CHAPTER 7 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 7 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

2

3 7. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES This chapter presents the results of the evaluation and trade-offs analysis conducted for the alternatives developed for the. 1 The purpose of this chapter is to bring together the key findings, both qualitative and quantitative, for each alternative so that benefits, costs, and environmental consequences can be evaluated against the stated project goals and objectives presented in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need. The intent of this comparative analysis is to facilitate the decision-making process for the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) Board of Directors, as well as public officials, interested residents, businesses, and institutions in the study area. Consideration of these findings will lead to the selection and implementation of the preferred alternative for providing improved public transportation services in the. 7.1 Evaluation Framework The transportation goals and objectives set forth in Chapter 1 provide the overall framework for analyzing and comparing the alternatives and selecting the best alternative for implementation. The alternatives are a No Build Alternative and three build alternatives, which include the following: Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative with Base Alignment 2 LRT operating on dual trackway located in exclusive lanes on Capitol between Bagby and St. Emanuel in downtown and on Capitol, Scott Street, and Griggs Road between St. Emanuel and end-of-the-line terminus at Palm Center east of Martin Luther King Boulevard. A new vehicle storage and maintenance center for the Southeast Corridor LRT line would be constructed south of the LRT trackway and east of Dowling. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Convertible Alternative with Base Alignment BRT vehicles operating in reserved lanes on Capitol and Rusk between Bagby and St. Emanuel in downtown and in exclusive lanes on Capitol, Scott Street, and Griggs Road to a terminus at Palm Center east of Martin Luther King Boulevard. The fixed guideway would be constructed with elements for future conversion to LRT. BRT Alternative with Base Alignment Same as BRT Convertible but without the elements for conversion to LRT in the future. LRT Alternative with Wheeler-Martin Luther King (MLK) Alignment Option Same as LRT base alignment, but with the fixed-guideway alignment on Wheeler Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard. The Southeast Transit Center would be relocated to the Palm Center Station on Griggs Road east of Martin Luther King Boulevard. 1 2 This DEIS incorporates by reference all technical information, studies, and other public documents produced for the Southeast-Universities-Hobby Corridor Planning Study Alternatives Analysis (AA) and the METRO Solutions Transit System Plan that support the DEIS. These documents are considered part of the environmental compliance record and can be requested for review at the METRO offices. Acronyms and abbreviations are defined at their first use in each chapter. A complete list of acronyms and abbreviations used in this DEIS is contained in Appendix A. July

4 BRT Convertible with Wheeler-MLK Alignment Option Same as base alignment with BRT Convertible, but with the fixed-guideway alignment on Wheeler Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard and relocation of the Southeast Transit Center to the Palm Center Station. BRT with Wheeler-MLK Alignment Option Same as base alignment with BRT, but with the fixed-guideway alignment on Wheeler Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard and relocation of the Southeast Transit Center to the Palm Center Station. The evaluation framework outlined in the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning (FTA, 1990, updated 2003) was used to evaluate the alternatives developed for the. The framework considers each alternative from five different perspectives: Effectiveness (Goals Achievement) This criterion examines how well each alternative helps to achieve the purpose of, and satisfy the need for, transportation improvements in the project area. It focuses on how well each alternative helps attain the goals and objectives defined for the project in Chapter 1. Impacts This criterion examines the extent to which each alternative minimizes harm to the environment and is consistent with local and state plans and policies. Efficiency (Cost-Effectiveness) This criterion examines the effectiveness of each alternative in generating user benefits relative to estimated capital and operating costs. In effect, it relates value received (in terms of benefits obtained) to the resources invested in each alternative compared to other alternatives. Benefits are expressed in terms of hours of travel time. Financial Feasibility This criterion focuses on the agency's ability to pay for each alternative s capital and operating costs based on the availability of local and federal funds. Equity Each alternative may benefit certain groups more effectively than other groups. This criterion examines the question of equity from the perspectives of service, financial, and environmental benefits and impacts among affected groups. In addition to the evaluation of the alternatives against the five different perspectives, a trade-offs analysis has been conducted. In the trade-offs analysis, the important differences among alternatives are highlighted. This permits decision-makers to apply value judgments with respect to costs and benefits, i.e., what is being given up relative to what is being gained for each alternative. The objective of the trade-offs analysis is to substantiate the rationale for the selection of the alternative, or combination of alternatives, which will become the preferred alternative The above criteria, as well as public, agency, and other stakeholder comments on the findings of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be used to make three decisions related to the alternatives for the. The first decision will be a build/no build decision. A build decision would affirm continuing the implementation of the fixed-guideway transit project. With a No Build decision, METRO would select the No Build Alternative with the expectation that no major transit investment will be implemented in the study area in the 7-2 July 2006

