B. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Transcription

1 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives A. INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes an intense 3-year effort to consider and recommend options to solve pressing existing and future transportation problems on Manhattan s East Side. Section B addresses the evaluation process, in which a great number of alternatives were evaluated to select the four project alternatives for consideration in this MIS/DEIS. Section C describes the four project alternatives and Section D presents preliminary cost estimates. The evaluation of the long and reduced long list of alternatives is presented in full detail in two reports: Development of Alternatives, Volume 1 (October 1996), and Evaluation of Alternatives, Volume 2 (September 1997). The refined engineering evaluation and details of the two project build alternatives are presented in the Final Engineering Report, in Appendices D, E, and F to this document. B. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES APPROACH The basic alternatives development and evaluation approach for the MESA study was to consider all options suggested, evaluating each against the project s goals and objectives (see Chapter 1, Section G). MTA New York City Transit (NYCT) and the project team accepted recommendations from other agencies, the PAC, members of civic groups, and the public, in addition to those being generated by the study s planners and engineers. From a large list, these alternatives were grouped (some suggestions were essentially the same as others) and organized into a somewhat smaller list, called the long list of alternatives. This was subjected to a coarse screen using relatively broad criteria, which eliminated those options that could not reasonably be built and combined others together to form several new full combination alternatives. Preliminary findings were discussed with the TAC, PAC, MTA Long Range Planning Framework working group, community boards, and the general public, and then further modified. The end result was a reduced long list of alternatives. Using much more detailed criteria, including engineering and preliminary cost analysis, traffic, environmental and socioeconomic information, and transportation modeling, the reduced long list was reviewed in three successive screens. This phase included substantial refinement to the options as required by the more detailed analyses undertaken. The work was closely supervised by NYCT engineering staff, and it was coordinated with other state and city agencies, as appropriate, and again discussed in the public outreach program. The evaluation concluded that four alternatives would be addressed in detail in this MIS/DEIS: No Build; Transportation Systems Management (TSM); new Second Avenue subway north of 63rd Street with access to the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan; and the same subway supplemented by new light rail transit (LRT) serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. 2-1

2 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS SCREENING THE LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES To evaluate the long list of alternatives, a coarse screen was used, containing enough information to determine whether a given alternative met the project goals and objectives or whether a critical flaw or obstacle would prevent an alternative from being implemented. As part of this initial screen, and based on the study goals and objectives, each alternative was evaluated as an independent entity in terms of its ability to satisfy the following major issues in the study area (see Figure 1-1):! Accessibility, Capacity and Market Areas Served: The evaluation process addressed such issues as: providing increased mass transit into and within the transportation corridor; attracting new ridership to mass transit; and providing expanded mass transit services to currently underserved zones in the study area including the Lower East Side and the Upper East Side, particularly east of Second Avenue.! Economic Feasibility, Cost Effectiveness, and Equity Issues: The evaluation addressed such issues as: whether the proposed technology is known to be practical and implementable; whether at a preliminary level the expected benefits outweigh the order-ofmagnitude costs and whether the impacts of the candidate alternative, both positive and negative, are equitably distributed among those communities that will experience the impacts.! Environmental and Community Compatibility Issues: All alternatives had to comply with the Clean Air Act and State Implementation Programs, respond to the needs of the immediate and larger community, and expand mass transit in the study corridor while protecting the physical and social environment.! Street and Subsurface Transportation and Transit Congestion Issues: All alternatives were required to alleviate crowding on existing transit lines, highway corridors and, specifically, the East Side transportation corridor; reduce travel times; and maintain or improve adequate parking and loading areas throughout the project corridor. If the alternative adequately addressed these issues, it was then subject to a series of questions, as follows:! Does this alternative stand alone? If the alternative adequately addressed the study goals and objectives and was able, by itself, to address the major transportation problems in the study area, it was considered a stand-alone alternative.! If not, would this alternative better address study area issues if it were combined with another alternative? Each does not stand alone alternative was further evaluated to determine whether it could be combined with other alternatives to form one alternative that addressed the study goals and objectives. Potential components of the TSM alternative were also identified in this way.! If the alternative does not stand alone, can it be considered a routing or other type of option for a stand-alone alternative?! Are there any major flaws in the alternative that would prevent its implementation? 2-2

