Beltline Interchange Range of Alternatives Screening Summary Memo

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Beltline Interchange Range of Alternatives Screening Summary Memo"

Miranda Lucas
5 years ago
Views:

1 Range of Alternatives Screening Summary Memo (Concurrence Point #2 from the Agency Coordination Plan) (I-39/90 and US 12/18 Interchange) Dane County, Wisconsin WisDOT Project ID

2 Table of Contents Title Page Table of Contents Page 1.0 Executive Summary Background Adjacent Studies and Projects Adjacent Studies Adjacent Projects... 8 Historical Timeline of the Environmental Documentation Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact Environmental Assessment Re-Evaluation Environmental Assessment (EA standalone) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Range of Alternatives No Build Alternative Low Build Alternatives Low Build Limited Capacity and Safety Improvement Alternative Transportation Demand/System Management (TDM/TSM) Alternatives Low Build Combined Alternative Full Build Alternatives Legs Phased Build Alternatives Traffic Operations Phasing Opportunities Screening Process for Range of Alternatives (2-level) Level 1 Screening (Purpose and Need) Level 2 Screening (Technical Differentiators) Range of Alternatives Screening Workshop Range of Alternatives Recommendation Meeting with FHWA Alternatives Recommended for Detailed Study Full Build Alternatives Phased Build Alternatives Summary Page i

3 List of Figures Figure 1 Project Location Map... 1 Figure 2 Range of Alternatives Development Timeline... 4 Figure 3 Full Build Alternative D Figure 4 Full Build Alternative F... 5 Figure 5 Overview of Construction Phasing Concept... 5 Figure 6 Area Studies and Projects Adjacent to the... 9 Figure EA/FONSI Preferred Alternative for the Figure 8 Low Build Limited Capacity and Safety Improvement Alternative Figure 9 Core, Major and Minor Ramps Figure 10 Range of Alternatives Development Timeline Figure 11 Alternative A-1 (Semi-Directional Interchange) Figure 12 Alternative D (Turbine Interchange) Figure 13 Alternative D-1 (Modified Turbine Interchange) Figure 14 Alternative E-1 (Left Split Directional Interchange with Flyover) Figure 15 Alternative F (Left Split Directional Interchange with Embankment) Figure No Build Level of Service (LOS) Figure 17 Phase 1A Concept Figure 18 Range of Alternatives Development Timeline Figure 19 Footprint Comparison for Environmental Impacts Figure 20 Alternatives Comparison of Environmental Impacts Figure 21 Full Build Alternative D Figure 22 Full Build Alternative F Figure 23 Overview of Construction Phasing Concept Figure 24 Phase 1A & 1B Concept for Alternative D Figure 25 Phase 1A & 1B Concept for Alternative F Figure 26 Phase 2 Concept for Alternative D-1 (same for Alternative F) Figure 27 Phase 3 Concept for Alternative D-1 (same for Alternative F) Page ii

4 List of Appendices Appendix A-1 Low Build Limited Capacity & Safety Improvement Alternative Core Appendix A-2 Low Build Limited Capacity & Safety Improvement Alternative US 12/18/Millpond, Slotted Left Turn Concept Appendix A-3 Low Build Limited Capacity & Safety Improvement Alternative US 12/18/Millpond, Restricted Left Turn Concept Appendix A-4 Low Build Limited Capacity & Safety Improvement Alternative US 12/18/Millpond, Jug Handle Concept 1 Appendix A-5 Low Build Limited Capacity & Safety Improvement Alternative US 12/18/Millpond, Jug Handle Concept 2 Appendix A-6 Low Build Limited Capacity & Safety Improvement Alternative US 12/18/County AB, Signalized Concept 1 Appendix A-7 Low Build Limited Capacity & Safety Improvement Alternative US 12/18/County AB, Signalized Concept 2 Appendix B-1 Full Build Alternatives Synopsis ( Core) Appendix B-2 Full Build Alternative A-1 (Semi-Directional Interchange) Appendix B-3 Full Build Alternative D (Turbine Interchange) Appendix B-4 Full Build Alternative D-1 (Modified Turbine Interchange) Appendix B-5 Full Build Alternative E-1 (Left Split Directional Interchange with Flyover) Appendix B-6 Full Build Alternative F (Left Split Directional Interchange with Embankment) Appendix C North Leg Alternative Appendix D West Leg Alternatives Appendix E East Leg Alternative Appendix F Phase 1A Concept Appendix G Environmental Resources Map Appendix H-1 Overview of Construction Phasing Concept Appendix H-2 Phased Build Alternative D-1 Appendix H-3 Phased Build Alternative F Page iii

1.0 Executive Summary This summary details the development of the full Range of Alternatives for the I-39/90 interchange at US 12/18 (the ) by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), as

5 1.0 Executive Summary This summary details the development of the full Range of Alternatives for the I-39/90 interchange at US 12/18 (the ) by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), as well as the screening process and evaluation criteria used to determine which alternatives will be carried forward to the next phase of design known as Detailed Study (see Figure 1). Upper Mud Lake Mud Lake Lake Kegonsa Figure 1 Project Location Map Page 1

6 Background The is located on the city of Madison s east side in Dane County and is a connection point to numerous highways in the area. I-39/90 is one of the largest gateways for both in-state and outof-state residents to get to the many tourism and recreational destinations in the state. Adjacent Studies and Projects There are four transportation studies, a local road design project, and a major reconstruction and capacity expansion project currently underway in the vicinity of the. Due to their close proximity, these studies and projects have the ability to affect traffic flow through the interchange. The alternatives recommended for Detailed Study have been developed so as not to restrict the consideration of future transportation alternatives that may be identified during the planning or design of nearby facilities. Historical Timeline of the Environmental Documentation The was initially included in the 2010 Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the reconstruction and capacity expansion of I-39/90 in southcentral Wisconsin (WisDOT ID ). The preferred alternative for the interchange was developed to accommodate the 4-lane to 6-lane capacity expansion and address safety concerns along I-39/90 at the exit and entrance ramps. A re-evaluation of the EA was completed in October 2014 to document design changes that included expanded project limits and increased clear zone; additional considerations for overpasses, interchange configurations, and drainage; and changes to side road connections, access, and pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. These changes to the proposed design and affected environment increased the total anticipated impacts included in the 2010 approved EA/FONSI for the project, with the most substantial increases being agricultural, wetlands, archaeology/history, noise, relocations, and access. In 2013 WisDOT decided a stand-alone EA would be prepared to ensure compatibility with adjacent projects/studies and new alternatives would be developed that fully address the deficiencies of the and US 12/18. As the design of the interchange progressed, the study limits were expanded to accommodate the changes that the traffic analysis indicated as being needed. Due to the expanded study limits and unique environmental characteristics of the area, the decision was made in 2014 to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rather than an EA. The purpose of the project is to improve the to be compatible with the evolving regional transportation network in the area while meeting current design standards, accommodating expected future traffic levels, and improving overall safety and level of service. Level of service measures traffic conditions in terms of speed, travel time, delays, ability to change lanes, driver comfort and convenience, and safety. The acceptable level of service for I-39/90 mainline, US 12/18 between Agriculture Drive and I-39/90, and all interchange ramps has been defined as Level of Service C (stable flow, at or near free flow) or better; with Level of Service D (approaching unstable flow) or better considered acceptable for the remaining sections of US 12/18. The needs identified for the project include connectivity to adjacent transportation facilities, substandard geometrics, traffic and operations, and safety. Range of Alternatives The Range of Alternatives have been developed to meet acceptable engineering standards, avoid or minimize harm to natural and cultural resources, and to be compatible with adjacent development and land use to the extent practicable. Page 2

7 The alternatives fall into the following general categories: No Build Low Build Full Build Phased Build A No Build Alternative is included in the Range of Alternatives to help decision makers understand the consequence of not moving forward with the project and to serve as a baseline for comparison of the other alternatives. The alternative includes routine maintenance; however, no geometric or safety improvements are made. The Low Build Alternatives would maintain the existing interchange configuration while incorporating improvements that have minimal environmental impacts and right-of-way needs. The alternatives include a capacity expansion and safety improvement along I-39/90 that utilizes the existing roadways and structures, and transportation management alternatives that aim to reduce the number of trips and overall efficiency of the interchange. An alternative that combines the strategies of these alternatives has also been proposed. The Full Build Alternatives would fully address the deficiencies of the and safety and capacity needs of the outer legs. The limits of the proposed interchange alternatives include all of the ramps from where they exit the I-39/90 or US 12/18 mainline to where they rejoin mainline, I-39/90 between Siggelkow Road and County AB, and US 12/18 between US 51 and Millpond Road. The outer legs include I-39/90 north and US 12/18 east and west of the limits of the interchange. The alternatives developed propose different geometric configurations for the interchange that have resulted in variable levels of improved safety and traffic operations. The Full Build Alternatives developed for the interchange are fully compatible with those developed for the outer legs. A Phased Build approach that is compatible with all of the Full Build Alternatives for the interchange and outer legs has been developed. Phasing allows large transportation projects to be implemented in multiple phases or sections over an extended period of time when funding limitations won t allow the entire project to be programmed for construction at one time and/or when needs evolve over the course of the design life of the project. Phasing provides flexibility in programming and construction and ensures compatibility to adjacent studies that are still under development. Screening Process The Range of Alternatives has been evaluated using a two-level screening process to ensure that only the most promising alternatives are carried forward for Detailed Study. The initial screening process, referred to as Level 1, determined whether the alternatives met the Purpose and Need of the project. The alternatives that did not meet the Purpose and Need were dismissed from further consideration; while those that did, moved forward to the next round of screening, referred to as Level 2, where a comparative evaluation of technical criteria that included environmental impacts, traffic, design, constructability, structures, and permanent signing was used to further narrow down the alternatives. While cost was not identified as a specific screening criteria during the evaluation, a cost-benefit component was discussed with each technical area and taken into consideration during the decision making process to further differentiate the alternatives. An illustration of the Range of Alternatives development timeline is shown in Figure 2. Page 3

