Memo Date: Friday, December 09, 2016 Project: To: From: Subject: State Route 30 EIS UDOT Vince Izzo This memorandum summarizes the draft State Route (S.R.) 30 Level 1 screening results. A more detailed memorandum will be completed after the input from agencies and stakeholders scheduled for January 2017 is received. Supporting travel demand model files and graphics are attached to this memorandum. Range of the Alternatives Considered in the EIS The range of alternatives was developed based on previous planning studies and through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) agency and public scoping process. These alternatives were developed with input from existing land-use and transportation plans, the public, local municipal governments, and resource agencies. The input was collected during the EIS public scoping period (August 18 October 21, 2016), at agency scoping meetings (September 13 and 14, 2016), in stakeholder interviews, and at a Stakeholder Working Group Meeting (October 19, 2016). In addition, a memorandum (S.R. 30 Alternatives Development and Screening Methodology Report) was placed on the project website (on October 7, 2016) and sent to cooperating and participating agencies (October 7, 2016) for a 30-day public comment period that described the screening process that would be used. The alternatives that emerged from the scoping process to be considered in the EIS are listed in Table 1. Friday, December 09, 2016 1 of 9
Table 1. Alternatives Evaluated in the Screening Process.Alternative No-Action Alternative Alternative 1 Transportation Systems Management (TSM)/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative 2 Off-Corridor Improvements Alternative 3 Three-lane highway with safety Alternative 4 Four-lane highway with safety Alternative 5 Five-lane highway with safety Alternative 6 Combination of two through five lanes with safety Alternative 7 Reversible lanes with safety Alternative 8 Bridge with safety Description Under this alternative, no would be made to S.R. 30 from S.R. 23 to except for routine maintenance. Projects identified in the Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization s (CMPO) regional transportation plan except for the S.R. 30 Project are assumed to have been constructed as part of the No-Action Alternative. Maintain current two-lane highway but add shoulders and left- and right-turn lanes to improve safety. Provide a center median from to. Add capacity on either Mendon Road/600 South (south of S.R. 30) or 3000 North/Airport Road (north of S.R. 30) to alleviate congestion on S.R. 30. Safety would still be made on S.R. 30 from S.R. 23 to and would include shoulders and left- and rightturn lanes. Add passing lanes to the existing two-lane highway to have a continuous three-lane roadway from S.R. 23 to. Add center median, shoulders, and left- and right-turn lanes to improve safety. Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction on S.R. 30 from S.R. 23 to 1000 West. Add shoulders and left- and right-turn lanes to improve safety. This alternative does not include a center median. Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction plus center median/turn lane on S.R. 30 from S.R. 23 to. Add shoulders and right-turn lanes to access points to improve safety. Alternative would provide the minimum number of lanes to meet the project purpose and would include a combination of two, three, and four travel lanes. The alternative would include center median, shoulders, and left- and right-turn lanes to improve safety. Three travel lanes and reverse the travel direction on one lane during the AM and PM peak periods from S.R. 23 to. Provide two lanes plus median from to 1400 West and five lanes from 1400 West to. Add center median, shoulders, and turn lanes to improve safety. Maintain current two-lane highway from S.R. 23 to but add shoulders and turn lanes to improve safety. Add new two-lane highway on a bridge to avoid wetlands starting at about across Cutler Marsh. Provide two travel lanes plus westbound passing lane from to. Provide five lanes from to. Add center median, shoulders, and turn lanes to improve safety. Consideration of Mass Transit Alternatives Mass transit includes reasonable and feasible transit options such as bus service and rail systems. A key component of transit use is the density of development required to make transit use practical. A study of data regarding transit use in relationship to housing density was conducted using six metropolitan areas ranging in population from 531,000 to 16,300,000. 1 The study concluded that housing densities of 2 to 7 dwellings per acre produced only marginal use of public transportation. Densities of 7 to 30 dwellings per acre were necessary to sustain transit use in the range of 5% to 1 Boris Pushkarev and Jeffery Zupan, Public Transportation Land Use Policy, 1977 Friday, December 09, 2016 2 of 9
