10.1 SR 08-01-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT ALTERNATIVES The next step in the process was to establish feasible long-term access alternatives for the Highway 10 corridor taking into consideration the technical analysis and input received from the public and stakeholders. To accomplish this, a range of conceptual corridor access alternatives were developed. These concept alternatives can then be carried forward for further analysis in future environmental processes. Alternatives Development Process The alternative development process was multifaceted using a range of inputs including technical data, public comments, design parameters, and guidance from the PMT and TAB. The primary goal was to identify a unified vision for the Highway 10 corridor that can be implemented over time as opportunities arise and funding becomes available. Given the complexity and needs of the area, this vision may take 20+ years and significant fiscal investment to realize. Therefore, this study is the first step in the process and additional planning, environmental, design, and engagement efforts will be needed in the future. The initial long-term alternatives that were considered include: • A No Build alternative, which is also known as the do-nothing option. • Alternative 1, which is an at -grade signalized corridor alternative that would include the addition of new traffic signals along the corridor coupled with access modifications and acceleration lanes. • Alternative 2 represents a more innovative at -grade corridor alternative, which includes a combination of reduce conflict intersections (also known as RCls) along with potentially more traffic signals, access modifications, and acceleration lanes. • Alternative 3 is a grade -separated corridor alternative that provides a free flow option for Highway 10 motorists. This free flow corridor would be accomplished through a series of new interchanges, bridges, and/or on or off ramps. This alternative would also include access closures along Highway 10. Preliminary Evaluation Evaluation criteria were then developed based on the existing conditions analysis and centered around safety, mobility and convenient access being high priorities for the corridor. Bike and pedestrian accommodations, project costs and right-of-way impacts were also used in the evaluation process. Each alternative was assigned a rating relative to its ability to meet the criteria. The rating system was as follows: Good; meets criteria well Moderate; no distinguishing characteristics 40 Poor; fails to meet criteria The results of the preliminary evaluation (see Table 7) showed that alternative 3, which is the grade - separated corridor alternative, meets the majority of the evaluation criteria well, with the exception of cost. This alternative has the highest costs; however, it provides the best safety and mobility for all users. A detailed evaluation matrix for each of the alternatives is in AppendixC. a GHW4�, Page _ , �FRIOOR��