2010 EA/FONSI 2013 EA 2014 EIS Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 2016 Level 1 ROA

8 2010 EA/FONSI 2013 EA 2014 EIS Preferred Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 2016 Level 1 ROA Screening (Purpose & Need) Level 2 ROA Screening Concurrence Point #2 (Technical Criteria) (Alts for Detailed Study) No Build Alternative Low Build Alternative TDM/TSM Alternative Combined Alternative Alternative A-1 Alternative D, D-1 Alternative E-1 Alternative F Phased Alternative D-1 Phased Alternative F Alternative A-1 Alternative D-1 Alternative D, D-1 Alternative F Alternative E-1 Phased Alternative D-1 Alternative F Phased Alternative F Phased Alternative D-1 Phased Alternative F Figure 2 Range of Alternatives Development Timeline Alternatives Recommended for Detailed Study Two Full Build Alternatives, along with their Phased Build Alternative counterparts, have been recommended for Detailed Study. Both Full Build alternatives include construction of the outer legs of the interchange (North, West, and East) for which alternatives have been developed and screened. The recommendation was made following several years of stakeholder input and collaboration, design modifications, and technical analysis. Full Build Alternative D-1 (see Figure 3) has been recommended based on its improved ramp operations, the lesser amount of infrastructure it requires, and the amount of reserve capacity it provides. This alternative also allows for design flexibility to provide either single or multiple merge and diverge locations along southbound I-39/90; microsimulation modeling of future traffic volumes during Detailed Study will determine which option results in the best operation of the interchange. Figure 3 Full Build Alternative D-1 Page 4

9 Alternative F (see Figure 4) has also been recommended based on providing the most efficient traffic operation for eastbound US 12/18, for requiring the least amount of infrastructure of the Full Build Alternatives, and for decreasing demand at the northbound merge and the southbound diverge locations along I-39/90. This alternative also allows for design flexibility to incorporate many of the design features of the other Full Build Alternatives should the microsimulation modeling of future traffic volumes during Detailed Study show that they would result in more efficient operation of the interchange. Figure 4 Full Build Alternative F A Phased Build approach has been developed that is compatible with the Full Build Alternatives (D-1, F) recommended for Detailed Study and includes the outer leg alternatives in either the phase with the interchange or as its own separate phase (see Figure 5). Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 1 Figure 5 Overview of Construction Phasing Concept For both alternatives D-1 and F, Phase 1 of the Phased Build approach would include the preferred alternative for the, and the North Leg of I-39/90 between County BB and I-94/WIS 30 (the Badger Interchange). This initial phase would need to be completed prior to 2030 for the interchange to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. Page 5

10 If needed, Phase 1 could be implemented in two sub-phases. Phase 1A would provide three lanes in each direction of I-39/90 through the interchange by adding an additional lane next to the existing lanes in the southbound direction while the northbound lanes would be reconstructed on new alignment adjacent to the southbound lanes. Some additional measures to improve safety and traffic operations at the ramps would also be included. Phase 1B would complete the remaining improvements associated with the preferred Full Build Alternatives for the and North Leg. Phase 2 would include the preferred West Leg Alternative for US 12/18 between US 51 and West Broadway. This phase would need to be completed prior to the time when traffic queuing on westbound US 12/18 extends east of Agriculture Drive toward the interchange. The proposed West Leg Alternatives will be included in each of the microsimulation traffic models of the Full Build Alternatives recommended for Detailed Study to determine which combination of alternatives results in the most efficient traffic operations and by what year the improvements need to be completed. Phase 3 would include the preferred East Leg Alternative for the US 12/18 interchange at County AB. Unlike Phases 1 and 2, the timeline for completing Phase 3 is indeterminate and will depend on the effectiveness of the Meier Road Extension (WisDOT ID ) and any potential interim improvements made along US 12/18 between I-39/90 and County AB, and the aggressiveness of the proposed development east of I-39/90. It should be noted that the timing and/or order of the phases may change depending on when each phase is needed to meet the Purpose and Need of the project. Currently Phase 1 is shown to be needed (fully constructed) by 2030; the timing for Phases 2 and 3 will be determined using the microsimulation traffic models developed for the Full Build Alternatives recommended for detailed study. Request for Written Comment and Concurrence In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/404 Merger Process1, WisDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) request written comments from participating and cooperating agencies and concurrence2 from NEPA/404 Merger Agreement agencies who have expressed interest in the proposed project on the Range of Alternatives developed and the screening and evaluation methodology used to determine which alternatives would be carried forward for Detailed Study (NEPA Concurrence Point #2). 1 The NEPA/404 Merger Process was initiated to streamline project decision-making on Federal-aid highway projects. Merging the FHWA NEPA and Section 404 permit processes expedites project decision-making and leads to one overall public interest decision, at one point in time, for a Federal-aid project. Both the NEPA and Section 404 processes involve the evaluation of alternatives, the assessment of impacts to resources, and the balancing of resource impacts and project need. 2 Concurrence is a written determination by an agency participating in the NEPA/404 Merger Process that the information provided todate is adequate to agree that the project can be advanced to the next stage of project development. Agencies agree not to revisit the previous process steps unless conditions change. Concurrence by an agency at a concurrence point does not imply that the project has been approved by that agency, nor that it has released its obligation to determine whether the fully developed project meets statutory review criteria. Page 6

11 2.0 Background The is located in Dane County on the east side of the Madison metropolitan area. The study area extends 6.6 miles along I-39/90 and 4.1 miles along US 12/18 (see Figures 1 and 5). Tourism is vital to Wisconsin's economy. The industry generates billions of dollars in state and local revenue, and provides several hundred thousand jobs. I-39/90 is one of the largest gateways for both in-state and out-of-state residents to get to the many tourism and recreational destinations in the state. As a designated federal truck route, 35 percent of all traffic on I-39/90, or about one in every three vehicles, was classified as a heavy truck in 2010; this was an increase from 30 percent in I-39/90 is also designated as an oversize/overweight route that connects to other oversize/overweight routes for the movement of goods throughout the state. This designation increases the importance that both the interstate and operate safely and efficiently. I-39/90 has national, state, regional, and local importance. It is included in the National Highway System and is part of the Interstate Highway and Defense System that was designated under the Federal Highway Act of The National Highway System is a system of highways designated to ensure connectivity to national defense highways and other important regional highways. These routes serve major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transportation facilities. The National Highway System carries approximately 40 percent of the nation s highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck traffic, and 80 percent of tourist traffic. As a result, National Highway System routes need to meet a high level of safety, design, and operational standards. The west leg of the serves US 12/18 (the Madison Beltline ) and is a major traffic corridor leading into and around the city of Madison. The Madison Beltline links southwest Wisconsin to the state and region and connects area neighborhoods and communities. Constructed in the 1950 s as a 2-lane rural highway bypassing downtown Madison, it has been foundational in the growth of Dane County; it has since been reconstructed and is currently a 6-lane urban freeway. The economic benefits of the Madison Beltline to Wisconsin are considerable. Connections 20303, WisDOT s long-range multimodal transportation plan, has identified the Beltline Interchange as a Priority Project Action Area. The plan recommends reconstruction of the interchange, corridor planning for all legs, and capacity expansion construction projects on I-39/90 and US 12/18 east of the interchange. 3 Connections 2030 is WisDOT s long-range transportation plan for the state. The plan addresses all forms of transportation over a 20-year planning horizon: highways, local roads, air, water, rail, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit. WisDOT officially adopted Connections 2030 in October Page 7

