Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-06 Study SessionDUBLIN CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Monday, February 27, 20Qfi 7:OQ p.m. -Council Chambers MINUTES OF MEETING Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the meeting to order. Present were Mr. Reiner, Mrs. Boring, Mr. Keenan, Ms. Salay, Mr. Lecklider and Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher. Mr. McCash was absent. Staff members present were Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Willis and Ms. Ott. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher acknowledged Robert Merkle, new Trustee of Jerome Township. Ms. Willis noted that tonight's session focuses on the I-270/US 33 Northwest Freeway Study. The study team is present and will review the status of the Major Investment Study and conceptual alternatives and particulars far some interchanges. The study team has provided a handout of the presentation, a staff report and an agenda listing the specifics of tonight's presentation. She introduced Mandy Kisling, ODOT District 6; Nick Gill of MORPC; Tim Neumann and Andy Wolpert of CH2M HILL; Bill Beelec, B&N; Marie Keester, Engaged Communications. They are seeking advice tonight on the types of questions and the community priorities to be considered throughout the MIS process. They will return in May for formal comment on the conceptual alternatives. The team is also seeking to understand Dublin's priorities so that when the conceptual alternatives phase is undertaken, Dublin's comments and priorities can be incorporated into the decision making process. Study Overview Nick Gill, Asst. Director of Transportation, MORPC, and project manager for the study for MORPC noted that he came to Council in the fall to provide an update on the status of the study. He reviewed the goals of the study -improve the operational efficiency of the freeway system and entire transportation system in the area; provide for accessibility; improve safety; enhance the quality of life through preservation of the environment and supporting economic growth; have a plan that is fiscally responsible and constructible. The process from idea stage to construction can be lengthy. ODOT has a project development process of 14 steps. This study involves the first four and began in 2003. They are currently in step 3, developing conceptual solutions to meet the transportation needs of the area. This will wrap up in the May/June timeframe with development of the strategic plan. Mandy Kisling, ODOT District 6, Transportation Engineer and co-project manager stated that in October, ODOT stepped in to expedite the project through the last two steps of the process. This study involves 25 linear miles of roadway to be improved with eight major interchanges in growth centers. The Transportation Review Advisory Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 2 Council (TRAC} fund, created by the General Assembly in 1997 is a competitive process, and TRAC funds are currently committed through 2012. TRAC is the process used to choose major new projects of over $5 million. Currently, for 2007 through 2012, the draft TRAC list includes $613 million committed for Central Ohio and $3.4 billion committed statewide. During each new round of funding, TRAC generally commits about $300 million and applications are accepted each May. During the last round, Central Ohio submitted new project funding in addition to that already committed far $403 million. Statewide, that request was $1.3 billion. In the last funding round, TRAC committed only $70.4 million for all new funding requests statewide. The reason for this is that there are $5.5 billion in projects under study -major projects that these will be competing with. Tim Neumann, CmH 2 HILL noted that they are leading steps 3 and 4 of the project. He acknowledged the project manager, Bill Beelek, B&N. He reviewed a technical presentation with Council regarding coming up with a needs assessment far the study area associated with the expected future development and its impact upon expected transportation demand. That, in turn, creates adesire/demand for additional capacity on the entire system. The focus of this study is on I-270 and US 33. They looked at a number of scenarios related to different potential highway networks. The largest defining feature was the possibility of adding new interchanges to the system. There is a potential desire for additional interchanges and this would impact the system. He stated that there are choices for the City to make. If the City wants a particular development, the intensity, location or type will produce an expected level of traffic. Then there are choices as to how well that traffic is handled. This study is intended to assist the City in that decision-making process. A fundamental choice is the level of service ar quality of traffic flow that is desired on the freeway system in year 2030, when the area has developed as the City envisions it. More freeway capacity would handle peak traffic at higher speeds producing shorter trip times, but that would involve a greater investment, including right-of-way involvement and other