5 foreseeable future. If the decision to build the project is approved, the following two additional decisions would be made: Technology First, decision-makers would decide whether to build the fixedguideway transit project in the with LRT or BRT technology. The decision among the LRT, BRT Convertible, or BRT Alternatives will be based primarily on environmental impacts and financial feasibility. The financial feasibility evaluation includes the ability for each mode to meet: (1) the overall financial requirements of the METRO Solutions plan; and (2) the FTA s costeffectiveness criteria. Alignment Second, decision-makers would decide whether to build the base alignment on Scott Street and Griggs Road south of Wheeler Street or the Wheeler-MLK alignment option. The remaining sections in this chapter describe in detail each of the evaluation criteria, the evaluation findings associated with each criterion, and the relevance of those findings to the decisions by comparing trade-offs among the alternatives. 7.2 Effectiveness This evaluation criterion examines how well each alternative achieves the purpose of, and satisfies the need for, transportation improvements in the study area. It focuses on how well each alternative attains the goals and objectives defined for the project in Chapter 1. Because all of the build alternatives and alignment options are considered reasonable alternatives and meet purpose and need, the primary focus is on what the fixed-guideway project could achieve over the No Build Alternative (i.e., the build/no build decision). However, effectiveness also relates to the alignment decision, because the fixed-guideway alignments and vehicle technologies perform differently with respect to the goals "improve the efficiency, reliability, capacity, and safety of existing transportation services, preserve social integrity and support of urban community", and define a sound funding base. The goals of the project and the effectiveness of the build alternatives in achieving them are summarized below. Goal 1 "Develop a Multimodal Transportation System" The build alternatives would achieve this goal more effectively than the No Build Alternative by providing for the introduction of new fixed-guideway services in the Southeast Corridor. The new service would improve accessibility and connectivity by providing direct linkage and notably reduce travel times between major activity centers than with the conventional bus transit services under the No Build Alternative. The new fixed-guideway service would be an accessible mode providing a higher level of service than available in the corridor under the No Build Alternative and would be capable of attracting riders who currently use automobiles. By providing a higher level of schedule adherence than is currently possible, and a frequent, all-day, bi-directional service, the fixed-guideway transit service under the build alternatives would offer an attractive alternative to the congestion and uncertainties facing travel by automobile. July

6 7.3 Impacts Goal 2 "Improve the Efficiency, Reliability, Capacity, and Safety of Existing Transportation Services" The proposed fixed-guideway transit services under the build alternatives would operate at almost twice the average speed of the conventional bus transit services under the No Build Alternative. The number and spacing of the fixed-guideway stations would avoid the more frequent stops associated with local buses and provide for more efficient movement between activity centers and transfer locations than with local bus services. The welllocated Palm Center park-and-ride station would meet the needs of passengers whose preferred mode is to drive to a fixed-guideway station. Operating efficiencies would be improved for the transit system as a whole under the build alternatives by introducing the faster fixed-guideway services. Among the alignment options, the Wheeler-MLK alignment option would provide higher travel speeds because it crosses fewer intersections. Additionally, by operating within an exclusive trackway with traffic signal prioritization in downtown, the LRT Alternative would operate with slightly less delay and provide more reliable service than the BRT Alternative. Goal 3 Preserve Social Integrity and Support of Urban Communities The build alternatives would provide for improved transit services in the through the introduction of new fixed-guideway services. The increased access and mobility provided by the new fixed-guideway service is anticipated to be supportive of existing land uses and land use plans. The build alternatives also have the potential to encourage new social and economic opportunities for neighborhoods. The social integrity of the community would be preserved by using existing transportation corridors and minimizing new right-of-way acquisition. By maintaining the existing number of lanes on streets in the corridor outside of downtown, diversion of traffic to local streets in the study area would be minimized. Between the alignment options, the Wheeler-MLK alignment option would be considered more effective in achieving this goal in terms of minimizing residential and business relocation impacts. Goal 4 Plan for Transportation Improvements that Enhance the Quality of the Environment The build alternatives would enhance the quality of the environment by introducing a physical project of high quality and attractive appearance in appropriate settings and by providing an alternative that emits fewer pollutants than autos and local buses under the No Build Alternative. Goal 5 "Define a Sound Funding Base" The implementation of fixedguideway service in the would constitute a major capital investment that contributes to a more equitable supply of transportation services and benefits within the region. The costs of the improvements would be shared equitably among those who benefit. Among the alternatives, the BRT Alternative would provide almost the same benefits as the LRT and BRT Convertible Alternatives at a lower cost. This evaluation criterion examines the extent to which each alternative minimizes harm to the environment, and is consistent with plans, policies, and regulations of local jurisdictions and planning agencies. The criterion also measures the economic 7-4 July 2006