12 3.0 Adjacent Studies and Projects The is located on the city of Madison s east side in Dane County and is a connection point to numerous highways in the area. Because of the close proximity of adjacent highways, any alternatives evaluated in separate planning studies for those roadways could have had an impact on the design of the and on the function of the interstate as a part of the regional transportation network. The alternatives recommended for Detailed Study have been developed so as not to preclude viable alternatives that may have been identified during the preliminary planning or design work of nearby facilities and to provide the flexibility to accommodate possible changes in traffic as a result of these projects (see Figure 6). 3.1 Adjacent Studies There are four transportation facilities being studied by WisDOT and FHWA in the vicinity of the that all have the ability to affect traffic on the interstate. Area studies include: I-39/90/94 from US 12/18 to WIS 78 in Columbia County (WisDOT ID ) US 12/18 from I-39/90 east to County N in Cottage Grove (WisDOT ID ; EA/FONSI in May 2016; official map for corridor preservation anticipated in 2017) US 12/18 from US 14 in Middleton east to County N in Cottage Grove (WisDOT ID ; Planning and Environmental Linkages Study in progress) US 51 from Madison to DeForest (WisDOT ID ) The design team will coordinate with the adjacent study teams throughout the NEPA process and at major decision points in the design to ensure compatibility between the studies. 3.2 Adjacent Projects In addition to the studies, there are two projects in the vicinity of the that are included in WisDOT s Six Year Highway Improvement Program. I-39/90 Expansion Project WisDOT is overseeing a major reconstruction and capacity expansion project in south-central Wisconsin. The I-39/90 Expansion Project extends approximately 47 miles between the Illinois state line and Madison Beltline (WisDOT ID ). Proposed improvements include reconstruction of the existing freeway lanes and the addition of a third lane in each direction to create a six-lane divided highway. Interchanges and grade-separated crossings will be reconstructed to address roadway and capacity deficiencies. The design effort for some segments of the project continues while construction activities that include interchange reconfigurations, temporary lane widenings, bridge replacements, interstate reconstruction, and alternate route improvements have begun or been completed. Construction of the 47-mile corridor began in 2015 and is currently anticipated to be complete in Meier Road Extension The proposed project will improve safety along US 12/18 and provide additional local access to the Ho-Chunk Nation s gaming facility, city of Madison golf course, and other area businesses by extending Meier Road approximately 3,500 feet south of Femrite Drive, over US 12/18, and connecting into the existing Savannah Road/Millpond Road intersection. The roadway extension will require a new structure over US 12/18 (approximately 2,000 feet east of northbound I-39/90) and for Long Drive to be extended to connect with the new Meier Road. Upon completion of the extension, the median opening along US 12/18 at Millpond Road and Long Drive will be closed, thereby restricting access to and from the highway to right turn movements only. The newly constructed overpass would provide motorists access to and from properties in the southeast quadrant of the. The design of the project is ongoing; construction is currently anticipated in Page 8

13 Figure 6 Area Studies and Projects Adjacent to the Page 9

14 4.0 Historical Timeline of the Environmental Documentation A historical timeline of the environmental documentation for the is shown below; a brief summary of each document follows. Project I-39/90 Corridor EA/FONSI ( ) I-39/90 Corridor EA Re-evaluation ( ) EA ( ) EIS ( ) 4.1 Effect on Accommodated the 4-lane to 6-lane expansion of I-39/90 Accommodated the 4-lane to 6-lane expansion of I-39/90 Addressed full interchange; initial alternatives developed Addressed full interchange; full range of alternatives developed Date Completed October 2010 October 2014 Not Completed, changed to EIS In Process Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (part of I-39/90 Corridor) An EA was approved by FHWA in July 2008 for the 4-lane to 6-lane capacity expansion of 44.5 miles of I-39/90 from the Illinois state line to County AB north of the (WisDOT ID ). FHWA provided a Finding of No Significant Impact for the study in October The purpose of the proposed improvements was to meet current design standards, improve overall safety, accommodate future traffic with an acceptable level of service, and to replace aging pavements and structures on a corridor having national, state, regional, and local importance. An alternative that satisfies the project purpose would reduce congestion and travel time, enhance safety, provide an adequate level of service for forecast traffic volumes, support local community needs and interests, replace aging pavement and structures, and accommodate regional and national transportation needs of those communities along I-39/90. The need for the project includes: 1. Route Importance/System Linkage - As an interstate and Backbone route, I-39/90 must be able to carry heavy volumes of traffic while providing a high level of service. Increasing the mainline capacity and modernizing and reconfiguring interchanges is necessary to maintain a high level of service. 2. Traffic and Roadway Capacity - If no capacity improvements are made, the 4-lane freeway would experience breakdowns in traffic flow in the project s design year 2030; to maintain acceptable operations on the interstate, a 6-lane freeway is necessary. 3. Safety - There was an average of 608 crashes for the 6-year period between 2000 and Most crashes occurred within interchanges where weaving and merging movements create traffic conflicts; data shows the highest crash rate was at the. 4. Mainline Deficiencies - Corridor deficiencies include substandard horizontal and vertical curves, insufficient outside shoulder widths, and an aging pavement structure. 5. Bridge Deficiencies - Similar to the highway itself, all outside shoulder widths on the bridges do not meet the current WisDOT standard. 6. Interchange Deficiencies Since the 1960s when the interchanges were constructed, design standards have been updated to allow facilities to operate more efficiently and safely. As noted in the EA, the is currently a semi-direct, partial cloverleaf configuration with several deficiencies. The west leg of the interchange serves the Madison Beltline, a major traffic corridor leading into and around the city of Madison, with the heaviest traffic movements being to and from the Beltline. One of the primary geometric deficiencies is the left hand off ramp for the northbound to westbound driver. Research has shown that the left hand exits are contrary to driver expectations and Page 10

15 less safe than the conventional right hand exits. Similarly, because the southbound off ramp is at the end of approximately 40 miles of the outside mainline through lane, drivers tend to make sudden lane changes in the area of the lane drop. The bridge carrying northbound I-39/90 over westbound US 12/18 does not meet current width requirements. Finally, there is insufficient merge distance and substandard sight distance where the westbound to northbound ramp converges with the eastbound to northbound ramp; and acceleration and deceleration distances at the interchange ramp terminals along I-39/90 are substandard. The document identified a preferred alternative that accommodated the 4-lane to 6-lane expansion through the and proposed safety improvements along I-39/90 at the exit and entrance ramps (see Figure 7). However, it did not consider operational and safety improvements of the full interchange, nor did it consider compatibility with adjacent studies/projects. The alternative maintained the rest of the interchange with the following exceptions: Eliminated left exit ramps (eastbound to northbound and northbound to westbound) Shifted northbound I-39/90 west to parallel the southbound lanes Shifted eastbound US 12/18 north to parallel the westbound lanes The improvements proposed in the EA/FONSI do meet the current project's Purpose and Need for an interim period of time and are therefore being considered as a phase (Phase 1A) in the EIS. Figure EA/FONSI Preferred Alternative for the 4.2 Environmental Assessment Re-Evaluation The 2010 EA/FONSI evaluated the I-39/90 corridor from the Illinois state line to US 12/18, a total of 44.5 miles; the length of the project was extended to 47 miles to accommodate the improvements for the Beltline interchange. A re-evaluation of the EA was completed in October 2014 to document design changes that included the following: Expanded project limits Increased clear zone Additional considerations for overpasses, interchange configurations, and drainage Changes to side road connections, access, and pedestrian and bicycle accommodations Page 11

16 These changes to the proposed design and affected environment increased the total anticipated impacts included in the 2010 approved EA/FONSI for the project, with the most notable increases being: 4.3 Agricultural and Wetland Impacts Archaeology/History Noise Relocations Access Environmental Assessment (EA standalone) As the project development process advanced, a decision was made in 2013 to prepare a separate EA document for the since the preferred alternative identified in the 2010 EA/FONSI was developed primarily for the interchange to be able to accommodate the capacity expansion of I-39/90 and did not fully address deficiencies of the ramps or US 12/18. Furthermore, it did not consider the adjacent corridor studies which may have operational impacts on the interchange. To resolve these issues, WisDOT began developing new alternatives that would address the deficiencies of the and began preparing the standalone EA () to address impacts not covered in the 2010 EA/FONSI or Re-evaluation of the Environmental Assessment approved by FHWA in October The new alternatives were developed so as not to preclude the development of alternatives for the adjacent transportation systems. 4.4 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) As the interchange design progressed, the project limits extended further north and east to incorporate the necessary design changes dictated by the traffic analysis. Due to the expanded study limits and unique characteristics of the area that include park and recreation areas, a large wetland complex, multiple waterways, and cultural and historic resources, the decision was made in December 2014 by WisDOT, with FHWA concurrence, that an EIS should be prepared for the rather than an EA. A Federal Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on April 6, NEPA requires that an EIS "rigorously explores and objectively evaluates all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from Detailed Study, briefly discusses the reasons for their having been eliminated" (per 40 CFR (a)). The environmental document will discuss a recommended interchange design and identify potential environmental, physical, economic, and social effects related to its reconstruction. The purpose of the project is to improve the to be compatible with the evolving regional transportation network in the area, while meeting current design standards, accommodating expected future traffic levels, and improving overall safety. The need for improvement includes: 1. Connectivity to adjacent transportation facilities - It is vital that the design and operation of the interchange be compatible with alternatives developed for the adjacent facilities and not restrict the consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable improvements, and to provide the flexibility to accommodate possible changes in traffic as a result of these projects. 2. Substandard geometrics - Many elements of the current interchange are deficient and no longer meet design standards. 3. Traffic and operations - There are 12 mainline segments and ramp locations that currently operate at an unacceptable level of service; an additional 24 mainline segments and ramp locations will operate at an unacceptable level of service by the project s design year Safety - US 12/18 between I-39/90 and County AB has a crash rate substantially higher than the statewide average. Five of the eight interchange ramps also have crash rates at or above the statewide average. Page 12

