5. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Transcription

1 5. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents a comparative evaluation of alternatives (No Action Alternative and Build Alternative) and elements of the Build Alternative (i.e., vehicle technologies, alignments, and stations) carried forward in the DEIS. The intent of this evaluation is to identify the specific elements of the Preferred Alternative and to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of the Build Alternative compared with the No Action Alternative in meeting the project s stated Purpose and Need, and in satisfying other evaluation measures. Most of the information in this chapter is derived from materials presented in previous chapters and provides the basis for decision-makers and the public to assess the relative benefits, costs, and environmental consequences of the Build Alternative against the stated goals and objectives of the project. This evaluation includes four areas of analysis: Evaluation of Build Alternative versus the Purpose and Need. Evaluation of vehicle technology. Evaluation of alignment designs. Evaluation of station target areas. It is also important to note that in the summer of 2009, the RTD purchased the UP Boulder Industrial Lead (UP Boulder Branch) ROW. Although the UP Railroad no longer owns this rail alignment, for the purposes of this document, it will continue to be referred to as the UP Boulder Branch. 5.2 EVALUATION OF BUILD ALTERNATIVE VERSUS THE PURPOSE AND NEED The Purpose and Need of the project was used to guide the development of alternatives and to define the evaluation criteria for comparing and selecting alternatives during the alternatives evaluation phase of this project. The alternatives that have best met the Purpose and Need, as well as the supporting goals and objectives of the project, were selected as the Build Alternatives to be further evaluated relative to the 2030 travel demand in the North Metro corridor study area. In the alternatives screening process, various alternatives related to alignment, vehicle technology, and stations were evaluated and carried forward for further consideration. A TSM Alternative was also evaluated to determine how well a robust bus transit network could address the Purpose and Need for the North Metro corridor. However, the TSM Alternative was screened out after determining that the mobility benefits in the form of travel time savings, system capacity, and overall ridership were much less effective under the TSM Alternative in comparison to the Build Alternative. The Build Alternative has been supported by the RTD Board of Directors, the public, and other stakeholders. 5-1 November 2009

2 The No Action Alternative is required by NEPA for analysis purposes and provides a baseline for comparing alternatives. Therefore, the No Action Alternative was carried forward in the detailed evaluation. As summarized in Table 5-1, the No Action Alternative does not meet the project Purpose and Need, whereas the Build Alternative with either DMU or EMU equally meets Purpose and Need. TABLE 5-1. EVALUATION OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AND BUILD ALTERNATIVE VERSUS PURPOSE AND NEED Criterion No Action Alternative Build Alternative (DMU and EMU) Purpose Implement High-Capacity, Would not provide fixedguideway Would provide fixed-guideway transit Fixed-Guideway Transit Within the between DUS Access and the transit. service in the North Metro corridor study area between DUS access and the SH 7/162 nd Avenue area. 162 nd Avenue Area Need Mobility Improvements through Improved Travel Times and Mobility Options Year 2030 automobile and bus travel time would not be reliable due to congestion and accidents; the average travel time is 62 minutes from SH 7 via I-25 to DUS during a.m. peak. Would not provide additional multi-modal travel options in the North Metro corridor study area. Regional Connectivity Would not change regional connectivity. Serve Traditional and New Transit Users Support Community and Regional Plans, Including the Voter-Approved FasTracks Plan Would provide minor improvements to bus transit service but would not address the need for high-capacity rapid transit service for existing and potential new users. Would not support the Denver region s long-range transportation plan or community plans that identify this transit infrastructure and an opportunity for transit oriented development in their local land use plans. Would provide reliable travel time of 31 minutes (DMU) and 27 minutes (EMU) in a.m. peak from SH 7 to DUS in Would provide additional multi-modal options for travelers in the North Metro corridor study area. Would provide access to other parts of the region through rail connections at DUS and bus connections at many of the stations. Would provide access to transit service to 2,577 traditional transit riders within 0.5 mile of stations. Would attract 7,500 to 8,000 new riders system-wide. Would provide the transit infrastructure that communities have identified as an important element in their local land use and transportation plans. November

3 TABLE 5-1. EVALUATION OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AND BUILD ALTERNATIVE VERSUS PURPOSE AND NEED Criterion No Action Alternative Build Alternative (DMU and EMU) Qualify for Federal Funding Programs Not applicable, because there would be no major investment in new transit service or infrastructure. Source: DRCOG, 2005; Project Team, 2008; RTD, Notes: a.m. = morning CRMF = Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility DMU = diesel multiple unit DUS = Denver Union Station EMU = electric multiple unit FRA = Federal Railroad Administration FTA = Federal Transit Administration I-25 = Interstate 25 RRIF = Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing SH 7 = State Highway 7 TIFIA = Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 USDOT = U.S. Department of Transportation Would meet the requirements of the FTA TIFIA Transportation Finance Program by providing public benefit through use of new transit technology for alternative transportation. Would potentially qualify for the RRIF Program, which, under the Administrator of the FRA of the USDOT, could receive direct loans and loan guarantees up to $35.0 billion for projects benefiting freight railroads other than Class I railroads (in other words, Short Line railroads). Would potentially qualify for FTA s New Starts Funding Program. Would enhance the environment through reduction of private vehicular travel. 5.3 EVALUATION OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE AND BUILD ALTERNATIVE Evaluation of Vehicle Technology Although both technologies (DMU and EMU) equally meet Purpose and Need, their cost, benefits, and impacts vary (see Figure 5-1). The following sections compare and evaluate the DMU and EMU technologies in the North Metro corridor. 5-3 November 2009

4 DMU FIGURE 5-1. DMU AND EMU VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES EMU Source: Project Team, Evaluation Criteria and Process Table 5-2 summarizes the evaluation of vehicle technologies for the Build Alternative. The criteria were developed in consultation with the FasTracks Program Managers, the FasTracks systems consultant, the local jurisdictions, and selected resource agencies, and with input from the community. Evaluation criteria categories included: 1. Purpose and Need 2. Cost and affordability 3. Mobility 4. Environmental impacts 5. Community impacts 6. Project compatibility 7. Community support 8. Agency support TABLE 5-2. SUMMARY OF VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION Criteria No Action Alternative Build Alternative (DMU) Build Alternative (EMU) 1. Fulfills Purpose and Need No Yes Yes 2. Affordability 2a.1. Capital costs for vehicles NA $98 Million $71 Million 2a.2. Capital costs for noise walls NA $25 Million $10 Million 2a.3. Capital costs for electrification NA NA $51 Million 2a.4. Total project capital costs (2008 dollars) 2b. Average annual O&M costs (2008 dollars) NA $123 Million $132 Million NA $13.7 Million $10.3 Million November

5 TABLE 5-2. SUMMARY OF VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION Criteria 2c. Number of years for EMU s lower operating costs to offset EMU's extra initial capital costs 2d. Affordability within FasTracks budget 3. Mobility Improvements 3a travel times (minutes) SH 7/162 nd Avenue to DUS 3b. Total riders (daily average weekday) 3b.1. Daily regional system-wide transit linked trips 3b.2. Change in daily system-wide transit linked trips over No Action Alternative No Action Alternative Build Alternative (DMU) Build Alternative (EMU) NA <5 years <5 years Yes Yes Yes 62 minutes via automobile on I minutes via bus on I minutes via DMU 27 minutes via EMU NA 13,200 14, , , ,109 NA 7,533 8,024 3c daily VMT in the region 108,942, ,842,260 3d. Change in daily VMT over the No Action Alternative in the region 3d.1. Daily VHD in the North Metro corridor 3d.2. Change in daily VHD in the North Metro corridor over the No Action Alternative NA -100,310 95,230 92,930 92,700 NA -2,300-2,530 3e. Passenger comfort and convenience NA Good Good 3f. System reliability Not affected by electrical outage; less reliable than rail transit in inclement weather Signals require electricity and could be affected in electrical outage; more reliable than bus transit in inclement weather Vehicles and signals require electricity and could be affected in electrical outage; more reliable than bus transit in inclement weather 3g. Proven technology Yes Yes Yes 3h. Number of North American transit systems using technology for revenue service Air Quality 4. Environmental Impacts/Benefits Bus is most common transit technology Pollutant Emissions 3 7 Pollutant Emissions (Change over No Action Alternative) Pollutant Emissions (Change over No Action Alternative) 4a. Air quality net benefits annual regional tons of emissions (2030) (total = passenger vehicles and diesel bus) 4a.1. Carbon monoxide (CO) 295, ,701.7 (-251.0) 295,687.9 (-264.8) 4a.2. Nitrogen oxide (NO x ) 10, ,337.0 (-615.7) 10,336.5 (-616.2) 4a.3. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 14, ,082.7 (-12.0) 14,082.1 (-12.6) 5-5 November 2009

6 TABLE 5-2. SUMMARY OF VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION Air Quality 4a.4. Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ) 4b. Regional air quality impacts versus the No Action Alternative 4b.1. Greenhouse emissions annual regional carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) produced 4b.2. Tons of CO 2 produced per year Criteria 5. Community Impacts/Benefits 5a. Residual noise impacts with quiet zones, noise barriers and sound absorption (total impacts) Pollutant Emissions 25,233.5 Pollutant Emissions (Change over No Action Alternative) 25,212.1 (-21.4) Pollutant Emissions (Change over No Action Alternative) 25,210.9 (-22.6) NA Improvement Improvement Greenhouse emissions 16,665,652,489,201 No Action Alternative Greenhouse emissions (very slight increase over the No Action Alternative) 16,665,968,901,769 (316,412,568) Build Alternative (DMU) Greenhouse emissions (reduction over the No Action Alternative) 16,659,795,667,470 (-5,856,821,731) Build Alternative (EMU) NA 266 to to 144 5a.1. Severe noise impacts NA 15 to a.2. Upper moderate noise impacts NA 42 8 to 9 5a.3. Lower moderate noise impacts NA 209 to b. Vibration NA No impacts No impacts 5c. Visual and aesthetic resources 5d. Historic 6. Compatibility with Other Projects/Railroads 6a. Freight railroad compatibility/acceptability 6b. Other FasTracks corridors and CRMF 6c. Vehicle/fleet sharing opportunities with other corridors 6d. Overall systems efficiency No visual impacts None No visual impacts from catenary system; more or longer noise walls and greater height Historic properties with adverse effects due to visual impacts from noise walls: 25 residences on Yucca Way: 35 residences on Claude Court Overhead catenary, and up to three electrical paralleling stations; fewer or shorter noise walls and lower height Historic properties with indirect impacts (no adverse effects) due to visual impacts from noise walls or overhead catenary: 38 residences on Albion Street (the A-3 alignment) and 8 residences on Albion Street (the B-4 alignment); 25 residences on Yucca Way; 35 residences on Claude Court Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible NA No Change Northwest Rail corridor Improvement over existing conditions East corridor and Gold Line corridor Improvement over existing conditions November

