Transit users will be able to access North Metro from eight stations in the corridor.

Transcription

1 ES. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 INTRODUCTION The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Regional Transportation District (RTD) prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the North Metro Corridor Project to be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Project proposes approximately 18 miles of commuter rail transit from downtown Denver, Colorado, north to State Highway (SH) 7. North Metro would serve Denver, Commerce City, Thornton, Northglenn, and Adams County (see Figure ES-1). The alignment is east of Interstate 25 (I-25) and would be adjacent to the BNSF Brush Subdivision freight railroad right-of-way (ROW) from Denver Union Station (DUS) to 58 th Avenue, and within the Union Pacific (UP) Railroad Company Boulder Branch ROW between the Commerce City Station and the SH 7/162 nd Avenue area. In the summer of 2009, RTD agreed to purchase the 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. The UP Boulder Branch stretches 33 miles from Brighton Boulevard in Commerce City to the Valmont Power Plant in Boulder. For the section in the corridor between 58 th Avenue and the Commerce City Station, this document evaluated multiple alignment alternatives to avoid the congested Sand Creek Junction railroad crossing at I-270 used by the BNSF Railway and UP Railroad. Transit users will be able to access North Metro from eight stations in the corridor. The DEIS has been prepared in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500) and the joint FTA/Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations (23 CFR 771 and 23 CFR 774). The DEIS is to be released for public and agency review on 20 November 2009, with a comment period ending 15 January During this period, RTD will hold public hearings, at which time formal comments will be taken and recorded as part of the public record for this project. Comments can also be submitted as described in Section ES.6. Comments will be considered and responded to in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). ES.1.1 Why Was this Report Written? This document was written to describe the alternative development and evaluation process, to assist decision-makers and the public in understanding the benefits of the proposed action, and to address the potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project. It follows the NEPA requirements to evaluate the impacts to the human and natural environment that would result from development of the project, and describes the recommended mitigation measures to off-set unavoidable impacts. An FEIS and a Record of Decision (ROD) from the FTA will be required before the project can be advanced to final design, ROW acquisition, equipment and facilities procurement, and construction. ES-1 November 2009

2 ES.1.2 Where is this Project? As shown in Figure ES-1, the North Metro corridor study area is a wedgeshaped area and includes lower Downtown Denver at the southern boundary, and the Adams County-Weld County line at the northern boundary. The North Metro corridor study area is in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area and encompasses the northern portion of the City and County of Denver (CCD), parts of Commerce City, the cities of Northglenn and Thornton, and parts of Adams County. The corridor is southwest of Brighton. Residents of all these jurisdictions would use the service. FIGURE ES-1. NORTH METRO CORRIDOR STUDY AREA ES.1.3 How Do You Read the DEIS? The DEIS is organized as follows: Executive Summary Provides a summary of the document, including a project description, the Purpose and Need, alternatives considered, affected environment and environmental consequences (and recommended mitigation measures), transportation, evaluation of alternatives, and public comment and agency coordination. Chapter 1: Purpose and Need Presents a discussion of the purpose of the project, the need for mobility improvements, and the goals for the project. Chapter 2: Alternatives Considered Describes the alternatives development and screening process used to identify and define the No Action Alternative and Build Alternative to be evaluated in detail for the North Metro corridor study area. Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Describes the existing social and natural environmental conditions in the North Metro corridor study area and in smaller project study areas, which vary in size by resource, and the anticipated impacts associated with the No Action Alternative and Build Alternative. The information is organized by resource topics, alignments, and stations. Potential mitigation measures are also identified in this chapter. These mitigation measures will be finalized in the FEIS and ROD in mid Chapter 4: Transportation Discusses the existing transportation system and the anticipated benefits and impacts that would result from implementation of the No Action Alternative and Build Alternative. Potential mitigation measures are also identified. November 2009 ES-2

3 Chapter 5: Evaluation of Alternatives Provides a comparative analysis of the No Action Alternative and Build Alternative regarding how well they meet the project Purpose and Need. The elements of the Build Alternative are also evaluated, including the vehicle technologies, alignment alternatives in the Southern Section, and the station options. Recommendations regarding the Preferred Alternative are also included at the conclusion of each evaluation. A financial summary is also provided. Chapter 6: Public Comment and Agency Coordination Describes the public involvement process, including coordination with the Local Governments Team (LGT), the Agency Working Group (AWG), and the general public for selecting the Preferred Alternative. The AWG includes the joint lead agencies, RTD and FTA, cooperating and participating agencies, and the railroads. Chapter 7: Draft Section 4(f) and 6(f) Evaluation Describes the results of the Section 4(f) and 6(f) analyses conducted to demonstrate the protection of parklands, recreational resources, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. ES.2 ES.2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED Why Do We Need this Project? Transit options to serve the North Metro corridor study area have been studied for more than 20 years. Previous studies have consistently shown that mobility improvements have been needed for many years. Multi-modal travel alternatives to the single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) in the corridor would support this need. The purpose and supporting needs of the project are described below. ES Purpose The purpose for the proposed Project is to implement high-capacity, fixed-guideway transit within the North Metro corridor between DUS access (approximately 20 th Street) and the SH 7/162 nd Avenue area. ES Needs A fixed-guideway transit improvement in the North Metro corridor study area would meet a number of specific needs as described below. The need for mobility improvements, including: improved travel times over SOV travel time in the North Metro corridor study area in 2030; the provision of travel options; and improvements to the regional transit system. The need for regional connectivity. The need to serve traditional and new transit users. The need to support community and regional plans, including the voter-approved FasTracks Plan, a 12-year plan, adopted by the voters in 2004, to implement improved transit service throughout the region (RTD 2004). The need to qualify for federal funding programs. ES-3 November 2009

