Multi-Modal Corridor Study

//// Multi-Modal Corridor StudyMulti-Modal Corridor Study

Project Status Briefing

Planning Board

Project Status Briefing

Planning BoardPlanning Boardof the

Planning Boardof the

Maryland-National Capital Park Maryland-National Capital Park

and Planning Commissionand Planning Commission

April 30, 2009April 30, 2009

/ Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

Introduction / BackgroundIntroduction / BackgroundIntroduction / BackgroundIntroduction / Background

I-270/US 15 AlternativesI-270/US 15 Alternatives

Corridor Cities Transitway AlternativesCorridor Cities Transitway Alternatives

Next StepsNext StepsNext StepsNext Steps

1

/ Study AreaStudy AreaMulti-Modal Study by SHA and MTA for MDOTMulti-Modal Study by SHA and MTA for MDOT

NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT:NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT:Biggs Ford RoadBiggs Ford Road

NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT:NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT:Biggs Ford RoadBiggs Ford Road

Project Team with SHA, MTA, Counties and CitiesProject Team with SHA, MTA, Counties and Cities

30 +/- miles of Limited Access Highway30 +/- miles of Limited Access Highway

1.5 miles of New Alignment Highway (MD 75)1.5 miles of New Alignment Highway (MD 75)

14 +/- mile Transitway14 +/- mile TransitwaySOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:SOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:Shady Grove RoadShady Grove Road

SOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:SOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:Shady Grove RoadShady Grove Road

2

/ Purpose And NeedPurpose And Need

PurposeT i ti t ti th t dd ti

PurposeT i ti t ti th t dd tiTo investigate options that address congestion and improve safety along the I-270/US 15 Corridor due to existing and projected growth

To investigate options that address congestion and improve safety along the I-270/US 15 Corridor due to existing and projected growthCorridor due to existing and projected growth within the corridor.Corridor due to existing and projected growth within the corridor.

NeedThe I-270/US 15 Corridor provides an essential

NeedThe I-270/US 15 Corridor provides an essential e 0/US 5 Co do p o des a esse aconnection between the Washington DC metropolitan area and central and western Maryland It is an essential corridor for carrying

e 0/US 5 Co do p o des a esse aconnection between the Washington DC metropolitan area and central and western Maryland It is an essential corridor for carryingMaryland. It is an essential corridor for carrying local and long distance trips, both within and beyond the corridor.

Maryland. It is an essential corridor for carrying local and long distance trips, both within and beyond the corridor.

3

beyond the corridor.beyond the corridor.

/ Recent TimelineRecent Timeline

June 2002: Location/Design Public Hearings (DEIS)June 2002: Location/Design Public Hearings (DEIS)(DEIS)Fall 2003: MDOT Requested Managed Lanes (DEIS)Fall 2003: MDOT Requested Managed Lanes EvaluationJune 2004: Public Information Meeting on EvaluationJune 2004: Public Information Meeting on gExpress Toll Lanes (ETL’s) and Minimization Options/Refinements

gExpress Toll Lanes (ETL’s) and Minimization Options/Refinements2005 – 2008: Engineering/Environmental Studies2005 – 2008: Engineering/Environmental StudiesSpring 2009: Public Hearings (AA/EA)Spring 2009: Public Hearings (AA/EA)

4

/ Changes Since 2002Changes Since 2002

Managed Lanes – Evaluate FeasibilityManaged Lanes – Evaluate Feasibilityg yFHWA/FTA Guidance Alternatives Analysis (AA)

g yFHWA/FTA Guidance Alternatives Analysis (AA) Alternatives Analysis (AA) Transit Modeling Alternatives Analysis (AA) Transit Modeling NEPA Documentation

Alternatives NEPA Documentation

Alternatives Travel Forecast 2030 Reconfigured I-270/MD 85 Interchange Travel Forecast 2030 Reconfigured I-270/MD 85 Interchange Reconfigured I-270/MD 85 Interchange Reconfigured I-270/I-370 Interchange Reconfigured I-270/MD 85 Interchange Reconfigured I-270/I-370 Interchange

