Skip to main content

SDDOT I-29 Exit 71 Online Meeting

    MENU

    Welcome

    I-29 Exit 71

    Public Meeting and Open House

    Welcome to the I-29 Exit 71 Interchange Modification Study virtual engagement!
    This is the second of two public meetings for the study. Since the first public meeting, the Exit 71 interchange and I-29 mainline alternatives have been revised and further evaluated to develop preliminary recommendations. We are looking for your feedback on these revisions, preliminary recommendations, and other considerations for the design team later in the project.

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    • Present revised alternatives and preliminary recommendations
    • Gather feedback on interchange alternatives and proposed access modifications
    • Gather feedback on potential impacts during construction (vehicle width and access requirements, potential alternate routes, timelines, etc.)

    Project Area Map

    Click to enlarge.

    This map indicates the areas along I-29 that are included in the study area.  Focus areas include the I-29 Exit 71 interchange and I-29 mainline from Exit 68 through Exit 73.

    Presentation Overview Video

    Meeting Recording


    Study Schedule

    Click to enlarge.

    The study schedule shows the anticipated pace of the project. Data collection and analysis will take place from February 2021 to August 2021 with Public Meeting #1 taking place on Monday, August 23, 2021. The interchange alternatives will be refined and evaluated from August 2021 to September 2021 with Public Meeting #2 taking place shortly after this process is completed. The IMJR will be developed, reviewed, and revised in October through December of 2021. The final IMJR will be submitted in January 2022. An environmental scan will be conducted from February 2021 to January 2022 and the subsequent environmental an environmental study from January to October 2022.

    Draft Purpose and Project Need



    Draft Project Purpose and Need

    The project team drafted the following preliminary purpose statement that can be further developed as the project study progresses. The intent of this statement is to:

    1. Solicit your input to help the project team better understand corridor and intersection issues

    2. Use the input to refine the final purpose and need statements to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    Project Purpose

    To preserve transportation assets, provide for the reliability and efficiency of the transportation system, and provide consistency with transportation planning along I-29 mainline from Exit 73 to Exit 68 and on CH110 through the Exit 71 interchange.

    Primary Needs

    The primary "drivers" of the project and reflect the fundamental reasons why the project is being pursued.

    Traffic operations: Forecasted traffic volumes indicate capacity needs on I-29 mainline and at the Exit 71 interchange through the 2050 Planning Horizon. The identified need from the planning process is a capacity deficiency, requiring that I-29 mainline and the Exit 71 interchange operate at least at a LOS “C” in urban areas and “B” in rural areas. The expected 2050 traffic volumes will cause segments of I-29 to operate at LOS “D” in urban areas and LOS “C” in rural areas and Exit 71 interchange ramp terminal intersections to operate at LOS “F”.

    Road surface conditions: Based on the pavement condition survey of I-29 through the study area, the SDDOT Pavement Management System indicates a need to bring I-29 pavement condition rating to an acceptable level to accommodate the current and projected travel load.

    Secondary Needs

    Additional needs that are desirable, but not the core “drivers” of the project.

    Safety: Crash trends supporting a need for improvement include the Exit 71 southbound ramp crash rate exceeding the critical crash rate and multiple injury crashes, including one fatality, at the Exit 71 southbound ramp terminal. Along I-29, the proportion of rear-end crashes through the study area is approximately two times the percentage of rear-end crashes throughout all of I-29 in South Dakota.

    Current design standards: Existing Exit 71 geometric elements, including intersection and stopping sight distance, shoulder width, vertical curve geometry, slopes, and ramp junction taper rates, support improvement to meet current SDDOT Road Design Manual guidelines.

    Goals

    Desired project outcomes beyond the transportation issues identified in the Purpose & Need and balance environmental & transportation values.

    Goal 1: Accommodate Sioux Falls MPO Multi-Use Trail Study and local municipality bike plans

    Goal 2: Regulatory compliance

    Goal 3: Avoidance and minimization of environmental impacts, or enhancement opportunities

    Study Area Data



    Study Traffic Volumes

    Daily and peak hour (morning and afternoon commute periods) traffic volumes were developed for three analysis scenarios:

    • Existing conditions (2021 traffic counts)
    • 2028 Year of Project Completion
    • 2050 Planning Horizon

    The two future-year scenarios account for expected increases in traffic volumes passing through the study area and anticipated development.

    Click to enlarge.

    The Traffic Volumes Study graphic shows existing and forecasted traffic volumes along I-29 mainline, within Exit 68, 71, and 73, and along the 271st Street, 27rd Street, and 276th Street corridors.  Forecasted traffic volumes reflect estimated traffic growth to Years 2028 and 2050.

    Study Area Traffic Operations Analysis


    Using the existing and forecasted traffic volumes, study area intersections and roadway segments were analyzed to identify future capacity improvement needs in terms of Level of Service (LOS).

    Click to enlarge.

