East Side Highway

Environmental Assessment (EA) Study

  • Home
  • Map
  • Information
    • Project History
    • Study Process
    • Where Are we Now?
    • Alternatives
    • Origin Destination Survey
    • FAQ
    • Glossary
  • Involvement
    • Context Sensitive Solutions
    • Public Hearing
    • Public Information Meetings
    • Community Working Group
    • Focus Working Group
      • Land Use and Access Management Focus Working Group
      • Sustainability Focus Working Group (FWG)
      • Alternative Modes Focus Working Group (FWG)
    • Public Comments
  • Downloads
    • Final Environmental Assessment
    • 2009 Corridor Report
    • Stakeholder Involvement Plan
    • Purpose and Need
    • O-D Survey Memorandum
    • Newsletter 1
    • Newsletter 2
    • Newsletter 3
    • Newsletter 4
    • Newsletter 5
    • Alternative Evaluation Process
    • Joint Council Meeting
  • Contact Us

The remaining alternatives are too close to residential areas. Why can’t it be moved further east?

April 30, 2014 By

Numerous alternatives that were located to the east of the remaining alignments were developed and evaluated. These alternatives were eliminated for a number of reasons, including the inability to meet the Purpose and Need of the project. Some eastern alternatives were eliminated due to a higher number of farmland impacts in comparison to other alternatives. The far eastern alternatives are less compatible with future land use plans and may encourage sprawl or other unintended negative land use consequences.

The proximity of the alternatives to existing and planned residential development was considered during the alternative evaluation process. As the EA process goes forward, both direct and indirect impacts of the ESH will be analyzed in detail. This analysis will include studying direct impacts such as acquisition of residences, and farmland conversion as well as potential impacts to land use, noise levels, air quality, community impacts, and water quality.

Will the ESH be a barrier to east-west travel?

April 30, 2014 By

As stated in the ESH Purpose and Need Statement, the purpose of the ESH is to “Provide improved north-south and east-west mobility to and from residential areas and job centers.” The recommended facility type under consideration, a limited access freeway, is anticipated to include interchanges to provide access to and from the ESH and east-west connectivity, at approximately two-mile intervals (per IDOT guidelines) at major crossroads. It is anticipated there will be grade separations allowing east-west connectivity but no access at the other intermediate roads. Specific interchange locations are still being studied.

What type of road will the ESH be?

April 30, 2014 By

Three different facility type options were considered for the north-south Build Alternatives: a freeway, an expressway, and an arterial. The freeway option is recommended as the most appropriate facility for the ESH. It is the best option to accommodate future traffic volumes, enhance mobility, provide appropriate access, and reduce crash potential. The freeway consists of four travel lanes and will be a limited access control roadway.

Can impacts be calculated on a per mile basis so longer alternatives aren’t viewed as less favorable?

April 30, 2014 By

NEPA requires the evaluation of social, economic, and environmental impacts resulting from each alternative. The total impacts resulting from each alternative are calculated and compared. If the longest alternative results in the fewest impacts to the human and natural environment it may be selected as the Preferred Alternative. The impacts per mile do not influence the alternative screening process.

Was improving Lexington-LeRoy Road considered?

April 30, 2014 By

An improvement between Lexington to Leroy was considered but not evaluated in detail because such an alternative does not meet the Purpose & Need of the ESH project. Lexington-Leroy Road is a north-south route located approximately ten miles east of the Bloomington-Normal urban core and approximately five miles east of the eastern boundary of the 2035 Land Use Plan. Based on the analysis of similar alternatives in the 2009 ESH Corridor Report, a Lexington-Leroy Road alternative would not adequately improve access to or mobility on the major roads in the study area and would not accommodate managed growth on the east side due to its distance from the eastern planned growth area. Therefore, an improved Lexington-Leroy Road cannot meet the Purpose & Need of the project.

Why was widening Towanda Barnes Road eliminated from further consideration?

April 30, 2014 By

One goal of the ESH EA is to select a preferred alternative that minimizes community and environmental impacts. Widening Towanda Barnes Road was included in the range of alternatives but results in disproportionately high impacts to residences, commercial buildings, and parks when compared to the other alternatives under consideration. Thus, alternatives using Towanda Barnes Road were eliminated during the Macro Analysis Evaluation.

Some of the alternatives considered were eliminated during the Corridor Study. Why did they come back?

April 30, 2014 By

The EA assesses a full range of transportation improvement Build Alternatives, as well as the No-Build Alternative. Corridors previously studied that meet the Purpose and Need will be re-examined for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other federal and state policies. Other new alternatives not previously considered were identified during the EA process.

What is a No-Build Alternative and how is it evaluated?

April 30, 2014 By

The No-Build Alternative assumes that the ESH will not be built. The No-Build Alternative includes all current planned transportation improvements other than the ESH. The No-Build Alternative is included in the ESH study. Although it does not meet the Purpose and Need of the project it is carried through the EA and serves as a baseline for comparison with the Build Alternatives. If, in the course of the EA, all of the remaining alignments are found to have significant environmental impacts that outweigh the No-Build Alternative’s inability to meet the Purpose and Need, the Federal and State resource agencies could select the No-Build Alternative as the Preferred Alternative.

How were the alternatives evaluated?

April 30, 2014 By

The alternatives are screened based upon numerous environmental impacts and engineering considerations. During the course of the EA, the alternatives are narrowed down through a five-step process. The steps are 1) Initial Screening, 2) Purpose & Need Screening, 3) Macro Analysis, 4) Alignment Analysis, and 5) Environmental Assessment Analysis. You can read more about each step here.

What types of alternatives were included in the evaluation?

April 30, 2014 By

The initial range of alternatives evaluated included 129 north-south Build Alternatives, a No-Build Alternative, a Transportation System Management (TSM)/Travel Demand Management (TDM) Alternative, a transit only alternative, and an east-west only alternative. Read more about the alternatives here.

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Home   |    Information   |    Involvement   |    Downloads   |    Contact Us
Copyright © 2021. www.eastsidehighway.com