Proposed FUL-SR 66 Relocation on to CR 24. Presentation to Archbold Village Council April 17, 2017

Transcription

1 Proposed FUL-SR 66 Relocation on to CR 24 Presentation to Archbold Village Council April 17, 2017

2 Robert J. Seaman, P.E., P.S. Village Engineer Andrew J. Langenderfer, P.E. Sr. Project Manager

3 Agenda Stakeholders Project Location Past Steps Purpose and Need Feasibility Study Next Steps Questions

4 Stakeholders Village of Archbold, Ohio Local Public Agency (LPA) Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Fulton County, Ohio Henry County, Ohio

5 Project Location State Route 66 (SR 66) is an important north-south connection between US 20A and US 6, as well as to the Ohio Turnpike just north of the study area, in Fulton and Henry Counties in northwestern Ohio. SR 66 passes directly through the Village of Archbold. The Village of Archbold, in coordination with Fulton County and Henry County, is proposing to relocate SR 66 from downtown Archbold one mile to the west onto what is currently County Road 24 (CR 24), and to extend State Route 2 (SR 2) north of Archbold on to County Road E (CR E).

6 Past Steps 1960s: Representatives from the Village of Archbold first requested funding for a railroad grade separation and truck bypass on the west side of Archbold s & early 1990 s: Archbold elected leaders saw the need for an Industrial Park to attract new industry and jobs. A long term plan was to develop a way for trucks and employees to get in and out of the Industrial Park without having to deal with the very congested Defiance Street. 1998: An Ohio Turnpike interchange was opened on CR 24; immediately north of US 20A, SR 66 was relocated one mile west to CR 24 alignment to serve the new interchange. The intent of state and local officials at that time was to also relocate SR 66 on Fulton County (German Township)/Henry County Road 24 and Defiance County Domersville Road between US 20A and US 24 when funding would allow.

7 Past Steps (Continued) Local officials have long seen the need to address heavy truck traffic and commuter traffic through the Village of Archbold. 75% of those working in Archbold commute from 10 miles away. 2004: Village, Fulton County and German Township officials began working together to find a solution to alleviate trucks and traffic congestion in downtown Archbold. 2005: Archbold spent $2.6M to improve the downtown area and SR 66 from the Norfolk Southern railroad to the north corporation line. The project improved the turning radius at SR 2 and SR 66 as much as possible within the existing right of way. 2009: Nolan Parkway was extended to CR 24 to relieve congestion at the Defiance Street intersections and open up 57 acres for development.

8 Past Steps (Continued) : Concern with traffic congestion and safety increased after accidents involving semi-tractor trailers occurred in downtown Archbold at the intersection of SR66 & SR2. A meeting was held with village, township, and county representatives present. March of 2010: A meeting was held with ODOT to determine what type of improvements to Road 24 would be required to meet their standards should it become SR66 in the future. ODOT took pavement cores, determined the required improvements needed, and estimated the construction cost of the improvements from the Fulton/Henry County Line to US 20A. The Fulton County Engineer prepared a cost estimate based on ODOT s recommendations and estimates to improve the CR 24 corridor from US 6 to US 20A. One (1) mile of CR E was later included in the estimates in order for any proposed state highway relocations to be an even swap of mileage.

9 Past Steps (Continued) 2011: Elected and appointed officials from Fulton, Henry, and Defiance Counties, German Township, and the Village of Archbold met and agreed that the improvement of CR 24 was necessary and desirable from US 6 to US 20A. The Defiance County Commissioners were not interested in including Domersville Road in the proposed improvement. In support of the project, all the elected officials from these three counties, township, and village subsequently signed requests for a federal grant to improve CR 24 from US 6 to US 20A and to relocate SR 66 on said route.

10

11

12 Past Steps (Continued) Early 2013: The State Legislature adopted House Bill 51 (Transportation Budget and Turnpike Reform Plan). Among other things, this bill allowed the assets of the Turnpike to be leveraged by selling bonds to fund road and bridge projects that can show a nexus to the Turnpike. Archbold was made aware by the Fulton County Engineer that the Ohio Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) would be accepting applications for projects that would include a direct nexus to the Ohio Turnpike. May of 2013: Archbold, with the assistance of the Fulton County Engineer, submitted an application to TRAC for funding and made a presentation at the TRAC meeting in Toledo outlining the proposed project and the safety and economic development benefits it would provide. The proposed project was subsequently awarded a $1.3M grant by ODOT using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds to perform the Preliminary Engineering (PE) steps for the project. Archbold s Council authorized $200,000 towards the PE.

