Uptown Transportation Study - OKI

UptownTransportationStudyPart B: Interstate 71 AccessImprovement Study, PID 77628Planning Study ReportNovember 2006720 East Pete Rose WaySuite 420Cincinnati, OH 4520236 East 7th StreetSuite 2300Cincinnati, OH 45202

Uptown Transportation StudyPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Prepared For:Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governmentsand theUptown Transportation Study Implementation PartnersPrepared By:URS CorporationEdwards & KelceyWalker ParkingManual Padron & AssociatesCatt Lyon DesignNovember 2006Uptown Transportation StudyURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Implementation Partners (IP):Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI)City of CincinnatiSouthwest Ohio Regional Transit AuthorityOhio Department of TransportationUptown ConsortiumAmos ProjectUptown Transportation StudyURS CorporationNovember 2006

Uptown Transportation StudyPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe successful completion of the Uptown Transportation Study was only possible through thecollaborative planning, review, and participation of many dedicated people. On behalf of the StudyTeam, OKI wishes to express our sincere appreciation and gratitude to the members of theImplementation Partners and the following participants who made the study a success.OHIO-KENTUCKY-INDIANA REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSManagementMark R. Policinski, Executive DirectorRobert W. Koehler, P.E., Deputy Executive Director/Project ManagerAdministration and CommunicationKaren Whitaker, Project AdministratorSarah Woller Fry, Interim Communication ManagerFlorence Parker, Public Involvement SpecialistData Services, GIS, and Transportation Planning StaffCONSULTANT TEAMURS CorporationEdwards and KelceyWalker Parking ConsultantsManuel Padron & AssociatesLSA Design, Inc.Uptown Transportation StudyURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Table of ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................i1. PROJECT HISTORY AND OVERVIEW.................................................................... 11.1. Project History .......................................................................................................... 21.2. Study Area................................................................................................................ 21.3. Organizational Structure ........................................................................................... 42. PURPOSE AND NEED............................................................................................. 62.1. Purpose.................................................................................................................... 62.2. Primary Needs.......................................................................................................... 62.2.1. Reduce Travel Time...............................................................................................62.2.2. Simplify Wayfinding..............................................................................................102.2.3. Promote Economic Vitality ...................................................................................102.3. Secondary Needs ....................................................................................................112.3.1. Reduce Accidents................................................................................................122.3.2. Reduction in Design Deficiencies.........................................................................122.3.3. Substantially Reduce Weave at Reading Road (US-42) Interchange...................122.3.4. Increase Travel Time Reliability ...........................................................................132.4. Measures of Effectiveness.......................................................................................133. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT & PROJECT COMMUNICATION............................143.1. Implementation Partners and Advisory Committee ..................................................183.2. Stakeholder Interviews ............................................................................................183.3. Public Meetings .......................................................................................................183.4. Media Relations.......................................................................................................183.5. Website ...................................................................................................................183.6. Satellite Office .........................................................................................................183.7. Public/Agency Comments........................................................................................183.8. Community Council Meetings ..................................................................................183.9. Speaker’s Bureau and Presentations.......................................................................183.10. Walk Around Tours..................................................................................................183.11. Additional Outreach .................................................................................................184. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS.................................................................194.1. Population ...............................................................................................................194.2. Employment.............................................................................................................194.3. Land Use .................................................................................................................194.4. Economic Development...........................................................................................204.5. Regional Travel Patterns .........................................................................................214.6. Existing Plans and Projects .....................................................................................224.6.1. OKI Plans and Projects........................................................................................224.6.2. ODOT Plans and Projects....................................................................................244.6.3. Community Plans and Projects ............................................................................254.6.4. Institutional Plans.................................................................................................25Uptown Transportation StudyURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284.7. Roadway Network....................................................................................................254.7.1. Geometric Design Exceptions..............................................................................264.7.2. Pavement Condition Ratings................................................................................274.7.3. Bridge Rating Reports..........................................................................................284.7.4. Signage ...............................................................................................................294.7.5. US-42 ..................................................................................................................314.7.6. US-22/SR3 ..........................................................................................................314.7.7. Local Roadway Network ......................................................................................314.8. Traffic Analysis ........................................................................................................324.8.1. Traffic Volume Data .............................................................................................324.8.2. Adjustment Methodology .....................................................................................344.9. 2005 Level of Service (LOS)....................................................................................364.9.1. Basic Freeway Segments ....................................................................................364.9.2. Ramp Junctions...................................................................................................374.9.3. Intersections ........................................................................................................384.9.4. 2030 Level of Service ..........................................................................................394.10. Accident Analysis.....................................................................................................434.10.1. ODOT Congestion Rankings................................................................................434.10.2. Interstate-71 ........................................................................................................434.10.3. US-42 (Reading Road) ........................................................................................484.10.4. US-22 (Gilbert Avenue/Montgomery Road)..........................................................514.10.5. Other Streets .......................................................................................................514.11. Multimodal Alternatives............................................................................................524.11.1. Bike and Pedestrian Network...............................................................................524.11.2. SORTA Metro Transit Service..............................................................................524.11.3. SORTA Rail Right of Way....................................................................................534.11.4. Institutional Shuttles.............................................................................................535. RED FLAG SUMMARY ...........................................................................................545.1. Environmental Justice..............................................................................................545.2. Natural Environment................................................................................................545.3. Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................555.4. Community Facilities................................................................................................555.5. Geotechnical Characteristics ...................................................................................555.6. Highway Traffic Noise..............................................................................................565.7. Air Quality................................................................................................................565.8. Hazardous Materials................................................................................................576. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ...................................................................................586.1. Alternatives Considered But Dismissed ...................................................................616.2. Conceptual Alternatives To Advance .......................................................................636.2.1. No Build...............................................................................................................636.2.2. TSM Option .........................................................................................................636.2.3. Build Alternatives .................................................................................................637. STRATEGIC PLAN..................................................................................................697.1. Introduction..............................................................................................................697.2. Uptown Transportation Study - Part A Recommendations .......................................69Uptown Transportation StudyURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776287.3. Primary Recommendations......................................................................................707.3.1. No Build Alternative .............................................................................................707.3.2. TSM Alternative ...................................................................................................717.3.3. Build Alternatives .................................................................................................717.3.4. Estimated Costs and Implementation...................................................................737.3.5. Modification of Reading Road/Gilbert Avenue Interchange ..................................747.3.6. Realignment of Ramp ME (Montgomery Road to I-71 Southbound).....................767.3.7. Dana Avenue Interchange ...................................................................................777.3.8. I-71 Mainline Capacity .........................................................................................777.4. Secondary Recommendations.................................................................................787.4.1. City of Cincinnati Zoning Classification Review....................................................787.4.2. Preservation of Public Right-of-Way ....................................................................787.4.3. Sign Audit ............................................................................................................797.4.4. Utility Coordination...............................................................................................807.4.5. Transit..................................................................................................................807.4.6. Economic Impact Analysis ...................................................................................817.5. Project Implementation ............................................................................................817.5.1. Schedule..............................................................................................................827.5.2. Project Delivery Strategy .....................................................................................837.6. Public Involvement Concerns and Issues ................................................................847.7. Funding ...................................................................................................................858. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................909. ILLUSTRATIVE MAPS ............................................................................................92List of FiguresFigure 1: Project Study Area...............................................................................................3Figure 2: I-71 Access from the South..................................................................................7Figure 3: I-71 Access from the North ..................................................................................8Figure 4: Conceptual Alternatives Development ...............................................................58Figure 5 Remaining Steps in the ODOT Project Development Process ...........................81Figure 6 Estimated Expenditures by Year (2006 dollars) .................................................86List of TablesTable 1 Uptown Transportation Study Implementation Partners .........................................4Table 2 Uptown Transportation Study Advisory Committee Members ................................5Table 3Table 4Table 5OKI 2030 LRTP Fiscally Constrained Projects.......................................................22OKI 2030 Transportation Plan Additional Projects..................................................23OKI 2030 FY 2006 - 2009 TIP................................................................................23Uptown Transportation StudyURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628List of Tables (Continued)Table 6 I-71 Design Exceptions ..........................................................................................27Table 7Table 8ODOT Pavement Condition Ratings.......................................................................28Bridge General Appraisal Ratings..........................................................................29Table 9 2005 LOS Northbound Basic Freeway Segments ..................................................36Table 10 2005 LOS Southbound Basic Freeway Segments .................................................37Table 11 2005 LOS Northbound Ramp Junctions.................................................................38Table 12 2005 LOS Southbound Ramp Junctions ................................................................38Table 13 2005 LOS At Grade Intersections ..........................................................................39Table 14 2030 LOS Northbound Basic Freeway Segments ..................................................41Table 15 2030 LOS Southbound Basic Freeway Segments..................................................41Table 16 2030 LOS Northbound Ramp Junctions.................................................................42Table 17 2030 LOS Southbound Ramp Junctions ................................................................42Table 18 I-71 Ramp Accidents 2002 - 2004..........................................................................46Table 19 US 42 Mid-block Accident Rates............................................................................49Table 20 US 42 Intersection Accident Rates.........................................................................50Table 21 Evaluation Matrix ...................................................................................................59Table 22 Interchange Options Comments and Recommendations .......................................62Table 23 2006 Estimated Costs for Conceptual Access Improvements at Taft/McMillanand/or ML King Drive .............................................................................................72Table 24 Estimated Inflated Costs for Conceptual Access Improvements at Taft/McMillanand/or ML King. Drive ............................................................................................73Table 25 Implementation Agencies and Estimated Costs .....................................................83Table 26 2007-2012 TRAC allocations for ODOT District 8 ..................................................88Uptown Transportation StudyURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628List of ChartsChart 2 2004 ARTIMIS Hourly Volumes .............................................................................35Chart 2I-71 Northbound Rear-End Crashes.......................................................................45Chart 3 I-71 Southbound Rear-End Crashes ......................................................................45Chart 4 ARTIMIS Incident Type 2001-2003 ........................................................................47Chart 5 ARTIMIS Incident Duration by Type 2001-2003 .....................................................48Chart 6US-22 Crashes by Block........................................................................................55APPENDICESAppendix AAppendix BAppendix CPurpose and Need Statement – Measures of EffectivenessCorrespondenceExisting and Future Conditions ReportAppendix D HCS Analysis – I-71Appendix EAppendix FAppendix GAppendix HAppendix IHCS Analysis – At Grade IntersectionsRed Flag Summary ReportPart B – Step 3 SummaryCost EstimatesAlignment StudiesUptown Transportation StudyURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) has conducted theUptown Transportation Study with the following purpose:“Develop a comprehensive transportation plan for the Uptown area that serves theneeds of the area’s diverse population, responds to existing transportationdeficiencies, and supports continuing growth, development, and economic vitality.”The Uptown Transportation Study has been jointly managed by the project ImplementationPartners (IP). The IP is composed of the following entities: OKI, the City of Cincinnati, theSouthwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA), the Uptown Consortium, the OhioDepartment of Transportation (ODOT), and the AMOS Project.The project is divided into two elements; Part A and Part B. Part A is a comprehensivereview of all elements of the transportation system within the Uptown area including:• Local street operations• Internal and regional transit service• On-street and off-street parking• Pedestrian and bicycle circulation• Signage and wayfinding.Part B is specifically focused on evaluating access between the Uptown area and I-71 andmaking recommendations for potential access improvements. The project follows ODOT’s14-step Major Project Development Process (PDP). Steps 1 through 4 of PDP have beencompleted through the planning activities conducted as part of this project.The IP developed the following purpose and need statement for the Part B I-71 AccessImprovement Study.“The purpose of the I-71 Uptown Study is to develop a set of feasible alternatives toimprove access between I-71 and the Uptown area of Cincinnati that reduce traveltimes, reduce complexity of wayfinding, and promote economic vitality.”See Appendix A for the primary and secondary needs identified as part of project purposeand need.OKI has developed an extensive Community Involvement and Communication Plan toencourage public participation in the planning process. See the “Community InvolvementDocumentation” binder for additional information regarding the project CommunityInvolvement and Communication Plan.Three public meetings were conducted during the project with the Part B recommendationsbeing presented at the last meeting during October 2006.The issues and concerns gathered at the public meetings were varied. The complete writtencommentary collected is included in the separate Uptown Community InvolvementUptown Transportation StudyiURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Documentation binder. No real sentiments outweighed others but it is somewhat evident thatthe respondents understand that changes to the transportation system in Uptown wouldhave significant impacts on the community.The Part B study area lies completely within the City of Cincinnati paralleling I-71 fromLiberty Street on the south to the Dana Avenue Interchange on the north and is generallybounded on the west by US-42 (Reading Road) and Dana Avenue, and on the east byUS-22/SR-3 (Gilbert Avenue) and Duck Creek Road. It includes the Cincinnatineighborhoods of Avondale, Evanston, Mt. Auburn, and Walnut Hills. It is home to severalmajor institutions and employers including the University of Cincinnati, the Cincinnati Zooand Botanical Garden, several major hospitals, and related medical employers.A thorough evaluation of existing conditions was conducted through data collection and fieldstudies including traffic volume counts, recent crash data, environmental conditions, culturalresources, environmental justice communities, wayfinding audit, and physical conditions ofthe existing transportation infrastructure.This information is fully documented in the Uptown Transportation Study-Part B, I-71 AccessImprovement Study: Red Flag Summary Report (August 2006), and the UptownTransportation Study-Part B, I-71 Access Improvement Study: Existing and FutureConditions Report (July 2006).The study area is expected to experience a moderate population decline and a slightincrease in employment overall. The dynamics of travel demand and transient populationsare influenced significantly by the presence of the University of Cincinnati.As would be expected in a highly urbanized area, the study area includes severalenvironmental justice communities, and red flags primarily associated with culturalresources and hazardous materials. Ecological and recreational resources are not a majorfactor in the study area.The I-71 mainline generally operates at acceptable level of service today and is forecast tooperate at an acceptable level of service in the future with the exception of the mainlinesegments immediately north of the existing partial interchange located at William HowardTaft (WH Taft) Road and McMillan Street. Congestion is significant at this interchange aswell as along portions of the adjoining arterial network. This congestion is expected toworsen in the 2030 plan year. In general, the existing at-grade intersections within the PartB study area are operating at an acceptable level of service.An analysis of recent crash data indicates that the accident rates on I-71 are slightly betterthan average for an urban interstate. Accident rates are higher on the arterial network withUS-42 (Reading Road) experiencing accident rates higher than the citywide average atsome locations.Wayfinding to and from I-71 to the Uptown area is complex. Interstate 71 exhibits a lack ofuniformity in interchange patterns. Drivers from I-71 must utilize two different interchangesdepending on direction. East-west access is currently provided by the one-way couplet ofWH Taft Road and McMillan Street. McMillan Street is grade separated from Reading Roadand Burnet Avenue, the predominate north-south corridor in the vicinity. The one-wayUptown Transportation StudyiiURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628operation and grade separation pose challenges accessing the interstate from locations eastof I-71 and north of WH Taft Road.For the institutions and neighborhood business districts to remain competitive on a regionallevel, interstate access must be perceived to be at least adequate when compared tosuburban locations with higher visibility and more direct egress. The lack of direct fullservice interstate access to serve the study area is viewed as a limiting factor on the scaleand desirability of potential development.In addition to a no-build alternative and a transportation system management (TSM)alternative, which would modify the existing WH Taft Road/McMillan Street (Taft/McMillan)ramps to accommodate forecast peak hour volumes, a comprehensive array of over 40 buildalternatives for access improvements on I-71 were developed in coordination with the IP.These alternatives provided full interstate access at the existing partial interchange atTaft/McMillan and/or at Martin Luther King Jr. (ML King) Drive. These alternatives werereviewed with the IP over several meetings during the spring of 2006. The original arraywas gradually reduced to six alternatives to be advanced for more detailed evaluation. Themajority of the original array of alternatives was eliminated due to geometric or operationaldesign exceptions. Some alternatives, while technically feasible, did not address theproject’s adopted purpose and need statement or were felt to have disproportionately highenvironmental impacts and costs.The six alternatives that were evaluated in greater detail are as follows.BR-1- This alternative would provide full access at both Taft/McMillan and at ML King DriveThe access ramps located between Taft/McMillan and at ML King Drive would be braided, orseparated horizontally and vertically so that there would not be a weave necessary on themainline between the two interchanges.S-2a and S-3- These two alternatives would provide partial access at Taft/McMillan (to andfrom the south) as well as ML King Drive (to and from the north). The two access pointswould be linked by limited access service roads located parallel to the I-71 mainline. For S-2a, the service road would be bidirectional and located west of I-71. For S-3 there would bea pair of one-way service roads located to the east and west of I-71.MLK-2 and MLK-6a - These two alternatives are both new full access interchanges at MLKing Drive with both entrance and exit ramps located north of ML King Drive. They wouldwork in conjunction with a modified interchange at Taft/McMillan or as a stand alone accesspoint with the existing Taft/McMillan access ramps removed. MLK-2 is essentially a foldeddiamond design with two new signalized intersections on ML King Drive to control enteringand exiting traffic at the ramp terminals. MLK-6a provides for direct ramps from ML KingDrive entering I-71 and routes exiting traffic through a single signalized intersection onML King Drive.TM-7 - This alternative is representative of modifications to the existing Taft/McMillanInterchange, which would provide for full access to the north and south. This option wouldnot provide additional access at other locations. WH Taft Road and McMillan Street wouldbe linked with new local access or modified such that all movements could take place fromeither direction on the one-way pair. The existing exit from southbound I-71 toUptown Transportation StudyiiiURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Reading/Gilbert would need to be modified to accommodate any new southbound entranceaccess from Taft/McMillan.These six alternatives were evaluated with a matrix of factors based on improvements totravel time and wayfinding, construction and right of way cost, as well as environmentalimpacts. Based on the project evaluation matrix, all alternatives were comparable in theircosts, benefits, and impacts. Based on comments from ODOT, the MLK-2 and MLK-6aalternatives were determined to not be feasible when combined with an interchange atTaft/McMillan due to insufficient interchange spacing.The IP has concurred with the recommendation that all six alternatives be advanced throughSteps 5-7 of the ODOT PDP to arrive at a preferred alternative and to produce theassociated environmental documentation. The two ML King Drive alternatives would beconsidered as stand alone interchanges in future project development.Furthermore, it is recommended that the southbound entrance ramp from Montgomery Roadto I-71 southbound be reconstructed to eliminate its current circuitous alignment. It is alsorecommended that a study of the I-71 Reading Road interchange be undertaken to evaluatethe feasibility of eliminating the weaving movement from I-471 to the Reading Road exit thatoccurs at this location.The I-71 mainline immediately north of Taft/McMillan is forecast to operate at a substandardlevel of service in 2030 indicating the potential need for an additional lane in betweenTaft/McMillan and the Dana Avenue Interchange.All of these recommendations have been made in conjunction with the Uptown Study Part Arecommendations developed to improve the overall capacity and operation of the arterialnetwork.Secondary recommendations include the following:• City of Cincinnati review of current zoning classifications for parcels within the studyarea to better take advantage of the improved interstate access by allowing forhigher density land uses• Preservation of publicly owned rights-of-way with in the study area• An audit of existing guide and regulatory signs on I-71 within the study area• Coordination with planned utility improvements within the study area• Accommodation of potential transit corridor if access modifications are implemented• Conduct an Economic Impact Analysis to provide information on how improvedinterstate access may influence economic conditions within the study area.See Appendix B for letters of endorsement of these recommendations by the IP.The schedule for the access improvements has been estimated assuming that the scopeand potential impacts of the project would require preparation of an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS). The schedule assumes no significant delays in the availability of funds forUptown Transportation StudyivURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628design and construction. Based on these assumptions, it is expected that constructionwould commence in approximately 2016.Responsibility for implementation of these recommendations rests primarily with ODOT andthe City of Cincinnati. The City is certified with ODOT as fully capable to meet therequirements to administer federal aid projects as a Local Public Agency (LPA). If the Cityof Cincinnati administers continued project development for the conceptual alternatives toimprove I-71 access at Taft/McMillan and/or ML King Drive, an LPA agreement will need tobe executed between the City and ODOT specifying respective roles, funding commitments,scope of work, and administrative duties.Additionally, the major private and public institutions located in Uptown that will be primarybenefactors of improved access should be expected to play a supportive, if not direct, role indemonstrating need, garnering public consensus, providing rights-of-way, conductingeconomic impact analysis, and securing funding for both design and construction.Implementation and Estimated CostRecommendation Implementation Agency Estimated CostAdvance study of modified access at Taft/McMillanCity of Cincinnati and Uptownand/or new access at Martin Luther King Jr. DriveStakeholdersthrough ODOT PDP Steps 5-7$3,500,000Study potential modifications to Gilbert Ave. /ReadingRoad InterchangeODOT $600,000Provide additional mainline capacity (5 lane crosssection)between Taft and Dana Entrance Southboundand McMillan Duck Creek exit Northbound ) *ODOT $8,500,000Re-align Ramp from Montgomery Rd. to Southbound I-71 *ODOT $3,500,000Traffic Study of Martin Luther King Drive ** City of Cincinnati $1,500,000Land Use Study of Zoning ClassificationsCity of Cincinnati and UptownStakeholders$150,000Economic Impact AnalysisUptown Stakeholders and City of$250,000CincinnatiI-71 Sign Audit ODOT $50,000Preserve Public Rights of WayCity of Cincinnati, ODOT andUptown StakeholdersNAUtility CoordinationCity of Cincinnati and UptownStakeholdersNATransit - Preserve right-of-way for future transit City of Cincinnati, ODOT andcorridorSORTATBDUnless otherwise noted estimated costs are 2006 dollars.* Conceptual Cost estimate assuming no right of way acquisition or impact to overpass structures.** If conducted as part of PDP Steps 5-7 for new access at MLK costs associated with this analysis would bepartially offset by study of access modifications on I-71. Cost shown are for an independent analysis of MLK Corridor.At this time, no funding has been committed for implementation of any of therecommendations of Part B Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study.The individual implementation partners must answer these critical questions when seekingfunds to carry out the aforementioned recommendations.• What funds are realistically available?Uptown Transportation StudyvURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628• What timeframe restrictions apply?• What approval process is required?• What other restrictions apply?Both ODOT and the City of Cincinnati are experiencing growth in documented needs forfunding capital expenditures during the next 5 to 10 years with declining capacity to fullymeet those needs. It is estimated that the total costs associated with the recommendedaccess improvements will range from $50 to $100 million. Implementation of therecommendations will require a mix of public funding from federal, state, and municipalsources as well as from the private and nongovernmental sectors.Uptown Transportation StudyviURS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776281. PROJECT HISTORY AND OVERVIEWThe Uptown Transportation Study was conducted from November 2004 to November 2006in order to develop a comprehensive transportation plan for the Uptown area that serves theneeds of the area’s diverse population and visitors, responds to transportation deficiencies,and supports continuing growth, development, and economic vitality. The Uptown studyarea includes the Cincinnati neighborhoods of Avondale, Clifton, Corryville, East WalnutHills, Evanston, Mt. Auburn, North Avondale, Walnut Hills and Clifton Heights, UniversityHeights and Fairview (CUF). It includes a number of major institutions including theUniversity of Cincinnati, the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, Cincinnati Children’sHospital, University Hospital, and Good Samaritan Hospital.The Uptown Transportation Study is divided into two elements; Part A and Part B. Part A isa comprehensive review of all elements of the transportation system within the Uptown areaincluding:• Local street operations• Internal and regional transit service• On-street and off-street parking• Pedestrian and bicycle circulation• Signage and wayfindingPart B is specifically focused on evaluating access between the Uptown area and I-71 andmaking recommendations for potential access improvements. Recommended alternativesfor improved interstate access have been developed with the intent to serve as the basis fora formal Interchange Modification/Justification Study conducted in accordance with the OhioDepartment of Transportation Location and Design Manual, Volume 1, Section 500,including, if applicable, submittal of an access point request document to the FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) in accordance with FHWA Policy - Additional Interchangesto the Interstate System (Federal Register: February 11, 1998, Volume 63, Number 28).Both Part A and Part B elements are interrelated to some degree and were conductedconcurrently and generally follow Steps 1 through 4 of the Ohio Department ofTransportation’s (ODOT’s) Major Project Development Process. Distinct study areas havebeen established for the Part A and Part B elements of the study. The Part B Study area isoriented north-south to parallel I-71 and extends south to Liberty Street and North to DanaAvenue. See Section 1.2 for a complete description of the Part B Study area.The recommendations for both Parts A and B are intended to work in concert to address theproject goals stated above. Part B recommendations for I-71 access improvements buildupon recommendations of the Part A elements that seek to maximize the utilization andefficiency of the existing street, pedestrian, and transit networks, as well as identify new orexpanded facilities.Uptown Transportation Study 1URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776281.1. Project HistoryThe initial planning process for I-71 included full interchanges at Victory Parkway and atWH Taft Road (planned as a limited access expressway connecting Columbia Parkway[US-50] to the Western Hills Viaduct). Approximately 0.6 mile of the WH Taft Expresswaywas to be constructed concurrently with I-71. Neither interchange was fully implemented,thus WH Taft Road and McMillan Street were converted to a one-way pair to serve thepartial interchange on I-71. The segment of I-71 within the study area was opened to trafficduring December 1974. The present configuration of I-71 and I-471 in the southern portionof the study area was fully opened to traffic in September of 1985.Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the City of Cincinnati recognized the lack of accessibilityto the Uptown area and initiated a study of the feasibility of constructing a new full serviceinterchange at ML King Drive.I-71 within the study area was rehabilitated during 1995-1997 including repaving, safetyupgrades to the barriers, and medians as well as replacement of pavement markings,signage, and roadway lighting. At this same time, OKI initiated a Major Investment Study ofthe I-71 Corridor from Florence, Kentucky to Mason, Ohio. The locally preferred alternativefor addressing congestion and accessibility concerns from that study was a proposed lightrail transit system generally paralleling I-71 from Northern Kentucky through the Uptownarea to Blue, Ash Ohio.The I-71 Corridor Transportation study resulted in a sub-corridor study that recommendedthe reconfiguration of I-71/US-50 (Fort Washington Way). During 1998-2001, I-71 south ofthe study area was reconfigured and a new exit from southbound I-71 to Third Street in thecentral business district was created. During a public referendum in November 2002,Hamilton County voters defeated a proposed increase in the county sales tax that wouldhave funded the local share for construction of light rail transit in the I-71 corridor.During the past five years, the City of Cincinnati, along with other stakeholders, has soughtfunding to revisit the issues of accessibility to the Uptown area. In 2004, OKI initiated thisproject with the goal of addressing a myriad of long-term transportation issues in the Uptownarea.1.2. Study AreaThe Uptown Transportation Study is organized into two separate but related components;Parts A and B. The Part B Study area is, by and large, a subset of the larger Part A Studyarea with some extensions to the north and south to incorporate adjacent interchange areas.Part B is focused on improving access on I-71 in the Uptown area. The Part B Study areaincludes the portion of I-71 from Liberty Street (milepost 2.0) to Dana Avenue (milepost 6.0)and is bounded on the east and west by US-22 and US-42, respectively.The study area is highly urbanized with a broad mix of land uses. Nearly the entire areaexceeds OKI’s defined thresholds for environmental justice populations. The study area isforecast to experience a moderate population loss and minor employment gain through the2030 plan year. The Uptown area has experienced targeted efforts at economicrevitalization and mixed use/residential development. Institutions comprising the UptownUptown Transportation Study 2URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Consortium and others have invested significant funds in capital improvements over the past10 years.Figure 1: Project Study AreaThe study area includes I-71 from Mile Post 2.0 to 6.0, lying wholly within the municipalcorporation limits of the City of Cincinnati in Hamilton County. It includes the Cincinnatineighborhoods of Walnut Hills, Avondale, Mount Auburn, and Evanston. The project studyarea lies within the OKI transportation planning region.Uptown Transportation Study 3URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776281.3. Organizational StructureThe Uptown Transportation Study is sponsored by OKI and a group of funding partnersreferred to as the Implementation Partners (IP). The organizations represented in the IPgroup are:• OKI• ODOT*• Hamilton County Engineer’s Office*• City of Cincinnati• SORTA• The AMOS Project• Uptown Consortium, which represents the University of Cincinnati, Tri-Health,Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden,and the Health AllianceThe representatives for the IP are as follows:Table 1: Uptown Transportation StudyImplementation Partners Jack Huelsman !!""#$ % %&$$' ()!"' * $ )("Uptown Transportation Study 4URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Additionally, a broad group of Uptown stakeholders has been assembled to serve asmembers on an advisory committee to the IP and OKI. The Advisory Committee (AC)members are as follows:Table 2: Uptown Transportation StudyAdvisory Committee MembersMEMBERS MEMBERS MEMBERSAfrican American Chamber Corryville Communityof CommerceCouncilODOT, District 8Alliance for Regional TransitCorryville CommunityDevelopment Corp.SORTAAMOS ProjectCorryville Economic State RepresentativeDevelopment Corp. Catherine BarrettAvondale CommunityCouncilCUF NeighborhoodAssociationUS Congressman SteveChabot’s OfficeBaptist Minister’sConferenceEnvironmental ProtectionAgencyUS Senator George V.Voinovich’s OfficeCentral ClinicEvanston CommunityCouncilUniversity HeightsCincinnati Association for the Federal TransitCommunity UrbanBlindAdministrationRedevelopment Corp.Cincinnati Children’sHospital Medical CenterCincinnati Park BoardCincinnati USA RegionalChamberCitizens for Civic RenewalCity of CincinnatiHamilton County Departmentof Environmental ServicesHamilton County EngineerHeights Community CouncilHispanic Chamber ofCommerceLeague of Women VotersUniversity of CincinnatiUniversity of CincinnatiStudent GovernmentUptown ConsortiumUptown CrossingsCommunity UrbanRedevelopment Corp.Urban League of GreaterCincinnatiClifton Heights Business Local Initiatives SupportAssociationCorporationWalnut Hills Area CouncilClifton Heights CommunityUrban Redevelopment Corp.Mt. Auburn CommunityCouncilWalnut Hills BusinessAssociationClifton Town Meeting NAACP Xavier UniversityCommunity RedevelopmentGroupNorth AvondaleNeighborhood AssociationUptown Transportation Study 5URS CorporationNovember 2006