7 impacts of the alternatives in terms or jobs added, tax base impacts, and development/redevelopment opportunities that may result from implementation of the build alternatives. Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, identifies the potential impacts on the social, economic, cultural, and natural environment that will result from the construction and operation of the fixed guideway under the build alternatives in comparison to the No Build Alternative. Table 7-1 summarizes the impacts of the No Build Alternative and build alternatives and alignment options along with potential mitigation measures that could be considered for implementation. Because the No Build Alternative encompasses planned transit and highway improvements that will be built whether or not the fixedguideway project is built, the No Build Alternative is considered to have no additional environmental impacts, but the project benefits of the build alternatives, likewise, would not occur. As shown in the table, the differences among the build alternative alignment options are negligible for most impacts. The more notable differences for the alignment options were found in the impact displacements/relocations, noise and vibration and hazardous materials. A summary of the differences is provided below. Displacements/relocations The number of residential and business displacements and relocations was found to be greater for the build alternatives with the base alignment option on Scott Street and Griggs Road. A total of 91 residential units and 78 businesses would need to be relocated under this alignment option versus 64 residential units and 35 businesses under the Wheeler-MLK alignment option. Noise The number of locations and residential units with potential noise impacts was found to be less under the base alignment option compared to the Wheeler- MLK alignment option. The Wheeler-MLK alignment option would potentially impact ten locations with a total of 36 residential units as compared to the base alignment option with five locations and four residential units. Hazardous Materials The number of potentially high risk hazardous material sites was found to be greater for the base alignment option with 65 sites of concern as compared to 52 sites for the Wheeler-MLK alignment option. The differences among the build alternative technologies are negligible for most impacts. The most noticeable differences between vehicle technology alternatives were found in acquisitions and displacements, visual and aesthetics, ecosystems, and Section 4(f) properties. A summary of the differences is provided below: Displacements and Relocations The LRT Alternative would require a vehicle maintenance and storage facility which would acquisition of 43 properties and relocation of 16 businesses. BRT would not require a new maintenance facility. Visual and Aesthetics The LRT Alternative would require additional support infrastructure elements, contact wires, support poles, and traction power substations, that could have a minimal visual impact since they are not commonly viewed within the viewshed. The BRT Alternative would not require these elements. July

8 Table 7-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Area No Build Alternative Build Alternatives Land Use No impact. May redistribute some of the expected regional growth as a result of improved quality of life, image, and overall mobility. Could attract transit-supportive development to the corridor, including employment opportunities, higherdensity residential development, and new services and amenities. Support continued development and redevelopment activity within the corridor which may become more intense and focused around stations. Enhanced development / redevelopment potential in the immediate vicinity of stations. Compatibility with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls Environmental Justice Not fully supportive of the goals and objectives for the communities stated in planning documents. No adverse, disproportionate impacts on minority, low-income, or other special populations. No disproportionate benefits to these populations. Compatible with the plans, policies, and regulations of the local jurisdictions and planning agencies. Potential concern of future land use compatibility with existing deedrestricted neighborhoods (Greater Third Ward Community). No adverse, disproportionate impacts on minority, low-income, or other special populations. Positive benefit of increased accessibility for disproportionately minority and low-income neighborhoods, or those with large numbers of elderly residents or youth. Temporary construction impacts would affect each neighborhood s populations, during the short-term construction along the edge of that neighborhood. Potential Mitigation Measures for Build Alternatives Generally no mitigation required, except in cases where local plans do not support new development or redevelopment or where plans need development control measures. Design stations to be compatible with primary land use surrounding area. Coordinate with local neighborhoods and community groups regarding stations. No mitigation measures necessary to protect minority, low-income, and other special populations beyond those to protect the general population. Employ typical mitigation of temporary construction impacts. 7-6 July 2006

9 Table 7-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (continued) Impact Area No Build Alternative Build Alternatives Economic Impacts Lower capital expenditure than the build alternatives would result in reduced economic benefit in this corridor. Construction Activities Base alignment option would result in an average of 416 jobs per year for 3 years with LRT Alternative, 258 jobs per year for 3 years with BRT Convertible Alternative, and 210 jobs per year for 3 years with BRT Alternative. Wheeler-MLK alignment option would result in an average of 379 jobs per year for 3 years with LRT Alternative, 220 jobs per year for 3 years with BRT Convertible Alternative, and 179 jobs per year for 3 years with BRT Alternative. Operations Activities All alternatives would result in an additional 350 weekday transit vehicle hours that would require approximately 100 new employees. Loss of Assessed Property Value Right of way acquisitions would result in a temporary reduction in property tax revenues that would be offset in the long-term by redevelopment along the corridor and in station areas. Potential Mitigation Measures for Build Alternatives No mitigation required. Possible increases in property tax revenues as a result of increased development activity around rail stations or higher property values along the rail line is expected to more than offset the property value loss from the acquisition of properties for public use. Neighborhoods, Community Facilities, and Services No Impact. Community Facilities Increased accessibility to community facilities. Displace a small number of parking spaces and property frontage at the William A. Lawson Christian Life Center, Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church and Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church Community Life Center, Palm Center, and Young Library. Neighborhoods For the most part, greater access and mobility that would be provided by all options is anticipated to support the existing neighborhood functions without significantly changing the overall neighborhoods. Station areas could become centers of neighborhood activity and investment and; therefore, could serve to boost neighborhood social cohesion. The impacts on community facilities and neighborhood cohesion from the build alternatives are anticipated to be minimal. Refine design during PE and final design to minimize impacts. Educational awareness programs would alert residents to the presence of LRT/BRT service and vehicles. July

