I-10 Twin Peaks Traffic Interchange, Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Alternatives October 2005 Figure 3-1. Typical Roundabout Interchange Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista Figure 3-3. Typical Single Point Urban Interchange 3-3 Figure 3-2. Typical Diamond Interchange Project No.: NH-010-D (AIW) TRACS No.: 10 PM 236 H5838 01D
Alternatives October 2005 Alternative TI Configurations - Single Point Urban Interchange The SPUI is a form of diamond interchange with a single signalized intersection through which all left turns utilizing the interchange must travel. Right turns into and out of ramp approaches are generally free flow. SPUIs are typically characterized by narrow right-ofway, higher construction costs, and greater capacity than conventional tight diamond interchanges. The primary operational advantage of the SPUI is that vehicles making opposing left turns pass to the left of each other rather than to the right, so their paths do not intersect. A typical SPUI is presented in Figure 3-3. The SPUI interchange configuration with one-way frontage roads would result in reduced operational efficiency and increased delays compared to the diamond configuration. This operational difficulty would be exacerbated by accommodating pedestrian movements. As a result, the SPUI was eliminated from additional consideration and a tight diamond interchange was selected as the preferred interchange configuration. Alternative TI Design Options - Twin Peaks Road Over or Under I-10 and UPRR After a tight diamond interchange configuration was selected, the method of crossing I-10 and the UPRR was the next issue to be considered. The new roadway could either cross over I-10 and the UPRR on bridge structures or could pass under I-10 and the UPRR as a depressed facility. At the Public Open House held on October 20, 2003, several individuals suggested that the underpass design option be considered, because this design is in place at the I-10/Orange Grove Road TI. The underpass option was considered previously in the Change of Freeway Access Report, I-10 Corridor Improvements General Plan Ruthrauff Road to Tangerine Road, dated December 1991. The Change of Freeway Access Report preferred the over design because it: 1) provided the greatest flexibility in allowing corridor improvement to take place without being dependent on interchange improvements; 2) minimized right-of-way acquisition; and, 3) provided a grade separated UPRR crossing, which would minimize future traffic delays and improve safety. To determine if the preferred design option selected in the Change of Freeway Access Report was still valid, the over and under design options were compared using design characteristics, social, economic and environmental affects, estimated costs, and ease of construction. The results of this analysis are presented below by design option. Alternative TI Design Options - Twin Peaks Road Under I-10 and UPRR The underpass option had several major disadvantages, including: • A temporary relocation of the current railroad alignment would be required and disruption of train traffic would result; • Utilities between the railroad and I-10 mainline would require relocation, including underground petroleum lines, which would be especially difficult and expensive to relocate. Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange at Twin Peaks/Linda Vista 3-4 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 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 34 and 35: Alternatives October 2005 CHAPTER 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 78 and 79: Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 86 and 87:
Affected Environment and Environmen
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:
Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 114 and 115:
Interstate 10 Traffic Interchange a
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Wall to Protect Rec. ID Affected En
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
44.20 Avra Valley Rd Twin Peaks Rd
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Public Involvement/Project Coordina
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
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?