Response to Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit Project, Volume I and II, December, 2001
Response by: W. Philip Sawyer
936 W. Impala Circle
Mesa, AZ 85210-5919
(480) 838-3716
Pursuant to: National Environmental Protection Act (42 U.S.C. ¤4332 et. seq.)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (28 CFR 36.102-36.104), ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) (28 CFR Part 36, Append. A)
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. ¤ 501-504)
U.S. Department of Transportation Regs. (49 U.S.C. 37 [Title II, III])
ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual
U.S. Dept. of Justice, 11/93, with 1994 Supplement
Table of Contents:
Who
Will Use the Light Rail System?................................................................................. 4
Disability Issues................................................................................................................... 4
Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA)........................................................................... 4
Transit use by Persons
with Disabilities........................................................................... 5
Disability Confusion........................................................................................................ 6
Airport Issues....................................................................................................................... 7
Access to the Airport........................................................................................................ 7
Integrated Planning.......................................................................................................... 7
Changes in the Route
through the Airport Segment......................................................... 8
Station Planning............................................................................................................... 9
Mesa Corridor.................................................................................................................... 10
Mesa extension.............................................................................................................. 10
Downtown Mesa............................................................................................................ 10
Superstition Corridor
Working and Visiting Populations.............................................. 11
Downtown Mesa Working
and Visiting Populations..................................................... 12
Superstition Corridor
Comparison................................................................................. 12
Superstition Corridor
Route........................................................................................... 12
Park-and-Ride Lots........................................................................................................ 13
Public Perception for
the Mesa Route............................................................................ 13
Mayor HawkerŐs comments........................................................................................... 13
Route comments............................................................................................................. 14
Light Rail Route................................................................................................................. 15
Rail Benefits................................................................................................................... 15
Downtown Phoenix........................................................................................................ 15
Rail Routing Concerns................................................................................................... 15
Transit Times................................................................................................................. 15
Residential and
Business Relocation.............................................................................. 16
Environmental and Related
Issues...................................................................................... 17
Air Quality..................................................................................................................... 17
Archeological Issues...................................................................................................... 17
Air Conditioned
Stations................................................................................................ 18
Urban Sprawl................................................................................................................. 18
Public Perception and
Information Issues.......................................................................... 19
Transit Education........................................................................................................... 19
Integrated
Informational Design..................................................................................... 19
ŇThe busses are already
emptyÓ................................................................................... 20
Demonstrating Transit
Benefits...................................................................................... 20
Park-and-Ride programs................................................................................................ 20
Development follows
Available Transportation.............................................................. 21
The EIS Process................................................................................................................. 22
Draft EIS Document...................................................................................................... 22
Mesa Public Hearing...................................................................................................... 23
Other Issues....................................................................................................................... 24
Use of Estimates............................................................................................................ 24
Previous Contact with
Program staff.............................................................................. 24
Mitigation for Poor
Drivers............................................................................................ 24
Patron and Employee
Security....................................................................................... 24
Shuttle Bus Service........................................................................................................ 25
Daily Ridership.............................................................................................................. 25
Project Costs.................................................................................................................. 26
Cost-Benefit Analysis.................................................................................................... 26
Bicycle Riders................................................................................................................ 26
Engineering Issues......................................................................................................... 27
Minor Issues...................................................................................................................... 28
My Opinion on the Light
Rail Project................................................................................ 29
Summary............................................................................................................................ 30
I am a disabled Federal employee with experience in Federal regulations. I hold an M.B.A. degree, but am not a lawyer. I have considerable experience reviewing Environmental Impact Statements. I am also Seriously Mental Ill (SMI). I have Bi-Polar Disorder which includes neurological, physical, and psychological components. I can normally drive up to 10 miles. When my illness is extreme, I depend on Dial-a-Ride and ADA Dial-a-Ride for critical trips, such as to the Airport or a distant hospital. I am frequently confused under these conditions. A light rail system would of great benefit to me, especially when I must travel long distances.
There is some basic patron
estimates in the Draft EIS using the existing bus system and the new integrated
light rail system.[1] Additional information on origin/destination studies,
peak/off peak travel, automobile shift, the effect of bus and Dial-a-Ride and
passenger benefits is needed. This critical issue must be prominently
addressed in the Final EIS.
There are no references to the ADA and other related Federal regulations (See page 1). The document does address the Civil Rights Act.