10 Table 7-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (continued) Impact Area No Build Alternative Build Alternatives Acquisitions and Displacements / Relocations No Impact. LRT Alternative with base alignment option would result in: Acquisition of 127 whole parcels consisting of 59 residential, 64 commercial, and 4 other properties. Total of 169 relocations consisting of 91 residential units and 78 businesses. LRT Alternative with Wheeler-MLK alignment option would result in: Acquisition of 93 whole parcels consisting of 41 residential, 49 commercial, and 3 other properties. Total of 99 relocations consisting of 64 residential units and 35 businesses. BRT Alternatives with base alignment option would result in: Acquisition of 84 whole parcels consisting of 47 residential, 34 commercial, and 3 other properties. Total of 124 relocations consisting of 62 residential units and 62 businesses. BRT Alternatives with Wheeler-MLK alignment option would result in: Acquisition of 50 whole parcels consisting of 29 residential, 19 commercial, and 2 other properties. Total of 54 relocations consisting of 35 residential units and 19 businesses. Air Quality No Impact. No violation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. No increase in emissions. Potential Mitigation Measures for Build Alternatives The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 requires that relocation and advisory assistance be provided to all eligible individuals and businesses displaced by a proposed project in accordance with the provisions of the act. Property acquisition would occur after the Record of Decision. Property owners would be paid fair market value for property acquired. Relocations could be accomplished either by providing compensation for moving residences and businesses back from the proposed right of way (where possible), or by providing assistance to locate and acquire available properties elsewhere. No mitigation required. Noise and Vibration No Impact. LRT Alternative LRT Alternative with base alignment option would result in potential noise impacts at 5 locations with a total of 4 residential units. LRT Alternative with Wheeler-MLK alignment option would result in potential noise impacts at 10 locations with a total of 36 residential units. Potential vibration impacts at 37 residential locations. Potential vibration impacts at 3 cultural/ recreational centers (Bayou Place, Jones Hall, and Incarnate Word Academy). BRT Alternatives No impact. The primary noise impact mitigation measure could be to provide sound insulation. The primary vibration impact mitigation measures could be ballast mats, resilient fasteners, or floating slabs for the LRT trackway. Noise and vibration mitigation will be addressed in greater detail during preliminary engineering and final design. 7-8 July 2006

11 Table 7-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (continued) Impact Area No Build Alternative Build Alternatives Visual/Aesthetics No Impact. Both Alignment Options Introduction of a vehicle that is currently not commonly observed within the local view shed. Introduction of a fixed guideway in areas where this infrastructure is not currently part of the local streetscape. The removal of grass and vegetation from existing median areas could result in a visual impact since these areas generally provide aesthetic value to the surrounding environment. Introduction of structural elements that do not currently exist in the corridor. Introduction of contact wires and support poles under LRT would have a minimal visual impact. Less visual impact under BRT because contact wires and support poles would not be required. Ecosystems No Impact The Wheeler-MLK alignment option would pass through MacGregor Park and may require removal of young, recently landscaped vegetation within the median of Martin Luther King Boulevard and potentially several trees adjacent to the roadway. The new LRT storage and maintenance facility would displace one additional wooded lot with sparse canopy cover and several other partially developed lots, including areas adjacent to the railroad with some vegetative cover. Potential Mitigation Measures for Build Alternatives Utilize the existing modern LRT and a similar modern BRT vehicle design. Use treatments at vehicular and pedestrian crossing to provide a distinguishing element of the fixedguideway system. Provide opportunities for stakeholders to recommend the design of station area elements. Replace any lost landscaping along the alignment. LRT Alternative Only Incorporate street lights and utility poles with contact wire support poles to minimize the number of poles and to provide a consistent style along the alignment. Minimize clearing, cutting and pruning trees where possible along the proposed alignment. Replacement of trees affected and relocated at other locations (to be determined in PE) along the alignment. Water Resources No Impact Surface Waters Surface waters of Brays Bayou could potentially be affected by both alignment options. Short-term effects may include a temporary increase in turbidity because of erosion and sedimentation. Long-term effects to surface water quality may occur as a result of pollutants emitted from passing vehicles, which would be carried by sheet flow to surface waters. Ground Water No impact. Obtain Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) general permit for storm water discharges from construction activities. Use best management practices to avoid seepage of contaminants into ground water. Coordinate new bridge with Houston Flood Control District. July