3 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives Once the coarse screen evaluation was nearly complete, the project team presented the alternatives to the Public Advisory Committee and held workshops and focused meetings in all five study area zones (shown on Figure 1-1). These discussions also helped to hone the long list. Long list alternatives that did not stand alone were either eliminated or combined with other alternatives to help create well-rounded solutions to the transit and transportation issues on the East Side of Manhattan. If, during the screening process, the issues related to an alternative appeared too complex for a quick screen, a white paper was prepared for that alternative. The intent of the white paper was to provide the team with more information on an alternative so that the benefits or impediments could be assessed and a well informed decision (i.e., whether the alternative would be screened out or whether it may be combined with another alternative to better satisfy the study area needs) could be made. The long list alternatives are described briefly below, along with the conclusions of their evaluation (see also Table 2-1 on page 2-9). 1. RAPID TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES * A. Original Full 1974 Alignment of the Second Avenue Subway The Original Full 1974 Alignment of the Second Avenue Subway would extend from Water Street north, primarily along Chrystie Street and Second Avenue, and over a new crossing of the Harlem River to the Bronx. This alternative would meet project goals and thus remained as a stand-alone alternative. It was also determined that two other subway options could serve as routing options under this alternative; these are alternatives 1D and 1G, described below. B. Second Avenue Subway North Second Avenue Subway North (from East Midtown to East Harlem) was eliminated as a standalone alternative because it would provide accessibility and increased capacity only to the northern sections of the study area. It was retained as a possible component of a combination alternative. Ultimately, this alternative became a key component of the Build alternatives as the East Side subway extension. C. Second Avenue Subway South Second Avenue Subway South (between East Midtown and Lower Manhattan) was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative because it would serve only the southern portion of the study area, would be difficult to implement, and would not be cost-effective compared to other alternatives that would provide similar improvements. D. Second Avenue Subway Eastward Alignment This subway alternative would veer eastward along East Broadway, move north beneath Avenue B to East 10th Street and then return to Second Avenue, thus serving the Lower East * Rapid transit lines were initially considered for any of the avenues east of Lexington Avenue. Second Avenue was chosen early on as being the most appropriate because (1) a route on Third Avenue would too closely duplicate the Lexington Avenue Line s service area; (2) a subway route on First Avenue would be difficult because of the Queensboro Bridge, the street configuration near the United Nations, and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel; and (3) no other route could make use of the tunnel sections already built for the original Second Avenue subway. 2-3

4 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS Side. Because its only difference from 1A is the alignment in the Lower East Side, it was added as a routing option to the Second Avenue Subway Original Alignment. E. Second Avenue Subway with Southbound Connection To/From Grand Central Terminal This connection from Grand Central Terminal southward to Lower Manhattan (either a subway spur or direct commuter rail link) was eliminated from further analysis because it addressed only a small portion of the study area riders (primarily commuters from Westchester and Connecticut) and its costs were high compared with other alternatives that would provide a similar benefit. F. Second Avenue Subway 43rd Street Interline Connection This alternative would connect a Second Avenue subway across 42nd Street to the Broadway line. With a stop at Grand Central, this would allow commuters a second express train to Lower Manhattan. This option was not a stand-alone alternative because it would not adequately address access or capacity issues for the southern portions of the study area. It was also eliminated as a possible component to a combination alternative because of its high cost compared to other alternatives that would provide similar transportation benefits. G. Second Avenue Subway 43rd Street New Jersey Connection This alternative would connect the full Second Avenue Subway to an east-west subway along 43rd Street. Although it did not specifically address the issues defined for the MESA study area, it was under consideration in the Access to the Region s Core (ARC) study. It was therefore included as a routing addition in the full subway option (1A, above), and remained under active consideration until it was dropped by the ARC study. 2. LEXINGTON AVENUE SUBWAY SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS A. Lexington Avenue Subway Signal Improvements Signal improvements on the Lexington line would theoretically help to increase capacity, by allowing more trains per hour to proceed safely along the route. However, this benefit would be marginal, since it would not affect significantly the dwell times of trains in the stations, an important issue, particularly at the transfer stations. Like all suggested improvements to the Lexington Avenue line, this alternative would not make rapid transit more accessible to the underserved portions of the study area. It was therefore eliminated as a stand-alone alternative. However, in combination with other service improvements aimed at reducing dwell time problems, it was thought that the alternative might be a useful component of the TSM Alternative. This possibility was ruled out because the costs far outweighed the benefits. Such signal improvements would be made over the long term, independent of the MESA study, but not within the study s timeframe. B. Lexington Avenue Subway Platform Extensions Extending platforms on the Lexington Avenue line would permit NYCT to lengthen the trains from 10 to 12 cars, carrying up to 20 percent more passengers through the system. Despite this increase in capacity, the improvement would not make transit more accessible to the underserved portions of the study area. Furthermore, compared with the costs of extending the plat- 2-4

