Alternatives Analysis Report. NYCT Contract #CM August Submitted to: Submitted by: SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. In Association with:

Transcription

1 NSAA North Shore Alternatives Analysis NYCT NORTH SHORE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Alternatives Analysis Report NYCT Contract #CM-1387 August 2012 Submitted to: Submitted by: SYSTRA Engineering, Inc. In Association with: AKRF, Inc. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Zetlin Strategic Communications, Inc. Resource Systems Group, Inc.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 PURPOSE AND NEED...1 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...3 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND TECHNICAL COORDINATION...3 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES STUDY AREA AND PROJECT PURPOSE PROJECT LOCATION TRAVEL MARKET PURPOSE AND NEED PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK PUBLIC OUTREACH AND TECHNICAL COORDINATION EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE STUDY AREA Existing Socioeconomic Conditions Employment Destinations and Means of Transportation Existing Transit Service Existing Freight and Maritime Support Services Existing Environmental Conditions Existing Traffic Conditions FUTURE CONDITIONS - NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE POTENTIAL FUTURE CHANGES BUILD ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - LONG LIST IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES Alignment and Right-of-way General Description BRT and Rail Service Plans Potential Impacts on the Environment Development of Preliminary Capital Costs Development of Preliminary Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs EVALUATION OF LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES Comparison of the Long List of Alternatives Selection of the Short List of Alternatives TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (BUS) LONG LIST TSM Service and Infrastructure Components Maintenance Facility Requirements Potential Environmental Impacts Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Implementation Period BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT), ST. GEORGE TO WEST SHORE PLAZA LONG LIST Modal Characteristics Maintenance Facility Requirements Potential Environmental Impacts Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Implementation Period ELECTRIC LIGHT RAIL (LRT), ST. GEORGE TO WEST SHORE PLAZA LONG LIST Modal Characteristics Maintenance Facility Requirements...64 Page TOC-1 August 2012

3 3.6.3 Potential Environmental Impacts Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Implementation Period DIESEL LIGHT RAIL (DLRT), ST. GEORGE TO WEST SHORE PLAZA LONG LIST Modal Characteristics Maintenance Facility Requirements Potential Environmental Impacts Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Implementation Period HEAVY RAIL ST. GEORGE TO ARLINGTON LONG LIST Modal Characteristics Maintenance Facility Requirements Potential Environmental Impacts Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Implementation Period ELECTRIC LIGHT RAIL (LRT), ST. GEORGE TO ARLINGTON LONG LIST Modal Characteristics Maintenance Facility Requirements Potential Environmental Impacts Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Implementation Period DIESEL LIGHT RAIL (DLRT) ST. GEORGE TO ARLINGTON LONG LIST Modal Characteristics Maintenance Facility Requirements Potential Environmental Impacts Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Implementation Period BUILD ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - SHORT LIST REFINEMENT OF ALTERNATIVES TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (BUS) SHORT LIST Summary of TSM Alternative Components Revised Alignment Features Summary of Environmental and Traffic Analyses Cost Estimate Refinements Ridership Forecast BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT), ST. GEORGE TO WEST SHORE PLAZA SHORT LIST Summary of BRT Alternative Alignment features Summary of Environmental and Traffic Analyses Cost Estimate Refinement Ridership ELECTRIC LIGHT RAIL (LRT), ST. GEORGE TO WEST SHORE PLAZA SHORT LIST Summary of LRT Alternative Revised Alignment Features Summary of Environmental and Traffic Analyses Cost Estimate Refinements Ridership...93 Page TOC-2 August 2012

4 4.5 EVALUATION OF SHORT LIST ALTERNATIVES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION APPENDICES 1. Atlantic Salt Coordination 2. Caddell Dry Dock Coordination 3. Alaska Street Bus Ramp Assessment 4. Basis of Engineering 5. Short List Alternatives Drawing Sets 6. Capital Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report 7. O&M Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report 8. Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology and Model Validation Report 9. Ridership Results Report 10. Environmental Analysis Report for Short List Alternatives 11. Public Open House Presentations 12. Public Outreach Newsletters/Handouts 13. Public Outreach - IAC and CEC Committees and Public Open House Meeting Minutes 14. Traffic Assumptions Memo 15. Traffic Impact Assessment of Short List Alternatives LIST OF TABLES TABLE ES-1: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...3 TABLE ES-2: PRELIMINARY LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES...4 TABLE ES-3: LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY...5 TABLE ES-4 COMPARES KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHORT LIST OF ALTERNATIVES....7 TABLE 1: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...7 TABLE 2: EVALUATION CRITERIA...8 TABLE 3: STUDY MARKET POPULATION (1990, 2000, 2009)...10 TABLE 4: 1990 AND 2000 AGE DISTRIBUTION...11 TABLE 5: HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS...12 TABLE 6: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME (1989, 1999, 2009)...13 TABLE 7: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS...14 TABLE 8: EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY SECTOR...15 TABLE 9: WORK DESTINATIONS FOR TRAVEL MARKET RESIDENTS...16 TABLE 10: MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK...16 TABLE 11: PRELIMINARY LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES...29 TABLE 12: PROPOSED BRT AND RAIL SERVICE PLAN HEADWAYS (MINUTES)...37 TABLE 13: LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY...40 TABLE 14: ROUTES SERVING PROPOSED NORTH SHORE TRANSIT CENTER (TSM ALTERNATIVE)...48 TABLE 15: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES NEEDED FOR REROUTING TO TRANSIT CENTER (TSM ALTERNATIVE)...48 TABLE 16: BUS TRAVEL TIME REDUCTIONS DUE TO TSP IMPROVEMENTS...50 TABLE 17: BUS ROUTES BENEFITING FROM VICTORY BOULEVARD BUS LANE IMPROVEMENTS...52 Page TOC-3 August 2012

5 TABLE 18: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (TSM ALTERNATIVE)...52 TABLE 19: TSM ALTERNATIVE ANNUAL O&M COSTS...53 TABLE 20: TSM ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS LONG LIST...54 TABLE 21: PROPOSED ONE-WAY HEADWAYS (MIN.) (BRT ALTERNATIVE)...58 TABLE 22: BRT ALTERNATIVE FEEDER ROUTES ANNUAL O&M COSTS LONG LIST...60 TABLE 23: BRT ALTERNATIVE S1 AND S2 ROUTES ANNUAL O&M COSTS LONG LIST...60 TABLE 24: TOTAL BRT ALTERNATIVE ANNUAL O&M COSTS LONG LIST...61 TABLE 25: BRT ST. GEORGE TO WEST SHORE PLAZA ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LONG LIST...61 TABLE 26: LRT ST. GEORGE TO WEST SHORE PLAZA ALTERNATIVE O&M COSTS LONG LIST...65 TABLE 27: LRT ST. GEORGE TO WEST SHORE PLAZA ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LONG LIST...65 TABLE 28: DLRT, ST. GEORGE TO WEST SHORE PLAZA ALTERNATIVE ANNUAL O&M COSTS LONG LIST...68 TABLE 29: DLRT ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LONG LIST...68 TABLE 30: HEAVY RAIL ST. GEORGE TO ARLINGTON ALTERNATIVE O&M COSTS LONG LIST...71 TABLE 31: CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR THE HEAVY RAIL TO ARLINGTON ALTERNATIVE...71 TABLE 32: LRT TO ARLINGTON O&M COSTS LONG LIST...73 TABLE 33: CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR THE LRT TO ARLINGTON ALTERNATIVE LONG LIST...74 TABLE 34: DLRT ST. GEORGE TO ARLINGTON ALTERNATIVE ANNUAL O&M COSTS LONG LIST...76 TABLE 35: DLRT ST. GEORGE TO ARLINGTON ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE LONG LIST...77 TABLE 36: REVISED ANNUAL O&M COST FOR THE TSM ALTERNATIVE...81 TABLE 37: REVISED CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR THE TSM ALTERNATIVE...82 TABLE 38: TSM ALTERNATIVE DIFFERENCE IN AM RIDERSHIP BY ROUTE...83 TABLE 39: TSM DAILY LINKED TRANSIT TRIPS FORECAST FOR NSAA STUDY AREA...84 TABLE 40: REVISED BRT FEEDER ROUTES O&M COSTS...86 TABLE 41: REVISED BRT O&M COST WITH NEW S1 AND S2 SERVICE AND EXTENSIONS...87 TABLE 42: REVISED CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR THE BRT ST. GEORGE TO WEST SHORE PLAZA ALTERNATIVE...88 TABLE 43: AM BRT SEGMENT USERS BY ROUTE...89 TABLE 44: BRT DAILY LINKED TRANSIT TRIPS FORECAST FOR THE NSAA STUDY AREA...89 TABLE 45: REVISED LRT TO WSP ALTERNATIVE ANNUAL O&M COSTS...91 TABLE 46: REVISED CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR THE LRT TO WSP ALTERNATIVE...92 TABLE 47: LRT DAILY LINKED TRANSIT TRIPS FORECAST FOR THE NSAA STUDY AREA...93 TABLE 48: SHORT LIST ALTERNATIVES TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS COMPARISON...94 TABLE 49: SHORT LIST ALTERNATIVES CHARACTERISTICS COMPARISON...94 TABLE 50: PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETING DATES...97 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: NORTH SHORE STUDY AREA...2 FIGURE 2: STUDY AREA AND SUBAREAS MAP...4 FIGURE 3: EVALUATION PROCESS...7 FIGURE 4: EXISTING STUDY AREA BUS SERVICES...18 FIGURE 5: RAIL ALIGNMENT ST. GEORGE TO ARLINGTON...32 FIGURE 6: RAIL ALIGNMENT - ST. GEORGE TO WEST SHORE PLAZA...33 FIGURE 7: LONG LIST EVALUATION MATRIX...42 FIGURE 8: PROPOSED TSM ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS...44 FIGURE 9: PROPOSED NORTH SHORE TRANSIT CENTER SITE PLAN (TSM ALTERNATIVE)...47 FIGURE 10: PROPOSED BRT ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS...56 FIGURE 11: SHORT LIST ALTERNATIVES MAP...79 FIGURE 12: SHORT LIST EVALUATION MATRIX...95 FIGURE 13: NSAA PROJECT WEBPAGE SCREENSHOT...98 Page TOC-4 August 2012

6 Executive Summary The Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit (MTA-NYCT) sponsored the North Shore Alternatives Analysis Study to assess implementation of new or enhanced transit service along the North Shore of Staten Island (Richmond County, New York). The study area is depicted in Figure ES-1. Figure ES-1: North Shore Study Area Purpose and Need The study area s road network developed around the neighborhoods that define the North Shore, including Northwest-Howland Hook, Mariners Harbor, Port Richmond, Snug Harbor-New Brighton and St. George. The network was designed to serve these neighborhoods, and as a result, it is circuitous and discontinuous. As travel demands evolved to include not only intra-island travel but also off-island travel via ferry and bridges, the roadways became insufficient for these two trip types. ES-1 August 2012

7 Until 1953, when passenger service was discontinued, the north shore branch of Staten Island Rapid Transit provided direct east-west service along the North Shore, which reduced dependence upon the available street network. The rail alignment abuts the waterfront as it travels west from St. George Ferry terminal, and moves inland along an elevated right-of-way west of Blissenbach Marina and as it crosses through Port Richmond and over Richmond Terrace. With the termination of the North Shore Railroad service, east-west transportation demand had to be accommodated on buses that operated on the road View of the abandoned elevated ROW at Port Richmond network. Overall growth in auto ownership has increased demand for roadway capacity on the North Shore. The North Shore roadway network is congested and the ability to provide fast, efficient, competitive and increased bus service for intra-island and off-island travelers along the North Shore is constrained. These congested conditions and roadway deficiencies result in long travel times for Staten Island North Shore commuters as well as unreliable bus service which can lead to crowding. The lack of efficient public transportation choices compels the majority of North Shore travelers to travel by automobile, resulting in air quality and general environmental degradation along with further congestion. North Shore commuters destined for Manhattan have some of the longest trip times in New York City due to travel via multiple modes (requiring transfers) including the slow local bus network. Even if their destination is not the St. George Ferry Terminal, bus travelers from the study area generally must still go through St. George to make connections since most buses and the Staten Island Railway (SIR) terminate at the Terminal. The density of development in the study area restricts the ability to add roadway capacity. Projected increases in population will continue to put pressure on the North Shore s transportation network. Economic growth and the livability of the North Shore s communities would be impaired by increasing congestion and insufficient transit alternatives to driving. Improved transit service is needed to address the following problems: Lack of transportation choices for North Shore travelers along the corridor destined to Manhattan, or to other locations on Staten Island; Congested roadways that lead to increasingly long trip times and unreliable bus service; Conflicting off-island and on-island travel needs not well-served by the current transit system; Inconvenient transfers between modes (auto to bus, bus to bus); Physical constraints in the roadway network that limit the ability to add transit system capacity; Transit travel times not competitive with auto travel times to key destinations or transfer points, and; Insufficient transit infrastructure to support future growth and revitalized development on the North Shore. ES-2 August 2012

8 Additional transportation capacity in the North Shore is needed to address these problems. The former North Shore Railroad ROW potentially offers that capacity, but is no longer in usable condition. Portions of the right-of-way present environmental concerns due their deterioration into the Kill Van Kull. Other portions of the right-of-way bisect working commercial properties which continue to require uninterrupted access. Transportation improvements within the North Shore Railroad ROW and on the North Shore roadway network were considered as part of this study. Project Goals and Objectives The project established goals and objectives (Table ES-1) to guide the development and comparison of potential transportation improvements along the North Shore. The consultant team and NYCT developed improvements to cost-effectively improve transit accessibility, reduce travel time, improve reliability and support growth objectives within a reasonable timeframe. The improvements were framed to provide benefits to community character and avoid or minimize impacts on the environment. Table ES-1: Goals and Objectives GOAL OBJECTIVE IMPROVE MOBILITY PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES AND OPEN SPACE MAXIMIZE LIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR THE GREATEST PUBLIC BENEFIT Provide increased and improved travel options along Staten Island s North Shore. Provide a well integrated and efficient transit system that improves and/or reduces transfers between lines and modes. Improve transit access for the transit dependent and transit reliant. Reduce travel time for linked, Manhattan bound trips. Improve transit reliability. Provide improved transit access to the Teleport. Reduce increasing roadway congestion by attracting auto users to transit. Improve air quality by providing transit alternatives that moderate the increase of vehicle emissions. Minimize potential adverse impacts on residential areas, businesses and the built environment from the operation of a transit mode on the North Shore. Minimize potential adverse impacts on the natural environment from the operation and construction of a transit mode on the North Shore. Maintain safe and efficient access to land uses along the North Shore. Make use of existing capacity in transportation corridors, assets and infrastructure. Advance the most cost effective transportation options. Increase revenue potential, thereby minimizing the level of subsidy required. Develop transit options that use known and proven technologies suitable for use on the North Shore. Provide a transportation solution that can be implemented in a timely manner. Public Outreach and Technical Coordination Stakeholders regularly received information throughout the study. Two committees were established: an Interagency Committee of governmental agencies and a Community Engagement Committee of civic, business, political and institutional interests. Public Meetings held in the study area informed the public of ES-3 August 2012

9 study progress: they initiated the study, reviewed the initial list of alternatives, presented the proposed short list of alternatives, and presented the recommended alternative. Identification of Alternatives The Preliminary Long List of Build Alternatives was identified through a process that included review of prior plans, studies, and proposals; brainstorming with MTA-NYCT staff; and stakeholder outreach. Eight alternatives were identified, representing a mix of modes (bus, light rail, heavy rail, and ferry), routes and alignments, and termini. The Preliminary Long List is summarized in Table ES-2. Table ES-2: Preliminary Long List of Alternatives Mode Termini Description Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Heavy Rail (SIR) Electric Light Rail (LRT) Diesel Light Rail (DLRT) Electric Light Rail (LRT) Diesel Light Rail (DLRT) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Ferry/ Water Taxi St. George to multiple locations St. George to Arlington St. George to Arlington St. George to Arlington St. George to West Shore Plaza St. George to West Shore Plaza St. George to West Shore Plaza (plus Feeder Service) Kill Van Kull from St. George Terminal to Mariner s Harbor FTA required baseline option that includes low-cost improvements such as intersection improvements, dedicated bus lanes, signalization improvements, bus route restructuring, shortened bus headways, expanded park-and-ride facilities, express and limited-stop service, and timedtransfer operations. Heavy Rail (SIR) service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus just west of South Avenue in Arlington. Electric Light Rail (LRT) service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus just west of South Avenue in Arlington. Diesel Light Rail (DLRT) service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus just west of South Avenue in Arlington. Electric Light Rail (LRT) service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus near West Shore Plaza. Diesel Light Rail (DLRT) service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus near West Shore Plaza. Bus Rapid Transit service on a new, dedicated busway that would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus just west of South Avenue in Arlington. Feeder bus service would operate locally from West Shore Plaza and within study area neighborhoods and access the busway via ramps at South Avenue, Park Avenue/Richmond Terrace, and Alaska Street. Passenger Ferry or Water Taxi service between St. George Ferry Terminal and up to five park and ride locations along the North Shore with coordinated bus connections to the Teleport / Corporate Center area. The potential for each alternative on the Preliminary Long List to satisfy the study s goals and objectives was evaluated in terms of basic feasibility. The purpose of this early fatal flaw evaluation was to eliminate from further study any alternatives that would not, even with further development, be able to meet the study s core requirements. The Ferry/Water Taxi Alternative was judged fatally flawed due to the limited improvement to mobility and low levels of public benefit it would provide. It received the ES-4 August 2012

10 lowest scores of all the alternatives for potential improved transit frequency and travel times, provision of multiple transit stops, impacts to parkland, and provision of a direct connection to SIR or the Teleport. The Ferry/Water Taxi Alternative was therefore eliminated from further evaluation in the study. Development and Comparison of Long List Alternatives For the seven alternatives retained for further study, operating characteristics were developed, potential environmental impacts were assessed, and costs were estimated. This information is summarized in Table ES-3. Table ES-3: Long List of Alternatives Summary Mode/ Alternative # of Stations Travel Time to St. George Incremental O&M Costs (2010$) Capital Costs (2010$) Riders saving 25-50% of existing trip time to St. George + Potential Environmental Impacts Bus (TSM) N/A N/A $5.2m $37m 0* Least impacts Heavy Rail to Arlington Electric Light Rail to Arlington Diesel Light Rail to Arlington Electric Light Rail to West Shore Plaza Diesel Light Rail to West Shore Plaza 9 15 min. $9.8m $474m 9,000 Some impacts 9 13 min. $5.7m $477m 9,000 Some impacts 9 15 min. $8.7m $435m 9,000 Some impacts min. $9.5m $581m 11,000 Some impacts min. $13.7m $514m 11,000 Most impacts Busway to West Shore Plaza (BRT) 9 23 min. $6.1m $352m 17,000 [3,000 riders would save 10-25%] Some impacts + Estimates derived from current usage of existing bus lines and expected travel time savings for key origindestination pairs. * While no riders are expected to save over 25% of existing travel time, 20,000 bus riders would have minimal trip time savings. The alternatives were then compared in terms of their ability to meet the goals and objectives of the study. The Long List Evaluation Matrix is shown in Figure ES-2. ES-5 August 2012

11 Figure ES-2: Long List Evaluation Matrix ES-6 August 2012

12 At the Public Outreach meeting held in September 2011, the Short List of Alternatives was presented, acknowledging the major factors of mobility, cost, and mode choice that went into the selection of the short list of alternatives. Feedback from the public indicated support for Electric Light Rail s (LRT) continued evaluation. Because the BRT offered comparable one-seat ride along the same (and additional) routes, the LRT to West Shore Plaza, BRT and TSM were selected to advance as the short list of alternatives. These alternatives are located within the study area in Figure ES-3. Refinement and Comparison of Short List Alternatives The TSM, BRT, and LRT Alternatives on the Short List were further refined in order to facilitate comparison with one another and the degree to which they fulfilled the project s goals and objectives. Ridership forecasts were produced using the MTA Regional Transit Forecasting Model (the same travel demand model used by the MTA for all candidate transit expansion projects). Additional environmental and traffic analysis was performed. Conceptual engineering was performed for the South Avenue portion of the LRT alignment. Capital and operating costs were revised to be consistent with new information. Table ES-4 compares key characteristics of the Short List of Alternatives. Table ES-4: Short List Alternatives Comparison TSM BRT to WSP LRT to WSP Capital Cost (million 2010$) $36 $371 $645 O&M Cost (million 2010$) $4.5 $6.5 $7.0 Net Present Value (million 2010$) $129 $727 $888 Potential Environmental Impacts Least Some Some Ridership (AM peak segment users) 5,060 12,120 10,590 Figure ES-4 on shows that The TSM Alternative offers the lowest cost and fewest negative impacts on the environment, natural resources, and open space. However, the TSM Alternative would be the least effective in terms of improving mobility and meeting project goals. The BRT and LRT Alternatives would both improve mobility and have some impacts on the environment. However, there are substantial differences in the costs of these two alternatives, with the cost of BRT being lower. BRT is the recommended alternative based on its potential to reduce travel time, improve access to key locations, and attract new riders, with lower costs than the LRT Alternative. ES-7 August 2012

13 Figure ES-3: Short List Alternatives Map ES-8 August 2012

14 Figure ES-4: Short List Evaluation Matrix TSM BRT LRT GOAL 1: Improve Mobility Total New Stations Served Provide transit access for the transit-dependent and transit reliant Travel time Arlington to St. George Provide improved transit access to the Teleport Additional intersections with potentially significant AM peak impacts Estimated Ridership GOAL 2: Preserve and Enhance the Environment, Natural Resources, and Open Space Land use and wetlands impacts Potential hazardous material sites impacted or acquired Potential noise impacts Number of potential impacts to parklands Air Quality (emissions of transit mode) Potential adverse impacts to waterfront and/or views GOAL 3: Maximize Limited Financial Resources for the Greatest Public Benefit Estimated capital cost Net annual operating and maintenance costs Compatibility with NYCT equipment and operations Implementation period Most successful in meeting study goals 6 Moderately successful in meeting study goals 0 Least successful in meeting study goals ES-9 August 2012

15 1. STUDY AREA AND PROJECT PURPOSE The Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit (MTA-NYCT) sponsored the North Shore Alternatives Analysis Study to assess implementation of new or enhanced transit service along the North Shore of Staten Island between South Avenue and St. George (Richmond County, New York). The North Shore Alternatives Analysis considered alternatives to improve transportation service for North Shore travelers. The objective of the study was to increase transportation options, decrease travel times and improve transit reliability for North Shore travelers. Potential improvements focused on maximum use of existing transportation infrastructure and alignments. 1.1 Project Location This study focused on the North Shore of Staten Island between South Avenue and St. George, bounded by the Kill Van Kull to the north and Victory Boulevard to the south, with a corridor extension along South Avenue between Richmond Terrace and West Shore Plaza. The study area is depicted in Figure 1. Richmond Terrace and Victory Boulevard approximate the northern and southern boundaries of the study area, respectively. Richmond Terrace, Victory Boulevard and Forest Avenue are the primary east-west roadways in the study area. A major element of the study area and the proposed transit alignments is the former Staten Island Rapid Transit North Shore Railroad right-of-way (ROW), which offered passenger and freight service starting in 1890, ending in 1953 and 1989, respectively. The rail alignment, shown in Figure 1, abuts the waterfront as it travels west from St. George Ferry terminal, and moves inland along an elevated right-of-way west of Blissenbach Marina and as it crosses through Port Richmond over Richmond Terrace. This ROW was central to the development of alternatives, and is referenced further in Section 1.3, Purpose and Need. The main north-south access routes between the study area and points south (including the Staten Island Expressway) are South Avenue, Harbor Road, Richmond Avenue/Morningstar Road, Route 440 (MLK Expressway), Port Richmond Avenue, Jewett Avenue/Bradley Avenue, Clove Road, Bennett Avenue, Bard Avenue, Lafayette Avenue, Jersey Street, and Bay Street. At the eastern end of the corridor is the St. George Ferry Terminal, a major intermodal transportation facility, providing connections among local/limited bus routes, the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) ferry to Lower Manhattan, and the MTA Staten Island Railway (SIR) St. George-Tottenville line. NYCT provides local, limited-stop, and express bus services along several routes, primarily along Richmond Terrace, Castleton Avenue, Forest Avenue, South Avenue, Port Richmond Avenue, and Broadway. Many of the local and limited-stop routes terminate at the St. George Ferry Terminal. A peak period bus route (S89 LTD) links western Staten Island and the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (operated by New Jersey Transit) in Bayonne, NJ. The physical geometry of many roadways and narrow curb-to-curb width limit overall capacity and affects bus maneuverability and reliability. Sight distance can be insufficient in some areas due to several steep hills and sharp curves. Many roads have one travel lane in each direction, along with on-street parking and many turning movements that result in delays at intersections. Buses picking up or dropping off passengers often block traffic when they are stopped due to the absence of bus pullout areas or open travel lanes for traffic to bypass. Overall, the east-west road infrastructure that exists in the study area is not adequate for the operation of efficient surface transit service. 1 August 2012

