Southeast Extension Alternatives Analysis

Appendix D Agency and Public Coordination

1 of 2

RTD Southeast Extension Alternatives Analysis

RTD Southeast Extension Alternatives Analysis Locally Preferred Alternative: Local Governments and Stakeholders Meeting January 11, 2012, 3:00pm to 4:30pm Coventry Development Offices, Lone Tree, Colorado Attendees: Local government and stakeholder representatives: Darryl Jones, Coventry/RidgeGate Keith Simon, Coventry/RidgeGate Steve Klausing, SEBP John Cotten, City of Lone Tree RTD: Susan Wood, Andy Mutz, Tina Jaquez, Jeet Desai Jacobs: Tom Underwood, Misty Swan Meeting attendees were provided a handout with information about the identified Locally Preferred Alternative, project schedule, and next steps. Susan Wood began the meeting with introductions, a brief summary of the project’s history, and explained that the purpose of the meeting was to present the identified Locally Preferred Alternative and obtain feedback. Susan then provided a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the project history, scoping meetings held and scoping comments received, the Level 1 and 2 screening processes and results, a description of the identified Locally Preferred Alternative (the LRT EE Alignment 2), and next steps and schedule. Susan noted that the same presentation will be provided at tonight’s public meeting. Questions and comments provided during the presentation are listed below:

1. Question: How was the study area determined? Response: Study area was determined based on areas that would be served by the project and the proximity of transit users to the project.

2. Request: Steve _____ asked Susan Wood for the data used to determine the study area. Response: Susan said she would send that information.

2 of 2

3. Comment: Please update the study area map to show current roadways. Hess Road will be open soon, and RidgeGate Parkway now runs all the way east to Parker. Response: Map will be updated.

4. Question: The most current development plans support the need for this project. Does DRCOG have and use current development plans? Response: DRCOG updates their information twice a year.

5. Question: Will this project be presented to the RTD Board as a stand-alone project, or packaged with other projects? Response: This project will be presented as a stand-alone project.

6. Question: Can the public attend and provide comments at the RTD Board meeting? Response: We believe that they can.

7. Question: At this point in the project, have there been any surprises in terms of cost, environmental impacts, etc.? Response: No, there have been no surprises. It is felt that there is not a lot of risk associated with this project.

8. Question: Has this project taken into account CDOT’s plans to widen I-25 from RidgeGate to County Line and its impact on this project? Response: Yes, RTD is aware of that project and interfaces with CDOT on an on-going basis.

Susan thanked the attendees for their time and encouraged them to contact RTD with any questions or comments.

J:\_Transportation\072120.306 FasTracks\SE Corr - Extend to RidgeGate\Manage\Meetings\minutes\Local Govts Mtg Pref Alt Jan 11 2012\Local Govts Jan 11 2012 mtg - Pref Alt.doc

I~iFll

~Fa

sra

cs

Sig

nIn

She

et

Date

IT

ime

IIL

ocation

i/~I/~

j~

I~M

eeting

Title

SoL)~

E~‘

~T5

AJ4

2.

Pro

ject

or

Co

rrid

or

Desig

nato

rF

ile

Co

de

So~r

Wt~

*r7~

Na

me

Org

aniz

ation

Ph

on

eE

-Mail

Addre

ss,

City,

Zip

~ ~~

~S~

~°~

“c~

/~e~

freI

d~~

2~-c

-’-~

-~~

-

~c~

~-ç~

Pc~~

(—ri>

ij.

~~

~~

S’D

A_

Q4

(~_

*~~

—

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Rev

210

/25/

11

1 of 4

RTD Southeast Extension Alternatives Analysis

RTD Southeast Extension Alternatives Analysis Locally Preferred Alternative: Public Meeting January 11, 2012, 6:00pm to 7:30pm Lone Tree Recreation Center, Willow Room, Lone Tree, Colorado Attendees: Eighteen people signed in (sign-in sheet attached) RTD: Susan Wood, Andy Mutz, Tina Jaquez, Jeet Desai Jacobs: Tom Underwood, Misty Swan Meeting attendees were provided comment sheets and a handout with information about the identified Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), project schedule, and next steps. Susan Wood began the meeting with introductions, a brief summary of the project’s history, and explained that the purpose of the meeting was to present the identified LPA and obtain feedback. Susan then provided a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the project history, scoping meetings held and scoping comments received, the Level 1 and 2 screening processes and results, a description of the identified LPA (the LRT EE Alignment 2), and next steps and schedule. Questions and comments provided at the public meeting are listed below:

1. Will the Park-n-Ride at RidgeGate Parkway be surface parking or a parking structure?

2. What activity centers on east and west side of I-25 do you need to connect with transit? Why would people who, for example, live north near Yale Avenue want to access the Lone Tree City Center?

3. Why is the LPA cheaper than the LRT West Along I-25 Alignment?

4. Regarding right-of-way cost, is RidgeGate going to give RTD a discount on right-of-way costs or something?

2 of 4

5. How is cost per ridership developed?

6. How can you say the LPA would have no significant impacts when traffic at the Park-n-Ride has not yet been evaluated?

7. From the map showing the LPA alignment, it looks like LRT is prepped to continue farther south, instead of leaving the option open to head east or another direction from there.