. This study also determined what transit modes would work best based on the dwelling unit densities. The study concluded that local bus service would work with densities of 4 to 7 dwellings per acre, but rail service would require a minimum of 9 dwellings per acre. The rail service would further require a downtown area of 35 to 50 million square feet in a metropolitan area of more than 750,000 people with a large workday peak trip to the downtown area. The S.R. 30 team looked at areas along S.R. 30 and towns in western Cache County. None of the areas have the densities or population stated in the transit study as supporting a bus or rail transit system. Even if a bus route were provided to Mendon and other towns in western Cache County, it would not decrease traffic volumes on S.R. 30 enough to eliminate the need to increase the roadway capacity. However, the design of each alternative does assume that the projects listed in CMPO s Regional Transportation Plan, including transit projects in Logan, have been constructed. Screening of Alternatives The preliminary alternatives identified in Table 1 above were evaluated in Level 1 screening. Level 1 screening examined roadway and transportation management strategy alternatives that focused on improving the capacity on S.R. 30. Level 1 screening quantitatively evaluated the range of preliminary alternatives to determine which alternatives would meet the project s purpose. Level 1 Screening The purpose of Level 1 screening was to identify alternatives that would meet the purpose of the project. Alternatives that were determined to not meet the purpose of the project were considered unreasonable for NEPA purposes and not practicable under the Clean Water Act, and were not carried forward for further analysis in Level 2 screening. Level 1 screening was the first major decision point at which alternatives were eliminated based on specific screening criteria. During Level 1 screening, the preliminary alternatives were screened against level of service (LOS) and safety criteria (Table 2). To accommodate Level 1 screening, the preliminary alternatives were developed in enough detail to allow the S.R. 30 team to use CMPO s travel demand model to forecast future traffic for the roadway alternatives. Table 2. Level 1 Screening Criteria (Project Purpose) Criterion Measure Reduce delay and improve capacity (improve regional mobility) Improve safety on S.R. 30 Meet level of service C on the S.R. 30 roadway. Meet level of service C at intersections on S.R. 30. Meet UDOT s safety standards (such as lane and shoulder widths, access, and sight distance) for all roadway users including passenger and freight vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, and recreational users during all weather conditions. Provide vehicle access in accordance with safety standards. For Level 1 screening, each alternative was evaluated using the travel demand model to determine whether the alternative would meet the criterion of LOS C on S.R. 30. For this analysis, S.R. 30 was divided into three segments: S.R. 23 to, to, and to Friday, December 09, 2016 3 of 9
. For Alternative 6, a combination of lanes was evaluated to determine the minimum capacity expansion needed to meet LOS C along S.R. 30. Using the travel demand model, four alternatives were evaluated (Table 3). For all of the alternatives, the S.R. 30 team determined that five lanes were needed from to to meet LOS goals at the intersection of 1000 West and S.R. 30. Table 3. Alternative 6 (Combination of Lanes) Options Evaluated Alternative Alternative 6A Alternative 6B Alternative 6C Alternative 6D Description Five lanes from to Westbound passing lane from to milepost 106.5 Westbound passing lane from mileposts 104.3 to 103 Eastbound passing lane from milepost 103.3 to S.R. 23 Five lanes from to Westbound passing lane from to milepost 106.5 Westbound passing lane from to milepost 104.6 Eastbound passing lane from milepost 103.3 to S.R. 23 Five lanes from to Westbound passing lane from to milepost 104.9 Eastbound passing lane from milepost 103.3 to S.R. 23 Five lanes from to Westbound passing lane from to milepost 106.5 Westbound passing lane from milepost 103.3 to S.R. 23 Eastbound passing lane from milepost 103.3 to S.R. 23 Friday, December 09, 2016 4 of 9
Table 4 shows the travel demand modeling analysis for each alternative evaluated. Only Alternatives 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 8 met the level of service goal of LOS C for all S.R. 30 segments. Table 4. Level 1 Screening Travel Demand Analysis by Segment Level of Service by Segment (Passing criteria Are LOS A C) Alternative S.R. 23 to to to No-Action Alternative D D F Alternative 1 TSM/TDM D D F Alternative 2 Off-Corridor Improvements Alternative 3 Three-lane highway with safety Alternative 4 Four-lane highway with safety Alternative 5 Five-lane highway with safety Alternative 6A Combination of lanes with safety Alternative 6B Combination of lanes with safety Alternative 6C Combination of lanes with safety Alternative 6D Combination of lanes with safety Alternative 7 Reversible lanes with safety Alternative 8 Bridge with safety Green shading = Meets LOS goal of C Red shading = Does not meet LOS goal of C D D F C C F A A D A A C C C C C C C C C C D C C D D C A C C For all alternatives, the S.R. 30 team assumed that the roadway could be designed to meet UDOT s safety and access standards except with the four-lane alternative (Alternative 4). To meet safety standards, the four-lane alternative would need a center median and thus would become the same as Alternative 5, the five-lane alternative. Friday, December 09, 2016 5 of 9