17 5.0 Range of Alternatives A Range of Alternatives has been developed to meet acceptable engineering standards, avoid or minimize harm to natural and cultural resources, and to be compatible with adjacent development and land use to the extent practicable. The alternatives fall into the following general categories: 5.1 No Build Low Build Full Build Phased Build No Build Alternative Consistent with the requirements of NEPA, full consideration has been given to a No Build Alternative that serves to help decision makers understand the consequence of not moving forward with the project and as a baseline for comparison of the other alternatives. While the No Build Alternative does not make any geometric or safety improvements, it does include routine/preventative maintenance. The only project currently included in WisDOT s Six Year Highway Improvement Program within the study limits of the is the proposed replacement of the County BB structure over I-39/90 in 2021 (WisDOT ID ). The No Build Alternative does not address geometric deficiencies, the unacceptable level of service, or safety issues that currently exist at the. In addition, the existing interchange would not be compatible with alternatives developed by the adjacent study teams since it is not able to accommodate projected traffic volumes or improve the overall transportation system s ability to support and develop local and regional tourism economies. It is for these reasons that the No Build Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need requirements of the project and has not been presented to local officials or at public meetings. 5.2 Low Build Alternatives The Low Build Alternatives maintain the existing interchange while incorporating improvements that have minimal impact on environmental resources and right-of-way. Since the majority of the existing roadways would remain, the same routine/preventative maintenance measures described for the No Build Alternative would be implemented for all of the Low Build Alternatives. The proposed alternatives include a limited capacity, operational, and safety improvement alternative; and transportation management alternatives that aim to reduce the number of trips and overall efficiency of the. An alternative that combines the strategies of these improvements has also been proposed Low Build Limited Capacity and Safety Improvement Alternative Under the Low Build Limited Capacity and Safety Improvement Alternative enhancements would be made where possible to the existing roadways and structures to address operational deficiencies and safety concerns. Improvements would be focused on the following: Capacity and Safety at the (see Figure 8 and Appendix A-1) Safety at US 12/18 and Millpond Road/Long Drive intersection (see Appendix A-2 through A-5) Safety at US 12/18 and County AB intersection (see Appendix A-6 and A-7) Proposed capacity improvements include the addition of a third lane in each direction adjacent to the existing two lanes of I-39/90 through the to accommodate future traffic volumes and provide route continuity which would eliminate the need for drivers continuing through on the interstate to change lanes. An auxiliary lane would also be added next to the existing lanes of eastbound US 12/18 between US 51 and I-39/90 to address the most critical capacity need within the interchange. An auxiliary lane would improve safety by allowing drivers additional time to maneuver and speed up or slow down as Page 13

18 they approach the interchange which would help balance the traffic load and maintain a more uniform level of service. Improvements proposed to address the most critical safety needs at the include the addition of acceleration lanes parallel to eastbound US 12/18 and northbound I-39/90 and deceleration lanes parallel to northbound I-39/90 and westbound US 12/18 which would allow for adjustments in speed to be made separate from the through lane traffic and without disrupting the free flow speed of the interstate. EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE ACCELERATION LANE FOR THE US 12/18 RAMP TO NB I-39/90 ADD AN AUXILIARY LANE FOR THE SB I-39/90 EXIT RAMP TO WB BELTLINE EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE DECELERATION LANE FOR THE WB US 12/18 RAMP TO I-39/90 NB ADD AN EB AUXILIARY LANE BETWEEN US 51 AND I-39 EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE ACCELERATION LANE FOR THE SB I-39/90 RAMP TO EB US 12/18 LEGEND: ADD A THIRD LANE TO THE EXISTING TWO LANES OF NB AND SB I-39/90 EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE DECELERATION LANE FOR THE US 12/18 RAMP TO NB I-39/90 SAFETY IMPROVMENT CAPACITY EXPANSION Figure 8 Low Build Limited Capacity and Safety Improvement Alternative Safety improvement alternatives proposed for the existing US 12/18 intersection with Millpond Road and Long Drive provide varying levels of access to and from US 12/18 and include the following: Slotted left turn lanes that provide full access to and from US 12/18 Restricted left turns with right-in/right-out turns only to and from US 12/18 Jug handles with right-in/right-out turns only to and from US 12/18 Safety improvement alternatives for the US 12/18 intersection with County AB include traffic signals with offset right and left turn lanes and either maintain US 12/18 on its current alignment or shift the roadway north onto the proposed alignment for a future interchange. Unlike improvements to profiles, curves, and sight distance that require major reconstruction, the improvements proposed with the Low Build Limited Capacity and Safety Improvement Alternative could be implemented with relatively low cost; however, most of the operational issues that exist with the current interchange would remain. The added lane would address the traffic and roadway capacity need of the I-39/90 corridor Purpose and Need by accommodating future traffic volumes and by improving operations south of the interchange and within the interchange itself, however, the expansion to 3 lanes Page 14

19 would make the merge from US 12/18 to northbound I-39/90 more difficult since the third lane would no longer be added from the ramp and all ramp traffic would need to merge into the new third lane. The alternative also does not address the unacceptable level of service, inadequate weaving distance between loop ramps, left hand exit ramps, and insufficient ramp deceleration length on southbound I-39/90 and westbound US 12/18. The Low Build Limited Capacity and Safety Improvement Alternative would not be compatible with alternatives developed by the adjacent study teams since it is not able to accommodate projected traffic volumes or improve the overall transportation system s ability to support and develop local and regional tourism economies. It is for these reasons that the Low Build Limited Capacity and Safety Improvement Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need requirements of the project and has not been presented to local officials or at public meetings. While dismissed from further consideration, some components of the alternative could be implemented as interim safety improvements Transportation Demand/System Management (TDM/TSM) Alternatives The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternatives attempt to reduce the number of trips through the by increasing transit ridership. The Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL) study currently underway for the Madison Beltline (WisDOT ID ) investigated five stand-alone strategies that would have the capability of transporting large numbers of people and potential to address local and regional transportation needs. Two of the five strategies are alternate roadway corridors and the remaining three involve adding new or enhancing existing alternate modes of transportation. A summary of the three stand-alone strategies for alternative modes of transportation follows. Light Rail System The PEL study modeled recommendations made by the Transport 2020 transportation study4 that aimed to develop a long-term vision and plan for improving transportation in Dane County and the Greater Madison Metropolitan Area. The study proposed a system that included commuter rail, express bus services, park-and-ride lots, and improvements to local bus service. An analysis of regional traffic patterns shows that the Transport 2020 rail system would enhance access to and through the Madison Isthmus, which includes the state capitol building and University of Wisconsin campus; however, it would not remove traffic from the Madison Beltline. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) The PEL study also modeled recommendations from a feasibility study completed by the Madison Area Transportation Planning Board that looked at how Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)5 could be used in the Madison Area. BRT would provide high-capacity, limited-stop service along four main corridors radiating from downtown Madison to the north, northeast, south and west. The BRT would have little effect on reducing traffic volumes on the Beltline, generally less than 400 vehicles per day, and in some instances would increase volumes. While BRT would likely improve transit mobility within the City of Madison, it would not reduce or eliminate the need for Beltline improvements. Metro Transit & Regional Bus Services Metro Transit is the primary transit provider in the Madison area with service offered seven days a week and on holidays. Metro runs more than 60 routes, using a node system with five transfer stations. Only five routes use the Madison Beltline due in part to the limited number of potential riders and the variability of travel times; it does not provide service through the. The PEL study modeled the effect of routing Metro buses along the full length of the Madison Beltline. The results show 4 The Transport 2020 study is sponsored by the City of Madison, Dane County, and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 5 The BRT study was guided by an Oversight Committee with representatives from Metro Transit, the City of Madison and other local communities, Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC), Dane County, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and others. Page 15

