HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-6-13 East Parkway Corridor Plan00%
Onk
00%
Onk
00%
,ft
AWN
Aft
A.
Ak
Aft
A%
:v , , - , f. , I
Co Bel mr f,;flg
�1
�1
opt1
Table of Contents
Section 1- Introduction 1
Section 2 - Purpose and Need 4
Forthe East Parkway Corridor.....................................................................................4
Forthe Corridor Plan...................................................................................................6
Section 3 - East Parkway Alternatives Development 6
Step 1- Identify a Wide Range of Alternatives.......................................................6
Step2 - Refine Alignment Suggestions...................................................................6
Step 3 - Select Alignments For Further Study..........................................................8
Alternatives Description............................................................................................12
Segment 1— (Common to Both Alternatives).......................................................12
Segments 2 and 3 — (1000 East Alternative).........................................................12
Segment 4 — (2000 East Alternative)....................................................................13
Segment 5 — (Common to Both Alternatives).......................................................13
Segment5, Step 4 - Alternatives Development....................................................14
Elements of the Proposed East Parkway Cross Section...............................................14
Section 4 - Alternatives Evaluation 18
Right -of -Way Effects on Adjacent Land Use...............................................................18
LandUse Data.....................................................................................................18
Right -of -Way Impacts Comparison.......................................................................19
Comparison of Transportation Benefits..................................................................... 23
TransportationData............................................................................................23
Transportation Benefits Comparison...................................................................24
Alternatives Evaluation — Summary and Conclusions ................................................. 27
Conclusions......................................................................................................... 28
Section 5 - Conceptual Plan 29
DesignParameters.................................................................................................... 30
Grades...................................................................................................................... 31
Special Alignments and Cross Sections....................................................................... 31
East Parkway Corridor Plan I i
South2nd East Intersection Area.........................................................................31
EastParkwav North of Barnev Dairy Road...........................................................32
East Parkway north of East 7th North Street........................................................ 32
East Parkway / 1000 East Connector Intersection, .............................. o .... ... .33
Section 6 - Project Cost Estimate and Implementation Priorities 34
CostEstimate............................................................................................................ 34
Implementation Priorities......................................................................................... 34
Sections..............................................................................................................34
Tables
Table 1 Summary of Right -of -Way Impacts by Corridor Alternative
Segments1 through 4.................................................................................. 20
Table 2 Summary of Right -of -Way Impacts for Optional Alignment Within
Alternatives, Segments 1 through4................................................................ 12
Table 3 Comparison of Right -of -Way Impacts for Segment 5, Alignments A -D....... 22
Table 4 Design Parameters for Concept Layout ....................................................... 30
Table 5 Project Segment Construction Priorities..................................................... 38
Figures
Figure1
Study Corridor................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2
East Parkway Alternatives as Evaluated in Traffic Model .............................. 5
Figure 3
Public Meeting Opportunity to Suggest East Parkway Alternatives ............. 7
Figure 4
Plausible Alignment Segments....................................................................... 9
Figure 5
Alignment Segments Eliminated from Further Consideration ...................
10
Figure 6
Final Alignment Segments Organized into Two Basic Alternatives .............
11
Figure 7
Segment 5 Alternative Alignments..............................................................
15
Figure 8
Example Cross Sections and Right -of -Way Requirements ..........................
16
Figure 9
Visual Comparison of Traffic Flow Changes Resulting from
East Parkway Alternatives............................................................................
25
Figure 10
Numerical Comparison of Key Traffic Parameters Resulting from
East Parkway Alternatives...........................................................................
26
Figure 11
Implementation Sections.............................................................................
36
Drawings
Drawing 1-4 Conceptual Roadway Layout
East Parkway Corridor Plan I ii
+�1
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Section 1 - Introduction
rte,
This report presents the East Parkway Corridor Plan. The study was jointly funded by a
grant from the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC), with the local share
split between Madison County, the City of Sugar City, and the City of Rexburg.
Conceptually, the East Parkway is intended to be a new, continuous route connecting
Rexburg and Sugar City. See Figure 1. The East parkway is intended to expedite travel
between Sugar City and Rexburg (especially Brigham Young University — Idaho in
Rexburg), serve future growth east of Rexburg and south of Sugar City, and reduce
traffic pressure on the already congested 2nd East commercial corridor.
r'�► From south to north, the route would begin at the eastern extent of University
rw, Boulevard south of Rexburg. The route extends east about 1 % miles before turning
north for the next four miles. This section would skirt the east side of Rexburg, before
crossing the South Fork of the Teton River (Teton River SF) and reaching areas south of
Sugar City. From there, it is intended that the East Parkway extend northward
approximately 1 % miles to a connection with SH 33.
toN At the beginning of this study the location of the south terminus was fixed as connecting
tft% to University Drive. However, the general routing of the connection between areas
OR) south of Sugar City and SH 33 was not known. The intention of the East Parkway
Corridor Plan was to identify a single preferred alignment between the termini at
''�` University Boulevard and at SH 33. Key areas of study included:
ez� - The location of the crossing of the Teton River SF including but not limited to
ra� initial alternatives of crossings at 1000 East and 2000 East,
- Identification of alternative alignments connecting to SH 33 in the vicinity of
Sugar City, and
,,t - Identification of alignments and intersection layouts where the East Parkway
will cross existing major roadways.
tvk)
The result of this study is an alignment plan in sufficient detail so as to allow governing
agencies to take actions to preserve right-of-way along the corridor as development
pressures build. Factors considered during the identification of the alignment included:
- Evaluation of multiple alignment options as suggested by participating
agencies, the general public, and the study team;
- Comparison of effects to the man-made and natural environments for the
alternative alignments ultimately defined; and
- Evaluation of the number of vehicles estimated to use the proposed facility
and its impact to operations of the surrounding transportation system.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 11
Figure 1
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Study Corridor
East Parkway Corridor Plan 12
r2t)
r�1
eft►
req
Road Names
Road names used in this report can be confusing as the north -south roadways can be referred
to by as many as three different names, depending on the prevailing jurisdiction. The
convention used in this report is as follows:
- Where a roadway or alignment has multiple names: the County grid location (1000
East, 2000 East, etc.) is used.
- When a roadway or alignment is mentioned totally within the context of either
Rexburg or Sugar City, the community name is used.
Some roadway naming equivalences are shown below. The names in bold are the names most
commonly used in this report.
Roadway Alignment Equivalence
County Rexburg
Sugar City
Salem Rd (0 E/W) 2"d East
n/a
1000 East N 9th East
S7 th West
2000 East N 16th East
S 7th East / Digger Rd
The following is a history of significant events leading up to this study:
■ An arterial roadway south and east of Rexburg is shown on the state Functional
Classification Map approved in 2003 (and identified in even earlier planning
documents).
■ Construction of the southwestern segment - the 3.3 mile "South Rexburg
Arterial" (University Boulevard) was completed in 2008.
• The "Madison County Transportation Plan (2004)" supported the "East Parkway"
concept to benefit traffic circulation within the county.
• The Transportation Plan was adopted by Madison County, Rexburg and Sugar
City.
■ Madison County, Rexburg, and Sugar City made the "East Parkway" their mutual
#1 priority.
• In 2006, Madison County, Rexburg, and Sugar City received funding grant
through LHTAC for this study.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 13
Section 2 - Purpose and Need
For the East Parkway Corridor
As evidenced by the history presented above, there has been a long held view that a
new north -south roadway located generally along the east side of Rexburg between
Rexburg and Sugar City was necessary. Factors supporting this addition to the
circulation system included:
• Growing travel between Sugar City and the BYU-Idaho Campus,
■ The need for an additional crossing of the Teton River SF to relieve
congestion on 2nd East Street, and
• The prospects of new development on the east side of Rexburg and in
areas south of Sugar City.
Currently 2nd East is the only river crossing within Rexburg. The next closest crossings
are US 20, a freeway, located about 1.5 miles west of 2nd East; and 2000 East, a
traditional 2 -lane county grid road, located two miles to the east of 2nd East. The
existing congestion on 2nd East is due to the combined effects of having "the only bridge
in town" and the concentration of commercial/retail establishments along 2nd East.
The traffic related benefits of an "East Parkway" facility were confirmed in the 2004
Madison County Transportation Plan. A traffic forecasting model was developed and
used to test the value of several "East Parkway" alternatives inserted into the traffic
network as shown in Figure 2. This study found that, depending on the alignment
selected, the East Parkway would carry up to 16,600 vehicles per day (vpd) and would
reduce traffic on 2nd East by up to 8,400 vpd in the 2022 forecast year.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 14
Figure 2
East Parkway Corridor Plan
SO
C
L
O!
Q
N
IO
W
O
O
N
v
v
v
O
p-
East Parkway Corridor Plan 1 5
N
o
y,'
-aa
's
V
w
Id
m
L
F
C_
V
Y
$
C
a
r0
N
b
yy
BC
W
t�
gY
O
i if
F A
U
N
u. �.
