Introduction. 1.1 Project Background

Transcription

1 1 Introduction 1.1 Project ackground he aine epartment of ransportation (aine, in partnership with the ffice of the Governor, the aine ffice of edevelopment and e-mployment, the owns of runswick and opsham, and the idcoast egional edevelopment uthority (, initiated this ransportation Feasibility tudy to promote development of immediate and long-range transportation improvement strategies that support the phased redevelopment of the aval ir tation runswick (. he 2005 ase ealignment and losure ommission decided to close the aval ir tation runswick, aine, including the opsham nnex (, 1 and to relocate its aircraft with dedicated personnel, equipment, and support to aval ir tation Jacksonville (Florida. s aine's second largest employer, the once employed more than 4,800 military and civilian personnel. In 2007, it provided more than $187 million to the local economy, including $115 million in salaries, $38 million in contracts and material purchases, and $34 million in medical purchases. 2 he loss of this economic driver could have a substantial impact on the economy of the idcoast egion. However, redevelopment of the ir tation and nnex represents an opportunity for economic growth if several issues identified in the ecember 2007 euse aster Plan are properly addressed. he euse aster Plan envisions the development of 1,690 acres of the ir tation and nnex, or roughly half of their combined area (i.e., 3,274 acres; the other half would be reserved for open space. he developed area would encompass a mix of land uses, including a civilian airport, professional office space, residential space, commercial and retail space, recreational and park, and educational uses. he euse aster Plan predicts that the redevelopment has the 1 For the purposes of this document and unless stated otherwise, all references to include both the ooks orner and opsham nnex facilities. 2 runswick aval ir tation euse aster Plan, ecember 2007, prepared for the runswick ocal edevelopment uthority by atrix esign Group. Introduction 11

2 potential to eventually replace the lost jobs and economic activity associated with the. critical issue identified in the euse aster Plan is that access to the must be improved for the redevelopment to reach its full potential. strategy to improve access should consider a wide range of transportation factors, including the adequacy and safety of the existing roadway network, feasibility of additional public transportation options, freight and passenger rail access, and adequate accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists. It is estimated that ultimately under a maximum build-out scenario, the traffic generated by the redeveloped facility could increase to at least twice the preclosure levels. his scenario has the potential to exacerbate congestion delays and safety issues along the roadways (e.g., Pleasant treet and at intersections (e.g., ooks orner that are currently experiencing lower levels of service (s. lthough some of the impacts may be mitigated through the creation of additional points of access to the adjacent street system at the, the 2007 euse aster Plan identified certain off-site improvements as necessary to accommodate the increased traffic volumes. his ransportation Feasibility tudy is based on recent and concurrent planning efforts associated with the and the idcoast egion, including the runswick aval ir tation and opsham nnex euse aster Plans, ecember 2007; the oute 1 orridor tudy, runswick, 2007; the Gateway 1 orridor ction Plan, June 2009; and the ongoing avy ase losure nvironmental Impact tatement. hese studies clearly indicate that current access to the redeveloped is inadequate and would seriously constrain the successful implementation of the euse aster Plan and the economic vitality that is so important to the idcoast egion. his Feasibility tudy considers and compares, at the macro level, the transportation efficiency, cost, right-of-way (, constructability, environmental, and community impacts of specific strategies and options, which range from relatively low cost easy to implement improvements to major reconstruction or expansion of the existing infrastructure. he tudy considers multimodal options including the existing and future movement of people and goods by rail, transit, truck, and automobile, as well as the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. 1.2 tudy rea, efined trategies, and ptions he tudy rea for this Feasibility tudy is generally bounded by Interstate 295 (I- 295 to the west between xits 28 and 31, by tate oute 196 to the north, and by oute 1 and ath oad to the east and south. However, as discussed herein, specific areas within this more general area were defined further in order to focus the tudy. Introduction 12

3 hroughout this Feasibility tudy, the terms strategy and option are used to describe different alternatives for achieving the improved access to the redeveloped. he term strategy refers to larger transportation and land-use needs used individually or in combination to achieve better access to the. ifferent ways of achieving those strategies are considered options. Potential options for a defined strategy may include actions such as the widening of an existing roadway, addition of turn lanes, improved traffic-signal timing, and implementation of ransportation emand anagement ( actions. For this tudy, five specific strategies were identified for evaluation. hese five strategies were provided to the aine by the Governor s dvisory ouncil and formulated through the previous euse aster Plan study efforts conducted by the. Focusing the evaluation effort on these five strategies ensures that the evaluation is conducted at a sufficient level of detail in order for decision makers to advance some of the preferred options to the permitting, design, and implementation phases. he five strategies or needs are as follows: Provide direct access to oute 1 from the. Improve mobility along tate oute 196 (oastal onnector from I-295 (xit 31 to oute 1, including the tate oute 196/ oute 201 intersection and oute 201 north to ld ugusta oad. Improve mobility between I-295 (xit 28 along Pleasant treet and aine treet in runswick to tate oute 123. Improve mobility along ill treet from Pleasant treet in runswick to tate oute 196. xtend the existing rail spur to the. hereas many transportation studies speak in terms of a single Preferred ption, this Feasibility tudy seeks to identify a Preferred ption - perhaps more than one - for each strategy. It is important to understand that one strategy may be forwarded to construction independently of the others. he Preferred ptions are prioritized for advancement based on the need to accommodate base redevelopment. ach of the five strategies has a defined tudy rea, which are shown in Figure Purpose and eed he intent of the purpose and need outlined in this section is to describe and support the Feasibility tudy. he purpose and need of a project establish a basis for the development of a range of reasonable options and assist with the identification, analysis, and eventual selection of a Preferred ption(s. he Purpose and eed tatement is used for comparing the effectiveness and impacts of the various tudy options to the o ction ption. Introduction 13