environmental effects. In consultation with the funding partners -the county, city and ~D~T, the desirable level of service for I-270 and US 33 was determined to be service level D. A level of service level E would be acceptable in spot locations, such as between two interchanges. He noted that there is an off-freeway network that is important and a balanced network is important -the City wants to provide sufficient capacity on and off the freeway. That involves not only the intercepting arterials, but also the parallel arterials in the study area. For year 2030, it is desirable to have intersections in the arterials that operate in a consistent manner in respect to the freeway level of service. There is no choice here, as it is known that if one segment of the system is overbuilt, traffic will flow naturally to that. The City will get a balanced system, but it would also like to have its investments balanced. There is a need to provide for transit and pedestrian activity in this process. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 3 He shared travel patterns for average daily traffic from I-270 north of US 33. The study indicates that 73 percent of the traffic entering the study area has a destination within the area. These may be regional trips, but not through trips moving outside of the Columbus area. Taking the travel demand for 2030 and the desired level of service, the corridor sizing recommendations for I-270 are 10 basic lanes -- 5 in each direction, plus 2 auxiliary lanes between all the interchanges. For the US 33 corridor sizing, the recommendation is for six basic lanes -three in each direction, plus 2 auxiliary lanes between interchanges. In addition, they reviewed a full range ofoff-system improvements in the study area, such as Avery-Muirfield Drive widening, Shier-Rings Road widening, Avery Road widening, Tuttle Crossing extension and widening, Tuttle Crossing/Casgray Road connector, and Emerald Parkway extension to Sawmill Road. The study also looked at the potential for new interchanges along I-270 and US 33. Various ideas were submitted by the stakeholders. General criteria was defined far identifying a good location for a new interchange that would: {1 } be compatible with land use development plans; {2) improve operational efficiency of the network; {3) maintain appropriate trip-making on freeways and arterials; {4) be geometrically/physically feasible; {5} have reasonable and acceptable impacts and costs; {6} be supported by appropriate local street improvements. Criterion was also identified for screening out a potential location if it: {1) overburdens the freeway {reduces the level of service and/or increases basic lane requirements); and {2) generates too many short trips on the freeway {i.e., one interchange to the next}. The M~RPC team studied 3 potential new interchange locations: {1 }Mitchell-Dewitt Road and US 33; (2} Davidson Road and I-270; and {3} Scioto-Darby Creek Road and I-270. Their analysis indicated that the first two locations merited further study, but a Scioto-Darby Creek Raad site should be eliminated from further study. Following the network analysis, the study progressed to design analysis. They considered two types of interchange design concepts and configurations -- a service interchange and a system interchange. A service interchange is located between a freeway or controlled access facility and a lower class roadway, such as an arterial or collector. A system interchange is located between two or more freeways or controlled access facilities where: all movements are unstopped; special design requirements and particular configurations apply. There are two system interchanges in this study area - I-270/1-70 and I-270/US 33. The US 33 location is unusual but not unique - to/from the west, it is a system interchange, but to/from the east, it is a service interchange, serving Dublin. Its current configuration does not fit its present function, but there are ways that can be addressed. The choices, or trade-offs, that can be made regarding the interchanges will depend upon: {1) existing conditions and constraints; {2) system considerations; (3} traffic operations and safety; (4} geometric design requirements; {5} cost/resource Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 4 requirements. Design analysis considers costs, environmental processes, right-of--way needs and local issues. The team has looked at a wide range of alternatives at each location and has attempted to identify the most appropriate concept for each interchange. Mr. Lecklider stated that during the study session presentation last summer on this issue, the consultant suggested that an example of an existing interchange concept that could also be appropriate for the Dublin location would be the I-70/1-75 interchange at Dayton. Mr. Neumann stated that there are some similarities in the sites, primarily that the existing configuration is the same - a cloverleaf interchange, and some of the problems occurring at I-70/1-75 are evident here. However, the Dublin site has more complicated issues. For instance, it has a higher volume, yet functions as a local service interchange. He