i r49 frontage roads · basic merge or diverge weave (sec/veh) a < 11 < 10 < 10 < 10...

MoDOT Project: J4P2237

I 49 Frontage Roads

Access Justification Report

View from west frontage road just north of 140th Street (looking north) at time

of previous conversion from two way to one way operation

I 49 Frontage Roads: AJR Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................2

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................3

1.1 Project Location and Background ................................................................................................... 3

SECTION 2: METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................6

2.1 Traffic Operations Analysis Procedures.......................................................................................... 6

2.2 Safety Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................................. 6

SECTION 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS..................................................................................................................7

3.1 Demographics ............................................................................................................................... .. 7

3.2 Existing Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 7

3.3 Existing Roadway Network ............................................................................................................. 9

3.4 Alternative Travel Modes................................................................................................................ 9

3.5 Interchanges and Signalized Intersections ................................................................................... 10

3.6 Existing Traffic Data ...................................................................................................................... 11

3.7 Existing Operational Performance................................................................................................ 11

3.8 Existing Safety Conditions............................................................................................................. 18

SECTION 4: PURPOSE AND NEED...................................................................................................................25

SECTION 5: ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................................26

5.1 No Build ............................................................................................................................... ......... 26

5.2 Transportation System Management........................................................................................... 26

5.3 Alternative Transportation Modes ............................................................................................... 26

5.4 Preliminary Build Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 26

SECTION 6: FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC................................................................................................................33

6.1 Historical Traffic Trends ................................................................................................................ 33

6.2 Traffic Projections ......................................................................................................................... 33

SECTION 7: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS............................................................................................................34

7.1 Operational and Safety Performance ........................................................................................... 34

7.2 Compliance with Policies and Engineering Standards .................................................................. 64

7.3 Conformance with Transportation Plans...................................................................................... 64

7.4 Coordination ............................................................................................................................... .. 65

7.5 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................. 66

SECTION 8: FUNDING PLAN...........................................................................................................................67

SECTION 9: RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................68

APPENDIX A: PROMPT LIST FOR REVIEWING INTERSTATE ACCESS REQUESTS

APPENDIX B: EXISTING CONDITIONS OF FRONTAGE ROAD SYSTEM

APPENDIX C: TRAFFIC PROJECTION MEMO

APPENDIX D: MINIMUM BUILD IMPROVEMENTS VISUALIZED

APPENDIX E: CONCEPTUAL SIGNING AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN (PHASE 1)


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) requests approval from the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) to modify access from Interstate 49 (I 49) to Main Street and 140th Street inGrandview. The existing one way frontage road system is proposed to be converted to two way betweenTruman Drive and MO 150. This Access Justification Report (AJR) was developed in accordance with therequirements defined in the Federal Register dated August 27, 2009 for new or modified access to theInterstate System and as explained in the FHWA publication Interstate System Access Informational Guide,dated August 2010.

The purpose and need for the project is to remove portions of the one way frontage system within Grandviewadjacent to I 49 (US 71). This goal was set in order to accommodate the current and future needs of citizens,visitors, and businesses within the area.

Build alternatives along with a no build option were screened to identify the best options to carry forward forconstruction. These options contained an array of geometric improvements, with the overall goal of increasedmobility for members of the public. Due to financial constraints, Phase 1 construction will includemodifications between Truman Drive and 135th Street. 135th Street was chosen as southern terminus becauseit is a through route both east and west of I 49. During detailed design it is possible that the exact southernterminus may slightly change based upon funding and site details.

Phase 1 work will include the relocation of four ramps at Main Street and conversion of frontage roads fromone way operation to two way traffic (between Truman Drive and 135th Street). In order to ensure the newdiamond ramp terminals at Main Street operate properly, the frontage road system will be relocated fartherfrom I 49. This relocation includes removal of access from some properties abutting the existing one wayfrontage road.

Conversion to two way frontage road operation between 135th Street and MO 150 is currently unfunded butaccounted for in this proposal. This ultimate conversion includes alteration of access at 140th Street.Interstate access from 140th Street is proposed to be provided via roundabout and two way frontage road oneither side of I 49. The roundabouts are within half a mile of 140th Street itself.


SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION


Table 1 1: Project Consistency with FHWA Policies

FHWA Policy Point Consideration ReportSection

Compliance Comments

1. Need cannot be satisfied by existing streetnetwork

3.1 3.8 Yes Modification of existinginterchange

2. Alternatives for design, location and TSMconsidered

5.1 5.4 Yes

3. No significant impact on safety and operations 7.1 Yes

4. Connects to public road, meets standards, fullaccess

7.2 Primarily Two anticipated designexceptions

5. Consistent with local and regional plans 7.3 Yes

6. Consistent with corridor, network and masterplans

7.4 Yes This is first portion of conversionto two way operation

7. Coordinated with area development andtransportation improvements

7.4 Yes TDM prepared to account forgrowth and street network

8. Coordination with environmental process 7.5 Yes

The full policy points prompt list is provided in Appendix A.

1.1 Project Location and Background

The project is located in Grandview, Missouri on the southern side of the Kansas City Metropolitan Area (inJackson County) as illustrated in Exhibit 1 1. This falls within the metropolitan planning organization known asMid America Regional Council (MARC). Note that the inset image shows the entirety of the Kansas CityMetropolitan Area, and the larger image shows the adjacent interchanges along I 49.

The Truman Drive, Main Street, and 140th Street interchanges are located along I 49 between Blue RidgeBoulevard (to the north) and MO 150 (to the south). The study area for this project includes these adjacentinterchanges on I 49. The study area also includes the cross streets in the functional areas of theinterchanges. An illustratration of the general study area for the project is included in Exhibit 1 1. Blue linesrepresent approximate limits of the study area.

The project location is south of the “Three Trails Crossing” (3TC), a major interchange of I 49, I 470, and I 435.From this point south the frontage roads of I 49 are one way. The one way frontage road system iscontinuous to MO 150. South of MO 150 the west frontage road terminates, and the east frontage road hastwo way traffic. The existing frontage roads are illustrated in more detail in Appendix B.


Exhibit 1 1: Project Location

140th Street


The frontage roads on this corridor have changed over time. In 1980, the city of Grandview’s frontage roadswere converted from two way to one way traffic. At that time, MoDOT made the change as a result ofincreased safety problems along the two way frontage road. The source of these safety problems is thoughtto be slip ramps onto two way frontage roads. Exhibit 1 2 shows the geometry prior to one way conversion.

Exhibit 1 2: 1969 aerial imagery of Main Street and slip ramp onto two way frontage road

Since the change in 1980, the city and many of the citizens in Grandview believe that the one way frontageroads have caused a decline of retail and new development in the I 49 (which was known as US 71 until theinterstate designation in 2012) corridor. The City’s Economic Director stated in 2008: “City leaders areattacking a long standing physical impediment to retail development – Highway 71’s one way access roads.Many companies simply will not locate on sites that have such restricted access, even if the marketdemographics are otherwise acceptable. Companies simply have the luxury of choosing other locations wherethey do not have to deal with such accessibility problems.”

Farther north, until a major construction project at 3TC, continuous frontage roads were not present north of

Blue Ridge Boulevard. This major project (which was opened by 2009) mimicked the one way operation for

the corridor north of Blue Ridge to I 470.

Slip ramp

Potential conflict

between

northbound frontage

road traffic and

southbound ramp

traffic

Main Street


SECTION 2: METHODOLOGY

2.1 Traffic Operations Analysis Procedures

Given the close proximity of major signalized intersections within the study area and the relatively high trafficvolume demand, microscopic simulation was determined to be the best tool for assessing traffic operations.The microscopic simulation modeling software VISSIM was selected to evaluate the various alternativesconsidered in the study. VISSIM takes into account such things as driver behavior characteristics and vehicleperformance to provide a realistic estimate and simulation of traffic conditions.

VISSIM model results were correlated to the level of service grading system presented in the Highway CapacityManual (HCM), 2010 Edition, published by the Transportation Research Board. Level of service (LOS) describesthe quality of traffic operating conditions and is rated from “A” to “F”. Conditions for signalized andunsignalized intersections are graded based on an average delay (seconds per vehicle) associated with allvehicles traversing the intersection over the analysis period, while conditions for freeway segments are gradedbased on densities (vehicles per mile per lane). LOS A represents a free flow movement of traffic with minimaldelays/densities. LOS F generally indicates severely congested conditions with excessive delays/densities formotorists. Intermediate grades of B, C, D, and E reflect incremental increases in the delays/densities. The LOSthresholds presented in the HCM for signalized intersections and freeways are summarized in Table 2 1.2 1

Table 2 1: Level of Service Thresholds for Freeway Segments and Intersections

Levelof

Service

Freeway Segment Density (veh/mi/ln)Signalized

Intersection(sec/veh)

UnsignalizedIntersection(sec/veh)Basic Merge or Diverge Weave

A < 11 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

B 11 – 18 10 – 20 10 – 20 10 – 20 10 – 15

C 18 – 26 20 – 28 20 – 28 20 35 15 25

D 26 – 35 28 – 35 28 – 35 35 55 25 35

E 35 – 45 > 35 35 – 43 55 80 35 50

F > 45 Demand > Capacity > 43 > 80 > 50

The LOS rating deemed acceptable varies by community, facility type, and traffic control device.Communities in urban areas typically consider LOS E to be the minimum desirable standard for peak hourconditions of a typical weekday.

2.2 Safety Analysis Procedures

A safety analysis was performed for the study area. This analysis included I 49 between Truman Drive andMO 150. It also included the frontage roads and the interchange functional areas along Main Street and 140th

Street. Historical crash record data for five recent years (2011 through 2015) was utilized in the evaluation ofsafety conditions.


SECTION 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS

FHWA AJR Policy Point 1: Existing Facilities“The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by existing interchanges to theInterstate, and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the desired access, nor can theybe reasonably improved (such as access control along surface streets, improving traffic control, modifyingramp terminals and intersections, adding turn bays or lengthening storage) to satisfactorily accommodate thedesign year traffic demands (23 CFR 625.2(a)).”

The project is not requesting a new access, but rather a modification of existing access. The following sectiondescribes various aspects of the existing conditions related to the study corridor. This project will seek tomaintain conditions of both local roads and the interstate system. The alternative selected changesaccessibility along the frontage road system. Along mainline I 49 operations should be similar; ramp locationschange but are not added or deleted.

3.1 Demographics

Demographic data from the United State Census is summarized below in Table 3 1.

Table 3 1: GrandviewDemographic Data

3.2 Existing Land Use

The study area is primarily a mixture of commercial and residential use. Areas abutting the I 49 frontageroads are commercial, and areas farther away from I 49 are residential. A zoning map from the city ispresented in Exhibit 3 1.


