//// Multi-Modal Corridor StudyMulti-Modal Corridor Study
Project Status Briefing
Planning Board
Project Status Briefing
Planning BoardPlanning Boardof the
Planning Boardof the
Maryland-National Capital Park Maryland-National Capital Park
and Planning Commissionand Planning Commission
April 30, 2009April 30, 2009
/ Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline
Introduction / BackgroundIntroduction / BackgroundIntroduction / BackgroundIntroduction / Background
I-270/US 15 AlternativesI-270/US 15 Alternatives
Corridor Cities Transitway AlternativesCorridor Cities Transitway Alternatives
Next StepsNext StepsNext StepsNext Steps
1
/ Study AreaStudy AreaMulti-Modal Study by SHA and MTA for MDOTMulti-Modal Study by SHA and MTA for MDOT
NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT:NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT:Biggs Ford RoadBiggs Ford Road
NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT:NORTHERN STUDY LIMIT:Biggs Ford RoadBiggs Ford Road
Project Team with SHA, MTA, Counties and CitiesProject Team with SHA, MTA, Counties and Cities
30 +/- miles of Limited Access Highway30 +/- miles of Limited Access Highway
1.5 miles of New Alignment Highway (MD 75)1.5 miles of New Alignment Highway (MD 75)
14 +/- mile Transitway14 +/- mile TransitwaySOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:SOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:Shady Grove RoadShady Grove Road
SOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:SOUTHERN STUDY LIMIT:Shady Grove RoadShady Grove Road
2
/ Purpose And NeedPurpose And Need
PurposeT i ti t ti th t dd ti
PurposeT i ti t ti th t dd tiTo investigate options that address congestion and improve safety along the I-270/US 15 Corridor due to existing and projected growth
To investigate options that address congestion and improve safety along the I-270/US 15 Corridor due to existing and projected growthCorridor due to existing and projected growth within the corridor.Corridor due to existing and projected growth within the corridor.
NeedThe I-270/US 15 Corridor provides an essential
NeedThe I-270/US 15 Corridor provides an essential e 0/US 5 Co do p o des a esse aconnection between the Washington DC metropolitan area and central and western Maryland It is an essential corridor for carrying
e 0/US 5 Co do p o des a esse aconnection between the Washington DC metropolitan area and central and western Maryland It is an essential corridor for carryingMaryland. It is an essential corridor for carrying local and long distance trips, both within and beyond the corridor.
Maryland. It is an essential corridor for carrying local and long distance trips, both within and beyond the corridor.
3
beyond the corridor.beyond the corridor.
/ Recent TimelineRecent Timeline
June 2002: Location/Design Public Hearings (DEIS)June 2002: Location/Design Public Hearings (DEIS)(DEIS)Fall 2003: MDOT Requested Managed Lanes (DEIS)Fall 2003: MDOT Requested Managed Lanes EvaluationJune 2004: Public Information Meeting on EvaluationJune 2004: Public Information Meeting on gExpress Toll Lanes (ETL’s) and Minimization Options/Refinements
gExpress Toll Lanes (ETL’s) and Minimization Options/Refinements2005 – 2008: Engineering/Environmental Studies2005 – 2008: Engineering/Environmental StudiesSpring 2009: Public Hearings (AA/EA)Spring 2009: Public Hearings (AA/EA)
4
/ Changes Since 2002Changes Since 2002
