northeast corridor light rail project – final eis es.0...
TRANSCRIPT
Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project – Final EIS
Executive Summary ES-1
LYNX Blue Line Extension
ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This chapter presents a summary of the LYNX Blue Line Extension Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project (LYNX BLE) Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It describes purpose and need of the proposed project, the alternatives under study, summarizes the environmental consequences associated with the studied alternatives, provides a summary of proposed mitigation measures and outlines the steps for the selection of a preferred alternative.
ES.1 Project Study Area
The proposed LYNX BLE is located within the Northeast Corridor of the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Figure ES-1). The study area is generally bounded by Center City Charlotte to the south, Interstate-85 (I-85) to the west and Cabarrus County to the north. The proposed light rail alignment would primarily utilize existing railroad rights-of-way for the first four miles and would be located in the median of North Tryon Street/US-29 until it enters the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNC Charlotte) campus. The line would terminate on the UNC Charlotte campus. A Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) was selected at the conclusion of the Northeast Corridor Major Investment Study in March 2000. This alignment has been refined with public and stakeholder input and is represented herein as the Preferred Alternative.
ES.2 Purpose and Need for Action
ES.2.1 Need for Transportation Improvements
The need for the LYNX BLE Project is based on an existing overburdened transportation system and the City of Charlotte’s and Mecklenburg County’s desire to implement long-range plans that integrate land use and transportation policies. This regional vision has been exhibited for the past decade in the Centers and Corridors Concept Plan, the 2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan and the Centers, Corridor and Wedges Growth Framework (August 2010). Making a transportation investment in the Northeast Corridor is one of many steps planned to realize more integrated transit and land use connections.
As one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States, Charlotte has seen, and is projected to continue to see, significant increases in both population and employment. The Northeast Corridor is a major employment, shopping and educational destination from all across the region, anchored by Center City Charlotte at the southern end and University City at the northern end. As such, the Northeast Corridor is a major generator of trips from throughout the region, as well as a significant number of intra-corridor trips. Based on adopted land use policies, the travel market between corridors will continue to strengthen; connections between the Center City campus and the main campus of UNC Charlotte will also grow in importance; and, special events and tourism will remain an important travel market in the corridor.
The Northeast Corridor, which has few arterials and minimal cross-town connections, has several major roadways and intersections currently experiencing peak hour volumes that exceed capacity. Approximately 23 percent of the total miles on roadways within the Northeast Corridor operate at or above capacity. Much of the growth in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region in the 1980s and 1990s occurred quickly in a dispersed pattern of jobs and residences with limited connectivity between uses. These land use patterns have resulted in people driving more and making longer trips, leading to traffic volumes that exceed roadway capacity and result in unacceptable levels of service in many locations throughout the region. Projections show that high growth rates will continue, further burdening the regional transportation system. The regional model indicates that the region is expected to experience a projected 62 percent increase in regional person trips, a 53 percent increase in daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and a 66 percent increase in daily Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) from 2009 to 2035. Continued population and employment growth are expected to increase travel demand, resulting in deteriorating conditions on area roadways, despite planned roadway widening and intersection improvements. Traffic volumes are expected to increase on nearly all area roadways, especially at the outer end of North Tryon Street/US-29, where volumes are expected to roughly double by 2035.
Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project – Final EIS
ES-2 Executive Summary
LYNX Blue Line Extension
CATS currently operates 16 routes in the Northeast Corridor study area, including eight local routes, three university shuttle routes, two neighborhood circulator routes, and three express routes. These bus routes currently operate in mixed-traffic on congested roadways. Therefore, the reliability of the service is affected by delays from local street conditions.
ES.2.2 Project Goals
To determine how well the identified transportation alternatives would address the transportation and land use needs in the Northeast Corridor, specific project goals and evaluation measures were developed during the Major Investment Study (MIS). These goals reflect the emphasis the community has placed on the integration of transportation and land use in the alternatives analysis. The five project-specific goals developed are:
• Land Use - Support the region’s Centers, Corridors and Wedges Growth Framework (August 2010); • Mobility - Improve access and mobility in the corridor and throughout the region; Increase transit
ridership; Improve quality of transportation service; • Environment - Preserve and protect the environment; • Financial - Develop affordable, cost-effective transportation solutions; and, • System Integration - Develop transportation improvements that function as part of the larger
transportation system.
ES.3 Alternatives Considered
ES.3.1 No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative includes transit services, highway and transit facilities, and railroad improvements that are planned to exist in 2030. The No-Build Alternative provides the underlying foundation for comparing travel benefits and environmental impacts of the other alternatives. The No-Build Alternative includes improvements to service frequency for two routes in the Northeast Corridor study area.
ES.3.2 Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative would be an extension of the LYNX Blue Line (South Corridor Light Rail Project) that opened in November 2007. The proposed project would begin in Center City Charlotte at the terminus of the LYNX Blue Line light rail line at 7th Street and extend 9.4 miles to UNC Charlotte.
Alignment The first ½-mile of the alignment would be within right-of-way owned by the City of Charlotte. The next 1.5 miles are primarily within Norfolk Southern right-of-way. The alignment then transitions into the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR) right-of-way north of 30th Street, and remains in the NCRR right-of-way for over two miles. The alignment would run parallel to the existing freight tracks on the south side of the NCRR right-of-way until Craighead Road, where it would go up and over Craighead Road and the freight tracks and continue on the western side. Near Old Concord Road, the alignment transitions into the median of North Tryon Street/US-29, where it remains for the next four miles. The alignment exits North Tryon Street/US-29 near UNC Charlotte and enters the campus to provide direct service to the university. The alignment would terminate at the UNC Charlotte Station on the UNC Charlotte campus.
Stations The Preferred Alternative includes 11 stations, four with park-and-ride facilities (with over 3,100 total parking spaces) and seven walk-up stations. Bus service connections would also be provided at most stations. Following is a summary of each station location:
• 9th Street Station: The 9th Street Station would be located directly north of 9th Street and directly south of the future 10th Street Connector, along right-of-way owned by the City of Charlotte. The station would be designed as an urban station with walk-up access and eight short-term bicycle parking spaces. Sidewalks, like those placed next to the LYNX Blue Line light rail tracks within Center City, would extend between 9th and 12th Streets.
Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project – Final EIS
Executive Summary ES-3
LYNX Blue Line Extension
• Parkwood Station: The Parkwood Station would be located at the intersection of Parkwood Avenue and North Brevard Street. The station would be designed as a neighborhood, walk-up station with eight long-term and eight short-term bicycle parking spaces. A small landscaped area would be located in front of the station.
• 25th Street Station: The 25th Street Station would be located along the northwest side of Brevard Street, northeast of Little Sugar Creek. The station would be a neighborhood, walk-up station with 16 short-term bicycle parking spaces.
• 36th Street Station: The 36th Street Station would be located along the south side of the railroad right-of-way. The station platform would be located on a bridge structure as 36th Street would be depressed under the existing freight tracks and the proposed light rail tracks. This bridge structure would be at the same elevation as the existing freight tracks, while 36th Street would be lower than the current elevation of 36th Street. The station would be designed as a neighborhood station, with walkup access and eight long-term and eight short-term bicycle parking spaces. Pedestrian access would be via sidewalk along the east side of 36th Street. There would be two bus stops located on-street.
• Sugar Creek Station Park-and-Ride: The Sugar Creek Station would be located along the north side of the existing railroad tracks. The station platform would be located at-grade approximately 330 feet south of Sugar Creek Road. The station would be designed as a regional station and would include two separate park-and-ride lots totaling approximately 665 spaces (180 parking spaces in the southern lot and 485 spaces in the western lot), three bus bays, and 22 long-term and six short-term bicycle parking spaces. Vehicular access to the park-and-ride lots would be available from Raleigh Street and Sugar Creek Road and a connection to Greensboro Street. Access to the southern end of the station would be provided via a walkway from a sidewalk along the northern side of the southern parking lot.
• Old Concord Road Station: The Old Concord Road Station would be located between the existing railroad right-of-way and Old Concord Road in the area of the alignment where it would depart the railroad right-of-way and head north towards the intersection of North Tryon Street/US-29 and Old Concord Road. The station would function as a community station and would include a surface park-and-ride lot with approximately 330 parking spaces, two bus bays, and 14 long-term and six short-term bicycle parking spaces. Access to the park-and-ride lot would be from Old Concord Road and North Tryon Street/US-29.
• Tom Hunter Station: The Tom Hunter Station platform would be located directly north of Tom Hunter Road in the median of North Tryon Street/US-29. The station would be a neighborhood station with walk-up access. One bus stop would be provided on each side of Tom Hunter Road. Eight long-term and eight short-term bicycle spaces would be provided. Access would be available from Tom Hunter Road.
• University City Blvd. Station: The University City Blvd. Station is proposed in the median of North Tryon Street/US-29 within the “weave” between the future intersections of I-85 Connector Road, North Tryon Street/US-29 and University City Blvd./NC-49. This station would be a regional station with a parking garage with approximately 1,510 spaces on the west side of North Tryon Street/US-29. Three bus bays and 24 long-term bicycle parking spaces would also be provided. A pedestrian bridge over North Tryon Street/US-29 would be provided for station access.
• McCullough Station: The McCullough Station would be located directly north of McCullough Drive within the median of North Tryon Street/US-29. The station would be designed as a neighborhood station. The McCullough Station would include walk-up access and two bus stops, and eight long-term and eight short-term bicycle parking spaces.
• JW Clay Blvd. Station: The JW Clay Blvd. Station would be located north of JW Clay Boulevard in the median of North Tryon Street/US-29. The station would be designed as a regional station with a parking garage that would contain approximately 690 parking spaces. The parking garage would be located in the northwest quadrant of the North Tryon Street/US-29 and JW Clay Boulevard intersection. Fourteen long-term bicycle spaces would be provided in the parking garage. Two bus bays and a pedestrian bridge over North Tryon Street/US-29 would also be provided.
• UNC Charlotte Station: The UNC Charlotte Station would be located on campus opposite Laurel Hall Dormitory. The station would be designed for walk-up access, with 32 short-term bicycle parking spaces and two bus bays for connections to campus shuttle service.
Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project – Final EIS
ES-4 Executive Summary
LYNX Blue Line Extension
Vehicle Storage Yard and Dispatch Facility A vehicle storage yard and small dispatch facility would be constructed on the existing Norfolk Southern Intermodal Facility that abuts North Brevard Street. The facility would provide vehicle storage, while vehicle maintenance activities would take place at the existing South Boulevard Light Rail Facility.