2.1. PurposePlanning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776282. PURPOSE AND NEEDThe following study purpose was developed and adopted by the Uptown TransportationStudy Implementation Partners:“The purpose of the I-71 Uptown Study is to develop a set of feasible alternatives to improveaccess between I-71 and the Uptown area of Cincinnati that reduce travel times, reducecomplexity of wayfinding, and promote economic vitality.”2.2. Primary Needs2.2.1. Reduce Travel TimeThe ability to reduce travel time is dependent on improvements in the connectivity, speed,and reliability of both the arterial roadway network and interstate access in the UptownStudy area.Traffic between the heart of the Uptown area and I-71 primarily follows two corridors, whichin part, both use the same portions of ML King Drive, McMillan Street, WH Taft Road,Jefferson Avenue, Burnet Avenue, and Reading Road. The majority of employment andinstitutions are located north of the Taft/McMillan corridor. The geographic distribution ofmajor trip generators requires drivers to utilize interstate access points located south of theirprimary destination.Two to three miles of travel is required on the arterial and local street network to reach majorUptown destinations and to return to the interstate usually by a different route due to thepartial interchange configurations. Drivers experience congestion on the arterial and localstreet network during the peak periods and must proceed through numerous intersectiondecision points potentially leading to disorientation. The circuitous nature of the travel pathsfrom the nearest I-71 access points to the heart of Uptown are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.It is readily apparent that drivers are not provided direct, intuitive access at a single locationor corridor. The perception of project stakeholders is that the Uptown area is lacking inaccessibility when compared to suburban locations and, more importantly, urbanizedlocations within the region that have simplified full service access.Uptown Transportation Study 6URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Traffic Pattern to Uptown from the South:Figure 2: I-71 Access from the SouthPlease refer to Figure 2 for an illustration of the route described below.Originating from I-471 northbound to Liberty Street and I-71 northbound to Reading Roadand continue north on Reading Road to Burnet Avenue, either turn left on WH Taft Roadand proceed west to Jefferson or Clifton Avenues or continue north on Burnet Avenue to MLKing Drive or points north. To return to the interstate southbound, the direction of traffic isreversed following the same route except that McMillan Street is used instead of WH TaftRoad and traffic reaches Reading Road southbound via Burnet or Highland Avenue sinceMcMillan Street is grade separated from Reading Road. The distance from the LibertyStreet exit ramp to the intersection of ML King Drive and Jefferson Avenue is approximately3 miles.Uptown Transportation Study 7URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Traffic Pattern to Uptown from the North:Figure 3: I-71 Access from the NorthPlease refer to Figure 3 for an illustration of the route described below.Originating on I-71 southbound to WH Taft Road and continue west on WH Taft Road toBurnet Avenue, either turn left on WH Taft Road and proceed west to Jefferson or CliftonAvenues or continue north on Burnet Avenue to ML King Drive or points north. To return tothe interstate northbound the direction of traffic is reversed following the same route exceptthat McMillan Street is used instead of WH Taft Road. The distance from the WH Taft RoadUptown Transportation Study 8URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628exit ramp to the intersection of ML King Drive and Jefferson Avenue is approximately 2miles.Much of the arterial street network illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 experiences congestionduring the morning and afternoon peak periods as do the interchange ramps to and fromI-71 serving the study area. This congestion is forecast to worsen during the 25-yearplanning horizon of this project. The travel time studies conducted as part of OKI’sCongestion Management System have determined that ML King Drive, WH Taft Road, andMcMillan Street are among the most congested arterials in the region in terms of minutes ofdelay per mile. Improved access would distribute the traffic volumes to the arterial networkmore efficiently than the current traffic patterns resulting in an overall reduction in the levelsof congestion on the arterial street network.Please see Section 9 for the 2005 arterial average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) and for the2005 Uptown intersection level of service (LOS).A comprehensive list of recommended multimodal strategies for reducing vehicular tripdemand, improving operations, and maximizing capacity of the arterial network has beendeveloped in Part A of the Uptown Transportation Study. These recommendations includebut are not limited to the following:• Implementation of a TransportationManagement Association• New perimeter structured parkingand local circulator shuttle service• Selected intersection capacityimprovements• Selected roadway extensions torestore network redundancy• Coordination and optimization ofthe existing traffic signal network• Implementation of a newcomprehensive wayfinding system• Reduction and/or elimination of onstreet parking at selectedlocations.While these strategies will likely result in overall reduction in travel time for the study areaand improve operation of targeted intersections or roadway segments, the opportunity toexpand the capacity of the arterial network is limited due to the significant costs and impactsassociated with any widening projects.Additionally, these strategies will not alleviate the congestion experienced at the I-71 accessramps to the study area. Please refer to Section 4.9.4 for the forecasted 2030 level ofservice for the I-71 access ramps. Access to and from the north at the Taft/McMillan partialinterchange is forecast to operate at a failing level of service in the design hour, as is theexit ramp from I-71 northbound to Reading Road.Additional capacity or a reduction in expected volumes at the failing access ramp locationswill be necessary to improve operations to an acceptable level of service. Similar to thearterial network, there is limited opportunity to add capacity to the existing ramps becausethey are confined by adjacent structures and are largely grade separated.Uptown Transportation Study 9URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628By providing alternative interstate access, some of the forecast hourly volumes will bediverted from the existing ramps to the alternative access, thereby reducing volumes at anyone single location. Any new or modified access ramps will be designed with sufficientcapacity to operate at a LOS C or better in the 2030 plan year. The goal of the additionalaccess is to more effectively distribute the traffic volumes to a location nearest to the driver’sdestination, while improving operations on both the interstate and arterial network overall.Travel times will improve and congested time will be reduced by providing direct full serviceaccess from I-71 with sufficient capacity provided by the interchange as well as the adjoiningarterials.2.2.2. Simplify WayfindingDue to the institutional makeup of the study area, there is a significant portion of the driverpopulation that is not comprised of regular commuters or residents. These drivers consist ofvisitors, customers, tourists, patients, and other transient populations that patronize theUniversity of Cincinnati, the various hospitals, Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Gardens, andneighborhood business districts. The hospitals within the study area experienced over13,000 emergency room arrivals during 2004. For these individuals and the institutions theypatronize, wayfinding is a major concern.Wayfinding to and from I-71 to the Uptown area is complex. Interstate 71 in the study areaexhibits a lack of uniformity in interchange patterns. Drivers from I-71 must utilize twodifferent interchanges depending on direction. Upon exiting the freeway, the driver cannotre-enter at that point but must traverse the local street system to find an entrance ramp,which can be difficult and sometimes counterintuitive. The unfamiliar driver can easilybecome confused and find it difficult to reach the desired destination and logically return tothe interstate for a return trip. The majority of employers and institutions are located to thenorth of WH Taft Road requiring drivers from I-71/471 to make successive left and rightturns on the arterial network to reach their destinations. East-west access is currentlyprovided by the one-way couplet of WH Taft Road and McMillan Street. McMillan Street isgrade separated from Reading Road and Burnet Avenue the predominate north-southcorridor in the vicinity. The one-way operation and grade separation pose challengesaccessing the interstate from locations east of I-71 and north of WH Taft Road.In recognition of this issue, a comprehensive wayfinding audit was conducted as part of thisproject and the existing wayfinding and directional signage on the arterial network was foundto be inadequate. By providing full access at all interchange locations in combination withalternative or simplified access to the existing Taft/McMillan interchange, driver decisionmakingwill be substantially simplified and trip paths consolidated to a large degree. Thecosts associated with implementation and maintenance of a wayfinding signage systemwhere trip paths are more consolidated and turning movements minimized would bereduced as well.2.2.3. Promote Economic VitalityThe Uptown study area, when taken as a whole, is economically depressed when comparedwith the City of Cincinnati or the metropolitan region. Most of the parcels adjacent to I-71are former industrial enterprises that have declined during the latter half of the 20 th century.These enterprises were largely dependent on the Pennsylvania Railroad for transportationUptown Transportation Study 10URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628at the time of their original development. The railroad was abandoned during the 1970s andmuch of the former industrial property is currently underutilized or vacant. Dislocation ofresidents and disruption of the neighborhoods due to the construction of I-71 has had a longterm detrimental effect on the vitality of the adjacent area as well.Most of the Uptown area was federally designated as an enterprise zone for targetedcommunity redevelopment efforts in 1997. The City of Cincinnati has established severaldistrict-wide tax increment financing (TIF) districts within the study area with the intent thatthe incremental increases in tax revenues could serve as a funding source for futureinfrastructure improvements to serve potential redevelopment, (see Section 9).During the past 5 years, several community urban redevelopment corporations have beenformed with support of major Uptown institutions to spur a variety of mixed-useredevelopment. This study has identified over 25 major economic development projects inthe study area with new housing and employment opportunities. Cincinnati Children’sHospital Medical Center and the University of Cincinnati have been designated as recipientsof the Governor’s Third Frontier funding to promote research and technology transfer.These activities would be directly served by improvements to access with I-71. Additionallyvacant or under-utilized parcels located between Reading Road and Gilbert Avenue wouldbecome significantly more attractive to prospective developers for commercial andresidential redevelopment.The University of Cincinnati and the major healthcare institutions have established theUptown Consortium to coordinate and foster a wide variety of economic developmentinitiatives in the study area. The Consortium has recently begun a feasibility study for amajor research campus to be located in the study area. The Uptown Consortium inconjunction with the Cincinnati Development Fund has been awarded $52 million in NewMarkets Tax Credits creating the Uptown Cincinnati Development Fund. This fund willprovide financial backing for residential and commercial redevelopment and is expected toserve as a catalyst for a reinvigorating the Uptown area by leveraging over $1 billion incommercial real estate and public revenue bond financing activityThe I-71 corridor has experienced significant redevelopment at its interchanges throughoutits entire length in Hamilton County except those within the Uptown study area. The lack ofdirect full service interstate access to serve the desired high-density redevelopment of thestudy area is viewed as a limiting factor on the scale and desirability of potentialdevelopment.As previously noted, there is a significant portion of driver population consisting of visitors,customers, tourists, patients, and other transient populations that patronize the University ofCincinnati, the various Hospitals, Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden, and neighborhoodbusiness districts. For the institutions and neighborhood business districts to remaincompetitive on a regional level, interstate access must be perceived to be at least adequatewhen compared to suburban locations with higher visibility and more direct egress.Implementation of improved access in this area would enhance the economic vitality of themost economically distressed portion of the I-71 corridor within the region.2.3. Secondary NeedsUptown Transportation Study 11URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776282.3.1. Reduce AccidentsBased on 2001-2004 data, the composite accident rate on the I-71 mainline within the studyarea is typical for an urban interstate, with a crash rate of 0.86 per million vehicle milestraveled compared to the average Ohio rate for an urban, 8-lane interstate of 1.37 permillion vehicle miles traveled. The arterial streets linking the current I-71 access points tothe heart of the Uptown area as shown on Figures 2 and 3 have experienced high numbersof accidents at mid block locations and intersections. The mid-block accident rate alongReading Road exceeds the City of Cincinnati average at several locations. See Section4.10 for more information.Because the crash rates are much higher on the arterials than on I-71, reduction of volumeson the arterial network vs. I-71 would empirically lead to the conclusion that the overallnumbers of accidents in the study area would decline if drivers were able to utilize I-71 inlieu of travel on the arterial network. This would be especially true for the ReadingRoad/Burnet Avenue Corridor between Liberty Street and Rockdale Avenue.2.3.2. Reduction in Design DeficienciesWhere feasible, in combination with improvements that may be undertaken to improveinterstate access, the number and severity of existing geometric design exceptions may bereduced. Most of the current design exceptions that exist in the project area are those thatdo not meet the current standards for curve widths, shoulder widths, and stopping sightdistances as well as bridge vertical clearance. There is one left hand exit (Ramp RC, I-71northbound to Reading Road/Dorchester Avenue) within the study area. Elimination of thisexit in lieu of a right hand exit is not a primary need of this project, but may be incorporatedinto any modifications necessary to the Reading/Gilbert Interchange necessary toaccommodate improved access to the Uptown area.2.3.3. Substantially Reduce Weave at Reading Road (US-42) InterchangeThe I-71 Interchange at Reading Road (US-42) is signed to prohibit a weaving action fromthe I-471 northbound entrance ramp on the right to the Reading Road exit on the left.Despite the current signage, this movement does occur since it is the most direct connectionbetween I-471 and the Uptown area. By utilizing the prohibited weaving movement, driverscan bypass two signalized intersections on Reading Road (Liberty Street and ElsinoreAvenue) shortening the overall distance traveled by approximately ¼ mile. This translatesinto a time savings of slightly over a minute in uncongested conditions and longer duringcongested periods. By using the Liberty Street exit, travel time between the Daniel CarterBeard Bridge and Reading Road north of Dorchester Avenue is approximately 75% longerthan would be the case using the I-71 exit and the prohibited weave. It should be noted thatsimilar travel time savings can also be realized by using the ramp from Dorchester to I-71southbound and then to I-471 southbound in lieu of the signed route to the I-471 entranceramp at Liberty Street.To physically eliminate the possibility of the weave, relocation of the I-471 entrance rampgore would be necessary. Extensive modifications to the existing bridge structures at thislocation would be required, which may result in this option being cost prohibitive. Byproviding alternative access to and from the south at a location closer to the heart of theUptown Transportation Study 12URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628study area, the demand for this weaving movement will be substantially reduced andimproved travel time and safety would result.2.3.4. Increase Travel Time ReliabilityRecent studies have indicated that a traveler’s perception of congestion and accessibility isoften directly related to the expected travel time reliability from day to day for a particularroute. This travel time reliability includes an allowance of time that a traveler must add to hisor her schedule depending on delays due to unexpected circumstances such as workzones, accidents, disabled vehicles, lack of parking, loading zones, etc. Uptown, as withany highly developed urban area, exhibits a high degree of travel time variability attributableto the factors noted above.A significant portion of the traffic in the study area utilizes lower functionally classified streetsthat are susceptible to disruption due to accidents, work zones, parking, and special eventsthe local arterials and collectors have little access management and for the most part allowon street parking during a portion of the day. By consolidating volumes to routes with ahigher functional classification and greater access management and capacity, travelers areless susceptible to delays noted above, travel time reliability can be improved.2.4. Measures of EffectivenessPlease see Appendix A for a summary of the specific project needs and measures ofeffectiveness for evaluation.Uptown Transportation Study 13URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776283. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT & PROJECT COMMUNICATIONCommunity involvement was identified as a key component of the Uptown TransportationStudy. Therefore, an aggressive multi-pronged community involvement plan was developedand approved by the Implementation Partners (IP) and Advisory Committee (AC) of theUptown Transportation Study. The approved plan can be found in the “CommunityInvolvement Documentation” binder – Section A.The community involvement plan was designed to provide maximum flexibility whileincorporating multiple layers of community involvement techniques. The process outlined inthe plan engaged interested and affected parties in dialogue, providing multipleopportunities for them to share information and feedback about project issues, as well asexpress their concerns, opinions and other pertinent ideas regarding the study. At the sametime, the plan was sensitive to local considerations and issues.Communications activities are also a mandated component of the environmental analysisand documentation processes as outlined by the National Environmental Protection Act(NEPA) of 1969.The information in this section details strategies and activities that were utilized in extendingthe study’s public reach. The community involvement efforts went beyond typical publicinvolvement activities by establishing a satellite office with a computer and written materialsfor people to learn more about the study; hosting walk around tours and attending monthlycommunity council meetings. Additionally, a direct mailing was made to over 22,000addresses in the study area for the final public meeting.A progress sheet was created at the beginning of the study and updated thereafter detailingall community involvement events and progress throughout the study. This progress sheetcan be found in the “Community Involvement Documentation” binder – Section B.3.1. Implementation Partners and Advisory CommitteeUptown consists geographically of Avondale, Clifton, Corryville, East Walnut Hills, Evanston,Mt. Auburn, North Avondale, Walnut Hills and Clifton Heights, University Heights andFairview (CUF).The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) was the lead agency onthis project. However, there were a total of six identified partners that committed funds orservices toward this project including: the City of Cincinnati, the Uptown Consortium,SORTA (Metro), the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), OKI and The AMOSProject. These partners served as the Implementation Partners (IP). The IP guided andmade decisions on the content and final recommendations of the study. The IP met monthlyapproximately 30 times from January 2004 to November 2006.The Advisory Committee (AC) was established to advise the IP on the key elements of thestudy and to act as a conduit for the flow of information between the agencies which theyrepresent and the IP. The AC met five times over the course of the study on February 17,2005, June 30, 2005, November 3, 2005, May 18, 2006 and October 17, 2006. AdvisoryCommittee members include the following: African American Chamber of Commerce,Uptown Transportation Study 14URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Alliance for Regional Transit, The AMOS Project, Avondale Community Council, BaptistMinister’s Conference, Central Clinic, Cincinnati Association for the Blind, CincinnatiChildren’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati Park Board, Cincinnati State Technical andCommunity College, Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber, Citizens for Civic Renewal, City ofCincinnati, Clifton Heights Business Association, Clifton Heights Community UrbanRedevelopment Corporation, Clifton Town Meeting, Community Redevelopment Group,Corryville Community Council, Corryville Community Development Corporation, CorryvilleEconomic Development Corporation, CUF Neighborhood Association, Deaconess Hospital,East Walnut Hills Assembly, Environmental Protection Agency, Evanston CommunityCouncil, Federal Transit Administration, Hamilton County Department of EnvironmentalServices, Hamilton County Engineer, Heights Community Council, Hispanic Chamber ofCommerce, League of Women Voters, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Mt. AuburnCommunity Council, NAACP, North Avondale Neighborhood Association, ODOT District 8,SORTA, State Representative Catherine Barrett, Union Institute and University, UnitedStates Congressman Steve Chabot’s Office, United States Senator George V. Voinovich’sOffice, United States Senator Mike DeWine, University Heights Community UrbanRedevelopment Corporation, University of Cincinnati, University of Cincinnati StudentGovernment, University Village Association, Uptown Business Association, UptownConsortium, Uptown Crossings Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., Urban League ofGreater Cincinnati, VA Medical Center, Walnut Hills Area Council, Walnut Hills BusinessAssociation, Women’s Chamber of Commerce and Xavier University.Also established was a Communications Subcommittee whose primary purpose was toreview and provide suggestions on communication pieces developed for public review.Subcommittee members included representatives from: The AMOS Project, CincinnatiChildren’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati Zoo, City of Cincinnati, Uptown Consortium,ODOT and SORTA.3.2. Stakeholder InterviewsDuring June and July of 2004, interviews were conducted between Robert Koehler, StudyProject Manager, and key stakeholders. A summary of these interviews can be found in the“Community Involvement Documentation” binder – Section C.3.3. Public MeetingsPublic meetings served as forums to both inform and gather input from those directlyaffected by the Uptown Transportation Study. Over the course of the study, three publicmeetings were held. The first meeting was held on March 3, 2005 and had an attendance of95 with 28 comment sheets received. The second meeting was held on November 16, 2005and had an attendance of 114 with 42 comment sheets received. The third meeting washeld on October 17, 2006 and had an attendance of 80 with 28 comment sheets received.In total, 289 people attended the public meetings and 98 comment sheets were collected.The meetings were open house style with formal presentations and were held from 4 – 7p.m. The three meetings were spread throughout the study area: the first being inAvondale, the second in Mount Auburn and the third in Clifton.Uptown Transportation Study 15URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628The meetings occurred at key times throughout the study process and were widelypublicized through several tactics. Notices appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer, CincinnatiHerald and Spanish Journal. Press releases and newsletter articles were distributed to themedia and local community papers and newsletters. Flyers announcing the public meetingwere sent to addresses in the study database as well as to the OKI Board of Trustees andthe Intermodal Coordinating Committee. The AMOS Project distributed approximately 2,000flyers for each public meeting. Information was posted on the project website and several ofthe Implementation Partners websites. Flyers were sent and emailed to AdvisoryCommittee members. For the final meeting, additional tactics were utilized including a directmail piece to every address in the study area which totaled over 20,000 addresses. Also,SORTA installed posters on each of their 400 buses with information about the meeting.At the meeting, the public was surveyed on their thoughts and ideas and asked to rate howthey felt about the conditions of Uptown including goals, existing conditions, alternatives andrecommendations. They provided insight as to what issues were important and needed tobe focused on. They also gave information about themselves to illustrate how Uptowndirectly or indirectly affected them. Summaries of the public meetings as well as thecomment sheets collected can be found in the “Community Involvement Documentation”binder – Section D.3.4. Media RelationsAn aggressive media relations campaign was established to further publicize studyinformation and developments. The media was kept up to date throughout the course of thestudy through press releases, media advisories and newsletter articles. Study updates weretypically sent to: AMOS, Your Metro Neighbors, Uptown News and Walnut Hills News,Evanstonian, East Walnut Hills Assembly Communique, NANA News, CUF NeighborhoodAssociation Newsletter, Mt. Auburn Town Crier, The Networker, Avondale Newsletter,Hamilton County’s Planning Newsletter, The Community Press, The Spanish Journal, TheCincinnati Herald, The Cincinnati Enquirer and The Cincinnati Post. Media relationsdocuments can be found in the “Community Involvement Documentation” binder – SectionE.3.5. WebsiteThe Uptown Transportation Study utilized a website throughout the study process:) )". This website address appeared on all study relatedmaterials. This site contained updated information relative to study activities. The site alsoprovided interactive opportunities to make comments about the study and direct links forvisitors to ask questions and request additional information. All Advisory Committee andpublic meeting presentation materials were listed on the website for public review. FromFebruary 16, 2005 to November 2, 2006 the website received over 100,000 hits.3.6. Satellite OfficeA satellite office with information on the Uptown Transportation Study was set up at theAvondale Community Pride Center. During the months of August and September 2006 fromapproximately 10 a.m. until 6 p.m., a volunteer from The AMOS Project was present toUptown Transportation Study 16URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628assist guests, answer questions and receive input. Information on the study was availablethrough a dedicated computer and packets of handouts were distributed.A press release and newsletter article announcing the opening of the office was sent out tolocal community newsletters including AMOS, Your Metro Neighbors, Uptown News andWalnut Hills News, the Evanstonian, East Walnut Hills Assembly Communique, NANANews, CUF Neighborhood Association Newsletter, Mt. Auburn Town Crier, The Networker-Community Development Corporations Association of Greater Cincinnati, AvondaleNewsletter, Hamilton County’s Planning Newsletter, The Community Press, The SpanishJournal, The Cincinnati Enquirer and The Cincinnati Herald. Additionally, The AMOSProject distributed information about the office to their 40 member congregations.There were a total of 87 visitors to the satellite office and over 40 comment sheets weregathered. A summary of the comments received from the satellite office can be found in the“Community Involvement Documentation” binder – Section F.3.7. Public/Agency CommentsThroughout the study process, the project team responded to letters, emails, phone callsand other forms of communication from the general public. A record of each piece ofcorrespondence is included in the “Community Involvement Documentation” binder –Section G.3.8. Community Council MeetingsA representative from OKI attended all monthly community council meetings in the studyarea. In total, over 145 community council meetings were attended through April 2005 untilDecember 2006. At these meetings, presentations and announcements were made by thestudy representative and informational packets were distributed with an introduction to thestudy, goals for the study and project updates. The representative answered questions andgathered input from the meeting attendees. Also, eleven presentations were given by studyrepresentatives regarding the Early Action Suggestions. These presentations occurredthrough the dates of November 2005 and April 2006.Several social events held by the community councils were attended by the studyrepresentative. Informational packets were distributed and community input was gathered.All pertinent information from the community council meetings and social events wasreported back to the project partners. Meeting report forms can be found in the “CommunityInvolvement Documentation” binder – Section H.3.9. Speaker’s Bureau and PresentationsStudy representatives sought out opportunities to present study information to interestedgroups and organizations. This provided an additional way to update the community as wellas receive feedback and suggestions. Presentations were given to the following communitygroups: Baptist Minister’s Conference, the NAACP, Urban League, Uptown Consortium, theUptown Consortium Transportation Subcommittee, the OKI Intermodal CoordinatingCommittee and the OKI Board of Trustees.Uptown Transportation Study 17URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776283.10. Walk Around ToursOver the course of the project, walk around tours were conducted in Avondale andCorryville. The Avondale walk around tour was held on August 9, 2005 and was led byAvondale Community Council trustee Ishaq Nadir. The focus of this walk around was on theresidential and commercial areas adjacent to Martin Luther King Drive at the intersection ofReading Road. The Corryville walk around tour took place on August 24, 2005 and was ledby the Corryville Community Council president Dan Schimberg. The focus of this walkaround was on the Short Vine Street business district area.The tours provided the opportunity to meet and greet those who live and work in the areaand for project partners to hear their concerns and suggestions as well as respond to anyquestions. Pictures from the walk around tours can be found in the “CommunityInvolvement Documentation” binder – Section I.3.11. Additional OutreachOver the course of the study, supplemental pieces were developed as needed tocommunicate study progress. One such piece was the Uptown Update newsletter. Thenewsletter was released in summer/fall 2006 and again in the fall of 2006. It containedstatistics of the study area including population size and accident rates, activities currentlyunderway and possible improvements to the regions’ roadways and interstate access. Thenewsletter was widely distributed to OKI and AMOS mailing lists as well as the databasedeveloped over the course of the study. The newsletter was also distributed to communitycouncils in the study area. A phone line was established with information on the study andto answer any questions one may have. In addition, 22,000 post cards were mailed to thosein the Uptown area announcing the third public open house. Signs were also placed inbuses on every route with information on the third public meeting.Additional pieces developed included: a Question and Answer sheet, Early Findings, EarlyAction Suggestions and direct mail postcards. These documents can be found in the“Community Involvement Documentation” binder – Section J.Uptown Transportation Study 18URS CorporationNovember 2006