4 ES.2.2 What are the Goals of this Project? The goals for the Project were used to define the evaluation criteria for the alternatives considered in this DEIS. These goals were endorsed through the agency and public processes conducted for the project, and are listed in Table ES-1. TABLE ES-1. GOALS FOR THE NORTH METRO CORRIDOR STUDY AREA FIXED-GUIDEWAY TRANSIT PROJECT Goal Description Objective 1 2 Provide a cost-effective high-capacity transit option in the North Metro corridor study area. Provide a high-quality and reliable transit service that reduces travel times, reduces delays, and encourages travel by more efficient and environmentally sensitive means than motor vehicle travel. Best Value High Reliability and Performance 3 Provide system linkage with other FasTracks corridors. Improved Efficiency Fulfill existing land use and transit oriented development plans in the North Metro corridor study area. Enhance access to jobs, entertainment, recreation, shopping, and other activities for existing and future residents of the North Metro corridor study area. Provide equitable transit opportunities regardless of financial means, to the North Metro corridor study area residents and employees. 7 Improve the environmental sustainability and development of communities. Source: Project Team, Sustainable Land Use Improved Local Economy Equal Opportunity Sustainable Communities ES.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The DEIS evaluated numerous alternatives to meet the Purpose and Need for the corridor. Alternatives were developed and evaluated to address the travel markets in the North Metro corridor study area, to minimize environmental impacts, and in response to input from the agency and public involvement process. The alternatives each include several elements, including alignments, transit modes, vehicle technologies, transit station locations, and service. The range of alignment corridors considered for the alternatives is illustrated in Figure ES-2. ES.3.1 Alignment Alternatives To fulfill the purpose of the North Metro corridor to provide service between DUS and SH 7, these initial alignment corridors were evaluated: UP Greeley/UP Boulder Branch Railroad Alignment BNSF/UP Boulder Branch Railroad Alignment I-25 Corridor Washington Street Corridor (two options) UP Railroad Greeley Alignment, DUS to Brighton November 2009 ES-4

5 FIGURE ES-2. INITIAL ALIGNMENTS CONSIDERED FOR THE NORTH METRO CORRIDOR ES-5 November 2009

6 The alignment lays the groundwork for the other components of the alternatives, which include technology and stations. The alignment and technology alternatives are described in Table ES-2, and the stations are detailed in Table ES-4. TABLE ES-2. ALIGNMENT AND TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES Alignment and Technology Alternatives No Action Alternative Transportation System Management/Travel Demand Management (TSM/TDM) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Technology Paralleling UP Railroad (UP Greeley/UP Boulder Branch) on West Paralleling BNSF/UP Boulder Branch on West Paralleling UP Railroad Greeley Subdivision on East or West Paralleling Interstate-25 on West On Washington Street in Median On Washington Street in Median with Traffic Lane Reduction Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Technology UP Alignment (UP Greeley/UP Boulder Branch) BNSF/UP Boulder Branch UP Railroad Greeley Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Technology UP Alignment (UP Greeley/UP Boulder Branch) BNSF/UP Boulder Branch UP Railroad Greeley Other Alternatives Locomotive Hauled Coaches Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Monorail Subway Third Rail Double-decker DMU or EMU East to West Connections Roadway East to West Circumferential Commuter Rail Quebec Street Source: Project Team, Note: UP = Union Pacific ES Additional Alignments in the Southern Section Early in the project, RTD identified a need to bypass a heavily congested railroad junction where the UP and BNSF lines cross each other at-grade in the Southern Section of the corridor. The BNSF Railway and UP Railroad cross over Sand Creek and under I-270 at a very constrained area known as Sand Creek Junction. RTD considered a number of alignment options for going over or through Sand Creek Junction or bypassing it to the west or east. These alignment options included Alignment A, going over the junction; Alignments B, C, and D, bypassing to the west side of Sand Creek Junction; and Alignments E and F, bypassing to the east side (see Figure ES-3). November 2009 ES-6

7 FIGURE ES-3. SOUTHERN SECTION ALIGNMENTS TO COMMERCE CITY Source: Project Team, ES-7 November 2009

8 The early numbering convention for the alignment options depended on whether the alignment began in the UP corridor (using 1 as a prefix with the lettered alignment, such as 1-A or 1-B), or the BNSF corridor (using 2 as a prefix, such as 2-A or 2-B). In additional refinements, multiple variations of the alignment options A and B were developed. The Southern Section alignment options carried forward into detailed evaluation are illustrated in Figure ES-5 and discussed later in ES.3.7.1, Proposed Alignment. ES Technology Alternatives The UP Railroad Company has formally documented that vehicles that do not meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) compliance standards for vehicle safety would not be allowed to operate alongside freight rail vehicles within a shared ROW without a separation distance in excess of 50 feet, large barrier walls, or temporal separation. The BNSF Railway Company has a similar policy. Light rail transit (LRT) technology does not comply with FRA vehicle safety standards, and with the position of each of the railroad companies, LRT cannot be implemented within these freight railroad corridors. As a result, the FRA-compliant commuter rail technologies that were considered for the railroad alignment alternatives are diesel multiple unit (DMU) and electric multiple unit (EMU). Therefore, LRT technology was only considered along separate alignments or parallel to freight railroad ROW. During the conceptual alternatives process of the North Metro study, appropriate transit technology alternatives were matched with the alignments. LRT was considered for all the alignments, but DMU and EMU were only considered applicable to the UP Boulder Branch, the BNSF/UP Boulder Branch, and the UP Railroad Greeley rail corridors. The DMU and EMU vehicle technologies were not considered along the I-25 or Washington Street corridors due to the vehicles geometric limitations in operating along those roadway corridors, and because the introduction of a heavier rail technology is not compatible with traffic when LRT is the standard application. The resulting initial conceptual alternatives are shown in Table ES-2. These technology alternatives were evaluated using two levels of screening. Level 1 screening involved a fatal flaw analysis, and Level 2 screening provided an expanded conceptual screening step to determine key tradeoffs related to project goals. At the conclusion of Level 2 screening, commuter rail was selected over all other transit technologies, and the DMU and EMU vehicle technologies continued to be evaluated in the DEIS. ES Station Locations The North Metro corridor has eight station target areas. The station target areas were selected because they fit within communities that could provide sufficient ridership, support local plans, and possibly help fulfill future transit oriented development (TOD) plans around the station sites. It is desirable for rail stations to be approximately 2 miles apart, on average. The station locations and options are described in ES.3.7.5, Proposed Stations. Through a series of station planning meetings, municipal representatives and the general public were included in the station development and evaluation process. November 2009 ES-8