7 TABLE 5-2. SUMMARY OF VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION Criteria 7. Degree of Community Support (Comments Received to Date) 7a. Reasons for support No Action Alternative Build Alternative (DMU) Build Alternative (EMU) Low support Low support High support Does not increase frequency of train traffic in neighborhood 7b. Reasons for opposition Does not relieve traffic congestion or provide additional mode choices 8. Degree of Agency Support 8a. Local jurisdictions No support 8b. Regulatory agencies Source: Project Team, Notes: < = less than CRMF = Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility DMU = diesel multiple unit DUS = Denver Union Station EMU = electric multiple unit I-25 = Interstate 25 NA Improves mobility; lower initial cost and fewer adverse visual impacts compared to EMU Vehicle emissions in corridor, and slightly louder technology Denver stated preference for EMU; other jurisdictions have not stated a preference Stated no preference to date NA = not applicable O&M = operations and maintenance SH = State Highway VHD = vehicle hours of delay VMT = vehicle miles of travel YOE = year of expenditure Evaluation Results This section reviews the key results summarized in Table 5-2, and sets the stage for conclusions and recommendations. Purpose and Need Both DMU and EMU would fulfill the project Purpose and Need equally. Improves mobility; no emissions in corridor, and quieter technology Additional adverse visual impacts associated with the catenary Denver stated preference for EMU; other jurisdictions have not stated a preference Stated no preference to date Cost and Affordability For opening year 2015, the EMU would be $9 million more expensive than DMU. The extra cost for EMU would be to electrify the corridor, at $51 million. Each technology would require construction of noise walls, but DMU noise wall costs would be $15 million more than EMU. The vehicle fleet requirements would also be different. Due to EMU travel time savings, this would result in EMU requiring fewer vehicles (18 total 15 in service plus 3 spares), whereas DMU would require 22 (18 in service and 4 spares) vehicles. The overall operating costs would be different. EMU s average annual operating cost would be $3.4 million less than DMU. The net effect would be that it would take less than 5 years to pay back the additional EMU up-front cost, which is a timeframe that is considered reasonable by RTD. Both DMU and EMU are considered affordable within the FasTracks Program. Mobility Mobility covers topics such as travel time, ridership, and related topics. EMU would be slightly faster than DMU due to better acceleration characteristics. EMU shows a 27-minute travel time from DUS to SH 7/162 nd Avenue, while DMU shows 4 minutes slower, at 31 minutes. This 5-7 November 2009

8 travel time difference would result in a slightly higher ridership for EMU over DMU, and would also allow RTD to provide one fewer train set with the EMU technology, saving several million dollars in capital costs. The other mobility related factors shown in Table 5-2 do not provide any additional discrimination factors between the vehicles. However, both technologies would provide improved mobility as indicated by the increase in transit ridership and reduction in regional VMT and VHD over the No Action Alternative. Both DMU and EMU technology are being used in other US transit systems, but there is more national experience with EMU. Environmental The environmental category is represented by air quality, since the impacts associated with other natural and biological resources are the same for both technologies. Air quality is a topic of interest to a variety of stakeholders. DMU would have vehicle emissions within the corridor, while EMU would not. DMU would be fully compliant with future air quality regulations. Compared to the No Action Alternative, both vehicle technologies would be likely to provide an improvement to regional air quality primarily due to reductions in automobile VMT. Community The community evaluation category covers noise, vibration, visual aesthetics, and the CRMF. Noise is the most important of the community impact criteria in this category. While the two vehicle technologies have similar noise characteristics at high cruising speeds, DMU would be louder during high levels of acceleration (called throttle ). DMU would be louder than EMU accelerating away from the stations. DMU would also generally be louder than EMU between stations if the operating plan involves high throttle settings. Noise impacts were evaluated assuming quiet zones, noise barriers, and sound absorption measures are in place. The DMU and EMU impacts are divided into severe, upper moderate, and lower moderate. EMU would have fewer noise impacts overall in the corridor and station areas (143 to 144), compared to DMU (266 to 286), as well as fewer severe impacts (4 versus 15 to 16), depending on the Southern Section alignment chosen. The No Action Alternative has no new sources of transit noise impacts. Vibration characteristics of the DMU and EMU technologies are similar. Neither vehicle would be expected to have vibration impacts in the North Metro corridor. Visual intrusion would be primarily associated with the EMU technology since it has overhead electric power lines (catenary) and requires wayside electrification facilities to tie to the electric utility and to distribute power along the corridor. With electrification, EMU is generally considered more visually intrusive than DMU, but each technology would also require noise walls. The DMU noise walls would be higher and require more length in the corridor than EMU. Since EMU technology would have fewer and shorter noise walls, EMU would have less visual impact from noise walls which would also make EMU more attractive. Compatibility with Other Projects The proposed CRMF site at Fox Street North would service either of the proposed North Metro vehicle technologies. The CRMF is being studied in a separate environmental evaluation, and it is not a discriminator in the vehicle evaluation for the North Metro corridor. As shown in Table 5-2, either vehicle technology works with the other proposed projects and freight railroads, and the transit system efficiency would improve compared to the No Action Alternative. Opportunities exist for vehicle fleet sharing for each corridor, with each technology. DMU can be shared with the Northwest Rail corridor; EMU can be shared with the Gold Line and East corridors. November

9 Community Support Community support, from those people who stated a technology preference, was greater for EMU, primarily due to lack of corridor emissions and fewer adverse noise impacts. DMU supporters identified initial lower capital cost and less visual impact as reasons for preferring it. Those who supported the No Action Alternative were concerned about increased train activity in their neighborhood. Agency Support The local jurisdictions were supportive of the evaluation process and results and support commuter rail, but most did not identify a specific vehicle technology. The CCD indicated a preference for EMU technology. The regulatory agencies did not indicate a vehicle preference Summary of Results for Preferred Technology EMU technology is RTD's Preferred Alternative after completing the evaluation, consulting with jurisdictions and resource agencies, and conducting extensive public outreach. EMU meets the Purpose and Need of the Project, and although it costs more up-front, its payback time compared to DMU technology is reasonable; therefore, EMU is more cost effective for this corridor. EMU technology also interfaces well with the other RTD commuter rail corridors, has fewer adverse community impacts, and more support among the community and participating agencies. As noted previously, the No Action Alternative does not meet the project s Purpose and Need Evaluation of Alignment Designs As shown in Figure 5-2, the Build Alternative alignment is outside but parallel to the BNSF Brush Subdivision ROW in Denver and inside the UP Boulder Branch ROW in Adams County. Four alignments options leave DUS on the same path, but beginning at the Denver and Adams county line, they diverge to bypass the Sand Creek Junction area Evaluation of Alignment Design Results The following sections focus on the various benefits and adverse impacts of the Southern Section alignments. Figure 5-3 only shows the portion of the alignment between the north end of Riverside Cemetery and 72 nd Avenue, where the alignment options vary. The analysis and impacts for the alignments presented in Table 5-3 are for the entire Southern Section (DUS access to 84 th Avenue). 5-9 November 2009

10 FIGURE 5-2. BUILD ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT November

11 FIGURE 5-3. SOUTHERN SECTION ALIGNMENTS DETAIL Source: Project Team, November 2009

12 TABLE 5-3. ALIGNMENTS A-3, B-2, B-3, AND B-4 COMPARISON Mobility Factor Mobility Would serve the 68 th Avenue Station and 72 nd Avenue South Station sites. Alignments A-3 B-2 B-3 B-4 Would serve the 72 nd Avenue South Station. Same as B-2. Same as A-3. At-grade Street Crossings Would require no new crossings. Would cross eight existing crossings (including three private crossings). Technical Feasibility Engineering Would have good direct alignment along existing railroad and Brighton Boulevard, although A-3 would be more than 1,000 feet longer than the B alignments. Would require a tight curve to join the UP Boulder Branch. Compatibility with Freight Operations Would require third track siding for UP Railroad freight car storage/ staging south of 68 th Avenue. Would impact Purina freight service. Would require two new crossings (including one private crossing). Would cross three existing crossings (including two private crossings). Would provide the most direct alignment along the canal. May have impacts to Cat-Miller Reservoir (Denver Water) which would require further investigation. Would require a tight curve right before the 72 nd Avenue South Station site to join the UP Boulder Branch. Would require new turnout at 72 nd Avenue for freight traffic throughmovement. Would not impact Purina freight service. Would require five new crossings (including four private crossings). Would cross four existing crossings (including three private crossings). Would require more curves than B-2 along the canal. Would require a tight curve right before the 72 nd Avenue South Station site to join the UP Boulder Branch. Would require five new crossings (including two private crossings). Would cross five existing crossings (including three private crossings). The less desirable curvature would make this alignment approximately 0.20 mile longer than B-2 and B-3. Same as B-2. Would not require new turnout for freight traffic through-movement. Would not impact Purina freight service. Cost Estimated construction cost would be lower than the B-2, B-3, and B-4 alignments. Estimated ROW cost is unknown. Estimated construction cost would be highest, but similar to B-3. Estimated ROW cost is unknown. Estimated construction cost would be second highest. Estimated ROW cost is unknown. Estimated construction cost would be third highest. Estimated ROW cost is unknown. November

