Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120285 Ver 1_Alternatives Report_20080723Draft ADDENDUM to the FINAL ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS REPORT For ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Gaston East -West Connector Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties STIP Project No. U -3321 State Project No. 8.2812501 Federal Aid Project No. STP- 1213(6) ��40 NORTH CAROLINA Turnpike Authority July 23, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Gaston East West Connector Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and Analysis Report STIP Project No U 3321 Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties NOTE Two methods are used in this report to help the reader more readily see the organization of this addendum The Table of Contents below is color coded Black text indicates sections that have not been changed from the original Report Blue text indicates sections that have been updated or have had new information added Red text indicates new sections In the body of the report paragraphs and tables that have been updated or are new have a dashed line along the left side ADDENDUM PREFACE P I PURPOSE OF THIS ADDENDUM P 2 ORGANIZATION OF THIS ADDENDUM P 3 CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN THIS ADDENDUM INTRODUCTION 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1 Project Location 1 2 Proposed Action and Project Purpose 1 3 Background Information 14 Report Purpose and Organization Page P -1 P -1 P -2 INTRO -1 20 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED AND ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED STUDY INTRO -4 2 1 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration 2 2 Alternatives Retained for Detailed Study PART I — FIRST SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS I 1 OVERVIEW I -1 I 2 NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE I -2 I 2 1 Alternative Description I 2 2 Traffic Operations I 2 3 Decision on Whether to Retain for Detailed Study Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 ' DRAFT — July 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page I 3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) ALTERNATIVE I -4 I 3 1 Alternative Description I 3 2 Traffic Operations I 3 3 Decision on Whether to Retain for Detailed Study I 4 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) ALTERNATIVE I -9 14 1 Alternative Description I 4 2 Traffic Operations 14 3 Decision on Whether to Retain for Detailed Study I 5 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE I -11 I 5 1 Alternative Description I 5 1 1 Existing Transit Services I 5 1 2 Transit Studies I 5 2 Traffic Operations I 5 3 Decision on Whether to Retain for Detailed Study I 6 IMPROVE EXISTING ROADWAYS ALTERNATIVES I -16 I 6 1 Alternatives Descriptions I 6 2 Traffic Operations - Conclusions I 6 3 Impact Considerations 1 6 3 1 Potential Human Environment Impacts 1 6 3 2 Potential Natural Environment Impacts 1 6 3 3 Potential Engineering Issues 1 6 3 4 Inconsistency with Local Thoroughfare Plans and Land Use Plans I 6 4 Decision on Whether to Retain for Detailed Study I 7 NEW LOCATION ALTERNATIVES I -35 17 1 History of Alternative in Local Transportation Plans I 7 2 Alternative Description 17 3 Traffic Operations I 7 3 1 2025 and 2030 Traffic Volumes on the New Location Alternative I 7 3 2 Traffic Operations on Existing Roads - Conclusions I 7 4 Decision on Whether to Retain for Detailed Study 18 INITIAL SCREENING - TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ON EXISTING ROADS I -44 I 8 1 Regional Statistics from the 2025 Travel Demand Model 18 2 Volume /Capacity Ratio Maps from the Regional Travel Demand Model 18 3 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes 18 3 1 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes on US 321 I 8 3 2 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes on US 29 74 I 8 3 3 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes on I 85 I 8 4 Year 2025 Basic Freeway Segment Levels of Service on I 85 I 8 4 1 Model Methodology and Assumptions I 8 4 2 Levels of Service on I 85 South in the 2025 PM Peak Hour Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT July 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page I 8 5 Regional Statistics from the 2030 Metrolina Travel Demand Model I 8 6 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes 18 6 1 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on US 321 I 8 6 2 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on US 29 74 I 8 6 3 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on I 85 I 8 6 4 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on I -485 I 8 7 Year 2030 Levels of Service on Existing Mayor Roadways I 8 7 1 Model Methodology and Assumptions I 8 7 2 Year 2030 Levels of Service on I 85 I 8 7 3 Year 2030 Levels of Service on I 485 18 7 4 Year 2030 Levels of Service on US 29 74 I 8 7 5 Year 2030 Levels of Service on US 321 I 8 8 Mobility and Connectivity Measures I 8 8 1 Mobility and Connectivity Within Southern Gaston County 18 8 2 Mobility and Connectivity Between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County PART II - SECOND SCREENING OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES II 1 SECOND SCREENING METHODOLOGY II 1 1 Evaluation Process II 1 2 Design Criteria II 1 3 Evaluation Criteria II 2 REFINED STUDY AREA II 3 DEVELOPING THE PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS II 3 1 Preliminary Corridor Segments From I 85 to US 321 (West Portion) II 3 2 Preliminary Corridor Segments From East of US 321 to Around NC 279 (Central Portion) II 3 3 Preliminary Corridor Segments From Around NC 279 to I 485 (East Portion) II 4 IDENTIFYING THE FUNCTIONAL DESIGN CORRIDORS II 4 1 Screening Methodology II 4 2 Screening Evaluation II -1 II -6 II -7 II -13 1142 1 Preliminary Corridor Segments in the West Portion of the Refined Study Area (from I 85 to US 321) 11422 Preliminary Corridor Segments in the Central Portion of the Refined Study Area (from US 321 to around NC 279) 11423 Preliminary Corridor Segments in the East Portion of the Refined Study Area (from around NC 279 to I -485) 11424 Additional Preliminary Corridor Segments Considered After Initial Set of Segments Developed 1142 5 Summary of Preliminary Corridor Segments Retained for Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT July 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Functional Design II 5 IDENTIFYING THE DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES II -37 II 5 1 Functional Designs II 5 2 Traffic Analysis of Functional Designs II 5 2 1 Year 2025 Traffic Projections - Scenarios 5 5a, 6 and 7 II 5 2 2 Traffic Capacity Analysis of Functional Designs II 5 3 Impact Estimate Methodology 1154 Decision Making Methodology to Identify the Detailed Study Alternatives II 5 5 Eight Key Decision Points II 5 5 1 DECISION POINT 1 - Nodes 85E and 85W to Nodes 321N and 321S II 5 5 2 DECISION POINT 2 - Node 321N to Node CTR N II 5 5 3 DECISION POINT 3 - Node 321N to Node CTR S II 5 54 DECISION POINT 4 - Node 321S to Node CTR N II 5 5 5 DECISION POINT 5 - Node 321S to Node CTR S II 5 5 6 DECISION POINT 6 - Node CTR N to Node I 485 II 5 5 7 DECISION POINT 7 - Node CTR -S to Node I 485 - (northern alts) II 5 5 8 DECISION POINT 8 - Node CTR S to Node I 485 (southern alts) II 5 59 Elimination of Corridor Segment KiD II 5 6 Alternatives Recommended for Detailed Study PART III - AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT III 1 AGENCY COORDINATION III 1 1 Scoping III 1 2 Notice of Intent III 1 3 NEPA /Section 404 Merger Team History III 1 3 1 Background Information III 1 2 2 Merger Team Coordination for the Project III 2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT III 2 1 Citizens Informational Workshops III 2 1 1 Citizens Informational Workshop Series #1 III 2 1 2 Citizens Informational Workshop Series #2 III 2 2 Local Officials Meetings III 2 3 Small Group Meetings 11124 Other Outreach Efforts III 2 4 1 Newsletters and Postcards III 2 4 2 Project Website III 2 4 3 Toll Free Telephone Line III -1 1111111110-t Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 iv DRAFT July 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page PART IV - REFERENCES LIST OF TABLES 1 Detailed Study Alternatives Intro 6 2 TSM Alternative Roadway Improvements 14 3 Average Monthly Ridership on CATS Route 85X Gastonia Express I 12 4 Percent of Commuters Using Transit in 2000 I -14 5 Potential Impacts from Widening North /South Feeder Routes Included in Scenario 8 I 27 6 2025 Traffic Volumes on the New Location Alternative - Scenarios 5 and 5a I 38 6b Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on a New Location Alternative - Toll and Non Toll Scenarios I 38 7 Regional Travel Demand Model Statistics Under Various Scenarios I -47 8 Year 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes on US 321 - Various Scenarios I 51 9 Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes on US 321 - Various Scenarios 1 51 10 Year 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes on US 29 74 - Various Scenarios I 52 11 Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes on US 29 74 - Various Scenarios I 53 12 Year 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes on I 85 - Various Scenarios I -55 13 Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes on I 85 - Various Scenarios I 56 14 Basic Freeway Segment Levels of Service I -85 South in 2025 PM Peak Hour 1 59 7b 2030 Regional Travel Demand Model Statistics for Gaston County Under Various Scenarios I 60 8b Year 2020 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes on US 321 - Various Scenarios I 64 10b Year 2030 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes on US 29 74 - Various Scenarios I 65 12b Year 2030 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes on I 85 - Various Scenarios I 67 12c Year 2030 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes on I 485 - Various Scenarios I 69 14b Year 2030 Levels of Service on I 85 - Various Scenarios I 70 14c Year 2030 Levels of Service on I 485 - Various Scenarios I 71 14d Year 2030 Levels of Service on US 29 74 - Various Scenarios I 72 14e Year 2030 Levels of Service on US 321 - Various Scenarios I -73 15 Estimated Travel Times for Trips Within Gaston County Under Various Scenarios I 75 16 Estimated Travel Times for Trips Between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Under Various Scenarios I 77 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 v DRAFT July 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 17 Second Screening Evaluation Factors II 3 18 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes on New Location Alternative - Scenarios 5a, 6, and 7 II 39 19 DECISION POINT 1 - Nodes 85E and 85W to Nodes 321N and 321S II 45 20 DECISION POINT 2 - Node 321N to Node CTR N II -48 21 DECISION POINT 3 - Node 321N to Node CTR S II 50 22 DECISION POINT 4 - Node 321S to Node CTR N II 52 23 DECISION POINT 5 - Node 321S to Node CTR S II 54 24 DECISION POINT 6 - Node CTR -N to Node I 485 II 56 25 DECISION POINT 7 - Node CTR -S to Node I 485 (northern alts) II 58 26 DECISION POINT 8 - Node CTR S to Node I -485 (southern end) II 60 27 Detailed Study Alternatives Containing Corridor Segment KID - Eliminated From Further Study II 63 LIST OF CHARTS 1 Year 2025 PM Peak Hour I 85 Traffic Volumes I -56 2 Year 2025 PM Peak Hour I 85 South Levels of Service I -58 lb 2030 Traffic Volumes on I 85 - Various Scenarios I 68 LIST OF FIGURES (Figures Follow Text) 1 Project Location 2 Existing Facility Characteristics 3a Recommended Detailed Study Alternatives - Corridor Segments 3b Recommended Detailed Study Alternatives - Endpoint to Endpoint 4 2030 Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service (No Build Alternative) 5 TSM Alternative - Locations of Improvements 6 Existing Bus Routes in Gastonia 7 Charlotte Area Transit Systems West Corridor Preferred Alternative 8 Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives - Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 9 Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives - Scenario 4+ 10 Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives - Scenario 4a 11 Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives - Scenario 8 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 vi DRAFT July 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 12 (a e) Scenario 8 - Representative North /South Feeder Road Segments 13 Gaston Urban Area MPO Thoroughfare Plan Alignment 14 Volume to Capacity Ratio Maps - Scenarios 1, 4 +, 4a, and 8 15 Volume to Capacity Ratio Maps - Scenarios 1, 5, and 5a 16 New Location Alternative - Typical Cross Section 17 Refined Study Area for New Location Alternatives 18 (a b) Preliminary Corridor Segments 19 (a b) Preliminary Corridor Segments Retained for Functional Design 20 Functional Design Corridors 21 Decision Nodes and Functional Design Corridor Centerlines APPENDICES (All appendices included on enclosed CD) A NEPA /404 Merger Team Concurrence Forms, Scoping Letter and Notice of Intent B Volume to Capacity Ratio Maps C Tables of 2025 Projected Traffic Volumes for I 85, US 29 74 and US 321 D Design Criteria and Typical Cross - Sections E Preliminary Corridor Segment Evaluation Matrix F Draft Traffic Technical Memorandum for the Functional Design Corridors (Without Appendices) G Functional Design Corridor Segment Evaluation Matrix H Large Scale Map of the Functional Designs in the Functional Design Corridors ADDENDUM APPEN=ES (FoHows Appendoces) (All Addendum Appendices included on enclosed CD) Add A Letter dated May 21 2007, from NCTA to NCDOT Regarding the Gaston East West Connector as a Toll Facility Add B Year 2030 Traffic Forecasts Add C Travel Time Contours from the 2030 Metrolina Model under the No Build Alternative, Improve Existing Roadways Alternative (Scenario 4 + /4a), and New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) Add D Information Regarding Elimination of Corridor Segment KiD Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 vii DRAFT July 2008 ADDENDUM PREFACE This is a new section of the report P 1 PURPOSE OF THIS ADDENDUM I ' The Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East West Connector (Garden Parkway) was completed in February 2007 This addendum updates information that has changed since the preparation of the report and adds new information to the evaluation This addendum reassesses the iprevious alternatives development process screening and Detailed Study Alternative (DSA) selection in the context of the project now being advanced solely as a toll candidate project I iOne major change in this addendum is the addition of new information regarding traffic projections and traffic operations In the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report year 2025 traffic projections from the 2025 Gaston travel demand model were used Since then year 2030 traffic iprojections from the 2030 Metrolma regional travel demand model became available In this addendum traffic forecasts and traffic operations analyses for several of the scenarios discussed in the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report were updated using the 2030 Metrolma regional travel idemand model Both the original year 2025 traffic information and the updated year 2030 traffic information are included in this addendum I iAnother major addition is the elimination of four Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) from the original set of sixteen identified in the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report (February 2007) New information since came to light to eliminate Corridor Segment KID from further consideration Corridor iSegment KID was included in four DSAs I P 2 ORGANIZATION OF THIS ADDENDUM For ease of tracking changes and updates this addendum retains the original section numbering from the ' February 2007 report with some new sections added describing year 2030 traffic forecasts and operations analyses I ' The Table of Contents is color coded indicating whether a section remains unchanged (black text) has been updated (blue text) or is a new section (red text) I ' Updated paragraphs and new paragraphs are marked in the report with a dashed line along the left side of the paragraph as they are in this Preface I ' At the beginning of each section there is a note in anal italics font stating whether there were any changes or updates to the original section or that it is a new section Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 P 1 DRAFT July 2008 1 P 3 CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN THIS ADDENDUM As documented in this addendum the updated and new information added to the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report did not change the decisions on which alternative concepts to eliminate from further study New and updated information including information on tolling issues did not change the process for identifying and selecting New Location Alternative corridors However new information regarding the Allen Steam Station s operations led to the elimination of four of the sixteen Detailed Study Alternatives originally identified in the report The four DSAs eliminated DSAs 6 24 65 and 78 were those that included Corridor Segment KID r Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 P 2 ' DRAFT July 2008 INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1 PROJECT LOCATION There are no updates or additions to this section Figure 1 or Figure 2 The proposed project the Gaston East West Connector is located in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County North Carolina The overall project study area is shown in Figure I and is generally bounded by • 185 to the north • The South Carolina State line to the south • 1485 and the Charlotte Douglas International Airport to the east • The I 851US 29 74 interchange and Crowder s Mountain State Park to the west Figure 2 shows the existing number of lanes and characteristics of 185 US 29 74 and US 321 12 PROPOSED ACTION AND PROJECT PURPOSE This section updated based on the updated Purpose and Need Statement (June 2008) The purpose of the proposed action is to improve east west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing area of southeast Gaston County and west Mecklenburg County This project purpose is based on the following • Need to improve mobility access and connectivity within southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County • Need to improve traffic flow on the sections of 185 US 29 74 and US 321 in the project study area and improve high speed safe regional travel service along the I 851US 29 74 corridor Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 INTRO 1 DRAFT July 2008 13 BACKGROUND INFORMATION This section updated with events occurring since the February 2007 completion of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report This includes an updated STIP and a decision to advance the Gaston East West Connector solely as a toll candidate project The Gaston East West Connector is Project Number U 3321 in the North Carolina Department of Transportation s ( NCDOT) 2009 2015 Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) STIP Project U 3321 is one of two projects (the other is STIP Project R 2608) that make up the project locally known as the Garden Parkway The proposed Garden Parkway concept first appeared on the Gaston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan in 1991 The Garden Parkway appears on the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan as a future freeway from US 321 north of Gastonia extending around the west side of Gastonia across 185 then south and east to I 485/NC 160 in Mecklenburg County STIP Project R 2608 is a project with independent utility also known as the US 321 Bypass STIP Project R 2608 is not included in the Gaston East West Connector Study iIn February 2005 the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) Board selected the Gaston East West Connector as a candidate toll facility and the project is now being studied by the NCTA All activities related to development of the alternatives described in this report were managed by the NCDOT iconsidering the build alternatives as non toll facilities There was an overlap period in 2005 while NCDOT completed the major tasks associated with achieving Concurrence Point 2 in the NEPA/404 Merger Process (See Part III) and identifying the Detailed Study Alternatives (achieved September 20 i2005) From this point until May 2007 the build alternatives were considered as both non toll facihties and toll facilities I In a letter dated May 21 2007 from the NCTA to the NCDOT it was agreed that the Gaston East West Connector should proceed from this date forward considering only toll alternatives for inclusion in the EIS This decision was based on the consideration that it would be unlikely for NCDOT to implement the iproject as a non toll facility due to funding issues The letter is included in Addendum Appendix A ' , More discussion of this issue is provided in Section 17 4 ' 14 REPORT PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION There are no updates or additions to this section This report documents the alternatives development and evaluation process that resulted in the identification of the Detailed Study Alternatives to be carried forward in the project s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 INTRO 2 DRAFT July 2008 This report is divided into four main parts Part I — First Screening of Alternative Concepts Part II — Second Screening of Preliminary Alternatives Part III — Agency Coordination and Public Involvement Part IV References and Supporting Documentation In Part I basic alternative concepts were evaluated to determine if they were reasonable and practicable based on their ability to meet purpose and need their impacts and their consistency with transportation plans They included • No Build Alternative • Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative • Mass Transit Alternative • Multi Modal Alternative • Improve Existing Facilities Alternatives • New Location Alternatives In Part II the alternative concepts that made it through the first screening process are further refined and screened to arrive at the specific Detailed Study Alternatives Part III summarizes the agency coordination and public involvement activities conducted up to the point the Detailed Study Alternatives were selected The project followed the process for agency concurrence and coordination contained in the NEPA/404 Merger 01 Memorandum of Agreement signed by NCDOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Concurrence Points I (Purpose and Need) and 2 (Detailed Study Alternatives) were achieved in July 2002 and September 2005 respectively Part IV lists the references and project specific supporting documentation cited in this alternatives development report Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 INTRO 3 DRAFT July 2008 2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED AND ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED STUDY Sections 2 1 and 2 2 were updated as described under each section ® Each of the basic alternative concepts (listed in Section 14) was evaluated to determme whether it would meet the project s purpose and need and whether it would be reasonable and practicable to implement Those alternatives that could not fulfill the purpose and need for the project had excessive impacts or were considered impractical were eliminated from further consideration 21 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION I This section updated to include toll considerations under the discussions of the TDM Alternative and the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives This section also updated to add the reasons why the alternatives listed below were eliminated from further consideration New and updated information contained in this addendum did not change the decision on which alternative concepts to eliminate from further consideration ,o • Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternatives ' The TSM Alternative includes improvements to traffic operations and traffic control for existing US 29 74 US 321 and the 185 interchanges such as intersection improvements (additional turn lanes longer queue lengths etc ) and /or signal coordination The TSM ' Alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it would not meet the project s purpose and need Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative The TDM Alternative includes demand management strategies currently being implemented in Gaston and/or Mecklenburg County such as staggered work hours and ' flex time (employer focused) and one additional measure not currently being implemented which is to convert existing lanes on 185 to high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes North Carolina legislation (GS 136 89 186) iprohibits converting any segment of the non tolled State Highway system to a toll facility so a TDM Alternative incorporating HOT lanes is not possible without a change in State law The TDM Alternative was eliminated from further consideration because it ' would not meet the project s purpose and need Also since conversion of a general purpose lane to a HOT lane would require a change in State law this was an additional factor for eliminating this type of improvement Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 INTRO 4 DRAFT July 2008 I • The Mass Transit Alternative and Multi Modal Alternative The Mass Transit Alternative primarily is based on planning efforts being conducted by the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) for the West Corridor (Mecklenburg County) and by the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) for transit service in Gaston County and connecting to CATS system The Multi Modal Alternative is a combination of mass transit with other alternatives This alternative was eliminated because it would not meet the project s purpose and need • The Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Several different scenarios were considered to improve existing roadways These are also referred to in this report as Scenarios 4+ 4a and 8 These scenarios include combinations of widening 185 and US 29 74 with combinations of intersection ramp and cross street improvements TSM improvements and feeder road capacity improvements A variation of these Improve Existing Roadways scenarios was considered in this addendum The variation was to consider the new capacity lanes on 185 as toll and/or ' tolVHOT lanes The Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives without or without tolls were eliminated ' from further consideration because they would have impacts to the human and natural environments and engineering issues that make these alternatives not reasonable or practicable for this project In addition Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios ' 4+ and 4a which would widen 185 and US 29 74 would not meet the project s purpose and need elements of providing improved connectivity and mobihty between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County and within southern Gaston County 22 ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR DETAILED STUDY This section is updated to remove the four New Location Alternatives that include Corridor Segment Kl D Figure 3 and Table 1 also were updated The No Build Alternative (also referred to as Scenario 1 in this report) is being retained for comparison purposes throughout the planning process in accordance with the NEPA regulations (40 CFR Section 1502 14(d)) and FHWA guidelines (Technical Advisory T6640 8 Section V E 1) This scenario does not assume any capacity improvements to 185 or to US 29 74 ' Of the six basic alternative concepts evaluated only the New Location Alternative concept (also referred to as Scenarios 5 and 5a in the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report) would fulfill the project s purpose and need would be feasible and practicable for implementation and could be constructed as a toll Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 INTRO 5 DRAFT July 2008 facility For the New Location Alternative which would be a fully controlled access highway numerous pre preliminary corridor segments were developed and screened as both toll and non toll facilities From these pre preli mnary corridor segments ninety endpoint to endpoint preliminary New Location Alternatives were further evaluated resulting in the selection of sixteen Detailed Study Alternatives ' (DSAs) As detailed in this addendum these DSAs were later reduced to twelve based on subsequent information that eliminated Corridor Segment KID from consideration ' Figure 3a and Table 1 show the 1 400 foot wide corridor segments that comprise the twelve DSAs Figure 3b shows each alternative individually from endpoint at 185 to endpoint at 1485 Study areas are wider than 1 400 feet at areas where interchanges and /or service roads will be considered These twelve ' DSAs will be carried forward for detailed study as toll facilities only i In a letter dated May 21 2007 from the NCTA to the NCDOT it was agreed that the Gaston East West ' Connector should proceed from this date forward considering only toll alternatives for inclusion in the EIS This decision was based on the consideration that it would be unlikely for NCDOT to implement the project as a non toll facility due to funding issues The letter is included in Addendum Appendix A Table 1 Detailed Study Alternatives I Detailed Stud y Alternative # I West Area generally west of US 321 Central Area — Generally east of US 321 and west of NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba River East Area — generally east of NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba River H Segments J Segments K Segments 4 H2A H3 Ma J4b J2c J2d JSa J5b K2A KX1 K3B K3C 5 H2A H3 Ma J2b J2c J2d JX4 Jle Jlf K1A K1B K1C K4A ' 9 H2A H3 J4a J21i J2c J2d JX4 Jle Jlf K1A K3A K3B K3C 22 112A H2B H2C J3 J2c J2d J5a J5b K2A KX1 K313 K3C 23 112A H2B H2C J3 J2c J2d JX4 JIe JIf K1A K1B K1C K4A ' 27 H2A H2B H2C J3 J2c J2d JX4 JIe Jlf K1A K3A K3B K3C 58 H1A H1B H1C Ma. JX1 J2d JSa J5b K2A KX1 K3B K3C 64 H1A H1B H1C Jla Jlb Jlc Jld Jle Jlf K1A K1B K1C K4A ' 68 H1A H1B H1C Jla Jlb Jlc Jld Jle Jlf K1A K3A K3B K3C 76 H1A HX2 J2a J2b J2c J2d JSa J5b K2A KX1 K3B K3C 77 H1A HX2 J2a J2b J2c J2d JX4 He Jlf K1A K1B K1C K4A 81 H1A HX2 J2a J2b J2c J2d JX4 Jle Jlf K1A K3A K3B K3C Refer to Updated Figure 3 for a map of the Detailed Study Alternatives and their corridor segments Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 INTRO 6 DRAFT July 2008 PART I - FIRST SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS I 1 OVERVIEW New Information regarding the 2030 Metrolma regional travel demand model was included as an addition ' to this section This first screening of alternative concepts evaluated each alternative concept s ability to meet the project s purposes and needs and whether it would be feasible and practicable to implement Each alternative was developed to the point needed to make these deternimations Alternative concepts evaluated include • No Build Alternative (travel demand model Scenario 1) • Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative • Mass Transit Alternative and Multi Modal Alternative • Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives (Scenarios 2 3 4 4+ 4a and 8) • New Location Alternatives (Scenarios 5 and 5a) At the time many of the analyses were conducted for the development of project alternatives the planning horizon year was 2025 and there were two travel demand models covering the project study area one for the Gaston County area and one for the Mecklenburg County area The majority of the proposed project hes within the Gaston urban area but it does cross over into western Mecklenburg County In order to model travel demand for the proposed project a portion of the highway network in the Mecklenburg travel demand model was appended to the Gaston travel demand model (Transportation Demand Technical Memorandum 2005) In May 2005 GUAMPO updated their Long Range Transportation Plan and air quality conformity ianalysis The 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan uses a new Metrolina travel demand model that has i a horizon year of 2030 and that covers a 13 county region This regional 2030 travel demand model was developed by the Charlotte Department of Transportation in cooperation with the Mecklenburg Union MPO (MUMPO) and the GUAMPO Where necessary traffic forecasts using the 2030 Metrolma travel demand model (April 2006 version) are included in this addendum A discussion of the 2030 Metrolma travel demand model compared to the 2025 Gaston travel demand model is included in Section 18 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 I 1 DRAFT - July 2008 I 2 NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE I 2 1 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION There are no updates or additions to this section The No Build Alternative is the baseline comparative alternative for the design year (2025 at the time the analyses were conducted) This alternative also is referred to as Scenario 1 The No Build Alternative assumes that the transportation systems for Gaston and western Mecklenburg Counties would evolve as currently planned in their respective Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) but without mayor improvements to the existing I 851US 29 74 corridor or new access and connectivity to western Mecklenburg County However several minor spot improvements were incorporated into the No Build scenario These improvements assumed the addition of traffic signals at six (6) currently unsignahzed intersections I 2 2 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS After the discussion of No Build Alternative traffic operations based on the 2025 Gaston travel demand model is an addition to this section based on traffic forecasts for 2030 using the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model Figure 4 is updated to reflect the 2030 projected conditions Year 2025 Traffic Operations Traffic operations analyses for the No Build Alternative are documented in detail in the Purpose and Need Statement (June 2002) Several freeway segments along 185 and intersections along US 29 74 are projected to operate at LOS F during future 2025 peak hours under the No Build Alternative The PM peak period was predicted to be more congested than the AM peak period In addition to degraded levels of service the number of hours of congestion during the morning and evening peak periods would increase (see Section 18 1) Traffic between Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would continue to experience delays and congestion along 185 which is the primary connection between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Along 185 in Gaston County from the Mecklenburg County line to the US 29 74 function data on reported incidents was collected from NCDOT Incident Management For a one year period between 2000 and 2001 2 399 reported incidents occurred along this section of 185 These incidents frequently affect travel on 185 by causing traffic slowdowns lane closures and temporary detours onto US 29 74 (a roadway with no access control and numerous commercial driveways) Above average crash rates along US 29 74 and US 321 would be expected to continue and likely would increase in the future due to the projected increase in traffic volumes and turning movements along US 29 74 and US 321 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 12 DRAFT — July 2008 Year 2030 Traffic Operations Traffic operations analyses for the No Build Alternative are documented in detail in the Updated Purpose and Need Statement (June 2008) Updated Figure 4 shows the 2030 traffic volumes and levels of service (LOS) on 185 1485 US 29 74 and US 321 in the study area under the No Build Alternative The length of 185 in the study area is projected to operate at LOS E F in 2030 US 29 74 in the study area is projected to operate at LOS F east of McAdenville 1485 is projected to operate at LOS E Based on the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model the number of hours of congestion during the morning and evening peak periods and daily would increase 3 6 times over 2006 base year conditions (M /A/B Traffic Forecasts for Toll Alternatives May 2008) Traffic between Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would continue to experience delays and congestion along 185 which is the primary connection between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Along 185 in Gaston County from the Mecklenburg County line to the US 29 74 junction data on reported incidents was collected from NCDOT In 2007 there were 2 589 reported incidents along 185 in the study area from mile marker 10 to mile marker 29 ( NCDOT Intelligent Transportation Systems Unit IMAP Information email dated May 8 2008) These incidents frequently affect travel on 185 by causing traffic slowdowns and sometimes lane closures and temporary detours onto US 29 74 (a roadway with no access control and numerous commercial driveways) I 2 3 DECISION ON WHETHER TO RETAIN FOR DETAILED STUDY There are no updates or additions to this section DECISION Retain the No Build Alternative for Comparison Purposes The No Build Alternative would not meet the project s purposes It would not improve mobility access or connectivity in southern Gaston County nor between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County It would not improve traffic flow on 185 US 29 74 or US 321 However in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1502 14(d)) and FHWA guidelines (Technical Advisory T6640 8 p 16) the No Build Alternative will be given full consideration in the DEIS to provide a baseline for comparison with the Detailed Study Alternatives Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 13 DRAFT - July 2008 I.3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE I 3 1 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION There are no updates or additions to this section There are no changes to Table 2 or Figure 5 Transportation system management (TSM) measures typically consist of adding low cost minor transportation improvements to increase the capacity of an existing facility There are two main types of TSM minor roadway improvements operational and physical (see examples in side box) The TSM Alternatives evaluated for the proposed project considered minor improvements along existing US 29 74 US 321 the 185 interchange and mayor cross streets These consisted of traffic signal coordination and access control measures and intersection improvements such as interchange ramp improvements new intersection turn lanes and extensions of turn lanes to hold longer queues The following 58 intersection and ramp improvements at nineteen locations listed in Table 2 by roadway were included Examples of TSM Operational Improvements Traffic law enforcement Access control Signal coordination Turn prohibitions Speed restrictions Signal phasing or timing changes Examples of TSM Physical Improvements Turn lanes Intersection realignment Improved warning and information signs New signals or stop signs Intersection geometric and signalization improvements in the TSM Alternative The locations of these intersections are shown in Figure 5 The locations include the ramps and/or ramp termini intersections at eleven exits along 185 six intersections along US 29 74 and two intersections along US 321 Table 2 TSM Alternative Roadway Improvements 185 1 Add a 2 d lane on the southbound exit ramp to NC 274 (Exit 14) 2 Add a 2 "d lane on the southbound exit ramp to US 321 (Exit 17) 3 Add a 2 d lane on the southbound exit ramp to NC 7 (Exit 19) 4 Add a 2 d lane on the northbound exit ramp to NC 279 (Exit 20) 5 Add a 2 d lane on the northbound exit ramp to Old 273/NC 7 (Exit 26) 6 Add a 2 d lane on the southbound exit ramp to Old 273/NC 7 (Exit 26) 7 Add a 2nd lane on the southbound exit ramp to NC 273 (Exit 27) 8 Add a 2 "d acceleration lane for the southbound entrance ramp from 1485 185 Ramp Termini 1 Add a 2 "d left turn bay on the Edgewood Road (Exit 13) southbound exit ramp 2 Add a 2 d left turn bay on the NC 274 (Exit 14) southbound exit ramp Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 14 ' DRAFT — July 2008 Table 2 TSM Alternative Roadway Improvements 3 Add a 2 d right turn bay on the NC 7 (Exit 19) southbound exit ramp 4 Add a 2nd left turn bay on the NC 279 (Exit 20) northbound exit ramp 5 Add a 2 d left turn bay on the Cox Road (Exit 21) northbound exit ramp 6 Add a 2 d left turn bay on the Cox Road (Exit 21) southbound exit ramp 7 Lengthen the existing right turn bay on the Cox Road (Exit 21) southbound exit ramp 8 Add a 2 d left turn bay on the Main Street (Exit 22) northbound exit ramp 9 Lengthen the existing right turn bay on the Main Street (Exit 22) northbound exit ramp 10 Add a 2 d left turn bay on the Old NC 273/NC 7 (Exit 26) northbound exit ramp 11 Add a 2 "d left turn bay on the Old NC 273/NC 7 (Exit 26) southbound exit ramp 12 Add a 2 d left turn bay on the NC 273 (Exit 27) northbound exit ramp 13 Lengthen the existing right turn bay on the Sam Wilson Road (Exit 29) southbound exit ramp US 29 74 1 Add a 2 d eastbound left turn bay at Edgewood Road 2 Lengthen both of the existing eastbound left turn bays at NC 279 (New Hope Road) 3 Lengthen both of the existing westbound left turn bays at NC 279 (New Hope Road) 4 Add a 2 d westbound left turn bay at Cox Road 5 Add a 2 d westbound left turn bay at Redbud Drtve/Mam Street 6 Lengthen the existing westbound right turn bay at Redbud Drive/Main Street 7 Add a 2 d westbound left turn bay at Wesleyan Drive 8 Add a 2 d eastbound left turn bay at NC 273 9 Lengthen existing westbound left turn bay at NC 273 10 Add a 2 d westbound right turn bay at NC 273 US 321 1 Add a southbound left turn bay at Garrison Boulevard 2 Add a northbound left turn bay at Garrison Boulevard 3 Add a northbound right turn bay at Hudson Boulevard Edgewood Road 1 Add a southbound left turn bay at the 185 northbound exit ramp termini 2 Add a northbound right turn bay at the 185 northbound exit ramp termini 3 Add a northbound left turn bay at US 29 74 4 Add a southbound right turn bay at US 29 74 Hudson Boulevard 1 Add a 2 d westbound left turn bay at US 321 NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) 1 Add a 2 northbound left turn bay at the 185 southbound exit ramp termini NC 279 (New Hope Road) 1 Add a 2 d northbound left turn bay at the 185 southbound exit ramp ternum 2 Add a 2 d southbound left turn bay at the 185 northbound exit ramp tertrum 3 Add a 2 d northbound left turn bay at US 29 74 4 Lengthen the existing northbound right turn bay at US 29 74 5 Add a 2 d southbound left turn lane at US 29 74 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 1 5 DRAFT — July 2008 Table 2 TSM Alternative Roadway Improvements J Cox Road 1 Add a 2 d northbound left turn bay at the 185 southbound exit ramp terrruni 2 Add a 2 d southbound left turn bay at the 185 northbound exit ramp termim 3 Add a 2 d southbound through lane at US 29 74 Main Street 1 Add a 2 d southbound left turn bay at US 29 74 Wesleyan Drive 1 Add a 2 "d northbound left turn bay at US 29 74 2 Add a 2 d northbound right turn bay at US 29 74 Old NC 273 1 Add a 2 northbound left turn bay at the 185 southbound exit ramp termini 2 Add a southbound right turn bay at NC 7 (McAdenville Road) NC 7 1 Add a westbound right turn bay at the 185 northbound exit ramp terrrum 2 Add a 2 d northbound through lane at Old NC 273 NC 273 1 Add 2 d southbound left turn bay at US 29 74 2 Lengthen the existing southbound right turn bay at US 29 74 Sam Wilson Road 1 Add a southbound right turn bay at the 185 southbound exit ramp termini I 3 2 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ' Text was added to this section based on traffic forecasts for 2030 under the No Build Alternative The original section discusses traffic operations based on the 2025 Gaston travel demand model Traffic ' operations analyses discussed in this section were not rerun using the 2030 Metrohna forecasts A qualitative discussion of how traffic operations likely would change comparing the 2025 forecasts and the ' 2030 No Build Alternative is provided below The intersection and ramp improvements included as part of the TSM Alternative (see Table 2) came from the traffic operations analyses conducted for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives (improve 185 and /or US 29 74) (PBS &J 2004) The nineteen improvement locations are areas where potential deficiencies in intersection or ramp operations became apparent when evaluating 2025 corridor traffic operations for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives using the computer model CORSIM Note that in addition to being evaluated as part of the TSM Alternative the TSM Alternatives intersection improvements also were incorporated into three Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives (Scenarios 4+ 4a and 8) (See Section 16 1) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 16 DRAFT — July 2008 The 58 specific improvements listed in Table 2 were developed based on the results of the CORSIM modeling efforts and best professional judgment and represent improvements that would provide the best opportunity to maximize traffic operation efficiency in the 2025 peak hours (LOS D or better) at these locations The CORSIM model was not rerun with these improvements It was not necessary to rerun the CORSIM model with these improvements in order to draw conclusions or make decisions on the TSM Alternative s ability to meet the project s purpose and need Generally traffic volumes under the No Build Alternative are projected to be higher in 2030 than in 2025 i It is likely the same locations would have potential deficiencies and there may be more areas of potential deficiencies in intersection or ramp operations Therefore the 58 specific improvements identified using the 2025 traffic projections are still adequate to characterize the TSM Alternative at this level of study In addition to the intersection improvements traffic signal coordination and access control were considered Signal coordination or signal phasing and timing modifications would not be effective along most of the US 29 74 corridor in the project study area due to the wide spacing of signalized intersections outside the City of Gastonia Access control would not be effective along existing US 29 74 since hunting turning movements between signalized intersections would increase the turning movement volumes at signalized intersections Similarly access control measures such as prohibiting turn movements to increase capacity would not be practical on existing US 29 74 due to the need to provide access to the numerous commercial and residential driveways along the roadway Other minor TSM type physical and operational improvements that would increase capacity at intersections would not be effective for the project area since congestion along existing US 29 74 primarily is caused by through traffic conflicting with turning traffic TSM improvements alone would not enable US 29 74 to function adequately Since 185 is a controlled access highway with no intersections TSM improvements would not be feasible on 185 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 17 DRAFT — July 2008 13 3 DECISION ON WHETHER TO RETAIN FOR DETAILED STUDY ' There are no updates or additions to this section The decision to eliminate the TSM Alternative from detailed study is still valid DECISION Eliminate the TSM Alternative from Detailed Study In general TSM improvements typically are low cost measures that are effective in solving localized site specific capacity safety and operational problems in urban areas Alone they would not meet the U 3321 Project s more regional purposes and needs as described below PROS CONS • Relatively low cost • Continued congestion and poor levels of • Improved safety and reduced service on 185 delay at intersections and . Continued congestion on US 29 74 interchanges • Some improvements to • Does not improve connectivity traffic flow along US 29 74 o Lengthy construction period and traveler delays due to need for numerous spot improvements • Potential Impacts to businesses Although signal coordination and intersection improvements at 185 ramp terrium and selected locations along US 29 74 and US 321 would improve traffic flow somewhat along US 29 74 US 321 and cross streets over 185 congestion and poor levels of service would continue to be projected on 185 and congestion would continue on US 29 74 and US 321 TSM improvements on 185 ramp termini US 29 74 and US 321 would not improve access and connectivity in southern Gaston County nor between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County Construction timeframes for each individual intersection improvement project may not be lengthy but implementing all of them as the TSM Alternative would result in a prolonged construction period and numerous traveler delays particularly along US 29 74 US 29 74 also is a developed commercial corridor and intersection improvements such as new turn lanes would require additional right of way which would likely impact businesses along the corridor On August 17 2004 the NEPA/404 Merger Team concurred that the TSM Alternative should be eliminated from further study The concurrence form which was signed in July 2005 is included in Appendix A Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 1 8 DRAFT - July 2008 1.4 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE 14 1 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION The description of this alternative was updated to include recent data on CATS programs and to include discussion of HOT lanes Transportation demand management measures include measures and activities that change traveler behavior Typically they do not involve major capital improvements The TDM Alternative includes demand management strategies currently implemented in Gaston and /or Mecklenburg County such as staggered work hours and flex time (employer focused) and ndeshanng An additional measure not currently implemented in the project study area high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes also was considered Rideshanng such as carpools and vanpools is generally viewed as more convenient than bus transit with regard to access door to door times and comfort Presently CATS actively promotes ndeshanng to employment destinations in the Charlotte area by providing a car ndeshare matching service and a vanpool program CATS also promotes employer programs for managing travel demand ' No data is available on the success of the car ndeshare matching service The CATS vanpool program started in 1986 operates 85 vanpools Two travel from Gastonia one to US Airways and one to Uptown Charlotte and one travels from Kings Mountain to US Airways (CATS websrte ' http //www charmeck org/Departments /CATS/ Commute +Options/ Vanpool +List htm accessed May 13 2008) ' CATS operates the Employer Transportation Coordinator (ETC) Program to promote alternative transportation options in the workplace There are 55 employers in the program (http //www charmeck org/ Departments/ CATS /'Transit +Programs /ETC +Program htm accessed May 13 2008) High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes usually requiring two or more passengers per vehicle are most commonly used in heavily developed urbanized corridors usually on controlled access facilities to provide an incentive for ndeshanng and to facilitate efficient traffic flow If these lanes are tolled they are High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes HOT lanes typically allow buses carpools and vanpools to travel at no charge in the reserved lanes while single occupant vehicles must pay a toll North Carolina legislation (GS 136 89 187) prohibits converting any segment of the non tolled State Highway system to a toll facility so a TDM Alternative that converts existing general purpose lanes into HOT lanes is not possible under current State law Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 19 DRAFT - July 2008 I 14 2 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The only updates to this section are an update to the Charlotte region s vehicle occupancy rate and to include HOT along with HOV Staggered work hours flex time or modified workweeks can be implemented on a corridor level by large employers along the corridor who experience congestion at their entrances or exits Although the I 851US 29 74 corridor does contain some large businesses it is not expected that such adjustments to work schedules would significantly reduce peak hour traffic volumes within the project study area Most of the traffic volume along the I 85/US 29 74 corridor is along 185 and commuters using existing 185 generally are commuting to employment centers in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County As described above the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) has an active program to encourage use of TDM measures Based on surveys conducted in 2007 in the central business district of Charlotte vehicle occupancy in the Charlotte area is about 1 1 persons per vehicle (Charlotte Department of Transportation 2006) A much higher participation rate beyond that which can reasonably by expected would be required before ridesharing vanpooling HOV/HOT and other travel demand measures would have a noticeable impact on traffic conditions along the I 85/US 29 74 corridor Converting a general purpose lane on 185 to HOV or HOT would reduce traffic capacity and consequently would not alleviate congestion on this interstate Congestion on 185 likely would worsen for travelers in the general purpose lanes not using the HOV/HOT Congestion and traffic flow on iUS 29 74 and US 321 also would not improve under this alternative I 4 3 DECISION ON WHETHER TO RETAIN FOR DETAILED STUDY , This section updated to include HOT lanes The decision to eliminate the TDM Alternative from detailed 1 study remains valid DECISION Eliminate the TDM Alternative from Detailed Study TDM measures would promote iridesharing and an HOV or HOT lane would provide travel time savings for users However the TDM Alternative with or without conversion of a general purpose lane on 185 to HOV or HOT would not meet the U 3321 Project s PROS CONS • Promotes ndeshanng • Continued congestion on non • Travel time savings for HOV HOV lanes of I 85 users • No noticeable improvements to traffic flow on US 29 74 • Would not improve connectivity • Conversion to HOT lanes would require state legislative approval Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 1 10 DRAFT - July 2008 purposes and needs TDM measures would not improve connectivity in southern Gaston County nor between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County They also would not improve traffic flow along existing 185 S US 29 74 and US 321 Also conversion of a general purpose lane to a HOT lane would require a change in State law which is an additional factor for eliminating this type of improvement On August 17 2004 the NEPA/404 Merger Team concurred that the TDM Alternative should be eliminated from further study The concurrence form which was signed in July 2005 is included in Appendix A I.5 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE AND MULTI - MODAL ALTERNATIVE I 5 1 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION The alternative description did not change Updates are included in Sections 151 1 and 1512 for existing transit services and studies The Mass Transit Alternative would include bus or rail passenger service A mayor advantage of mass transit is it can provide high capacity energy efficient movement in densely traveled corridors It also serves high and medium density areas by offering an option for automobile owners who do not wish to drive as well as service to those without access to an automobile A Multi Modal Alternative would incorporate mass transit with roadway improvements Separate studies of mass transit are being undertaken in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Existing services and the status of the transit studies are described below 15 1 1 Existing Transit Services This section was updated to include recent data on transit programs Figure 6 did not change Gastonia Transit Bus service is available in Gastonia through Gastonia Transit which provides service to over 325 000 passengers annually Figure 6 shows the existing bus routes The bus fleet consists of seven (7) 35 foot transit buses three (3) demand response vans and the only compressed natural gas (CNG) bus in the state of North Carolina (Gastonia Transit General Information website www cityofgastoma com/city sery /general /transit/transit cfm accessed April 18 2008) All bus routes begin and end at Bradley Station at the corner of Oakland Street (SR 1001) and Main Avenue in Gastonia There are a total of nine bus routes of which three serve US 29 74 and three serve US 321 (Gastonia Transit Route Map website Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 111 DRAFT - July 2008 www cityofgastoma com/city serv/general/ pdf %20files /NC %2OGastonia %2OInt %20 %2005 pdf accessed April 18 2008) CATS The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) in partnership with Gastonia has established Express Bus ' service to uptown Charlotte Route 85x the Gastonia Express runs four times in the morning and twice in the evening The express bus makes one stop between the ' Bradley Station and Uptown Charlotte at the Abbey Plaza Shopping Center at the corner of US 29 74 and NC 273 (Park Street [North of NC 7]) in Belmont ' Total travel time on the express route is about one hour (Charlotte Area Transit System website www charmeck ora /Departments /CATS/Home htm ' accessed April 21 2008) Table 3 lists the average monthly ridership on Route 85x from 2002 through 2005 As shown in the table ridership has been increasing an average of 26 percent per year since 2002 Table 3 Average Monthly Ridership on CATS Route 85X — Gastonia Fxnress Year Average Monthly Ridership Percent Change Over Previous Year 2002 1774 2003 2 236 26% 2004 2 802 25% 2005 3 856 38% 2006 4 838 26% 2007 5 541 15% Source CATS February 2006 and June 2008 In western Mecklenburg County Route 2 runs along US 29/74 (Wilkinson Boulevard) to Old Dowd Road at Distribution and Marketing Services Inc This route runs to Old Dowd Road four times a day on ' weekdays only Route 55 also provides service in western Mecklenburg County running along Westinghouse Boulevard from the Sharon Road West Station to Steele Creek Road (NC 160) This route operates every half hour during the morning and afternoon rush hours and otherwise every hour on ' weekdays only (Charlotte Area Transit System website www charmeck org/Departments /CATS/Home htm accessed April 21 2008) ' Amtrak Amtrak provides passenger rail service in Gastonia and Charlotte There are currently three routes that service the area the Crescent route runs daily between New York City and New Orleans with many stops in between including Charlotte and Gastonia the Piedmont route provides daily trips between ' Charlotte and Raleigh and the Carolinian route provides daily service between Charlotte and New York City with stops in Raleigh Richmond Washington DC Baltimore and Philadelphia These routes operate on the Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines which also provide freight train service (Amtrak website www amtrak com accessed April 14 2008) Freight Rail Lines An active Norfolk Southern (NS) freight rail line parallels Wilkinson Boulevard from r western Mecklenburg County to the Town of Lowell in Gaston County (See Figure 1) The rail line crosses the Catawba River approximately 0 7 miles south of the existing US 29 74 crossing In Lowell the rail line turns northward and crosses 185 near Exits 22 and 19 while paralleling NC 7 (Ozark Avenue Lowell Road) between the two crossings Finally the rail line parallels US 29 74 (Franklin Boulevard) in Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 112 DRAFT — July 2008 Gastonia before turning northwest and crossing 185 near Exit 14 and exiting the project study area Due to the freight traffic along this active NS rail line any future transit service would have limited accessibility An active NS rail line (Carolina and Northwestern line) parallels US 321 in the project study area from 185 to York County South Carolina 15 1 2 Transit Studies This section was updated to include the most recent information on the status of transit planning for the CATS West Corridor project Figure 7 was updated to show the West Corridor Locally Preferred Alternative Mecklenburg County CATS is planning and implementing a mayor expansion of its mass transit service throughout the county In November 1998 Mecklenburg County citizens approved a local sales and use tax (one half percent) to support implementation of the 2025 Integrated Transit /Land Use Plan Five mayor mass transit corridors were identified in the 2025 Integrated Transit /Land Use Plan One of i the five mayor corridors is the West Corridor The Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) adopted the following multi phased approach for the West Corridor in August 2006 (CATS website http //www charmeck ort/ Departments / CATS / Rapid +Transit+Plannma /West +Corndor/ accessed May 14 2008) 1 Adopting Streetcar from Center City to the Airport as the long term Locally Preferred Alternative (2024) 2 Implementing upgraded bus service to the Airport (immediate) 3 Implementing Enhanced Bus improvements in the Wilkinson Boulevard West Boulevard / Tyvola and Freedom Drive corridors (2008) Enhanced bus service in the West Corridor will be designed and implemented along Wilkinson Boulevard Freedom Drive and West Boulevard beginning in 2008 This enhanced bus service will provide a more direct and faster service to the Charlotte Douglas International Airport with bus stops designed specifically Ifor the quicker service Streetcar design activities are scheduled to begin in 2024 (CATS website http //www charmeck org/Departments /CATS/Rapid +Transit +Planning /West +Corridor/ accessed May 14 i 2008) The proposed West Corridor Streetcar locally Preferred Alternative is a 6 4 mile alignment that will operate from Trade Street to Cedar Street to West Morehead Street then along Wilkinson Boulevard to Harlee Avenue terminating at the airport employee parking lot on Harlee Avenue Updated Figure 7 shows this alignment The Streetcar will travel in mixed traffic in the curb lanes Ten stops have been identified No park and ride lots have been included The Streetcar will operate at 10 minute headways in the peak period and 15 minute headways in the off peak times and weekends Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 1 13 DRAFT — July 2008 1 Gaston County The City of Gastonia and the GUAMPO completed a report titled Gastonia Rapid Transit Alternatives Study Corridor and Modal Options (December 2005) that studied improving transit in the Gastonia Charlotte corridor The report provided the following selected recommendations (pages 5 10 and 5 11) • The Gaston urban area s strategy at this point should be to plan for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) but keep modal and alignment options open Light Rail Transit (LRT) in Gaston County without LRT in the West Corridor [of Mecklenburg County] makes no sense • Mayor capital facility design and construction in Gaston County s extension of the West Corridor should only follow firm commitments to those activities in Mecklenburg County but some intermediate steps can be taken earlier to establish the area s commitment to rapid transit Gastonia s best alternative depends to a large extent on CATS decision as to mode and alignment in the West Corridor However at least one other element of BRT could be implemented without selecting an alignment The multi modal center serving downtown Gastonia could be built before an alignment is selected since the recommended site is convenient to all of them • Increased service frequency on the 85X route and service to additional points in the Gaston urban area and possibly direct service to Charlotte Douglas International Airport should be implemented To the extent resources permit I 5 2 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 1 There are no updates or additions to this section Transit services would not be expected to divert substantial Table 4 Percent of Commuters Using volumes of traffic off of 185 US 29 74 or US 321 or change Transit in 2000 traffic flow conditions on 185 US 29 74 or US 321 compared to the No Build Alternative Table 4 shows the percent of commuters that used transit in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties in 2000 along with comparative data on two other urban areas in North Carolina Wake and Forsyth Counties Even with a robust program in place such as is the case in Mecklenburg County a Mass Transit Alternative would have only a small effect on daily traffic County Percent of Commuters Using Transit Gaston 03% Mecklenburg 26% Wake 12% Forsyth 15% flows possibly diverting up to 2 percent of commuters This Source 2000 US Census decrease in commuter traffic would not be enough to change the projected congestion on 185 US 29 74 or US 321 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 1 14 DRAFT - July 2008 I 5 3 DECISION ON WHETHER TO RETAIN FOR DETAILED STUDY ' There are no updates or additions to this section The decision to eliminate the Mass Transit Alternative , and Multi Modal Alternative from detailed study is still valid DECISION Eliminate the Mass Transit Alternative and Multi Modal Alternative from Detailed Study 1 Rapid transit service would provide increased mobility between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County by providing an alternative mode choice If the alternative was on new alignment as a dedicated rapid transit alignment it could also improve connectivity between the two counties However the Mass Transit Alternative (either new rapid transit or expanded bus service) would not divert enough vehicular traffic to noticeably improve traffic flow on 185 US 29 74 or US 321 PROS CONS • Provides increased • Continued congestion and no mobility by providing an noticeable improvement to traffic flow alternative mode on 185 and US 29 74 • If on new alignment • High construction operation and could improve maintenance costs for fixed guideway connectivity alternatives to meet the project s purposes and needs Construction costs for a Mass Transit Alternative that is on dedicated right of way would be high There is no program currently in place in the state or in Gaston County to fund such improvements The Mass Transit Alternative for the Gaston East West Connector project would need to extend through Mecklenburg County to connect to the terminus of the West Corridor which is not scheduled for construction until 2024 As described in the previous section GUAMPO is studying transit as a separate project while still supporting the Garden Parkway (of which the Gaston East West Connector is an independent piece) as their top priority Combining mass transit with road improvements in a Multi Modal Alternative also would not be practicable The mass transit element would add substantial costs to any alternative that includes road improvements but would do very little to improve traffic flow on 185 US 29 74 and US 321 Pure roadway improvement alternatives are evaluated in Section 16 (Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives) and Section 17 (New Location Alternatives) On August 17 2004 the NEPA1404 Merger Team concurred that the Mass Transit Alternative and Multi Modal Alternative should be eliminated from further study The concurrence form which was signed by the NEPA/404 Merger Team Review Board at a later Review Board meeting in July 2005 is included in Appendix A Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 1 15 DRAFT - July 2008 1.6 IMPROVE EXISTING ROADWAYS ALTERNATIVES I 6 1 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS There are no changes to Figures 8 through 11 Additional information is included below about tolling options for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives The additional impacts and issues resulting from the toll options are discussed as new information in Section 16 3 The 2030 Metrohna travel demand model was not run for Improve Existing Roadway Alternatives toll options as it was not necessary for the decision making process Several different combinations of improvements were developed for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives These are named Scenarios 2 3 4 4+ 4a and 8 as described below and shown in Figures 8 through 11 Scenarios 2 and 3 which are subsets of the other scenarios were interim scenarios developed to evaluate the sensitivities in the travel demand model of improving capacity on 185 and US 29 74 Scenarios 2 and 3 were not evaluated as potential Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives Also as studies progressed Scenario 4 was replaced by Scenario 4+ Scenarios 2 3 and 4 are described below to provide context for the descriptions of Scenarios 4+ 4a and 8 Scenario 2 — Improve 185 to 8 lanes (see Figure 8) Widen 185 to eight lanes in each direction (addition of one through lane in each direction) from the existing 8 lane area at Exit 26 (Belmont) west through Gastonia to the interchange of US 29 74 and 185 (Exit 10) This scenario does not include any improvements to ramps or overpasses in the 185 corridor Scenario 3 — Improve US 29 74 to 6 lanes (see Figure 8) Existing US 29 74 is six lanes wide through much of the study area with four lane sections existing over the Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River and also west of Gastonia Widening US 29 74 to more than six lanes would not be practicable There are numerous commercial driveways along US 29 74 and high demand for turn movements at intersections and all along each block It would not be desirable to have an eight lane cross section on a non controlled access roadway There would be too many lanes for drivers to safely maneuver across to make turns Improvements to US 29 74 under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives would include widening the bridges over the Catawba River and the South Fork Catawba River to six lanes and widening the four lane section from Myrtle School Road (west of Gastonia) west to 185 to six lanes This scenario does not include any turn lane improvements on US 29 74 or on any other arterials in the project study area Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 1 16 DRAFT — July 2008 Scenario 4 — Improve 185 to 8 lanes and US 29 74 to 6 lanes (see Figure 8) Scenario 4 is a combination of Scenarios 2 and 3 This alternative was replaced by Scenario 4+ after a corridor level traffic analysis was conducted (PBS &J 2005) Scenario 4+ Improve 185 to 8 lanes and US 29 74 to 6 lanes with TSM type measures (See Figure 9) Scenario 4+ is Scenario 4 with intersection /ramp improvements and improvements to cross streets of 185 US 29 74 and US 321 Based on the results of a corridor level traffic operations analysis (CORSIM) for Scenario 4 (PBS &J 2004) a list was developed of additional improvements that would be needed along and in the direct vicinity of the 185 and US 29 74 corridor that would help maximize the efficiency of traffic operations along the corridor This list included measures such as adding turn lanes or additional lanes at interchange ramps The improvements in Scenario 4+ include widening 185 and US 29 74 the 58 improvements listed under the TSM Alternative and the following cross street improvements 185 Ramp Add a 2 d acceleration lane for the southbound entrance ramp from 1485 US 321 Add a 3 d southbound through lane in the vicinity of the 185 interchange NC 274 (Bessemer City Add a 3 d southbound through lane in the vicinity of the 185 interchange Rd) Garrison Blvd Widen to six lanes in the vicinity of US 321 NC 7 Add a 3 ° southbound through lane starting at the 185 southbound exit (Ozark Ave) ramp ternum and ending south of the 185 interchange NC 7 Add a 2 d northbound through lane at Old NC 273 Sam Wilson Rd Add a 2 d southbound through lane at the 185 southbound exit ramp termini Scenario 4a Improve Existing 185 to 10 lanes (See Figure 10) Scenario 4a is Scenario 4+ with the following modifications Widen 185 to ten lanes from Exit 19 (Ozark Avenue) east to Exit 29 at 1485 (widen 185 to 8 lanes from Exit 14 east to Exit 19 and widen US 29 74 to 6 lanes) This is the minimum number of general purpose lanes estimated to be needed for 185 to operate at a basic freeway segment Level of Service (LOS) D or better in 2025 (See Section 18 4 for a definition and discussion of levels of service) • Capacity increases on the following road segments that connect 185 and US 29 74 NC 279 Widen to 6 lanes from just north of 185 to US 29 74 (New Hope Rd) Cox Rd Widen to 6 lanes from lust north of 185 to US 29 74 Widen to 4 lanes from US 29 74 south to Garrison Cox Rd Blvd /Armstrong Park Drive /Gardner Park Ave (this road has three names in the Cox Road vicinity) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 1 17 DRAFT — July 2008 Redbud Dr Widen to 4 lanes from US 29 74 south to NC 279 NC 7 at 185 Widen to 4 lanes from north of 185 to US 29 74 Exit 26 • Considerations were included in the travel demand model to account for intersection improvements along US 29 74 and at interstate ramps that would result from implementing the improvements recommended in Scenario 4+ Scenario 8 Scenario 4a plus capacity improvements to north/south feeder roads (See Figure]]) Scenario 8 started with Scenario 4a (Improve Existing 185 to 10 lanes) Added to this were capacity improvements (one lane in each direction) to north/south feeder roads that connect southern Gaston County to US 29 74 and 185 as had been suggested in a general way by some of the environmental resource agencies These were suggested as a potential way for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative to meet the connectivity aspect of the project s purpose and need Below is a list of the ten roadways where capacity improvements were added in the Gaston County 2025 travel demand model (approximately 51 miles of improvements) The list was developed with input from the GUAMPO It does not include all the feeder roads that have exits on 185 dust those the GUAMPO determined would be most effective at improving access to /from southern Gaston County and I 85/US 29 74 NC 273 Widen south from 185 to NC 279 at the Botanical Garden (4 lane divided) NC 7 Widen from Exit 27 south to NC 273 (4 lane divided) NC 279 (New Widen from Exit 20 on 185 south to NC 273 at the Botanical Garden Hope Road) (5 lanes) Redbud Drive Widen from Exit 22 at 185 south to NC 279 (4 lane divided) NC 274 (Union Widen from Robmwood Road south past the airport continuing on Union New Hope Road) New Hope Road swinging northwest to NC 279 (4 lane divided) Robinwood Road Widen from NC 279 New Hope Road south to NC 274 (4 lanes) Robinson Road Widen from NC 274 south to US 321 (5 lanes) Beginning at NC 274 (Bessemer City Rd) at Exit 14 widen south to Various Names Myrtle School Road continuing south on Myrtle School Rd all the way to US 321 This road changes names to David Road then Stagecoach Road before meeting up with US 321 (4 lane divided or 5 lane) NC 274 Widen from State Line to Union New Hope Road (4 lane divided) Widen to 6 lanes from State Line to 185 (Note This widening would US 321 impact the City s main historic district but the widening would be necessary to handle existing and projected future traffic ) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 1 18 DRAFT — July 2008 Toll Options for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives Improve Existing Roadways Scenarios 4+ 4a and 8 all include widening 185 (by 1 2 general purpose lanes in each direction) as a component of each alternative This widening was considered in the February 2007 Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report as additional non toll capacity on 185 Another way to consider this new capacity could be as toll lanes The existing lanes on 185 by North Carolina law (GS 136 89 187) cannot be tolled but the new capacity could be tolled The following paragraphs describe three toll options considered for the new capacity on 185 These options from most to least intensive improvements and right of way requirements include constructing a fully barrier separated toll facility constructing toll or HOT lanes with a lower level of physical separation from the non toll lanes (such as delineating buffer zones by pavement markings) or reconfiguring existing pavement to add the toll or HOT lanes i If the additional one to two lanes were added as a physically separated toll facility the toll lanes would be located to the inside of the general purpose lanes The additional capacity could be in the form of bi directional or reversible toll lanes Since there is only a narrow existing median (a jersey barrier and paved shoulders) new pavement would need to be added to the outside of the existing pavement and the lanes reconfigured i Reversible Lanes on 1 394 in Minneapolis MN The physical separation would include jersey (source FHWA) barriers and additional shoulders and access ramps to and from the toll lanes which would require significantly more right of way than a standard widening Also significantly more right of way would be required at interchanges In this option the toll lanes would need their own ramps as either nested interchanges with existing non toll facility ramps or at new interchanges constructed for the toll lanes only The tight spacing of many of the interchanges through Gastonia east of US 321 (about one mile apart) will result in the toll lanes having less interchanges through Gaston County than the general purpose lanes and less accessibility for people traveling to /from Gaston County A fully barrier separated toll facility could be used by vehicles with and without electronic toll collection transponders as the controlled access would provide the ability to capture video images of license plates entering and exiting enabling the NCTA to identify and bill owners of vehicles using the facility Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 1 19 DRAFT — July 2008 If the additional capacity in each direction was constructed with a lower level of physical separation the right of way requirements would - still be greater than if the additional lanes were ak e general purpose lanes As in the previous i option the new lanes would need to be located'* to the inside of the general purpose lanes Since l fic§ there is only a narrow existing median (a jersey barrier and paved shoulders) new pavement would need to be added to the outside of the existing pavement and the lanes reconfigured' 1 405 HOV Lanes in Orange County CA The separation between the toll/HOT lanes and general purpose lanes would be provided via pavement marking or a physical barrier such as pylons The toll/HOT lanes would need additional right of way to account for a recommended minimum 4 foot buffer zone between the toll/HOT lanes and the general purpose travel lanes and a wider (14 foot) inside shoulder to provide room for enforcement activities (HOV Systems Manual National Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) Report 414 1998) A separation or buffer zone of at least four feet is recommended by FHWA as a desirable condition for HOT lanes (A Guide for Hot Lane Development) Although there would be less physical separation between the toll/HOT lanes and the general purpose lanes access into and out of the toll or HOT lanes would need to occur at specific locations along the highway to capture appropriate toll charges The access areas could be indicated by changing the buffer zone pavement marking to a dashed line indicating vehicles can pass into and out of the toll/HOT lanes Access into and out of the toll/HOT lanes would need to be between interchanges and designed with sufficient weaving length to allow vehicles to safely enter and exit There would then need to be sufficient length provided from the access point to the next downstream interchange so vehicles would be able to cross the general purpose lanes to the interchange exit ramp Due to close spacing between interchanges on 185 in the project area and the presence of curves access to /from the toll/HOT lanes would be limited and would not be provided between every interchange The reduced access points would provide less accessibility for people traveling to /from Gaston County than under a non toll option for widening 185 The third option for tolling lanes is to reconfigure existing pavement to add one new lane in each direction (Scenario 4+ only) This type of option currently is being studied by transportation planners in the Charlotte region as part of the Fastlanes study (www charmeck org /fastlanes) The Fastlanes study is examining the feasibility of various types of fast lanes (e g HOV HOT special use lanes) on mayor highways in the Charlotte region including 185 177 1485 1 277 US 321 US 74 US 521 NC 24 27 and NC 16) The study will determine the technical financial and institutional feasibility of dedicating lanes on mayor highways in the Charlotte region for active traffic management The study is being funded by the North Carolina Department of Transportation the Mecklenburg Union Gaston Urban Area and Cabarrus Rowan metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) the Rock Hill Fort Mill Area Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 120 DRAFT — July 2008 Transportation Study and the Town of Mooresville (Fastlanes project website www charmeck om /fastlanes) The study is expected to be released in late 2008 i For 185 through the Gastonia area the Fastlanes study is evaluating the feasibility of providing one additional managed lane in each direction by restnping the existing pavement Currently 185 in the Gastonia area has three 12 foot travel lanes in each direction and 10 foot inside and outside shoulders Restripmg could add one additional lane by reducing the existing inside shoulder to two feet and having the resulting four lanes in each direction be 11 feet wide which is substandard for an interstate facility These are mayor design exceptions that would need to be approved by NCDOT and FHWA before this reconfiguration could proceed If the new lane added as a result of restriping was a HOT lane the two foot shoulder would effectively eliminate the ability for a trooper to enforce the occupancy requirement Automated vehicle occupancy verification technologies are currently being tested in the United States however there is no existing facility that has deployed this technology A two foot inside shoulder would make enforcement difficult Installing toll collection equipment would be a challenge since there would be little room in the center of the roadway If the new lane added as a result of restnping was a toll only lane the limited two foot shoulder would be undesirable from a customer service standpoint Any vehicles that break down within the single toll lane would block the toll lane until such time they could be safely removed Also the installation of toll equipment within a narrow median /shoulder area could potentially pose design challenges if there are system limitations on proximity of equipment located overhead and at ground level I 6 2 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS - CONCLUSIONS The following is additional information based on toll options and on forecasts from the 2030 Metrohna I travel demand model for Scenano 4a (widen 185 to 8 10 lanes widen US 29 74 to 6 lane as a non toll facility) (see added Sections 18 5— 18 7) Various traffic operations analyses conducted for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives using the 2025 Gaston Travel demand model and the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model are described in detail in Section 18 Conclusions from these analyses are summarized below Year 2025 regional network statistics demonstrate a reduction in congested travel for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives Scenarios 4 +, 4a, and 8 Statistics for the entire modeled 2025 roadway network were generated from the regional travel demand model These statistics are for AM and PM peak periods and include vehicle miles traveled vehicle hours traveled congested vehicle miles and congested vehicle hours Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 121 DRAFT — July 2008 Under Scenario 4+ capacity improvements made to existing 185 (widen to 8 lanes) and US 29 74 (widen to 6 lanes) would reduce the congested vehicle m des traveled and the congested vehicle hours traveled in the 2025 network compared to the No Build Alternative Total vehicle riles and vehicle hours traveled would be similar to the No Build Alternative These results are consistent with the expectation that capacity improvements to the primary routes through Gaston County (I 85 and US 29 74) would result in a noticeable change in predicted regional congestion including the reduction of congested vehicle miles and congested vehicle hours It follows that the regional model shows that by increasing capacity further on 185 to eight to ten lanes (Scenario 4a) would result in a further reduction in congested vehicle miles and congested vehicle hours compared to the No Build Alternative and Scenario 4+ (I 85 at 8 lanes) The largest reductions in congested vehicle miles and congested vehicle hours compared to the No Build Alternative would occur under Scenario 8 which would not only improve 185 to eight to ten lanes and US 29 74 to six lanes but also widen and therefore relieve congestion on approximately 51 miles of north/south feeder roads connecting southern Gaston County and 185 and US 29 74 Year 2030 regional network statistics demonstrate an increase in congested travel for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a compared to the No Build Alternative w Statistics for the modeled 2030 roadway network were generated from the 2030 Metrolma regional travel demand model These statistics are for AM and PM peak periods and daily totals and i include vehicle miles traveled (VMT) vehicle hours traveled (VHT) congested VMT and congested VHT Results from the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model differ from the 2025 Gaston travel demand model Although general trends can be inferred direct comparisons should not be made between the two models The 2030 Metrolma travel demand model is for a different year covers a larger region uses more recent land use and population forecasts and incorporates more recent travel pattern and trip table information i Under Scenario 4 + /4a capacity improvements made to existing 185 (widen to 8 10 lanes) and US 29 74 (widen to 6 lanes) result in so much increased traffic volume due to the latent demand for travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties that total VMT in Gaston County in 2030 increases from 8 512 000 VMT under the No Build Alternative to 9 550 000 VMT under Scenarios 4 + /4a This is a 12 percent increase As used in this report latent demand means trips people desire to make over the Catawba River between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County that are not being made under existing conditions but would be made if capacity over the Catawba River is increased 1 � Likewise 2030 VHT are greater under Scenario 4 + /4a than they are under the No Build Alternative (267 000 VHT versus 234 900 VHT) Year 2030 congested VHT and VMT in Gaston ' r County also are greater under Scenario 4 + /4a than under the No Build Alternative As a percent Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 122 DRAFT — July 2008 of total VMT and total VHT the congested VMT and congested VHT are highest for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a compared to the No Build Alternative and the New Location Alternative (Toll and Non Toll Scenarios) This may be due to higher congestion on roadways leading to the improved 185 and the congestion projected to still occur on the improved 185 A review of these numbers suggest that local travelers are willing to drive farther on local roadways to reach 185 if there is greater capacity provided on 185 and that there is a large demand for travel across the Catawba River between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Also since no improvements are made to the feeder roads connecting Gaston County travelers to 185 under Scenarios 4 + /4a these increased numbers of travelers would experience more congestion on these feeder roadways contributing to Gaston County s congested VHT and VMT A reduction in 2030 congested VMT and VHT compared to Scenarios 4 + /4a likely would occur under Scenario 8 Scenario 8 would not only improve 185 to eight to ten lanes and US 29 74 to six lanes but also widen and therefore relieve congestion on approximately 51 miles of north/south feeder roads connecting southern Gaston County to /from 185 and US 29 74 Based on the 2025 Gaston travel demand model, latent demand for Interstate travel exists in the area When 185 is widened under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives additional traffic volumes are attracted to 185 East of US 321 average daily traffic volumes on 185 increase an average of 4 percent under Scenarios 4+ and Scenario 4a East of US 321 PM peak hour traffic volumes on 185 increase an average of 11 percent under Scenario 4+ 16 percent under Scenario 4a and 19 percent under Scenario 8 There is so much latent demand in the study area for highway travel that adding the one lane in each direction on 185 (as under Scenario 4 +) attracted an average of 1 300 additional vehicles per hour in the PM peak along 185 east of US 321 compared to the No Build Alternative (Scenario 1) Adding two lanes in each direction on 185 (widening to 10 lanes) under Scenario 4a attracted an average of 1900 additional vehicles per hour in the PM peak east of US 321 Widening the north/south feeder roads to the interstate as under Scenario 8 attracted an average of 2 250 additional vehicles per hour to 185 in the PM peak compared to the No Build Alternative (Scenario 1) Based on the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model, latent demand for Interstate travel exists in the area When 185 is improved under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a additional traffic volumes are attracted to 185 There is so much latent demand in the study area i for highway travel that adding one to two lanes in each direction on 185 under Scenarios 4 + /4a attracted an average of 17 percent more vehicles per hour to 185 compared to the No Build Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 123 DRAFT - July 2008 Alternative Widening the north/south feeder roads to the interstate as under Scenario 8 would be expected to attract even more vehicles to 185 Widening 185 to a constant 8 lanes through the project study area under Scenario 4+ would not provide enough capacity to fulfill demand This is also projected to be true for Scenario 4+ under a toll option Even if 185 was widened to 8 10 lanes (as under Scenario 4a) levels of service on 185 would continue to be LOS F in the eastern half of the study area Although the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives were not modeled as toll options using the Metrolina travel demand model modeling of the New Location Alternative as a toll option showed that more than one lane in each direction would be needed under the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario to carry projected traffic Based on the 2025 Gaston travel demand model, the regional travel demand model volume /capacity maps indicate improvements to traffic flow on 185 and US 29 74, but not on US 321 The 2025 regional travel demand model was used to produce color coded maps for various scenarios showing ratios of projected traffic volumes divided by modeled roadway capacity The maps indicate general levels of congestion on network roadway segments Comparing maps from different scenarios can reveal the general effects each scenario would have on network congestion Each roadway was color coded to represent the volume to capacity ratio for the peak 2 hour period with colors ranging from worst to best respectively red yellow green and blue Red is a volume to capacity ratio above 12 Yellow represents a volume to capacity ratio of 10 — 12 Green is a volume to capacity ratio of 0 8 — 10 and blue is a volume to capacity ratio less than 0 8 In addition relative volumes for each roadway are indicated by line width In the year 2025 existing 185 is expected to be highly congested through the project area under the No Build Alternative Widening 185 to eight lanes and US 29 74 to six lanes (Scenario 4 +) results in noticeable improvements to PM peak hour traffic flows on 185 and US 29 74 Under Scenario 4+ there are no red segments along 185 and fewer red and yellow segments along US 29 74 Volume to capacity ratios along US 321 do not noticeably change remaining at primarily yellow and red As more capacity is added to 185 under Scenario 4a (widen 185 to 8 10 lanes) volume to capacity ratios on 185 improve further Most of the segments along 185 are blue and green There are also some improvements on US 29 74 as more traffic diverts to use widened 185 Volume to capacity ratios along US 321 are not affected remaining at primarily yellow and red As expected the most improvements to volume to capacity ratios are seen under Scenario 8 which includes widening 185 to ten lanes and widening of several north/south feeder roads (approximately 51 miles worth) connecting to southern Gaston County (including US 321) Under this scenario 185 is entirely blue (volume to capacity ratio of < 0 8) US 29 74 would experience Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 124 DRAFT — July 2008 more improvements in traffic flow than under Scenarios 4+ or 4a possibly because the widened feeder roads allow for more options to reach 185 and US 29 74 US 321 also shows improvements in volume to capacity ratios south of US 29 74 because it would be widened under Scenario 8 Based on the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model, only small improvements to traffic flow and level of service on 185 would be achieved with the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives 185 is projected to operate primarily at LOS F in 2030 regardless of the alternative Under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 4 + /4a and Scenario 8 most improvements in traffic flow that would be achieved along 185 by adding additional lanes would be offset by the increase in traffic volumes attracted to the facility LOS on 185 would improve to LOS D E only west of US 321 under Scenario 4+ Under Scenario 4a LOS also would improve to LOS E between Exits 19 and 22 LOS on 185 also likely would not improve under Scenario 8 because the widened north south feeder roads would allow more traffic to reach 185 If the new lanes on 185 were tolled the toll rate could be adjusted to manage level of service in the tolled lanes which would improve traffic flow for only those lanes Tolled lanes would have less accessibility than if the new capacity were general purpose lanes because'access to /from the toll lanes could not be provided at every interchange through Gaston County 1485 is projected to operate primarily at LOS E under the No Build Alternative Under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a LOS would degrade to LOS F This is likely to be the case also under Scenario 8 Under the No Build Alternative US 29 74 is projected to operate primarily at LOS D or better west McAdenville and LOS F east of McAdenville Under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a LOS would improve compared to the No Build Alternative west of Myrtle School Road (US 29 74 would be widened in this location) The Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a would result in slightly higher traffic volumes on US 29 74 west of NC 279 (New Hope Rd) compared to the No Build Alternative This is likely due to the fact that travelers wanting to use the widened 185 under Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 4 + /4a would use portions of improved US 29 74 to get there Scenario 8 could result in higher volumes on US 29 74 compared to Scenarios 4 + /4a heightening the trend shown under Scenarios 4 + /4a as travelers can more easily reach 185 and US 29 74 via the widened north south feeder roads and may use portions of US 29 74 to access 185 The 2030 level of service along US 321 would be similar for all evaluated alternatives Levels of i service are LOS D or better through the project area except near the 185 ramps where levels of i service would be LOS F Improve Existing Roadway Alternatives Scenarios 4 + /4a would result in an increase in traffic volumes along US 321 in the study area on average of about 15 percent as i more people use US 321 to travel to a widened 185 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 125 DRAFT - July 2008 1 i The Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives would not improve east west connectivity or mobility within ' southern Gaston County or between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, and travel times for most intra and inter county trips would lengthen ' Currently there are no continuous east west routes in southern Gaston County The roads in southern Gaston County generally run north south With the exception of US 321 which is four lanes wide with no access control all primary roads in southern Gaston County (NC routes and SR ' routes) are two lane roadways with no access control Therefore improvements to existing roads in southern Gaston County could not improve east west connectivity would not improve travel times and would only nominally improve mobility Travel times within southern Gaston County and between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties would lengthen somewhat under the Improve Existing Roadway Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a (Section ' 18 8) Under these scenarios more vehicles are using the network roads to reach 185 and US 29 74 which reduces speeds on roadways throughout the network (Section 18 5) If the new capacity on 185 were tolled travel time savings may improve but some of these savings would be offset ' because vehicles would still need to drive on congested roadways to reach the interstate Also for inter county travel travelers must use 185 or US 29 74 to cross over the river which constrains traffic flow Travel times under Scenario 8 likely would be better as more capacity is provided on ' north south feeder roads but travel time savings would not reach the levels achieved by a New Location Alternative I 6 3 IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS The additional impacts and issues resulting from a toll option for adding new capacity to 185 are discussed as new information in this section ' Several potential impacts were considered in the evaluation of the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives Impacts analyzed were for Scenario 8 since this scenario (which improved the north/south feeder roads) provided the best opportunity to meet the purpose and need out of all the Improve Existing ' Roadways Alternatives However discussions below of impacts from improvements to 185 and US 29 74 also would apply to Scenarios 4+ and 4a Impacts from the toll options for adding new capacity to 185 ' would be greater than discussed below due to the larger footprint required for right of way particularly at interchanges under the toll option that would construct fully separated toll lanes Scenario 8 includes numerous improvements to north /south feeder roads in southern Gaston County as shown in Figure 11 Most of these improvements are widenmgs of existing US and NC routes such as US 321 NC 7 NC 273 NC 274 and NC 279 to four or five lane roadways Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 126 DRAFT - July 2008 The estimates of potential impacts were based on information obtained from NCDOT and Gaston County GIS databases aerial photography and prelinunary field observations Potential impacts for Scenario 8 have been organized into two categories environmental and engineering Potential impacts from improving the existing east west roadways 185 and US 29 74 are discussed for both categories along with impacts due to the feeder route improvements In general improvements to existing 185 and US 29 74 likely would have an overall lesser impact on the natural environment than a new location alternative However impacts to the human environment may be equal to or greater than a new location alternative for Scenario 8 Table 5 lists the potential impacts from the north/south feeder route improvements Figures 12a a show representative north/south feeder road segments on aerial photography Further discussion of these impacts and impacts due to improving US 29 4 and 185 is provided below Table 5 Potential Imuacts from Widening North/South Feeder Routes Included to Scenario 8 The north south feeder roads are 1 NC 273 south to NC 279 at the Botanical Garden (4 lane divided) 2 NC 7 from Exit 27 south to NC 273 (4 lane divided) 3 NC 279 (New Hope Rd) from Exit 20 on 185 south to NC 273 at the Botanical Garden (5 lanes) 4 Redbud Dr from Exit 22 at 185 south to NC 279 (4 lane divided) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 127 DRAFT — July 2008 1 North/South Feeder Road' Issue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Total Length (miles) 80 14 110 18 82 3 1 36 52 21 108 55 Length of 63 14 82 18 82 3 1 36 52 21 108 51 improvements (rules) Churches 2 4 12 4 6 2 8 1 5 44 Utilities ( # of transmission 4 2 4 2 1 2 3 5 23 crossings) Residences Med Med High High Med High Med High Med High High Businesses Low High Med Med Low Low Low Med Med High Med Parks/Recreation 1 1 2 Areas Community Facilities 1 2 4 4 2 13 Potential Historic Sites or Districts 4 6 2 2 6 20 (based on Phase I survey) Streams (# of crossings / #of 2/2 1/0 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 2/3 10 /10 bridges) NWI Wetlands 1 1 (# of crossings) Floodplains (# of 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 12 crossings) Known Hazardous 2 2 Materials Sites The north south feeder roads are 1 NC 273 south to NC 279 at the Botanical Garden (4 lane divided) 2 NC 7 from Exit 27 south to NC 273 (4 lane divided) 3 NC 279 (New Hope Rd) from Exit 20 on 185 south to NC 273 at the Botanical Garden (5 lanes) 4 Redbud Dr from Exit 22 at 185 south to NC 279 (4 lane divided) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 127 DRAFT — July 2008 1 Table 5 Potential Impacts from Widening North/South Feeder Routes Included in Scenario 8 Issue North/South Feeder Road' 1 1 2 3 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 Total 5 NC 274 (Union New Hope Rd) Robmwood Rd south past the airport continuing on Union/New Hope Rd swinging northwest to NC 279 (4 lane divided) 6 Robmwood Rd from NC 279 New Hope Rd south to NC 274 (4 lanes) 7 Robinson Rd from NC 274 south to US 321 (5 lanes) 8 NC 274 at Exit 14 south to Myrtle School Rd continuing south on Myrtle School Rd to US 321 (4 lane divided or 5 lane) 9 NC 274 from State Line to Union/S New Hope Rd (4 lane divided) 10 US 321 widened to 6 lanes from State Line to 185 16 3 1 Potential Human Environment Impacts There are no updates or additions to this section As stated above impacts from a toll option for adding new capacity to 185 would be greater than a non toll option due to the larger footprint required particularly at interchanges Potential impacts to the human environment would be greatest for improvements along US 321 NC 279 and NC 273 The following human environment impacts along the feeder routes would be in addition to the human environment impacts associated with improvements along 185 and US 29 74 Relocations and Community Facilities Impacts Widening sections of the north/south feeder routes would impact residences businesses churches community facilities along these roadways NC 279 (Road 3 in Table 5) and NC 274 (Road 8) could potentially impact twenty churches along the approximate sixteen miles of improvements In general potential residential impacts are greatest along existing two lane routes such as NC 273 NC 279 and NC 274 where single family homes and their individual driveways are located on both sides of the roadway Potential business impacts would be greatest near or between 185 and US 29 74 such as along US 321 (Road 10) and NC 7 (Road 2) Figure 12b shows the high density development along US 321 Figure 12c shows a segment of NC 7 where business impacts could occur Potential community facility impacts would be greatest along NC 279 (Road 3) and NC 274 (Road 5) Figure 12d shows a section of NC 279 (Road 3) with a high potential for impacts to community facilities churches Forest View High School a library and potential historic properties Parks Two roadway sections have the potential to impact parks based on additional roadway widening Widening of NC 7 through Belmont could impact Crescent Park (Figure 12c) and the widening of NC 279 could impact the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden Historic Sites and Districts A Phase I survey of historic architectural resources was conducted in May ' 2003 for the New Location Alternatives study area The Phase I survey also identified known historic sites and districts on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places located in the 185 and US 29 74 corridors Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 128 DRAFT — July 2008 Historic sites and districts are located along existing US 29 74 (Franklin Boulevard) and US 321 (York Street) The intersection of these two roadways is in Gastonia s Downtown Historic District (National Register of Historic Places) Impacts to the District would be unavoidable Figure 12b shows the Downtown Historic District in Gastonia Improvements to US 29 74 (Wilkinson Boulevard) through Belmont could impact the Belmont Historic District There are a total of twenty potential historic sites that could potentially be impacted by north /south feeder road improvements Figure 12d shows some of the potential historic sites along NC 279 Hazardous Materials Sites Two known hazardous material sites could be impacted by widening US 321 The two hazardous material sites are RCRA or CERCLA sites AB Carter Inc and Woody s Tire Fire The AB Carter Inc site generated treated and land disposed wastewater and sludge from a chroming and nickel plating operation for the textile industry The Woody s Tire Fire site was used to store used tires with roughly 50 000 to 100 000 tires that caught on fire 16 3 2 Potential Natural Environment Impacts There are no updates or additions to this section As stated above impacts from a toll option for adding new capacity to 185 would be greater than a non toll option due to the larger footprint required Potential impacts to the natural environment could occur along existing US 29 74 where approximately 6 3 miles of improvements would be necessary to upgrade to six lanes along the corridor Where improvements are necessary there are several stream and floodplam crossings Six bridge crossings would be required one over the Catawba River one over the South Fork of the Catawba River and four west of Myrtle School Road Potential impacts to the natural environment would be greatest for feeder road improvements along US 321 (Road 10) and NC 273 (Road 1) as a result of multiple stream crossings and bridge replacements Improvements to US 321 would require crossing two streams (one crossing is an existing potentially historic bridge) with three new bridges Also four floodplains would be crossed Improvements to NC 273 would require crossing two streams with two new bridges one of which would be over the South Fork of the Catawba River 16 3 3 Potential Engineering Issues ' This section updated to include a statement about the potential engineering issues related to the toll option for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative scenarios The discussion of potential engineering issues associated with widening 185 applies to whether the widening is tolled or non toll However the engineering issues would be more complex and result in more impacts under the toll options Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 129 DRAFT - July 2008 Constructability 185 would be widened to eight to ten lanes throughout the study area under Scenarios ' 4+ 4a and 8 The total length of proposed improvements along 185 would be approximately 16 miles for Scenario 4+ and 20 5 miles for Scenarios 4a and 8 All interchanges along 185 in the project study area (a total of 11) would need to be reconstructed in order to meet current AASHTO design standards and to provide enough space under the bridges to accommodate the additional lanes In addition to work at the eleven interchanges in the project study area there are fifteen cross street bridges and six railroad bridges that would need to be replaced because of inadequate horizontal clearances for additional lanes Figure 12e shows an example of one of the substandard interchanges in the project study area (I 85 at Ozark Avenue [Exit 19]) where an interchange and a railroad bridge would have to be reconfigured if improvements were made to existing 185 Maintenance of Traffic and Travel Delays The re construction of interchanges and replacement of structures along 185 would result in lengthy construction periods with significant driver delays through these construction zones for an extended period of time Complex traffic control plans would be required to provide for the safety of the motorists and the construction workers There are no controlled access routes between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties that could serve as an alternate route to 185 during construction Currently when incidents occur on 185 traffic is rerouted to US 29 74 which has no access control and a high density of commercial driveways and traffic signals In order to maintain existing traffic patterns to the extent possible the new bridge structures over the interstate would need to be constructed on new alignments and where possible adjacent to the existing structures These reconstructions and realignments would impact adjacent businesses Safety, Bridle Replacement, and Construction Schedule The construction of new bridge structures would result in increased driver delay and could impact driver safety during the construction period In order to attempt to imninuze these delays it would be recommended to stagger the replacement of these bridges within the project study area limits By staggering this construction there could be a delay of ten years or more before widening of 185 could be completed resulting in continued driver delays This estimated construction schedule was based on NCDOT Division 12 Construction Engineer s professional judgment and experience Diversion of Traffic Patterns There would likely be increased driver delays and potential economic impacts to local merchants as a result of changes in travel patterns due to construction for widenings and intersection improvements along a majority of this east west corridor Structural issues related to bridges would not be as prevalent along US 29 74 when compared to 185 Construction of feeder route improvements outside of the urban areas would be disruptive to traffic patterns in southern Gaston County which currently suffers from the lack of east west connectivity Improving the feeder routes while constructing or making improvements along existing 185 and US 29 74 also would reduce mobility and increase travel times between Gaston and Mecklenburg County Completion of the 185 and US 29 74 improvements first would extend the already extremely lengthy construction period Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 130 DRAFT — July 2008 16 3 4 Inconsistency with Local Thoroughfare Plans and Comprehensive Land Use Plans This section updated to reference the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plans for GUAMPO and MUMPO 1 The Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives would not be consistent with local transportation and land use plans as either a toll or non toll facility l The Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives would not be consistent with local transportation and land l use plans The Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) recommends a new location highway to improve east west mobility in southern Gaston County in the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) The Mecklenburg Union MPO s 2030 LRTP also identifies a transportation need for an additional crossing of the Catawba River The comprehensive land use plans of both Gaston County and Mecklenburg County show southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County as high growth areas Both comprehensive plans show a new roadway connection across the Catawba River between these two high growth areas Western Mecklenburg County is planned to be a mayor employment center The Charlotte Douglas International Airport is already a mayor employment center and the airport is proposing a new mtermodal facility in the southwest portion of their property that will add fobs and truck traffic to the airport area I 6 4 DECISION ON WHETHER TO RETAIN FOR DETAILED STUDY Additional Information about toll options for increasing capacity on 185 Is added to this section The decision to eliminate the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives from detailed study Is still valid DECISION Eliminate the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives from Detailed Study i The reasons for eliminating each of the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios (4+ 4a and 8) are described below The discussions also address adding the new capacity on 185 as either non toll or toll/HOT lanes Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 131 DRAFT - July 2008 1 Improve Existm2 ---1 1;Roadways Alternative I-Sceria`rio`s 4+ and 4a— These Improve Existing Roadways Alt�ive Scenarios with Onew I 85 lanes as non toll or 1 tolU_HOT re ew eliminated !from further study base on-) n i!-t fh oe llowtng reasons 1 Impr'ovmg existing PROS CONS • Provides additional • Does not improve connectivity or travel times in southern capacity on 185 Gaston County through the Gaston • Does not improve connectivity or travel times between County portion of the southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County project study area • Would result in the greatest construction delays of all Scenario 4a also alternative concepts would increase • Would disrupt local and through travelers for an capacity over the extended period of time Catawba River • Bridge deck construction for 185 widening would Avoids impacts require intermittent closures of I 85 with poor associated with a new alternatives available for off site detours for 185 traffic location facility 185 and US 29 7 sunder Scenano 4± or Scenano 4a (with two four new I -85 lanes as non toll or toll/IIOT) would not meet the need fora �con�nectivity between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County, Geographically southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County are isolated from each other by the Catawba River There are no crossings of the Catawba River south of US 29 74 until the NC 49 Buster Boyd Bridge in York South Carolina about 11 miles downstream from US 29 74 People would still have to travel north on two lane roadways many through downtown areas and some through historic districts to go east and west If the new capacity under Scenario 4+ or Scenario 4a were tolled accessibility of these lanes through Gaston County would be less than if the lanes were added as general purpose lanes because access would be provided at limited locations along the roadway Travel times between Gaston and Mecklenburg Gounties would not-improve compared to the Nom (Build- Alternarive and m many instances would get longer If the new capacity on 185 were tolled travel time savings may improve but some of these savings would be offset because vehicles would still need to drive on congested roadways to reach the interstate Also for inter county travel travelers must use 185 or US 29 74 to cross over the river which constrains traffic flow 2 South of US 29 74 there are no continuous east west roadways in the southern half of Gaston County Improvements to 185 (with new 185 lanes as non toll or toll/HOT) and US 29 74 proposed under Scenario 4+ or 4a would not improve east west mobility within southern Gaston County and travel times for intra county travel would generally be slightly longer [I 85 is projected to operate primanly at LOS F_in 2030 regardless of the alternative-, Under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 4a and Scenario 4+ most improvements in traffic flow that would be achieved along 185 by adding additional lanes would be offset by the increase in traffic volumes attracted to the facility LOS on 185 would improve to LOS D only west of US 321 under Scenarios 4 +/ 4a If the new lanes were toll lanes traffic flow for those lanes would improve but traffic flow for the general purpose lanes would not Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 132 DRAFT - July 2008 4 While improving existing I -85 under Scenario 4+ or Scenario 4a would increase traffic capacity. (as either non toll or toll/HOT) along) 85 in the s_ tudy area -they are not reasonable or practical Calternatives due to travel delays during construction -long construction duration and community disruption caused by-the required-improvements to existing 1-85 At a n mimum Scenario 4+ and Scenario 4a would require construction at eleven interchanges and fifteen cross street bridges along 185 and replacement of six bridges along US 29 74 Constructing the new capacity as a separated toll facility would incur more construction impacts due to the need for wider footprints at interchanges and possibly new interchanges There are no controlled access routes between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties that could serve as an alternate route to 185 during construction Currently when incidents occur on 185 traffic is rerouted to US 29 74 which has no access control and a high density of commercial driveways and traffic signals 5 dmprove Existmg Roadways Alternative Scenano 4+ and Scenano 4a would not be consistent with 1 the local transportation plan (GUAMPO s-2030 LRTP) -which shows anew location highway] through southern Gaston County connecting southern M Gaston County and western ecklenburg L� s� _ w _ _ County and no planned widening of I 85 in the project area --) 6 dmplementing Scenario 4+ by reconfiguring e3Ci7stmg pavement would avoid the need for additional U& of way (and the issues associated withthe increased footpnnt) described in Item_4 above However -this _option would result in substandard lanes (11 -feet wide) and a 2 foot inside shoulder_j that would be mayor design exceptions for an interstate type facihty Also -as a toll option the substandard inside shoulder would not-allow for toll enforcement activities and would not provide Ca breakdown lane for disabled vehicles that could block the toll/HOT-lanes- The lack of buffer between the toll/HOT lane and the general purpose lanes would not be desirable Although this option (as an HOV facility or HOT facility) may be found to have ment under the purposes of the Fastlanes study (study to be released to late 2008) it would not meet the purpose and need for this project [Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 8 This Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario with two to four new 185 lanes as non toll or toll/HOT and widening of north south feeder roads-was elinunated from further study based on the following reasons Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 133 DRAFT - July 2008 I Scenario 8 would provide some nominal improvement to connectivity between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County by improving existing 185 and US 29 74 and also widening the north south feeder roads from southern Gaston County to PROS CONS • Provides additional • Does not improve connectivity in southern Gaston capacity on I 85 County through the study • Provides rmmmal improvements to connectivity between area including over southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County the Catawba River • Provides minimal improvements to mobility and access • Avoids impacts to /from southern Gaston County associated with a new • Provides little to no travel time savings compared to the location facility No Build Alternative Provides • Would result in the greatest construction delays of all improvements to alternative concepts congestion in the • Would disrupt local and through travelers for an travel network of extended period of time Gaston County • Bridge deck construction for 185 widening would require interrruttent closures of 185 with poor alternatives available for off site detours for 185 traffic • Would have high levels of impacts to the human and natural environments provide improved access to the widened east west 185 and US 29 74 However people in southern Gaston County would still have to travel north on non controlled access roadways many through downtown areas and some through historic districts to go east and west Even considering the improvements to approximately 51 miles of north/south feeder roads included in Scenario 8- connectivity between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County -would still snot be direct Travel times between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties would not improv_e_compared to the No Build Alternative -and in many instances would get longer If the new capacity on 185 were tolled travel time savings may improve but some of these savings would be offset because vehicles would still need to drive on congested roadways to reach the interstate Also for inter county travel travelers must use 185 or US 29 74 to cross over the river which constrains traffic i flow Travel times under Scenario 8 likely would be better as more capacity is provided on north south feeder roads but travel time savings would not reach the levels achieved by a New Location Alternative 2 South of -US 29 74 there`are no continuous east west roadways in the southern half of Gaston, County Improvements to 185 and US 29 74 and the additional improvements to north /south feeder roads proposed under Scenario 8 would not improve east west mobility or travel times within southern Gaston County 3 While improving existing 185 would improve traffic capacity and operations along 185 in the i study area it is not a reasonable or practical alternative due to travel delays during construction long construction duration -and community disruption caused by_the required improvements to existing -I 85 and -under Scenario 8-the-5 1-miles-of north south feeder - routes in thie -46dy area to Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 134 DRAFT - July 2008 improve access to the interstate,. Scenario 8 would -at a nummum- require_construction at eleven venom ,interchanges and fifteen cross street bridges-along I-85 and replacement of six bndges_along� US 29 74 Constructing the new capacity as a separated toll facility would incur more construction impacts due to the need for wider footprints at interchanges and possibly new interchanges Scenario 8 also would require replacing ten bridges along the feeder routes There are no controlled access routes between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties that could serve as an alternate route to 185 during construction Currently when incidents occur on 185 traffic is rerouted to US 29 74 which has no access control and a high density of commercial driveways and traffic signals 4 Scenario 8-would impact the human environment considerably= within the entire project study with j impacts to businesses residences community facihthes-safety- travel patterns and historic sites Potential impacts to the human environment -would be greatest for - improvements albn`g US 321 NC- 279-"and NC 273ti- Potential impacts to the natural environment would be greatest for improvements along-US 321 and NC 273 due to the stream crossings and bridge replacements Potential impacts to the natural environment along existing -US 29_7_4 would include six new "zbridge crossings 5 Improve Existing Roadways - Alternative Scenario 8 would not be consistent with the local' transportation plan (GUAMPO_s 2030 LRTP) which shows a new location highway-through - southern Gaston County connecting southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County t-and no planned widening of -I 85 in the project area , Appendix A includes the NEPA/404 merger process concurrence forms documenting the decision to eliminate the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives from further study I.7 NEW LOCATION ALTERNATIVES I 7 1 HISTORY OF ALTERNATIVE IN LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS This section was updated to include information about tolling and the limits of the project The Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ( GUAMPO) has recommended improvements to east west mobility in southern Gaston County through construction of a new location roadway The need for improved east west mobility and the bypass concept was first identified in 1989 during the citizen participation process associated with the update of the Gaston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan The GUAMPO held five citizen workshops six public meetings and thirteen formal public hearings before adopting the US 321/74 Bypass (an early local name for the Garden Parkway) on their 1991 Plan Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 135 DRAFT - July 2008 The GUAMPO s Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) oversees state and federal road projects within the Gaston Urbanized Area In 1992 the TAC requested the Mecklenburg Union MPO ( MUMPO) TAC to place the US 321/74 Bypass on their thoroughfare plan In 1994 the MUMPO TAC adopted a conceptual regional thoroughfare plan proposed by the Charlotte Committee of 100 which included the US 321/74 Bypass In 1996 a citizens advisory council was formed to serve as an advisory board to the Gaston Urban Area TAC This group later called the US 321/74 Bypass Citizens Committee consisted of 40 Gaston County residents From 1997 through 1999 the US 321/74 Bypass Citizens Committee met on a monthly basis in an effort to select a corridor for the Bypass The Citizens Committee recommended to the Gaston Urban Area TAC the existing proposed location of the bypass facility as it has appeared on the 1999 Gaston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and in subsequent updates of the Thoroughfare Plan (See Figure 13) In September 2000 the GUAMPO TAC passed a resolution that it supports the use of alternative funding methods to accelerate construction of the US 321/74 Bypass including methods that would require the payment of a toll by motorists (2030 Long Range Transportation Plan p 74) In November 2001 the Gaston Urban Area TAC approved a motion to use the name Garden Parkway (as in Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden) in reference to the US 321/74 Bypass In the Gaston Urban Area 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) (adopted May 2005) the Garden Parkway is recognized as two projects the Gaston East West Connector (STEP Project U 3321) extending from 185 west of Gastonia to 1485 and the US 321 Bypass (STIP Project R 2608) extended from US 321 north of Gastonia to 185 west of Gastonia (Gaston Urban Area 2030 LRTP May 2005 p 71) I 7 2 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION ' This section Includes new information related to the New Location Alternative as a toll facility There are no changes to Figure 13 During this initial screening to determine whether the New Location Alternatives would be reasonable and would meet the project purpose and need the concept of the New Location Alternative was represented by the alignment and interchange locations shown on the GUAMPO s 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan and Thoroughfare Plan The alignment and interchange locations are shown in Figure 13 The New Location Alternatives would extend from 185 west of Gastonia through southern Gaston County to connect to 1485 and NC 160 in Mecklenburg County There would be new bridge crossings of the South Fork Catawba River and the Catawba River Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 136 DRAFT — July 2008 Freeway to freeway interchanges would be provided at 185 and at 1485 Service interchanges are proposed at US 29 74 Linwood Road US 321 Robinson Road Bud Wilson Road NC 274 (Union Road) NC 279 (New Hope Road) NC 273 (Southpomt Road) and Dixie River Road The New Location Alternatives were originally developed and evaluated as controlled access non toll highways This was supported by the volume of traffic projected to use a new highway facility in 2025 and is also supported by the projected 2030 traffic volumes (toll and non toll scenarios) Two non toll new location scenarios were evaluated in the regional 2025 Gaston travel demand model Scenarios 5 and 5a Scenario 5 is a four lane new location highway and Scenario 5a is a six lane new location highway The locations of the alignment and interchanges were the same for both scenarios and they both were projected to have sinular 2025 traffic volumes under the 2025 Gaston travel demand model New Location Alternatives to the north of 185 and US 29 74 were not considered One of the primary needs for the project is to improve mobility access and connectivity in southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County Alignments in the northern half of Gaston County would not serve the southern half of Gaston County The 2030 Metrohna travel demand model was used to model the traffic volumes on the New Location Alternative under two scenarios as a toll facility and as a non toll facility Since this was done after the Detailed Study Alternatives were identified three of the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) were selected as representative alternatives to model The representative alternatives were DSA 64 (the southernmost alternative) DSA 4 (northernmost alternative) and DSA 77 (a crossover alternative) Although the NCDOT and NCTA agreed in May 2007 that the project should proceed from that date forward considering only toll alternatives (Section 1 3) this addendum includes information from the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model for both a Toll Scenario and a Non Toll Scenario This allows the reader to review the potential traffic effects from tolling the new facility I 7 3 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Traffic operations are discussed in detail in Section 18 Below are additions to the summarized traffic operations discussion that relate to results based on the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model Original Section Title 17 3 1 2025 Traffic Volumes on the New Location Alternative New Section Title 1 7 3 1 2025 and 2030 Traffic Volumes on the New Location Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 137 DRAFT — July 2008 1 Below are additions to this section relating to traffic volumes from the 2030 Metrolina travel demand ' model There are no changes to Table 6 in the original document Table 6b is added to present the year 2030 information Table 6 shows the 2025 average daily traffic volumes (ADT) and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes that would occur on the Scenario 5/5a representative New Location Alternative The 2025 Gaston travel demand model output showed the same traffic volumes for Scenario 5 (four lane new location highway) and Scenario 5a (six lane new location highway) In 2025 the New Location Alternative is projected to attract around 42 000 56 400 ADT Section II 5 2 describes the traffic projections and operations analyses conducted for the New Location Alternative functional designs Table 6 2025 Traffic Volumes on the New Location Alternative - Scenarios 5 and 5a ADT Average Daily Traffic volume EB Eastbound WB Westbound Table 6b shows the 2030 average daily traffic volumes (ADT) that would occur along the three modeled ' representative New Location Alternatives under a toll scenario and a non toll scenario As shown in the table the ADTs for each scenario are similar for the three alternatives As expected in 2030 the New Location Alternative would carry higher traffic volumes as a non toll facility than as a toll facility generally about twice as much traffic volume I Table 6b Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on a New Location Alternative — Toll and Non Toll ADT PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Between Interchanges Total EB WB Total EB WB Total 185 US 29 74 53 600 2 937 2 701 5 638 1 229 1 573 2 802 US 29 74 Linwood Rd 51 800 2 954 2 739 5 693 1 260 1 447 2 706 Linwood Rd US 321 43 700 2 371 2 442 4 813 1 051 963 2013 US 321 Robinson Rd 42 000 2 140 2 365 4 505 1 122 836 1958 Robinson Rd Bud Wilson Rd 44 800 2 239 2 530 4 769 1 243 897 2 140 NC 274 Bud Wilson Rd (Union Rd) 52 400 2 486 2838, 5 324 1 524 1 062 2 585 NC 279 NC 274 (Union Rd) (New Hope Rd) 50 200 2 332 2 932 5 264 1 535 913 2 448 NC 279 NC 273 (New Hope Rd) (South point Rd) 56 400 2 574 3 328 5 902 1826, 979 2805, NC 273 Dixie River Rd (South point Rd) 52 700 2 277 3 108 5 385 1 689 688 2 376 Dixie River Rd 1485 46 200 22881 3 091 5 379 1 738 1 177 2 915 ADT Average Daily Traffic volume EB Eastbound WB Westbound Table 6b shows the 2030 average daily traffic volumes (ADT) that would occur along the three modeled ' representative New Location Alternatives under a toll scenario and a non toll scenario As shown in the table the ADTs for each scenario are similar for the three alternatives As expected in 2030 the New Location Alternative would carry higher traffic volumes as a non toll facility than as a toll facility generally about twice as much traffic volume I Table 6b Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on a New Location Alternative — Toll and Non Toll Scenarios Modeled Alternative ' S Segment I 4* 64 77* _ Toll Non Toll Toll Non Toll Toll Non Toll i Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic ' 185 to US 29/74 12 800 25 000 10 000 16 700 12 200 22 500 i US 29/74 to 20 800 42 500 11 400 35 500 18 000 43 100 Linwood Road Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 138 DRAFT — July 2008 Table 6b Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on a New Location Alternative — Toll and Non Toll i Scenarios Modeled Alternative Segment 4* 64 77* Toll Non Toll Toll Non Toll Toll Non Toll ' Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic ' Linwood Road to 15 400 47 400 9 600 35 300 17 400 46 500 Lewis Road ' Lewis Road to 15 400 47 400 14 200 44 500 17 400 46 500 US 321 US 321 to 20 000 52 400 18 800 49 400 21 400 53 000 i Robinson Road Robinson Road to 29 200 61 200 29 400 57 600 30 400 62 600 Bud Wilson Road Bud Wilson Road to 28 000 59 600 28 600 57 200 28 200 58 400 ' NC 274 i NC 274 to NC 279 31 600 61 600 35 000 62 600 34 800 65 200 NC 279 to NC 273 42 200 78 400 44 200 79 000 43 400 82 000 NC 273 to 58 400 106 400 61 800 105 200 60 600 110 800 Dixie River Road i Dixie River Road to 55 400 96 800 54 400 89 400 53 000 93 800 1 1485 * Modeled alternative does not have an interchange at Lewis Road 17 3 2 Traffic Operations on Existing Roadways - Conclusions i Additional information is included in this section based on forecasts from the 2030 Metrolma travel demand model for the New Location Alternative as a toll facility and a non toll facility Various traffic operations analyses conducted for the New Location Alternative using the 2025 Gaston travel demand model (Non Toll Scenario) and the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model (Toll and Non iToll Scenarios) are described in detail in Section 18 together with the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives Conclusions from these analyses are summarized below Based on the 2025 Gaston travel demand model, substantial diversion of traffic off of 185 and US 29 74 is projected to occur if a New Location highway were built Average daily traffic volumes on 185 east of US 321 would be an average of 24 percent lower with a New Location Alternative than under the No Build Alternative In the PM peak hour average traffic volumes would be about 21 percent lower on 185 compared to the No Build Alternative A New Location Alternative also would reduce traffic on US 29 74 and US 321 by about 13 percent Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 139 DRAFT — July 2008 Based on the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model, some diversion of traffic off of 185 and US 29 74 is-- projected to occur in 2030 if a New Location highway was built verage dally traffic - volumes (ADT) on -I -85 east of US-321-would be an average of 6 percent w`er with a New Location Alterative Non Toll Scenario and 2-g qcent lower With —a Newt Location Altemative Toll Scenano compared to the No Build Alternative —As a non toll facility the New Location Alternative would attract more vehicles choosing between using 185 or the new facility Due to the latent demand for travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties 185 continues to attract vehicles even as some are diverted to the New Location Alternative This trend is stronger in the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model than in the 2025 Gaston travel demand model Based on the 2025 Gaston travel demand model, 2025 regional network statistics demonstrate a reduction in congested travel for a New Location Alternative A New Location Alternative would increase vehicle miles traveled compared to the No Build Alternative and the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives but decrease vehicle hours traveled This is an expected result because travelers are willing to drive farther to access an uncongested route that will save them time Although regional vehicle miles traveled would be higher a new location roadway would result in lower congested vehicle hours and lower congested vehicle miles on the roadway network than widening 185 to eight lanes (Scenarios 4 +) The New Location Alternative would reduce congested vehicle hours about as effectively as widening 185 to eight to ten lanes (Scenario 4a) Only when 185 US 29 74 and all the north /south feeder roads to 185 and US 29 74 (approximately 51 miles of roadway) are widened (Scenario 8) does the 2025 travel demand model show the non new location alternative reducing congested vehicle miles and congested vehicle hours substantially more than a new location alternative concept Based on the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model, 2030 regional network statistics demonstrate a reduction in congested travel for a New Location Alternative A New Location Alternative either Toll or Non Toll Scenario would increase VMT and VHT on the network compared to the No Build Alternative Compared to the Improve Existing Roadway Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a the New Location Alternative (Toll or Non Toll Scenario) would result in the same vehicle miles traveled but less