5

/ Changes Since 2002Changes Since 2002

Alternatives (cont.)Alternatives (cont.)Alternatives (cont.) Detailed Avoidance/Minimization Studies

Alternatives (cont.) Detailed Avoidance/Minimization Studies

Monocacy National Battlefield Fox Chapel neighborhood (Germantown) Monocacy National Battlefield Fox Chapel neighborhood (Germantown)

Advanced US 15/Monocacy Blvd. Interchange

I t A l i f ETL Alt ti Advanced US 15/Monocacy Blvd. Interchange

I t A l i f ETL Alt tiImpact Analysis for ETL Alternatives Air, Noise, Communities, Cultural, Natural,

Impact Analysis for ETL Alternatives Air, Noise, Communities, Cultural, Natural,Air, Noise, Communities, Cultural, Natural,

TrafficAir, Noise, Communities, Cultural, Natural, Traffic

6

/ Corridor AlternativesCorridor Alternatives

DEIS EA Alt. 1: No-Build Alternative Alt. 6A: Enhanced MP w/1 ETL/LRT

Alt. 2: TSM/TDM Alternative Alt. 6B: Enhanced MP w/1 ETL/BRT

Alt 3A MP HOV /LRT Alt 7A E h d MP /2 ETL/LRTAlt. 3A: MP HOV w/LRT Alt. 7A: Enhanced MP w/2 ETL/LRTAlt. 3B: MP HOV w/ BRT Alt. 7B: Enhanced MP w/2 ETL/BRT

Alt. 4A: MP GPL w/LRTAlt. 4B: MP GPL w/BRT

Alt. 5A: Enhanced MP HOV/GPL w/LRTAlt 5B E h d MP HOV/GPL /BRTAlt. 5B: Enhanced MP HOV/GPL w/BRTAlt. 5C: Enhanced MP HOV/GPL w/Premium Bus

MP = Master PlanHOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Lane LRT = Light Rail on the CCTGPL = General-Purpose Lane BRT = Bus Rapid Transit on the CCT

MP = Master PlanHOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Lane LRT = Light Rail on the CCTGPL = General-Purpose Lane BRT = Bus Rapid Transit on the CCT

7

/ DEIS Alternatives 3A/B and 4A/BDEIS Alternatives 3A/B and 4A/B

Alternatives 3A/B, 4A/BI-270 (MD 121 to MD 85)

8

/ DEIS Alternatives 3A/B and 4A/BDEIS Alternatives 3A/B and 4A/B

Alternatives 3A/B, 4A/B, 5A/B/CI-270 (MD 124 to MD 117)

9

/ DEIS Alternatives 5A/B and 5CDEIS Alternatives 5A/B and 5C

Alternatives 5A/B/CI-270 (MD 121 to MD 85)

10

/ DEIS Alternatives 5A/B and 5CDEIS Alternatives 5A/B and 5C

Alternatives 3A/B, 4A/B, 5A/B/CI-270 (MD 124 to MD 117)

11

/ Express Toll LanesExpress Toll Lanes

ETLs are the latest type of “Managed ETLs are the latest type of “Managed Lanes”. Other types of managed lanes include

HOV Truck only Transit only and HOT

Lanes”. Other types of managed lanes include

HOV Truck only Transit only and HOTHOV, Truck only, Transit only, and HOT lanes.

Provides needed highway capacity

HOV, Truck only, Transit only, and HOT lanes.

Provides needed highway capacityProvides needed highway capacity to address congestion through an alternative funding strategy (toll financing) m ch sooner than

Provides needed highway capacity to address congestion through an alternative funding strategy (toll financing) m ch sooner thanfinancing) much sooner than traditional funding approaches allow.

financing) much sooner than traditional funding approaches allow.