    The Traffic Operation Analysis graphic shows morning and afternoon (AM and PM) Level of Service (LOS) measures for traffic operations along I-29 mainline and at the Exit 68, 71, and 73 interchanges.  Operational measures include freeway operations, interchange ramp merge and diverge operations, and ramp terminal intersections.  LOS was determined for existing traffic volumes and forecasted 2028 and 2050 traffic volumes.

    LOS Definitions

    Level of service (LOS) is a quantitative stratification of performance measures representing quality of service, or how well a transportation facility operates from a traveler’s perspective.

    Click to enlarge.

    The Level of Service table shows the ratings of density of multi-lane highways and freeways. Ratings are also provided for intersection control delays in unsignalized and signalized intersections.

    Study Area Crash History (2016 – 2020)


    I-29 Exit 71 Southbound Ramp Terminal Intersection: 4 crashes
    • One fatality and one serious injury
    • 3 of 4 crashes were angle type crashes
    • Sight distance limitations supports future interchange improvements

    Click to enlarge.

    The Crash History graphic shows points of crashes within the study area from 2016 to 2020. Types of crashes indicated on this diagram include fatal injury, incapacitating, non-incapacitating, possible, no injury and wind animal hits.
    I-29 Mainline:
    134 crashes
    • 0 fatal crashes and 1 serious injury crash
    • 25% of I-29 crashes were rear-end crashes
    • 2x the percentage of rear-end crashes for I-29 statewide (12% of crashes were rear-end)

    Click to enlarge.

    The Severe Injury Crash History graphic shows points of crashes within the study area from 2016 to 2020. Types of crashes indicated on this diagram include fatal injury and incapacitating injury.

    Environmental Resources

    This map shows some of the known resources adjacent to the I-29/Exit 71 Interchange project area. In the upcoming months, the project team will be conducting more detailed field studies to analyze and minimize impacts to biological, cultural, and socioeconomic resources such as:

    • Historic Properties
    • Farmland
    • Wetlands and Streams
    • Threatened and Endangered Species
    • Visual Resources
    • Noise
    • Floodplain
    • Land Use

    Click to enlarge.

    The Environmental Considerations graphic shows the locations of environmental aspects that could prohibit or be impacted by future projects in the study area. Details on the diagram include airport property, rivers and streams, Lincoln County drainage districts, wetlands, FEMA flood hazards, spill reports and storage tanks, and land zoning.

    CDI Alternatives

    Compressed Diamond Interchange Alternatives

    Interchange Overview

    The I-29 Exit 71 compressed diamond interchange alternatives consist of:

    • Similar interchange type and footprint to what is out there today
    • Full reconstruction of interchange (ramps, 273rd Street, and bridge)
    • Two options: I-29 under and I-29 over 273rd Street
    • Intersections could open as stop-control (stop signs on the ramps) and then signalized when warranted by traffic volumes
    • 273rd Street expanded to 3-lane section with turn lanes and access management

    Interchange Alternatives

    Compressed Diamond Interchange – I-29 Under

    Click to enlarge.

    This image shows the conceptual layout of a Compressed Diamond Interchange, and what the road under it would look like. Details on the diagram include proposed roadway, raised median, sidewalk, bridge construction, access control, FEMA floodplain, NWI wetlands, existing Right of Ways and property lines, existing control of access points, additional control of access points needed, retaining walls, grading limits, anticipated right of way impacts, signalized intersections, stop condition intersections and yield condition intersections.
    • Year 2050 Level of Service (LOS)
      • Interchange: LOS A
      • Ramp Terminal Intersections: LOS B or better
      • Least vehicular delay of the three interchange types
    • Construction and ROW cost: $20.5 million
      • Least cost of all interchange alternatives
    • Opportunity to maintain traffic on 273rd Street across I-29 during construction

    Compressed Diamond Interchange – I-29 Over

    Click to enlarge.

    This image shows the conceptual layout of a Compressed Diamond Interchange, and what the road over it would look like. Details on the diagram include proposed roadway, raised median, sidewalk, bridge construction, access control, FEMA floodplain, NWI wetlands, existing Right of Ways and property lines, existing control of access points, additional control of access points needed, retaining walls, grading limits, anticipated right of way impacts, signalized intersections, stop condition intersections and yield condition intersections.
    • Year 2050 Level of Service (LOS)
      • Interchange: LOS A
      • Ramp Terminal Intersections: LOS B or better
      • Least delay of the three interchange types
    • Construction and ROW cost: $25 million
    • Potential impacts to WAPA transmission lines (which would increase cost)
    • 273rd Street closed across I-29 during construction

    SPI Alternatives

    Single Point Interchange Alternatives

    Interchange Overview

    The I-29 Exit 71 SPI alternatives consist of:

    • Single, signalized interchange intersection
    • Full reconstruction of interchange (ramps, 273rd Street, and bridge)
    • Two options: I-29 under and I-29 over 273rd Street
    • 273rd Street expanded to 3-lane section with turn lanes and access management

    Interchange Alternatives

    SPI – I-29 Under

    Click to enlarge.

