§-¡;
~ .~
~"'
..:::
-6'
~'"
¿';"
.§ ~
"- 0.,
- ,
81::
" 0
'" "-
~<:!
JJõ
~~
..!:;
(I)
bJJ
C
OJ
..c
u
.....
(I)
.E
~
(I)
Z
"0
(I)
'"
0
0-
e
(:L.
,
u
bJJ
¡:;
~
"E
u
.š
.¡;-
~ '"
P;'>
~ ~
'~ 0.,
~ '
V '1:
'> 0
00 Ii}
,!;~
0 -
~ 0
~~
.:;
I
Exhibit 27: 1-84 Project Priorities
Summarized by Cost aud Construction Year
(Costs are in Ye,,2001 Dolla,,)
Gowen Roaò to
Browlway
"'AIHUIII(I
$5,400,000
"AIIII.111111
$6,500.000
'6,51111.111111
$3,500,000
$3,500,000
WiÒenfb 8 lanes.
>351111.111111
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Fino/Report -Page 50
Meridian Road!
Highway 69
-Meridian to TeoM;k',i
Ten Mile to RohinsOß
Rohinson Road
Rohil1ßOßtoGartity ,
$29,205,000
Gamty to. Fmnklin
$7,200,000
$20,000,000
$'8,800,000
$10,000,000
Fmnklin Bou]ev",d
Franklin to Nampa Blvd
$8,600,000
N""pa Blvd!
Northside Blvd
Nampa Blvd to Karcher
$2,400,060
P.ò¡""'ln<he
C",...tWo.k
-1Jt""....., ,
Widenoff.....pstoprovide
dual!anas.
Signalize south ramp inte",ecdon,
(Key No, H308)
. ,Gonsmuut:hooustGrove Overpass.
fl\W'Np;:8M8)
, ,"~;~$i...
, Signalize south mmp inte"'ection.
(Key No. 8242)
. Reconstruct interchange.
$21,000,000
$300,000
$260,000
$9,000,000
$225,000
~toi~'J!!!"S'
.cj; 'Wi,i¡""to8'lanes.
Construct interchange,
$22,200,000
$5,000,000
Improve east rnmps.
WUlento6lanas.
Construct interchange,
Reconstruct interchange.
. 'Widento6.lanas.
Replace existing southbound
bridge structure.
Widen to 6 lanes,
Widento6lanas,
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
FinalReport -Page 51
P'~iec"
N..ded"By
20:1,5'
$]2,200,000
$25,400,000
}2;4oo,000
$2,400,000
$20,000,000
$2,400,000
Proj""..
Needed By
2020
Projec"
Noed<riAfter
21120
TBD'"
TBD'3>
$5,500,000
$5,000,000
$2,000,000
$18.800,000
$8,600,000
,$!>5;J00,o00 , "";.,"""""
$45,4õ5,000 $54,835.000 I '.".1,"""""
$l!0,Z55,OOO $110,135,000 I" "'.11111."""
IOth",Y<",uetO
Cerit<:nniaI;Yt~).
MabwneSeg¡nent
prqjects
N"",d8y
Z015
I<>rchertOMidil1<tonc.\1
1;.IMid<lJeix>l1J°U8titk.;¡¡:
. ,Usticktol'lwyWl26
Hwy.zon6to !!Jth
Avenue
oCentermiaI'W,wtO
Highway20J26
HighW<iY 201261<'
Highw¡oy44.
I~:,~~j¡#
(orridor Total
Note"
I. Two of the four lanes ace needed for the merge, diverge, and weaving movemen" between the two
adjacent interchanges
ConstroetionTota.1 (To Yea' 20Z0)
2. Interchange planned beyond 2020,
TDMTotal.(To Year 2020)
~~pg¡i"",:r""k(fo:'Yéar.:¡Q20)
3. The scope, cost and design forthese projec" have not yet been detenn;oed
Interstate 84 Carridor Study
Final Report - Page 52
Projects
Needed By
.WZ )
$453,785,000
$151,Z50,000
$~05;035,OOO
Projeets
Ne_d AU.,
lOzjl
n6<l","0"
S2,."0".01"1
,,"ó,,".lIOn
"5.""n."",,
".211".11111'
<;1111.111111
""".111111
6) Recommendations for Further Study
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Fino/Report -?oge53
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
1c84 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 ofthese earlier altematives has assumed that only the
Meridian Road and Garrity Boulevard interchanges are available as a connection to 1-84.
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 ofa connection between State Highway 16 and 1-84. 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 1-84 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 1-84
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 - Page 54
Interstate 84 Corridor Study
Finol Report - Page 55
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
link 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
Fina/Report -Page 56
CERTIFICATE OF CLERK
OF
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify:
1. 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 ofIdaho, 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 Jk~ , 2003, the following action has been taken
and authorized,
ARESOLUTION 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 Lc. § 50-
302] to establish resolutions not inconsistent with the laws of the state ofIdaho 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, connnerce and industry; and
WHEREAS, the Cornmunity Planning Association of Southwest Idaho
contracted with Washington Infrastructure Services, Inc. to study the transportation needs along
the 1-84 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 Connnunity 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 §50-30l et seq., the Mayor and City Council
hereby accept the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Report No. 1-2002, a
copy of said Connnunity 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 I 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.
STATE OF IDAHO,
: ss:
County of Ada. )
On this Z day of ~
,2003, before me, ~V¡PNVl:Y\ S(YtÄ-th..
, 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)
..."..
_.~~_N.~~..
.~~:;:o 'fAJ?;:'~ee
."" .... , .
: I \ :
. I : .
~e\ /¡
e. ,'::::-!:UB!).':'~',þ..
. "'.if"-:'---'1Q~"
...~:,&1'...ee
~ 0Vl ~~~-bh.
Notary Public for Idaho
Residence: AdlìL(,oU11,! ~Iw
Commission Expires:. -1-,!;-O~
Z:IWork\M\MeridianlMeridian 15J60M\Resolutions City Hall\200JlCERT ofCLK for acceptanceofthe Community Ping Assoc Report No, 1-
2002 05 13 OJ.doc
CERTIFICATE OF CLERK
PAGE 2 OF 2