Ancillary Facilities Substations and signal control houses would be placed along the alignment to provide electricity and operating signals along the alignment.
ES.4 Summary of Transportation Impacts
Improve access and mobility Under the No-Build Alternative, improvements to access and mobility would be limited to additional bus service within the Northeast Corridor. The Preferred Alternative would improve mobility in areas with the highest levels of employment in the Charlotte metropolitan area, including Center City Charlotte and the University City area. The Preferred Alternative would also improve access to transit by providing station facilities, more frequent and reliable service, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and parking facilities. In addition, the Preferred Alternative would provide a seamless and direct connection to destinations along the existing LYNX Blue Line light rail service.
Since the Northeast Corridor is comprised of a large number of residents that are transit-dependent, access to travel is a major concern for area households. Ten percent of the housing units in the corridor have no vehicles available to travel to and from work or for any other purpose. The Preferred Alternative would also improve mobility and access in areas with large numbers of residents who are transit-dependent.
Increase transit ridership The Preferred Alternative would operate in a dedicated right-of-way, free from traffic congestion; therefore it is projected that the Preferred Alternative would provide a significant travel time savings over the No-Build Alternative. For this reason, total transit trips would be greater for the Preferred Alternative than the No-Build Alternative, and dependency on highly congested roadways would be reduced. The Preferred Alternative would also increase transit ridership. Compared to the No-Build Alternative, approximately 16,000 additional riders would utilize transit under the Preferred Alternative. Ridership on the light rail system is projected to increase from 26,700 daily riders on the existing LYNX Blue Line under the No-Build Alternative, to a total of 51,500 daily light rail boardings for the entire alignment (South to Northeast) under the Preferred Alternative; this represents an addition of 24,800 riders per day on the light rail system alone.
Improve quality of transportation service As noted, the Preferred Alternative has the advantage of providing faster service over the No-Build Alternative. For example, when comparing peak hour travel times from the UNC Charlotte to Center City Charlotte, the Preferred Alternative would take just over 25 minutes for in-vehicle travel times, whereas under the No-Build Alternative, the in-vehicle travel time using bus service would take nearly 62 minutes. Comparable travel by automobile would take nearly 37 minutes to travel from UNC Charlotte to Center City Charlotte.
The proposed project would improve the quality of transportation service by providing a frequent and reliable service in the Northeast Corridor. Congestion on arterial roadways and highways influences the reliability of travel by automobile and bus. Light rail traveling in dedicated right-of-way would not be subject to congested roadway conditions, resulting in dependable and on-time service. The proposed project would travel between major growth and employment centers with ten-minute headways during peak periods.
Traffic Operations An analysis of over 55 intersections was conducted to determine the effects of the Preferred Alternative on traffic operations within the corridor. The analysis shows some increases in automobile delay with the Preferred Alternative, compared to the No-Build Alternative. Additional signalized intersections, turn lanes
Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project – Final EIS
Executive Summary ES-5
LYNX Blue Line Extension
and grade separations were included in the project design to address potential traffic impacts. A grade separation analysis was conducted to identify locations where the light rail should be grade separated from roadway traffic based on: safety, traffic volumes, transit headways, arterial travel speeds, cost, intersection delays, and traffic spillback to adjacent intersections. All major intersections, railroad crossings, and entry into and exit from North Tryon Street/US-29 would be grade separated.
ES.5 Summary of Environmental Consequences
This section summarizes the potential environmental consequences of the No-Build Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. Table ES-1 presents a summary of the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts of the alternatives under study in this Final EIS.
ES.5.1 No-Build Alternative Consequences
Growth in the corridor would continue to occur in a dispersed manner that does not concentrate development as is envisioned in the 2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan, the Centers and Corridors Concept Plan and the Centers, Corridors and Wedges Growth Framework (August 2010). It would not provide the opportunity for transit supportive development. Therefore, the No-Build Alternative would not be consistent with the City’s general plans and would likely result in the continuation of urban sprawl as highway improvements would need to be put in place to accommodate the anticipated population and employment growth. More parking in Center City Charlotte would be needed to accommodate more single-occupancy vehicles and therefore, Charlotte and Mecklenburg County would not see the economic advantages associated with highest and best uses of urban land. The vacant and underutilized land within the corridor would not be utilized to the greatest extent under existing zoning ordinances. Vehicle miles traveled throughout the region would continue to increase, following the trend of urban sprawl, exacerbating the region’s air quality problem. Urban sprawl would continue to eliminate valuable ecosystems, water resources, and farmlands further diminishing the region’s natural environment.
There would be no acquisition of property or resulting displacements under the No-Build Alternative. No physical impacts to existing neighborhoods within the project area would occur. However, benefits obtainable through improved mobility and access to an alternate, reliable means of transportation would not be available for area neighborhoods. The expansion of the CATS bus system under the No-Build Alternative would provide improved bus service for environmental justice populations over the existing conditions; however, the benefits of increased mobility, reliability of transit service, access to jobs, and the opportunity to reduce the number of vehicles per household that may occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative would not take place.
ES.5.2 Preferred Alternative Consequences
While the development of the Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to affect the Northeast Corridor’s overall growth rate, it may alter the area’s growth patterns by focusing growth along the light rail line as envisioned by the 2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan. The effectiveness of the proposed light rail will be related to both its function and its ability to promote transit-supportive development in the area surrounding the stations. Station area plans, under development by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department, outline a vision for future growth and development, including incentives to encourage development, and guidelines and policies to ensure standards are met for transit supportive development and public investments. Station area plans ensure that development around each station meets minimum standards by guiding zoning modifications, establishing appropriate mixtures of uses, setting development intensities, and identifying basic physical design standards.
Overall, the Preferred Alternative would have no significant adverse impacts on adjacent neighborhoods or community services. While some properties within neighborhoods would be impacted by land acquisitions and potential noise and vibration impacts, neighborhoods as a whole would not be significantly impacted. Communities near the proposed stations would be expected to benefit from improved access to many businesses and residential uses in the vicinity. The proposed transit improvements are not expected to isolate or fragment any existing neighborhoods, and in some cases, would be expected to serve as a focal point to reinforce the community character, especially in areas that are currently undergoing rapid development intensity changes, such as the North Charlotte Historic
Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project – Final EIS
ES-6 Executive Summary
LYNX Blue Line Extension
District, locally known as “NoDa.”
The Preferred Alternative would result in nearly 8,000 new jobs as a result of the money infused into the local economy from the capital expenditures of the project. It would also require an addition of 109 CATS rail operations or maintenance jobs. While the Preferred Alternative would provide economic benefits, it would also reduce annual property tax revenues up to $107,000.
The Preferred Alternative would introduce several new visual elements into the Northeast Corridor that would result in some visual impacts to resources immediately adjacent to the proposed alignment. There would not be any adverse effects to historic or archaeological resources. The alignment would come in close proximity to one park resource, namely the Toby Creek Greenway, which would be potentially affected. The effects to parks are expected to be minimal. Section 4(f) de minimis findings were proposed for potentially affected historic resources and parklands as part of the Draft EIS. FTA has determined as part of this Final EIS that a de minimis finding for impacts historic resources and parks is appropriate.
The Preferred Alternative would eliminate approximately 10.5 acres of mixed pine/hardwood forest community to accommodate the proposed alignment and station park-and-ride facilities. The greatest environmental impact that would result from the Preferred Alternative would be to water resources. Minimization and avoidance efforts have been made to reduce these impacts; but many are unavoidable.
The Preferred Alternative would save energy through a reduction in vehicle miles traveled over the No-Build Alternative. These same reductions would also result in an improvement to the region's air quality.
A detailed noise and vibration impact assessment was conducted for this Final EIS. Impacts that would occur have been determined and specific mitigation measures have been identified to eliminate impacts. Noise impacts would result to residences and businesses along the alignment, including: seven residential buildings, one hotel, and two college dormitories. One vibration impact is likely to result at one residential location. The detailed assessment also addressed concerns raised by the UNC Charlotte's Charlotte Research Institute with respect to vibration sensitive equipment contained in their research buildings.
Right-of-way would be acquired from private property owners where the alignment would depart from the existing railroad right-of-way over to the median of North Tryon Street/US-29, along North Tryon Street/US-29 where the light rail would operate in the median, and at station park-and-ride facilities. Property acquisition would potentially result in up to 14 business displacements and no residential displacement, resulting from 11 full property acquisitions and up to 212 partial property acquisitions.
Construction activities of the Preferred Alternative could generate a variety of impacts to the existing environment and surrounding features. These potential impacts would be neither permanent nor severe.
ES.6 Mitigation Summary
Mitigation would be required to offset the impacts summarized in Table ES-1 and detailed in this Final EIS. These mitigation commitments are summarized in Table ES-2.
Nor
thea
st C
orrid
or L
ight
Rai
l Pro
ject
– F
inal
EIS
Ex
ecut
ive
Sum
mar
y ES
-7
LYN
X B
lue
Line
Ex
tens
ion
Tabl
e ES
-1
Sum
mar
y of
Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
s Im
pact
Are
a N
o-B
uild
Alte
rnat
ive
Pref
erre
dA
ltern
ativ
eLa
nd U
se (C
hapt
er 4
.0)
Cha
nges
to c
orrid
or la
nd u
se
No
chan
ge.
No
sign
ifica
nt im
pact
. D
irect
land
use
impa
cts
to v
acan
t, co
mm
erci
al, a
nd in
dust
rial
prop
ertie
s. T
his
wou
ld n
ot c
hang
e th
e co
rrido
r’s o
vera
ll la
nd u
se c
ompo
sitio
n.
Com
patib
le w
ith e
xist
ing
land
us
e
No
chan
ge.
Yes
, the
pro
pose
d st
atio
ns a
re c
ompa
tible
with
exi
stin
g la
nd u
ses.
Em
ploy
ees
and
resi
dent
s w
ould
ben
efit
from
incr
ease
d tra
nsit
acce
ss a
nd a
men
ities
.
Con
sist
ent w
ith lo
cal l
and
use
plan
s
No,
doe
s no
t sup
port
the
Cen
ters
, Cor
ridor
, and
Wed
ges
Gro
wth
Fra
mew
ork.
Y
es, s
uppo
rts C
ente
rs, C
orrid
ors
and
Wed
ges
Gro
wth
Fra
mew
ork.
Soci
o-Ec
onom
ic C
ondi
tions
(Cha
pter
5.0
) Po
pula
tion,
Hou
sing
and
Em
ploy
men
t P
ossi
ble
decr
ease
. P
ossi
ble
incr
ease
.
