Auxiliary Lane along I-71 in Strongsville

Press Enter to show all options, press Tab go to next option
In accordance with federal Transportation Conformity Regulations, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93, the planning process determined that this project adds capacity and requires a conformity determination. NOACA performed the required quantitative analysis demonstrating that emissions from vehicles traveling on the proposed improvement are less than the area’s emissions budget. See the Cleveland Akron Conformity Summary for CUY IR 71-2.65 Auxiliary Lane: PID 107119. 
Project Name: CUY IR 71-2.65 AUXILIARY LANE
Sponsor: Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) 
PID No.: 107119 
Estimated Total Cost: $2,072,517 
Proposed Source of Federal Funds: ODOT 

History/Background: The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Safety program provides funds to ODOT and local governments for highway safety treatments or corrective activity designed to alleviate a safety problem or a potentially hazardous situation. The program is funded at approximately $100 million annually. Priority is given to those projects with recommended activities/countermeasures that improve safety at roadway locations with a high frequency, severity, and rate of crashes. 

There are two application cycles per year. Applications must be signed off by the respective ODOT District Safety Review Team. A safety engineering study must typically accompany the application unless the application is for preliminary engineering funds to complete the study. 

According to the Highway Safety Improvement Program application total of 94 crashes occurred in the study area between 2013 and 2015; 47 in 2013, 17 in 2014 and 30 in 2015. While there were no fatalities, 33 percent of the crashes resulted in an injury. Approximately 68 percent of the crashes occurred within 0.5 miles of the exit ramp to westbound SR-82. Additionally, 52 percent of the total crashes state a vehicle involved with the crash was slowing for or stopped in traffic on IR-71. Rear-end and sideswipe-passing comprise 81 percent of all of the crashes. 

Proposed Project: The project will involve adding an auxiliary lane along IR-71, southbound, from the Ohio Turnpike (IR-80) entrance ramp to the SR-82 westbound exit, in Strongsville (location map and illustration) a distance of approximately 6,200 feet, between ramp terminals. 

The proposed project includes the following: 
• Reducing lane and inside shoulder widths on IR-71 southbound to obtain four-lane section; 
• Adding an auxiliary lane between the I-80 and westbound SR-82 interchange ramps; 
• Converting the single lane exit ramp to SR-82 westbound as a two-lane exit ramp (one drop lane and one option lane); and 
• Raising existing guardrail to exceed minimum heights 

The project’s estimated total cost, provided by the sponsor, is $2,072,517. The estimated cost of preliminary engineering planning study (PEPS) is $25,744. The estimated cost of preliminary engineering preliminary development (PEPD) is $364,523. The estimated cost of preliminary engineering detailed design (PEDD) is $124,960. The estimated cost of construction is $1,475,000. The estimated cost of construction engineering is $103,250.The PEPS, PEPD, PEDD and C will be funded with $1,641,381 in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds and $431,136 in ODOT funds. 

Staff Comment (Summary): 
CONDITION: Sponsor must provide Interchange Operations Study (IOS) with capacity calculations showing difference between No Build and Build conditions per Local Design Manual (LDM) requirements. 

Committee Review:
Transportation Subcommittee:
  • The Transportation Subcommittee felt the staff condition, sponsor must provide Interchange Operations Study (IOS) with capacity calculations showing difference between No Build and Build conditions per Local Design Manual (LDM) requirements, is redundant because the understanding of the subcommittee and ODOT is that the Board will not be able to amend the project to the TIP until FHWA approves the IOS, as inherent in ODOT’s project development process.
  • Recommended for Planning and Programming Committee review.
Planning and Programming Committee:
  • No comments; recommended for Executive Committee review.
Executive Committee:
  • No comments; recommended for Board of Directors' review.
Intergovernmental Review and Consultation (IGRC):

Public Involvement: