SR 710 Environmental Studymedia.metro.net/projects_studies/route_710/images/... · Topics reviewed...
Transcript of SR 710 Environmental Studymedia.metro.net/projects_studies/route_710/images/... · Topics reviewed...
1
SR 710 Environmental StudyAlternatives AnalysisTechnical Advisory Committee Meeting No. 7 – August 29, 2012
Preliminary - Not for Distribution
11Preliminary - Not for Distribution
1
Agenda
Public Outreach and CommunityPublic Outreach and Community Involvement Update
Update on Part 1 – Alternatives Analyses Technical Work
Open Discussion/New BusinessOpe scuss o / e us ess
Meeting Adjournment
2Preliminary - Not for Distribution
2
August 2012 Outreach Summary
Seven Community Liaison Council Meetings held: Reviewed the12 Alternative Concepts Approximate Cumulative Attendance = 800MEETINGS:
> August 6th North East Los Angeles CLC in Highland Park> August 8th Pasadena CLC> August 8th San Gabriel CLC in Alhambra> August 9th South Pasadena CLC> August 9th South Pasadena CLC> August 9th East Los Angeles CLC in El Sereno> August 9th East San Gabriel CLC in Monrovia> August 13th La Canada Flintridge CLC
3Preliminary - Not for Distribution
Comments Received
Opposition to Avenue 64/H-2 alternative
Opposition to F-5 alternatives Opposition to F-5 alternatives
Goods Movement Information Session requested
Property Value concerns
Historical Resources concerns
Air Quality
Support for No Build Alternative
Quality of Life
Environmental Justice concerns Environmental Justice concerns
Outreach notification concerns
Support for F-7 from San Gabriel Valley area
More information requested for BRT and LRT alternatives
4Preliminary - Not for Distribution
3
Next Steps for Outreach Activities
Continued Outreach to Business Community
Outreach to smaller interest groups (i.e., neighborhood councils, etc.)
City-sponsored Information Updates:
Pasadena
Los Angeles (Council District 14)
South Pasadena
Oth t d Others as requested
Educational Sessions posted on the SR 710 website
Meetings and Forums
5Preliminary - Not for Distribution
Agenda
Recap of TAC Meeting #6Recap of TAC Meeting #6
Summary Results of Alternatives Analysis> Summary Results of conceptual engineering and
technical studies
P f f lt ti t> Performance of alternative concepts
> Development of hybrid alternatives
6Preliminary - Not for Distribution
4
Ground Rules
Q&A after each section of the presentationQ&A after each section of the presentation
Focus questions on information presented
General comments and Q&A at the end
7Preliminary - Not for Distribution
Recap of TAC Meeting No. 6
Preliminary Results of AlternativesPreliminary Results of Alternatives Analysis> Update on transportation system analysis for no-
build
> Initial environmental assessment
> Status of conceptual engineering> Status of conceptual engineering
> Transportation system analysis for all build alternatives
8Preliminary - Not for Distribution
Note - Only a sampling of alternative concepts were presented
5
Feedback Received During TAC No. 6
Were north-south screenlines considered?
The goal of Environmental Justice in screening
Time frame for completing the technical studies
Are travel time analyses included for transit alternatives?
Describe tunnel ventilation detailsDescribe tunnel ventilation details
Glatting Jackson traffic calming plan for Fremont Avenue
9Preliminary - Not for Distribution
Feedback Received During TAC No. 6
Are trucks allowed in the tunnel?Are trucks allowed in the tunnel?
Was tolling considered in the evaluation?
Is Huntington Memorial Hospital considered as a sensitive receptor?
When will the results of Air Quality be t d?presented?