4.1. PopulationPlanning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONSCensus data indicates that the Part A study area includes 70,000 residents and more than60,000 jobs. The balance of jobs and housing helps to maintain the vibrant nature ofUptown. Many of the study area Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) maintain a jobs/housingbalance internally, while a couple of TAZs are predominantly oriented towards employment(University of Cincinnati and Hospitals). The population of the study area overall has beendeclining since reaching its peak in the mid 20 th century. The population decline is expectedto continue through the 2030 plan year with a forecast decline in overall population ofapproximately 12% between 2000 and 2030.4.2. EmploymentUptown is the largest concentration of employment within the metropolitan region outside ofCincinnati’s central business district. With over 60,000 jobs, the economic activity within theoverall Part A study area is a major contributor to the City of Cincinnati’s economy and taxbase. Employment is primarily attributable to several major intuitions including, but notlimited to, the following:The University of CincinnatiThe Health Alliance of Greater CincinnatiTri-HealthChildren’s Hospital Medical CenterEnvironmental Protection AgencyCincinnati Public SchoolsXavier UniversityThe Department of Veterans AffairsDeaconess HospitalEmployment is expected to modestly increase through the 2030 plan year. Much of thisemployment growth is attributable to the aforementioned institution and related ancillarysupport clusters of business in the medical and research fields. See the Part A Existing andFuture Conditions Report for additional Information.4.3. Land UseThe current land uses for the Part B study area have been ascertained from land use codedesignations assigned to individual parcels by the Hamilton County Auditors office alongwith limited field observation. There is a diverse mix of land uses from north to south withinthe study area. There are enclaves of both single and multifamily residential uses as well asareas of commercial, office, and light industrial enterprises. Industrial businesses areclustered along the former Conrail railroad right of way that bisects the Part B study area.Some of these properties have been adapted to alternate uses over the 30 years since therailroad suspended operations.Uptown Transportation Study 19URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628There is also a significant proportion of vacant and under-utilized property. The homeownership rate within the overall Part A study area is well below national averages. TheUptown Consortium among other entities has embarked on efforts to provide new andrehabilitated housing stock for a variety of demographic sectors and prices.At selected locations within the study area, existing rights of way exceed that needed toaccommodate the mainline or interchange ramps that would comply with current roadwaydesign standards. This is particularly evident in the vicinity of Victory Parkway where a fullinterchange was planned but not constructed. Ramp ME from Montgomery Road tosouthbound I-71 is much longer and circuitous than necessary and could be potentiallyredesigned to allow for excess right of way to be returned to the private sector or publicownership for other uses.See Figure 3 in Appendix C for the distribution of land uses within the Part B Study Area.All development must comply with the standards, criteria, and procedures of the CincinnatiZoning Code. The zoning code, §CMC (1400-1451), was most recently revised in January2004. This update was the first comprehensive update of the code since 1963 predating theconstruction of I-71. The update was intended, in part, to provide land use regulations thatrecognized the urbanized nature of the City with its mixed uses and smaller lot sizes.The zoning classifications within the Part B Study area generally reflect the existing landuses with a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial zones. Over half of the study areais zoned for residential uses. It is expected that with new interstate access that a change tocommercial/office zoning will occur to the residual parcels likely to be redeveloped.See Figure 4 in Appendix C for Cincinnati Zoning Classifications within the Part B StudyArea.4.4. Economic DevelopmentThe Uptown study area, when taken as a whole, is economically depressed when comparedwith the City of Cincinnati or the metropolitan region. Most of the parcels adjacent to I-71were former industrial enterprises that have declined during the latter half of the 20 th century.They were largely dependent on the Pennsylvania Railroad for transportation at the time oftheir original development. The railroad was abandoned during the 1970s and much of theformer industrial property is currently underutilized or vacant. Dislocation of residents anddisruption of the neighborhoods due to the construction of I-71 had a detrimental effect onthe vitality of the adjacent area.Most of the Uptown area was federally designated as an enterprise zone for targetedcommunity redevelopment efforts in 1997. The City of Cincinnati has established severaldistrict-wide TIF Districts within the study area with the intent of funding infrastructureimprovements to serve the potential redevelopment, (see Section 9).During the past 5 years, several community urban redevelopment corporations have beenformed with support of major Uptown institutions to spur a variety of mixed-useredevelopment. This study has identified over 25 major economic development projects inthe study area with new housing and employment opportunities. Cincinnati Children’sUptown Transportation Study 20URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Hospital Medical Center and the University of Cincinnati have been designated as recipientsof the Governor’s Third Frontier funding to promote research and technology transfer.These activities would be directly served by improvements to access with I-71. Additionally,vacant or under-utilized parcels located between Reading Road and Gilbert Avenue wouldbecome significantly more attractive to prospective developers for commercial andresidential redevelopment.The University of Cincinnati and the major healthcare institutions have established theUptown Consortium to coordinate and foster a wide variety of economic developmentinitiatives in the study area. The Consortium has recently begun a feasibility study for amajor research campus to be located in the study area. The lack of direct full serviceinterstate access to serve the desired high-density redevelopment of the study area isviewed as a limiting factor on the scale and desirability of potential development. TheI-71 corridor has experienced significant redevelopment at its interchanges throughout itsentire length in Hamilton County except those within the Uptown study area.There is a significant portion of the Uptown area’s driver population that is not comprised ofregular commuters or residents. These drivers consist of visitors, customers, tourists,patients, and other transient populations that patronize the University of Cincinnati, thevarious hospitals, Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden, and neighborhood business districts.For the institutions and neighborhood business districts to remain competitive on a regionallevel, interstate access must be perceived to be at least adequate when compared tosuburban locations with higher visibility and more direct egress.4.5. Regional Travel PatternsThe daytime population of the Uptown area is more than twice the permanent population. Abasic screen line evaluation of 2005 Average Weekday Daily Traffic indicates that there areapproximately 300,000 daily vehicle trips into and out of the study area. With six operatingemergency rooms in the Uptown area, there were over 13,000 trips to emergency facilities in2003. Uptown is located on a rolling plateau at an elevation some two to four hundred feethigher than adjacent neighborhoods to the south, east, and west. The rolling topographyinhibits connectivity to the surrounding neighborhoods and in particular with the centralbusiness district.Regional access to the north and south is provided by Interstates I-71 and I-75 located atthe east and west extents of the study area. There are no regional east-west facilitiesserving the study area. The lack of regional transportation facilities serving the heart of thestudy area results in the use of local street network by commuters to reach destinationsnoted above.See Part A Existing and Future Conditions Report for additional information concerningregional travel patterns to and from the Uptown area.Uptown Transportation Study 21URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284.6. Existing Plans and Projects4.6.1. OKI Plans and Projects4.6.1.1. OKI 2030 Long Range Transportation PlanOKI, as the regional Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), is responsible formaintaining and updating the region’s long range transportation plan. The current longrange transportation plan, most recently updated in 2004, serves as a guide documentingthe transportation needs of the metropolitan region through the year 2030.Goals of the plan are as follows:• Improve travel safety• Improve accessibility and mobility options for people and goods• Protect and enhance the environment• Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system• Promote efficient system management and operation• Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system• Support economic vitalityThe plan identifies both general and specific needs for mitigating congestion and improvingair quality while meeting fiscal constraints of expected funding.The following are recommended projects to add capacity to the roadway network within thestudy area that are incorporated into the fiscally constrained long-range plan.Table 3: OKI 2030 LRTP Fiscally Constrained ProjectsNo. Location DescriptionCostMillions $631IR 71 I-471 to ReadingRoadRestrict I-471 northbound fromReading Road exit; evaluate freewaymgmt system & eliminate leftentrance/exits.2.0636IR 75 Interchanges atHopple, I-74, andMitchell AvenueUpgrade interchanges 101.0692 IR 71 ML King Dr. New interchange 35.0698 Western Hills ViaductWestern Hills Viaduct Accessmodification13.3Uptown Transportation Study 22URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628The following projects have been identified as long range needs within the study area butare not incorporated into the fiscally constrained long range plan. In addition to the projectsin Table 4, implementation of light rail transit service is recommended in corridors within thestudy area.Table 4: OKI 2030 Transportation Plan Additional ProjectsFacility Location DescriptionCostMillions $Cincinnati Zoo Vine Street Parking & Transit 2.0Dana Avenue Victory Parkway to IR-71 Add 2 lanes 19.0Uptown/DowntownConnectorVine StreetTBDNixon Street toErkenbrecher Avenue4.6.1.2. OKI Transportation Improvement PlanStreet Car asdefined in RegionalRail Plan61.0Add 1 lane 4.0The OKI Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) is a short range (4 years) plan updated ona 2-year cycle with ongoing amendments as needed. It provides a listing, by county, of allfederally assisted highway and transit improvements that are contemplated by municipal,county, or state governments or transit authorities and is fiscally constrained to meetexpected sources of transportation funding.The OKI FY 2006-2009 TIP is a compilation of highway and transit projects in the Ohio,Kentucky, and Indiana portions of the OKI region that are scheduled to receive state and/orfederal funding. The document was adopted by the OKI Executive Committee on April 14,2005. There are five roadway projects included in the OKI FY 2006-2009 TIP.Table 5: OKI FY 2006 - 2009 TIPNo. Facility Location Description780102448577706GilbertAve.M.L.KingVineStreet76257 IR-7524954 IR-71Between Eden ParkDrive and E. McMillanStreetWoodside Place to VineStreetBridge over Vine Streetfrom Erkenbrecher tothe Zoo's parking lot.From 0.1 mile N ofHarrison Ave. to 0.1miles S of PaddockRoadI-71 over Eden ParkDriveEstimatedCost ($)Streetscape $844,000Reconstruction/Rehabilitationand Intersection Improvement$6,240,000Pedestrian Bridge $1,100,000Study the corridor for accessimprovements. Work includesmajor rehabilitation ofpavement.Paint Structural SteelBridge No. HAM 71-0243$159,460,000$1,428,000Uptown Transportation Study 23URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284.6.2. ODOT Plans and Projects4.6.2.1. HAM 75 2.30 Mill Creek ExpresswayThis preliminary engineering project is evaluating capacity enhancements to the I-75mainline from the Western Hills Viaduct to Paddock Road at the western border of theUptown area. The project also includes the development of recommended alternatives forthe reconstruction of the I-75 Interchanges serving Uptown located at Hopple Street,I-74/Central Parkway, and Mitchell Avenue.Two significant issues regarding I-75 access remain to be resolved as of June 2006.The intersection of Hopple/ML King Drive/Central Parkway is planned to be grade separatedas part of this project.Local access to Central Parkway (US-27/127) from I-74 may not be maintained in the future,thus redirecting this traffic flow north to Mitchell Avenue or south to Hopple Street.The project is currently in Step 6 of the ODOT Major Project Development Process. Thecurrent phase of the project is scheduled for completion in late 2006 when preferredalternatives are advanced for the mainline and interchanges.4.6.2.2. HAM 71/75 0.000.22 Brent Spence BridgeThis project is evaluating capacity and safety enhancements to I-71/75 from the WesternHills Viaduct (Harrison Avenue) south to Kyles Lane in Kenton County, Kentucky. Thisincludes the potential replacement or rehabilitation of the Brent Spence Bridge carryingI-71/75 over the Ohio River.Alternatives for modification of the I-75 interchange serving Harrison Avenue would providenew direct access from I-75 to Central Parkway and McMillan Street. If such access isprovided in the future, it may alter the current distribution of traffic flow in the Uptown Studyarea south of ML King Drive. The project is currently in Step 4 of the ODOT Major ProjectDevelopment Process; it is anticipated that a preferred alternative for the interchange will bedetermined in late 2007.4.6.2.3. Miscellaneous Maintenance ProjectsBesides the two major preliminary engineering studies for I-75 in the Uptown area, there area number of smaller maintenance projects included in the ODOT District 8 work planincluding the re-paving of US 42 (Reading Road) and US-22 (Gilbert Avenue) within the Cityof Cincinnati.Additionally the superstructure of Bridge HAM 71-0243 which carries I-71 over Eden ParkDrive and Florence Avenue will be painted at an estimated cost of $1.5 Million.Uptown Transportation Study 24URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284.6.3. Community Plans and Projects• Community Tax Increment Financing Districts• The Clifton Heights Urban Renewal Plan• Evanston 5-Points Urban Renewal Plan• Corryville/University Village Urban Renewal Plan• Avondale Vision Plan 2005• Burnet Avenue Urban Renewal Plan• Keystone Parke4.6.4. Institutional Plans• Uptown Crossings• Uptown Consortium Strategic Opportunity Plan• Uptown Consortium Research Park• University of Cincinnati Campus Masterplan• SORTA MetroMoves Plan4.7. Roadway NetworkInterstate-71:I-71 within the study area extends from SLM 2.0 (Liberty Street) to 6.0 (Dana Avenue).The number of travel lanes on I-71 varies from three to five with numerous entrance and exitramps. There is a center median barrier wall throughout the entire study area. Roadwaylighting is provided throughout the study area.The typical cross sections for the northbound and southbound directions are more fullydescribed below:Northbound:At the southern end of the study area, I-71 is three lanes in both directions. There are threesuccessive entrance ramps on the right: I-471, Gilbert Avenue, and Reading Road.Between the I-471 entrance and the Gilbert Avenue entrance, a left hand exit provided forI-71 northbound access to Reading Road northbound, or Dorchester Avenue. At the GilbertAvenue entrance ramp, a fourth lane is added and at the Reading Road entrance ramp, afifth lane is added and continues up hill to a location north of WH Taft Road where thesection begins to taper back to a four lane section. A single lane entrance ramp from apartial interchange at McMillan Street enters on the right between WH Taft Road and OakStreet, which continues the fifth lane as an acceleration lane to a point south of ML KingDrive. A single lane exit is located at Duck Creek Road with the fifth lane added again as adeceleration lane at a point north of Victory Parkway. North of this exit, the section remains4 lanes to the north end of the study area.Uptown Transportation Study 25URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Southbound:At Dana Avenue, I-71 is four lanes wide and remains so throughout the study area untilreaching the two lane exit ramp to Reading Road and Gilbert Avenue where there is a lanedrop to three lanes which are maintained south of the I-471 exit. There are two single laneentrance ramps from Dana Avenue and Montgomery Road; the latter entrance ramp isapproximately 4,300 feet in length and follows a circuitous route originally intended to allowfor braiding of a southbound exit ramp to Victory Parkway, which was not constructed. Theother ramps include a single lane exit to WH Taft Road where a fifth lane for deceleration isadded beginning at ML King Drive and an entrance from Reading Road/Florence Avenue.4.7.1. Geometric Design ExceptionsGeometric design exceptions on I-71 are minor and reflect changes in the AASHTOgeometric design standards over the last 30 years, which have increased shoulder widths aswell as horizontal and vertical clearances.The ramps at most of the interchanges do not meet design criteria for several featuresincluding reduced vertical and horizontal curve lengths with associated reduced stoppingsight distances; narrow travel lane and/or shoulder widths; steep grades; and substandardvertical clearances. There is one interchange with a left hand exit ramp (I-71 northbound toReading Road/Dorchester Avenue Ramp RC). See Table 6, I-71 Design Exceptions foradditional information.Uptown Transportation Study 26URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Table 6: I-71 Design ExceptionsCurve WideningMilepoint Length (mi) Required Widening (ft) Existing Widening (ft)1.93 0.14 2.00 0.002.27 0.14 2.00 0.002.61 0.02 2.00 0.003.15 0.09 2.00 0.003.70 0.28 2.50 0.004.70 0.16 4.00 0.005.77 0.31 2.00 0.00Shoulder WidthMilepoint Required width (ft) Existing width (ft)Right Shoulder Entire Project 12' 10'or lessMedian Shoulder Entire Project 12' 10'or lessStopping Sight DistanceMilepoint Length (mi) Required SSD Existing SSD4.70 Northbound 0.08 495' 454'Spiral Requirement for Horizontal CurvesMilepoint Length (mi)1.93 0.152.19 0.182.54 0.132.93 0.123.69 0.28+ ,- ), ". "")Source: ODOT L&D Manual, Volume 1 Roadway Design, as of July 20054.7.2. Pavement Condition RatingsThe pavement of I-71 within the study area was originally placed in the early 1970s witha portland cement concrete and overlaid with asphalt during a 1995-1996 generalrehabilitation project.The pavement conditions on I-71 within the study area are good to very good. PavementCondition Ratings (PCR) for I-71 have been provided by the Ohio Department ofTransportation as shown in Table 7: ODOT Pavement Condition RatingsAccording to ODOT Pavement Standards, a PCR below 65 is deficient, a rating between75 and 90 is good and a rating above 90 is very good. See Figure 14 of Appendix C for thepavement history of I-71.Uptown Transportation Study 27URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Table 7: ODOT Pavement Condition RatingsNlf_ID Log Begin Log End Length Direction No Lanes PCR PCR DateSHAMIR00071**C 1.51 1.99 0.48 DOWN 6 95 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 1.99 2.19 0.2 DOWN 6 95 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 2.19 2.33 0.14 DOWN 6 95 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 2.33 2.75 0.42 DOWN 8 95 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 2.75 2.93 0.18 DOWN 9 95 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 2.93 3.2 0.27 DOWN 9 95 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 3.2 3.33 0.13 DOWN 9 95 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 3.33 3.39 0.06 DOWN 9 95 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 3.39 3.81 0.42 DOWN 8 95 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 3.81 5.27 1.46 DOWN 8 95 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 5.27 6.18 0.91 DOWN 8 96 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 1.51 1.99 0.48 UP 6 93 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 1.99 2.19 0.2 UP 6 93 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 2.19 2.33 0.14 UP 6 93 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 2.33 2.75 0.42 UP 8 93 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 2.75 2.93 0.18 UP 9 90 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 2.93 3.2 0.27 UP 9 90 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 3.2 3.33 0.13 UP 9 90 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 3.33 3.39 0.06 UP 9 90 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 3.39 3.81 0.42 UP 8 90 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 3.81 5.27 1.46 UP 8 91 12/17/03SHAMIR00071**C 5.27 6.18 0.91 UP 8 96 12/17/03As of October 22, 2004 from the Ohio Department of TransporationDirections: Up = NorthboundDown = Southbound4.7.3. Bridge Rating ReportsAll I-71 bridges are regularly inspected by ODOT in accordance with Section ORC 5501.47,and with the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 650.307. These state and federalrequirements provide for regular and systematic inspection of bridges on, under, or overpublic highways and streets in the interest of public safety and protection of the publicinvestment in such structures.These requirements establish the areas of responsibility of various authorities regardinginventory requirements, frequency of inspection, qualifications of inspectors, and recordingof inspections. ODOT has provided bridge inspection reports for the I-71 bridge structuresbetween Liberty Street and Dana Avenue. The bridges are generally steel rolled beams orplate girders on reinforced concrete substructures. Most bridges are supported on steelH pile foundations.The mainline bridges carrying I-71 over Eden Park Drive, Florence Avenue, and ReadingRoad are scheduled to have the steel superstructure repainted in the next 4 years. Thegeneral appraisal bridge ratings for the study area are provided in Table 8. The generalappraisal ratings are an overall indicator of the bridge’s condition on a scale from 1 to10 with10 being best.Uptown Transportation Study 28URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Table 8: Bridge General Appraisal RatingsStructure File NumberCountyRouteStraight Line MileageSpecial DesignationFeature IntersectedYear BuiltGeneral AppraisalInspected DateDeck Area (Square Feet)Total Number of SpansMaximum Span Length(Feet)Overal Length (Feet)Inspection Responsibility3106659 HAM 71 1.97 W US 22 to I-71 1976 8 11/26/2003 14,280 3 118 280 State3106667 HAM 71 1.97 US 22 to I-71 NB 1969 8 11/26/2003 22,800 3 118 285 State3106683 HAM 71 2.07 NB I-471 to Liberty Street 1976 8 11/26/2003 26,320 3 119 329 State3106721 HAM 71 2.26 Elsinore Place 1970 7 11/19/2003 17,143 3 89 217 State3106756 HAM 71 2.33 US 42 to I-71 NB 1970 7 11/19/2003 13,140 3 141 365 State3106780 HAM 71 2.48 LUS 42; Eden ParkEntrance 1970 7 11/17/2003 37,750 7 143 755 State3106802 HAM 71 2.48 REden Park Entrance;Florence Avenue 1970 5 11/17/2003 94,956 13 134 1158 State3114236 HAM 71 2.94 McGregor Avenue 1972 7 11/17/2003 15,650 3 106 313 State3114260 HAM 71 3.20 McMillan Street 1972 8 11/13/2003 12,648 3 90 204 State3114295 HAM 71 3.22 E Relief 1972 8 11/13/2003 4,640 3 60 160 State3114325 HAM 71 3.32 William Howard Taft Road 1972 7 11/13/2003 19,372 4 123 334 State3114368 HAM 71 3.44 Oak Street 1972 7 11/13/2003 16,306 3 110 263 State3114392 HAM 71 3.67 Lincoln Avenue 1972 8 11/13/2003 14,580 3 91 243 State3114422 HAM 71 3.81 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. 1972 7 11/12/2003 57,974 8 104 707 State3114481 HAM 71 4.03 Fredonia Avenue 1972 7 11/12/2003 15,138 2 131 261 State3114538 HAM 71 4.27 Blair Avenue 1972 7 12/8/2003 46,980 10 119 810 State3114562 HAM 71 4.50 Victory Parkway 1972 5 11/10/2003 32,708 2 111 221 State3114600 HAM 71 5.05 Woodburn Avenue 1972 7 11/10/2003 18,560 4 99 320 State3114643 HAM 71 5.51 Trimble Avenue 1972 7 11/10/2003 10,962 2 92 189 StateThis list does not include abandoned railroad bridge structures nor Lincoln Avenue or McMillan Street Structures inspected by the City of CincinnatiSee Figures 15 and 16 of Appendix C for maps illustrating the locations of bridges withvertical clearance less than the current 16’ - 6” standard.Two city bridges in the study area, McMillan Street over Reading Road and Lincoln Avenueover the former railroad right of way both received a general appraisal rating of 7 during2004-2005.The Lincoln Avenue bridge is scheduled for a new concrete deck overlay during the next4 years.4.7.4. SignageA comprehensive review of existing signage and wayfinding has been undertaken for theentire Part A study area.Uptown is bounded on the west by I-75 and the east by I-71. Both interstates serveprimarily as north-south transportation corridors with several partial-access interchangesserving Uptown. Additionally, I-74, which terminates at I-75 and Central Parkway at thewestern edge of Uptown, provides a transportation corridor to Western Hamilton County.Terminating at I-71 south of Uptown, I-471 provides the primary access to Uptown fromCampbell County and Eastern Hamilton County.Currently, there is no directional signage on either I-74 or I-471 for Uptown or specificUptown destinations. Advance information should be provided to motorists so they can plantheir route. For example, the Zoo would prefer that motorists coming in from the West, onUptown Transportation Study 29URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628I-74, take I-75 north to the Mitchell exit. This information must be posted onI-74 with enough advance notice to allow drivers to position themselves in the correct lane.There is some directional signage on Interstates 75 and 71 but some adjustments to theexisting signage could improve current conditions. There is no directional signage fornorthbound I-75 between the Ohio River and the Hopple Street Interchange or fornorthbound I-71 between the Ohio River and the Montgomery Road/Duck CreekInterchange.During field review of the existing signage on I-71, it was noted that there are several signsin the southbound direction between Montgomery Road and Dorchester Street that are outof sequential order. Some of the current signage was erected after the last generalrehabilitation of this portion of I-71 in 1995/96. This was primarily done to assist motoristwith ongoing work during the reconstruction of Fort Washington Way during 1999-2001.Signs on the southbound exit to US-42 Reading Road/Gilbert Avenue refer to theStadium/Coliseum on the riverfront and are outdated at this time. New directional signagefor the riverfront and central business district appear to be needed.Hospital trailblazing signs “D9-2” are inadequate to direct motorists to their respectivedesignations given that six major hospitals are located within the study area. Members ofthe IP have expressed concern over the adequacy of the hospital guide signs at the I-71exits and on the arterial network. Signing for hospitals is regulated by the Ohio Manual ofUniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD) Section 2D.44 for surface streets, andOMUTCD Section 2E.51 for freeways and expressways. Section 200 of the ODOT TrafficEngineering Manual does not allow for the name of the individual hospitals to be includedwith trailblazing sign, but it does appear that consideration should be given to the uniqueconcentration of hospitals in the study area.Similarly, the interstate trail blazing signage directing motorists to and from interstate accesspoints appears to be incomplete and misleading.Lytle Tunnel Hazardous Cargo BanThere are two regulator warning signs located along I-71 southbound in the study area thatsay the following "Tunnel Ahead - Hazardous Cargo Laws Enforced" This signage waserected in response to a City of Cincinnati request following a tanker truck fire in the LytleTunnel in 1992. However there are no portions of I-71 in Hamilton County that are includedin the National Hazardous Materials Route Registry and no formal documentation of thehazardous cargo ban is included with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio or the FederalMotor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).Uptown Transportation Study 30URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628This is an issue of regional impact beyond the Uptown Transportation Study but three itemshave relevance to the Uptown Study.• Should the current signage be maintained, eliminated, or replaced with signage inaccordance with the current OMUTCD?• If hazardous cargo is prohibited in the Lytle Tunnel will it have any significant impacton the classification of traffic volumes on I-71 within the study area?• Should signage for alternative routes be established assuming hazardous cargo isprohibited in Lytle Tunnel and what effect might this diverted truck traffic have oncurrent and future traffic patterns?4.7.5. US-42US-42/Reading Road is the primary arterial road within the Part B Study area. ReadingRoad has a typical cross-section of 4 to 6 lanes with a directional bifurcation betweenElsinore Place and Dorchester Avenue. It generally parallels I-71 from Liberty Street toVictory Parkway where it makes a turn to the north-west. Within the study area, US-42starts at milepost 2 near Liberty Street and ends at milepost 5 near Rockdale Avenue. Theaverage daily traffic (ADT) on US-42 varies from 18,000 to 36,000 with the heaviest volumesbeing between Liberty Street northward to its intersection with Burnet Avenue. Thissegment of US-42 experiences congestion in the peak hours. Intersections at Liberty,WH Taft Road, and ML King Drive are also operating at capacity with an LOS of D or worse.Reading Road is home to Avondale’s neighborhood commercial district and serves as theprimary gateway to the Uptown area for travelers to and from the south, including I-471.4.7.6. US-22/SR3US-22/Gilbert Avenue/Montgomery Road is a four-lane arterial road with a pavement widthof 56 to 70 feet. Within the study area, US-22 begins at milepost 1.7 where Gilbert Avenuecrosses under I-71 to the east and proceeds to milepost 4.50 where Montgomery Roadpasses back over I-71 to the west. It serves as a primary north south arterial paralleling I-71throughout most of its length. The City of Cincinnati is currently in the design phase for amajor streetscape project for the portion of Gilbert Avenue from Eden Park Drive to McMillanStreet.The ADT on US-22 ranges from 10,000 to 15,000 a day (about half of US-42). It is alsohome to Peebles Corner Historic District and Walnut Hills’ historic neighborhood commercialdistrict.4.7.7. Local Roadway NetworkSignificant arterials include ML King Drive, WH Taft Road, Burnet Avenue, McMillan Street,Dana Avenue, Vine Street, and Clifton Avenue. These arterials serve as the primarydistributors of traffic to and from I-71. Each one of them experiences congestion in the peakperiods at selected locations.Uptown Transportation Study 31URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284.8. Traffic AnalysisTraffic analysis was conducted for I-71 and local street intersections within the Part B studyarea. I-71 has been divided into mainline segments (both north and southbound) andinterchange ramp merge and diverge points (both north and southbound). The analysisdetermined AM and PM design hour volumes and LOS for existing (2005) and futureconditions (2030 E+C). See Appendix D for additional information.The arterial network in the overall Part A Uptown study area has been evaluated as well. Atotal of 67 signalized intersections are located within the overall Part A study area. The Cityof Cincinnati owns and maintains all traffic signals within the study area. Synchro LOSanalysis was conducted for each of the signalized intersections within the Part A study area.4.8.1. Traffic Volume DataField counts were undertaken in 2005 to obtain current traffic volume information for the I-71mainline, interchange ramps, cross streets, and adjacent arterials.4.8.1.1. Traffic CountsExisting traffic volume data was obtained from a variety of sources to insure adequate andcurrent coverage for the project study area. OKI, ODOT, and the project consulting teamconducted traffic counts during the period from May to July 2005.Please see Figure 17 of Appendix C for the locations of the field traffic counts. The countingprogram for each of the respective parties is described as follows:4.8.1.2. Consultant CountsThe project consulting team conducted 7 day, 24-hour volume counts at 33 locations duringNovember 2004. These field counts were concentrated on the urban arterial networkbetween I-75 and I-71 but also include Reading Road (US-42) and cross streetsimmediately west of I-71.The consulting team subsequently conducted 24-hour counts at approximately 28 locationsconcentrated at the I-71 interchanges and along parallel arterials and cross streets duringMay 2005. These counts were conducted at locations where neither ODOT nor OKI hadscheduled any counts. Included in this counting program were the Reading Road/GilbertAve interchange ramps where relevant data was not available. This counting program didnot include vehicle classification data.4.8.1.3. OKI Traffic CountsDuring the spring of 2005, OKI initiated a comprehensive program to update its traffic countdatabase. OKI retained a consultant to collect 24-hour vehicle counts (by 15-minuteIntervals and by direction) for a variety of locations throughout Hamilton County. Thisprogram included approximately 25 locations within the Uptown Transportation study area toprovide data at locations where current information was not available and where counts arenot conducted regularly by ODOT or local agencies. These counts also include vehicleUptown Transportation Study 32URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628classification data. Please see Figure 17 of Appendix C for OKI count locations. Ofparticular importance are 24-hour volume counts for the I-71 mainline conducted at threelocations within the project study area.4.8.1.4. ODOT Traffic CountsThe ODOT Office of Technical Services as part of its annual statewide Traffic Survey Reportwas requested to conduct its planned 48-hour vehicle counts within the Uptown Study areato coincide with the other field counting being undertaken by OKI and the project consultantteam and to complete the field work prior to the end of the University of Cincinnati’sacademic year.ODOT conducted 48-hour volume counts at approximately 21 locations within the UptownTransportation Study area including six at selected interchange ramps on I-71. The majorityof the counts were done during May-August 2005. Some of the counts, particularly on thearterials, may not account for any seasonal influence due to the University of Cincinnati orXavier University.4.8.1.5. Advanced Regional Traffic Interactive Management andInformation SystemIn an effort to obtain long term I-71 count information to identify the seasonal variation involumes that may be attributed to the University of Cincinnati and Xavier University withinthe study area, the consultant team requested traffic volume data from the automatic trafficrecorder stations along I-71 within the study area that are managed by the AdvancedRegional Traffic Interactive Management and Information System (ARTIMIS), jointlyoperated by ODOT and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC). This data also allowedfor the determination of typical free flow speeds on I-71 throughout the study area for use inthe Highway Capacity Software (HCS) analysis of basic freeway segment level of service.Specifically, the data that was provided to the consultant team came from CambridgeSystematics, Inc. who has been retained by the Texas Transportation Institute to producethe FHWA sponsored annual Mobility Monitoring Report. The data sets utilized includeARTIMIS automatic traffic recorder (ATR) information from 2002 and 2004.4.8.1.6. Intersection Turning Movement CountsProject turning movement traffic counts were conducted at 15 intersections within the Part Bstudy area during October 2005 while the University of Cincinnati and Xavier University (aswell as other educational institutions) were in session. This information was needed asinput into the existing level of service for ramp terminals at grade intersections as well asother major intersections within the Part B Study area.Uptown Transportation Study 33URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284.8.2. Adjustment Methodology4.8.2.1. Traffic Volume DataDay of the weekProject specific traffic volume counts were conducted on Tuesdays through Thursdays. Dayof the week adjustment factors were not applied due to the influence of the major institutionsin the study area and the varying work shifts and class schedules.MonthlyMonthly seasonal adjustment factors were not applied to any of the volume counts due tothe influence of the major institutions in the study area (i.e., University of Cincinnati,Cincinnati Public Schools, and Xavier University). Review of monthly average daily volumestaken from the ARTIMIS ATR stations within the Part B study area during May, July, andOctober of 2004 did not exhibit significant variation from month to month overall.Additionally, evaluation of ARTIMIS stations 62 and 63 used to derive a design hourlyvolume factor shows a slight peaking of volumes in the spring and fall coinciding with theUniversity of Cincinnati’s Academic year. See Chart 1 for additional details. This variationof volumes on I-71 does not follow the typical summer peak pattern in statewide adjustmentfactors. The highest volumes occur during the University of Cincinnati’s fall quarter inOctober.Uptown Transportation Study 34URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Chart 1: 2004 ARTIMIS Hourly Volumes !"# !$%&)&$&"&&&(&'&&!&%& * *) * %*) *"(*)"* "*)"*"!*)$* *)$*"%*))*'*))*""*)%*!*)%*"*)!*$*)!* *)* *)* %*)*"(*)'* "*)'*"!*)(*(*)(*"$*)**)*" *)*)*)* '*)"*"*)"* !*)"*$*)+,-.-./,-.-./0!1 0 --/4.8.2.2. Design Hour FactorA 30th highest hour factor was developed for I-71 volumes within the Part B Study areausing hourly count data for the entire 2004 calendar year from a pair of directional ARTIMISATR stations located just north of Blair Avenue at SLM 4.20. These stations were chosensince they are in the same highway segments as a 48-hour field count conducted by OKI'straffic counting consultant during July 2005.The peak hour volumes were balanced north and south based on the adjusted peak hourvolumes from this OKI field count. From the 2004 data, the peak hour volume for eachweekday, excluding holidays, was identified and the average weekday peak hour volume forthe entire year was calculated for that location. The ARTIMIS count data was also used todetermine the 30th highest hour volume at this location on I-71. The 30th highest houradjustment factor was calculated for the ATR pair. This factor is simply the 120th highesthourly volume (by 15-minute increments) divided by the average weekday volume. Thisfactor was determined to be 1.112. This methodology was reviewed and approved by theODOT Office of Technical Services in December 2005.Uptown Transportation Study 35URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284.9. 2005 Level of Service (LOS)As described above, the raw traffic volume count information was used to balance thesegment and ramp daily totals in the north and south bound directions. These balancedtotals were crosschecked with the respective project counts, historic count information, andARTIMIS ATR volume averages by the respective station location.Levels of service were determined for freeway segments, interchange ramp merge anddiverge points, and signalized intersections within the study area using HCS, versionHCS2000TM, Version 4.1d. While new versions of this software have become available foruse during the course of the study, this version has been used throughout to maintainconsistency in the methodology so comparisons of conceptual access improvements can bemade on an equitable basis. See Appendices D and E.4.9.1. Basic Freeway SegmentsThe following tables present the results of the 2005 existing condition analyses performedon the mainline segments of I-71. The interstate is generally operating at a satisfactory levelof service overall. Southbound I-71 from Dana Avenue to the WH Taft Road exit is nearingits capacity in the AM Peak Hour. See Figures 18 to 20 of Appendix C for maps illustratingthe 2005 LOS for I-71. Segments with unacceptable LOS are shown in grey in the table.Table 9: 2005 LOS Northbound Basic Freeway Segments42

