January 2010 Update:

Overall Project Update

 

The project environmental document was approved by the Federal Highway Administration in May 2009. Work on various phases is progressing. The first phase of work is scheduled to begin construction in the spring of 2010. This phase will construct the new Monmouth Street connection between Central Parkway and Colerain Avenue. ODOT has begun the Right-of-Way acquisition process on the first four phases in the corridor. Design of the Mitchell Ave. phase and Colerain/Beekman phases will be completed in August 2010. Hopple Street interchange phase design is approximately 50% complete. Phase 6 design is approximately 40% complete. Final design of phases 5 and 7 is scheduled to begin in spring 2010. At this time, construction and design funding for phase 8 has not been identified.

Phase 2, the Monmouth overpass phase, is being funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.   

Corridor Project Phasing and Schedule

Due to cost, constructability, and time constraints, the Mill Creek Expressway project has been split into eight phases of construction. The following table provides a brief description of each phase and tentative major milestone dates:

Phase	Project Description	Construction Cost (million)	Right-of-Way Acquisition Start	Construction Start	Construction End
1	Mitchell Ave. Interchange	$57.7	Started	March 2011	August 2014
2	Monmouth St. Overpass	$7.1	Started	April 2010	October 2011
3	Colerain/Beekman/I-74 Interchange	$8.8	Started	May 2011	September 2012
4	I-75 from Western Hills Viaduct to Monmouth Overpass (includes Hopple Interchange)	$99.6	Started	March 2013	August 2016
5	I-75 from Monmouth Overpass to Mitchell Ave. (includes I-74 Interchange and I-74 improvements)	$150.2	October 2011	March 2015	August 2018
6	RR Overpass South of Norwood Lateral	$21.4	August 2010	March 2014	September 2015
7	I-75 Mainline from Mitchell Ave. to the Norwood Lateral	$39.1	July 2011	March 2016	May 2018
8	I-75 Mainline from the Norwood Lateral to Cross County Highway	$148.1	August 2014	March 2018	May 2020

City of Cincinnati Revive I-75 Effort:

ODOT is participating and assisting this City led effort by providing information on our projects in the Hamilton I-75 corridor. As results and recommendations are adopted by the City, ODOT will work with the various partners to incorporate them when feasible.

 

May 2009 Update:

Finding advances Mill Creek Expressway Project

 

Recent action by the Federal Highway Administration advances ODOT’s commitment to addressing the transportation needs of southwest Ohio.

A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued by the Federal Highway Administration enables ODOT to move forward with project development of the $664 million Mill Creek Expressway. This action, taken at the request of ODOT, is the culmination of nearly five years of environmental and engineering analysis of a portion of Interstate 75 in Hamilton County.

 

Click here for FONSI.

Approximately eight miles in length, the Mill Creek Expressway project will improve traffic flow and enhance safety of Interstate 75 from the Western Hills Viaduct to north of the Paddock Road interchange. Work will rehabilitate existing lanes as well as construct an additional lane in each direction. The project also includes modernization of the interchanges at Hopple Street, I-74, Mitchell Avenue, Norwood Lateral, and Paddock Road as well as the modernization of the Colerain Avenue/Beekman Street interchange with I-74.

In issuing the FONSI, Federal Highway has determined that this proposed reconstruction of I-75 will not have significant impact on the human or natural environment.

“These projects do more than improve the freeway system. It will modernize a vital link in our state’s growing transportation system unlocking the potential for further economic development and new jobs,” said District 8 Deputy Director Hans Jindal.

ODOT has begun the final design efforts and right-of-way acquisition for various phases of work. It is anticipated that the first phase of construction will begin in the Spring of 2010, and the final phase will be completed in the Fall of 2020.
 

Listed below is the most up-to-date information.  Construction costs are based upon 2008 dollars.