vehicle hours traveled Although regional vehicle miles traveled-wouldt higher -a new-location toll facrhty_would resu F in slightly -lower congested vehicle hours and Vongested- vehicle miles on the roadway-network cpmpared to-the No Build Alternative -and much lower-congested-vehicle miles and c�ngested---,> vehicle hours compared to Improve Existing Roadway-Alternative Scenanos 4 +/-4a:>As a percent Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 140 DRAFT - July 2008 of total VMT and total VHT the congested VMT and congested VHT are lowest for the New Location Alternatives with the Toll Scenario having the best performance compared to all alternatives This bigger difference m the New Location Alternative compared to the Imprb e Existing Roadway Altemative Scenarios 4 + /4ais due to the fact that latent demand fills up the riew� cc paacity on widened 185- resultingin increased congestion on -I 85 and increased congestion on the roads connecting to 185-? Although not specifically modeled using the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model Scenario 8 (which includes widening north/south feeder roads in addition to 185 and US 29 74) could be expected to have less congested VMT and VHT than the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a since there would be more capacity in the network The 2025 Gaston travel demand model volume /capacity ratio maps indicate improvements to traffic flow on 185 and US 29 74, and US 321 under the New Location Alternative Both New Location Alternative Scenarios 5 and 5a would have the same effect on improving general levels of network congestion and both would reduce network congestion over the No Build Alternative (Scenario 1) The new highway and bridge across the Catawba River between Gaston and Mecklenburg County would be uncongested and enough traffic would be diverted from existing 185 and US 29 74 to reduce congestion on these existing routes to levels similar to that experienced under Scenario 4+ (widening 185 to eight lanes and US 29 74 to six lanes) Improvements to volume /capacity ratios on US 321 south of 185 also would be improved under Scenarios 5 and 5a as traffic reroutes to the new highway Based on the 2025 Gaston travel demand model, traffic operations would be better on 185 with a new location freeway in place compared to the No Build Alternative and Improve Existing Roadway Alternative Scenario 4+ (widen 185 to eight lanes) Building a new location roadway (Scenario 5a) generally resulted in better or equal average levels of service on 185 than improving these existing roadways under Scenario 4+ (widen 185 to eight lanes) Based on the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model, traffic operations would be better on 185 and on segments of US 29 74 with a new location freeway in place compared to the No Build Alternative Building a new location roadway as either a non toll or toll facility (representative Alternative DSA 64) generally would result in less 2030 traffic volumes (and therefore slightly better traffic flow) on 185 compared to the No Build Alternative even though the LOS would remain LOS F Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 141 Building a new location roadway as either a non toll facility or a toll facility would result in less 2030 traffic volumes on US 29 74 along the most congested section (east of McAdenville) compared to the No Build Alternative and the Improve Existing Roadway Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a Between McAdenville and Belmont levels of service would improve from LOS F to LOS D E The New Location Alternative (Non Toll and Toll Scenarios) would improve east west connectivity within southern Gaston County and would improve travel times for intra and inter county travel The New Location Alternative (Non Toll or Toll Scenario) would provide a controlled access east west route across southern Gaston County where no continuous routes exist today The New Location Alternative would improve access and mobility and result in travel time savings within southern Gaston County For example travel distances would be greatly reduced (from 16 8 miles to 11 miles) and travel times would be cut in half (from approximately 22 minutes to 11 nunutes) for a person traveling from the residential areas on the Belmont peninsula (the land between the South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River) to businesses /industry on US 321 (Section 18 8) Under the New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) travel times would noticeably improve for i cross county travel in southern Gaston County For example travel from the Belmont peninsula westward to US 321 would be reduced by about 9 minutes (about 40 percent) compared to the No IBuild Alternative Likewise travel times from southwest Gaston County eastward to the Daniel i Stowe Botanical Garden area would be reduced about 8 minutes (about 27 percent) compared to the No Build Alternative Travel times under the New Location Alternative (Non Toll Scenario) are Iexpected to be the same as under the Toll Scenario (Section 18 8) Under the New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) travel times savings also would be substantial for most inter county trips For example a trip to /from southern Gaston County (Belmont Peninsula or southwest Gaston County) or south Gastonia from/to the Charlotte Douglas International Airport would take about 20 minutes less (30 40 percent reduction) A trip from the Charlotte Douglas International Airport to downtown Gastonia or downtown Belmont would be reduced by about 10 minutes (about a 15 percent reduction) Travel times under the New Location Alternative (Non Toll Scenario) are expected to be the same as under the Toll Scenario i (Section 18 8) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 142 DRAFT — July 2008 I 7 4 DECISION ON WHETHER TO RETAIN FOR DETAILED STUDY ' Additional information about a toll option for the New Location Alternative was added above The decision regarding retaining the New Location Alternative for detailed study is revised below to discuss this ' alternative concept both as a non toll facility and a toll facility DECISION Retain the New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) for Detailed Study The New Location Alternative (Non Toll and Toll Scenarios) would meet the project s purpose and need Also this alternative concept would be consistent with local transportation plans The New Location Alternative (Non Toll or Toll Scenarios) would improve connectivity between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County by linking the counties with a new crossing of the Catawba River approximately halfway between the 185 and US 29 74 crossings and the NC 49 crossing in South Carolina Substantial travel time savings for inter county travel would be achieved compared to the No Build Alternative PROS CONS • Improves connectivity and travel • A new location highway would have times between southern Gaston substantial construction and right of County and western Mecklenburg way costs County by providing a new • Impacts to the natural environment crossing of the Catawba River likely would be greatest compared to • Improves connectivity mobility the other alternative concepts and travel times within southern • A New Location Alternative Non Gaston County Toll Scenario is not econonucally • Improves traffic flow and some feasible within the long range levels of service on I 85 planning timeframe of 2030 US 29 74 and US 321 • Could serve as a controlled access alternate route during incidents on I 85 The New Location Alternative would improve mobility connectivity and travel times within southern Gaston County by providing a direct and continuous east/west route across this part of the county Traffic flow on 185 US 29 74 and US 321 would improve under the New Location Alternative because traffic would divert from these roads to use the new highway Also when incidents occur on 185 or on the New Location Alternative there would be another controlled access detour route available l However while the New Location Alternative Non Toll Scenario would meet the purpose and need it is i not economically feasible The current NCDOT 2009 2015 STEP does not include funding for right of way acquisition or construction for this project and traditional (non toll) transportation funding for this project is not likely in the foreseeable future (as acknowledged in the May 21 2007 letter from the NCTA to the NCDOT [Addendum Appendix A]) There are many other priority projects statewide and due to funding constraints there is not enough funding available from traditional sources in the foreseeable future to construct the Gaston East West Connector as a non toll road The GUAMPO as part of the metropolitan planning process has decided to allocate the limited available federal and state funds to other projects In their 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan the Gaston East West Connector is listed as the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 143 DRAFT'— July 2008 number one project on the Unmet Needs List In September 2000 the GUAMPO TAC passed a resolution that it supports the use of alternative funding methods including methods that would require the payment of a toll by motorists (2030 Long Range Transportation Plan p 74) Based on these planning decisions the New Location Alternative Non Toll Scenario is not economically feasible and therefore is not a reasonable alternative Therefore only the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario is carved forward for detailed study I.8 INITIAL SCREENING OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ON EXISTING ROADS New information based on forecasts from the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model for the No Build Alternative Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + 14a as a non toll facility and the New Location Alternative Toll and Non Toll Scenarios are Included in new Sections 18 5 through 18 7 at the end of Section 18 There were no changes to Sections 18 1 through 18 4 which are based on the 2025 Gaston travel demand model Table numbers in new Sections 18 5 through 18 7 mirror the numbers of the corresponding year 2025 table For example regional network statistics using the 2025 Gaston travel demand presented in Section 18 1 are shown in Table 7 Regional network statistics using the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model presented in Section 18 5 are shown in Table 7b In addition a new Section 18 8 was added to discuss connectivity mobility and travel times within southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County There are substantial differences between the previously used travel demand model for the Gaston Urban Area the 2025 Gaston travel demand model and the more current 2030 Metrohna travel demand model The 2025 Gaston travel demand model s modeled area was the Gaston Urban Area only External stations needed to be included in the 2025 Gaston travel demand model to account for trips to and from Mecklenburg County and other surrounding counties The 2030 Metrolina travel demand model covers a 13 county region including Gaston County and Mecklenburg County in a single model The 2030 Metrolina travel demand model also uses updated population and land use forecasts that extend out to 2030 and updated travel pattern assumptions and trip tables The April 13 2006 version of the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model was used because this was the version current at the time the updated forecasting activities began The Metrolina travel demand model is updated on a continual basis As listed below using the 2025 Gaston travel demand model the No Build Alternative various Improve Existing Roadway Alternative scenarios and New Location Alternative scenarios were evaluated in several ways to estimate their effects on traffic operations region wide and along 185 US 29 74 and US 321 • Regional travel statistics from the 2025 regional travel demand model These include total network vehicle miles traveled congested vehicle miles traveled total vehicle hours traveled and congested vehicle hours traveled Time periods include daily morning (AM) two hour peak period and evening (PM) two hour peak period Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 144 DRAFT — July 2008 • Volume /capacity ratio maps from the regional travel demand model These maps are color coded to show volume to capacity ratios (a measure of congestion) on network roadways for the 2025 AM and PM peak periods (2 hour periods) • Year 2025 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and PM peak hour traffic volumes This data shows the traffic diversion from or attraction to major routes under the various Improve Existing Alternatives and New Location Alternatives The regional travel demand model projects that the highest 2025 traffic volumes occur in the evening (PM) peak period • Basic freeway segment levels of service (LOS) for 185 Levels of service (an indicator of congestion) were calculated for various alternative scenarios using Highway Capacity Manual methods for freeway segments Using the 2030 Metrolna travel demand model the following scenarios were modeled to estimate their ' effects on 2030 traffic operations region wide and along existing major roadways the No Build Alternative a combined Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 4 + /4a and New Location Alternative Non Toll and Toll scenarios (using representative DSA 64) i The combined Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 4 + /4a included widening 185 to eight lanes where it is currently six lanes (west of Exit 26) and to ten lanes where it is currently eight (east of iExit 26 — where the demand is highest) These improvements are at a level between the two individual scenarios Scenario 4+ includes widening 185 to eight lanes west of Exit 26 Scenario 4a includes widening 185 to eight lanes west of Exit 19 and to ten lanes east of Exit 19 Improvements to US 29 74 iare the same under all three scenarios Since the 2025 projected daily traffic volumes for the two scenarios were almost the same and 2025 regional statistics were similar this combination of Scenarios 4+ and 4a modeled in the 2030 Metrohna model provided a representative forecast that could be used for either iscenario i Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 8 was not modeled because it was not necessary as this ialternative was elirrunated more for its impacts to the human and natural environments Section 16 4 includes more discussion on why these scenarios were eliminated ' Of the three representative DSAs used to create forecasts for the New Location Alternative (Non Toll and Toll Scenarios) DSA 64 was used to evaluate effects region wide and on existing 185 1485 US 29 74 and US 321 for comparison to the No Build Alternative and Improve Existing Roadways Alternative ' Scenarios 4 + /4a Based on year 2025 travel demand modeling efforts for the DSAs as non toll facilities the DSAs were relatively close in projections with DSA 64 appearing to divert the least traffic from 185 and US 29 74 Using this alternative as a representative alternative provides an estimate of the lower range iof the project s ability to reduce traffic volumes on the area s major roadways as either a toll facility or a non toll facility Other DSAs were estimated to be as or more effective at diverting traffic Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 145 DRAFT — July 2008 • Regional travel statistics for 2030 from the Metrolina regional travel demand model These include total network vehicle miles traveled congested vehicle rules traveled total vehicle hours traveled and congested vehicle hours traveled Time periods include daily morning (AM) two hour peak period and evening (PM) two hour peak period • Year 2030 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes This data shows the traffic diversion from or attraction to mayor routes under the various alternative scenarios compared to the No Build Alternative • Levels of service (LOS) for 185, 1485, US 29 74, and US 321 Levels of service (an indicator of congestion) were calculated for various alternative scenarios using Highway Capacity Manual methods 18 1 Regional Statistics from the 2025 Travel Demand Model There are no updates or additions to this section See Section 18 5 for regional statistics from the 2030 Metrolma travel demand model Table 7 lists the regional network wide statistics for the year 2025 for the No Build Alternative three Improve Existing Roadways Alternative scenarios and two New Location Alternative scenarios The statistics include total network vehicle miles traveled congested vehicle miles traveled total vehicle hours traveled and congested vehicle hours traveled The statistics are generated by the 2025 Gaston travel demand model Total network vehicle miles traveled are the total miles traveled by the projected traffic on all roadways included in the model Total vehicle hours traveled are the total hours spent on the roadways by all trips generated in the model Congested vehicle miles are the miles traveled on roadways with volume to capacity ratios greater than 10 Congested vehicle hours traveled are the total hours all vehicles spent on roadways with volume to capacity ratios greater than 10 The values in Table 7 for Scenario 4+ show that capacity improvements made to existing 185 (widen to 8 lanes) and US 29 74 (widen to 6 lanes) would reduce the congested vehicle miles traveled and the congested vehicle hours traveled in the 2025 network compared to the No Build Alternative Total vehicle miles and vehicle hours traveled would be sirrular to the No Build Alternative These results are consistent with the expectation that capacity improvements to the primary routes through Gaston County (I 85 and US 29 74) would result in a noticeable change in predicted regional congestion including the reduction of congested vehicle miles and congested vehicle hours Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 146 DRAFT — July 2008 Table 7 Regional Travel Demand Model Statistics Under Various Scenarios Source Gaston East West Connector Transportation Demand Modeling Technical Memorandum February 2005 = information not available I It follows that the regional model shows that by increasing capacity further on 185 to eight to ten lanes (Scenario 4a) would result in a further reduction in congested vehicle mules and congested vehicles hours compared to the No Build Alternative and Scenario 4+ (I 85 at 8 lanes) ' The largest reductions in congested vehicle riles and congested vehicle hours compared to the No Build Alternative would occur under Scenano 8 which would not only improve 185 to eight to ten lanes and US 29 74 to six lanes but also widen and therefore relieve congestion on approximately 51 miles of north/south feeder roads connecting southern Gaston County to /from 185 and US 29 74 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 147 DRAFT — July 2008 2025 Vehicle Miles 2025 Vehicle Hours Traveled (VMT) Traveled (VHT) Scenario Description in 1000's in 1000's AM PM AM PM Dad y Dail y Peak Peak Peak Peak 1 No Build Alternative 7 646 832 1 378 2272 249 466 Improve Existing 185 to 8 lanes 4+ and US 29 74 to 6 lanes with 7 612 828 1 376 2289 254 459 TSM type measures Scenario 4+ except improve 4a 185 to 10 lanes 828 1 375 252 444 Scenario 4a plus widening 8 north/south feeder roads 824 1 370 248 433 New Location Alternative — 5 7 814 843 1 410 2237 243 433 4 lane highway New Location Alternative — 5a 843 1 409 243 434 6 lane highway 2025 Congested VMT 2025 Congested VHT in 1000's in 1000 s Daily AM PM Daily AM PM peak Peak peak Peak 1 No Build Alternative 4 149 1157 721 1 1156 49 255 Improve Existing 185 to 8 lanes 4+ and US 29 74 to 6 lanes with 3 431 1095 539 1 1026 52 210 TSM type measures 4a Scenario 4+ except improve 1027 3925 49 168 185 to 10 lanes 8 Scenario 4a plus widening 784 3002 40 139 north/south feeder roads 5 New Location Alternative — 2 917 973 4717 893 43 175 4 lane highway 5a New Location Alternative — 993 4726 44 176 6 lane highway Source Gaston East West Connector Transportation Demand Modeling Technical Memorandum February 2005 = information not available I It follows that the regional model shows that by increasing capacity further on 185 to eight to ten lanes (Scenario 4a) would result in a further reduction in congested vehicle mules and congested vehicles hours compared to the No Build Alternative and Scenario 4+ (I 85 at 8 lanes) ' The largest reductions in congested vehicle riles and congested vehicle hours compared to the No Build Alternative would occur under Scenano 8 which would not only improve 185 to eight to ten lanes and US 29 74 to six lanes but also widen and therefore relieve congestion on approximately 51 miles of north/south feeder roads connecting southern Gaston County to /from 185 and US 29 74 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 147 DRAFT — July 2008 A New Location Alternative would increase vehicle nules traveled compared to the No Build Alternative and the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives but decrease vehicle hours traveled This is an expected result because travelers are willing to drive farther to access an uncongested route that will save them time Although regional vehicle mules traveled would be higher a new location roadway would result in lower congested vehicle hours and lower congested vehicle nules on the roadway network than widening 185 to eight lanes (Scenario 4 +) The New Location Alternative would reduce congested vehicle hours and vehicle mules traveled about as effectively as widening 185 to eight to ten lanes (Scenario 4a) I 8 2 Volume /Capacity Ratio Maps from the Regional Travel Demand Model i There are no updates or additions to this section The 2025 Gaston travel demand model was used to produce color coded maps for various scenarios showing ratios of projected traffic volumes divided by modeled roadway capacity The maps indicate general levels of congestion on network roadway segments Comparing maps from different scenarios can reveal the general effects and trends each scenario would have on network congestion Time periods evaluated included the AM peak two hour period (7 00 to 9 00 am) and the PM peak two hour period (4 00 to 6 00 pm) Scenarios 1 4+ 4a 8 5 and 5a were evaluated The traffic volumes are represented on the maps by the bandwidth or thickness of the roadways For example 185 shows the largest bandwidth since the traffic volumes are higher than other roadways The color coding of each roadway represents the volume to capacity ratio for the peak 2 hour period with colors ranging from worst to best respectively red yellow green and blue Red is a volume to capacity ratio above 12 Yellow represents a volume to capacity ratio of 10 — 12 Green is a volume to capacity ratio of 0 8 — 10 and blue is a volume to capacity ratio less than 0 8 (Please note these are not values that can be converted to HCS levels of service since they were not generated using all the input needed to determine an HCS level of service ) The PM peak two hour period is projected to be the most congested time of day so tlus discussion focuses on the PM peak two hour period For comparison the PM peak two hour period volume /capacity ratio maps for various scenarios are shown together in Figures 14 and 15 as described below Figure 14 Scenario 1 (No Build) Scenario 4+ (Widen 185 to 8 lanes US 29 74 to 6 lanes and include TSM measures) Scenario 4a (Scenario 4+ with widening of 185 to 8 10 lanes) Scenario 8 (Scenario 4a with widening of north/south feeder roads) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 148 DRAFT — July 2008 Figure 15 Scenario I (No Build) Scenario 5 (New Location 4 lane highway) Scenario 5a (New Location — 6 lane highway) Appendix B includes all the individual volume /capacity ratio maps As shown in Figure 14 in the year 2025 existing 185 is expected to be highly congested (red segments) through the project area under the No Build Alternative Widening 185 to eight lanes and US 29 74 to six lanes (Scenario 4 +) results in noticeable improvements to PM peak period traffic flows on 185 and US 29 74 Under Scenario 4+ there are no red segments along 185 and fewer red and yellow segments along US 29 74 Volume to capacity ratios along US 321 do not noticeably change remaining at primarily yellow and red As more capacity is added to 185 under Scenario 4a (widen 185 to 8 10 lanes) volume to capacity ratios on 185 improve further Most of the segments along 185 are blue and green There are also some improvements on US 29 74 as more traffic diverts to use widened 185 Volume to capacity ratios along US 321 are not affected remaining at primarily yellow and red As expected the most improvements to volume to capacity ratios are seen under Scenario 8 which includes widening 185 to ten lanes and widening of several north /south feeder roads (about 50 miles worth) connecting to southern Gaston County (including US 321) Under this scenario 185 is entirely blue (volume to capacity ratio of < 0 8) on Figure 14 US 29 74 would experience more improvements in traffic flow than under Scenarios 4+ or 4a possibly because the widened feeder roads allow for more options to reach 185 and US 29 74 US 321 also shows improvements in volume to capacity ratios south of US 29 74 because it would be widened under Scenario 8 A review of Scenarios 5 and 5a in Figure 15 show that both would have the same effect on general levels of network congestion and both would improve network congestion over the No Build Alternative (Scenario 1) The new highway and bridge across the Catawba River between Gaston and Mecklenburg County are projected to be uncongested and enough traffic would be diverted from existing 185 and US 29 74 to reduce congestion on these existing routes to levels similar to that experienced under Scenario 4+ (widening 185 to eight lanes and US 29 74 to six lanes) Improvements to volume /capacity ratios on US 321 south of 185 also would be improved under Scenarios 5 and 5a as traffic volumes divert to the new highway Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 149 DRAFT - July 2008 1 I 8 3 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes There are no updates or additions to this section See Section 18 6 for Year 2030 traffic volumes This section discusses the 2025 ADT volumes and PM peak hour volumes (total for US 29 74 and US 321 and westbound direction for 185 (signed as 185 South)) as these most clearly showed trends and differences between scenarios Appendix C contains the 2025 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for each direction of travel on 185 US 29 74 and US 321 under various scenarios The peak hour volumes were assumed to be a typical 55 percent of the two hour peak period volumes generated by the 2025 regional travel demand model Note that Scenario 8 was created later in the alternatives development process when the focus was on understanding and addressing peak period traffic volumes and patterns Therefore average daily traffic volumes were not run in the 2025 regional travel demand model for Scenario 8 only peak period traffic volumes However the peak period runs were sufficient to clearly see trends when compared with other scenarios 18 3 1 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes on US 321 Table 8 shows the annual average daily traffic volumes projected for US 321 in the project study area under various scenarios and the percent difference between the No Build Alternative and each scenario Table 9 shows similar comparisons of the PM peak hour As shown to Tables 8 and 9 Improve Existing Roadway Alternative Scenarios 4+ and 4a would not substantially affect traffic volumes on US 321 1 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 150 DRAFT — July 2008 Table 8 Year 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes on US 321— Various Scenarios ADT = Average daily traffic volumes % cling = percent change compared to Scenario 1 — No Build Alternative Table 9 Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes on US 321— Various Scenarios Scenario Scenario 4+ Scenario 4a Scenario 5 Scenario 5a US 321 Segment 1 (South to North) % % % % % ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT vph vph cling cling cling chn SC State Line to 25 000 25 000 00% 25 000 00% 25 000 00% 25 072 03% Robinson Rd Robinson Rd 2 498 2 498 Robinson Rd to 17 300 17 200 06% 17 200 06% 17 100 12% 17 203 06% Crawford Rd Crawford Rd to 20 800 20 800 00% 20 800 00% 19 400 67% 19 784 49% Crowders Creek Rd 1 750 30%. Crawford Rd to Crowders Creek Rd 31 300 32 300 32% 32 200 29% 21 400 2 118 20 921 332% to Stagecoach Rd 2041 34% 2 151 18% 2 146 16% 316% Stagecoach Rd to 37 100 37 000 03% 37 000 03% 29 800 29 692 200% Hudson Blvd 3 152 05% 3 163 09% 3 147 04% 197% 36 1% 2003 Hudson Blvd to 42 000 42 100 02% 42 000 00% 42 000 00% 37 104 117% Garrison Blvd Hudson Blvd —3224 3 157 2 1% 3 185 12% 3443, Garrison Blvd to 22 000 23 700 77% 22 600 27% 20 900 50% 20 853 52% US 29 74 Garrison Blvd 3 587 3 631 74 to 28 800 28 800 00% 28 500 10% 25 800 3 191 25 775 105% 1 85529 10 4% North of 185 38 700 39 100 10% 39 000 08% 39 000 08% 37 642 27% ADT = Average daily traffic volumes % cling = percent change compared to Scenario 1 — No Build Alternative Table 9 Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes on US 321— Various Scenarios vph = total vehicles per hour in the PM peak northbound and southbound % cling = percent change compared to Scenario 1 — No Build Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 1 51 DRAFT — July 2008 Scen 1 Scenario 4+ Scenario 4a Scenario 8 Scenario 5 Scenario 5a US 321 Segment (South to North) % % % % % vph vph vph vph vph vph Cling Cling Cling Cling Cling SC State Line to Robinson Rd 2 498 2 498 00% 2 498 00% 2 498 00% 2 498 00% 2 498 00% Robinson Rd to Crawford Rd 1 805 1 749 31% 1 744 34% 1 706 55%. 1 750 30%. 1 750 30%. Crawford Rd to Crowders Creek Rd 2 112 2 118 03% 2 107 02% 2041 34% 2 151 18% 2 146 16% Crowders Creek Rd to Stagecoach Rd 3 135 3 152 05% 3 163 09% 3 147 04% 2003 36 1% 2003 36 1% Stagecoach Rd to Hudson Blvd —3224 3 157 2 1% 3 185 12% 3443, 68% 2 525 217%, 2 542 212%, Hudson Blvd to Garrison Blvd 3 587 3 631 12% 3 587 00% 3 847 72% 3 146 123% 3 191 110% Garrison Blvd to US 29 74 1991 2022 16% 1964 14% 2 415 213% 1 744 124% 1 744 124% US 29 74 to 185 2 657 2 679 08% 2 536 46% 2 404 95% 2 355 114%1 2 349 11 6% North of 185 3 147,3356, 66%, 3 355 66% 3 411 84%1 3 075 23%1 3 229 26% vph = total vehicles per hour in the PM peak northbound and southbound % cling = percent change compared to Scenario 1 — No Build Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 1 51 DRAFT — July 2008 t Scenario 8 which would improve north /south feeder roads as part of the alternative including US 321 predicts an increase in traffic volumes on US 321 north of Crowders Creek Road There would be a decrease in traffic on US 321 between US 29 74 and 185 as travelers likely would use less congested routes that have also been improved under Scenario 8 Scenarios 5 and 5a (New Location Roadway Alternatives) would affect US 321 in the same way They would divert about 10 20 percent of the US 321 traffic north of Crowders Creek Road 18 3 2 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes on US 29 -74 Table 10 shows the annual average daily traffic volumes projected for US 29 74 in the project study area under various scenarios and the percent difference between the No Build Alternative and each scenario Table 11 shows similar comparisons of the PM peak hour Table 10 Year 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes On US 29 74 - Various Scenarios ADT = Average daily traffic volumes % chng = percent change compared to Scenario 1 — No Build Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 152 Scenario US 29 74 Segment Scenario 4+ Scenario 4a Scenario 5 Scenario 5a 1 (West to East) ADT ADT % cling ADT % cling ADT % cling ADT % cling West of Ed ewood Rd 40 700 40 800 02% 40 700 00% 40 300 10% 40 300 10% Edgewood Rd to Shannon Bradley Rd 15 900 16 700 50% 16 600 44% 39 000 1453% 39 000 1453% Shannon Bradley Rd to 15 300 13 300 13 1% 13 300 13 1% 11 800 229% 11 800 229% Myrtle School Rd Myrtle School Rd to Bessemer City Rd 18 100 16 800 72% 16 800 72% 16 400 94% 16 400 94% Bessemer City Rd to 13 800 13 300 36% 13 300 36% 12 900 65% 12 900 65% Linwood Rd Linwood Rd to US 321 21 500 21 300 09% 21 400 05% 18 200 153% 18 200 153% US 321 to NC 274 29 200 29 000 07%. 29 100 03% 25700. 120% 25 700 120%. NC 274 to NC 279 36 600 35 100 41% 36 000 16% 33 900 74% 33 600 82% NC 279 to Cox 32 500 31 900 18% 32 500 00% 31 300 37% 31 300 37% Cox Rd to Redbud Rd 52 600 52 200 08% 46 100 124% 50 400 42% 50 200 46% Redbud Rd to Lowell Bethesda Rd 46 400 45 800 13% 45 400 22% 43 100 7 1% 42 900 75% Lowell Bethesda to Wesleyan 33 800 30 600 95% 29 800 118% 29 800 11 8% 30 000 112% Wesleyan Rd to Lakewood Rd 57 600 54 400 56% 52 800 83% 46 700 189% 46 700 189% Lakewood Rd to NC 7 49 200 46 700 5 1% 45 100 83% 42 400 138%. 42400. 13 8% NC 7 to NC 273 35 000 32 600 69%1 31 200 109% 28 600 183% 28 800 177% NC 273 to 1485 37 300 30 400 185%1 29 800 201% 20 900 440%1 20 900 440% ADT = Average daily traffic volumes % chng = percent change compared to Scenario 1 — No Build Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 152 Table 11 Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes On US 29 74 — Various Scenario vpn = vehicles per hour in the Fm peak hour — eastbound and westbound combined % cling = percent change compared to Scenario I — No Build Alternative As shown in Tables 10 and 11 the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives (Scenanos 4+ 4a and 8) and the New Location Roadway Alternatives (Scenarios 5 and 5a) generally result in decreased traffic on US 29 74 Traffic is diverted from US 29 74 to either a widened 185 under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives or a new highway under the New Location Roadway Alternatives ' For the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives traffic diversion from US 29 74 generally increases as the level of improvements increase Therefore Scenarios 4a and 8 project less traffic on US 29 74 than ' Scenario 4+ The New Location Alternatives (Scenarios 5 and 5a) affect US 29 74 in the same way and are similar in effectiveness as Scenano 8 at reducing traffic on US 29 74 The differences in reductions from segment to segment are possibly due to changes in travel patterns that result under each scenano 1 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 153 DRAFT — July 2008 Scenario 1 Scenario 4+ Scenario 4a Scenario 8 Scenario 5 Scenario 5a US 29 74 Segment (West to East) vph vph % vph % vph % vph % vph % chng chng chng cling chn West of Edgewood 4 170 4 235 16% 4 219 12% 4 131 09% 4 027 34% 4 076 23% Rd Edgewood Rd to 2080 2 289 100% 2 250 82% 1 876 98% 3 543 703% 3 499 682% Shannon Bradley Rd Shannon Bradley Rd 1 722 1 771 28% 1 777 32% 1 755 19% 1 134 341% 1 194 307% to Myrtle School Rd Myrtle School Rd to 1915 1 854 32% 1 859 29% 1 678 124% 1 607 161% 1 661 133% Bessemer City Rd Bessemer City Rd to 1909 1 579 173% 1 562 182% 1 436 248% 1 513 207% 1 507 21 1% Linwood Rd Linwood Rd to 1936 1 788 76% 1 766 88% 1 810 65% 1 645 150% 1 645 150% US 321 US 321 to NC 274 2 591 2 470 47%. 2 464 49% 2 322 104%, 2 294 115%,2294 115%, NC 274 to NC 279 3 917 3 674 62% 3 796 31% 3 685 59%1 3 532 98% 3 542 96% NC 279 to Cox Rd 3 779 3 614 44% 3 141 169% 2 563 322% 3 312 124% 3 339 116% Cox Rd to Redbud Dr 4 318 4 538 5 1% 4 285 08% 3 938 88% 4 466 34% 4 466 34% Redbud Dr to 4 940 4 477 94% 4 257 138% 4 114 167% 4 065 177% 4 070 176% Lowell Bethesda Rd Lowell Bethesda Rd 4 736 3 900 177% 3 268 310% 2 789 411% 3 559 249% 3 559 249% to Wesleyan Dr Wesleyan Dr to 6 606 5 594 153% 4 945 25 1% 4 874 262% 5 121 225% 5 083 23 1% Lakewood Rd Lakewood Rd to 5 841 5 082 130% 4 797 179% 4 549 221% 4 832 173% 4 791 180% NC 7 NC 7 to NC 273 4 576 4362, 47% 3 565 22 1% 3 345 269%, 3 438 249%,3410 255%, NC 273 to 4 010 3 410 150% 3 070 234% 3 015 248% 2 168 459% 2 162 461% Sam Wilson Rd Sam Wilson Rd to 3 416 3 680 77% 3 355 18% 3 295 35% 1992 417% 1997 415% 1485 vpn = vehicles per hour in the Fm peak hour — eastbound and westbound combined % cling = percent change compared to Scenario I — No Build Alternative As shown in Tables 10 and 11 the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives (Scenanos 4+ 4a and 8) and the New Location Roadway Alternatives (Scenarios 5 and 5a) generally result in decreased traffic on US 29 74 Traffic is diverted from US 29 74 to either a widened 185 under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives or a new highway under the New Location Roadway Alternatives ' For the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives traffic diversion from US 29 74 generally increases as the level of improvements increase Therefore Scenarios 4a and 8 project less traffic on US 29 74 than ' Scenario 4+ The New Location Alternatives (Scenarios 5 and 5a) affect US 29 74 in the same way and are similar in effectiveness as Scenano 8 at reducing traffic on US 29 74 The differences in reductions from segment to segment are possibly due to changes in travel patterns that result under each scenano 1 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 153 DRAFT — July 2008 The substantially higher volumes on the segment from Edgewood Road to Shannon Bradley Road that would occur under the New Location Alternatives is due to the interchange that would be located in this area for access to the new location highway This also results in lower volumes between Shannon Bradley Road and Myrtle School Road for the New Location Alternatives compared to the other alternatives 18 3 3 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes on I -85 Table 12 shows the annual average daily traffic volumes projected for 185 in the project study area under various scenarios and the percent differences between the No Build Alternative and each scenario Table 13 shows similar comparisons of the PM peak hour The PM peak hour volumes under each scenario are graphically compared in Chart 1 As shown in Tables 12 and 13 and Chart 1 when 185 is improved under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives additional traffic volumes are attracted to 185 Under the New Location Alternatives traffic volumes decrease on 185 as they are diverted to the new highway New Location Alternative Scenarios 5 and 5a resulted in close to the same traffic volumes on 185 East of US 321 average daily traffic volumes on 185 increase an average of 4 percent under Scenario 4+ and Scenario 4a Under Scenarios 5 and 5a average daily traffic volumes decrease by an average of 24 percent East of US 321 PM peak hour traffic volumes increase an average of 11 percent under Scenario 4+ 16 percent under Scenario 4a and 19 percent under Scenario 8 Under the New Location Alternative Scenarios 5 and 5a PM peak hour traffic volumes on 185 decrease by an average of 21 percent As Chart 1 graphically shows there is so much latent demand in the study area for highway travel that adding the one lane in each direction on 185 (as under Scenario 4 +) attracted an average of 1 300 additional vehicles per hour in the PM peak along 185 east of US 321 compared to the No Build Alternative (Scenario 1) Adding two lanes in each direction on 185 (widening to 10 lanes) under Scenario 4a attracted an average of 1 900 additional vehicles per hour in the PM peak east of US 321 Widening the north/south feeder roads to the interstate as under Scenario 8 attracted an average of 2 250 additional vehicles per hour to 185 in the PM peak compared to the No Build Alternative (Scenario 1) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 1 54 DRAFT - July 2008 Table 12 Year 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes on 185 — Various Scenarios AL) i = Average daily trattic volumes % chng = percent change compared to Scenario 1 — No Build Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 155 DRAFT — July 2008 Scenario Between 185 Exits 1 Scenario 4+ Scenario 4a Scenario 5 Scenario 5a (West to East) % % ADT ADT ADT ADT % chng ADT % cling n cling chn 10B (US 29 74) to 68 600 68 600 000% 68 600 000% 68 600 000% 68 600 000% 13 (Ed ewood Rd) 13 to 14 (NC 274 — Bessemer City Rd) 90 400 90 600 022% 90 600 022% 73 300 18 92% 73 300 18 92% 14 to 17 (US 321) 100 400 101 200 080% 101 300 090% 77 000 2331% 77 000 2331% 17 to 19 (Ozark Ave) 122 200 123 900 139% 124 200 164% 97 200 2046% 97 200 2046% 19 to 20 (NC 279) 144 000 147 900 2 71 % 147 400 236% 115 600 1972% 11560 1972% 0 20 to 21 (Cox Rd) 132 000 136 300 326% 137 000 379% 103 500 2159% 103 500 2159% 21 to 22 (Redbud Dr) 142 300 15300 752% 15390 8 15% 113 800 2003% 11380 2003% 0 0 0 22 to 23 (NC 7 — 14850 15090 107 00 McAdenville Rd) 141 200 0 5 17% 0 6 87% 107 000 24 22% 0 2422% 23 to 26 (Abbey College) 147 700 152 300 3 11% 154 400 454% 113 300 2329% 11330 2329% 0 26 to 27 (NC 273 Park St) 134 300 137 500 238% 139 600 395% 96 800 2792% 97 600 2733% 27 to 29 (Sam Wilson Rd) 129 800 136 700 532% 13730 578% 93 500 2797% 93 500 2797% 0 29 to 30 (I 485) 141 000 145 700 333% 146 300 376 95 100 3255% 95 100 3255% AL) i = Average daily trattic volumes % chng = percent change compared to Scenario 1 — No Build Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 155 DRAFT — July 2008 Table 13. Year 2025 PM Peak Hour Volumes On I -85 - Various Scenario Between I -85 Exits Scenario Scenario 4+ Scenario 4a Scenario 8 Scenario 5 Scenario 5a (West to East) v h P v h % ch P g v h % ch P g v h % ch P g v h % ch P g v h % ch P g 1013 (US 29 -74) to 13 (EdQewood Rd) 6,906 6,903 0.0% 6,906 0.0% 6,909 0.0% 6,909 0.0% 6,909 0.0% 13 to 14 (NC 274 - Bessemer City Rd) 8,354 8,448 1.1% 8,425 0.8% 8,768 5.0% 6,282 - 24.8% 7,068 - 15.4% 14 to 17 (US 32 1) 9,201 9,845 7.0% 9,884 7.4% 10,082 9.6% 7,134 - 22.5% 7,343 - 20.2% 17 to 19 (Ozark Ave) 11,054 12,051 9.0% 12,247 10.8% 12,568 13.7% 9,153 - 17.2% 9,130 - 17.4% 19 to 20 (NC 279) 10,26 12,022 13,734 14.2% 14,164 17.8% 14,493 20.6% 10,307 - 14.3% 9 - 14.6% 20 to 21 (Cox Rd) 11,215 13,079 16.6% 13,304 18.6% 14,465 29.0% 9,252 - 17.5% 9,268 -17.4% 21 to 22 (Redbud Dr) 11,961 14,257 19.2% 15,048 25.8% 15,626 30.6% 9,906 - 17.2% 9,917 - 17.1% 22 to 23 (NC 7 - McAdenville Rd) 11,669 13,795 18.2% 14,939 28.0% 15,384 31.8% 9,356 - 19.8% 9,389 - 19.5% 23 to 26 (Abbey College) 12,149 13,844 14.0% 14,792 21.8% 15,213 25.2% 9,565 - 21.3% 9,598 - 21.0% 26 to 27 (NC 273 - Park St) 13,094 13,740 4.9% 14,820 13.2% 14,553 11.1% 9,884 - 24.5% 9,873 - 24.6% 27 to 29 (Sam Wilson Rd) 12,830 13,316 3.8% 13,658 6.5% 13,712 6.9% 9,180 - 28.4% 9,208 - 28.2% 29 to 30 (I -485) 10,47 13,8351 14,1911 2.6%1 14,5271 5.0%1 14,586 5.4%1 10,434 - 24.6% 8 - 242% vph = vehicles per hour in the PM peak hour on I -85 North (eastbound in project area) and I -85 South (westbound in project area) combined. % chng = percent change compared to Scenario 1 - No Build Alternative 18000 16000 3 14000 0 x m 12000 m L 10000 8000 i Chart 1. Year 2025 PM Peak Hour 1 -85 Traffic Volumes 6000 10B to 13 to 14 14 to 17 to 19 19 to 20 20 to 21 21 to 22 22 to 23 23 to 26 26 to 27 27 to 29 29 to I- 13 17(US 485 321) 1 -85 Exits ❑ Scenario 8 1 o Scenano 4a I ■ Scenario 4+ 0 Scenario 1 ■ Scenarios 5 &5a Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U -3321 1 -56 DRAFT - July 2008 I.8.4 Year 2025 Basic Freeway Segment Levels of Service on I -85 There are no updates or additions to this section. See Section 1.8.7 for Year 2030 levels of service. 1.8.4.1 Model Methodology and Assumptions The 2025 PM peak hour is projected to have higher volumes than the AM peak hour, and in the PM peak hour, I -85 South (westbound direction away from Charlotte) had higher volumes than I -85 North. Therefore, the PM peak hour for I -85 South was the condition chosen for analysis of levels of service under the various Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives and New Location Alternatives scenarios. The computer program HCS 2000 - Basic Freeway Segments was used to estimate year 2025 PM peak hour levels of service on I -85 South (westbound direction in the project area) under various scenarios. The following assumptions were used in the model. Trucks - 11 % in peak hour Peak Hour Factor (PHF) - .90 Free Flow Speed - 70 mph Terrain Type — Rolling Levels of Service (LOS) The Transportation Research Board defines LOS in categories A through F. LOS A represents ideal, free -flow conditions, while LOS F represents forced, or breakdown, flow with `stop and go' conditions. Generally, LOS D is considered the lowest limit at which traffic flow is desirable during peak periods in urban areas. Traffic flow at LOS D is considered stable, but becoming susceptible to congestion and unstable flow. In addition, location specific assumptions include an interchange density of 0.63 interchanges per mile (based on measurements along I -85 from Exit IOB east to I -485). The New Location Alternative — Scenarios 5 and 5a had virtually the same projected PM peak hour and were evaluated together. A detailed analysis for merging /diverging /weaving was not conducted for every scenario, nor was this level of detail necessary to evaluate concepts and trends at this stage of alternatives development. Only basic freeway segments between interchanges were modeled. The merging /diverging /weaving traffic could influence the level of service along the freeway. The effect could be to degrade level of service, with the possible result being the need for collector- distributor roads or auxiliary lanes. This type of effect would occur under any of the scenarios. Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U -3321 1 -57 DRAFT — July 2008 L8.4.2 Levels of Service on I -85 South in the 2025 PM Peak Hour Table 14 lists the levels of service along I -85 South (in the project area, 1 -85 South is the westbound direction), projected to occur under the various Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives and New Location Alternatives. Chart 2 graphically compares the levels of service. As shown in Table 14 and Chart 2, all Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives and New Location Alternatives would generally improve levels of service on I -85 during the 2025 PM peak hour. Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives - Scenarios 4a and 8, which would widen I -85 to 10 lanes, would result in the best levels of service on I -85 compared to the other evaluated alternatives. Scenarios 5 and 5a would result in worse levels of service on I -85 than Scenarios 4a and 8, but better overall levels of service than Scenario 4 +. 5 4 0 J .2 3 `m U) 0 2 N d J 1 0 do r �3 ti6 tit '0 e� 40 do 41' �1Jb `X 1O, ti� t� �� !�' 26 ,A ,\b 1-85 Exits -West to East Chart 2. 2025 PM Peak Hour I -85 South Levels of Service Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U -3321 DRAFT — July 2008 + Scenario 1 Scenario 4+ Scenario 4a Scenario 8 Scenarios 5 &5a I Key to Y -Axis 1 =LOS C 2 = LOS D 3 = LOS E 4 = LOS F 1 -58 kn a U U U Ca w Ca W Ca W Ca U Ca v� h L ra R N �O O ON r" " 00 CN M V7 'Cr kr 4 kr N kr rn O U U U 00 Q y •ry 61 R V'1 V•1 Vi V•1 V) V) V7 V) GJ ►� u V] O V N M \O V•1 00 t7 00 V) M d CL v m oMO o > M, t` t` 00 00 [— l— 00 U C U U U Ca Ca U Ca Ca ea r: o v RM V'1 V1 V7 Vl V1 V) kn V1 1 o0 01 O ON 00 or t` 00 M O V'1 N N N VO v1 00 l 00 l� 00 a U U U Ca w Ca w w w w w W + S ti ii u s a o O\ o 0� kr) 00 T 0 00 kr) d 00 O O oo O M x _ ON Cn C U Ca Ca w w w w w w w w rL • s: a v J u V1 O 00 kr) r O M O N O t M M, N l— "O O \O twj ig kn W O b b Q D =7 O U M —ID � -C1 N � M � r- N C-- v7 v v Q� O U .., O U O U x U, y Z•� a U E 00 N 3ZU : Z z Qa W O O O O O O O Q O O O O O M M 'v QA O N v M �O l'- 01 CG N N N N N N N R v c3 •o V a lu C C 0 U b 0 3 7 0 b 0 o � u 0 II °� > 11 �O Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U -3321 1 -59 Draft - July 2008 I 8 5 Regional Statistics from the 2030 Travel Demand Model This is a new section of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report Table 7b lists the regional network wide statistics for the year 2030 for the No Build Alternative Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenanos4 + /4a and the New Location Alternative Non Toll and Toll Scenarios The statistics are for the portion of the network in Gaston County and include total and congested VMT total and congested VHT and congested VMT and congested VHT as percentages to total VMT and VHT Table 7b 2030 Regional Travel Demand Model Statistics for Gaston County Under Various Scenarios i Source Forecasts prepared by Martin/AlexiouBryson using the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model 2008 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 160 DRAFT July 2008 2030 Vehicle Miles 2030 Vehicle Hours Traveled (VMT) Traveled (VHT) Scenano Description in 1000 s in 1000 s iAM Daily PM Daily AM PM Peak Peak peak Peak i 1 No Build Alternative 8 512 2058 2 308 2349 703 786 4 + /4a Improve Existing Roadways 9 559 2 431 2 580 2670 845 89 1 Alternatives Non Toll New Location Alternative 9 646 2 316 2 589 2556 740 853 Toll New Location Alternative 9 473 2 294 2 569 2558 752 845 2030 Congested VMT 2030 Congested VHT in 1000's in 1000's AM PM AM PM Daily Daily Peak Peak Peak Peak 1 No Build Alternative 1 536 691 783 1292 666 585 4 + /4a Improve Existing Roadways 1 884 875 911 1684 823 790 I Alternatives Non Toll New Location Alternative 1 648 689 875 1441 624 756 Toll New Location Alternative 1 528 698 758 1240 590 597 2030 Congested VHT 2030 Congested VMT as a Percent of Total as a Percent of Total VMT VHT Daily AM PM Daily AM PM Peak Peak peak Peak i 1 No Build Alternative 180% 336% 339% 550% 947% 744% 4 + /4a Improve Existing Roadways 197% 360% 353% 63 1% 974% 887% Alternatives Non Toll New Location Alternative 17 1% 297% 33 8% 564% 843% 886% Toll New Location Alternative 161% 304% 29 51/ 48 5% 785% 70 7% i Source Forecasts prepared by Martin/AlexiouBryson using the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model 2008 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 160 DRAFT July 2008 The statistics are generated by the regional travel demand model Total network VMT are the total mules traveled by the projected traffic on all roadways included in the Gaston County portion of the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model Total vehicle hours traveled are the total hours spent on the roadways by all trips generated in the model for the Gaston County portion of the model Congested vehicle mules are the mules traveled on roadways with volume to capacity ratios greater than 10 Congested vehicle hours traveled are the total hours all vehicles spent on roadways with volume to capacity ratios greater than 10 Comparison of VMT and VHT The values in Table 7b indicate that either widening 185 (Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a) or constructing a New Location Alternative as either a toll or non toll facility would result in higher total VMT and VHT compared to the No Build Alternative with the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario having the smallest increase over the No Build Alternative The 2030 VMT would be about the same for the New Location Alternative Scenarios and the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a but the VHT would be less with the new location facility This data indicates that the new location facility would provide a quicker trip for many drivers in Gaston County in 2030 Under Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 8 the VMT and VHT likely would be higher than under Scenarios 4 + /4a because more capacity is added to the network enabling travelers to make longer trips The main variable in the Metrolina travel demand model affecting trips in the project area is travel time In general the total number of trips made changes very little between the alternatives modeled using the 2030 Metrolina model What changes are their destinations For example there is projected to be a large concentration of residential development in Gaston County not far west of the Catawba River in the vicinity of the proposed river crossing and a large employment concentration to the east of the river (Dixie Berryhill area) In the No Build scenario a trip from one of these Gaston County residences to one of these Mecklenburg County employers (for work shopping or other purpose) that night be 2 or 3 mules away (as the crow flies) requires either a drive to 185 and back down or traveling down to NC 49 and then back north Most of these trip purposes can be satisfied more efficiently by remaining on the same side of the river even though the trip attractor on the other side may be more desirable Because of the travel costs involved the less desirable destination may be selected Once a new river crossing is introduced (Toll or Non Toll) a desirable destination that may have required a 20 mile 35 minute trip might now be no more than a three mile drive that takes less than 10 minutes The model shows a shift in the distribution of trips to new destinations in addition to changes in the routes selected by some trips that are crossing the river to the same destination Furthermore there is a domino effect in the travel demand model this re distribution and re assignment of traffic reduces congestion on some secondary routes (and increases it on others) resulting in another round of re distribution and re assignment This cycle is repeated for several iterations of the travel demand model until a stable equilibrium is achieved where no one can significantly reduce their travel costs by switching routes or destinations The widening of 185 (Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a) has a similar though less pronounced effect Additional lanes provide more capacity reducing both congestion and travel times so Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 161 DRAFT July 2008 some cross river destinations become close enough (in terms of travel times) to cause a shift and total crossing traffic volumes increase The re routing effect is less pronounced under this scenario as is the domino or ripple effect described above i Comparison of Congested VMT and VHT The values in Table 7b indicate that Improve Existing I Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a and the New Location Alternative Non Toll Scenario would result in the most congested VHT and VMT The New Location Alternative Toll Scenario and the No Build Alternative result in about the same congested VMT and VHT with the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario performing slightly better Again these results from the regional travel demand model are likely the result of high latent demand for additional capacity over the Catawba River between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County iAs a percent of total VMT and total VHT the congested VMT and congested VHT are highest for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a compared to the No Build Alternative and the New Location Alternatives (Toll and Non Toll Scenarios) This may be due to higher congestion on roadways leading to the improved 185 and the congestion projected to still occur on the improved 185 The New Location Alternatives have the lowest percentages with the Toll Scenario having the best performance i As individual scenarios Scenario 4+ likely would have slightly higher congested VMT and VHT values than what is shown in Table 7b for the combined Scenario 4 + /4a and Scenario 4a may have slightly lower congested VMT and VHT This is because Scenario 4a does provide some additional capacity on 185 (an additional lane in each direction between Exit 19 and Exit 26) compared to the combined Scenario 4 + /4a However the lower values for congested VMT and VHT that may occur under Scenario 4a may be offset by slightly higher projected traffic volumes and would still be substantially higher than the values for the No Build Alternative and the New Location Alternative (Toll and Non Toll Scenarios) IIt is notable that the Metrohna model indicates that adding ac pacify on I 85 under th_e Improve Existing Ro` adway_s Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a is projected to increase congestion throughout the network This ism a sso_mewhat counter intuitive outcome Adding lanes to 185 increases capacity which increases travel speeds so travelers continue to shift to use 185 Potential demand exceeds the additional capacity and traffic keeps shifting to 185 until congestion builds to the point that a new equilibrium point is reached in the model So although 185 has been widened much of it is still congested but with much higher i volumes of traffic on it However although the widened I -85 -is sttll_congested -it is not as severely-, congested as under the No Build Alternattve —# The other factor affecting the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a results is that most of the trips diverted to the improved 185 do not produce significant congestion benefits on other facilities The New Location Alternatives (Toll or Non Toll Scenarios) have an added benefit of diverting traffic from congested facilities onto roads with reserve capacity (in general) When 185 is widened under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a trips diverted onto 185 tend to come from highly congested routes that get more congested carrying trips to 185 so there is an increase in congested VMT Because there are so few options for crossing the Catawba River individual drivers can still benefit Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 162 ' DRAFT July 2008 ' from taking a congested route even while systemwide performance suffers Braess s Paradox is the term for this phenomenon recognized in complex networks (including telephone and Internet service) where increasing capacity on specific links can in certain Instances Increase congestion overall , If Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 8 were modeled the congested VMT totals would be expected to Improve over Scenarios 4 + /4a but likely not enough to show the same Improvements in ' congested VMT achieved by the New Location Alternatives (Non Toll or Toll Scenarios) Widening , north south feeder roads under Scenario 8 would allow more traffic to be delivered to the same bottlenecks faster Travelers would have wider crossroads /feeder roads to sit on while waiting to get onto 185 The ' effects would be to have shorter queues and higher levels of services for other trips on the crossroads /feeder roads but this would not be enough Improvements to congestion to compete with any of the New Location Alternatives I 8 6 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes , This is a new section of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report This section discusses the 2030 ADT volumes projected for the No Build Alternative Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a and New Location Alternatives Non Toll and Toll Scenarios iAddendum Appendix B contains the 2030 average daily traffic (ADT) volume forecasts under the various scenarios 18 6 1 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on US 321 , This is a new section of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report , Table 8b shows the annual average daily traffic volumes projected for US 321 in the project study area under various scenarios and the percent difference between the No Build Alternative and each scenario , iAs shown in Table 8b Improve Existing Roadway Alternatives Scenarios 4 + /4a would result in an Increase in traffic volumes along US 321 in the study area on average of about 15 percent as more people ' use US 321 to travel to a widened 185 Compared to the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative the iNew Location Alternatives would Increase traffic volumes more on US 321 south of the Gaston East West Connector but decrease the volumes from the Gaston East West Connector to downtown Gastonia North iof downtown the volume Increases would be about the same Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 163 DRAFT July 2008 Table Sb Year 2030 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes on US 321— Various Scenarios ' 1 AADT — Annual Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day) 2 % Chng — percent change in traffic volumes compared to the No Build Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 164 ' DRAFT July 2008 Improve Existing New Location New Location Roadways Alternative Alternative Alternative ' US 321 Segment (South to No Budd Scenarios 4 + /4a Non Toll Scenario Toll Scenario North) AADT AADT' % 2 Change AADT' % Change2 AADT ' % Change2 � ANC /SC State Line to Gaston 30 900 34 200 107% 39 600 282% 42 000 359% iEast West Connector Gaston East West 30 900 34 200 107% 23 300 246% 23 200 249% 1 Connector to Forbes Rd Forbes i Crowders Creek Rd rs 20 700 23 300 126% 21 100 19% 22 400 82% Crowders Creek Rd to 23 400 26 400 128% 21 200 94% 22 900 2 1% Stagecoach Rd Stagecoach Rd to 23 000 26 000 130% 20 300 117% 21 400 70% Davis Park Rd Davis Park Rd to Hudson Blvd 23 000 26 000 130% 20 100 126% 21 200 78% Hudson Blvd to Jackson Rd 22 800 25 000 96% 21 900 39% 22 700 04% i Jackson Rd to W 3 d Ave 17 400 19 000 92% 17 100 17% 17 100 17% W 3 d Ave to US 29 74 17 400 19 000 92% 17 800 23% 17 900 29% (W Franklin Blvd) US 29 74 (W Franklin Blvd) to W 20 500 27 300 332% 25 300 234% 23 800 161% Airline Ave/W Long Ave W Airline Ave / W Long 20 500 27 300 332% 25 300 234% 23 800 161% Ave to W Rankin Ave W Rankin Ave to Radio St 19 900 22 400 126% 22 400 126% 22 500 13 1% Radio St to 185 NB Ramps 22 000 24 800 127% 24 800 127% 24 800 127% 1185 NB Ramps to 1185 SB Ramps 34 500 40 700 18 0r% 39 600 148% 40 000 15 9% :185 SB Ramps to 47 000 56 600 204% 55 200 173% 54 400 1 157% Rankin Lake Rd ' 1 AADT — Annual Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day) 2 % Chng — percent change in traffic volumes compared to the No Build Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 164 ' DRAFT July 2008 18 6 2 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on US 29 -74 This is a new section of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report Table 10b shows the annual average daily traffic volumes projected for US 29 74 in the project study area under various scenarios and the percent difference between the No Build Alternative and each scenario As shown in Table 10b compared to the No Build Alternative the New Location Alternative Non Toll Scenario is the most effective at reducing traffic volumes on US 29 74 with the most reduction on the eastern end of the project area The Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a are the least effective resulting in slightly higher traffic volumes on US 29 74 west of NC 279 (New Hope Rd) compared to the No Build Alternative This is likely due to the fact that travelers wanting to use the widened 185 under Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a would use portions of improved US 29 74 to get there The New Location Alternative Toll Scenario would have similar traffic volumes on US 29 74 as the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a except east of South Main Street/Redbud Drive where traffic volumes would be less compared to the No Build Alternative :Table 10b Year 2030 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes on US 29 74 — Various Scenarios Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 165 DRAFT July 2008 Improve Existing New Location New Location Roadways Alternative Alternative US 29 74 Segment No Build Alternative Non Toll Scenario Toll Scenario (West to East) AADT Scenarios 4 + /4a IAADTi % 2 Change AADTi % Change Z AADT i % Change 2 i Sparrow Springs Rd to Gaston East West Connector 37 200 41 900 126% 48 400 30 1% 43 600 172% Gaston East West Connector to Ed ewood Rd 37 200 41 900 126% 33 600 97% 35 500 46% Edgewood Rd to 35 600 37 300 48% 32 200 96% 36 400 22% Shannon Bradley Rd Shannon Bradley Rd to I 35 400 37 200 5 1% 32 100 93% 36 300 25% Myrtle School Rd I Myrtle School Rd to 32 200 34 300 65% 29 700 78% 34 600 75% Bessemer City Rd Bessemer City Rd to Linwood Rd 21 500 21 300 09% 20 000 70% 23 100 74% Linwood Rd to US 321 (Chester Rd) 16 400 18 600 134% 17 100 43% 19 700 201% US 321 (Chester Rd) to Avon St 21 800 23 800 92% 21 100 32% 23 000 55% i Avon St to Thomas St/Belvidere 22 700 23 800 48% 22 400 13% 24 700 8 8% Thomas St/Belvidere to i 27 100 28 400 48% 26 300 30% 32 100 185% NC 279 (New Hope Rd) NC 279 (New Hope Rd) to 24 700 23 000 69% 22 300 97% 26 000 53% Cox Rd/Armstrong Park Rd Cox Rd /Armstrong Park Rd to 39 200 35 000 107% 36 700 28% 39 900 18% Franklin Square i Franklin Square to Lineberger Rd 39 200 35 000 107% 40 300 28% 43 500 109% Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 165 DRAFT July 2008 H ;Table 10b Year 2030 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes on US 29 74 - Various Scenarios 1 AADT — Annual Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day) 2 % Cling — percent change in traffic volumes compared to the No Build Alternative The higher volumes on the segment from Edgewood Road to Shannon Bradley Road that would occur iunder the New Location Alternatives (compared to the No Build Alternative) are due to the new interchange providing access to the Gaston East West Connector This also results in lower volumes between Shannon Bradley Road and Myrtle School Road for the New Location Alternatives compared to ithe Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a 118 6 3 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on I -85 This is a new section of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report Table 12b shows the 2030 AADT projected for 185 from Exit 10 (US 29 74) to Exit 30 (I 485) in the project study area under various scenarios and the percent differences between the No Build Alternative and each scenario The projected AADT under each scenario are graphically compared in Chart lb Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 166 ' DRAFT July 2008 Improve Existing New Location New Location 'Roadways Alternative Alternative i US 29 74 Segment No Budd Alternative Non Toll Scenario Toll Scenario (West to East) AADT Scenarios 4 + /4a AADT' Change AADT' Change AADT' Change Lineberger Rd to 39 500 35 400 104% 38 300 30% 40 700 30% S Main St/Redbud Dr S Main St/Redbud Rd to I 42 300 39 300 7 1% 38 700 85% 40 400 45% Wesleyan Dr/Market St I Wesleyan Dr/Market St to 59 700 56 800 49% 53 000 112% 56 100 60% Lakewood Rd I Lakewood Rd to 60 100 58 100 3 3% 47 500 210% 51 800 13 8% NC 273 (Park St) NC 273 (Park St) to 72 700 71 200 21% 56 100 228% 61 500 154% NC 7 (Catawba St) NC 7 (Catawba St) to 70 500 69 900 10% 58 600 169% 63 900 94% i Old Dowd Rd Old Dowd Rd to Sam Wilson Rd 52 600 52 100 10% 39 600 247% 45 400 137% I Sam Wilson Rd to 58 400 59 000 10% 48 400 17 1% 51 000 127% 1485 SB Ramps 1485 SB Ramps to I 55 100 57 300 40% 47 000 147% 49 300 105% 1485 NB Ramps East of 1485 NB Ramps 45 000 48 400 76% 38 800 138% 40 800 93% 1 AADT — Annual Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day) 2 % Cling — percent change in traffic volumes compared to the No Build Alternative The higher volumes on the segment from Edgewood Road to Shannon Bradley Road that would occur iunder the New Location Alternatives (compared to the No Build Alternative) are due to the new interchange providing access to the Gaston East West Connector This also results in lower volumes between Shannon Bradley Road and Myrtle School Road for the New Location Alternatives compared to ithe Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a 118 6 3 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on I -85 This is a new section of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report Table 12b shows the 2030 AADT projected for 185 from Exit 10 (US 29 74) to Exit 30 (I 485) in the project study area under various scenarios and the percent differences between the No Build Alternative and each scenario The projected AADT under each scenario are graphically compared in Chart lb Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 166 ' DRAFT July 2008 Table 12b Year 2030 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes on 185 — Various Scenarios i AADT = Annual Average daily traffic volumes 2 % cling = percent change compared to No Build Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 167 DRAFT July 2008 Improve Existing No Build Roadways New Location New Location Between 185 Exits Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Non Toll Scenario Toll Scenario (West to East) Scenarios 4 + /4a I AADT' AADT' % 2 AADT' ° Z AADT' % Z cling ch cling Exit IOB (US 29 74) to 105 000 115 200 97% 111 200 59% 111 800 65% Gaston East West Connector Gaston E W Connector to 105 000 115 200 97% 102 100 28% 106 500 14% Exit 13 (SR 1307 — Ed ewood Rd) i 13 to 14 (NC 274 — Bessemer City 115 400 131 000 135% 116 200 07% 120 400 43% Rd) 14 to 17 (US 32 1) 119 200 139 600 17 1% 121 200 17% 125 200 50% 17 to 19 (Ozark Ave) 134 600 157 200 168% 132 800 13% 138 400 28% 19 to 20 (NC 279) 147 200 174 600 186% 142 200 34% 148 200 07% 20 to 21 (Cox Rd) 151 000 180 000 192% 145 400 37% 151 400 03% 21 to 22 (Redbud Dr) 153 000 185 400 212% 144 600 55% 149 600 22% F22 to 23 (NC 7 — McAdenville Rd) 161 600 195 200 208% 149 800 73% 157 400 26% 23 to 26 (Abbey College) 169 200 202 200 195% 155 000 84% 162 800 3 8% 26 to 27 (NC 273 Park St) 178 600 212 400 189% 163 000 87% 171 000 43% 27 to 29 ((Sam Wilson Rd) 193 600 228 200 179% 175 800 92% 185 200 43% 29 to 30 (I 485) 198 400 234 600 1 182% 181 200 87% 1 190 800 3 8% i AADT = Annual Average daily traffic volumes 2 % cling = percent change compared to No Build Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 167 DRAFT July 2008 ' As