13 TABLE 5-3. ALIGNMENTS A-3, B-2, B-3, AND B-4 COMPARISON Factor Community Impacts Social Impacts, Communities, Facilities, and Neighborhoods Alignments A-3 B-2 B-3 B-4 Would have no barrier impacts because the alignment would be paralleling the railroad and Brighton Boulevard (existing barriers). Environmental Justice Would have fewer impacts to businesses and residences than B-3 or B-4. The A-3 alignment would avoid full residential acquisitions. Pre-mitigation EMU noise impacts to minority populations may occur from A-3 (67 severe and 36 moderate). There would be no post-mitigation impacts. Land Use, Zoning, and Economic Development Compatible with regional and TOD plans. Would convert industrial, commercial, and public uses to commuter rail line. Compatible with existing land uses. No measurable changes in land use expected. Would impact 50 parcels. Would require 12 business relocations Would directly and indirectly create 5,000 construction-related jobs over 3 years. The introduction of a new section of railroad in the cross-country segment could create a barrier effect by dividing communities (minor due to industrial nature of area). Would have fewer impacts to businesses and residences than B-3 or B-4. The B-2 alignment would avoid full residential acquisitions. Pre-mitigation EMU noise impacts to minority populations would not occur from this alignment. There would be no post-mitigation impacts. Same as A-3, except would impact 51 parcels and require 13 business relocations. The introduction of a new section of railroad in the crosscountry segment could create a barrier effect by dividing communities (minor due to industrial nature of area). Impacts are likely to be greater for B-3 and B-4 than the other alignments due to more impacts to businesses and residences. Pre-mitigation EMU noise impacts may occur to two residences (1 moderate and 1 severe) in a minority area from this alignment. There would be no post-mitigation impacts. Same as A-3, except would impact 57 parcels and require 16 business relocations. The introduction of a new section of railroad in the cross-country segment could create a barrier effect by dividing communities (minor due to industrial nature of area). Impacts are likely to be greater for B-3 and B-4 than the other alignments due to more impacts to businesses and residences. Pre-mitigation EMU noise impacts to minority populations may occur from B-4 (39 severe and 43 moderate). There would be one upper moderate post-mitigation impact. Same as A-3, except would impact 59 parcels and require 14 business relocations November 2009

14 TABLE 5-3. ALIGNMENTS A-3, B-2, B-3, AND B-4 COMPARISON Factor Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation of Existing Uses Alignments A-3 B-2 B-3 B-4 Would impact: Three residential (all partial), Forty-five commercial/industrial (19 full and 26 partial; 12 relocations), and Two other properties (all partial). Plus UP Railroad and CDOT property. Total: 50 Archaeological, Historic, and Paleontological Resources Archaeological Resources Would impact some of the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline trestles/features. Would relocate an historic marker. Would relocate Brighton Boulevard. Would replace rails, ties, and other features of Sand Creek Junction. (The Section 106 Finding of Effect is No Adverse Effect for these resources.) Historic Resources There would be an indirect visual impact to 38 historic homes on Albion Street with EMU or DMU (the Section 106 Finding of Effect is No Adverse Effect). Paleontological Resources Would impact: Two residential (both partial), Forty-four commercial/industrial (20 full and 24 partial; 13 relocations), and Five other properties (two full and three partial). Plus UP Railroad and CDOT property. Total: 51 Would impact some of the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline trestles/features. Would relocate an historic marker. Would relocate Brighton Boulevard. (The Section 106 Finding of Effect is No Adverse Effect for these resources.) Would impact: Four residential (two full and two partial; 2 relocations), Forty-nine commercial/industrial (24 full and 25 partial; 16 relocations), and Four other properties (two full and two partial). Plus UP Railroad and CDOT property. Total: 57 Same as B-2, except Burlington Ditch would have two new culverts. (The Section 106 Finding of Effect is No Adverse Effect for these resources.) Would impact: Nine residential (four full and five partial; 3 relocations), Forty-six commercial/industrial (21 full and 25 partial; 14 relocations), and Four other properties (two full and two partial). Plus UP Railroad and CDOT property. Total: 59 Same as B-2. (The Section 106 Finding of Effect is No Adverse Effect for these resources.) No impact. No impact. Would impact one historic residential parcel (the Section 106 Finding of Effect is No Adverse Effect). There would be an indirect visual impact to 8 historic homes on Albion Street with EMU (the Section 106 Finding of Effect is No Adverse Effect). No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. November

15 TABLE 5-3. ALIGNMENTS A-3, B-2, B-3, AND B-4 COMPARISON Factor Parklands and Recreation Areas Alignments A-3 B-2 B-3 B-4 Globeville Landing Park would impact 0.88 acre, affect three Frisbee golf holes, and eliminate 15 trees and a social trail. South Platte River Trail would reduce visibility for users due to the new bridge at the second river crossing. Fernald Trail the existing at-grade crossing would be eliminated and replaced with a grade-separated crossing. O Brian Canal Trail future trail would not be precluded. Sand Creek Greenway Trail the new structure that would cross over the trail immediately south of the trail access may reduce visibility for northbound trail users entering at Brighton Boulevard access. Noise (EMU) Pre-mitigation: 67 severe and 36 moderate impacts. Post-mitigation: 0 severe and 0 upper moderate impacts. Globeville Landing Park would impact 0.88 acre, affect three Frisbee golf holes, and eliminate 15 trees and a social trail. South Platte River Trail would reduce visibility for users due to new bridge at the second river crossing. Fernald Trail the existing atgrade crossing would be eliminated and replaced with a grade-separated crossing. O Brian Canal Trail future trail would not be precluded but grade separation would be needed. Pre-mitigation: 0 severe and 0 moderate impacts. Post-mitigation: 0 severe and 0 upper moderate impacts. Similar to B-2. Similar to B-2. Pre-mitigation: one severe and one moderate impact. Post-mitigation: 0 severe and 0 upper moderate impacts. Pre-mitigation: 39 severe and 43 moderate impacts. Post-mitigation: 0 severe and 1 upper moderate impact November 2009

16 TABLE 5-3. ALIGNMENTS A-3, B-2, B-3, AND B-4 COMPARISON Factor Safety and Security From perspective of North Metro s effect on corridor environment, crime is statistically insignificant. From perspective of the corridor environment on North Metro: The A-3 alignment s proximity to the Suncor refinery exhaust operations would be of concern. The elevated segment adjacent to the Suncor refinery in Commerce City would shade the parallel segment of Brighton Boulevard, which could result in additional icing in the winter months. Environmental Impacts Biological Resources Would impact less riparian and aquatic habitats than the B alignments. No prairie dog habitat would be impacted. No T&E species would be impacted. Wetlands and Other Waters Would impact 0.1 acre of wetlands. 1 Would impact 1.2 acres of other waters. 1 Alignments A-3 B-2 B-3 B-4 Similar to A-3 except that there would be no shading of Brighton Boulevard and the B-2 alignment s proximity to the Suncor refinery exhaust operations would be of less concern than A-3. Same as A-3, except would impact more riparian habitat than A-3; slightly more riparian and aquatic habitats than B-4; similar to B-3. Would impact 0.3 acre of wetlands. 1 Would impact 2.5 acres of other waters. 1 Same as B-2. Same as B-2. Same as B-2. Same as B-2, except it would impact slightly less riparian and aquatic habitat. Would impact 0.5 acre of wetlands. 1 Would impact 2.7 acres of other waters. 1 Would impact 0.3 acre of wetlands. 1 Would impact 2.4 acres of other waters. 1 November

17 TABLE 5-3. ALIGNMENTS A-3, B-2, B-3, AND B-4 COMPARISON Factor Floodplains, Drainage, and Hydrology Hazardous Materials (Project Study Area = Within 500 Feet of Centerline of Alignment) Alignments A-3 B-2 B-3 B-4 Alignment A-3 has the lowest or no possibility of requiring permanent dewatering wells. The new bridge near Fox Street and 38 th Street over the South Platte River would cause a small increase in BFE. The new bridge at Sand Creek would cause a small increase in BFE. Modifications to the existing Brighton Boulevard section would require MS4 detention per CDOT. One-hundred nine high-ranked 2 sites within 500 feet of the alignment, which is the greatest of any alignment. Forty-two high-ranked 2 sites within 100 feet of the alignment, which is the greatest of any alignment. The A-3 alignment traverses between the Suncor refinery properties where contaminated soil and groundwater are present. Same as A-3, except has a low possibility of requiring permanent dewatering wells. Eighty-four high-ranked 2 sites within 500 feet of the alignment, which is the least of any alignment. Thirty-four high-ranked 2 sites within 100 feet of the alignment, which is the least of any alignment. This alignment is west of the Suncor properties. Same as B-2. Same as B-2. Eighty-nine high-ranked 2 sites within 500 feet of the alignment. Thirty-six high-ranked 2 sites within 100 feet of the alignment. This alignment is west of the Suncor properties. Ninety-four high-ranked 2 sites within 500 feet of the alignment. Thirty-eight high-ranked 2 sites within 100 feet of the alignment. This alignment is west of the Suncor properties November 2009

18 TABLE 5-3. ALIGNMENTS A-3, B-2, B-3, AND B-4 COMPARISON Factor Section 4(f) Would impact six resources (Historic Marker, Brighton Boulevard, UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 3, Sand Creek Junction, Globeville Landing Park, and Fernald Trail and Trailhead) expected de minimis impact, (the impact is minimal), except for Globeville Landing Park. Other Other Several build alternatives proposed in the CDOT I-70 East DEIS (2008) could conflict with North Metro s planned realignment of Brighton Boulevard. Alignments A-3 B-2 B-3 B-4 Would impact five resources (Historic Marker, Brighton Boulevard, UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 3, Globeville Landing Park, and Fernald Trail and Trailhead) expected de minimis impact, (the impact is minimal), except for Globeville Landing Park. Similar to B-2 except one additional resource (for a total of six) would be impacted (Burlington Ditch). This additional resource is an expected de minimis impact (minimal impact). Same as A-3. Same as A-3. Same as A-3. Similar to B-2, except one additional resource (for a total of six) would be impacted (private residence). This additional resource is an expected de minimis impact (minimal impact). Source: Project Team, Wetlands and other waters impact acreages are estimates of the maximum potential direct impact that would occur only if a particular Alternative option is selected and ultimately constructed. 2 High-ranked sites include CERCLIS, CORRACTS, LUSTs, NPLs, spill sites, SQGs, USTs, and VCP within 500 feet of the alignments or 1,000 feet of the station options. 3 This archaeological resource, which is recorded as the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline, is currently referred to as the UP Boulder Branch. Notes: BFE = base flood elevation CERCLIS = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CDOT = Colorado Department of Transportation CORRACTS = Corrective Action Site DEIS = Draft Environmental Impact Statement DMU = diesel multiple unit DUS = Denver Union Station EMU = electric multiple unit I-# = Interstate-# LUST = leaking underground storage tank M = million MS4 = Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NPL = National Priorities List ROW = right-of-way RTD = Regional Transportation District SQG = small quantity generator Suncor = Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. T&E = threatened and endangered TOD = transit oriented development UP = Union Pacific UST = underground storage tank VCP = Voluntary Cleanup Program November

19 Input Agency: Commerce City supports either A-3, or the canal B-2 and B-3 alignments. CDOT has noted the conflict between two build alternatives in the CDOT I-70 East DEIS (2008) with North Metro s proposed Brighton Boulevard realignment. The realignment would be required for all the Southern Section alignments. Community: The community supports B-2 and B-3 (because these alignments are further away from neighborhoods). Community business support for various alignments is unknown at this time and will be further investigated in the FEIS. Key Stakeholders: Key Stakeholders interests and concerns for various alignments will be further investigated in the FEIS process. Denver Water is concerned about B-2 s potential conflict with the Cat-Miller (Denver Water) Reservoir. In addition, Metro Wastewater and Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company have concerns with the potential impacts to their operations from the B alignments. Suncor has concerns about all the alignments due to proximity to their operations, especially A-3. RTD: RTD is making no recommendation on the preferred alignment at this time. There are many trade-offs among the alternatives; therefore, the Southern Section alignment alternatives (A-3, B-2, B-3, and B-4), will be carried forward into the FEIS process for additional analysis and input from the public and stakeholders Evaluation of Station Site Options The North Metro corridor would provide eight station locations in its service area, as illustrated in Figure 5-4. Multiple station options have been developed for several station target areas. As with the alignment evaluation, the stations were evaluated according to their placement in the Southern Section or Northern Section November 2009

20 FIGURE 5-4. STATION TARGET AREAS November

21 Southern Section Coliseum/Stock Show Station Options North Metro s Southern Section features stations in Denver and Commerce City. In Denver, two options were analyzed for the Coliseum/Stock Show Station area. Options include the Coliseum/Stock Show South (south of I-70 and at the west end of the Coliseum/Stock Show area), and the Coliseum/Stock Show North (north of I-70 and at the north end of the National Western Stock Show area). Each Denver station is illustrated and summarized in Figure 5-5. Key direct impacts for these stations are summarized in Table 5-4 and illustrated in Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7. FIGURE 5-5. COLISEUM/STOCK SHOW STATION OPTIONS (DENVER) Coliseum/Stock Show Station South North Acreage of Station Footprint: 4.83 Acreage of Station Footprint: 2.58 Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = 120 Source: Project Team, Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = November 2009

22 TABLE 5-4. COLISEUM/STOCK SHOW STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Station Characteristics Coliseum/Stock Show South Station Options Station Type Commuter. Commuter. Parking 2015/ / /120. Mobility Mobility Would be a good destination station for activity centers. Most direct access to Denver Coliseum (approximately 110 performances per year). Automobile access: Only access to the station is from Arkins Court, which is currently a private road. Offers potential for shared event parking supply for transit users. Transit access: RTD Route 48 would provide service to stops within walking distance of the station. Longer route diversion than the Coliseum/Stock Show North Station option. Pedestrian/bike trail access: The South Platte River Trail, Bike Route D-9 (along 38 th Street) and Bike Route D-2 (along 46 th Avenue) would provide access from the neighborhoods to this station. Existing sidewalk network does not exist along portions of Arkins Court, but does exist along 44 th Avenue. Traffic impacts/mitigation: No station-related mitigation measures required. Technical Feasibility Engineering Feasible. Feasible. Community Impacts Social Impacts, Communities, Facilities, and Neighborhoods Land Use, Zoning, and Economic Development Would increase regional mobility for Globeville, Five Points, and Cole residents. Would increase regional mobility for Swansea/Elyria residents, but less direct access than the Coliseum/Stock Show North Station option. More minority and low-income households are within 0.5 mile of this station, but access is less direct. A portion of the Denver Coliseum parking area would be converted to station-related uses. Compatible with existing local plans, land uses, and zoning. Coliseum/Stock Show North Would be a good destination station for activity centers. Most direct access to the National Western Stock Show (approximately 100 events per year). Automobile access: Vehicles would access this station using 48 th Street and Brighton Boulevard. Transit access: RTD Route 48 would provide service to stops within walking distance of the station. Shorter route diversion than the Coliseum/Stock Show South Station option. Pedestrian/bike trail access: No existing or planned pedestrian/bike trail facilities would serve this station. Existing sidewalk network exists along Baldwin Court, 48 th Avenue, and Brighton Boulevard. Traffic impacts/mitigation: No stationrelated mitigation measures required. Would increase regional mobility for Globeville and Swansea/Elyria residents. Would increase regional mobility for Five Points and Cole residents, but less direct access than the Coliseum/Stock Show South Station option. Access for minority and low-income populations is better for this station option. Benefits to minority populations are similar. A portion of the National Western Stock Show parking area would be converted to station-related uses. Compatible with existing local plans, land uses, and zoning. November

23 TABLE 5-4. COLISEUM/STOCK SHOW STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation of Existing Uses Coliseum/Stock Show South Would impact 1 commercial/ industrial and 1 other property. 0 relocations. Archaeological, Historic, and Paleontological Resources Station Options Archaeological Resources No impact. No impact. Historic Resources Would have a direct impact to a small portion of the Denver Coliseum parking lot (No Adverse Effect). Coliseum/Stock Show North Would impact 1 commercial/ industrial property. 0 relocations. No impact. Paleontological Resources No impact. No impact. Parklands and Recreation Areas Would impact a small amount of land on the northeast side of Globeville Landing Park. Would improve access to Globeville Landing Park. No impact. Noise (EMU Post-mitigation) None. None. Environmental Impacts Biological Resources Would affect an existing parking lot and some adjacent grassland and disturbed areas. No biologically sensitive habitats or species are present. Wetlands and Other Waters No impact. No impact. Floodplains, Drainage, and Hydrology Hazardous Materials (Project Study Area = Within 1,000 Feet of Station Boundaries) Section 4(f) No impact. 1 UST, 1 NPL, 2 landfills, and 2 SQGs. Would impact 2 resources: historic Denver Coliseum and Globeville Landing Park expected de minimis impact (the impact would be minimal) for the Denver Coliseum. Would affect industrial and commercial habitat. No biologically sensitive habitats or species are present. No impact. 1 CERCLIS, 7 LUSTs, 1 NPL, 11 USTs, 1 SQG, 1 landfill, and 3 other. No impact Other Other Not applicable. Could have conflict with some alternatives in the CDOT I-70 East DEIS (2008) November 2009

24 TABLE 5-4. COLISEUM/STOCK SHOW STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Coliseum/Stock Show South Station Options Coliseum/Stock Show North Comparison Summary The major differences between the station options are related to community and environmental impacts and access via automobile and bus modes. The Coliseum/Stock Show North Station have fewer parcel impacts, including no impacts to historic resources or parks, as compared to the Coliseum/Stock Show South Station. The Coliseum/Stock Show South Station option would have less potential for hazardous material sites and would not be in conflict with the CDOT I-70 East DEIS (2008), whereas the Coliseum/Stock Show North Station option could be in conflict with one alternative. Access for automobile and bus modes is more direct via public streets for the Coliseum/Stock Show North Station option. The Coliseum/Stock Show South Station option requires access via Arkins Court, which is a private road. The Coliseum/Stock Show South Station option offers a direct connection to the South Platte Trail. Source: Project Team, Notes: CCD = City and County of Denver CDOT = Colorado Department of Transportation CERCLIS = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System DEIS = Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-70 = Interstate 70 LUST = leaking underground storage tank NPL = National Priorities List RTD = Regional Transportation District SQG = small quantity generator UST = underground storage tank Input Agency: The CCD has not taken an official position on these station options but intends to make a recommendation in January 2010 after obtaining results from a special study. The CCD also requests that RTD discuss plans with the Theaters and Arenas Division to examine potential methods to increase access to the Coliseum/Stock Show Station options. CDOT has noted the conflict with the Coliseum/Stock Show North Station option and the Brighton Boulevard realignment with several build alternatives in the CDOT I-70 East DEIS (2008). CDOT has not yet identified a Preferred Alternative. Community: Some members of the community generally favor the Coliseum/Stock Show North Station option due to its access and proximity to the Elyria and Swansea neighborhoods. Key Stakeholders: The business community represented by the Elyria, Swansea, and Globeville Business Association favors the Coliseum/Stock Show South Station option because it serves both the Coliseum and the National Western Stock Show destinations. The National Western Stock Show, on whose property the north station option is located, has officially remained neutral but is conducting its own analysis of the station options to provide a recommendation at a later date. Denver Public Schools favors the Coliseum/Stock Show North Station option due to its proximity to property they would like to sell. RTD: RTD is not recommending a preferred station until CCD completes its analysis in January November

25 FIGURE 5-6. COLISEUM/STOCK SHOW SOUTH STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November 2009

26 FIGURE 5-7. COLISEUM/STOCK SHOW NORTH STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November

27 68 th Avenue Station and 72 nd Avenue South Station Options In Commerce City, two station options have been analyzed and include the 68 th Avenue Station and the 72 nd Avenue South Station. Each Commerce City station is west of Colorado Boulevard. These stations are illustrated and summarized in Figure 5-8. Key direct impacts are summarized in Table 5-5 and illustrated in Figure 5-9 and Figure FIGURE TH AVENUE STATION VERSUS 72 ND AVENUE SOUTH STATION OPTIONS (COMMERCE CITY) Commerce City Station 68 th Avenue 72 nd Avenue South Acreage of Station Footprint: 4.54 Acreage of Station Footprint: 7.55 Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = 300 Source: Project Team, Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = November 2009