4 he Purpose and eed tatement is fundamental to the analysis of a Feasibility tudy under the ational nvironmental Policy ct (P, the lean ater ct (ection 404, and other environmental regulations. Project Purpose and eed he purpose of this Feasibility tudy is to guide future infrastructure investments to enhance mobility and access for redevelopment of the, including the opsham nnex, by: identifying measures to improve safety at problem locations in the tudy rea accommodating future traffic demands related to commuter trips and the shipment of goods and services to and from the redeveloped considering multimodal options (e.g., public transit and vehicular, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian modes that improve access efficiency at the redeveloped from I-295, oute 1, and tate oute 196 evaluating the engineering and environmental feasibility of creating a rail connection to the s described in the previous section, five needs were identified for evaluation. In meeting these needs, the proposed transportation solutions must dovetail with the goals of the communities of opsham and runswick, which include minimizing -related trips through downtown runswick and residential districts and maintaining and enhancing livable communities. ptions to be considered include the o ction ption; strategies to reduce vehicle trips (e.g., ride sharing/carpooling and public transit; enhanced rail service; and adding capacity to existing roadways by widening and improving intersections and interchanges. 1.4 Public Participation Process n open and consensus-driven public participation process that engages all stakeholders is key to the development and refinement of thoughtful transportation solutions. Good planning practice involves a mutual learning process among practitioners, elected officials, residents, business groups, citizen groups, and other affected parties. he thoughts, concerns, and ideas of the general public on tudy rea transportation needs, problems, and solutions are critical to crafting and refining solutions that are practical, permittable, affordable, and context-sensitive in meeting the transportation needs. Various methods were provided to simplify the process as much as possible for the public to learn about and provide input on the Feasibility tudy. Introduction 14

5 1.4.1 Public Informational eetings Public informational meetings were held at three key points during the Feasibility tudy so that the aine and the tudy eam could provide important information to the public and solicit its input. ttendee sign-in sheets and comment forms were provided at all public meetings. eeting reports, as well as presentations and handouts, were posted on the website following each meeting so that those not in attendance could follow the progress of the tudy. he topics and timing for the public informational meetings are listed in able ll meetings were held at the runswick Junior High chool except the final meeting on ugust 12, 2010, which was held at the ount rarat iddle chool in opsham. able Public Informational eetings eeting ate opics 1 ugust 6, 2009 eview of the Feasibility tudy objectives; definition of the five strategies; tudy schedule; environmental process; and public involvement plan 2 arch 30, 2010 eview of Feasibility tudy purpose and need; remainder of the tudy schedule; future conditions; summary of public input received at workshops conducted in eptember 2009 and January 2010; and description of options to be evaluated 3 June 2, 2010 eview of Feasibility tudy purpose and need; discussion of public feedback including bicycle and pedestrian access; public transportation opportunities; functional characteristics of roadways; and detailed plans of options for each of the five strategies 4 ugust 12, 2010 Presentation and discussion of study findings Public orkshops wo interactive public workshops were conducted at key points in the Feasibility tudy (able hese meetings differed from the public informational meetings in that there were no formal presentations by the aine, the tudy eam, or other stakeholders. ather, these meetings focused on review of the tudy base maps and conceptual designs. he public was invited to view these plans with the staff responsible for developing them. Various stations were set up in the meeting room, with each station focused on one of the five strategies or issues (e.g., trategy 1, environmental resources, socioeconomic issues, and multimodal connections. In this way, the public was able to interact one-on-one with the technical experts working on the project to ensure that public feedback was clearly understood. Introduction 15

