SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT

DRAFT METROCENTER CORRIDOR STUDY SCOPING SUMMARY REPORT February 12, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION...1 1.1 Overview...1 1.2 Purpose...1 1.3 Process...2 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND...2 2.1 Overview...2 3.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS...4 3.1 Overview...4 4.0 ALTERNATIVES BEING CONDSIDERED...4 4.1 Overview...4 4.2 What are the Alternatives being considered?...5 4.3 What s Next?...7 5.0 SCOPING MEETINGS...7 5.1 Overview Public Meetings...7 5.1.1 Meeting Publicity...7 5.1.2 Meeting Format...9 5.1.3 Public Meeting Attendance...9 5.2 Overview Agency Scoping Meeting...10 5.2.1 Meeting Publicity...10 5.2.2 Meeting Format...11 5.2.3 Public Meeting Attendance...11 6.0 COMMENT SUMMARY...11 6.1 Overview...11 6.2 Alignment Issues...12 6.2.1 Alignment Alternatives...12 6.2.2 Other Alignment Issues...13 6.3 Technology Choices...14 6.4 Multi-Modal...14 6.5 Funding...14 6.6 Neighborhood Livability...15 6.6.1 Neighborhood Traffic...15 6.6.2 Neighborhood Impacts...15 6.7 Environmental issues...16 Scoping Summary Report Page i

Tables 1 Comparison of population and employment statistics for the Metrocenter Corridor and Maricopa Association of Government (MAG Region) 2 LRT Alternatives 3 BRT Alternatives 4 Scoping Meeting Attendance 5 Agency Scoping Meeting Attendance 6 Environmental Issues Figures 1 Metrocenter Corridor Study Area 2 Deer Valley Connection Study Area 3 Phoenix / Glendale MIS Recommendations 1999 4 Project Development Process 5 LRT Alternatives 1 and 2 6 LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 7 BRT Alternatives 1 and 2 8 BRT Alternatives 3 and 4 Appendix A B C D E F G H I J K L Federal Register Notice of Intent Scoping Information Booklet Postcard Notices Newspaper Announcements Newspaper Articles and Media Outreach Scoping Meeting Boards Scoping Presentation Slides Oral Public Comments Written Public Comments Public Meeting Attendance Sheets Invitation Letter to Government Agencies Agency Meeting Attendance Sheet Scoping Summary Report Page ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW This report summarizes the results of the Metrocenter Corridor Study scoping process conducted by Valley Metro Rail, Inc. during December 2003 and January 2004. This outreach effort is tied to the planning study for the first extension to the light rail transit (LRT) system that includes a 20-mile corridor connecting the cities of Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa. This starter line is known as the Central Phoenix / East Valley Light Rail Transit Project (CP/EV LRT Project). The following are the descriptions of the purpose and process of the scoping exercise. 1.2 PURPOSE Valley Metro Rail, Inc. and the cities of Phoenix and Glendale are undertaking an Alternatives Analysis (AA) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate high capacity transit service improvements in the Metrocenter Corridor in the northwest portion of the City of Phoenix. The study area is displayed in Figure 1. Although not a part of the formal AA/EIS process for the Metrocenter Corridor Study, secondary study areas in Phoenix north of the Metrocenter Corridor and west to Glendale will also be considered to identify opportunities for future transportation connections. The northern study area is defined as the Future Deer Valley Core Connection Study Area and is shown in Figure 2. Any further detailed planning and design for a future connection to either area would be prepared in accordance with stipulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Capital improvements under consideration include light rail transit (LRT) and bus rapid transit (BRT). In addition, a local bus network will be integrated into the selected high capacity transit system. Section 4 of this document provides additional information regarding the LRT and BRT technologies as well as a list of initial alternatives and alignment options being considered. The purpose of this study is to develop project information in sufficient detail so that citizens and local and federal agencies and officials can make an informed decision whether to proceed with the transit improvements. This information will include, but not be limited to, the following: Develop technology modes and potential alignment options; Evaluate modes and alignments using a variety of criteria (e.g., mobility and cost effectiveness; financial feasibility; ridership potential; traffic and environmental impacts; development potential; etc.) to narrow down the range of alternatives; Define an enhanced bus system; and Select a preferred mode and route or alignment. A scoping information booklet (see Appendix B) has been developed to provide information about the scoping process itself; the background information leading to the need for the study; the project development process; the initial alternatives being considered; the Scoping Summary Report Page 1

