ST. FRANCIS DRIVE

ST. FRANCIS DRIVE

THROUGH THE CITY OF SANTA FE CORRIDOR STUDY

ABBREVIATED DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES PROJECT NO. NH-084-2(12)161 CN D5SF3

JANUARY 2010

DRAFT

PREPARED FOR: NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NORTHERN DESIGN BUREAU P.O. BOX 1149

SANTA FE, NM 87504-1149

IN CONJUNCTION WITH:

PREPARED BY:

BOHANNAN HUSTON, INC. 7500 JEFFERSON ST. NE COURTYARD ONE ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87109

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Table of Contents

P:\070131\Trans\Study_Phaseb\Report\Report Draft 1.Docx i

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 1 I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................ 4

A. Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 4 B. Project Background ........................................................................................................................... 8

II. AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................... 9 A. Agency Coordination ......................................................................................................................... 9

III. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................................. 10 A. Project Need ................................................................................................................................... 10

1. Physical Deficiencies .................................................................................................................. 10 2. Travel Demand and Congestion ................................................................................................. 11 3. Safety ......................................................................................................................................... 11 4. System Connectivity ................................................................................................................... 11 5. Access ........................................................................................................................................ 12 6. Economic Development or Re-development .............................................................................. 12 7. Legislation .................................................................................................................................. 12

B. Project Purpose and Need Statement ............................................................................................. 12 IV. TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 13

A. Traffic Forecasts ............................................................................................................................. 13 B. Systems Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 14

V. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 18 A. No Build .......................................................................................................................................... 18 B. Trail Connectivity and Enhancements ............................................................................................. 18 C. Intersection Improvements - Southern Portion ................................................................................ 19 D. Intersection Improvements – Central Portion .................................................................................. 19 E. Intersection Improvements – Northern Portion ................................................................................ 19 F. Transportation Systems Management ............................................................................................ 20 G. Access Control ................................................................................................................................ 20 H. Enhanced Transit ............................................................................................................................ 20 I. Complete Streets ............................................................................................................................ 21

VI. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – NO BUILD ..................................................... 22 A. Traffic .............................................................................................................................................. 22 B. Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 22 C. Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 22 D. Constructability ............................................................................................................................... 22 E. Right-of-Way ................................................................................................................................... 22 F. Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 22 G. Environmental / Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 23

VII. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – TRAIL CONNECTIVITY ............................ 24 A. Major Intersections from South to North along the Corridor ............................................................ 24 B. Traffic .............................................................................................................................................. 42 C. Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 42 D. Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 42 E. Constructability ............................................................................................................................... 42 F. Right-of-Way ................................................................................................................................... 42 G. Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 42 H. Environmental / Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 42

1. Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 42 2. Air Quality/Noise ......................................................................................................................... 42 3. Visual .......................................................................................................................................... 42


P:\070131\Trans\Study_Phaseb\Report\Report Draft 1.Docx ii

4. Social .......................................................................................................................................... 43 5. Cultural ....................................................................................................................................... 43 6. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 43 7. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................... 43

VIII. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS – SOUTHERN .......................................................................................................................................................... 44

A. Traffic .............................................................................................................................................. 44 B. Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 56 C. Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 56 D. Constructability ............................................................................................................................... 56 E. Right-of-Way ................................................................................................................................... 56 F. Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 56 G. Environmental / Mitigation: Zia Rd at St. Francis Dr Intersection .................................................... 63

1. Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 63 2. Air Quality/Noise ......................................................................................................................... 63 3. Visual .......................................................................................................................................... 63 4. Social .......................................................................................................................................... 64 5. Cultural ....................................................................................................................................... 64 6. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 64 7. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................... 64

H. Environmental / Mitigation: Zia Rd at St. Francis Dr Interchange ................................................... 64 1. Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 64 2. Air Quality/Noise ......................................................................................................................... 65 3. Visual .......................................................................................................................................... 65 4. Social .......................................................................................................................................... 65 5. Cultural ....................................................................................................................................... 65 6. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 66 7. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................... 66

I. Environmental / Mitigation: Southern interchange: St. Michaels Rd at St. Francis Dr ..................... 66 1. Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 66 2. Air Quality/Noise ......................................................................................................................... 66 3. Visual .......................................................................................................................................... 67 4. Social .......................................................................................................................................... 67 5. Cultural ....................................................................................................................................... 67 6. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 67 7. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................... 67

IX. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS – CENTRAL ............................................................................................................................................................. 68

A. Traffic .............................................................................................................................................. 68 B. Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 70 C. Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 70 D. Constructability ............................................................................................................................... 70 E. Right-of-Way ................................................................................................................................... 70 F. Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 73 G. Environmental / Mitigation: Cerrillos Rd at St. Francis Dr Intersection ............................................ 73

1. Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 73 2. Air Quality/Noise ......................................................................................................................... 73 3. Visual .......................................................................................................................................... 74 4. Social .......................................................................................................................................... 74 5. Cultural ....................................................................................................................................... 74


P:\070131\Trans\Study_Phaseb\Report\Report Draft 1.Docx iii

6. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 74 7. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................... 74

H. Environmental / Mitigation: Cerrillos Rd at St. Francis Dr - Cerrillos Road Grade Separation ........ 75 1. Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 75 2. Air Quality/Noise ......................................................................................................................... 75 3. Visual .......................................................................................................................................... 75 4. Social .......................................................................................................................................... 76 5. Cultural ....................................................................................................................................... 76 6. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................ 76 7. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................... 76

X. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS – NORTHERN.......................................................................................................................................................... 77

A. Traffic .............................................................................................................................................. 77 B. Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 77 C. Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 77 D. Constructability ............................................................................................................................... 78 E. Right-of-Way ................................................................................................................................... 78 F. Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 78 G. Environmental / Mitigation: Guadalupe Street at US 84/285 ........................................................... 84


XI. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................................................. 86

A. Traffic .............................................................................................................................................. 86 B. Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 87 C. Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 87 D. Constructability ............................................................................................................................... 87 E. Right-of-Way ................................................................................................................................... 87 F. Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 87 G. Environmental / Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 87


XII. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – ACCESS CONTROL ................................. 90 A. Traffic .............................................................................................................................................. 90 B. Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 90 C. Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 90 D. Constructability ............................................................................................................................... 90 E. Right-of-Way ................................................................................................................................... 90 F. Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 90 G. Environmental / Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 92


P:\070131\Trans\Study_Phaseb\Report\Report Draft 1.Docx iv


XIII. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – ENHANCED TRANSIT .............................. 93 A. Traffic .............................................................................................................................................. 93 B. Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 93 C. Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 93 D. Constructability ............................................................................................................................... 93 E. Right-of-Way ................................................................................................................................... 93 F. Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 94 G. Environmental / Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 94


XIV. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – COMPLETE STREETS CONCEPTS ........ 95 A. Traffic .............................................................................................................................................. 95 B. Safety .............................................................................................................................................. 95 C. Drainage ......................................................................................................................................... 95 D. Constructability ............................................................................................................................... 95 E. Right-of-Way ................................................................................................................................... 95 F. Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 95 G. Environmental / Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 96


XV. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 97


P:\070131\Trans\Study_Phaseb\Report\Report Draft 1.Docx v

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Location Map ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 – Corridor Map .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 - Sawmill Road Trail Improvements ........................................................................................................ 26 Figure 4 - Zia and Siringo Trail Improvements ...................................................................................................... 29 Figure 5 - St. Michael's Drive Trail Improvements ................................................................................................ 31 Figure 6 - San Mateo Trail Improvements ............................................................................................................. 33 Figure 7 - Alta Vista and Cordova Trail Improvements ......................................................................................... 35 Figure 8 - Cerrillos and Hickox Trail Improvements .............................................................................................. 38 Figure 9 - Agua Fria, Alameda and Paseo de Peralta Trail Improvements ........................................................... 41 Figure 10 - Full Cloverleaf Interchange Layout ..................................................................................................... 46 Figure 11 - Diamond Interchange ......................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 12 - Single Point Interchange .................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 13 - St. Francis Drive Frontage Roads ...................................................................................................... 51 Figure 14 - Overpass at St. Francis Drive/West Zia Road .................................................................................... 53 Figure 15 - Underpass at St. Francis Drive /West Zia Road ................................................................................. 54 Figure 16 - St. Michael's Drive to Siringo Southbound Auxiliary Lane .................................................................. 58 Figure 17 - St. Michael's NB Ramp Reconfiguration ............................................................................................. 59 Figure 18 - St. Michael's to St. Francis Westbound-to-Northbound On-Ramp Reconfiguration ........................... 60 Figure 19 - St. Michael's Drive Lane Configuration ............................................................................................... 61 Figure 20 - San Mateo Right-of-Way Required for NB Auxiliary Lane .................................................................. 62 Figure 21 - Cerrillos / St. Francis Grade Separation ............................................................................................. 69 Figure 22 - Cerrillos/St. Francis Intersection ROW & Utility Impacts – South ....................................................... 71 Figure 23 - Cerrillos/St. Francis Intersection ROW & Utility Impacts – North ........................................................ 72 Figure 24 - Guadalupe Right Hand Ramp Configuration – US 84/285 ................................................................. 79 Figure 25 - SB 84/285 to EB Guadalupe St Reconfiguration for Right-Hand Ramp ............................................. 80 Figure 26 - Guadalupe Left Hand Ramp Configuration ......................................................................................... 81 Figure 27 – NM 599 to Southbound US 84/285 Auxiliary Lane ............................................................................ 82 Figure 28 - Weaving Diagram ............................................................................................................................... 83 Figure 29 - Illustrative St. Francis Drive ITS Corridor Plan ................................................................................... 89 Figure 30 - Locations Identified for Possible Access Control Modification ............................................................ 91

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Recommended Priorities and Timeframes ............................................................................................... 3 Table 2 - Horizon Year PM Traffic Volume Comparison – Northbound ................................................................ 15 Table 3 - Horizon Year PM Traffic Volume Comparison - Southbound ................................................................. 16 Table 4 - Horizon Year PM Volumes for Zia and Cerrillos Approaches With St. Francis Drive ............................. 17 Table 5 – Horizon Year Signalized Intersection LOS Summary ........................................................................... 45 Table 6 - Zia Road Improvement LOS .................................................................................................................. 55 Table 7 - Recommended Priorities and Timeframes ............................................................................................. 98

APPENDIX

Appendix A - Public Involvement Summary Appendix B - Preliminary Cost Estimates

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Executive Summary

P:\070131\Trans\Study_Phaseb\Report\Report Draft 1.Docx 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The St. Francis Drive Corridor Study is being conducted following the procedures of the New Mexico Department of Transportation’s (NMDOT) Location Study Procedures manual. The current project is the Phase B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives. The primary objectives of this study are to: 1) further develop and evaluate the alternatives advanced from the Phase A Initial Evaluation of Alternatives, and, 2) screen the potential alternatives for feasibility and priority for possible inclusion in the regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).

Typically a Phase B Study leads to a Phase C Environmental Documentation and Processing Report for a Preferred Alternative. However at this time the funding outlook for significant projects is uncertain, so it is not considered an effective use of resources to do a full environmental evaluation for projects that are likely not to come to fruition for some time. Therefore, it was determined that the development of a detailed list of projects for the St. Francis Drive Corridor would be the best solution and then the regional transportation agencies could use the list for long-term planning purposes. The projects identified will have the benefit of completing the Phase A and B planning study process, allowing the projects to proceed directly to the Phase C Environmental

Documenting and Processing phase as funds become available in the near term. In 2009, the Phase A Initial Evaluation of Alternatives was completed. That study evaluated a range of

alternatives that resulted in several alternatives being proposed for further evaluation. The selected alternatives will be discussed in more detail in later sections, but can be grouped into the following categories:

• No Build

• Trail Connectivity

• Enhanced Transit

• Intersection Improvements

• Transportation System Management

• Access Control

The alternatives considered in the report address a range of deficiencies and needs on the Corridor and vary substantially in cost and complexity. In addition, the breadth and scope of the alternatives developed for the Corridor, when combined with the I-25 and NM 599 Corridor Studies currently underway, will far exceed the funding available for transportation improvements in the region. The projects identified in this Corridor Study, as well as the others, will need to be integrated into the overall transportation strategy developed for the region, the 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), currently under development by the Santa Fe Metropolitan



Planning Organization. The MTP will be the regional planning policy document for transportation improvements in the Santa Fe MPO area.

This Phase B Report will provide sufficient information to the MPO in order to assist in the development of the 2035 MTP. Although this report will develop a list of project recommendations to present to the Santa Fe MPO, inclusion of any project on the Santa Fe MPO TIP or MTP will be at the discretion of the MPO and its member agencies.

To that end, the alternatives evaluated in the Phase A and Phase B St. Francis Drive Corridor Study reports will be recommended in the following format – Short-Term, Medium-Term and Long-Term. The Short-Term projects will be those that are considered to be addressed in the near-term, cognizant of the current funding limitations. Other more extensive project recommendations will still be included, but prioritization and competition for funding is anticipated to require hard decisions and realistic thinking of what is possible, both financially and practically.

The Medium-Term and Long-Term project recommendations include projects of significant size and scope. These projects are expected to be considered 5 or more years into the future. As such all these projects will require an engineering re-evaluation to determine if the alternatives developed in this study are still applicable and appropriate for the future condition. In addition all projects in the table will require completion of the environmental and design process prior to any construction activities.



Table 1 - Recommended Priorities and Timeframes

Short Term Projects Medium Term Projects Long Term Projects

Transit Enhancements Transit Enhancements/Expansion Transit Enhancements/Expansion

Zia Road Pedestrian Crossing Improvements*

Trail Connectivity Enhancements* Trail Connectivity Enhancements*

Trail Connectivity Enhancements* Access Control Access Control

Access Control ITS Implementation District and City Traffic Management Centers Travel Monitoring CCTV’s Communication Infrastructure and Integration

ITS Implementation DMS Traffic Adaptive Signal Timing?

Initial ITS Implementation Traffic Signal Upgrades Regular Signal Timing Updates

Joint NMDOT / City Zia Road Improvements*

Joint NMDOT / City Sawmill Road / Mainline St. Francis Drive Improvements* (combine with St. Francis Interchange Replacement?)

Guadalupe Interchange Replacement and EB NM 599-to-SB 84/285 Auxiliary Lane

St. Michael’s Drive Improvements Joint NMDOT/City Cerrillos Road Improvements*

Cerrillos Road Pedestrian and Trail Crossing Improvements*

* - Implement Complete Street concepts to maximum extent possible

Draft – St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Introduction


I. INTRODUCTION The St. Francis Drive Corridor begins approximately 2,500 feet south of Exit 282 on Interstate 25 (I-25) and

serves as the major gateway to the City of Santa Fe, both on the south and north. Throughout the City of Santa Fe, St. Francis Drive is also the continuation of US 84 and US 285 as these U.S. Highways continue their transit across New Mexico. A location map is shown in Figure 1. St. Francis Drive is the primary north-south arterial street through the City of Santa Fe and is one of the backbones for the transportation network that serves the community, in addition to Cerrillos Road, St. Michaels’ Drive, Old Pecos Trail, Airport Road, Zia Road, and NM 599 (also known as the Santa Fe Relief Route). The St. Francis Drive Corridor provides access to commercial, residential, historic, governmental, and tourist centers in the City of Santa Fe. A vicinity map is shown in Figure 2.

The St. Francis Drive Corridor study area from Rabbit Road on the south, to NM 599 on the north, is approximately six miles in length. It consists of 27 intersections, twelve of which have traffic signals, and four interchanges, as well as the Santa Fe Southern / NM Rail Runner Express railroad crossing at the intersection of St. Francis Drive and Cerrillos Road. In addition there are many business, commercial and residential driveways along the Corridor, particularly between San Mateo Road and Alamo Drive.

This study has been coordinated with two concurrent studies: the Interstate 25 Corridor Study and the NM 599 Interchange Corridor Study. I-25 (from NM 599 to Old Pecos Trail) is a high mobility interstate corridor with interchange connections accessing major arterial streets. NM 599 (from I-25 to US 84/285) serves as a north/south bypass for vehicles traveling through Santa Fe and a WIPP route for low level nuclear waste traveling to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan near Carlsbad. It is intended as a high-speed limited access bypass through Santa Fe and provides local Santa Fe traffic an additional north-south travel corridor. Each of these facilities provides different levels of transportation service and addresses different needs, but the three corridors also accommodate similar and overlapping travel demands. St. Francis Drive and NM 599 both serve north-south through travel. St. Francis Drive provides greater accessibility to property, while NM 599 provides higher mobility. The Interstate 25 corridor provides interstate access to NM 599 and St. Francis Drive, but has the potential to interconnect with other major streets, which could influence the operation of both NM 599 and St. Francis Drive.

A. Project Description The St. Francis Drive Corridor Study is being conducted following the procedures of the New Mexico

Department of Transportation’s (NMDOT) Location Study Procedures manual. The current project is the Phase B Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives. The primary objectives of this study are to: 1) further develop and evaluate the alternatives advanced from the Phase A Initial Evaluation of Alternatives, 2) screen the



potential alternatives for feasibility and priority for possible inclusion in the regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).

Typically a Phase B Study leads to a Phase C Environmental Documentation and Processing Report for a Preferred Alternative. However at this time the funding outlook for significant projects is uncertain, so it is not considered an effective use of resources to do a full environmental evaluation for projects that are likely not to come to fruition for some time. Therefore, it was determined that the development of a detailed list of projects for the St. Francis Drive Corridor would be the best solution and then the regional transportation agencies could use the list for long-term planning purposes. The projects identified will have the benefit of completing the Phase A and B planning study process, allowing the projects to proceed directly to the Phase C Environmental Documenting and Processing phase as funds become available.

