Public Involvement Summary Report - Mid

Transcription

P U B L I C I N V O LV E M E N T S U M M A RY R E P O R T
Table of Contents
1.0
2.0
APPROACH TO INVOLVING THE PUBLIC................................................ 1-1
1.1
THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN ..........................................................1-1
1.2
THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS..........................................................1-4
PUBLIC AND AGENCY INPUT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.............. 2-1
2.1
3.0
FOUR PHASES OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY INPUT ..................................2-1
2.1.1 Summary of Step One Public Involvement Activities ........................2-1
2.1.2 Summary of Step Two Public Involvement Activities ........................2-2
2.1.3 Summary of Step Three Public Involvement Activities .....................2-2
2.1.4 Summary of Step Four Public Involvement Activities .......................2-3
CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................... 3-1
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Excerpt from Project Website ................................................................1-3
Figure 1-2 Decision-Making Flowchart....................................................................1-5
Figure 2-1 Public Meeting, May 2006......................................................................2-3
Appendices
Appendix 1-A Steering Committee Membership; Steering Committee and Team
Meeting Summaries ....................................................................... 1A-1
Appendix 1-B Advisory Group Membership and Meeting Summaries ................. 1B-1
Appendix 1-C Public Meeting Summaries............................................................ 1C-1
Appendix 1-D Newsletters and Meeting Notices .................................................. 1D-1
Appendix 1-E News Releases and Representative Media Coverage .................. 1E-1
Appendix 1-F Correspondence .............................................................................1F-1
Appendix 2-A Study Goals ................................................................................... 2A-1
I-270/US 33 N O R T H W E S T F R E E W AY S T U DY
Page i
1.0
APPROACH TO INVOLVING THE PUBLIC
1.1
The Public Involvement Plan
Involving the public early and often is critical to helping a community understand
transportation projects so it can, in turn, provide meaningful input to help shape
the project. As outlined in Step One of ODOT’s project development process,
the I-270/US 33 Northwest Freeway Study team made an early commitment to
including stakeholders and responding to them throughout the process.
When the study was initiated in fall, 2003, a Public Involvement Plan was drafted.
Consistent with activities prescribed in ODOT’s Public Involvement Guide and
Guidance for Best Practices for Incorporating Environmental Justice into Ohio
Transportation and Environmental Processes, those who had a stake or interest
in the project were identified, as were mechanisms for involving them.
The goals and objectives of the Public Involvement Plan included working with
various public and governmental agency stakeholders to:
•
Identify study area problems, issues needs and goals;
•
Determine existing conditions in the study area;
•
Identify and evaluate possible alternatives or solutions;
•
Develop strategies to implement study recommendations; and
•
Forward germane concerns, which are not within the purview of this study
to the appropriate authority.
In order to meet the goals and objectives, an open, proactive public involvement
process was designed to solicit input from the community at large, stakeholder
groups and others who may be affected by and benefit from the study. The plan
included:
•
Project committees, which included:
o
A Steering Committee of the funding partners, including MidOhio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC), Ohio Department
of Transportation (ODOT), the cities of Columbus, Dublin and
Hilliard and Franklin and Union counties. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA)
also participated. The Steering Committee’s role was to provide
guidance to the project team on community priorities and issues of
concern, as well as to shape the study’s direction as it progressed.
The Steering Committee was also to serve as a liaison with their
own communities, communicating study progress and seeking
input from their elected officials and agency leadership, as
needed. In December 2004, the Steering Committee meetings
were supplanted by funding partner “team” meetings held
approximately once a month. (See Appendix 1-A for a list of
Page 1-1
Steering Committee/funding partner members and meeting
summaries.)
o
A community-based Advisory Group that included Steering
Committee members, other government agencies such as COTA,
business interests such as local chambers of commerce and
economic development directors, schools and neighborhood
groups like Kimberly Woods, Glenn Civic Association and
Sweetwater Homeowners. Low income and minority interests
were also represented. (See Appendix 1-B for a list of Advisory
Group members and summaries of the four Advisory Group
meetings.) The Advisory Group’s role was to advise the project
team on local concerns, opportunities and community priorities.
These meetings were open to all members of the public.
•
Updates to the MORPC Policy Committee, Citizen’s Advisory
Committee (CAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
MORPC’s Policy Committee was responsible for adopting
recommendations, then forwarding them to ODOT and local jurisdictions
for implementation. All MORPC meetings were open to the public.
•
Two sets of public meetings. The first two public meetings were held in
May 2005 to seek input on the project goals, environmental “red flags”
and the nature and extent of the traffic problems in the study area.
Another public meeting in May 2006 sought input on proposed
recommendations. (See Appendix 1-C for public meeting summaries.)
•
Workshop sessions with staff from each jurisdiction to ensure that local
issues were considered in the design of conceptual alternatives and
strategic plan recommendations. (See Conceptual Alternatives Report for
workshop meeting summaries.)
•
Project materials and mailings to a list that grew from approximately
500 recipients in October 2003 to 6,000 recipients by May 2006. Mailings
included three project newsletters, two postcard mailings about each
public meeting and letters of invitation to the four Advisory Group
meetings. Project newsletters were also distributed to public libraries
located within the study area. (See Appendix 1-D for project newsletters
and meeting notices.)
•
Study documents were posted on the “Northwest Freeway Study” link on
MORPC’s Website at I270-US33.morpc.org. Figure 1-1 shows a screen
from the Website.
Page 1-2
Figur e 1-1 Excer pt fr om Pr oject Website
•
Extensive media outreach and news coverage to ensure reporters and
area readers and viewers were aware of study issues and public
meetings. (See Appendix 1-E for sample news releases and
representative media coverage.)
•
A speaker’s bureau that responded to requests for presentations.
Presentations were made to all city councils in the study area at least
twice, and to Franklin and Union County engineering staffs, OhioHealth
Corporation and Jerome Township residents.
Page 1-3
•
1.2
Responses to letters, e-mails and phone calls. Six letters, six e-mails and
two phone calls were received during the course of the study. The letters
requested additional information on the US 33/Post Road and US
33/Avery Muirfield Road interchanges. The e-mails requested information
on Emerald Parkway, Shier Rings Road, Trueman Road and
improvements in Brown Township. One expressed opposition to the
Davidson Road concept. One phone caller gave additional information on
parks planned for the study area, while the other requested general
information on the study. (See Appendix 1-F for correspondence.)
The Decision-Making Process
Figure 1-2 depicts the decision-making flow chart that helped stakeholders
understand the roles and responsibilities of those involved.
Page 1-4
Figur e 1-2 Decision-Making Flowchar t
Page 1-5
2.0
PUBLIC AND AGENCY INPUT
THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS
2.1
Four Phases of Public and Agency Input
There were three primary steps leading up to the preparation of the Strategic
Plan in Step Four and stakeholders played a key role in each step.
2.1.1
•
Step One was the kickoff phase and involved identifying stakeholders,
establishing the study area, understanding problems and needs, defining
measures of project success and establishing a comprehensive public
involvement plan.
•
Step Two included data gathering, establishing the existing and future
infrastructure conditions, conducting technical analyses, preparing the
Red Flag Summary highlighting areas of concern and writing a Draft
Purpose and Need Statement.
•
Step Three identified and evaluated conceptual alternative solutions,
including cost estimates.
•
Step Four was the development of the Strategic Plan, which contained
the recommended concepts within an overall timetable for environmental
analysis and preliminary engineering analysis, final design and property
acquisition and construction.
Summary of Step One Public Involvement Activities
Based on an assessment of the study area, stakeholders, including
“environmental justice” populations, were identified and invited to participate in
the process. As noted above, a public involvement plan was drafted to ensure
ongoing public involvement. See the I-270/US 33 Northwest Freeway Public
Involvement Plan. A kick-off newsletter was developed to introduce the study and
recap the issues to be addressed.
To both confirm the involvement strategy and to seek input on study area needs,
goals and objectives, Steering Committee and Advisory Group meetings were
held in the fall of 2003. Meetings were publicized through e-mail, letters of
invitation and a news release announcing the study to area media. (See
Appendices 1-D and 1-E for sample publicity materials.)
Through an interactive process at both meetings, stakeholders identified study
area problems and the following goals that would be used to evaluate various
conceptual alternatives as they emerged throughout the study:
•
Improved operational efficiency of the transportation network;
•
Improved accessibility by expanding the local street system and by
adding new roadways and freeway interchanges, and incorporating transit
and pedestrian access to the extent possible;
Page 2-1
•
Improved traffic safety and security;
•
Preservation of the quality of life and character of the communities;
•
Protection of natural and man-made environments;
•
Enhanced economic and community development;
•
Fiscal responsibility/implementability; and
•
Minimized impact during construction.
(See Appendix 2-A for a complete listing of goals developed based on this
interactive process.)
The Advisory Group also made note of the need for a multi-modal approach to
resolving future transportation problems.
2.1.2
Summary of Step Two Public Involvement Activities
As Step Two moved forward, the funding partners started meeting with the
project team approximately once a month rather than as a “Steering Committee”
that met less often. At the conclusion of this step, which quantified the current
and forecasted transportation problems in the study area, meetings were held
with the Advisory Group and the public in May 2005. All of the meetings held
during this milestone recapped the most congested areas and highest crash
locations, identified likely environmental issues to avoid or mitigate and provided
a general overview of what makes a safe, efficient transportation system.
The Advisory Group meetings as well as the two public meetings were publicized
through e-mail, postcard mailings to approximately 1,000 stakeholders, a news
release, electronic signage near the Dublin meeting location and on the Website.
Hilliard Schools also distributed 500 postcard notices. Additionally, a newsletter
summarized the problem areas and promoted the public meetings, held in Hilliard
and Dublin.
Stakeholders were asked if any problem areas or environmental issues were
missed, and whether the data confirmed their experiences in the transportation
corridor. Stakeholders mostly asked clarifying questions to increase their
understanding of the problems, or verified that the issues identified were
consistent with their own experiences when traveling along I-270 and US 33.
Presentations were made during the summer of 2005 to city councils and a major
employer, OhioHealth Corporation, which was moving into the study area. The
councils and the employer were briefed on the study’s progress and the findings
to date.
2.1.3
Summary of Step Three Public Involvement Activities
The focus of Step Three was to identify and evaluate conceptual alternatives.
Based on the technical analysis, the project’s goals and stakeholder input, the
Page 2-2
project team recommended that I-270 and US 33 be widened to meet future
mobility needs, and that two new interchanges – including I-270 and Davidson
Road and US 33 and Mitchell-DeWitt -- move forward for further analysis. (See
the Conceptual Alternatives Report for more detail on how alternatives were
developed and shaped by technical analysis and stakeholder input.) This
information was shared with the Advisory Group at its third meeting, held January
2006.
The Advisory Group meeting was publicized through e-mail, postcard mailings
and on the Website.
To refine further various conceptual alternatives, members of the project team
met with each jurisdiction from January through March 2006 to review concepts
and further develop the most promising approaches. It was communicated that
these concepts were not meant to imply a final decision had been made on
whether to proceed with the proposed strategy, but rather to illustrate what was
conceptually possible to address the forecasted traffic problems.
2.1.4
Summary of Step Four Public Involvement Activities
The purpose of Step Four was the development of a plan to implement each
improvement project. As the conceptual alternatives were being further refined,
costs were estimated and an overall timetable for implementing each proposed
project was established. These strategies were summarized in the Strategic
Plan and reviewed with Steering Committee members monthly from February
through April 2006. (See the Strategic Plan for more information.)
In May 2006, the Advisory Group met for the fourth time. A public meeting was
held that same evening. Both meetings outlined the recommendations in the
Strategic Plan and highlighted the several conceptual alternatives that were
developed for each interchange in the study area.
Figur e 2-1 Public Meeting, May 2006
Page 2-3
The Advisory Group and public meetings were publicized through e-mail, a
6,000+ postcard mailing, a news release, the Dublin cable television channel and
on the Website. Additionally, a newsletter summarized recommendations and
promoted the meetings.
Presentations were again made to city councils and planning and engineering
staffs in the study area. Members of the public who were unable to attend the
public meeting were invited to attend their local city council meeting. A
presentation/public meeting was also held in Jerome Township at the request of
one of the Advisory Group members. This meeting was publicized by flyers
distributed to approximately 1,100 residents in the Jerome Township area.
Briefings were provided to MORPC’s Citizens’ Advisory and Transportation
Advisory Committees, as well as to the MORPC Policy Committee. The MORPC
Policy Committee is expected to adopt the recommendations in September 2006.
Page 2-4
3.0
CONCLUSIONS
The public played a key role throughout the I-270/US 33 Northwest Freeway
Study, meeting the objectives initially set forth in the Public Involvement Plan.
The Steering Committee and Advisory Group helped identify problems, goals and
objectives; verified the extent of the mobility problems and provided guidance on
community values as conceptual alternatives and a Strategic Plan were
developed.
The public participated in public meetings held at the end of Steps Two and Four.
These meetings were widely promoted through the Web, mailings and in the
media. Local jurisdictions and elected officials participated in workshops and
council presentations to help develop conceptual alternatives and the Strategic
Plan. Additional public meetings were held for a major employer moving into the
study area and residents in Jerome Township so they could more fully
understand and comment on proposals affecting their area.
As each of the individual projects identified in the Strategic Plan move forward in
future phases of study and implementation, the viability and acceptance of each
recommendation will continue to rely on this commitment to an open and
transparent public process.
Page 3-1
APPENDIX 1-A
S TEERING C OMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP ;
S TEERING C OMMITTEE AND T EAM MEETING
S UMMARIES
Page 1A-1
r
I-270 /US 33 NORTHWEST FREEWAY STUDY
STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
City Of Hilliard-3800 Municipal Way Hilliard OH 43026-1620
Mr. Clark Rausch-Deputy City Engineer
Mr. Wayne Murphy-Public Service Director (cc)
Ms. Letty Schamp-Traffic Engineer (cc)
City Of Dublin -5800 Shier Rings Rd Dublin OH 43016-1290
Paul A. Hammersmith, P.E.-Director, Engineering
Jeannie Willis, P.E. – Asst. Director, Engineering
Mr. Frank Ciarochi-Development Director (cc)
City Of Columbus-109 North Front Street Columbus OH 43215-2806
Patti Austin-Planning Engineer
Mr. Randy Bowman-City Engineer (cc)
Mr. Bill Lewis-City Traffic Engineer (cc)
Mr. Thomas J. Wester-Deputy Director (cc)
FHWA
Ms. Tashia Clemons-MORPC Liaison
Mr. Roger Ryder-Urban Programs Engineer (cc)
FTA
Mr. Joel Ettinger-Regional Administrator
Franklin County Engineer's Office
Ms. Jennifer Gallagher-Assistant Traffic Engineer
MORPC -285 E. Main St. Columbus OH 43215-5272
Nicholas T. Gill, P.E.-Manager, Highway Engineering
Robert E. Lawler, P.E.-Director of Transportation
ODOT-1980 W Broad St Columbus OH 43223-1102
Mr. Matt Selhorst-Deputy Director, Division of Planning
Mr. Larry Sutherland-Deputy Dir., Office of Roadway Engineering Svcs.
Ms. Carmen Stemen-Transportation Planner
Suzann S. Rhodes, AICP-Administrator, Office of Urban and Corridor Planning (cc)
Mr. Dirk Gross-Studies Engineer (cc)
Ms. Libby Rushley-MORPC Liaison (cc)
ODOT District 6- 400 E William St Delaware OH 43015-2138
Mr. Jack R. Marchbanks-District Deputy Director
Valerie Croasmun –Programs Administrator
Mandy Kisling-Transportation Engineer
Mr. David Mengerink-Engineering Liaison, Planning and Programs (cc)
Union County Engineer's Office-233 W 6th St Marysville OH 43040-5554
Steve A. Stolte, P.E., P.S.-County Engineer
COTA-1650 Lake Shore Dr Columbus OH 43204-4941
Mr. Doug Moore-VP, Planning (cc)
Mr. Michael Bradley-Director, Rail Development
C:\Documents and Settings\Marie Keister\My Documents\MORPC NW Outerbelt Study\Public Involvement Summary Report\Appendices\Appendix 1A_SC\Steering
Committee members_110403.doc
1
Consultants
William J. Bielek, P.E.-Burgess & Niple, Inc. (cc)
Mr. James Bednar-CH2M Hill (cc)
Andy Wolpert-CH2M HILL
James A. Bixby, P.E.-ms consultants (cc)
Marie Keister, APR, AICP-Engage (cc)
C:\Documents and Settings\Marie Keister\My Documents\MORPC NW Outerbelt Study\Public Involvement Summary Report\Appendices\Appendix 1A_SC\Steering
Committee members_110403.doc
2
*
*
STEERING COMMITTEE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I-270 West Outerbelt/US 33 Major Investment Study
*
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio
Conference Room B
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
1 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Attendees
Clark Rausch, Hilliard
Paul Hammersmith, Dublin
Tashia Clemons, FHWA
Jennifer Gallagher, Franklin County
Robert Lawler, MORPC
Carmen Stemen, ODOT
Steve Stolte, Union County
William Bielek, Burgess & Niple
Marie Keister, CH2M HILL
Bruce Mansfield, Burgess & Niple
Wayne Murphy, Hilliard
Patricia Austin, Columbus
Roger Ryder, FHWA
Nicholas Gill, MORPC
Larry Sutherland, ODOT
Raymond Lorello, ODOT
Michael Bradley, COTA
James Bednar, CH2M HILL
Tim Neuman, CH2M HILL
1.
Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review – Nick Gill welcomed the attendees to the
meeting, asking each to introduce themselves. A short introduction was given on the I270/US 33 Major Investment Study (MIS).
2.
Study Organization – Bernice Cage discussed the Public Involvement Process for the
MIS. The Steering Committee and Advisory Group’s roles and responsibilities were
discussed, with an emphasis on the Decision-Making Flow Chart, the various levels and
methods for participating and the public involvement schedule. Ms. Cage reviewed the
Steering Committee List and the draft Advisory Group Member list, requesting
corrections and additions. Paul Hammersmith was selected and accepted the position
as Chair for the committee. Marie Keister’s role facilitating the Steering Committee and
the Advisory Group was discussed.
3.
Data Collection - Bill Bielek discussed the Project Land-Use Review Area and Study
Facilities. Mr. Bielek further discussed the data needs for the project and sought
assistance from members for additional sources of information. Jim Bixby and Mr. Gill
discuss the Northwest Area Traffic Study.
3.
Study Purpose, Goals and Objectives – Jim Bednar and Tim Neuman discussed the
Study goals, problem identification and the Preliminary Decision Criteria. Ms. Keister
facilitated a group exercise that identified problems in the corridor and success factors.
The results of the exercise are attached.
4.
Closing and Next Steps – Ms. Keister discussed the next steps that include the
formation of the advisory group, problem identification and collecting data supporting
1
existing and future conditions. The next Steering Committee is tentatively scheduled for
May, 2004.
Attachments
The attached documents were discussed and distributed at the I-270 West Outerbelt/US
33 Major Investment Study:
November 4, 2003 Steering Committee Agenda
Public Involvement Process (Draft Plan) and Schedule
Steering Committee Roster (Draft)
Advisory Group Roster (Draft)
Decision-Making Flow Chart
Project Land-Use Review Area Map
Study Facilities
Study Project Schedule
Data Needs and Sources
I-270 West Outerbelt/US 33 MIS Corridor Map
ODOT Project Development Process (PDP) for Major Projects
Sample Goals and Problem Statements
November 4, 2003 Steering Committee Problem Discussion
2
*
STEERING COMMITTEE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I-270 West Outerbelt/US 33 Northwest Freeway Study
*
HILLIARD PUBLIC LIBRARY
4772 Cemetary Road
Hilliard, Ohio
Thursday, September 23, 2004
1:30 – 3:30 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Attendees
Doug App, ODOT
Jim Bednar, CH2M HILL
Bill Bielek, Burgess & Niple
Frank Ciarochi, Dublin
Tashia Clemons- FHWA
Valerie Croasmun, ODOT
Jeff Cummings, ms consultants
Dirk Gross, ODOT
Paul Hammersmith, Dublin
Tom Hibbard, ms consultants
Jack Marchbanks, ODOT
Heather McColeman, ODOT
Steve Newman, Prime Eng.
Ram Nunna, CH2M HILL
Clyde “Butch” Seidle, Hilliard
Aaron Stanford, Columbus
Steve Stolte, Union County
MORPC STAFF
Bernice Cage
Nick Gill
Robert Lawler
Nancy Reger
Sheila Thornton
1.
Introduction and Meeting Purpose – Nick Gill welcomed the attendees to the meeting,
asking each to introduce themselves. Marie Keister provided a brief statement of the
meeting purpose for the I-270/US 33 Northwest Freeway Major Investment Study (MIS)
and reminded the attendees of their role in this study.
2.
Project Status/Highlight Issues – Bill Bielek gave an update on the status of the
inventory conducted, which will be included in the Existing and Future Conditions
Report, and will also be submitted as part of the study. Mr. Bielek briefly discussed the
comprehensive traffic count program and the results shown for freeway traffic - the main
line of peak hour volume exhibit. Mr. Bielek indicated that the sub-consultant, Prime
Engineering, conducted a road-way inventory, part of which identified the geometric
deficiencies in the corridor. Mr. Bielek summarized the findings, which included a
compilation of freeway accidents that have occurred in the past three years. The
freeway area does not seem to be a problem area. All of the northbound and
southbound sections of the freeway in the study area are under the statewide average
for freeway sections. Ramp intersections were excluded from the data. Geometric
deficiencies are defined as those locations that no longer meet current design standards.
The study team also conducted an summary of non-metered arterial sections. The
arterial accidents are non-intersection crashes on the interchange arterials in the study
area. Mr. Bielek showed a slide presentation representing the environment constraints,
both man-made and environmental.
3.
Approve Goals and Objectives, Discuss Process for Ranking – Ms. Keister gave a
brief overview of the goals and objectives, and asked the committee to review the same
to determine if all were in agreement or if changes were needed. Upon review and
minor changes, the committee approved the Goals and Objectives. Tim Neuman
discussed the Project Land-Use Review Area and Study Facilities. Mr. Bielek further
discussed the data needs for the project and sought assistance from members for
additional sources of information. Jim Bixby and Mr. Gill discussed the Northwest Area
Traffic Study.
4.
Define No Build Alternative -
5.
Identify Policy/Study Parameters -
6.
Closing and Next Steps -
Attachments
The attached documents were discussed and distributed at the I-270 West Outerbelt/US
33 Northwest Freeway Study:
•
•
•
•
•
Decision-Making Roles
Draft Exhibits and Summaries (Traffic Counts, Crash Analysis, Geometric
Deficiencies, Environmental Red Flag Summary)
Goals and Objectives
MORPC’s TIP and Local Committed Projects
Land Use Assumptions
I-270/US 33 Northwest Freeway Study
Monthly Progress Meeting Summary
Monday, December, 20, 2004, at 9:30 a.m.
MORPC
1. Project Schedule & Status
The project schedule was distributed and reviewed (attached). The operational
analysis is about 2 weeks behind what is listed in the attached schedule.. This
will push the E & F Conditions report completion out to mid February. This,
however, should not impact other items on the schedule.
2. Modeling Update
The year 2003 regional model trip tables for study area was completed and
passed to the consultants for the VISSIM validation process. The validation is to
be completed by end of December. At that time MORPC will have completed
developing the future base network and will provide the 2030 base or “no build”
trip tables.
3. Existing & Future Conditions Data Update
a. Study Goals and Objectives – Competed and posted on web site
b. Traffic Count Summaries – Peak period summary maps are complete
and were distributed at the meeting.
c. Crash Data – Summaries were distributed. ODOT was provided the full
report from TSASS. Still need to set up a meeting with ODOT, MORPC,
and TSASS to discuss methodologies/procedures used.
d. Roadway Inventory/Geometrics – This was basically completed at last
steering committee meeting. Hilliard to provide info on new geometrics on
Fishinger Road just east of I-270.
e. Environmental Red Flag
• Cultural Resources report – This was provided to ODOT at
the meeting and they will forward on to OES to begin review.
• Environmental Overview Report– Comments from MORPC
was provided on the report including more extensive EJ
information. Need to get MORPC GIS data to B&N in order to
make consistent maps. All of this info needs to be appropriately
incorporated into the E&F Conditions report format
f. Bike Facility Inventory– Basically complete by MORPC. There was a
question on a path along Glick Road. MORPC and Dublin to follow up.
g. Transit Inventory – Completed by MORPC
h. Land Use Inventory/Projections– Done. Need to incorporate into E&F
Conditions report format.
i. Operational Analysis– In process. See comments on #1 & #2 above.
4. Existing & Future Conditions Report Outline
First draft outline was distributed. This was mostly based on the Cleveland
Innerbelt study E&F Conditions report. The outline for the I-70/I-71 existing
conditions report was also distributed. Agencies need to provide comments on
the outline if they have any. The E&F report needs to include all modes. The
1
various data items that have been completed will begin to be assembled into the
E&F Conditions report.
5. Public Involvement Program – status and next steps
a. Steering Committee – Additional meeting not scheduled at this point as
no decision points are coming up.
b. Advisory Group– Next one could be early to mid- February, immediately
prior to the release of the E&C Conditions report. The exact date will be
set when we are sure all information for E&F Conditions report is
complete and displays can be produced in a timely manner.
c. Open House– Same time frame as Advisory Group. Open house would
follow an Advisory Group meeting on the same day.
d. Web site– nothing new
6. Goal Weighting/First Level Screening Criteria
There was concern expressed about the value of going through a goal weighting
exercise at this point. It was believed that we should wait until measures and
data are available and then weight the measures. It was also expressed that it
should not be the Advisory Group or the general public that weights these, but a
smaller, perhaps steering committee, group that does this. The consultant team
will develop measures for the goals and objectives and discuss further at next
progress meeting.
7. Strategies/Conceptual Alternatives Identification
No significant discussion on this topic. To be discussed at next progress meeting.
8. New Business
None.
9. Next Meeting Date
The next meeting will be Wednesday January 26th, 8:30 at ODOT
Central Office room 2A.
Attendees:
Nick Gill – MORPC
Bill Bielek – B & N
Marie Keister – Engage Communications
Paul Hammersmith – Dublin
Carmen Stemen – ODOT Central Office
Valerie Croasmun – ODOT D6
Clyde Seidle – Hilliard
Clark Rausch – Hilliard
Emily Willis - FCEO
2
Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 8:30 a.m.
ODOT Central Office – Room 2a
The project schedule was distributed and reviewed. The operational analysis is
continuing. The VISSIM AM period is validated and the PM is in process. The
process has fallen a little further behind. Attached is a scheduled updated by
B&N after the meeting. The E & F report is pushed out some but the study end
date is not impacted.
2. Modeling Update
See above for VISSIM progress. MORPC is reviewing the 2030 regional model
assignments. These will be ready when B&N has completed the VISSIM
validation. When the VISSIM validation is complete MORPC will set up a meeting
with ODOT technical services to review all of the validation information and
procedures. This should be straight forward as it is similar to the Cleveland and
downtown Columbus studies done previously.
3. Existing & Future Condition Data Update
a. Update of ODOT Review of items from December meeting
Based on initial look things seem okay. Need to touch base with OES on the
environmental elements. MORPC, ODOT and B&N met with TSASS on the
safety information. Approach was acceptable. For the E&F report do not
compare to state rates as study information uses cleaned up data and state
rates use raw data. These would not be comparable. Perhaps compare to the
state goals instead. Also, determine if any portion of the study area is on
ODOT HSP or “hot spot” lists
b. Operational Analysis
See above for VISSIM progress.
4. Existing & Future Condition Report Status
The individual components have begun to be pulled into one document per the
E&F outline discussed last month. Work needs to be done to make it fit as one
document instead of a compilation of independent items. In about 2 weeks a “pre
draft” will be available which would include all information except the operational
analysis results.
5. Purpose & Need Statement Progress
Nothing significant to report. First cut with data available ready for the next
monthly meeting.
a. Steering Committee - Additional meeting not scheduled at this point as
b. Advisory Group – See below.
1
c. Open House – AG meeting and open house should be 4-6 weeks after
step 2.9 is completed. Could be mid to late March. Both still to be on
same day.
d. Web site - Nothing new
e. Newsletter – Next newsletter to come out prior to AG meeting and open
house to further advertise them. Initial article topics will be topic for next
progress meeting. MORPC and Engage to get together prior to go over PI
activities.
7. First Level Screening Criteria & Measures
A first cut of measures for the goals and objectives was passed out. These were,
however, related to the draft goals not the adopted goals. Hand out to be
updated for next meeting. Feedback on specific measures to use should be
provided to B&N and MORPC.
No significant discussion on this topic. To be discussed at next progress meeting
9. New Business
None
The next meeting will be Thursday February 24th, 8:30 at Burgess &
Niple’s offices 5085 Reed Road (between Henderson and Sawmill).
Attendees:
Nick Gill – MORPC
Bernice Cage - MORPC
Steve Newman - Prime
Emily Willis – FCEO
Steve Stolte – Union County Engineer
2
Thursday, February 24, 2005, at 8:30 a.m.
Burgess & Niple’s Offices
The project schedule was discussed. The VISSIM AM & PM period is validated.
The process has fallen a little further behind. Attached is a scheduled updated by
B&N after the meeting. The E & F report is pushed out some but the study end
date is not impacted.
2. Modeling Update
B&N and MORPC met with ODOT technical services to review all of the
validation information and procedures. ODOT accepted the results pending final
resolution of exactly how the correction factors will be applied to 2030 trip tables.
B&N is to develop some information and ODOT and MORPC will concur on the
approach by 2/28. 2030 trip tables have been provided to B&N.
a. Operational Analysis
See above for VISSIM progress
b. Report Status
The various components have been pulled together into a single document
with the exception of the operational analysis. Some additional work is
needed to make the document seem like a single document. Information on
Red Flag items is to be included in the E&FC but the Red Flag Summary will
also be a stand alone document. It is expected a first draft (absent the
operational results) will be available in about a week.
Nothing significant to report yet. As the first draft E&FC is complete the first cut of
the P&N can be started. There was discussion as to whether it was necessary to
have the approved P&N done by the Open House. All of the info making up the
P&N will be presented at the Open House but final approved P&N is not
necessary before the Open House.
a. Steering Committee - Additional meeting not scheduled at this point as
b. Advisory Group – Date/Agenda -See Open House Discussion.
c. Open House – Date/Agenda/Displays – As step 2.9 is not yet
completed the exact date of the Open House and AG meeting can not be
set. Currently it is likely to be the first or second week of May. A draft
advisory group agenda was discussed. Much discussion focused on how
to begin developing the “range of concepts” that will be evaluated. It was
suggested that the open house be on two nights in different parts of the
corridor. No decision was made. Also, should use changeable message
signs to advertise.
1
d. Web site – Nothing new
e. Newsletter – Topics – A draft list of topics for the newsletter was
discussed. In line with the AG agenda discussion topic will be similarly
titled. The newsletter would not have a great deal on info but used as a
teaser to bring people to the AG and open house.
6. First Level Screening Criteria & Measures – B&N distributed possible
evaluation measures (attached) for each study goal. Some measures may be
good for the corridor as a whole, while others may be good just for certain
locations. Some may be good for both. Also, some measures may eventually
drop out as they do not provide and differentiation among the range of concepts
under consideration. The group is to review these and provide comments or
additions prior to the next funding partner meeting.
7. Strategies/Conceptual Alternatives Identification – No significant activity has
begun. For the AG meeting and the open house information on various generic
concepts will be developed. This will be reviewed at the next funding partner
meeting.
8. New Business – It was requested that an update on the project status be
provided to Dublin City Council by the study team. The other entities could also
have an update provided. This would be done after the Open House.
The next meeting will be Thursday March 24th, 8:30 at Burgess &
Niple’s offices 5085 Reed Road (between Henderson and Sawmill).
Attendees:
Nick Gill – MORPC
Bernice Cage - MORPC
Steve Newman – Prime
Manu Bhatt - Prime
Tim Neuman – CH2M Hill
Jim Bednar – CH2M Hill
Herman Rodrigo – FHWA
Tashia Clemons - FHWA
2
Thursday, March 24, 2005, at 8:30 a.m.
