In July, 2008 the Cincinnati City Council passed a resolution which stated a desire for ODOT to evaluate additional alternatives at the Hopple Street Interchange. During ODOT’s Value Engineering (VE) session, which is part of ODOT’s Project Development Process, three additional alternatives were discussed at Hopple. Each of those three alternatives, along with the previously Recommended Alternative, was anticipated to be evaluated based upon the evaluation criteria determined by the IC members at the August 27, 2008 meeting.
VE Alternatives
· VE Alternative 1: Double Roundabout Diamond Interchange (with roundabout at MLK/Central Pkwy)
· VE Alternative 2: Partial Cloverleaf with traditional at-grade intersection at Central Parkway/MLK
· VE Alternative 3: Previously Recommended Alternative with I-75 northbound on-ramp moved opposite off ramp
NOTE: The recommended alternative (as of August 2008) and the three VE session alternatives are displayed in HOP_alts.pdf. It should be noted that each of the three VE session alternatives were conceptual at this stage and required additional engineering and traffic analysis. It was anticipated that analysis would likely change the layout and/or footprint of the interchange and adjacent streets. Evaluation Criteria
In order to properly evaluate the alternatives, the IC members were asked to review the existing criteria and make additions or modifications. Several of these additions or modifications were incorporated into the evaluation criteria below. Additional items that are not listed below, but will be incorporated into the evaluation include; (1) emergency
vehicle access, (2) amount of surplus property (future development opportunities), (3) grade of slopes following construction, (4) appearance of bridge(s)/road(s), (5) exploring lower speeds on Hopple, (6) visibility for communities/businesses, and (7) street connectivity.
At the end of the meeting, each of the IC members were given four stickers to place on a sheet listing the evaluation criteria. They were permitted to use their four stickers, representing their priorities, in any combination (such as all four on one criterion). The number of votes is listed next to the evaluation criteria below.
Safety (3 votes)
A broad measure of relative safety performance of the alternative based upon such factors as interchange spacing (mainline), traffic weaving and other vehicle interactions, historical evidence, and engineering judgment.
Mobility (19 votes – 3 specifically for Congestion Mitigation and 3 specifically for Regional Mobility)
The operational performance of the alternative in terms of expected level of service, ease of providing local access opportunities, and promotion of traffic moving through the network. The mobility rating is subdivided into the following three categories:
· Congestion Mitigation - A measure of the predicted level of service and operational efficiency of the alternative.
· Local Access - Ease and convenience of local access opportunity. For interchange alternatives, the rating provides an indication of whether the interchange is full or partial, or whether the alternative gives improved arterial operation.
· Regional Mobility - For interchanges, this measure is an indication of expected congestion on the freeway caused by poor interchange performance.
Environment (5 votes)
This category is included as a broad indication of expected environmental impacts generated by the alternative.
· Air Quality – Higher congestion and stop-n-go operation generate higher levels of emissions
· Noise – Higher traffic volumes and elevated roadways increase noise levels
· Cultural Resources – Impacts to historic properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
· Ecological Resources – Impacts to wetlands, streams, and habitat
· Hazardous Materials – Impacts to properties contaminated with regulated substances or waste
Community (18 votes – 2 specifically for Development Benefits and 2 specifically for Parks and Recreation Areas)
Impacts to communities are summarized by the following subcategories:
· Development Benefits – A measure of improved local access, increase/decrease in developable lands, andnegative impacts of relocating businesses.
· Context Sensitive Design – This rating indicates relative negative visual impact of the alternative, opportunity for aesthetic treatment, and how well the alternative fits the site.
· Facilities and Services – Impacts to public facilities and services, community buildings
· Parks and Recreation Areas – Impacts to parks, playgrounds and recreation centers Modes (22 votes – 2 specifically for Transit, 3 specifically for Freight, and 2 specifically for Bicycle)
This category evaluates the alternatives’ performance in accommodating non-vehicular travel.
· Transit – impacts to or enhancement of bus or rail transit use
· Freight – impacts to or enhancement of freight rail
· Bicycle – impacts to or enhancement of bicycle travel
· Pedestrian – impacts to or enhancement of walkability
Displacements (1 vote)
This category evaluates impacts on property owners, businesses, and residents.