5 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives forms, the benefits would be minimal. It was therefore eliminated from further study as a standalone alternative. In addition, because of the high expected cost of implementation and the difficulty expected in terms of its construction (the modifications would affect virtually all platforms along the entire line [4, 5, and 6 trains]), the alternative was not considered suitable for inclusion in the TSM Alternative or reasonable as a component of a combination alternative. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration in this study. C. Lexington Avenue Subway Segmented Connections to Other Subway Lines (Conversion of Northern Lexington Avenue Subway Lines to B Division Service) This alternative would connect the northern half of the Lexington Avenue line (either the express or local tracks) with the Broadway line through a new tunnel connection to the 63rd Street tunnel near where the two lines cross at Lexington Avenue. Because the two lines carry different sized trains (Broadway line B Division trains are larger than Lexington Avenue A Division trains), the Lexington Avenue line north of 63rd Street would be converted to the larger B Division cars. This is theoretically possible because the tunnels north of 42nd Street were originally built to wider B Division standards. Service on the Lexington Avenue line south of 59th Street would remain in A Division configuration and terminate in the vicinity of 59th Street. This alternative was intended to increase capacity by adding the Broadway express tracks to the system and by increasing the capacity of the trains themselves. This alternative would not stand alone, because it would not address many of the access and service issues of the study area. It was not evaluated for any combination or enhancement options because it would not improve transit accessibility for the midtown core, and it would be extremely costly and disruptive to rail operations. D. Lexington Avenue Subway Local Service Extension to Lower Manhattan An extension of the Lexington Avenue subway local service to Lower Manhattan was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative, because it would address only a portion of study area transportation issues; however, it was included as a component of combination Alternative 10D. E. Lexington Avenue Subway Skip-Stop Operation Lexington Avenue Subway Skip-Stop Operation was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative because it would only minimally address study area transportation issues, but it was retained as a potential component either of a combination alternative or of the TSM Alternative. 3. NEW METRO-NORTH STATIONS IN THE BRONX AND UPPER MANHATTAN The alternative to add Metro-North railroad stops in the Bronx and Upper Manhattan was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative because it would offer limited access improvements to underserved portions of the study area and would not increase capacity materially. Also, because the costs would be very high, particularly compared with the benefits accrued, this option was also eliminated from consideration as a component of the TSM Alternative. 2-5

6 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS 4. BUS ALTERNATIVES A. Bus Service on Dedicated Avenue This option would dedicate either First or Second Avenue to two-way bus service, limiting private traffic essentially to local deliveries. This would allow the buses to increase speed and reduce travel time. This alternative would meet the study goals, and was therefore retained for further review as one stand-alone alternative with two routing options. B. Bus Service on Paired Avenues This service would provide two primary bus lanes each on First and Second Avenue, in a design similar but superior to those provided on Madison Avenue. Local deliveries and drop-offs would be permitted in a special curbside standing lane; bus stops would be built out into this lane, so that buses would never have to enter the standing lane to pick up and drop off passengers, and the likelihood of illegal standing in bus stops would be greatly reduced. This somewhat selfenforcing option was found to address most project goals and was thus retained in the reduced long list of alternatives. C. Trolley Bus on Dedicated Busway Trolley-bus in a dedicated busway was retained as a stand-alone alternative since it satisfied preliminary evaluation criteria. This alternative could be considered a technology option to either Alternative 4A or 4B. D. FDR Drive Busway A dedicated lane for buses and high occupancy vehicles on the FDR Drive was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative because it would not address many of the problems in the study area. It would only serve a limited portion of the study area, catering instead to longer-distance commuters. However, it was retained as a candidate for possible inclusion in the TSM Alternative. 5. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE A. Light Rail Transit Service on Dedicated Avenue LRT on an avenue dedicated to its two-way service would extend from South Ferry to 125th Street in this alternative. This system would meet many of the project goals, and so was retained in the first reduced long list. B. Light Rail Transit Service on Paired Avenues LRT service from South Ferry to 125th Street on First and Second Avenues was also considered. This alternative met the basic project goals and so was retained in the reduced long list. 6. PRIVATE FRANCHISED JITNEY SERVICE Private franchise jitney service is a flexible service with various possible routings and higher capacities than taxi cabs. It would not, however, provide enough capacity to relieve transit or onstreet traffic congestion. Therefore, it was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative but retained as a candidate for inclusion in the TSM Alternative. 2-6