The project has stayed on the schedule discussed at the 2/24 meeting. Task 2.9, the
operational analysis, is basically complete as scheduled. First drafts of the E&FC
report have been made available. This and the draft Purpose and Need Statement still
have expected completion by the end of April.
a. Operational Analysis
• Status
• Appropriately Identifying Future Conditions
b. Geotechnical
c. Report Status
An initial draft was distributed to ODOT on March 16th. An updated version on CD was
distributed at the meeting. It included additional info on the geotechnical items and
operational analysis.
The various figures included in the E&FC Report and that will be used for the Advisory
Group meeting and open house were reviewed and discussed. Issues were raised with
regard to the existing conditions analysis showing better level of service than occurring
in the field. It was noted that optimal signal timing was used instead of existing timings
were used in the analysis. These will be redone with existing timing and additional field
observations to properly document the existing level of service and to communicate to
the public the traffic conditions they are experiencing today.
The future analysis was briefly reviewed. These also used optimal timing which was
acceptable and showed mostly poor level of service. It was noted that some locations
show acceptable level of service but this is only because traffic demand is being
restrained due to poor level of service situations upstream. If full demand was able to
get to these locations they would also show poor level of service. These locations will
be noted with additional qualitative discussion.
There were a couple questions on location of parks in Dublin and Hilliard. There was a
need for clarification on what type of locations are mapped on the man- made
environmental constraints map. Also, there is a need to ensure safety is adequately
emphasized.
The consultants have put together much of it except for the operational analysis data.
As the draft E&FC is complete the first cut of the P&N can be completed and a first
draft likely provided at the next funding partners meeting
a. Steering Committee - Additional meeting not scheduled at this point as no
decision points are coming up.
1
b. Advisory Group – Date/Agenda - See Open House Discussion
c. Open House – Date/Agenda/Stations - As step 2.9 is basically complete the
AG meeting and open house was set for May 10 in Dublin. A second open
house will be May 11 in the southern part of the area. A hotel at the Roberts
Road interchange is to be investigated. Based on discussion at last month’s
meeting, a revised draft advisory group agenda was provided and discussed.
First cut presentation material on how to begin developing the “range of
concepts” that will be evaluated was presented and discussed. For the advisory
group it was suggested that the detailed handouts information be provided at
the end so that attendees will focus on the presenter and not the handout
material.
d. Web site – Nothing new
e. Newsletter – Draft articles will be emailed to the group the first part of April so
that it can be finalized between April 19th & 26th.
5. Evaluation Criteria/Measures
The possible evaluation measures were emailed with this month’s agenda. These were
not discussed. The group is to review these and provide comments or additions prior to
the next funding partner meeting.
No significant activity has begun. This will be reviewed at future funding partner
meetings.
7. New Business
It was requested again that a written update on the project status be provided which
could be provided to Dublin City Council. This will be prepared and provided to Dublin
and all by April 12th.
The next meeting will be Tuesday April 19th, 1:30 at Burgess & Niple’s
offices 5085 Reed Road (between Henderson and Sawmill).
Attendees:
Nick Gill – MORPC
Bernice Cage – MORPC
Bruce Mansfield – B & N
Kathy Vogt – Prime
Jim Bednar – CH2M Hill
Dave Moore – ODOT Central Office
Mark Locker – ODOT Central Office
Mandy Kisling – ODOT D6
Clyde Seidle - Hilliard
Jeannie Willis – Dublin
2
Monthly progress meeting
Thursday August 25, 2005, at 1:30 p.m.
1. Complete Dublin Area Traffic Projection Refinements
• Correction Factors for Avery-Muirfield Dr. area zones
• Total peak period origins and destinations as compared to ITE estimates
• Manual adjustments based on select link data
• Overall turn percentages at intersections based on TIS’s
• Other
The following items were distributed:
• A summary of the August 10th Dublin area model meeting (attached)
• Review of corrections factors in the Avery-Muirfield area (attached)
• Comparison of peak period O’s & D’s with ITE rate based estimates
(attached)
• Manual Adjustments to Specific Turning Movements (attached)
• Plots showing select link information for manual adjustments
• Revised peak period traffic applying manual adjustments
In going over the first three items it was determined that the total peak period
trips being produced seemed reasonable. There was a question about what was
being assigned in VISSIM being lower than ITE based rates for one particular
zone. However, the concern before doing this comparison was that perhaps
there was too much traffic in the peak hour. Thus, with the area in total in line
with ITE rate based estimates, it was decided to move forward with the VISSIM
O’s and D’s.
The final three items were then discussed. Specific adjustments based on select
link information and more reasonable turning splits based mainly on recent TIS’s
were described in detail. There were a few adjustments to the proposed changes
agreed to. The consultant team is to update the peak period 2030 projections.
These are the final volumes to use for the E&FC report.
2. Status of E&FC, Draft P&N and Draft Red Flag Summary Review
ODOT has almost completed their review of the July draft of the documents. In
general the E&FC needs a better written interpretation of the data included in the
report. It was decided that ODOT would provide their comments and the
consultant team would incorporate those and the final Dublin area traffic
projections into a final update of the documents.
3. Other Business
The consultant team will be preparing a technical memo to outline in detail the
process to develop and evaluate conceptual alternatives for step 3. This will be
primary topic of next funding partners meeting.
1
Dublin will be moving ahead on updating their IMS for the US33/SR161-Post Rd
interchange. This study will not examine that interchange. This study will review
the mainline needs through the interchange area and incorporate Dublin’s
process results into the study.
4. Overall Schedule Status & Next Meeting Dates
• September 22, 1:30 @ B&N
• October 20, 1:30 @ B&N
The next meetings were set at the above dates and times.
Attendees:
Nick Gill – MORPC
Chad Parasa – MORPC
Bruce Mansfield – B & N
Brian Martin – B & N
Ravi Ambadipudi – B & N
Valeria Croasmun – ODOT D6
Emily Willis - FCEO
Steve Stolte – Union County Eng.
2
Thursday October 20, 2005, at 1:30 p.m.
1. Status of Revised E&FC, Draft P&N and Draft Red Flag Summary
The consultant team has provided an updated E&FC report to MORPC. MORPC
is currently reviewing it. It is hoped that it will be ready in a week or two to
resubmit to ODOT. Updates to the E&FC have little impact on the Draft P&N and
would therefore not result in significant changes to it. The Draft Red Flag
summary is also being updated. There has been difficulty getting specific utility
information from the utility companies. For this stage in the planning process it
was agreed that general information is okay. More detailed won’t be necessary
until recommendations of the study move beyond step 4 of the PDP. It was noted
that there was a new major AEP line buried roughly along the Britton/Emerald
Parkway area from Davidson Road to Shier Rings Rd.
2. Task 3 – Identify and Evaluate Conceptual Alternative Solutions: Planning
Framework and Methodology
The “Task 3 –Identify and Evaluate Conceptual Alternative Solutions: Planning
Framework and Methodology” memo that was emailed with the agenda (also
reattached) was reviewed and discussed. There were only comments on what
was provided. On page 3, about pedestrian crossings, it was suggested that
facilities be on both sides unless it was not possible for safety or other valid
reasons. (NOTE: ODOT followed up in email with concern over being this
specific at this point. We will discuss more at next meeting).
The second comment had to do with a target level of service as E for arterial
intersections. It was agreed that a V/C ratio be added to better reflect an
appropriate goal for these intersections.
The funding partners were to further review the planning framework and
methodology and provide any additional comments by November 3rd.
3. Evaluation Criteria
A draft evaluation criteria was distributed at the meeting (attached). The criteria is
organized and based on the goal and objectives established for the study.
Possible evaluation criteria had been distributed about a year ago and no
comments from the funding partners had been received.
The measures are at three stages consistent with the Planning Framework and
Methodology memo. First were measures to determine the need for new
interchange locations or wether they should be eliminated from further
consideration. Then, a level 1 (macro) analysis will be a first filter on various
conceptual alternatives. These two stages will be done primarily with regional
model-based measures. Concepts that move forwarded will then be further
refined in a level 2 (micro) analysis using the VISSIM model and other tools... It
was noted that as we move through the process it may become obvious that
1
some measures no longer make sense or that additional measures could be
added.
There were no changes made to the criteria during the meeting. The funding
partners were to further review the draft evaluation criteria and provide any
additional comments by November 3rd. In the meantime the consultant team will
be developing the interchange network analysis for the next funding partners
meeting.
4. Other Business
There was no other business
5. Overall Schedule Status & Proposed Next Meeting Dates
• November 15, 1:30 @ B&N
• December 15, 1:30 @ B&N
An updated project schedule was distributed (attached).
There were no conflicts with the above meeting dates.
Attendees:
Nick Gill – MORPC
Andy Woolpert – CH2M Hill
Tim Newman – CH2M Hill
Kathy Vogt - Prime
Bill Lewis - Columbus
2
Tuesday November 15, 2005, at 1:30 p.m.
1. Public Involvement Plan
The upcoming public involvement activities distributed prior to the meeting was
reviewed. There were no significant comments. There was some concern that
data and analysis would be ready by the late February date for an advisory group
meeting. Also, there may need to be another open house at the very end. This
will be determined later.
2. Status of Revised E&FC, Draft P&N and Draft Red Flag Summary
MORPC is currently completing the review of updated documents from the
consultant team. ODOT requested a firm date for re-submittal to them. November
30th was set.
3. Follow up on Task 3 – Identify and Evaluate Conceptual Alternative
Solutions: Planning Framework and Methodology and Draft Evaluation
Criteria
• One emailed comment concerning pedestrian facilities
Following discussion at the October meeting a follow up email was received from
ODOT concerning the language to require sidewalks on both sides. Language
that MORPC provided in an email response was appropriate and will be inserted
in the document.
Also, the revised document needs distributed to the group with the above change
and the intersection LOS and v/c reference discussed in October. This will be
done.
4. Interchange Network Analysis Evaluation Measure Data
• Summary of scenarios
• VMT & VHT study area summaries
• Freeway and interchange ADT’s
• Travel time estimates
• Other data
Several data items from the regional model concerning the new interchange were
distributed. Each item was presented so that the funding partners could
understand what it was. Several measures were not yet completed. These will be
completed prior to the next meeting. At the next meeting the funding partners will
determine if any new interchange locations should be dropped from further
consideration. It was suggested that data showing who uses the new
interchanges be provided.
5. Other Business
There was no other business
6. Overall Schedule Status & Next Meeting Date
1
•
December 15, 1:30 @ B&N
There were no conflicts with the above meeting date.
Attendees:
Nick Gill – MORPC
Marie Keister - Engage
Emily Willis – Franklin County Eng
2
Thursday December 15, 2005, at 1:30 p.m.
MORPC submitted the revised documents to ODOT on December 1st. ODOT
report that the summary now provided in the E&FC report is what they have been
looking for. They have only minimal comments. They will inform FHWA that they
can review the E&FC report. Once FHWA completes their review the comments
will be provided to the consultant team to make the final E&FC document. ODOT
reported that the red flag summary was acceptable. ODOT still needs to review
the Draft P&N.
2. Follow up on Previous Meeting Items
• Planning Framework Memo
• Public Involvement Activities
It was pointed out that the update versions of these reflecting previous funding
partner comments was provided in the Tuesday email for this meeting..
3. Interchange Network Evaluation Results
• Mitchell-Dewitt Interchange
• Davidson Road Interchange
• Scioto & Darby Creek Interchange
A handout (attached to email) further summarizing the data for the new
interchange evaluation was provided. The information was discussed and agreed
to that the Mitchell-Dewitt and Davidson Road interchanges should be continued
for additional evaluation. It was agreed that Scioto & Darby Creek be dropped.
Since the information was new, Hilliard was going to be given a week to confirm
that it is acceptable to them.
4. Next Step 3 Stage - Macro Evaluation
• Overview
• Additional off-freeway highway improvements
• Transportation demand management & transit
Additional off-freeway (arterial) improvements was identified by the consultant
team as potentially beneficial to the freeway and interchange system. A large
map was displayed and handout provided (attached to email). There was no
changes to what was provided at the meeting. A map will be sent out to the
funding partners in a couple days. It was requested that the funding partners
provide any comments on these within a week.
These improvements will be included in the regional model run as the primary
macro level analysis. Data and measures similar to the new interchange
evaluation measures will be developed to determine the benefits to the freeway
system.
1
At the same time, the consultant team will be begin their conceptual designs for
the interchanges. This will be based on the scenario 1 (expanded freeway) traffic
projections. The data thus far indicates that this will be the highest interchange
volumes. As provided in the step 3 planning framework memo, a 5% peak period
reduction will be applied to reflect the impact of expanded TDM measures in this
area.
MORPC is working on more specific TDM measures that could be implemented
in the corridor. A focus area is around the Tuttle interchange. It has high
concentrations of employees and is the highest volume service interchange.
5. Overall Schedule Status & Next Funding Partner Meeting Dates
• January 26, 1:30 @ B&N
• February 23, 1:30 @ B&N
ODOT stated that this study has become very important at the highest levels of
ODOT. There has been great concern at the pace of which the study is
progressing. ODOT staff has been directed to complete this study by the end of
spring 2006. Mandy Kisling has been assigned to assist MORPC in a co-project
manager role to expedite the completion of the study. This will require
acceleration beyond the schedule discussed at the last meeting and currently in
place. A meeting was schedule for Wednesday December 21st at 9:00 am at
B&N among ODOT, MORPC and the consultant team to lay out the schedule to
meet the deadline. The local agencies are welcome as well.
The above meeting dates and times were established as funding partner (or
other) meetings.
Attendees:
Nick Gill – MORPC
Jim Bixby - MS
Tim Newman – CH2M Hill
2
Thursday January 26, 2006, at 1:30 p.m.
The Draft P&N was sent to FHWA for review on 1/26.06. There are a couple
minor graphic issues in the E&FC otherwise ODOT approves it. ODOT has
approved the Red Flag Summary.
2. Public Involvement Activities
• Recap of January 17th meeting
• Remaining Schedule
• Newsletter
• Web site
There was brief discussion of the AG meeting. A revised public involvement plan
was distributed (attached). An open house is scheduled for May 9th at the Dublin
Recreation Center. An AG/Steering committee will occur on the same day prior to
the open house. A newsletter will go out in April to announce the Open House.
The web site is updated with the AG meeting materials.
3. Step 3 Macro Evaluation
• Off-Freeway Results
• Other Macro evaluation
A handout was provided (attached) providing all of the various measures as were
developed for new interchange analysis including a one page summary sheet.
There were reduction in vehicle delay for the overall area but small impacts on
freeway and interchange volumes. There was brief discussion of this data
including how these will be included in the final strategic plan and report. This will
be further addressed as we move into those stages.
4. Revised Procedure for Estimating Peak Hour Volumes for Conceptual
Alternatives Development
A handout was provided (attached) providing adjustments to the procedure for
developing the peak hour traffic for the conceptual development. This was
necessary as the process was not accounting for peak spreading as would occur
as volumes grow in congested areas. Also, how the demand management
reductions will be applied was discussed. The new process was agreed to.
5. Conceptual Interchange Alternatives Development Update
Updates on the meetings held on the Union County and Dublin area
interchanges were provided. They are going well. A meeting about Hilliard area
interchanges is scheduled for 2/2. Additional follow up meetings, especially with
ODOT-CO are expected.
6. Micro Evaluation Criteria and Process
The funding partners and the consultant team were reminded that initial
evaluation measures for the conceptual alternatives were provided previously.
1
These should be revisited and considered in analyzing the concepts being
developed.
7. Other Business
• February 23, 1:30 @ B&N
Future meetings were scheduled for the last Thursdays in March (30th) and April
(27th). The April 27th meeting will be held at MORPC as that is the same day as
their annual meeting luncheon.
Attendees:
Nick Gill – MORPC
Bernice Cage- MORPC
Jim Bixby - MS
Butch Seidle - Hilliard
Steve Stolte – Union County Eng
2
Thursday February 23, 2006, at 1:30 p.m.
FHWA has concurred on the Draft P&N. A copy of the concurrence letter was
distributed to those wanting it. There are a couple minor graphic issues in the
E&FC; otherwise, ODOT approves it. ODOT will work with B&N to address these.
ODOT has approved the Red Flag Summary. An acceptance letter from ODOT
on these will be completed shortly.
• Dublin City Council Workshop
• Other
The presentation for the February 27th workshop has been prepared. The packet
of info to the council members is to go out on the 23rd. A draft newsletter, which
will include announcing the open house, will be prepared by the next funding
partners meeting.
