2. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Process Overview. A wide range of alternatives has been considered as part of the south and east beltways study. These alternatives were evaluated and those considered most practical and with the least environmental impact were carried forward to more detailed levels of analysis. The planning process included four levels of analysis, each representing a more comprehensive and rigorous evaluation. The overall process was envisioned as a funnel, with the alternatives continually being reduced in number until the best candidates remained. Specifically, the study design called for four levels of analysis or study tasks. These were:

• Development of all reasonable alternatives,
• Identification of five to ten candidate alternatives most worthy of further evaluation,
• Identification of two to four finalist alternatives, and
• Analysis and selection of a preferred alternative.

The last level of analysis is documented in this Draft EIS. Selection of the preferred alternative will be completed after receipt and consideration of comments on this document. Discussion of the final selection will be included in the Final EIS document.

Public Input. Due to the significance of the south and east beltways study, the project sponsors decided at the onset of the project that anyone and everyone should be given ample opportunity to participate in the study planning process. Toward this end an extensive Public Participation Program was developed (see Chapter 6), including creation of three advisory committees-the Management Committee, Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen's Advisory Committee. Development and analysis of the alternatives involved the participation of these three committees as well as public comments received at over 275 meetings (including public meetings, group meetings, and meetings with individual landowners) as well as from written comments and telephone calls. The entire process has taken more than five years to complete--with the original scope often being expanded to incorporate additional investigations requested by elected officials, reviewing agencies and the public.

In general, alternatives were developed by the consulting team and then presented to the three advisory committees. Following refinement, the options were then presented to the public. Public input was used to further refine and evaluate the alternatives considered.

Levels of Analysis. The alternatives evaluation involved four levels of analysis with each level representing a more detailed evaluation. A summary of the steps involved in the process is provided in Table 2.1.

2.1 LEVEL I: OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES

The scope of the beltway study involved evaluation of the widest range of transportation alternatives from beltway to non-beltway options, and even to non-roadway alternatives. Some of the alternatives included costly versus inexpensive improvements, construction versus non-construction options, automobile versus transit vehicles, consolidation of transportation and utilities corridors, and incorporation of enhancement features. These alternatives were described and evaluated in detail in Interim Report No. 1 (WSA, 1996a), Interim Report No. 2 (WSA, 1996b) and Interim Report No. 3 (WSA, 1999), and are listed in Table 2.2. Previous study reports are available at the offices of the City Public Works and Utilities Department, City-County Planning Department, Nebraska Department of Roads and Federal Highway Administration.

2.1.1 No Build Alternative (Planned Road Improvements)

The no build alternative involved improving the regional street and highway system, as needed, without seeking a highway beltway. The concept involved maintaining the existing road system, but making those improvements already identified in the City and County 20-year plans such as surfacing some roads, widening some roads to four-lanes, and building some new roads. This alternative represented the lowest cost "base case" option against which other, more expensive, alternatives were compared.

2.1.2 Non-Beltway Alternative (Further Improvement of Existing Arterials)

The non-beltway alternative involved assessment of whether future travel demands and desired system performance could be satisfied by improving arterial roadways within and/or adjacent to the beltways study areas. Improvements included widening existing roads to 4 or 6 lanes, and constructing new arterial type facilities on the existing alignments. The non-beltway alternative would have signalized intersections, 60 km/h (40 mph) posted speeds, and allow some direct access to commercial property.

2.1.3 Beltway Alternative (New Highway Facility)

This alternative was the principal investment alternative evaluated in the study, and involved building a beltway on the south, east, or both south and east sides of Lincoln. The intent of the beltway was to provide a level of service (roadway operating conditions) greater than that found with a typical arterial street. The primary factors involved with level of service are the number of lanes in each direction, design speed, and type of access provided.

For this study the beltway type was considered to be a four-lane roadway designed to either freeway or expressway design standards. A freeway is a multi-lane roadway built to highway standards such as for Interstate 80. A freeway design would have (1) complete access control (no at-grade crossings), (2) 75 to 90 m (250 to 300 ft) wide right-of-way, and (3) design speed of 110 km/h (70 mph) and a posted speed limit of 105 km/h (65 mph). An expressway is a multi-lane roadway built to slightly lower design standards such as for US 77. An expressway design would have (1) grade separated interchanges at major roads (I-80, US 77, N-2, US 34) while other crossings could be at grade, (2) possible traffic signals, (3) 45 to 75 m (150 to 250 ft) wide right-of-way, and (4) locally determined speed limits.

For the beltway study evaluations, it was assumed that the concept would involve the freeway design because it is the maximum traffic carrying alternative and requires the most extensive right-of-way width. However, it was recognized that the beltway could be constructed in phases representing two-lane, or expressway facilities which could be upgraded within a right-of-way reserved to freeway standards.

Beltway interchanges would be spaced approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) apart along the existing grid network. For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that ultimately all unpaved county roads providing access to beltway interchanges would be upgraded to four-lane paved roads, and that section line roads that cross the beltway with overpasses would be upgraded to two-lane paved roads.

2.1.4 Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Transportation System Management (TSM) Improvements

This alternative involves attempting to influence trip making (TDM) or making inexpensive traffic engineering and traffic operational improvements (TSM) on the existing road system without making major road investments.

TDM programs include car pooling, van pooling, flex time, compressed work weeks, telecommuting, and improved transit, and are often implemented by public transportation agencies with support and incentives provided by local businesses. TDM techniques are appropriate in certain areas of the country where congestion and delay are significant, parking is limited, and businesses have a strong desire not to relocate. None of these conditions exist in Lincoln where congestion is relatively minor and confined to peak travel periods only; parking is abundant and generally free outside of the central business district; and businesses are inclined to move to suburban locations rather than have employees, clients, and customers be inconvenienced (WSA, 1996a).

The use of private automobiles in lieu of other modes of transportation is considered to be a positive benefit of living in Lincoln. As a result, local planning and zoning has reinforced this lifestyle. Even a doubling or tripling of transit usage, car pooling or adjusted work schedules would not significantly affect traffic congestion. More specifically, it would accomplish little within the south and east beltways study area (WSA, 1996a). Therefore, TDM techniques were not investigated in further detail as a means of eliminating or reducing the need for the beltways.

TSM programs tend to be traffic operations oriented activities implemented by public transportation agencies, and include improved traffic signal timing, addition of auxiliary lanes at congested intersections, signing and marking improvements, parking restrictions, one-way street systems, and reversible lanes.

The City of Lincoln Public Works and Utilities Department has a program of continuously monitoring its roadway network looking for opportunities to implement TSM improvements. Because TSM is already an on-going activity, it is already included in the base case conditions. Pursuit of additional TSM programs are not expected to be gainful, would not affect the beltway corridor areas, and are not likely to affect the need for a beltway (WSA, 1996a). Therefore TSM techniques were not investigated further as a means of eliminating or reducing the need for the beltways.

2.1.5 Other Modes of Transportation

This alternative involved introducing new modes or systems of transportation to Lincoln, including expanded bus transit into the beltway corridors; rail transit; park and ride lots, and services; and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and facilities. These systems would either take the place of a beltway, or would be complementary to the beltway.

Certain modes which do not have an impact on travel demand within the beltway corridors should be eliminated from further consideration. Other modes which may not eliminate the need for a beltway, could be pursued as a way of enhancing a beltway or improving traffic flow in other areas of the City.

Bus Transit. The City of Lincoln has an extensive network of bus routes serving the majority of the City. In FY 1998-1999, StarTran carried approximately 1,662,916 passengers. Consistent with national trends, the overall use of bus transit in Lincoln has been declining since FY 1987-1988 when passenger use peaked at 2,052,000 passengers. The decline of bus service is due to many factors, including:

• With the exception of the recent gasoline price hikes in 2000, gasoline prices had steadily declined relative to average income.
• As Lincoln continues to grow, employment centers are spread throughout the community making them difficult to serve by transit.
• City ordinances require new development to have sufficient parking to handle projected demand.
• Current lifestyles require multiple trips to and from work including stops for purchases, day care or recreational activities. The multi-purpose work trip is not well-served by transit.
• According to the 1990 Census, private car availability averages 2.1 cars per household in Lancaster County, and only 7.8 percent of households reported having no car available.