7 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives 7. FERRY SERVICE ON EAST RIVER WITH SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE Ferry service on the East River with shuttle bus service would offer new transit service to a limited market area, but would not materially reduce crowding on the Lexington Avenue subway; and would only partially address the accessibility needs identified in the study area. Therefore, it was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative but was retained as a candidate for inclusion in the TSM Alternative because of its expected net benefits. 8. NEW EAST RIVER STOPS ON EXISTING EAST-WEST SUBWAY SERVICE New East River stops on three existing east-west subway lines were proposed in this alternative at the following locations: First Avenue at 63rd Street on the Q route; First Avenue at 59th Street on the Broadway line; First Avenue at 42nd Street on the 7 route; and Avenue C at 14th Street on the L route. This alternative would improve subway accessibility in currently underserved areas but would not provide any congestion relief to the study area s north-south transit corridors, thereby limiting potential service improvements to many portions of the MESA project corridor. It was therefore eliminated as a stand-alone alternative. In addition, due to considerable expense and construction difficulties, and marginal effect on the study area, most of the options within this alternative were eliminated from further consideration in the study. However, because of public interest, the proposed station on the L route at 14th Street and Avenue C was retained for possible inclusion in the TSM Alternative. 9. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS The TSM improvements alternative, by definition, will remain as a stand-alone alternative through the end of the entire evaluation process. The components of the TSM have evolved as the study has progressed. At the close of the coarse screen, the TSM Alternative could have potentially included the following:! Bus lane operational improvements;! Express and local bus operations improvements such as stop-spacing;! Lexington Avenue skip-stop operation (Alternative 2E);! FDR Drive busway/hov (Alternative 4D);! Ridesharing on the FDR Drive;! Private jitney service particularly from the Upper East Side to Lower Manhattan and from Midtown to Lower Manhattan (Alternative 6);! Ferry service on the East River with shuttle bus service (Alternative 7);! Subway station improvements;! New subway passenger transfers between Broadway/Lafayette Street (B, Q, D, and F lines) and Bleecker Street station northbound (No. 6) and between 63rd Street on the B and Q lines and the Lexington Avenue station at 59th-60th Street (No. 6 and the R and N lines);! New L station at 14th Street and Avenue C (part of Alternative 9); and! Traffic engineering improvements. 10. COMBINATION ALTERNATIVES The idea of the combination alternatives is to combine viable options that cannot otherwise stand alone to meet project goals. The combination alternatives were as follows: 2-7

8 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS! Alternative 10A. Second Avenue subway north of 42nd Street and LRT service from East Midtown south to the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan;! Alternative 10B. Second Avenue subway north of 63rd Street and a busway from East Midtown south to the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan;! Alternative 10C. Second Avenue subway north of 63rd Street and LRT service in the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan;! Alternative 10D. Second Avenue subway north of 63rd Street, with extension of the Lexington Avenue Local (No. 6 route) subway service beyond the Brooklyn Bridge stop and bus service improvements in the Lower East Side. 11. ELEVATED TRANSIT Elevated transit was considered along Second or First Avenues. Such an option would meet the study s transportation goals, but its visual impact and community compatibility (third goal) issues would be potentially significant; community reaction to this option was also quite negative. This alternative would not fulfill several of the project goals. It was therefore eliminated from further consideration. 12. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build alternative will be carried through the entire study. It is the option that decision makers will take if they decide to reject the TSM and other Build alternatives. It consists of all transportation facilities and services likely to exist in the future study year (2020), and is discussed further in Section C of this chapter. These elements would also be included in the TSM and other Build alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: PRELIMINARY REDUCED LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES Given the elimination of some and combination of others from the long list, the preliminary reduced long list of alternatives was renumbered, as shown in Table 2-1. EVALUATING THE REDUCED LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES The preliminary reduced long list of alternatives was narrowed through three successive screens in Task 5, as shown in Figure 2-1 and described below. SCREEN 1: CONFIRMATION OF FEASIBILITY The first screen dealt with final confirmation of feasibility. During this screen, preliminary engineering drawings were prepared, as necessary, to identify those alternatives that were clearly infeasible. As a result of this analysis, the extension of the No. 6 line from City Hall to Lower Manhattan, a component of Alternative 10, was eliminated. Because of existing development both above and below ground, the new alignment would have to cross five other subway lines, or be so deep that it would avoid these lines altogether. Given the relatively shallow depth of rock in Lower Manhattan, a deep alignment, even if it were possible, would have to be constructed using the very disruptive cut-and-cover method. Feasible elements of Alternative 10 were included in other alternatives, and the list was reduced by one, to become the final reduced long list considered in Screen 2 (see Table 2-2). 2-8

9 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives Table 2-1 Summary of Coarse Screen Matrix Elimi- Could Be New Old # Long List TSM nated Combined # Reduced Long List 1 Second Avenue Subway A Original Alignment 3 Original Alignment B North of 63rd Street X C South of 63rd Street X D Eastward Alignment 3 Original Alignment Routing Option E Connection to GCT X F 43rd Street Inter-line X G New Jersey Connection 3 Original Alignment Routing Option 2 Lexington Avenue Line A Signal Improvements X X 4 Paired with Bus B Platform Extensions X C X Scheme (segmented X connections) D Local Service Extension to X Lower Manhattan E Skip Stop X X 3 New Metro North Stations X 4 Bus/Trolley/HOV 4 Bus Alternative A Bus on Dedicated Avenue 4 Bus Routing Option B Bus on Paired Avenues 4 Bus Routing Option C Trolley on Dedicated Ave 5 Trolley on Dedicated Avenue D HOV Lane on FDR Drive X 5 Light Rail Transit 6 LRT Alternative A LRT on Dedicated Avenue 6 LRT Routing Option B LRT on Paired Avenues 6 LRT Routing Option 6 Private Franchised Jitney X 7 Ferry Service on East River X with Shuttle Bus 8 New East River Stops X 9 TSM Improvements 2 TSM Alternative 10 Combination Alternatives 7 Subway North with LRT to the south 11 Elevated Transit X 12 No Action 1 No Action 8 Subway North with bus to the south 9 Subway North with LRT in Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan 10 Subway North, Extend Local to Lower Manhattan, Bus Improvements 2-9