6 able Interactive Public orkshops eeting ate opics 1 eptember 2, 2009 eview of Feasibility tudy base plan, including environmental constraints and roadway layouts; electronic polling of attendees regarding several areas of interest; feedback sought on options within each strategy (except trategy 1; environmental-resource maps presented 2 January 13, 2010 eview of Feasibility tudy schedule; natural- and cultural-resource mapping; traffic volumes, high crash locations (Hs, and operationally deficient locations; review of trategy 1 with information station; review of expanded trategy tudy dvisory ommittee tudy dvisory ommittee composed of public officials, business leaders, and residents of runswick and opsham met on a regular basis (approximately monthly to review Feasibility tudy progress. he ommittee provided invaluable insight to the needs and desires of the communities and also served as a sounding board in the development of the transportation solutions. he tudy dvisory ommittee members are as follows: nna reinich ee Karker enet Pols ich oedner ave arkovchick ed rooker James Howard Victor angelo eighton ooney Jeff Jordon John Gerard ouise osen ill orrey ony rmstrong John hattuck enise lavette en tudy dvisory ommittee meetings were held, as summarized in able able tudy dvisory ommittee eetings eeting ate opics 1 July 29, 2009 tudy area and study purpose, study schedule, and study process. 2 eptember 15, 2009 Purpose and need; review public input from eptember 2, 2009, workshop; discussion on expanding study area along oute 201 to ld ugusta oad in opsham 3 ovember 18, 2009 onfirmation of expanded study area; clarification of the five defined strategies to be studied; discussion of the reuse build-out projections; discussion of possible additional study efforts, including rail intermodal study and oute 196 west of I-295 traffic study 4 January 6, 2010 iscussion on the reuse build-out projections and need to retain independent review of economic projections, discussion of draft Purpose and eed tatement 5 February 17, 2010 Presentation of findings of independent review of the build-out projections, discussion of modifications to draft Purpose and eed tatement, review of public input from January 13, 2010, workshop Introduction 16

7 able tudy dvisory ommittee eetings (continued 6 arch 17, 2010 Presentation of results of the future-year traffic projections and operational analyses; discussion of the preliminary screening of options to be evaluated under each strategy 7 pril 19, 2010 Presentation and discussion of the ongoing options evaluation 8 ay 19, 2010 Presentation and discussion of the option conceptual plans to be presented at the June 2, 2010, public meeting 9 June 9, 2010 eview of public input received from June 2, 2010, public meeting, discussion of actions, and review of updated evaluation matrix 10 July 1, 2010 eview of additional public input received via the study website, discussion of potential project phasing and priorities, discussion of schedule to complete the study 11 ugust 19, 2010 eview of public input received from ugust 12, 2010 public meeting, discussion of project priorities, and distribution of draft report to ommittee members Project ebsite and ther edia ebsite o broadcast information about the project, a project-specific Internet website was created. t the public can view the documents involved in the Feasibility tudy, find out when meetings are scheduled, review meeting reports, and read regular updates on the progress of the tudy. he website also contains a feature that allows the public to ask questions or submit comments online. mail pdates embers of the public who want to hear Feasibility tudy news regularly can elect to be on the list for automatic updates. n listing of tudy dvisory ommittee members and other interested citizens was provided for updates of all public meetings and workshops, with a request to forward the meeting notice to other interested individuals. edia he news media received regular press releases on meeting dates and on the progress of the Feasibility tudy. concerted effort was made to generate coverage at public meetings and workshops. everal news articles about the tudy and meeting notices were published in the imes ecord (runswick and he Forecaster (Falmouth. n eight-page newspaper insert, which described the options being considered, was published in the July 30, 2010, imes ecord. he June 2, 2010, public Introduction 17

8 informational meeting was covered by television station H (Portland, which aired a report during its evening newscast. Introduction 18

9 I G J H G H HI H IV I V 201 VI G H P F I I H P V G H H I P 123 X HI H 0 K IP P H I P Q G P I 123 G VI P I FI P ources: own of runswick Public orks epartment, own of opsham Planning epartment, aine ureau of ransportation ystems Planning, aine GI K K I H G runswick & opsham aine.5 G I H IG I I 6,000 Feet ase ap IK HIGH H I I 3,000 ransportation Feasibility tudy edevelopment of aval ir tation runswick Figure 1-1 P I P 24 P H I l I PKVI I HPI H G I KF H H G FI P I K G H P I P I I J K P H H IK I I H 1 I I PI II I I y3 H P I I I K trategy 1 F I P H I H PK V I H H V G V G P I K J I H HI GH FFI H own oundary GF 24 trateg J H xisting onservation and I I G H H K IG H X P HI G I K G HIG H I I K F H I I I KF IG IG I H PI P I I H G H I K KI I K H P P HIG FI I I H H I G I K urface ater F PG tream Parcel oundary H I V P IG I VI G I 10 H GG IV I KH I P K P J I G J H IG P I H VI I PK H I 1 P P I II P I I 1 P P G IV J H I F H K F F trategy 2 K HIG H I H G, H K, I P F F I IV GI XI-2 8 I G V F I I F I HI F H I G ailroad I trategy 2 K xit 28 I G P I I X I ther Principal rterial PI IV P 196 H I F I Interstate 295 tate oads KIG P K I X 201 I F F I K 295 P F P irfield ajor oads IV uilding Footprints I IV tudy rea 196 I VI GG trategy 2 P egend V HIGH H I I P K V I H I F I V F H X V xit I PH X I K P I I I G IV I H IV I H II IV F F PH, I K, G 196 K H I V IP I I V 19