shown in Table 12b and Chart lb when 185 is improved under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a additional traffic volumes are attracted to 185 Under the New Location Alternatives (Toll and Non Toll Scenarios) traffic volumes increase slightly on 185 west of US 321 and ' decrease east of US 321 compared to the No Build Alternative as travelers divert to the new highway As Chart lb graphically shows there is so much latent demand in the study area for highway travel that adding the one to two lanes in each direction on 185 under Scenarios 4 + /4a attracted an average of ' 17 percent more vehicles per hour compared to the No Build Alternative Widening the north/south feeder roads to the interstate as under Scenario 8 would be expected to attract even more vehicles to 185 � 18 6 4 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on I -485 i � This is a new section of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report ' Table 12c shows the 2030 AADT projected for 1485 from in the project study area under various � scenarios and the percent differences between the No Build Alternative and each scenario As shown in the table Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a would result in higher traffic volumes ' on 1485 compared to the No Build Alternative The New Location Alternatives would result in higher � traffic volumes south of the new Gaston East West Connector interchange at 1485 and slightly less traffic � volumes north of the new interchan ge Addendum to the Final A lternatives Development Report — U 3321 168 DRAFT July 2008 Chart 1 b 2030 Traffic Volumes On 1 -85 -Various Scenarios 250 000 - --� —No Build � N d E e 3 200 000 M — Scenano 4a O � � F V ll New Location Non Toll 150 000 H' —� —New Location Toll A 100 000 D All 1 iii 50 000 m > Q 0 1 85 from West to East Exit 10B to Exit 30 � 18 6 4 Year 2030 Traffic Volumes on I -485 i � This is a new section of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report ' Table 12c shows the 2030 AADT projected for 1485 from in the project study area under various � scenarios and the percent differences between the No Build Alternative and each scenario As shown in the table Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a would result in higher traffic volumes ' on 1485 compared to the No Build Alternative The New Location Alternatives would result in higher � traffic volumes south of the new Gaston East West Connector interchange at 1485 and slightly less traffic � volumes north of the new interchan ge Addendum to the Final A lternatives Development Report — U 3321 168 DRAFT July 2008 ge Addendum to the Final A lternatives Development Report — U 3321 168 DRAFT July 2008 II Table 12c Year 2030 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes on 1485 — Various Scenarios 1 AADT = Annual Average daily traffic volumes 2 % cling = percent change compared to No Build Alternative 3 AADT for the mainline only does not include AADT on the collector /distributor roads between the two interchanges I 8 7 Year 2030 Levels of Service on Existing Mayor Roadways This is a new section of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report 18 7 1 Model Methodology and Assumptions This is a new section of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report Traffic operations analysis was conducted to calculate levels of service for mayor roadways surrounding the proposed project (I 85 1485 US 321 and US 29 74) under various build and no build scenarios This analysis is documented in the Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum for 185 1485 US 29 74 and US 231 Under Various Scenarios (PBS &J July 2008) The scenarios evaluated and summarized in this section are listed below • Design Year 2030 — No Build Alternative • Design Year 2030 — Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a ' • Design Year 2030 — New Location Alternative as a Non Toll Facility I• Design Year 2030 New Location Alternative as a Toll Facility Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream (Transportation Research Board 2000 2 2) The LOS is defined with letter designations from A to F that can be applied to both roadway segments and intersections LOS A represents the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst All analysis was performed in accordance with the NCDOT Congestion Management Capacity Analysis Guidelines as applicable Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 169 DRAFT July 2008 Improve Existing No Build Roadways New Location New Location I Between 1485 Exits Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative I (South to North) Scenarios 4 + /4a Non Toll Scenario Toll Scenario ' AADT' AADT' � 2 AADT' % Z AADT' % 2 ch c c hng i Exit 4 (NC 60 — Steele Creek Rd) to 100 000 110 200 102% 111 000 110% 109 000 90% Gaston East West Connector i Gaston E W Connector to Exit 9 (US 29 74) 100 000 110 200 102% 97 400 26% 98 600 14% ' Exit 9 to Exit 10 (I 85) 41900' 44 150 54% 48 450 156% 1 51 300 22 4% 1 AADT = Annual Average daily traffic volumes 2 % cling = percent change compared to No Build Alternative 3 AADT for the mainline only does not include AADT on the collector /distributor roads between the two interchanges I 8 7 Year 2030 Levels of Service on Existing Mayor Roadways This is a new section of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report 18 7 1 Model Methodology and Assumptions This is a new section of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report Traffic operations analysis was conducted to calculate levels of service for mayor roadways surrounding the proposed project (I 85 1485 US 321 and US 29 74) under various build and no build scenarios This analysis is documented in the Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum for 185 1485 US 29 74 and US 231 Under Various Scenarios (PBS &J July 2008) The scenarios evaluated and summarized in this section are listed below • Design Year 2030 — No Build Alternative • Design Year 2030 — Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a ' • Design Year 2030 — New Location Alternative as a Non Toll Facility I• Design Year 2030 New Location Alternative as a Toll Facility Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream (Transportation Research Board 2000 2 2) The LOS is defined with letter designations from A to F that can be applied to both roadway segments and intersections LOS A represents the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst All analysis was performed in accordance with the NCDOT Congestion Management Capacity Analysis Guidelines as applicable Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 169 DRAFT July 2008 A freeway capacity analysts was performed for the 185 and 1485 mainlines using the North Carolina Level of Service (NC LOS) software Version 1 3 The analysts did not include the ramp merge ramp ' diverge and weaving elements In addition an arterial capacity analysts was performed for US 29 74 and iUS 321 using the same software i t A detailed analysis for merging /diverging /weaving was not conducted for every scenario nor was this level ' of detail necessary to evaluate concepts and trends at this stage of alternatives development Only basic segments between interchanges and intersections were modeled However the merging /diverging/ weaving traffic could influence the level of service along the freeway The effect could be to degrade level ' of service with the possible result being the need for collector distributor roads or auxiliary lanes This type of effect would occur under any of the scenarios ' 18 7 2 Year 2030 Levels of Service on I -85 Table 14b lists the levels of service along 185 projected to occur under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a and New Location Alternatives (Non Toll and Toll Scenarios) Table 14b Year 2030 Levels of Service on 185 - Various Scenarios I Improve Existing New Location New Location � Between 185 Exits No Build Alternative Roadways Alternative Alternative Alternative I (West to East) Scenarios 4 + /4a Non Toll Scenario Toll Scenario � AADTi LOSZ AADTi LOSZ AADTi LOS2 AADTi LOSZ Exit 10B (US 29 74) to i Gaston East West 105 000 E 115 200 D 111 200 E 111 800 E Connector i Gaston E W Connector to Exit 13 (SR 1307 - 105 000 F 115 200 E 102 100 E 106 000 E i Ed ewood Rd) 13 to 14 (NC 274 - 115 400 F 131 000 E 116 200 F 120 400 F i Bessemer City Rd) 14 to 17 (US 321) 119 200 F 139 600 E 121 200 F 125 200 F 17 to 19 (Ozark Ave) 134 600 F 157 200 F 132 800 F 138 400 F i 19 to 20 (NC 279) 147 200 F 174 600 F (E)3 142 200 F 148 200 F 20 to 21 (Cox Rd) 151 000 F 180 000 F (E)' 145 400 F 151 400 F 21 to 22 (Redbud Dr) 153 000 F 185 400 F (E)' 144 600 F 149 600 F 122 to 23 (NC 7 - McAdenville Rd) 161 600 F 195 200 F 149 800 F 157 400 F i 23 to 26 (Abbey College) 169 200 F 202 200 F 155 000 F 162 800 F i 26 to 27 (NC 273 Park St) 178 600 F 212 400 F 163 000 F 171 000 F 127 to 29 (Sam Wilson Rd) 193 600 F 228 200 F 175 800 F 185 200 F 29 to 30 (I 485) 198 400 F 234 600 F 181 200 F 190 800 F 1 AADT = Annual Average daily traffic volumes 2 LOS = Level of Service 3 LOS F for Scenario 4+ and LOS E for Scenario 4a Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 170 DRAFT July 2008 As shown in Table 14b 185 is projected to operate primarily at LOS E F regardless of the alternative Under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a most improvements in traffic flow achieved by adding additional lanes would be offset by the increase in traffic volumes attracted to the facility Under the New Location Alternative either the Toll or Non Toll Scenario traffic flow would improve somewhat due to decreases in traffic volumes compared to the No Build Alternative even though the LOS remains LOS F 1 18 7 3 Year 2030 Levels of Service on I -485 iTable 14c lists the 2030 levels of service along 1485 projected to occur under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a and New Location Alternative (Non Toll and Toll Scenarios) iAs shown in Table 14c I-485-is projected to operate primanly of LOSE under the No Build Alternative Under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a -LOS would degrade to LOS F - Under the New Location Alternative-the LOS would be LOS F_on I_485 south of the Gaston East Wetl I rConnector and LOS -E north of -the Gaston East West Connector Table 14c Year 2030 Levels of Service on 1485 - Various Scenarios 1 AADT = Annual Average daily traffic volumes 2 LOS = Level of Service 3 AADT is for the mainline only and does not include AADT on the collector /distributor roads between the two interchanges Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 171 DRAFT July 2008 Improve Existing New Location New Location Between 1485 Exits No Build Alternative Roadways Alternative Alternative Alternative i (South to North) Scenarios 4 + /4a Non Toll Scenario Toll Scenario AADT' LOSZ AADT' LOSZ AADT' LOSZ AADT' LOSZ Exit 4 (NC 60 — Steele Creek Rd) to Gaston East West 100 000 E 110 200 F 111 000 F 109 000 F Connector Gaston E W Connector to Exit 9 (US 29 74) 100 000 E 110 200 F 97 400 E 98 600 E ' Exit 9 to Exit 10 (I 85) 41900' B 44 1503 B 48 4503 B 51 3003 B 1 AADT = Annual Average daily traffic volumes 2 LOS = Level of Service 3 AADT is for the mainline only and does not include AADT on the collector /distributor roads between the two interchanges Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 171 DRAFT July 2008 ' 18 7 4 Year 2030 Levels of Service on US 29 -74 I Table 14d lists the 2030 levels of service along US 29 74 projected to occur under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a and New Location Alternative (Non Toll and Toll Scenarios) I As shown in Table 14d under the No Build Alternative US 29 74 is projected to operate primarily at LOS D or better west McAdenville and LOS F east of McAdenville Under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative ScenanoS 4 + /4a LOS would improve compared to the No Build Alternative west of Myrtle School Road where US 29 74 would be widened to six lanes Under the New Location Alternative (Non Toll and Toll Scenarios) the LOS would be similar to the No Build Alternative even though traffic volumes would be less I 'Table 14d Year 2030 Levels of Service on US 29 74 - Various Scenarios Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 172 DRAFT July 2008 Improve Existing New Location New Location US 29 74 Segment No Build Alternative Roadways Alternative Alternative Alternative (West to East) Scenarios 4 + /4a Non Toll Scenario Toll Scenario ' AADT' LOS2 AADT' LOS' AADT' LOS2 AADT' LOS2 Sparrow Springs Rd to Gaston East West 3720 0 OD- 41 900 <B2 48 400 F 43 600 /F/ ' Connector V Gaston East West 37200 D'� L 41 900 B 33 600 E 35 500 ( E ms / ' Connector to Ed ewood Rd (� Edgewood Rd to Shannon 35 600 C 37 300 B 32 200 C 36 400 C ' Bradley Rd Shannon Bradley Rd to 35 400 E� 37 200 C 32 100 D 36 300 -_F-1 Myrtle School Rd �i <2 Myrtle School Rd to 32 200 F 34 300 F 29 700 F 34 600 F Bessemer City Rd Bessemer City Rd to 21 500 D 21 300 D 20 000 D 23 100 D Linwood Rd Linwood Rd to 16 400 D 18 600 D 17 100 D 19 700 D US 321 (Chester Rd) US 321 (Chester Rd) to 21 800 D 23 800 E 21 100 D 23 000 D Avon St Avon St to 22 700 D 23 800 D 22 400 D 24 700 D Thomas St/Belvidere i Thomas St/Belvidere to NC 27 100 60 28 400 C 26 300 C 32 100 279 (New Hope Rd) i NC 279 (New Hope Rd) to 24 700 C 23 000 C 22 300 C 26 000 C Cox Rd/Armstrong Park Rd i Cox Rd /Armstrong Park Rd 39 200 D 35 000 D 36 700 D 39 900 D to Franklin Square i Franklin Square to Lineberger Rd 39 200 F 35 400 E 40 300 F 43 500 F ' Lineberger Rd to S Main St/Redbud Dr 39 500 D 35 400 D 38 300 D 40 700 D 'S Main St/Redbud Rd to I Wesleyan Dr/Market St 42 300 D 39 300 D 38 700 D 40 400 D Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 172 DRAFT July 2008 ;Table 14d Year 2030 Levels of Service on US 29 74 — Various Scenarios i No Budd Improve Existing New Location New Location US 29 74 Segment No Budd Alternative Roadways Alternative Alternative Alternative (West to East) Scenarios 4 + /4a Non Toll Scenario Toll Scenario I AADT' LOS' AADT' LOS' AADT' LOS' AADT' LOS' Wesleyan Dr/Market St to Lakewood Rd 59 700 F 56 800 F 53 000 F 56 100 F Lakewood Rd to NC 273 (Park St) 60 100 F 58 100 F 47 500 D 51 800 F NC 273 (Park St) to 72 700 F 71 200 F 56 100 F 61 500 F NC 7 (Catawba St) 20 700 B 23 300 B 21 100 B 22 400 B I NC 7 (Catawba St) to 70 500 F 69 900 F 58 600 F 63 900 F Old Dowd Rd I Old Dowd Rd to 52 600 IF-' 52 100 E� 39 600 F 45 400 F Sam Wilson Rd Sam Wilson Rd to 58 400 F 59 000 F 48 400 F 51 000 F 1485 SB Ramps 11485 SB Ramps to 55 100 F 57 300 F 47 000 F 49 300 F 11485 NB Rams h East of 1485 NB Ramps 45 000 F, 48 400 CEO 38 800 F 40 800 F 1 AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day) 2 LOS = Level of Service 18 7 5 Year 2030 Levels of Service on US 321 Table 14e lists the 2030 levels of service along US 321 projected to occur under the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative ScenanoS 4 + /4a and New Location Alternative (Non Toll and Toll Scenanos) As shown in Table 14e levels of service along US 321 are similar for all evaluated alternatives Levels of service are LOS D or better through the project area except near the 185 ramps where levels of service would be LOS F ,Table 14e Year 2030 Levels of Service on US 321— Various Scenarios Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 173 DRAFT July 2008 No Budd Improve Existing Roadways New Location New Location i US 321 Segment (South Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative to North) Scenarios 4 + /4a Non Toll Scenario Toll Scenario AADT' LOS' AADT' LOS2 AADT' LOS' AADT' LOS' NC /SC State Line to Gaston E WConnector 30 900 V- 34 200 A 39 600 C 42 000 Gaston East West 30 900 34 200 A 23 300 D 23 200 lDD Connector to Forbes Rd U I Forbes Rd to 20 700 B 23 300 B 21 100 B 22 400 B Crowders Creek Rd Crowders Creek Rd to 23 400 C 26 400 D 21 200 C 22 900 C Stagecoach Rd Stagecoach Rd to 23 000 C 26 000 C 20 300 C 21 400 C Davis Park Rd Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 173 DRAFT July 2008 Table 14e Year 2030 Levels of Service on US 321— Various Scenarios 1 AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day) 2 LOS = Level of Service 1 I 18 8 Mobility and Connectivity Measures 18 8 1 Mobility and Connectivity Within Southern Gaston County South of 185 in southern Gaston County a lack of connecting east west roadways makes travel circuitous ' and limits mobility Currently there are no continuous east west routes in southern Gaston County The i roads in southern Gaston County generally in a north south direction ' As can be seen on Figure 3a or Figure 4 a person wishing to travel from the residential subdivisions on the Belmont peninsula (the land between the South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River) to businesses ' and industries along US 321 in southern Gaston County cannot do so directly They must first travel north ' to use westbound 185 or US 29 74 to US 321 then south on US 321 or travel a circuitous route that might include NC 273 (Armstrong Road) NC 279 (South New Hope Road) SR 2435 (Union New Hope Road) ' NC 274 (Union Road) SR 2416 (Robinson Road) SR 2412 (Little Mountain Road) SR 2420 (Forbes Road) to US 321 NC 273 NC 279 SR 2435 NC 274 SR 2416 and SR 2420 are all two lane roadways with no access control Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 174 ' DRAFT July 2008 Improve Existing New Location New Location US 321 Segment (South No Budd Roadways Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative to North) Scenarios 4 + /4a Non Toll Scenario Toll Scenario ' AADT' LOS2 AADT' LOS2 AADT' LOS2 AADT' LOS2 Davis Park Rd to 23 000 D 26 000 E 20 100 D 21 200 D Hudson Blvd i Hudson Blvd to 22 800 D 25 000 E 21 900 D 22 700 D Jackson Rd i Jackson Rd to W 3 d Ave 17 400 C 19 000 D 17 100 C 17 100 C i W 3 d Ave to US 29 74 17 400 C 19 000 C 17 800 C 17 900 C (W Franklin Blvd) ' US 29 74 (W Franklin Blvd) to W 20 500 C 27 300 C 25 300 C 23 800 C ' Airline Ave/W Long Ave W Airline Ave/W Long Ave to W Rankin Ave 20 500 C 27 300 C 25 300 C 23 800 C ' W Rankin Ave to Radio St 19 900 D 22 400 D 22 400 D 22 500 D Radio St to 185 SB 22 000 D 24 800 D 24 800 D 24 800 D Ramps 1185 SB Ramps to 34 500 F 40 700 F 39 600 F 40 000 F 185 NB Ramps 185 NB Ramps to 47 000 E 56 600 F 55 200 F 54 400 F Rankin Lake Rd 1 AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic (vehicles per day) 2 LOS = Level of Service 1 I 18 8 Mobility and Connectivity Measures 18 8 1 Mobility and Connectivity Within Southern Gaston County South of 185 in southern Gaston County a lack of connecting east west roadways makes travel circuitous ' and limits mobility Currently there are no continuous east west routes in southern Gaston County The i roads in southern Gaston County generally in a north south direction ' As can be seen on Figure 3a or Figure 4 a person wishing to travel from the residential subdivisions on the Belmont peninsula (the land between the South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River) to businesses ' and industries along US 321 in southern Gaston County cannot do so directly They must first travel north ' to use westbound 185 or US 29 74 to US 321 then south on US 321 or travel a circuitous route that might include NC 273 (Armstrong Road) NC 279 (South New Hope Road) SR 2435 (Union New Hope Road) ' NC 274 (Union Road) SR 2416 (Robinson Road) SR 2412 (Little Mountain Road) SR 2420 (Forbes Road) to US 321 NC 273 NC 279 SR 2435 NC 274 SR 2416 and SR 2420 are all two lane roadways with no access control Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 174 ' DRAFT July 2008 Using the existing routes in southern Gaston County described above a person would travel 17 miles across southern Gaston County A person using Southpoint Rd to 185 to US 321 would travel approximately 22 miles A person using the Gaston East West Connector would have an 11 mile trip The approximate travel times for a person traveling within southern Gaston County were estimated using the travel time contour feature of the 2030 Metrolma travel demand model The model generates lines showing various travel time increments (in this case 10 minute increments) from an input starting point (origin) and can also give approximate travel times to specified destinations The travel time contours were run for the morning peak hour for the No Build Alternative Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a and the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario The selected origins included the Belmont peninsula near the intersection of Southpoint Road and Armstrong Road and southwest Gaston County near the intersection of Lewis Road and Chapel Grove Road The travel time contour maps are provided in Addendum Appendix C Table 15 shows the results for the modeled origins and selected destinations within Gaston County Table 15 Estimated Travel Times for Trips Within Gaston County Under Various Scenarios I Source Travel Time Contour Maps produced by M /A/B using the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model 1 Time change is the difference compared to the No Build Alternative As shown in Table 15 travel times for travel within southern Gaston County would lengthen somewhat under the Improve Existing Roadway Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a Under these scenarios more vehicles are using the network roads to reach 185 and US 29 74 which reduces speeds on roadways throughout the network Travel times under Scenario 8 may be slightly better as more capacity is provided on north south feeder roads but these roads are used only for short distances in east west cross county travel Also if the new capacity on 185 were tolled this would not have an effect on travel within southern Gaston County Under the New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) travel times would noticeably improve for cross county travel in southern Gaston County For example travel from the Belmont Peninsula westward to Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 175 DRAFT July 2008 1 Approximate Travel Time m 2030 (minutes) No Build Alternative Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a New Location Alternative Toll Scenario I Origin � I Destination Peak Period Travel Time Travel Time Time Change Travel Time Time Change i i I Belmont Peninsula — US 321at Robinson Road AM 22 25 T 3 13 19 Southpoint Rd/ I Armstrong Rd i Intersection Downtown Gastonia AM 20 22 1 T 2 18 12 Downtown Bessemer City AM 27 32 T 5 25 12 i I Southwest Gaston Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden AM 30 31 T 1 22 j 8 i County —Lewis Rd/ Chapel Grove Rd Intersection Downtown Gastonia AM 13 13 0 10 j 3 Downtown Bessemer City AM 15 14 j 1 12 j 3 Source Travel Time Contour Maps produced by M /A/B using the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model 1 Time change is the difference compared to the No Build Alternative As shown in Table 15 travel times for travel within southern Gaston County would lengthen somewhat under the Improve Existing Roadway Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a Under these scenarios more vehicles are using the network roads to reach 185 and US 29 74 which reduces speeds on roadways throughout the network Travel times under Scenario 8 may be slightly better as more capacity is provided on north south feeder roads but these roads are used only for short distances in east west cross county travel Also if the new capacity on 185 were tolled this would not have an effect on travel within southern Gaston County Under the New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) travel times would noticeably improve for cross county travel in southern Gaston County For example travel from the Belmont Peninsula westward to Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 175 DRAFT July 2008 1 ' US 321 would be reduced by about 9 nunutes (about 40 percent) compared to the No Build Alternative Likewise travel times from southwest Gaston County eastward to the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden area would be reduced about 8 minutes (about 27 percent) compared to the No Build Alternative Travel times ' under the New Location Alternative (Non Toll Scenario) are expected to be the same as under the Toll Scenario iThe need for improved connectivity and east west mobility within southern Gaston County will continue to grow as the population in this area increases Between 1990 and 2000 southeastern Gaston County had ithe largest population increase in the County According to the Gaston County Comprehensive Plan the southeastern part of the county is expected to continue experiencing high residential growth through 2020 18 8 2 Mobility and Connectivity Between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County iAs was estimated for travel within southern Gaston County the travel time contour feature of the 2030 Metrohna travel demand model also was used to estimate travel times for various origins and destinations between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County The travel time contours were run for the peak hour i(AM or PM depending on origin) for the No Build Alternative Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a and the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario The selected origins included the Belmont peninsula near the intersection of Southpomt Road and Armstrong Road southwest Gaston iCounty near the intersection of Lewis Road and Chapel Grove Road the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and south Gastonia near the intersection of Huffman Road and Robinwood Road (about halfway between the New Location Alternative corridors and 185) The travel time contour maps are provided in Addendum Appendix C Table 16 shows the results for the modeled origins and selected destinations between the two counties Like travel within southern Gaston County travel times for travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg ' Counties would lengthen under the Improve Existing Roadway Alternative Scenarios 4 + /4a compared to the No Build Alternative Under these scenarios more vehicles are using the network roads to reach 185 and US 29 74 which reduces speeds on roadways throughout the network (Section 18 5) If the new ' capacity on 185 were tolled travel time savings may improve but some of these savings would be offset because vehicles would still need to drive on congested roadways to reach the interstate Also for inter county travel travelers must use 185 or US 29 74 to cross over the river which constrains traffic flow Travel times under Scenario 8 likely would be better as more capacity is provided on north south feeder , roads but travel time savings would not reach the levels achieved by a New Location Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 176 ' DRAFT July 2008 Under the New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) travel times savings would be substantial for most ' i inter county trips For example a trip to /from southern Gaston County (Belmont Peninsula or southwest Gaston County) or south Gastonia from/to the Charlotte Douglas International Airport would take about ' 120 minutes less (30 40 percent reduction) A trip from the Charlotte Douglas International Airport to i downtown Gastonia or downtown Belmont would be reduced by about 10 minutes (about a 15 percent reduction) Travel times under the New Location Alternative (Non Toll Scenario) are expected to be the ' Isame as under the Toll Scenario i I � Table 16 Estimated Travel Times for Trips Between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Under Various � Scenarios Source Fravel I ime Contour Maps produced by M /A/t3 using the m3u Metrolina travel demand model 1 Time change is the difference compared to the No Build Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 177 DRAFT July 2008 1 Approximate Travel Time in 2030 (minutes) Improve Existing New Location ' Origin g Destination Peak No Build Alternative Roadways Alternative Alternative Toll Period Scenario ' Scenarios 4 + /4a Travel Travel Time Travel Time ' Time Time Change' Time Change' Belmont Peninsula — iSouthpomt Charlotte Douglas AM 57 65 T 8 34 j 23 Rd /Armstrong Rd International Airport Intersection Southwest Gaston I County Lewis Charlotte Douglas AM 83 87 T 4 60 123 Rd /Chapel Grove Rd International Airport Intersection i South Gastonia — Charlotte Douglas AM 68 75 T 7 50 1 18 Hoffman International Airport i Rd/Robinwood Rd West of 1485 near Intersection Steele Creek Parkway AM 55 62 T 7 45 1 10 Southpoint Rd near PM 52 58 T 6 29 j 23 South point High School Daniel Stowe Botanical i Garden PM 62 69 T 7 34 128 ' Charlotte Douglas US 321 at Robinson International Airport PM 66 85 T 19 45 121 Road I Downtown Gastonia PM 57 75 T 18 46 j 11 ' FDo`ity wnto wn Bessemer PM 66 80 T 14 57 19 Source Fravel I ime Contour Maps produced by M /A/t3 using the m3u Metrolina travel demand model 1 Time change is the difference compared to the No Build Alternative Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 177 DRAFT July 2008 1 PART II - SECOND SCREENING OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES The three paragraphs below are an addition to Part 11 of the report i Part H of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report focuses on the alternative concept that made it through the first screening - a New Location Alternative Part H describes the process of i developing preliminary corridors for the New Location Alternative concept and conducting evaluations to narrow the numbers of corridors to those to be studied in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement The second screening process and decisions documented in Part H of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report apply whether the New Location Alternative is a non toll facility or a toll facility The functional engineering designs of the alternatives would be similar enough to not make a significant or even notable difference in the construction footprint used to estimate impacts in the second screening There are few differences in the designs of the non toll facility compared to the toll facility The toll facility s toll collection process is proposed to be solely electronic so there would be no cash toll booths 1 where a construction footprint might be wider than a non toll facility Some interchange ramps may have a slightly different alignment between a non toll facility and a toll facility to ensure that cashless toll collection sensors have adequate line of sight to vehicles This difference in ramp alignments would not change the basis of the decision making documented in Part H of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report II 1 SECOND SCREENING METHODOLOGY II 1 1 EVALUATION PROCESS ' There are no changes or additions to this section The evaluation process is applicable to both non toll and toll facilities The process to develop and evaluate preliminary corridor segments to ultimately arrive at the Detailed Study Alternatives is described below A Refined Study Area for the New Location Alternatives was identified based on land suitability mapping Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 I I 1 2 Numerous 1 200 foot wide preliminary corridor segments were developed within the refined study area using the land suitability mapping and design criteria These were presented to the public at the Citizens Informational Workshop Series #1 in 2003 3 Preliminary corridor segments were reviewed with the NEPA/404 Merger Team to determine if any could be eliminated based on fatal flaws or high levels of estimated impacts to the human and /or natural environments compared to other segments 4 The remaining preliminary corridor segments were connected to form endpoint to endpoint corridors from 185 to 1 485 and the width was widened from 1 200 feet to 1 400 feet to allow for more flexibility in establishing alignments 5 Functional designs were prepared within these corridors taking into consideration engineering design constraints and the locations of known sensitive human and natural resources These are referred to as the functional design corridors The 1 400 foot wide functional design corridor boundaries then were redrawn to be centered around the functional design alignments 6 Impacts to the natural and human environments based on the functional designs within the functional design corridors were estimated and tabulated 7 From the set of functional design corridors Detailed Study Alternatives were recommended based on the estimated impacts to the natural and human environments engineering design considerations and input from the NEPA/404 Merger Team These recommendations were presented to the public for comment and input at Citizens Informational Workshop Series #2 II 1 2 DESIGN CRITERIA ' The basic design cntena are the same whether the New Location Alternative is a non toll facility or a toll facility However this section was updated to include a discussion about number of lanes that would ' required based on 2030 Metrolma travel demand model forecasts for the Non Toll Scenario and the Toll Scenano Appendix D presents the design criteria used to develop the preliminary corridor segments and functional design corridors These criteria are based on the project s location function classification and design speed The design criteria conform to the standards established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2004) The typical cross section for the New Location Alternative Scenario 5a is shown in Figure 16 Other typical cross sections for cross streets (Y lines) and interchange ramps and loops are included in Appendix D The design criteria and typical roadway cross section are influenced by the type of facility required to fulfill the project s purpose and need For the proposed project a six lane median divided controlled access highway is needed to adequately carry projected traffic volumes Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 112 The proposed design speed is 70 mph for the main lines of the New Location Alternative Three 12 foot lanes are proposed for each direction of travel separated by a 46 foot median The total right of way is proposed to be a minimum of 350 feet Right of way requirements would be greater around interchanges For the proposed project a six lane median divided controlled access highway was determined to be needed to adequately carry projected 2025 non toll scenario traffic volumes which were the traffic projections current at the time the design criteria were developed The fifth and sixth lanes were added in the median (reducing the median to 46 feet) The median would be 70 feet wide if the project was designed as a four lane facility Ci der either outside foo'tnnnt of-the facility -would be the project will be determined during final design II 1 3 EVALUATION CRITERIA cross section or the six lane cross section —the The actual number of lanes to be included in the ' There are no changes or additions to this section The evaluation cntena are applicable to both non toll and toll facilities The factors listed in Table 17 were considered in the evaluation and screening of preliminary corridor segments and/or the functional design corridors Data on these factors were obtained from GIS databases (NCDOT Gaston County Mecklenburg County US Geological Survey US Fish and Wildlife Service) State resource agency files aerial photography and field visits 11 Table 17 Second Screening Evaluation Factors Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 II 3 n Impact Estimate Method Factor Source of Data Preliminary Corridor Functional Design Segments Corridors Length Miles Miles Calculated Number of Number along Corridor Number along Based on proposed project and Interchanges functional design design constraints Construction Cost 2005 dollars based on (Millions $) Not calculated functional design Based on standard unit costs (2005 dollars) estimated quantities Number of Minor Number counted along Number counted along GIS databases Road Crossings corridor segments functional designs Number of Mayor Number counted along Number counted along GIS databases aerial Power Easement corridor segments functional designs photography Crossings Number of Railroad Number counted along Number counted along GIS databases aerial Line Crossings corridor segments functional designs photography Residential Number counted within Number counted within GIS databases tax parcel Relocations corridor segments functional designs mapping aerial photography Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 II 3 n Table 17 Second Screening Evaluation Factors Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 114 Impact Estimate Method Factor Source of Data Preliminary Corridor Functional Design Segments Corridors Business Number counted within Number counted within GIS databases tax parcel Relocations corridor segments functional designs mapping aerial photography Low Income or Present within corridor Present within corridor Minority Census data Populations segments segments Number counted within Parks/Recreation a 300 foot wide Number counted within GIS databases aerial Sites alignment centered in functional designs photography and site visits the corridor segments Number counted within Schools/Libraries/ a 300 foot wide Number counted within GIS databases aerial Fire Stations alignment centered in functional designs photography and site visits the corridor segments Number counted within Churches a 300 foot wide Number counted within GIS databases aerial alignment centered in functional designs photography and site visits the corridor segments Number counted within a 300 foot wide Number counted within GIS databases aerial Cemeteries alignment centered in functional designs photography and site visits the corridor segments Number counted within National Historic a 300 foot wide Number counted within NC State Historic Preservation Register Sites alignment centered in functional designs Office GIS databases the corridor segments Properties Potentially Number counted within Phase I Historic Architectural Eligible for National a 300 foot wide Number counted within Survey of the Refined Study alignment centered in functional designs Register the corridor segments Area Hazardous Materials Number counted within Number counted within GIS databases NC Dept of and Superfund Sites corridor segments functional designs Environment and Natural Resources Linear feet within the Linear feet within GIS databases corridor segments functional designs Streams Number of crossings Number of crossings based on the corridor based on the functional GIS databases centerline design centerline Acres within the Acres within functional USFWS National Wetland Wetlands corridor segments designs Inventory Maps Linear feet crossed by Floodplams Linear feet crossed by functional design GIS databases corridor centerline centerline Natural Heritage Number counted within Number counted within Program corridor segments functional designs NC Natural Heritage Program Occurances /Sites Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 114 Table 17 Second Screening Evaluation Factors The criteria listed in Table 17 are discussed below Length and Construction Cost The design criteria described in Section 11 12 were used to develop the preliminary corridors Length number of interchanges number of tmnor road crossings and number of powerhne easement crossings affect the design and construction costs of an alternative Longer corridors with greater numbers of interchanges grade separated road crossings and easement crossings generally have higher costs Socioeconomic Criteria Socioeconotmc criteria include residential and business relocations and impacts to community facilities (churches libraries parks etc ) Corridor locations contributing to excessive community disruption or isolation were avoided where possible A higher number of minor road crossings can indicate more disruptions to neighborhoods Relocations of residences and businesses and associated social or economic impacts are often of greatest concern to the public and local officials A higher number of residential and business relocations also represents increases in right of way costs Historic Resource Criteria Known historic architectural sites and districts were identified through a review of county and State Historic Preservation Office files and inventories and NCDOT s GIS database A Phase I Historic Architectural Survey study area (Mattson Alexander and Associates September 2003) was conducted to identify additional properties potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places Known and potential historic properties were avoided to the extent possible in the development of preliminary corridor segments and functional design corridors Hazardous Materials Sites Known sites of hazardous materials or waste were obtained from NCDOT s GIS database and more detailed information was obtained for some sites from research at the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Remediation and acquisition activities associated with hazardous materials /waste sites can increase project costs and delay construction schedules These types of sites were avoided in the development of preliminary corridor segments and functional design corridors whenever practicable Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 115 Impact Estimate Method Factor Source of Data Preliminary Corridor Functional Design Segments Corridors Watersheds Number counted within Number counted within GIS databases corridor segments functional designs 303(d) Listed Number counted within Number counted within NC Division of Water Quality Streams rri codor segments functional designs Groundwater Number counted within Number counted within GIS databases Discharge Sites corridor segments functional designs The criteria listed in Table 17 are discussed below Length and Construction Cost The design criteria described in Section 11 12 were used to develop the preliminary corridors Length number of interchanges number of tmnor road crossings and number of powerhne easement crossings affect the design and construction costs of an alternative Longer corridors with greater numbers of interchanges grade separated road crossings and easement crossings generally have higher costs Socioeconomic Criteria Socioeconotmc criteria include residential and business relocations and impacts to community facilities (churches libraries parks etc ) Corridor locations contributing to excessive community disruption or isolation were avoided where possible A higher number of minor road crossings can indicate more disruptions to neighborhoods Relocations of residences and businesses and associated social or economic impacts are often of greatest concern to the public and local officials A higher number of residential and business relocations also represents increases in right of way costs Historic Resource Criteria Known historic architectural sites and districts were identified through a review of county and State Historic Preservation Office files and inventories and NCDOT s GIS database A Phase I Historic Architectural Survey study area (Mattson Alexander and Associates September 2003) was conducted to identify additional properties potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places Known and potential historic properties were avoided to the extent possible in the development of preliminary corridor segments and functional design corridors Hazardous Materials Sites Known sites of hazardous materials or waste were obtained from NCDOT s GIS database and more detailed information was obtained for some sites from research at the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Remediation and acquisition activities associated with hazardous materials /waste sites can increase project costs and delay construction schedules These types of sites were avoided in the development of preliminary corridor segments and functional design corridors whenever practicable Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 115 Natural Resource Criteria Natural resource criteria included number of stream crossings length of stream in segment or functional design right of way areas of wetlands and floodplams known protected species and natural heritage occurrence sites and locations of watersheds and public water resources Construction in jurisdictional resources (wetlands and streams that would require mitigation if impacted) requires a pernut from the US Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a permit from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act The US Army Corps of Engineers and the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) require a permit applicant to demonstrate that all practical measures have been taken to avoid and minimize wetland impacts Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act the NC DWQ also requires mitigation for all stream impacts greater than 150 linear feet Impacts to floodplains and streams indicate areas where culverts or bridges may be required which represent increases in construction costs Higher values for total areas of streams and floodplains within a corridor can indicate there will be less flexibility in designing roadway alignments within these corridors that avoid or nummize impacts to streams and floodplains None of the preliminary corridor segments encroached upon recorded protected species sites or watersheds /public water resources Therefore these two factors are not discussed in the evaluations described below II.2 REFINED STUDY AREA There are no changes or additions to this section or to Figure 17 — Refined Study Area for New Location Alternatives The refined study area was based on land suitability mapping that is applicable whether the New Location Alternative is a non toll or toll facility Land suitability mapping was developed for the project study area by identifying constraints presented by mayor features of the natural and human environments As described above data sources included aerial photography US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic information Geographical Information System (GIS) databases from the NCDOT Gaston County and Mecklenburg County State resource agency files stakeholder interviews and field visits The land suitability mapping information was used to create a refined study area within the overall project study that was suitable for the New Location Alternatives The refined study area for New Location Alternatives is shown in Figure 17 Primary constraints in establishing the northern boundary of the refined study area included the more densely developed areas within the City of Gastonia municipal boundaries the Gastonia Municipal Airport and the water supply watershed located on either side of the Catawba River in Belmont Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 116 To the south constraints included the North Carolina/South Carolina state line and the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden 1485 and the Charlotte Douglas International Airport comprise the eastern boundary To the west is Crowder s Mountain State Park II.3 DEVELOPING THE PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS There are no changes or additions to this section or to Figure 18 - Prehminary Corridor Segments The refined study area was based on land suitability mapping that is applicable whether the New Location Alternative is a non toll or toll facility The land suitability mapping showing known human and natural environment resources was used to develop the preliminary corridor segments Also included was the alignment for the project shown on the Gaston Thoroughfare Plan About 116 nules of preliminary corridor segments were developed These are shown in Figure 18(a b) Mayor constraints considered in the development of the preliminary corridor segments are described below The refined study area was divided into three parts for this discussion West Portion (from 185 to US 321) Central Portion (US 321 to around NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba River) and East Portion (from around NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba River to I 485) West Portion preliminary corridor segments are labeled beginning with A or B Central Portion preliminary corridor segments are labeled beginning with C D and E East Portion preliminary corridor segments are labeled beginning with F and G All segments are 1 200 feet wide The preliminary corridor segments were located to avoid or minimize impacts to known natural and human resources whenever ® possible II 3 1 PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS FROM I -85 TO US 321 (WEST PORTION) There are no changes or additions to this section Notable natural resources in the West Portion include Crowder s Creek and its named (Abernethy Creek Oates Creek Blackwood Creek Ferguson Branch McGill Branch) and unnamed tributaries and a Natural Heritage Program (NHP) site Site No A04 - Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop and Wetland Crowder s Creek has a 100 year floodplam defined and it is also a 303d listed stream meaning its water quality has been determined by the NC Division of Water Quality as being impaired The Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 McGill Branch (photo from S &ME) NHP site is divided into two nearby areas shown in Figures 17 and 18 and is on privately owned land Notable human resources in the West Portion include numerous churches and subdivisions several schools and potential historic sites and the Linwood Springs Golf Course (privately owned but open to the public) On the east side of US 321 is a parallel railroad track directly adjacent and also a dormant Superfund site located between Forbes Road to the south and Crowder s Creek Road to the north This Belfast Drive Area Superfund site is a former heavy metal industrial plant The railroad track parallels the east side of US 321 through the Refined Study Area for the New Location Alternatives Engineering design considerations include the need to provide appropriate spacing between a new 185 interchange and adjacent 185 interchanges and the need to provide adequate horizontal curvature along each corridor length to accommodate the 70 mph design speed The City of Bessemer City has expressed a need to maintain its access to the interstate at Exit 13 (Edgewood Road) The potential locations for a new interchange on 185 in the Refined Study Area are highly constrained Existing 185 interchanges in the Refined Study Area include Exit 10 (US 29 74) Exit 13 (Edgewood Road) Exit 14 (NC 274 Bessemer City Road) and Exit 17 (US 321) Also in this area an interchange with US 29 74 is desired US 29 74 runs about one half to one mile south of 185 in this area and Crowder s Creek runs parallel to the south of US 29 74 There are two mayor tributaries to Crowder s Creek that run north /south crossing under 185 between Exit 13 (Edgewood Road) and Exit 14 (Bessemer City Road) Crowder s Mountain State Park constrains the western linuts Sadler Elementary School (opened in 2005) is located on the north side of US 29 74 dust west of Edgewood Road Three potential termini at 185 were identified for consideration as part of the development of the preliminary corridors as shown in Figure 18(a b) The westernmost terminus is located west of Exit 13 Edgewood Road) The next terminus to the east is located at Exit 13 (Edgewood Road) This option would need to incorporate Edgewood Road into the interchange or relocate the road The easternmost terminus is located between Exit 13 (Edgewood Road) and Exit 14 (NC 274 — Bessemer City Road) In all cases the upstream and downstream existing interchanges would need to be modified to accommodate the new interchange Moving the tem-unus farther east along 185 would align the roadway so that any potential future extension north likely would impact downtown Bessemer City Also moving the terminus farther east likely would require modifications to Exit 10 (US 29 74) and create more impacts to Crowder s Creek Moving the terminus farther west along 185 could require eliminating the US 321 interchange The US 321 interchange is constrained by an existing rail line along its eastern side Existing interchange ramps cannot be moved to the eastern side to create room for a new interchange s ramps Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 118 Also considered was the potential for the roadway to be extended north sometime in the future An extension to the north is not reasonably foreseeable at this time but an extension northward is shown on the Thoroughfare Plan The alignment and location of the termim at 185 took into account features to the north of 185 including the downtown area of Bessemer City The segments that numic the alignment shown on the Gaston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan are Preliminary Corridor Segments A3 A6 and B3 Most of the area of these segments is within the 100 year floodplam of Crowder s Creek Therefore Preliminary Corridor Segments A4 A7 and B4 were created to be similar to the alignment shown on the Thoroughfare Plan but these segments were shifted eastward slightly to stay out of Crowder s Creek s 100 year floodplamn as much as possible while still trying to minimize residential impacts II 3 2 PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS FROM EAST OF US 321 TO AROUND NC 279 (CENTRAL PORTION) There are no changes or additions to this section Notable natural resources in the Central Portion of the Refined Study Area include tributaries to Crowder s Creek including a mayor tributary to Crowder s Creek that runs north to south dust east of US 321 and other unnamed tributaries Other creeks in this area are Mill Creek and Catawba Creek (and their tributaries) which are tributaries to the Catawba River There also is a 152 acre conservation easement that lies partially within Preliminary Corridor Segments E6 and E7 on property owned by Crescent Resources LLC (the real estate arm of Duke Energy) (See Figure 18b) This conservation easement was secured by the Catawba Lands Conservancy a non profit regional land trust serving the Lower Catawba River Basin According to Catawba Creek (Photo from SWE) the conservancy this property includes steep slopes mature hardwood forests pine forests extensive wetlands and important riparian buffers along Catawba Creek and numerous tributaries Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 119 Carolina Speedway on Union Road Other notable human resources in the Central Portion include numerous churches and subdivisions and several potential historic sites Forest View High School WA Bess Elementary School and the Union Road Branch Library are located on NC 279 (Union Road) south of Beaty Road (See Figure 18b) Just south of the NC 279 (Union Road) intersection with Union New Hope Road on the east side of Union Road is the privately owned Carolina Speedway It is approximately 28 acres in size and includes a dirt track speedway and bleachers The following Preliminary Corridor Segments from west to east are similar to the alignment shown on the Gaston Thoroughfare Plan C1 C5 C8 D2 D4 D8 D9 E3 and E8 II 3 3 PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS FROM AROUND NC 279 TO I -485 (EAST PORTION) i This section includes an update on the status of the Allen Steam Station pollution control facilities and the addition of the name of the park in Mecklenburg County Notable natural resources in the East Portion of the Refined Study Area include the South Fork Catawba River Catawba River and Beaverdam Creek When possible the Prehnunary Corridor Segments cross these rivers at narrow areas and in a perpendicular manner On the east bank of the South Fork Catawba River at the end of Canal Road and The Hot Hole Lane is the Allen Fishing Access Area on land owned by Duke South Fork Catawba River Energy This public access area has a parking lot picnic sites and fishing access It is located where the Allen Steam Station s water discharge canal flows into the South Fork Catawba River None of the Preliminary Corridor Segments are within this area In Mecklenburg County there is undeveloped parkland Berewick District Park owned by the County on the north side of Dixie River Road directly west of 1 485 Canal from Fishing Access Area Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 11 10 Notable human resources in this portion of the refined study area include several potential historic sites and churches and numerous subdivisions including nverfront developments Other features include a power plant and associated facilities and a planned intennodal facility and new runway at the Charlotte Douglas International Airport On the Belmont Peninsula (the land between the South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River) is the Allen Steam Station and associated facilities (See Figure 18b) The Allen Steam Station is a mayor coal fired power plant owned and operated by Duke Energy It began operations in 1957 and currently serves over one million homes Facilities associated with the power plant include a water discharge canal an air pollution control facility and associated future landfill fly ash basins a rail line and numerous mayor Allen Steam Station power line easements These facilities are described below The water discharge canal bisects the Belmont peninsula to discharge water to the South Fork Catawba River Water is drawn from the Catawba River and used for cooling purposes before being discharged to the canal which drains to the South Fork Catawba River None of the Preliminary Corridor Segments cross this canal North of the power plant building Duke Energy is constructing new pollution control devices at the Steam Station to comply with the Clean Smokestacks Bill enacted in June 2002 In 2006 the Steam Station began installing flue gas desulfurization equipment commonly known as scrubbers The project is expected to be completed in 2009 (Duke Energy http Hwww duke energy com accessed May 22 2008) The scrubbers would include a stack (estimated at 300 to 330 feet high) and require the relocation of transmission lines across the Catawba River In addition a landfill approximately 20 acres in size will be needed and is being planned for an area directly west of the proposed scrubbers Both the scrubbers and the proposed landfill area are located within Preliminary Corridor Segments G3 and G X14 which are the corridor segments similar to the Thoroughfare Plan alignment (See Figure 18b) Fly ash basins are areas where byproducts of the coal energy production processes are stored There are two fly ash basins located dust south of the power plant building (See Figure 18b) The northern fly ash basin currently is inactive The basin to the south currently is being used An active freight rail line that serves the Allen Steam Station is located along the west side of the Catawba River Crossings of the Catawba River also will need to provide a minimum vertical clearance for the rail line Mayor above ground power transmission lines are shown on Figure 18(a b) There are numerous mayor power lines radiating out from the Allen Steam Station Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 II 11 DRAFT — July 2008 The Charlotte Douglas International Airport is constructing a new mayor runway to the west of their existing runways This new runway is near and parallel to 1485 to the east In the southwest corner of their property the Airport plans to construct an intermodal freight facility This facility will abut 1485 north of existing West Boulevard (See Figure 18b) The Airport plans to relocate West Boulevard to the south of their property to accommodate the new intermodal facilities Prelimmary Corridor Segment G9 would be within the new intermodal area The Airport completed their master plan for their intermodal facility in September 2003 after the Preliminary Corridor Segments were developed in August 2003 The project terminus at 1485 is constrained by the Airport s new runway and intermodal facility and by the undeveloped parkland on the west side of 1485 north of Dixie River Road The existing 1485 interchange to the north of the Preliminary Corridor Segments is with US 29 74 and the existing 1485 interchange to the south is with Steele Creek Road (NC 160) II 4 IDENTIFYING THE FUNCTIONAL DESIGN CORRIDORS The introduction to this section has additional text that states the evaluation is valid for both non toll and toll scenarios This section describes how the approximately 116 miles of Prelirmnary Corridor Segments were evaluated to determine which corridor segments could be elirrunated and which should be used to develop functional engineering designs for further screening The corridors making it through this screening process were labeled the Functional Design Corridors There were about 90 miles of Functional Design Corridor segments The evaluation described in this section for identifying the functional design corridors is vand whether the New Location Alternative is a non toll facility or a toll facility Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 11 12 II 4 f SCREENING METHODOLOGY ' There are no additions or updates to this section Table 17 lists the evaluation factors used to estimate and compare potential impacts Quantities of resources were estimated either within the preliminary corridor segments or within a representative 300 foot wide alignment in the center of the corridor segment depending on the resource The method used for each factor is listed in Table 17 in the column Impact Estimate Method — Preliminary Corridor Segments The estimates are for comparison purposes only to aid in deciding between segments and should not be considered an estimate of the actual impact of a roadway within a corridor segment When necessary series of preliminary corridor segments were connected to provide for a common basis of comparison such as similar length and /or termini For example the numbers of residences within a set of 1 200 foot wide corridor segments compared to the numbers of residences within another set of corridor segments with similar length and /or termini can indicate the relative ability of developing an alignment that minimizes residential impacts It does not indicate the projected number of residences that would actually be impacted The quantities generated in this screening evaluation were considered together with other qualitative factors as described under each decision point in the next section II 4 2 SCREENING EVALUATION There are no additions or updates to this section The decisions to retain prehnunary corridor segments as Functional Design Corridors and to eliminate preliminary corridor segments were made by the NEPA/404 Merger Team at a meeting held on February 17 2004 The decisions are summarized below Appendix E contains the complete Preliminary Corridor Segment Evaluation Matrix spreadsheets showing the estimated impacts for all Preliminary Corridor Segments Sections II 4 2 1 through II 4 2 3 describe the reasons various prelimmary corridor segments were elimmated All evaluation factors listed in Table 17 were used in comparing preliminary corridor segments In some cases impacts between preliminary corridor segment combinations would be similar in other cases particular impacts would be different and would be the differentiating factors The discussion that follows in Sections II 4 2 1 through II 4 2 3 places emphasis on the differentiating factors Section II 4 2 4 describes prelimmary corridor segments modified and added as a result of the screening evaluation Section II 4 2 5 is a summary of the remaining preliminary corridor segments for which functional designs were prepared Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 1 113 II 4 2 1 Preliminary Corridor Segments in the West Portion of the Refined Study Area (from I -85 to US 321) There are no additions or updates to this section Summary of Preliminary Corridor Segments Eliminated The following Preliminary Corridor Segments in the West Portion (from 185 to US 321) of the Refined Study Area were eliminated from consideration A2 A3 A3a A3 XA7 A5 (modified and given a new name — A5a) A4 XA5 A4 XA6 A6a A6 B3 B Xla B X2 B8 B X3 and B 10 (See Figure 18a) Preliminary Corridor Segment A2 Preliminary Corridor Segment A2 was eliminated Preliminary Corridor Segment Al will be widened to provide more flexibility at the 185 terminus which will have a systems interchange Comparison A2 vs Al • Segment A2 may go through a planned new public school at US 29/74 and Edgewood Road (Sadler Elementary School) This information was discovered during the Citizens Informational Workshop Series #1 (September and December 2003) The school opened in 2005 • Segment A2 has 173 residences and mobile homes in corridor while Segment Al has 58 • Segment A2 has fewer linear feet of streams but widening Segment Al will allow the flexibility to minimize impacts in this segment • Segment A2 may have some environmental justice issues Factor Segment Al Segment A2 (Eliminated) Length (ft) 10 493 11 152 Number of Interchanges 3 3 Minor Road Crossings 2 2 Mayor Transmission Line Crossings 2 2 Railroad Line Crossings 0 0 Residences in Corridor 37 91 Mobile Homes in Corridor 21 82 Businesses in Corridor 15 2 Parks/Recreation Areas in Corridor 0 0 Schools in Corridor 0 1 Churches in Corridor 0 0 Cemeteries in Corridor 0 1 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 II 14 Factor Segment AI Segment A2 (Eliminated) Potential Historic Sites In or Adjacent to 0 0 Corridor Streams (Linear Ft in Corridor) 7 548 3 668 Wetlands (acres in corridor) 2 0 Floodplains (# of transverse crossings) 1 1 Floodplams (# of longitudinal encroachments) 0 0 Named Streams (# of crossings) 1 1 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 0 0 Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 4 3 Other Waterbodies in Corridor 2 3 Watershed Area in Corridor 0 0 Dormant Superfund Sites in Corridor 0 0 Groundwater Discharge Areas in Corridor 0 0 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Corridor 0 0 Preliminary Corridor Segments A3 and A3a Preliminary Corridor Segments A3 and A3a were eliminated Preliminary Corridor Segments A4 and Ala were then widened to provide more flexibility for a new systems interchange at the 185 terminus Comparison A3 +A3a vs A4 +A7a Preliminary Corridor Segments A4 +A7a move the corridor away from the parallel stream • Widening Preliminary Corridor Segments A4 +A7a at 185 will allow the flexibility to tninimize impacts to residences and businesses Segments A4 +A7a were widened to the boundary of the parallel stream Factor Segment A3 +A3a (Eliminated) Segment A4 +A7a Length (ft) 4 987 5 094 Number of Interchanges 2 1 Minor Road Crossings 0 4 Major Transnussion Line Crossings 2 2 Railroad Line Crossings 0 0 Residences in Corridor 43 94 Mobile Homes in Corridor 2 0 Businesses in Corridor 1 5 Parks/Recreation Areas in Corridor 0 0 Schools in Corridor 0 0 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1 115 Factor Segment A3 +A3a (Eliminated) Segment A4 +A7a Churches in Corridor 0 0 Cemeteries in Corridor 0 0 Potential Historic Sites In or Adjacent to Corridor 0 0 Streams (Linear Ft in Corridor) 7 942 2029 Wetlands (acres in corridor) 3 4 Floodplams (# of transverse crossings) 0 0 Floodplams (# of longitudinal encroachments) 1 0 Named Streams (# of crossings) 0 0 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 1 0 Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 4 3 Other Waterbodies in Corridor 0 3 Watershed Area in Corridor 0 0 Dormant Superfund Sites in Corridor 0 0 Groundwater Discharge Areas in Corridor 0 0 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Corridor 0 0 Preliminary Corridor Segment A3 XA7 Preliminary Corridor Segment A3 XA7 was eliminated because it existed only to connect to Segment A3 (which was eliminated) Preliminary Corridor Segment A5 Corridor Segment A5 was eliminated since it was desirable to create a modified segment of A5 to connect directly with Segment A4 Segment A5 had originally connected to Segment A3a and Segment A4 XA5 Corridor Segment A5a replaces the two segments A5 and A4 XA5 Preliminary Corridor Segment A4 XA5 Preliminary Corridor Segment A4 XA5 was eliminated because Preliminary Corridor Segment A5a replaced Preliminary Corridor Segments A5 and A4 XA5 Preliminary Corridor Segments A6a +A6 +B3 Preliminary Corridors Segments A6a A6 and B3 were eliminated These corridor segments mimic the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) Thoroughfare Plan alignment However these segments run along and almost entirely within the Crowder s Creek 100 year floodplam There are also over three times as many linear feet of streams within these corridors when compared to the retained corridors Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 11 16 Corridor Segments A7a +A7 +B4 were developed to be similar to the GUAMPO Thoroughfare Plan alignment but were shifted east out of the Crowder s Creek floodplain as much as possible while still trying to nummize impacts to residential areas Factor Segments A6a +A6 +B3 (Eliminated) Segments A7a +A7 +B4 Length (ft) 26 079 26 166 Number of Interchanges 3 3 Minor Road Crossings 2 8 Mayor Transmission Line Crossings 1 1 Railroad Line Crossings 0 0 Residences in Corridor 25 87 Mobile Homes in Corridor 101 51 Businesses in Corridor 3 8 Parks/Recreation Areas in Corridor 1 1 Schools in Corridor 0 0 Churches in Corridor 1 1 Cemeteries in Corridor 1 1 Potential Historic Sites In or Adjacent to Corridor 0 0 Streams (Linear Ft in Corridor) 23 725 7 158 Wetlands (acres in corridor) 1 5 Floodplains (# of transverse crossings) 1 2 Floodplams (# of longitudinal encroachments) 5 0 Named Streams (# of crossings) 2 1 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 3 2 Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 7 4 Other Waterbodies in Corridor 