Alternatives Screening Report 01608 · at the same location there is a fairly sharp curve in the...

Reconstruction of the Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange and Hunts Point Peninsula Access

Alternatives Screening Report

August 2007

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Design Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Design Phases I-IV)

D010319 P.I.N. X730.39

Route I-278 / I-895

Table of Contents

A. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 B. Problem Identification....................................................................................................... 2 C. Goals and Objectives......................................................................................................... 2 D. Development of Alternatives............................................................................................. 4 E. Screening of Alternatives .................................................................................................. 7

Ranking of Objectives ........................................................................................................... 7 Qualitative Screening............................................................................................................. 9

Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 9 Qualitative Screening Results ......................................................................................... 10

Quantitative Screening......................................................................................................... 12 Refinement of Alternatives ............................................................................................. 12 Modeling and Screening of Alternatives ......................................................................... 12 Quantified Screening Results .......................................................................................... 14

Analysis of Results………………………………. ............................................................. 17

Table 1 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................3 Table 2 Proposed Alternatives After Public Hearings and Comment Period.................................6 Table 3 Ranking of Objectives for Screening Alternatives ............................................................8 Table 4 Qualitative Screening of Alternatives .............................................................................11 Table 5 Quantitative Screening of Alternatives – Performance Measures and Scoring Results ..15 Table 6 Summary of Quantitative Screening of Alternatives.......................................................17

1 August 1, 2007

PIN X730.39 Reconstruction of the Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange and Hunts Point

Peninsula Access Alternatives Screening Report

A. INTRODUCTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as the lead agency, in coordination with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), proposes to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Reconstruction of the Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange and Hunts Point Peninsula Access, in the South Bronx (the “project”). This project is being undertaken to address the operational, geometric, and safety issues related to the existing bottleneck situation at the interchange of the Sheridan Expressway (I-895) and the Bruckner Expressway (I-278). The project is also intended to address vehicular access between the expressway system and the Hunts Point Peninsula; a large and significant traffic generator in the area.

The development and screening of project alternatives is central to the NEPA process. Project alternatives have been identified as part of early planning studies conducted by NYSDOT. Alternatives have evolved through an ongoing outreach effort that has included input from local residents and businesses, community groups, elected officials, and other stakeholders.

This process began with the presentation of 21 individual roadway improvements as part of the project’s Draft Briefing Document (March 7, 2002). Based on public input, NYSDOT combined various improvements to develop nine alternatives for further screening. Various project stakeholders then participated in a process to evaluate the nine alternatives based on qualitative measures. The stakeholders numerically rated aspects of each and the alternatives were scored. The five highest-scoring alternatives were then advanced to the next level of screening.

Subsequent to the qualitative screening process, NYSDOT further evaluated one of the five remaining alternatives. This alternative would have created a rail link to the Hunt’s Point Market, but upon further consideration, NYSDOT determined this alternative to be infeasible given cost, safety, and operational considerations and limited demand and eliminated it from further consideration.

The four remaining alternatives were then evaluated based on a set of quantifiable performance measures. The performance measures were developed based on the project’s goals and objectives and allow for measurable criteria to be applied to each alternative. A transportation demand forecasting effort was undertaken to develop the performance measures; the results were tabulated, and a composite score was developed for each alternative. The results of the Quantitative Screening indicated that Alternatives 2C and 2D best meet the goals and objectives of this project, while Alternatives 1A and 1B do not.

PIN X730.39 Screening Alternatives

August 1, 2007 2

This document describes the alternatives selection process for the project. It begins with a problem definition statement, which was the basis for developing the project’s goals and objectives. It then presents the alternatives developed to date and the various methodologies and results of the qualitative and quantitative screening.

B. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION This project is intended to address a number of problems and related issues that have been identified for the interchange formed by the Bruckner (I-278) and Sheridan (I-895) Expressways, and their associated approach roadways. The existing interchange suffers from geometric and operational deficiencies with resulting safety issues and a bottleneck condition which slows traffic flow on I-278 at this location. There is a severe grade-change as the Bruckner Expressway goes from being an elevated roadway (west of the interchange) to an at-grade facility to the east; at the same location there is a fairly sharp curve in the Bruckner Expressway's mainline and service roads; finally, the expressway narrows from 3 lanes to 2 lanes in each direction at the interchange, further exacerbating bottleneck conditions. In addition to these concerns, the interchange is located adjacent to the Hunts Point Peninsula, where ultimately three of the world's largest food distribution centers will be operating simultaneously, as well as a large number of other industrial, public utility, institutional, and commercial entities and a moderately large residential enclave. Existing access between the peninsula and the interstate highway system for all of these varied uses is poor at present, with vehicles—particularly trucks—having to travel circuitously on local roads before encountering access or egress points to the expressways. Within the framework of these problems, five major interrelated issues were identified in the project’s Final Briefing Document as follows:

• Non-standard roadway design elements; • Traffic congestion; • Access to Hunts Point; • Safety; and • Access to parks.

With consideration of these problems and other issues such as environmental effects, cost, and safety, NYSDOT, in consultation with local elected officials, community boards and groups, and other public agencies developed goals and objectives for the project.

C. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES During the course of previous studies, and prior to the start of the public scoping process, NYSDOT held several open houses in the Bronx and meetings with community boards, along with discussions with community groups and local businesses. From these efforts, NYSDOT gained an initial understanding of what issues were of most concern to community members, business groups, planning agencies and other stakeholders. From comments received during the project’s public scoping process, NYSDOT gained additional insight into the issues of concern in the area relevant to the proposed project and modified the initial set of project goals and objectives.

The goals and objectives address a mix of issues, including environmental conditions, quality of life, and safety, while ensuring that the economy of the Bronx is strong. To that end, the proposed project will focus on ways to:

Reconstruction of the Bruckner-Sheridan Expressway Interchange

3 August 1, 2007

• Effectively move people and goods in faster, safer, and easier ways by improving the existing roadways, bridges, bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways. This will include improvements to the Bruckner-Sheridan interchange and local arterials for better access to and from the Hunts Point Peninsula;

• Reduce the total number of accidents, particularly on local and arterial streets within the primary study area, and increase pedestrian safety at busy intersections, such as at Bruckner Boulevard and Hunts Point Avenue;

• Support economic development by providing easier access to and from the Hunts Point Peninsula, while eliminating the bottlenecks at the Bruckner Expressway; and,

• Enhance the quality of life for residents by reducing the volume of commercial vehicles on residential streets and easing traffic congestion through the project area.

The project’s Final Briefing Document identified eight goals and supporting objectives. The specific goals and supporting objectives identified in the project’s Final Briefing Document are shown in Table 1.

Table 1Project Goals and Objectives

Goal Objective 1.1 Minimize travel delays within the primary study area 1.2 Minimize delays resulting from incidents on expressways 1.3 Enhance traffic network infrastructure 1.4 Promote public transit service

1 Improve Transportation System Efficiency and Reliability

1.5 Improve bicycle and pedestrian travel 2.1 Reduce the number of trucks on local streets 2.2 Improve access to parks

2 Enhance Quality of Life

2.3 Minimize disruption to the community resulting from highway construction and operation 3.1 Provide direct truck access to Hunts Point peninsula markets 3.2 Maintain and improve rail freight service to South Bronx industries and Hunts Point Markets 3.3 Reduce truck miles and hours traveled

3 Support Economic Development

3.4 Promote waterborne freight access to Hunts Point 4.1 Increase pedestrian safety and reduce accidents, accident rates, and severity at busy primary study

area intersections 4 Reduce Accidents

4.2 Reduce accidents, accident rates, and severity on the expressway system in the primary study area5.1 Reduce truck emissions in residential areas 5 Minimize Adverse

Environmental Impacts

5.2 Minimize and mitigate adverse environmental impacts resulting from highway construction and operation

6.1 Provide access to planned parkland and recreational facilities 6.2 Support the development of regional bicycle/pedestrian routes

6 Support Environmental Enhancements

6.3 Support the development of river-front open space on the Bronx River and on the East River 7.1 Minimize capital cost while meeting project objectives 7 Financial Viability 7.2 Maximize the cost effectiveness of transportation system investments

