Public Meeting Presentation

 Public Meeting Summary
Report
D2 Project Development Kick‐Off Public Meetings held on December 16‐17, 2015 February 3, 2016 This Report was prepared for DART General Planning Consultant Six Managed by HDR
Public Meeting Summary Report Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) sponsor this work. The content of this report is draft material, specific to Project Development for the Dallas CBD Second Light Rail Alignment (D2) project and does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of DART or FTA at the time of publication. This report does not constitute a contract, standard, specification, or regulation. February 3, 2016 | i Public Meeting Summary Report Contents
1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
2
Purpose of Report ........................................................................................................................ 1
Public Meetings ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1
Notification Efforts ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.2
Meeting Format ........................................................................................................................... 4
2.3
Attendance and Comments .......................................................................................................... 4
Appendices
Appendix A. Meeting Notifications ................................................................................................................ 6
Appendix B. Meeting Materials ..................................................................................................................... 7
Appendix C. Sign-In Sheets .......................................................................................................................... 8
Appendix D. Public Comments Received as of 1/15/16 (Comment Cards & Emails) .................................. 9
Appendix E. Meeting Minutes Q&A ............................................................................................................. 10
February 3, 2016 | ii Public Meeting Summary Report 1
Introduction Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) held two public meetings on December 17, 2015 regarding its Dallas CBD Second Light Rail Alignment (D2) project. The purpose of the public meetings was to update the public on current status of the D2 project and to provide information on upcoming efforts and schedule for the Project Development phase of the project. This also included a presentation on recent policy action by both the DART Board of Directors and Dallas City Council regarding resolutions adopting a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) alignment and two design options for the eastern segment of the project. 1.1
Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to summarize the public meeting discussion, public questions, and responses provided during the two public meetings. DART held public meetings and advisory committee meetings between December 16, 2015 and December 17, 2015, regarding the kick‐off of Project Development for the D2 alignment and Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS). This report is to document the public meetings and comments during this time. These materials will be also be incorporated by reference into the SDEIS. The two public meetings were structured as “kick‐off” meetings introducing to the public the next phase of the D2 project, Project Development. Project Development activities were launched in November 2015, in accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines for their Capital Investment Grant Core Capacity Grant program. One of the primary purposes of these two public meetings was to inform and describe to the public recent action taken by the DART Board of Directors on September 22, 2015, approving a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) alignment for the Dallas CBD Second Light Rail Alignment (D2) project. In addition, a key objective of the meetings was to obtain feedback on potential issues to address in the SDEIS.
The LPA is Alternative B4 Lamar‐Young with a Modified Jackson Alignment (see following figure), which incorporates an alignment shift from the original B4 Alternative east of Dallas City Hall to address potential impacts along Young Street. The resolution passed by the Board states that: 
DART will continue to examine LPA routing options and station locations as required by the federal funding process. 
DART will continue to review feasibility for an extension of D2 (a tunnel spur to the south), as well as other options, to provide access to the Dallas Convention Center and High Speed Rail. February 3, 2016 | 1 Public Meeting Summary Report 
DART staff will advance these elements into Project Development including Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documentation. D2 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
2
Public Meetings Two public meetings were held on December 17, 2015. The times and locations for the public meetings were as follows: 
12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. – DART Headquarters, 1401 Pacific Avenue, Dallas, Texas

6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. – First Presbyterian Church of Dallas, Byrd Hall, 1835 Young Street, Dallas, Texas
The format for each public meeting was identical. An open house format, intended to be informal and allow one‐on‐one discussion with project technical representatives, was held for the first 30 minutes of the meeting. This was followed by an approximate 30 minute presentation by DART staff, followed by a question and answer discussion with the meeting February 3, 2016 | 2 Public Meeting Summary Report attendees. Meeting attendees were encouraged to complete written comment cards allowing their comments to be included in meeting documentation. Copies of the submitted and mailed comment cards are included in Appendix D of this report. Public Meeting at DART Headquarters, December 17, 2015, 12:00 p.m.
Public Meeting at First Presbyterian Church, December 17, 2015, 6:30 p.m.
February 3, 2016 | 3 Public Meeting Summary Report 2.1
Notification Efforts Notifications for the public meetings were posted across multiple media platforms, in both English and Spanish. The public was notified by newspaper, rider alerts, and DART publications and social media sites (DART website, Twitter, and Facebook). Appendix A contains copies of meeting notices and publications, which included: 2.2

Advertisements in The Dallas Morning News, Al Dia, Dallas Weekly, Dallas Chinese News. 
Press Release to Media Outlets (TV, radio), and to more than 200 Public Information Officers (PIO) of organizations within the DART Service Area. 
Social Media notifications via Twitter, Facebook, Nextdoor. 
Notices via DART text alert services and the DART Daily blog. 
12,500 Rider Alerts were distributed at DART facilities and on DART buses and trains. 
Meeting notices posted on the DART Website: www.DART.org, www.DART.org/D2. Meeting Format Project Development kick‐off meetings were held at DART Headquarters and at First Presbyterian Church of Dallas. Display boards were available both before and after the presentation and general Q&A, so that individuals could meet with project team members individually or as small groups for specific questions. After the presentation, a general Q&A was held and attendees were encouraged to view display boards up close and take comment cards to provide feedback. Attendees were also encouraged to use the [email protected] email platform for providing feedback throughout the Project Development phase. The presentation, display boards and other meeting materials are attached in Appendix B of this summary report.
2.3
Attendance and Comments Public meetings were held at 12:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. on December 17, 2015. The 12:00 p.m. meeting was held at DART Headquarters and 82 people attended. The 6:30 p.m. meeting was held at First Presbyterian Church of Dallas and 72 people were in attendance. As a result of these meetings, several comment cards and emails were submitted. Appendix D contains a summary of the comments. Meeting minutes with Q&A for each meeting are attached in Appendix E of this report. February 3, 2016 | 4 Public Meeting Summary Report General themes of comments at the meeting were: 
Administrative questions regarding the availability of reports and work products. 
East End segment timing of evaluation and decision. 
Alignment specific questions related to options considered during the Alternatives Analysis process and below vs. at‐grade opportunities for the LPA. 
Technical questions related to water table depth; earthquake issues, tunneling method. 
How property impacts are assessed and what is the schedule for property acquisition. 
Relationship to the Streetcar and High Speed Rail. 
Traffic issues, including, will D2 alleviate special event congestion, and how would LRT and automobiles operate within the same street. 
Noise impacts and mitigations and how this is monitored over time. 
Good urban design is essential. 
D2 will bring increased activity to West End/Metro Center Stations; safety is of concern. February 3, 2016 | 5 Public Meeting Summary Report Appendix A. Meeting Notifications
February 3, 2016 | 6 Dallas CBD Second Light Rail Alignment (D2) Public Meetings The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) have initiated the Project Development (PD) phase for the D2 project, which includes preparation of a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) and Preliminary Engineering (PE). The D2 Project consists of approximately 2.4 miles of at‐grade and below‐grade light rail alignment with up to five new light rail stations in the Central Business District of Dallas. The purpose of the SDEIS is to evaluate the impacts of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) alignment and of additional design options that will likely be identified as part of this process. These design options may result in new potential environmental and social impacts that were not explored in the original DEIS circulated for comment in March 2010. Two Public Meetings will be held on Thursday, December 17, 2015: 12:00 p.m. •DART Headquarters, Board Room • 1401 Pacific Ave. • Dallas, TX 75202 6:30 p.m. • First Presbyterian Church, Byrd Hall • 1835 Young St. • Dallas, TX 75201 More information of the project and how to provide input on design options and potential environmental and community impact issues can be found at www.DART.org/D2. Public Meeting Summary Report Appendix B. Meeting Materials
February 3, 2016 | 7 Agenda
Dallas CBD Second Light Rail
Alignment (D2)
Project Development Kick-Off Meetings
December 17, 2015
•
•
•
•
Welcome/Introductions
Project History
D2 Project Overview
Project Development (PD) Phase
– Preliminary Engineering (PE)
– Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
• Your Role in PD
• Schedule
• How to Stay Involved
1
Why are we Here?
Project Team
• To kick off the 2-year Project Development (PD) phase
for the D2 project
• To explain what Project Development entails and how
you can be involved
• To collect your comments on issues for consideration
during the environmental process
Level of Project Detail
Number of Options
Planning
Project Development
2
Engineering
3
Project History
• DART Team Members
– Steve Salin, Vice President
– Ernie Martinez, D2 Project Manager
– Chris Walters, D2 Community Engagement
• Consultant Team Members
– Tom Shelton, Program Manager
– Steve Knobbe, Project Manager
– Michelle Dippel, Environmental Lead
– Israel Crowe, Engineering Lead
4
Locally Preferred Alternative
5
6
DART Board Resolution
Project Development Phase
• Direction included:
• Project Development is the first phase of the
federal funding process
– DART will continue to examine
LPA routing options and station
locations as required by federal
funding process
– DART will continue to review
feasibility for an extension of D2
as a tunnel spur to the
Convention Center and proposed
d
High Speed Rail
– DART staff will advance these
elements into Project
Development
7
Project Development Phase
Project Development Phase
• What is Project Development?
– Two year phase of the FTA process
– Preliminary Engineering (PE) to a 30% level
– Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance
with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
• Why is it important?
– Establish Project Budget for the Federal Grant
– Identifies Project Impacts and Mitigation
Commitments
– Refines the project for Engineering and Construction
Phase
9
Preliminary Engineering (PE)
• PE is the first stage of design
– Project will be developed to 30% level
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alignment
Tunnel section
Utilities, Subsurface
Station Design
Street Modifications
Right-of-way requirements
Construction approach
– Future phases will do final design from 30-100%
10
Project Development Phase
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
• Original Draft EIS published in March 2010
– Initial assessment of potential impacts for multiple
alternatives
• Supplemental Draft EIS will be prepared for the
D2 Project – Why?
– To address public, agency, stakeholder comments on
the DEIS
– To use more current data to reassess potential
impacts within the project corridor
– To assess potential impacts of additional options in
the East segment not included in 2010 DEIS
11
12
Environmental Categories
parks
13
14
Historic
N/V
15
16
How will East Segment design options
be assessed in the EIS process?
Traffic
• Supplemental DEIS will:
– Assess Full LPA Corridor, Design Options, and tunnel spur
• SDEIS Review Period
– 45-day comment period and Public Hearings
• Final EIS will:
– Document the Full Project with final alignment
– 30-day
0 day notice
ot ce o
of aavailability
a ab ty
17
18
Overall Project Schedule
19
How to Stay Involved
20
What we need from you today
• Review presentation
materials and displays
• Attend project meetings
• Request Group/Organization briefings
• View materials and progress on
www.DART.org/D2
• Comments? Email [email protected]
– Schedule/Process
– Environmental Issues
– Traffic/Engineering
– Provide comments early on key issues that DART
should address in the process
21
23
• Share your comments
with D2 team members
• Provide written comments
– Turn in comments today
or mail to DART
– Email comments to
[email protected]
22
DALLAS CBD SECOND LIGHT RAIL ALIGNMENT (D2)
D2 Project Development Phase
PROJECT BACKGROUND
DART launched the D2 Study in 2007 to identify and evaluate a range of transit improvements in the Dallas
Central Business District (CBD). The D2 Study focused on identifying the second phase of major transit
improvements in Downtown Dallas. The improvements will ensure high quality transit service as the DART
system expands to meet growing needs by providing additional capacity and operational flexibility in the Central
Core. In addition, it is about improving mobility and circulation to, through and within the CBD, serving local and
regional mobility needs.
The D2 Study was advanced and completed in two phases. Phase One of the study included an Alternatives
Analysis (AA) and four alternatives were selected for further study and included in a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS). The AA/DEIS effort was completed in May 2010 after a 45-day comment period on
the DEIS. Phase Two continued the AA effort due to public and agency comments on the AA/DEIS and changed
conditions in downtown Dallas. These changed conditions include the new Dallas Streetcar and the proposed
High Speed Rail, which led to new and refined alternatives. The Phase Two effort culminated with the selection
of a Locally Preferred Alternative (see Page 2) after an evaluation process and public comment.
D ECEMBER 201 5
PROJECT HISTORY
2007
D2 STUDY LAUNCHED BY DART AND FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TO EVALUATE A RANGE OF TRANSIT
IMPROVEMENTS IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS, INCLUDING A SECOND LIGHT RAIL ALIGNMENT.
2010
PHASE ONE OF THE STUDY INCLUDED AN ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (AA) AND CONCLUDED WITH A
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS).
ECONOMIC DOWNTURN RESULTS IN THE D2 PROJECT BEING DEFERRED TO POST YEAR 2030.
2013
DART INITIATED PHASE TWO OF THE PROJECT TO CONTINUE THE AA STUDY BASED
ON PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE AA/DEIS AND CHANGED CONDITIONS. NEW D2
ALTERNATIVES, AS WELL AS REFINEMENTS, ARE CONSIDERED.
DART HELD PUBLIC MEETINGS TO PRESENT THE ALTERNATIVES AND REFINEMENTS.
D2 PROJECT IDENTIFIED AS CANDIDATE FOR NEW FTA CORE CAPACITY
FUNDING PROGRAM.