Insert Figure 1 Metrocenter Corridor Study Area Scoping Summary Report Page 2

Insert Figure 2 Deer Valley Connection Study Area Scoping Summary Report Page 3

environmental impact and financial analyses processes; and opportunities for public involvement. 1.3 PROCESS Scoping is a study process designed to inform the public, interested groups, and involved agencies about the proposed project, alternatives, and issues for public and agency review and input. The main goal is to encourage the active participation of the public and agencies early in the decision-making process. It provides the public an opportunity to communicate issues and concerns to help develop alternatives before considerable resources have been expended. The scoping process defines the alternatives to be examined in the study, identifies impacts to be considered, and establishes the goals and objectives that will guide the evaluation of alternatives. Key issues are identified and the technical analyses that will address issues are defined. Citizens, agencies, and community organizations are encouraged to comment early in the process so that they can provide input in setting the direction of the study, including the determination of which goals and objectives are to be pursued and which alternatives, issues, and impacts are to be studied. All reasonable alternatives and potentially significant project impacts are identified and examined early in the process. 2.1 OVERVIEW 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND Phoenix is the nation s sixth largest city and continues to grow. According to Census 2000 figures, Phoenix demonstrated the most rapid increase of any area in the nation with a population over two million and is expected to soon overtake Philadelphia as the fifth largest city. The Metrocenter Corridor area is a major employment and activity center and is anticipated to experience significant growth by 2025 (Table 1). Along with this growth, traffic congestion and capacity deficiencies are expected to increase despite planned transportation improvements. Inadequate transit service has hampered access to this area and to other Valley destinations, other than by automobile. Even with recently implemented transit improvements and others in the planning and design stages, projected demand for transit service in the corridor cannot be met. A major transit investment is recognized as a feasible alternative to providing additional capacity within this corridor. Scoping Summary Report Page 4

Variable TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS FOR THE METROCENTER CORRIDOR AND MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (MAG) REGION 2000 2025 MAG MAG Corridor Region Corridor Region Absolute Change 2000-2025 Corridor Percent Change 2000-2025 MAG Region Corridor Region Population 109,855 3,500,244 135,842 7,038,402 25,987 3,538,158 24% 101% Households 43,564 1,190,896 47,510 2,859,066 3,946 1,668,170 9% 140% Households/ Acre 4.0 0.3 4.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 10% 100% Zero-Car Households 5,445 88,577 6,618 156,154 1,173 67,577 22% 76% % Zero-Car Households 12.5% 7.4% 13.9% 5.5% 1.4% -1.9% Employment 61,145 1,511,962 63,142 2,994,264 1,997 1,482,302 3% 98% Employment/ Acre 5.7 0.4 5.8 0.7 0.1 0.3 2% 75% Source: Interim socioeconomic projections accepted by MAG Regional Council on June 25, 2003. The Phoenix/Glendale Major Investment Study (MIS) was initiated in 1998 to identify high capacity transportation improvements that would improve mobility and provide transit options in the corridors linking Metrocenter and downtown Glendale with central Phoenix. A secondary purpose was to answer the question on whether LRT planned in the Central Phoenix/East Valley Corridor should be extended into the Phoenix/Glendale study area. The MIS encompassed a study area which included the Metrocenter Corridor Study area. The project goals stated in the Phoenix/Glendale MIS included: Improve mobility of people within the region; Coordinate transportation improvements with land uses; Promote actions that improve the environment; Accommodate growth in regional travel demand; and Maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of transportation systems. Nine different transit technologies traversing various alignments were considered. Using a variety of evaluation criteria, a locally preferred alternative (LPA) was recommended that included LRT as the selected transit mode. The alignment connected with the planned Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT (scheduled to begin construction in 2004) at Spectrum Mall on 19 th Avenue near Bethany Home Road and continued north on 19 th Avenue to Northern Avenue with various sub-option alignments to the Metrocenter Shopping Center. See Figure 3. Since completion of the MIS in 1999, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has revised its planning process with new requirements for Alternatives Analysis (AA). AA requires a more detailed analysis of modal options, alignments, and travel demand forecasting. Scoping Summary Report Page 5

Insert Figure 3 Phoenix/Glendale MIS Recommendations 1999 Scoping Summary Report Page 6