Bus transit is non-existent in the beltway corridors because the areas are outside of the City of Lincoln and because the low density does not support transit services. Although this may change over the next 20 years, it is unlikely that bus service will increase significantly in these outlying areas. Consequently, improved transit services within the beltway corridors is not a viable alternative to a beltway. Therefore, the alternative was eliminated from further evaluation.

Rail Transit. Currently, there is no rail transit in Nebraska. Chicago and St. Louis, the closest cities with rail transit facilities, both have large populations and large downtowns which are more conducive to rail transit than that in Lincoln. Even in these cases, rail transit is not utilized to the extent that significantly reduces congestion on either city's fringe freeway beltways during morning and evening rush hours.

Opportunities for rail transit within Lincoln is not considered feasible in the foreseeable future. With a projected metropolitan population of only 374,630 by the year 2025, the passenger vehicle is expected to remain the mode of choice due to travel time factors. As a result, the development of rail transit as a means of reducing or eliminating the need for a beltway was not considered for further analysis, nor was it considered as a potential enhancement to the beltways since neither the south or east beltway leads to downtown Lincoln.

Park and Ride Lots and Services. Park and ride lots, which provide parking facilities for car pooling, could be located at major roadway intersections. Although they would not take the place of a beltway, they could be built in conjunction with the beltway. Incorporation of these types of facilities will be considered during final design.

High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes and Facilities. HOV lanes have been a popular way of developing more capacity for moving people through a corridor in many of America's larger cities. HOV lanes are generally located on the inside lane of limited access freeways where the lanes can extend for several miles without interruption due to interchanges or intersections. Their use is limited to vehicles with more than one passenger, and they generally have less congestion than other lanes. They provide an incentive for people to car pool and use public transit, thereby reducing single occupant vehicle trips, and reducing the number of cars on the highway especially in peak periods of travel.

Implementation of HOV lanes in Lincoln would be difficult because the city does not have any existing freeways or expressways that lend themselves to successful HOV design. HOV lanes on arterial streets such as O Street (US 34), Cornhusker Highway (US 6) or N-2 would not work well because of the need to travel back and forth into left and right turn lanes.

Because of the lack of appropriate locations, HOV lanes were not studied as a means to eliminate or reduce the need for beltways. In addition, they are not considered necessary as an enhancement to a beltway since HOV lanes only offer incentives in transportation systems that are over capacity where they can provide drivers with a significant savings in time.

2.1.6 Joint Use Opportunities

This alternative involved evaluation of other types of investments which may be incorporated into the beltway corridor in order to enhance (but not replace) the concept. Options considered included features that could fit into a 90 m (300 ft) right-of-way such as bicycle and pedestrian paths; linear parks; rail freight line consolidations; and utility lines.

Bicycle Facilities. The use of bicycles has been increasing in the United States over the past 20 years. In Lincoln, bicycle use is generally oriented to recreational purposes and the City has an extensive and successful system of hiker/biker trails linking residential and recreational areas. With Wilderness Park at the west end of the south beltway and the MoPac Trail bisecting the east beltway, additional trail connections could provide enhanced connectivity to the regional trail system. Therefore, it was recommended that potential beltway trail connections be evaluated as part of this study.

Although the potential exists for acquiring additional land to provide pedestrian and bicycle trails within the beltway right-of-way, other options through the city have been considered more desirable. Such options are already being considered with the ultimate effect of connecting the Wilderness Park Trail to the MoPac Trail, and the MoPac Trail to the Murdock Trail. Therefore, incorporation of bicycle facilities are not being considered within the freeway right-of-way; however, overpasses or underpasses at trail crossings of the beltway will be provided for. These could include a Wilderness Park Trail extension, David Murdock Trail, MoPac East Trail and Stevens Creek Connector.

Linear Parks. It was also recommended that the beltway study include evaluation of provisions for linear park sites. These areas could take advantage of unique environmental areas adjacent to the beltway corridor, provide linkages to other park and recreation areas, and/or serve as buffers to other land uses. The areas could also be developed in conjunction with mitigation requirements for the beltway, or with locally funded recreation or preservation initiatives. For example, it was thought that portions of the Stevens or Salt Creek areas prone to flooding could be purchased and developed for passive recreational use.

LPSNRD has developed a plan for addressing flood reduction in the Stevens Creek watershed which encompasses most of the east beltway study area. The LPSNRD's approved Stevens Creek Watershed Plan (which has been incorporated into the Lincoln-Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan) includes an open space component to acquire conservation easements over the 100-year floodplain between the MoPac East and David Murdock Trails, and ultimately to Salt Creek. The plan includes constructing a connector trail within this easement between the MoPac East and David Murdock Trails. The connector would follow the west bank of Stevens Creek from the MoPac East Trail to 112^th Street. After crossing the 112^th Street bridge, the connector would then follow the east bank of the creek to the David Murdock Trail and on to Salt Creek. No additional land was included in the project because of landowner opposition south of the MoPac East Trail.

The same concept could be implemented along Salt Creek with the effect of extending Wilderness Park to the south. In fact, extension of the park south to Hickman Road has been identified as a goal in the Lincoln-Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan and subsequent amendments to the plan. If mitigation is required for park or recreation lands for the beltway project, incorporation of linear park land, including sufficient right-of-way for landscape treatment, will be considered at that time.

Railroad Transportation Line Consolidation. For many years, the Railroad Transportation Safety District (RTSD) has been investigating opportunities to consolidate rail lines and relocate lines outside of central areas of the city to provide better safety for rail crossings and reduced delay for overall traffic. Due to the presence of an east-west rail line across the south side of the City just south of N-2, consideration was given to consolidating this line with the south beltway. This railroad line belongs to Omaha Public Power District and serves their Nebraska City coal-fired power plant. The line extends south from downtown and then east to Bennet with at-grade crossings near several major intersections of N-2 at South 14^th, South 27^th, South 40^th, South 48^th and South 56^th Streets. A concept was considered involving combining the line with existing tracks though Wilderness Park and then constructing a new corridor east to Bennet along the south beltway.

Unfortunately, rail consolidation often only serves to relocate the problems. Train track adjacent to roadways can be a safety problem, and in at-grade situations requires minimal distance standards between the roadway and tracks to insure sufficient vehicle storage space exists. Because trains have limited ability to curve in and out between existing roadway intersections, a wider right-of-way would be required along the south beltway. In addition, local rail customers must be served (such as the Redi-Mix plant at N-2 and South 48^th Street); therefore, spur lines within the existing rail corridor may need to be kept in service regardless of a consolidation. With all these problems and an estimated $0.62 million per km ($1 million per mi) for new track construction for an approximate distance of 16 km (10 mi), this alternative was not studied in further detail.

Utilities. Consideration of joint use opportunities with utilities focused on consolidating a future beltway with an existing utility corridor, as opposed to joint development of a new utility corridor within the beltway right-of-way. A number of utilities exist within the beltway corridors, including Lincoln Electric System (LES) overhead transmission lines, above and below ground telephone lines, underground fuel lines, and underground lines for rural water districts and cable communications. Although most of these facilities are considered as project constraints, special attention was given to the LES 345-kilovolt line generally located along North 127^th Street from I-80 to US 34, south toward N-2, and then diagonally west to Saltillo Road.

Construction of a beltway along the LES easement was considered as a possible way to reduce the amount of right-of-way required for the beltway, or to minimize impacts to adjacent landowners. However, the required minimum distance between the transmission line and roadway (necessary for safety requirements and maintenance of the utility corridor) resulted in no reduction in right-of-way.

In 1999, a newly proposed LES 345-kilovolt transmission line extension from North 127^th and Adams Streets northward to Waverly was given public review by LES. After careful coordination between the beltway project team, private landowners, public interests, and other constraints, the LES engineers concluded that it would be wise to not co-locate this new transmission route with any of the alternative beltway routes, and to avoid the beltway interchange area at I-80.

2.1.7 Future Land Use Scenarios

The City of Lincoln and Lancaster County are expected to grow significantly in the next 25 to 30 years. Although some of this growth is destined for areas within the existing built-up area of Lincoln, growth will also occur in the beltway study area. The location and density of such growth will be dictated by the availability of infrastructure such as water, sewer and roads. In order to determine the impacts of growth and development on the beltway, it was necessary to evaluate future land use scenarios.

