Route 79/I-195 Interchange Improvements Study
Fall River, Massachusetts
April 29, 2010
Agenda
1. Updates
2. Outcomes of Task Force Work Session
3. Interchange Alternatives Evaluation (Part 1)
4. Discussion/next steps
Major Steps for Rte. 79/I-95 Interchange
Study and Project
Currently Underway
STEP 1
Value
Engineering
Study
This study –
required by FHWA –
suggested
investigating
removing Rte. 79
Viaduct at the I-195
Interchange.
April 2009
STEP 2
Feasibility
Study
Detailed review of
Value Engineering
Study to assess
feasibility of
removing Rte 79
Viaduct at the I-195
Interchange.
July 2009
STEP 3
Planning –
Alternatives
Study
The level of design
at the end of this
stage is
“conceptual.”
December 2009 –
July 2010
STEP 4
State (MEPA) &
Federal (NEPA)
Environmental
Review
This more detailed
engineering and
environmental
analysis will take
about 12 months
and the level of
design will be
between 5% and
10% complete.
August 2010 – May
2011
STEP 5
STEP 6
Preliminary
Engineering
Final Design or
Design/Build
This marks the first
intensive design
stage. This step will
take about 12-14
months and the
design at the end
will be 25%
complete.
This stage will take
about 48 months.
May 2011 – May 2012
Construction
complete Fall of
2016
Proposed Rte. 79 Interchange Study Work Flow
*
1
Project Initiation
Kick-off meeting / Study area limits
Communications / Task Force Members
2
Goals & Objectives
Goals & Objectives / Evaluation Criteria
Purpose & Need Statement
3
Existing Conditions
Draft & Final Existing Conditions Summary
4
No Build Analysis
Traffic / Socio-economic / Land Use
5
Alternative Development
6
Alternative Analysis
7
Report
Recommendations
8
Prepare ENF
Alternative Development / Screening of Alternatives
Mobility / Safety / Environmental
Socio-economic / Structures / Costs
Final Report / Public Meeting
Certificate from Secretary of EOEEA
*
Current stage
Alternatives Evaluation and Analysis
• Level 1 Screening (March 23):
– Fatal flaw analysis
– Constructability and right-of-way impacts
– Mostly qualitative
•
Level 2 Screening
– Rigorous and mostly quantitative
– Relies on detailed definition of alternatives
– Requires conceptual level engineering
Conceptual Alternatives
Detailed Alternatives
• 12 interchange reconfiguration alternatives plus 1
rehabilitation alternative
• Task Force meeting March 23 screening eliminated
infeasible conceptual alternatives
• Four alternatives were developed in detail
• Rehabilitation Alternative was redefined
Interchange Safety
an
t
G
F+
Po
cas
set
St
Ne
wS
Mo
tre
nu
me
et
nt
lS
p
m
Ra
p A
R am
St
ra
C
An
aw
nt
Ra
mp
Ce
Weave section
SB Rte 79
2-L
ev
el
Via
du
ct
Wa
te
r St
Ta
u
nt
o
n
River
hip
les
t
t
Ba
Ramp E
Ram
p
D
Exceeds Average Crash Rate
Note: Based on 2007 & 2008 State Police Records
ike
n
On ramp
merge I-195
ill
M
Ramp Y
Bl
vd
Ramp C
Weave section
to I-195
Tu
nn
el
Family of Alts 2: Tear Down Some Spaghetti Ramps
Draft – for use in Alternatives Study only
Conceptual Alternative for Study
Has not been evaluated for consistency with project goals
Alt. 1a
hip
Rte. 79 viaduct removed;
3 Rte. 79 signals
River
Ba
s
ttle
Ta
un
to
n
Cen
tral
G
F+
St
Ramp E
Tu
nn
el
ik
en
Bl
vd
Ramp A+C+E
ill
um
en
t
Po
cas
set
p
S
Newtree
Str t
eet
t
m
Ra
Mo
n
nS
p A
Ram
Ne
w
aw
a
M
An
Ramp Y
Wa
ter
St
Ce
nt
ra
lS
t
Ram
pC
Alternative 1A: Route 79 Interchange
NORTH n.t.s
New Traffic Signal
Ramp or One-way Street
Alt. 1b
hip
Rte. 79 viaduct removed;
2 Rte. 79 signals
River
Ba
s
ttle
Ta
un
to
n
Cen
tral
G
F+
St
Ramp E
Tu
nn
el
ik
en
Bl
vd
Ramp A+C+E
ill
um
en
t
Po
cas
set
p
S
Newtree
Str t
eet
t
m
Ra
Mo
n
nS
p A
Ram
Ne
w
aw
a
M
An
Ramp Y
Wa
ter
St
Ce
nt
ra
lS
t
Ram
pC
Alternative 1B: Route 79 Interchange
NORTH n.t.s
New Traffic Signal
Ramp or One-way Street
Right-in/Right-out Only
les
Rte. 79 NB and SB
consolidated;
NB level removed.
