4. COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Selection of the preferred alternative will not be completed until after receipt and consideration of comments on this Draft EIS. Discussion of the final selection will be included in the Final EIS document. The following discussion provides a summary comparison of the four finalist alternatives.

A comparison of project benefits and impacts is summarized in Table 4.1. The table includes data generated during the Level IV analysis, the most detailed evaluation of the alternatives. Comparison of the beltway alternatives indicates that all of the alternatives are feasible solutions that will serve the project purpose and need to complete the circumferential transportation network around Lincoln, to move through traffic around Lincoln's congested urban area, and to improve traffic flow on the existing urban street system. Additionally, all of the end-to-end beltway alternatives are cost-effective based on an analysis of time savings from the BOS II model (Section 2.4.5)

The location of the east beltway in terms of the close, mid or far corridors does not seem to have a significant effect on the amount of traffic it is expected to carry or the benefits obtained. The east beltway provides relief to traffic coming into or through Lincoln from the northeast (Omaha) and the southeast (Nebraska City). This traffic will use the east beltway regardless of which corridor is selected. The major differences between the east corridors involve the interchanges at I-80, N-2 and the south beltway. The close and far corridors require significant diagonal routing to connect to an interchange at I-80, and both require two separate interchanges at N-2 and the south beltway. In comparison, the mid corridor requires a single but more complicated interchange at N-2 and the south beltway. These differences are best reflected in the construction cost estimates and right-of-way impacts; however, they have little effect on system performance.

Comparison of the project impacts indicates that all of the alternatives have relatively low impact considering the length of the segments. This is due to the primarily rural setting and the great effort made to minimize impacts throughout the beltway planning process. However, all of the east routes have impacts to Section 4(f) resources.

Overall differences between the east alternatives are relatively minor. EC-1 and EF-1 have greater right-of-way requirements than EM-1; and therefore, have greater land use impacts. EC-1 has slightly more impact to suburban type land uses such as residential and commercial acreage and impacts to trails due to its closer proximity to Lincoln; whereas EF-1, which is

4.0 km (2.5 mi) more distant than EC-1, has slightly more impact to rural uses such as farmland, prairie, historic structures, and actual number of residences. EM-1 and EC-1 have slightly more impact to natural resources such as streams, floodplains and floodways, and wetlands due to their closer proximity to Stevens Creek, where as EF-1 has slightly less impact to natural resources due to its general location along the ridgeline.

There are a few differences in impacts between the routes that should be carefully considered in selecting a preferred alternative.

¹ Average Annual Accident Savings is based on end-to-end beltway analyses performed with the BOS land use plan. The BOS II land use plan is expected to provide even greater accident cost savings.

² An analysis of the time savings with the BOS II model comparing the end-to-end beltway alternatives and no build alternative indicates the investment to construct the beltway would be paid off through time savings alone in less than three years (Section 2.3.6.2). The conclusions of this comparison are that all end-to-end beltway alternatives for all the east alignments are economically feasible.

³ If SM-4 and EC-1 are constructed, two crossings of the OPPD line will be required. EC-1 alone does not require any railroad crossing.

⁴ These are receptors for which noise abatement measures were not considered reasonable.

• For EC-1, noise and visual impacts to nearby residences are greater than with other alternatives because it extends across a more developed landscape closer to the city.
• For EF-1, impacts to historic structures are greater due to the greater presence of resources with increasing distance from the city and urbanization.
• The higher costs of EC-1 and EM-1 compared to EF-1 are due to the major bridge structure at Stevens Creek. However, all of the costs are within 8 percent of each other for the end-to-end beltways, and within 14 percent for the stand alone east beltway alternatives. This is within the 20 percent contingency contained in all cost estimates.
• The diagonal crossing at the north end of EC-1 creates a less desirable circuitous route (with backtracking for westbound traffic).
• The EC-1 connection at N-2 and the south beltway requires two interchanges which creates an undesirable triangle of land and access problems for several residences.
• There are cost savings with the SM-4/EM-1 end-to-end beltway due to the common interchange at N-2.

Although all of the alternatives meet the project purpose and need, obviously, there are benefits and trade-offs with any of the three east alternatives. The goals, objectives and values of the Lincoln-Lancaster County community will need to be carefully considered in the selection of the preferred alternative.