Em
ploy
men
t/Job
Cre
atio
n N
o ch
ange
. 7,
628
new
jobs
from
con
stru
ctio
n ex
pend
iture
s (d
irect
and
indi
rect
) / 1
09 ra
il O
&M
jobs
. In
vest
men
t alo
ng th
e pr
ojec
t co
rrido
r P
ossi
ble
decr
ease
. P
ossi
ble
incr
ease
.
Gov
ernm
ent F
inan
ce a
nd T
ax
Sou
rces
N
o ch
ange
. S
hort-
term
: Los
s of
up
to $
107
thou
sand
of p
rope
rty ta
x re
venu
e re
late
d to
acq
uisi
tions
and
di
spla
cem
ents
. Lo
ng-te
rm: P
oten
tial i
ncre
ase
rela
ted
to tr
ansi
t-orie
nted
dev
elop
men
t and
rede
velo
pmen
t. N
eigh
borh
oods
, Com
mun
ity S
ervi
ces
and
Envi
ronm
enta
l Jus
tice
(Cha
pter
6.0
)Im
pact
s to
com
mun
ity c
ohes
ion
No
impa
ct.
No
impa
ct.
Impa
cts
to n
eigh
borh
oods
N
o im
prov
ed a
cces
s to
tran
sit.
• P
oten
tial f
or o
verfl
ow p
arki
ng o
n ne
ighb
orho
od s
treet
s ad
jace
nt to
sta
tions
. •
Pot
entia
l im
pact
s to
1 n
eigh
borh
ood:
N
orth
Cha
rlotte
- de
pres
sion
of 3
6th
Stre
et u
nder
the
exis
ting
freig
ht a
nd p
ropo
sed
light
ra
il tra
cks
wou
ld im
prov
e ac
cess
to th
e ne
ighb
orho
od a
nd re
duce
frei
ght t
rain
noi
se; v
iew
s of
the
railr
oad
right
-of-w
ay w
ould
be
alte
red
with
the
addi
tion
of li
ght r
ail t
rack
way
and
st
ruct
ures
, but
the
view
s w
ould
not
be
out o
f cha
ract
er w
ith th
e ex
istin
g co
ntex
t.
Neg
ativ
e im
pact
s to
com
mun
ity
serv
ices
N
o im
pact
.
• P
oten
tial i
mpa
ct to
em
erge
ncy
serv
ices
rela
ted
to li
ght r
ail s
igna
l pre
-em
ptio
n;
• C
ross
road
s C
harte
r Sch
ool -
Pot
entia
l im
pact
, but
not
con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt.
Par
tial
acqu
isiti
on o
f lan
d an
d a
pote
ntia
l vis
ual i
mpa
ct a
s a
brid
ge a
nd p
ark-
and-
ride
lot w
ould
be
intro
duce
d to
the
view
from
this
reso
urce
; and
, •
Car
olin
as M
edic
al C
ente
r-Uni
vers
ity -
Pot
entia
lly s
igni
fican
t vis
ual i
mpa
ct re
late
d to
re
duce
d vi
sibi
lity
of h
ospi
tal e
ntra
nces
from
brid
ge o
ver W
.T. H
arris
Blv
d. P
artia
l ac
quis
ition
of l
and.
Adv
erse
and
dis
prop
ortio
nate
im
pact
s to
min
ority
and
low
-co
me
popu
latio
ns
Wou
ld n
ot im
prov
e ac
cess
to
trans
it.
Noi
se im
pact
s at
ten
resi
dent
ial b
uild
ings
and
one
vib
ratio
n im
pact
at a
resi
denc
e w
ould
be
cons
ider
ed a
dver
se d
ue to
the
inte
nsity
of t
he im
pact
s an
d di
spro
porti
onat
e as
no
resi
dent
ial
nois
e im
pact
s w
ould
occ
ur o
utsi
de o
f min
ority
and
low
-inco
me
com
mun
ities
of c
once
rn.
Nor
thea
st C
orrid
or L
ight
Rai
l Pro
ject
– F
inal
EIS
ES-8
Ex
ecut
ive
Sum
mar
y
LYN
X B
lue
Line
Ex
tens
ion
Tabl
e ES
-1 (c
ontin
ued)
Su
mm
ary
of E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
cts
Impa
ct A
rea
No-
Bui
ld A
ltern
ativ
ePr
efer
red
Alte
rnat
ive
Visu
al a
nd A
esth
etic
Con
side
ratio
ns (C
hapt
er 7
.0)
Intro
duct
ion
of n
ew v
isua
l el
emen
ts n
ot in
cha
ract
er w
ith
corri
dor
No
impa
ct.
• 9
pote
ntia
l im
pact
s: A
lpha
Mill
Apa
rtmen
ts (h
isto
ric),
Her
rin B
roth
ers
Coa
l and
Ice
(his
toric
), N
orth
Cha
rlotte
His
toric
Dis
trict
, Ham
pshi
re H
ills
resi
denc
es, C
ross
road
s C
harte
r Sch
ool,
Bus
ines
ses
alon
g N
orth
Try
on S
treet
/US
-29,
Cha
rlotte
Res
earc
h In
stitu
te, T
oby
Cre
ek G
reen
way
, UN
C C
harlo
tte.
• 1
pote
ntia
lly s
igni
fican
t im
pact
: C
MC
-Uni
vers
ity.
His
toric
al a
nd A
rcha
eolo
gica
l Res
ourc
es (C
hapt
er 8
.0)
Impa
cts
to h
isto
rical
reso
urce
s N
o im
pact
. N
o ad
vers
e im
pact
s.
Impa
cts
to a
rcha
eolo
gica
l re
sour
ces
No
impa
ct.
No
impa
ct.
Park
land
s (C
hapt
er 9
.0)
Impa
cts
to e
xist
ing
or p
lann
ed
park
s N
o im
pact
. W
ould
pro
vide
enh
ance
d ac
cess
to p
arks
faci
litie
s.
One
pot
entia
l im
pact
, exp
ecte
d to
be
min
imal
: Tob
y C
reek
Gre
enw
ay (v
isua
l) N
atur
al R
esou
rces
(Cha
pter
10.
0)
Impa
cts
to fo
rest
s N
o im
pact
. 10
.48
acre
s of
mix
ed p
ine/
hard
woo
d fo
rest
com
mun
ity re
mov
ed d
ue to
cle
arin
g fo
r one
par
k-an
d-rid
e fa
cilit
y an
d fo
r the
UN
C C
harlo
tte a
lignm
ent.
Impa
cts
to p
rote
cted
spe
cies
N
o im
pact
. N
o im
pact
to p
rote
cted
spe
cies
. Im
pact
on
1 Fe
dera
l Spe
cies
of C
once
rn/S
tate
Lis
ted
Spe
cies
: Car
olin
a bi
rds-
foot
tref
oil
Wat
er R
esou
rces
(Cha
pter
11.
0)
Impa
cts
to g
roun
dwat
er
No
impa
ct.
No
impa
ct.
Impa
cts
to s
urfa
ce w
ater
s N
o im
pact
. 3,
304
linea
r fee
t (20
,987
ft2 ) o
f stre
ams
impa
cted
.
Impa
cts
to fl
oodp
lain
s an
d flo
odw
ays
No
impa
ct.
• 0.
02 a
cre
(734
ft2
) in
FEM
A F
lood
way
; •
0.24
acr
e (1
0,33
9 ft2 ) i
n C
omm
unity
Enc
roac
hmen
t Are
a; a
nd,
• 2.
18 a
cres
(95,
010
ft2 ) in
Com
mun
ity F
lood
plai
ns.
Impa
cts
to w
etla
nds
No
impa
ct.
0.46
2 ac
res
of w
etla
nds
impa
cted
. A
ir Q
ualit
y (C
hapt
er 1
2.0)
Con
form
ity w
ith R
egio
nal P
lan
Not
con
sist
ent w
ith L
ong
Ran
ge
Tran
spor
tatio
n Pl
ans.
P
roje
ct is
incl
uded
in th
e cu
rren
t con
form
ing
Tran
spor
tatio
n Im
prov
emen
t Pro
gram
(TIP
) and
Lo
ng R
ange
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n Pl
an.
Red
uctio
n in
Veh
icle
Mile
s Tr
avel
ed (V
MT)
N
one.
R
educ
tion
of 7
5 m
illion
mile
s / y
ear.
Cre
atio
n of
CO
hot
spo
ts
No
impa
ct.
Non
e.
Nor
thea
st C
orrid
or L
ight
Rai
l Pro
ject
– F
inal
EIS
Ex
ecut
ive
Sum
mar
y ES
-9
LYN
X B
lue
Line
Ex
tens
ion
Tabl
e ES
-1 (c
ontin
ued)
Su
mm
ary
of E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
cts
Impa
ct A
rea
No-
Bui
ld A
ltern
ativ
ePr
efer
red
Alte
rnat
ive
Noi
se a
nd V
ibra
tion
(Cha
pter
13.
0)
Noi
se im
pact
s N
o im
pact
.
Mod
erat
e Im
pact
s:
• 4
sing
le-fa
mily
resi
denc
es
• 2
mul
ti-fa
mily
bui
ldin
gs a
t the
Alp
ha M
ill A
partm
ents
•
1 ho
tel:
Res
iden
ce In
n by
Mar
riott
alon
g N
orth
Try
on S
treet
/US
-29
Sev
ere
impa
cts :
•
1 si
ngle
-fam
ily re
side
nce
• 2
colle
ge d
orm
itorie
s: L
aure
l Hal
l and
Spr
uce
Hal
l at U
NC
Cha
rlotte
Vib
ratio
n im
pact
s N
o im
pact
. 1
sing
le-fa
mily
resi
denc
e (S
t. A
nne’
s P
lace
in th
e H
amps
hire
Hills
nei
ghbo
rhoo
d).
Ener
gy U
se (C
hapt
er 1
4.0)
D
aily
ene
rgy
cons
umpt
ion
840,
011
mill
ion
BTU
1 . 83
9,47
2 m
illio
n BT
U (n
et re
duct
ion
of 5
39 m
illio
n B
TU).
Haz
ardo
us a
nd C
onta
min
ated
Mat
eria
ls (C
hapt
er 1
5.0)
S
ites
of c
once
rn fo
r haz
ardo
us
and
cont
amin
ated
mat
eria
ls
No
impa
ct.
