FEIS Summary - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Knik Arm Crossing Final EIS Summary Exhibit S‐20. Degan Alternative: Advantages and Disadvantages Degan Alternative Advantages Originally designed to traverse Government Hill at its narrowest section, thereby minimizing impacts to Government Hill. • During the Draft EIS process and discussions with the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), it was identified that the viaduct across the Ship Creek rail yard (Phase 2 alignment) needed to be rerouted so that pier locations would not adversely affect rail operations. As a result, the advantages of this alternative were diminished. With the Degan alignment shifted to the east, additional impacts to residences and Sunset Park resulted. Furthermore, the revised Degan Alternative required roadway geometrics that were less desirable than the Erickson Alternative. Disadvantages • Access through Government Hill would require a stop and a turn at the intersection of East Loop Road, adversely affecting the neighborhood with additional surface traffic and opportunities for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. • The signalized intersection at East Loop Road and Degan Street is located on a curve and a hill, making stopping difficult. • This alternative would require 400 feet more ROW than the Erickson Alternative at its widest point. • Geometrics to connect to the Ingra-Gambell Couplet are more circuitous. • This alternative would take 65 percent of Harvard Park, 59 percent of Sunset Park, and would adversely affect the Anchorage Square & Round Dance Club. Exhibit S‐21. Erickson Alternative: Advantages and Disadvantages Erickson Alternative (Recommended Alternative) Advantages • The Erickson Alternative allows free-flow of traffic through a cut-and cover tunnel, avoiding local streets. • This alternative reduces ROW requirements by 400 feet (compared with the Degan Alternative) for ramps north of Government Hill. • The geometrics of the Erickson Street alignment connecting to the Ingra-Gambell Couplet are more direct. • Government Hill would have improved access to downtown and to the Mat-Su through use of both north and south ramps. Disadvantages • Phase 2 expansion would require new tunnels, causing a second period of construction impacts to Government Hill residents. • Construction management and traffic control would be challenging because construction activities would disrupt the main route through Government Hill and to the military bases. • The Erickson Alternative would adversely affect the Government Hill Urban Renewal Historic District, including three contributing structures, and would take 2 percent of Harvard Park and 31 percent of Sunset Park. • The cost for Phase 1 would be $6.4 million more than that for the Degan Alternative and the cost for Phase 2 would be $16.4 million more than that of the Degan Alternative. flow of traffic under each alternative. Exhibit S-18, on page S-35, also facilitates understanding of the two alternatives’ relative traffic flows. Comparison of Impacts As Exhibit S-17, on page S-34, shows (and the EIS discusses in detail), both Anchorage approach alternatives are associated with impacts to residential, commercial, and industrial land; and Section 4(f) properties (Harvard and S-14
Exhibit S‐22. Reasons for Preferring Degan or Erickson in Public Comments Support for/Advantages of . . . • No specific comment received. Support for/Advantages of . . . • Erickson offers the better choice—fewer impacts on neighborhoods and better use of space. • Erickson is preferred over Degan because it does not require a “stop and turn” as Degan does. • The Erickson cut-and-cover tunnel is more logical than the Degan cut-and-cover tunnel. • Of the two proposed alternatives, the Erickson route is less disruptive to the Government Hill neighborhood. Public Comment on Degan Alternative Public Comment on Erickson Alternative (Recommended Alternative) Knik Arm Crossing Final EIS Summary Opposition to/Disadvantages of . . . A Degan Alternative would: • Eliminate the Anchorage Square & Round Dance Club. • Adversely affect people’s homes. • Result in safety issues from locating a traffic signal at the bottom of one of the steepest, iciest, and most accident-prone hills in Anchorage. • Under Phase 2, cause Sunset Park to lose the majority of its recreational attributes. • Involve a very large ROW take. • Introduce new traffic patterns on Government Hill that would adversely affect all properties, including historic properties, located there. Opposition to/Disadvantages of . . . An Erickson Alternative would: • Remove an existing playground and picnic shelter in Sunset Park, as well as a sledding area. • Adversely affect the suburban feel, design, and setting of the historic district. • Adversely affect people’s homes. • Cut Sunset Park in half. • Under Phase 2, isolate the remaining central core of Sunset Park from the Government Hill community. • Emerge from the tunnel in the immediate vicinity of the historic district. Sunset Parks and historic properties); and historic properties. Exhibits S-20 and S-21, on page S-14, further compare these impacts in terms of each alternative’s advantages and disadvantages. Comparison of Public Comment During the Draft EIS review phase, FHWA requested comment on the Anchorage approach alternatives to assist the agency in selecting an alternative. Public comments received included opposition to both alternatives, but some also provided specific comments on each alternative. Agency comments did not specifically address a preference related to Anchorage-side alternatives. See Section 8 of the EIS for public, agency, and tribal comments and response summaries. Exhibit S-22, above, provides a summary of reasons provided by the public for preferring one alternative over another. Identification of Recommended Alternative To identify the Recommended Alternative, FHWA considered all of the factors discussed above: transportation features and traffic flow characteristics; impacts to residential, commercial, industrial, and Section 4(f) properties; cost; and comments received from the public, agencies, and tribes during the Draft EIS review period. S-15
Page 1 and 2: Knik Arm Crossing Final Environment
Page 3 and 4: Exhibit S‐1. Final EIS Document O
Page 5 and 6: Knik Arm Crossing Final EIS Summary
Page 13: Knik Arm Crossing Final EIS Summary
Page 17 and 18: Findings, Compliance, and Permits E
Page 25 and 26: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Knik Arm Cr
Page 33 and 34: The preliminary design includes pla
Page 35 and 36: Summary Initial Construction (Phase

FEIS Summary - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?