12

/ Express Toll LanesExpress Toll LanesObjectives:

Offer Reliable and Predictable Travel Times and Choices

Objectives:Offer Reliable and Predictable Travel Times and ChoicesOffer Reliable and Predictable Travel Times and Choices

Promote Transit Solutions/Carpooling

Build Sustainable Highway Capacity Sooner

Offer Reliable and Predictable Travel Times and Choices

Promote Transit Solutions/Carpooling

Build Sustainable Highway Capacity SoonerBuild Sustainable Highway Capacity Sooner

Develop an Integrated Highway System that Optimizes Efficiency and Maximizes Flexibility

Build Sustainable Highway Capacity Sooner

Develop an Integrated Highway System that Optimizes Efficiency and Maximizes Flexibilityy

Capture Air Quality and Other Environmental Benefits

y

Capture Air Quality and Other Environmental Benefits

Improve Incident Response Time

Take Advantage of Technology:

Improve Incident Response Time

Take Advantage of Technology:Electronic Toll CollectionsElectronic Toll Collections

13


MDOT’s Goal: Develop a Statewide ETL system that MDOT’s Goal: Develop a Statewide ETL system that optimizes efficiency and flexibility.Express Toll Lanes are being considered on controlled

hi h i i h i ti

optimizes efficiency and flexibility.Express Toll Lanes are being considered on controlled

hi h i i h i tiaccess highways experiencing chronic congestion during peak travel times.T P j t U d C t ti i M l d

access highways experiencing chronic congestion during peak travel times.T P j t U d C t ti i M l dTwo Projects Under Construction in MarylandOngoing Project Development Studies:Two Projects Under Construction in MarylandOngoing Project Development Studies: I-270 I-495/I-95 (Capital Beltway) MD 5

I-270 I-495/I-95 (Capital Beltway) MD 5 MD 5 23 Other Corridors Under Consideration MD 5 23 Other Corridors Under Consideration

14

/ I-270 ETL: Part of aBigger Picture

I-270 ETL: Part of aBigger PictureBigger PictureBigger Picture

Managed Lane Network Managed Lane Network would include:

• Virginia HOT Lanes

would include:

• Virginia HOT Lanes g(under construction)

• West Side Mobility Study

g(under construction)

• West Side Mobility StudyWest Side Mobility Study (feasibility study)

• Intercounty Connector

West Side Mobility Study (feasibility study)

• Intercounty Connector• Intercounty Connector (under construction)

I 270/US 15 Multi Modal

• Intercounty Connector (under construction)

I 270/US 15 Multi Modal• I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Study (in planning stage)

• I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Study (in planning stage)

15


16

/ I-270 ETL LimitsI-270 ETL Limits

ETLETLNORTHERN NORTHERN

LIMITLIMIT

ETLETLSOUTHERN SOUTHERN

LIMITLIMIT

North of MD 80 to South of I-370North of MD 80 to South of I-370

17

/ EA Alternatives 6A/BEA Alternatives 6A/B

Alternatives 6A/BMD 121 to ETL Terminus (North of MD 80)

18


Alternatives 6A/B and 7A/BAlternatives 6A/B and 7A/BMD 117 to MD 124

19


Alternatives 7 A/BMD 121 to ETL Terminus (North of MD 80)( )

20


Alternatives 6A/B and 7A/BMD 117 to MD 124

21

/ I-270 ETL Northern AccessI-270 ETL Northern Access

Vehicles will access the ETL lanes via open access slip ramps in the following areas:Vehicles will access the ETL lanes via open access slip ramps in the following areas:ramps in the following areas: Northern Terminus South of MD 80 (slip ramps)

ramps in the following areas: Northern Terminus South of MD 80 (slip ramps) South of MD 80 (slip ramps)

I-270 Southbound GP to ETL (entry) I-270 Northbound ETL to GP (exit)

South of MD 80 (slip ramps) I-270 Southbound GP to ETL (entry) I-270 Northbound ETL to GP (exit)