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Table 10: 2005 LOS Southbound Basic Freeway Segments42

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Table 11: 2005 LOS Northbound Ramp Junctions/-->.-+-.-./+*/*#) 4 5( &!$" "5 : /6+#""4768 59 !) $5 + /:)"470059; + &% $5 + /+)"470059 '(' ")5( : /:5 &$$ "'5) + /2+.,: ,05; + (!) $ 5 + /+:+5 &%$ " 5% : Source: Adjusted 2005 Field Traffic Counts: (Ohio Department of Transportation, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council ofGovernments, Edwards & Kelcey Inc.), Level of Service Analysis: Highway Capacity Software (HCS) Version 4.1d by URS Corp.*Table 12: 2005 LOS Southbound Ramp Junctions/--/++5; + (! "5( : /+4=4+5 )$) $$ + /#""--/ 05 )$ "$5% : /=305; + &' $%5) 2 /4#)"005; + ( "5 : /2#)"005 $ ! "5' : #) ; + &!( $%5" 2 Source: Adjusted 2005 Field Traffic Counts: (Ohio Department of Transportation, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council ofGovernments, Edwards & Kelcey Inc.), Level of Service Analysis: Highway Capacity Software (HCS) Version 4.1d by URS Corp.LOS = Level of Servicemi = milesDensity is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane>.-+-.-./+*4.9.3. IntersectionsThe following table illustrates the level of service for at-grade local intersections within thePart B Study area. Additional signalized intersections were analyzed for the overall Part AStudy Area. Most intersections are currently operating at an acceptable overall level ofservice. It does appear that the intersection of Liberty Street and Reading Road (which alsoincludes the terminal for ramps to and from I-471) is operating under constrained conditionsand is operating at LOS of D overall. This has been validated by observations of congestionand queuing in the left turn lanes in the PM peak hours. The intersection of Reading Roadand WH Taft Road and Reading Road and ML King Drive are also failing overall. Analysisof these two intersections is documented in the Part A Existing and Future Conditionsreport.Uptown Transportation Study 38URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Table 13: 2005 LOS At Grade IntersectionsIntersection#1 Liberty & Reading#2 Eden Park & Reading#3 Kinsey/Morgan & Reading#4 Eden Park & Gilbert#5 Gilbert & McMillan#6 Gilbert & Taft#7 Gilbert & Lincoln#8 Gilbert & M.L. King#9 Rockdale & Victory Parkway#10 Duck Creek & Montgomery#11 Dana & Montgomery#12 Gilbert & Victory Parkway#13 Dana & Victory Parkway#14 Elsinore & Reading#15 Elsinore & Gilbert#16 Dana & Duck CreekTime Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound OverallPeriodDelay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOSAM 50.6 D 41.4 D 24.8 C 31.5 C 36.3 DPM 46.3 D 69.6 E 52.9 D 37.6 D 44.9 DAM 25.5 C 34.6 C 12.3 B 5.4 A 12.9 BPM 24.7 C 23.5 C 11.6 B 7.8 A 12.0 BAM 42.2 D 46.1 D 2.0 A 1.6 A 2.8 APM 25.3 C 35.4 D 3.0 A 4.0 A 5.0 AAM 22.2 C 9.8 A 10.3 B 11.1 B 12.3 BPM 21.2 C 8.9 A 12.7 B 11.5 B 13.7 BAM 10.4 B NA NA 15.4 B 8.0 A 10.7 BPM 13.0 B NA NA 16.1 B 7.9 A 12.4 BAM NA NA 13.8 B 5.9 A 12.7 B 11.2 BPM NA NA 14.3 B 6.2 A 12.5 B 10.9 BAM 11.2 B 11.8 B 3.8 A 3.9 A 5.0 APM 10.0 A 6.7 A 8.1 A 7.4 A 8.4 AAM 4.8 A 5.7 A 12.2 B 10.8 B 7.5 APM 9.3 A 5.9 A 13.3 B 9.3 A 9.8 AAM 15.6 B NA NA 3.5 A 3.7 A 5.1 APM 12.2 B NA NA 5.8 A 5.3 A 6.9 AAM NA NA 10.1 B 5.1 A 4.8 A 6.8 APM NA NA 13.6 B 12.6 B 4.2 A 9.6 AAM 13.4 B 23.3 C 36.4 D 40.7 D 28.2 CPM 22.1 C 31.1 C 48.0 D 80.3 F 45.1 DAM 5.0 A 14.6 B 11.9 B 15.0 B 11.9 BPM 7.5 A 14.4 B 12.9 B 14.5 B 11.2 BAM 24.0 C 9.1 A 15.9 B 21.6 C 16.6 BPM 33.1 C 10.1 B 25.9 C 21.4 C 21.8 CAM NA NA 34.9 C 5.4 A 1.6 A 4.5 APM NA NA 34.5 C 8.7 A 2.6 A 8.0 AAM 9.0 A 7.1 A 6.6 A 7.3 A 7.6 APM 10.1 B 7.2 A 6.8 A 7.6 A 8.0 AAM 8.8 A 7.5 A 21.1 C NA NA 10.1 BPM 6.7 A 5.6 A 23.1 C NA NA 8.4 ANA "Intersection does not include this movement"4.9.4. 2030 Level of Service4.9.4.1. OKI Regional Travel Demand Model ForecastsOKI currently utilizes a nested-logic 4-step travel demand model that is run with CitilabsTranplan software. Version 6.3 of the OKI Regional Travel Demand Model was run with the2000 Existing network in the 2005 plan year to derive 2005 daily volume assignments for thenetwork links representing I-71 and its interchanges.The Existing and Committed network was then run in the 2030 plan year to deriveforecasted 2030 daily volume assignments for the network links representing I-71 and itsinterchanges. The respective links were then adjusted as described in Section 4.9.4.2 toarrive at an adjusted 2030 ADT assignment.A review of OKI’s social-economic database for the TAZ’s in the Uptown area, forecast anoverall reduction in population and minimal employment growth in the Uptown area duringthe project design year time horizon. The IP expressed the desire to propose alternativesocial-economic input values for certain TAZ’s based upon current and planned commercial,institutional, and residential development as described in Section 3.5 of Appendix C. Inresponse, OKI revised its socio-economic input files to more closely match the populationand employment forecasted for the specific TAZ’s. Overall, this revision has not reversedUptown Transportation Study 39URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628the forecast population decline but has lessened the loss and has increased the overall levelof employment gain in the 2030 plan year.The travel demand model forecast used in the 2030 LOS below reflects these revised socioeconomicinputs.4.9.4.2. Travel Demand Model Volume AdjustmentThe balanced 2005 base year hourly volumes for the respective mainline segments andramps were adjusted as follows to arrive at an hourly ADT which then could be used toarrive at a design hourly volume (DHV) for the appropriate HCS analysis for the 2030 planyear.The base counts are adjusted using the mean of the Ratio and Difference methodsdescribed in NCHRP 255 Chapter 4. This method adjusts the 2030 model assignment byadding the mean of the difference between the 2005 model assignment and its respectivefield volume count and the ratio of the 2005 model assignment and its respective fieldvolume count. The difference and ratio are added to, and multiplied against, the 2030model assignment and averaged to arrive at an adjusted 2030 hourly volume.4.9.4.3. Basic Freeway SegmentsThe following tables present the results of the 2030 forecast LOS analysis performed on themainline segments of I-71. The interstate volumes are expected to increase approximately17% overall between 2005 and 2030. The level of service generally degrades from C to Dor D to E due to the expected increase in mainline volumes in the plan year. The heaviestnorthbound volumes are entering Uptown between I-471 and the Reading Road exit in theAM peak and leaving Uptown between the McMillan Street entrance and Dana Avenue inthe PM peak. Similarly, in the southbound direction, the heaviest volumes are enteringUptown between Dana Avenue and the WH Taft Road Exit in the AM peak and leavingUptown between the Reading Road entrance and I-471 in the PM peak.Uptown Transportation Study 40URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Table 14: 2030 LOS Northbound Basic Freeway Segments42