 

 

February 2009 Update:

Public Hearing Notice

Public Hearing Handout          Comment Sheet           Exhibits

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) encourages the public to attend a public hearing for the proposed reconstruction of I-75 from the Western Hills Viaduct to Paddock Road interchanges. The proposed project is located in the City of Cincinnati, City of St. Bernard, and Village of Elmwood Place, Hamilton County, Ohio. The hearing will be held Tuesday, February 10, 2009 from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. at the St. Bernard Municipal Building at 120 Washington Avenue, St. Bernard, Ohio 45217. The hearing will be in an “open house” style and no formal presentations will be made.  You may visit at any time to view the project materials and ask questions. 

The purpose of the hearing is to inform the public about the project, and encouraged the public to comment and ask questions. Maps, drawings, and other pertinent information, including the Environmental Assessment and previous project documents, will be available for public inspection. During the hearing the public will be able to discuss the project in an informal matter with ODOT officials along with representation from TranSystems Corp., who conducted the study. Comments will be received either written or verbally (by a recorder), and will become part of the official public hearing record. The comments will be considered when making future project related decisions.

The proposed scope of the project includes adding one additional through lane in each direction on I-75 from the Western Hills Viaduct to north of the Paddock Road interchange.  The project length is approximately 8 miles.  It also includes improvements to the interchanges on I-75 at Hopple Street, I-74, Mitchell Avenue, Norwood Lateral (SR 562), and Paddock Road.  The partial interchange at Towne Street is removed by the project.  The Colerain/ Beekman interchange on I-74, just west of the I-74/I-75 interchange, is improved as a part of this action. 

The tentative schedules for right-of-way acquisition and construction will be available, and ODOT's Southwest District right-of-way officials will be on hand to answer questions. Tentative schedules for the start of right of way acquisition and of construction are dependent upon federal approvals.

Copies of the Environmental Assessment which documents the purpose and need of the project along with the anticipated social, economic, and environmental impacts can either be viewed on the website (see links on the right side of this page) or at the following locations during business hours:   

Ohio Department of Transportation

District 8 Offices

505 S. State Route 741

Lebanon, OH  45036

 

Cincinnati City Hall

801 Plum Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202

 

St. Bernard City Hall

110 Washington Avenue

St. Bernard, OH 45217

 

Elmwood Place Village Hall

6118 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45216

 

Camp Washington Community Center

1201 Stock Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45225

 

Cincinnati Public Library

Downtown Main Branch

800 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202

 

Clifton Branch

351 Ludlow Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45220

 

Elmwood Branch

6120 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45216

 

Northside Branch

4219 Hamilton Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45223

 

St. Bernard Branch

4803 Tower Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45217

 

General project questions can be addressed by Stefan Spinosa, ODOT’s Project Manager, at 1-800-831-2142.  Comments can be mailed, prior to the close of the public comment period on February 26, 2009, to Ohio Department of Transportation, Keith Smith Acting District 8 Planning and Environmental Engineer, 505 South State Route 741, Lebanon, Ohio 45036.  Individuals with a disability who need a reasonable accommodation to participate in this event please contact Keith Smith at 1-800-831-2142 by February 3, 2009.

 

November 2008 Update:

Hopple Interchange Decision Making Process

 

In July, 2008 the Cincinnati City Council passed a resolution which stated a desire for ODOT to evaluate additional alternatives at the Hopple Street Interchange.  During ODOT’s Value Engineering (VE) session, which is part of ODOT’s Project Development Process, three additional alternatives were discussed at Hopple.  Each of those three alternatives, along with the previously Recommended Alternative, was anticipated to be evaluated based upon the evaluation criteria determined by the Implementation Committee (IC) members at the August 27, 2008 meeting. 

 

VE Alternatives (link)

·         VE Alternative 1: Double Roundabout Diamond Interchange (with roundabout at MLK/Central Pkwy)

·         VE Alternative 2:  Partial Cloverleaf with traditional at-grade intersection at Central Parkway/MLK

·         VE Alternative 3:  Previously Recommended Alternative with I-75 northbound on-ramp moved opposite off-ramp

 

NOTE: The recommended alternative (as of August 2008) and the three VE session alternatives are displayed in HOP_alts.pdf.  It should be noted that each of the three VE session alternatives were conceptual at this stage and required additional engineering and traffic analysis.  It was anticipated that analysis would likely change the layout and/or footprint of the interchange and adjacent streets.