Future land use scenarios were developed by the Lancaster County/City of Lincoln Planning Department and were based on trends, City and County plans and policies, planned infrastructure expansions and capacity improvements, and community goals, objectives and desires. Future traffic was modeled for the various land use scenarios to determine impacts on the roadway system. During the Level III analysis, traffic was modeled using the Build Out Scenario (BOS) which represented a County population of 271,600 by the year 2015 as described in the approved 1994 Lincoln-Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan (this document is available at the offices of the City-County Planning Department). During the Level IV analysis, traffic was modeled again, using BOS II which includes subsequesnt land use revisions (amendments) to the Comprehensive Plan. For purposes of this study, BOS II assumed a County population of 374,630 within a 25 to 30 year period. This is in comparison to the 1999 County population of 237,657.

2.1.8 Transportation Alternatives Carried Forward

Of the seven transportation alternatives considered, four were eliminated from further consideration because they would not increase the capacity of the transportation network, or reduce or eliminate the need for a beltway. These were the TDM/TSM improvements, other modes of transportation, joint use opportunities, and land use scenarios. Although not investigated further, some aspect of these alternatives, such as park and ride lots, linear parks or natural areas, or bicycle paths might be incorporated as enhancements into a future roadway plan. The decision to focus on roadway alternatives was made during the Partnering Meeting of the project's Management Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, Citizen's Advisory Committee and consultant team in December 1995.

Three alternatives were carried forward for further analysis. These were the no build, non-beltway and beltway alternatives. The no build alternative is a required consideration under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and represents a base case comparison for all build alternatives. The non-beltway and beltway alternatives were carried forward because they are the only alternatives that would increase substantially the capacity of the transportation network.

2.2 LEVEL II: DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF BELTWAY AND NON-BELTWAY ALTERNATIVES

2.2.1 Existing Constraints

One of the initial project tasks was to develop a map of environmental constraints, existing land uses and other features within the beltway study area that may affect location of a roadway. The original constraints map was developed from existing resources, databases, aerial photography, consultations and site visits as described in Interim Report No. 1 (WSA, 1996a).

Over the five years of the study, the map has been periodically updated as new photography has become available and new information has been collected by or provided to the project team. The most recent version of the constraints map of the beltway study area (based on the most recent 1997 aerial photography) is presented in Figure 2.1.

Some of the more important constraints and considerations in the study area include:

• Park and recreation areas including Wilderness Park, Jensen Park, MoPac East and David Murdock Trails, numerous golf courses
• Rural residences, acreages and farms
• Floodplains along Salt Creek and Stevens Creek
• Wetlands, prairies and other natural areas
• Historic and archeological sites
• Communities of Roca, Bennet, Cheney, Walton, Prairie Home and Waverly
• Infrastructure such as utility lines, electrical substations, wells, pumpstations, water towers, radio towers, railroad lines, and existing roadways

2.2.2 Development of the Universe of Beltway Alternatives

As described in Chapter 6, the south and east beltways study included a wide range of public involvement activities. Starting with the first Public Meeting in November 1995, the study team began requesting information on existing constraints in the study area and soliciting recommendations for possible beltway Iocations. In December 1995, a partnering meeting was conducted with the Management Committee, Technical Committee, Citizen's Advisory Committee and consultant team to review suggested alignments and to develop new alignments. The resulting map of Beltway alignment options was defined as the "Universe of Beltway Location Alternatives" (Figure 2.2).

The lines on the map indicate general corridors in which a roadway could be located, allowing some flexibility to move the roadway within the corridor to avoid environmental constraints, existing land uses and other features that may affect location of a roadway. For the purpose of this level of analysis, the corridors were considered to be at least 180 m (600 ft) wide.

2.2.3 Alignment Strategies and Strategy Sets

Once the Universe of Alternatives was developed, it became necessary to evaluate the options so that, ultimately, one preferred alternative could be selected. A method was required to eliminate some alternatives, since it was too complicated to compare the hundreds of combinations available. As a way of reducing the number of alternative alignments considered at one time, alignments were grouped in series of sets which were considered to have similar advantages and disadvantages based on a defined geographic area (Alignment Strategies). As described in Interim Report No. 2 (WSA, 1996b), each strategy set was evaluated to determine which the best alignment in each set. At this point, no single strategy set was considered better than another. Rather it was acknowledged that there would be trade-offs between the sets that would be evaluated later in more detailed analyses.

The strategy sets were defined relative to their distance to the City of Lincoln (close, mid and far) in both the south and east study areas. With three sets in the south and three sets in the east, there could be nine possible combinations of the sets. The six strategy sets are shown in Figure 2.3 and described more thoroughly in Interim Report No. 2 (WSA, 1996b).

2.2.4 General Evaluation Guidelines

To be objective and fair, all alternatives needed to be considered on an equal basis. Yet, there were too many alignment options to be able to evaluate every one in detail. To handle this situation, the study team developed general evaluation guidelines based on existing City and County policies, adopted plans, sound engineering practices, an awareness of potential environmental impacts of a roadway, and certain evaluation criteria identified at the Partnering Workshop. The guidelines are summarized in Table 2.3 and described in detail in Interim Report No. 2 (WSA, 1996b).

2.2.5 Screening Process for the Strategy Sets and Elimination of Some Alternatives

Key Reasons for Eliminating Some Alternatives. Because many of the guidelines required detailed levels of analyses (e.g., number of houses taken, farms crossed, traffic volumes, detailed environmental consequences), they could not all be applied in screening the Universe of Alternatives/Strategy Sets. Therefore, the alternatives were compared and contrasted in terms of criteria that could be applied at this more generalized level of analysis. From this evaluation, three key reasons for eliminating some routes were identified. These were:

• Use of section line roads for beltway purposes would be difficult due to the large number of existing rural residences in close proximity to the section line roads.
• Diagonal alignments, especially in the east study area, would offer little advantage, but would create a number of problems involving (a) severed parcels, (b) longer bridges over county roads, and (c) angled county road intersections requiring modification and additional right-of-way to meet the design standard for 90-degree intersections.
• Passing too close to the planned regional shopping center (at N-2 between 84^th Street and 98^th Street) would not be a good idea due to potential stacking of vehicles between the interchanges and the shopping area.

Although simplified, the three key reasons actually apply to many of the guideline issues (diagonal crossings of farmland, number of houses impacted, road system continuity, intersection angles, utility and railroad conflicts, compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, crossing of creeks and drainage basins, sensitive areas, and many others). The process of eliminating some alternatives based on the three key reasons is described in greater detail in Interim Report No. 2 (WSA, 1996b). Following this screening, 10 alternatives remained on the south and four on the east (see Exhibits 5-4 and 5-5, Interim Report No. 2, WSA, 1996b).

Selection of the Best Alignment within Each Strategy Set. By comparing and contrasting alignments within each strategy set, several more alternatives were eliminated with the goal of having one alignment within each strategy set. Specific reasons for elimination included:

• Minimizing the width of the Wilderness Park crossing of the SC routes
• Minimizing wetland and creek impacts of the south routes
• Minimizing interchange spacing problems
• Minimizing crossing impacts at Saltillo Road for the SM and SF routes
• Minimizing impacts to platted subdivisions, residences, farmyards and cemeteries
• Minimizing severance of farmland
• Avoiding routes that extend outside of the study area for the EF routes

Screening of the strategy sets resulted in the recommendation of four candidate alternatives in the south and three in the east to be carried forward to the Level III analysis (Figure 2.4). These were SC-1, SC-4, SM-4, SF-1, EC-1, EM-1 and EF-1. Two south close alternatives were carried forward because they were considered to have fairly different advantages and disadvantages. The Level III beltway alternatives are described in Table 2.4.

2.2.6 Development of Non-Beltway Alternatives

The non-beltway alternative involved assessment of whether future travel demands and desired system performance could be satisfied by improving arterial roadways within and/or adjacent to the beltways study areas. Improvements included widening existing roads to 4 or 6 lanes, and constructing new arterial type facilities on the existing alignments. The non-beltway alternative would have signalized intersections, 60 km/h (40 mph) posted speeds, and allow some direct access to commercial property.

Locations for non-beltway alternatives were developed by determining where potential deficiencies exist with the 20-year transportation improvement program. This was done by examining Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratios and comparing estimated future traffic volumes to available roadway capacity. This analysis is described in detail in Interim Report No. 3 (WSA,1999).