Therefore, the AA for the Metrocenter Corridor Study will re-evaluate reasonable technology modes as well as alignment options within the study area. The Metrocenter Corridor Project was included in the City of Phoenix s Transit 2000 ballot initiative that was passed by voters in 2000 and provides a 0.4% sales tax to help fund the City s transit program. The project also is included in the currently approved Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) financially constrained Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). 3.1 OVERVIEW 3.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The Metrocenter Corridor Study is being advanced in accordance with the project development process outlined by FTA for major transit capital investments and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A summary of the process and schedule is presented in Figure 4. The steps from Alternatives Analysis (AA) through Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) are considered to be the project planning phases. Upon completion of the FEIS, it will be submitted to FTA for their consideration, and FTA will then issue a Record of Decision (ROD) that provides environmental clearance. The subsequent design, financing, and construction steps leading to operations are further delineated in Figure 4. 4.1 OVERVIEW 4.0 ALTERNATIVES BEING CONSIDERED The initial alternatives being considered are presented in this section. In addition to several Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) Build alternatives, a Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, and a No-Build Alternative are also being considered. WHAT IS LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT? LRT is an electrically powered railway, typically operating at street level in an exclusive rightof-way (fixed guideway), or totally grade separated. Because LRT does not share a lane with other vehicles and can be coordinated with the existing traffic signal system, overall route speed can be maximized. LRT can be operated using a single car or coupled up to a three-car train. LRT is designed to accommodate a variety of environments, including streets, freeway medians, railroad rights-of-way (operating or abandoned), pedestrian malls, underground or aerial structures. It is this characteristic that most clearly distinguishes it from other rail modes. LRT typically offers frequent service in two directions throughout most or all of the day and can carry between 10,000 and 20,000 passengers per hour. In the United States, LRT systems are currently in construction, operation, or being expanded in more than a dozen cities including Dallas, Houston, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Baltimore, Portland, Scoping Summary Report Page 7

Insert Figure 4 Project Process Development Scoping Summary Report Page 8

Sacramento, St. Louis, and Denver. The 20-mile Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit system is an example of the LRT operation considered for the Metrocenter extension. WHAT IS BUS RAPID TRANSIT? BRT is a form of advanced bus service that can combine many of the advantages of rail transit with the flexibility of buses. It can operate in exclusive right-of-way (fixed guideway), high occupancy vehicles (HOV) lanes, and mixed traffic on urban arterials. By requiring dedicated right-of-way only where congestion is encountered, BRT can provide flexibility in using the existing roadway network and can serve a variety of travel patterns. BRT can be coordinated with the traffic signal system to achieve a higher overall route speed. Buses have lower passenger capacities than light rail vehicles; however, special high capacity buses can be built to expand passenger capacity. BRT buses are similar to LRT vehicles in that they are normally low-floor with multiple entry and exit doors and are level with station platforms to facilitate boardings. Streamlined fare collection and passenger information systems are usually incorporated into BRT. Like LRT, BRT can offer frequent service in two directions. BRT can typically carry between 5,000 and 10,000 passengers per hour during peak periods depending upon the design of operations. Also like LRT, BRT has limited stops providing improved operating speeds, and unique stations or shelters are normally provided to differentiate BRT service from standard bus service. In the U.S., fixed guideway BRT systems currently exist in Pittsburgh, Miami, and Charlotte. Buses on HOV lanes operate on limited-access highways designed for long-distance commuters. Phoenix (Rapid Bus), Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, and Seattle provide examples of extensive HOV lane use by buses, or simplified BRT. 4. 2 WHAT ARE THE INITIAL ALTERNATIVES BEING CONSIDERED? Several alternatives are currently under consideration, and all have been developed to meet transit needs for the year 2025: No-Build Alternative Consist of improvements contained in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Long Range Transportation Plan and the Phoenix Transit Plan and programmed improvements with the exception of connections to the planned Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit Project. The No-Build Alternative reflects a minimal level of transit service expansion. Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative Consists of reasonable operating and cost-effective transit service improvements short of a major capital investment. LRT Build Alternatives Figures 5 and 6 (Table 2) present the four major LRT Alternatives being considered. All alignments begin at the northern terminus of the Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT line near Spectrum Mall at 19 th Avenue/Montebello Avenue and terminate at Cholla Street. Potential future northern connections leading to the Deer Valley Core are also shown. Scoping Summary Report Page 9

Insert Figure 5 LRT Alternatives 1 and 2 Scoping Summary Report Page 10

Insert Figure 6 LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 Scoping Summary Report Page 11

