Post on 28-Nov-2020
Welcome!
Stakeholder/Public Information Meeting
Hopkinton 10/3/18,10/4/18, 10/9/18Worcester 10/11/18, Bolton 10/15/18, Milford 10/16/18
495 Partnership 10/16/18
I-495 / I-90 Interchange Improvements ProjectHopkinton, Westborough, Southborough | MassDOT #607977
2
Agenda
• Today’s Meeting
• Project Team
• Project Area and Need
• Results of Data Collection– Technical
– Public involvement
• Alternative Concepts
• Alternative Concept Analysis
• Discussion
Second public meeting
Goals:
• Update the public on the project status
• Share the results of data collection
• Review the interchange improvement alternatives
• Obtain input on:– Improvement alternatives
– Measures of Effectiveness
• Take comments/answer questions about the alternatives
• Ask for your help in spreading the word3
Today’s Meeting
Project team
MassDOT’s Highway Division• Project Proponent - responsible for the NEPA/MEPA document and the design
process
Federal Highway Administration• Lead Federal Agency - responsible for oversight and NEPA compliance
HNTB • Lead consultant for consultant team of Tetra Tech, Howard Stein Hudson,
HMMH, and Green International
4
Project team
Project Area and Limits of Work
5
Project Purpose
“To improve safety and operational efficiency at the system interchange of these two nationally and regionally significant interstate highways.”
6
7
Improving the geometric deficiencies and eliminating weaving movements will achieve the goals of:
• Reducing crashes in the project area for all movements
• Reducing recurring congestion within the Interchange
• Reducing recurring queuing that currently extends from the
Interchange onto the mainlines of I-90 and I-495
• Reducing travel time through the Interchange, especially on
high-volume movements.
Traffic Study
• New counts obtained:– Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR)– Data from electronic toll gantries– Obtained during:
• October 2017• November 2017• Columbus Day counts obtained for holiday versus
normal comparison– Impacts of toll plaza removal captured in 2017 counts
• Interchanges studied – a holistic approach– I-495/Route 9– I-495/I-90– I-495/West Main Street
• 2017 data compared with 2011 to understand traffic trends
8
9
Existing Peak Hour Volumes
• AM Peak: 7:15-8:15
• PM Peak: 4:45-5:45• Origin/destination
analyzed through blue tooth tracking
Traffic Study Headlines
• Interchange:– Does not meet current demand– Cannot meet future demand
• 2017 vs. 2011 peak hours:– Average daily volumes on I-495 up by 5-13%– Average daily volumes on I-90 down by 4-
6%– Peak hour traffic is down, but…– Overall volumes are up suggesting longer
peak periods
10
Traffic Study Headlines II
• Unsafe queuing conditions– I-90 EB to I-495 NB during AM peak– I-90 WB to I-495 SB during PM peak– I-495 queues from I-90 to Route 9 during PM
peak
• Problem weaving conditions– I-495 SB to I-90 WB during AM peak– I-90 EB to I-495 NB during AM peak– I-90 WB to I-495 SB during PM peak including
disobeying pavement markings to bypass queues
11
Traffic Density AM Peak Hour
12
Traffic Density PM Peak Hour
13
14
2040 Peak Hour Volumes
• CTPS provided growth by roadway and movement
• Private vehicles distributed based on existing patterns
• Trucks distributed by CTPS
• Largest AM Growth:• 495NB – 745
vehicles• Largest PM growth
• 495SB – 550 vehicles
• High crash location
• Crash rates on I-495 within interchange is >2x statewide average
• 460 crashes between 2011 and 2015
• Crash clusters located throughout the interchange
15
Crash Data
16
Environmental Resources
• Perennial and Intermittent Streams • Wetlands• Cedar Swamp Area of Critical
Environmental Concern• Vernal Pools • Atlantic White Cedar Trees• Threatened and Endangered Species • FEMA Regulatory Floodway and
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding
17
18
Wetlands
Public Outreach
• Public meetings:– November 15, 2017 – Hopkinton– November 16, 2017 – Westborough
• Stakeholder briefings:– January 10, 2018 – Local businesses– January 17, 2018 – Environmental interests– January 29, 2018 – Title VI organizations– January 30, 2018 – Regional organizations
• Wikimap: Opened summer 2017