9 ES.3.2 How Were the Alignment and Technology Alternatives Evaluated? The evaluation process initially included three levels of screening with the intent to select the most feasible alignment(s), vehicle technology, and station options for further analysis in the DEIS. Two subsequent screening levels (Level 4 and Level 5) were added to address unique issues that were introduced during the study process. Each screening level was formalized with milestone meetings for the public, the LGT, and the AWG. ES Alternatives Evaluation Screening Criteria The specific alternatives evaluation screening criteria are presented in Table ES-3. TABLE ES-3. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA AT EACH LEVEL OF SCREENING Screening Level Criteria Goal/Focus Level 1 (Fatal Flaw) Does the alternative concept meet the project Purpose? Does the alternative concept meet the project Need? Level 2 (Conceptual) Fulfillment of Purpose and Need at Level 1. Mobility improvements. Affordability/cost effectiveness. Environmental impacts. Community impacts/benefits. Compatibility with related plans. Degree of community support. Degree of agency support. Level 3 (Preliminary Evaluation) Level 4 (Southern Section Cross-Country Alignments) Fulfillment of Purpose and Need at Level 1 and Level 2. Cost/affordability. Technical feasibility/compatibility. Mobility improvements. Environmental impacts. Transit supportive of land use and future travel patterns. Compatibility with related projects. Degree of community support. Degree of agency support. Same as Level 3 criteria. Additional criteria specific to Level 4 including residential and/or business impacts. Screen initial list of alignment alternatives and vehicle technologies. Evaluate station target areas. Screen refined list of alignment alternatives and technologies. Evaluate the BNSF Railway and UP Railroad alignments from DUS; evaluate cross-country and other Southern Section alignments A through F and evaluate all station options. Evaluate DMU and EMU vehicle technologies. Further evaluate cross-country alignments, B-1 through B-4; further evaluate station options. Evaluate DMU and EMU vehicle technologies. ES-9 November 2009

10 TABLE ES-3. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA AT EACH LEVEL OF SCREENING Screening Level Criteria Goal/Focus Level 5 (Re-evaluation of Southern Section BNSF and UP Alignments) Mobility improvements. Guideway costs. Railroad ROW impacts. ROW/property impacts. Environmental justice impacts. Degree of community support. Degree of agency support. Source: Project Team, Notes: DMU = diesel multiple unit DUS = Denver Union Station EMU = electric multiple unit ROW = right-of-way RTD = Regional Transportation District UP = Union Pacific Re-evaluate the BNSF Railway and UP Railroad alignments from DUS in the Southern Section, due to higher costs than anticipated in negotiations between RTD and UP in January 2008; due to costs and changes in technology; re-evaluate the previously screened-out BNSF Alignment A, and evaluate newer iterations of the A alignments introduced in May 2009, alignments A-2 and A-3; evaluate BNSF station options; evaluate modified/refined station options in remainder of corridor. Evaluate DMU and EMU vehicle technologies. Another key discriminator included within the environmental impacts criteria is an assessment as to whether an alternative would be the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for aquatic resources. ES.3.3 How Were the Stations Evaluated? As shown on Table ES-3, criteria were developed for each level of screening and endorsed through the agency and public involvement process. ES Station Evaluation Screening Criteria Initially, more than four dozen station options were suggested for the eight station target areas in the corridor. See Figure ES-5 for a depiction of the initial station target areas. Station screening occurred during levels 3, 4, and 5 evaluations. Specific criteria were used for the station screening, as with the alignment screening, with increasing detail as the evaluations progressed. Station screening criteria included the following six categories: 1. Mobility (ridership, parking demand, and access needs) 2. Operational (track alignment compatibility) 3. Site Configuration (accommodation of parking/facility needs) 4. Community (demographics, interests, and compatibility) 5. Economic (existing businesses and future development) 6. Environmental (sensitivity of resources) November 2009 ES-10

11 During the station screening, certain key discriminators became apparent from the results of the evaluation. These discriminators aided the Project Team s decisions to set aside or advance station options to the DEIS for detailed analysis. These key discriminators included: Ridership Potential Projected demand and nearby future population and employment. Parking Initial and future demand, and opportunities to accommodate supply. Access Parking, transit, and pedestrian/bicycle. ROW Property acquisition, and economic and business impacts. Community Acceptance Agency and public concerns or support. Environmental Considerations Hazardous material site impacts, and impacts to sensitive environmental and community resources, such as parks and trails, cultural/historic properties, aquatic/wetland areas, and effects from noise. ES.3.4 Results from the Screening Process Each level of screening was considered a project milestone. At each project milestone, input was solicited from local governments, agencies, and the public. This input was used to refine the alternatives at each level. The process and generalized results are illustrated in Figure ES-4. ES.3.5 What are the Alternatives Carried into the DEIS? At the conclusion of the alternatives screening process, two alternatives remained and were carried forward for detailed evaluation in the DEIS: No Action Alternative Build Alternative: DMU or EMU on the BNSF/UP Boulder Branch Alignment ES.3.6 What is the No Action Alternative? The No Action Alternative provides a base of comparison for determining the impacts of project alternatives. It does not mean that no improvements occur. The No Action Alternative includes existing projects and financially committed projects to respond to the expected growth in the North Metro corridor study area to the year These projects would be completed with or without implementation of the North Metro corridor Build Alternative. By accounting for other projects to be built in a corridor or study area, the No Action Alternative provides the benchmark from which the Build Alternative is evaluated. Both transit and highway projects are part of the No Action Alternative. ES Transit Projects The No Action Alternative includes existing transit service and facilities inside the North Metro corridor study area and committed improvements, including improved bus service and facilities, identified in the Metro Vision 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (Metro Vision 2030 Plan) (DRCOG 2006a). It also includes the entire FasTracks Plan (RTD 2004) except for the North Metro Corridor Project. ES-11 November 2009

