DOCSLIB.ORG

King of Prussia Rail Extension Project an Extension of the Norristown High Speed Rail Line

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

King of Prussia Rail Extension Project An Extension of the Norristown High Speed Rail Line January 2021 Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration King of Prussia Rail Extension Project An Extension of the Norristown High Speed Rail Line January 2021 Final Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Abstract January 2021 Abstract The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as the lead Federal agency, in cooperation with Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) as the local Project sponsor, have prepared this combined Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision (combined FEIS/ROD) and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for the King of Prussia Rail Extension Project (Project) in Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, and Upper Darby Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. This combined FEIS/ROD was prepared in accordance with regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the FTA’s Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR Parts 771 and 774). The combined FEIS/ROD complies with 23 U.S.C. § 139(n)(2) as amended by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Public Law 114-94). The Project will extend existing Norristown High Speed Line (NHSL) service to the King of Prussia-Valley Forge area of Upper Merion Township, a distance of approximately 3.5 miles. The FEIS evaluates the environmental, transportation, social, and economic benefits and impacts of the Project, including the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative. Comments The DEIS was made available to the public on October 17, 2017 for a public review and comment period that ended on December 4, 2017. The DEIS identified a locally recommended alternative and environmentally preferable alternative as the PECO/TP-1st Ave. Two public hearings were conducted during the DEIS public comment period on November 13, 2017 and November 15, 2017. The DEIS was also made available at three local libraries, and online at www.kingofprussiarail.com. Following the DEIS comment period, the SEPTA Board of Directors adopted the PECO/TP-1st Ave. alternative as the Preferred Alternative with refinements made in response to public and agency comments. The FEIS includes a summary of comments received on the DEIS, and FTA’s and SEPTA’s responses to substantive comments. For further information concerning this combined FEIS/ROD, contact the following individuals: FTA Contact SEPTA Agency Contact Timothy Lidiak Ryan T. Judge Community Planner Manager, Strategic Planning Federal Transit Administration SEPTA, 9th Floor 1835 Market Street, Suite 1910 1234 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Philadelphia, PA 19107 King of Prussia Rail Extension Project – FEIS Page 1 of 1 Table of Contents January 2021 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1-1 Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Statement ................................................. 1-1 Project Purpose and Need ........................................................................ 1-1 Alternatives Development and Selection of the Preferred Alternative .......................... 2-3 Descriptions of the Preferred and No Action Alternatives .......................... 2-5 Effectiveness in Achieving the Purpose and Need .................................... 2-7 Transportation and Safety Effects ............................................................. 2-9 Impacts to the Natural and Human Environment ..................................... 2-14 Public Involvement and Outreach ........................................................... 2-16 Project Costs and Funding ...................................................................... 2-17 Balancing Benefits and Impacts .................................................................................. 3-18 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Project ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Context ........................................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2.1 Existing Land Use ...................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Planned Development and Changing Land Use ........................................ 1-5 1.2.3 Population and Employment Growth ......................................................... 1-5 1.2.4 Existing Rail Transportation ....................................................................... 1-6 1.2.5 Existing Bus Transportation ....................................................................... 1-7 1.2.6 Commuter Shuttle Service ....................................................................... 1-12 1.2.7 Transit Service Markets ........................................................................... 1-12 1.2.8 Roadways ................................................................................................ 1-13 1.3 Project History ........................................................................................................... 1-14 1.4 Need for the Project ................................................................................................... 1-16 1.4.1 Need for Faster, More Reliable Public Transit Service to the King of ............ Prussia Area ........................................................................................... 1-16 1.4.2 Need for Improved Transit Connections to and within the King of ................. Prussia/Valley Forge Area ...................................................................... 1-17 1.4.3 Need to Better Serve Existing Transit Patrons and Accommodate ................ New Patrons ........................................................................................... 1-18 King of Prussia Rail Extension Project – FEIS TOC-i Table of Contents January 2021 Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Summary of the Planning and DEIS Processes .......................................................... 2-1 2.2 Refinements to the Recommended LPA After the DEIS ............................................. 2-5 2.3 Alternatives Considered .............................................................................................. 2-7 2.3.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................................. 2-9 2.3.2 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................ 2-10 2.4 Evaluation of the FEIS Alternatives ........................................................................... 2-46 2.4.1 Effectiveness in Achieving the Purpose and Need .................................. 2-46 2.4.2 Environmental Benefits and Impacts ....................................................... 2-48 Chapter 3 Transportation Effects .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Public Transportation ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Methodology .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................... 3-8 3.2 Roadways .................................................................................................................. 3-17 3.2.1 Methodology ............................................................................................ 3-17 3.2.2 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-18 3.2.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 3-20 3.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................... 3-30 3.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................ 3-30 3.3.2 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-31 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 3-31 3.4 Public Parking Facilities ............................................................................................. 3-32 3.4.1 Methodology ............................................................................................ 3-32 3.4.2 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-33 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 3-33 3.5 Railroad Facilities and Operations ............................................................................. 3-33 3.5.1 Methodology ............................................................................................ 3-33 3.5.2 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-33 3.5.3
Recommended publications
  • NS Streetcar Line Portland, Oregon

