1
State Route 710 North Draft EIR/EIS Public Hearing Presentation
April 11 and 14, 2015; May 6 and 7, 2015
1 1 1
2
Presentation Outline
Rules of Engagement Community Outreach Activities Background Purpose and Need Overview of Alternatives Draft EIR/EIS – Summary of Key Findings Next Steps
3
Community Outreach/ Public Participation (1 of 2)
Over 300 Meetings/Briefings Conducted 180 in Northeast/East Los Angeles:
154 in the San Gabriel Valley:
Study Area Agency Coordination Meetings:
o 18 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) o 14 Stakeholder Outreach Advisory Committee (SOAC)
o Boyle Heights o Eagle Rock o East Los Angeles o El Sereno o Glassell Park o Highland Park o Lincoln Heights o Los Angeles o Mount Washington
o Arcadia o Alhambra o Azusa o Bradbury o Burbank o Duarte o El Monte o Glendale o Irwindale o La Canada Flintridge o La Crescenta o Monrovia o Monterey Park o Pasadena o Rosemead o San Gabriel o Sierra Madre o South Pasadena o Temple City
4
Community Outreach/ Public Participation (2 of 2)
Briefings Held with Elected Officials Congress Members:
Adam Schiff, Xavier Becerra, Judy Chu, Janice Hahn, Lucille Roybal-Allard State Senators:
Kevin De Leon, Ed Hernandez, Carol Liu State Assembly Members:
Mike Eng, Chris Holden, Jimmy Gomez, John Perez Los Angeles Country Board of Supervisors:
Michael Antonovich, Gloria Molina, Hilda Solis Los Angeles City Council:
Jose Huizar, Gil Cedillo, Eric Garcetti, Antonio Villaraigosa Local Elected Officials:
Luis Ayala (Alhambra), John Fasana (Duarte), John Kennedy (Pasadena), Dennis Kneier (San Marino), David Lau (Monterey Park), Steve Madison (Pasadena), Barbara Messina (Alhambra), Ara Najarian (Glendale), Jacque Robinson (Pasadena), Stephen Sham (Alhambra)
5
Public Noticing
Issued Joint Metro/Caltrans News Release on March 6, 2015 and;
Published notices in legal sections of several newspapers throughout Study Area: • Notice of Availability of Draft EIR/EIS
o Caltrans website, public libraries (refer to handout)
• Public Comment Period: March 6, 2015 - July 6, 2015 (120 days)
• Caltrans website for electronic submission of public comments • Caltrans Contact Information
6
Supplemental Public Noticing
Announcement on SR 710 North Webpage: www.metro.net/sr710study
E-blast Joint News Release to SR 710 North Database Joint News Release Posted on Study Area City
Websites Sent Mailer to Businesses and Households Ad Placements Online and in Mainstream/Community
Newspapers
7
Public Hearings
**Live webcast: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/sr-710-study
Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 10 a.m. - 11 a.m. – Map Viewing 11 a.m. - 4 p.m. – Public Hearing East Los Angeles College Rosco C. Ingalls Auditorium 1301 Avenida Cesar Chavez, Monterey Park, 91754
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. 5 p.m. - 6 p.m. – Map Viewing 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. – Public Hearing Pasadena Convention Center Ballroom** 300 East Green Street, Pasadena, 91101
Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. 5 p.m. - 6 p.m. – Map Viewing 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. – Public Hearing La Canada High School Auditorium 4463 Oak Grove Drive, La Canada, 91011
Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. 5 p.m. - 6 p.m. – Map Viewing 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. – Public Hearing Los Angeles Christian Presbyterian Church Multi-Purpose Room 2241 N. Eastern Avenue, Los Angeles, 90032
8 8
Measure R funded study initiated 4 years ago to alleviate mobility constraints in study area (east/northeast Los Angeles and western San Gabriel Valley)
5 Alternatives advanced to the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (Draft EIR/EIS) for further study in 2012
Draft EIR/EIS is being circulated for public review and comment through July 6, 2015
Draft EIR/EIS does not recommend or select a Preferred Alternative
Background
10
Purpose Statement
The purpose of the proposed action is to effectively and efficiently accommodate regional and local north-south travel demands in the study area of the western San Gabriel Valley and east/northeast Los Angeles, including the following considerations: • Improve the efficiency of the existing regional freeway and
transit networks; • Reduce congestion on local arterials adversely affected due to
accommodating regional traffic volumes; • Minimize environmental impacts related to mobile sources
11
Project Need
Capacity, Transportation Demand, and Safety • Lack of north-south transportation facilities and overall congestion
within the region
Modal Interrelationships and System Linkages • State Route 110 and Interstate 710 terminate within the study area
without connecting to other freeways
Social Demands or Economic Development • State Route 710 is included in the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, FTIP and
Metro’s LRTP
Environmental Factors • Effects related to mobile sources associated with congestion
12
Alternatives Studied
1) No Build 2) Transportation System Management/Transportation
Demand Management (TSM/TDM) 3) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with TSM/TDM 4) Light Rail Transit (LRT) with TSM/TDM 5) Freeway Tunnel with TSM/TDM:
Dual Bore Operational Variation • No Tolls • No Tolls and No trucks • With Tolls