10Preliminary - Not for Distribution
6
Summary Results of Conceptual Engineering and Technical Studies
Conceptual EngineeringConceptual Engineering
Transportation System Performance
Environmental Evaluation
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 11
Alternatives Considered
No BuildNo Build
TSM/TDM
Bus Rapid Transit (2 plus 1 variation)
Light Rail Rapid Transit (2 plus 2 variations)
Freeway (3 tunnel plus 1 surface)Freeway (3 tunnel plus 1 surface)
Highway/Arterial Improvements (2)
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 12
7
Summary Results of Alternatives Analysis – Conceptual Engineering
13
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 13
Conceptual Engineering
Transportation System ManagementTransportation System Management (TSM)/Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative
Transit Alternatives
Highway/Freeway Alternativesg ay/ ee ay e a es
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 14
8
TSM/TDM Alternative
Intersection improvements
Local street improvements
Enhanced transit service
Active transportation (bike paths)
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)g p y ( )
Some right-of-way impact
15Preliminary - Not for Distribution
BRT Alternatives
Minimal property impacts
Medians and sidewalks narrowed in many locationsLandscaping removed in many places
Would displace hundreds of on-street parking spaces, as well as loading zones
Could be modified to operate only during peak hours
16Preliminary - Not for Distribution
9
LRT Alternatives
LRT-4A/B/D Limited property acquisitions (for stations)
Elevated guideway in East Los Angeles
LRT-4B/D affect parking/access on Palm Avenue
LRT-6Extensive property acquisitionsExtensive property acquisitions
Extensive loss of parking/loading areas
All would require maintenance yardDifficulty of siting a maintenance yard for LRT-6
17Preliminary - Not for Distribution
Freeway Alternatives
F-2 and F-5 have engineering challengesSi ifi t ROW i tSignificant ROW impacts
Challenges for connection to SR 2 and SR 134
F-6 follows the previous depressed Meridian route Significant ROW impacts
F-7 utilizes state ROW on both ends for portals Minimal ROW impacts
Ventilation at both ends of the tunnel; no intermediate stacks
18Preliminary - Not for Distribution
10
Highway Alternatives
Features of H 2 and H 6Features of H-2 and H-6Grade separation at south end
Significant ROW impacts
Access control affects local street system
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 19
Summary Results of Alternatives– Transportation System Performance
20
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 20
11
Transportation System Analysis Overview
Transportation system performanceTransportation system performance summary graphs> Freeway throughput
> Arterial volumes and performance
> Transit performance
> Travel time and travel patterns
Alternative “bandwidth” maps (changes in traffic volumes)
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 21
Highlights of Transportation System AnalysisCompleted Alternatives Analysis using
2008 RTP model
2012 RTP model will be used in the next phase
Tolling hasn’t been considered in this h b t ill b id d d i thphase but will be considered during the
Project Report/Environmental Documentation phases
22Preliminary - Not for Distribution
12
Daily Study Area Screenline Freeway Throughput (1000s)
Freeway Alternatives1200
BRT Alternatives
LRT Alternatives
Freeway Alternatives
Highway Alternatives
1100
1000
23
900
800
Preliminary - Not for Distribution
50
Change in Daily Arterial Volumes (1000s)
Freeway Alternatives Highway Alternatives
Transit
25
0
-25
-50
BRT Alternatives
LRT Alternatives
24
-75
-100
-125
Preliminary - Not for Distribution
13
120
Severely Congested Facility Miles
110
100
90
80
BRT Alternatives
LRT Alternatives
Freeway Alternatives
Highway Alternatives
25
80
70
60
Preliminary - Not for Distribution
30%
Arterial Performance - Percentage of Congested Intersection Approaches
BRT Alternatives
LRT Alternatives Freeway Alternatives Highway Alternatives
25 %
20 %
15 %
10 %
26
10 %
5 %
0 %
Preliminary - Not for Distribution
14
100
Transit Travel Time Performance (100 is Best)
BRT Alternatives LRT Alternatives
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Freeway AlternativesHighway
Alternatives