2015
DART HELD PUBLIC MEETINGS TO PRESENT EVALUATION
RESULTS FOR THE PHASE TWO AA EFFORT.
THE DART BOARD APPROVES THE LOCALLY PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE (LPA) AS B4 - LAMAR/YOUNG/JACKSON STREET.
FTA GIVES APPROVAL TO DART TO INITIATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT (PD) FOR THE D2 PROJECT.
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT CORRIDOR
The DART Board of Directors approved the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Second CBD Light Rail Alignment (D2) on
September 22, 2015. The LPA is Alternative B4 Lamar-Young with a Modified Jackson Alignment (see figure below), which
incorporates an alignment shift from the original B4 Alternative east of Dallas City Hall to address potential impacts along Young
Street. The resolution passed by the Board states that:
•
•
•
DART will continue to examine LPA routing options and station locations as required by the federal funding process.
DART will continue to review feasibility for an extension of D2 (a tunnel spur to the south), as well as other options, to
provide access to the Dallas Convention Center and High Speed Rail.
DART staff will advance these elements into Project Development including Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Supplemental
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) documentation.
For this effort, the study area will be divided into three segments: West, Central, and East. The SDEIS will address a no build
alternative to serve as a baseline, the full project corridor, and design options in the East segment. A description of each segment
is below:
WEST SEGMENT | VICTORY STATION TO METRO CENTER STATION
This segment includes the alignment between Victory Station and the proposed Metro Center Station. The alignment follows
the DART owned right-of-way to the proposed Museum Way Station immediately north of Woodall Rodgers Freeway and then
generally follows Lamar Street in a below-grade alignment to the proposed Metro Center Station in the vicinity of the existing
West End Station.
CENTRAL SEGMENT | METRO CENTER STATION TO GOVERNMENT CENTER STATION, INCLUDING THE
CONVENTION CENTER TUNNEL SPUR
This segment continues under Lamar and transitions back to the surface in the vicinity of Field and Young and ends at the
proposed Government Center Station near Dallas City Hall. This segment also includes the proposed below-grade light rail
connection under Lamar to the existing Convention Center Station and proposed High Speed Rail.
EAST SEGMENT | GOVERNMENT CENTER STATION TO DEEP ELLUM STATION
This segment is the longest and includes the LPA corridor and two design options. From the Government Center Station, the
at-grade LPA alignment transitions Jackson Street and continues to IH 345. The two design options between Ervay Street and IH
345 include Wood Street and Young Street. The SDEIS will evaluate all three corridors and the inclusion of up to two potential
stations between Government Center Station and the Deep Ellum junction.
DALLAS CBD SECOND LIGHT RAIL ALIGNMENT (D2) | DALLAS, TX
WHAT IS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT?
Now that an LPA has been approved, DART has been authorized by the FTA to enter
the Project Development phase. Project Development is an approximately 24-month
effort and will include preparation of the SDEIS to assess the benefits, impacts and
costs of the project and of routing options in the eastern end of downtown. The SDEIS
will be made available to the public for review and comment, during which time DART
will hold public meetings and a formal public hearing on the project. Based on the
SDEIS and public input a single project will be documented in a Final EIS/Record of
Decision (ROD). The Final EIS/ROD will outline mitigation commitments to address
identified impacts, and following approval from FTA, the environmental process will
conclude. A mitigation monitoring program will be established and incorporated into
Engineering and Construction as the project proceeds.
The FTA Process is shown below:
UNDER MAP21
PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT
Complete environmental
review process including
developing and reviewing
alternatives, selecting locally
preferred alternative (LPA),
and adopting it into the
fiscally constrained longrange transportation plan
ENGINEERING
Gain commitments of all nonNew Starts funding
FULL FUNDING
GRANT
AGREEMENT
Construction
Complete sufficient
engineering and design
LEGEND
FTA Approval
FTA Evaluation, Rating & Approval
WHY ARE WE DOING A SDEIS?
The original Draft EIS identified the need and purpose of the project, a range of
alternatives to be considered, and the potential social, economic and environmental
impacts of the alternatives. Positive, negative and temporary impacts were evaluated.
The DEIS was an initial assessment of the project and key issues - such as noise
impacts, economic effects, historic resources, air quality, parks, and traffic.