requested Andy Wolpert to describe the analysis regarding two existing Dublin interchanges at I-270/US 33, US 33/Avery-Muirfield Road, and a potential interchange at US 33/Mitchell-Dewitt. Andy Wolpert, CH2M HILL, stated that the problems with the I-270/US 33 interchange are: (1) a weaving problem due to the cloverleaf configuration, and (2} on exiting, there is an unexpected stop light, for which drivers tend not to slow down. The section of US 33 between I-270 and the Frantz Road intersection has the highest crash rate of any freeway segment in the study area. The I-270/US 33 interchange itself has the second highest crash rate in the study area. Mrs. Boring inquired why that could not have been predicted with the initial design of the interchange. Mr. Neumann responded that many years ago, the cloverleaf was the premier interchange design. The positive attributes of that design are that the driver need not stop to navigate it, and it is only two levels, which are relatively flat and relatively inexpensive. The negative attributes are that it requires a substantial amount of land, and it cannot handle 150,000 vehicles/day freeway traffic, which is occurring today. The design was adequate for its time, but it has "outlived its usefulness." Mrs. Boring inquired if steps are being taken with this study to ensure that the design of anew interchange today will not be inadequate to the needs of the community in 30 years. Mr. Wolpert responded that the team has been working with City staff and ODOT staff to develop alternatives that will eliminate those problems. He reviewed the alternatives developed for the I-270/US 33 intersection. One objective was to distinguish an exit from US 33 to enter Dublin -- traveling south on US 33, there would be no choice other than I-270S or I-270N. US 33 would be four lanes from Avery-Muirfield into Dublin, Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 5 and an additional lane would be added to the I-270 exit ramps to US 33W to eliminate the traffic stacking that is occurring at peak hours at those locations. Discussion continued regarding movement on US 33 from Avery-Muirfield Drive. The exit to US 33 east would be lower than the exit to I-270 south or east. The left lane of US 33 would be in the correct position to exit to I-270. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Avery-Muirfield traffic exiting to US 33 would encounter an immediate need to move to the left lane to exit to I-270. Mrs. Boring stated that one weave movement is being eliminated but another created. Ms. Kisling responded that the distance is more than 2,500 feet and a weave is 2,500 feet or less, but this configuration would create a need to weave. However, the current congestion on US 33 will also be eliminated, thereby increasing the driver maneuverability distance. This will make it easier than it is at the present to make the movement from the Avery-Muirfield exit to the US 33 and I-270 exits. ~D~T does not incorporate inside merges, so they would never take a ramp from Avery-Muirfield to the middle of the highway. Over the years, they have established a standard of coming from the left. Changing that driver expectation would create a serious safety issue. It is important to look at the entire picture, including a decrease in congestion and improvement in driving speeds and drive times. Mr. Keenan inquired if this would be similar to the Easton section of I-270, which was recently constructed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in that location, the driver is actually on the freeway when making that movement. US 33 is not a freeway, although this could transform it into one. Mrs. Boring stated that she would appreciate any information regarding different elevations. It would help her to understand the plan. I-270/US 33 Conceptual Interchange Alternatives Mr. Wolpert explained the levels in this alternative, beginning at the top. Traveling westbound on US 33, there would be ramps leading to the highest level of the configuration -- third-level structures to I-270 south and to I-270 north -which would be over existing US 33. Traveling eastbound on US 33, traffic movement would be on a second level structured above an exit to Historic Dublin. The purpose of the two levels is to clearly identify an exit from the freeway to enter the business district. Making drivers aware that they are leaving the freeway will reduce traffic speeds approaching the Past Road/Frantz Raad intersection. Mr. Neumann noted that there would be two important trade-offs: (1 } a cloverleaf intersection is two levels and it has weaving problems. To solve the weaving problems, Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 6 it is necessary to physically separate the two movements, lifting one above the other. The result is a multi-level interchange. The I-70/1-75 interchange is multi-level. {2} With the exception of the land in the southwest quadrant, this layout is basically within the existing footprint of the US 33 interchange. To compress everything within a footprint, it is essential to place a movement up in the air. There are other alternatives that involve different sets of physical