Route 79/I-195 Interchange Improvements StudyFall River, Massachusetts

May 18, 2010

Agenda

1. Introduction2. Schedule for Study Completion3. Interchange Alternatives Evaluation (Part 2)4. Public Meeting preparations5. Discussion/next steps

Major Steps for Rte. 79/I-95 InterchangeStudy and Project

STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3

ValueEngineeringStudy

This study –required by FHWA –suggestedinvestigatingremoving Rte. 79Viaduct at the I-195Interchange.

April 2009

FeasibilityStudy

Detailed review ofValue EngineeringStudy to assessfeasibility ofremoving Rte 79Viaduct at the I-195Interchange.

July 2009

Planning –AlternativesStudy

The level of designat the end of thisstage is“conceptual.”

December 2009 –July 2010

STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6

State (MEPA) &Federal (NEPA)EnvironmentalReview

This more detailedengineering andenvironmentalanalysis will takeabout 12 monthsand the level ofdesign will bebetween 5% and10% complete.

August 2010 – May2011

PreliminaryEngineering

This marks the firstintensive designstage. This step willtake about 12-14months and thedesign at the endwill be 25%complete.

May 2011 – May 2012

Final Design orDesign/Build

This stage will takeabout 48 months.

Constructioncomplete Fall of2016

Currently Underway

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Project Initiation

Goals & Objectives

Existing Conditions

No Build Analysis

Alternative Development

Alternative Analysis

ReportRecommendations

Prepare ENF

Kick-off meeting / Study area limitsCommunications / Task Force Members

Goals & Objectives / Evaluation CriteriaPurpose & Need Statement

Draft & Final Existing Conditions Summary

Traffic / Socio-economic / Land Use

Alternative Development / Screening of Alternatives

Mobility / Safety / EnvironmentalSocio-economic / Structures / Costs

Final Report / Public Meeting

Certificate from Secretary of EOEEA

June

* Current stage

Proposed Rte. 79 Interchange Study Work Flow

*Aug.–Dec.

Alternatives Evaluation and Analysis

• Level 1 Screening (March 23):– Fatal flaw analysis

– Constructability and right-of-way impacts– Mostly qualitative

Level 2 Screening

– Rigorous and mostly quantitative

– Relies on detailed definition of alternatives

– Requires conceptual level engineering

n.t.sNORTHAlternative 1A: Route 79 Interchange

New Street

Central

Wat

er S

t

Millike

n Blvd

Central St

Anawan St

Pocasset StR

amp

Y

New Traffic Signal

Ramp or One-way Street

New Street

Ramp

ARamp A+C+E

Ramp E

Ramp C

Ramp F+G

Battleship

Monument

Tunnel

Taun

ton

Riv

er

Alt. 1aRte. 79 viaduct removed;3 Rte. 79 signals

n.t.sNORTHAlternative 1B: Route 79 Interchange

New Street

Central

Wat

er S

t

Millike

n Blvd

Central St

Anawan St

Pocasset StR

amp

Y

New Traffic Signal

Ramp or One-way Street

New Street

Ramp

ARamp A+C+E

Ramp E

Ramp C

Ramp F+G

Battleship

Monument

Tunnel

Taun

ton

Riv

er

Right-in/Right-out Only

Alt. 1bRte. 79 viaduct removed;2 Rte. 79 signals

n.t.sNORTHAlternative 2: Bi-directional 1-Level Viaduct

New Street

Wat

er S

t

Millike

n Blvd

Central St

Anawan St

Pocasset StR

amp

Y

New Traffic Signal

Ramp or One-way Street

Ramp

ARamp C

Ramp E

Ram

p

Ramp F+G

Battleship

Monument

Tunnel

Taun

ton

Riv

er

1-Le

vel V

iadu

ct

C

Note: New Traffic Signals at Central St at Davol Stand Anawan St at Viaduct St underneath the 1-Level Viaduct. Viaduct

Ramp F

Bi-d

irect

iona

l

Alt. 2Rte. 79 NB and SBconsolidated;NB level removed.