N
d
i
3
Y
'a+
rC
a
i
M
wa
'
n
F
Figure 2
East Parkway Corridor Plan
SO
C
L
O!
Q
N
IO
W
O
O
N
v
v
v
O
p-
East Parkway Corridor Plan 1 5
fm1
For the Corridor Plan
The 2004 Transportation Plan validated the transportation system need and
effectiveness of an East Parkway. However, although the links inserted in the model
implied a general location for the several alternatives tested, the Transportation Plan
�'�► did not identify specific roadway alignments that would be necessary to effect the traffic
links entered into the model, nor did the Plan compare alternatives on any basis other
than the effects on forecast traffic volumes.
'llw� The purpose of this corridor planning study was to accomplish the following:
elt� • Decide what the East Parkway will look like (cross section),
,ft.� • Determine the East Parkway location (alignment),
• Identify the location of primary intersections (access),
• Identify proposed right-of-way needs, and
'"' Identify a logical sequence of interim construction projects.
MIN
,"N The needs for this corridor planning study are:
• Provide for long-term traffic circulation needs and regional benefits,
Provide mechanism for all users to provide input,
Allow affected property owners to plan for the future,
Provide guidance for decision makers necessary to protect the identified
corridor, and
• Allow local jurisdictions to fund manageable sized projects.
r�
Section 3 - East Parkway Alternatives Development
The process of alternatives development was carried out as a joint effort between the
study team, members of the public, and sponsoring agencies. A series of three steps
were involved.
Step 1- Identify a Wide Range of Alternatives
Step one took place at the first Public Meeting. All in attendance were presented with
an aerial map showing Rexburg, Sugar City and adjoining County areas. See Figure 3.
The mapping showed the general location of the alternatives tested in the traffic model
as part of the 2004 Madison County Transportation Plan. Four "nodes" were drawn
along the East Parkway corridor representing logical decision points. Participants were
asked to draw their preference for alignments between one or more nodes. By the end
of the meeting the participants had drawn more than 20 segments.
Step 2 - Refine Alignment Suggestions
Following the public meeting, all of the segments submitted were used as the basis for
developing geometrically correct roadway alignments representing the intentions of the
hand drawn segments. During this process, all suggestions were included, although
some suggestions were combined into a single alignment and others were "shaped" to
achieve buildable geometry or to reflect the influence of property lines and other
natural features.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 16
x"41
Figure 3
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Public Meeting Opportunity to Suggest East Parkway Alternatives
i r ea'
East Parkway Corridor Plan 1 7
E
L.
'1
East Parkway Corridor Plan 1 7
The result was a large set of "plausible" alignment segments based on public comment.
These are shown in Figure 4.
Step 3 - Select Alignments For Further Study
After the plausible alignments were developed from the suggestions of the public, the
study team went on to select alignment segments recommended for further study.
Alignment segments were included for further study if:
• The segment fostered primary traffic improvement goals:
- Fundamentally enhances the existing circulation system,
- Best serves 20 -year forecast traffic, and
- Reduces congestion on 2nd East Street and other existing streets.
• A segment represents / responds to options described by the public,
• A segment represented true advantages or tradeoffs, not simply a relocation of
impacts, or
• A segment's alignment was more easily incorporated into the existing roadway
system.
The results of Step 3 were shown to the public via Figure 5, which shows the reasons
why various suggested alignment segments were not selected for further study.
Figure 6 shows only the alignment segments selected for further study and how they
were combined to define the two primary alternatives that remained for consideration.
The two alternatives are referred to as the 1000 East Alternative and the 2000 East
Alternative; the defining characteristic being the locations of the Teton River SF
crossings.
Because the location of the Teton River SF crossing would have a major effect on
shaping the alignment of the East Parkway, it is reasonable to believe that this study
would investigate other locations in addition to the two crossing locations implied in the
Transportation Plan (1000 East and 2000 East) and generally endorsed by the public
participation. The study team did try to find a feasible crossing point located between
1000 and 2000 East. None could be found that would compare favorably with the two
crossings under consideration. Locating a crossing anywhere between 1000 East and
2000 East would result in taking of homes along Barney Dairy Road, a wider crossing of
the Teton River SF, and increased potential for impact to wetlands and wildlife habitat
adjoining the river.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 18
Figure 4
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Plausible Alignment Segments
East Parkway Corridor Plan 19
TALIGNMENT SELECTION
Selected for further evaluation
Dropped during preliminary
screening
i roewayroa ru..roin.nyh zmsl.
BARN BY DAIRY ROAD
•Fylzting 'Ws nat fu�a�� .[....colo¢
allpnmem, :lunl�eaarc repulr^e. - Q
n
_
Figure 5
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Alignment Segments Eliminated from Further Consideration
Figure 6
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Final Alignment Segments Organized into Two Basic Alternatives
di
t-
East Parkway Corridor Plan 1 11
Alternatives Description
The descriptions of the 1000 East and 2000 East alternatives are presented in a south to
north direction and refer to segment numbers as shown in Figure 6.
MN Segment 1— (Common to Both Alternatives)
1191�
The south terminus of both alternatives is located at the easternmost point of University
Boulevard, before it turns north along the alignment of S 2nd West. Segment 1 is
proceeds easterly from the south terminus, before turning north along the 1000 East
alignment and ending approximately 1,500 feet south of Barney Dairy Road. Two sub-
'JL�
alternatives (1a and 1b) for the curve from the eastward alignment to the northward
t",
alignment were evaluated. These sub -alternatives reflect differing field split impacts to
areas currently under irrigated crop use. Elsewhere in Segment 1, the alignments are
straight and follow property lines or observed lines of differing land use.
The north -south section of the Segment 3 alignment located 1200 feet east of 1000 East
IIMN The north end of Segment 1 is defined by the point of decision between the 1000 East
,"N and 2000 East alternatives.
00Segments 2 and 3 — (1000 East Alternative)
ells Segment 2 proceeds north, intersecting with Barney Dairy Road before traversing a new
tlllt� crossing of the Teton River SF. Segment 2 ends at N 9th East Street. Approaching Barney
rft� Dairy Road, the alignment is shifted to the west. This shift is intended to provide
adequate spacing between the proposed East Parkway and the existing Partridge Lane
intersections on Barney Dairy Road, and minimize impacts to the Quailhollow
ta► Subdivision.
elks
Segment 3 begins at N 9th East, and starts by shifting the north -south alignment east
approximately 1,200 feet. The intent of this alignment shift is to maintain 1000 East as a
local road and limit access points to the East Parkway. Widening along 1000 East would
also entail expensive power and irrigation utility relocation.
Two sub -alignment alternatives are shown to accomplish the eastward shift in the
Segment 3 alignment. The more northerly alignment (3A) is thought to reduce impacts
to adjacent properties but create more challanges in integrating the East Parkway with
the local roadway system. The converse is true for the more southern alignment (3B).
The north -south section of the Segment 3 alignment located 1200 feet east of 1000 East
would impact what is now primarily irrigated crop land. The route selected best avoids
existing structures and follows apparent breaks in existing field use as much as possible.
Segment 3 proceeds north about one half mile north of Moody Highway. At this point
the alignment of Segment 3 turns eastward for about 0.8 miles, ending at an
intersection with 2000 East. As part of the corridor plan, a connection would also be
r�
made to 1000 East. This would create a new east -west connection between 1000 East
and 2000 East to serve expected development south of Sugar City.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 112
r'�1
The intersection of the 1000 East alternative with 2000 East Road is the north common
point between the two primary alternatives.
/WN Segment 4 — (2000 East Alternative)
At the end of Segment 1, the alignment of the 2000 East Alternative (Segment 4) turns
east for one mile before turning northward following the existing 2000 East roadway
alignment. The Teton River SF would be crossed at the existing location of 2000 East
crossing; with a new, wider bridge. The east -west extension traverses farmland south of
�'► Barney Dairy Road. The northward section extends about two miles along the
alignment of 2000 East Road until reaching the northern common point where the 1000
East Alternative intersects with 2000 East Road.
?"RN
Segment 4 contains two sub alignments to accomplish the alignment shift between
fln,
1000 East and 2000 East. The north sub -alignment (4A) would be a more direct route
,.,,
and was intended to minimize the impact on farm fields. The southern sub -alignment
(4B) would increase the distance between the East Parkway and existing homes along
Barney Dairy Road and perhaps result in a more usable land area north of the
r�
alignment.