28 TABLE 5-5. COMMERCE CITY STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Station Characteristics Station Options 68 th Avenue 72 nd Avenue South Station Type Commuter. Commuter. Parking 2015/ / /300. Mobility Mobility Automobile access: Vehicles would access station from Colorado Boulevard. Transit access: RTD Routes 40, 48, 72, 156, and R2 would provide direct connections to the station. Route diversion similar for both station options. Provides good local access and less direct regional connection. Pedestrian/bike trail access: The Fernald Trail, which connects to two regional trails, would provide access to this station. The Fernald Trailhead, frequented by recreational and transportation-related users, is located just north of the station. The Commerce City Bike Route on 68 th Avenue would also provide access. Good walk access from neighborhood via existing sidewalk network. Traffic impacts/mitigation: The 72 nd Avenue/Colorado Boulevard intersection would be signalized by Technical Feasibility Engineering Feasible. Feasible. Community Impacts Social Impacts, Communities, Facilities, and Neighborhoods Many nearby residents and commuters could walk to/from the station. High amount of traditional transit users in the project study area would benefit. Could improve mobility to/from area schools. Access to community facilities would be improved. Similar minority and low-income population for both station options. Automobile access: Vehicles would access this station from 72 nd Avenue (State Highway 224). Transit access: Same as 68 th Avenue Station option. Provides good local access and more direct connection to regional system via 72 nd Avenue and I-270. Pedestrian/bike trail access: The Fernald Trail and Commerce City Bike Route on 68 th Avenue do not provide direct access to this station, but connections could be made so that it would provide access. The proposed O Brian Canal Trail, if built, could provide access to this station option if appropriate connections are made. Good walk access from neighborhood via existing sidewalk network. Traffic impacts/mitigation: The 72 nd Avenue/Colorado Boulevard intersection would be signalized and an eastbound left turn lane would be provided by A second eastbound left turn lane would be added from US 6 to US 85 and 74 th Avenue by This station is not as close to residences as the 68 th Avenue Station option; therefore, it would provide less direct access to area residents. Similar number of traditional transit users would benefit as with the 68 th Avenue Station. Could improve mobility to/from area schools. Would serve residents of the Derby area (in the vicinity of I-76 and US 85). Similar minority and low-income population for both station options. November

29 TABLE 5-5. COMMERCE CITY STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Land Use, Zoning, and Economic Development Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation of Existing Uses Station Options 68 th Avenue 72 nd Avenue South Would convert industrial and residential uses to station-related uses. Compatible with existing local plans and future land use. Adams City High School may relocate to increase TOD opportunities. Would impact 4 residential and 3 commercial/industrial properties. 3 residential relocations. 1 business relocation. Archaeological, Historic, and Paleontological Resources Archaeological Resources Would have a direct impact on the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 (No Adverse Effect). Historic Resources No impact. No impact. Paleontological Resources No impact. No impact. Parklands and Recreation Areas No impact. Noise (EMU Post-mitigation) 1 lower moderate impact. No impact. Environmental Impacts Biological Resources Would affect mostly industrial and disturbed habitat. No biologically sensitive species or habitat. Would convert an industrial gravel pit operation to station-related uses. Compatible with existing local plans, land use, and zoning, but could be incompatible with future recreation/ open space land uses. Alsup Elementary may relocate to increase TOD opportunities. Would impact 1 commercial/ industrial property. 0 relocations. Would have a direct impact on the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 (No Adverse Effect). O Brian Canal Trail would not be precluded by this station option. Would affect mostly industrial and disturbed habitat but also a small area of marsh. Wetlands and Other Waters No impact. Would impact 0.2 acre of wetlands. 1 Floodplains, Drainage, and Hydrology Hazardous Materials (Project Study Area = Within 1,000 Feet of Station Boundaries) Section 4(f) No impact. 2 former landfills near 72 nd Avenue and Colorado Boulevard, and near 68 th Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. UST sites. Would impact 1 resource (UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 expected de minimis impact (minimal impact). No other waters would be impacted. No impact. Same as the 68 th Avenue Station option. Would impact 1 resource (UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 expected de minimis impact (minimal impact) November 2009

30 TABLE 5-5. COMMERCE CITY STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Comparison Summary Station Options 68 th Avenue 72 nd Avenue South The major differences between station options are related to mobility and environmental impacts. The 68 th Avenue Station would provide better access for area residents and traditional transit users, whereas the 72 nd Avenue South Station would better serve residents of the Derby area and commuters. The 68 th Avenue Station would not impact any wetlands compared to the 72 nd Avenue South Station with 0.2 acre wetland impact. The 72 nd Avenue South Station would impact fewer parcels because it is one landowner, whereas the 68 th Avenue Station would impact several residential and commercial/industrial properties. Source: Project Team, Notes: 1 Wetlands and other waters impact acreages are estimates of the maximum potential direct impact that would occur only if a particular Alternative option is selected and ultimately constructed. 2 This archaeological resource, which is recorded as the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline, is currently referred to as the UP Boulder Branch. I-76 = Interstate 76 RTD = Regional Transportation District TOD = transit oriented development UP = Union Pacific US # = United States Highway # UST = underground storage tank Input Agency: Commerce City has not taken an official position on these station options. Community: The community favors the 72 nd Avenue South Station option because of reduced property impacts. Key Stakeholders: The property owners of the 72 nd Avenue South site favor this station option on their property. RTD: RTD recommends the 72 nd Avenue South Station option for the Preferred Alternative, because this station would provide both local and regional station access and because this station option would work with all the alignment options. November

31 FIGURE TH AVENUE STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November 2009

32 FIGURE ND AVENUE SOUTH STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November

33 Northern Section 88 th Avenue Station Options The Northern Section of the North Metro corridor features stations in Thornton and Northglenn. In Thornton, station target areas include 88 th Avenue, 104 th Avenue, 124 th Avenue, 144 th Avenue, and 162 nd Avenue. In Northglenn, the station target area is 112 th Avenue. Two options have been analyzed for the 88 th Avenue Station area, which are both north of the Welby Road intersection. One option requires the relocation of Welby Road by others. The 88 th Avenue options are illustrated and summarized in Figure Key direct impacts are summarized in Table 5-6 and illustrated in Figure 5-12 and Figure FIGURE TH AVENUE STATION OPTIONS (THORNTON) 88 th Avenue Station 88 th Avenue 88 th Avenue with Welby Road Relocation Acreage of Station Footprint: 8.04 Acreage of Station Footprint: 8.67 Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = 500 Source: Project Team, Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = November 2009

34 TABLE TH AVENUE STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Station Characteristics Station Option 88 th Avenue 88 th Avenue Welby Road Relocation Station Type Commuter. Commuter. Parking 2015/ / /500. Mobility Mobility Automobile access: Vehicles would access this station from existing Welby Road with connection to 88 th Avenue. Parking access also available on west side from Yucca Way. Transit access: RTD Route 80 and Route 88 would provide direct connections to the station. The station also would be in the south Thornton/Northglenn call-n-ride area. Route diversion similar for both station options. Pedestrian/bike trail access: The Colorado Ag Trail could provide local access to the station. Proposed future facilities, if constructed, would connect this trail to the regional network. A City of Thornton on-street bicycle facility on Yucca Way would provide access to the station. Good walk access from neighborhood via existing sidewalk network. Traffic impacts/mitigation: A second eastbound left-turn lane and southbound left- and right-turn lanes would be added at 88 th Avenue and Welby Road by A second northbound lane on Welby Road between 88 th Avenue and the south station area access would be added by Automobile access: Vehicles would access this from a relocated Welby Road with connection to 88 th Avenue. Parking access also available on west side from Yucca Way. Transit access: Same as the 88 th Avenue Station option. Pedestrian/bike trail access: Same as the 88 th Avenue Station option, except that it is assumed that the Colorado Ag Trail would be relocated by the entity that undertakes the realignment of Welby Road. Good walk access from neighborhood via existing sidewalk network. Traffic impacts/mitigation: A second left-turn lane would be provided on 88 th Avenue by It is assumed that the north leg of Welby Road would be relocated by others before Technical Feasibility Engineering Feasible. Placing station platform in location desired for this option has other adverse alignment impacts. Would require a design variance to allow for non-tangent tracks at the 88 th Avenue crossing to reduce property impacts. Community Impacts Social Impacts, Communities, Facilities, and Neighborhoods Would improve mobility for area residents and employees. Would improve mobility to Skyview Campus. Same as the 88 th Avenue Station option. November

35 TABLE TH AVENUE STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Land Use, Zoning, and Economic Development Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation of Existing Uses Station Option 88 th Avenue 88 th Avenue Welby Road Relocation Would convert industrial and recreational/open space uses to station-related uses. Compatible with local plans and existing and future local land uses. Would impact 2 commercial/ industrial properties and 1 other property. 1 business relocation. Archaeological, Historic, and Paleontological Resources Archaeological Resources Would have a direct impact on the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 (No Adverse Effect). Historic Resources No impact. No impact. Paleontological Resources No impact. No impact. Parklands and Recreation Areas Yucca Way Property would impact 2.5 acres. Yucca Way Property Local Trail Missing Link (Proposed) proposed trail would not be precluded by this station option. Noise (EMU Post-mitigation) No impact. No impact. Environmental Impacts Biological Resources Wetlands and Other Waters Floodplains, Drainage, and Hydrology Hazardous Materials (Project Study Area = Within 1,000 Feet of Station Boundaries) Section 4(f) Would mostly affect industrial and grassland habitat, and a nearby raptor nest. Would not impact wetlands. Would impact 0.02 acre of other waters. 1 No impact. No known sites are present within 1,000 feet of this station option. Would impact 1 resource (UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 ) expected de minimis impact (minimal impact). Would convert industrial and recreational/open space uses to station-related uses. Compatible with local plans and existing and future local land uses. Would require relocation of Welby Road by others. Would impact 1 undeveloped residential property, 1 commercial/ industrial property, and 1 other property. 0 relocations. Would have a direct impact on the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 (No Adverse Effect). Yucca Way Property would impact 3.5 acres. Yucca Way Property Local Trail Missing Link (Proposed) proposed trail would not be precluded. Colorado Ag Trail 690 feet of trail would be impacted due to the parking and bus loading area. Would mostly affect industrial and grassland habitat, and a nearby raptor nest, plus a small area of riparian woodland would be impacted along the ditch. Would not impact wetlands. Would impact 0.1 acre of other waters. 1 No impact. No known sites are present within 1,000 feet of this station option. Would impact 2 resources: UP Dent Branch Mainline 2 expected de minimis impact (minimal impact); and the Colorado Ag Trail direct use November 2009