Results showed that on the south additional improvements would be needed at Yankee Hill Road, Pine Lake Road, Rokeby Road or N-2 to handle projected traffic. On the east, additional improvements would be needed at 70^th, 84^th or 98^th Street. No advantage was gained by leapfrogging an arterial (i.e. improving Rokeby and skipping Yankee Hill). The skipped roadways would still be over capacity, and the reduction in congestion along already improved roadways (i.e., N-2) would be less. Therefore, the south corridor required a non-beltway option through Wilderness Park.

The three non-beltway options were developed as test cases that could be used in the Level III analysis to establish whether a non-beltway alternative would reduce or eliminate the need for a beltway alternative. These options are included in Table 2.4 and shown in Figure 2.5.

Non-Beltway Option 1. This option involves improving Yankee Hill Road on the south and 98^th Street on the east to four-lane divided roadways, including turn lanes at all signalized intersections and a segment through Wilderness Park. In conjunction with this option, 14^th Street between Yankee Hill Road and Rokeby would be closed (through Wilderness Park).

Non-Beltway Option 2. This option involves improving Pine Lake Road on the south and 84^th Street on the east to six-lane divided roadways, including turn lanes at all signalized intersections and a segment through Wilderness Park. This option also includes widening N-2 to a six-lane roadway between 14^th and 84^th Streets. In conjunction with this option, 14^th Street between Yankee Hill and Rokeby Roads would be closed (through Wilderness Park).

Non-Beltway Option 3. This option involves improving Yankee Hill Road on the south and 98^th Street on the east to four-lane divided roadways, including turn lanes at all signalized intersections, but no segment through Wilderness Park. In conjunction with this option, 14^th Street would be improved to a four-lane facility from Old Cheney Road to Saltillo Road, including the segment through Wilderness Park. In addition, Old Cheney would be improved to a four-lane facility between 14^th Street and US 77, including the segment through Wilderness Park.

In addition to these test cases, a fourth non-beltway option, along 148^th Street, was developed after the Level III analysis. This alternative is addressed in Section 2.3.8.

2.2.7 Candidate Alternatives Carried Forward

Preliminary screening of the strategy sets resulted in the recommendation of seven candidate Beltway alternatives to be carried forward for further evaluation in the Level III analysis. These were SC-1, SC-4, SM-4, SF-1, EC-1, EM-1 and EF-1. In total, this resulted in 20 combinations of south and east beltway corridors that were carried forward (Figure 2.6). Preliminary screening of non-beltway alternatives resulted in the development of three non-beltway options which were also carried forward in the Level III analysis.

2.3 LEVEL III: ANALYSIS OF THE CANDIDATE BELTWAY ALTERNATIVES AND

NON-BELTWAY OPTIONS

The Level III analysis involved more detailed evaluations of the seven candidate beltway alternatives and three non-beltway options using new analyses and data. The goal of the Level III analysis was to identify two to four Finalist Alternatives for further evaluation. The steps involved in the Level III analysis are summarized in Table 2.5.

The various Level III steps were considered preliminary in the sense that a different set of steps, analyses and criteria were anticipated to be developed in Level IV to evaluate the remaining alternatives.

2.3.1 Preliminary Evaluation Criteria

A list of evaluation criteria was developed with input from the study sponsors, the Management Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee and public. After refinement by the consultant team, the evaluation criteria were presented to the three advisory committees to determine the relative importance of socioeconomic, land-use, environmental, cost and traffic impacts. At this time, the determination was made to develop an evaluation matrix based on the cost effectiveness technique where all relevant data is collected and presented without any attempt to put benefits into common units (such as cost) and without any attempt to have the data select the best alternative.

Table 2.6 is the list of the preliminary evaluation criteria along with a discussion of what the criteria involve and how they were to be measured. Most of the evaluation criteria were measurable (for example, future traffic flow and congestion). In these cases, parameters were developed to provide a measurable comparison of the relative impacts of the alternatives (for the above example, the measured parameter is average annual time saved in hours). In some cases, more than one parameter was used for assessing a particular evaluation criterion. It should be noted that there were a few criteria that the committees felt were important but a direct measurement was not readily available at that time (as noted by N/A in Table 2.6).

2.3.2 Preliminary Transportation Analysis

Three traffic analyses were conducted for the beltway study. First, end-to-end south and east beltways connecting from US 77 to I-80 were analyzed to determine the affects of a complete circumferential roadway on internal traffic, as well as to determine the affect of distance from Lincoln on traffic volumes for each of the beltway alignments. Second, separate south and east alignments were analyzed as stand alone improvements to determine the affect of the south and east beltways on each other, and to determine if a beltway on the south or the east would be feasible on its own. Third, non-beltway options were analyzed to determine the impacts of each alternative on traffic within the City of Lincoln and for use in comparing the benefits of a beltway versus other roadway improvements.

The Level III preliminary traffic analysis was performed using the Build Out Land Use Plan (BOS) provided by the City of Lincoln Planning Department. During the course of the beltway study, a second Build Out Land Use Plan (BOS II) was developed by the City of Lincoln. This land use plan was used for more detailed analyses in the Level IV analysis.

End-to-End Beltway Analysis. The results of the end to end beltway traffic modeling indicated that the distance of a future beltway from the existing urbanized area of Lincoln had a greater affect on traffic volumes in the south corridor than in the east corridor. The south beltway alternatives located north of Saltillo Road carry over 50 percent more traffic than the alternatives located south of Saltillo Road. This is largely due to the fact that the northern alternatives carry a significant amount of internal traffic. As a result, the close beltway alternatives provide some congestion relief on several parallel east/west streets (Pine Lake Road, Yankee Hill Road) in the urban area. However, the traffic on a south beltway increases congestion on the north/south streets (14^th, 27^th and 56^th Streets) connecting to Lincoln's urbanized area. The south far alignment carried primarily external to external traffic between US 77 and N-2.

In the east corridor, distance from Lincoln has a lesser affect on traffic volumes. The east beltway alternatives principally provide access from N-2 and I-80 to the eastern portions of Lincoln. The close alternative provides some relief to 84^th Street but increases traffic on the east/west streets (Van Dorn Street, Old Cheney Road, and O Street).

Partial Beltway Analysis. Traffic volumes were generally lower for the partial beltways than for the end-to-end beltways, with the south far and south mid alignments being affected the most by the absence of an east beltway. Aside from this, the conclusions of the partial beltway analysis were similar to those for the end-to-end beltways. The close alignments had a greater affect on reducing congestion within the urbanized area and the far alignments carried primarily external traffic.

Non-Beltway Analysis. Non-beltway options 1 and 3 each provided similar benefits to the street network within the urbanized area. Non-beltway option 1 provided the greatest benefit to N-2 and 84^th Street. Overall Level of Service was improved in both corridors; however, the non-beltway improvements did not result in acceptable Levels of Service on the congested roadways on the fringes of the city.

Non-beltway option 2 did not mitigate future traffic congestion as much as expected. The addition of capacity on N-2 also draws additional traffic and does not provide an acceptable Level of Service. The widening of 84^th Street does not relieve congestion on 84^th Street or the major north/south streets in the east corridor. In 1996 when the evaluation was conducted, this non-beltway option would have required the acquisition of approximately 45 homes and other structures. Since that time, there has been substantially more development along N-2, 84^th Street and Pine Lake Road. Since option 2 had major impacts and yet did not provide significant congestion relief, it was not recommended for further analysis.

2.3.3 Preliminary Route Development

Preliminary route development of the beltway improvement alternatives established a 91 m (300 ft) wide band within each of the remaining seven beltway corridors in order to develop cost estimates and estimate environmental impacts. These bands attempted to avoid or minimize impacts to known natural and socioeconomic constraints, including natural areas, floodplains, streams, wetlands, historic sites, cemeteries, and park and recreation areas. The taking of and disruption to existing homes and farmsteads was also minimized while attempting to maintain a relatively straight alignment meeting a 110 km/h (70 mph) design speed.

The beltway alternatives were assumed to be built to freeway standards with all minor roadway intersections being grade separated and full access interchanges spaced approximately 3 km (2 mi) apart. In order for a proposed beltway to be most efficiently used, additional improvements will be required along the connecting roadways in the south and east corridors. Currently most of the roads that intersect a possible beltway are two-lane unpaved county roads. These would be upgraded to four-lane paved roads for roads that provide access to the beltway interchanges; those that cross the beltway with overpasses would be upgraded to two-lane paved roads.