Exhibit 3 1: Grandview Zoning Map (updated 5 7 13)


3.3 Existing Roadway Network

I 49 is a major freeway that connects to the southern side of the Kansas City Metropolitan Area. In the studyarea I 49 carries approximately 80,000 vehicles per day and has six lanes. Shoulder width on I 49 within thestudy area is less than values specified in AASHTO minimum design criteria. On interstate facilities with sixlanes, a minimum of 10’ left shoulder and 10’ right shoulder are required for mainline lanes. While the rightshoulder meets this width, the left shoulder is typically 7’. South of the study area I 49 has four mainline lanes(the transition occurs just south of 155th Street, the interchange south of MO 150). North of the study area I49 was rebuilt (as a part of the aforementioned major construction project at 3TC) with additional capacity formovements at the system interchange.

Truman Drive is a local connector with two through lanes in each direction where it crosses under I 49. About6,000 vehicles use Truman Drive per day near I 49. East of I 49 it narrows to one lane in each direction. Westof I 49 it terminates at Blue Ridge Boulevard.

Main Street is a collector with two through lanes in each direction where it crosses over I 49. About 15,000vehicles use Main Street per day near I 49. East of I 49 it continues to neighboring Kansas City. West of I 49 itnarrows to one through lane in each direction and goes through Downtown Grandview.

140th Street is a local connector with two through lanes in each direction where it crosses over I 49. About7,000 vehicles use 140th Street per day near I 49.

3.4 Alternative Travel ModesThe City of Grandview is an Environmental Justice designated community. According to recent US Censusdata, approximately 47% of households in Grandview have access to one or zero automobiles. The city hasplaced a priority on becoming a truly walkable community.

BicycleCurrently, there are no designated on street bicycle facilities within the project area. The Regional KC BikeMap via Mid America Regional Council (MARC) highlights some shared use paths, including one on MO 150.Apart from riding on the street there are several off street shared use trails located throughout the area;however none of these options offer significant transportation relief for vehicle demands on I 49.

PedestrianFor pedestrians seeking to cross I 49, facilities are available at Truman Drive, Main Street, and 140th Street.There are currently no sidewalks along the frontage road system.

TransitThe Blue Ridge Express (28X) bus route, provided through the Kansas City Area Transit Authority (KCATA),offers service between the study area and downtown Kansas City. The route is illustrated on Exhibit 3 2. Theservice generally runs during peak periods (from 5:00 AM to 7:30 AM and 3:15 PM to 5:45 PM) with 30 minuteheadways, Monday through Friday. This is a somewhat limited local service, particularly for an EnvironmentalJustice designated community.


Exhibit 3 2: Transit Opportunities in Study Area

3.5 Interchanges and Signalized Intersections

The existing one way frontage road system uses a signalized intersection on each side of I 49 at the impactedcross streets (Truman Drive, Main Street, and 140th Street). Although the intersections are close to oneanother they operate in an effective manner; each signal has three phases, just like a diamond interchange.

The MoDOT Engineering Policy Guide states that the distance from the interchange to the first major publicroad with a left turn opportunity should be greater than 1,320’. The distance to a right in right out drivewayis less, only 750’. Substandard distances make signal coordination more difficult and can result in safetyproblems.

Along Truman Drive no other signalized intersections are close to the frontage road signals. The closestintersection is about 550’ to the west. This is a two way stop controlled intersection with 15th Street, whichserves as a backage road for the corridor. Truman Drive has driveways within the functional area of theinterchange on both the west and east side of I 49. No access control is currently in place along Truman Drive.Similarly, one driveway is on the east frontage road less than 100’ south of Truman Drive.


Along Main Street one signalized intersection is close to the frontage road signals. This intersection is about650’ to the west. Again it is the backage road 15th Street. Main Street has driveways within the functionalarea of the interchange on both the west and east side of I 49. No access control is currently in place alongMain Street. Driveways along the frontage roads are within 200’ of Main Street in three of the four quadrantsof the interchange. The Main Street bridge is being replaced (J4P3004) in 2017 due to structure age andcondition. The new bridge is five lanes wide, like the existing bridge, but the lane arrangement will be altered.The existing bridge has a shared through left lane in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Thismakes permissive left turns difficult; through traffic can get “stuck” behind left turning vehicles, which mustyield to oncoming traffic. (This is discussed more in the Existing Safety Conditions section) VISSIM modelstested the situation to ensure that the new lane arrangement would provide sufficient capacity. The existingsignals operate based upon a pre timed pattern. The bridge replacement job will include detection which willfurther improve operations at the interchange.

Along 140th Street no other signalized intersections are close to the frontage road signals. The closestintersection is about 800’ to the west. 140th Street also intersects with 15th Street about 1,240’ west of I 49.140th Street has driveways within the functional area of the interchange on both the west and east side of I49. No access control is currently in place along 140th Street. Similarly, one driveway is on the west frontageroad less than 200’ north of 140th Street.

3.6 Existing Traffic Data

Intersection turning movement traffic volumes were collected at ramp terminals and other importantintersections in 2016. Heavy vehicle count data was also collected. The different data sources were combinedto develop existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the project. Intersection turning movementcounts and freeway segment volumes are displayed on Exhibit 3 3.

3.7 Existing Operational Performance

Analyses were performed to assess traffic operations within the study area during the existing AM and PMpeak hour periods. The assessment included both arterial intersections and freeway segments. Freeway laneconfigurations and segments used in the analyses are defined on Exhibit 3 4. Note that existing traffic signaltimings were modeled. Results of the simulation model have been summarized in Tables 3 2 through 3 5.


Exhibit 3 3: Existing Conditions; Traffic Data


Exhibit 3 4: Existing Conditions; Lane Configurations


Table 3 2: Existing Conditions AM delay measures

Intersection Movement AvgDelay (S)

Vehiclesmovement

LOS

Intersection

Name Delay (S) LOSWest Truman Drive EBT 34 99 C

12 B

West Truman Drive EBR 2 87 A

West Truman Drive SBL 16 68 B

West Truman Drive SBT 15 53 B

West Truman Drive SBR 2 28 A

West Truman Drive WBL 20 71 B

West Truman Drive WBT 6 307 A

East Truman Drive EBL 1 29 A

15 B

East Truman Drive EBT 4 138 A

East Truman Drive WBT 21 127 C

East Truman Drive WBR 8 10 A

East Truman Drive NBL 20 250 B

East Truman Drive NBT 16 90 B

East Truman Drive NBR 3 20 A

West Main Street EBT 39 621 D

21 C

West Main Street EBR 8 92 A

West Main Street SBL 36 131 D

West Main Street SBT 38 165 D

West Main Street SBR 3 295 A

West Main Street WBL 17 311 B

West Main Street WBT 1 440 A

East Main Street EBL 7 345 A

19 B

East Main Street EBT 1 405 A

East Main Street WBT 29 407 C

East Main Street WBR 5 202 A

East Main Street NBL 47 341 D

East Main Street NBT 37 196 D

East Main Street NBR 4 148 A

West 140th Street EBT 30 255 C

14 B

West 140th Street EBR 3 46 A

West 140th Street SBL 18 86 B

West 140th Street SBT 19 55 B

West 140th Street SBR 2 158 A

West 140th Street WBL 4 132 A

West 140th Street WBT 11 246 B

East 140th Street EBL 18 244 B

16 B

East 140th Street EBT 10 96 A

East 140th Street WBT 23 202 C

East 140th Street WBR 5 181 A

East 140th Street NBL 29 176 C

East 140th Street NBT 16 138 B

East 140th Street NBR 1 110 A

Main Street 15th Street EBL 27 31 C

16 B

Main Street 15th Street EBT 15 508 B

Main Street 15th Street EBR 14 12 B

Main Street 15th Street NBL 26 44 C

Main Street 15th Street NBT 24 20 C

Main Street 15th Street NBR 12 97 B


Main Street 15th Street WBL 24 37 C

Main Street 15th Street WBT 14 620 B

Main Street 15th Street WBR 11 78 B

Main Street 15th Street SBL 28 112 C

Main Street 15th Street SBT 27 20 C

Main Street 15th Street SBR 17 28 B

Table 3 3: Existing Conditions PM delay measures

Intersection MovementAvg Delay

(S)Vehicles

movementLOS

Intersection

NameDelay

(S)LOS

West Truman Drive EBT 41 229 D

17 B


West Truman Drive SBL 19 168 B

West Truman Drive SBT 19 260 B





14 B




East Truman Drive NBL 22 288 C

East Truman Drive NBT 19 168 B

East Truman Drive NBR 10 77 A

West Main Street EBT 42 674 D

29 C

West Main Street EBR 13 166 B


West Main Street SBT 35 234 C





14 B








18 B


West 140th Street SBL 21 331 C

West 140th Street SBT 22 208 C



West 140th Street WBT 9 154 A



15 B








18 B


Main Street 15th Street EBR 13 50 B



Main Street 15th Street NBR 10 27 A

Main Street 15th Street WBL 47 101 D

Main Street 15th Street WBT 13 361 B

Main Street 15th Street WBR 9 100 A

Main Street 15th Street SBL 24 83 C

Main Street 15th Street SBT 23 19 C

Main Street 15th Street SBR 13 30 B

Table 3 4: Existing Conditions AM I 49 LOS

Location Type Lanes

Segment Averages

DensitySpeed (mph) Volume (veh)

(veh/mi/ln) LOS

Southbound I 49

S/O Blue Ridge Basic 3 12 B 64 2,358

near Truman Drive Weave 4 11 B 63 2,828

near Main Street Basic 3 13 B 64 2,393

between Main Street and 140th Street Weave 4 12 B 63 3,061

near 140th Street Basic 3 14 B 63 2,686

S/O 140th Street Merge 4 11 B 63 2,770

N/O MO 150 Basic 3 15 B 62 2,823

N/O MO 150 Diverge 4 11 B 63 2,858

Northbound I 49

S/O Blue Ridge Basic 3 28 D 62 5,126

N/O Truman Drive Diverge 4 21 C 61 5,216

near Truman Drive Basic 3 29 D 60 5,168

S/O Truman Drive Merge 4 21 C 61 5,163

near Main Street Basic 3 25 C 62 4,657

between Main Street and 140th Street Basic 3 25 C 62 4,689

N/O 140th Street Merge 4 19 B 62 4,709

near 140th Street Basic 3 24 C 62 4,538

S/O 140th Street Basic 3 25 C 62 4,651

N/O MO 150 Merge 4 19 B 62 4,674


Table 3 5: Existing Conditions PM I 49 LOS

Location Type Lanes

Segment Averages


(veh/mi/ln) LOS

Southbound I 49


near Truman Drive Weave 4 21 C 62 5,310




S/O 140th Street Merge 4 19 B 61 4,651

N/O MO 150 Basic 3 26 C 61 4,740

N/O MO 150 Diverge 4 19 B 62 4,797

Northbound I 49


N/O Truman Drive Diverge 4 12 B 63 2,938

near Truman Drive Basic 3 15 B 63 2,912

S/O Truman Drive Merge 4 12 B 63 2,908


between Main Street and 140th Street Basic 3 15 B 63 2,885



S/O 140th Street Basic 3 16 B 63 2,992

N/O MO 150 Merge 4 12 B 63 3,004

Not only do the intersections operate at a good LOS, but each movement is also within delay thresholds forLOS D. Existing geometry has, in the two peak hours, zero intersections operating at LOS D or E. It has threefreeway segments operating at LOS D. This corridor has minimal delays.