13 Past Steps (Continued) 2013: A Joint Board of Fulton and Henry County Commissioners was convened. A project site viewing was held and in February of 2014 the Joint Board held a public hearing and approved entering into an agreement with the Village of Archbold to be the lead agency for the proposed project. March of 2014: Archbold entered into a Joint Cooperation Agreement with the Fulton County Commissioners and the Henry County Commissioners to be responsible for the preparation of the initial construction plans, specifications, design and environmental phase of the project. May of 2014: Archbold entered into agreement with ODOT for the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Study.

14 Past Steps (Continued) August of 2014: Letters of Interest (LOIs) were received from 7 well qualified consultants for the PE. The project team consisting of Archbold s Village Engineer, the Fulton County Engineer and the Henry County Engineer, with the assistance of ODOT District 2, reviewed and evaluated the LOIs. Tetra Tech was selected as the best qualified consultant for the proposed project. Late 2014: Due to concerns raised by the retail community, Archbold contracted with the Center for Regional Development from BGSU to perform an economic impact analysis of the project. The $28,000 study was completed in early 2015 and presented to the public. The analysis supported a positive economic growth for Archbold and northwest Ohio should the proposed project move forward. An executive summary of the economic study is available at

15

16

17 Past Steps (Continued) 2015: Archbold purchased and removed a building at the northwest corner of the SR 2 and SR 66 and widened the intersection. These projects however, did not reduce the number of trucks travelling through Archbold or the intersection of SR 2 and SR 66, and truck traffic has continued to increase downtown, as well as safety concerns. December of 2015: Archbold Council approved and entered into a contract with Tetra Tech for the Engineering Feasibility Study and Preliminary Environmental work as phase 1 of the PE steps. Archbold s Council authorized an additional $49,217 to include grade separation alternatives in the Feasibility Study. December 31, 2015: Tetra Tech was authorized to begin work.

18 PURPOSE AND NEED

19 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Reduce truck traffic in the Village of Archbold Reduce congestion Reduce traffic crashes Serve current and future travel demand Provide a more direct route between: Ohio Turnpike and US 20A to the north US 6 and US 24 to the south

20 TRAVEL DEMAND From Turnpike - one mile east at US 20A Runs through downtown Archbold 5 signalized intersections At-grade railroad crossing Traffic Expected to Increase

21

22 CONGESTION SR 66 is one lane in each direction Volume is double to triple the volumes in the other areas in the study area Heavy truck traffic overcrowds the downtown street network Norfolk Southern (NS) crossing near Stryker Street (SR 2) 95 trains per day Blocked crossing an average of every 15 minutes daily (24 hours * 60 minutes/95 trains = 15 minutes/train occurrence) Trains expected to increase in the near future Any improvement account for 3 tracks at crossing

23 SAFETY 162 crashes along SR 66 (2013 to 2015) 95 crashes within the Village limits 10 were tractor trailer related 6 of the 10 at the intersection of Stryker Street (SR 2) in the downtown Truck crashes account for 1/3 of the overall crashes (18) at this location The desired outcome is to reduce the number of crashes along SR 66, especially through the Village of Archbold.

24

25

26 Feasibility Study Alternatives Traffic Analyses Roadway Assessment/Geotechnical Drainage Structure Type Assessments (Bridges) Culverts Grade Separation Study Right of Way Assessment Utility Assessment Environmental Analysis Comparison of Alternatives Conclusion/Recommendation

27 CR 25 CR 23 CR 24 CR 22 Ex. SR 66 CR 21 Alternatives Pre-screened Routes CR 21 CR 22 CR 23 (Ex. SR 66) CR 24 CR 25

28 Pre-screened Routes CR 21 Alignment Relocation two miles to the east Four miles longer than it is currently CR 22 Alignment Relocation of SR 66 one mile to the east, 2 miles longer than it is currently 2-mile gap in CR 22 between CR W and CR C Require 2 miles of new alignment or use CR 21-3, which is located 0.25 miles to the east If CR 21-3 was utilized, making SR 66 an additional 0.5 miles longer Existing SR 66 (No Build) Does not remove truck traffic from the downtown Prohibitive for a grade separation at the NS RR in downtown