0 4 Watershed Area in Corridor 0 0 Dormant Superfund Sites in Corridor 0 0 Groundwater Discharge Areas in Corridor 1 1 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Corridor 0 1 Preliminary Corridor Segment A4 XA6 Preliminary Corridor Segment A4 XA6 was eliminated because it existed only to connect to Preliminary Corridor Segment A6 (which was eliminated) Preliminary Corridor Segment B X1a Preliminary Corridor Segment B Xla was eliminated since Preliminary Corridor Segment B X1 is a comparable alternative Both Segment B Xla and Segment B X1 provide crossover connection between the westernmost corridors and the central corridors in the West Portion of the study area Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1 117 Comparison B Xla +B2ays Bla +B X1 1 Preliminary Corridor Segment B Xla is parallel to and crosses a stream system near SR 1131 (Chapel Grove Road) SR 1131 has been identified as a possible location for an interchange however an interchange here would create stream impacts The Segment Bla +B X1 combination crosses streams in a more perpendicular manner Other impacts are relatively similar Preliminary Corridor Segment B X2 I Preliminary Corridor Segment B X2 was eliminated since B X2a +B 1 is a comparable alternative 1 Both Segment B X2 and Segment B X2a +B 1 provide crossover connection between the westernmost corridors and the central corridors in the West Portion of the study area Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 ' DRAFT — July 2008 11 18 Segments Segments Factor B X1a + 132a ' Bla +B X1 (B Xla eliminated) Length (ft) 11 460 12 884 Number of Interchanges 0 0 Minor Road Crossings 2 6 Mayor Transmission Line Crossings 0 0 Railroad Line Crossings 0 0 ' Residences in Corridor 35 38 Mobile Homes in Corridor 0 6 Businesses in Corridor 0 0 ' Parks/Recreation Areas in Corridor 0 0 Schools in Corridor 0 0 Churches in Corridor 0 0 ' Cemeteries in Corridor 0 0 Potential Historic Sites In or Adjacent to 1 0 Corridor ' Streams (Linear Ft in Corridor) 9 033 7 983 Wetlands (acres in corridor) 0 0 Floodplains (# of transverse crossings) 0 0 Floodplams (# of longitudinal 1 0 encroachments) i Named Streams (# of crossings) 0 0 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 4 3 1 Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 1 2 Other Waterbodies in Corridor 1 2 Watershed Area in Corridor 0 0 1 Dormant Superfund Sites in Corridor 0 0 Groundwater Discharge Areas in Corridor 0 0 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Corridor 0 0 Preliminary Corridor Segment B X2 I Preliminary Corridor Segment B X2 was eliminated since B X2a +B 1 is a comparable alternative 1 Both Segment B X2 and Segment B X2a +B 1 provide crossover connection between the westernmost corridors and the central corridors in the West Portion of the study area Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 ' DRAFT — July 2008 11 18 i �I Comparison B X2 vs B X2a +B 1 • Preliminary Corridor Segment B X2 crosses a Crowder s Creek unnamed tributary near SR 1131 (Chapel Grove Road) where there is a 100 year floodplain i, • Al Iough the linear feet of streams in Segments B X2a +B 1 is greater the impacts to streams probably would be similar between the two alternative routes with the Segment B X2 route crossing the wider area of the stream ' . Tf ere is a potential historic site at the edge of Prelirmnary Corridor Segment B X2 • Tf ere are less residences in the B X2a +B 1 corridor Segment Segments Factor B X2 B X2a +B1 (Eliminated) ' ' Length Number Minor Mayor Railro Residt Mobile Busm Parks Schoo Churcl Ceme Poten Corric Strea Wetla Flood Flood encro Name Other Other Other Watei Dorm Eint Grout Natur Addendum to DRAFT —July (ft) 9 964 9 968 of Interchanges 0 0 Road Crossings 4 4 Transnussion Line Crossings 0 0 id Line Crossings 0 0 nces in Corridor 28 20 Homes in Corridor 3 0 sses in Corridor 0 0 ecreation Areas in Corridor 0 0 s in Corridor 0 0 ies in Corridor 0 0 enes in Corridor 0 0 ial Historic Sites In or Adjacent to 1 or 0 is (Linear Ft in Corridor) 3 966 9 973 ds (acres in corridor) 0 0 Aams (# of transverse crossings) 1 0 lains (# of longitudinal 0 chments) 0 I Streams (# of crossings) 0 0 Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 3 4 Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 0 2 Waterbodies in Corridor 1 2 shed Area in Corridor 0 0 Superfund Sites in Corridor 0 0 dwater Discharge Areas in Corridor 0 0 il Heritage Program Sites in Corridor 0 0 a Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 008 II 19 Preliminary Corridor Segment B8 Preliminary Corridor Segment B8 was eliminated because B7 +B X3 is a comparable alternative Comparison B8 vs B7 +B X3 • Preliminary Corridor Segment B8 passes through a crossroads area (Crowders Creek Road Chapel Grove School Road and Bethany Road) There is a church in this location as well as McGill Branch Rerouting these mayor regional roads in this area to provide continuity across Preliminary Corridor Segment B8 could result in additional impact to surrounding residences and McGill Branch • Preliminary Corridor Segments B7 +B X3 would avoid this crossroads area Factor Segment B8 (Eliminated) Segments 137 +13 X3 Length (ft) 12 538 18 947 Number of Interchanges 0 0 Minor Road Crossings 5 8 Mayor Transmission Line Crossings 0 0 Railroad Line Crossings 0 0 Residences in Corridor 70 94 Mobile Homes in Corridor 26 48 Businesses in Corridor 1 0 Parks/Recreation Areas in Corridor 0 0 Schools in Corridor 0 0 Churches in Corridor 1 0 Cemeteries in Corridor 0 0 Potential Historic Sites In or Adjacent to Corridor 0 0 Streams (Linear Ft in Corridor) 11 294 8 658 Wetlands (acres in corridor) 0 0 Floodplains (# of transverse crossings) 1 1 Floodplams (# of longitudinal encroachments) 0 0 Named Streams (# of crossings) 1 2 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 2 0 Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 3 5 Other Waterbodies in Corridor 1 2 Watershed Area in Corridor 0 0 Dormant Superfund Sites in Corridor 0 0 Groundwater Discharge Areas in Corridor 2 1 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Corridor 0 0 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1120 Preliminary Corridor Segments B X3 +B10 +C9 +C X4 Prelt ary Comdor Segments B X3 B 10 and C9 were eliminated from consideration due to impacts to a dormant Superfund site Preliminary Corridors Segments B9 +C X5 also had less residential impacts Comparison B X3 +B 10 +C9 +C X4 vs B9 +C X5 Comd r Segment 1310 passes over US 321 where there is a dormant Superfund site This site the AB Carter site is located on the east side of US 321 north of Forbes Road The NCDOT Geotec nical Unit researched the status of this site and its suitability for road construction and recommended that the site be avoided if at all possible The AB Carter site is a former heavy metal industrial plant The company generated treated and land disposed of wastewater and sludge from a chroming and nickel plating operation for textile machir ery Soil contamination groundwater contammnation and surface water contamination may be exp cted from unlined sludge basins Prelim nary Corridor Segments B X3 and C9 were elim mated because they only connected to Prelim nary Corridor Segment B 10 Segments Segments Factor B X3 +B10 +C9 +C X4 B9 +C X5 (Eliminated) 11 21 Length (ft) 15 837 17 131 Number of Interchanges 1 1 1 Minor Mayor Road Crossings rransmission Line Crossings 7 4 2 1 Railroad Line Crossings 1 1 Reside ces in Corridor 81 38 Mobih Homes in Corridor 8 2 Businc sses in Corridor 12 10 Parks ecreation Areas in Corridor 0 0 Schoo s in Corridor 0 0 Churc ies in Corridor 0 0 Cemet rtes in Corridor 0 1 ' Potent al Historic Sites In or Adjacent to 0 0 Corrid r Stre s (Linear Ft in Corridor) 7 301 7 356 ' Wetlands (acres in corridor) 0 0 Flood plains (# of transverse crossings) 1 1 Flood plains (# of longitudinal 0 0 ' encroachments) Name Streams (# of crossings) 2 1 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 1 1 Addendum to th Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 08 11 21 Segments Segments Factor B X3 +B10 +C9 +C X4 B9 +C X5 (Eliminated) Other Internuttent Streams (# of crossings) 4 2 Other Waterbodies in Corridor 1 1 Watershed Area in Corridor 0 0 Dormant Superfund Sites in Corridor 2 0 Groundwater Discharge Areas in Corridor 1 1 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Corridor 0 0 114 2 2 Preliminary Corridor Segments in the Central Portion of the Refined Study Area (from US 321 to around NC 279) There are no additions or updates to this section Sumnigg of Prelimmary Corridor Segments Eliminated The following Preliminary Corridor Segments in the Central Portion of the Refined Study Area were eliminated from consideration C3 C2 C9 C3a C7 D1 D6 E2 E5a E X7 E4 E5 E6 E7 F1 F3 G1 F X10 (See Figure 18(a b)) Note that some of these segments are actually in the East Portion but were eliminated when comparisons were made that were comprised of mostly segments in the Central Portion Comparisons of preliminary corridor segments in the Central Portion include comparisons of the crossings of the South Fork Catawba River (which is more within the East Portion) because the comparisons needed to include several segments within the Central Portion A 152 acre conservation easement hes within Corridor Segments E6 and E7 on property owned by Crescent Resources LLC (real estate arm of Duke Energy) This conservation easement was secured by the Catawba Lands Conservancy a non profit regional land trust serving the Lower Catawba River Basin According to the conservancy this property includes steep slopes mature hardwood forests pine forests extensive wetlands and important riparian buffers along Catawba Creek and numerous tributaries Due to quality of resources that the Catawba Lands Conservancy is known to obtain (as stated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service at the February 17 2004 NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting) Preliminary Corridor Segments E6 and E7 were eliminated by the NEPA/404 Merger Team Consequently Preliminary Corridor Segments F3 and E4 also were eliminated since they existed to connect to Segment E7 and Segments E6 and E7 respectively Preliminary Corridor Segments C3 +C3a +C7 +Dl Preliminary Corridor Segments C3 +C3a +C7 +D1 were eliminated because Preliminary Corridor Segments C1 +C5 +C8 +D2 area comparable alternative Prehnunary Corridor Segments C1 +C5 +C8 +D2 mimic the GUAMPO Thoroughfare Plan alignment Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1 122 Comparison C3 +C3a +C7 +D1 vs C1 +C5 +C8 +D2 • P hmmary Corridor Segments C3 +C3a +C7 +D1 would unavoidably impact major subdivisions taking numerous residences from each These segments also have twice as many re idences within the corridor boundaries as Preliminary Corridor Segments C1 +C5 +C8 +D2 • Pr limmary Corridor Segments C1 +C5 +C8 +D2 have less stream length within the corridor boundaries • At Robinson Road a likely interchange location there is a potential historic site at one edge of Pr himnary Corridor Segment C7 and a residential subdivision at the other edge Segments Segments Factor C3 +C3a +C7 +D1 C1 +C5 +C8 +D2 (Eliminated) Length (ft) 18 328 18 347 Number of Interchanges 1 1 Minor Road Crossings 7 3 Mayor Transrmssion Line Crossings 5 5 Railroad Line Crossings 2 2 Residerices in Corridor 150 74 Mobilc Homes in Corridor 35 0 Businesses in Corridor 4 1 Parks /Recreation Areas in Corridor 0 0 Schools in Corridor 0 0 Churches in Corridor 0 0 Cemeteries in Corridor 0 0 Potential Corridor Historic Sites In or Adjacent to 1 0 Stream (Linear Ft in Corridor) 12 914 10 221 Wetla is (acres in corridor) 0 0 Floodp ains (# of transverse crossings) 0 0 Floodp encroa ( ains (# of longitudinal hments) 0 0 Named Streams (# of crossings) 0 0 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 3 3 Other I ritermittent Streams (# of crossings) 7 4 Other Waterbodies in Corridor 4 2 Waters -ied Area in Corridor 0 0 Dorma it Superfund Sites in Corridor 0 0 Group water Discharge Areas in Corridor 0 0 Natura Heritage Program Sites in Corridor 0 0 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 23 Preliminary Corridor Segment C2 Preltmtnary Corridor Segment C2 is eliminated because it existed only to connect to Preliminary Corridor Segment C3a Preliminary Corridor Segment D6 The US EPA recommended that Preliminary Corridor Segment D6 be eliminated since there were no clear advantages over parallel segments (D5 +D8a +D9) Although Segment D6 contains fewer residences it would impact more neighborhoods It is also longer and would impact more streams The NEPA/404 Merger Team agreed Comparison D6 vs D5 +D8a +D9 Factor Segment Segments D6 D5 +D8a +D9 Mobile Homes in Corridor (Eliminated) 0 Length (ft) 20 281 18 967 Number of Interchanges 2 2 Minor Road Crossings 6 6 Mayor Transmission Line Crossings 2 2 Railroad Line Crossings 0 0 Residences in Corridor 66 80 Mobile Homes in Corridor 0 0 Businesses in Corridor 0 0 Parks/Recreation Areas in Corridor 0 0 Schools in Corridor 0 0 Churches in Corridor 0 0 Cemeteries in Corridor 0 0 Potential Historic Sites In or Adjacent to Corridor 1 1 Streams (Linear Ft in Corridor) 13 301 9 285 Wetlands (acres in corridor) 17 0 Floodplains (# of transverse crossings) 0 0 Floodplams (# of longitudinal encroachments) 0 0 Named Streams (# of crossings) 0 0 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 2 1 Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 6 7 Other Waterbodies in Corridor 2 6 Watershed Area in Corridor 0 0 Dormant Superfund Sites in Corridor 0 0 Groundwater Discharge Areas in Corridor 0 0 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Corridor 0 0 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1124 Preliminary (corridor Segments E X7 and E X8 Both 5 egment E X7 and Segment E X8 provide crossover opportunities between the northernmost corridors (E5 E5a etc ) and the central corridors (E2 E4 etc ) Preliminary Corridor Segment E X8 was retained for functional design since the Segment F2 crossing of the South Fork of the Catawba River was retained Preliminary Corridor Segment E X7 was eliminated because it would create a non perpendicular crossing of Catawba Creek in a wide area of the creek and had twice as many residential impacts It would require a grade separation of Union New Hope Road that would not be required under the comparable alternative Segments El +E5a Prelity mary Corridor Segment E X7 also was eliminated because it connected to Segment E5 which was eliminated when the Segment F1 crossing of the South Fork of the Catawba River was ' ' ' l..Vlll Length Number Minor Mayor RailroEid Residences Mobilv Businesses Parks Schoo Churc Ceme Poten Corr[ Strea Wetla Flood Flood encro Name Other Other Other Addendum to the DRAFT — July, 1JV11 1 -41Tli A/ VJ lil TliJ0. Segments Factor E2 +E X7 (Eliminated) Segments E1 +E5a (ft) 12 534 13 401 of Interchanges 0 0 Road Crossings 2 2 Transmission Line Crossings 0 0 Line Crossings 0 0 in Corridor 14 7 Homes in Corridor 0 0 in Corridor 1 0 Recreation Areas in Corridor 0 0 s in Corridor 0 0 es in Corridor 0 0 eries in Corridor 0 1 ial Historic Sites In or Adjacent to 0 or 0 is (Linear Ft in Corridor) 9 072 6 447 ds (acres in corridor) 15 16 Aams (# of transverse crossings) 1 1 Aams (# of longitudinal 0 chments) 0 J Streams (# of crossings) 1 0 Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 0 0 Internuttent Streams (# of crossings) 3 2 Waterbodies in Corridor 2 2 Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 008 1125 Segments Factor E2 +E X7 Segments (Eliminated) E1 +ESa Watershed Area in Corridor 0 0 Dormant Superfund Sites in Corridor 0 0 Groundwater Discharge Areas in Corridor 0 0 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Corridor 0 0 Segments F2 and F4 South Fork Catawba River Crossings There were two preliminary crossings of the South Fork Catawba River near each other Preliminary Corridor Segments F2 and F4 This section compares three equivalent routes that can be constructed using these segments to determine if any have dominant advantages and /or disadvantages ComRanson the three routes are listed below (north to south) 1 E2 +E4 +E6 +F2 (eliminated by NEPA/404 Merger Team) (Note F7 also was eliminated because it connects only to F2) 2 E2 +E4 +E7 +F3 +F4 (eliminated by NEPA/404 Merger Team) 3 E3 +E X9 +F X9a +F4 • Preliminary Corridor Segment F2 crossing route has more stream length within its corridors than the Preliminary Corridor Segment F4 crossing routes • The southernmost of these routes ( 0) crosses an area identified by the Gaston County Utilities Division as a potential location for a pump station and a possible future wastewater treatment plant • Preliminary Corridor Segment E6 in Route #1 and Preliminary Corridor Segment E7 in Route #2 pass through a large tract of land protected by the Catawba Lands Conservancy (approximately 152 acres) with an easement This large area has been locally identified as containing a high quality wetland area of approximately 5 acres (Philip Hayes Crescent Resources Personal Communication 6/30/03) • There is a potential historic site at South New Hope Road under Routes #2 and #3 However only the house at this site likely would be determined eligible (Rick Mattson Mattson Alexander & Associates personal communication) • There is a church at South New Hope Road at Route #1 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1126 Prehmi Prehmi Addend DRAFT- #1 #2 Segments Segments #3 Factor E2 +E4 +E6 +F2 E2 +E4 +E7 +F3 +F4 Segments (E2 E4 &E6 (E2 E4 E7 &F3 E3 +E X9 +F X9a +F4 Ehminated) Eliminated) Length (ft) 22 243 22 700 23 790 Number of Interchanges 1 1 I Minor Road Crossings 6 6 5 Mayor Transmission Line Crossings 1 0 0 Railro id Line Crossings 0 0 0 Residc nces in Corridor 54 58 46 Mobile Homes in Corridor 0 0 15 Businesses in Corridor 1 4 3 Parks ecreation Areas in Corridor 0 0 0 Schoo s in Corridor 0 0 0 Churches in Corridor 2 0 0 Ceme rtes in Corridor 1 0 0 Potent al Historic Sites In or 0 0 1 Adjacent to Corridor Streams (Linear Ft in Corridor) 9 948 5 880 6 267 Wetla ids (acres in corridor) 10 6 9 Floodl lains (# of transverse 2 2 2 crossi gs) Floodl lams (# of longitudinal encro hments) 0 0 0 Name Streams (# of crossings) 2 2 2 Other erennial Streams (# of 1 1 2 crossi gs) Other nternuttent Streams (# of 4 3 1 crossi s) Other aterbodies in Corridor 3 4 1 Water hed Area in Corridor 0 0 0 Dormant Superfund Sites in Corridor 0 0 0 Groundwater Discharge Areas in 0 0 0 Corrid r Natural Heritage Program Sites in 0 0 0 Cored r nary Corridor Segments E6 and E7 These omdor segments were eliminated since they pass completely through the conservation easement secured by the Catawba Lands Conservancy nary Corridor Segments F4 and F5 South Fork Catawba River Crossings The PA/404 Merger Team recommended that both the F4 and F5 crossings be retained for functional design m to the FInal Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 - July 2008 112 r. Factor Segments E X9 +F X9a +F4 +F8 Segments E8 +F5 Length (ft) 17 411 15 722 Number of Interchanges 1 1 Minor Road Crossings 5 2 Mayor Transnussion Line Crossings 2 2 Railroad Line Crossings 0 0 Residences in Corridor 39 51 Mobile Homes in Corridor 0 0 Businesses in Corr dor 1 0 Parks/Recreation Areas in Corridor 0 0 Schools in Corridor 0 0 Churches in Corridor 0 1 Cemeteries in Corridor 0 0 Potential Historic Sites In or Adjacent to Corridor 1 0 Streams (Linear Ft in Corridor) 4 143 2 339 Wetlands (acres in corridor) 7 3 Floodplams (# of transverse crossings) 3 2 Floodplains (# of longitudinal encroachments) 0 0 Named Streams (# of crossings) 3 2 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 0 1 Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 2 1 Other Waterbodies in Corridor 0 0 Watershed Area in Corridor 0 0 Dormant Superfund Sites in Corridor 0 0 Groundwater Discharge Areas in Corridor 0 0 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Corridor 0 0 Preliminary Corridor Segments Fl, F2, and F4 crossings of the South Fork Catawba River Prehrmnary Corridor Segment F1 is the northernmost crossing of the South Fork Catawba River The following comparison of three of the South Fork Catawba River crossings begins at the Union Road area and extends east to the northernmost crossing of NC 273 (Southpoint Road) at Preliminary Corridor Segment G1 All river crossings that end at Preliminary Corridor Segment G1 (the northernmost corridor on the Belmont Peninsula) would cause substantial impacts to a large residential neighborhood west of NC 273 Therefore Preliminary Corridor Segment G1 was eliminated Preliminary Corridor Segment F1 was eliminated due to unavoidable stream impacts length and also because it would create substantial impacts to a large residential neighborhood west of and in Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1128 the vicinity of NC 273 Basically the F2 Crossing B and the F4 Crossing B were retained but the endpo nt at NC 273 was shifted southward to avoid the large neighborhood Cross in Comparison F1 Crossing E1 +E5a +E5 +F1 F2 Crossing A E2 +E4 +E6 +F2 +F7 F2 Crossing B E1 +E X8 +F2 +F7 F4 Crossing A E2 +E4 +E7 +F3 +F4 +F X10 F4 Crossing B E3 +E X9 +F X9a +F4 +F X10 F1 Crossing F2 Crossing A F2 Crossing B F4 Crossing A F4 Crossing B Segments Segments Segments Segments Segments E1 +E5a +E5 E2 +E4 +E6 E1 +E X8 +F2 E2 +E4 +E7 +F3 E3 +E X9 ctor +F1 +F2 +F7 +F7 +F4 +F X10 +F X9a +F4 (E5a E5 FI (E2 E4 E6 F7 (F7 Eliminated) (E2 E4 E7 F3 +F X10 Eliminated) Eliminated) F X10 (F X10 Eliminated) Eliminated) Length (ft) 32 750 28 211 31 185 28 184 29 274 Number of Interchanges 2 2 2 2 2 Minor Road Cr ssmgs 8 9 8 7 6 Mayor Transnu Sion Line Crossings 1 2 2 2 2 Railroad Line Crossings 0 0 0 0 0 Residences in Corridor 164 160 167 151 139 Mobile Homes in Corridor 0 0 0 0 15 Businesses in C off idor 4 1 0 4 3 Parks/Recreation Areas in Corridor 0 0 0 0 0 Schools in Cor idor 0 0 0 0 0 Churches in Corridor 1 3 2 0 0 Cemeteries in Corridor 3 3 4 1 1 Potential Histo is Sites In or Adjacent to Corridor 0 0 0 0 1 Streams (Lined Ft in Corridor) 13 359 11 345 12 875 7 698 8 085 Wetlands (acres in corridor) 20 10 14 6 9 Floodplams (# of transverse 3 crossings) 2 2 2 2 Floodplains (# of longitudinal encroachments 0 0 0 0 0 Named Stream (# of crossings) 1 2 2 2 2 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 0 1 0 1 2 Other Interirutt nt Streams (# of crossings) 8 5 6 4 2 Other Waterbo ies in Corridor 3 3 3 4 1 Watershed Area in Corridor 0 0 0 0 0 Dormant Super and Sites in 0 Corridor 0 0 0 0 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 21108 1129 Preliminary Corridor Segment F X10 Segment F X10 was ehminated because it existed only to connect to Preliminary Corridor Segment G II 4 2 3 Preliminary Corridor Segments in the East Portion of the Refined Study Area (from around NC 279 to I -485) ' There are no additions or updates to this section SummM of Preliminary Corridor Segments Eliminated The following Preliminary Corridor Segments in the East Portion of the Refined Study Area were eliminated from consideration or modified G3 G8 G X14 G7 G9 F11 G6 G2 G X12 G X13 G12 and F7 (modified and given new name Fla) Preliminary Corridor Segments G3, G8, and G X14 The Allen Steam Station owned by Duke Energy is a mayor property owner in the Belmont peninsula area Site plans for new air pollution control devices at the Steam Station have been developed by Duke Energy to comply with the Clean Smokestacks Bill enacted in June 2002 The Steam Station is installing scrubbers that would include an estimated 300 330 foot high stack and require the relocation of transmission lines across the Catawba River In addition a landfill approximately 20 acres in size will be needed for the air pollution control system and it is being planned for an area directly west of the proposed scrubbers (Allen Steam Station Meeting 7/10/03) Both the scrubbers and the proposed landfill area are located within the 1 000 foot wide corridor of the Thoroughfare Plan alignment A second meeting was held with representatives from the Allen Steam Station on November 12 2003 after the preliminary corridor segments were developed At this meeting the Allen Steam Station representatives stated that the footprints for the scrubber facilities were the only feasible locations considered for the operational efficiency of the Steam Station The Steam Station representatives also were concerned that the plumes of water vapor from the proposed scrubbers Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1130 Fl Crossing F2 Crossing A F2 Crossing B F4 Crossing A F4 Crossing B , Segments Segments Segments Segments Segments E1 +E5a +E5 E2 +E4 +E6 E1 +E X8 +F2 E2 +E4 +E7 +F3 ' E3 +E X9 Factor +F1 +F2 +F7 +F7 +F4 +F X10 +F X9a +F4 (E5a,E5 F1 (E2 E4 E6 F7 (F7 Eliminated) (E2 E4 E7 F3 +F X10 Eliminated) Eliminated) F X10 (F X10 Eliminated) Eliminated) , Groundwater Discharge Areas in 0 0 0 0 0 Corridor Natural Heritage Program Sites in 0 0 0 0 0 Corridor Preliminary Corridor Segment F X10 Segment F X10 was ehminated because it existed only to connect to Preliminary Corridor Segment G II 4 2 3 Preliminary Corridor Segments in the East Portion of the Refined Study Area (from around NC 279 to I -485) ' There are no additions or updates to this section SummM of Preliminary Corridor Segments Eliminated The following Preliminary Corridor Segments in the East Portion of the Refined Study Area were eliminated from consideration or modified G3 G8 G X14 G7 G9 F11 G6 G2 G X12 G X13 G12 and F7 (modified and given new name Fla) Preliminary Corridor Segments G3, G8, and G X14 The Allen Steam Station owned by Duke Energy is a mayor property owner in the Belmont peninsula area Site plans for new air pollution control devices at the Steam Station have been developed by Duke Energy to comply with the Clean Smokestacks Bill enacted in June 2002 The Steam Station is installing scrubbers that would include an estimated 300 330 foot high stack and require the relocation of transmission lines across the Catawba River In addition a landfill approximately 20 acres in size will be needed for the air pollution control system and it is being planned for an area directly west of the proposed scrubbers (Allen Steam Station Meeting 7/10/03) Both the scrubbers and the proposed landfill area are located within the 1 000 foot wide corridor of the Thoroughfare Plan alignment A second meeting was held with representatives from the Allen Steam Station on November 12 2003 after the preliminary corridor segments were developed At this meeting the Allen Steam Station representatives stated that the footprints for the scrubber facilities were the only feasible locations considered for the operational efficiency of the Steam Station The Steam Station representatives also were concerned that the plumes of water vapor from the proposed scrubbers Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1130 could be nec vely impact travel on an adjacent roadway Further evaluation of the situation would to determine impacts This evaluation will be included in the DEIS Becau e Preliminary Corridor Segments G3 G8 and G X14 pass through the scrubber and propo ed landfill area they were eliminated (See Section I14 2 4 for a discussion of segments added to the evaluation that would avoid the scrubber and proposal landfill area) Preh nary Corridor Segments G4 and F9 which pass through the northernmost fly ash basin were retained for functional design There was no regulatory reason to avoid this property and further study in the decision making process will determine whether to retain or eliminate these Preliminary Corridor Segment G9 Preli nary Corridor Segment G9 was eliminated because a systems interchange at 1485 (which would have ramps on both the east and west sides of 1485) cannot be constructed in this segment without directly impacting the Charlotte Douglas International Airport s planned intermodal facility (See exhibit in Section II 3 3) The airport completed their master plan for their facility in Septer iber 2003 (after the initial set of preliminary corridor segments were developed in August 2003) Also this interchange location could not tie into NC 160 (West Boulevard) West oulevard is being relocated east of 1485 to accommodate the future intermodal facility being lanned at the Charlotte Douglas International Airport Relocated West Boulevard will be a four 1 ne divided facility and be used by truck traffic accessing the proposed intermodal facility Preliminary Corridor Segment G7 G7 was eliminated because it existed only to connect to Preliminary Corridor Segment G9 Preliminary Corridor Segments F11 and G6 try Corridor Segments F11 and G6 were eliminated because of unavoidable impacts to owned by Mecklenburg County and length Preli nary Corridor Segment G6 in combination with Preliminary Corridor segment F11 traver es the southernmost portion of the Belmont peninsula and crosses the Catawba River dust north of Lake Wylie Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 08 1 131 Comparison G6 +1711 vs G5 +F10 • Segment G6 is completely within a future Mecklenburg County Public Park Segment G5 would avoid this park land • Both segment combinations have about the same number of residences within their corridors However Segments G6 +F11 would disrupt approximately four different subdivisions and Segments G5 +F10 approximately two • Segments G6 +F11 crosses 12 streams and Segments G5 +F10 cross five streams • The widths of the Catawba River crossings for Segment G5 and Segment G6 are about the same • Segments G6 +F11 are about one mile longer than Segments G5 +F10 Factor Segments G6 +F11 (Eliminated) Segments G5 +F10 Length (ft) 24 741 18 697 Number of Interchanges I 1 Minor Road Crossings 6 6 Mayor Transmission Line Crossings 9 6 Railroad Line Crossings 0 0 Residences in Corridor 80 78 Mobile Homes in Corridor 18 18 Businesses in Corridor 0 1 Parks/Recreation Areas in Corridor 1 0 Schools in Corridor 0 0 Churches in Corridor 0 1 Cemeteries in Corridor 1 0 Potential Historic Sites In or Adjacent to Corridor 0 0 Streams (Linear Ft in Corridor) 19 135 12 368 Wetlands (acres in corridor) 10 7 Floodplams (# of transverse crossings) 2 2 Floodplams (# of longitudinal encroachments) 0 0 Named Streams (# of crossings) 2 2 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 4 2 Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 6 1 Other Waterbodies in Corridor 1 0 Watershed Area in Corridor 0 0 Dormant Superfund Sites in Corridor 0 0 Groundwater Discharge Areas in Corridor 0 0 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Corridor 1 0 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1132 Preliminary Corridor Segment G2 Since Preliminary Corridor Segment G2 contains part of the Allen Steam Station property planned for the NC Clean Air Project it was eliminated by the NEPA/404 Merger Team It was desirable ' to create a modified crossing of the Catawba River using a portion of Preliminary Corridor Segm nt G2 Segments G18 and G19 described in the next section are in proximity to Segment G2 Preliminary Corridor Segment G12 Segment G12 was eliminated because it existed only to connect to Segments G1 and G2 Preliminary Corridor Segments G X12 and G X13 Preliminary Corridor Segments G X12 and G X13 were eliminated since they connected only to Segments G2 and G8 respectively and Segments G2 and G8 were eliminated It was desirable to create a modified segment of G X12 Preliminary Corridor Segments G18 and G19 described in the next section are in proximity to Segment G2 Preliminary Corridor Segment F7 Preliminary Corridor Segment F7 was eliminated since it connected only to Segment G1 It was desirable to create a modified segment of F7 to connect to Segment F2 Segment Fla was created to con iect to Segment F2 and to two new segments described below G13 and G15 II 4 2 4 Additional Preliminary Corridor Segments Considered After Initial Set of Segments Developed There are no additions or updates to this section Based on the a aluation of resources within the preliminary corridor segments on the Belmont peninsula it appeared somc corridors could be moved to avoid resources In order to track these relocated corridor segments from a historical perspective they were given new names The preliminary corridor segments that were adde J or modified are as follows Preliminary g Corridor Segments added for consideration A5a F12 F13 F X12 F X13 G13 G14 G15 G16 G17 G18 G19 Addendum to thq Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2 008 1133 These Preliminary Corridor Segments described below are not shown in the Evaluation Matrix in Appendix E, nor were they shown at the Citizens Informational Workshop Series #1 However they were shown and discussed by the NEPA/404 Merger Team at the Pre Concurrence Point 2 meeting on February 17 2004 Those Preliminary Corridor Segments retained for functional design were shown at the Citizens Informational Workshop #2 Preliminary Corridor Segments F12 F13 F X12 were eliminated and Preliminary Corridor Segments A5a F X13 G13 G14 G15 G16 G17 G18 and G19 were retained for functional design In the West Portion of the study area Segment A5a was created to clarify the connection between corridor segments Preliminary Corridor Segment A5a is a slightly modified Preliminary Corridor Segment A5 Since Segment A3 is eliminated Segment A5a was created to tie directly with Segment 4 Preliminary Corridor Segment F12 was created as a modification to Preliminary Corridor Segment F1 to potentially have fewer impacts through the NC 273 area Preliminary Corridor Segment F12 was eliminated due to length and impacts to streams compared to the other crossings of the South Fork Catawba River (similar to Preliminary Corridor Segment F1) Residential impacts would be similar to the Preliminary Corridor Segment F2 crossing) Preliminary Corridor Segments F X12 and F13 were eliminated because they only connected to Preliminary Corridor Segment F12 Because Preliminary Corridor Segments G3 G8 and G X14 were recommended to be eliminated due to impacts to Duke Energy s planned air pollution control facilities another crossing (consisting of Preliminary Corridor Segments G15 and G16) was added that avoids the Duke Energy property Preliminary Corridor Segment G16 would use a portion of G X14 crossing the Catawba River at a skew The skew would take advantage of land hutting out into the river making the crossing width sinular to other proposed perpendicular crossings This segment would then cross the Belmont peninsula farther north of Preliminary Corridor Segments G3 and G8 and tie into any of the northern segments that remain for functional design (Segments F4 and 175) Preliminary Corridor Segment G16 was one of three new corridors created to cross the Catawba River the other two are Segments G13 and G19 The remaining corridor segments were created to connect between the three aforementioned river crossing segments of the South Fork Catawba River (F12 F4 and F5) and the three river crossing segments of the Catawba River north of the Allen Steam Station (G13 G19 and G16) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 1134 114 2 5 Summary of Preliminary Corridor Segments Retained for unctions/ Design There are no idditions or updates to this section Below is a list of the approximately 72 rules of preliminary corridor segments retained for functional design Thosc eliminated also are listed Figure 19(a b) shows these preliminary corridor segments Prelmmmnary Corridor Segments Retained for Functional Desmen in West Portion of Refined Studv Area Al A4 A7 Ala A5a Bla BI B2 B2a B X2a B X1 B4 B5 B6 B7 B9 Prehmmna Corridor Se ments Retained for Functional Design in Central Portion of Refined Study Are C1 C 4 C5 C6 C8 C X4 C X5 D2 D3 D4 D5 D X6 D7 D8 D8a D9 E1 E3 E X8 E8 E X9 Prelimingg Corridor Se ments Retained for Functional Design in East Portion of Refined Study Area F2 F 9a F4 F5 F6 F 7a F8 F9 F10 F X11 F X13 G4 G5 G10 G11 G12 G13 G14 G15 G16 G17 G18 G19 A2 A3 A3a A5 A6 A6a A3 XA7 A4 XA5 A4 XA6 B3 B 3 B10 B Xla B X2 B X3 C2 C3 C3a C7 C9 D1 D E2 E E5 E5a E6 E7 E X7 F1 F F7 F X10 Fll F12 F X12 F13 G1 G G3 G6 G7 G8 G9 G 12 G X12 G X13 G X14 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 1135 II.5 IDENTIFYING THE DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES The introduction to this section has additional text that states the evaluation is valid for both non toll and toll scenarios A new Section 115 5 9 has been added in this addendum to document the elimination of Corridor Segment Kl D from further study after the original set of Detailed Study Alternatives was Identified This section describes how the functional design corridors were evaluated to identify those that should be carried forward as Detailed Study Alternatives in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement This process is applicable to both non toll and toll scenarios 1151 FUNCTIONAL DESIGNS There are no additions or updates to this section The functional design corridor segments listed in Section II 4 2 5 and shown in Figure 19 were connected to form 90 endpoint to endpoint Functional Design Corridors from 185 to 1485 Total lengths range from 214 to 25 6 mules Figure 20 shows the functional design corridors and the functional designs within them The corridor width was widened from 1 200 feet to 1 400 feet to allow for more flexibility in establishing alignments Functional designs were prepared within these corridors taking into consideration the design criteria (Appendix D) traffic projections engineering design constraints and the locations of known sensitive resources The minimum right of way for the functional designs was increased to 350 feet (originally 300 feet) due to topography The 1 400 foot wide functional design corridor boundaries then were redrawn to be centered around the functional design alignments Since the corridor segments were modified somewhat when they were redrawn to be centered on the functional design alignments the functional design corridor segments were renamed Segments labels beginning with H are in the West Portion of the Refined Study Area Segment labels beginning with J are in the Central Portion and segment labels beginning with K are in the East Portion Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1136 II52 ' The traffic ca 2025 Gaston ' designs no L demand moo After the f developed performed II 5 2 1 There are no FFIC ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONAL DESIGNS ty analysis of the functional designs is based on the year 2025 traffic projections from the el demand model Since this is historical information used to develop the functional tes are included in this section to discuss 2030 traffic from the 2030 Metrolina travel uy corridor segments were narrowed to those for which functional designs should be tl travel demand forecasting and traffic operations analyses for the year 2025 were forecasts and analyses are described below 2025 Traffic Projections — Scenarios 5, 5a, 6, and 7 or updates to this section With respect tc traffic operations for the new location functional design corridors two representative corridors were modeled for the travel demand forecast that covered all potential alignments for which functional desi ans were prepared These are called Scenario 6 and Scenario 7 and both scenarios assumed the new locatic n roadway would be a six lane highway (See Section II 5 2 2 for a description of the analysis that determined the number of lanes) Scenario 6 is the northernmost of the functional design corridors (the green corridor on the map below) and Scenario 7 is the southernmost of the functional design comdo s (the orange corridor on the map below) V — F D C. M Wdl 19 IM-D�t t � .r''r y f , L ) E i � a ° v .� a r 4 fer urt �� t i oa � Sane 7Algrmmt — E _ �_ � C o�xm5egrck ®Ito di rg L Gahm ! t Addendum to th Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2 08 1137 Scenario 5a which was modeled as a representative New Location Alternative in the earlier stages of the alternatives development process (See Section 17 3 1) is a combination of functional design corridor segments that mimics the GUAMPO s locally preferred alignment and uses a combination of northernmost southernmost and crossover functional design corridor segments Scenario 5a uses the northernmost corridor segments for the western half of the project then the southernmost corridor segment and a crossover segment for the eastern half of the project Table 18 lists the year 2025 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes projected for the New Location Alternative — Scenarios 5a 6 and 7 As shown in the table the ADT volumes for Scenario 5a are between the ADT volumes for Scenarios 6 and 7 See Figure 20 for a map of the functional design corridors with the roadways labeled Table 18 Year 2025 Traffic Volumes on the New Location Alternative — Scenarios 5a, 6, and 7 Scenarios 6 and -)ado not have an interchange at Lewis Road I Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 11 38 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 5a (2025 ADT) (2025 ADT) (2025 ADT) Northernmost Southernmost Combination of functional New Location Alternative Mainline Segment functional design functional design design corridor segments that (between interchanges) corridor segments corridor segments mmucs the Gaston Urban Area MPO Thoroughfare Plan alignment 185 to US 29/74 53 600 58 500 53 600 US 29/74 to Linwood Road 52 300 50 300 51 800 Linwood Road to Lewis Road 44 700 43 500 43 700 Lewis Road to US 321 44 700* 37 300 43 700* US 321 to Robinson Road 43 700 40 100 42 000 Robinson Road to Bud Wilson Road 46 000 42 100 44 800 Bud Wilson Road to NC 274 (Union Road) 55 700 39 000 52 400 NC 274 to NC 279 (South New Hope Road) 48 100 47 900 50 200 NC 279 to NC 273 (Southpomt Road) 56 300 52 700 56 400 NC 273 to Dixie River Road 62 300 51 900 52 700 Dime River Road to 1485 58 000 42 800 46 200 Scenarios 6 and -)ado not have an interchange at Lewis Road I Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 11 38 II 5 2 2 Traffic Capacity Analysis of the Functional Designs 1 There are no 4ddltions or updates to this section The functional designs created in the functional design corridors were developed in an iterative process between design and traffic capacity analysis for Scenarios 6 and 7 Functional designs were developed to accommodate raffic at LOS C or better The traffic operations analysis is documented in the Draft Traffic Technical Mernorandumfor the Gaston County East West Connector Study (PBS &J May 2005) The body of the m morandum without the appendices is provided in Appendix F Below is a summary of the traffic operate ns analysis methodology and results The level of s rvice (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operating conditions within a traffic stream (Tram portahon Research Board 2000 202) (Also see Section 18 41) The LOS is defined with letter designations from A to F that can be applied to both roadway segments and intersections LOS A represents the est operating conditions and LOS F the worst Traffic operate ns analysis for individual freeway elements (basic freeway segments ramp merge /diverge area and wea -ve sections) was conducted using Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2000 version 4 ld) which is based on the methodologies of the Highway Capacity Manual (2000) The 2025 PM eak hour was the time period used in the analyses The PM peak hour has the highest traffic volumes for both directions of travel on the New Location Alternative and therefore represents the worst case sce ano It was assumed that a freeway element will operate with an acceptable LOS for any one hour time period if the element operates with an acceptable LOS for the PM peak hour LOS C was w alignments I standards and • 0 901 • Rollin • 11 pee • Basic • Ramp • Intercl • Dnvei I as the nummum standard for all operational elements related to new location operations assumptions were based on NCDOT Congestion Management Unit mendations as listed below mk Hour Factor (PHF) terrain ;ent trucks ree flow speed of 70 mph 'ree flow speed of 50 mph ange density of 0 5 interchanges per mile population factor of 10 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1 139 Results Summary For both Scenario 6 and Scenario 7 analysis indicated that three basic lanes would be required in each direction (a six lane highway) for the New Location Alternative to achieve LOS C or better with projected 2025 traffic volumes The service interchange form (an interchange between the New Location highway and a non highway facility) at each location was selected based on known environmental conditions shown on the land suitability mapping For both Scenario 6 and Scenario 7 single lane on ramps and off ramps would provide acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) at all service interchanges The system interchanges at 185 and 1485 (highway to highway interchanges) require several two lane ramps flyover ramps collector /distnbutor roads and ramp braids Due to the close spacing between the interchanges on 185 with Edgewood Road (Exit 13) the New Location Alternative and Bessemer City Road (Exit 14) several ramps needed to be braided to avoid undesirable weaving conditions Although the New Location Alternative is planned to terminate at 185 geometry for the 185 systems interchange was developed so it would not preclude an extension of the New Location Alternative to the north if an extension is programmed at some time in the future II 5 3 IMPACT ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY There are no additions or updates to this section Impacts to the natural and human environments based on the functional designs within the functional design corridors were estimated and tabulated Table 17 lists the evaluation factors used to estimate and compare potential impacts Quantities of resources were estimated based on the functional designs The method used for each factor is listed in Table 17 in the column Impact Estimate Method — Functional Design Corridors The estimates are for comparison purposes only to aid in deciding between segments but they are representative of what the actual impact of a roadway may be within a corridor segment The quantities generated in this screening evaluation were considered together with other qualitative factors as described under each decision point in the next section From the set of ninety endpoint to endpoint functional design alternatives Detailed Study Alternatives were recommended based on the estimated impacts to the natural and human environments engineering design considerations and input from the public and the NEPA/404 Merger Team Sixteen endpoint to endpoint functional design corridors were recommended as the Detailed Study Alternatives These recommendations were presented to the public for comment and input at Citizens Informational Workshop Series #2 in January/February 2006 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1140 ' There are no ISION MAKING METHODOLOGY TO IDENTIFY THE 'AILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES or updates to this section The decisions to retain or ehrrunate functional design corridors were made by the NEPA/404 Merger Team at a meeting h ld on September 20 2005 The decisions are summarized below For impact qu ntification purposes the functional design corridors are divided into segments and sub segments Th se are shown in Figure 21 with the centerlines of the functional design corridors and their labels Close p views of parts of Figure 21 are used throughout the discussion Appendix G contains tables of impacts for individual segments /sub segments segment combinations (I 85 to US 321 US 321 to South Fork Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River to 1 485) and the 90 endpoint to en point preliminary alternatives The large number of possible endpoint to endpoint alternatives (90) was narrowed down to about sixteen alternatives using the following process and assumptions which required eight key decisions The decision making methodology uses critical pairs of nodes (options) along the functional designs at four locations 185 (85E and 85W) US 321 (321N and 321S) a point west of the South Fork Catawba River (CTR N and CTR S) and at 1485 (485) (See Figure 21) The basic pr critical pairs if possible The line diagr Design Comd For example As shown on ise of this companson /decision making methodology is that at least one connection between nodes should be maintained if reasonable and redundant connections should be eliminated below shows the numbers of options available between nodes based on the Functional Redundant options exist wherever there is a number greater than one along an arrow e are two options between 185 (eastern node 85E) and US 321 (northern node 321N) ire 21, these example options use segments H2A H3 Ma or H2A H2B H2C B Addendum to th Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2 08 1 141 90 Possible Preliminary Alternatives 2 2 85E 321 N CTR N 4 1 2 485 1 2 85W 321S CTR S 5 1 2 The eight key decision points under this methodology are listed below Key Decision Point Node to Node Decision Needed 85E and 85W to 1 Choose four of five options 321N and 321S 2 321N to CTR N Choose one of the two options 3 321N to CTR S Choose one of the two options 4 321S to CTR N Choose one of the two options 5 321S to CTR S Choose one of the two options 6 CTR N to 485 Choose one of the four options 7 CTR S to 485 Choose two of the three northern options 8 CTR S to 485 Choose one of the two southern options These above eight key decision points resulted in 16 endpoint to endpoint Detailed Study Alternatives (see following diagram) Outcome of Options for Detailed Study Alternatives 2 1 85E 321 N CTR N 1 0 1 485 1 1 85W 321S CTR S 3 1 1 0 Data and comparisons for each of the eight decision points are provided below Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1142 II 5 5 EIGHT KEY DECISION POINTS ' There are no �pdates to the eight key decision points After the original Detailed Study Alternatives were identified ne I information came to light regarding resources within Corridor Segment K1 D This new ' information is�described in a new section Section 115 5 9 which follows the eight key decision points Refer to Figt II551 i There are no 21 for all segment and node references Alternatives are described from west to east POINT 1 — Nodes SSE and SSW to Nodes 321N and 321S or updates to this section There are five options between Node 85E and Node 321N • H2A H3 +J4a • H2A H2B +H2C +J3 • H2A H2B +HX1 +H1C +Jla • H1A H1B +H1C +Jla • H1A HX2 +J2a Recommendation Nodes 85E and 85W to Nodes 321N and 3215 Retain • H2A +H3 +J4a • H2A +H2B +H2C +J3 • H1A +H1B +H1C +Jla • H1A +HX2 +J2a Table 19 compares the impacts of these five segment combinations The four listed in the call out box were retained 4s Detailed Study Alternatives for the following reasons For the alten has higher hi environment both options impacts is aN The option frc option has sul more than the in constructio s beginning at Node 85E and ending at Node 321N the eastern option (H2A +H +J4a) environment impacts but the western option (H2A +H2B +H2C +J3) has higher natural cts Both options have potential impacts to environmental Justice populations Keeping ,s for a decision when more detailed information about natural and human environment i Node 85E to Node 321S (H2A +H2B +HX1 +H1C +Jla) was eliminated because this antially more stream impacts than other H segment combinations (about 4 080 linear feet ;xt highest impacts) and would be substantially more expensive (about $41 million more ;osts than the next highest construction cost) Addendum to th Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July P08 1 143 Table 19 DECISION POINT 1— Nodes 85E and 85W to Nodes 321N and 321S Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1 144 Node 85E to Node 85E to Node 85W to Node 85W to Node 321N Node 321S Node 321N Node 321S RESOURCE H2A +H2B +H H2A +H3 H2A +H2B H1A +HX2 H1A +H1B +J4a +H2C +J3 X1 +H1C +Jla +J2a +H1C +Jla (Eliminated) Length in feet (miles) 32 386 (6 1) 37 543 (7 1) 48 110 (9 1) 33 726 (6 4) 43 569 (8 3) Construction Cost — 2005 $2205 $2830 3247 2070 2498 Dollars Number of Interchanges 5 5 6 5 6 Minor Road Crossings likely requiring grade 3 3 4 4 4 separation Mayor Transmission Line 5 9 5 3 3 Crossings Railroad Line Crossings 2 2 2 1 1 Residences in Right of Way 233 176 187 163 146 Businesses in Right of Way 31 29 37 42 46 1 (privately Parks/Recreation Areas in owned golf 0 0 0 0 Right of Way course minor impact) Schools in Right of Way 0 0 0 1 1 Churches in Right of Way 3 3 4 0 1 Cemeteries in Right of Way 1 1 1 1 1 Potential Historic Sites in 0 0 0 1 0 Right of Way Low Income or Minority Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Populations within R/W Streams (# of crossings in 47 43 58 27 38 const limits) Streams (Linear ft within const liimts exclusive of bridge crossings but 21 094 23 926 28 012 12 226 16 903 inclusive of interchange ramps) Named Streams 3 5 6 4 6 (# of crossings) Other Perennial Streams 4 6 5 4 2 (# of crossings) Other Intermittent Streams 40 32 47 19 30 (# of crossings) Other Waterbodies in Right 2 2 3 5 6 of Way Wetlands (acres within 0 025 025 1 62 1 62 const limits) NWI Floodplains ( mainline 803 3206 1941 2 405 1 862 crossing length (ft)) 303 (d) Listed Streams Yes* Yes Yes Yes Yes Riparian Buffer Impacts No No No i No j No Dormant Superfund Sites in 2 2 1 1 0 Right of Way Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1 144 Table 19 1 ECISION POINT 1— Nodes 85E and 85W to Nodes 321N and 321S Although this option does not cross Crowders Creek it runs parallel to a long length of it and crosses many of its tributaries nea their confluences with the creek This could be a water quality and stormwater management concern II 5 5 2 ELISION POINT 2 - Node 321N to Node CTR -N I i There are no dditions or updates to this section T p R� f� 1 Il N lummnitl Al o' L "A= MO RA rl 3 , � 1 )GTR � If JA aP d K� -1�18 �i�C 7-7 IC— There are two options between Node 321N and Node CTR N • J4b J c J2d J5a J5b K2A (northern corridor) • J4b J 7 Jlc JX6 J5b K2A (southern corridor) Recommendation The option that uses J2d is the northern corridor and the option Node 321N to Node CTR N that uses Jlc is the southern corridor Retain the iorthern corridor Table 20 compares the impacts of these two segment J4b J2c J2 J5a J5b K2A for combinations detailed st dv Addendum to t1008 e Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 1 145 Node 85E to Node 85E to Node 85W to Node 85W to Node 321N Node 321S Node 321N Node 3215 RESO RCE H2A +H2B +H H2A +H3 H2A +H2B H1A +HX2 H1A +H1B +J4a +H2C +J3 X1 +H1C +Jla +J2a +H1C +Jla (Eliminated) Groundwater ischarge 1 2 3 1 2 Areas m Ri ht f Wa 1 (Site A04 Natural Herita a Program granitic 0 0 0 0 Sites in Right f Way outcrop area) Although this option does not cross Crowders Creek it runs parallel to a long length of it and crosses many of its tributaries nea their confluences with the creek This could be a water quality and stormwater management concern II 5 5 2 ELISION POINT 2 - Node 321N to Node CTR -N I i There are no dditions or updates to this section T p R� f� 1 Il N lummnitl Al o' L "A= MO RA rl 3 , � 1 )GTR � If JA aP d K� -1�18 �i�C 7-7 IC— There are two options between Node 321N and Node CTR N • J4b J c J2d J5a J5b K2A (northern corridor) • J4b J 7 Jlc JX6 J5b K2A (southern corridor) Recommendation The option that uses J2d is the northern corridor and the option Node 321N to Node CTR N that uses Jlc is the southern corridor Retain the iorthern corridor Table 20 compares the impacts of these two segment J4b J2c J2 J5a J5b K2A for combinations detailed st dv Addendum to t1008 e Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 1 145 The northern corridor that uses J2d was retained for detailed study for the following reasons • Design is preferred (does not use segment JX7 which has a less desirable design due to a more acute angle of the alignment with US 321) • Shorter less expensive • Follows original GUAMPO preferred alternative The southern corridor has about 110 less linear feet of stream impact than the northern corridor The differences in residential and business relocations are small (90 residences and one business for the northern compared to 88 residences and two businesses for the southern) Potential historic resource impacts for both options are due to cross street (Y line) improvements These potential historic resources right be avoided during preliminary design The proposed interchange areas at Robinson Road and Bud Wilson Road are less developed along the southern corridor However the northern corridor is shorter and likely less expensive Segment combinations that mcludeJX7 or JX2 have a functional design that is not desirable The design in this area involves a half clover interchange at US 321 due to a railroad paralleling the east side of US 321 Segments JX7 and JX2 would cause back to back horizontal curves in this interchange area and superelevations of the ramps and the mainline that would be in opposite directions which make it difficult to tie the ramps into the mainline This combination of design issues makes the design potentially unsafe These design issues became apparent with the completion of the functional design Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1146 Table 20 D CISION POINT 2 —Node 321N to Node CTR N RESOURCE J4b +J2c +J2d +J5a +J5b +K2A (northern) J4b +JX7 +Jlc +JX6 +J5b +K2A (southern) (Eliminated) Length in feet ( les) 51 162 (9 7) 54 292 (10 3) Construction C st — 2005 Dollars $1845 $2038 Number of Intei changes 4 4 Minor Road Cr ssmgs likely requiring grade separation 4 6 Mayor Transnus ion Line Crossings 8 8 Railroad Line C ossmgs 0 0 Residences in R ght of Way 90 88 Businesses in Right of Way 1 2 Parks[Recreatioji Areas in Right of Way 0 0 Schools in Right of Way 1 1 Churches in Right of Way 2 2 Cemeteries in Right of Way 2 2 Potential Histo c Sites in Right of Way 2 3 Low Income or Minority Populations in Right of Way No No Streams (# of crossings in const limits) 31 36 Streams (Linear bridge crossings Ft within const linuts exclusive of but inclusive of interchange ramps) 13 632 13 520 Named Streams # of crossings) 2 2 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 3 3 Other Internutte t Streams (# of crossings) 26 31 Other Waterbod es in Right of Way 6 7 Wetlands (acres within const linuts) NWI 269 269 Floodplams (mainline crossing length (ft)) 2 195 2 195 303 (d) Listed Si reams Yes Yes Riparian Buffer mpacts Yes Yes Dormant Super fund Sites in Right of Way 0 0 Groundwater Discharge Areas to Right of Way 0 0 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Right of Way 0 0 II 5 5 3 DECISION POINT 3 - Node 321N to Node CTR -S There are no additions or updates to this section There are two options between Node 321N and Node CTR S • J4b J2c J2d JX4 Jle Jlf K1A (northern corridor) • J4b JX7 Jlc Jld Jle Jlf K1A (southern corridor) Recommendation Node 321N to Node CTR S Retain the northern corridor Job J2c J2d JX4 Re Jlf K1A for detailed study The option that uses J2d is the northern corridor and the option that uses Jlc is the southern corridor Table 21 compares the impacts of these two segment combinations The northern corridor that uses J2d was retained for detailed study for the following reasons • Design is preferred (does not use segment JX7 which has a less desirable design due to a more acute angle of the alignment with US 321 (See Section I15 4 2) • Follows the original GUAMPO preferred alternative • Shorter likely less expensive The southern corridor has about 820 less linear feet of stream impact Relocations impacts to transmission lines and floodplains are about the same for both corridors The proposed interchange areas at Robinson Road and Bud Wilson are less developed along the southern corridor Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 11 48 Table 21 CISION POINT 3 —Node 321N to Node CTR S RESOURCE J4b +J2c +J2d +JX4 +Jle +J1f +K1A (northern) J4b +JX7 +Jlc +Jld +Jle +J1f +K1A (southern) (Eliminated) Length in feet ( les) 41 402 (7 8) 43 700 (8 3) Construction Cost — 2005 Dollars $1733 $1754 Number of Interchanges 3 3 Minor Road Crossings likely requiring grade separation 3 3 Mayor Transmis ion Line Crossings 6 6 Railroad Line Crossings 0 0 Residences in Right of Way 46 44 Businesses in R ght of Way 1 2 ParkslRecreatio Areas in Right of Way 0 0 Schools in Righ of Way 0 0 Churches in Rig ht of Way 0 0 Cemeteries in R ght of Way 0 0 Potential Histo c Sites in Right of Way 2 3 Low Income or Minority Populations in Right of Way No No Streams (# of crossings in const lmuts) 26 28 Streams (Linear bridge crossings Ft within const lints exclusive of but inclusive of interchange ramps) 10 936 10 113 Named Streams # of crossings) 0 0 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 4 4 Other Interntte t Streams (# of crossings) 22 24 Other Waterbod es in Right of Way 5 6 Wetlands — field (acres within const observed lints) 0 0 Wetlands (acres within const hats) NWI 1 15 1 15 Floodplams (m nlme crossing length (ft)) 583 583 303 (d) Listed S reams No No Riparian Buffer Impacts No No Dormant Superfand Sites to Right of Way 0 0 Groundwater Di charge Areas in Right of Way 0 0 Natural Hentage Program Sites in Right of Way 0 0 II 5 5 4 DECISION POINT 4 - Node 3215 to Node CTR -N I IICIC Cl/C flu QUU/llulla U/ UPUQICJ lu III /J JCGl/ull There are two options between Node 321S and Node CTR N • JX1 J2d J5a J5b K2A (northern comdor) • Jlb J1c JX6 J5b K2A (southern corridor) The option that uses J2d is the northern corridor and the option that uses Jlc is the southern corridor Table 22 compares the impacts of these two segment combinations Recommendation Node 321S to Node CTR N Retain the northern option JX1 J2d J5a J5b K2A for detailed study The northern corridor that uses J2d was retained for the following reasons • Shorter and more direct • Less expensive The two options have similar levels of impact The southern corridor has about 140 less linear feet of stream impact crosses slightly less floodplain and has four fewer residential relocations The northern option that uses J2d crosses two fewer intermittent streams and has the potential to impact one less potential historic site The northern option also is about 0 3 miles shorter and likely less expensive Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 11 50 1 0 Table 22 IiECISION POINT 4 —Node 321S to Node CTR N RESOURCE JX1 +J2d +J5a +J5b +K2A (northern) Jlb +Jlc +JX6 +J5b +K2A (southern) (Eliminated) Length in feet (miles) 49 192 (9 3) 50 444 (9 6) Construction C st — 2005 Dollars $1944 $2124 Number of Inte changes 4 4 Minor Road Cr ssings likely requiring grade separation 3 5 Mayor Transrru sion Line Crossings 5 5 Railroad Line Crossings 0 0 Residences in Right of Way 88 84 Businesses in ]Right of Way 1 2 Parks/Recreatic n Areas in Right of Way 0 0 Schools in Rigl t of Way 1 1 Churches in Ri ht of Way 2 2 Cemeteries in P ight of Way 2 2 Potential Historic Sites in Right of Way 2 3 Low Income or Minority Populations in Right of Way No No Streams (# of ct ossings in const limits) 33 36 Streams (Linear bridge crossingi Ft within const hunts exclusive of but inclusive of interchange ramps) 14 127 13 983 Named Streams (# of crossings) 2 2 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 3 3 Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 28 31 Other Waterbodies in Right of Way 6 7 Wetlands (acres within const limits) NWI 269 269 Floodplams (m inline crossing length (ft)) 2 254 2 122 303 (d) Listed S reams Yes Yes Riparian Buffer [mpacts Yes Yes Dormant Superf ind Sites in Right of Way 0 0 Groundwater Di charge Areas in Right of Way 0 0 Natural Hentag Program Sites in Right of Way 0 0 II 5 5 5 DECISION POINT 5 - Node 321S to Node CTR -S There are no additions or updates to this section There are two options between Node 321S and Node CTR S • JX 1 J2d JX4 J l e J 1 f K 1 A (northern corridor) • Jlb J1c Jld Jle Jlf K1A (southern corridor) The option that uses J2d is the northern corridor and the option that uses Jlc is the southern corridor Table 23 compares the impacts of these two segment combinations Recommendation Node 321S to Node CTR S Retain the southern corridor J1b J1c Rd Re J1f K1A for detailed study The southern corridor that uses J 1 c was retained for the following reasons • Fewer stream impacts • Fewer floodplam impacts • Keeps a southern option available The southern corridor has about the same or shghtly less impacts to most resources than the northern option including about 860 less linear feet of stream impact 130 less linear feet of floodplain impact and four fewer residential relocations The proposed interchange areas at Robinson Road and Bud Wilson Road are less developed along the southern corridor Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 11 52 f] [l Table 23 ECISION POINT 5 —Node 321S to Node CTR S RESOURCE JX1+J2d +JX4 +Jle +Jlf +K1A (northern) (Eliminated) Jlb +Jlc +Jld +Jle +J1f +K1A (southern) Length in feet (rules) 39 432 (7 5) 39 852 (7 5) Construction Cost — 2005 Dollars $1832 $1840 Number of Inte changes 3 3 Minor Road Cr ssmgs likely requiring grade separation 2 2 Mayor Transim sion Line Crossings 3 3 Railroad Line C rossmgs 0 0 Residences in D ight of Way 44 40 Businesses in Right of Way 1 2 Parks/Recreation Areas in Right of Way 0 0 Schools in Rjgh,, of Way 0 0 Churches in Ri In of Way 0 0 Cemeteries in Right of Way 0 0 Potential Histor c Sites in Right of Way 2 3 Low Income or Minority Populations in Right of Way No No Streams (# of cr )ssmgs in const limits) 28 28 Streams (Linear bridge crossings Ft within const limits exclusive of but inclusive of interchange ramps) 11 431 10 576 Named Streams (# of crossings) 0 0 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 4 4 Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 24 24 Other Waterbod es in Right of Way 5 6 Wetlands (acres within const limits) NWI 1 15 1 15 Floodplains (m nline crossing length (ft)) 642 510 303 (d) Listed S reams No No Riparian Buffer [mpacts No No Dormant Superf ind Sites in Right of Way 0 0 Groundwater Di charge Areas in Right of Way 0 0 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Right of Way 0 0 II 5 5 6 DECISION POINT 6 -Node CTR -N to Node 485 1 There are no additions or updates to this section There are four options between Node CTR N and Node 1485 • K213 K2C K21) • K213 KX4 K3C • KX1 KX3 K2D • KX1 K313 K3C The options that use K21) cross the Catawba River at a more northerly point Table 24 compares the impacts of these four segment combinations The southernmost corridor KX1 K313 K3C was retained for the following reasons Recommendation Node CTR N to Node 1485 Retain KXl K3B K3C for detailed study • Segment combinations that use K3C have a better design than those using K2D • Shorter bridge over the Catawba River Even though the bridge is skewed over the Catawba River for the recommended option the bridge may end up being shorter than the options that have a straight bridge over the Catawba River The options with the straight bridge may require a longer bridge to cross over both the railroad tracks and the river • Options using K3C have the fewest linear feet of stream impact Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 1154 • The s gment combinations using K3C have least residential impacts than the segment combinations using K213 and of the two options using K3C the segment combination KX1 K313 K3C has the fewest residential impacts (107 vs 155) Segment count orations that use Segment K2D have a less desirable design due to a curve immediately east of the Catawba River bridge and dust west of 1485 This curve cannot be flattened due to space constraints related to tvm into 1485 Table 24 DECISION POINT 6 —Node CTR N to Node 1485 Addendum to t108 Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 1 155 RESOURCE K2B +K2C +K2D (Eliminated) K2B +KX4 +K3C (Eliminated) KX1 +KX3 +K2D (Eliminated) KX1 +K3B +K3C Length in feet (r ules) 30 190 (5 7) 29 524 (5 6) 30 502 (5 8) 29 370 (5 6) Construction Cc st — 2005 Dollars $195 1 $2054 $1826 $1881 Number of Inter hanges 3 3 3 3 Minor Road Crossings separation likely requiring grade 0 0 0 1 Mayor Transmission Line Crossings 5 8 5 8 Railroad Line Crossings 1 1 1 1 Residences in R ght of Way 160 155 140 107 Businesses in Right of Way 1 2 2 1 Parks/Recreation Areas in Right of Way 1 1 1 1 Schools in Right of Way 0 0 0 0 Churches in Right of Way 0 0 0 0 Cemeteries in Right of Way 1 1 1 1 Potential Histon Sites in Right of Way 1 1 1 1 Low Income or I Amonty Populations in Right of Way Yes Yes Yes Yes Streams (# of cr ( ssings in const limits) 25 16 25 17 Streams (Linear bndge crossings t within const hnuts exclusive of but inclusive of interchange ramps) 9 066 5 920 8 815 6 241 Named Streams ,# of crossings) 4 4 4 4 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 1 1 1 1 Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 20 11 20 12 Other Waterbodi s in Right of Way 0 0 0 0 Wetlands (acres within const limits) NWI 039 039 039 039 Floodplams ( in nline crossing length (ft)) 2 142 2 382 2 458 2 382 303 (d) Listed Streams No No No No Riparian Buffer Impacts Yes Yes Yes Yes Dormant Superfund Sites in Right of Way 0 0 0 0 Groundwater Di charge Areas in Right of Way 0 0 0 0 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Right of Way 0 0 0 0 Addendum to t108 Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 1 155 II 5 5 7 ®ECYSION POINT 7 -Node CTR -S to Node I -485 - (northern alternatives) There are no additions or updates to this section There are five options between Node CTR S and Node 1485 The three northernmost are • K3A KX3 K213 • MA K313 K3C • K1B KX2 K21) (Route most similar to the GUAMPO s alignment) • Note KX2 K3C is not feasible due to the horizontal curvature The options that use K213 cross the Catawba River at a more northerly