In compliance with ADA standards, programs receiving federal funds must consider the impact of the project on people with disabilities. Disabilities range far beyond the obvious disabilities, such as people who are wheelchair bound, blind or deaf. In Maricopa County, Value Options (VO), the regional mental health authority, has almost 50,000 clients with a variety of mental illnesses. 14,000 are designated Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI) which means that these consumers have trouble with one or more functions of daily life.[2] There are an additional 11,000 consumers with Developmental Disabilities (DD).[3] About 3% of the public is affected by Mental Illness.[4] The Draft EIS states that total disabled persons make up 3% of the patrons (1% within Environmental Justice Analysis Area),[5] but is not further addressed. Needs for people with disabilities, as well as accommodations to serve these people must be included in the Final EIS.[6]
There are many adults who do not have the ability to use the current bus system.
Valley Metro currently has 5,800 people certified for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Dial-a-Ride services[7] that provides door-to-door service. Eligibility includes people
á Inability walk or wait for the bus
á Mobility impaired
á Blind
á Whose medication prevents them from waiting in the heat (especially SMI consumers)
á Who cannot use the bus system due to disability
See comments on air conditioning (Page 18)
Only about 20% of disabled consumers have their own transportation, and rely on the bus system, family and friends, taxis or very expensive private medical transportation. There are an unquantifiable numbers of senior citizens (and people qualified for Medicare) who may also use standard Dial-a-Ride for door-to-door service. Rail stops are planned with up to 50% shading from the sun, but the system is not designed to significantly lower temperatures. Many older and disabled persons stay home and to venture out only for critical medical appointments or groceries. I find it offensive to references such as ŇOnly seniors and persons with disabilities are eligible.Ó Public transit is a critical need for a large segment of our residents.Ó[8] Disabled persons are also an important segment of off-peak patrons.
Disability issues listed on page 2-36, but are not further discussed. See my comments under Mesa Public Hearing (page 23).
The light rail system must provide transfer to and from Dial-a-Ride services for individuals to travel long distances, especially between transportation systems.
I understand the rail trains will be scheduled at frequent intervals. Busses, however, will are scheduled at much less frequent intervals. Transfer from bus to light rail will be relatively easy. Return transfer to a bus may require a longer wait. I was told I might need to skip several trains until a train comes by which makes connection with my bus route.[9]. I am very concerned about missing the connection and having to wait outside for a longer than expected time, especially when it is hot or I am unable to sit down. I wonŐt risk stress, my health, and possible hospitalization, if my connections are not made.
Consideration for people with a variety of disabilities must
be included in the Final DES.
Some persons, especially those with disabilities,[10] have problems using the current bus system. Many people require training and experience in using the bus system. Changing transportation modes is a stressful, frustrating, and sometimes impossible practice for many consumers.
The light rail system could be a great opportunity for disabled persons and those persons with limited mobility to attend events (such as attending a ball game in downtown Phoenix). The effort involved may be too may be difficult for many consumers. Dial-a-Ride is available from home to destination and transfer points are usually air conditioned, but is impractical for long distance use.
Several agencies provide this training and should be identified.
Parking and meeting passengers at the Sky Harbor Airport has become significantly more difficult in the past few months. Public transit to and from the airport will become increasingly important. Today, passengers boarding the Red Line, and Route 13 (Buckeye) at the airport are currently minimal. Public rail transit access to the airport is important in cities like New York, Boston, and Chicago, as well as many foreign airports.
So how many passengers can we expect? 98,000 passengers use the airport daily.[11] 80% or 78,000 passengers originate or terminate flights here.[12] In addition, 8,000 people have jobs at the airport, and 14,000 have travel-related jobs nearby.[13] We can predict that 25% of passengers and 50% of (generally low-paid) employees would use public transit, if it were convenient. This estimate produces an impact of 30,000 passengers transferring to the light rail system daily.
Combined planning for these two critical transportation programs is critical. The Draft EIS states that coordination has taken place between airport planners and the authors of this program.[14] I did not see a route concurrence letter from Sky Harbor in Appendix B.
During the Mesa Public Hearing, I asked a representative about integrated plans to deal with this passenger inflow. The representative referred to the airport plans as Ňtheir plans for access though the people moverÓ and ŇI believe they wonŐt have their people mover in place, when we start-up, but they will provide busses until the people mover is ready.[15] It does not appear to me that any real coordination has occurred. Coordination with the Airport Department is important, especially when considering public response to transit improvements
Access to the light rail system between the airport, downtown Phoenix, ASU, and East and West Valley residential areas is critical to success of the system. Sky Harbor will never have the airport rail access like ChicagoŐs OŐHare, but an integrated approach here is critical to system public acceptance.