29 Pre-screened Routes CR 24 Alignment Relocation one mile west of current SR 66 Provides a direct route from the Ohio Turnpike interchange to US 6 CR 25 Alignment Relocation 2 miles to the west, along TR 25 and CR Moves truck traffic 1 mile away from the Village limits 0.4 mile gap between the north end of CR 25 and the south end of CR 24-3, which would require the construction of new alignment. Floodplain of Branch 3 of the Tiffin River Require the construction of a new bridge crossing There are environmental impact concerns associated with the construction of 0.4 miles of new roadway through the floodplain with a new bridge crossing. CR 24 was further evaluated in the Feasibility Study

30 CR 24 TR E US 6

31 Alternatives No Build Maintain Existing SR 66 Build Relocate on to CR 24 and relocate SR 2 to TR E between existing CR 24 and existing SR 66 Alternative 1 Corridor Improvements with Roundabouts Alternative 2 Corridor Improvements with Stop Signs Alternative A - Grade Separation Underpass Alternative B - Grade Separation - Overpass Concrete Beams Alternative C - Grade Separation - Overpass with Steel Beams Alternative D - Grade Separation Bypass Alignment Overpass

32 Traffic Analyses BACKGROUND Rural major collector ADT 3,000s - 4,000s at the southern and northern ends ADT up to 13,000 through the Village of Archbold

33 Certified Traffic No Build Average Daily Traffic (ADT) SR 66 Road Segment 2019 ADT 2039 ADT % Trucks South of US 20A 4,290 4, % South of CR E/SR 2 5,660 6, % South of CR D/Lutz Road 7,060 8, % South of SR 2/Stryker Street 9,400 10, % South of Lafayette Street/W. Barre Street 11,230 13, % North of TR BC/Short Buehrer Road 10,150 11, % North of CR W 6,740 7, % North of SR 34 5,680 6, % North of US 6 3,420 3, % CR 24 Road Segment 2019 ADT 2039 ADT % Trucks South of US 20A 1,220 1, % South of CR E/SR 2 2,310 2, % South of CR D 3,230 3, % South of SR 2/Stryker Street 2,760 3, % North of TR BC/Short Buehrer Road 2,560 2, % North of SR 34 1,900 2, % North of US 6 1,530 1, %

34 Certified Traffic Truck Average Daily Traffic SR 66 Road Segment No Build Trucks Build Trucks Difference South of US 20A 14% 6.2% -7.8% South of CR E/SR 2 12% 4.2% -7.8% South of CR D/Lutz Road 10% 2.7% -7.3% South of SR 2/Stryker Street 5% 2.4% -2.6% South of Lafayette Street/W. Barre Street 5% 4.5% -0.5% North of TR BC/Short Buehrer Road 8% 3.4% -4.6% North of CR W 13% 4.9% -8.1% North of SR 34 11% 8.5% -2.5% North of US 6 6% 6% 0% CR 24 Road Segment 2019 No Build Trucks 2019 Build Trucks Difference South of US 20A 7% 13.9% +6.9% South of CR E/SR 2 3% 12% +9% South of CR D 2% 12.4% +10.2% South of SR 2/Stryker Street 6% 6% 0% North of TR BC/Short Buehrer Road 7% 9.6% +2.6% North of SR 34 3% 9.1% +6.1% North of US 6 3% 7.2% 4.2%

35 Operational Assessment Key Proposed Intersections Intersection Type Level of Service (LOS) SR 66/US 20A SR 66/TR E/SR 2 SR 66/CR D SR 66/SR 2/Stryker St SR 66/Lafayette St SR 66/TR BC/Short-Buehrer Rd SR 66/Nolan Pkwy SR 66/SR 34 SR 66/US 6 Old SR 66/SR 2 *Signal not warranted **Signal and AWSC not warranted #Was not evaluated Average Intersection Delay (Seconds) Roundabout A 7.2 Unsignalized (AWSC)* A 9.6 Unsignalized (TWSC) * B 14.7 Roundabout A 6.9 Unsignalized (TWSC) ** C 17.9 Roundabout A 6.7 Unsignalized (TWSC) ** B 13.9 Roundabout A 7.7 Unsignalized (AWSC)* B 10.4 Unsignalized (TWSC) * B 11.2 Roundabout A 7.8 Unsignalized (AWSC)* A 9.2 Unsignalized (TWSC) * B 11.1 Roundabout # # Unsignalized (TWSC) ** C 16.4 Roundabout # # Unsignalized (TWSC) ** B 13.6 Roundabout A 8.3 Unsignalized (AWSC)* B 10.5 Unsignalized (TWSC) * B 11.6 Roundabout A 7.8 Unsignalized (TWSC) * B 13.7 Roundabout A 6.1 Unsignalized (AWSC)* A 9.8 Unsignalized (TWSC) * C 16.9