20 that in most cases volumes would be reduced by fewer than 100 vehicles per day and would therefore not have a substantial impact on the Madison Beltline traffic volumes. There are also a number of regional bus services in the Madison area with stops at the Dutch Mill Park and Ride (located within the project limits at the US 51 interchange) and at the University of Wisconsin in downtown Madison. Service includes daily trips to Janesville, Milwaukee, and Green Bay in Wisconsin; to South Beloit, Rockford, downtown Chicago, O Hare International Airport, and Midway International Airport in Illinois; and to Minneapolis/St. Paul in Minnesota. The PEL study has determined that adding Metro service to park and ride facilities does not result in a substantial increase in ridership. The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative looks to maximize the efficiency of the existing highway system and alleviate or postpone the need to for additional capacity. TSM measures are designed to improve traffic flow and safety; examples applicable to the include widening shoulders and Intelligent Transportation System measures such as variable message signs, closed-circuit cameras that post traffic conditions, crash investigation sites, and enhanced freeway patrols. The TDM/TSM Alternatives do not address geometric deficiencies, the unacceptable level of service, or the safety issues that currently exist at the ; nor do they divert enough traffic from the Madison Beltline to reduce or eliminate the need for capacity improvements. In addition, as noted previously with the No Build Alternative, the existing interchange would not be compatible with alternatives developed by the adjacent study teams since it is not able to accommodate projected traffic volumes or improve the overall transportation system s ability to support and develop local and regional tourism economies. It is for these reasons that the TDM/TSM Alternatives do not meet the Purpose and Need requirements of the project as stand-alone alternatives and were not presented to local officials or at public meetings. While dismissed from further consideration, components of the TDM/TSM Alternatives could be implemented as interim improvements or with the preferred design alternative Low Build Combined Alternative A combination of the Low Build Limited Capacity and Safety Improvement and TDM/TSM Alternatives was evaluated to determine if together the improvement strategies would result in an alternative that meets the Purpose and Need of the project. With this alternative, improvements would be made to the existing roadways and structures to address the most critical safety and operational deficiencies along with the implementation of BRT and Metro bus routes along the full length of the Madison Beltline. As noted with the previous Low Build Alternatives, the added capacity would improve operations south of the interchange and within the interchange itself; however, the expansion to 3 lanes would make the merge from US 12/18 to northbound I-39/90 more difficult since the third lane would no longer be added from the ramp and all ramp traffic would need to merge into the new 3rd lane. It is anticipated that the addition of BRT and Metro bus routes would remove approximately 500 vehicles per day from the Madison Beltline; this reduction, which is equivalent to just 50 vehicles in the peak hour, would not provide enough relief to improve the ramp merge operation. Despite the added capacity and reduction in vehicles, the Combined Alternative would not provide an acceptable level of service or be compatible with alternatives developed by the adjacent study teams since it is not able to accommodate projected traffic volumes or improve the overall transportation system s ability to support and develop local and regional tourism economies. It is for these reasons that the Low Build Combined Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need requirements of the project and was not presented to local officials or at public meetings. 5.3 Full Build Alternatives Full Build Alternatives have been developed to fully address the deficiencies of the. Alternatives for the interchange proposed different geometric configurations that resulted in varying Page 16

levels of improved safety and traffic operations. Alternatives have also been developed for the north, west, and east legs of the interchange to address capacity and safety needs.

21 levels of improved safety and traffic operations. Alternatives have also been developed for the north, west, and east legs of the interchange to address capacity and safety needs. The alternatives developed for the interchange are fully compatible with the any of the alternatives developed for the outer legs. A great amount of focus was placed on the core of the interchange to determine how the different geometric configurations impact the overall safety and operation of the interchange. The core generally includes all of the interchange ramps from where they exit the I-39/90 or US 12/18 mainline to where they rejoin mainline; for the purposes of this screening, the limits of the core extended along I-39/90 between Siggelkow Road and County AB and along US 12/18 between US 51 and Millpond Road (see Figure 9). The outer legs include I-39/90 north and US 12/18 east and west of the limits of the core of the interchange. County AB Major Ramps US 51 Minor Ramps Millpond Road Siggelkow Road Figure 9 Core, Major and Minor Ramps The major ramp movements of the interchange are those with the highest volumes of traffic on a daily basis. These ramps carry traffic between the west leg of the interchange (US 12/18) and the interstate (I-39/90). The ramps associated with these movements and their current (2012) and anticipated design year (2050) daily traffic volumes are as follows: Eastbound US 12/18 to northbound I-39/90* - 27,400 vehicles/day (2012) - 37,300 vehicles/day (2050) Southbound I-39/90 to westbound US 12/18-26,900 vehicles/day (2012) - 36,500 vehicles/day (2050) Eastbound US 12/18 to southbound I-39/90-8,900 vehicles/day (2012) - 13,800 vehicles/day (2050) Page 17

22 Northbound I-39/90 to westbound US 12/18-9,300 vehicles/day (2012) - 12,500 vehicles/day (2050) * It should be noted that the traffic volume of the eastbound US 12/18 to northbound I-39/90 ramp is greater than that of the interstate during all study periods. Subsequently, the minor ramp movements are those with the lowest volumes of traffic on a daily basis. These ramps carry traffic between the east leg of the interchange (US 12/18) and the interstate (I-39/90). The ramps associated with these movements and their current (2012) and anticipated design year (2050) daily traffic volumes are as follows: Westbound US 12/18 to northbound I-39/90-3,000 vehicles/day (2012) - 6,400 vehicles/day (2050) Southbound I-39/90 to eastbound US 12/18-2,900 vehicles/day (2012) - 6,000 vehicles/day (2050) Northbound I-39/90 to eastbound US 12/ vehicles/day (2012) - 1,300 vehicles/day (2050) Westbound US 12/18 to southbound I-39/ vehicles/day (2012) vehicles/day (2050) A synopsis of the timeline and narrative detailing the development and analysis process of the Full Build Alternatives for the core of the is included in Appendix B-1. The remainder of this section will focus on the five Full Build Alternatives for the core of the interchange (A-1, D, D-1, E-1, F) that were evaluated in the two-level screening process to determine which alternatives would be assessed in greater detail in the next stage of the design. An illustration of the Range of Alternatives development timeline is shown in Figure Level 1 ROA Screening (Purpose & Need) 2016 Level 2 ROA Screening (Technical Criteria) 2016 Concurrence Point #2 (Alts for Detailed Study) No Build Alternative Low Build Alternative TDM/TSM Alternative Combined Alternative Alternative A-1 Alternative D, D-1 Alternative E-1 Alternative F Phased Alternative D-1 Phased Alternative F Alternative A-1 Alternative D, D-1 Alternative E-1 Alternative F Phased Alternative D-1 Phased Alternative F Alternative D-1 Alternative F Phased Alternative D-1 Phased Alternative F Figure 10 Range of Alternatives Development Timeline Page 18

Alternative A-1 (Semi-Directional Interchange): This alternative is similar to the preferred alternative identified in the 2010 EA/FONSI for the I-39/90 corridor (see Section 4.

23 Alternative A-1 (Semi-Directional Interchange): This alternative is similar to the preferred alternative identified in the 2010 EA/FONSI for the I-39/90 corridor (see Section 4.1), but also increases ramp design speeds, shifts several of the new alignments off existing roadways, and consolidates the I-39/90 ramp merge and diverge movements (see Figure 11 and Appendix B-2). Figure 11 Alternative A-1 (Semi-Directional Interchange) Alternative D (Turbine Interchange): This alternative is fully directional with a turbine configuration that eliminates the loop ramps (see Figure 12 and Appendix B-3). Figure 12 Alternative D (Turbine Interchange) Page 19

24 Alternative D-1 (Modified Turbine Interchange): This alternative is similar to Alternative D with the primary difference being that the westbound US 12/18 ramp to southbound I-39/90 is proposed as a loop ramp in an effort to minimize costs (see Figure 13 and Appendix B-4). Figure 13 Alternative D-1 (Modified Turbine Interchange) Alternative E-1 (Left Split Directional Interchange - Flyover): This alternative provides a left split for the diverge movement of the eastbound to northbound ramp as well as a flyover structure opposed to a fill embankment (see Figure 14 and Appendix B-5). Figure 14 Alternative E-1 (Left Split Directional Interchange with Flyover) Page 20

25 Alternative F (Left Split Directional Interchange - Embankment): This alternative is similar to Alternative E-1 with the primary difference being the eastbound to northbound ramp is proposed on a fill embankment rather than with a flyover structure (see Figure 15 and Appendix B-6). Figure 15 Alternative F (Left Split Directional Interchange with Embankment) Legs Alternatives for the east, north, and west legs of the interchange have been developed. As stated previously, any of the Full Build and Phased Build Alternatives for the core of the interchange would work with any of the alternatives for the outer legs. North Leg (see Appendix C) Alternatives were developed to provide additional capacity for I-39/90 between County BB and the Badger Interchange; this section of roadway overlaps the adjacent I-39/90/94 study (WisDOT ID ). The alternatives propose to either maintain the existing lanes with a new fourth lane added in each direction, or to fully reconstruct the existing lanes in addition to providing the new fourth lane. There were also alternatives developed for each method of capacity expansion that would either keep the existing noise wall in place along the southbound side of I-39/90 or shift it further west. The North Leg alternatives were initially developed to provide additional capacity in both directions of I-39/90; however, the alternative being carried forward for Detailed Study only provides additional capacity in the northbound direction by maintaining the existing lanes and adding a new fourth lane (without full reconstruction) and does not shift the existing noise wall adjacent to the southbound lanes. A decision was made to minimize improvements and potential throwaway costs in the future by only providing additional capacity in the northbound direction since adding southbound capacity would not improve the overall function of the. The addition of the fourth lane in the northbound direction will be compatible with future designs for the Badger Interchange completed with the I-39/90/94 corridor study, which may also include the addition of a fourth lane in the southbound direction or other features considered and dismissed in the Beltline Interchange alternatives analysis. Page 21