trade-offs to accomplish the same thing. The alternative just described is actually over three levels, not quite four. Mr. Reiner inquired why ODOT constructed diamond interchanges at Tuttle Crossing Boulevard and Polaris. They were simple and less expensive to build, but additional land acquisition will now be required to address the problems that are being experienced at those interchanges. Ms. Kisling responded that there is an interchange modification study process that must be followed by developers who propose a concept for a new interchange. That process can only address the data provided. Unfortunately, traffic volume forecasts for developing a new area can be incorrect. The MIS projections for Polaris were not correct. Tight diamond interchanges in urban areas often fail. Mr. Neumann stated that part of the decision-making process for interchanges is the trade-off that occurs between identifying right-of-way needs and attempts to fit the interchange design within a certain amount of right-of-way. He is not certain of Ohio's practice, but generally speaking, there is an organizational bias with state Departments of Transportation to avoid purchasing right-of-way. That is not necessarily wrong, as the funding comes from the tax base. The attempt is made to maximize the existing right-of--way. It is important to make good decisions with the interchange currently considered, as those decisions are being made for people in the future. Mrs. Boring responded that is the reason Council is cautious with a plan of this magnitude in terms of its importance for the community. Past experience shows that the numbers used have often been incorrect. With the degree of development projected in the Polaris area, it would seem that common sense would have directed a different interchange design, even if the numbers provided did not. Does ODOT ever use a common sense approach and question the data when planning for areas of such potential growth? Ms. Kisling stated that at Polaris there were signals to coordinate, heavy turn volumes and heavy traffic movement. There is a major advantage in evaluating this interchange. It is full directional -the movements can free flaw as long as the system is working. There are na diamonds proposed in this study, with the exception of the interchange at SR 42. Mr. Neumann stated that he disagrees with some of the previous discussion. The forecast is a reflection of projected land development decisions. Subsequent Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 7 development over the next 30 years can, however, result in a much different situation than anticipated. The technical process of translating anticipated development into projected traffic needs is an advanced science with little controversy. The controversy arises when the study assumes a certain level of land development type, distribution and intensity, and it doesn't occur. There is a challenge in this type of transportation planning. The planners give it their best shot, and then must assume all the regional players will follow through. Ms. Kisling stated that at the end of this process, one absolute alternative will not be selected. In approximately five years, there will be a formal interchange modification study, which will evaluate the changes in land use. The numbers will be refined and the needed lane power identified. There will be future opportunity to refine the interchange plans. Mr. Neumann noted that the consultants have identified Alternative 4 as the best solution. It illustrates trade-offs other than those described in Alternative 1. Mr. Wolpert noted that Alternative 3 is a variation of Alternative 1. It is fully directional and eliminates the loop in the southwest quadrant, which could create issues at the Frantz/Post Road interchange. Alternative 4 is a turbine design with the loop in the southwest quadrant. It has many of the characteristics of Alternative 1 but involves a much larger area. This type of interchange is much easier to construct in phases. It is multi-level. On I-270, moving north to the westbound movement, the ramp is above US 33. Mr. Neumann stated that these alternatives are flatter, the ramps are further apart and there is more room for traffic to negotiate. The structure is approximately 2.5 levels. The higher level bridges will not be necessary, which tend to be costly. There are some right-of--way needs, however. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if I-270 north traffic exits in one lane and then moves either east or west. Mr. Wolpert responded that two lanes exit I-270, and both can move to the west. The outside lane can also move to the east. Mr. Neumann noted that these designs have been reviewed by UDUT staff. There will be more design development. There has been discussion among the technical participants regarding the needed size of the ramps. The bigger the ramp, the better traffic flows and the more right-of-way is needed. When the land is available, the natural inclination is to take more land. It will then be possible to save money on retaining walls and bridges. That may be a future issue to address. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 8 Mr. Reiner stated that it will not be a critical issue. The goal is to meet the long-term traffic needs of the community. Ms. Kisling noted that this footprint has the opportunity to expand slightly. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that this alternative has more encroachment on the Clarion Hotel. Mr. Wolpert stated that because it does, a retaining wall would be necessary. It would be needed with the other alternative, also. He noted that a phasing diagram for Alternative 4 has been provided. ODOT prefers to break the multi-million dollar project down into smaller components. Mr. Neumann noted that this is an advantage of Alternative 4 over Alternative 1. It would be mare difficult to build the multi-level ramps over US 33 in different phases. It would need to be completed as one large project. Alternative 4 could be built in 3 phases, and each could operate independently of the other phase. Ms. Kisling noted that phasing is better from the traffic management perspective. It would provide the opportunity to remove the heaviest movements from the interchange until the other phases come online. Mr. Lecklider inquired if Alternative 1 does not allow far phasing. Mr. Neumann responded that it would be more difficult. How that would be done has not been studied, but because the structure must cross over the existing road, phase one would be more expensive than phase one of Alternative 4. Mr. Hammersmith noted that the cost of Alternative 1 would be more if completed in phases. Avery-Muirfield Drive Conceptual Interchange Alternatives Mr. Walpert stated that the existing Avery-Muirfield interchange is an A/B configuration: a loop is in the A approach to the intersection and a loop is in B, beyond the intersection. This alternative utilizes the existing loops. It also has a dual entrance for eastbound traffic, a separate exit for traffic moving south on Avery-Muirfield. The existing loop can be used to move traffic north on Avery-Muirfield. One problem with this interchange is the signals at the ramp terminals are 3-phase signals: phase 1 - a protected left turn to US 33; phase 2 -through traffic; and phase 3 -off traffic utilizes the existing loop. Alternative 1 The desire is to eliminate the left turn phase. The left-turn movement is replaced by an entrance ramp to US 33West. There would be a right-of-way impact with this alternative. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 9 Mr. Reiner stated that the biggest problem on US 33 is the stacking that is occurring on westbound US 33 at Avery-Muirfield for the northbound turn traffic. The traffic backed out onto US 33 is at risk. How would that be alleviated? Mr. Wolpert responded that eliminating one phase would allow more time to be dedicated to cycling traffic north on Avery-Muirfield. The ramp would also be further extended to provide more storage capacity, and three additional lanes would be added at the ramp. There will be six lanes -two lefts, two throughs to the future hospital, and two rights. Mr. Keenan stated that traffic turning northbound on Avery-Muirfield is required to make weaving movements to reach destination points. It is often necessary to sit through 3 light changes to move through that intersection. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the issue will be that to solve the very problem Mr. Keenan described, traffic will use the two dedicated turn lanes for the hospital to move out of the intersection and then turn on Perimeter and into the Kroger parking lot. Dublin needs to rethink how to redistribute the retail-bound traffic. Ms. Willis stated that the hospital site plan provides connectivity between the eastern end of the hospital parking lot and the Kroger parking lot. Ms. Salay stated that, as she's indicated previously, she does not understand why extensive improvements are being made to the Post Road intersection while nothing is planned for Perimeter and Perimeter Loop. The latter is where the problems are. Ms. Willis responded that those two intersections work together. Improvements are planned for those intersections for years 2011 and 2012. Ms. Salay responded that timeframe seems inappropriate. The improvements should be completed by 2007, when the hospital is scheduled to open. The need will be immediate. Ms. Willis responded that the left-bound ingress lane to the hospital will separate and remove the hospital traffic from the Avery-Muirfield Drive. Mr. Reiner inquired if the option of directing the hospital traffic under the existing roadway to the hospital was considered. Mr. Wolpert responded that a tunnel under the road would be cost prohibitive. There would also be serious site issues. Alternative 2 Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Wolpert stated that the configuration on the north side of US 33 is the same as with Alternative 1. The difference is that the existing loop in the southeast quadrant would be removed and a loop added in the southwest quadrant. The left turn is eliminated from southbound Avery-Muirfield. The left turn movement would move to the right and onto the loop to US 33. Mr. Neumann noted that another advantage of this alternative is that the traffic would be entering US 33 east from separate entrance ramps, so traffic will distribute itself in a better manner. Mr. Keenan inquired if southbound Avery-Muirfield traffic turning east on US 33 is backing up at 10:00 and 11:00 pm. The traffic signal is still turning red to allow northbound traffic to turn, and there is no northbound traffic. Could the light be timed differently at night? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if the new ramp would be a higher level. Mr. Wolpert responded that it would not. This configuration works the best; however, it would necessitate right-of--way of commercial property. Mrs. Boring inquired if a SPUI design would be an option. Mr. Wolpert responded that a single point urban interchange would not work well at this location. There are many turning movements at this site, which would necessitate a wide structure. There would be significant right-of--way implications. Also, the traffic signals would need to be set back far enough from each other to allow sufficient ability and time for traffic to move through the intersection. Mr. Neumann noted that Alternative 2 will have the highest capacity. Any diamond configuration, single, conventional or tight will have less capacity, but would take less right-of--way. A ramp terminal intersection operated with only a 2-phase light is the most efficient, and two entrance ramps to US 33 would facilitate the traffic movement. Mrs. Boring stated that, unfortunately, the right-of-way take is more significant. Mr. Neumann responded that the purpose of this meeting is to obtain Council's feedback concerning the alternatives, not to make a decision. If there is an alternative that is much less desirable, perhaps because of the right-of--way issue, another alternative would be considered. Mr. Reiner stated that the primary goal is the best solution for the majority of the citizens. Does the government participate in the acquisition of the right-of-way? Mr. Hammersmith responded that they would participate. Mr. Lecklider requested that Alternative 2 not be ruled out as an option. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 11 Mr. Neumann stated that if this were to become one component of the project, it would be decided at a later time. Ms. Salay stated that changes at the intersection of Shier Rings and Old Avery Road area also being considered. Ms. Willis responded that the redirection of Old Avery Road and the intersection of Shier Rings would support the interchange footprints provided today. Mitchell-DeWitt Interchange Mr. Wolpert stated that they have worked with Union County the last few months, Steve Stolte, Union County Engineer in particular. There is no existing interchange. They also attempted to meet the needs of the county when developing alternatives. Alternative 4 utilizes the existing crossroad at Mitchell-DeWitt. There would be an extension of Mitchell-DeWitt up to McKitrick Road. The majority of the traffic that will be using this interchange will be coming from the north. The traffic volume at this interchange is significantly lower than the other intersections, so a diamond configuration is acceptable. In the northeast quadrant, there is the possibility of a First Energy substation. The County will be discussing that with First Energy, so perhaps a different location will be selected. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she understood that the numbers used are from the far northwest. Mr. Wolpert agreed that it correct. Mr. Hammersmith inquired how far north the area of influence extends. Mr. Wolpert responded it would extend north to the point where the choice would then be to use SR 42, and then it would extend more to the east. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council is concerned about a proposed development plan under discussion that would extend up to Brock Road where there is the potential for thousands of residences and some commercial development. A large portion of that area could be within the Dublin School District and therefore, the residents would be driving south. Once traveling south to the schools, they could continue south for other destinations. This recommendation would not appear adequate to handle additional traffic generated from that scale of development. Mr. Wolpert stated that the traffic forecast has been generated based upon the anticipated land uses in the MORPC model. Based on those numbers, the diamond configuration would be more than adequate. Mrs. Boring responded the MORPC model does not acknowledge the dynamics of that proposed development. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 12 Mr. Hammersmith noted that MORPC does not include the land uses in the comprehensive plans of the townships. They incorporate only what has been established in their models. Ms. Salay noted the paint is "if you build it, they will come." She cited Polaris as an example. It is important to learn from past mistakes, and say "enough is enough." Mr. Keenan stated that there is a lot of opposition between the developers and the local residents who do not want to see high densities. The comprehensive plans generally reflect the residents' desires which do not reflect what, in reality, occurs. It is quite clear that a level of development is Gaming to that corridor that will impact everyone. Ms. Salay noted that the sewer service will be available to that area once Marysville constructs its sewer plant. Mr. Hammersmith stated that a forum for discussing this issue now exists, and that is within the US 33 Corridor group. Alternative 6 Mr. Wolpert noted that this alternative shows the crossroad to north of the Mitchell- Dewitt overpass. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this alternative takes the provisions of Alternative 4 and moves it substantially northwest. Where is the northwest traffic coming from? Mr. Wolpert responded that it is the same tie-in point with a 90-degree angle within a bigger footprint. The key is that the area has been identified where the interchange should go. It would be a good location for an interchange. If the volume of traffic materializes that is anticipated, the site is identified including the right-of--way impacts. Modifications can be made to that in the future, as the project progresses. Mr. Reiner inquired if the land availability has been preserved. Wlhat guarantee is there that the City will have access to that land in 3 to 12 years? Mr. Wolpert responded that the county is aware of the area that will be impacted. Mr. Neumann stated that it is necessary to move forward to the point in the project development process where the environmental document is developed. A decision has been made as to the actual plan. Then there is a defined right-of-way. Then the question becomes whether to acquire the land. Ms. Kisling stated that is when the right-of--way has already been guaranteed. The question is how the City can retain that right-of--way over the next few years while waiting to see if the projects actually materialize. There are no guarantees; however, it is important to communicate with the townships, counties, municipalities and ODOT to be aware of what is coming. The only control the City has is through zoning, cooperation and communication. ODOT does have certain processes whereby they can preserve right-of-way when they know expansion will be coming, and that is Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 13 through their Thoroughfare Plan. The plan is introduced to the townships, and hopefully they preserve those areas when the surrounding parcels are developed. Mr. Lecklider inquired about the I-270/US 33 interchange. Does the first alternative have any greater long-term prospects in terms of efficiency and capacity compared to the others? Mr. Neumann stated that they are operationally similar. There is no weaving; they all have spacing, multi-lane entrances and exits. Only the geometry of the designs is different. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired how the interchanges relate to one another. If the City previously selected Alternative 1, what alternative should be selected next to maximize the greatest efficiencies between interchanges? Mr. Neumann stated that in respect to what has been shown tonight, the ramp tie-ins are in approximately the same location. The Avery-Muirfield interchange would probably work the best. The more important issue is probably which will be done first. If there is an issue with funding, should the first project be US 33 orAvery-Muirfield? Mr. Lecklider stated that at this juncture, he prefers Alternative 1 for US 3311-270. In terms of a larger footprint or elevating the interchange, he would prefer elevation for a variety of reasons, including the preservation of the northwest parcel. It is a more compact design. Mrs. Boring disagreed, stating that the impact during construction is more critical. Ms. Salay agreed that the impact is important. However, if short-term "pain" would bring a greater long-term gain, that is even mare significant. Mr. Hammersmith inquired if it would be beneficial for Council to have cost comparisons on phasing and a summary of the benefits of phasing. Ms. Salay responded that if phasing were to be more beneficial to the public and more feasible financially, that would be an important consideration. Mr. Neumann stated that at this point they have not developed cost comparisons, but the multi-level structure would be the more expensive alternative. That would be a consideration of ODOT. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that at this point she does not have enough information regarding phasing and cost comparisons to have an opinion. She would definitely consider phasing, however, due to the recent experience in constructing the roundabout at SR 745 and Brand Road. The level of traffic there is nothing compared to the level of traffic at the US 3311-270 interchange, yet the citizens were very upset Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 14 with that situation. While it may not drive the final decision, a significant factor is the volume of traffic that will be passing through that interchange in 5-10 years, which is when this project would occur. Phasing may become even mare important in maintaining traffic movement during