12 Table 7-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (continued) Impact Area No Build Alternative Build Alternatives Water Resources (continued) Floodplains No impact. Wetlands and Riverine Systems No impacts to wetlands. Both alignment options would cross Brays Bayou using a bridge so there would be no impact. Potential Mitigation Measures for Build Alternatives See also construction impacts. Historic and Archaeological Resources No Impact. Potential adverse effect on 4 eligible resources (1 building and 3 historic districts) visual impacts, changes to setting. Mitigation measures to minimize harm to the resources will be addressed in accordance with a Section 106 MOA to be developed for the project. Parklands and Other Section 4(F) Properties No Impact. Parkland and Recreational Resources Wheeler-MLK alignment option: MacGregor Park De minimis impact. Small amounts of park property would be used in the median of MLK Boulevard and the park access road. No impairment of park functions or activities. Historic Resources Both alignment options: Third Ward East Historic District acquisition of approximately 10 feet of right of way on the east side of Scott Street and two contributing buildings. Third Ward North Historic District minimal acquisition of land within the district boundaries affecting two parcels. Third Ward west Historic District minimal acquisition of land within the district boundaries affecting four parcels. LRT Alternative: Potential lowering of Scott Street at IH- 45 could result in the acquisition of land within the Third Ward East and North Historic Districts. The final Section 4(f) determination and evaluation of mitigation measures will be included in the FEIS. Refine alignment during preliminary engineering to reduce effects July 2006

13 Table 7-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (continued) Impact Area No Build Alternative Build Alternatives Geology and Soils Hazardous / Regulated Materials Safety and Security Construction Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures for Build Alternatives No Impact. No Impact. During PE additional detailed geotechnical investigations could be performed to develop site specific design criteria, selection of construction methods, and impacts to adjacent property. See construction impacts. No Impact. Total of 65 potential high risk sites of concern under the base alignment. Total of 52 potential high risk sites of concern under the Wheeler-MLK alignment option. See construction impacts. No Impact. No Impact. No mitigation required. No Impact. Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Increased traffic congestion and vehicular detours. Temporary limits on parking and short term blockages of driveways. Interrupted access to businesses. Short term disruption of utilities. Airborne dust and possible mud on roadways. Noise and vibration from construction equipment and vehicles. Removal of or damage to vegetation (e.g., trees, shrubs, grass). Short term use of vacant land for staging, and storage of construction equipment. Sediment-laden runoff from construction sites can alter sensitive areas receiving these discharges. Spillage of petrochemicals (fuels and lubricants) during operation, servicing, and maintenance of construction equipment. Water quality degradation as a result of storm water runoff is expected to be minimal. Potential removal or disturbance of contaminated soils. All Options Sequence contractor activities to minimize disruptions of traffic, parking, and access. Implement maintenance of traffic plan. Contain construction activities within as small an area as possible. Construction noise and hours to be limited by the City of Houston s ordinances. Develop storm water management plans and sedimentation and erosion control plans. July

14 Ecosystems The LRT vehicle storage and maintenance facility would require the displacement of one wooded lot with sparse canopy cover and several partially developed lots with some vegetative cover. The BRT Alternative does not require a new maintenance facility. Vibration Thirty-seven residential locations and three other sensitive sites could be impacted by vibration under the LRT Alternative. The BRT Alternative would not cause any vibration impacts. Parkland and Other Section 4(f) properties The LRT Alternative would require Scott Street to be lowered where the alignment travels under the IH-45 overpass. Lowering Scott Street could require acquisition of land within the Third Ward East and North Historic Districts. 7.4 Cost-Effectiveness This evaluation criterion provides local decision-makers with a means to compare the total expected costs of each alternative to its expected user benefits, which is the number of annual hours of travel time for all users of the transportation system. The evaluation of cost effectiveness uses the FTA New Starts cost-effectiveness measures. The cost effectiveness of the build alternatives was one of several measures reported for the fixed-guideway project by METRO in its New Starts submittal for the project. Other measures included mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, local commitments to transit supportive land use, the degree of local financial commitment, and project management. A comparison of the cost effectiveness of alternatives revealed that the BRT Alternative would be more cost effective than the LRT and BRT Convertible Alternatives. This difference reflects the substantially higher capital cost associated with the LRT Alternative (approximately $170 million higher), and BRT Convertible Alternative (approximately $35 - $40 million higher); however, the benefits of the BRT Alternative are the same as the LRT and BRT Convertible Alternatives. The comparison of the base alignment option relative to the Wheeler-MLK alignment option revealed the Wheeler-MLK alignment option would be slightly more cost effective. This difference reflects the higher capital cost for the base alignment option, (approximately $25 million higher for the BRT Alternative and $30 million for the LRT and BRT Convertible Alternatives), because of the slightly longer alignment, approximately 0.8 miles, and an additional station; however, the benefits for the two alignment options would be similar. 7.5 Financial Feasibility A further consideration in the selection of a preferred alternative is METRO's ability to finance the associated capital and operating costs. Section 2.6 under Chapter 2, summarized METRO's financial plan including costs and proposed funding sources for the build alternatives. A financial feasibility analysis identifies the financial implications of each alternative, enabling federal and local decision-makers to judge the practicality of building and 7-12 July 2006

