NOTICE TO READERS: PUBLIC INPUT ON THIS FINAL REPORT WILL BE APPENDED TO THE DOCUMENT PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO AMATS.

Transcription

1

2

3

4 NOTICE TO READERS: THIS PROJECT IS CURRENTLY IN THE ANCHORAGE METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS (AMATS) LONG- RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THE DECISION TO ADVANCE AND FUND THE NEXT PHASE OF PURSUING APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND CLEARANCE IS THE DECISION OF THE AMATS POLICY COMMITTEE IF FEDERAL FUNDS ARE TO BE USED. ALTERNATIVELY, THE STATE LEGISLATURE COULD APPROPRIATE STATE GENERAL FUNDS TO FURTHER ADVANCE THIS PROJECT; HOWEVER, NO APPROPRIATION HAS BEEN MADE TO DATE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS NORTHERN ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND MEDICAL DISTRICT RECONNAISSANCE STUDY REPORT IS FOR TECHNICAL EVALUATION ONLY. IT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE AMATS WITH BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT AREA AND FACILITATE COLLECTION OF STAKEHOLDER INPUT. PUBLIC INPUT ON THIS FINAL REPORT WILL BE APPENDED TO THE DOCUMENT PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO AMATS.

5 NORTHERN ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND MEDICAL DISTRICT RECONNAISSANCE STUDY REPORT DOT&PF Project No Changes to September 2011 Version The Northern Access to the University and Medical District Reconnaissance Study Report issued in September 2011 has been revised as follows: Table 2 on Page 58 has been corrected with missing information. Appendix A - Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report has been added. November 2011

6 Contents 1.0 Introduction Elements of this Reconnaissance Study Purpose & Need Study Area Public Involvement Existing Transportation Infrastructure Roads and Intersections Transit Trails and Pathways Parking Facilities Transportation Demand Analysis Future Versus Current Volumes Transportation Improvement Concepts Roadway Improvements Evaluation & Comparison of Concepts Evaluation Criteria Comparison of Concepts Summary and Conclusions.. 77 Figures... 3 Figure 2 - Anchorage Employment Growth from 2027 LRTP....4 Figure 3 - Approximate Number of Employee, Afternoon Peak Hour...15 Figure Weekday Street and Intersection...17 Figure Weekday Street and Intersection Figure Weekday Street and Intersection Figure Weekday Street and Intersection...20 Figure 10 - Crash Rate Analysis for Figure 11 - Study Area Transit Facilities Figure 12 - Existing Trails and Pathways Areas Volumes for 2011 and Figure 16 - Anchorage Pedestrian Plan Figure 17 - Anchorage Bicycle Plan for...40 Figure 18 - Roadway Improvement Concepts Figure 19 - Concept G - Boulevard Illustration Figure 20 - Boulevard Concept Figure 21 - Pedestrian Bridge and Gateway Concept Figure 22 - Concept L with Trail, Overpass and Gateway Figure 23 - Cut and Cover Road Concept Figure 24 - Concept I Rendering Volumes for Peak Hour) for No Action Concept Peak Hour) for No Action Concept Compared to No Action Concept F Peak Hour) for Concept G Peak Hour) for Concept G....62

7 Tables Concept Concept Table 3 : 2030 Estimated Cut-through Table 4 : Criteria Table 5 : Concept Evaluation for Engineering Challenges Table 6 : Concept Evaluation for Land Use. 70 Table 7 : Concept Evaluation for Environmental Table 8 : Table 9 : Estimated Construction Costs for Road Concepts Table 10 :Summary Evaluation of Concepts. 78 Acronyms ABP...Anchorage Bicycle Plan Area Transportation Solutions ANTHC...Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium API...Alaska Psychiatric Institute APP...Anchorage Pedestrian Plan APTI...Alaska Public Telecommunications Inc. AWWU...Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility and Public Facilities EAST East Anchorage Study of Transportation HSIP...Highway Safety Improvement Program LOS...Level of Service LRTP...Long Range Transportation Plan NEPA...National Environmental Policy Act SCF...Southcentral Foundation UAA...University of Alaska Anchorage

8 1.0 Introduction The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) is conducting a reconnaissance study to evaluate the potential for improving access from the north and east into the University and Medical District (U-Med District) in the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), Alaska. The U-Med District is one of the largest employment centers in Anchorage and is projected to continue to grow over increasingly a constraint on the area s growth and operations, and a project to improve capacity, circulation, and Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) Anchorage Bowl 2025 Long-Range Transportation Plan with 2027 Revisions ( LRTP indicated that improvements were needed in the U-Med District, but decision to study the problem in more detail and evaluate potential concepts. This reconnaissance study provides that analysis. infrastructure is key to Anchorage s healthy economy. DOT&PF and AMATS promote the development of multi-modal maximize the transport of people and goods within and through the Anchorage area while minimizing transportationrelated fuel consumption and air pollution. This reconnaissance study is designed to evaluate transportation improvements that are consistent with DOT&PF and AMATS missions. 1.1 Elements of this Reconnaissance Study A reconnaissance study is an early stage study of a transportation issue to identify transportation needs and potential solutions to meet these needs. Typically a reconnaissance study includes: and formulating a preliminary purpose and need statement. to the problem. and potential solutions. evaluating their feasibility and comparing them on a broad range of issues. purpose and need, technically feasible alternative solutions, and comparison of environmental and engineering properties, and cost. to be carried forward into the environmental review process. 1

9 Preliminary Purpose and Need Purpose: Improve the mobility of people and goods. Improve safety of motori ed and non motori ed tra. Need: he ed istri t is one of the largest employment enters and highest tra generators in n horage yet there is no dire t a ess from the north or east. rterial streets surrounding the ed istri t are over apa ity and operate at poor levels of servi e during pea periods. everal of the ed istri t interse tions have elevated road segment and interse tion rash rates. The results of this reconnaissance study will provide information to DOT&PF and AMATS potential alternatives for transportation improvements. DOT&PF and AMATS will use this information to guide transportation decisions in this area. 1.2 Purpose & Need One objective of a reconnaissance study need for proposed transportation system improvements. This study began with the funding request for the project. The purpose and need statement will be revisited at the conclusion of this report Study Area The U-Med District includes 1,130 acres of land located north and east of the center of the Anchorage Bowl (see Figure 1). The U-Med District is bounded on the west by Lake Otis Parkway, on the east by Boniface Parkway, on the north by Northern Lights Boulevard, and on the south by Tudor Road. The U-Med District contains two of the state s major medical centers, Providence Alaska Medical Center (PAMC) and Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC), and two university campuses, University of Alaska University (APU). Other major public, quasi- McLaughlin Youth Center (MYC), Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), Southcentral Foundation (SCF), Alaska Public Anchorage School District (ASD) facilities (Wendler Junior High School, Lake Otis Elementary School, and King Career Center). East High School is just outside the study area, north of Northern Lights Boulevard. Most of the U-Med District institutions provide services not just to residents living in Southcentral Alaska, but to residents large institutions, private medical facilities and other commercial businesses have few decades, building on the synergy of the university-medical area. facilities, the U-Med District contains parks, trail systems, and undeveloped lands that are Lake Park in the northwest corner of the U-Med District and University Lake Park in the southeastern portion are popular parks. The Chester Creek Trail connects these parks addition to this major trail, many other trails have been developed on APU and UAA s undeveloped lands. The park lands blend seamlessly with the UAA and APU lands providing the appearance and feel of a large

10 igure he ed istri t natural recreational area in the middle of the city. The U-Med District has expanded rapidly over the last decade and Figure 2 shows that it is expected to continue to be one of the highest employment growth areas over the next 15 years. Private jobs in education and health care make up 13% of the jobs in the Anchorage area, and the majority of these jobs are located in the U-Med additional jobs. The MOA s comprehensive plan (Anchorage 2020 the U-Med District as a major employment center; i.e., an area of high employment density. The MOA estimates that 1 out of every 9 jobs in Anchorage is located in the U-Med District. This concentration of demand. The 24-hour nature of the health care facilities in the U-Med District results throughout the day and night than most other employment centers. Limited road access into the U-Med District from the north and east results increasing overall vehicle miles traveled, congestion, and crash rates. 3

11 igure n horage mployment ro th from P The 2003 East Anchorage Study of Transportation (EAST) noted that the U-Med District is one of the busiest destinations in Anchorage, but that access from the north and east is limited. The EAST study concluded that additional access into the U-Med District from the north and east was needed congestion on Boniface Parkway, Lake Otis Parkway and Providence Drive. 4 Motorists accessing the U-Med District delays and congestion on the surrounding arterial and collector roadways. Data collected in 2009 on U-Med employee residence zip codes, patient zip codes, and student zip codes indicate that about 43% of these groups access the U-Med District from the north and east (Figure 3). Notably, the fastest growing areas of the MOA (Eagle River) and the state (Matanuska Susitna Valley) are located to the north and east of the U-Med District, making it likely that south or west. Since there is no access from the north or east, these commuters travel out-of-direction to get to their destination, surrounding road network. While 47% of these commuters access the U-Med District from the south and west, these commuters have a choice of several routes that can be used to access the U-Med District and therefore do not have the same out-ofdirection travel problem.

12 Figure 3 - Approximate Number of Employee, Patient and Student Trips Per Day into the U-Med District N 25% or 4,800 Trips 10% or 1,900 Trips North/East South/East South/West North/West 22% or 4,100 Trips 2009 Data collected from SCF, API, UAA, PAMC, ANTHC AND MYC 43% or 8,100 Trips The Anchorage Fire Department (AFD) indicates that improvements to provide more direct access from ambulance transport times, given the high percentage of ambulance calls from northeast Anchorage and the number of transports that go to PAMC or ANMC. AFD also noted that improvements that reduce delay on the road network surrounding the U-Med their response and transport times. This reconnaissance study evaluates these issues to determine if there are transportation system improvements that could be implemented to improve access from the north and east Environmental Setting The U-Med District contains including parks, wetlands, creeks, recreational trails and wildlife habitat. A reconnaissance level review of environmental resources for the project area was conducted and is available on the project website (www. umednorthernaccess.com). Major Parks - Goose Lake Park is located at the southeast corner of Northern Lights Boulevard and UAA Drive. This 57-acre park is owned and maintained by the MOA and is popular for running, hiking, cross country skiing, and picnics, with amenities such as basketball Chester Creek Trail connects the park to downtown and the coastal trail. University Lake Park is located east of Elmore Road, south of APU and north of Tudor Centre. This 64-acre park is designated as a dog park and has several trails surrounding the lake. Recreational Trails - A variety of trails are located throughout the study area, including the Chester Creek Trail that connects downtown and the coastal trail to the U-Med District. A recent extension of the Chester Creek Trail connects Goose Lake Park to University Lake Park and follows along Chester Creek on the PAMC campus. Unpaved trails are located throughout University Lake Park, APU, and UAA, including the trails that make up the Tour of Anchorage route and trails used by the APU ski team. These popular trails serve a variety of recreation activities including skiing, bicycling, hiking, running, and Iditarod and Fur Rondy. Most of the unpaved trails on UAA and APU property are not located in public use easements. The only public use trail easement on APU s campus is for the new Chester Creek Trail extension. 5

13 Wetlands - Wetlands and high groundwater areas are common in the study area. The MOA Anchorage Wetland Management Plan (AWMP) indicates a mixture of Class A, B, and C wetlands on the APU and UAA campuses. Class A wetlands are considered the most important wetlands and get the highest level of protection. Class B wetlands have moderate to high values and can be developed only under a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Class C wetlands have lower values and are considered more developable; most can be developed under a permit from the MOA. 6 have high habitat, water quality and recreation values. The AWMP recommends only minor park amenities be permitted in this area. The policies for Mosquito Lake call for protection of the lake and adjacent Class A wetlands, a 65-foot setback from the lake, developable for road or trail expansions. A preliminary wetland reconnaissance study was completed on the northern portion of the study area to provide a general wetlands than mapped in the AWMP. The wetland report can be found on the project website. akes and reeks - Three lakes are present Lake, and Mosquito Lake. Mosquito Lake appears to be fed by an underground by melting isolated blocks of glacial ice. University Lake is a man-made lake, created as a result of gravel extraction operations in the 1970s and 1980s. University Lake is fed and drained by the South Fork of Chester Creek, which is listed by the an anadromous stream. The South Fork of from east of University Lake through PAMC and then northwest, through the UAA campus, just west of UAA Drive. The South Fork of Chester Creek merges with the Middle Fork of Chester Creek northwest of Wildlife Habitat - The undeveloped lands in on the APU and UAA campuses include a variety of environments (upland, wetland, lakes and creeks) that provide rich habitat for large and small species including birds and mammals. Beaver are common in the lakes and along the creek. Bears migrate through the area and moose are common. The large expanse of undeveloped land and its connections to other greenbelts along

14 Chester Creek provide an important wildlife corridor through north Anchorage Land Use The MOA s comprehensive plan, Anchorage 2020, designates the U-Med District as a major employment center. Major employment centers have a high concentration of jobs per acre and are intensely developed. The comprehensive plan calls for supporting these major infrastructure, including roads, transit and pedestrian facilities. The U-Med District Framework Master Plan was between the MOA and major U-Med District institutions. The primary goal of the plan is to allow the institutional uses and facilities to impacts on the natural environment. The plan is designed to safeguard the area s future as a center for academic and medical uses, encourage development supporting academic and medical excellence, identify and protect valuable natural resources, and encourage dependent. To minimize impacts on the natural environment, the plan recommends an integrated campus concept with no arterial street between the UAA and APU is recommended to continue to be routed around the U-Med District via Boniface Parkway. While the plan recommends against constructing an arterial road through the that vehicle access from Northern Lights acknowledges that additional access from the north and east is needed within 20 years and recommends new access locations be determined by emerging development patterns Institutions This section describes the major institutions located in the U-Med District. Proposed development is discussed in this section and available institutional master plans are discussion in Section 3 of this report. University of Alaska UAA is the largest university in the University of Alaska system. UAA provides a variety of degree programs in the colleges of Education, Health and Social Welfare, Arts and Sciences, Business and Public Policy, the Community and Technical College, and the School of Engineering. UAA employs approximately 3,200 faculty 16,000 students enrolled during the school year. Most students commute to UAA, although some student housing is Road and Providence Drive. The student housing accommodates approximately 940 students. The UAA campus is located on 362 acres between East Northern Lights Boulevard and Providence Drive east of Lake Otis Parkway. Approximately 149 acres (41%) of the campus were developed as of Of the remaining 213 acres, 76 acres are mapped as wetlands of wetlands in the undeveloped area south of Northern Lights Boulevard indicates that there may be substantially fewer wetlands in this area than mapped in the AWMP. 7

15 campus in the Tudor Centre area of the U-Med District and in the University Center mall. The campus has been expanding rapidly over the last decade, with new facilities Sciences and an addition to the Consortium Library. A Nursing and Health Sciences building is under construction. Recent growth has expanded campus facilities to the north and east from the core campus. Although UAA s newest projects are located south of Providence Drive, future development is likely to continue to expand toward the north and east on the upland and developable wetland areas south of Northern Lights Boulevard. UAA is also in the planning and design stages for a new 150,000-square-foot sports arena to be located at the southwest corner of Providence Drive and Elmore Road. UAA is 8 working with PAMC, the MOA, and APU on potential road improvements and parking to serve this new facility. the arena project, access to the site will be provided by existing roads and one new eastwest roadway connecting Elmore Road to East Providence Loop. The University Lake Drive/ Elmore Road intersection will be relocated and a roundabout added at this intersection and the intersection of Elmore Road and Providence Drive. The arena is currently proposed to seat 3,500 people and would provide 400 parking spaces on site. Other existing parking facilities in the area would be used to increase parking for large events (over 1,000 vehicles). The arena UAA s 2009 Master Plan estimates that building space requirements will increase by 56% over the next 20 years given projected increases in student enrollment. This level of growth is likely to result in the need to develop much of the remaining developable lands on the UAA campus for academic facilities and related parking. As a result, land for development in their 2009 Master Plan and 2017 Strategic Plan. UAA s 2009 Master Plan also references the 2003 EAST study s recommendation for improved access into the U-Med District from the north or east and notes these new streets. Alaska Paci c University APU is a small, private, independent university providing liberal arts education. APU owns approximately 176 acres located to the east of Elmore Road, south and east of the main UAA campus. The core of the campus consists of approximately 40 acres developed with facility. Most of the undeveloped lands outside the academic core are endowment lands. These lands are intended to be developed for facilities that are related to APU s mission and which provide lease revenues to support APU s educational programs. APU employs

16 and had about 600 students in APU provides housing for about 100 students on campus. Providence Alaska Medical enter PAMC is the largest health care facility in the state. PAMC s Anchorage campus consists of almost 71 acres located south of Providence Drive, east of Lake Otis Parkway, west of Elmore Road and north of Tudor Road. PAMC operates Providence Hospital which provides full-service health care services for all Alaskans. PAMC is the largest private employer in the state with approximately 4,000 employees in 2008, including 3,350 in Anchorage. PAMC has been expanding their facilities to the southwest on their campus, providing additional medical specialty services including a cancer center, a heart center, and other services. The PAMC Master Plan continued growth over the next 20 years. Approximately 500,000 square feet of future development has been approved in PAMC s master plan, including a 66,000-square-foot mother and baby tower and 280,000 square surface parking and parking structures will be constructed to support the planned facilities. Alaska Psychiatric Institute state s in-patient psychiatric health has 114 beds and provides a wide variety of mental health services for patients located on approximately 10 acres south of Providence Drive on the west side of the PAMC campus. Mc aughlin outh enter MYC is a youth detention center operated by the state Department of Health & Social Services Juvenile Justice Division. MYC is a secure facility on 20 acres of land south of Providence Drive and east of Lake Otis Parkway. The facility has 160 beds and 64 employees of other agencies provide education and probation services at the site. also provides a day program to about 20 youths. Alaska Native Tribal Health onsortium Southcentral Foundation ANTHC is a and managed by Alaska Native tribal governments and their regional health organizations. SCF is an Alaska Native-owned healthcare organization providing services Health Service programs on their Tudor Centre campus, located on the northeast corner of Elmore Road and Tudor Road. The campus is home to ANMC, a 150-bed fullservice hospital providing medical services througout the state. ANTHC and SCF are among the top 15 largest private sector employers in the state, with 2,000-3,000 employees combined (2009 data). SCF estimates that between ANTHC, SCF and other organizations, there are approximately 4,000 employees located on their Tudor Centre campus in the U-Med District. ANTHC and SCF are continuing to expand their services and upcoming projects include a hospital expansion and construction of new mental health facilities. Anchorage School District Three ASD schools are located in the U-Med District: 919 students) and King Career Center (40 School is located on the northern boundary students). 9