�+
Segment 5 — (Common to Both Alternatives)
Segment 5 extends north from the common intersection of Segments 3 and 4 on 2000
East to the intended north project terminus — an intersection with SH 33. The evolution
of an alignment within Segment 5 proved to be more challenging than that for the other
segments and would require an additional step in the alternatives development process.
e0t)
As with all other segments, an alignment was selected in Step 3 of the Alignment
Development process previously described. A single alignment as shown in Figure 6 was
selected for further study and alternatives comparison purposes. The alignment
extended north from the end point of Segments 3 and 4, approximately 900 feet east of
existing 2000 East until reaching SH 33. Sub -alignment alternatives were included on
r�
the south end of the segment to allow for differences in connecting to either Segment 3
�+
or Segment 4. This alignment was selected in response to various comments to avoid
proximity to the existing Sugar City High School located along 2000 East. This alignment
would also avoid impacts to adjacent properties located along 2000 East within Sugar
City and avoid multiple existing access points along 2000 East that would be inconsistent
with the East Parkway concept.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 113
eaN
The alignment of Segment 5 as shown in Figure 6 was shown at the second public
meeting. Many comments from stakeholders ranging from sponsoring agencies to
individual property owners were received after this meeting; resulting in a need to
reevaluate an expanded range of alternatives for Segment 5. This is described below.
r�
East Parkway Corridor Plan 113
eaN
Segment 5, Step 4 - Alternatives Development
eln� Through a series of discussions with stakeholders that would be directly affected by
tiv� Segment 5 alignments a total of five alignment alternatives were developed and
ellff� evaluated. These alternatives, labeled A through E are shown in Figure 7 and described
,,, below.
Alternative 5A — would follow the existing alignment of 2000 East to the intersection
with SH 33. This alternative was intended to minimize impacts to properties east of
2000 East by following the existing roadway alignment.
Alternative 5B — is the initial Segment 5 alignment as shown in Figure 6 and at the
second public meeting. It was intended to avoid proximity to the high school and
�► existing access issues as noted above. The Alternative 5B was offset about 900 feet
from 2000 East to allow enough width for economical development of the area between
2000 East and Alternative 5B, and to pass through an open lot on the north side of 3000
North.
rvt)
elm,
Alternatives 5C, 5D, and 5E — were a family of alternatives generally progressing farther
fOI,
eastward; each one minimizing the impacts of splitting existing properties. All of these
alternatives end up running along a property line and irrigation channel about A mile
01'
east of 2000 East.
elrb,
,,k�
Elements of the Proposed East Parkway Cross Section
The alternatives development process was carried a conceptual understanding of the
right-of-way width required for the corridor. The required right-of-way is dependent on
the desired cross section elements. These range from absolute needs (i.e. four 12 -foot
travel lanes, left turn lanes, sidewalks) to optional/aesthetic elements (e.g. bicycle lanes,
recreational paths, wide landscaped medians, landscaped buffer zones between the
roadway and adjacent land use).
The forecast traffic volume of 16,600 vehicles per day would exceed the efficient
r�
operating capacity of a two-lane or three -lane roadway. It was thus determined that
fundamental capacity needs required that the new roadway be planned with two travel
lanes in each direction with a minimum median width of 14 feet to accommodate left
turns. Beyond this lay a series of options regarding facilities for pedestrians and
bicyclists, buffer zones and open or closed drainage that would directly affect right-of-
way needs. Figure 8 shows several different combination of cross section elements,
illustrating a full range of right-of-way requirements. The example cross sections show
required right-of-way widths ranging from 85 to 160 feet. The public was asked to
comment on the various cross section options and associated width requirements. The
response from the public could best be described as "minimalist", with a noted
OWN
emphasis of cost considerations over "amenities".
rlm%
MI,
East Parkway Corridor Plan 114
r"'.1
r
Lf ol-
110
e aii,It_..
Figure 8
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Example Cross Sections and Right -of -Way Requirements
i .# 4 1*Q *
Walk landuape/ a Omside Through Median Through Outside Laeduapo/ Pathway
Drainage Lane Lane lane lane v Dra nii,
m SwaleSwale m
130'1D 160'
Boulevard
Of Walk landuape/ 4 Onsade Through Median
c oramage 3 lane lane
m Swale 115'1. 130'
lrough Oumde _ Wnduarhr/ Pan.,
Lane lane u Drainage
Swale
Landscaped parkway
(Drainage Swale Option)
. 1111116,rink
� f
Walk 2 Outside Through Median Through Outside e g Pathway
Urn, lane Lane Lane
or Er J
Too, to 115'
Landscape Strip
(Detached Walkways)
Walk a Outsme Through Turn Through Outside
u lame lane Lane Lane lane u c
mJ mJ
BY to 100'
Minimum Section
(Attached Walkways)
East Parkway Corridor Plan 116
Several general issues were thought to influence the public reaction at that time:
- There is no identified funding source,
- The public was generally pessimistic about funding due to the initial
onset of the current economic downturn,
- Although growth continues to occur in Rexburg due to the expansion of
BYU Idaho, private development along the East Parkway corridor had
slowed — reducing the general urgency for the project, and
- Many of those commenting would be affected by one or more
alternatives and thus were inclined to support a minimum width /
minimum impact approach.
For the purposes of measuring and evaluating right-of-way impacts, the study team
elected to based alignment planning and comparisons on a nominal right-of-way width
of 130 feet. This is consistent with the right-of-way width for the extension of
University Boulevard (typically either 125 or 135 feet wide). In terms of cross section
elements, 130 feet would allow design flexibility for open or closed drainage and
provide for the possibility of separate recreation paths, roadway bicycle lanes and other
amenities. Although selection of a 130 foot nominal right-of-way width would preclude
the highest levels of roadway aesthetics, it would allow full flexibility in planning for
turning lanes, bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities. It is desirable to maintain this
flexibility at this level of roadway planning/development process. As the project is
further developed, it will be easier to reduce the roadway footprint than to enlarge it.
Finally, a wider right-of-way is consistent with broader community goals to facilitate
bicycle use and corridor level path continuity as set forth in County and City
comprehensive plans.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 117
Section 4 - Alternatives Evaluation
The fundamental goal of the East Parkway is to improve traffic circulation within
Madison County and specifically between the communities of Sugar City and Rexburg.
Significant criteria in meeting that goal include:
• Reduced congestion on 2nd East;
• Serving future travel demands from anticipated growth east of Rexburg, areas
between Rexburg and Sugar City, and in southern Sugar City; and
• Providing an effective alternative to 2nd East for emergency vehicles.
In the case of the East Parkway alignment alternatives, the effects on traffic circulation,
and thus the ability of a given alternative to meet the primary goals of this project, are
NOT the same. This conclusion is relatively intuitive given the following characteristics
of the alternatives:
- The primary north -south corridors of the 1000 East and 2000 East
alternatives are one mile apart — a significant distance considering that
existing Rexburg is only about 2 %: miles wide.
- One alternative adds a crossing of the Teton River SF. The other alternative
would utilize an existing crossing location (with a new structure) that
currently has low traffic volumes.
Because of this, the selection of a favored corridor requires consideration of the physical
effects of the right-of-way needed for the corridor as well as the resulting traffic
benefits.
Right -of -Way Effects on Adjacent Land Use
Although formal environmental studies were not performed as part of this study,
sufficient data was developed to understand the general magnitude of effects and
support a valid comparison of the effects of alternatives. From the information
obtained and the evaluations performed it is reasonably certain that formal
environmental studies would not be likely to produce information that would change
the conclusions of this study.
Land Use Data
Fifteen different measured values were developed to quantify the physical effects of
each of the two primary alternative routings for the East Parkway. These data were
developed by coding the centerline of the proposed alignment alternatives into GIS
software. The GIS software was then used to sum areas or objects that could be
affected by the 130 -foot wide right-of-way corridor selected for this evaluation. The
following GIS formatted data was used:
■ Aerial Photo —Source: www.insideidaho.org
• Parcel Data —Source: Madison County, updated 1-18-08
• Land Use and Stream Data —Source: ITD GeoDatabase Shape Files
East Parkway Corridor Plan 118
- View 1 Shape File — ImageryBaseMapsEarthCover
- View 2 Shape File - Strm24k dlg_cff-idl
- View 2 Shape File - Wetlands_24k_rlcd_usgs
- View 2 Shape File - Prim frm_Ind_24k_ssurgo_nres
The environmental and land cover data is generalized information developed at a scale
of 1 in = 2000 ft. It is useful in developing preliminary level comparisons as are
presented here.
Right -of -Way Impacts Comparison
A quantification was made of various relevant right-of-way impact elements including:
- General Measures: Length, area, and owners affected
- Houses and outbuildings taken or located close to the roadway
- Other Sensitive Uses (cemetery, school, church)
- Natural Environment: wetlands, water crossings, farmland
The data for Segments 1 through 4 are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 compares the
total estimated impacts for the two primary alternatives. Table 2 provides comparison
data for sub -alignments within the primary alternatives. Data comparing the five
alignment considered in Segment 5 are shown in Table 3. In all cases the larger the
quantity of a measured value the greater the impact would be. These data are
summarized briefly below.