In addition, at the time of the awarding of this contract it was not known what the results of the Phase A Initial Evaluation of Alternatives would consist of. The result was that the NMDOT limited the contracted scope of services for the Phase B Study pending the results of the Phase A analysis, with the proviso that the Phase B scope of services would be renegotiated and funded at a level commensurate with the effort required for a full Phase B analysis. However with the recent change in the State and NMDOT budget levels additional funds to fully expand the contracted scope of services to the necessary level is not available. As a result this study will use the limited available funds to perform an Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives, a focused evaluation of the alternatives from Phase A that are considered by the Project Management Team the most feasible and at the locations of the greatest congestion or need. This will be discussed further in Section V, beginning on page 18.

It must be stated that due to the large amount of local and regional transportation needs, combined with extremely limited resources available to address that need, that it is likely that the number of projects, and the funds needed to construct those projects, will far exceed the currently available funding levels for the Santa Fe Region.

A R

I Z

O

N

A

T E

X

A

S

M E X I C O

T E X A S

C O L O R A D O

O K

.

102

126

456

406

402

102

185

28

12

70

70

13

285

82

128

82

83

70

37

54

180

285

20

6

104

84

39

56

4

4

54

70

180

62

285

31

62

84

285

26

176

18

180

45782

380

6084

60

60

380

54

42

84

54

104

129

65

509

96

76

64

64

64

82

60

14

41

41

36

53

605

522

38

518

469

39

536

337

55

47

209469

209

268

267

114

114

206

380

60

285

55

599

SILVER

CITY

EL PASO

CONSEQUENCES

TRUTH OR

ALAMOGORDO

CLOVIS

SOCORRO

CARRIZOZO

SANTA ROSA

TUCUMCARI

SANTA FE

ALAMOS

LOS

CLAYTON

ROSWELL

CARLSBAD

TAOS

ALBUQUERQUE

LAS VEGAS

LORDSBURG LAS

CRUCES

RATON

JAL

EUNICE

PORTALES

LOS

LUNAS

MOSQUERO

AZTEC

LOVINGTON

GALLUP

SHIPROCK

FARMINGTON

CHAMA

PUEBLO BONITO

CROWNPOINT

GRANTS

MORIARTY

ESTANCIA

CUBAESPANOLA

SPRINGER

MORA

BELEN

MOUNTAINAIR

RUIDOSO

ANTHONY

DEMING

HOBBS

ARTESIA

SAN JUAN

McKINLEY

RIO ARRIBA

CIBOLA

TAOS

MORA

COLFAX UNION

HARDING

SAN MIGUEL

SANTA

FE

GUADALUPE

CURRY

QUAY

DeBACA

CHAVES

ROOSEVELT

LEA

EDDY

LINCOLN

OTERO

SIERRA

DONA

ANA

SOCORRO

CATRON

GRANT

LUNA

HIDALGO

TORRANCE

SANDOVAL

BERNALILLO

VALENCIA

180

180

84285

64

87

87

64550

550491

8468

285

60

64

180

64

550491

550

70

371

602

371

78

152

80

90

11

64

84

40

10

10 10

10

40

25

25

25

25

40

40

STUDY

LOCATION

N

FIGURE 1

LOCATION MAP

NTS

6P:\070131\

10:5

3

21

-JA

N

ST. FRANCIS DRIVE CORRIDOR STUDY

INITIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

SAWMILL RD

ZIA RD

SIRINGO RD

SAN MATEO RD

ALTA VISTA ST

CORDOVA RD

CERRILLOS RD

AGUA FRIA ST

ALAMEDA ST

PASEO DE PERALTA

ALAMO DR

INTERSTATE 25

NM

599

N

SC

AL

E: 1

"=

2000’

HICKOX ST

FIG

UR

E 2

CO

RR

IDO

R M

AP

ST. MICHAEL’S DR

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

PASEO DE PERALTA

GU

AD

ALU

PE ST

CA

MIN

O D

E

LA

S CR

UC

ITA

S

7P

:\0

70

13

1\

10:54

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES



B. Project Background In 2005, as a result of a mill and overlay maintenance project, St. Francis Drive was re-striped from

four driving lanes to six driving lanes south of San Mateo Road in order to address traffic congestion for traffic exiting Interstate 25. This congestion had led to traffic queuing onto the Interstate 25 off-ramps, potentially endangering Interstate traffic and prompting the re-striping project. The resultant re-striping project eliminated this queuing congestion and safety concern. However the change reduced the shoulder width on St. Francis Drive south of St. Michael’s Drive that was utilized as a de-facto bicycle lane. The change in lane configuration also created safety concerns at the merge points from St. Michael’s Drive due to the loss of the previously existing auxiliary lane on St. Francis Drive for the merging traffic from St. Michael’s Drive. After a testing period with the new striping configuration, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) agreed that the striping configuration could become permanent. At that time, a commitment to the FHWA from the NMDOT was made to complete a comprehensive corridor study subsequent to the restriping.

In 2009, the Phase A Initial Evaluation of Alternatives was completed. That study evaluated a range of alternatives that resulted in several alternatives being proposed for further evaluation. The selected alternatives will be discussed in more detail in later sections, but can be grouped into the following categories:

• No Build

• Trail Connectivity

• Enhanced Transit

• Intersection Improvements

• Transportation System Management

• Access Control This current study is the result of the next phase of that process, the Detailed Evaluation of

Alternatives, also called Phase B, or Phase I-B.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Agency Coordination and Public Involvement


II. AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement and agency coordination was initiated during Phase A. Efforts included two public

meetings, two stakeholder workshops, and ongoing agency coordination. A summary of this process as well as input received was provided in the Phase A report. The following information is a summary of continued public involvement efforts during Phase B.

A public open house was held September 16, 2009 at the Santa Fe Public School Administrative Office in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The meeting presentation included an overview of the Phase A process and the alternatives evaluated and studied. Residents provided input regarding their transportation needs and concerns within the Corridor. Approximately 48 members of the public, city, county, and state officials and project study team representatives were present. A summary of comments/questions is provided below with a copy of the entire summary included in the Appendix A.

• Clarification request on access, turn lanes, and other design issues. • Request for a greater consideration of bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and access. • Concern regarding intersection access and function at Zia Road / W. San Mateo / St. Michaels. • Concern regarding intersection access and function at San Mateo Road. • Concerns expressed regarding the Zia Station for the NM Rail Runner Express. • Questions regarding socio-economic data used for the analysis. • Concern regarding truck traffic on St. Francis Drive. • Request to consider open space and green areas in the study. • Request to consider noise levels and possibly noise abatement. • Request for a greater consideration of transit in the corridor.

A. Agency Coordination In addition to the project consultants, the Project Management Team (PMT) includes the following

coordinating agencies: the Federal Highway Administration, the New Mexico Department of Transportation, the Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization, the City of Santa Fe, and Santa Fe County. There have been two PMT meetings during Phase B.

The first PMT meeting was held on October 29, 2009. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss traffic modeling efforts for all three Santa Fe project (St. Francis Drive Corridor Study, the NM 599 Interchange Study, and the I-25 Corridor Study). The second was on November 11, 2009. Proposed alternatives for further review in Phase B were discussed and refined as well as the scheduling and public involvement effort. Coordination with the local, regional, state, and federal agencies will continue throughout project development.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Project Purpose and Need


III. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The project purpose and need serves as the basis for development and evaluation of alternatives. The

following sections briefly summarize the results of the existing conditions report that is presented in more detail in the evaluation of the Corridor through the rest of this report.

A. Project Need Transportation conditions identified by the Public and Project Management Team as needing

additional study consisted of the following items. The high volume and speed of traffic on St. Francis Drive have raised safety concerns for bicyclists

and pedestrians using St. Francis Drive. The wide street and curb radii are also a barrier for people crossing St. Francis Drive.

The lack of sidewalks or paths in some locations along the Corridor, as well as the lack of on-street bicycle facilities, has reduced the mobility and connectivity to existing or proposed City and County bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Improving traffic operations during peak hours through increased use of alternate routes or transportation system management techniques would result in fewer delays for vehicular traffic. Intelligent Transportation System applications were also identified as an issue that if implemented could reduce congestion on the Corridor.

There was strong interest in the surrounding neighborhoods for incorporating additional urban design features (reduced curb radii, wider sidewalks, street furniture, planting strips, etc.) to enhance community cohesiveness and livability/sustainability.

Promoting increased transit usage by accommodating expanded opportunities for the NM Rail Runner Express, local transit or Park-N-Ride facilities could improve and possibly reduce future automobile use through the Corridor.

Ensuring that future growth from proposed City & County developments and the impacts of improvements on other State facilities recommended by the I-25 and NM 599 Studies are considered and included in the analysis.

Develop alternatives to promote transportation options compatible with the interests of all regional governments.

1. Physical Deficiencies Geometric features including lane widths and horizontal /vertical curves conform to general

design standards. The existing street lacks bike lanes throughout the corridor. The existing street lacks sidewalks/pedestrian paths south of San Mateo. The existing street lacks bus bays/bus lanes.



2. Travel Demand and Congestion Under existing conditions the overall Corridor Level Of Service (LOS) for the six-lane facility is

D. This is the worst level of service considered normally acceptable for an urban corridor under NMDOT guidelines. The overall Corridor LOS for the forecast conditions is also LOS D, although most intersections see an increase in delay in the future.

The intersections of St. Francis Drive with Cerrillos Road and St. Francis Drive and Zia Road currently have movements that operate at LOS F in the PM and AM peak hours, respectively, resulting in high delays and long queues for these movements.

Access points on St. Francis Drive do not meet NMDOT State Access Management Manual requirement for intersection and driveway spacing. This leads to additional roadway friction, conflicts, and interruption of traffic flows. Elimination or consolidation of driveways would improve traffic operations along the Corridor by reducing the number of conflict points (driveways and medians).

Without improvements the future travel demand forecasts shows increased congestion and delay throughout the Corridor, with considerable increases at the Sawmill Road, Zia Road and Cerrillos Road intersections with St. Francis Drive.

It is anticipated that travel demand accommodation will be a primary need of the Corridor. 3. Safety

Analysis indicates that crash rates along the Corridor are lower than the County and Statewide average for similar roads.

There is the perception among the public that due to physical deficiencies (inadequate lane width for bicycle lanes, lack of sidewalks, proximity of the sidewalks to the travel lanes, wide crossing distances) combined with vehicle speeds and the traffic signal timing allowed for pedestrians to cross the Corridor, that there are safety issues, or at the very least, discouragement of travel by non-vehicular modes. In the five years between 2003 and 2007, there were a total of 10 crashes involving pedestrians (two fatalities), and 9 with bicyclists.

The corner radii at the intersections, particularly near the South Capitol Complex, are considered to encourage high speed right turns endangering pedestrians trying to cross the street.

The Viento (or Calle Mejia) right-in/right-out access at St. Francis Drive just north of the Guadalupe Street interchange is a safety concern due to high speed of traffic on St. Francis Drive, although crash experience does not indicate a high crash rate. Due to the high speed of southbound vehicles on US 84/285, the seriousness of any crash here would likely be severe. 4. System Connectivity

St. Francis Drive has good roadway connectivity to other roadways in the Corridor, but lacks integration with other modes of travel. Several City of Santa Fe bicycle and pedestrian trails (River



Trail, Acequia Trail, Rail Trail, and Arroyo Chamiso Trail) cross or are adjacent to St. Francis Drive but currently do not have continuous or complementary connections in order to maximize and encourage walking and bicycling as alternatives to the automobile.

Currently there is limited local transit use along the Corridor. Santa Fe Trails, the NM Rail Runner Express commuter rail service, North Central Regional Transit District, and the Northern New Mexico Park and Ride currently have routes that run parallel or on St. Francis Drive.

It is anticipated that system connectivity will be a primary need of the Corridor. 5. Access

St. Francis Drive is no longer the only access route to northern New Mexico from the south since construction of the Santa Fe Relief Route (NM 599). However due to employment, government and commercial activities in the Corridor, a large amount of traffic still must utilize St. Francis Drive to arrive at their destination. 6. Economic Development or Re-development

With the advent of the NM Rail Runner Express providing service to Santa Fe from Albuquerque, the City of Santa Fe is beginning a process to evaluate and consider changes in land-use patterns to potentially encourage transit oriented or transit adjacent developments, particularly near St. Francis Drive. These developments typically have increased densities compared to current land-use, and although they may reduce travel demand compared to traditional development of the same intensity, will likely contribute to increased congestion near these developments. 7. Legislation

There are no specific Legislative actions regarding the St. Francis Drive Corridor. B. Project Purpose and Need Statement

In 2005, St. Francis Drive was restriped from four driving lanes to six driving lanes south of San Mateo Road to address traffic congestion. However this restriping project reduced the shoulder width that was utilized as a de-facto bicycle lane. At that time, a commitment to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) from the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) was made to complete a comprehensive corridor study subsequent to the restriping. The purpose and need for improvements along St. Francis Drive remains the same and the St. Francis Drive Corridor Study complies with the commitment made in 2005.

The purpose of the St. Francis Drive Corridor Study is to identify Corridor deficiencies, identify

alternatives to improve the Corridor that address the increase in traffic congestion and enhance mobility for

all modes of travel, and to prioritize potential future projects. The need for the St. Francis Drive Corridor

Study is supported by the existing and projected level of service along the Corridor, potential safety issues,

as well as the limited connectivity of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Traffic Forecasts and Systems Analysis


IV. TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND SYSTEMS ANALYSIS A. Traffic Forecasts

Traffic forecasting was done using the Horizon Year VISUM model of the Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Base Model used included all the roadways in the Santa Fe MPO Future Roads Network. The socioeconomic data contains all of the development projected for the MPO which may occur 30 years or more into the future.

The Santa Fe MPO model was adjusted before the forecasting to create the NMDOT Base mode which included the following:

The Las Soleras socioeconomic data and roadway network from the traffic study submitted to the City. Las Soleras is an approved development located on the W. I-25 Frontage Road between Cerrillos Road and Richards Road.

The Jaguar Interchange with NM 599. A developer is currently negotiating with the New Mexico Department of Transportation to design and construct the Jaguar Interchange using private funding.

Four lanes on Richards Avenue from Avenida del Sur to Rodeo Road. The six scenarios that were modeled are described below: Scenario 1 – Full Regional System includes:

• Richards Interchange with Frontage Roads, Camino Carlos Rey Extension, Dinosaur Loop (West) overpasses over I-25

• Eldorado connection to the Community College District

• All NM 599 intersections as interchanges

• Auxiliary lanes on US 84/285 from NM 599 to Guadalupe Street

• I-25 Auxiliary Lanes and Interchange Improvements

• Includes Governor Miles extended to Rodeo Park with connections to Yucca and Galisteo

• Reduce speed limit on I-25 to 65 MPH

• Increase speed limit on NM 599 to 65 MPH

Scenario 1 is the future full build out of all of the system improvements including all interchanges on NM 599.

Scenario 2 –Intermediate Regional System includes:

• Same as Scenario 1 without the Richards Interchange

Scenario 3 – Near Term Regional System Improvements includes:


• Eldorado connection to Community College District




Scenario 4 – Auxiliary lanes I-25 and US 84/285 - Federal and State improvements only includes:



• All NM 599 intersections as signals

• Reduce speed limit on NM 599 to 45 mph.

• No Eldorado connection to Community College District

Scenario 4 included all signals on NM 599. Presumably all signals will impact the ability of NM 599 to function as a bypass road for Santa Fe and cause more traffic to use through streets in Santa Fe such as St. Francis Drive and Cerrillos Road.

Scenario 5 – CR 62 and I-25 Frontage Road Interchanges The only improvements in Scenario 5 were interchanges on NM 599 at CR 62 and the I-25 Frontage

Roads. The two interchange locations are far enough apart that they should not impact each other so they were able to be included in the same model run. The connecting local streets to these interchange locations do not interconnect.

Scenario 6 – Airport Road and CR 70 Interchange The only improvements in Scenario 6 were interchanges on NM 599 at Airport Road and the CR 70

Connection. Again the two interchange locations are far enough apart that they should not impact each other and the connecting local streets do not interconnect.

Scenario 7 – Scenario 1 Minus Overpasses As a result of the I-25 Study refinement, an alternative that removed the overpasses at Camino Carlos

Rey and Dinosaur Trail was developed. Scenario 7 was created in order to study the regional and localized travel demand impacts from this change. B. Systems Analysis

The impacts of the traffic modeling scenarios on St. Francis Drive are surprisingly limited. With development of substantial improvements on I-25 and NM 599 (Scenarios 1, 2 and 7), traffic volumes on St. Francis Drive reduce slightly for the most part. The other scenarios result in very little change or even a slight increase in traffic volume on St. Francis Drive. A summary of forecast traffic volumes at key locations along the Corridor is shown in Table 2 and Table 3.



Table 2 - Horizon Year PM Traffic Volume Comparison – Northbound

Scenario Northbound Traffic Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

South of Sawmill 2,310 2,090 1,820 2,400 2,540 2,370 2,340 2,430 -9.5% -21.2% 3.9% 10.0% 2.6% 1.3% 5.2%

North of Zia 2,600 2,410 2,390 2,720 2,840 2,640 2,620 2,540 -7.3% -8.1% 4.6% 9.2% 1.5% 0.8% -2.3%

North of San Mateo 3,110 3,000 3,010 3,140 3,220 3,140 3,130 3,010 -3.5% -3.2% 1.0% 3.5% 1.0% 0.6% -3.2%

South of Cordova 3,460 3,380 3,390 3,480 3,520 3,490 3,490 3,400 -2.3% -2.0% 0.6% 1.7% 0.9% 0.9% -1.7%

South of Cerrillos 3,450 3,410 3,420 3,470 3,520 3,480 3,470 3,420 -1.2% -0.9% 0.6% 2.0% 0.9% 0.6% -0.9%

North of Cerrillos 3,620 3,580 3,590 3,620 3,680 3,630 3,630 3,590 -1.1% -0.8% 0.0% 1.7% 0.3% 0.3% -0.8%

South of Agua Fria 3,460 3,400 3,430 3,460 3,510 3,480 3,460 3,420 -1.7% -0.9% 0.0% 1.4% 0.6% 0.0% -1.2%

South of Alameda 3,430 3,360 3,370 3,440 3,490 3,450 3,430 3,360 -2.0% -1.7% 0.3% 1.7% 0.6% 0.0% -2.0%

North of Paseo de Peralta 2,910 2,760 2,720 2,940 3,020 2,950 2,920 2,780

-5.2% -6.5% 1.0% 3.8% 1.4% 0.3% -4.5% North of Alamo 2,690 2,480 2,480 2,700 2,780 2,700 2,690 2,490

-7.8% -7.8% 0.4% 3.3% 0.4% 0.0% -7.4% North of Guadalupe 3,230 3,020 3,010 3,240 3,400 3,230 3,230 3,030

-6.5% -6.8% 0.3% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% -6.2% For northbound traffic there is a slight reduction in traffic volumes on St. Francis Drive if all or a

substantial part of the alternatives identified in the I-25 and NM 599 studies are constructed (Scenarios 1, 2 and 7). However the volume changes are relatively small, generally 1%-5%. This suggests that St. Francis Drive is a very attractive roadway for travel, regardless of the alternatives available. The largest changes are in the southern and northern ends of the Corridor, where the alternate routes (frontage roads and overpasses and interchanges on NM 599) reduce traffic. In Scenario 7, where there are no overpasses over I-25, there is no reduction in traffic volumes south of Sawmill.