27
30
20
10
0
Preliminary - Not for Distribution
100
Vehicular Travel Time Performance (100 is Best)
Freeway Alternatives
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
BRT Alternatives
LRT Alternatives
28
30
20
10
0
Highway Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution
15
200
Percentage of Additional Future Jobs Reachable within 25.3 Minutes (National Average)
Freeway Alternatives180
160
140
120
100
80
60
Freeway Alternatives
Highway Alternatives
29
60
40
20
0
BRT Alternatives LRT Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution
Arterial Performance – Arterial Cut-through Percentage
BRT Alternatives
LRT AlternativesHighway
Alternatives30%
Alternatives
Freeway Alternatives
Alternatives
25 %
20 %
15 %
10 %
30
10 %
5 %
0 %
Preliminary - Not for Distribution
16
New Daily Transit Riders
25000BRT
20000
15000
10000
BRTAlternatives LRT Alternatives
31
5000
0
Preliminary - Not for Distribution
TSM/TDM
32Preliminary - Not for Distribution
17
LRT – 4A
33Preliminary - Not for Distribution 33
LRT – 4B
34Preliminary - Not for Distribution
18
LRT – 4D
35Preliminary - Not for Distribution 35
LRT – 6
36Preliminary - Not for Distribution 36
19
BRT-1
37Preliminary - Not for Distribution 37
BRT-6
38Preliminary - Not for Distribution 38
20
F-2
39Preliminary - Not for Distribution
F-5
40Preliminary - Not for Distribution
21
F-6
41Preliminary - Not for Distribution
F-7
42Preliminary - Not for Distribution
22
H-2
43Preliminary - Not for Distribution
H-6
44Preliminary - Not for Distribution
23
Summary of Transportation System Analysis
Freeway alternatives performed better in congestion relief for freeways and local streetsrelief for freeways and local streets
Highway alternatives had limited to moderate improvement in congestion relief
Transit alternatives had moderate patronage and minimal impact in congestion relief
TSM/TDM alternative had slightly less improvement in congestion relief than highway alternatives
Limited positive/negative impacts outside study area
45Preliminary - Not for Distribution
Evaluation of Alternatives– Environmental Evaluation
46
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 46
24
Environmental Topics Evaluated
Topics reviewed in today’s presentation Topics reviewed in today s presentation> Air Quality
> Noise
> Property Acquisition
> Historic Properties
> Parks and Recreational and Community Facilities
> Visual Analysis
Other topics evaluatedp> Environmental Justice
> Biological/Jurisdictional Resources
> Geotechnical
> Hazardous Waste
> Paleontological Resources
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 47
Air Quality
Evaluated change in operational emissions for mobile source air toxics (MSAT) regional criteria pollutants (RCP) andtoxics (MSAT), regional criteria pollutants (RCP), and greenhouse gases (GHG) compared to no build
MSAT: reductions up to 0.03% for transit alternatives and increases of 0.03-0.38% for freeway/highway alternatives
RCP: reductions up to 1.35% for transit and 0.22% for freeway/highway alternatives (except F-2 and F-7 with increases of 0.04% and 0.01%, respectively)
GHG d ti t 1 46% f t it d 0 14% f
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 48
GHG: reductions up to 1.46% for transit and 0.14% for freeway/highway alternatives (except F-2, F-6, and F-7 with increases of 0.08%, 0.02%, and 0.04%, respectively)
25
Noise Analysis
Evaluated change in acreage of noise sensitive land Evaluated change in acreage of noise sensitive land uses with increased noise exposure compared to no build
TSM/TDM and all transit alternatives result in reductions of about 0.3%
F-5, F-7, H-2, and H-6 result in increases of less than 1 0%
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 49
1.0%
F-2 and F-6 result in increases of 5.0% or more
LRT noise not included
Potential Property Acquisitions
Evaluated impact to commercialEvaluated impact to commercial, residential, and recreational properties
No build, Transit (except LRT-6), TSM/TDM, and F-7 have the least impact to properties
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 50
F-2, F-5, F-6, H-2, H-6, and LRT-6 have the most impact
26
Properties > 45 Years Old
Evaluated impacts of properties > 45 years old and Evaluated impacts of properties > 45 years old and designated resources
No build has no impact