23 p
rope
rties
on
the
alig
nmen
t and
2 p
rope
rties
pro
pose
d fo
r par
k-an
d-rid
e fa
cilit
ies
Safe
ty a
nd S
ecur
ity (C
hapt
er 1
6.0)
Saf
e an
d se
cure
ope
ratio
ns
No
impa
ct.
Des
ign
incl
udes
pro
visi
ons
for t
he s
afet
y of
veh
icle
s, b
icyc
lists
and
ped
estri
ans,
as
wel
l as
for
the
secu
rity
of c
usto
mer
s in
par
k-an
d-rid
e fa
cilit
ies,
pla
tform
s an
d ve
hicl
es.
A
cqui
sitio
ns a
nd D
ispl
acem
ents
(Cha
pter
17.
0)Fu
ll ac
quis
ition
s N
o im
pact
. 11
P
artia
l acq
uisi
tions
N
o Im
pact
. 21
2 D
ispl
acem
ents
– B
usin
ess
No
impa
ct.
14
Dis
plac
emen
ts –
Res
iden
tial
No
impa
ct.
0
Util
ities
N
one.
R
eloc
atio
n of
sig
nific
ant n
umbe
rs o
f exi
stin
g ut
ilitie
s, in
clud
ing
elec
trica
l pow
er,
tele
com
mun
icat
ion,
wat
er a
nd s
ewer
, nat
ural
gas
, and
traf
fic s
igna
ls a
nd c
omm
unic
atio
ns.
Tran
spor
tatio
n an
d Tr
affic
N
one.
Te
mpo
rary
lane
and
road
clo
sure
s.
Coo
rdin
atio
n w
ith ra
ilroa
ds re
quire
d to
mai
ntai
n fre
ight
tra
in o
pera
tions
. La
nd U
se, C
omm
unity
Fac
ilitie
s an
d B
usin
esse
s N
one.
P
oten
tial f
or d
isru
ptio
n to
bus
ines
ses
due
to a
cces
s re
stric
tions
, sig
nage
rem
oval
, tra
ffic,
no
ise
and
dust
from
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Dis
plac
emen
ts a
nd R
eloc
atio
ns
Non
e.
Tem
pora
ry c
onst
ruct
ion
ease
men
ts w
ould
be
acqu
ired.
Vis
ual a
nd A
esth
etic
Qua
litie
s N
one.
Te
mpo
rary
vis
ual i
mpa
cts
from
con
stru
ctio
n eq
uipm
ent,
rem
oval
of v
eget
atio
n, a
nd li
ghts
fro
m n
ight
-tim
e co
nstru
ctio
n.
Con
stru
ctio
n Im
pact
s (C
hapt
er 1
8.0)
Nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds, C
omm
unity
S
ervi
ces
and
EJ
Non
e.
Acc
ess
thro
ugh
neig
hbor
hood
s w
ould
be
mai
ntai
ned.
Pot
entia
l im
pact
to H
amps
hire
Hill
s ne
ighb
orho
od re
late
d to
traf
fic fr
om c
onst
ruct
ion
vehi
cles
and
equ
ipm
ent t
o ac
cess
the
railr
oad
right
-of-w
ay.
Nor
thea
st C
orrid
or L
ight
Rai
l Pro
ject
– F
inal
EIS
ES-1
0 Ex
ecut
ive
Sum
mar
y
LYN
X B
lue
Line
Ex
tens
ion
Tabl
e ES
-1 (c
ontin
ued)
Su
mm
ary
of E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
cts
Impa
ct A
rea
No-
Bui
ld A
ltern
ativ
ePr
efer
red
Alte
rnat
ive
Air
Qua
lity
Non
e.
Tem
pora
ry lo
caliz
ed a
ir qu
ality
pol
luta
nt e
mis
sion
s re
late
d to
dem
oliti
on a
nd c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
.
Noi
se a
nd V
ibra
tion
Non
e.
Tem
pora
ry e
leva
ted
nois
e le
vels
due
to c
onst
ruct
ion.
Pot
entia
l tem
pora
ry n
oise
impa
cts
to
45 re
side
nces
and
bus
ines
s. P
oten
tial c
onst
ruct
ion
vibr
atio
n im
pact
s to
3 b
usin
esse
s, 1
re
side
nce,
and
6 h
isto
ric re
sour
ces.
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es
Non
e.
Con
stru
ctio
n no
ise
and
stag
ing
may
tem
pora
rily
disp
lace
som
e w
ildlif
e sp
ecie
s. T
he m
ajor
ity
of th
e sp
ecie
s is
typi
cal o
f urb
an/d
istu
rbed
env
ironm
ents
and
wou
ld a
dapt
and
reco
ver
quic
kly.
W
ater
Res
ourc
es
Non
e.
Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es c
ould
incr
ease
sed
imen
t lev
els
to s
torm
wat
er ru
noff.
C
ultu
ral R
esou
rces
N
one.
P
oten
tial v
ibra
tion
impa
cts
from
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Park
land
s N
one.
Te
mpo
rary
Tob
y C
reek
Gre
enw
ay tr
ail c
losu
re.
Ene
rgy
Non
e.
1,21
0 B
TUs
(30%
of t
otal
) dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
Haz
ardo
us a
nd C
onta
min
ated
M
ater
ials
N
one.
P
oten
tial i
mpa
cts
from
rem
oval
and
tran
spor
tatio
n of
mat
eria
l.
Saf
ety
and
Sec
urity
N
one.
C
onst
ruct
ion
safe
ty p
rovi
sion
s an
d re
gula
tions
will
be
follo
wed
, so
adve
rse
safe
ty a
nd
secu
rity
impa
cts
are
not e
xpec
ted
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n.
Seco
ndar
y an
d C
umul
ativ
e Ef
fect
s (C
hapt
er 1
9.0)
Im
pact
Are
a N
o-B
uild
Alte
rnat
ive
Pref
erre
dA
ltern
ativ
e
Sec
onda
ry E
ffect
s n/
a
• P
ositi
ve s
econ
dary
effe
cts
rela
ted
to p
oten
tial i
nduc
ed d
evel
opm
ent i
n st
atio
n ar
eas,
co
nsis
tent
with
ado
pted
gro
wth
man
agem
ent p
olic
ies
that
see
k to
enc
oura
ge n
ew
deve
lopm
ent t
o oc
cur i
n th
e de
sign
ated
cor
ridor
s th
at w
ill h
ave
the
infra
stru
ctur
e to
su
ppor
t gro
wth
.
• P
oten
tial n
egat
ive
seco
ndar
y ef
fect
s to
nat
ural
reso
urce
s, h
isto
ric p
rope
rties
, ne
ighb
orho
od g
entri
ficat
ion,
affo
rdab
le h
ousi
ng, t
raffi
c an
d de
man
d fo
r pub
lic s
ervi
ces
rela
ted
to d
evel
opm
ent /
rede
velo
pmen
t act
iviti
es.
Cum
ulat
ive
Effe
cts
n/a
• M
inor
effe
cts
on n
otab
le e
nviro
nmen
tal f
eatu
res.
•
Mul
tiple
pro
ject
s in
the
Nor
thea
st C
orrid
or, i
nclu
ding
the
Sug
ar C
reek
Gra
de S
epar
atio
n,
Mal
lard
Cre
ek b
ridge
repl
acem
ent o
n N
. Try
on S
treet
, the
Cha
rlotte
Rai
l Im
prov
emen
t and
S
afet
y P
roje
ct (C
RIS
P),
Hig
h S
peed
Rai
l, th
e I-4
85 lo
op, I
-85
wid
enin
g, N
orth
east
C
orrid
or In
frast
ruct
ure
Pro
gram
(NE
CI),
and
UN
C C
harlo
tte e
xpan
sion
are
not
like
ly to
re
sult
in s
igni
fican
t add
ition
al d
irect
effe
cts
beyo
nd th
ose
iden
tifie
d by
eac
h pr
ojec
t. If
co
nstru
ctio
n oc
curs
with
in th
e sa
me
time
fram
e, te
mpo
rary
neg
ativ
e im
pact
s to
su
rroun
ding
com
mun
ities
cou
ld o
ccur
. •
Impl
emen
ting
the
CA
TS 2
030
Sys
tem
Pla
n in
clud
es im
prov
ed a
cces
s an
d m
obili
ty, l
inki
ng
com
mun
ities
acr
oss
the
regi
on, a
nd s
uppo
rt fo
r the
Cen
ters
, Cor
ridor
s, a
nd W
edge
s G
row
th F
ram
ewor
k.
• P
oten
tial i
mpa
cts
on th
e S
outh
Cor
ridor
Blu
e Li
ne li
ght r
ail d
ue to
incr
ease
d rid
ersh
ip
dem
and.
Ext
ensi
on o
f pla
tform
s an
d/or
add
ition
al s
ubst
atio
ns a
rea
requ
ired,
whi
ch c
ould
cr
eate
traf
fic, n
oise
and
nat
ural
reso
urce
impa
cts.
1 B
ritis
h Th
erm
al U
nits
Nor
thea
st C
orrid
or L
ight
Rai
l Pro
ject
– F
inal
EIS
Ex
ecut
ive
Sum
mar
y ES
-11
LYN
X B
lue
Line
Ex
tens
ion
Tabl
e ES
-2
Sum
mar
y of
Miti
gatio
n Im
pact
Are
as
Pref
erre
d A
ltern
ativ
e
Tran
spor
tatio
n (C
hapt
er 3
.0)
The
miti
gatio
n to
add
ress
pro
ject
impa
cts
have
bee
n in
clud
ed in
the
65%
Pre
limin
ary
Eng
inee
ring
Des
ign
Pla
ns, i
nclu
ding
gr
ade
sepa
ratio
ns, s
igna
lized
gra
de c
ross
ings
, and
turn
lane
s. N
o ad
ditio
nal m
itiga
tion
is p
ropo
sed.
La
nd U
se (
Cha
pter
4.0
) S
tatio
n A
rea
Pla
ns w
ill c
ontin
ue to
be
deve
lope
d th
at d
efin
e a
fram
ewor
k fo
r fut
ure
grow
th a
nd d
evel
opm
ent.
Soci
o-Ec
onom
ics
(Cha
pter
5.0
) N
one.
Nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds/C
omm
unity
Fac
ilitie
s/En
viro
nmen
tal J
ustic
e (C
hapt
er 6
.0)
Nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds
• O
verfl
ow p
arki
ng in
nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds n
ear l
ight
rail
stat
ions
will
be
mon
itore
d. C
orre
ctiv
e ac
tions
to p
rovi
de a
dditi
onal
par
king
w
ill b
e m
ade
and/
or p
arki
ng e
nfor
cem
ent w
ill b
e in
stitu
ted,
if n
eces
sary
.