8 Maintain Security 8.1 Maintain alternative routes and delivery systems for vital freight needs in the event of a security breach on key interstate facilities

Subsequent to publication of the Final Briefing Document for this project, NYSDOT initiated a statewide strategic planning effort. As part of this process, NYSDOT conducted extensive outreach to identify the concerns and needs of the public and established five Priority Result Areas (PRAs) as follows:


August 1, 2007 4

• Improving Mobility and Deliverability • Increasing Safety • Promoting Economic Sustainability • Enhancing Security • Improving Environmental Conditions

NYSDOT intends to apply the PRAs to the planning of transportation improvement projects throughout the State. Generally, the goals and objectives that were developed for the Reconstruction of the Bruckner-Sheridan interchange meet the intent of the PRAs, and attention has been given to the mission of the PRAs in developing the performance measures used to evaluate the project alternatives.

D. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES Scoping hearings were held in March 2003, which introduced agencies and the public to the engineering and environmental studies to be performed as part of the EIS process. As part of the scoping process, different interchange reconstruction components were identified from a number of previous studies and through meetings with public officials and community groups. These elements were chosen for their ability to address the previously identified deficiencies in the Bruckner-Sheridan interchange and are as follows:

Interchange Reconstruction Components, Alternatives, and Variations:

• (A) Bruckner Expressway high level crossing of the Bronx River with the removal of the existing bascule bridges;

• (B) Bruckner Expressway high level crossing of the Bronx River, retaining the bascule bridges;

• (C) Reconstruct the existing westbound on-ramp from westbound Bruckner Boulevard to the westbound Bruckner Expressway at Morrison Avenue;

• (D) Reconstruct the existing eastbound off-ramp from the eastbound Bruckner Expressway down to the eastbound Bruckner Boulevard at Morrison Ave;

• (E) Bruckner Expressway Service Roads (Bruckner Boulevard) reconstructed to span the Bronx River on two new fixed bridges;

• (F) Bruckner Boulevard--maintain the expressway service roads on existing bascule bridges and provide a rebuilt Bruckner Boulevard/Edgewater Road intersection to provide north- and southbound connections to Hunts Point;

• (G) Construct a new ramp from the eastbound Bruckner Boulevard to the eastbound Bruckner Expressway;

• (H) Construct a new direct northbound ramp between the eastbound Bruckner and northbound Sheridan Expressways;

• (I) Construct a new direct southbound ramp between the westbound Bruckner and southbound Sheridan Expressways;

• (J) Construct a direct ramp from the southbound Sheridan Expressway to the westbound Bruckner Expressway; and/or


5 August 1, 2007

• (K) Complete removal (demapping) of the Sheridan Expressway, the associated rerouting of expressway traffic onto other roadways, and an assessment of potential improvements to these other roadways that would be required as a consequence of this rerouted traffic;

Access to Hunts Point Alternative Components:

Edgewater Road

• (L) Reconstruction of the south terminus of the Sheridan Expressway as an at-grade boulevard to intersect with Bruckner Boulevard at Edgewater Road

• (M) Extend Edgewater Road over the Amtrak rails;

• (N) Construct at-grade crossings/intersections of Edgewater Road with the north- and southbound Bruckner Boulevard (Expressway Service Roads)--this would be contingent on reconstructing the Bruckner Expressway with flyover ramps over the Bronx River;

Leggett Avenue

• (O) Construct a new eastbound off-ramp from the Bruckner Expressway to Leggett Avenue;

• (P) Construct a new westbound on-ramp from Leggett Avenue/Bruckner Boulevard to the Bruckner Expressway;

• (Q) Construct a new partial diamond interchange from the Bruckner Expressway to Leggett Avenue, with eastbound Bruckner Expressway traffic able to exit on a new ramp to Bruckner Boulevard and then turn right onto Leggett Avenue, and traffic outbound from the Hunts Point area on Leggett Avenue turning left onto Bruckner Boulevard westbound and proceeding up a new on-ramp to the Bruckner Expressway; and/or

• (R) Upgrade the Bruckner Boulevard/Leggett Avenue intersections.