    This image shows the conceptual layout of a Single Point Interchange, and what the road under it would look like. Details on the diagram include proposed roadway, raised median, sidewalk, bridge construction, access control, FEMA floodplain, NWI wetlands, existing Right of Ways and property lines, existing control of access points, additional control of access points needed, retaining walls, grading limits, anticipated right of way impacts, signalized intersections, stop condition intersections and yield condition intersections.
    • Year 2050 Level of Service (LOS)
      • Interchange: LOS B
      • Ramp Terminal Intersection: LOS C or better
      • Greatest vehicular delay of the three interchange types
    • Construction and ROW cost: $33 million
      • Greatest cost of all interchange alternatives
    • Opportunity to maintain traffic on 273rd Street across I-29 during construction
    • Greatest separation between interchange and next adjacent local intersections

    SPI – I-29 Over

    Click to enlarge.

    This image shows the conceptual layout of a Single Point Interchange, and what the road over it would look like. Details on the diagram include proposed roadway, raised median, sidewalk, bridge construction, access control, FEMA floodplain, NWI wetlands, existing Right of Ways and property lines, existing control of access points, additional control of access points needed, retaining walls, grading limits, anticipated right of way impacts, signalized intersections, stop condition intersections and yield condition intersections.
    • Year 2050 Level of Service (LOS)
      • Interchange: LOS B
      • Ramp Terminal Intersection: LOS C or better
      • Greatest vehicular delay of the three interchange types
    • Construction and ROW cost: $29.5 million
    • Potential impacts to WAPA transmission lines (which would increase cost)
    • 273rd Street closed across I-29 during construction
    • Greatest separation between interchange and next adjacent local intersections

    DDI Alternatives

    Diverging Diamond Interchange Alternatives

    Interchange Overview

    The I-29 Exit 71 DDI alternatives consist of:

    • Two signalized crossover intersections at each of the ramp terminals that cross over traffic to the opposite side of the roadway through the interchange
    • Full reconstruction of interchange (ramps, 273rd Street, and bridge)
    • Two options: I-29 under and I-29 over 273rd Street
    • Layouts reflect 273rd Street expansion to a 4-lane section (two through lanes in each direction), but interchange could open with a single through lane in each direction plus turn lanes

    Interchange Alternatives

    DDI – I-29 Under

    Click to enlarge.

    This image shows the conceptual layout of a Diverging Diamond Interchange, and what the road under it would look like. Details on the diagram include proposed roadway, raised median, sidewalk, bridge construction, access control, FEMA floodplain, NWI wetlands, existing Right of Ways and property lines, existing control of access points, additional control of access points needed, retaining walls, grading limits, anticipated right of way impacts, signalized intersections, stop condition intersections and yield condition intersections.
    • Year 2050 Level of Service (LOS)
      • Interchange: LOS B
      • Ramp Terminal Intersection: LOS B
    • Construction and ROW cost: $25.5 million
    • Opportunity to maintain traffic on 273rd Street across I-29 during construction

    DDI – I-29 Over

    Click to enlarge.

    This image shows the conceptual layout of a Diverging Diamond Interchange, and what the road over it would look like. Details on the diagram include proposed roadway, raised median, sidewalk, bridge construction, access control, FEMA floodplain, NWI wetlands, existing Right of Ways and property lines, existing control of access points, additional control of access points needed, retaining walls, grading limits, anticipated right of way impacts, signalized intersections, stop condition intersections and yield condition intersections.
    • Year 2050 Level of Service (LOS)
      • Interchange: LOS B
      • Ramp Terminal Intersection: LOS B
    • Construction and ROW cost: $30 million
    • Potential impacts to WAPA transmission lines (which would increase cost)
    • 273rd Street closed across I-29 during construction

    Interchange Alignment Options

    The 273rd Street corridor was further evaluated with varying degrees of southward alignment shift through the interchange to address the following goals:

    1. Construct new 273rd Street bridge off alignment to maintain traffic on existing bridge during construction
    2. Increase separation between 273rd Street and a potential frontage road at Kenworth Place to provide for:
      1. Rocky Mountain Double truck turning movements: eastbound frontage road to westbound 273rd Street
      2. Southbound Kenworth Place queue storage: greater separation provides reduced risk of southbound Kenworth Place queues blocking northbound Kenworth Place (turning from 273rd Street) access to the frontage road

    The following options were developed for the Compressed Diamond interchange (I-29 under) alternative but have elements applicable to all interchange type.

    Option 1: 6’ Offset
    New bridge constructed 6’ south of existing bridge

    Click to enlarge.

    This shows the first alignment option that would offset the bridge 6 feet to the south.

    Option 2: 55’ Offset
    New bridge constructed 55’ south of existing bridge

    Click to enlarge.

    This shows the first alignment option that would offset the bridge 55 feet to the south.

    Option 3: 80’ Offset
    New bridge constructed 80’ south of existing bridge

    Click to enlarge.