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284.9.4.4. Ramp JunctionsThe following tables illustrate the 2030 Level of Service for the ramp merge or divergemovements within the study area. North and south bound are summarized separately. In2030, both ramps at the Taft/McMillan interchanges will be operating at a failing level ofservice as will the I-471 entrance/exit. The Reading Road exit from I-71 northbound and theDana Avenue entrance from I-71 southbound will also degrade to a failing LOS. The lattermay be attributed in part to the impact of the planned office development in the vicinity andis based on the current ramp geometry. The Dana Avenue Interchange may be modifiedprior to the 2030 plan year. The other ramps with LOS E and F indicate that access to andfrom Uptown will experience increasingly higher levels of congestion.Table 16: 2030 LOS Northbound Ramp Junctions/-->.-+-.-./+*/*#) 4 5( &( $)5$ 2 /6+#""4768 59 ( $5 + /:)"470059; + &'(! $%5 2 /+)"470059 & "%5" : /:5 &$!! $$5 2 /2+.,: ,05; + ( $!5 /+:+5 &)! $ 5$ + Source: Adjusted 2030 Peak Hour Volumes Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments Regional Travel Demand ModelVersion 6.3. Level of Service Analysis:Highway Capacity Software (HCS) Version 4.1d by URS Corp.*Table 17: 2030 LOS Southbound Ramp Junctions/--/++5; + &$ $5) + /+4=4+5 )) $'5 2 /#""--/ 05 $)! "%5) : /=305; + "& $ )5! 2 /4#)"005; + &" '5 /2#)"005 " $%5" #) ; + &()( ) 2 Source: Adjusted 2030 Peak Hour Volumes Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments Regional Travel Demand ModelVersion 6.3. Level of Service Analysis:Highway Capacity Software (HCS) Version 4.1d by URS Corp.LOS = Level of Servicemi = milesDensity is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane4.9.4.5. Intersections>.-+-.-./+*The 2030 level of service for at grade local intersections within the Part B Study area hasnot been analyzed to date. Additional signalized intersections were analyzed for the overallPart A Study Area. With the exception of Reading Road’s intersections with Liberty Street,WH Taft Road, and ML King Drive, the at grade intersections are currently operating at anUptown Transportation Study 42URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628acceptable overall LOS with sufficient capacity for additional volume growth. It is felt thatthe intersections will generally operate satisfactory in the 2030 plan year. Theaforementioned intersections on Reading Road have been analyzed as part of the analysisof signal operations for the overall Part A Study area. Additional analysis of theintersections will be required for future evaluation of potential I-71 access improvementalternatives.4.10. Accident AnalysisCrash data has been obtained for the years 2001-2004 from ODOT’s Office of SystemAnalysis for I-71, US-22 Gilbert Avenue, and US-42 Reading Road. Additionally, adatabase query of 2001-2004 crash data from the Ohio Department of Public Safety forlocations within the City of Cincinnati provided crash data for those accidents coded bystreet house number that were not captured in the ODOT records. This includes theinterstate, state routes, and local street network within the study area.The incident database from the Greater Cincinnati ARTIMIS was also obtained for I-71within the Part B Study area. This latter database includes all incidents on I-71 for the years2001-2003 and includes accidents and other incidents which may have impacted trafficoperations.4.10.1. ODOT Congestion RankingsODOT recognizes the linkage between congestion and safety; therefore, each year ODOTstudies and addresses congested locations, which are identified by calculating a roadway'svolume to capacity ratio (V/C). This calculation compares the volume of traffic with thecapacity (number of lanes) of the roadway to handle it. Roadway sections with V/C ratiosgreater than 1.0 are considered congested and added to the work plan and sections withV/C ratios between 0.9 and 1.0 are added if they are outside of Columbus, Cincinnati, andCleveland. None of the segments within the study area are included in the top 200 listingwithin the State of Ohio.ODOT’s Congestion Management System data from 2004 indicates that I-71 within thestudy area will operate at an LOS of D/E in 2030. The V/C ratio indicates that the highestdensity on I-71 will occur in the vicinity of the Reading Road Interchange and north ofthe Taft/McMillan interchange. This agrees with the 2005 LOS analysis in Section 4.9.1,Table 9.4.10.2. Interstate-71A total of 528 accidents were recorded on I-71 during 2002-2004 within the study area. Ofall accidents on I-71 during this period, 124 of the 528 occurred on the access rampswith the highest number located on the exit ramp from southbound I-71 to WH Taft Road. Atotal of 302 accidents occurred northbound and 226 southbound.The overall composite crash rate for I-71 is 0.75 per million vehicle miles which is slightlylower than the ODOT average for an urban interstate at 1.36. Based upon the review ofavailable accident data, it appears that I-71, in general, is not a significant concern in termsof highway safety.Uptown Transportation Study 43URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284.10.2.1. ODOT Highway Safety Program (HSP)High Crash LocationsODOT identifies and studies the top 200 non-freeway locations and the top 50 freewaylocations statewide for crashes on an annual basis. These locations are chosen based oncrash rate (crashes per volume of traffic), frequency (number of crashes), density (crashesper length of road), severity, and other analytical factors. There are no segments locatedentirely within the study area that are included in the 2005 freeway listing. However, there isone segment included in the 2004 freeway listing (2002-2004 Accident Data). This locationis between milepost 4.5 and 5.0. (between Montgomery Road and Victory Parkway) andranked 26 th on a statewide basis. However, the total number of crashes within this half milesegment included on the HSP list is 81 and an in-depth project review of crash data reducedthis number to 61.HotspotsThe following description of the ODOT Hot Spot Listing is taken from the ODOT Office ofSystems Analysis and Program Management.“Hot Spot locations are based on total number of crashes in an area regardless of trafficvolume or other factors. Hot Spot locations are determined by dividing the roadways of thestate into two mile sections and summing the number of crashes in each section over athree year period. The total number of crashes in each two mile section is then compared topredetermined crash thresholds to determine whether a Safety Hot Spot exists. Currently tobe a Safety Hot Spot, the thresholds are defined as any freeway or non freeway section with250 or more crashes.”There is one segment from milepost 4.0 to 6.0 (Victory Parkway to Dana Avenue) includedin the ODOT Hot Spot List for 2004 and 2005. For 2005, this segment was ranked 84 th inthe state with a total of 345 crashes (2003-2005). The adjusted total for this segment basedon review of the individual OH-1 Reports is 238 for the 2002-2004 period.The higher total of accidents in this segment appears to be attributable to some degree tothe ramp merge/diverge at Montgomery and Duck Creek Roads combined with a reversecurve in the mainline at this location. This portion of the interstate does not generallyexperience a high level of congestion.4.10.2.2. Ohio Department of Public Safety Crash DataAs can be seen in Charts 2 and 3, the accidents are typically clustered near themerge/diverge points of the respective interchange access ramps. There is a higher total inthe curving section of the mainline in both directions north of Victory Parkway and in thevicinity of the Reading Road Interchange. See Figures 24 through 26 of Appendix C for amap illustrating the distribution of accidents within the study area.Approximately 40% of all mainline crashes are rear-end type accidents and following tooclosely is the highest contributing factor towards all accidents. These accidents are anindicator of congestion within the study area. As congestion is forecast to increase by 2030,the total numbers of accidents would also be expected to increase.Uptown Transportation Study 44URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Chart 2: I-71 Northbound Rear-End CrashesI-71 N.B. Mainline Rear-End Accidents2002-200476" "5No. of Accidents43210/1.92.02.12.22.32.42.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.05.15.25.35.45.55.65.75.85.96.06.16.2Mile MarkerChart 3: I-71Southbound Rear-End CrashesI-71 S.B. Mainline Rear-End Accidents2002-200476" "5No. of Accidents43210/0)81)/1)01)11)21)31)41)51)61)71)82)/2)02)12)22)32)42)52)62)72)83)/3)03)13)23)33)43)53)63)73)84)/4)04)14)24)34)44)54)64)74)85)/5)05)1Mile MarkerUptown Transportation Study 45URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628For the distribution of accidents on the respective ramps please see the following table.Table 18: I-71 Ramp Accidents 2002 - 2004NORTHBOUNDLOCATIONNUMBERRAMP GG EXIT TO LIBERTY ST. 2ENTRANCE FROM I-471 7ENTRANCE US-22 GILBERT AVE. 2RAMP RC EXIT TO READING RD. 9ENTRANCE FROM US-42 READING RD 14ENTRANCE FROM RAMP TC MCMILLAN ST. 3EXIT TO DUCK CREEK RD. 11TOTAL 48SOUTHBOUNDLOCATIONNUMBERRAMP GH I-471 ENTRANCE FROM LIBERTY ST. 0EXIT TO I-471 4ENTRANCE FROM US-42 READING RD 10EXIT READING/GILBERT 13EXIT TO WH TAFT 19ENTRANCE FROM RAMP TC MONTGOMERY RD. 8ENTRANCE FROM DANA AVE. 1TOTAL 55TOTAL BOTH DIRECTIONS 103Uptown Transportation Study 46URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284.10.2.3. ARTIMIS Incident DataThe Greater Cincinnati ARTIMIS system includes closed circuit television cameras, loopdetectors, and microwave automatic traffic recorders. These facilities allow the roadway tobe remotely monitored allowing emergency responder and law enforcement agencies toquickly respond to any incidents which may have an adverse impact on traffic flow.A summary of the ARTIMIS incident type for the years 2001-2003 is shown in Charts 4. Atotal of 1,525 incidents were recorded during the three year period. The majority of incidentswere related to disabled or abandoned vehicles.Chart 4: ARTIMIS Incident Type 2001-2003Incident Type18, 1%28, 2%16, 1% 4, 0%Disabled VehicleAccidentsAbandoned VehicleFreeway Maintenance348, 23%Vehicle FireDebris RemovalMedical Emergency760, 50%351, 23%Uptown Transportation Study 47URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628The average duration by incident type is shown in Chart 5 with the abandoned vehicle timethe longest. Generally, abandoned or disabled vehicles did not block any traffic lanes anddid not significantly impair traffic flow.Chart 5: ARTIMIS Incident Duration by Type 2001-2003Mean Duration of Incident45403530Time (Min.)2520151050Disabled Vehicle Accidents AbandonedVehicleFreewayMaintenanceIncident TypeVehicle Fire Debris Removal MedicalEmergency.4.10.3. US-42 (Reading Road)A total of 1,023 accidents were recorded for US-42 (Reading Road) within the study areabetween milepost 1.8 and 5.8 (Liberty Street to Rockdale Avenue). This included 4 fatalitiesand 223 injuries The majority of accidents are located at three locations (near ML KingDrive, WH Taft Road, and north of McGregor Street), see Table 19.US-42 is not included on ODOT’s high crash location list or its hotspot safety list. Based onthe numbers of accidents, it appears that it should be included on both lists although aformal analysis of the segment in accordance with ODOT’s HSP methodology was notundertaken. Again this issue is related to the fact that most crash reports for US-42 arecoded by house number and not milepost, which ODOT has historically not included in itsHSP databases.Accidents were segregated by mid-block and intersection locations and the accident ratescompared with City of Cincinnati average crash rates. Overall, accident rates for US-42 areUptown Transportation Study 48URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628on par with City averages with an 8.5 vs. City average of 7.0 crashes per million vehiclemiles traveled per mile although some segments operate with an accident rate up to twicethe City averages at Liberty, ML King Drive and near Rockdale Avenue.See Table 19, US-42 Mid-block Accident Rates, and Table 20, US-42 Intersection AccidentRates, for the details of the accident rates on US-42.0-07#)"9 -=1?Table 19: US 42 Mid-block Accident Rates./8 -3: 1./8 -3@.0 +3.0-33:-.--17904-,:.00:=0 0%( ) "(&)) !'$ 5! 5 5!921 3 10-013 8 /)26 1)7 6)/:!9;( ) ")&$ 5$$ (5% 5*"12 3 13-062 6/ /)06 2)7 6)/": 03 3 07-22/ 21 /)00 3)8 6)/15 3 07-22/ 21 /)08 4)1 6)/< ($ ) ""& "$ 5) '5 5$;07 3 11-/// 12 /)07 2)/ 6)/ :%% ) ""& "$ 5$ 5 5%"35 3 14-/1/ 16 /)08 5)6 6)/(;08 3 14-/1/ 16 /)/7 5)5 6)/"24 3 14-/1/ 16 /)12 3)2 6)/) ) "%&" " 5$ 5 59 913 3 14-/1/ 16 /)02 4)2 6)/;:= 448>?$91//0@1//3@ );A "A " )Uptown Transportation Study 49URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Table 20: US 42 Intersection Accident Rates0-07#)"9 ./8 -3 ./8 -3@ -:.0 :=0 -+ -=1?: 1 .00 0% 21 3 30-33/ /)4 1)/!9 55 3 21-/4/ 0)3 1)/:!9; 30 3 22-85/ /)7 1)/*" 13 3 17-840 /)5 0)4": 07 3 15-/5/ /)4 0)4 13 3 02-07/ 0)1 1)/< ( 58 3 22-55/ 0)3 1)/$; 03 3 06-37/ /)4 1)/ :% 33 3 12-4// 0)2 0)4%" 77 3 3/-45/ 0)4 1)/(; 1/ 3 15-003 /)4 0)/" 1 3 16-318 /)/ 0)4 20 3 1/-45/ 0)/ 0)49 9 1 3 15-/1/ /)0 0)4;:= 61 3 15-3// 0)8 1)/ 436>?$91//0@1//3 );A" A " )9; 0/)/ )Uptown Transportation Study 50URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284.10.4. US-22 (Gilbert Avenue/Montgomery Road)A total of 483 accidents were recorded on US-22 (Gilbert Avenue/Montgomery Road)between Elsinore Place and Dana Avenue during 2002-2004. Approximately 20% of thoseaccidents caused injuries. No fatalities were recorded. See Chart 6 for the distribution ofaccidents by block. The accident rates on US-22 are less than city wide averages forarterials.Chart 6: US-22 Crashes by BlockU.S. 22 - Crashes by Block605040No. of Crashes3020100ElsinoreEden ParkMorrisNassauWindsorFlorenceMcMillanTaftOakChapelLincolnMartin Luther KingBlairVictoryDurrellWoodlawnRuthBlairDuanerDuck CreekBrewsterBlock4.10.5. Other StreetsThere are several arterial segments with crash rate exceeding the City of Cincinnati’saverage.Dana AvenueA total of 491 accidents were recorded on Dana Avenue between Victory Parkway and DuckCreek Road during 2002-2004. This includes the segment at the Dana Avenue Interchangewith I-71. Nearly a quarter of the recorded accidents occurred in the vicinity of the rampterminal intersections on Dana Avenue. An in-depth analysis of the crashes in this vicinitywas not undertaken. A major new office development is planned in this area along withpotential modifications to the Dana Avenue Interchange.Uptown Transportation Study 51URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Duck Creek RoadA total of 87 accidents were recorded on Duck Creek Road between Montgomery Road andDana Avenue. Of these, 16 were coded as intersection accidents. The largestconcentration of accidents was located between Crane Avenue and Dana Avenue at thenorthern portion of the segment. It does not appear that a significant concentration ofaccidents is attributable to the exit ramp from northbound I-71.4.11. Multimodal Alternatives4.11.1. Bike and Pedestrian NetworkSidewalks are provided on both sides of all arterial and local streets within the study area.Most signalized intersections include protected pedestrian phasing and crosswalks.Responsibility for constructing and maintaining sidewalk space is shared by property ownersand the City in accordance with CMC §721. Abutting property owners are responsible formaintaining the sidewalk space and keeping it free from nuisance. The City Engineer isresponsible for supervising sidewalk construction, reconstruction, or repair.City capital funding is used to repair walks at intersections, bus stops, and abutting propertycontrolled by general fund City agencies. Capital funding is also used to construct curbramps to improve accessibility.There is a single signed bicycle route running east-west in the Part B Study Area alongLincoln Avenue. Preferred bicycle routes also include Gilbert Avenue (US-22), ML KingDrive, Oak Street, Reading Road, and WH Taft Road. These routes generally have multiplelanes and less severe vertical grades to accommodate bicycle travel but are not explicitlysigned as such.See Part A, Existing and Future Conditions report for additional information.4.11.2. SORTA Metro Transit ServiceThe Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority provides regional public transit service,Metro, in the Uptown Study area. Both Gilbert Avenue (US-22) and Reading Road (US-42)are major bus corridors serving multiple routes. Additionally, several limited stop expressroutes utilize I-71 for travel to and from the Central Business District and suburbandestinations.East-west bus routes also make use of McMillan Street, WH Taft Road, Lincoln Avenue,Montgomery Road, Trimble Avenue, and ML King Drive.Peebles Corner (Gilbert Avenue and McMillan Street) at the eastern edge of the Part BStudy Area is a major bus transfer location.Uptown Transportation Study 52URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776284.11.3. SORTA Rail Right of WayThe Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority purchased several parcels of abandonedformer Conrail railroad rights of way within the study area during 1995 with the intent that itcould be utilized for potential mass transit service. Subsequent studies recommended useof portions of the right of way for light rail transit service. It should be noted that the SORTAowned parcels are discontinuous over the length of the study area.The former railroad alignment also utilized two railroad structures over I-71, bridges HAM71-0231 and HAM-71-0392, respectively. While both of these structures are owned byODOT and maintained by the City of Cincinnati, their use for future transit services is aconsideration for their future disposition.The former railroad alignment also includes two masonry railroad tunnels located east of I-71 at Oak and McMillan Streets. The tunnels are owned and maintained by the City ofCincinnati.No railroad activity is present at this time within the study area.4.11.4. Institutional ShuttlesLocal shuttle bus services are currently operated by the University of Cincinnati andCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CHMC) within the Part B Study Area.The University of Cincinnati shuttle links the East and West Main Campuses with theCollege of Applied Science located off of Victory Parkway east of I-71.The CHMC Shuttle operates between the main hospital campus (located off Burnet Avenuenorth of Albert Sabin Way) and the CHMC Oak Campus along Winslow Avenue as well as toother remote office locations at the 660 Lincoln Building east of I-71, to offices on VernonPlace, and several surface lots in the vicinity. Their use is designed to transport employeesfrom remote parking locations to/from office and medical locations.The shuttles themselves are parked in a surface lot located east of Winslow Avenue.Uptown Transportation Study 53URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776285. RED FLAG SUMMARYThe Red Flag Summary Report was prepared after a site visit with ODOT and OKIrepresentatives on July 28, 2006. The report identified potential red flags in the study areathat may warrant further study due to the potential for environmental or design issues. Thekey issues as identified in the report are summarized as follows. More detailed andadditional information can be found in Appendix F, Red Flag Summary Report.5.1. Environmental JusticeExecutive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in MinorityPopulations and Low Income Populations), issued February 11, 1994 requires federalagencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse health andenvironmental effects including the interrelated social and economic effects of programs,policies, and activities on minority and low income populations. Low income is defined ashousehold income at or below the Department of Health and Human Services povertyguidelines. The 2000 poverty level for an individual is $8,794. Minority is defined as aperson who is Black, Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian, or Alaskan Native. Aspart of OKI’s efforts to address Environmental Justice, and in accordance with OKI’s Policyfor Environmental Justice dated February 2003, consideration is also given to the ElderlyPopulation, People with Disabilities, and Zero-Car Households. These five populationsmake up the Environmental Justice (EJ) Groups as defined in OKI’s policy.The EJ data and maps developed for this project are based on 2000 census block data forthe EJ population groups within the Uptown area, specifically where the concentration of theEJ Population exceeds the regional average. Throughout the Uptown area, the EJpopulations exceed the threshold for at least one of the EJ groups and many areas exceedthe threshold for all EJ groups. See Figures 5 through 9 of Appendix F for maps detailingthe exact location where the threshold is exceeded in the Uptown area.5.2. Natural EnvironmentThere are three federally listed endangered species in the study area: Indiana bat, baldeagle, and running buffalo clover. Although this is a heavily populated urban area, there stillare numerous trees that could be designated as potential Indiana bat habitat. The extent ofthe habitat for this species and the others would be determined later in the projectdevelopment process as alternatives are selected. There are no aquatic species in thestudy area, as there are not any streams or lakes present to support them. Detailedinformation on other non-endangered or threatened terrestrial species will also bedetermined later in the project development process.No blue line streams are within the study area, although groundwater may occur inunconsolidated sand and gravel within 50 feet of the ground surface. Locally, shallowgroundwater flow direction likely follows topography, generally towards intermittent streamsand the Ohio River. Although no principal or blue line streams are in the area, ephemeralsteams do exist. It will be determined later in the project development process whetherthese streams are jurisdictional and whether impacts are likely to occur and a permit wouldbe required. No federally inventoried wetlands are within the study area limits; however, aUptown Transportation Study 54URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628detailed determination of jurisdictional and isolated wetlands would be conducted later in theproject development process.5.3. Cultural ResourcesWithin the study area, there are seven historic structures and one historic district, PeeblesCorner, listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The locations of theseresources are identified in Figure 5 of Appendix F. The historic resources are not limited toonly those listed in the NRHP, as any resource considered to be “eligible” for the NationalRegister is also protected under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Moststructures within the study area meet the first condition of eligibility being over 50 years old.Eligibility determinations will need to be done to determine, and avoid, impacts to eligiblestructures as alternates are developed. No known archaeological resources are within thelimits of the study area. There are four cemeteries near the boundary of the study area andthe locations of these are shown in Figure 5 of Appendix F.5.4. Community FacilitiesThere are ten public recreational facilities within the study area. They are Eden Park,Evanston Playground, Fechheimer Park, Hauck Botanic Gardens, Highland Avenue OpenSpace, Hoyles Park, Ida Street Viaduct, Losantiville Triangle, Stowe Park, and Victory Park.The locations of these facilities are noted on Figure 4 of Appendix F.Two high schools, Dohn Community High School and Walnut Hills High School, are locatedwithin the Study Area. The Union Institute, a privately operated post-secondary educationalinstitution is located within the study area as well. There are no elementary schools locatedwithin the study area.Numerous places of worship are located with the study area. Please refer to Figure 6 ofAppendix F for the specific location of these places of worship.5.5. Geotechnical CharacteristicsThe study area lies within the Till Plains section of the Central Lowland PhysiographicProvince. The area is characterized by rolling glacial uplands with steep hillsides alongcurrent or former streams. Surface features along the subject corridor have been greatlyinfluenced by Illinoisan-age glacial activity. Subsoils in the study area generally consist ofglacial till and outwash material comprised primarily of clay. The thickness of the glacial tillin the study area is generally less than 50 feet. The glacial till is underlain by shale andlimestone of Middle- and Late-Ordovician-age. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)topographic map of the Cincinnati East, Ohio quadrangle indicates that elevation rangesbetween approximately 600 to 750 feet above mean sea level along the I-71 corridor inthe study area, with higher elevations occurring towards the north (USGS, 1961). SeeFigure 11 in Appendix F for Soil Classifications in the Part B Study Area.The most prominent geotechnical concern in the Part B Study Area is landslidesusceptibility. See Figure 12 in Appendix F for a map of potential landslide susceptibilityprovided by the City of Cincinnati. Two minor slides were repaired south of the Duck CreekRoad exit during 1995 by applying shotcrete to the affected cut slope along northbound I-71.Uptown Transportation Study 55URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Topography in the area is generally hilly, with the steepest slopes occurring along each sideof I-71 and near intermittent streams. The I-71 corridor between Liberty (south) and Dana(north) Avenues is generally sloped in the southbound direction of traffic. The mostsignificant slopes occur from Liberty Avenue to approximately 1.5 miles north towards TaftAvenue, where gradient is expected to be highest (USGS, 1961). The southern portion ofthe study area is located in area of uncontrolled man made fills. Most of the bridge andretaining wall structures within the study area are founded on steel H piles driven to rock ata depth of 20 to 40 ft.5.6. Highway Traffic NoiseDuring April 2006, the FHWA published a paper describing the current three-part approachutilized in an effort to abate highway traffic noise in the United States. The three parts are:Noise-compatible development through effective land use planning and control(responsibility of local jurisdictions), control of noise emissions from the vehicles themselves(responsibility of private industry), and source control (responsibility of Federal, State, andlocal governments). The FHWA has established noise standards for different types of landuse activities adjacent to highways. These standards require that for certain types offederally aided highway projects, states must conduct noise analyses to identify potentialhighway traffic noise impacts. If impacts are identified, noise abatement measures must beconsidered and implemented, if determined to be both reasonable and feasible. Among thevarious types of possible abatement measures, the construction of noise barriers is mostcommonly used. Specific standards for abatement of highway traffic noise are provided by23 CFR Part 772 - Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and ConstructionNoise. The Ohio Department of Transportation’s policy and procedures for abatement ofhighway traffic noise were published on October 22, 2001.Measurement of existing ambient noise levels in the study area has not been performed aspart of this project. The land uses in the study area include several sensitive noisereceptors that could warrant possible abatement measures. If access improvement projectsare recommended for further development, analysis of traffic and construction noise impactswill be undertaken during future steps of the Project Development Process.5.7. Air QualityIn 1990, Congress amended the National Clean Air Act (CAA) to address the nations airpollution problems and to require coordination of federal transportation funding with effortsto meet the provisions of the act to improve air quality. The CAA established NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards for five pollutants: ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide,nitrous oxides, and carbon monoxide. These pollutants are components of vehicle or“mobile source” emissions thus transportation projects increasing the capacity of theregion’s roadway networks are required to conform to meet the standards for thesepollutants.Subsequent amendments to the CAA revised how the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA) designates non-attainment areas for ozone, carbon monoxide,and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and how areas are to be classified depending on theseverity of their respective failure to meet these standards.Uptown Transportation Study 56URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628The USEPA designated Hamilton County, Ohio, as part of the overall metropolitan region,as a non-attainment area for annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone in 2004.Plans and programs required to meet new interim conformity requirements of 8-hourstandard to be finalized by 2007.OKI, as the regional MPO, is responsible for the air quality conformity determination for theregion’s Long Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program.Potential access improvement projects providing additional capacity to the roadway networkwill require analysis by OKI to determine the effect of the respective project’s mobile sourceemissions on the region's conformity with the provisions of the CAA. It should be noted thata new full service interchange located at I-71 and East ML King Drive is included in the OKILong Range Transportation Plan and has been incorporated into prior air quality conformityanalysis.5.8. Hazardous MaterialsApproximately 56 potential hazardous materials sites exist in the study area includingregistered underground storage tank (UST) / leaking UST (LUST) sites, ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-Small Quantity Generator (SQG) sites, andunregistered sites such as back yard auto repair facilities. Also, offices and manufacturingfacilities using regulated testing and monitoring equipment are present in the study area.See Figure 3 of Appendix F for more information on the location and names of thesepotential hazardous materials sites within the study area.Uptown Transportation Study 57URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776286. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSISA large number of conceptual alternatives for improving I-71 access were initially consideredand presented to the IP. They have been progressively narrowed down to the feasiblealternatives recommended for further study. Figure 4 details how this process wasconducted and how the conceptual alternatives were identified in this study.Figure 4: Conceptual Alternatives DevelopmentConsultant developed 26+ Interchange Concepts that were presentedto IP. The concepts included access at MLK and Taft/McMillan thatcould be implemented in a variety of combinations(See Section 9 for illustrative maps)The initial concepts were evaluated to arrive at a refined set offeasible alternatives for more detailed analysis:• Weaving distance, operations, wayfinding/complexity)• Geometrics, Cost, Impacts (social/cultural/environmental)(See Appendices G & I for information)Five conceptual alternatives with access provided at bothTaft/McMillan and/or MLK (S-2a, S-3, MLK-2 , MLK-6a and BR-1) aswell as a conceptual alternative to provide full access at Taft/McMillanonly (TM-7) were assessed utilizing the project’s Evaluation MatrixConceptual Alternatives Identified and Recommended to advancethrough Steps 5-7 of the ODOT PDP ProcessPart “B” of the Uptown Transportation Study was focused on improving access to Interstate71 from Uptown area of the City of Cincinnati. The primary needs for interstate accessimprovements approved by the project Implementation Partners are as follows:• Reduce Travel Times• Reduce Complexity of Wayfinding• Promote Economic VitalityUptown Transportation Study 58URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628In addition to these primary needs, several secondary needs were also documented asfollows:• Reduce Interstate & Arterial Congestion• Reduce Accidents• Reduction in Design Deficiencies• Substantially Reduce Weave at Reading Road (US-42) Interchange• Increase Travel Time ReliabilitySeveral conceptual alternatives had been developed with the goal of meeting these needs.In conjunction with the IP and advisory Committee, a comprehensive evaluation matrix wasdeveloped to compare alternatives. The components of the evaluation matrix are as follows:Travel TimeReductionTable 21: Evaluation MatrixGOAL CRITERIA SOURCERegional Vehicle Miles of Travel OKI Regional TravelRegional Vehicle Hours of Travel Demand ModelAM, PM and Midday TravelTimes to/from selected UptownlocationsReduce Complexityof WayfindingPromote EconomicVitalityReduce CongestionPotentialEnvironmentalImpactsCost of RoadwayImprovementsConstruction andDesign IssuesVehicle miles of travel byroadway functional classNumber of turns to/from selectedUptown locationsSubjective assessment ofpotential for increasedeconomic vitalityLevel of Service for BasicFreeway Segments and RampMerge/Diverge MovementsHazardous materials sitesChurches, Schools4f Resources (cultural, historicand public recreational)Residential displacementsCommercial displacementsNumber of impacted parcelsAssessed value of impactedparcelsCapital cost of I-71 accessCapital cost of local streetsUtilitiesGeotechnicalRailroadsConsistency with regional andlocal plansThe complete evaluation matrix is included in Section 9OKI Regional TravelDemand ModelManual count of turns onleast travel time pathSubjective assessmentHCS Analysis of forecasted2030 Design HourlyVolumesComparison of anticipatedright of way requirementsto aerial photos andresource inventoriescompleted for the RedFlag Summary ReportEstimated based on conceptdesigns and unit costsReview of concept designsrelative to existingresources.Uptown Transportation Study 59URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628While geometric studies were conducted to determine the design constraints on new accessa concurrent effort was undertaken to forecast future travel demand changes due topotential access improvements.To ascertain the potential reduction in travel time and to gage the impact of future trafficvolumes on the roadway network, several access scenarios were modeled with OKI’sregional Travel Demand Forecasting Model (RTDM). The modeled alternatives included fullaccess at Taft/McMillan only, as well as adding a full service interchange at ML King Drivecombined with or without the Taft/McMillan interchange. The results of these forecastswere compared with the 2030 no build scenario to determine the change in regional traveltime attributable to each scenario. The resulting peak period volumes from the RTDM wereused to determine the design hourly volumes for the I-71 basic freeway segments andaccess ramps.The model scenario which included full service access at both Taft/McMillan and ML KingDrive served as the basis for the plan year traffic analysis of the Uptown area’s arterialnetwork for the Uptown Part A long range street improvements. The specific geometry ofthe alternatives recommended to be advanced for further evaluation were not coded into theRTDM roadway network as part of the analysis done to date. The nature of the RTDM issuch that the specific geometry of specific access alternatives will not significantly alter theforecast future volumes.The results of the travel demand forecasting indicate that there will be slight reduction intravel time from for each of the alternatives but the relative difference between them is smallon a regional basis. A more refined microsimulation of the study area will be needed infuture PDP steps to ascertain potential travel time savings on specific corridors within theUptown area.All alternatives result in higher volumes on the I-71 mainline, particularly between the LibertyStreet interchange and Taft/McMillan as some of the volume that currently uses the ReadingRoad/Burnet Corridor is redirected to I-71 and new access to and from the south located atTaft/McMillan or ML King Drive To the north of Taft/McMillan or ML King Drive Interchange,volumes increase slightly as the nature of the access to and from the north is notsignificantly altered in any of the scenarios under consideration. The forecasted 2030 levelof service for the I-71 basic freeway segments are not degraded as a result of the proposedimprovements. However the basic freeway segments between Taft/McMillan or ML KingDrive and the adjacent interchanges to the north is forecast to operate at a LOS of Epotentially requiring additional capacity (five lanes in each direction) in the 2030 plan year.Specific economic modeling of the potential impacts of the conceptual access alternativeswas not performed during the study. The subjective assessment of the support of economicactivity is based primarily on input from the IP and advisory committees and the potentialredevelopment of residual parcels in the vicinity of the conceptual alternatives balanced withthe potential displacements of existing commercial establishments. An economic impactanalysis is recommended to quantify the potential costs and benefits associated withconceptual interchange alternatives with significant input from key uptown stakeholders.Uptown Transportation Study 60URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628A use of the approved evaluation matrix to compare of the six alternatives advanced forreview indicates that, while there are differences in potential environmental impacts andcosts, all are comparable and feasible. Elimination of any of the alternatives from furtherevaluation at this time would be pre-mature without additional analysis therefore all sixalternatives are recommended for further evaluation, see Section 7 for additionalinformation.6.1. Alternatives Considered But DismissedAs noted above, many conceptual interchange alternatives had been considered in thisstudy, and many have been dropped from further study upon confirming one or more majordesign deficiencies from a geometric or operational standpoint. Table 22 specifies whichalternatives were advanced or eliminated through this process and the justification for thesedecisions. For additional information concerning alternatives considered but dismissed seeAppendices F and H. Illustrations for these initial alternatives are found in Section 9.Uptown Transportation Study 61URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Table 22: Interchange Options Comments and RecommendationsOKI UPTOWN INTERCHANGE OPTIONSOptionRecommendTo ContinueDesign CommentMLK-1 No Insufficient southbound distance MLK - TM-7MLK-2 YES All ramps are on north side of MLK. Use w/ TM-7MLK-3 YES All ramps are on north side of MLK. Use w/ TM-7MLK-4 No Insufficient southbound distance MLK - TM-7MLK-5 No Insufficient southbound distance MLK - TM-7MLK-6 No Superseded by similar MLK-6aMLK-6a YES All ramps are on north side of MLK. Use w/ TM-7TM-0 No Missing ramps to/from TM corridorTM-1 No Insufficient southbound distance TM – Reading/GilbertTM-2 No Missing ramps to/from SouthTM-3 No Insufficient northbound distance TM – MLKTM-4 No Missing ramp to SouthTM-5 No Poor connection to TMTM-6 No Insufficient northbound weaving distance TM – MLK, potential stand alone optionTM-EX No Missing ramps to/from South precludes access at MLK, need additional capacity forsouthbound ramp.TM-R No Insufficient southbound distance TM – Reading/GilbertTM-7 YES Southbound ramps centered at Taft, northbound south side McM. Use w/MLK-2, 3, or 6aS-1 No Insufficient southbound distance TM – Reading/GilbertS-2 No Insufficient southbound distance TM – Reading/GilbertS-2a YES Southbound entrance ramp connects at Taft will impact CHMC Oak CampusS-3 YES Southbound entrance ramp connects near Taft will impact 660 LincolnBuilding and Oak CampusCD-1 No Insufficient spacing between MLK -TML-1 No Poor safety/operation due to left-hand rampsL-2 No Poor safety/operation due to left-hand rampsL-3 No Poor safety/operation due to left-hand rampsRG-1 No Poor connection to MLK & TM, arterial connections require modifications.BR-1 YES Taft/McMillan ramps connect at/near Taft will impact 660 Lincoln Building andCHMC Oak CampusGeneral comments:All options having a southbound entrance ramp from Taft or McMillan willnecessitate modification to the Reading-Gilbert Interchange.All options having a southbound exit ramp to MLK should include the shortening ofthe Montgomery-Dana southbound entrance ramp.TM-7 is representative of alternatives for a full service interchange at Taft/McMillan.The specific alignment and configuration of this interchange including localconnections will be determined during future planning activities. This may includeevaluation of alternatives which were eliminated primarily due to lack of weavingdistance to potential access at MLK>Uptown Transportation Study 62URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776286.2. Conceptual Alternatives To AdvanceThe following alternatives have been recommended by the IP to advance throughsubsequent steps of the ODOT PDP in order to arrive at a preferred alternative.6.2.1. No BuildThis alternative would not make any significant capacity revisions to the existing interstate71 access points within the study area. Traffic signal optimization, parking restrictions, andother roadway, wayfinding, travel demand management, transit and parkingrecommendations incorporated into the PART “A” recommendations of the Uptown Studywould be implemented. Improvements to interstate guide signs and potential revision to thepavement markings of the I-71 southbound ramp to WH Taft Road to provide two lanes orone standard with lane so that lane positioning is less confusing to divers approaching theTaft/Essex intersection. Additionally consideration of eliminating of pedestrian walk, busstop at Taft/Essex along with revised signal phasing. These improvements will providesome benefit to improve travel time on the arterial network as well as reduce the complexityof wayfinding and marginally reduce congestion in the vicinity of the I-71 southbound rampto WH Taft Road.6.2.2. TSM OptionThis alternative would include all items included in the “no build” alternative with additionalimprovements as follows:• The potential closing of Essex Place and the elimination of the signal at WH TaftRoad.• Modification of Ramp ME (ramp from Montgomery Road to southbound I-71) toeliminate circuitous alignment and merge on mainline curve to improve safety andreturn of excess rights of way to alternative uses.• Potential widening of I-71 southbound ramp to WH Taft Road to provide two lanes.• Modification to Dana Avenue Interchange to provide access to southbound I-71 fromeastbound Dana Avenue.6.2.3. Build AlternativesImprovements include modification of the existing interchange at Taft/McMillan to providepartial access to and from the south and additional new access at ML King Drive.Representative design options include S-2a, S-3, and BR-1. The service road options (S-2aand S-3) would provide partial access at Taft/McMillan and ML King Drive with a limitedaccess service road directly linking these two east-west arterials.Uptown Transportation Study 63URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628The build alternatives will require modification to Ramp RA (southbound I-71 to ReadingRoad/Gilbert Avenue) to eliminate the current two lane exit configuration in order to meetminimum weaving distances between McMillan Street and the exit.Five conceptual alternatives described more fully below appear to be feasible at this timebased on current design criteria. A minimum weaving distance was established between MLKing Drive and WH Taft Road /McMillan Street as well as between WH Taft Road/McMillanSt and the adjacent interchange ramps to the south at the Reading Road/Gilbert Avenueinterchange. This minimum distance was established by utilizing the forecast 2030 designhourly volumes for the interstate mainline and ramp merge/diverge movement as input forHCS Weaving analysis “Type A” with a resultant LOS of “D”. The resulting weavingdistances were then used as a geometric constraint in the development of the following.The minimum spacing proposed between cross streets is less than 1 mile but from anoperational standpoint would appear to be feasible at this stage of analysis. Signing andmarking have not been evaluated in detail pending review and comments before furtherevaluation of the respective alternatives.There is one alternative that functions as two independent interchanges and two that makeuse of a service road facility linking ML King Drive with Taft/McMillan. Some general designcomments that pertain to all of the alternatives follow:• The I-71 southbound exit ramp to Gilbert/Reading would require modification if a newentrance ramp is constructed southbound from Taft/McMillan.• The I-71 northbound climbing lane between Gilbert/Reading and Taft may needmodification.• Access to a crossroad (WH Taft, McMillan, & ML King) should be prohibited within600 feet of a ramp intersection and within 1,000 feet of a ramp diverge.• McGregor and Gilbert-Blair over I-71 would be open.• The abandoned railroad bridge over I-71 north of ML King Drive would be removed.• A Whittier-Fredonia connection would be made.See Section 9 for illustrative maps.6.2.3.1. Alternative S-2aThis alternative consists of one single interchange serving both Taft/McMillan and ML KingDrive corridors. The ramp configuration would be more or less a modified split diamond.Both ramps to/from the south would connect with Taft Road on the west side of I-71, andboth ramps to/from the north would connect with M.L. King Drive also on the west side of I-71. Between the two ramp intersections, traffic would use a one two-way service road onthe west side of the freeway.The only weaving issues due to closely spaced interchanges would be southward from TaftRoad and northward from M.L. King Drive. Ramps northward from M.L. King likely would betwo-lane ramps to accommodate forecast 2030 design hour volumes in excess of 1,500.The ramps connecting to the Taft/McMillan corridor would be placed as far north as possiblefor two reasons. One reason is the proximity of the existing ramps to/from Reading RoadUptown Transportation Study 64URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628and Gilbert Avenue, especially on the southbound side. New or improved connector roadswould be needed for passage between Taft Road and McMillan Street. The other reason isto shorten the service road as much as possible.Most of the existing cross road bridges could be lengthened or reconstructed to permitmobility within the neighborhood. The service road will pass under Oak Street and LincolnAvenue without intersections, such that connection between corridors will be quick andattractive for through traffic between corridors only. If the service road were to intersect withthe cross roads, then it would be shared by more local traffic and likely would operateslower.Additional design features include:• The service road connection from McMillan to Taft and from Taft to McMillan eachwould be 1-way.• The Taft-McMillan interchange would require one 2-phase and one 3-phase signal atramps.• The service road between Taft and ML King Drive would have no local access andwould be separated from Oak and Lincoln.• Oak and Lincoln over I-71 would be open.• The ML King Drive interchange would require one 4-phase signal at ramps.• The ML King Drive ramps to/from the north would be 2-lane ramps.• Stanton under ML King Drive and Fredonia over I-71 would be open.• The I-71 southbound entrance ramp from Montgomery would require modification.6.2.3.2. Alternative S-3This alternative is similar to Alternative S-2a, except that this alternative would have twoservice roads.This alternative consists of one single interchange serving both east-west corridors andpossibly the cross streets between. The ramp configuration would be more or less a splitdiamond. Both ramps to/from the south would connect with Taft Road, and both rampsto/from the north would connect with M.L. King Drive. Between Taft Road and M.L. KingDrive, traffic would use two one-way service roads, each on its own side of the freeway.Additional design features include:• The Taft overpass would be two-way, with one-way connections from/to McMillan.• The Taft-McMillan interchange would require two 3-phase signals at ramps.• The service road between Taft and ML King Drive would have no local access andwould be separated from Oak and Lincoln.• Oak and Lincoln over I-71 would be open.• The ML King Drive interchange would require two 3-phase signals at ramps.• The ML King Drive ramps to/from the north would be 2-lane ramps.Uptown Transportation Study 65URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628• Stanton under ML King Drive would be closed and Fredonia over I-71 would beopen.• The I-71 southbound entrance ramp from Montgomery would require modification.6.2.3.3. Alternative MLK-2This alternative consists of a stand-alone interchange serving the M.L. King corridor. Theexisting access at Taft/McMillan would be eliminated.North of M.L. King Drive, the ramps to/from the north could be configured more or less asdiamond ramps.Most existing cross road bridges could be lengthened or reconstructed to permit the sameamount of mobility within the neighborhood as currently exists.Additional design features include:• Oak and Lincoln over I-71 would be open.• The ML King Drive interchange would require two 3-phase signals at ramps.• Fredonia over I-71 would be removed and Stanton under ML King Drive would beopen.• There would be no impacts south of ML King Drive.6.2.3.4. Alternative MLK-6aSimilar to MLK-2 above, this alternative also consists of a stand-alone interchange servingthe ML King Drive corridor.There are a few notable differences between MLK-2 and MLK-6a. MLK-6a has the rampstighter together over the freeway. Its freeway exit ramps merge into one ramp and intersectwith M.L. King Drive with only one traffic signal. All its entrance ramps leave M.L. King Drivevia ramp terminals. MLK-2 requires fewer structures, would have less construction &maintenance costs, and would allow better maintenance of traffic during construction.MLK-6a would require only one 2-phase signal between Reading Road and Gilbert Avenueand would provide better operation (MLK-2 would require two 3-phase signals). MLK-6awould have a smaller footprint and would have less real estate costs.As with the above alternative, most existing cross road bridges could be lengthened orreconstructed to permit the same amount of mobility within the neighborhood as currentlyexists.Additional design features include:• Oak and Lincoln over I-71 would be open.• The ML King Drive interchange would require one 2-phase signal at ramps.• Fredonia over I-71 would be removed and Stanton under ML King Drive would beopen.Uptown Transportation Study 66URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776286.2.3.5. Alternative BR-1This alternative consists of two separate interchanges used in tandem, each serving its owncorridor. The ramp configuration of both interchanges is more or less a diamond. Tovirtually eliminate the weaving issues between closely spaced interchanges, the rampsnorthward from Taft/McMillan are braided using a grade separation with the rampssouthward from M.L. King.Similar to Alternatives S-2a and S-3, the ramps connecting to the Taft/McMillan corridor areplaced as far north as possible because of the proximity of the existing ramps to/fromReading Road & Gilbert Avenue and to shorten the braided ramps as much as possible.From M.L. King Drive northward, the ramps could be configured more or less as diamondramps.Some of the existing cross road bridges could be lengthened or reconstructed to permitmobility within the neighborhood, but because of the braided ramp grade separations, theOak Street and Lincoln Avenue bridges would be removed. Possibly one single bridgecould be constructed midway between Taft Road and M.L. King Drive.This alternative would require right of way along each side of I-71 that would benefit theinterchanges but provide little benefit for local mobility.Additional design features include:• The Taft overpass would be two-way, with one-way connections from/to McMillan.• The Taft-McMillan interchange would require two 3-phase signals at ramps.• Oak and Lincoln over I-71 would be removed and replaced by Tuxedo over I-71.• The ML King Drive interchange would require two 3-phase signals at ramps.• Stanton under ML King Drive would be closed and Fredonia over I-71 would beopen.6.2.3.6. Alternative TM-7This alternative includes modifications to the existing interchange at Taft/McMillan to providea full service interchange without a new interchange at Martin Luther King. Representativedesign option is TM-7. TM-3 and TM-6 were rejected earlier in the project primarily becausethey would not have adequate spacing with a new interchange at ML King Drive. The IPoriginally expressed a preference for providing access at both Taft/McMillan and ML KingDrive. Since that time, the IP has indicated that access at either Taft/McMillan or ML KingDrive would be acceptable. Therefore TM-3 and TM-6 could also be deemed feasible andwarrant further analysis in subsequent steps of this project.The ramp configurations of the interchange are controlled by the proximity of the existingramps to/from Reading Road and Gilbert Avenue in the vicinity of Dorchester Street. Inorder to have the required weaving distance between these existing ramps and newTaft/McMillan ramps, the southbound entrance ramp intersection from the Taft/McMillancorridor would be placed near Taft Road, and on the northbound side, the ramp couldintersect directly with McMillan Street. New or improved connector roads would be neededUptown Transportation Study 67URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628for passage between Taft Road and McMillan Street. Essex Place and May Street serve inthis capacity currently but do not carry significant volumes of traffic and are residential innature.See Section 7 for implementation of these recommended alternatives.Uptown Transportation Study 68URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776287.1. Introduction7. STRATEGIC PLANThe Uptown Transportation Study was conducted under the auspices of the ODOT MajorPDP. This study completed steps 1 through 4 of a total of 14 that comprise the PDP. Tasksperformed during PDP steps 1 through 4 are documented in the other sections of thisPlanning Study Report. The Strategic Plan provides documentation of the ImplementationPartners’ concurrence to advance the recommendations through succeeding steps of thePDP. It will serve as an implementation plan that will be continuously updated following thecompletion of each subsequent step of the PDP.Several projects and policies are recommended to improve I-71 access in the Uptown areato reduce travel time, simplify wayfinding and support economic vitality. Somerecommendations do not deal directly with physical changes to the existing interstateaccess, but with policies that will support future modifications to that access. Theimplementation of the recommended projects and policies should begin immediately and becarried out in specific actions over the next 10 to 15 years.7.2. Uptown Transportation Study - Part A RecommendationsThe Uptown Transportation Study-“Part A” includes recommendations for a number ofstrategies and projects to improve transportation in the Uptown area. These strategies andprojects will help to attain the goals of the “Part B” I-71 Access Improvement Study, butalone will not fully meet the project’s purpose and need. The “Part A” recommendations aresummarized as follows:Travel Demand Management – A coordinated program of information andincentives adopted by Uptown area employers to promote alternatives to drivingalone.Signage and Wayfinding – A comprehensive package of new directional signage toimprove wayfinding, help to establish the Uptown identity, and improve the visualstreetscape.Traffic Signal Optimization – Optimization and coordination of the traffic signaloperations throughout the Uptown area is forecast to result in a significant decreasein traffic delays.Parking – Potential shared development and operation of off-street parking facilities.A potential shortfall of 5,000 off-street spaces is forecast with a recommendation fortwo new parking facilities.Bus System Enhancements – Bus service through the Uptown area will beenhanced by reducing headways on selected routes, adding bus shelters at highactivity locations, improving bus signage and information, and by establishing transithubs to ease transfers and support transit oriented development opportunities.Limited Stop Bus Routes – On selected bus routes through Uptown, bus stops willbe consolidated to improve bus travel times between Uptown and Downtown.Uptown Transportation Study 69URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Uptown Shuttle – A new public Uptown Shuttle will be established to connect majordestinations and parking facilities and to provide improved internal circulationopportunities.Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements – The design of all roadway improvements willinclude provisions for pedestrian and bicycle circulation and will seek to enhance thepedestrian environment.Roadway Improvements – A number of roadway improvement projects arerecommended to address specific areas of congestion and to improve theconnectivity of the local street system.The recommended roadway improvements result in additional capacity andoperational efficiency on the arterial network in the Uptown area, in part, to supportimproved I-71 access at Taft/McMillan, as well as new access at ML King Drive.While the final location and nature of interstate access remains to be determined, theimplementation of the Part A recommendations are a necessary step precedingmodification of the existing I-71 access. There are several improvementsrecommended for corridors along WH Taft Road, McMillan Street, ML King Drive,Reading Road and Burnet Avenue. Additionally, operational improvements such assignal optimization and parking restrictions will serve as a basis to allow for sufficientarterial capacity to effectively distribute the traffic volumes resulting from changes inthe I-71 access in Uptown. See Section 9 for the location and description of the PartA recommendations.Of particular importance is the recommendation for a comprehensive study of the ML KingDrive corridor to ascertain the need for capacity improvements to accommodate new accessat I-71 and improved access at I-75. This study is estimated to cost approximately $1.5million and should be conducted concurrently with, the following recommendations.7.3. Primary RecommendationsThe following alternatives for improving I-71 access in the Uptown area have beendeveloped by the consultant team in coordination with the Implementation Partners forrefinement during future steps of ODOT’s PDP.7.3.1. No Build AlternativeThis alternative would not make any significant capacity revisions to the existing I-71 accesspoints within the study area. Traffic signal optimization, parking restrictions, and otherroadway, wayfinding, travel demand management, transit and parking recommendationsincorporated into the Part A recommendations of the Uptown Study would be implemented.Proposed improvements include revisions to interstate guide signs and alteration to thepavement markings for the I-71 southbound ramp to WH Taft Road to provide two lanes orone standard-width lane so that lane positioning is less confusing to divers approaching theTaft/Essex intersection. Additionally, consideration could be given for elimination of thepedestrian walk and bus stop located at Taft/Essex along with revised signal phasing.These improvements will provide some benefit by simplifying wayfinding and marginallyreducing congestion in the vicinity of the I-71 southbound ramp to WH Taft Road.Uptown Transportation Study 70URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776287.3.2. TSM AlternativeThis alternative includes all recommendations the “no build” alternative with additionalimprovements as follows that address forecasted congestion in the 2030 plan year but donot alter the existing I-71 access in the Uptown area.• Potential closing of Essex Place at WH Taft Road with elimination of the trafficsignal, pedestrian cross walk and bus stop at this intersection. Traffic to WalnutHills would be rerouted via Reading Road to Oak Street or Minnesota Street andEssex Place.• Modification of Ramp ME (ramp from Montgomery Road to southbound I-71) toeliminate circuitous alignment and merge on mainline curve to improve safety andreturn excess rights-of-way to alternative uses.• Potential widening of I-71 southbound ramp to WH Taft Road to provide two lanes.• Potential lane addition to the I-71 southbound mainline from the Dana Avenueentrance ramp to WH Taft Road exit in order to provide a continuous 5-lane crosssection.Modification to Dana Avenue interchange to provide access to southbound I-71 fromeastbound Dana Avenue. This is being evaluated by a separate Interchange ModificationStudy being performed in conjunction with a new office/commercial development in thevicinity. See secondary recommendations for additional information.7.3.3. Build AlternativesThe Uptown Transportation Study Implementation Partners stated the following at theirMarch 2006 project management meeting: “Interstate Access at WH Taft Road & McMillanshould be retained, at a minimum, in its current form and preferably with full access. At thesame time a new full service interchange at ML King Drive should be included in allalternatives.”As described in Section 6, a series of conceptual alternatives for access improvements atTaft/McMillan and/or ML King Drive were developed that could be implemented in variouscombinations.Full-Service Interchange at Taft/McMillan (TM-7)A conceptual alternative was developed to add access to and from the south at WH TaftRoad, as well as provide capacity and geometric improvements to the access ramps to andfrom the north and new connector roads between WH Taft Road and McMillan Street toimprove access. This alternative does not include any interstate access to ML King Drive.Conceptual alternatives that provide access at both Taft/McMillan and ML King Drive havethe benefit of distributing traffic to the arterial network at multiple locations such that thevolumes at any one location are not as great as would be the case with a singleinterchange.The new interchange configuration would result in increased volumes on WH Taft Road andMcMillan Street, as well other arterial streets in the vicinity. The current traffic pattern wouldUptown Transportation Study 71URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628in large part remain. The primary exception would be that volumes on Burnet Avenue andReading Road south of WH Taft Road would be reduced. The City of Cincinnati hasexpressed concerns about the ability of WH Taft Road and McMillan Street to accommodatethe additional volumes.Interstate congestion, overall travel times, and complexity of wayfinding would be improvedto and from the south but not to and from the north. One could make the case that by notimplementing a new interstate access point north of WH Taft Road that the potentialredevelopment of vacant or underutilized parcels which are prevalent in the ML King Drivecorridor would be hampered. However, by not including new access at ML King Drive, thecosts associated with construction and right-of-way acquisition as well as environmentalimpacts would likely be significantly less than the three alternatives described below thatprovide access at both locations.Interstate Access at Taft/McMillan and ML King Drive(BR-1, S2a, S-3)During the development of the conceptual alternatives, it was determined that twoindependent full service interchanges located at Taft/McMillan and ML King Drive are notfeasible due to the lack of sufficient interchange spacing per Section 502.3 of the OhioDepartment of Transportation’s Location and Design Manual (L&D), Volume 1- RoadwayDesign which states that the absolute minimum spacing between interchanges should notbe less than one mile.The distance between East ML King Drive and WH Taft Road along the centerline of I-71 isapproximately 2,626 feet. The same distance between the overpasses for East ML KingDrive and McMillan Street is 3,241 feet.The required minimum one mile spacing between interchanges stated Section 502.3 of theODOT L&D Manual will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve if a full service interchangeis constructed vicinity of East ML King Drive, while at the same time, attempting to maintainthe existing partial interchange configuration at WH Taft Road and McMillan Street orreplace it with a new full service interchange.Three conceptual alternatives have been developed in response to this constraint whichprovides at least partial access at both Taft/McMillan and ML King Drive.Braided Ramp Alternative (BR-1)Alternative, BR-1, “braids” the access ramps. This “braiding” separates the rampshorizontally and vertically such that they pass each other eliminating the need for a shortweaving movement between successive entrances and exits. The disadvantage of thisalternative is that it is relatively expensive to construct and not intuitive for the driver andimpacts several properties both east and west of the I-71 mainline including the 660 LincolnBuilding and portions of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Oak Campus. Itdoes function satisfactorily from a traffic operations perspective.Uptown Transportation Study 72URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Service Road Alternatives (S-2a or S-3)The service road alternatives, S-2a and S-3, feature partial access at Taft/McMillan (to andfrom the south) and ML King Drive (access to and from the north). ML King Drive andWH Taft Road would be directly linked with a grade-separated, limited access service roadon one (S-2a) or both (S-3) sides of I-71. These alternatives are not as operationally efficientat the braided ramps but are somewhat less costly to construct and have somewhat lessimpact, especially S-2a where the impacts will be primarily isolated to the west side of I-71where a single two way service road would be located. Since the access is segregated attwo individual locations weaving between the interchange access points is not a concern.Full Service Interchange at ML King Drive (MLK-2, MLK 6a)Two conceptual interchange alternatives (MLK-2 and MLK-6a) were developed for fullservice access at ML King Drive in combination with improved access at Taft/McMillan.Adhering to the directive of the Implementation Partners, these alternatives were notconsidered as stand alone interchanges in combination with elimination of the existingaccess at Taft/McMillan. It appears that they could be functional and have significantly lessconstruction and right-of-way costs and environmental impacts than the other alternatives.The primary concern with these alternatives is the insufficient capacity of ML King Drive toaccommodate the additional traffic volumes associated with new I-71 access andredistribution of traffic volumes associated with removal of access at Taft/McMillan as wellas the loss of access itself at Taft/McMillan.7.3.4. Estimated Costs and ImplementationThe estimated construction costs for the conceptual alternatives are based on basicconstruction unit costs using the ODOT Transport Estimator, Version 2.3a combined with a30% design contingency. Preliminary unit quantities were calculated by performing manualtake-offs for each of the alternatives and used to develop the conceptual cost estimates.The unit prices and quantities for each alternative are shown in Appendix H. Right-of-waycosts are based on the valuation of the affected parcels by the Hamilton County Auditor asof May 2006. These costs do not include any allowance for potential relocation ofresidential or commercial properties nor demolition or mitigation of environmental impacts.Table 23: 2006 Estimated Costs for Conceptual Access Improvements atTaft/McMillan and/or ML King DriveAlternativeEstimated Cost (millions)BR-1 S-2a S-3 TM-7* MLK-2** MLK-6a**Right of Way Valuation 2005 $33 $31 $37 $36 $11 $4Construction Cost 2006 $33 $40 $47 $22 $8 $22Totals $66 $71 $84 $58 $19 $26* TM-7 alternative provides full access at William Howard Taft Road & McMillan Street only** MLK-2 & MLK 6a alternatives provide full access at Martin Luther King Jr. Drive onlyUptown Transportation Study 73URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628The 2006 construction cost estimates and right-of-way valuation have been adjusted forinflation through use of the ODOT Office of Estimating’s Inflation Calculator using defaultinflation ranges of high, medium and low internal to the program. A 3.5% annual inflationrate was used to account for appreciation of the affected parcels at ODOT’s direction.Table 24: Estimated Inflated Costs for Conceptual Access Improvements atTaft/McMillan and/or ML King DriveAlternativeEstimated Cost (millions)BR-1 S-2a S-3 TM-7* MLK-2** MLK-6a**Right of Way Valuation 2014 $43 $41 $49 $47 $14 $5Construction Cost 2015 (high) $73 $70 $82 $38 $14 $38Construction Cost 2015 (med) $66 $63 $73 $34 $13 $34Construction Cost 2015 (low) $58 $56 $65 $31 $11 $31Total (high) $116 $111 $131 $85 $28 $43Total (med) $109 $104 $122 $81 $27 $39Total (low) $101 $97 $114 $78 $25 $36* TM-7 alternative provides full access at William Howard Taft Road & McMillan Street only** MLK-2 & MLK 6a alternatives provide full access at Martin Luther King Jr. Drive onlyThe estimated costs range from $25 million for the ML King Drive stand-alone alternative(MLK-2) to $131 million for the S-3 service road alternative. These costs do not includemodifications to the local street network which are not physically impacted by the respectiveinterchange alternatives nor do they include costs associated with the potential modificationof the Reading Road/Gilbert Avenue interchange, realignment of the Montgomery Roadentrance ramp to I-71 southbound or additional mainline capacity on I-71 betweenTaft/McMillan and the Dana Avenue described below.The conceptual alternatives developed to modify the existing Taft/McMillan interchangeand/or provide access at ML King Drive as well as potential alternatives for a stand-aloneinterchange at ML King Drive should be advanced to steps 5 through 7 of the PDP. This willallow for the selection of a preferred alternative and completion of a formal interchangemodification/justification study, refinement of cost estimates and preparation of the projectenvironmental document, which based on the analysis conducted thus far, will likely be anenvironmental impact statement.Completing the tasks in these three steps will require an estimated expenditure of $2.5 to4.5 million. If a comprehensive study of the ML King Drive corridor is conducted as part ofthis analysis the costs will be nearer to the high end of the estimated cost to conduct thesesteps. While there is a large range in the forecasted construction costs it should beanticipated that improved access at Taft/McMillan and ML King Drive will likely be in order ofmagnitude of $100 million dollars in 2015. Providing full access at a single location will besomewhat less.7.3.5. Modification of Reading Road/Gilbert Avenue InterchangeTo accommodate a new entrance ramp from WH Taft Road to southbound I-71, the existingtwo lane exit from southbound I-71 to Reading Road and Gilbert Avenue (Ramp RA) mustbe reduced to a single lane exit in order to provide sufficient weaving distance between thisUptown Transportation Study 74URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628exit and the potential new entrance ramp. Based on the forecasted design hour volumes,the existing pavement markings could be reconfigured as a single lane exit with a split of thetraffic bound for Reading Road or Gilbert Avenue located south of the current exit gore. Thissolution appears to be feasible but would result in a design exception for lane continuitysince a through lane drop would be required. If the design hour volumes are such that asingle lane exit serving both Reading Road and Gilbert Avenue is not feasible, then theexisting exit could be reconstructed to serve Reading Road only and a new exit serving onlyGilbert Avenue could be constructed south of the current exit gore for Ramp RA. The latterscenario would require extensive modifications to the existing bridge structures carrying I-71over the northbound exit ramps to Reading Road (HAM 71-0248 left/right). These bridgestructures have integral steel pier caps which make any modification to the existingsuperstructure impractical. It is likely that these two bridges would have to be replaced if anewly constructed Gilbert Avenue exit is needed.The northbound side of this interchange features a left-hand exit from northbound I-71 tonorthbound Reading Road and Dorchester Avenue (Ramp RC). This left-hand exit does notconform to Section 502.5.2 of ODOT’s Location and Design Manual, Volume 1- RoadwayDesign. While replacement of this design exception would be beneficial, it is not directlyattributable to improving access to the Uptown area.The Reading Road interchange is currently signed to prohibit a weaving movement from theI-471 northbound entrance ramp on the right to the northbound Reading Road exit on theleft. Despite the current signage, this movement does occur since it is the most directconnection between I-471 and the Uptown area. By utilizing the prohibited weavingmovement, drivers can bypass two signalized intersections on Reading Road (Liberty Streetand Elsinore Avenue) shortening the overall distance traveled by approximately ¼ mile. Thistranslates into a time savings of slightly over a minute in uncongested conditions and longerduring congested periods.By using the Liberty Street exit, travel time between the Daniel Carter Beard Bridge andReading Road north of Dorchester Avenue is approximately 75% longer than would be thecase using the I-71 exit and the prohibited weave. It should be noted that similar travel timesavings can also be realized by using the ramp from Dorchester Avenue to I-71 southboundand then to I-471 southbound in lieu of the signed route to the I-471 entrance ramp atLiberty Street.To physically eliminate the possibility of the weave, relocation of the I-471 entrance rampgore would be necessary. Extensive modifications to the existing bridge structures at thislocation would be required, which may result in this option being cost prohibitive. Thesebridge structures are also supported by integral steel pier caps and total replacement of thebridges may be required.Given the complexity and potential cost to implement the geometric modifications to addressthe issues noted above, it is recommended that a comprehensive study be made of theReading/Gilbert interchange to determine the costs, feasibility and constructability ofreconfiguring the southbound Reading and Gilbert exits and eliminating the current left-handexit ramp from northbound I-71 to Reading Road or alternatively, relocating the I-471northbound entrance gore to prevent the weaving movement at this location.Uptown Transportation Study 75URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Estimated Costs and ImplementationThe Ohio Department of Transportation has allocated $1,428,000 to paint the superstructureof Bridges HAM 71-0248 left and right which carry I-71 over Eden Park Drive and FlorenceAvenue in FY 2008. Some consideration could be given to deferring this major paintingproject until the long-term dispositions of these bridges are evaluated by this recommendedstudy.The OKI 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan includes a project to “Restrict I-471northbound from the Reading Road exit; evaluate freeway management system, eliminateleft entrance/exits.” It is estimated that an interchange modification study at this location willrequire an expenditure of approximately $600,000.If it is determined that new access to and from Taft/McMillan to the south is not necessarythen modifications at the Reading/Gilbert interchange would not be required except tomitigate the left hand exit and prohibited weaving movements.7.3.6. Realignment of Ramp ME (Montgomery Road to I-71 Southbound)The entrance ramp from Montgomery Road at Brewster Avenue to I-71 southbound wasoriginally designed in conjunction with a full service interchange located at Victory Parkway.The ramp has a long and circuitous alignment approximately 3,500 ft in length that allowedfor a grade separation of with the proposed exit ramp from southbound I-71 to VictoryParkway. The proposed Victory Parkway interchange was not constructed and is notrecommended for future implementation. The ramp currently merges with the I-71 mainlineon a horizontal curve and has experienced a higher concentration of accidents than theaverage for I-71 throughout the study area.Xavier University has expressed interest in the rights-of-way currently occupied by RampME for expansion of its adjacent campus. It is anticipated that excess rights-of-way couldbe utilized for recreational and athletic facilities.If a new interchange were to be constructed at ML King Drive, realignment of this rampwould provide additional weaving distance to the new downstream southbound exit ramp.It is recommended that this ramp be reconstructed with a standard entrance gore that wouldbe located north of the Woodburn overpass (HAM 71-0505) if possible. The location of PierNo. 1 of the Woodburn Avenue overpass may interfere with this recommended realignment.If this is the case two alternatives could be studied as follows:The entrance gore could be located such that it is immediately south of the WoodburnAvenue overpass but at least partially located in a horizontal curve. This would allow theexisting bridge to remain as is.The entrance gore could be shorted such that it is located in a tangent section and providedthe shortest ramps length and maximum spacing with ML King Drive. This may requiremodification or replacement of the existing Woodburn Avenue overpass structure.Estimated Costs and ImplementationUptown Transportation Study 76URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628In both cases the length of the ramp could be reduced to approximately one third its currentlength and the excess rights-of-way returned to other uses. Travel time, safety would beimproved and future maintenance cost would be reduced. Costs associated with thisrecommendation would are estimated to be $1.5 to $3.5 million in 2006 dollars.Responsibility for administering the realignment of Ramp ME rest with ODOT, however,benefits would be realized by the City of Cincinnati and Xavier University or other adjacentproperty owners which could contribute some funding for planning and design.7.3.7. Dana Avenue InterchangeThe entrance ramp from westbound Dana Avenue to southbound I-71(Ramp DB) is forecastto operate at a failing level of service in 2030. Future growth of traffic volumes at thisinterchange ramp can be largely be attributed to the planned redevelopment of the adjacentparcels west of I-71 from a medium density single family residential neighborhood to a majoroffice development. This project is in the design stage as of 2006 and will have a significantimpact on the design hour volumes of the Dana Avenue interchange. The developer hasrequested that the existing configuration of Ramp DB be altered to allow access fromeastbound Dana Avenue and has begun work on an interchange modification study.Future development of improved access at Taft/McMillan and/or ML King Drive shouldincorporate the recommendations and most recent traffic data that result from thisinterchange medication study.7.3.8. I-71 Mainline CapacityThe planning level traffic forecast for the plan year indicates that the I-71 mainlinesouthbound between the Dana Avenue entrance ramp and the WH Taft Road exit willoperate at a level of service “E”. The same condition is predicted to exist northboundbetween the McMillan Street entrance and the Duck Creek exit. Based on this analysis, anadditional lane may be required in each direction within the limits noted or beyond to adhereto lane continuity provisions in ODOT’s Location and Design Manual, Volume 1- RoadwayDesign.This additional mainline capacity would be required regardless of any interchange accessmodifications and is not included in the cost estimates for the conceptual accessimprovements. It is anticipated that there is sufficient right-of-way to accommodate anadditional lane in both directions resulting in a 5-lane cross section. This is partially due toadditional shoulder width constructed in anticipation of the proposed but never constructedinterchange at Victory Parkway. The impact to the existing bridge structures has not beenascertained at this stage, but it would appear that the overpass structures couldaccommodate this potential widening. The mainline bridge structures HAM 71-0450 L/Rcarrying I-71 over Victory Parkway would need to be widened. Depending on whether newaccess is added at ML King Drive, the southern terminus of this additional lane be locatedeither at this new access or alternatively at Taft/McMillan.Uptown Transportation Study 77URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Estimated Costs and ImplementationResponsibility for providing sufficient mainline capacity within the study area based on theexisting access lies with the ODOT. Further analysis of the need and configuration ofadditional mainline capacity would be undertaken as part of the recommended PDP steps 5through 7 for the conceptual alternatives developed to modify the existing Taft/McMillaninterchange and/or provide access at ML King Drive. If future steps of the PDP determinethat additional mainline capacity is required only to support modified interstate access, thenthe costs for adding such capacity will be included in the overall project costs for the accessmodifications.It is estimated that the construction costs for the recommended mainline capacity would beapproximately $8.5 million in 2006 dollars. This reflects the assumptions noted above,namely no additional rights-of-way required and no major impacts to the existing overpassbridges.7.4. Secondary Recommendations7.4.1. City of Cincinnati Zoning Classification ReviewThe current zoning classifications for the land within the study area generally reflect theexisting light industrial and residential land uses. It is assumed that in order to fullycapitalize on improved access to I-71, future land uses would be significantly different fromtheir present use. Existing light industrial and residential uses would be likely be replacedby office, institutional and mixed use development as has been the case in the vicinity ofother interchanges located along the I-71 corridor from the Grand Baldwin development inthe southern portion of the study area to the Keystone Parke office complex now in thepreliminary stages of development near the Dana Avenue interchange at the northern edgeof the study area. It is recommended that a comprehensive review of the existing municipalzoning classifications be performed with the intent to revise the classifications as necessaryto reflect the desired future land uses that could be supported by improved interstateaccess. This process would be lead by the City of Cincinnati in conjunction with Uptownand neighborhood stakeholders.The City of Cincinnati has formed a task force that will discuss the reestablishment of theDepartment of City Planning, which was eliminated in 2003. If the City Planning Departmentis reestablished, or if the planning functions continue to be administered by otherdepartments, this task should be a priority for the City of Cincinnati.7.4.2. Preservation of Public Right-of-WayDuring the past several years, publicly-owned parcels within the study area have been soldby the City of Cincinnati and/or the State of Ohio to private interests. All publicly-ownedproperty within the immediate vicinity of the I-71 limited access rights-of-way should be helduntil such time that the nature of future access improvements and/or additional needs formainline capacity is more fully defined. Transferring public property to the private sector canlead to increased costs for right-of-way acquisition and potential residential or commercialdisplacements that could otherwise be avoided. This moratorium on vacating or sellingUptown Transportation Study 78URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628publicly owned rights-of-way would need to be developed and implemented by both the Cityof Cincinnati and ODOT.A new interchange or interchange modifications may result in surplus publicly-owned rightsof-waythat could be returned to the private sector in future years. This is particularly true ifportions of the existing interchanges are eliminated. The recommended realignment ofRamp ME (Montgomery Road to I-71 southbound) is a case in point which would result inseveral acres of land that could be returned to the private sector and has been identified byXavier University for future expansion of its athletic facilities.It is also recommended that key stakeholders, which may have ownership interests inparcels that are potential acquisitions for future rights-of-way, plan accordingly and notimplement significant improvements on the parcels in question until the potential need forproperty acquisition is more fully determined. Donation of, or at least a reduction in costs, toacquire this right-of-way could serve as local match to leverage additional public funds. Thisis particularly true for the portion of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center OakCampus between Winslow Avenue and I-71.7.4.3. Sign AuditSection 4511.11 of the Ohio Revised Code requires that all local authorities in theirrespective jurisdictions place and maintain traffic control devices in conformance with theOMUTCD. Based on field observations of the existing signage, it is recommended that acomprehensive inspection of the existing guide signs should be undertaken for I-71 withinthe study area. Several of the guide signs are outdated and several appear to beinappropriately located. Additionally, an inventory of the interstate trailblazer assemblies andhospital guide signs (D-9.2) should be performed. This work would be the responsibility ofboth the City of Cincinnati and ODOT for the signs that are their respective maintenanceresponsibilities. Some consideration should be given to referencing “Uptown” as adestination in the same nature as “downtown” or “riverfront.”This recommendation has been included as one of the Uptown Transportation Study’s earlyaction item recommendations. The respective signs should be updated, replaced and/orrelocated as documented in the respective sign audit.There are six hospital facilities that meet the criteria of OMUTCD Section 2D-45 regulatingemergency medical guide signs within the study area. Consideration should be given to asupplemental guide sign system to identify each of the hospital facilities in the study area. Anew system of wayfinding signage has been recommended for the Uptown area as part ofthis study and is currently in the planning stages. The City of Cincinnati has allocated$250,000 in its 2006 capital budget for implementation of a new Uptown wayfinding signsystem. Any revision to the existing interstate signage must be coordinated to the extentpossible with implementation of this new wayfinding system.Additionally, the disposition of the existing signage referring to hazardous cargo and theLytle Tunnel should be reviewed to insure that any hazardous cargo ban is properlyjournalized by the Public Utility Commission of Ohio (PUCO) and the National Motor CarrierSafety Administration and that signage are in accordance with the OMUTCD.Uptown Transportation Study 79URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628OKI is planning to conduct a regional freight transportation study in the near future. Thedisposition of a hazardous cargo ban within the Lytle Tunnel should be included in the scopeof work for this proposed study. Additionally, ODOT has programmed $2,271,000 for therehabilitation of the Lytle Tunnel in FY 2011. Funding for a risk assessment of hazardouscargo within the tunnel and for new regulatory signage as required could possibility beincluded in this project.7.4.4. Utility CoordinationDuke Energy is planning routine replacement of natural gas distribution lines on severalstreets within the study area and in particular north and west of a potential interchange atEast ML King Drive. Where possible, replacement of any major utility infrastructure withinthe study area should be differed until such time that the nature of future accessimprovements and/or additional needs for mainline capacity are more fully defined.The Metropolitan Sewer District is planning the Dellway Avenue sewer replacement projectnorth and west of a potential interchange at East ML King Drive. Consideration may begiven to delaying the timing of this sewer replacement project until the disposition of anynew interchange has been more fully ascertained.The City of Cincinnati Infrastructure Coordinating Committee should be informed of theareas that could be affected by access improvements within the study area and disseminatethis information to the participating public agencies and private utilities.7.4.5. TransitSORTA has purchased several parcels of land that were formerly Conrail Railroad rights-ofwaywithin the study area. This land was purchased with the intent that mass transit servicecould possibly be implemented along the former rail alignment which runs from the northernedge of the central business district to the northeast terminating in south western WarrenCounty. Within the study area, the railroad alignment generally parallels I-71. The former railalignment is west of I-71 from Dana Avenue south to Whittier Street where it turns eastwardand crosses I-71 on bridge HAM 71-0392 located just north of ML King Drive. From thispoint the alignment runs along the east side of I-71 south to the vicinity of Ellsinore Placewhere it turns west again and recrosses I-71 on bridge HAM 71-0231.The two overpass bridges are owned by ODOT and the City of Cincinnati respectively. TheCity of Cincinnati is responsible for maintenance of the superstructure on bridge HAM 71-0392. There are no tracks or operational rail services active at this time. Additionally theformer rail alignment made use of two masonry arch tunnels located under Oak Street andMcMillan Street east of I-71.Use of this former railroad alignment for light rail transit was adopted as part of OKI’sRegional Rail Plan in 2002.The conceptual alternatives recommended for further development will impact the SORTArights-of-way. If an interchange is implemented at ML King Drive, bridge HAM-0392 willlikely be removed. If modifications are made at the Reading Road interchange bridge HAM71-0231 could be removed. Any interchange modifications to the existing Taft/McMillanUptown Transportation Study 80URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628interchange would likely require the removal of the existing railroad tunnel under McMillanStreet.Future project development of interstate access improvements should be undertaken suchthat the resulting preferred alternative is developed with provisions for accommodating atransit corridor from Dana Avenue south to Liberty Street. In exchange for thisaccommodation of transit, it is recommended that SORTA make available the portions of itsrights-of-way necessary for construction of the preferred alternative subject to the reviewand approval of the Federal Transit Administration.7.4.6. Economic Impact AnalysisSupporting economic vitality is one of the primary purposes of improved I-71 access. Themembers of the Uptown Consortium have expressed the importance of improved interstateaccess to the vitality of their respective institutions. These institutions should provideinformation concerning the economic impacts of improved interstate access will have ontheir respective operations and facilities as well as to support potential future economicdevelopment. It will be important to provide formal documentation of the economicdevelopment potential that is afforded by improved access in terms of employment gains,property values and public tax revenues when seeking public funds for construction oralternative financing.Any economic impact analysis should be coordinated with the recommended zoningclassification study.7.5. Project ImplementationAt this time it is anticipated that preparation of an EIS will be necessary to advance therecommended conceptual alternatives to improve I-71 access at Taft/McMillan and/or MLKing Drive. Environmental Field Studies will commence during PDP Step 5 and continuethrough Step 7 and conclude with the preparation of a draft EIS or other environmentaldocument. It is likely that the ODOT office of Environmental Services will file a notice ofintent stating that it intends to prepare an EIS for this project.The anticipated need for the preparation of an EIS is primarily based upon potential impactsto existing cultural recourses within the study area. More specifically, the following issueswill require investigation and documentation• Need for additional rights-of-way which will displace residential populations andcommercial businesses.• Potential impacts to structures listed or eligible for the National Register forHistoric Places.• Potential impacts to the Peebles Corner National Historic District.• Potential impacts to environmental justice populations which are prevalentthroughout the study area.• Potential impacts to several documented sites which may include hazardousmaterials.Uptown Transportation Study 81URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628• Presence of sensitive noise receptors within the study area that may be affectedby the conceptual alternatives.Please see the Red Flag Summary Report for additional information concerningenvironmental resources within the study area that may be potential affected by theconceptual alternatives recommended for further study.7.5.1. ScheduleThe time needed to complete all recommended access improvement is largely dependenton the availability of sufficient funding to complete the project development process withoutdelay. Using conventional sources of funding, construction on mainline capacity additionsand/or interchange modifications is not likely to begin prior to 2016. Please refer toFigure 5 for a conceptual time line. This figure assumes continued implementation of therecommendations following completion of the Uptown Transportation Study in 2006.I-71 INTERSTATE ACCESS IMPROVEMENT STUDYRemaining Steps in ODOT's Major Project Development Process4Planning StudyReport5 and 6Conceptual andFeasible Alternatives7Preferred Alternativeand DEISPart A Recommendations8Environmental Clearance(FEIS and ROD)9Stage 2 DetailedDesign10ROW Plan andAcquisition11Stage 3 DetailedDesignPID 7762812Final Plan PackageThe colored boxes represent the estimated duration of each step in the ODOTProject Development Process (PDP)13 Contract Award14Construction2006 2007 2008 20092010 2011 20122013 2014 2015 20162017 2018Notes: 1. Applications for TRAC funding submitted in 2007 will provide funding for 2014 Major New Construction Program2. I-71 construction activities will need to be coordinated with I-75 construction activitiesFigure 5: Remaining Steps in the ODOT Project Development ProcessImplementation of the Uptown Transportation Study Part A recommendations will generallyprecede modifications to I-71 access. It is imperative that the connecting arterial networkhave sufficient capacity to accommodate future improvements to interstate access atTaft/McMillan and/or ML King Drive. Detailed study of the ML King Drive corridor along withselected capacity improvements on Taft/McMillan, Reading Road, Burnet Avenue and MLKing Drive must be an initial priority.The policy recommendations concerning zoning, utility coordination and right-of-waypreservation should be implemented immediatelyUptown Transportation Study 82URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628The recommendations should be incorporated into OKI Long Range Transportation Plan(LRTP) at the earliest practical date and opportunities for funding continued planning and/orpreliminary engineering should be explored and identified. Once funding is secured foradditional project development the respective projects should be added to the OKI TIP andthe State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).The City of Cincinnati must determine what resources can be allocated to fund the projectrecommendations in its 2007-2008 biennial budget.If significant amounts of funding can be secured for the project during the planning anddesign phases, the timeline illustrated in Figure 5 could be shortened somewhat as theplanning and design phases can be more comprehensive and rights-of-way acquisitioncould be undertaken at the earliest possible date.There are limitations to the ability to shorten this schedule, however. This project will mostlikely require the publication of an environmental impact statement requiring coordination ofseveral state and federal agencies as well as the public.Another practical limitation on the ability to shorten the implementation schedule is that theongoing reconstruction of I-75 including replacement of the Brent Spence Bridge willnecessitate temporary reductions in capacity on I-75 for maintenance of traffic through workzones during construction. It is expected that construction on I-75 will take place from 2011through 2014. Given this scenario any maintenance of traffic on I-71 would need to providesufficient capacity to accommodate traffic volumes diverted from I-75 during thisconstruction period.Decisions regarding regional maintenance of traffic concerns are the responsibility of theOhio Department of Transportation and will be a critical coordination issue for any significantconstruction projects that affect the capacity of I-71 while I-75 or other major regionalfacilities are under construction.7.5.2. Project Delivery StrategyResponsibility for implementation of these recommendations rests primarily with the ODOTand the City of Cincinnati. The City is certified with ODOT as fully capable to meet therequirements to administer federal aid projects as an LPA If the City of Cincinnatiadministers continued project development for the conceptual alternatives to improve I-71access at Taft/McMillan and/or ML King Drive, an LPA agreement will need to be executedbetween the City and ODOT specifying respective roles, funding commitments, scope ofwork and administrative duties.Additionally the major private and public institutions located in Uptown that will be primarybenefactors of improved access should be expected to play a supportive if not direct role indemonstrating need, garnering public consensus, providing rights-of-way, conductingeconomic impact analysis and securing funding for both design and construction.Uptown Transportation Study 83URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Table 25: Implementation Agencies and Estimated CostsImplementation and Estimated CostRecommendation Implementation Agency Estimated CostAdvance study of modified access at Taft/McMillanCity of Cincinnati and Uptownand/or new access at Martin Luther King Jr. DriveStakeholdersthrough ODOT PDP Steps 5-7$3,500,000Study potential modifications to Gilbert Ave. /ReadingRoad InterchangeODOT $600,000Provide additional mainline capacity (5 lane crosssection)between Taft and Dana Entrance SB and ODOT $8,500,000McMillan Duck Creek exit NB ) *Re-align Ramp from Montgomery Rd. to Southbound I-71 *ODOT $3,500,000Traffic Study of Martin Luther King Drive ** City of Cincinnati $1,500,000Land Use Study of Zoning ClassificationsCity of Cincinnati and UptownStakeholders$150,000Economic Impact AnalysisUptown Stakeholders and City of$250,000CincinnatiI-71 Sign Audit ODOT $50,000Preserve Public Rights of WayCity of Cincinnati, ODOT andUptown StakeholdersNAUtility CoordinationCity of Cincinnati and UptownStakeholdersNATransit - Preserve right-of-way for future transitcorridorCity of Cincinnati, ODOT andSORTAUnless otherwise noted estimated costs are 2006 dollars.* Conceptual Cost estimate assuming no right of way acquisition or impact to overpass structures.** If conducted as part of PDP Steps 5-7 for new access at MLK costs associated with this analysis would bepartially offset by study of access modifications on I-71. Cost shown are for an independent analysis of MLK Corridor.Formal acceptance of the project documents and recommendations from the UptownTransportation Study will be the initial step in implementation of the projectrecommendations. The need for additional funds should be identified and if need bepreparation of an application for Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) funding inMay 2007 could be undertaken at the conclusion of this Study.The respective institutions in the Uptown area should undertake a review of their respectiveabilities to assist with project implementation from a policy and funding perspective.7.6. Public Involvement Concerns and IssuesThree public meetings were conducted during the project with the Part B recommendationsbeing presented at the last meeting during October 2006.The issues and concerns gathered at the public meetings were varied. The complete writtencommentary collected is included in the separate Uptown Community InvolvementDocumentation binder. No real sentiments outweighed others but it is somewhat evident thatthe respondents understand that changes to the transportation system in Uptown wouldhave significant impacts on the community.TBDUptown Transportation Study 84URS CorporationNovember 2006