Port Morris - Hunts Point

• (S) Upgrade connections between Harlem River Yard and Hunts Point Market via Bruckner Boulevard and Leggett Avenue;

• (T) Construct new rail connections between Harlem River Yard, Oak Point Yard, and Hunts Point Markets along the waterfront; and/or

• (U) Construct a new truck route between Harlem River Yard and Hunts Point Markets along the waterfront through Port Morris and Oak Point.

With input received from the public during the scoping process, the project team combined these different elements to create nine alternative packages, which were carried forward for further consideration and screening. Table 2 presents the build alternatives that were developed.


August 1, 2007 6

Table 2Proposed Alternatives After Public Hearings and Comment Period

Alt. Sheridan

Expressway Leggett Avenue

Interchange Edgewater Road Bruckner Boulevard Other Elements

1A Demap

Four ramps at Leggett Ave—from eastbound

and westbound Bruckner Expwy.

Connection Between Cross Bronx Expwy

and West Farms Road. Pedestrian

Improvements.

Dem

ap S

herid

an

Exp

ress

way

1B Demap

Two ramps at Leggett Ave—from eastbound

Expwy. and to westbound Expwy.

Connection to Bruckner Boulevard

Connection between Cross Bronx Expwy

and West Farms Road

2A

Ramps between Bruckner and

Sheridan Expressways eastbound to northbound



Direct access between Hunts Point

and Sheridan Expressway via Edgewater Road

Reconstruct ramps between westbound

Bruckner Blvd to Expwy and between eastbound Bruckner Expwy to Bruckner

Boulevard

2B

Direct ramps between Sheridan

Expressway southbound to

Bruckner Expressway westbound



Direct access between Hunts Point

and Sheridan Expressway via Edgewater Road

Reconstruct ramp between Eastbound

Bruckner Expressway to

Bruckner Boulevard. Construct ramp

between EB Bruckner Blvd to

Expwy.

2C



Ramps to/from the west Extension to

Sheridan Expressway

No ramp eastbound Bruckner Boulevard

to Expressway

She

ridan

Inte

rcha

nge

Edg

ewat

er –

Hun

ts P

oint

2D Direct Bruckner-Sheridan ramps.

Extension to Sheridan

Expressway

3A




Sheridan Expressway

Truckway from Harlem River Yard

3B




Sheridan Expressway

Ramp westbound Bruckner Boulevard to Expressway and eastbound Bruckner

Expressway to Boulevard

Railway from Harlem River Yard to

markets

Por

t Mor

ris –

Hun

ts P

oint

3C Demap Ramps to/from west Road from Port Morris to Hunts Point

Note: * All alternative packages include a high-level 6 lane crossing of the Bronx River for the Bruckner Expressway and the use of the existing

bascule bridges (in either fixed or un-fixed position) for the crossing of the Bronx River by Bruckner Boulevard.


7 August 1, 2007

E. SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES A four step process was used to evaluate the nine project alternatives and to select the alternatives to carry forward for detailed evaluation in the EIS as follows.

1) Ranking of Objectives: The project’s Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committees were asked to rank the project’s objectives to identify the priorities to be achieved by the various project alternatives.

2) Qualitative Screening: After the objectives were ranked, the Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committees participated in a process to evaluate the nine alternatives based on qualitative measures. The committees numerically rated aspects of each and the alternatives were scored. The five highest-scoring alternatives were then advanced to the next level of screening. However, subsequent to the qualitative screening, NYSDOT further evaluated one of the five remaining alternatives. This alternative would have created a rail link to the Hunt’s Point Market. Upon further consideration, NYSDOT determined this alternative to be infeasible given cost, safety, and operational considerations and limited demand and eliminated it from further consideration.

3) Quantitative Screening: The four remaining alternatives were then evaluated based on a set of performance measures. The performance measures were developed based on the project’s goals and objectives, and they allow for quantifiable and measurable criteria to be applied to the various objectives for the project. Transportation demand forecasting efforts were undertaken to develop the performance metrics; the results were tabulated, and a composite score was developed for each of the alternatives.

4) Selection of Alternatives: Based on the results of the quantified screening, and on public opinion, NYSDOT selected all four build alternatives, as well as the no action alternative as required under NEPA, to carry forward for detailed evaluation in the EIS.

