THRU-THE-VALLEY ALTERNATIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY ...

Prepared by ODOT District 8 Office of Roadway Engineering

Technical Concepts July 8, 2020

THRU-THE-VALLEY

ALTERNATIVE FEASIBILITY

STUDY REPORT

IR 75 Split Looking South

SR 126 (Cross County Highway)

THRU-THE-VALLEY ALTERNATIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

2

Executive Summary

While evaluating the construction challenges and costs with the Thru The Valley (TTV), Phase 6, PID 88133, the Ohio Department of Transportation District 8 Office (ODOT-D8) identified a need to re-examine the outstanding unfunded TTV phases for potential improvements in the project delivery, long-term maintenance and costs. The ODOT District 8 staff, with the help of the ODOT Office of Roadway Engineering developed several new concepts that would provide equal or better connectivity to the current approved TTV Alternatives while still meeting the project purpose and need.

Currently Phase 1&2 (PID 82288) is under construction through 2021 north of the IR 75 Split. Phase 8 (PID 76256) that connects Phases 1&2 to the IR 275 outer belt is fully funded with final plans in and is scheduled to sell September 2020. Of the southern phases of the project namely Phases 3 thru 6, only Phase 3, at the southernmost end of the corridor at SR 126 is funded and is scheduled to sell July, 2023. The other three remaining phases, namely Phases 4 thru 6, are unfunded as of the preparation of this report. ODOT is scheduled to have final plans within a year for Phases 4, PID 88129, (Railroad Bridge) and Phase 5, PID 88132, (IR 75 SB Split). The last remaining phase is Phase 6, PID 88133, (IR 75 NB Split) is in negotiations on a $1.6M modification for detailed design.

This study will provide an overview of the current Phase 3 thru Phase 6 phases as they are currently designed as the base comparison for the rest of the studies. Each comparison will look at cost, right-of-way impacts, environmental impacts, risks, schedule and operational impacts.

The conceptual alternatives below were evaluated based on the ability to meet the project goals and while saving project costs.

• HAM-75 Phase 6: Current Design from 2008 Preferred Alternative Verification Report (PAVR) modified with 2019 Structure Type Study (STS) on northbound split.

• New Alternative 1: Four lanes north and south with barrier median in the southbound split of IR 75.

• New Alternative 1A: Four lanes north and south with barrier median in the southbound split of IR 75 with partial split diamond interchange at Lock Street and Wyoming Ave. (NB only).

• New Alternative 2: Single express lane northbound along the southbound IR 75 split while rehabilitating the existing three lane northbound split section.

• New Alternative 3: Current Design from 2008 PAVR modified with 2019 STS on northbound split with the Mill Creek relocated to the east of IR 75

All of the new alternatives save significant project construction costs with Alternative 2 providing the greatest initial saving of $108 million. Even though Alternative 2 had the greatest savings, Alternative 1 and its sub-alternatives A and B are recommended by ODOT for further study as these concepts are anticipated to save between $79 to $88 million in construction and right-of-way costs while unifying the interstate into a single north/south corridor. Sub-alternative 1A also provides a previously locally desired better connection to the Lockland business district with a new partial diamond interchange. A


3

primary advantage of Alternative 1 and its sub-alternatives is the continued use of northbound IR 75 split remaining in place during construction. The entire northbound and southbound sections of the interstate in these alternatives can be constructed offline which reduces cost, improves construction safety and efficiency. The currently designed Phase 5 and Phase 6 have a combined planned construction duration of approximately nine years . Alternative 1 has an anticipated construction duration of five years, which will save the commuters four years of user costs, and traffic impacts.

Summary of Benefits of Alternative 1:

• Reduces corridor construction costs by $88.4 million. ($68.8 million including design fees)

• Reduces Right-Of-Way impacts by 42 relocation properties and 17 sliver takes. Since the community demographics are similar along both splits of the corridor, the Environmental Justice impacts will be reduced as well with Alternative 1.

• Road user costs will be reduced with the reduction of the MOT durations by 4 years relative to current Phases 5 and 6 timelines.

• Unification of the IR 75 corridor.

• Providing previously locally desired ramp community connection. (Sub-alternate 1A)

• Simpler construction with most of the construction being able to be done offline from the traffic flow.


4

Table of Contents

Page 02 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Page 04 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 07 LIST OF EXHIBITS

Page 07 LIST OF APPENDICES

Page 08 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Page 08 …………..Introduction

Page 08 …………..Purpose and Need Summary

Page 08 …………..Project History

Page 09 …………..Phase 3 – 6 Study Area

Page 10 …………..Summary of Previous Reports

Page 10 …………..Community & Environmental Characteristics

Page 11 CURRENT BUILD (PHASE 3 THRU 6)

Page 12 …………..Phase 3, HAM-75-10.10, PID 88124




Page 16 …………..Combined Impacts of Phases 3 through 6

Page 17 NEW ALTERNATIVES

Page 17 …………..Conceptual Alternative 1

Page 17 …………..………….Concept Overview

Page 17 …………..………….Roadway Discussion

Page 18 …………..………….Structural Discussion

Page 19 …………..………….Maintenance of Traffic

Page 19 …………..………….Right-0f-Way Impacts

Page 19 …………..………….Utility/Railroad Issues

Page 19 …………..………….Risks

Page 20 …………..………….Benefits


5

Page 20 …………..………….Operational Impacts

Page 20 …………..………….Environmental Impacts

Page 21 …………..………….Schedule

Page 22 …………..………….Costs

Page 22 …………..………….Combined Impacts of Phases 3 Through Phase 6 Including Alt. 1

Page 23 …………..Conceptual Alternative 1A







Page 25 …………..………….Risks





Page 27 …………..………….Costs








Page 28 …………..………….Risks





6


Page 30 …………..………….Costs








Page 32 …………..………….Risks





Page 33 …………..………….Costs

Page 34 Design Costs

Page 34 Alternative Comparison Matrix

Page 35 Recommendation

Page 35 Next Steps


7

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1 KMZ files

Exhibit 2 Alternative 1 with Aerial

Exhibit 3 Estimate Alternative 1

Exhibit 4 Alternative 1A with Aerial

Exhibit 5 Estimate Alternative 1A

Exhibit 6 2004 CAS

Exhibit 7 TTV Alt 1, 4-Thru Lanes ROW Impacts

Exhibit 8 TTV Alt 1A, 4-Thru Lane ROW Impacts Including Tight Diamond Impacts

Exhibit 9 TTV Alt 2, Single Express Thru Lane NB

Exhibit 10 TTV Alt 2, Double Express Lane Layout - North

Exhibit 11 TTV Alt 2, Double Express Lane Layout - South

Exhibit 12 Alt 2 Single Lane Express Estimate

Exhibit 13 TTV Phase 6, Alignment with ROW Impacts North Section

Exhibit 14 Alt 3 with ROW Impacts

Exhibit 15 Alt 3 Relocation of the Mill Creek Estimate

List of Appendices

(Bound Document

Appendix 1 TTV 2008 PAVR Aerial Diagrams

Appendix 2 Phase 3 88124 Tracing Plan 11-19-19

Appendix 3 Phase 4 88129 Stage 3 Plan 4-24-19

Appendix 4 Phase 5 88132 HAM-75-1087 Stage 3 Submittal 3-20-2020

Appendix 5 Phase 6 88133 Stage 112-18-14

Appendix 6 Phase 6 HAM-75-1192R Type Study Changes Northern Bridges shown in Stage 1(03-2019) Rev 1


8

Project Background

Introduction The purpose of this Performance Based Practical Design Conceptual Analysis is to develop planning level horizontal and vertical alignments on concepts that were developed by the ODOT-D8 staff for the evaluation of property and environmental impacts while assessing any potential cost saving. This report is based on information provided by District 8 staff, the Office of Roadway Engineering previous reports.