15 7.6 Equity operating each of them. As such, the financial feasibility criterion relates to all decisions that have substantive differences in capital and operating costs. Thus, this criterion is related to the build/no build decision, as well as to the decision about alignment options and technologies. The build decision would result in a financial expenditure of approximately $150 to $350 million, depending on which option is selected as the preferred alternative. The wide range in costs for the build alternatives is a result of the higher costs related to the LRT components for the LRT and BRT Convertible Alternatives, compared to less intensive capital requirements of the BRT Alternative. The difference in costs of the base alignment option compared to the Wheeler-MLK alignment option is not considered significant enough for financial feasibility to be relevant to the alignment decision. The financial feasibility analysis prepared for the DEIS confirms the ability of METRO to fund the capital and operating costs of its existing and expanded bus services and the METRO Solutions plan (METRO, 2004) through 2012, including the Southeast Corridor project, from existing revenue sources. METRO is requesting from FTA less than 50 percent of the funds required to implement the rail component of the METRO Solutions plan. No new local revenue sources are required. However, in spring 2005, METRO initiated METRO Solutions Phase 2 as next step in the evolution of the METRO Solutions Plan. The goal of METRO Solutions Phase 2 is to guide the development and implementation of more miles of rapid transit service in a shorter time period than was envisioned in the 2003 METRO Solutions plan. As part of the Phase 2 analysis, rapid transit alternatives (alignments and vehicle technology) were reconsidered based on adding the Phase 2 goal to the evaluation process. The key results of the METRO Solutions Phase 2 analysis indicates the potential to implement 97 miles of rapid transit instead of the 36 miles envisioned in the METRO Solutions plan; and completion of the plan by 2012 instead of In comparing the LRT, BRT Convertible, and BRT Alternatives, only the BRT Convertible and BRT Alternatives accomplish the goals of the METRO Solutions Phase 2. Both BRT alternatives would allow for implementation of rapid transit in the and allow the funding to be used for implementation of rapid transit for the other corridors in the METRO Solutions plan. Equity is defined as the fairness of the distribution of costs, benefits, and impacts across various population subgroups. The equity of the alternatives considered was evaluated with respect to the following three categories: Service Equity The extent to which transit provides service to various population segments, particularly those that tend to be transit-dependent; Financial Equity The distribution of the project's cost across population segments through funding arrangements covering the local contribution to construction and operation; and July

16 Environmental Equity The incidence of any substantial environmental impacts, particularly in low-income and minority communities immediately adjacent to proposed facilities. This criterion relates to the decisions to be made by addressing the following questions: Would the service provided by the fixed-guideway project be equitably distributed among various population groups? Would funding the fixed-guideway project place an unequal burden on any particular community or population group? Would the implementation of the fixed-guideway and any particular build alternatives or alignment options place an inequitable burden on minority or low-income populations or are the impacts evenly distributed among communities of various socio-economic characteristics? Following is a summary of the findings on the service, financial, and environmental equity of the alternatives considered Service Equity Transit service equity is the extent to which the proposed transit project provides service to various population groups in the area, particularly low-income and minority residents. Persons served by the build alternatives are defined as those living within a one quarter-mile radius of proposed station locations for purposes of this evaluation. Approximately 11 percent of all people residing within the study area live within one quarter-mile of the station locations under the base alignment option and 10 percent live within one quarter-mile of the station locations under the Wheeler-MLK alignment option. Approximately 10 percent of all study area minority residents live in the base alignment option station areas and 9 percent of all study area minority residents live in the Wheeler-MLK alignment option station areas, rates that are similar to the study area as a whole. Black or African-American and Hispanic or Latino residents comprise the largest proportions of the population. The population within the base alignment station areas is approximately 30 percent low income and 30 percent for the Wheeler-MLK alignment option station areas. This poverty rate is slightly lower than the 33 percent poverty rate for the study area as a whole. These enhanced transportation services would provide increased mobility options and access within the study area as well as to and from low-income and minority communities. The No Build Alternative would provide accessibility to transit service similar to the build alternatives for all population groups and employment centers but would lack the speed, reliability, and frequency of service provided by the proposed fixedguideway project July 2006