16 Figure 1: North Shore Study Area 2 August 2012

17 1.2 Travel Market The North Shore Alternatives Analysis study area encompassed five subareas, depicted in Figure 2 and described as follows: St. George: The St. George subarea is the easternmost portion of the travel market, east of Jersey Street. The St. George subarea includes a narrow area along the waterfront area extending almost to the Bayonne Bridge. This subregion includes the St. George Ferry Terminal. New Brighton: The New Brighton subarea includes the neighborhoods of Snug Harbor, Randall Manor, Livingston, West Brighton and Silver Lake. It is located west of the St. George subarea, and is bounded by Jersey Street on the east, Broadway and Clove Road on the west, and Victory Boulevard on the south. Port Richmond: The Port Richmond subarea includes neighborhoods of Westerleigh and Castleton Corners, and is bounded by Broadway and Clove Road on the east, Morningstar Road and Willow Road on the west, and North Gannon Avenue and Victory Boulevard on the south. Elm Park: The Elm Park subarea includes the neighborhoods of Mariners Harbor, Bulls Head and Chelsea, and is bounded by Morningstar Road on the east, Holland and South Avenues on the west, and Travis Avenue on the south. Northwest Staten Island: The Northwest Staten Island subarea is west of South Avenue and Travis Avenue and north of Richmond Creek. Much of the travel market is residential in land use, with single-family houses and small apartment buildings being the predominant building types. Forest Avenue, Castleton Avenue, and Port Richmond Avenue are major commercial corridors through the travel market, and provide local retail and business services predominantly for nearby residents. Commercial uses, including the borough s governmental functions, are concentrated in the St. George subarea near the Staten Island Ferry Terminal. The travel market also includes a strong industrial sector, concentrated along the shoreline, particularly in the middle of the study area (in the New Brighton, Port Richmond, and Elm Park subareas). This includes a number of manufacturing and industrial businesses along Richmond Terrace, especially maritime support businesses (workboats, tugboats, dry docks), as well as the New York City Port Richmond Water Pollution Control Plant. Unlike the rest of the travel market, the Northwest Staten Island subarea is predominantly comprised of industrial development and open space with a small residential area located close to Richmond Avenue. Open spaces within the study area include Clove Lakes Park, Silver Lake Park, and the 230-acre park with a large natural preserve adjacent to the Teleport. In addition to these land uses, freight plays a large role in the Northwest Staten Island subarea. The Howland Hook Marine Terminal, located within the Northwest Staten Island subarea, is a major freight terminal and container port owned by the City of New York. The terminal is leased to the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (PANYNJ) and subleased to the New York Container Terminal Inc., the terminal operator. The terminal is near the Arthur Kill. It provides freight connections directly from Staten Island across to tracks in New Jersey connecting to major markets. Conrail has a trackage rights agreement with the NYCEDC. These ongoing freight uses are a given therefore none of the alternatives evaluated in this study would preclude access to this freight resource. Other industrial uses are located near the Howland Hook Terminal in this segment of the travel market. South of the Staten Island Expressway, this subarea also includes the Teleport business park, an office district that includes five office buildings. Several hotels are located nearby. West Shore Plaza is a commercial center with large department stores and smaller retail stores located to the west of the West Shore Expressway and south of the Saw Mill Creek Marsh. 3 August 2012

18 Figure 2: Study Area and Subareas Map 4 August 2012

19 The travel market also includes several institutional, recreational, and open space uses that attract visitors from outside the area. Most notably, these include the Richmond University Medical Center in West New Brighton, the Richmond County Bank Ballpark at St. George terminal, which is the home to the Staten Island Yankees minor league baseball team, and Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden, located in the New Brighton-Snug Harbor subarea. Two large parks Clove Lakes Park in the Port Richmond subarea and Silver Lake Park in the New Brighton-Snug Harbor subarea also attract visitors from outside the travel market. Also featured within the Northwest Staten Island subarea is the Teleport, a 110-acre communications office center, including Port Authority offices, a Merrill Lynch office, a School of Nursing and many other employment destinations. The distance by bus from Teleport to St. George Ferry terminal is approximately 8 miles via Richmond Terrace, but the travel time due to peak period traffic and frequent bus stops is currently over 40 minutes. Based on Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI) Demographic profiles, approximately 142,000 residents lived in the study area in 2009, which accounted for nearly 30% of Staten Island s population. The Port Richmond and Elm Park subareas together accounted for the greatest share of this population (67%), and the New Brighton subarea accounted for another 20%. Chapter 2 describes existing conditions, providing demographics and travel statistics from the study area and subareas. 1.3 Purpose and Need The study area s road network developed around the neighborhoods that define the North Shore, including Northwest-Howland Hook, Mariners Harbor, Port Richmond, Snug Harbor- New Brighton and St. George. The street network was designed to serve these neighborhoods, and as a result, it is circuitous and discontinuous. As travel demands evolved to include not only on-island travel but also off-island travel via ferry and bridges, the roadways became insufficient for these two trip types. Until 1953, when passenger service was discontinued, the Staten Island Rapid Transit North Shore Railroad View of the abandoned elevated ROW at Port Richmond provided direct east-west service along the North Shore which reduced dependence upon the available street network. With the termination of the North Shore Railroad service, east-west public transportation demand had to be accommodated on buses that operated on the road network. Overall growth in auto ownership has increased demand for roadway capacity on the North Shore. The North Shore roadway network is congested and the ability to provide fast, efficient, competitive and increased bus service for on-island and off-island travelers along the North Shore is limited. These congested conditions and roadway deficiencies result in long travel times for Staten Island North Shore commuters, as well as unreliable bus service which can lead to crowding. The lack of efficient public transportation choices compels the majority of North Shore travelers to travel by automobile, resulting in air quality and general environmental degradation along with further congestion. North Shore 5 August 2012

20 commuters destined for Manhattan have some of the longest trip times in New York City due to travel via multiple modes (requiring transfers) including the slow local bus network. Travelers destined to a location on Staten Island other than St. George Ferry Terminal generally still must go through St. George to make connections since most buses serving other parts of Staten Island terminate at the Terminal. There are other bus services that now terminate in Port Richmond forcing transfers to St. George. The density of development in the study area restricts the ability to add roadway capacity. Projected population growth will continue to put pressure on the North Shore s transportation network. Economic growth and the livability of the North Shore s communities will be impaired by increasing congestion and insufficient transit alternatives to driving. Improved transit service is needed to address the following problems: Lack of transportation choices for North Shore travelers along the corridor destined to Manhattan, or to other locations on Staten Island; Congested roadways that lead to increasingly long trip times and unreliable bus service in the study area; Conflicting off-island and on-island travel needs that are not well-served by the North Shore s current transit system; Inconvenient transfers between modes (auto to bus, bus to bus); Physical constraints in the roadway network that limit the ability to add transit system capacity; Transit travel times that are not competitive with auto travel times to key destinations or transfer points, and; Insufficient transit capacity to support future growth and revitalized development on the North Shore. Additional transportation capacity on the North Shore is needed to address these problems. The former North Shore Railroad ROW potentially offers that capacity, but is no longer in usable condition. Portions of the ROW present environmental concerns due their deterioration into the Kill Van Kull. Other portions of the ROW, which bisect working commercial properties, will require special treatments. Transportation improvements within the North Shore Railroad ROW and on the North Shore roadway network were considered as part of this study. 1.4 Project Goals and Objectives Based on the problems identified above, NYCT developed goals and objectives for the project. The proposed project has three goals: 1. Improve Mobility 2. Preserve and Enhance the Environment, Natural Resources, and Open Space 3. Maximize Limited Financial Resources for the Greatest Public Benefit The goals and their supporting objectives (see Table 1) guided the development of proposed transportation improvements along the North Shore. Improvements were developed to cost-effectively improve transit accessibility, reduce travel time, improve reliability and support growth objectives within a reasonable timeframe. They also were framed to provide benefits to community character and avoid or minimize impacts on the environment. 6 August 2012

21 GOAL IMPROVE MOBILITY PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES AND OPEN SPACE MAXIMIZE LIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR THE GREATEST PUBLIC BENEFIT Table 1: Goals and Objectives OBJECTIVE Provide increased and improved travel options along Staten Island s North Shore. Provide a well integrated and efficient transit system that improves and/or reduces transfers between lines and modes. Improve transit access for the transit dependent and transit reliant. Reduce travel time for linked, Manhattan bound trips. Improve transit reliability. Provide improved transit access to the Teleport. Reduce increasing roadway congestion by attracting auto users to transit. Improve air quality by providing transit alternatives that moderate the increase of vehicle emissions. Minimize potential adverse impacts on residential areas, businesses and the built environment from the operation of a transit mode on the North Shore. Minimize potential adverse impacts on the natural environment from the operation and construction of a transit mode on the North Shore. Maintain safe and efficient access to land uses along the North Shore. Make use of existing capacity in transportation corridors, assets and infrastructure. Advance the most cost effective transportation options. Increase revenue potential, thereby minimizing the level of subsidy required. Develop transit options that use known and proven technologies suitable for use on the North Shore. Provide a transportation solution that can be implemented in a timely manner. 1.5 Alternatives Analysis Framework Figure 3: Evaluation Process Performance measures were developed to evaluate the alternatives consistent with the goals and objectives shown in Table 1. A three-level process was used to screen a Long List of alternatives to the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Each evaluation phase was linked to show the gradual progression from a qualitative to a quantitative evaluation of the alternatives. The first fatal flaw screen eliminated the least feasible alternative, based on primarily qualitative data that was available at the earliest stage of alternative development. The second screening incorporated a more comprehensive level of quantitative and qualitative criteria, tied to the goals and objectives, including a range of costs, travel time and potential environmental impacts. This second screening 7 August 2012

22 resulted in the Short List alternatives. The final screening led to the LPA and included a qualitative, quantitative, and comparative evaluation, all directly tied to the goals and objectives. This final evaluation was more detailed than the previous screenings due to further developed engineering, operational, environmental, ridership and cost data than was previously available. This final screening included an analysis that focused on the key differences among the alternatives across all of the quantitative and qualitative measures, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and identifying the key trade-offs of costs and benefits. The screening process flow is depicted in the flow chart in Figure 3 above. Performance measures that were used to implement the alternatives evaluation are summarized, by project goal in Table 2. Table 2: Evaluation Criteria GOAL IMPROVE MOBILITY PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES AND OPEN SPACE MAXIMIZE LIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR THE GREATEST PUBLIC BENEFIT PERFORMANCE MEASURE Improved transit connections between routes and modes Number of auto diversions to transit (net new transit riders) Number of transfers Reduced transit stop dwell time Reduced travel time to/from St. George Reduced travel time to/from the Teleport Increased transit frequency Decreased conflict between transit and non transit modes Improved passenger amenities and accessibility Reduction in the growth of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Number of potential impacts to wetlands (acres) Number of potential hazardous material sites impacted or acquired Number of residential acquisitions Number of business acquisitions Number of potential impacts to culturally sensitive resources and parklands Level of noise emission of transit mode Amount of additional impervious surface created Maintenance of safe access to private property Maintenance of safe access to open space Net revenue Net operating and maintenance costs Estimated capital cost Compatibility with NYCT equipment and operations Number of miles of existing transportation right of way utilized Use of existing transportation facilities Implementation period Cost effectiveness 8 August 2012

23 1.6 Public Outreach and Technical Coordination The primary mechanisms for exchanging information with the public were committees comprised of representative organizations. Two committees were established: an Interagency Committee of governmental agencies and a Community Engagement Committee of civic, business, political and institutional interests. Public meetings were also held as part of the public involvement process. A public meeting followed each round of Committee Meetings. Meetings were held in spring 2010 to introduce the Committees and the public to the project and long list of alternatives. In winter 2011, a review of the long list of alternatives was presented followed by a review of the short list of alternatives in late summer In early spring 2012, the recommended LPA and any future actions that would be taken as part of the development of the LPA was presented to the Committees and then to the public. A detailed description of the public outreach meetings and communications is provided in Chapter 5. In addition to exchanging information with the public, NYCT has coordinated planning efforts with New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) and the NYC Department of City Planning (NYCDCP) on the North Shore and West Shore Land Use and Transportation studies. See Section 2.3. NYCT has also been informed of efforts by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (PANYNJ) to extend the freight tail tracks serving the Howland Hook Marine Terminal to Van Name Avenue. See Section August 2012

24 2. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS 2.1 Existing Conditions in the Study Area The following set of existing conditions describe the demographic, socioeconomic, employment and travel patterns of those people living and working in the study area. Census Data and Census updates were used in the analysis Existing Socioeconomic Conditions Population As shown in Table 3, the 2009 population in the travel market was estimated to be 141,958, accounting for 29.2% of Staten Island s population. Within the travel market, the population in the Port Richmond and the Elm Park subareas together accounted for more than 67% of the travel market population, with 50,295 and 45,412 people, respectively. The New Brighton subarea followed with 27,892 people, representing 19.6% of the population in the travel market. The population in the Northwest Staten Island subarea was lowest with 4,049 people, representing about 2.9%of the travel market. Table 3: Study Market Population (1990, 2000, 2009) Geography Total Population Percent Change Travel Market 114, , , % 8.4% St. George 10,976 13,185 14, % 8.5% New Brighton-Snug Harbor-Randall Manor-Livingston-West Brighton- 24,076 26,528 27, % 5.1% Silver Lake Port Richmond-Westerleigh- Castleton Corners 41,769 46,464 50, % 8.2% Elm Park-Mariners Harbor-Bulls Head-Chelsea 34,892 41,391 45, % 9.7% Northwest Staten Island 2,436 3,423 4, % 18.3% Staten Island 378, , , % 9.5% New York City 7,322,564 8,008,278 8,342, % 4.2% Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 and 2000 Census, Summary File 1; 2009 estimates were obtained from ESRI Demographic and Income Profile Reports The population in the travel market increased by 14.8% from 114,149 people in 1990 to 130,991 people in This growth rate was slightly lower than the 17.1% growth for Staten Island as a whole. Although the population in the Northwest Staten Island subarea was small in 1990 and in 2000, it had the highest growth rate in the travel market, with an increase of 40.5 percent from 1990 to The St. George subarea also experienced significant growth from 1990 to 2000, increasing by 20.1%. The Elm Park subarea followed with the next highest population growth rate (18.6%). Between 2000 and 2009, the population in the travel market continued to increase, but at a lower rate than between 1990 and 2000, and again at a slower pace than Staten Island as a whole. The population in the travel market increased by 8.4%, from 130,991 people in 2000 to 141,958 people in Population in 10 August 2012

25 the Northwest Staten Island subarea increased by 18.3%, followed by the Elm Park subarea (9.7%), the St. George subarea (8.5%), and the Port Richmond subarea (8.2 %). Age Distribution Table 4 shows the age distribution for the travel market. In 2000, approximately 61.3% of the population in the travel market was between ages 18 and 64, generally considered working age. Within the travel market, the St. George subarea had the highest concentration of people in this age group (66.5%). Table 4: 1990 and 2000 Age Distribution School Age (Under 18) Working Age (Ages 18-64) Geography Over Travel Market 24.9% 27.3% 62.6% 61.3% 12.5% 11.4% St. George 25.5% 26.8% 66.2% 66.5% 8.3% 6.6% New Brighton-Snug Harbor-Randall Manor- Livingston-West Brighton-Silver Lake 23.2% 25.4% 59.2% 59.5% 17.6% 15.0% Port Richmond-Westerleigh-Castleton Corners 23.5% 26.5% 62.4% 60.3% 14.1% 13.2% Elm Park-Mariners Harbor-Bulls Head- Chelsea 27.5% 29.5% 63.9% 61.8% 8.6% 8.6% Northwest Staten Island 24.9% 28.6% 63.8% 62.3% 11.3% 9.1% Staten Island 24.8% 25.5% 64.0% 62.9% 11.2% 11.6% New York City 23.0% 24.2% 63.9% 64.1% 13.0% 11.7% Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 and 2000 Census, Summary File 1 The travel market saw a slight shift in age between 1990 and 2000, yielding a larger school age population in In 1990, about 25 percent of the population was under age 18. In 2000, this cohort grew to 27.3% of the population. In comparison, Staten Island and New York City had lower shares of people under 18 (25.5% and 24.2%, respectively). During this period, the school age population increased in share in all subareas with the greatest percentage increase in the Elm Park subarea. In 2000, persons over the age of 65 represented 11.4% of the population in the travel market. This percentage was similar to Staten Island (11.6%) and New York City (11.7%). In the travel market, the New Brighton subarea had the highest concentration of people over 65 (15.0%). St. George had the lowest percentage with only 6.6%. Households In 2009, there were 50,104 households in the travel market, an 8.3% increase since 2000 (see Table 5). These households represented 29.1% of Staten Island households. While the growth rate between 2000 and 2009 was lower for the travel market than for Staten Island (10.1%), it was higher than the growth rate in New York City (3.2%). In 2009, the average household size in the travel market was estimated to be 2.78 persons per household. St. George had the smallest household size of the subareas (2.45 people per household). Elm Park had the largest household size (3.02 people per household). 11 August 2012

26 Table 5: Household Characteristics Geography Total Households Percent Change Average Household Size Travel Market 40,834 46,248 50, % 8.3% St. George 4,341 5,156 5, % 8.7% New Brighton-Snug Harbor- Randall Manor-Livingston- 8,847 9,567 10, % 5.6% West Brighton-Silver Lake Port Richmond-Westerleigh- Castleton Corners 15,051 16,649 18, % 8.3% Elm Park-Mariners Harbor- Bulls Head-Chelsea 11,723 13,692 14, % 9.3% Northwest Staten Island 872 1,184 1, % 17.9% Staten Island 130, , , % 10.1% New York City 2,819,401 3,021,588 3,118, % 3.2% Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 and 2000 Census, Summary File 1; 2009 estimates were obtained from ESRI Demographic and Income Profile Reports. In 2009, the greatest number of households in the travel market was in the Port Richmond subarea (18,031 or 36.0%), followed by Elm Park (14,970 households or 29.9%). Although the Northwest Staten Island subarea had only 2.8% of households in the travel market, it experienced a 17.9% increase between 2000 and Median Household Income Table 6 shows the 1989, 1999, and estimated 2009 median household income in the travel market, the subareas, Staten Island, and New York City. The median household income for the travel market was $64,542 in 2009, 11.0% lower than the median household income for Staten Island ($72,490) but 22.7% higher than New York City ($52,597), all in 2009 dollars, and not inflated. Within the travel market, the median household income ranged from $49,618 in the St. George subarea to $74,000 in the Northwest Staten Island subarea. Between 1989 and 1999, the travel market s median household income decreased by 5.1%, compared with a 7.4% decrease in Staten Island and a 5.3% decrease in New York City. Between 1999 and 2009, the travel market s median household income decreased by 4.8%. During this time period, Staten Island s median household income decreased by 2.2%, while the median household income in New York City increased by 2.0%. 12 August 2012

27 Geography Table 6: Median Household Income (1989, 1999, 2009) Median Household Income Percent Change Travel Market $71,426 $67,773 $64, % -4.8% St. George $52,693 $50,320 $49, % -1.4% New Brighton-Snug Harbor-Randall Manor- Livingston-West Brighton-Silver Lake $72,698 $72,467 $68, % -5.1% Port Richmond-Westerleigh-Castleton Corners $74,128 $69,564 $66, % -4.0% Elm Park-Mariners Harbor-Bulls Head- Chelsea $74,824 $68,223 $65, % -4.0% Northwest Staten Island $62,313 $74,533 $74, % -0.7% Staten Island $80,058 $74,125 $72, % -2.2% New York City $54,435 $51,572 $52, % 2.0% Notes: Median household income is presented in constant 2009 dollars based on the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics October 2009 Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 and 2000 Census, Summary File 1; 2009 estimates were obtained from ESRI Demographic and Income Profile Reports. Housing Units Table 7 shows median housing value and median contract rent in 1990 and Overall, in 2000, the median contract rent in the travel market was $813 per month, approximately 5.1% lower than the median contract rent in Staten Island. Within the travel market, median contract rents ranged from $783 in the New Brighton subarea to $912 in the Northwest Staten Island subarea. From 1990 to 2000, the median contract rents in the travel market and in Staten Island decreased by 1.0% and 2.2%, respectively; however, the median contract rent increased in New York City during this time frame. Within the travel market, the Port Richmond subarea experienced the greatest decrease in median contract rent of the subareas (3.5%). 13 August 2012

28 Geography Table 7: Housing Characteristics Median Home Value Median Contract Rent Percent Change Travel Market NA $250,275 $821 $ % St. George NA $195,134 $826 $ % New Brighton-Snug Harbor-Randall Manor-Livingston-West Brighton-Silver NA $271,586 $773 $ % Lake Port Richmond-Westerleigh-Castleton NA Corners $261,750 $840 $ % Elm Park-Mariners Harbor-Bulls Head- NA Chelsea $234,015 $831 $ % Northwest Staten Island NA $207,883 $923 $ % Staten Island NA $282,921 $876 $ % New York City NA $288,930 $771 $ % Notes: The 1990 median housing value is not reported because the 1990 value is based on specified owner occupied housing units only, while the 2000 median was based on all-owner occupied housing units. The two data sets are not comparable. Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, Summary File 1 and Summary File 3. In 2000, the median home value in the travel market was $250,275, which was 11.5% lower than Staten Island s median home value. The New Brighton subarea had the highest median home value ($271,586), followed by the Port Richmond subarea ($261,750). The lowest median home value in the travel market was in the St. George subarea ($195,134). Employment Profile In 2009, there were an estimated 35,400 employees working at locations in the travel market, representing approximately 35.9% of total employment of Staten Island. The health care and social assistance sector and the retail trade sector had the highest concentrations of employees in the travel market, with 15.8% of total employment in the travel market (or 5,582 employees) and 15.3% (or 5,414 employees), respectively (see Table 8). The public administration sector and transportation and warehousing sector also had high concentrations of employment with 2,920 employees (8.2%) and 2,809 employees (7.9%), respectively. 14 August 2012

29 Table 8: Employment by Industry Sector Industry Sector Travel Market Health Care and Social Assistance 15.80% Retail Trade 15.30% Other Services (except Public Administration) 9.60% Educational Services 8.30% Public Administration 8.20% Transportation and Warehousing 7.90% Accommodation and Food Services 6.90% Construction 5.20% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 4.30% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 3.60% Manufacturing 3.20% Finance and Insurance 3.00% Wholesale Trade 2.20% Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 2.00% Information 1.80% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.40% Utilities 0.80% Unclassified Establishments 0.30% Management of Companies and Enterprises 0.20% Source: ESRI Business Summary Report by NAICS Code Employment Destinations and Means of Transportation In 2009, there were an estimated 35,400 employees working at locations in the travel market, representing approximately 35.9% of total employment of Staten Island. The Port Richmond subarea had the highest concentration of employees, and the Elm Park subarea had the second highest employment concentration. According to the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package, half of the total residents in the travel market work on Staten Island (27% within the travel market and 23% at other Staten Island locations). Approximately 30% of the total residents in the travel market work in Manhattan; most of the rest work in Brooklyn (Table 9). 15 August 2012

30 Table 9: Work Destinations for Travel Market Residents Work Destination Number of Travel Market Residents % Total Work Trips by Destination Richmond County (Staten Island) Total 26, % Richmond County Within Travel Market Area 14, % Richmond County Outside Travel Market Area 12, % New York County (Manhattan) Total 15, % Lower Manhattan 7, % Midtown Manhattan 6, % Upper Manhattan 1, % Kings County (Brooklyn) 6, % Queens County 1, % Bronx County % Hudson County, NJ % Middlesex County, NJ % All Other Counties 2, % Total 53, % Source: 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package Part 3. Most (61%) of the study area residents commute by automobile, which is much higher than in New York City overall but lower than in Staten Island as a whole (Table 10). Bus is the dominant transit mode used in the study area (20%), followed by ferry (10%). Table 10: Means of Transportation to Work Residence Location Car Bus Subway, including SIR Public Transit Commuter Railroad Ferryboat Taxicab Other Means* Richmond County (Staten Island) Total 66.4% 19.2% 2.6% 0.9% 5.3% 0.4% 5.2% Richmond County within Travel Market Area 60.6% 19.8% 2.5% 0.3% 9.7% 0.5% 6.6% New York County (Manhattan) 11.0% 10.1% 43.7% 1.1% 0.1% 4.7% 29.4% Kings County (Brooklyn) 30.4% 10.4% 45.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.7% 12.1% Queens County 44.5% 10.0% 34.4% 2.2% 0.0% 0.7% 8.2% Bronx County 36.4% 15.6% 34.7% 2.0% 0.0% 1.3% 10.0% New York City Total 32.9% 11.4% 37.8% 1.6% 0.4% 1.7% 14.3% Notes: Means of transportation indicates the dominant mode of transportation (i.e., the mode used for the longest portion of the commute). * Other means includes motorcycle, bicycle, walking, other, and working from home. Source: Census August 2012

31 2.1.3 Existing Transit Service The study area is served by three modes of scheduled public transportation: bus, ferry, and rail. Existing Bus Service MTA NYCT operates an extensive network of local and limited-stop bus routes that serve the entire borough. The S40 to S79 series routes denote local service, the S80 and S90 series routes are limited-stop services that generally parallel local service. Free transfers are provided between bus routes in Staten Island and Brooklyn. Free transfers can also be made to SIR and the subway in Brooklyn. Using the Staten Island Ferry, transfers can also be made to the New York City Subway and buses in Manhattan. Local buses make all stops along a route, while limited-stop buses stop only at major roads, busy transfer points, and special destinations. Limited-stop buses generally operate during peak periods and in the peak direction only. Most local/limited-stop buses on the North Shore are scheduled to arrive and depart from the St. George Ferry Terminal to meet the ferries. This is convenient for travelers to and from Manhattan, but can inconvenience intra-island travelers. The four primary local/limited-stop bus routes in the study area (S40/90; S44/94; S46/96; S48/98) account for 29% of total Staten Island local/limited-stop bus average weekday ridership (111,252), according to NYCT Bus boarding and alighting counts from Of the total riders on those routes, 39% board or alight their buses at the St. George Ferry Terminal. More than 6,900 daily bus-tobus transfers are made daily in the study area. City-wide, 44 routes are monitored for reliability. Based on NYCT wait assessment statistics, roughly 20% of the North Shore local/limited buses arrive less frequently than they are scheduled. This indicates unreliability of service for passengers on a sample of routes. NYCT also operates express bus service (X10, X12/X42, and X14) between the study area (Port Richmond and along Forest Avenue) and Manhattan via the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge to Brooklyn. Two additional express bus routes (X30 and X17) provide service between the North Shore and Manhattan via the Goethals Bridge, New Jersey Turnpike and the Lincoln Tunnel. About 3,000 daily express bus boardings occur within the study area. Most express bus riders from the study area begin their trips in the Port Richmond and Elm Park areas. The bus routes in the study area are shown in Figure August 2012

