ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHARLOTTE GATEWAY STATION

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table S.5-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts (continued) Impact Areas No-Action and Base Case Alternatives Full Build Alternative ENVIRONMENT Endangered Species None None Farmlands None None Terrestrial Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitat None None Floodplains None None Groundwater Potential Contamination Treatment TBD Surface Waters (linear feet) None None Wetlands (acres) None None Contaminated Soils Potential Contamination Treatment TBD HISTORIC RESOURCES Possible Adverse Impact None None Archaeological Resources None None The potential positive and negative secondary effects of the NCCR alternative are summarized in Table S.5-2. Table S.5-2. NCCR Secondary Effects Potential Positive Secondary Effects � Transportation and Traffic o Improved mobility options and accessibility o Potential that some drivers would switch to transit o Reduced commute times � Quality of life o Reduced urban sprawl by concentrating growth around infrastructure o Options to avoid stress of commuting via personal auto � Economics o Increased sales tax revenues o Increased property values - increased tax base and revenues o Sustainable economic development o Increased efficiencies in service delivery due to increased concentration of development o Increased employment opportunities � Environmental Justice o Increased mobility for transit-dependent residents � Neighborhoods o Infill and redevelopment opportunities of underutilized properties o Improved access to parks, recreation centers, and entertainment venues � Air Quality o Reduced pollution � Natural Resources o Conservation of land and natural resources Charlotte Gateway Station S-12 EA
Table S.5-2. NCCR Secondary Effects (continued) Potential Negative Secondary Effects � Traffic and Transportation o Increased traffic from induced development � Quality of Life o Public opposition to dense development patterns near neighborhoods o Aesthetics of stations and station area development � Economics o Strain on infrastructure to support station area plans � Environmental Justice o Market demand for housing near transit may reduce affordable housing o Redevelopment could displace of low income persons � Historic Resources o Destruction/redevelopment of historic properties � Natural Resources o Loss of habitat for terrestrial natural communities S.6 Summary of Transportation Impacts The CGS project would add a major multimodal transportation facility to Center City Charlotte. By bringing together local, regional and intercity transportation modes in a single complex, it would readily facilitate convenient connections between modes and substantially enhance transportation choices. A traveler living in Davidson would be able to take a commuter train to CGS and walk to his or her job, connect by bus (and eventually street car) to the airport, ride Greyhound to Nashville or take Amtrak to Raleigh or Atlanta. Greyhound already is located at the future CGS site, which currently includes on-site parking for customers. Service levels are not expected to substantially increase. Relocation of Amtrak service to CGS is projected to generate a need for less than 75 daily parking spaces. Mixed use development of CGS and the adjacent NCDOT property would generate parking requirements for employees, residents and visitors. These likely would be accommodated in one or more parking decks. The CGS site and other NCDOT property current are used for surface parking lots and accommodate over 1,000 vehicles. As a result, conversion of the surface parking lots to mixed use development supported by parking decks is not projected to result in significant parking needs that cannot be accommodated on-site.. Completion of such a large multimodal transportation facility as the CGS and adjacent mixed use development will increase the amount of traffic operating along surrounding streets and will require re-routing of traffic movement to accommodate buses, potential “streetcar” and “commuter rail” integration into the station. The opening year (2010) traffic analysis shows that the signalized intersections will continue to operate at a decent level of service (LOS “D” or better). However, in the future (2030), levels of service at most of these intersections will degrade to unacceptable levels and show signs of congestion. Although intersections operate at LOS F in 2030, traffic volumes are lower and operations Charlotte Gateway Station S-13 EA
Page 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHARLOTTE
Page 5 and 6: 3.1.4 Impacts and Benefits ........
Page 7 and 8: 4.0 Transportation ................
Page 9 and 10: Figure 2.2-1. CGS and Adjacent Tran
Page 11 and 12: S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This chapter
Page 13 and 14: Figure S.1-1. Concept Renderings of