Purpose and Need Summary The purpose of the project is to improve traffic flow and increase traffic safety along I-75from Paddock Road to I-275 and enhance the regional transportation network. Detailed studies identified poor existing physical conditions, substandard design features, high accident rates, and pervasive congestion within the project limits. The Purpose and Need was circulated to agencies within the Conceptual Alternatives Study (CAS) and Assessment of Feasible Alternatives Study (AFA). It was made available to the public through the project website and public meetings.

PROJECT HISTORY (From Conceptual Alternatives Study 2005) This project falls within an area of Interstate (I) 75, which is part of a broader transportation study of an 85-mile stretch of I-75 from northern Kentucky to Piqua, Ohio. This study was titled the “North South Transportation Initiative” (NSTI) and was completed in 2003. In 2000, members of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) and the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission sponsored the NSTI study in order to analyze the I-75 multimodal transportation system. This initiative formed an agreement between the two regions to improve the safety, efficiency and reliability of the transportation system. The underlying task of the NSTI study was to determine the issues in the corridor, provide goals for the study, and create a list of project solutions. Several public involvement techniques were employed to provide a forum to gather input and comments regarding the issues and concerns of the multimodal transportation system. The public involvement activities solicited input from stakeholders including state representatives; county, city, village and township officials; other agencies and groups who have an interest in the multimodal transportation system; and the general public. Issues collected from the public involvement activities included infrastructure conditions, congestion, land use and the environment, existing resources, need form alternatives, and safety. Five goals for the NSTI study were then created to address these concerns.

• Goal #1 - Promote a balance between sustaining the operational condition of the existing system and maximizing its safety, efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

• Goal #2 – Cooperatively address transportation system design, safety, congestion and mobility problems that affect both local residents and through travelers, including trucks.

• Goal #3 – Support opportunities for economic development through transportation system improvement projects that incorporate sustainable design and funding options and that promote a balanced approach to keeping people and the economy moving.

• Goal #4 – Maintain and improve community-wide/regional quality of life with respect to the natural and built environments by fostering supportable investments that are sensitive to community preservation and equity.

• Goal #5 – Reach consensus on a preferred program of projects that support a shared future vision for both the Cincinnati and Dayton regions respectively over the intermediate and longer term(s).


9

Analysis was conducted on travel demand models, cost estimates, benefit-cost analysis and environmental concerns of the region, while the Initiative also considered a variety of multimodal alternatives. A preferred program of projects was created from this analysis and public input. The preferred program of projects was divided into three classifications: Corridor Capacity Alternatives, System Modification Alternatives, and Access Modification Alternatives. Several of these projects are directly related to the I-75 corridor study area, and are highlighted below: • Corridor Capacity - Four-Lane Continuity with Auxiliary Lanes – This alternative would provide four-lane continuity on the mainline of I-75 throughout Hamilton County. If future capacity warrants, an auxiliary lane may also be added. This alternative applies throughout the study area. This project now appears on OKI’s 2030 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as project #639. • System Modification - Lockland & Lincoln Heights Project – This alternative recommended improvements to the Mangham Drive Ramps, the Shepherd Lane Interchange, the Davis Street Interchange and the Cooper Avenue Ramps. The project was adopted as the number two priority interchange in the region and appears in OKI’s TIP, project #637. While preliminary concepts were presented during the initiative, a preferred design was not specified and further study is required. • Access Modifications – The evaluation of access points on the interstate mainline was the final component of the Initiative. Future funding for many of the access modification projects was identified through OKI’s transportation planning process, including Paddock Road Interchange, Sharon Road Interchange, I-275 Interchange, Glendale-Milford Interchange, and SR 126 (Ronald Reagan Highway).

PHASE 3 – 6 STUDY AREA This concept study area is within the current the Thru-the Valley project limits which extends from the northern terminus of the Mill Creek Expressway HAM-75-7.85, PID: 77889 to a little south of the IR-275 interchange. These new concepts will involve Phases 3 thru 6 which starts at the southern terminus of afore mentioned Mill Creek Expressway to Shepherd Lane that is currently under construction under Phase 1&2 contract, PID 82288.

Based upon the results of the NSTI study summarized above, the ODOT District 8 Office initiated this project. Improvements to the existing I-75 facility are included as a project in the Governor of Ohio’s “Job and Progress Plan,” listed as a Tier I project by the Transportation Review Advisory Council and listed in ACCESS OHIO, the State’s 30-year statewide transportation plan. These roadways were selected as project limits because they are adjacent overlap areas of the IR-75 Split. The entire TTV project area is comprised of portions of the communities of Arlington Heights, Lockland, and Reading. The communities of Woodlawn and Wyoming are located outside of the project area but are still viewed as having a significant impact on the project area traffic. The predominant land uses in the study area include industrial, residential, commercial, and institutional areas. The southern portion of the study area from Seymour Avenue to the Village of Lincoln Heights is occupied by residential dwellings and interspersed with a small number of institutional and industrial complexes. East of I-75 and north from Smalley Avenue to I-275, the area is predominately industrial with some pockets of commercial and residential areas intermixed. West of I-75 and north of Lincoln Heights, the study area becomes a mix of industrial, commercial and institutional land uses with some small areas of residential land use.


10

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS REPORTS Leading up to this Performance Based Practical Design report, six other reports have been completed previously for this project before the Environmental Document was approved March 29, 2011.

1. The first report completed was the Existing and Future Conditions Report. This report was prepared in Step 2 of the PDP and was approved by ODOT on July 30, 2004.

2. The second report completed was the Draft Purpose and Need Statement. This report was prepared in Step 2 and was approved by ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration on August 27, 2004. The Red Flag Summary was also completed in Step 2, and it was approved by ODOT on August 27, 2004.

3. Thirdly, the Planning Study Report was prepared in Step 4, and it was approved by ODOT on November 8, 2004.

4. Fourthly, the Conceptual Alternative Study report was prepared in 2005 and approved by ODOT 5. Fifthly, the Assessment of Feasible Alternative was submitted November 1, 2006 and approved

January 7, 2008 6. Sixth the Preferred Alternative Verification Report (PAVR) was submitted June 13, 2008 and was

approved March 18, 2010 (See Appendix 6)

COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS. (From 2004 CAS) The population of the study area has slowly decreased over the past ten years. Excluding a small portion of Cincinnati that underwent some growth, the average population decline was 9.6 percent throughout the study area. This rate is well below the national average population increase of 13.2 percent. Unemployment data for the area tend to be lower than the national average of 4.0 percent given in the 2000 Census data, except for Lockland (5.7 percent) and Lincoln Heights (4.5 percent). There are many large-scale employers in the project area. The largest companies are located in Evendale and Reading. According to the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, there are over 14 companies close to the project area that employ more than 100 people and have annual sales in excess of 10 million dollars. Of the 12 census tracts in the project area, six have high minority populations. The national median household income according to the 2000 Census data is reported at $42,148 annually and the national poverty rate is 11.3 percent. All census tracts except those in Evendale, Glendale, and Sharonville were below the national median income value. Lockland, Lincoln Heights and parts of Northern Cincinnati illustrate that the higher instance of zero car households, is directly linked to the low-level income rates for these areas. Throughout the project area, driving alone is the dominant mode of traveling to work. (Note: additional analysis on disadvantaged populations was performed for this report in the Current Studies & Analyses Section.) Existing databases and mapping were reviewed for cultural resources, ecological resources, hazardous materials, noise and air quality, and Section 4(f) sites within the project area (see Appendix 6). The literature review identified previously inventoried cultural resources, including buildings (individual and thematic groupings), two cemeteries, three archaeological sites, the Cincinnati Gas Street Lamps Multiple Resource Area, and one bridge. Several of these resources have been determined for or recommended as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Although the project is located in a very urbanized environment, ecological resources can still be impacted, including existing parks, ponds, floodplain, and wetlands. There is also the potential for impacts to threatened and endangered species—most notably the Indiana bat. A review of available databases identified 16 recorded hazardous material sites. Preliminary investigations for noise indicated that there are noise sensitive land uses present in the study area. The preliminary review conducted for air quality issues indicated that Hamilton County is in non-attainment for ozone (one-hour and eight hour), and a quantitative carbon monoxide analysis may be required. Pertaining to Section 4(f)), the literature reviews identified several historic and potentially historic properties as well as public parks and recreation areas within the project area. These properties would need to be considered for Section 4(f) impacts. (Note: additional environmental studies were conducted in Step 5, and the summaries are provided in the Current Studies & Analyses Section of this report.)


