Environmental Assessment - MdTA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

General Purpose Lanes Alternative Interchange Options a. I-95/MD 152 Interchange • Option 1: Diamond • Option 2: Tight Diamond • Option 3: Single Point Urban Diamond • Option 4: Partial Cloverleaf – Single Loop • Option 5: Partial Cloverleaf – Double Loop Analysis: • Options 1 and 4 were carried forward for detailed study. Option 1 provides a minimal footprint, therefore reducing environmental impacts. It also provides similar LOS as the other options that have higher construction costs and more environmental impacts. Option 4 was also carried forward. This option addressed the future traffic demands with a satisfactory LOS and presented minimal environmental impacts. • Option 2 was dropped due to failing level-of service (LOS F) for the year 2030. • Option 3 was dropped due to sufficient deficiencies in constructability and also had some traffic operational issues. • The Option 5 double loops had a considerable amount of environmental impacts associated with them, as well as some residential displacements. The LOS for Option 5 was no better than Options 1 and 4, therefore Option 5 was dropped. b. I-95/MD 24 Interchange • Option 1: Modifications to structure and ramps • Option 2: MD 24/MD 924 Flyover Ramp Analysis: • Option 1 was dropped from further consideration because it was no longer compatible with the Phase 1 interchange improvements being constructed at the I-95/MD 24/MD 924 Interchange. • Option 2 is the most efficient option in addressing the capacity and safety issues at this interchange. Option 2’s engineering and constructability is the most compatible with the recent improvements at the I-95/MD 24/MD 924 Interchange that is currently under construction. c. I-95/MD 543 Interchange • Option 1: Diamond • Option 2: Tight Diamond Section 200 Draft Environment <strong>Assessment</strong> II-7
• Option 3: Single Point Urban Diamond • Option 4: Partial Cloverleaf – Single Loop • Option 5: Partial Cloverleaf – Triple Loop with CD Roads • Option 6: Partial Cloverleaf – Double Loop • Option 7: Partial Cloverleaf – Single Loop Analysis: • Options 1 and 7 were carried forward for detailed study. These options best address the future traffic capacity needs, while maintaining a relatively small footprint, thereby reducing environmental impacts. • Option 2 was dropped due to failing LOS F for the year 2030. • Option 3 was also dropped due to a failing LOS F for 2030, and future maintenance would also impact the capacity of this option. • Option 4 was dropped from further consideration due to significant commercial displacements, while not providing any additional benefits in LOS over the other options. • Option 5 was dropped because of its large footprint that would result in additional environmental and socioeconomic impacts. • Option 6 was dropped due to the extensive environmental impacts and construction costs associated with a loop ramp, which is not necessary to achieve an acceptable LOS. d. I-95/MD 22 Interchange • Option 1: Partial Cloverleaf – Double Loop with Modifications to CD roads Analysis: • Option 1 would maintain the existing partial cloverleaf configuration with no modifications. There will be some minor improvements, but the overall existing interchange will remain the same. The Maryland House Travel Plaza will not be affected by the General Purpose Lanes Alternative. Existing access to the Maryland House Travel Plaza is a left in and left out along the northbound and southbound lanes. The design of the General Purpose Lanes Alternative will not change the access to the travel plaza. Also, all widening of I-95 for the one additional GPL in this section will be towards the outside, therefore there will be no impacts to the property. Section 200 Draft Environment <strong>Assessment</strong> II-8
Page 1: November2007
Page 4 and 5: Figure S-1: Study Area Map D. Proje
Page 6 and 7: GPL ETL • MD 152: Option 1 • MD
Page 8 and 9: Table S-2. Communities/Right-of-Way
Page 10 and 11: Table of Contents I. PURPOSE AND NE
Page 12 and 13: Figure II-7. MD 543 Option 1 Figure
Page 14 and 15: I. PURPOSE AND NEED A. Identificati
Page 16 and 17: Figure I-1: Study Area Map C. Backg
Page 18 and 19: areas within or connecting county-d
Page 21 and 22: . Safety The accident rate for Sect
Page 23 and 24: Table I-2. AM and PM Average Daily
Page 25 and 26: Table I-4. Crash Data for Years 200