Model operation closely mimics field observations; the study area operates with minimal operationalproblems. One minor existing problem is the intersection of the southbound frontage road and Main Street.Due to heavy southbound volumes in PM peak hours, delays are occasionally present at this signalizedapproach. Addition of detection and alteration of lane arrangement at this interchange (which are included inthe bridge replacement job and the existing conditions models) are predicted to improve the conditions.

I 49

3.8 E

A safIn orcorrifronturbacomvehic

In oranaly

Frontage Ro

Existing Saf

fety analysisrder to assesidors withintage road, M

an interstateparisons forcle miles tra

Stat

I

Fronta

Multi

Percent Ch

rder to find syzed. Result

oads: AJR

fety Condit

s was perforss whether tthe study ar

Main Street,es, frontage rr these routeaveled.

ewide Crash

nterstate

ge Roads (F.

lane Highwa

ange from A

specific areats of the typ

tions

med for thethe numberrea exceedeand 140th Stroads, and ses. Note tha

Ta

h Rates

.R.) 4

ay 5

Average

as of potentipe analysis ca

study areaof crashes ad what woutreet crash rtate routes,

at the crash r

able 3 6: Cra

NB I49

89 106

410

534

19%

al safety conan be found

Exhibit 3 5

using historilong the I 49ld typically bates were corespectively

rate in these

ash Rate Co

20

SB I49

93

5%

ncerns, crashin Exhibit 3

5: I 49 Crash

ical crash da9, frontage rbe expectedompared toy. Table 3 6e exhibits is

mparison

011 2015 Pro

NBF.R.

SF.

301 33

26% 19

h locations,5, Exhibit 3

h Types

ata for the yeroad, Main Sd for similar fthe statewi

6 illustrates tmeasured in

oject Crash R

BR.

Main S

34

119

9% 123

types, and s3 6, Exhibit 3

ears 2011 thStreet, and 1facility typesde average rthe crash ratn crashes pe

Rates

Street 140

91

3%

severities we3 7, and Exh

Page 18

hrough 2015140th Streets, the I 49,rates forter 100 million

0th Street

972

82%

ereibit 3 8.

8

.

n

I 49 Frontage Rooads: AJR

Exhib

Exh

bit 3 6: Fron

hibit 3 7: Ma

ntage Roads

ain Street C

Crash Type

rash Types

es

Page 199

I 49

On Icrashthe rsoutof Mclosetravediffevehic

ReardemheavAbou

Alonfutuare ithroleft t

Frontage Ro

49 the moshes are typicrear end crahbound lane

MO 150. Somed lanes of Ieling out of cerent times ocles losing c

r end crasheonstrated th

vy southbouut a third of

ng Main Strere. This is bellustrated inugh left laneturning traff

oads: AJR

t common ccal when qushes on I 49es to two. T

me other rea49, therefo

control. Anof day and inontrol on th

s are also cohis was the cnd volumesall rear end

et, where thecause of ch

n Exhibit 3 9e with permfic. This is be

Exh

rash type iseues and de

9 occurred beThe left lanear end crashere creating nanalysis of t

n many diffee bridge ove

ommon withcase at the inin PM peakcrashes on

he crash ratehanges in the. Today botissive turns.ecause the l

hibit 3 8: 14

rear end craelays are preeyond the soends southes occurrednon typical cthese crasherent situatioer Truman D

h heavily travntersectionhours, delaythe frontage

es are highese previouslyh intersectioBased on t

eft turning t

40th Street C

ashes. This iesent. Analyouth end ofof 155th Streduring a concongestion.es showed mons. HoweveDrive during w

veled signaliof the southys are occase roads occu

st, the safetymentioned

ons of Mainhe crash dattraffic must

rash Types

is often a syysis of the crathe corridor

eet, and occnstruction pI 49 also ha

many occur aer, one recuwinter weat

ized intersechbound fronionally prese

urred at this

y performanbridge replaStreet and tta, through twait for gap

mptom of coash recordsr, where I 49asionally quroject. Theas a high occalong the enturring patterther events.

ctions. Thetage road anent at this sione approa

nce is anticipacement (J4the Frontagetraffic has a

ps in the opp

ongestion. Rshowed tha9 goes fromeues will exconstruction

currence of vtirety of then was south

crash datand Main Streignalized apch.

pated to impP3004). Thee Roads havetendency to

posing throu

Page 20

Rear endat many ofthreetend northn projectvehiclescorridor at

hbound

eet. Due toproach.

prove in theese changese a sharedo rear endgh traffic

0


before completing their turn. When through traffic sees the green indication, since they don’t need to yield toproceed through, they oftentimes rear end the yielding left turning vehicle.

Exhibit 3 9: Main Street changes

Another unique geometric situation currently in place at Main Street is the dual permissive eastbound left turnlanes. This situation means drivers in the eastbound right left turn lane have a harder time finding gaps inwestbound traffic. Crash reports indicated this as a source of many of the crashes on Main Street. Typicalgeometry will be included as part of J4P3004. While the bridge will remain as five lanes with two throughlanes in each direction, the fifth lane will be comprised of “back to back” left turn lanes. No longer will therebe shared through left turn lanes on Main Street. Another benefit of this geometric alteration is the option toprohibit permitted left turns. Although it will open with protected and permitted phases allowed, if safetyconcerns continue it is possible to allow only protected eastbound and/or westbound left turns.

SBFr

onta

geRoad

SBFr

onta

geRoad

NB

Fronta

geRoad

NB

Fronta

geRoad


Along 140th Street, the high crash rate is indicative of the short segment length and low ADT. Only 25 crashesoccurred on 140th Street, while in the same amount of time 167 crashes occurred at Main Street. The 25crashes on 140th Street occurred in a variety of fashions; oftentimes proceeding through red signals at highrates of speed. Reduction of design speed for the frontage roads (including the traffic calming effect of thenearby roundabouts) should help to reduce the number of crashes at this location. Additionally, the lanealignment planned for 140th Street (discussed in more detail in section 7.1) which is very similar to the changesat Main Street, should help to reduce the number of left turn crashes.

Crashes were also studied in terms of severity. Results of this study can be found in Exhibits 3 10, 3 11, 3 12,and 3 13. A study of fatal and disabling injuries yielded a variety of crash types. Two fatal crashes occurred:both involved pedestrians. One of those pedestrians tried to cross I 49 near 133rd Street, the other tried tocross the northbound frontage road near Main Street. 21 disabling injuries occurred in a variety of fashions:

Three were motorcycles out of control

Three were the previously mentioned issue of left turns along Main Street

Three were vehicles changing lanes in such a way to force other vehicles to crash (two on SB I 49 andone on the NB off ramp to Main Street)

Two were merging vehicles onto I 49 (one on each Main Street on ramp)

Two involved a vehicle out of control in snow

Two involved drivers running red lights

One was the previously mentioned issue of rear end at the intersection of the southbound frontageroad and Main Street

One involved a medical emergency

One involved a pedestrian trying to cross the northbound frontage road near 136th Street

One involved a rear end crash due to congestion upstream of the aforementioned southbound I 49lane drop

One involved an animal in the road

One involved a hood of a vehicle coming unlatched and obstructing a driver’s view


E

Exhibit

Exhibit 3 10

t 3 11: Front

: I 49 Crash

tage Roads

Severity

Crash Severrity

Page 233


Exhib

Exhi

bit 3 12: Ma

bit 3 13: 140

ain Street Cr

0th Street Cr

rash Severity

rash Severity

y

y

Page 244


SECTION 4: PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose and need for the project is to remove portions of the one way frontage system within Grandviewadjacent to I 49. This goal was set in order to accommodate the current and future needs of citizens, visitors,and businesses within the area. The proposed alternative selected through this process should be not onlyfeasible and cost effective, but should also have minimal relative impacts to the interstate system and to thebuilt and natural environment.

The existing conditions assessment shows that the frontage road infrastructure currently in place providesadequate operations. However, driver expectancy is violated with the presence of one way frontage roads.Drivers do not enjoy the out of direction travel required with such a one way system.

The process of identifying the best solution for any transportation improvement should start with definingspecific needs that should be addressed by the project. Improvements to this interchange should meet thefollowing needs.

1. Mitigate Future Congestion and Safety ConcernsThe improvements should accommodate expected future traffic growth and take into account safety concernsalong the corridor.

2. Provide Road User BenefitsThe alterations should provide a good balance between access and mobility along I 49 and the frontage roads.

3. Minimize the Cost for Construction and Support Economic DevelopmentThe improvements should be cost effective and promote economic development along the I 49 corridor.


SECTION 5: ALTERNATIVES

FHWA AJR Policy Point 2: Alternatives Analysis“The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by reasonable transportationsystem management (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities), geometric design, andalternative improvements to the Interstate without the proposed change(s) in access (23 CFR 625.2(a)).”

Since the proposed improvement is a modification to an existing interchange, improved geometric design andalternative improvements will be implemented. Transportation system management techniques will not beutilized on this project.

5.1 No BuildThe Future Year (2038) No Build scenario represents what traffic operations would be expected in the futureunder the existing roadway configuration plus any committed STIP or TIP project improvements in the area.

5.2 Transportation System ManagementRamp meters would not reduce congestion or enhance safety in the study area. Although there are no currentplans for installing ramp meters along the I 49 corridor through the project area, they could potentially beinstalled at some point in the future if and when ramp meters are deemed appropriate for this corridor.High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are another TSM strategy intended to stretch the people carrying capacityof the freeway by encouraging motorists to carpool or use transit services. The TSM strategies discussedabove could potentially enhance future freeway operations in this area, but cannot provide the desired twoway frontage road operations.

5.3 Alternative Transportation ModesAs previously mentioned, the bus service Blue Ridge Express (28X) serves the area. The route services stopswest of I 49 on Truman Drive and connects to several transit hubs in Downtown Kansas City. Smart Moves(metropolitan Kansas City's vision for expanded and enhanced regional transit service) has proposedadditional commuter service for this community. Alternative travel modes should continue to be discussedand further investigated. Sidewalks are also an important consideration for the corridor. Whatever the futureoptions are for the traveling public, the desire for two way frontage roads will not be provided by alternativetransportation modes.

5.4 Preliminary Build AlternativesThe first step in determining the best alternative to meet the purpose and need of the project was toconceptualize and perform a cursory evaluation of several different geometric configurations. While it wouldbe desirable to provide two way frontage roads with the existing ramps and local roads, this would involve slipramps intersecting with two way frontage roads. This type of intersection (previously shown in Exhibit 1 2)was the catalyst for initial conversion to one way frontage road operation. A brief concept was developed tostudy this alternative, but stakeholders did not accept the idea. Therefore the ramps and frontage roads hadto be separated in order to provide two way frontage roads. The effort focused on the busiest interchange inthe area: Main Street. Exhibit 5 1 and Exhibit 5 2 are preliminary sketches of some of these alternatives.