Ta
un
to
n
River
tt
Ba
Alt. 2
hip
Po
cas
set
Str
eet
St
C
Ra
mp
St
Wa
ter
t
G
F+
um
en
t
nS
p
New
aw
a
m
Ra
Mo
n
An
Ce
nt
ra
lS
F
t
p A
Ram
1-L
ev
el
Via
Bi
du
-di
ct
r ec
tio
na
l
Ra
m
p
Ramp E
Tu
nn
el
M
ill
ik
Ramp Y
en
Bl
vd
Ramp C
Alternative 2: Bi-directional 1-Level Viaduct
NORTH n.t.s
New Traffic Signal
Note: New Traffic Signals at Central St at Davol St
and Anawan St at Viaduct St underneath the 1-Level Viaduct.
Ramp or One-way Street
Viaduct
Alt. 3
hip
Rte. 79 viaduct removed;
Milliken Blvd. Interchange
River
Ba
s
ttle
Ta
un
to
n
Cen
tral
G
F+
St
On Ramp
Tu
nn
el
en
Bl
vd
Ne
wS
tre
et
ik
um
en
t
Po
cas
set
p
S
Newtree
Str t
eet
t
m
Ra
Mo
n
nS
p
m
Ra
ff
O
Ne
w
aw
a
ill
An
Ce
nt
ra
lS
F
t
Ram
pY
M
Wa
ter
St
Ra
mp
Alternative 3: Milliken Blvd Interchange
NORTH n.t.s
New Traffic Signal
Ramp or One-way Street
Right-in/Right-out Only
Alt. 4
hip
Rehabilitation
Ta
un
to
n
River
Ba
s
ttle
um
en
t
Po
cas
set
Str
eet
St
G
F+
New
p
Mo
n
m
Ra
p A
Ram
t
C
nS
Ra
mp
aw
a
2-L
e
An
ve
lV
iad
Wa
ter
St
uc
t
Ce
nt
ra
lS
t
Ramp E
p
Ram
D
Tu
nn
el
en
ik
ill
M
Ramp Y
Bl
vd
Ramp C
Alternative 4: Rehabilitation of Existing
NORTH n.t.s
New Traffic Signal
Note: New Traffic Signals at Central St at Davol St
and Anawan St at Viaduct St underneath the 2-Level Viaduct.
Ramp or One-way Street
Viaduct
les
Ta
un
to
n
River
tt
Ba
No Build
Rte. 79 viaduct remains;
repairs done every 5-10
years
hip
St
Ramp E
p
Ram
D
Tu
nn
el
M
ill
ik
en
Bl
vd
Ramp C
Ramp Y
um
en
t
Po
cas
set
Str
eet
G
F+
New
p
Mo
n
m
Ra
p A
Ram
t
C
nS
Ra
mp
aw
a
2-L
e
An
ve
lV
iad
Wa
ter
St
uc
t
Ce
nt
ra
lS
t
No-Build
NORTH n.t.s
Ramp or One-way Street
Viaduct
Evaluation of Benefits and Impacts: Part 1
• Approx. 40 evaluation measures assess impacts &
benefits related to goals and purpose
• 16 measures will be reviewed today
– Vehicular mobility
– Views and visual appearance
– Pedestrian and bicycle circulation
– Local street access
– Safety
– Long-term maintenance needs
• Remaining impacts & benefits will be reviewed at
May Task Force meeting
Analysis: Trip Length & Improved Local and Regional Multimodal Accessibility
ip
sh
ttle
Ba
Cen
tr
Ta
un
to
n
Ta
un
to
n
River
River
ip
sh
ttle
Ba
ter
St
Wa
An
aw
Bl
vd
ill
ik
en
C
vd
Bl
ke
n
tre
et
M
M
ill
i
Ramp Y
Tu
nn
el
Ramp or One-way Street
New Traffic Signal
Viaduct
Ramp or One-way Street
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
I-195 East
I-195 West
N of Interchange
S of Interchange
W of Interchange
E of Interchange
N on Milliken Blvd
S on Milliken Blvd
n/a
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
n/a
Trip Route has less traffic signals
No change
Trip Route has more traffic signals
I-195 East
I-195 West
N of Interchange
S of Interchange
W of Interchange
E of Interchange
N on Milliken Blvd
S on Milliken Blvd
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.4 -0.5
0.0
0.0
n/a
-0.2
0.1
-0.5 -0.5 -0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
n/a
0.0
0.0
-0.4 -0.4
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
n/a
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.5
0.0
n/a
0.2
0.0
0.0
-1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
0.0
-1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
-0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
Trip Length is longer than No-Build
No change
Trip Length is longer than No-Build
