State Route 710 North Draft EIR/EIS Public Hearing Presentation. April 11 and 14, 2015; May 6 and 7, 2015

Transcription

1 State Route 710 North Draft EIR/EIS Public Hearing Presentation April 11 and 14, 2015; May 6 and 7,

2 Presentation Outline Rules of Engagement Community Outreach Activities Background Purpose and Need Overview of Alternatives Draft EIR/EIS Summary of Key Findings Next Steps 2

3 Community Outreach/ Public Participation (1 of 2) Over 300 Meetings/Briefings Conducted 180 in Northeast/East Los Angeles: o Boyle Heights o Eagle Rock o East Los Angeles o El Sereno o Glassell Park o Highland Park o Lincoln Heights o Los Angeles o Mount Washington 154 in the San Gabriel Valley: o Arcadia o Alhambra o Azusa o Bradbury o Burbank o Duarte o El Monte o Glendale o Irwindale o La Canada Flintridge o La Crescenta o Monrovia o Monterey Park o Pasadena o Rosemead o San Gabriel o Sierra Madre o South Pasadena o Temple City Study Area Agency Coordination Meetings: o 18 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) o 14 Stakeholder Outreach Advisory Committee (SOAC) 3

4 Community Outreach/ Public Participation (2 of 2) 4 Briefings Held with Elected Officials Congress Members: Adam Schiff, Xavier Becerra, Judy Chu, Janice Hahn, Lucille Roybal-Allard State Senators: Kevin De Leon, Ed Hernandez, Carol Liu State Assembly Members: Mike Eng, Chris Holden, Jimmy Gomez, John Perez Los Angeles Country Board of Supervisors: Michael Antonovich, Gloria Molina, Hilda Solis Los Angeles City Council: Jose Huizar, Gil Cedillo, Eric Garcetti, Antonio Villaraigosa Local Elected Officials: Luis Ayala (Alhambra), John Fasana (Duarte), John Kennedy (Pasadena), Dennis Kneier (San Marino), David Lau (Monterey Park), Steve Madison (Pasadena), Barbara Messina (Alhambra), Ara Najarian (Glendale), Jacque Robinson (Pasadena), Stephen Sham (Alhambra)

5 Public Noticing Issued Joint Metro/Caltrans News Release on March 6, 2015 and; Published notices in legal sections of several newspapers throughout Study Area: Notice of Availability of Draft EIR/EIS o Caltrans website, public libraries (refer to handout) Public Comment Period: March 6, July 6, 2015 (120 days) Caltrans website for electronic submission of public comments Caltrans Contact Information 5

6 Supplemental Public Noticing Announcement on SR 710 North Webpage: E-blast Joint News Release to SR 710 North Database Joint News Release Posted on Study Area City Websites Sent Mailer to Businesses and Households Ad Placements Online and in Mainstream/Community Newspapers 6

7 Public Hearings Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 10 a.m a.m. Map Viewing 11 a.m. - 4 p.m. Public Hearing East Los Angeles College Rosco C. Ingalls Auditorium 1301 Avenida Cesar Chavez, Monterey Park, Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. 5 p.m. - 6 p.m. Map Viewing 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. Public Hearing La Canada High School Auditorium 4463 Oak Grove Drive, La Canada, Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. 5 p.m. - 6 p.m. Map Viewing 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. Public Hearing Pasadena Convention Center Ballroom** 300 East Green Street, Pasadena, Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. 5 p.m. - 6 p.m. Map Viewing 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. Public Hearing Los Angeles Christian Presbyterian Church Multi-Purpose Room 2241 N. Eastern Avenue, Los Angeles, **Live webcast:

8 Background Measure R funded study initiated 4 years ago to alleviate mobility constraints in study area (east/northeast Los Angeles and western San Gabriel Valley) 5 Alternatives advanced to the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (Draft EIR/EIS) for further study in 2012 Draft EIR/EIS is being circulated for public review and comment through July 6, 2015 Draft EIR/EIS does not recommend or select a Preferred Alternative 8

9 9 Project Study Area

10 Purpose Statement The purpose of the proposed action is to effectively and efficiently accommodate regional and local north-south travel demands in the study area of the western San Gabriel Valley and east/northeast Los Angeles, including the following considerations: Improve the efficiency of the existing regional freeway and transit networks; Reduce congestion on local arterials adversely affected due to accommodating regional traffic volumes; Minimize environmental impacts related to mobile sources 10

11 Project Need Capacity, Transportation Demand, and Safety Lack of north-south transportation facilities and overall congestion within the region Modal Interrelationships and System Linkages State Route 110 and Interstate 710 terminate within the study area without connecting to other freeways Social Demands or Economic Development State Route 710 is included in the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, FTIP and Metro s LRTP Environmental Factors Effects related to mobile sources associated with congestion 11