32 Figure 4: Existing Study Area Bus Services 18 August 2012

33 Staten Island Ferry The St. George subarea anchors the eastern end of the study corridor. It is home to Staten Island s largest intermodal transit center, the St. George Ferry Terminal. Various NYCT local and limited-stop bus routes and the Staten Island Railway (SIR) also serve the terminal. The St. George Ferry Terminal is the site of the largest park-and-ride lot located in the North Shore study area. The New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) Staten Island Ferry has been a municipal service since 1905, and currently carries over 20 million passengers annually on a 25-minute, 5.2-mile trip between the St. George Ferry Terminal in Staten Island and the Whitehall Ferry Terminal in lower Manhattan. Service is provided at no cost to passengers 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with a reported on-time performance of over 96 percent. Service frequencies range from 15 minutes during peak periods to 30 minutes during off-peak periods, and 60 minutes during overnight hours. Staten Island Railway SIR is the borough s only passenger rail service. SIR provides 24-hour service, every day to 22 stations along the 14.3-mile route between the St. George Ferry Terminal and Tottenville Terminal. During peak periods, SIR operates peak direction express and local trains to and from St. George that are timed to meet arrivals/departures of the Staten Island Ferry. There are two SIR stations within the study area: the active St. George Ferry Terminal and the currently closed Ballpark Station which is located on a section of the North Shore Railroad ROW Existing Freight and Maritime Support Services In 1993, the City of New York acquired the right-of-way of the North Shore Branch of Staten Island Rapid Transit, and the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) oversees its management. In 2007, freight rail service over the City of New York-owned Arthur Kill Lift Bridge resumed to serve the Howland Hook Marine Terminal, which is also owned by the City of New York and leased to the PANYNJ. The PANYNJ subleases the terminal to New York Terminal Container, Inc., which operates the terminal. At the western portion of the study area, the recently reconstructed Arlington freight yard has tail tracks which serve Howland Hook. The tail track currently extends into the proposed transit service territory east of South Avenue to the Union Avenue overhead (OH) bridge. The PANYNJ has advised that the freight operator desires to extend the Howland Hook Terminal freight tail track to the east, farther into the proposed passenger service territory, to the Van Name Ave. OH bridge. Therefore, a goal of the design of any proposed transit alignment in this area is to allow both the transit service (either two-track or two-lane) and the tail track extension, without the need to widen the ROW. In addition, there is an active freight rail branch to the south outside of the study area, connecting to the Arlington freight yard. The study area supports a broad range of maritime and working waterfront uses that are of critical importance to the PANYNJ, and the entire metropolitan region as a whole. The Port generates more than $18 billion in international and domestic economic activity annually and more than $2.2 billion in state and local taxes according to the 2009 Staten Island North Shore Land Use and Transportation Study. The ability for continued use of the waterfront by maritime support service that abut the North Shore Railroad right-of-way with transit services in operation on the ROW is an important design goal Existing Environmental Conditions The study area includes several neighborhoods of varied land use patterns and character along the potential alignment between West Shore Plaza and the St. George Ferry Terminal. Within the study area, portions of the alignment south of the Staten Island Expressway are generally of low density with large tracts of open space or undeveloped lands. North of the Staten Island Expressway, the development is more mixed and with higher density. 19 August 2012

34 The study area includes a strong industrial sector, concentrated along the shoreline. This Kill van Kull working waterfront features a number of manufacturing and industrial businesses along Richmond Terrace. These include a number of maritime support services (workboats, tugboats, dry docks), a road salt supply business (with delivery by boat), and the city s Port Richmond Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). In the Northwest Staten Island subarea, the Howland Hook Marine Terminal is a major freight terminal and container port. The former North Shore rail ROW has been reactivated in this area, serving rail freight operations. The active portion of the ROW extends from the Arthur Kill (and New Jersey to the west) eastward to approximately Union Avenue. Other industrial uses are located near the Howland Hook Terminal in this segment of the travel market. An environmental scan was undertaken to understand the potential for issues within the study area, and specifically those affecting the former North Shore ROW. The following baseline conditions were identified and if a decision were made to proceed with the project, potential impacts would be explored later in an environmental impact statement. For more detail on each of the below listed issues, see Appendix 10, the Environmental Analysis Report for Short List Alternatives. Historic Resources: It is possible that some sites within the study area have historic importance and could be placed on the National Register or receive a Landmark designation. At the abandoned Snug Harbor station on the former North Shore Rail ROW, a double staircase with a retaining wall leading to the station and dock is inscribed Sailors Snug Harbor and is part of a historic district. If the selected alignment requires removal of this staircase, coordination with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) would be required. Wetlands: Concerns were identified at four areas along the North Shore rail ROW: 1. Arlington Marsh; 2. Bard Avenue west to Port Richmond Water Pollution Control Plant; 3. Bodine Creek at the eastern end of the existing viaduct piers; and 4. Snug Harbor area along the area of the ROW and the small creek crossing. Additionally, freshwater and tidal wetlands are mapped both east and west of South Avenue in the Staten Island Industrial Park. Hazardous Materials, Landfill: Considering the long history of industrial use on the north shore of Staten Island, some sites along the route may introduce serious concerns related to hazardous materials. The former A&A Landfill, located west of South Avenue at Arlington, may have soil and/or groundwater contamination in addition to other hazardous materials. Noise: The study area includes several noise-sensitive uses (FTA Land Use Categories 2 and 3). Closest to the alignment, noise-sensitive uses include residential uses that abut the viaduct portion of the former rail ROW. The predominant source of noise in the study area is from street and highway traffic. Critical Habitat Areas: The NYSDEC s Environmental Resource Mapper identifies a number of sensitive areas along the project area near South Avenue. In particular, the map identifies the potential for freshwater wetlands, rare plants and animals, and significant natural communities along most of South Avenue and the land on either side of the roadway. Archeology: The archaeological sensitivity of portions of the project corridor has been investigated in several previous archaeological assessments. The existing Arlington Yard area and portions of the existing rail corridor were included within a study completed by Hartgen Archaeological Associates, Inc. in April The report concluded that Arlington Yard was archaeologically sensitive, but the rail corridor was disturbed and therefore not sensitive for archaeological resources. The report also identified limited areas of archaeological sensitivity along the northern shore of Staten Island. Parkland: Several parks are directly adjacent to the proposed alignment for the BRT and LRT Alternatives. These include the North Shore Esplanade, Sailors Snug Harbor, and a future park to be built at the Blissenbach Marina site. The North Shore Esplanade is a waterfront walkway that extends from the Staten Island ferry terminal in St. George westward to approximately Jersey Street, and is accessible to pedestrians from its eastern and western termini and from the parking lot at the Richmond County Bank Ballpark. Sailors Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden is a complex of 20 August 2012

35 cultural uses on a historic 83-acre campus in the New Brighton-Snug Harbor section of the study area. Although the Snug Harbor campus is on the south side of Richmond Terrace, the mapped parkland here extends to the water s edge north of Richmond Terrace and includes a paved path and a currently unused dock. The third park is the Blissenbach Marina, along the north side of the proposed alignment near Alaska Street. In February of 2003, officials announced that a 9.5-acre parcel of land in Staten Island would become city parkland. Under a new program that helps the PANYNJ balance redevelopment with the need to preserve natural areas, the Blissenbach Marina site in the West Brighton neighborhood of the North Shore was purchased. The land was purchased on behalf of the PANYNJ by the Trust for Public Land, a nonprofit conservation organization. These areas require sensitivity in developing the build alternatives Existing Traffic Conditions Major Roads The Staten Island roadway network is comprised of several controlled access expressways oriented primarily along corridors with off-island connections: Staten Island Expressway (I-278), with connections to New Jersey via the Goethals Bridge and Brooklyn via the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge (east-west) Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Expressway (formerly the Willowbrook Expressway (NY 440)), with connections to New Jersey via the Bayonne Bridge (north-south) West Shore Expressway (NY 440), with connections to New Jersey via the Outerbridge Crossing (north-south) Korean War Veterans Parkway (formerly Richmond Parkway), with connections to New Jersey via the West Shore Expressway (NY 440) and the Outerbridge Crossing (east-west) In 2000, a one-mile eastbound bus-only lane was installed on the Staten Island Expressway (SIE) approach to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge to bypass congestion at the toll plaza. At the same time, an existing AM peak period exclusive median bus lane on the Gowanus Expressway was extended south to the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and converted to HOV use. Due to its success, NYSDOT extended the SIE bus lane in both directions to Renwick Avenue, and in April of 2009 in each direction, the lane was opened to cars with two or more passengers during peak periods. The bus lane operates as an HOV-2 lane during peak periods only (eastbound from 6:00am-10:00am and westbound from 3:00pm-7:00pm) and remains a bus lane all other times. Currently, new construction on the Staten Island Expressway extending the bus lanes to Victory Boulevard is underway. This second phase also includes the construction of continuous auxiliary lanes in both directions between Clove Road and Bradley Avenue to address delays and reduce accidents caused by weaving traffic entering and exiting the highway at the Bradley Avenue, Slosson Avenue and Clove Road access points. Additional improvements include the removal of the abandoned Richmond Expressway interchange between Slosson and Renwick Avenues, and reconfiguration of ramps at Hylan Boulevard and Clove Road. Plans have also been introduced to address the Richmond Avenue entrance and exit ramps, which cut through a residential neighborhood. The removal of the defunct eastbound Verrazano-Narrows Bridge tollbooths is underway. The Martin Luther King Jr. Expressway (NY 440) is comprised of four travel lanes and three interchanges, and extends for approximately two miles from the Staten Island Expressway to the Bayonne Bridge. Access to and from the MLK Expressway within the study area is provided by interchanges at Forest Avenue and north of Forest Avenue in the vicinity of Walker Street. This makes the Elm 21 August 2012

36 Park/Mariners Harbor and Port Richmond areas very accessible to the regional highway system for both truck and auto traffic. The West Shore Expressway (NY 440) extends approximately 8.5 miles from the Staten Island Expressway to the Outerbridge Crossing. It is comprised of four travel lanes and five interchanges. A short spur of the uncompleted Korean War Veterans Parkway extends approximately 3.5 miles northeast from its interchange with the West Shore Expressway near the Outerbridge Crossing to the Arden Heights neighborhood and LaTourette Park. Major Bridges Staten Island is connected off-island by four major toll bridges. Each one provides a direct link to controlled-access expressways both on and off the island. These bridges are the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, the Goethals Bridge, the Outerbridge Crossing, and the Bayonne Bridge. While none of the bridges are being analyzed specifically, they play a key role in study area travel. Arterial Roadways A number of arterials provide intra-island connectivity, including: Richmond Terrace Forest Avenue Victory Boulevard Castleton Avenue South Avenue Richmond Avenue Richmond Road Jewett Avenue Clove Road Travel within the study area is predominantly east-west in orientation to and from the St. George Ferry Terminal. However, Staten Island s primary east-west corridor (Staten Island Expressway), and most of its population lies to the south of the study area, making access to and from the south an important component. East-west travel within the study area is constrained by the limited number of continuous east-west roadways. The primary east-west roadways in the study area are Richmond Terrace and Forest Avenue, which approximate the northern and southern boundary of the study area, respectively. Richmond Terrace, Forest Avenue, Victory Boulevard and Bay Street are functionally classified as principal arterials. The physical geometry of Richmond Terrace used by the S40/90 bus routes is affected by the narrowness of the curb-to-curb roadway which inhibits capacity and flow. With the roadway curving and winding, sight distance is insufficient in some areas. There is one travel lane in each direction along with on-street parking. This affects both automobiles and bus traffic in the corridor. South Avenue, which forms part of the western border of the study area, is a two-lane principal arterial that runs between Richmond Terrace and Forest Avenue. It widens to two travel lanes in each direction south of Forest Avenue and parallels the West Shore Expressway for approximately 1.5 miles, before terminating in the Chelsea Area. The highest traffic volumes are located approaching the SIE, with most traffic exiting and entering the SIE. South of the SIE, South Avenue widens to two travel lanes in each direction with a landscaped median through the corporate and commercial area to the south. Typically, intersections along South Avenue operate at overall acceptable levels of service; however, certain traffic movements (especially at the intersection of South Avenue and Forest Avenue) operate at unacceptable LOS E or F during certain time periods. 22 August 2012

37 2.2 Future Conditions - No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative reflects the continuation of existing transit operations along the North Shore roadway network. This will serve as a baseline comparison to determine benefits of the proposed alternatives. It is assumed that MTA-NYCT will maintain its current vehicle type and schedule for the local, limited-stop and express bus operations along the North Shore. The No Build Alternative also includes projects identified in the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council s (NYMTC) adopted transportation improvement program (TIP). Projects included in the No Build include the following: Bayonne Bridge PANYNJ has initiated an environmental review for the Bayonne Bridge Navigational Clearance Program. The purpose of the project is to investigate options to increase the navigation clearance of the Kill van Kull beneath the Bayonne Bridge so that larger vessels can access the Port of Newark and Elizabeth. PANYNJ is presently studying an alternative to raise the road deck within the existing arch structure. Much of this work would occur within the existing ROW of Route 440. As of November 2011, the US Coast Guard initiated the NEPA process. St. George Ferry Ramps (NYCDOT) The City has begun the rehabilitation of the Staten Island Ferry Terminal s eight vehicular bridges. This also involves rebuilding one pedestrian bridge and one parking field which provide commuter access. The bridges support pedestrian traffic, MTA bus routes and stations, drop off and pick up taxi service, and other passenger vehicle traffic such as commuter vans. In addition, NYCDOT will repair and replace deck surfaces, rehabilitate and replace deteriorated structural steel, repair and clean the concrete substructure, and paint all exposed structural steel. The vehicular bridge adjacent to the Richmond County Bank Stadium (North Ramp) will be demolished and reconstructed on a more efficient alignment in order to alleviate traffic congestion at the intersection of Richmond Terrace and Wall Street. NYCDOT will also replace existing bridge lighting and drainage systems, including new underground pipes to the existing outfall locations; install a pigeon deterrent system; resurface the North Municipal Parking Field; and install architectural enhancements to the bus canopies and pedestrian breezeway. Staten Island Expressway (I-278) Median Bus and HOV Lane Extension As described in Section above, construction has begun on the second phase of the bus lane west from Slosson Avenue to Victory Boulevard. The extension of the lanes, other access improvements, and removal of eastbound Verrazano-Narrows Bridge toll booths are estimated to be completed by Goethals Bridge Replacement Due to the age and functional deficiencies of the Goethals Bridge, which provides direct connections between the Staten Island Expressway/West Shore Expressway to points west, including the New Jersey Turnpike and US Route 1, the PANYNJ has proposed a replacement Goethals Bridge linking Staten Island to Elizabeth, New Jersey. The environmental review process for the PANYNJ s Goethals Bridge Replacement Project was concluded with the US Coast Guard s issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement in August 2010 and the Record of Decision in January Construction is expected to start mid It will likely take four to five years to construct a new bridge and demolish the existing bridge. 23 August 2012

38 2.3 Potential Future Changes A number of public policy initiatives, transportation proposals, development plans, and park proposals are under way or in place in the travel market that may affect travel patterns in the future. This list includes those projects listed in the NYMTC TIP as well as other concurrent developments and proposed improvements in the study area. Public Policy Initiatives and Transportation Improvements North Shore Land Use and Transportation Study The NYCEDC in conjunction with the NYCDCP conducted a study of potential future land use changes and transportation improvements that can enhance and support the existing neighborhood characteristics, maritime industries, recreational areas, and environmentally sensitive areas in the North Shore of Staten Island. The study area for the North Shore study is similar to the travel market evaluated in this technical memorandum, except that the Northwest Staten Island subarea is not included. The study effort, which included extensive public outreach, ultimately recommended focusing on connecting and improving neighborhoods and centers of the North Shore via development, zoning changes to support the development, and utilizing the former North Shore ROW for transit use as a strategy to improve access to the St. George Ferry Terminal. NYCT has coordinated with both agencies on the North Shore Transportation and Land Use study. West Shore Transportation and Land Use Study NYCEDC and NYCDCP also undertook a transportation and land use study of the West Shore of Staten Island, encompassing neighborhoods along the island s west shore including the Northwest Staten Island subarea. Through a series of public workshops and Advisory Committee meetings, the study identified ways to coordinate transportation and land use while supporting existing businesses, preserving open space and natural features, and improving access to waterfront recreation. This report also highlights 14 new initiatives addressing agency coordination, job development, infrastructure and open space. Of the 25 ongoing initiatives described, the transit services studied within this North Shore Alternatives Analysis is included as an infrastructure initiative. NYCT also coordinated with both agencies on the West Shore Transportation and Land Use study. Special St. George District Rezoning The City of New York adopted zoning changes for the St. George area near the ferry terminal in October A new zoning special district was created and adopted that is intended to promote higher density, mixed-use development in the study area. West Shore Expressway Improvement Study NYSDOT has been examining safety and access improvements along the West Shore Expressway as part of the West Shore Expressway Access and Safety Improvements Final Expanded Project Proposal (West Shore Expressway Proposal) (NYSDOT, May 2004). That study examines potential improvements within six study areas identified as South Avenue, Victory Boulevard, Arden Avenue, Arthur Kill Road, Bloomingdale Road, and Korean War Veterans Parkway. Extensive improvements are proposed, and are in various phases of design. New York City Bus Rapid Transit Project (NYCDOT/NYCT) The New York City Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project is a joint project between NYCDOT and NYCT that will improve the speed, reliability, and attractiveness of bus service throughout the five boroughs of New York City. Improvements will include new and enhanced bus lanes, new buses, transit signal priority, improved fare collection, distinctive branding as Select Bus Service, and enhanced service with fewer stops, improved station amenities, and real-time passenger information. The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes $15 Million of dedicated funding in FY12 for the corridors of 34 th 24 August 2012

39 Street in Manhattan (initiated: November 2011), Hylan Boulevard in Staten Island, and a third route yet to be determined. Development Plans and Initiatives St. George Waterfront Development In August 2011, the NYCEDC issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) for a combined 14- acre of potential waterfront development on two city-owned parking lots near the St. George Ferry Terminal. The RFEI goals included maximize economic growth in NYC and specifically St. George; strengthen role of St. George as activity center and gateway to Staten Island; improve connections to waterfront and St. George; and complement, but not directly compete with existing businesses. A potential future bus or BRT terminal for North Shore service would be completed in coordination with future development on the sites. New Stapleton Waterfront The Homeport, a 35-acre decommissioned U.S. Naval Base, is poised to become the New Stapleton Waterfront, a mixed-use residential community. A selected developer for Phase I will invest $150 million to construct 900 units of housing, 30,000 square feet of ground floor retail, 600 parking spaces and a public plaza on two of six development parcels. In addition, the City of New York will invest $32 million for road improvements and new waterfront open space. The Staten Island Borough President s office is also funding improvements to the SIR Stapleton station. Overall, the project will support use of the SIR, the St. George Ferry Terminal and local bus routes. Former Coast Guard Site Redevelopment Located between the St. George Ferry Terminal and the New Stapleton Waterfront, a selected developer has proposed a mixed-use development with Phase I consisting of 45,000 square feet of retail space. Subsequent phases will include a mix of 35,000 square feet of additional retail space, a 60-room hotel, and 100 residential units. Investment in Phase I would be $20 million, with total investments across all three phases at $130 million. In addition, a Request for Proposals (RFP) for cultural uses was recently released for a building located on the site (Building 11). NYCEDC has also completed a renovated public pier adjacent to the site s public plaza (available for cultural programming). Staten Island Civic Center As the future home of Staten Island s Supreme Court, this project involves the creation of a substantial town square to be built around a new Courthouse building in St. George. The five-story edifice is slated to be completed in January It will include the development of new office space, streetscape improvements, and a parking garage. Establishment of the first Staten Island Industrial Business Zone (IBZ) In 2012, the City of New York will establish the first Staten Island Industrial Business Zone (IBZ) encompassing areas of the north and west shore. First established in 2005, the IBZ program is a City of New York program intended to preserve and enhance industrial and manufacturing businesses within geographically designated areas. Industrial Business Zones provide a number of tax credits and benefits to qualifying businesses. Market and Urban Garden Center On the south side of Richmond Terrace, between Franklin and Lafayette Avenues, a market and urban garden center is proposed as an extension of the farmer s market that currently operates in a former industrial building on the opposite side of Richmond Terrace. Markham Gardens A privately sponsored affordable housing development, Markham Gardens, has recently been completed on a 12-acre site located on Richmond Terrace between Broadway and North Burgher Avenue in the New Brighton subarea. The project consists of low- to medium-density townhouses containing approximately 25 August 2012

40 265 housing units located on the site of a former public housing development. A final phase of the project will bring new senior housing to the site. North Shore Business Park Near the Port Richmond Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), the recently completed North Shore Business Park on Richmond Terrace is expanding through the creation of a new 10,000-square-foot warehouse facility. Staten Island Container Terminal In the Elm Park subarea, the Scara-Mix Cement Company is planning to relocate to the Staten Island Container Terminal just west of the Bayonne Bridge in the Elm Park subarea on Richmond Terrace. Howland Hook Redevelopment Program One of the largest industrial activities in the region is the Howland Hook Marine Terminal, owned by the City of New York. The terminal is leased to the PANYNJ and subleased to the terminal operator, New York Container Terminal, Inc. The facility was built in the 1930s and is major port facility for shipment of containerized cargo. The PANYNJ is completing both on-site and associated transportation expansions and improvements. The New York Container Terminal is studying improvement opportunities to increase the capacity of the terminal to accommodate forecasted growth of 12 percent per year. Additionally, PANYNJ s Ten-Year Capital Plan covers the design and build of an Eastbound Ramp off the Goethals Bridge into the New York Container Terminal at the Howland Hook Marine Terminal. Visy Paper Plant Expansion The Visy Paper plant, located in the southern part of the Northwest Staten Island subarea near Victory Boulevard, is expanding its existing recycling operation with a 100,000-square-foot converting facility next to the existing waste paper recycling mill. 26 August 2012

41 Proposed Parks and Open Spaces Blissenbach Site Along Richmond Terrace just east of the Port Richmond WPCP in the Port Richmond subarea, the NYCDPR owns a 9-acre vacant parcel formerly occupied by Marine Power & Light and Blissenbach Boat Marina. The PANYNJ invested $3.5 million in October 2010 to allow the Trust for Public Land, a nonprofit conservation organization, to create a lawn and meadow on the site and to develop an area for public parking. Fresh Kills Park NYCDPR is undertaking the long-term conversion of the Fresh Kills Landfill to a major regional recreational resource, Fresh Kills Park. The total acreage of the park will be 2,200 acres, a portion of which will be located in the Northwest Staten Island subarea. Upon completion, Fresh Kills Park will be the City s second-largest park (after Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx, which covers 2,765 acres), will more than double the size of the Staten Island Greenbelt, and will be almost three times the size of Central Park. Because of the complexities associated with converting the former landfill into a recreational space, park development is expected to be implemented in multiple phases through 2036, with designs that are expected to evolve over time. The park is organized in five key planning areas: North Park, South Park, East Park, West Park, and the Confluence. Park implementation in North Park and South Park is expected in the earlier phases of the project (through 2016), along with improvements in site access and circulation. Development in East Park and West Park, as well as the Confluence, and completion of the circulation plan are longer-term initiatives (through 2036). Old Place Creek Site Access The NYSDEC has obtained funding for development of an access plan and improved open space opportunities at Old Place Creek, a tributary tidal creek of the Arthur Kill just south of the Goethals Bridge toll plaza in the Northwest Staten Island subarea. Old Place Creek is part of the Harbor Herons Wildlife Complex, a 2,200-acre wetland area along the western shore of Staten Island. Potential improvements will include an on-site parking area (8-10 cars), walk-in only trails with educational signage, as well as a kayak launch area, fishing areas, and a viewing platform. Arlington Marsh NYCDPR may in the future perform wetland restoration at Arlington Marsh, in the Northwest Staten Island subarea, in order to improve the quality of this natural resource. 27 August 2012

42 3. BUILD ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - LONG LIST 3.1 Identification of Alternatives The Preliminary Long List of Build Alternatives was created through a process that included the following activities: Review of research carried out in the PANYNJ s 2004 Feasibility Study of the North Shore Railroad right-of-way, the MTA s Transit Needs Assessment Study for Staten Island, and SIEDC s West Shore Light Rail Study; An exhaustive literature and information search of materials relating to all previous and ongoing plans, studies, and proposals; Brainstorming sessions with MTA NYCT staff; Outreach which engaged the public and community groups including a project specific interagency advisory committee as well as a community engagement committee. Meetings were also conducted with individual stakeholders. Other outreach efforts include a widely distributed newsletter and a project website. Eight alternatives were identified representing a mix of modes (bus, light rail, heavy rail, and ferry), routes and alignments, and termini. The Preliminary Long List is summarized in Table 11. The potential for each alternative on the Preliminary Long List to satisfy the study s goals and objectives was evaluated in terms of basic feasibility. The purpose of this early fatal flaw evaluation was to eliminate from further study any alternatives that would not, even with further development, be able to meet the study s core requirements. In that evaluation, the Ferry/Water Taxi Alternative was deemed fatally flawed due to the limited improvement to mobility and low levels of public benefit it would provide. It received the lowest scores of all the alternatives for potential improved transit frequency and travel times, provision of multiple transit stops, impacts to parkland, and provision of a direct connection to SIR or the Teleport. The Ferry/Water Taxi Alternative was, therefore eliminated from further evaluation in the study. 28 August 2012