Com
mun
ity F
acilit
ies
• C
oord
inat
ion
with
em
erge
ncy
serv
ice
prov
ider
s to
ens
ure
that
des
ign
allo
ws
acce
ss fo
r the
se s
ervi
ces
and
that
the
effic
ienc
y of
em
erge
ncy
serv
ices
is n
ot im
pede
d.
• C
oord
inat
ion
with
CM
C-U
nive
rsity
rega
rdin
g th
e ty
pe a
nd lo
catio
n of
dire
ctio
nal s
igna
ge.
Env
ironm
enta
l Jus
tice
• N
oise
miti
gatio
n fo
r res
iden
tial p
rope
rties
loca
ted
with
in E
J co
mm
uniti
es o
f con
cern
will
be
requ
ired,
incl
udin
g us
e of
a ra
il au
tom
ated
fric
tion
mod
ifier
, noi
se b
arrie
rs, s
ound
insu
latio
n, s
peci
ally
-eng
inee
red
track
wor
k an
d vi
brat
ion
isol
atio
n tre
atm
ents
.
Visu
al A
nd A
esth
etic
C
onsi
dera
tions
(C
hapt
er 7
.0)
• Im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e de
sign
trea
tmen
ts p
er th
e pr
ojec
t’s D
esig
n C
riter
ia, U
rban
Des
ign
Fram
ewor
k, to
the
exte
nt p
ract
ical
.•
Coo
rdin
atio
n w
ith p
rope
rty o
wne
rs to
dis
cuss
the
follo
win
g pr
opos
ed m
itiga
tion:
o
Fo
r the
six
affe
cted
pro
perti
es in
Ham
pshi
re H
ills, l
ands
capi
ng is
pro
pose
d al
ong
the
proj
ect f
enci
ng.
o
Addi
tiona
l dire
ctio
nal s
igna
ge to
impr
ove
way
-find
ing
to C
MC
-Uni
vers
ity a
nd re
tain
vis
ibili
ty to
the
hosp
ital.
o
Con
tinue
d co
ordi
natio
n w
ith s
take
hold
ers
and
pote
ntia
lly a
ffect
ed g
roup
s re
gard
ing
pote
ntia
l vis
ual i
mpa
cts:
U
NC
C
harlo
tte to
ens
ure
cons
iste
ncy
with
cam
pus
desi
gn g
uide
lines
; and
Uni
vers
ity C
ity P
artn
ers
to p
rovi
de in
form
atio
n to
af
fect
ed b
usin
ess
owne
rs.
His
toric
al a
nd A
rcha
eolo
gica
l R
esou
rces
(Cha
pter
8.0
) N
one.
Park
land
s (C
hapt
er 9
.0)
• To
by C
reek
Gre
enw
ay -
Veg
etat
ive
scre
ens
will
be
mai
ntai
ned
to th
e ex
tent
pra
ctic
al; C
ATS
will
coo
rdin
ate
with
MC
PR
to
ensu
re th
e lig
ht ra
il br
idge
ove
r the
gre
enw
ay w
ould
not
con
flict
with
the
gree
nway
, and
to m
inim
ize
impa
ct to
trai
l op
erat
ions
dur
ing
cons
truct
ion.
An
alte
rnat
ive
rout
e w
ill b
e pr
ovid
ed a
nd a
ttem
pts
will
be
mad
e to
coo
rdin
ate
clos
ure
durin
g a
perio
d of
leas
t act
ivity
. CA
TS w
ill no
tify
MC
PR
48
hour
s in
adv
ance
of t
empo
rary
clo
sure
of g
reen
way
s du
e to
co
nstru
ctio
n.
Nor
thea
st C
orrid
or L
ight
Rai
l Pro
ject
– F
inal
EIS
ES-1
2 Ex
ecut
ive
Sum
mar
y
LYN
X B
lue
Line
Ex
tens
ion
Tabl
e ES
-2 (c
ontin
ued)
Su
mm
ary
of M
itiga
tion
Impa
ct A
reas
Pr
efer
red
Alte
rnat
ive
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es (C
hapt
er 1
0.0)
Impa
cts
to fo
rest
s Tr
ees
and
land
scap
ing
will
repl
ace
vege
tatio
n lo
ss. P
ark-
and
ride
lots
will
com
ply
with
Cha
rlotte
Tre
e O
rdin
ance
, whi
ch
requ
ires
8 pe
rcen
t cov
erag
e. L
imite
d op
portu
nitie
s fo
r urb
an fo
rest
ry.
Impa
cts
to p
rote
cted
spe
cies
No
miti
gatio
n re
quire
d fo
r pro
tect
ed s
peci
es.
For t
he C
arol
ina
bird
s-fo
ot tr
efoi
l, pr
ior t
o co
nstru
ctio
n, th
e co
ntra
ctor
will
be
requ
ired
to c
onfir
m th
e pr
esen
ce o
f the
pla
nt in
th
e co
rrido
r. If
pre
sent
, the
n se
eds
from
the
plan
t will
be
colle
cted
and
sub
sequ
ently
sow
n/sc
atte
red
in n
ewly
dis
turb
ed
area
s, s
uch
as a
long
road
/rail
emba
nkm
ents
ass
ocia
ted
with
pro
ject
con
stru
ctio
n. A
dditi
onal
ly, s
eeds
will
be
dona
ted
to th
e N
orth
Car
olin
a Bo
tani
cal G
arde
n fo
r dee
p fre
eze
purp
oses
; and
CA
TS w
ill c
oord
inat
e w
ith th
e N
CN
HP
to u
pdat
e th
eir
reco
rds.
W
ater
Res
ourc
es (C
hapt
er 1
1.0)
Impa
cts
to g
roun
dwat
er
Alth
ough
no
grou
ndw
ater
impa
cts
are
antic
ipat
ed, a
wel
l loc
ated
on
the
UN
C C
harlo
tte c
ampu
s w
ithin
the
prop
osed
pro
ject
al
ignm
ent i
s no
long
er in
use
. CA
TS a
nd/o
r UN
C C
harlo
tte w
ill co
mpl
ete
the
aban
donm
ent/c
losu
re p
roce
ss to
sea
l the
wel
l.
Impa
cts
to s
urfa
ce w
ater
s
Des
ign
will
con
tinue
to m
inim
ize
impa
cts
to s
tream
s th
roug
h th
e lim
ited
use
of ri
prap
at p
ipe
inle
ts a
nd o
utfa
lls; t
he re
loca
tion
of c
hann
els
usin
g na
tura
l cha
nnel
des
ign
tech
niqu
es w
here
pra
ctic
able
; and
pre
serv
atio
n of
stre
amba
nks
at p
ropo
sed
brid
ge
cros
sing
s. C
ompe
nsat
ory
miti
gatio
n w
ould
be
mad
e th
roug
h th
e C
harlo
tte U
mbr
ella
Stre
am a
nd W
etla
nd M
itiga
tion
bank
w
hen
impa
cts
are
unav
oida
ble
and
as re
quire
d by
the
Cle
an W
ater
Act
and
as
dete
rmin
ed in
coo
rdin
atio
n w
ith th
e U
.S. C
orps
of
Eng
inee
rs a
nd th
e N
orth
Car
olin
a D
ivis
ion
of W
ater
Qua
lity.
Im
pact
s to
floo
dpla
ins
and
flood
way
s B
ridge
des
ign
will
con
tinue
to m
inim
ize
impa
cts
to fl
oodp
lain
s an
d flo
odw
ays.
Con
tinue
d co
ordi
natio
n w
ith C
harlo
tte a
nd
Mec
klen
burg
Cou
nty
Stor
mw
ater
Ser
vice
s w
ill b
e m
ade
for c
ontin
ued
inpu
t int
o th
e pr
ojec
t des
ign.
Impa
cts
to w
etla
nds
Add
ition
al e
fforts
to a
void
and
min
imiz
e im
pact
s to
wet
land
s w
ill c
ontin
ue to
be
mad
e du
ring
prel
imin
ary
engi
neer
ing
desi
gn,
incl
udin
g: s
teep
enin
g fil
l slo
pes
whe
re p
ract
icab
le; u
se o
f ret
aini
ng w
alls
or s
imila
r stru
ctur
es; l
ocat
ing
cons
truct
ion
stag
ing
and
acce
ss a
reas
aw
ay fr
om w
etla
nds;
and
dem
arca
ting
pres
erve
d w
etla
nd a
reas
prio
r to
cons
truct
ion.
Com
pens
ator
y m
itiga
tion
wou
ld b
e m
ade
thro
ugh
the
Cha
rlotte
Um
brel
la S
tream
and
Wet
land
Miti
gatio
n ba
nk, w
hen
impa
cts
are
unav
oida
ble,
and
as
requ
ired
by th
e C
lean
Wat
er A
ct a
nd a
s de
term
ined
in c
oord
inat
ion
with
the
U.S
. Cor
ps o
f Eng
inee
rs a
nd
the
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Div
isio
n of
Wat
er Q
ualit
y.
Air
Qua
lity
(Cha
pter
12.
0)
Coo
rdin
atio
n w
ith M
eckl
enbu
rg C
ount
y La
nd U
se &
Env
ironm
enta
l Ser
vice
s A
genc
y to
com
ply
with
air
qual
ity m
odel
ing
requ
irem
ents
for T
rans
porta
tion
Faci
litie
s C
onst
ruct
ion
Per
mits
for t
he p
ropo
sed
park
ing
gara
ges.
Noi
se a
nd V
ibra
tion
(C
hapt
er 1
3.0)
N
oise
miti
gatio
n m
easu
res
incl
ude
use
of a
rail
auto
mat
ed fr
ictio
n m
odifi
er, n
oise
bar
riers
, sou
nd in
sula
tion,
spe
cial
ly-
engi
neer
ed tr
ackw
ork
and
vibr
atio
n is
olat
ion
treat
men
ts. S
peci
fic m
itiga
tion
reco
mm
enda
tions
will
be
coor
dina
ted
with
af
fect
ed p
rope
rty o
wne
rs.
En
ergy
(Cha
pter
14.
0)
Non
e.
Haz
ardo
us a
nd C
onta
min
ated
M
ater
ials
(Cha
pter
15.