26 West Leg (see Appendix D) Alternatives have been developed for westbound US 12/18 between US 51 and West Broadway to provide additional capacity and improved traffic operations. The alternatives propose either a braided ramp or a collector-distributor ramp system between US 51 and Monona Drive. The braided ramp would eliminate the weaving movement between ramps while the collector-distributor ramp system would function as an independent roadway that separates the merging and weaving of ramp traffic from the US 12/18 mainline. Both alternatives would also create a new westbound auxiliary lane by extending the Monona Drive entrance ramp across the Yahara River Bridge until it becomes the exit ramp for West Broadway. The proposed alternatives would increase capacity and allow drivers additional time to maneuver and speed up or slow down between the interchanges thereby resulting in an improved level of service and safety. Both alternatives will be carried forward for Detailed Study and modeled with each of the recommended Full Build Alternatives for the core of the interchange to determine which sequence of alternatives provides the greatest improvement in traffic operations. East Leg (see Appendix E) A planning study was completed that evaluated several alternatives for converting US 12/18 between I-39/90 and County N from a 4-lane expressway to a 4-lane freeway (WisDOT ID ). The study concluded with an EA being prepared and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) being issued by FHWA on May 20, Several alternatives for an interchange at US 12/18 and County AB were developed and screened as part of the study. The alternative being carried forward for Detailed Study includes a diamond interchange located approximately 1,000 feet east of the existing County AB intersection. As noted in the US 12/18 Freeway Conversion EA, this alternative is preferred for the following reasons: The interchange would avoid Section 4(f) property impacts6 at the Yahara Hills Golf Course The shift of County AB to the east accommodates the current development of Dane County s East District Campus and the City of Madison s proposed long-range development plans The full-diamond interchange does not require the extensive use of retaining walls The proposed interchange provides sufficient ramp termini spacing for the proper operation of either traffic signals or roundabouts Increases the spacing between the and County AB Interchange The alternatives considered in the approved EA/FONSI were reevaluated as part of the study. It was determined that the reasons identified for selecting the alternative were still valid; therefore, the adopted alternative remains the same. 5.4 Phased Build Alternatives A Phased Build approach has been developed that is compatible with all of the Full Build Alternatives for the core of the interchange and includes the outer leg alternatives in either a phase with the core or as its own separate phase. Phasing allows large transportation projects to be constructed in multiple phases or sections over an extended period of time when needs evolve during the design life of the project. The 6 Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act of 1966 (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 303) protects significant publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public and private historic sites. Section 4(f) provides that the Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of publicly owned land off a public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance, only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the using that land and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. Page 22

existing transportation system must be allowed to continue to function at the conclusion of each phase and must also sufficiently meet the Purpose and Need of the project until the construction of

27 existing transportation system must be allowed to continue to function at the conclusion of each phase and must also sufficiently meet the Purpose and Need of the project until the construction of the next phase. A phased approach provides a method to only build what is needed to sufficiently meet Purpose and Need at the time of construction. It also allows opportunities to re-evaluate decisions as appropriate to best ensure compatibility with adjacent studies that are under development. If a Phased Build Alternative is selected in the EIS, it will include a plan for implementation of each subsequent phase along with an estimated schedule based on information known at the time of submittal. The Record of Decision7 (ROD) for the EIS will apply to the entire alternative selected. If a Phased Build Alternative is selected, the ROD will specify which phase or phases are contemplated for immediate final design and construction. A re-evaluation would be required prior to implementation of subsequent phases. The level of effort required for the re-evaluation would be determined prior to the initiation of each subsequent phase Traffic Operations The was analyzed to determine when mainline segments and ramp merge/diverge locations in the core of the interchange are expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service. As noted previously, with Level of Service D, movements are restricted and travel speeds begin to decline; with Level of Service E, vehicles are closely spaced and an incident can cause serious breakdown; and with Level of Service F, demand is greater than capacity resulting in a breakdown of flow. By the year 2030, with no improvements made to the existing interchange, more than 20 mainline segments and ramp merge/ diverge locations are expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service (see Figure 16). Figure No Build Level of Service (LOS) 7 The EIS process ends with the completion of a Record of Decision. The ROD explains the agency s decision, describes the alternatives the agency considered (including the environmentally preferred alternative), and discusses plans for mitigating potential environmental effects and monitoring those commitments. By continuing to monitor mitigation commitments, agencies implement NEPA requirements well after the environmental impact analysis is completed. Page 23

28 5.4.2 Phasing Opportunities The phased sequence and timeline has been developed based on the improvements that would need to be made for the period of time that each phase would be in place prior to implementation of the next phase. Each phase would further address the safety needs and existing geometric deficiencies of the interchange while improving traffic operations and connectivity to adjacent transportation facilities. It has been determined that a substantial portion of the interchange would need to be reconstructed in the initial phase to address the most critical safety needs and the 20 plus mainline segments and ramp merge/diverge locations that are expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service by Given this, implementation of the preferred alternative has been proposed in three phases; these phases would be compatible with all of the Full Build Alternatives proposed for the core and outer legs of the Beltline Interchange. Phase 1 This phase would include the recommended Full Build Alternative for the core of the as well as the recommended North Leg Alternative. This phase would need to be completed prior to 2030 for the interchange to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. Phase 1A/1B If needed, Phase 1 could be implemented in two sub-phases. Phase 1A would provide three lanes in each direction of I-39/90 by adding an additional lane next to the existing lanes in the southbound direction while the northbound lanes would be reconstructed on new alignment adjacent to the southbound lanes. The realignment would result in the northbound I-39/90 exit ramp to westbound US 12/18 becoming a right hand exit rather than a left hand exit. Improvements would also include the addition of acceleration and deceleration lanes parallel to I-39/90 (see Figure 17 and Appendix F). Phase 1B would implement the remaining improvements associated with the Full Build Alternative for the core of the interchange and add a fourth lane to the North Leg along I-39/90 between County BB and the Badger Interchange. Phase 2 This phase would include the preferred West Leg Alternative for US 12/18 between US 51 and West Broadway. This phase would need to be completed prior to queueing on westbound US 12/18 extending east of Agriculture Drive toward the interchange. The proposed West Leg Alternatives will be included in each of the microsimulation traffic models of the Full Build Alternatives recommended for Detailed Study to determine which combination of alternatives results in the most efficient traffic operations and by what year the improvements need to be completed. Phase 3 This phase would include the preferred East Leg Alternative for the US 12/18 interchange at County AB. Unlike Phases 1 and 2, the timeline for completing Phase 3 is indeterminate and will depend on the effectiveness of the Meier Road Extension (WisDOT ID ) and any potential interim improvements made along US 12/18 between I-39/90 and County AB, and the aggressiveness of the proposed development east of I-39/90. As noted previously, this segment of US 12/18 has a crash rate substantially higher than the statewide average. This is primarily due to the at-grade intersection at Millpond Road, where two fatalities occurred between 2011 and During this 5-year period there were 53 crashes at the US 12/18 and Millpond Road at-grade intersection. Nearly all of the crashes occurred after noon (45) and in the eastbound lanes or median (35). The most common crash occurred with vehicles crossing the eastbound lanes going to or from Millpond Road (26). Given its proximity to I-39/90 and the high traffic volume on the eastbound Page 24

29 Madison Beltline even a minor crash at Millpond Road can cause significant backups and impact the ability of motorists to exit or enter the. Upon completion of the Meier Road Extension project, the median opening along US 12/18 at Millpond Road and Long Drive will be closed thereby restricting access to and from the highway to right turn movements only; the newly constructed Meier Road overpass will provide motorists access to both sides of US 12/18. This improvement should greatly reduce the number of crashes that occur at the Millpond Road intersection; however, the actual effect on overall safety won t be known until after the project is completed. Another factor that will influence the timing of Phase 3 is proposed development east of the Beltline Interchange. This area is transitioning under heavy development pressure. Future plans for this area include the Ho-Chunk Nation s expansion of their gaming facility and development of a new cultural museum, regional entertainment venue, and sports complex; Dane County s Rodefeld Landfill expansion and new East District Campus; and the city of Madison s Yahara Hills Neighborhood development plan. The plans proposed are at different stages with the gaming and neighborhood plans in their early phases of development while the Dane County plans are underway. Traffic east of I-39/90 is expected to increase at a high rate as a result of the development proposed for the area which will only exacerbate the safety problem along this segment of US 12/18. Ongoing analysis of the US 12/18 intersection with County AB illustrates the uncertainty associated with the proposed development. In May 2013, an analysis was conducted for the intersection to determine in what year converting the traffic control for the intersection from partial-stop to traffic signal would be warranted. Using volumes collected during a 12-hour turning movement counts in June 2012, the analysis indicated traffic signals would be warranted in In October 2016, the analysis was conducted again, this time using volumes collected during a 12-hour turning movement count in September The analysis indicated that traffic signals are already warranted for the intersection. Despite meeting warrants for signals, it is unlikely that a signal would be installed at the intersection. Traffic may flow in a more orderly fashion with signals, but not necessarily in a safer one. Drawbacks associated with signals installed along high speed roadways like US 12/18 are potentially increased traffic congestion and more rear-end crashes. At the end of a green light cycle, drivers approaching a signalized intersection enter the dilemma zone8 where they are faced with the decision of whether to stop or continue. At higher speeds the decision becomes more difficult and the consequence of making the wrong decision is greater. The most common safety implications being a potential increase in rear-end crashes as the result of drivers making the choice of braking hard or the right-angle crashes when a driver risks running a red light. WisDOT will need to continue to monitor the safety along this segment of US 12/18 and the effects of the Meier Road Extension project and any potential interim improvement made along US 12/18, as well as the development plans proposed east of I-39/90. These primary factors will determine when an interchange at County AB will be required in order to meet the Purpose and Need of the project and the timing of Phase 3. Currently Phase 1 is shown to be needed (fully constructed) by 2030; the timing for Phases 2 and 3 will be determined using the microsimulation traffic models developed for the Full Build Alternatives recommended for Detailed Study. 8 The portion of the roadway in advance of the intersection in which the driver is indecisive (as to stopping or proceeding into and through the intersection at the onset of the yellow change interval) is called the dilemma zone. Some researchers have defined the dilemma zone as that area of the approach between a point where 90 percent of the drivers will stop on yellow and a point where 90 percent of the drivers will go (i.e., 10 percent will stop). Page 25