· New right-of-way required – Amount of property to be purchased
· Residential relocations – Number of households displaced
· Business relocations – Number and type of businesses displaced Cost (4 votes)
Estimated total project cost
· Right-of-Way – Costs for right-of-way purchase and relocations
· Construction – Includes construction costs
· Life Cycle – Cost to maintain constructed infrastructure. This is a relative measure that is dependent on extent of built structures such as bridges and retaining walls. Construction (8 votes – 1 specifically for MOT and 4 specifically for duration)
Impacts during construction
· Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) – access during construction
· Duration
· Construction Noise
Alternatives Evaluated
Following the August 27th IC meeting, the project team further evaluated the feasibility of the three VE alternatives.
Once the analysis of each alternative was completed, the project team met with ODOT and the City of Cincinnati to discuss the findings. The analysis for each alternative is summarized as follows:
3 I-75 Mill Creek Expressway – Hopple Interchange Decision Making Process
VE Alternative 1: Double Roundabout Diamond Interchange (with roundabout at MLK/Central Pkwy)
· The 2-lane roundabouts failed operationally in the opening year. A substantial backup of roughly 800 feet west along Hopple was observed in the model. The backup extended through interchange roundabouts, therefore blocking exiting traffic and causing backups along the interchange ramps back to mainline I-75.
· In order to operationally make this alternative function, three lanes were necessary at each roundabout and considerable distance was necessary between the two roundabouts on the eastern side of the interchange.
· Property impacts were greater under this alternative than the previously Recommended Alternative.
· MLK has a grade of 8% approaching the roundabout. Typically, steep grades are a deterrent when evaluating potential roundabout locations.
· A three-lane roundabout is unusual. There are very few in the country and none currently in Ohio. A roundabout of this type has larger conflict zones. The safety performance of multi-lane roundabouts drops substantially compared to single lane roundabouts.
· Pedestrians may have concerns with multi-lane roundabouts which require crossing 2 or 3 lanes at a time. Blind pedestrians are particularly a concern and have been reported by Camp Washington. Signalization may be necessary. The Access Board currently has a lawsuit pending on this issue. There is presently no direction from FHWA on how to address this issue, either as to whether to signalize, and if so, what type of signal to use. Signalization types for pedestrian crossings have been controversial for roundabouts. Motorists may disregard signals that are merely warning in nature; however, with a green/red signal, a green light may lead motorists to ignore the yield line when entering the roundabout.
VE Alternative 2: Partial Cloverleaf with traditional at-grade intersection at Central Parkway/MLK
· This alternative failed operationally in the opening year. The MLK/Central intersection was too close to the interchange creating backups. Additionally, there was a substantial backup of roughly 2,000 feet along Central Pkwy (north of City property).
· In order to operationally make this alternative function, the MLK/Central intersection needed to be moved further east and up the hill. This would create several additional property impacts. Furthermore, the grade would be 8% or greater on Central to meet MLK at a new intersection.
· Additional lanes would also be necessary along MLK to make the intersection with Central function. There still would be considerable backup along Central Pkwy. VE Alternative 3: Previously Recommended Alternative with I-75 northbound on-ramp moved opposite off-ramp
· This alternative was a modification of the previously Recommended Alternative and moved the northbound
Recommended Preferred Alternative
During the August 27th IC meeting, members established evaluation criteria for the project team to rank the alternatives. After the alternatives were evaluated and presented to the City Staff, Cincinnati City Council passed Resolution 53-2008 supporting VE Alternative 3 and urging ODOT to eliminate Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, a substantial alternative evaluation using the previously identified criteria was unnecessary. VE Alternative 3 was
chosen as the Recommended Preferred Alternative. A public hearing is expected sometime in January or February following Federal Highway Administration’s initial review of the environmental document for the entire project. Public comments will be taken prior to choosing the preferred alternative for the Hopple Street Interchange.
Benefits of VE Alternative 3 over the Current Situation (existing conditions)
· Removal of the left hand exit which causes accident problems and is an overall safety issue
· Removal of the Partial interchange
4 I-75 Mill Creek Expressway – Hopple Interchange Decision Making Process
o Bates on-ramp only goes to I-74
o Central Pkwy. ramp for I-75 northbound
o Confusion with the partial interchange and separation of ramps
· Hopple/Central/MLK intersection currently operates at a very poor level of service
· VE Alternative 3 will preserve future Light Rail Corridor
· VE Alternative 3 will add sidewalks and streetlights along both sides of Hopple
Download the pdf to see Overall Project Schedule/Phasing
|