Exhibit 5 1: Main Street Frontage Road Variation 1

Exhibit 5 2: Main Street Frontage Road Variation 2

Pink boxes denote

access closures

Pink boxes denote

access closures


Based upon right of way requirements and initial traffic modeling, the alternatives were screened out. The

proposed alternative was determined to be a similar concept with differing alignment of the frontage roads.

The proposed alternative is displayed in Exhibit 5 3.

Exhibit 5 3: Proposed Main Street Frontage Road Alignment

This geometry reuses a significant portion of the existing backage road system, converting it into the proposedtwo way frontage road. Similar to today, the first signalized intersection proposed to the west of thesouthbound ramps is 15th Street. Capacity improvements (including turn lanes) will need to be added at thislocation to mitigate the additional frontage road traffic. The east frontage road is proposed to connect toMain Street at a new intersection approximately 1,100’ east of the northbound ramps.

The Phase 1 two way frontage road system has a southern terminus of 135th Street and does not involve anyproperty relocation. On the east frontage road it will be important to communicate to southbound driversthat the two way portion terminates and they must turn east. This concept will be further studied in thedetailed design process, but some options include additional signage and channelizing islands. This area isshown in Appendix E.

The proposed two way frontage road system has a northern terminus of Truman Drive. Similar to theprevious paragraph, on the west frontage road it will be important to communicate to northbound driversthat the two way portion terminates and they must turn. This concept will be further studied in the detaileddesign process, but some options include additional signage and channelizing islands. Additionally, Truman

Pink boxes denote

access closures


Drive will have the two signalized intersections near I 49 altered. The west intersection will have NBL and NBRmovements added. The east intersection will have WBL and EBR movements added. The addition of thesemovements, in combination with the tight signal spacing, will make efficient signal timing at this location veryimportant. Similar to Main Street, the proposed geometry removes a shared through left turn lane alongTruman Drive (WBL).

Exhibit 5 4: Changes Proposed At Truman Drive

I 49

I 49

EXISTING LANE

ALIGNMENTS AT TRUMAN

DRIVE

PROPOSED LANE

ALIGNMENTS AT TRUMAN

DRIVE


Alternatives were also compared for the 140th Street interchange. Although the traffic at 140th Street doesn’t

pose an operational problem, the geography of the area makes conversion to two way frontage roads

challenging. Similar to the effort at Main Street, several variations were considered. Exhibit 5 5 and Exhibit

5 6 are preliminary sketches of some of these alternatives.

Exhibit 5 5: 140th Street Frontage Road Variation 1

Pink boxes denote

access closures

Yellow “x” denotes

relocations


Exhibit 5 6: 140th Street Frontage Road Variation 2

Initial efforts at 140th Street mimicked improvements at Main Street; four ramps provided at the cross street

and relocated frontage roads. After many efforts, it became apparent that this layout would not be practical.

The geometry proposed for Main Street is feasible because of vacant land for new frontage road construction.

The same situation is not present at 140th Street, where a clear connection is not feasible without significant

right of way impacts (residential relocation).

Because of these difficulties, alternative geometry was explored. Because of the lack of space on 140th Street

itself, it was advantageous to relocate the ramps upstream of 140th Street. The ramps are moved to primarily

vacant land, allowing the two way frontage roads to connect to I 49 via roundabouts. The roundabouts are

within half a mile of 140th Street. This allows full access and reduces property impacts. The initial layout can

be seen in Exhibit 5 7. The ramp connections have been identified as items of high priority by FHWA and

MoDOT. As design progresses the stakeholders will compare geometric options (i.e. radii and gore design).

Pink boxes denote

access closures

Yellow “x” denotes

relocations


Exhibit 5 7: Proposed 140th Street Frontage Road Alignment

I 49

SECT

6.1 H

A revwith

Growaforevolu

6.2 T

FutuDueprefecons

Frontage Ro

TION 6: FU

Historical T

view of histoin the study

wth on I 49 hementionedmes have re

Traffic Proj

ure year traffto the neederred to diresistent with t

oads: AJR

UTURE YEA

Traffic Tren

orical MoDOy area. The h

has been imd constructioemained flat

ections

fic projectiofor traffic a

ectional usethe MARC re

AR TRAFFIC

ds

OT traffic volhistorical tra

Exhib

pressive foron at 3TC im

for the last

ns were devnalysis at thof the regio

egional mod

C

ume count daffic trends f

bit 6 1: Histo

approximatpacted capadecade.

veloped usinhe operationonal travel deel. The full

data was comor both corr

orical Traffic

tely the lastacity. On the

g previous tal level, it wemand modtraffic proje

mpleted forridors are illu

c Trends

decade. Prie other hand

raffic studiewas determin

el. The subaction memo

I 49, Main Sustrated in E

or to that, itd, Main Stree

es and city trned that a suarea model wo is presente

Street, and 1Exhibit 6 1.

t is likely thaet and 140th

ransportatioubarea modewas develop

ed in Append

Page 33

140th Street

at theh Street

n plans.el would beped and kepdix C.

3

t


SECTION 7: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

7.1 Operational and Safety Performance

FHWA AJR Policy Point 3: Operational and Safety Analysis“An operational and safety analysis has concluded that the proposed change in access does not have asignificant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility (which includes mainline lanes,existing, new, or modified ramps, ramp intersections with crossroad) or on the local street network based onboth the current and the planned future traffic projections. The analysis shall, particularly in urbanized areas,include at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either side of the proposed change inaccess (23 CFR 625.2(a), 655.603(d) and 771.111(f)). The crossroads and the local street network, to at leastthe first major intersection on either side of the proposed change in access, shall be included in this analysis tothe extent necessary to fully evaluate the safety and operational impacts that the proposed change in accessand other transportation improvements may have on the local street network (23 CFR 625.2(a) and655.603(d)). Requests for a proposed change in access must include a description and assessment of theimpacts and ability of the proposed changes to safely and efficiently collect, distribute and accommodatetraffic on the Interstate facility, ramps, intersection of ramps with crossroad, and local street network (23 CFR625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). Each request must also include a conceptual plan of the type and location of thesigns proposed to support each design alternative (23 U.S.C. 109(d) and 23 CFR 655.603(d)).”

Traffic Operations for AlternativesThe Future Year (2038) No Build scenario represents what traffic operations are expected to result in the nearfuture if no major improvements are made to the area. In the No Build alternative significant bottlenecksoutside the proposed project area are exposed. These bottlenecks prevent traffic from reaching the proposedproject area, therefore making analysis of the alternatives unrealistic.

For this reason, a “Minimum Build” scenario was developed. The Minimum Build includes:1. Southbound I 49 choice lane at exit to Blue Ridge (so Truman Drive exits from fourth lane of I 49

instead of third)2. Southbound I 49 continuous auxiliary lane connecting 140th Street to MO 1503. Southbound I 49 choice lane at two lane exit to MO 1504. Northbound White Avenue dual northbound left turn lanes at MO 150 intersection

These four alterations are depicted in Appendix D. They are in all of the Future Year models in order toensure a fair comparison between alternatives. The assessment included both arterial intersections andfreeway segments. Intersection turning movement counts and freeway segment volumes are displayed onExhibit 7 1. Freeway lane configurations and segments used in the analyses are defined on Exhibit 7 2.Results of the Minimum Build simulation models have been summarized in Tables 7 1 through 7 4.

These four alterations are not being proposed as a part of this project; they will be studied individually if andwhen the needs arise. Number four (dual northbound left turn lanes at MO 150 / White Avenue) is currentlybeing analyzed by MoDOT forces.


Exhibit 7 1: Minimum Build; Traffic Data


Exhibit 7 2: Minimum Build; Lane Configurations


Table 7 1: 2038 Minimum Build AM delay measures

Intersection Movement AvgDelay

(S)Vehicles

movementLOS

Intersection

NameDelay

(S)LOS

West Truman Drive EBT 33 211 C

19 B


West Truman Drive SBL 33 224 C

West Truman Drive SBT 27 158 C





24 C



East Truman Drive WBR 26 118 C

East Truman Drive NBL 37 254 D

East Truman Drive NBT 34 240 C

East Truman Drive NBR 23 151 C

West Main Street EBT 58 668 E

30 C



West Main Street SBT 47 233 D





19 B



East Main Street WBR 13 543 B





16 B








24 C




East 140th Street NBL 38 203 D

East 140th Street NBT 36 405 D

East 140th Street NBR 20 120 B



17 B


Main Street 15th Street EBR 9 20 A

Main Street 15th Street NBL 42 56 D

Main Street 15th Street NBT 38 31 D

Main Street 15th Street NBR 24 109 C

Main Street 15th Street WBL 17 46 B

Main Street 15th Street WBT 10 628 A


Main Street 15th Street SBL 46 118 D

Main Street 15th Street SBT 46 31 D

Main Street 15th Street SBR 33 38 C

Table 7 2: 2038 Minimum Build PM delay measures


(S)Vehicles

movementLOS

Intersection

NameDelay

(S)LOS


23 C


West Truman Drive SBL 49 352 D



West Truman Drive WBL 10 220 A



29 C


East Truman Drive WBT 64 277 E

East Truman Drive WBR 39 33 D


East Truman Drive NBT 34 295 C


West Main Street EBT 35 647 C

29 C



West Main Street SBT 32 277 C


West Main Street WBL 30 248 C

West Main Street WBT 24 323 C

East Main Street EBL 19 323 B

23 C


East Main Street WBT 49 345 D







20 B








20 B





East 140th Street NBT 29 257 C



14 B


Main Street 15th Street EBR 10 59 A



Main Street 15th Street NBR 15 48 B

Main Street 15th Street WBL 29 113 C

Main Street 15th Street WBT 5 374 A


Main Street 15th Street SBL 37 93 D

Main Street 15th Street SBT 36 31 D

Main Street 15th Street SBR 24 38 C

Table 7 3: 2038 Minimum Build – AM I 49 LOS

Location Type Lanes

Segment Averages


(veh/mi/ln) LOS

Southbound I 49

S/O Blue Ridge Basic 3 20 C 63 3,718





between 140th Street and MO 150 Weave 4 19 B 59 4,317

Northbound I 49





near Main Street Basic 3 31 D 61 5,635

between Main Street and 140th Street Basic 3 31 D 61 5,675

N/O 140th Street Merge 4 23 C 61 5,702

near 140th Street Basic 3 29 D 62 5,461

S/O 140th Street Basic 3 34 D 58 5,931

N/O MO 150 Merge 4 33 D 47 5,968


Table 7 4: 2038 Minimum Build – PM I 49 LOS

Location Type Lanes

Segment Averages


(veh/mi/ln) LOS

Southbound I 49




between Main Street and 140th Street Weave 4 25 C 61 6,079


between 140th Street and MO 150 Weave 4 26 C 61 6,314

Northbound I 49



near Truman Drive Basic 3 25 C 61 4,565







N/O MO 150 Merge 4 18 B 61 4,446

The Minimum Build operates well in the future year. In the two peak hours, as in the existing models, zerointersections operate at LOS D or below. 10 freeway segments operate at LOS D.