This system has the capability of being a tremendous transit improvement, (instead of a combination of confusing, expensive private systems) to reach downtown Phoenix and other locations. The lack of effective public transportation maintains PhoenixŐ image as an automobile oriented transportation nightmare.
The Draft EIS states that the route on a dedicated corridor was changed from paralleling Air Lane (south of the UPRR) to Washington Street to dedicated right-of-way not considered due to costs and low ridership potential.[16] The Draft EIS also states that routing the rail off the street would have the affect of lowering visibility between 24th and 44th Street.[17] I respectfully disagree. In previous Open Houses, this segment was considered critical because the opportunity for high speed travel. In fact, the reason I was given for not placing a station at each end of the Airport was to increase overall speed. At that time staff informally noted significant public interest in this proposal. The Draft EIS does not mention that this alternative was ever seriously considered.[18] The perceived patron benefit using a dedicated rail bed, and the resulting improved speed exceeds the actual 4 minutes saved per trip was not identified and evaluated. If the dedicated right-of-way is not used, poor public acceptance should be expected. Relocation of Air Lane 20 feet to accommodate the needed right-of-way can occur with a minimum of business impact.
It is also necessary to assess how we will transfer 1,000 passengers an hour between light rail and bus/people mover at Station 16 at 22nd Street and Washington Street.
Combined planning for the interface between these two critical transportation programs is in attracting passengers. It is an ideal location for a signature station. Many of us have experienced the sudden breath of 100ű air as we step off an airplane. This experience becomes even more significant for visitors. Air-conditioning is critical. This unique station is planned off street, but the station capacity was not compared with projected demand.
I envision an enclosed station with smoked glass walls
and a solid roof to keep off direct sunlight. The station would be one level off the ground to clear the
railroad track. The People Mover
from Sky Harbor Airport would stop at one end. Exit doors in the middle would provide ground level access
on both sides of the UPRR, and would serve converging bus lines. In the center would be a round open
information desk providing airport, transit, and other travel information. Separate air conditioning and emergency
risible panic glass would be available for the employee(s) safety. After fare machines, a choice of levels
would be provided to avoid passengers having to cross an active rail. Westbound passengers would board trains
on the same elevated level.
Eastbound
passengers would take stairs, escalators or an elevator to a platform on a different
level platform. If the route were
changed to a dedicated right-of-way, a ground station could be designed and the
rail elevation reversed.
The Draft EIS states that the scope of the EIS/MOS ends at EVIT/Longmore Avenue in Mesa.[19] However, there are many references in the Draft EIS to an extension to downtown Mesa. This decision has not yet been made.[20] The route appears fait accompli. An alternate route going south from EVIT to the Superstition corridor is not included in the Draft EIS. All references to the next phase of the project should be deleted, except to note the Mesa route has not been determined.
The future of Mesa is not in Downtown Mesa.
A lot of money has been put into beautifying Main Street, but has not significantly increased pedestrian use. The only reason I go to Downtown Mesa is to the library or post office. Comments from others agree with this perception. I understand the city plans improved performing arts facilities and a regional aquatic center. However, patrons going to Downtown Mesa are only about 5% of people whom travel and shop on the Superstition corridor. Additional money spent in bringing light rail to downtown Mesa would only result in empty trains. This is a critical area where public perception undercuts the public acceptance of this and future projects.
Most Mesa citizens are not aware of the farmerŐs market or other cultural activities in Downtown Mesa. A survey of citizens would probably describe public buildings, antique shops and the DES office as being the only reasons to go to Downtown Mesa.
