Alternatives February 3, 2004 Analysis Report METRO Mobility Southeast-Universities-Hobby Planning Study ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT Prepared for: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County Houston, Texas Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. February 2004 Contents 1. PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Study Area Setting and Context 1-1 1.2.1 Study Area Description 1-1 1.3 Growth, Development, and Mobility Issues 1-5 1.3.1 Metropolitan Area Growth 1-5 1.3.2 Corridor Overview: Land Use 1-9 1.3.3 Corridor Growth 1-10 1.3.4 Travel Patterns in Corridor 1-10 1.4 Transportation Facilities and Services Related to the Study Area 1-11 1.4.1 Existing Roadway Facilities, Level-of-Service and Safety 1-11 1.4.2 Existing Transit Services/Ridership 1-12 1.4.3 Future Level of Public Transportation Service and Use 1-16 1.5 Transportation Goals and Objectives 1-16 1.5.1 General 1-16 1.5.2 Federal Guidance 1-17 1.5.3 Regional Guidance 1-18 1.5.4 Incorporating the goals into the MTP 1-20 1.5.5 METRO Mobility Program 1-20 1.5.6 Other Studies 1-21 1.5.7 Proposed Goals and Objectives 1-21 1.5.8 The Use of Results of Detailed Evaluation 1-25 1.6 Specific Problems Related to the Study Area 1-27 1.6.1 Transit/Roadway Deficiencies 1-27 1.6.2 Linkage Deficiencies 1-27 1.6.3 Air Quality Concerns 1-28 1.6.4 Other Issues 1-28 1.6.5 Summary of Needs to be Addressed 1-28 1.7 Consistency with Local, State, and Federal Planning Process 1-29 1.7.1 Agencies Involved in the Corridor Planning Process 1-29 1.7.2 Role of the AA in the Project Development Process 1-30 1.7.3 Documentation of Consistency with the Planning Process 1-31 1.7.4 Relationship to Other On-going Studies 1-31 2. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 2-1 Southeast-Universities-Hobby Planning Study Page i Issue Date: February 3, 2004 2.1 No-Build Alternative 2-1 2.1.1 Existing METRO Service and Programmed Improvements 2-1 2.1.2 Existing METRO Capital Facilities and Programmed Improvements 2-8 2.1.3 Highway and Roadway Improvements 2-8 2.1.4 Other Transportation Improvements 2-14 2.2 Developing the Long List of Possible Build Alternatives 2-14 2.2.1 Route Alignment Alternatives 2-14 2.2.2 Technologies to be Considered 2-16 2.3 Screening the Long List of Build Alternatives Process 2-19 2.3.1 Demand 2-19 2.3.2 Design 2-20 2.3.3 Development 2-20 2.3.4 Environment 2-21 2.3.5 Evaluation Results 2-21 2.4 Results of Screening 2-25 2.4.1 Alignments 2-25 2.4.2 Technology Options 2-31 2.5 Refinement of the Short List 2-31 2.5.1 Alignments 2-32 2.5.2 Stations 2-60 2.5.3 Systemwide Facilities and Equipment 2-77 2.5.4 Operating Plans 2-85 2.5.5 Vehicle Requirements 2-85 3. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING OF DETAILED ALTERNATIVES 3-1 3.1 Urban Elements 3-1 3.1.1 Parkland and Recreational Areas 3-1 3.1.2 Urban Forestry 3-1 3.1.3 Community and Neighborhood Disruption 3-1 3.1.4 Land Use 3-1 3.1.5 Acquisition and Displacements 3-6 3.1.6 Navigable Waters 3-6 3.1.7 Noise and Vibration 3-6 3.2 Natural Elements 3-8 3.2.1 Air Quality 3-8 3.2.2 Water Quality 3-8 3.2.3 Wetlands 3-8 3.2.4 Farmlands 3-8 3.3 Cultural Resources 3-8 Southeast-Universities-Hobby Planning Study Page ii Issue Date: February 3, 2004 3.4 Construction Impacts 3-11 3.5 Cumulative Impacts 3-11 3.6 Environmental Justice Issues 3-12 4. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS 4-1 4.1 Transit Impacts 4-1 4.1.1 Demand Potential Methodology and Results 4-1 4.1.2 Roadway Impacts 4-2 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 5-1 6. COST ESTIMATES 6-1 6.1 Capital Costs 6-1 6.2 Corridor Operating and Maintenance Costs 6-4 6.2.1 Methodology 6-4 7. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 7-1 7.1 Goals Attainment 7-1 7.2 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 7-2 7.3 Summary of Potential Transportation Impacts 7-4 7.3.1 Demographic Data for the AHCT Alternatives 7-5 7.3.2 Transit Use (Demand Potential) Data for the AHCT Alternatives 7-6 7.3.3 Traffic Effects of the AHCT Alternatives 7-7 7.4 Potential Economic Impacts 7-7 7.5 Community and Political Positions 7-7 7.6 Study Findings 7-9 7.6.1 Findings for the Four Short-Listed Alternatives 7-9 7.6.2 Sector-Level Findings 7-9 7.6.3 Possible Route Segment Choices 7-24 7.6.4 Summary of Findings 7-25 8. SYSTEM PLAN ISSUES 8-1 Southeast-Universities-Hobby Planning Study Page iii Issue Date: February 3, 2004 9. NEXT STEPS 9-1 10. AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 10-1 10.1 Agency Coordination 10-1 10.2 Public Involvement 10-1 10.2.1 Public Involvement Process 10-1 10.2.2 Public Involvement Strategies 10-2 10.2.3 Additional Avenues for Increased Community Involvement 10-6 10.3 Communications 10-6 10.3.1 METRO Southeast-Universities-Hobby Planning Study Newsletter 10-7 10.3.2 METRO Southeast-Universities-Hobby Planning Study Web Page 10-7 