I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 Measures to Minimize Harm: Temporary access impacts to recreational facilities would be minimized by developing and following a traffic control plan. The traffic control plan would be prepared in accordance with ADOT requirements and the specific needs of the school. Access would be maintained throughout the construction project; however, some inconveniences would be experienced by roadway users. Coordination Efforts: The school would be involved in the development of the traffic control plan. 4(f) Conclusion: The preferred alternative would not permanently, temporarily, or constructively use any resources from this facility, and would minimize temporary access impacts to the resource through a traffic control plan; therefore, no use of the 4(f) property would occur. Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path Description of Resource: The Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path is under construction and will consist of a 14-foot wide paved trail for bicycle and pedestrian use that will connect with other community trails and bikeways, facilitating non-motorized access throughout the community and adjacent natural areas. The Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path is proposed to begin at Cortaro Road and proceed northward to the northern end of the Continental Ranch development where it connects via a drainage canal to approximately Coachline Boulevard, a total length of 3.75 miles. A one mile segment of the path exists also along Sanders Road northwest of the study area. The Town of Marana’s portion of the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path, which is managed by the Town of Marana Parks and Recreation Department, is a section of the larger Pima County facility, which begins at Irvington Road and runs along the Santa Cruz River north to approximately Speedway Boulevard, a distance of approximately 6 miles. Avoidance Alternatives: Alternatives to the preferred alternative were considered and the impacts of these alternatives were assessed. The no-build alternative would not correct existing and future deficiencies in roadway design, roadway congestion on Cortaro Road and Silverbell Road, stormwater flowing over the I-10 mainline and frontage roads, motor vehicle conflicts with the railroad, and bicycle, pedestrian, and general transportation system connectivity. Therefore, the no-build alternative is not a prudent and feasible alternative. To solve the deficiencies noted above, all alignment alternatives examined must connect to the existing Twin Peaks Road alignment, which the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path meets perpendicularly; therefore, alternative alignments to avoid the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path were not prudent and feasible. A tunnel to carry the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path beneath Twin Peaks Road at or near the path’s current alignment was examined, but the tunnel would be within the 100-year floodplain of the Santa Cruz River. This would create safety issues for path users during flood events, would require pumping facilities to remove water from the tunnel after flood events, and would require permanent lighting; therefore, this alternative was not prudent and feasible. Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-92 Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts October 2005 A bridge carrying pedestrians and bicyclists over Twin Peaks Road was considered also. The bridge concept had a number of disadvantages that resulted in elimination of its consideration. These included: cost; privacy and security of neighboring properties; hydraulic issues resulting from the placement of embankment and bridge piers within the floodway; visual impacts to neighboring properties; and, difficulty providing connections to the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities along Twin Peaks Road. Therefore, there were no prudent and feasible alternatives to the use of the Santa Cruz Shared Use Path. Use of 4(f) Resource: As discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives, the Santa Cruz Shared Use Path would be constructed prior to the construction of the preferred alternative; therefore, the preferred alternative would incorporate approximately 500 feet of the adjacent path into the Twin Peaks Road extension, which is a use of the resource under 4(f). The preferred alternative would incorporate less than one percent of the path’s total length. At-grade shared use path crossings of Twin Peaks Road were not recommended because of potential vehicle conflicts; therefore, users of the shared use path would be diverted along the Twin Peaks Road embankment approximately 850 feet east of the shared use path’s alignment. To discourage pedestrian crossing of Twin Peaks Road at the former alignment of the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path, the roadway’s center median would be fenced for approximately 100 feet in length. This would direct path users to either cross under the Santa Cruz River Bridge or at the nearest intersection to the west (Twin Peaks Road and Clover Road) using the existing sidewalk and shared use lanes on Twin Peaks Road. Although pedestrians and bicyclists would be diverted, the preferred alternative would not impair the use of the remaining 4(f) property for its intended purpose. Although noise levels in this area would increase with the preferred alternative, the increase would not cause sound levels to exceed FHWA’s NAC; therefore, no constructive use of the resource would occur. Construction of the preferred alternative would require temporary closure of the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path during roadway and bridge construction; however, an alternative alignment of the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path would be available during construction. As a result, no use of the 4(f) property would occur. The preferred alternative would provide a new connection across I-10 and the Santa Cruz River; therefore, the preferred alternative would improve access to this 4(f) resource. Measures to Minimize Harm: Although the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path would be closed during construction, an alternative alignment would be provided by diverting path users westward on Twin Peaks Road to the intersection of Twin Peaks Road and Clover Road. This crossing location would remain after construction is completed; therefore, no loss of access to the 4(f) property would occur during construction. The preferred alternative would divert pedestrians and bicyclists from the existing alignment of the Santa Cruz River Shared Use Path. This diversion was necessary Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 4-93 Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Page 1:
Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 4 and 5:
Draft Environmental Assessment Octo
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Mitigation Measures October 2005
Page 14 and 15:
Mitigation Measures October 2005 19
Page 16 and 17:
Mitigation Measures October 2005 St
Page 18 and 19:
Introduction October 2005 CHAPTER 1
Page 20 and 21:
AVRA VALLEY RD MARANA I-10 SCENIC D
Page 22 and 23:
Introduction October 2005 Cortaro R
Page 24 and 25:
Project Purpose and Need October 20
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Alternatives October 2005 CHAPTER 3
Page 36 and 37:
Alternatives October 2005 Figure 3-
Page 38 and 39:
Alternatives October 2005 • Shall
Page 40 and 41:
Alternatives October 2005 Interstat
Page 42 and 43:
Alternatives October 2005 Road). Pr
Page 44 and 45:
Alternatives October 2005 Preferred
Page 46 and 47:
Alternatives October 2005 Twin Peak
Page 48 and 49:
Alternatives October 2005 I-10 Fron
Page 50 and 51:
Alternatives October 2005 Linda Vis
Page 52 and 53:
Alternatives October 2005 Twin Peak
Page 54 and 55:
Alternatives October 2005 and sidew
Page 56 and 57:
Alternatives October 2005 proposed
Page 58 and 59:
Alternatives October 2005 Near the
Page 60 and 61:
Avra Valley Rd. Twin Peaks Rd. Silv
Page 62 and 63:
Affected Environment and Environmen
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101: Affected Environment and Environmen
Page 112 and 113: Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 114 and 115: Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 120 and 121: Wall to Protect Rec. ID Affected En
Page 136 and 137: 44.20 Avra Valley Rd Twin Peaks Rd
Page 164 and 165: Public Involvement/Project Coordina
Page 176 and 177: Conclusion October 2005 Interstate
Page 178 and 179: Bibliography October 2005 CHAPTER 8
Page 180 and 181: Bibliography October 2005 Tetra Tec
show all

I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?