 

Evaluation Criteria

In order to properly evaluate the alternatives, the IC members were asked to review the existing criteria and make additions or modifications.  Several of these additions or modifications were incorporated into the evaluation criteria below.  Additional items that are not listed below, but will be incorporated into the evaluation include; (1) emergency vehicle access, (2) amount of surplus property (future development opportunities), (3) grade of slopes following construction, (4) appearance of bridge(s)/road(s), (5) exploring lower speeds on Hopple, (6) visibility for communities/businesses, and (7) street connectivity.

 

At the end of the meeting, each of the IC members were given four stickers to place on a sheet listing the evaluation criteria.  They were permitted to use their four stickers, representing their priorities, in any combination (such as all four on one criterion).  The number of votes is listed next to the evaluation criteria below.

 

Safety (3 votes)

A broad measure of relative safety performance of the alternative based upon such factors as interchange spacing (mainline), traffic weaving and other vehicle interactions, historical evidence, and engineering judgment.

 

Mobility (19 votes – 3 specifically for Congestion Mitigation and 3 specifically for Regional Mobility)

The operational performance of the alternative in terms of expected level of service, ease of providing local access opportunities, and promotion of traffic moving through the network. The mobility rating is subdivided into the following three categories:

·         Congestion Mitigation - A measure of the predicted level of service and operational efficiency of the alternative.

·         Local Access - Ease and convenience of local access opportunity.  For interchange alternatives, the rating provides an indication of whether the interchange is full or partial, or whether the alternative gives improved arterial operation.

·         Regional Mobility - For interchanges, this measure is an indication of expected congestion on the freeway caused by poor interchange performance.

 

Environment (5 votes)

This category is included as a broad indication of expected environmental impacts generated by the alternative.

·         Air Quality – Higher congestion and stop-n-go operation generate higher levels of emissions

·         Noise – Higher traffic volumes and elevated roadways increase noise levels

·         Cultural Resources – Impacts to historic properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places

·         Ecological Resources – Impacts to wetlands, streams, and habitat

·         Hazardous Materials – Impacts to properties contaminated with regulated substances or waste

 

Community (18 votes – 2 specifically for Development Benefits and 2 specifically for Parks and Recreation Areas)

Impacts to communities are summarized by the following subcategories:

·         Development Benefits – A measure of improved local access, increase/decrease in developable lands, and negative impacts of relocating businesses.

·         Context Sensitive Design – This rating indicates relative negative visual impact of the alternative, opportunity for aesthetic treatment, and how well the alternative fits the site.

·         Facilities and Services – Impacts to public facilities and services, community buildings

·         Parks and Recreation Areas – Impacts to parks, playgrounds and recreation centers

 

Modes (22 votes – 2 specifically for Transit, 3 specifically for Freight, and 2 specifically for Bicycle)

This category evaluates the alternatives’ performance in accommodating non-vehicular travel.

·         Transit – impacts to or enhancement of bus or rail transit use

·         Freight – impacts to or enhancement of freight rail

·         Bicycle – impacts to or enhancement of bicycle travel

·         Pedestrian – impacts to or enhancement of walkability

 

Displacements (1 vote)

This category evaluates impacts on property owners, businesses, and residents.

·         New right-of-way required – Amount of property to be purchased

·         Residential relocations – Number of households displaced

·         Business relocations – Number and type of businesses displaced                            

 

Cost (4 votes)

Estimated total project cost

·         Right-of-Way – Costs for right-of-way purchase and relocations

·         Construction – Includes construction costs

·         Life Cycle – Cost to maintain constructed infrastructure. This is a relative measure that is dependent on extent of built structures such as bridges and retaining walls.