ADD AN AUXILIARY LANE FOR THE SB I-39/90 EXIT RAMP TO WB BELTLINE ADD A THIRD LANE TO THE EXISTING TWO LANES OF SB I-39/90 EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE ACCELERATION LANE FOR THE US 12/18 RAMP TO NB

30 ADD AN AUXILIARY LANE FOR THE SB I-39/90 EXIT RAMP TO WB BELTLINE ADD A THIRD LANE TO THE EXISTING TWO LANES OF SB I-39/90 EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE ACCELERATION LANE FOR THE US 12/18 RAMP TO NB I-39/90 RECONSTRUCT NB I-39/90 WITH THREE LANES ON NEW ALIGNMENT EXTEND THE LENGTH OF THE ACCELERATION LANE FOR THE EB US 12/18 RAMP TO SB I-39/90 MODIFY I-39/90 NB RAMP TO US 12/18 TO EXIT FROM RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY LEGEND: SAFETY IMPROVMENT CAPACITY EXPANSION Figure 17 Phase 1A Concept Page 26

6.0 Screening Process for Range of Alternatives (2-level) The is unique in that the Full Build Alternatives have all been designed mostly within the footprint of the existing interchange, they have

31 6.0 Screening Process for Range of Alternatives (2-level) The is unique in that the Full Build Alternatives have all been designed mostly within the footprint of the existing interchange, they have similar environmental impacts, and have received a minimal number of comments from the public; whereas more typical alternatives developed and screened for an EIS may include alternate corridors for a bypass or reliever route that are often interpreted as being controversial. The Range of Alternatives have been evaluated and screened to determine whether they meet the Purpose and Need of the project. Since the alternatives have many similarities, only a few of the alternatives were dismissed. As a result, the alternatives that passed the initial round of screening (Level 1 Purpose & Need) underwent a second level of screening (Level 2 - Technical Differentiators) to help identify which alternatives should be carried forward for Detailed Study (see Figure 18) Level 1 ROA Screening (Purpose & Need) 2016 Level 2 ROA Screening (Technical Criteria) 2016 Concurrence Point #2 (Alts for Detailed Study) No Build Alternative Low Build Alternative TDM/TSM Alternative Combined Alternative Alternative A-1 Alternative D, D-1 Alternative E-1 Alternative F Phased Alternative D-1 Phased Alternative F Alternative A-1 Alternative D, D-1 Alternative E-1 Alternative F Phased Alternative D-1 Phased Alternative F Alternative D-1 Alternative F Phased Alternative D-1 Phased Alternative F Figure 18 Range of Alternatives Development Timeline 6.1 Level 1 Screening (Purpose and Need) While the No Build and Low Build Alternatives do not address the Purpose and Need for the study, the Full Build (A-1, D, D-1, E-1, F) and Phased Build Alternatives do and moved forward to Level 2 screening. 6.2 Level 2 Screening (Technical Differentiators) Range of Alternatives Screening Workshop A screening workshop was held on June 29, 2016 where technical experts from the design team presented data and comparison information for key design components to the I-39/90 Corridor Management Team9 (CMT). The experts also provided their professional recommendation and a prioritized list of design elements to assist in differentiating the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. 9 WisDOT Southwest Region formed the Corridor Management Team (CMT) to manage the design and delivery of the 47-mile reconstruction and capacity expansion of I-39/90 and the and to communicate to its customers the intricacies and interdependencies of such an expansive project. Page 27

The key technical areas discussed were: Environmental Impacts Traffic Design Constructability Structures Permanent signing While cost was not identified as a specific screening criteria during the

32 The key technical areas discussed were: Environmental Impacts Traffic Design Constructability Structures Permanent signing While cost was not identified as a specific screening criteria during the evaluation, a cost-benefit component was discussed with each technical area and taken into consideration during the decision making process to further differentiate the alternatives. Most notably for: Higher cost design elements (flyover structures) Minor ramps (higher speeds) Constructability Maintenance A summary of the comparison criteria and professional recommendation for each technical differentiator is described below. Environmental Impacts There are several unique environmental resources within the project limits, including park and recreation areas, a large wetland complex, multiple waterways, and cultural and historic resources (see Appendix G). The alternatives evaluated in the Level 2 Screening all have a similar footprint (see Figure 19) resulting in similar potential environmental impacts that include the following: Wetland impacts Pennito Creek and Agriculture Ditch #4 relocations Potential environmental justice populations Section 4(f) resources Potential commercial property relocation in the northwest quadrant of the interchange Build Alternative D-1 Build Alternative F Figure 19 Footprint Comparison for Environmental Impacts Page 28

Potential environmental impacts that differentiate the alternatives include: Total right-of-way impacts Commercial property relocations of six parcels in the northeast quadrant of the Beltline

33 Potential environmental impacts that differentiate the alternatives include: Total right-of-way impacts Commercial property relocations of six parcels in the northeast quadrant of the Beltline Interchange comprised of three owners and six leased businesses Figure 20 provides a general comparison of the environmental impacts associated with the alternatives. Figure 20 Alternatives Comparison of Environmental Impacts The comparison of alternatives resulted in an environmental recommendation of Alternatives A-1 and D-1 since they have the fewest wetland and right-of-way impacts, and do not require commercial relocations in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. Traffic The criteria used to differentiate and compare the traffic operations of the alternatives included: Level of service (improved level of service results in fewer impediments in travel) Traffic density (lower density results in improved level of service) Roadway capacity (higher reserve capacity accommodates more future potential growth) Peak hour volumes (considers operations during four peak travel periods: Weekday AM and PM, Friday afternoon, and Sunday afternoon) The comparison of alternatives resulted in a traffic recommendation of Alternative F since it provides the lowest density for eastbound US 12/18 between US 51 and I-39/90, utilizes multiple merge and diverge locations along I-39/90 which decreases demand on the heaviest ramp movements, and is able to accommodate many of the ramp design features incorporated into other alternatives. Design The criteria used to differentiate and compare the design elements of the alternatives included: Earthwork (less material requires less time to construct and results in lower construction cost) Ramp design speed (higher design speeds allow more cars to travel through the interchange) Lane-miles (fewer lane-miles require less time to construct, lower construction cost, and less maintenance) Loop Ramps for Lower Volume Ramps (require less earthwork and have lower lane-miles) The comparison of alternatives resulted in a design recommendation of Alternative F since it requires the least amount of earthwork, provides the highest design speeds for the ramps with the highest volumes, has fewer lane-miles, and uses loop ramps for the lower volume ramps. Page 29

34 Constructability The criteria used to differentiate and compare the constructability of the alternatives included: Staging complexity for major ramp movements (greater complexity results in longer time to construct and higher construction costs) Separation between the existing roadways and new alignments (greater separation allows for easier construction) Temporary roads and bridges (more infrastructure requires additional time to construct and results in higher construction costs) The comparison of alternatives resulted in a constructability recommendation of Alternative F since it has lower complexity, provides more separation for staging the highest volume ramps, and does not require any temporary (throwaway) structures. It was also noted with the recommendation that of the remaining alternatives, D-1 has the lowest complexity and greatest separation for staging. Structures The criteria used to differentiate and compare the structural components of the alternatives included: Number of Bridges (fewer bridges require less maintenance and fewer inspections) Bridge Deck Area (less bridge deck area requires less maintenance) Number of Tapered, Curved, Steel, and High-Skew Bridges (these are more difficult to construct and require more maintenance) Number of Retaining Walls (fewer walls require less maintenance and fewer inspections) Retaining Wall Area (less exposed retaining wall area requires less maintenance) The comparison of alternatives resulted in a structural recommendation of Alternative F since it has a low number of bridges that require MSE walls, the least square footage of bridge deck area and free standing retaining walls, the fewest number of curved bridges, and a minimal number of high-skew and steel bridges. Permanent Signing The criteria used to differentiate and compare the permanent signing needed for the alternatives included: The use of option or designated lane arrows to provide effective signing The ability to effectively convey messages that aid the motorist s understanding of the lane usage on the freeway The comparison of alternatives resulted in a permanent signing recommendation of Alternatives D and D-1 since they provide the most opportunity to meet acceptable signing standards without exceptions and do not present any signing issues within the interchange. Future Flexibility The alternatives were evaluated to determine their ability to accommodate additional traffic to and from destinations east of the since the area has great potential for future commercial and neighborhood development. An evaluation of the expected density and level of service of the ramps and weaving segments serving traffic on the east leg of the was used to estimate the amount of reserve capacity provided by the ramp designs for each alternative. The comparison of alternatives resulted in a future flexibility recommendation of Alternative D-1 since it has the greatest number of locations with a higher than acceptable level of service and decreases demand on the merge point along northbound I-39/90 and the diverge point along southbound I-39/90 by using multiple merge/diverge locations. Page 30