3. Step 3 Macro Evaluation
• Follow-up from Off-freeway Results
• Other
MORPC will be putting together cost information for the off-freeway
improvements. MORPC continues work on the demand management aspects.
MORPC met with COTA following the January Advisory Group meeting to
discuss transit issues for this study. COTA is currently in the process of updating
their long range plan. They held their second round of public meetings during the
weeks of February 13th and 20th. A handout of their public meeting presentation
was provided for those interested. The information is also on their website at
www.cota.com. COTA will be completing their plan in June. MORPC will meet
again with COTA in a couple weeks to further discuss their long range plan
process and how to incorporate it into the 270/33 study. The funding partners will
be informed when the meeting takes place.
4. Conceptual Interchange Alternatives Development Update
• Revised Peak Hour traffic
• Other
VISSUM peak hour traffic results have been distributed for LOS analysis of the
interchange concepts. Working meetings have been held involving all funding
partners. Refinements to the concepts are ongoing.
5. Micro Evaluation Criteria and Process
A sample evaluation matrix was distributed (attached) based on the evaluation
criteria developed in October. The consultant team will begin filling in the
information. It was noted that several criteria listed will not differentiate among
the concepts at each interchange. These will be noted on the matrix. The funding
partners are asked to comment on the matrix.
1
6. Other Business
Work needs to begin on the conceptual alternatives report and the strategic plan
report. The consultant team will distribute an outline of each of these reports in
the next couple weeks. The draft conceptual alternatives report should be ready
by the next funding partners meeting. Also, substantial progress on the strategic
plan report should be completed by the next funding partners meeting.
The consultant team distributed a memo on the methodology (attached) to
develop cost estimates for the conceptual freeway and interchange
improvements. It was noted on page 6 that the “off corridor arterials” referrers to
interchange arterials in the vicinity of the interchanges. As discussed previously
MORPC will be estimating cost for the off-freeway improvements developed as
part of the macro analysis.
ODOT and Union County are to meet with First Energy about the proposed
substation at the Mitchell-Dewitt interchange location. It was noted that all
communities need to be aware of development that might impede implementing
recommendations of the study and that each work towards preserving land
needed for the transportation improvements.
ODOT mentioned significant development activity along US 42 and that there
might need to be a corridor group established to communicate/coordinate the
various activity.
• March 30, 1:30 @ B&N
• April 27, 1:30 @ MORPC
The next funding partners meetings were confirmed for the above times. Note
that the April 27th date is MORPC’s annual luncheon meeting and the reason for
the location change to MORPC.
Attendees:
Nick Gill – MORPC
Bernice Cage- MORPC
Bruce Mansfield – B& N
Andy Wolpert – CH2M Hill
Paul Hammersmith - Dublin
2
Thursday March 30, 2006, at 1:30 p.m.
• Newsletter
• May 9th open house
• Other
A draft newsletter layout was distributed (current version attached) and
discussed. The funding partners agreed on the topics indicated. Andy will provide
short summaries for the freeway, new interchange and interchange concept
sections. MORPC will provide short summaries for the transit and demand
management sections. The info is due by 4/13. Bernice will coordinate with Marie
on the development. The newsletter will go out the end of April.
There was brief discussion of the open house. Significant work will be underway
in the next month.
City Council presentations are planned in the first part of May.
2. Step 3 Conceptual Alternatives
• Local jurisdiction briefings & refined concepts
• Evaluation matrix
• Conceptual alternatives report
Recent presentations were made to FCEO and Columbus. These and the
previous meetings were well-received and feedback has been incorporated into
the interchange concepts.
The shortened evaluation matrix was discussed. It was noted that even if some
measures don’t differentiate among conceptual alternatives they need to be
included in some manner to show that these were looked at. In addition, these
types of measures do show a difference between the build concepts and the no
build. These changes should be acknowledged. The consultant team is
beginning to fill in the matrix with data for the concepts.
A conceptual alternatives report outline was distributed (attached-an older
version was inadvertently attached with the agenda email). There were no
significant comments. A draft report should be ready the end of April.
3. Transit Concepts
MORPC met with COTA on the 28th. Columbus was also at the meeting. A list of
transit items to be included in the conceptual alternatives report was distributed
(attached). Doug Moore briefly described COTA’s long range plan and their
process. It is expected to include additional Cross-town and express routes into
1
the I-270/US 33 study area. This is also being identified as a potential future fixed
guide way corridor into/from the downtown. Additional info is available at
www.cota.com. Their plan will not be final until around June. The write up for this
study will appropriately document the status of their plans.
4. Step 4 Strategic Plan
• Development methodology
• Strategic plan report
The strategic plan outline was briefly discussed. There were no significant
comments discussed at the meeting. Final comments from the Funding Partners
should be submitted within two weeks.
5. Other Business
None
• April 27, 1:30 @ MORPC
• May 16, 1:30 @ B&N
Next months meeting is at MORPC. The meeting will start as close to 1:30 as
possible allowing time for those attending MORPC’s annual meeting at the
convention center time to get to MORPC.
NOTE: At the funding partners meeting May 18th was identified as the following
meeting. This conflicts with a MORPC Policy Committee meeting. MAY 16th 1:30
AT B&N IS NOW THE SUGGESTED DATE. Please respond to Nick with any
conflicts.
Attendees:
Nick Gill – MORPC
Bernice Cage- MORPC
Chad Parasa - MORPC
Paul Hammersmith - Dublin
Bill Lewis – Columbus
Emily Willis - FCEO
Tashia Clemons – FHWA
Doug Moore - COTA
2
Thursday April 27, 2006, at 1:30 p.m.
MORPC’s Offices
1. Step 3 Conceptual Alternatives
• Conceptual alternatives report
The report is in final internal consultant team review stage. It was noted that the
data for the evaluation matrix has not been provided to the funding partners for
review. This is included in the report. A copy for informal review by all funding
partners will be ready the week of May 8th. It was suggested to include a
definition of acronyms.
2. Step 4 Strategic Plan
• Draft Strategic Plan
• Strategic plan report
Individual meetings with all of the funding partners have been held to review the
draft strategic plan. These were incorporated into material provided at the
meeting. Slight additional changes were made. The revised information will be
presented to the Advisory Group and at the Open House. The strategic plan
report is scheduled to be available for review by the funding partners around May
19th.
• Newsletter
• May 9th advisory group meeting and open house
• Follow-up city council presentations
Newsletter was completed and mailed out. Approximately 6000 post card notices
for the open house was mailed. Open House station and display list was
reviewed.
4. Other Business
ODOT District 6 will be providing and update on the study to the Director on May
12th.
ODOT will not be submitting a TRAC application for any study area projects this
round. Due to cost increase for already committed project, it is likely there will be
no new projects awarded this round. However, ODOT will work to begin PE on
the highest priority projects after the study is completed.
Question was raised as to how to stay informed as to how the funding partners
can stay informed/involved as projects move forward after this study is
concluded. MORPC could fill this role by providing updates or facilitating periodic
meeting. There are currently similar arrangements such as Franklin-Delaware
1
Summit meetings that are held three times a year, and Hayden Run area
meetings of jurisdictions which have scheduled quarterly meetings.
• May 16, 1:30 @ B&N
• June meeting?
The meeting was confirmed for the 16th (NOTE: THIS MEETING WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELLED/MOVED). June 15th at 1:30 was also
established.
Below is a general time frame for remaining tasks as outlined in and April email
from Tim Neuman. We are currently on track.
•
April 24 - 28 -- prepare for Public Information meeting, assemble draft
alternatives report for distribution to internal reviewers (Neuman, Bednar);
discuss strategic plan content at Funding Partners meeting (April 27)
•
May 9 -- hold public information meeting; submit Draft final alternatives
report to ODOT and MORPC;
•
May 7 - 12 -- Receive comments from funding partners re: Strategic Plan;
revise strategic plan (potential for meeting or teleconference based on
nature of suggested revisions) begin preparation of Draft Strategic Plan
report
•
May 14 - 19 -- Complete and submit Draft Strategic Plan report to ODOT
and MORPC
•
May 23 - 26 -- no scheduled events (contingency); review and discuss
internally comments from the Public Information Meeting regarding any
aspects of the study
•
May 29 - June 2 -- Receive comments from MORPC and ODOT on
Alternatives Report; hold review meeting to go over comments and
expedite their resolution
•
June 5 - 9 -- Receive comments on Draft Strategic Plan report; hold
meeting to go over and resolve comments
•
June 8 -- present Strategic Plan to MORPC Board
•
June 12 - 16 -- Revise Strategic Plan (graphic and descriptions); work
toward completion of Final Alternatives Report
•
June 19 - 23 -- Submit Final Alternatives Report to ODOT and MORPC
•
June 26 - 30 -- Submit Final Strategic Plan Report to ODOT and MORPC
2
Attendees:
Nick Gill – MORPC
Chad Parasa - MORPC
Marie Keister – Engage
Tom Hibbard – ms consultants
Mandy Kisling – ODOT D-6
Bill Lewis – Columbus
Ted Beidler - FCEO
3
r
APPENDIX 1-B
A DVISORY GROUP MEMBERSHIP AND MEETING
S UMMARIES
Page 1B-1
r
NORTHWEST FREEWAY I-270/US 33 ADVISORY GROUP
MEMBERSHIP
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:
City Of Columbus
Traffic Engineering
Planning
City Of Dublin
Engineering
Planning
Patti Austin
Randy Bowman (cc)
Bill Lewis (cc)
Jane Turley
City Engineer
City Engineer
City Traffic Engineer
City Manager
Jane Brautigam
Paul A. Hammersmith, P.E. Director
Bobbi Clark
Barb Cox
Jeanie Willis (cc)
City Of Hilliard
Economic Development
David S. Meeks
Clark Rausch
Sue Milling
Letty Shamp (cc)
Director
Acting City Engineer
Planning Officer
Virginia Barney
Hon. Clark P. Pritchett Jr.
City Manager
Mayor
City Of Upper Arlington
Engineering
Planning
Delaware County Engineer's Office
FHWA
FTA
Scott Pike
Chief Deputy Co. Eng.
Tashia Clemons
Roger Ryder (cc)
MORPC Liaison
Urban Programs Engineer
Joel Ettinger (cc)
Regional Administrator
Jennifer Gallagher
Anthony F. Forte
Ass. Traffic Engineer
Director
Robert E. Lawler P.E
Nicholas T Gill P.E.
Director
Manager
Franklin County
Engineer's Office
County Commissioners
MORPC
Transportation
Highway Engineering
Page 1 of 5
MEMBERSHIP
ODOT
Division Of Planning
ODOT District 6
Planning And Programs
Planning And Programs
Ansen Wu
Matt Selhorst
Larry Sutherland
Carmen Stemen
Dirk Gross (cc)
Deputy Director
Transportation Planner
Studies Engineer
Jack R. Marchbanks
Mandy Kisling
Valerie Croasmun
District Deputy Director
Transportation Engineer
Planning & Programs Administrator
Steve A. Stolte P.E., P.S.
County Engineer
Doug Moore
Michael Bradley
VP, Planning
Director
Union County Engineer's Office
COTA
Planning
Rail Development
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE AGENCIES:
The Archaeological Society Of Ohio
ASO Business Manager
U.S. Army Corp Of Engineers
Steven R. Hawkins
Brigadier General
Fred Dailey
Vicki Morrical
Director
Ohio Department of Agriculture
Ohio Department Of Natural Resources
Division Of Realm
Division Of Wildlife District 1
Land Management
Kim Baker
Brad Kiger
D. Michael Cook
Bill Daehlers
County Wildlife Officer
Administrator
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Central District Office
Bruce Coleman
District Chief
Mark Epstein
Department Head
Ohio Historic Preservation
Page 2 of 5
MEMBERSHIP
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dr. Mary Knapp
Supervisor
Steven Hindall
District Chief
Gerald Borin
Director
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resource Division
Columbus Zoo
Metro Parks
John O'Meara
RAILROADS, AIRPORTS AND UTILITIES:
CSX Railroad
Michael Caines
Project Engineer
William J. Harris Ill
Giles Perry
Resident VP
Division Manager
Douglas E. Hammon
Director
Darnita M. Bradley
Local Gov Affairs & Econ.Dvlp.
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Public Affairs
Don Scott Airport
Columbia Gas Of Ohio
American Electric Power
SBC
Page 3 of 5
MEMBERSHIP
SCHOOLS:
Columbus City Schools
Dublin City Schools
Dr. Gene Harris
Superintendent
Dr. Sharon P. Zimmers
Superintendent
Dale A. Mcvey
Superintendent
Hilliard City School District
Jonathan Alder Local School District
Doug Carpenter
Superintendent
Dr. William F. Schaefer Ill
Superintendent
Annette Black
Treasurer
Upper Arlington Schools
CITIZEN GROUPS:
Glen Civic Association
Golfview Woods Resds Association
Keith Salyer
Sweetwater Homeowners Association
Sam Shihab
Hilliard
President
Chairman
Tom Lyden
BUSINESSES:
Ashland Chemical Inc.
Big Lots, Inc.
David J. D'antoni
President
Sally Barkar
Director Of Operations
Page 4 of 5
MEMBERSHIP
Kal Kan Foods, Inc.
Mobile
Michael Murphy
President
Beverly Rackett
Executive Director
OCLC Online Computer Library Inc.
Wayne Smith
President
Leslie R. Weilbacher
VP-Economic Development
Margery Amorose
Executive Director
Libby Gierach
Executive Director
Eric S. Phillips
Director-Economic Development
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE:
Greater Columbus
Dublin
Hilliard Area
Union County
CONGRESSIONAL:
Ohio House Of Representatives
22nd District
23rd District
24th District
Hon. Jim Hughes
Hon. Larry Wolpert
Hon. Geoffrey Smith
26th District
16th District
Hon. Mumper
Hon. Steve Stivers
Senator
Senator
12th District
15th District
Hon. Patrick Tiberi
Hon. Deborah Pryce
Congressman
Congresswoman
Hon. George V. Voinovich
Hon. Michael Dewine
U.S. Senator
U.S. Senator
State Senator
U.S. House Of Representatives
U.S. Senate
Page 5 of 5
r
Meeting Summary
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I-270 West Outerbelt/US 33 Major Investment Study
ADVISORY GROUP - 1st Meeting
Tuesday, December 2, 2003
3 p.m.
*
Hilliard Community Center
3800 Veterans Memorial Dr.
Hilliard, OH 43026
This is a summary of the key informational and action items from the first meeting of the I-270 West
Outerbelt/US 33 Major Investment Study Advisory Group.
GENERAL
Members Present
Thomas Lyden, ODOT District 6
Jesse Dickinson, Kimberly Woods
Fred Neuschwander, Kimberly Woods
Michael Cornett, Ashland, Inc.
Libby Gierach, Hillard Area Chamber of Commerce
Eric S. Phillips, Union County Chamber of Commerce
Gary Houk, OCLC
Durland Workinson, Norwich Township
Gene Bostic, Washington Township
Jim Rice, Norwich Township
Lynn Jones, Ride Solutions
Tom Davis, CSXI
Dennis Kilar, CSXI
Walter Taylor, Congressman Tiberi’s Office
Mike Heisey, Metro Parks
Carmen Stemen, ODOT
Matt Selhorst, ODOT
Lindsay Mendicino, ODOT
Jack Marchbanks, ODOT
Aaron Stanford, Columbus
Paul A. Hammersmith, Dublin
Barb Cox, Dublin
Clark Rausch, Hilliard
Letty Schamp, Hilliard
Michael Bradley, COTA
Jennifer Gallagher, Franklin County
Study Team Members Present:
Nicholas Gill, MORPC
Bernice Cage, MORPC
Bill Bielek, Burgess & Niple
Tom Hibbard, MS Consultants
Materials Available at the Meeting
Materials, available for discussion at the meeting included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agenda
Study Fact Sheet
Study maps
Decision-making flow chart
Public Involvement Plan
Overall Project Schedule
14-step handout
Steering Committee list
Advisory Group list
Sample Goals & Problem Statements
Meeting Goals
The overall goal of this meeting was to introduce the I-270 West Outerbelt/US 33 Major Investment Study
and its desired outcome to the Advisory Group members; explain their role in advising the project’s
study team, the Steering Committee of funding partners, Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission
(MORPC) and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT); and seek the Advisory Group’s input on
the area’s transportation problems and objectives.
