27-03 Resolution
RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS
Dayton Legal Blank Co., Form No. 30045
!i
i 27-03
Ii Resolution No. .. Passed ......
I ............., YE.....R
=-c=~:===--====-===lJ=
Ii
! A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE MID-OHIO REGIONAL
PLANNING COMMISSION TO UNDERTAKE THE 1-270
WEST OUTERBEL TIU.S. 33 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY (MIS) TO
DEVELOP A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR NORTHWEST AREA FREEWAYS
AND SUPPORTING ARTERIAL ROADS AND ALTERNATIVE MODES
WHEREAS, officials from the cities of Columbus, Dublin, and Hilliard, the Franklin
County Engineer's Office, the Union County Engineer's Office, the Ohio Department of
Transportation and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission have identified the
need to improve the transportation system in the northwest portion of Franklin County
and other nearby areas, but especially 1-270 north from 1-70 to U.S. 33 west from 1-270;
and
WHEREAS, the above mentioned agencies have agreed to a cost, funding shares and
schedule for the MIS, to participate in the conduct of the study, and to provide funding to
undertake the study; and
WHEREAS, the Community Plan promotes working cooperatively with surrounding
jurisdictions to promote regional transportation planning and programming.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State
of Ohio, & of the elected members concurring that:
Section 1. The City Manager be, and hereby, is authorized to execute on behalf of the
City of Dublin the Agreement between the City of Dublin and Mid-Ohio Regional
Planning Commission attached hereto.
Section 2. That this Resolution is for the preservation of public health, safety, and
welfare and shall take effect and be in full force from the earliest date permitted by law.
Passed this CJ1L. day of r- ,2003.
ATTEST:
~ C-~
Clerk of Council
I hereby certify that copIes of this
Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the
City of Dublin in accordance with Section
731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code,
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald. Dublin, OH 43017
CITY OF DUBLIN Phone: 614-410-4400 · Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager ~6. ~ ~ I
Date: June 4, 2003 ~~
Initiated By: Paul A. Hammersmith, P.E., Director of Engineering/City Engineer ~6...-<-
Barbara A. Cox, P.E., Interim Assistant Director of Engineering - Developmentl(}o+-
Re: 1-270 West Outerbelt/U.S. 33 Major Investment Study (MIS)
Agreement with the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC)
Resolution No. 27-03
Summary:
The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission has requested the cooperation of the City of Dublin
to undertake a Major Investment Study. This plan will develop a stratefic plan for the northwest
area freeways, supporting arterial roads and alternative modes oftransportaion. In particular, the
study will determine long-term mobility solutions for the 1-270 west outerbelt area (mainline and
interchanges included between 1-70 and SR 161IUS 33) and the US 33 freeway from 1-270 west to
US 42. The focus will be the freeway and interchange operations solutions, which allows for
planning of future interchange sturdies and detailed design.
MORPC has requested that several other agencies be involved and partner in the funding of the
study. The level of monetary participation for each agency is as follows:
Agency Funding Percent Agency Funding Percent
Dublin $130,000 6.4% Union Co. Engineer $20,000 1.0%
Columbus $100,000 5.0% MORPC $800,000 39.6%
Hilliard $80,000 4.0% ODOT $825,000 40.8%
Franklin Co. Engineer $65,000 3.2% Total $2,020,000 100%
MORPC will manage consultants for part of the study and will do any of the other work involved.
The study will follow the ODOT current multi-step Transprotation Development Process and will
require cooperation of all agencies for the study to be done in an efficient and effective manner.
Recommendation:
Staff is requesting Council approval of Resolution 27-03 authorizing the City Manager to enter into
and agreement between the City of Dublin and Mid-Ohio Reginonal Planning Commission to
undertake the 1-270 West OuterbeltlUs 33 Major Investement Study.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
the
CITY OF DUBLIN
and
MID-OHIO REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
to
UNDERTAKE THE 1-270 WEST OUTERBELT/US 33 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY
(MIS) TO DEVELOP A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR NORTHWEST AREA FREEWAYS
AND SUPPORTING ARTERIAL ROADS AND ALTERNATIVE MODES
This agreement entered into this day of May, 2003, by and between
the City of Dublin ("City") and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission ("MORPC")
to perform transportation planning services including management of consulting
services;
WHEREAS, officials from the cities of Columbus, Dublin, and Hilliard, the Franklin
County Engineer's Office, the Union County Engineer's Office, the Ohio Department of
Transportation (ODOT) and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission have identified
the need to improve the transportation system in the northwest portion of Franklin
County and other nearby areas, but especially 1-270 north from 1-70 to US 33 and US 33
west from 1-270; and
WHEREAS, the above mentioned agencies have agreed to a cost, funding shares and
schedule for this MIS, to participate in the conduct of the study, and to provide funding to
undertake the study; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreement
hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto legally intending to be bound hereby, do agree
for themselves and their respective successors and assign, as follows:
I. MORPC Scope of Services
A. Conduct of the 1-270 West Outerbelt/US 33 MIS
For general scope of work to be addressed see Appendix I. MORPC will
coordinate with the city as outlined in the Partnering Agreement in
Appendix II.
B. Time of Performance
This agreement will take effect immediately upon the signature of both
parties and will continue until the completion of the professional services,
which will extend no longer than a 24 month period.