point The options that use K3A cross the South Fork Catawba River at a more northerly point Table 25 compares the impacts of these three segment combinations Segment combination K3A K313 K3C was retained for the following reasons Recommendation Node CTR S to Node 1485 (northern alternatives) Retain K3A K313 K3C for detailed study • Segment combinations that use Segment K2D have a less desirable design (see Decision Point 6 Section I15 4 6) • Segment combination K3A K313 K3C has 2 100 to 2 200 fewer linear feet of stream impacts Although segment combination K3A K313 K3C has a better design at 1485 (does not use Segment K2D) it does impact a potential historic site located at the NC 279 interchange are (Segment K3A) The impact to the potential historic site appears unavoidable with this route If this segment combination should be eliminated at a later stage when more information about whether the site is potentially eligible for the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1156 National Regi available throe historic site w for the Detail( W Table 25 U :er of Historic Places other alternatives to get from Node CTR S to Node 1485 will be ;h segment combinations retained under Decision Point 8 The significance of the potential I be evaluated in a Phase H Historic Architectural Resources Survey that will be prepared I Study Alternatives and summarized in the Draft EIS POINT 7 —Node CTR S to Node 1485 (northern alternatives) Addendum to th� Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2 08 1157 RESOURCE K3A +KX3 +K2D (Eliminated) K3A+ +K3C K1B +KX2 +K2D (Eliminated) Length in feet ( les) 42 740 (8 1) 41 608 (7 9) 41 881 (7 9) Construction Cost — 2005 Dollars $2392 $2447 $2441 Number of Interchanges 4 4 4 Minor Rd Crossings likely requiring grade separation 0 1 0 Mayor Transmis ion Line Crossings 6 9 6 Railroad Line C ossmgs 1 1 1 Residences in R ght of Way 152 119 123 Businesses in Right of Way 3 2 2 Parks/Recreation Areas in Right of Way 1 1 1 Schools in Right of Way 0 0 0 Churches in Right of Way 0 0 1 Cemeteries in R ght of Way 1 1 0 Potential Historic Sites in Right of Way 2 (1 in interchange area) 2 (1 in interchange area) 1 Low Income or Amonty Populations in Right of Way Yes Yes Yes Streams (# of crossings in const limits) 27 19 26 Streams (Linear bridge crossm s Ft within const limits exclusive of but inclusive of interchange ramps) 9 015 6 441 8 935 Named Streams # of crossings) 6 6 6 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 1 1 1 Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings) 20 12 19 Other Waterbod es in Right of Way 0 0 0 Wetlands (acres within const linuts) NWI 1 16 1 16 075 Floodplains ( m inline crossing length (ft)) 4 144 4 068 4 658 303 (d) Listed S reams Yes Yes Yes Riparian Buffer Impacts Yes Yes Yes Dormant Super rid Sites in Right of Way 0 0 0 Groundwater Di charge Areas in Right of Way 0 0 0 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Right of Way 0 0 0 Addendum to th� Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2 08 1157 II 5 5 8 DECISION POINT 8 - Node CTR -S to Node I -485 (southern alternatives) CTR N� KX1 r { X., 7 CTR tA� KIB `K1C ' Danre Stowe 4 zBotanicat Garden 3B B f`Y F 1- �t��07� ov 85 ��.. K4A� r, )ouglas L kiernational airport, This section Is updated with new information concerning the elimination of Segment K1D from further consideration Details regarding this information are discussed in new Section 115 5 9 There are five options between Node CTR S and Node 1485 The two southernmost are • KIB K1C KID • K1B K1C K4A Table 26 compares the impacts of these two segment combinations Originally both options were retained for detailed study However since the original Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report was prepared segment combination KIB K1C KID was eliminated from further study (Section II 5 5 9) Segment combination KIB K1C KID has a straighter alignment and fewer stream impacts It is shorter than segment combination KIB K1C MA and has straight bridges over the South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River However segment combination KIB K1C KID h 1 1 141 91 d Recommendation Node CTR S to Node 1485 (southern alternatives) Original recommendation was to retain both K1B K1C KID and KIB K1C K4A for detailed study as more residemia re ocations ( vs ) an is dependent on the feasibility of constructing a roadway over or through the Allen Steam Station s retired fly ash basin As described in Section II 5 5 9 the Allen Steam Station is proposing a landfill over the retired fly ash basin and it is not feasible to construct a roadway over this proposed landfill Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 11 58 Table 26 CISION POINT 8 — Node CTR S to Node 1485 (southern alternatives) RESOURCE K1B +KIC +KID (northernmost) K1B +K1C +4A (southernmost) Length in feet ( les) 37 865 (7 2) 39 775 (7 5) Construction Cost — 2005 Dollars $2355 $2353 Number of Interchanges 4 4 Minor Road Crossings likely requiring grade separation 1 1 Mayor Transmission Line Crossings 6 6 Railroad Line Crossings 1 0 Residences in Right of Way 141 91 Businesses in R ght of Way 4 0 Parks/Recreatio i Areas in Right of Way 1 1 Schools in Righ i of Way 0 0 Churches in Rig ht of Way 2 1 Cemeteries in R ght of Way 0 0 Potential Histor c Sites in Right of Way 3 3 Low Income or Minority Populations in Right of Way Yes (near I 485) Yes (near I 485) Streams (# of cr )ssings in const limits) 15 13 Streams (Linear bridge crossings Ft within const limits exclusive of but inclusive of interchange ramps) 4 496 5 164 Named Streams (# of crossings) 6 4 Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings) 1 I Other Internutte at Streams (# of crossings) 8 8 Other Waterbod es in Right of Way 1 1 Wetlands (acres within const limits) NWI 0 0 Floodplains ( m inline crossing length (ft)) 098 766 303 (d) Listed S reams 4 698 5 216 Riparian Buffer 'mpacts Yes Yes Dormant Superf ind Sites in Right of Way Yes Yes Groundwater Di charge Areas in Right of Way 0 0 Natural Heritage Program Sites in Right of Way 0 0 Residences in R ght of Way 0 0 II 5 5 9 Elimination of Corridor Segment KID This is a new section in the report As documented in Part III, Section 111 13 2 resolution on NEPA/404 Merger Process Concurrence Point 2 (CP2 — Detailed Study Alternatives) for the subject project was reached in September 2005 Sixteen Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) were identified for further study in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Four of these DSAs DSAs 6 24 65 and 78 include Detailed Study Corridor Segment KID As project studies have progressed new information has become available regarding the viability of Detailed Study Corridor Segment KID As discussed below this segment has been eliminated from further study thereby eliminating DSAs 6 24 65 and 78 from further consideration Detailed Study Corridor Segment KID is located in the eastern portion of the project passing just south of Duke Power s Allen Steam Station At the CP2 Merger meeting held September 20 2005 it was noted that segment combinations including KID had a straighter alignment and fewer stream impacts than comparable segment combinations but more residential relocations It was also noted that alternatives that included segment KID were dependent on the ability to construct a roadway over or through the Allen Steam Station s retired (dormant) fly ash basin An alignment within Corridor Segment KID could not avoid the fly ash basin To the north of Segment KID is the Steam Station s active coal storage and the plant itself To the south is the active fly ash basin % � a 7 a r Retired Fly Ash Basin iAlso just west of the fly ash basin is an active rail line used by the Steam Station and west of the rail line is the Catawba River These features are directly adjacent to each other and the rail line and river both must be bridged 1 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 1160 Constructing al roadway through the fly ash basin could have constructability issues and /or interfere with plant operatiorls However no definitive data or information to make a determination was available at the time CP2 was resolved The Merger Team elected to keep Segment K1D for further study or until such time as data w is available to revisit this decision This additional data is now available as described below In the first hal of 2007 Duke Power conducted a site suitability study at the retired ash basin for the purpose of permtting a new landfill at the site Duke Power agreed to share their geotechnical data with NCTA At the request of the NCTA the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit reviewed the data to reach conclusions about the suitability of the site for roadway construction They provided their findings to NCTA in a nemorandum dated June 1 2007 (see Addendum Appendix D) The fly ash ba in in question is located south of the main plant and the Steam Station s active coal stockpile As described by Duke Power it was in use in the early to mid 1970s but is currently inactive and covered in vegetation An active fly ash basin is located farther south that is currently being used to store /dispose of ash waste generated by burning coal at the Steam Station The retired fly ash basin consists of three to four cells with a total size of about 2 000 feet by 1 650 feet (about 75 acres) Fly ash was hydraulically placed with no engineering control relative to density /compaction The ash deposit in the basin has a maximum thickness of about 58 feet Upon review or the data provided by Duke Power the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit (Memorandum dated June 1 in Addendum Appendix D) concluded that will be excessive and non uniform This would create an table condition in the form of waviness of the roadway surface and pavement The data further indicates considerable potential for embankment failure in the form o deep seated slope instability We conclude that roadway construction over the ash basin i its current state would not be feasible Bridging the entire fly ash basin was identified by NCDOT as the only practical alternative that eliminates the risk of poteritial large magnitudes of differential settlement Basically the bridge that would span the Catawba River and the rail line would need to be continued westward over the length of the entire fly ash basin (with pies that would need to be at least 60 feet long to clear the depth of the ash in the basin) With the fly ash base i as it exists today bridging this area would be feasible but would have substantial costs (see teleconfer nce with NCDOT Structures Unit dated June 6 2007 in Addendum Appendix C) Additional information from Duke Power regarding their plans for the retired fly ash basin were received in a memorandum to the NCTA dated August 7 2007 (included in Addendum Appendix C) The memorandum 13 summarized below Addendum to tho Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2 O8 1 161 The Steam Station is adding new pollution control equipment to comply with the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act (NC GS 143 215 107D) In conjunction with these improvements the Steam Station is in the process of designing permitting and constructing a storage area for coal combustion products over the retired fly ash basin The Steam Station states several alternatives and sites were evaluated for the future storage area but that the retired fly ash basin was the only viable site that provided the required capacity Design work is in progress in preparation for discussions with the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Storage requirements will use the entire ash basin footprint and rise approximately 150 feet above the current elevation Construction is planned to start in late 2008 In conclusion bridging the retired fly ash basin in its current condition appeared to be a feasible although expensive option for constructing an alignment in Segment KID However with a new landfill over the fly ash basin rising about 150 feet in elevation bridging is no longer a feasible option due to the elevation issues and interference with the Steam Station s operations Therefore Detailed Study Alternatives that include Segment KID (DSAs 6 24 65 and 78) were eliminated from further study These are shown in Table 27 The environmental resource agencies agreed that DSAs 6 24 65 and 78 should be eliminated from further study in a Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meeting on September 27 2007 (meeting minutes included in Addendum Appendix C) able 27 Detailed Study Alternatives Containing Corridor Segment K1D Eliminated i From Detailed Studv Refer to Figure 20 for a map of the Detailed Study Alternatives and their comdor segments Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1162 Central Area — East Area — ' West Area generally east of Generally east of US 321 and Detailed Study generally west f g y o west of NC 279 or the South NC 279 or the South Alternative # US 321 Fork Catawba River Fork Catawba I River i H Segments J Segments K Segments ' 6 1-12A H3 Ma J2b J2c J2d JX4 Jle Jlf K1A K1B K1C KID 24 H2A 1-1213 112C J3 J2c J2d JX4 He J1f K1A K1B K1C KID 65 H1A H1B 111C Jla Jlb Jlc J1d Jle Jlf K1A K1B K1C KID ' 78 H1A HX2 J2a J2b J2c J2d JX4 Jle Jlf K1A K1B K1C KID Refer to Figure 20 for a map of the Detailed Study Alternatives and their comdor segments Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 1162 II56 A This section consideratiot Based on the points there After these six achieved new there are tweIN These are hste Figure 3 _TERNATIVES RECOMMENDED FOR DETAILED STUDY based on the new information described in new Section 115 5 9 and tolling nmendations described in Sections II 5 5 1 through II 5 5 8 for the eight key decision sixteen Detailed Study Alternatives (Non Toll and Toll Scenarios) (Figures 20 and 21) en DSAs were identified and Concurrence Point 2 of the NEPA/404 Merger process was iformation led to the elirmnation of Corridor Segment KID (Section II 5 5 9) Therefore Detailed Study Alternatives that will be carved forward for evaluation in the Draft EIS in Table 1 and the segments included in these twelve alternatives are shown in updated These twelve SAs will be carved through to detailed study as toll facilities only As of May 2007 the NCTA and N DOT acknowledged that it would be unlikely for NCDOT to implement the project as a non toll facilit (see letter dated May 21 2007 from NCTA to NCDOT in Addendum Appendix A) Addendum to tho Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2 O8 1 163 PART III - AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT III.1 AGENCY COORDINATION Section 111 13 2 is updated to include the September 27 2007 meeting where it was agreed that Corridor Segment K1 D should be eliminated from further study III11 SCOPING , There are no updates or additions to this section A formal scopmg letter as required by NEPA was sent by NCDOT to local state and federal agencies on April 7 2003 The letter is included in Appendix A along with the distribution lists and the letters of response The purpose of the letter was to solicit comments and collect pertinent project information early in the alternatives development process The coordination (NEPA scoping letter) between NCDOT FHWA and the agencies has assisted with the development of the Detailed Study Alternatives III 1 2 NOTICE OF INTENT There are no updates or additions to this section A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project was published by the FHWA in the Federal Register on April 27 2006 (Volume 71 No 81 pages 24909 24910) Appendix A contains a copy of the NOI Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 III 1 DRAFT — July 2008 ' 11113 111131 There are no The project fc NEPA/404 M (FHWA) US the NC Depai Resources (D this project in units of 2ovei The Merger 0 to coordinate i forum for disc each agency s documents ho balanced duru which results compromise individual ag milestones (h EPA /SECTION 404 MERGER TEAM HISTORY Background Information or additions to this section d the Merger 01 process for agency concurrence and coordination contained in the 01 Memorandum of Agreement signed by NCDOT Federal Highway Administration Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and of Environment and Natural The NEPA/404 Merger Team for I the stakeholder agencies and local t listed in the insert box process allows agency representatives ore efficiently by providing a common ssion of project issues as they relate to nission The merger process competing agency mandates are a shared decision making process agency representatives reaching a ased decision to the regulatory and The NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM The Merger Team reviews the project at various development milestones The projects Merger Team members are Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) — Division of Water Quality (DWQ) State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) cy mandates at specific project //www ncdot org /doh /preconstruct/ pe/MERGER01 /default html ) The specific p sect milestones called concurrence points are listed below This report documents activities up to and including Concurrence Point 2 Description Point 1 Purpose and Need 2 Detailed Study Alternatives to be evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 2a Bridging and Alignment Review Identification of bridge locations and approximate lengths culvert locations and a review of the preliminary alignment for each alternative 3 Selection of Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 1112 DRAFT - July 2008 4a Avoidance and Minimization A detailed interdisciplinary review to optimize the design and benefits of the project while reducing environmental impacts to both the human and natural environment 4b Hydraulic Review A review of the development of the drainage design 4c Permit Drawings Review A review of the completed permit drawings after the hydraulic design is complete and prior to the permit application III 1 3 2 Merger Team Coordination for the Project This section updated with information on the coordination that occurred when new information came to light to eliminate Corridor Segment K1 D from further consideration The following describes the history for the Merger 01 process for this project up to Concurrence Point 2 identification of alternatives to be studied in detail in the DEIS NCDOT managed the project through Concurrence Point 2 Appendix A contains the Concurrence Points 1 and 2 forms Concurrence Point 1 (Purpose and Need) was completed July 24 2002 Concurrence Point 2 (Detailed Study Alternatives) was completed in July 2005 Concurrence Point 2 (CP #2) was divided into two sections for merger meeting purposes - non new location alternatives and new location alternatives - due to the volume of information that needed to be conveyed The Merger Team process to achieve Concurrence Point 2 involved eight meetings The history of these meetings is provided below February 17, 2004 Pre Concurrence Point 2 meeting (New Location Alternatives) Identified the new location alternatives for which NCDOT should prepare functional designs prior to the new location Concurrence Point 2 meeting August 17, 2004 Partial Concurrence Point 2 Meeting (Non New Location Alternatives) The purpose of this merger meeting was to achieve concurrence on the non new location alternatives to be carried forward for detailed study Agreement on Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives could not be reached and the decision was made to follow the process outlined in the NEPA/404 Merger 01 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for elevating the decision September 14, 2004 - Elevation Meeting #1 The project s Merger Team members attended Concurrence was not achieved September 29, 2004 - Elevation Meeting #2 The supervisors of the Merger Team members attended Concurrence was not achieved Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 1113 DRAFT - July 2008 On October 27 2004 in accordance with the MOA the Review Board met to discuss the project and th issues that the Merger Team had not reached consensus on The Review Board consists of desigr ated senior management from FHWA NCDOT USACE and NC DENR ►.9 The R�view Board met to continue discussion of the project issues The R view Board met and signed the Partial Concurrence Point 2 form eliminating all non new locate n alternatives from further study The p rpose of the meeting was to decide which of the ninety prelimunary new location alternatives should be carved forward for further study The preliminary new location corridors were r arrowed to 16 Detailed Study Alternatives The F WA NCDOT USACE NC DWQ SHPO GUAMPO and MUMPO signed the Concurrence Point 2 form regarding the New Location Alternatives to be carried forward in the DEIS The USEPA USFWS and the NCWRC chose to abstain from signing the Concurrence Pomt form An abstention in the NEPA/404 Merger process means an agency does not actively object to a concurrence point milestone but does not wish to sign the concurrence form The agency agrees not to revisit the concurrence point subject to guidance on revisiting concurrence points contained in the NEPA/404 Merger 01 Memorandum of Agreement Representatives of these agencies provided emamis with their reasons for abstaining These are included in Appendix A After Concurrence Point 2 was signed on September 20 2005 project studies progressed and new ' information became available in 2007 regarding the viability of Detailed Study Corridor Segment KID which is included in DSAs 6 24 65 and 78 Section II 5 5 9 describes the new information in detail Corridor Segm nt KID passes over a retired fly ash basin at the Allen Steam Station coal fired power ' plant Duke Energy which owns the power plant is planning a new landfill over the retired fly ash basin that will rise about 150 feet in elevation Constructing a roadway over this fly ash basin along Corridor Segment KID is no longer a feasible option due to the landfill and interference with the Steam Station s ' operations Therefore it was recommended that Detailed Study Alternatives that include Segment KID (DSAs 6 24 6 and 78) be ehmmated from further study Addendum to th Final Alternatives Development Report- U 3321 1114 DRAFT - July 2 08 The NCTA presented the findings described above at a Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination meeting held September 27 2007 Representatives from the following agencies were at the September 27 2007 meeting NCTA FHWA NCDOT USACE USEPA USFWS NCDWQ and NCWRC The attendees agreed that DSAs containing Corridor Segment K1D (DSAs 6 24 65 and 78) should be eliminated from further study Meeting minutes are included in Addendum Appendix C III 2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT No additional public involvement activities relevant to the alternatives development process have occurred since the original Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report A Citizens Informational Workshop series is planned for the summer of 2008 Therefore there are no updates or additions to this section The public involvement process is integral to the entire project development and decision making process The Public Involvement Plan for the project documents the public involvement process for the project Public involvement activities described below are related to alternatives development and evaluation III 2 1 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS There are no updates or additions to this section Two series of Citizens Informational Workshops were held the first series was held in 2003 by NCDOT and the second series was held in 2006 by the NC Turnpike Authority All the Citizens Informational Workshops were an informal open house format Attendees were encouraged to sign in read the project handouts view the slideshows and project displays and to discuss the project one on one with Project Team representatives There were no formal presentations given at the workshops A Spanish translator was available at each workshop and project handouts were available in Spanish III 2 1 1 Citizens Informational Workshop Series #1 There are no updates or additions to this section The first series of Citizens Informational Workshops (CIWs) took place on September 30 December 9 and December 10 2003 The workshops held by the NCDOT presented the purpose and need for the project and the preliminary alternatives being considered Approximately 734 citizens signed in at the first series of workshops There were 192 written comment forms received at and following the workshops A majority of commenters supported a new location roadway However about 20 percent of the commenters supported other types of alternatives including improving 185 and US 29 74 and mass transit Other commenters expressed concerns about route location wildlife habitat river shoreline buffers and recreational uses parks neighborhoods land use and sprawl water quality air quality and noise Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 1115 DRAFT - July 2008 Specific cor provided at preliminary names For workshops • Cross • Cross its about locations and preferences regarding the preliminary new location alignments ens Informational Workshop Series #1 are listed below Refer to Figure 18 for location corridor segment names and Figure 3 for Detailed Study Alternative segment tional information and summaries of the comments received at the first series of to the Citizens Informational Workshop Summaries (March 2004) locations of Paradise Point at South Fork of the Catawba River Two out of three preliminary new location segments north of Paradise Point (Detailed Study Alternative segments K2A and K3A [ formerly preliminary corridor segments F2 and F4]) have been retained for detailed study in the DEIS Wilson Road as far south as possible The southernmost crossing of Bud Wilson Road (Detailed Study Alternative segment JI c [formerly preliminary corridor segment C6 1D3]) has been retained for detailed study in the DEIS • Connoct to Buster Boyd Bridge in South Carolina • Use Connecting to the NC 49 Buster Boyd Bridge over the Catawba River at the Mecklenburg County North CarolmalYork County South Carolina border would not meet the project s purpose and need ;tmg Hudson Boulevard as a bypass of Gastonia Hudson Boulevard parallels US 29 74 to the south and connects US 321 in Gastonia to Lowell Bethesda Road on the east side of Cramerton Hudson Boulevard currently serves as a local bypass of downtown Gastonia Improving Hudson Boulevard would not meet the projects purpose and need It would not improve traffic flow on 185 (because it doesn t connect to 185 it would not divert substantial amounts of traffic from 185) and it would not improve connectivity in southern Gaston County nor between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County a toll road facility In February 2005 the proposed project was adopted by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority as a candidate toll facility access to Bessemer City via Exit 13 — Edgewood Road All of the Detailed Study Alternatives would maintain this access Addendum to th Final Alternatives Development Report— U 3321 1116 DRAFT — July 2 08 • Provide a road only from Union New Hope Road to 1485 This option would not meet the project s purpose and need It would not improve traffic flow on 185 US 29 74 or US 321 • Segments E8 F5 F10 and F I are the only segments that make sense Preliminary corridor segments E8 FS and FIO were retained for detailed study as Detailed Study Corridor segments K3A and K4A Preliminary corridor segment Fll was eliminated from consideration because its route would directly impact parkland and twice as many subdivisions as the route that uses preliminary corridor segment F10 • F X9a should be chosen over E8 +F6 Both preliminary corridor segments have been retained for detailed study as Detailed Study Alternative segments K3A (formerly F X9a) and Kl C/K4A (formerly E8 1F6) • The southernmost routes are most beneficial to Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden Two routes that pass just north of the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden have been retained for detailed study in the DEIS • Put alignment as close as possible to South Carolina Except for preliminary corridor segment Fll /G6 all the southernmost preliminary corridor segments have been retained for detailed study • Avoid lower end of Bud Wilson Road/Sparrow Dairy Road There are no Detailed Study Alternative segments located at the lower end of Bud Wilson Road/Sparrow Dairy Road near the North Carolina/South Carolina state line • Avoid area north of Allen Steam Station where there is too much development There is one Detailed Study Alternative corridor north of the Allen Steam Station and two south of the Allen Steam Station • NC 49 should be used Use of NC 49 in South Carolina would not meet the project s purpose and need It would not provide connectivity between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County nor would it improve traff c flow on 185 US 29 74 or US 321 III 2 1 2 Citizens Informational Workshop Series #2 i There are no updates or additions to this section The second series of Citizens Informational Workshops took place January 31 February 1 and February 2 2006 These workshops were held by the NC Turnpike Authority with assistance from the NCDOT The purpose was to present the recommended Detailed Study Alternatives for input and comment Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 1117 DRAFT - July 2008 A 1 813 citizens signed in at the second series of workshops There were 1 5 written comment forms received at and following the workshops Written comments were further catego zed summarized and counted based on the following questions 1 For oi Against a New Roadway? 2 For ot Against Improving Existing Roadways? 3 For ot Against Tolls? 4 Specific Comment? 5 Corn or Preference /Choice? 6 Has oes Not Have Natural Environment Concerns? The following is a summary of the written comments based on the above questions Additional information or, the comments received at the second series of workshop is included in the Citizens Informational Workshop Series #2 Summary (June 2006) Comments regarding preferences and impacts and issues will be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the Detailed Study Alternatives for the DEIS For or Agai For or Agai Roadways9 For or AEai Specific Western Ai (I 85 to US Nhddle Ar (US 321 to Eastern Are. (NC 279 to I. New Roadway9 Improving Existing Tolls Corridor Choice Corridor Choice 279)9 Corridor Choice For 34 7 3 Yes 130 Western H1 6 Northern J2 /JS 0 Northern K( 3C) 9 Against 21 1 11 No 54 Middle Eastern (1-12) (1-13) 1 12 Southern 2 Middle (KID) 3 Southern K3A (K4A) Crossover 4 4 Addendum to th Final Alternatives Development Report— U 3321 1118 DRAFT — July 2 08 Northern Middle Southern (K3C) KID (K4A) Mecklenburg County Area 10 32 1 Corridor Choice9 Yes No Has Human Environment Concerns 25 22 (2/2/06 Workshop only) Yes No Has Natural Environment Concerns 62 75 (1/31/06 and 2/1/06 Workshops) III 2 2 LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETINGS ' There are no updates or additions to this section Local Officials Meetings were held prior to Citizens Informational Workshops to provide local officials with opportunities to ask questions and submit comments as well as an opportunity for the project team to present findings and address issues Local meetings with officials from Gaston and Mecklenburg counties were held prior to each of the two Citizens Informational Workshops series Other local officials meetings occurred in Gaston County with the following groups and their corresponding dates • 1/22/02 9/24/02 Gaston Urban Area MPO Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) • 9/24/02 Gaston Urban Area MPO Technical Coordinating Commttee (TCC) III 2 3 SMALL GROUP MEETINGS , There are no updates or additions to this section Throughout the study process the project team has been available to meet with local organizations and citizens groups to discuss the project Several meetings were held during the development of prelimmary alternatives in the project study area The local entities interviewed for information exchange research and data collection purposes included the following • Charlotte Douglas International Airport • Charlotte Mecklenburg Planning Commission Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 111 9 DRAFT - July 2008 • C iarlotte Department of Transportation • G iston County Natural Resources Department • C ty of Gastonia • C ty of Belmont • B lmont Planning Board • C ty of Bessemer City • T wn of McAdenville • C tawba River Foundation/Catawba Riverkeeper • C -escent Resources LLC • D ike Energy (Allen Steam Station) • Q jality of Natural Resources Commission (QNRC) • S hiele Museum of Natural History • V llage Properties Pharr Yarns Four outreach meetings were held with organizations community leaders and elementary schools in Gaston County on January 17 2006 to identify ways to communicate with low income and minority populations a d to incorporate appropriate methods into the public involvement program to encourage participation from these populations These interviews were with Community Action icle Baptist Church im Elementary School ielghts Elementary School ves development and analysis the following organizations and citizens groups requested -tmgs These meetings and dates are listed below Gaston Chamber of Commerce Friends of Crowder s Mountain Gaston Chamber of Commerce Paradise Point Neighborhood group Medallist Development Corp NC League for Transportation and Logistics Ramoth AME Zion Church Friends of Crowder s Mountain Brown s Cove Neighborhood group Addendum to th Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 111 10 DRAFT — July 2 08 • Gastoi • Taben • HH B( • Forest During altema small group mi • 12/11/ • 10/15/ • 3/24/0 • 11/8/0 • 3/8/06 ' • 3/10/0 • 4/19/0 • 4/25/0 • 4/27/0 Community Action icle Baptist Church im Elementary School ielghts Elementary School ves development and analysis the following organizations and citizens groups requested -tmgs These meetings and dates are listed below Gaston Chamber of Commerce Friends of Crowder s Mountain Gaston Chamber of Commerce Paradise Point Neighborhood group Medallist Development Corp NC League for Transportation and Logistics Ramoth AME Zion Church Friends of Crowder s Mountain Brown s Cove Neighborhood group Addendum to th Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 111 10 DRAFT — July 2 08 III 2 4 OTHER OUTREACH EFFORTS There are no updates or additions to this section The various methods employed for communicating project information and announcements of public meetings are described below III 2 4 1 Newsletters and Postcards There are no updates or additions to this section Two newsletters and two postcards were used to provide the public with information about the project and project related events such as Citizens Informational Workshops and to seek comments from the public The first project newsletter announced the project purpose and need The newsletter described previous studies of the Garden Parkway and described future public involvement opportunities Approximately 235 newsletters were mailed to those on the project mailing list The Citizens Informational Workshop on September 30 2003 was announced via a newsletter flyer and newspaper advertisements Three hundred and four (304) newsletters announcing the meeting were sent out to people already on the Newsletter #1 mailing list (mailing list increased from first newsletter mailing) six hundred and thirty (630) newsletters were sent to churches within the refined study area for new location alternatives and four hundred forty eight (448) newsletters were distributed to municipalities and community centers within the project study area Post cards were used as a cost effective way of announcing to the large number of property owners within the project study area and refined study area for new location alternatives about upcoming Citizens Informational Workshops The Citizens Informational Workshops on December 9 and December 10 2003 were announced via a postcard and newspaper advertisements Approximately 16 300 postcards were sent out to announce the December 2003 Citizens Informational Workshops The mailing list was developed using GIS databases that included property owners in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties located within the refined study area boundary for new location alternatives Approximately 17 300 postcards were sent out to announce the second series of Citizens Informational Workshops (January and February 2006) The mailing list was developed using GIS databases that included property owners in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties located within the refined study area boundary for new location alternative and those who had previously requested to be on the mailing list Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 III 11 DRAFT - July 2008 III242 There are no Project Website updates or additions to this section A project we site (www ncdot ora /projects /Qastonconnector ) was created and launched in April 2005 It includes project information documents previous newsletters and postcards project maps and an online comment forni The online comment form enables users to add their name to the project mailing list and/or provid comments and ask questions The website was updated in January 2006 to announce /ad rtise the second series of Citizens Informational Workshops and was modified again in March 2006 ith maps of the Detailed Study Alternatives It will be updated in the future as necessary III 2 4 3 1 Toll -Free Telephone Line There are no A toll free tel the telephone 2006 or additions to this section ie line (1 800 475 6402) for the project was established in July 2003 A summary of the identity of the caller and response has been documented in a daily log as of March Addendum to th Final Alternatives Development Report- U 3321 11112 DRAFT - July 2 08 PART IV - REFERENCES REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2004 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Federal Highway Administration 1987 Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents FHWA Technical Advisory T66430 8 A October 1987 Gastonia, City of, and Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2005 Gastonia Rapid Transit Alternatives Study Corridor and Modal Options Prepared by PBQ &D Neighboring Concepts Inc and Simon Resources Inc December 2005 North Carolina Office of State Planning 1998 State Demographics Internet site http / /www ospl state nc us/demog/ (August 28 2001) Transportation Research Board 2000 Highway Capacity Manual National Research Council Washington D C 2000 REFERENCES ADDED IN THE ADDENDUM Amtrak 2008 http Hwww amtrak com (April 14 2008) Charlotte Area Transit Svstem (CATS 2008 Transit Programs I http //www charmeck org/Departinents/CATS/Commtite+Options/Vinpool+List htm (May 13 2008) http //www c,harmeck org/Departments/ CATS /Tiansit +Progr-ims/FTC +Program htm (May 13 2008) Transit Planning http //www charmeck org/Departments/ CATS / Rapid +Transit +Planning /West +Corridor (May 14 2008) Charlotte Department of Transportation 2007 Vehicle Occupancy Rate Survey for Approaches to City Center 2006 Data provided via email from Joe McLelland of CDOT on May 16 2008 Gastonia, City of ' 2008 Gastonia Transit Internet site http / /www cityofgastonia com /city sere /general /transit/transit cfm (April 18 2008) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 IV 1 Draft - July 2008 "ujjaitim, it vi 1 Lai r LZLHLativu - iviGUVUUa 1\G 1V11a1 it am! t itaL1V11 1V1a11a CII1CIll %- 011LC1 2007 Database of Incidents on 185 for 2007 Data provided via email from Heath Holland of the Metrolina Regional Transportation Management Center on May 14 2008 2002 Purpose and Need Statement- Gaston County East West Corridor Study TIP Project U3321 August 5 Prepared by PBS &J for the NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch 2002 Traffic Technical Memorandum - TIP Project U 3321 August 5 Prepared by PBS &J for the NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch This technical memorandum evaluates existing 185 US 29 74 and US 321 under existing (2001) and future (2025) no build conditions ) 2004 Phase 11 Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum - Gaston County East West Corridor Study - TIP Project U 3321 Prepared by PBS&J for the NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch This technical memorandum evaluates traffic operations on 185 and US 29 74 under various Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives scenarios 2005 Draft Traffic Technical Memorandum - Gaston County East West Connector Study May Prepared by PBS &J for the NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch This technical memorandum evaluates the traffic operations of the preliminary New Location Alternatives functional designs 2005 Draft Transportation Demand Modeling Technical Memorandum - Gaston County East West Connector Study February Prepared by Martin/Alexiou/Bryson for the NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch This technical memorandum describes the input and output of the regional travel demand modeling tasks 2008 2008 Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum for 185 1 485 US 29 74 and US 321 Under Various Scenarios - Gaston County East West Connector Study May Prepared by PBS &J for NCTA This technical memorandum evaluates the traffic operations on existing mayor roadways in the study area under the No Build Alternative an Improve Existing Roadways Alternative and the New Location Alternative (Non Toll and Toll Scenarios) Toll Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum - Gaston County East West Connector Study May Prepared by PBS &J for NCTA This technical memorandum evaluates the traffic operations for the Detailed Study Alternative preliminary engineering designs based on 2030 Toll Scenario traffic forecasts Addendum to the final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 Draft - July 2008 IV 2 2008 Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Traffic Forecasts for Toll Alternatives May , Prepared by Martm/AlexiouBryson for NCTA This technical memorandum provides forecasts based on the 2030 Metrolma travel demand model for the following scenarios 2006 Base Year 2006 Build Toll Scenario 2030 No Build Alternative 2030 Build Non ' Toll Alternative 2030 Build Toll Alternatives 2030 Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 4a (called No Build With Improvement) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 IV 3 Draft - July 2008 FIGURES Addendum to a Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 008 s oa Z z 9 v m n 7 m X x X t) mmi y Z � O � Z O c G O Z w O n -zi ;0 r co a m z v zvmzc3 o m,0 CO) .t O 00 p p {O � d � o �° 1° CL Jm ;p c IL ` A a m 00 0 c 3 Q. O1 Im C. n 1 AO a c� o c z m 3 m mu L N cn 0 0 cn O I N cn 0 0 CD CD . m o�Q vo�a / N / / I � Cleveland County / 1 ° L� 1c 1� 1 I I F I o� y O c(D CD Gaston County (— 0 � Y;)f; QP p A m I � v l Gaston County Mecklenburg Countyf 50 - A 00 0 Ln N fn N a 1 I I I �I I = I I s m I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 nl� n c I� .. N A �fawbaR� ♦ � � � -' I l , J •.mu�mrem�..y +on+ms a w i►,. is 0 Z Z Z o m 3 a 9 n i m O m Z i 1 C O Z $ O Z 0 n m �► C 1 Z O 1a r A m C m z v cn A Co 0 cn � r r r r r r 3 3 0 3 3 fOp N fOA M H y CCV_vvv CL < •aaac; aaao. COD CL a Z�Zzzz M Z C 3 0D w m• n co r r 3 = CL p) H H 0 0 3 c CL a < < a a 0 0 CL a t rt k m C Q o a�V— V0 ca % o O 00 C a CL 0 m o a 3 rt n rt O 7 !D rt O ID CL m x a P, � N C � m n N CO) CIA D'= -a..mxd 4117/08 Recomm_Seg.mxd 5� � � � - t 1 $. rolL m m 0) W f-F CD �F 0) J PF 4 0 71m rF C• co 1, c r-11` CD N W 3 MIL CD C• CD N 4 CD C• CD cif 00 CD /rf AA�+ CD r1F CD I Z CD �1 im CD LC•] rip. �F C• N N it ©y o c o CD T ci CD m o m � L. .-i m D o CCDD N (n '2 'D 0 BCD a oo 111 x 0 nZ Co o Cr � �0 � � o ,n mm� o c� Z D T N CD aC o C DCCl)M z� a° c �� .Z7 ` � cn c _� a y _ C C C m, o •< w O ,T= CL w CD 1 D o g -1 -Im �� wm ,r bw �Fn =3 M. ��a o o vN <� o � —.T N—xa '-09m- I +I� I +I� 1 fI� 1 =: rn 1 �I C. o!ry fI Rry I � ;tt 1f� 1 O O) %SRry �aOJC siapm0io T O y m m � AI CoC C1 � �T y O S'. flJ o � �uI¢iunoW�EpM N p W V �p O 7�j m ea iA N V,,- 1 A N w oo Shann �. C!) w 'q a. m M w -• \� \\ Rif o. m I W f °5 N A O Q N A UJ is N r � O N O yrf.Ie ep /1*11� /Sl'. SOhOOI �a6 CD a EL Linwood Rd 0 Trenton St < a N ester S 'Y • pr .. nnin Mar' tta St y ;g c y rs co m l 0 D (� N 0 O O R ° c ., /N` 2 -, A V O O rt � w N °. m obinwppdRd I O A) S nN to 0 AN ptp O 0 A c Qt-Armstrong park R, O n ((7 Al P W W�f � t0 N O ° ary! Li o J O W r ° oN at! B ° E"�jESda Rd N ^„j• (D C;l VJ ..fir I = 5 �S�O O h o f W n$ ado" Opt*, 01 o Central 1 I /N� parlr V astop° rg� N O 0 O ° Sa ilson Rd O rn � O N O A \ N O O Cox Rd N A �0 O Rd W � 0 o 0 0 O ,Q O 10 O N O Ce Q, O 7D p2C V � /N� ,O' O N 0 /N® 1 W O ° N� rs O O A JrJJ l Hj V4 /N� -0 vo t/! l C o II ©y < ra o. W `� m 2. a � nmoD° a m-4 N ; -0 0 N O_ CD C 0 O N fD G A n N 3 m° o` m� m in Z Cn ,, a 9' � n D o � m Ei Oc) nrn == to' CD o ate= N�`� m�< zy �� z� n °�� v X N O Z� cfl o O m °c m ,T o �= DM� m� c�.��, co s D 6 -.a � �. m <�m 0c =5 N0 °°�' o mmCA X-4 < a ® _ c^ _7D �(! O Oy F co #a w 1I w wa I S nN to 0 AN ptp O 0 A c Qt-Armstrong park R, O n ((7 Al P W W�f � t0 N O ° ary! Li o J O W r ° oN at! B ° E"�jESda Rd N ^„j• (D C;l VJ ..fir I = 5 �S�O O h o f W n$ ado" Opt*, 01 o Central 1 I /N� parlr V astop° rg� N O 0 O ° Sa ilson Rd O rn � O N O A \ N O O Cox Rd N A �0 O Rd W � 0 o 0 0 O ,Q O 10 O N O Ce Q, O 7D p2C V � /N� ,O' O N 0 /N® 1 W O ° N� rs O O A JrJJ l Hj V4 /N� -0 vo t/! l C o II ©y < ra o. W `� m 2. a � nmoD° a m-4 N ; -0 0 N O_ CD C 0 O N fD G A n N 3 m° o` m� m in Z Cn ,, a 9' � n D o � m Ei Oc) nrn == to' CD o ate= N�`� m�< zy �� z� n °�� v X N O Z� cfl o O m °c m ,T o �= DM� m� c�.��, co s D 6 -.a � �. m <�m 0c =5 N0 °°�' o mmCA X-4 < a ^„j• (D C;l VJ ..fir I = 5 �S�O O h o f W n$ ado" Opt*, 01 o Central 1 I /N� parlr V astop° rg� N O 0 O ° Sa ilson Rd O rn � O N O A \ N O O Cox Rd N A �0 O Rd W � 0 o 0 0 O ,Q O 10 O N O Ce Q, O 7D p2C V � /N� ,O' O N 0 /N® 1 W O ° N� rs O O A JrJJ l Hj V4 /N� -0 vo t/! l C o II ©y < ra o. W `� m 2. a � nmoD° a m-4 N ; -0 0 N O_ CD C 0 O N fD G A n N 3 m° o` m� m in Z Cn ,, a 9' � n D o � m Ei Oc) nrn == to' CD o ate= N�`� m�< zy �� z� n °�� v X N O Z� cfl o O m °c m ,T o �= DM� m� c�.��, co s D 6 -.a � �. m <�m 0c =5 N0 °°�' o mmCA X-4 < a N O Ce Q, O 7D p2C V � /N� ,O' O N 0 /N® 1 W O ° N� rs O O A JrJJ l Hj V4 /N� -0 vo t/! l C o II ©y < ra o. W `� m 2. a � nmoD° a m-4 N ; -0 0 N O_ CD C 0 O N fD G A n N 3 m° o` m� m in Z Cn ,, a 9' � n D o � m Ei Oc) nrn == to' CD o ate= N�`� m�< zy �� z� n °�� v X N O Z� cfl o O m °c m ,T o �= DM� m� c�.��, co s D 6 -.a � �. m <�m 0c =5 N0 °°�' o mmCA X-4 < a /N� -0 vo t/! l C o II ©y < ra o. W `� m 2. a � nmoD° a m-4 N ; -0 0 N O_ CD C 0 O N fD G A n N 3 m° o` m� m in Z Cn ,, a 9' � n D o � m Ei Oc) nrn == to' CD o ate= N�`� m�< zy �� z� n °�� v X N O Z� cfl o O m °c m ,T o �= DM� m� c�.��, co s D 6 -.a � �. m <�m 0c =5 N0 °°�' o mmCA X-4 < a o "I w �3 o3P zw iz9 o m m n -R IE In M D Z�0 C oc o E7 = W 0 C + r m z \ 0 r O C CL � 3 0 0 �o m _ �a 3 N 3 0 0 rI < a m 0 3 fa C W rt O I O cm 0 IL C IN Z z N mo O a 0 z y y I 3 a O � C) m O m z z CO CO) — 3 3 " �a 70 -1 O m '-' m z C m m N m N 01) / 0 1 — , Cleveland County_ / - - Gaston County I R, CL CD M� N F 0 a CD CD I I I I� o I� oI:3 �<'c CnI� Iz 0 `< I I O O I :� co I PONIL Y♦ 1, 3 0 00 401 w Gaston] 0#0 — Mecklenburg County N GI N z 3 v d 6- BuaRauiea VGl •1- _ a a� z Z 0 Co c ZcfN 2i I as = m aao fD mom D Xm- C mWZ ZOo O 00oc .r aZw 0Zw rnw 00 � 0-1 c0 z 40 ■6f m Z O ] N O_ C O O F rD rD 2 !D CD O S, v a o BOO ° 3'C z D m < O 1 D p v O a Z O v o rD r3D a c o N m 3 O p 3 D m n io a rD o_ - o � � a A � a F o fD X D I�!r 0 to v1 f'1 2 � < S ID 7 O 0 O O `G A co, O N r m 3 A N d Z O_ j 3 O S O p �. D O .�•r O c ° m 0 O al 02 d O y 0 ao rD3 � Z 3 m 3 m rD m Q O rD rD d d Q rD M N O ID w O 7 N d O G M K DD v C D O= rD m O N 4 3 G m K rn D1 rD m OrD 2 d r a O 3 o L1 Dr a_lD r C a r D'D o ;r 7 G r — r O ID F D D 7 aC a c m � Im D ma a m a �' c m5 > M I o o m o 9.0-2 x rp C2m�n Onnp o X m N d rD o D z a' o C) .o' '� o ca c o C G? p o m cn ^Z YI � C rn z Gl Im D ma a an 0 �-a a �' c m5 > M I o o m o 9.0-2 asd m' a rp C2m�n Onnp o X m N d rD o D 3 a' o a a .o' '� o o• ., a F o o G? p o C o N 0 Gl m p ID a 0 �sd W �N �N�� 222N Ln ' m a m m <„ ^•r rD p M QD -p S p �. n N droo 0�� D a :D>; : ;: a <m �,rb� -ate 0 $o a$ $ �0 N v D w a a D ue �crM P,�ikR U. r +a c� a w iv a 0 cn ccc Z 3 Ian-, Z. 7 9 XQ m 3m° D y nin 7CCli S =Z0 m �. w O c Z }' D M m cn cn cn cn Z r« O 't 5 O dM aim v n G =r C o' x >> Do m A e v O D O n co O (a =7 a O - = O. CA c° r 3 o, � w � 6 0; 1:2 ^• °D v 0 m a z m 3 0 a r m 3 CL D A 0 9 A Z O v � m o I1©♦ m n C D CL r- ra m 0 0 N A CL w to M o' c Z : : : �r •r Q � 00 •.. i Q• c O • i Q o�O��O ♦i C�aO o�oao0 CD i 2 DD n m o rn 3 ' o 2) 7C co ri i O .n F CL CD • i i : i O 0) D ' C 3 ' o CA ' G 3 o N _ - U) IA ..• A O �•�, n @ �LdyA. C cn oo� a C ?� �J CD 3 CA O ! 1, C m 0 00 X= M> vr, 00 X �m mD n mm XD X� m� v r z cn m X N � c X m -1 m 3 c Z : : : �r •r Q � 00 •.. i Q• c O • i Q o�O��O ♦i C�aO o�oao0 CD i 2 DD n m o rn 3 ' o 2) 7C co ri i O .n F CL CD • i i : i O 0) D ' C 3 ' o CA ' G 3 o N _ - U) IA ..• A O �•�, n @ �LdyA. C cn oo� a C ?� �J CD 3 CA O ! 1, nwwow6B]) 10 B6.epr 11 /1Bt: YI a w CA fll 3 / tD 7 a o 9 O1 tb m :z = 11 g tr Cleveland_ County / m o Orf 3 _ — _ Gaston County 3 nom 7C' - m m� (A C O, C to to a la x w z IL co to Z i 0 c w m m m wrk.X. m' N `1 70 0' O A W to tQ . to .W N m Z a rr a �o F CD ccn m C z z co c �° < n m t C 3 O 0 601 C C C 3 CL m m x CL 0 m O � w m o' 3 a d N CA fll 3 ep 3 tD 7 O1 tb m d 11 11 11 Orf 3 3 °< m m� O, C O, C to to a la x y IL co to w a w m m m wrk.X. m' N `1 70 0' y A A W to tQ . to .W n m t C 3 O 0 601 C C C 3 CL m m x CL 0 m O � w m o' 3 a d N fll 3 ep 3 tD 7 O1 tb m 11 11 11 °< m m� m o = a la x y IL co Z C rA r w m' N `1 70 0' y A v W n � m Z � y a �o F ccn m C N z c �° < n, m rmrnpB s_n oe..p Hires a �o 0 Zen, z Z U r m r Z Z C C O C 3. O C Z w O C1 m W �► C -4 1m m z v Q) a rr CL 3 01 y Q Q C Q O Q M A A CD X X A O M to to (Q /z� C n �. •• ai r► O O. M A fp A 3 Q Q �o y m � o IL = � o 3 a Q d CO d � 3 p► y O N + _ L% d N � 3 C 3 m 9 Cm m < C Q x �0 w y m _ m O Q y c� C a y r n 4 M Z 70 �z _a C pMEN m c + m Co Cleveland County on County rn M Z I 4 m L O ,!�v op I (DD ou N o p M it w.) CID v Co 01 CD �� 0 � ID 0 1 Np Wp Np N I � wW �� Ap I b O p N 'Po e V I ,m Wp N p �M T W O �p O — 9: i5 30, Qb * Typed Rd W * m m A N y NAA ' O IG) qr Q r NRd N . Trenton ' Y NA �_ �m ABM I cn 9� O W A 3 C D JCA ert O p N m / N 0 i 'o a 3 a O V cn t< IC: n O _ (A 1 ^� 'O 3 b St n`` d of 3 e . V N p p Aar w m UTA OA V N NJ I 00 Mrutr°n9 Par. X N a , °CD O I� W V 1 0. C _, O D /�• I Yi Ime" _ CO o p �t I G) i > CO o fU (D I IN CL Lrl;o O �e�e7 \ >a o�a��oS p W V Nom N �p G A O N v ow w� O Gaston to J Mecklenburg County NA Co,� *44. ` rnp �I �I Ln 3 000 O A � o __ Ln N CT N a z z z 9 o m T 3 3 w p m 1 M 1 z ._ n c Coc o mo=w Cm z m m w � m z v CD Qf A O d r � A O O 3 w osXX A o 3 3 '� to fA Cc z c Cf y o Q. PIP, 3� r 3 � O 3 N 0w0 0 ° w CL IL d n, w 1 p a a 3 C ca O e v u 3 to A sa 70 3 3 O vii m c •+ o o 0c H co CL = 10 O w► Z " m ,) - f a w c 0 v N U) H N CO Z m c 70 m 22 a 0 _ U 4C m m — C" CD 1' Cleveland_ County ' Gaston County w z ��- _co n o C I 0 0 0 I 1 I I� I I I I o IG� X- I �, o I� � In nl� I I I I I I oo v 1 Cl) I � I Q (D O .IJ r s m W A � � s —� 0 d �o 0 o� 1R,o e-,So eQrt, OS 0110 va }0 A _ 1 Gaston ` Mecklenburg County 70 N �m \ W p N A 47p AA U7 N U T S _ N A R C', N �`ybd S m m m m m m m m m � m m � m m m m m a fA i os zirn ioz:; C m -0 3 n M M D 00o �_ o C 4 z :! m r m m a � m z v 2� a m d 'a as m m 3 k x o 0 N3 Q I0 z X C IV fp C z o = 3 3 .* O .� Z p O O o o C or r O O 1p 3 1p q a H 3 ? � .•, to H m CO O A m a d OM V 2. o' c a w o� v 3 N > IN o d l7 z C 3 Co A CD d eCr O fD fD 41 C ,* 3 o C' 3 41 d H O n CA s3 — c o. 3 C °D � O 9 A C CL m 1 O — CL Im 'a c 4 a O 33 v CO F - n a n m m C z m O C ao m CD I7CD I o I o eo I II C I CA COD CD I I rftftft, Z Cleveland_ County _ -'Gaston Count — —� � p CD Mp s a3c� 'a 0 3. e� e� eQtr C4 It. sr � p F S CTi A � °wOptl Rd Q-a W _ n Y T A Rd N Trenton 2 �e7 � >e � o4a���s A 0 ■� 1 Gaston — Mecklenburg County/' I, _ n 3 St PIL 0 Z, rr N 0 a tr N ^•a lark Rd A . C�— N A 3 l�M t ,� C) d I _ O A o IG) N O I ? �a � In �Ic° nl`G I I I I I Q I eNj I 0■ % I� = ` VJ I I Cleveland_ County _ -'Gaston Count — —� � p CD Mp s a3c� 'a 0 3. e� e� eQtr C4 It. sr � p F S CTi A � °wOptl Rd Q-a W _ n Y T A Rd N Trenton 2 �e7 � >e � o4a���s A 0 ■� 1 Gaston — Mecklenburg County/' I, _ n 3 St PIL 0 Z, rr N 0 a tr N ^•a lark Rd A . C�— N A 3 l�M t ,� C) d nawll913 _'- t9- Ofi.ePr it +INB) Y/ Ap w i 0 0, Z -4 = 0 31, o m .0 3 C 10- m n rp � mCi D � �o f+ = w 0 C .4 + �: I H m v m z v 2 1 a r r .. d 0 � !p O S1 � .yip H 3 3 � � m �3 3 Q -0 z P* Z O = 3 O 0 C O O CO 'Q a ? O r C4 d A = 1 ca 10 In 0 z ai z o °' o QN13 M o' M. aa� °° w O v 3 14 a 0 z C n fA CL C O O p O IP O O. C C 0 ID fp m C CL 0 m 2 cc a � m rA 0 R ca S d 0 0� ci C m s 11 Z �y a IL 0 c o ao IN ah O. 0 m 'p d '9 a m 0 CL 'gym 0 o m Z p� M m 0 o Cn C m = 3 y m N ZCi W w = Co / cn CD r Cleveland_ County Gaston County — -� L - Z O \ /D ; N F alou W 3 C) �A -n rn p CD I O o IG) cn OIL p t< I O Cn nl`G I I I I 1 to v 0 I � I � � ♦D♦ �i El— 1 W A O W a � Yolk. N 3 m O T p A �n !O 3. � d d 0� �P 4 .00 oS o o¢��Aa � Gaston — Mecklenburg County f to : _. F O %V Et') N V O A N L Qom. - �rmi I--'""e rack ity 1 X.. o as i x v N Z CD r O A O � W N N X 3 4 v d I--'""e rack ity 1 X.. o as i x v N Z CD r O A O � W N N X 3 4 v d a..eoa_—.m.e nmiw a a 3 O '0 72 3 O F M co O o Z Z m C7 Q S c O c Z n m N `� o � c -I z o 4 a M r m a m z v oZi o Z e a ? C 0 3 0 o ° w ° c ° e Z y a O y � O v N {9 r► M II ❑ U1 - y 0 p� •* C S d d O1 O' C d fop O S ° n 3 CL 3 o w m W o w 3 � r to 2 co d o c 3 O O O O C O W C C "* C O � 00 r (12 M � W � UI O N °� IOC — 3 cc M. 0 a 0 O a c os 0 c 0 Co o a e M CL 0 m o 0 .o w o' o CL A < t 1� 9 H G Da 3 m � O z s a �o w m 0 cc m �o m on y m m m z v a M O m M m y m N Z � cr to = s Iplhotl ,—Ill ll@ s z 8 co -1 i o z z 9 C1 111 (D O r -OI a z Z z O r> t! S O C 0 ° z w 2. Z 111 `C O Cf c -1 z O -1 70 w r m a m z v m o Z e a •* s o ° a m O c Pill m fR O 3 IL {O� q'► q fP � O _ Co a 2 o q ci 0 3. A IA II O CA -4 W C1 VOL m Q c °y 0 n 3 � s � qy. 3 q a O q 0*, fD 7 3 r a q 2 m q O fA 2 0 -1 C 2 F Co .+ 9 a c o C O O O w c c c "* m 0 . s O q q y q m co 2 In ca 1 w y a 9 O ° M c s °D (D e 11 o a to oa M a eD 3 C) m ° o IL 3 3 y a 3 m A a q z 3 a a o m O o� 70 m �o m an m m m m z Cy a m a z 0 w M m y N Z °c n y Z a o � ao:j c. o A m A o M Co =moo s m N O C� � c a �x m m m Z v ❑ D F„ m o o -0 0 - O 3 y O O. d m Of H N �O fA tll �n O �► O O = H H 0 O N w 3 � O � o a Co �. c to c 0 CL ❑ > w c s M m c c O w a O 0 3 w c �1p ' � m 9 o w w c r � � c m n cc o 01 O 7 O ' , O `r 0 .0 d a 3. c m m o CO *H W N o c ID Z 0. M C IA m :1 .0 O O c 7 Oo O a to 11 d a o to a c 3 to � 3 � O 0° 0 a + 3 a N o a C1 IN m 3 d Z a a o c m O 00 m �o m 41 CO) m m m Z Cl A M O m m v y � m m N z � IL _ a a Z 3 3 � O 7C � `m A Z z => c O c f! Z w O A pi c -1 z O 1 m w r m Q m Z v o m o z cNi o a IN w ul W! 1p n = N d O W � 7 O Oa N t'1 O w 3. n .r w II ❑ Of m I1 Q c n 3 s d pl� INC Z 0 7 C � O O O O -9 0 c c c 'ul� r m w a "Inc m w w a o a ., m - a o a 0 C :L c C a a a m 3 d ci OY CL A < �• + J m 9 7 3 cn IL m 3 CL 'i' Z a =0 Ct m o m m CO) m m m Z v a a z o c m _ m 3 to N z C �° m = Im m_ m m m m m m m m m m m m _ m a I '' a ow zi - W) zip 3 m i I m � =iz a= m o` Wiz` aZ p m a cCl* � 4 a m rn r m a m z It ch lay ao m m m =o � E � c a m n c s d m m to m s • o ff � C pl 7 y d d P N � y = y F- a � N � m C �a ao m Z T r aW za A Z r z z a m go m 3 3 W zO Uul C) 0 0 CD z O m 0 M r 3 z Li z 3 M z y N C m L m 1 O n 2 m m _ _ Cleveland County f ) Gaston County _ — i - Op N � r � rn 2 I � w � N ODp�� l'olu fit O p NA O � .r r T, - - crt m T T . —..,_� • - �t T� .w.ru. VIA ( >._ � W j, W rn ��. �� 1 r �.'r; i - Y � ice. •r� � L ?,. _ / �.o� Opp' ��/ }' r /r� M CL d ' - 00 O �• 1 �. _ "� ii- _ 1 _ tlTp �UUI O a CD ✓ � �– .p jib r �V Gaston Ch. j I- } "'Me en g Coun �. Ln tip d N•p � r r r \ I a�s y Z 0 � a Z ° m 9 A 3 y 0 CmY 4 I`il n r m -1 Ia M N Z fp Z 0. a = X Z . S r. W 0 n N) 0 C r� z 0 K m N r N � .1 O p N m N O OD V* ca o T 0 0 0 0 3 C O C Q a1 n M 61 e� O O r 3 m rA � �O mn zn aD X aq + -4 c 40 m �3 j T z 0 i i 0 � z a m h7 3 3 N w fD M W A O 3 3 n m a n � x rD � Q a N o 0 0 0 c m m 0 3 r rD c a3 N S�c o o CD ° 3 _M m o N C ° CL 0 o a o 3 a ° o = a -o o `" W F a n v, N O aN C V p d A rD N 7J �. „ � n O :r 3 W a ,o m z 0 W a D 1 I I i 3 3 vC oD yep 3 3 N o0 O_ N j O O z< m -n��o °�°O m 'mo -n - *o °0°» Rama O 3 3 Tama O 0 �• > s��aC - 3 3 >> a� ID c a -aag�o N a -arD o 'D o ' N 0 ° o 0 -m :D w 00 o o g� =� - � - <C7 n fD I° n� � 3-- a o D° � r O F C m n a 0 o, 3 O° C) T O 3 c o. n< 3 c D R o ° m i x 0 0 oS m o m D 7 77 O �: -, O_ O O Co O ;: a 0 a O s° - a a m ° - 3 CL ° p 0 oD do 3 ° p o a � x X N -° N F X N N N O N ° < - V Dr N � � 7 Dr N < <' O � a a0, 3ZZ0 �? M �9 xa� A i -. o C Z O i N 0 C Z Z -10 y O C) -»oo 3m N C rt .r rr O O O O O O -b pp < C jV p o c 3 fD ro O n Df V Ot n w m O� O r C 3 m O n ND 0 � mD Zn O �+ a C NO m Qo a .a Ul T N 2) y c� 0D , Dy 0 y0 O Z zm� D y o 3 O z mC- rn rD o z zZ0 �? m o T '. 0 0 T 0m X C z m co z m r O n O z a m �o z m T n a r n m O N � N O N c m m�i -► o z O s y n a F --a w W ,1 �J / `^ cn ' q� V / w CD CD CD m 0 w V Z ic n ytax CD > r - 3 - -- �.' Z m X o p 177 z O z rn O w Z3 CD T c� cn .N�. w rn -o ch u Q CD T _ < N Q � U 0 CD - 'iTa•�iiwa sw3y_'RRf27t�xe iina�� - - - - - m Z r m 0 0 n cn i C _� Z C o z a� r vmo a 0 �= o Z 0 . CL y c Z -4 * a c W Z .yr 0 C CL e: m 3 M 3 ' r 0 m 0 a 3 m z O. y v m Z r m 0 0 n cn C o z a� r 0 o v o Z c fp H . CL y c o OO * a - W a .yr 0 C CL 3 M 3 ' .Ni = CL 0 f�DD n m 0 D 3 , o CD O. y = a Z o .t �� y C 3 N CL m , 01 m Z r m 0 0 n cn C o z a� r � � m m m y m zo < y a m C IU p - Z a m 3 M ; ' 0 0 r 0 3 3 V O. y � v+ Z ( .t y N 01 N m Z r m 0 0 n cn / Z /0 m o m cn C_le_veland County / z I ��— O f Gaston County�- r A� z �cn 0 I —N s 19 41-T _ l Q � m -I 3 (\ l E D�ci - -- a � 3 �C/) v 04 ��^^ f� .. IV V J� � � CA LO Al UV 1 � 3 m d / ���1,_�!4 � 3• �.3 too ` a 0o D s' 4c• job o Zp a2.ton c-- , Me o Ig ntk_ �`--- - - -.V, enbUr r F. D 5 O n a _ °c v o to ma y obi � C o z a� r � � m m m y m zo < y a m / Z /0 m o m cn C_le_veland County / z I ��— O f Gaston County�- r A� z �cn 0 I —N s 19 41-T _ l Q � m -I 3 (\ l E D�ci - -- a � 3 �C/) v 04 ��^^ f� .. IV V J� � � CA LO Al UV 1 � 3 m d / ���1,_�!4 � 3• �.3 too ` a 0o D s' 4c• job o Zp a2.ton c-- , Me o Ig ntk_ �`--- - - -.V, enbUr r F. D 5 O n a _ °c v o to ma y obi � 1B_Padm_mr —a graiY_gonp 0 rw.epr (11/3N6) 0 , O i ^�^ z i c m S- � m m -z' Z -z >z P c m O c Z c,=w o one �+ z0 4m m H r m C) m z v 1 all b m m ° �. ♦ GI m m n F a ^> > °. C r-^ rA m " m u mn a N + O s r O w V! • IV G s Imf cc m y, ,n c - to m N c m »a Ta c ° F• o N m F ° � � H n ° m � m yl ° m a c o O w y p 7 a � N N CD N N O k C H N to 'C C1 e cmi x N a n 3 a O � m ID ,p CO) G a a 0 m 3 M N X r 3 O O CO) m c �p 3 m m z ao � Q y e1101 o � Sm C) O n N � O N c� d 9 � f4 �w ' �J cn 19,16 -((Al 9 S .. Q 1 "7� a fieA 8ethegad lD m f n m f 4 W D rL Ca / S 1y 20 J /toll do a i �o -n n 9 INS G)m N �,I ® J I ®I p�v90Ne -�� -� - a .. c., - ' f i df Z _ m ' _ I � �. 00 Moores ChaPef do a i �o -n n 9 INS G)m N �,I ® J I ®I p�v90Ne -�� -� - a .. c., - ' f i df Z _ m ' _ I � idm �. a 0 a Z Z Z ; = T o m 3� 3w0 i3 �m1 fD m N! - W Q C O C S Z 0 m pi D O Z O :! m m r m a m z v m q,4 b e L m ID m a m c 3 p H G H c C O N CL , R F m o e O m C m a o y� N Q c t N 3 _ � m m m a N N 1 m m N r 3 z O v O m y c � � 3 m Z 2 y �i 0 uCD 0 O O I T CD CD i I \� �OD pa In �o Z 0 m m m r 3 Z 0 O M A O O M c C W - - -- 0 0 Z 0 / Cleveland Count T_ _ _ � - - -- ;�da�tonCounty 1911 f%%� —./ �. skv ' 1so 0 O �1 • �r�1 5c m F 1 r' ! d/ Rd vai O c a � o a .t a m 3c F n '° CL c m CL O ILI m n m 0 2 Z 3 z m i Z r my'o 7 1 n m I z < r m -1 Z 1 2 n 0 W l7 G1 2 w - O A fl m Pi O ff CO) Z O 00 m - 1 m r X m N� H m i ° m m ° 0 Z' Z 3 s y 4 o i 0 < O O N g R ; y a o 3 m p A " m 3 m° N y s n m N ono a .t a m 3c F n '° CL c m CL m a M1 �;� C3 �- '" 0 � � cx w Vn N m m n m 0 O 3 z 4 o i 0 < O O N g R ; y a o 3 m p A " m 3 m° N y s n m N m y O 3 Z a 0 00 ja X N� CO) c m Z 0 0 3 y C Z ,n s m m m m _O) m -� m Zv 0 e a n m 4 o i 0 < O O N g R ; y a o 3 m p A " m 3 m° N y s n m N m 3 Z a 0 00 ja X -n CO) c m Z 0 0 3 M Z tin m m _O) m -� Zv 0 0 O yp Z Z z i 30 O go 0 0 m i �iz 0 0 c Z , z gypm; C y `� Z O �Z r m m z v � Izfb a•°c 3 3 � n a t A o 0 o c m °+ n 0 e •a o 0 n n o ] a ? p ] H O o n w N � N N a 9010 o 0 3 m n s 0 a t N n o v m o m a a a o X N T a N 3 N a 3a N ] CO) bl O O O` S n o o N N O Z a 3 a N m r 3 z a 0 00 "m c z 0 3 n m Z z N r m c ya m -z ML � m zv 2a F�nclianal Design rev mxd1 1106 a ,� D Z C =9 3 ; LN m�� �r ID . -. m cZ =�O S. � N � 7x0 m rA r m m Z v IIIIt 3 s vci S m R O O N O ''* O IO - .01► C III fA H U, D) m N � 1 'e � 0 2 fD O 3 m CL H o 3 CL .�. L4 rD y C m_ 3 = M Q w IMD CL = _ °' o 3 H § a CL _ CD •'► G 0- OW :D 3 1 c n. = O K a n o 7F = o m 3 o D a � o �p N � m 3 'm p� A 1� m N f m F. n m A D O F O d 3 W Ia y d O N fD 3 , 3 o K m N c IA y �. CD N z Z r /mm 3 z m p C � m p o co Z m 93 °o m "1 = o I D O � � ? O Z m -n lD (D Cleveland County County MMMIML M s r, O 00 �_ co C �r is _ s r j I I F if ._ � eryK I f 1�r7 i R 47 �C # C:t 4 y S �+ \ f4 "' r CL 3 f Ili T w iMi CL O1 2� j 3 (D fD 8A `ate s , t-6 Q V y " - eokf a � o o D 2 Z 3 m D m y i I" o O o c �+Zw n m w '< c0 4 a M w r m m z v D co 0 m m i'D o fD of IL 0 Dt W a H a. m �* U2 o. a c ; 3 c 3 f� N cn o' a � O O fp 0 _ 2. C d a * O. CL 00 a H C 54 p ca w 6 w a C cn 0a 0. a m W 3C w .°* a m C y _ I% Im :JZ v+ '0 v o �* m O O Z C CL m CL H � k O 0 N = N a na� v z y O z = z a O m m N p a m 0 z = O v U) �7i C O� nO m z on i F M v m r y N z N z Z 0 m 4 Ln _ _ C_le_vela_nd_C_ounty n Count ° I -�0 ` su o CD �� �� � m Ln o v � z m OG) A- C/) O �o c :3 CD J r s / / / 1 � E fb 03 ti N aLL •'ter' �- I u A. "- - r s / / / 1 � E s � N _ �`✓ N aLL •'ter' �- �s �6 `x t rn 4�, t 3 J CO) V 1 3 J Ai J �✓ n a� v�eckleribur9' ' - C., � E s � N _ �`✓ 1 aLL u A. "- - `x t rn 4�, t 3 J CO) V 1 3 J Ai J �✓ n a� v�eckleribur9' ' - C., APPENDICES Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 Appendix A ' A -1 NEPA /404 Merger Team Concurrence ' Forms A -2 Scoping Letter A -3 Notice of Intent 1 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 Appendix A -1 NEPA /404 Merger Team Concurrence Forms I Addendum to the Final Altematives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement Concurrence Point No I - Purpose and Need ' Prr lect iNo /TIP Nr} f°at��e�l�ci,ct tpttratt Federal Project Nurnbtr S t P' 121 of) State PrOleet N'ttnlber F 2812101 ' 11P Number l t a321 Des(.nptiori Gaston fast West Corridor Stud an Ga ,,ton and Mecklenburg Counties �'ttr�eas� �t1d l�te�ci �� Prc�pcasr r� f'ro ��� 1lhL puapose ,,)ftile proposed action into impro %e east- �%esttrdn,,portitton mobtlati in the area around the City ofGastonia taemeen CiaMonta and tilt Charlotte metropolitan area in general and parts k larl3 to esttahlt-,h duec,t ai-cc�s licxu"n the rapid]) grot�tng area of sou&,I�,t (J-LStora Cotarity and -,,%est MeL lenbur- County This project purpose is based ran the folloN� ink • Need to improve mobility -icccss And tcnnt-ctivtt) %kJthtn gouthert,GistOn Count,� and 170-WLn souther n C.,ston C aunty and Mecklenburg County • Deed to r, -duce congetitmn -and impiove tr 1flic tluea the scctlons of 185 Us 29 -74 and U, .)21 to the projcc,t stitd� trLd irnprrai e high -speed safe regional tr 'I� c l serr tc,e along the US 29 -74 tthtra AWL corridor and generally improve saf~e(� and rtduLe aho% L iN era ,,e seci€ient rates to the stud) area 1 l% project studN area comists of tlhi, [a] ION. M a Ieneiif bound -te,, 1 -85 to [lie north the South Carolina �atate fine to tfi �c utfa tfie C lh rlOttL T OULT as 1ntt� th tmtar :,al Airport to the east and ttit� 1 -85 grid US 29 74junL(1rhri t,,a tlhe %Ie�t Ilie Project Tern cs nLUTIed on this crate cal �� t 16Z Nuth the put pose of and need for the proposed pi ofect as Mated aboi e CAS CE ,.A ' V !