Similarly the results indicate that construction of interchanges at all locations on NM 599 has relatively limited impact on traffic volumes on St. Francis Drive, except for a small reduction on the northern end, however again the reduction is less than 10%. Indeed, installing traffic signals on NM 599 (Scenario 4) in



lieu of interchanges results in slightly increased traffic on St. Francis due to the additional travel time required to travel NM 599 in that scenario.

Table 3 - Horizon Year PM Traffic Volume Comparison - Southbound

Scenario Southbound Traffic Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

South of Sawmill 3,590 2,740 3,580 4,030 3,460 3,630 3,610 4,020 -23.7% -0.3% 12.3% -3.6% 1.1% 0.6% 12.0%

North of Zia 3,700 3,720 3,660 3,900 3,650 3,710 3,700 3,750 0.5% -1.1% 5.4% -1.4% 0.3% 0.0% 1.4%

North of San Mateo 3,350 3,350 3,330 3,400 3,390 3,360 3,360 3,340 0.0% -0.6% 1.5% 1.2% 0.3% 0.3% -0.3%

South of Cordova 3,370 3,350 3,340 3,410 3,370 3,370 3,370 3,340 -0.6% -0.9% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -0.9%

South of Cerrillos 3,230 3,210 3,200 3,260 3,240 3,240 3,240 3,210 -0.6% -0.9% 0.9% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% -0.6%

North of Cerrillos 3,160 3,070 3,060 3,190 3,210 3,170 3,170 3,090 -2.8% -3.2% 0.9% 1.6% 0.3% 0.3% -2.2%

South of Agua Fria 3,070 2,990 3,000 3,090 3,120 3,090 3,080 3,020 -2.6% -2.3% 0.7% 1.6% 0.7% 0.3% -1.6%

South of Alameda 3,200 3,130 3,110 3,240 3,270 3,210 3,220 3,130 -2.2% -2.8% 1.3% 2.2% 0.3% 0.6% -2.2%

North of Paseo de Peralta 1,920 1,830 1,790 1,950 2,000 1,910 1,920 1,820

-4.7% -6.8% 1.6% 4.2% -0.5% 0.0% -5.2% North of Alamo 1,760 1,650 1,620 1,780 1,840 1,750 1,760 1,650

-6.3% -8.0% 1.1% 4.5% -0.6% 0.0% -6.3% North of Guadalupe 1,980 1,880 1,840 2,030 2,090 1,970 1,990 1,870

-5.1% -7.1% 2.5% 5.6% -0.5% 0.5% -5.6% The trends are similar for southbound traffic. Full construction of improvements on I-25 and

interchanges at all locations on NM 599 result in a small reduction of traffic volumes on St. Francis Drive, except for south of Sawmill. This is believed to be due to the addition of the Richards interchange and I-25 overpasses which opens up additional routes throughout the City (via Camino Carlos Rey) to access the Community College District area.

As the Zia Road and Cerrillos Road intersections with St. Francis Drive are areas of particular congestion, the Scenario results were evaluated to determine the impacts of regional improvements on these intersections. These volumes are shown in Table 4.



Table 4 - Horizon Year PM Volumes for Zia and Cerrillos Approaches With St. Francis Drive

Scenario Eastbound Traffic Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zia West Approach 1,220 800 1,220 1,180 1,180 1,200 1,200 870

-34.4% 0.0% -3.3% -3.3% -1.6% -1.6% -28.7% Zia East Approach 550 520 550 540 580 550 550 530

-5.5% 0.0% -1.8% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% -3.6% Cerrillos West Approach 1,310 1,270 1,280 1,300 1,340 1,310 1,310 1,260

-3.1% -2.3% -0.8% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% -3.8% Cerrillos East Approach 1,130 1,090 1,090 1,140 1,150 1,140 1,140 1,070

-3.5% -3.5% 0.9% 1.8% 0.9% 0.9% -5.3%

Westbound Traffic Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zia West Approach 1,100 680 780 980 1,030 1,090 1,100 710

-38.2% -29.1% -10.9% -6.4% -0.9% 0.0% -35.5% Zia East Approach 750 760 750 770 720 750 750 760

1.3% 0.0% 2.7% -4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% Cerrillos West Approach 1,310 1,280 1,280 1,320 1,300 1,310 1,310 1,300

-2.3% -2.3% 0.8% -0.8% 0.0% 0.0% -0.8% Cerrillos East Approach 1,380 1,400 1,400 1,370 1,310 1,360 1,370 1,400

1.4% 1.4% -0.7% -5.1% -1.4% -0.7% 1.4% It can be seen in the scenarios where the Richards interchange is in place (Scenarios 1 and 7) there is

a substantial reduction in traffic heading west away from St. Francis on Zia. Without the Richards interchange, traffic on the west approach of Zia does not vary significantly from the Base case. Traffic levels of the east approach to Zia do not show much variance with the addition of the Richards interchange.

The Cerrillos Road intersection does not show a lot of variability under any of the evaluated regional improvement Scenarios. This is likely due to its central nature in the Corridor, and its function as the intersection of two major arterials in the center of the City and employment area.

In conclusion, regional improvements have limited impact on traffic volumes throughout the Corridor with the exception of the Richards interchange and construction of interchanges on NM 599. The forecasts do show substantial reductions on Zia Road if the Richards interchange is constructed, with slight reductions if the overpasses on I-25 are constructed. It must be stated that the overpass alternative for I-25 does not score favorably due to cost, impacts and other factors, as discussed in the Interstate 25 study.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Description of Alternatives


V. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES In the Phase A Initial Evaluation of Alternatives, the St. Francis Drive Corridor was divided into three

sections as that was considered an appropriate approach to evaluate the Corridor for the initial evaluation. After the initial screening performed in Phase A, the alternatives for each section were similar and in this Phase B Report each alternative will be evaluated separately. The exception to this is the Intersection Improvements Alternative, which will again be evaluated for each section of the Corridor.

As mentioned in Section I.A, shortfalls in the NMDOT budget have resulted in an abbreviated study being conducted. Each alternative will be studied in additional detail to establish engineering constraints and further evaluate feasibility, along with the appropriate level of environmental evaluation, but in a fashion that conforms to the resources assigned to it. The level of detail is sufficient to fulfill the requirements expected of the analysis.

A. No Build This alternative would leave St. Francis Drive as it is today. Maintenance would be continued,

however no improvements to intersections or pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be implemented other than as normal and routine maintenance. This alternative is required to be included in the evaluation of alternatives and is the base case for comparisons. B. Trail Connectivity and Enhancements

This alternative proposes to create and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle trail and path connectivity along the Corridor and enhance linkages to other trails in Santa Fe and the surrounding neighborhoods. A continuous multi-use path along the edges of the roadway would be added and/or enhanced for the entire length of the Corridor, to the degree possible within right-of-way constraints. New trail connections will also link east/west crossings along the entire Corridor. The multi-use path is intended mainly for pedestrians and bicycles, however would be available for activity levels. Specifically, the multi-use path would connect to other trail networks in Santa Fe such as the River Trail, Acequia Trail, Rail Trail, and Arroyo Chamiso Trail, as well as linking into the proposed St. Francis Drive trail between Zia and St. Michaels. For best connectivity to trail systems, it is recommended that grade separated crossings are implemented along the Corridor similar to the proposed Arroyo Chamiso crossing just north of Zia on St. Francis Drive. Several intersections along the Corridor are candidates for pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly improvements.

The primary focus of this alternative is on enhancing and encouraging alternative modes of transportation (bike and pedestrian) and creating linkages between the two sides of St. Francis Drive. However this alternative is restricted by the limited right-of-way, especially north of San Mateo Road. This concept primarily focuses on connectivity and aesthetics and will have limited impact on vehicular capacity. Capacity would not increase or change unless combined with other alternatives or a substantial amount of traffic transfers to bicycle or pedestrian modes.



C. Intersection Improvements - Southern Portion This alternative proposes the construction of targeted improvements at specific locations where they

are necessary to improve traffic operations and enhance pedestrian crossings. This alternative includes other limited improvements such as reducing curb radii or adding an additional turn or through lane at the intersection, to complete intersection reconstruction or isolated grade separated interchanges.

This alternative responds to the future expected travel demand while limiting the impacts to specific locations along the Corridor. This alternative would also, to the maximum extent possible, incorporate urban design components to improve the pedestrian, bicyclists, and street experience. Right-of-way acquisitions would be kept to a minimum with this alternative.

It is recognized that this alternative focuses primarily on the vehicular mode (car, truck and bus) and would improve traffic operations at the expense of the bicyclist and pedestrian due to additional crossing distances. However portions of the improvements from this alternative could improve pedestrian and bicycle visibility through the use of bulb-outs, reducing the radius on the corners of the intersections where improvements are constructed, improved pedestrian signal timing and count-down pedestrian signals, bicycle signal detection, etc.

In the southern portion of the Corridor the focus of this study will be on the intersection of St. Francis Drive and Zia Road, and improvements to the St. Michael’s Drive interchange. D. Intersection Improvements – Central Portion

This alternative proposes the construction of targeted improvements at specific locations where they are necessary to improve traffic operations and enhance pedestrian crossings. This alternative includes other limited improvements such as reducing curb radii or adding an additional turn or through lane at the intersection, to complete intersection reconstruction or isolated grade separated interchanges.

This alternative responds to the future expected travel demand while limiting the impacts to specific locations along the Corridor. This alternative would also, to the maximum extent possible, incorporate urban design components to improve the pedestrian, bicyclists, and street experience. Right-of-way acquisitions would be kept to a minimum with this alternative.

In the central portion of the Corridor the intersection with the most perceived need for improvements is the Cerrillos Road intersection. This intersection will be the focus of this report. E. Intersection Improvements – Northern Portion

The Phase A Report showed that several of the intersections in the northern portion of the Corridor will operate at poor performance in the horizon year analysis, however the improvements that are necessary to reduce vehicular delay are located on the minor streets and that no change to the road section on St. Francis Drive is required.



In the northern section of the Corridor the Santa Fe MPO 2010-2013 Transportation Improvement Plan identifies an outer year (beyond 2014) project, CN D5070, to replace the Guadalupe interchange bridge. That project will be the focus of this alternative. F. Transportation Systems Management

Transportation system management refers to measures designed to improve traffic operations by more efficiently utilizing the existing transportation network. An example of this would be developing a new traffic signal timing plan for the Corridor to reflect changing conditions. Incorporating the Corridor into the Santa Fe Regional Intelligent Transportation System Architecture could also improve transportation operations without an investment in roadway improvements.

Transportation demand management is also sometimes considered a transportation systems management approach. Transportation demand management focuses on reducing peak-hour trips through various mechanisms, such as employer-subsidized carpooling or transit incentives, to increased costs for parking, in order to discourage single occupant vehicle commuting.

This report will focus on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) solutions and seek to develop strategies to incorporate the Corridor into the Regional ITS architecture. G. Access Control

This alternative would seek to improve traffic flow by improving access control (removing median breaks or excessive driveways).

Analysis presented in the Phase A Report indicates that there are a significant number of driveways onto St. Francis Drive (see Figure 19, page 48 in the Phase A Report). The vast majority of these driveways are for single ownership parcels and do not lend themselves to removal or consolidation via frontage roads due to the limited right-of-way, however there are several locations where access control strategies can be implemented. Many of the mid-block and unsignalized intersections are considered appropriate for elimination of the minor street left turn and minor street through movement. This is due to the large delay for these movements as well as the conflicts that result from queued vehicles from the upstream major street intersection. H. Enhanced Transit

This alternative focuses on decreasing the number of vehicles using St. Francis Drive and the entire City street system by providing opportunities for alternative modes of transportation and therefore potentially improving traffic operations due to the reduced number of commuter vehicles travelling downtown. As a result of the Phase A Study, initial brainstorming meetings have been held with the local and regional transit operators. This ad-hoc working group is currently waiting for the 2035 Santa Fe MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan development process to provide visibility on future funding availability to implement transit and transit service improvements.



I. Complete Streets The primary focus of this alternative is on alternative modes of transportation (bike and pedestrian)

and creating pedestrian friendly linkages between the two sides of St. Francis Drive. The effectiveness of this alternative is restricted by the limited right-of-way, especially north of San Mateo Rd. The Complete Street concept could, and should, be incorporated with other alternatives and future maintenance projects to the maximum extent possible. However it must be stated that there is no project identified to re-construct St. Francis Drive as a Complete Street.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT No Build


VI. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – NO BUILD The No Build Alternative is a required alternative and is used as the base case for comparison purposes.

This alternative would leave St. Francis Drive as it is today, with improvements and maintenance as required. District 5 estimates the annual maintenance costs are $100,000 (current year dollars) for items such as snow removal, pothole patching, sign maintenance, signal repair and pavement marking maintenance. In addition to this annual maintenance, ADA upgrades, crack seal and mill inlay projects are anticipated to total $14.25 million over the next 10 years.

A. Traffic As documented in the Phase A Initial Evaluation of Alternatives, performance along the Corridor will

degrade without improvements to the Corridor or changes in travel behavior. However the roadway improvements identified that reduce vehicular travel delay are primarily located on the minor streets as opposed to St. Francis Drive, except at a few locations. This indicates that improvements to St. Francis Drive are not required throughout the bulk of the Corridor and that the No Build Alternative is acceptable for most of the Corridor, at least when it comes to roadway improvements on St. Francis Drive proper. Targeted roadway improvements are still recommended however. B. Safety

Analysis presented in the Phase A Report also showed that currently the crash rates on St. Francis Drive are lower than Statewide and County averages, and although the West San Mateo intersection has the highest crash rate it was still below a nearby urbanized area average crash rate. C. Drainage

A series of improvements and maintenance projects for the drainage structures have been identified in previous Drainage Management Plans and were documented in the Phase A Report. Ten of the 42 drainage structures have recommendations ranging from additional drainage capacity to addressing sediment and erosion issues. D. Constructability

Constructability is not a concern for the No Build Alternative. E. Right-of-Way

No additional right-of-way is required for this alternative. F. Costs

As mentioned above, District 5 estimates the annual maintenance costs are $100,000 (current year dollars) for items such as snow removal, pothole patching, sign maintenance, signal repair and pavement marking maintenance. In addition to this annual maintenance, ADA upgrades, crack seal and mill inlay projects are anticipated to total $14.25 million over the next 10 years.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT No Build


G. Environmental / Mitigation Since the no build alternative will not include any modifications to the roadway or adjacent land it will

not result in a negative impact to biological, cultural resources, water resources, or hazardous materials. However, it also won’t provide for the potential benefit in air quality/noise, social, and visual resources within the Corridor.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Trail Connectivity


VII. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – TRAIL CONNECTIVITY In the southern portion of the Corridor there is a lack of a sidewalk, trail or bicycle facility within the right-of-

way. However, the City of Santa Fe has developed a robust trail system that parallels St. Francis and provides bicycle and trail access without the conflicts that result from combining a busy State Highway with bicycle traffic within constrained right-of-way. The connections between these City facilities across St. Francis Drive are limited and can be improved. Additionally, throughout the public involvement process, requests for improved pedestrian and bicycle safety were presented at every public meeting.

The most troubled areas of the Corridor occur in the southern areas where many intersections include no landing areas, ramps or sidewalk connections to adjacent streets. These intersections require immediate improvements to existing intersections and additional sidewalk areas beyond the St. Francis right-of-way to create a connected pedestrian environment. The intersections in the central portion of the Corridor and continuing north are generally adequate but would benefit from enhancements or improvements. These enhancements, including new striping, signals, controls and improved sidewalk conditions, will greatly enhance pedestrian friendliness and make a safer pedestrian environment for the community.

As part of the detailed study, a gap analysis was conducted to identify gaps in the existing pedestrian and bicycle trail network. A comprehensive review of all pedestrian sidewalks and trails along the Corridor was conducted to identify locations where no connectivity, or insufficient, connectivity is located. Based on this analysis, recommendations for new connections or enhancements have been provided below. Each major intersection was ranked for overall intersection facilities, pedestrian crosswalks, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and connections to surrounding neighborhoods. Finally, specific recommendations have been provided for each major intersection.

A review of the possible improvements or enhancements that could be developed along the Corridor are presented.

A. Major Intersections from South to North along the Corridor St. Francis and Sawmill Road – The Sawmill and St. Francis intersection is the southern-most at-

grade intersection along St. Francis Drive. The existing condition includes a partial pedestrian crossing and connection. There are currently pedestrian crosswalks at the intersection. However, the existing intersection improvements do not include pedestrian ramps or sidewalks connecting to the crosswalks. There are sidewalks located just east of the immediate intersection. They are located along the north and south side of Sawmill connecting to the adjacent multi-family developments. No sidewalks or pedestrian connections are located on the west side of St. Francis.