C. Compensation and Method of Payment
The City agrees to pay MORPC for its actual costs, including fringe
benefits, indirect, and other direct expenses including consulting services
not to exceed $130,000.
1-270/US 33 MIS - City of Dublin Contract page 1 of 4
MORPC will invoice the City $13,000 per month for each of 10 months
commencing June 15\ 2003. The City will pay invoices within 30 days of
receipt thereof.
D. Changes
Changes in the terms and conditions of this contract, including any
increase or decrease in the amount of compensation, shall be by
agreement of the parties in writing to an amendment of this contract.
E. Conflicts of Interest
MORPC covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire
any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or
degree with the performance of services required by this contract, and
that no person having any such interest shall be employed by MORPC.
F. Termination
Either party may terminate this agreement upon 30 days written notice.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands on the dates
written below.
MID-OHIO REGIONAL PLANNING
CITY OF DUBLIN COMMISSION
Mayor William C. Habig
Executive Director
Date Date
City Manager Carl Styers
Finance Director
Date Date
1-270/US 33 MIS - City of Dublin Contract page 2 of 4
APPENDIX I
1-270/US 33 MIS - City of Dublin Contract page 3 of 4
APPENDIX II
1-270/US 33 MIS - City of Dublin Contract page 4 of 4
ODOT Agreement No.
Partnering Agreement among the City of Columbus,
the City of Dublin, the City of Hilliard,
the Franklin County Engineer's Office, the Union County Engineer's Office,
the State of Ohio, Department of Transportation (ODOT) and
the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC)
to Undertake the 1-270 West OuterbeltlUS 33 Major Investment Study (MIS) to
Develop a Strategic Plan for Northwest Area Freeways and
Supporting Arterial Roads and Alternative Modes
I. PURPOSE
Officials from the cities of Columbus, Dublin and Hilliard, the Franklin County Engineer's Office,
the Union County Engineer's Office, the State of Ohio, Department of Transportation (ODOT)
and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC), hereinafter shown collectively as
the "AGENCIES" or individually as "AGENCY," have identified the need to improve the
transportation system in the northwest portion of Franklin County and other nearby areas, but
especially 1-270 northwest from 1-70 to US 33 and US 33 west from 1-270 to US 42, hereinafter
called the Major Investment Study (MIS).
In recognition of this, the Policy Committee of MORPC by Resolution T-1 0-02 adopted the FY
2003 Planning Work Program (PWP), which included Work Element Number 66520 - 1-270
West Outerbelt/US 33 MIS, and through the SFY 2002-2005 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) funded this work element and modified its funding by Resolution T-12-01 and
Resolution T -19-02.
This Partnering Agreement between the AGENCIES outlines the general areas of responsibility
for the activities associated with the MIS. The AGENCIES have agreed to facilitate
cooperation, coordination and communication among them to achieve effective and efficient
performance and completion of the MIS with outcomes that will be satisfactory to each
AGENCY and within budget and on schedule.
Towards this purpose, the AGENCIES have agreed to the estimated cost of the MIS, to funding
shares among the AGENCIES, and the schedule for this MIS. Although the AGENCIES have
agreed to participate, and to encourage their respective legislative bodies and chief executives
to provide their share of the funding to undertake the MIS and to allow full participation on the
parts of their staffs, this Agreement constitutes solely a guide to the intention and policies of the
parties involved and is not a legally binding contract. It is not intended to be used by one party
to provide relief to the other from the requirements of any applicable local, State, or Federal law,
or to authorize funding or project effort.
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The AGENCIES agree to undertake the MIS with the primary objective to develop long-
term mobility solutions for the 1-270 West Outerbelt area including the US 33 freeway
west of 1-270 to US 42. A focus of the MIS would be the freeway and interchange
operations, thus laying the plan for future interchange specific studies and detailed
design. The solutions would primarily be developed to improve the freeway and
interchange operations.
Page 1 of 5
2. The study will be consistent with ODOT's current multi-step Transportation Development
Process to ensure its recommendations can be funded from ODOT controlled sources.
The work to be undertaken will be as described in "West Outerbelt Study Scope, Version
7" (attached).
3. The appropriate staff from each AGENCY will participate fully in the MIS to ensure its
conduct in a manner and to standards that will result in a product that will be endorsed
and implemented as funding and conditions permit. This participation will include:
a. Participation in a Steering Committee to be formed to procure the consultant and to
oversee the study.
b. Participation in the Stakeholders Committee to ensure the results of the study meet
the needs and expectations of the community.
c. Timely review of interim and final products of the MIS to ensure their accuracy and
usefulness.
d. Communicating the progress of the MIS regularly, including its status and results to
other staff of the AGENCY, and its chief executive and legislative body.
e. Identifying appropriate individuals and entities that should be advised of the study,
and to assist MORPC and the consultants to appropriately include them in the public
involvement process.
4. On behalf of and under the guidance of the Steering Committee, MORPC will engage
and manage consultants to undertake portions of the MIS. MORPC will undertake the
remainder of the MIS.
