Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF) South Scoping Open House Presentation – March 12, 2019
Tonight’s presentation Project background Potential sites How to comment 2
Project background 3
Operations and Maintenance Facility South (OMF South) Included in ST3 Plan One of four OMFs planned for the region Location and size supports system expansion of multiple projects (TDLE, West Seattle, and overall system expansion) Open by 2026 and connected to active line 4
Four maintenance facilities in the region OMF Central OMF East OMF South OMF North 5
Operations and Maintenance Facility (OMF) overview Establishing a safe, clean and comfortable ride for passengers Link vehicles must be cleaned and stored every night and regularly pulled out of service for routine maintenance OMFs also house staff and equipment for train operations and station and track maintenance 300+ jobs on-site; 100+ during construction 6
Typical OMF configuration 18 storage tracks for 2 sets of 4- car trains per track Maintenance building with 12 service lanes Track “yard leads” connecting to main lines Auto/truck access points Maintenance of way building Employee and visitor parking 7
OMF South requirements Accommodate 130+ light rail cars 30+ acres or more based on site conditions For operational efficiency: o Needs to be located in South King County o Able to connect to operating track in 2026 (Federal Way Link Extension) 8
OMF South status Very early in the planning process A specific site has NOT been identified Preliminary sites were identified during public Early Scoping in April 2018 and project team workshops NOW: Public comment scoping period February 19 through April 1 Existing OMF Central in Seattle 9
Project timeline* Preliminary schedule *dates are subject to change 10
Next steps for OMF South 2019 Feb. 19 – April 1 April* May* Evaluation of scoping EIS scoping Sound Transit Board results & preparation public comment identifies alternative of summary report period sites for EIS *dates are subject to change 11
OMF South evaluation process Sound Transit Board Identifies Sites for Study in Draft Environmental Impact Statement Study Several Sites in 12 Environmental Analysis
Early scoping April 2018; 24 sites identified Pre-screening July 2018; Narrowed to 20 sites Does not meet minimum size and shape Precludes funded roadway improvements Regulatory constraints (cultural resources, wetlands, and sensitive areas) 13
Evaluation criteria Environmental Factors Examples: Property impacts, street/roads (access), community impacts, wetlands & streams, floodplains, parks & open spaces, historic/cultural, hazardous materials, noise Physical and operational Examples: Size, maintenance window, Light rail vehicle site access, schedule risk, operability, operating and capital estimates Plan Consistency ST3 Plan & Regional Transit Long-Range Plan 14
Results of alternatives evaluation Narrowed to 6 sites No ideal site! Sites in Federal Way, Kent, or unincorporated King County Sites under consideration are included in scoping 15
Overview of sites for EIS scoping S 240th St and SR 99 Midway Landfill and I-5 Midway Landfill and SR 99 S 336th St and I-5 S 316th St and Military Rd S 344th St and I-5 16
S 240th St and SR 99 comparison Advantages Disadvantages • • Adjacent to light rail Property impacts including Lowe’s, track operating by 2026 (FWLE) Dicks Drive-In and mobile home park • Minimal impacts on • the natural Access to light rail environment track requires spiraling tracks • Lower preliminary • estimate compared Less compatible with to other sites current and $800 million* proposed zoning (mixed-use) *Preliminary estimates (in 2018$) are rounded and not project’s budget. For comparison purposes between options only. 17
Midway Landfill and I-5 comparison Advantages Disadvantages • • Adjacent to light rail Likely needs complex track operating by concrete 2026 (FWLE) platform/structure • • Limited impacts to Superfund landfill site, private property hazardous materials concerns and ground • No identified settlement wetlands/streams • Regulatory requirements could impact schedule • Higher preliminary estimate compared to *Preliminary estimates (in 2018$) are rounded and not project’s budget. For comparison other sites purposes between options only. $1,300 million* 18
Midway Landfill and SR 99 comparison Advantages Disadvantages • • Adjacent to Likely needs complex operating light rail concrete platform/structure track by 2026 • Superfund landfill site, (FWLE) hazardous materials • No identified concerns and ground wetlands/streams settlement • Regulatory requirements could impact schedule • Property impacts, commercial/residential • Higher preliminary estimate compared to *Preliminary estimates (in 2018$) are rounded other sites and not project’s budget. For comparison $1,400 million* purposes between options only. 19
S 316th St and Military Rd comparison Advantages Disadvantages • • Across from light rail Residential impacts track operating by • Less compatible with 2026 (FWLE) current zoning • Lower preliminary • Requires two track estimate compared crossings of I-5 to other sites • Limited existing road $750 million* access *Preliminary estimates (in 2018$) are rounded and not project’s budget. For comparison purposes between options only. 20
S 336th St and I-5 comparison Advantages Disadvantages • Light rail vehicle • Potential property access and Impacts include operating estimate Christian Faith Center better performing • Located 1.1 miles from • No impacts to parks, light rail track operating trails or open space by 2026 (FWLE) • Lower preliminary • Less compatible with estimate compared current zoning to other sites $750 million* *Preliminary estimates (in 2018$) are rounded and not project’s budget. For comparison purposes between options only. 21
S 344th St and I-5 comparison Advantages Disadvantages • • Light rail vehicle Potential impacts to access better industrial and residential performing properties • • No impacts to parks, Hazardous materials trails or open space • Located 1.3 miles from • Lower preliminary light rail track operating estimate compared by 2026 (FWLE) to other sites $800 million* *Preliminary estimates (in 2018$) are rounded and not project’s budget. For comparison purposes between options only. 22
How to comment (by April 1) Today: Fill out a comment card Visit: omfsouth.participate.online Email: OMFSouthScoping@soundtransit.org Phone: 206-398-5453 Mail to: OMF South Project c/o Hussein Rehmat, Environmental Planner Sound Transit 401 S. Jackson St. Seattle, WA 98104 23
Comment on scope of EIS Sites to study further Topics to study in EIS (e.g. wetlands, economics, land use) Purpose and need of the project 24
What is an EIS? An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates impacts of the alternatives and proposes mitigation, as needed Studies both built environment (such as transportation, hazardous materials, displacements) and natural environment (such as wetlands and sensitive areas) EIS will be prepared in compliance with SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) Required to study a reasonable range of alternatives in EIS 25
Scoping feedback Published in an Scoping Summary Report Informs the Sound Transit Board to select sites to study in the EIS Guides ongoing public, agency and tribal engagement 26
Environmental review timeline* 2020 2021 2019 Spring 2019: Late 2020: ST Board ST Board identifies identifies sites to preferred site Fall 2020: Mid to late 2021: study in EIS Draft EIS issued; Final EIS issued; public, agency, ST Board selects tribal comments project to be built *dates are subject to change 27
Thank you! soundtransit.org/ omfs 28
Recommend
More recommend
