Gold Line Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Transcription

1 Gold Line Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Workshop No. 3 Level 3, Detailed Evaluation February 5 and 7,

2 Agenda Introduction Railroad (RR) Negotiations Update What is the Project? Mission of Workshop No. 3 Recap of Alternatives Analysis Results of Level 1 and 2 Screening Results of Level 3, Detailed Evaluation Recommendations for Alternatives to Carry Forward Next Steps 2

3 Denver Union Station 3 Ward Rd. Kipling St. Wadsworth Blvd. Sheridan Blvd. Federal Blvd. Pecos St. How Do the Railroads Affect the Decision?? Existing UP rail corridor continues (Moffat Line) Ralston Rd. 52 nd Ave. Existing BN rail corridor continues to Golden 44 th Ave. 38 th Ave.

4 What is the Gold Line EIS Project? Purpose: Implement fixed guideway transit from Denver Union Station to Ward Road in Wheat Ridge, Colorado EIS Process: Test alternatives, including alternative alignments, for performance and environmental impacts Construction Budget: Limits of expenditure in 2014 dollars: $463,500,000 Assumes 50% Federal funding 4

5 Mission of the Workshop No. 3 Communicate, Listen and Recommend: Present the findings of Level 3, Detailed Evaluation Gain feedback to improve the alternatives Recommend the Final Alternatives for the DEIS Move forward into the EIS process 5

6 Gold Line DEIS Overview Gold Line EIS Workshops & Hearings Project Scoping Summer 2006 Fall 2006 Winter 2007 Spring 2007 Summer 2007 Fall 2007 Public Hearing DEIS February 08 Winter 2008 Winter 2009 Alternatives Analysis Preferred Alternative EIS/BE Studies PE/Final EIS Publish DEIS December 07 Dependent on RR Negotiations CONSTRUCTION FTA Issues ROD EIS Complete February 09 6

7 Recap of the Alternatives Analysis 7

8 Where Are We in the Process? Level 1 and Level 2 screening draft results are complete We are concluding Level 3, Detailed Evaluation Level 1-Fatal Flaw Screening (20 Alternatives) Level 2-Conceptual Screening (11 Alternatives) Level 3-Detailed Evaluation (4 Alternatives) Preferred Alternative 8

9 What We Heard Throughout the Planning Process Issue Focused Teams and general public comments identified the greatest interest in: Interest in moving the RR alignment forward Interest in Alternative Alignments Impacts of Alternative Alignments Property acquisition Effects on property values Traffic impacts Technology Noise impact Parking 9

10 Final Four Alternatives in Level 3 10

11 Alternatives Under Consideration-- Technologies Electric Rail BN/UP Light Rail (Alternate alignments) Streetcar (Alternate alignments) 11

12 Electric Rail BNUP (Original FasTracks Alignment) 12

13 Three Alternate Alignment Alternatives Remain 13

14 What are the Differences Between the BN/UP and Alternative Alignments BN/UP Considerations Highest ridership & less cost Less direct service to Northwest (NW) Denver Better access to NW Rail Less impact to NW Denver Uncertainties with RRs Highest public support Alternative Alignment Considerations: Better direct service to NW Denver Avoids RR Right-of- Way (ROW) issues Generally lower ridership & higher cost Supports Denver s Main Street concept Mixed public support 14

15 Alternative Alignments: Differences Between LRT and Streetcar LRT Considerations Was the FasTracks suggested technology on another alignment Vehicles have more capacity Higher Capital Cost Harder to build & operate in the street environment Streetcar Considerations: Less impact Lower Capital Cost Vehicles have less capacity Operates easier in the street environment Longer travel times 15

16 Alternative Alignments Current Assumption is Mixed Flow Operation What is it? With mixed flow operation the transit vehicles share the same lane as automobiles Why are we doing this? Reduces property acquisitions and impacts What is the downside? Slower travel time More difficult operating with automobiles 16

17 Alternative Alignments Assume Mixed Flow Operation What is it? 17

18 Alternative Alignments Assume Mixed Flow Operation What is it? 18

19 Level 3, Detailed Evaluation Results 19

20 What FTA Criteria Drive the Level 3 Results? New Starts Criteria Cost Effectiveness Transit Supportive Land Use Mobility Improvements Operating Efficiencies Equity Environmental Benefits Environmental Impacts English Translation Is it FTA fundable? Has it been planned for? How well does it work? Does it improve operations? Is it fair to all corridor users? Benefits to air quality, energy? Are impacts manageable? 20

21 What Are The Discriminators for the Gold Line? Performance differs among the alternatives Cost and Budget Likelihood of FTA funding Travel Time Ridership Cost Sharing Employment Near Stations Environmental Impacts differ Construction Impacts Property Acquisition Consistency with TOD Planning Traffic impact Parking requirements Impact to Parkland Public Support 21

22 Key Performance Discriminators Criterion EMU BN/UP LRT Sheridan LRT Harlan Streetcar Harlan Capital Cost (2007) $383 M $518 M $525 M $362 M Within FT Budget? Yes No No Yes FTA Fundable? Probable No No Possible Travel Time 25 minutes 34 minutes 37 minutes 41 minutes Ridership 15,900-18,200 13,200-13,600 11,600-11,900 10,500-11,000 Percentage in Mixed Flow 0 27 % 56% 80% Cost Share with NW Rail? Yes No No No Employment within ½ Mile of Stations 59,600 35,800 36,300 35,300 Population within ½ Mile of Stations 18,535 34,180 34,573 34,573 22

23 Key Environmental Discriminators Criterion No Action EMU BN/UP LRT Sheridan LRT Harlan Streetcar Harlan Construction Impacts None Fewest Most Intermediate Second Fewest Property Acquisition None 0-6 R C Res Com Res Com. 0-6 Res Com. Consistent with TOD plans No Yes Fewer Fewer Fewer Traffic Impact None Low Moderate/High Moderate/High Moderate Parking Need None 5,389 4,166 3,859 3,828 Parkland None 2.4 acres 3.3 acres 0.5 acres 0.2 acres Public Support Low Highest Low Low Mixed 23

24 Technical Team Recommendations Alternative Electric Rail BN/UP LRT on Sheridan LRT on Harlan Streetcar on Harlan Reason for Recommendation Carry forward: Within FT Budget Cost effective Most ridership Most community and agency support Fewest Impacts Do not carry forward: Above FT Budget Not cost-effective Lower ridership Low community support Higher impacts Do not carry forward: Same as above Carry forward: Within FT Budget Cost-effective Consistent with local land use planning Mixed Community Support Fewer Impacts 24

25 Next Steps 25

26 Key Next Steps (Winter to Fall 07) Final decision on alternatives to continue evaluating Evaluating the final 2 alternatives Workshop No. 4 to identify the Preferred Alternative Additional Issue Focus Team meetings and community listening sessions to discuss impacts and mitigation measures Finishing the environmental document and required engineering 26

27 Q&A 27

28 Key Comments Needed from Agencies & Public What do you think about our recommendations? What issues/opportunities do you think are the most important to address in the next phase of analysis? 28