Managed Lanes – Evaluate FeasibilityManaged Lanes – Evaluate Feasibilityg yFHWA/FTA Guidance Alternatives Analysis (AA)
g yFHWA/FTA Guidance Alternatives Analysis (AA) Alternatives Analysis (AA) Transit Modeling Alternatives Analysis (AA) Transit Modeling NEPA Documentation
Alternatives NEPA Documentation
Alternatives Travel Forecast 2030 Reconfigured I-270/MD 85 Interchange Travel Forecast 2030 Reconfigured I-270/MD 85 Interchange Reconfigured I-270/MD 85 Interchange Reconfigured I-270/I-370 Interchange Reconfigured I-270/MD 85 Interchange Reconfigured I-270/I-370 Interchange
5
/ Changes Since 2002Changes Since 2002
Alternatives (cont.)Alternatives (cont.)Alternatives (cont.) Detailed Avoidance/Minimization Studies
Alternatives (cont.) Detailed Avoidance/Minimization Studies
Monocacy National Battlefield Fox Chapel neighborhood (Germantown) Monocacy National Battlefield Fox Chapel neighborhood (Germantown)
Advanced US 15/Monocacy Blvd. Interchange
I t A l i f ETL Alt ti Advanced US 15/Monocacy Blvd. Interchange
I t A l i f ETL Alt tiImpact Analysis for ETL Alternatives Air, Noise, Communities, Cultural, Natural,
Impact Analysis for ETL Alternatives Air, Noise, Communities, Cultural, Natural,Air, Noise, Communities, Cultural, Natural,
TrafficAir, Noise, Communities, Cultural, Natural, Traffic
6
/ Corridor AlternativesCorridor Alternatives
DEIS EA Alt. 1: No-Build Alternative Alt. 6A: Enhanced MP w/1 ETL/LRT
Alt. 2: TSM/TDM Alternative Alt. 6B: Enhanced MP w/1 ETL/BRT
Alt 3A MP HOV /LRT Alt 7A E h d MP /2 ETL/LRTAlt. 3A: MP HOV w/LRT Alt. 7A: Enhanced MP w/2 ETL/LRTAlt. 3B: MP HOV w/ BRT Alt. 7B: Enhanced MP w/2 ETL/BRT
Alt. 4A: MP GPL w/LRTAlt. 4B: MP GPL w/BRT
Alt. 5A: Enhanced MP HOV/GPL w/LRTAlt 5B E h d MP HOV/GPL /BRTAlt. 5B: Enhanced MP HOV/GPL w/BRTAlt. 5C: Enhanced MP HOV/GPL w/Premium Bus
MP = Master PlanHOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Lane LRT = Light Rail on the CCTGPL = General-Purpose Lane BRT = Bus Rapid Transit on the CCT
MP = Master PlanHOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Lane LRT = Light Rail on the CCTGPL = General-Purpose Lane BRT = Bus Rapid Transit on the CCT
7
/ DEIS Alternatives 3A/B and 4A/BDEIS Alternatives 3A/B and 4A/B
Alternatives 3A/B, 4A/BI-270 (MD 121 to MD 85)
8
/ DEIS Alternatives 3A/B and 4A/BDEIS Alternatives 3A/B and 4A/B
Alternatives 3A/B, 4A/B, 5A/B/CI-270 (MD 124 to MD 117)
9
/ DEIS Alternatives 5A/B and 5CDEIS Alternatives 5A/B and 5C
Alternatives 5A/B/CI-270 (MD 121 to MD 85)
10
/ DEIS Alternatives 5A/B and 5CDEIS Alternatives 5A/B and 5C
Alternatives 3A/B, 4A/B, 5A/B/CI-270 (MD 124 to MD 117)
11
/ Express Toll LanesExpress Toll Lanes
ETLs are the latest type of “Managed ETLs are the latest type of “Managed Lanes”. Other types of managed lanes include
HOV Truck only Transit only and HOT
Lanes”. Other types of managed lanes include
HOV Truck only Transit only and HOTHOV, Truck only, Transit only, and HOT lanes.
Provides needed highway capacity
HOV, Truck only, Transit only, and HOT lanes.
Provides needed highway capacityProvides needed highway capacity to address congestion through an alternative funding strategy (toll financing) m ch sooner than
Provides needed highway capacity to address congestion through an alternative funding strategy (toll financing) m ch sooner thanfinancing) much sooner than traditional funding approaches allow.
financing) much sooner than traditional funding approaches allow.