10 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS No. Name Description Table 2-2 Reduced Long List of Alternatives 1 No Build Includes all transportation facilities and services likely to exist in the forecast year (such as 63rd Street/Queens Boulevard line connection). Free transfers between buses and subways are included in the No Build Alternative. All elements of this alternative are included in the other alternatives. 2 Transportation Systems Refers to a set of low-to-moderate cost improvements that are more readily Management implementable than major capital cost alternatives. In this study, TSM improvements may be in the range of several million dollars or more. The TSM Alternative is refined in later evaluations as lower-cost improvements that do not pass the screening process are added. 3 Second Avenue Subway with Refers to a new subway line following the original Second Avenue subway Options (Eastern Alignment, alignment along Second Avenue, Chrystie Street, St. James Place, and New Jersey Connection) Water Street with station spacing every 10 to 15 blocks. One potential Eastern Alignment Option would veer eastward in the East Village and Lower East Side along 10th Street, Avenue B, and East Broadway. The potential New Jersey Connection Option would add an east-west branch connecting Grand Central and New Jersey. 4 Bus Service on Dedicated or Would create a two-way busway along an avenue or a one-way pair of Paired Avenues with busways on two avenues. In most of the study area, First and Second Resignalization of Lexington Avenues would be used; local streets would be used in the Lower East Avenue Line Side and Lower Manhattan. Signals on the Lexington Avenue line would be updated to provide additional train through-put capacity. 5 Trolley Bus on Dedicated Would run Trolley Bus service on First or Second Avenue, powered by Busway overhead electrical wires. Trolley buses could be linked together to provide more passenger capacity. 6 Light Rail Service on Dedi- Proposes an LRT line in a separated right-of-way along the entire length of cated or Paired Avenues the study area. In the dedicated option, the LRT line would run two-way on adjacent tracks on First or Second Avenues and on local streets in Lower Manhattan. In the paired avenues option, the LRT would run south on one avenue and north on another, except south of Houston Street where the line would run in both directions on parallel tracks on as yet to be determined streets. 7 Northern Segment of Second Proposes a new East Side subway extension along Second Avenue from Avenue Subway with LRT in the northern edge of the study area to 63rd Street, and a LRT system, either Eastern Midtown, Lower East on dedicated or paired avenues, in East Midtown (south of 63rd Street), the Side, and Lower Manhattan Lower East Side, and Lower Manhattan. 8 Northern Segment of the Proposes a new East Side subway extension along Second Avenue from Second Avenue Subway with the northern edge of the study area to 63rd Street, and a dedicated Bus Service in East Midtown, busway, either on dedicated or paired avenues, in East Midtown (south of the Lower East Side, and 63rd Street), the Lower East Side, and Lower Manhattan. Lower Manhattan 9 Northern Segment of the Proposes a new East Side subway extension along Second Avenue from Second Avenue Subway with the northern edge of the study area to 63rd Street or Grand Central Terminal LRT in the Lower East Side and a LRT system, either on dedicated or paired avenues, in the Lower East and Lower Manhattan Side and Lower Manhattan. 2-10

11 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives SCREEN 2: DEFINITION AND EVALUATION OF ROUTING OPTIONS The second and third screens addressed a number of issues regarding feasibility and impact for the seven remaining build alternatives in continuously increasing detail; the No Build and TSM Alternatives were carried straight through the process. The second screen required that the alternatives be more completely defined. The reduced long list contained rather generic alternatives: the general routes were known, but the specifics had not been resolved. The exact locations of the termini were unknown, several alternatives did not specify a particular street (First or Second Avenue, Avenue B, C, or D, e.g.), and sites for storage and maintenance yards had not been identified. This screen, then, involved substantially more refinement in defining the routing, alignment, and engineering options for each alternative. The engineering options addressed particular areas along the alternatives alignments and tunneling methods as follows: Engineering Options 63rd Street Flexing Connection. For alternatives involving a connection between the East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and the previously constructed 63rd Street subway, there were three configuration options: a two-track station ( two track ); a four-track station with two tracks joining the 63rd Street subway and two proceeding south for a possible extension at a later date ( four track ); and a two-track station with two tail tracks continuing south for a possible extension at a later date ( two track with tail ). Northern Connection to the Lexington Line. For alternatives involving a connection between the East Side subway extension and the Pelham Line (No. 6) subway, there were four configuration options: a station parallel to the Lexington Avenue 125th Street station with a connecting passage for passenger transfers ( parallel station ); a station perpendicular to the Lexington Avenue 125th Street station with a connecting passage for passenger transfers ( perpendicular station ); a connection to the Lexington Avenue Harlem River tubes at Lexington Avenue ( connection ); and a new tunnel under the Harlem River at Second Avenue ( new tunnel ). Transition from Second Avenue to Lexington Avenue. For alternatives involving a transition from the new 125th Street station and the existing tunnel segments beneath Second Avenue, there were three crossover configuration options: an S curve immediately south of 125th Street Station with a crossover between the two curves ( between the two curves ); an S curve several blocks south of the 125th Street station with a crossover immediately south of the 125th Street station ( south of 125th ); and an S curve immediately south of the 125th Street station with a crossover immediately north of the 125th Street station ( north of 125th ). Canal Street Flip. For alternatives involving use of the Broadway line, there were two options at Canal Street: direct service to lower Manhattan requiring track reconfiguration and platform construction to permit the express trains to continue directly to lower Manhattan and route the local over the Manhattan Bridge ( flip ); and indirect service to Lower Manhattan requiring a transfer from express to local service at Union Square or Canal Street to continue southward in Manhattan without flip ). Tunneling Method. For alternatives involving tunnel construction, there were three tunneling options: cut-and-cover ; tunnel-boring machine ( boring ); and mining. 2-11

