Tunnel Alternative (Preferred Alternative Sample Clauses

Tunnel Alternative (Preferred Alternative. The updated Tunnel Alternative has two potential tunnel alignments: • stacked tunnel alignment (preferred) • side‐by‐side tunnel alignment For ease in evaluating project effects, this technical memorandum evaluates the two alignments with a specific set of the mix‐and‐match options available for the Tunnel Alternative. The components of each tunnel alignment are shown below in Exhibit 1‐2. Exhibit 1-2. Options Evaluated with the Tunnel Alignments South Central North Preferred Stacked Tunnel Alignment Reconfigured Whatcom Railyard Stacked Tunnel Xxxxxxxxxxx Park Walkway Battery Street Tunnel Improvements SR 99 Under Xxxxxxx and Western Partially Lowered Aurora Optional Side‐by‐ Relocated Side‐by‐Side Tunnel Battery Street Tunnel Side Tunnel Alignment Whatcom Railyard Xxxxxxxxxxx Park Lid SR 99 Over Xxxxxxx and Western Improvements with Curves Widened Lowered Aurora The following subsections describe the main features of the Tunnel Alternative within each geographic section of the project area.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Tunnel Alternative (Preferred Alternative. The Tunnel Alternative would affect parks and recreation resources the same way as the Tunnel Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS. Many of the effects relate to opportunities to use the surface area above the tunnel for a variety of enhanced open space and recreational opportunities. The change in the context would allow elements of the park and recreation system to be woven more closely into the fabric of Seattle’s downtown neighborhoods rather than being separated by the existing aerial structure. In the central waterfront area, current conceptual plans include four lanes for traffic, together with medians/turn lanes, bicycle lanes, and parking. This would occupy a width of about 80 feet, a little more than 40 percent of the 180‐foot‐wide right‐of‐way. The 40‐foot‐wide corridor provided for the waterfront streetcar would occupy about 20 percent of the right‐of‐way. Considerable flexibility is available to arrange these elements in various configurations. A description of impacts and benefits to specific park and recreation facilities is provided below. The description within each geographical section first addresses facilities west of the corridor, then facilities to the east. Facilities are addressed from the south to the north.
Sample 1
Tunnel Alternative (Preferred Alternative. The Draft EIS estimate for the duration of tunnel construction varied from 10 to 11 years (including preliminary utility relocation), depending on the alternative. The current estimates for the duration of tunnel construction with the intermediate plan or shorter plan range from 7 to 8.75 years. The changes that would allow more through traffic to use the existing viaduct during construction or the closure of the corridor to through traffic would make no difference to use of park and recreation facilities that are dependent on local access. As indicated in the Draft EIS, the most important factors during tunnel construction are the length of time construction affects access to the waterfront, noise and other proximity impacts, and public perception that the waterfront is an unfriendly environment for recreation. Because other elective recreation activities are available and other waterfront locations are available on Puget Sound, people may simply shift to other activities and other locations. The discussion of construction impacts in Chapter 6 of the 2004 Draft EIS Appendix H, Parks and Recreation Technical Memorandum, is generally applicable to the tunnel alignments currently being evaluated. The major difference between the Draft EIS estimates and the current proposal is in construction sequencing that allows retaining one‐way traffic on the existing viaduct for a longer period. Total closure of the aerial structure would be limited to 18 months. Construction impacts on park and recreation facilities are not likely to change substantially because of differences in routing of traffic under either the intermediate or longer construction plans. Through traffic is not likely to be important for uses on the waterfront. Park and recreation facilities depend on direct surface street access by pedestrians and surface street access to parking facilities by vehicles. The construction impacts on general patterns of use and on specific facilities for the current proposal are likely to be the same as those discussed in the Draft EIS. • Construction would disrupt existing patterns of movement. Even with provisions for access across construction sites, the perceived inconvenience would lead many people to avoid the waterfront in favor of other park and recreation activities. This is especially the case during reconstruction of the seawall, which would interrupt access from the east as well as curtail north‐south movement along the waterfront. The construction of the l...
Sample 1
Tunnel Alternative (Preferred Alternative. The Tunnel Alternative begins in the south as an at‐grade roadway in the area of X. Xxxxxxx or X. Xxxxxx Street. In the south section, there are two options under consideration: • The Reconfigured Whatcom Railyard Option (part of the preferred alignment) would retain the existing State Route (SR) 99 in its current alignment between the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) Seattle International Gateway (SIG) Railyard on the east and the Whatcom Railyard to the west. A short bridge would carry SR 99 over the new tail track and connection between the railyards. • The Relocated Whatcom Railyard Option would shift SR 99 to the west into the site of the existing Whatcom Railyard and shift the railyard to the east to occupy the existing highway right‐of‐way next to the BNSF SIG Railyard, avoiding the need for the bridge over the rail track. The SR 99 roadway would have a grade‐separated interchange at S. Atlantic Street and S. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Way (South of Downtown [SODO] Ramps) before descending into the waterfront tunnel. The location of the south tunnel portal would be near X. Xxxxxxxx Street, not X. Xxxx Street as described in the Draft EIS. For purposes of analysis in the Supplemental Draft EIS, the updated Tunnel Alternative has two potential tunnel alignments: • The stacked tunnel alignment (the preferred alignment) • The side‐by‐side tunnel alignment In the central section of the project corridor, the tunnel structure would become a side‐by‐side alignment north of Union Street and would continue either over or under Xxxxxxx and Western Avenues, depending on the option selected. With the Under Xxxxxxx and Western Option, the mainline aerial structure would pass over the BNSF railroad tracks and enter a cut section, with Xxxxxxx and Western Avenues on bridge structures over SR 99. With the Over Xxxxxxx and Western Option, the mainline aerial structure would pass over the BNSF railroad tracks and would provide connections similar to the existing ramps. Both options incorporate an on‐ramp southbound from Xxxxxxx Avenue and an off‐ramp northbound to Western Avenue. In contrast, the Draft EIS included tunnel ramps near Pine Street connecting to the Alaskan Way surface street in the north waterfront section of the corridor. A railroad underpass (the Broad Street Underpass) connected Broad Street to Xxxxxxx Avenue. The downtown access provided by the Pine Street ramps is replaced by the Xxxxxxx and Western ramps. North of Pine Street, the updated Tu...
Sample 1
Tunnel Alternative (Preferred Alternative. The potential social effects associated with the Tunnel Alternative and its design options are evaluated below.
Sample 1
Tunnel Alternative (Preferred Alternative. The Tunnel Alternative evaluates two options in the north end—the Partially Lowered Aurora Option and the Lowered Aurora Option. The Lowered Aurora Option has the same number of bridge crossing as described in the Draft EIS. The new design for the Partially Lowered Aurora Option extends to Aloha Street and has a narrower construction footprint. Two construction plans are evaluated for the Tunnel Alternative. These are the intermediate plan and the shorter plan. The effects of these plans are somewhat different from the construction impacts assessed for the Tunnel Alternative in the Draft EIS, which evaluated only the longer plan.
Sample 1

