Environmental Assessment

Recommendations

Info

comprehensive and included transit modes such as light rail transit (LRT), bus rapidtransit (BRT), commuter rail and modern streetcar. The primary differences betweenthese modes are shown in Figure 2-2.FIGURE 2-2: COMPARISON OF TRANSIT MODES CONSIDEREDSource: Valley Metro, 2011 (Modified 2015).A two-tiered analysis process was used to screen the alternative modes and alignmentsdeveloped. The first phase (Tier 1) of the evaluation process analyzed the initialalternatives under consideration and specifically concentrated on the alignment andtechnology (e.g., light rail, BRT, modern streetcar and commuter rail) with a centralobjective of identifying “fatal flaws.” Twelve alternative alignments utilizing varioustransit technologies were considered for the corridors listed below.• Tempe Branch of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)• Mill Avenue/Kyrene Road• Rural Road• McClintock DriveTier 1 Evaluation Report, May 2008; 2) Tempe South Alternatives Analysis, Tier 2 Evaluation Report, November 2009and 3) Tempe South Alternatives Analysis, Locally Preferred Alternative Report, December 2010. These documentsare available for review at the offices of Valley Metro at 101 North 1 st Avenue, Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003.Environmental Assessment Page 2-2 July 2015Tempe Streetcar
At this stage of the study, issues were assessed to determine how the alternativescompared when environmental factors were studied in greater detail. The environmentalfactors that were assessed ranged from urban elements to natural environmentelements and cultural attributes. Urban elements included consideration of impacts fromland use, property acquisition and right-of-way (ROW), visual and aesthetic implications,safety and security and potential for economic development.At the conclusion of the Tier 1 analysis, the commuter rail mode and proposedalignment was eliminated from further consideration because it did not achieve thegoals and objectives specified for the project, as outlined in the AA. A high-capacitytransit service on McClintock Drive was eliminated during the Tier 1 screening due tothe lack of activity centers served, the limited number of transit-dependent householdsserved and adverse effects to traffic operations and local access points due to the needfor a fixed guideway.The second phase (Tier 2) consisted of a more detailed evaluation of the remainingalternatives and included quantifying ridership potential, capital and operating andmaintenance costs, land use and economic development impacts, traffic issues,environmental factors, conceptual engineering and public preferences. Data on highwaycongestion, transit service levels and ridership information were also utilized.Table 2-1 provides a summary of the alternatives considered during the Tier 2 analysisphase and rationale for the recommendation of advancement or elimination from furtherconsideration.At the conclusion of the AA Tier 2 evaluation, the Tempe City Council voted in favor ofthe Tempe Streetcar (formerly known as the Mill Avenue Modern Streetcar) alternativeon October 21, 2010. On November 17, 2010, the Valley Metro Rail Board of Directorsapproved the selection of the Tempe Streetcar as the locally preferred alternative.Subsequently, these actions established the streetcar as the Build Alternative to beadvanced for further environmental and engineering analysis during the EA phase of theproject development process. The Rural Road BRT alignment was also recommendedas part of the locally