TABLE 2 LRT ALTERNATIVES No. Location 1 19 th Avenue 2 19 th Avenue/Bethany Home Road/I-17 3 At least 2 potential options: Option 3A 19 th Avenue/Maryland Avenue/31 st Avenue/Metrocenter West/28 th Drive Option 3B 19 th Avenue/Orangewood Avenue/31 st Avenue/Metrocenter West/28 th Drive Note that the east-west crossover from 19 th Avenue to 31 st Avenue and the bridge across I-17 could also occur between Options 3A and 3B 4 4 major options. Options 4A and 4B serve the area between Spectrum Mall and Dunlap Avenue/25 th Avenue. Options 4C and 4D serve the area between Dunlap Avenue/25 th Avenue and Cholla Street. Option 4A can be combined with either Option 4C or 4D to traverse the entire study area. Likewise, Option 4B can be combined with either Option 4C or 4D. Option 4A 19 th Avenue/Dunlap Avenue to 25 th Avenue Option 4B 19 th Avenue/Northern Avenue/23 rd Avenue/Dunlap Avenue to 25 th Avenue Option 4C Dunlap Avenue at 25 th Avenue north to Cholla Street Option 4D Dunlap Avenue at 25 th Avenue north to about Mountain View Road/New crossing of I-17/Metrocenter East/28 th Drive BRT Build Alternatives Figures 7 and 8 (Table 3) display the four major BRT Alternatives being considered. The alignments begin and end at the same locations as the LRT alignments. Potential future northern connections leading to the Deer Valley Core are also shown. In addition, daily bus service south of the BRT terminus at Spectrum Mall would serve the State Capitol and downtown Phoenix via either a) 19 th Avenue; or b) 19 th Avenue to Camelback Road to I-17. TABLE 3 BRT ALTERNATIVES No. Location 1 Same alignment as LRT Alternative 1 2 Same alignment as LRT Alternative 2 3 Same alignment and options as LRT Alternative 3 4 Four major options similar to LRT Alternative 4 with changes shown below. Like LRT Alternative 4, Option 4A can be combined with either Option 4C or 4D to traverse the entire study area. Option 4B can be combined with either Option 4C or 4D. Option 4A Same alignment as LRT Option 4A Option 4B Same alignment as LRT Option 4B Option 4C Dunlap Avenue at 25 th Avenue north to Peoria Avenue/Peoria Avenue/I-17 Option 4D Dunlap Avenue at 25 th Avenue north to about Mountain View Road/New crossing of I-17/Metrocenter East/28 th Drive/Peoria Avenue/I-17 4.3 WHAT S NEXT? The first phase (Tier 1) includes a conceptual level evaluation that analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of a long list of potential alternatives to address the transportation needs of the corridor. It should be noted that the purpose of the Tier 1 evaluation is to determine which of the alternatives included in the long list are the most feasible, thus narrowing down the range of options to be considered for more detailed analysis. Those Scoping Summary Report Page 12

Insert Figure 7 BRT Alternatives 1 and 2 Scoping Summary Report Page 13

Insert Figure 8 - BRT Alternative 3 and 4 Scoping Summary Report Page 14

alternatives surviving the Tier 1 evaluation will then be subjected to a more detailed evaluation (Tier 2). The Tier 2 evaluation criteria will begin to quantify ridership potential, capital costs, land use and economic impacts, traffic issues, environmental factors, conceptual engineering, and public preference. The evaluation of the Tier 2 alternative is intended to eliminate all but a preferred alternative with possible design options. The findings of the Tier 2 evaluations and the short-list of alternatives will be presented to the public in March, 2004. 5.1 OVERVIEW PUBLIC MEETINGS 5.0 SCOPING MEETINGS The core of the scoping process for the Metrocenter Corridor Study was a series of two public meetings during the month of January 2004. The meetings held were as follows: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:00 to 9:00 PM Westwind Preparatory Charter High School 2045 West Northern Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:00 to 8:00 PM Orangewood Elementary School 7337 North 19 th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Citizens that required special needs were instructed to contact the Public Involvement Specialists for the project. All meetings were held at wheelchair-accessible locations. Those who required language interpretation or special communication accommodations were also encouraged to contact the Public Involvement Specialists. Every reasonable effort was made to meet their needs. 5.1.1 PUBLIC MEETING PUBLICITY The process was widely publicized through several means, as summarized below: Federal Register: The public scoping officially began with the publication in the Federal Register to study light rail transit and bus rapid transit alignments, prepare an EIS, and conduct public scoping meetings. The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published on December 17, 2003. A copy of the Federal Register NOI is contained in Appendix A. Scoping Information Booklet: In December, 2003, Valley Metro Rail, Inc. published a Scoping Information Brochure for distribution to the public during and after the scoping meetings. The booklet summarized information on the following subjects: Introduction (Scoping Process) Project Background Project Development Process Alternatives Being Considered Environmental Impact and Financial Analysis Public Involvement Opportunities Scoping Summary Report Page 15