17 10 The majority of vehicle trips generated by schools are from parents dropping Otis Elementary and Wendler Middle School is limited to Lake Otis Parkway, which increases congestion on that road. perspective, it may be desired for campus safety and security reasons. Alaska Public Telecommunications, Inc. that provides public radio and television operates radio and television studios located on land leased from APU on the western (2009 data) U-Med Green District between MOA, PAMC, UAA, APU, ASD, optimizing the U-Med District s sustainability these institutions together to collaborate and implement measures that will reduce waste, energy consumption and the overall ecological footprint of the institutions. Transportation Workgroup that is tasked with promoting walking, bicycling, and other active alternatives to single-occupancy Energy Use Workgroup evaluating how institutions can meet parking demands without building additional parking lots and garages, and how shuttle services can be expanded to meet U-Med District circulation needs. 1.4 Public Involvement The objective of public involvement is to solicit information from the public to ensure that their issues and concerns are understood and considered. During this study, comments were received on the purpose and need for this project, potential transportation improvement concepts, and other issues. Comments were received from a variety of stakeholders (or interested parties), including local residents, resource and institutions. The following methods were used to gather input and inform the public about the project, its objectives, and the reconnaissance process:

18 was mailed to approximately 7,100 addresses and project updates were ed to approximately 140 addresses Project Website A project website was developed at www. umednorthernaccess.com. The website regarding the project area, objectives, schedule, project documents, and team members, in addition to providing a place to review and make public comments. A number of supporting study memorandums other issues are available on the project website Public Participation A public meeting was held and attended by approximately 84 people on May 19, Two campus meetings were held for UAA meetings were held on the UAA campus on June 3, 2009 and November 19, An additional campus meeting was held in May Stakeholder Meetings stakeholder meetings were held with the following institutions and groups: Utilities - Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility (AWWU) and Municipal Light and Power (ML&P) Airport Heights Community Council Public Input A summary of the main themes from public comments received are listed below: Concerns about project purpose (regional circulation versus local access). (transit, park and ride facilities, transportation demand management). practices, such as tunneling and bridging options. means to maintain trail connectivity. uses on undeveloped lands. access would provide. outside the U-Med District. impacting the integrity of the UAA campus. campus from the APU campus. possible transportation improvements. and wildlife habitat. space and quality of life. A scoping summary report and a summary of public comments received in 2009 is available on the project website (www. umednorthernaccess.com). 11

19 12

20 2.0 Existing Transportation Infrastructure People use a variety of transportation modes to get to and from and within the U-Med District, including cars, carpools and vanpools, buses, shuttles, bicycling, and walking. The 2027 LRTP indicates that driving a personal vehicle or carpooling makes up 90% of the total travel in Anchorage today, and while this number may be lower in the U-Med District, most people still drive private vehicles. This section examines current transportation infrastructure conditions, including existing roads and intersections, public transit and university shuttles, nonmotorized trails, and parking facilities. A copy 2.1 Roads and Intersections This reconnaissance study evaluates several road segments and intersections that are key links to and from the U-Med District. The Parkway Tudor Road Tudor Road The minor arterial and collector roads The evaluation of the roads and intersections delays. One of the primary considerations in cause congestion and higher crash rates and therefore steps are taken to try to reduce delay. Road segments and intersections with Intersection Operations Twelve intersections within the study area were analyzed to determine delays during for the following intersections are shown in Providence Drive 13

21 Figure 4 - U-Med District 2011 and 2030 Intersection Delays During Morning Peak Hour (7:30-8:30 a.m.) 120 LOS E & F LOS C & D 100 > >100> > > > > Average Delay in Seconds 11 LOS A & B Lake Otis Pkwy / E. Northern Lights Blvd Lake Otis Pkwy / 36th Ave - Providence Drive Lake Otis Pkwy / E. Tudor Rd E. Tudor Rd / Elmore Rd E. Tudor Rd / Tudor Centre Dr E. Tudor Rd / Boniface Pkwy-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Ave E. Northern Lights Blvd / Boniface Pkwy E. Northern Lights Blvd / S. Bragaw St E. Northern Lights Blvd / UAA Dr Providence Dr / UAA Dr Providence Dr / Alumni Loop - Providence Loop Providence Dr / Elmore Rd 14

22 Figure 4 - U-Med District 2009 and 2030 Intersection Conditions During Afternoon Peak Hour (4:30-5:30 p.m.) Figure 5 - U-Med District 2011 and 2030 Intersection Delays During Afternoon Peak Hour (4:30-5:30 p.m.) 120 LOS E & F > >100>100 > LOS C & D LOS A & B Lake Otis Pkwy / E. Northern Lights Blvd Lake Otis Pkwy / 36th Ave - Providence Drive Lake Otis Pkwy / E. Tudor Rd E. Tudor Rd / Elmore Rd E. Tudor Rd / Tudor Centre Dr E. Tudor Rd / Boniface Pkwy-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Ave E. Northern Lights Blvd / Boniface Pkwy E. Northern Lights Blvd / S. Bragaw St E. Northern Lights Blvd / UAA Dr Providence Dr / UAA Dr Providence Dr / Alumni Loop - Providence Loop Providence Dr / Elmore Rd 15 Average Delay in Seconds

23 Parkway UAA Drive intersection delay on Lake Otis Parkway and primary access points to the U-Med District movements into and out of the U-Med The main reason some intersections operate gives priority to the higher volume through movements on the arterials. In other words, the green portion of the signal cycle is timed and on Tudor Road to proceed through with 16 minimal delay. This strategy minimizes total intersection delay, but results in many of the Road. Reduced delay at these intersections Lake Otis Parkway extension. Assuming Lake Otis Parkway, leaving excess capacity Roadway Segments segments was also conducted for existing improvements planned in the 2027 LRTP. Tudor Road all have segments operating at years. A detailed review of the travel demand model highlights two key factors that could the U-Med District. UAA Drive will continue to grow. Typically, two-lane roads can achieve capacities of however, is not typical. The length of the corridor is short, the peaking factor is proximity of parking lots, and there are add friction to the corridor. As a result, UAA periods and congestion will divert the excess demand to Lake Otis Parkway, Providence those segments to deteriorate further.

24 Figure Weekday Street and Intersection LOS During Morning Peak Hour (7:30-8:30 a.m.) S. BRAGAW ST. ROAD INTERSECTION SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE A & B LEVEL OF SERVICE C & D N LEVEL OF SERVICE E & F GOOSE E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. UAA DRIVE OTIS OTIS PKWY ALUMNI LOOP MOSQUITO ALUMNI LOOP DRIVE EMMANUEL AVE. E. 36TH AVE. PROVIDENCE DR. E. 40TH AVE. LAUREL STREET PIPER STREET E. PROVIDENCE LOOP SHARON GAGNON LN. ELMORE RD. UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY DR. AMBASSADOR DR. UNIVERSITY TUDOR CENTRE DR. DIPLOMACY DR. WESLEYAN DR. VANCE DR. CHECKMATE DR. BONIFACE PKWY REFLECTION E. TUDOR RD. E. TUDOR RD. 17

25 Figure Weekday Street and Intersection LOS During Afternoon Peak Hour (4:30-5:30 p.m.) S. BRAGAW ST. ROAD INTERSECTION SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE A & B LEVEL OF SERVICE C & D N LEVEL OF SERVICE E & F GOOSE E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. UAA DRIVE OTIS OTIS PKWY ALUMNI LOOP MOSQUITO ALUMNI LOOP DRIVE EMMANUEL AVE. E. 36TH AVE. PROVIDENCE DR. E. 40TH AVE. LAUREL STREET PIPER STREET E. PROVIDENCE LOOP SHARON GAGNON LN. ELMORE RD. UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY DR. AMBASSADOR DR. UNIVERSITY TUDOR CENTRE DR. DIPLOMACY DR. WESLEYAN DR. VANCE DR. CHECKMATE DR. BONIFACE PKWY REFLECTION E. TUDOR RD. E. TUDOR RD. 18

26 Figure Weekday Street and Intersection LOS During Morning Peak Hour (7:30-8:30 a.m.) S. BRAGAW ST. ROAD INTERSECTION SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE A & B LEVEL OF SERVICE C & D N LEVEL OF SERVICE E & F GOOSE E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. UAA DRIVE OTIS OTIS PKWY ALUMNI LOOP MOSQUITO ALUMNI LOOP DRIVE EMMANUEL AVE. E. 36TH AVE. PROVIDENCE DR. E. 40TH AVE. LAUREL STREET PIPER STREET E. PROVIDENCE LOOP SHARON GAGNON LN. ELMORE RD. UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY DR. AMBASSADOR DR. UNIVERSITY TUDOR CENTRE DR. DIPLOMACY DR. WESLEYAN DR. VANCE DR. CHECKMATE DR. BONIFACE PKWY REFLECTION E. TUDOR RD. E. TUDOR RD. 19

27 Figure Weekday Street and Intersection LOS During Afternoon Peak Hour (4:30-5:30 p.m.) S. BRAGAW ST. ROAD INTERSECTION SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE A & B LEVEL OF SERVICE C & D N LEVEL OF SERVICE E & F GOOSE E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. UAA DRIVE OTIS OTIS PKWY ALUMNI LOOP MOSQUITO ALUMNI LOOP DRIVE EMMANUEL AVE. E. 36TH AVE. PROVIDENCE DR. E. 40TH AVE. LAUREL STREET PIPER STREET E. PROVIDENCE LOOP SHARON GAGNON LN. ELMORE RD. UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY DR. AMBASSADOR DR. UNIVERSITY TUDOR CENTRE DR. DIPLOMACY DR. WESLEYAN DR. VANCE DR. CHECKMATE DR. BONIFACE PKWY REFLECTION E. TUDOR RD. E. TUDOR RD. 20

28 Parkway extension to the Glenn Highway shown in the 2027 LRTP are not built, existing accesses to the U-Med District and on the Tudor Road and Lake Otis Parkway corridors that bear the brunt of the out-of- The lack of access from the north and east despite the high level of congestion on Tudor Road and Lake Otis Parkway corridors. north and east will continue to experience congestion as it is routed out-of-direction on corridors that are over capacity (e.g., UAA Operational Summary and road segments. The lack of access from the north and unused despite the high level of congestion on the Tudor Road and Lake Otis Parkway corridors. destined for points north or east deteriorating already congested corridors and intersections. District from implementation of the 2027 LRTP are heavily dependent of Lake Otis Parkway to the Glenn Highway. If either one or both of these all of the intersections in the study area Recent construction and institutional master plans illustrate that a high demand for development continues in the U-Med District. Despite this demand, the existing transportation network limits the amount of additional development that can occur implemented throughout the U-Med District to address the most immediate safety and capacity needs, such as intersection extension, and proposed roundabouts address the huge unmet demand that is access and congestion issues need to be addressed comprehensively, or congestion 21

29 District, and the institutions master plans will not be achievable Safety Analysis A safety analysis was completed for the segments and intersections were compared to statewide average crash rates for similarly within the U-Med District have crash rates higher than the statewide average of Lake Otis Parkway and Tudor Road rates. The high density of driveways and peak hour congestion in these corridors likely contributes to the higher speed corridors are also more Otis Parkway and on Tudor Road. study area along Providence Drive rates that exceed the statewide average. 22 the U-Med District exceed average are listed in the top 10% of signalized intersections for total number of 2.2 Transit The U-Med District is well served by public transit and routes through this area have relatively high ridership rates. Public Transportation Programs The transit system operated by the MOA provides public transportation services Ride. The People Mover bus program provides The People Mover buses are equipped with bicycle racks at the front-exterior of each are also compliant with the Americans requirements. The People Mover service operates eight bus routes have buses operating weekdays and weekends. One route has buses operating weekdays only. The wait times between buses vary from thirty minutes to one hour. The People Mover routes through the U-Med District have the highest ridership rate in the system. People Mover s Ridership Report shows that between 2002 and 2010, annual ridership increased by over one million riders, an average growth of 4% per year. This is partly due to People Mover adding more service, that more people are choosing to ride the bus. The U-Pass program provides an additional incentive to ride the bus. The U-Pass program students, faculty, and employees to use the People Mover bus services at no cost to the rider. This program contributes to reduced within the U-Med District.

30 Figure 10 - Crash Rate Analysis for S. BRAGAW ST. ASD CRASH RATE ANALYSIS Total & Injury Crash Rate < Statewide Average Total Crash Rate > Statewide Average Injury Crash Rate > Statewide Average * Top 10% Signalized Intersections with Crashes. E. NORTHERN * * E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. LIGHTS BLVD. GOOSE OTIS OTIS PKWY ASD * E. 36TH AVE. PROVIDENCE DR. MYC API UAA DRIVE UAA ALUMNI LOOP PAMC E. 40TH AVE. E. PROVIDENCE LOOP UAA MOSQUITO UAA FINE ARTS LANE APU UNIVERSITY DRIVE UNIVERSITY DR. UNIVERSITY ASD BONIFACE PKWY E. TUDOR ROAD PIPER STREET ELMORE RD. AMBASSADOR DR. TUDOR CENTRE DR. ANMC DIPLOMACY DR. REFLECTION E. TUDOR ROAD DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE. * Source: State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, HSIP Tracking Program 23

31 NORTHERN ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND MEDICAL DISTRICT - RECONNAISSANCE STUDY REPORT Figure 11 - Study Area Transit Facilities LEGEND S. BRAGAW ST ASD E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. 5 9 # ## RIDERS ON RIDERS OFF BUS PULL-OUT NOT IN USE SIGNAL CONTROL INTERSECTION 3 1 # T BUS ROUTE NUMBER BUS TRANSFER FACILITY SEAWOLF SHUTTLE STOP 3N 0 2 E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD GOOSE E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. 3C OTIS ASD MYC UAA E. 36TH AVE. PROVIDENCE DR E. TUDOR ROAD OTIS PKWY LAUREL STREET API 3 23 UAA DRIVE 7 2 PAMC T 45 UAA MOSQUITO 102 UAA 1 10 APU 36 UNIVERSITY E. TUDOR ROAD PIPER STREET E. 40TH AVE PROVIDENCE DR ELMORE ROAD UNIVERSITY DR ANMC WESLEYAN DR. VANCE DR ASD EMMANUEL 0AVE CHECKMATE DR BONIFACE PKWY REFLECTIO 24 Source: People Mover Anchorage

32 People Mover ridership reports show that an average of approximately 1,200 riders People Mover within the U-Med District each day. This is estimated to reduce the total daily vehicle trips into and out of the U-Med District by 7%. state-designated coordinated transportation service for the greater Anchorage area. It senior citizens, and other eligible individuals Transportation. transit, bicycling, and walking. The program program provides rider match lists with people who have similar work schedules and live and work near each other. People Mover reported 171 commuters in 10 vans for the U-Med District in There the carpool commuters, 29 worked in the U-Med District and 29 worked outside it. UAA Seawolf Shuttle Services free transportation service to all UAA students between the main campus, in the fall semester, likely due to the colder temperatures. 2.3 Trails and Pathways U-Med District include sidewalks, paved separated multi-use pathways, unpaved trails, shared use roadways, UAA campus bike routes, and paved shoulder bikeways Department studies, Anchorage has 214 miles of existing bicycle infrastructure, miles of shared multi-use pathways, two The main trails in the U-Med District are the up the Tour of Anchorage route. The MOA Trail has two grade-separated crossings of 2.4 Parking Facilities own most of the existing parking within parking spaces, APU provides approximately UAA charges faculty, students and guests for parking. Their hourly charge for guests is $2 can choose from a range of parking permits depending on their needs (day use, evening 200 per year. 25

33 Figure 12 - Existing Trails and Pathways E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. GOOSE UAA DRIVE OTIS PKWY PROVIDENCE DR. E. 40TH AVE. E. PROVIDENCE LOOP MOSQUITO UNIVERSITY DR. UNIVERSITY WESLEYAN DR. S. BRAGAW ST. UNIVERSITY DR. CHECKMATE DR. EMMANUEL AVE. BONIFACE PKWY LEGEND LAUREL STREET UAA CAMPUS EXISTING UNPAVED BIKE ROUTE TRAILS EXISTING PAVED E. 42TH AVE. SEPARATED MULTI-USE TOUR OF ANCHORAGE PATHWAY ROUTE SHARED USE ROADWAY PAVED SHOULDER BIKEWAY PIPER STREET E. TUDOR ROAD ELMORE RD. AMBASSADOR DR. TUDOR CENTRE DR. DIPLOMACY DR. VANCE DR. 26

34 LEGEND ASD PROVIDENCE DR. MYC MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL PARKING AREAS API UAA NORTHERN ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND MEDICAL DISTRICT - RECONNAISSANCE STUDY REPORT Figure 13 - Major Institutional Parking Areas ASD GOOSE E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. UAA ASD PAMC E. 40TH AVE. MOSQUITO UAA APU UNIVERSITY E. TUDOR ROAD ANMC UAA ELMORE RD. E. PROVIDENCE LOOP S. BRAGAW ST. UAA DRIVE EMMANUEL AVE. PROVIDENCE DR. 27 OTIS PKWY VANCE DR. CHECKMATE DR. WESLEYAN DR. UNIVERSITY DR. BONIFACE PKWY DR. UNIVERSITY TUDOR CENTRE DR. AMBASSADOR DR. DIPLOMACY DR.

35 Other institutions in the U-Med District have expressed concerns that UAA parking fees and restrictions result in UAA students improperly parking on other institutional properties in the U-Med District. Parking on the APU campus is free with a parking permit that is available to students 28 and faculty through the University. Other medical facilities and businesses provide onsite parking for their facilities at no charge. The U-Med Green District is working to encourage institutions to share parking and expand shuttle services to move people between parking areas and buildings. Shared parking, such as that being proposed at the UAA sports arena, reduces the amount of land committed to parking and leaves more land for higher value uses. Common parking areas along the outside of the U-Med District and more shuttle service could also decrease U-Med District.