    This shows the first alignment option that would offset the bridge 80 feet to the south.

    Interchange Alternative Evaluation

    I-29 Exit 71 Interchange Alternative Summary

    This table shows the comparison of compressed diamond, single point, and diverging diamond interchanges in terms of Level of Service, predicted safety, construction duration and maintenance of traffic, potential environmental impacts, and right-of-way and costs.
    To view the table full screen, click here.

    Alt. Discription 2050 Planning Horizon Traffic Operations Interchange Year of LOS D Predicted Safety (2028-2050) Construction Potential Environmental Impacts ROW & Costs
    Interchange LOS SB RTI LOS NB RTI LOS 2/3-Lane Section 4/5-Lane Section Fatal & Injury Crashes Total Crashes Duration Interchange Maintenance of Traffic Rating WAPA, Wetlands and Floodway ROW Acquisition Construction + ROW + Contingency Costs
    AM / PM AM / PM AM / PM 5-Year Range 5-Year Range % Increase (+) or Decrease (-) from No Build % Increase (+) or Decrease (-) from No Build Seasons 10 – Most access 1 – Least access Potential Impacts and Acres Acres $ M
    1a Compressed Diamond
    I-29 Under
    A / A B / B A / A 2090-2095 Beyond 2105 -19% -19% 1.5 8 (on alignment)
    10 (offset)
    Wetlands: 4.6 ac
    Floodway: 0.08 ac
    0.7 $20.5
    1b Compressed Diamond
    I-29 Over
    A / A B / B A / A 2090-2095 Beyond 2105 -19% -19% 2.5 3 WAPA transmission lines
    Wetlands: 5.7 ac
    Floodway: 0.12 ac
    0.4 $25
    2a SPI
    I-29 Under
    B / B B / C - 2080-2085 2080-2090 -21% -18% 2 8 Wetlands: 2.9 ac
    Floodway: 0.06 ac
    0.4 $33
    2b SPI
    I-29 Over
    B / B B / C - 2080-2085 2080-2090 -21% -18% 2.5 0 WAPA transmission lines
    Wetlands: 4.4 ac
    Floodway: 0.09 ac
    0.4 $29.5
    3a DDI
    I-29 Under
    B / B B / B B / B 2085-2090 Beyond 2105 -19% -16% 2 10 Wetlands: 5.8 ac
    Floodway: 0.10 ac
    1.5 $25.5
    3b DDI
    I-29 Over
    B / B B / B B / B 2085-2090 Beyond 2105 -19% -16% 2.5 3 WAPA transmission lines
    Wetlands: 7.0 ac
    Floodway: 0.14 ac
    1.5 $30
    NB No Build D / D F / F A / A By Year 2050 - Baseline (154) Baseline (469) - - Wetlands: 0 ac
    Floodway: 0 ac
    0 0

    Approximate ‘Alignment Option’ ROW acquisition and cost adjustments:

    • Shifted south 6’: +0.2 acres ROW; +$1.0M
    • Shifted south 55’: +1.5 acres ROW; +$1.5M
    • Shifted south 80’: +3.3 acres ROW; +$2M

    Environmental Screening Matrix

    This table presents a preliminary environmental evaluation summary, highlighting whether the proposed alternatives address project needs and environmental considerations being evaluated as part of the study.
    To view the table full screen, click here.