12 FIGURE ES-4. SCREENING PROCESS Source: Project Team, November 2009 ES-12

13 ES Highway Projects The No Action Alternative roadway network in the region, including within the North Metro corridor study area, is assumed to be the roadway projects included in the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG s) Metro Vision 2030 Plan (2006a), the Transportation Improvement Program (2006b), and the local jurisdiction s Capital Improvement Programs. A complete list of these roadway improvements is included in Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered. ES.3.7 What is the Build Alternative? The alignment, technology, station, and service elements of the Build Alternative are described below. The transit and highway projects described in the No Action Alternative are also part of the Build Alternative. ES Proposed Alignment The Build Alternative alignment proposes to follow the BNSF/UP Boulder Branch corridor in Denver and Adams counties. Its southern terminus would be at the DUS access point near 20 th Street and its northern terminus would be in the 162 nd Avenue area north of SH 7. At its northern terminus, short segments of two additional tracks are proposed to accommodate vehicle layovers between trips and some overnight storage north of the end-of-line station at 162 nd Avenue/SH 7. For evaluation purposes, the corridor was divided into two sections. The Southern Section would be from the DUS access point to 84 th Avenue. The Northern Section would be from 84 th Avenue to the 162 nd Avenue area (north of SH 7). To avoid the congested Sand Creek Junction railroad intersection at I-270 in the Southern Section, four alignment options were retained for evaluation alignments A-3, B-2, B-3, and B-4. Any of these alignments would join the BNSF/UP Boulder Branch at Commerce City. From the DUS access point, these Southern Section alignments would parallel the BNSF Brush Subdivision and portions of Brighton Boulevard (SH 265), often in very constrained space where the realignment of approximately 1,700 feet of Brighton Boulevard, up to 30 feet to the east, would be required. Near the Denver and Adams County line, North Metro has two basic strategies to bypass Sand Creek Junction. One strategy includes Alignment A-3, which would generally continue adjacent to the BNSF Brush Subdivision and Brighton Boulevard ROWs to cross Sand Creek, then would go under I-270 on the west side of the junction to connect to the UP Boulder Branch just north of I-270. The other strategy is to transition to one of the cross-country alignments near the Denver and Adams County line, and to generally follow the O Brian Canal to connect to the BNSF/UP Boulder Branch farther north. The cross-country options include alignments B-2, B-3, and B-4. Figure ES-5 illustrates alignments and stations. ES-13 November 2009

14 FIGURE ES-5. BUILD ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS AND STATION TARGET AREAS November 2009 ES-14

15 ES Proposed Technology Both the DMU technology and the EMU technology were advanced to the DEIS for detailed evaluation. As a result of the DEIS analysis, EMU was selected as the preferred commuter rail vehicle technology for the Project. This was primarily due to cost effectiveness when considering total fleet requirements and operating costs over a long-term horizon. The EMU vehicles require electrification of the tracks by an overhead contact system (commonly called an overhead catenary system ) along the corridor to provide power. It is anticipated that RTD would locate an electric substation for all EMU technology in the Gold Line corridor or the East corridor. Paralleling station(s) required by North Metro for power may be located within a station site and impacts would be contained therein, but the locations have not been determined. ES Proposed Stations The proposed build alternative would include eight stations. Two station target areas are in the Southern Section and would serve Denver and Commerce City. Six station target areas are in the Northern Section and would serve Thornton, Northglenn, and Adams County. Most of the station target areas that were advanced to the DEIS for detailed analysis had multiple options. The station target areas are illustrated in Figure ES-5, and the options are listed in Table ES-4. TABLE ES-4. STATION SCREENING Station Options Station Target Area Advanced After Screening to DEIS Southern Section DUS Access to 84 th Avenue Coliseum/Stock Show (Denver) Coliseum/Stock Show South Coliseum/Stock Show North Commerce City 68 th Avenue 72 nd Avenue South Northern Section 84 th Avenue to 162 nd Avenue Area 88 th Avenue (Thornton) 88 th Avenue 88 th Avenue Welby Road Relocation 104 th Avenue (Thornton) 104 th Avenue 112 th Avenue (Northglenn/Thornton) 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street 112 th Avenue Parking East of York Street 124 th Avenue (Thornton) 124 th Avenue 124 th Avenue Eastlake TOD Planning Option* 144 th Avenue (Thornton) 144 th Avenue West 144 th Avenue East 162 nd Avenue (Thornton) 144 th Avenue Split 162 nd Avenue West 162 nd Avenue East Source: Project Team, Notes: *The 124 th Avenue Eastlake TOD Planning Option is to be fully evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. DUS = Denver Union Station TOD = transit oriented development ES-15 November 2009

16 ES Proposed Train Service The Build Alternative would operate trains for 21.5 hours per day from 4:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. on weekdays, with more limited service on weekends and holidays. Weekday service would be 15-minute headways in peak periods (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.), and 30-minute headways in off-peak periods. ES Connected Actions to the CRMF Connected actions are actions that are closely related and that therefore should be discussed in the same NEPA document. For the DEIS, the proposed construction of the Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility (CRMF) at the Fox North Site is a connected action because the Project could not be operated without a facility, connected by track, to maintain and repair commuter rail trains. All North Metro vehicles would be serviced at the proposed CRMF, located approximately 2.5 miles from DUS in the FasTracks Gold Line and Northwest Rail commuter rail corridors. The impacts to each resource from the CRMF are summarized in the Connected Action subsection. More detail is provided in a separate NEPA document published for the CRMF, the Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility Supplemental Environmental Assessment to FasTracks Commuter Rail Corridors (FTA and RTD 2009). The NEPA decision for the CRMF is to be determined in the Gold Line or East corridor ROD, whichever comes first. ES.3.8 What are the Preferred Elements of the Project? This section summarizes the preferred options for the elements in the Build Alternative (alignment, technology, stations, and service), as well as the elements that need further evaluation. Alignment Approximately 18 miles of new passenger railway would be provided on the BNSF/UP Boulder Branch alignment alternative. The alternative includes double-track from the DUS throat point at 20 th Street to approximately 128 th Avenue, and single-track north of 128 th Avenue to the end-of-line. (Note: from the DUS throat point south to DUS, North Metro will enter DUS on single-track.) While the Preferred Alternative will feature the BNSF/UP Boulder Branch alignment, a portion of it is dependent on the selection of one of the four Southern Section alignment options in the corridor. RTD has not identified a preferred alignment in the Southern Section and all four alignment options are being advanced for further consideration in the FEIS process. Vehicle Technology EMU is the preferred vehicle technology due to overall cost effectiveness and environmental and public considerations. Stations The multiple station options for North Metro s eight new stations (plus DUS) have been narrowed to the recommendations listed here. These options will be refined in the FEIS. The 2015 corridor parking supply will be approximately 3,100 spaces. 1. Coliseum Stock Show (Denver) RTD is not recommending a preferred station option until CCD completes its analysis in January 2010 (120 parking spaces). 2. Commerce City RTD recommends the 72 nd Avenue South Station option as the Preferred Alternative (230 parking spaces). November 2009 ES-16