I-195 East
I-195 West
N of Interchange
S of Interchange
W of Interchange
E of Interchange
N on Milliken Blvd
S on Milliken Blvd
S on Milliken Blvd
E of Interchange
N on Milliken Blvd
S of Interchange
W of Interchange
N of Interchange
I-195 West
I-195 East
S on Milliken Blvd
E of Interchange
N on Milliken Blvd
S of Interchange
W of Interchange
I-195 West
I-195 East
S on Milliken Blvd
E of Interchange
N on Milliken Blvd
S of Interchange
W of Interchange
N of Interchange
I-195 West
I-195 East
S on Milliken Blvd
E of Interchange
N on Milliken Blvd
S of Interchange
W of Interchange
N of Interchange
I-195 West
Right-in/Right-out Only
Number of Traffic Signals
N of Interchange
Shortest Distance
Number of Traffic Signals
I-195 East
Alternative 3: Milliken Blvd Interchange
NORTH n.t.s
Alternative 3 compared to No-Build
Shortest Distance
Trip Length is longer than No-Build
No change
Trip Length is longer than No-Build
St
New Traffic Signal
Alternative 2 compared to No-Build
I-195 East
I-195 West
N of Interchange
S of Interchange
W of Interchange
E of Interchange
N on Milliken Blvd
S on Milliken Blvd
G
F+
Ne
wS
Alternative 2: Bi-directional 1-Level Viaduct
NORTH n.t.s
Note: New Traffic Signals at Central St at Davol St
and Anawan St at Viaduct St underneath the 1-Level Viaduct.
set
On Ramp
Tu
nn
el
Ramp C
cas
p
Po
m
Ramp E
Ra
wS
tr
p
am
mp
St
Ne ee
wS t
Mo
tre
nu
et
me
nt
G
F+
Ra
an
R
ff
O
Ne
p
St
Ce
nt
Ra
ra
mp
lS
F
t
Ram
pY
St
m
set
ra
l
Ra
as
p A
Po
c
Ne
wS
Mo
tre
nu
et
me
nt
Ce
nt
F
Ram
An
aw
an
St
Wa
te
p
1- L
ev
el
Via
Bi
du
- di
ct
rec
t io
na
l
r St
Ra
m
al
n/a
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
n/a
3.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
5.0
n/a
2.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
n/a
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
3.0
1.0
1.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
n/a
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
n/a
Trip Route has less traffic signals
No change
Trip Route has more traffic signals
2.0
Analysis: At-grade Intersection LOS
ip
sh
ttle
Ba
River
River
ip
sh
ttle
Ba
tral
C/D
G
F+
set
p
St
Ramp E
Tu
nn
el
Ramp A+C+E
B/B
ke
n
ill
i
M
M
ill
i
Ramp Y
ke
n
Bl
Bl
vd
vd
C/C
as
D/C
m
Ramp E
Ramp A+C+E
B / B Po
c
tr
St
Ra
Ne
wS
Tu
nn
el
Ramp Y
Wa
te
An
aw
an
St
ra
l
pC
p A
Ram
St
Ram
Ne ee
wS t
Mo
tre
nu
et
me
nt
G
F+
set
D/C
p
C/D
as
pC
m
A / A Po
c
tr
Ce
nt
St
Ra
Ne
wS
p A
Ram
An
aw
an
St
ra
l
Wa
te
r St
Ram
tral
C/D
r St
Ce
nt
Ne ee
wS t
Mo
tre
nu
et
me
nt
Cen
Ta
un
to
n
Ta
un
to
n
Cen
B/B
Alternative 1A: Route 79 Interchange
NORTH n.t.s
A / A New
AM / Traffic
PM Signalized
Signal
LOS
Ramp or One-way Street
Alternative 1B: Route 79 Interchange
NORTH n.t.s
A / A New
AM /Traffic
PM Signalized
Signal
LOS
Ramp or One-way Street
AM / PM LOS for Critical
A / A Right-in/Right-out
Only
Unsignalized Movement
Vehicular Mobility Summary
• LOS at at-grade intersections does not worsen
under any alternative except No Build
• LOS at freeway and ramp junctions would not
worsen under any alternative
• Speeds on I-195 would not worsen under at-grade
alternatives
• Average trip lengths through interchange would be
shorter under at-grade alternatives
Bike/Ped & Local Access Summary
• Shoulders and bike lanes on all new or
reconstructed streets
• New or improved sidewalks on all new or
