3.0 Affected Environment - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Affected Environment Motorists/Pedestrians The Motorists/Pedestrians viewer group includes those using the proposed project as well as those using the A-C Viaduct and roadways in the Ship Creek area. 3.6.3.3.2 Viewer sensitivity Viewer sensitivity is defined by expected viewer response to various levels of change to the visual environment. Tourists/Recreationists This viewer group is likely to have a high level of concern for aesthetic issues because expectations of a high-quality experience are what will have drawn them to Anchorage and to the Ship Creek area. Expectations are likely not as high in the Ship Creek area because of its proximity to nearby industrial development. Government Hill Residents This viewer group is likely to have a high level of concern about the effect of the roadway on foreground views and neighborhood character. Motorists/Pedestrians Motorists are generally focused on the immediate travel path, although they would have interest in opportunities for views to Ship Creek and Knik Arm. Pedestrians tend to be more sensitive to views because the exposure period would be longer and there would be time to focus on the view beyond the limits of the proposed roadway itself. Port of Anchorage and Alaska Railroad Workers This viewer group is likely to have a low level of concern for views of the proposed project. 3.6.3.4 Local values Anchorage residents generally have a high concern for visual quality, as evidenced by a long history of opposition to billboards, overhead utilities, and some types of signs. Also, residents in most neighborhoods have demanded that road projects provide enhancements such as landscaping and trails. Neighborhoods have become interested in and empowered to protect their own immediate environments as infrastructure projects are undertaken. In Government Hill, this has manifested itself through vocal community concerns for existing and proposed tank farm development and controls for the POA. The community has also been vocal in its concerns for solutions that will negate neighborhood impacts related to the proposed project. These concerns are often voiced in terms of aesthetic values such as the care residents take in maintaining and improving neighborhood parks at their own expense. Although Ship Creek is generally an industrial zone, the area has seen increased use by anglers, tourists, and trail users in recent years. In fact, the Ship Creek area has recently received rezoning with imposition of design guidelines and construction of a number of new 3-152 12/18/07
Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Affected Environment visitor-related projects that recognize its future as a visitor destination transportation transfer area. This has raised the level of concerns for aesthetic issues within the area. 3.6.3.5 Visual character and quality A “key view” approach, as detailed in FHWA’s Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1981), was used to assess the existing visual resources of the Study Area. Ten key views were selected to establish a baseline visual character and quality that were then used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project (see Section 4.6.3). The key views are representative of what viewer groups can now see and what they could see if the proposed project were to be built. Visual character refers to the form, line, color, and texture of a key view’s landscape components. Visual quality refers to the qualitative appraisal of the relative excellence of a view. The approach used in the evaluation of visual quality includes using vividness, intactness, and unity criteria to indicate the quality of the landscape. The combined result of all three criteria indicates the degree of quality of the landscape. Key view locations are designated in Figures 3.38 and 3.39. Key view locations and visual quality results are summarized in Table 3-24. Table 3-24. Key view locations and their visual quality View number Key view location Visual quality 1 Mat-Su gravel road Moderate 2 East across Knik Arm from the Mat-Su High 3 East Bluff Drive Low to moderate 4 Erickson Street Moderate/Low 5 Degan Street Moderate 6 Harvard Park Moderate to high 7 Sunset Park Moderate to high 8 Port of Anchorage High 9 Ship Creek Low to moderate 10 3rd Avenue and Gambell Street Low to moderate 12/18/07 3-153
Page 1:
Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Af
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49:
Page 53:
Page 57:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99:
Page 103:
Page 107:
Page 111:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139:
Page 143:
Page 147:
Page 151:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157:
Page 161: Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Af
Page 169 and 170: Knik Arm Crossing DraftFinal EIS Af
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307:
show all

3.0 Affected Environment - Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?