Next, the Ultimate scenario was studied in VISSIM to ensure long range system viability. Intersection turningmovement counts and freeway segment volumes are displayed on Exhibit 7 3. Freeway lane configurationsand segments used in the analyses are defined on Exhibit 7 4. Simulation model results have beensummarized in Tables 7 5 through 7 8.


Exhibit 7 3: Ultimate Conditions; Traffic Data


Exhibit 7 4: Ultimate Conditions; Lane Configurations


Table 7 5: 2038 Ultimate AM delay measures


Vehiclesmovement

LOS

Intersection


24 C



West Truman Drive SBT 38 69 D

West Truman Drive SBR 24 12 C


West Truman Drive WBT 14 359 B

West Truman Drive NBR 18 225 B

West Truman Drive NBL 30 65 C

East Truman Drive EBL 12 260 B

18 B


East Truman Drive EBR 3 301 A

East Truman Drive WBL 12 89 B


East Truman Drive WBR 14 79 B


East Truman Drive NBT 43 91 D



15 B




West Main Street WBL 10 137 A


East Main Street EBL 26 493 C

23 C






West 140th Street EBL 10 10 A

11 B

West 140th Street EBT 7 39 A



West 140th Street SBT 40 71 D




West 140th Street WBR 5 87 A

West 140th Street NBL 41 29 D

West 140th Street NBT 47 10 D

West 140th Street NBR 2 89 A

East 140th Street EBL 9 81 A

14 B


East 140th Street EBR 1 80 A

East 140th Street SBL 37 11 D

East 140th Street SBT 50 42 D

East 140th Street SBR 6 227 A


East 140th Street WBL 9 11 A

East 140th Street WBT 14 272 B



East 140th Street NBT 37 77 D


West Frontage Road Main Street EBL 65 41 E

36 D

West Frontage Road Main Street EBT 52 550 D

West Frontage Road Main Street EBR 50 20 D

West Frontage Road Main Street NBL 46 52 D

West Frontage Road Main Street NBT 65 131 E

West Frontage Road Main Street NBR 56 166 E

West Frontage Road Main Street WBL 40 261 D

West Frontage Road Main Street WBT 12 613 B

West Frontage Road Main Street WBR 9 130 A

West Frontage Road Main Street SBL 37 200 D

West Frontage Road Main Street SBT 34 210 C

West Frontage Road Main Street SBR 31 128 C

East Frontage Road Main Street EBL 28 109 C

28 C

East Frontage Road Main Street EBT 24 331 C

East Frontage Road Main Street EBR 15 36 B

East Frontage Road Main Street NBL 29 387 C

East Frontage Road Main Street NBT 38 140 D

East Frontage Road Main Street NBR 25 10 C

East Frontage Road Main Street WBL 29 10 C

East Frontage Road Main Street WBT 33 272 C

East Frontage Road Main Street WBR 19 70 B

East Frontage Road Main Street SBL 28 256 C

East Frontage Road Main Street SBT 51 28 D

East Frontage Road Main Street SBR 21 261 C

West Roundabout EBL 3 21 A

6 A

West Roundabout EBT 2 10 A

West Roundabout EBR 2 11 A

West Roundabout SBL 6 31 A

West Roundabout SBT 8 8 A

West Roundabout SBR 6 76 A

West Roundabout WBL 7 209 A

West Roundabout WBT 8 239 A

West Roundabout WBR 6 230 A

West Roundabout NBL 1 8 A

West Roundabout NBT 1 15 A

West Roundabout NBR 1 6 A

East Roundabout SBT 3 94 A

5 A

East Roundabout SBR 2 40 A

East Roundabout NBL 6 60 A

East Roundabout NBT 7 253 A

East Roundabout EBL 5 204 A

East Roundabout EBR 4 73 A


Table 7 6: 2038 Ultimate PM delay measures


Vehiclesmovement

LOS

Intersection

Name Delay (S) LOSWest Truman Drive EBT 40 323 D

39 D




West Truman Drive SBR 24 22 C

West Truman Drive WBL 28 126 C


West Truman Drive NBR 59 300 E

West Truman Drive NBL 51 33 D


16 B








East Truman Drive NBR 36 82 D

West Main Street EBT 14 689 B

16 B







16 B


East Main Street WBT 14 366 B




West 140th Street EBL 10 11 A

19 B

West 140th Street EBT 16 306 B


West 140th Street SBL 41 369 D

West 140th Street SBT 43 20 D

West 140th Street SBR 20 73 B

West 140th Street WBL 11 59 B


West 140th Street WBR 7 10 A

West 140th Street NBL 38 58 D

West 140th Street NBT 47 9 D

West 140th Street NBR 3 80 A


19 B

East 140th Street EBT 15 411 B

East 140th Street EBR 8 38 A

East 140th Street SBL 37 19 D

East 140th Street SBT 45 88 D

East 140th Street SBR 9 37 A

East 140th Street WBL 15 152 B





East 140th Street NBT 35 95 C


West Frontage Road Main Street EBL 47 52 D

35 D

West Frontage Road Main Street EBT 32 646 C

West Frontage Road Main Street EBR 29 60 C

West Frontage Road Main Street NBL 56 23 E


West Frontage Road Main Street NBR 72 146 E

West Frontage Road Main Street WBL 34 107 C

West Frontage Road Main Street WBT 21 351 C

West Frontage Road Main Street WBR 17 342 B



West Frontage Road Main Street SBR 20 36 B


22 C

East Frontage Road Main Street EBT 11 172 B

East Frontage Road Main Street EBR 5 194 A

East Frontage Road Main Street NBL 38 46 D


East Frontage Road Main Street NBR 7 21 A



East Frontage Road Main Street WBR 21 313 C



East Frontage Road Main Street SBR 20 60 B

West Roundabout EBL 9 78 A

7 A

West Roundabout EBT 9 284 A

West Roundabout EBR 7 10 A

West Roundabout SBL 4 40 A

West Roundabout SBT 4 19 A

West Roundabout SBR 3 20 A

West Roundabout WBL 7 305 A

West Roundabout WBT 5 19 A

West Roundabout WBR 5 97 A

West Roundabout NBL 4 8 A

West Roundabout NBT 3 12 A

West Roundabout NBR 4 11 A

East Roundabout SBT 5 187 A

6 A

East Roundabout SBR 3 90 A

East Roundabout NBL 6 85 A

East Roundabout NBT 6 111 A

East Roundabout EBL 7 269 A

East Roundabout EBR 5 56 A


Table 7 7: 2038 Ultimate AM I 49 LOS

Location Type Lanes

Segment Averages


(veh/mi/ln) LOSSouthbound I 49





near west roundabout Basic 3 18 B 63 3,388

between west roundabout and MO 150 Weave 4 17 B 57 3,465

Northbound I 49







N/O east roundabout Merge 4 22 C 62 5,440

near east roundabout Basic 3 29 D 62 5,381

between MO 150 and east roundabout Weave 4 23 C 61 5,601

Table 7 8: 2038 Ultimate PM I 49 LOS

Location Type Lanes

Segment Averages







near west roundabout Basic 3 33 D 59 5,789

between west roundabout and MO 150 Weave 4 25 C 62 6,185

Northbound I 49







N/O east roundabout Merge 4 17 B 63 4,316

near east roundabout Basic 3 22 C 63 4,181

between MO 150 and east roundabout Weave 4 18 B 62 4,444


Ultimate geometry operates within acceptable levels in the design year (2038). In the design year theUltimate geometry has, in the two peak hours, three intersections predicted to operate at LOS D. It has eightfreeway segments predicted to operate at LOS D.

Although the Ultimate option does not provide significant operational improvements over the Minimum Buildscenario, it is not predicted to negatively impact the interstate system.

The Ultimate geometry includes changes at the 140th Street bridge over I 49. Similar to Main Street, there isan existing shared through left lane on westbound 140th Street. Like the proposal there, the ultimategeometry remains as five lanes. Two through lanes are provided in each direction; the fifth lane will becomprised of “back to back” left turn lanes. This is depicted in Exhibit 7 5.

Exhibit 7 5: Ultimate Lane Geometry at 140th Street

Also like Main Street, the 140th Street bridge is scheduled for replacement. This job (J4I3217) is currently inthe MoDOT scoping process; a construction date has not yet been determined.


Exhibit 7 6: Alignment of east roundabout south of 140th Street


The Ultimate geometry includes four ramps (for 140th Street) being relocated. The southbound 140th Streetramps will move north, but the distance to the Main Street ramps should result in a weaving section still inexcess of 2,000’. The northbound 140th Street ramps will move south, decreasing the distance to MO 150.Today this distance is approximately 2,300’. The weaving distance between the ramps in the Ultimategeometry has a gore to gore distance of approximately 1,250’. AASHTO guidance (Green Book Figure 10 68)requires 1,600’. This is depicted in Exhibit 7 6.

Although it may be possible to move the roundabout north (increasing the gore to gore distance), this appearsto have right of way implications including total property acquisition. The orange star in Exhibit 7 6 shows thelocation of such right of way acquisition. Detailed design of subsequent phases will include an effort toincrease the weaving distance while balancing right of way needs.

In addition to Exhibit 3 4, Exhibit 7 2, Exhibit 7 4, and Exhibit 7 8, Table 7 9 provides a comparison of rampspacing for all the scenarios.

Table 7 9: Ramp Spacing in all alternatives (feet between gores)

Southbound I 49 location Northbound I 49

Ultimate Phase 1 Existing/Min Build Existing/Min Build Phase 1 Ultimate

2,560 2,560 1,940TrumanDrive

2,160 2,540 2,540

2,600 2,600 4,770MainStreet

3,610 2,450 2,450

2,230 3,280 1,730 4,210 4,990 5,860

1,610 3,340 3,340140thStreet

1,350 1,350 1,580

4,840 2,060 2,060 2,350 2,350 1,250

MO 150

Phase 1 geometry was studied next. The future year analyses of Phase 1 geometry include the Minimum Buildimprovements. The assessment included both arterial intersections and freeway segments. Intersectionturning movement counts and freeway segment volumes are displayed on Exhibit 7 7. Freeway laneconfigurations and segments used in the analyses are defined on Exhibit 7 8. Simulation model results havebeen summarized in Tables 7 10 through 7 13.

Note that Phase 1 is, at this time, the only funded phase.