0)
Pha
se II
ES
As
will
be
perfo
rmed
, or,
if av
aila
ble,
exi
stin
g P
hase
II E
SA
repo
rts w
ill b
e re
view
ed, f
or a
ll fu
ll an
d pa
rtial
pro
perty
ac
quis
ition
s de
term
ined
to b
e at
sig
nific
ant r
isk
of h
azar
dous
mat
eria
ls c
onta
min
atio
n w
hich
wou
ld im
pact
the
LYN
X B
LE
cons
truct
ion
sche
dule
. Rem
edia
tion
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith lo
cal a
nd s
tate
regu
latio
ns. F
or s
ites
of lo
w c
once
rn, a
spe
cial
pr
ovis
ion
will
be
incl
uded
in th
e co
nstru
ctio
n co
ntra
ct fo
r the
exc
avat
ion
and
disp
osal
of n
on-h
azar
dous
con
tam
inat
ed s
ites.
Nor
thea
st C
orrid
or L
ight
Rai
l Pro
ject
– F
inal
EIS
Ex
ecut
ive
Sum
mar
y ES
-13
LYN
X B
lue
Line
Ex
tens
ion
Tabl
e ES
-2 (c
ontin
ued)
Su
mm
ary
of M
itiga
tion
Impa
ct A
reas
Pr
efer
red
Alte
rnat
ive
Safe
ty a
nd S
ecur
ity
(Cha
pter
16.
0)
Des
ign
revi
ew b
y C
ATS
Saf
ety
and
Sec
urity
/CM
PD
, NC
DO
T S
afet
y O
vers
ight
, and
Cha
rlotte
Dep
artm
ent o
f Tra
nspo
rtatio
n to
en
sure
des
ign
mee
ts s
afet
y an
d se
curit
y re
quire
men
ts.
Con
tinue
d pu
blic
out
reac
h re
gard
ing
railr
oad
safe
ty.
Acq
uisi
tions
and
Dis
plac
emen
ts
(Cha
pter
17.
0)
Uni
form
Rel
ocat
ion
Ass
ista
nce
and
Rea
l Pro
perty
Acq
uisi
tion
Pol
icie
s A
ct w
ould
be
follo
wed
.
Con
stru
ctio
n Im
pact
s (C
hapt
er 1
8.0)
Util
ity
• C
oord
inat
e w
ith u
tility
ow
ners
to e
nsur
e m
aint
enan
ce o
f util
ity s
ervi
ces
and
timel
y re
loca
tion
• R
eloc
ate,
rem
ove
and
prot
ect e
xist
ing
utilit
ies.
Tran
spor
tatio
n, T
raffi
c an
d Pa
rkin
g •
Sch
edul
e co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es th
at re
quire
lane
or r
oad
clos
ures
dur
ing
off-p
eak
hour
s, w
here
pra
ctic
al.
• D
evel
op M
aint
enan
ce o
f Tra
ffic
Plan
. •
Coo
rdin
ate
freig
ht s
ched
ule
and
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
with
the
railr
oads
.
Land
Use
, Com
mun
ity F
acilit
ies
and
Busi
ness
es
• C
oord
inat
e w
ith lo
cal b
usin
ess
owne
rs a
nd p
rovi
de a
dvan
ce n
otifi
catio
n of
road
way
dis
rupt
ions
and
des
crip
tions
of
alte
rnat
ive
rout
es.
• M
aint
ain
acce
ss to
com
mun
ity fa
cilit
ies
thro
ugho
ut c
onst
ruct
ion
by p
rovi
ding
alte
rnat
ive
rout
es w
hen
nece
ssar
y.
• Pr
ovid
e te
mpo
rary
ent
ranc
e si
gns
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n.
Vis
ual a
nd A
esth
etic
•
Shi
eld
and
aim
nig
ht w
ork
light
s di
rect
ly a
t the
wor
k zo
ne.
• S
tage
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es to
lim
it th
e du
ratio
n of
impa
cts
at in
divi
dual
loca
tions
. •
Whe
re p
ract
ical
, res
tore
exi
stin
g ve
geta
tion
that
ser
ves
as a
buf
fer t
o ad
jace
nt p
rope
rties
. N
eigh
borh
oods
, Com
mun
ity
Ser
vice
s an
d E
nviro
nmen
tal
Just
ice
• In
form
loca
l pro
perty
ow
ners
, thr
ough
the
Con
stru
ctio
n Ed
ucat
ion
and
Out
reac
h Pl
an, o
f roa
dway
dis
rupt
ions
. •
Pro
vide
con
tinuo
us c
oord
inat
ion
with
com
mun
ity s
ervi
ce p
rovi
ders
to m
aint
ain
acce
ss fo
r em
erge
ncy
vehi
cles
. •
Res
trict
con
tract
ors
from
acc
essi
ng th
e ra
ilroa
d rig
ht-o
f-way
thro
ugh
the
Ham
pshi
re H
ills
neig
hbor
hood
.
Air
Qua
lity
• S
hut o
ff co
nstru
ctio
n eq
uipm
ent n
ot in
dire
ct u
se.
• W
ater
are
as o
f exp
osed
soi
l to
cont
rol d
ust.
• C
over
ope
n bo
dy tr
ucks
tran
spor
ting
mat
eria
ls to
and
from
con
stru
ctio
n si
tes.
•
Rer
oute
truc
k tra
ffic
away
from
sch
ools
and
resi
dent
ial c
omm
uniti
es w
hen
poss
ible
. •
Rep
ave
and/
or re
plan
t exp
osed
are
as a
s so
on a
s po
ssib
le fo
llow
ing
cons
truct
ion.
•
Ade
quat
ely
secu
re ta
rps,
pla
stic
or o
ther
mat
eria
l ove
r deb
ris p
iles.
•
Pro
hibi
t idl
ing
of d
eliv
ery
truck
s or
oth
er e
quip
men
t dur
ing
perio
ds o
f ext
ende
d un
load
ing
or in
activ
ity.
Nor
thea
st C
orrid
or L
ight
Rai
l Pro
ject
– F
inal
EIS
ES-1
4 Ex
ecut
ive
Sum
mar
y
LYN
X B
lue
Line
Ex
tens
ion
Tabl
e ES
-2 (c
ontin
ued)
Su
mm
ary
of M
itiga
tion
Impa
ct A
reas
Pr
efer
red
Alte
rnat
ive
Noi
se a
nd V
ibra
tion
• C
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
will
be
carri
ed o
ut in
com
plia
nce
with
all
appl
icab
le lo
cal n
oise
regu
latio
ns in
clud
ing
the
City
of
Cha
rlotte
Noi
se O
rdin
ance
, FTA
gui
delin
es a
nd U
NC
Cha
rlotte
spe
cifie
d pa
ram
eter
s.
o
At U
NC
Cha
rlotte
, con
stru
ctio
n w
ill n
ot b
e al
low
ed n
ear r
esid
ence
hal
ls p
rior t
o 8:
00 a
m n
or w
ithin
200
feet
of c
ampu
s bu
ildin
gs d
urin
g th
e w
eek
of fi
nal e
xam
s.
• C
ontra
ctor
s w
ill p
repa
re a
Con
stru
ctio
n N
oise
and
Vib
ratio
n C
ontro
l Pla
n.
• C
ontra
ctor
(s) w
ill in
volv
e an
Aco
ustic
al E
ngin
eer t
o en
sure
noi
se a
nd v
ibra
tion
leve
ls a
re e
ffect
ivel
y m
anag
ed a
nd
exce
ssiv
e no
ise
and
vibr
atio
n is
pre
vent
ed.
o
Con
tract
ors
will
pro
vide
a p
hone
num
ber a
nd/o
r web
site
for c
omm
unity
com
plai
nts,
and
the
Aco
ustic
al E
ngin
eer w
ill
resp
ond
and
coor
dina
te w
ith th
e C
onst
ruct
ion
Man
ager
to re
solv
e co
mpl
aint
s.
o
For b
last
ing
oper
atio
ns, c
ontra
ctor
s w
ill c
onsu
lt w
ith n
earb
y se
nsiti
ve re
cept
ors
to s
ched
ule
the
leas
t dis
turb
ing
times
an
d pr
ovid
e ad
vanc
e no
tice
of b
last
ing
oper
atio
ns.
The
cont
ract
or s
hall
prep
are
a B
last
ing
Pla
n to
be
appr
oved
by
CA
TS a
nd o
ther
s de
sign
ated
by
CA
TS (e
.g. U
NC
Cha
rlotte
). o
Fo
r bla
stin
g op
erat
ions
nea
r UN
C C
harlo
tte, t
he c
ontra
ctor
sha
ll fo
llow
spe
cific
not
ifica
tion
proc
edur
es to
avo
id
dam
ages
to v
ibra
tion
sens
itive
equ
ipm
ent.
The
cont
ract
or s
hall
prov
ide
a on
e-w
eek
adva
nce
notic
e of
the
star
t of
blas
ting
oper
atio
ns. T
he c
ontra
ctor
sha
ll fa
cilit
ate
a pr
e-bl
ast m
eetin
g to
def
ine
the
entir
e sc
hedu
le a
nd s
cope
of
sequ
ence
of b
last
ing.
Bla
stin
g sh
all b
e sc
hedu
led
in b
atch
es to
the
exte
nt p
ossi
ble.
The
sch
edul
e sh
all b
e ke
pt
curre
nt a
t all
times
. The
con
tract
or s
hall
prov
ide
a 24
-hou
r not
ifica
tion
for e
ach
blas
t. •
Con
tract
ors
will
con
duct
noi
se a
nd v
ibra
tion
mon
itorin
g at
loca
tions
whe
re p
oten
tial i
mpa
ct fr
om c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
may
oc
cur.
•
Con
tract
ors
will
con
duct
pre
-con
stru
ctio
n an
d po
st-c
onst
ruct
ion
surv
eys
of b
uild
ings
with
the
pote
ntia
l for
stru
ctur
al
dam
age.
•
Spe
cific
con
stru
ctio
n no
ise
and
vibr
atio
n m
easu
res
to b
e im
plem
ente
d ne
ar s
ensi
tive
rece
ptor
s w
ill b
e id
entif
ied
by th
e co
ntra
ctor
in th
e C
onst
ruct
ion
Noi
se a
nd V
ibra
tion
Con
trol P
lan.