11

Current Build (Phases 3 thru 6)

As part of the 2008 PAVR, the southbound and northbound sections directions are having a single 4th lane added in each direction. The new forth lanes follow the existing mainline alignment and is relatively straight forward. The more complicated aspects are the ramp connections as part of the project goals that are to remove high speed exist ramps, partial interchanges while providing better connections between IR 75 and SR 126 (Ronald Reagan Cross Co. Hwy.) This section is going to describe the existing connections of each phase and then combine the effects and obligations the Department will need to accommodate in order to finish the IR 75 Split area of the TTV Projects. (See Exhibit 1 for the KMZ files of all of the currently planned TTV Phases)

Interchange if IR 75 and SR 126 (Ronald Reagan Cross County Highway) looking north towards the IR 75 Split


12

PHASE 3, HAM-75-10.10, PID 88124

Description: Add fourth lane in each direction, add auxiliary lanes from bridge at 10.10 (over Mill creek) to SR126, reconstruct left hand exit from northbound IR75 to Galbraith Road as a right-hand exit and improve ramps from: eastbound SR126 to southbound IR75, Galbraith Road to southbound IR75 and northbound IR75 to eastbound/westbound SR126. (Phase 3 TTV)

Funding Status – Fully funded in Right-of-Way and Construction. FY24 Sale. This project utilizes the existing alignments for most of the ramps, but this existing condition also has a high speed offramp from northbound IR 75 to Galbraith Road that is not preferred. The high speed offramp is being replaced with a braded ramp bridge that needs to cross IR 75 mainline and connect to Galbraith Road. This causes the northbound IR-75 ramp from SR-126 to be shifted over to the east closer to the Mill Creek in order to accommodate the needed area for the ramp. This project also installs a temporary structure HAM-75-1051C that will be utilized in the future which will allow northbound SR-126 traffic to go under the Galbraith Road northbound off ramp, Ramp P, in Phase 6. (See Exhibit 1 for KMZ files Appendix 2 for Phase 3 Final Plans)

Total Take Total Take Sliver Costs Residential Commercial Takes

Phase 3 Right-of-Way $0.06M 0 0 3 (PID 88124) Construction $38.0M Utility Relocation $8.4M Total $46.5M

Temporary Tunnel

High Skew Braded Ramp


13

PHASE 4, HAM-75-11.09, PID 88129

Description: Replace railroad bridge prior to widening SB IR75. Includes construction of substructure for future 3rd rail line and a portion of the final alignment of the exit ramp to Galbraith Road. (Phase 4 TTV)

Funding Status – Funded for Right-of-Way but not Construction. This project’s primary purpose is to replace the existing 100 plus year old Norfolk Southern railroad bridge in order to accommodate the additional lanes needed on southbound IR-75 and a collector distributor ramp, for the new off and on ramp at Millsdale Street. The Millsdale Street connector is replacing the geometrically deficient ramp to Cooper Ave that is currently located between Wyoming Ave and Lock Street. The lower portion of the CD Ramp at Galbraith Road and the ramp under and around the railroad bridge is only being constructed with this phase. (See Exhibit 1 for KMZ files and Appendix 3 for Phase 4 Stage 3 Plans)


Phase 4 Right-of-Way $1.25M 3+7 manufactured 0 16 homes (PID 88129) Construction $32.1M Utility Relocation $2.0M Total $35.4M


14

PHASE 5, HAM-75-12.60, PID 88132

Description: Add fourth lane, auxiliary lane from Shepherd entrance to Galbraith exit and construct C-D for Galbraith/Anthony Wayne (Phase 5 TTV) and southbound IR75 to westbound SR126 ramp. Work also involves work on 3 bridges.

Funding Status – Funded for Right-of-Way but not Construction. Besides the addition of the new forth southbound lane, this project removed the deficient on and off ramp to Cooper Avenue. A community connection is still desired and a new Millsdale Connector farther to the south is being

constructed along the collector-distributor ramp. This Millsdale Street ramp location is not the most desirable by the locals as the ramp connection has been moved to Lockland's most southern corporation line that is shared with the City of Cincinnati. The street characteristics of Millsdale Street is more residential than commercial with concerns from the residents that too much traffic will be forced to use their local streets. Once south of the Millsdale connection, the C-D ramp traffic is channeled south under the new railroad bridge that is constructed with Phase 4, PID 88129 and has a southern terminus at Galbraith Road. At that time,

drivers in the CD Ramp may turn onto Galbraith Road, or continue forward and have a choice of exiting onto southbound IR-75 or veer off to the right onto westbound SR 126 (Ronald Reagan Cross Co. Hwy.) This SR-126 ramp connection is a new direct connection that is being constructed with this project as the current condition requires drivers going on southbound IR 75 who want to get to westbound SR-126 will need to get off at Galbraith Road and travel east on Galbraith Ave. for 0.6 miles before they can turn onto the westbound SR-126 ramp. (See Exhibit 1 for KMZ files and Appendix 4 for Phase 5 Stage 3 Plans)

Total Take Total Take Sliver

Costs Residential Commercial Takes

Phase 5 Right-of-Way $2.5M 1 2 55 (PID 88132) Construction $49.2M Utility Relocation $2.5M Total $54.2M


15

PHASE 6, HAM-75-10.62, PID 88133

Description: Add fourth lane and auxiliary lane for northbound IR75 between Galbraith and Shepherd (Phase 6 TTV) and westbound SR126 to northbound IR75 ramp (part of Phase 7)

Funding Status – Partially funded for Right-of-Way, not funded for Duke Transmission relocations or Construction. In addition to this project adding a fourth lane in the northbound split, it also adds the much-needed westbound SR-126 connection to northbound IR-75 that has been lacking since the original construction of SR-126. The existing I-75 NB configuration provides a single off ramp to Davis Street in the Lockland area. Phase 6 of TTV will remove the Davis Avenue ramp without replacement. The Phase 6 project will provide full-depth pavement replacement, a forth lane addition to the west side of the route with all of the bridges being replaced. Several of the existing structures and one proposed new structure have non-redundant straddle bent piers. These structure types prohibit part width construction and hence will require the entire northbound split to be built while all traffic is being maintained on the completed Phase 5 pavement. The MOT construction duration for the Phase 6 work on the NB split is anticipated to be 5.5 to 6 years. Phase 6 has some significant challenges, primarily the proximity of Duke high tension electric transmission lines. The transmission lines cross the interstate twice, once over the existing mainline I-75 bridge and once over the mainline Mill Creek structure. Currently, both of these structures require complete replacement with the Phase 6 work. The new structures cannot be constructed while the overhead transmission lines are in place. Relocating the transmission lines a safe distance away from the bridges will require an estimated 9 new towers to be constructed in a new a 100’ wide zone of newly acquired R/W though an urban industrial and residential area. The tower relocations will require the purchase of the Mueller Roofing commercial property and all homes east of Central Avenue extending towards the interstate. It is anticipated that 24 plus properties will need to be purchased for the relocation of the towers. The transmission lines can only be deenergized once or twice a year in the off-peak load seasons. Relocation of the towers is estimated to require at least two years. The Right-Of-Way costs for the tower relocations is estimated to be $6.5 million. The Duke Transmission relocation costs are anticipated to be between $19 and $29 million, based on the current feedback from Duke Energy. (See Exhibit 1 for KMZ files and Appendix 5 for 2014 Stage 1 Plans and Appendix 6 for 2019 Structure Type Study that revised the northern structures.)