36 Un-Signalized Intersections: US 6: Since US 6 experiences a long stretch of uncontrolled stops or yields, it is important to alert motorists of a new controlled intersection. Converting this intersection to AWSC does not provide a significant reduction in delay. Therefore, the two way stop control (TWSC) is proposed to remain at this intersection allowing US 6 to operate freely. SR 34: Although this intersection operates acceptably with TWSC (LOS C in 2019 and LOS D in 2039), the AWSC option does provide LOS B and reduced delay especially with future traffic volumes. Nolan Parkway: This intersection operates very well as is with TWSC with a slight decrease in delay with AWSC. It is recommended to keep the existing turn lanes and intersection control. Lafayette: This intersection operates very well as is with TWSC with a slight decrease in delay with AWSC. It is recommended that turn lanes be added, and TWSC be utilized with SR 66 operating freely. Ex. SR 2 (Stryker Street): This intersection operates very well as is with TWSC with a slight decrease in delay with AWSC. Due to the relocation of SR 2 to the north approach of the intersection, turning volumes will be redistributed. It is recommended that this intersection remain TWSC with the E-W route stop controlled, with SR 66 operating freely, and that turn lanes be added as warranted. The intersection can be easily converted to AWSC should future traffic warrant such a change.

37 Un-Signalized Intersections: CR D: This intersection operates very well as with TWSC with a slight decrease in delay with AWSC. It is recommended that turn lanes be added and TWSC be utilized on CR D to allow for free movement of SR 66. TR E / SR 2: This intersection operates very well as is with TWSC. It is recommended that turn lanes be added and TWSC be utilized with SR 66 operating freely. US 20A: This intersection operates very well as is with TWSC with a slight decrease in delay with AWSC. It is recommended to add turn lanes and use TWSC on SR 66 to maintain flow on US 20A. Ex. SR 66 / SR 2: This intersection operates well under normal non-tourist traffic conditions. Due to the location of Sauder Village just east of this intersection, there are periods of the year when traffic is heavier than normal and comprised of nonlocal visitors to the area. It is recommended to keep this intersection as is with TWSC, and to add turn lanes as warranted. It is also recommended to further study this intersection during the tourist seasons to determine if additional improvements or a change in traffic control may be warranted in the near future. This alternative will provide good LOS B or C for the corridor; however, with TWSC there remains the potential for severe and fatal accidents at many of the intersections along this corridor.

38

39

40

41

42 Roundabout Intersections: US 6 SR 34 Lafayette SR 2 (Stryker Street) CR D TR E (Proposed SR 2) US 20A TR E (Proposed SR 2) and CR 23 (Existing SR 66)

43

44

45

46

47 Roundabouts 300,000 signalized intersections in the US 2,300 people killed each year 700 people are killed annually in red-light running accidents By converting from a two-way stop control mechanism to a roundabout: 35 percent reduction in total crashes 76 percent reduction in injury crashes 89 percent reduction in fatalities Rural high speed arterials (55 MPH)

48 Roadway Assessment Evaluated Existing CR 24 Sight walk on July 6, 2016 Provided ODOT with pavement core photos and data, August 23, 2016 at ODOT s Typical Pavement Sections Reconstructed and widened areas: 1.5 of asphalt surface course 1.75 intermediate course 6 asphalt base material 6 aggregate base 14 cement stabilized subgrade Planing and Resurfacing varies based on ODOT recommendations

49 Roadway Assessment Pavement Design: 400 spacing on borings California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 5 was recommended for the project ODOT GB-1 (geotechnical SS) and ODOT Pavement Design Manual 8 wide cement stabilized subgrade for widening

50 Roadway Assessment Overlay and Widening Section

51 Roadway Assessment Cement Stabilization

52 Roadway Assessment Full Depth Reconstruction Section

53 Roadway Assessment CR 24 - asphalt surface materials. Pavement planing, and full depth replacement. It is recommended that asphalt pavement be used for this project to maximize cost and construction efficiencies, provide flexibility with variable wedging in planed sections, and to provide material continuity throughout the corridor. Roadside ditches

54 Structure Type Assessments Four structures (bridges) were evaluated: HEN (Existing HEN ) over Owl Creek HEN (Existing HEN ) structure over Ditch 1897 FUL (Existing FUL-T24A0-0090) Bridge over Brush Creek FUL (Existing FUL-C24G0-0020) Bridge over Branch No. 3 of the Tiffin River

55 HEN (Existing HEN ) over Owl Creek Existing Steel Beam Bridge Replace with pre-stressed concrete box beam structure

56 HEN (Existing HEN ) structure over Ditch 1897 Ex. 16 foot corrugated metal arch structure founded on concrete footings, constructed in Replace with 4 sided concrete box culvert

57 FUL (Existing FUL-T24A0-0090) Bridge over Brush Creek Ex. Steel Beam Bridge Replace with box beam structure This alternative is being recommended over replacing the bridge with a single span steel beam bridge reusing the existing galvanized steel beams, because the life cycle cost is lower.