36 3.0 Transportation Demand Analysis Transportation system forecasting consists of two primary elements, the supply side and the demand side. The supply side is focused on the transportation infrastructure available, including roadway networks, transit systems, sidewalks and trails, and all the other physical features that get us from here to there. The demand side is focused on why we travel from point A to point B and methods for predicting that desire or demand to travel in the future. the need for improvements, and to help prioritize project funding. As the title demand for vehicle trips on various roads. one of several variables considered. 3.1 Traffic Model Development & Predicting Demand Several variables are used to predict regional travel patterns. The most widely used uses and estimated travel times. Land Use Land uses are grouped into two primary categories, trip generators and trip neighborhood is comprised mostly of trip generators, whereas a university or hospital is largely considered a trip attractor. The most current versions of local land use plans, including Anchorage 2020 and the 2027 LRTP, were used to create a model of the future. Future land use components come from the comprehensive plan and the future roadway network comes from the 2027 LRTP. Anchorage 2020 estimates how much of the future land use and density can realistically be built and occupied by the design year. For this study, land use data for the U-Med District was updated to include recent development and development proposed under available institutional master plans. APU and PAMC master plans are shown graphically on Figure 14. Travel Time The travel time factor is based on providing the shortest travel time for any given trip. The model assigns trips to the roadway network starting with the most direct path from generator to attractor. Once a roadway becomes congested to the point where 29

37 Figure 14 - Institutional Master Plan Development Areas E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. GOOSE UAA E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. OTIS PKWY ASD UAA UAA DRIVE MOSQUITO E APU PROVIDENCE DR. MYC UNIVERSITY DR. UAA WESLEYAN DR. PAMC UNIVERSITY LEGEND LAUREL STREET UAA MASTER PLAN UAA BOUNDARY ACADEMICS ATHLETIC AND RECREATION HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES PARKING E. 40TH AVE. PIPER STREET PAMC MASTER PLAN REFERENCE AND RESEARCH PAMC BOUNDARY STUDENT HOUSING EXISTING HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT STUDENT SERVICES AND LIFE DEVELOPMENT UNDER CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUTURE PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT CHESTER CREEK NO-BUILD ZONE POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREAS APU MASTER PLAN APU BOUNDARY PRESERVATION OPEN SPACE ENDOWMENT DEVELOPMENT RESERVE ENDOWMENT DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY INSTITUTIONAL ELMORE ROAD E. TUDOR ROAD UAA VANCE DR. 30

38 begins to assign trips to other routes, using minimum travel time as a primary factor for route selection. Other factors include the roadway s posted speed and functional model to predict the roadway s capacity. 3.2 Accommodating Demand accommodated by increasing the supply of available roads or lanes. Another approach development that generates new demand. This solution is likely not acceptable to is inconsistent with Anchorage 2020, the U-Med District Framework Master Plan, and the master planning documents of the U-Med District institutions. The second way is to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips and increase use of transit or non-vehicular travel. alternative transportation modes. 3.3 Future Demand this analysis was developed from the AMATS year 2030 was chosen as the design year. Land use data for the model was updated using an annual growth rate of 1 percent. The LRTP model includes several proposed be completed by the design year. These According to the 2027 LRTP, only 10 percent of travel in Anchorage today is by means other than private vehicle. Although transit and non-vehicular transportation options may already be higher in the U-Med District than in much of Anchorage, most people still drive private vehicles. Substantial changes may be needed to transit and trail systems, 31

39 three sets of volumes. First it shows the daily 2030 volumes as predicted by the 2027 LRTP model. Third, it shows the 2030 volumes proposed in the LRTP were to occur, i.e., if we had only today s road network. 3.4 Future Versus Current Volumes proposed changes to the roadway network. roadways can create substantial shifts in model assumes that several improvements will be made between now and The two proposed changes that have the biggest impact on the U-Med District are the H2H project (the connection of the Seward and Glenn highways) and a direct connection of Lake Otis Parkway to the Glenn Highway. The most obvious impacts from these South Bragaw Street to Lake Otis Parkway, and to the new H2H facility. The shift of of Northern Lights Boulevard and lower volumes on South Bragaw Street. 32 the H2H and Lake Otis Parkway to Glenn failure to complete these two key projects on Northern Lights Boulevard east of UAA Drive and on South Bragaw Street. These volumes result in lower LOS and more congestion for intersections and roadways in the U-Med District. This demonstrates elements of the 2027 LRTP can have ripple transportation network.

40 LOOP NORTHERN ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND MEDICAL DISTRICT - RECONNAISSANCE STUDY REPORT Figure 15 - Annual Average Daily Tra c olumes for 2011 and 2030 E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. Annual Average E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. E. 36TH AVE. PROVIDENCE DR. E. TUDOR ROAD E. 40TH AVE. ELMORE RD. E. PROVIDENCE LOOP S. BRAGAW ST ALUMNI LOOP ALUMNI DRIVE UAA DRIVE UNIVERSITY DR. PIPER STREET BONIFACE PKWY OTIS PKWY UNIVERSITY E. TUDOR ROAD DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE. 33

41 34

42 4.0 Transportation Improvement Concepts Access and circulation in the U-Med District can be improved through a variety of measures, including changes in policies (such as vehicle access and parking), programs to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, infrastructure upgrades, and new congesion solution is likely to include a combination of these measures. This reconnaissance study modeled a variety of transportation improvement concepts in addition to modeling a No Action concept - or what is likely to occur with no improvements. 4.1 Travel Demand Management Travel Demand Management (TDM) methods seek to reduce the number of singlepassenger vehicle trips during peak hours by shifting trips to non-peak hours, encouraging use of carpools and vanpools, and encouraging use of other travel modes, such as transit or non-motorized modes. Options for TDM include managing commuter behaviors through policy changes, infrastructure improvements, and incentive/ disincentive systems. TDM measures have been implemented successfully throughout the United States. However, even when TDM methods are successful, they are often congestion in urban areas. TDM Measures Alternative Work Hours One common TDM measure is shifting work hours to spread during peak hours. Although this may sound simple, in practice it is challenging and complex. Changes to work schedules require extensive negotiation with employees, as many employees work second jobs or have other obligations (such as child care) that limit their ability to change work hours. For employers with union employees, changing work hours can require re-negotiation of long-established contracts. For the U-Med District, this measure is futher complicated by the nature of the major facilities. Instead of the 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. work areas, the 24-hour nature of the medical facilities and university class schedules tend into the night, making this measure less more typical employment centers. Rideshare Incentives Another TDM measure incentives to reduce the number of single-passenger vehicles during the peak commuting hours. Ride sharing incentives frequently involve providing special parking privileges or other perks to those regularly participating. One of the disadvantages often cited for carpooling or riding the bus is the lack of vehicle access for trips that may come up during the day. Many employees worry that they may need to make an unexpected trip such as picking up a sick child or they may need to work late and miss their carpool or bus. One way to address this concern is a guaranteed rides program. This program gives employees a guarantee that either a company vehicle will be available to them or the company will cover a cab ride to accommodate any unexpected trips. Parking Management Plans One of the 35

43 increasing the cost of parking personal vehicles, other transportation modes become more attractive. Parking management plans can include both the location of parking facilities and fees for parking. Low-cost, close proximity parking promotes single-passenger vehicle travel. Many employers intentionally or unintentionally subsidize parking costs costs of parking space construction and maintenance. The cost to construct a new parking garage in Anchorage can easily exceed $30,000 per space, not including maintenance or operation costs. Even surface parking is expensive, costing about $10,000 per space for construction. UAA already charges for parking permits and provides transit passes to all of its students, the U-Med District don t charge for parking, resulting in overall parking costs in the U-Med District averaging $0.20 per hour. 36 The updated UAA Master Plan includes a new TDM measure - relocating parking facilities to the periphery of the campus. These peripheral facilities could connect to the inner campus by pathways and shuttle services. This new UAA policy could help U-Med District, and is a common approach used by other university campuses across the nation. true cost of the parking facilities or tiered parking charges based on proximity to the building or hours of usage can both help the institutions recover some of their capital and maintenance costs and encourage employees to seriously consider peripheral parking, carpooling, transit, or other nonmotorized transportation options. Peripheral Parking (Park and Ride) Peripheral it enters the congested area. These parking areas are typically served by a shuttle service or bus routes, often at a free or reduced fee rate, or are located within a short walking distance to the user s destination. The performance of peripheral parking areas is mixed. Characteristics associated with successful use of park and ride areas include: being located within one mile of the activity center; being serviced with a shuttle or transit system with headways of less than 10 minutes; and having a parking capacity of more than 1,000 vehicles. The key factor determining whether someone will use a peripheral parking area or park and ride facility is whether there is peripheral parking area instead of driving from lot to lot looking for one in the center of the U-Med District, they are more likely to use the peripheral parking area. If people can park in the peripheral parking area and quickly board a shuttle or walk to their destination, they are more likely to use the peripheral parking area. Finally, if the cost of parking in the activity center is very high and the cost for peripheral parking is low, people are more likely to use the peripheral parking area. Transit Service Improvements Two primary transit systems serve the U-Med District. The UAA Seawolf Shuttle system serves the parking facilities, the on-campus housing, the various academic buildings on the main campus, and the UAA facilities at University Center. The MOA s transit system, the People Mover, has numerous routes that serve the U-Med District. UAA and APU participate in the U-Pass program, allowing students, faculty and

44 outdoor transit center on the southwest corner of Alumni Loop/Providence Drive currently serves the area, along with additional stops along Elmore Road and Providence Drive. Since People Mover is already free for many people working or attending classes in the U-Med District, making transit more appealing to students and employees will require enhancements to the transit systems. These enhancements could include shorter headways and more stable service schedules; on-board amenities, such as Wi-Fi internet access; bus stop amenities, such as real time bus tracking and wait time systems; and indoor transit centers with retail services. The best approaches to improving transit service are reducing headways (the time between buses) and maximizing system stability. People Mover planners indicate that a more direct route into the U-Med District from the north and east may allow the system to increase service and decrease headways. Maximizing system stability requires secure long-term funding for transit. Service schedules must be predictable and dependable so riders can trust that the buses will be available when they need them. People are less likely to use transit when schedules and levels of service change frequently. Recent budgetary challenges have forced the MOA to cut back on some People Mover hours, removing service on certain days and cutting some routes. Finding ways to fund more reliable service would create more trust among the ridership. Finally, the UAA shuttle system could be expanded to serve APU and the other institutions within the U-Med District. This type of district-wide shuttle would allow for fewer, cooperative parking facilities similar to the peripheral parking system discussed earlier. Active Transportation Active transportation includes any non-motorized transportation mode, such as walking, skiing and bicycling. The U-Med Green District has a subcommittee that is working on programs to increase active transportation as an alternative to motorized transportation. Active transportation is supported by development of safe, well-maintained nonmotorized facilities leading to and within the U-Med District. Anchorage has one of the best sidewalk and trail systems in the nation according to the American Hiking Society. The MOA s recently completed Anchorage Pedestrian Plan (APP) documents the existing pedestrian system and recommends improvements (Figure 16). The APP estimates that approximately 12 percent of trips within the U-Med District are walking trips, and this area is considered to have one of the highest potentials for increasing pedestrian use. The U-Med District is easily accessed by both of the MOA s major cross-town greenbelt trails. The Chester Creek Trail connects the U-Med District to downtown and the coastal trail. A recent extension of the Chester Creek Trail through the U-Med District Trail connects to University Lake Park. 37

45 Figure 16 - Anchorage Pedestrian Plan N Priority Projects in the U-Med District Source: Anchorage Pedestrian Plan 38

46 The Campbell Creek Trail runs just south of the U-Med District but is connected to the U-Med District with a grade-separated crossing at the Tudor Road and Elmore Road intersection. In addition to the greenbelt trails, multi-use trails, sidewalks and bicycle lanes have been added to recent construction projects south of the U-Med District, such as along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, Elmore Road, and East Dowling Road. These improvements provide improved pedestrian and bicycle access into the U-Med District from residential areas to the south. Department completed the Anchorage Bicycle Plan (ABP). The plan contains recommendations to make bicycle commuting more appealing - adding additional bicycle paths (Figure 17), improving connectivity, integrating bicycling with transit, designing roads with separated pathways, and improving signage. The ABP also recommends trail and sidewalk maintenance and design improvements to make bicycling more attractive year-round. Secure bicycle parking is also important in encouraging bicycle commuting. Bicycle parking should be covered, secure, well-lit, and visible from work areas. Other amenities include changing rooms, showers, and personal lockers. The ABP recommends giving developers credits for including bicycle-friendly elements into site designs. Winter sidewalk and pathway maintenance has a large impact on pedestrian use and safety. The MOA has worked diligently to address this issue by increasing snow removal on sidewalks and pedestrian trails. Furthermore, a hotline has been established for snow removal if pedestrians should experience a blockage. UAA has worked to provide safe and comfortable pedestrian facilities by constructing walking routes through their structures. These paths provide protection from inclement weather and separation from elevated pedestrian crossing over UAA Drive. convenient to cross at grade. The pedestrian crossing on UAA Drive is frequently The high number of students crossing at this a concern to UAA, students, institutions, and commuters. Pedestrian challenges include both transportation modes. Gaps in the roadside sidewalks should be completed and pedestrian facilities should be separated from the roadway and illuminated when possible to increase safety and reduce plowing of road snow onto the pedestrian paths in winter. Most system users are willing to walk short distances if the experience is enjoyable and connections to other modes are available at either end. Connecting pedestrian amenities to bus stops, parking lots, and other key facilities may also increase walking TDM Concept For the purpose of this study, a TDM concept was developed that includes the following elements: Peripheral parking (park and ride) facility with increased shuttle service to the center of the U-Med District 39

47 Figure 17 - Anchorage Bicycle Plan for U-Med District S. BRAGAW ST. ASD E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. GOOSE E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. OTIS E. 36TH AVE. LEGEND UAA CAMPUS BIKE ROUTE OTIS PKWY EXISTING PAVED SEPARATED MULTI-USE PATHWAY ASD PROVIDENCE DR. LAUREL STREET MYC API E. 42TH AVE. PROPOSED BICYCLE LANE UAA PROPOSED SEPARATED MULTI-USE PATHWAY UAA DRIVE PIPER STREET ALUMNI LOOP PAMC E. 40TH AVE. E. PROVIDENCE LOOP UAA MOSQUITO UNIVERSITY DR. E. TUDOR ROAD ALUMNI LOOP UAA ELMORE RD. APU UNIVERSITY DR. AMBASSADOR DR. UNIVERSITY TUDOR CENTRE DR. TU ANMC DR. D DIPLOMACY DIPL T DR. UAA WESLEYAN DR. VANCE DR. CHECKMATE DR. ASD EMMANUEL AVE. BONIFACE PKWY SHARED USE ROADWAY 40 Source: Anchorage Bicycle Plan

48 15-minute headways pedestrian and bicycle improvements shown in the ABP and APP For the purposes of anlyzing this concept, these elements were assumed to be part of an overall TDM program implemented by all of the institutions and major employers in the U-Med District. The program would be expected to include a number of supporting measures, such as restricted parking on campuses, Seawolf Shuttle headways of less than 10 minutes at peripheral parking areas, and other programs to support active transportation and transit use. 4.2 Roadway Improvements Improvements to existing roads and the consideration of new road corridors are undoubtedly the most controversial discussion topics among the stakeholders involved in this reconnaissance study. Road improvements considered in this study would be designed to improve access from the north and east to improve mobility and reduce congestion and safety hazards. congestion on UAA Drive and surrounding arterials, reduce out-of-direction travel, reduce delays, reduce overall vehicle miles traveled and reduce air emissions. Roadway improvements proposed for this area would need to be sensitive to the character of the U-Med District. The campuses include large green space areas that are highly valued by students and local residents. The area also has a high density of pedestrian and bicycle use, particularly in the core campus areas Road Improvement Concepts This study looked at a wide range of possible road improvements within the U-Med District. The concept alignments were designed to improve access from the north safety hazards on the arterials surrounding the U-Med District, provide access for continuing development of the major institutions, and accommodate the growth continuing growth in the U-Med District. were evaluated in this study: improvements to existing facilities, and construction of a new road corridor. These improvement illustrated in Figure

49 Figure 18 - Roadway Improvement Concepts S. BRAGAW ST. ASD OTIS PKWY ASD A UAA UAA DRIVE B GOOSE L J UAA MOSQUITO K G H I APU F E D C E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. ASD EMMANUEL AVE. LEGEND PROVIDENCE DR. CONCEPT A CONCEPT B CONCEPT C CONCEPT D CONCEPT E CONCEPT F CONCEPT G CONCEPT H MYC API CONCEPT I CONCEPT J CONCEPT K CONCEPT L EXISTING PAVED TRAIL EXISTING UNPAVED TRAIL OTHER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS PIPER STREET PAMC E. 40TH AVE. POTENTIAL PARK AND RIDE LOCATIONS POTENTIAL ROUNDABOUT LOCATIONS E. PROVIDENCE LOOP PROVIDENCE DR. UAA ELMORE RD. UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY DR. AMBASSADOR DR. DR. UNIVERSITY TUDOR CENTRE DR. ANMC DIPLOMACY DR. UAA WESLEYAN DR. VANCE DR. CHECKMATE DR. E. TUDOR ROAD BONIFACE PKWY 42

50 Existing Roadway Improvements Concept A Concept A consists of improving and connecting Seawolf Drive and Career Center Drive through the western half of the UAA campus to East Northern Lights Boulevard. This concept was analyzed as a two-lane road. The objective of Concept A is to provide another access into UAA from the north using existing facilities to the extent possible and to avoid having to expand UAA Concept B Concept B consists of widening the existing UAA Drive to four lanes. UAA Drive is the only northern access that exists for the U-Med District and this concept would expand the existing two-lane road to at least four lanes to accommodate the New Roadway Concepts Concept C Concept C consists of extending the eastern loop of Tudor Centre Drive at East Tudor Road north to East Northern Lights Boulevard, as well as adding a new connection to the east at University Drive. The objective of Concept C is to improve U-Med District access by adding an additional perimeter roadway and connecting University Drive to the north/ south road via a circuitous alignment that follows the existing terrain and uses existing road corridors to the extent possible. Concept D University Lake Drive is proposed under a separate project to be extended as shown in Figure 18. The APU Master Plan includes a further extension of University Lake Drive to the north and then west to connect to University Drive. Concept D extends University Lake Drive further north to connect to Northern Lights Boulevard, with the objective of providing northern access using existing/planned road corridors to the extent possible. Concept E Concept E consists of extending University Drive north through APU to connect to East Northern Lights Boulevard and is similar in rationale and alignment to Concept D. Concept F Concept F consists of constructing a new link to connect east of the Elmore Road and Providence Drive/ University Drive intersection at the existing access for the APTI studios, to East Northern Lights Boulevard. This alignment closely follows the land ownership boundary between APU and UAA. This concept would stay on the upland boundary of the larger wetland areas. Concept G Concept G consists of constructing a new link between the Elmore Road and Providence Drive/University Drive and East Northern Lights Boulevard/South Bragaw Street intersections. This alignment is often referred to as the Bragaw Street Extension. Concept G closely follows the existing disturbed utility corridor. Concept H Concept H is a combination of Concepts F and G. It proposes a new link between the APTI studio access road intersection with University Drive, and the East Northern Lights Boulevard/South Bragaw Street intersection. Concept I Concept I combines Concepts F and G and consists of constructing a link that connects the Elmore Road and Providence Drive/University Drive intersection to the northeast with East Northern Lights Boulevard. Concept J Concept J consists of constructing a new link north from Alumni Loop near the Integrated Science Building and parking garage to connect to the East Northern Lights Boulevard/South Bragaw Street intersection. Concept K Concept K consists of extending Fine Arts Lane north to connect to the East Northern Lights Boulevard/South Bragaw Street intersection. Concept L Concept L consists of constructing a new link connecting East Northern Lights Boulevard/South Bragaw Street intersection and Alumni Loop near the East Campus Central Parking Lot/Parking Garage. 43