Connectivity Assessment Overall Intersection Rank Poor Pedestrian Crosswalks North-South and partial East-West Sidewalks East Side Only Bicycle Lanes None Pedestrian and Bike Connections to surrounding neighborhoods East Side Only

Recommendations 1. Enhance existing crosswalks by providing new striping, pedestrian controllers, signals and pedestrian

countdown signal heads at all corners. 2. Provide new pedestrian ramps and landing areas at all intersection crosswalk locations and construct a new

sidewalk connecting to the existing sidewalks east of St. Francis. 3. Provide new pedestrian sidewalks on the west side of the intersection that allow for future connections to

sidewalks to be located along both sides of Sawmill Road. 4. Allow on-street bicycle circulation integrated with vehicular traffic or along the roadway shoulder or adjacent

multi-use path.

FIG

UR

E 3

SA

WM

ILL

RO

AD

TR

AIL

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

S

26

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:54

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES



St. Francis and Zia Road – A partial pedestrian connection is provided at the Zia Road and St. Francis intersection. Existing pedestrian connections coming from the east along Zia to the intersection are complete. However, the sidewalk improvements terminate at the west side of the intersection, preventing pedestrian connections from continuing west along Zia. Pedestrian sidewalks, at the north and south side of Zia Road, begin at Galisteo St. and continue west. The missing sidewalks between the intersection and Galisteo St. limit pedestrian connectivity and pose a hazardous pedestrian environment. However, the proposed multi-use trail underpass connecting the Rail Trail and existing Arroyo de Los Chamisos trail will provide an east-west pedestrian and bicycle crossing. There are no designated bicycle lanes in this intersection but the shoulder of the road is adequate for comfortable bicycle use.

Connectivity Assessment Overall Intersection Rank Poor Pedestrian Crosswalks North-South and East-West Sidewalks East Side Only Bicycle Lanes None Pedestrian and Bike Connections to surrounding neighborhoods East Side Only


countdown signal heads at all corners. 2. Provide new pedestrian sidewalks on the west side connecting to Galisteo St. for both north and south

sections of the road. 3. Connect new sidewalk on the north-west side of the intersection to the Rail Trail. 4. Allow on-street bicycle circulation integrated with vehicular traffic or along the roadway shoulder or adjacent

multi-use path. 5. Connection to the proposed Multi-Use Trail underpass north of Zia Road.

St. Francis and Siringo Road – No continuous pedestrian or bicycle connections are provided at the Siringo Road and St. Francis intersection. Although crosswalk striping exists at all east-west crossing points in the intersection, they do not connect to sidewalks and terminate at the edge of the roadway. The nearest sidewalks occur at the intersection of Miguel Chavez Rd. to the East and S. Pacheco St. to the West. Fragmented pedestrian connections such as those mentioned above create a hazardous environment for pedestrians.

Connectivity Assessment Overall Intersection Rank Very Poor Pedestrian Crosswalks East-West only Sidewalks None Bicycle Lanes None Pedestrian and Bike Connections to surrounding neighborhoods No



Recommendations 1. Provide North/South Pedestrian Crosswalks with adequate controllers, signals and pedestrian countdown

signal heads. 2. Provide new pedestrian sidewalk connections to adjacent neighborhood streets Miguel Chavez Rd. to the

east and S. Pacheco St. to the west. 3. Allow on-street bicycle circulation integrated with vehicular traffic or along the roadway shoulder or adjacent

multi-use path.

FIG

UR

E 4

ZIA

AN

D S

IR

IN

GO

TR

AIL

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

S

29

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:54

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES



St. Francis and St. Michael’s Drive – No pedestrian or bicycle connections are provided at the St. Michael’s Drive and St. Francis intersection. Due to the grade separated intersection and numerous on and off ramps, the intersection is dominated by vehicular traffic, creating a hazardous environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Although crosswalks are provided at the intersections east and west of St. Francis, there are no crosswalks or sidewalks between Galisteo St. and S. Pacheco St. The current roadway configuration prohibits pedestrian connectivity in both east-west and north-south directions and poses a significant connectivity barrier for the community.

Connectivity Assessment Overall Intersection Rank Very Poor Pedestrian Crosswalks None Sidewalks None Bicycle Lanes None Pedestrian and Bike Connections to surrounding neighborhoods No

Recommendations 1. Provide new east/west pedestrian crosswalks along both sides of St. Michael’s Drive and at all roadway

crossings including existing on and off ramps. This will create a continuous pedestrian connection along both sides of the road and increase east-west connectivity in the City. All new pedestrian crosswalks should meet current City, State and ADA regulations.

2. Provide new east-west pedestrian sidewalks connecting to the existing sidewalks along St. Michael’s Drive near Galisteo St. to the east and S. Pacheco St. to the west.

3. Provide enhanced north-south pedestrian crosswalks at Galisteo St. to the east and S. Pacheco St. to the west. This may include improved pedestrian crossings, ramps and sidewalk areas in addition to new pedestrian signal controls, signs and pedestrian countdown signal heads.

4. Due to the high vehicular traffic along St. Michael’s Drive, bicycle lanes are not recommended for this intersection.

FIG

UR

E 5

ST

. MIC

HA

EL

’S

DR

IV

E T

RA

IL

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

S

31

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:54

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES



St. Francis and West San Mateo – The pedestrian connectivity at West San Mateo includes four-way crosswalks, three paved ramping and landing areas and sidewalk connections on the southwest corner. The existing pedestrian crosswalk and sidewalk improvements are incomplete. The intersection should be improved to provide new pedestrian controls, signals, landing areas including corner improvements and new sidewalk connections to the connecting streets.

Connectivity Assessment Overall Intersection Rank Poor Pedestrian Crosswalks All four directions Ramps and Landing Areas Yes on three corners

(None on southeast corner) Sidewalks Southwest corner only Bicycle Lanes None Pedestrian and Bike Connections to surrounding neighborhoods Southwest corner only


countdown signal heads at all corners. 2. Construct a new corner ramp and landing area on the southeast corner. 3. Provide new pedestrian sidewalk connections to adjacent neighborhood streets on the northeast, northwest

and southeast corners. 4. Allow on-street bicycle circulation integrated with vehicular traffic or along the roadway shoulder or adjacent

multi-use path.

FIG

UR

E 6

SA

N M

AT

EO

TR

AIL

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

S

33

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:55

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES



St. Francis and Alta Vista – The St. Francis and Alta Vista intersection has four-way crosswalks, corner ramps, landing areas and connections to existing sidewalks in all directions. The existing intersection improvements provide adequate pedestrian connectivity at all corners and connect to adjacent sidewalks.

Connectivity Assessment Overall Intersection Rank Good Pedestrian Crosswalks Four-way Sidewalks Connections at all four corners Bicycle Lanes None Pedestrian and Bike Connections to surrounding neighborhoods Yes (On-street bicycle lanes on Alta

Vista)


countdown signal heads at all corners. 2. Improve sidewalk connection at northeast corner by providing direct connection to existing trail and

sidewalk. 3. Allow on-street bicycle circulation integrated with vehicular traffic or along the roadway shoulder or adjacent

multi-use path.

St. Francis and West Cordova Road – The St. Francis and West Cordova Road intersection has four-way crosswalks, corner ramps, landing areas and connections to existing sidewalks in all directions. The existing intersection improvements provide adequate pedestrian connectivity at all corners and connect to adjacent sidewalks. However, sidewalk connections beyond the immediate intersection should be improved to increase overall pedestrian connectivity to areas east and west.

Connectivity Assessment Overall Intersection Rank Good Pedestrian Crosswalks Four-way Sidewalks Connections at all four corners Bicycle Lanes None Pedestrian and Bike Connections to surrounding neighborhoods Yes (On-street bicycle lanes)


countdown signal heads at all corners including improved pedestrian landing areas in the medians. 2. Improve sidewalk connections to areas beyond intersection. This will require new sidewalk construction and

improvements outside the St. Francis right-of-way. 3. Allow on-street bicycle circulation integrated with vehicular traffic or along the roadway shoulder or adjacent

multi-use path.

FIG

UR

E 7

AL

TA

VIS

TA

AN

D C

OR

DO

VA

TR

AIL

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

S

35

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:55

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES



St. Francis and Cerrillos Road – The St. Francis and Cerrillos Road intersection is one of the busiest along the Corridor and includes NM Rail Runner Express train service, unusual diagonal vehicular circulation and pedestrian crossings. The intersection currently has four-way crosswalks for full pedestrian movement. All crossings, other than the southwest corner, have adequate landings and ramp areas at the corner. Due to the alignment and routing of the NM Rail Runner Express line, the southwest corner has an incomplete landing area and connection to existing sidewalks. This corner should be improved to create a comfortable and safe pedestrian crossing.

Connectivity Assessment Overall Intersection Rank Fair Pedestrian Crosswalks Four-way Sidewalks Connections at all four corners Bicycle Lanes None Pedestrian and Bike Connections to surrounding neighborhoods Yes (On-street bicycle lanes)


countdown signal heads at all corners including improved pedestrian landing areas in the medians. 2. Improve the southwest corner landing area including the connection to existing sidewalks. It should be

improved to create a comfortable and safe pedestrian crossing. 3. A grade separated crossing just north of the intersection as well as connectivity to the intersection are being

considered by the City of Santa Fe. Any improvements should be coordinated with these efforts to provide the greatest benefit to the community.

St. Francis and Paseo De Peralta / Hickox Street – The St. Francis and Paseo De Peralta / Hickox Street intersection has four-way crosswalks, corner ramps, landing areas and connections to existing sidewalks in all directions. The existing intersection improvements provide adequate pedestrian connectivity at all corners but provide limited pedestrian safety due to limited area and close proximity to vehicular traffic and attached sidewalks. Existing sidewalk connections to adjacent streets are located along north-south St. Francis and eastward along Paseo De Peralta. The sidewalks connections on the west side of the intersection are fragmented or non-existent due to driveway access and parking lot access to private property. Although the existing intersection includes crosswalks and corner improvements for pedestrian movement, the area should be improved to provide a more comfortable and pedestrian friendly connectivity.

Connectivity Assessment Overall Intersection Rank Fair Pedestrian Crosswalks Four-way Sidewalks Connections at all four corners but improvements needed to enhance connectivity. Bicycle Lanes None Pedestrian and Bike Connections to Yes but needing improvements surrounding neighborhoods (On-street bicycle lanes)




countdown signal heads at all corners. 2. Improve sidewalk connections to areas beyond intersection for areas west of St. Francis. This will require

new sidewalk construction and improvements outside the St. Francis right-of-way. 3. Allow on-street bicycle circulation integrated with vehicular traffic or along the roadway shoulder or adjacent

multi-use path.

FIG

UR

E 8

CE

RR

IL

LO

S A

ND

HIC

KO

X T

RA

IL

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

S

38

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:55

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES



St. Francis and Agua Fria Street – The St. Francis and Agua Fria Street intersection has four-way crosswalks, corner ramps, landing areas and connections to existing sidewalks in all directions. The existing intersection improvements provide adequate pedestrian connectivity at all corners and connect to adjacent sidewalks. However, the crossing conditions and signal devices can be improved to provide safer connectivity. Improvements to the St. Francis center median should be analyzed to determine if a pedestrian island should be constructed to improve pedestrian safety.



countdown signal heads at all corners. 2. Consider improvements to the St. Francis center median and the redesign of the pedestrian island. 3. Allow on-street bicycle circulation integrated with vehicular traffic or along the roadway shoulder or adjacent

multi-use path.

St. Francis and West Alameda Street– The St. Francis and West Alameda Street intersection has four-way crosswalks, corner ramps, landing areas and connections to existing sidewalks in all directions. The existing intersection improvements provide adequate pedestrian connectivity at all corners and connect to adjacent sidewalks. However, the crossing conditions and signal devices can be improved to provide safer connectivity. Improvements to the St. Francis center median should be analyzed to determine if a pedestrian island should be redesigned to improve pedestrian safety.



countdown signal heads at all corners. 2. Consider improvements to the St. Francis center median and the redesign of the median pedestrian island. 3. Allow on-street bicycle circulation integrated with vehicular traffic or along the roadway shoulder or adjacent

multi-use path.



St. Francis and Paseo De Peralta – The St. Francis and Paso De Peralta intersection has four-way crosswalks, corner ramps, landing areas and connections to existing sidewalks in all directions. The existing intersection improvements provide adequate pedestrian connectivity at all corners and connect to adjacent sidewalks. However, the crossing conditions and signal devices can be improved to provide safer connectivity. Improvements to the St. Francis center median and Paseo De Peralta median should be analyzed to determine if a pedestrian island should be redesigned to improve pedestrian safety. This is especially true of the east side island along Paseo De Peralta.

Connectivity Assessment

Overall Intersection Rank Good Pedestrian Crosswalks Four-way Sidewalks Connections at all four corners Bicycle Lanes None Pedestrian and Bike Connections to surrounding neighborhoods Yes (On-street bicycle lanes)

Recommendations

1. Enhance existing crosswalks by providing new striping, pedestrian controllers, signals and pedestrian countdown signal heads at all corners.

2. Consider improvements to the St. Francis center median and the redesign of the median pedestrian islands running north-south and east of the intersection.

3. Allow on-street bicycle circulation integrated with vehicular traffic or along the roadway shoulder or adjacent multi-use path.

FIG

UR

E 9

AQ

UA

FR

IA

, AL

AM

ED

A A

ND

PA

SE

O D

E P

ER

AL

TA

TR

AIL

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

S

41

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:55

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES



B. Traffic This alternative will have a minimal impact on traffic in the southern portions due to the large right-of-

way. If bike lanes are implemented in the central and northern portions of the Corridor where there is a narrower right-of-way, the traffic will be impacted since the bicycles would slow down traffic. C. Safety

This alternative would likely slightly decrease the amount of traffic along St. Francis due to the increased accessibility to trails and bike lanes. However, due to the speed and amount of traffic along St. Francis, there is a continued concern for pedestrian and bicyclists safety along the Corridor. D. Drainage

There are no immediate impacts to the drainage for this alternative. The additional pavement required for the trails may require modifications to existing culverts, roadside ditches or storm drains in the area. E. Constructability

This alternative poses no substantial feasibility or constructability difficulty as all construction is within the existing right-of-way. To implement this alternative, intersection improvements including curb ramps and sidewalks would be needed for pedestrian connections. In addition, striping for bike lanes and additional sidewalks, where necessary, would be needed to create a comprehensive trail network. F. Right-of-Way

Connections can be made within the existing right-of-way, therefore, this alternative would not need additional right-of-way. G. Costs

The cost for this alternative would be minimal and include extension (or addition) of sidewalk or multi-use path, new curb and gutter (if necessary), as well as bicycle striping and signage. H. Environmental / Mitigation

1. Biological Resources Due to the urban composition of the project Corridor, negligible to minor impacts to biological

resources are expected as a result of the proposed trail connectivity improvements. 2. Air Quality/Noise

Trail connectivity present opportunities to improve air quality and decrease traffic noise levels by providing options to vehicular travel within the Corridor. 3. Visual

Due to the urban composition of the project Corridor, negligible to minor impacts to visual resources are expected as a result of the proposed trail connectivity improvements.



4. Social Increasing trail connectivity throughout the Corridor is expected to result in a benefit to the

social structure of the Corridor and surrounding areas by providing direct and interconnected pedestrian and bicycle access. Current trail connectivity throughout the Corridor includes a combination of pedestrian sidewalks and multi-use trails in a fragmented and non-continuous network, thus limiting connections between neighborhoods, commercial areas and recreational areas. In many instances, pedestrian walkways end without providing clear and direct access to other adjacent areas along the Corridor. 5. Cultural

Due to the urban composition of the project Corridor and the limited footprint of the proposed trail connectivity improvements, negligible to minor impacts to cultural resources are expected. However, further cultural resource investigations would need to be completed prior to construction of any of the proposed trail connectivity improvements. 6. Water Resources

Due to the limited footprint of the proposed trail connectivity improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to water resources. However, further investigations may be required further in project design. 7. Hazardous Materials

Due to the limited footprint of the proposed trail connectivity improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to hazardous materials. However, further investigations may be required further in project design.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Intersection Improvements –Southern


VIII. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS – SOUTHERN For the southern end of the corridor, traffic volumes are expected to increase over existing levels. The

Phase A Report identified the need for improvements at Sawmill, Zia and Siringo Roads in order to maintain operation normally accepted levels of service. In addition, construction of auxiliary lanes on St. Francis Drive at St. Michael’s Drive was evaluated as the addition of the third lane with the maintenance project in 2005 made the merge maneuver from St. Michael’s Drive onto St. Francis Drive a rather abrupt movement. To avoid the expense of widening or re-constructing the St. Francis Drive bridge over St. Michael’s Drive, an alternative to convert the interchange to a full diamond was evaluated to allow the merge to be north of the bridge. However this necessitates the extension of the auxiliary lane through the San Mateo intersection, thus creating impacts to the northeast corner of San Mateo and St. Francis Drive.

A. Traffic The traffic analysis prepared in the Phase A Initial Evaluation of Alternatives – Appendix C

Existing/Horizon Year Conditions Analysis Report clearly indicates that traffic operations would be substantially degraded without the addition of the third southbound lane (in each direction) from San Mateo to Interstate 25. Each segment of the Corridor between traffic signals from Interstate 25 to San Mateo would be operating at LOS F in one or both peak hour periods if the 2-lane section were in place, while with the 3-lane section they operate from LOS B to E. The Phase A analysis also shows that future operations on the Corridor in this section will be severely congested in the 3-lane section, and indeed, improvements are indicated by increased delays without the addition of a fourth lane at the Sawmill and Zia intersections. This further supports the decision to add the third lanes to St. Francis Drive in 2005.