43 Mode Termini Description Transportation Systems Management (TSM) St. George to multiple locations Table 11: Preliminary Long List of Alternatives FTA-required baseline option that includes low-cost improvements such as intersection improvements, dedicated bus lanes, signalization improvements, bus route restructuring, shortened bus headways, expanded park-and-ride facilities, express and limited-stop service, and timed-transfer operations. Heavy Rail (SIR) Electric Light Rail (LRT) Diesel Light Rail (DLRT) Electric Light Rail (LRT) Diesel Light Rail (DLRT) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Ferry/ Water Taxi St. George to Arlington St. George to Arlington St. George to Arlington St. George to West Shore Plaza St. George to West Shore Plaza St. George to West Shore Plaza (plus Feeder Service) Kill Van Kull from St. George Terminal to Mariner s Harbor Heavy Rail (SIR) service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus just west of South Avenue in Arlington. Electric Light Rail (LRT) service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus just west of South Avenue in Arlington. Diesel Light Rail service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus just west of South Avenue in Arlington. Electric Light Rail (LRT) service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus near West Shore Plaza. Diesel Light Rail service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus near West Shore Plaza. Bus Rapid Transit service on a new, dedicated busway that would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus just west of South Avenue in Arlington. Feeder bus service would operate locally from West Shore Plaza and within study area neighborhoods and access the busway via ramps at South Avenue/Cable Way, Alaska Street/Richmond Terrace, and Bard Avenue/Richmond Terrace. Passenger Ferry or Water Taxi service between St. George Ferry Terminal and up to five park and ride locations along the North Shore with coordinated bus connections to the Teleport / Corporate Center area. 29 August 2012

44 3.2 Development of Alternatives The resultant Long List of Alternatives included seven alternatives, first of which was the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, which is required by FTA guidance. FTA states that the TSM Alternative should emphasize upgrades in transit service through operational and small physical improvements, plus highway upgrades such as intersection improvements, minor widenings, and other focused traffic engineering actions. A TSM Alternative typically includes features such as regional parking/transfer center improvements; new bus services; route restructuring or optimization; spot roadway and intersection improvements; and traffic signal prioritization improvements. The other six alternatives all provided for bus or rail service utilizing the North Shore right-of-way between St. George and Arlington. Therefore, an important aspect of the development of the alternatives was to best integrate each proposed alignment with the existing built environment in the study area, with an understanding of property owners and community resources. For all seven alternatives, operating characteristics were developed, potential environmental impacts were assessed, and costs were estimated. The sections below describe the methodologies for developing that information. A summary comparison of the alternatives is in Section 3.3. Detailed descriptions of each Long List Alternative are in Sections 3.4 through Alignment and Right-of-way General Description The alignment for any of the build alternatives (except for TSM) would make use of the inactive and reinstituted North Shore Railroad ROW between St. George and Arlington for exclusive operation. See Figure 5 for the alignment and proposed stations. See Figure 10 in Section for all proposed bus routes that would comprise the BRT Alternative. Any existing station infrastructure on the North Shore Railroad ROW is in complete disrepair and would be removed. With the extension of freight tail track east to Van Name Avenue (see Section 2.1.4), new retaining walls and the modification of overhead bridge substructures would be required in this segment. The scope and cost of the freight tail track and associated civil/structural work is not included within any of the NSAA proposed alternatives. It is assumed that the PANYNJ would construct the freight tail track extension before the implementation of any transit project. Near St. George Terminal, the SIR utilizes the North Shore Railroad right-of-way for turning trains and exterior vehicle cleaning. The limit of current use is to the west side of the existing Ballpark Station. These activities would need to be relocated under any of the NSAA proposed alternatives. Alternatives with a terminus at West Shore Plaza (BRT, DLRT and LRT) would travel on South Avenue Segment in mixed traffic with priority given to transit at traffic signals. See Figure 6 for the alignment and proposed stations. South of the SIE overhead bridge, South Avenue is two lanes in each direction. North of the SIE, it is one lane in each direction. Drawings of the proposed LRT and BRT alignments are located in Appendix 5, Short List Alternatives Drawing Sets. For the TSM Alternative, some improvements to the existing road network in the study area are proposed. See Figure 8 in Section for the location of all TSM Alternative components. 30 August 2012

45 Proposed North Shore Railroad Right-of-way Modifications Between the east end of the Port Richmond Viaduct and the St. George Terminal, the existing North Shore Railroad ROW is located between Richmond Terrace and the Kill Van Kull. For all alternatives except TSM, the North Shore ROW is proposed to be modified (Modified Alignment) for the purpose of enhancing maritime industries adjacent to or occupying the existing ROW, and to protect the future transit infrastructure and facilities from potential flooding and erosion that results from proximity to the Kill van Kull. Two maritime industries are located along the North Shore ROW with facilities on both the north and south sides of the ROW. These industries are: The City of New York owns the rail ROW abutted by Caddell Drydock, located between Tompkins Street and Davis Avenue (2,900 feet). Atlantic Salt, located between Chilton Avenue and the western end of Bank Street (2,300 feet). Atlantic Salt is the owner of the North Shore ROW along its frontage, with an easement for the ROW owned by the City of New York. The Modified Alignment is proposed for all alternatives along the frontage of these industries. Both industries would benefit by moving the proposed alignments south towards Richmond Terrace, thus increasing the width of uninterrupted property available for their use. For the benefit of transit operations, the modified alignment would reduce the need for industry operations to cross the guideway and bring the ROW closer to potential customers. In both cases, the majority of the proposed ROW footprint is owned by the respective industries, allowing for a property swap concept. Another effect of the modified alignment is that an existing pedestrian access point across the right-ofway in the area of Snug Harbor would be eliminated. This is due to the proposed elevation change of the alignment. A replacement grade separated crossing would be provided at the specific design stages to preserve pedestrian to access the waterfront. The existing North Shore ROW would be shifted slightly south for approximately 9,500 feet between Blissenbach Marina and Jersey Street and through properties owned by Caddell Dry Dock, through Snug Harbor and through Atlantic Salt. This shift in alignment would enable the property owners to maximize waterfront access for their businesses and would enable the busway to be shifted inland from the eroded shoreline in Snug Harbor. The removal of the former US Gypsum building and the building that houses Gerardi s market was an assumption of this study to enable the shift through Atlantic Salt s property. The modified alignment through Snug Harbor would place the transitway 13 feet above sea level elevation supported by fill and a retaining wall 10 feet in height on average on the north side of the guideway. Grade separated access to the waterfront would be maintained for pedestrians. At-grade crossings of the busway are proposed at Tompkins Court (Blissenbach Marina), Broadway (Caddell Dry Dock), Elizabeth Avenue (Caddell Dry Dock private), Bard Avenue and Jersey Street. A grade separated crossing is proposed at Sailors Snug Harbor to enable pedestrian access to the waterfront. 31 August 2012

46 Figure 5: Rail Alignment St. George to Arlington 32 August 2012

47 Figure 6: Rail Alignment - St. George to West Shore Plaza 33 August 2012

48 Proposed Stations The Stations between St. George and Arlington are common to all alternatives which would use the transitway (busway or rail alignment on the former North Shore ROW). See Figure 5 for station locations. Additionally, two light rail alternatives and the BRT alternative offer service to West Shore Plaza, using the same proposed station locations along South Avenue. See Figure 6 for station locations. More detail on these stations is available in Appendix 4 and Appendix 5. The stations are as follows: STATIONS COMMON TO ALL LONG LIST ALTERNATIVES (except TSM) St. George to Arlington St. George Terminal Existing terminal with direct connections to Staten Island Ferry, Staten Island Railway and NYCT Local/Limited Buses. Connections would be made to the existing SIR concourse. Fare array and back of house spaces would be modified For rail modes: use refurbished center island Platform 6 and Tracks 11 and 12 For BRT mode: demolish existing Platform 6 and adjacent Tracks 11 and 12 and construct pedestrian corridor to proposed bus terminal. Construct bus terminal on public parking facility located west of the terminal. This facility is within the St. George Station development site (see Section 2.3). Provide vertical core to existing bus terminal on upper level to facilitate transfers to those NYCT Staten Island Bus routes Existing park-and-ride facilities located on site as well as walk or drop-off access Ballpark Existing, but inactive station located approximately one-quarter mile northwest of St. George Terminal Located below-grade on the east side of Richmond Terrace between Hamilton Avenue and Wall Street For rail mode: utilize existing center-island platform and vertical cores For BRT mode: demolish existing platform and construct offset side platforms. Modify vertical cores to street. Proposed service provided on game-day only New Brighton New station located at-grade on the north side of Richmond Terrace between Franklin Avenue and Lafayette Ave on the site of the existing Gerardi s Market building on the Atlantic Salt Property Offset side-platform station would have stair and elevator access to a pedestrian overpass with an at-grade connection to Richmond Terrace Walk or drop-off access only with no park-and-ride facilities Livingston New station located at-grade near the shoreline in the Con Edison employee parking lot between Bard Avenue and Davis Avenue, west of Snug Harbor and east of the Caddell Dry Dock operations For rail modes: center-island platform with at-grade access to Bard Avenue For BRT mode: side platforms with at-grade access to Bard Avenue Park-and-ride facilities with constrained capacity would be located on site. Accommodation for walk or drop-off access would be provided 34 August 2012

49 West Brighton/Broadway New station located at-grade in the dense industrial area occupied by Caddell Dry Dock northeast of the intersection of Broadway and Richmond Terrace For rail modes: center-island platform with at-grade access to Broadway For BRT mode: offset side platforms with at-grade access to Broadway. Pedestrian access also provided from Richmond Terrace near North Burgher Avenue Walk, bus transfer or drop-off access only with no park-and-ride facilities Port Richmond Commercial area with former station located above-grade, on the viaduct just east of Port Richmond Avenue For rail modes: center-island platform on transitway. stairway access would be provided from Park Avenue on the east For BRT mode: offset side platforms on transitway. Elevator and stair access from Port Richmond Avenue on the west Walk, bus transfer, or drop-off access available. A potential park-and-ride facility is not included but could be located the former Sedutto s site at 2000 Richmond Terrace Elm Park/Morningstar Road Former station site located below-grade in the open cut section east of Morningstar Road and under the Bayonne Bridge Side platform station with stair and elevator access from the Morningstar Road bridge on the west end and from Newark Avenue and Eaton Place via a pedestrian bridge and stairs on the east Walk, bus transfer or drop-off access only Mariners Harbor Former station site located below-grade in the open cut section between Van Pelt and Van Name Avenues For rail modes: center-island platform with access to the Van Pelt Avenue bridge via stairs and an elevator and to the Van Name Avenue bridge via stairs For BRT mode: offset side platforms with access to Van Pelt Avenue Walk or drop-off access only with no park-and-ride facilities Arlington/South Avenue Side platform station located at-grade west of South Avenue and north of Cable Way A proposed park-and-ride facility would be built on vacant land west of South Avenue and south of the proposed station platforms Accommodation for bus transfers, walk-up or drop-off access would also be provided Snug Harbor Cultural Center & Botanical Garden (potential additional station) Would be located east of Bard Avenue and west of Tysen Street near existing boat dock Proposed as a Snug Harbor events-only stop Walk or drop-off access only with no park-and-ride facilities Not included in ridership modeling, as very low ridership would result from this catchment area Would be an alternative to the proposed station at New Brighton 35 August 2012

50 STATIONS COMMON TO WEST SHORE PLAZA ALTERNATIVES Arlington to WSP Forest Avenue Located at-grade within the South Avenue ROW south of Forest Avenue For rail modes: Center-island platform would be accessible via crosswalks at the South Avenue and Forest Avenue intersection BRT: use current curbside bus stop locations at South Ave/Forest Ave Walk, bus transfer or drop-off access only with no park-and-ride facilities Goethals Road Located at-grade within the South Avenue ROW north of Goethals Road For rail modes: Center-island platform would be accessible via crosswalks at the South Avenue and Goethals Road intersection BRT: use current curbside bus stop locations at South Ave/Goethals Road North Walk, bus transfer or drop-off access only with no park-and-ride facilities Bloomfield Located between the Time Warner office building at 900 South Avenue and a suburban office building at 1000 South Avenue For rail modes: Center-island platform would be located at-grade within the existing median of South Avenue, accessible via crosswalks BRT: use current curbside bus stop locations Walk, bus transfer or drop-off access only with no park-and-ride facilities Lois Lane Located near the intersection of Lois Lane, this stop would provide access to the Hilton Garden Inn, Hampton Inn, and other corporate offices. Adjacent to the station is the office building at 1150 South Avenue LRT: Center-island platform would be accessible via crosswalks at the South Avenue and Lois Lane intersection BRT: use current curbside bus stop locations at Lois Lane Walk, bus transfer or drop-off access only with no park-and-ride facilities Teleport/Corporate Center Area Located outside of the Teleport / Corporate Center between the intersections of Edward Curry Drive and Teleport Drive LRT: Center-island platform would be accessible via crosswalks at the South Avenue at Teleport Drive BRT: use current curbside bus stop locations at Teleport Drive Walk, bus transfer or drop-off access only with no park-and-ride facilities West Shore Plaza New station platforms would be located at-grade A potential park-and-ride facility could be studied in the vicinity, but no lot was identified for this study LRT: tail tracks and welfare facilities are proposed for terminal operation 36 August 2012

51 3.2.2 BRT and Rail Service Plans To improve transit services for commuters to Manhattan, coordination with ferry service was critical to determining service plans. The headways during the peak travel times (7AM-9AM) for all alternatives would offer the same frequency of ferry departures - every 15 minutes - if not more often. Frequency would be reduced to half-hourly service during the mid-day and off-peak. Overnight, service would be offered with hourly frequency on rail lines, and between 40 minutes and hourly on most BRT routes. The proposed BRT and rail alternatives operating plans are shown in Table 12. Table 12: Proposed BRT and Rail Service Plan Headways (minutes) Route Weekday Peak Weekday Midday Overnight Weekend BRT S S S S None None S None 30 S Rail (all alternatives) Considering the TSM alternative improves upon existing services, a variety of bus services would continue to accommodate arrivals and departures from St. George Terminal. Some of these provide 24- hour service and others are peak-only, weekday-only, or special services as denoted in the NYCT Staten Island Bus Operating schedule The BRT and all rail alternatives would offer parallel service to the existing S40/S90 route that travels on Richmond Terrace. In each of these build alternative service plans, the existing S40/S90 service would be eliminated. Detailed service changes for the S40/S90 and other bus routes are located in Appendix 7, the O&M Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report Potential Impacts on the Environment Environmental impact criteria were examined in order to understand the effects on humans as well as animal and plant habitats within the study area. The differences in potential impact would also translate to costs in developing an alternative. This might include physical measures such as building sound barriers for residents and businesses or providing pedestrian access to community resources. It could also mean recognizing the tradeoff cost that emissions or limiting views have on those in the study area. Because all of the proposed alternatives use a similar alignment, the environmental impacts for all North Shore rail alternatives would be similar with respect to land use, commercial property takings, surface waters, floodplains, stormwater management, historic and cultural resources, parks and recreational resources, energy and greenhouse gas (GHG), visual resources and hazardous materials. Differences would exist between those alternatives that terminate at Arlington than those that continue down South Avenue to West Shore Plaza. All alternatives to West Shore Plaza would have potential environmental impacts to wetlands near the Teleport, to Coastal Resources where the route traverses the Northwest Staten Island/Harbor Herons Special Natural Waterfront Area (SNWA), and on General Ecology and Wildlife Resources at the Saw Mill Creek Marshes in addition to those impacts along the North Shore. 37 August 2012

52 Because the TSM Alternative uses existing roadways, its impacts would be the minimal incremental effect to air and noise from the addition of more proposed bus service. The catenary wires of Electric Light Rail would have visual impacts affecting the shoreline. Diesel Light Rail, however, would localize vehicle emissions potentially impacting neighborhoods and community cohesion, environmental justice, and air quality. Negligible impacts would occur for all alternatives on wild, scenic, and recreational rivers, navigable waters, aquifers, wells and reservoirs and critical environmental areas Development of Preliminary Capital Costs Capital cost estimation provides approximate costs for each alternative, based on the characteristics of the alignment and components of the alternatives. Costs were estimated for each alternative by breaking down major items into standard unit measures to comply with FTA Standard Cost Categories (SCC). Elements that are included in a particular category are grouped together in order to provide a singular unit of measure to which cost is associated. One example is track construction. As associated with the SCC, at grade track guideway preparation (rough grading, excavation and sub-ballast) is separated from at-grade track laying (ballast, rails and ties) although both are part of track construction. Capital costs were calculated by defining a standard unit of measure for major items such as rail (linear foot), track (track foot), slab (square foot), demolition (acre), stations (each), etc. upon which a standard unit cost was associated. Quantities of each standard unit of measure were calculated based on current conceptual right-of-way drawings. Total cost is determined by multiplying quantities of each standard unit measure with the unit cost to which it is associated. Capital cost estimates for the Long List Alternatives are listed in Table 13. For more detail on the Capital Cost Methodology and the SCC cost sheets for all alternatives, see Appendix Development of Preliminary Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs In order to further evaluate the alternatives, incremental operating and maintenance (O&M) costs were estimated for each alternative. Staten Island Railway 2009 operating costs were the basis for the development of the Rail O&M models, and NYCT Department of Buses costs served as a basis for evaluating BRT and TSM as well. While the heavy rail methodology is based directly on existing Staten Island Railway operations, new models were developed for LRT and Diesel Light Rail alternatives since these modes are not currently operated by NYCT. New York City Transit is currently beginning the transition to a New Fare Payment System (NFPS). The system under design would have customers pay their fare using their existing banking medium; a chipenabled credit or debit card. Both subway turnstiles and buses would be equipped with tap and go devices. For people with no bank instrument an MTA Debit Card would be introduced. Thus, whatever alternative is selected, it is assumed that fares would be collected using new technology. Keeping with current FTA practice, the resource build-up approach was used to develop O&M costs. This approach applies the projected unit costs for labor and materials to the amount of labor and materials necessary to perform the level of service. The output from the model is the total amount of labor and materials and the estimated cost. SIR also provided a Personnel Strength Report for the Month ending May 31, 2010, which contains information on full-time positions in a variety of operating categories. Those positions and associated cost were allocated to one of the five O&M model line item categories. Annual operating statistics (cost drivers), provided by SIR, were used to develop system-wide unit costs for each category. 38 August 2012

53 The line item cost categories that were used in each of the models are as follows. The cost driver is noted in parentheses. Train Operations (Annual Revenue Train Hours) - Transportation operating and supervision personnel and materials (2 people assumed for heavy rail operation, 1 operator for other modes) Train Maintenance (Annual Revenue Car Miles) - Mechanical and car cleaning personnel and materials Maintenance of Way (Total Track Miles) - Power/Signals, Bridge and Building and Maintenance of Way personnel and materials Station Operation and Maintenance (Number of Stations) Station operations and cleaning personnel and materials Costs are escalated to 2010 dollars using a 3% per year growth rate. This increase is based on current growth trends throughout the tri-state region. Additionally, the rail models include a contingency line item of 10%. Incremental O&M cost estimates for the Long List Alternatives are listed in Table 13. More detail and descriptions of model development are available in the O&M Cost Estimation Methodology and Results Report in Appendix 7. O&M Costs for the TSM alternative were calculated taking into account the operation and maintenance of the proposed North Shore Transit Center as well as the incremental additional cost of extending two existing routes. It also provides O&M costs for two new routes and a line item cost for a modified reverse-peak service. A 10% contingency is also provided for the TSM to remain consistent with the other build alternatives. Details of the TSM service proposed as par t of the Long List Alternatives are provided in Section 3.4, 39 August 2012

54 3.3 Evaluation of Long List of Alternatives Comparison of the Long List of Alternatives Table 13 summarizes the characteristics of each Long List Alternative. The list was provided at the September 2011 Public Meeting and was used to screen to the Short List of Alternatives. More details and alternative descriptions can be found in Sections 3.4 through Table 13: Long List of Alternatives Summary Mode/ Alternative # of Stations Travel Time to St. George Incremental O&M Costs (2010$) Capital Costs (2010$) Riders saving 25-50% of existing trip time to St. George + Potential Environmental Impacts Bus (TSM). See Section 3.4. Heavy Rail, St. George to Arlington. See Section 3.8. Electric Light Rail (LRT), St. George to Arlington. See Section 3.9 Diesel Light Rail (DLRT), St. George to Arlington. See Section Electric Light Rail (LRT), St. George to West Shore Plaza. See Section 3.6 Diesel Light Rail (DLRT), St. George to West Shore Plaza. See Section 3.7. N/A N/A $5.2m $37m 0* Least impacts 9 15 min. $9.8m $474m 9,000 Some impacts 9 13 min. $5.8m $477m 9,000 Some impacts 9 15 min. $8.7m $434m 9,000 Some impacts min. $9.5m $581m 11,000 Some impacts min. $13.7m $514m 11,000 Most impacts Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), St. George to West Shore Plaza. See Section min. $6.1m $352m 17,000 [3,000 riders would save 10-25%] Some impacts + Estimates derived from current usage of existing bus lines and expected travel time savings for key origindestination pairs. * While no riders are expected to save over 25% of existing travel time, 20,000 bus riders would have minimal trip time savings. 40 August 2012

55 3.3.2 Selection of the Short List of Alternatives In order to evaluate the alternatives that are identified in the Long List, it was necessary to evaluate the ability of the alternatives to meet the goals and objectives of the study. This was accomplished through meetings with stakeholders and an evaluation of the alternatives comparative characteristics. The following items were discussed with the IAC, CEC, and public: TSM is required to be on the Short List due to FTA rules. Connectivity to West Shore Plaza was important, and that played a role in screening out the alternatives that terminated at Arlington. It was determined that the existing Clifton facility could be retrofit in order to maintain light rail vehicles, so LRT emerged as a more competitive cost option. In these alternatives, a new facility at Arlington with a car wash and body shop would still be needed. Public input expressed interest in light rail. Busway provided exclusive ROW in the most cost-effective manner. Figure 7 summarizes the evaluation of the Long List Alternatives. The criteria used to evaluate the goal of improved mobility were the total new stations served, travel time improvements for trips between St. George and Arlington, and improved transit access (one-seat rides) to the Teleport. Criteria evaluating the second goal, environmental preservation, include potential impacts to wetlands, hazardous material sites, noise, and parkland emissions. The criteria for evaluating the third goal of maximizing financial resources include capital and O&M costs, compatibility with existing NYCT equipment, and implementation period. All of the alternatives would improve mobility, but the alternatives that provide a one-seat ride to West Shore Plaza would be more successful in meeting the study s goals and objectives than those alternatives that terminate in Arlington. Therefore, the alternatives terminating in Arlington were not retained for further study. Of the two rail alternatives offering service to West Shore Plaza electric light rail and diesel light rail the initial environmental screening indicated that emissions impacts to air quality from diesel light rail vehicles could be expected to be significantly worse than LRT vehicles. Further, the estimated O&M cost estimates for LRT were $9.5 million while the DLRT estimated O&M costs were $13.7 million. In the long run, it would be more expensive per year for NYCT to run the similar Diesel LRT service. Attendees at the public meeting expressed interest in continued attention to the LRT alternative. TSM and BRT alternatives as the two alternatives best able to meet most of the goals and objectives of the project. LRT to West Shore Plaza had many advantages including mobility, access to the Teleport, minimal environmental impacts and public support, which carried it to the Short List of alternatives. 41 August 2012

56 Figure 7: Long List Evaluation Matrix Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Heavy Rail to Arlington LRT to Arlington DLRT to Arlington GOAL 1: Improve Mobility Total New Stations Served Provide transit access for the transitdependent and transit-reliant Travel time Arlington to St. George Provide improved transit access to the Teleport GOAL 2: Preserve and Enhance the Environment, Natural Resources, and Open Space Land use and wetlands impacts Potential hazardous material sites impacted or acquired Potential noise impacts Number of potential impacts to parklands Air Quality (emissions of transit mode) Potential adverse impacts to waterfront and/or views GOAL 3: Maximize Limited Financial Resources for the Greatest Public Benefit Estimated capital cost Net annual operating and maintenance costs Compatibility with NYCT equipment and operations Implementation period Most successful in meeting study goals 6 Moderately successful in meeting study goals 0 Least successful in meeting study goals LRT to WSP DLRT to WSP Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 42 August 2012

57 3.4 Transportation Systems Management Alternative (Bus) Long List TSM Service and Infrastructure Components The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as a baseline option in all Alternatives Analyses (AA) requires the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternative. The TSM is defined as the best that can be done for mobility without constructing a new transit guideway. An acceptable TSM alternative emphasizes transportation system upgrades such as intersection improvements, minor road widening, traffic engineering actions, bus route restructuring, shortened bus headways, expanded use of articulated buses, reserved bus lanes, expanded park/ride facilities, express and limited-stop service, signalization improvements, and timed-transfer operations. The North Shore TSM Alternative incorporates several of these features in order to address the needs of the study area with conventional buses on existing roadways. Eight specific service and capital operations elements are proposed for the TSM alternative: 1. Add Limited Stop Service between St. George Ferry Terminal and West Shore Plaza 2. Add Modified Reverse Peak X11 trips from Midtown to Serve the Teleport and West Shore Plaza (new service X21) 3. Add limited-stop service on the S53 (S83 service) 4. Build a new North Shore Transit Center at Arlington and restructure some bus routes to serve Transit Center 5. Operate limited stop service with no time points 6. Extend Traffic Signal Prioritization (TSP) Improvements 7. Extend Victory Boulevard Bus Lane 8. Improve Intersections at six bottleneck intersections. The buses are proposed to be 40-foot long standard NYCT buses, low-floor diesel-electric hybrid buses with 54-person capacity (35 seated). The buses would have two doors on the curb side of the vehicle. The buses could reach a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour. Express service (X11 & X21) would be provided with 45-foot long, 57 seat and over-the-road coaches. These proposed improvements would have effects on bus service and operations in Staten Island as well as connectivity between St. George and West Shore Plaza. Figure 8 shows the locations of all components of proposed TSM alternative. 43 August 2012