North of MD 121 (slip ramps) I-270 Southbound ETL to GP and GP to ETL I-270 Northbound ETL to GP and GP to ETL

North of MD 121 (slip ramps) I-270 Southbound ETL to GP and GP to ETL I-270 Northbound ETL to GP and GP to ETL

22

/ I-270 ETL Southern AccessI-270 ETL Southern Access

Vehicles will access the ETL lanes via Direct Vehicles will access the ETL lanes via Direct Access Ramps from theseInterchanges: Access Ramps from theseInterchanges: g Newcut Road (NB/SB)

MD 118 (NB/SB)

g Newcut Road (NB/SB)

MD 118 (NB/SB) MD 118 (NB/SB)

Watkins Mill Road Area (NB/SB) and/or MD 117 (SB)

MD 118 (NB/SB)

Watkins Mill Road Area (NB/SB) and/or MD 117 (SB)

I-370/ICC (NB to/from EB) I-370/ICC (NB to/from EB)

23

/ Direct Access Ramp ExamplesDirect Access Ramp Examples

24

/ Highway Capital CostsHighway Capital Costs

Highway capital costs have been estimated for Highway capital costs have been estimated for g y proadways, interchanges, structures, earthwork, traffic control and environmental mitigation

g y proadways, interchanges, structures, earthwork, traffic control and environmental mitigationg

Highway capital costs include final design, right-of way acquisition and construction

g

Highway capital costs include final design, right-of way acquisition and constructionof-way acquisition and construction

Current estimate completed in early 2009

of-way acquisition and construction

Current estimate completed in early 2009

LocationLocationFrederick CountyFrederick County

Highway CostHighway Cost$ 1 472 M$ 1 472 MFrederick CountyFrederick County

City of FrederickCity of Frederick

Montgomery CountyMontgomery County

$ 1,472 M$ 1,472 M

$ 464 M$ 464 M

$ 2 642 M$ 2 642 M

25

Montgomery CountyMontgomery County $ 2,642 M$ 2,642 M

/ “Breakout” Projects“Breakout” Projects

I-270/MD 121 Interchange I-270/MD 121 Interchange g

I-270/Watkins Mill Road – New Interchange in Gaithersburg (Design phase)

g

I-270/Watkins Mill Road – New Interchange in Gaithersburg (Design phase)Gaithersburg (Design phase)

US 15/MD 26 Interchange – New Northbound

Gaithersburg (Design phase)

US 15/MD 26 Interchange – New Northbound On-ramp – Completed 2006

US 15/Monocacy Boulevard Interchange – New

On-ramp – Completed 2006

US 15/Monocacy Boulevard Interchange – NewUS 15/Monocacy Boulevard Interchange New Interchange (Design phase)US 15/Monocacy Boulevard Interchange New Interchange (Design phase)

26

/ CCT AlignmentCCT Alignment

27

/ CCT AlignmentCCT Alignment

17 stations (includes 4 beyond 2025)17 stations (includes 4 beyond 2025)( y )

Transit transfers at Metropolitan Grove (MARC), Shady Grove (WMATA Red Line) and local bus

( y )

Transit transfers at Metropolitan Grove (MARC), Shady Grove (WMATA Red Line) and local busShady Grove (WMATA Red Line), and local bus

Access from local streets, I-270 interchanges,

Shady Grove (WMATA Red Line), and local bus

Access from local streets, I-270 interchanges, and direct access ramps

Build Alternatives include Light Rail Transit

and direct access ramps

Build Alternatives include Light Rail TransitBuild Alternatives include Light Rail Transit (LRT), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

T it TSM Alt ti f t i b

Build Alternatives include Light Rail Transit (LRT), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

T it TSM Alt ti f t i bTransit TSM Alternative features premium bus on I-270 managed lanes (HOV or ETL) with service to CCT stations

