1 / 36

OR62: I-5 to Dutton Rd. (Medford) Peter Schuytema, P.E. Oregon ITE May Meeting May 10, 2013

OR62: I-5 to Dutton Rd. (Medford) Peter Schuytema, P.E. Oregon ITE May Meeting May 10, 2013. Objectives. Provide an overview of the project work to date Show the overall process and alternatives that were considered in the DEIS/FEIS Show summary of project impacts Indicate next steps.

arnettj
Download Presentation

OR62: I-5 to Dutton Rd. (Medford) Peter Schuytema, P.E. Oregon ITE May Meeting May 10, 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OR62: I-5 to Dutton Rd. (Medford)Peter Schuytema, P.E.Oregon ITE May MeetingMay 10, 2013

  2. Objectives • Provide an overview of the project work to date • Show the overall process and alternatives that were considered in the DEIS/FEIS • Show summary of project impacts • Indicate next steps

  3. Project Vicinity Map 3 3

  4. Study Area The project study area is a 7.9-mile corridor extending north from I-5 through White City. Oregon 62

  5. We are here National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process

  6. Project Purpose The purpose of the proposed action is to: Improve transportation mobility and safety in the OR62 corridor; Simplify transportation system connections; Identify potential improvements for non-highway modes; and Maintain the regional economic role of the OR62 corridor. 6 6

  7. Deficient Roadway System Hierarchy/Linkage Corridor Congestion 4 of 9 signalized intersections exceed performance targets currently By 2035, 8 of 9 signalized intersections will exceed targets Safety Concerns High crash rates Multiple Top 5 and 10% SPIS Locations Limited and deficient pedestrian, bicycle and transit infrastructure/service Project Need 7 7

  8. Goals and Objectives Goal #1 (Multimodal Issues): Ensure solution provides for safe alternative modes of transportation Goal #2 (Environmental Issues): Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the natural environment Goal #3 (Economic Issues): Maintain economic vitality in the corridor 8 8

  9. Goals and Objectives (cont.) Goal #4 (Safety Issues): Ensure the solution is safe for all modes of transportation Goal #5 (Transportation Issues): Provide a solution that addresses capacity and connectivity needs Goal #6 (Social Issues): Enhance the community livability and quality of life

  10. Decision-Making Process • Project Development Team (PDT) • Includes City, County, State and Federal technical members, local stakeholders and development staff. • Represents disciplines such as environmental, planning, freight, traffic analysis, and regional issues. • Responsible for project management decisions, technical quality, and assisting in the successful development of the project. • Represent the best interests of the public at-large. • Provides overall strategy and direction to the project.

  11. Decision-Making Process cont,’ • Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC) • Includes concerned citizens from the general project area, including highway users, property and business owners. • Represents disciplines such as bicyclists, pedestrians, transit, agriculture, environmental issues and other interests. • Serves as a forum and community “sounding board” for the project. • Advises the PDT to ensure that the interests, issues, knowledge and recommendations of the local community are considered in project decisions.

  12. Project Decision Needed CAC, using input from public and staff, makes a recommendation to PDT Community (general public, local jurisdictions, businesses, and others) provides valuable input Staff provides technical input If PDT doesn't act on CAC recommendation, more information is gathered and the process is repeated PDT, after considering all input, decides whether to act on the CAC recommendation OR PDT decision is recorded Decision-Making Process cont’.

  13. White City Highway 62 Medford How do People Use Oregon 62? Roughly 40% of the vehicles on OR 62 are traveling through the corridor CONCLUSION: Any plan to reduce congestion in the OR 62 corridor will have to include easyaccess to the businesses AND a limited-access expressway for efficient through-traffic movement. The other 60% of the vehicles have either an origin or a destination within the corridor

  14. Reduced Range of Alternatives • Bypass • Bypass with Split Diamond Interchange at I-5 • Existing Highway Build • Texas Turnaround

  15. Bypass Alternative Poplar is grade-separated N Medford Airport Current Hwy 62 Agate Road Delta Waters Vilas Road White City