12 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS Screen 2 Criteria The second screen also set criteria for this level of evaluation. In the evaluation, the alternatives and their routing options were grouped by mode so that they could be evaluated against similar modes (subway to subway, bus to bus, LRT to LRT). The evaluation criteria are summarized as follows:! Total cost: This was a comparative analysis, showing the relative range of costs between same-mode options.! Average speed: In this comparison, a fast speed was 15 to 20 mph, medium was 10 to 15 mph, and slow was less than 10 mph.! Potential for free subway-to-subway transfer.! Impacts on the existing transit system. These include such effects as the elimination, rerouting, reduction, or increase of existing routes due to a new service. A substantial, irreparable adverse impact was required for this criterion alone to eliminate an alternative.! Other service changes to the existing system. This criterion examined various operational changes that would be necessary to accommodate a new service. These would not eliminate an alternative unless they were found to be prohibitive.! Use of existing tunnels. A subway or LRT routing option s use of existing tunnels with available capacity was considered a plus.! Engineering complications. Potential engineering difficulties were identified at this stage; these were important to the elimination of certain options.! Unresolved issues. Issues such as the potential termini of alignments, turnaround problems, intermodal connections, and connections with other MISs in the region were identified; these were either resolved through further analysis or identified as potentially unresolvable.! Potential for public/community support. Alternatives were rated as low, medium, high, or very high in potential community support, depending essentially on community-related impacts, such as disruption (e.g., if curb-side deliveries were to be substantially limited), and increased traffic congestion.! Expanded rapid transit area. Each option was evaluated for its ability to provide rapid transit service to a previously underserved area.! Ridership. Early model results helped to provide a comparative analysis of the ridership levels that might be attracted to each option within a given mode of travel.! Street/Operations Impacts. This criterion more clearly defined the effect an alternative would have after it was constructed. Subway options, all underground, received a low impact rating, while the surface transportation systems received varying ratings.! Legal issues. Problems in jurisdiction, property taking, easements, and other legal issues were identified. These did not necessarily eliminate an alternative, unless they were deemed to make an option unimplementable. 2-12

13 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives! Construction impacts. Methods of construction were reviewed and rated; cut-and-cover, the most disruptive form of subway construction was to be kept to a minimum, for example.! Possibility of phased construction. Given the reality that limitations on the availability of capital funds year by year might require the phasing of construction, those alternatives that did not allow for reasonable phasing were eliminated.! Implementation. Alternatives were defined by how quickly they could be in service. Shortterm is less than 5 years, medium term is 5 to 10 years, and long-term is greater than 10 years. As a result of this screen, several of the reduced long list alternatives were reconfigured and recombined and two were eliminated. Specifically, the bus options (Alternative 4) were, on closer analysis, not suitable as stand alone alternatives. The option of priority lane service on First and Second Avenues was determined to be the least disruptive, most flexible and best preferred option by the community, and so it was included as an option in Alternative 2: TSM Alternative. The electric trolley bus option (Alternative 5) was also carried as an option of the TSM Alternative. Of the subway options in Alternative 3, the full north-south subway was continued to the next screen as Alternative 3A and the eastward alignment was reconfigured as a Lower East Side subway shuttle with connections to existing subways and combined with a North Subway (new construction along Second Avenue, connecting at 63rd Street to the Broadway express tracks and at 125th Street to the Pelham Bay line) as Alternative 3C for further analysis. All other suboptions (full subway eastward alignment, connections to other lines, connections to a new east-west transit line, e.g.) were eliminated based on cost-effectiveness and impact factors. Two LRT options were also continued as Alternatives 6A and 6B. The two-way LRT on a single avenue was determined to be the least disruptive and most cost effective option. It could follow a straight route to/from Lower Manhattan, passing through the Lower East Side along First Avenue/Allen Street, or it could turn eastward on 14th Street to Avenue D through the East Village and Lower East Side before going underground in an existing tunnel to bypass Chatham Square and back onto the downtown routing on Water Street. Combination Alternative 7, which paired the subway north of 63rd Street with the LRT south from 63rd Street as in Alternative 6B was eliminated because it would not perform appreciably better than alternatives with shorter LRT segments and was thus not cost-effective. Combination Alternatives 8 and 9 were continued; Alternative 8 consists of the subway north of 63rd Street (as in Alternative 3A) with the enhanced bus service included in the TSM Alternative. Preliminary model results found it to produce significant improvements to crowding on the Lexington Avenue line and the bus treatments would provide improvements in other study area subareas. Alternative 9 is Alternative 8 plus the LRT through the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan described in Alternative 6B. The shorter list of alternatives is presented in Table 2-3. SCREEN 3: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES The final screen involved an analysis of specific quantitative and qualitative data for each of the remaining alternatives. Preliminary model output was available, as were ridership and travel time 2-13