35 Workshop Discussion and Recommendations The I-39/90 CMT was asked to provide input on alternatives warranted being carried forward to Detailed Study and why. The efficiency of traffic operations and amount of infrastructure required were identified as being important factors in the group s decision-making. The workshop resulted in Alternatives A-1, D-1, and F being recommended for Detailed Study. Alternatives D and E-1 were dismissed from further study for the following reasons: Overall, Alternatives A-1, D-1, and F have higher rankings based on information provided by the design team technical experts The additional cost to provide higher speeds on the ramps with the lowest volumes does not seem warranted (Alternative D) The 3-level interchange and high cost of a flyover structure were viewed as disadvantages (Alternative E-1) At the conclusion of the meeting, the I-39/90 CMT asked that additional information be provided regarding level of service, future flexibility, and the amount of infrastructure each remaining alternative requires. A follow-up meeting was held on July 14, 2016 with the I-39/90 CMT where the design team presented the requested information which resulted in the following: Confirmation of Alternatives D and E-1 being dismissed from further analysis Alternative A-1 being dismissed from further analysis Alternatives D-1 and F being recommended for Detailed Study Alternatives A-1 and D-1 both have right exit configurations for the eastbound US 12/18 to northbound I-39/90 ramp movement; the group agreed only one alternative with this configuration needs to be carried forward for additional study. In a direct comparison, Alternative D-1 is preferred over A-1 since it provides a higher speed for the southbound I-39/90 to eastbound US 12/18 ramp movement and has more reserve capacity (future flexibility) to be able to accommodate higher traffic volumes that may result from future development east of Madison Range of Alternatives Recommendation Meeting with FHWA A summary of the Range of Alternatives Screening Workshop was presented to FHWA on July 19, 2016 along with a recommendation of alternatives to be carried forward for Detailed Study. Page 31

36 7.0 Alternatives Recommended for Detailed Study Alternatives recommended to be carried forward for Detailed Study will be further developed with the amount of detail needed to determine direct and indirect impacts, construction costs and timelines, and cumulative impacts of the project on the environment. A detailed analysis of alternatives will often reveal additional important information not offered by the screening criteria. 7.1 Full Build Alternatives Alternatives D-1 and F have been recommended for Detailed Study and include alternatives for the North, West, and East Legs (refer to Section 5.3.2). The recommendation follows careful consideration of the shared input and collaboration with stakeholders, extensive design modifications and technical analyses performed, and professional judgement of the I-39/90 CMT and design team members. Alternative D-1 (see Figure 21 and Appendix B-4) has been recommended for the following reasons: Improves ramp operations and requires less infrastructure (compared to Alternative A-1) Has the greatest number of locations with a higher than acceptable level of service which means greater capacity for future flexibility Has flexibility to provide either single or multiple merge and diverge locations along southbound I-39/90 Figure 21 Full Build Alternative D-1 Alternative F (see Figure 22 and Appendix B-6) has been recommended for the following reasons: Requires the lowest overall amount of infrastructure Provides the lowest densities for eastbound US 12/18 between US 51 and I-39/90 Decreases demand on the merge point along northbound I-39/90 and the diverge point along southbound I-39/90 by implementing multiple merge/diverge locations Has flexibility to incorporate many of the design features of the other Full Build Alternatives Page 32

Figure 22 Full Build Alternative F The North Leg Alternative being carried forward for detailed study provides additional capacity in the northbound direction by maintaining the existing lanes and

37 Figure 22 Full Build Alternative F The North Leg Alternative being carried forward for detailed study provides additional capacity in the northbound direction by maintaining the existing lanes and adding a new fourth lane (see Exhibit C). The West Leg Alternatives propose either a braided ramp or a collector-distributor ramp system along westbound US 12/18 between US 51 and Monona Drive. Both alternatives would also create a new westbound auxiliary lane by extending the Monona Drive entrance ramp across the Yahara River Bridge until it becomes the exit ramp for West Broadway. Both alternatives are recommended to be considered for Detailed Study and modeled with each of the recommended Full Build Alternatives for the core of the interchange to determine which sequence of alternatives provides the greatest improvement in traffic operations (see Exhibit D). The East Leg Alternative recommended to be considered for Detailed Study includes a diamond interchange located approximately 1,000 feet east of the existing County AB intersection (see Appendix E). The Full Build Alternatives developed for the interchange are fully compatible with the alternatives developed for the outer legs. 7.2 Phased Build Alternatives Improvements included in each phase of the Project are based on safety, geometric, and traffic operation deficiencies. Since each phase needs to sufficiently address the Purpose and Need of the project until the next phase is constructed, a substantial portion of the interchange improvements are required in the initial phase. A Phased Build approach has been developed that is compatible with the Full Build Alternatives (D-1, F) recommended for Detailed Study and includes the outer leg alternatives in either the phase with the interchange or as its own separate phase (see Figure 23 and Appendix H-1). Page 33

38 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 1 Figure 23 Overview of Construction Phasing Concept Microsimulation traffic models will be created for the alternatives during Detailed Study to simulate the movement of individual vehicles through the interchange and provide a thorough analysis of the complex weaving, merging, and diverging movements. These models will be used to further define the timeline and improvements needed during each phase. Phase 1 Some of the mainline and ramp improvements that are needed to address deficiencies and sufficiently meet the Purpose and Need require other sections of the mainline and ramps to be improved as well in order to accomplish the work that needs to be done. For example, with Alternative D-1, the southbound to eastbound loop ramp would not need to be included in the initial phase; however, improvements are needed for the eastbound to northbound ramp in the initial phase and the new ramp s proposed alignment goes directly through the existing loop ramp, thereby requiring it to also be included in Phase 1. The following are more locations where additional improvements such as these are needed. Agriculture Drive This overpass will need to span a wider 20section of US 12/18 and the new collector-distributor ramp system to US 51 Femrite Drive The existing roadway will likely be damaged during the removal of the existing I-39/90 structures and placement of the piers for the new structures Northbound & Southbound I-39/90 These roadways will need to span the new eastbound to northbound, northbound to westbound, and westbound to US 51 ramps Westbound to Southbound Ramp This ramp will need to tie into the new southbound mainline which will be approximately 8 feet higher than existing Westbound to Northbound Ramp This ramp will need to tie into the new eastbound to northbound ramp which will be approximately 8 feet higher than existing (Alternative D-1) Eastbound US 12/18 The new eastbound to northbound ramp will overlay the existing eastbound roadway (Alternative D-1) Southbound to Eastbound Ramp This ramp will need to tie into the new southbound and eastbound roadways (Alternative F) Improvements included in Phase 1A and 1B for Alternatives D-1 and F are as follows (see Figures 24, 25 and Appendix H-2, H-3): Phase 1A addresses deficiencies and sufficiently meets the Purpose and Need of the 2010 EA/FONSI by providing additional capacity along I-39/90 and improves safety at the I-39/90 exit and entrance ramps prior to 2022 Phase 1B addresses deficiencies and sufficiently meets the Purpose and Need of the Beltline Interchange EIS by implementing the remaining improvements associated with the Full Build Alternative for the interchange and by adding a fourth lane to the North Leg along I-39/90 between County BB and the Badger Interchange prior to 2030 Page 34

39 Phase 1B Phase 1A Figure 24 Phase 1A & 1B Concept for Alternative D-1 Phase 1A Phase 1B Figure 25 Phase 1A & 1B Concept for Alternative F Page 35

Only the West Leg (US 51 to West Broadway) and East Leg (County AB interchange) Alternatives can be implemented in later phases (see Figures 26, 27

40 Phases 2 and 3 As indicated previously, a substantial amount of either of the Full Build Alternatives (D-1 or F) and the North Leg capacity improvement needs to be included in the initial phase of the Phased Build Alternative and completed prior to Only the West Leg (US 51 to West Broadway) and East Leg (County AB interchange) Alternatives can be implemented in later phases (see Figures 26, 27 and Appendix H-2, H-3). Phase 2 Figure 26 Phase 2 Concept for Alternative D-1 (same for Alternative F) Phase 3 Figure 27 Phase 3 Concept for Alternative D-1 (same for Alternative F) Page 36