    NS Streetcar Line Portland, Oregon

    Portland State University PDXScholar Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Publications and Presentations Planning 6-24-2014 Do TODs Make a Difference? NS Streetcar Line Portland, Oregon Jenny H. Liu Portland State University, [email protected] Zakari Mumuni Portland State University Matt Berggren Portland State University Matt Miller University of Utah Arthur C. Nelson University of Utah SeeFollow next this page and for additional additional works authors at: https:/ /pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac Part of the Transportation Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Liu, Jenny H.; Mumuni, Zakari; Berggren, Matt; Miller, Matt; Nelson, Arthur C.; and Ewing, Reid, "Do TODs Make a Difference? NS Streetcar Line Portland, Oregon" (2014). Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations. 124. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac/124 This Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Authors Jenny H. Liu, Zakari Mumuni, Matt Berggren, Matt Miller, Arthur C. Nelson, and Reid Ewing This report is available at PDXScholar: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac/124 NS Streetcar Line Portland, Oregon Do TODs Make a Difference? Jenny H. Liu, Zakari Mumuni, Matt Berggren, Matt Miller, Arthur C. Nelson & Reid Ewing Portland State University 6/24/2014 ______________________________________________________________________________ DO TODs MAKE A DIFFERENCE? 1 of 35 Section 1-INTRODUCTION 2 of 35 ______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents 1-INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................
  • Eastwick Intermodal Center

    Eastwick Intermodal Center

    Eastwick Intermodal Center January 2020 New vo,k City • p-~ d DELAWARE VALLEY DVRPC's vision for the Greater Ph iladelphia Region ~ is a prosperous, innovative, equitable, resilient, and fJ REGl!rpc sustainable region that increases mobility choices PLANNING COMMISSION by investing in a safe and modern transportation system; Ni that protects and preserves our nat ural resources w hile creating healthy communities; and that fosters greater opportunities for all. DVRPC's mission is to achieve this vision by convening the widest array of partners to inform and facilitate data-driven decision-making. We are engaged across the region, and strive to be lea ders and innovators, exploring new ideas and creating best practices. TITLE VI COMPLIANCE / DVRPC fully complies with Title VJ of the Civil Rights Act of 7964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 7987, Executive Order 72898 on Environmental Justice, and related nondiscrimination mandates in all programs and activities. DVRPC's website, www.dvrpc.org, may be translated into multiple languages. Publications and other public documents can usually be made available in alternative languages and formats, if requested. DVRPC's public meetings are always held in ADA-accessible facilities, and held in transit-accessible locations whenever possible. Translation, interpretation, or other auxiliary services can be provided to individuals who submit a request at least seven days prior to a public meeting. Translation and interpretation services for DVRPC's projects, products, and planning processes are available, generally free of charge, by calling (275) 592-7800. All requests will be accommodated to the greatest extent possible. Any person who believes they have been aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice by DVRPC under Title VI has a right to file a formal complaint.
  • Graduate Studies Housing Guide 2021