51 The objective of Concepts J, K and L is to provide a northern access that is essentially a back door to the UAA campus. These concepts are similar to what is likely to occur over time if no long-term solution is implemented. As UAA continues to develop toward Northern Lights Boulevard, public safety agencies will eventually require that there be an additional access to the development from the north to allow for timely response in the event of a medical or Context Sensitive Solutions Public concerns about this project have of road construction on open space, trails and recreation. Although UAA and APU campuses are not designated as public parks, their undeveloped lands have been used for recreation for many years and provide habitat and transit corridors for wildlife moving between Far North Bicentennial Park and habitat areas in north Anchorage. N Figure 19 - Concept G - Boulevard Illustration Northern Lights Boulevard Any road improvements proposed for the U-Med District would need to comply with context sensitive design measures to surrounding environment and uses. A number of context sensitive design measures have been suggested by the public or the project team to mitigate some of the potential impacts and to design a 44. Elmore Rd

52 Figure 20- Boulevard Concept Figure 21 - Pedestrian Bridge and Gateway Concept 45

53 N Figure 22 - Concept L with Trail, Overpass and Gateway Northern Lights Boulevard Figure 22 illustrates the road tunneling through the hillside and an elevated pedestrian trail with a gateway feature. road corridor that is sensitive to the environmental context. These ideas include: A road designed to a reduced speed landscaped medians similar to Providence Drive gathering areas allow for grade-separated trail crossings, wildlife corridors, and green space Roundabouts or other design Many of these context sensitive design measures could be applied to any of the road alignments evaluated. Graphic illustrations of potential context sensitive elements are included in Figures 19 through 24. Elmore Rd Figures 19 and 20 illustrate a boulevard concept, incorporating two one-way sections Figure 23 - Cut and Cover Road Concept 46

54 of road around a campus green area. This concept also includes trail overpasses to maintain the continuity of essential trail elements. Figure 21 illustrates the concept of of incorporating a gateway feature into a pedestrian bridge over a road. Concept L may provide an opportunity to tunnel or cut and cover a road through high ground on the UAA campus, as shown in Figure 22. Figure 23 illustrates a cut-and-cover design, where the road is placed down into the surface and covered over to maintain the look and feel of the green space. Figure 24 provides a visual simluation of Concept I with a tunnel or cut-and-cover design. 47

55 Figure 24 - Concept I Rendering N Elmore Rd Figure 24 depicts a tunnel or cut and cover concept. The road could be tunneled under areas of high ground or built adjacent to uninterrupted trail/green space connection. Northern Lights Boulevard 48

56 5.0 Evaluation & Comparison of Concepts This section of the report evaluates the concepts that were described in Section 4. This evaluation is focused on identifying which concepts are reasonable and feasible to study further and which concepts are not meet the preliminary purpose and need. 5.1 Evaluation Criteria Each concept was evaluated against planning and technical criteria. The criteria chosen represent a broad spectrum of factors and include issues directly related to the preliminary purpose and need as well as issues public and other stakeholders. The criteria are Tra c Operations As noted in Section 1, the purpose of this U-Med District and potential concepts that could improve the mobility of people and goods and improve safety. The need for the project is driven by 1) the concentration of employment in this area and the expectation that employment in the area will continue on adjacent arterials and UAA Drive; and 3) the elevated crash rate at UAA Drive and Northern Lights Boulevard. on the project website. For comparison purposes and for ease of reference, the for all concepts is included in Figure 25. Improves travel time from north/east U-Med District. The travel delay contours on Figures 26 and 27 illustrate the estimated no road improvements beyond those Otis Extension). The delay contours list the intersections in the study area. Similar data was evaluated for the various concepts to plus segment travel time). terms of intersection LOS and average delay per vehicle through each intersection and turning movement. Intersection delay is evaluated separately because it is more LOS. With congested arterial intersections, no change in the intersection LOS. of intersection safety, based on the premise that intersection safety will improve at the congested intersections if the delay is larger gaps for turning movements, fewer cars will traverse the congested corridors visible to motorists. 49

57 14855 LOOP NORTHERN ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND MEDICAL DISTRICT - RECONNAISSANCE STUDY REPORT Figure 25 - Annual Average Daily Tra c olumes for 2030 E. 36TH AVE. PROVIDENCE DR. E. TUDOR ROAD E. 40TH AVE. E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD ELMORE RD. E. PROVIDENCE LOOP S. BRAGAW ST ALUMNI LOOP ALUMNI DRIVE UAA DRIVE UNIVERSITY DR. PIPER STREET BONIFACE PKWY OTIS PKWY UNIVERSITY E. TUDOR ROAD A B L J K F H G I E D C DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE. 50

58 LOOP 30 Travel Time Contour (sec) NORTHERN ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND MEDICAL DISTRICT - RECONNAISSANCE STUDY REPORT Figure Delay Contours (Morning Peak Hour) for No Action Concept GOOSE E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. 290 E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD OTIS MOSQUITO 360 E. 36TH AVE. PROVIDENCE DR UNIVERSITY REFLECTION E. TUDOR RD E. 40TH AVE PIPER STREET ELMORE RD. E. PROVIDENCE LOOP BONIFACE PKWY OTIS PKWY S. BRAGAW ST. UAA DRIVE FINE ARTS LANE ALUMNI DRIVE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY DR. TUDOR CENTRE DR. AMBASSADOR DR. DIPLOMACY DR. E. TUDOR RD DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE. NO ACTION CONCEPT- AM PEAK HOUR Travel Time from UAA Drive & Providence Drive 254 Travel Time from Intersection (sec) 51

59 NORTHERN ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND MEDICAL DISTRICT - RECONNAISSANCE STUDY REPORT OTIS GOOSE MOSQUITO UNIVERSITY 52 REFLECTION 30 Travel Time to Intersection (sec) Travel Time Contour (sec) E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD E. 36TH AVE. PROVIDENCE DR E. TUDOR RD NO ACTION CONCEPT- PM PEAK HOUR Travel Time to UAA Drive & Providence Drive 254 E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. LOOP Figure Delay Contours (Afternoon Peak Hour) for No Action Concept UAA DRIVE E. TUDOR RD. E. 40TH AVE. PIPER STREET ELMORE RD. E. PROVIDENCE LOOP BONIFACE PKWY OTIS PKWY S. BRAGAW ST. FINE ARTS LANE ALUMNI DRIVE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY DR. TUDOR CENTRE DR. AMBASSADOR DR. DIPLOMACY DR. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE.

60 mobility of people and goods. This criterion looks at the change in average delay in the U-Med District. This criterion is based on the overall delay in the road network and the travel demand. Delay results in a number of costs to both commuters and the general public. Some of the costs associated with delay are increased fuel consumption, higher vehicle exhaust emissions, lower economic productivity, and higher costs for goods and services due to higher transportation costs. population growth in the northern portion of the Municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska Susitna Borough continues to outpace growth in the Anchorage Bowl, the regional nature of the facilities in the U-Med District will lead to a greater percentage of This criterion looks at how concepts would increase or decrease turning movements in the U-Med District as well as impacts on out-of-direction travel. Turning movements increase delay and potential for crashes. Out-of-direction travel increases total vehicle miles traveled and increases travel time, which often results in higher speeds as frustrated motorists try to make up for lost time. All of these issues are directly correlated with mobility and safety. Finally, the sixth criterion looks at the impact U-Med District. This criterion is not directly related to the purpose and need for the during the public scoping process. not destined for the U-Med District that would be routed through the U-Med District under each concept. The criterion does not through residential neighborhoods, such as along 42nd Avenue, that would result from network. Engineering Challenges factors. The factors included in this ranking wetlands and/or high water tables, proximity to buildings or major utility corridors, and complexity of intersection or road geometry. hydrologic factors. Several concepts cross large, poorly-drained areas on the UAA and have poor soils and high water tables which are not as favorable for construction as areas with better soils and lower water tables. The second criterion evaluates issues and constructing improvements near existing development. Concepts that would construct improvements in developed areas bring challenges associated with rightof-way restrictions, potential impacts to structures, mitigation of private property 53

61 control during construction. The third criterion evaluates the need to utilities for each concept. Examples include power lines, Alaska Communications of utilities is usually possible, but can add to a project. the geometric and construction complexity designs to construct and maintain are straight roads, perpendicular approaches to intersections, and limited structures. Curvilinear roads, signalized intersections and deep excavations adjacent to ponds, lakes or structures greatly complicate the constructability of build concepts. Land Use Most of the concerns expressed by the public during this project are related to 54 of each concept with local land use plans. by a number of planning documents from multiple sources, including, the, for the various institutions. These plans all recognize the need for U-Med District, but they also strive to reduce dependency on single-passenger automobile access and to increase pedestrian and transit

62 connectivity. Most of the plans reviewed recognize the need for transportation improvements, but there is no general consensus on a solution. The second criterion looks at how each concept supports the growth and development of the U-Med District, consistent with its designation as a major employment center. This criterion to accommodate growth as well as whether the concept provides access to developable lands in the U-Med District to allow for future institutional growth. extensive trail systems within the U-Med District were often cited by the project stakeholders as one of the key concerns, should a build option be selected. This criterion considers the relative number of major and minor trail crossings expected for each concept. Two major parks and the Chester Creek Trail are also within the project study area. This criterion also considers how the proposed options could impact those areas. The fourth criterion considers the potential residential areas and noise-sensitive land uses are also considered a social impact. The intrinsic value that the public places on the large expanse of open space on the north end of the campuses was also considered as a social impact. Concerns from the public was a more subjective desire to have these portions of the campus left whole. There are also some residences on campus. Stationary sensitive noise receptors public television) studio and residential concerns regarding potential noise and Mobile noise receptors, such as trail users and wildlife, are expected to be exposed to noise for short periods in the immediate East Northern Lights Boulevard, for example, fades to background noise at approximately the noise study is available on the project website. The criterion related to campus integrity is based on concerns raised by the public. This criterion evaluates whether road alignments The wetland criterion looks at the potential wetland impacts of each concept assuming A) and calculating the areas of wetlands within that corridor. The mapping used available on the project website. 55

63 Impacts to wildlife are evaluated by habitat and wildlife migration corridors. Costs for each concept. These costs are order of magnitude estimates given the conceptual level of this study, but do provide an idea of concept. Factors such as bridges or tunnels, factors would add costs beyond those estimated. 5.2 Comparison of Concepts This section presents an evaluation of each concept based on the evaluation criteria discussed previously Traffic Criteria Improves travel time from north and east The No Action concept, Concept A, and the TDM concept do not construct new access from the north or east and show little to B enhances an existing access, but also C through L would construct new access from the north and east, and all show improvements to travel time for U-Med Figure 28 Percent Reduction in Delay Compared to No Action Concept 56

64 Table AM Peak LOS and Percent Change in Delay Compared to No Action Concept 57

65 Table PM Peak LOS and Percent Change in Delay Compared to No Action Concept 58

66 under each concept. The total network delay is based on the amount of delay encountered by each vehicle during the morning and afternoon peak periods. This illustrates the cost of delay in terms of lost productive time. All of the road given day. illustrate the maximum change in delay from to travel time throughout the network, not just to the north and east. The reduction in reduction in delay at nearly all of the area the build concepts result in similar network wide reductions in delay, but to a lesser Improves intersection LOS/reduces delay The TDM, No Action, and Concepts A and B do not improve LOS at major intersections within the U-Med District. The TDM concept reduced delay at some intersections, but and ride) lot. Concepts C through L all show improvements to intersection LOS and delay as shown in Tables 1 and 2. As shown in these tables, the delay at many of these intersections is so high that the reductions in delay do not necessarily result in improvements in the LOS. Nevertheless, intersections. Improves safety The TDM, No Action and Concept A have and resulting LOS/congestion on Lake Otis concepts. Concept A adds additional left turning movements at a location in close proximity to two other intersections with high left-turn volumes, creating additional safety concerns. Concept B improves operations on Lake through the Northern Lights Boulevard and turn and which already has an elevated crash rate. Concept B also routes large volumes facility. For these reasons, Concept B is not considered a safety improvement. Concepts C through L all have potential reduction in overall turning movements, safety issues arise as part of several of the concepts. First, Concepts C, D, E, F, and I all route such that they intersect Northern Lights Boulevard on a super-elevated reverse curve. This intersection will create challenging geometric sight distance issues and will 59

67 Figure 29 - Total Network Delay in Peak Hours (AM and PM) 60

68 LOOP 30 Travel Time from Intersection (sec) Travel Time Contour (sec) NORTHERN ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND MEDICAL DISTRICT - RECONNAISSANCE STUDY REPORT Figure Delay Contours (Morning Peak Hour) for Concept G E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. OTIS GOOSE E. 36TH AVE. PROVIDENCE DR. MOSQUITO UNIVERSITY REFLECTION E. TUDOR RD E. 40TH AVE. ELMORE RD. E. PROVIDENCE LOOP S. BRAGAW ST. UAA DRIVE FINE ARTS LANE ALUMNI DRIVE PIPER STREET OTIS PKWY UNIVERSITY BONIFACE PKWY UNIVERSITY DR. TUDOR CENTRE DR. AMBASSADOR DR. DIPLOMACY DR. 136 E. TUDOR RD DR. MARTIN LUTHER 210 CONCEPT G - AM PEAK HOUR Travel Time from UAA Drive & Providence Drive KING JR. AVE

69 NORTHERN ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND MEDICAL DISTRICT - RECONNAISSANCE STUDY REPORT Figure Delay Contours (Afternoon Peak Hour) for Concept G OTIS GOOSE MOSQUITO UNIVERSITY REFLECTION 30 Travel Time to Intersection (sec) Travel Time Contour (sec) E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD E. 36TH AVE. PROVIDENCE DR E. TUDOR RD CONCEPT G - PM PEAK HOUR Travel Time to UAA Drive & Providence Drive 254 E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD. LOOP E. TUDOR RD. E. 40TH AVE. ELMORE RD. E. PROVIDENCE LOOP S. BRAGAW ST. UAA DRIVE FINE ARTS LANE ALUMNI DRIVE PIPER STREET BONIFACE PKWY OTIS PKWY UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY DR. TUDOR CENTRE DR. AMBASSADOR DR. DIPLOMACY DR. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE.

70 this intersection and at the existing South Bragaw Street intersection. issue at the intersection with University Drive. The new intersection with University numbers of left turning movements from University Drive within a short distance of Signalization of both intersections would operate at LOS F and roundabouts at either lengths that interfere with the adjacent multiple lanes constructed at each approach. pedestrian and bicycle priorities in this area and could lead to elevated crash rates at these adjacent intersections. to the existing South Bragaw Street/ Northern Lights Intersection and would through the campus core. The roads in this access to parking lots, have lots of turning movements and low travel speeds. Under other parts of the campus and the hospital. calming measures such as speed humps may Finally, Concept L results in channeling more turns onto UAA Drive in close proximity to its Reduces average delay per trip in the U-Med District For comparison purposes, average delay per vehicle that enters/exits the U-Med in average delay in comparison to the No concept actually increased total delay by reduction in a.m. peak hour delay and less in overall delay in both the a.m. and p.m. in terms of serving the greatest number of unserved vehicle demand). Reduces turning movements/0ut-ofdirection travel varying levels) by all of the build alternatives. The number of total turning movements was 63

71 with each concept. This methodology is not a perfect indicator of reduced out-ofdirection travel because new concepts create new intersections that have new movements eliminated on more circuitous concept, the number of turning movements in the network during the peak hour does Concepts B, C, D, E, F and I were comparable in the number of turning movements during the morning and evening peak hours. In percent reduction. For the purposes of this analysis, cut-through enters the U-Med District but is destined for a location outside of the District. By give priority to the through movements. on this project is that the road will serve U-Med District environment. on UAA Drive and the various concepts. With Drive. The TDM measure and Concept A are on UAA Drive with Concept C having the concepts are shown in Table 3 and range A summary of the evaluation of each Table 4. Table 3 : 2030 Estimated Cut-through Tra c No Action TDM A B C D E F I J L UAA Drive NA NA NA 64

72 Table 4 : Concept Evaluation for Tra c Criteria Criterion/Concept Improves travel time from north and east Improves intersection LOS/ reduces delay Improves Safety out-of-direction travel No Action TDM A B C D E F I J L Favorable Somewhat Favorable Not Favorable 65

73 5.2.2 Engineering Challenges Poorly drained areas the poorest soils and highest water tables. Concepts A through F are expected to have better soils and lower water tables. Right-of-way acquisition impacts Concepts A, B, C, D, E, J and L are likely to have higher impacts associated with construct road improvements. Concepts A and B are located in highly developed areas and have the potential to impact structures developed along the alignment. Concepts J and L also are located within the developed UAA campus with potential demolition of at least one structure on Tudor Centre Drive. Concepts F through I have fewer right-of- 66 and the TDM concept would likely have the The study area has numerous existing utilities, both major transmission facilities service facilities in the developed campus communications). Concepts that cross through developed areas have more water, sewer, electric, communication, and with water, electric, communications and water, sewer, electric and communications. communications, and gas. Concept L communications. Constructability The geometric complexity of Concepts A, E, and F all intersect with Northern Lights Boulevard on a curve, which increases the complexity particularly with respect to sight distance of intersection controls. Concept I operational alternatives and creates challenging horizontal and vertical design ele- alignments to avoid parklands on the north and existing development on the south. given the level of vehicular and pedestrian activity in these areas. Concept I results in intersection that is in close proximity to the Numerous ideas have been suggested for context sensitive features such as tunnels, bridges, overpasses, etc. to minimize the impacts to trails and visual elements. The complexity of these context sensitive ideas is considered to be neutral with regard to the concepts because they are largely interchangeable between the concepts and will have to be evaluated in further detail during future design phases. A summary of the engineering evaluation is included in Table Land Use Consistency with land use plans As mentioned previously, land use plans for the U-Med District support non-motorized transportation and transit use. They also recognize a need for additional access from the north and east, if the U-Med District institutions are to continue to grow.