The 1000 East Alternative has the larger value in eight of the 16 categories quantified
for this comparison: Corridor Area
Corridor Length
Land Owners Affected
Housing Within 100 Feet
Acres of Wetland
Acres of Low Intensity Developed Land
Acres of Pasture / Hay Land Use
Acres of Cultivated Cropland
The 2000 East Alternative has larger values in five of the categories:
Housing Takes
Housing within 25 Feet
Adjacent To Sensitive Land Use - Cemetery
Surface Water Crossings
Width of Floodplain at Teton River SF Crossing
Acres of Developed Open Space
There was no difference in two categories:
Outbuildings Taken
Adjacent To Sensitive Land Use — Church, school
East Parkway Corridor Plan 119
Table 1
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Summary of Right -of -Way Impacts by Corridor Alternative
Segments 1 through 4
East Parkway Corridor Plan 120
Natural Environment
- Land Cover (acres)
4-1
Sensitive Uses
Community Impacts
Alternative
Housing Affected
'2 '— ao
ir c
CL
Outbuildings
Within 50 Ft
Q,;
o
_
L
Q ao
in O
Alternative /
L
=
3
N
r+
o.
5
Segments 1 tru 4
Se h
$
ani
Comparison
°' M
°
s
-a aU
a
o
U
M
a
�
E
Segments 1 thru 4
u° °
J
J Q
2000 East
12
3,770 ft
F�
V
U
1000 East
109
37,400
103
1
1
13
1
1
9.3
2000 East
100
34,300
L 75
4
4
11
1
1
1
1000 E Greater by
9
3,100
28
2
2000 E Greater by
I
1
1 3
1 3
1
1
1
East Parkway Corridor Plan 120
Natural Environment
- Land Cover (acres)
4-1
a
Alternative
'2 '— ao
ir c
CL
C.
o�
Q,;
o
_
L
-a
Comparison
.�
M
.y
M y
3
o.
5
Segments 1 tru 4
Se h
$
°
V) U
o
U-
°' M
°
Q-
00
a
0�
a
o
U
1000 East
9
1,060 ft
0.66
4.2
0.6
15.4
87.8
2000 East
12
3,770 ft
0.64
16.3
0.3
4.3
78.5
1000 E Greater by
0.02
0.3
11.1
9.3
2000 E Greater by
3
1 2,710 ft
1
12.1
East Parkway Corridor Plan 120
s
mi LA to
E (1991) 41gual I �I g
E (sai3e) m r
E
eaay.iop!aao� �r `r
V
t i
a�
c S ao
D
c
t�
a
sdoa:)
'IT
I*
M
E
E
pa}enljln:)
a
N
In
a,
AeH /aan;sed
V
rn
ry
m
IA
a
,SZ ul4RM
Ln
r.4
s
u
c
too
c
A4!suajul mol
m
m
u'padolana(l
u
'padolanaa
o
c
0
'padolanaa
_a
a:)edS uado
a:)edS uado
oN
m
a -i
._
'padoiama
00
ri
ri
N
m
o
c
'padolanaa
c4
d
r
4
a�
E
sOu!ssa:)
g
g
OL
•�
aajeM 93e}jnS
M
o
E
c
W
•�
aajeM a3e:p nS
L
4-0
c
W
saa:)y pUelleM
z
z
oAaajawa�
LL
Ln
Aaa�awa�
o
0
0
z
4:)jn40
c
a 3
V)
a�
> c_
43an4:)
43an4J
3
mi LA to
E (1991) 41gual I �I g
E (sai3e) m r
E
eaay.iop!aao� �r `r
V
t i
a�
c S ao
D
c
t�
a
,OOT u!4}!M
'IT
I*
V-1
E
E
pajeAl�lno
N
N
a,
pale/mIln:)
AeH /ain4sed
rn
ry
m
IA
a
,SZ ul4RM
Ln
r.4
s
u
c
too
c
i
�+
d
E
u'padolana(l
.N
o
uajel
t1A
0
'padolanaa
_a
a:)edS uado
pa:paljv
oN
m
a -i
._
siauMo puel
N
N
c
a�
mi LA to
E (1991) 41gual I �I g
E (sai3e) m r
E
eaay.iop!aao� �r `r
V
t i
a�
c S ao
D
c
t�
a
.� uailel
.n
0
W,OOT
sdoa:)
N
V-+
V-1
E
E
pajeAl�lno
N
N
a�
pale/mIln:)
AeH /ain4sed
rn
ry
m
IA
L
V
,SZ u1411M
Ln
r.4
s
u
c
tui
c
i
�+
d
E
u'padolana(l
c
Al!sualul mol
t1A
0
'padolanaa
_a
a:)edS uado
pada j}d
m
a -i
.o
a:)edS uado
N
N
c
a�
'padolanaa
c4
d
r
4
c
a�
g
g
s2u!ssoa�
(Taal) 412ua-1
M
o
E
•�
aajeM a3e:p nS
L
4-0
c
W
z
oAaajawa�
saa3y puellaM
o
0
0
z
4:)jn40
a W
a 3
V)
a�
> c_
43an4:)
3
N
.� uailel
.n
0
W,OOT
U14M
N
V-+
V-1
E
E
pajeAl�lno
N
N
a�
AeH /ainised
V
a
,SZ u1411M
s
u
c
tui
c
i
�+
d
E
u'padolana(l
c
uqel
t1A
a
_a
a:)edS uado
pada j}d
m
a -i
siaumo pue-1
N
N
c
a�
sSulssoa:)
g
g
E
(Taal) 412ua-1
M
o
c
Wp
3
E (sai3e) o N N
E
eaadJop!aao:)
O c
s �
c m
� M Q
C
a
Table 2
East Parkway Corridor Plan
uajel
.n
0
,001 u!4�!M
m
Q ,SZ u141!M
c
'o uajel
pada j}y m co
m
_ s iaumo puel
a
E
'c
sdoa0
25
r'
oo
N
E
E
pajeAl�lno
N
N
L
AeH /ainised
V
s
u
c
A4!sualul mol
i
�+
d
E
u'padolana(l
t1A
a
_a
a:)edS uado
4-0'padolanaa
c
a�
sSulssoa:)
E
0
-a.#eM a:)epnS
M
M
o
c
Wp
L
4-0
saa3y pUel}aM
z
oAaajawa�
v m
> c
4:)jn40
a 3
V)
uajel
.n
0
,001 u!4�!M
m
Q ,SZ u141!M
c
'o uajel
pada j}y m co
m
_ s iaumo puel
a
E
'c
(laal) 41gual
25
r'
oo
E
E
(saaoe)
N
N
eaay aopla.io�
s
u
c
i
�+
d
E
t1A
a
East Parkway Corridor Plan 121
Table 3
East Parkway Corridor Plan
East Parkway Corridor Plan 122
Jaa.ils aa�ua�
vii
N °'
47
::
01 uol:pauuo'
u°
w Y
Y
u°
O
to
N
c(sAennanl.lp
10 #)
C E
juawaSeuelM
to
0 0
0
0
L W
ssa33d
F— uj
/
(saaoe)NOMON
puelw.lej awlad
Gi
N N
N
N
(U
N
u
s2uwsso :)
•> L
.laleM a3e}jnS
W
(SOX)
�u
0000m
spuellaM
o
c o
o
r+
z
MOa 10:4 OOZ
u144!m sawoH
to
N
o
ua�leloocoo
Ioo4:)S 421H
04A41wlxoJd�0000
sj11dS 1a3aed
O
tT
ct
N
papa}}y
N
s laumo puel
M
1D 1°
tO
1D
(1881) 442ual
o
o aoo
m
cm
E
juawu2Ild
o0
^
q %-t
oo cn
N
of
to
vi
E
(saM) Iu8w2aS
E
eald
M
N
N N
co
N
o
v
jo
Q
m u
o
W
�
� c
�
c
r-
o Ln
=
a�a
ao no
r-
as
�
E a
a
a a
a
a
E
E
Q u to
Table 3
East Parkway Corridor Plan
East Parkway Corridor Plan 122
rlll�
The comparison data also shows that the differences between alternatives in the
�1
more sensitive comparison categories is also relatively low. In the most extreme
�1
example, it can be said that "the 2000 East Alternative takes 4 times more
E"R1
houses than does the 1000 East Alternative". However, the actual magnitude
olt�
There are relevant observations with regard to the data presented in Tables 1 and 2.