5. The AGENCIES agree to fully review the scope of work, 'West Outerbelt Study Scope,
Version 7" (attached), to ensure that all of the potential issues of concern to each
AGENCY are included. Changes to the scope after the consultant is procured may
result in the need for additional resources to be provided by the AGENCY requesting the
scope addition, if warranted.
6. The funding to be provided by each AGENCY is as follows:
Phase 1 (February, 2003)
City of Dublin $ 130,000
Franklin County 65,000
Union County 10,000
MORPC STP 800,000
Subtotal Phase 1 $1,005,000
Page 2 of 5
Phase 2 (January, 2004)
City of Hilliard $ 80,000
City of Columbus 100,000
Union County 10,000
OOOT District 6 505,000
OOOT SPR 320,000
Subtotal Phase 2 $1,015,000
TOTAL Funds $2,020,000
7. A separate Agreement will be executed between MORPC and each AGENCY to secure
its financial participation. As part of the separate Agreement, each AGENCY will be
required to reimburse MORPC its actual expenses up to the limit established in Number
6 above. The staff of each AGENCY will work with its legislative body and chief
executive to make its funding available beginning the end of the month shown in Number
6 above.
8. The AGENCIES agree that if any party determines that it can no longer be responsible
for, or cannot make funding available for, the activities as set forth in this Agreement, it
shall notify the other parties of its decision, and its responsibility for performing such
activity and/or for funding shall terminate immediately. The termination of an activity or
funding by a party does not obligate the other parties to perform or fund such activity.
9. The AGENCIES agree that if, for any reason, any party determines that the continuation
of this Agreement in its entirety is no longer feasible or advisable for their respective
AGENCY, that party may terminate this Agreement with 90 days written notice to the
other parties.
10. This agreement shall be effective for each party on the day on which the party signs and
shall expire on June 30, 2003. This agreement shall automatically renew under the
same terms and conditions for one successive two-year period and shall remain in full
force and effect b between the parties until the MIS is completed.
11. This Agreement, and any renewal thereof, is subject to the determination by the State
that sufficient funds have been appropriated by the Ohio General Assembly to the State
for the purpose of this Agreement and to the certification of funds by the Office of Budget
and Management, as required by Ohio Revised Code, Section 126.07. If the State
determines that sufficient funds have not been appropriated for the purpose of the
Agreement or if the Office of Budget and Management fails to certify the availability of
funds, this Agreement or any renewal thereof will terminate on the date funding expires.
12. Any changes or modifications to this Agreement shall be made and agreed to in writing
by all parties.
Page 3 of 5
13. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in several counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute the one and the
same agreement.
14. Any person executing this Agreement in a representative capacity hereby warrants that
he/she has been duly authorized by his/her principal to execute this Agreement on such
principal's behalf.
15. In witness thereof, all AGENCIES agree by attesting their signatures as follows:
(REMAINDER OF PAGE
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
Page 4 of 5
CITY OF COLUMBUS CITY OF DUBLIN
By: Linda K. Page By: Frank Ciarochi
Public Service Director Development Director
Date: Date:
CITY OF HILLIARD FRANKLIN COUNTY ENGINEER
By: Clark Rausch By: Dean C. Ringle
Deputy City Engineer County Engineer
Date: Date:
UNION COUNTY ENGINEER STATE OF OHIO
Department of Transportation
By: Steve A. Stolte By: Gordon Proctor
County Engineer Director
Date: Date:
MID-OHIO REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
By: William C. Habig
Executive Director
Date:
By: Carl Styers
Finance Director
Date:
O:\MIS\1270-US33NW\Contracts\Partnering - Local Agreement\Partner Agrmt 270-33 v5.doc
Page 5 of 5
1-270 West Outerbelt and US 33 Northwest
Major Investment Study Scope
(Draft 02December10)
Study Objective
The primary objective is to develop long-term mobility solutions for the 1-270 West Outerbelt
area including the US 33 freeway west of 1-270 to US 42. A focus of the study would be the
freeway and interchange operations, thus laying the plan for future interchange specific studies
and detailed design. The solutions would primarily be developed to improve the freeway and
interchange operations. The solutions would range from policy strategies for land use, activities
to negate the need to travel, transit enhancements, collector and arterial improvements, and
freeway and interchange improvements. The study would perform assessments of small-scale
improvements such as signal timing, access control and ramp meters as well as higher cost
lane additions. These assessments would concentrate on improvements to facilities that most
directly serve the mobility needs of the corridor's traffic, especially the freeways. The project
would also identify cost and implementation processes to accomplish acceptable mobility for the
area.
Background
A number of issues within this part of the region necessitate the need for a comprehensive
study. Rapid development occurring in this area for the past 20 years has lead to pressure on
the transportation system. Hilliard and Dublin both have doubled in size from 1990 to 2000.
Hilliard grew from almost 12,000 to over 24,000 people and Dublin from 16,000 to over 31,000.
In total, the area from the Scioto River to Madison County and from Trabue Rdll-70 to SR 161
has grown in population from 37,000 to close to 70,000 between 1990 and 2000. Employment
in this area has also grown from approximately 28,000 to 55,000 during that time period. This
area continues to be attractive for new development. Local communities including Hilliard,
Dublin, Brown Township, Washington Township, Jerome Township, Plain City, Liberty
Township, Concord Township and the city of Powell all have comprehensive plans, and many of
them are actively updating their plans to accommodate the continuing growth pressures.