58 Figure 8: Proposed TSM Alternative Components 44 August 2012

59 Add Limited Stop Service between St. George Ferry Terminal and West Shore Plaza This new super-limited route is designed to provide a fast, direct trip between the St. George Ferry Terminal and West Shore Plaza/Teleport using existing roadways. This route is shown as S99 in purple above in Figure 8. Unlike most other existing limited-stop routes on Staten Island, the S99 would offer reverse-commute service westbound from the St. George Terminal in the morning and eastbound to the St. George Terminal in the evening, making five stops between St. George and West Shore Plaza. The route (in the westbound direction) would use Victory Boulevard to reach Forest Avenue and continue on Forest Avenue almost to its end, heading south along South Avenue to West Shore Plaza. A direct, one-seat ride would be provided to all stops along South Avenue from the St. George Terminal, including running through Teleport Drive. The return trip would use the same roadways and make the same stops. The estimated morning rush hour one-way running time to West Shore Plaza would be 37 minutes. This estimate is based on an analysis of existing scheduled running time on various segments of current routes, adjusted for fewer stops, travel in the reverse-peak direction, and altered routing. The proposed S99 would operate every 15 minutes to meet Ferry arrivals in the peak period. Because the return trip would be with traffic, it is assumed that it would take an extra 15 minutes, or 52 minutes for the return trip to St. George in the morning rush hour. The round-trip cycle time would be 90 minutes. Six peak buses would be required. Service would operate during peak hours, from 6:30 to 8:30 AM and from 4:30 to 6:30 PM Add Modified Reverse Peak X11 trips from Manhattan to Serve the Teleport and West Shore Plaza (new service X21) The X11 currently offers 13 Manhattan-bound morning trips departing between 6:15 and 8:30am from Travis with a running time of about one hour. In the evening there are 17 departures from Lower Manhattan between 4:05 and 6:48 pm. Bus schedules from NYCT indicate that some X11 buses deadhead (non-revenue service) back to Staten Island. The proposed X21 would convert X11 deadhead service into reverse peak revenue service, with a terminus at the existing South Avenue bus stop just north of the Teleport s main entrance. It would use the same route as the X17 in Manhattan and Brooklyn to the SIE and exit at the Richmond Ave exit to Goethals Road north. Finally, the X21 would then turn left on South Ave to serve the Teleport (by running through the business center via Teleport Drive like the S46/96 bus) and turn around at the West Shore Plaza Mall. The service would provide four trips in the AM peak and four in the PM peak, to run at 30-minute headways. The peak bus requirement would be three buses, due to sharing an existing bus from the current operating schedule. One way operating time would be approximately one hour Add limited-stop service on the S53 (S83 service) The TSM would include a new limited-stop S83 operating between the proposed North Shore Transit Center in Arlington and the subway station at 86th Street and Fourth Avenue in Brooklyn. Service on the S83 would be in the peak direction of travel only (Brooklyn-bound in the morning and Staten-Island bound in the afternoon). The limited-stop S83 service would follow the entire route of the existing S53 service, and terminate at the proposed North Shore Transit Center to the west, extending beyond the existing Port Richmond Terminal (See Section for more detail). While the S53 makes 46 stops along this route, the S83 would make only seven stops, six of which would be in Staten Island. The reduction in stops would decrease the peak period running time between Port Richmond Terminal and the Victory Blvd. /Clove Rd. intersection by approximately 3-4 minutes. It is not expected that any significant travel time savings would occur east of Victory Blvd. due to peak period traffic. 45 August 2012

60 It is expected that the one-way travel time for the S83 would be 55 minutes to 4 th Ave. In the reverse peak direction, the S83 would deadhead via I-278 and South Avenue to the proposed Transit Center. The estimated deadhead time is 25 minutes. In total, the proposed round-trip travel time for the S83 is 80 minutes in the peak. The S83 would operate on 15-minute headways between the hours of 6 to 8:30 AM Brooklyn-bound only, and between the hours of 4:30 to 7:30 PM, Staten-Island bound only. During those times and directions, the combined total trips available on this route would increase to 12 per hour (five minute average headway) Build a new North Shore Transit Center at Arlington and restructure bus routes to serve Transit Center A new North Shore Transit Center (NSTC) is proposed to be located on South Avenue just north of Cable Way, and south of Arlington Place. The NSTC would be outfitted and operated in a similar manner as the Eltingville Transit Center in Staten Island. Figure 9 shows the site plan for the proposed Transit Center located near Arlington, as it exists in the BRT alignment (same footprint). For the TSM, it would have the same footprint but bus access would only be provided from the entrance along Cable Way. The NSTC would contain the following: Access via South Avenue north of the intersection with Cable Way. Passenger amenities such as canopies, seating, lighting, trash receptacles, fare vending machines, security cameras, and bicycle racks. Parking for approximately 118 cars, with substantial landscape buffering to residential properties. Bus access routes and associated intersection improvements on South Avenue, with one entrance south of the existing rail ROW and another at the intersection of Cable Way. Park and ride entrance and exit on South Avenue. The proposed facility would enable more convenient travel around Staten Island s North Shore by increasing the ease of transferring between bus routes. Currently most transfers between North Shore bus routes are made on the street without adequate customer facilities. The proposed transit center would replace the existing Port Richmond Terminal as a layover location for buses. Of the four routes that currently terminate in Port Richmond, only the S66 would continue to terminate there. The S53 would be rerouted to the new transit center and the S57 and S59 would be extended to St. George Terminal. 46 August 2012

61 Figure 9: Proposed North Shore Transit Center Site Plan (TSM Alternative) Table 14 lists the routes that would serve the proposed North Shore Transit Center. Four of these routes would terminate at the Transit Center and another seven routes would pass through. Two express routes (X12 and X42) operate only in the peak direction. X30 bus service to Manhattan would stop at the proposed North Shore Transit Center before departing Staten Island and upon returning to Staten Island, providing opportunity for Park and Ride passengers to utilize the Transit Center. Bus service on some portions of the existing routes would be modified in order to reroute buses to the Transit Center, and some service would be extended west to the proposed North Shore Transit Center (S53). The following adjacent routes would be revised so that they pass directly through the site (entering at one entrance and exiting at the other): S46/S96 The route would make a slight diversion westbound from the intersection of Brabant Street and South Ave to enter the terminal for a stop before resuming its route south along South Ave to West Shore Plaza. EB and WB buses would stop at the proposed Transit Center along their routes. 47 August 2012

62 S48/S98 The current route utilizes South Avenue. EB and WB buses would stop at the proposed Transit Center along their routes. S40/S90 The current route utilizes South Avenue. EB and WB buses would stop at the proposed Transit Center along their routes. Table 14: Routes Serving Proposed North Shore Transit Center (TSM Alternative) Route/ Direction S40 EB/WB S90 EB/WB S48 EB/WB S98 EB/WB S46 EB/WB S96 EB/WB X30 Manhattanbound X30 SI-bound X12 X42 S53 S83* * New Route Terminates No Yes None Portion of Existing Routes Changed South Ave and Brabant St to Transit Center (added) Forest Ave and South Ave to New Transit Center on South Ave (added) South Ave between new Transit Center and Richmond Terrace (truncated) Port Richmond Avenue between Castleton Avenue and Richmond Terrace(Eliminated); Castleton from Port Richmond to the new Transit Center (added) n/a Listed in Table 15, the additional cycle time (including a 15% recovery allowance) for the S53 shows a need for four additional peak hour buses in order to maintain the existing headway. Table 15: Additional Resources Needed for Rerouting to Transit Center (TSM Alternative) Route/Direction AM Peak Headway Additional miles per trip Additional one way running time (min) Additional cycle time including 15% recovery (min) Additional peak buses required S Four bus routes currently terminate at Port Richmond Terminal (S53, S57, S59, and S66). As mentioned above, the S66 would continue to terminate there, while the S53 would be rerouted to terminate at the 48 August 2012

63 proposed North Shore Transit Center by following the current path of the S46 via Castleton Avenue, Nicholas Avenue, Innis Street, Walker St and Brabant St to South Ave. The S57 and S59 services would change from their current routes, though they would not serve the Transit Center. These alterations are as follows: S57 buses traveling north through Staten Island and currently terminating at the Port Richmond Terminal would continue along Richmond Terrace and terminate at St. George. Service would run from St. George Terminal west along Richmond Terrace, then south along the current S57 route to Seaview Hospital, and on to the existing S57 terminus at Hylan Boulevard and Ebbitts Street. S59 S59 buses would terminate at St. George instead of the existing terminus at Port Richmond Terminal. Buses would travel from St. George west along Richmond Terrace and continue south along the existing S59 route to the Staten Island Mall and along the existing S59 route to Hyland Blvd and Richmond Ave. All other bus routes currently offer opportunities on the existing route to make the stop at the proposed Transit Center. The X12 and X42 services would be truncated by approximately 0.6 miles, about 1 minute in time savings. The savings in travel time would not have an impact on the peak bus requirements. Similarly, the X30 runs along Forest Ave and would turn on South Ave and travel order to make a stop at the proposed Transit Center. This diversion would add approximately 0.4 miles to the trip (0.2 miles from Transit Center to Forest Ave, each way), but not enough to have an impact on the existing schedule, which has 17-minute headways Operate limited stop service with no time points Under this proposal, the existing limited-stop routes (S90, S94, S96, S98, S93, S91, S89, S92, S84, and S86) would operate without intermediate time points. Currently, bus operators sometimes wait at midroute points due to rules against running ahead of schedule. Under the proposed service, operators would be instructed to drive as quickly as safely possible without regard to the schedule and passengers would benefit from faster trips. To the extent that passengers arrive randomly at bus stops without consulting the schedule, there would be no increase in passenger waiting time. This strategy may be most appropriate to evening trips leaving the Ferry. There would be no change in operating or capital costs due to the implementation of this proposal, and would provide efficiencies for travelers of 5% decreased running time, per NYCT Extend Traffic Signal Prioritization (TSP) Improvements Traffic Signal Prioritization (TSP) is currently in use on Bay Street and Victory Boulevard and its implementation is proposed for other corridors in the Study Area. TSP is the process in which traffic signal phasing is modified in real time, allowing buses to travel through a corridor with reduced traffic signal delay. In the current TSP operation, as buses approach an intersection, the green phase is extended so that the bus has the opportunity to continue through the intersection before the signal turns red. The TSM alternative proposes to install TSP measures at the following locations: Extend existing TSP on Victory Boulevard from Forest Avenue to Jewett Avenue (21 intersections) On Forest Avenue between Victory Boulevard and South Avenue (32 intersections) On Castleton Avenue between Victory Boulevard and Nicholas Avenue, and along Route S46/S96 on Nicholas Avenue, Innis Street, Morningstar Road, Walker Street and Brabant Street to South Avenue (15 intersections) On Richmond Terrace between Bay Street and Morning Star Road (17 intersections) 49 August 2012

64 The TSP improvements would extend green times for buses by approximately five seconds, similar to the current TSP operation (NYCT). There are 51 bus routes operating on Staten Island today, and portions of 20 of those bus routes would benefit from the proposed TSP improvements listed in Table 16. Potential travel time reductions per route range from insignificant (2 seconds) to moderate (89 seconds). Table 16: Bus Travel Time Reductions due to TSP Improvements (assuming 90-second cycles; TSM Alternative) Route # of Proposed TSP Improved Intersections passed Estimated reduction in red phase to approaching bus per trip (sec) Estimated travel time savings (sec) per trip S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S X X X X X The travel time savings shown in Table 16 were calculated in the following manner: travel time savings are measured as the reduction in delay from red traffic signals. Signal cycle times from a sample of 60- and 90-second Staten Island traffic signal cycles were used to determine the percentage of time the light is red, which is 42.2% of the cycle time for the intersection leg used by an approaching bus. With the 5-second green time extension in place, the percent of expected red within the cycle, given the TSP Improvement, was calculated using the same sample of intersections. The difference of the percentage of expected red (from 42.2% in the existing to 35.6% with improvements) represents 5.9 fewer seconds of red, for a 90-second cycle. This average was multiplied by the total number of intersections that each bus route passes, which is shown in the reduction in red phase column in Table second cycles were assumed across all intersections, as the five additional seconds of green is more conservative when distributed over a 90-second cycle. 50 August 2012

65 Estimated travel time savings for each bus trip was determined by multiplying the total reduction in red signal time by the average probability of encountering a red light when TSP is implemented (35.6%). This total time is shown in seconds in the final column of the table. This also shows that, overall, a 2.1 second travel time saving per intersection would be expected with TSP improvements in place for each bus route Extend Victory Boulevard Bus Lane An extension of the Bay Street/Victory Boulevard Bus Lanes is proposed. Bus lanes have been implemented on Bay Street and Victory Boulevard east of Forest Avenue, and the extension is proposed to be similar in nature. The existing bus lanes form the spine of a primary route for local and limited stop routes to and from St. George Terminal including the S46/96, S48/98, S61/91, S62/92 and S66 routes. During the weekday AM peak period, the existing eastbound parking lane is used as an exclusive bus and right turn lane. On street parking is prohibited while the lane is used for bus operations, between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM. Similarly in the westbound direction, the parking lane is taken for bus operations and right turns only during the PM peak period (4:00 PM to 7:00 PM). An extension of the bus lanes westward from Forest Avenue to the Jewett Avenue intersection was reviewed. Under the TSM Alternative, due to physical limitations, the bus lanes on Victory Boulevard are proposed to be extended 1.8 miles westward to Little Clove Road. From Royal Oak Road to Jewett Avenue (approximately 1 mile), bus lanes are not proposed as curb to curb widths are narrower and densely developed commercial areas which rely on street parking that would be removed during bus lane operations would be negatively impacted. Between Forest Avenue and Little Clove Road existing on-street parking would be unavailable during bus lane operations, and enforcement of no parking rules would be needed, similar to the operation of the existing bus lanes. No roadway modifications would be needed, except possibly for the 800 foot-long segment between Melrose to Clove Road in the middle of the proposed bus lane extension, which is currently too narrow to accommodate this lane and would need widening of up to four feet. Traffic signals would have prioritization for buses that would extend green times by five seconds upon receipt of a signal from the approaching bus vehicle. Four additional traffic signals would be outfitted for TSP capability. Lane markings and signage would be implemented in a similar fashion to the existing bus lanes. Fewer routes than those that utilize the existing bus lanes would utilize the bus lanes extension. The S61/91, S62/92, S66 St. George local and limited routes, the S93 limited College of Staten Island - Brooklyn routes as well as the X30 Manhattan express route would utilize the extended bus lanes, providing a ten percent reduction in travel time savings as compared to travel on the all-purpose lanes. These routes would collectively make over 114 trips per day in the five hours of bus lane operation, or 23 buses per hour. Bus routes benefiting from the proposed bus lanes, including the reduction in travel times are listed in Table 17. Based on travel time savings from existing curb side bus lane operations in New York City, travel times are estimated to be reduced by 10% in the segment with the extended bus lanes. 51 August 2012

66 Table 17: Bus Routes Benefiting From Victory Boulevard Bus Lane Improvements (TSM Alternative) Route Extent of Bus Lane Use Current Proposed Travel Travel Travel Time Time on Time Location along Bus Lanes Length on Extension Savings Extension (miles) Extension (min:sec) (min:sec) (min:sec) S61/91 Royal Oak Rd - Forest Ave 1.8 5:00 4:30 0:30 S62/92 Royal Oak Rd - Forest Ave 1.8 5:00 4:30 0:30 S66 Highland Ave - Forest Ave 0.9 4:00 3:36 0:24 S93 Royal Oak Rd - Clove Road 0.6 3:00 2:42 0:18 X30 Clove Rd - Forest Ave 1.2 5:00 4:30 0:30 Based on additional field research, the use of Victory Blvd for extended bus lanes would require widening and changes to multiple intersections. These improvements are described in detail in Appendix 4, the Basis of Engineering Report Improve Intersections at Six Bottleneck Locations Proposed intersection improvements are smaller scale, less costly improvements that could potentially alleviate bottlenecks at intersections thereby improving traffic flow and bus service reliability through the corridor. Six intersections have been selected for improvement under the TSM Alternative as listed in Table 18. Existing conditions schematics of each intersection are located in Appendix 15, Traffic Impacts Assessment of Short List Alternatives. Table 18: Summary of Proposed Intersection Improvements (TSM Alternative) Intersection Routes Affected Forest Avenue and South Ave S40, S46, S48, S90,S96, S98, X30, X12, X42 Forest Avenue and Port Richmond Ave and Willowbrook Road S59, S48, S98, S89, X10, X14 Forest Avenue and Jewett Ave Forest Avenue and Clove Road Walker Street and Morningstar Road Morningstar Road and Innis Street S48, S66, S98, X14, X30 S48, S98, X30 S44, S46, S89, S94, S96 S46, S96 The scope of infrastructure improvements to improve bus operations include lane widening and repurposing; bus rerouting and stop relocation; stop changes; removal of on-street parking; intersection restriping; and in the future, possible left turn prohibition. The cost associated with each intersection improvement, of which some may include minor property takings, is estimated to be approximately $250, August 2012

67 3.4.2 Maintenance Facility Requirements The TSM alternative proposed to use the same buses currently operating in the NYCT fleet. Storage and Maintenance for buses would happen at the existing NYCT Staten Island bus maintenance facilities Potential Environmental Impacts Environmental concerns relate to the potential location of the proposed North Shore Transit Center at Arlington. Many sites along the north shore have a history of industrial use and subsurface contamination. Sites may also be subject to the jurisdictional requirements of the USACE and/or the NYSDEC. However, of all of the alternatives, the TSM is expected to have the fewest environmental impacts Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Operations and Maintenance costs for the TSM alternative were estimated to be approximately $5.2 million per year, in 2010$. While many of the costs associated with the TSM alternative are capital costs, the proposed new S99 and extensions of S57 and S59 services would have associated operations and maintenance costs. Additionally, there is a line item estimate of $600,000 per year for the X21 service, per NYCT. The proposed schedules for the TSM service were used to estimate the additional cost of operating peak hour buses, total new vehicle operating hours, pay hours for the bus operators and total bus miles. For example, six additional buses would be required to operate 15-minute headways during the peak for the S99, one additional bus would be required for the extended S57, and two additional buses would be required to maintain peak headways on the S59 service. This represents a total of ten peak buses (including spares) during the 252 operating weekdays per year, expressed as 2,520 annual peak bus-days. The summary of the cost detail is listed in Table 19. For more detail, see Appendix 7, the O&M Cost Estimation Methodology and Results Report. Peak Bus Cost Cost Item Table 19: TSM Alternative Annual O&M Costs - Long List Annual Unit of Service 2,520 Annual Peak Buses Unit Cost (2010$) Standard 40' Bus Line Item Cost (Standard) $ Peak Bus $310,577 Vehicle Hour Cost 30,429 Annual Bus Hours $2.34 Bus Hour $71,343 Pay Hour Cost 51,729 Annual Pay Hours $46.87 Pay Hour $2,424,565 Mileage Cost 518,650 Annual Bus Miles $1.78 Bus Mile $924,395 North Shore Transit Center Operation & Maintenance 1 Stations $371,000 Station $371,000 X21 Service $600,000 Contingency 10 Percent $470,188 Net Estimated TSM Annual O&M Cost (million 2010$) $ August 2012

68 3.4.5 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate The Capital Cost for the TSM Alternative is estimated to be $37 million. Table 20 summarizes the SCC costs as estimated for this alternative. For more detail of the SCC calculation worksheet, see Appendix 6, the Capital Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report. Table 20: TSM Alternative Estimated Capital Costs Long List SCC Cost Category Cost (2010$) 10 - GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS 3,209, STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 2,495, SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1,248, SYSTEMS 7,000, ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 3,780, VEHICLES 11,022, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,548, UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 3,330,449 TOTAL TSM Alternative Capital Cost (million 2010$) $ Implementation Period It is estimated that the acquisition of any additional properties and construction of the various TSM Improvements and the North Shore Transit Center would take fewer than 5 years to complete. At that point, the TSM alternative would be operational. The TSP modifications would require little time for implementation. The proposed Victory Boulevard bus lane extension would require time for widening of the road and restriping, and the six bottleneck intersections would be reconstructed to their own specifications. 54 August 2012

69 3.5 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), St. George to West Shore Plaza Long List Modal Characteristics The BRT Alternative would create a dedicated busway along the North Shore right-of-way and operate on South Avenue with termini at the St. George Ferry Terminal and West Shore Plaza. The map of the Busway route is shown in Figure 10. Two new bus services and extended/rerouted existing bus service would make use of the new busway. The newly proposed services are: The S1 would operate via an enhanced on-street South Avenue bus corridor from the West Shore Plaza commercial center to the new, proposed Arlington Station where it would enter the busway for the remainder of the trip to St. George. This route would create connectivity between West Shore Plaza, the Teleport and the South Avenue communities and the St. George Ferry Terminal. The S2 would travel on Holland Avenue, Arlington Place and South Avenue to the new, proposed Arlington Station where it would enter the busway for the remainder of the trip to St. George. This route would provide a direct connection from the Arlington and Mariners Harbor neighborhoods to the St. George Ferry Terminal. Along with these two BRT services, the Alternative includes two additional entrance/exit points to the proposed North Shore busway to allow current local buses to make use of the busway. The first additional entry/exit location would be located at Bard Avenue, and the second would be located at Alaska Street. To prevent access of unauthorized vehicles on to the busway, a security gate would be installed at entrance and exit points. Emergency vehicles would be provided with access to the busway. The Bard Avenue ramp would allow for the S54 to utilize the North Shore right-of-way. The S54 would be extended from its current terminus in Livingston to the St. George Ferry Terminal. Riders of the S54 would now have a one seat ride to the ferry, with no need to transfer to a connecting service. The S53 would be extended from its current western terminus in Port Richmond to Arlington via the Alaska Street ramp where it would enter the busway. The S57 and S59 would be extended from their current terminus at Port Richmond along Richmond Terrace to enter the busway at Alaska Street and continue to the St. George Ferry Terminal. For these services that currently terminate in Port Richmond, the use of the busway eliminates a transfer to access the St. George Ferry terminal. Between South Avenue and Morningstar Road, the existing S46 route runs parallel to the proposed busway, and would be recommended for discontinuation west of the proposed Elm Park/Morningstar station. Route S46 would continue to provide a direct connection between Port Richmond High School and points east. Students coming from the west would take a BRT vehicle and walk the short distance from the proposed Elm Park/Morningstar station to the school. The existing S40/S90 which travels along Richmond Terrace is proposed to be eliminated in the BRT alternative, as the S1 would offer superior parallel service to St. George. 55 August 2012

70 Figure 10: Proposed BRT Alternative Alignments 56 August 2012

71 The vehicles would be a dedicated fleet of diesel-electric hybrid [Orion VII (hybrid)] or diesel [Orion V (diesel)] buses on the extended routes providing 54-person capacity. For S1 and S2 routes, the vehicles would be 62 feet long low-floor articulated buses with three doors. These buses have 85 person capacities, with 57 persons seated. On the busway, buses can reach a maximum speed of 60 miles per hour. All platforms would be low-level, side platforms that are 125 feet long (200 feet long at terminals) and 12 feet wide. The busway extends for 5.35 miles from Arlington to St. George, and an additional 2.58 miles on street from West Shore Plaza to Arlington comprises the full length of the S1 route. The other bus routes extend for various lengths, depending on the route. Alignment and Infrastructure As described in Section 3.2.1, a busway with two-lanes and passing lanes at certain stations would be constructed within the North Shore ROW. Busway lanes would be concrete, typically 12 feet wide with 2 feet shoulders. Passing lanes would be concrete and typically 14 feet wide. Proposed routes S1 and S2 would access the North Shore ROW busway via at-grade access that would be provided beneath the South Avenue overpass adjacent to the existing freight rail ROW and Roxbury Street. Side platforms would be used at all busway stations, typically 12 feet x 125 feet. At some stations the platforms are offset in order to minimize station widths and associated ROW takings and/or structural modifications. Platforms at Arlington and St. George would be longer to accommodate layovers. Stations would have canopies, fare machines and other SBS amenities. Grade separated stations would be accessed by stairs and ADA-compliant ramps or elevators. An at-grade access road to the busway would be constructed connecting Richmond Terrace and the busway at Alaska Street. Depending upon additional traffic analyses, a new traffic signal at Richmond Terrace and Alaska St. may be warranted. This access road would provide access/egress from the street network for the S53, S57 and S59. The S1 service to West Shore Plaza beyond Arlington station would be enhanced through improvements along South Avenue. These improvements include the addition of Select Bus Service (SBS) style station platforms, signal preemption, proof of payment fare systems and other capital improvements. Route S1 would operate within the existing, improved South Avenue right-of-way. The proposed Arlington station would include bus boarding and alighting platforms, bus staging areas, an employee welfare facility, a customer and employee parking lot, and other SBS amenities. Station enhancements would provide passengers with safe access to destinations. For example, a 6-foot wide sidewalk is proposed at the eastern end of the West Brighton Station, providing access directly to Richmond Terrace and destinations such as Snug Harbor Cultural Center. The busway would make use of the existing right-of-way through the Ballpark station (stopping on game days only). At St. George, a new bus terminal would be constructed beneath the existing St. George busway ramps, adjacent to the SIR terminal. Tracks 11 and 12 would be removed as well as the existing platform. A tail track of sufficient length to turn SIR trains would be located adjacent to Richmond Terrace between the BRT Ballpark Station and the SIR terminal at St. George. The new BRT terminal would displace a portion of the existing parking facility immediately adjacent to the SI Ferry Terminal. This station would include bus boarding and alighting platforms, bus staging areas, an employee welfare facility, a dispatch booth, an elevator to the upper level bus terminal and other SBS amenities. Connectivity One of the three goals of the proposed project is to improve mobility. The busway alternative would create two new routes and divert four existing routes onto the dedicated right-of-way, in addition to creating other local connections. The S1 would provide direct transfer connectivity to the S48/98 at Forest Ave and the S2 at Arlington and Port Richmond stations. The S2 would provide direct connectivity to the S57 at all stations east of Port Richmond and the S54 at New Brighton Station. 57 August 2012