A copy of this booklet is contained in Appendix B. Individual Outreach: To publicize the scoping process, Valley Metro Rail, Inc. sponsored an extensive notification effort. It included distribution of public meeting notification postcards to all residences and businesses within the entire Metrocenter Study Area. This included 24,194 residences and 1,829 businesses for a total of 26,364 notifications. A copy of the postcard notification is contained in Appendix C. Group Outreach: In addition, 341 notifications were mailed to government agencies (local and state), Village Planning Committees, community advocacy groups and organizations, chamber of commerce and neighborhood/homeowners associations located in the study area. In addition, an e-mail distribution was sent out to those e-mails in the project e-mail database. These e-mails announced the date, time and location of the two scoping meetings. It also referred people to the project website and offered the phone number of the Project Manager for questions or inquires. An electronic file (PDF) of the postcard notification was also attached to all e-mails. Media Outreach: Valley Metro Rail, Inc. also conducted an extensive media outreach effort, with placement of ads in three area publications (La Voz, The Arizona Informant, and the Arizona Business Gazzette.) Valley Metro Rail, Inc also arranged for announcements on television on City Channel 11 in Phoenix and on AM Radio KTAR 620. Copies of these ads are contained in Appendix D. As a result of Valley Metro Rail, Inc. outreach effort, the press covered the Metrocenter Corridor Study two weeks before the scoping meetings. An article in the Arizona Republic included: Extension of Light Rail Considered by Bob Goften, pp B-1 & B-2; December 26, 2003 A copy of this article is contained in Appendix E. 5.1.2 MEETING FORMAT The two scoping meetings were organized to provide as much information available to as wide an audience as possible. A variety of written materials was made available for review at the sign-in table that included the Metrocenter Scoping information Booklet (English/Spanish), Metrocenter Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan, and the Metrocenter Corridor Study scoping surveys (English/Spanish). In addition CP/EV LRT Project newsletters, fact sheets and brochures were also made available to those who attended. Spanish speaking interpreters were available at both scoping meetings. Information Stations: Three information stations were set-up around the perimeter of the meeting rooms, with each station consisting of boards providing information of various elements of the project. The stations were organized and set-up as follows: Station 1: Orientation Station 2: Background Information Station 3: Alternatives Scoping Summary Report Page 16

Project and/or City Staff were assigned to each station to answer questions and solicit input from meeting participants. Copies of the display board s set-up at each station are included in Appendix F. Presentation: The Project Manager for the Metrocenter Corridor Study opened each meeting by explaining what the purpose of the study was and explained the importance of public involvement in the overall process. The Consultant Project Manager then gave a 30- minute presentation on the project and specifically explained how the scoping process worked. The information in his presentation essentially covered the same information and subjects covered at the three information stations. Valley Metro Rail, Inc. also offered Spanish translation of the presentation at each meeting. A copy of the presentation is contained in Appendix G. Public Comments: The final feature of each meeting was a variety of means for meeting attendees to submit comments on the project. Attendees had an opportunity to give direct input to our court reporter. A total of 7 people recorded their comments. Comments documented at each meeting by the court reporter are contained in Appendix H. In addition, attendees were given an opportunity to complete a scoping survey. A total of 35 surveys were completed. Copies of these surveys are contained in Appendix I. 5.1.3 PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE A total of 113 people attended the two scoping meetings. Attendance sheets are contained in Appendix J. Table 5: Scoping Meeting Attendance Meeting Date Meeting Location Number in Attendance Tuesday, January 13, 2004 West Wind Preparatory Charter High School 53 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Cafeteria Thursday, January 15, 2004 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Orangewood Elementary School Cafeteria 60 5.2 OVERVIEW AGENCY SCOPING MEETING In addition to the two public meetings, a scoping meeting for government agencies was held. The meeting was held as follows: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:00 to 4:00 PM Valley Metro Rail, Inc., LRT Board Room 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Scoping Summary Report Page 17