Typical sections were chosen for both the beltway and non-beltway alternatives through discussions with NDOR and the City of Lincoln. The NDOR Standard Section for a Rural Expressway was used for all beltway alignments. A rural expressway typical section is shown in Figure 2.7 and has the following features:

• Approximately 76 to 91 m (250 to 300 ft) right-of-way; right-of-way needs vary with topography
• Two 3.7 m (12 ft) driving lanes in each direction
• 2.4 m (8 ft) paved outside shoulders
• 0.9 m (3 ft) paved inside shoulders
• 12 m (40 ft) unpaved depressed median (includes inside shoulders)
• Drainage ditches on either side as needed

Alignments were also developed for the non-beltway alternatives for the purpose of developing cost estimates and determining possible environmental impacts. The non-beltway alignments attempted to utilize the centerline of existing section line roads with access limited as much as is reasonable in order to provide a safe and efficient roadway. Intersections along the non-beltway alternatives would be at grade with stop sign control at minor intersections and traffic signals at major intersections with minimum signal spacing of 0.4 km (0.25 mi). The non-beltway alternatives would have a design speed of 60 to 70 km/h (40 to 45 mph).

City of Lincoln fringe roadway standards were used on all four-lane non-beltway alignments. A typical fringe roadway section is shown in Figure 2.8 and has the following features:

• 30 m (100 ft) right-of-way, increasing to 37 m (120-ft) at major intersections to allow for auxiliary turn lanes
• Two 3.7 m (12 ft) driving lanes in each direction with 0.3 m (1 ft) curb and gutter on the inside and outside driving lanes
• 6 m (20 ft) landscaped raised center median
• 1.2 m (4 ft) sidewalk separated from the driving lanes by an 2.4 m (8 ft) landscaped area

A 46 m (150 ft) right-of-way was assumed for six -lane sections.

2.3.4 Preliminary Environmental Analysis

The Level III environmental analysis involved determination of key socioeconomic, land use and environmental issues. This was accomplished through the development of the evaluation criteria (Table 2.6). Using the associated measured parameters, specific impacts were calculated for each of the remaining 20 beltway and 3 non-beltway routes. This information was presented and compared in a preliminary matrix of environmental impacts of the alternatives. The environmental analysis in conjunction with the previous work with traffic projections, engineering and cost estimates were used to conduct initial task screening.

Data Collection. Data for the Level III environmental analysis was collected from existing sources of information, including the project GIS constraints map (Figure 2.1) and April 1995 City aerial photography (more recent aerial photography flown in March and April 1997 was available for for the Level IV analysis). Additional field checks were made by driving through the study area at different points during the study, and most recently in June 2000. The 91 m (300 ft) wide beltway right-of-way was used to define the area of direct project impacts 37 m (120 ft) for the non-beltway. Beyond this a 0.4 km (0.25 mi) area was defined which could be affected by indirect or secondary impacts.

Of the 34 parameters, numerical data was collected for all but three--economic development opportunities, compatibility with future land use, and air quality. For economic development, it was assumed that all of the routes will provide similar opportunities. Regarding compatibility with future land use, the City of Lincoln took the position that future land use plans will be evaluated following the completion of the beltway study. Certainly, many scenarios are possible based on the City's vision for the sequence and location of future growth. Regarding air quality, differences between the routes will be extremely minor due to the similarity of the rural character of all the routes, and the magnitude of the values will have no impact on the attainment status for the City; therefore, this time consuming model was not run until the Level IV analysis. Considering that no weighting factors were applied to the evaluation criteria, it was unlikely that the addition of data for these three parameters would substantially change the findings of the environmental evaluation.

Environmental Comparison. The preliminary matrix of environmental impacts of the 20 beltway and 3 non-beltway alternatives is presented in Table 2.7. In all cases, higher measured values represent higher impacts. It should be noted that all values are relative, and even the highest values for a given parameter may not represent a significant impact. For example, for all the alternatives, the maximum number of commercial businesses within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of the alignment ranges is one business. Although this may be an inconvenience to the one property owner (or it may be an improvement in access), one commercial business along a 27 to 34 km (17 to 21 mi) long alignment would not be considered a significant project impact. On the other hand, the number of structures within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) ranges from 73 with beltway Route 10 to over 492 with non-beltway option 2. This parameter gives an indication of the number of residences that could be affected by noise and visual impacts, as well as changes in access. In this case, the difference in magnitude between the high and low measured values would be considered a significant difference.

The measured parameters were preliminarily reviewed, and values in the upper half of the measured range were identified as having higher impacts. For each route, the number of parameters occurring in the upper half of the range was summed, and the distribution of the routes was plotted to find natural breaks. Routes were categorized based on the number of parameters that occurred in the upper half of the range. This method was used to categorize beltway routes as high, medium and low environmental impact, and to compare various combinations of similar routes to determine which had higher or lower environmental impact (Table 2.8).

¹ The number of high impact parameters is shown in parentheses.

Based on the categorization of the routes, the highest impact routes are generally the south close routes (with the exception of Route 8, a variation of EM1-SC4, which was considered medium impact). These routes generally have high impact on residences, subdivisions, park land, trails and non-tillable land, but have relatively small right-of-way requirements and low impact on cropland.

Lowest impact routes were generally the east mid routes that did not involve park crossings (with the exception of Route 13, which followed the north diagonal and was considered medium impact) and the east far routes that followed the short diagonal (Routes 17 and 19). These routes typically have relatively low impact to residences, park land and a variety of parameters typical of the more developed areas of the study area. The routes have relatively large right-of-way requirements, and high impacts to cropland, floodplains, wetlands, and school districts.

2.3.5. Initial Task Screening of Alternatives

Initial task screening was required to maintain the intended project design which called for the Level III analysis to be conducted on 5 to 10 candidate alternatives. For this purpose, matrix data was used to compare and contrast beltway and non-beltway options as described above. By direction of the Management Committee (April 28, 1997), no weighting factors were applied to the data although some parameters will certainly be considered more significant than others. Information on traffic operations and project cost was used to supplement the environmental comparisons.

Similar pairs of routes were compared to identify those with lower impact. In particular, the method was used to compare (1) the two Wilderness Park crossings, (2) the two diagonal combinations for the east far alternatives, (3) the south far combinations, and (4) the non-beltway options. Based on these findings, recommendations were made to eliminate the less desirable routes.

Wilderness Park Crossings. Review of the matrix data showed that of the two south close alternatives, SC-1 (the north park crossing) has greater overall negative impact than SC-4 (the south park crossing), including:

1. More hectares (acres) taken from Wilderness Park (10.9 vs. 4.5 ha (27 vs. 11 ac) with the south crossing)

2. More hectares (acres) taken of pasture, hayland, and CRP land

3. More hectares (acres) taken from the school district tax base

4. More crossings of platted subdivisions

5. More hectares (acres) taken from platted subdivisions

6. More hectares (acres) of wellhead protection areas within the right-of-way

7. More hectares (acres) of 100-year floodplain within the right-of-way

8. More structures within the 0.4 km (0.25 mi) secondary impact area

9. More mapped wetlands within the right-of-way

10. Greater impact to natural habitats

The south park crossing has greater negative impact than the north park crossing for the following parameters:

1. Hectares (acres) taken of cropland

2. Percent of the school district attendance areas on the opposite side of the beltway from the schools

3. Distance from the built up area

4. Hectares (acres) of riparian corridor within the right-of-way

5. Number of platted subdivisions within the 0.4 km (0.25 mi) secondary impact area

In addition, Route SC-1 would cost approximately $5.4 million more to construct due to the longer bridge over Wilderness Park. Future traffic estimates show that SC-4 would carry approximately 14 percent less traffic than SC-1. However, overall network savings would be the same. There is also little difference in traffic on parallel streets. For example, traffic on Pine Lake Road between Highway 2 and 14th Street increases only 3 to 4 percent with the SC-4 alignment as compared to the SC-1 alignment.

Considering that the two south close alternatives provide a comparable traffic solution, have fairly close costs, and have similar impacts for many measured parameters, it is recommended that routes with the north park crossings (Routes 1, 6, 7, and 15), be eliminated from further consideration because of the overall greater negative socioeconomic, land use and environmental impacts and especially because of the greater impact to Wilderness Park.