FTA and DART are initiating the development of a SDEIS for two primary reasons. First,
based on comments received from the public and stakeholders, additional alternatives
analysis has been conducted and as a result, new design options on the east end of
the project as well as a potential connection to the Convention Center need to be
considered and evaluated. Second, the AA/DEIS was published over five years ago and
the project area conditions have changed since that time. The data used to analyze the
impacts identified in the AA/EIS may need to be updated and incorporated into the
SDEIS.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
HOW CAN I PROVIDE COMMENTS?
Project Development will be kicked-off through a round of public
meetings in December. Project updates will be provided as well as
details regarding the Project Development phase and the proposed
schedule for D2.
Anyone who has an interest in the D2 Project is
encouraged to participate in Project Development.
DART will use your input to refine the LPA and analyze
the potential impacts and benefits of the proposed
project. Please submit written information and
comments to:
DEC
17
Project Development Kick-Off Meetings
Thursday December 17, 2015
12:00pm - 1:30pm | DART Headquarters, Board Room, 1401 Pacific Ave
6:30pm - 8:00pm | Downtown Dallas First Presbyterian Church, Byrd Hall,
1835 Young Street
In addition to Public Meetings, DART will be holding regular
meetings with a Stakeholder Working Group. This group consists
of agency and city staff, property owners, and developers, as well
as others with a specific interest in the project. An inter-agency
meeting focused on the issues to be assessed in the SDEIS will
also be held in December.
COMMENTS
Attention: Ernie Martinez
DART Planning
P.O. Box 660163
1401 Pacific Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-7232
[email protected]
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Additional meetings and opportunities for public and stakeholder comment will be provided
throughout the process. Project Development will focus on developing more detailed
Preliminary Engineering (PE) to support the SDEIS. The PE/SDEIS effort will refine the
preferred alternative, as well as evaluate additional routing options along Young, Wood and
Jackson Streets within the EIS process.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE?
The FEIS/ROD is expected to be approved in the Summer of 2017.
2015
2016
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PHASE
2017
ANTICIPATED KEY MILESTONE MEETINGS
PUBLIC & AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
10-20% PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
30% PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
SUPPLEMENTAL DEIS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
MITIGATION OPTIONS
FULL CORRIDOR & DESIGN OPTIONS
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
FINAL EIS
FULL CORRIDOR & SELECTED DESIGN OPTION
MITIGATION COMMITMENTS
F TA RECORD OF DECISION
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGR AM*
*THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM WILL CONTINUE THROUGH PROJECT ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION.
If you prefer, you can e-mail comments to [email protected] or visit www.DART.org/D2 for more information.
PD KICKOFF MEETINGS
PUBLIC MEETING: EXISTING CONDITIONS/
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AT 10% PRELIMINARY
ENGINEERING
IMPACT ASSESSMENT FINDING/ MITIGATION
OPTIONS AT 20% PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
PUBLIC HEARING FOR SDEIS
Dallas CBD Second Light Rail Alignment (D2) Meeting Display Boards December 2015 Meetings Does not include scroll plot maps used at the meetings.
Public Meeting Summary Report Appendix C. Sign-In Sheets
February 3, 2016 | 8 Public Meeting Summary Report Appendix D. Public Comments Received as of
1/15/16 (Comment Cards & Emails)
February 3, 2016 | 9 General Public Comments Received through January 12, 2016
Commenter Last
Name
Commenter First
Name
Comment Date Comment Format
Melton
Bud
12/17/2015
Comment Form
Cartwright
Dianne
12/17/2015
Comment Form
Flores
Cynthia
12/17/2015
Comment Form
Otto
Eleanor
12/17/2015
Comment Form
May
Dallas
12/21/2015
Email
Concerns regarding "gap" between Harwood and Ellum. Any
chance of considering a trolley into Deep Ellum?
Consideration should be given to an alternate route that
does not bisect FPC and the Stewpot ministry.
Consider an alternative along Jackson St. by the Farmer's
Market; least path of resistance.
Advocates for the B4 alternative; concerned about FPC
ministry to the homeless if the rail separates the church
from the properties to the south.
Concerns regarding service reliability in the event of an
accident and at at-grade crossings.
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Material included in the December 2015 meetings did not
include the Santa Fe #1, #2, #3, and historic properties.
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Comment Summary
The sounding of the train’s horn will introduce a quality of
life issue for residents and businesses adjacent to the rail.
The proposed alignment would introduce vibration issues to
the structure of Santa Fe #3. SoCo lofts proposed an
Alternate West Alignment.
The proposed alignment would introduce vibration issues to
the structure of Santa Fe #2 and is below ground parking
structure. SoCo lofts proposed an Alternate West Alignment.