MIN
• Overall, neither of the alternatives can be said to have undue negative effects on
the surrounding environment for a corridor of this length. One of the more
sensitive effects, Housing Takes, would involve a maximum of four homes (with
OWN
the 2000 East Alternative). An important environmental concern, effects to
Olt,
wetlands, would involve less than 0.7 acres regardless of alternative selected. Of
the 25 Surface Water Crossings identified for the two alternatives 23 involve
routine crossings of irrigation channels. The other are the Teton River SF
crossings associated with the two alternatives.
rlll�
The comparison data also shows that the differences between alternatives in the
r*n
more sensitive comparison categories is also relatively low. In the most extreme
�'
example, it can be said that "the 2000 East Alternative takes 4 times more
elv
houses than does the 1000 East Alternative". However, the actual magnitude
olt�
involved is 4 houses taken vs. IL house taken. Other comparison factors may be
MIN
larger in magnitude (e.g. Acres of Cultivated Crops) but differ much less between
alternatives (about 10 percent for Cultivated Crops) or are often considered less
important.
rlll�
• The information comparing Segment 5 alignments indicates that the various
r*n
choices involve clear trade-offs not just in the magnitude of right-of-way effects,
�'
but also in the type of effects as well. Alignment A would create proximity
elv
effects to residences and other land uses adjacent to existing 2000 East through
olt�
Sugar City. Alternatives 6 through D would not have development effects, but
MIN
have significant parcel splits affecting current farming operations. There are also
effects to transportation benefits due to the different alignments and the
differences in adjacent land uses. The trade-offs between effects that are not
OWN
directly comparable (magnitude vs. type) are discussed under
Olt,
Comparison Summary and Conclusions and the end of this section.
("IN
Given the above observations, it is suggested that with the exception of Segment 5 the
'a' right-of-way effects on surrounding land use are either low enough in overall magnitude
tv'N or do not vary enough between the alternatives so as to provide a compelling reason for
,,ft� selection of one alternative over the other.
'''' Comparison of Transportation Benefits
tlt' As noted earlier, the location of the two alternatives relative to the core activities within
rNN Rexburg and the location of the proposed crossing of the Teton River SF suggests that
eft� the two alternatives under consideration would affect existing and future traffic in
OIN different ways.
f"I,
Transportation Data
r*n
A traffic forecasting model capable of comparing the traffic effects of significant
additions or improvements to the existing roadway network was developed as part of
the 2004 Madison County Transportation Plan. Area -wide growth in traffic demand was
estimated based on future population and employment forecast to the year 2022.
MIN
Growth of population and employment was distributed throughout the Madison County
East Parkway Corridor Plan 123
OWN
OR1
Data comparing the benefits of the East Parkway alternatives derived from studies made
during the development of the 2004 Transportation Plan are presented below.
Numerous model runs were made to evaluate different combinations of improvements
throughout Madison County —three of which were crafted to compare he benefits of
new or improved roadway corridors generally following the current 1000 East and 2000
East alternatives.
rv*►
Transportation Benefits Comparison
�1
Figure 9 presents a graphical depiction of the model results for changes in forecast
OWN
travel volumes using three different roadway networks studied to determine the effects
!f1
of an East Parkway Corridor. The first two cases represent the 1000 East Alternative and
OON
to identify changes in the spatial distribution of future trips as growth fills in and
expands from existing development. A significant amount of growth was forecast to
eql�
occur to the east of Rexburg, south of Sugar City, and in the predominantly agricultural
144'
areas located between currently developed Rexburg and Sugar City.
widest bands of green (decrease in traffic on existing roadways).
Data comparing the benefits of the East Parkway alternatives derived from studies made
during the development of the 2004 Transportation Plan are presented below.
Numerous model runs were made to evaluate different combinations of improvements
throughout Madison County —three of which were crafted to compare he benefits of
new or improved roadway corridors generally following the current 1000 East and 2000
East alternatives.
rv*►
Transportation Benefits Comparison
rft�
Figure 9 presents a graphical depiction of the model results for changes in forecast
e0t,
travel volumes using three different roadway networks studied to determine the effects
of an East Parkway Corridor. The first two cases represent the 1000 East Alternative and
Owl
the 2000 East Alternative. The third case represents a "South 2000 East Corridor"
where the East Parkway corridor would shift to the 2000 East alignment at the south
end of the corridor following the University Boulevard alignment, rather than further
north near Barney Dairy Road.
$at)
Figure 9 shows roadway links in the traffic model on which traffic increased as purple.
rft�
The links where traffic decreased are shown in green. The width of the color band
e0t,
corresponds to the magnitude of the change. The larger the purple band on the links
representing the East Parkway alternatives indicates the amount of traffic using that
Owl
alternative. Green bands on roadway links other than those representing East Parkway
alternatives indicate reductions in traffic volumes on the existing system as a result of
including the East Parkway in the traffic network. Thus the most effective alternative
will have the widest bands of purple (traffic using the East Parkway alternative) and the
widest bands of green (decrease in traffic on existing roadways).
would be considered to be the most effective in meeting project goals. The
Inspection of Figure 9 shows that the 1000 East Alternative would attract the largest
rft�
number of vehicle trips; and result in the greatest decrease in traffic volume on the
existing roadway system — particularly on the important 2nd East Street. The forecast
traffic reduction on 2"d East Street resulting from the 2000 East Alternative is less than
one third that of the 1000 East Alternative.
Figure 10 presents numerical comparisons of the model results for East Parkway
alternatives. A series of four charts presents the following alternatives comparison data
based on 2022 traffic model forecasts. In all cases, the alternative with the largest value
would be considered to be the most effective in meeting project goals. The
comparisons are follows:
ION
ORN
East Parkway Corridor Plan 24
Aw�
A
Figure 9
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Visual Comparison of Traffic Flow Changes Resulting from
East Parkway Alternatives
4
� o00o g
9 B�F�SS88�
m
� � a
d ,
O
E
N
00000 O
000000000
� 000IR
,O .ym e.irvmein
c
East Parkway Corridor Plan 1 25
/t,
/\
Ak
20,000
16,000
E 12,000
0
T
0 8,000
u
5
5
LL 4,000
12,000
V
O 8,000
Figure 10
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Numerical Comparison of Key Traffic Parameters Resulting from
East Parkway Alternatives
Maximum Volume on Alternative
1000
Alignment Alternative
Traffic Reduction
S 2000 E
1,600
20,000
„ 18,000
ir
0
Z 12,000
a
0
u
? 8,000
4,000
60,000
a
'0 50,000
O
d
M 40,000
Y
U
Z
30,000
20,000
River Crossings
AllgnmentAltemative
Daily Travel on Alternative
AlignmentAltemative Alignment Alternative
Maximum Volume on Alternative —shows the maximum daily traffic volume
found anywhere on the East Parkway alternatives. The maximum forecast daily
volume on the 1000 East Alternative (16,600 vpd) would be almost double that
of the 2000 East Alternative.
River Crossings —As noted earlier, 2nd East Street river crossing is currently
heavily traveled because its location is central to major activity centers including
retail/commercial development along 2nd East Street, the Rexburg City Center,
Madison Memorial Hospital, and the BYU-Idaho campus. It is heavily congested
under existing conditions, resulting in routine driver inconvenience and
potentially serious delay to emergency vehicles approaching the hospital from
the north. Thus, the amount of forecast traffic using an alternative for crossing
the Teton River SF is an important indicator of the effectiveness of an East
Parkway alternative. The forecast number of river crossings on the 100 East
Alternative (15,600 vpd) would be almost double the number of crossings made
via the 2000 East Alternative.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 126
• Traffic Reduction —The reduction of future traffic volume on 2nd East Street with
the addition of the 1000 East Alternative (8,400 vpd) would be over three times
that achieved by the 2000 East Alternative.
• Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel - shows the total amount of travel along the length
of the East Parkway alternatives. The 1000 East Alternative would attract almost
50 percent more vehicle miles of travel than would the 2000 East Alternative.
Alternatives Evaluation — Summary and Conclusions
The results of the right-of-way impacts analysis and the traffic benefits analysis support
the following observations:
■ The right-of-way impacts evaluation indicated very little difference between the
two alternatives.
- Perhaps the most severe impact, residential takings, would be four houses
for the 2000 East Alternative and one house for the 1000 East Alternative.
- With the respect to the location of the Teton River SF crossing, there are
trade-offs regarding the right-of-way impacts to environmentally sensitive
issues at the alternative crossing points. There does appear to be some
advantage to a crossing at 3.000 East because the width of the floodplain at
that location is about one third that of 2000 East. However, crossing at an
existing location/disruption is often favored over creating a new
crossing/disruption. There does not appear to be a clear advantage of one
crossing point over the other at this level of evaluation.
- Other crossing sites were sought, but all would incur far more right-of-way
impacts due to existing housing development along Barney Dairy Road and
the increased width of sensitive areas adjoining the Teton River SF.
■ The comparison of transportation benefits strongly favors the 1000 East
Alternative.
- The right-of-way impacts evaluation indicated very little difference between
the two alternatives.
- All traffic measures indicate that the 1000 East Alternative would attract the
most use.
- The 1000 East Alternative would effect the largest shift of traffic from the
most congested roadways within the County.