Some of the areas heavily impacted by the growth are the freeway interchanges serving this
area. Each interchange has been identified as having congestion problems with most already
undergoing some level of study. The 1-270 North Outerbelt MIS examined the SR 161/US 33
interchange and recommended a new design. That study also identified minor improvements to
the relatively new Tuttle interchange. Dublin has also studied and improved the US 33
interchange. However, due to capacity restrictions on US 33 not all of the improvements can be
fully implemented. Also, Hilliard has initiated an interchange modification study of the
Fishinger/Cemetery and 1-270 interchange. These issues along with growing traffic on the
mainline sections of 1-270 are degrading the level of service on the freeways in this area. To
address some of the interchange problems, new interchange or partial interchanges have been
suggested at Davidson Road, Scioto & Darby Creek Road and on US 33 east of SR 161. These
11
possibilities require a comprehensive look at the system as a whole, and not just isolated
sections.
The arterial street system also has congestion pressure. Recently, the designs for widening
projects on Hilliard-Rome Road and Roberts Road has been revisited because of updated
traffic projections that were higher than initially prepared a few years ago. As other arterial
projects move forward, appropriate design traffic taking into consideration growth of the area
and other transportation improvements is essential. This directly relates to the local
communities' comprehensive plans and issues raised in them. These include the protected
areas in the currently undeveloped areas of Brown and Perry Township, extending Tuttle
Crossing across the Scioto River and others. A comprehensive MIS for this area, while
focusing on the freeway, would be able to consider and address these and other issues relating
to mobility for the northwest area.
Study Area Description
The mobility within the 1-270 West Outerbelt area is dependent upon activity that occurs over a
broad area. Thus, the study area should be of sufficient size such that the options to provide
acceptable mobility can be adequately analyzed. With this in mind the study area is bounded
by: Powell Road/Glick Road in Delaware County on the north; the Olentangy River on the east;
Clime/Hall Road on the south; the Franklin/Madison County line on the west; and including
Jerome Township in Union County. See Figure 1.
This area described above constitutes the area in which a detailed review of land use will be
performed. Outside of this area the most up to date land use assumptions will be used,
Depending on the solutions being considered for addressing the long term mobility needs, their
application may cover an area larger or smaller than the entire study area. For example, transit
strategies for the area would need to appropriately be co-ordinated with the rest of the region's
transit system and extend beyond the study area. Conversely, a land use or demand reduction
policy may be targeted to just one community or other portion of the study area. It is
anticipated that only a few, if any, strategies would be examined that cover a larger area.
When it comes to the analysis of specific transportation facilities, the study will include at a
minimum the following (see Figure 2):
. 1-270 mainline and all interchanges from south of 1-70 to north of SR161/US 33
. US 33 from west of US 42 to SR 257
. All arterial roads as designated on the MORPC regional thoroughfare plan in the
study area within Franklin County west of the Scioto River.
. Also, US 33 from Trabue Road to SR 257.
. Significant facilities in Jerome Township.
As described in the study objective, the focus is on the freeway and interchange operations.
Thus, analysis of the non-freeway facilities is to assess the impact of improvements of these
facilities on the freeway and interchange operations. Also, freeway and interchange analysis
will be done to a wide enough extent to ensure that the plan includes a large enough area to
satisfy requirements of future interchange modification or interchange justification studies.
Thus, the interchanges adjacent to the 1-270 & 1-70 interchange will also be analyzed as to the
12
impacts on it from the various solutions. Also, the US33/SR161 interchange with 1-270 has
already been studied in the 1-270 North Outerbelt MIS and this effort will be to reassess that
proposal in light of current projected conditions and the impacts of other strategies in the study
area an assess impacts to the Sawmill Road interchange if necessary.
Study Organization
The technical components of the study will be prepared by a consultant to be selected through the
RFP process. The consultant will work with the Project Management Team of MORPC to co-
ordinate routine exchange of data, and overall project supervision. Technical components of the
study will be regularly presented to study Committee(s) whose role is to review and confirm the
results. It is expected that a Steering Committee and perhaps one or more advisory committees
would be established. Presentation to other groups will be required as well.
Role of MORPC
MORPC will manage the entire study. MORPC will conduct a RFP process to select the
consultant to perform certain aspects of the study as described in this scope. MORPC will form a
project selection committee from those funding the study to assist in the RFP and consultant
selection process.
MORPC will also be responsible for various aspects of the scope of work. These include the
public involvement aspects of the study which includes step 1 described later. MORPC will also
prepare the existing and future land use information, based on local planning efforts; perform the
travel demand modeling; and develop evaluation criteria aspects of step 2. Within step 3 MORPC
will identify and analyze certain non-highway alternatives. The transit analysis likely would be
limited to activities consistent with the regional transit plan. MORPC will also develop the specific
screening criteria. Finally, MORPC will be responsible for step 4, developing and documenting
the recommend plan with some consultant assistance.