- l r , -c p USF N( DW 4L4"911 Oam —`1 . G)-a4 NCWRf ofl w � Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Review Board Agreement Partial Concurrence Point No 2 — Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward For Further Study Project No /TIP No /Name/Description Federal Project Number STP 1213(6) State Project Number 8 2812501 TIP Number U 3321 WBS Number 349221 1 Description Gaston County East West Connector Study Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward None of the following alternatives will be carried forward for detailed study since the data shows that none of these non new location alternatives meet the project Purpose and Need as agreed to by the merger team July 2002 1 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative(s) 2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative(s) 3 The Mass Transit Alternative(s) 4 Multi Modal Alternative(s) 5 Improve Existing Roadways Alternative(s) • Scenario 2 — Improve 185 to 8 lanes • Scenario 3 — Improve US 29 74 to 6 lanes • Scenario 4 — Improve 185 to 8 lanes and US 29-74 to 6 lanes • Scenario 4+ Improve 185 to 8 lanes and US 29 74 to 6 lanes with TSM type measures • Scenario 4a — Scenario 4+ but improve existing i 85 to 8 10 lanes Also provide capacity increases on several road segments that connect 185 and US 29 74 • Scenario 8 Scenario 4a plus capacity improvements to north /south feeder roads The Merger Team Review Board concurred on this date of with not carrying forward non -new location alternatives for the proposed project as listed above USACE NCD c NCDENR FHWA� Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Review Board Agreement Partial Concurrence Point No 2 -- Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward For Further Study Project No /TIP No /Name/Description Federal Project Number STP 1213(6) State Project Number 8 2812501 TIP Number U 3321 WBS Number 349221 1 Description Gaston County East -West Connector Study Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward None of the following alternatives will be carried forward for detailed study since the data shows that none of these non new location alternatives meet the project Purpose and Need as agreed to by the merger team July 2002 I Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative(s) 2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative(s) 3 The Mass Transit Alternative(s) 4 Multi Modal Alternative(s) 5 Improve Existing Roadways Alternative(s) • Scenario 2 — Improve 185 to 8 lanes • Scenario 3 — Improve US 29 74 to 6 lanes • Scenario 4 — Improve 185 to 8 lanes and US 29-74 to 6 lanes • Scenano 4+ Improve 185 to 8 lanes and US 29 74 to 6 lanes with TSM type measures • Scenario 4a — Scenario 4+ but Improve existing 185 to 8 10 lanes Also provide capacity increases on several road segments that connect 185 and US 29 74 • Scenario 8 Scenano 4a plus capacity Improvements to north /south feeder roads The Merger Team Review Board concurred on this date of with not carrying forward non -new location alternatives for the proposed project as listed above USACE NCDOT NCDENR pHWZ1 Q�Q, iQS�(�j.L Section 444/NEPA Merger Team Review Board Agreement Partial Concurrence Point No 2 — Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward For Further Study Project No /TIP No /Name/Description Federal Project Number STP 1213(6) State Project Number 8 2812501 TIP Number U 3321 WBS Number 349221 1 Description Gaston County East West Connector Study Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward None of the following alternatives will be carried forward for detailed study since the data shows that none of these non new location alternatives meet the project Purpose and Need as agreed to by the merger team July 2002 1 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative(s) 2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative(s) 3 The Mass Transit Alternative(s) 4 Multi Modal Alternative(s) 5 Improve Existing Roadways Alternative(s) • Scenario 2 — Improve 185 to 8 lanes • Scenario 3 — Improve US 29 74 to 6 lanes • Scenario 4 — Improve 185 to 8 lanes and US 29-74 to 6 lanes • Scenario 4+ Improve 185 to 8 lanes and US 29 74 to 6 lanes with TSM type measures • Scenario 4a — Scenario 4+ but improve existing 185 to 8 10 lanes Also provide capacity increases on several road segments that connect 185 and US 29 74 • Scenario 8 Scenario 4a plus capacity improvements to north /south feeder roads The Merger Team Review Board concurred on this date of with not carrying forward non -new location alternatives for the proposed project as listed above USACE NCDOT Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Review Board Agreement Partial Concurrence Point No 2 -- Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward For Further Study Project No /TIP No /Name/Description Federal Project Number STP 1213(6) State Project Number 8 2812501 ' TIP Number U 3321 WBS Number 349221 1 Description Gaston County East West Connector Study Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward None of the following alternatives will be carried forward for detailed study wee -tie data shows Otat nefte of these neft new leea+teft alten%tiveg meet the p"eet Pufpese aftd I Transportation System Management (TSM) Altemative(s) 2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative(s) 3 The Mass Transit Alternatives) 4 Multi Modal Alternative(s) 5 Improve Existing Roadways Alternative(s) • Scenario 2 — Improve 185 to 8 lanes • Scenano 3 — Improve US 29 74 to 6 lanes • Scenario 4 — Improve 185 to 8 lanes and US 29 74 to 6 lanes • Scenario 4+ Improve 185 to 8 lanes and US 29 74 to 6 lanes with TSM type measures • Scenario 4a — Scenario 4+ but improve existing 185 to 8 10 lanes Also provide capacity increases on several road segments that connect 185 and US 29 74 • Scenario 8 Scenario 4a plus capacity improvements to north /south feeder roads The Merger Team Review Board concurred on this date of with not carrying forward non -new location alternatives for the proposed project as listed above �K USACE4 NCDENR NCDOT FHWA DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS PO BOX 1890 WILMINGTON NC 28402 1890 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT Clanficahon of Partial Concurrence Point 2 for Gaston County East West Connector Study 1 As I have stated previously, I do not believe that the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative fails to meet the protect purpose and need, specifically improvements to 185, US 29 74, and various combinations of improvements to these roads However based upon anticipated environmental impacts and engineering issues associated with this alternative, supported by the Review Board Summary of the Evaluation of Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives dated 10 June 2005, I do agree that the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative is not a reasonable alternative for the project Accordingly I concur with elimination of this alternative from further consideration 2 Please note that the environmental documentation for the project should include the Review Board Summary of the Evaluation of Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives dated 10 June 2005, as well as a summary of the elevation decision for Partial Concurrence Point 2 (� � /Z—,, '"- S KENNETH JOLLY Chief, Regulatory Division Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement Concurrence Point No 2 — Detailed Study Alternatives Proiect No /TIP No /Name/Description Federal Project Number STP 1213(6) State Project Number 8 2812501 TIP Number U -3321 Description Gaston East -West Connector Study in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study Non New Location Alternatives None to be carved forward for detailed study in accordance with NEPA/404 Merger Process Review Board Decision (see separate signed partial Concurrence Point #2 forms for non new location alternatives from July 2005) New Location Alternatives Alt # H Segments J Segments K Segments 4 H2A H3 74a Job J2c J2d J5a 15b K2A KXl K313 K3C 5 H2A H3 Ma J2b J2c J2d JX4 Ile Jlf K1A K1B K1C K4A 6 112A H3 J4a J2b J2c J2d JX4 Ile Jlf K1A K1B KIC KID 9 112A H3 J4a J2b J2c J2d JX4 Ile Jlf K1A K3A K3B K3C 22 112A 112B H2C J3 J2c J2d J5a J5b K2A KX1 K3B K3C 23 H2A 112B H2C J3 J2c J2d JX4 -Jle Jlf K1A K113 K1C K4A 24 112A H2B H2C J3 J2c J2d JX4 Ile Jlf K1A K1B K1C KID 27 112A 112B 112C J3 J2c J2d JX4 -JIe Jlf K1A K3A K3B K3C 58 H1A H1B H1C Jla JXl 12d J5a J5b K2A KX1 K313 K3C 64 H1A H1B H1C Ila Jib Ile Jld Ile Ilf K1A K1B K1C K4A 65 H1A HIB H1C Ila Jib Jlc Jld Ile Jlf K1A K1B K1C KID 68 H1A H1B H1C Jla Jib Jlc Jld Ile Ilf K1A K3A K3B K3C 76 H1A HX2 J2a J2b J2c J2d J5a 15b K2A KX1 K3B K3C 77 H1A HX2 J2a J2b J2c J2d JX4 Ile Jlf K1A K1B K1C K4A 78 111A HX2 12a J2b J2c J2d JX4 Ile Jlf K1A K1B K1C KID 81 H1A HX2 J2a J2b J2c J2d JX4 Ile Jlf K1A K3A K3B K3C The Project Team concurred on this date of 9/20/05 with the Detailed Study Alterna ves listed above to be carved forward in the Draft EIS for the proposed projegL, �_ 4 .. NCDCR4g&i� GUMPO NCDOT USFWS F)P=>37"-A /f �/ a► 1c NCWRC k,,&, *k FHWA i MLWO I Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Meeting Amement Concurrence Point No 2 -- Detailed Study Alternatives Protect NOJTIP NoJName1DescnPUn Federal Project Number STP- 1213(6), State Project Number 8 2812501 TIP Number U 3321 Description Gaston East-West Connector Study In Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties a ,Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study Non New Location Alternatives None to be carved forward for detailed study in accordance with NEPA/404 Merger Process Review Board Decision (see separate signed partial Concurrence Point #2 forms for non new location alternatives from July 2005) NpwTanrntinn AltPrnnhveS Alt # H Segments J Segments K Segments 4 H2A H3 14a 14b J2c J2d J5a J5b K2A KXl K3B K3C 5 H2A 113 J4a J2b 12c J2d JX -Jle Jlf RIA RIB RIC MA 6 112A H3 J4a J2b f2c J2d JX4 Ile Jlf KIA RIB RIC KID 9 H2A 113 J4a J2b J2c-J2d JX4 -JAe JJf K1A MA K3B K3C 22 ` 142A 142B H2C J3 Me J2d J5a J5b X2A ='K3B K3C 23 MA H2B 1120 J3 J2c J2d JX4 -JJe Jl f KIA KID K1C K4A 124 H2A 112B H2C J3 J24 J2d JX4 -Jle Jlf KIA RIB K1CK1D �27 H2A H2B 112C J3 J2c 12d JX4 -J1e Jlf K1A K3A K3B K3C 58 HIA HiB MC Ila JXl J24 J5a J5b K2A KXl K3B K3C 64 H1A HID H1C Ila JIb Ile Jld Ile Jlf KIA K1B RIC K4A 65 H1A HIB H1C Ila Jlb -Jlc IId Ile Jlf KIA RIB KiC KID 68 H1A HID HIC Jla Jlb Ile Ild Ile JIf K1AX3A K3B K3C 76 H1A IM J2a J2b J2c J2d J5a J5b K2A KXl K313 MC 77 141A HX2 I2a J2b J2c 12d JX4 -Jle Jlf KIA KID KIC MA 78 H1A HX2 J2a J2b 12c J2d JX4 Ile JIf XIA K1B RIC KID at H1A F= J2a J2b -J2c J2d JX4 -Jle JIf KIA K3A K3B K3C The Project Team concurred on tins date of 9/20/05 with the Detailed Study Alternatives listed above- to be carved torward in the Draft EIS for the proposed project USACE USEPA NCDWQ NCDOT USFWS , NCWRC ' FHWA ' MUMPO .3.3a1 rviergcr icon ivieetmg wzv/u:) 1 of 2 Subject U -3321 Merger Team Meeting - 9/20/05 Date Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08 33 59 -0400 From "Raymond Louis" <lmraymond @pbsj com> To <dweaver @dot state nc us>, <sllasater @dot state nc us> <bhanks @dot state nc us> <sarah mcbnde @ncmail net> <bnan wrenn @ncmail net> <chambersmj@vnet net>, <steven w lund @usace army nul >, <rwcook @ci charlotte nc us> <hankTg @cityofgastoma com >, <thouser @dot state nc us>, <lamoore @dot state nc us>, <ron lucas @iwa dot gov >, <sransom @dot state nc us >, <mwray @dot state nc us>, <cdmanley @dot state nc us>, <mstaley @dot state nc us >, <rmlrtscher chns @epa gov >, <mlholder @dot state nc us> < olly lespmasse@ncmail net> <iohn hennessy @ncmail net>, <glenda gibson @gibsonengmeers com >, <aredmond @hntb com >, <ggnmes @dot state nc us >, <dgnssom @dot state nc us>, <thart@dot state nc us>, <rmemory @dot state nc us>, <mike pekarek @gibsonengmeers com >, <awhrtmore @dot state nc us> <elewis @dot state nc us >, <mf = @dot state nc us> <Marella Bun-cic fws gov> CC "Gurak, Jill S" <TSGurak @pbsj com >, 'Bass, David W " <DWBass @pbsj com >, "Wolfe, Lauren A" <lawolfe @pbsj com> Attached are the meeting minutes concurrence form and associated data from the subject meeting on September 20 2005 If you have any questions please let me know Louis M Raymond P E PBS &J 5200 Seventy -Seven Center Drive Suite 500 Charlotte, North Carolina 28217 Phone 704 522 7275 Ext 4405 Fax 704 525 2838 Mobile 704 604 8793 E -mail lmraymond @pbs3 com F%0/ ✓�►�t+l rk3�a0� vl:�,J po-�03 : v L-1 CAS CWX Name Func Design Impact Matnx-092005 _Selected2 pdf Type Portable Document Format F�Func Desi n Impact Matrix- 092005 Selected2 pdf (application/pdf) Encodmg base64 Description Func Design Impact Matrix- 092005 Selected2 pdf 11 /17 /)MC 0 AA AAN Page 1 of 1 From Derrick Weaver [dweaver @dot state nc us] Sent Monday February 27 2006 5 08 PM To Anne Redmond Gurak Jill S Raymond Louis Gail Grimes Subject [Fwd Gaston CP 2 Abstention] See attached message from Chris Marla and I have not be able to get together yet to get her signature on CP 2 but I will see her on March 21 and will get her signature then Original Message Subject Gaston CP 2 Abstention Date Fn 24 Feb 2006 14 20 47 0500 From Militscher Chris @epamail epa gov To dweaver @dot state nc us CC Mueller Heinz @epamail epa gov Govella Kristi @epamail epa gov bisterfeld ted @epamail epa gov AS REQUESTED Derrick Yes, I (EPA) also agrees with the reasons provided by Marelia and Marla on their abstentions Primarily, EPA abstained because of the announcement prior to identifying the Detailed Study Alternatives to be Carried Forward (CP 2) that the project was being taken out of Merger and would be handled by the NCTA Gail Grimes indicating they were not going to use the Merger 01 Process but some other type of agency c000rdination process I heard no formal objections at the meeting from FHWA DWQ or the ACE on the removal of the project from Merger 01 EPA has formally signed as a partnering agency to the Merger 01 MOU (which requires signed Concurrence forms) and we are unfamiliar with the process that Gail was referring to and the potential need to provide written concurrence on key decision milestones The request to obtain EPA s written concurrence on a half Merger processed project is silly and not consistent with the spirit and intent of the NEPA/404 MOU While we agree that of the new location alternatives narrowed down by the team represent the best of the new location alternatives being carried forward, we continue to maintain our concern that a full range of reasonable and feasible alternatives (including a improve existing alternative) are not going to be considered for full evaluation in the NEPA document and for public comment As a courtesy to NCDOT and other team members who have worked very hard on this project I remained at the CP 2 meeting and worked with everyone else on developing the best list of new location DSAs available I feel the Elevation Review Board did not address all of the issues raised by EPA and other team members in their written briefs If the NCTA (and other agencies) decide that the Gaston project is going back into the Merger 01 Process and will go thru the entire process, EPA will potentially reconsider its abstention on CP 2 Again, thanks for your patience Christopher A Militscher, REM CHMMUSEPA Raleigh Offlce919 856 4206 file //G \Planning\280199 Gaston Corridor Study\Merger Team Meetings \Conc Pt 2 Mtg 0 4/25/2006 Page 1 of 1 From Derrick Weaver [dweaver @dot state nc use Sent Tuesday December 20 2005 10 10 AM To Anne Redmond Raymond Louis Gurak Jill S cdeal @hntb corn. Subject [Fwd Gaston E W Connector TIP U 33211 Original Message - Sublect Gaston E W Connector TIP U 3321 Date Mon 19 Dec 2005 16 2157 0500 From Marella_Buncick @fws gov To dweaver @dot state nc us milrtscher chris @epamail epa gov chambersmj @vnet net steven w lund @saw02 usace army mil polly lespmasse @ncmail net Sarah mcbride @ncmail net CC Brian_Cole @fws gov Gary_Jordan @fws gov On December 8 2005 the USFWS abstained from signing Concurrence Point 2 for the Gaston East West Connector Project Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties NC for the following reasons 1 According to discussions at the last Merger meeting for this project U 3321 is being handed off to the NC Turnpike Authority Since this project is now an NC Turnpike Authority study project we believe it is no longer in the Merger Process Merger is a process for which decisions are made in a building block fashion each subsequent step dependent on the previous step Therefore we believe it is inappropriate for our Agency to sign off on alternatives when we will not be involved in selecting a LEDPA (CP 3) or in Avoidance and Minimization considerations (CP4) We have provided input that a deciding official can use to help determine an appropriate range of alternatives 2 Our understanding is that the study of potential turnpike projects will include an analysis of economic ' considerations to determine a projects feasibility Thus far economic considerations beyond the cost to build a project have rarely been discussed relative to the feasibility of a project If economic viability is to be considered a criterion used to determine feasibility for this particular project we believe that the current Purpose and Need should be re visited to include economic considerations 1 If in the future the NC Turnpike Authority adopts the Merger Process and current merger team members are tasked by NCDOT to participate in another dual merger process we will revisit our abstention from this concurrence point decision Thank you marella buncick USFWS 160 Ztllicoa St Asheville NC 28801 828 258 3939 ext 237 1 file //G \Planning\280199 Gaston Corridor Study \Merger Team Meetings \Cone Pt 2 Mtg 0 4/25/2006 Page 1 of 1 From Derrick Weaver [dweaver @dot state nc us] Sent Tuesday January 17 2006 11 04 AM To Anne Redmond Gurak Jill S Raymond Louis Gail Grimes Subject [Fwd U 3321 Gaston E W Connector abstention] Below is Marla Chambers reason for abstaining she has not signed the form but will do so on the 26th - - - Original Message Subject U 3321 Gaston E W Connector abstention Date Fri 13 Jan 2006 16 35 28 0500 From Marla J Chambers <chambersmj @ vnet net> To Weaver Derrick <dweaver @dot state nc us> CC Lund Steve <Steven W Lund @saw02 usace army mil> Lespinasse Polly <polly lespinasse @ncmail net> Buncick Marella <marella_buncick @fws gov> <Militscher Chris @epamail epa gov> McBride Sarah <sarah mcbride @ncmail net> Although I have not yet signed a form stating that NCWRC is abstaining from signing the partial Concurrence Point 2 that relates to new location alternatives I will provide the reasons for abstaining below I will be glad to sign an abstention form at the next appropriate opportunity I plan to attend Hydraulics Meetings and the Inter agency Meeting on January 25th and 26th in Raleigh if that would be a convenient time The Merger Team was informed at the last Concurrence Meeting that this project TIP No U 3321 has become a NC Turnpike Authority study project and is being removed from the Merger process Therefore we believe that it is not appropriate to sign a Merger Concurrence Point form Signing a Merger Concurrence Point form advances a project in the Merger process a process that has well defined expectations and procedures for the subsequent steps At the last Concurrence Meeting the process and next steps for the project under the NC Turnpike Authority had not been determined NCWRC did participate in the meeting providing input on new location alternatives We are concerned that changing this project to a NC Turnpike Authority project may invalidate much of the process that the project has gone through in the Merger process to get to point where it is The project was not presented or evaluated as a toll road We expect that traffic projections economic considerations and other details would have been considerably different if evaluated as a toll road We believe that it would be appropriate to re evaluate the project as a toll road from the Purpose and Need stage (Concurrence Point 1) Although we have abstained from signing this Concurrence Point NCWRC is willing to participate in future activities concerning this project Sincerely Marla 3 Chambers Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator N C Wildlife Resources Comm 4614 Wilgrove Mint Hill Rd Suite M Charlotte NC28227 chambersmj @vnet net phone 704 -545 3841 fax 704 545 3812 cell 704 984 -1070 file //G \Planning\280199 Gaston Corridor Study \Merger Team Meetings \Conc Pt 2 Mtg 0 4/25/2006 Section 404/NEPA Merger Pi o ect Team Meeting A reernent Pre - Concurrence Point No 2 — Preliminary New Location Corridor Segments Eliminated /Modified by the Mei ger Team Pioiec,t No /TIP No /Na1ne /Description Fedeial Project Numbet s rP 1213(6) State Project Numbei 8 2812 171 FIP 'Number U 3321 Description Gaston Fast West Connector Study in Gaston ind Mecklenburg Counties Pi(Aiminary New Location Corridor Segments I✓11m1nated or Modified Western Portion Cotlidor Segments Elamcnated by the Merger lean? A2 A3 A3a A3 XA7 Changed A5 (modified and 6iwen new name) A4 XA5 A6a A6 B3 A4 XA6 B X1,i B X2, B8 C'otrrdor Segments Thintnated (based on tcsults ofgeotEchnical study) B10 B X3 Cents al Portion C orrrdoi Segments Llunrnated by the ltlerget learn C 3 (2 (-3a C 7 DI D6 E X7 1.6 E2 E4 E5 E5a E7 1~ 1 F3 Gl I X10 Corridor Segments Glrrntnated (Bared on results olg7eotnclnncul surd }j C9 Eastern Portion Cor ridor Segments F'luntnatcd b3 the Mctgcr Tcarn G3 G8 G X14 G7 Gc) F1 I G6 G2 GA12 G X13 (modified and given nLw name.,,) 612 Chan &cd F7 (modified and given new name.,,) Aeti,� Corridor ScgntentsEInnrnatcd by the Mcrgcr Tccrrn F12 F X12 F13 The Project ream concurred on this date of _� ( � (wi th the elimination or modification of preliminary new to atioln corridor segments for the proposed project as ltsted above USACE f� . �,J CUMPQ Appendix A -2 Scopi ng Letter Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 �yrmy� STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F EASLEY GOVERNOR April? 2003 <<Prefix» < First» «Last» «Suffix» <<Title» <<Company» <<Company2» <<Address» «City» <<State» <Zip» LYNDo TIPPETT SECRETARY SUBJECT Request for Comments for Gaston East West Corridor Study TIP Project Number U 3321 Federal Aid Project No STP 1213 (6) State Project No 8 2812501 Dear <<Prefix» «Last» The North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) proposes to improve east west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia and other municipalities in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the proposed improvements to TIP Project U 3321 The project is included in the 2002 2008 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way and construction post years (after 2008) As part of this action the NCDOT also proposes to improve mobility access and connectivity between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County including improving access to the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport shopping and employment centers and other destinations in both counties The project study area is shown on the attached map The area has the following general boundaries 185 to the north the South Carolina State line to the south the Charlotte Douglas International Airport to the east and the I 85 and US 29 74 junction to the west PBS &J is under contract with the NCDOT to assist in the environmental planning process for this project General alternatives that will be considered include the No Build Alternative Transportation Management Alternatives Multi Modal Alternatives Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives and New Location Alternatives ' MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE 919 733 3141 LOCATION INC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX 919 733 9794 TRANSPORTATION BUILDING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE WWW DOH DOT STATE NC US RALEIGH NC 27611 RALEIGH INC 27699 1548 April? 2003 TIP Protect U 3321 Page 2 Preliminary alternatives will be evaluated through the preparation of land suitability mapping a screening evaluation of existing human and natural environments and an evaluation of the ability of each alternative to meet the project s purpose and need Previous alternatives identified through the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization s (MPO) thoroughfare planning process included several new location alternatives in southern Gaston County Sensitive environmental issues documented during the development of these new location alternatives included the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden and crossings of the Catawba River and the South Fork of the Catawba River The purpose of this letter is to solicit input concerning the potential impacts of the proposed project upon social economic demographic land use and environmental conditions in the project study area Please note there will be no formal interagency scopmg meeting for this project This letter constitutes solicitation for scopmg comments regarding this project and notification of start of study To allow us to fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project please respond in writing by May 16 2003 concerning any sensitive resources in the project study area and/or beneficial or adverse impacts of the proposed projects relating to the interest of your agency If applicable please identify any permits or approvals that may be required by your agency If you have any questions concerning these projects please contact Ms Knstina Solberg P E of the Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch at (919) 733 7844 extension 310 or Ms Jill Gurak P E of PBS &J at (919) 876 6888 Sincerely Gregory J Thorpe Ph D Environmental Management Director Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Enclosures cc Jill Gurak — PBS &J MAILING ADDRESS NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27699 1548 TELEPHONE 919 733 3141 FAX 919 733 9794 WEBSITE WWW DOH DOT STATE NC US LOCATION ' TRANSPORTATION BUILDING 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET RALEIGH NC QOO %- m � LLI m r OC ZzW 9 F _ °o Li LU n m vfo J e V M F V z W o; 0 Q QNQ � O W d N W M W F z O V Z' m m v o e e o 7 0 o m m m 6 e � e 0 CL N W 9 C 7 d d d O T 7 7 m O m C 7 2 5 z u = 0 z W W J �v x � m tp p 4 C* \V ED CFSAW -RG -A May 22 003 01 n A 0010N�S? Memorandum For Gregory J Thorpe PhD Environmental Management Dire cto Z y7�� Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT Subject Gaston East -West Corridor Study Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties North Carolina, TIP Project No U -3321 r 1 This memorandum is in response to your scoping letter request of April 9 2003 for comments on the subject study ' 2 A Department of the Army permit will be required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US including wetlands resulting from any new transportation related construction projects created from the study Impacts to regulated waters must be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable with compensatory mitigation to be required for all ' remaining unavoidable impacts The location of many minor streams and wetlands in the study area is unknown At the earliest possible time we recommend that a field - verified determination of junsdictional streams and wetlands be included in the information gathering phase of the study to serve as a basis for additional planning and design activities 3 A Department of the Army permit will be required under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for the dredging excavation discharge of dre construction in navigable waters of the US including various reaches and pools of the , Catawba River in this region For example the Corps Section 10 regulatory jurisdiction extends to the mean high pool elevation of +570 ft MSL of Lake Wylie in the study area 4 A significant element of the study plan should provide for an evaluation of secondary and cumulative impacts of each alternative which is evaluated under TIP Project No U- 3321 A study goal should specify that land use changes and associated urban growth ' induced by the various alternatives considered must be demonstrated to be consistent with, and not conflict with the purpose and need for U -3321 Providing a comprehensive assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts would be essential to making that ' demonstration 5 If you have any questions please contact me at telephone (828) 271 -7980 Ext 7 John W Hendrix f , f -1 Regulatory Project Manager Asheville Regulatory Field Office CF Scott McLendon, Chief CESAW -RG -A David Franklin Team Leader NCDOT Team CESAW -RG r STA F y North Carolina Department of Administration Michael I Lasley Governor Gwynn T Swenson Secretary May 28 2003 Ms Kristin Solbezg N C Department of Transportation Project Management Transportation Bldg 1548 MSC Raleigh NC 27611 Dear Ms iolberg Re SCII F ele # 03 -E -4220 0304 Scoprng Gaston East West Corridor Study Improvements to east - west tiansportatron mobility in the area around Gastonia and other towns in southern Gaston and western Mecklenburg counties TIP U 3321 The abov(, referenced environmental Impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of thc, National Lnvrronmental Policy Act According to G S 113A 10 when a state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law the environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act Attached to this letter for your consideration are the comment-, made by agencies in the course of this review If any furthcx environmental review documents are prepared for this project they should be forwarded to this office for intergovernmental review Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call g ce�ely Ms C brys B- tggc.tt Lnverotiniental Pohc� Act Coordinator Attachments cc Region F Valhng eddies Telephone (919)80724)) 10(allon Iddress h02 Mail Service Center I'm (919)733 9371 116 Walt Jones Street R,tluoh NC 27699 1102 Stata COUrlar #-i 1 01 00 Raleigh 'North Carolina mar( Chrya Baggcil,_�)nunad net Ir11(1144101pnrnn21ty/ifhr ralr c I1 nrn1171plt3,u (DV v , CR Michael F Easley Governor C� Q William G Ross Jr Secretary 0/ � North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Alan W Klimek P E Director iii Division of Water Quality May 21 2003 NIFMORANDL'tVI TO Melba McGee Environmental Coordinator NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs FROM Cynthia F Van Der Wiele NCDOT Coordinator 6Vd1,kJ SUBJECT Review of Scoping Sheets for proposed Gaston East West P Corridor Study Gaston & Mecklenburg Counties TIP No U 3321 State Clearinghouse Project No 03 0304 tIn reply to Your correspondence datt,d April 2003 (received April 14 2003) in which you requested comments for the referenced project preliminary analysts of the project indicates that the following water resources lie within the study area C ream inaer Water Quality Classification HU • Crowders Creek and UT s (11 135) C on §303(4) list 030837 ■ South Crowders Creek C 030837 • 4bern ithy Creek C 030837 • Blackwood Creek C 030837 ■ Catawba Creek ana UT s C on §303(4) list 030837 • Robin%Nood Lake B 030837 Anthonv Creek B 030837 Catawba River and UT s WS -IV & B Critical Area 030834 South Fork Catawba River WS V 030836 A Preliminary Purpose and Need Statement for this project was published by PBS &J on July 3 2002 Among t`ie tr- insportation issues to be solved are the congestion and traffic flow issues on Interstate 85 US 20 74 and US 321 (TIP Project U 3806) as well as the need to improve mobility access and connectivity within southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County The 404/401 Merger Team signed a purpose and need concurrence point on July 24 2002 NC Division of Water Quality has the following comments Alternatives to Be Evaluated NCDWQ unaerstands that the following alternatives will be studied No Build Transportation Management Multi Modal Improve Existing Roadways and New Location alternatives (known as the Garden Parkway ) The Purpose and Need document specifically mentioned that 185 will be over capacity in the near future US 29 74 will also be at or near capacity in the near future (page 9) Thus the Improve Existing Roadways alternative may not be reasonable or feasible NCDWQ understands that a ' regional study of transit alternatives is being developed and studies as part of a Major Investment Study (MIS) (page I5) Additionally DWQ understands that transit oriented deNelopinent is being planned around US 29 74 A Traffic, problems in this area Suggest that a comprehensive solution be developed that would prxhaps combine modalities (e g bus and light rail) since continued widening of both US 29 74 and 1 8-) may be infeasible North Carolina Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Certification Unit 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1650 (Mailing Address) ' 2321 Crabt ee Blvd Raleigh NC 27604 2260 (Location) 919 733 1786 (phone) 910 733 6893 tfax) http /h2o enr state nc us nc ie lands AN NLEi" B DWQ recommends that in order to fully investigate the Multi Modal alternatives as a reasonable and feasible alternative that the northern study boundary area include the east west railroad condor along 185 (north of the current study boundary) Environmental Documentation A New Location Alternatives must include quantitative analysis of the cumulative and secondary impacts as several impaired waters and water supply critical areas could be impacted B A detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping must be included C There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts If mitigation is required it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) rrutigation plan with the environmental documentation D Within the project area sedimentation and stormwater runoff are major concerns Urbanization often has greater hydrologic effects than any other land use as native watershed vegetation is replaced with impervious surfaces in the form of paved roads buildings parking lots and residential homes and yards Urbanization results in increased surface runoff and correspondingly earlier and higher peak flows after storms Flooding frequency is also increased Bank scour from these frequent high flow events tends to enlarge urban streams and increase suspended sediment Scouring also destroys the variety of habitat in streams leading to degradation of benthic macroinvertebrate populations Urban runoff also carries a wide variety of contaminants to streams including oil and grease from roads and parking lots street litter and pollutants from the atmosphere Generally there are a larger number of point source discharges in urban areas Cumulative impacts from habitat alterations point and nonpoint source pollution can cause severe impairment to urban streams Thank you for requesting our input at this time If you have any questions or require additional information please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at (919) 733 5715 Attachment pc John Hendrix USACE Asheville Field Office Chris Militscher USEPA Marella Buncick USFWS Marla Chambers NCWRC File Copy a Wildlife Resources Charles R Fullwood Executive Director TO Melba McGee Environmental Coordinator Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs DENR FROM Marla Chambers Highway Projects Coordinator H'ibit -it Conservation Program NCWRC DATE May 15 2003 SUBJECT Scoping review of proposed Gaston East West Corridor Study Gaston and Meckienburg counties TEP No U 332I Staff b ologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) ha e reviewed the information provided by North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) and liaFe the following preliminary comments regarding impacts to fish and wildlife resources resulting f om the subject project These comments are provided in accordance with the p- ovisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U S C 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and w iidlifc, Coordination Act (48 Stat 401 as amended 16 U S C 661 667d) The NCDOT proposes to improve east west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia and other municipalities in southern Gaston and western Mecklenburg counties Genaral alternatives they plan to consider include No Build Transportation Management Multi Modal Improve Existing Roadways and New Location alternatives We suggest in order to fully investigate Multi Modal alternatives that the northern study area boundary include the east west railroad corridor along 185 which lies north of the current boundary in places The NCWRC is concerned about adverse impacts to wildlife habitat and water resources of the area and the public s enjoyment of them Lake Wylie including the Catawba River and South Fork of the Catawba River as well as Crowders Mountain State Park and Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden are within the studv area boundary The proposed project is in a rapidly growing area of the state cumulati� e and secondary impacts are major concerns and should be thoroughly addressed in the environmental document In addition to help facilitate document preparation and the review process our general information needs are outlined below Mailing address Division of Inland Fishtries • 1721 Mail Service CentL1 • Raleigh NC 27699 1721 Tckplione (9 t 9) 7s3 3633 ext 281 Fax (919) 715 7643 Gas cf, East West Corridor Gaston & Mecklenburg Counties May 15 2003 1 Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area including a listing of federally or state designated threatened endangered or special concern species Potential borrow areas to be used for project construction should be included in the inventories A listing of designated plant species can be developed through consultation with the following programs and The Natural Heritage Program N C Division of Parks and Recreation 1615 Mail Service Center Raleigh N C 27699 1615 (919) 733 7795 NCDA Plant Conservation Program P O Box 27647 Raleigh N C 27611 (919) 733 -3610 2 Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project If applicable include the linear feet of stream that will be channelized or relocated 3 Cc% er type maps showing wetland acreage impacted by the project Wetland acreage should include all project related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching other drainage or filling for project construction Wetland identification may be accomplished through coordination with the U S Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) If the USACE is not consulted the person delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed 4 Cover type maps showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project Potential borrow sites should be included Show the extent to which the project will result in loss degradation or fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands) 6 Include the mitigation plan for avoiding - nininiizing or compensating for direct and indireLL degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses Address the overall environmental effects of the project construction and quantify the contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation Provide a discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access 9 If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal or private development projects a desenption of these projects should be included in the environmental document and all project sponsors should be identified uastnn Easy wear Coridor Gaston & Mccklenburg Counties May 15 2003 Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages of this project If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact me at (704) 485 2384 cc Marella Buncick USFWS Cynthia Van Der Wiele NCDWQ Page 1 r � DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number NATURAL RESOURCES 0-) 0304 DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County Gaston Inter Agency Project Review Response r Project Name NC DOT Type Of Project Gaston East West Comdor Study Comments provided byt�e�r bloor.. sn, n t Go ��Regional Regional Program Person Engineer for Public Water Supply Section APR 2003 ❑ Central Office proararn person 14t,Ji:Nh J ^ -Ahl"M supply Name _ �TJ T/. Date j / • ; .. Telephone number 0 3 �' Program within Division of Environmental Health Public Water Supply Other Name of Program Respor be (check all applicable) ❑ No objection to project as proposed ❑ No comment ❑ Insufficient information to complete review Comments attached See comments below -7' L h fc- Return to Public Water Suppl/ Section Er�irorrmental Review Coordinator for the Division of Environmentat Health See )�av erse f�� �7ri�t7Lrox:xaaer�t "3mcd Natural Re,soux -Ces Ian szis oar of Soa1 and VV"t4--7r- Co7txse7r- �cratzon Michael F Easley, Governor William G Ross Jr Secretary David S Vogel Director MEMORANDUM TO MLlba McGee Apn125 2003 ' FROM David Harrison SUBJECT Gaston East west Corridor Study /) -U, g ' The `C Department of Transportation is conducting a study to improve east-west transportation mobilit) in the area around the City of Gastonia including southern Gaston County and �NesLer Veckiei burg County Tne environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to Pnme or St4*e, is to Important Farmland Tne deft xition of Prime or Statewide Important farmland is based on the soil series and not on its current land use Areas that are developed or are within municipal bo vidaries are exempt from consideration as Prime or Important Farmland For addition it information contact the soils specialists with the Natural Resources Conservation Service USDA Raleigh NC at (919) 873 2141 16.714 111ax1 Sez -srice Center Rai�i� North Carolxn►a 2 ?g99 -1614 >r'horie 919 - 7332302 � ]F'AX 919 - ?15,.•3559 Xx terrnet 1ArVVV%r err state m o Lss /7E7\TR /]C1S�25iC/ A.N EQLT.-_L OP'PO I2TV.NITY \ R.FFIRI1fZ..ATZYE li.CTZON E11QPL0'Y�,R 30 RECYCLED / 10 b F}O BT CO N6LTM'ER 7F'A.Z>1ER NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW STATE NUMBER 03 —E- 4220 -0304 DATE RECEIVED 04/23/2003 AGENCY RESPONSE 05/19/2003 REVIEW CLOSED 05/23/2003 ID ')M CI TS Dt� -NG }CU F ( )GFDriIFTGR ALRT III LJkw c T C "M-(F u. nf. AC R )_6 I'TSTRIBj -I07 1p '30C 61 r�rZ �f r �� ✓E --,,I RS N S 7F °T O" C RI ^GT r iR- '�- Dr Pf ?r: Tt iRT,I 0\N -� -CT t,i.lt-r1 "I i P a- r r ^nr _r ->_ Dol-c Lcr r-C r F02 t L - "st - crr -aor 5t_ry IT-D�O erg - -Z$ t- -- ---> >L m,-l--Li , n -cu-d r a o'-har zc„v ^s � -i sow - rn 13 1-c c TI£ U— 33- 1 T C i c -~ - 'I r d c `re "t r' -t - C'.. i�f-o -c f r r-c- -- 1- I I 1 11"3 -e -c h 3ra silbm-t J it .) " C/ `.•� nJ P - L c -- r -1`2 1- - -cr i.-e per er R31 -igh tIC 2-c9 -1 u- if 3U(llT-i0r 1 r I"' li-e me -dea pleasc contact thz c-r,( = -,r )19) 30 - -212 0- -H -- F,:✓1E i THL rO-Ltj INC LS SUBMITTED ��cf f C 1 rEti^ i ()MI E amr _�Cf�r I� Y l/ North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou State Historic Preservation Office D ivid L S Brook Administrator MichaLl F Easley Governor Lisbeth C Evans Secretary Jeffrey J Crow Deputy Secretary May 14 2003 ML MORANDUM TO Greg Thorpe Manager Projcet Devclopmerit and Lnvitonmental Analysis Branch NCDO I Division of I Iighwai s FROM Da,, id Brook i { I I K Soliern 4D 1 C�rG*- � David J SUBJhCI Gaston County 1 ast west Corridor U 3321 Gaston and Mecklenburg Countics LR02 9'23 ' Thank you for your mc.mor tridum. of kpril 9 2003 concerning the above project We have reviewed the RcyuLst for C omments and offer the following comments This project has the potential for impacting large portions of Gaston County and Mecklenburg Counts In thL '�urc L', and Planning Branch State Historic Preservation Officc we have on record 1 076 survcyc.d sites in Gaston County and 2 657 sites in Mecklenburg County There arc fourteen Historic Districts in Gastonia There are fourteen individual properties listed in the National Register in Gaston County and many more in Mecklenburg County We recommend that our records bt thoroughly searched and a comprehensive survey be conducted to ins cntory, thL architectural and historic resources that could potentially be impacted by this largL project Two copies of the resulting Historic / ,rLhitectural survt y report should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they arc m ailable and well in advance of any ' construction activities In Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties 1 341 archaeological resources are recorded in files at the Office of State Archaeologt in Raleigh dome archaeological sites have been determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places In the study area specifically some eligible archaeological sites are located on the Charlotte Douglas Airport property Other as yet undiscoi ered archaeological sites are likely to be in the region especially along drainages in floodplains and terraces bluffs and other areas Many of the www hvo dcr state nc us 0 x d 1 oeanon Mailing Address - Telephone/Fax kDMINISTR %, rION 507 N Blount St Raleigh N(- 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 276994617 (919) 7334763 733 8653 RESTOR tTION 515 N Blount St Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 276994613 (919) 733.6547 7154801 St R*vFY & Pt kNNING 515 N Blount St Raleigh NC 4b 18 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 276994618 (919) 733 -6545 • 715 -4801 May 14 2003 Page 2 1 341 reported sites have not been assessed for eligibility for hsttng on the rational Register of Historic Places Any archaeological resources located within the preferred alternative must be assessed for National Register of Historic Places eligibility We recommend that our records be searched for architectural sites archaeological sites and cemeteries and the State Archives and county tax or deed office records be searched for cemeteries reported in the proposed corridor study area Appountmtnts with the Office of State archaeology should be made directly at 919/733 7342 the Schiele Museum of Natural History and Planetarium in Gastonia has had an active archaeological program since 1985 reporting many sites in the region Dr Alan May who can be reached at 704/866 6900 for an appointment is director of that program and is familiar with the regional archaeology Many architectural properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places have archaeological components that have not been assessed When such properties are reevaluated during a federally funded undertaking archaeological components of such properties must be considered and assessed In addition to the records check we recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any construction activities A list of archaeological consultants who hav a conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina is available at www arch dcr state nc us /consults The archaeologists listed or any other experienced archaeologist may be contacted to conduct the recommended sun ey The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation -kct and the Advisory Council on Historic Presen anon s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800 Thank you for your cooperation and consideration If you have questions concerning the above comment contact Renee Gledhill Carley environmental review coordinator at 919/733 4763 In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number cc Jill Gurak PBSJ Mary Pope Furr DOT Matt Wilkerson DO r M E C K L E N B U R G U N I O N METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 600 East Fourth Street �Vq E D Charlotte North Carolina 28202 2853 (704) 336 2205 May 15 2003 CHARLOTTE OF CORNELIUS DAVIDSON ��aJLrC G�`tti HUNTERSVILLE Gregory J Thorpe PhD QNC7- D P�� P Environmental Management Director INDIAN TRAIL Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch MAT THEWS North Carolina Department of Transportation MECKLENBURG COUNTY MINT HILL �unject Gaston Easu'Vy chi Cui, idu S- , TI° n -olect U 3321 VCDOT Dear Mr Thorpe PINEVILLE STALLINGS The Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MUMPO) appreciates the UNION opportunity to comment on the proposed Gaston East West Corridor Study The COUNTY MIJMPO supports a new crossing of the Catawba River connecting southern Gaston WEDDINGTON County with western Mecklenburg The MUMPO Thoroughfare Plan indicates a new facility at this location Additionally our Long Range Transportation Plan calls for this project to be constructed between 2010 and 2020 This facility is shown as atoll road in the plan, and requires for funding for the Mecklenburg portion be accomplished through toll revenues In general the MUMPO agrees that this new roadway is important to improve the connectivity between the two counties This project will improve access to the Charlotte Douglas International Airport Our primary concern with the proposal is how the facility will function on the Mecklenburg side of the Catawba River The area between 1 485 and the Catawba River is targeted as an economic development area The plans for this area will be greatly affected by the type of facility that is constructed for this new roadway We are specifically concerned with the connection of the two thoroughfares in the area Dixie River Road and Garrison Road (Dlease see attached Thoroughfare Plan map) We �� also are concerned about the connection to 1485 L.Due to the gltde slope required for the 4� ( airport runways it is unlikely that flyovers can be constructed here If a full movement interchange is constructed the amount of right of way required will severely impair the implementation of the proposed land use plan We also recall that earlier work in discussing and planning this project indicated a potential to provide bicycle (and perhaps pedestrian) accommodation on any bridge structure crossing the Catawba River West Boulevard has been conceived for a long time as a facility that would include bicycle lanes, and it would be appropriate for these ' lanes to extend across the river on any structure provided for this project We would also recommend that any bicycle accommodation should be fully separated from all motor vehicle traffic gU ac � 1 Our specific request is for the MUMPO to be included in the definition of the alternatives and the relationship between those alternatives and local Iand use objectives Again we are supportive a new crossing but we are also very concerned about the effect this project will have on the development of the area on the Mecklenburg side of the Catawba River It you have any questions please contact me at 704 336 8643 Sincerely �' PaAy R E MUMPO Secretary , Cc Lee Myers MUMPO Char Jim Humphrey P E TCC Chair 2 /r E R3Sy €u aE $Eiee z ��9 Pa �3lY�a$9$y� H des9g�� C gaeI�ks� as B� H N w 9 J. gm y r�'eg s lie 3 ke" i S`��¢ P .�G 1,P w G ry � U a W u , V LC L f 1 Y 71 � a � CCi �oa�Q N N � O F s E ��I L � AAl1 t Z,g 7 r� g } ° 3 �v d 2 /r E R3Sy €u aE $Eiee z ��9 Pa �3lY�a$9$y� H des9g�� C gaeI�ks� as B� H N w 9 J. gm y r�'eg s lie 3 ke" i S`��¢ P .�G 1,P w G ry � U a W u , V LC L f 1 Y 4 � s E ��I L Z,g 7 g } Et VFO May 9, 2003 At_o G regory J Thorpe Ph D MAY 16 2003 NC Department of Transportation Protect Development and Environmental Analysis'O�`b 1548 Mail Service Center ��Pa �c too., aleigh NC 27699 -1548 y Dear Or Thorpe The Quality of Natural Resources Commission (QNRC) is a diverse citizen stakeholder group appointed by the Gaston County Board of Commissioners to evaluate and make recommendations on natural resource issues that impact Gaston County QNRC appreciates the opportunity to respond to your April 9t' letter soliciting potential impacts of the proposed east -west corridor of the Garden Parkway (TIP Project U -3321) through southern Gaston County Below we have described factors that QNRC would like NCDOT to consider in developing this transportation project Natural Hertage Sites According to the Gaston County Natural Heritage Inventory the natural heritage sites listed below all lie within the project location area (For detailed information on any of these sites contact David Fogarty Gaston County Extension Director at 704 - 922 -2130) Site Site Location A01 Crowder Mountain State Park A04 Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop and Wetland A05 Armstrong Ford A07 Kenneth Oates Farm Forest (Area B) A09 Pinnacle Road B12 Penegar Gastonia South B13 Ferguson Ridge CITIZENS PARTICIPATION B14 Ferguson's Knob RECEIVED B15 Unity Church Road B16 Catawba Cove MAY 16 2003 B21 Kenneth Oates Farm Forest (Area A) t Depending on which route is selected for the thoroughfare sites A01 A04 A05 B12, and B16 could potentially be impacted by the project With the current alignment plans for the thoroughfare no natural heritage sites would be directly impacted Sites A04 and B12 are both approximately ' /Z mile from the current alignment and could be impacted if the route were adjusted towards them The natural heritage site of most concern is (A4) the Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop and Wetland This site lying dust to the east of the current thoroughfare alignment is a large granite rock outcrop from the Pennsylvanian to Permian (270 -230 million years old) Vegetation islands separate the granite exposures Many of the terraces have shallow pools with thin soils Noteworthy species include small sedum fame flower pine weed and various mosses Since the completion of the natural heritage survey this site has been timbered, except for a 50 foot buffer around the outcrop Thoroughfare alignments should be designed to avoid this outcrop and its surrounding buffer as well as any other identified natural heritage sites Stream Impacts The construction of the Garden Parkway Thoroughfare in Southern Gaston County will inevitably have some negative impact on the water quality and the habitats of creeks and streams throughout the region QNRC recommends that several steps be taken to minimize stream impacts Of particular concern is the section of the proposed thoroughfare heading south from 1 -85 in the southwestern part of the county The current alignment takes the thoroughfare south from 1 -85 along a four -mile path that parallels Crowders Creek During most of that section the thoroughfare is within a few hundred feet of Crowders Creek �Q--IRC recommends adjusting the alignment of the proposed thoroughfare so that there is a sufficient buffer between the road construction and Crowders Creek to protect the creeks banks and its water quality A priority of the thoroughfare design should be for NCDOT to minimize the amount of Crowders Creek that would have to be relocated One possible solution could be to to the entire stretch of the thoroughfare to the west side of the creek Where any relocation of stream sections are required the new stream channel r should be designed to have slow stream flow and graded banks resulting in a stream with less bank erosion and a healthier ecosystem than the current L-- -skeam Wetland and Stream Mitigation All disturbed streams and wetlands within the Garden Parkway project are subject to mitigation laws Under these laws, disturbed areas must be replaced with double the acreage Restored streams and wetlands must be within the same watershed basin The Gaston County QNRC encourages NCDOT to work with QNRC and relevant county and municipal agencies in determining how mitigation acreages can be located to fit in with the county s water quality greenway, and development plans Stormwater � Gaston County is a Phase 11 Stormwater community it water from the th6ToUghta�r�a- iilits-brldges tsmu be coTfe� rams or pipes and discharged into vegetated areas and/or silt basins where pollutants are filtered out naturally before entering streams The Gaston County QNRC encourages NCDOT to work with QNRC and relevant county and municipal agencies to determine how stormwater best management practices can be successfully implemented to protect water quality in conjunction with countywide stormwater programs Hazardous Spill Controls Hazardous catch spill basins should be utilized throughout the Garden Parkway Project These basins should be located at the low areas of the construction and should be manually closed in the event of a hazardous spill to prevent the spill from reaching nearby streams QNRC recommends that NCDOT also provide Local Emergency Management personnel with information and training on how to operate these basins Impacts on Land -Use In 2002 Gaston County adopted a Comprehensive Plan that includes broad goals for development transportation infrastructure and greenways QNRC recommends that the NCDOT thoroughfare plans are always consistent with the Gaston County Comprehensive Plan Copies of the Plan are available on -line at or through the Gaston County Planning Department at 704- 866 -3473 esign of the thoroughfare near the Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens should ,consider noise impacts on the Garden and development plans associated with �the Garden All access points on the thoroughfare should be designed with consideration of the development goals of the County comprehensive plan The Garden Parkway' should be designed as part of an overall countywide plan that includes economic development environmental and quality of life factors QNRC and other organizations can play an important role in making sure that this process occurs Greenwav Development The development of the Garden Parkway is an excellent opportunity to move forward the creation of a connected greenway system in Gaston County and neighboring counties Consistent with the County s Comprehensive Plan a greenway system should be an integrated part of the overall thoroughfare plan and should include the following features ❑ Development of a greenway along the Crowders Creek Corridor as part of the Garden Parkway design ❑ Allowances for east -west greenway corridors between Gastonia and Crowders Mountain State Park with connections to the Crowders Creek Corridor ❑ Assurances that thoroughfare development facilitates the Catawba Creek greenway which is part of the current Connect Gaston Plan ❑ Consultations with York and Mecklenburg Counties to facilitate future regional greenway plans as part of the design ❑ Bridge designs over the South Fork and Catawba Rivers that incorporate pedestrian and bike transportation --,- ❑ Widening of the 300 -foot corridor in specific locations to accommodate the inclusion of pedestrian and/or bike transportation routes Gaston County QNRC appreciates this opportunity to respond to NCDOT s request for comments on the proposed TIP Project U -3321 through southern Gaston County We support his project and the transportation and economic development benefits that it can bring to Gaston County We also strongly feel that these benefits will be greatest if the project is designed with input from citizens and local governments To this end QNRC would be willing to sponsor any of the Citizens Informational workshops that you are planning to hold during the Summer /Fall of 2003 Sincerely Gary Mims Chairman Gaston County Quality of Natural Resources Commission Cc Gaston County Manager and Board of Commissioners Gaston County Natural Resources Department Gaston Soil and 1303 CherryvBle Highway Dallas North Carolina 28034 Phone (704) 922 4181 Fax (704) 922 2158 May 13 2003 CITIZENS PaATr -r,�,14 f9VYED Gregory 3 Thorpe PhD MAY 16 2003 NC Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental is 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 -1548 Dear Dr Thorpe o� 1 C04WWarion Dist �1 r0 Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the potential impacts of the east -west corridor of the Garden Parkway in Gaston County The Gaston Natural Resources Department would like to support the comments and considerations addressed by the Gaston County Quality of Natural Resources Commission (QNRC) in their response letter dated May 9 2003 In addition to the items identified by QNRC we would like to emphasize the importance of several possible natural resources concerns Potential impacts to stream and wetland areas are a primary concern Mitigation laws and stormwater regulations are in place to minimize these impacts Our department recommends a strong commitment to these rules and regulations We encourage communication with our department and other local agencies to maximize the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and consistency with local programs Many streams in the southern portion of Gaston County are impaired by urban runoff Culverts and bridges tend to constrict flow and alter floodplain hydraulics this combined with increased runoff could potentially cause instability and scour Roadway fill areas located too close to a stream can also trigger instability Minimizing the number of stream crossings and using natural channel design techniques is suggested to help maintain stream stability Bridges and culverts should also be designed in a way that maintains floodplain functionality Potential water quality impacts should also be examined Erosion and hazardous spills during construction are possible water quality concerns Untreated stormwater runoff from the proposed parkway could also have long term impacts on water quality It is recommended that buffer areas be utilized as a component of the stormwater treatment strategy Buffers have proven to be an effective tool at treating strormwater runoff and maintaining streambank stability maximizing the width of these buffers could help minimize impacts to the stream Mission Statement Gaston County seeks to he among the finest counties in North Carohna Ft wdl provide efferave effictent and affordable services leading to a safe, secure and heathy community an environment for economic growth and promote a favorable qualuy of hfe^ CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT SELF GOVERNMENT 1 The Garden Parkway project will likely have a substantial effect on future land use near the project area We would strongly encourage that plans for the bypass are consistent with the Gaston County Comprehensive Plan Areas surrounding highway interchanges are especially vulnerable to changes in land use We recommend that these future impacts be considered when locating interchanges Citizen input is an important part of understanding all of the potential impacts of a project this size Our department has received comments and suggestions about this project Per your request in the future these suggestions will be forwarded to Ms Solberg and Ms Jurak One recent concern by Mr Robert Biggerstaff a landowner in the project area is noted in the attached correspondence We appreciate being involved in this process and would be glad to assist in any way if you have any questions please call our office at (704) 9224181 Sincerely David R Freeman Natural Resources Engineer cc Robert Biggerstaff Mission Statement Gaston County seeks to be among the finest counties in North Carolina It wd1 provide effective, efficient and affordable services leading to a safe secure and healthy com munny an environment for economic growth and promote a favorable quality of life r1AY- 29 -EOW 72 57 FROM 704 525 2838 TO 9198766848 P 8/8 -11111 It to drltlaC That a core on the South Fort. Tb, e in the ofl3xysr10 '. Dime BeIn orst N C may be ,n 0, it ed by tha Carobos lice6plitter OR'migona decaratrlj wiltcti tt listed on 1:111 t'edcrat azd Stale Erdvigered ipme. list I h%, covey t, o only kro tin area on the South Fork RiNer pnd is in tr;, ti'trt.ntty o; the prollos_e 321/'4 l�ypasc that d0 -a rot co-ltatn mud and silt -And providm the regttlrcd Frlwronrlicnt for tI,t1s mass -ml S"Oul., the b5Pa -g bt ca- t_ctrt<eted along Carzl .Road to Lakefront Drive and folb;v po Mons cis IlIXn 1 )ko, l to Scuili Nev Hope Pk,-td the n_tural water stied f�roin re« c <)ngtructtan and tht nnrrediat cruet South of the proposed by -pass %ould (to -% into this cove Moro rezchtng t1u: South 1 cork l;t %t'r f3tir ptjint cif contact concc-n.n.- the lottitlon and d_tai's thereofrtlay rx, obtarned by contacrmd the uuttc.r< geed by ttrlail at 200 Day!.hore Drt%e, F3elrtinortt NC 290I2 o,- hottte teleph7r c 104/824 --7803 or bustneS, 4urnber 704/865 4310 Tt r Xltmehr 'it t sc preaect tcr112 se.-m to be doing well to tlu3 local on wfuch is t�ern4 scilydu ed "car new ro.d co-iq; uctton in the 1rrltnedja,e asra Am tn*vast%,e;abcin into thts ►natter and respc ,,n,;c to the Urtde"t3ned %ill be greatly appreciated <t o-.12TV V,013F P, r 13 IGGFRSTAl 1 200 Ba} sho-c DnN a Ae1c1 ont 1ti C 29012 Peceived 05 -20 -03 12 53 From -704 525 2838 To -P8s8J RALEIGH Page 08 4 i his I% to adv3s-, that ^t coN, on the South Fork Tb%er in the vie irltty of lirtycr }o e Dine J3.lrt +r { N C mm be infi,%bi +id by (l e Carolina Ilee6plater Oa,teigotta dewrata) evr11c11 r, Itate(I oil t11e fezl-ral and state endanger ed bpecieN ll,t I hts ove Is 10 offly n area on the South Fork River and Is I =1 tl c viclrllty of the Propo, -t' 321/ `4 hl pas, thrt doci rot contain meal and slit 3rnt pcovtdes the regrurcd eavtronnicat for t,rti I,11I,,s --i Stiou'd the bypass be con,tructed along Car~ .-1 Roar{ to Lakefront Drt� t and folton portions )t l.?rxn =1 Ito -td to South New Hope Ro -id the n_tural water shed 60111 rel& L -0115 tticticrn and thL 111trr effiat- are - South of the proposetl bypasb e-- oulcl fto.N Into this cove 2: - fore wc.hing tilt. South 1 ork Rtwr Our point of contact conccsll ng tl a location and deter thereof may i:y-, oP,ta,r•ed b/ ccn�ac tzn� the ulldcr,; tgncd by Ittavl at 200 B iyshore Drt%e Belr -moat NC 28012 ttrltotttz tetepl 7r c 104/829. -7803 or bu,tn ,,s, number 704/865 -4310 Fir: 114us�e25 at trte ptfaetlt wne scan to be doing c ell nt tit,, loeattott rstr,ch Is b(-M Z s' hCdel "ed for Iicw rozd coni�tlucllon In the Immediate area tII Inycstsr,dtion taco this Inatter and responsc to the undersigned cult be gle lily appreciate{! RQBF R I I3I06M STAI I 200 Bayshorc DIn e De1111011t N C 28012 { May 9 2003 Department of Community GASTON COUNTY Development and Technology Community Development Division VailingAddrecs P O Box 1578 Gastonia NC 28053 1578 Street Address 212 West Main Avenue Gastonia NC 28052 Fax (704) 866 3908 e mail dwvilliams _&co gaston nc us Writer s Direct Number (704) 866 3473 Gregory J Thorpe Ph D NC Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 -1548 Dear Dr Thorpe �EIV�40 MAY 22 `4 C %ri ter T �EVwtU� NTAL ANP, Gaston County Community Development is in receipt of your letter dated April 9 2003 requesting comments concerning impacts of the proposed East -West Corridor Study for the 321174 by -pass or the Garden Parkway Community Development appreciates the opportunity to provide you with comments as it relates to the impacts on the social economic demographic land use and environment in the subject project area Further Community Development through the County's coordination process is in agreement with previous comments in letters submitted to from the Gaston County s Quality of Natural Resources Commission (QNRC) and the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Since these two agencies are very familiar with the projects and the potential impacts Community Development would like to incorporate or mesh their comments with a few additional comments and thoughts as will be listed below I will attempt not to duplicate comments however there may be the casual occasion or some situations where it is simply unavoidable yet important and significant to Gaston County The comments on the impacts are primarily based from the Gaston County Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in November 2002 Since the Community Development Department is principally engaged in Land Use Planning and thus most of what is expressed is centered around that topic I would also request that you refer to the respective agencies previously mentioned above pertaining to details surrounding the environment and transportation According to the Gaston Comprehensive Plan the county is located in the south central Piedmont of North Carolina and is the second largest county in the Charlotte - Mecklenburg metropolitan region The Catawba River forms the eastern boundary separating Gaston from Mecklenburg County with Lincoln County to the north Cleveland County to the west, and York County SC to the south Somewhat unique to the region are the 15 municipalities located within the County with Gastonia as the largest Most of these towns have their roots in the County s textile history and each has its own character and outlook toward the future These municipalities represent a significant asset to the community but also pose challenges for the future of Gaston County The County will also be faced with many external forces that will shape the way the County grows The County can manage some of these forces but others may be beyond the County s control As Gaston County and its 15 municipalities enter the new millennium they will need to coordinate efforts to guide growth in the direction best suited for the present and future residents of Gaston County And as it relates to land Gaston is part of the Piedmont Plateau between the Q z Ir ; foothills of the Appalachian and the sandhills of the coastal plain Creeks of the Catawba system carve through the gently rolling is characteristic of the Piedmont while monadnocks rocky masses that stand isolated after softer rock surrounding them is eroded away punctuate the landscape and form part of the County s visual heritage and sense of identity Despite long reliance on manufacturing as economic base over 40% of the land area remain in woods or forest the highest percentage of any neighboring North Carolina Counties Gaston County soils are mostly variations of the sandy clay loam soils with varying properties that make them generally suited for agriculture and development I open with these directly from Gaston s plan to illustrate the growth potential and some of the important features of the natural environment and the reasons why Community Development request that protection devices and best management practices be used Still for environmental and transportation impacts please refer to the QNRC and Gaston MPO recommendations Gaston County Community Development submits the following recommendations and comments As the impacts relates to Land Use Gaston consists of 15 municipal entities and one unified school system Most of the Local Government have some for Community Development would suggest that NCDOT be in concert with their plans for physical development of the all those local governments as well As for the future construction of for schools etc it would be a consideration to verify with Superintendent of Gaston County as any potential impacts to the development of future school facilities 2 Gaston County Board of Commission adopted a County Wide Comprehensive Plan (enclosed an adopted copy) in November of 2002 to be used as a tool to guide development and act as mechanism to provide ways to better coordinate land use around the County and in the region Within this plan are goals and object that deal with land use and so Community Development would request to refer to those goals and objectives as they plan this project 3 Gaston Community Development would suggest to protection devices such as access management or other control devices to coincide with the economic development opportunities illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan 4 As a vast majority of the protect is scheduled for the unincorporated area and southern portion of Gaston County these areas are primarily undeveloped with the primarily development pattern being residential and open space Presently the area contains no water and sewer infrastructure However this area is protected to see a higher percentage of Gaston's growth over the next 10 - 20 years especially with plans for infrastructure to include water and extensions services showing high interest in this area Thus with consider of the natural and opens space that currently exist which characterizes this area Community Development would ask NCDOT to consider the overall implications of the project on the current and future planning of this area 5 As for citizen involvement Gaston County has a diverse population and therefore Community Development would further suggest that NCDOT assert or use creative methods to involve the general public in the project development process 6 As you will note the Comprehensive Plan calls for the development of an Open Space Plan to incorporate a greenway system which would link land uses around the County With the length and magnitude of the Parkway corridor it has been suggested and is also referenced in the Plan that some of right -of -way include opportunities for the greenway network In addition to the regional greenway system and regional ones provide if possible opportunities to interconnect with small internal or local networks For information Voices and Choices and the Urban Institute are looking at ways to implement a regional greenway system which may be impacted by the project 7 Land use patterns can also be impacted within the urban areas of municipalities to include retail restaurant and commercial in general with the potential for existing urban commercial development relocate to intersection on Parkway 8 With this project relative close to the state line and York County it has the potential to create some pressure on the demographics on the southern portion of the Gaston County Again thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this project Should questions arise feel free to contact me directly Thanks David L Williams MPA AICP Administrator Community Development cc Jan Winters County Manager Bill Beasley Assistant County Manager Larry Hurlocker Executive Director CdaT David Fogarty Cooperative Extension Scot Sibert Gaston MPO enclosure GASTON URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Post Offue Box 1748 • Gastonia North Carolina 28053 1748 Phone (704) 866 6837 • Fax (704) 864 9732 May 13 2003 Mr Gregory J Thorpe PhD Environmental Management Director Protect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1548 Dear Mr Thorpe EiVEb Qf U 0- T DEVEt o� NrAL A-P Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the TIP Project U -3321 (Gaston East -West Corridor Study) in Gaston County The Gaston MPO and City of Gastonia offer the following comments regarding said project Catawba Land Conservancy has expressed exploring the feasibility of a total conservation scenario for undeveloped property along the South Fork River and other watersheds Receiving input for the Catawba Land Conservancy about potential conservation areas are recommended 2 Due to the Garden Parkway s close proximity to the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport economic growth is anticipated Businesses and industries related to airport service and trucking would more than likely develop along the Garden Parkway along with other service related businesses The Garden Parkway will become an additional economic development tool for Gaston County in order to lure a greater number of industries and businesses Since various industrial uses are located along US 321 South continued and similar industries are likely to develop Economic development however has its downside Retail centers typically develop and/or relocate from the downtown or current suburban locations to the interchanges The possibility of shopping centers relocating from their existing locations to new locations along the Parkway could increase the number of vacant big boxes This would create blight situations in the current urban areas When these types of developments locate near the interchanges indirect impacts on the community and growth patterns occur through the shift in growth development and facility improvements, as well as potential neglect to the previous locations 3 Residential growth continues to occur in the southeast corner of Gaston County Large subdivisions of one acre or more are being developed, most of these Serving Belmont * Bessemer City • Cramerton • Dallas • Gaston County • Gastonia Lowell * McAdenville • Mount Holly + Ranlo • Spencer Mountain * Stanley w o= U 4 developments do not have public water and sewer service The need to provide public services increase in order to reduce the impacts on water and soil quality but also to provide the ability to build various lot size developments Inability to provide public services creates pressure and stress on the natural environment due to the need to build wells and septic tanks Consequently, long term effects on water and soil quality occur In addition, municipalities pay a majority of the costs for constructing and maintaining public services to low density developments 4 Since the majority of the study area south of Gastonia is undeveloped or underdeveloped the chance for development shifts and population shifts are high Indirect growth effects are likely to occur around the interchanges and along the thoroughfares feeding into the Garden Parkway 5 There are a number of existing neighborhoods within the study area It is important to prevent isolation within and between neighborhoods to avoid the possibility of neighborhood neglect and social degradation b Increased development from residential to commercial to retail to industrial will increase the amount of impervious coverage throughout the study area. Impervious coverage can then drastically increase the impacts on run off and water quality �7 Not only will water quality and run off be impacted by increased development the level of service on many of the thoroughfares and feeder routes to the Garden Parkway will also be susceptible The function and level of service of the thoroughfares that feed into the Garden Parkway could decrease especially if the high trip generation shopping centers and major retailers relocate near interchanges In addition circulation patterns and travel times may also change along the feeder routes and thoroughfares within the study area 8 Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens is located along the southern portion of New Hope Road (NC 279) There are potential environmental impacts development potential along the vacant land abutting the Gardens and impacts on the traffic volumes for New Hope Road (a major Thoroughfare) Since an interchange is proposed at New Hope Road traffic volumes along this thoroughfare would more than likely increase affecting the current capacity of New Hope Road If the volume of traffic increases along New Hope Road traffic congestion would more than likely occur and turning movement opportunities would be reduced which in turn creates unsafe movements without proper traffic safety mechanisms 9 Throughout the study area, there are large areas of wetlands and floodplams associated with a number of streams and rivers such as the Catawba River, South Fork River Catawba Creek and Crowders Creek Environmental impacts to these important watersheds should be kept to a minimum 10 There is a strong chance for noise pollution along the potential corridor Ways to minimize the noise impacts should be considered especially with the large number of existing and potential residential neighborhoods within the study area 11 Transit options have been discussed along the Garden Parkway in order to provide alternative modes to the residents of Gaston County Modes such as Bus Rapid or Light Rail have been discussed, but there is no definite mode or corridor selected at this time The ability to incorporate and provide for an alternative mode of transportation would greatly improve the accessibility between the Charlotte Douglas International Airport and Gaston and Mecklenburg County The inability or the unlikely hood of extending transit service within the study area raises concerns on the traffic volumes that will more than likely occur along the thoroughfares and feeder routes Land use changes would also have to occur to provide the type of and density required to sustain transit 12 A committee made up of local municipal planning commission members developed a land use recommendation plan to eventually serve as a guide to developing ordinances to provide sound and smart growth patterns The recommendations incorporate mixed -use developments limited shopping centers and strip mall locations farmland preservation neighborhood service centers and various other districts Without strong local ordinances and plans ineffective and detrimental uses could occur withm the study area which in effect could affect the function of the Garden Parkway 13 Throughout the study area, there are a number of cemeteries and historical sites Ensuring that minimal impacts to each of those are vital Information relating to the location of the cemeteries and historical sites can be acquired through the Gaston County Historical Commission 14 The Gaston County Comprehensive Plan recommends providing a green circuit (greenway network) along the proposed alignment of the Garden Parkway Providing open space improves the quality of life for Gaston County Without green space indirect impacts on the quality of life could trickle down to the neighborhood level and deter growth Should you require any additional information regarding this project please do not hesitate to contact me at 704 854 6604 or ,c oi,,/a c i t ,,ci f = 1stont t (. 