7.7. FundingPlanning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628At this time no funding has been committed for implementation of any of therecommendations of Uptown Transportation Study Part B Interstate 71 Access ImprovementStudy.The individual implementation partners must answer these critical questions when seekingfunds to carry out the aforementioned recommendations.• What funds are realistically available?• What timeframe restrictions apply?• What approval process is required?• What other restrictions apply?The OKI 2030 LRTP includes two fiscally constrained capacity improvement projects withinthe study area. The plan allocates $2 million “to restrict I-471 northbound from ReadingRoad exit; evaluate freeway management system, eliminate left entrance/exits” and $35million for “a new full service interchange at ML King Drive.”The nature and estimated costs associated with these two projects should be updated toreflect the recommendations and cost estimates presented herein during the next revision orupdate to the LRTP and preferably prior to seeking funding.Both ODOT and the City of Cincinnati are experiencing growth in documented needs forfunding capital expenditures during the next 5 to 10 years with declining capacity to fullymeet those needs. It is estimated that the total costs associated with the recommendedaccess improvements will range from $50 to $100 million. Implementation of therecommendations will require a mix of public funding from federal, state and municipalsources as well as from the private and nongovernmental sectors.See Figure 6 for a conceptual timeline of expected expenditures to implement therecommendations of the Uptown Transportation Study.Uptown Transportation Study 85URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Figure: 6: Estimated Expenditures by year (2006 dollars)City of CincinnatiThe City of Cincinnati is currently developing its 2007/2008 biennial budget. Major issuesfor the 2007/2008 biennium include pending negotiated labor agreements, reestablishmentof the Department of City Planning and the Office of Environmental Management. Thecapital budget is facing growing demands on its limited resources to fund the construction ofseveral large projects including the Kennedy Avenue Connector just north of the Part BStudy area as well as the new central riverfront park downtown. General capital resourceshave been reduced approximately 45% from $106 million in 2003 to $59 million in 2007.The most significant declines in City resources for capital expenditures since 2003 havebeen from Tax-Supported Bonds and the Anthem Proceeds. The Anthem Proceedsrepresented a one-time windfall for the City and no additional resources are expected fromthis source. Tax-Supported Bonds are declining due to debt capacity projections.As part of the City’s development of its 2007-2008 biennial budget, the City’s Department ofTransportation and Engineering has requested an increase in its annual allocation forcoordination with OKI corridor studies to potentially assist with future planning activities forthis project. No dedicated City funding sources to advance the recommendations of thisstudy have been identified to date.Uptown Transportation Study 86URS CorporationNovember 2006