Diagonal Combinations for the East Far Alternatives. Review of the matrix data showed that of the two diagonal combinations for the east far alternatives, the far southeast corner routes (Routes 18 and 20) have greater overall negative impact than shorter diagonal routes (Routes 17 and 19), including:

1. More hectares (acres) taken of pasture, hayland, and CRP land

2. More hectares (acres) taken of cropland

3. More hectares (acres) taken from the school district tax base

4. An additional stream crossing

5. More hectares (acres) of 100-year floodplain within the right-of-way

6. More structures within the 0.4 km (0.25-mi) secondary impact area

7. More known cultural resources within the 0.4 km (0.25-mi) secondary impact area

The shorter diagonal had greater negative impact than the far southeast diagonal for the following parameters, including:

1. Hectares (acres) of riparian corridor within the right-of-way

2. More mapped wetlands within the right-of-way

Considering that the two diagonal combinations provide a comparable traffic solution and have similar impacts for many measured parameters, it is recommended that far southeast diagonal routes (Routes 18 and 20) be eliminated from further consideration because of the overall greater negative socioeconomic, land use and environmental impacts.

South Far Alternatives. Any alternatives involving the south far alignments were less desirable from a traffic and cost standpoint. Traffic projections show that the south far option would carry very little traffic and would mainly serve the US 77 South and N-2 East movements. The cost of the south far beltway is approximately $11.8 million more than the south mid alignment primarily due to the additional length.

Considering that the south far alternatives provide less traffic benefits and had greater impacts (Routes 4, 13 and 20) or at least comparable impacts (Routes 5, 12 and 19) than the south mid alternatives for many measured parameters, it was recommended that all south far routes (Routes 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, and 20) be eliminated from further consideration. This recommendation also applies to Route 18 which is the far south east diagonal connecting the east far alignment to the south mid alignment.

Non-Beltway Option 2. The model shows that even by maximizing capacity with non-beltway option 2, congestion and reduced capacity would remain on arterial streets even with N-2, 84th Street and Pine Lake Roads widened to six lanes. In addition, non-beltway option 2 would impact significantly more residences and other structures than either of the other two non-beltway alternatives. At the time of the 1996 analysis this included taking an estimated 45 structures, with potential secondary noise, visual and access impacts to over 1,000 residences and other structures within the defined 0.4 km (0.25 mi) secondary impact area.

Because of these impacts to residences, it was recommended that non-beltway option 2 be eliminated from further consideration.

Summary of Alternatives Carried Forward. Initial task screening resulted in elimination of 11 end-to-end beltway alternatives which had relatively higher impacts than other alternatives including longer crossings through Wilderness Park, longer diagonal segments for the east far alternatives, or which included the south far alternatives which carried less traffic and cost more. In addition, one non-beltway alternative was eliminated which required 45 residential relocations. This was approved by the Management Committee on April 28, 1997. Nine end-to-end beltway and 2 non-beltway alternatives were carried forward for further analysis. These were beltway routes 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17, and non-beltway options 1 and 3.

2.3.6 Preliminary Economic Analysis

An indicator of the relative merit of a major transportation investment is the extent to which the community is or is not better off with the new roadway. It is almost without question that any well planned transportation investment will provide its users with benefits. The economic feasibility process examines these benefits and compares them with the costs of building and operating the roadway improvement. Theoretically, the value of the benefits should be greater than the cost of the improvements, but this is not always a reality. Many transportation projects are constructed without an economic analysis or determination of economic feasibility.

An economic analysis was conducted for the south and east beltways study that is consistent with the guidelines and procedures established by the Federal Highway Administration for major transportation projects. The objective of this analysis was to determine the relative economic feasibility of the various beltway and non-beltway alternatives.

2.3.6.1 Overview of the Economic Evaluation Process

The economic approach used to evaluate the investment in various beltway and non-beltway alternatives in Lincoln, while being tailored to the study, is one which has been used on other corridor studies, and one which has evolved over the years. The methodology is reasonably comprehensive and credible, and it is one that utilizes accepted economic principles. This approach includes the following steps:

• A base case, No Build Alternative, is developed (existing roadway system plus committed improvements). The economic benefits of the various improvement alternatives are calculated by comparing the improved case with the base case. The feasibility of each alternative can then be determined.
• A generalized estimate of the beltway and non-beltway life cycle costs is developed. Costs are tabulated in constant dollars (inflation is not factored in) by "discounting back" to the base year.
• Use of the new or improved roadways is estimated.
• Estimated travel efficiency economic benefits attributable to the potential roadway investments are quantified. As with costs, benefits are also tabulated in constant dollars (inflation is not factored in) by "discounting back" to the base year.
• A comparison is made of the economic costs and economic benefits attributable to each investment alternative.
• Conclusions are drawn with respect to the economic impact and feasibility of investing in a beltway or non-beltway alternative.

Indicators of Economic Feasibility. The comparison of costs and benefits of a Lincoln roadway investment alternative yields three indicators of "economic feasibility".

Net Present Value. All costs and benefits in future years are discounted back to the base year. When the sum of the discounted benefits is greater than the sum of the discounted costs, the "net present value" is positive and the roadway investment alternative is deemed to be "economically feasible".

Discounted Benefit/Cost Ratio. This ratio is calculated as the sum of the discounted benefits divided by the sum of the discounted costs. When the result is 1.0 or greater, the roadway is considered to be "economically feasible".

Internal Rate of Return. This calculation determines that discount rate at which the net present value is zero (the sum of the discounted benefits is equal to the sum of the discounted costs). If the rate of return is greater or equal to the discount rate, then the investment is deemed to be "economically feasible."

All of these indicators utilize the discount rate either directly to "discount" benefits and costs or indirectly as a comparison for the Internal Rate of Return. The discount rate reflects the constant value of money without the affects of inflation. A constant dollar discount rate of seven (7) percent was used in this study, as required by the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Included in the above economic feasibility calculations are all quantifiable direct economic costs attributable to the roadway project (cost of planning, designing, building, maintaining and operating the roadway) and all quantifiable economic benefits relating to efficiency (operating cost savings, value of time savings, accident cost savings). Excluded from the economic cost-benefit calculations are economic development impacts on the corridor, as well as those impacts that cannot reasonably be tabulated in monetary terms (environmental or social implications, impacts on other modes of transportation, etc.). As a result, the economic feasibility calculation is important to the beltway and non-beltway investment decision, but should not be viewed as the only criterion.

2.3.6.2 Economic Efficiency Evaluation

In the assessment of economic feasibility, a life cycle approach is used. The costs of planning, designing, building, and maintaining a new freeway-type beltway or non-beltway improvement are estimated over a 33-year period. Then, the transportation efficiency gains (or loss) over that period are estimated. Efficiency benefits are finally compared with the costs to determine economic feasibility. The assumption of constructing the facility in three years and having its full use for the next 30 years is not realistic. The preferred alternative will likely be phased in over many years and may not be completed within the next 20 years. Phased or delayed construction would improve the economic feasibility of all the alternatives, therefore the results of this analysis should be considered conservative.

Assumptions used in the benefit/cost evaluation were recommended by the study consultants and approved by the Beltway Management Committee.

Economic Costs. The cost side of the benefit/cost evaluation includes two costs: (1) the cost of constructing a beltway or the costs of improving an existing roadway, and (2) the cost of operating and maintaining a new freeway- type beltway in Lincoln or the incremental cost of operating and maintaining an improved roadway for the non-beltway alternatives. These costs are summarized for the various alternatives in Table 2.9.

Table 2.9

ECONOMIC COSTS ($1,000's)

¹ 1996 Dollars.

² Highway Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1995

Construction Costs. These costs include right-of-way acquisition, planning, design and construction. The construction costs of the various alternatives were estimated to range from $87 to $173 millions. For benefit/cost purposes only, the construction costs were assumed to be spent in 3 years. Tables 2.10-M (metric) and 2.10-E (English) provide a breakdown of the beltway estimated construction costs by route designation. The beltway costs include connecting link improvements. Non-beltway costs can be found on Table 2.11.

Residual Value. A 33-year period (30 years of operation following 3 years of construction) was used to analyze the economic feasibility of beltway and non-beltway options. However, some components of the roadway investment can be expected to last longer than 30 years. To recognize this, portions of the cost of the beltway and non-beltway elements that will last longer than 30 years following construction are added as economic benefits at the end of the last study year. After 30 years of operation the residual values for the various options range from $15 to $78 million based on the useful lives of the various construction cost elements exclusive of engineering, administration and contingencies costs.