Role of the Consultant
The consultant is to investigate a multi-modal transportation system (Le., private auto, transit,
HOV, etc.) within the study area and prepare multi-modal alternatives and options that provide an
adequate level of mobility to those living in, working in or traveling through the area. The
consultant will become familiar with all ongoing policies, plans, and projectswhich may affect
travel in the area and should account for the effects of these on future traffic conditions and in the
development of alternatives. Many of the communities have comprehensive plans, and the city of
Columbus has identified some policies and efforts to minimize impacts on Hellbranch Run as part
of regional interest in protecting the environmentally sensitive Darby watershed area. The
consultant will provide input to the public involvement process as well as prepare necessary
reports, maps, etc. of their analysis for distribution and attend committee and public meetings as
necessary. The study should result in a phased program of financially and socially achievable
implementation recommendations.
Major Investment Study I Transportation Planning Process Steps - General
11
The goal of the MIS process is to analyze a series of reasonably available strategies, in
sufficient detail, to provide state and local decision makers enough information to decide on a
locally preferred strategy(ies) that can be advanced through the NEPA process (if applicable).
The MIS analyses and resulting decision making should be conducted and documented in a
manner that will support the NEPA process. In other words, alternative analysis conducted for
the MIS should not have to be repeated or augmented in the NEPA process. The MIS will
analyze the modal alternatives leading to a "design concept and scope" decision, then the
NEPA process can concentrate on design alternatives for the MIS preferred strategy(ies). The
MIS document will be incorporated directly into the NEPA process and documentation.
The proposal and project must satisfy the legal requirements for MIS documents as per 23 CFR
9450.318.
ODOT employs a multi-step integrated planning and environmental process to identify
problems, evaluate alternatives, and design and construct projects. The MIS will essentially
work through the beginning steps of the multi-step process. For this MIS the constitute the
following four steps:
Step 1: Work With Stakeholders to Understand Problems, Needs or Goals
Step 2: Conduct Research and Technical Studies to Determine Purpose and Need
Step 3: Identify and Evaluate Conceptual Alternative Solutions
Step 4: Present Recommendations/Conceptual Plans
The following represents the basic steps of the process, however, it should be understood that
the process is iterative and that it will be necessary to return to previous steps as a result of
determinations made in subsequent steps. It should also be understood that, where
appropriate, steps might occur concurrently or in a sequence different from that shown in this
document.
STEP 1 Work with Stakeholders to Understand Problems, Needs or Goals
The purpose of Step 1 is to identify and work with steering committee and stakeholders to
confirm and clarify the problem, issue, goals, vision or need. Since how a problem is defined
can determine the approach to solving it, the importance of this step should not be
underestimated.
Different groups of people can define a problem or need in different ways. It is therefore
important to first identify the appropriate affected groups and include transportation
stakeholders such as state and local officials and the public in the process used to define the
problem and need.
In most cases the purpose of this step is to solicit input rather than inform. However, there may
be times when it is necessary to first provide facts and information before try soliciting input.
This may require part of Step 2 to be conducted concurrently with Step 1. MORPC will carry
out the activities of this step with consultant input and review of procedures and initial statement
of the problems, issues, needs and/or goals.
14
The Specific activities in this step include:
Develop overall Public Involvement Plan
An overall public involvement plan (PIP) will be developed to provide information to the steering
committee, stakeholders, other interested parties and the general public as well as gain
feedback from these groups. Many activities could be involved in the PIP. Some of the issues
and activities in the PIP are likely to be, but are not limited to, the following:
. Identification of stakeholders and meeting(s) with them
. Relationship/function of advisory groups / Steering Committee
. Open public meetings or hearings
. Small workshops
. Presentations to community interest groups
. Establishing a "project" web site or a "project" newsletter
. Focus groups
. Contacting key decision makers or community leaders
. Contacting state and local elected officials
. Contacting key staff persons
. Survey research / Questionnaires
Establish Steering Committee and other necessary subcommittees
MORPC will establish a steering committee, stakeholders committee and possibly other
subcommittees to guide this study.
Steering Committee - The steering committee will review study methodologies and review and
confirm the analysis results when appropriate. It will meet on an ad hoc basis and may conduct
its business via the internet. The steering committee will consist of:
. ODOT (District 6 and Central Office)
. MORPC
. FHWA
. COTA
. Franklin County
. Columbus (Divisions of Transportation and Planning)
. Dublin
. Hilliard
Stakeholder Committee - The stakeholder committee will review and comment on the
assumptions, analysis, alternatives and conclusions of the study from the perspectives of their
constituencies. It will meet at certain milestones of the study. It will consist of a cross section
of the transportation stakeholders in the study area including at least the following:
. ODOT (District 6 and Central Office)
. MORPC
. FHWA
15
. COTA
. Franklin County
. Union County
. Madison County
. Columbus (Divisions of Transportation and Planning)
. Dublin
. Hilliard
. Upper Arlington
. Each Franklin County Township in the study area
. Community/special interest groups (neighborhood, chambers of commerce, large
employers, freight, environmental, etc.)
. Representatives of elected federal and state officials will also be invited into the
process.
Develop an initial Problem, Issue, or Goal Statement
Based on initial public involvement efforts and stakeholders and steering committee discussion,
an initial statement of the problems, issues, needs and/or goals will be developed. This
statement is to be broad and cover the entire study area. It is not a project specific purpose
and need statement. It is the first step in laying out the important issues for the area that need
to be addressed to provide for the long-term mobility solution. This initial statement will be
coupled with technical information developed in step 2 to provide for a more complete
statement and process against which strategies and alternatives can be evaluated.
