Interstate 10 (SR 8)/ SR 200 (US 301) Interchange Interchange Modification Report. APPENDIX E Interchange Concepts Considered

Transcription

1 Interstate 10 (SR 8)/ SR 200 (US 301) Interchange Interchange Modification Report APPENDIX E Interchange Concepts Considered 112

2 Screening of Interchange Concepts Nine (9) interchange concepts were considered during the PD&E Study. The concepts and improvements were compared to the interchange needs for the area and the anticipated type of impacts. Concept #5 was identified as the Preferred Alternative under the 2040 design year conditions. The concepts below were eliminated from further evaluation when compared to the anticipated impacts from Concept #5. Concept #1 This concept is the recommended alternative from the I-10 Master Plan Study. This concept was eliminated from further evaluation for the following reasons: The improvements in the SE quadrant of the interchange will impact the following: o Known contaminated sites o CSX railroad maintenance yard including the monitoring tower o Frontage access of all the commercial properties east of US 301 o Additional right-of-way Higher construction and contamination cleaning costs. Concept #2 This concept was eliminated from further evaluation for the following reasons: The improvements in the NE quadrant of the interchange will require additional right-of-way acquisition and wetland impacts. The improvements in the SE quadrant of the interchange will impact the following: o Known contaminated sites o CSX railroad maintenance yard including the monitoring tower o Frontage access of all the commercial properties east of US 301 o Additional right-of-way The projected traffic volumes did not justify the need of a US 301 northbound to I-10 westbound flyover ramp. Higher construction and contamination cleaning costs. Concept #3 This concept was eliminated from further evaluation for the following reasons: The improvements in the NE quadrant of the interchange will require additional right-of-way acquisition and wetland impacts. The improvements in the SE quadrant of the interchange will impact the following: o Known contaminated sites o CSX railroad maintenance yard including the monitoring tower o Frontage access of all the commercial properties east of US 301 o Additional right-of-way The projected traffic volumes did not justify the need of an I-10 eastbound to US 301 northbound flyover ramp. Higher construction and contamination cleaning costs.

3 Concept #4 This concept was eliminated from further evaluation for the following reasons: The distance between the ramp terminals along US 301 is too short. Concept #5A This concept is similar to Concept #5. The only two differences are the proposed flyover in the SE quadrant of the interchange and the rural high speed ramp from US 301 southbound to I-10 westbound. This concept was eliminated from further evaluation for the following reasons: The improvements in the SE quadrant of the interchange will impact the following: o Known contaminated sites o CSX railroad maintenance yard including the monitoring tower o Frontage access of all the commercial properties east of US 301 o Additional right-of-way Higher construction and contamination cleaning costs. Concept #6 This concept was eliminated from further evaluation for the following reasons: Introduces two (2) consecutive I-10 westbound off-ramps. Does not alleviate the I-10 westbound speed differentials deficiency. Concept #6A This concept is similar to Concept #6. The only difference is the proposed flyover in the SE quadrant of the interchange. This concept was eliminated from further evaluation for the following reasons: Introduces two (2) consecutive I-10 westbound off-ramps. Does not alleviate the I-10 westbound speed differentials deficiency. The improvements in the SE quadrant of the interchange will impact the following: o Known contaminated sites o CSX railroad maintenance yard including the monitoring tower o Frontage access of all the commercial properties east of US 301 o Additional right-of-way Higher construction and contamination cleaning costs. Concept #7 This concept was eliminated from further evaluation for the following reasons: The distance between the ramp terminals along US 301 is too short.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12