    Graduate Studies Housing Guide 2021

    Graduate Student Housing Guide College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Housing Guide Villanova University does not offer any on-campus housing for graduate students. This Housing Guide is meant to give you guidance in acclimating yourself to the Villanova area, help you find housing, give you tips about moving to the region, and introduce you to the Graduate Student Housing Blog (www.villanovagradhousing.com). Villanova’s Location Villanova is located in Villanova, Pennsylvania. Located in Radnor Township, Delaware County, Villanova is a suburb of Philadelphia, approximately 12 miles west of Center City Philadelphia. Villanova is part of a string of small towns known as the “Main Line.” The Main Line refers to the suburbs located west of the city along the SEPTA Paoli/Thorndale train line. Some of the towns along the Main Line, include, Merion Station, Narberth, Wynnewood, Ardmore, Haverford, Bryn Mawr, Rosemont, Villanova, Wayne, and Devon. Any of these towns would be no more than a 15-20 minute drive from Villanova’s campus. If you are using your GPS, you will want to use “800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, PA 19085” to locate campus. 1 Transportation Villanova’s campus is very conveniently located both by car and public transportation. By Car If you plan to bring a car, please be aware that Pennsylvania has some of the highest vehicle insurance rates in the country, as well as a more complicated automobile registration process. If it is at all possible and you do not need to establish residency, you may want to consider keeping your former license and registration.
  • What Light Rail Can Do for Cities

    What Light Rail Can Do for Cities

    WHAT LIGHT RAIL CAN DO FOR CITIES A Review of the Evidence Final Report: Appendices January 2005 Prepared for: Prepared by: Steer Davies Gleave 28-32 Upper Ground London SE1 9PD [t] +44 (0)20 7919 8500 [i] www.steerdaviesgleave.com Passenger Transport Executive Group Wellington House 40-50 Wellington Street Leeds LS1 2DE What Light Rail Can Do For Cities: A Review of the Evidence Contents Page APPENDICES A Operation and Use of Light Rail Schemes in the UK B Overseas Experience C People Interviewed During the Study D Full Bibliography P:\projects\5700s\5748\Outputs\Reports\Final\What Light Rail Can Do for Cities - Appendices _ 01-05.doc Appendix What Light Rail Can Do For Cities: A Review Of The Evidence P:\projects\5700s\5748\Outputs\Reports\Final\What Light Rail Can Do for Cities - Appendices _ 01-05.doc Appendix What Light Rail Can Do For Cities: A Review of the Evidence APPENDIX A Operation and Use of Light Rail Schemes in the UK P:\projects\5700s\5748\Outputs\Reports\Final\What Light Rail Can Do for Cities - Appendices _ 01-05.doc Appendix What Light Rail Can Do For Cities: A Review Of The Evidence A1. TYNE & WEAR METRO A1.1 The Tyne and Wear Metro was the first modern light rail scheme opened in the UK, coming into service between 1980 and 1984. At a cost of £284 million, the scheme comprised the connection of former suburban rail alignments with new railway construction in tunnel under central Newcastle and over the Tyne. Further extensions to the system were opened to Newcastle Airport in 1991 and to Sunderland, sharing 14 km of existing Network Rail track, in March 2002.
  • Light Rail Transit (LRT) ♦Rapid ♦Streetcar

    Light Rail Transit (LRT) ♦Rapid ♦Streetcar

    Methodological Considerations in Assessing the Urban Economic and Land-Use Impacts of Light Rail Development Lyndon Henry Transportation Planning Consultant Mobility Planning Associates Austin, Texas Olivia Schneider Researcher Light Rail Now Rochester, New York David Dobbs Publisher Light Rail Now Austin, Texas Evidence-Based Consensus: Major Transit Investment Does Influence Economic Development … … But by how much? How to evaluate it? (No easy answer) Screenshot of Phoenix Business Journal headline: L. Henry Study Focus: Three Typical Major Urban Transit Modes ■ Light Rail Transit (LRT) ♦Rapid ♦Streetcar ■ Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Why Include BRT? • Particularly helps illustrate methodological issues • Widespread publicity of assertions promoting BRT has generated national and international interest in transit-related economic development issues Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) Widely publicized assertion: “Per dollar of transit investment, and under similar conditions, Bus Rapid Transit leverages more transit-oriented development investment than Light Rail Transit or streetcars.” Key Issues in Evaluating Transit Project’s Economic Impact • Was transit project a catalyst to economic development or just an adjunctive amenity? • Other salient factors involved in stimulating economic development? • Evaluated by analyzing preponderance of civic consensus and other contextual factors Data Sources: Economic Impacts • Formal studies • Tallies/assessments by civic groups, business associations, news media, etc. • Reliability
  • Norristown Transportation Center to Graterford

    Norristown Transportation Center to Graterford

    SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SUBURBAN TRANSIT AND CONTRACT OPERATIONS ______________________________________ TARIFF NO. 155 SUPPLEMENT NO. 26 ______________________________________ LOCAL RATES OF FARE AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE FURNISHING OF PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION ON REGULAR SCHEDULED SERVICE ______________________________________ ISSUED: March 17, 2010 APPROVED: AMENDED: EFFECTIVE: ISSUED BY: Joseph M. Casey General Manager 1234 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19107-3780 CHANGES MADE BY THIS TARIFF 1. The title cover and related text in sections 3, 4, 10 and 20 has been changed from Suburban Transit Division to Suburban Transit and Contract Operations to reflect the nature of Suburban Transit routes operated by Victory and Frontier Districts, as well as transit services contracted to a private carrier. 2. Fare Zones are revised on the following routes as part of the FY 2012 Annual Service Plan: 92, 95, 98, 115, 119, 127, 130 and 139. New Routes 126 and 133 are included. Routes 304 and 314 would be discontinued. These fare zone changes would take effect upon SEPTA Board approval of the FY 2012 Annual Service Plan and funding availability. 3. Fare Zones are revised on the following routes as part of the FY 2011 Annual Service Plan: 97, 105 and 106. 4. Route 100 is now known as Norristown High Speed Line. 5. All references to 69th Street Terminal are changed to read 69th Street Transportation Center (69th Street TC). 6. Route 129 references to Torresdale have been updated to reflect what is printed on the public timetable and destination signs. 7. Fare zone information is revised for Routes 204, 205 and 306. 8. Information regarding Route 305 has been removed 9.
  • Joint International Light Rail Conference

    Joint International Light Rail Conference

    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH Number E-C145 July 2010 Joint International Light Rail Conference Growth and Renewal April 19–21, 2009 Los Angeles, California Cosponsored by Transportation Research Board American Public Transportation Association TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Chair: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Vice Chair: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Division Chair for NRC Oversight: C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010–2011 TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES COUNCIL Chair: Robert C. Johns, Associate Administrator and Director, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts Technical Activities Director: Mark R. Norman, Transportation Research Board Jeannie G. Beckett, Director of Operations, Port of Tacoma, Washington, Marine Group Chair Cindy J. Burbank, National Planning and Environment Practice Leader, PB, Washington, D.C., Policy and Organization Group Chair Ronald R. Knipling, Principal, safetyforthelonghaul.com, Arlington, Virginia, System Users Group Chair Edward V. A. Kussy, Partner, Nossaman, LLP, Washington, D.C., Legal Resources Group Chair Peter B. Mandle, Director, Jacobs Consultancy, Inc., Burlingame, California, Aviation Group Chair Mary Lou Ralls, Principal, Ralls Newman, LLC, Austin, Texas, Design and Construction Group Chair Daniel L. Roth, Managing Director, Ernst & Young Orenda Corporate Finance, Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Rail Group Chair Steven Silkunas, Director of Business Development, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Public Transportation Group Chair Peter F. Swan, Assistant Professor of Logistics and Operations Management, Pennsylvania State, Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania, Freight Systems Group Chair Katherine F.
  • Characteristics of Metro Networks and Methodology for Their Evaluation