STEP 2: Conduct Research and Technical Studies to Determine Purpose and Need
The purpose for Step 2 is to conduct growth and land use, technical, social, economic,
environmental justice, environmental fatal flaws, transportation, and other systems analyses to
understand existing conditions, cause for conditions, trends, location and scope of problem,
issue, goal or need. Adequate and appropriate analysis should be conducted to determine
trends, identify patterns and lay the groundwork to be able to project impacts from different
solutions. The primary outcome of this step is documentation of existing conditions and
expected conditions in the future for the area and draft purpose and need statement(s). This
documentation will build upon the initial Problem, Issue, or Goal Statement from step 1 and
layout the process and measures which will be used in step 3 to evaluate the various strategies
and alternatives. The public involvement plan would include methods to disseminate this
information to the general public and garner feedback on the documentation and draft purpose
and need statement(s). The consultant will be responsible for all of the data collection and
analysis activities of Step 2 with MORPC providing the land use and demographic data.
MORPC will be responsible for identification of the measures and criteria described below with
consultant input and review.
Some of the specific items associated with this step are as follows (data collection efforts
should keep in mind the focus of the study on 1-270 and US 33):
1-270 and US 33 Study Area Profile including:
1()
. Identify and summarize any prior reports or studies that should be reviewed and
evaluated and indicate information that should be updated.
. Description of community size, demographics and other socio-economic factors, land
use patterns and trends
. Describe adopted planning documents (Hilliard, Dublin, Columbus, Franklin County,
townships, etc...)
. Describe the location and impact of traffic/freight generators
. Describe the transportation modes available
. Identify recognized environmentally sensitive areas
. Conduct Phase I cultural resources study
Transportation Data collection from reliable sources or new collection for'
. ADT, LOS, V/C, Truck ADT, accident data
. Season, time of day, day of week variations
. Topography, roadway design factors
. Structures and related bridge design and conditions factors
. Pavement conditions data
Determination and application of appropriate analytical techniques to existing conditions
Depending on the type of problem and study, there are a variety of analytical techniques
that can be used. In analyzing the existing conditions the measures used to describe the
conditions should be selected such that they could also be developed for the future
conditions and are also the measures that will be useful in evaluating the various strategies.
By the time this study begins MORPC should have completed an update to their modeling
process including expansion of the geographic area to include all of the study area as well
as peak period traffic projections. In any case, a combination of several approaches may
be needed.
Several analytical approaches include:
. LOS analysis
. Travel Time and delay
. Diversion analysis
. Safety analysis
. Freight analysis
. Environmental justice analysis
. Traffic simulation modeling
Application of appropriate analytical techniques to a base case of future conditions (2030)
The same measures as presented for the existing conditions would be provided for the base
future conditions. Also, included in the development of base future conditions is developing
and achieving steering committee agreement on the land use and transportation network
assumptions for the base case. The steering committee will consider comments and advice
from the stakeholders.
17
Identification of evaluation measures/criteria
The identification of the measures and criteria to be used to evaluate the various strategies
early is important to ensure the measures developed provide the answers decision-makers
need to decide among the strategies. It is also important that the measures relate back to
the Problem, Needs Goals Statement. Otherwise, the strategies being evaluated may not
address the initial understanding of the problem. Working with the steering committee, the
stakeholders, and the public involvement plan, the measures and criteria to be used will be
identified and used in the analysis of the existing and base future conditions. Some
possible measures/criteria could be:
. Vehicle Miles of Travel by Level of Service (Daily, Peak Periods)
. Vehicle Hours of Travel by Level of Service (Daily, Peak Periods)
. Miles of road by Level of service in the peak periods
. Lane miles of road by Level of service in the peak periods
. Average Trip Time
. Average Trip Length
. Total and Average Delay
. Modal Shares
. Vehicle Trips
. Transit Trips
. Environmental Justice measures
. Crash Statistics
. Short and long term maintenance costs
. Total Project cost
. Life cycle costs
. Cost - benefit analysis
. Funding options
. Ability to implement in phases / staging options
. Growth, induced growth, sprawl
. Environmental impacts - fatal flaws
. Social! economic impacts
. Aesthetics impacts
. Maintenance of traffic impacts
Existing and Future Conditions Documentation and Draft Purpose and Need Statement(s)
All of the information collected and analysis conducted would be documented and draft purpose
and need statement(s) developed. There may be multiple variations of the purpose and need
statement because, as the study progresses through steps 3 and 4, more specific projects will
be identified for which different specific purpose and need statements may be appropriate. Also
included in the documentation is the basis or history leading to undertaking this study. The
public involvement plan would include methods to disseminate the information and draft
purpose and need statement(s) to the general public and garner feedback. This information
would be submitted to the Steering Committee for their review and confirmation.
lR
STEP 3: Identify and Evaluate Conceptual Alternative Solutions
The purpose of Step 3 is to identify and evaluate reasonable and realistic alternative solutions
that could address the problem, goals and needs identified in Step 1 and assessment and the
draft purpose and need statement(s). It is also to determine the appropriate level of analysis for
each alternative. One alternative that must be identified during this step includes doing nothing
or continuing to do what is currently being done. This is typically called the "no-build" scenario.