    1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b NB
    Compressed Diamond I-29 Under Compressed Diamond I-29 Over SPI I-29 Under SPI I-29 Over DDI I-29 Under DDI I-29 Over No Build
    Project Needs (Criteria)
    Traffic Operations (Meets LOS “C” (urban) and LOS “B” (rural) Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is not met
    Road Surface Conditions (PCI is at acceptable level) Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is not met
    Safety (Reduce Crash Rate to be below Critical Crash Rate) Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is not met
    Meets Current Design Standards (Intersection and stopping Distance, Shoulder Width, vertical curve geometric issues, sloes, and ramp junction taper rates) Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is met Need is not met
    Environmental Considerations
    Land use and zoning Compatible ROW acquisition (0.7 acre) Compatible ROW acquisition (0.4 acre) Compatible ROW acquisition (0.4 acre) Compatible ROW acquisition (0.4 acre) Compatible ROW acquisition (1.5 acre) Compatible ROW acquisition (1.5 acre) Compatible No ROW acquisition
    WAPA Utility (no less than 32' ground clearance) Existing minimum clearance is 52.5' ~51.5' ~40' ~52.5' ~37.25' ~52.5 ~37.25' No Impact
    Airport - Runway Proection Zone (RPZ) No further encroachment of existing RPZ No further encroachment of existing RPZ No further encroachment of existing RPZ No further encroachment of existing RPZ No further encroachment of existing RPZ No further encroachment of existing RPZ No Impact
    Wetlands (Desktop Analysis) 4.58-4.74 acres (depending on offset) 5.73 2.85 4.43 5.84 6.96 0
    Surface Water Quality No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact
    Regulated Materials Minor Risk Minor Risk Minor Risk Minor Risk Minor Risk Minor Risk No Risk
    FEMA Floodway 0.08 acre 0.12 acre 0.06 acre 0.09 acre 0.1 acre 0.14 acre 0 acre
    FEMA Floodzone AE 3.46-3.49 acre (depending on offset) 4.65 acre 1.83 acre 3.07 acre 4.67 acre 5.48 acre 0 acre
    Wild and Scenic Rivers N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
    Threatened and Endangered Species Anticipated Determinations:
    Northern Long-eared Bat (Not Likely to Adversely Affect), Red Knot (No Affect), Western Prairie Fringe Orchid (No Affect), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate Species) - (Not Likely to Adversely Affect)
    Anticipated Determinations:
    Northern Long-eared Bat (Not Likely to Adversely Affect), Red Knot (No Affect), Western Prairie Fringe Orchid (No Affect), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate Species) - (Not Likely to Adversely Affect)
    Anticipated Determinations:
    Northern Long-eared Bat (Not Likely to Adversely Affect), Red Knot (No Affect), Western Prairie Fringe Orchid (No Affect), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate Species) - (Not Likely to Adversely Affect)
    Anticipated Determinations:
    Northern Long-eared Bat (Not Likely to Adversely Affect), Red Knot (No Affect), Western Prairie Fringe Orchid (No Affect), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate Species) - (Not Likely to Adversely Affect)
    Anticipated Determinations:
    Northern Long-eared Bat (Not Likely to Adversely Affect), Red Knot (No Affect), Western Prairie Fringe Orchid (No Affect), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate Species) - (Not Likely to Adversely Affect)
    Anticipated Determinations:
    Northern Long-eared Bat (Not Likely to Adversely Affect), Red Knot (No Affect), Western Prairie Fringe Orchid (No Affect), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate Species) - (Not Likely to Adversely Affect)
    No Impact
    Archeological Resources and Historic Structures Anticipated Determinations:
    Northern Northern Long-eared Bat (Not Likely to Adversely Affect), Red Knot (No Affect), Western Prairie Fringe Orchid (No Affect), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate Species) - (Not Likely to Adversely Affect)
    Anticipated Determinations:
    Northern Northern Long-eared Bat (Not Likely to Adversely Affect), Red Knot (No Affect), Western Prairie Fringe Orchid (No Affect), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate Species) - (Not Likely to Adversely Affect)
    Anticipated Determinations:
    Northern Northern Long-eared Bat (Not Likely to Adversely Affect), Red Knot (No Affect), Western Prairie Fringe Orchid (No Affect), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate Species) - (Not Likely to Adversely Affect)
    Anticipated Determinations:
    Northern Northern Long-eared Bat (Not Likely to Adversely Affect), Red Knot (No Affect), Western Prairie Fringe Orchid (No Affect), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate Species) - (Not Likely to Adversely Affect)
    Anticipated Determinations:
    Northern Northern Long-eared Bat (Not Likely to Adversely Affect), Red Knot (No Affect), Western Prairie Fringe Orchid (No Affect), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate Species) - (Not Likely to Adversely Affect)
    Anticipated Determinations:
    Northern Northern Long-eared Bat (Not Likely to Adversely Affect), Red Knot (No Affect), Western Prairie Fringe Orchid (No Affect), Monarch Butterfly (Candidate Species) - (Not Likely to Adversely Affect)
    No Impact
    Air Quality No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact, but greater than build alternatives
    Prime and Important Farmland No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact No Impact
    Noise Residential receptors are located south of 273rd Street and west of Exit 71. Noise analysis would have to be performed to understand if impacted. Residential receptors are located south of 273rd Street and west of Exit 71. Noise analysis would have to be performed to understand if impacted. Residential receptors are located south of 273rd Street and west of Exit 71. Noise analysis would have to be performed to understand if impacted. Residential receptors are located south of 273rd Street and west of Exit 71. Noise analysis would have to be performed to understand if impacted. Residential receptors are located south of 273rd Street and west of Exit 71. Noise analysis would have to be performed to understand if impacted. Residential receptors are located south of 273rd Street and west of Exit 71. Noise analysis would have to be performed to understand if impacted. No Impact
    Environmental Justice No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
    Parks & Recreational facilities No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
    Section 4(f) or 6(f) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
    Visual No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
    Other Public Controversy* Best Maintanence of Traffic Scenariot Poor Maintanence of Traffic Scenario Moderately high Maintanence of Traffic Scenario Worst Maintanence of Traffic Scenario Best Maintanence of Traffic Scenario Poor Maintanence of Traffic Scenario No Impact

    * Business impacts would be similar for all alternatives and would be dependent on Kenworth - Ironworks connection which is independent of the Interchange alternative selected.

    Interchange Alternative Preliminary Recommendation

    The Exit 71 Interchange Alternative Evaluation Matrix summarizes how each interchange alternative compares to other Build and No Build alternatives and whether each met study goals.