12
/ Express Toll LanesExpress Toll LanesObjectives:
Offer Reliable and Predictable Travel Times and Choices
Objectives:Offer Reliable and Predictable Travel Times and ChoicesOffer Reliable and Predictable Travel Times and Choices
Promote Transit Solutions/Carpooling
Build Sustainable Highway Capacity Sooner
Offer Reliable and Predictable Travel Times and Choices
Promote Transit Solutions/Carpooling
Build Sustainable Highway Capacity SoonerBuild Sustainable Highway Capacity Sooner
Develop an Integrated Highway System that Optimizes Efficiency and Maximizes Flexibility
Build Sustainable Highway Capacity Sooner
Develop an Integrated Highway System that Optimizes Efficiency and Maximizes Flexibilityy
Capture Air Quality and Other Environmental Benefits
y
Capture Air Quality and Other Environmental Benefits
Improve Incident Response Time
Take Advantage of Technology:
Improve Incident Response Time
Take Advantage of Technology:Electronic Toll CollectionsElectronic Toll Collections
13
/ Express Toll LanesExpress Toll Lanes
MDOT’s Goal: Develop a Statewide ETL system that MDOT’s Goal: Develop a Statewide ETL system that optimizes efficiency and flexibility.Express Toll Lanes are being considered on controlled
hi h i i h i ti
optimizes efficiency and flexibility.Express Toll Lanes are being considered on controlled
hi h i i h i tiaccess highways experiencing chronic congestion during peak travel times.T P j t U d C t ti i M l d
access highways experiencing chronic congestion during peak travel times.T P j t U d C t ti i M l dTwo Projects Under Construction in MarylandOngoing Project Development Studies:Two Projects Under Construction in MarylandOngoing Project Development Studies: I-270 I-495/I-95 (Capital Beltway) MD 5
I-270 I-495/I-95 (Capital Beltway) MD 5 MD 5 23 Other Corridors Under Consideration MD 5 23 Other Corridors Under Consideration
14
/ I-270 ETL: Part of aBigger Picture
I-270 ETL: Part of aBigger PictureBigger PictureBigger Picture
Managed Lane Network Managed Lane Network would include:
• Virginia HOT Lanes
would include:
• Virginia HOT Lanes g(under construction)
• West Side Mobility Study
g(under construction)
• West Side Mobility StudyWest Side Mobility Study (feasibility study)
• Intercounty Connector
West Side Mobility Study (feasibility study)
• Intercounty Connector• Intercounty Connector (under construction)
I 270/US 15 Multi Modal
• Intercounty Connector (under construction)
I 270/US 15 Multi Modal• I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Study (in planning stage)
• I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal Study (in planning stage)
15
/ Express Toll LanesExpress Toll Lanes
16
/ I-270 ETL LimitsI-270 ETL Limits
ETLETLNORTHERN NORTHERN
LIMITLIMIT
ETLETLSOUTHERN SOUTHERN
LIMITLIMIT
North of MD 80 to South of I-370North of MD 80 to South of I-370
17
/ EA Alternatives 6A/BEA Alternatives 6A/B
Alternatives 6A/BMD 121 to ETL Terminus (North of MD 80)
18
/ EA Alternatives 6A/BEA Alternatives 6A/B
Alternatives 6A/B and 7A/BAlternatives 6A/B and 7A/BMD 117 to MD 124
19
/ EA Alternatives 7A/BEA Alternatives 7A/B
Alternatives 7 A/BMD 121 to ETL Terminus (North of MD 80)( )
20
/ EA Alternatives 7A/BEA Alternatives 7A/B
Alternatives 6A/B and 7A/BMD 117 to MD 124
21
/ I-270 ETL Northern AccessI-270 ETL Northern Access
Vehicles will access the ETL lanes via open access slip ramps in the following areas:Vehicles will access the ETL lanes via open access slip ramps in the following areas:ramps in the following areas: Northern Terminus South of MD 80 (slip ramps)
ramps in the following areas: Northern Terminus South of MD 80 (slip ramps) South of MD 80 (slip ramps)