Possible alternatives could include policies, programs, administrative and funding policies,
modal alternatives as well as capital project alternatives. Along with consultant and stakeholder
expertise the public involvement plan would be designed to solicit strategies from the general
public on long term mobility solutions. The estimated cost for each alternative should be
calculated during this step. Estimates are intended to provide the order of magnitude and
magnitude of difference for the alternatives and should not involve detailed calculations.
The consultant will be responsible for the activities of step 4 with the exception that MORPC,
with consultant input and review, develop the first level and second level screening criteria and
perform the analysis for certain non-highway strategies as noted below. Also, MORPC will run
the travel demand model for all strategies that use travel demand model result data. The
consultant will perform all analysis of travel demand model data using appropriate procedures
and analysis tools (HCS, microsimulation, etc.)
Identify Alternative Strategies
Based on technical knowledge, creative thinking and suggestions identified through the
public involvement plan, develop a list of alternative solutions. Alternatives need not be
limited to capital project solutions. Policy changes, special funding programs, TSM and
TDM solutions, and modal alternatives should be considered and included if they might
effectively contribute to a solution set. Not anyone strategy will solve all of the long-term
mobility needs, but contributions to the long-term solution will come from many strategies.
Once identified, data, at the appropriate level of detail, will be developed for the first and if
needed the second level screening. Those categories of strategies identified with "MORPe"
will be MORPC responsibility to analyze (the consultant can provide input as to possible
strategies to analyze in any category), others will be consultant responsibility for the
analysis. The alternatives may include but are not limited to:
. Land Use and Design (MORPC)
~ Growth Management and Activity Center Strategies and Policies (This may be
beyond the scope of this MIS)
~ Bike Facilities Development or measures to encourage their use
~ Pedestrian Facilities Development or measures to encourage their use
. Transportation System Management Techniques (TSM)
~ Restricted movements
~ Coordinated signal systems
~ Assessment of Ramp metering
~ Access management
19
. Intelligent Transportation System options (MORPC)
~ Traffic surveillance and control systems
~ Incident Management
~ Motorist Information systems
~ Traffic Control Centers
~ Advanced Public Transportation System Technologies
. Transportation Demand Management Strategies (TDM) (MORPC except HOV)
~ Car and van pooling
~ Alternative work hours
~ Telecommuting
~ Parking management
~ Employer trip reduction ordinances
~ Congestion pricing
~ HOV Lanes, Ramp Bypass Lanes, Guaranteed Ride Home
. Public Transit Capital Improvements (MORPC)
~ Exclusive Rights-of Way for Rail, Busways, Bus Lanes
~ Park & Ride and Mode change facilities
~ Paratransit services
~ Public Transit Operational Improvements
~ Service enhancements/expansions
~ Traffic signal preemption
~ Fare reductions
. Arterial Improvements
~ Upgrade existing facilities
~ Provide new facilities
. Freeway Improvements
~ Additional general purpose lanes
~ Interchange improvements
~ New interchanges/partial interchanges (Davidson Rd, Scioto & Darby Creek Rd,
others)
~ Additional HOV, Bus or HOT lanes or ramps
The next activity is to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate each alternative identified above
based on the evaluation measures/criteria developed in step 2. Alternative evaluation involves
knowing which facts and trade-offs are important to the people making the decision and funding
the project. It also requires knowing which facts and trade-offs are important to the affected
groups. This should have been started in the identification of issues, goals and problems
identified in step 1 and in the evaluation measures/criteria identified in step 2. This step now
involves developing the appropriate evaluation data for each strategy and developing
appropriate weighting or other method to apply the evaluation criteria. It will probably be
necessary to do a two step process with the first step requiring less detailed information to
eliminate some strategies and a second step with more detailed information to evaluate the
20
remaining strategies. Especially with regard to the final evaluation process it would likely be
beneficial to perform sensitivity on the weights or the data to determine which items if any are
dominant factors.
Specific activities to evaluate the alternatives include:
Preliminary Cost and Implementation An;:)lysis
As part of both screening levels information on costs and implementation will be considered.
Thus, a very general estimate of costs for each strategy will be developed for the first level
screening as well as other criteria that the steering committee desires or the stakeholders
suggest. This cost would include staff, program operation, capital as well as maintenance costs
depending upon the strategy. Also, in general describe the implementation process for each
alternative. What are the general steps and timeline necessary to have the strategy
implemented? Also, what are the possible and likely funding sources, if necessary, for each
strategy? As the second level criteria is applied the cost information would become more
refined including amenity costs for projects. Also, as the strategic plan is prepared the
implementation process would be more detailed.
Development of First Level and Second Level Screening Criteri;:)
Although the measures/criteria to be applied have already been identified in step 2, the actual
process to apply the measures/criteria will be developed during this activity. One part of the
process will be the need to identify and eliminate strategies that are unreasonable to be carried
on for more detailed analysis. This part looks at the measures/criteria and determines what can
be looked at in less detail and used as a first level of screening. A prime consideration at this
first level would be a fatal flaw analysis. All alternatives identified by the Stakeholders and
Steering Committee should be subjected to an initial fatal flaw analysis to evaluate their
potential for implementation and meeting the corridor needs assessment and objectives as
established in Step 1. However, it must be remembered that not anyone strategy will solve all
of the long-term mobility needs, but contributions to the long-term solution will come from many
strategies. Thus, just because an alternative may obviously pale in comparison to other
alternatives at this stage it should be carried along in some detail if its marginal contributions
could be part of the ultimate strategy of recommendations put together in step 4.