The proposed route would require the demolition of the
Aloft Hotel's conference space and introduce vibration into
the structure of Santa Fe #4. SoCo lofts proposed an
Alternate
West
Alignment.
The
closure
of Wood
St. and proximity of the D2 alignment
exit tunnel would block the only access to the below grade
parking of Santa Fe #2. SoCo lofts proposed an Alternate
West Alignment.
Closure of Wood Street and the D2 alignment may result in
the potential loss of access to Griffin Street Parking Garage.
SoCo lofts proposed an Alternate West Alignment.
The proposed D2 alignment exit tunnel blocks pedestrian
traffic between Santa Fe #2 and #4 and #3 and #4. SoCo lofts
proposed an Alternate West Alignment.
The proposed route at the southwest corner of the D2
alignment negatively impacts Wood St. by closing it to
through traffic between Griffin and Field St. SoCo lofts
proposed an Alternate West Alignment.
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Proposed D2 alignment would impact the below grade
residential parking structure of Santa Fe #2. SoCo lofts
proposed an Alternate West Alignment.
The proposed line creates an obstruction that would limit
future development opportunities. SoCo lofts proposed an
Alternate West Alignment.
The proposed route would require the demolition and
removal of the Aloft Hotel's conference space. SoCo lofts
proposed an Alternate West Alignment.
Email
Proposed alignment would impact the below grade
residential parking structure of Santa Fe #2. The proposed
route has the potential to demolish portions of this
structure. SoCo lofts proposed an Alternate West Alignment.
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
Emery
Bob
1/12/2016
Email
The proposed D2 alignment exit tunnel blocks pedestrian
traffic between Santa Fe #3 and Santa Fe #4. SoCo lofts
proposed an Alternate West Alignment.
The proposed D2 alignment exit tunnel blocks vehicle
through route to access the entry canopy and disabled
access to Santa Fe #4. SoCo lofts proposed an Alternate
West Alignment.
The proposed line creates an obstruction that would limit
future development opportunities. SoCo lofts proposed an
Alternate West Alignment.
Email
The proposed alignment would cut through revenue
generating businesses and would lose leasable space as a
result. SoCo lofts proposed an Alternate West Alignment.
Email
Comment is to raise awareness of the utility lines that serve
Santa Fe properties #1, #2, #3, and #4. SoCo lofts proposed
an Alternate West Alignment.
Emery
Emery
Bob
Bob
1/12/2016
1/12/2016
Note: This list only includes comments received within a month of the December public meetings. Comments received after that date are not included
in this public meeting summary but will be tracked and addressed as part of the SDEIS development.
Public Meeting Summary Report Appendix E. Meeting Minutes Q&A
February 3, 2016 | 10 Meeting Minutes
Project: DART D2 Subject:
Date:
Location:
Attendees:
Project Development Kick‐Off Meeting, 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
DART, 1401 Pacific Avenue, Dallas, TX
Steve Salin, DART Ernie Martinez, DART Chad Edwards, DART Kay Shelton, DART John Hoppie, DART Chris Walters, DART Tom Shelton, GPC6 Program Manager
Steve Knobbe, GPC6 D2 Project Manager Luke Bathurst, GPC6 Deputy Program Manager Michelle Dippel, GPC6 Environmental Lead Israel Crowe, GPC6 D2 Engineering Lead Ian Bryant, GPC6 Engineering Team Following a welcome and introductions, DART Staff made a PowerPoint presentation, which was followed by a comment and Q&A session. Question: Why can’t the proposed Government and Harwood stations be below grade? DART Answer: As part of Alternatives Analysis (AA), the alternatives ranged in cost from $300‐400 Million to $1 Billion and it was costly to develop tunnel options whose stations were below grade through this area. Question: Is it possible to use the existing tunnel under City Hall near Marilla? DART Answer: A subsurface cavern exists in 3rd level below City Hall; however it cannot be used within the B4‐Lamar/Young/Jackson Alternative. Question/Comment: Concern that proposed alignment will repeat mistakes made on first Bryan/Pacific alignment. Why not subway? DART Answer: Light Rail Transit (LRT) is not heavy rail and is an alternate to a deeper subway system, and has flexibility for integration into urban areas. That is why DART selected LRT as technology many years ago. Question/Comment: Map shows potential Farmers Market Station on some alignments but not the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). DART Answer: the proposed station along LPA route would be on Jackson, east of Ervay. New routes on Jackson or Wood were explored for a limited amount of time before the LPA was selected. This process now will further study the LPA and options. DART Board Resolution included direction to continue to consider design options in eastern segment to ensure feasibility. DART will also continue to review feasibility for spur to convention center. Question: For 50 year historical mark, when does the 50 years start for a resource to be considered historic? DART Answer: Date depends on service begin date, which is late 2021 for this project. So 1971. Question: On future maps, can you show existing and future streetcar to understand how the whole system works together. How does Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) take into account safety and noise requirements? DART Answer: Both