Exhibit 7 7: Phase 1 Conditions (2038); Traffic Data

PHASE 12038


Exhibit 7 8: Phase 1 (2038); Lane Configurations


Table 7 10: 2038 Phase 1 (including Minimum Build) AM delay measures


(S)Vehicles

movementLOS

Intersection

Name Delay (S) LOS

West Truman Drive EBT 22 144 C

24 C










18 B





East Truman Drive WBR 14 79 B





14 B







23 C







15 B








18 B







West Frontage Road Main Street EBL 65 41 E

36 DWest Frontage Road Main Street EBT 51 553 D

West Frontage Road Main Street EBR 48 20 D




West Frontage Road Main Street NBR 53 162 D

West Frontage Road Main Street WBL 44 270 D




West Frontage Road Main Street SBT 38 209 D

West Frontage Road Main Street SBR 36 128 D


27 C

East Frontage Road Main Street EBT 25 346 C

East Frontage Road Main Street EBR 12 39 B



East Frontage Road Main Street NBR 54 10 D



East Frontage Road Main Street WBR 21 70 C




Table 7 11: 2038 Phase 1 (including Minimum Build) PM delay measures


(S)Vehicles

movementLOS

Intersection

NameDelay

(S)LOS


40 D




West Truman Drive SBR 19 22 B

West Truman Drive WBL 29 125 C


West Truman Drive NBR 64 302 E

West Truman Drive NBL 56 33 E


16 B










16 B








16 B







19 B








17 B







West Frontage Road Main Street EBL 46 51 D

31 C




West Frontage Road Main Street NBT 55 188 D

West Frontage Road Main Street NBR 47 140 D


West Frontage Road Main Street WBT 21 358 C

West Frontage Road Main Street WBR 16 346 B





22 C











East Frontage Road Main Street SBR 23 64 C


Table 7 12: 2038 Phase 1 (including Minimum Build) AM I 49 LOS

Location Type Lanes

Segment Averages


(veh/mi/ln) LOS

Southbound I 49







Northbound I 49







N/O 140th Street Merge 4 22 C 61 5,400


S/O 140th Street Basic 3 32 D 60 5,628

N/O MO 150 Merge 4 26 C 56 5,658

Table 7 13: 2038 Phase 1 (including Minimum Build) PM I 49 LOS

Location Type Lanes

Segment Averages


(veh/mi/ln) LOS

Southbound I 49







Northbound I 49










N/O MO 150 Merge 4 18 B 61 4,463

The Phase 1 layout operates well in the future year. In the two peak hours, two intersections operate at LOSD. Nine freeway segments operate at LOS D. The Phase 1 geometry was also tested in the construction year.This test did NOT include the “Minimum Build” alterations, since those are not being proposed at this time.Intersection turning movement counts and freeway segment volumes are displayed on Exhibit 7 9. Freewaylane configurations and segments used in the analyses are defined on Exhibit 7 10. Simulation model resultshave been summarized in Tables 7 14 through 7 17.


Exhibit 7 9: Phase 1 Conditions (2018); Traffic Data

PHASE 12018


Exhibit 7 10: Phase 1 Conditions (2018); Lane Configurations


Table 7 14: 2018 Phase 1 Conditions AM I 49 LOS


Vehiclesmovement

LOS

Intersection

Name Delay (S) LOSWest Truman Drive EBT 18 99 B

26 C





West Truman Drive WBL 10 77 A





14 B



East Truman Drive WBL 8 56 A

East Truman Drive WBT 13 181 B






8 A




West Main Street WBL 8 117 A



20 C


East Main Street WBT 36 552 D





15 B








16 B







West Frontage Road Main Street EBL 32 37 C

23 C






West Frontage Road Main Street NBR 35 139 C


West Frontage Road Main Street WBT 7 483 A


West Frontage Road Main Street SBL 32 143 C



East Frontage Road Main Street EBL 17 93 B

23 C





East Frontage Road Main Street NBR 65 6 E






East Frontage Road Main Street SBR 9 201 A

Table 7 15: 2018 Phase 1 Conditions PM delay measures


Vehiclesmovement

LOS

Intersection


30 C


West Truman Drive SBL 28 507 C


West Truman Drive SBR 15 18 B

West Truman Drive WBL 57 79 E

West Truman Drive WBT 39 184 D

West Truman Drive NBR 36 210 D



12 B



East Truman Drive WBL 10 42 A

East Truman Drive WBT 14 72 B






14 B








13 B







16 B








14 B







West Frontage Road Main Street EBL 28 62 C

22 C





West Frontage Road Main Street NBR 28 80 C







East Frontage Road Main Street EBL 14 184 B

17 B

East Frontage Road Main Street EBT 9 155 A





East Frontage Road Main Street WBL 18 15 B

East Frontage Road Main Street WBT 15 236 B

East Frontage Road Main Street WBR 9 220 A





Table 7 16: 2018 Phase 1 Conditions AM I 49 LOS

Location Type Lanes

Segment Averages









Northbound I 49










N/O MO 150 Merge 4 19 B 61 4,563

Table 7 17: 2018 Phase 1 Conditions PM I 49 LOS

Location Type Lanes

Segment Averages









Northbound I 49



near Truman Drive Basic 3 16 B 63 3,032



between Main Street and 140th Street Basic 3 14 B 63 2,743



S/O 140th Street Basic 3 15 B 63 2,791

N/O MO 150 Merge 4 11 B 63 2,807


The Phase 1 Conditions operate well in the construction year. In the two peak hours, zero intersectionsoperate at LOS D or below. Only one freeway segment operates at LOS D.

Although Phase 1 geometry does not provide significant operational improvements over the Minimum Buildscenario, it is not predicted to negatively impact the interstate system. Two intersections operate at LOS Dduring either of the design year peak hours. One of them, the west Truman Road intersection, is a significantdistance from I 49 off ramps. This mean that, even in the case of subpar intersection operations, the potentialto impact mainline I 49 is very low. The other intersection that operates at LOS D is Main Street at the westfrontage road. This is more concerning, since it is relatively close to the southbound I 49 ramp terminal onMain Street. It will be important to adjust signal timing at this location to ensure that delay and queues arenot experienced for interstate drivers.

One other difference between the 2018 and 2038 Phase 1 models is the southbound left turn lane at the westintersection of Truman Drive and the frontage roads. In 2018 a single lane was modeled. In 2038 dual leftturn lanes were modeled. As this is the location of termination of northbound traffic on the west frontageroad, it is desirable to provide visual clues to drivers to illustrate they cannot continue “through”, they mustturn left or right. By providing a single southbound left turn lane at construction, there is an opportunity touse a channelizing island to reduce the size of this intersection. This can be seen in more detail in Appendix E(sheet one of two).

The need for dual left turn lanes is dependent upon a development in the northeast corner of the interchange.The city will have an opportunity to open this extra lane as development occurs.

Safety Consideration of AlternativesConstruction of the Phase 1 geometry is expected to result in reasonable safety performance. Some crasheson the current corridor appear to be a result of the higher speeds of slip ramp geometry. Eight of these slipramps will ultimately be removed at completion of the Ultimate geometry. The conversion of Main Streetramps into more traditional diamond ramps is expected to reduce crashes. The four ramps to bereconstructed for Phase 1 geometry will have their new gores moved closer to Main Street, meaning thatspace to adjacent interchanges will increase. This additional space should allow for easier weaving andmerging movements. The ramps at 140th Street will connect to roundabouts, an intersection treatment withreduced conflict points. The roundabouts are single lane, which helps to reduce possible safety concerns. Thesafety record of such single lane roundabouts is preferable to the existing signalized geometry.

The design speed of the new frontage roads is low in order to reduce the necessary right of way acquisitions.This should reduce the possibility of serious crashes.

An anticipated tradeoff is the addition of two way frontage roads. In the current one way configuration,

driveways along the one way frontage roads can only be used by right turning vehicles. Two way portions will

have more conflict points due to left turning vehicles.


7.2 Compliance with Policies and Engineering Standards

FHWA AJR Policy Point 4: Access Connections and Design“The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than "fullinterchanges" may be considered on a case by case basis for applications requiring special access for managedlanes (e.g., transit, HOVs, HOT lanes) or park and ride lots. The proposed access will be designed to meet orexceed current standards (23 CFR 625.2(a), 625.4(a)(2), and 655.603(d)).”

Main Street, Truman Drive, and 140th Street are public roads owned and maintained by the city of Grandview.The proposed Main Street and 140th Street interchanges will provide all traffic movements. The existing partialaccess at Truman Drive will remain as such. The proposed modifications are being designed in accordancewith the MoDOT Engineering Policy Guide and the guidelines presented in the 2004 edition of A Policy onGeometric Design of Highways and Streets, published by the American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials (AASHTO).

At this point there are two known design exceptions. The first is the width of shoulders in some locationsalong I 49. Due to the aforementioned substandard shoulder width adjoining this project location (discussedin section 3.3), at least some of the shoulder width of this project will be substandard. Limits of thissubstandard condition will be determined during the design process. The second known exception is theaforementioned weaving distance on northbound I 49 between MO 150 and 140th Street. A formal designexception would be brought forth during detailed design work. Additional design exceptions could possibly beidentified during detailed design.

7.3 Conformance with Transportation Plans

FHWA AJR Policy Point 5: Transportation and Land Use Plan Compliance“The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans. Prior toreceiving final approval, all requests for new or revised access must be included in an adopted MetropolitanTransportation Plan, in the adopted Statewide or Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (STIP orTIP), and the Congestion Management Process within transportation management areas, as appropriate, andas specified in 23 CFR part 450, and the transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and93.”

The proposed project is consistent with both local and regional land use and transportation plans. Thisincludes plans of the city of Grandview, which is eager for such alterations. The location was previouslyanalyzed in a frontage road study (2009). This study considered altered access points on US 71 (I 49).Ultimately, the study recommended an improved one way concept. This is discussed more in section 7.4.

The proposal is on the 2017 2021 STIP for scoping and design. Construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2018.

This project is currently in MARC’s TIP for the year 2018.

The aforementioned bridge jobs at Main Street and 140th Street are both in the STIP. Main Street will be

constructed in 2017, and 140th Street is currently in the MoDOT scoping process (a construction date has not

yet been determined).


7.4 Coordination

FHWA AJR Policy Point 6: Comprehensive Interstate Network Study“In corridors where the potential exists for future multiple interchange additions, a comprehensive corridor ornetwork study must accompany all requests for new or revised access with recommendations that address allof the proposed and desired access changes within the context of a longer range system or network plan (23U.S.C. 109(d), 23 CFR 625.2(a), 655.603(d), and 771.111).”

In 2009 a corridor study was completed. This study included a frontage road literature review, publicinvolvement, safety analyses, economic impacts, and traffic analyses (via microsimulation). It compared animproved one way frontage road system (with additional u turn locations) to two way alternatives. After arecommendation that the one way concept be pursued the study was not adopted by the city.

This access justification report is the comprehensive corridor study, and has support from MoDOT and the city.

Due to the spacing of the corridor and the proposed ramp locations, additional access to I 49 is not a viablealternative.

FHWA AJR Policy Point 7: Coordination with Transportation System Improvements“When a new or revised access point is due to a new, expanded, or substantial change in current or plannedfuture development or land use, requests must demonstrate appropriate coordination has occurred betweenthe development and any proposed transportation system improvements (23 CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)).The request must describe the commitments agreed upon to assure adequate collection and dispersion of thetraffic resulting from the development with the adjoining local street network and Interstate access point (23CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)).”