74 Table 5 : Concept Evaluation for Engineering Challenges Criterion/Concept Poorly drained areas Right-of-way acquisition impacts Constructability No Action TDM A B C D E F G H I J K L Favorable Somewhat Favorable Not Favorable Anchorage This plan calls for the U-Med District to be a major employment center. Employment centers are intended to be the most intensively developed areas and to have the needed infrastructure to support a mix of high-intensity land uses, including a balanced transportation system. The plan also has policies which encourage congestion management and roadway improvements; enhancing public transit; providing more pedestrian-friendly amenities; and incorporating pedestrian and bicycle facilities into road rights-of-way. Given the wide range of policies promoted in the plan, all of the concepts evaluated are partially consistent with the plan. The TDM Concept is partially consistent with the comprehensive plan, as it focuses on more active transportation, a park and ride facility and increased transit and shuttle service. It does not address the need for additional access from the north and east. The road concepts provide the infrastructure needed to allow for the continued growth of employment in the U-Med District, would address congestion, and would incorporate pedestrian and bicycle amenities. The No Action concept is the only concept that is not at least partially consistent with the comprehensive plan, in that it does not provide the infrastructure needed to support the area s continued growth as an important employment center and could instead restrict institutional growth. U-Med District Framework Master Plan - The U-Med District plan is also intended to support the growth of the U-Med District. Although the plan recommends that no arterial road bisect the UAA and APU campuses, it also acknowledges the need for access from the north and east to accommodate future growth. It notes that the plan is not intended to preclude access but calls for the location of any new access to be selected based on emerging development patterns. 67

75 As with the comprehensive plan, the TDM Concept is partially consistent, as it focuses on more active transportation. It does not address the need for additional access from the north and east. The road concepts are partially consistent with the U-Med access from the north and east, but these concepts would result in either expanding roads through the campuses or a new road through the campuses. Supports institutional growth master plans showing demand for future growth and development and potential criterion looks at two aspects of supporting the planned growth of major U-Med District growth and the second is providing access development. Concepts A and TDM provide little to proposed future development areas. capacity but no access to proposed future development areas. Concepts C through I have no access and provide additional 68 provide additional access to the UAA campus which could make it easier to develop The TDM concept includes a peripheral peripheral parking is south of Northern Lights Boulevard at South Bragaw Street. The parking area would need to be sited impacted, but could likely be routed around unpaved trails. Concepts A and B are located in developed areas of the UAA campus. These concepts would not be expected to have any adverse the Northern Lights Boulevard intersection could result in a minor impact on the parklands located on either side of UAA Drive. Concept C has the most potential to impact parks and trails. This concept runs along the the new Chester Creek Trail extension that follows the same alignment. The extension of University Drive needed to tie Concept C into the rest of the U-Med District road Concepts D, E, F, J, and L go through various campus. These upland areas tend to have the highest concentration of unpaved trails located in lower, wetter lands that contain fewer trails. Potential social impacts sensitive uses, which include residential studios; and the intrinsic value of the large naturally vegetated landscape in the study area.

76 The TDM Concept would not be close to any residential uses or other noise sensitive uses. Impacts on the intrinsic value of the area would occur from the development of the Concept A would likely have the lowest potential for social impacts, as it is not near residences or other sensitive noise receptors and would not disturb the intrinsic value of the open space. Concept B would be slightly less favorable due to some residential uses on UAA Drive. Concept C would have the greatest social residential areas, as it would run along an established medium-density residential neighborhood that abuts a park and trail. on residences, other noise sensitive land intrinsic value of the open landscape. Concepts F and I have potential for noise intrinsic value of the landscape is less than those concepts that bisect the area. studios and the intrinsic values of the large open landscape. residences or noise-sensitive uses, but do Potential impacts on campus integrity This criterion evaluates whether a concept most of the facilities and students/patients/ employees are concentrated). The core be favorable. This criterion also evaluates the facilities, such as the consortium library. from the consortium facilities on the UAA campus would not be considered favorable. integrity. Concepts A through E would route Concepts F through I are on the outer edge the consortium facilities shared by UAA and A summary of the land use evaluation is included in Table Environmental Potential impacts to wetlands would depend on the location and is located just south of Northern Lights Boulevard. This area is mapped as Class C area is not wetlands. Concepts C, D and E do not impact wetlands as they cross through the upland areas the intersections with Northern Lights Boulevard. Concepts J through L are Potential impacts to wildlife The TDM concept would result in the loss of Concept A would likely have the lowest impact on wildlife habitat and migration patterns, as it is routed through existing developed areas. Concept B expands UAA Drive. Although this is an existing road, expansion of this road could increase impacts on wildlife migration between greatest total amount of habitat, almost 69

77 Table 6 : Concept Evaluation for Land Use Criterium/Concept Consistency with land use plans Supports institutional growth Social impacts Impacts on campus integrity No Action TDM A B C D E F I J L Favorable Somewhat Favorable Not Favorable 70

78 alignment follows the perimeter of the undeveloped area, thereby reducing its other concepts. All of the new road alignment concepts would bisect existing habitat to varying migration. A summary of the environmental assessment is included in Table Costs TDM Concept of implementing them. While policy changes and incentive/disincentive systems may have few direct costs to the public, the institutions shoulder some of the costs directly or experience costs in other ways. TDM measures that involve construction lanes, bus services, dedicated transit lanes or pedestrian facilities) will incur construction, implementation, maintenance, and possibly Measures that are operational in nature - like adjusting work hours, providing guaranteed rides home, etc. are the most for some measures are easier to estimate. For example, capital and operational costs bus headways in the U-Med District can be estimated. Costs for construction related to TDM measures can also be measured, such ride), dedicated transit lanes and bicycle or pedestrian trails. The estimated cost for the TDM concept variation in the cost estimate is due to the versus a parking structure. The majority of the cost is related to the increased cost Mover routes in the U-Med District over estimates is discussed further below. Increased Bus Service Frequency Buses serving the U-Med District are implement 15-minute headways on U-Med District bus routes from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. that this increase in service could double ridership. A parking garage costs approximately per space. As mentioned previously, a ride facility is considered necessary to million for a surface or structured parking facility, respectively. This does not include ride facility would also need maintenance, utilities and increased shuttle service between the facility and the center of the U-Med District. Non-Vehicular (Bicycle/Pedestrian) Improvements includes several projects in the U-Med improvements in the U-Med District. 71

79 Table 7 : Concept Evaluation for Environmental Criterion/Concept X TDM A B C D E F I J L Favorable Somewhat Favorable Not Favorable 72

80 Construction costs are based on similar of separated trail are estimated at $1 million. Cost for striping and marking one mile of bicycle lane or shared shoulder is estimated construction of new pavement or curbs. The at a total cost of $2.2 million. street crossing projects in the U-Med District with a total estimated cost of $5.5 million Roadway Concept Costs Costs for roadway improvements and new road construction were estimated with an per mile for a typical two- to four-lane arterial road at grade. These order of magnitude cost and groundwater conditions, landscaping, environmental permitting and mitigation, non-standard roadway elements. Based on these estimates, the roadway soute road running north-south along east Other Cost Considerations The TDM and road concept cost estimates did not include all the possible enhancements that could be used to increase transit use or measures to mitigate impacts to wetlands and trails. More information on these cost considerations is provided below. Pedestrian Bridges or Overpasses The cost of building a bridge or overpass can depending on the design, length and site conditions. For example, the pedestrian Avenue passing over the Tour of Anchorage Trail was just constructed at a cost of $2.2 of construction is estimated to be in the pedestrian or vehicular bridges or use of cut the reconnaissance-level road concept cost estimates. 73

81 Table 8 : Estimated Costs for Tra c Demand Management Concept COST Active Transportation Improvements Table Notes: 1 - Peripheral parking area costs do not include cost to increase shuttle service. 2 - People Mover costs are based on estimated $9-10,000,000 per year for 20 year design period. 3 - Anchorage Pedestrian Plan and Anchorage Bicycle Plan costs are for projects in these plans located in the U-Med District. estimates. 74

82 Table 9 : Estimated Construction Costs for Road Concepts UTIILITY TOTAL A B C 1.36 D E F I J L Table Notes: 1 - Construction costs are based on $10M per mile for a four-lane road and $9M per mile for a two-lane road. 2 - Preconstruction costs include survey, engineering, geotechnical investigations and related costs and are estimated as 25% of construction costs. 3 - Right-of-way acquisition costs are estimated at $10/sf based on the range of assessed valuations for area properties. 4 - Concepts B and G are four-lane concepts. All other concepts assume a two-lane road. 75

83 Dedicated Transit Lanes Dedicated transit lanes were also suggested as means to reduce travel time on buses and make it more attractive to commuters. Construction costs associated with adding dedicated transit lanes on existing roads in the U-Med District would be in the $2-4 million/mile range, not including right-of-way each side). All of the sidewalks, landscaping, have to be moved to accommodate the widened road. Dedicated transit lanes are not included in the TDM concept for cost estimating purposes. Dedicated transit lanes function best as a system-wide improvement, addressing a large portion of the bus routes. For example, improving bus transit along buses are still delayed on other streets along the way. Additional challenges include providing safe pedestrian crossings to the bus stop locations associated with the dedicated lanes, upgrading intersections to accommodate these lanes, and policing the use of these lanes. Wetland Impacts Costs for mitigation of wetland impacts occurring within the MOA are determined value and the number of wetland acres 76 impacted. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has set fee-in-lieu rates for mitigation based compensatory mitigation costs range from lower value wetlands.

84 6.0 Summary and Conclusions 77

85 Table 10 : Summary Evaluation of Concepts No A J K L 78

86 79

87 80

88 Purpose and Need Purpose: Improve the mobility of people and goods. Improve safety of motorized and non-motorized tra c. Accommodate projected tra c growth and development in the U-Med District. Need: The U-Med District is one of the largest employment centers and highest tra c generators in Anchorage, yet there is no direct access from the north or east. Arterial streets surrounding the U-Med District are over capacity and operate at poor levels of service during peak periods. Several of the U-Med District intersections have elevated road segment and intersection crash rates. 81

89 82

90 NORTHERN ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY AND MEDICAL DISTRICT RECONNAISSANCE STUDY REPORT DOT&PF Project No Appendix A Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report November 2011

91

92 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) Comment Thanks for the great report. It is thorough and explores many good options and evaluation criteria. It appears to me that Alternative G best meets the purpose and need (mobility and safety) for the U-med district and the overall community as a whole. I want to encourage our city and state officials to keep the process moving and not take years to get the project constructed. (10/4/11) Comment By Dennis R. Linnell Thanks for the report. Please point me to the section that discusses commercial vehicle access to the institutions in the U-Med District. I know it is in the report somewhere but I must have missed it. Thanks. (10/4/11) Aves Thompson Dear AMATS: As a retiree of UAA and someone who enjoys walking in the Goose Lake and University Lake areas, my 'vote' is for Option C. (10/5/11) Sandra Knight Thanks for the notice. One comment on the project website you might consider including the title of each chapter to the listing/links. This would make it a bit more user friendly. (10/5/11) Alison L. Smith I have read most of the report. Rather technical in places but a generally good effort to make it readable for the general literate public. I prefer the G and H corridor concepts because it looks the most because there is not much year round activity in that area. Unfortunately, it is rather boggy between Elmore north and the intersection of Elmore south and Providence Drive, or over to the UAA campus along the theatre/arts parking lot. Maybe an elevated roadway on piling is the way to disturb hydrology, wildlife, and recreational use the least. My biggest concern is who is going to pay for this. The biggest beneficiary of this improved northeast access will be the Providence Health System, which is among other things a massive real estate development activity that has a minor interest in charity health care. Yet they pay no municipal property tax, state corporate tax or federal tax. They should pay for this road corridor and all the amenities required to mitigate the impacts and to improve pedestrian and recreational opportunities in that green area so that when it is over, the development obstructionists will have to admit that we trail users and other non-motorized, non-medical folks will have to admit that it was a good thing after all. There will be an uphill battle to get bond approval for this if Providence doesn't chip in. Folks are starting to take note of how many hundred million dollars Providence doesn't pay into Muni coffers. I know that is not your area of interest but it goes into the calculus of how much to fight this invasion of open space. (10/5/11) Bradley Cruz Page 49 of the Final Recon Report says that there is a Traffic Analysis report on the website. We can t find it on the project website. Please direct us to it, or post it soon, so that we and others have sufficient time to review and comment on it before the end of the comment period. (10/10/11) David and Diana Evans I lean to the no action or TDM alternatives. This area of Anchorage is unique and valuable in that it is not about moving cars around, but about walking and recreating outdoors. The green spaces in our city are dwindling fast and we need to be proactive about keeping them intact. I do not believe a road bisecting UAA and APU will do anything to help the traffic. I live in this district and travel to UAA every day during peak hours. The traffic is a little heavy, but not outrageous. I really don't understand what the fuss is about. This area has a wonderful collegiate feel in a large part due to the green space connecting the campuses. Tudor road is already set up to be a high volume road and should be utilized to relieve the district traffic. I don't see any alternatives that will actually help and not destroy what makes this area unique and valuable. (10/12/11) Anne Richards 1 of 19

93 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) Of the four concepts recommended for future consideration, my FIRST CHOICE is Concept G (i.e., direct connection of Elmore Road to S. Bragaw Street), for it clearly seems to best meet the needs of the Anchorage Community. In addition, Concept G is the only one of the alternative routes which is considered Favorable with regard to all three of what I think are the most critical design criteria; namely, (1) Traffic Operations, (2) Engineering Challenges, and (3) Meets Purpose and Need. Each of the other three concepts (i.e., Concepts I, J, & K ) falls short of full compliance with so many of the design criteria as to arguably place them out of contention when compared to Concept G. My SECOND CHOICE of the four concepts is Concept K, because (a) It is the only concept without a single Not Favorable criteria ranking, (b) It is the least costly alternative, (c) It provides the most direct route from North Anchorage to Providence Hospital, and (d) It is the least environmentally disruptive alternative. My LAST CHOICE of the four concepts is Concept I, because (a) It includes a potentially disruptive even dangerous -- traffic intersection with Northern Lights Boulevard, (b) It is the most environmentally disruptive alternative, and (c) By not effecting a direct connection to S. Bragaw Street, it inhibits the efficiency of the U-MED connection to North Anchorage. Do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions regarding my comments. Thanks for this opportunity to comment upon this traffic initiative. (10/13/11) Steve Paliwoda I am a homeowner in the College Alps condominium complex off of Wesleyan Drive. I disagree strongly with Concept C as it would dramatically affect me, placing a road directly behind my condo, instead of the woods and APU trail system that currently exists. The trails were a major factor in my attraction to this condo complex. Since living here, I frequently see wildlife in the area where the Concept C would cut through. This wildlife includes moose, black bear, and lynx, as well as the other small creatures that frequent all Alaskan woods. My condo was recently valuated at a higher appraised rate than similar condo complexes due to the proximity to greenbelt (per appraisal document). The placement of a busy road so near would greatly decrease the value of the condos. As condo owners, we spent last year dealing with the construction for a new paved trail in the same area. This construction was dusty, loud, and turned my once pleasant walks into an obstacle course of construction equipment, not to mention the moat that was dug to place the trail. Since the paved trail has been in place, there has been increased activity near the condo complex. This activity has decreased my level of personal safety, as people utilize the trail at all hours this increased activity resulted in my vehicle being broken into recently while parked in my assigned parking spot on the condo complex grounds. I can only imagine the negative impact of a road system of any sort. I implore those involved to choose an option that does not involve decreasing the amount of wildlife habitat that is so quickly dissipating in the Anchorage bowl. Please choose a less detrimental option. Use of existing roads, without increasing infiltration into open space, is the obvious solution. Thank you for your consideration. (10/21/11) Annie Santiago Here we go again. Traffic and projected traffic provoke the Pavlovan response to build more roads. We build the roads at the expense of neighborhoods and parks and open space, but we still have traffic problems, both real and imagined. Roads invite cars and encourage traffic. This time, let's try another solution and get over the idea that people have a right to drive their cars wherever they want to go in the straightest line possible. Tudor provides good access to U-Med, and access could be improved with only modest work from Tudor north. Shuttle buses and other public transportation can also be part of the solution. For the moment, the best alternative is "no action" while we work to solve the problem with far less negative impact than is being proposed in the preferred alternatives. Thank you for considering my views. (10/24/11) Julian Mason Dear DOWL HKM, As a resident in Airport Heights who bike commutes into the U-Med District for work as well as uses the unpaved trails for recreation I wanted to comment on some of the conclusions contained in the recent Northern Access to U-Med District Final Report. Impact to parks and trails should be rated as one of the higher criteria for the proposed Concepts. Specifically, any proposed Concepts which go through areas of unpaved trails (upland areas) or which would disrupt existing paved trails with new roads are undesirable. These trails provide one of the few areas of town where biking is not dependant on waiting at traffic lights for cars to go by before being able to proceed. We should be encouraging more biking and walking and skiing as transportation options, not cut off existing trails with roadways. That being said, of the Concepts G, I, J, and K that were proposed for future consideration, I would suggest that Concepts G and K would have the least disruption to existing trails. (10/25/11) Diana Redwood Dear Folks at DOWL, I have reviewed the various concepts for adding road access to the U-Med district and find that only one of them would benefit the U-Med district while not greatly negatively impacting surrounding neighborhoods and/or recreational opportunities. That is Concept G. A nearly direct route from Bragaw to Elmore makes sense if it includes ample underpasses and/or overpasses for ski/hike/bike trails. All of the other options either strongly impact the College Gate neighborhood or would cause too much destruction of the existing recreational trails. The University area trail system is one of Anchorage's greatest assets. Any impact on it should be as minimal as possible. Please keep this in mind when deciding which concept to pursue. (10/27/11) Jack Curtiss Alaska Pacific University (APU) does not support a Northern Access Road. We vehemently oppose the routes that bisect our campus (C,D, E, H, I, F). Since the new UAA Sports Arena will have a major impact on traffic in the U-Med District, if there must be a road, then APU's position is that it should be on UAA's campus i.e., alternatives L, J, and/or K. Several years the UA Board of Trustees position was that, if they built a Sports Arena, they would favor the Elmore Road extension (the G-H) route. The G-H Route would have a major impact up on the entry to APU's campus and access to our endowed properties and would require commitments from UAA, state, and Municipality to ensure that APU would not be unduly harmed. Thank you. (10/27/11) Don Bantz 2 of 19