The newly constructed Downtown streetscape and landscaped median would have to be removed in 3 of the 4 options.[21] This project has never had wide public approval, and removal would cause further decline in public confidence.[22]
The number of people who work and visit the stores and offices between Dobson Road and Mesa Drive in Mesa is about 67,000. 20% of the 250,000 average daily volume currently on the Superstition Freeway would use light rail if it were available and Park-and-Ride lots were convenient to the freeway volume.[23] Page 2-36 states that the route along Southern Avenue between Loop 101 and Mesa Drive was dismissed due to low ridership. I respectfully disagree. A light rail route through this area would be heavily used. My estimates are:
|
Location |
Staff |
Visitors |
|
Desert Samaritan Hospital |
3,264 |
600[24] |
|
Mesa Community College |
1,900 |
22,000[25] |
|
Fiesta Mall |
1,200 |
33,000[26] |
|
ŇBlue BuildingÓ |
650 |
6,500 |
|
Southern & Alma Schools Stores |
250 |
2,500 |
|
Mesa Drive Government Complex |
300 |
3,000 |
|
** T O T A L S
** |
7,500 |
67,600 |
|
Superstition Freeway Average Daily Volume (20%) |
|
50,000[27] |
|
Residents within 2 miles |
|
Unknown |
|
Small businesses within 2 miles |
|
Unknown |
|
** G R A N D
T O T A L ** |
|
125,694 |
Similar numbers for Downtown Mesa are:
|
Location |
Staff |
Visitors |
|
City of Mesa |
3,000 |
600 |
|
Downtown Mesa stores and offices |
1,900 |
2,000 |
|
Proposed Aquatic Center |
50 |
200 |
|
** T O T A L S
** |
1,950 |
2,200 |
|
Main Street Average Daily Volume (20%) |
|
2,000 |
|
Residents within 2 miles |
|
Unknown |
|
Small businesses within 2 miles |
|
Unknown |
|
** G R A N D
T O T A L ** |
|
6,150 |
The potential benefit per constructed mile is 3,000[28] to downtown Mesa and 25,00[29] per constructed mile along the Superstition Corridor.
I was told during a previous Open House that the Southern Avenue route was rejected due the narrow road and high automobile volume. The flood control channel on the north side of the freeway provides patron access, project visibility, and dedicated right-of-way allowing transit vehicles high-speed travel with grade crossings only at mile or half-mile intervals.
The connection from the Phase I EVIT to the Superstition Corridor is along Longmore Street. This collector street route would have little impact with the surrounding area. Stations in this segment will not be necessary.
The most effective place to add Park-and-Ride lots in the eastern half of the system is along the Superstition corridor. The public perception is this a better use of public money than to add another lane to the freeway.
Space for Park-and-Ride lots at Superstition at Dobson/Longmore, Alma School Road, and Mesa Drive is available and much more accessible to drivers.
The public would accept the Superstition Corridor route. Extension of system to Downtown Mesa would not be accepted.
Elected officials have voiced similar concerns.[30]
I spoke with Mesa Mayor Hawker about his transportation plans[31]. He believes that Mesa could extend the system to downtown Mesa with city general funds and would avoid a bond issue and required EIS process. The Mesa Tribune ran a front-page article on about conflicting plans for this route.[32] Based on that information:
á Alternate routes should be considered just as good management policy
á There is a deep division within the Mesa Mayor, Council, other elected officials[33] and the involved public on the proposed route
á The city already receives federal funding and may be required under NEPA to conduct an EIS for this project anyway
á This project is an extension of the planned system, and would require an amendment to the light rail EIS
á Without support from the Federal Government (and completion of some type of EIS), costs to build the route to downtown Mesa must come from the Mesa General Fund, while the rest of light rail system expects 50% Federal matching funds[34]
á Media coverage and public perception in avoiding the established EIS process would be poor.
The benefit for using dedicated right-of-way as available was not discussed, especially benefiting onboard passengers with high-speed travel.
The option to ride from residential areas to the Convention Center, Courts, and other public buildings in downtown Phoenix is important. Parking for a downtown event is difficult, and many elderly people will not go out to places like Bank One Ball Park or Symphony Hall due to fears of driving or safety, especially after dark.
Central Station was identified as the largest transfer station in the System.[38] The station is planned with street platforms. The rail transfer point should be placed off-street for passenger safety and access, especially for the handicapped.
I am concerned with the West terminus. A subsequent phase should extend the line to a Park-and-Ride lot on I-17. The extension is noted on the map.[39] Traffic tie-ups on the Black Canyon Freeway are commonplace, and this is another area where drivers can be encouraged to use light rail. Until this light rail project is extended, shuttle bus service must be provided.
Note my concerns discussed under airport issues and Mesa corridor. (See page 10)
I respectfully dispute the travel times shown in Table 3-4 as being overly optimistic. Since both the current bus service and the LRT use the same right-of-way, the only time savings would be in fewer stops and controlled traffic lights. Buses could be given the same advantage.
53 parcels would be affected, requiring buy-out of 12 residences[40]. A much higher impact would be expected over a 24-mile line. My concern is the trade-off in inconvenience to passengers. When the lines operate within the street right of way, and must negotiate 90ű turns, the resulting wheel squeal,[41] speed reduction, and inside car turmoil have negative impacts for passengers and neighbors alike. In Chicago, the Ravenswood El goes around many curves to minimize the impact. Unfortunately, the results of this design are being felt for the entire life of the line.