Single Bore Operational Variation • With Tolls • With Tolls and No Trucks • With tolls and Express Bus
13
No Build Alternative
Provides the baseline against which all of the build alternatives are compared
Includes planned improvements contained in the 2012 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) through 2035
Does not include any improvements associated with Build Alternatives identified within the SR 710 North study area
14
TSM/TDM Alternative Overview
ITS Improvements
Signal optimization Signal synchronization Transit signal prioritization Arterial changeable message signs Speed data collection Construction cost: $5 M
Transit Refinement
To existing bus routes Construction cost: $20 M
Local Street Improvements:
17 intersections 7 street segments 3 other improvements:
T-1: Valley Blvd to Mission Rd Connector Rd
T-2: Arroyo Seco Parkway Hook Ramps
T-3: St John Ave Extension from Del Mar Ave to California Blvd
Construction cost: $80 M
Active Transportation
Class III Bike Routes Construction cost: $0
Preliminary Cost Estimate: $105 M (2014 dollars)
16
BRT Alternative
High-speed, high-frequency service between East Los Angeles and Pasadena
12-mile corridor; 17 stops Mixed-flow and exclusive lanes
(single and both directions) 10 minutes during peak hours and 20
min during off-peak Replaces existing Route 762 Amenities included to attract riders Two Bus feeder services
• Connects to El Monte Bus station • Connects to Commerce and Montebello
Metrolink Stations
Includes elements of TSM/TDM Preliminary Cost Estimate: $241 M* (2014 dollars)
*Includes $102M for TSM/TDM improvements
17
LRT Alternative
Between East Los Angeles and Pasadena
7.5 mile passenger rail line • Includes 3 miles of aerial segment and 4.5 miles
of tunnels • 3 aerial and 4 underground stations
Tunnels are expected to be constructed using pressurized face Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM)
• Two approximately 20-ft diameter tunnels • Tunnels would be advanced from south end
Design including safety elements follows Metro guidelines
Two feeder services • Connects to El Monte Bus Station • Connects to Commerce and Montebello Metrolink
stations
Includes elements of TSM/TDM Preliminary Cost Estimate: $2,420 M* (2014 dollars)
*Includes $52M for TSM/TDM improvements
18
Freeway Tunnel Alternative
6.3 mile route connecting Interstates 10 and 210
• 4.2 miles of bored tunnel • 0.7 miles of cut-and-cover tunnel • 1.4 miles of at-grade segments • Approx. 60-foot tunnel diameter(s)
Single and dual bore design variations Design and safety elements based on
Caltrans and National Fire Protection Association guidelines
Ventilation structures provided near north and south portals
• No intermediate ventilation structures
Operations and Maintenance Building provided at both portals
• Will house first responders 24/7
Includes elements of TSM/TDM Preliminary Cost Estimates: Single Bore - $3,150 M* (2014 dollars) Dual Bore - $5,650 M* (2014 dollars)
*Includes $50 M for TSM/TDM elements
20
Draft EIR/EIS Contents
Chapter 1- Background, Purpose & Need Chapter 2- Alternatives Chapter 3- Affected Environment/ Environmental Consequences
Chapter 4- California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Chapter 5- Comments and Coordination Chapter 6– List of Preparers Chapter 7- Distribution List
VOLUME II: APPENDICES
VOLUME I:
(Supporting list of technical studies, charts, figures, tables, etc)
21
EIR/EIS Environmental Topics
Land use Growth Community Impacts
• Community Character/Cohesion • Relocations • Environmental Justice
Utilities/Emergency Services Traffic/Transportation Visual/Aesthetics Cultural/Historical Resources Hydrology/Floodplains Water Quality Geology/Soils Paleontological Resources Hazardous Waste
Air Quality Noise and Vibration Energy Biological Resources
• Natural Communities • Wetlands and Waters • Plant Species • Animal Species • Threatened & Endangered Species • Invasive Species
Construction Impacts Cumulative Impacts Health Risk Assessment Climate Change
22
Land Use, Growth & Community Impacts
General- None of the Build Alternatives are consistent with all
policies, objectives or programs of various General Plans None of the Build Alternatives are expected to result in
unplanned growth Except for LRT, there are no adverse impacts to
community character and cohesion There are no disproportionate impacts on Environmental
Justice populations Except for BRT, there are no Section 4(f) Impacts (parks,
recreation areas, resources listed on or eligible for the National Register)
23
Community Impacts
Relocations, Acquisitions & Economic Impacts- LRT results in the greatest number of full property
acquisitions, business relocations and employee displacements – Approximately 58, 74 and 675, respectively
LRT results in the greatest number of temporary parking losses during construction- Approximately 240
LRT results in the greatest number of future operations and maintenance (O&M) jobs – Approximately 1,300 over 20 year life of facility
Freeway Tunnels results in the greatest number underground easements - Approximately 324 and 563 parcels respectively for single and dual bore, respectively
24
Property Acquisitions/Relocations
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
TSM/TDM BRT LRT FWY (single) FWY (dual)
Busin
ess
Acqu
isitio
ns
Buisness Acquisitions
PartialAcquistions