Agency Outreach: Valley Metro Rail, Inc. conducted a distribution of a formal letter inviting 46 agencies on a local, state and federal level to the scoping meeting. A copy of the letter is contained in Appendix K. Additional Agency Outreach: An e-mail distribution was sent out to those agencies in the project government agency e-mail database. These e-mails announced the date, time and location of the agency scoping meeting. It also referred agencies to the project website and offered the phone number of the Project Manager for questions or inquires. An electronic file (PDF) of the public postcard notification was also attached to all e-mails. 5.2.1 AGENCY MEETING ATTENDANCE A total of 4 people outside of the Valley Metro Rail, Inc. staff attended the agency scoping meeting. An attendance sheet for the meeting is contained in Appendix L. 6.1 OVERVIEW 6.0 COMMENT SUMMARY The scoping period, which lasted from December, 2003 to January, 2004, included numerous opportunities for interested parties to submit both written comments and oral comments. A total of 38 scoping surveys, e-mail inquires and recorded statements by the court reporter were submitted. All the surveys and oral comments were compiled, reviewed and analyzed to identify the issues to be addressed through the EIS preparation process. The issues are summarized below, according to the following categories: Alignment Issues Technology Choice Multi-Modal System Neighborhood Livability Environmental Issues 6.2 ALIGNMENT ISSUES The issue that attracted the most interest at the scoping meeting and in the comments submitted was the potential alignment of the system. This included questions regarding possible LRT/BRT alignments identified in the four LRT and BRT alternatives. These comments were as follows: 6.2.1 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES Several people commented on the possible BRT or LRT alignments identified in the Scoping Information Booklet. Two people preferred LRT Option 1. Scoping Summary Report Page 18

One person preferred LRT or BRT Option 1. More in support of BRT because the bus can go faster and maneuver through traffic better than rail can on a major street. One person preferred LRT Option 1 if you move the Metrocenter Park and Ride to the east side of I-17 to accommodate LRT. One person preferred LRT Option 1 if it is elevated. Also, have the line go west over I- 17 to a Metrocenter Park and Ride. Five people preferred LRT Option 2. One believes building on the I-17 corridor would create less disruption than on 19 th Avenue and other main streets in the study area. It could also mean less traffic to and from park and rides on the main streets. One person preferred BRT Option 2. One person was concerned that LRT Option 3-A would have impacts to Washington Park. Two people preferred LRT Option 3-A. One person preferred LRT Option 3-A if it is not elevated. One person preferred LRT Option 3-A and 3-B together. One person preferred LRT Option 3-B. One person preferred LRT Option 4-A. One person preferred LRT Option 4-B. Building on 23 rd Avenue would mean less traffic and impacts on 17 th and 19 th Avenue. One person did not prefer LRT Option 4-B because of the negative impacts it may have on a mobile home park that has residents that are not transit depended. Elderly people in the late 60s and early 70s are at this location. One person prefers LRT Option 4-B. Should use some of the state land on Northern at I-17 (Southeast Corner) for some transit related use. Dunlap is too congested and has many businesses. Northern has a golf course and is heavily residential which seems more cost effective for right-of-way acquisition. One person preferred LRT Option 4-B and 4-C together. 6.2.2 OTHER ALIGNMENT ISSUES There were some comments on additional alternatives beyond the four LRT and four BRT options presented at the scoping meeting and identified in the Scoping Information Booklet. Scoping Summary Report Page 19

One person suggested building rail on existing rail lines that are no longer in use. This could lead to minimal infrastructure upgrades. One person preferred an LRT alignment to go down a less populated route such as 35 th Avenue. Building LRT anywhere else would devastate the Washington School District. One person felt it was more important to build an LRT east / west line that uses Camelback Road. One person preferred that we connect any LRT expansion to Arizona State University - West and Glendale Community College. 6.3 TECHNOLOGY CHOICES Several questioned the feasibility of BRT and LRT in the study area as a viable transit choice. One person preferred BRT because it is much easier to adjust alternate routes. One person preferred BRT because it easier to increase bus service. It would be less disruptive to the residents and businesses. One preferred LRT because it is what the voters approved under Phoenix Transit 2000. One preferred LRT as long as more park and rides are built to accommodate ridership. 6.4 MULTI-MODAL SYSTEM Concerns were raised about the integration of other forms of general mobility with the project. One person suggested that we use Rapid service from Metrocenter to Spectrum Mall to interface with LRT. One person suggested seamless transition from LRT line to another. Also would like to see seamless transition from LRT to bus and vise versa. One person suggested creating shuttle service from park and rides to major destinations. One person suggested the construction of new bus hubs in existing neighborhoods along the I-17 corridor that could easily be integrated with the proposed I-17 double deck and LRT line to Metrocenter. Scoping Summary Report Page 20

