I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005 (see Chapter 3, Preferred Alternative, page 3-11). Comment: Concerns about increases in traffic noise (19 comments) Response: The traffic noise analysis determined that future traffic noise levels in the area would increase and mitigation has been recommended (see Chapter 4, Noise Section, page 4-49). Comment: Questions about future traffic signals (11 comments) Response: The traffic report recommended future traffic signals at the intersections of Twin Peaks Road with Silverbell Road, Coachline Boulevard, Access Road, eastbound and westbound I-10 frontage roads, and El Camino de Mañana/Linda Vista Boulevard (see Chapter 3, Proposed Intersection Improvements, page 3-17). Comment: Concerns about connections and effects to other roadways (11 comments) Response: Connections to other roadways and the effects to other roadways were considered in Chapter 2, Connectivity Section, page 2-6. Comment: Concerns about increased traffic on Twin Peaks Road (10 comments) Response: Because of the increase in traffic volumes predicted in the traffic report, a number of improvements related to traffic signals, shared use paths, and other improvements are proposed as a part of the preferred alternative (see Chapter 3, Preferred Alternative, page 3-11). Comment: Concerns about speeds on Twin Peaks Road (6 comments) Response: No changes to the speed limits along the existing section of Twin Peaks Road are proposed. The posted speed limit on Twin Peaks Road over the Santa Cruz River would be 45 miles per hour. Comment: Concerns about safety of children attending Twin Peaks Elementary School (4 comments) Response: According to the Traffic Report, most pedestrian and bicycle traffic to Twin Peaks Elementary School originates south and east of the school. A shared use path was proposed south of Twin Peaks Road, but is not a part of this project (see Chapter 3, Preferred Alternative, page 3-11). The proposed traffic signals at the intersections of Twin Peaks Road/Coachline Boulevard and Twin Peaks Road/Silverbell Road would enable pedestrians to safety cross at these intersections. The Town would work closely with the Marana Unified School District on appropriate crossing measures. Comment: Concerns about CFPO and wildlife movements (4 comments) Response: As discussed in the Biological Resources section of Chapter 4 (page 4-25), the analysis conducted for the preferred alternative determined that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the CFPO or its habitat due to the project design and mitigation measures that would be implemented as a part of this project. Comment: Questions about funding (4 comments) Response: A combination of federal and local funds would be used on this project. Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 5-6 Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Public Involvement/Project Coordination October 2005 Comment: Concerns about property values after the project (3 comments) Response: It is anticipated that greater access to I-10 and areas east of the Santa Cruz River would enhance the area’s desirability and value. Comment: Concerns about conflicts/coordination with other projects (3 comments) Response: Relationships with other projects were considered and are addressed in Chapter 2, Conformance with Regulations, Land Use Plans, and Other Plans, page 2-7. Comment: Concerns/questions about changes in land uses/zoning (3 comments) Response: This project proposes no changes to land use or zoning within the project area. Although some changes in land use or zoning may occur, these changes would be under authority of the Town of Marana or Pima County (near the proposed Twin Peaks Road TI). Comment: Concerns about bicycle facilities and connections (2 comments) Response: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are included in this project (see Chapter 3, Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, page 3-20). Comment: Concerns about widening Twin Peaks Road (2 comments) Response: The project proposes no widening of the existing portion of Twin Peaks Road (see Chapter 3, Preferred Alternative, page 3-11). Comment: Concerns about visual impacts (1 comment) Response: A visual impacts analysis was completed for this project (see Chapter 4, Visual Resources, page 4-41). Comment: Concerns about increased traffic through neighborhoods (1 comment) Response: Traffic volume increases have been predicted on Twin Peaks Road and Coachline Road as a result of the project, but increases in traffic on neighborhood streets are not anticipated. Issues associated with unanticipated impacts from the project would be addressed by the Town of Marana through established processes and procedures. Comment: Concerns about truck traffic in area (1 comment) Response: An increase in trucks to 2 percent of the total traffic volume along Twin Peaks Road was predicted by the traffic report. Comment: Concerns about stormwater runoff (1 comment) Response: The drainage study recommended a number of drainage improvements in the area (see Chapter 3, Proposed Drainage Improvements, page 3-22). Comment: Concerns about utilities (1 comment) Response: Utilities have been contacted and are participating in the project. Impacts to utilities are discussed in Chapter 4, Utilities and Railroad, page 4-97). Comment: Questions about phasing of construction (1 comment) Response: It is likely that the project would be phased, but phasing would be developed as a part of final design. Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 5-7 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:
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:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119: Affected Environment and Environmen
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?