Welcome and Introductions
After MORPC Project Manager Nick Gill welcomed the Group to the first Advisory Group meeting, all
project team and Advisory Group members introduced themselves. Mr. Gill then turned the meeting
over to the facilitator, CH2M HILL’s Marie Keister.
Study Purpose and Expected Outcome
Ms. Keister briefly recapped how population growth and increased development has made traffic surge in the
study corridor. This is driving the need for transportation improvements that will improve access to and from I270 at Dublin, Hilliard, Franklin and Union Counties, and the City of Columbus. An overall strategic approach is
needed, however, to ensure that improvements improve overall safety and mobility in the I-270 and US 33 area
– and do not fix a problem in one place to only aggravate problems in another.
2
CH2M HILL’s Jim Bednar, the consulting team’s deputy project manager, summarized the purpose of a Major
Investment Study such as this one, and explained how this process represents the first four steps of ODOT’s 14step project development process. He stressed how important it is to avoid jumping to solutions without first
knowing the roots of the problems. This often just leads to more problems. Mr. Bednar also explained that the
study’s outcome will actually be a package of strategies to improve transportation in the study corridor.
Burgess and Niple’s Bill Bielek, the consulting team’s project manager, walked the Advisory Group through the
18-month project schedule, highlighting key milestones when the study team will seek input from both its
community-based Advisory Group and the Steering Committee, which includes representatives from all
jurisdictions and organizations funding the study effort.
Public Involvement
Ms. Keister then introduced MORPC’s Bernice Cage, the study team’s lead for public involvement. Ms. Cage
explained the overall public involvement process, illustrating with a flow chart how the Advisory Group will
provide advisory input to the project team, the funding partners -- or Steering Committee, and to the ultimate
decision-makers, MORPC and ODOT.
Ms. Cage handed out the draft Public Involvement Plan, which includes outreach through Steering Committee
and Advisory Group meetings, presentations to neighborhood groups and elected officials, and public meetings
at key study milestones. MORPC will provide project information on its Web site at www.morpc.org, through
a project newsletter, a project mailing list, and e-mail. The media will be alerted to all public meetings and will be
sent news releases on a regular basis. The Advisory Group was asked to also share information through their
own communication channels, and to let the study team know when any group was interested in a presentation.
They were also invited to let MORPC if others should be invited to participate in the study as Advisory Group
members.
Ms. Cage also summarized ground rules for Advisory Group participation, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ask questions
Seek clarifications
Respect each other’s opinions
Respect each other’s time
Express opinions but avoid long speeches
Offer resources if you have them (data, communication vehicles, time)
Have fun
Study Parameters
Mr. Bielek walked the Advisory Group through maps of the study area and explained the general study
boundaries. He discussed how the study team is working with all jurisdictions to collect study data, but requested
that the Advisory Group also let the team know if they had information that might be pertinent to this effort.
Problem Discussion
Ms. Keister than introduced CH2M HILL’s Tim Neuman, who will lead the engineering component of the study.
Mr. Neuman briefed the Advisory Group on the components of an effective problem statement. Reiterating what
Mr. Bednar said earlier about not jumping to solutions, Mr. Neuman said problem statements should specifically
explain the what, where and when of a problem. Ms. Keister circulated a list of problems the Steering Committee
3
had developed at its meeting on November 4th and then asked the Advisory Group to complete the same
exercise, although they were welcomed to repeat any of the issues already identified by the Steering Committee.
The Advisory Group gave the following list of issues, which have been combined in some cases to avoid
repetition.
General Problems Throughout the Corridor:
1. Growth and congestion, especially during peak hours.
2. The speed at which development is moving in the area is quickening.
3. Resident expectation that the area will stay rural, but population/traffic growth will prevent that.
4. The challenge is to prevent traffic and its side effects (noise, fumes, pollution, etc.) from decreasing quality
of life.
5. Conflicting Master Plans, e.g. sensitive environmental area in Brown Township, but no agreement on how
best to protect it.
6. Lack of multi-modal alternatives, which are especially needed in the long term
7. High speeds on rural roads.
8. Emergency access problems due to barriers along 270 widening area.
9. Increase in the number of cars per household and more kids driving to school causes increase in traffic.
10. Conflicting stakeholder demands and needs.
11. Conflicting agency and government goals.
12. The infrastructure overloaded, but everyone wants more economic development. The result is conflict.
13. Interim fixes don’t accommodate long-term needs / growth
Dublin-Specific Problems:
14. Potential for growth in Dublin increases, but interconnectivity already poor.
15. Emerald Parkway congested.
16. Lack of Emerald Parkway access to I-270.
17. East-bound US 33 backs up to Post Rd. as traffic tries to get onto I-270. This also makes Post Road
interchange problematic.
18. US 33/161 interchange is overloaded and has criss-crossing traffic.
Hilliard-Specific Problems:
19. Getting east/west from Dublin Road to Hilliard is a problem.
20. On I-270 between Roberts & Cemetery, crossover accidents are a problem. (ODOT is planning to install
barriers to prevent them.)
21. Weaving problems at Hilliard-Rome Road Ramp.
4
22. Congestion and poor access management on arterials, which are now 2-lane roads:
a. Cosgray at Scioto-Darby
b. Cosgray and Hayden Run, running north and south. There has been an increase in the number of
crashes here, although a traffic signal added recently helps.
c.
Roberts Rd.: Backs up to west due to an increase in development; jogs from east to west are
problematic; during peaks trucks off-loading freight from trains are told by CSX to avoid Roberts Road.
d. Avery & Hayden Run intersection is a problem. Increased development is coming.
23. Arterial network access and flow problems at interchanges & beyond. The roads can’t handle increased
traffic caused by suburbanization.
Union County-Specific Problems:
24. Increased truck traffic coming through Plain City to avoid I-270.
25. At SR 42 & US 33 congestion has increased due to business growth around Industrial Parkway.
26. The use of 42/33 as a truck corridor will only increase, especially if the CSX intermodal facility currently
located near Roberts Rd. moves to Union County.
Goals
After discussing the study corridor’s problems Ms. Keister asked the Advisory Group to identify overall
project goals that would address these problems. Each member was then provided four red sticker
“dots” and instructed to post them by those goals they thought were most important to them as
individuals. Group members could put all four dots by one choice if they preferred. The goals and their
rankings are below:
1. Provide mode choice (12 red dots)
2. Free flowing traffic (10 red dots)
3. Increase safety (be sure to include input from Police and EMS) (8 red dots)
4. Improved multi-modal access to connect homes with jobs today and tomorrow. (6 red dots)
5. Network intrergration & better efficiency (6 red dots)
6. Convenient connectivity between all modes (6 red dots)
7. Consistent community policies on development, land use, etc., to promote Transit Oriented Development
and reduce the need to Drive) (5 red dots)
8. Balance meeting transportation needs with preserving rural quality of area. (4 red dots)
9. Intergovernmental cooperation on economical development, design, revenue sharing, etc. (4 red dots)
10. Fiscally realistic (3 red dots)
11. Promote people aspect. (e.g. safe walking) (3 red dots)
12. Economic Development (3 red dots)
5
13. Efficient (2 red dots)
14. Attractive (2 red dots)
15. Environmental Quality (2 red dots)
16. Accommodate for future needs (2 red dots)
17. Provide route choices. (alternatives to 270 @ E/W) (1 red dot)
18. Connectivity between commercial and residential (1 red dot)
19. Balanced land use that reduces demand on transportation infrastructure.
Ms. Keister explained that ranking the goals as they did would give the study team guidance on what the
community valued most. This, in turn, would enable the team to establish evaluation criteria to determine
whether emerging alternatives met these community priorities. She said that it is helpful to establish these
priorities now, before alternatives are developed, to both focus the data collection efforts and to ensure that
alternatives reflect these community desires. She also said there would be opportunities to re-visit these
priorities and resulting evaluation criteria later in the study.
Closing/Next Steps
Ms. Keister closed the meeting by explaining that the study team will summarize the problems and goals and
start collecting data to identify underlying causes. She said the Advisory Group will re-convene when there is
progress to report, sometime after the first of the year. Ms. Keister thanked everyone for attending and said she
and the study team looked forward to working with them over the course of the study.
6
ADVISORY GROUP
May 10, 2005
Meeting Summary
Dublin City Council Chambers
3:00 – 4:45 p.m.
Members
Edward Abercrombie
Tashia Clemons
Barb Cox
Jesse Dickinson
Consultants
William Bielek
Tom Hibbard
Marie Keister
Bruce Mansfield
Libby Gierach
Paul Hammersmith
Mandy Kisling
Thomas Lyden
Fred Neuschwander Jean-Ellen Willis
Eric Phillips
Ansen Wu
Clark Rausch
Terry Timlin
Tim Neuman
Ram Nunna
Stephen Welk
MORPC Staff
Bernice Cage
Kymberlee Dudley-Thompson
Nick Gill
Nancy Reger
1.
Welcome and Introductions. Nick Gill welcomed the committee back together again after
several months. Nick announced that Marie Keister would be facilitating most of the meeting.
Committee members introduced themselves.
2.
Review Study Goals and Objectives. Marie Keister briefly reviewed the goals and
objectives handout.
• Improved Operational Efficiency – measures the relative ease or difficulty of the trip
that a user is able to make and the effectiveness of transportation facilities that make
the trip possible.
• Accessibility – measures the ability of a user to access home, jobs, services, goods
and other parts of the transportation system
• Traffic Safety and Security – basic safety concerns are the avoidance of harm to
body or property as usually measured by crash frequency, severity and cost. Security
addresses the need to deter criminal acts that threaten both the user of the
transportation facility and the facility itself.
•
•
•
•
•
Quality of Life – the quality of life attributes (which are difficult to measure) relate to
the enjoyment of one’s location
Environment – this goal considers resource usage from fuel consumption to land
uses. It considers impacts to community resources such as residential areas, historic
structures and districts, parks, and special population groups.
Economic and Community Development – this goal examines accessibility for the
purpose of improving a region’s competitive advantage.
Fiscal Responsibility/Implementability – measures the ability to maximize user and
community benefits given the infrastructure costs, and the ability to timely finance and
implement the whole range of proposed improvements, not just those using federal
funds.
Constructability - this goal considers the ability to minimize disruption during
construction with rational phasing and sequencing of projects.
Jesse Dickinson asked about a proposal to turn some interstates into toll roads – is there
any information on that? Nick Gill responded that at the Federal level they are considering
allowing for states to use toll roads, but he did not think that Ohio would be utilizing this.
Mandy Kisling stated that ODOT has not considered toll roads in this area.
Marie Keister pointed out that some of the goals will conflict with others. Conceptual
alternatives will be measured against the goals and some will do better at achieving some
objectives more than others.
Marie introduced the project manager on the consultant team, Bill Bielek, who will give a
project overview and status update.
3.
Project Overview and Status - Mr. Bielek stated that projects like this follow ODOT’s 14
step project development process, from study initiation to completed construction. Right
now this study is between steps two and three and getting ready to start step three which
identifies and evaluates possible solutions to the problems we found in step two. Once
conceptual alternatives are drafted they will be reviewed with the public later this year.
The objective is to complete step three by the end of the year. During step three strategies
to implement the recommendations will be developed and reviewed with the public.
4.
Background Data/Existing & Future Conditions - The biggest factor in determining what
the future traffic volume is going to be is the determination of future land use.
a. Land Use Summary– MORPC’s Nancy Reger discussed the study area, which
includes Franklin, Delaware and the edges of adjacent counties. The land use review
area for this study is 233 square miles, about a third of the study area in which MORPC
does its work. Currently there are 370,000 residents in this area, 228,000 jobs, 38
million sq. ft. of industrial space, 29 million sq. ft. of retail space, and 23 million sq. ft. of
office space. The horizon year for this study’s forecast is the year 2030. By 2030 this
area is forecasted to add about 102,000 people --25,000 of whom have already arrived
since the 2000 Census, 10,000 houses and 113,000 new jobs. For presentation
purposes, Ms. Reger broke the study area into four key areas. They included:
Northwest (west of Scioto and north of Rings, West (west of Scioto, from Rings to I-70),
Between the Rivers (between the Scioto and Olentangy Rivers) and I-70 Corridor
(south of I-70). A lot of new development is proposed over the next 30 years in all of
these areas. The forecasting is done based on the long range plans that the local
2
communities have developed, and reviewed and shaped by all local governments. Mr.
Wu asked if the labor force numbers are sufficient to fill the jobs that are being
created? Ms. Reger answered that population follows jobs, but all of the people that
work in this area don’t live in this area, so regionally there is a balance between the
labor and the jobs.
b. Bike Facility Inventory – Bernice Cage discussed the existing and committed
bikeways in the I-270/US 33 land use review area, the area that was just reviewed by
Nancy Reger. Almost all of the facilities in this particular review area are multi-use
paths and very few are bike routes, but the paths are used by both pedestrians and
bicyclists. Committed bikeways are those that are under development by local
communities. Currently there are 120 miles of existing bikeways in this land use
review area and 20 miles of committed bikeways, including some that will be built this
year. MORPC receives this information from the various jurisdictions shown on your
map annually or every two years, so this is current. Paul Hammersmith commented
that there is a bicycle route designation on Industrial Parkway. Is this just because
cyclists tend to use this route even though it is not a designated bike path or bikeway?
Ms. Cage said that she would look into this.
c. Transit Inventory – Nick Gill reported on the COTA transit system inventory. The
routes that service the I-270/US33 area include: 11 local routes, 13 express routes, six
cross-town routes and nine formal park and rides operated by COTA within the land
use review area, including Project Mainstream paratransit service for people with
disabilities. About 5,000 riders a day use these routes. Sixty percent of these riders
are on the West Broad Street line.
d. Environmental Constraints – Tom Hibbard summarized environmental constraints
within the project study area, including natural constraints such as wetlands and rare
and endangered species. Also identified were parks and recreational facilities. Mr.
Hibbard noted that there are two areas for special consideration, the Big Darby
Watershed area and also the Hellbranch Run area. Approximately 23 documented
man-made environmental hazardous materials locations were identified. Ms. Keister
asked the group to please review these exhibits to ensure their accuracy, and to note
anything on the boards that might be missing.
e. Crash Data - The consultant team did a traffic safety analysis along the freeways and
arterial streets in the study area. The studies reviewed a four-year period starting in
2000. The intent of the analysis was to identify the locations and patterns of crash
history so the team can address the safety problems in the conceptual alternative
phase of the study. The top three freeway sections with the most crashes all occurred
along US 33 and include, in order of magnitude: 1) I-270/Frantz Post Rd., 2) 161 from
Post Road to US 42 and, 3) I-270 to the Avery-Muirfield Dr. interchange. While the
crash rates are not that bad in relation to overall state goals, these clearly are problem
areas that need to be addressed.
f.
Roadway Inventory/Geometric Deficiencies - The consultant team conducted an
inventory of the existing roadway system, and among the things that were looked at
were: the width of the freeways, the streets, the number of lanes, freeway ramp
information, physical condition of the pavements and bridges, right-of-way limits and
signal timing of the intersections. The purpose was to identify geometric deficiencies.
Deficiencies are defined as any segment of roadway that no longer meets current
3
design standards. Each of the eight key interchanges in the study has at least one
geometric deficiency. The worst location is the I-270/US33/Rt. 161 interchange.
g. Existing & Future Congestion Locations - The morning peak-hour traffic on the
freeway segments is rated a Level of Service (LOS) D on nine sections of the study
area. The LOS grades are A through F, A being the best and F meaning failure. The
afternoon peak-hour traffic shows that the LOS worsens to E, almost failing in the
vicinity of the I-270/US 33/Rt. 161 interchange and the area around the Avery-Muirfield
Dr. interchange. The traffic forecasts for each freeway segment show that if no
improvements are made in the corridor, system-wide failure will occur by 2030. All
segments failed along the freeways during the morning, afternoon or both by 2030.