Page 15 and 16: in the development of the conceptua
Page 17 and 18: • The Charlotte Streetcar Corrido
Page 19 and 20: • Other new bus services to which
Page 21: Table S.5-1 presents a summary of t
Page 25 and 26: Table S.7-1. Summary of Mitigation
Page 27 and 28: multimodal station at Trade Street
Page 29 and 30: 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED This Chapter d
Page 31 and 32: Figure 1.1-1. Charlotte Gateway Sta
Page 33 and 34: Conceptual illustrations, architect
Page 35 and 36: 1.2 Purpose and Need Construction o
Page 37 and 38: Another key component in the CATS 2
Page 39 and 40: mixed use transportation and econom
Page 41 and 42: 2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This ch
Page 43 and 44: Figure 2.2-1. CGS and Adjacent Tran
Page 45 and 46: above the Greyhound depot with capa
Page 47 and 48: Projected Transportation Services
Page 49 and 50: • handrails on ramps and stairs
Page 51 and 52: Commuter Rail Platforms & Bridges $
Page 53 and 54: TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.0 Affected Envi
Page 55 and 56: 3.15 Environmental Justice ........
Page 57 and 58: comprehensive plans, small area pla
Page 59 and 60: Figure 3.1-1. Percent of Population
Page 61 and 62: Figure 3.1-3. Generalized Existing
Page 63 and 64: The City of Charlotte has adopted a
Page 65 and 66: 3.1.4.1 Population Population Serve
Page 67 and 68: of the CGS site has increased 55 pe
Page 69 and 70: 3.2.4 Environmental Impacts and Ben
Page 71 and 72: 3.3.3.2 Community Facilities and Re
Page 73 and 74:
Figure 3.3-2. Community Facilities
Page 75 and 76:
3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Quality Ma
Page 77 and 78:
3.4.4 Environmental Impacts and Ben
Page 79 and 80:
In July of 1997, EPA added PM2.5 as
Page 81 and 82:
3.6 Noise 3.6.1 Legal and Regulator
Page 83 and 84:
3.7.3 Terrestrial Ecology 3.7.3.1 E
Page 85 and 86:
3.7.3.3 Mitigation The implementati
Page 87 and 88:
3.7.4.2 Environmental Consequences
Page 89 and 90:
Indirect Effects to Protected Speci
Page 91 and 92:
Table 3.8-1. Surface Water Resource
Page 93 and 94:
Catawba River Basin Riparian Buffer
Page 95 and 96:
3.8.4 Environmental Consequences Ge
Page 97 and 98:
vegetative buffers, grass swales, c
Page 99 and 100:
3.9.4 Mitigation Because the Build
Page 101 and 102:
During the research phase, the arch
Page 103 and 104:
3.10.3.2 Archaeological Resources T
Page 105 and 106:
3.11 Parks and Recreation Areas 3.1
Page 107 and 108:
3.12 Hazardous Materials/Undergroun
Page 109 and 110:
Petroleum and Residual Contaminatio
Page 111 and 112:
incident (#8097) is currently open
Page 113 and 114:
3.12.4.1 AOC Summary The number of
Page 115 and 116:
Table 3.13-1 Reasonably Foreseeable
Page 117 and 118:
Table 3.13-2 CGS Secondary Effects
Page 119 and 120:
Corridor commuter rail service woul
Page 121 and 122:
3.13.6.1 Transportation and Traffic
Page 123 and 124:
Greyhound bus or ride Amtrak. By ma
Page 125 and 126:
3.14.5 Air Quality The project is l
Page 127 and 128:
Temporary sediment traps or hazardo
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 3.15-1. Minority Areas Charl
Page 131 and 132:
3.15.4 Environmental Impacts and Be
Page 133 and 134:
3.15.4.4 Human Health Issues Air Po
Page 135 and 136:
TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.0 Transportatio
Page 137 and 138:
4.0 Transportation 4.1 Transportati
Page 139 and 140:
Center City Charlotte. Figure 4.2-1
Page 141 and 142:
Intersection turning movement count
Page 143 and 144:
Figure 4.3-1: At-Grade Parking Disp
Page 145 and 146:
Figure 4.3-3: Parking Deck and Grey
Page 147 and 148:
Table 4.3-5: 2010 Curbside Approach
Page 149 and 150:
of the CGS would have no impact on
Page 151 and 152:
5.0 REFERENCES Charlotte Area Trans
Page 153 and 154:
North Carolina Department of Enviro
Page 155 and 156:
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS FEDERAL TRANS
Page 157 and 158:
Larry Kopf (CATS) Chief Operations
Page 159 and 160:
Jason L. Field, PE (NCDOT) Crossing
Page 161 and 162:
PB Americas, Inc. (PB) Mary Clayton
Page 163 and 164:
Jonathan Reid, PE, PTOE (PB) Lead T
Page 165 and 166:
Chetlur Balachandran, PhD (PB) Nois
Page 167 and 168:
Foster Nichols (PB) Train Performan
Page 169 and 170:
Mattson, Alexander and Associates,
Page 171 and 172:
7.0 LETTERS (Charlotte Zoning, FRA
Page 173 and 174:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CULTUR
Page 175 and 176:
8.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS The draft Envir
Page 177 and 178:
COMMENT 5: SECTION(S) OF ENVIRONMEN
Page 179 and 180:
and environmental impact of assembl
Page 181 and 182:
There are many examples of cities t
Page 183 and 184:
COMMENT 8: SECTION(S) OF ENVIRONMEN
Page 185 and 186:
planned stadium for AAA baseball, a
Page 187:
Goal Three of the CGS Project, as d
show all

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHARLOTTE GATEWAY STATION

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

Delete template?

Save as template?