6.5 FUNDING Several people raised concerns about funding for the LRT or BRT project. Generally, people wanted to know how cost effective each of the alternative modes would be. Three people preferred BRT over LRT. LRT is too costly, while BRT is much cheaper to build and operate. One person felt that LRT Option 2 may be more costly, but it would be less disruptive. One person did not prefer LRT Option 2 because it would cost too much to build an elevated portion. One person felt that the debt behind either option is too great for the taxpayers to take on and prefers the no-build option. 6.6 NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY Several people raised concerns about maintaining neighborhood cohesion. 6.6.1 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC Concerns were raised about the potential for increased traffic in neighborhoods. Three people were concerned about the impacts LRT would have on the neighborhoods access and congestion. Specifically, they are concerned about the increase of cut through traffic in their neighborhoods. One person would like a plan developed that would safeguard the neighborhoods from cut-through traffic. One suggestion is to install more speed bumps. One person was concerned about the egress to and from the neighborhoods onto the streets that have LRT. One person was concerned that the quality of life would deteriorate once construction begins and would not recover after construction ends. 6.6.2 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS Concerns were raised about LRT riders impacts on neighborhoods. One person requested that a sound wall be constructed next to the condominiums at 21 st Lane and Northern Avenue. They would be willing to donate land needed to build this wall. One person felt that LRT will have a negative impact on businesses because of the limitations of left turns across the tracks. Scoping Summary Report Page 21

One person felt that LRT stations would attract crime. One person felt that LRT would have a negative impact on property values. One person felt that LRT would diminish the beauty of the area, specifically near the El Caro Golf Course on Northern Avenue. One person felt the lack of restrooms at LRT/BRT stations would create a problem with riders using the outdoors as restrooms. One person requested that the project avoid all parklands, golf courses and athletic fields at all cost. One person requested that the project to do everything possible to minimize the impacts of air quality in Phoenix. One person requested that the project make sure that the crosswalks at 19 th Avenue and Orangewood be maintained and that any construction on 19 th Avenue not impact access to Orangewood Elementary School. One person was concerned of the negative impacts that any alignment would have on the many schools between Dunlap and Glendale. This person indicated that there are three public schools and one private school in the area. One person was concerned about the impacts that utility relocation would have on the neighborhoods and to traffic in the area. One person questioned the ability of police officers to stop trains in order to apprehend criminals. One person was concerned of the impacts that construction would have on the Good Shepherd property at 19 th Avenue at Northern Avenue, which is a historic site. One person wondered whether LRT would be part of an overall evacuation plan in case of a man-made or natural disaster. 6.7 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The scoping survey asked people to identify which environmental analysis for the light rail study are important to them. A total of 35 surveys were submitted. The following is a break down of their responses: Scoping Summary Report Page 22

Table 6: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Issue Responses Percentage Air Quality 17 of 35 48.6% Displacement & Relocation 15 of 35 42.9% Community Facilities and Services 4 of 35 11.4% Cumulative Impacts 5 of 35 14.3% Economic Development 5 of 35 14.3% Employment 4 of 35 11.4% Energy 5 of 35 11.4% Environmental Justice 3 of 35 14.3% Historic and Archeological Resources 5 of 35 8.6% Land Use 4 of 35 14.3% Neighborhoods / Community Cohesion 17 of 35 48.6% Noise / Vibration 22 of 35 62.9% Parking 7 of 35 20.0% Parklands 3 of 35 8.6% Public Transportation Impacts 7 of 35 20.0% Safety 11 of 35 31.4% Traffic and Circulation 20 of 35 57.1% Threatened / Endangered Species 4 of 35 11.4% Toxic and Hazardous Contamination 3 of 35 8.6% Visual Quality and Aesthetics 6 of 35 17.1% Water Resources 1 of 35 2.9% Scoping Summary Report Page 23