    Characteristics of Metro Networks and Methodology for Their Evaluation

    22 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1162 Characteristics of Metro Networks and Methodology for Their Evaluation ANTONIO Musso AND VuKAN R. VucH1c PURPOSE, ORGANIZATION, AND SCOPE Presented In this paper are the results of research on metro (rapid transit) networks, focusing on their geometric charac­ teristics. The object Is to define the most important measures, Presented in this paper is a systematic set of quantitative Indicators, and characteristics of geometric forms that can elements that defines the network characteristics of metro sys­ Improve the present predominantly empirical methods used in tems that can be used for their description, evaluation, and metro network planning and analysis. Several measures of comparative analysis. Examples of such evaluations include metro network size and rorm, including length, number or planning of new or analysis of existing networks, their com­ lines, and stations, which express the extensiveness of the sys­ parison with networks of other cities, and comparison of alter­ tem, are selected; they are also needed for derivations of various indicators. A number of selected indicators are then native network extensions. presented. These represent the most effective tool for network The quantitative elements are grouped into five general cate­ comparison because most of them are Independent of network gories, as follows: size. Several Indicators relating metro network to the city size and population express the degree of adequacy of the network 1. Measures of network size and form, to meet the city's needs. Based on experiences from a number of metro systems, characteristics of different types of lines 2. Indicators of network topology, (radial, diametrical, circumferential, and other) are defined.
  • Addendum to Determination of Effects Report Amtrak Zoo to Paoli Electrification Transmission Line Project

    Addendum to Determination of Effects Report Amtrak Zoo to Paoli Electrification Transmission Line Project

    ADDENDUM TO DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS REPORT AMTRAK ZOO TO PAOLI ELECTRIFICATION TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CHESTER, DELAWARE, MONTGOMERY, AND PHILADELPHIA COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA E.R. # 2012-0005-042 JUNE 2016 Prepared for: National Railroad Passenger Corporation The Burns Group 30th Street Station 1835 Market Street 2955 Market Street Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Prepared by: Stell Environmental 25 East Main Street Elverson, PA 19520 Stell Project No.: 1123 Addendum Determination of Effects Report Amtrak Zoo to Paoli Electrification Transmission Line Project TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 History of the Project ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Revised Number of Historic Properties within the Project APE ..................................... 1-2 1.3 Revised Catenary Structure Heights ................................................................................ 1-2 2.0 EFFECTS RE-ASSESSMENT ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES ........... 2-1 2.1 Resource 8: Merion Station (Key No. 097341) .............................................................. 2-1 2.2 Resource 9: Wynnewood Station (Key No. 097340)...................................................... 2-3 2.3 Resource 13: Villanova University Campus (Key No. 105136) ....................................
  • Portland's Big Step