 

Construction (8 votes – 1 specifically for MOT and 4 specifically for duration)

Impacts during construction

·         Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) – access during construction

·         Duration

·         Construction Noise

 

Alternatives Evaluated

Following the August 27^th IC meeting, the project team further evaluated the feasibility of the three VE alternatives.  Once the analysis of each alternative was completed, the project team met with ODOT and the City of Cincinnati to discuss the findings.  The analysis for each alternative is summarized as follows:

 

VE Alternative 1: Double Roundabout Diamond Interchange (with roundabout at MLK/Central Pkwy)

·         The 2-lane roundabouts failed operationally in the opening year.  A substantial backup of roughly 800 feet west along Hopple was observed in the model.  The backup extended through interchange roundabouts, therefore blocking exiting traffic and causing backups along the interchange ramps back to mainline I-75. 

·         In order to operationally make this alternative function, three lanes were necessary at each roundabout and considerable distance was necessary between the two roundabouts on the eastern side of the interchange. 

·         Property impacts were greater under this alternative than the previously Recommended Alternative.

·         MLK has a grade of 8% approaching the roundabout.  Typically, steep grades are a deterrent when evaluating potential roundabout locations.

·         A three-lane roundabout is unusual.  There are very few in the country and none currently in Ohio.  A roundabout of this type has larger conflict zones.  The safety performance of multi-lane roundabouts drops substantially compared to single lane roundabouts.

·         Pedestrians may have concerns with multi-lane roundabouts which require crossing 2 or 3 lanes at a time.  Blind pedestrians are particularly a concern and have been reported by Camp Washington.  Signalization may be necessary.  The Access Board currently has a lawsuit pending on this issue.  There is presently no direction from FHWA on how to address this issue, either as to whether to signalize, and if so, what type of signal to use.  Signalization types for pedestrian crossings have been controversial for roundabouts.  Motorists may disregard signals that are merely warning in nature; however, with a green/red signal, a green light may lead motorists to ignore the yield line when entering the roundabout.

 

VE Alternative 2:  Partial Cloverleaf with traditional at-grade intersection at Central Parkway/MLK

·         This alternative failed operationally in the opening year.  The MLK/Central intersection was too close to the interchange creating backups.  Additionally, there was a substantial backup of roughly 2,000 feet along Central Pkwy (north of City property).

·         In order to operationally make this alternative function, the MLK/Central intersection needed to be moved further east and up the hill.  This would create several additional property impacts.  Furthermore, the grade would be 8% or greater on Central to meet MLK at a new intersection.

·         Additional lanes would also be necessary along MLK to make the intersection with Central function.  There still would be considerable backup along Central Pkwy.

 

VE Alternative 3:  Previously Recommended Alternative with I-75 northbound on-ramp moved opposite off-ramp

·         This alternative was a modification of the previously Recommended Alternative and moved the northbound I-75 on-ramp (from the MLK/Connector Road intersection) to line up with the northbound I-75 off-ramp. 

·         This alternative operated adequately in the opening and design years and lowered the impacts (3 acres less) over the previously Recommended Alternative. 

 

Recommended Preferred Alternative (Link)

During the August 27^th IC meeting, members established evaluation criteria for the project team to rank the alternatives.  After the alternatives were evaluated and presented to the City Staff, Cincinnati City Council passed Resolution 53-2008 supporting VE Alternative 3 and urging ODOT to eliminate Alternatives 1 and 2.  Therefore, a substantial alternative evaluation using the previously identified criteria was unnecessary.  VE Alternative 3 was chosen as the Recommended Preferred Alternative. 

 

Benefits of VE Alternative 3 over the Current Situation (existing conditions)

·         Removal of the left hand exit which causes accident problems and is an overall safety issue

·         Removal of the Partial interchange

o   Bates on-ramp only goes to I-74

o   Central Pkwy. ramp for I-75 northbound

o   Confusion with the partial interchange and separation of ramps

·         Hopple/Central/MLK intersection currently operates at a very poor level of service

·         VE Alternative 3 will preserve future Light Rail Corridor

·         VE Alternative 3 will add sidewalks and streetlights along both sides of Hopple