In the St. Francis Corridor Study – Existing/Horizon Year Conditions Analysis Report, June 2009, the St. Francis Drive/West Zia Road intersection has been identified as a location where future levels of service (LOS) will be unacceptable; several alternatives for improvements to this location are analyzed as part of this analysis:

• No-build (no improvements) • Full interchange • Diamond interchange • Single-point interchange • Frontage roads (along St. Francis Drive) • St. Francis Drive overpass • St. Francis Drive underpass • Intersection improvements (additional lanes, etc.)

No-Build

This alternative would not add any improvements to St. Francis Drive or the intersection of St. Francis Drive at West Zia Road. The operations analysis completed by HDR Engineering, Inc. has shown that the



intersection will have unacceptable levels of service (LOS) in the horizon year of 2030 if no improvements are made aside from optimizing traffic signal timings, as shown below in Table 5.

In order to achieve acceptable levels of service in the 2030 horizon year, the No-Build alternative is

not an option. Full Interchange

There are several types of full interchanges. The most common type of full interchange is the cloverleaf interchange. In order for traffic to turn right from one road to the other, there are off-ramps that connect to the other road; however, traffic turning left must go over or under the other roadway and then enter a loop-shaped ramp that has a tight radius.

Full interchanges are the most expensive type of interchange. They require the construction of a bridge, and also require substantial amounts of right-of-way. At least 700 feet of width is needed to accommodate all of the on/off ramps and approach grades to the bridge. Due to the prohibitive costs as well as the lack of necessary right-of-way, a full interchange is not possible at the St. Francis/West Zia Road intersection. Please see Figure 10 which shows a full cloverleaf interchange layout.

Table 5 – Horizon Year Signalized Intersection LOS Summary SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS LOS SUMMARY - 2030 Horizon Year Volumes

INTERSECTION PEAK PERIOD

MAXIMUM V/C

RATIO

LEVEL OF SERVICE & DELAY BY APPROACH MOVEMENT EB WB NB SB INT.

DELAY (sec/veh) LOS L

T R

L T

R L

T

R

L

T

R

St. Francis Dr. at West Zia Road

AM 1.26 F E E E E F D F A F D A 78.0 F PM 1.01 F E E F F B E C A E D B 42.3 D

46

FIG

UR

E 1

0

FU

LL

CL

OV

ER

LE

AF

IN

TE

RC

HA

NG

E

LA

YO

UT

P:\0

70

13

1\

08:57

22-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES



Diamond Interchange A diamond interchange is another common type of interchange in which a grade-separated crossing is

provided and where on/off ramps provide access to and from the mainline facility to the cross street. A diamond interchange has some advantages over a full cloverleaf interchange:

• construction costs are usually less than with a full interchange • less right-of-way is needed, since the design of a diamond interchange is narrower • diamond interchanges are fairly common, and therefore meet driver expectations

There are also some disadvantages to a diamond interchange

• a bridge would need to be constructed (for either the mainline or the side street depending on design constraints);

• on/off ramps require considerable storage lengths, which require additional right-of-way; • traffic signals would likely be required at the intersections of the ramps and cross street, adding to

project costs Figure 11 shows a standard diamond interchange layout at the St. Francis/West Zia Drive intersection. Single-point interchange

A single-point interchange is similar to the diamond interchange; however, the single-point interchange requires much less right-of-way width than the diamond interchange because instead of having two intersections (one on each side of the mainline facility) as the diamond interchange has, the single-point interchange has one large intersection within the middle of the interchange that allows left-turns from the mainline to proceed simultaneously. Therefore, only one traffic signal is needed, compared to two signals that are usually needed for diamond interchanges.

Although a single-point interchange would require less right-of-way than the full or diamond-type interchanges; however, right-of-way would still be an issue, as additional property would need to be purchased on at least one side of St. Francis Drive in order for there to be sufficient room for a single-point interchange.

Figure 12 shows a single point interchange layout at the St. Francis/West Zia Drive intersection.

48

FIG

UR

E 1

1

DIA

MO

ND

INT

ER

CH

AN

GE

P:\0

70

13

1\

08:58

22-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

49

FIG

UR

E 1

2

SIN

GL

E P

OIN

T I

NT

ER

CH

AN

GE

P:\0

70

13

1\

08:59

22-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES



Frontage roads along St. Francis Drive Frontage roads are a commonly-used method to add additional capacity to a mainline facility by

providing a secondary roadway parallel to the mainline facility. Frontage roads are frequently in heavily urbanized areas along freeways. For the St. Francis Drive Corridor, right-of-way availability and conflicts with existing land uses would again be an issue, as frontage roads require substantial additional right-of-way to allow for proper design.

Also, frontage roads require a lengthy distance for transitions to and from the mainline facility – the St. Francis Corridor has right-of–way limitations not only in the vicinity of the West Zia Road intersection, but also along most of the Corridor within the project study area. Also, the distance between the adjacent intersections north and south of West Zia Road is approximately 3,600 feet; including transitions to and from the mainline, this distance is really not sufficient for frontage road construction - the frontage roads would serve a greater purpose by constructing them for the full distance between Sawmill Road and Siringo Road. Of course, the longer the distance of frontage roads, the greater the construction costs.

Figure 13 shows a theoretical layout of frontage roads in the vicinity of the St. Francis Road/West Zia Road intersection.



St. Francis Drive Overpass Mainline overpasses are sometime used in areas where traffic from intersections creates heavy

periods of congestions, especially in peak hours. An overpass typically does not have a connection to the side street(s), thus eliminating the intersection and allowing for improved traffic flow on the mainline facility.

There are challenges to installing an overpass on St. Francis Drive at West Zia Road. First, in order to achieve safe and acceptable grades on St. Francis Drive approaching the overpass, there needs to be sufficient distance in advance of the intersection being crossed (in this case, West Zia Road). Also, there must be adequate right of way to allow for bridge construction. Lastly, traffic that currently uses West Zia Road to access St. Francis Drive would be forced to use alternative routes to get to St. Francis Drive (most likely either Sawmill Road or Siringo Road). Additional traffic at both the Sawmill Road/Siringo Road intersections with St. Francis Drive will lead to potential traffic operational issues, especially in the 2030 horizon year.

There is approximately 1,800 feet between intersections along St. Francis Drive in this area. In order to allow for a 3% grade on St. Francis Drive in advance of the West Zia intersection, most of that distance between St. Francis Drive/West Zia Road intersection and the adjacent intersections of St. Francis Drive at Sawmill Road and St. Francis Drive at Siringo Road would be affected, and there could possibly be modifications required to the Sawmill Road/Siringo Road intersections to accommodate the overpass construction. St. Francis Drive Underpass

An underpass would have St. Francis Drive go under West Zia Road. At this location, construction of an underpass would have to be such that St. Francis Drive would be low enough to go below the current elevation of West Zia Road, because there is little room to allow for the elevation of West Zia Road (adjacent properties along West Zia Road on both sides of St. Francis Drive would be affected, especially the NM Rail Runner Express facilities on the southwest corner of St. Francis Drive at West Zia Road).

The challenges of constructing an underpass are very similar to those when constructing an overpass. The operational issues would also be very similar. Figures 5 and 6 show the layout of an overpass and an underpass at the St. Francis Drive/West Zia Road intersection.

53

FIG

UR

E 1

4

OV

ER

PA

SS

AT

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E/W

ES

T Z

IA

RO

AD

P:\0

70

13

1\

09:00

22-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

54

FIG

UR

E 1

5

UN

DE

RP

AS

S A

T S

T. F

RA

NC

IS

DR

IV

E/W

ES

T Z

IA

RO

AD

P:\0

70

13

1\

09:08

22-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES



Miscellaneous Intersection Improvements – St. Francis Drive at West Zia Road

The operations analysis summarized in Table 5 shows that the overall intersection of St. Francis Drive at West Zia Road will operate at unacceptable LOS in both peak periods (AM and PM) in the horizon year of 2030. In addition, the AM and PM peak hours will have several movements with deficient LOS.

To achieve acceptable LOS at the deficient movements this intersection the following improvements are needed:

• EB left turns: even with the addition of a third left turn lane, the LOS only improves to E in AM peak (it improves from F to D in PM peak). The AM peak hour has a very heavy left turn movement with 580 vehicles

• EB through lanes: adding a third through lane improves this movement LOS from E to C in both the AM and PM peak hours

• WB left turns: construction of a third left turn lane improves LOS in the AM peak hour from E to D, and in the PM peak hour from F to D

• WB through lanes: signal timing adjustments improve LOS from E to D in the AM peak hour and from F to D in PM peak hour

• NB left turns: signal timing adjustments improve LOS from E to D in the PM peak hour

• NB through lanes: addition of a fourth through lane improves the LOS from F to C in the AM peak hour

• SB left turns: signal timing adjustments/other intersection improvements results in LOS improving from F to B in the AM peak hour and from E to D in the PM peak hour

With the above improvements, overall intersection LOS for horizon year (2030) conditions in the peak

hours improves as shown in Table 6:

The following is a summary of possible intersection improvements:

• addition of a third left-turn lane for both directions of West Zia Road

• addition of a fourth through lane for NB St. Francis Drive

• adjustments to traffic signal timings/coordination through Corridor

Table 6 - Zia Road Improvement LOS

2030 Horizon Year – Intersection LOS

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR w/o

Improvements with

improvements w/o

improvements with

improvements LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay St. Francis Drive/West Zia Road E 78.4 D 38.4 D 42.3 C 26.6



In addition to the Zia Road intersection, improvements to the St. Michaels Drive interchange were also evaluated. These improvements were considered to address two main concerns: 1) the sharp merge movement that resulted from the additional lane added in 2005, and 2) the lack of sidewalks on St. Michael’s Drive under St. Francis. These improvements are shown in Figure 16 through Figure 20. Re alignment of the interchange into a diamond will allow auxiliary lanes to be constructed for both northbound and southbound entering traffic. As shown in Figure 20, extension of the northbound auxiliary lane through the San Mateo Road intersection would result in impact to the parcel at the southeast corner of the intersection. The addition of the auxiliary lane through the San Mateo intersection would likely result in the driveway to the property being very close to the intersection and likely considered for closure if this alternative were to be implemented.

B. Safety

Construction of the interchange options would remove mainline traffic from the intersection, with a likely reduction in crash rates due to the reduced exposure.

Construction of the intersection improvements would likely not result in a reduction of crash rates, as the through traffic would still be traveling through the intersection. The additional crossing distance that would result from the additional travel lanes would increase the exposure of pedestrians and bicyclists, possibly leading to additional crashes involving these modes. C. Drainage

The wide variety of alternatives considered in this section would require complete drainage analysis prior to implementation. Drainage modifications for individual intersections will need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific components of each alternative. However, in general it is likely that interchange modifications would require relocation of existing inlets and any associated laterals. It is assumed that interchange modifications would entail addition of turning lanes, which would increase the runoff rates at a given area. The expansion of the pavement may also require modifications to existing culverts, roadside ditches or storm drains in an area. The underpass alternative would require a pump station and associated equipment and infrastructure to pump the runoff to an appropriate outfall. D. Constructability

The constructability of the alternatives in the section is high; however it is likely that utilities, street lighting, and traffic signals would have to be re-located. E. Right-of-Way

Even though this section of the Corridor has some of the largest available right-of-way, there still is not sufficient right-of-way to construct the interchange alternatives. However there is sufficient right-of-way to implement the intersection improvement options.



F. Costs Detailed cost estimates were not prepared for the Zia alternative due to scope and fee constraints,

however it is expected that the interchange options would be in the $10-$15 million range, with intersection improvements, likely one-third to one-half of that amount, depending on the ultimate configuration selected.

The cost of the St. Michael’s Drive interchange improvements is approximately $3 million.

N

SIRINGO RD

ST MICHAELS DR

ST. FRANCIS DRIVE

FIG

UR

E 1

6

ST

MIC

HA

EL

S D

RIV

E T

O

SIR

IN

GO

RO

AD

SB

AU

XIL

IAR

Y L

AN

E

NB

OFF R

AM

P

SB

ON

RA

MP

LO

OP

NB

ON

RA

MP

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

0100

40

0

20

0

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

SC

AL

E:

HO

R: 1" =

200’

6’ S

ID

EW

AL

K

CU

RB

& G

UT

TE

R

58

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:56

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

95+00

100+00

105+00

110+00

115+00

120+00

125+00

ST. FRANCIS DRIVE

ST MICHAELS DR

SB

ON

RA

MP

SB

OF

F R

AM

P

SC

AL

E:

0100

40

0

20

0

HO

R: 1" =

200’

VE

RT

: 1" =

20’

FIG

UR

E 1

7

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

NB

RA

MP

RE

CO

NF

IGU

RA

TIO

N

NB

OF

F R

AM

P

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

NB

ON

RA

MP

N

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

EX

IST

ING

GR

OU

ND

EX

IST

ING

GR

OU

ND

59

105+00

110+00

115+00

120+00

125+00

130+00

0+00

5+00

9+31

0+00

5+00

6+35

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:56

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

6900

6910

6920

6930

6940

6950

6960

6960

6900

6910

6920

6930

6940

6950

6960

6960

-9+

00

-5+

00

0+

00

5+

00

10

+0

0

-

6900

6910

6920

6930

6940

6950

6960

6960

0+

00

5+

00

10

+0

0

-

PVI 0+42.17

6921.91

PVC 1+50.00

6926.11

PVI 3+00.00

6931.96

HI 4+12.30

6931.23EVT 4+50.00

6931.12

PVT 4+50.00

6931.12

EVT 4+50.00

6931.12

PVI 7+15.39

6929.63

3.9

0%

-0.56%

VC

= 3

00.0

0’

MO

=

-1

.6

7’

SS

D =

391.9

5’

K =

67.26

PVI 0+00.00

6930.31

PVC 1+60.00

6931.06

HI 2+31.60

6931.23

PVI 3+60.00

6932.00

PVT 5+60.00

6927.69

PVI 8+73.20

6920.93

0.4

7%

-2.1

6%

VC

= 4

00.0

0’

MO

=

-1

.3

1’

SS

D =

610.8

6’

K =

152.29

SAN MATEO RD

ST. FRANCIS DRIVE

ST MICHAELS DR

SB

OF

F R

AM

PS

B O

N R

AM

P

NB

OF

F R

AM

P

NB

ON

RA

MP

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

SAN MATEO RD

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

SC

AL

E:

HO

R: 1" =

200’

VE

RT

: 1" =

20’

0100

40

0

20

0

N

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

EX

IST

ING

GR

OU

ND

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E

.02 A

CR

E

WB TO

NB ONRA

MP

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

CW

B

ME

TA

L B

AR

RIE

R

WA

LL

FIG

UR

E 1

8

ST

MIC

HA

EL

S W

B T

O N

B

ON

RA

MP

60

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:57

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

PVI 0+00.00

6943.97

PVC 1+72.36

6935.58

PVI 3+72.36

6925.84

LO 4+73.33

6928.25

PVT 5+72.36

6929.04

PVC 6+28.13

6929.94

PVI 7+28.13

6931.54

HI 7+76.98

6931.13

PVT 8+28.13

6930.99

PVI 10+60.17

6929.71

-4.8

7%

1.6

0%

-0.55%

VC

= 4

00.0

0’

MO

= 3

.24

’

SS

D =

299.0

2’

K =

6

1.8

1

VC

= 2

00.0

0’

MO

=

-0

.5

4’

SS

D =

601.2

7’

K =

92.90

6900

6910

6920

6930

6940

6950

6960

6960

6900

6910

6920

6930

6940

6950

6960

6960

-10+

00

-5+

00

0+

00

5+

00

10+

00

15+

00

20

+0

0

-

115+00

120+00

125+00

130+00

135+00

140+00

0+00

5+00

9+31

5+00

10+00

10+71

N

0100

40

0

20

0

ST

MIC

HA

EL

S D

R

ST FRANCIS DR

SB OFF RAMP

NB OFF RAMP

NB ON R

AMP

SB ON RAMP

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

CU

RB

& G

UT

TE

R

CU

RB

& G

UT

TE

R6

’ S

ID

EW

AL

K

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

6’ S

ID

EW

AL

KS

LO

PE

LIM

IT

S

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

ME

DIA

N C

UR

B &

GU

TT

ER

ME

DIA

N C

UR

B &

GU

TT

ER

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

SC

AL

E:

HO

R: 1" =

200’

PACHECO ST

GA

LIS

TEO

ST

FIG

UR

E 1

9

ST

MIC

HA

EL

S D

R R

OA

DW

AY

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

S

61

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:57

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

N

SA

N M

AT

EO

RD

ST FRANCIS DR

025

100

50

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

.02 A

CR

E

SC

AL

E:

HO

R: 1" =

50’

FIG

UR

E 2

0

SA

N M

AT

EO

R/W

RE

QU

IR

EM

EN

TS

FO

R N

B A

UX

IL

IA

RY

LA

NE

62

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:57

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES



G. Environmental / Mitigation: Zia Rd at St. Francis Dr Intersection 1. Biological Resources

Soils Since the majority of the soils located within the project Corridor are well drained soils that

exhibit negligible to medium surface runoff and moderate permeability, there are negligible to minor impacts expected from the roadway improvements. However, if the proposed lane additions at the Zia Rd and St. Francis Dr intersection disturb more than one acre of land, then a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) would be required to prevent erosion during construction.

Vegetation Due to the urban land use at this intersection, negligible impacts to native vegetation are

expected to result from the proposed lane additions. Threatened and Endangered Species No federally listed threatened or endangered species are expected to occur within the project

Corridor. However, the State of New Mexico sensitive species, the Gunnison prairie dog (Cynomys

gunnisoni) may occur at this intersection. The City of Santa Fe Ordinance No. 2001-35 ordains the humane relocation of the Gunnison prairie dog and would apply to any prairie dog populations present at the proposed alternative. A biological survey of the proposed project area at this intersection would need to be completed to determine the presence or absence of the Gunnison prairie dog.