The Final EIS should address this trade-off.
Effective public transit reduces the actual and publicly perceived decline in air quality within the Salt River basin. Air quality standards will be raised, and will require us to encourage additional public transit.
Citizens understand that public transportation will help reduce air pollutions, and are willing to pay for it, and use the system if it is convenient.
Improved air quality due to decreased vehicular emissions is mentioned,[42] but should be identified as a major benefit of LRT. The clean electrically powered LRT alternative must be clearly addressed.
The location of the care cleaning, maintenance, and storage yard concerns me.
The Pueblo Grande Museum, and the riverbed fill may be expected to unearth archeological artifacts, even if the land were raised with fill. Certainly, all applicable laws will be followed. I understand an archeologist will be on staff to stop work when special discoveries are unearthed. However, these issues should be considered critical on this project. The history of the Salt River Basin and todayŐs dependence on water issues makes understanding the recent Hohokam, water diversion issues of the 1890s, and other cultures critical to understanding our life today.
The Draft EIS addresses this issue.[43]
We live in the middle of the Sonoran Desert. Public ridership (as well as public acceptance) requires air conditioning, especially at high volume stations, such as:
á West terminus
á Camelback and Central
á Central Station
á Bank One Ballpark
á Airport
á ASU
á Mesa stations, as designed
A significant number of potential patrons (at least 5%) cannot use the system without air conditioning, except in the winter.[44]
The Draft EIS must address this issue, even if just to explain why this option was not considered.
Ten years ago I knew several friends who moved to Far East Mesa to avoid the Phoenix Ňbrown hazeÓ. In the past several months, my doctor, church, and credit union have moved almost to Power Road. The Final EIS should address urban sprawl.
Consumers both with and without disabilities need training and additional information to use the transportation system. A surprising number of consumers are not familiar with their current transportation choices. Busses, Dial-a-Ride, ADA Dial-a-Ride, cabs, medical transport, and VO transportation can be very confusing to those with disabilities or age. Some consumers donŐt even have a watch, so travel, especially when changing busses, can be very difficult. The addition of a backbone light rail system will make travel choices even more a problem.
Many people stay home and venture out only for critical medical appointments or groceries. This is not much better than court-ordered house arrest.
The current Phoenix system relies on the Bus Book and a transit information telephone center. Current bus shelters donŐt provide maps or schedules of bus lines serving that location. I still donŐt know where to catch the bus at Fiesta Mall.
Many systems in other communities have signs at each bus stop informing travelers when to expect the next bus. London Transport has a renowned travel map. Both San FranciscoŐs BART and Mini lines have maps and electronic signs predicting the arrival of the next heavy or light rail train. The proposed light rail system here will make these transfer issues even more difficult.
Using todayŐs system, I get confused when one transportation operator interfaces to another system or travel media. Interconnection points and differences in fares are especially difficult in the West Valley.[45]
A tailored transportation information package is critical to provide needed consumer information.
People (and myself) look into empty busses as they go by. The new light rail system must develop greater patronage.
Public acceptance is critical for any new transportation system. I had a friend in the U.S. Forest Service who believed so much in public transit that he took three busses each way to work. There are very few people who have that much dedication. I remember living in Boston, and knowing I could get anywhere by just putting a quarter in the MBTA fare box. Phoenix, of course, is not as dense in Boston, but we still need to promote transit use. Patrons could be encouraged use the system for public events in Downtown Phoenix in the evening, or perhaps just on shopping trips to a (auto-oriented) mall. Public perception can be changed by creative promotion of transit destinations.
A very effective way Chicago has encouraged transit use is by routing the high-speed heavy rail system down the center of the Kennedy and Dan Ryan Expressways. It may be too late to devote that right-of-way here, but it would be to systemŐs advantage to have a view of light rail trains traveling at unimpaired speed paralleling the freeway while automobiles are stuck in traffic.
Note my comments using the Superstition Corridor route (see page 12).
Over the long term, one of major success indicators will be getting cars off the road. Convenient Park-and-Ride facilities are critical to this measure. On the Washington Metro, I used a Park-and-Ride lot at the end of the Red Line when I lived in Gettysburg, PA, and went to Washington D.C. for a day at FEMA Headquarters. The Draft EIS identifies potential Park-and-Ride locations,[46] but their locations are not optimal. For example, a Park-and-Ride lot at AZ 101 and Main Street will get little use, since most drivers have already passed through congested freeways to get to the lot.