safety and noise are addressed in the EIS. DART will work with all parties (City, TxDOT) to identify and mitigate impacts. Also will work with stakeholders in downtown for input specific to certain properties. Question: Why can’t there be a below ground station at City Hall? DART Answer: Options considered earlier used 3rd level of parking structure at City Hall for use as a rail station. However, that only worked with some alternatives which were costly and had residential impacts. Question/Comment: Concern about utilities like Oncor in the downtown area. DART Answer: DART is also meeting with all utility companies in technical work groups to collect data and input for this project. Will work to discover what is known and not known to gain further knowledge during Preliminary Engineering. Crews will begin surveying almost immediately as project kicks‐off. Question: Which carries more weight, cost or environmental impacts? DART Answer: Both are balanced. The alignment cannot be so expensive that it is not feasible, but must be balanced with reasonable anticipated impacts and mitigation. Question/Comment: Letter written by Statler Hilton concerning new alignment affects on the hotel and new construction. DART Answer: DART is continuing dialogue with the owner. We are learning more about this new construction and their plans and needs since the LPA was adopted. DART will continue to refine the project so we can establish a workable, feasible alignment through that area. Question: How does building underground affect properties above ground and their foundations? DART Answer: There are many geologic conditions to be considered as part of our research. Underground rail would fall within existing streets to minimize impacts. The Austin Chalk formation, which is a good tunneling material, is in part of downtown. There are two ways to tunnel and all options are being reviewed and considered at this point. The design team will also reach out to the contracting community for dialogue and input. 

Cut and cover: cut open ground, put rail in and cover. Tunnel will be 60 feet down at Metro Center. Tunnel boring: bore with a machine. Question: What is present length of the proposed tunnel? DART Answer: The tunnel itself is approximately a half‐mile with quarter‐mile transition zones on each side. Question: What is the present diameter of the proposed tunnel? DART Answer: Diameter is not decided yet, discussion of single tunnel versus double bore and other factors will be considered. Question: Where is the water table and will tunneling affect table? DART Answer: Depth of water table not known yet, but data will be collected. Question: If water table is above tunnel, are there concerns water getting in tunnel? DART Answer: There are various methods for design and construction to mitigate risk. Subsurface geotechnical investigations will be done to collect data. Question: How is Austin Chalk affected by moisture? DART Answer: DART is not concerned at this point since research and design is not yet underway, but happy to do a one‐on‐one discussion for further information. Question: It seems like DART is in a rush to get things done? Is there time to do things more environmentally friendly? DART Answer: Project Development is two years, but we are also not starting from scratch. 18‐24 months is reasonable for the stage of the project we are in. Project Development includes an update to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement completed in 2010. Question: What happens if a possible “doomsday” scenario happens where no alignments work? DART Answer: FTA provides oversight and DART has a conservative financial plan to help mitigate any major issues. There is a shelf life for the environmental document, so if “the worst” happens, there would be additional work done down the road to re‐evaluate, which means project delay and moving to the back of the funding line. Question: When will the High Speed Rail (HSR) train be built from Dallas to Houston? DART Answer: HSR is expected to be completed in 2021‐2022, south of convention center; however it is not a DART project and is being led by Texas Central Railway. Question: What is the dashed line on the LPA map? DART Answer: This line is a spur that branches off from D2 and stays in a tunnel under Lamar to the Convention Center/Hotel and in the direction of the HSR line and its Dallas station. This will be extremely useful during special events as it would link the American Airlines Center to the Convention Center. Meeting Minutes
Project: DART D2 Subject:
Date:
Location:
Attendees:
Project Development Kick‐Off Meeting, 6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
First Presbyterian Church of Dallas, Byrd Hall, 1835 Young Street, Dallas, TX Steve Salin, DART Ernie Martinez, DART Chad Edwards, DART Kay Shelton, DART John Hoppie, DART Chris Walters, DART Tom Shelton, GPC6 Program Manager
