Route N Study - hhrlifestyle.orgfunding •Regional long‐range plan evaluates which projects to advance –must be fiscally constrained •Projects in long‐range plan are eligible

Click to edit Master title style

January 17, 2019

Route N StudyLSL South 64 HOA Meeting

1


Study Details

2 2


• Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are co‐lead agencies

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Study being processed as an Environmental Assessment (EA)

• An approximately eight‐mile stretch of Route N in St. Charles County

• Assess the needs, impacts, and overall effectiveness of potential alternatives to address those needs

Why is the Route N Study Being Performed?

3

Click to edit Master title styleRoute N NEPA Study

• Limits• From the David Hoekel Parkway east to the I‐64/Route 364 interchange

• Co‐Lead Agencies – MoDOT and FHWA• Transportation Corridor Improvement Group

• MoDOT• St. Charles County

• Partnering with MoDOT • Elevated Route N to a regional long‐range plan priority

• East‐West Gateway Council of Governments (MPO)• Partnering with MoDOT • Ensuring the study supports the regional vision

4 4

Click to edit Master title styleStudy Area

5


• This study is an important step forward towards funding• Regional long‐range plan evaluates which projects to advance – must be fiscally constrained

• Projects in long‐range plan are eligible for federal funding

• The EA serves as the next step in project development

• Completion of the EA is required for MoDOT and the region to utilize federal funding

Is the Project Funded?

6


National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

7

Click to edit Master title styleNEPA: The Basics

To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment

• To promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and stimulate the health and welfare of man

• To enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) • National policy regarding the environment• National Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) established to oversee government activities that could affect the environment

• NEPA is triggered when a project requires federal funding or federal permits

8

Click to edit Master title styleNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – The Basics

• Each federal agency is required to evaluate the social and environmental impacts of the proposed improvement(s)

9

CE EA EIS

Impact significance Not significant Possibly not significant; need to determine Potential to be significant

Public Process MinimalSome disclosure is

required, as well as a location public hearing

A rigorous approach and a public hearing is

required

Level of detail in documentation

Generally a “checklist” approach

Varies – from a checklist to a big narrative volume

Varies, but not unusual to be 200‐300 pages

Timeline A few weeks to several months

A few months to multiple years Often multiple years

• Accomplished by preparing a/an:

• Categorical Exclusion (CE)

• Environmental Assessment (EA)

• Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)


• Solid Waste Disposal Act

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

• Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986

• National Historic Preservation Act

• Economic, Social and Environmental Effects

• Highway Noise Standards

• State Noise Standard

• Public Hearing Requirements

• Section 9 ‐ Bridge Permits

• Section 7, Endangered Species Act, (FWS)

• Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 (COE, USCG)

• Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act

• Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964

• Americans with Disabilities Act

• Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

• Section 4(f) of USDOT Act (49 USC 303)

• Clean Air Act

• Safe Water Drinking Act

• Farmland Protection Policy Act

• Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA).

• Conformity ‐ (CAAA)

• Executive Order 11990, Wetlands

• Clean Water Act, Sections 401 & 404 – Wetlands (States, COE)

• Executive Order 11988, Floodplains

• Executive Order 12898 ‐ Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations, February 1994

• Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970

10

NEPA “Umbrella”

10

Click to edit Master title styleElements of NEPA Studies

• Scoping• Purpose and Need• Alternatives • Impact Assessment • Mitigation • Public Involvement • Interagency Coordination


Public Involvement Opportunities

12

Click to edit Master title styleYour Involvement is Important!

• Visit the study website: www.RouteNStudy.com• Receive email updates• Project newsletter updates• Attend future public meetings• Request a presentation for your group• Contact Shaun, Andy, or Buddy with questions and/or comments• By phone: 1‐888‐ASK‐MODOT or 314.335.5065• Via email: [email protected]

13

Click to edit Master title styleStudy Advisory Groups also Providing Input

• Technical Advisory Group (TAG)• Agencies including St. Charles County, East West Gateway Council of Governments

• Assist MoDOT in technical aspects of the study including alternatives development and evaluation

• Community Advisory Group (CAG)• Stakeholders directly impacted by the study including emergency responders, residents and businesses

• Advise MoDOT on project issues, alternatives and potential solutions

14


• Keep rural context • Not like Route K

• Concerns turning on and off Route N• Congestion

• At certain intersections and entrances to subdivisions• Infrastructure has not kept up with growth

• Design cannot handle current traffic• Safety response time concerns• Desire for bike/pedestrian accommodations

Themes Shared by the CAG and at the First Public Meeting

15

Click to edit Master title styleStakeholder Interview Summary

• In person and phone interviews were conducted with numerous community leaders, residents, emergency responders, and businesses

• Most frequent concerns identified:• Lack of shoulders on rural section• Lack of left turn lanes, especially at the schools• Bottleneck and configuration issues at Route N/Route Z • Lengthy traffic backups during the morning and evening rush hours• Rapid residential growth• Bends in road create blind spots