58 FUL (Existing FUL-C24G0-0020) Bridge over Branch No. 3 of the Tiffin River Ex. concrete slab bridge Replace with concrete three sided culvert on spread footings

59 Culverts There are five additional culverts. All are recommended to be replaced with concrete box culverts and full height headwalls. FUL (existing FUL-T ) over Flat Run Tributary 2 (12 x 9 box) FUL (existing FUL-T24D N) over Flat Run (12 x 9 box) FUL (existing FUL-T24F N) over Grass Run (14 x 10 box) HEN over Unnamed Tributary to Coon Creek (6 x 5 box) HEN over Unnamed Tributary to Coon Creek (8 x 7 box)

60 GRADE SEPARATION STUDY Alternative A Underpass with a single span steel beam bridge for the railroad. Alternative B Overpass with a single span pre-stressed concrete beam bridge. Alternative C Overpass with a single span steel beam bridge.

61 Gerald Grain

62 Underpass $ M

63 Overpass B = $ M, C = $ M

64 Bypass Alternative D Bypass Overpass with a three span pre-stressed concrete beam bridge by relocating the roadway alignment to the west of the Gerald Grain Center. The abutments would consist of spillthrough type integral pile supported abutments. Both roadway approaches utilize fill slopes no retaining walls are required.

65 Bypass, D = $6.807M

66 GRADE SEPARATION STUDY Alternative D is recommended for separation: Cost Constructability (offline) Reduction in impacts to industrial and residential properties

67 Right-of-Way Assessment Existing right of way is 60 wide Proposed 100 right of way - equal widening (20 each side) Additional right of way at: Bridge/Culvert Crossings Intersections NS RR Grade Separation

68 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Phase I History/Architecture Study Environmental Site Assessment Screening Ecological Survey Report Literature reviews and site visits

69 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public meeting November 15, 2016 Notification letters from the Village and Consultant Response letters mailed and ed from the Village to public comment Information page is listed on documents and posted on Village s website with link to project documents

70 Who is leading this project, and who is paying for it? (See Responses #2 & 3 below) Ex. SR 66 Business Concerns (See response #1 below) Cost Concerns (See Response #2 below) Safety Concerns (See responses #4-9 below) Questions relating to traffic (See responses #4-6) Concerns of farmland/property value (See responses #1, 10 & 11 below) Questioning/Opposed to roundabouts (See responses #4, 7 & 8 below) Concerns to personal business (See responses #1 & 10 below) Concerns with maintenance of Ex. SR 66 (See response #14 below) Opposed to Grade Separation (See responses #9 & 12) Environmental concerns (See response #13 below) Removing truck traffic from Ex. SR 66 (See response #6 below) Economic Benefits (See response #1 below) Improved Safety (See response #6 below) Reduced Traffic Congestion (See response #6 below) Support for grade separation (See response #12 below) PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT General Questions/Comments of Opposition General Questions/Comments of Support TOTALS

71 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 7 CRITERIA: Removes Trucks from Downtown Direct Connection between the Ohio Turnpike and US 6 Safety Considerations Operating Efficiency (LOS) Right-of-Way and Relocation Impacts Environmental Impacts Costs

72 1 2 Alternatives A B C D Conceptual Cost Type No Build CR 24 Corridor Improvements with Roundabouts CR 24 Corridor Improvements with Unsignalized Intersections CR 24 Grade Separation at NS RR - Underpass CR 24 Grade Separation at NS RR - Overpass with Concrete Beams CR 24 Grade Separation at NS RR - Overpass with Steel Beams CR 24 Grade Separation at NS RR Bypass Alignment Overpass Roadway $0 $9.212M $9.951M $2.236M* $1.434M* $1.434M* $2.181M** Bridge $0 $1.950M $1.950M $4.582M $1.908M $1.994M $2.300M Retaining Walls $ $2.500M $6.930M $6.930M -- Railroad Force Account $ $4.700M $0.400M $0.400M $0.400M Enclosed Drainage (ConAgra to Brush Creek) Roundabout Intersections (8) Unsignalized Intersections (10) Gerald Grain Center Impacts Construction Contingency 20% ODOT Escalation Factor of 16% (Construction 2020 to 2021) $0 $5.600M $5.600M $0 $5.398M $0 -- $2.657M $0 $1.020M $1.020M $1.020M*** $1.020M*** $1.020M*** -- $0 $4.492M $4.236M $3.008M $2.338M $2.356M $0.976M $0 $4.438M $4.192M $2.901M $2.292M $2.309M $0.950M Total**** $0 $32.110M $29.606M $20.947M $16.322M $16.443M $6.807M

