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