All build alternatives affect historic period properties
BRT alternatives affect 9-15 properties
TSM and LRT alternatives affect 56-270 properties
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 51
Freeway/highway alternatives except F-7 affect the greatest number of properties (295-1055)
F-7 has least number of properties affected (72) of freeway/highway alternatives
Parks, Recreational, and Community Facilities
Evaluated potential property acquisitionEvaluated potential property acquisition impacts to parks, recreational, and other community facilities
No build has no impacts
All build alternatives affect at least one
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 52
bu d a e a es a ec a eas o epark, recreational, or other community facility, with TSM/TDM, LRT-6, F-5, and H-2 impacting more than 10
27
Potential Visual Effects
Evaluated potential for visual intrusion usingEvaluated potential for visual intrusion using Caltrans’ visual impact screening criteria
TSM/TDM and BRT alternatives rated Low
LRT and Freeway/Highway alternatives rated Medium- High due to introduction of elevated structures tunnel portals and similar designstructures, tunnel portals, and similar design features
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 53
Evaluation Performance Summary Matrices
54
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 54
28
Performance of Alternatives
42 performance measures were used to evaluate the 12 alternatives plus 3 variations
Reporting approachActual number for each alternative (e.g, “433
miles of freeway”, “32.3% change”) or scales (e.g., 1 to 5)( g , )
Color coding (green best, red worst)
Sorted and aggregated by objective
Overall rating (1 worst to 7 best) for 10 objective categories
55Preliminary - Not for Distribution
Component Performance Measures by Objective
2.1.1 Travel time - vehicular 2.1.1 Travel time - transit 2.1.2 Reduction in VHT 2 1 3 P t d f iliti
2.3.1 LOS F1 or worse2 3 1 LOS E or F0
1. Minimize Travel Time 3. Reduce Freeway Congestion
2.1.3 Percentage on managed facilities
2.2.1 New interchanges/transit pts.2.2.2 Jobs reachable2.2.3 Transit boardings2 2 4 Arterial throughput
2.3.1 LOS E or F02.3.1 VHT on congested freeway
2.4.1 % of congested intersections2.4.2 Average v/c on arterials2.4.3 VMT on arterials2 4 4 A t i l t th h t
2. Improve Connectivity and Mobility
4. Reduce Local Street System Congestion
2.2.4 Arterial throughput2.2.5 Freeway throughput
2.4.4 Arterial cut-through percentage2.4.5 North-south travel served
2.5.1 Increase in transit ridership2.5.2 % within 1/4 mile of transit2.5.3 Mode split - transit
56
5. Increase Transit Ridership
Preliminary - Not for Distribution
29
2.6.1 Residential /business acquisitions
2.6.6 Acres of high paleo sensitivity
6A. Minimize Right-Of-Way 6C. Natural Environment Impacts
Component Performance Measures by Objective
2.6.3 Recreational sites2.6.4 Archeological sites2.6.5 Historic sites
Previously identified significant resources2.6.10 % change in sensitive noise2.6.11 MSATs2 6 12 R i l it i ll t t
2.6.7 Geotechnical2.6.8 Sensitive habitats2.6.9 Drainages
2.7.1 RTP/SCS goals2.7.2 Measure R goals2 7 3 Metro LRTP goals
6B. Human Environment Impacts
7. Plan Consistency
2.6.12 Regional criteria pollutants2.6.13 GHG emissions2.6.14 Hazardous waste sites2.6.15 Visual intrusion2.6.16 Scenic corridors2.6.17 Environmental justice
2.7.3 Metro LRTP goals
2.8.1 Construction and ROW costs2.8.2 Available funding2.8.3 Technical feasibility
57
8. Cost Efficiency
Preliminary - Not for Distribution
Overall Assessment Approach
For each objective, a summary
rating (1 to 7) was
calculated for each
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 58
alternative.
30
Details of Overall Assessment Approach
1. For each performance measure:a. Identify the best and worst valuesa. Identify the best and worst values
b. Normalize on a 1 to 100 scale for the range of alternatives
2. Combine the performance measures within each objective group:
a. Use a factor approach – 100 total for each objective group
b. Minimum of 5, maximum of 60, multiples of 5 for each performance measure (except right-of-way)
3. Calculate the combined measures for each alternative within3. Calculate the combined measures for each alternative within the objective group (1 to 100 scale).
