Illiana Corridor CPG/TTF Meeting #1

Transcription

1 Illiana Corridor CPG/TTF #1 March 14, 2013 #10 1

2 Agenda Tier One Recap What happens in Tier Two? Tier Two Purpose and Need Identify Range of Alternatives Landowner Outreach Initial Context Sensitive Solution concepts Next Steps #10 2

3 Tier One Recap #10 3

4 Tier One FEIS/ROD Tier One Single Document Final EIS/ROD approved January 17, 2013 First single document in country approved under new MAP-21 streamlining provisions #10 4

5 Single Document (Combined Final EIS/ROD): B3 and No-Action Less environmental impacts Higher travel performance Lower construction costs Greater stakeholder support IL/IN Alternatives CPG/TTF Carried Forward to Tier 2 #10 5

6 Tier Two #10 6

7 Tier Two Study Area 950 square mile Study Area Tier Two will focus on B3 Corridor #10 7

8 What is Tier Two? Continuation of NEPA process Context Sensitive Solutions Field study and GIS based impact assessment Financing strategies for alternatives COMPLETED JANUARY, 2013 COMPLETION WINTER/EARLY SPRING 2014 Tier Two Outcome: Preferred Alternative and environmental footprint with plan for financing #10 8

9 Working Alignment Measures Potential Impacts 400 Working Alignment Footprint within 2000 Planning Corridor Alignment location will move Actual alignment will be determined fall 2013 #10 9

10 Tier Two Schedule #10 10

11 B3 Corridor Further studies Data Collection/Surveys Ground Environmental Drainage Geotechnical Property Line Interchange Types/Locations Access and Land Use Assessment Cross Road Connectivity Studies Alignment Studies Bridge/Drainage Studies Studies of Sensitive Environmental Features Studies of Underground Conditions Financial Studies Land Acquisition Studies #10 11

12 Environmental Avoidance and Minimization Mitigation concepts were general in Tier One In Tier Two, we will have more detailed and current info based on site specific surveys Mitigation is determined by environmental regulation, and may go above and beyond minimum requirements Avoid, minimize, mitigate Will be based on measured impacts from field survey results #10 12

13 Purpose and Need Major Purpose and Need points remain the same: Alleviate Local System Congestion and Improve Local System Mobility Improve Regional Mobility Provide for Efficient Movement of Freight #10 13

14 Purpose and Need: Updates Updated to indicate Corridor B3 as the selected alternative of the Tier One Single Document FEIS/ROD Updated to indicate the project is funded through the Tier Two EIS, and that further coordination will be needed with CMAP and NIRPC for inclusion in their long-range regional plans Added in a manner consistent with the commitments in the Tier One Record of Decision to the Purpose statement Comments by: April 14, 2013 #10 14

15 Identify Range of Alternatives #10 15

16 Tier Two Range of Alternatives Alternatives are anticipated to be located within the 2000 foot corridor Exceptions System Interchange areas (ex. I-55) Flexibility to consider minor excursions of the Illiana to accommodate newly discovered impacts or to address CSS issues in a way that does not materially increase overall impacts Local system improvements to accommodate access changes Exceptions will be coordinated with NEPA/404 agencies #10 16

17 Tier Two Range of Alternatives Potential Alternatives Access Alternatives Variations in mainline alignment not anticipated to be corridor wide Interchange locations or spacing Other variations #10 17

18 One-on-One Stakeholder s Met with over 40 agency stakeholders one-on-one, and 406 parcel landowner since Tier One ROD. MUNICIPALITIES COUNTIES MPOS EMERGENCY SERVICE PROVIDERS SCHOOL DISTRICTS PROPERTY OWNERS FOREST PRESERVE / PARK DISTRICTS INTEREST GROUPS #10 18

19 One-on-One Stakeholder s What did we hear? Input on location of interchanges Input on keeping roads open emergency services, school districts, local and county highway departments (maintenance), agriculture, other local residents Swapping road kept open locations Adding locations of roads kept open Frontage roads or relocated roads also are considered Need for collaboration with others on land use planning #10 19

20 Landowner s Held five landowner meetings in February Over 850 people participated Presentation and Stations One-on-one discussions with study team Met their Landowner Relations Representatives #10 20

21 Landowner s What is the purpose of the Representatives? Each landowner assigned a Landowner Relations Representative Direct personal contact throughout the process. The person who will provide you with FACTS. Quickly. correspondence by visiting: and click Submit a Comment/Question #10 21

22 Surveying: Access Protocol Study data is important to refinement and minimization of impacts Team recognize sensitivity of entry Notifications of study work have been sent Advanced and post notice of work will be provided #10 22

23 Landowner : What Did We Hear? Opinions on road closures and adverse travel Access impacts if partial property is acquired Farming impacts if partial property is acquired Discovered locations of field tiles, well and septic Gathered information on wetlands and flow of water Secondary impacts, noise, visual Impacts on quality of life Overall land acquisition process Some willing sellers #10 23 Happy we involved them in the process and asked their opinions Sincere in the approach to the meetings