Transit TSM Alternative features premium bus on I-270 managed lanes (HOV or ETL) with service to CCT stations

28

service to CCT stations service to CCT stations

/ King FarmKing Farm

29

/ Metropolitan GroveMetropolitan Grove

30

/ Right-of-Way PreservationRight-of-Way Preservation

Montgomery County Master Plans and Sector PlMontgomery County Master Plans and Sector PlPlansRight-of-Way StatusPlansRight-of-Way Status Approximately 35% lies within publicly controlled land

(i.e. – within existing street right-of-way or on land dedicated to the transitway)

Approximately 35% lies within publicly controlled land (i.e. – within existing street right-of-way or on land dedicated to the transitway)dedicated to the transitway)

Additional 25% has right-of-way protection through reservation or easement

dedicated to the transitway) Additional 25% has right-of-way protection through

reservation or easement Remaining 40% has no protections at this time

Preservation/Coordination with Local Remaining 40% has no protections at this time

Preservation/Coordination with LocalPreservation/Coordination with Local Jurisdictions MTA reviews development plans to ensure transitway

Preservation/Coordination with Local Jurisdictions MTA reviews development plans to ensure transitway

31

p p ypreservation

p p ypreservation

/ Operations & Maintenance FacilityOperations & Maintenance Facility

Needed for both LRT or BRTNeeded for both LRT or BRT

Site IdentificationSite Identification LRT must be adjacent to the transitway

BRT must be adjacent or within a reasonable distance

LRT must be adjacent to the transitway

BRT must be adjacent or within a reasonable distance

Site Layouts LRT Geometric Constraints and Grades

Site Layouts LRT Geometric Constraints and Grades LRT – Geometric Constraints and Grades

BRT – Optimal Facility Size (phasing)

LRT – Geometric Constraints and Grades

BRT – Optimal Facility Size (phasing)

5 Sites Identified and Included in AA/EA (one existing from DEIS and four new)5 Sites Identified and Included in AA/EA (one existing from DEIS and four new)

32

existing from DEIS and four new)existing from DEIS and four new)

/ Alternative AlignmentsAlternative Alignments

Crown Farm, Shady Grove Life Sciences Crown Farm, Shady Grove Life Sciences Center/Belward Farm, and KentlandsCenter/Belward Farm, and Kentlands

33

/ Results TableResults Table

Transit Alternative

Travel Time Shady Grove to

COMSAT

Ridership (Daily Boardings - Capital Cost

( illi 2007$)

Annual Operations and

Maintenance

CCT Alternatives Preliminary Travel Demand Forecasts & Cost Estimates

COMSAT (minutes)

( y g2030) (millions-2007$) Costs

(millions-2007$)

Alt. 6 and Trans. TSM60 6,000 - 7,000 $86.9 $14.8

Alt. 6 and Light Rail (A)36 24,000 - 30,000 $777.5 $28.1

Alt. 6 and Bus Rapid (B) 38 21,000 - 27,000 $449.9 $26.8

Alt. 7 and Light Rail (A)36 24,000 - 30,000 $777.5 $28.1

Alt. 7 and Bus Rapid (B) 38 21,000 - 27,000 $449.9 $26.8

34

/ Project FundingProject Funding

Federal – Section 5309 New Starts Federal – Section 5309 New Starts New fixed guideway systems (rail, bus rapid transit)

E tensions to e isting s stems

New fixed guideway systems (rail, bus rapid transit)

E tensions to e isting s stems Extensions to existing systems

Typically matched at 50%+

Extensions to existing systems

Typically matched at 50%+

Project funding decisions made jointly by FTA and Congress – national competition

Project funding decisions made jointly by FTA and Congress – national competition