4. Convert the 1 to 100 scale to a 1 to 7 rating for each objective and alternative
5. Repeat steps 2 to 4 for five other “Factor Focus” groups
6. Average the 6 “Factor Focus” group scores and convert to a 1 to 7 scale
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 59
Details of Overall Assessment Approach1. For each performance measure:
a. Identify the best and worst valuesa. Identify the best and worst values
b. Normalize on a 1 to 100 scale
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 60
31
Details of Overall Assessment Approach1. For each performance measure:
a. Identify the best and worst valuesa. Identify the best and worst values
b. Normalize on a 1 to 100 scale
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 61
Details of Overall Assessment Approach1. For each performance measure:
a. Identify the best and worst valuesa. Identify the best and worst values
b. Normalize on a 1 to 100 scale
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 62
32
Details of Overall Assessment Approach1. For each performance measure:
a. Identify the best and worst valuesa. Identify the best and worst values
b. Normalize on a 1 to 100 scale
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 63
Details of Overall Assessment Approach2. Combine the performance measures within each objective
group.g pa. Use a factor approach – 100 total for each objective group
b. Minimum of 5, maximum of 60, multiples of 5 for each performance measure (except right-of-way)
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 64
33
Details of Overall Assessment Approach2. Combine the performance measures within each objective
group.g pa. Use a factor approach – 100 total for each objective group
b. Minimum of 5, maximum of 60, multiples of 5 for each performance measure (except right-of-way)
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 65
Details of Overall Assessment Approach
3. Calculate the combined measures for each alternative within3. Calculate the combined measures for each alternative within the objective group (1 to 100 scale)
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 66
34
Details of Overall Assessment Approach
3. Calculate the combined measures for each alternative within3. Calculate the combined measures for each alternative within the objective group (1 to 100 scale)
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 67
Details of Overall Assessment Approach
3. Calculate the combined measures for each alternative within3. Calculate the combined measures for each alternative within the objective group (1 to 100 scale)
20 x 71.2 + 20 x 89.7 + 20 x 100.0 + 20 x 63.0 + 20 x 78.7100
= 81
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 68
35
Details of Overall Assessment Approach4. Convert the 1 to 100 scale to a 1 to 7 rating for each objective
and alternative
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 69
Details of Overall Assessment Approach4. Convert the 1 to 100 scale to a 1 to 7 rating for each objective
and alternative
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 70
36
Details of Overall Assessment Approach5. Repeat steps 2 to 4 for five other “Factor Focus” groups
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 71
Details of Overall Assessment Approach5. Repeat steps 2 to 4 for five other “Factor Focus” groups
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 72
37
Details of Overall Assessment Approach5. Repeat steps 2 to 4 for five other “Factor Focus” groups
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 73
Details of Overall Assessment Approach6. Average the 6 “Factor Focus” group scores and convert to a 1
to 7 scale
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 74
38
Details of Overall Assessment Approach6. Average the 6 “Factor Focus” group scores and convert to a 1
to 7 scale
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 75
Factor Focus Check
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 76
39
Factor Focus Check
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 77
Factor Focus Check
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 78
40
Factor Focus Check
All 6 scores one higher, All 6 scoresthe same:
57%
5 scores the same:
13%
gone lower:
7%
All within a range of two:
1%
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 79
Only 2 scores different:
14%More
variation:
8%
Summary of Results
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 80
41
BRT Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 81
BRT Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 82
42
BRT Alternatives that Merit Further Study
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 83
LRT Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 84
43
LRT Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 85
LRT Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 86
44
LRT Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 87
LRT Alternatives that Merit Further Study
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 88
45
Freeway/Highway Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 89
Freeway/Highway Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 90
46
Freeway/Highway Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 91
Freeway/Highway Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 92
47
Freeway/Highway Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 93
Freeway Alternative that Merits Further Study
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 94
48
Highest-Performing Alternatives
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 95
Alternatives that Merit Further Study
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 96
49
Discussion on Hybrids
Objective is to enhance performance ofObjective is to enhance performance of selected alternativesIdentify weak elements of each alternative
Determine elements that could be added to enhance performance
Evaluate performance of combined hybrid alternatives
Refine elements to improve performance
97Preliminary - Not for Distribution
Open Discussion
9898
Preliminary - Not for Distribution 98