    Portland's Big Step

    THE INTERNATIONAL LIGHT RAIL MAGAZINE HEADLINES l Grand Paris Express project approved l Chicago invites new L-Train bids l New cross-industry lobbying group formed CROSSING THE RIVER: PORtland’s big step 120 years of the Manx Electric Railway Budapest renewals Czech car building The challenges of From Tatra to modernising one PRAGOIMEX: of Europe’s Proven tram largest tramways technology MAY 2013 No. 905 WWW . LRTA . ORG l WWW . TRAMNEWS . NET £3.80 TAUT_1305_Cover.indd 1 04/04/2013 16:59 Grooved rail to carry you far into the future Together we make the difference At Tata Steel, we believe that the secret to developing rail products and services that address the demands of today and tomorrow, lies in our lasting relationships with customers. Our latest innovation is a high performance grooved rail that has three times wear resistance* and is fully weld-repairable, responding to our customers’ needs for reduced life cycle costs. Tata Steel Tata Steel Rail Rail 2 Avenue du Président Kennedy PO Box 1, Brigg Road 78100 Saint Germain en Laye Scunthorpe, DN16 1BP France UK T: +33 (0) 139 046 300 T: +44 (0) 1724 402112 F: +33 (0) 139 046 344 F: +44 (0) 1724 403442 www.tatasteelrail.com [email protected] *Compared to R260 Untitled-2 1 03/04/2013 11:26 TS_Rail Sector Ad_Revised.indd 1 25/09/2012 08:57 Contents The official journal of the Light Rail Transit Association 164 News 164 MAY 2013 Vol. 76 No. 905 European electrified transport lobbying group launched; Not- www.tramnews.net tingham enters intensive works phase; US public transport’s EDITORIAL 57-year high; 200km Grand Paris Express metro network Editor: Simon Johnston approved; Chicago invites bid for next-generation L-train cars; Tel: +44 (0)1832 281131 E-mail: [email protected] Eaglethorpe Barns, Warmington, Peterborough PE8 6TJ, UK.
  • Minneapolis Streetcar Feasibility Study Final Report

    Minneapolis Streetcar Feasibility Study Final Report

    Figure ES-1 Candidate Streetcar Corridors 49TH AVE NE 5TH ST NW COUNTY ROAD E2 W EAST RIVER RD NE Highland ECKBERG DR AVE N AVE Legend BROOKLYN BLVD Brooklyn Center Hilltop 8TH AVE NW AVE 8TH 53RD AVE N NE AVE Transit Centers HUMBOLDT COUNTY RD E 1ST ST NW STINSON BLVD NE STINSON BLVD Crystal VE N 44TH AVE NE T Existing 51ST AVE N Fridley NE JEFFERSON ST UNIVERSITY 44TH AVE NE New Brighton Arden Hills ANT AVE N AVE ANT T RD BRIGHTON NEW FRANCE A FRANCE Columbia Heights Planned Poplar 49TH AVE N BRY JonesCandidate ST NE ST Silver Columbia Heights 8 Y SHINGLE CREEK DR T Primaryt Transit Network (PTN) Streetcar CorridorJohanna 40TH AVE NE SILVER LN MAIN ST NE ST MAIN ARTHUR Definite PTN OSSEO RD HIGHWAY 100 OLD HIGHWA LAKE DR WEBBER PKWY Recommended PTN 44TH AVE N 37TH AVE NE Hart COUNTY ROAD D W Candidate PTN Little Johanna 42ND A Robbinsdale VE N Hiawatha Corridor Light Rail Line Alignment & StationsLangton T WEST BROADW 5TH ST NE VE N VE Robbinsdale RD LAKE SILVER SAINT ANTHONY PKWY I-35 BRT and Stations (future) 94 Langton Y MEMORIAL DR MEMORIAL Y ¥ AY AVE NE AVE CENTRAL Central Corridor Light Rail Line Alignment & Stations DOWLING AVE N JOHNSON NE ST VICTOR (future)St. Anthony A CLEVELAND NEW BRIGHTON BLVD Limited Stop M 29TH AVE NE Bottineau BRT Alignment & Stations Hennepin County B 29TH AVE NE COUNTY ROAD C W (future) Crystal Service F Southwest Corridor Transitway Alignment & Stations 27TH AVE NE Roseville FRANCE AVE N AVE FRANCE (future - alignmentsSAINT ANTHONY BLVD still in planning stages) COUNTY ROAD B2 W LOWRY AVE N Limited
  • Philadelphia Zoo to Paoli Transmission Line Project Page | I

    Philadelphia Zoo to Paoli Transmission Line Project Page | I

    Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation March 2017 Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation March 2017 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (ES) .................................................................................................................. v ES – Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................. v ES – Alternatives Analysis ....................................................................................................................... v ES – Affected Environment ..................................................................................................................... vi ES – Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................... vii ES – Agency Coordination and Public Involvement ................................................................................ x ES – Section 4(f) ...................................................................................................................................... xi 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................