SR 710 Environmental Studymedia.metro.net/projects_studies/route_710/images/... · Topics reviewed in todayTopics reviewed in today s’s presentation presentation > Air Quality >Noise

1

SR 710 Environmental StudyAlternatives AnalysisTechnical Advisory Committee Meeting No. 7 – August 29, 2012

Preliminary - Not for Distribution

11Preliminary - Not for Distribution

1

Agenda

Public Outreach and CommunityPublic Outreach and Community Involvement Update

Update on Part 1 – Alternatives Analyses Technical Work

Open Discussion/New BusinessOpe scuss o / e us ess

Meeting Adjournment


2

August 2012 Outreach Summary

Seven Community Liaison Council Meetings held: Reviewed the12 Alternative Concepts Approximate Cumulative Attendance = 800MEETINGS:

> August 6th North East Los Angeles CLC in Highland Park> August 8th Pasadena CLC> August 8th San Gabriel CLC in Alhambra> August 9th South Pasadena CLC> August 9th South Pasadena CLC> August 9th East Los Angeles CLC in El Sereno> August 9th East San Gabriel CLC in Monrovia> August 13th La Canada Flintridge CLC


Comments Received

Opposition to Avenue 64/H-2 alternative

Opposition to F-5 alternatives Opposition to F-5 alternatives

Goods Movement Information Session requested

Property Value concerns

Historical Resources concerns

Air Quality

Support for No Build Alternative

Quality of Life

Environmental Justice concerns Environmental Justice concerns

Outreach notification concerns

Support for F-7 from San Gabriel Valley area

More information requested for BRT and LRT alternatives


3

Next Steps for Outreach Activities

Continued Outreach to Business Community

Outreach to smaller interest groups (i.e., neighborhood councils, etc.)

City-sponsored Information Updates:

Pasadena

Los Angeles (Council District 14)

South Pasadena

Oth t d Others as requested

Educational Sessions posted on the SR 710 website

Meetings and Forums


Agenda

Recap of TAC Meeting #6Recap of TAC Meeting #6

Summary Results of Alternatives Analysis> Summary Results of conceptual engineering and

technical studies

P f f lt ti t> Performance of alternative concepts

> Development of hybrid alternatives


4

Ground Rules

Q&A after each section of the presentationQ&A after each section of the presentation

Focus questions on information presented

General comments and Q&A at the end


Recap of TAC Meeting No. 6

Preliminary Results of AlternativesPreliminary Results of Alternatives Analysis> Update on transportation system analysis for no-

build

> Initial environmental assessment

> Status of conceptual engineering> Status of conceptual engineering

> Transportation system analysis for all build alternatives


Note - Only a sampling of alternative concepts were presented

5

Feedback Received During TAC No. 6

Were north-south screenlines considered?

The goal of Environmental Justice in screening

Time frame for completing the technical studies

Are travel time analyses included for transit alternatives?

Describe tunnel ventilation detailsDescribe tunnel ventilation details

Glatting Jackson traffic calming plan for Fremont Avenue


Feedback Received During TAC No. 6

Are trucks allowed in the tunnel?Are trucks allowed in the tunnel?

Was tolling considered in the evaluation?

Is Huntington Memorial Hospital considered as a sensitive receptor?

When will the results of Air Quality be t d?presented?


6

Summary Results of Conceptual Engineering and Technical Studies

Conceptual EngineeringConceptual Engineering

Transportation System Performance

Environmental Evaluation

Preliminary - Not for Distribution 11

Alternatives Considered

No BuildNo Build

TSM/TDM

Bus Rapid Transit (2 plus 1 variation)

Light Rail Rapid Transit (2 plus 2 variations)

Freeway (3 tunnel plus 1 surface)Freeway (3 tunnel plus 1 surface)

Highway/Arterial Improvements (2)


7

Summary Results of Alternatives Analysis – Conceptual Engineering

13


Conceptual Engineering

Transportation System ManagementTransportation System Management (TSM)/Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative

Transit Alternatives

Highway/Freeway Alternativesg ay/ ee ay e a es


8

TSM/TDM Alternative

Intersection improvements

Local street improvements

Enhanced transit service

Active transportation (bike paths)

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)g p y ( )

Some right-of-way impact


BRT Alternatives

Minimal property impacts

Medians and sidewalks narrowed in many locationsLandscaping removed in many places