36 TABLE TH AVENUE STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Comparison Summary Factor Station Option 88 th Avenue 88 th Avenue Welby Road Relocation The main differences between these station options relate to engineering feasibility, environmental impacts, property acquisition, and the dependency of actions by others to implement the station concept. The 88 th Avenue Welby Road Relocation Station option would impact one less commercial/industrial property. However, the track alignment to make this option work as shown would not meet RTD design standards. The 88 th Avenue Station option would impact less area of water features, and would not impact any riparian area or the Colorado Ag Trail as compared to the 88 th Avenue Welby Road Relocation Station option. In addition, the 88 th Avenue Station option is not dependent on other entities to implement the option, whereas the Welby Road Relocation Station option would require relocation of Welby Road by others in order to implement the option. Source: Project Team, Notes: 1 Wetlands and other waters impact acreages are estimates of the maximum potential direct impact that would occur only if a particular Alternative option is selected and ultimately constructed. 2 This archaeological resource, which is recorded as the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline, is currently referred to as the UP Boulder Branch. FEIS = Final Environmental Impact Statement I-270 = Interstate 270 RTD = Regional Transportation District UP = Union Pacific Input Agency: The City of Thornton supports the 88 th Avenue Welby Road Relocation Station option due to development opportunities. Community: The community support is mixed with no clear preference. Key Stakeholders: School officials have not stated a preference. Welby Associates, the developer at Welby Road, favors the 88 th Avenue Welby Road Relocation Station option. Other property owners have not provided input. RTD: RTD recommends as the Preferred Alternative the station option that leaves Welby Road in its existing location because the platform location is compatible with the engineering constraints. The 88 th Avenue Welby Road Relocation Station option creates alignment engineering concerns for RTD and depends on others to relocate Welby Road. November

37 FIGURE TH AVENUE STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November 2009

38 FIGURE TH AVENUE WELBY ROAD RELOCATION STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November

39 104 th Avenue Station Option One option for the 104 th Avenue Station area has been analyzed. It is in the southwest quadrant of the 104 th Avenue and Colorado Boulevard intersection in Thornton. The option is illustrated and summarized in Figure Key direct impacts are summarized in Table 5-7 and illustrated in Figure FIGURE TH AVENUE STATION OPTION (THORNTON) 104 th Avenue Station 104 th Avenue Acreage of Station Footprint: 9.52 Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = 550 Source: Project Team, November 2009

40 TABLE TH AVENUE STATION OPTION IMPACTS Station Characteristics Station Type Factor Commuter. Parking 2015/ /550. Mobility Mobility Technical Feasibility Engineering Community Impacts Social Impacts, Communities, Facilities, and Neighborhoods Land Use, Zoning, and Economic Development Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation of Existing Uses Archaeological, Historic, and Paleontological Resources Archaeological Resources Historic Resources Paleontological Resources Station Option 104 th Avenue Would provide good access from 104 th Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. Automobile access: Vehicles would access the station from Colorado Boulevard and 104 th Avenue. Transit access: RTD Routes 40, 92, 104, 112, and AA would provide a direct connection to the station. The station also would be in the south Thornton/Northglenn calln-ride area. Minimal route deviation required. Pedestrian/bike trail access: A network of trails would provide local access. Regional access could be provided if appropriate connections are made to an existing regional connector trail that runs along 104 th Avenue. Two regional multi-use trails proposed by the City of Thornton could provide additional local and regional connections. Good walk access from neighborhood via existing sidewalk network. Traffic impacts/mitigation: The Colorado Boulevard/Service Road (east access) interchange would be converted from the current southbound right-in/right-out configuration to a signalized full movement intersection by The Colorado Boulevard/Arrowhead Pass (south access) interchange would be converted from the current unsignalized full movement T-intersection to an unsignalized three-quarter movement intersection with leftin turns allowed by Feasible, but challenged by constrained site. Would improve mobility for area residents and employees. Access to nearby commercial land uses would improve. Could affect adjacent shopping center parking. Would convert commercial, open space, and stormwater detention uses to station-related uses. Compatible with existing local plans. Would impact 2 undeveloped residential properties, 4 commercial/industrial properties, and 1 other property. 0 relocations. Would have a direct impact on the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 (No Adverse Effect). No impact. No impact. November

41 TABLE TH AVENUE STATION OPTION IMPACTS Factor Parklands and Recreation Areas Noise (EMU Post-mitigation) Environmental Impacts Station Option 104 th Avenue Grange Hall Creek Regional Trail Missing Link (Proposed) the proposed trail would not be precluded. Grandview Ponds Open Space and Prairie Dog Habitat there would be potential elimination of 1.9 acres of park (designated prairie dog habitat). No impact. Biological Resources Would eliminate a marsh and associated pond, and 1.2 acres of prairie dog colonies. Wetlands and Other Waters Would impact 0.9 acre of wetlands. 1 Would impact 0.4 acre of other waters. 1 Floodplains, Drainage, and Hydrology Hazardous Materials (Project Study Area = Within 1,000 Feet of Station Boundaries) Section 4(f) Station would be built over floodplain of Riverdale Tributary to Grange Hall Creek. Floodplain would be contained within site with a culvert under the parking lot. There would be no impacts upstream or downstream. Letter of Map Revision from FEMA would be required. No known sites are present within 1,000 feet of this station option. Would impact 2 resources: the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 expected de minimis impact (minimal impact); and the Grandview Ponds Open Space and Prairie Dog Habitat direct use. Comparison Summary Not applicable because there is only one station option at this location. Source: Project Team, Notes: 1 Wetlands and other waters impact acreages are estimates of the maximum potential direct impact that would occur only if a particular Alternative option is selected and ultimately constructed. 2 This archaeological resource, which is recorded as the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline, is currently referred to as the UP Boulder Branch. FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency RTD = Regional Transportation District UP = Union Pacific UST = underground storage tank Input Agency: The City of Thornton supports this station option. Community: The community supports this station option but would like the footprint impacts reduced. Key Stakeholders: The shopping center owners support a station in this location, but would like the footprint impacts reduced. Adjacent developers support this station, but are concerned about the footprint impacts. RTD: RTD recommends the 104 th Avenue Station option for the Preferred Alternative November 2009

42 FIGURE TH AVENUE STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November

43 112 th Avenue Station Options Two options for the 112 th Avenue Station area have been analyzed. Both options are north of the 112 th Avenue/York Street intersection in Northglenn. York Street is the boundary between the cities of Northglenn and Thornton. The 112 th Avenue Station options are illustrated and summarized in Figure Key direct impacts are summarized in Table 5-8 and illustrated in Figure 5-17 and Figure FIGURE TH AVENUE STATION OPTIONS (NORTHGLENN) 112 th Avenue Station 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street 112 th Avenue Parking East of York Street Acreage of Station Footprint: 4.48 Acreage of Station Footprint: 5.34 Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = 300 Source: Project Team, Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = November 2009

44 TABLE TH AVENUE STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Station Options Factor 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street Station Characteristics Station Type Neighborhood. Neighborhood. Parking 2015/ / /300. Mobility Mobility Automobile access: Vehicles would access the station from York Street. Parking would be adjacent to the platform. Transit access: A new RTD Route 136 would provide direct connections to the station. The station also would be in the south Thornton/Northglenn call-n-ride area. Pedestrian/bike trail access: A multi-modal trail along 112 th Avenue could provide access if appropriate connections were made. A proposed future facility, if built, could provide an additional local connection to the station. Good walk access from neighborhood via existing sidewalk network. Traffic impacts/mitigation: No station-related mitigation measures would be required. Technical Feasibility Engineering Feasible. Feasible. Community Impacts Social Impacts, Communities, Facilities, and Neighborhoods Land Use, Zoning, and Economic Development Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation of Existing Uses Would improve mobility for area residents and employees, although adjacent land use is low density. Access to Hulstrom Options School and Northglenn Middle School could improve. Would convert undeveloped land to station-related uses. Compatible with existing local plans and exiting and future land uses. Would impact 3 undeveloped residential parcels. 112 th Avenue Parking East of York Street Would provide good access but the parking would be across the street from the station platform. Automobile access: Same as the 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street Station option, but the parking would be across York Street from the platform. Transit access: Same as the 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street Station option. Pedestrian/bike trail access: Same as the 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street Station option. Good walk access from neighborhood via existing sidewalk network. Traffic impacts/mitigation: No station-related mitigation measures would be required. Impacts would be similar to the 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street Station option. Same as the 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street Station option. Would impact 2 undeveloped residential parcels. Archaeological, Historic, and Paleontological Resources Archaeological Resources Would have a direct impact on the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 1 (No Adverse Effect). Would have a direct impact on the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 1 (No Adverse Effect). Historic Resources No impact. No impact. Paleontological Resources No impact. No impact. Parklands and Recreation Areas No impact. No impact. November