- Comparing the 2000 East Alternative with the South 2000 East corridor
indicates that as the location of the alignment moves east, fewer traffic
benefits will result from the East Parkway.
- A key element of the 1000 East Alternative is the location of the Teton River
SF crossing. This location is more convenient to key destination points
including retail/commercial areas north of the river, the Rexburg City Center,
and the BYU — Idaho Campus.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 127
�1
Owl - The 1000 East Alternative crossing would provide a more direct, congestion
r"N free path for emergency vehicles serving a greater amount of existing and
future growth north of the river.
r"b, • The selection of an effective alignment in Segment 5 requires clear trade-offs
/ON and balancing of effects that are not directly comparable.
ewe
- Transportation benefits would be better served by avoiding sub -alignment A
which follows existing 2000 East to SH 33. The functionality of the East
1AN,
Parkway Corridor would be compromised by the number of existing access
01''
points to be accommodated and the reduced right-of-way width available
O'k,
due to existing development adjacent to 2000 East. By moving to a new
rin�
alignment, the remaining alternatives would allow design concepts
consistent with the inter -city arterial functionality intended for the East
`dts
Parkway. Effects to existing adjacent development including increased
MN
trafficand noise, property encroachments, and proximity to the existing high
f'"N
school would all result from sub -alignment A.
rpt,
- Sub -alignments B to D would avoid all of the issues of existing development,
but at the expense of splitting properties of land through which the various
sub -alignments would travel. As seen in Table 3, the parcel splits and effect
on existing farming operations generally decrease as the various alternatives
r*�►
move eastward. Sub -alignment B was as initially proposed by the study
team. However, it would have the most detrimental effects to existing
farming operations. Sub -alignments C, D, and E were developed based on
Owl)
suggestions from the affected property owners. All three of these
alignments would reduce property impacts. However, compared to
sub -alignment B, sub -alignments C and D would make it geometrically
awkward to develop a connection to Center Street in Sugar City because
these alignments are shifting to the east at the point where the extension of
Center Street would intersect. Sub -alignment E clearly minimizes the
property splits. However, complications could arise from the loss of 1.6 acres
of wetland associated with sub -alignment E. It is likely that the drawbacks of
sub -alignments C, D, and E can be reduced or overcome with further
refinement. Thus all alignments remain valid at this level of project
development.
OWN Conclusions
Oa� Given the above, it is suggested that the 1000 East Alternative (Segments 1 to 3) best
meets the transportation goals of the East Parkway without a meaningful difference in
right-of-way impacts. With respect to choices in Segment 5, from a pure transportation
benefits point of view, sub -alignment B would be favored. It is more direct, would
match the East Parkway design concept, easily connects with Center Street, and has no
interference with "environmentally sensitive" land issues.
However it is clear that an alignment decision for Segment 5 cannot be based on
transportation benefits alone. Sub -alignment A moves all of the effects to adjacent
+�1
East Parkway Corridor Plan 128
OWN
?"N
Commissioner Smith made a motion that the corridor continue north to
�1
the Tshown on the attached map approximately' mile north of Moody
eA,
Road by the canal, hence West to 1000 East or East to Digger Drive, with
0*R
the recommendation that it be revisited in the future considering growth
00�
properties from one set of property owners to another and changes the nature of the
,,q
effects from splitting large parcels to affecting properties fronting on an existing
roadway. Sub -alignment C, D, and E all have fewer property splits than would sub -
01�
alignment B, but introduce other issues as noted above.
accommodate local right-of-way constraints or geometric considerations. These are
On November 13, 2012, the Madison County Board of Commissioners met and
(ANN
approved the 1000 East Alternative (Segments 1,2,3) as the East Parkway Corridor
alignment. Minutes of this meeting are excerpted below:
,lft�
Commissioner Smith made a motion that the corridor continue north to
rte,
the Tshown on the attached map approximately' mile north of Moody
eA,
Road by the canal, hence West to 1000 East or East to Digger Drive, with
0*R
the recommendation that it be revisited in the future considering growth
00�
patterns at that time. Included in the file for consideration at that time
,,q
will be the City of Sugar City and Sugar Salem School Board
recommendation of Alternate E. Commissioner Weber seconded and
01�
voting was unanimous.
accommodate local right-of-way constraints or geometric considerations. These are
A decision regarding a Segment 5 alignment that would extend the East Parkway
(ANN
Corridor north to a junction with SH 33 was deferred, pending additional study and
continued discussions between the city, county, and land owner stakeholders.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 129
efikN
Section 5 — Conceptual Plan
rte,
Drawings 1 through 4 present a conceptual plan for the selected East Parkway roadway.
The figures show a suggested roadway layout within the nominal 130 -foot right-of-way.
'V`'
The layout typically shows two 12 -foot travel lanes in each direction and a 14 -foot
011►
median, centered within the right-of-way. Except when used for left turning vehicles,
ea+
the median could be either a raised median or a flush median — depending on the
desired level of access control and/or the desired level of landscaping. There are three
01�
locations where the typical section described above has been modified to better
accommodate local right-of-way constraints or geometric considerations. These are
discussed at the end of this section.
1A)
The concept plans show typical East Parkway intersection approaches as having a total
of six lanes — two away lanes, a left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn lane.
'V`'
The typical cross roads are shown with three approach lanes — one away lane, a
011►
left/through lane, and a right turn lane. The configuration described is applicable to
,m�
intersections with two-way stop control on the minor roadway. Different control types
as may be necessary at the time the roadway is constructed would require modified
01�
intersection approach lane configurations as follows:
- For four-way stop control it would be necessary to eliminate the left and right
turn lanes on the East Parkway approaches since stop control does not work well
(ANN
with more than two approach lanes.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 129
efikN
oft►
For signalized operation it would be necessary to reconfigure the cross road
approaches to have an exclusive left turn lane and a combined through/right
turn lane to allow separate phasing for left turns.
The drawings also show possible locations of sidewalks, and cross walks at the
intersection. The surrounding sidewalk areas reflects clearances needed to fit in
appropriate pedestrian ramps. This is important as these issues directly affect the
amount of right-of-way necessary in the quadrants of the intersections. Sidewalks are
shown as five feet wide except on one side of the East Parkway where aten-foot wide
sidewalk (matching an assumed recreational trail) is shown.
The sidewalks are shown close to the roadway in the vicinity of the intersections to keep
the stop bars as close to the intersection as possible. This best reflects the minimum
footprint of the intersections and sidewalks. Sidewalks and the recreation trail may be
located farther away from the roadway away from the intersections; right-of-way
permitting.
Design Parameters
Table 4 shows the design parameters used in developing the East Parkway concept
layout. The values selected are consistent with an urban collector roadway and are
presented with the following comments:
Table 4
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Desian Parameters for Concept Layout
Design Elements - East Parkway
Value
Design Speed
35 mph
Superelevation Rate
0.04
Horizontal Curves
Minimum Radius
530 ft
Radii used to promote
Route Continuity
1000 to
1200 ft
Maximum Grade
6%
Intersection Turn Lanes
Storage Length
100 ft
Additional Decel/Maneuver Length
100 ft
Taper Length
120 ft
Total Turn Lane Length
Design Elements - Cross Roads
320 ft
Value
Design Speed 25 mph
Intersection Turn Lanes
Storage Length 100 ft
Additional Decel/Maneuver length 20 ft
Taper Length 100 ft
Total Turn Lane Length 220 ft
East Parkway Corridor Plan 130
f�1
South 2nd East Intersection Area
The East Parkway crosses South 2nd East at station 37+50 (See Drawing 1) on an
alignment that is coincident with existing Sunrise Drive. Sunrise Drive has been
r�
constructed as a 60 foot wide street with five foot sidewalks beginning at about station
The design speed of 35 miles per hour reflect the current trend to embrace
"Practical Design" where the economies of lower design speeds are emphasized.
The effect of this parameter are reflected in lower earthwork costs necessary to
accommodate grades in Segments 1 and 2; and reduced turn lane lengths due to
reduced maneuvering and deceleration distance requirements.
�►
- The maximum superelevation rate of .04 was selected as this is typically used in
rte,
urban areas (the future condition assumed for this roadway) and simplifies
design of grade breaks when access points must be located on curves.
The minimum curve radius associated with a design speed of 35 mph and a
superelevation rate of .04 is 530 feet. However, the minimum radius is not used
on this alignment (is used only once on the concept layout - that being the
through the Segment 3 intersection with the connector road to 1000 East. In all
MI, other locations radii were selected in the 1,000 to 1,200 feet range. This was
done to promote traffic flow along the East Parkway as a continuous roadway
from beginning to end despite the several turns in the alignment.