List of Tables Table 1-1. Employment and Population Forecasts...................................................................................1-6 Table 1-2. Household Income and Household Size in Year 2000............................................................1-6 Table 1-3. Ethnicity of the Population (percent of total in each area).......................................................1-9 Table 1-4. Average Levels of Service (Volume/Capacity Ratios) on Freeways and Major Arterials within the Southeast-Universities-Hobby Corridor ..................................................................1-12 Table 1-5. Approximate Bus Ridership in the Southeast-Universities-Hobby Corridor ..........................1-13 Table 1-6. Southeast-Universities Hobby Corridor Study Goals and Objectives....................................1-22 Table 1-7. Correlation Between Southeast-Universities Hobby Corridor Study Goals and Objectives and the 2022 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Goals .........................................................1-22 Table 1-8. Criteria for Initial Screening of Conceptual Alignment Alternatives .......................................1-24 Table 1-9. Objectives and Corresponding Evaluation Measures ...........................................................1-26 Table 2-1. Summary of No Build METRO Service Characteristics............................................................2-5 Table 2-2. No Build METRO Capital Facilities...........................................................................................2-8 Table 2-3. Criteria for Levels of Mobility ..................................................................................................2-12 Table 2-4. No Build Regional Roadway Improvements Through 2022 ...................................................2-12 Table 2-5. Summary of Advanced High Capacity Transit Options Evaluated for the Southeast- Universities-Hobby Corridor...........................................................................................2-19 Table 2-6. Initial Alternatives: Environmental Screening by Sectors ......................................................2-23 Table 2-7. Screening Evaluation Matrix for the Long List of AHCT Route Alternatives: Technical Team Results ...........................................................................................................................2-24 Table 2-8. Screening Evaluation Matrix for the Long List of AHCT Route Alternatives: Results Including Community Issues Committee Views ............................................................................2-24 Table 2-9. Alternative SL-1 Base Segments............................................................................................2-33 Table 2-10. Alternative SL-2 Base Segments..........................................................................................2-33 Table 2-11. Alternative SL-3 Base Segments..........................................................................................2-34 Table 2-12. Alternative SL-4 Base Segments..........................................................................................2-34 Table 2-13. Summary of Station Locations and Characteristics.............................................................2-61 Table 2-14. Potential Light Maintenance and Storage Facility Sites ......................................................2-83 Table 2-15. Alternative SL-1 – AHCT Station-to-Station Distances and Running Times ......................2-86 Table 2-16. Alternative SL-2 – AHCT Station-to-Station Distances and Running Times ......................2-87 Table 2-17. Alternative SL-3 – AHCT Station-to-Station Distances and Running Times ......................2-88 Table 2-18. Alternative SL-4 – AHCT Station-to-Station ........................................................................2-88 Table 2-19. Light Rail Vehicle Fleet – Preliminary Estimate...................................................................2-89 Table 2-20. Bus Rapid Transit Vehicle Fleet – Preliminary Estimate .....................................................2-89 Table 3-1. Southeast Universities-Hobby Alternatives A23 Evaluation ....................................................3-2 Southeast-Universities-Hobby Planning Study Page iv Issue Date: February 3, 2004 Table 3-2. Screening Distances (feet) ......................................................................................................3-6 Table 3-3. Potential Noise and Vibration Impacts for Category 2 Receivers - LRT..................................3-7 Table 3-4. Potential Noise and Vibration Impacts for Category 2 Receivers - BRT .................................3-7 Table 4-1. P. M. Peak Hour Average Delay/Level-of-Service Summary - Year 2007 ...............................4-6 Table 4-2. P. M. Peak Hour Average Delay/Level-of-Service Summary