12 Alternatives Studied 12 1) No Build 2) Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) 3) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with TSM/TDM 4) Light Rail Transit (LRT) with TSM/TDM 5) Freeway Tunnel with TSM/TDM: Dual Bore Operational Variation No Tolls No Tolls and No trucks With Tolls Single Bore Operational Variation With Tolls With Tolls and No Trucks With tolls and Express Bus

13 No Build Alternative Provides the baseline against which all of the build alternatives are compared Includes planned improvements contained in the 2012 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) through 2035 Does not include any improvements associated with Build Alternatives identified within the SR 710 North study area 13

14 TSM/TDM Alternative Overview ITS Improvements Signal optimization Signal synchronization Transit signal prioritization Arterial changeable message signs Speed data collection Construction cost: $5 M Transit Refinement To existing bus routes Construction cost: $20 M Local Street Improvements: 17 intersections 7 street segments 3 other improvements: T-1: Valley Blvd to Mission Rd Connector Rd T-2: Arroyo Seco Parkway Hook Ramps T-3: St John Ave Extension from Del Mar Ave to California Blvd Construction cost: $80 M Active Transportation Class III Bike Routes Construction cost: $0 14 Preliminary Cost Estimate: $105 M (2014 dollars)

15 15 TSM/TDM Alternative

16 BRT Alternative High-speed, high-frequency service between East Los Angeles and Pasadena 12-mile corridor; 17 stops Mixed-flow and exclusive lanes (single and both directions) 10 minutes during peak hours and 20 min during off-peak Replaces existing Route 762 Amenities included to attract riders Two Bus feeder services Connects to El Monte Bus station Connects to Commerce and Montebello Metrolink Stations Includes elements of TSM/TDM Preliminary Cost Estimate: $241 M* (2014 dollars) 16 *Includes $102M for TSM/TDM improvements

17 LRT Alternative Between East Los Angeles and Pasadena 7.5 mile passenger rail line Includes 3 miles of aerial segment and 4.5 miles of tunnels 3 aerial and 4 underground stations Tunnels are expected to be constructed using pressurized face Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) Two approximately 20-ft diameter tunnels Tunnels would be advanced from south end Design including safety elements follows Metro guidelines Two feeder services Connects to El Monte Bus Station Connects to Commerce and Montebello Metrolink stations Includes elements of TSM/TDM Preliminary Cost Estimate: $2,420 M* (2014 dollars) 17 *Includes $52M for TSM/TDM improvements

18 Freeway Tunnel Alternative 6.3 mile route connecting Interstates 10 and miles of bored tunnel 0.7 miles of cut-and-cover tunnel 1.4 miles of at-grade segments Approx. 60-foot tunnel diameter(s) Single and dual bore design variations Design and safety elements based on Caltrans and National Fire Protection Association guidelines Ventilation structures provided near north and south portals No intermediate ventilation structures Operations and Maintenance Building provided at both portals Will house first responders 24/7 Includes elements of TSM/TDM Preliminary Cost Estimates: Single Bore - $3,150 M* (2014 dollars) Dual Bore - $5,650 M* (2014 dollars) 18 *Includes $50 M for TSM/TDM elements

19 19 Draft Environmental Documentation

20 Draft EIR/EIS Contents VOLUME I: Chapter 1- Background, Purpose & Need Chapter 2- Alternatives Chapter 3- Affected Environment/ Environmental Consequences Chapter 4- California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Chapter 5- Comments and Coordination Chapter 6 List of Preparers Chapter 7- Distribution List VOLUME II: APPENDICES (Supporting list of technical studies, charts, figures, tables, etc) 20

21 EIR/EIS Environmental Topics Land use Growth Community Impacts 21 Community Character/Cohesion Relocations Environmental Justice Utilities/Emergency Services Traffic/Transportation Visual/Aesthetics Cultural/Historical Resources Hydrology/Floodplains Water Quality Geology/Soils Paleontological Resources Hazardous Waste Air Quality Noise and Vibration Energy Biological Resources Natural Communities Wetlands and Waters Plant Species Animal Species Threatened & Endangered Species Invasive Species Construction Impacts Cumulative Impacts Health Risk Assessment Climate Change

22 Land Use, Growth & Community Impacts 22 General- None of the Build Alternatives are consistent with all policies, objectives or programs of various General Plans None of the Build Alternatives are expected to result in unplanned growth Except for LRT, there are no adverse impacts to community character and cohesion There are no disproportionate impacts on Environmental Justice populations Except for BRT, there are no Section 4(f) Impacts (parks, recreation areas, resources listed on or eligible for the National Register)

23 Community Impacts 23 Relocations, Acquisitions & Economic Impacts- LRT results in the greatest number of full property acquisitions, business relocations and employee displacements Approximately 58, 74 and 675, respectively LRT results in the greatest number of temporary parking losses during construction- Approximately 240 LRT results in the greatest number of future operations and maintenance (O&M) jobs Approximately 1,300 over 20 year life of facility Freeway Tunnels results in the greatest number underground easements - Approximately 324 and 563 parcels respectively for single and dual bore, respectively