16

In addition to the significant impacts of the Duke Transmission lines, several construction hurdles lead to structure costs higher than a typical ODOT bridge replacement. The new Phase 6 structures include the construction of two very high skew structures over the Mill Creek and one very high skew bridge over the Norfolk Southern rail line. The span arrangement and structure type, in addition to the relative to the placement of cranes, the construction phase is anticipated to take six years.


Phase 6 Right-of-Way $15.0M 28 4 73 (PID 88133) Construction 137.5M Duke

Towers $29.0M R/W for Utility Relocation $6.5M 24 2 2 Total $188.0M Construction Duration: 6 years (Not including Duke transmission tower relocations) Combined Impacts of Phases 3 through Phase 6

Utilizing the Final Plans for Phase 3 PID 88124, (See Appendix 2), Stage 3 plan for Phase 4 PID 88129 (See Appendix 3), Stage 2 Plans from Phase 5, PID 88132, (See Appendix 4), and the Stage 1 plans with STS revisions to Phase 6, PID 88133, (See Appendix 6) the following data metric is quantified:


Phase 3 Right-of-Way $0.06M 0 0 3 (PID 88124) Construction $38.0M Utility Relocation $8.4M Phase 4 Right-of-Way $1.25M 3+7 manufactured 0 16 homes (PID 88129) Construction $32.1M Utility Relocation $2.0M Phase 5 Right-of-Way $2.5M 1 2 55 (PID 88132) Construction $49.2M Utility Relocation $2.5M Phase 6 Right-of-Way $15.0M 28 4 73 (PID 88133) Construction 137.5M

Duke Towers $29.0M R/W for Utility Relocation $6.5M 24 2 2 Total Phase 3-6 $324.0M 60 8 149

Current Anticipated Construction Schedules

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

Phase_3_88124

Phase_4_88129

Phase_5_88132

Phase_6_88133


17

The high cost to deliver the complete Thru the Valley project in conjunction to the significant R/W and utility impacts lead District 8 to begin re-examining the current projects. The goal of the re-evaluation was to streamline delivery of the TTV projects while reducing the overall project costs. Several new alternatives were evaluated with the help of the Office of Roadway Engineering. Preliminary design, performed by the Office of Roadway Engineering, was advanced to the level that each option is feasible from a roadway geometrics perspective. A discussion of each new alterative is provided in the following sections.

New Alternatives

Conceptual Alternative 1 – Unification of IR-75 on the Southbound Split Alignment. (See Exhibit 1 for KMZ files and Exhibit 2 for Alternative 1 with Aerial Mapping) Concept Overview: The Alternative 1 configuration will unify the NB split traffic adjacent to the existing SB split alignment. This new concept utilizes vacant land to the east along the current southbound split corridor and places all four new lanes of traffic adjacent to the current southbound IR 75 in a traditional non-separated interstate configuration. The ramp connectivity currently provided in Phase 6, PID 88133 will continued to be provided in this configuration. The ramp connections are namely, the WB 126 ramp to NB IR 75, NB IR 75 exist ramp to Galbraith Rd, and the NB onramp from Galbraith Rd to NB IR 75. All the same connections along the west side of the SB IR 75 centerline that are currently planned for the existing Phase 5 contract including the Collector Distributor ramp with the new connection to Millsdale Street will be constructed as planned. Phase 4, PID 88129, which is the Norfolk Southern railroad bridge replacement will be modified with additional spans.. Roadway Discussion: The alignment of the IR 75 mainline pavement is straight forward as it follows the existing southbound IR 75 alignment. The Office of Roadway Engineering helped the District in working out the alignment for this alternative. The new system to system westbound SR 126 ramp to northbound IR 75 will be able to utilize a slightly better curve radii than what was designed in the current Phase 6 PID 88133 contract that connected to the northbound IR 75 split. All the ramps and pavement west of the existing centerline of the southbound split will be on the same line, grade, and typical as previously designed in Phase 5, PID 88132, design contract.

Alternative 1

NB

7

5 O

ff R

am

p


18

Structural Discussion WB SR 126 over IR 75: The existing piers of existing WB SR 126 over IR 75 SB will conflict with the future adjacent NB IR 75 alignment. Therefore the existing WB SR 126 over IR 75 structure will need to be replaced on the existing grade and alignment. It is anticipated that this work would be done under part width construction utilizing traditional bridge design. Galbraith Rd. over IR 75: The existing profile of Galbraith Rd has a steep grade as it crests above the Norfolk Southern double track Class A rail line and gets close to ground elevation just east of IR 75. As such, the profile of Galbraith Rd. in the area of the interchange will need to be raised to provide the necessary clearance for the new northbound mainline interstate and for the westbound SR 126 to northbound IR 75 ramp. It is anticipated that part width construction and traditional bridge design would be utilized. WB SR 126 Ramp to NB IR 75 over the Mill Creek: This ramp bridge is probably the most challenging bridge associated with Alternative 1. The ramp will need to split off from mainline SR 126 well east of the current SR 126 over Mill Creek bridge and drop in elevation to be ready to be close to grade as the ramp goes around the Duke transmission tower and join up the mainline IR 75 profile by the time it reaches Galbraith Road. This structure will be a multi span high skew bridge that will be closely utilizing the same pier locations of the existing adjacent SR 126 mainline bridge over the Mill Creek. Once the structure is past the hydraulic influence of the Mill Creek over existing NB IR 75, the structure will be on fill. Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge over IR 75: (See the discussion below under Railroad) IR 75 over the West Fork of the Mill Creek. The existing bridge was replaced about 10 years ago with a single span steel plate girder bridge. The new adjacent structure will be of similar design. Lock Street over IR 75: The proposed structure at this location in Phase 5, PID 88132, is a single span composite box beam bridge. It is anticipated the additional northbound lanes will utilize a nearly identical box beam bridge span converting the previously designed single span box beam bridge into a two-span box beam bridge. Wyoming Ave over IR 75: The proposed structure at this location in Phase 5, PID 88132 is a single span composite concrete I beam bridge. It is anticipated the additional northbound lanes will utilize a nearly identical concrete beam bridge span converting the previously designed single span bridge into a two-span concrete I beam bridge.