    To view the table full screen, click here.

    I-29 Exit 71 Interchange Alternative Evaluation Matrix

    Alt. Description Conformance with Plans Compliance with Design Guidelines Operational Performance Safety Environmental Impacts Constructability & MOT Other Traffic Considerations
    1a Compressed Diamond
    I-29 Under
    5 5 5 4 4 5 4
    1b Compressed Diamond
    I-29 Over
    5 5 5 4 3 3 4
    2a SPI
    I-29 Under
    5 5 3 5 5 4 3
    2b SPI
    I-29 Over
    5 5 3 5 3 2 3
    3a DDI
    I-29 Under
    5 5 4 3 4 4 3
    3b DDI
    I-29 Over
    5 5 4 3 3 2 2
    NB No Build 1 1 2 2 5 5 1

    Conformance with Plans

    • Consistent with long-range plans for Exit 71 interchange improvements
    • Fits with long-range plans for 273rd Street (CH110) corridor

    Compliance with Policies and Engineering Standards

    • Meets SDDOT, AASHTO and FHWA design guidelines
    • Meets SDDOT/FHWA control of access requirements (100’ minimum)

    Environmental Impacts

    • Potential environmental impacts, such as Section 4(f), Section 6(f), Wetlands, Noise, Cultural, Env. Justice, Floodplain, and/or ROW Acquisitions
    • Meets project Purpose and Need

    Operational Performance

    • 2028 – 2050 traffic operations
    • Long-range traffic operations (Year of LOS D)

    Safety

    • 2028 – 2050 predicted safety

    Constructability

    • Construction duration (seasons)
    • Construction maintenance of traffic (MOT)
    • Constructability benefits/drawbacks

    Other Traffic Considerations

    • Over height trucks (conflicts and alternate routes)
    • Driver familiarity and ability to sign
    • Expandability
    • Winter driving conditions
    • Traffic and safety-related public input on interchange type

    • ‘5’ and ‘4’ Bold Green text indicates an alternative measure was favorable compared to the other alternatives in a category. An underlined 5 indicates the best alternative within a given category.
    • ‘3’ Black text indicates that the alternative meets baseline study goals, but the measure reflects a middle rating compared to other alternatives in the respective category. The alternative may have additional considerations, or flaws, that would require careful consideration for it to move forward in the study process.
    • ‘1’ and ‘2’ Bold Orange text indicates an alternative measure was unfavorable compared to other alternatives in a category, does not meet study goals, and/or has critical flaws.

    Rating of 3 or above indicates the respective measure meets study goals, is a benefit to the interchange, and/or exhibits minimal impact.

    Interchange Screening

    Interchange screening is following a 3-step process to compare and eliminate alternatives from further consideration:

    1. I-29 Under or I-29 Over: determine whether I-29 goes under or over 273rd Street
    2. Interchange type: determine interchange type
    3. 273rd Street alignment: whether 273rd Street is construction on- or off-alignment and to what degree of offset

    Recommendation: I-29 Under interchange alternatives (1a Compressed Diamond, 2a SPI, 3a DDI) be carried forward and all I-29 Over interchange alternatives (1b, 2b, 3b) be removed from further consideration.

    Support:

    I-29 grade raise not required at Ninemile Creek and does not necessitate I-29 going over 273rd Street Drawbacks for I-29 going over 273rd Street outweigh the benefits of the flip. Primary drawbacks of I-29 going over 273rd Street include:

    • Potential WAPA transmission line conflicts and reconstruction of up to four towers
    • Higher construction costs (for Compressed Diamond and DDI alternatives)
    • May require full reconstruction of Ninemile Creek structure due to increased fill
    • Longer construction duration (2.5 seasons)
    • No interchange access during construction
    • Multiple I-29 mainline structures required
    • Initiates change in grade and surfacing (at bridge) on I-29 mainline
    • Greater environmental impacts (wetlands and floodway)

    Recommendation: Compressed Diamond (I-29 Under) interchange type be carried forward and the SPI (I-29 Under) and DDI (I-29 Under) be removed from further consideration.

    Support:

    The following table summarizes key differentiating benefits for the remaining Exit 71 interchange ‘type’ alternatives. A check mark indicates where a benefit stood out or was a key differentiator when compared to the other alternatives.

    Category No Build 1a Compressed Diamond 2a SPI 3a DDI
    Conformance with Plans
    Compliance with Design Guidelines
    Operational Performance * *
    Safety
    Potential Environmental Impacts * *
    Constructability and Maintenance of Traffic * *
    Other Traffic Considerations * *

    Differentiating Benefit

    * No significant environmental impacts for any interchange build alternative

    Drawback or Element Not Meeting Purpose and Need

    The final step in the evaluation process is still in progress with no recommendation at this time. We are looking for your feedback on whether 273rd Street should be realigned to the south and if so, to what extent.