M, Grades
eln� There are two instances of significant grades traversed by the East Parkway. The first
begins at the south end of the corridor just beyond the start of the alignment at the
efts University Boulevard/2"d West Street intersection. An ascending grade of 6.0 percent
elk% over a distance of 1,800 feet is required to climb the bluff prior to the intersection with
110b, South 2nd East Street. In Segment 2, a 5,000 foot, 5.1 percent descending grade is
rION required to intersect with Barney Dairy Road and cross the Teton River SF.
Special Alignments and Cross Sections
There are three places where a modified cross section is appropriate to meet special
circumstances. These are located at the intersection with South 2nd East, on either side
of and at the Teton River SF crossing, and through the 1000 East connector intersection
where the northward East Parkway alignment turns to an eastward alignment. These
conditions are described below.
MIN
South 2nd East Intersection Area
The East Parkway crosses South 2nd East at station 37+50 (See Drawing 1) on an
alignment that is coincident with existing Sunrise Drive. Sunrise Drive has been
r�
constructed as a 60 foot wide street with five foot sidewalks beginning at about station
27+00. This width continues for about 600 feet, at which time the roadway width is
reduced to 36 feet, within a right-of-way of less than 50 feet. The north right-of-way is
constant. The south right-of-way line narrows when it reaches the property of the LDS
ward building located in the southwest corner of Sunrise Drive and South 2nd East.
ONN For the East Parkway to fit through this section it will be necessary to narrow the typical
cross section twice. The first change is to reduce the median from the typical 14 feet to
AN 12 feet to match the existing Sunrise Drive. There would be 5 foot sidewalks on both
East Parkway Corridor Plan 131
f'"1
sides. Where the right-of-way narrows at the LDS property, the roadway cross section
would narrow from 60 feet (five 12 -foot lanes) to 55 feet (five 11 -foot lanes). There
MN would be no eastbound right turn lane at 2nd East. This will minimize the width of
0% encroachment into the LDS parcel. It will leave sufficient property on the north side of
ob, the LDS parcel so as not to interfere with parking and circulation drives located on the
tl% north side of the ward building.
The East Parkway alignment is shifted 94 east feet beginning 400 feet north of Barney
Dairy Road. (See Drawing 3, station 190 to 210) This shift aligns the centerline of the
East Parkway 40 feet west of the back property lines of the Quailhollow subdivision; or
,,N as close as possible given a planned width of the Teton River SF bridge. This shift is
accomplished by means of reverse curves with a radius of at least 1,900 feet; barely
noticeable at the design speed of 35 mph.
r�
The roadway width of the East Parkway Teton River SF Bridge is narrowed by reducing
the median width from 14 feet to 4 feet to minimize the width of the bridge. The total
width of the bridge would be 76 feet; including four 12 -foot lanes, a 4 -foot median, two
10 -foot sidewalks, and 2 -foot parapets. The transition to this section would occur
through the curves used to shift the alignment eastward as described above. The full
median width would be restored after the river crossing to accommodate the "T"
intersection with East 7th North about 800 feet north of the river (station 200 to 208)
'q� The right-of-way could be narrowed to as little as 90 feet (depending on the height of
rte, the bridge deck above the surrounding terrain) for 200 feet south and 100 feet north of
the river crossing.
There is sufficient right-of-way on Sunrise Drive east of South 2nd East to allow for the
�►
typical East Parkway section. However the East Parkway would start with a modified
,�►,
section to limit the amount of lane line shift across the South 2nd East intersection to a
maximum of 1.5 feet. The centerline of the a 58 -foot wide East Parkway approach on
the east leg of the South 2nd East intersection would be aligned with the centerline of
r"R►
the 55 foot wide approach on the west leg. The east leg would have five lanes in a 12'-
�►
11"-12"-11"-12" configuration. This will not match the alignment of the existing Sunrise
Drive construction. Thus several hundred feet of existing roadway alignment will have
to be modified. After the narrow east approach, it would be expected that the East
Parkway would transition back to the typical 62 -foot roadway width configuration (12"-
12'-14'-12'-12').
East Parkway North of Barney Dairy Road
The East Parkway alignment is shifted 94 east feet beginning 400 feet north of Barney
Dairy Road. (See Drawing 3, station 190 to 210) This shift aligns the centerline of the
East Parkway 40 feet west of the back property lines of the Quailhollow subdivision; or
,,N as close as possible given a planned width of the Teton River SF bridge. This shift is
accomplished by means of reverse curves with a radius of at least 1,900 feet; barely
noticeable at the design speed of 35 mph.
r�
The roadway width of the East Parkway Teton River SF Bridge is narrowed by reducing
the median width from 14 feet to 4 feet to minimize the width of the bridge. The total
width of the bridge would be 76 feet; including four 12 -foot lanes, a 4 -foot median, two
10 -foot sidewalks, and 2 -foot parapets. The transition to this section would occur
through the curves used to shift the alignment eastward as described above. The full
median width would be restored after the river crossing to accommodate the "T"
intersection with East 7th North about 800 feet north of the river (station 200 to 208)
'q� The right-of-way could be narrowed to as little as 90 feet (depending on the height of
rte, the bridge deck above the surrounding terrain) for 200 feet south and 100 feet north of
the river crossing.
East Parkway north of East 7th North Street
�►
The East Parkway will intersect East 7th North Street about 800 feet north of the Teton
,�►,
River SF. Within this distance the East Parkway alignment will shift 40 feet to the west.
This will position the centerline of the East Parkway 80 feet west of the centerline of
existing 1000 East, allowing the new East Parkway to parallel the existing 1000 East
roadway for % mile between East 7th North and East 9th North Streets. This was done to
�►
allow this section of 1000 East to provide local access to approximately 10 properties
East Parkway Corridor Plan 132
MIN
along the east side of 1000 East. Through this section the East Parkway right-of-way
would be 65 feet wide west of the centerline and 55 feet wide east of the centerline.
The east right-of-way line would abut the existing 1000 East right-of-way. The spacing
between the East Parkway face of curb and 1000 East edge -of -pavement allows for a
6.5 -foot buffer, a 10 -foot recreation path, and a 20 -foot buffer to the edge of the 1000
,111� East pavement.
/q►
Shifting the East Parkway alignment 80 feet east south of the Teton River SF bridge and
eft
then 40 feet west north of the bridge could be simplified if the location of the bridge
r,IN
were shifted to the west. This was not proposed for several reasons:
tai
- Moving the location of the bridge west would significantly increase the length of
the bridge due to a pronounced bend in the river just west of the proposed
location.
- It is likely that the East Parkway will be built in stages, and the Teton River SF
'I'
crossing is likely to be one of the early stages. At its proposed location, the new
tA►
river crossing could easily be a part of an inexpensive "temporary connection"
,.q
between Barney Dairy Road on the south and existing 1000 East on the north.
,•�
- The reverse curves used in the final geometry of the East Parkway are mild
enough to support a design speed in excess of 60 mph; and thus should not
result in operational issues on this 35 mph facility.
Once past East 9th North Street, the East Parkway alignment swings to the east and the
right-of-way would expand to the 130 foot typical width for the corridor.
East Parkway / 1000 East Connector Intersection
At about station 286 the alignment of the East Parkway makes a 90 degree turn from a
northward heading to an eastward heading. See Drawing 4. A 1,200 -foot long east -
west connection road between the East Parkway and 1000 East will intersect the East
,+q
Parkway at this curve. The simplest way to accomplish this would be to use a "T"
intersection configuration. However, a "T" intersection would compromise the desired
route continuity of the East Parkway. Thus, the proposed intersection with the 1000
East connector was shaped around a curve with a design speed of 35 mph for vehicles
following the East Parkway.
Through this curve, the median width is increased to 40 feet past the point of
intersection with the 1000 East Connector. The widening allows safer left turns to be
tlw� made from the connector by providing sufficient space to allow cars and single unit
01t) trucks to "sit" in the median. This allows a "two-stage" left turn to be made requiring a
rfti gap in East Parkway traffic in only one direction at a time. Turning lanes and larger
radius curves are provided for right turns to and from the 1000 East Connector to
164' minimize speed differentials between turning and through traffic around the curve.
rN
East Parkway Corridor Plan 33
ellw1
�1
Section 6 - Project Cost Estimate and Implementation Priorities
''w� Cost Estimate
AS
A concept level opinion of costs to construct the East Parkway as presented in this
r•�
report (using 2013 costs) was developed for programming purposes. The estimate
r'w+
included not only the cost of construction (contractor's bid) but also programmatic costs
,,ll,
necessary to complete the project. These include preliminary engineering and
environmental studies, final design, and field inspection during construction. These
costs account for about 25 percent of the estimate. The 2013 concept level opinion of
�q
costs to design and construct the East Parkway is $31,400,000. This total cost is further
subdivided into estimates for six logical sections in Table 5 included in the following
section on implementation priorities. Also note that the right-of-way costs are not
included in this estimate due to the volatility of costs depending on future land uses and
the potential for dedicated right-of-way as developments are platted within the
corridor.