Lock Street Bridge

West Fork Mill Creek Bridge

New Ramp Bridge

Wyoming Ave. Bridge


19

Maintenance of Traffic: Major MOT Phase 1: One of the substantial benefits of this concept is the ease of construction and maintenance of traffic by utilizing the existing northbound IR 75 split as a three-lane temporary runaround while the project is being build off line. While the northbound traffic is being maintained on the existing northbound split alignment, the entire new northbound alignment can be built offline from the interstate traffic which eases construction congestion and reduces construction duration. Major MOT Phase 2: Once the new northbound pavement is constructed, the southbound traffic can utilize this newly constructed pavement in a full four lane configuration. Once the southbound traffic is in construction limits of what will be a previously constructed Phase 3, PID 88124, the southbound traffic shift back over to its permanent position. While the southbound traffic is maintained on the previously constructed on the MOT Phase 1 northbound pavement, all of the southbound construction can be performed off-line as well. Right-of-Way Impacts: Additional impact with this alternative will now require the acquisition of the additional residential relocations between Galbraith Road on the Norfolk Southern Railroad lines which will require 12 residential relocations. Strip takes will be required from the old landfill brownfield area north of the railroad on the east side of IR 75. Four additional commercial properties will be needed now including the needed take of a Village of Lockland memorial park as a 4(f) impact. The anticipated relocation time for the above mentioned properties is anticipated to take 24 months. (See Exhibit 7 for RW impact map) Utility/Railroad Issues: Utility: It is anticipated that no Duke transmission lines will need to be relocated as the westbound SR 126 ramp to northbound IR 75 will be close to grade as the ramp passes by the Duke tower that is in the back of the McClusky Chevrolet dealership. 25’ of vertical clearance from the ramp pavement will need to be obtained from the Duke Transmission lines or this tower will need to be relocated for a cost of $3 million dollars for this single tower. Additional costs will be incured for adjacent towers with a two year relocation time frame. Railroad: One of the significant design features that needs to be overcome is the necessity of getting another two or three spans in the new railroad bridges that are being built under Phase 4, PID 88129. The West Fork branch of the Mill Creek and its new bridge will need to be pushed more to the east to allow the four lane mainline interstate and additional northbound ramps to pass from SR 126 and Galbraith Road. It is anticipated the mainline bridge will be nearly identical to the currently planned southbound structure while the two ramps will either share a structure or have there own separate structures. Risks: One environmental challenge with this Alternative is the relocation need for the West Fork branch of the Mill Creek The District currently views this as a moderate risk to the project relative to time. The open land east of the existing interstate is an old landfill area that will require a Rule 513 permit for any earth excavated. The risk level is moderate to costs as the area is known and has been investigated before on previous projects. Redesigning the Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge to accommodate the ramps and mainline places risk into the project time line as the railroad has been having a 9 month to 1 year turn around on providing review comments with phase 4. The railroad bridge construction can overlap the construction of this new alternative but will need to be completed within this alternative first year of construction under its current Phase 4 PID. All the above risks are more like challenges which are less than the existing challenges that need to be overcome with the currently programmed Phase 6, PID 88133 concept that has passed Stage 1 design. Geometrically, due to the assistance District 8 received from the Office of Roadway Engineering, the risks of the geometrics not working is very low.

Duke Tower


20

Benefits: The major benefit to this concept is that costs are significantly reduced while providing the same ramp connections as previously designed under the current TTV phases. Due to the vacant land along the east side of the southbound split of IR 75, the relocation Right-of-Way impacts utilizing this concept are reduced overall in the corridor. Since the northbound IR 75 traffic will be maintained on the current northbound split, the entire four lanes northbound along the southbound split can be constructed offline greatly improving construction efficiency. Once MOT Phase 1 is constructed, the current southbound traffic can be shifted over to the newly constructed 4-lane northbound pavement for the construction of the southbound MOT Phase 2.

Operational Impacts: Although not quantified, it is anticipated that this concept will have the same operational performance as the current Phase 3 through 6 northbound/southbound split design configuration.

Environmental Impacts:

Regulated Materials For Alternative 1, there is potential that we could impact landfills or at least be in the

300’ boundary that would require a Rule 513 Permit from OEPA. These require approximately 6 months to coordinate. There are 3 activities that require these types of permit; Geotech, Environmental, and Construction, therefore 3 permits obtained sequentially.

Alternative 1 impacts the former brownfield site that was the Owens Corning waste site and incinerator. Regulated Materials Investigations and Rule 513 Permits will be required for this site.

Cultural Resources

For Alternatives 1 there is a concern that the Stearns and Foster Office building could be impacted. This is listed on the Register as a Historic Landmark. We will likely have to coordinate any activities in the vicinity of this structure with the State Historic Preservation Office. It is currently used as a garden Center, but still retains its historic status.

Ecological Resources

All Phases and Alternatives have equal potential for ecological impacts regarding Indiana Bat. However, stream impacts for Phases and Alternatives that have work below the Ordinary High Water Mark will naturally have a greater potential for aquatic life impacts. It is not likely that any would contain an endangered species but could require extra coordination for mussel surveys.

4(f)

Alternatives 1 impacts Tangeman Park, a 4(f) resource, and could even remove it entirely. The park impact will be significant and could have such a negative impacts to cause removal of alternative consideration. The 4(f) coordination will be a critical path process in advancing these alternatives further. As such, coordination with Central Office and the Local Officials with Jurisdiction should occur early if these Alternatives are chosen. Individual 4(f) process could take 1 year with no promise allowing the project to continue. In consideration of these Alternatives from a 4(f) perspective, the burden of proof is that there is no other feasible and prudent alternative (cost is not a factor in the decision). Assistance to relocate the park may be an option to aid in the 4(f) impacts. Some of the costs associated with the park relocation may be aided by ODO. The park relocation assistance could be seen favorably, leading to an acceptable 4(f) mitigation.


21

Underserved Populations Underserved populations exist throughout the project corridor. Only one area presents an area of minor concern. That is the residential relocations on

Elliot Avenue associated with Alternative 1.

Noise Noise impacts will need to be reevaluated with all alternatives except for Alternative 3.

The reevaluation is largely needed because of changes in land use that is occurring in the area. This will happen during the reevaluation Phase. The time frame for this activity would be approximately 6 months. It is not anticipated that additional noise walls would be required.

Schedule:


22

Costs:


Alt. 1 Right-of-Way $7.5M 10 (23 relos.) 6 59 Construction $89.5M

Utility Relocation $0.4M Total $97.4M

Combined Impacts of Phases 3 through Phase 6 including Alt. 1

Utilizing the Final Plans for Phase 3 PID 88124, (See Appendix 2), Stage 3 plan for Phase 4 PID 88129 (See Appendix 3), Stage 2 Plans from Phase 5, PID 88132, (See Appendix 4), and the Stage 1 plans (See Appendix 5) with STS revisions to Phase 6, PID 88133, (See Appendix 6) the following data metric is quantified:


Alt. 1 Right-of-Way $7.5M 10 (23 relos.) 6 59* Construction $89.5M (See Exhibit 3)

Utility Relocation $0.4M NB Split Removal $8.2M Phase 3 Right-of-Way $0.06M 0 0 3 (PID 88124) Construction $32.0M (Reduced by 5.9M in overlap) Utility Relocation $8.4M Phase 4 Right-of-Way $1.25M 3+7 manufactured 0 16 homes (PID 88129) Construction $32.1M (Add. RR Bridge cost in Alt 1 Est.) Utility Relocation $2.0M Phase 5 Right-of-Way $2.5M 1 2 55 (PID 88132) Construction $49.2M Utility Relocation $2.5M Phase 6 Right-of-Way $0.0M Canceled (Canceled) Construction $0.0M

Duke Towers $0.0M R/W for Utility Relocation $0.0M Total Phase 3-6 with Alt.1 $235.6M 18 8 132 Previous Total for Phase 3-6 $324.0M 60 8 149 Total Saving or Increase $88.4M 42 0 17 (Red = reductions or savings) *Tangerman Park is a 4(f) resource that is receiving a partial take with this alternative similar but greater than the current Phase 5 impacts.


23

Conceptual Alternative 1A – Unification of IR-75 on the Southbound Split Alignment with a Half Split Tight Diamond at Lock Street and Wyoming Ave. (See Exhibit 1 for KMZ files and Exhibit 4 for Alternative 1A Alignment with Aerial) Concept Overview: This concept utilizes the same previously mentioned conceptual Alternative 1, except it adds a split half diamond at Lock Street and Wyoming Ave. During the Planning Phase of the TTV corridor back in 2008, the locals pushed strong for a full interchange in the general area of Wyoming Ave. This New Alternative 1A accommodates direct interstate connectivity to Lockland by providing a split half diamond from northbound IR 75 to Lock St. and Wyoming Ave. The current sharp right entrance and exit at Cooper Avenue on southbound IR 75 still requires removal under the current Phase 5, PID 88132 contract. The southbound connectivity in the Lockland will be accommodated with a collector-distributor roadway located farther south to Millsdale Street, and will also be incorporated in Conceptual Alternative 1 and well as 1A. Although it would be best to have a split tight diamond on both the northbound and southbound sides of the interstate, a southbound offramp at Wyoming Ave. may be possible and will be studied further by the ODOT Office of Roadway Engineering. Results will be ready before work on the AER is started and would be considered an Alt 1B. If a full split diamond interchange is not possible, a half split diamond on the northbound side of IR 75 and a relocated ramp at Millsdale Street can be considered a reasonable compromise. Roadway Issues: This concept is the same as the above mentioned conceptual Alternative 1 from SR 126 to Shepherd Lane. In addition, this concept will impact the existing local Williams Street and require a cul-de-sac. Due to the need of a better connection to the existing local street system, the Lock Street Bridge connection will be shifted a little farther north and connect to Dunn St. to help improve the local street network. Structural Issues WB SR 126 over IR 75: Same as Alt 1. Galbraith Rd. over IR 75: Same as Alt 1. WB SR 126 Ramp to NB IR 75 over the Mill Creek: Same as Alt 1.

Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge over IR 75: Same as Alt 1. IR 75 over the West Fork of the Mill Creek. Same as Alt 1. Lock Street over IR 75: The proposed structure at this location in Phase 5, PID 88132 is a single span composite box beam bridge. The new bridge will be placed on a reasonable skew to better connect to the existing street system and is anticipated to be a two-span conventional bridge. Shifting the alignment north on a skew also has the benefit of the bridge being built off-line from the local traffic.

Cooper Ave. Ramps That Gets Removed With Phase 5

Alternative 1A Split Diamond at Lock St. and Wyoming Ave.


24

Wyoming Ave over IR 75: The proposed structure at this location in Phase 5, PID 88132 is a single span composite concrete I beam bridge. It is anticipated the additional northbound lanes will utilize a nearly identical concrete beam bridge span converting the previously designed single span bridge into a two-span concrete I beam bridge.

Maintenance of Traffic: The Lock Street Bridge, northbound IR 75 on and off ramps to and from Lock Street and Wyoming Ave split connector will be able to be built offline. It is anticipated these connections would be built prior to work being performed on the Wyoming Ave structure and will help alleviate congestion while the Wyoming Avenue structure is replaced under detour or part with construction. These two bridges are anticipated to be replaced prior to the construction of mainline IR 75. The rest of the concept will be the same as Alt 1.

Cooper Ave. Ramps That Gets Removed With Phase 5 a


25

Right-of-Way Impacts: In addition to the additional needed properties mentioned in Alternative 1, three additional commercial properties and two residential properties will be needed with eight relocations. The total time expected for the right of way acquisition is anticipated at 24 months. (See Exhibit 7 for Alt 1 ROW impacts and Exhibit 8 for Alternative 1A additional ROW impacts) Utility/Railroad Issues: Utility: No significant utility issues are anticipated that are greater than the know utility issues in the currently designed Phase 5, PID 88132. Railroad: Same as Alt 1. Risks: This alternative will have the same risks mentioned in Alternative 1 but will require more right-of-way in the downtown district of Lockland. It is assumed the improved interstate access will be favorable enough to offset the impacts to the community. Part of these impacts are to parks. But if there is push back from the communities with the new ramps, Alternative 1A can be scaled back to the current Alternative 1 if needed. Benefits: All of the same cost and construction benefits apply to this alternative as mentioned in Alternative 1. The major significant benefit to Alternative 1A is that additional partial interchange will be provided in the Lockland area. When the corridor project was originally going through the Environmental process, there was a strong community support for better interchange access to IR 75. This alternative better reaches those communities desires while still saving overall corridor costs. Operational Impacts: It is anticipated that this concept will have the same overall operational performance as the current split design configuration that is in the current Phase 5 and Phase 6 plans except the northbound traffic from Wyoming will likely require ramp metering to negate the anticipated negative effects to mainline traffic volumes. The quantitative effects of the new ramp will need to be studied. Environmental Impacts:

Same as Alternative 1


26

Schedule:


27

Costs:


Alt. 1A Right-of-Way $9.0M 12 (31 relos) 9* 60 Construction 101.7M (See Exhibit 5)

Utility Relocation $0.4M NB Slit Removal $8.2M Phase 3 Right-of-Way $0.06M 0 0 3 (PID 88124) Construction $32.0M (Reduced by 5.9M in overlap) Utility Relocation $8.4M Phase 4 Right-of-Way $1.25M 3+7 manufactured 0 16 homes (PID 88129) Construction $32.1M (Add. RR Bridge cost in Alt 1A Est) Utility Relocation $2.0M Phase 5 Right-of-Way $2.5M 1 2 55 (PID 88132) Construction $44.6M (Reduced by 4.6M in overlap) Utility Relocation $2.5M Phase 6 Right-of-Way $0.0M Canceled (Canceled) Construction $0.0M

Duke Towers $0.0M R/W for Utility Relocation $0.0M Total Phase 3-6 with Alt.1 $244.7 18 8 132 Previous Total for Phase 3-6 $324.0 60 8 149 Total Saving or Increase $79.3M 42 0 17 (Red = reductions or savings) *Tangerman Park is a 4(f) resource that will be a total take with this Alt. 1A concept.

Conceptual Alternative 2 – Single Express Lane Along the Southbound Split with Full Pavement Replacement and Bridge Rehabilitation Along the Northbound Split. Concept Overview: This concept entails placing either a single or double express lane northbound next to the existing southbound split and rehabilitating the existing northbound pavement and structures to carry three lanes of traffic as the present configuration. (See Exhibit 9 for single lane express lane alignment and Exhibit 10 and 11 for the tie-in locations for the double express lane alignments) Roadway Issues: As the roadway alignments for the express lanes will follow the existing southbound split alignment, there are negligible roadway issue anticipated. Structural Issues: Rehabilitating the Existing Northbound Split Rehabilitating the existing structures on the existing northbound split only puts off the conflicts with the overhead Duke transmission lines for another 50 to 70 years. At that time, the existing structure steel systems will have to be replaced requiring large cranes and all of the structure utility conflict issues that are present in the current Phase 6, PID 88133, design would need to be overcome.


28

Express Lane(s) Along the Existing Southbound Split There are only four bridges that would need to be address for the express lane(s). The first structure would be the Norfolk Southern railroad bridge over IR 75. The two infilled abutments between the creek and IR 75 mainline would be replaced with a new single span segment. The mainline IR 75 bridge over the West Branch of the Mill Creek would be widened in kind while the Lock Street and Wyoming Avenue single span structures would become two span structures.

Maintenance of Traffic: In order to minimize congestion for when the existing northbound split structures are rehabilitated and the pavement is replaced, it is anticipated the express lanes would be constructed first. Once constructed, at least two thru lanes could be maintained on the express lanes allowing the rehabilitation of the northbound split to be accomplished in two construction phases.

Right-of-Way Impacts: The anticipated Right-Of-Way impacts with a single express lane is not anticipated to result in much more Right-Of-Way impacts than currently planned under the Phase 5 plans. The double express lanes are anticipated to impact the Right-Of-Way about half as much as the previously discussed Alternative 1 concept. Utility/Railroad Issues: Utility Issues: This alternative would avoid the need for the six or more of the Duke high tension transmission towers to be relocated as the existing long structure at the northern section of Phase 6, PID 88133 will only receive a rehabilitation which will not need cranes that will interfere with the transmission lines that are crossing back and forth over the structure. The land that the express lanes will utilize will mainly be on open land with the utility impact being almost equal to what is currently needed in the existing Phase 5, PID 88132 project. Railroad Issues: Rehabilitating the existing structure on the northbound split will have minimum railroad involvement and the necessity to accommodate a future third track line would not be needed at this time. To accommodate the express lanes through the existing proposed structure that is currently designed on Phase 4, PID 88129 would require replacing a small fill area between the abutments between the West Fork Mill Creek and the mainline IR 75 with a single span structure. Risks: The West Fork branch of the Mill Creek will possibly have to be relocated in the areas that are closest to the existing interstate which pose environmental challenges, but those challenges are a moderate risk to the project relative to time. The open land east of the existing interstate is an old landfill area that will require a Rule 513 permit for any earth excavated. The risk level is moderate to costs as the area is known and has been investigated before on previous projects. Redesigning the Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge to accommodate the express lanes places risk into the project time line as the railroad has been having a 9 month to 1 year turn around on providing review comments. The railroad bridge construction can overlap the construction of this new alternative as long as the railroad bridge is completed within six months of the start of the express lane project. All the above risks are considered to be less than the existing challenges that need to be overcome with the currently programmed Phase 6, PID 88133. TTV Phase 6 has progressed to Stage 1 design. With the splitting of the northbound traffic and merging back together introduces operational performance risks to approval of an addendum to the IMS.

