Tacoma Dome Link Extension Elected Leadership Group Meeting #7 | 2.22.19
Agenda Public comment Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF) South OMF South scoping: Feb. 19 – April 1 Review six sites in scoping Tacoma Dome Link Extension (TDLE) Scoping: April 1 – April 30 (tentative) TDLE Level 2 evaluation results Next steps 2
OMF South 3
Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF) South Included in ST3 Plan One of four OMFs planned for the region Location and size supports regional light rail expansion Accommodates 130+ light rail cars More than 30 acres, based on site conditions Open by 2026 and connected to active line Site tour with City of Kent on January 17 4
OMF South evaluation process* Sound Transit Board Identifies Sites for Study in Environmental Analysis Study Several Sites in Environmental *Anticipated dates Analysis 5
Early scoping April 2018; 24 sites identified Pre-screening July 2018; Narrowed to 20 sites Does not meet minimum size and shape Precludes funded roadway improvements Regulatory constraints (cultural resources, wetlands, and sensitive areas) 6
Results of alternatives evaluation Narrowed to 6 sites No ideal site! Sites in Federal Way, Kent, or unincorporated King County Sites under consideration are included in scoping 7
Overview of sites for EIS scoping S 240th St and SR 99 Midway Landfill and I-5 Midway Landfill and SR 99 S 316th St and Military Rd S 336th St and I-5 S 344th St and I-5 8
S 240th St and SR 99 comparison Advantages Disadvantages • Adjacent to light rail • Property impacts track operating by including Lowe’s, 2026 (FWLE) Dicks Drive-In and mobile home park • Minimal impacts on the natural • Access to light rail environment track requires spiraling tracks • Lower preliminary estimate compared to other sites ($800 million)* *Preliminary estimates (in 2018$) are rounded and not project’s budget. For comparison purposes between options only. 9
Midway Landfill and I-5 comparison Advantages Disadvantages • Adjacent to light rail • Likely needs complex track operating by concrete 2026 (FWLE) platform/structure • Limited impacts to • Superfund landfill site, private property hazardous materials concerns and ground • No identified settlement wetlands/streams • Regulatory requirements could impact schedule • Higher preliminary estimate compared to *Preliminary estimates (in 2018$) are rounded other sites and not project’s budget. For comparison purposes between options only. ($1,300 million)* 10
Midway Landfill and SR 99 comparison Advantages Disadvantages • Adjacent to • Likely needs complex operating light rail concrete platform/structure track by 2026 • Superfund landfill site, (FWLE) hazardous materials • No identified concerns and ground wetlands/streams settlement • Regulatory requirements could impact schedule • Property impacts, commercial/residential • Higher preliminary estimate compared to *Preliminary estimates (in 2018$) are rounded other sites and not project’s budget. For comparison ($1,400 million*) purposes between options only. 11
S 316th St and Military Rd comparison Advantages Disadvantages • Across from light rail • Residential impacts track operating by • Less compatible with 2026 (FWLE) current zoning • Lower preliminary • Requires two track estimate compared crossings of I-5 to other sites • Limited existing road ($750 million)* access *Preliminary estimates (in 2018$) are rounded and not project’s budget. For comparison purposes between options only. 12
S 336th St and I-5 comparison Advantages Disadvantages • Light rail vehicle • Potential property access and Impacts include operating estimate Christian Faith Center better performing • Located 1.1 miles from • No impacts to parks, light rail track operating trails or open space by 2026 (FWLE) • Lower preliminary • Less compatible with estimate compared current zoning to other sites ($750 million)* *Preliminary estimates (in 2018$) are rounded and not project’s budget. For comparison purposes between options only. 13 .