17 7.6.2 Financial Equity Financial equity relates to the distribution of capital and operating funds for transportation improvements across population groups. Funding may include a variety of sources including federal, state, and local revenues, or other sources such as user fees or costs, and fares paid by transit passengers. Financial equity is a function of how the sources of those funds and the operating costs of the system relate to the users of the services and to various income groups. For example, general revenue funds are usually based on broad taxes such as sales taxes and are not directly related to an individual s use of a mode of transportation, where transit fares apply directly to users. In 1978, voters approved a one percent sales tax dedicated to transit. In November 2003, voters in the METRO service area demonstrated their commitment to METRO Solutions, including the project, with majority approval of plan and financing elements. With voter approval, authorization was given for the issuance of up to $640 million in bonds to fund the overall plan through The local sales tax and the new local funding provided by the bonding authorization will enable METRO to implement and operate the plan through 2012, including the fixed-guideway project. Sales taxes are generally regressive and, as such, the lower socioeconomic groups tend to pay a higher percentage of their incomes in sales tax. In terms of service under the build alternatives, minority and low income populations would be served well. This would negate any financial equity issue Environmental Equity Because of the diverse demographic characteristics of the study area and the City of Houston, some low-income and/or minority communities could be affected by the proposed project. Many low-income and/or minority neighborhoods are adjacent to the proposed alignment. This proximity would expose homes and businesses that abut the alignment to potential impacts, as discussed earlier. The primary potential impacts would be related to increased noise levels, displacement of some homes and businesses, and visual changes to the area. The proposed project would not result in disproportionately adverse impacts on lowincome and minority communities and businesses. Although the adverse effects that would occur would be predominantly borne by the minority and low-income populations, these effects are not appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than adverse effects upon the non-minority population and/or the non-low-income population. As with any major transportation project, it is likely that residents within the study area would endure some impact because of the construction and operation of the proposed fixed-guideway project. In addition, the fixed-guideway project would provide offsetting benefits and opportunities that would enhance minority and low-income communities, neighborhoods, and individual quality of life. Among the positive effects of the project for all residents in the study area are enhanced mobility options, greater access to local jobs, and non-job opportunities such as educational, shopping and entertainment July

18 activities, and potential economic development and redevelopment in communities within the study area. 7.7 Trade-Offs The purpose of the trade-offs analysis is to provide decision-makers with a comparison of the alternatives using the key differences among the alternatives across all five perspectives effectiveness, impacts, cost-effectiveness, financial feasibility, and equity. In selection of the preferred alternative, decision-makers will consider the evaluation results presented in this document and comments from agencies and the public during the public hearings and circulation period for the DEIS. As described in Chapter 5, the build alternatives were evaluated on the basis of impacts, compared the No Build Alternative. The trade-offs analysis highlights the impacts that were found to be distinctly different. These include residential and business displacements, noise and vibration, and construction impacts. In these categories, differences were noted among the build alternatives and base alignment option compared to the Wheeler-MLK alignment option. In the comparison of trade-offs, attention is given first to the build versus no build decision. Second, vehicle technology is addressed through a comparison of the trade-offs among the LRT, BRT Convertible, and BRT Alternatives. Finally, tradeoffs involved in the decision on the base alignment option versus the Wheeler-MLK alignment option are compared No-Build versus Build Trade-Offs Table 7-2 presents a comparison of trade-offs between the No Build and build alternatives. The fixed guideway under the build alternatives would be more effective in meeting the project goals and objectives identified in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need than the No Build Alternative. Most importantly, the build alternatives would improve transportation system accessibility and connectivity between activity centers and provide a transit investment supportive of redevelopment/development and local land use plans. The No Build Alternative would continue to operate local bus service without any major transit investment in the study area. In terms of cost-effectiveness, the build alternatives would achieve the purpose and need in an efficient manner. Although implementation of the build alternatives represents a substantial investment of local financial resources, the build alternatives are financially feasible. The new fixed-guideway service under the build alternatives would be provided on an equitable basis in terms of population groups served, sources of funds, and, in general, environmental impacts. Because the No Build Alternative encompasses planned transit and highway improvements that will be built whether or not the project is built, the No Build Alternative is considered to have no environmental impacts, but the project benefits of the build alternatives, likewise, would not occur. The alternatives would differ from the perspectives of transportation and air quality impacts July 2006