I-270 Southbound GP to ETL (entry) I-270 Northbound ETL to GP (exit)
South of MD 80 (slip ramps) I-270 Southbound GP to ETL (entry) I-270 Northbound ETL to GP (exit)
North of MD 121 (slip ramps) I-270 Southbound ETL to GP and GP to ETL I-270 Northbound ETL to GP and GP to ETL
North of MD 121 (slip ramps) I-270 Southbound ETL to GP and GP to ETL I-270 Northbound ETL to GP and GP to ETL
22
/ I-270 ETL Southern AccessI-270 ETL Southern Access
Vehicles will access the ETL lanes via Direct Vehicles will access the ETL lanes via Direct Access Ramps from theseInterchanges: Access Ramps from theseInterchanges: g Newcut Road (NB/SB)
MD 118 (NB/SB)
g Newcut Road (NB/SB)
MD 118 (NB/SB) MD 118 (NB/SB)
Watkins Mill Road Area (NB/SB) and/or MD 117 (SB)
MD 118 (NB/SB)
Watkins Mill Road Area (NB/SB) and/or MD 117 (SB)
I-370/ICC (NB to/from EB) I-370/ICC (NB to/from EB)
23
/ Direct Access Ramp ExamplesDirect Access Ramp Examples
24
/ Highway Capital CostsHighway Capital Costs
Highway capital costs have been estimated for Highway capital costs have been estimated for g y proadways, interchanges, structures, earthwork, traffic control and environmental mitigation
g y proadways, interchanges, structures, earthwork, traffic control and environmental mitigationg
Highway capital costs include final design, right-of way acquisition and construction
g
Highway capital costs include final design, right-of way acquisition and constructionof-way acquisition and construction
Current estimate completed in early 2009
of-way acquisition and construction
Current estimate completed in early 2009
LocationLocationFrederick CountyFrederick County
Highway CostHighway Cost$ 1 472 M$ 1 472 MFrederick CountyFrederick County
City of FrederickCity of Frederick
Montgomery CountyMontgomery County
$ 1,472 M$ 1,472 M
$ 464 M$ 464 M
$ 2 642 M$ 2 642 M
25
Montgomery CountyMontgomery County $ 2,642 M$ 2,642 M
/ “Breakout” Projects“Breakout” Projects
I-270/MD 121 Interchange I-270/MD 121 Interchange g
I-270/Watkins Mill Road – New Interchange in Gaithersburg (Design phase)
g
I-270/Watkins Mill Road – New Interchange in Gaithersburg (Design phase)Gaithersburg (Design phase)
US 15/MD 26 Interchange – New Northbound
Gaithersburg (Design phase)
US 15/MD 26 Interchange – New Northbound On-ramp – Completed 2006
US 15/Monocacy Boulevard Interchange – New
On-ramp – Completed 2006
US 15/Monocacy Boulevard Interchange – NewUS 15/Monocacy Boulevard Interchange New Interchange (Design phase)US 15/Monocacy Boulevard Interchange New Interchange (Design phase)
26
/ CCT AlignmentCCT Alignment
27
/ CCT AlignmentCCT Alignment
17 stations (includes 4 beyond 2025)17 stations (includes 4 beyond 2025)( y )
Transit transfers at Metropolitan Grove (MARC), Shady Grove (WMATA Red Line) and local bus
( y )
Transit transfers at Metropolitan Grove (MARC), Shady Grove (WMATA Red Line) and local busShady Grove (WMATA Red Line), and local bus
Access from local streets, I-270 interchanges,
Shady Grove (WMATA Red Line), and local bus
Access from local streets, I-270 interchanges, and direct access ramps
Build Alternatives include Light Rail Transit
and direct access ramps
Build Alternatives include Light Rail TransitBuild Alternatives include Light Rail Transit (LRT), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
T it TSM Alt ti f t i b
Build Alternatives include Light Rail Transit (LRT), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
T it TSM Alt ti f t i bTransit TSM Alternative features premium bus on I-270 managed lanes (HOV or ETL) with service to CCT stations
Transit TSM Alternative features premium bus on I-270 managed lanes (HOV or ETL) with service to CCT stations
