Which street/road in Sioux Falls or South Dakota would you like to see fixed, upgraded, or installed? (design, property)

[SDDOT-Steve]

Originally Posted by MJ1986

Steve, How do I input my thoughts? I'd like to come to the meetings, but I have been unable to attend.
I understand that large projects like these take time and a large amount of money.
My big concern is why can't an interchange be completed at I-29/I-229/69th Street? 229/Louise/57th gets backed up every day.

And obviously, there is no chance of an interchange on I-29 & 57th... Poor planning on the city's part!

[SIZE=3]Questions and/or comments regarding the I-29 Corridor Study can be easiest done with an email to either our consultant at [/SIZE][SIZE=3]Bill_Troe@URSCorp.com[/SIZE][SIZE=3] or to me at [/SIZE][SIZE=3]steve.gramm@state.sd.us[/SIZE][SIZE=3]. As for the study's next public meeting, I anticipate it to occur sometime in the next two months. I'll be sure to post it to this forum once the date & location are finalized.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]As for providing local access to I-29/I-229 at 69th Street: I’m guessing that you are aware that we have been studying that idea for a few years now. Providing local access to I-29 at 69th Street has some unique problems given 69th Street’s section line alignment relative to the I-29/I-229 System Interchange. The situation becomes even more complicated when trying to grant local access to I-229 as well. While the Department has not completely ruled out the possibility of a service interchange at 69th Street, we are leaning towards eventually providing only a crossing of I-29 at 69th Street. Below is sort of a timeline of what we have looked at and if dismissed, why.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]1). The Federal Highway Administration no longer allows local access in combination with a System Interchange. Per FHWA Policy OPI: HIPA-10: “Local connections within interchanges - especially on freeway-to-freeway ramps - violate driver expectancy and introduce additional decision points in an area where the information processing task is already complex. They also create a high potential for traffic queuing back onto the through freeway lanes. In addition, such ramps seldom provide for full directional service, thus creating the possibility of wrong-way movements by drivers who wish to return or continue in the same direction.” Since FHWA approval is required for all access modifications to the Interstate System and we have already been told by FHWA these combined system/service interchange options would be denied, all options that had a single interchange for I-29/I-229/69th Street were quickly dismissed as infeasible since we would not be allowed to build it.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]2). In order to provide local access and keep 69th Street on the section line, a separate service interchange would need to be placed over the top of the System Interchange.. Basically, you would have two interchanges in one geographic location. These types of “double” interchanges are very expensive due to their multi-levels and can be just as confusing in its directional signing as a combined system/service interchange. Given the inordinate costs to these options and driver expectation in South Dakota, these options have been classified as infeasible per their cost and operational characteristics and dismissed.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]3). We then looked into shifting 69th Street to the south and providing an interchange on that alignment. This eventually led to options that were more of an interchange at 72nd Street than 69th Street. All of these options require additional right-of-way which will be a severe impact to what Sanford Health is proposing for their research development. When comparing the traffic model predictions of an interchange at 69th Street versus only providing an I-29 crossing at 69th Street, there is very little improvement to the local arterial system (57th Street, Louise Avenue, etc.) with a significant negative traffic operations impact to the Interstate System. In other words, most of the traffic improvement to the arterial system, 57th Street in particular, was provided by the additional crossing of I-29, not the access to I-29/I-229. The traffic model forecasts for Louise Avenue were not significantly affected by any type of 69th Street option, as traffic backfill pretty much countered any relief the 69th Street option provided. Although we have not completely dismissed a couple of these shifted alignment options, we are leaning away from them for cost versus benefit reasons. The additional right-of-way, grading and pavement cost to provide a service interchange at a shifted 69th /72nd Street coupled with the negative impact to both Interstate operations and the Sanford development versus only providing a crossing at 69th Street does not make an interchange feasible in either the financial or traffic engineering sense. Granted, the negative Interstate operations impact can be minimized with further Interstate improvements. However, those improvements do come with an additional cost.[/SIZE]

[Chris19]

Given the challenges and confines that the engineers and transportation issues have to contend with, I would strongly support an 85th St. exit and the 69th St. and Solberg Ave. bridges that are not exits. I really do think that I-29 and I-229 interchange needs to be updated in addition with added lanes, more feasable for better merging and better traffic flow. I would certainly think that the bridges should be replaced with wider ones or ones with the capability to be widened in the future.