preferred alternative; however, streetcar was identified as a priorityof the two projects due to the mobility needs of Downtown Tempe and because offunding limitations beyond the RTP 2035 funding program. Light rail was not advancedgiven prohibitive construction costs for infrastructure features necessary for operationsand the impacts identified to surrounding neighborhoods and the crossing of UPRR atRural Road. The UPRR and Mill/Kyrene BRT alignment options were eliminatedbecause of their extensive ROW requirements, limited potential ridership, lack ofcommunity support and challenges associated with the operation of UPRR trains.Modern streetcar was determined to be the transit technology best capable of achievingthe purpose and need for the project by increasing the people-carrying capacity withinthe existing traffic lanes and by offering a feasible transportation alternative for bothmotorized and non-motorized users to access the many activity centers within the studyEnvironmental Assessment Page 2-3 July 2015Tempe Streetcar
Page 1: Environmental AssessmentFederal Tra
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 7: 3.5.3 Build Alternative ...........
Page 10 and 11: TABLE OF TABLESTABLE ES-1: TEMPE ST
Page 12 and 13: TABLE 4-1: OBJECTIVES OF THE PUBLIC
Page 14 and 15: FIGURE 3-5: NOISE AND VIBRATION TES
Page 16 and 17: LIST OF ACRONYMSAAACHPACSADAADEQADO
Page 18 and 19: ppmROWRPTARTPsfSFRSHPOSIPSO 2SWPPPT
Page 20 and 21: From - To:TABLE ES-1: TEMPE STREETC
Page 22: FIGURE ES-2: HIGH CAPACITY/LIGHT RA
Page 25 and 26: • Tempe Branch of the Union Pacif
Page 27 and 28: Build Alternative ImpactLand Acquis
Page 29 and 30: Build Alternative ImpactFreight Rai
Page 31 and 32: Historic/Cultural PropertiesBuild A
Page 33 and 34: Community ImpactsBuild Alternative
Page 35 and 36: ConstructionBuild Alternative Impac
Page 37 and 38: The possible exception would be due
Page 39 and 40: 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NE
Page 41 and 42: • Enhancing access to regional em
Page 43 and 44: oadways in the study area will incr
Page 45 and 46: The introduction of a streetcar sup
Page 47 and 48: FIGURE 1-4: DEVELOPMENT ALONG PROPO
Page 49: 2.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PR
Page 53 and 54: Tempe’s new General Plan envision
Page 55 and 56: illustrates the basic operating cha
Page 57 and 58: There are no new transit facilities
Page 59 and 60: FIGURE 2-4: BUILD ALTERNATIVESource
Page 61 and 62: FIGURE 2-5: BUILD ALTERNATIVE, RIO
Page 63 and 64: FIGURE 2-7: BUILD ALTERNATIVE, ASH
Page 65 and 66: FIGURE 2-9: BUILD ALTERNATIVE, MILL
Page 67 and 68: FIGURE 2-11: BUILD ALTERNATIVE, APA
Page 69 and 70: Eight potential sites have been ana
Page 71 and 72: FIGURE 2-13: BUILD ALTERNATIVE TRAN
Page 73 and 74: 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS—WHAT IM
Page 75 and 76: guideway. The City of Tempe has rig
Page 77 and 78: TCE - TCEs are typically acquired a
Page 79 and 80: FIGURE 3-1: EXISTING LAND USESource
Page 81 and 82: 3.3.2 No-Build AlternativeThe No-Bu
Page 83 and 84: systems, streetcars have had a meas
Page 85 and 86: In conclusion, under the No-Build A
Page 87 and 88: FIGURE 3-3: 2035 SCENARIO STUDY INT
Page 89 and 90: spaces on Mill Avenue and 14 spaces
Page 91 and 92: 3.6.3.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Faci
Page 93 and 94: 3.6.4 MitigationPrior to constructi
Page 95 and 96: 3.7.3 Build Alternative3.7.3.1 Air
Page 97 and 98: For PM 10 areas without approved co
Page 99 and 100: 3.8.1.1 NoiseThe FTA noise impact a
Page 101 and 102:
Noise measurements were performed a