14 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS and capital cost estimates; these formed the basis for a partial cost benefit analysis, as shown in Table 2-4. Qualitative screening criteria were added at this stage, including a definition of accessibility, potential for displacement, service to low income, minority, and transit-dependent populations, community character effects, such as impacts on land use/public policy, visual character, open space, historic resources, and archaeological resources, hazardous materials issues, traffic impacts, impact on parking and goods delivery, air quality impacts, compatibility with existing transit system, and a general analysis of construction impacts. As a result of this analysis, three of the five remaining Build alternatives (Alternatives 3A, 3C, and 6) were eliminated. As shown in Table 2-4, Alternatives 3A and 3C had the highest capital and operating costs and high cost factors (dollars per hour saved or hours spent in a less crowded subway car). Alternative 6 was eliminated because of its substantial potential impacts in the major issues categories. These alternatives performed well in improving accessibility, but other, less expensive or disruptive alternatives performed well in this category too. The evaluation also found that the proposed bus lanes fit the definition of the TSM alternative, and thus were moved from the Build alternatives. This would allow a clearer comparison among the project alternatives. More detailed engineering analysis subsequent to the screening process eliminated the connection to the existing Pelham Bay route north of 125th Street in Alternatives 8 and 9. Although this northward connection and the full subway south of 63rd Street were eliminated from further consideration in this study, the preliminary engineering of Alternatives 8 and 9 would not prevent these options from being built at a later time. In addition, the two-track/two tail track option at 63rd Street, and the Canal flip, allowing the new route to proceed on the Broadway line express tracks directly to Lower Manhattan, were included in the Build alternatives. 2-14

15 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives No. Name Description Table 2-3 Reduced Long List of Alternatives 1 No Build Includes all transportation facilities and services likely to exist in the forecast year (such as 63rd Street/Queens Boulevard line connection). Free transfers between buses and subways are included in the No Build Alternative. All elements of this alternative are included in the other alternatives. 2 Transportation Systems A set of low-to-moderate cost improvements that are more readily implementable Management (TSM) than major capital cost alternatives, yet can provide solutions in both the short and long term. In this study the TSM could include bus service changes, priority bus lanes, passenger/train control improvements, free transfers, station improvements, and other possible measures. 3A Second Avenue Subway Refers to a new subway line running between Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx with 125th Street-Pelham and Whitehall Street in Manhattan. This alternative would make use of the Connection existing Pelham Bay line (No. 6 route) north of the 125th Street Station on the Lexington Avenue line. New subway construction would connect the existing Pelham line and Lexington local tunnels to the new Second Avenue subway near 112th Street. Lexington Avenue local service would terminate at 125th Street. The subway would connect to the 63rd Street (B, Q lines) subway. The Second Avenue subway would continue south beneath Second Avenue, Chrystie Street, St. James Place, Pearl, and Water Streets to its terminus at Whitehall. This alternative would be combined with bus route improvements on the Lower East Side. 3C 6A Broadway/Pelham Routing This two-part alternative would introduce new subway service to residents of of the Second Avenue East Harlem, the Upper East Side, and the Lower East Side. The individual parts Subway with Lower East of this alternative would: Side Subway Shuttle 1. Make use of the existing Pelham Bay line (No. 6 route) north of the 125th Street station on the Lexington Avenue line. New subway construction would connect the existing Pelham line and Lexington local tunnels to the new Second Avenue subway near 112th Street. The Second Avenue subway would continue south beneath Second Avenue to a connection with the western leg of the 63rd Street route (B, Q lines). From there, it would continue south on the Broadway express tracks (previously the N express), and cross the East River via the Manhattan Bridge. 2. Introduce new subway service to the Lower East Side by using the 14th Street L route, which would extend between 14th Street/Avenue C and the Chambers Street station on the J/M/Z lines. New construction would be required under Avenue C, as well as portions of East Broadway and Canal. New connections would be made to the Canarsie line (L) and to the Nassau Street route s (J/M/Z) Chambers Street station, where the line would terminate. Light Rail Transit (LRT) on Proposes a two-track LRT route in a center-of-street right-of-way between the First Avenue Metro-North Station at 125th Street/Park Avenue and Whitehall Street in Lower Manhattan. The routing would extend between Park and First Avenues via 125 Street and between 125th and Houston Streets via First Avenue. At Houston Street, the LRT would extend south along Allen Street, connect to the Nassau Street subway (J/M/Z) via a tunnel under Canal Street, return to the surface after the Chambers Street station via Frankfort Street, and continue on St. James Place and Water Street to its terminus at Whitehall Street. 2-15

