Rejected Alternatives. The rejected alternatives presented in this Project Report are for the highway only. CVEF alternatives have been analyzed independently (see Attachment J), and XXX alternatives have been developed in a separate document, the PDS, completed in July 2011 by GSA.
Rejected Alternatives. The No-Build Alternative, Alternative 2, would not rehabilitate the existing pavement. If this alternative is chosen, the condition of the pavement would continue to deteriorate, would require frequent maintenance and extensive repairs, and would eventually result in more expensive pavement rehabilitation in the future. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project, so it was rejected.
Rejected Alternatives. The No-Build Alternative was rejected because it would not satisfy the project purpose and need.
Rejected Alternatives. Structure Alternatives On October 20, 2020, during the public comment period, Xxxxxxxx presented the proposed project alternatives to the City of Marysville and the public. Members of the City Council, along with the Commander of Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 948, presented concerns of Structure Alternative 2/2A due to the impacts to the Veterans Memorial Center. The center has provided a source of income for Veterans and has been a location that allows them to meet. According to the Commander, the center also provides the Veterans of the area ability to carry out programs, such as the children and youth scholarship and other Veterans’ needs. In addition, impacts to the Veterans Memorial Center will hinder their ability to conduct burial honor ceremonials and more. The building has been relocated 4 times since 1925. In addition to the Veterans Memorial Center, Structure Alternative 2/2a was highly opposed by the Members of the City Council as well, due to the impacts of 18 low- income residential acquisitions (11 multi-family plus 7 single-family residences) and to the economically disadvantaged population within the project impact area in comparison to Alternative 1/1A’s one residential acquisition. Structure Alternative 2 This alternative will construct the new Marysville Underpass structure to the south of the existing structure, allowing for existing tracks to remain at their current location during construction of the underpass. The new underpass will then become the permanent structure. The new Binney Junction Underpass will consist of two structures to the south of the existing structures, which will allow for the existing tracks to be utilized during the construction of the new Binney Junction Underpass. Tracks will then conform to the new structures which will result in only one shift of railroad tracks during the construction of the new structures. Structure Alternative 2A Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative will construct structures to the south of the existing Marysville Underpass and to the south of the existing Binney Junction Underpass. The difference is that the temporary structures will be required. With this alternative, tracks will have to be shifted twice, to and from the temporary structures, during the construction of this project. This will allow the permanent structures to be constructed in the same horizontal and vertical alignment as it was previously, maintaining existing track conditions. No-Build Alternative The No-Build...
Rejected Alternatives. Alternative 1 Alternative 1 rehabilitates the existing bridge by replacing the existing girders and railing and modifying the piers as necessary to accommodate the new superstructure. First, it had the greatest bridge construction cost (See Attachment D). And second, although this alternative would address the maintenance issues with the superstructure, it would not address the scour criticality and would not rehabilitate the substructure for Alkali Silica Reactivity (ASR) and chlorides as recommended by the Bridge Maintenance Fact Sheet. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 replaces the bridge on the same alignment. Although this alternative would address all the structural concerns for the bridge and is comparable in cost (See Attachment D) to the “build” alternative, it would have long term traffic impacts associated with it. This alternative required that one of the two lanes of traffic on the bridge be permanently closed during the duration of construction and that a temporary signal be located at the beginning of construction within the city limits of Xxxxxxxxx and one at the end of construction zone near Xxxxxxxxxx Road. This alternative was determined to produce queuing issues with the City of Xxxxxxxxx that would impact goods movement and the traveling public for the duration of the project, a minimum of three years.
Rejected Alternatives. The following alternatives were considered and analyzed during the project initiation phase and early stages of the PA&ED phase. Other than specific components of alternatives that were incorporated into previous projects or the proposed Build Alternative, these alternatives were ultimately rejected and withdrawn from further study for the reasons described below.
Rejected Alternatives. The Build Alternatives studied in the DPR were developed to connect SR 219 near the City of Modesto to SR 120 near the City of Oakdale, reduce average daily traffic volumes and current traffic congestion, support the efficient movement of goods and services throughout the region, and improve the efficiency of interregional travel by reducing travel times for SR 108. The alternatives studied in the DPR that were rejected from further consideration include: Alternative 1A Segment 1 is common to all Build Alternatives. Alternative 1A begins at SR 219 (Xxxxxxx Avenue)/Xxxxx Road intersection, which is north of the City of Modesto between Xxxxxxx Avenue/Xxxxxx Road intersection and SR 219/XxXxxxx Avenue intersection. The alignment continues eastward along the existing SR 219 (Xxxxxxx Avenue), which becomes Xxxxxxxx Road east of existing SR 108/XxXxxxx Avenue. Alternative 1A shifts to the south of Xxxxxxxx Road east of Coffee Road and returns onto Xxxxxxxx Road west of Claus Road. In Segment 2, Alternative 1A is a multi-lane expressway facility about 5.5 miles long that would provide a transition between the urban Segment 1 and the rural Segment 3 facilities. Alternative 1A veers northeast from the Claus Road intersection and crosses Langworth Road and Xxxxxxxxx Road while extending 3.2 miles northeast at an approximately 45- degree angle. Past the Lexington Road and Crane Road intersection, Alternative 1A overlies the existing Lexington Road and extends easterly to Xxxxxx Road. From Xxxxxx Road, Alternative 1A turns north crossing Warnerville Road. In Segment 3, Alternative 1A is a rural multi-lane expressway facility and begins near Warnerville Road west of South Xxxxxxx Road and the Sierra Railroad. Alternative 1A runs northward, parallel to South Xxxxxxx Road, before crossing over the Sierra Railroad west of the South Xxxxxxx Road and Sierra Road intersection. It curves eastward until it ultimately ends at the intersection with SR 120, about 0.6 mile east of the SR 108/SR 120/South Xxxxxxx Road intersection. Alternative 2A Improvements for Alternative 2A in Segment 1 are identical to those listed in Alternative 1A, Segment 1 above. Segment 2 is a multi-lane expressway facility about 5.4 miles long and would transition between the urban Segment 1 and the rural Segment 3 facilities. Alternative 2A continues east mostly along the existing Xxxxxxxx Road alignment. Just east of the Bentley Road/Xxxxxxxx Road intersection, Alternative 2A veers northeast and crosse...