The proposed interchange improvements are not tied to any specific development project. Future year trafficprojections have been developed utilizing MARC and Grandview land use plans. Collection and dispersion ofdevelopment driven traffic will be handled through normal processes of MoDOT and Grandview at theappropriate time for each individual development.


7.5 Environmental Impacts

FHWA AJR Policy Point 8: Planning and NEPA Process“The proposal can be expected to be included as an alternative in the required environmental evaluation,review and processing. The proposal should include supporting information and current status of theenvironmental processing (23 CFR 771.111).”

This project has received a NEPA determination of CE2. MoDOT is currently preparing the documentation for

FHWA. The primary environmental concerns from the City of Grandview and MoDOT are Environmental

Justice and noise.

This City of Grandview is a designated Environmental Justice community. The proposed improvements will

not have disproportionate impacts on protected populations and are strongly supported by the city. Negative

socioeconomic impacts are expected to be limited to temporary travel disruptions for travelers in the

immediate vicinity of the project.

A noise study is underway for the corridor. This study will include traffic and alignment information to

determine environmental implications. The noise study will follow MoDOT’s noise policy.

Comments regarding the proposed improvements have been generally positive from the general public. No

relocations are expected with the first phase of the improvements and property owners have not been

contacted regarding right of way acquisitions.

The MARC area is currently in attainment for air quality.


SECTION 8: FUNDING PLAN

Phase 1 is funded with a mix of Federal STP funds and city funds. The project has $5,000,000 in Federal STP

funds which are available in 2018. The City has committed to provide a match of $1,660,000 for the project.

Funding for future phases has not been identified. However, completing the ultimate project is a high priorityfor the city.

The restoration of two way traffic operation on the US 71 (now I 49) frontage roads in Grandview Missouri

has been a long time wish of City Government, residents and retailers. Since the frontage roads were first

converted to one way operation in the late 1970’s, more than 60 retail businesses have closed. The closing

of these businesses has left the residents of the City with a shortage of basic services necessary for normal

daily life.

Since the inception of the one way operations on the frontage roads, the City has actively pursued restoring

two way traffic operation on this corridor. Several years ago, MoDOT indicated they would be receptive to

changing the operation of the frontage roads to two way. Since that time, the City has worked diligently to

prepare preliminary designs and estimates and to obtain funds to cover the cost of the conversion work.

Three years ago, the city was awarded $5,000,000 in STP funding through a competitive selection by the

regional planning agency Mid America Regional Council (MARC). These funds were allocated for use in the

federal fiscal year beginning October 2018. The City applied for additional STP funds at MARC in 2016 but

did not receive an award at that time. The next call for STP funding at MARC begins in January 2018. The

City will apply for additional STP funds at that time with the hopes of securing $3 to $5 million.

In 2016, the City applied for, but did not receive, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery

(TIGER) funds from the Federal Highway Administration. Should this competitive grant program continue,

the city will again apply for these funds. Typically, TIGER grants must be at a minimum $10 million. The City

intends to apply for any and all subsequent calls for TIGER projects. The City also plans to aggressively

pursue funding under any new programs the Administration puts forward.

Finally, the City has allocated $1 million in funds from its Capital Improvement Sales Tax fund for

improvements along the frontage road. These funds are currently available for this project.

The City views this conversion project as one of the most important drivers of Grandview’s future success

and is committed to pursuing funds to complete this work. The City is committed to actively investigating

all funding opportunities, as applicable.


SECTION 9: RECOMMENDATIONS


The results of this study show that the existing interchange configuration results in minimal congestion, and itcurrently has a crash rate similar to other urban state route facilities. Analyses show that, with MinimumBuild improvements, the existing interchange configuration could adequately accommodate future trafficdemands. The proposed geometry will perform similarly for the interstate network.

For a conceptual signing and preliminary design plan, see Appendix E. Note that since access points are simplymoving (not being created or removed) the signage along mainline I 49 will be very similar to the existingconditions.

APPENDIX A: PROMPT LIST FOR REVIEWING INTERSTATE ACCESS REQUESTS

Interstate Access Policy Points

Policy Point 1: The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by existing interchanges to theInterstate, and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the desired access, nor can they be reasonablyimproved (such as access control along surface streets, improving traffic control, modifying ramp terminals and intersections,adding turn bays or lengthening storage) to satisfactorily accommodate the design year traffic demands (23 CFR 625.2(a)).

Policy Point 2: The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by reasonable transportationsystem management (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities), geometric design, and alternativeimprovements to the Interstate without the proposed change(s) in access (23 CFR 625.2(a)).

Policy Point 3: An operational and safety analysis has concluded that the proposed change in access does not have asignificant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility (which includes mainline lanes, existing, new,or modified ramps, ramp intersections with crossroad) or on the local street network based on both the current and theplanned future traffic projections. The analysis shall, particularly in urbanized areas, include at least the first adjacent existingor proposed interchange on either side of the proposed change in access (23 CFR 625.2(a), 655.603(d) and 771.111(f)). Thecrossroads and the local street network, to at least the first major intersection on either side of the proposed change inaccess, shall be included in this analysis to the extent necessary to fully evaluate the safety and operational impacts that theproposed change in access and other transportation improvements may have on the local street network (23 CFR 625.2(a)and 655.603(d)). Requests for a proposed change in access must include a description and assessment of the impacts andability of the proposed changes to safely and efficiently collect, distribute and accommodate traffic on the Interstate facility,ramps, intersection of ramps with crossroad, and local street network (23 CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). Each request mustalso include a conceptual plan of the type and location of the signs proposed to support each design alternative (23 U.S.C.109(d) and 23 CFR 655.603(d)).

Policy Point 4: The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all traffic movements. Less than ``fullinterchanges'' may be considered on a case by case basis for applications requiring special access for managed lanes (e.g.,transit, HOVs, HOT lanes) or park and ride lots. The proposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards(23 CFR 625.2(a), 625.4(a)(2), and 655.603(d)).

Policy Point 5: The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportation plans. Prior toreceiving final approval, all requests for new or revised access must be included in an adopted Metropolitan TransportationPlan, in the adopted Statewide or Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (STIP or TIP), and the CongestionManagement Process within transportation management areas, as appropriate, and as specified in 23 CFR part 450, and thetransportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.

Policy Point 6: In corridors where the potential exists for future multiple interchange additions, a comprehensive corridor ornetwork study must accompany all requests for new or revised access with recommendations that address all of theproposed and desired access changes within the context of a longer range system or network plan (23 U.S.C. 109(d), 23 CFR625.2(a), 655.603(d), and 771.111).

Policy Point 7: When a new or revised access point is due to a new, expanded, or substantial change in current or plannedfuture development or land use, requests must demonstrate appropriate coordination has occurred between thedevelopment and any proposed transportation system improvements (23 CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). The request mustdescribe the commitments agreed upon to assure adequate collection and dispersion of the traffic resulting from thedevelopment with the adjoining local street network and Interstate access point (23 CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)).

Policy Point 8: The proposal can be expected to be included as an alternative in the required environmental evaluation,review and processing. The proposal should include supporting information and current status of the environmentalprocessing (23 CFR 771.111).

Policy Point 1: "The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by existinginterchanges to the Interstate, and/or local roads and streets in the corridor can neither provide the desiredaccess, nor can they be reasonably improved (such as access control along surface streets, improving trafficcontrol, modifying ramp terminals and intersections, adding turn bays or lengthening storage) tosatisfactorily accommodate the design year traffic demands (23 CFR 625.2(a))."

Adequately Addressed?Question Reference Location

Yes No N/A

Does the access request clearly describe the needand purpose of the proposal and identify projectgoals and objectives that are specific andmeasurable?

Section 4

Is the proposal in the best interest of the travellingpublic, or does it merely serve a narrow interest?

Sections 1 4, 7.1

Is the proposal serving a regional transportationneed, or is it merely compensating for deficienciesin the local network of arterials and collectors?

Sections 1 4

N/A

In lieu of granting new access, is there anyreasonable alternative consisting of improvementsto the existing roadway(s) or adjacent accesspoints that could serve the need and purpose?

Has the evaluation of existing interchanges andthe local road network taken into account allproposed improvements currently identified in theState and/or Regional Long Range Plan?

Sections 3.8, 7.3

Will the proposed change in access result inneeded upgrades or improvements to the crossroad for a significant distance away from theinterchange?

Section 7.1

Policy Point 2: "The need being addressed by the request cannot be adequately satisfied by reasonabletransportation system management (such as ramp metering, mass transit, and HOV facilities), geometricdesign, and alternative improvements to the Interstate without the proposed change(s) in access (23 CFR625.2(a))."


Yes No N/A

Was FHWA actively involved in preliminary studiesand decisions? If not, then more detailedinformation may be required in support ofproposed action.

Did the study area cover sufficient area to allowfor an evaluation of all reasonable alternatives?

Exhibit 1 1, Section 5.4

Was a No Build Alternative evaluated? Section 7.1

N/AConsidering the context of the proposal, is this thebest location for the proposed new interchange?

Were different interchange configurations (Tightdiamond, SPDI, Parclo) considered?

Section 5.4

Were pedestrians and bicyclists considered in thealternative evaluation?

Sections 3.4, 5.3

Was there an evaluation of different intersectionconfigurations (stop control, signal, roundabout,free right turns, etc.)

Section 5.4

Have Transportation Systems Management (i.e.HOV, ITS, Ramp Metering, Transit etc.) optionsbeen evaluated as an alternative to a new ormodification to an existing interchange?

Section 5.2

Did the report discuss how TSM alternatives wereevaluated and eliminated from consideration?

Section 5.2

Does the proposal consider any future plannedTSM strategies and is the design consistent withthe ability to implement the future TSMstrategies?

Section 5.2

Policy Point 3: "An operational and safety analysis has concluded that the proposed change in access doesnot have a significant adverse impact on the safety and operation of the Interstate facility (which includesmainline lanes, existing, new, or modified ramps, ramp intersections with crossroad) or on the local streetnetwork based on both the current and the planned future traffic projections. The analysis shall, particularlyin urbanized areas, include at least the first adjacent existing or proposed interchange on either side of theproposed change in access (23 CFR 625.2(a), 655.603(d) and 771.111(f)). The crossroads and the local streetnetwork, to at least the first major intersection on either side of the proposed change in access, shall beincluded in this analysis to the extent necessary to fully evaluate the safety and operational impacts thatthe proposed change in access and other transportation improvements may have on the local streetnetwork (23 CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). Requests for a proposed change in access must include adescription and assessment of the impacts and ability of the proposed changes to safely and efficientlycollect, distribute and accommodate traffic on the Interstate facility, ramps, intersection of ramps withcrossroad, and local street network (23 CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). Each request must also include aconceptual plan of the type and location of the signs proposed to support each design alternative (23 U.S.C.109(d) and 23 CFR 655.603(d))."


Yes No N/A

Does the report demonstrate that a proper trafficoperational analysis was conducted? The analysisshould include the applicable basic freewaysegments, freeway weaving segments, freewayramp segments, ramp junctions and crossroadintersections related to the proposed access pointand at least the two adjacent interchanges.