reconstructed streets
• Signalized intersections improve conditions in all
alternatives except No Build
• At-grade alternatives provide access to waterfront
via 3 local streets
• Travel distance from Rte. 79 to Water Street is
reduced by almost 1 mi. under at-grade alternatives
Safety Summary
• Local intersections would be improved under all
alternatives
• Interchange safety problems would be addressed
under all alternatives except No Build and
Rehabilitation
Alt. 1a:
Rte. 79 viaduct removed; 3 Rte. 79 signals
Alt. 1b:
Rte. 79 viaduct removed; 2 Rte. 79 signals
Alt. 2: Rte. 79 NB and SB consolidated; NB level removed
Alt. 3: Rte. 79 viaduct removed; Milliken Blvd. Interchange
Alt. 4: Rehabilitation
Maintenance Summary
• All structures would be improved thereby
reducing long-term maintenance under all
alternatives except No Build
• Alt. 3 (Milliken Blvd.) would reduce total bridge
area and future maintenance most
Bridge Summary
Rte. 79
Viaduct
&
Ramps
Alt. 1A
Alt. 1B
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
• Viaduct & 5
Ramps
Removed
• Viaduct & 5
Ramps
Removed
• Viaduct & 7
Ramps
Removed
• 4 Ramps
Replaced
• 4 Ramps
Replaced
• Viaduct
Removed &
Replaced w/
1-level
viaduct
• 2 Ramps
Replaced
• 1 Ramp
Removed
Alt. 4
• Viaduct & 9
Ramp
Superstructures
Replaced
• Substructures
Repaired
• 8 Ramps
Replaced
Viaduct
Street
Replaced
with wider 5lane bridge
Replaced
with wider 4lane bridge
Replaced
with wider 4lane bridge
Replaced
with wider 4lane bridge
No work
Milliken
Blvd.
No work
No work
No work
Replaced
with wider 4
or 5- lane
bridge
No work
Visual Summary
• All alternatives offer opportunities to improve the
appearance of the interchange
• Alt. 1a, 1b and 3 would remove up to 9 elevated
structures
Aerial
Opposite Heritage Park
Opposite Heritage Park
Existing Section
Opposite Heritage Park
Proposed Section (Alternatives 1A, 1B & 3)
Opposite Heritage Park
Aerial
at Central Street
Existing Section
at Central Street
Proposed Section (Alternatives 1A, 1B & 3)
at Central Street
Aerial
at Mill Buildings
Existing Section
at Mill Buildings
Alternative 1b
at Mill Buildings
Alternative 2
at Mill Buildings
Constructability & Traffic Management
• Reconstruction of the Viaduct Street Bridge
Constructability & Traffic Management
• Demolition of Existing Viaduct
Constructability & Traffic Management
• Reconstruction/Relocation of Ramps
Constructability & Traffic Management
• Reconstruction of Milliken Blvd. Bridge
• New Ramp Construction
Discussion/Next Steps
• Refine evaluation criteria
• Continue detailed analysis of alternatives
• Review at May Task Force Meeting
• Prepare for public meeting in early June
Extra slides behind for reference
Step 4 Details:
Environmental Review Process
State Process
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
Establish Rte. 79/I-95 Interchange
Project or Alternatives
File Environmental
Notice Form (ENF)
January 2011
No
Environmental
Impact Report
required
Environmental
Impact Report
(EIR)
Federal Process
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Establish Rte. 79/I-95 Interchange
Project Proposed Action
Class of
Action
Determination
Categorical
Exclusion (CE)
Finding of No
Significant Impact
(FONSI)
Environmental
Assessment
(EA)
Environmental
Impact
Statement (EIS)
Jurisdiction of Interchange Roadways