72 Some of the less direct connections include the S66 at Port Richmond Station, the S46/96 at Morningstar Station, the S54 at West Brighton Station and the S44/94 at New Brighton Station. Five of the busway routes (all but the S53) terminate in St. George, where transfers to the upper level St. George bus terminal routes would be available. A direct transfer connection to NYCDOT Staten Island Ferry and NYCT Staten Island Railway would continue to be available at St. George Terminal for all routes with St. George termini. Operations & Service Plan Table 21 lists the proposed headways for the six routes featured in the busway alternative. Because of the proposed access locations, buses with destinations of St. George or Arlington could run service along portions of the busway at any point in the future. Table 21: Proposed One-Way Headways (min.) (BRT Alternative) Route S1 S2 Route Entrance/Exit Proposed Arlington Station, at South Ave. and Cable Way Proposed Arlington Station, at South Ave. and Cable Way Weekday Peak Weekday Midday Overnight Weekend S53 Proposed Alaska Street Ramp S54 Proposed Bard Avenue Ramp None None S57 Proposed Alaska Street Ramp None 30 S59 Proposed Alaska Street Ramp The proposed service plan for the routes listed above represent a partial use of the busway and a detailed analysis would have to be conducted to determine the maximum number of buses per hour that could utilize the busway. Pittsburgh s East Busway is similar to the busway alternative proposed for this project. Pittsburgh conducted an assessment of the theoretical maximum capacity of their busway. Taking into account operational constraints, and traffic signals, it was determined that their highest frequency of was 90 buses per hour. The travel time between West Shore Plaza and St. George would be 23 minutes. The travel time between Arlington and St. George would be 14 minutes. Thirteen (13) additional peak vehicles would be required to operate S1 and S2 Routes, and an additional seven vehicles would be required to operate the route extensions. Service would be provided 24 hours, with less frequent overnight service, as shown in the table above. Fare policy would be a proof of payment system, and the fares would be the same as they are for the existing NYCT system Maintenance Facility Requirements Buses would be stored and maintained at existing NYCT Staten Island bus maintenance facilities Potential Environmental Impacts Areas of the busway alignment are located within the jurisdictions of the USACE and/or the NYSDEC and would require permits. Work in tidal wetlands would require mitigation. Shore stabilization and floodplain impacts would require mitigation. Visual and noise impacts of the busway upon adjacent properties could be expected. Potential impacts to existing wetlands adjacent to the proposed Arlington Station would need investigation. USACE, NYSDEC and NYCDEP would likely want measures to 58 August 2012

73 control the quantity and quantity of stormwater discharges from the alignment and stations. Additionally, two inland areas of ecological interest include a stream that flows north out from the grounds of Sailors Snug Harbor and the strip of vegetated land between the North Shore Railroad ROW and Richmond Terrace. Mapped parkland exists at Sailors Snug Harbor and Blissenbach Marina and would potentially be impacted. The proposed alignment would require acquisition of private properties, the displacement of active businesses and a realignment of the ROW through some properties (i.e. Caddell Dry Dock and Atlantic Salt.) See the Memo from the project team s visit to Caddell and Atlantic Salt in Appendix 1 and 2 for more detail on a property swap with the commercial owners. Sites along the proposed alignment have a history of industrial uses and subsurface contamination has been previously identified Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Operations and Maintenance costs for the busway alternative were estimated to be approximately $6.1 million per year, in 2010$. The O&M costs for this alternative are comprised of three Service components and one set of maintenance costs for the busway infrastructure. The first of three Service components is the incremental costs of expanding operations on the feeder routes (S53, S54, S57 and S59). The second is the operations of the proposed new S1 and S2 routes. Finally, there would be operational savings attributed to the elimination of the S40/90 and truncation of the S46/96. The proposed schedules for the feeder routes were used to estimate the additional cost of operating peak hour buses, total new vehicle operating hours, pay hours for the bus operators and total bus miles. For example, while a total of 34 buses are currently required to operate these four feeder routes during peak service, the proposed BRT alternative schedule would require 41 buses, or an increase in seven peak buses. The incremental number of buses is multiplied by the number of days each route is operated to produce the annual peak bus cost metric. The summary of incremental cost for the Feeder Routes is listed in Table August 2012

74 Table 22: BRT Alternative Feeder Routes Annual O&M Costs Long List Cost Item S53 S54 S57 S59 Total Annual Unit of Service Unit Cost (2010$) Standard 40' Bus Line Item Cost Peak Bus Cost* Vehicle Hour Cost Pay Hour Cost Mileage Cost 1, ,328 Peak Buses $ Peak Bus $286,914 13,996 1,747 6,859 17,589 40,191 Bus Hours $2.34 Bus Hour $94,231 17,231 2,184 11,660 29,902 60,977 Pay Hours $46.87 Pay Hour $2,858, ,639 36, , , ,392 Bus Miles $1.78 Bus Mile $1,488,929 Subtotal of Bus Feeder Route O&M Annual Cost (million 2010$) $4,728,091 *Peak Buses the incremental number of buses that would be operated in a year. In addition to changes to the four feeder routes shown in Table 22, the second service component of the BRT alternative is the proposed new services (S1 and S2) that would be served by 62 feet long articulated buses. Table 23 summarizes estimated operating and maintenance costs associated with the articulated bus operations for the S1 and S2 routes, such as the thirteen peak buses required to provide 10-minute headways as well as costs per hour and bus miles. Table 23: BRT Alternative S1 and S2 Routes Annual O&M Costs Long List Cost Item S1 S2 Total Annual Unit of Service Unit Cost (2010$) Articulated Bus Line Item Cost (Articulated) Peak Bus Cost 1,216 1,780 2,996 Peak Bus $ Peak Bus Cost $369,877 Vehicle Hour Cost 15,642 26,478 42,120 Bus Hour $2.34 Vehicle Hour Cost $98,755 Pay Hour Cost 25,028 32,586 56,614 Pay Hour $47.14 Pay Hour Cost $2,715,680 Mileage Cost 318, , ,395 Bus Mile $2.14 Mileage Cost $1,552,392 Subtotal of S1 and S2 Routes Annual Cost (million 2010$) $4,736,703 The third service component is the savings attributed to the elimination of the S40/90 and truncation of the S46/96. The savings for these route changes are approximately $3.042 million and $2.465 million, respectively. These savings were calculated by comparing the current O&M costs and estimating the proposed future costs. All O&M costs, including maintenance of the busway and stations, have been estimated and summarized in Table 24. For more detail, see Appendix 7, the O&M Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report. 60 August 2012

75 Table 24: Total BRT Alternative Annual O&M Costs Long List Cost Item Annual Unit of Service Unit Cost (2010$) Articulated Bus Line Item Cost Service Component 1: Subtotal of Feeder Bus Costs (See Table 22) $4,728,091 Service Component 2: Subtotal of S1 and S2 Bus Costs (See Table 23) $4,736,703 Maintenance Costs for Busway Infrastructure Maintenance of Way 5.35 Busway Mile $19,300 Busway Mile $103,288 Station Operation and Maintenance On-Street Station Operation & Maintenance 7 Station $74,400 Station $520,800 6 Station $10,000 Station $60,000 Elevator Maintenance 8 Elevator $53,600 Elevator $428,800 Contingency 10 Percent $1,057,768 SUBTOTAL O&M COST (2010$) $11,635,450 Service Component 3: Cost Savings from Truncation and Elimination of Service: Net Estimated BRT St. George to West Shore Plaza Annual O&M Cost (million 2010$) ($5,507,190) $ Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate The estimated capital cost for the BRT Alternative is estimated to be $352 million. Table 25 summarizes the SCC costs as estimated for this alternative. For more detail of the SCC calculation worksheet, see Appendix 6, the Capital Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report. Table 25: BRT St. George to West Shore Plaza Alternative Capital Cost Estimate Long List SCC Cost Category Cost (2010$) 10 - GUIDEWAY ELEMENTS 57,461, STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 39,209, SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 1,300, SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 108,854, SYSTEMS 10,899, ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 20,440, VEHICLES 18,370, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 63,463, UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 31,999,885 TOTAL BRT St. George to West Shore Plaza Capital Cost (million 2010$) $ August 2012

76 3.5.6 Implementation Period It is estimated that the acquisition of any additional properties and construction of the busway would take six years. A section of the busway is elevated and would require significant construction, including fill, station construction. The estimated implementation period also includes vehicle acquisition time. Following construction, the BRT alternative would be operational. 62 August 2012

77 3.6 Electric Light Rail (LRT), St. George to West Shore Plaza Long List Modal Characteristics The Electric Light Rail (LRT) alternative would operate Electric Light Rail service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to Arlington; and south along South Avenue between Cable Way and a terminus at West Shore Plaza. As shown in Figure 6, the Electric LRT alternative would include all 15 stations as described in Section The stations are typically spaced one-half to one mile apart. Overhead catenary wires would power Electric LRT vehicles. The articulated vehicles would be 90 feet long with a 70% low-floor area. LRT vehicles have 68 seats each and a total design capacity of 122 passengers each with standees and four doors on each side of the vehicle. LRT vehicles have a maximum speed of 51 miles per hour. All platforms would be low-level. Center platforms would be 185 feet long and 19 feet wide. Due to structural constraints at Port Richmond and Ballpark, a narrower platform would be required. Side platforms would be 185 feet long and 12 feet wide. Alignment and Infrastructure Within the North Shore ROW, LRT vehicles would run on exclusive, fixed rail guideway between St. George Terminal and Arlington and in mixed traffic down South Avenue to West Shore Plaza. As described in Section 3.2.1, the alignment would follow the right-of-way west from the existing St. George Terminal along the Kill Van Kull shoreline, pass through the inactive Ballpark Station, cross Jersey Street at-grade, and then enter the Atlantic Salt property before entering the Sailors Snug Harbor area. West of the Blissenbach Marina, tracks would ascend the North Shore rail viaduct through Port Richmond and descend into the cut section between Nicholas Avenue and Morningstar Road. Existing rail freight territory between South Avenue and Harbor Road is proposed to be extended 1,400 feet eastwards towards Van Name Avenue. The new passenger tracks would be placed along the south side of the ROW, and would be separated by at least 17 feet from the freight track located on the north side, without crash walls except at overhead bridge structures. The alignment would turn south from the ROW and travel at-grade on South Avenue in mixed traffic towards West Shore Plaza. Connectivity One of the three goals of the proposed project is to improve mobility. The LRT alternative would provide direct service to the Teleport and West Shore Plaza, which accomplishes a number of the objectives, like improving transit access to the Teleport, reducing travel time for linked, Manhattan-bound trips, and reducing transfers between lines and modes. The LRT would provide a direct transfer connection to the NYCDOT Staten Island Ferry and NYCT Staten Island Railway at St. George Terminal for all routes with St. George termini. Transfer connections would also be available to NYCT buses at the Port Richmond, and Arlington/South Avenue Stations. Operations & Service Plan The travel time between West Shore Plaza and St. George Terminal would be 21 minutes. Service from West Shore Plaza to St. George Terminal would be designed to meet every Staten Island Ferry departure as well as every Staten Island Ferry arrival. Electric LRT service would operate 15 minutes during peak hours, 30 minutes during off-peak hours, and 60 minutes overnight. Ten vehicles would operate during peak hours and service would be provided 24 hours. Fare policy would be proof of payment system and the fare would be the same as MTA NYCT. Proposed service to the Ballpark Station would operate on game days only. 63 August 2012

78 3.6.2 Maintenance Facility Requirements A vehicle inspection and maintenance facility for the LRT vehicles would be located at the existing Staten Island Railway shop in Clifton. From St. George, connections to Track 10 (which is used today by SIR) and to the SIR main alignment to Clifton and Tottenville are proposed so that the SIR can continue its current practice of turning trains at St. George for even wheel wear, and to allow proposed LRT vehicles to undergo scheduled maintenance at the SIR Clifton shops. Modifications to the existing shop would be required for maintenance of light rail vehicles, including additional catwalks, cranes and storage space for light rail parts and supplies would be needed, and would be done within the current property. All estimated modifications have been incorporated into the Capital Cost estimates Potential Environmental Impacts Areas of the Electric LRT alignment are located within the jurisdictions of the Army Corps of Engineers and/or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and would require permits. Work in tidal wetlands would require mitigation. USACE, NYSDEC and NYCDEP would likely want measures to control the quantity and quantity of stormwater discharges from the alignment and stations. Mapped parkland exists at Sailors Snug Harbor and Blissenbach Marina and would be potentially impacted. Two inland areas of ecological interest include a stream that flows north out from the grounds of Sailors Snug Harbor and the strip of vegetated land between the North Shore Railroad ROW and Richmond Terrace. Additionally, sites identified along the proposed alignment have a history of industrial uses and subsurface contamination. A former construction materials landfill and emergent freshwater wetlands exist within the bounds of the proposed Arlington Station site Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Operations and Maintenance costs for the Electric LRT to West Shore Plaza alternative were estimated to be approximately $9.5 million per year, in 2010$. This includes both the costs for maintaining and operating light rail services, as well as the elimination of redundant bus services, similar to the bus service eliminations in the shortlisted BRT Alternative (See Section 3.5.4). The summary of the cost detail is listed in Table 26. For more detail, see Appendix 7, the O&M Cost Estimation Methodology and Results Report. 64 August 2012

79 Table 26: LRT St. George to West Shore Plaza Alternative O&M Costs Long List Cost Item Annual Unit of Service Unit Cost (2010$) Train Operations 18,258 Rev Train Hours $220 Rev Train Hour Line Item Cost $4,016,865 Train Maintenance 559,996 Car Miles $5.10 Rev Car Mile $2,855,979 Maintenance of Way 19 Track Miles $165,800 Track Mile $3,117,040 Station Operation and Maintenance 13 Stations $74,400 Station $967,200 Elevator Maintenance 7 Elevators $53,600 Elevator $375,200 Contingency 5-10 Percent $1,095,708 TOTAL Light Rail O&M COST (million 2010$) $12,427,993 Estimated Cost Savings from Elimination of Parallel Bus Services: $3,041,55 Net Estimated LRT St. George to West Shore Plaza Alternative Annual O&M Cost (million 2010$) $ Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate The capital cost for the Electric LRT to West Shore Plaza alternative is estimated to be $581 million. Table 27 summarizes the SCC costs as estimated for this alternative. For more detail of the SCC calculation worksheet, see Appendix 6, the Capital Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report. Table 27: LRT St. George to West Shore Plaza Alternative Capital Cost Estimate Long List SCC Cost Category Cost (2010$) 10 - GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 57,460, STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 39,487, SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 46,136, SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 109,846, SYSTEMS 85,608, ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 37,590, VEHICLES 51,480, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100,188, UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 52,779,767 TOTAL LRT St. George to West Shore Plaza Alternative Capital Cost (million 2010$) $ Implementation Period It is estimated that the acquisition of any additional properties and construction of the right-of-way would take seven years. The transitway is elevated and its construction would require significant construction, including fill, station construction, grade crossings, as well as vehicle acquisition time. The addition of the South Avenue segment alignment and renovations at Clifton Yard are also required. Following construction, testing and commissioning the LRT to West Shore Plaza alternative would be operational. 65 August 2012

80 3.7 Diesel Light Rail (DLRT), St. George to West Shore Plaza Long List Modal Characteristics On an alignment similar to the Electric Light Rail (LRT) St. George to West Shore Plaza Alternative, the Diesel Light Rail (DLRT) Alternative would operate diesel powered light rail service using Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) vehicles on two new tracks. The new tracks would extend west along the former North Shore ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to Arlington; and south along South Avenue between Cable Way to a terminus at West Shore Plaza. As shown in Figure 6, this alternative would include the full 15 stations as described in Section All the stations would be ADA compliant. The stations are typically spaced one-half to one mile apart. DMU vehicles are self-propelled light rail vehicles powered by a diesel engine. The articulated vehicle would be 103 feet long with a 65% low-floor area. DMU vehicles have a capacity to carry 240 passengers including light standees and have two doors on each side of the vehicle. DMU vehicles have a maximum speed of 55 miles per hour. All platforms would be low-level. The center platforms would be 185 feet long and 22 feet wide. Due to structural constraints at Port Richmond and Ballpark, a narrower platform would be required. The side platforms would be 185 feet long and 12 feet wide. Alignment and Infrastructure Within the North Shore ROW, DMU vehicles would run on exclusive, fixed rail guideway between St. George Terminal and Arlington/South Avenue. As described in Section 3.2.1, the alignment would follow the right-of-way west from the existing St. George Terminal along the Kill Van Kull shoreline, pass through the inactive Ballpark Station, cross Jersey Street at-grade, and then enter the Atlantic Salt property before entering the Sailors Snug Harbor area. West of Blissenbach Marina, tracks would ascend the North Shore rail viaduct through Port Richmond and descend into the cut section between Nicholas Avenue and Morningstar Road. Existing rail freight territory between South Avenue and Harbor Road is proposed to be extended 1,400 feet eastwards towards Van Name Avenue. The new passenger tracks would be placed along the south side of the ROW, and would be separated by at least 17 feet from the freight track located on the north side, without crash walls except at overhead bridge structures. The alignment would turn south from the ROW and travel atgrade on South Avenue in mixed traffic towards West Shore Plaza. Connectivity One of the three goals of the proposed project is to improve mobility. The DLRT Alternative would provide direct service to the Teleport and West Shore Plaza, which accomplishes a number of the objectives, like improving transit access to the Teleport, reducing travel time for linked, Manhattan-bound trips, and reducing transfers between lines and modes. The DMU would provide a direct transfer connection to the NYCDOT Staten Island Ferry and NYCT Staten Island Railway at St. George Terminal for all routes with St. George termini. Operations & Service Plan The travel time between West Shore Plaza and St. George Terminal would be 21 minutes with the DLRT Alternative. Service from West Shore Plaza to St. George Terminal would be designed to meet every Staten Island Ferry departure as well as every Staten Island Ferry arrival. DLRT service would operate 15 minutes during peak hours, 30 minutes during off-peak hours, and 60 minutes overnight. Ten vehicles would operate during peak hours and service would be provided 24 hours. Fare policy would be proof of payment system and the fare would be the same as MTA NYCT. Proposed service to the Ballpark Station would operate on game days only. 66 August 2012

81 3.7.2 Maintenance Facility Requirements A vehicle inspection and light maintenance facility for the DMU vehicles would be located at the existing Staten Island Railway shop in Clifton. From St. George, connections to Track 10 (which is used today by SIR) and to the SIR main alignment to Clifton and Tottenville are proposed so that the SIR can continue its current practice of turning trains at St. George for even wheel wear, and to allow proposed DMU vehicles to undergo scheduled maintenance at the SIR Clifton shops. Modifications to the existing shop would be required for maintenance of light rail vehicles, including additional catwalks, cranes and storage space for light rail parts and supplies would be needed, and would be done within the current property. For the DMU vehicles, fueling would occur at Arlington. All estimated modifications have been incorporated into the capital cost estimates Potential Environmental Impacts Areas of the DLRT Alternative alignment are located within the jurisdictions of the USACE and/or the NYSDEC and would require permits. Any work in tidal wetlands would require mitigation. Army Corps of Engineers, NYSDEC and NYCDEP would likely want measures to control the quantity and quantity of stormwater discharges from the alignment and stations. Mapped parkland exists at Sailors Snug Harbor and Blissenbach Marina and would be potentially impacted. Two inland areas of ecological interest include a stream that flows north out from the grounds of Sailors Snug Harbor and the strip of vegetated land between the North Shore Railroad ROW and Richmond Terrace. Additionally, sites identified along the proposed alignment have a history of industrial uses and subsurface contamination. A former construction materials landfill and emergent freshwater wetlands exist within the bounds of the proposed Arlington Station and Yard sites Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Operations and Maintenance costs for the DLRT Alternative were estimated to be approximately $13.7 million per year, in 2010$. The summary of these costs is listed in Table 28. For more detail, see Appendix 7, the O&M Cost Estimation and Methodology Report. 67 August 2012

82 Table 28: DLRT, St. George to West Shore Plaza Alternative Annual O&M Costs Long List Cost Item Train Operations 18,258 Annual Unit of Service Rev Train Hours Unit Cost (2010$) $220 Rev Train Hour Line Item Cost $4,016,865 Train Maintenance 559,996 Car Miles $14.20 Rev Car Mile $7,951,942 Maintenance of Way 19 Track Miles $100,400 Track Mile $1,887,520 Station Operation and Maintenance 13 Stations $74,400 Station $967,200 Elevator Maintenance 7 Elevators $53,600 Elevator $375,200 Contingency 10 Percent $1,482,353 TOTAL O&M COST (million 2010$) $16,681,080 Estimated Cost Savings from Elimination of Service: $3,041,855 Net Estimated DLRT ST. George to WSP Alternative Annual O&M Cost ( million 2010$) $ Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate The Capital Cost for the DLRT to West Shore Plaza alternative is estimated to be $514 million. Table 29 summarizes the SCC costs as estimated for this alternative. For more detail of the SCC calculation worksheet, see Appendix 6, the Capital Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report. Table 29: DLRT Alternative Capital Cost Estimate Long List SCC Cost Category Cost (2010$) 10 - GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 57,460, STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 39,954, SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 46,214, SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 105,474, SYSTEMS 41,289, ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 34,440, VEHICLES 55,770, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 86,790, UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 46,739,429 TOTAL DLRT ST. George to WSP Alternative Capital Cost (million 2010$) $ Implementation Period It is estimated that the acquisition of any additional properties and construction of the right-of-way would take seven years. Portions of the guideway would be elevated and it would require significant construction, including fill, station construction, grade crossings, Vehicle acquisition time is also included. In addition, the South Avenue segment of the alignment and renovations at Clifton Yard are required. Following construction, testing and commissioning, the DLRT to West Shore Plaza alternative would be operational. 68 August 2012

83 3.8 Heavy Rail St. George to Arlington Long List Modal Characteristics The Heavy Rail Alternative which utilizes the same mode at the Staten Island Railway (SIR), would operate electric-powered rail service on two new tracks. The new tracks would extend west along the former North Shore Railroad ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus just west of South Avenue in Arlington with bus connections to West Shore Plaza. All peak period trains would meet the ferry at St. George Terminal. The North Shore ROW extends 5.35 miles from St. George Terminal to Arlington/South Avenue. As shown in Figure 5, this alternative would include the nine stations along the former North Shore Railroad ROW as described in Section All the stations would be ADA compliant. The stations are typically spaced one-half to one mile apart. Third-rail electric power would power the heavy rail vehicles. It is estimated that there would be two to five car train sets of 75 feet long NYCT subway cars. NYCT subway cars have 75 seats each and a total design capacity of 175 passengers each with standees and four doors on each side of the vehicle. For cost estimation, two-car trains were assumed. Heavy rail vehicles have a maximum speed of 55 miles per hour. Third-rail electric power will power the heavy rail vehicles. All platforms would be high-level. Center platforms would be 240 feet long and 22 feet wide. Due to structural constraints at Port Richmond and Ballpark, a narrower platform would be required. The platform length was chosen as it is what the alignment can accommodate without significant impacts, and requires refinement based upon the results of ridership estimates and expected train consist requirements if the heavy rail alternative is advanced to the Short List. Alignment and Infrastructure Within the North Shore ROW, the heavy rail vehicles would run on exclusive, fixed rail guideway between St. George Terminal and Arlington. As described in Section 3.2.1, the alignment would follow the right-of-way west from the existing St. George Terminal along the Kill Van Kull shoreline, pass through the inactive Ballpark Station, cross Jersey Street at-grade, and then enter the Atlantic Salt property before entering the Sailors Snug Harbor area. West of Blissenbach Marina, tracks would ascend the North Shore rail viaduct through Port Richmond and descend into the cut section between Nicholas Avenue and Morningstar Road. Existing rail freight territory between South Avenue and Harbor Road is proposed to be extended 1,400 feet eastwards towards Van Name Avenue. The new passenger tracks would be placed along the south side of the ROW, and would be separated by at least 17 feet from the freight track located on the north side, without crash walls except at overhead bridge structures. Connectivity One of the three goals of the proposed project is to improve mobility. The heavy rail alternative would provide a connection to Arlington and areas along South Avenue with a transfer to NYCT enhanced bus service scheduled to meet all trains at the Arlington/South Avenue station. Additionally, the heavy rail alternative would provide a direct transfer connection to the NYCDOT Staten Island Ferry and NYCT Staten Island Railway at St. George Terminal. Transfer connections would also be available to NYCT Local/Limited buses at all station stops and NYCT Express Buses at the Port Richmond, and Arlington/South Avenue Stations. 69 August 2012

84 Operations & Service Plan The travel time between Arlington and St. George Terminal would be 15 minutes. Service from Arlington to St. George Terminal would be designed to meet every Staten Island Ferry departure as well as every Staten Island Ferry arrival. Heavy rail service would operate 15 minutes during peak and off-peak hours, and 30 minutes overnight. Eight vehicles (four 2-car trains) would operate during peak hours and service would be provided 24 hours. Fare policy would be proof of payment system and the fare would be the same as MTA NYCT Staten Island Railway and bus Maintenance Facility Requirements Vehicle inspection, maintenance, and storage for the heavy rail vehicles would take place at the existing Staten Island Railway shop in Clifton. Per meetings with NYCT/SIR Operations, there is sufficient room at the shop and along tail tracks to accommodate storage of additional heavy rail vehicles during non-peak hours Potential Environmental Impacts Areas of the heavy rail alignment are located within the jurisdictions of the USACE and/or the NYSDEC would require permits. Any work in tidal wetlands would require mitigation. USACE, NYSDEC and NYCDEP would likely want measures to control the quantity and quantity of stormwater discharges from the alignment and stations. Mapped parkland exists at Sailors Snug Harbor and Blissenbach Marina would be potentially impacted. Two inland areas of ecological interest include a stream that flows north out from the grounds of Sailors Snug Harbor and the strip of vegetated land between the North Shore Railroad ROW and Richmond Terrace. Additionally, sites identified along the proposed alignment have a history of industrial uses and subsurface contamination Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Operations and Maintenance costs for the Heavy Rail St. George to Arlington Alternative were estimated to be approximately $9.8 million per year, in 2010$. The summary of these costs is listed in Table 30. For more detail, see Appendix 7, the O&M Cost Estimation Methodology and Results Report. 70 August 2012