Terminals at each end of the line provide ideal locations for Park-and-Ride lots. If they are adjacent to busy freeways, a significant increase in number of patrons, especially during peak travel times, is assured.
Success of this or any other transportation system in a low-density community depends on extending rail transit through densely built areas and providing Park-and-Ride system at transition points with low-density areas.
ŇWhy canŐt transportation planners keep up with development?Ó is a common question. Chicago development has demonstrated this principle for many years. Signs like ŇFuture location of Santan FreewayÓ give residents and homeowners information on how their neighborhood may develop. ŇSRP and APS can build power plants prior to demandÓ (except in cases such as the recent California emergency). The Final EIS should these issues.
The 45-day response period had run 24 days before the Public Hearing was held in Mesa. This only allows 21 days to understand the Draft EIS and prepare an informed response.
I am an involved citizen. I attended every meeting I was notified. It is unreasonable to distribute 61 copies in hard copy to Federal, regional and local agencies, and to not extend the same courtesy to involved members of the public.
The Draft EIS in hard copy is essentially unavailable to the public. I was told it would be ŇexpensiveÓ. The Draft EIS is available at the Mesa library for inspection, but my disabilities, fear of crowds, and lack of ability for needed concentration makes this option very difficult. I was not given an opportunity for ŇReasonable AlternativesÓ as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.[47]
I was not aware of the CD-Rom option until I arrived at the Public Hearing.[48] I bought a copy of the Draft EIS on CD-ROM, but found I couldnŐt print the huge document effectively, and found it difficult to read, given the low contrast level. It is impossible to search for needed information. The Draft EIS is not numbered sequentially and is not optimized for computer viewing.
I am very disappointed that even the Executive Summary was not available in printed form.
It is very difficult to write an effective response to this Draft EIS using the CD-ROM for information and the word processor to write comments. While this approach to making an EIS available to the public may be within the letter of the law, it does not follow the intent of the law. It is not the form used in other Draft EISs written by the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies.
Information about accommodations for people with disabilities is very limited. I was told enthusiastically ŇWe will not have any architectural barriers for the handicappedÓ, and ŇWe will provide 50% shading at each station. ThatŐs more than the 30% on the Houston system.Ó [49] Unfortunately, Houston is frequently overcast, while Phoenix usually has direct sunlight.
Representatives knew about people in wheelchairs, blind or deaf. I asked what was being done for people with other types of disabilities. I was told: ŇWe know that there are some people who cannot use the new system.Ó The representative then made a quick exit.[50]
Representatives could not locate the Mesa transportation manager for questions.
Despite assurances to the contrary,[51] I perceived an attitude that the Public Hearings were held just to meet the NEPA requirement. I also perceived that representatives thought this meeting was a waste of time.
This documents includes use of estimates that I obtained from a number of telephone calls in a very limited amount of time. The numbers may not match the results of a $300,000 study now underway in Mesa. However, I believe my estimates are in the ŇballparkÓ and should used as starting point for future review and modification.
I attended several previous Open House meetings and I have expressed similar views. Comments in this response should not be seen as untimely or surprising.
Many senior citizens live in East, West and Northwest developments outside the planned light rail system. Many of these people have trouble driving, especially at night, and should not drive on our freeways and arterial streets. Some people drive anyway because other transit choices are poor or not available. The EIS must pay special attention to how passengers with special transit needs will be able use the new system.
Due to my disability, I have difficulty driving. I live near services I need in Southwest Mesa. I donŐt drive any further than 16th Street in Phoenix unless it is critical.
The Final EIS should also address this problem.