24 Local Road Connectivity #10 24

25 Corridor Sustainability and Context Design #10 25

26 Corridor Sustainability and Context Design Midewin area design workshop first, but other areas will be explored West Creek and Cedar Creek also anticipated to need additional design input Overall corridor theme(s) Distinct areas of project - west end (Midewin, Historic 66, Kankakee River, Wauponsee Trail); middle (agricultural, green infrastructure elements); east end (rolling terrain, streams/creeks, some wooded area, more populated) #10 26

27 Context: Waters of the U.S. and regulated floodplains Environmental stewardship focus on resource agency coordination and permit requirements Recognition of resource planning of MPOs, forest and park districts, and other local agencies #10 27

28 What is INVEST? NEPA/404 11/8/12 FHWA s Sustainable Highway Self-Evaluation Tool INVEST (INfrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool) Web-based tool to evaluate the sustainability of projects and programs Identify and recognize above-and-beyond efforts towards sustainability Considers the full lifecycle of projects Can evaluate System Planning, Project Development, or Operations and Maintenance I-LAST (Illinois-Livable And Sustainable Transportation) Focus on sustainable results to highway projects Simple and efficient method of evaluating transportation projects #10 28

29 INVEST Scorecard NEPA/404 11/8/12 Project Development module contains six scorecard options The total points a project earns can be compared to a number of achievement levels. These achievement levels have been set initially, but have not yet been finely calibrated. #10 29

30 Illiana Corridor Context Design Concepts Toolbox Key Design Components Continued Introduce Intentional Alignment Meanders and Lane Pair Separations Standard Alignment at Stream Crossing Alignment Meander and Lane Pair Separation at Stream Crossing Alignment Meander and Lane Pair Separation at Stream Crossing and Bicycle/Ped/Wildlife Underpass #10 30

31 Illiana Corridor Context Design Concepts Toolbox Key Design Components Continued Introduce Intentional Alignment Meanders and Lane Pair Separations #10 31

32 Illiana Corridor Context Design Concepts Toolbox Key Design Components Continued Naturalized/Native Planting Restore diverse plant ecosystem; native grasses, wildflowers, shrubs, and trees Create wildlife corridors with vegetative cover that provides food source and habitat Stabilize graded slopes, drainageways, and ponds Screen objectionable views and frame and direct attention to positive views Soften engineered slopes which cannot meet desired grading parameters Vary establishment techniques; whips, cuttings, seeding and nut/seed beds #10 32

33 Illiana Corridor Context Design Concepts Toolbox Native Grass Plantings Meandering Roadside Ditches #10 33

34 Land Use Planning #10 34

35 Corridor Land Use Planning The state DOTs do not control land use Corridor Land Use Options from Tier One FEIS Facilitation of Land Use planning meetings Corridor-wide solutions sought Preservation options to allow consideration of future transportation and non-transportation uses 3 corridor-wide land use planning meetings dates TBD #10 35

36 Public Private Partnership (P3) #10 36

37 Driver for Jobs & Economic Development Need jobs now Many regional benefits beyond the corridor Funding is tight P3 represents new investment dollars P3 transfers risk/cost to the private sector State owns the land. Private sector lease P3 has a public investment/public benefits #10 37

38 Deliver Local Benefits FASTER Short-term Jobs/Economic 9,000 construction jobs (in job years) $1.4 billion in short-term construction economic output. Long-term Jobs/Economic 28,000 jobs (in job years under tolled scenario) due to travel time savings Additional long-term economic estimated to be $3.9 billion (under tolled scenario). Other benefits State and local tax revenues, and auto operating cost savings. Reduction of tax funds needed for project New funding source #10 38

39 Funding and Implementation Options Traditional Funding with: Map 21 Increased TIFIA funding IDOT & INDOT exploring innovative finance mechanisms to fund this project Public Private Partnership #10 39

40 Examples of P3 Presidio Parkway (California) Recognized by FHWA as a National Model 18% of contracts awarded to San-Fran based certified SBAs Frees up state funds while improving aging infrastructure I-595 (Florida) Estimate with traditional funding: 20 years; estimate with P3 funding: 5 years Estimated 30,000 local jobs Estimated $1 million per day injected into local South Florida economy Ohio River Bridge (Indiana/Kentucky) Created 4,000 local jobs 10% DBE contractors Significant less impact on states debt load and credit rating Secure private-sector funding backed by state funding and toll revenues #10 40

41 Bi-State Outreach on P3 Starting P3 consideration with outreach P3 industry participants Agencies Construction/Engineering/Labor Industries Local Government General Public #10 41

42 P3 FAQ s How can this be a public project when private investors may be involved? Why doesn t the DOT just build it? #10 42

43 P3 Development Steps Evaluate Commercial Options Procurement Process #10 43

44 Overall Illiana Corridor Schedule Tier 1 NEPA Tier 2 NEPA ROW Acquisition/Utility P3 Procurement Process Completed January 2013 Anticipated March 2014 #10 44

45 Next Steps #10 45

46 Corridor Planning and Task Force Groups Task Force Workshop #1 April 2, 2013 Corridor Sustainability and Context Design Land Use Task Force Workshop #2 Mid-April Recap and Finalize CPG/TTF #2 April 24, 2013 #10 46

47 Next Steps Gather input and additional technical findings Land surveys continue Property owner on-site meetings Tier Two Public #1: April 16 th ILLINOIS April 18 th INDIANA #10 47