85 Table 30: Heavy Rail St. George to Arlington Alternative O&M Costs Long List Cost Item Annual Unit of Service Unit Cost (2010$) Line Item Cost Train Operations 14,609 Rev Train Hours $340 Rev Train Hour $4,966,973 Train Maintenance 378,044 Car Miles $3.30 Rev Car Mile $1,247,547 Maintenance of Way 13 Track Miles $331,600 Track Mile $4,310,800 Station Operation and Maintenance 7 Stations $74,400 Station $520,800 Elevator Maintenance 12 Elevators $53,600 Elevator $643,200 Contingency 10 Percent $1,168,932 TOTAL O&M COST (million 2010$) $12,858,252 Estimated Cost Savings from Elimination of Parallel Service $3,041,855 Net Estimated Heavy Rail St. George to Arlington Alternative Annual O&M Cost (million 2010$) $ Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate The Capital Cost for the heavy rail to Arlington alternative is estimated to be $474 million. Table 31 summarizes the SCC costs as estimated for this alternative. For more detail of the SCC calculation worksheet, see Appendix 6, the Capital Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report. Table 31: Capital Cost Estimate for the Heavy Rail to Arlington Alternative SCC Cost Category Cost (2010$) 10 - GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 39,923, STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 54,949, SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 23,894, SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 102,391, SYSTEMS 62,712, ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 30,870, VEHICLES 33,000, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 83,213, UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 43,095,549 TOTAL Heavy Rail St. George to Arlington Alternative Capital Cost (million 2010$) $ Implementation Period It is estimated that the acquisition of any additional properties and construction of the right-of-way to Arlington would take six years. A section of the transitway is elevated and would require significant construction, including fill, station construction, and grade crossings. Vehicle acquisition time is also included. Following construction, testing and commissioning, the heavy rail to Arlington alternative would be operational. 71 August 2012

86 3.9 Electric Light Rail (LRT), St. George to Arlington Long List Modal Characteristics The Electric Light Rail (LRT) alternative would operate Electric Light Rail service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus just west of South Avenue in Arlington with bus connections to West Shore Plaza. As shown in Figure 5, the LRT alternative would include 9 stations on the former North Shore Railroad ROW as described in Section All stations would be ADA compliant. The stations are typically spaced onehalf to one mile apart. Overhead catenary wires would power Electric LRT vehicles. The articulated vehicles would be 90 feet long with a 70% low-floor area. Electric LRT vehicles have 68 seats each and a total design capacity of 122 passengers with standees and four doors on each side of the vehicle. Electric LRT vehicles have a maximum speed of 51 miles per hour. All platforms would be low-level. Center platforms would be 185 feet long and 19 feet wide. Due to structural constraints at Port Richmond and Ballpark a narrower platform would be required. Side platforms would be 185 feet long and 12 feet wide. Alignment and Infrastructure Within the North Shore ROW, DMU vehicles would run on exclusive, fixed rail guideway between St. George Terminal and Arlington/South Avenue. As described in Section 3.2.1, the alignment would follow the right-of-way west from the existing St. George Terminal along the Kill Van Kull shoreline, pass through the inactive Ballpark Station, cross Jersey Street at-grade, and then enter the Atlantic Salt property before entering the Sailors Snug Harbor area. West of Blissenbach Marina, tracks would ascend the North Shore rail viaduct through Port Richmond and descend into the cut section between Nicholas Avenue and Morningstar Road. Existing rail freight territory between South Avenue and Harbor Road is proposed to be extended 1,400 feet eastwards towards Van Name Avenue. The new passenger tracks would be placed along the south side of the ROW, and would be separated by at least 17 feet from the freight track located on the north side, without crash walls except at overhead bridge structures. Connectivity One of the three goals of the proposed project is to improve mobility. The Electric LRT to Arlington alternative would provide a connection to the Teleport/Corporate Center area with a transfer to NYCT enhanced bus service scheduled to meet all trains at the Arlington/South Avenue station. Additionally, the Electric LRT to Arlington alternative would provide a direct transfer connection to the NYCDOT Staten Island Ferry and NYCT Staten Island Ferry at St. George Terminal. Transfer connections would also be available to NYCT Local/Limited buses at all station stops and NYCT Express Buses at the Port Richmond, and Arlington/South Avenue Stations. Operations & Service Plan The travel time between Arlington and St. George Terminal would be 13 minutes. Service from Arlington to St. George Terminal would be designed to meet every Staten Island Ferry departure as well as every Staten Island Ferry arrival. Electric LRT service would operate 15 minutes during peak hours, 30 minutes during off-peak hours, and 60 minutes overnight. Eight vehicles (four 2-car trains) would operate during peak hours and service would be provided 24 hours a day. Fare policy would be proof of payment system and the fare would be the same as MTA NYCT Local/Limited Bus and Staten Island Railway. Proposed service to the Ballpark Station would operate on game days only. 72 August 2012

87 3.9.2 Maintenance Facility Requirements A vehicle inspection and maintenance facility for the LRT vehicles would be located at the existing Staten Island Railway shop in Clifton. From St. George, connections to Track 10 (which is used today by SIR) and to the SIR main alignment to Clifton and Tottenville are proposed so that the SIR can continue its current practice of turning trains at St. George for even wheel wear, and to allow proposed LRT vehicles to undergo scheduled maintenance at the SIR Clifton shops. Modifications to the existing shop would be required for maintenance of light rail vehicles, including additional catwalks, cranes and storage space for light rail parts and supplies would be needed, and would be done within the current property. All estimated modifications have been incorporated into the capital cost estimates Potential Environmental Impacts Areas of the electric LRT alignment are located within the jurisdictions of the USACE and/or the NYSDEC and would require permits. Work in tidal wetlands would require mitigation. USACE, NYSDEC and NYCDEP would likely want measures to control the quantity and quantity of stormwater discharges from the alignment and stations. Mapped parkland exists at Sailors Snug Harbor and Blissenbach Marina and would be potentially impacted. Two inland areas of ecological interest include a stream that flows north out from the grounds of Sailors Snug Harbor and the strip of vegetated land between the North Shore Railroad ROW and Richmond Terrace. Additionally, sites identified along the proposed alignment have a history of industrial uses and subsurface contamination. A former construction materials landfill and emergent freshwater wetlands exist within the bounds of the proposed Arlington Station and Yard sites Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Operations and Maintenance costs for the Electric LRT to Arlington alternative were estimated to be approximately $5.7 million per year, in 2010$. The summary of the cost detail is listed in Table 32. For more detail, see Appendix 7, the O&M Cost Estimation Methodology and Results Report. Table 32: LRT to Arlington O&M Costs Long List Cost Item Annual Unit of Service Unit Cost (2010$) Train Operations 13,843 Rev Train Hours $220 Rev Train Hour Line Item Cost $3,045,565 Train Maintenance 378,044 Car Miles $5.10 Rev Car Mile $1,928,026 Maintenance of Way 13 Track Miles $165,800 Track Mile $2,155,400 Station Operation and Maintenance 7 Stations $74,400 Station $520,800 Elevator Maintenance 7 Elevators $53,600 Elevator $375,200 Contingency 10 Percent $764,979 TOTAL O&M COST (million 2010$) $8,789,971 Estimated Cost Savings from Elimination of Parallel Bus Service: $3,041,855 Net Estimated LRT St. George to Arlington Alternative O&M Cost (million 2010$) $ August 2012

88 3.9.5 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate The Capital Cost for the Electric LRT to Arlington alternative is estimated to be $477 million. Table 33 below summarizes the SCC costs as estimated for this alternative. For more detail of the SCC calculation worksheet, see Appendix 6, the Capital Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report. Table 33: Capital Cost Estimate for the LRT to Arlington Alternative Long List SCC Cost Category Cost (2010$) 10 - GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 40,004, STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 32,449, SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 45,265, SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 102,000, SYSTEMS 57,854, ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 30,870, VEHICLES 43,560, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 81,974, UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 43,397,932 TOTAL LRT St. George to Arlington Alternative Capital Cost (million 2010$) $ Implementation Period It is estimated that the acquisition of any additional properties and construction of the right-of-way would take six years. A section of the transitway is elevated and would require significant construction, including fill, station construction, grade crossings, as well as vehicle acquisition time. Renovations are also required at Clifton Yard. Following construction, testing and commissioning, the LRT to Arlington alternative would be operational. 74 August 2012

89 3.10 Diesel Light Rail (DLRT) St. George to Arlington Long List Modal Characteristics The Diesel Light Rail (DLRT) St. George to Arlington Alternative would operate diesel powered light rail service using Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) vehicles on two new tracks. The new tracks would extend west along the former North Shore ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to a new terminus just west of South Avenue in Arlington with bus connections to West Shore Plaza. The North Shore ROW extends 5.35 miles from St. George Terminal to Arlington/South Avenue. As shown in Figure 5, this alternative would include 9 stations as described in Section All stations would be ADA compliant. The stations are typically spaced one-half to one mile apart. DMU vehicles are self-propelled light rail vehicles powered by a diesel engine. The articulated vehicle would be 103 feet long with a 65% low-floor area. All platforms would be low-level, and all vehicle doors would open onto the platform. The center platforms would be 185 feet long and 22 feet wide. Due to structural constraints at Port Richmond and Ballpark, a narrower platform would be required. The side platforms would be 185 feet long and 12 feet wide. DMU vehicles have a capacity to carry 240 passengers including light standees and have two doors on each side of the vehicle. DMU vehicles have a maximum speed of 55 miles per hour. Alignment and Infrastructure Within the North Shore ROW, DMU vehicles would run on exclusive, fixed guideway between St. George Terminal and Arlington. As described in Section 3.2.1, the alignment would follow the right-ofway west from the existing St. George Terminal along the Kill Van Kull shoreline, pass through the inactive Ballpark Station, cross Jersey Street at-grade and then enter the Atlantic Salt property before entering the Sailors Snug Harbor area. West of Blissenbach Marina, tracks would ascend the North Shore rail viaduct through Port Richmond and descend into the cut section between Nicholas Avenue and Morningstar Road. Existing rail freight territory between South Avenue and Harbor Road is proposed to be extended 1,400 feet eastwards towards Van Name Avenue. The new passenger tracks would be placed along the south side of the ROW, and would be separated by at least 17 feet from the freight track located on the north side, without crash walls except at overhead bridge structures. Connectivity One of the three goals of the proposed project is to improve mobility. The DLRT St. George to Arlington Alternative would provide connection to the Teleport/Corporate Center area with a transfer to NYCT enhanced bus service scheduled to meet all trains at the Arlington/South Avenue station. Additionally, the DLRT St. George to Arlington Alternative would provide a direct transfer connection to the NYCDOT Staten Island Ferry and NYCT Staten Island Ferry at St. George Terminal. Transfer connections would also be available to NYCT Local/Limited buses at all station stops and NYCT Express Buses at the Port Richmond, and Arlington/South Avenue Stations. Operations & Service Plan The travel time between Arlington and St. George would be 14 minutes. Service from Arlington to St. George Terminal would be designed to meet every Staten Island Ferry departure as well as every Staten Island Ferry arrival. DLRT service would operate 15 minutes during peak hours, 30 minutes during offpeak hours, and 60 minutes overnight. Eight vehicles (four 2-car trains) would operate during peak hours and service would be provided 24 hours. Fare policy would be proof of payment system and the fare would be the same as MTA NYCT Staten Island Railway. Proposed service to the Ballpark Station would operate on game days only. 75 August 2012

90 Maintenance Facility Requirements A vehicle inspection and light maintenance facility for the DMU vehicles would be located at the existing Staten Island Railway shop in Clifton. Modifications to the existing shop would be required for maintenance of light rail vehicles and has been incorporated into the capital cost estimates. For the DMU vehicles, fueling and a few other activities would have to occur at a new facility at Arlington Potential Environmental Impacts Areas of the DLRT alignment are located within the jurisdictions of the USACE and/or the NYSDEC and would require permits. Any work in tidal wetlands would require mitigation. Army Corps of Engineers, NYSDEC and NYCDEP would likely want measures to control the quantity and quantity of stormwater discharges from the alignment and stations. Mapped parkland exists at Sailors Snug Harbor and Blissenbach Marina and would be potentially impacted. Two inland areas of ecological interest include a stream that flows north out from the grounds of Sailors Snug Harbor and the strip of vegetated land between the North Shore Railroad ROW and Richmond Terrace. Additionally, sites identified along the proposed alignment have a history of industrial uses and subsurface contamination. A former construction materials landfill and emergent freshwater wetlands exist within the bounds of the proposed Arlington Station and Yard sites Preliminary Annual O&M Cost Estimate Operations and Maintenance costs for the DLRT to Arlington alternative were estimated to be approximately $8.7 million per year, in 2010$. The summary of the cost detail is shown in Table 34. For more detail, see Appendix 7, O&M Cost Estimation Methodology and Results Report. Table 34: DLRT St. George to Arlington Alternative Annual O&M Costs Long List Cost Item Annual Unit of Service Unit Cost (2010$) Line Item Cost Train Operations 14,393 Rev Train Hours $220 Rev Train Hour $3,166,438 Train Maintenance 378,044 Car Miles $14.20 Rev Car Mile $5,368,231 Maintenance of Way 13 Track Miles $100,400 Track Mile $1,305,200 Station Operation and Maintenance 7 Stations $74,400 Station $520,800 Elevator Maintenance 7 Elevators $53,600 Elevator $375,200 Contingency 10 Percent $1,036,067 TOTAL O&M COST (million 2010$) $11,771,935 Estimated Cost Savings from Elimination of Parallel Bus Service $3,041,855 Net Estimated DLRT St. George to Arlington Alternative Annual O&M Cost (million 2010$) $ August 2012

91 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate The Capital Cost for the DLRT to Arlington alternative is estimated to be $435 million. Table 35 below summarizes the SCC costs as estimated for this alternative. For more detail of the SCC calculation worksheet, see Appendix 6, the Capital Cost Estimate Methodology and Results Report. Table 35: DLRT St. George to Arlington Alternative Capital Cost Estimate Long List SCC Cost Category Cost (2010$) 10 - GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 40,004, STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 32,917, SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 45,564, SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 99,111, SYSTEMS 28,111, ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 29,120, VEHICLES 47,190, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 73,121, UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 39,513,957 TOTAL DLRT St. George to Arlington Alternative Capital Cost (million 2010$) $ Implementation Period It is estimated that the acquisition of any additional properties and construction of the right-of-way would take six years. A section of the transitway is elevated and would require significant construction, including fill, station construction, and grade crossings. Time is also needed for acquisition of vehicles. Renovations are also required at Clifton Yard. Following construction, testing and commissioning, the DLRT to Arlington alternative would be operational. 77 August 2012

92 4. BUILD ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED - SHORT LIST 4.1 Refinement of Alternatives Three alternatives were retained for further development and analysis: Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), St. George to West Shore Plaza, and Electric Light Rail (LRT), St. George to West Shore Plaza Conceptual engineering was performed for the transitways required for the BRT and LRT alternatives. Constructability, operability, and impacts on existing service were all undertaken to evaluate the Short List and determine the LPA. The environmental impacts of alternatives, including traffic, based on design refinements, led to more differentiation among alignments. For example, substation locations for the light rail alternative create additional needs for property acquisition which the BRT alternative would not require. Traffic impacts at the proposed park-and-ride lots were also considered. Capital and operating costs were revised to be consistent with the conceptual engineering. In order to compare the total Capital and O&M costs over a long period time, a Net Present Value (NPV) analysis was prepared to show the total cost over 20 years of operations plus the initial construction duration of the alternative. Capital costs were assigned to the year in which they would be spent, including Preliminary and Final Engineering. Costs were inflated to reflect how much construction materials prices would escalate during the future year of purchase, and operating costs were inflated to reflect costs for services and salaries in each future year. For the BRT and LRT build alternatives, design of the proposed busway and transitway were further refined and station concept drawings as well as plan and profile drawings were created. These can found in the Basis of Engineering Report in Appendix 4 and Appendix 5, the Short List Alternatives Drawing Sets Finally, ridership forecasts were produced using the MTA Regional Transit Forecasting Model (the same travel demand model used by the MTA for all candidate transit expansion projects). These were used to compare attractiveness to riders based on the potential future services provided. Trips were measured in total linked trips, which are defined as a trip from origin to destination, potentially involving travel on multiple transit vehicles. A linked trip may therefore consist of multiple unlinked trips (or passenger boardings). Daily linked transit trips were compared across all alternatives as well as the No Build in order to understand a comparative ridership total. Figure 11 provides an overlay of the proposed TSM, BRT and LRT alternatives. This illustrates the similarities (i.e., use of the North Shore ROW) and differences (i.e., areas served directly) among the selected Short List. 78 August 2012

93 Figure 11: Short List Alternatives Map 79 August 2012

94 4.2 Transportation Systems Management Alternative (Bus) Short List Summary of TSM Alternative Components As stated in Section 3.4, the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternative, required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as a baseline option. The TSM emphasizes transportation system upgrades such as intersection improvements, minor road widening, traffic engineering actions, bus route restructuring, shortened bus headways, expanded use of articulated buses, reserved bus lanes, expanded park/ride facilities, express and limited-stop service, signalization improvements, and timed-transfer operations. Eight specific service and capital operations elements are proposed for the TSM alternative, as described in more detail in Section 3.4. This list of elements is unchanged from the Long List: 1. Add Limited Stop Service between St. George Ferry Terminal and West Shore Plaza 2. Modified Reverse Peak X11 trips from Midtown to Serve the Teleport and West Shore Plaza (new service X21) 3. Add limited-stop service on the S53 (S83 service) 4. Build a new North Shore Transit Center at Arlington and restructure some bus routes to serve Transit Center 5. Operate limited stop service with no time points 6. Extend Traffic Signal Prioritization (TSP) Improvements 7. Extend Victory Boulevard Bus Lane 8. Improve Intersections at six bottleneck intersections. These proposed improvements would have effects on bus service and operations in Staten Island as well as connectivity between St. George and West Shore Plaza. The Proposed TSM Alternative Components are shown in Figure 8 in Section Revised Alignment Features While the TSM alternative would create minor changes to the existing roadway network in Staten Island, the changes would have minor effects including curb cuts and dedicated turn lanes at intersections. Additionally, the Traffic Signal Prioritization (TSP) would have minor effects by extending green traffic signals for up to five seconds when buses are present. The Victory Boulevard bus lane would be extended, improving the flow of traffic for all vehicles traveling to/from St. George during the morning and evening peak periods. In the Short List, a more detailed review of the curb-to-curb dimensions of Victory Boulevard revealed that the minor widening of one to three feet would occur over 1.2 miles of the 2.27-mile length, instead of 1.8 miles Summary of Environmental and Traffic Analyses Refined environmental analysis of the TSM alternative focused on any anticipated impacts of the proposed build alternative. The main land use impact of the TSM alternative is the proposed North Shore Transit Center, which would use currently undeveloped property near Arlington for development of the Transit Center. Overall, the proposed changes and enhancements in bus routes would improve mobility for existing residents and workers on the North Shore over a wide geographic area, and it is unlikely that the TSM Alternative would result in disproportionate adverse effects on specific environmental justice communities. Impacts to wetlands and ecological resources would be regulated by appropriate agencies, with measures sought to avoid any deterioration in water quality. No historic structures would be affected for implementation of the TSM alternative. The NSTC has potential to affect archaeological resources, and further research would be required to analyze this at future phases of study. With regard to air quality, 80 August 2012

95 changes in bus operations would be incremental and would probably not result in exceeding air quality standards at most locations. Similarly, it is expected that since buses would operate on existing streets that already have bus operations, the TSM alternative would not result in any severe noise impacts. Finally, the environmental analysis indicated that the proposed site in Arlington for the NSTC has the potential for subsurface contamination from prior uses. Further assessment would be needed to determine the magnitude and extent of potential contamination. For more detail on the methodology and criteria evaluated, Appendix 10, the Environmental Analysis Report for Short List Alternatives. Traffic impacts of the TSM alternative are expected to be minimal. The TSM improves upon existing bus routes, and the anticipated ridership (see Section below) would increase by approximately 7% in the TSM over the No Build during peak travel periods. This should not create significant impacts or needs for additional traffic mitigation efforts Cost Estimate Refinements The revised O&M cost estimate for the alternative is $4.5 million, which reflects the service refinement of the rerouted S57 and S59 routes. These routes currently terminating at Port Richmond are proposed to be extended to St. George terminal. The changes in route schedule reduced the total operating costs. The Revised Annual O&M Cost Estimate is listed in Table 36. Peak Bus Cost Cost Item Table 36: Revised Annual O&M Cost for the TSM Alternative Annual Unit of Service 2,268 Annual Peak Buses Unit Cost (2010$) Standard 40' Bus Line Item Cost (Standard) $ Peak Bus $279,519 Vehicle Hour Cost 23,833 Annual Bus Hours $2.34 Bus Hour $55,878 Pay Hour Cost 40, 516 Annual Pay Hours $46.87 Pay Hour $1,898,996 Mileage Cost 518,650 Annual Bus Miles $1.78 Bus Mile $924,395 North Shore Transit Center Operation & Maintenance 1 Stations $371,000 Station $371,000 X21 Service $600,000 Contingency 10 Percent $412,768 NET Estimated Revised TSM O&M Cost (million 2010$) $4.543 As stated in Section 4.1, a Net Present Value (NPV) analysis was prepared to compare the total Capital and O&M costs over a long period of time. The NPV shows the total cost over 20 years of operations plus the initial construction duration of the alternative. Capital costs were assigned to the year in which they would be spent, including Preliminary and Final Engineering. Costs were inflated to reflect how much construction materials prices would escalate during the future year of purchase, and operating costs were inflated to reflect costs for services and salaries in each future year. A 2.65% finance rate (chosen in consultation with NYCT and MTA) was used to calculate the NPV. The NPV for the TSM Alternative is $129 million. 81 August 2012

96 The capital cost was reduced due to the reduction of the length minor widening on Victory Blvd., reducing the cost by approximately $1 million. The revised capital cost estimate for the alternative is $35.7 million. The Revised Capital Cost Estimate is listed in Table 37. Table 37: Revised Capital Cost Estimate for the TSM Alternative SCC Cost Category Cost (2010$) 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 3,141, STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 2,496, SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 0 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1,249, SYSTEMS 7,000, ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 3,780, VEHICLES 10,287, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,521, UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 3,247,000 Total Revised TSM Capital Cost (million 2010$) $ August 2012

97 4.2.5 Ridership Forecast The TSM Alternative AM peak period year 2035 ridership was compared to the year 2035 No Build Alternative in order to understand the choices riders would likely make given the two future scenarios. Table 38 lists the difference in AM boardings by Route. The total AM riders on the new bus routes S99 and S83 are 854 and 4,207 respectively, or approximately 5,060 AM peak users. For more detail, see Appendix 9, the Ridership Results Memo. Table 38: TSM Alternative Difference in AM Ridership by Route 2035 No Build 2035 TSM Difference In Out In Out In Out S , S44 2,457 2,896 2,242 2, S46 1,376 1,267 1,477 1, S , , S53 5,043 3,846 5,394 3, S , S ,144 1, S S62 1,509 3,571 1,491 3, S66 1,571 1,032 1, S , ,207 0 S89 1, , S S91 3, , S92 3, , S93 2,976 3,870 2,325 3, S94 1, , S S98 1, , S X10 1, X12 2, , X14 1, , X X30 2, , August 2012

98 2035 No Build 2035 TSM Difference In Out In Out In Out X Total 39,460 20,788 42,296 22,343 2,836 1,555 Sub Total of above new TSM Bus Routes only 0 0 4, , Note: Italicized routes are newly proposed under this TSM Alternative. Ridership forecasts for these routes are used for ridership for the TSM Alternative. The ridership results also produced total linked transit trips within the NSAA corridor. Table 39 shows the No Build and TSM estimated daily linked transit trips for the NSAA study area. Alternative Table 39: TSM Daily Linked Transit Trips Forecast for NSAA Study Area To or Within NSAA Study Area Travel Destination Rest of Staten Island Manhattan Total No Build 29,050 5,810 32,710 67,570 Transportation Systems Management 29,380 6,000 32,900 68,280 The total daily linked transit trips within the NSAA corridor in the 2035 TSM alternative is approximately 68,280, which represents an increase of 710 trips over the No Build estimate of 67,570 daily linked transit trips. 84 August 2012