Benefits:


29

This Alternative has the least initial cost to the corridor with a overall savings of $111M, but in 60 years when the northern bridge in the split needs replaced, the utility, high skew and logistics of constructing around transmission lines, the Mill Creek and the railroad will need an expensive resolution. Operational Impacts: Due to the splitting of the northbound traffic, it is anticipated that either a single or double express lane will not perform as well as the current IMS. As such, this option was not developed as far as the other Alternatives. It is also anticipated possible issues with how the express lanes will tie back into the existing northbound IR 75 lanes. Modeling will need to be run to evaluate how many drivers would utilize the express lanes verses the existing mainline northbound lanes to evaluate the effectiveness of this alternative. Environmental Impacts: (Similar Impacts to Alt 1/1A)

Regulated Materials:

For Alternative 1 and 1A, there is potential that we could impact landfills or at least be in the 300’ boundary that would require a Rule 513 Permit from OEPA. These require approximately 6 months to coordinate. There are 3 activities that require these types of permit; Geotech, Environmental, and Construction, therefore 3 permits obtained sequentially.

Alternative 1 and 1A impact the former brownfield site that was the Owens Corning waste site and incinerator. Regulated Materials Investigations and Rule 513 Permits will be required for this site.

For Alternate 2 it is unlikely we will impact Lockland landfill or Fosters Dump, but these are listed for informational purposes.

Cultural Resources:

For Alternatives 1 and 1A there is a concern that the Stearns and Foster Office building could be impacted. This is listed on the Register as a Historic Landmark. We will likely have to coordinate any activities in the vicinity of this structure with the State Historic Preservation Office. It is currently used as a garden Center, but still retains its historic status.

Ecological Resources:

All Phases and Alternatives have equal potential for ecological impacts regarding Indiana Bat. However, stream impacts for Phases and Alternatives that have work below the Ordinary High-Water Mark will naturally have a greater potential for aquatic life impacts. It is not likely that any would contain an endangered species but could require extra coordination for mussel surveys.

4(f):

Alternatives 1 and 1A both impact Tangeman Park, a 4(f) resource, and could even remove it entirely. 4(f) can be a show stopper and coordination with Central Office and the Local Officials with Jurisdiction should occur early if these Alternatives are chosen. Individual 4(f) process could take 1 year with no promise allowing the project to continue. The burden of proof is that there is no other feasible and prudent alternative (cost is not a factor in the decision). If the Local intends to relocate and improve the park, and ODO can assist in that, it could be seen more favorably. No guarantees with this though.

Underserved Populations:

Underserved populations exist throughout the project corridor. Only one area presents an area of minor concern. That is the residential relocations on

Elliot Avenue associated with Alternative 1.

Noise:


30

Noise impacts will need to be reevaluated with all alternatives with the exception of Alternative 3. The reevaluation is largely needed because of changes in land use that is occurring in the area. This will happen during the reevaluation Phase. The time frame for this activity would be approximately 6 months. It is not anticipated that additional noise walls would be required.

Schedule: The schedule is anticipated to be similar to the current construction phasing schedule of the current Phases 3 through 6.

Costs:

Total Take Total Take Sliver E.J. Duke Costs Residential Commercial Takes Takes Towers

Alt. 2 Right-of-Way 2.0M Construction 77.0M (See Exhibit 12)

Utility Relocation 0.5M Phase 3 Right-of-Way $0.06M 0 0 3 (PID 88124) Construction $38.0M Utility Relocation $8.4M Phase 4 Right-of-Way $1.25M 3+7 manufactured 0 16 homes (PID 88129) Construction $32.1M Utility Relocation $2.0M Phase 5 Right-of-Way $2.5M 1 2 55 (PID 88132) Construction $49.2M Utility Relocation $2.5 Phase 6 Right-of-Way $0.0M Canceled (Canceled) Construction $0.0M

Duke Towers $0.0M R/W for Utility Relocation $0.0M Total Phase 3-6 with Alt.2 $215.5M Previous Total for Phase 3-6 $324.0M Total Saving or Increase $108.5M (RW not fully developed with this Alternative) (Red = reductions or savings)

Alternative Concept #2 Construction Schedules

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

Phase_3_88124

Phase_4_88129

Phase_5_88132

Phase_6_88133


31

Conceptual Alternative 3 – Relocation of 1300’ of the Mill Creek at Wyoming Ave.

Concept Overview: Since the original northbound split of IR-75 was constructed, high-tension transmission towers were installed along the Mill Creek. At Wyoming Avenue, the Mill Creek crosses under IR 75 and back within a short distance. This weave in the Mill Creek caused the high-tension transmission lines to also cross directly over the existing and proposed Mill Creek bridges in Phase 6. The existing transmission lines are as high as they can go without requiring FAA beacons. In order to get the transmission lines out of the way about 20 plus homes and the Mueller Roofing Distributors property will need to be purchased. The proposed concept is to relocate about 1300 feet of the Mill Creek to just east of the interstate which would allow all the transmission towers to remain in place as is which eliminates the need to purchase the 20 homes that are on the east side of Central Avenue. The existing mill creek on the west side of the interstate embankment would be converted to an ox bowl lake and the existing historically eligible rainbow arch bridge that current spans the Mill Creek would remain as is and still function as a waterway structure. A new single span box beam bridge would be installed over the new Mill Creek on Wyoming Ave. The two proposed Phase 6 structures over the Mill Creek would not be constructed and substituted with fill and MSE walls. (See Exhibit 1 for KMZ files and Exhibit 12 for alignment with aerial) Roadway Issues: There are no roadway issues as this concept basically replaces bridges over streams and places the support for the road on fill. Structural Issues: This Alternative eliminates two structures over the Mill Creek which are the most difficult structures to construct in the proposed planned Phase 6, PID 88133, design. The hydraulic response of the Mill Creek includes a quick rise and fall of the water level during rain events. This type of hydraulic response prohibits cranes placement on causeways in the Mill Creek. Complicating the bridge construction is the high skew nature of the bridges which limit the placement of the cranes. Building 1300 feet of channel is significantly easier to build than these two IR 75 Mill Creek structure. Since the Mill Creek is being relocated, a single span composite box beam bridge is anticipated to span the new Mill Creek on Wyoming Ave.

Existing Transmission

Lines

Wy

om

ing

A

ve

.