Wildlife Due to the urban composition of the project Corridor, negligible to minor impacts to wildlife or

migratory birds are expected as a result of the proposed lane additions at this intersection. 2. Air Quality/Noise

Air Quality As Santa Fe is in attainment for the six criteria pollutants managed under the Clean Air Act

(CAA), no significant impacts to air quality are expected as a result of the proposed intersection improvements. Construction-related air quality issues will be controlled as recommended by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).

Noise The expansion of the Zia roadway is not anticipated to result in traffic noise impacts.

3. Visual No significant visual impacts to the viewshed at the Zia Rd and St. Francis Dr intersection are

expected as a result of the proposed lane addition alternative.



4. Social There is potential for a positive impact on community cohesion as a result from the intersection

improvements. The proposed lane additions would add capacity to the traffic flow in this area and would alleviate any traffic congestion, and provide better access to the neighborhoods located to the southwest of the intersection. 5. Cultural

A review of historic aerial photos, as well as the records of the New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System of the Archaeological Records Management Section (ARMS), was performed to identify existing archeological, cultural, and historic resources within the general project vicinity. Results of the research, to date, indicate that there are hundreds of cultural resources identified that have the potential to occur within the project area, including properties listed in and eligible for listing in both the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the State Register of Cultural Properties.

A more detailed investigation, including field surveys, and further coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be required once the area of potential effect is defined for the proposed intersection improvements. 6. Water Resources

There are no drainages, wetlands, or floodplains located at the intersection of Zia Rd and St. Francis; therefore there are no anticipated impacts to water resources at this location. 7. Hazardous Materials

Contamination of soils or waterways is a concern related to right-of-way acquisition and construction activity due to liability with regard to cleanup and human health issues.

In order to gain more information on potentially contaminated properties, an initial site assessment (ISA) may be recommended for the proposed intersection alternative. Appropriate clean up, avoidance, or mitigation measures will then be taken in accordance with the NMDOT’s Handbook

of Hazardous Waste Management (August 1999). H. Environmental / Mitigation: Zia Rd at St. Francis Dr Interchange

1. Biological Resources Soils If the proposed interchange at the Zia Rd and St. Francis Dr intersection disturbs more than

one acre of land, a SWPPP would be required to prevent erosion during construction. Vegetation Due to the urban land use at this intersection, negligible impacts to native vegetation are

expected to result from the proposed interchange.



Threatened and Endangered Species No federally listed threatened or endangered species are expected to occur within the project

Corridor. A biological survey of the proposed project area at this interchange would need to be completed to determine the presence or absence of the Gunnison prairie dog. The City of Santa Fe Ordinance No. 2001-35 ordains the humane relocation of the Gunnison prairie dog and would apply to any prairie dog populations present at the proposed alternative.


migratory birds are expected as a result of the proposed interchange alternative. 2. Air Quality/Noise

Air Quality Since Santa Fe is in attainment for the six criteria pollutants managed under the CAA, no

significant impacts to air quality are expected as a result from the proposed interchange improvements. Construction-related air quality issues will be controlled as recommended by the NMED.

Noise The addition of an interchange at this location could result in a traffic noise impact; an additional

analysis of noise levels and mitigation measures may be required for this alternative. 3. Visual

There will be a limited impact from the proposed interchange on the existing view shed at this location. 4. Social

There is potential for a positive impact on community cohesion as a result from the interchange improvements. The proposed interchange would add capacity to the area and would alleviate traffic congestion, and provide better access to the neighborhoods located to the southwest of the interchange. 5. Cultural




A more detailed investigation, including field surveys, and further coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be required once the area of potential effect is defined for the proposed interchange improvements. 6. Water Resources

There are no drainages, wetlands, or floodplains located at the Zia Rd and St. Francis intersection; therefore there are no anticipated impacts to water resources at this location. 7. Hazardous Materials

In order to gain more information on potentially contaminated properties, an ISA may be recommended for the proposed interchange alternative.

I. Environmental / Mitigation: Southern interchange: St. Michaels Rd at St. Francis Dr 1. Biological Resources

Soils If the proposed interchange at the St. Michaels Rd and St. Francis Dr intersection disturbs more

than one acre of land, a SWPPP would be required to prevent erosion during construction. Vegetation Due to the urban land use at this intersection, negligible impacts to native vegetation are

expected to result from the proposed interchange. Threatened and Endangered Species No federally listed threatened or endangered species are expected to occur within the project

Corridor. A biological survey of the proposed project area at this interchange would need to be completed to determine the presence or absence of the Gunnison prairie dog. The City of Santa Fe Ordinance No. 2001-35 ordains the humane relocation of the Gunnison prairie dog and would apply to any prairie dog populations present at the proposed alternative.


migratory birds are expected as a result of the proposed interchange alternative. 2. Air Quality/Noise


significant impacts to air quality are expected as a result from the proposed interchange improvements. Construction-related air quality issues will be controlled as recommended by the NMED.



Noise The addition of an interchange at this location could result in a traffic noise impact; an additional

analysis of noise levels and mitigation measures may be required for this alternative. 3. Visual

There will be a limited impact from the proposed interchange on the existing view shed at this location. 4. Social

There is potential for a positive impact on community cohesion as a result from the interchange improvements. The proposed interchange would provide better access to St. Francis with the addition of a new access ramp on westbound St. Michael’s Dr. and would be a positive improvement for pedestrians with the addition of a sidewalk on St. Michael’s Dr. 5. Cultural


A more detailed investigation, including field surveys, and further coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be required once the area of potential effect is defined for the proposed interchange improvements. 6. Water Resources

There are no drainages, wetlands, or floodplains located at the St. Michael’s Dr. and St. Francis intersection; therefore there are no anticipated impacts to water resources at this location. 7. Hazardous Materials

In order to gain more information on potentially contaminated properties, an ISA may be recommended for the proposed interchange alternative.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Intersection Improvements –Central


IX. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS – CENTRAL The Central section of the Corridor poses the most challenges for improving traffic operations as well as

pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The virtually fully developed Corridor combined with the restricted right-of-way widths that are present throughout the vast majority of this section (for both St. Francis Drive as well as the minor cross-streets) severely constrain the opportunities for improvement without sacrificing one mode for the other.

As the bulk of the improvements identified for this Central section are on the minor cross-streets and fall under the primary jurisdiction of the City, this report will focus on the St. Francis Drive and Cerrillos Road intersection.

The Phase A Report identified two improvement alternatives for this intersection to be evaluated further. Due to scope restraints the grade-separated option where St. Francis is below-grade was evaluated in more detail than the on-street geometric improvement alternative.

A. Traffic The traffic analysis performed in Phase A indicated that improvements are necessary at St. Francis

Drive and Cerrillos Road in order for vehicular traffic operations to remain at acceptable levels of service in the horizon year. The analysis presented in Section IV.B on page 14 also shows that the Cerrillos Road intersection is relatively immune to effects from other regional improvements (other than large increase in transit use, although that option has not been modeled due to the complexity of mode-choice travel demand models and the lack of sufficient data to develop the transit share model).

As in other intersections in this Central section of the Corridor, the identified improvements were again on the cross-street, in this case Cerrillos Road. Both a third east and westbound through lane, and a third eastbound and westbound left turn lane are recommended in order for vehicular traffic operations to remain at acceptable levels of service. However it is recognized that the 24 feet of additional width that would be necessary at this intersection would have substantial right-of-way impacts, as shown in the conceptual layouts prepared for the Phase A Study.

In addition to the vehicular traffic challenges, the skew of the intersection, combined with the railroad track crossing through the middle of the intersection and the railroad crossing gates, creates tremendous challenges in providing adequate, safe and direct pedestrian, bicycle, and handicapped crossings.

It should be noted that the City of Santa Fe is currently considering a pedestrian/bicycle crossing near the Cerrillos Road intersection that will likely increase the number of pedestrian, bicycle and handicap crossings at or near the intersection.



B. Safety The grade separated alternative would be expected to increase safety due to the removal of the St.

Francis Drive through traffic from the intersection and away for the cross-street traffic and the pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

With the on-street roadway improvement alternative it is expected that safety would remain equivalent to the existing condition, however with the increased traffic volumes there would be a corresponding increase in crashes, even if the crash rate were to remain the same. C. Drainage

The wide variety of alternatives considered in this section would require complete drainage analysis prior to implementation. Drainage modifications for individual intersections will need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific components of each alternative. However, in general it is likely that interchange modifications would require relocation of existing inlets and any associated laterals. It is assumed that interchange modifications would entail addition of turning lanes, which would increase the runoff rates at a given area. The expansion of the pavement may also require modifications to existing culverts, roadside ditches or storm drains in an area. The underpass alternative would require a pump station and associated equipment and infrastructure to pump the runoff to an appropriate outfall. D. Constructability

Construction of the grade separated alternative would be problematic due to the intersection being the intersection of two of the highest volume roads in Santa Fe.

The Level D Subsurface Utility Engineering report prepared for Phase A (Appendix D) indicates that there are a number of utilities that cross St. Francis Drive between Cordova Road and Ninita Street, the limits of impact to construction of the alternative. Accommodating these utilities during construction as well as in permanent locations after construction is expected to add significantly to the cost of the Alternative.

There would be limited constructability concerns for the at-grade intersection improvement alternative assuming right-of-way can be acquired. E. Right-of-Way

A substantial amount of additional right-of-way would be required adjacent to St. Francis Drive for the grade-separated alternative. The analysis, which assumed right-of-way acquisition to the tie slope line plus 10 feet, shows that 2.55 acres would need to be acquired. However a review of Figure 22 and Figure 23 shows that the likely right-of-way take would necessarily be much larger due to the lack of a viable parcel remaining after the required right-of-way is removed and would result in significant disruption of the businesses and residences along the impacted area.

N

.53 A

CR

E

.78 A

CR

E

.16

AC

RE

.01 A

CR

E

.18 A

CR

E

050

20

0

10

0

FIG

UR

E 2

2

CE

RR

IL

LO

S/S

T F

RA

NC

IS

IN

TE

RS

EC

TIO

N R

/W &

UT

IL

IT

Y

IMP

AC

TS

SC

AL

E:

HO

R: 1" =

200’

SEE NEXT SHEET

CORDOVA RD

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

.

PEN

RD

CERRILLOS RD

71

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:58

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y


WA

ST

E W

AT

ER

LE

GE

ND

GA

S

WA

TE

R

WA

ST

E W

AT

ER

R/W

R/W

TA

KE

OV

HD

EL

EC

TE

LE

PH

ON

E

.02 A

CR

E

.15 A

CR

E.1

6 A

CR

E.0

8 A

CR

E

.16

AC

RE

.14 A

CR

E

.18 A

CR

E

N

050

20

0

10

0

FIG

UR

E 2

3

CE

RR

IL

LO

S/S

T F

RA

NC

IS

IN

TE

RS

EC

TIO

N R

/W &

UT

IL

IT

Y

IMP

AC

TS

SC

AL

E:

HO

R: 1" =

200’

SEE PREVIOUS SHEETST. FRANCIS DR.

MERCERST

CAMINO SIERRAVISTA

NINITA ST

HICKOX ST

72

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:58

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y


WA

ST

E W

AT

ER

LE

GE

ND

GA

S

WA

TE

R

WA

ST

E W

AT

ER

R/W

R/W

TA

KE

OV

HD

EL

EC

TE

LE

PH

ON

E



F. Costs The cost of the grade separated alternative is quite significant, both in construction, right-of-way

acquisition and utility re-locations. Preliminary estimates prepared for this study indicate a minimum cost of $44 million, not including right-of-way and utility re-locations.

The intersection improvements will also be severely limited if right-of-way acquisition is not considered. Further study of this alternative would be required to fully assess the feasibility of the improvements identified in the Phase A Report. G. Environmental / Mitigation: Cerrillos Rd at St. Francis Dr Intersection

1. Biological Resources Soils If the proposed Cerrillos Rd and St. Francis Dr intersection improvements disturb more than

one acre of land, a SWPPP would be required to prevent erosion during construction. Vegetation Due to the urban land use at this intersection, negligible impacts to native vegetation are

expected to result from the proposed intersection improvements. Threatened and Endangered Species No federally listed threatened or endangered species are expected to occur within the project

Corridor. A biological survey of the proposed project area at this intersection would need to be completed to determine the presence or absence of the Gunnison prairie dog. The City of Santa Fe Ordinance No. 2001-35 ordains the humane relocation of the Gunnison prairie dog and would apply to any prairie dog populations present at the proposed alternative.

Wildlife Due to the urban composition of the project Corridor, negligible impacts to wildlife or migratory

birds are expected as a result of the proposed alternative. 2. Air Quality/Noise


significant impacts to air quality are expected as a result from the proposed intersection improvements. Construction-related air quality issues will be controlled as recommended by the NMED.

Noise The Cerrillos Rd. improvements are not anticipated to result in traffic noise impacts.



3. Visual There will be a limited impact from the proposed improvements on the existing view shed at this

location. 4. Social

There is potential for a positive impact on community cohesion as a result of the proposed improvements. The proposed lane additions would add capacity to the area and would help to alleviate traffic congestion. 5. Cultural


The Santa Fe Southern Railway railroad tracks cross St. Francis Drive near the intersection of Cerrillos Rd. and St. Francis Dr. The actual tracks were re-aligned in 2007 for the construction of the NM Rail Runner Express. However, the original site of the railroad tracks has been determined to be eligible for the NRHP. A more detailed investigation, including field surveys, and further coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be required for this site once the area of potential effect is defined for the proposed intersection improvements. 6. Water Resources

There are no drainages, wetlands, or floodplains located at the Cerrillos Rd and St. Francis intersection; therefore there are no anticipated impacts to water resources at this location. 7. Hazardous Materials

According to the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) Environmental Geology Bureau (EGB) ISA Report conducted for the St. Francis Drive Corridor Study between Milepost (MP) 161.8 to MP 168.7 (2006), thirty-one recognized conditions were identified near the major intersections along St. Francis Dr. The intersections with the highest concentration of sites were Sawmill Rd and St. Francis Dr, Cordova Rd and St. Francis Dr, and Cerrillos Rd and St. Francis Dr. Subsurface testing at these sites may be recommended, depending on the areas where right of way takes and excavation are planned. Therefore, an ISA is recommended for the proposed intersection alternative. If hazardous materials contamination is suspected based on the ISA, a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) and, if needed, a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) will be conducted to further characterize the levels of impact from the suspected sources. Appropriate clean up, avoidance, or mitigation measures



will then be taken in accordance with the NMDOT’s Handbook of Hazardous Waste Management

(August 1999). H. Environmental / Mitigation: Cerrillos Rd at St. Francis Dr - Cerrillos Road Grade Separation

1. Biological Resources The project footprint at this location needs to be refined in order to establish potential impacts.

However, the impacts on biological resources are not anticipated to be extensive due to the existing urban setting.

Soils If the proposed Cerrillos Rd and St. Francis Dr road grade separation improvements disturb

more than one acre of land, a SWPPP would be required to prevent erosion during construction. Vegetation Due to the urban land use at this location, negligible impacts to native vegetation are expected

to result from the proposed improvements. Threatened and Endangered Species No federally listed threatened or endangered species are expected to occur within the project

Corridor. A biological survey of the proposed project area at this location would need to be completed to determine the presence or absence of the Gunnison prairie dog. The City of Santa Fe Ordinance No. 2001-35 ordains the humane relocation of the Gunnison prairie dog and would apply to any prairie dog populations present at the proposed alternative.


birds are expected as a result of the proposed alternative. 2. Air Quality/Noise


significant impacts to air quality are expected as a result from the proposed improvements. Construction-related air quality issues will be controlled as recommended by the NMED.

Noise The proposed road grade separation improvements could result in a traffic noise impact; an

additional analysis of noise levels and mitigation measures may be required for this alternative. 3. Visual

There will be an impact from the proposed road grade separation improvements on the existing view shed at this location.



4. Social There is potential for community cohesion impacts at this location due to the proposed access

modifications. 5. Cultural


The Santa Fe Southern Railway railroad tracks cross St. Francis Drive near the intersection of Cerrillos Rd. and St. Francis Dr. The actual tracks were re-aligned in 2007 for the construction of the NM Rail Runner Express. However, the original site of the railroad tracks has been determined to be eligible for the NRHP. A more detailed investigation, including field surveys, and further coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be required for this site once the area of potential effect is defined for the proposed intersection improvements. 6. Water Resources

There are no drainages, wetlands, or floodplains located at the Cerrillos Rd and St. Francis intersection; therefore there are no anticipated impacts to water resources at this location. 7. Hazardous Materials

According to the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) Environmental Geology Bureau (EGB) ISA Report conducted for the St. Francis Drive Corridor Study between Milepost (MP) 161.8 to MP 168.7 (2006), thirty-one recognized conditions were identified near the major intersections along St. Francis Dr. The intersections with the highest concentration of sites were Sawmill Rd and St. Francis Dr, Cordova Rd and St. Francis Dr, and Cerrillos Rd and St. Francis Dr. Subsurface testing at these sites may be recommended, depending on the areas where right of way takes and excavation are planned. Therefore, an ISA is recommended for the proposed intersection alternative. If hazardous materials contamination is suspected based on the ISA, a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) and, if needed, a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) will be conducted to further characterize the levels of impact from the suspected sources. Appropriate clean up, avoidance, or mitigation measures will then be taken in accordance with the NMDOT’s Handbook of Hazardous Waste Management

(August 1999).

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Intersection Improvements –Northern


X. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS – NORTHERN The Northern section includes the Guadalupe Interchange. The NMDOT has identified a bridge

reconstruction project to replace the existing Guadalupe Interchange bridge. This project, STIP Project D5070, is included in the outer year projects list (2014) of the current Santa Fe MPO 2010-2013 TIP. This report will focus on two alternatives for improvements to that interchange: 1) replacement of the bridge as it currently is today, with a non-standard left-hand exit ramp, and 2) replacement of the bridge with a standard right-hand exit ramp. In addition, due to the increased travel from NM 599 and on US 84/285, an auxiliary lane between the eastbound-to-southbound NM 599 on-ramp to the Guadalupe interchange off-ramp will be considered. These improvements are shown in Figure 24 through Figure 27.