Looking at the DOT website, there are several alternatives that are worthy ones to consider. I like the 85th St. Braided Ramp option for 85th St. For I-229/I-29, I like the options incorporating the southbound flyover and/or the reallignment of the southbound I-29 lanes the best, although I-29 should have three to four southbound lanes to 85th St. or to Tea exit to allow people to get over. Both make efficient use of land and may leave room for extending Marion Rd. to 85th St., if that is feasible.

With the braided ramp idea, the flyover option would work better than the reallignment of I-29.

[MJ1986]

Originally Posted by SDDOT-Steve

[SIZE=3]Questions and/or comments regarding the I-29 Corridor Study can be easiest done with an email to either our consultant at [/SIZE][SIZE=3]Bill_Troe@URSCorp.com[/SIZE][SIZE=3] or to me at [/SIZE][SIZE=3]steve.gramm@state.sd.us[/SIZE][SIZE=3]. As for the study's next public meeting, I anticipate it to occur sometime in the next two months. I'll be sure to post it to this forum once the date & location are finalized.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]As for providing local access to I-29/I-229 at 69th Street: I’m guessing that you are aware that we have been studying that idea for a few years now. Providing local access to I-29 at 69th Street has some unique problems given 69th Street’s section line alignment relative to the I-29/I-229 System Interchange. The situation becomes even more complicated when trying to grant local access to I-229 as well. While the Department has not completely ruled out the possibility of a service interchange at 69th Street, we are leaning towards eventually providing only a crossing of I-29 at 69th Street. Below is sort of a timeline of what we have looked at and if dismissed, why.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]1). The Federal Highway Administration no longer allows local access in combination with a System Interchange. Per FHWA Policy OPI: HIPA-10: “Local connections within interchanges - especially on freeway-to-freeway ramps - violate driver expectancy and introduce additional decision points in an area where the information processing task is already complex. They also create a high potential for traffic queuing back onto the through freeway lanes. In addition, such ramps seldom provide for full directional service, thus creating the possibility of wrong-way movements by drivers who wish to return or continue in the same direction.” Since FHWA approval is required for all access modifications to the Interstate System and we have already been told by FHWA these combined system/service interchange options would be denied, all options that had a single interchange for I-29/I-229/69th Street were quickly dismissed as infeasible since we would not be allowed to build it.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]2). In order to provide local access and keep 69th Street on the section line, a separate service interchange would need to be placed over the top of the System Interchange.. Basically, you would have two interchanges in one geographic location. These types of “double” interchanges are very expensive due to their multi-levels and can be just as confusing in its directional signing as a combined system/service interchange. Given the inordinate costs to these options and driver expectation in South Dakota, these options have been classified as infeasible per their cost and operational characteristics and dismissed.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]3). We then looked into shifting 69th Street to the south and providing an interchange on that alignment. This eventually led to options that were more of an interchange at 72nd Street than 69th Street. All of these options require additional right-of-way which will be a severe impact to what Sanford Health is proposing for their research development. When comparing the traffic model predictions of an interchange at 69th Street versus only providing an I-29 crossing at 69th Street, there is very little improvement to the local arterial system (57th Street, Louise Avenue, etc.) with a significant negative traffic operations impact to the Interstate System. In other words, most of the traffic improvement to the arterial system, 57th Street in particular, was provided by the additional crossing of I-29, not the access to I-29/I-229. The traffic model forecasts for Louise Avenue were not significantly affected by any type of 69th Street option, as traffic backfill pretty much countered any relief the 69th Street option provided. Although we have not completely dismissed a couple of these shifted alignment options, we are leaning away from them for cost versus benefit reasons. The additional right-of-way, grading and pavement cost to provide a service interchange at a shifted 69th /72nd Street coupled with the negative impact to both Interstate operations and the Sanford development versus only providing a crossing at 69th Street does not make an interchange feasible in either the financial or traffic engineering sense. Granted, the negative Interstate operations impact can be minimized with further Interstate improvements. However, those improvements do come with an additional cost.[/SIZE]

