Walk Bridge Replacement Project

Transcription

1 Walk Bridge Replacement Project Public Hearing Environmental Assessment/Section 4(f) Evaluation & Environmental Impact Evaluation (EA/EIE) November 17, 2016

2 Meeting Agenda 1. Welcome & Introductions Robert Ike, CTDOT 2. Project Overview Jim Fallon, CTDOT 3. Presentation of Alternatives Christian Brown, HNTB 4. Environmental Findings Kevin Slattery, HNTB 5. Public Comment Robert Ike, CTDOT Jim Fallon, CTDOT

3 Public Hearing Purpose Proposed project overview Environmental review process overview EA/EIE findings summary Comments on the proposed project and EA/EIE findings

4 Project Overview Jim Fallon, CTDOT

5 Program Overview

6 Critical Transportation Link Approx.125,000 passengers daily Approx. 175 trains per day Projected ridership will double by 2030

7 Waterway Users and River Navigation

8 Bridge Issues Prompted the Project Opening and closing difficulties Hurricane Sandy impact Maintenance not the solution

9 Public Involvement Environmental Process National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) For projects requiring federal action Environmental Assessment (EA) Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) For state projects Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) Document Existing Conditions Develop Alternatives Select Preferred Alternative Develop Proposed Mitigation Measures Public Comment Period

10 What is an Environmental Assessment/ Environmental Impact Evaluation (EA/EIE)? Defined Purpose and Need Description of affected area Existing and proposed conditions Analysis of alternatives Preferred alternative Assessment of impacts on environmental resources Proposed mitigation measures Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966

11 Purpose and Need Replace the deteriorated bridge with a resilient bridge Enhance the safety and reliability of rail service Offer operational flexibility and ease of maintenance Provide for increased efficiencies of rail transportation Maintain and improve navigational capacity and dependability Incorporate bridge redundancy and provide a sustainable bridge for significant weather events

12 Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 Applies to use of Public Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife Refuges, and Historic Properties Allowed only if no feasible and prudent alternative exists and the use includes all possible means to minimize impacts (mitigation); or the use will have a de minimis impact on the Section 4(f) resource Identifies Section 4(f) Resource Impacts Impact minimization and mitigation identified

13 Presentation of Alternatives Christian Brown, HNTB

14 Project Alternatives The renderings displayed are conceptual and may not reflect final design aesthetics No Build Build Alternatives Rehabilitation Alternative Replacement Alternative Fixed Bridge Replacement Alternative Movable Bridge Preferred Alternative

15 Summary of Alternatives Project Needs Rehab LL Fixed ML Fixed HL Fixed Movable Age-related Deterioration Reliability Resiliency Safety Standards Redundancy (dual spans) Operational Flexibility Difficulty of Maintenance Rail Capacity and Efficiency Marine Capacity and Dependability Sustainability

16 Environmental Footprint

17 Rehabilitation Alternative Maintains existing navigation clearances Historic appearance retained Does not meet the Purpose and Need Some components remain 120+ years old High life cycle costs Vulnerable to extreme weather conditions Bridge malfunction disrupts all tracks No navigation clearance improvements (closed) Temporary run-around bridge required, resulting in extended construction schedule, rail disruptions, navigation restrictions, and environmental impacts Estimated Construction Cost $425M - $475M

18 Fixed Bridge Alternatives: High-level Meets the Purpose and Need Resilient for extreme weather conditions Improved reliability for rail and navigation Extensive track reconstruction on the mainline and Danbury Branch Reconstruction of South Norwalk Station Largest property acquisition needs Highest cost of all options Estimated Construction Cost > $1.3B Longest construction schedule, resulting in longest duration of rail disruptions, navigation restrictions, and environmental impacts The renderings displayed are conceptual and may not reflect final design aesthetics

19 Fixed Bridge Alternatives: Low- and Mid-level Resilient for extreme weather conditions Improved reliability for rail traffic Does not meet the Purpose and Need Permanent vertical navigation restriction Higher long-term costs for navigation needs Temporary run-around bridge required, resulting in extended construction schedule, rail disruptions, navigation restrictions, and environmental impacts The renderings displayed are conceptual and may not reflect final design aesthetics Low-level Mid-level Estimated Construction Cost $290M - $370M