Page 27 and 28: equired to cross 3 or more general
Page 29 and 30: This concept would provide good ove
Page 31: No Build Interchange Analysis • I
Page 35 and 36: Analysis: • Option 1A provides th
Page 37 and 38: Analysis: • Option 1 would mainta
Page 39 and 40: Two through lanes would generally b
Page 47 and 48: 3. Express Toll Lane Alternative Th
Page 49 and 50: to the I-95 northbound ETLs. Two I-
Page 56 and 57: F. Comparison of Alternatives The f
Page 58 and 59: would be enhanced through a reducti
Page 60 and 61: Table II-2. Estimated Travel Speeds
Page 62 and 63: . MD 152 The future needs forecast
Page 64 and 65: Figure II-16. MD 24 Park and Ride F
Page 66 and 67: III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND IMPAC
Page 68 and 69: Executive Order 12898 defines minor
Page 70 and 71: Table III-2: Population Statistics
Page 72 and 73: Build Alternatives The Build Altern
Page 74 and 75: The study area consists of 7 commun
Page 76 and 77: Table III-4: Communities Located wi
Page 78: Table III-4: Communities Located wi
Page 81 and 82: communities could experience indire
Page 83 and 84:
MD 24 Option 2 (Appendix A, Plates
Page 85 and 86:
surrounding communities as the incr
Page 87 and 88:
There are also some minor impacts t
Page 89 and 90:
allow access to and from the ETLs v
Page 91 and 92:
lanes, reduced median width, and th
Page 93 and 94:
volumes and congestion increase thr
Page 96 and 97:
c. Cemeteries In addition to the ce
Page 98 and 99:
points at any of the postal facilit
Page 100 and 101:
The Maryland Transit Administration
Page 102 and 103:
1. Employment Characteristics Table
Page 104 and 105:
geographic base of a particular bus
Page 106 and 107:
would not be altered, aside from th
Page 108 and 109:
543), and the areas both north and
Page 110:
2. Effects on Land Use No-Build Alt
Page 114 and 115:
The historic architecture APE for t
Page 116 and 117:
an additional 5 land types (alluvia
Page 118 and 119:
• Seeding, sodding, and stabilizi
Page 120 and 121:
2. Aquatic Resources a. Surface Wat
Page 122 and 123:
located within the southeast quadra
Page 124 and 125:
• A permanent WUS impact would in
Page 126 and 127:
The following highlights wetland im
Page 128 and 129:
For an all-inclusive impact summary
Page 130 and 131:
since this area was altered during
Page 132 and 133:
BMPs would include stormwater manag
Page 134 and 135:
year floodplains, 0.8 acres within
Page 136 and 137:
Option 2, MD 543 Option 7, and MD 2
Page 138 and 139:
General Purpose Lanes Alternative T
Page 140 and 141:
impacts more LSTs due to its larger
Page 142 and 143:
Table III-17. Alternative Impacts t
Page 144 and 145:
The No-Build Alternative would have
Page 146 and 147:
improvements, EPA’s MOBILE 6.2 em
Page 148 and 149:
using this facility. Diesel trucks
Page 150 and 151:
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency
Page 152 and 153:
zoning or the development of guidel
Page 154 and 155:
3. Exposure Levels and Health Effec
Page 156 and 157:
cannot evaluate the validity of the
Page 158 and 159:
NSA 07 consists of single family ho
Page 160 and 161:
NSA 20 consists of single family re
Page 162 and 163:
etween the hours of 6:00 AM and 6:0
Page 164 and 165:
Table III-20. Short-term Noise Meas
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
• Traffic flow conditions (volume
Page 172 and 173:
averaging. If the average cost per
Page 174 and 175:
Table III-22 Predicted Noise Levels
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Table III-23. Summary of Noise Abat
Page 184 and 185:
Table III-25. Noise Barrier ‘Cost
Page 186 and 187:
The noise barrier investigated is l
Page 188 and 189:
The noise barrier was optimized to
Page 190 and 191:
Express Toll Lanes Alternative The
Page 192 and 193:
NSA 23 The noise barrier investigat
Page 194 and 195:
Express Toll Lanes Alternative The
Page 196 and 197:
The No Build Alternative will not i
Page 198 and 199:
area (the widening of I-95 from MD
Page 201 and 202:
Active Agricultural Land Due to int
Page 203 and 204:
cumulative impacts to floodplains w
Page 205 and 206:
The indirect and cumulative effects
Page 207 and 208:
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS A. Fo
Page 209 and 210:
The fifth Focus Group Meeting was h
Page 211 and 212:
Finally, an update on the status of
show all

Environmental Assessment - MdTA

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

Delete template?

Save as template?