Steve, thank you for taking time to respond. Your responses have answered many of my questions. If the FHWA won't allow that type of interchange, then there is nothing you can do. I think a 69th Street crossing will help... I just hope the city of SF will coordinate with it.
57th/Louise/I-229 gets so backed up, I find myself going many miles out of my way to avoid it .
Funding is the big thing... People are so opposed to raising taxes/fees. If its only a few dollars, its nothing major.

[OMALL26]

I thing that E North is a problem but I wish the city would figure out extending Sheridan Lake road from W Main to Deadwood ave so as to avoid Baken Park during the busy times.

[DannyBanany]

Originally Posted by OMALL26

I thing that E North is a problem but I wish the city would figure out extending Sheridan Lake road from W Main to Deadwood ave so as to avoid Baken Park during the busy times.

That would be fantastic! I've thought that for years too.

[jeremyf-rcj]

Originally Posted by MJ1986

Although I know this will probably never happen, I would like a connection of 26th Street across those stupid golf courses. Right now, there is no connection across the Big Sioux River between 12th & 41st streets.
I'm not sure on the whole story behind this...but I know that they've tried to make it happen.

To connect the two parts of 26th Street, the road would have to go right over/through the land/house owned by Dr. Giebink (now deceased), who as I understand it, sold all that land where Wal-Mart, and the movie theater, etc. now sit. I don't believe he was a big fan of that road connecting, but I could be wrong. I was married to his granddaughter, at one time, anyway.

[MJ1986]

Originally Posted by jeremyf-rcj

To connect the two parts of 26th Street, the road would have to go right over/through the land/house owned by Dr. Giebink (now deceased), who as I understand it, sold all that land where Wal-Mart, and the movie theater, etc. now sit. I don't believe he was a big fan of that road connecting, but I could be wrong. I was married to his granddaughter, at one time, anyway.

Hmm... Could be. Walmart and the movie theater, now, are not in the way of connecting the two. The two are part of a large commercial area, "Meadows on the River". There are some houses on the west side of Kiwanis Avenue...maybe that is what you are referring to. I think the big thing is the "richy" golf courses/country clubs. I remember reading about efforts of trying to move them on the outskirts of SF, and they rejected.

[Chris19]

I have head about the efforts also. I wish that there would have been at least some compromise between the golf courses, city, rich people, and everyone else. I guess that there were some who were unwilling to bend or work with a majority of the people and the city government.

[jeremyf-rcj]

Originally Posted by MJ1986

Hmm... Could be. Walmart and the movie theater, now, are not in the way of connecting the two. The two are part of a large commercial area, "Meadows on the River". There are some houses on the west side of Kiwanis Avenue...maybe that is what you are referring to. I think the big thing is the "richy" golf courses/country clubs. I remember reading about efforts of trying to move them on the outskirts of SF, and they rejected.

I know Wal-Mart and the movie theater isn't in the way. That was just the land he owned.

If you stay on 26th St. west as it crosses Kiwanis, it terminates at the driveway to his house -- which overlooks the golf courses. The road would have to cut through there, and drop over the bluff (and then through the golf course(s) to connect up.

[SDDOT-Steve]

The next public meeting for the I-29 Corridor Study has been scheduled for Thursday, February 26, 2009. The meeting will be held from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm in the Gymnasium of Explorer Elementary School (4010 W. 82nd Street in Sioux Falls). The meeting will be open house format with a short presentation at approximately 6:45 pm. SDDOT, City and Consultant staff will be available with displays to discuss the proposed options and answer your questions. You will be given the opportunity to provide written comments that will become part of the study's official documentation.