FEBRUARY 5, 2010
PROJECT REVIEW MEETING MINUTES
Attendees: Dan Ohman, Michael Kennerly, Tim Crouch, Tom Welch, Steve Gent, Scott
Dockstader, Tony Gustafson, Marty Sankey, Max Grogg, Mark Swenson, Kent Nicholson, Mark
Kerper, Jim Rost, Gary Hood, Gary Novey, Mitch Dillavou, John Adam, Jim Schnoebelen, Ken
Yanna, Kathy Coulter, and LaDana Sogard
1. J-turn Project at Springville on US 151
On January 12, 2010 the department held a Public Information Meeting in
Springville to discuss the proposed intersection improvement project at the
junction of US 151 and 6th St\Springville Road just south of Springville. The
proposed improvement involves replacing the existing at-grade intersection
with a J-Turn intersection to improve the operational characteristics and
reduce the number of accidents.
The crash studies show that the majority of the crashes are right angle
crashes involving vehicles crossing the median. The J-turn concept was
designed to prevent/minimize these types of crashes and therefore staff
believed it would be an appropriate solution to propose to the community.
The meeting was well attended and most of those in attendance expressed
strong opposition to the proposed improvement. The primary concern was
the out of distance travel associated with the J-Turn movements for
northbound and southbound traffic and the perception that these
movements could pose a significant problem for farm equipment hauling
grain to the elevator in Springville.
The City Council and mayor of Springville were initially supportive of the
proposal, but changes in the make-up of the council and a new mayor has
resulted in a change in their position, and they have come out in opposition
of the proposal as well. The comment period has closed and with mounting
opposition the District was looking for input on how to respond, the future
of J-Turns statewide, and how to proceed with development at this
intersection.
The District suggested going back to the drawing board, reviewing the
issues that have been raised and looking at various options to address
those concerns. They suggested we would put further development of the
J-turn option on hold while we reviewed other alternatives. Traffic and
Safety agreed with the “go slow” approach to implementation of the use of
J-turns and stressed that it was important to find the right location to build
success and support for their use.
Traffic and Safety will work with the District Traffic Technicians to develop a
“Tool Box” of alternatives to address similar expressway intersections in the
future, and the Office of Design will review the possibility of lowering the
crest vertical curve east of the intersection to improve sight distance at the
intersection. Improving the sight distance would address some of the
concerns raised about the northbound movement through the J-turn.
Another option that will be explored is the use of the Driving Simulator at
the University of Iowa to model the movements through the J-turn at
Springville; including the types of vehicles that would be used in farm
operations to address the concern raised at the hearing (Traffic and Safety
will take the lead on this task). The District will take a look at Drafting a
“White Paper” on the various alternatives available at this intersection and
their pro’s and con’s to use as the basis for their response to the public.
2. Status of Proposed J-Turn Projects in District 1
District 1 had proposed J-turns at two locations to address operational
issues they were having at two at-grade intersections in their area. They
have one proposed for the intersection of IA 330\US 65 with IA 117 in
Jasper County, and another at the intersection of IA 330\US 65 and County
Road F17, which in Jasper County.
In light of the attention and opposition raised as a result of the proposal at
Springville the question was how should we proceed with the proposed
locations in District 1. It was decided to delay the projects at the
intersection of IA 330\US 65 and IA 117, but proceed with the proposal at
the intersection of IA 330\US 65 and F17 for 2011. The sentiment at the
public hearing in Baxter, which is on F17 just east of IA 330\US 65 was
generally favorable, and it was felt that the interim improvements at IA 117
had been effective and would buy us time to develop a permanent solution.
3. I-35 Rest Area near Ankeny
The City of Ankeny has been given approval to construct an interchange
where I-35 goes over 36th St. in Ankeny. Construction of the new
interchange, which is approximately 2 miles north of the 1st St, will require
the relocation of the two Rest Area’s along I-35 south of 36th St.
The agreement with the city calls for them to participate in the cost of
relocating the two Rest Areas, however a study conducted by the Des
Moines Metropolitan Planning Organization concluded their replacement
was not necessary. The DOT Commission reviewed their study and
reaffirmed their commitment to maintain 40 rest Areas in the state;
therefore staff began looking at possible locations for the new rest Areas.
The decision by management was to keep the new Rest Area’s north of Des
Moines so staff settled on a study corridor that went from the County Road
F22 interchange near Elkhart north approximately 6 miles to the IA 210
interchange near Huxley. There were three possible sites in that corridor
that staff reviewed, and they were a single Rest Area at the Elkhart
interchange, a pair of Rest Areas located along mainline north of Elkhart,
and a single Rest Area at the Huxley interchange.
Staff initially preferred the location at Elkhart, but concerns about the cost
of right-of-way this close to Ankeny, and Polk counties proposal to begin
construction of a beltway in 2035 that would connect US 65 and I-35 near
this location resulted in it being dropped from further consideration.
Although the concept of constructing a pair along I-35 is still a viable option
staff felt a single Rest Area at the Huxley interchange would have fewer
impacts and cost less to construct and maintain.
There is a plant in the northwest quadrant of the interchange, which left
the other three quadrants as possible locations. District staff met with
officials from the City of Huxley and at least one of the affected landowners
to review the proposal, and the initial indication was that they were
supportive of the proposal. A Public Information Meeting was held January
14, 2010 in Ankeny to review the interchange proposal and the proposed
Rest Area location. Although the interchange was intended to be the focal
point of the meeting, the Rest Area proposal received the most attention.
Those in attendance spent a lot of time around the two displays we had
setup showing two possible layouts of the rest areas, and staff heard a
number of concerns expressed about the proposals. Opposition continued
to grow after the meeting with a petition drive that gathered several
hundred signatures requesting the City send a letter to the department
requesting we consider another location. The opposition has even got the
attention of several legislators
In light of all that the question was how should we proceed? After much
discussion it was decided that we would contact Motor Vehicle
Enforcement about the possibility of converting the two Weigh Scales
approximately 3 miles north of the Huxley interchange into Rest Area sites.
Mark Masteller was tasked with meeting with representatives of MVE and
reporting back on their response. If they were favorable we would also
begin looking at the environmental issues in this area, because it is outside
of the initial study corridor.
The hope was that we could add this to the list of possible locations along
with a single facility at Elkhart, dual facilities along the interstate, and the
single at Huxley.
4. Scotch Ridge Road in District 1:
The District held a Public Information Meeting on January 12, 2010 to get
input on the proposed safety improvement at the intersection of County
Road G16 (Scotch Ridge Road) and US 69 approximately 2.5 miles south of
the IA 5 interchange. This is essentially a T-intersection with Scotch Ridge
Road coming in from the east with a slight skew, and an entrance to a
frontage road coming in from the west.
The intersection ranks high on the expressway intersection crash listing,
with differential grade, high speed, high volumes and sight distance issues
complicating the task of motorists. The intersection is in a vertical and
horizontal curve and the proposal is to close the existing intersection and
relocate it approximately 2200 feet south. Relocating Scotch Ridge Road to
the south would eliminate many of the issues, but it would limit those on
the west side to a right-in, right-out situation.
The public had concerns with the proposal to relocate Scotch Ridge Road,
but the fact that we are working with differential grades at this location
eliminated several other options from consideration. We received
comments suggesting signals at this location, or reducing the speed
through the area. The District indicated they already have beacons and
double yellow lights at this location, so the question was how should they
proceed?
It was decided to continue development of the current proposal.