Southeast-Universities-Hobby Planning Study

Southeast-Universities-Hobby Planning Study

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

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    206 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us