Would displace hundreds of on-street parking spaces, as well as loading zones

Could be modified to operate only during peak hours


9

LRT Alternatives

LRT-4A/B/D Limited property acquisitions (for stations)

Elevated guideway in East Los Angeles

LRT-4B/D affect parking/access on Palm Avenue

LRT-6Extensive property acquisitionsExtensive property acquisitions

Extensive loss of parking/loading areas

All would require maintenance yardDifficulty of siting a maintenance yard for LRT-6


Freeway Alternatives

F-2 and F-5 have engineering challengesSi ifi t ROW i tSignificant ROW impacts

Challenges for connection to SR 2 and SR 134

F-6 follows the previous depressed Meridian route Significant ROW impacts

F-7 utilizes state ROW on both ends for portals Minimal ROW impacts

Ventilation at both ends of the tunnel; no intermediate stacks


10

Highway Alternatives

Features of H 2 and H 6Features of H-2 and H-6Grade separation at south end

Significant ROW impacts

Access control affects local street system


Summary Results of Alternatives– Transportation System Performance

20


11

Transportation System Analysis Overview

Transportation system performanceTransportation system performance summary graphs> Freeway throughput

> Arterial volumes and performance

> Transit performance

> Travel time and travel patterns

Alternative “bandwidth” maps (changes in traffic volumes)


Highlights of Transportation System AnalysisCompleted Alternatives Analysis using

2008 RTP model

2012 RTP model will be used in the next phase

Tolling hasn’t been considered in this h b t ill b id d d i thphase but will be considered during the

Project Report/Environmental Documentation phases


12

Daily Study Area Screenline Freeway Throughput (1000s)

Freeway Alternatives1200

BRT Alternatives

LRT Alternatives



1100

1000

23

900

800


50

Change in Daily Arterial Volumes (1000s)

Freeway Alternatives Highway Alternatives

Transit

25

0

-25

-50

BRT Alternatives

LRT Alternatives

24

-75

-100

-125


13

120

Severely Congested Facility Miles

110

100

90

80

BRT Alternatives

LRT Alternatives



25

80

70

60


30%

Arterial Performance - Percentage of Congested Intersection Approaches

BRT Alternatives

LRT Alternatives Freeway Alternatives Highway Alternatives

25 %

20 %

15 %

10 %

26

10 %

5 %

0 %


14

100

Transit Travel Time Performance (100 is Best)

BRT Alternatives LRT Alternatives

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

Freeway AlternativesHighway

Alternatives

27

30

20

10

0


100

Vehicular Travel Time Performance (100 is Best)


90

80

70

60

50

40

30

BRT Alternatives

LRT Alternatives

28

30

20

10

0



15

200

Percentage of Additional Future Jobs Reachable within 25.3 Minutes (National Average)

Freeway Alternatives180

160

140

120

100

80

60



29

60

40

20

0

BRT Alternatives LRT Alternatives


Arterial Performance – Arterial Cut-through Percentage

BRT Alternatives

LRT AlternativesHighway

Alternatives30%

Alternatives


Alternatives

25 %

20 %

15 %

10 %

30

10 %

5 %

0 %


16

New Daily Transit Riders

25000BRT

20000

15000

10000

BRTAlternatives LRT Alternatives

31

5000

0


TSM/TDM


17

LRT – 4A

33Preliminary - Not for Distribution 33

LRT – 4B


18

LRT – 4D


LRT – 6


19

BRT-1


BRT-6


20

F-2


F-5


21

F-6


F-7


22

H-2


H-6


23

Summary of Transportation System Analysis

Freeway alternatives performed better in congestion relief for freeways and local streetsrelief for freeways and local streets

Highway alternatives had limited to moderate improvement in congestion relief

Transit alternatives had moderate patronage and minimal impact in congestion relief

TSM/TDM alternative had slightly less improvement in congestion relief than highway alternatives

Limited positive/negative impacts outside study area


Evaluation of Alternatives– Environmental Evaluation

46


24

Environmental Topics Evaluated

Topics reviewed in today’s presentation Topics reviewed in today s presentation> Air Quality