28
service to CCT stations service to CCT stations
/ King FarmKing Farm
29
/ Metropolitan GroveMetropolitan Grove
30
/ Right-of-Way PreservationRight-of-Way Preservation
Montgomery County Master Plans and Sector PlMontgomery County Master Plans and Sector PlPlansRight-of-Way StatusPlansRight-of-Way Status Approximately 35% lies within publicly controlled land
(i.e. – within existing street right-of-way or on land dedicated to the transitway)
Approximately 35% lies within publicly controlled land (i.e. – within existing street right-of-way or on land dedicated to the transitway)dedicated to the transitway)
Additional 25% has right-of-way protection through reservation or easement
dedicated to the transitway) Additional 25% has right-of-way protection through
reservation or easement Remaining 40% has no protections at this time
Preservation/Coordination with Local Remaining 40% has no protections at this time
Preservation/Coordination with LocalPreservation/Coordination with Local Jurisdictions MTA reviews development plans to ensure transitway
Preservation/Coordination with Local Jurisdictions MTA reviews development plans to ensure transitway
31
p p ypreservation
p p ypreservation
/ Operations & Maintenance FacilityOperations & Maintenance Facility
Needed for both LRT or BRTNeeded for both LRT or BRT
Site IdentificationSite Identification LRT must be adjacent to the transitway
BRT must be adjacent or within a reasonable distance
LRT must be adjacent to the transitway
BRT must be adjacent or within a reasonable distance
Site Layouts LRT Geometric Constraints and Grades
Site Layouts LRT Geometric Constraints and Grades LRT – Geometric Constraints and Grades
BRT – Optimal Facility Size (phasing)
LRT – Geometric Constraints and Grades
BRT – Optimal Facility Size (phasing)
5 Sites Identified and Included in AA/EA (one existing from DEIS and four new)5 Sites Identified and Included in AA/EA (one existing from DEIS and four new)
32
existing from DEIS and four new)existing from DEIS and four new)
/ Alternative AlignmentsAlternative Alignments
Crown Farm, Shady Grove Life Sciences Crown Farm, Shady Grove Life Sciences Center/Belward Farm, and KentlandsCenter/Belward Farm, and Kentlands
33
/ Results TableResults Table
Transit Alternative
Travel Time Shady Grove to
COMSAT
Ridership (Daily Boardings - Capital Cost
( illi 2007$)
Annual Operations and
Maintenance
CCT Alternatives Preliminary Travel Demand Forecasts & Cost Estimates
COMSAT (minutes)
( y g2030) (millions-2007$) Costs
(millions-2007$)
Alt. 6 and Trans. TSM60 6,000 - 7,000 $86.9 $14.8
Alt. 6 and Light Rail (A)36 24,000 - 30,000 $777.5 $28.1
Alt. 6 and Bus Rapid (B) 38 21,000 - 27,000 $449.9 $26.8
Alt. 7 and Light Rail (A)36 24,000 - 30,000 $777.5 $28.1
Alt. 7 and Bus Rapid (B) 38 21,000 - 27,000 $449.9 $26.8
34
/ Project FundingProject Funding
Federal – Section 5309 New Starts Federal – Section 5309 New Starts New fixed guideway systems (rail, bus rapid transit)
E tensions to e isting s stems
New fixed guideway systems (rail, bus rapid transit)
E tensions to e isting s stems Extensions to existing systems
Typically matched at 50%+
Extensions to existing systems
Typically matched at 50%+
Project funding decisions made jointly by FTA and Congress – national competition
Project funding decisions made jointly by FTA and Congress – national competition
State – Transportation Trust Fund
Local Jurisdictions
State – Transportation Trust Fund
Local JurisdictionsLocal Jurisdictions
Others
Local Jurisdictions
Others
35
/ Federal Approval ProcessFederal Approval Process
Alternatives AnalysisSystems Planning
Locally PreferredAlternative We are