State – Transportation Trust Fund

Local Jurisdictions

State – Transportation Trust Fund

Local JurisdictionsLocal Jurisdictions

Others

Local Jurisdictions

Others

35

/ Federal Approval ProcessFederal Approval Process

Alternatives AnalysisSystems Planning

Locally PreferredAlternative We are

ht

FTA Decision On Entry

into PE

We are Here

men

t Ove

rsig

h

Preliminary EngineeringMajor Development

Stage

FTA Decision Point

ject

Man

agem FTA Decision

On Entry into Final Design

Full FundingFinal Design

Pro

j Full Funding Grant Agreement

36

Construction

/ New Starts CriteriaNew Starts Criteria

Summary Rating

Project JustificationRating Financial Rating

Other Factors

Non-Section5309 Share

Capital Finances

Operating Finances

Low IncomeHouseholds

UserBenefits

MobilityImprovements

Environmental Benefits

Cost Effectiveness

LandUse

CapitalCost

Employment O&MCost

UserBenefitsBenefits

Minimum Project Development Requirements:

Metropolitan Planning and Programming Requirements

Project Management Technical Capability

Other Considerations

NEPA Approvals

37

/ New Starts Evaluation CriteriaNew Starts Evaluation Criteria

Project Ratings given to two composite j t j tifi ti d j t

Project Ratings given to two composite j t j tifi ti d j tmeasures: project justification and project

financeR ti “hi h” “ di hi h” “ di ” “ di

measures: project justification and project finance

R ti “hi h” “ di hi h” “ di ” “ di Rating - “high”, “medium high”, “medium”, “medium low”, “low”

Project Justification

Rating - “high”, “medium high”, “medium”, “medium low”, “low”

Project JustificationProject Justification Mobility – travel time, transit dependent usage, etc. Cost effectiveness ratio of cost to user benefit

Project Justification Mobility – travel time, transit dependent usage, etc. Cost effectiveness ratio of cost to user benefit Cost-effectiveness – ratio of cost to user benefit Land use – transit supportive land useP j t Fi

Cost-effectiveness – ratio of cost to user benefit Land use – transit supportive land useP j t FiProject Finance Amount and reliability of non-federal share of New

Starts

Project Finance Amount and reliability of non-federal share of New

Starts

38

Starts Starts

/ Cost-EffectivenessCost-Effectiveness

Cost-effectiveness ~ 50% of Project Justification Cost-effectiveness ~ 50% of Project Justification jrating

Must get a “medium” rating in cost effectiveness

jrating

Must get a “medium” rating in cost effectivenessMust get a medium rating in cost-effectiveness for a project to be recommended.Must get a medium rating in cost-effectiveness for a project to be recommended.

FY 2010 Cost-Effectiveness Rating High less than or equal to$11.99

FY 2010 Cost-Effectiveness Rating High less than or equal to$11.99High less than or equal to$11.99 Medium-High between $12.00 and $15.99 Medium between $16 00 and $24 49

High less than or equal to$11.99 Medium-High between $12.00 and $15.99 Medium between $16 00 and $24 49 Medium between $16.00 and $24.49 Medium-Low between $24.50 and $30.49

L G t th l t $30 51

Medium between $16.00 and $24.49 Medium-Low between $24.50 and $30.49

L G t th l t $30 51

39

Low Greater than or equal to $30.51 Low Greater than or equal to $30.51

/ Cost Effectiveness ResultsCost Effectiveness Results

A B C DA B C D

Total Capital Costs

(2007 dollars)

Annualized Capital Costs (2007 dollars)

Annual Operating Costs

(2007 dollars)

Annual User Benefit (Hours)

Annualized Cost per Hour of User

Benefit( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

TSM 86,860,000 7,440,700 14,793,000 1,890,000 --

Build Alternatives

Alternative 6A(LRT)

777,530,000 62,202,400 28,129,000 3,960,000 $32.90

Alternative 6B(BRT)

449,920,000 36,443,500 26,859,000 4,110,000 $18.50(BRT)

Alternative 7A(LRT)

