ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHARLOTTE GATEWAY STATION

More documents

Recommendations

Info

are improved in the downtown area with increased transit service. Transit will be an increasingly used alternative available to commuters wanting to avoid traffic congestion. Increased congestion is not limited to the study area. It will be prevalent in the downtown or Center City Charlotte area. Increased congestion and greater diversity of jobs in the downtown will likely spread the peak period beyond the traditional one-hour peak, lessening the impact of traffic growth during any one short period. S.7 Mitigation Summary Mitigation would be required to offset impacts identified in Section S.4 above and detailed in Chapters 3-18 of this EA. These mitigation commitments are summarized in Table S.7-1. Table S.7-1. Summary of Mitigation Impact Areas Mitigation Summary TRAFFIC LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES DISPLACEMENTS COMMUNITY SERVICES <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> JUSTICE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT VISUAL AND AESTHETICS AIR QUALITY The CGS will enhance the use of transit in Center City Charlotte without generating additional downtown vehicular traffic. Only minor improvements, such as signal modifications, turn restrictions, and curbside bus bays are recommended. The GCS project is consistent with local and regional land use plans and policies. Land use mitigation efforts would not be necessary. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act would be followed. Access to community facilities and emergency services would not be disrupted. The CGS project would not result in disproportionately adverse impacts on low-income and minority communities and businesses. Environmental justice mitigation efforts would not be necessary. The CGS project will increase public accessibility to employment opportunities. Population and employment mitigation efforts would not be necessary. Application of context sensitive design principles. One percent of CATS’ budget is dedicated to “Art-in-Transit.” NOISE AND VIBRATION Noise No mitigation is required. Vibration No mitigation is required. ECOSYSTEMS, FARMLANDS, PROTECTED/ENDANGE RED SPECIES Endangered Species No mitigation is required. Farmlands No mitigation is required. Terrestrial Plants No mitigation is required. and Wildlife The CGS project is included in a conforming long-range transportation plan and transportation improvement program. Air quality mitigation efforts would not be necessary. Charlotte Gateway Station S-14 EA
Table S.7-1. Summary of Mitigation (continued) Impact Areas WATER RESOURCES Mitigation Summary Floodplains No mitigation is required. Groundwater No mitigation is required. Surface Waters No mitigation is required. Wetlands HISTORICAL AND No mitigation is required. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Archaeological resource mitigation efforts would not be necessary. PARKLANDS No parklands are impacted. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Phase II investigations would be conducted during final design. Remediation in accordance with local and state regulations. A detailed block-by-block traffic plan will be completed and Best Management Construction techniques will be applied to reduce noise, air and water impacts; historic buildings will be noted on construction plans and designated as “no-go” zones. S.8 Financial Analysis and Investment Impacts S.8.1 Capital Costs Capital costs were estimated based on Preliminary Engineering Plans and are summarized in Table S.8-1 below. The estimate includes costs associated with the project planning, design, construction, management, oversight and start-up costs. It is anticipated that some of these costs would be borne by private funds, however, specific sources have not yet been determined (see Master Plan description in Section S.1). Costs partially include adjacent properties, but not those which would be privately funded. Table S.8-1. Capital Cost Estimates by Alternative (Year 2012 Mid-Point of Construction Dollars) No-Action Base Build Full Build N/A $26.53 million $150.98 million S.8.2 Funding and Financing Strategies The public transportation components of CGS will be constructed using a combination of federal, state and local funds. A specific cost-sharing agreement has not yet been negotiated between CATS and NCDOT and would await development of the Master Plan. Mixed-use development associated with the CGS site and adjacent NCDOT-owned property will be privately funded. Charlotte Gateway Station S-15 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 and 22: Table S.5-1 presents a summary of t
Page 23: Table S.5-2. NCCR Secondary Effects
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?