n.t.sNORTHAlternative 3: Milliken Blvd Interchange

New Street

Central

Wat

er S

t

Millike

n Blvd

Central St

Anawan St

Pocasset St

New Traffic Signal

Ramp or One-way Street

New Street

Off RampOn Ramp

Ramp Y

Ramp F+G

Battleship

Monument

Tunnel

Taun

ton

Riv

er

Right-in/Right-out Only

Ramp F

New Street

Alt. 3Rte. 79 viaduct removed;Milliken Blvd. Interchange

n.t.sNORTHAlternative 4: Rehabilitation of Existing

New Street

Wat

er S

t

Millike

n Blvd

Central St

Anawan St

Pocasset StR

amp

Y

New Traffic Signal

Ramp or One-way Street

Ramp

ARamp C

Ramp E

Ram

p

Ramp F+G

Battleship

Monument

Tunnel

Taun

ton

Riv

er

Ramp

D

2-Le

vel V

iadu

ct

C

Note: New Traffic Signals at Central St at Davol Stand Anawan St at Viaduct St underneath the 2-Level Viaduct. Viaduct

Alt. 4Rehabilitation

n.t.sNORTHNo-Build

New Street

Wat

er S

t

Millike

n Blvd

Central St

Anawan St

Pocasset StR

amp

Y

Ramp or One-way Street

Ramp

ARamp C

Ramp E

Ram

p

Ramp F+G

Battleship

Monument

Tunnel

Taun

ton

Riv

er

Ramp

D

2-Le

vel V

iadu

ct

C

Viaduct

No BuildRte. 79 viaduct remains;repairs done every 5-10years

Evaluation of Benefits and Impacts: Part 2

• Approx. 40 evaluation measures assess impacts &benefits related to goals and purpose

• Key measures to be reviewed today– Historic resources impacts

– Economic impacts

– Environmental impacts– Consistency with local/regional plans

– Construction-period impacts

– Local/regional traffic impacts

Vehicular Mobility Summary

• LOS at at-grade intersections does not worsenunder any alternative except No Build

• LOS at freeway and ramp junctions would notworsen under any alternative

• Speeds on I-195 would not worsen under at-gradealternatives

• Average trip lengths through interchange would beshorter under at-grade alternatives

Note: Projected traffic volumes for Alt. 3 TBD; summaryomits Alt. 3 impacts

Vehicular Mobility Summary, cont.

• Volume/capacity ratio on Rte. 79 would be <1.0for all alternatives, but viaduct alternatives havemore reserve capacity

• Vehicular capacity on Rte. 79 would beimproved with viaduct schemes over at-gradealternatives

2030 Capacity on Rte 79 Southbound

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Route 79

Cap

acity

(vph

pl)

No-Build & Alt 4 Alt 1A Alt 1B Alt 2

Anawan Street Central Street

1900 vphpl

1700 vphpl

1275 vphpl

1025 vphpl

Alt 2 No-Build, Alt 2, Alt 4

Alt 1B

No-Build, Alt 1A, Alt 4

Alt 1A, 1B[Weave Capacity Impact on No-Build & Alt 4]

[Right-in/Right-out Capacity Impact on Alt 1B]

2030 Volume-to-Capacity on Rte 79 Southbound

0.50

0.820.82

0.50

0.54

0.67

0.82

0.50

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1 2

Location on Route 79

v/c

Rat

io

No-Build / Alt 4 Alt 1A Alt 1B Alt 2

South of Central Street North of Central Street

No-Build, Alt 4

Alt 2

Alt 1A

Alt 1B

Safety Summary

• Local intersections would be improved under allalternatives

• Interchange safety problems would be addressedunder all alternatives except No Build andRehabilitation

Bike/Pedestrian Access Summary

• Shoulders and bike lanes on all new orreconstructed streets

• New or improved sidewalks on all new orreconstructed streets

• Signalized intersections improve conditions in allalternatives except No Build

• At-grade alternatives provide access to waterfrontvia 3 local streets

Local Access Improvements Summary

• At-grade alternatives create 3 new localstreet connections

• All at-grade alternatives reduce traveldistance by 8/10 mile to/from waterfrontfrom No Build

Roadway Context Summary

Under all alternatives:

• Functional classification (what is the primaryroadway purpose?)