> Noise

> Property Acquisition

> Historic Properties

> Parks and Recreational and Community Facilities

> Visual Analysis

Other topics evaluatedp> Environmental Justice

> Biological/Jurisdictional Resources

> Geotechnical

> Hazardous Waste

> Paleontological Resources


Air Quality

Evaluated change in operational emissions for mobile source air toxics (MSAT) regional criteria pollutants (RCP) andtoxics (MSAT), regional criteria pollutants (RCP), and greenhouse gases (GHG) compared to no build

MSAT: reductions up to 0.03% for transit alternatives and increases of 0.03-0.38% for freeway/highway alternatives

RCP: reductions up to 1.35% for transit and 0.22% for freeway/highway alternatives (except F-2 and F-7 with increases of 0.04% and 0.01%, respectively)

GHG d ti t 1 46% f t it d 0 14% f


GHG: reductions up to 1.46% for transit and 0.14% for freeway/highway alternatives (except F-2, F-6, and F-7 with increases of 0.08%, 0.02%, and 0.04%, respectively)

25

Noise Analysis

Evaluated change in acreage of noise sensitive land Evaluated change in acreage of noise sensitive land uses with increased noise exposure compared to no build

TSM/TDM and all transit alternatives result in reductions of about 0.3%

F-5, F-7, H-2, and H-6 result in increases of less than 1 0%


1.0%

F-2 and F-6 result in increases of 5.0% or more

LRT noise not included

Potential Property Acquisitions

Evaluated impact to commercialEvaluated impact to commercial, residential, and recreational properties

No build, Transit (except LRT-6), TSM/TDM, and F-7 have the least impact to properties


F-2, F-5, F-6, H-2, H-6, and LRT-6 have the most impact

26

Properties > 45 Years Old

Evaluated impacts of properties > 45 years old and Evaluated impacts of properties > 45 years old and designated resources

No build has no impact

All build alternatives affect historic period properties

BRT alternatives affect 9-15 properties

TSM and LRT alternatives affect 56-270 properties


Freeway/highway alternatives except F-7 affect the greatest number of properties (295-1055)

F-7 has least number of properties affected (72) of freeway/highway alternatives

Parks, Recreational, and Community Facilities

Evaluated potential property acquisitionEvaluated potential property acquisition impacts to parks, recreational, and other community facilities

No build has no impacts

All build alternatives affect at least one


bu d a e a es a ec a eas o epark, recreational, or other community facility, with TSM/TDM, LRT-6, F-5, and H-2 impacting more than 10

27

Potential Visual Effects

Evaluated potential for visual intrusion usingEvaluated potential for visual intrusion using Caltrans’ visual impact screening criteria

TSM/TDM and BRT alternatives rated Low

LRT and Freeway/Highway alternatives rated Medium- High due to introduction of elevated structures tunnel portals and similar designstructures, tunnel portals, and similar design features


Evaluation Performance Summary Matrices

54


28

Performance of Alternatives

42 performance measures were used to evaluate the 12 alternatives plus 3 variations

Reporting approachActual number for each alternative (e.g, “433

miles of freeway”, “32.3% change”) or scales (e.g., 1 to 5)( g , )

Color coding (green best, red worst)

Sorted and aggregated by objective

Overall rating (1 worst to 7 best) for 10 objective categories


Component Performance Measures by Objective

2.1.1 Travel time - vehicular 2.1.1 Travel time - transit 2.1.2 Reduction in VHT 2 1 3 P t d f iliti

2.3.1 LOS F1 or worse2 3 1 LOS E or F0

1. Minimize Travel Time 3. Reduce Freeway Congestion

2.1.3 Percentage on managed facilities

2.2.1 New interchanges/transit pts.2.2.2 Jobs reachable2.2.3 Transit boardings2 2 4 Arterial throughput

2.3.1 LOS E or F02.3.1 VHT on congested freeway

2.4.1 % of congested intersections2.4.2 Average v/c on arterials2.4.3 VMT on arterials2 4 4 A t i l t th h t

2. Improve Connectivity and Mobility

4. Reduce Local Street System Congestion

2.2.4 Arterial throughput2.2.5 Freeway throughput

2.4.4 Arterial cut-through percentage2.4.5 North-south travel served

2.5.1 Increase in transit ridership2.5.2 % within 1/4 mile of transit2.5.3 Mode split - transit

56

5. Increase Transit Ridership


29

2.6.1 Residential /business acquisitions

2.6.6 Acres of high paleo sensitivity

6A. Minimize Right-Of-Way 6C. Natural Environment Impacts

Component Performance Measures by Objective

2.6.3 Recreational sites2.6.4 Archeological sites2.6.5 Historic sites

Previously identified significant resources2.6.10 % change in sensitive noise2.6.11 MSATs2 6 12 R i l it i ll t t