Fifteen of the 18 entrance/exit ramps locations also will fail by 2030. Committee
member Jesse Dickinson asked for the definition of “failure”. This has many
connotations, and in relationship to traffic what does this actually mean? Mr. Bielek
answered that, for intersections, it’s defined as a period of time that traffic has to wait at
a traffic signal. When traffic has to wait more than one minute, traffic backups occur
and it takes more than one cycle of the traffic signal for everyone to get through the
signal. This is considered a LOS F, or failure. For freeways, LOS is a measure of how
dense the traffic is. When traffic begins to become unstable with reduced speed and
spacing, the freeway is approaching failure. Bumper to bumper with stop and go or
forced flow is freeway failure. Ms. Keister asked if it would be likely that we actually
design to achieve an A (LOS) all the time? Mr. Bielek answered that, on freeways,
accepted peak period LOS for design purposes is a D. At other times of the day the
traffic will flow quite well, or at a higher LOS. Designing a freeway to be at LOS A, or
free-flowing, at all times would waste resources. Under existing conditions,
intersections at Tuttle Crossing Blvd., Roberts Rd., and Avery-Muirfield Dr. operated at
below a LOS D, or near failing. In the baseline 2030 forecast, all of the freeway ramp
intersections fail. Forty-one of 50 intersections in the study area also fail. Tim Neuman
noted that what comes beyond 2030 should also be considered.
5.
Strategies/Range of Concepts
Mr. Tim Neuman, the consultant team’s engineering lead, explained that the study
team will now move into step three of ODOT’s project development process. During
this phase the team will develop conceptual alternatives. Mr. Neuman then began to
explain the features of safe and efficient transportation systems that the study team will
strive for as they develop concepts. These include:
a. Arterials - The focal point of this study is clearly I-270 and US 33. To use a medical
analogy, if you consider the freeway system as the spine of the network, the arterial is
the skeleton system, the bones that hold the freeway together. It doesn’t do much
good to see what can be done to the freeway system if you don’t also fix the arterials
as well. If everything was done right, here’s what would arterials look like to strike a
balance between providing for the necessary level of access and yet maintain
operational efficiency, and to reflect the fact that there are multiple types of traffic and
trip-making going on: You would like to have multi-lanes, median access control that
restricts the number of left turns to locations where they can be safety and efficiently
accommodated, primarily at signals, and to have a reasonable number of traffic signals
spaced reasonably far apart, usually a quarter mile. This allows you to implement fairly
efficient signal system operations. Arterials should have a right-of-way, probably 110
ft. minimum, that provides for pedestrian accessibility that feels comfortable, i.e., the
4
sidewalk isn’t right next to the road and a design that accommodates transit service. If
there is one thing that should be focused on when discussing arterials, it is left turns
and intersections. What makes a signal inefficient is the need to provide timing for leftturning traffic.
b. Freeways - There are many features that make a freeway safe and efficient. First are
wide, open medians. This I270/US33 corridor is an interesting example of a
phenomenon that has occurred around the country. Transportation designers are
learning that a median that was once considered sufficient to provide adequate
protection to cross-median crashes is no longer the case. In California, they are even
finding that an 80 ft. median is not enough for someone to stop, with extenuating
circumstances. Consider that a really flat median slope just facilitates keeping the
vehicle moving to the other side. In this I-270 corridor, ODOT has placed cable
barriers to keep traffic from crossing over to the other side of the freeway. This has
been an effective tool for preventing accidents. So while “wide-open” may be the ideal,
ODOT has shown there are other approaches to preventing crashes. Weaving (actually
a technical term), refers to the crossing of traffic flow when someone wants to get on at
one interchange and they conflict with someone who wants to get off. This happens
within an interchange such as I-270 and US 33. Other features include continuous
through lanes and a high speed adjustment. In a lot of jurisdictions around the country,
shoulders are viewed as an opportunity to do something cheap like add a lane.
Shoulders serve a really useful function from an operational and safety perspective.
Shoulders are where breakdowns occur. If there is a crash, the vehicles are moved to
the shoulder. It is where the state police and sheriff can operate and it’s where a lot of
maintenance activity takes place. One reason that freeways operate as well as they do
is because of shoulders.
c. Interchanges - For safe and efficient interchanges, there are a number of things to
keep in mind. If we start talking about getting interchanges close to each other, and if
we get into issues of improving accessibility to the freeway by adding more
interchanges, we have to start looking at solutions such as separating ramps that are
close to each other. There are two types of interchanges we have to deal with. One is
referred to as a service interchange and, as the name implies, it serves surrounding
areas that are centered around a particular arterial. There are several existing service
interchanges in the study corridor, most of them in the shape of a diamond. This is the
most prevalent form because it is a very flexible, good interchange form. What will be
looked at next is, is that the right interchange form based on the existing and future
needs of the community? If it is, is its design executed appropriately, or are there
opportunities to improve it? Perhaps the configuration is sufficient but there isn’t
enough total capacity within that interchange. One thing that we know from research
and experience is that if you mix right and left exits, we create big safety problems for
ourselves. The team’s job will be to not only look at what service interchange
configurations are there but what might make more sense in a particular area. The
other type of interchange is referred to as a system interchange which moves traffic
from one freeway to another. One of the attributes expected in this type of interchange
is unstoppable movement. There are no signals there are only directional ramps.
There are two system interchanges in the study area we will be looking at, the I270/US33 interchange and the I-70 and I-270 interchange. What’s unique about the I270/US33 interchange is that it is also a service interchange as it moves traffic onto Rt.
161 to Post/Frantz Rd. This presents some unique challenges. Committee member
Jesse Dickinson asked a question regarding individuals getting onto a ramp going in
5
the wrong direction, which has happened often lately in central Ohio. Which one of the
above mentioned interchange types is less prone to have that kind of mistake
happening? Mr. Neuman responded that there is one other interchange type, like the
one at the US33/Avery-Muirfield, Dr., interchange that tends to create the potential for
wrong way crashes. Probably 95 percent of the interchanges in this country are
diamonds, and most wrong-way crashes occur at night. Research suggests that the
diamond service form is the one that tends to create the least wrong-way crashes.
d. Transportation Demand Management Strategies. Mr. Neuman said that If you look
at solving transportation problems as a supply/demand problem, what we have been
discussing in here is the future demand and what kind of supply we need to provide.
You have a sense as to what are some of the implications of designing for 2030 traffic.
You can take the approach of, if we are going to provide as much supply as we can
get, we’re going to make the freeway as big as we can, or we’re going to rebuild all the
interchanges. That is one approach to solving the problem. But that ignores the other
half of the equation which is the demand, which Mr. Gill will discuss. Mr. Gill explained
that instead of trying to figure out how to accommodate all of the demand, one can ask
how to reduce the growth in demand, and what are other options to do besides getting
into a vehicle and using the roadway system? If more than just one person is in a car
and they share a ride with another, can we get rid of one of the vehicles and use just
one vehicle? With car pooling you can move more people in the same amount of
space. Buses and trains can do that even more efficiently. That is an example of
demand management.
6.
Next Steps - Ms. Keister explained that the information and exhibits shown today at the
Advisory Group meeting would be shared with the public at an open house that evening in
Dublin and in Hilliard the next night. The next steps will be to consider that input and draft
conceptual alternatives over the next few months. These concepts will be shared with the
Advisory Group and public later this year.
Marie Keister adjourned the meeting at 4:50 to get ready for the public meeting.
6
ADVISORY GROUP
January 17, 2006
Meeting Summary
5800 Shier Rings Rd.
3:00 – 4:45 p.m.
Members Present
Paul Hammersmith
Jean-Ellen Willis
Barb Cox
Jesse Dickinson
Libby Gierach
Doug Moore
MORPC Staff Present
Nick Gill
Bernice Cage
Bob Lawler
Chad Parasa
Kymberlee Dudley-Thompson
Project Consultants Prsent
William Bielek, B&N
Brian Martin, B&N
Tom Hibbard, ms consultants
Jim Bixby, ms consultants
Kathy Vogt, Prime Engineering
1.
Steve Stolte
Larry Helscel
Fred Neuschwander
Thomas Lyden
Emily Willis
Michael Bradley
Tashia Clemons
Clark Rausch
Letty Schamp
Bill Lewis
ODOT Staff Present
Mandy Kisling
Jeff Stauch
Todd Sloan
Andy Wolpert, CH2M HILL
Marie Keister, Engage Communications
Welcome and Introductions. Facilitator Marie Keister called the meeting to order at 3:05
p.m., welcoming everyone to the Advisory Group meeting.
Change in study management structure and schedule. MORPC Project Manager
Nick Gill and ODOT Project Manager Mandy Kisling discussed the change in the study
management structure and schedule. Ms. Kisling, with ODOT District 6, explained
ODOT will be playing a more active role in managing the study is it moves through the
development and evaluation of conceptual alternatives and development of the
Strategic Plan.
Meeting purpose. Ms. Keister reminded Advisory Group members that the purpose of
the study is to look at solutions for addressing traffic and improving mobility in the
northwest outerbelt area. The purpose of this Advisory Group meeting is to provide an
update on study recommendations to date and seek input as the study team develops
conceptual alternatives. She explained that the team is looking to Advisory Group
members to also provide input on issues to be considered in the Strategic Plan.
2. Study Overview, Status and Schedule. Consultant team project manager Bill Bielek
discussed the project status and schedule as shown in the handout. He explained that the
study will wrap up by mid-June, when it is anticipated that MORPC’s Policy Committee will
adopt the Strategic Plan, the written product of this effort. Prior to the mid-June MORPC
meeting, draft concepts will be shared with the Advisory Group, the general public, city
councils and county commissioners in the study area. The Strategic Plan will reflect input
gained from these various public forums.
3. Study Recommendations to Date. Tim Neuman from CH2M HILL discussed the
recommendations to date, which include freeway lane requirements, the assumed roadway
network and proposed new interchanges.
•
Freeway lane requirements – Mr. Neuman explained that the 2030 level of service
(LOS) goal is LOS D on the freeway and interchanges. This means that, during peak
travel periods, traffic may have to travel slower than the speed limit but generally will
still keep moving. Isolated locations may have LOS E during peak travel times,
meaning the freeway may be at or near capacity and there may be unstable traffic flow
in some cases. To achieve LOS D in 2030, based on traffic volume projections, 10
freeway lanes (5 each direction) are needed on I-270, and 6 lanes (3 each direction)
are needed on US 33. Two additional auxiliary lanes (one in each direction) are
needed between interchanges along I-270, for 12 total lanes in this area. On US 33,
additional auxiliary lanes are needed between interchanges from the State Rt.
161/Post Rd. interchange to I-270, for 8 total lanes in this area. Handouts were
provided that illustrated typical cross-sections to give members an idea of what this
would look like. Doug Moore from COTA asked if the average daily traffic forecasts
also predict the same peak hour traffic problems. Mr. Neuman said they did. Paul
Hammersmith, Dublin City engineer, commented that the problems would be worse if
parallel arterials like Emerald Parkway and Britton Parkway didn’t exist.
•
Assumed off-freeway improvements – Mr. Gill discussed off-freeway improvements
that are assumed to be in place in 2030. This information was provided in a handout.
The 2030 traffic forecasts accounted for the impact these committed improvements will
have on freeway and interchange locations.
•
Proposed new interchange locations – Three interchange locations were considered
based on prior studies and/or requests by local jurisdictions. These included: I-270 and
Scioto & Darby Creek Rd., I-270 and Davidson Rd., and US 33 and Mitchell-Dewitt.
The macro-level screening – the process for determining which interchanges should
move forward for more analysis -- focused on the potential transportation advantages
and disadvantages of providing new interchanges at these locations. Of primary
importance was how significantly traffic would be reduced at nearby interchanges, how
much traffic would increase on the freeway and whether new interchanges would
cause travelers to use the freeway instead of the local arterial system for short trips.
Handouts were provided. Analysis showed that the disadvantage of attracting more
trips to the freeway overcame the advantage of somewhat reduced traffic on nearby
interchanges. Thus, it was recommended that the I-270 and Scioto & Darby Creek Rd.
interchange be dropped from further consideration. Hilliard representative Clark
Rausch confirmed that Hilliard City Council understood the recommendation and had
accepted it. The other two locations are recommended to move forward for additional
analysis. Two Advisory Group members asked when they would be able to provide
2
input on the US 33 and Mitchell-Dewitt Rd. interchange concepts. Mr. Neuman
explained that draft design concepts would be presented to the Advisory Group and the
public in early May. Steve Stolte, Union County county engineer, noted that the
Mitchell-Dewitt interchange is in area comprehensive plans. He asked if the
recommendation to keep the US 33/Mitchell-Dewitt interchange could change based
on additional analysis. Mr. Neuman said it was possible, and that the Advisory Group
members would be kept informed. Hilliard representatives noted there are some
concerns about physical constraints around the proposed Davidson Rd. interchange,
but that they, like Dublin and Columbus, are interested in relieving traffic at Tuttle
Crossing Blvd. If Davidson moves forward, major changes to local arterials may be
needed, which could prompt resistance from residents.
3.
Process for Drafting Conceptual Alternatives. Mr. Neuman reported that the consultant
team is working with local jurisdictions to draft conceptual alternatives for the existing and
proposed new interchanges. The public will be invited to comment on these concepts in
May. He explained that this study will not recommend final designs for each interchange.
Instead, it will provide recommendations on lane requirements, identify whether it makes
sense to move a new interchange location forward for further consideration, and provide
preliminary concepts for possible interchange designs. When complete, the concepts will
provide “planning level” – very preliminary – cost estimates. Future studies will continue to
work closely with the public to further refine the initial concepts into feasible, preferred
alternatives that fully explore right of way, community and environmental impacts.
4.
Strategic Plan Development Process. James Bednar from CH2M HILL discussed how
the Strategic Plan will be developed. The plan looks at the big picture of how the different
components of the transportation system can work together more efficiently. It will identify
projects that can be pursued independently, recommend how to phase the projects,
provide preliminary cost estimates and identify potential sources of funding. At the
conclusion of the study, projects “of independent utility” will then move forward through the
rest of ODOT’s project development process on their own and different schedules.
Advisory Group members asked whether the Strategic Plan would recommend when each
project should move forward. Mr. Bednar replied that the Plan would show the order of
priority of the projects to ensure they each can be built and operated efficiently. Actual
years would not be included. An Advisory Group member asked if there would be
performance triggers that would cause projects to move forward. Mr. Bednar said it was
unlikely that would be included in the Strategic Plan. Paul Hammersmith, Dublin City
Engineer, said the Plan will provide a strategy for getting ahead of the traffic problems
anticipated to occur in the future in Dublin, where so much economic activity is taking
place.
5.
Next Steps. Ms. Keister announced that the next steps would include further developing
and evaluating conceptual alternatives. The next Advisory Group meeting will be held in
May, followed by a public meeting later that day and evening. It was noted that additional
opportunities to comment will be available after that meeting. An Advisory Group member
suggested that materials be forwarded to the Advisory Group a few days before the
meeting so they could come prepared with informed input.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:45 p.m.
3
r
I-270 West Outerbelt/
US 33 Northwest Freeway Study
ADVISORY GROUP
May 9, 2006
Meeting Summary
Dublin Recreation Center
3:00 – 5:00 p.m.
Members
Valerie Croasmun
Jesse Dickinson
Paul Hammersmith
Bill Lewis
Thomas Lyden
Jack Marchbanks
Fred Neuschwander
Clark Rausch
Letty Schamp
Clyde Seidle
Todd Sloan
Carmen Stemen
Steve Stolte
Consultants
William Bielek
James Bednar
Tom Hibbard
Marie Keister
Tim Neuman
Guests
Richard Belville
Bruce Ward
Ted Zangmeister
C. Wilt
Kim Smith
Carl Karrer
J.P. Blackwood
MORPC Staff
Bernice Cage
Nick Gill
Alicia Kehrig
1.
Welcome and Introductions. MORPC Project Manager Nick Gill welcomed the committee
members. Valerie Croasmun from ODOT District 6 thanked Union and Franklin counties and
the cities of Dublin, Hilliard and Columbus for being partners with ODOT and MORPC on this
study. Facilitator Marie Keister then had everyone introduce themselves.
2.
Review Study Goals, Purpose and Need. Ms. Keister stated that the purpose of this
meeting was to unveil draft study recommendations and seek input on the proposed strategic
plan to implement the proposed transportations improvements.
Ms. Keister stated that if anyone had any questions and/or comments at any time to feel free
to ask or give a comment.
Ms. Keister said that what was going to be discussed was the process for implementing these
projects. One of the goals for today is that everyone leaves knowing that the community has
helped to shape these recommendations and knowing that there is a good plan in place for the
next 25 years or so.
Ms. Keister asked Mr. Bill Bielek to remind everyone as to why the project was started. Mr.
Bielek highlighted the purpose and need and the study goals as follows:
Purpose/Need
•
•
•
•
Population increases and economic activity in the area have increased the traffic volumes
dramatically.