45 TABLE TH AVENUE STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Station Options Factor Noise (EMU Post-mitigation) Environmental Impacts Biological Resources 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street 3 properties have upper moderate impacts; 9 properties have lower moderate impacts. Would impact 1.0 acre of prairie dog colonies. Wetlands and Other Waters No impact. No impact. Floodplains, Drainage, and Hydrology Hazardous Materials (Project Study Area = Within 1,000 Feet of Station Boundaries) Section 4(f) Comparison Summary No impact. No known sites present within 1,000 feet of this station option. Would impact 1 resource (UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 1 ) de minimis impact (minimal impact). 112 th Avenue Parking East of York Street 3 properties have upper moderate impacts; 9 properties have lower moderate impacts. Would impact 1.7 acres of prairie dog colonies. No impact. No known sites present within 1,000 feet of this station option. Would impact 1 resource (UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 1 ) de minimis impact (minimal impact). These station options are very similar with the major differences between them relating to mobility, property acquisition, and prairie dog impacts. The 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street Station option provides more convenient parking for users and would have less impact on the prairie dog colonies. The 112 th Avenue Parking East of York Street Station option would impact fewer properties (two), whereas the 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street Station option would impact three properties; however, all parcels are undeveloped. Source: Project Team, Notes: 1 This archaeological resource, which is recorded as the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline, is currently referred to as the UP Boulder Branch. RTD = Regional Transportation District UP = Union Pacific Input Agency: The official City of Northglenn position is no station in this location. However, if there is a station, the 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street Station option would be better because the parking would be more convenient. Community: Some area residents oppose a station in this location due to concerns about increased traffic and development. Between the two station options, the community support is mixed with no clear preference. Key Stakeholders: The City of Thornton supports the 112 th Avenue West of York Street Station option because parking would be more convenient for the station users. RTD: RTD recommends the 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street Station option for the Preferred Alternative because the parking would be closer to the station platform, which would be more convenient for the riders November 2009

46 FIGURE TH AVENUE PARKING WEST OF YORK STREET STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November

47 FIGURE TH AVENUE PARKING EAST OF YORK STREET STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November 2009

48 124 th Avenue Station Option One option for the 124 th Avenue Station area has been assessed, although the City of Thornton has recently developed a concept for 124 th Avenue/Eastlake during their TOD planning study that is not included in the DEIS (see Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered). The 124 th Avenue Station is north of the 124 th Avenue and Claude Court intersection. The 124 th Avenue Station option is illustrated and summarized in Figure Key direct impacts are summarized in Table 5-9 and illustrated in Figure The recent City of Thornton concept for this station will be evaluated in the FEIS. FIGURE TH AVENUE STATION OPTION (THORNTON) 124 th Avenue Station 124 th Avenue Acreage of Station Footprint: Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = 400 Source: Project Team, November

49 TABLE TH AVENUE STATION IMPACTS Station Characteristics Station Type Factor Main Street. Parking 2015/ /400. Mobility Mobility Technical Feasibility Engineering Community Impacts Social Impacts, Communities, Facilities, and Neighborhoods Land Use, Zoning, and Economic Development Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation of Existing Uses Station Option 124 th Avenue Automobile access: Vehicles would access the station from 124 th Avenue and Claude Court. Transit access: RTD Route 120 and Route 128, and new Route 144 would provide direct connections to the station. The station also would be in the south Thornton/Northglenn call-n-ride. Pedestrian/bike access: Multi-use sidewalks along 124 th Avenue that connect to the regional trail system would provide access to the station. The existing UP Railroad Trail would provide local access from north of the station, and an existing on-street bicycle facility along Birch Street would provide local access from the Eastlake neighborhood. Several proposed facilities, if built, would bolster local and regional access to the station. Good walk access from neighborhood via existing sidewalk network. Traffic impacts/mitigation: The 124 th Avenue/southern leg of Claude Court (east access) intersection would be signalized by The 124 th Avenue/relocated north leg of Claude Court intersection would provide eastbound and southbound left-turn lanes and a westbound right-turn lane by Feasible. Would improve mobility for area residents and employees, especially for Eastlake residents. The Stellar Elementary School walk boundary crosses the alignment just south of the station. However, no residences currently exist in this portion of the walk boundary; consequently, no students attending this school would be expected to cross the alignment near this station. Would convert agricultural and undeveloped land to stationrelated uses. Compatible with existing local plans and existing and future land uses and zoning. Would impact 1 agricultural property and 1 other property. 0 relocations. Archaeological, Historic, and Paleontological Resources Archaeological Resources Would have a direct impact on the UP Railroad Mainline, now referred to as the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 1 (No Adverse Effect). The walkway would impact the Eastlake Railroad Stop (No Adverse Effect) November 2009

50 TABLE TH AVENUE STATION IMPACTS Historic Resources Factor Paleontological Resources Parklands and Recreation Areas Noise (EMU Post-mitigation) Environmental Impacts Biological Resources Wetlands and Other Waters Floodplains, Drainage, and Hydrology Hazardous Materials (Project Study Area = Within 1,000 Feet of Station Boundaries) Section 4(f) Comparison Summary November Station Option 124 th Avenue Construction of parking for the station would impact Farmstead Site and disrupt the cultural landscape (Adverse Effect). No impact. Eastlake Railroad Property 0.2 acre would be impacted from the walkways. The impacted portion of this resource is designated by the City of Thornton for future transit use, so impacts are consistent with the intended use of the property. Unnamed Neighborhood Trail 3 Missing Link (Proposed) proposed trail would not be precluded. Four lower moderate impacts. Would mostly affect agricultural habitat. No sensitive biological resources would be impacted. Would not impact wetlands and other waters. No impact. 2 SQGs and 1 field observation site. Would impact 3 resources: the historic UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 1 de minimis impact (minimal impact); Eastlake Railroad Stop direct use; and Farmstead direct use. Not applicable because there is only one station option in this area. Source: Project Team, Notes: 1 This archaeological resource, which is recorded as the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline, is currently referred to as the UP Boulder Branch. % = percent RTD = Regional Transportation District SQG = small quantity generator TOD = transit oriented development UP = Union Pacific Input Agency: The City of Thornton has developed a TOD option that will be included for consideration in the FEIS. Community: The community supports a station in this location and will have additional input on the station refinement. Key Stakeholders: The school district supports a station in this location and will have additional input on the station refinement. The major property owner in the area has no objections and will be consulted on concepts for refining the station. RTD: RTD recommends evaluating this station option and the Thornton TOD option in the FEIS. At that time, RTD will undertake additional consultation on concepts for refining the station with the City of Thornton, key stakeholders, and the community.

51 FIGURE TH AVENUE STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November 2009

52 144 th Avenue Station Options Three options for the 144 th Avenue Station area have been analyzed. All three options are located south of 144 th Avenue between York Street and Detroit Street. The 144 th Avenue Station options are illustrated and summarized in Figure Key direct impacts are summarized in Table 5-10 and illustrated in Figures 5-22, 5-23, and FIGURE TH AVENUE STATION OPTIONS (THORNTON) 144 th Avenue Station 144 th Avenue West 144 th Avenue East Acreage of Station Footprint: 6.34 Acreage of Station Footprint: 8.99 Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = 400 Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = th Avenue Split Acreage of Station Footprint: 6.65 Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = Spaces = 400 Source: Project Team, November

53 TABLE TH AVENUE STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Station Characteristics Station Options 144 th Avenue West 144 th Avenue East 144 th Avenue Split Station Type Neighborhood. Neighborhood. Neighborhood. Parking 2015/ / / /400. Mobility Mobility Automobile access: Vehicles would access the station from York Street. Transit access: New RTD Route 144 would provide a direct connection to the station. (Provides most favorable automobile and bus access from York Street, an established major roadway.) Pedestrian/bike access: The existing Fallbrook Farms trail network and Rocky Top Middle School Connector Trail could provide local access if appropriate connections are made. A gradeseparated crossing would be constructed to mitigate impacts to the existing crossing. Several proposed facilities, if constructed, would provide access to the station. Good walk access from neighborhood via existing sidewalk network. Traffic impacts/mitigation: No station-related mitigation measures would be required. Automobile access: Vehicles would access the station from 144 th Avenue. Transit access: Same route connection as the 144 th Avenue West Station option, but access would be via 144 th Avenue instead of York Street. (Provides satisfactory but not the preferred bus and drive access.) Pedestrian/bike trail access: Same as the 144 th Avenue West Station option. Good walk access from neighborhood via existing sidewalk network. Traffic impacts/mitigation: The 144 th Avenue/ Elizabeth Court intersection would be signalized and eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes would be provided by Technical Feasibility Engineering Feasible. Feasible, but gas well(s) would have to be addressed. Automobile access: Vehicles would access the station from Detroit Street. Transit access: Same as the 144 th Avenue West Station option. (Provides good bus access from York Street, an established major roadway, and satisfactory drive access.) Pedestrian/bike trail access: Same as the 144 th Avenue West Station option. Good walk access from neighborhood via existing sidewalk network. Traffic impacts/mitigation: The 144 th Avenue/Detroit Street intersection would be signalized by It is assumed, however, that developers would be required by the City of Thornton to signalize the intersection before 2015 as part of their development agreements. Feasible, but gas well(s) would have to be addressed November 2009

54 TABLE TH AVENUE STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Community Impacts Social Impacts, Communities, Facilities, and Neighborhoods Land Use, Zoning, and Economic Development Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation of Existing Uses Station Options 144 th Avenue West 144 th Avenue East 144 th Avenue Split Would improve mobility for area residents. Social trails near this station would be closed and pedestrians would be required to use formal street crossings. The school walk boundaries for the Prairie Hills Elementary and Rocky Top Middle schools cross near this station. Students would be able to access the schools via the formal 136 th Avenue and 144 th Avenue street crossings or at the Rocky Top Middle School Trail crossing, which is proposed to be gradeseparated by this project. Would convert undeveloped land to station-related uses. Compatible with existing local plans, existing and future land use, and zoning. Would impact 2 agricultural/undeveloped properties. Archaeological, Historic, and Paleontological Resources Archaeological Resources Historic Resources Paleontological Resources Would have a direct impact on the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 1 (No Adverse Effect). Impacts would be similar to the 144 th Avenue West Station option. In addition, the station is adjacent to a new neighborhood. Would convert undeveloped land to station-related uses. Compatible with existing local plans, land uses, and zoning. Could be incompatible with future institutional land use. The Archdiocese has plans to build a school at this site. Would impact 2 agricultural/undeveloped properties. Same as the 144 th Avenue West Station option. Impacts would be similar to the 144 th Avenue East Station option, except that a formal crossing would be provided at the station platform. Same as the 144 th Avenue East Station option. Would impact 2 agricultural/undeveloped properties. Same as the 144 th Avenue West Station option. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. November