8. What is the timing of the project?

9. I suggest that RTD coordinate with the fire department regarding evacuation routes.

10. How is inflation affecting completion of the FasTracks system?

11. What is the estimated cost of the project?

12. Are federal funds already designated? How certain is it that federal funds will be obtained for this project?

13. You mentioned that RTD plans to have vote in November 2012 for additional sales tax to help fund FasTracks. If the November vote is not successful, what happens to this project?

14. Will this LRT extension be considered a new zone in the LRT system?

15. Will people who live outside of RTD’s district have to pay for parking at the RidgeGate Park-n-Ride?

16. Is the LRT Southeast Corridor currently supporting itself with fares? Susan thanked the attendees for their time and encouraged them to contact RTD with any questions or comments.

J:\_Transportation\072120.306 FasTracks\SE Corr - Extend to RidgeGate\Manage\Meetings\minutes\Pub meeting Pref Alt Jan 11 2012\Pub Mtg Jan 11 2012 mtg - Pref Alt.doc

3 of 4

4 of 4

1 of 3

RTD Southeast Extension Alternatives Analysis

RTD Southeast Extension Alternatives Analysis Agency Meeting January 18, 2012, 9:30am to 10:30am RTD Offices, Denver, Colorado Attendees: Agency representatives: Jim DiLeo, APCD Belinda Arbogast, CDOT Jim Paulmeno, CDOT Steve Cook, DRCOG Jacob Riger, DRCOG Tony Loui, FTA Dave Beckhouse, FTA RTD: Susan Wood, Tina Jaquez, Jeet Desai, Andy Mutz Jacobs: Chris Primus, Misty Swan Meeting attendees were provided a copy of the Southeast Extension Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) handout that described the LPA, project schedule, and next steps. Susan Wood began the meeting with introductions, then presented the powerpoint presentation that was provided at last week’s local governments/stakeholders meeting and public meeting. The presentation described a history of the project, project scoping results, the two-step screening process and results, the identified LPA (LRT EE Alignment 2), project schedule, and next steps. Comments and questions provided by meeting attendees are summarized below:

1. Are the SE Corridor and SW Corridor planned to connect at some time in the future? An LRT connection of those two corridors is not included in the current FasTracks plan. It is possible that a connection would be provided in the future, but there are no current plans for that. The two LRT corridors are currently connected by limited bus service.

2. What were the reasons for public and local agency opposition to the west side alignment? The nearby residents were opposed to the proximity of the end-of-line station to their neighborhood; the local governments were opposed because of its inconsistency with local plans.

3. When would construction on this project begin? Construction is currently planned to start in 2014.

2 of 3

4. The reduction in VMT for the project seems low – seems like it should be 10 or 20 times as much, why is that? The reduction in VMT was calculated only for this project and was based on new riders within the study area. RTD can only take credit for reduced VMT for the actual project, as required for Small Starts. Dave Beckhouse mentioned that it would be beneficial to look at both local and regional VMT effects in the NEPA document that will be prepared for the project.

5. For travel time savings calculations, right now the Lincoln Station is not easy to access, and it takes 3 or 4 minutes to get there once you exit I-25. Are travel time calculations taking that into account? This level of detail is not directly available from the model, and so this is not included in the travel time savings calculations.

6. When this project is done, will RTD provide new ridership numbers for this project to DRCOG – assuming the actual number of riders will be different than current estimates? The entire SE Corridor, including this extension, is currently in DRCOG’s plan.

7. Question regarding public’s perception of project. How does RTD determine/prioritize which corridors to construct or extend? For example, why is RTD extending the SE Corridor now instead of extending the I-225 corridor north to Anschutz? Does it have to do with promises made to the public? RTD regularly reviews the overall FasTracks program, evaluates funding, and makes adjustments to the schedule. RTC allocates funds as equitably as possible amongst all the corridors based on input received.

8. Does RTD plan to include a new sales tax in the upcoming November 2012 vote? The RTD Board is considering that but no decision has been made at this time.

9. Regarding one of the needs in the project’s Purpose and Need to connect activity centers on both sides of I-25: On that stretch of I-25, there is only one major arterial crossing every mile or 1.5 mile, which creates pinch points. Do local governments or CDOT have any plans to make I-25 less of a barrier by adding local roads that cross the interstate? In other words, would that purpose and need item be addressed by other planned projects by local governments or CDOT? The City of Lone Tree plans include constructing a road across I-25 called Sky Ridge Parkway just north of Sky Ridge Medical Center. A meeting attendee also mentioned that there are plans for an additional crossing of I-25 south of Arapahoe Road.

10. Dave Beckhouse asked what additional packets of information RTD will be providing to FTA. RTD will be providing a Scoping Report, Technical Results Report, and Alternatives Analysis Report to FTA.