94 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) Given that the purpose of this plan is in large part to provide access to medical facilities, I think it fitting that the plan should abide by the philosophy of "Premium non nicer (First, do no harm)." The areas potentially affected by this plan are highly valued by students, residents, employees and others for a host of reasons, and the first criteria in determining the appropriateness of any individual plan should be ensuring that it does not adversely affect the existing values of the land as enjoyed by a significant proportion of the population. To me those plans which bisect the UAA/APU lands on routes which are located between Bragaw and Elmore roads are the most damaging to the current uses and benefits of the land. Trails in this parcel are used year round for recreation, for training of athletes who range from Tuesday Night Racers to Olympians, and for commuting by bicycle or on foot. These uses would all be negatively affected by a major road running through the middle of this corridor, especially during the winter when bike lanes and/or sidewalks get plowed in with snow and slush from the roadway. Wildlife surely benefit from this intact piece of undeveloped land as well. Moose are abundant, particularly during the winter months, and seem to congregate in the open area crossed by section A-A' in Figure 19 of the Reconnaissance Report. The Report is correct in showing that plans G, J, and K will have major negative affects on the intrinsic value of the area, while these plans and plan I will have major negative affects on wildlife and on wetlands. I strongly recommend that these plans be rejected due to these adverse affects. Remember that people do not choose to lice in Anchorage because of the rapid commutes. We choose to live here because of the quality of life, particularly the ability to enjoy outdoor recreation year-round in wonderful open areas such as the UAA/APU lands. Visitors choose to come to Anchorage for the same reason, as well as for the opportunity to see wildlife such as moose. No plan should be considered that will hurt our "Big, Wild, Life". P. S. I think you should consider the impact of a more minor change, in making UAA Drive a one-way connector between Northern Lights and Providence Drive during rush hour periods. Using a "reversible lane" concept, all traffic could go south during the morning rush and north in the evenings, essentially adding a lane to this road with only minor construction needed. In my experience this has been both successful and safe other locations ranging from interstate HOV lanes to smaller roads with high commuter volumes and limited room for expansion and alternative routes (a prime example being the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, in Washington DC). (10/27/11) Eric Moore My name is Michael Black and I am commenting as a resident of College Village neighborhood. I have lived in this abutting neighborhood to the U-Med District for 30 years and my wife for 45 years. We treasure the amenities available to us from both the medical facilities and the fine Universities located in the U-Med District as well as the fine green spaces and bike trails. We believe that this section of Anchorage is and should remain as a model for future development within the Municipality. We hope that any transportation improvements will also be a model that reflect the best technology, science and thinking available. The U-Med Reconnaissance Study serves as an excellent planning document for the discussion of road options as a way of better accessing the Universities and the current and future Medical Facilities. I do have some concerns however about the options or more appropriately the lack of options discussed in the document. Everyone recognizes this area of town to be a major employment nexus and the future plans of the University and the Alaska Native Health community along with Providence will substantially increase the issues of traffic and parking. In turn this will increase pressure on existing roads, gobble up valuable and increasingly scarce vacant land and threaten the adjoining neighborhoods. The U-Med destination facilities attract Southcentral Alaska populations and indeed State populations. These facilities will only become more attractive as new facilities are built and student and patient populations increase. This provides the basis for the problem being investigated in your Study but it might provide solutions as well. These organizations are forward thinking and should represent an opportunity for unique collaboration when it comes to transportation and future development. The resources for this collaboration were provided in the last session of the Legislature through the work of Senator Ellis and others. The U-Med Planning Effort was funded by the State at $500,000 but has yet to be initiated. I would hope the effort could be allowed to bear fruit before a decision on road extensions into this District proceeds. I would also recommend that sharing of parking facilities be discussed as a way of avoiding a large portions of available property being sacrificed to empty parking garages and spaces. The new UAA Sports Complex and its planned parking spaces will be right next to the ANTHC/South-central Foundation business parking lots and spaces. Sports Center activity is likely to occur when those spaces are emptied after business hours. Shuttle buses should be coordinated to minimize the number of vehicles having to enter the District. Currently there is little coordination and cooperation on the use of shuttles. If we ever are to set a model for the use of mass transit it would appear this is the time and place. Speaking of parking, why not allow private development of a paying parking garage and not commit more public dollars to parking? UAA charges for parking and yet many of the institutions in this District don t, which only encourages illegal parking by students and more cars to enter the District. If you charge enough for parking and enforce parking rules you reduce the problem and save money while generating revenue. Funding for roads may also be a problem with the cut back in Federal Budgets and the competing proposals before the legislature for funding a Knik Arm Bridge, na Anchorage Harbor and Dock and the enormous financial commitments from the large Energy projects being considered by the State. What is the likelihood that Anchorage can get even more of the State s financial budget when it is already digging deeply into the State Treasury at the obvious concern of the rest of the State. Since none of the facilities in the U-Med District pay property tax the financial commitments for road extensions will be, in part (difficult to determine how much), borne by private properties. The main observation is that this document looks to more roads as the solution while many would say they can be the problem. If we build in the wrong place, create unnecessary pavement over valuable and limited property, increase the numbers of vehicles and increase their speeds in a U-Med environment, disrupt established neighborhoods and generally rely on one solution to a complex problem, we aren t being smart. More facets of the problem should be discussed and the ability for these institutions, the Municipality, and the State transportation planners to envision solutions that go beyond roads should be tested. Whatever we do in this District will serve as a model we either will be proud of or we will be making excuses for our mistakes in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to comment (10/27/11). Michael Black 3 of 19

95 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) I think it is a bad idea to put a road through the U-MED district. I walk and ski in that area a lot and have for over twenty years. This spring we saw Sandhill Cranes in the H, I, J, K area the road would disturb this habitat. It is a bad idea to put more roads and not better trails and pedestrian access instead. Please do not destroy more park land by building a road through it. I know a lot of people who work in that area who now commute by walking or biking. The Black spruce forest there is an awesome sight I would be heartbroken to see destroyed. My suggestion before as now is to develop the existing roads better and improve alternative transit beside cars! Please don t destroy this park area which has been saved for so many years from development threats. Thank You (10/27/11). Clyde Vicary As primary stakeholders in the activities and investments of Alaska Pacific University, we, the Associated Students of Alaska Pacific University (ASAPU), must express our concerns over a certain proposed road expansion into the U-Med District. It has come to our attention that a new road is being considered to directly connect north and east Anchorage with the U-Med District. Some people argue that a new road would be beneficial for the U-Med District, as well as for the Municipality of Anchorage as a whole. However, we do not believe that a road bisecting any portion of APU owned land would benefit the interests of students at the university. To gauge the feelings of both on campus and off campus students, a survey was created and sent out with questions regarding the road proposal. The first question listed the twelve different options and asked the students to choose the one that they thought would be best for the future of APU. To aid them in their decision, they were given the option explanations, as well as the map specifying where each would be located. The following two questions asked for a short response from each student, detailing why or why not a road on campus would be beneficial. The responses to the first question are detailed below. The most preferred options are options A, B, K, J, and L. (graph attached). This graph shows the general feeling of both on campus and off campus students. The general trend was increased popularity amongst the options that do not run through the APU campus. The options with the least amount of votes were the ones that bisect the APU campus or the APU trail system. The general feeling of the student body was unanimous; any road running through APU would be terribly destructive, and a disgrace to the university. A road must not be constructed on APU land. (Twenty percent of the APU student body participated in the survey which is broadly inclusive of the many types of students present on our campus.) Alaska Pacific University is a private institution. Compared to our neighbor to the west, the University of Alaska Anchorage, we are but an extremely small piece of the U-Med District. It is sometimes easy to overlook the little man, but APU is a significant economic force in the heart of the U-Med district and is worth its weight in gold. APU is an oasis of forested land in a city booming with busy industries and busy people. Not only does our campus provide a quiet and peaceful atmosphere for students hard at work, but it also serves as a getaway for Anchorage residents. Our extensive trail system and adjacent dog park brings recreationalists from all over the city, including bikers, skiers, Olympic athletes, hikers, and people who just love being in nature. As students of APU, we pride ourselves on being directly connected with nature. With the amount of forested land we have on campus, it is easy for us to interact with the natural environment. A potential road cutting through campus would not only destruct the extensive habitat for various forms of wildlife, but it would also severely damage our quality of education. Alaska Pacific University is a unique and rare type of institution. In order to protect our integrity and the APU name, we, ASAPU, must express our disapproval of a road bisecting any segment of our land. If we wanted the typical university experience, we would have gone to other schools in Alaska or elsewhere in the country. The proposed road threatens everything we love about APU. (10/27/11) The Associated Students of Alaska Pacific University The traffic on Northern Lights Boulevard (NL) is already horrible. I live in College Gate and I have driven on Northern Lights almost every day for over 20 years. I think this gives me at least as much insight as a traffic engineer into the driving conditions on NL. The proposed Bragaw extension would pull a lot more traffic onto NL. Vehicles coming from NE/Eagle River/Mat-Su and going to U-Med (who used to go via Tudor) would likely come down Muldoon to NL. Vehicles coming from downtown/west would also likely come down NL. This would just make the inadequacies of NL even worse. Now that both Lake Otis and Tudor have been so nicely upgraded and made noticeably safer, traffic should be encouraged to access U-Med from Tudor, not from NL. The existing intersection at NL and Bragaw is particularly bad, though all of Bragaw is congested and unsafe, with poor options for turning, particularly on the stretch between NL and DeBarr. The DOWL study didn't really address East High because it is "just outside the study area." Why wasn't East High included in the study area? Have you ever tried to get in or out of the front entrance (on the Bragaw side) to East High? It can be extremely slow, not to mention dangerous, especially if you need to get onto Northern Lights after leaving East. In that case, you have to make a left out of the front parking lot onto Bragaw. How much worse would this be with additional traffic flowing down Bragaw to and from the U-Med core? If you try to avoid Bragaw by parking in East's small visitor lot on the NL side, you can only go right on NL when exiting and then you must make a U-turn somewhere to be able to proceed in an easterly direction. But if that visitor lot is full, the internal road is one-way, so you end up in the Bragaw lot and then have to make a left to get out. This would be so much worse with a Bragaw extension. By the way, East starts at 7:30 and ends at 2, but the DOWL study did not look at delays prior to 7:30 am. I also wonder whether the investigation of traffic on Tudor and Lake Otis took into account the significant improvements that were completed this summer. It does not seem valid to project reduced traffic on Northern Lights by 2030 due to H2H (Figures 4 and 5), since there is no guarantee that the H2H project will come to fruition. In fact, the DOWL report concedes that future traffic would be worse on NL if H2H is not built (pp. 21 and 32). The study correctly notes (p ) that routes C, D, E, F and I (Figure 18) are undesirable because of the curve on NL and the increase in left-turn volume from NL. With or without a new traffic signal, any of these routes would increase delay, congestion and safety hazards on NL. Two large parking lots at the Bragaw and Northern Lights intersection would make that intersection less safe than it is now. Traffic moves very fast on NL, and cars entering and leaving a parking lot would increase the hazards, especially when the road is icy. The study talks about reduction in delay for vehicles going to and from the U-Med core. It does not address the increase in delay that will result for vehicles using Northern Lights to get to and from places other than the U-Med core. The stretch of NL eastbound between Latouche and UAA drive is always extremely congested and the effect of northern access on all of NL needs to be considered. I live in the College Gate Subdivision and Northern Lights is the only reasonable way for me to get where I need to go. Don't sacrifice the interests of the people who live in and near the U-Med District to benefit people who live far away. People in Eagle River and the Mat-Su have chosen to have longer commute times in exchange for other perceived benefits of living far from their jobs and other institutions. They can continue to go a little bit farther and access the U-Med core from Tudor. (10/25/11) Margaret Kugel 4 of 19

96 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) I will NEVER support more roads in the U-Med district, I don't even care what the options are at this point. Employers need to adjust schedules to decrease road crowding and the public needs to pretend that gas always costs $5+ per gallon so that people will carpool. Many of us in the U-Med neighborhood try to walk/bike/bus more, so the MORE you chop up our byways, the less we can. Stop the Madness! (10/30/11) I oppose any road into the UAA Med District, and will actively work to prevent it. (10/30/11) Machara McCoy One of the reasons UAA and APU are so wonderful is because of the adjacent trails and wildlife. The solution to congestion is not more pavement & cars but better commuter choices available. I m a summer & winter bike commuter that chooses & cherishes the quiet trails in this area over the traffic on Lake Otis. I also ski on the APU trails, and sincerely hope that you will NOT destroy this beautiful area. If you must make a route through there, please select option C WITHOUT the university drive connection or select the L, K, or J options. They will least impact the most beautiful, wild-life areas that many bikers, skiers and runners seek. When this area is void of beauty the attractiveness of the universities will also diminish. (10/30/11) Kevin Banks & Paula Davis Dear AMATS, Thank you for your work on the U-Med northern access project. Please give preference to the concept that has the least impact on the cross-country ski trails. This looks like concept "K" to me...as a U-Med District resident (2754 E. 20th Ave.), student (UAA) and patient (Providence) the preservation of the trail system is extremely important to me. Thank you for your consideration. (10/30/11) Jesse Carlstrom 5 of 19

97 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) DOWL - I would like to comment on the Northern access to the U-Med district reports and analysis. I have commented before, and will again now, that I think the best traffic solution for the area is to make a mini overpass or underpass for people turning left (from either direction) at UAA drive and Northern Lights Boulevard, similar to scenario B. An overpass at UAA drive and Northern Lights Boulevard would have many advantages over your other scenarios, particularly scenarios 3-6.This would allow faster access between U-med and Northeast and Northwest Anchorage, solving the problem identified in the goals. The benefits would be keeping the U-med area from being a major northsouth cut through (which would happen with many of the scenarios in the report). The real beneficiaries of scenarios 3-6 seem to be people commuting from South Anchorage to North Anchorage, not people in North and East Anchorage going to the U-med area (according to the traffic analysis in your report, it is the intersections south of U-med that see the most benefit from the scenarios connecting Elmore to Bragaw). The disadvantages of scenarios 3-6 are as follows. 1) disrupts the separated from Anchorage feel of the university and hospital campuses geography matters. 2) Disruption of natural areas and recreational trails. 3) An unintended consequence: new roads might actually bring more traffic to the area, especially cut through traffic that is not related to the U-med district. 4) More traffic by East High. When East High was built it was the end of a dead end. Your scenario for a 4-way intersection at Bragaw and Northern Lights would make Northern Lights 7 lanes wide next to East High. East High should not be a highway school. No other high school in Anchorage is directly this close to this much traffic. Preserve what is left of the character of East High, a school that was once built in the woods. Many students and pedestrians frequent East High and the last thing it needs is a bigger intersection near it. 5) Scenarios 3-6 will slow east-west traffic on Northern Lights. I compiled data from your traffic analysis (below, summed from the intersections listed) to compare the scenarios for their impact on east-west traffic, an analysis left out of your report (unfortunately). Alleviating traffic through the U-med district might sound great, but would most citizens trade that for a slower commute on Northern Lights? Many people travel this corridor from East Anchorage to mid-town. It is currently pretty quick from Lake Otis to Boniface. Your scenarios 3-6 slow this traffic down. I feel this data and impact needs to be shared with the public EQUALLY to any information about improved traffic through U-med. It basically trades one problem for another. I doubt it is good for traffic to slow down a major route that is already crowded. Northern Lights/Lake Otis - UAA Dr - Bragaw - Boniface AM peak totals 2030 Delay Volume/Capacity Ratio at Northern Lights and Bragaw Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Gary Snyder Northern Lights/Boniface - Bragaw - UAA Dr - Lake Otis PM peak 2030 Delay Volume/Capacity Ratio at Northern Lights and Bragaw Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario (continued on next page) 6 of 19

98 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) (continued from previous page) Data from Traffic Analysis Anchorage, Alaska Northern Access to the U-Med District DOT&PF Project No Pages In sum, I think your analysis should include east-west traffic times on Northern Lights under all scenarios. Putting an overpass of some sort at UAA drive would help traffic flow to U-med while avoiding many of the disadvantages of your scenarios. There isn t much development at this corner now, so it would be relatively simple for an overpass to be built. It speeds traffic all directions. It might be expensive, but so is building a road through a wetland, many parts of scenarios 3-6. Please consider not putting a new road through the U-med area, rather improve what we have now (11/1/11). Gary Snyder My wife and I, as close neighbors of UAA, object to the proposed north/south road through the university. We regularly use the trail system for walking or bicycling and would be immediately effected by such a road. Additionally, the road would create yet another obstacle to creating a true college campus in the heart of our city. Please consider other transportation options rather than laying down more pavement that only disrupts the larger community (11/2/11). David Pelto and Judith Anderegg I am opposed to this extension. I drive through this area several times a week at morning peak times and rarely find congestion of any issue. I also use this area for skiing and walking and the idea of losing this area to a road is simply incomprehensible. It is one of the last green spaces in the middle of Anchorage and is far more effective as a recreational space than for another road (11/3/11). Rob and Judy Stohl To Whom it may Concern: I live in the Airport Heights neighborhood and chose to live in that area because of the trail system and wildlife in the area. Many of the proposed U-Med Access plans will greatly disrupt these and will greatly change the character of the area. The University-Medical district shouldn't have more and bigger roads running through it. It needs to have better public transportation and more trail access. Putting a major road link right through the university will totally disrupt the campus atmosphere. And putting a major road link through the wilderness will totally disrupt my enjoyment of the area. This is where I walk, bike and ski. If the wilderness area is disrupted, then there's no reason for me to live in the neighborhood anymore. Most people in the neighborhood feel this same way, so our desires need to be taken into account. A major road link should skirt the city, not run right through it and disrupt it. Please develop a plan that allows the U-Med district to retain its neighborhood charm and not make it into a thoroughfare (11/3/11). Karen Walker University Lake is very important to my dogs and I. Thanks (11/3/11). Lynne Curry Please send any updates you have on the U-Med improvements to my office at... I was regularly receiving updates on the MLK drive as it affected the Far North Bicentennial Park. I would like to continue to be informed. I was regularly receiving updates on the MLK drive as it affected the Far North Bicentennial Park. I would like to continue to be informed. I LOVE my new route to work!! (11/3/11). Margo Marsh It is my understanding the proposed northern access to the u-med district, also known as the bragaw extension my seriously impact the dog park as currently operating in the area known as University Lake. It is my intention in writing to you today to state that this dog park is very important to a very large number of people and that significant modifications to the dog park as a result of building the bragaw extension would significantly reduce the quality of life for a large number of Anchorage residents. However the bragaw extension is implemented, please do everything possible to mitigate whatever effects it may have on the University Lake Dog Park. Thank you for this opportunity to submit my comments regarding the Bragaw extension (11/4/11). Matthew C Cohen IMO: 1) The Bragaw extension - is not necessary now, and may not be required for 20 years. Constructing it would be putting the cart ahead of the horse. Anything beyond implementation of Concept A and TDMs should follow - not precede - a MOA Assembly approved long term plan (for the U-Med District). Which should be after the Assembly's P&Z Commission approves long term plans for each of the four major stakeholders (ANMC, APU, PAMC, and UAA). Matthew Magsino/Arens 2) Concept A should be built - soon - along with increases to parking capacity and shuttle services from the North Parking Lot. (UAA gaining control of the adjacent ASD property (KCC) would greatly enhance/extend operations.) 3) A park and (shuttle) ride operation should be programmed for the UAA Sports Complex parking lots. (continued on next page) 7 of 19

