Fairfax, Cedar Rapids raise issues about Highway 100 design change

By B.A. Morelli, The Gazette

CEDAR RAPIDS - Officials in Cedar Rapids, Fairfax and with the Corridor Metropolitan Planning Organization have raised concerns that a design change to the long-awaited Highway 100 extension could undermine some of its key goals and complicate travel for motorists.

At issue is the elimination of an access point to Highway 100 north for those coming from 16th Avenue SW and 80th Street near Highway 30. Previous designs included the access ramp, but it's been removed due to safety and operational concerns, a second nearby access ramp, and to save money, according to the Iowa Department of Transportation.

'We want traffic flow to be fast and smooth and easy,” Fairfax Mayor Jason Rabe said. 'I feel the new design is not conducive to that from our area.”

Northbound traffic would take local roads north to the planned Highway 100 interchange at E Avenue. prompting concerns about inconvenience and safety risks. The plan could also be disruptive to future land use plans, which include neighborhoods and likely schools.

The Highway 100 extension, which won't be finished until 2020, is designed to connect with Highway 30 near where those two roads meet up with 80th Street and 16th Avenue SW. The original design had provided a convenient access to Highway 100 for travelers on 16th and 80th, near the junction with Highway 30.

16th Avenue is a busy east-west road on the west side of Cedar Rapids that currently runs into Highway 30, but will no longer have direct access to Highway 30 when the Highway 100 extension is completed. Motorists coming from the southwest, such as Fairfax, use the north-south road, 80th Street, and Rabe said they hoped to be able to get directly onto 100.

Local officials have asked the Iowa DOT, which is managing the project, to reconsider the design on several grounds:

- Convenience for those traveling from points southwest, such as Fairfax, Amana, Walford and coming from the east side of Cedar Rapids.

- Motorists being directed on local roads that are identified for residential and school areas in future land use plans.

- Increased truck traffic on local roads.

- Added traffic that would require Cedar Rapids and/or Linn County to upgrade local roads.

- Northbound traffic possibly opting for Edgewood Road or Interstate 380 for easier convenience, which would undermine one of the goals of the Highway 100 extension, which was to decongest those roads.

- Need for more bike and pedestrian accommodations.

The DOT has been asked to review its plans to see if the latest design is most appropriate, in light of a land use study along the planned Highway 100 extension route.

'We felt the accommodation of local traffic was possibly being looked at with current land uses in mind,” said Dave Elgin, Cedar Rapids public works director. 'We really want to encourage the DOT to take into account what might be there in the future.”

The Corridor MPO has also drafted a letter to the Iowa DOT outlining the concerns.

Cathy Cutler, a transportation planner with the District 6 office of the Iowa DOT, said the design changes were made a year and a half ago because the geometry of the design could have posed safety risks and would be hard to manage. Keeping costs down for the project, which has ballooned to $200 million, was also a factor. And, the DOT doesn't believe it is too burdensome to have motorists coming from south of Highway 30 travel the extra distance to the E Avenue access ramp to Highway 100 north.

'We believe the interchange at E will be able to handle it,” she said.

She acknowledged the future land use study was not available at the time and therefore not factored into the design change. She said the Iowa DOT is reviewing the request and preparing a response that should be ready in about a week.

She said based on current models the traffic on local roads would be limited, but the DOT is willing to commit to a future project for safety and operational improvements for local roads connecting 16th Ave to U.S. 30 should issues develop.

Some opposed to the change, say costs to add the ramps would increase over time.

l Comments: (319) 339-3177; brian.morelli@thegazette.com