777,530,000 62,202,400 28,129,000 3,990,000 $32.43

Alternative 7B449 920 000 36 443 500 26 859 000 4 140 000 $18 25

(BRT)449,920,000 36,443,500 26,859,000 4,140,000 $18.25

40

/ Locally Preferred AlternativeLocally Preferred Alternative

Multi-modal - highway and transit alternative selectionMulti-modal - highway and transit alternative selectionTransit Mode Selection - TSM, BRT, LRTConsider project phasing - tool for managing costsTransit Mode Selection - TSM, BRT, LRTConsider project phasing - tool for managing costsAlternative alignments (CCT)Environmental ImpactsAlternative alignments (CCT)Environmental ImpactspPublic Hearing/Document Review process Citizen/community groups

pPublic Hearing/Document Review process Citizen/community groups Project Team/Local Government FTA/FHWA

E i t l i

Project Team/Local Government FTA/FHWA

E i t l i Environmental agencies

Cost Effectiveness (CCT)Funding/Affordability

Environmental agencies

Cost Effectiveness (CCT)Funding/Affordability

41

Funding/Affordability Funding/Affordability

/ Federal Approval ProcessFederal Approval Process2009 Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment

2002 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Locally PreferredAlternative We are

Highway and Transit Projects Split

We are Here

Decision Point

Tier 1 FEIS and Record of Decision

Major DevelopmentStage

Prepare Tier 2 FEIS and

PrioritizeProjects to Advance to Tier 2

Study

Prepare Tier 2 FEIS andRecord of Decision

42

Design

/ Project ScheduleProject Schedule

Public OutreachAA/EA CompletionPublic OutreachAA/EA Completion

OngoingMay 2009OngoingMay 2009AA/EA Completion

AA/EA CirculationAA/EA CompletionAA/EA Circulation

May 2009

May 2009 – July 2009

May 2009

May 2009 – July 2009Public HearingSelection of Preferred Al i

Public HearingSelection of Preferred Al i

June 2009Fall 2009June 2009Fall 2009

AlternativeRequest Entry for PE/New St t S b i i (T it)

AlternativeRequest Entry for PE/New St t S b i i (T it)

Late 2009Late 2009Starts Submission (Transit)PE/FEIS CompletionStarts Submission (Transit)PE/FEIS Completion TBDTBDInitiate Final DesignStart ConstructionInitiate Final DesignStart Construction

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

43

/ Public OutreachPublic Outreach

Project NewsletterProject NewsletterProject Newsletter

Available for Project Briefings to Local

Project Newsletter

Available for Project Briefings to Local Neighborhoods/Organizations

Briefings to City/County Staff

Neighborhoods/Organizations

Briefings to City/County StaffBriefings to City/County Staff

Briefings to City/County State Elected

Briefings to City/County Staff

Briefings to City/County State Elected g y yOfficials prior to Spring 2009 Public Meetings

g y yOfficials prior to Spring 2009 Public MeetingsMeetings

Website : www.i270multimodalstudy.com

Meetings

Website : www.i270multimodalstudy.com

44

/ Next StepsNext Steps

Continue agency coordination and public Continue agency coordination and public g y poutreachConduct review process

g y poutreachConduct review processConduct review processHold public hearingsConduct review processHold public hearingsp gSelect cost effective, affordable Locally Preferred Alternative

p gSelect cost effective, affordable Locally Preferred AlternativePreferred AlternativeSecure non-federal fundingPreferred AlternativeSecure non-federal fundinggSecure federal funding

gSecure federal funding

45

/ Thank YouThank You

Questions/concerns or for additional information:Questions/concerns or for additional information:Questions/concerns or for additional information:Questions/concerns or for additional information:

Highway:

Russ Anderson

Highway:

Russ Anderson

([email protected])([email protected])

Transit Related:Transit Related:Transit Related:

Rick Kiegel

( ki l@ t l d )

Transit Related:

Rick Kiegel

( ki l@ t l d )

46

([email protected])([email protected])

Multi-Modal Corridor Study

Documents