    A summary of key differentiators is reflective of the following:

    • Whether the SDDOT 150’-minimum frontage road spacing is provided along Kenworth Place
    • Approximate queue storage available on Kenworth Place between 273rd Street and the frontage road, where southbound queued vehicles would not block a northbound vehicle turning left to the frontage road
    • Whether a Rock Mountain Double truck can make all turning movements at Kenworth Place
    • Whether traffic can be maintained across I-29 during construction
    • Approximate right-of-way impacts
    Frontage/ Rearage Road Option Category No Offset 6’ Bridge Offset 55’ Bridge Offset 80’ Bridge Offset
    Frontage Road Connection SDDOT 150’ Minimum Frontage Road Spacing -
    Kenworth Place Queue Storage to 1st Intersection 124’ 150’
    Rocky Mountain Double Truck Turning Movement
    Rearage Road Connection SDDOT 150’ Minimum Frontage Road Spacing
    Kenworth Place Queue Storage to 1st Intersection > 300’ > 300’
    Rocky Mountain Double Truck Turning Movement
    Frontage or Rearage Road Connection Maintain Traffic Across I-29 During Construction -
    Right-of-Way Impacts Baseline +0.2 ac +1.5 ac +3.3 ac

    I-29 Mainline Alternatives



    SDDOT is planning to reconstruct I-29 through the study area as part of the I-29 Exit 71 interchange project. Preliminary plans include:

    • Expanding I-29 to 6 lanes (3 lanes in each direction) from I-29 Exit 71 northward
    • Reconstructing I-29 with 4 lanes (2 lanes in each direction) from I-29 Exit 71 southward to Exit 68
      • Grading would include space for a future 3rd lane in each direction
      • The 3rd lane in each direction would likely be added by Year 2050

    One of this study’s goals is to determine whether I-29 through and south of Exit 71 needs to include all 6 lanes with the interchange project or whether the preliminary plan of paving 4 lanes now and adding the 3rd lane in each direction when needed will meet future needs.

    Click the images below to enlarge.

    Exit 68 to Exit 71 (4-lane)

    This image shows the conceptual layout of a 4-lane section with grading for a future third lane in each direction from Exits 68 to 71. Details on the diagram include the proposed roadway, the widening transition, bridge construction, FEMA floodplain, NWI Wetlands, existing right of way and property lines, retaining walls and anticipated right of way impacts.

    Exit 68 to Exit 71 (6-lane)

    This image shows the conceptual layout of a 6-lane construction from exits 68 to 71. Details on the diagram include the proposed roadway, the widening transition, bridge construction, FEMA floodplain, NWI Wetlands, existing right of way and property lines, retaining walls and anticipated right of way impacts.

    Exit 71 to Exit 73 (6-lane to 4-lane transition)

    This image shows the conceptual layout of a 4-lane section with grading for a future third lane in each direction from exits 71 to 73. Details on the diagram include the proposed roadway, the widening transition, bridge construction, FEMA floodplain, NWI Wetlands, existing right of way and property lines, retaining walls and anticipated right of way impacts.

    Exit 71 to Exit 73 (6 lane)

    This image shows the conceptual layout of a 6-lane construction from exits 71 to 73. Details on the diagram include the proposed roadway, the widening transition, bridge construction, FEMA floodplain, NWI Wetlands, existing right of way and property lines, retaining walls and anticipated right of way impacts.

    Exit 73 to Exit 74 (6 lane)

    This image shows the conceptual layout of a 6-lane construction from exits 73 to 74. Details on the diagram include the proposed roadway, the widening transition, bridge construction, FEMA floodplain, NWI Wetlands, existing right of way and property lines, retaining walls and anticipated right of way impacts.


    Airport Runway Protection Zone Avoidance Options

    Option 1
    Reconstructs I-29 on the existing alignment with the new 3rd lane in each direction added to the inside median. New median width is 36’.

    Click to enlarge.

    Image dipects widening 1-29 to 6 lanes in each direction.

    Option 2
    Realign I-29 outside of the RPZ to the east. Exhibits a 36’ median width to match I-29 to the north

    Click to enlarge.

    Image dipects relocating I-29 lanes Outside of Airport Runway Protection Zone.

    Option 3
    Realign I-29 outside of the RPZ to the east. Exhibits a 60’ median width to match I-29 to the south.

    Click to enlarge.

    Image dipects relocating I-29 lanes Outside of Airport Runway Protection Zone.

    I-29 Mainline Evaluation

    Interchange Mainline Evaluation and Preliminary Recommendations

    Traffic Operations (Level of Service, LOS)

    LOS-based conclusions on number of lanes required to address capacity needs (see figure):

    • Exit 73 to planned 85th Street interchange: 4 lanes in each direction
      • Auxiliary lane connecting ramps needed due to spacing
    • Exit 71 northward through Exit 73: 3 lanes in each direction
    • Exit 68 northward through Exit 71: 3 lanes in each direction (‘Full Build’ option)
      • ‘Partial Build’ (2 lanes in each direction): two segments do not meet study LOS B goal in Year 2040

    Click to enlarge.