Gen
eral
noi
se m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s in
clud
ing,
but
not
lim
ited
to: o
pera
tiona
l res
trict
ions
; the
use
of a
ltern
ativ
e co
nstru
ctio
n m
etho
ds a
nd e
quip
men
t*; lo
catin
g st
atio
nary
eq
uipm
ent a
way
from
noi
se s
ensi
tive
site
s; th
e us
e of
shi
elds
, shr
ouds
or i
ntak
e ex
haus
t muf
flers
; the
use
of s
peci
al b
ack-
up a
larm
s; re
rout
ing
truck
rout
es; u
se o
f tem
pora
ry n
oise
bar
riers
or n
oise
bla
nket
s; u
se o
f sta
tic ro
llers
inst
ead
of v
ibra
tory
ro
llers
whe
re p
ract
icab
le; p
ier d
rillin
g st
ead
of p
ile d
rivin
g w
here
pra
ctic
able
.
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es
Bes
t man
agem
ent p
ract
ices
(BM
P) w
ould
be
follo
wed
by
the
cont
ract
or d
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n. B
MP
wou
ld in
clud
e th
e de
mar
catio
n of
the
cons
truct
ion
limits
and
sta
ging
are
as p
rior t
o th
e in
itiat
ion
of c
onst
ruct
ion,
to li
mit
the
dist
urba
nces
to th
e ve
geta
tive
com
mun
ity.
Nor
thea
st C
orrid
or L
ight
Rai
l Pro
ject
– F
inal
EIS
Ex
ecut
ive
Sum
mar
y ES
-15
LYN
X B
lue
Line
Ex
tens
ion
Tabl
e ES
-2 (c
ontin
ued)
Su
mm
ary
of M
itiga
tion
Impa
ct A
reas
Pr
efer
red
Alte
rnat
ive
Wat
er R
esou
rces
• M
inim
ize
dist
urbe
d ar
eas.
•
Appl
y pr
ompt
sta
biliz
atio
n.
• E
mpl
oy a
n E
rosi
on a
nd S
edim
ent C
ontro
l Pla
n to
trea
t sto
rmw
ater
runo
ff.
• P
reve
nt th
e st
orag
e of
fill
or o
ther
mat
eria
ls in
floo
dpla
ins,
to th
e ex
tent
pra
ctic
able
. •
Sta
ge c
onst
ruct
ion
of p
ropo
sed
stor
mw
ater
sys
tem
s to
redu
ce th
e du
ratio
n of
con
stru
ctio
n di
stur
banc
es to
a g
iven
are
a.
• R
ecyc
le to
psoi
l rem
oved
dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
by u
sing
it to
recl
aim
dis
turb
ed a
reas
and
enh
ance
regr
owth
. •
Avo
id e
xces
sive
slo
pes
durin
g ex
cava
tion
and
blas
ting
oper
atio
ns to
redu
ce e
rosi
on.
• U
se is
olat
ion
tech
niqu
es, s
uch
as b
erm
ing
or d
iver
sion
, for
in-s
tream
con
stru
ctio
n ne
ar w
etla
nds.
Cul
tura
l Res
ourc
es
• S
top
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
imm
edia
tely
upo
n th
e di
scov
ery
of a
ny n
ew c
ultu
ral r
esou
rces
. •
Con
tract
ors
will
pre
pare
a C
onst
ruct
ion
Noi
se a
nd V
ibra
tion
Con
trol P
lan,
and
con
duct
vib
ratio
n m
onito
ring
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n.
• C
ontra
ctor
s w
ill b
e in
stru
cted
to a
void
adj
acen
t his
toric
site
s th
roug
h co
nstru
ctio
n fe
ncin
g or
som
e ot
her c
lear
ly u
nder
stoo
d co
nstru
ctio
n/st
agin
g te
chni
que.
•
The
Sta
te H
isto
ric P
rese
rvat
ion
Offi
ce w
ill re
view
the
prop
osed
pile
/pan
el w
alls
alo
ng th
e ed
ges
of th
e H
errin
Bro
ther
s C
oal a
nd Ic
e si
te d
urin
g Fi
nal D
esig
n.
• M
aint
ain
min
imum
allo
wab
le d
ista
nces
from
his
toric
reso
urce
s, to
the
exte
nt p
ract
icab
le.
Park
land
s •
Mai
ntai
n ac
cess
to tr
ails
and
min
imiz
e te
mpo
rary
clo
sure
s to
the
exte
nt p
ract
ical
. •
Not
ify M
CP
R 4
8 ho
urs
in a
dvan
ce o
f tem
pora
ry c
losu
res
of g
reen
way
s du
e to
con
stru
ctio
n.
Ene
rgy
Mea
sure
s to
min
imiz
e en
ergy
con
sum
ptio
n du
ring
cons
truct
ion
coul
d in
clud
e lim
iting
the
idlin
g of
con
stru
ctio
n eq
uipm
ent a
nd
empl
oyee
veh
icle
s, a
s w
ell a
s lo
catin
g st
agin
g ar
eas
and
mat
eria
l pro
cess
ing
faci
litie
s as
clo
se a
s po
ssib
le to
wor
k si
tes.
H
azar
dous
and
Con
tam
inat
ed
Mat
eria
ls
• D
ispo
se o
f haz
ardo
us m
ater
ials
acc
ordi
ng to
app
licab
le fe
dera
l, st
ate
and
loca
l gui
delin
es.
• C
lean
con
stru
ctio
n ve
hicl
es to
pre
vent
off-
site
con
tam
inat
ion.
S
afet
y an
d S
ecur
ity
Pro
vide
con
stru
ctio
n ba
rrier
s an
d fe
ncin
g to
sec
ure
cons
truct
ion
site
s an
d st
agin
g ar
eas.
Nor
thea
st C
orrid
or L
ight
Rai
l Pro
ject
– F
inal
EIS
ES-1
6 Ex
ecut
ive
Sum
mar
y
LYN
X B
lue
Line
Ex
tens
ion
Tabl
e ES
-2 (c
ontin
ued)
Su
mm
ary
of M
itiga
tion
Impa
ct A
reas
Pr
efer
red
Alte
rnat
ive
Seco
ndar
y an
d C
umul
ativ
e Ef
fect
s (C
hapt
er 1
9.0)
Sec
onda
ry E
ffect
s
Impl
emen
t Sta
tion
Are
a P
lan
reco
mm
enda
tions
to m
inim
ize
pote
ntia
l sec
onda
ry im
pact
s. O
ther
mea
sure
s in
clud
e:
• Af
ford
able
hou
sing
stra
tegi
es to
be
deve
lope
d w
ith s
tatio
n ar
ea p
lans
; •
Not
ifica
tion
to th
e La
ndm
arks
Com
mis
sion
of N
atio
nal R
egis
ter E
ligib
le p
rope
rties
that
cou
ld b
e de
sign
ated
as
Loca
l La
ndm
arks
to a
fford
them
pro
tect
ion;
•
Pro
vide
Con
veni
ent a
cces
s to
ligh
t rai
l and
bus
ser
vice
s;
• Pu
blic
out
reac
h/ed
ucat
ion
rega
rdin
g th
e be
nefit
s of
tran
sit s
uppo
rtive
dev
elop
men
t; pu
blic
invo
lvem
ent i
n st
atio
n ar
ea p
lan
deve
lopm
ent;
and,
•
Coo
rdin
atio
n w
ith C
ity o
f Cha
rlotte
's S
torm
wat
er S
ervi
ces
to m
inim
ize
impa
cts
to w
ater
reso
urce
s an
d w
ater
qua
lity
durin
g th
e st
atio
n ar
ea p
lann
ing
proc
ess.
•
Com
plet
ion
of a
det
aile
d In
dire
ct a
nd C
umul
ativ
e Im
pact
s an
alys
is fo
r wat
er re
sour
ces
and
wat
er q
ualit
y du
ring
the
Sec
tion
404/
401
perm
ittin
g ph
ase
of th
e pr
ojec
t.
Cum
ulat
ive
Effe
cts
• A
re-e
valu
atio
n of
the
Sou
th C
orrid
or L
ight
Rai
l Pro
ject
Fin
al E
IS w
ill b
e un
derta
ken
to id
entif
y sp
ecifi
c m
easu
res
to
miti
gate
pot
entia
l im
pact
s to
the
Sou
th C
orrid
or a
nd e
xist
ing
LYN
X B
lue
Line
. •
Con
tinue
d co
ordi
natio
n w
ith N
CD
OT'
s R
ail D
ivis
ion
rega
rdin
g th
e pr
ojec
t sch
edul
e of
the
Suga
r Cre
ek G
rade
Sep
arat
ion
Pro
ject
and
with
NC
DO
T re
gard
ing
the
proj
ect s
ched
ule
of th
e M
alla
rd C
reek
brid
ge re
plac
emen
t on
N. T
ryon
St.
Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project – Final EIS
Executive Summary ES-17
LYNX Blue Line Extension
ES.7 Financial Analysis and Investment Impacts
ES.7.1 Capital Costs
For the Preferred Alternative, the estimated capital cost is $831.4 million, expressed in 2010 dollars. This cost estimate includes trackwork, bridges, systems, stations, parking facilities, a vehicle storage yard, light rail vehicles, real estate, professional services and contingencies. Year of expenditure capital costs are projected to be $1,069.7 million for the Preferred Alternative.
ES.7.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs
The estimated system-wide annual light rail and bus operating costs is $92.24 million for the Preferred Alternative, approximately $9.96 million more per year than the No-Build Alternative.
ES.7.3 Funding and Financing Strategies
Funding for corridor capital investments is planned to be funded 50 percent by federal grants, 25 percent by state grants and 25 percent by CATS and other local sources:
U.S. Department of Transportation Discretionary Funds: Federal Section 5309 New Start grants are expected to fund 50 percent of the corridor capital investments. These funds are allocated by Congress and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transit Trust Fund: The North Carolina Department of Transportation is the other major funding partner for the LYNX BLE. The funding source is expected to be the Transit Trust Fund created by the North Carolina Legislature.
Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS)/City of Charlotte: Most of the local share will be funded using revenues from the CATS ½-percent sales and use tax dedicated to funding transit. Voters in Mecklenburg County approved the sales tax in November 1998 and it has been collected since April 1999. By statute, revenues from the sales and use tax can only be applied to expenditures for planning, construction, and operation of a county-wide public transportation system.
ES.8 Evaluation of Alternatives
The information in the Draft EIS and in this Final EIS provides the basis for decision-makers and the public to assess the benefits, costs and environmental consequences of each alternative against the goals of the proposed project. The goals of the proposed project are as follows:
Goal 1 – Land use: Support the region’s Centers, Corridors and Wedges vision
Goal 2 – Mobility: Improve access and mobility in the corridor and throughout the region; Increase transit ridership; Improve quality of transportation service
Goal 3 – Environment: Preserve and protect the environment
Goal 4 – Financial: Develop affordable, cost-effective transportation solutions
Goal 5 – System Integration: Develop transportation improvements that function as part of the larger transportation system
This Final EIS compares the No-Build Alternative to the Preferred Alternative and illustrates that the Preferred Alternative addresses the goals and objectives of the proposed project. The Light Rail Alternative would enhance accessibility, improve mobility, and support land use goals that would not be possible under the No-Build Alternative.