Alternatives/strategies that advance past the initial screening would be subjected to a more
rigorous analysis. This approach is intended to ensure that time and money are focused on
analyzing alternatives with the greatest potential for addressing the Problem, Issue or Goals
Statement.
At the same time as the first level screening process is being developed the second level of
screening should also be kept in mind. Developing the more detailed screening process will
look at the measures/criteria that require more detailed analysis or further refinements of the
first screening measures/criteria. Developing both screening levels includes working with the
steering committee and issues from the stakeholders and public involvement plan to identify the
criteria and process to be used to screen the alternatives/strategies.
Included in the development of both screening levels is the weighting or other method or
21
process in which the measures/criteria would be applied. This includes sensitivity analysis on
the weights or data on the results of the process.
Develop First Level Data and Apply First Level Screening Criteria
Based on the measures/criteria identified the appropriate analytical techniques will be used to
determine the data for each of the strategies/alternatives. The initial screening criteria would be
applied and a list of strategies/alternatives to undergo further analysis will be developed.
Develop Second Level Data and Apply Second Level Screening Criteria
Based on the measures/criteria identified the appropriate analytical techniques will be used to
determine the data for each of the strategies/alternatives. The second screening criteria would
be applied and a list of strategies/alternatives that best meet the problem, issues or goals
statement will be developed.
Prepare Evaluation Analysis Report
The development and application of the screening levels will be compiled into a report. The
public involvement plan would include methods to disseminate this information to the general
public and garner feedback on the results of the evaluation analysis. The report of the
evaluation analysis would be submitted to the Steering Committee for their review and
confirmation. The steering committee will consider comments and advice from the
stakeholders.
Step 4: Present Recommendations/Conceptual Plans
The purpose of Step 4 is for the Steering Committee to select a strategy/conceptual plan or set
of strategies or alternatives and develop a recommended strategic plan to address the problem,
issue, goals statement and provide for acceptable long term mobility for the area focusing on
the freeway and interchange operations. The plan would include and address issues of staging
or phasing options, funding alternatives and a proposed timetable detailing actions needed to
implement the plan. The steering committee will consider comments and advice from the
stakeholders. MORPC will be largely responsible for this step with the consultant providing
appropriate documentation of the analysis provided in step 3 to facilitate the steering
committee's decision making process.
The strategic plan should be based on the findings and analysis from the previous steps and
should result in a document that clearly and realistically describes who, what, when, where, how
and why the problem, need, issue or goal can be addressed or solved.
Select and .Justify the Preferred Strategy(ies)/ Alternative( s)
Based on completion of all prior tasks and analysis, select a strategy or alternative or group of
strategies and/or alternatives that best provide for acceptable long term mobility for the area.
This would involve working with the steering committee and other feedback per the
stakeholders and public involvement plan to use the results of step 3 and justify why the
22
strategy(ies)/alternative(s) was selected.
Prepare a Draft Report and Strategic Plan
A draft report of the strategic plan will be developed. The report would summarize and
reference the information developed in steps 1 through 4 and present the strategic plan and its
justification. This should be developed to planning level and not incorporate specific designs or
alignments. It should include at a minimum:
. Recommended policies, programs, and projects and their priorities
. The locations where the policies, programs, and projects will be applied
. Estimated total costs for each (including ROWand enhancements [such as aesthetics,
landscaping, and streetscapingD
. Realistic funding alternatives
. Identification of which agencies or groups are responsible for each policy, program, and
project and funding for each
. Criteria used for prioritizing the programs, projects and funding
. Timetable or time-line identifying the actions needed
. Identify projects with possible independent utility
The draft report and strategic plan would be presented to the Steering Committee for their
concurrence in presenting the information to the stakeholders and public. The public
involvement plan would include methods to disseminate this draft report to the community and
the general public and garner feedback on the draft report.
Report Results of Community and Public Reaction of the Draft Plan and Preparation of Final
Report
The results of the public comment on the draft report and strategic plan will written and
presented to and discussed with the stakeholders and steering committee. Also, any changes
to the strategic plan will be incorporated into the final report and strategic plan. The final report,
strategic plan and necessary documentation would be submitted to the steering committee for
their review and confirmation.
Seek Support and Commitments
After completion of the final report the public involvement plan would include methods to inform
the local jurisdiction of the study's results and recommendations. Resolutions or letters of
support from the jurisdictions in which actions are needed in accordance with the strategic plan
shall be obtained. These will need to be presented along with the final report and strategic plan
to the MORPC for its approval and incorporation into its long range Transportation Plan and any
specific projects into its Transportation Improvement Program.
Presentation for MORPC Acceptance
The final report and strategic plan along with the resolutions and letters of support from local
jurisdictions will be presented to the MPO board as per legal requirements for MIS and NEPA
21
documents. This activity would conclude with a resolution by MORPC accepting the results of
the MIS and agreeing to incorporate the results into their Transportation Plan and TIP as
appropriate.
24