19 Table 7-2. Comparison of No Build Alternative Versus Build Alternatives Trade-Offs Effectiveness Evaluation Criterion July Alternatives No Build Develop a Multimodal Transportation System Improve the Efficiency, Reliability, Capacity, and Safety of Existing Transportation Facilities Preserve Social Integrity and Support of Urban Communities Plan for Transportation Projects that Enhance the Quality of the Environment Build Define a Sound Funding Base Cost-Effectiveness Financial Feasibility Equity Air Quality Impacts Transportation Impacts Transit Travel Time Transit Ridership Rating: Better Worse Neutral Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Implementation of the build alternatives would have only a minimal effect on forecast vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2025 in the region encompassed by the regional travel model compared to the No Build Alternative. The build alternatives would result in a slight increase in total transit trips because of the higher level of transit service and greater reliability provided by the project. However, travel-time benefits for transit users would be notable for transit trips that divert from bus to fixed guideway under the build alternatives. The build alternatives would shift a large number of transit trips from buses to fixed guideway that would be less affected by traffic congestion, and would consistently provide lower transit travel times than the No Build Alternative. The proposed fixed-guideway service provided under the build alternatives could have modest localized traffic impacts at intersections. The build alternatives would contribute to a small reduction in regional motor vehicle emissions Fixed-Guideway Vehicle Technology Trade-Offs Table 7-3 presents a comparison of trade-offs among LRT, BRT Convertible, and BRT Alternatives. The BRT Convertible and BRT Alternatives would be equally effective in meeting most of the project goals and objectives. However, the LRT Alternative would better address the goal of "improving the efficiency, reliability, capacity, and safety of existing transportation facilities" as a result of operating in an exclusive right of way with traffic signal prioritization in downtown.

20 Table 7-3. Comparison of Fixed-Guideway Vehicle Technology Trade-Offs Alternative Evaluation Criterion BRT LRT Convertible BRT Effectiveness Develop a MultiModal Transportation System Improve the Efficiency, Reliability, Capacity, and Safety of Existing Transportation Facilities Preserve Social Integrity and Support of Urban Communities Plan for Transportation Projects that Enhance the Quality of the Environment Define a Sound Funding Base Environmental Impacts Acquisitions and Displacements/Relocations Visual and Aesthetics Ecosystems Noise and Vibration Historic Resources /Section 4(f) Economic Impacts Cost-Effectiveness Financial Feasibility Equity Rating: Better Worse Neutral Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, From the perspective of impacts, differences between the alternatives were noted under environmental impacts. Impacts related to property acquisitions and displacements/relocations, visual and aesthetics, noise and vibration, ecosystems, and historic resources were found to be less under the BRT Alternative compared to the LRT Alternative. Also, the higher level of construction required for the LRT Alternative would result in more construction related jobs over a three-year period. In terms of cost effectiveness, the BRT Alternative is more cost effective than the LRT Alternative because of its lower capital cost almost half the cost of LRT and 20 percent less than the cost of BRT Convertible with the same level of benefits. The higher cost of the LRT and BRT Convertible Alternatives would reduce the project s cost effectiveness ranking with FTA. Capital costs would be approximately $130 to $200 million more for the LRT Alternative compared to the BRT Convertible and BRT Alternatives, respectively. The LRT Alternative could be considered to be less financially feasible and would be less supportive of METRO Solutions than the BRT Convertible and BRT Alternatives. Both BRT alternatives are considered financially feasible and supportive of METRO Solutions. No equity issues exist with either alignment option July 2006

21 7.7.3 Alignment Trade-Offs Table 7-4 presents a comparison of trade-offs between the base alignment option versus the Wheeler-MLK alignment option. Table 7-4. Comparison of Alignment Trade-Offs Evaluation Criterion Base Alignment Aignment Wheeler- MLK Effectiveness Develop a Multimodal Transportation System Improve the Efficiency, Reliability, Capacity, and Safety of Existing Transportation Facilities Preserve Social Integrity and Support of Urban Communities Plan for Transportation Projects that Enhance the Quality of the Environment Define a Sound Funding Base Environmental Impacts Acquisitions and Displacements/Relocations Parklands Noise and Vibration Hazardous Materials Cost-Effectiveness Financial Feasibility Equity Rating: Better Worse Neutral Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, In general the base alignment option and the Wheeler-MLK alignment option were determined to be equally effective in meeting the purpose and need or goals and objectives established for the project. The base alignment option was found to better meet improve efficiency, reliability, capacity, and safety of existing transportation facilities as a result of a shorter alignment and having to cross fewer intersections. The Wheeler-MLK alignment option was found to better meet preserve social integrity and support of urban communities as a result of fewer impacts to residences and businesses, which is also the primary environmental impact difference between the two alignments. In addition to fewer acquisitions and displacements/relocations, the Wheeler-MLK alignment option would disturb fewer contaminated sites than the base alignment option. However, the Wheeler-MLK alignment option would result in an increased number of potential noise and vibration impacts and impacts to MacGregor Park; although the impacts to MacGregor Park have been determined to be de minimis. Because of its longer alignment length and an additional station, capital cost estimates for the base alignment option are approximately $25 million to $30 million higher than the Wheeler-MLK alignment option. This results in the Wheeler-MLK alignment option July