16 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS No. Name Description Table 2-3 (Continued) Reduced Long List of Alternatives 8 Broadway/Pelham Routing This two-part alternative would introduce new subway service to residents of of the East Side Subway East Harlem and the Upper East Side and improved bus service to East Midtown Extension with Enhanced and the Lower East Side South of 63rd Street. The individual parts of this Bus Service South of 63rd alternative would: Street 1. See Alternative 3C, part 1, above. 2. Provide a two-lane dedicated bus lane on First and Second Avenues to serve the area between 63rd and 14th Streets in East Midtown. Bus routing changes and improved service would be implemented in the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. 9 Broadway/Pelham Routing This three-part alternative would provide new subway service to residents of of the East Side Subway the Upper East Side, new LRT service to people living in the Lower East Side, Extension with LRT in the and improved bus service to people living in the East Side and Lower East Side Lower East Side and south of 63rd Street. The individual parts of this alternative would: Lower Manhattan 1. See Alternative 3C, part 1, above. 2. See Alternative 8, part 2, above. 3. Introduce a two-track LRT route in the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan that would extend from 14th Street/Union Square to Whitehall Street in Lower Manhattan. This alternative would provide LRT service in the center of the street east of Union Square along 14th Street to Avenue D, pass under the Williamsburg Bridge on Avenue D before turning west on Delancey Street, south on Pitt Street and East Broadway to Canal Street. The LRT would dip below ground and enter into the now-unused Canal Street subway and make use of an abandoned connection between the Canal Street subway and the Nassau Street route (J/M/Z) to the Chambers Street station. The LRT would resurface on Dover/Frankfort Street just west of Pearl/Water Streets, where it would then continue south to its terminus at Whitehall Street. 2-16

17 Table 2-4 Refined Long List Alternatives Evaluation Summary 2-17 Potential Impacts Annual Costs* Dollars Per on Hour Partial Less Benefit/ Hour Crowd Cost Alternative Capital O&M Total Saved ed Ratio Conclusion 1. No Build NA NA NA NA NA NA Continued 2. Transportation System Management NA NA NA NA NA NA Bus added 3A. Full Length Second Avenue Subway Eliminated 3C. North Subway/Lower East Side Subway Shuttle Eliminated 6A. Full Length LRT Eliminated 8. North Subway/Bus Combination Continued; bus to TSM 9B/9C. North Subway/LRT and Bus Combinations Continued; bus to TSM * Annual costs are presented in millions of 1997 dollars; NA = not applicable in this analysis. = substantial benefit; = moderate benefit; = no change, little impact; = moderate adverse impact potential; = high to very high adverse impact potential Population Accessibility Employment Accessibility Traffic Impacts Air Quality Parking/Goods Delivery Transit System Compatibility Open Space Direct Open Space Indirect Historic Resources Archeology

18 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS The No Build, TSM, and Alternatives 8 and 9 remain as project alternatives and are discussed in Section C of this chapter. They have been renumbered as No Build, TSM, Build Alternative 1 (was Alternative 8), and Build Alternative 2 (was Alternative 9). C. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION The screening and evaluation of a full range of alternatives, summarized above, resulted in four alternatives being carried forward in the MIS/DEIS. As described below, these comprise No Build, TSM, and two Build alternatives. These latter options were subjected to further engineering analysis, which refined them again, as necessary. The engineering effort was guided by five engineering design goals:! Maximize the number of people transported in the study corridor for the funds expended.! Minimize the property/environmental impacts in the study corridor.! Maximize convenience and connectivity for the potential passengers of the system.! Minimize the operational/maintenance impacts on the existing subway system.! Provide for maximum flexibility for subway modifications in the future. Engineering criteria were also applied to both subway and light rail options as follows:! Horizontal and vertical alignments! Construction methods i.e., cut-and-cover vs. tunneling (e.g., deep bore, mining)! Constructibility! Stations! Ventilation! Drainage! Traction power and electrical distribution! Signaling! Maintenance/storage facilities! Property impacts! Utilities! Environmental impacts! Total project cost estimates NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative consists of those improvements in the city s transportation system instituted after 1995 (the base year for the MESA study) that would be in place by This includes completion of MTA operating agency initiatives to bring the system into a state of good repair (such as the purchase of new subway cars, rehabilitation of certain stations, track improvements, etc.) and three specific changes. The first improvement, which took place on July 4, 1997, was introduction of the MetroCard. The second, also a policy initiative, was a system- 2-18