public location/design hearings
DESCRIPTION
Public Location/Design Hearings. November 17, 2010 Laughlin, Nevada November 18, 2010 Bullhead City, Arizona. Project Team Members. Federal Highway Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard Nevada Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Public Location/Design Hearings
November 17, 2010 Laughlin, Nevada
November 18, 2010 Bullhead City, Arizona
![Page 2: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Project Team Members
Federal Highway Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard Nevada Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Transportation Regional Transportation Commission of Southern NV Clark County and Town of Laughlin City of Bullhead City Other resource agencies
![Page 3: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
1. Develop Scope
2. Purpose & Need
3. Develop Initial Alternatives
4. Public Information Meetings
5. Develop & Evaluate Alternatives
6. Administrative Draft Document
7. Final Document
8. Location / Design Hearings (Public Comment Period)
9. FHWA Environmental Decision for Project
Environmental Assessment (EA)
![Page 4: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Project Purpose
To provide:
- better connectivity between the two communities
- improved access to and delivery of emergency services
- enhanced service on Arizona State Route 95
- additional crossing for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians
- accommodations for present and future traffic demand
![Page 5: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Existing and future traffic demand
Changing land-use patterns and increased growth
Lack of alternative routes when current bridge is partially or fully closed due to maintenance or incidents
Project Need
![Page 6: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Evaluated Build Alternatives
![Page 7: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Alternatives Eliminated
Transportation Systems Management and Transit Alts. Widening of Existing Bridge Proposed Pass Canyon Alternative
Proposed Silver Creek Alternative Proposed Colorado Rio Vista
Alternative Proposed Lakeside Alternative Proposed Hancock Alternative Proposed Marina Alternative
![Page 8: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Deficiencies of Eliminated Alternatives
Unable to accommodate present and/or future traffic
Would not alleviate congestion on existing bridge
Unable to efficiently increase regional connectivity
Would not efficiently and conveniently improve access
Would not provide additional access for efficient delivery of emergency services between communities
Presented significant engineering constraints
![Page 9: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Project Design
Roadway and bridge each consist of four travel-lanes Posted speed of 35 MPH Includes ADA-compliant sidewalks and paved multi-use
pathways Conceptual image of typical bridge at no specific location
![Page 10: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Alternatives Analysis
Preliminary engineering Modeled traffic Environmental and social impacts Land use planning conformity Infrastructure compatibility Cost
![Page 11: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Alternatives Studied in Detail
No Build Alternative Proposed Riverview Alternative Proposed Rainbow Alternative Proposed Parkway Alternative (Preferred)
Visualization of Proposed Bridge Design Concept for Discussion Purposes Only
![Page 12: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Proposed Build Alternatives
![Page 13: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Proposed Riverview Alternative
Length of roadway: ~ 15,875 feet (about 3 miles)
Length of bridge: ~ 1,768 feet Right-of-way: ~ 23 acres Estimated daily traffic in 2030: 37,700
vehicles Project cost: ~ $59.3 million Greater noise and visual impacts Impacts to mobility and access Impacts to Rotary Park
![Page 14: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Proposed Riverview Alternative
– Added frontage road and parking lane
– Conversion of curve to T-intersection at west end of Riverview Drive
Visualization of Proposed Roadway DesignConceptual for Discussion Purposes Only
Modified design:
– Reduced impacts to Rotary Park
– Required purchase of private parcel
![Page 15: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
De Minimis
De minimis impacts on publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges are defined as those that do not “adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes” of a Section 4(f) resource.
![Page 16: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
De Minimis Determination
Could not be sustained for proposed Riverview Alternative based on potential impacts to Rotary Park:
- Noise Impacts
- Visual Impacts
- Land Use Impacts
Proposed Riverview Alternative is no longer considered a viable build alternative in the Environmental Assessment
![Page 17: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Proposed Rainbow Alternative
Length of roadway: ~ 21,308 feet (about 4 miles)
Length of bridge: ~ 1,359 feet Right-of-way: ~ 45 acres Estimated daily traffic in 2030: 26,200
vehicles Project cost: ~ $48.1 million Greater impact to wetlands than proposed
Parkway Alternative Would not conform with land-use plans
![Page 18: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Proposed Parkway Alternative (Preferred Alternative)
Length of roadway: ~ 23,124 feet (about 4.4 miles) Length of bridge: ~ 1,286 feet Right-of-way: ~ 56 acres Estimated daily traffic in 2030: 20,600 vehicles Project cost: ~ $55.2 million Higher ranking in alternatives analysis than proposed
Rainbow Alternative Less environmental and social impacts Conforms with land use plans
![Page 19: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Preferred Alternative (agency coordination)
Colorado River Nature Center Arizona Game & Fish Department, Bureau of Land
Management, and City of Bullhead City Potential noise impacts to wildlife Potential light pollution (visual impacts) to wildlife
![Page 20: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Colorado River Nature Center(potential “constructive use”)
Mitigation includes:
- installing light shields
- constructing a vegetated earthen berm
- extracting fill to create a wetland
- installing fencing Determination concluded no “constructive use”
impacts
![Page 21: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Funding
Nearly $18 million in federal funding available for the Project.
The balance of funding for design, right-of-way acquisition and construction will be secured by local jurisdictions.
![Page 22: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Tentative Project Schedule
2007 through
early 2011
2012 through
2014
2011through
2012
Environmental Assessment &
Preliminary Engineering
Final Design, Rights-of-Way &
Permitting
Bid Process & Construction
![Page 23: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
www.rtcsnv.com/mpo/projects/Laughlin
Project Information and Contacts
Regional Transportation Commission Nevada Department of Transportation of Southern Nevada Environmental Services DivisionDavid Swallow, P.E., Proj. Mgr. Steve M. Cooke, P.E., [email protected] [email protected](702) 676-1500 telephone (775) 888-7013 telephone(702) 676-1713 fax (775) 888-7104 fax
![Page 24: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Public Comment Process
Three minute verbal comment per individual
Five minute verbal comment per group / organization
Meet with on-site court reporter
Complete comment form
E-mail, mail, or fax NDOT your comments (reference this project in your correspondence)
NDOT must receive your comments by 5 p.m.,
December 3, 2010.
![Page 25: Public Location/Design Hearings](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070402/568138e9550346895da09aac/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Questions and Comments
Thank you for attending and please remember to state your name prior to your question or comment.