Steve Knobbe, GPC6 D2 Project Manager Luke Bathurst, GPC6 Deputy Program Manager Michelle Dippel, GPC6 Environmental Lead Israel Crowe, GPC6 D2 Engineering Lead Ian Bryant, GPC6 Engineering Team Following welcome and introductions, DART Staff made a PowerPoint presentation, which was followed by a comment and Q&A session. A summary of the Q&A session is provided below. Question: What do you do to monitor noise as mats break down and trains get older? DART Answer: As mitigation requirements are established, they are required to be maintained for the life of the system. Maintenance is a high priority for DART and DART budgets for ongoing maintenance. DART utilizes the Capital Asset Management system to sustain the system in a state of good repair. Question: As alignments turn east, would they share the road with cars or would there be a physical separation? DART Answer: They would be separate; trains and cars would not operate in the same lane. Currently many types of separations are in use. There are several blocks of transit only traffic, some streets have parallel but separated one‐way traffic for cars to get to parking garages. Also, there are places where the rail uses a median with traffic on both sides, as well as dedicated guideways from cars to maintain a separation. Question: Do you see this alignment alleviating congestion during special events? DART Answer: Yes, this second alignment will provide a tremendous asset and flexibility for special events (example: Texas/OU weekend). DART is also in the process of designing modifications to 28 stations to be able to accommodate 3 car trains, which could accommodate 50% more riders system‐
wide. Question: Will the underground tunnel be difficult to do and maintain? DART Answer: Understanding the subsurface geology will be imperative. Austin Chalk is known to be in this area, which is a great material for tunneling. There are two ways to tunnel and all options are being reviewed and considered at this point. Design team will also reach out to the contracting community for dialogue and input. 

Cut and cover: cut open ground, put rail in and cover. Tunnel will be 60 feet down at Metro Center. Tunnel boring: bore with a machine. Question: Regarding the Wood and Jackson alternatives, are these surface level routes? They seem narrow for rail, car and pedestrian traffic? DART Answer: First, Jackson Street is part of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA); Wood Street is a design option. Part of the project development phase is working to review the LPA on Jackson to see what can fit within the right‐of‐way, and then Wood and Young options to review these issues. Question: Can you tunnel on Wood/Jackson? DART Answer: This was ruled out due to cost for tunneling in this area. Question: There has been a sink hole in the Aloft parking lot for several months, how does this affect this project? DART Answer: It does not affect it. We are aware of the underground tunnel at that location. Question: Besides the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), what other printed materials are available for review? DART Answer: As we go through project, information will be made available for review and public comment. Most documents will be considered working documents as they feed into the DEIS. Question: What is the DART staff preference on the alignment? There seems to be a preference for Young. DART Answer: DART Staff does not have a preference on the alignment. Federal requirement is for the project to define the most feasible/prudent alternative. We have one LPA and two design options to asses so we can understand the issues better. Question: Why don’t you start over on the DEIS rather than a Supplemental? DART Answer: We talked with FTA about this. The DEIS evaluated most of the LPA corridor so updating the 2010 document seemed to be the best approach. Planning phase work was only to a 1‐2% level, this current phase will take project to a 30% design level with much greater detail which we can include in the Supplemental DEIS. Question: When should we start to see studies on the project? DART Answer: Most likely March to May for beginning studies and working drafts, key materials will be made available on the D2 website and at public meetings. Question: What if none of the alternatives are viable or there are other changed conditions? DART Answer: FTA provides oversight and DART has a conservative financial plan to help mitigate any major issues. There is a shelf life for the environmental document, so if “the worst” happens, there would be additional work done down the road to re‐evaluate, which means project delay and moving to the back of the funding line. Question: How will train lines be operated, and will DART communicate with users on the second alignment to eliminate confusion? DART Answer: The second alignment will offer operational flexibility and DART will work to effectively communicate the services and how trains may switch lines under a new operating plan. Question/Comment: There is a need for an express connection between DFW and the Convention Center. DART Answer: DART will look at options to provide more direct service (without transfers) between these areas with the implementation of the second rail alignment, but in general the LRT system is not set‐up to skip stops for express service. Question: What is being done about increased earthquakes in Irving? DART Answer: Structures are designed to fall within earthquake design requirements. These requirements are strict enough to cover any potential activity in this area. Question: Why can’t space at City hall that was excavated be used for an underground alignment and station? DART Answer: The Alternatives Analysis that was just completed evaluated an alignment that used the 3rd level cavern below City Hall as an option, but it was not recommended due to costs associated with a longer tunnel and impacts to Farmers Market residential areas.