Operations and Maintenance Costs were obtained from average historical costs for various types of roadway on a per route mile or lane mile basis. Incremental annual operating and maintenance costs range from $100 to $129 thousand.

Economic Efficiency Benefits. Benefits and costs were determined using local data where available and national statistics when necessary. The economic benefits are those derived from increased transportation efficiency. Transportation cost savings that result from improvements to a corridor are true benefits to society as a whole. When travelers experience time savings, greater safety, or reduced vehicle operating costs, their gain is not offset by losses to other people. From an economic standpoint, these cost savings are the same as a direct increase in income by making resources available for other purposes.

The transportation efficiency benefits of a roadway improvement are of three types: travel-time savings, vehicle operating cost savings, and accident reduction savings. Transportation efficiency benefits are calculated for two vehicle types: passenger vehicles (automobiles) and commercial vehicles (trucks).

To provide consistency with the results of the travel demand model (Chapter 2, Interim Report No. 3, WSA, 1999), the economic efficiency benefits for each alternative were estimated for the same two analysis years, 1995 and 2020. This consistency was necessary since the results of the travel demand model are used to calculate benefits. Intermediate year benefits were interpolated between the two years and benefits beyond 2020 were extrapolated.

Travel Time Savings. One objective of the Lincoln south and east beltways project is to reduce the time required to travel around Lincoln. There are three potential ways to reduce travel time: (1) Reduce mileage to reach one's destination by offering a more direct route, (2) Increase the speed at which one can travel by providing facilities with higher design standards, (3) Reduce congestion by providing additional high capacity facilities. A methodology to take into account all three elements of time-savings was developed. For each trip with the potential to improve their trip time by using a beltway or non-beltway alternative the travel time with and without the new facility was calculated and summarized. Excess travel time due to congestion was calculated for each segment using the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) model methodology (December 1987) and data developed by FHWA (Appendix D, Interim Report No. 3, WSA, 1999). This methodology recognizes that excess travel time due to congestion-induced speed change cycles varies according to the level of congestion (expressed in terms of volume/capacity ratios) and varies by type of vehicle (it takes longer for a truck to resume original speed).

To include time-savings in the transportation efficiency evaluation, it was necessary to place a monetary value on time saved. In reality, the value of time varies by person and situation. For the purpose of this study, values of time based on average hourly wage rates in Nebraska and average occupancy and cargo values were developed using the FHWA methodology outlined in the Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS). These values of time are:

1. $23.4 per on-the-clock auto hour (travel while on business);

2. $8.64 per off-the-clock auto hour (commuter and non-business travel);

3. $25.3 per truck hour.

Vehicle Operating Cost Savings. The costs of operating motor vehicles can be a significant portion of the total cost of transportation. Vehicle operating costs include a number of components, some that are variable costs or use related costs, and others that are fixed costs (e.g. insurance and license fees). Only use related costs -- engine oil, gasoline, maintenance, and tires -- are directly affected by an improved roadway. Vehicle operating cost, like travel time, varies with the characteristics of the trip made including trip length, running speed, and speed change cycles. For each trip with the potential to use a beltway or non-beltway alternative the vehicle operating costs with and without the new facility were calculated using the results of the travel demand model. Again, the methodology and data of the HPMS model was used. With this methodology, vehicle operating costs vary with trip length, the various speeds on different portion of the trip, and the type of vehicle. Excess vehicle operating costs due to speed change cycles are also calculated by type of vehicle.

Accident Reduction Cost Savings. Improvement in roadway safety is another reason for considering roadway improvements. Because freeways and access controlled facilities are safer than roadways of a lesser standard, Lincoln beltway and non-beltway alternatives could reduce accident potential compared to the existing roadway system. National average accident rates by type of accident (fatal, injury, property damage only) and by type of roadway facility (freeway, principal arterial, etc.) were used to calculate accident potential in the Lincoln area with and without the roadway improvements considered.

To include the impact of reducing accidents in the transportation efficiency evaluation, a monetary value was associated with each type of accident. The values used for this study are based on the The Economic Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes (National Roadway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 1994). They are:

1. $2,854,000 per fatality

2. $654,000 per seriously injured person

3. $20,600 per other injured person

3. $1,600 per property damage only (PDO) vehicle

Total Transportation Efficiency Benefits. Total estimated transportation efficiency benefits over the 33-year analysis period, discounted at seven percent are presented in Table 2.12.

It is estimated that 33 years from the beginning of construction, a beltway or non-beltway alternative would save between $56 and $141 million to travelers in Lincoln depending on the alternative. The alternatives can be grouped in three categories based on total efficiency benefits.

1. The highest total benefits are for alternatives that combine a close beltway with another close or mid beltway.

• Route 2: EC-1 to SC-4
• Route 3: EC-1 to SM-4
• Route 8: EM-1 to SC-4 (west of Magee Lake)
• Route 9: EM-1 to SC-4 (via north diagonal)

Table 2.12

TOTAL EFFICIENCY BENEFITS

OVER THE 33-YEAR PERIOD¹ ($1,000's)

1996 Dollars

¹ Discounted at 7 percent per year.

2. The next highest total benefits are for all mid alternatives that combine with another mid alternative.

• Route 10: EM-1 to SM-4 (west of Magee Lake)
• Route 11: EM-1 to SM-4 (east of Magee Lake)
• Route 14: EM-1 to SM-4 (via north diagonal)

3. The lowest total benefits are for alternatives that include the east far beltway, and the non-beltway alternatives.

• Route 16: EF-1 to SC-4
• Route 17: EF-1 to SM-4 (via short diagonal)
• Non-Beltway Option 1
• Non-Beltway Option 3

2.3.6.3 Economic Feasibility

To calculate the economic feasibility of the various beltway and non-beltway alternatives in terms of transportation efficiency, all costs and benefits in constant (1996) dollars were determined for the study period, and then discounted back to the first year of construction using a discount rate of 7 percent. The benefits were then compared with the costs using the conventional feasibility indicators discussed at the beginning of this section. Table 2.13 presents the economic feasibility indicators for the beltway and non-beltway alternatives analyzed at this stage.

Table 2.13

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY INDICATORS

TRAVEL EFFICIENCY FEASIBILITY ($1,000's)

1996 Dollars

¹ Discounted at 7 percent per year

The previous table illustrates the relative economic feasibility of each alternative in terms of travel efficiency. When examining these results, it is important to remember that no model (travel demand model or benefit/cost model) is completely accurate. In terms of feasibility, the alternatives can be grouped in the same three categories used previously based on total benefits alone with one exception. Non-beltway option 1 shifted toward the most feasible group because it costs about half as much as the other beltway and non-beltway alternatives.

1. The most economically feasible alternatives are those that combine a close beltway with another close or mid beltway, and non-beltway option 1.

• Route 2: EC-1 to SC-4
• Route 3: EC-1 to SM-4
• Route 8: EM-1 to SC-4 (west of Magee Lake)
• Route 9: EM-1 to SC-4 (via north diagonal)
• Non-Beltway Option 1

Note that this group includes a beltway alternative that avoids Wilderness Park entirely (Route 3).

2. The next group of alternatives is less economically feasible; however, a change in discount rate to 6 percent or some reduction in costs could make them more feasible. This group includes the all mid alternatives.

• Route 10: EM-1 to SM-4 (west of Magee Lake)
• Route 11: EM-1 to SM-4 (east of Magee Lake)
• Route 14: EM-1 to SM-4 (via north diagonal)

None of these routes impact Wilderness Park.

3. The last group of alternatives is the least economically feasible. This group includes the east far beltway alternatives, and non-beltway option 3.

• Route 16: EF-1 to SC-4
• Route 17: EF-1 to SM-4 (via short diagonal)
• Non-Beltway Option 3

Again, one of the alternatives (Route 17) avoids impacts to Wilderness Park.

It should be pointed out that this analysis was performed using the Build Out Scenario (BOS) land use plan which is based on the approved 1994 Comprehensive Plan. Since that time, the BOS II land use plan was developed to account for revisions (amendments) to the 1994 plan (see Section 2.4.1). The assumptions in the BOS II scenario include large increases in beltway traffic volumes which are expected to improve most of the benefit/cost ratios to greater than 1.0 (see Section 2.4.4).