11. Tony Loui said that he has prepared minor comments on the Technical Framework Report provided by RTD and just emailed them to Susan Wood. He pointed out that some of the comments were after the fact (such as comments

3 of 3

relating to scoping meetings, since those have already occurred). FTA may have more comments on the forecasting methodology. FTA would like to meet with the RTD modeling staff to discuss the TSM alternative, and then discuss the Baseline Alternative closer to the time of the Small Starts application submittal.

12. Belinda asked what reports RTD will be providing to CDOT. RTD plans to provide a copy of the Alternatives Analysis report to CDOT, and will provide other reports (Scoping Report, Technical Results Report, etc.) to CDOT if they desire. Belinda said she would like a copy of the traffic report. The traffic report will be prepared as part of the EA process.

13. Regarding the discussions about providing crossings of I-25, Tony Loui requested RTD to address that comment in the study at some point (existing crossings/access and planned crossings/access) in the context that other plans are in place that would address the Purpose and Need of providing crossing of I-25 besides the crossing provided by the LPA. Need to show how we are coordinating with local plans about providing crossings of I-25.

14. When will NEPA process for this project start? Anticipate starting soon -- in March or April.

15. How much work remains to prepare the NEPA document from the work that was done for the Environmental Evaluation (EE)? We have a lot of good information in the EE that will be reviewed and updated where necessary. A full Section 106 was not conducted for the EE, so that will be done for the Environmental Assessment.

Susan thanked attendees for their time and comments.

Action Items

1. Susan Wood will schedule meetings with Tony Loui to review the TSM Alternative and Baseline Alternative.

2. RTD will provide Scoping Report, Technical Results Report, and Alternatives Analysis Report to FTA.

3. RTD will provide Alternatives Analysis report to CDOT, and other reports as requested by CDOT.

4. RTD will include discussion in the study describing how they are coordinating with local plans regarding planned crossings of I-25.

5. RTD will include information about both local and regional VMT effects in the NEPA document.

J:\_Transportation\072120.306 FasTracks\SE Corr - Extend to RidgeGate\Manage\Meetings\minutes\Agency Mtg Pref Alt Jan 18 2012\Agency Mtg Min Pref Alt 011812.doc

Southeast Extension to RidgeGate Parkway

Locally Preferred Alternative

RTD has conducted an alternatives analysis and has iden-tifi ed a light rail transit (LRT) alignment as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Th e LPA includes a 2.3-mile, double-track light rail extension that runs south from the existing Lincoln Station along the west side of I-25, crosses to the east side of I-25 just north of Sky Ridge Hospital, and continues south to the RidgeGate Parkway interchange. Th e LRT crosses RidgeGate Parkway via an overpass. Th e LPA

CONTACTINFORMATION

If you have any questions,please contact:

Susan A. Wood, AICPSoutheast CorridorProject Manager

RTD 1560 BroadwayDenver, CO 80202

Susan.Wood@rtd-fastracks.com

You can also provide additionalcomments in the following ways:

Online: www.RTD-FasTracks.com and click on the Southeast Rail Extension Tab

By email: SE@RTD-FasTracks.com

By mail: RTD-FasTracks Attn: Tina Jaquez FasTracks Public Information Team 1560 Broadway, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202

Phone: 303.299.6902

Fax: 303.299.2425

provides three new stations, including two Kiss-n-Rides (sta-tions without parking), one just north of Sky Ridge Avenue across from the Sky Ridge Medical Center, and another, the Lone Tree City Center Station, which is situated in the core of the RidgeGate Planned Development. A new end-of-line station at RidgeGate Parkway would provide 2,000 parking spaces. Th e LPA includes bus service to the RidgeGate Park-n-Ride.

January 2012

Schedule2011 2012

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Alternatives Analysis:Develop screening criteria:Develop preliminary alternatives:Public and agency scoping: Conduct alternatives screening: Public and agency meetings to present PreferredAlternative and identify Locally PreferredAlternative:

Environmental Review Process to be carried out after the AA Process:Data collection and existing conditions:Assess environmental impacts: Distribute Environmental Assessment: 30-day public comment period for Environmental Assessment:Public Meeting:Prepare Decision Document and submit to Federal Transit Administration:Federal Transit Administration issues the Decision Document:

*Schedule subject to change depending on alternatives evaluation process.

Alternatives Analysis - Costs, Benefi ts, Impacts

Select LPA - Begin NEPA Evaluation Process

FTA Project Justifi cation - Based on the project’s anticipated performance on land use,cost-eff ectiveness, and economic development measures.

Entry into Project Development - Based on FTA Project Performance ratings.Includes preliminary and fi nal design. Completion of NEPA Process.

Project must receive a “Medium” rating or better from FTA.

FTA Funding Recommendation - Based on favorable performance rating andlocal fi nancial commitments. FTA approved PMP.

Project Construction Grant Application - Based on ability to complete the project, schedule,eff ective use of funds, and adherence to funding limits of the Small Starts Program.

Construction

WE AREHERE

IN THE PROCESS

FTA - Federal Transit Administration LPA - Locally Preferred Alternative PMP - Project Management Plan

Where We Are in the Process