Related to Tunnel Alternative (Preferred Alternative

  • Loss Mitigation and Consideration of Alternatives (i) For each Single Family Shared-Loss Loan in default or for which a default is reasonably foreseeable, the Assuming Institution shall undertake reasonable and customary loss mitigation efforts, in accordance with any of the following programs selected by Assuming Institution in its sole discretion, Exhibit 5 (FDIC Mortgage Loan Modification Program), the United States Treasury's Home Affordable Modification Program Guidelines or any other modification program approved by the United States Treasury Department, the Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any other governmental agency (it being understood that the Assuming Institution can select different programs for the various Single Family Shared-Loss Loans) (such program chosen, the “Modification Guidelines”). After selecting the applicable Modification Guideline for each such Single Family Shared-Loss Loan, the Assuming Institution shall document its consideration of foreclosure, loan restructuring under the applicable Modification Guideline chosen, and short-sale (if short-sale is a viable option) alternatives and shall select the alternative the Assuming Institution believes, based on its estimated calculations, will result in the least Loss. If unemployment or underemployment is the primary cause for default or for which a default is reasonably foreseeable, the Assuming Institution may consider the borrower for a temporary forbearance plan which reduces the loan payment to an affordable level for at least six (6) months.

  • Alternative A The grievance shall be determined by the Personnel Commission. The decision of the Commission shall be made in writing within sixty (60) calendar days after the filing of the appeal at step 3 and shall be final and binding on all parties subject to ratification by the Board of Supervisors if the decision requires an unbudgeted expenditure.

  • Alternative Transfer Mechanism The parties agree that the data export solution identified in Section 8.2 shall not apply if and to the extent that MailChimp adopts an alternative data export solution for the lawful transfer of Personal Data (as recognized under EU Data Protection Laws) outside of the EEA (“Alternative Transfer Mechanism”), in which event, the Alternative Transfer Mechanism shall apply instead (but only to the extent such Alternative Transfer Mechanism extends to the territories to which Personal Data is transferred). Part B: GDPR Obligations from 25 May 2018

  • Alternative Warning Xxxxxxx may, but is not required to, use the alternative short-form warning as set forth in this § 2.3(b) (“Alternative Warning”) as follows: WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm - xxx.X00Xxxxxxxx.xx.xxx.

  • Alternative Work Schedule An alternate forty (40) hour work schedule (other than five (5) uniform and consecutive eight (8) hour days in a seven (7) day period), or for hospital personnel an eighty (80) hour workweek in a fourteen (14) day period and other mutually agreed upon schedules that comply with applicable federal and state law. Employee work schedules normally include two (2) consecutive days off.

  • As-Built Drawings Within thirty (30) Days of the successful completion of the Acceptance Test, Seller shall provide for Company review a set of the proposed as‑built drawings for the Company-Owned Interconnection Facilities constructed by Seller (and/or its Contractors). Within thirty (30) Days of Company's receipt of the proposed as‑built drawings, Company shall provide Seller with either (i) its comments on the proposed as‑built drawings or (ii) notice of acceptance of the proposed as‑built drawings as final as‑built drawings. If Company provides comments on the proposed as‑built drawings, Seller shall incorporate such comments into a final set of as‑built drawings and provide such final as‑built drawings to Company within twenty (20) Days of Seller's receipt of Company's comments.

  • Alternative Interconnection Arrangements 3.1 In addition to the foregoing methods of Interconnection, and subject to mutual agreement of the Parties, the Parties may agree to establish an End Point Fiber Meet arrangement, which may include a SONET backbone with an optical interface at the OC-n level in accordance with the terms of this Section. The Fiber Distribution Frame at the Reconex location shall be designated as the POI for both Parties.

  • Alternative Risk Financing Programs The County reserves the right to review, and then approve, Contractor use of self-insurance, risk retention groups, risk purchasing groups, pooling arrangements and captive insurance to satisfy the Required Insurance provisions. The County and its Agents shall be designated as an Additional Covered Party under any approved program.

  • Emergency Replacement SAP may replace a Subprocessor without advance notice where the reason for the change is outside of SAP’s reasonable control and prompt replacement is required for security or other urgent reasons. In this case, SAP will inform Customer of the replacement Subprocessor as soon as possible following its appointment. Section 6.3 applies accordingly.

  • Alternative Tenders 12.1 Unless otherwise specified in the TDS, alternative Tenders shall not be considered.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!