73 Evaluation Criteria Removes Trucks from Downtown Provides for Direct Connection from Ohio Turnpike to US 6 Safety No Build Alternatives 1 2 A B C D CR 24 Corridor Improvements with Roundabouts CR 24 Corridor improvements with Unsignalized Intersections CR 24 Grade Separation at NS RR - Underpass CR 24 Grade Separation at NS RR - Overpass with Concrete Beams CR 24 Grade Separation at NS RR - Overpass with Steel Beams CR 24 Grade Separation at NS RR Bypass Alignment Overpass Does not remove trucks Removes most trucks Removes most trucks Removes most trucks Removes most trucks Removes most trucks Removes most trucks Does not provide direct connection; must travel east through downtown Right angle & severe accident potential Provides direct connection btw. Turnpike & US 6 Significant reduction in the potential for severe & fatal accidents Provides direct connection btw. Turnpike & US 6 TWSC does not improve the reduction in the potential for severe & fatal accidents Provides direct connection btw. Turnpike & US 6 Eliminates safety issues at RR crossing Provides direct connection btw. Turnpike & US 6 Eliminates safety issues at RR crossing Provides direct connection btw. Turnpike & US 6 Eliminates safety issues at RR crossing Provides direct connection btw. Turnpike & US 6 Eliminates safety issues at RR crossing Operating Efficiency (LOS) Some intersections warrant turn lanes and/or roundabout improvements LOS A LOS B and C LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A R/W Acquisition & Relocations No R/W Acquisition Strip R/W along corridor & impacts to Gerald Grain Center property; one residential relocation Strip R/W along corridor & impacts to Gerald Grain Center property; one residential relocation Impacts to Gerald Grain Center property Impacts to Gerald Grain Center property & full acquisition & relocation of residential property Impacts to Gerald Grain Center property & full acquisition & relocation of residential property No impacts to Gerald Grain Center property Environmental No impacts Minor stream impacts, nationwide permit, no Section 4(f), no historic properties Minor stream impacts, nationwide permit, no Section 4(f), no historic properties Minor stream impacts, nationwide permit, no Section 4(f), no historic properties Minor stream impacts, nationwide permit, no Section 4(f), no historic properties Minor stream impacts, nationwide permit, no Section 4(f), no historic properties Minor stream impacts, nationwide permit, no Section 4(f), no historic properties Costs $0 $32.110M $29.606M $20.947M $16.322M $16.443M $6.807M Best Moderate Worst

74 CONCLUSION Alternative 1 is the recommended preferred option for the corridor improvements constructing roundabouts at key intersections. Alternative D (Bypass) is the recommended preferred option for a grade separation improvement

75 NEXT STEPS The next step in the Preliminary Engineering (PE) process will be ODOT s review of the final Feasibility Study Report, consideration of the no-build or build option(s), and Purpose and Need document. ODOT will use the Feasibility Study and Purpose and Need to help evaluate the proposed project s transportation needs, the positive and negative impacts caused by the proposed project and the public/agency concerns expressed on this proposed project. Should the Village of Archbold wish to advance the project, it will be at ODOT s discretion to proceed with completion of the PE steps for the proposed project if in ODOT s opinion, the transportation purpose and need is met, the benefits overcome the impacts, and the benefits to the general public overcome the public s concerns to the proposed project.

76 NEXT STEPS (Continued) Build or No-Build If Build, Then: For Corridor: Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 Or Variation of Either Alternative For Railroad: Grade Crossing or Separation If Grade Separation, Then: Alternative A, B, C or D

77 NEXT STEPS (Continued) Develop Stage 1, Stage 2, and Preliminary R/W plans Develop preliminary grade separation plans, if desired by the Village Public Meeting following completion of Stage 1 and Preliminary Right of Way Plans Secure Final Design, Right-of-Way and Construction Funding

78 QUESTIONS