U.S. 30 Corridor - Benton County Public Information Meeting September 14, 2011

1. U.S. 30 Corridor - Benton CountyPublic Information MeetingSeptember 14, 2011

2. Meeting Purpose & Goals • Project Description • Meeting Goals • Provide Update • Incorporated feedback from last meeting • Additional work completed • Discuss / Obtain Input On Alignments • Short description during presentation • Opportunity to review displays and ask questions • Intent as last formal public input opportunity prior to environmental document decision.

3. Meeting Purpose & Goals, continued • Meeting Goals, continued • Discuss / Obtain Input On Interchange Concepts • Short description during presentation • Opportunity to review displays and ask questions • Intent as last formal public input opportunity for IA 21 • U.S. 218 may require additional review processes • Present / Obtain Input On Access Layout • Discuss Next Steps and Schedule • Answer YOUR Questions, Address YOUR Concerns • Please hold questions until end of presentation • Use open house format for additional exhibit displays and staff available for discussion

4. Updates • Updates Provided Tonight……. • Includes • Input from previous meeting reviewed and considered • Information requested at previous meeting • Adjustments to Alternatives 1 & 3 • Alternative 2 not carried forward • New U.S. 218 Interchange Alternative • Access points (driveway and roads) now shown

5. Updates, continued • Adjustments to Alternatives 1 & 3 • Slight shift in Alternative 1 alignment east of 19th Ave / V56

6. Updates, continued • Alternative 2 not carried forward • Two new lanes added to north where feasible • Shifted to south from west of 19th Ave to east end of project • Avoid cemetery • Match existing alignment at U.S. 218 • Almost 1/3 of project length • Impacted potential historic property • Construction more complicated / expensive • Fewest public comments in support of

7. Updates, continued • New U.S. 218 Interchange Alternative • At existing U.S. 218 alignment • Smaller farm ground impacts • Potential impacts to decision processes and schedule • Access points (driveway and roads) now shown

8. Alignment Alternatives • Alignment 1 • Two new lanes on south side • Maintain north right of way line • Avoid or minimize property takings on north side other than at intersections / interchanges • Minimize total number of parcels impacted • Avoids impacts to potentially historic properties and Calvary Cemetery • Alignment 3 • Two new lanes on south side • Reconstructed lanes generally along existing alignment • Requires property takings on both sides • Public perception of smaller farm land impacts • Shift to south near historic property & cemetery

9. Alignment Alternatives, continued Alternative Alignment 1

10. Alignment Alternatives, continued Alternative Alignment 3

11. Alignment Comparison • Differences now less than previous proposal • Alternative 1 shifted north (closer to existing roadbed east of 19th Ave • Alignments for Alternative 1 and 3 now identical for eastern approximately 3 miles • Total Impacts to farm land nearly the same • Alternative has slightly higher calculated land impacts • Currently estimated at less than 3 acres difference along the approximately 14 mile corridor • Probably consider as equal impacts • Alternative 3 impacts properties on both sides (in addition to intersection / interchange requirements)

12. Alignment Comparison, continued • Costs, traffic characteristics similar • Alternative 1 may provide more flexibility for construction (more room to build new lanes and maintain old) • Alternative 3 had higher number of positive comments at last public meeting • Final design refinements likely to lessen differences • Adjustment to minimize costs and impacts • Potential to become some hybrid of the two

13. Alignment Alternatives, continued • “Real world” examples • Application of alternatives to specific locations • Illustrative only

14. Alignment Alternatives, continued Illustrative Example Not intended as final acquisition lines

15. Alignment Alternatives, continued Illustrative Example Not intended as final acquisition lines

16. Alignment Alternatives, continued Illustrative Example Not intended as final acquisition lines

17. Alignment Alternatives, continued Illustrative Example Not intended as final acquisition lines

18. Alignment Alternatives, continued Illustrative Example Not intended as final acquisition lines

19. Alignment Alternatives, continued Illustrative Example Not intended as final acquisition lines

20. Alignment Alternatives, continued Illustrative Example Not intended as final acquisition lines

21. Alignment Alternatives, continued Illustrative Example Not intended as final acquisition lines

22. Alignment Alternatives, continued Illustrative Example Not intended as final acquisition lines

23. Interchange Concepts • U.S. 30 / IA 21 • Both Diamond Interchanges • Option 1 – U.S. 30 over IA 21 • Option 2 – IA 21 over U.S. 30 • Same as last meeting

24. Interchange Concepts, continued • U.S. 30 / IA 21 – Options 1 & 2

25. Interchange Concepts, continued • U.S. 30 / U.S. 218 • Option 1 – Folded Diamond, U.S. 218 relocated to west • Option 2 – Diamond, U.S. 218 relocated to west • Option 3 – Single loop, , U.S. 218 relocated to west • Option 4 – “Parclo B” (2 exit loops), U.S. 218 on existing alignment

26. Interchange Concepts, continued • U.S. 30 / U.S. 218 – Option 1

27. Interchange Concepts, continued • U.S. 30 / U.S. 218 – Option 2

28. Interchange Concepts, continued • U.S. 30 / U.S. 218 – Option 3

29. Interchange Concepts, continued • U.S. 30 / U.S. 218 – Option 4

30. Access • Specific drives not previously shown at public input meetings • Previous approach slightly modified • Previously proposed full access points to be allowed every ½ mile and limited (right in / right out) access allowed approximately every ¼ mile • Full Versus Limited

31. Access, continued Right In / Right out Access

32. Access, continued • Reviewed Access Control • Goal = Full Access every ½ mile, right in / right out allowed at ¼ spacing • Very few locations with right in / right out • Safety impacts of allowing full access not significant • NOW – Proposing to allow some exceptions • A couple locations with FULL access at less than ½ mile spacing • Existing Residential/Commercial Drives • Not intending to allow exceptions for field entrances • Exceptions not planned for new access points at less than ½ spacing

33. Next Steps • Review input received from public input meeting • Presentation to DOT management • Selection of recommended alignment and IA 21 alternative • Initial discussion on U.S. 218 alternatives • Field studies & report for additional study area near US 218 • State Historical Preservation Office concurrence • Selection of recommended U.S. 218 alternative • Public Hearing on Preferred Alternative • Approval of Environmental Document • Preliminary / Final Design • Right of Way Acquisition • Construction Funding • Construction

34. Schedule • Field Studies – Fall 2011 • SHPO Concurrence – Spring 2012 • Public Hearing – Spring / Summer 2012 • Unable to share recommendations prior to meeting • Present preferred alternative • Potential spring planting conflict versus schedule • Environmental Document Approval – Summer 2012 • Right of Way Acquisition start – 2014 / 2015 • Construction start – dependant on funding

35. U.S. 30 Corridor – Benton CountyPublic Information Meeting Questions? Website http://www.iowadot.gov/pim/index.html Catherine Cutler catherine.cutler@dot.iowa.gov 319-364-0235

36. Reconstruction of Existing Roadbed • Existing underlying pavement is in poor shape. • Provides an opportunity to correct vertical alignment / sight distance • Ability to reconstruct bridges to current standards and provide full shoulders • Allows adjustments to the horizontal alignments and slopes adjacent to the pavement. • Improved snow storage / reduced drifting • Old roadbed will be reused in project.