Wyoming Street Bridge

Historically Eligible Wyoming St. Bridge


32

Maintenance of Traffic: For the construction of IR 75 northbound split, the traffic will still need to be maintained on the newly reconstruction southbound Phase 5 (PID 88132) split pavement, but the construction duration can be reduced from six years to five years. The new bridge on Wyoming over the new Mill Creek channel will be constructed in one season under part width construction. Right-of-Way Impacts: Commercial properties will need to be taken. As with the currently designed Phase 6 project, the Mueller Roofing Distributors will still need to be acquired. In addition, in order to allow space for the new Mill Creek, Protegis Fire & Safety, Bridge House Restaurant and Holthaus Plumbing will need to be purchased. The anticipated acquisition time for the commercial properties will be about 24 months. Moving the Mill Creek east and purchasing these businesses will save about 20 plus homes from being purchased for the relocation of the Duke transmission towers under the current Phase 6 contract. (See Exhibit 14) Relocation of the businesses is lest costly and takes less time than moving transmission towers. Utility/Railroad Issues: This concept is about avoidance of relocating the Duke transmission towers that follow the Mill Creek and crisscross back and forth over the interstate. The relocation of the Mill Creek will allow the two currently planned Mill Creek structures to not be built which results in the said transmission lines to remain in place. Risks: The realignment of 1300’ of the channel is a heavier lift on the environmental portion of the project. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision and a final Letter of Map Revision will need to be obtained from FEMA. Each review by FEMA will take between 6 to 9 months, with two reviews normally required before approval. Approval from FEMA is not guaranteed. The project will stay out of Reading’s Bridal District, but Protegis Fire & Safety, Bridge House Restaurant, and Holthaus Plumbing properties would need to be relocated along with several residence homes. Benefits: The existing high-tension transmission towers that are very problematic in the current Phase 6 project would allow to remain in place which will also have the additional benefit of all of the homes east of Central Avenue that would have been required to be relocated due to the new overhead transmission lines would be allowed to remain. In addition, the most difficult bridges to construct on the existing Phase 6 alignment are the two Mill Creek crossings due to the very high skew alignments and the very limited available space for the four cranes that will be needed to place each beam. Operational Impacts: The implementation of this concept has no operational impacts on the project and provides fewer interstate structures to maintain. Environmental Impacts:

Regulated Materials:

No additional RMR impacts

Cultural Resources: No additional Cultural Resource impacts

Bridge House Restaurant & Holthaus Plumbing


33

Ecological Resources: This alternative has a very high waterway permits impact. The length of impact to the

stream will likely require an individual 404 and 401 Permit and require mitigation from the resource agencies. Costs would likely be >$250 per linear foot of impact, depending on the quality of the stream. This estimate is for a low water quality stream.

4(f):

No Additional 4(f) impacts

Underserved Populations: Underserved populations exist throughout the project corridor.

Noise:

Noise impacts are not of concern with this alternative. Schedule: The schedule is anticipated to be similar to the current construction phasing schedule of the existing Phases 3 through 6 contracts except the phase 6 construction duration would be decreased by one year.

Costs:

Total Take Total Take Sliver E.J. Duke Costs Residential Commercial Takes Takes Towers

Alt. 3 Right-of-Way 19.0M 42 9 78 0 Construction 11.3M

Utility Relocation 0.0M

Total 30.3M (Reduction in Phase 6)

Mill Creek Bridge 1 -5.4M Mill Creek Bridge 2 -3.9M

MSE Wall Reductions -6.0M Right of Way for Duke -6.5M -24 2 -2 -7 Duke Transmission -29.0M

Total Reduction PH6 50.8M

Total 20.5M 18 7 76 7

(Red = reductions or savings)

Alternative Concept #3 Construction Schedules

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

Phase_3_88124

Phase_4_88129

Phase_5_88132

Phase_6_88133


34

Design Costs: The comparisons would not be complete without a discussion of past, present and future design costs to deliver the remainder of the Thru-The-Valley Corridor. Phase 1 thru 8 As planned:

Design Costs Spent to date (Encumbered): $16,780,725 Design Costs to Complete (Encumbered) $1,927,187

Alternative 1A: Design Costs to Prepare for Design Build Contract ( 2.5% of $101.7M) $2,543,000 Engineering as Part of Design Build Contract. (10% of $101.7M+$44.6M) $14,630,000 Engineering to Redesign Phase 4 (NS Rail Bridge) $2,200,000 Engineering to Redesign/Update Phase 3 $200,000

Total Design Cost to Deliver Alt 1A $19,573,000

Alternative Comparison Matrix:

Phase 3 thru 6 As planned * ◎ ◎ ● ◎ ◒ ◕ ◎ 324 0

Alt. 1

4-lanes north along SB IR 75 Split ● ● ◒ ● ◒ ◕ ◕ 236 88

Alt. 1A

Alt 1 with half split tight diamond. ● ● ◒ ◕ ● ◕ ● 245 79

Alt. 2

Single or double NB express lane along SB Split ◒ ◒ ◕ ● ◔ ◔ ◒ 216 108

Rehabilitate NB bridges and pavement NB Split

Alt. 3

Relocation Mill Creek east of IR 75 ◔ ◔ ◎ ◒ ◒ ◕ ◔ 303 20 Legend:

● – Good ◕ - Fair ◒ - Satisfactory ◔ - Unsatisfactory ◎ - Poor

* - Even though this option ranked the lowest in the alternatives in the comparison, the current base option meets

the projects Purpose and Need.

Pla

nn

ing

Le

ve

l C

ost

(I

n M

illi

on

s o

f D

oll

ars

No

t In

clu

din

g P

E)

Ma

inte

na

nce

O

f T

raff

ic

Co

nst

ruct

ab

ilit

y

En

vir

on

me

nta

l Im

pa

cts

Rig

ht-

of-

Wa

y

Inte

rch

an

ge

A

cce

ss

Ov

era

ll

Op

era

tio

na

l

Sa

vin

gs

Re

lati

ve

to

Ph

ase

3-6

(I

n M

illi

on

s o

f D

oll

ars

No

t In

clu

din

g P

E)


35

Recommendation:

Weighing all the factors of each alternative, it is the recommendation of ODOT that Alternative 1, four lanes north and south along the existing southbound IR 75 split alignment with the addition of sub-alternatives A and B of a half and full split tight diamond interchange respectively between Lock Street and Wyoming Avenue should move forward for further analysis.

Even though the studied Alternative 1 and 1A offer the second and third highest savings in construction and Right of Way costs between $79 and $88 million, Alternative 1 and its sub-alternative includes additional positives, including ease of construction, addition of an interchange for the Village of Lockland (Alt 1A), and potentially providing an operationally equal solution to mainline IR 75. All these factors raise these alternatives up to a level to move forward for further investigation. Once redesign costs of $19.6 million are applied to the $79 to 88 million in Construction and Right of Way saving, the total savings of Alternative 1 and 1A will be $60 and $72 million respectively.

Alternative 2, single or double express lanes along SB split alignment has the greatest cost saving initially, but only solves the issues with the overhead transmission lines temporally. Since there are better long-term options available that are not significantly more expensive. Weighing the costs relative to short- and long-term benefits, Alternative 2 is not in ODOT’s best long-term interests and is not recommended for further analysis.

Alternative 3, relocation of the Mill Creek and leaving the Duke transmission lines in place. This alternative provides the least amount of savings while having a significant risk to the project in the needed approval from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Mill Creek Conservancy District to relocate the Mill Creek in an urban area. This option is only valid if the currently planned Phase 6 contract moves forward. With the availability of better options and the relative low-cost savings provided with the additional risk of approval from external agencies, this alternative is not recommended for further study.

Next Steps:

The alternatives that have been selected will be analyzed in greater detail in an Alternative Evaluation Report (AER).

The purpose of this next study is to complete an AER to further evaluate Alternative 1 and its sub-alternative to enable ODOT to decide between proceeding with the currently planned Phases 4-6 or moving forward with an alternative concept. This study will focus on key activities needed to make this decision:

• Refinement of engineering analysis completed during the feasibility study to establish worst case construction limits at critical locations

• Completion of environmental studies that will be used for NEPA reevaluation of the TTV Environmental Assessment

• Completion of public involvement activities

• Completion of traffic analysis

Once we have a preferred alternative in the AER, the existing Phases 3 and 4 projects can be redesigned to accommodate the changes. There is currently a $1.6 million-dollar modification to the existing Phase 6 contract that can be reallocated for the redesign modification for Phases 3 and 4. A design consultant will be selected on ODOT’s Consultant Programmatic to develop the AER study with environmental, public involvement, construction limits and operational traffic analysis. At the end of the study, a decision will be made to continue with the previous designs, move forward with a traditional design detail build or move forward with a design build contract.

THRU-THE-VALLEY ALTERNATIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY ...

Documents