ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHARLOTTE GATEWAY STATION

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0 Alternatives Considered....................................................................2.1-1 2.1 Charlotte Gateway Station Function and Context................................2.1-1 2.2 No Action Alternative..............................................................................2.2-2 2.3 Base and Full Build Alternatives - Conceptual Development of the Charlotte Gateway Station......................................................................2.3-4 2.3.1 Design Charette ..............................................................................2.3-6 2.3.2 Design Concept...............................................................................2.3-6 2.3.3 Facility Parameters .........................................................................2.3-6 2.4 Charlotte Gateway Station Capital Cost Estimate................................2.4-9 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.4-1 CGS Conceptual Cost Estimate Full Build Alternative..........................2.4-10 Table 2.4-2 CGS Conceptual Cost Estimate Base Build Alternative .......................2.4-12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.2-1. CGS and Adjacent Transit/Rail Services ..............................................2.2-3 Figure 2.3-1. Charlotte Gateway Station Design Concept .........................................2.3-5 Charlotte Gateway Station i EA
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This chapter describes the alternatives evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. Section One summarizes the Charlotte Gateway Station (CGS) Build Alternative considered within the regional, statewide and national context of long range transit and passenger rail plans. Section Two describes the No-Action Alternative. Section Three describes the conceptual design of the CGS Build Alternative in more detail. Section Four describes the capital costs of the CGS Build Alternative. 2.1 Charlotte Gateway Station Function and Context The CGS is an integral multimodal component of the regional Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) 2030 Transit Plan. CGS is the terminal station for the LYNX Purple Line (North Corridor Commuter Rail), the LYNX Silver line (Southeast Corridor) and the LYNX Orange Line (West Corridor). (Figure 2.2-1) CGS also would serve as a major stop for the Center City Streetcar system and would be served by much of the CATS downtown bus system. Spatially and functionally, CGS must be located at the juncture of these various transit services and the Norfolk Southern (NS) rail line, on which LYNX Purple Line commuter trains will operate. That juncture is at Trade and Graham Streets in downtown Charlotte, just three blocks from the center of the central business district. The street car will directly connect CGS with the Charlotte Transportation Center (CTC), served by the LYNX Blue Line to the northeast and the south. CGS is also an integral component of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. The station would serve as Charlotte’s intercity passenger rail station for enhanced Amtrak service along the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor connecting Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Richmond and Washington, DC. This downtown location would replace Amtrak’s current station located two miles from the downtown on North Tryon Street. Amtrak currently operates three daily round-trip trains through Charlotte: the Crescent, with service between New Orleans, Atlanta and New York; the Carolinian, serving Charlotte, Raleigh, Washington and New York; and the Piedmont, providing daily service between Charlotte and Raleigh. With implementation of the Southeast High-Speed Rail corridor improvements, intercity rail passenger service will expand to as many as eight daily round-trip trains between Charlotte and Raleigh. As part of this effort, NCDOT Rail Division is currently working with NS and CSX to improve track alignments and operational features for the freight and passenger rail facilities in Center City and west to the Charlotte Douglas International Airport. The proposed CGS site formerly housed the Richmond & Danville passenger depot (circa 1890) rebuilt as the Southern Railway passenger depot in 1922 and demolished in 1962. The Greyhound bus terminal currently occupies half the site, with the remainder used for surface parking. Greyhound will relocate its terminal to a new building in the adjacent block, which will be part of the CGS complex. Greyhound operates as many as 100 daily buses through Charlotte with up to 2000 daily passengers. CGS will be served by most CATS downtown local and express buses. Enhanced passenger boarding and unloading facilities will be constructed along 4 th , Trade and Graham Streets to provide easy connections to the various transit modes at CGS and to local residences, office and retail centers. An underground bus transfer capacity at CGS also is under consideration, as well as capacity enhancements at CTC. Charlotte Gateway Station 2.1-1 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 and 24: Table S.5-2. NCCR Secondary Effects
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: mixed use transportation and econom
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?