2.6.7 Geotechnical2.6.8 Sensitive habitats2.6.9 Drainages

2.7.1 RTP/SCS goals2.7.2 Measure R goals2 7 3 Metro LRTP goals

6B. Human Environment Impacts

7. Plan Consistency

2.6.12 Regional criteria pollutants2.6.13 GHG emissions2.6.14 Hazardous waste sites2.6.15 Visual intrusion2.6.16 Scenic corridors2.6.17 Environmental justice

2.7.3 Metro LRTP goals

2.8.1 Construction and ROW costs2.8.2 Available funding2.8.3 Technical feasibility

57

8. Cost Efficiency


Overall Assessment Approach

For each objective, a summary

rating (1 to 7) was

calculated for each


alternative.

30

Details of Overall Assessment Approach

1. For each performance measure:a. Identify the best and worst valuesa. Identify the best and worst values

b. Normalize on a 1 to 100 scale for the range of alternatives

2. Combine the performance measures within each objective group:

a. Use a factor approach – 100 total for each objective group

b. Minimum of 5, maximum of 60, multiples of 5 for each performance measure (except right-of-way)

3. Calculate the combined measures for each alternative within3. Calculate the combined measures for each alternative within the objective group (1 to 100 scale).

4. Convert the 1 to 100 scale to a 1 to 7 rating for each objective and alternative

5. Repeat steps 2 to 4 for five other “Factor Focus” groups

6. Average the 6 “Factor Focus” group scores and convert to a 1 to 7 scale


Details of Overall Assessment Approach1. For each performance measure:

a. Identify the best and worst valuesa. Identify the best and worst values

b. Normalize on a 1 to 100 scale


31









32





Details of Overall Assessment Approach2. Combine the performance measures within each objective

group.g pa. Use a factor approach – 100 total for each objective group



33

Details of Overall Assessment Approach2. Combine the performance measures within each objective

group.g pa. Use a factor approach – 100 total for each objective group




3. Calculate the combined measures for each alternative within3. Calculate the combined measures for each alternative within the objective group (1 to 100 scale)


34






20 x 71.2 + 20 x 89.7 + 20 x 100.0 + 20 x 63.0 + 20 x 78.7100

= 81


35

Details of Overall Assessment Approach4. Convert the 1 to 100 scale to a 1 to 7 rating for each objective

and alternative


Details of Overall Assessment Approach4. Convert the 1 to 100 scale to a 1 to 7 rating for each objective

and alternative


36

Details of Overall Assessment Approach5. Repeat steps 2 to 4 for five other “Factor Focus” groups




37



Details of Overall Assessment Approach6. Average the 6 “Factor Focus” group scores and convert to a 1

to 7 scale


38

Details of Overall Assessment Approach6. Average the 6 “Factor Focus” group scores and convert to a 1

to 7 scale


Factor Focus Check


39

Factor Focus Check


Factor Focus Check


40

Factor Focus Check

All 6 scores one higher, All 6 scoresthe same:

57%

5 scores the same:

13%

gone lower:

7%

All within a range of two:

1%


Only 2 scores different:

14%More

variation:

8%

Summary of Results


41

BRT Alternatives


BRT Alternatives


42

BRT Alternatives that Merit Further Study


LRT Alternatives


43

LRT Alternatives


LRT Alternatives


44

LRT Alternatives


LRT Alternatives that Merit Further Study


45

Freeway/Highway Alternatives




46





47



Freeway Alternative that Merits Further Study


48

Highest-Performing Alternatives


Alternatives that Merit Further Study


49

Discussion on Hybrids

Objective is to enhance performance ofObjective is to enhance performance of selected alternativesIdentify weak elements of each alternative

Determine elements that could be added to enhance performance

Evaluate performance of combined hybrid alternatives

Refine elements to improve performance


Open Discussion

9898


Documents

SR 710 Environmental Studymedia.metro.net/projects_studies/route_710/images/... · Topics reviewed in todayTopics reviewed in today s’s presentation presentation > Air Quality >Noise