Table 5 shows the results of the Level 1 screening analysis by alternative. As shown, only alternatives 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 8 passed all of the Level 1 screening criteria. Table 5. Level 1 Screening Results Alternative Provides LOS C on S.R. 30 and at Intersections Level 1 Screening Criteria Meets UDOT Safety and Access Standards Recommended for Further Analysis in Level 2 Screening No-Action Alternative No No No Alternative 1 TSM/TDM No Yes No Alternative 2 Off-Corridor No Yes No Improvements Alternative 3 Three-lane highway No Yes No with safety Alternative 4 Four-lane highway with safety a No No No Alternative 5 Five-lane highway with Yes Yes Yes safety Alternative 6A Combination of two through five lanes with safety Yes Yes Yes Alternative 6B Combination of two through five lanes with safety Yes Yes Yes Alternative 6C Combination of two through five lanes with safety Yes Yes Yes Alternative 6D Combination of two through five lanes with safety No Yes No Alternative 7 Reversible lanes with No Yes No safety Alternative 8 Bridge with safety Yes Yes Yes a For the four-lane alternative (Alternative 4) to meet UDOT s safety and access standards, it would need a center median. If a center median were added to the four-lane alternative, it would be the same as Alternative 5, a five-lane alternative. Level 1 Screening Results As a result of Level 1 screening, Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6D, and 7 were eliminated from further consideration for not meeting the LOS C criterion on S.R. 30. Based on the analysis from Level 1 screening, five alternatives (Alternatives 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 8) met the LOS C criterion and therefore were advanced screening. to Level 2 Friday, December 09, 2016 6 of 9
Travel Time Study for Alternative 2, Off-Corridor Improvements All of the alternatives were screened using CMPO s travel demand model except for Alternative 2, Off-Corridor Improvements. For this alternative, a travel time study was conducted to determine whether the alternative would meet the Level 1 screening criteria. With this alternative, either Mendon Road/600 South (south of S.R. 30) or 3000 North/Airport Road (north of S.R. 30) would be improved to reduce congestion on S.R. 30 so that no capacity would be required. This alternative would still require that safety such as adding shoulders and turn lanes be implemented on S.R. 30. With the substantial wetland complexes in the Cache Valley, any to Mendon Road/600 South or 3000 North/Airport Road would result in wetland impacts, so Alternative 2 would not be a wetland avoidance alternative. S.R. 30 is the only east-west arterial that functions as a primary arterial into Cache Valley. As such, S.R. 30 provides and important direct connection to other major transportation systems throughout the region, including I-15, U.S. 89, and U.S. 91. An origin-destination survey conducted for the S.R. 30 1400 West to Main Corridor Study (UDOT 2010) showed that 33% of the traffic on S.R. 30 is traveling east-west toward Main Street in Logan and Utah State University, 33% is heading south of S.R. 30 to destinations in Logan, and 33% is heading north of S.R. 30 to destinations in Logan. The survey demonstrates that S.R. 30 provides a central connection for traffic to disperse throughout Logan. For Alternative 2, the S.R. 30 team performed a travel time study to determine whether traffic would use either Mendon Road/600 South or 3000 North/Airport Road instead of S.R. 30 to access Logan. As shown in Figure 1, travel on Mendon Road would take 8 minutes longer and would require 3.4 additional miles to reach the intersection of S.R. 30 and. Travel on 3000 North/Airport Road would take 14 minutes longer and 6.7 additional miles. The additional mileage to access Logan from Mendon Road/600 South or 3000 North/Airport Road would require substantial out-of-direction travel for the majority of traffic accessing Logan and would result in increased vehicle emissions. Even with congested conditions on S.R. 30, traffic would continue to use the highway to access Logan because it would provide a more direct access with shorter travel times. Therefore, to Mendon Road/600 South or 3000 North/Airport Road would not reduce traffic congestion on S.R. 30 enough to meet the project purpose of LOS C or better. Friday, December 09, 2016 7 of 9
Figure 1. Alternative 2, Off-Corridor Improvements Friday, December 09, 2016 8 of 9
Attachment A - Travel Demand Model Files and Graphics Friday, December 09, 2016 9 of 9
2040 Build Alternatives Alternative 3, Three-Lane Level of Service A B C D F Alternative 4, Four-Lane Level of Service A B C D F 2 GP + Alternating (2 WB, 2 EB) 4 GP 2 GP + TWLTL Alternative 5, Five-Lane 4 GP + TWLTL Level of Service A B C D F 12/9/2016
2040 Build Alternatives Alternative 6, Combination of Lanes Level of Service A B C D F 2 GP + EB & WB Alternative 7, Reversiable Lanes Level of Service A B C D F 2 GP WB + 1 GP EB 2 GP + WB Passing Lane 4 GP+ TWLTL 4 GP+ TWLTL Alternative 8, Bridge with Safety Improvements 4 GP 2 GP + WB Passing Lane 4 GP + TWLTL Level of Service A B C D F 12/9/2016
Alternative 3 LOS C 50% West Bound 50% LOS C East Bound 12/9/2016
Alternative 6A: WB Passing Lane at Threshold LOS C 50% West Bound 50% LOS C East Bound 12/9/2016
Alternative 6B: WB Passing Lane Before Wetlands LOS C 50% West Bound 50% LOS C East Bound 12/9/2016
Alternative 6C: Single Extended WB Passing Lane LOS C 50% West Bound 50% LOS C East Bound 12/9/2016
Alternative 6D: WB Passing Lane After Wetlands LOS C 50% West Bound 50% LOS C East Bound 12/9/2016