Page 103 and 104:
Metro light rail line. The predicti
Page 105 and 106:
VibrationThe detailed assessments f
Page 107 and 108:
ID 1,10 Desc. 2NearTrackDist. (ft)S
Page 109 and 110:
In addition, the predicted noise le
Page 111 and 112:
ID 1,4 Desc. 2NearTrackDist. (ft)Se
Page 113 and 114:
TABLE 3-18: SUMMARY OF VIBRATION IM
Page 115 and 116:
Energy consumption was calculated b
Page 117 and 118:
not require new electrical lines or
Page 119 and 120:
associated buildings, the entire po
Page 121 and 122:
3.10.1.2 Project BackgroundIn 2008,
Page 123 and 124:
The community consisted largely of
Page 125 and 126:
PropertyNumberProperty Name 21.4 Ho
Page 127 and 128:
PropertyNumberTABLE 3-23: PROPERTY
Page 129 and 130:
as a Traditional Cultural Property
Page 131 and 132:
There are two historic properties (
Page 133 and 134:
een heavily developed over the last
Page 135 and 136:
PropertyNumberHistoric DistrictsPro
Page 137 and 138:
e gained through data recovery (see
Page 139 and 140:
severe that the protected activitie
Page 141 and 142:
3.11.4 Measures to Minimize HarmSec
Page 143 and 144:
FIGURE 3-10: VISUAL UNITSEnvironmen
Page 145 and 146:
Land UseFeaturesStreetscapeRed bric
Page 147 and 148:
Land UseFeaturesStreet treesFan pal
Page 149 and 150:
3.12.3 Build AlternativeStreetcar p
Page 151 and 152:
FIGURE 3-11: MODERN STREETCAR SIMUL
Page 153 and 154:
enhance and maintain the urban cont
Page 155 and 156:
• Neighborhood or community bound
Page 157 and 158:
• Identify the Build Alternative
Page 159 and 160:
FIGURE 3-12: STUDY AREA PERCENT MIN
Page 161 and 162:
study area. The No-Build Alternativ
Page 163 and 164:
Communities, Community Character/Co
Page 165 and 166:
• Valley Metro website that posts
Page 167 and 168:
FIGURE 3-14: SITES ON AGENCY DATABA
Page 169 and 170:
FIGURE 3-16: SITES ON AGENCY DATABA
Page 171 and 172:
MapCode 1Property Name 2 Property A
Page 173 and 174:
MapCode 1Property Name 2 Property A
Page 175 and 176:
• The Taco Bell property (Site AW
Page 177 and 178:
comfortable with the layout of the
Page 179 and 180:
and low precipitation throughout mo
Page 181 and 182:
3.19.3 Build Alternative3.19.3.1 Co
Page 183 and 184:
Installation of special trackwork f
Page 185 and 186:
TABLE 3-36: CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IM
Page 187 and 188:
Air QualityMitigation Measures By T
Page 189 and 190:
Project Address Uses StatusUniversi
Page 191 and 192:
PotentialImpactsProject’sContribu
Page 193 and 194:
4.0 WHO ARE THE AGENCIES AND PERSON
Page 195 and 196:
4.3 COMMUNITY OUTREACH BY STUDY PHA
Page 197 and 198:
4.3.2 Community Working GroupUpon c
Page 199 and 200:
• Media outreach to publish press
Page 201 and 202:
TABLE 4-5: PROJECT DEFINITION UPDAT
Page 203 and 204:
Board/Committee Description DatesTe
Page 205 and 206:
Board/Committee Description DatesTe
Page 207 and 208:
DateJul 10, 2013Aug 20, 2013Aug 29,
Page 209 and 210:
5.0 HOW MUCH WILL THE PROPOSED BUIL
Page 211 and 212:
6.0 SOURCES AND REFERENCES CITEDEXE
Page 213 and 214:
Project, Pinal and Maricopa Countie
Page 215 and 216:
Barnes, Will C. 1988. Arizona Place
Page 217 and 218:
Teague and Patricia L. Crown, 73-86
Page 219 and 220:
Hackbarth, Mark R. 1998. Archaic an
Page 221 and 222:
Jones, Joshua G. 2008. Cultural Res
Page 223 and 224:
Maricopa County Air Quality Departm
Page 225 and 226:
Ryden Architects, Inc. 1997. City o
Page 227 and 228:
Tempe Daily News. 1924. “The new
Page 229 and 230:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc
show all

Environmental Assessment

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?