99 4.3 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), St. George to West Shore Plaza Short List Summary of BRT Alternative The Busway Alternative implements Bus Rapid Transit service along the North Shore right-of-way and South Avenue with termini at the St. George Ferry Terminal and West Shore Plaza. As described in Section 3.5.1, the BRT alternative features two new bus services and extensions of four existing bus services in the study area to make use of the new BRT busway. No changes were made in bus routes or infrastructure for the short list, except to add bus storage and recovery space at Arlington Station Alignment features The alignment includes two additional entrance/exit points to the proposed North Shore busway to allow current local buses to make use of the busway. The first additional entry/exit location would be located at Bard Avenue, and the second would be located at Alaska Street. To prevent access of unauthorized vehicles on to the busway, a security gate would be installed at entrance and exit points. Emergency vehicles could also be provided with access to the busway. The design for these ramps and the busway are provided in Appendix 4, the Basis of Engineering Report. The busway extends for 5.35 miles from Arlington to St. George, and an additional 2.58 miles south from Arlington to West Shore Plaza along South Avenue. The Busway alternative is shown in Figure 10 in Section Summary of Environmental and Traffic Analyses Refined analysis of the BRT Alternative focused on any anticipated impacts of the proposed build alternative. The main land use impact of the BRT alternative is the proposed busway, which shifts the former North Shore Railroad right-of-way closer to Richmond Terrace to accommodate the needs of existing commercial and industrial businesses as well as to address the coastal concern of erosion. In addition to potential impacts to properties along Richmond Terrace, the BRT Alternative would require the acquisition of a number of properties along the South Avenue portion of its route to accommodate the new West Shore Plaza terminal and the proposed Arlington Station. The proposed alignment of the BRT Alternative intersects parkland at Sailors Snug Harbor and abuts mapped parkland at the Blissenbach Marina near Alaska Street. The alignment for the BRT Alternative would require use of an area of mapped parkland at Snug Harbor, which would require approvals from NY State and National oversight agencies in addition to local coordination. For much of the at-grade portions of the BRT alignment including the Kill van Kull waterfront and the South Avenue route there is a high likelihood of affecting wetlands and/or adjacent areas, and therefore permits from the USACE and NYSDEC would be required. Portions of the BRT Alternative s alignment would encroach on floodplains, which would require potential measures to avoid effects on water quantity from run-off and flood conditions. Two architectural resources would potentially be affected by implementation of the BRT alternative: a stone wall and stone steps that were formerly associated with the North Shore Branch s Snug Harbor Station and the former North Shore Branch as a whole. These potential effects would need to be evaluated and documented in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or Section of the New York State Historic Preservation Act. Areas with notable potential to contain buried archaeological resources include the location of the West Shore Plaza and the Arlington station, which are in areas where Native American activity most likely occurred. Near Alaska Street, another Native American site is known to have been present. Further assessment would be required to analyze archaeological sensitivity at future phases of study. 85 August 2012

100 An air quality analysis of particulate matter (PM) was conducted at an elevated section of the proposed busway adjacent to the Port Richmond station area, as Staten Island is nonattainment for fine PM. The results indicate that the proposed BRT Alternative would result in negligible increases in PM concentrations due to proposed bus activity. A noise analysis concluded that a substantial number of noise impacts are not anticipated for these portions of the BRT alternative s alignment. The BRT alternative would result in 80 residences experiencing at least a moderate impact and 30 residences experiencing a severe impact where it would operate on viaduct. Off the busway, the BRT Alternative would be more distant from sensitive noise receptors or would be operating on street with existing traffic. Finally, the environmental analysis indicated that the proposed site of the Arlington BRT station has the potential for subsurface contamination from prior uses. Further assessment would be needed to determine the magnitude and extent of potential contamination. For more detail on the methodology and criteria evaluated, see Appendix 10, the Environmental Analysis Report for Short List Alternatives. During the weekday AM peak hour, the BRT Alternative would generate approximately 228 vehicles per hour (vph) and about 2,076 pedestrian trips within the study area. Of the 14 study area intersections analyzed in the traffic analysis report, the proposed actions would cause significant traffic impacts at four intersections during the weekday AM peak hour and at five intersections during the weekday PM peak hour. All impacted intersections could be fully mitigated with traffic improvement measures such as signal timing changes and lane restriping. For more details, see Appendix 15, the Traffic Impacts Assessment of Short List Alternatives Memo Cost Estimate Refinement Once ridership modeling was completed (See Section for details), the projected ridership was checked against the total capacity of the buses to determine whether the peak ridership levels could be supported by the alternative. This analysis showed a need for an additional 17 buses (including spares) operating during the peak period, increasing both capital and O&M costs. Table 40: Revised BRT Feeder Routes O&M Costs Cost Item Peak Bus Cost Vehicle Hour Cost Pay Hour Cost Mileage Cost S53 S54 S57 S59 Total Annual Unit of Service Unit Cost (2010$) Standard 40' Bus Line Item Cost (Standard) 1, ,328 Peak Buses $ Peak Bus $286,914 13,996 1,747 6,859 17,589 40,191 Bus Hours $2.34 Bus Hour $94,231 17,231 2,184 11,660 29,902 60,977 Pay Hours $46.87 Pay Hour $2,858, ,639 36, , , ,392 Bus Miles $1.78 Bus Mile $1,488,929 Total Revised O&M Cost (million 2010$) $4,728, August 2012

101 Table 41: Revised BRT O&M Cost with new S1 and S2 service and Extensions Cost Item Annual Unit of Service Unit Cost (2010$) Articulated Bus Line Item Cost (Articulated) Peak Bus Cost 4,004 Peak Bus $ Peak Bus $494,322 Vehicle Hour Cost 44,118 Bus Hour $2.34 Bus Hour $103,438 Pay Hour Cost 60,449 Pay Hour $47.14 Pay Hour $2,849,300 Mileage Cost 759,875 Bus Mile $2.14 Bus Mile $1,628,427 Subtotal of Extensions $4,728,091 Maintenance of Way Station Operation and Maintenance On-Street Station Operation & Maintenance 5.35 Busway Mile $19,300 Busway Mile $103,288 7 Station $74,400 Station $520,800 6 Station $10,000 Station $60,000 Elevator Maintenance 8 Elevator $53,600 Elevator $428,800 Contingency 10 Percent $1,091,647 TOTAL Revised O&M COST (million 2010$) $12,008,112 Elimination of S40/S90 Service $3,041,855 Truncation of the S46/S96 Route $2,465,334 Estimated Cost Savings from Truncation and Elimination of Parallel Bus Service: $5,507,190 Net Estimated Revised BRT O&M Cost (million 2010$) $6.50 As stated in Section 4.1, a Net Present Value (NPV) analysis was prepared to compare the total Capital and O&M costs over a long period of time. The NPV shows the total cost over 20 years of operations plus the initial construction duration of the alternative. Capital costs were assigned to the year in which they would be spent, including Preliminary and Final Engineering. Costs were inflated to reflect how much construction materials prices would escalate during the future year of purchase, and operating costs were inflated to reflect costs for services and salaries in each future year. The Net Present Value (NPV) calculated with a 2.65% finance rate for the BRT Alternative is $727 million. 87 August 2012

102 Another refinement to the capital costs was the addition of property acquisition and construction costs for additional space to store the buses off-street between revenue trips. Revised Capital Cost Estimate is listed in Table 42 below. Table 42: Revised Capital Cost Estimate for the BRT St. George to West Shore Plaza Alternative SCC Cost Category Cost (2010$) 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 57,461, STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 39,210, SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 1,300, SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 108,831, SYSTEMS 10,654, ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 25,970, VEHICLES 30,862, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 63,390, UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 33,768,000 Total Revised BRT Capital Cost (million 2010$) $ The revised capital cost estimate for the alternative is $371 million and the revised O&M cost estimate for is $6.5 million. 88 August 2012

103 4.3.5 Ridership The BRT St. George to West Shore Plaza AM peak ridership is shown by route in Table 43, as provided in the Ridership Results Memo (See Appendix 9). NYCT uses a statistic known as BRT segment users. A user represents a traveler alighting one of the routes using the busway in the inbound direction or boarding one of the six routes in the outbound direction. The ridership forecasts indicate a total of 12,115 users. Table 43: AM BRT Segment Users by Route Route Users S1 3,009 S2 3,341 S S54 1,186 S57 2,670 S59 1,773 Total 12,115 The ridership results also produced total linked transit trips within the NSAA corridor. Table 44 shows the No Build and BRT estimated daily linked transit trips from the NSAA study area. Table 44: BRT Daily Linked Transit Trips Forecast for the NSAA Study Area Alternative Travel Destination To or Within NSAA Study Area Rest of Staten Island Manhattan Total No Build 29,050 5,810 32,710 67,570 BRT to West Shore Plaza 29,650 6,040 33,210 68,900 The total daily linked transit trips within the NSAA corridor in the 2035 BRT alternative is 68,900, which represents an increase of 1,330 trips over the No Build estimate of 67,570 daily linked transit trips. 89 August 2012

104 4.4 Electric Light Rail (LRT), St. George to West Shore Plaza Short List Summary of LRT Alternative The final Short List Alternative is the LRT to West Shore Plaza alternative, which would offer Electric Light Rail service on two new tracks that would extend west along the former North Shore ROW from the existing St. George Terminal to Arlington and south along the South Avenue corridor to a new terminus at West Shore Plaza. The LRT alternative would include the full 15 stations as described in Section 3.1 and be powered by overhead catenary wires. The transitway extends for 5.35 miles from Arlington to St. George, and an additional 2.58 miles south from Arlington to West Shore Plaza along South Avenue. No alignment changes were made in the Short List. The map of the LRT to West Shore Plaza alternative is shown Figure 6 in Section Revised Alignment Features LRT vehicles would run on exclusive guideway between St. George Terminal and Arlington and in mixed traffic down South Avenue to West Shore Plaza. At-grade crossings currently exist at Jersey Street, Atlantic Salt access road near Lafayette Avenue, Caddell Dry Dock access roads near Bement Avenue and North Burgher Avenue, Broadway, and the Blissenbach Marina access road near Tompkins Court. Following the inactive right-of-way west from the existing St. George Terminal, along the Kill Van Kull shoreline the guideway would pass through the inactive Ballpark Station, cross Jersey Street at-grade and then enter the Atlantic Salt property before entering the Sailors Snug Harbor area. Refinements to this alternative included the locations of substations along the ROW. These locations would require additional property acquisitions. As discussed in Section above, the tracks and supporting bulkhead have been washed out immediately west of Sailors Snug Harbor, and a modified alignment is proposed. Drawings of the LRT alignment can be found in Appendix Summary of Environmental and Traffic Analyses Refined analysis of the LRT alternative focused on any anticipated impacts of the proposed build alternative. The main land use impact of the LRT alternative is the proposed transitway, which shifts the former North Shore Railroad right-of-way closer to Richmond Terrace to accommodate the needs of existing commercial and industrial businesses as well as to address the coastal concern of erosion. Electric light rail also features visible overhead wires, which present a visual impact. In addition to potential impacts to properties along Richmond Terrace, the LRT Alternative would require the acquisition of a number of properties along the South Avenue portion of its route to accommodate the new West Shore Plaza terminal, widened stations along South Avenue, and the proposed Arlington Station. The proposed alignment of the LRT Alternative intersects parkland at Sailors Snug Harbor and abuts mapped parkland at the Blissenbach Marina near Alaska Street. The alignment for the LRT Alternative would require use of an area of mapped parkland at Snug Harbor, which would require approvals from NY State and National oversight agencies in addition to local coordination. For much of the at-grade portions of the BRT alignment including the Kill van Kull waterfront and the South Avenue route there is a high likelihood of affecting wetlands and/or adjacent areas, and therefore permits from the USACE and NYSDEC would be required. Portions of the LRT Alternative s alignment would encroach on floodplains, which would require potential measures to avoid effects on water quantity from run-off and flood conditions. Two architectural resources would potentially be affected by implementation of the LRT alternative: a stone wall and stone steps that were formerly associated with the North Shore Branch s Snug Harbor Station and the former North Shore Branch as a whole. These potential effects would need to be evaluated 90 August 2012

105 and documented in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or Section of the New York State Historic Preservation Act. Areas with notable potential to contain buried archaeological resources include the location of the West Shore Plaza and the Arlington station, which are in areas where Native American activity most likely occurred. Further assessment would be required to analyze archaeological sensitivity at future phases of study. Unlike the TSM and BRT alternatives, the LRT Alternative would not have any local pollutant emissions emanating from vehicles since it would be electrically powered. A noise analysis concluded that a substantial number of noise impacts are not anticipated for these portions of the LRT alternative s alignment. The LRT Alternative on viaduct may result in 73 residences experiencing at least a moderate impact, and 24 residences may experience a severe impact. Finally, the environmental analysis indicated that the proposed site of the Arlington LRT station has the potential for subsurface contamination from prior uses. Further assessment would be needed to determine the magnitude and extent of potential contamination. For more detail, see Appendix 10, the Environmental Analysis Report for Short List Alternatives. Concerning traffic impacts, during the weekday AM peak hour, the LRT Alternative would generate approximately 515 vehicles per hour (vph) and about 3,329 pedestrian trips within the study area. Because the LRT alternative alignment reaches fewer neighborhoods than the BRT feeder routes, higher station access via motorized vehicle is expected for this alternative, through drop-offs or park and ride users. Of the 14 study area intersections analyzed in the traffic analysis report, the proposed actions would cause significant traffic impacts at six intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. All impacted intersections could be fully mitigated with traffic improvement measures such as signal timing changes, parking prohibitions and lane restriping Cost Estimate Refinements The revised O&M cost estimate for the alternative is $7.0 million, which reflects the elimination of the S40 and S90 routes and service changes to the S46/S96 route. The changes in route schedule reduced the total operating costs. The Revised Annual O&M Cost Estimate is listed in Table 45. Table 45: Revised LRT to WSP Alternative Annual O&M Costs Cost Item Annual Unit of Service Unit Cost (2010$) Line Item Cost Train Operations 18,553 Rev Train Hours $220 Rev Train Hour $4,081,618 Train Maintenance 559,996 Car Miles $5.10 Rev Car Mile $2,855,979 Maintenance of Way 19 Track Miles $165,800 Track Mile $3,117,040 Station Operation and Maintenance 13 Stations $74,400 Station $967,200 Elevator Maintenance 7 Elevators $53,600 Elevator $375,200 Contingency 5-10 Percent $1,102,184 TOTAL O&M COST (million 2010$) $12,499,221 Estimated Cost Savings from Elimination of Parallel Bus Service: $5,507,190 Net Estimated LRT to WSP O&M Cost (million 2010$) $ August 2012

106 As stated in Section 4.1, a Net Present Value (NPV) analysis was prepared to compare the total Capital and O&M costs over a long period of time. The NPV shows the total cost over 20 years of operations plus the initial construction duration of the alternative. Capital costs were assigned to the year in which they would be spent, including Preliminary and Final Engineering. Costs were inflated to reflect how much construction materials prices would escalate during the future year of purchase, and operating costs were inflated to reflect costs for services and salaries in each future year. The Net Present Value (NPV) calculated with a 2.65% finance rate for the LRT Alternative is $888 million. A number of refinements were made to the Capital Cost as the LRT to West Shore Plaza alternative was further analyzed at the Short List. The car body shop building was proposed to be expanded at Clifton, and mechanical supervisory and storage trailers were added to the cost, as well as a welfare facility at West Shore Plaza for crews laying over. Some quantities were updated in the cost estimate for turnouts and grade crossing protection. At Alaska Street, a storm water basin and water quality chamber were added pursuant to more detailed stormwater analyses and after a site visit in November The cost of acquiring additional property for the location of the LRT substations is also incorporated into the capital cost. At Arlington Station, the amount of land taken was changed to full take from a partial take to include wetland on the property that would otherwise stay with current owner as a useless parcel. The revised capital cost estimate is $645 million. This amount increased by approximately $65 million from the Long List. The Revised Capital Cost Estimate is listed below in Table 46. Table 46: Revised Capital Cost Estimate for the LRT to WSP Alternative SCC Cost Category Cost (2010$) 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS 58,586, STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 39,487, SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 54,902, SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 137,926, SYSTEMS 88,675, ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 43,260, VEHICLES 51,480, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 112,096, UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 58,641,000 Total Revised LRT Capital Cost (million 2010$) $ The revised capital cost estimate is $645 million and the revised annual O&M cost estimate for the alternative is $7.0 million. 92 August 2012

107 4.4.5 Ridership Ridership models were developed for each of the short list alternatives in order to estimate future ridership and attractiveness. The LRT AM Segment users was calculated based on operating statistics and is described in detail in the Ridership Results Memo (See Appendix 9). The ridership forecasts indicate approximately 12,120 segment users, which is higher than the LRT alternative, which estimates approximately 10,590 segment users. This is most likely attributable to the fact that bus frequencies are better, due to the effect of combined headways. In the BRT alternative, with multiple bus lines feeding into and serving the corridor, travelers experience shorter average wait times than in the LRT alternative, with only a single rail service in the corridor. In addition, unlike the LRT alternative that requires connecting bus riders to transfer in order to use the LRT, the BRT alternative offers more one seat rides from multiple origins and destinations. Transfers are penalized in the mode choice and assignment models, making the LRT alternative less attractive to potential transit customers. This is logical as far more potential customers would be able to walk to one of the six bus routes that would use the busway in the BRT alternative than those who could walk to an LRT station. The ridership results also produced total linked transit trips within the NSAA corridor. FTA uses linked transit trips to describe a trip from origin to destination, potentially involving travel on multiple transit vehicles. A linked transit trip may therefore consist of multiple unlinked trips (or passenger boardings). Table 47 shows the No Build and LRT estimated daily linked transit trips from the NSAA study area. Alternative Table 47: LRT Daily Linked Transit Trips Forecast for the NSAA Study Area To or Within NSAA Study Area Travel Destination Rest of Staten Island Manhattan Total No Build 29,050 5,810 32,710 67,570 LRT to West Shore Plaza 29,450 6,000 33,140 68,580 The total daily linked transit trips within the NSAA corridor in the 2035 LRT to West Shore Plaza alternative is 68,580, which represents an increase of 1,010 trips over the No Build estimate of 67,570 daily linked transit trips. 93 August 2012

108 4.5 Evaluation of Short List Alternatives Travel time savings estimates were refined. Reduced travel times would accrue for riders in each of the Short List alternatives over the current travel times. Table 48 summarizes the travel time savings that could be expected with each of the Alternatives. Table 48: Short List Alternatives Travel Time Savings Comparison Trip Origin (to St. George) Current Bus Travel Time (min) TSM Travel Time (min) BRT Travel Time (min) LRT Travel Time (min) Arlington Station WSP Station Port Richmond Station Manor Rd/Forest Ave. intersection (via feeder bus) The TSM alternative results in small travel time savings through the Traffic Signal Prioritization (TSP) element. Prioritization at intersections can result in time savings of 60 or 90 seconds (a full red cycle). However, not every bus would benefit from the TSP signal extension at every intersection along its route. Overall, a 5-second time savings is assumed on average for each intersection. The BRT and LRT alternatives feature the dedicated guideway which significantly improves travel time. Guideway times are similar for BRT and LRT, with LRT estimated to be one minute faster from Arlington Station. For either Alternative similar travel times are estimated for trips starting at a guideway station. However, differences between LRT and BRT become pronounced for origins away from the transitway. In Table 48, three origins are on the guideway, and one (Manor/Forest) is within the Study Area but away from the guideway. For the BRT alternative, riders would accrue a travel time savings of 7-25 minutes compared to current bus service from the four points listed in Table 48. These times are similar to LRT except for Manor/Forest, where BRT times are estimated to be nine minutes shorter than LRT. BRT riders coming from points away from the guideway would not have to transfer to another vehicle that operates on the guideway. LRT riders located away from the guideway would have to transfer from a feeder bus route (as shown in Table 48) or use another mode to get to a guideway station and then incur wait time before boarding the LRT vehicle. Capital and operating and maintenance costs and other characteristics were refined for the Shortlist Alternatives. Table 49 compares significant characteristics of the Short List of Alternatives: Table 49: Short List Alternatives Characteristics Comparison TSM BRT LRT Capital Cost (million 2010$) $36 $371 $645 O&M Cost (million 2010$) $4.5 $6.5 $7.0 Net Present Value (million 2010$) $129 $727 $888 Travel Time St. George to WSP Potential Environmental Impacts Least Some Some Ridership (AM peak segment users) 5,060 12,120 10, August 2012

109 A Short List evaluation matrix was created to compare the short list alternatives (Figure 12) in terms of their ability to meet the goals and objectives established for the study. The TSM Alternative offers the lowest cost and fewest negative impacts on the environment, natural resources, and open space. However, the TSM Alternative would be the least effective in improving mobility. The BRT and LRT Alternatives would both improve mobility and have some impacts on the environment. However, there is a cost differentiation between the two build alternatives, with BRT being slightly less costly than LRT. BRT is the recommended LPA based on its cost and its potential to reduce travel time, improve access to key locations, and attract new riders. Figure 12: Short List Evaluation Matrix TSM BRT LRT GOAL 1: Improve Mobility Total New Stations Served Provide transit access for the transit-dependent and transit reliant Travel time Arlington to St. George Provide improved transit access to the Teleport Additional intersections with potentially significant AM peak impacts Estimated Ridership GOAL 2: Preserve and Enhance the Environment, Natural Resources, and Open Space Land use and wetlands impacts Potential hazardous material sites impacted or acquired Potential noise impacts Number of potential impacts to parklands Air Quality (emissions of transit mode) Potential adverse impacts to waterfront and/or views GOAL 3: Maximize Limited Financial Resources for the Greatest Public Benefit Estimated capital cost Net annual operating and maintenance costs Compatibility with NYCT equipment and operations Implementation period Most successful in meeting study goals 6 Moderately successful in meeting study goals 0 Least successful in meeting study goals 95 August 2012

110 5. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION The North Shore AA public involvement process included a multi-tiered approach. As described in Section 1.6, an Interagency Committee (IAC) and Community Engagement Committee (CEC) were created to best access local stakeholders and solicit input throughout the alternative analysis. The Interagency Committee (IAC) was comprised of government agencies that have facilities on or near the ROW or have an oversight authority within the study corridor. The Community Engagement Committee (CEC) was comprised of key stakeholders including elected officials, civic groups and Community Boards and other important members of the community. The role of the CEC was to provide the project team with diverse input from the key voices within the North Shore community and the Staten Island community as a whole. The Public Meetings afforded individual stakeholders, and those not affiliated with an organization, the opportunity to give voice to their issues, call attention to sensitivities and explore potential solutions. Potential issues identified through this public involvement process include: Lack of transportation options to and from Snug Harbor Cultural Center under the alternatives; no station stop at Snug Harbor Potential traffic issues associated with the proposed busway ramp at Alaska Street; Community s need for waterfront access under the alternatives The feedback provided by the public helped the project study team to refine the alternatives and the issues raised will assist in ongoing discussions about the project and next steps. 96 August 2012

111 Table 50: Public Outreach Meeting Dates Date Attendees Location Affiliation 1 11/17/2009 NYCEDC and NSLU Meeting NYCEDC/DCP IAC Member 2 12/11/2009 West Shore Land Use NYCT IAC Member 3 1/4/2010 PANYNJ Coordination NYCT IAC Member 4 2/9/2010 PANYNJ and NYCEDC NYCEDC IAC Member 5 2/16/2010 Staten Island Borough President SI Borough Hall CEC Member 6 3/3/2010 New York City DOT SI Borough Hall IAC Member 7 3/31/2010 PIP FTA Review NYCT FTA 8 4/1/2010 SI Chamber of Commerce Staten Island CEC Member 9 4/20/2010 Interagency Advisory Committee NYCT IAC 10 4/22/2010 Community Engagement Comm. Snug Harbor CEC 11 4/22/2010 Public Open House Snug Harbor Public 12 5/7/2010 Atlantic Salt & Caddell Dry Dock Staten Island CEC Member 13 5/18/2010 NYCEDC and NSLU Meeting NYCEDC/DCP IAC Member 14 10/1/2010 NYCEDC and NSLU Meeting NYCEDC/DCP IAC Member 15 11/8/2010 FTA Planning Quarterly MTA FTA 16 12/20/2010 Atlantic Salt & Caddell Dry Dock Staten Island CEC Member 17 1/10/2011 Staten Island Borough President SI Borough Hall CEC Member 18 1/14/2011 NYCEDC and NSLU Meeting NYCT IAC Member 19 1/14/2011 SI Chamber of Commerce Staten Island CEC Member 20 1/19/2011 NJ Transit DMU Operations Camden, NJ NJ Transit 21 2/11/2011 St. George Terminal Configuration NYCDOT IAC Member 22 2/14/2011 Interagency Advisory Committee NYCT IAC Member 23 2/16/2011 Community Engagement Comm. Snug Harbor CEC Member 24 2/16/2011 Public Open House Snug Harbor Public 25 9/14/2011 SI Borough President Molinaro St. George CEC Member 26 12/4/2011 NYC Parks and Recreation NYCT IAC Member 27 4/23/2012 SI Borough President Molinaro SI Borough Hall CEC Member 28 4/24/2012 Elected Officials Staten Island CEC Member 29 5/3/2012 Interagency Advisory Committee NYCT IAC Member 30 5/10/2012 Public Open House Snug Harbor Public The IAC and CEC, as well as all persons listed on the project database, were invited to the Public Meetings. The project database was a robust, evolving list of approximately 450 stakeholders interested in transportation issues in the North Shore. Notices were sent via US Mail and using a project-specific address. The database was amended with the names and contact information of individuals who attend the public meetings or request addition to the project mailing list. Communications Materials Project newsletters were prepared to accompany each round of public involvement meetings. Newsletters update the Committee members and the public on the status of the project as well as what the next steps were. These newsletters also afforded those who were unavailable to attend meetings a means for keeping updated on the Project and informed them on various opportunities for having their voices heard. Newsletters can be found in Appendix August 2012

112 A project web page was developed on the MTA webpage and update materials provided at key milestones. The project website is Figure 13: NSAA Project Webpage Screenshot Documentation All facets of the public involvement process were documented, including community input and suggestions, meetings and presentations and other public contact. Only through careful documentation and reporting did the public s involvement and input become useful in the decision-making process. Notes from all meetings were recorded and input from stakeholders and the public were taken into account. Follow up phone calls and meetings were conducted where necessary to gain additional understanding of some public insight. For example, follow-up meetings regarding the historical structures at Snug Harbor, research regarding potential archaeological contents at Alaska Street, and pedestrian access at stations were studied in greater depth as a product of the outreach process. 98 August 2012