In addition to the above improvements, the Viento right-in/right-out driveway is proposed to be closed regardless of the alternative selected, as shown in Figure 30 in the Access Control Alternative in Section XII, on page 90.

A. Traffic Ramp junction traffic analysis conducted for Phase B indicates that both the left-hand and right-hand

ramps will operate at an acceptable level of service for the horizon year. The weaving movements are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service, as the weaving distance between the NM 599 on-ramp and Guadalupe off-ramp exceeds the maximum length of 2,500 feet (for weaving analysis), and the forecast volumes were evaluated at 2,500 feet and resulted in acceptable level of service. The actual distance between the ramp gores is approximately 3,600 feet.

It must be noted that the weaving will be more pronounced for the left hand ramp alternative with the auxiliary lane, as it will require NM 599 traffic destined for Guadalupe to weave across two lanes (from the inside lane to the outside lane, and a portion of the US84/285 to southbound St. Francis Drive traffic to weave one lane (from the outside lane to the middle lane), due to the lane drop on the left at Guadalupe. For the right-hand ramp alternative NM 599 traffic traveling south on St. Francis Drive will require a one-lane weave (from the outside lane to the middle lane), as will the US 84/285 traffic that exit at Guadalupe (from the middle lane to the outside lane). B. Safety

Due to the reduction in weaving movements that result from the right-hand ramp configuration, it is expected that the right-hand ramp would result in fewer crashes than the left-hand ramp C. Drainage

The existing drainage near the Guadalupe interchange is primarily sheet flow. Drainage improvements would likely be limited to extension of culverts, modification to existing roadside ditches, etc.



Additional drainage improvements would be required for the right-hand ramp alternative due to the lowering of the grade of southbound US 84/285, although these are not expected to be substantial at this time. D. Constructability

The right-hand ramp alternative will require the construction of two bridges, while the left-hand ramp alternative will require just one, the replacement for the current bridge. The right-hand ramp alternative will also require the lowering of US 84/285 up to over 20 feet for 2,000 feet, adding considerable expense and the addition of MSE walls due to the proximity of the off-ramp to the mainline and the off-ramp and Calle Mejia. No lowering of US 84/285 would be required to replace the existing left-hand ramp. E. Right-of-Way

No additional right-of-way will be required for this alternative, except for the possibility of additional right of way in the arroyo for the right-hand alternative. F. Costs

Preliminary construction cost estimates were prepared for each alternative. The left-hand ramp bridge replacement is estimated at approximately 6 million dollars. The right-hand ramp would require changing the grade of US 84/285 in addition to a second bridge. The right-hand ramp alternative is estimated at $24 million.

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

WA

LL

WA

LL

N

SC

AL

E:

01

00

40

0

20

0

ST

FR

AN

CIS

DR

GR

EG

G A

VE

CA

LL

E M

EJIA

VIENTO

ALA

MO

DR

AL

AM

O D

R

SB T

O E

B R

AM

P

WB

TO

NB

RA

MP

SB

US

84/2

85

NB

US

84/2

85

UN

DE

RP

AS

S

AP

PR

OX

R/W

US 84/285

HO

R: 1

" =

2

00

’V

ER

T: 1

" =

2

0’

CW

B

CW

B

CW

B

ME

TA

L B

AR

RIE

R

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

SM

ET

AL

BA

RR

IER

ME

TA

L B

AR

RIE

R

PR

OP

OS

ED

R/W

EX

IST

ING

GR

OU

ND

EX

IST

ING

GR

OU

ND

FIG

UR

E 2

4

SB

US

84

/2

85

TO

ST

FR

AN

CIS

RE

CO

NF

IG

UR

AT

IO

N F

OR

RIG

HT

HA

ND

RA

MP

& S

B A

UX

IL

IA

RY

LA

NE

79

0+00

5+00

10+00

15+00

20+00

25+00

30+00

o

o

ooo

o

o

o

o

o

o

6930

6940

6950

6960

6970

6980

6990

7000

7010

7010

6980

6990

7000

7010

7010

0+

00

5+

00

10

+0

015+

00

-

PVI 1+20.00

6946.59

PVC 5+96.75

6960.89

PVI 8+21.75

6967.64

PVT 10+46.75

6970.76

PVC 11+09.57

6971.63

PVI 12+34.57

6973.35

PVT 13+59.57

6975.10

PVC 13+62.85

6975.14

3.0

0%

1.3

8%

1.3

9%

VC

= 4

50.0

0’

MO

=

-0

.9

1’

SS

D =

892.4

4’

K =

2

78

.3

2

VC

= 2

50.0

0’

MO

= 0

.00

’

K =

23944.20

VC

= 4

10.0

0’

MO

= 2

.25

’

SS

D =

416.8

8’

K =

93.46

6970

6980

6990

7000

7010

6970

6980

6990

7000

7010

7020

7030

7040

7050

7050

15+

00

20+

00

25+

00

30+

00

-

PVI 15+67.85

6978.00 EVT 15+86.16

6980.92

PVT 17+72.85

6989.85

PVC 19+30.98

6998.99

PVI 20+50.98

7005.93

EVT 21+29.63

7008.88

PVT 21+70.98

7010.54

PVC 24+70.49

7022.03

PVI 25+90.49

7026.63

PVT 27+10.49

7033.45

5.7

8%

3.8

4%

5.6

8%

VC

= 4

10.0

0’

MO

= 2

.25

’

SS

D =

416.8

8’

K =

93.46

VC

= 2

40

.00

’

MO

=

-0.58’

SS

D =

675.2

8’

K =

123.49

VC

= 2

40

.00

’

MO

= 0

.55’

SS

D =

438

3.9

5’

K =

1

30

.0

0

P:\0

70

13

1\

13:12

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

ALA

MO

DR

GU

AD

ALU

PE S

T

VIENTO

US 8

4/285

ALA

MO

DR

ST

FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E

N

CA

LL

E M

EJIA

SC

AL

E:

HO

R: 1" =

200’

VE

RT

: 1" =

20’

0100

40

0

20

0

FIG

UR

E 2

5

SB

84

/2

85

TO

EB

GU

AD

AL

UP

E S

T

RE

CO

NF

IG

UR

AT

IO

N F

OR

RIG

HT

HA

ND

RA

MP

US

84/285

US

84/285

SB

TO

EB

RA

MP

WB

TO

NB

RA

MP

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

EX

IST

ING

GR

OU

ND

EX

IST

ING

GR

OU

ND

MS

E W

AL

L

MS

E W

AL

L

80

0+00

5+00

10+00

15+00

20+00

o

o

ooo

o

o

o

o

o

o

P:\0

70

13

1\

10:59

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

6940

6950

6960

6970

6980

6990

7000

7010

7020

7020

6990

7000

7010

7020

7020

0+

00

5+

00

10

+0

015+

00

-

6990

7000

7010

7020

6990

7000

7010

7020

7030

7040

7050

7060

7070

7070

15+

00

20+

00

25+

00

30+

00

-

PVI 0+00.00

6963.73

PVC 0+25.00

6964.08

PVI 1+00.00

6965.14

PVT 1+75.00

6968.39

PVC 4+50.00

6980.28

PVI 8+50.00

6997.59

EVT 10+75.69

6999.14

PVT 12+50.00

7001.46

EVT 13+24.00

7002.18

1.4

1%

4.3

3%

0.9

7%

VC

= 1

50.0

0’

MO

= 0

.55

’

SS

D =

359.7

4’

K =

5

1.4

9

VC

= 8

00.0

0’

MO

=

-3

.3

6’

SS

D =

716.9

1’

K =

2

38

.1

3

PVC 16+50.00

7005.33

PVI 18+00.00

7006.78

EVT 18+71.41

7009.69

PVCC 19+50.00

7012.31

PVI 23+50.00

7027.05

PVT 27+50.00

7049.31

PVI 28+93.48

7057.29

0.9

7%

5.5

6%

VC

= 3

00.0

0’

MO

= 1

.02

’

SS

D =

627.4

0’

K =

110.34

VC

= 8

00.0

0’

MO

= 1

.88

’

SS

D =

74

36

.62

’

K =

42

6.0

1

FIG

UR

E 2

6

SB

US

84/2

85 R

EC

ON

FIG

UR

AT

IO

N

FO

R L

EF

T H

AN

D R

AM

P

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

N

SC

AL

E:

01

00

40

0

20

0

ST

FR

AN

CIS

DR

GR

EG

G A

VE

CA

LL

E M

EJIA

VIENTO

ALA

MO

DR

AL

AM

O D

R

SB T

O E

B R

AM

P

WB

TO

NB

RA

MP

SB

US

84/2

85

NB

US

84/2

85

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

US 84/285

SC

AL

E:

01

00

40

0

20

0

N

AP

PR

OX

R/W

AP

PR

OX

R/W

HO

R: 1

" =

2

00

’

HO

R: 1

" =

2

00

’

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

US

84/285

NM

599 S

B O

N R

AM

P

NM

599 N

B O

FF R

AM

P

SEE ABOVE

SEE BELOW SHEET81

US

84/285

VIENTO

0+00

5+00

10+00

15+00

20+00

25+00

30+00

P:\0

70

13

1\

11:00

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

30+00

35+00

40+00

45+00

50+00

55+00

55+29

SC

AL

E:

0100

40

0

20

0

N

US

84/2

85

FIG

UR

E 2

7

SB

US

84

/28

5 A

UX

IL

IA

RY

LA

NE

HO

R: 1

" =

2

00

’V

ER

T: 1

" =

4

0’

AP

PR

OX

R/W

NM

599 N

B O

FF R

AM

P

NM

599 S

B O

N R

AM

P

AP

PR

OX

R/W

PR

OP

OS

ED

R/W

SL

OP

E L

IM

IT

S

ME

TA

L B

AR

RIE

R

82

30+00

35+00

40+00

45+00

50+00

55+00

55+29

P:\0

70

13

1\

13:12

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

N

NB

OF

F R

AM

PT

O N

M 5

99

SB

US

84/2

85

NB

US

84/2

85

NB

US

84/2

85

SB

US

84/2

85

NB

OF

F R

AM

PT

O N

M 5

99

US 84 / 285 TO

GUADALUPE

1-LANE WEAVE

GU

AD

AL

UP

E R

IGH

T H

AN

D R

AM

P

GU

AD

AL

UP

E L

EF

T

HA

ND

RA

MP

NM 599 TO

ST FRANCIS

1-LANE WEAVE

US 84/285 TO

ST FRANCIS

POSSIBLE

1-LANE WEAVE

NM 599 TO

GUADALUPE

2-LANE WEAVE

SB

ON

RA

MP

FR

OM

NM

599

SB

ON

RA

MP

FR

OM

NM

599

N

NB

US

84/2

85

NB

US

84/2

85

FIGURE 28

WEAVING FOR GUADALUPE

OFF-RAMP ALTERNATIVES

83P:\070131\

11:0

0

21

-JA

N

ST. FRANCIS DRIVE CORRIDOR STUDY

INITIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVESo

ooo

o

o

o

o



G. Environmental / Mitigation: Guadalupe Street at US 84/285 Auxiliary lane with left-hand side off ramp and Auxiliary lane with right-hand side off ramp 1. Biological Resources

Soils If the proposed Guadalupe St improvements for both auxiliary lane alternatives disturb more

than one acre of land, a SWPPP would be required to prevent erosion during construction. Vegetation Due to the urban land use at this location and the proximity to the US 84/285 roadway,

negligible impacts to native vegetation are expected to result from the proposed improvements. Threatened and Endangered Species No federally listed threatened or endangered species are expected to occur within the project

Corridor. A biological survey of the proposed project area at this location would need to be completed to determine the presence or absence of the Gunnison prairie dog. The City of Santa Fe Ordinance No. 2001-35 ordains the humane relocation of the Gunnison prairie dog and would apply to any prairie dog populations present at the proposed alternatives.


birds are expected as a result of the proposed alternatives. 2. Air Quality/Noise


significant impacts to air quality are expected as a result from the proposed improvements. Construction-related air quality issues will be controlled as recommended by the NMED.

Noise Due to the proximity of the auxiliary lane alternatives to surrounding neighborhoods, the

improvements could result in a traffic noise impact; an additional analysis of noise levels and mitigation measures may be required for these alternatives. 3. Visual

No significant visual impacts to the viewshed are expected as a result of the proposed auxiliary lane with the left-hand side off ramp. The auxiliary lane with the right-hand side off ramp may have visual impacts due to the proposed fly-over. 4. Social

There is potential for a positive impact on community cohesion as a result from the proposed improvements. The proposed off ramps would provide better access to Guadalupe St from US 84/285.



5. Cultural A review of historic aerial photos, as well as the records of the New Mexico Cultural Resource

Information System of the Archaeological Records Management Section (ARMS), was performed to identify existing archeological, cultural, and historic resources within the general project vicinity. Results of the research, to date, indicate that there are hundreds of cultural resources identified that have the potential to occur within the project area, including properties listed in and eligible for listing in both the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the State Register of Cultural Properties.

A more detailed investigation, including field surveys, and further coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be required once the area of potential effect is defined for the proposed improvements. 6. Water Resources

There are no drainages, wetlands, or floodplains located at this location; therefore there are no anticipated impacts to water resources. 7. Hazardous Materials

In order to gain more information on potentially contaminated properties, an ISA may be recommended for the proposed alternatives.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Transportation Management Systems


XI. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS The Transportation Management System alternative encompasses a broad range of strategies whose intent

is to improve traffic operations and manage traveler information. The Santa Fe MPO, in concert with the major stakeholders in the region, developed the Santa Fe Regional Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Architecture that will be used to guide the development of ITS in the Santa Fe area. The architecture represents a shard vision of how each agency’s systems will work together in the future, sharing information and resources to provide a safer, more efficient, and more effective transportation system.

Intelligent Transportation Systems involves the application of technology to enhance and coordinate travel management with such items as advanced communications, synchronized traffic signals, and dynamic message signs (DMS). Travel conditions (i.e. incidents, congestion, weather, etc.) are reported to agencies for better response and to travelers to better inform the public in their travel decision making. Further, the enhanced communication inherent in ITS improves coordination between agencies to better respond to changing travel conditions. Benefits of integrated ITS include improved mobility, reduced congestion, improved safety, enhanced emergency response and better overall system efficiency. Throughout the region, stakeholders from the NMDOT, the City and County of Santa Fe, other municipalities and emergency providers, transit operators and others, will develop communication strategies and approaches to improve the dissemination of travel information to both private and public users.

The Santa Fe Regional Telecommunications Coalition (SFRTC) is comprised of the City of Santa Fe, the County of Santa Fe and the Santa Fe Community College (SFCC). SFRTC was created to develop a High Speed Fiber Optic Metropolitan Area Network that will be capable of providing GigE network service to anchor institutions, including schools, libraries, public safety and economic development projects. A request has been submitted to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA which is a part of the US Department of Commerce) for the BTOP (Broadband Technology Opportunities Program) ARRA Grant and the SFRTC has completed the second step of the review process. The Coalition is waiting to hear back from NTIA about potential award. If the grant is awarded this network could also be utilized for future implementation of the Santa Fe Regional ITS Architecture.

The preliminary illustrative ITS Plan is shown in Figure 29. A. Traffic

Implementation of ITS strategies on the St. Francis Drive Corridor is anticipated to improve traffic operations through the use of fiber-optic traffic signal communication equipment and enhanced traffic signal control strategies, traffic volume monitoring, remote camera surveillance of the Corridor from the NMDOT District 5 or City of Santa Fe Traffic Operations Center, and real-time traveler information through



strategically placed dynamic message signs. This long-term project is identified in the Santa Fe Regional ITS Architecture. One possible concept for the St. Francis Drive ITS Corridor is shown in Figure 29. B. Safety

It is considered that more efficient operation of the transportation system would result in fewer crashes and enhanced safety. C. Drainage

The ITS Alternative is not expected to result in substantial drainage considerations. Construction of the ducts for the fiber-optic lines, CCTV cameras and poles, and dynamic message signs will likely result in minor, localized disturbances to the existing drainage flow but will be attenuated through standard design practice. D. Constructability

There are no constructability issues with the ITS Alternative except the lack of right-of-way for CCTV camera and DMS placement. E. Right-of-Way

Specific locations for the implementation of the St. Francis Drive ITS Corridor, such as CCTV cameras and DMS signs have not been identified; however due to the limited right-of-way in some portions of the Corridor, ideal locations likely will have a need for right-of-way acquisition. Location of these devices will consider available right-of-way prior to right-of-way acquisition.. F. Costs

The Santa Fe Regional ITS Architecture identifies the cost of the St. Francis Drive ITS Corridor system at $15,000,000.00. G. Environmental / Mitigation

1. Biological Resources Due to the limited footprint of the proposed Transportation Management System improvements,

there are no anticipated impacts to biological resources. However, more detailed investigations may be required further in project design. 2. Air Quality/Noise

Due to the limited footprint of the proposed Transportation Management System improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to air quality/noise. 3. Visual

Due to the urban setting and the limited footprint of the proposed Transportation Management System improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to visual resources. However, more detailed investigations may be required further in project design.



4. Social Due to the urban setting and the limited footprint of the proposed Transportation Management

System improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to the social environment. 5. Cultural

Due to the urban composition of the project Corridor and the limited footprint of the Transportation Management System improvements, negligible to minor impacts to cultural resources are expected. However, further cultural resource investigations would need to be completed prior to construction of any of the proposed improvements.

6. Water Resources Due to the limited footprint of the proposed Transportation Management System improvements,

there are no anticipated impacts to water resources. However, more detailed investigations may be required further in project design. 7. Hazardous Materials

Due to the limited footprint of the proposed Transportation Management System improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to hazardous materials. However, further investigations may be required further in project design.