24 Property Acquisitions/Relocations Buisness Acquisitions Business Acquisitions Partial Acquistions Full Acquistions 10 0 TSM/TDM BRT LRT FWY (single) FWY (dual) 24

25 Community Impacts Economic Impacts - LRT results in the highest future O&M employment earnings Approximately $45 Million over life of facility LRT results in the highest annual property tax and sales tax revenue losses - Approximately $51,000 and $75,000, respectively Freeway Tunnel (Dual Bore) results in the greatest number of future construction jobs - Approximately 72,000 (over construction period) Freeway Tunnel (Dual Bore) results in the highest future construction employment earnings - Approximately $3.5 Billion (over construction period) 25

26 26 Employment/Fiscal Impacts

27 27 Employment/Fiscal Impacts

28 Traffic Analysis Findings Freeways and Intersections Regional (6 counties) EIR/EIS Study Area Northeast LA County Freeway Network Over 600 segments Beyond EIR/EIS study area Intersection 156 high-volume locations Focused on alternative footprints and affected areas 28

29 Traffic Analysis Findings 29 When compared to No Build in 2035, all Build Alternatives: Reduce traffic within study area and region, and on local streets by varying degrees depending on the alternative Increase vehicle miles travelled within study area Decrease vehicles hours travelled within study area Reduce local street traffic volumes in N/S directions within the study area Reduce cut-through traffic within the study area Increase transit ridership within the study area

30 Traffic Summary Table New Transit Ridership (change in daily linked trips) in 2035 Freeway Tunnel TSM/ TDM BRT LRT Single-bore Dual-bore 11,250 13,500* 15,350* 10,100* 9,700* *Includes ridership from enhanced bus service as part of TSM/TDM Improvements With Toll Variation Average Daily Traffic Volumes Freeway Tunnel in 2035 (Vehicles/day) Single-Bore Freeway Tunnel With Toll, No Trucks Variation With Toll, Express Bus Variation No Toll Variation Dual-Bore Freeway Tunnel No Toll, No Trucks Variation With Toll Variation 89,900 93,300 92, , , ,400 30

31 Visual, Cultural and Noise General All Build Alternatives report varying degrees of visual impacts There are no adverse effects on historic properties All Build Alternatives report noise levels approaching or exceeding noise abatement criteria at varying degrees during and post construction activities 31

32 Air Quality Regarding Air Quality Conformity- Freeway Tunnel (toll variation) is consistent with 2012 Regional Transportation Plan and 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Plan TSM/TDM, BRT and LRT Alternatives are not considered projects of air quality concern Additional analysis for conformity would be required if Freeway Tunnel is identified as the Preferred Alternative 32

33 Air Quality Criteria Pollutants , Horizon Year 120,000 Project Study Area (lbs/day) 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 CO ROG Nox PM10 PM Existing No Build (2035) TSM/TDM BRT LRT FWY (single) with Tolls FWY (single) with Tolls and No Trucks FWY (single) with Tolls and Express Bus FWY (dual) No Tolls FWY (dual) No Trucks FWY (dual) With Tolls 33

34 Construction Impacts Temporary lane restrictions, road and ramp closures, and detours Emergency service travel delays Groundwater dewatering during construction (LRT and Freeway Tunnel) Temporary air quality, noise and ground-borne vibration impacts associated with construction Encountering hazardous materials Hauling excavated materials from tunnel boring using freeways and/or rail LRT station excavation would use local streets 34

35 Health Risk Assessment Existing conditions: Cancer risk estimated about 100 in a million near most highways/principal arterials Cancer risk estimated over 250 in a million near I-210 (east of SR 710) and I-5 Decrease of cancer risk in the study area for all alternatives compared to existing conditions Reduction in cancer risks within the study area on local arterials Higher reduction adjacent to freeways compared to existing conditions Decrease attributed to stringent emission standards, cleaner fleets, improved fuel efficiency, shifting of traffic for each of the build alternatives, etc. Locations with greater existing VMT will have greater cancer risk reduction in the future The overall regional reduction of cancer risks considers emissions from the ventilation structure Particulate matter emissions are substantially reduced by scrubbing and dispersion 35

36 CEQA Conclusions Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects: Paleontological resources Inconsistency with local plans Impacts to Study Area intersections/freeway segments Views of LRT from two locations Cumulative impacts Visual (LRT Alternative Only) 36

37 CEQA/NEPA Process Comments on Draft EIR/EIS will be accepted during public review period Written comments Verbal comments from public hearing Comments should address substantive concerns on the technical analysis provided in the EIR/EIS 37

38 Next Steps Conduct Public Hearings Review and Respond to Public Comments Develop/Prepare Supporting Data to Identify the Preferred Alternative (PA) Request Metro Board Concurrence on Recommended PA Finalize Environmental Document and Secure Record of Decision 38

39 Learn the Facts, Get Involved, Be a Part of the Solution Visit the Caltrans website to review the Draft EIR/EIS: and Visit Metro s website for library listings to access the Draft EIR/EIS, and to get updates: 39