99 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) (continued on previous page) 4) Another park and ride complex could be constructed at or near the intersection of Bragaw and Northern Lights. (Shuttle "paths" supporting this facility could be linked to UAAs Alumni Drive and APUs Faculty Ridge Road for wheelchair/handicapped access, cyclists, maintenance, and emergency vehicles. I live in and drive around the U-MED District. It's a great place to live and the traffic isn't bad. We should take prudent steps and draft plans to keep traffic "not bad". Punching a hole through the heart of our economic engine is unwarranted and might not be good for it. After we have a plan we should determine the infrastructure (required to support it). Determining infrastructure before we have a plan is foolish - and (usually) more expensive (11/3/11). Matthew Magsino/Arens Thank you for reading my comment. I just wanted to say that that the woods in this area are a beautiful and important recreational site in East Anchorage. The unfragmented ski trails and habitat extending from Northern Lights to the University are one of these pockets of wild-ness that make Anchorage so special. In addition, the University Lake dog park is an incredibly popular site for a community that loves its dogs. Please consider this in your decision making (11/3/11). Rebecca King I support the Traffic Demand Management option because I favor a plan that encourages public transit, that makes walking and biking safer by adding more sidewalks and improving trails - a plan that is more in alignment with the U-Med Master Plan. The other options that are recommended to be carried forward in Table 10 on page 78 of the report (G, I, J, & K) encourage more traffic into the U-Med District. Each will encourage severe "cut through" traffic through the U-Med District for automobile travel driving between North and South of the area that have no interest in stopping in the U-Med District. Each of these four options would have a negative impact on the integrity of the district. Once Bragaw Street is extended from E. Northern Lights Blvd., regardless of the initial extension, such an extension will in time lead to an increased extension that will destroy the integrity of the two university districts. The overall goal should be to discourage vehicular traffic that leads to congestion. This can be achieved by park and ride options that encourages mass transit, including short trip mini-buses to transport students and employees through the campuses. Barbara Karl Options A and B should be considered as alternatives along with TDM since they do not destroy the integrity of the two university districts while providing for increased traffic while not encouraging "cut through" traffic. They are also favorable or somewhat favorable to the environmental criterion, which cannot be said of G and I options. Again, I oppose the roadway improvement concepts that are being recommended (11/3/11). I do not support a new road for northern access to the U-Med District. This notion/idea needs to be moved to the long range or illustrative projects list so other possibilities can be addressed. Existing boundary streets, such as Lake Otis, Tudor, and Bragaw, need to be enhanced first. We also need to evaluate and improve adjacent intersections at UAA Drive and Northern Lights, Northern Lights and Bragaw, and Lake Otis and 36th Avenue/Providence Drive. I oppose cutting a new road through for northern access to the U-Med District. More roads only encourage continued and additional use of single occupancy vehicles. Build it and they will come, in ever increasing numbers. (There will be more cut through traffic; I know because I own a home in a neighborhood plagued by cut through traffic.) The cost of owning and operating a personal vehicle (purchase price, registration and fees, insurance, gasoline, and maintenance) is becoming so prohibitive, however, that many will be forced to abandon this mode of transportation, myself included. We need to start addressing mass transit - especially for movement within a campus or district. People need to leave their cars and board light rail (as exists at many airport campuses in the U.S.) or buses into the U-Med District then walk or use the rail or bus for movement within the District. Think OUTSIDE the MORE ROADS BOX. Marilyn Houser We will all benefit by people using their cars less. We will become healthier with a return to more daily activity. The costs associated with the nationwide epidemic of obesity and associated illnesses such as heart disease and cancer will be reduced. The air, waterways, and the overall environment will be cleaner. We will be able to protect more open space from being paved over with asphalt (11/3/11). This letter is in response to the Northern Access to the University and Medical District, Reconnaissance Study Report. We are a part of a small community of professionals who were drawn to the area around Goose Lake for its peaceful and natural setting. Since we purchased our property in 2006, we have seen the rise of the Integrated Sciences Building, which is totally incongruent with the Goose Lake environment. This architectural monstrosity puts its one good side to the campus and flaunts its factory-like backside at what was one a beautiful natural setting. The droning noise, light and all-too-numerous-to-count soaring vent stacks have significantly diminished the tranquility of the lake. As you must know, the lake is used for swimming, canoeing, kayaking and paddle boating when it is warm and for ice-skating, skiing, and snow shoeing in the winter. The touting by UAA of the Sciences Building, as being in harmony with the environment, is a clear misrepresentation. It instead is an industrial-like intrusion. We do not want to see more of this type of shortsighted, unnecessary design in future U-Med building projects. Several aspects of the Northern Access to the University and Medical District, Reconnaissance Study Report disturb us: (continued on next page) Susan Share and Paul Stang 8 of 19

100 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) (continued from previous page) 1) It puts UAA student housing and support services and facilities in our "back yards" and adjacent to Goose Lake Park. The park is a treasure for families and the Anchorage community. It would be endangered and likely scarred by a dense student population close to the lake. Several issues would almost certainly arise with the close proximity of students - theft, drinking, partying on the lake and its shoreline and cutting across the lake. 2) It also puts student housing on top of a hill to the east of Goose Lake that could further interrupt the natural skyline and serenity of Goose Lake Park and the Goose Lake residential area. Furthermore, putting housing on both sides of the lake would promote additional transit across and along the lake. 3) We oppose any cut through from Northern Lights to Elmore Rd. However, if this must occur, we strongly recommend a "cut and cover" approach to preserve the natural environment and minimize further degradation of Goose Lake Park, including noise, loss of habitat, and barriers to wildlife crossings and recreational trails Susan Share and Paul Stang 4) UAA Drive expanded to 4 lanes. We oppose making UAA Drive a thoroughfare any more than it already is. Now, it is busy with auto and bus traffic, students biking and walking and crossing. We support UAA meeting the needs of student and faculty, and offering a quality higher education. Any expansion should have a clearly defined aesthetic for all sides of its buildings. Only facilities that are in harmony with the natural setting of Goose Lake and the residential neighborhoods should be considered. As such, we could support a chancellor's home and academic building that do not have an evening population. Please put us on an list for all notifications, plans and meetings about U-Med development issues. Please confirm by that you will do so (11/3/11). Thank you very much for taking my call today regarding the Northern Access proposal. I am a frequent user of University Lake Multi-use Trail system. It is very important to me that the trail that encircles University Lake is not negatively impacted by the Northern Access Proposal. I have read that the construction cost estimates are extremely low and do not include costs for pathway bridges or tunnels which would protect the integrity of the trail system. I am AGAINST any proposal that would negatively affect my ability to enjoy University Lake Park (11/3/11). Cindy Edlund I appreciate the addition of TDM measures to the list of alternatives but am disappointed not to find other non invasive measures addressed. Following are my recommendations. The values that inform my comments are that I place I higher priority on desirable residential areas, parkland, and open space than on a few seconds of traffic delay in the two hours of rush hour traffic per day. Further planning re a north access or improved access to U Med should wait until the U Med District Plan in the FY 2012 budget is completed. I do not know the official position of the institutions in the area but I understand that they are interested in finding other ways to improve traffic flow than cutting a road thru or between the campuses. It is premature to conclude that a north access is necessary, certainly in the near term. Alternatively it could go to AMATS with a recommendation that it go into the illustrative (preferably) or long term categories in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The cost estimates do not include the context sensitive design features that are absolutely critical if a north access road is ever built and hence are much too low. Any north access should be designed as a two lane collector, primarily to provide better access to UAA, APU and the Providence complex. Elmore, Dowling, Martin Luther King, and Boniface were designed to provide necessary access to the south and west for traffic coming from the northeast. Several LRTPs ago this was the alternative to the north access. Highway to highway is supposed to also provide faster/improved access between the northeast and the south west. The traffic growth rate assumed in this study seems much too high and therefore overstates the need for a north access. (ISER's projected population growth is 0.78% whereas this study projects a traffic increase of about 2%.) The study dismisses upgrading UAA Drive and the intersection of UAA Drive and Northern Lights boulevard. We drove through it last night shortly after 5:30 pm. First, we had no problem. Second, we commented on how much more turn lanes, perhaps in each direction, would improve the traffic flow. One of my neighbors has suggested upgrading that road to three lanes with the middle lane being a reversible flow, two lanes going into the area in the morning and two lanes exiting the area in the evening. Just improving that intersection would improve the flow (which is not a problem most of the day). Why isn't that part of the solution? Another problem identified for upgrading UAA Drive is right of way costs. I think most of that land on the west side is undeveloped institutional land. If we always take open space for roads we will end up with none. And yes, the student at grade crossing is a problem. I am supportive of pedestrian options but if needed to prevent a new road through the campuses the students should perhaps use the overhead crossing. (continued on next page) Helen Nienhueser 9 of 19

101 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) (continued from previous page) A few pedestrian options were not considered. One is a pedestrian/bike path between Wendler and the Career Center. I proposed this long ago and it made it into a draft of a plan but was later dropped, perhaps because of School district objections. The School District should be reproached on this. People do this now. There is a "people path" there which is now probably covered up by snow. In winter UAA completely blocks it with snow storage. For walkers, it cuts off 5 to 10 minutes of walking down to the north road entrance to UAA that is also the access to the Career Center. Such a path would work well with bus routes that have a stop near Lake Otis and Northern Lights. People in my neighborhood (what I call "south Anchor Park) work at or go to classes at UAA and other institutions in the area. Some of us would walk or ride bikes year round if this path were easier to use and better known. Yes, now it probably requires the school district to move a fence and UAA to change their snow storage slightly. That results in fewer vehicle trips into/out of "U-Med". Isn't that worthwhile? A second option that would reduce at least a few vehicle trips is storage for cross country skis on the UAA campus. Perhaps it now exists but if it doesn't it should. It is possible now to ski to that campus from many parts of town but there is or was no place to store skis. Again, a small thing that would reduce some vehicle trips. Helen Nienhueser On figure 16, please remove the road shown on the north side of Northern Lights between 41 and 37. It does not exist and will never exist. This is now part of Chester Creek Greenbelt. I really do not understand the emergency vehicle access argument given that we have hospitals both north of the U Med District and at the south part of the District. Maybe Fire?? Is this really a good argument for a north access road? I hope my comments are helpful in continuing work to find a way to both protect neighborhoods, campus integrity, parkland, and open space and provide reasonable access into and out of the area (Not THROUGH the area!), (11/3/11). Thank you for taking public comments. I hope you find the best solutions for this area. I have only one concern and that concerns the proposed road which passes closely by the Marriott Hotel, University Lake, and then by the APU soccer field. It is important to me and many others that it be adequately landscaped to maintain the ambiance and safety for the park users. Two separate studies by APU students have found that about 1,600 off-leash dog walkers go to this park every week. Beyond that there are, of course, runners, walkers, skiers, cyclists, children, etc. A survey before this area was established as an official off-leash area found that 97% of those asked wanted a place to exercise with their dogs. A much small number wanted an open area for doggy play or retriever activists, and about the same wanted water access for their water dogs. With a trail of a 1 1/4 miles, a pond, an open meadow, University Lake Park has all these and thus has great drawing power. Please keep this park as in tact and safe as possible (11/3/11). Kayla Epstein Our comments in this letter on the Reconnaissance Study Report (RSR) describe a number of significant omissions and discrepancies in the RSR that substantially invalidate its recommendations. Under separate cover, we submitted comments on the Public Review Draft of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan s Project No. 125, North Access to U- Med District. Those comments were based on our review of the RSR. As mentioned in our previous letter, we recommend that the North Access project ranking in the MTP be adjusted downward and that the project be moved to the illustrative category of the MTP (or at least the long-term category). In addition, no future work on this project should be performed until the update of the U-Med District Framework Master Plan and parking study is completed. That Plan should be the primary driver for future access development. Future access development should first consider phased, low-cost, low-impact solutions. According to the project time-line in DOWL/HKM May 2011 presentation materials, it might take six to nine years to complete a new road alternative. The study end-point, 2030, is almost twenty years out that s two to three times the time it would take to design and build a new road. Given the minor improvements in delays that even the best new North Access road concept provides, and given the uncertainties in gas prices, population and traffic predictions, land use, etc., solutions with minimal effect on the environment and community--such as the RSR s Concept B (add lanes to UAA Drive), or District perimeter road and intersection improvements, should be considered first. Or, consider delaying any action for another five to ten years. The following pages contain our comments on specific aspects of the RSR. Diana and David Evans 1) RSR does not comply with ADOT&PF directive to examine all technically feasible solutions. The RSR does not comply with the Alaska Department of Transportation directive that an engineering reconnaissance report examine all technically feasible alternatives. A project Need statement in Section 1.2 states that arterial streets surrounding U-Med District are over capacity and operate at poor levels of service during peak hours. Another is that Several of the U-Med District intersections have elevated road and intersection crash rates. RSR Section acknowledges that a comprehensive solution is needed for those issues, yet the RSR did not include a comprehensive suite of technically feasible alternatives which address them. (continued on next page) 10 of 19

102 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) (continued from previous page) For example, the RSR did not include: Project 111 of the 2035 MTP extending a third eastbound lane from Lake Otis Parkway to Bragaw Steet, with possible intersection improvements at Lake Otis Parkway and UAA Drive. Any other projects similar to Project 111, whether or not on the books, such as adding lanes to other U-Med District perimeter streets. Also, perhaps adding multidirectional lanes would be a good solution for some roads with distinct inbound/a.m. and outbound/p.m. peaks; UAA Drive might fit that description. Improvements of perimeter intersections as stand-alone projects or as projects to be combined with other projects. These might include adding turn lanes, extending turn pockets, changing signal timing, replacing traffic signals with roundabouts, adding pedestrian bridges or tunnels, and the like. A phased approach consisting of lower impact alternatives (TDM and/or Concept B), followed by re-consideration of the need for additional improvements in the future. The lack of a comprehensive approach gives us the distinct impression that this study did not seek to find the most effective or appropriate solution to the overall traffic and safety needs but was instead intent on justifying a pre-determined conclusion: a road, some road, any road, that connects Elmore and Bragaw. A wider net should have been cast. A comprehensive suite of perimeter road and intersection alternatives should have been evaluated. 2) RSR does not comply with ADOT&PF directive to sufficiently develop alternatives for cost comparison The RSR does not comply with the Alaska Department of Transportation directive that an engineering reconnaissance report sufficiently develop those alternatives that appear feasible so that they can be compared according to alignment, grade, width, length, cost and discuss all technically feasible alternative solutions, including comparison of their engineering characteristics, environmental impacts, and cost. Diana and David Evans The RSR cost estimates for the alternatives do not include many significant costs. At best, the estimates are misleading; at worst, the omitted costs might affect the ranking of the various concepts and change the concepts recommended to be carried forward. Excluded costs include those associated with: Wetlands mitigation Dealing with specific soil and groundwater problems (the alternative with the alignment shown in the Public Review Draft of the MTP and all of the other alternatives the RSR recommends for further consideration would have many such problems, since they pass through wetlands) Dealing with specific utility conflicts (the alternative with the alignment shown in the MTP has water, sewer, high-voltage electric power, and communication conflicts) Pedestrian bridges or tunnels (several should be included to ensure the safety of non-motorized traffic) Vehicular bridges perhaps needed as well to deal with wildlife corridors, wetlands, or non- motorized trail user conflicts Landscaping Context sensitive design features Environmental permitting We would not be surprised if the costs of some of the alternatives are 50% to 100% higher than the estimated costs especially those that would pass through wetlands. On the other hand, estimated costs of some other concepts, such as Concept B (widening UAA Drive) might be closer to the mark, or even too high. Such discrepancies skew project ranking. (continued on next page) 11 of 19

103 (continued from previous page) 3) RSR assumptions regarding future road development are flawed Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) The report traffic modeling is based on the assumption that two major projects in the 2027 LRTP will have been constructed by 2030: the full Highway-to-Highway project and the connection of Lake Otis Parkway to the Glenn Highway. However, the PHD of the 2035 MTP does not include the Lake Otis Parkway extension to the Glenn Highway. In addition, considering the current economic climate, low likelihood of strong Federal financial support, and the inevitable delay associated with mega-projects, it seems unlikely that the Highway-to-Highway project will be fully built by The RSR did include an abbreviated modeling study of U-Med District traffic conditions without the 2027 LRTP projects, but the RSR conclusions were based on modeling the full build-out. The RSR conclusions should have been based on a more realistic future. 4) Unreasonably high growth in U-Med District traffic demand Future traffic demand, and therefore future congestion and delay, is grossly overestimated. The total growth in U-Med District traffic demand over the study period is not stated in the RSR, so we estimated it using the AADT and turning movement information given in the report. We calculated a total growth rate from 2011 to 2030 of between 40 and 47 percent. That s equivalent to an annual increase of about 2.1 percent for the period from 2011 to 2027 two to four times as high as the actual 2000 to 2007 U-Med traffic growth of 0.5 to 1.0 percent per year, two times higher than the conservative (i.e., high) 1.0 percent annual growth rate the RSR used to escalate the 2027 traffic to 2030, and to escalate 2007 traffic to And it s about three times higher than the ISER projected base case 2010 to 2035 annual growth rate of 0.78% for the Anchorage population. U- Med traffic is projected to grow faster than Anchorage in general, but it is highly unlikely to be two to four times faster than recent growth. Diana and David Evans 5) Concepts G, I, J, and K inconsistent with UAA Master Plan vision and recommendations In Section on context sensitive solutions, the RSR remarks that public concerns have largely focused on the potential effects of new roads on open space, trails, and recreation. It goes on to flatly say that the UAA and APU campuses are not designated as public parks. In fact, it is not just the public that is concerned about the effects of new roads on open space, trails, recreation, and wildlife habitat. The RSR fails to note that the 2009 UAA Master Plan recommends that development of the north and northeast extremities of the campus should be postponed until redevelopment of previously disturbed land has been exhausted.by this means, the largest natural areas of the campus will be reserved for recreation and as viable wildlife habitats (our emphasis) and In the immediate future, the greatest value of the northern reaches of the campus to the University is as wilderness, wildlife habitat, and a place to hike and ski. As such, it contributes much to the image and character of UAA as an archetypal Northern University of distinction (our emphasis). Concepts G, I, J, and K would destroy UAA s vision for its property. 6) Concepts J and K conflict with future housing in 2009 UAA Master Plan Two of the alternatives recommended to be carried forward, Concepts J and K, conflict with UAA s plans for housing development on the birch knob northeast of the Conoco Phillips Science Building parking lot. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 on the next page. The RSR does not mention this conflict. The proposed roads could be re-routed around the proposed housing development, but that would not be in keeping with the UAA Master Plan s goals of respecting pedestrian priority, preventing conflicts with automobiles as much as possible, and providing a tranquil setting for that housing. Concepts J and K do not appear to be viable alternatives. (continued on next page) 12 of 19