ODOTPlanning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628The Ohio Department of Transportation administers several funding programs that would beapplicable to the recommended access improvements. These programs are primarilyfunded through Federal formula or discretionary programs and include the following:• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) (20% minimum local match)• Highway Safety Improvement Program, HSP (0-10% up to $5.0 M• Surface Transportation Program, STP (20%)• Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program, TCSP (20%)• National Highway System, NHS (20%,)• Interstate Maintenance Discretionary (IMD) (10%-20%)A percentage of the CMAQ and STP funds are sub allocated by ODOT to OKI for theCincinnati urbanized area.Transportation Review Advisory CouncilThe primary source of ODOT funding for major capacity improvements is the TRAC. TheTRAC is composed of appointed representatives throughout the state of Ohio that meet onan annual basis to allocate available funding for major new capacity projects to beconstructed the succeeding six-year period.TRAC applications are submitted in May of each year. Hearings are held August throughOctober, and a draft list is released in December. The public comment period is Januarythrough April; in May, the final six-year program is published. During 2007, TRAC will beconsidering funding for the 2014 major construction program. The TRAC program isprojecting future revenue shortfalls to meet the project funding commitments. It is unknownat this time how this structural imbalance in the funding program will be resolved. The Cityof Cincinnati has applied for TRAC funds to conduct planning and design for a newinterchange at I-71 and ML King Drive in 2001 and 2003 but was not allocated funding. Itshould be noted that the TRAC funds allocated to the respective projects for the plannedreconstruction of I-75 within Hamilton County are not sufficient to completely fund theestimated costs of these projects. Additional TRAC funds will likely be sought to secureadditional funding for these projects thereby reducing the likelihood of additional largefunding allocations for the remainder of the metropolitan area. While the individual projectsare judged on their respective merits, the TRAC does consider equitable distribution ofavailable funds on a geographic basis. It should be noted that TRAC policy requires aminimum of 50% match for new interchange construction. The characterization of whetherthe preferred alternative is a “new” interchange or an interchange modification remains to bedetermined.See Figure 15 for a current listing of TRAC committed funding for ODOT District 8 projects.A total of $786 million in TRAC funds has been pledged for District 8 projects through 2012.Uptown Transportation Study 87URS CorporationNovember 2006

District Project PIDPlanning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Table 26: 2007-2012 TRAC Allocations for ODOT District 8ProjectCostLocalFundsTRAC 2007-2012 Major New Construction Program ListTRACCommitmentAdd lanes from SR-129 and SR-122 and reconfiguration of8 Butler/Warren I-75 24664, 10752, 24659, 79715 143.4 56.7 86.7SR-63 interchangeDescription 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150.6 67.48 Clermont I-275/SR-32 76289 90.2 3.3 86.9 Reconstruction of I-275 interchange at SR-32 1.0 19.0 0.5 61.38 Clinton SR-73 16621, 78569, 78570, 78571 99.0 4.7 94.3 Wilmington Bypass 14.5 43.1 23.48 Banks Intermodal 77164 27.1 16.1 11 Parking Structures on Cincinnati Riverfront 11.08 Hamilton I-275 22386, 80990 134.7 102.2 32.5 Add lanes from Winton Rd to Reading Rd. US-42 30.92.07.1 0.3 0.4Improve I-75 and Reconstruction of Interchanges from SR-48 Hamilton I-75 76256, 80931 213.5 71.4 142.1to Sharon Rd.2.2 3.0 119.511.5 3.08 Hamilton I-75 76257 254.9 60.2Improve I-75 and Reconstruction of Interchanges from194.7Western Hills Viaduct to SR-562 Norwood Lateral8 Warren I-75 10754 152.9 58.5Add additional lanes from SR-122 to Montgomery County94.4Line, Reconfigure SR-122 Interchange3.7 5.0 4.4 11.6 166.87.4 2.0 78.42.28 Butler SR-4 Bypass 76290 33.5 2.7 SR4 Bypass City of Fairfield Butler County 2.78 Clermont/Hamilton SR-32 22970, 80261 450.0 3.1 4.8 Eastern Corridor Multimodal Study8 Hamilton I-75 75119 690.9 10.0Reconfiguration of Ohio Approaches to the Brent Spence29Bridge8 Hamilton I-75 77889 157.0Reconstruction of I-75 Interchanges at Towne St. and SR 5623.3Norwood Lateral8 Hamilton 75/275 77278, 77890 69.4 4 Improvements to I-75/I-275 Interchange 4.0TotalsPreliminary EngineeringDesignRight of WayConstruction1.9 25.02,516.5 386.2 786.4 85.3 160.5 110.1 36.6 228.1 119.5 0.0 0.0 0.03.3It is recommended that an application for TRAC funding be prepared prior to the May 2007submittal deadline. This application could be limited to assistance with funding PDP steps5-7 and placement in Tier II program listing. A Tier II project does not have a futurecommitment of construction funding but generally is for projects in the preliminaryengineering phase of development prior to firm cost estimates and defined projects forconstruction.Ohio State Infrastructure BankAn alternative to receiving TRAC funding is seeking loan funds or bonding payments fromOhio’s State Infrastructure Bank (SIB). This revolving loan fund was initially capitalized with$137 million of federal and state funds. As of September 2005, $43 million was available fordisbursement. The maximum loan term is 10 years with an interest rate three fourths of theprime rate.Loan Approval ProcessAll projects are subject to approval by the Director of ODOT. Projects using federal fundsmust be listed in the STIP. It should be noted that the recommendations for improving I-71access in the Uptown area have not been incorporated into the STIP to date.Project Requirements• The Environmental Assessment and subsequent clearance process must becomplete to the extent required to meet the funding source requirements;• The preliminary engineering including any required studies such as, but notlimited to, the Major Investment Study, Interchange Justification Analysis,Wetlands Analysis and Mitigation Plan, as well as any other funding sourcerequirement must be completed prior to loan closing;Uptown Transportation Study 88URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628• The project must have an identifiable revenue stream or source that will likelyamortize the debt. Such revenue sources may include: local governmentpledges, TIFs, property assessments, license plate and registration fees, Issue 2local government funds, other user payments and/or fees, such as parkingrevenues, etc.See http://www.dot.state.oh.us/sib1/default.htm for additional informationFederal Discretionary ProgramsFederal discretionary programs have their own eligibility and selection criteria that areestablished by law, regulation, or administratively, resulting in a separate applicationprocess. These programs have been established by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, andEfficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA-LUauthorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, andtransit for the 5-year period 2005-2009. For more information on available programs, pleaseview the FHWA Discretionary website at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/index.htm.SAFETEA-LU has created several new discretionary programs including Projects of Nationaland Regional Significance, High Priority Projects [1701, 1702, and 1703] and TransportationImprovements [1934]. These programs fund specifically designated projects contained inthe legislation. There are no designated projects for I-71 access improvements included inthese programs. The Uptown Crossings Multimodal Center and improvements to theinterchanges on I-75 within the Uptown area have been designated to receive funding.Federal funding varies between programs and is provided for in SAFETEA-LU and annualappropriations acts funding the Department of Transportation. The City of Cincinnati hasrequested that funding for implementation of the project recommendations for improving I-71access be included in the FY 2007 Appropriations Bill for the Department of Transportation.At this time no designation of discretionary funding has been included in this pendinglegislation.The successor legislation to SAFETEA-LU in 2010 could be a source for designateddiscretionary funding for latter stages of project development including final design andconstruction. At this time it is not possible to predict the nature of the discretionary fundingprograms and levels of funding available at that time.The Federal Highway Administration has recently begun to promote non-traditionalmechanisms for financing large transportation infrastructure needs. Several provisions ofSAFETEA-LU expand and reinforce programs to foster public-private partnerships to fundthe nation’s transportation needs. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp for additionalinformation. Given the integral participation of major institutional and economicdevelopment stakeholders in this project, opportunities for leveraging private/publicpartnerships to creatively finance the recommendations should be fully explored.Uptown Transportation Study 89URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776288. REFERENCESCatt Lyon Design & Wayfinding, Uptown Transportation Study Uptown Schematic Design,August 2005City of Cincinnati, Municipal Zoning Code, (Municipal Code of Cincinnati Chapters 1400-1451), January 2004Edwards and Kelcey, Uptown Transportation Study, Long Range Street Improvements (PartA) July 2006.Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc.; Beyer Blinder Belle; Architects & Planners LLP;Greenberg Consultants LTD., Strategic Opportunity Plan, Uptown Cincinnati,December 2004IFC Kaiser, Inc, Executive Order 13274 Purpose and Need Work Group Baseline Report,March 15, 2005Ohio Department of Transportation, Access Ohio 2004-2030, Statewide TransportationPlan, May 2004.Ohio Department of Transportation, Location and Design Manual revised, Volumes 1-3. July2006.Ohio Department of Transportation, Project Development Process Manual, November 2004.Ohio Department of Transportation, Sign Design Manual, July 2005Ohio Department of Transportation, State Transportation Improvement Plan (FY 2006-2009), July 2005.Ohio Department of Transportation, Traffic Academy, Interchange Justification Studies &Interchange Modification Studies Manual, June 2004Ohio Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Manual, July 2005Ohio Department of Transportation, Transportation Review Advisory Committee, FY2007-2012 Major Construction Program Project Listing, June 2006Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, 2030 OKI RegionalTransportation Plan 2004 Update, June 10, 2004.Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, FY 2007-2009 TransportationImprovement Program, as of July 2006Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, Uptown Transportation StudyPublic Involvement Plan, 2005.Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, Metro Moves Regional Transit Plan, June 2002Uptown Transportation Study 90URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 77628Texas Transportation Institute and Cambridge Systematics, Inc, Monitoring UrbanFreeways in 2003: Current Conditions and Trends from Archived Operations Data.Report No. FHWA-HOP-05-018,December 2004Transystems Corporation, HAM 75-2.30 Millcreek Expressway, Planning Study Report, June2005United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Safe,Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users(SAFETEA-LU), August 10 2005.URS Corporation, Uptown Transportation Study- Part B Interstate 71 Access ImprovementStudy,: Existing and Future Conditions Report, July 2006.URS Corporation, Uptown Transportation Study- Part B Interstate 71 Access ImprovementStudy, Draft Purpose and Need Statement, August 2006.URS Corporation, Uptown Transportation Study- Part B Interstate 71 Access ImprovementStudy, Red Flag Summary Report, August 2006.URS Corporation, Uptown Transportation Study- Part B Interstate 71 Access ImprovementStudy, PDP Step 3 Documentation Report, September 2006.Uptown Transportation Study 91URS CorporationNovember 2006