    Graphic of four lane types: Exit 73 to planned 85th Street interchange: 4 lanes in each direction
										Auxiliary lane connecting ramps needed due to spacing
										Exit 71 northward through Exit 73: 3 lanes in each direction
										Exit 68 northward through Exit 71: 3 lanes in each direction (‘Full Build’ option)
										‘Partial Build’ (2 lanes in each direction): two segments do not meet study LOS B goal in Year 2040

    Maintenance of Traffic during Construction

    I-29 work zone capacity and reliability analyses demonstrated a need or benefit to maintaining a minimum number lanes in both directions during:

    • Exit 71 northward: 2 lanes required
    • Exit 71 southward: 2 lanes beneficial, as a single lane in each direction poses risk of congestion during peak traffic periods

    Proposed I-29 phasing reflects a similar approach to I-29 reconstruction between Exit 73 and I-229 interchange, where one side is reconstructed and the other maintains two lanes of traffic in each direction.

    Click to enlarge.

    Phasing graphic that thows lane types

    Construction/Constructability (Exit 71 and South)

    Benefits to constructing the full 6-lane section from Exit 71 southward, in lieu of 2 lanes in each direction with the 3rd lane deferred until a later date, include:

    • Economies of scale and less duplicate work with a single project
    • Less temporary pavement and traffic control
    • Worker safety with traffic and work areas separate
      • Future addition of a third lane would be adjacent to work zone traffic

    Further, by maintaining two lanes of traffic in each direction, constructing a 4-lane section one half at a time would nearly build-out the full 3 southbound lanes in the first phase.

    Recommendations:

    The following lane configuration is recommended to be constructed as part of the planned 2028 project:

    • North of Exit 73: 3 through lanes plus auxiliary lane between interchanges
    • Exit 73: 3 through lanes
    • Exit 71 to Exit 73: 3 through lanes
    • Exit 71: 3 through lanes
    • Exit 68 to Exit 71: 3 through lanes

    The recommended I-29 alignment option between Exit 68 and Exit 71 will be determined through coordination with Federal Aviation Administration.

    273rd Street Concepts



    The 273rd Street (Lincoln County Highway 110) conceptual layouts reflect potential future improvements to illustrate what the future corridor might look like in conjunction with the planned SDDOT I-29 Exit 71 reconstruction. While these improvements are based on identified transportation needs through this study’s 2050 Planning Horizon, they are considered conceptual with regard to extent of modifications on 273rd Street and implementation timeframe.

    Click to enlarge.

    This image shows a conceptual layout for County Highway 10/273rd Street. Details on the diagram include proposed roadway, roadway concept, raised median, sidewalk, removed access, existing right of way/property lines, anticipated right of way impacts, signalized intersections, stop condition intersections and yield condition intersections.

    Potential ITS Elements



    Preliminary ITS elements being considered as part of this study are shown in the figure. Recommendations from this study will be used as a guide to implement technologies as part of the planned I-29 Exit 71 interchange and I-29 mainline reconstruction project, other future corridor projects and/or SDDOT statewide ITS programs.

    Potential ITS Map

    Preliminary Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) elements being considered as part of this study are shown in the figure. Recommendations from this study will be used as a guide to implement technologies as part of the planned I-29 Exit 71 interchange and I-29 mainline reconstruction project, other future corridor projects and/or SDDOT statewide ITS programs.

    Proposed Variable Speed Limit (VSL) sign locations south of I-29 Exit 71 would be part of a larger I-29 corridor VSL implementation. The full extent of this implementation beyond the study area and specific VSL sign locations will be identified outside of this study. This figure illustrates how those elements could would fit within the planned SDDOT I-29 Exit 71 interchange and I-29 mainline reconstruction project.

    Click to enlarge.

    This image shows potential Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) elements within the study area.  Both existing and proposed elements are shown, including closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV), variable speed limit (VSL) sign locations, dynamic message signs (DMS), ramp and interstate closure gates, flashing beacon signs, environmental sensing station (ESS) towers, fiber optic lines, and traffic data collection type and locations.

    Stay Connected

    Thank you for your participation!

    Leave a Comment

    The comment period for this meeting has ended. If you would like to leave a general comment, please use the comment form on the project website.

    Mark Your Calendar

    This will be the final public meeting of the Interchange Modification Study if the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) classification is determined to be a Categorical Exclusion (CE). If an Environmental Assessment (EA) is required, a third public meeting will be held during the summer/fall 2022.


    Project Contacts

    Questions for the project team?

    Jon Wiegand, P.E., PTOE, Consultant Project Manager
    jonathan.wiegand@hdrinc.com | 605-782-8105

    Steve Gramm, P.E., SDDOT Project Manager
    steve.gramm@state.sd.us | 605-773-3281

    Project partner logos

    Social Media

    menu button
    Close comment form

    Comment Form

    The comment period for this meeting has ended. If you would like to leave a comment, please use the comment form on the project website.