AIR

PO

RT

RO

AD

RODEO ROAD

CER

RIL

LO

S R

OA

D

AG

UA

FR

IA S

TR

EET

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

VS

O

LE

GE

ND

CC

TV

- L

1

CC

TV

- L

2

CC

TV

- L

3

DM

S -

L1

DM

S -

L2

VS

O D

ET

EC

TO

RS

(V

OL

UM

E/S

PE

ED

/OC

CU

PA

NC

Y)

FIG

UR

E 2

9

DR

AF

T I

NIT

AL

SA

NT

A F

E

RE

GIO

NA

L I

TS

MA

P

N

(U

S 8

4/2

85

EL

DO

RA

DO

)

89

P:\0

70

13

1\

11:00

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Access Control


XII. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – ACCESS CONTROL The Phase A Report identified several driveways and medians that were candidates for closure or

modification. During Phase B additional discussions were held with the NMDOT and City of Santa Fe that identified additional locations that are candidates for modification.

The City has indicated that in an effort to reduce the conflicts and high delay that result from minor street left turn and minor street through movements that a long-term approach to addressing this issue is through the use of restricted access at minor street (unsignalized) intersections. This would result in traffic being allowed to turn left from St. Francis Drive onto the minor street, but prohibit left turn or through access from the minor street onto St. Francis Drive. These minor street left turn or through movements would be required to use the nearest upstream or downstream signalized intersection to make the left turn maneuver.

The locations identified for modification are shown in Figure 30. A. Traffic

Through the consolidation and modification of access along the Corridor, it is anticipated that minor improvements in traffic operations will result. B. Safety

The reduction in turning vehicles and decreased vehicular friction is expected resulting in improved safety due to the reduction in turning conflicts. C. Drainage

There is not expected to be any substantial changes to drainage patterns through the implementation of the Access Control Alternative. D. Constructability

There are no constructability concerns with the Access Control Alternative. E. Right-of-Way

No right-of-way will be required for this alternative however it is anticipated that local land and business owners will have concerns about the changes in access and travel patterns that will result from implementation of this alternative. F. Costs

The Access Control Alternative is a relatively low-cost option compared to the other Alternatives under consideration.

N

12345678910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ST

AT

ION

13

7+

25

.78

14

3+

22

.81

14

7+

22

.27

14

7+

76

.62

14

8+

35

.00

14

8+

93

.37

15

0+

00

.86

15

0+

71

.22

15

1+

20

.56

15

2+

68

.93

15

3+

25

.60

15

3+

79

.84

15

4+

24

.20

15

4+

66

.43

15

5+

04

.63

15

5+

48

.61

15

5+

76

.53

15

6+

06

.00

15

6+

76

.73

15

8+

60

.33

15

9+

61

.20

16

0+

24

.72

16

1+

25

.25

17

3+

61

.64

17

5+

29

.21

17

6+

99

.65

18

0+

69

.68

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N

BHHBBBHVVBHBBBBVVBBBVB-B

lock

ed

w/la

nd

scap

ing

HBBBB

OF

FS

ET

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

US

ED

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYNYYYYY

DR

IVE

WA

Y T

AB

LE

ST

AT

ION

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

NO

FF

SE

TU

SE

D

DR

IVE

WA

Y T

AB

LE

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

18

1+

18

.21

18

2+

02

.25

18

2+

39

.59

18

2+

80

.81

18

3+

57

.22

18

4+

35

.41

18

5+

17

.26

18

6+

04

.70

BBBBBBBB

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

YYYYYYYY

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

18

7+

12

.60

18

7+

93

.62

18

9+

49

.24

190+

11.2

2

19

6+

56

.80

19

7+

60

.34

19

9+

60

.71

20

1+

65

.79

20

1+

97

.06

20

2+

89

.39

20

4+

65

.41

21

0+

69

.88

211+

07.9

7

211+

44.3

2

21

2+

35

.30

21

2+

90

.89

21

5+

00

.72

21

5+

61

.52

22

0+

93

.30

BB-R

t in/o

ut

B-R

t in/o

ut

BBBVBHHH-B

locked w

/landscapin

g

B-G

ate

d

PPPPB-B

lock

ed

w/la

nd

scap

ing

Alle

y

V-F

ence/b

uild

ing

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

YYYYYYYYYYNYNNYYYYN

ST

AT

ION

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

NO

FF

SE

TU

SE

D

DR

IVE

WA

Y T

AB

LE

ST

AT

ION

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

NO

FF

SE

TU

SE

D

DR

IVE

WA

Y T

AB

LE

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

221+

88.6

8

22

4+

61

.72

22

5+

90

.24

22

9+

34

.17

22

9+

89

.08

23

4+

32

.07

23

4+

87

.27

23

5+

49

.55

23

1+

59

.99

23

0+

94

.09

23

0+

12

.45

22

9+

15

.15

22

5+

03

.58

22

2+

27

.88

22

0+

49

.81

B-B

locked w

/wall

B-C

ircle

in

B-C

ircle

out

BBBHBBBBHHHH

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

RT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

NYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

28

1+

68

.56

LT

Y

21

9+

15

.98

BL

TY

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

21

8+

60

.83

21

5+

02

.99

21

4+

51

.70

214+

00.4

0

21

3+

46

.89

21

2+

92

.98

21

2+

51

.17

21

2+

06

.93

211+

53.8

1

211+

08.9

6

BHHHHHHH-B

H-B

H

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

YYYYYYYYYY

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

10

0

10

1

10

2

20

9+

99

.93

20

9+

56

.19

20

8+

66

.84

20

8+

10

.51

20

3+

48

.09

20

2+

21

.29

20

1+

75

.49

19

9+

76

.74

18

9+

77

.79

18

8+

70

.64

18

6+

47

.66

18

5+

69

.23

18

4+

05

.59

16

3+

98

.06

16

1+

85

.14

15

9+

12

.16

15

6+

72

.62

15

5+

87

.40

14

5+

37

.20

14

3+

37

.72

13

9+

53

.18

13

8+

42

.84

HBBB-B

lock

ed

w/p

ark

ing

bu

mp

ers

P-B

lock

ed

w/f

en

ce

BBAlle

y

BBBBB-R

t in/o

ut

BBBHHHHH-B

locked w

/wall

H-R

t in/o

ut-T

em

p b

lock

ed

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

LT

YYYNNYYYYYYYYYYYNYYYNN1

03

PO

TE

NT

IAL

FO

R C

LO

SU

RE

SAN MATEO RD

ALTA VISTA ST

CORDOVA RD

CERRILLOS RD

AGUA FRIA ST

ALAMEDA ST

HICKOX ST

CALLE ANAYA

CALLE SARAGOSA

CAMINO SIERRA VISTA

DUNLAP ST

ROYBAL ST

MANHATTAN

PASEO DE

PERALTA

CAMINO DEL

MONTE REY

SC

AL

E: 1

"=

75

0’

FIG

UR

E 3

0

EX

IST

ING

AC

CE

SS

LO

CA

TIO

NS

COLUMBIA ST

MERCER ST

PASEO DE PERALTA

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

CA

MIN

O D

E

LA

S C

RU

CIT

AS

H (V

iento

del N

orte

- Not S

how

n)

B=

Busin

ess, H

=H

om

e, V

=V

acant, P

=P

ossib

le D

OT

R/W

SABINO ST

91

P:\0

70

13

1\

11:01

21-JAN

ST

. FR

AN

CIS

DR

IV

E C

OR

RID

OR

ST

UD

Y

INIT

IAL

EV

AL

UA

TIO

N O

F A

LT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Access Control


G. Environmental / Mitigation 1. Biological Resources

Due to the limited footprint of the proposed access control improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to biological resources. However, additional investigations may be necessary further in project design.

2. Air Quality/Noise As a result of the proposed access control improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to

air quality/noise along St. Francis Drive Corridor. 3. Visual

Due to the urban setting and the limited footprint of the proposed access control improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to visual resources. 4. Social

Due to the components of the proposed access control improvements, there are expected to be modifications to access points and potentially travel patterns for some adjacent land owners; however, these impacts are not anticipated to be significant and will be further coordinated with such property owners. 5. Cultural

Due to the urban composition of the project Corridor and the limited footprint of the access control improvements, negligible to minor impacts to cultural resources are expected. However, further cultural resource investigations would need to be completed prior to construction of any improvements. 6. Water Resources

Due to the limited footprint of the proposed access control improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to water resources. 7. Hazardous Materials

Due to the limited footprint of the proposed access control improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to hazardous materials. However, further investigations may be necessary prior to construction of any improvements.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Enhanced Transit


XIII. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – ENHANCED TRANSIT This alternative resulted in a recommendation for development of expanded transit services in the Santa Fe

area. Concurrent with Phase A was the development of the Santa Fe City and County Regional Planning Authority (RPA) Regional Transit Service Plan. The Regional Transit Service Plan was created as a result of the passage of a one-eighth cent transit gross receipts tax in November 2008. The “TGRT” is dedicated to funding the ongoing operations of, and transit connections to the NM Rail Runner Express. Half of the TGRT revenue will be allocated to fund ongoing NM Rail Runner Express operations. Of the remaining 50 percent, 14 percent will be retained by the North Central Regional Transit District (NCRTD) for administrative expenses and possible enhancements to regional service connecting to the NM Rail Runner Express. The other 86 percent (of the 50 percent) will be managed and monitored by NCRTD, allocated by the RPA through the guidelines in the Regional Transit Service Plan, and spent by Santa Fe County and Santa Fe Trails for new and increased regional transit service.

The service plan, initially anticipated to be a 5-year plan (FY 2010-2014), was limited to 2-years (FY 2010-2011) due to the uncertainty of future revenue projections. Additionally the Plan acknowledges that the opportunities for service expansion are far greater in cost than the TGRT revenues could fund. Several of the projects in the Regional Transit Service Plan affect the St. Francis Drive Corridor: Route 2 (Cerrillos) and Route 4 (Southside) enhancements, and funding for the Santa Fe Pick-Up and the Greater Eldorado Express.

A. Traffic The Phase A Report found that traffic growth is anticipated to be substantial over the coming years. A

number of intersections along the Corridor are forecast to operate at poor levels of service with the existing geometry. As most of the improvements are on the local streets where right-of-way is generally even more constrained than St. Francis Drive, enhanced transit use is an approach that if embraced and utilized by a significant number of commuters, could improve efficiency of the transportation system. B. Safety

The availability of additional transit service is not expected to have a material effect of safety within the Corridor. C. Drainage

There would be no impact to drainage from this alternative. D. Constructability

Constructability is not expected to be an issue with the enhanced transit alternative. E. Right-of-Way

Depending on the level of enhanced transit service ultimately developed and the amenities that are provided (bus shelters, traveler and route information signs), right-of-way may be required. Evaluation of existing right-of-way will be considered for amenity locations prior to right-of-way acquisition.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Enhanced Transit


F. Costs Detailed cost estimates were not developed for this alternative however there would be substantial

new capital costs associated with the new busses, as well as annual maintenance costs. G. Environmental / Mitigation

1. Biological Resources Due to the limited footprint of the proposed transit improvements, there are no anticipated

impacts to biological resources. 2. Air Quality/Noise

As a result of the proposed transit improvements, there is potential for air quality/noise benefits as a result of options to the use of motor vehicles along the St. Francis Drive Corridor. 3. Visual

Due to the urban setting and the limited footprint of the proposed access improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to visual resources. 4. Social

Due to the components of the proposed transit improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to the social environment. Implementation of the proposed improvements could provide some social benefit by improving transit options. 5. Cultural

Due to the urban composition of the project Corridor and the limited footprint of the transit improvements, negligible to minor impacts to cultural resources are expected. However, further cultural resource investigations would need to be completed prior to construction of any of the proposed improvements. 6. Water Resources

Due to the limited footprint of the proposed transit improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to water resources. 7. Hazardous Materials

Due to the limited footprint of the proposed transit improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to hazardous materials.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Complete Streets Concepts


XIV. ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION – COMPLETE STREETS CONCEPTS In the Phase A Report, Complete Streets was recommended as an alternative to be included in any

construction project that ultimately is planned for St. Francis Drive. Complete Streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. For parts of the Corridor, the addition of sidewalks and bicycle paths would be an example of enhancements that could be made to enable St. Francis Drive to become more of a Complete Street. However it must be stated that there is no project identified to re-construct St. Francis Drive as a Complete Street, therefore improvement projects that have been identified, such as at Zia Road or Cerrillos Road, should strive to include as many components to make a Complete Street as possible. This could mean reducing the curb radii at the intersections, alignment changes to reduce pedestrian crossing distances, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle signal timing and operation, as well as opportunities for enhanced street furniture and landscape amenities.

A. Traffic Vehicular traffic operations are not expected to be impacted due to implementation of Complete Street

concepts into improvement designs. Additional bicycle and pedestrian traffic may result from the increased access that can be provided. B. Safety

Implementation of Complete Streets concepts should not impact the safety along the Corridor. Additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic may increase thereby increasing the potential of additional crashes. C. Drainage

By itself, the implementation of Complete Street concepts into improvement designs are not expected to impact drainage patterns. D. Constructability

Constructability of Complete Street concepts is not anticipated to be a concern, except for the limited fight-of-way in many locations on the Corridor. E. Right-of-Way

In areas of the Corridor where there is restricted right-of-way, implementation of Complete Street concepts may prove difficult. Alternative solutions (reduced lane widths, for example) should be considered as a way of possibly including additional pedestrian and bicycle access. F. Costs

The costs for implementing the Complete Streets alternative could be quite costly if the intent was to reconstruct St. Francis Drive completely. However as proposed the approach is to implement as many of the concepts as possible into improvement projects as they arise. This will significantly reduce the cost of the improvements as the scope and extent of improvements will be more limited.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Complete Streets Concepts


G. Environmental / Mitigation 1. Biological Resources

Due to the limited footprint of the proposed complete streets improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to biological resources. However, additional investigations may be necessary further in project design. 2. Air Quality/Noise

As a result of the proposed complete streets improvements, there is potential for air quality/noise benefits as a result of additional multi-modal facilities along St. Francis Drive Corridor. 3. Visual

Due to the urban setting and the limited footprint of the proposed complete streets improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to visual resources. 4. Social

Due to the components of the proposed complete streets improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to the social environment. Implementation of the proposed improvements could provide some social benefit by improving multi-modal facilities. 5. Cultural

Due to the urban composition of the project Corridor and the limited footprint of the complete streets improvements, negligible to minor impacts to cultural resources are expected. However, further cultural resource investigations would need to be completed prior to construction of any improvements. 6. Water Resources

Due to the limited footprint of the proposed complete streets improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to water resources. 7. Hazardous Materials

Due to the limited footprint of the proposed complete streets improvements, there are no anticipated impacts to hazardous materials.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Recommendations


XV. RECOMMENDATIONS A wide range of alternatives have been evaluated for the St. Francis Drive Corridor. These alternatives

address a range of deficiencies and needs on the Corridor and vary substantially in cost and complexity. Therefore traditional evaluation criterion does not fully address the range of alternatives developed. In addition, the breadth and scope of the alternatives developed for the Corridor, when combined with the I-25 and NM 599 Corridor Studies currently underway, will far exceed the funding available for transportation improvements in the region. The projects identified in this Corridor Study, as well as the others, will need to be integrated into the overall transportation strategy developed for the region, the 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), that is currently under development by the Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization. The MTP will be the regional planning policy document for transportation improvements in the Santa Fe MPO area.

This Phase B Report will provide sufficient information to the MPO in order to assist in the development of the 2035 MTP. Although this report will develop a list of project recommendations to present to the Santa Fe MPO, inclusion of any project on the Santa Fe MPO TIP or MTP will be at the discretion of the MPO and its member agencies.

To that end, the alternatives evaluated in the Phase A and Phase B St. Francis Drive Corridor Study reports will be recommended in the following format – Short-Term, Medium-Term and Long-Term. The Short-Term projects will be those that are considered to be addressed in the near-term, cognizant of the current funding limitations. Other more extensive project recommendations will still be included, but prioritization and competition for funding is anticipated to require hard decisions and realistic thinking of what is possible, both financially and practically.

The Medium-Term and Long-Term project recommendations include projects of significant size and scope. These projects are expected to be considered 5 or more years into the future. As such all these projects will require an engineering re-evaluation to determine if the alternatives developed in this study are still applicable and appropriate for the future condition. In addition all projects in the table will require completion of the environmental and design process prior to any construction activities.

St. Francis Drive through the City of Santa Fe Corridor Study Abbreviated Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives – DRAFT Recommendations


Table 7 - Recommended Priorities and Timeframes

Short Term Projects Medium Term Projects Long Term Projects

Transit Enhancements Transit Enhancements/Expansion Transit Enhancements/Expansion

Zia Road Pedestrian Crossing Improvements*

Trail Connectivity Enhancements* Trail Connectivity Enhancements*

Trail Connectivity Enhancements* Access Control Access Control

Access Control ITS Implementation District and City Traffic Management Centers Travel Monitoring CCTV’s Communication Infrastructure and Integration

ITS Implementation DMS Traffic Adaptive Signal Timing?

Initial ITS Implementation Traffic Signal Upgrades Regular Signal Timing Updates

Joint NMDOT / City Zia Road Improvements*

Joint NMDOT / City Sawmill Road / Mainline St. Francis Drive Improvements* (combine with St. Francis Interchange Replacement?)

Guadalupe Interchange Replacement and EB NM 599-to-SB 84/285 Auxiliary Lane

St. Michael’s Drive Improvements Joint NMDOT/City Cerrillos Road Improvements*

Cerrillos Road Pedestrian and Trail Crossing Improvements*

* - Implement Complete Street concepts to maximum extent possible

ST. FRANCIS DRIVE

Documents

Transcript of ST. FRANCIS DRIVE