Security is critical for the success of the System, especially at stations,[52] and was not addressed in the Draft EIS. Each station and rail car must be equipped with:
á Television camera
á Panic alarms with intercom
á Public address system to notify patrons of unusual situations
á Adequate vandal-resistant lighting
á Water fountain
á Alarm warning of train arrival
á Pay phone
á ( Not necessary on rail cars)
No cost estimate for security equipment was included in the Draft EIS.[53]
Shuttle bus service is needed at certain stations to provide frequent service to the stations including:
á North Central Avenue f
á South Phoenix f
á Papago Park Center
á West terminus to Metro Center and an I-17 Park-and-Ride lot
á Downtown Phoenix to State Capital f
á Redevelopment Area near Van Buren between 24th and 44th Streets
á Downtown Tempe/ASU f
á EVIT to Downtown Mesa (Phase I)
á EVIT to Superstition Corridor (Phase I)
á (f identified in Draft EIS[54])
Ridership is critical to the success of the project. The Draft EIS covers this issue with some detail.[55] Patron travel by route segment should be projected to determine if the system could be optimized with shorter route trains, and adequate reversal loops/spurs may be planned. Sites to consider include:
á Central and Camelback
á Central Station
á Bank One Ballpark
á Sky Harbor Airport
á Papago Park Center
á ASU
Unanticipated or unusual ridership[56] may be expected due to:
á ASU to the Airport on Thanksgiving Wednesday, Sunday, and term breaks
á Simultaneous patron needs at the Convention Center and Bank One Ballpark
á Evacuation of the Airport or any other large building, especially on Central Avenue
á Other stations where 1,000 or more patrons are expected
The entire project appears to be low-balled with minimal features. These features may not meet passenger needs, and may actually discourage ridership, including
á Stations have minimal features
á No air conditioning or even evaporation cooling is provided
á Most stations are in mid-street
á Virtually the entire system is on street right-of-way
I hope the System can be planned correctly this year to avoid costly enhancement later.
A complete cost-benefit analysis is necessary for this project. I made estimates based on fixed costs and patronage:
|
Item |
Amount |
|
Capital Costs[57] |
$ 3,133,711 |
|
Operating Costs |
$ 4,902,454 |
|
Costs after 1 year |
$ 8,036,165 |
|
Annual Patrons[58] |
914,616 |
|
Cost per Patron after 1 year |
$ 8.78 |
|
Cost per Patron after 20 years |
$ 5.53 |
|
Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa Population[59] |
1,876,045 |
|
Cost per resident per year after 1 year |
$ 4.28 |
|
Cost per resident per year after 20 years |
$ 2.70 |
Bicycle riders are permitted on the front of all bus routes. The Draft EIS does not address will be transported on the Light Rail System after the parallel bus lines are discontinued.[60]
The engineering plans, especially in Volume II look good. Extensive automobile traffic studies, station and rail design, and left-turn studies were presented.
I am concerned about crossovers and reversal loops (see page 15). Crossovers are needed for emergency situations.[61] For example, a serious problem occurred in Boston where an impatient operator ran over a fire hose while in use at an adjacent fire. Reversal loops are required to provide short routes in special patron or operational situations.
Is the system designed for traffic signaling when the train is operating on the left track?
This extensive study, however, may be premature, pending review of public comments.
á The Project Manager title on the cover of the document appears to be misspelled
á The ADA Dial-a-Ride fare is generally $2.00, not double the basic fare of $1.25 [62]
á 1994 housing estimates are used rather than data from the 2,000 census
á Table 4-2, page 4-2 shows significant population declines between 1995 and 2020.
á Tables 5-4 and 2-11 are very difficult to understand and differentiate, especially on a computer screen.
I perceive the Draft EIS minimizes the opportunity for significant public response. The public was encouraged to voice opinions on car style, river bridge concept and style of station faade.[63]
A higher value should be places on benefits for passengers already on board than simply for passenger stations.
The Airport segment should be moved to a dedicated alignment just south of the UPRR. Benefits include critical access to Sky Harbor Airport, but more importantly, improve the ride for passengers on board. This mid-route high-speed segment would have significant positive passenger acceptance. Better access to the MSF would also be provided.
I am greatly concerned with my quick cost/benefit analysis. This critical issue must be addressed in the Final EIS, with information from similar Systems in other communities.
Based on my estimates, and expected public opinion, the second Mesa build phase should be on the Superstition corridor, not to or through Downtown Mesa. This route has a much better opportunity to increase ridership, and reduce the effects of other environmental issues (including architectural, historical, and air quality). Access to Mesa Community College and the East Valley Governmental Center is very important. The opportunity for effective Park-and-Ride lots is critical for the success of the System.
I believe that this project is critical to the long-term development in the Valley of the Sun. This response to the Draft EIS should not be viewed as a rejection of the project, but more as a guideline for producing a better final product. It also should not be interpreted as a conflict with the developers of this document, but rather professional-to-professional response with ideas and issues to consider.