Planning Study ReportPart B: Interstate 71 Access Improvement Study, PID 776289. ILLUSTRATIVE MAPSThis section contains illustrative maps that are intended to be viewed at a minimum printedsize of 11”x17”.Illustrative maps are provided for the following:1. 2005 Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT) Volumes2. Existing Congested Intersections3. City of Cincinnati Uptown TIFF Districts4. Projects Recommended for Implementation (Part A)5. Uptown I-71 Interchange Alternatives 1 of 46. Uptown I-71 Interchange Alternatives 2 of 47. Uptown I-71 Interchange Alternatives 3 of 48. Uptown I-71 Interchange Alternatives 4 of 49. Alternative BR-1 Braided Ramps10. Alternative S-2a Two-Way Service Road West of I-7111. Alternative S-3 Directional Service Road East and West of I-7112. Alternative MLK-2 Stand Alone –Offset Diamond13. Alternative MLK-6a Stand Alone Folded Diamond14. Alternative TM-7 Split Partial Diamond15. Potential Modifications to Reading/Gilbert InterchangeUptown Transportation Study 92URS CorporationNovember 2006

2005 AWDT VolumesEUTAW CTTotal AWDT Entering/Exiting Uptown Area = 302,10000,000 Total Average Weekday TrafficEntering/Exiting CorridorTraffic Count Location #Average Weekday TrafficLocation #0,000Legend2005 AWDT VolumesDIXMYTH AV5,001 - 15,00015,001 - 25,00025,001 - 35,000MCMICKEN AV35,000 - Up,h Traffic Count Location (33)Traffic CorridorsCorridor ACorridor BCorridor CCorridor DCorridor ECorridor FSOHN STE STACYPRESS GARDEN AVGLENRIDGE PLWARREN AVSTRENG STGREENWOOD AVNORWAY AVBARKER RDJUERGENS AVVINE SThhAChh hhhhhBhMIDDLETON AVBAXTER AVMCALPIN AVWOOLPER AVEHRMAN AVWASHINGTON AVGLENWOOD AVhhhhELUDLOW AVFOREST AVhhhhhDhh hhhhhhhBLAIR AVhhFhhhI-75 EXWYCLIFTON AVBURNET AVHARVEY AVEDEN AVHIGHLAND AVBISHOP STRIDDLE RDGILBERT AVREADING RDOAK STW MCMILLAN STMCMICKEN AVWILLIAM H TAFT RDRAVINE STWARNER AVMAY STKEMPER LNWILSON AVDURY AVMONMOUTH AVGREENDALE AVWOOD AVGHOLSON AVHOSEA AVTERRACE AVERKENBRECHER AVLOWELL AVHALE AVRIDGEWAY AVBROOKLINE DRHOPPLE STMARSHALL AVLINCOLN AVEUCLID AVSTRAIGHT STSTANTON AVBELLEVUE AVPROBASCO STSIDNEY AVE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR DRE UNIVERSITY AVMELROSE AVCALHOUN STE MCMILLAN STADA STOHIO AVFAIRVIE W AVKINSEY AVBUCK STVICTOR STALASKA AVRESOR AVCORNELL PLGLENMARY AVBRYANT AVHICKORY STHEARNE AVHARRY ALPROSPECT PLWHITFIELD AVJEF FERSON AVNIXON STLOUIS AVWHITTIER STHE NSHAW AVROCHELLE STVAN STVERNON PLHUKILL ALCOOK STLYON STROHS STLINDSAY ALWAYNE STFLORA AVWHEELER STSTRATFORD AVCHICKASAW STMORRISON AVFREDONIA AVTOWNSHIP STTAFEL STNORTHERN AVHALSTEAD STCONCORD STDICK STHAVEN STCLIFTON HILLS AV!"c$BROOKLINE AVWINDHAM AVCLEVELAND AVSHIELDS STBURNET WOODS DRKE RPER AVMASSACHUSETTS STW UNIVERSITY AVDONAHUE STPIEDMONT AVSCHORR ALSYMMES STKENTON STPRESLEY ALHELEN STCRANSTON ALDIGBY AVKNOTT STRUTHER AV!"c$!"a$!"a$JESSAMINE AVJEFFERSON AVECENTRAL PKWYCANYON DRNORWICH LNWESTERN HILLS VIAEMMING STCONROY STHARRISON AVMCGREGOR AVEAST ALATLAS ALKLOTTER AVAVW MCMICKEN AVAVIOWA STFARRAN ALHEMLOCK STFAIRVIEW PARK DRMCCORMICK PLCARPLIN PLWEHRMAN AVBEECHER STWINSLOW AVIRVING STMARMET AVROCKDALE AVGANO AVGARRARD AVVAUGHN STJAY STSTOCK STTAYLOR AVRACHEL STSCIOTO STCOY STPURDUE STGREEN HILL AVCAMDEN AVDUNKIRK STALTER PLBONFIELD DRBIDDLE STMANN PLHUTCHINS AVETHAN AVBATES ALMAPLE AVBATES AVCOMBS ALDUNORE STOLD LUDLOW AVPRIVATE STBERKSHIRE LNCLIFTON COLONY DREVANSWOOD PLGLENMANN LNVAN ANTWERP PLLYLEBURN PLARLINGTON AVLEXINGTON AVLARONA AVWIRHAM PLKASOTA STBETHESDA AVGLENDORA AVSTIER ALSYRACUSE STRIDDLE VIEW LNSTETSON STWOODSIDE AVBADER STJOSELIN AVLINTON STW CORRY STFOSDICK STE DANIELS STE HOLLISTER STMOERLEIN AVCURTIS STWINDSOR STFOWLER STALBION PLYALE AVPARIS STIOWA AVMORGAN STHICKMAN AVVAN BUREN AVUNIVERSITY CTCLEMMER AVESSEX PLWAGNER STCOON STDIX STDETZEL PLCHALFONTE PLTHRALL STLEE PLELAM STBOSLEY STCOPELEN STWELLINGTON PLINWOOD PLPARKER STGLENCOE PLSHEA PLFINCH ALLONDON ALIRON ALCHATHAM STENSLIN STBOGART AVALABAMA AVBELSAW PLTHILL STGLEN ESTE AVWINDINGS CTEATON LNCATHERINE STPERKINS AVSAUER AVTERHUNE ALMOUNTAIN ALDRAPER STMANOR HILL DRALBERT SABIN WAYCENTRAL PKWYATKINSON STGRAHAM STW CHARLTON STROGERS PLOOD AVMERIT STEMPORIA STDREXEL PLSTEWART PLHEYWOOD STDE VOTIE AVRAWSON WOODS LNRURAL AVEDGE HILL PLRUPP ALLEROY CTGOODMAN AVDUKE STORMOND AVDULUTH AVSEMINOLE STESTES PLMINNESOTA STCHAPEL STHOLLENDER ALDECKEBACH AVHALLMAR AVADDISON STMURIEL CTLLOYD PLFAIRVIEW PLSHIRLEY DR,,,ALASKA CTNORWICH AVCLIFTON CRST TERHEDGEROW LNRUSH STIRWIN PLSASSAFRAS STFOULKE STBURLINGTON PLMCNALLY STJUNE STSOUTHVIEW AVFOREST PARK DRCROWN STTUXEDO PLCLYBOURNE PLCROSS LNWALTON ALPOLK S TEUREKA TERAUBURNCREST AVLINCOLN PLALAMEDA PLQUEEN CITY ALCITY VIEW PLKRESS ALVALENCIA STGOR PLSTUNNAMED STBLESS AV,MAPLE AVMILTON CTRIDGEWAY AVPROBASCO CTGLENDORA AVGERARD STBANNING ALFREEMAN AVEDEN AVWHITFIELD AVBATES AVFOULKE STROCKDALE AVCOLE RAIN AVVINE STDE VOTIE AVSTRATFORD AVSTRAIGHT STJUNE STE MCMILLAN STVINE STMORGAN STOAK STRAMPBOONE STEMMING STEVANSWOOD PLLocation: 124,130,,Location: 226,080,W MARTIN LUTHERKING JR DRLocation: 218,440Location: 423,550Location: 338,640,WILLIAM H TAFT RD,,,,,Location: 2913,380Location: 525,040Location: 626,800Location: 306,020Location: 2812,78012,80023,50018,50039,300Location: 916,240Location: 718,150Location: 1118,460Location: 818,500Location: 168,760Location: 145,790Location: 3218,330Location: 218,15038,600Location: 1048,290Location: 1226,550,Location: 3110,800Location: 1516,560Location: 1316,240Location: 1738,920Location: 1822,070Location: 2013,780Location: 1921,700Location: 24B11,490Location: 2621,680Location: 2322,000,Location: 2521,960Location: 24A19,870Location: 2725,020GApril 14, 20051,000 500 0 1,000Feet13,40040,10040,90053,30021,700BRIGHTON BRIDGE APPRCHCLIFTON AVKLOTTER AVOWA AVHARRISON AVGROVE AVLOWRY STVBE LOITW

MCMICKEN AVSOHN STELMORE STLUDLOW AV VIAWINDINGS CTCYPRESS GARDEN AVGLEN ESTE AVEUTAW CTExistingCongested IntersectionsBELSAW PLRURAL AVSHIRLEY DREDGE HILL PLGLENRIDGE PLARLINGTON AVMONMOUTH AVALABAMA AVBATES AVETHAN AVHOPPLE STGARRARD AVSTRENG STELAM STBURLINGTON PL!"c$SASSAFRAS STJESSAMINE AVTOWNSHIP STLOWRY STWESTERN AVBLESS AVBUCK STCLIFTON HILLS AVBATES ALBATES AVSTOCK STCOLERAIN AVSTRAIGHT STCOMBS ALSPRING GROVE AVHENSHAW AVCOOK STDRAPER STRACHEL STSIDNEY AVBADER STWESTERN HILLS VIAHARRISON AVWINCHELL AVCLIFTON CRST TER#!#!A-2aA-1I-75 EXWYMASSACHUSETTS STMARSHALL AVHEYWOOD STHALSTEAD STLUDLOW AVHUKILL ALMCMICKEN AVATLAS ALMORRISON AVSTRAIGHT STFAIRVIEW AVW MCMICKEN AVLOWELL AVRIDDLE RDTAFEL STADA STHARRY ALTERRACE AVRAVINE STWARNER AVFLORA AVCORNELL PLVICTOR STWHITFIELD AVWOOD AVPROBASCO STSTRATFORD AVKLOTTER AVDIXMYTH AVCHICKASAW STROHS STEMMING STMIDDLETON AVWARREN AVMCALPIN AVRESOR AVBRYANT AVWHEELER STCLIFTON AV####BROOKLINE DRCALHOUN STGREENDALE AVHOSEA AVW MCMILLAN STLYON STOHIO AVWOOLPER AV!#B-1! #A-3 #!## E-2###! !#C-1 ! F-4E-3#####!E-11! F-5!#E-4#!# # ## # # #F-6!!#C-3! !#B-4 E-5 E-6! C-5 !F-13! F-7 ! C-6# # # # ##!E-7 !F-14!! F-8B-8 #!!"c$## !"a$F-9! ## ! # #B-5! # # # ##D-2!# # ##D-4D-1! D-3 ! D-5 # # # ##RAMPADDISON STOLD LUDLOW AVSTIER ALCENTRAL PKWYCENTRAL PKWYRUSH STQUEEN CITY ALBRIGHTON BRIDGE APPRCHHARRISON AVBELOIT ALRUPP ALMCNALLY STKRESS ALCLIFTON COLONY DRFREEMAN AVHALLMAR AVDUNORE STFAIRVIEW PARK DRBERKSHIRE LNCONROY STFOULKE STDECKEBACH AVPROBASCO CTDE VOTIE AVLLOYD PLDUKE STFAIRVIEW PLEMMING STKLOTTER AVCLYBOURNE PLPRIVATE STWIRHAM PLTAYLOR AVENSLIN STWAGNER STGANO AVCLEMMER AVSOUTHVIEW AVMURIEL CTEVANSWOOD PLMANOR HILL DRFOULKE STMERIT STMOUNTAIN ALCOY STCOON STLYLEBURN PLCITY VIEW PLUNNAMED STBYRON ST! C-2RIDDLE VIEW LNUNIVERSITY CTRAWSON WOODS LNHEDGEROW LNEVANSWOOD PLWHITFIELD AVW MARTIN LUTHERKING JR DRDIGBY AVJOSELIN AVDE VOTIE AVSTRATFORD AVTHRALL STORMOND AV! A-4SCHORR AL! B-7! B-2! B-3! B-6CLIFTON AVBOSLEY STSAUER AV!A-2bATKINSON STPARKER STMOERLEIN AVBROOKLINE AVBIDDLE STBURNET WOODS DRDETZEL PLGRAHAM STWOODSIDE AVEAST ALGREEN HILL AVGLENMARY AVBISHOP STJUERGENS AVW UNIVERSITY AVTHILL STMARMET AVJEFFERSON AVSCIOTO STJUSTIS STRUTHER AV#! E-1JEFFERSON AVEGLENDORA AVNIXON STW CHARLTON STW CORRY STE HOLLISTER STVINE ST!D-10!D-11!D-12! E-9!E-10EUREKA TERPOLK STVINE STVALENCIA STGLENDORA AVWELLINGTON PLINWOOD PLLEROY CTDULUTH AV! E-8VINE STGLENCOE PLSEMINOLE STVAN STLOUIS AVSHIELDS STEUCLID AVIRVING STPURDUE STBAXTER AVROCHELLE STALBION PLVAUGHN STE DANIELS STAUBURNCREST AV! C-4DICK STEDEN AVDURY AVHAVEN STE UNIVERSITY AVE MCMILLAN STPARIS STDUNKIRK STNORWICH AVNORWICH LNKINSEY AVMCGREGOR AVBELLEVUE AVDONAHUE STMCCORMICK PLMAPLEWOOD AVLARONA AVGOODMAN AVGERARD STEHRMAN AVIRWIN PLHIGHLAND AVWILSON AVHEARNE AVSTETSON STBONFIELD DRERKENBRECHER AVBETHESDA AVWILLIAM H TAFT RDEDEN AVHELEN STNORTHERN AVALBERT SABIN WAYPIEDMONT AVSHEA PLBURNET AVMCGREGOR PLBURNET AVMORGAN STIOWA STCANYON DR! F-3 ! F-2! F-1IOWA AV##KASOTA STVERNON PLOAK ST!D-13!D-15!D-17!D-14!D-16!D-19IOWA AVEMPORIA STFOREST PARK DRFOWLER STALASKA AVJAY STCATHERINE STLINTON STMINNESOTA STWALTON AL!F-15!D-18ESSEX PLSYMMES STHARVEY AVJUNE STREADING RDFOREST AVCARPLIN PLRIDGEWAY AVHICKMAN AV!D-20ALASKA CTROCKDALE AVHICKORY STMAY STHALE AVWASHINGTON AVGLENWOOD AV#!F-10#!F-16#E MARTIN LUTHER KING JR DRTERHUNE ALALAMEDA PL!F-12BOONE STWINSLOW AVBARKER RDMAPLE AVPRESLEY AL!F-17DIX STCAMDEN AVJUNE STCROWN STWAYNE STCRANSTON ALNORWAY AVLINDSAY ALKENTON STKNOTT STSTEWART PLHOLLENDER ALE MCMILLAN STMORGAN STFARRAN ALHEMLOCK STCONCORD STGREENWOOD AVPROSPECT PLMAPLE AVVAN BUREN AV! F-11TUXEDO PLVAN ANTWERP PLWHITTIER STSTANTON AVLONDON ALIRON ALESTES PLRIDGEWAY AVCHATHAM STCOPELEN STBOGART AVOAK STFINCH ALWINDSOR STGHOLSON AVGLENMANN LNWINDHAM AVPERKINS AVBLAIR AVLINCOLN AVMELROSE AVROGERS PLEATON LNLEE PLMILTON CTFREDONIA AVBEECHER STST JAMES AVDREXEL PLBANNING ALCLEVELAND AVWEHRMAN AVLINCOLN PLROCKDALE AVGILBERT AVWILLIAM H TAFT RDCURTIS STKEMPER LNALTER PLCHALFONTE PLMANN PLLEXINGTON AVHUTCHINS AV!"a$SYRACUSE STYALE AVKERPER AVCHAPEL STCROSS LNLegendPeak Hour Turning MovementCount Location (67)# LOS A,B or C# LOS D,E or FApril 20, 20052,000 1,000 0FeetG

MALDENLINNRYANLEVINEBIDDLEI-71SAVOYBOONEMAGILLHUSTONBAYOULUMBERLARKSPURCOOKSPRING GROVEOLD LUDLOWMO NMOUTHBATESHOPPLEBADERRAMPRAM PRAMPMASSACHUSETTSDALTONWINCHELLHOWELLMARSHALLHEYWOODCOLERAINR AM PYORKI-75RAMPRAMPKENNERDU NOREBERKSHIRERUPPKOEBELLILLARDPATTERSONHALSTEADHUKILLCOLERAINWESTERNMCMICKENNAEHERHOPKINSPRIVA TEEVENINGSTARRUSHYORKDENMANKRESSKINDELBANKFREEMANI-75MORRISONLOWELLFOULKEHALLMARTAFELWARNERRAMPRA M PDECKEBACHMAGANOUS 27MCALPINKIRCHNERTAYLORCONROYATLASBAYMILLERRIDDLESTRAIGHTADARAVINECENTRALFINDLAYPOPLARWOODCORNELLTERRACECOYCLEMMERCLEARWATERCORNISELDE VOTIEYORKRAMPRAMPCLYBOURNELLOYDLYLEBURNSHERLOCKFAIRVIEWMERITDAYTONCLARKFLORAMIDDLETONEVANSW OODKEYWITTWHITFIELDWHITFIELDLIVINGSTONOLIVERWARRENLUDLOWPROBASCOVICTORRESORDI X MYTHDIGBYHORACEWADELUKEBETTONUNIVERSITYFOXEMMINGBYRONEZZARD CHARLESCUTTERKLOTTERRENNERMOHAWKC LAYERSRITTEHOUSESTRATFORDBARDJOHNSTRATFORDTELFORDCHICKASAWSTARKCHARLOTTENBELSAWORMONDCLIFTONKUHFERSROHSZIERCLIFTONWHEELEREMMINGKUHFERSEARBRANCHW E BERMILOPROVIDENCEMOUNDTRUMANCOLBYRURALLOGANLORAINESENATORM C MICKENCA MPUSWOOLPERBROOKLINEPLEASANTELM14THCALHOUNMOERLEINLYONETON ROWANWADECAMPBELLC HESTNUTCORBE T TFUGATESource: City of Cincinnati 2005CENTRALCLYMERBALLC OPARKERFENWICKSEVERNLLEGESELLEWTHUBERINPAR KDELL EVABEARCATGOOSEGLASSGREENCHARLEST ER W OODGRANTOXF ORDREPUBLICRACEOHIOJUERGENSWENTWORTHWOO D SIDEATHLETICGRAHAMKIRKOSBORNCLIFFCLIFTONCROPPERKLEINELOTHVINEIRABISHOPEASTRICEPEETERUTHERJEFFERSONCLIFFPOLKHAMERPARVISREPUBLICMULBERRYBALDWINWESTBELDAREVAN LEARMARM ETIRMADENNISMOOREPITTSHARPHUST15TH12THELKINSAPARTMENTNIXONWALNUTVINEMAINEDENMCMILLANFORESTMARTIN LUT HER KING JRUNIVERSITYDANIELSGAGEWINKLERDORSEYJACKSONLOSSINGGLENDORALANGCLAYSHIELDSVANCHARLTONCORRYHOLLISTERGOPRIORETHEGOETZLLSWAIRVINGINWOODMASONSEITZHUGHESBOWENBAXTERALMAPURDUEDICKEUCLIDAUBURNSYCAMOREDURYBOALBROADWAYEHRMANERKENBRECHERLOUISROCHELLETHILL GLENCOEBOOTSSCIOTOCHAMPIONSMEADOWDULUTHSANDERJEFFERSONVALENCIAJUSTIS14THCOURTWELLINGTONHUNTINGTONMALVERNCENTRAL14THGREARJAILBUNKERSHIRLEYNORWICHHAVENALBIONPUEBLOLIBERTYWILSONJAY13THHIGHLANDBURNETDONAHUELINCOLNBELLEVUEKINSEYHELENMCGREGORGILMANDORCHEST ERRINGGOLDSPRINGHEARNEPARISYOUNGELLANDPIEDMONTCARMALTSLACKMILTONCOURTEGGLESTONC ANYONMALLONGLENWO ODKASOTAPANZECAEUCLEDENGERARDSOUTHERNBODMANNBIGELOWSWIFTJOSEPHINELARONAPIEDMONTEARNSHAWCATLINSCHULTZSR 3G LENRIDGEBAXTEREDENGERARDSTETSONALVINCHANNINGDODTHILTONSHEAMCCORMICKEARNSHAWYOUNG12THELIJAHFOREST PARKROCKDALEBURNETRAMPOAKIOWAHARVEYCATHERINEMALINMAXWELLMORGANR YANHARVEYVERNONLINTONEMPORIADOVERRAMPELSINOREESSEXI-71 SBSYMMESEDEN PARKRAMPI-71RA M PVAN M E TERNORWAYCAMDENHICKORYPROSPECTMAPLEFOWLERIDAWA REHAMOREGONWASHINGTO NHALECARPLINRIDGEWAYBARTLEJUNERAMPWINSLOWI-71 NBKNOTTSTEWARTTERHUNEDIXPRESLEYCELESTIALMAPLEWHITTIERMAYESTESME LISHOMAHA§¨¦ I-71KENTONFLO R ENCEART MUSEUMLOUDENGHOLSONRIDGEWAYLINDSAYCRANSTONHATCHPAVILIONHEMLOCKHILLGREENWOODEATONGLENWOODTUXEDOBLAIRME LISHWAYNECONCORDMORRISPARKSIDERAMPFORT VIEWADAMSREADINGSTANTONMELROSESINTONALTERCHALFONTECHATHAMFITCHCLEVELANDFRE D ONIAFINCHFULTONMMANNLEXINGTONHUTCHINSBLAIRAR TINROCKDALEDELLWAYSY RA CUS EBEECHERROGERSWINDSORWILLIAM H TAFTNASSAUST JAMESALPINEKITTAILCURTISFRANCISCORIDGE W AYCLIF FBAINSKERPERWEHRMANOAKYALELU RA YMATHER SWALTERMONFORTSEMINARYEASTERNPARKBURTONBERESFORDYALEKEMPERLAREDOLBYRNESLINCOLNPARKWINDSORE SAKMENTORKEMPE RGOSSKEMPERGAFFHAGUEALMSMASHLANDCYPRESSCISF R ANPRESTONARFORAKERWHITLOWASHLANDIONSULSARASHLANDREDWAYMENTORVICTORYSR 3INGWINDMYRTLEBURDETTEBELLVALLEYCH A PELFLEMINGFAIRFIELDTAYLORGRANDVIEWFRAZERPLEASANTVIEWJONATHANGRANTWOODRUTHST LEGERDIXMONTDURRELLHARVARDLONGGILPINCHAPELSALUTARISHERALDINGLESIDEWOODBURNCOLUMBIA6THMOORMANLEDGEWOODBREWSTERBLAIRHACKBERRYDESALESHERALDIDLEWILDCLAREWOODDAUNERNEILSONCLAYTONGLENNMERIVALEDANARAMPHEWITTCLEINVIEWDEXTERPIPEPACIFICRAMPFAIRFIELDMADISONJOHN STONELANMCMI LSPOKANECLENEAYBROOKSI-71LEXINGTONBREWSTERI-71STACEYHURONKINNEYFAIRFAXSK EYBONDRUTLANDBONAPARTEWOLDCO LLINSSEYBOLDHUDSONCLARIONTAFTTRIMBLECRANECLAYIVANHOE7THBEVISHINESWABASHHEWITTMALORYANNWO ODGLADSTONEHUDSONCLENEAYDAYTO NEVANSTONLINDLEYWAYLANDLEXINGTONBEVISWABASHEVANSTON4THWILLIAMSREGENTCRANECOHOONREGENTCINNAMONTORREN CESPENCERELSMERELEXINGTONDUCK CREEKOBRYONHO LPOGUELAVINIAFLORALFREELANDBREENPAULGRANDINLYHAZELLILACPOTOMACVISTAIVYEAST HCONVENTFLORALGAR D ENWATERLOOSHANMOORMORTONRAMPILLEARLEBEDFORDGR A NDI NGOTHAMHUDSONRAMPGRIGGMA DISONM ARY INGLESHOFFKECKCity of CincinnatiUptown TIF DistrictsLegendTIF DistrictsAvondaleCUF / HeightsCorryvilleDowntown / OTR EastEvanstonWalnut HillsPart B Study AreaG0.2 0.1 0 0.2 0.4Miles

SAVOYCOPELENInterstate 71Access ImprovementStudyAlternative BR-1 Braided RampsAugust 17, 2006ERKENBRECHERHARVEYHALLWOODMAPLEREADINGBLAIRBLAIRPID 77628CATHERINEHALEPERKINSMILTONRIDGEWAYLegendLIMITSKASOTAHARVEYCARPLINRIDGEWAYSTEW ARTReconfigure Whittier St.RIDGEW AYRemove RR BridgeExit RampI-71 SB to MLKFREDONIADELLWAYROADWAYWHITTIERWEHRMANINTERSTATEWALLClose Van Buren,Bathgate, & MelishCul-de-sac Borrman& SavoyHARVEYVAN BURENEntrance RampMLK to I-71 NBSYRACUSEI-71I-71BRIDGEMALINVERNONBARTLEMELISHEntrance RampMLK to I-71 SBMARTIN LUTHER KING JRBATHGATEMELISHReconfigureFredonia Ave.BEECHERUNIVERSITYMAXWELLNewTuxedo Pl Overpassin lieu of Lincoln/OakLINTONRemoveLincoln AveOverpassMAYTUXEDOLINCOLNExit RampI-71 NB to MLKSTANTONMELROSE500 250 0 500FeetSource: CAGISDigitial Orthophoto 2001Street CenterlinesREADINGMORGANIOWAEMPORIAMINNESOTADOVERExit RampI-71 SB to TaftReconfigure Taft andreplace Taft OverpassMcMillan ConnectorClose Essex Pl.FOWLERESSEXBURB ANKWALTONJUNEEntrance RampTaft to I-71 SBWAYNEMINKSYMMESMONROEI-71 SBOAKI-71 NBWINSLOWRAMP TH R A M P TO W.H. TAFTTERHUNEWILLIAM H TAFTRAMP TC TO I-71 NBBOONEDIXMCGREGORJUNECROWNPRESLEYWILKINSONCRANSTONBURBANKCRANSTONMCMILLANKENTONMONROEHEMLOCKReplace or ModifyMcMillan OverpassExit RampI-71 NB to TaftRemove Oak StOverpassEntrance RampTaft to I-71 NBLINDSAYMORGANFARRANWILKINSONCONCORDIRONFLORENCEWAYNESINTONLONDONFITCHCHATHAMMcMillan ConnectorClose May St.SR 3MELROSEWINDSORFULTONOAKROGERSCURTISFRANCISC OBANNINGST JAMESK:\O\OKI\UPTOWN TRANSPORTATION MASTERPLAN\Task B-3 Analyze Alternatives\Conceptual Interchange Alternatives\ALTERNATIVES 8-17-06\BR-1\BR-1 8-17-06.mxd