construction. Mrs. Boring stated that she assumes one alternative has not been recommended over the other. as the outcome would be the same. Ms. Kisling responded that there are tradeoffs between the alternatives, and those will be explored in the major planning study. Tonight, the intent was not to obtain a preference from Council, nor will that be an outcome of the study, which should be completed in May/June '06. All of the issues are being considered from a big picture perspective at this point. Once the individual project components are defined, that is when constructability, phasing, and other issues will be addressed. They do want to make certain they are aware of the issues for the City of Dublin, and Council is providing valuable feedback regarding those priorities. Mr. Neumann stated that regarding the US 33/1-270 interchange, Council has a fundamental understanding of what the project would accomplish. And, if all the interchange options were overlaid, Council now has aright-of-way footprint and a construction cost estimate that would encompass them all. As the City moves forward in land planning and development decisions, as long at the footprint is preserved, those options will be open whenever the project should develop. Mr. Reiner inquired if ODOT has any projections of when the project might happen. Ms. Kisling responded that TRAC funding is necessary for the project and the potential funding has been discussed internally. TRAC funds are committed through year 2012. The team anticipates meeting the May deadline to submit far 2013 TRAC funding. That seems a long time off, but projects are often expedited. There are large developments occurring in Union County that can impact this project. Anything that is development driven will come to the forefront. Projecting the timing of when ODOT funds will be committed is not within her field of expertise, however, so she will defer making a projection tonight. The present goal is to apply for 2013 TRAC funding. After the strategic plan is developed, ODOT will begin to look at internal funding from a district standpoint. Mr. Reiner stated that there are issues involved with the necessary land acquisition. Ms. Kisling responded that ODOT is even more limited. Until the plan has been identified, ODOT is required to adhere to constraints of the Uniform Act to Acquire Right of Way. Sometimes, pre-acquisition is possible. It has occurred for I-70 and I-71 when the plans have reached an advanced stage. Mrs. Boring inquired if the City Planning Department would now incorporate this footprint into its planning and development review. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 15 Mr. Hammersmith responded that the City would be mindful of the plans for this interchange. It is most critical to be included on ODOT's list and become competitive with the other projects. Much development will occur between now and 2013. Ms. Salay stated that at the beginning of the presentation, mention was made of other areas of study of significance to Dublin. Have modifications to the Tuttle Crossing interchange been considered? Mr. Wolpert responded that alternatives for Tuttle Crossing have been developed. Ms. Salay stated that she is certain all of Council would be interested in reviewing similar information on that interchange, which is also a significant interchange in this area. Mr. Wolpert responded that he has copies of the concept plans for those alternatives with him, which he will leave for Council. Mr. Gill summarized the next steps. In March, they will refine the concepts and feedback received from the various jurisdictions. In April, they will develop the strategic plan. This will include identifying the projects that can move through the rest of the process independently; identifying the projects that would be phased; and prioritizing the projects within the corridor. On May 9, an open house is scheduled to review the final concepts in the strategic plan and to receive Council's feedback on the plan. Also in May, TRAC project applications will be submitted. In June, the final strategic plan and report will be submitted to MORPC for adoption. After the adoption, ODOT and MORPC will work with the local jurisdictions on planning the individual projects. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked everyone for sharing information on a transportation project of great priority to Council. The City has been fortunate to have the financial means to implement measures to move traffic more efficiently within its borders. Council looks forward to receiving the additional information on phasing and costs and to working with ODOT and MORPC on these projects. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session for discussion of a personnel matter. She noted that the meeting would be reconvened only to formally adjourn. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote an the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Baring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 9:06 p.m. The meeting was reconvened and formally adjourned at 10 p.m. Dublin City Council Study Session Monday, February 27, 2006 Page 16 Clerk of Council