Record of Decision Council Bluffs Interstate System (I-29, I-80 and I-480) Improvements Project TIER 1 Environmental Impact Statement Council Bluffs, Iowa to Omaha, Nebraska FHWA-IA- EIS-04-01F Project Number: IM-029-3(62)54—13-78 Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c) and 49 USC 303, October 2008

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approves the selection of the Reconstruction of All or Part of the Interstate (Construction Alternative) as the Preferred Alternative to provide improvements to the interstate system in the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area, extending across the Missouri River on Interstate 80 to east of the Interstate 480 interchange in Omaha, Nebraska. The study considered long-term, broad-based transportation improvements along Interstate I-29 (I-29), I-80, and I-480, including approximately 18 mainline miles of interstate and 14 interchanges (3 system, 11 service), that would add capacity and correct functional issues along the mainline and interchanges and upgrade the I-80 Missouri River Crossing. FHWA also approves the decisions to provide full access between West Broadway and I-29, design the I-80/I-29 overlap section as a dual-divided freeway, and locating the new I-80 Missouri River Bridge north of the existing bridge. Improvements to the interstate system, once implemented, would bring the segments of I-80 and I-29 (see Figure 1) up to current engineering standards and accommodate future traffic needs. This Record of Decision (ROD) concludes Tier 1 of the Council Bluffs Interstate System (CBIS) Improvements Project. Tier 1 included an examination of the area’s transportation needs, a study of alternatives to satisfy them, and broad consideration of potential environmental and social impacts. The Tier 1 evaluation consisted of a sufficient level of engineering and environmental detail to assist decision makers in selecting a preferred transportation strategy. During Tier 1 a Draft EIS (FHWA-IA- EIS-04-01D) was developed which was approved by FHWA, Iowa DOT, and Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) in November 2004 with comments accepted through March 15, 2005. The Draft EIS summarized the alternatives that were considered to address the transportation needs around Council Bluffs; identified reconstruction of all or part of the interstate, the “Construction Alternative,” as the Preferred Alternative; identified three system-level decisions that needed to be made at the Tier 1 level; and invited comment on the issues. The Final EIS (FHWA-IA- EIS-04-01F) further documented the Construction Alternative as the Preferred Alternative and identified the recommended decisions for the three system level decisions that needed to be made in Tier 1. This ROD defines the Selected Alternative determined in the Tier 1 studies.

Total Cost of Transportation Analysis of Road and Highway Issues, HR-388, 2002

In the administration, planning, design, and maintenance of road systems, transportation professionals often need to choose between alternatives, justify decisions, evaluate tradeoffs, determine how much to spend, set priorities, assess how well the network meets traveler needs, and communicate the basis for their actions to others. A variety of technical guidelines, tools, and methods have been developed to help with these activities. Such work aids include design criteria guidelines, design exception analysis methods, needs studies, revenue allocation schemes, regional planning guides, designation of minimum standards, sufficiency ratings, management systems, point based systems to determine eligibility for paving, functional classification, and bridge ratings. While such tools play valuable roles, they also manifest a number of deficiencies and are poorly integrated. Design guides tell what solutions MAY be used, they aren't oriented towards helping find which one SHOULD be used. Design exception methods help justify deviation from design guide requirements but omit consideration of important factors. Resource distribution is too often based on dividing up what's available rather than helping determine how much should be spent. Point systems serve well as procedural tools but are employed primarily to justify decisions that have already been made. In addition, the tools aren't very scalable: a system level method of analysis seldom works at the project level and vice versa. In conjunction with the issues cited above, the operation and financing of the road and highway system is often the subject of criticisms that raise fundamental questions: What is the best way to determine how much money should be spent on a city or a county's road network? Is the size and quality of the rural road system appropriate? Is too much or too little money spent on road work? What parts of the system should be upgraded and in what sequence? Do truckers receive a hidden subsidy from other motorists? Do transportation professions evaluate road situations from too narrow of a perspective? In considering the issues and questions the author concluded that it would be of value if one could identify and develop a new method that would overcome the shortcomings of existing methods, be scalable, be capable of being understood by the general public, and utilize a broad viewpoint. After trying out a number of concepts, it appeared that a good approach would be to view the road network as a sub-component of a much larger system that also includes vehicles, people, goods-in-transit, and all the ancillary items needed to make the system function. Highway investment decisions could then be made on the basis of how they affect the total cost of operating the total system. A concept, named the "Total Cost of Transportation" method, was then developed and tested. The concept rests on four key principles: 1) that roads are but one sub-system of a much larger 'Road Based Transportation System', 2) that the size and activity level of the overall system are determined by market forces, 3) that the sum of everything expended, consumed, given up, or permanently reserved in building the system and generating the activity that results from the market forces represents the total cost of transportation, and 4) that the economic purpose of making road improvements is to minimize that total cost. To test the practical value of the theory, a special database and spreadsheet model of Iowa's county road network was developed. This involved creating a physical model to represent the size, characteristics, activity levels, and the rates at which the activities take place, developing a companion economic cost model, then using the two in tandem to explore a variety of issues. Ultimately, the theory and model proved capable of being used in full system, partial system, single segment, project, and general design guide levels of analysis. The method appeared to be capable of remedying many of the existing work method defects and to answer society's transportation questions from a new perspective.

Total Cost of Transportation Analysis of Road and Highway Issues, TR-477, Phase 2, 2003

A prior project, HR-388, (which was entitled "Total Cost of Transportation analysis of road and highway issues"), explored the use of a total economic cost basis for evaluation of road based transportation issues. It was conducted as a proof-of-concept effort between 1996 and 2002, with the final report presented in May 2002. TR-477 rebuilt the analytical model using current data, then performed general, system level, county level, and road segment level analyses. The results are presented herein and will be distributed to all county engineers for information and local use.