FullAcquistions
25
Community Impacts
Economic Impacts - LRT results in the highest future O&M employment
earnings – Approximately $45 Million over life of facility LRT results in the highest annual property tax and sales
tax revenue losses - Approximately $51,000 and $75,000, respectively
Freeway Tunnel (Dual Bore) results in the greatest number of future construction jobs - Approximately 72,000 (over construction period)
Freeway Tunnel (Dual Bore) results in the highest future construction employment earnings - Approximately $3.5 Billion (over construction period)
28 28
Traffic Analysis Findings – Freeways and Intersections
Regional (6 counties) EIR/EIS Study Area Northeast LA County
Freeway Network Over 600 segments Beyond EIR/EIS study area
Intersection 156 high-volume locations Focused on alternative
footprints and affected areas
29
Traffic Analysis Findings
When compared to No Build in 2035, all Build Alternatives: Reduce traffic within study area and region, and on
local streets by varying degrees depending on the alternative
Increase vehicle miles travelled within study area Decrease vehicles hours travelled within study area Reduce local street traffic volumes in N/S directions
within the study area Reduce cut-through traffic within the study area Increase transit ridership within the study area
30
Traffic Summary Table
New Transit Ridership (change in daily linked trips) in 2035
TSM/ TDM BRT LRT Freeway Tunnel
Single-bore Dual-bore 11,250
13,500* 15,350* 10,100* 9,700*
*Includes ridership from enhanced bus service as part of TSM/TDM Improvements
Average Daily Traffic Volumes Freeway Tunnel in 2035 (Vehicles/day)
Single-Bore Freeway Tunnel Dual-Bore Freeway Tunnel
With Toll Variation With Toll, No Trucks Variation
With Toll, Express
Bus Variation
No Toll Variation
No Toll, No Trucks
Variation
With Toll Variation
89,900 93,300 92,400 180,000 180,000 169,400
31
Visual, Cultural and Noise
General All Build Alternatives report varying degrees of
visual impacts There are no adverse effects on historic properties
All Build Alternatives report noise levels approaching or exceeding noise abatement criteria at varying degrees during and post construction activities
32
Air Quality
Regarding Air Quality Conformity- Freeway Tunnel (toll variation) is consistent with
2012 Regional Transportation Plan and 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Plan
TSM/TDM, BRT and LRT Alternatives are not considered projects of air quality concern
Additional analysis for conformity would be required if Freeway Tunnel is identified as the Preferred Alternative
33
Air Quality Criteria Pollutants – 2035
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2012Existing
No Build(2035)
TSM/TDM BRT LRT FWY(single)
with Tolls
FWY(single)
with Tollsand NoTrucks
FWY(single)
with Tollsand
ExpressBus
FWY(dual) No
Tolls
FWY(dual) NoTrucks
FWY(dual) With
Tolls
Proj
ect S
tudy
Are
a (lb
s/da
y)
2035 Horizon Year
CO
ROG
Nox
PM10
PM2.5
34
Construction Impacts
Temporary lane restrictions, road and ramp closures, and detours
Emergency service travel delays Groundwater dewatering during construction (LRT
and Freeway Tunnel) Temporary air quality, noise and ground-borne
vibration impacts associated with construction Encountering hazardous materials Hauling excavated materials from tunnel boring using
freeways and/or rail • LRT station excavation would use local streets
35
Health Risk Assessment
Existing conditions: • Cancer risk estimated about 100 in a million near most highways/principal arterials • Cancer risk estimated over 250 in a million near I-210 (east of SR 710) and I-5
Decrease of cancer risk in the study area for all alternatives compared to existing conditions
• Reduction in cancer risks within the study area on local arterials • Higher reduction adjacent to freeways compared to existing conditions • Decrease attributed to stringent emission standards, cleaner fleets, improved fuel
efficiency, shifting of traffic for each of the build alternatives, etc.
Locations with greater existing VMT will have greater cancer risk reduction in the future
The overall regional reduction of cancer risks considers emissions from the ventilation structure
• Particulate matter emissions are substantially reduced by scrubbing and dispersion
36
CEQA Conclusions
Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects: Paleontological resources Inconsistency with local plans Impacts to Study Area intersections/freeway
segments Views of LRT from two locations Cumulative impacts
Visual (LRT Alternative Only)
37
CEQA/NEPA Process
Comments on Draft EIR/EIS will be accepted during public review period Written comments Verbal comments from public hearing Comments should address substantive concerns
on the technical analysis provided in the EIR/EIS
38
Next Steps
Conduct Public Hearings Review and Respond to Public Comments Develop/Prepare Supporting Data to Identify the
Preferred Alternative (PA) Request Metro Board Concurrence on
Recommended PA Finalize Environmental Document and Secure
Record of Decision
39
Learn the Facts, Get Involved, Be a Part of the Solution
Visit the Caltrans website to review the Draft EIR/EIS: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/draft_eir-eis and Visit Metro’s website for library listings to access the Draft EIR/EIS, and to get updates:
http://www.metro.net/sr710study