The following points identify critical improvements needed to issue the Final DES:
á Who is going to use the System? Additional ridership issues, including identification of critical passenger origins and destinations are needed
á Service for persons with disabilities must be better addressed
á Integration with Sky Harbor Airport plans is critical to the success of both government transportation programs
á Extension of the system from EVTI into Mesa is a very sensitive issue, and is beyond the scope of this EIS. References to that program should be deleted in the Final EIS
á The core light rail system described in this plan must be integrated with bus connections, Park-and-Ride lots, Dial-and-Ride programs, Sky Harbor Airport, and major system users if the system to be successful. The public expects it
á Automobile use will be discouraged in the future (due to population growth, air quality issues, and perceived availability of fossil fuel). The transit program must provide alternatives
á The Light Rail project must be designed to identify and improve current and foreseeable air quality issues
á Archeological sensitivity is critical
á The metro area continues to sprawl as the population increases, especially along transportation corridors
á Public perception is critical for the success of this project and future extensions. I believe the public accepts the concept of light rail in the Phoenix area, but does not identify it as important to their lives
á An integrated public information approach must be designed and implemented to improve public perception of an effective local transit program
á Building and Operating Costs must be more clearly defined
[1] Draft EIS Pages 3-1 through 3-10
[2] Sheila Lopez, Office of SMI, Arizona Department of Health
[3] Division of Developmental Disabilities, Arizona Department of Economic Security
[4] National Depressive and Manic Depressive Association
[5] Draft EIS, page 4-7
[6] The ADA excludes airport issues, but the Rehabilitation Act and DOT regulations provide the same protections.
[7] Benjamin Alcazar, Eligibility Programs Supervisor, Regional Transportation Authority
[8] For example, Draft EIS, page 3-6 ff
[9] Unidentified individual, Mesa Public Meeting, January 29
[10] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Version IV (DSM-IV), American Psychological Association
[11] Richard Anderson, Sky Harbor Airport
[12] ibid.
[13] Sky Harbor Airport NavigatorŐs Guide
[14] Draft EIS, page 2-55
[15] Unidentified individual, Mesa Public Hearing, January 29
[16] Draft EIS, page 2-36 ff
[17] Draft EIS, page 2-47
[18] Draft EIS page 2-45
[19] Draft EIS, page ES-7 ff
[20] Draft EIS, page 5-9 and 5-10
[21] Draft EIS, page 5-5
[22] Draft EIS, page 4-130
[23] Dan Galvin, Community Relations, US 60 Freeway Construction Project
[24] Human Resources, Desert Samaritan Hospital
[25] Student Services, Mesa Community College
[26] Management Office, Fiesta Mall
[27] Dan Galvin, Community Relations, US 60 Freeway Construction Project
[28] 3,000 passengers daily per constructed 2 miles
[29] 25,000 passengers daily per constructed 5 miles
[30] Confidential source, Phoenix city council
[31] Mesa Public Hearing, January 29
[32] Mesa Tribune, Saturday, February 2, Page 1
[33] Confidential source, Phoenix city council
[34] Mesa Public Hearing, January 29
[35] Draft EIS, Page 5-10
[36] Draft EIS, Page 5-10 et seq.
[37] Draft EIS, Appendix A-1
[38] Draft EIS, page 2-11
[39] Draft EIS, page 2-41
[40] Draft EIS, page 4-31
[41] Draft EIS, page 4-54
[42] Draft EIS, page 4-45
[43] Draft EIS, Pages 4-56 through 4-98
[44] See Mesa Public Hearing section (page 23) for a Valley Connections RepresentativeŐs comment
[45] Dial-a-Ride Service booklet, Regional Transportation Authority
[46] Draft EIS, page 2-7
[47] I made an informal request made at Mesa Public Hearing, which was rejected, and I was not able to make a formal request due to time limitations
[48] The option was not identified on the Notice of Availability and Public Hearings mailing
[49] Susan A. Lewin, Public Involvement Manager, Mesa Public Hearing, January 29
[50] I was unable to obtain this representativeŐs name
[51] Draft Executive Summary, page ES-14 and Susan A. Lewin
[52] Draft EIS, page 2-5
[53] Draft EIS, page 2-28
[54] Draft EIS, page 2-37
[55] Draft EIS, page 3-7
[56] This concept is partially covered in Draft EIS, page 2-32
[57] Capital and O&M funds from Draft EIS, page 2-32
[58] Draft EIS, Page 1-7 (assuming a 6 day week [Saturday and Sunday combined])
[59] U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000
[60] Draft EIS, page 3-71
[61] Several crossovers are indicated in Volume II pictures, but are not summarized.
[62] Draft EIS, Page 3-6
[63] Valley Connections Newsletter, Winter 2001