  16. Bypass with Split Diamond Interchange at I-5

  17. Existing Highway Build Proposed Alternative Cross-Section Current Highway Cross-Section

  18. Texas Turnaround Alternative Texas Turnaround Cross-Section Current Highway Cross-Section

  19. Build Alternatives forwarded into the DEIS • Split Diamond Interchange at I-5 • “SD Alternative” • Directional Interchange “DI Alternative” • Design Options A, B and C

  20. Build Alternatives – Common Features SD and DI Interchange Alternatives • Extend North past White City • Access controlled bypass • Interchanges at I-5, Vilas Road, Agate Road and Dutton Road • Four 12 ft travel lanes, 10 ft center median and 8 ft shoulders • 8 ft shoulders would serve as bikeway/walkway Design Options • 900 – 2,500 feet west of existing OR 62 • Option C follows ODOT-owned old Medco Haul Road alignment

  21. Build Alternatives – Unique Features Alternatives vary only at the southern terminus • SD Interchange: • Split diamond interchange with I-5 (N. Medford Interchange) • Includes widened crossings over Bear Creek • Bypass would be completely separated from existing OR 62 • DI Interchange: • Directional Interchange with OR62 north of Poplar Dr. • OR 62 would be grade-separated over Poplar Dr. and Bullock Rd • Local street network would be enhanced

  22. Preferred Alternative – SD Interchange with Design Option C

  23. Split Diamond Interchange Detail

  24. OR140/White City Connections Detail

  25. Northern Terminus Interchange Detail

  26. JTA Phase

  27. JTA Phase Detail

  28. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts Cultural, Historic and Archaeological Resources: – No adverse impacts Section 4(f) resources: (park, wildlife refuge and Bear Creek Greenway) – minimal impacts Section 6(f) resources: Requires Greenway path realignment Biology: No adverse impacts to aquatic or terrestrial species Land Use: Converts 30 – 52 acres of EFU land to highway use & will require land use goal exceptions 28 28

  29. Socioeconomics: Business relocations: 34 - 57 Residential displacements: 8 – 9 Residential Tenant displacement: 12 - 36 Environmental Justice: No disproportionally high and adverse effects on EJ populations. Travel time through the corridor: reduced 16 - 19 minutes Safety improvements: Bicyclist and Pedestrian safety would improve throughout project Travel flow to businesses/residences is improved due to less delays and stops. This increases safety by reducing the more severe rear-end collisions. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts cont.’ 29 29

  30. Hazardous Materials: 59-70 sites of high or moderate concern which will require Extensive mitigation to reduce potential exposure. Air Quality: Build Alternative meets regional and project-level conformity requirements. Alternatives Analyzed — Summary of Impacts con’t. 30 30

  31. Visualizations – Looking North on OR62 – Connections to OR140 & White City 31 31

  32. Visualizations – Looking east on Vilas Road towards OR62 interchange 32 32

  33. Preferred Alternative – Avoidance and Mitigation Measures Traffic management, signage and coordination during construction to reduce impacts to emergency services and businesses. Provide for continued bike and pedestrian connections to Bear Creek Greenway during construction. Section 6(f) replacement of about 1.3 to 1.6 acres for impacts to Bear Creek Greenway properties. All stream crossings will be fish passable and allow for small species wildlife passage Minimize vegetation removal during construction. 33 33

  34. The Preferred Alternative meets the project’s Purpose and Need: - system hierarchy: better meets the need for because it separates through traffic with local traffic the entire length of the bypass - intersection operations and reduce corridor congestion: improves more than No-Build or DI Alternative - safety improves Impacts to some natural and build environment resources are lower than DI Alternative (i.e.: right of way, travel times, changes to existing driveways) Improved water quality, riparian habitats, and pedestrian/bike facilities Preferred Alternative 34

  35. Anticipated Schedule Conclude NEPA Process: May, 2013 Right of Way acquisition: Under way (state funds) Permits/Approvals: August, 2013 JTA 1st Phase Start: 2014 JTA 2nd Phase Start : 2016 35 35

  36. Questions?

More Related