Issue 3 | April 16, 2021 |
|
Evaluating Potential U.S. 69 Solutions
|
|
The U.S. 69 Modernization and Expansion Project (69Express) assessed six strategies for addressing corridor congestion that is expected to grow significantly over the next 30 years. These alternatives were evaluated to determine which most effectively:
- Improve traffic flow;
- Reduce congestion;
- Minimize impacts to the natural and human environment; and
- Lessen the cost to build and maintain the solution.
|
|
Shown here are projected traffic increases at different
points along U.S. 69 between 103rd and 179th Streets.
|
|
The Project Team’s goal is to make sure the alternative that ultimately is chosen will be cost-effective to build and maintain and take up as little land as possible to minimize encroaching on adjacent neighborhoods and businesses. Additionally, some alternatives would require voluntary financial and operational commitments by local transit agencies and others.
|
|
What Are the Alternative Solutions? |
|
The Project Team evaluated six categories of potential solutions for U.S. 69:
1.No-Build - All projects like 69Express start by looking at what happens if nothing more is done than already-planned improvements. For U.S. 69, this would mean: no capacity improvements with ongoing rehabilitation and maintenance only; building the U.S. 69 northbound bridge at 179th Street; and improving the ends of guardrails). All other alternatives were compared against the No-Build alternative to ensure that any preferred alternative represents an improvement over current conditions.
|
|
2.Improve Alternate Routes - This strategy makes improvements to Metcalf Avenue and Antioch, Switzer and Quivira Roads through signal coordination, arterial capacity improvements and transit improvements.
|
|
3.Manage Existing Capacity - This approach uses a combination of technology and policy incentives to improve safety and reduce bottlenecks. This approach would employ Transportation Systems Management Strategies (such as ramp metering and queue warning systems) with Traffic Demand Management Strategies (relying on policies to promote carpooling, for example).
|
|
4.Improve Multimodal Options- This option includes ways to increase the effectiveness of transit and other multimodal and personal mobility choices by improving roadways or shoulders for better multimodal connections; increasing the number and frequency of transit routes; and providing better bike and pedestrian facilities along with park-and-ride lots.
|
|
5.Add Capacity - Traditional Widening - This alternative adds one new general-purpose lane in each direction. In some sections of U.S. 69, this approach would require constructing separate parallel lanes, called collector-distributor roads, outside the primary six lanes of U.S. 69 in either direction. (These would be similar to what drivers encounter on I-435 West between Roe and Nall Avenues, where collector-distributor roads on either side of I-435 move traffic to and from the arterial roads.) The U.S. 69 interchanges at Blue Valley Parkway and at I-435 would be reconfigured. Improvements to local interchanges and supporting cross streets would be made and existing pavement and bridges would be reconstructed.
|
|
6.Add Capacity - Express Toll Lanes - This strategy adds one new lane in each direction as an express toll lane with defined entrance and exit locations. Traffic is balanced across the express toll lanes and the general-purpose lanes through congestion management techniques such as lane pricing. The U.S. 69 interchanges at Blue Valley Parkway and at I-435 would be reconfigured. Improvements to local interchanges and supporting cross streets would be made and existing pavement and bridges would be reconstructed.
|
|
Alternatives were evaluated using various quantitative and qualitative tools and resources to measure how well they: |
|
- Improve traffic flow;
- Reduce congestion;
- Minimize impacts to the natural and human environment; and
- Lessen the cost to build and maintain the solution.
|
Each alternative was given a rating that graphically shows how well it does or does not address a particular consideration. The grading ranges from full red (large impact or little benefit) to full green (signifies little impact or great benefit). |
"Harvey balls" are commonly used to visually communicate comparative qualitative information as part of environmental assessments.
|
|
How Well Do the Alternatives Perform on Purpose and Need?
|
|
Only the two alternatives which add lanes (Add Capacity - Traditional Widening and Add Capacity - Express Toll Lanes) address the Project’s Purpose and Need based on the initial evaluation.
The other non-capacity alternatives do little to improve safety, reduce congestion and address other related attributes. Lanes would still have to be added for these alternatives to work.
|
|
Individual categories shown may group related sub categories. |
|
How Well Do the Added-Capacity Alternatives Perform? |
|
Based on those results, the Project Team has carried forward the two capacity-adding alternatives for further evaluation. (It’s important to note, however, that the capacity alternatives can still accommodate transit, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and elements of the other initial alternatives.) The findings can be summarized as:
- The Express Toll Lane Alternative has a smaller footprint because they can move the same or more traffic with fewer lanes than using only general-purpose lanes would require. This produces fewer impacts on community facilities, noise, the natural environment and air quality.
|
|
- Traditional Widening Alternative require more lanes to move the same amount of traffic as ETLs, so they have a greater impact on most measured categories. They have a smaller impact on lower-income populations in the Project area because they lack a toll component.
|
|
- Both Alternatives alleviate stop-and-go traffic congestion and therefore have positive impacts on air quality and emissions.
|
|
Individual categories shown may group related sub categories. |
|
How Do Added-Capacity Alternatives Compare with Each Other? |
|
Finally, the Project Team looked at how each capacity-improvement option compared in terms of engineering and cost – that is, how easily each one can be designed, built and maintained. As shown below, ETLs overall perform better from an engineering and cost standpoint. ETLs require a smaller footprint to carry the same amount of traffic than general-purpose lanes do. They have fewer right-of-way impacts and displace fewer homes and businesses. As a result, they cost less to build and maintain. And, due to the congestion management benefits of ETLs, additional lanes will not need to be added in the foreseeable future to address congestion, which reduces lifecycle costs. |
|
Individual categories shown may group related sub categories. |
|
The Project Team will continue quantifying the possible impacts of the two added-capacity alternatives – general-purpose lanes and express toll Lanes. KDOT welcomes and desires public input on the two remaining alternatives. Results of this alternatives evaluation will be reported to the public as data collection and analysis are complete.
For regular updates on this and other project developments, visit www.69Express.org frequently and continue watching your email inbox for this newsletter and other communications. Attending the periodic 69Express virtual public meetings also is a good way to stay informed. The next such opportunities are the:
-
Live Virtual Public Meeting - Tuesday, April 20, 2021, 5:00-7:00 p.m.
Both opportunities will provide the same content, and you will have the ability to submit questions and comments to the Project Team. The virtual public information open house is available online 24 hours a day. The live virtual public meeting will include a presentation by the Project Team followed by a question-and-answer session. You can join either or both by visiting www.69express.org/public-information-meetings/ and following the links provided to view the content and participate from your own computer, tablet or smartphone.
|
|
U.S. 69 Corridor Modernization and Expansion Project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