20 Movable Bridge Alternatives Lowest cost to satisfy Purpose and Need Resilient for extreme weather conditions Improved reliability for rail and navigation Fewest foundations in the river Potential for shortest construction schedule Temporary run-around is not required, resulting in the shortest duration of rail disruptions, navigation restrictions, and environmental impacts Estimated Construction Cost: $330M - $460M The renderings displayed are conceptual and may not reflect final design aesthetics 240 Vertical Lift 170 Rolling Lift 170 Vertical Lift

21 Comparison: Movable Bridge Alternatives The renderings displayed are conceptual and may not reflect final design aesthetics

22 Preferred Alternative: 240 Vertical Lift Span Highlighted Benefits Shortest overall construction schedule Lowest risk during construction Shortest period of two-track train service No extended navigation restrictions Shortest duration of local impacts Fewest number of foundations in the water Architectural and aesthetic flexibility Improved alignment with Stroffolino Bridge Estimated Construction Cost: $425 - $460M The renderings displayed are conceptual and may not reflect final design aesthetics

23 Environmental Findings Kevin Slattery, HNTB

24 Combined NEPA/CEPA Process Initiate Project Purpose & Need Identified Publish EA/EIE Public Comment Period Record of Decision FONSI or Proceed to EIS Public Scoping Public Hearing 11/17/16 (CEPA) (NEPA) Scoping Meeting 2/24/15 Agency Scoping Meeting 3/5/15 Prepare EA/EIE under NEPA/CEPA Ends 12/5/16 CTDOT and FTA Respond to Public & Agency Comments Prepare Final Documents under NEPA/CEPA Initiate Final Design & Permitting Construction and Impact Mitigations

25 Cooperating and Participating Agencies

26 Resources Evaluated Transportation Rail Marine Traffic Transit Community Parking Pedestrians Bicycles Land Use Zoning Property acquisition Socioeconomic Plans and Policies Parklands, recreation areas, community facilities Natural/Aquatic Resources Water quality Aquatic resources, floodplains Tidal and freshwater wetlands Coastal management resources Threatened/endangered species Cultural and Other Resources Historic/archaeological sites Water dependent uses Visual resources Air, noise, vibration Terrestrial resources Hazardous materials and risk sites Public utilities and service Safety and security Environmental justice Secondary/cumulative impacts Municipal/regional plans State plan of conservation/ development

27 Environmental Impacts Water and Natural Resources Wildlife/terrestrial habitats Water quality impacts Tidal and freshwater wetland < 0.1 ac. Upland habitat along railroad embankment Floodplain use/possible flood flow effects Noise and Vibration Noise/vibration near the work areas

28 Environmental Impacts Traffic, Pedestrians, Bicycles Road and parking Pedestrian and bicycle disruptions Economics Nearby land-based and upstream water-based businesses during construction Property tax revenue reduction

29 Environmental Impacts Historic Properties/Archeological Sites Adverse effects to: National Register-listed Walk Bridge Eligible Fort Point Street Bridge, walls, high towers, catenary supports No adverse effects to surrounding historic buildings Potential effects to: Pre-colonial contact/historic period archeological resources

30 Potential Mitigation Measures Plans Identified in EA/EIE Health and Safety Dredged/Contaminated Materials Management Construction Site Safety and Security Stormwater Pollution Prevention Communications Management Business Coordination Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Historic and Archaeological Mitigation MOA Plans Developed Prior to Construction Commencement Air Quality Control Dust Control Noise and Vibration Control Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Construction Coordination Action Plan Traffic Management Alternative/Replacement Parking Marine Transportation/Water-dependent Use Waterfront Access Designated Truck Haul Route Historic Building Protection Environmental Compliance Action

31 Public Comment Robert Ike, CTDOT and Jim Fallon, CTDOT

32 How to Comment Your input is important to decisions about the Walk Bridge project Document Written Availability: Comments may be made by: Norwalk City Hall, Town Clerk Comment Form (available in the lobby) Norwalk Public Library East Norwalk Association Library Online at /contactus South Norwalk Branch Library Western Connecticut Council of Governments By to Connecticut Department of Transportation By mail to: Mr. Mark W. Alexander, 2800 Berlin Turnpike, Newington, CT, Comment Period Ends: December 5, 2016

33 Next Steps EA/EIE Development Comment Period Final NEPA/CEPA Docs Environmental Permitting Design Development Final Design Aesthetic Flexibility Develop Mitigation Plans Construction Implementation of Mitigation Measures Public Input on Design and Mitigation We are here

34 Format for Comments Testimony will be limited to three (3) minutes We will be calling on people in the order they have signed up Those not signed up will be given the opportunity to speak