0111 Sincerely d � t I� Scot Sibert, AICP Transportation Planner Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Ofy of G4SSTONIA ENGINaR/Nq DipvTMENT May 16 2003 Mr Gregory J Thorpe PhD Program Development & Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1548 Dear Dr Thorne MAY 21 20 "; HNGAY9f In response to your letter dated April 9 2003 concerning the environmental assessment for the proposed Gaston East West Corridor Study (Garden Parkway) State Project 8 2812501 (TIP Project No U 3321) the following information is provided ♦ Construction plans need to conform to all City and f EMA requirements for placement of fill material in the Flood Hazard Area and Floodway The City of Gastonia ordinance allows no rise in the floodplam ♦ The City may haVL existing underground utilities in the area that may be affected by the proposed roadway construction Any questions concerning the Foodway ordinance of the Cit,. should be directed to Thorne Martin Assistant City Fngineer at (704) 866 689 Other questions or additional information can be directed to me at (704) 866 6765 Yours very truly DONALD K LOWE City Fratfic Engineer cc J Philip Bombardier PF Asst City Manager Operations Felix A Pruitt PE PLS Director of Engineering /City Engineer Thorne A Martin PE Asst City Engineer Debby P Key Project Administrator Joseph E Bieker PE Storm Water Administrator Matthe,A W Jordan Director of Public Works & Utilities PO Box 1748 Castawa • NaRM CAROW • 28053 1748 ) (704) 866 6761 • FAX (704) 864 9732 NU 141f4 AUMOEN Tom of RU&S r"61 VEQ EF FRIDAY dOFO1 L BfwN EST s 86 RICK C GKISIORY W CUMMOM 3 HOYLF Mayor Sam C Rhyne Apnl 25, 2003 MAY Q 2n "� Via US Mail Gregory J Thorpe, PhD Environmental Management Director NC Deparmamt of Transportatwa Project Development and Ewvuontnent l Analysis 1548 Matt Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548 SubJect- Requestfor Commenrsfor Gaston East -West Corridor Slut& TIP Protect Number U -3321 Federal Alid Project No STP 1313(6) State Project No 8 2812501 The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) recently sent out a proposal to milirove east -west transportation mobs* in the area around the City of Gastonia and atbelr numICIPalities The proposal is known locally as the Garden parkway It is our mx6rstandmg that the proJeet will only be completed from Charlotte- Douglas International }airport to 185 just wcst of the Hwy 321 inter change This proposod study does not include the section between Hwy 321 and Dallas The Town of Dallas would like to formally ask that the study area be expanded to include the northern half of the proposed Garden parkavay We feel that this would not only make more economical sense but would also 49ow the municipalities and county to protect the comdor from erosion do to thi ` u o in subdivision growth this area is seeing In delaying the start dates for the egVkvWWntal survey we cannot hope to have a centerline for the proloct ompleted at any (Prin 4ble pauit Tn the future This may n,az o* delay any futtxre constlni,ction of t)* arde� A� kt y but may also dramatxcally change the ant af� 4ua o arde tlP���1 1 hnpe that You will Take 00 cono4adou and 4ow for the ftuudmg of the Northern leg environmental surM in toe Clear future As you kmw the Garden Parkway will be a mwor econonucal engW for Girton C 'WY AW OR �t#w Municipalities as well Sincerely 1` h s Y , 1 5i I�st Sam C Rhyme Mayor Town of Dallas �I ` 210 Norm Holland Slreot Dallas North Coralna 28034 1748 TOIWOM-e 704 922 W6 Received 05-08 -03 18 55 From -919 733 9794 To -PBSU RALEIGH Page 02 J o MECKLENBURG COUNTY Land Use and Environmental Services Agenc -AIR QUALITY - May 15 2003 Mr Gregory J Thorpe PhD North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh North Carolina 27699 1548 Re Request for Comments for Gaston Eazt West Corridor Study TIP Project Number U -3321 Federal Aid Project No STP 1213(6) State Project No 8 2812501 Dear Dr Thorpe sec El V o MAY 21 z00J Mecklenburg County Air Quality (MCAQ) appreciates the opportunity to provide input concerning the potential environmental impacts in the proposed study area for the Gaston East West Corridor The project area is located within the Charlotte /Gastonia maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO) In accordance with 40 CFR 93 116 an FHWA/FTA project must not cause or contribute to any new localized CO or PM10 violations or increase the frequency or seventy of any existing CO or PM,, violations in CO or PM,, nonattainment and maintenance areas This criterion is satisfied if it is demonstrated that no new local violations will be created and the severity or number of existing violations will not be increased as a result of the project r We understand this study will be conducted to evaluate preliminary alternatives Project level conformity determinations are typically made as part of the NEPA process after final project design MCAQ provides comments on NEPA documents prepared for projects in Mecklenburg County Please contact us if you have any questions Sincerely fX / Laura P Cummings Air Hygienist II PEOPLE • PRIDE • PROGRESS PARTNERSHIPS 1 700 N Tryon Street • Suite 205 • Charlotte NC 28202 2236 (704) 336 5500 • FAX (704) 31'6 4191 www charmeck org /Departments /luesa home asp �C E IV F Q MAY 'go 700� 0 May 15 2003sua Gregory J lborpe PhD teCUOT Environmental Managenient Direr for Project Development and Environmental Analysts Branch 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1548 Subject Gaston East/West Corridor Study TIP Project # U3321 Dear Mr Thorpe For many years the City of Charlotte and the Mecklenburg Union MPO have supported a new crossing of the Catawba River south of US 29/74 (Wilkinson Boulevard) and north of NC /SC 49 (York Road) Currently there is no crossing in this 10 mile section of the river The Mecklenburg Union MPO (MU-MPO) Thoroughfare Plan shows a new roadway extending from the 1 485 interchange with West Boulevard and crossing the Catawba River at the same point where the Gaston MPO Thoroughfare Plan shows a similar roadway extending from the Catawba River across the South Fork River and into south Gaston County Also we clearly undersianu the dilemma for the citizens in southern Gaston County ana southern Gastonia as they attempt to travel northward in order to gain access to I 85 and thereby cross the river at that location We further see benefit to this connection in that it would provide more direct access to the Charlotte Airport from southern Gaston County and would provide more access to Stowe Botanical Gardens for the residents of a mayor portion of Mecklenburg County We have two specific concerns about the portion of the proposed project in Mecklenburg County (as it currently shown on the Thoroughfare Plans) Both of our concerns involve the portion of Mecklenburg County west of 1485 and east of the Catawba River We recently developed a new Land Use Plan for this are that defines how the area will develop We are concerned that the proposed project could both split this area and also cut access to this area Our Thoroughfare Plan shows two key features that can help ameliorate these concerns One is ax opmed---mt'er� hwge.�.k 9-h -0rxie TFiver Road (`a, Mayor Thoroughfare on the MUMPO Thorough, are }---i e o her is a simple separa ion for Garrison Road Extension (a Minor i c��artment of Transporlatio-i J F -w tr Y of Glia Otte NC 28202 2858 7046-46 12c i Fax 704/336 4400 Gregory J Thorpe Catawba East/West Corridor Study May 15 2003 Page 2 of 2 Thoroughfare on the MUMPO Thoroughfare Plan) We feel that the degree of access control provided by any roadway in this corridor should be reviewed in the planning process We also recall that earlier work in discussing and planning this project indicated a potential to provide bicvcle land perhaps pedestrian) accommodation on any bridge structure crossing the Catawba River West Boulevard has been conceived for a long time as a facility that would include bicycle lanes and it would be appropriate for these lanes to extend across the river on any structure provided for this project , We would also recommend that any bicycle accommodation should be fully separated from all motor vehicle traffic zi As you know the existing interchange for West Boulevard at 1485 is only a simple diamond A key limiting factor in scopmg this project may be the feasible range of alternative interchange configurations that will work with the runway glide slopes for the Airport We hope these comments will be helpful as you move forward into the planning phase of this project and we look forward to working with you on this project in the future Sincerely LL 4- �a William B T�iroc- a E Assistant Director c Jim Humphrey Danny Rogers May 15, 2003 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Dr Gregory J Thorpe, PhD Environmental Management Director NC Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 -1548 1070 Heckle Boulevard A S Rock Hill South Carolina 29732 -2863 Toll Free (800) 922 -7272 Fax (803) 909 7227 Re Comments for Gaston East -West Corridor Study Dear Dr Thorpe r GEI VFO MAY 22 W rTr' & Codes Division (803) 909 7200 Planning Division (803) 909 7220 Zoning Division (803) 909 7230 Administration (803) 909 7240 I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments for this study York County is interested in the future of this project as the New Location Alternative of this project is already identified in the current Gaston MPO Long Range Transportation Plan and comes within two miles of the York County border Due to a transportation improvement of this scale being considered so close to currently undeveloped Iand in York County we request the follows comments to be considered as a part of this study They are as follows �-- I York County is currently rewriting its comprehensive plan, with particular attention paid to the land use plan element This project has the potential of significantly altering residential development dynamics in the western part of York County where such growth is not desired Any information on the status of this study would be appreciated 2 As a part of this concern, what are the expected impacts on commuting patterns from York County to Charlotte along SC 499 This is a concern because by locating interchanges along a new road near where the Gaston MPO Long Range Transportation Plan identifies such a corridor could cause York County and the local MPO to unnecessarily improve roads feeding the toll road By focusing interchanges on US 321 SC 274 and NC 279 the need for additional road widenmgs will be reduced 3 What impact is expected on Gaston County population and employment trends in each of the altematives9 4 Nk hat impact is expected on York County residential and employment trends in each of the \ alternatives X i k ( ounty is extremely interested in the results for this study We would appreciate being involved ,reN ei possible in this study in order to help select a project that meets the needs of North Carolina YC)RA (U( 'VI) (WIIekWl VI (PRRI SIOWI)hh( h h IRA IfI)DL!tl( 1(ItDNPIR and gaston County without unduly burdening York County and South Carolina with secondary and cumulative impacts I thank you for your time and am available to answer any additional questions you may have Feel free to contact me at (803) 909 -7240 P Eric L Greenway York County Planning D CC FHWA SC Office Jim Edwards RFATS SCDOT Planning Office ?ORA (01 %1 } ( OPbRti tifHN7 (.ORRP SP0W * k(f IS PRA71-1) ON RI()( I ED I APFR DANIEL STUNT B(Y[ANIGIL Cu1RDFN May 19 2003 NC Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Analysis 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 -1548 MAC 23 2W3 �G fd iy�� ',! o� Ado* Re Gaston East West Corridor Study TIP Project Number U -3321 Federal Aid Protect No STP 1213 (6) State Project No 8 2812501 Attention Gregory J Thorpe PhD Environmental Management Director Dear Mr Thorpe Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden has been in existence for 12 years attracting as many as 30 000 visitors per year before opening our new gardens in 1999 with an investment exceeding $20 million Since that time we have been attracting 50 000 — 75 000 visitors per year We feature 110 acres of meadows woodland and beautiful garden spaces anchored by a grand visitor pavilion The Garden has the beauty of a Master Plan and potential to attract as many as 500 000 visitors per year as the Master Plan is completed The current road system NC 279 would never handle that capacity In fact our remote location while attractively rural is sometimes a hindrance to visitors according to our surveys Our Board and staff are firmly behind the completion of this project called The Garden Parkway In its current early design our Garden entrance would be less than a half -mile from the proposed interchange NC -279 South New Hope Road We are satisfied with this projected location and don t want it any closer We feel it would adversely impact our visitors experience at the Garden We are confident that this completion will be a significant step in the success of Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden as it will afford the easy access of a half million potential visitors in central and south Mecklenburg County 6500 S Nfw Hope Rd Belmonr NC 28012 PHONE 704 825 4490 FAX 704 829 1240 � - A 11- I can assure you that our Board and staff will do our part in working to see this project complete I would simply urge that beginning with the early design phase that this project embrace the highest current standards for environmental issues as well as greenspace and beauty After all this roadway has an opportunity to set new standards in this part of our state as The Garden Parkway Please be aware that the Garden would be willing to cooperate with the design of the New Hope Road interchange as well as consult and review the overall roadway Please contact me with any questions you may have Sincerely �WL Mike Bush Executive Director Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden 0500 5 few Ilope Rd Belmont NC 25012 t I10NI '01 82, 4490 FAX "04 82) 12 it) 11 U 3321 Gaston co Subject U -3321 Gaston co Date Thu 24 Apr 2003 09 26 43 0400 From 'Dan Grissom' <dgnssom @dot state nc us> Organization North Carolina Department of Transportation To Krestina Solberg, P E <ksolberg @dot state nc us> Per your request the division does not have any comments in regards to the scope of the protect at this time If you need additional info lust let me know thanks dan gissom division construction engineer J loft 4/24/03 9 52 AM MICEIAEL F FASU Y CO%FRNOR Memorandum To From Subject 1 r S1 A FE OF NORTH CAROL INA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LYNDO TIPPLTI NECRFT1Rl May 12 2003 Ms Kristina Solberg PE Project Development & vironmental Analysis Branch James B Harris PE Engineering Manager Gaston East — We orridor Study TIP Project Number U -3321 Fed Aid Proa No STP- 1213(6) State Project No 8 2812501 The North Carolina Department of Transportation s (NCDOT) Rail Division is in receipt of your letter of April 9 2003 on the above subject corridor study and would like to provide comments in regard to rail- related matters that need to be considered in your study Of primary rail importance in the study area is Norfolk Southern (NS) Railways Washington DC to Atlanta GA mainline The NS mainline enters the eastern edge of the study area Just north of the Charlotte Douglas International Airport (Milepost 384 0 +/ ) and exits the northern edge of the study area between Gastonia and Bessemer City (Milepost 403 0 +/ ) passing through the towns of Belmont and Gastonia This NS mainline handles up to 40 freight trains and 2 passenger trains per day with maximum train speeds of 79 mph This track has also been designated as part of the future Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor from Washington DC to Atlanta GA Of lesser importance are the NS north -south branch lines from Crowder NC (Milepost HG 38 0) south of Gastonia northward up to Gastonia (Milepost HG 45 0) and Gastonia northward up to Gebo (Milepost HG 52 0) located Just north of Dallas NC Maximum train speed on these two lightly used branch lines Is 10 mph MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE 919 715 8803 LOCATION RAIL Dlv{s ON FAX 919 715 8804 CAPITAL YARD EWNEER NG & SAFET, BRANCH 862 CAPITAL BOULEVARD 1556 MSC WEBsim www bytrarn oR7 RALEIGH NC 27603 RALEIGH NC 27699 1556 J Also of rail importance in the study area is the 12 mile long inactive rail corridor owned by the NCDOT Rail Division that extends from Mount Holly to Gastonia and also consists of a 3 mile long branch line into Belmont A map is attached that shows the route and milepost markers of the NCDOT preserved rail corridor At Mount Holly the NCDOT s rail corridor provides potential connection to CSX s mainline track and at Belmont and Gastonia potential connections are provided to NS mainline track The NCDOT rail corridor was formerly owned by CSX and was purchased by NCDOT in the early 1990 s in order to preserve the rail corridor for future use CSX still owns the remaining portion of this lightly used duplicate CSX rail line from Mount Holly to Charlotte The entire rail corridor may one day be used for commuter rail service from Gastonia /Mount Holly /Charlotte As information the City of Charlotte is currently planning and designing for commuter rail service that may be extended to Gastonia at some time in the future although the mode of transportation to provide that service is unclear at this time There are also a number of sites between Mount Holly and Gastonia along the NCDOT rail corridor that are suitable for industrial development The NCDOT rail corridor could be reactivated to provide rail service to those industries if needed Rail traffic nationwide has been on the increase over the past decade It is therefore difficult to forecast what the rail needs of the rail lines contained in the study area will be in the future In anticipation of future rail needs railroads typically require that space be reserved for one future track whenever a highway overpass is constructed over their tracks There are many existing highway /railroad grade crossings contained in the study area These range in size from multi -lane highways on the State and Local roadway system to private unpaved crossings The protection at these rail f rossings ranges from lights and gates to the simple crossbucks It is the current olicy of NCDOT not to create any new at -grade highway /railroad crossings herefore grade separated highway overpasses or underpasses should be nticipated for any new highways crossing over the rail corridors in the study rea Highway /railroad grade separation structures need to provide the required ertical and horizontal clearances in accordance with current railroad and highway standards It is recommended that Norfolk Southern Railway be contacted in regard to your study if any additional information regarding their operations is required Please contact me at (919) 715 -8744 if you need any additional information in regard to railroad matters in general and particularly in regard to the NCDOT owned rail corridor contained in your study area a y J- o� 0 a " 0 W r" O - z CAT '/JNBp \\ >} t �o Z � W Q J w z v u INn a P N ve z v 11 Z M a O H +~ W m � Z b cp M # W W � F L � s 4a re4+b a H Mo Lc .4 hW � m 4 � tm @W p C + F G F h 9 y� 0 0. ID WN `7 -r 12 ` u � I� r °a Ed tL 4 W = OO ti2 4 o:; I may- t o N Qp d i 3 �u L E w 0 a z ( zo g � o� r IK Ig► Q' oVZZ � o C � x w - N. ij li ." ®z — z m I � r z Q:® H� Z <90 �z � zugm z Wo zz zF MINE i7' CIA I � r 3 Wo MICHAEL F EASLEY GOVERNOR W �VM+� STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION May 30, 2003 TIP Project U 3321 County Gaston Description Gaston County East West Corridor Study MEMORANDUM LYNDO TIPPET"r SECRETARY TO Gregory J Thorpe Ph D Environmental Management Director Protect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Attention Knstina Solberg, P E Consultant Engineer FROM Nathan K Phillips, P E Plan Review Engineer G / Congestion Management Section SUBJECT Preliminary Review of TIP Protect U 3321 The Plan Review Squad of the Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch has completed a preliminary review of this protect for the start of the study phase We would like to share the following comments ♦ The Regional Traffic Engineer has recommended budding a controlled access roadway with access provided only at interchanges or at widely spaced at -grade intersections He also recommends the new facility to tie into I -85 to the southwest of Gastonia at one end and 1485 in Mecklenburg County at the other end In the Gastonia area he recommends the route run south of SR 2446 �` ♦ Our Traffic Operations Group has recommended the inclusion of ITS as a transportation management alternative There is an existing Freeway Management System in Mecklenburg County If improvements were made to 1 -85 as part of the project, this would directly connect to the existing system If a new location alternative were built, this would be used as an alternate route during incidents on I -85 Cost of the ITS will be provided by the Traffic Operations Engineer once alternatives are identified The system will require approval from the MPO because it would affect the equity equation ♦ Our Signing Section has offered no comments relating to the protect at this time Similarly our Traffic Control Section and Signals and Geometries Section have no comments concerning the project at this time ♦ We have not received any comments from the Division relating to the project at present MAILING ADDRESS TELTPHONE 919 2504151 LOCATION TRAFFIC ENG NI -FRIAC AND SAri''1 Y SYSTLMS BRANCH FAX 919 250 -4195 CENTURY CEN I I R COMPLrX BUILDING B 1592 MAIL SI RVICr CENTER 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRRT RALEIGH NORTH CAROI INA 27699 1592 WFBS /r6 WWWliOHDOTSTATENCUs RALEICH NORTHCWFINA27610 Gregory J Thorpe PhD Page 2 05/30/03 At this time, we have no additional comments If you have any questions please contact Nasir Siddiqui, Plan Review Project Engineer, or me at 250 4151 NKP /ns cc M L Holder, P E (Attention Sammy Nichols) J A Bennett P E D D Galloway P E R E Mullinax, P E T M Hopkins, P E (Attention J H Dunlop, P E) C L Evans (Attention Elizabeth Honeycutt) J S Bourne, P E R W King PE �t€'k �c ae�=Jn �Y3.a � rM �� J AD' ANT T�'41'ATZO�Tr w kr n _ ,. -- u r .,..,. ...rtxxsr- f'6it^•.'f�`LfP �� � S?1CY'��/"� i�i�i �'T J/�1� ... �t€'k �c ae�=Jn �Y3.a � rM �� J Appendix A -3 Notice of Intent Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report — U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 Federal Register/Vol 71 No 81/Thursday April 27 2006/Notices 24909 SUMMARY Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub L 92-463 5 US C App 2) notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee ( COMSTAC) The meeting will take place on Wednesday May 24 2006 starting at 8 a in at the Federal Aviation Administration Headquarters Building 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington DC in the Bessie Coleman Conference Center located on the 2nd Floor This will be the forty third meeting of the COMSTAC The proposed agenda for the meeting will feature an update on commercial space transportation legislative activities briefings on national space and security policies new RLV technology developments and the Office of Space Commercialization in the Department of Commerce and an activities report from FAA s Office of Commercial Space Transportation The 2006 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts on the geosynchronous and non geosynchronous markets will also be released at this meeting An agenda will be posted on the FAA Web site at http /last faa govICOMSTAC Meetings of the COMSTAC Working Groups (Technology and Innovation Reusable Launch Vehicle Risk Management and Launch Operations and Support) will be held on Tuesday May 23 2006 For specific information concerning the times and locations of the working group meetings contact the Contact Person listed below Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations should inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Brenda Parker (AST -100) Office of the Commercial Space Transportation 800 Independence Avenue SW Room 331 Washington DC 20591 telephone (202) 267 -3674 E mail Brenda parker@faa dot gov Issued in Washington DC April 19 2006 Patricia Grace Smith Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation [FR Doc E6 -6306 Filed 4 -26 -06 8 45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13 -P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Sixth Meeting RTCA Special Committee 207 /Airport Security Access Control Systems AGENCY Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT ACTION Notice of RTCA Special Committee 207 Meeting Airport Security Access Control Systems SUMMARY The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 207 Airport Security Access Control Systems DATES The meeting will be held May 11 2006 from 10 5 p in ADDRESSES The meeting will be held at RTC A Inc Conference Rooms 1828 L Street NW Suite 805 Washington DC 20036 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT (1) RTCA Secretariat 1828 L Street NW Suite 805 Washington DC 20036 telephone (202) 833 -9339 fax (202) 833 -9434 web site http Hwwwrtca org SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P L 92-463 5 U S C Appendix 2) notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 207 meeting The agenda will include • May 11 Opening Plenary Session (Welcome Introductions and Administrative Remarks) • Agenda Overview • Workgroup Reports Workgroup 2 System Performance Requirements Workgroup 3 Subsystem Functional Performance Requirements • Workgroup 4 System Verification and validation Workgroup 5 Biometrics • Workgroup 6 Credentials • Workgroup 7 Perimeter • ICAO Update Closing Plenary Session (Other Business Establish Agenda Date and Place for Seventh and Eighth Meetings) Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability With the approval of the chairmen members of the public may represent oral statements at the meeting Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time Issued in Washington DC on April 18 2006 Robert L Bostiga RTCA Advisory Committee [FR Doc 06 -3946 Filed 4 -26 -06 8 45am] BILLING CODE 4910-13 -M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement Butler County PA AGENCY Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) DOT ACTION Cancellation of the notice of intent SUMMARY This notice rescinds the previous Notice of Intent (issued October 3 2001 —Vol 66 No 192) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed highway project in Butler County FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT David W Cough P E Director of Operations Federal Highway Administration Pennsylvania Division Office 228 Walnut Street Room 508 Harrisburg PA 17101 -1720 Telephone (717) 221- 3411 -OR -Brian Allen Assistant District Engineer for Design Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 10 -0 2550 Oakland Avenue P O Box 429 Indiana PA 15701 Telephone (724) 357 -2077 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Additional traffic analyses have indicated that all project alternatives can be down scoped with little or no significant impact to the environment An Environmental Assessment will be pursued based on a revised project scopmg (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20 205 Highway Planning and Construction The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program) James A Cheatham FHWA Division Administrator Harrisburg PA [FR Doc 06 -3988 Filed 4 -26 -06 8 45am] BILLING CODE 4910-22 -M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental impact statement Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties NC AGENCY Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) DOT ACTION Notice of intent 24910 Federal Register/Vol 71 No 81/Thursday April 27 2006/Notices SUMMARY The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for a proposed highway project in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties North Carolina FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Clarence W Coleman P E Operations Engineer Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bern Avenue Ste 410 Raleigh North Carolina 27601- 1418 Telephone (919) 856 -4346 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION The FHWA in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) and the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) addressing proposed improvements to east west transporation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia and other municipalities in southern Gaston County As part of this proposed action the NCDOT also proposes to improve mobility access and connectivity between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County The proposed project study area consists of the following general boundaries I -85 to the north the South Carolina State line to the south the Charlotte Douglas International Airport to the east and the I -85 and US 29 -74 junction to the west The proposed action is consistent with the thoroughfare plans approved by the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Mecklenburg Union MPO Alternatives to be studied in detail include 1 No Build 2 Construction of a new location highway Sixteen detailed study alternatives or corridors will be studied in the Draft EIS The proposed project is being developed as a candidate toll road Accordingly in conjunction with development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and other on going project development activities NCTA is conducting a study to evaluate the feasibility of developing the proposed highway as a toll road and funding it in whole or in part through the issuance of revenue bonds Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments have been sent to appropriate Federal State and local agencies Citizens informational workshops meetings with local officials and a public hearing will be held Information on the dates times and locations of the citizens informtional workshops and public hearings will be advertised in the local news media and newsletters will be mailed to those on the project mailing list The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20 205 Highway Planning and Construction The regulations implementing Executive order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program ) Issued on April 20 2006 Clarence W Coleman Operations Engineer Raleigh North Carolina [FR Doc 06 -3949 Filed 4 -26 -06 8 45am) BILLING CODE 4910 -22-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice of Final Federal Ageny Actions on Proposed Highway in Alaska AGENCY Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) DOT ACTION Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA and other Federal Agencies SUMMARY This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U S C 139(1)(1) The actions relate to a proposed highway project the East Lynn Canal Highway Alaska Route Number 7 from Echol Cove to Katz Point in the Haines and Juneau Boroughs State of Alaska Those actions grant licenses permits and approvals for the project DATES By this notice the FHWA is advising the public of final agency action subject to 23 U S C 139(1)(1) A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before October 24 2006 If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 180 days for filing such claim then that shorter time period still applies FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Tim Haugh Environmental and Right of Way Programs Manager FHWA Alaska Division P O Box 21648 Juneau Alaska 99802 -1648 office hours 7 a in - 4 30 p in (AST) phone (907) 586 -7418 email Tim Haugh @fhwa dot gov You may also contact Reuben Yost Special Projects Manager Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities DOT &PF) 6860 Glacier Highway P O Box 112506 Juneau Alaska 99811- 2506 office hours 8 a in -5 p in (AST) phone (907) 465 -1774 e mail Reuben —Yost @dot state ak us SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing approvals for the following highway project in the State of Alaska FHWA Alaska Division Project Number STP- OOOS(131) titled the Juneau Access Improvements Project involves construction of approximately 51 miles of two lane highway from the end of Glacier Highway at Echo cover in the City and Borough of Juneau to a point two miles north of the Katzehin River in the Haines Borough A ferry terminal will be constructed at the north end of the highway and new shuttle ferries will be constructed to run from Haines and Skagway Three major rivers will be bridged as well as several streams The actions by the Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project approved on January 18 2006 in the FHWA Record of Decision (ROD) issued on April 3 2006 and in other documents in the FHWA administrative record The FEIS ROD and other documents in the FHWA administrative record file are available by contacting the FHWA or the DOT &PF at the addresses provided above The FHWA FEIS and ROD can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at http 11dot alaska gov/ luneauaccess or viewed at public libraries in the project area This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws and Executive Orders under which such actions were taken including but not limited to 1 General National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U S C 4321- 4351] Federal Aid Highway Act [23 us C 109] 2 Air Clean Air Act [42 U S C 7401 - 7671(q)] 3 Land Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U S C 3031 4 Wildlife Endangered Species Act [16 U S C 1531 -1544 and section 15361 Marine Mammal Protection Act [16 U S C 1361] Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U S C 661 - 667(d)] Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U S C 703 -7121 Magnuson Stevens Appendix B Volume to Capacity Ratio Maps Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED CD FOR THIS SECTION Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 Appendix C Tables of 2025 Projected Traffic Volumes for I -85, US 29 -74 and US 321 Addendum to the Final Altematives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED CD FOR THIS SECTION Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 Appendix D Design Criteria and Typical Cross - Sections Addendum to the Final Altematives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED CD FOR THIS SECTION Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 Appendix E Preliminary Corridor Segment Evaluation Matrix Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED CD FOR THIS SECTION Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 Appendix F Draft Traffic Technical Memorandum for the Functional Design Corridors (Without Appendices) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED CD FOR THIS SECTION Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 Appendix G Functional Design Corridor Segment Evaluation Matrix Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED CD FOR THIS SECTION Addendum to the Final Altematives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 Appendix H Large -Scale Map of the Functional Designs in the Functional Design Corridors Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report U3321 DRAFT - July 2008 PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED CD FOR THIS SECTION Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report U 3321 DRAFT — July 2008 ADDENDUM APPENDICES Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 ADDENDUM Appendix A Letter from NCTA to NCDOT - May 21, 2007 Addendum to the Final Altematives Development Report U3321 DRAFT - July 2008 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY MICHAEL F EASLEY 1578 MAIL. SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH N C 27699 1578 GOVERNOR 1 May 21, 2007 Deborah M Barbour, P E ' Director of Preconstruction North Carolina Department of Transportation 1541 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1541 DAVID W JOYNER EXECUTWE DIRECTOR RE North Carolina Turnpike Authority Gaston East -West Connector TIP Project U -3321 Dear Ms Barbour, Per a conversation between David Joyner of NCTA and Secretary Lyndo Tippett on February 16, 2007, NCTA is now proceeding with only evaluating toll alternatives in the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Gaston East -West Connector Non -toll alternatives will not be included in the EIS This decision will streamline the studies for the EIS and be more cost effective since added studies accounting for the non -toll alternatives will not be needed This decision was based on the consideration that it would be unlilcely for NCDOT to implement the project as a non -toll facility Should you see this situation differently, please advise If you have any questions, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (919) 571 -3030 or via email at -Steve dewittOncturnpike org Sincerely, teven DeWitt, P E Chief Engineer Jennifer Harris, P E, NCTA NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY TELEPHONE 919 571 3000 FAX 919 5713015 ADDENDUM Appendix B Year 2030 Traffic Forecasts Prepared by Martin /Alexiou /Bryson May 2008 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED CD FOR THIS SECTION Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 ADDENDUM Appendix C Travel Time Contour Maps from the 2030 Metrolina Model Under the No -Build Alternative, Improve Existing Roadways Alternative (Scenario 4 + /4a), and New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 cc �pJ 5 U) C OI u 1 N O d > C 4. m OC- E E E E E E E E E o 0 0 0 C a 0 0 00 v0 00 o a0o o o a N - - -- m a s O I J O N -- - -. soumrmmap _.- - 04 M %� spy d` qp Np i" UUQ O� P L C� s 0 CC C >p ,y 0,- U d � T c c c c E H -- � E E E E E E E E E o 0 0 o - O M O N _ V Oy5 ry��s�vZr �Pp - PpQ i C� MdY i P >p ,y i i i s p`� Garden Parkway 1 O C o.En o �NpVlpERS W','aNVtO -- - _Co 4a cn /j m c 0 RGyiNWUnp RD °j C E C °' c. 3 � 0 r c c c c c c c c c E 'E E c O E E E E E E E E E o 0 0 C R O O O O O O O O O 12 c-1 N m V S (o I� W o) rl c-V .-I -- - _. - -- SBt - E_5.1 ENL - wC� M co Sleele C N Rd Et S MW W Q 1 Q M � i, o � 1 d; bgQ, �J i p`� Garden Parkway 1 O C o.En o �NpVlpERS W','aNVtO -- - 4a /j c 0 RGyiNWUnp RD �l c. 3 � 0 c z E_5.1 ENL �d IUS 331 1 p`� Garden Parkway 1 O C o.En o �NpVlpERS W','aNVtO -- - i sr� �W OJ � O• U s +- 0 11z O d U +r > a c c E E E E E E E (rj E E o 0 0 0 0 N M - - _- y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-I q C) J /tls O O CN O mil I; I So,lthP -oi, Rd -- R odes � � O M OQ I 1 — i 1 a _ C O 1 � 3 _ 0 -' Otl NOINfI _- c O i i sn I - -- m n 10011063AO6013dVN0 _ N ObSGVb, d 00 c 0 c 3_ o In i sr� �W 01 E` m N m C 3 _ O 7 O .-1 - OROwNE0.5 MOUN7BIN 0.0 r ?p 4e�o�� • 00 c � o ` c E (0 E E E E E E E E E o 0 0 o M -__ GeVI = a +1 d c♦ N M C m 0 r w m .-I ri .1 .-I n O 02 Z by W 4+ 7 N -- z , m 4jk I 01,15,- M I I - 11t� I f 1y � UH c; 0 Yn. c7 � I c! 0 art i a a y - .- US 321 - 1' I — - _ 100H,�S JUMD 13dVI U 01 E` m N m C 3 _ O 7 O .-1 - OROwNE0.5 MOUN7BIN 0.0 r ?p 4e�o�� N �I m = 3 0 c O N 3- � e-1 CROWDERS MOUMNN_RD -- C i � E c 3� � xE E EE E O E E E E o ry 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL .-1 N M O m O r 00 (D Steele Ch Rd EK Q Mi W 2� \ O b'd O 04: Al l ON 1.WOdN1D0`' £LT, ONI _ 1 ` CN _ i A; ' c 0 RONIryWOUp k0 ' l m c7 c 0 _ C pd D H y I _ -' wst CHAPEL GROVE SCHOOL I- I \GamenRaawzY °> N N �I m = 3 0 c O N 3- � e-1 CROWDERS MOUMNN_RD -- t ...... wrioc hp I IANON RD 50 I,S 7:1 d E 0 d m c 3 0 c 3_ om o� M o o 9 V/ a U CO F- c C c c c c c c c� s E E E E E E E E E o 0 0 0 0 _ O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c, m m Qz i- -... sari C 01 Qe Ucr) -- I II i _ 0! d� in I - Apo �o _ S t ...... wrioc hp I IANON RD 50 I,S 7:1 d E 0 d m c 3 0 c 3_ om o� > 0 - -_ > m - -_ �� E E E E E E E E E Z �- o 0 0 o Q a o 0 0 °v 0' o a rn° ti O M - - N coW W L s dN� s 3 ' �Y J LO IL— - US 32", ID y 1 1 C } C C o� 1 L - Qc 0 C Q 0� - Q' E E E E E E E E E y o 0 o o o 00 0 0 Q d i N m' n (O 1 W O) i Z co d m _. O i - 5 -1 Nca`'"S''`ao 0 -- 1� Ol IF I ` -� 05321 X5321 c i�S o CRa% j '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L n � 2 I i-� O _r U � Q � C Q'- E E E E E E E E E Q a� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .� cv M .-1 N 0 0 o s o o g o H H m O Y d p CV Q. CL lb3lkl I = I - n � 2 I _r I e I 1 0 I l 115321 'J i SUS 321 ADDENDUM Appendix D Information Regarding Elimination of Corridor Segment KiD from Detailed Study 1 Letter from Duke Energy to NCTA — August 7 2007 2 Memorandum from NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit to NCTA — June 1 2007 3 Teleconference Record — NCDOT Structures Unit and PBS &J — June 6 2007 4 Memorandum from NCDOT Geotechnical Unit to NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch — September 15, 2005 5 Meeting Minutes — Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting — September 27 2007 Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development Report - U 3321 DRAFT - July 2008 Duke Energy. August 7 2007 Steve D DeWitt P E Chief Engineer North Carolina Turnpike Authority 1578 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 -1578 Dear Mr DeWitt 526 Church Street Chartotte NC 28202 Mailing Address EC10C /P0 Box 1006 Charlotte NC 28202 Subject North Carolina Turnpike Authority TIP U -3321 Gaston East -West Connector Allen Steam Station Future Operations This letter is in response to your July 6 2007 letter to Mr Immel requesting information on future operations of the inactive ash basin Upon review of your map of the proposed alternative segments, it appears that Segment K1 D does cross over the retired ash basin This retired ash basin is bounded by the coal stockpile to the north the Catawba River to the east and the active ash basin to the south The Allen station will be adding new pollution control equipment flue gas desulfurization — or scrubbers to comply with the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act requirements See N C Gen Stat § 143 -215 107D In conjunction with this modernization the Allen station is in the process of designing permitting and constructing a storage area for Coal Combustion Products over the retired ash basin initial site investigations have been performed and design work is in progress in preparation for discussions with NCDENR To obtain the required capacity we are planning to use the entire retired ash basin footprint and rise approximately 150 feet above the current elevation The storage area will most likely be constructed with a double synthetic liner system with a witness zone between the liners Construction is currently planned to start in late 2008 The project team had evaluated several alternatives and sites for the future storage area however this was the only viable site that provided the required capacity I hope I have addressed you request however if you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me at (704) 382 -8691 or e-mail tamanes @duke- energy corn Sincerely Theodore A Manes Project Manager www duke energy corn cc Steve Immel Plant Allen Station Manager Tim Gause, Gaston District Manager STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F EASLEY GOVERNOR MEMORANDUM TO June 2007 Jeff Dayton N C Turnpike Authority FROM Njoroge Wainaina State Geotechnical Engineer NCDOT — Geotechnical Engineering Unit LYNDo TIPPETT SECRETARY STATE PROJECT U 3321 COUNTY Gaston DESCRIPTION New Route from 185 West of Gastonia to NC 160 In Mecklenburg County SUBJECT Geotechnical Report — Segment KID over the Retired Fly Ash Basin at Allen Steam Station Duke Energy has conducted a site suitability study at the retired ash basin for the purpose of permitting a new landfill at the site They have provided data from their subsurface investigation I have reviewed the available data in order to provide comments to the Transit Authority regarding the feasibility of the site for roadway construction The site in question is on the property of Duke Energy at the Allen Steam Station near Belmont N C The site is a retired ash basin It was active in the early to mid 1970 s It consists of three to four cells used for storage /disposal of ash waste generated by burning of coal for production of electricity The ash was hydraulically placed with no engineering control relative to density/compaction The area is now vegetated It is bounded to the north east and south by dikes The steam station s active coal pile is dust north of the site an active ash basin is to the south and the Catawba River just to the east The size of the site is roughly 2000 feet by 1650 feet MAILING ADDRESS NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING UNIT 1589 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27699 1589 TELEPHONE 919 250 -4088 FAX 919 2504237 WEBSITE WWW DOH DOT STATE NC US LOCATION CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX ENTRANCE B 2 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE RALEIGH NC 2 Summary of test data for the ash material The ash deposit has a maximum thickness of about fifty eight feet Shear Strength parameters for the ash (Triaxial CU normal stress) C cp Lb /ftz Deg 210 18 8 0 156 950 11 1 380 195 One dimensional consolidation Ce ranged from 0 09 to 0 22 Wet unit weight ranged from 89 8 to 94 0 lb /ft3 Standard Penetration Test values in the ash were commonly around 2 blows per foot and did not tend to show any increase with depth Groundwater is present across the site at depths of one to ten feet below the existing ground surface Interpretation of the test data The data indicates that settlement/consolidation will be excessive and non uniform This would create an unacceptable condition in the form of waviness of the roadway surface and pavement failure The data further indicates considerable potential for embankment failure in the form of deep seated slope instability We conclude that roadway construction over the ash basin in its current state would not be feasible Potential treatment options include Bridge the entire fly ash basin Bridging the fly ash basin is the only practical alternate that eliminates the risk of potential large magnitudes of differential settlement that may occur There is risk in considering other treatment options of the fly ash to support an embankment and roadway Other treatment options are discussed below however for feasibility study there is risk in considering them as they may or may not completely perform as expected 3 Excavation and replacement of the ash material This is largely impractical due to the large volumes involved and the high groundwater table Dynamic compaction Minimally effective due to the depth of the ash material high groundwater and fine grained nature of the fly ash material Pile supported embankment This is a potentially feasible solution very similar to bridging the fly ash basm The number of piles would be substantial and more than for a bridge Piles are typically on 5 foot centers Many of the piles would be 50 to 60 in length The footprint of the embankment is substantially larger than that of a bridge Pile supported embankments are typically cost effective if the unsuitable soil is less than 30 feet in depth A study of the corrosive potential of the ash would be required Soil mixing or jet grouting This potentially could work but would be more expensive than bridging and the entire footprint of the embankment would require treatment Prepared by Clint Little NCDOT Regional Geological Engineer CONFERENCE CALL NOTES GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Date June 6 2007 Time Afternoon Place Via Telephone Subject Construction Options Over the Allen Steam Station Fly Ash Basin Attendees Tom Koch Jill Gurak Notes NCDOT Structures Unit PBS &J The purpose of the meeting was to request input from Mr Koch regarding the recent results of the geotechnical study on the Allen Steam Station Fly Ash Basin The geotechnical study was performed by the Allen Steam Station They agreed to share the results with the NC Turnpike Authority Mr Clint Little from NCDOT s Geotechnical Unit reviewed the results of the geotechnical study for NCTA A memorandum dated June 1 2007 from Njoroge Wamaima ( NCDOT State Goetechmcal Engineer) prepared by Mr Little provides a summary of Mr Little s review of the geotechnical data This memorandum is attached Mr Little states that roadway construction over the ash basin in its current state would not be feasible Bridging the fly ash basin is the only practical alternate that eliminates the risk of potential large magnitudes of differential settlement that may occur Pile supported embankments are also a potentially feasible solution very similar to bridging the fly ash basin Pile supported embankments are typically cost effective if the unsuitable soil is less than 30 feet in depth Based on Mr Little s comments Mr Jeff Dayton of HNTB thought it may be beneficial to discuss these findings with a structural engineer Mr Dayton and Mr Koch could not get in contact before Mr Dayton left for vacation so Mr Dayton asked Mr Koch to contact me , Ms Gurak provided Mr Koch some background on the Gaston East West Connector project and the Detailed Study Alternative that passes over the Allen Steam Station s fly ash basin (currently inactive) Currently preliminary designs are being prepared in support of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Just to the west of the fly ash basin is an active rail line used by the steam station West of the rail line is the Catawba River These three features are directly adjacent to each other and the rail line and river both must be bridged Meeting Notes June 6 2007 Mr Koch stated that pile supported embankments would not be feasible for a mayor roadway in this location due to the long length of embankment needed to traverse the fly ash basin and the depth of ash (up to 58 feet in depth) A bridge could be feasible but piers would need to be at least 60 feet long (vertically) to clear the depth of the ash basin This type of bridge for the subject project would add substantial cost to the alternative over the fly ash basin There is a bridge on the US 17 Windsor Bypass that is similar in height and length although it is up in the air rather than sunk into the ground That bridge is 1 700 feet long with cored slabs each 50 feet long Mr Koch stated he can provide a basic cost for the bridge during the cost estimating stage of the preliminary engineering designs It is not possible at this time to determine whether the alternatives over the fly ash basin (including the necessary bridging) would be significantly more expensive than the other detailed study alternatives Once the preliminary designs are completed construction and right of way costs can be estimated and compared for each detailed study alternative 2 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F EASLEY GOVERNOR September 15 2005 LYNDO TIPPETT \ SECRETARY STATE PROJECT 34922 1 1 (U 3321) F A PROJECT STP 1213 (6) COUNTY Gaston Mecklenburg DESCRIPTION Gaston County East West Connector from 185 West of Gastonia to NC 160 in Mecklenburg County MEMORANDUM TO Mr Gregory J Thorpe PhD Director Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch 9,.,P,— el,-� FROM John L Pilipchuk LG PE Western Regional Geotechmcal Manager Geotechmcal Engineering Unit Gregory A Smith LG PE GeoEnvironmental Supervisor Geotechmcal Engineering Unit SUBJECT Allen Steam Plant Fly Ash Basins The GeoEnvironmental Section performed a non intrusive investigation of two fly ash basins immediately south of Duke Power s Allen Steam Plant property near Belmont Our findings are to partially assist in determining the suitability of Segments KIB K1C KID for additional study The northern basin is inactive and vegetated while the southern basin currently receives approximately 12 000 gallons of fly ash slurry per day The above segment alignments cross a portion of the northern basin Fly ash was placed in the basin via water slurry the solid material settled out and the water was discharged from the basin into the Catawba River Typical of such operations Duke Power practiced no engineering control over consolidation of the ash The resulting material has low strength and is generally unsuitable as a structural foundation without modifications Roadway construction across the basin must therefore include considerable in situ modifications to the ash s physical properties necessary for improved constructability or its excavation and replacement with suitable embankment material MAILING ADDRESS NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING UNIT GEOENVIRONMENTAL SECTION 1589 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27699 1589 TELEPHONE 919 250 -4088 FAX 919 250 4237 WEBSITE WWW DOH DOT STATE NC US LOCATION CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX BUILDING B 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE RALEIGH NC 27610 Mr Gregory J Thorpe PhD September 15 2005 Page 2 Fly ash usually exhibits physical properties suitable for embankment material when it has been properly dried and compacted Environmental impacts regarding contaminant concentrations within fly ash generally are not a mayor concern as with bottom ash but appropriate chemical analyses must be performed prior to acceptance of the material A geotechnical /geoenvironmental field investigation can be scheduled if more detailed information is needed to make a final decision regarding the status of the segments in question Please contact Greg Smith GeoEnvironmental Supervisor at (919) 250 4088 for additional geoenvironmental information or John Pilipchuk Western Regional Geotechnical Manager at (704) 455 8902 for additional geotechnical information 1 I ,k NORTH AROLINA Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAQ Meeting -West MEETING MINUTES (Draft) A Date September 27 2007 1 30 pm to 3 20 pm NC Turnpike Authority Board Room Protect STIP U 3321 Gaston E W Connector — STP 1213(6) Gaston E W Connector Spotlight Attendees George Hoops FHWA Tony Houser NCDOT Roadway Donnie Brew FHWA Knstina Solberg NCDOT PDEA Michael Culp FHWA Teresa Hart NCDOT PDEA Steve Lund USACE Steve DeWitt NCTA Scott McLendon USACE Reid Simons NCTA Kathy Matthews EPA Jennifer Harris NCTA Chris Mdtscher EPA Ross Andrews EcoScience Corp Polly Lespinasse NCDWQ r Michael Gloden EcoScience Corp Marla Chambers NCWRC , Jeff Dayton HNTB Marella Buncick USFWS , � Jill Gurak PBS &J Dewayne Sykes NCDOT Roadway Kim Bereis PBS &J Dan Grissom NCDOT Division 12 Amanda Huber PBS &J Elizabeth Lusk NCDOT NEU Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC Website) • Meeting Agenda • PowerPoint Presentation • Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) Display • Handout 1 Elimination of Detailed Study Corridor Segment K1 D • Handout 2 NCDOT Geotechnical Report Update for Fly Ash Basin General Discussion ° • Purpose — The purpose of the meeting was to provide further updates on recently completed /ongoing environmental and technical studies recent correspondence with Duke Power supporting elimination of detailed study corridor segment K1 D and next steps towards the DEIS The NCTA requested comments issues and concerns from the agencies regarding environmental issues based on the recently completed /ongoing studies • PowerPoint Presentation — Topics highlighted in the PowerPoint presentation included a summary of the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) activities related to the recent Rapanos decision regarding Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - West 9/27/07 Page 2 of 7 additional USACE forms needed for Jurisdictional resources a summary of findings from the Draft Community Characteristics Report (CCR) toll traffic forecasting status information related to the Duke Power Allen Steam Station Fly Ash Basin current studies /activities upcoming /future studies and scheduling of field tours The presentation material is summarized below Natural Resources Overview • Ross Andrews (EcoScience) provided an overview of the NRTR Mr Andrews discussed the various natural communities (terrestrial animal and aquatic) in the study area as well as federally protected species 303(d) listed streams and wetlands Mr Andrews summarized the organization of the report and investigations by the three sub consultants for the three project segments • Mr Andrews also discussed applying the Rapanos jurisdictional forms to the project the coordination taking place with the USACE and estimated time to complete additional forms • The NRTR is near completion for submittal to NCDOT for review After the report is finalized hard copies will be provided to the agencies Community Characteristics Overview • Kim Bereis (PBS &J) provided a summary of findings from the Community Characteristics Report (CCR) including demographic information community resources proposed school locations within the corridors for two DSAs and an overview of neighborhoods and communities in the study area • The CCR will be provided to NCDOT for comment,- The next step is the Community Impact Assessment (CIA) Toll Traffic Forecasting Studies }� o Jill Gurak (PBS &J) noted that MAB and Wilbur Smith Associates are coordinating regarding model assumptions and that toll scenario traffic forecasts will be completed this year Duke Power Allen Steam Station Fly Ash Basin • Ms Gurak presented recently received information related to the Allen Steam Station that warrants consideration of eliminating detailed corridor Segment KID from detailed study Segment K1 D traverses a retired Fly Ash Basin (approximately 76 acres in size) south of the Allen Steam Station main plant � • Duke Power provided their plans for the retired Fly Ash Basin in an August 7 2007 memo Duke Power is planning to construct a landfill on the Fly Ash Basin site with construction anticipated to begin m 2008 NCDOT s Geotechnical Unit reviewed the memo and concluded roadway construction over th6 retired basin would not be feasible Due to the interference with plant operations and infeasibility for constructing an alignment above the proposed 150 foot high landfill elevation the NCTA proposed eliminating segment K1 D from further consideration for detailed study This would eliminate 4 of the 16 DSAs (6 24 65 and 78) All in attendance agreed that based on the information provided by Duke Power corridor segment K1 D is not feasible and it is reasonable to eliminate the DSAs that include Segment K1 D from further study Upcoming and Current Studies /Activities • Supplemental Historic Architectural Survey Work is anticipated to be complete in December for additional properties being studied for eligibility An eligibility meeting with HPO will be scheduled when that work is nearing completion • Louis Berger is undertaking the Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects analysis and a draft of the report is scheduled to be complete in January • The Preliminary Hydraulic Analysis Report is on schedule for completion in late October • Existing Noise Measurements are scheduled for October • Work on Farmland Sods and Natural Resource Conservation Service coordination is underway • After completion of the field verification meetings additional progress on the preliminary designs and determinations of eligibility by the HPO it is believed that some of the DSA corridors may be candidates for elimination prior to inclusion in the DEIS As this information becomes available it will be presented to the environmental agencies This information will likely be presented near the end of the year or beginning of 2008 Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - West 9/27/07 Page 3 of 7 o Natural resources field tours will be scheduled as the agencies provide their availability No representative from HPO was in attendance NCTA will follow up and solicit available dates from the agencies and contact HPO regarding their interest in a tour for historic resources • Wrap up /Next Steps • The October TEAC meeting is anticipated to be a snapshot of project activities • Concurrence Point 2A Meeting is tentatively scheduled for early 2008 • A Preliminary DEIS is scheduled for delivery to the NCTA in June 2008 What is the status of the Biological Conclusion for bald eagles? Bald eagle surveys were conducted in 2006/2007 and no evidence of bald eagles nests were found in the study corridor In addition following these surveys bald eagles were de listed Do the attendees agree that Detailed Study Comdor Segment K1 D should be eliminated from further study2 All attendees were in agreement that based on the information provided by Duke Power corridor Segment K1 D is not feasible and it is reasonable to eliminate the DSAs that include Segment K1 D from further study The DEIS needs to address the infeasibility of alternatives that involve improving existing roadways due to the project now being proposed as a toll facility This will be discussed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS Is this project still ►n the Merger Process? Yes this project is still in the Merger Process (A discussion ensued whether previous decisions by some agencies to abstain at CP 2 precluded those abstaining agencies from participating in future concurrence points in the process ) Since this project is moving forward as a toll facility (and will be reflected as such in the updated LRTP) and because improving existing roadways is not feasible for a toll facility according to state law those agencies that previously abstained agreed that there is an advantage to leaving the project in the Merger Process A decision was made to bridge the gap between previous Concurrence Point 2 activities and Concurrence forms and the new set of assumptions moving forward This could be accomplished through a memorandum that describes the history of CP 2 for the project and activities with regard to DSAs to date This memo will not only provide history but will essentially document a new CP12 to reflect the tolling only option and the elimination of Segment K1 D Did Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens (DSBG) have any concems with respect to access9 If so please provide a summary of their concerns to the merger team �J d DSBG supports this project A May 19 2003 scoping letter from DSBG is provided with the minutes Does the Purpose and Need have to be revisited because of tolling and what are the implications with the new Section 6002 requirements? d No because the project s Purpose and Need is still valid whether the project is tolled or not Tolling can /will be used in screening the feasibility of alternatives Notices of Intent (NOI) issued after August 10 2005 are subject to Section 6002 Thd'NOI for Gaston was issued on April 27 2006 Per FHWA s request a memo will be developed to document early coordination efforts for this project When will the NRTR be available? Once approved by the NCDOT hard copies will be provided to the team and it will be posted to the TEAC website This should be available in October or November Previous Action Items • None New Action Items • There was a lot of interest in scheduling field tours for natural resources Agencies will send Jennifer Harris available dates in November and early December for a two day site visit Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - West 9/27/07 Page 4 of 7 • Provide a summary of public and agency coordination activities that have occurred for this project up to and through September 20 2005 (resolution of Concurrence Point 2) • Develop a memorandum to document the history of Concurrence Point 2 for this project • Provide hard copies of the NRTR to the agencies Resolutions • Attendees all agreed that construction of a roadway along Detailed Study Corridor Segment K1 D is not feasible and Detailed Study Alternatives that contain this segment (DSAs 6 24 65 and 78) can be eliminated from further study Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - West 9/27/07 a Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - West 9/27/07