If nothing is done, future travel demand will cause an overall transportation system failure
by the year 2030.
The existing geometric deficiencies contribute to localized congestion because highways
and ramps have been operating beyond their initial design capacity (i.e. the I-270/US33
cloverleaf interchange).
All of the above factors have contributed to increased crash rates in the area.
Study Goals
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.
Improved operational efficiency of the transportation network
Improved accessibility by expanding the local street system and by adding new roadways
and freeway interchanges, and incorporating transit and pedestrian access to the extent
possible
Improved traffic safety and security
Preservation of the quality of life and character of the communities
Protection of natural and man-made environments
Enhanced economic and community development
Fiscal responsibility/implementability
Minimized impact during construction
How Public Input has Shaped the Recommendations – Ms. Keister introduced MORPC’s
Bernice Cage to discuss the public involvement mechanisms used in shaping the
recommendations. Ms. Cage stated that public involvement is vital in any type of
transportation study, program and project. With busy lifestyles, it has been difficult and
challenging to get the public to participate in transportation planning, especially if the project is
not going to be constructed for 10, 20 or 30 years. Ms. Cage thanked everyone for
participating in the study and providing input and for any future involvement as the process
moves forward.
Public participation for this project was achieved with assistance from the funding partners, the
agencies that Ms. Croasmun thanked at the beginning of the meeting, the Advisory Group
here today, project team workshops and open house public meetings. The Advisory Group
met four times since Late 2003. This group provided input to the study team on problem
areas, high crash locations and environmental issues that the team might have missed. The
group assisted in identifying problems, goals, opportunities and priorities in the study area.
The Advisory Group provided necessary feedback on each milestone which answered the
question, “are we on the right track and are we proceeding as we should?”
Along with meeting with the Advisory Group, the study team met with the various funding
partners monthly to identify local issues of concern and how best to coordinate existing plans.
Project team workshops were held with funding partners, local councils and staffs to work
2
through specific areas of concern, community priorities and coordination of existing local
plans. Two public open houses were held in May 2005, one in Dublin and the other in Hilliard,
where the study team received additional feedback from the public on the problems, crashes
and other traffic concerns. The public open houses, the advisory group and monthly meetings
with funding partners and the project team workshops all played a role in shaping the
recommendations which will be presented today. As well, property owners and businesses
were also instrumental with providing feedback on the study. As this process moves forward
Ms. Cage encouraged the group to remain involved and help create a quality transportation
system that will provide quality service not only to this area but to the entire central Ohio
region.
4.
Conceptual Alternatives Development Process. – Andy Wolpert, a roadway engineer with
project team member CH2M HILL, summarized the draft recommendations, including:
New Interchange Location Recommendations
Mitchell-Dewitt Road and US 33 –recommended for further study
Davidson Road – recommended for further study
Scioto-Darby Creek Road – removed from further study
Mr. Wolpert then summarized the process for drafting conceptual alternatives for existing and
proposed new interchanges, including:

I -270/I-70 (system interchange)
I-270/Roberts Road
I-270/Cemetery Road
I-270/Tuttle Crossing Boulevard
I-270/US 33 (system interchange)
US 33/US 42
US 33/Avery-Muirfield Drive
I-270/Davidson Road
US 33/Mitchell-Dewitt Road
The process included developing 200-scale plan view drawings shown over aerial mapping.
Plan views represent the edge-to-edge traveled way width and accommodate vertical
geometric requirements. Costs, right-of-way impacts were estimated. Refined peak period
traffic forecasts were used to evaluate operational efficiency and appropriate freeway sizing.
The team then reviewed draft concepts with elected officials and planning/engineering staffs in
each community to gain their feedback and revise the concepts accordingly. Trade-offs that
were discussed with stakeholders included:

Operational efficiency and level of service
Right of way needs
Residential/commercial impacts
Phasing/cost issues
Economic/community impacts
Pedestrian/bike/transit access
5% demand reduction goal
Promotion of modal choice, per public input
Based on feedback from each community, the project team made adjustments to each
concept accordingly.
3
Mr. Wolpert stated that a single “best solution” was not necessarily identified for each
interchange. A preferred alternative for each interchange location will be resolved through later
engineering studies and environmental processes with extensive public input. Instead, the
concepts put forward now are those that could work based on operational needs and public
input.
One Advisory Group member asked for an example where public input was considered in
developing the conceptual alternatives. Mr. Wolpert stated that Tuttle Crossing Blvd.
interchange was an example. Some of the alternatives that were developed had significant
right-of-way impacts. After some discussion with City of Columbus representatives it was
decided that some of the concepts shouldn’t move forward because the right-of-way impacts
would be too severe.
CH2M HILL’s Jim Bednar added that the three options at Tuttle Crossing that were considered
viable at this time. The study says that based on the conceptual engineering assessment, it is
possible to do and here are some different ways to do it – but funding commitments have not
been made and much more extensive engineering, environmental and public analysis would
be required before actual construction would begin.
5.
Seek input on Draft Strategic Plan Recommendations – Mr. Bednar discussed the draft
Strategic Plan recommendations. He discussed that 84 projects, or about $1 billion in
transportation improvements in 2006 dollars, were identified through the course of this
effort. They were grouped into three categories: initial projects that would be targeted for
completion by 2013, intermediate projects targeted for completion between 2014 and longterm projects with targeted completion between 2022 and 2030. Many of the projects
slated for the initial timeframe are focused on improving local arterials that serve the
freeways, and some are already funded and/or in development. When more state funding
becomes available after 2013, more budget dollars are proposed to be expended on
freeway improvements. These individual projects are designed to be mostly built and work
independent of each, and yet when all put into place will dramatically improve the overall
operation of the transportation network in the study area. The timing was determined to
ensure that projects that were the foundation of later projects were built first, so that
maximum operational efficiency and cost effectiveness could be achieved as projects were
implemented.
City of Columbus representative Bill Lewis asked if whether ODOT would move forward
with its $190 million in proposed initial projects even if Columbus, Dublin and others didn’t
move forward with their proposed projects. Mr. Bednar responded that some projects might
proceed but others would be moved back accordingly. The strategic planning tool
developed for this project allows the project team to adjust projects based on what
happens with individual projects and their timing.
Mr. Lewis asked if the tool CH2M HILL developed would continue to be used after the
completion of this phase of study. Ms. Croasmun from ODOT said that her agency really
likes the interactivity of this tool and would like to see it used moving forward. CH2M HILL’s
Tim Neuman said it could be used in the future. Mr. Wolpert also noted that the projects
and the planning tool are linked to a GIS database that each community could reference.
4
Regarding the intermediate projects, Dublin transportation engineer Paul Hammersmith
asked whether the widening of I-270 would happen in phases. Mr. Bednar said that would
be the case, with the last lane added to I-270, if needed, in the long-term list of projects.
Letty Schamp, Hilliard city engineer, asked when it would be officially decided to move
forward with the proposed interchanges, particularly the one at Davidson Road? ODOT’s
Ms. Croasmun said an early look at the Davidson Road interchange made sense, since so
many Hilliard-area projects would depend on whether or not a Davidson Road interchange
moved forward. Ms. Schamp indicated this project would require widening of Davidson
Road and have other implications worthy of study before other projects move forward. It
was agreed that it should be recommended that the Davidson Road interchange analysis
take place during the initial timeframe to ensure this question is resolved sooner rather
than later.
6.
Next Steps - Nick Gill discussed the next steps. The revised strategic plan will be
presented to local city councils, and MORPC’s Policy Committee will consider the plan for
adoption at its July 20, 2006 meeting. Individual projects will proceed as funding sources
are identified and become available.
Marie Keister adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m. to get ready for the public meeting.
5
r
APPENDIX 1-C
P UBLIC MEETING S UMMARIES
Page 1C-1
r
Public Open House
May 10 & 11, 2005
Dublin City Council Chambers and Hilliard High School
6 – 8 p.m.
Public Comments
Question: Are there any traffic-related problems you are aware of in the study area that
were NOT identified tonight?
Comments
• No future bike paths/walking trails shown in the townships
• Traffic on Emerald parkway backs up because of left turn lanes too short. Not enough
length @ Tuttle and Emerald in the south bound turn lanes. Emerald needs two lanes
each way from Tuttle to Rings.
• Yes, the I-70/Hilliard-Rome Rd/Renner Rd interchange – improvements would be helpful
here
• “Auxiliary” lanes on Rt. 33 between Avery-Muirfield and I-270 are needed even after Rt33 is widened. Many vehicles entering 33 east bound from Avery-Muirfield want to EXIT
Rt 33 onto 270 south. An auxiliary lane would avoid many needless merges and smooth
the flow on 33 in the morning, preventing some of the backups that occur daily on 33.
Question: Are there any natural or man made environmental concerns you are aware of
in the study areas that were NOT identified tonight?
Comments
• Hayden Run Stream and Falls
Question: As the study team starts developing alternatives to address problem areas on
the freeways, interchanges and arterials that intersect with the freeway, what do you
think the team should consider?
Comments
• Put electric light rail right in the roadways. Put tracks right in road instead of trying to
acquire land for tracks and stations.
• I-70 exit 71: SPUI
• I-270 exit 8: Eliminate both loops
• I-270 exit 14: New interchange serving Davidson/Hayden Run rds.
1
•
•
•
I-270 exit 17: Replace N→W, E→N, W→S loops with direct ramps
Local/express lane configuration along I-270
Are you aware of the “Dublin Innovation Center” that was unveiled last night 5/9/05?
This is a 1500 acre area at Rt. 33 and Post Rd/Rt. 161, (west?/south side of Rt. 33,
south side mostly of 161). Dublin has brought this land and will market it for
development into a high-rise office and R&D center. They hired the same architect who
designed the “Research Triangle Park:” area of Raleigh-Durham- Chapel Hill NC. This
will potentially lead to several thousands employees exiting the freeway there daily. You
can get data and projection from Dana McDaniel, Dublin Director of Economic
Development.
Question: Please provide general comments about what you learned here tonight.
Comments
• Improvements to I-270 interchange seem to be well addressed.
• “Demand Management” sounds great, but Columbus has a lousy track record for public
transit. Capacity improvements should be a greater concern, and should not be
diminished by hopeful anticipation of alternate solutions. While a good transit system
would be nice, it’s unlikely to happen here, and we can’t bet our mobility on it.
Question: Did we miss anything?
Comments
• Riverside Hospital development – make sure we have traffic study and other information.
• Vehicle detection (bicycles) @ intersections is a problem (they don’t get picked up)
2
Public Open House
May 9, 2006
Dublin Recreation Center
6 – 7:30 p.m.
Public Comments
Regarding the Recommended Widening of I-270
Comments
• Agree with recommendations
• Yes – needed badly both directions, especially south bound after 4:30 pm near
Tuttle Crossing. In Nov-Dec, this would resolve right lane backups going to mall
• Very supportive of the project
• Good idea. I really like the concept of auxiliary lanes on both 270 and US 33
• 6 lanes in each direction may be excessive without the express/local
configuration
Regarding the Recommended Widening of US 33
Comments
• I am concerned about disruption to my company
• Agree with recommendations
• Here 7-1/2 years, we needed this 5 years ago. 7:00 – 7:45 am west bound is a
disaster
• Critical to support the population growth and business growth. 2 lane→ 4 lane
each direction will need wider intersection at 210, 161 and Avery
• Yes! ASAP! Rt. 33 is a failed road between 270 & Post Road during rush hours.
An auxiliary lane between 270 and Avery Muirfield alone alleviates much of the
blockage and may affect rear-end collisions
• Widen 33 between Avery & 270. Make lane restrictions to cut lane changing
• 4 lanes in each direction sounds good
Regarding Modification to Existing Interchanges
Comments
• The picture of the Dublin interchange showed an enormous road system for a
rural area. We have growth restrictions in Jerome
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agree with need to improve all modifications
I-270 & Roberts Road should be 3rd priority. US 33 & Avery Road should be 2nd
priority. I-270 & Tuttle Crossing should be last priority. I-270 & Hilliard-Cemetery
Road is not a problem. I-270 and US33/SR161 should be the 1st priority
Willow Grove is the only residential area impacted by this freeway and the
modification of the interchange. We get the noise and are affected by the
freeway lighting at night. Mounding topped with a sound barrier wall could help
alleviate the noise problem. Shielding of the freeway lighting could give us some
relief from the glare. MORPC consideration of these two items as final plans are
completed will be gratefully appreciated
US33 and Avery needs widening especially at the eastbound ramp, support
traffic, light redesign at east bound ramp to allow more traffic. Extend the
auxiliary lane longer into I270 & US33 interchange. Support I270 & US33
exchange widening. Support overhead ramp bridge for better through port,
especially from (I270 N→ US33 West) and US33 East → I270 North
I270 & US33/SR 161, there is a huge need to move this please asap
I270 & US33/SR 161, get rid of clover leafs! Make “fast/bypass” lanes away from
the interchange (barrier for inner two lanes?)
Regarding New Interchanges
Comments
Mitchell-Dewitt Road and US 33
• Excellent idea
• Forget it
• I love the idea here! The just announced “JeromeVillage.org” development will
add 2200 homes north and slightly east of this proposed interchange. The
“Glacier West” subdivision is to bring in 4400 houses northeast of 42 & 33. This
interchange will relieve much pressure developing the 33/42 area
• Too close to other exits (4.75 miles). Please look at bicycle traffic and impact to
nature, Glacier Ridge Park, etc.
• Metro parks has an existing at grade crossing of Mitchell-Dewitt and will soon
have two. In widening Mitchell-Dewitt please provide for pedestrian friendly
access for trail users and crossings.
Davidson Road and I-270
• Oppose. 3 elementary schools within 1 mile of proposed highway interchange.
Local quality of life significantly diminished. Davidson Road is not a major artery
roadway according to Hilliard’s thoroughfare plan. Spacing between
interchanges: Davidson is 1.2 miles too close to next interchange according to
ODOT standards
• No way – need less interchanges
2
Off Freeway Improvements
• Do not disrupt existing bike path systems or pedestrian ways (i.e. Davidson Road
interchange would significantly disrupt east/west local traffic). Access to Heritage
bike path by Hilliard east of 270 needs maintained.
• Avery-Muirfield – needs work
• Correct connection for Sawmill & 270 & Emerald Parkway
• Avery-Muirfield north of 33 was poorly designed with traffic lights at each block
and now the new Dublin Hospital is under construction along there. I don’t know
a solution.
• Bike paths would be a real benefit to the community
Transportation Demand Management
• I’m not interested
Public Transit
• Encourage more park & ride from suburb to large employers
• Create between Tuttle region/Polaris/Easton routes
• No interest
• I can’t see this as helping, as we look clear “from → to” destinations
Strategic Plan
• That young man who spoke up in the meeting was right – the US 33/161
interchange should have been part of this
• Okay. Special emergency funds needed to do I270-US33 ASAP. During the last
3 years this has become a mess, unsafe
• Sawmill traffic improvements: reduce traffic lights, but build access roads & cross
bridges for Sawmill & 161 and Emerald Parkway
3
I-270/US 33 NW Freeway Study
Public Meeting Station/Exhibit/Handout Summary
May 10th and 11th, 2005
May 9, 2005 Draft 8
Purpose: To inform the public of the study goals, process and the magnitude of the problems in the study area and to seek their input on
additional problems and the types of solutions the project team will be considering.
Format: Open house with one 15 minute presentation and group Q&A 6 pm (Tues) & 5:30 pm (Wed)
Exhibit
#
Exhibit (Boards unless noted)
Welcome/Sign-In Area
Meeting signs at entrance of building and room
1 Welcome
Sign in sheets
Handout packets (see below)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
19-Dec
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Responsibility
MORPC
Station 1 Why We're Here (Study Goals)
Engage/Marie
Station sign
Why conduct the I-270/US 33 NW Freeway Study (Goals)
Where we are in ODOT 14-Step Process
Decision-Making flow chart
Focus Area Map
Station 2: Background Data
Station sign
Land use data- existing and future
Environmental overview
Programmed Transportation Improvements
Description
Comments/Draft Text
Text
Text
Graphic/text
Graphic
See 70/71 graphics
Complete
MORPC/ms
Text
Nancy Reger
ms
Nick
Station 3: Focus Study Area Problems (E&F)
B&N/Bill/Study Team
Station sign
Text
Existing & Future Traffic & LOS/Arterials, freeways & interchanges
(Multiple)
Crashes/Highest Hazard Locations
Geometric Deficinecies
Flip charts for comments
Station 4: Strategies/Range of Concepts
Station sign
Features of safe and efficient arterials
Features of safe and efficient highways
Features of safe and efficient service interchanges
Features of safe and efficient system interchanges
Demand Management Strategies
Station 5: What's Next/Comment Area
28 Station sign
29 Comment forms with mail/fax back info
Seek community reaction and input
to identified problem areas (did we
CH2M HILL/Tim
Educate the community on
considerations in well-designed
transportation systems and seek their
input so it can be incorporated as
MORPC/Bernice
Text
Comment box
Handouts (Confirm quantities/packet approach) USE DOUBLE-SIDED COPIES
Meeting purpose and instructions
Study Goals and Objectives
Frequently Asked Questions
Comment forms
Newsletter (not in packet)
All displays, etc. should be ready to put on the web the day before the meetings.