ht
FTA Decision On Entry
into PE
We are Here
men
t Ove
rsig
h
Preliminary EngineeringMajor Development
Stage
FTA Decision Point
ject
Man
agem FTA Decision
On Entry into Final Design
Full FundingFinal Design
Pro
j Full Funding Grant Agreement
36
Construction
/ New Starts CriteriaNew Starts Criteria
Summary Rating
Project JustificationRating Financial Rating
Other Factors
Non-Section5309 Share
Capital Finances
Operating Finances
Low IncomeHouseholds
UserBenefits
MobilityImprovements
Environmental Benefits
Cost Effectiveness
LandUse
CapitalCost
Employment O&MCost
UserBenefitsBenefits
Minimum Project Development Requirements:
Metropolitan Planning and Programming Requirements
Project Management Technical Capability
Other Considerations
NEPA Approvals
37
/ New Starts Evaluation CriteriaNew Starts Evaluation Criteria
Project Ratings given to two composite j t j tifi ti d j t
Project Ratings given to two composite j t j tifi ti d j tmeasures: project justification and project
financeR ti “hi h” “ di hi h” “ di ” “ di
measures: project justification and project finance
R ti “hi h” “ di hi h” “ di ” “ di Rating - “high”, “medium high”, “medium”, “medium low”, “low”
Project Justification
Rating - “high”, “medium high”, “medium”, “medium low”, “low”
Project JustificationProject Justification Mobility – travel time, transit dependent usage, etc. Cost effectiveness ratio of cost to user benefit
Project Justification Mobility – travel time, transit dependent usage, etc. Cost effectiveness ratio of cost to user benefit Cost-effectiveness – ratio of cost to user benefit Land use – transit supportive land useP j t Fi
Cost-effectiveness – ratio of cost to user benefit Land use – transit supportive land useP j t FiProject Finance Amount and reliability of non-federal share of New
Starts
Project Finance Amount and reliability of non-federal share of New
Starts
38
Starts Starts
/ Cost-EffectivenessCost-Effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness ~ 50% of Project Justification Cost-effectiveness ~ 50% of Project Justification jrating
Must get a “medium” rating in cost effectiveness
jrating
Must get a “medium” rating in cost effectivenessMust get a medium rating in cost-effectiveness for a project to be recommended.Must get a medium rating in cost-effectiveness for a project to be recommended.
FY 2010 Cost-Effectiveness Rating High less than or equal to$11.99
FY 2010 Cost-Effectiveness Rating High less than or equal to$11.99High less than or equal to$11.99 Medium-High between $12.00 and $15.99 Medium between $16 00 and $24 49
High less than or equal to$11.99 Medium-High between $12.00 and $15.99 Medium between $16 00 and $24 49 Medium between $16.00 and $24.49 Medium-Low between $24.50 and $30.49
L G t th l t $30 51
Medium between $16.00 and $24.49 Medium-Low between $24.50 and $30.49
L G t th l t $30 51
39
Low Greater than or equal to $30.51 Low Greater than or equal to $30.51
/ Cost Effectiveness ResultsCost Effectiveness Results
A B C DA B C D
Total Capital Costs
(2007 dollars)
Annualized Capital Costs (2007 dollars)
Annual Operating Costs
(2007 dollars)
Annual User Benefit (Hours)
Annualized Cost per Hour of User
Benefit( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
TSM 86,860,000 7,440,700 14,793,000 1,890,000 --
Build Alternatives
Alternative 6A(LRT)
777,530,000 62,202,400 28,129,000 3,960,000 $32.90
Alternative 6B(BRT)
449,920,000 36,443,500 26,859,000 4,110,000 $18.50(BRT)
Alternative 7A(LRT)
777,530,000 62,202,400 28,129,000 3,990,000 $32.43
Alternative 7B449 920 000 36 443 500 26 859 000 4 140 000 $18 25
(BRT)449,920,000 36,443,500 26,859,000 4,140,000 $18.25
40