2.3.7 Wilderness Park Considerations

Wilderness Park was initially acquired with a $500,000 grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the late 1960s and early 1970s for the purpose of flood control. Consultation with HUD indicated that there are no special requirements related to use of land purchased with these types of HUD grants. No Land and Water Resources Fund (LWRF) moneys were ever used for development of Wilderness Park. Therefore, the project would not need to comply with Section 6(f). However, Section 4(f) of the 1966 Transportation Act prohibits the FHWA from approving use of land from a significant publicly owned public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or any significant historical site unless a determination is made that: (i) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the property, and (ii) the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use.

Anticipated Park Impacts. At the beginning of the Level III analysis, two beltway (SC-1 and SC-4) and two non-beltway alternatives (options 1 and 2) required takings for new crossings through Wilderness Park (and all would require grade separations over Salt Creek and the railroad tracks). All three non-beltway alternatives also required park takings for widening existing at-grade crossings through the park.

Determination of Feasible and Prudent. To obtain 4(f) approval, supporting information must demonstrate that there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts, or community disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes.

Since any beltway alternative through Wilderness Park would likely have greater cost, social and economic impact, and community disruption, the primary question arose as to whether traffic need would be considered as a unique problem or unusual factor. Because the project purpose and need was to solve a traffic problem, and if the park routes better served this need (or the southern routes did not serve this need), then there would be a strong case for approval of the 4(f). Therefore, it was considered premature to throw out the park routes prior to the determining feasibility in the Level III analysis.

Based on the results of the economic feasibility study, it was shown that there are feasible alternatives that avoid impacts to Wilderness Park. If there are feasible and prudent alternatives, then routes requiring park or any other 4(f) land must be eliminated.

Future Park Expansion. Extension of Wilderness Park south to Hickman Road has been identified as a goal in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan and subsequent amendments to the plan. Therefore, by the time the south beltway is built, it may cross public park land. However, when a future roadway project and future park acquisition are planned in coordination, construction of the roadway is not considered a Section 4(f) impact.

2.3.8 Consideration of 148^th Street Alignments

At the end of the Level III analysis, the study team was requested to evaluate two additional scenarios-a beltway alternative along 148^th Street and a non-beltway alternative along 148^th Street. (Although an alternative along 148^th Street had been included previously in the universe of alternatives, it had been eliminated during the Level II analysis along with all other alignments along section line roads due to the required frontage roads and higher level of impacts to existing rural residences along these roads).

148^th Street Beltway Scenario. Under this scenario, 148^th Street would be improved to expressway standards (versus freeway standards for all other beltway alternatives) to allow at-grade intersections at section line roads. Diamond type interchanges would be constructed at I-80, US 34 and N-2. Since no other direct access would be allowed, frontage roads would be required to provide access to adjacent properties. If buildings are close on both sides of 148^th Street, the alignment would be shifted to take all buildings on the side which would result in the least number of structures being taken.

The benefits of this scenario would be similar to those anticipated for the east far alternative in terms of projected traffic volumes and time savings. A much smaller benefit is expected in accident savings since more dangerous at-grade intersections would still be permitted. Traffic volumes would range between 8,300 vehicles per day on the south end and 11,800 on the north end. In the vicinity of East O Street, traffic volumes would likely be between 13,000 and 14,000 vehicles per day.

One measure of the impacts of improvements in the east beltway study area has been the effect on 84^th Street. Improving 148^th Street to expressway standards would result in a approximate 6 percent reduction in traffic volumes along 84^th Street in the vicinity of East O Street. Although the reduction in traffic on 84^th Street is more dramatic south of N-2, where a reduction of 25 percent is anticipated, in comparison, improving 98^th Street to non-beltway standards would result in almost a 40 percent reduction in the number of lane miles along 84^th Street that are in the E/F Level of Service range.

This scenario would require taking an estimated 30 houses, including 2 historic structures; five other historic structures are located within 0.4 km (0.25 mi). In comparison, the east far alternative would require 10 houses, none of which are historic. The construction cost for the 148^th Street beltway scenario was an estimated 9 percent higher than the east far alternative.

148^th Street Non-Beltway Scenario. Under this scenario, 148^th Street would be improved to a 4-lane non-beltway section. Direct access to 148^th Street would be permitted for agricultural and residential properties on either side of the roadway. Existing cross roads would remain as intersections, but no interchange would be constructed at I-80.

When 148^th Street is modeled as a non-beltway, the assumption is that the capacity of the roadway is increased from 6,000 to 28,000 vehicles per day with a speed of 60 km/h (40 mph). Since this capacity is unlikely to be reached, model results would be inaccurate. Therefore, recommended assumptions for 148^th Street were to use the no-build network. Under these assumptions of a paved 2-lane rural roadway, traffic levels on 148^th Street would be approximately 1,500 vehicles per day near East O Street, and would taper off to about 600 vehicles per day to the north and south.

Since this scenario has no interchange at I-80 and includes no restriction of access to adjacent properties, the potential for 148^th Street to relieve traffic congestion along other major arterials is even less than with the 148^th Street beltway scenario.

The 148^th Street non-beltway scenario would require taking an estimated 12 houses, including 2 historic structures; five other historic structures are located within 0.4 km (0.25 mi). In comparison, the east far alternative would require 10 houses, none of which are historic. The construction cost was estimated as 12 percent lower than the east far alternative.

Comparison with Other East Alternatives. Comparison of the benefits and impacts of the 148^th Street alternative with other east alternatives indicates that 148^th Street is not as viable an alternative as other available alternatives. Although it will operate efficiently and effectively as a 2-lane rural roadway for many years to come, improving it to 4-lanes in either the beltway or non-beltway configuration would do little to relieve traffic congestion on other major urban arterials.

Based on these considerations, the 148^th Street scenarios were not carried forward for further analysis.

2.3.9 Four Finalist Alternatives Carried Forward

The Level III analysis began with four alternative alignments in the south beltway study area, three alternative alignments in the east beltway study area, and three non-beltway alternatives. Throughout the course of the Level III evaluation, these alignments were subjected to several different types of evaluation criteria.

South Beltway. Initial task screening for the Level III analysis eliminated the closest south beltway alignment (SC-1) based on the similar traffic volumes using it and the other close beltway alignment (SC-4). SC-1, while providing benefits similar to SC-4, had a greater impact on Wilderness Park and homes within the corridor.

The south far beltway alignment (SF-1) was also eliminated after the traffic analysis based on the low volume of traffic projected to use the route and the comparable negative affects on other criteria when compared to the remaining south beltway alignments (SC-4 and SM-4).

At the conclusion of the environmental and economic analyses, SC-4 was recommended for elimination based on the impacts to Wilderness Park, a 4(f) property. The 4(f) process requires that in order for park land to be taken for the purposes of a federally funded roadway, no feasible and prudent alternatives exist. In the case of SC-4, there is a reasonable and economically prudent alternative in SM-4. For this reason SC-4 was eliminated as a possible alternative. This also eliminated from further consideration any south beltway alternative which crossed through the rural acreage subdivisions along 56^th Street.

As described above, three of the four remaining beltway alternatives in the south corridor have been eliminated from further consideration, leaving SM-4 as the only remaining south beltway alignment alternative.

East Beltway. The three remaining beltway alignments in the east corridor were subjected to the entire list of Level III screening criteria. The east beltway alternative traffic volumes are not substantially impacted by distance from the existing urbanized area of Lincoln, thus the benefits from each alignment are similar. The disbenefits (disadvantages or liabilities) of each of the east beltway alternatives are varied. Each alternative has impacts in the corridor, however, the type of impacts of each alignment vary greatly. As a result all three east beltway alternatives were carried forward into the final screening. This final analysis includes refining the alignments and further evaluation of impacts on social, historic, environmental and economic resources.

Non-Beltway. Non-beltway option 2 was eliminated early in the Level III analysis based on the limited traffic benefits it provided in relation to the other two non-beltway options. With only a limited increase in benefits, option 2 would have required the acquisition of approximately 45 homes, having a detrimental socio-economic impact on the area and as such was eliminated from further analysis.

Non-beltway options 1 and 3 were eliminated after the environmental and economic analyses based on the impacts each alternative h