AS
Implementation Priorities
epk%
It is unlikely that a project of this magnitude will be implemented as a single project
r'w+
from end to end. However, the full plan enables the cities and county to protect the
,,ll,
corridor right-of-way through planning and zoning actions and enter into right-of-way
donation/acquisition agreements as development progresses. The East Parkway will be
constructed in stages as funding is available and growing development/traffic demand
increases pressure for implementation of certain sections. A suggested implementation
sequence is described below.
Sections
It is logical that the East Parkway be implemented in sections that begin and end at
primary intersections with the existing system. The East Parkway can be divided into six
sections from south to north as illustrated in Figure 11 and described below:
• Section A - South Terminus with University Boulevard to S 2nd East; 0.63 miles.
,.�
• Section B - S 2nd East to E 7th South; 1.35 miles plus 0.80 mile local connector
to South Millhollow Road.
• Section C - E 7th South to Barney Dairy Road; 1.38 miles plus 0.32 mile
permanent connection between Barney Dairy Road and the Teton River SF
Bridge. See Section D.
■ Section D - Barney Dairy Road to E 7th North; 0.48 miles. The Teton River SF
bridge is included in this section; along with 0.45 miles of temporary 2 -lane
roadway connecting the bridge to Barney Dairy Road and E 7th North. The use
of temporary roadway assumes that a functional river crossing will be one of the
first projects constructed. Reconstruction of the temporary roadway connecting
the river crossing to permanent width and geometry is included in adjoining
sections C to the south and Section E to the north.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 134
�1
Ak
Ask
Aft
AWA
Ak
Aft
Ak
Adk
Ak
Alk
p
Figure 11
East Parkway Corridor Plan
Implementation Sections
KnI;' Si tl NONTN
rw
Ir
BARNEY DAIRY ROAD
IF
East Parkway Corridor Plan 135
�1
Utility Dependant on Prior Completion of Other Sections. - From a systems level, the
141
utility of certain sections is dependent on completion of other sections or links in the
East Parkway Corridor. There is little utility to Section E (Moody Highway to 2000 East)
without it leading to the new river crossing (Section D). Section C (E 7th South to Barney
Section E - E 7th North to Moody Hwy; 1.13 miles plus 0.13 mile permanent
connection between the Teton River SF Bridge and E 9th North. See Section D.
This section also includes a 0.29 mile local connection roadway between 1000
East and E 9th North.
OWN
Section F - Moody Hwy to north terminus of approved alignment at 2000 East;
rte,
1.21 miles. This section also includes a 0.23 mile local connection to 1000 East.
rte,
The above sections were prioritized using four criteria, listed below in general order of
importance.
- Immediate Benefit to Existing Traffic Needs
- Utility Dependent on Prior Completion of Other Sections
- System Continuity / Service to Area wide Traffic Growth
- Service to Adjacent New Development
The results of this evaluation are shown in Table S which presents a prioritized list of
sections comprising the East Parkway and the factors that contributed to the individual
priorities. A discussion of the prioritization follows, in the order of the above criteria.
Immediate Benefit to Existing Traffic Needs. - Implementation of several segments
would reduce existing traffic congestion. These sections were considered to have a
higher priority. Three sections were considered to fall into this category. Section D
''�►
includes the new crossing of the Teton River SF and temporary connections to the
existing traffic system. This addition to the circulation system would have immediate
benefits of reducing congestion on 2nd East as a stand alone project, and thus was
considered to be the highest priority section. Section E, extending north from the river
crossing to Moody Highway would complement Section C in reducing traffic on 2nd East
and was thus considered to be the second project on the priority list. Section C (E 7th
tilt)
South to Barney Dairy Road) is also in this category, but is discussed below.
M'
Utility Dependant on Prior Completion of Other Sections. - From a systems level, the
t �
utility of certain sections is dependent on completion of other sections or links in the
East Parkway Corridor. There is little utility to Section E (Moody Highway to 2000 East)
without it leading to the new river crossing (Section D). Section C (E 7th South to Barney
Dairy Road) has little system utility unless it leads to the formation of a new east
Rexburg north -south route providing access to north and south areas of BYU-Idaho.
Thus it's general utility is dependent on prior completion of Sections D and E.
Section B (S 2nd West to E 7th South) has very little utility unless connected to Sections A
OWN
and C; and finally, Section E (Moody Highway to 2000 East) should generally not be
(",
constructed until section D is completed.
System Continuitv / Service to Areawide Traffic Growth. - The urgency of completing
some sections lies more with completion of the system and responding to areawide
growth than supporting the existing traffic patterns. Thus the need for the north and
south terminal sections (Sections A and E) are of lower priority as their need is tied
East Parkway Corridor Plan 36
more to future growth than to existing needs. This is also true of Section B (S 2nd West
to E 7th South).
Service to Adjacent New Development. - The wild card in the urgency and possible
independent utility of many of the sections is plans for major development that would
rely on sections of the East Parkway for access. Should this occur, there would be
independent utility for the section with adjacent development. This would override the
priority list presented. Sections B, C, E, and F all have developable adjacent land areas,
and are thus susceptible to increased priority due to the emergence of new
development.
East Parkway Corridor Plan 137
m m
�-2
L
cc
CL
-W
4A
m
W
C
C �
0 o X X X X
Q
ca
.c
U Lu Q X X X
o 2 Cr)
.�
ca N
N
*- N 4 Q W
asCL t5
E 4) UO ow
E
U N
II l
Ule IA
WLV $ X X X
Z
N 0 0�p 0 O O O
I O - �~• (OC Oct
U O CO) cd ao cei rri a
L pp
C ccoo M M V- N
O M V N N V
•C
a
C
N N
rn U Wg
L C L
W 2 2 y
0 p2 g Z O mu
04 C m ^ 0 _ C p
W I- m V a N N
$ t U U
IM m W}, s- 0-
L
w 0Ems
't3 .) Q1 G
N cOvti.2 E o�
0
'I,, Qm0 Ww
aD
m
Table S
East Parkway Corridor Plan
TI. ININIcol ITIv
a
C
3 0
$' Z
N
.0
co i p W •5 N
O
N W 0 N co W
E c ��$ Etn..$
ro c0i a t m .2 W N
0 `- c m H
MO 0 :01 �
a02 EZ m' W
ami 0t E is in W Lu Calr
c
0
U O w0Qmu.
m
m
East Parkway Corridor Plan 138
a E
0 o
X
X
X
X
W
Q
0
m
L
U-
� 2
X
X
X
Q E- C9
o
rn
m
N
_
p N 0
W
Q
r=
0
0
V
w
CL
o
UO
)l
rn �
v
no
X
X
X
W I— 0
U
po
N O
r
co
r
to
O
00
V O
cri
to
ao
cM
co
V
M
rfl69ffl01>vg�
i*n
FO
4-0
C
�p
cf)MCO
M
N"
H
N
O
r
e-
O
ma
TI. ININIcol ITIv
a
C
3 0
$' Z
N
.0
co i p W •5 N
O
N W 0 N co W
E c ��$ Etn..$
ro c0i a t m .2 W N
0 `- c m H
MO 0 :01 �
a02 EZ m' W
ami 0t E is in W Lu Calr
c
0
U O w0Qmu.
m
m
East Parkway Corridor Plan 138
University BA..
130' ROW
I i
s � �
s
I'
T Moa,oe6
t• �� rr� a 1�'1'
{Y
Moa,00
EAST PARKWAY CORRIDOR PIAN CONCEPTUAL ROADWAY LAYOUT MADISON COUNTY QS KELLER
a 5 1'=4017 REXBURG/SUGAR CRY V u�ool�tn
L
f II
9
i
SII
iy%
MOa OBL
MOa .09
MO a, osI
3
0$\
it
N
'
II
a ;
a� el
y '
oe►O
71 Q
r�
r' x'11" -ss+• -W
-pa tiie° Fawe
.-- B-+
.r"w"p
moa =[
s,
a
e
EAST PARKWAY CORRIDORPLAN
CONCEPTUAL ROADWAY LAYOUT MADISON COUNTY
1"= 407 REXBURG / SUGAR CITY
KELLER
associates
I I,
j
WON 41( ISe3
t
{
CONCEPTUAL ROADWAY LAYOUT MADISON COUNTY KELLER
s 6 EAST PARKWAY CORRIDOR PLAN , 4W RE%BURG / SUGAR CITY associates
ry
tl
':
60' ROW
fi
I
i
MON ,0
44oN 000E IloxS
eT'fen ft'C
M
— -
73TRo
--
-4
J'
200D E st
Y
--
S EAST PARKWAY CORRIDOR PLAN
a A
CONCEPTUAL ROADWAY LAYOUT
1'=4UU'
MADISON COUNTY
REXBURG/SUGAR CITY
KE L LER
u�ool�tas