Tables and chairs
r
I-270/US 33 NW Freeway Study
Public Meeting #2: Station/Exhibit/Handout Summary
5/9/2006, 6 - 7:30 p.m., Dublin Recreation Center
5/9/06 Draft
Purpose: To unveil draft study recommendations and seek input on the proposed strategic plan to implement the proposed transportation
improvements.
Format: Open house with one 15-20 minute presentation (simplified PowerPoint from AG mtg) and group Q&A at 6:30 pm
Exhibit
#
Exhibit (Boards unless noted)
Welcome/Sign-In Area -- MORPC
Meeting signs at entrance of building and room
1 Welcome
Sign in sheets
Handout packets (see below)
2
3
4
5
6-8
9-12
13-24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Responsibility
MORPC
Description
Comments/Draft Text
Bernice has
Bernice has
Station 1 Why We're Here (Study Goals & Problem Recap) -- Carmen
Station sign
Marie to draft
11 x 17
Why conduct the I-270/US 33 NW Freeway Study (Goals)
D
From May 2005 meetings
Highlight Purpose & Need
Focus Area Map
High crash areas
Where we are in ODOT 14-Step Process
B&N
C
Decision-Making flow chart
Kristin has
C
From May 2005 meetings
Station 2: Conceptual Alternatives
Tim Neuman, Andy Wolpert, Jim Bixby, Tom Hibbard
Station sign
Marie
11 x 17
New
Corridor Sizing Recommendations
CH
D
Interchange Recommendations
B&N
D
Scenarios 2, 3 & 4
Conceptual Alternatives
10 boards/CH
D
From latest meetings
Overview of Off-Network Improvements
MORPC
From Jan 2006 AG meeting
Demand management alternatives
MORPC
Station 3: Strategic Plan Recommendations
Jim Bednar, Bill Bielek, funding partners
Station sign
Marie
11 x 17
New
Initial projects (what, why & when)
CH - map
with handout
Intermediate projects
CH- map
with handout
New
CH - map
with handout
New
Long-term projects
MORPC
List
New
Currently programmed projects (TIP)
Flip charts for comments
Station 4: What's Next/Comment Area
Station sign
Comment box/forms with mail/fax back info
MORPC/Bernice
Marie
11 x 17
Comment box
Handouts (Confirm quantities/packet approach) USE DOUBLE-SIDED COPIES
Meeting purpose and instructions
Marie
Frequently Asked Questions
Interchange recommendations
Comment forms (separate -- on colored paper)
Overview of proposed improvements/draft Strategic Plan (separate -- at station #2)
Newsletter (not in packet)
All displays, etc. should be ready to put on the Web ASAP.
New
Tables and chairs
Marie
Update - Bernice & Marie
At Station #2
r
r
APPENDIX 1-D
NEWSLETTERS AND M EETING NOTICES
Page 1D-1
r
April 26, 2005
You are invited to attend a public Open House for the I-270/US33 Northwest Freeway
Study hosted by the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) and the Ohio
Department of Transportation (ODOT). The study is a joint effort of MORPC, ODOT,
Dublin, Hilliard, Columbus, Franklin County, and Union County.
Tuesday, May 10
5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
(Formal Presentation - 6:00 p.m.)
Dublin Council Chambers
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin
Wednesday, May 11, 2005,
4:30 – 6:30 p.m.
(Formal Presentation - 5:30 p.m.)
Heritage Middle School
5670 Scioto Darby Road
Hilliard
The I-270/US33 Northwest Freeway Study Team has confirmed that outdated roadway
design and increased demand is causing traffic delays and collisions along I-270 from I70 on Columbus’ west side to Sawmill Road in Northwest Columbus. The results of the
preliminary findings will be presented at the open house on May 10 and May 11. The
public is encouraged to attend and offer comments on the information presented.
An agenda will be sent next week
outlining the meeting topics. If you
have any questions regarding this
notice or the meeting, please
contact Bernice Cage at (614) 2334157. Study information is also
available on the project web site,
http://i270-us33.morpc.org.
An Advisory Committee meeting for the I270/US 33 Northwest Freeway Study has been
scheduled for Tuesday, January 17, 2006 from
3:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the Dublin City Building,
5800 Shier Rings Road, Dublin, Ohio.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING NOTICE
r
APPENDIX 1-E
NEWS R ELEASES AND
R EPRESENTATIVE MEDIA C OVERAGE
Page 1E-1
r
FOR: IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
Nick Gill
614-233-4151
[email protected]
April 24, 2006
CONTACT:
ENGAGE Communications/Public Affairs, LLC
Marie S. Keister
(614) 565-2819
[email protected]
Public To Review I-270/US 33 Northwest Freeway
Recommendations on May 9th
Columbus – Working with the public, local elected officials and transportation experts, the MidOhio Regional Planning Commission and the Ohio Department of Transportation have
developed draft recommendations for improving I-270, US 33 and local arterials serving those
freeways in the Northwest Columbus area.
MORPC and ODOT will outline the proposals and seek feedback from its community-based
advisory group on Tuesday, May 9th, from 3 to 5 p.m. An open house for the general
public will be held from 6 to 7:30 p.m., with a presentation at 6:30 p.m. Both meetings
are open to the public and will be held at the Dublin Recreation Center, 5600 Post Rd.,
Dublin, 43017.
MORPC and ODOT have worked with representatives and citizens from Columbus, Dublin,
Hilliard and Franklin and Union counties to identify long-term mobility solutions for the I-270
West Outerbelt area. The study has focused on freeway and interchange operations from the
I-270 & I-70 interchange to the south, to the I-270 & US 33/SR 161 interchange to the north,
and on the US 33 freeway west of I-270 to US 42, as well as the major arterials along those
corridors.
Because of rapid development and population growth during the past 20 years, traffic
congestion has increased dramatically. Transportation capacity has not kept up with growing
demand. As a result, sections of the freeway and many of the interchange arterials are
operating at or beyond capacity, creating bottlenecks and back-ups. Analysis of future traffic
conditions, based on 2030 population and land use projections, forecasts system-wide failures
on both freeways and interchange arterials.
1
To address these problems, draft concepts have been developed to improve the I-270 and US
33 freeways, construct new interchanges, reconfigure the existing interchanges, improve the
adjacent street system and provide alternatives that reduce highway demand, like transit and
vanpooling.
For example, the I-270/US 33 Northwest Freeway Study Team recommends that I-270 be
designed as a 10-basic lane facility with auxiliary lanes between interchanges, thus creating a
12-lane corridor. Auxiliary lanes are used for short segments to accommodate weaving,
increase capacity in heavily traveled areas and improve localized operational efficiency.
There are currently six basic lanes on I-270 between the US 33/SR 161 and I-70 interchanges,
or three lanes in each direction. Two basic lanes and one auxiliary lane would be added in
each direction.
US 33, currently with four basic lanes, would be widened to a six basic lane facility with
auxiliary lanes from the Post Road/SR 161 interchange to the I-270 interchange, thus creating
an eight-lane corridor.
After the public meetings in May, MORPC and ODOT will finalize a strategic plan for
transportation improvements in the I-270/US 33 Northwest Freeway corridor. The plan will
summarize a vision to improve mobility throughout the corridor, then go on to identify
independent projects that can move forward as funds become available. The strategic plan
will prioritize various improvements relative to each other and provide a range of planning-level
cost estimates.
The MORPC Policy Committee will consider adoption of the plan at its July 20th meeting. After
the plan is adopted, individual projects will move ahead as funding becomes available.
For more information, please see http://I270-US33.morpc.org.
###
2
r
From the Dublin Villager
MORPC eyes $1-billion corridor overhaul
Public will get chance to see proposals for I-270/U.S. Route 33
traffic fixes
Thursday, May 4, 2006
By MICHAEL RACEY
Villager Staff Writer
A year ago this month, regional and state planners and consultants brought to
Dublin a study of traffic problems in the I-270 and U.S. 33 corridor.
On Tuesday, they will present their recommendations for fixing those problems -and their $1-billion price tag.
Two open houses will be held on May 9 -- the first from 3 to 5 p.m., the second
from 6 to 7:30 p.m. -- at the Dublin Community Recreation Center, 5600 Post Road.
The draft recommendations come from the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning
Commission, the Ohio Department of Transportation and a bevy of consultants for the
I-270 corridor between Sawmill and I-70 as well as U.S. 33 between Dublin and U.S.
42.
An official presentation of their findings will happen at 6:30 p.m.
According to Nick Gill, project manager for MORPC, one of the highest priorities
in the corridor will be the reconstruction of the interchange at I-270 and U.S. 33.
Gill said that project will likely cost up to $150-million and planners are
recommending it be done in three phases.
The earliest state and federal money will become available for these projects is
2013 and the idea that one or more of several projects starting in the corridor that year
may be "optimistic," Gill said.
MORPC is predicting "system-wide failures on both freeways and interchange
arterials" within the next 25 years if something isn't done to improve the northwest
traffic network, according to Gill.
According to MORPC, the recommendations will include the following:
• I-270 widened to six lanes in each direction;
• U.S. 33 widened to four lanes in each direction;
• The interchange of I-270 and U.S. 33 will be completely reconstructed, eliminating
the four-leaf clover system with a new multi-level ramp configuration.
1
The study of the area, released in May 2005, showed what most Dublin
commuters already knew: I-270 and U.S. 33 is the worst-performing freeway
interchange between Sawmill Road and I-70. It has the highest accident rate and the
most congestion, according to officials from CH2M Hill, a consultant for the project.
The study area includes 25 lineal miles and eight major interchanges as well as
several main local routes.
2
APPENDIX 1-F
C ORRESPONDENCE
Page 1F-1
r
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Bernice Cage
"[email protected]".GWIA.morpc0
6/1/05 9:50AM
I-270/US33 NW Freeway Study - Metro Parks
John O'Meara, director of Franklin County Metro Parks, called and informed me
that several major parks are not included in the Environmental Red Flag
information. He asks that you contact Steve Studenmund at 895-6231 to get the
specifics as to where these parks are located.
Let me know if you need my help.
Bernice Cage
Principal Planner
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
285 East Main Street
Columbus, OH 43215-5272
(614) 233-4157
CC:
Nick Gill
r
r
r
r
APPENDIX 2-A
S TUDY GOALS
Page 2A-1
r
Goals and Objectives – October 2004
Goal: Improved Operational Efficiency
Operational efficiency measures the relative ease or difficulty of the trip that a user is able to make
and the effectiveness of transportation facilities that make the trip possible. This goal usually
encompasses congestion and trip characteristics (travel time, trip length). It also addresses design
and management issues. Congestion is an example of a condition that delays a trip that otherwise
has outstanding access.
Objectives:
1. Improve operations on freeways and interchanges in the study area
2. Improve arterial operations in the study area
3. Improve incident management
4. Accommodate traffic during routine maintenance
5. Consider, create where feasible, and improve multi-modal efficiency
Goal: Accessibility
Providing access to destinations is a basic objective of a transportation system. This goal measures
the ability of a user to access home, jobs, services, goods and other parts of the transportation
system. The goal is usually viewed from the user’s perspective. It poses questions such as: Can I
easily get to where I want to go? Is it direct? Is it the shortest route? It also addresses the issue of
service provision (e.g. is transit available) or service availability (e.g., adequate parking at either ends
of the trip).
Objectives
1. Improve access between existing land uses and the I-270/US 33 freeways and local
arterials
2. Provide access to /from future land uses that promote economic development in the study
area
3. Evaluate impact of additional interchanges
4. Improve access between river crossings and freeway interchanges
5. Improve interconnectivity between modes
6. Promote reliability
7. Enhance mode choice for users of I-270/US-33 and arterials, including bus and/or rail
transit, pedestrian and bicycle access where feasible
Goal: Traffic Safety and Security
The level of safety is a consequence of transportation investments. Basic safety concerns are the
avoidance of harm to body or property as usually measured by crash frequency, severity and cost.
Improved safety can also result from proper incident management and reduced emergency response
time. Security addresses the need to deter criminal acts that threaten both the user of the
transportation facility and the facility itself. For example, improved security at transit stations, parkand-ride lots, etc. can increase transit usage and modal split.
1
Objectives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Reduce number and severity of crashes
Reduce potential for crashes
Increase survivability of crashes
Reduce truck/car conflict
Reduce vehicle conflicts on arterials
Reduce vehicle/pedestrian/bike conflicts
Deter criminal acts that threaten the security of the user and the facility
Goal: Quality of Life
The quality of life can relate to nearly all of the goal categories. Here, the quality of life attributes
(which are difficult to measure or compare) relate to the enjoyment of one’s location. Included are
concerns with affordable and timely commutes, preserving the character of communities, creating a
“sense of place,” and coordinating with land-use policies that minimize the need to drive, where
possible.
Objectives
1. Preserve the character of the community, where applicable
2. Make transportation trips safe, productive and affordable
3. Minimize property takings due to possible changes in roadway/freeway widths
4. Promote a “sense of place” through aesthetic design
5. Promote functionally balanced roadway system
6. Provide access to/from employment, public, community and recreation facilities and vital
services
Goal: Environment
Environmental impacts are often considered as a consequence of the construction of transportation
facilities. This goal considers resource usage from fuel consumption to land uses. It also considers
impacts to community resources such as residential areas, historic structures and districts, parks, or
special population groups. While this category may have limited performance measures, it will be
extensively supplemented by the environmental impact evaluations conducted as part of the
environmental studies for specific projects.
Objectives
1. Adhere to Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice
2. Protect historic resources
3. Protect the natural environment
4. Minimize and/or mitigate noise and air quality impacts
2
Goal: Economic and Community Development
While access and operational efficiency are basic objectives of the transportation system, economic
development is an essential reason for providing a safe and efficient means of travel from one place
to another. This goal examines accessibility for the purpose of improving a region’s competitive
advantage. Competitive advantage is typically expressed in terms that encompass costs, labor
availability, and development opportunities. It examines specific locations (e.g. employment centers,
development sites) and service levels (e.g., travel time, delays) and support facilities (e.g., truck
routes).
Objectives:
1. Enhance freight/goods movement within and through the study area
2. Increase ability to attract and keep employers
3. Facilitate regional economic development outside the study area
Goal: Fiscal Responsibility/Implementability
Fiscal responsibility and implementability measures the ability to 1) maximize user and community
benefits given the infrastructure costs, and 2) the ability to timely finance and implement the whole
range of proposed improvements, not just those using federal funds. This includes maximizing the
number of funding sources, creative use of traditional non-transportation sources (i.e., other public
funds), maximizing the use of non-local dollars and the coordination of requests at the state and
federal level.
Objectives
1. Maximize returns/benefits for capital and operating costs
2. Leverage federal, state and local funds to meet capital needs
3. Coordinate with other transportation studies underway and planned infrastructure
improvements
4. Identify opportunities for creative financial planning/funding options
5. Include funding for rehabilitation and improvement of I-270 and US 33- impacted
communities/routes that are consistent with local community plans
6. Coordinate freeway improvements with the ability of local communities to fund
“supporting” projects
Goal: Constructability
This goal considers the ability to minimize disruption during construction with rational phasing and
sequencing of projects. This would include disruption of transportation services (e.g. facility closures)
as well as community impacts (e.g., business closures) in the short term.
Objectives
1. Minimize community and business disruption during construction
2. Maximize access and current levels of service during construction
3. Provide safe and convenient alternate routes and modes of transportation. Coordinate
with other transportation studies underway and planned infrastructure improvements
3
r