/ Locally Preferred AlternativeLocally Preferred Alternative
Multi-modal - highway and transit alternative selectionMulti-modal - highway and transit alternative selectionTransit Mode Selection - TSM, BRT, LRTConsider project phasing - tool for managing costsTransit Mode Selection - TSM, BRT, LRTConsider project phasing - tool for managing costsAlternative alignments (CCT)Environmental ImpactsAlternative alignments (CCT)Environmental ImpactspPublic Hearing/Document Review process Citizen/community groups
pPublic Hearing/Document Review process Citizen/community groups Project Team/Local Government FTA/FHWA
E i t l i
Project Team/Local Government FTA/FHWA
E i t l i Environmental agencies
Cost Effectiveness (CCT)Funding/Affordability
Environmental agencies
Cost Effectiveness (CCT)Funding/Affordability
41
Funding/Affordability Funding/Affordability
/ Federal Approval ProcessFederal Approval Process2009 Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment
2002 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Locally PreferredAlternative We are
Highway and Transit Projects Split
We are Here
Decision Point
Tier 1 FEIS and Record of Decision
Major DevelopmentStage
Prepare Tier 2 FEIS and
PrioritizeProjects to Advance to Tier 2
Study
Prepare Tier 2 FEIS andRecord of Decision
42
Design
/ Project ScheduleProject Schedule
Public OutreachAA/EA CompletionPublic OutreachAA/EA Completion
OngoingMay 2009OngoingMay 2009AA/EA Completion
AA/EA CirculationAA/EA CompletionAA/EA Circulation
May 2009
May 2009 – July 2009
May 2009
May 2009 – July 2009Public HearingSelection of Preferred Al i
Public HearingSelection of Preferred Al i
June 2009Fall 2009June 2009Fall 2009
AlternativeRequest Entry for PE/New St t S b i i (T it)
AlternativeRequest Entry for PE/New St t S b i i (T it)
Late 2009Late 2009Starts Submission (Transit)PE/FEIS CompletionStarts Submission (Transit)PE/FEIS Completion TBDTBDInitiate Final DesignStart ConstructionInitiate Final DesignStart Construction
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
43
/ Public OutreachPublic Outreach
Project NewsletterProject NewsletterProject Newsletter
Available for Project Briefings to Local
Project Newsletter
Available for Project Briefings to Local Neighborhoods/Organizations
Briefings to City/County Staff
Neighborhoods/Organizations
Briefings to City/County StaffBriefings to City/County Staff
Briefings to City/County State Elected
Briefings to City/County Staff
Briefings to City/County State Elected g y yOfficials prior to Spring 2009 Public Meetings
g y yOfficials prior to Spring 2009 Public MeetingsMeetings
Website : www.i270multimodalstudy.com
Meetings
Website : www.i270multimodalstudy.com
44
/ Next StepsNext Steps
Continue agency coordination and public Continue agency coordination and public g y poutreachConduct review process
g y poutreachConduct review processConduct review processHold public hearingsConduct review processHold public hearingsp gSelect cost effective, affordable Locally Preferred Alternative
p gSelect cost effective, affordable Locally Preferred AlternativePreferred AlternativeSecure non-federal fundingPreferred AlternativeSecure non-federal fundinggSecure federal funding
gSecure federal funding
45
/ Thank YouThank You
Questions/concerns or for additional information:Questions/concerns or for additional information:Questions/concerns or for additional information:Questions/concerns or for additional information:
Highway:
Russ Anderson
Highway:
Russ Anderson
([email protected])([email protected])
Transit Related:Transit Related:Transit Related:
Rick Kiegel
( ki l@ t l d )
Transit Related:
Rick Kiegel
( ki l@ t l d )
46