ES.8.1 No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would not fulfill Goal 1, to support the region’s Centers, Corridors and Wedges vision as no improvements would be made that are consistent with land use plans and policies. Likewise, the No-Build Alternative would not fulfill Goal 2 to improve access and mobility within the corridor and
Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project – Final EIS
ES-18 Executive Summary
LYNX Blue Line Extension
throughout the region. The No-Build Alternative would not encourage the use of transit. Travel time savings would not be realized and service improvements for transit-dependent populations would not be provided or would be limited. Similarly, Goal 5, which encourages system integration, would not be realized under the No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not fulfill Goal 3 to preserve and protect the environment. Under the No-Build Alternative, population growth and land use would not be concentrated to the City’s centers and corridors, and urban sprawl could continue. This could result in continued impacts to natural resources as development trends could continue in outlaying areas of the metropolitan region. Additionally, an alternative to the automobile and bus would be not available, resulting in no improvements to air quality. The No-Build Alternative would fulfill Goal 4 by providing a cost effective alternative that ensures capital and O&M costs are consistent with funding levels.
ES.8.2 Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative would fulfill each of the project goals. Goal 1, to focus growth in the Northeast Corridor directing new development and redevelopment around transit stations, would be attained as the Station Area Plans would employ the City’s Zoning Ordinance to implement land uses that are transit supportive. The Preferred Alternative would also fulfill Goal 2, to improve access and mobility within the Northeast Corridor and the region. The Preferred Alternative would increase transit ridership, improve transit travel times, and improve mobility for transit-dependent populations. The Preferred Alternative would fulfill Goal 3, to protect the environment, by supporting sustainable growth through transit-supportive development plans. Increased transit use would reduce vehicle miles of travel by automobiles, thereby resulting in a reduction in automobile emissions. This reduction in automobile emissions would result in improvements to local air quality. The Preferred Alternative would result in impacts to other natural resources such as wetlands and streams. These impacts would be minimized or mitigated as described in this Final EIS. Goal 4, to develop affordable, cost-effective transportation solutions, can be attained under the Preferred Alternative as projected capital and operating and maintenance costs are consistent with anticipated funding levels. Though the Preferred Alternative is only slightly higher to the No-Build Alternative in terms of system-wide annual operating and maintenance cost, the capital costs are significantly greater. However, the Preferred Alternative provides a significant level of benefits for its proposed cost. Goal 5, which encourages system integration, would be realized under the Preferred Alternative as it would provide through service to the existing light rail line, and implement part of the 2030 Transit Corridor System Plan.
ES.9 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination
ES.9.1 Public Involvement
The coordination of the public, interested and affected parties, and federal, state, and local agencies is necessary to help the project team define the transit and land use issues that characterize the Northeast Corridor. The Public Involvement Plan (PIP) included scoping and focus group meetings, project mailings, individual/group contacts, public hearings, a newsletter, website, and countywide mailing list.
Scoping Meetings. A Notice of Intent to conduct an Alternatives Analysis and prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2000. Public scoping meetings were held September 26th and 28th, 2000 for the purpose of gathering input on the alternatives being studied in the Major Investment Study and the potential impacts to be included in the scope of the EIS. Interagency scoping letters were mailed to all agencies with jurisdiction to obtain input from the environmental resource and regulatory agencies on the appropriate assessment methodologies to be used in the project. CATS conducted a Scoping Update process in 2005 and 2006 to conduct additional scoping outreach activities.
Public Workshops and Individual Meetings. Over the course of project development, CATS held 42 public meetings, with approximately 1,567 attendees, and 121 individual meetings, with approximately 4,516 attendees, to gather input on the project definition and station locations.
Newsletter and Website. A project-specific newsletter entitled Blue Line Extension Transitions was published by CATS in order to inform interested citizens of project updates, upcoming meetings, and website enhancements. It was mailed to those on the mailing list, made available at meetings and presentations, on the project website, and at CATS offices. CATS also maintains a project specific page
Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project – Final EIS
Executive Summary ES-19
LYNX Blue Line Extension
on its website, www.ridetransit.org, which provides information on the LYNX BLE project.
Project Notification Lists. CATS maintains two mailing lists, a countywide project mailing list and a mailing list for those specifically interested in the LYNX BLE. The countywide list contains 6,800 contacts and includes property owners, occupants, and other stakeholders. The LYNX BLE mailing list includes 870 persons located in the LYNX BLE study area and/or those who have expressed specific interest in the project. Persons on the mailing lists received the Blue Line Extension Transitions newsletter.
ES.9.2 Agency Coordination
Quarterly meetings are held between CATS and the FTA to review the status of CATS projects, including the LYNX BLE project, and for FTA to provide federal oversight and guidance. In addition, CATS has formed three teams with representatives from City and County departments to provide project management and oversight.
Throughout the project development process, CATS has coordinated with state and federal agencies, including the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), NC Department of Natural Resources (DENR), NC Wildlife Resources Commission, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Services, UNC Charlotte and NCDOT. In addition, CATS has coordinated closely with project stakeholders, including railroads and utilities, to development agreements related to construction, operation, and funding.
ES.9.3 Draft EIS Review Comments and Responses
The Draft EIS for the LYNX BLE was approved by the FTA on August 11, 2010 and subsequently made available to the public, as well as appropriate federal, state and local agencies for review and comment. The formal Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2010, which initiated the 45 day public review and comment period. The public review and comment period spanned from August 27, 2010 to October 12, 2010. Comments received during this time were expressed in written correspondence addressed to the FTA or CATS, or as verbal testimony at the Draft EIS public hearing held on September 22, 2010. A total of 27 written comments and verbal public hearing testimony were received on the Draft EIS.
Public comments were relative to park and ride locations, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, station shelter design, material selection, fencing barriers, utility coordination, construction phasing and further extension of the light rail. Of the comments received, one comment was in opposition to the project as proposed during the Draft EIS, while the remaining comments provided were general questions or suggestions about the project.
Several agencies commented on the Draft EIS and explained concerns regarding water quality impacts, material selection and design to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife, wetland and stream mitigation, noise mitigation, funding status of other transportation projects, coordination with other transportation projects and further extension of light rail. There were a total of nine agency comments received.
The public hearing for the Draft EIS was held on September 22, 2010. A total of six members of the public provided verbal testimony at the public hearing. All testimony indicated support of the proposed project. Comments were related to implementation of land use plans and goals, coordination with campus master plans, responsiveness to concerns of noise and vibration, transportation network access, continued coordination with interested and affected parties, construction phasing, and bus to rail connectivity.
From November 2010 to January 2011, CATS also conducted public and stakeholder outreach related the reduction of the project scope. A public meeting was held on January 12, 2011. During the process, approximately 300 comment cards were received, with approximately 75 percent supporting the proposed changes overall.
ES.10 Next Steps
Following the close of the public circulation period on this Final EIS, the FTA will consider public comments and make a Record of Decision.
NC 115
BEAT
TIES
FORD
STAT
ESVI
LLE
AVE
THE P LAZA
ALBE MARLE RD
N TRYON ST
WT HA RRIS B LV D W
THE P LAZA
EAST
WAY D
R
CENTRA L AVE
EASTFIELD RD
PLAZA ROAD EXT
RANDOLPH ROAD
N GRAH
AM ST
3RD S T4TH S T
MAL LARD CREEK CHURCH RD
REAM
ES R
D
WT
HARR
IS B
LVD
HARRISBURG RD
SHA MROCK DR
CRAI GH EA D RD
HAWTHO RNE L
N
SA LO ME CH URCH RD
PAVIL LIO N BLV D
T RA DE S T
ORR RD
N DAVIDSON ST
ASBU
RY C
HAPE
L
HO SK INS RO AD
GIBBON RD
DOUB
LE O
AKS R
D
5 TH ST6TH S T
KING
S DR
IVE
7TH S T
CHURCH ST
PLOTT RD
CALDWELL RD
NEV IN RD
GRAHAM ST
COL LEGE ST
CINDY LN
BREVARD ST
CAL DWEL L ST
M INT ST POPLAR ST
S TONEW AL L ST
E 7TH STEAST BLVD
E MOREHEAD S T
Wilso n Grove Rd
5th S t4TH S T
M cDOWEL L ST
JW CLAY BLVD
COM MONWE ALTH AV E
STAT
ESVI
LLE
AVE
PR O SP ERI T Y CHURCH RD
ROC KY R IVE R R D
BAY ST
VANCE ROAD
30TH ST
IBM DR
ATANDO AVE
IDEAL WAY
N B REVARD ST
TOM HUNTER RD
36TH ST
POINDEXTER DR
EUCLID AVE
NORRIS AV E
CEDAR ST
PIERSON--SHEFIE
CLUB
RD
QUEENS RD
CITY BLVD
WT H ARR IS BLVD
DALTON AVE
MAL LARD CREEK RD
DAVID C OX R D
Winfield
SHAR
ON AM
ITY R
D
REA MES RD
QUEE
NS RO
AD
TUCKASEEGEE RD
N TRY
ON S
TEASTWAY DR
OLD CONCORD RD
WT HA RRIS B LV D N. TRYON ST
UNIVERSITY CITY BLV D
ATAND O AV E
SUG A
R CR
EEK
R D
THE P LAZA
N TRY
ON S
T
Old Concord Road
McCullough
Tom Hunter
9th Street
University City Blvd
Sugar Creek36th Street
25th StreetParkwood
UNC Charlotte
I-485/N. Tryon
JW Clay Blvd
Mallard Creek Church
77
85
Data Source:CATS, City of Charlotte GIS, and Mecklenburg CountyGIS
BLE FEIS Figure ES-1.pdf
Cabarrus Co.
Mecklenburg Co.
49
29
485
Legend
07.08.11
Northeast Corridor Limits
LYNX Existing Light Rail Transit
County Line
HighwayProposed Light Rail Alignment
Proposed StationsProposed Stations with Park-and-Ride
Railroads
0 10.5 Mile
485
485(Future)
Highway (Future)Major Roads
LYNX Blue Line
277
74
49
29
Figure ES-1Preferred Alternative