17 3. 88 th Avenue RTD recommends the 88 th Avenue Station option as the Preferred Alternative (400 parking spaces) th Avenue RTD recommends the 104 th Avenue Station option as the Preferred Alternative (500 parking spaces) th Avenue RTD recommends the 112 th Avenue Parking West of York Street Station option as the Preferred Alternative (250 parking spaces) th Avenue RTD evaluated one station option at 124 th Avenue in the DEIS. However, RTD recommends evaluating this station option and the Thornton/Eastlake TOD planning option in the FEIS (300 parking spaces) th Avenue RTD recommends the 144 th Avenue West Station option as the Preferred Alternative (300 parking spaces) nd Avenue/SH 7 RTD recommends the 162 nd Avenue East Station option as the Preferred Alternative (1,000 parking spaces). Service Plan and Performance Weekday 30-minute headway (time between trains) each direction except during peak periods, which is a 15-minute headway. Weekends and holidays would be more limited than weekday service. Travel time is 27 minutes between DUS and 162 nd Avenue/SH 7 with 14,300 riders per weekday (2030). The predicted travel time savings from SH 7 to DUS for commuter rail is 35 minutes over automobile travel time on I-25 in ES.3.9 Cost and Financing Capital cost of $1,066 million for year of expenditure for 2015 opening day project with EMU technology. Average annual operation and maintenance costs of $10.3 million. A Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 loan is one aspect of the current concept for financing the North Metro corridor, although other options, such as the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, are under consideration as RTD refines its financial plans moving forward. ES-17 November 2009

18 ES.4 ES.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES What Human or Environmental Resources were Considered? Key resources and human or environmental conditions that were evaluated in the DEIS are listed in Table ES-5. The impacts of the Build Alternative that have proven to be of greatest concern to the public are discussed in more detail below. The impacts and proposed mitigations of the Build Alternative are shown in Table ES-7. TABLE ES-5. RESOURCES EVALUATED IN THE NORTH METRO CORRIDOR DEIS Resources Evaluated Social Impacts Air Quality and Energy Environmental Justice Noise and Vibration Land Use Biological Resources Economic Mineral Resources Farmlands Water Quality and Floodplains Land Acquisition Wetlands Archaeological, Historic and Paleontological Resources Hazardous Materials Visual Resources Utilities Parklands and Open Space Public Safety and Security Source: Project Team, Note: DEIS = Draft Environmental Impact Statement Impacts have been minimized because the majority of the project would be located in a railroad ROW with the exception of the alignment in the Southern Section and at station locations. In addition, significant public input identified concerns and allowed the team to address, avoid, or minimize these concerns through the design process. ES.4.2 What Kinds of Environmental Effects Would the Project Have? The predicted impacts of the Preferred Alternative are discussed below for resources identified as of greatest concern to the public and agencies. ES Social Impacts and Environmental Justice The Build Alternative with preferred elements would increase mobility and access to community facilities throughout the North Metro corridor study area. Introducing a new commuter rail alignment to avoid the Sand Creek Junction area, could create barriers, although this area is primarily industrial. Farther north, the currently unused rail corridor is perceived and used as open space. RTD s new use of the corridor could divide neighborhoods and affect community cohesion in newer neighborhoods. Maintaining existing or providing new pedestrian, bike, and street connections across the ROW mitigates these impacts. Safe pedestrian crossings of the alignment would be provided at existing grade separations, and formal street crossings, as well as at new grade-separations (i.e., underpasses or overpasses) at 104 th Avenue and 120 th Avenue, at some station platforms, and at new grade-separated trail crossings for Fernald November 2009 ES-18

19 Trail in Commerce City and near Rocky Top Middle School and Grange Hall Creek in Thornton. No community facilities would be displaced. Environmental justice regulations were created because of concerns that land uses and facilities were being placed in minority and low-income communities without regard to the consequences of these actions. Therefore, projects are evaluated to assess if there are disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income communities as compared to the general population. One of the needs of the project is to serve traditional transit users, who include elderly, minority, and low-income populations that are dependent on public transportation because they do not own, or prefer not to use, private vehicles. There would be benefits to minority and low-income populations from implementing the preferred elements of the Build Alternative because of increased mobility and access to transit, and indirectly from better access to jobs and services through the transit system and potential TOD-related job creation. The Build Alternative would provide alternative transportation options throughout the North Metro corridor study area and connect to the regional transit system. Stations would be located near major job sites, which would provide better and more convenient access to low-income, minority, and traditional transit users. There may be disproportionately more adverse impacts for property acquisition and business relocations within minority and low-income communities. These impacts will be further investigated during the FEIS process. ES Land Use, Zoning, and Economic Considerations The Build Alternative, including the preferred station options, would be compatible with and would support regional and local plans. Land use changes are expected as a result of induced development (TOD and other mixed-use). TOD advantages include more compact development, more cost-effective infrastructure investment, less automobile dependency and congestion, and improved air quality. Such land use policies also improve the performance of the transit system through increased ridership and revenues. All of the local governments in the North Metro corridor study area have prepared plans, or are in the process of preparing plans, to take advantage of the benefits of the Build Alternative. The impacts analysis concludes that the Build Alternative with the preferred stations would be both compatible with and supportive of existing and future land use and transportation planning within the North Metro corridor study area. Depending on the alignment and station options, the preferred elements of the Build Alternative would impact 13 to 17 businesses that would require relocation. These impacts would affect approximately 230 employees. Construction of the Build Alternative, however, would directly and indirectly create an estimated 5,000 construction-related jobs over 3 years. The Build Alternative would not have a measurable effect on the jobs/housing balance. The changes in retail sales from the Build Alternative result from changes in retail development within the corridor. The retail development changes anticipated from the Build Alternative are largely limited to changes in the development plans surrounding stations as a result of TOD opportunities. Three stations with TOD development plans anticipate an increase in retail development: the 88 th Avenue, 124 th Avenue/Eastlake, and 162 nd Avenue Station areas. ES-19 November 2009