Section 2.1, 7.1

Does the report include a safety analysis of themainline, ramps and intersections of the proposedaccess point and the nearest adjacent interchange(provided they are near enough that it isreasonable to assume there may be impacts)?

Sections 3.8, 7.1

Has the design traffic volume been validated? Sections 6,7, Appendix C

Has a conceptual signing plan been provided? Appendix E

Is guidance signing (i.e., way finding or trail blazingsigns) clear and simple?

Appendix E

Do the results of the operational analysis result ina significant adverse impact to existing or futureconditions?

Section 7.1

Will the proposed change in access result inneeded upgrades or improvements to the crossroad for a significant distance away from theinterchange? If so, have impacts to the localnetwork been disclosed and fully evaluated?"

Section 7.1

Are the cross roads or adjacent surface level roadsand intersections affected by the proposed accesspoint analyzed to the extent (length) whereimpacts caused or affecting the new proposedaccess point are disclosed to the appropriatemanaging jurisdiction?

Exhibit 1 1, Section 2.1

Are pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities included(as appropriate) and do these facilities provide forreasonable accommodation?

Section 3.4

Does the proposed access secure sufficient Limitsof Access adjacent to the Interchange ramps?

AASHTO’s “A Policy on DesignStandards Interstate System,2005” Pg. 2; NCHRP Synthesis332 Sections 3.5, 7.1

Does the proximity of the nearest crossroadintersections to the ramps contribute to safety oroperational problems? Can they be mitigated??

Sections 3.5, 7.1

In addition to HCS, what analysis tools wereemployed and were they appropriate?

Section 2

Has the proposal distinguished between nominalsafety (i.e. adherence to design policies andstandards) and substantive safety (actual andexpected safety performance)?

Section 3.8

Will any individual elements within therecommended alternative be degradedoperationally as a result of this action? If yes, arereasons provided to accept them?

Section 7.1

In evaluating whether the proposal has a"significant adverse impact" on safety, has theState Strategic Highway Safety Plan been used as abenchmark?

Sections 3.8, 7.1

Are the proposed interchange designconfigurations able to satisfactorily accommodatethe design year traffic volumes?

Section 7.1

Policy Point 4: "The proposed access connects to a public road only and will provide for all trafficmovements. Less than "full interchanges'" may be considered on a case by case basis for applicationsrequiring special access for managed lanes (e.g., transit, HOVs, HOT lanes) or park and ride lots. Theproposed access will be designed to meet or exceed current standards (23 CFR 625.2(a), 625.4(a)(2), and655.603(d))."

AdequatelyAddressed? Question Reference Location

Yes No N/A

Does the proposed access connect to a public road? Section 7.2

Are all traffic movements for full interchange accessprovided?

Section 7.2

N/AIf a partial interchange is proposed, is there sufficientjustification for providing only a partial interchange?

N/AIf a partial interchange is proposed; was a fullinterchange evaluated as an alternative and is theresufficient justification to eliminate or discard it?

Is sufficient ROW available (or being acquired) toprovide a full interchange at a future date (stagedconstruction)?

Sections 5,8

N/AAre you comfortable with how the missing movementswill be accommodated on the surface streets andadjacent interchanges?

N/AIf not, is the proposed access for special purposes suchas transit vehicles, HOV's, and/or a park and ride lot?

Does FHWA support the selection of designcontrols/criteria and desired operational goals?

Does the proposed access meet or exceed currentdesign standards for the Interstate System?

AASHTO's Greenbook and APolicy on Design StandardsInterstate System, 2005Section 7.2

If not, have anticipated design exceptions beenidentified and reviewed (at least conceptually)?

Section 7.2

If expected design exceptions could have significantoperational impacts on the Interstate and/or Crossroadsystem, are mitigation measures described?

Section 7.2

If expected design exceptions could have significantsafety impacts on the Interstate and/or Crossroadsystem, are mitigation measures described?

Section 7.2

Will the length of access control along the crossroadprovide for acceptable operations and safety? (100300' is a minimum. Additional access control is stronglyencouraged when needed for safety and operationalenhancement)

AASHTO "A Policy on DesignStandards Interstate System"2005 Section 5.4

Does FHWA support selection of opening and designyears?

Have all design criteria (including but not limited to thefollowing) been adequately addressed?

a. Sight distance at ramp terminals (Don't overlooksignal heads obscured by structures.)

AASHTO Greenbook 2004 Pg.841

b. Sufficient storage on ramp to prevent queuesfrom spilling on to the Interstate (based on currentand/or future projected traffic demand)

Section 7.1

c. Vertical clearance AASHTO "A Policy on DesignStandards Interstate System"2005

d. Pedestrian access through the interchangeAASHTO Greenbook 2004 Pg.864 Section 3.4

e. Length of accel/decel lanesAASHTO Greenbook 2004 Pg.823, 847 Sections 3.7, 7.1

f. Length of tapersAASHTO Greenbook 2004 Pg.849

g. Spacing between rampsGreenbook pg 843 & Ex. 10 68and operational analysisSections 3.5, 3.7, 7.1

h. Lane continuityAASHTO Greenbook 2004 Pg.810 Sections 3.3, 3.7, 7.1

i. Lane balanceAASHTO Greenbook 2004 Pg.810 Sections 3.7, 7.1

j. Uniformity in interchange design and operationalpatterns (i.e. right side ramps, exit design consistentw/adjacent interchanges)

AASHTO Greenbook 2004 Pg.807 Sections 3.7, 7.1

Has each movement of the proposal been "tested" forease of operation?

AASHTO Greenbook 2004 Pg.863 Section 7.1

Policy Point 5: "The proposal considers and is consistent with local and regional land use and transportationplans. Prior to receiving final approval, all requests for new or revised access must be included in anadopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan, in the adopted Statewide or Metropolitan TransportationImprovement Program (STIP or TIP), and the Congestion Management Process within transportationmanagement areas, as appropriate, and as specified in 23 CFR part 450, and the transportation conformityrequirements of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93."


Yes No N/A

Does the IJR discuss or include (as appropriate)other project(s), studies or planned actions thatmay have an effect on the report analysis results?

Section 7.3

Does the project conform to the local planning,MPO or other related plans?

Section 7.4

Is the access request located within aTransportation Management Areas? (TMA’s aremetropolitan areas of 200,000 or more inpopulation)

http://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgis_v2/ UrbanBoundaries/Map.aspx Section 1.1

Is the access request located within a nonattainment area for air quality? (requests foraccess in a non attainment or maintenance areasfor air quality must be a part of a conformingtransportation plan)

Section 7.5

Is the project included in the TIP/STIP and LRTP? Section 7.3

Is the access point covered as a part of anInterstate corridor study or plan? (especiallyimportant for areas where the potential exists forconstruction of future adjacent interchanges)

Section 7.4

If the project is to be built in stages, are follow onstages included in the STIP? (may demonstrate acommitment on the part of the requestor)

Sections 7.3, 8

If the project is to be built in stages, are thefunding commitments consistent with state andlocal government transportation plans?

Executive Summary, Section8

Policy Point 6: "In corridors where the potential exists for future multiple interchange additions, acomprehensive corridor or network study must accompany all requests for new or revised access withrecommendations that address all of the proposed and desired access changes within the context of alonger range system or network plan (23 U.S.C. 109(d), 23 CFR 625.2(a), 655.603(d), and 771.111)."


Yes No N/A

Is it possible that new interchange(s) notaddressed in the IJR could be added within an areaof influence to the proposed access point? (If so,could the proposal preclude or otherwise beaffected by any future access points?)

Section 7.4

N/ADoes the IJR report include the traffic volumesgenerated by any future additional interchangeswithin a vicinity of influence that are proposed?

N/A

Does the IJR report fail to include any otherproposed interstate access points within a vicinityof influence that are being proposed or are in thecurrent long range construction program?

Policy Point 7: "When a new or revised access point is due to a new, expanded, or substantial change incurrent or planned future development or land use, requests must demonstrate appropriate coordinationhas occurred between the development and any proposed transportation system improvements (23 CFR625.2(a) and 655.603(d)). The request must describe the commitments agreed upon to assure adequatecollection and dispersion of the traffic resulting from the development with the adjoining local streetnetwork and Interstate access point (23 CFR 625.2(a) and 655.603(d))."


Yes No N/A

Does the access request adequately demonstratethat an appropriate effort of coordination hasbeen made with appropriate proposeddevelopments?

Section 6, Appendix C

Are the proposed improvements compatible withthe existing street network or are otherimprovements needed?

Section 5

N/AAre there any pre condition contingenciesrequired in regards to the timing of otherimprovements?

N/AIf pre condition contingencies are required, arepertinent parties in agreement with thesecontingencies and is this documented?

N/A

If the proposed improvements are founded on theneed for providing access to new development,are appropriate commitments in place to ensurethat the development will likely occur as planned?

N/A

If project is privately funded, are appropriatemeasures in place to ensure improvements will becompleted if the developer is unable to meetfinancial obligations?

If the purpose and need to accommodate newdevelopment/traffic demands that aren't fullyknown, is a worst case scenario used for futuretraffic?

Section 6, Appendix C

Does the project require financial or infrastructurecommitments from other agencies, organizationsor private entities?

Section 8

Policy Point 8: "The proposal can be expected to be included as an alternative in the requiredenvironmental evaluation, review and processing. The proposal should include supporting information andcurrent status of the environmental processing (23 CFR 771.111)."


Yes No N/A

Are there any known social or environmentalissues that could affect the proposal?

Section 7.5

Is the project consistent with the current TIP/STIPand LRTP and/or proposed amendments to theplan?

Section 7.3

Although NEPA is a separate action, is anenvironmental overview for the proposedimprovements included?

Section 7.5

Is it appropriate to emphasize to the projectstakeholders that the access approval will behandled as a two step process? (i.e. Step 1:Engineering and Operational Acceptability andStep 2: Environmental Approvals)

Section 7.5

APPEN

DIX

B:

EXIS

TIN

GCO

ND

ITIO

NS

OF

FRO

NTA

GE

RO

AD

SYST

EM

APPENDIX C: TRAFFIC PROJECTION MEMO

APPENDIX D: MINIMUM BUILD IMPROVEMENTS VISUALIZED

Minimum Build Improvement #1 (southbound off ramp to Truman Drive)

I 49 I 49

Blue

Ridge

Blvd

Modified

Ramp

Minimum Build Improvements #2 and #3 (southbound I 49 north of MO 150)

I 49 I 49

Southbound

MO 150

off ramp

Weaving

Section

Minimum Build Improvement #4 (White avenue at MO 150)

MO 150 MO 150

White Avenue White Avenue

Dual

northbound left

turn lanes

APPEN

DIX

E:CO

NCEP

TUA

LSI

GN

ING

AN

DPR

ELIM

INA

RY

DES

IGN

PLA

N(P

HA

SE1)

i r49 frontage roads · basic merge or diverge weave (sec/veh) a < 11 < 10 < 10 < 10...

Documents