Rte. 79 functional class would remain “principal arterial”; Rte.138 would remain “urban minor arterial”

• Access control (how access to adjacentproperties is regulated)

Rte. 79 would remain “limited access” with few drivewaysand signals

Design Exception Report Needed?

• Shoulder width less than minimumrecommended

• Vertical clearance less than minimumrecommended

Business & Economic ImpactsRanking of Alternatives by Economic Impact Criteria

Note: Data for Alt. 3 TBD; ranking shown is based onprofessional qualitative judgment

NOTE: 5 is Highest Rank (+)

1315132020COMPOSITE

15144Economic Development Plans

51511Displacements

13155Access to Waterfront

33355Accessibility

33355Annual Travel Time Savings

ALT 4ALT 3ALT 2ALT 1BALT 1A

Business & Economic Impacts Summary

0

5

10

15

20

25

Annual Travel TimeSavings

Acessibility Access toWaterfront

Displacements EconomicDevelopment Plans

COMPOSITE

ALT 1A

ALT 1B

ALT 2

ALT 3

ALT 4

Environmental Impacts South

Environmental Impacts North

Environmental Summary

• Environmental issues are similar for mostalternatives and are manageable

• Potential impacts to Section 4(f) parklandresources require mitigation

• Potential impacts to Chapter 91 filled tidelandswill require determination of applicability

• Other potential impacts appear to be mitigatable(e.g. storm water management)

Cultural Resources Impacts

Cultural Resources Impacts

• All at-grade alternatives except the No Build andRehabilitation alternatives would impact theAmerican Printing Co. building (National Register)

• The Central Street Bridge over the QuequechanRiver (National Register eligible) would possibly beimpacted in Alts. 1a, 1b and 3.

Cultural Resources Summary

Aesthetics Summary

• Deteriorated, blighting structures would be replaced/rehabilitated under all alternatives but the No Build

• Alt. 4 maintains same general appearance butrepainting, other repairs, and new lighting wouldimprove appearance

• Alt. 3 would eliminate the most elevated structures

• New viaduct in Alt. 2 would have fewer supports,cleaner lines…similar to ramps to new Brightman St.Bridge

• At-grade alternatives would reconstruct 4 to 5 surfacestreets

Maintenance Summary

• All structures would be improved therebyreducing long-term maintenance under allalternatives except No Build

• Alts. 1a, 1b and 3 would reduce total bridge areaand future maintenance most

• Alternative 4 would have the highest futuremaintenance cost

• Alt. 2 would have less future maintenance costthan Alt. 4 since all structures would be new

Bridge Deck Summary (SF)

287,000104,600293,500107,400114,500349,300Totals

04,80004,8004,800-New St. Bridge

021,90000034,900Milliken Blvd.

050,500043,40050,50027,400Viaduct Street

101,60027,40081,30059,20059,200101,600Ramps A-Y

185,4000212,20000185,400Rte. 79 SB &NB Viaduct

4321b1a

AlternativesExistingBridgeArea

Constructability & Traffic ManagementImpacts

4

2

3

1a & 1b

Construction Duration(Shortest to Longest)

Alternatives

ALL alternatives will require significant traffic diversions and detours

TemporaryTraffic Impacts

Constructability & Traffic Management

• Reconstruction of the Viaduct Street Bridge• Rte. 79 Viaduct needs to be demolished before

Viaduct Street can be reconstructed

Existing Sectionat Mill Buildings

Constructability & Traffic Management

• Demolition of Existing Viaduct

Demolition of Existing Viaduct

• Not Practical to Construct New “At-Grade” Roadways beforethe Viaduct is Removed

Alt. 1a: Rte. 79 viaduct removed; 3 Rte. 79 signals

Constructability & Traffic Management

• Reconstruction/Relocation of Ramps

Alt. 2: Rte. 79 NB and SB consolidated; NB level removed

Alt. 3: Rte. 79 viaduct removed; Milliken Blvd. Interchange

Constructability & Traffic Management

• Reconstruction of Milliken Blvd. Bridge– In stages to maintain traffic on Milliken

• New Ramp Construction

Alt. 4: Rehabilitation

Discussion/Next Steps

• Refine evaluation criteria• Continue detailed analysis of alternatives• Review at next Task Force Meeting• Prepare for public meeting in early June