20 Stations constructed on lands with existing or potential mineral extraction operations could inhibit opportunities to extract these minerals. ES Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation of Existing Uses Land acquisition has been one of the top concerns throughout the public involvement process of the DEIS. The Build Alternative with preferred elements would require the acquisition of between approximately 85 and 100 acres, and relocation of zero to three full residential properties. A total of 77 to 87 properties would be affected. The acquisitions in the Southern Section are the result of the alignment being outside of the railroad ROW and at proposed stations. Property acquisitions in the Northern Section are a result of proposed stations since the alignment is located within existing railroad ROW. The typical trackway section within the railroad ROW is shown on Figure ES-6. FIGURE ES-6. COMMUTER RAIL TYPICAL TRACKWAY (TANGENT SECTION) Source: Project Team, ES Archaeological, Historic, and Paleontological Resources Cultural resources (archaeological and historic resources) are regulated through Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act. The potential for impacts to historic resources is important to the North Metro corridor study area stakeholders. The preliminary DEIS analysis indicates that the Build Alternative would result in direct impacts to one paleontological site and between 10 and 13 cultural sites depending on which alignment and station options are selected. Indirect visual impacts are also anticipated at between 62 and 100 cultural sites depending on which alignment is selected. The impacts to these sites would have no adverse effects that would diminish the qualities that make these sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, except for the following sites. At the Quimby Railroad Stop (5AM2111) and Eastlake Railroad Stop (5AM2114), proposed noise walls, the power poles for the catenary system and the addition of new parallel tracks would result in adverse effects. The parking for the 124 th Avenue Station would result in adverse effects to an historic farmstead (5AM2158). ES Visual and Aesthetic Qualities The visual impact of the Project has been a concern identified in the public involvement process, especially with respect to overhead catenary systems required for the EMU technology and noise walls. November 2009 ES-20

21 Implementation of the Build Alternative with preferred elements would involve the installation of the following elements that would change the visual quality in the corridor: Eight transit stations and park-n-ride facilities. Numerous sound walls (37,200 to 39,600 linear feet, depending on the Southern Section alignment selected in the FEIS process) and corridor fencing. More than 18 miles of overhead catenary systems and trackway. All of these features would represent a visual change, with the degree of change dependent on the surrounding environment. In the Southern Section, from DUS access to 84 th Avenue, the visual change from commuter rail service would be compatible with the industrial setting of the Denver section of the alignment. In the Northern Section, from 88 th Avenue to the 162 nd Avenue area, the catenary poles, and occasional placement of noise walls due to EMU would be consistent with the commercial setting but would add to the visual impact in the residential areas. The Project would minimally to moderately impact the view in the Southern Section, and moderately or significantly impact the visual character in the Northern Section. Fencing the alignment could be a visual impact in some locations of the corridor with no existing fencing. Figure ES-7 presents a visual simulation of EMU through neighborhoods in the Northern Section. ES Parklands and Recreation Areas There are over 100 private and public parks and recreational resources located within the North Metro corridor study area and more than 60 resources (existing and proposed) within the project study area. Project team members coordinated with the CCD, Adams County, Commerce City, City of Northglenn, City of Thornton, and the Greenway Foundation in a series of meetings to discuss identification, impacts, and mitigation measures for these resources. The preferred elements of the Build Alternative would directly impact four parks (Globeville Landing Park, Yucca Way Property, Grandview Ponds Open Space and Prairie Dog Habitat, and the Eastlake Railroad Property), and three recreational trails (Fernald Trail, Signal Ditch Trail, and Rocky Top Middle School Connector Trail). Potential indirect impacts are also identified for several parkland resources including visual changes associated with noise walls, the catenary system, or station facilities/lighting; localized air quality impacts adjacent to station parking areas; reduced visibility for trail users associated with new rail bridges; and increased use of resources due to proximity to a proposed transit station. Temporary construction impacts could result from temporary detours for two recreational trails and the noise, dust, and visual impacts associated with construction processes. With mitigation, these impacts are not anticipated to impair the overall function of these parkland and recreational resources. ES-21 November 2009

22 FIGURE ES-7. VISUAL SIMULATION OF EMU IN THE NORTHERN SECTION Source: Project Team, ES Noise and Vibration Noise is one of the principal environmental impacts associated with rail transit projects, and has been a key public concern throughout the North Metro corridor public involvement process. Figure ES-8 provides context for various types of noise levels. For the Build Alternative using the EMU rail vehicle, and without mitigation, there would be a total of 1,172 to 1,275 residential noise impacts. Severe noise impacts are projected at one school plus 584 to 651 residences, depending on the Southern Section alignment selected. Moderate noise impacts are projected at 588 to 631 residences, of which 289 to 312 would be in the upper moderate range. All of these impacts are predicted at noise-sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet from the proposed track, and are identical for opening day 2015 and 2030 operations. Ranges are the result of the four alternative alignments in the Southern Section. FIGURE ES-8. TYPICAL A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS Source: Project Team, November 2009 ES-22