104 (continued from previous page) Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) 7) RSR predicted improvements in delays are small and within margin of error. The report attempts to justify the need for a north access road by comparing the expected delay for the various concepts relative to the No Action concept. The expected improvement due to the very best concept, Concept G, the Bragaw Extension, is 20 seconds for a vehicle trying to get to the Distric trom Northern Lights and Boniface at the peak hour in the morning, 1 minute and 40 seconds for a vehicle. Furthermore, the reductions in delay time are presented as matters of fact and with great precision, but there is no accompanying discussion of the sensitivity of the results to the input variables or the confidence intervals associated with the results. This is a significant technical deficiency. Also, considering the tremendous uncertainty in predicting population and traffic growth, future land use, population density, and human behavior, we suspect that the margin of error of the 2030 traffic simulation in general, and the delay calculation in particular, is huge and that the variations in expected delay are negligible in comparison. trying to get to Northern Lights and Boniface from the District at the worst time of day in the afternoon or evening. So much for significantly improving north access. Diana and David Evans Figure 3 shows the total delay of various concepts relative to the No Action delay; there s not much difference between them. (continued on next page) 13 of 19

105 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) (continued from previous page) Furthermore, the reductions in delay time are presented as matters of fact and with great precision, but there is no accompanying discussion of the sensitivity of the results to the input variables or the confidence intervals associated with the results. This is a significant technical deficiency. Also, considering the tremendous uncertainty in predicting population and traffic growth, future land use, population density, and human behavior, we suspect that the margin of error of the 2030 traffic simulation in general, and the delay calculation in particular, is huge and that the variations in expected delay are negligible in comparison. 8) RSR traffic model problems 8.1) Model network contains hidden links for Concept G A figure buried in the 827 page Appendix B to the report indicates that Concept G includes two new spur roads to Alumni Drive see the blue lines in Figure 4. These spurs are not discussed anywhere in the report. They would tend to reduce delay for Concept G and make it look more favorable relative to the other concepts, but they would cross high-value wetlands, might introduce unacceptably high traffic on Alumni Drive, and affect UAA development plans. None of those issues are discussed in the report. Whether the cost estimate for Concept G includes the cost of the spurs is unknown. Figure 4 - Concept G spur roads colored lines and annotation by Evans. Diana and David Evans (continued on next page) 14 of 19

106 (continued from previous page) 8.2) Model input peak hour factor biased against Concept B upgrading UAA Drive Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) According to the Traffic Analysis report portion of the RSR, Due to the existing congestion on UAA Drive, its peak hour factor was lowered to 0.75 for all concepts to simulate a longer sustained peak. Actually, it seems a smaller peaking factor will simulate a shorter, more intense peak, relative to the peak hour volume, not a longer sustained peak, as claimed.. The analysis used 0.85 for all other locations. That seems very odd in light of the fact, according RSR Appendix B, the existing peak hour factors for UAA Drive turning movements range from 0.80 to 0.91; the average is exactly 0.85 in both the a.m. and p.m. All of the other intersections have similar, if not worse, PHFs. Why not penalize those? For example, E. Tudor Rd & Boniface 2011 a.m. PHFs range from 0.40 to 0.91 and the average is A peak hour factor of 0.75 was even used for modeling Concept B, a scenario that ought to stand on its own in the model, with a 0.85 factor as used for all other locations. 8.3) Model input travel speed parameter for UAA Drive adjusted without proof of calibration In what seems to be somewhat of a double-dip (in addition to the peak hour factor adjustment), the TransCAD travel speed for UAA Drive was reduced to 24 mph (from the posted speed of 35 mph) also to account for observed congestion. But the RSR offers no quantitative justification or proof that this apparently ad hoc calibration is needed, that the adjustment achieves its objective, or that similar adjustments are not needed for any other existing roads in or around the District. 9) U-Med District Plan inaccurately quoted and update not mentioned Diana and David Evans Sections and say that the 2003 U-Med District Plan acknowledges that additional access is needed from the north and east in the next 20 years and recommends that new access locations be determined by emerging development patterns. That is not accurate. Actually, the U-Med Plan says that the 2003 EAST plan (our emphasis) has identified a need for access from the north and east in the next 20 years. That s not necessarily the same as the U-Med District Plan acknowledging the need. This might be a fine point, but it is clear that the U-Med Plan steering committee, which included all interests in the District, opposed access from the north: The conclusion of this Plan, and of the Steering Committee for the study that represented all interests in the District, was that Bragaw Street should not be extended across the District. Considering that opposition, the RSR should have accurately quoted the Plan. The U-Med Plan does go on to say that vehicle access from Northern Lights is not precluded (by the U- Med Plan), but it says that the location of any new access would be determined in part by emerging development patterns (our emphasis). Again, that s not the same as saying the plan recommends that new access be determined by emerging development patterns. In addition, the RSR does not mention that the U-Med Plan concludes that It is anticipated that the need for new District access will be re-evaluated at each five-year review of the Plan and it does not say that an update of the U-Med District Plan by the MOA Planning Department was funded in the FY2012 budget and is scheduled to begin in 2012 (continued on next page) 15 of 19

107 (continued from previous page) 10) Recommended concept promotes significant cut-through traffic near East High School Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) According to the RSR, all four of the road concepts recommended to be carried forward would result in significant cut-through traffic, and over a quarter of the traffic on the alignment shown in the draft MTP would be cut-through traffic. The RSR also predicts that the alignment shown in the draft MTP would result in 50 percent more daily traffic on South Bragaw than the No Action alternative. The RSR did not evaluate how that would affect the safety of East High School students or delays in East High dropoff/pick-up traffic. 11) RSR gives lip service to context sensitive solutions The RSR does not contain a realistic discussion of context sensitive solutions and fails to include any in the construction cost estimates. Section of the RSR says Any road improvements proposed for the U-Med District would need to (include) context sensitive design measures to reduce the potential for adverse effects on the surrounding environment and uses. That s true, but then Section contains the ambiguous assertion that The complexity of these context sensitive ideas is considered to be neutral with regard to the concepts because they are largely interchangeable between the concepts and will have to be evaluated in further detail during future design phases. Diana and David Evans The project team appears to be trying to say that context sensitive solutions are needed, but they are so complex that the team will just leave them for future planners and engineers to deal with; and that anyway, some or all of the solutions could be included in all of the concepts, so there s no point in including any of them in the construction cost estimates. The latter point is not substantiated. In fact, there might be significant differences between the costs of suitable context sensitive design measures for the various concepts, and those measures might be a significant fraction of the total project cost. The RSR offers up a number of appealing graphics of tunnels and bridges, but fails to explain the engineering challenges and cost challenges associated with those features. This brings us back to the second comment of this letter: the RSR s failure to comply with the ADOT&PF mandate to develop alternatives sufficiently to allow comparison of their costs. Thank you for the opportunity to comment (11/2/11). As a UAA student, I support alternative B, because it uses a corridor through UAA that has already been created. No new intrusions in campus connections or the natural environment would be required. Dumping traffic into the road system at the new UAA science building would be very detrimental to the campus and to safety. The B alternative does connect to Providence, even if it is slightly offset from the intersection the plan identifies as the epicenter. Adjustments to traffic patterns on the Providence campus would be easier and less detrimental than creating a new road barrier further splintering the UAA campus (11/4/11). Margie MacNellie The threat to compromise the campus of the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and DOWL HKM is understatedly not in the public s best interest. It is over-reaching and absurd for state and federal transportation agencies to assume they have the latitude to address short-term travel flows by building a high-volume, traffic attracting roadway across an inviolate university campus. Proposing to resolve large-scale municipal traffic flow problems by crossing the small UAA campus, already greatly limited by wetlands, is not acceptable. Robert Baldwin Recommended Alternatives G, I, J, and K are gross, invasive insults to the campus and its sensitive natural setting. Proceeding in this manner would be irresponsible and will be met by the strongest possible opposition. Comments submitted on September 30, 2009 are re-emphasized and included by reference. Advise: Go Around UAA! (11/4/11). 16 of 19

108 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) 1) Any additional engineering or planning work on north access should not be done until the U-Med District Plan update and parking study is completed. Reference: State of Alaska budget FY2012 Reference No , Reapprop to DCCED for MOA for U-Med District Plan and parking utilization study. 2) The traffic growth rate appear to be unrealistically high and therefore the predicted traffic delays and need for the project are overstated. The study predict an 45% increase in U-Med district traffic from 2011 to 2030 (that s an annual growth rate of about 2%). In stark contrast, a 2009 ISER population study predicts an average annual population growth rate of 0.78% (base case) for the next 25 years (and the rate of growth is decreasing). If U-Med traffic increased at the ISER population rate, in 2030 it would only be 16% over 2011 levels, and delays would not be much worse than they are now. Granted, U-Med district growth might be faster than the average population growth, but no doubt there are limits. This is another good reason to delay any decisions until after the U-Med District Plan is updated. 3) The construction cost estimates in the report are much too low. They do not include costs for: re-routing trails; vehicular or pathway bridges and tunnels; building roads on poor soils; landscaping; or environmental permitting and mitigation. Low-balling the estimates will reduce the likelihood that features essential to the community (trails, sidewalks, bike lanes, pathway bridges) are included in the project. Low-balling might change the relative ranking of the alternatives and therefore change which ones should be carried forward. 4) DOWL s mandate was to evaluate all technically feasible alternatives for improving access; we think they left a number of those out, including: a. Evaluating perimeter intersection improvements (e.g., at Elmore/Tudor, Lake Otis/36 th /Providence, Northern Lights/Bragaw, UAA Drive/Northern Lights) b. Evaluating perimeter roadway improvements (the bounding streets: Tudor, Lake Otis, Bragaw) c. Expand UAA Drive to be a three-lane road, with two lanes going south in the a.m. and two going north in the p.m. This would be similar to Concept B, but at reduced cost. d. The study does not quantitatively address the effect of the alternatives on non-vehicular safety. 5) The study demonstrated that the Bragaw Extension would significantly increase cut-through traffic on U-Med roads and a quarter of the traffic on the new extension would be cut-through. That would increase the hazard to pedestrians (including East High students) and recreational and commuting bicyclists who attempt to cross at grade (11/4/11). University Lake is one of the few public-access lakes in the Anchorage bowl. It is a very important recreational asset to the urban Alaskan lifestyle we all enjoy. Please preserve it in its entirety - there are many other options available (11/4/11). Before commenting on the plan that we have downloaded, which is called the Reconnaissance Study Report, I would like to explain that my comments come from having served the Greater U/Med District for the past 10 years in the Alaska State Legislature. I have been a homeowner, and lived in the area for the past 32 years. My citizen service has been to many of the organizations and institutions in the area for more the 40 years as an employee, contractor, student or volunteer. I bring many perspectives that are added to because of constant contacts from people who live, work and study in the area in addition to my own. The Greater U/Med District came into being as one of the final chapters as the rebuilding of API came to a close. A number of people within the major land-owners of the area joined with other health and institutions within the area generally within the boundaries of Lake Otis to Boniface, DeBarr to Tudor Road worked to win a final solution for API's reconstruction in 2000 to Those institutions included the private and public industry, including Providence, Alaska Regional, Northstar Adolescent Hospital and the Native Medical Center's Hospitals, UAA, APU, McLaughlin Youth Center, as well as many of the Social Services Non-profits of the area. Their combined strength was a strong force in lobbying for the final funding that built the new API building near the original site. During the final years of that push there was a process that developed that meant that the jockeying of land ownership and land planning was driven to a more public recognition. Institutions, large and small, recognized their need to work together. Representative Sharon Cissna As a result the first 'Greater' U-Med Neighbor meetings of the institutions in the area started on January 11, 2002 at McLaughlin Youth Center. The meeting agenda had reports from the institutional neighbors, talking about common themes such as workforce, program and leader introductions, and preparing to send group letters in support of agreed-upon legislation. At that meeting the group agreed to call themselves the U/Med after the Municipal name for the formal planning group. One year later, at UAA, those invited expanded to those who lived and worked in the university, education, medical and social service area. They to talk discussed the dramatic changes known to begin, and how the neighbors would work together to maximize the beneficial impacts. Goals and missions held by a majority of those serviceproviders and residents were agreed to. October 2003, the meeting was held at APU and students were added to the residents and workforce of the U/Med. A large group came to the meeting, partially because in that time period the punch-through of Providence Drive (36th) to Boniface had been proposed. The Mayor, many assembly members, Legislators, as well as students, health, education and community council leaders attended. The result was a verbal commitment by all to stop the proposed recommendation. (continued on next page) 17 of 19

109 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) (continued from previous page) May, 2004, at ANMC Hospital people from all community councils and neighborhoods, medical, educational providers met. Neil Freid, State Labor Economist, laid out the importance of the U/Med to the Anchorage economy. The Mayor discussed transportation, Community concerns, roads/traffic/transit, parks, trails, Chester Creek and the need for increased quality for pre-school through technical and professional training were reviewed. Providence Hospital hosted the March 2005 U/Med meeting and there were proposals discussed for alternative transportation possibilities. Scott Goldsmith outlined the many institutions that built the knowledge economy in Anchorage. The Alaska Tribal Health Consortium, health services and educational strength add to a promising future for this center's growth for the Anchorage economy. The impact of UAA and college students on the economic strength of the U/Med District was included in this Favorable reactions followed a presentation on the need to build a medical school. The group discussed the need to carefully work as a group to solve land-use, transportation and essential service challenges. The meetings in 2006 at the Anchorage School District Building had a comprehensive presentation by all of the Municipal departments with services in U/Med, and helped frame additional issues that would be included in the programs of the area's community councils as well as adding awareness for all neighbors U/Med Neighbors heard summaries from a large percentage of the institutions and service organizations of the area. At that meeting, as in so many others, people who had buildings across the street, or next door, realized the similarity and complimentary needs they shared. At later meetings we would find out how partnerships between the neighbors were building because of learning about what each service did and stood for. That meeting was at East High School. The auditorium at Out North Theatre was the site for April 2008 introduction to various Neighbor projects, such as U-Med/Fest, and the student leadership creating a festival focused on healthy activities in a local park. The role of healing and learning was underlined in hearing the work done by neighbors and students as well as professional corporations and institutions. Agenda subjects for the UAA hosted meeting January 2009 were on the recent designation of U/Med as Alaska's first 'Green' District, with the institutional pledge to excellence in area resource use and management. Three of the agreed on categories of excellence studied at the meeting were: Transportation (with the People Mover program presentation,) Recycling, Energy use and efficiency. Both universities' sustainability groups acted as co-hosts of the meeting. January 2011, the last meeting was held at the Consortium Library, which is the joint university library for both UAA and APU. The group of representatives from all residential, student, and institutional leaders discussed issues that required focus during the coming year, and for a major meeting to be held. The serious problems growing from traffic cut-through, over-stressed parking lots in some locations, and vast areas of unused parking in others are joined by other problems that grow from a lack of study and planning. In the 2011 Legislative Session, a request from the major institutions in the U-Med, through the Anchorage Mayor led to a Reappropriation of the left-over funding given the U-Med Northern Access project under the State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. That request passed the House and Senate as an addition to the 2012 Capitol Budget in the closing week of the 2011 Session. The recipient State manager will be from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. That request is for the balance of money left over from the Northern Access Study to be spent for a parking utilization study. Representative Sharon Cissna An additional effort on behalf of the immediate need to secure traffic, parking and transportation issues of the level of quality previously agreed to is to hold a U/Med Neighbor Summit in March of In preparation for that summit, work has begun with ISER (Institution for Social and Economic Research.) Other research and professionals have been contacted to expand previous discussions to study this issue comprehensively. The financial economic issues will be studied, as will social capitol. Options, local community and student participation in solutions will be sought. Updates on the timing and place of this upcoming summit will be announced a month before March's event. This report of the U/Med Neighbor's meetings is given because that process included community stakeholder and worked with the amazing diversity and quantity of local commitment and interest in the planning and construction of community. The history of this community ownership has been present for decades. 1) The U-Med District is one of the largest employment centers in Anchorage and will grow. The special and prominent role of the district, the work product...health and education point to an analysis that requires comprehensive understanding how best to reach solutions to give incentives for those who work in the specific industries in the district. Healthy activity, study of alternative methods in communities that operate with the challenge the U-Med district faces must be made. Deciding routes, ways to find solutions must involve A611the many members of a district that often states common goals and purpose, that work with each other from one side of the area, to the other, and beyond. 2) The comments made in #1 points to the need to understand the people and their role as stakeholders in the U-Med. Public opinion gathering needs to enhance the leadership that is a part of each of the stakeholder groups. A very strong sense of not being heard is included in many of the comments that have been made in many of the meetings I have attended. A process that is collaborative will enhance the listening process. 3) Study area: U-Med is an economic hub. The hub as an economic zone places its importance in the same category as the airport or the city center. Universities and other predominant use areas demand treatment to recognize their goals and purpose as key features. Economic success requires depth in understanding the sources of strength to safeguard the continued growth of success, and survival for who each hub, each zone gives to the whole. It is important to recognize that the health AND education system spans the area from Tudor beyond DeBarr and both sides of Lake Otis to Boniface. Without involving the whole area that covers so many complimentary roles in building health and education quality in Alaska, and the people within that area, not only the professionals, but the para-professionals that operate assisted living, foster care, day care and many hundreds of small self-employed support service need to be able to contribute to final planning. (continued on next page) 18 of 19

110 Northern Access to the University Medical District Comments Received on Reconnaissance Study Report (September 2011) (continued from previous page) 4) Who are the stakeholders? The study of the U-Med District that will solve transportation challenges must be of what the district offers that is unusual and vital for its promise. Public, private, non-profit all blend in each of the health and education sectors. Alaska leads the nation in many indicators pointing to expensive and dangerous conditions that jeopardize the entire state economy and survival as an independent State in the United States. Health and education each are areas that Alaska does not rank well in comparison with other states. The U-Med district has the tools and talent to answer that. The people who work within these fields, the people they serve, all are a part of this area. They must be made to feel of major importance in finding the solution. Roads are important, but who uses those roads are more important. Representative Sharon Cissna 5) The mission of the U-Med must not be pitted against motorists racing to get into quickly so-as to pass through quickly and beyond the district (11/4/11). 19 of 19

111 77