19
Outreach: Key Themes
Comments from the meetings, briefings and WikiMap focused on two broad topics:
– Driving:• Congestion • Safety
– Environmental Quality and Preservation
20
Key Themes: Driving
21
• Congestion from on/off ramps backs up onto mainlines
• Merging movements are dangerous• People drive too fast for the conditions • Traffic diverts onto local roads to avoid the
interchange• Trucks have trouble merging onto 495 south
due to the steep ramp
Key Themes: Environment
22
• Interchange is surrounded by wetlands and the Cedar Swamp ACEC
• Atlantic White Cedars are present• Water level and flow need to be
addressed• Wildlife crosses the interchange
Outreach: WikiMapping
23
WikiMapping: Users
24
“During the evening commute, there is an issue with cars driving in the left hand lanes and cutting right at the last minute to exit causing a slow down on all 3 lanes. – Comment from WikiMap
WikiMapping: Comments
25
“I-495 backs up both north and south approaching the ramps to I-90 during most commutes, weekends and anytime during the summer.” – Comment from WikiMap
• Used March, 2015 ENF Concepts as
a starting point
• Revised and new concepts:
• 14-4 (Revised)
• 14-5 (Revised)
• 22-3 (Revised)
• C-2 (New by project team)
Draft Concepts
26
27
Route 9
Concept 14-4
28
Concept 14-5
29
30
31
Evaluation of Project Purpose
To meet Project Purpose, each alternative must improve on No Build predicted conditions for safety and traffic operations for all traffic movements.
32
33
• Alternative 14-4 does not improve on No Build and Need
• Alternatives 14-5, 22-3 & C-2 improve on No Build Meet Purpose and Need
Predicted Future Crashes per Year No Build
Alternative
C-2 14-4 14-5 22-3
Ramps to I-90 15 10 15 14 7
Ramps to I-495 17 10 13 10 10
Mainline (I-90) 53 47 46 43 44
Mainline (I-495) 55 40 41 41 41
Meets Purpose & Need YES NO YES YES
• Measures of Effectiveness26 parameters to measure how well an alternative performs in 7 categories:
• Safety = Purpose & Need• Mobility & Operations = Purpose & Need• Environmental Considerations• Construction Challenges• Economic Impacts• System Preservation• Costs
34
• Measures of Effectiveness1. Safety Category
35
Parameter Metric No Build Alternative C-2 Alternative 14-5 Alternative 22-3
Reduction in yearly societal cost for predicted geometric crashes weighted by severity
Percent reduction in annual societal costs of crashes compared to No Build
Base Cost $25.6m $5.7m(22%) $5.1m (20%) $6.3m (25%)
Reduction in yearly societal cost for predicted congestion crashes weighted by severity
Percent reduction in annual societal costs of crashes compared to No Build
Base Cost $13.5m $8.9m (66%) $8.9m (66%) $8.9m (66%)
Number of weaving movementsNumber (related to driver stress, increased vehicle conflict points)
4 0 0 0
Low speed curvesDesign speed by movement of horizontal curve less than 45 mph (related to vehicle off-tracking, rollovers, driver stress)
18 2 4 2
Number of left-side entrancesNumber (related to driver stress, slow vehicles, trucks, and buses required to change at least 1 lane)
0 0 1 1
Visibility and distance on low speed curves to decision points (ramp gores)
Number of ramp movements that require drivers to make lane choices on tight horizontal curvature - driver stress (max total of 8)
6 2 2 0
• Measures of Effectiveness2. Mobility and Operations
Category
36
Parameter Metric No Build Alternative C-2 Alternative 14-5 Alternative 22-3
Congestion (Mainline and Ramps)
Number of segments approaching or exceeding capacity in AM or PM Peak Hour per VISSIM modeling
38 3 3 5
DelayPercent reduction in vehicle-hours compared to No Build (AM and PM Peak Hours)
Base 91% 91% 91%
Vehicle hours traveledPercent reduction in vehicle hours compared to the No Build (AM and PM Peak Hours)
Base 65% 65% 66%
• Measures of Effectiveness3. Environmental Considerations Category
37
Parameter Metric No Build Alternative C-2 Alternative 14-5 Alternative 22-3
Permanent wetland impacts
Total impacts in acreage. 0 1.9 1.8 2.1
Bordering land subject to flooding
Total impacts in acreage. 0 1.2 1.3 1.7
Opportunities for on-site mitigation
On-site acreage made available for impact mitigation.