23 The results of the noise analysis suggest that the most effective mitigation approach is to establish Quiet Zones. (See Figure ES-9 for a Quiet Zone explanation.) Should Quiet Zones not be implemented, the secondary plan is to examine wayside directional horns at crossings and additional mitigation, such as sound insulation and more noise barriers. Such additional analyses will be included in the FEIS process, if necessary. The next mitigation strategy is to construct noise barriers near the tracks in noise sensitive areas. For the EMU vehicle, an 8-foot-high noise barrier would be required, totaling 37,200 to 39,600 linear feet, depending on which Southern Section alignment is selected in the FEIS process. With the recommended combination of Quiet Zones and noise barriers, it is predicted that 139 moderate (of which 8 are upper moderate) and 4 severe impacts would remain for a total of 143 noise impacts. These remaining severe noise impacts would be candidates for additional mitigation treatments, if practical. Based on detailed vibration analysis, no vibration impacts are projected for the Build Alternative; therefore, no mitigation is currently recommended. ES Natural Resources Wetlands Wetlands and other waters features are considered important resources by several relevant government agencies. The protection of these resources is critical for maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of aquatic resources in the United States. As a result, impacts to wetlands and the other waters are closely regulated. The loss of wetlands and the functional values they provide is a continuing problem in the United States. The development of new linear transportation infrastructure projects has the potential to add to that loss. As a result, wetlands in the project study area are located, identified, and evaluated. Designs are then assessed for the ability to avoid the wetlands completely, minimize impacts to them, or, as a last resort, mitigate the impacts. The Build Alternative, if implemented, would directly impact 2.6 to 3.0 acres of wetlands, and 2.3 to 3.8 acres of other water features depending on the alignment and station options selected. ES Hazardous Materials Properties with landfills or hazardous materials present could substantially affect the feasibility or overall cost of the project. Impacts can result from current or historic land uses or releases of hazardous substances (i.e., pesticides, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and heavy metals) or petroleum products (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, and lubricants). The presence of these materials can cause project delays and increased costs, particularly if they are not identified prior to construction. Hazardous material contamination would be avoided where possible, and adequate protective measures taken before, during, and after construction. FIGURE ES-9. QUIET ZONE Quiet Zone A Quiet Zone is an area where crossings of the rail line include sufficient safety mechanisms, so that trains are no longer required to sound their horns when crossing. Quiet Zones need to be implemented by local government through approvals from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), FRA, and the railroads. RTD can assist but cannot submit the application to implement a Quiet Zone. Quiet Zone construction is part of the project costs. Source: Project Team, There are numerous landfill sites north of I-270 and they are poorly delineated. Eighty-four to 109 high-ranked sites are located within 500 feet of the alignment of the Build Alternative depending on the alignment ultimately selected in the Southern Section. Contaminated soil, ES-23 November 2009

24 groundwater, and hydrocarbon plumes up to 3.5 feet of thickness are associated with the Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. refinery. A groundwater-barrier system is present to the north and west of the refinery to prevent migration of sub-surface contaminants. The Coliseum/Stock Show Station area has a number of potentially hazardous conditions including leaking underground storage tanks and underground storage tanks and a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System site within 1,000 feet. Considerably fewer potential impacts would occur within the less developed Northern Section (three high-ranked sites), and only the 124 th Avenue Station area has any potential hazardous material sites within 1,000 feet. Indirect impacts could include reduction in landfill capacity due to excavation and disposal of contaminated soils. Temporary construction impacts could occur if hazardous materials are encountered during construction resulting in potential human health hazards and costs to remove. Mitigation will consist of investigation of sites to identify the potential for encountering hazardous materials, modifying design elements and construction activities to avoid or minimize impacts to these sites, and undertaking protective measures before, during, and after construction. ES Public Safety and Security There is some concern regarding the potential safety risks of exposure to incidents at the refinery on the North Metro corridor for all the alignment options, and especially for Alignment A-3 that runs between the two parts of the refinery along Brighton Boulevard near Sand Creek Junction. The preliminary safety analysis has not identified either a frequency or severity of incidents to preclude any of the Southern Section alignments. A more detailed safety analysis will take place in the FEIS phase. Another concern regarding Alignment A-3 is that its elevated segment adjacent to the refinery would shade the parallel segment of Brighton Boulevard beneath it, which could result in additional icing in the winter months. ES Section 4(f) Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966, as amended and codified in Title 49 United States Code (USC) 303, declares that [i]t is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. Section 4(f) was enacted in response to a growing awareness and concern on the part of the public and its elected representatives of the encroachment of a growing transportation system on parklands and historic sites. Section 4(f) also states that transportation programs and projects that require the use of protected lands shall not be approved unless a determination is made that: 1. there is no feasible or prudent alternative to the use of land; and 2. the project or program includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. A full Section 4(f) evaluation was prepared for several resources that would meet the criteria for de minimis (minimal) impacts as described under 23 CFR 774. The Build Alternative would result in a direct use of five Section 4(f) resources (three cultural sites and two parkland resources). A de minimis impact is anticipated at between nine and 13 additional resources, depending on the alignment or station options selected in the FEIS process. November 2009 ES-24

25 ES.5 TRANSPORTATION In comparison to the No Action Alternative, the Build Alternative would affect future transit and roadway operations. No permanent or long-term impacts on freight operations or bicycle and pedestrian facilities are anticipated. ES.5.1 What Impacts Would the Build Alternative Have on Transit? The Build Alternative would result in improved transit service, travel time, and capacity. Figure ES-10 shows system-wide linked transit trips forecast for the No Action Alternative, the TSM Alternative, and the Build Alternative with the preferred EMU vehicle technology. Linked trips provide a comparison of the overall transit ridership impact on the entire system. The average weekday ridership for the Build Alternative would be 14,265 in The Build Alternative would generate approximately 8,000 more transit-linked trips than the No Action Alternative, and more than 3,380 more transit-linked trips than the TSM Alternative. 436,000 FIGURE ES-10. SYSTEM-WIDE LINKED TRANSIT TRIPS, YEAR , ,000 Daily Transit Linked Trips 432, , , , , , , ,000 Source: RTD, No Action TSM Preferred Alternative (EMU) As shown on Figure ES-11, the Build Alternative with the preferred EMU vehicle technology will provide the fastest peak period transit travel time, at 27 minutes, between 162 nd Avenue/SH 7 and DUS in Transit times for the No Action Alternative and the TSM Alternative assume express bus service traveling on I-25 bus/high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes into DUS. The Build Alternative exhibits a 56 percent (%) improvement in travel time over the automobile, and a 40% improvement over bus transit times in the No Action Alternative and TSM Alternative. Highway automobile travel times remain the same among all alternatives due to travelers shifting from local streets to the highway system when more roadway capacity is made available. ES-25 November 2009