55 TABLE TH AVENUE STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Parklands and Recreation Areas Noise (EMU Postmitigation) Environmental Impacts Biological Resources Wetlands and Other Waters Floodplains, Drainage, and Hydrology Hazardous Materials (Project Study Area = Within 1,000 Feet of Station Boundaries) Section 4(f) Comparison Summary Station Options 144 th Avenue West 144 th Avenue East 144 th Avenue Split 136 th Avenue to Rocky Top Middle School Local Trail Missing Link (Proposed) proposed trail would not be precluded. Fallbrook Farms to 144 th Avenue Connector Trail (Proposed) proposed trail would not be precluded. 136 th Avenue to Rocky Top Middle School Local Trail Missing Link (Proposed) proposed trail would not be precluded. Fallbrook Farms to 144 th Avenue Connector Trail (Proposed) proposed trail would not be precluded. No impact. 1 lower-moderate impact. 1 lower-moderate impact. Would affect agricultural and disturbed habitats. No sensitive biological resources would be impacted. Same as the 144 th Avenue West Station option. Same as the 144 th Avenue West Station option. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. No impact. Would impact 1 resource (UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 1 ) de minimis impact (minimal impact). Same as the 144 th Avenue West Station option. Same as the 144 th Avenue West Station option. The differences among these station options relate to mobility and property acquisition impacts. The 144 th Avenue West Station option would have the best access (from York Street, which is an established roadway), and would not impact a gas well(s) that would need to be addressed for the other station options. The 144 th Avenue West Station option would not impact plans to develop a school to the east of the rail line, whereas the other station options would impact those plans. Source: Project Team, Notes: 1 This archaeological resource, which is recorded as the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline, is currently referred to as the UP Boulder Branch. FEIS = Final Environmental Impact Statement RTD = Regional Transportation District UP = Union Pacific 5-55 November 2009

56 Input Agency: Per City of Thornton resolution, the city favors the 144 th Avenue East Station option because it would place all features on the east side of the tracks, away from the Rocky Top Middle School. Community: Some community members suggested no station. Others in the community favor the 144 th Avenue East Station option because the parking would be farther away from the Rocky Top Middle School, and because they believe there would be less traffic on York Street and therefore, fewer conflicts with buses and traffic turning when students are walking along York Street. Residents of developments east of the tracks that have been constructed since the station planning process was completed voiced a preference for the 144 th Avenue West Station option to keep traffic and adjacency impacts away from their new neighborhoods. Key Stakeholders: The school district favors the 144 th Avenue East Station option because they believe that it would reduce traffic on York Street. The Catholic Archdiocese favors the 144 th Avenue West Station option because it plans to build a school on the southwest corner of Detroit Avenue and 144 th Avenue. There is a new development at Fallbrook Farms adjacent to the 144 th Avenue Split Station option. RTD: RTD recommends the 144 th Avenue West Station option as the Preferred Alternative, because it would provide the best access for automobile, transit, and pedestrian/bike modes via York Street, an established major roadway. This station option will be further refined in the FEIS in consultation with the City of Thornton to minimize impacts to the proposed development. November

57 FIGURE TH AVENUE WEST STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November 2009

58 FIGURE TH AVENUE EAST STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November

59 FIGURE TH AVENUE SPLIT STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November 2009

60 162 nd Avenue Station Options Two options for the 162 nd Avenue Station area at SH 7 have been analyzed. Both options are located north of the SH 7 and Colorado Boulevard intersection in Thornton. The 162 nd Avenue Station options are illustrated and summarized in Figure Key direct impacts are summarized in Table 5-11 and illustrated in Figure 5-26 and Figure FIGURE ND AVENUE STATION OPTIONS (THORNTON) 162 nd Avenue Station 162 nd Avenue West 162 nd Avenue East Acreage of Station Footprint: Acreage of Station Footprint: Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = 1, Spaces = 1,100 Source: Project Team, Recommended Parking Supply: 2015 Opening Day Spaces = 1, Spaces = 1,100 November

61 TABLE ND AVENUE STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Station Characteristics Station Options 162 nd Avenue West 162 nd Avenue East Station Type Town Center. Town Center. Parking 2015/2030 1,000/1,100. 1,000/1,100. Mobility Mobility Technical Feasibility Engineering Community Impacts Social Impacts, Communities, Facilities, and Neighborhoods Land Use, Zoning, and Economic Development Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation of Existing Uses Would provide good access from SH 7. Automobile access: Vehicles would access the station from SH 7. Transit access: RTD Route 92 will be extended, and the proposed Route 160L would provide a direct connection to the station. Route diversion similar for both station options. Pedestrian/bike trail access: No existing facilities would serve this station. Two proposed multi-use trail facilities, if built, would provide for regional access to the station. Limited walk access from neighborhood via existing sidewalk network. Expanded/improved network required. Traffic impacts/mitigation: The 160 th Avenue/Jackson Street intersection would be signalized and eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes would be provided by Feasible, but floodplain would have to be addressed. Primarily agricultural/undeveloped area; no social impacts expected. Would convert agricultural land to station-related uses. Compatible with existing local plans, and existing and future land uses, and zoning. Could be incompatible with future park/open space use. Would impact 1 agricultural property. 0 relocations. Would provide good access from Colorado Boulevard and SH 7, with more direct north/south connectivity via Colorado Boulevard compared to the 162 nd Avenue West Station option. Automobile access: Vehicles would access the station from SH 7 and Colorado Boulevard. Transit access: Same as the 162 nd Avenue West Station option. Pedestrian/bike trail access: Same as the 162 nd Avenue West Station option. Traffic impacts/mitigation: Assumes that Colorado Boulevard is relocated by others as part of one or more development projects before The intersection at Colorado Boulevard/160 th Avenue should be signalized with double left-turn lanes and a right-turn lane on each approach. Additionally, the southbound approach should be expanded from one lane to two lanes and a second northbound lane should be provided. Feasible, but gas wells would have to be addressed. Impacts would be similar to the 162 nd Avenue West Station option. Same as the 162 nd Avenue West Station option. Would impact 1 residential property and 1 agricultural property. 0 relocations November 2009

62 TABLE ND AVENUE STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Archaeological, Historic, and Paleontological Resources Archaeological Resources Historic Resources Station Options 162 nd Avenue West 162 nd Avenue East Would have a direct impact on the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 (No Adverse Effect). Parking for the station would destroy a Prehistoric Camp site (Adverse Effect). Would have a direct impact on the UP Railroad Borrow-pit (Adverse Effect). Construction of the station would impact a Farmstead Site and disrupt the cultural landscape (Adverse Effect). Would have a direct impact on the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 (No Adverse Effect). No impact. Paleontological Resources No impact. No impact Parklands and Recreation Areas No impact. Noise (EMU Post-mitigation) No impact. No impact. Environmental Impacts Biological Resources Wetlands and Other Waters Floodplains, Drainage, and Hydrology Hazardous Materials (Project Study Area = Within 1,000 Feet of Station Boundaries) Section 4(f) Would impact mostly disturbed agricultural habitat. Would impact 7.6 acres of prairie dog colonies. Would not impact wetlands. There would be 0.3 acre of impacts to other waters. 1 Footprint would be within the Big Dry Creek and Morris Creek floodplains. Floodplain would be filled adjacent to the floodway to an elevation 18 inches above the BFE which could cause an increase in the BFEs upstream or downstream of the site. A Letter of Map Revision from FEMA would be required. No impact. Would impact four resources: UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 expected de minimis impact (minimal impact); Prehistoric Open Camp direct use; Farmstead direct use; and UP Railroad Borrow-pit direct use. Big Dry Creek to German Ditch Local Trail Missing Link (Proposed) proposed trail would not be precluded. Would impact mostly disturbed and agricultural habitats, plus a small area of woodland with a raptor nest would be impacted. No impact. Footprint would be within the Morris Creek floodplain. The floodplain would be piped to Big Dry Creek. There would be no impacts to BFEs upstream or downstream of the site. A Letter of Map Revision from FEMA would be required. No impact. Would impact 1 resource (UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline 2 de minimis impact (minimal impact). Other Other Not applicable. RTD would have dependency on the City of Thornton and the developer. November

63 TABLE ND AVENUE STATION OPTIONS IMPACT COMPARISON Factor Comparison Summary Station Options 162 nd Avenue West 162 nd Avenue East The major differences between these station options are related to mobility and environmental impacts. The 162 nd Avenue East Station option would impact one historic resource (the UP Boulder Branch), whereas the 162 nd Avenue West Station option would impact four historic resources, a rail line, borrow-pit, prehistoric camp, and historic farmstead, which would also result in Section 4(f) uses. The 162 nd Avenue East Station option would also have less floodplain impact and no impact to water features compared to the 162 nd Avenue West Station option. The 162 nd Avenue East Station option would provide better access from SH 7 and the proposed relocated Colorado Boulevard, but would need to coordinate with the City of Thornton and developers on the relocation. Source: Project Team, Notes: 1 Wetlands and other waters impact acreages are estimates of the maximum potential direct impact that would occur only if a particular Alternative option is selected and ultimately constructed. 2 This archaeological resource, which is recorded as the UP Railroad Dent Branch Mainline, is currently referred to as the UP Boulder Branch. % = percent BFE = base flood elevation FEIS = Final Environmental Impact Statement FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS = geographic information system RTD = Regional Transportation District SH 7 = State Highway 7 UP = Union Pacific Input Agency: The City of Thornton favors the 162 nd Avenue East Station option due to development opportunities and access from SH 7. The 162 nd Avenue East Station option is related to the realignment of Colorado Boulevard. CDOT recommends the 162 nd Avenue East Station option, as it is currently coordinating with the eastside developer s plans to provide access to SH 7. CDOT is concerned about floodplain impacts west of the tracks. Community: The community support is mixed, with no clear preference. Key Stakeholders: The eastside developer prefers the 162 nd Avenue East Station option. RTD: RTD recommends the 162 nd Avenue East Station option for the Preferred Alternative because it would have fewer environmental impacts and better access than the 162 nd Avenue West Station option November 2009

64 FIGURE ND AVENUE WEST STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November

65 FIGURE ND AVENUE EAST STATION IMPACT ILLUSTRATION Source: Project Team, November 2009