16


Purpose and Need

17 17


• Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) –§1502.13 Purpose and Need • The statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action

• Purpose and Need is a fundamental element in a NEPA study• Those Conceptual Alternatives that meet the Purpose and Need are considered the Reasonable Alternatives

Purpose and Need and NEPA

18

Click to edit Master title styleStudy Purpose

• The Purpose (Goal) of the Route N NEPA study is to investigate and identify improvements intended to develop a safe and efficient network between the proposed southern limit of the David Hoekel Parkway and the existing Route N/Route 364 interchange at I‐64

19

Click to edit Master title styleStudy Need

• Overall, the need elements of the Route N NEPA Study are to:• Improve access and connectivity

• Need to address deficiencies within the existing roadways• Need to mitigate conflict points/address difficult movements

• Reduce congestion and delay• Need to address inadequate capacity• Need to address under‐performing intersections and driveways

• These needs will serve as the primary evaluation factors to determine the Reasonable Alternatives

20


• Inadequate capacity along existing pathway• Daily traffic volumes range from 5,500 VPD west of Route Z to 18,000 VPD east of Route Z

• Design of existing pathway• Narrow, two‐lane roadway with minimal shoulders for much of the corridor

• Sharp turns and rolling hills• Conflict points

• Frequent driveways/intersections in eastern portion• Vehicles turning on/off Route N• Intersection types/configurations

Improve Access and Connectivity

21


• The number of at‐grade intersections• Lake St. Louis Boulevard• Route Z intersection configuration• Hopewell/Duello• Perry Cate

• Numerous driveways with direct access to Route N• Major subdivisions• Schools and churches• Businesses

Reduce Congestion and Delays

22


• Secondary evaluation objectives:• Improve safety for the traveling public• Accommodate bicycle/pedestrian users• Improve emergency response pathways• Take existing planning documents into consideration

Other Evaluation Objectives

23


Review of the Conceptual Alternatives

24


• Initial range of alternatives under consideration• CFR – §1502.14 Alternatives including the proposed action • Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated

• Ability to meet Purpose and Need will narrow Conceptual Alternatives down to the Reasonable Alternatives

Conceptual Alternatives

25

Click to edit Master title styleImprove Existing Route N Conceptual Alternative

For Planning Use OnlyDecember 12, 2018

26

Click to edit Master title styleBuckner RoadConceptual Alternative


27

Click to edit Master title styleNear South Conceptual Alternative


28

Click to edit Master title styleFar South Conceptual Alternative


29

Click to edit Master title styleInterstate Drive/Route Z Conceptual Alternative


30

Click to edit Master title styleInterstate Drive/Wilmer Road Conceptual Alternative


31



All Conceptual Alternatives

32


Engineering and Environmental Updates

33


Road Classification ADTRoute Z – North of Route N

Minor Arterial 7,500 to 20,000Lake St. Louis BoulevardRoute N – I‐64 to Route ZWilmer Road

Major Collector 2,500 to 7,500

Route Z – South of Route NPerry‐Cate BoulevardDuello RoadSommer RoadInterstate DriveSouth Point Prairie Road‐North of Jackson RoadHepperman Road‐North of Golf Club DriveRoute N – Route Z to Warren CountyJackson Road

Minor Collector 1,500 to 2,500Hepperman Road‐South of Golf Club DriveSouth Point Prairie Road‐North of Route NInterstate Drive‐South Point Prairie Road to Route ZBuckner Road Local Street Less than 1,500South Point Prairie Road‐South of Route N

Traffic Volumes

34


• 599 crashes recorded along Route N between S. Pointe Prairie Road and the I‐64/MO 364 interchange in the past 5 years (2013‐2017)

Crash Data

58% of all crashes on Route N were rear end crashes11% of all crashes on Route N were out of control crashes10% of all crashes on Route N were left turn/right turn crashes

Crash Data for 2013-2017

Roadway Fatal Disabling Injury

Minor Injury

Property Damage Only Total

Route N (S. Pointe Prairie Road to MO 364) 2 9 107 481 599

Crash Data for 2013-2017 Roadway 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Route N ‐ Number of Crashes Total Crashes Including Intersections 104 101 127 145 122

Route N ‐ Crash Rate* 253.52 243.61 223.28 277.39 177.70

Statewide Average Crash Rate* 212.52 211.21 214.49 221.29 Not Available

35


• Consultation with Native American Tribes• Development of a GIS Database• Initial Cultural Resource Evaluation• Collaboration with Environmental Agencies• Field Work for Important Natural Resources• Review of Important Planning Documents

Environmental Analysis

36


Next Steps

37 37

Click to edit Master title styleProject Schedule

• TAG #2, CAG #3, and Public Meeting #2 –February 2019• Screening of Conceptual Alternatives and presentation of the Reasonable Alternatives

• Approved EA – November 2019

• Study Complete – Early 2020

3838

Completed EA