S 344th St and I-5 comparison Advantages Disadvantages • Light rail vehicle • Potential impacts to access better industrial and residential performing properties • No impacts to parks, • Hazardous materials trails or open space • Located 1.3 miles from • Lower preliminary light rail track operating estimate compared by 2026 (FWLE) to other sites ($800 million)* *Preliminary estimates (in 2018$) are rounded and not project’s budget. For comparison purposes between options only. 14
What is EIS scoping for OMFS? • Start of SEPA environmental review process • 42-day public comment period, Feb. 19 – April 1 • Seeking public feedback on scope of EIS • Sites to study further • Topics to study (e.g. economics, displacements, ecosystems) • Purpose and need of the project • Informs ST Board decision on what to study in EIS 15
Public options to participate: Now through April 1 Online open house: OMFSouth.participate.online In person open houses: March 12, 6-8 p.m. | Federal Way Performing Arts & Events Center March 20, 6-8 p.m. | Highline College 16
Notifications Mailer Posters Website Email listserv Print and online ads Social media Press releases Targeted door-to-door SEPA official notice 17 Commitment to accessibility and translation services
Next steps Feb 19 – April 1 May 2019* 2nd/3rd Quarter 2021* EIS Scoping Final EIS Sound Transit Pubic Comment released & Board Period Sound Transit determines Board selects which sites to OMF South Site study in EIS *dates are subject to change
TDLE alternatives development process & Scoping 19
Project timeline and milestones PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION START OF SERVICE 2018–2022 2022–2025 2025–2030 2030 2016 Final route design Groundbreaking Alternatives development (2018-2019) Final station designs Construction updates and mitigation • Investigation of Procure and alternatives commission station Safety education and public art • Board identifies Preferred Testing and pre-operations Alternative Obtain land use and development Environmental review (2019- agreements 2022) Begin property Draft EIS acquisition Final EIS Board selects project to be built Federal agency issues Record of Decision (ROD) PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 20
Alternatives development process PLANNING 2018–2022 DESIGN CONSTRUCTION 2016 2025–2030 Alternatives development (2018-2019) • Investigation of alternatives • Board identifies Preferred Alternative Environmental review (2019- 2022) Draft EIS Final EIS Board selects project to be built Federal agency issues Record of Decision (ROD) PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 21 Summer 2019
What is EIS scoping for TDLE? • Start of federal environmental review process • 30-day public comment period, April 1-30 (tentative) • Seeking public feedback on scope of EIS • Preferred alternative and other alternatives for further study • Topics to study (e.g. economics, displacements, ecosystems) • Purpose and need • Informs Board decision on what to study in EIS 22
Next steps for TDLE* Preliminary schedule to reach a preferred alternative Feb-March April May-June (tentative) (tentative) Briefings on Level 2 evaluation results to: EIS scoping period, Building consensus around • To Cities & Tribal staff including: preferred alternative and & elected officials • Online and in-person other options, including: • ELG and SG open houses • Scoping summary report meetings • Formal comments • SG feedback encouraged • City/Tribal Councils’ concurrence • ELG recommendation to ST Board *dates are subject to change 23
TDLE Level 2 evaluation results 24
Level 2 alternatives 25
Final evaluation criteria categories Effective transportation solutions Land use and economic development and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Preserve the environment Equitable mobility Financially sustainable and constructible 26 26
Start of feedback table Alternatives Technical Analysis Public SG Feedback ELG Technical analysis Feedback Feedback Alternatives with more potential first step in Alternative A* Notable Advantages: evaluation Key takeaway ELG meetings: late Notable Disadvantages: May, early June Before ELG Scoping period SG meeting: Key takeaway recommendation, Alternative C Notable Advantages: mid-May Key takeaway table will include Notable Disadvantages: summary of public Key takeaway Alternatives with greater challenges feedback from Alternative B Notable Advantages: Key takeaway scoping & Notable Disadvantages: Stakeholder Key takeaway Alternative D Notable Advantages: Group feedback Key takeaway Notable Disadvantages: Key takeaway *Better performing alternative(s) 27
Level 2 alternatives: Tacoma Dome 28
Alternatives with more potential: Tacoma Dome 29
Better performing alternative: Tacoma Dome 30
Highest Greater support for multimodal potential TOD station access TD 2 Higher ridership potential Compared to other Tacoma Dome alternatives 31
Recommend
More recommend