0 7.8 4.9 7.8
Property acquisition(all property)
Acreage of acquisition required for off-site mitigation and construction.
0 0.9 0.9 1.2
Article 97 property impacts Impacts, acreage 0 0 1 property/ 0.1 acre 1 property/ 0.3 acreTemporary wetland impacts
Total impacts in acreage. n/a 2.7 2.5 4
Air Quality ImprovementsBeneficial or adverse effect based on congestion relief.
Adverse Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial
• Measures of Effectiveness4. Construction Challenges Category
38
Parameter Metric No Build Alternative C-2 Alternative 14-5 Alternative 22-3
Time to construct Number of Years to construct. n/a 4 4.5 4
Impacts to traffic management
Level of Impact to drivers based on percent of construction outside of existing roadway footprint (%) and number of traffic shifts for bridge construction (low, medium, high).
n/aLow
(26.0%)Medium(18.3%)
Low(23.8%)
Complexity of construction
Level of difficulty considering structure built over rail/ roadway, amount of structure overbuild and temporary structure needed, and narrow work zones.
n/a Low Medium High
• Measures of Effectiveness5. Economic Impacts Category
39
Parameter Metric No Build Alternative C-2 Alternative 14-5 Alternative 22-3
Accommodation for Future Growth
Percent of traffic demand processed (AM and PM Peak Hours). 80% 100% 100% 100%
User cost (passenger vehicles)
Percent reduction in user cost (AM and PM Peak Hours). Base 65% 65% 66%
User cost (freight - heavy trucks)
Percent reduction in user cost (AM and PM Peak Hours). Base 69% 68% 70%
User cost during construction
Total user cost (millions) based on delay to users over total years of construction (AM and PM Peak Hours).
n/a $160m $178m $166m
• Measures of Effectiveness6. System Preservation Category
40
Parameter Metric No Build Alternative C-2 Alternative 14-5 Alternative 22-3
Infrastructure Improvements
Vertical and horizontal structure clearances, shoulder width and acceleration/ deceleration lane lengths that improve maintenance, drainage, emergency services, etc.
None Yes Yes Yes
Reduction in Life-Cycle Costs
Reduction in Dollars (cumulative) for bridges and pavement (75 year life beginning in 2024) compared to no build.
Base Cost $137M $25M $21M $15M
41
• Measures of Effectiveness7. Costs
Cost($millions)
Alternative
C-2 14-5 22-3
Total $296.4 $345.7 $413.1
• Complete series two meetings:– Public– Stakeholder
• Further refine alternative concepts• Select preferred alternative in fall 2018• Series three meetings• Submit environmental filings and permits
(MEPA/NEPA)– Includes MEPA hearing in 2019
• Progress towards a 25% design– Includes 25% design public hearing in 2020
42
43
• Public Meetings
• Stakeholder Outreach
• Project website• www.mass.gov/massdot/495-90interchange
• Dedicated project email• 495-90Improvements@state.ma.us
44
Project Websitemass.gov/massdot/495-90interchange
Project Email
495-90Improvements@state.ma.us
Project MailPatricia A. Leavenworth, P.E.
Chief EngineerHighway Division
Care of Ryan McNeillMassDOT
10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116-3973
Contact information
45
Thank YouQ&A
I-495 / I-90 Interchange Improvements Project
Hopkinton, Westborough, Southborough | MassDOT #607977
Summary of Table Measures of Effectiveness
47