26 (Auto) FIGURE ES-11. TRAVEL TIME COMPARISON, YEAR (Auto) 62 (Auto) 2030 Travel Time in Minutes (Bus) 45 (Bus) 27 (EMU) 10 0 Source: RTD, No Action TSM Preferred Alternative (EMU) Table ES-6 shows the impact to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and vehicle hours of delay (VHD) of each alternative in the North Metro corridor study area and the Denver metropolitan region. These are measures of roadway travel demand, congestion, and delay, respectively. Delay measurements consider the difference between traveling at freeflow speeds (uncongested) versus the time it would take to travel the same distance under congested conditions. Both regionally and in the North Metro corridor study area, the difference in VMT and VHT is less than 1%. In the regional analysis, the commuter rail alternatives show a reduction over the No Action Alternative of approximately 100,000 VMT, indicating a reduction in overall travel throughout the region. Within the North Metro corridor, the change in VHD represents the greatest overall percentage change among congestion measures. Within the North Metro corridor study area, the estimated reduction in VHD provided by the Build Alternative over the No Action Alternative is approximately 2.7%. November 2009 ES-26

27 TABLE ES-6. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, VEHICLE HOURS TRAVELED, AND VEHICLE HOURS OF DELAY COMPARISON (AVERAGE WEEKDAY 2030) Region Study Area Measurement No Action Alternative TSM Alternative Build Alternative (Commuter Rail) No Action Alternative TSM Alternative Preferred Alternative (EMU) VMT 1 108,942, ,900, ,842,260 10,682,380 10,664,630 10,640,210 Difference in VMT from No Action Alternative NA -42, ,310 NA -17,750-42,170 VHT 1 3,549,410 3,546,060 3,541, , , ,960 Difference in VHT from No Action Alternative NA -3,350-8,030 NA -1,600-3,620 VHD 824, , ,800 95,230 94,090 92,700 Reduction in VHD Over the No Action Alternative NA -2,180-5,420 NA -1,140-2,530 Source: North Metro Team Corridor Project Team, Notes: 1 In the regional study area analysis, the Build Alternative shows an improvement over the No Action Alternative for VMT, VHT, and VHD. EMU = electric multiple unit NA = not applicable TSM = Transportation System Management VHD = vehicle hours of delay VHT = vehicle hours traveled VMT = vehicle miles traveled ES.5.2 What Roadway Impacts Would the Project Have? Roadway congestion levels can have a prominent effect on travel times and the propensity of travelers to utilize transit. The tradeoffs between automobile and transit travel have been examined as part of this multi-modal transportation system. Due to disproportionate rates of the projected daily VHT and VMT between 2005 and 2030, congestion is expected to extend the peak hours and lower overall average speeds. Southern portions of the North Metro corridor generate a greater degree of truck traffic due to industrial land uses and freight container transfers that occur between railroad cars and trucks. Although these roadway conditions are present in the corridor, the majority of roadway impacts from the Build Alternative for the North Metro Corridor Project are anticipated to be centered at the station access points and adjacent intersections. It is anticipated that some intersections would be affected by the traffic at the eight stations and require mitigation. Mitigation will include the addition of signals, turn lanes, minor lane widening at intersection approaches/departures, modifying access at existing intersections, or in some cases, a combination of these elements. ES.5.3 What Railroad/Roadway Crossing Improvements Would be Made? Rail crossing treatments have been proposed for the Build Alternative at-grade crossings based on RTD s Grade Crossing Evaluation Methodology (2006), and to support the requirements for implementing Quiet Zones. As a result, the Build Alternative would incorporate 17 to 20 at-grade crossing improvement projects in the North Metro corridor study area, depending on the Southern Section alignment selected. These mitigation measures will generally provide lights and dual gates with a raised median or quad gates, depending on the geometry of the ES-27 November 2009

28 intersection. In addition, two grade-separated crossings (either an overpass or underpass) have been proposed at 104 th Avenue and 120 th Avenue. ES.5.4 What are the Impacts to Freight Rail Operations? The Build Alternative would allow for shared use of tracks for freight rail and commuter rail operations between slightly north of 70 th Avenue and slightly north of 120 th Avenue. RTD executed an agreement with the UP Railroad in 2009 allowing for this shared freight operation. To serve an existing customer in this section, deliveries to the freight rail customer would occur at night when the commuter rail is not operating. In the section south of 70 th Avenue, the A-3 and B-4 alignment options would include track turnouts and crossovers to accommodate freight rail crossing movements, and an agreement with the UP would be needed for temporal (timed) separation of commuter rail and freight rail crossing movements. The B-2 and B-3 alignment options would not share track with freight rail operations. If an agreement can be obtained and these design measures are implemented, there would be no effects on freight rail operations that could not be mitigated. As part of the North Metro corridor Build Alternative, commuter rail vehicles would be maintained at RTD s proposed CRMF Fox North Site. Access to the CRMF site for North Metro corridor vehicles would be via the shared mainline tracks for the proposed FasTracks Gold Line/Northwest Rail commuter rail lines. There would be no impact to freight rail operations related to CRMF access. ES.6 PUBLIC COMMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION A Public Involvement Program (PIP) and Corridor Coordination Plan (as required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA- LU], 2005) were developed and implemented for the Project that blend ongoing engagement strategies with intense outreach organized around key project milestones. ES.6.1 How has the Public Been Involved With this Project? The public has been involved in the DEIS since the beginning of the project in September 2006 (Figure ES-12). Public workshops were held seven times at two locations in the corridor at SAFETEA-LU decision milestones, before the DEIS was released. November 2009 ES-28

29 FIGURE ES-12. COORDINATION PROCESS AND SCHEDULE Source: Project Team, In addition, the PIP included community/issue forums, various stakeholder meetings, and station specific meetings with numerous community, civic, neighborhood, and municipal committees and organizations. These small-group meetings engaged stakeholders in more communityspecific ways than is possible with larger workshops. In order to give everyone ample opportunity to engage in the public process, outreach was also implemented specifically for minority and low-income communities. ES.6.2 How have Agencies Been Involved? The LGT and AWG have been involved in the project from its inception. All project information was presented first to the LGT for review and input, then to the public through public workshops, and then to the combined LGT and AWG at agency milestone meetings. As outlined in the Corridor Coordination Plan, and agreed to by all participating and cooperating agencies, public involvement was organized as described below. ES Local Governments Team This is comprised of a policy group of one or two elected officials and a technical group of staff members chosen by each of the following local/regional government entities: City of Brighton Commerce City City and County of Denver ES-29 November 2009