The following sections describe the methodologies used in the screening of alternatives and present the results of the three steps used to evaluate the nine project alternatives.

RANKING OF OBJECTIVES

NYSDOT requested members of the project’s Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committees to rank these objectives on a scale of 1 to 10, with 38 members responding. After transmitting the results to the committees, several members suggested that closely related objectives might be combined as follows:

• Objective 2.1, “Reduce the number of trucks on local streets” and Objective 5.1, “Reduce truck emissions on residential streets”;

• Objective 2.2, “Improve access to parks” and Objective 6.1, “Provide access to planned parkland and recreational facilities”; and

• Objective 1.5, “Improve bicycle and pedestrian travel” and Objective 6.2, “Support the development of regional bicycle/pedestrian routes.”

An objective was also added for ranking that was not included in the Final Briefing Document. The objective “secure funding sources for recommended project improvements” was added since it is an important consideration for state and federal decision-makers.

Table 3 lists the combined objectives by rank, their total score based on the 38 responses, and their average score. The qualitative and quantitative screening of alternatives was based on the


August 1, 2007 8

13 objectives ranked highest by the Stakeholders and Technical Advisory Committees, except for the 7th ranked objective dealing with elimination of non-standard features, which should be accomplished by all feasible build alternatives. Although ranked low by the committees, performance measures were also developed for the 18th and 20th-ranked objectives, which are related to funding and security and must be considered by state and federal decision-makers. Thus, a total of 14 objectives were used to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the project alternatives.

Table 3Ranking of Objectives for Screening Alternatives

Rank Objective Total Score

Average Score

2.1 Reduce the number of trucks on local streets 1* 5.1 Reduce truck emissions in residential areas

296 7.79

2 3.1 Provide direct truck access from expressways to Hunts Point peninsula markets.

210 5.53

3 1.1 Minimize travel delays within the primary study area. 163 4.29 4 4.1 Increase pedestrian safety and reduce accidents, accident

rates, and severity at busy primary study area intersections 155 4.08

2.2 Improve access to parks 5* 6.1 Provide access to planned parkland and recreational facilities

129 3.39

6 2.3 Minimize disruption to the community resulting from highway construction and operation

120 3.16

7 1.3 Enhance traffic network infrastructure 110 2.89 8 3.3 Reduce truck miles and hours traveled 102 2.68 9 4.2 Reduce accidents, accident rates, and severity on the

expressway system in the primary study area 98 2.58

10 5.2 Minimize and mitigate adverse environmental impacts resulting from highway construction and operation

95 2.50

11 6.3 Support the development of river-front open space on the Bronx River and on the East River

93 2.45

12 3.2 Maintain and improve rail freight service to South Bronx Industries and Hunts Point Markets.

86 2.26

1.5 Improve bicycle and pedestrian travel 13* 6.2 Support the development of regional bicycle/pedestrian

routes

79 2.08

14 1.4 Promote public transit service 74 1.95 15 1.2 Minimize delays resulting from incidents on expressways 66 1.74 16 7.2 Maximize the cost effectiveness of transportation system

investments 54 1.42

17 3.4 Promote waterborne freight access to Hunts Point 38 1.00 18 8.1 Maintain alternative routes and delivery systems for vital

freight needs in the event of a security breach on key interstate facilities

37 0.97

19 Secure funding sources for recommended project improvements

29 0.76

20 7.1 Minimize capital costs while meeting overall project objectives

11 0.29

Notes: * Objectives were combined for ranking. Objectives used for screening alternatives are shaded.


9 August 1, 2007

QUALITATIVE SCREENING

METHODOLOGY

The first step in the qualitative screening process began in November 2003 at a workshop with members of the project’s Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committees. The workshop focused on gathering committee input on the nine alternatives identified during the public scoping process. Numerous comments were received that reflected the interests of the public, the business community, environmental groups, and government agencies. NYSDOT refined the nine alternatives after analyzing these and other comments provided at the workshop.

To further guide the screening process and to provide a cross-section of the various interests represented on the Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committees, four “expert panels” comprised of Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committee members were formed. Each panel was comprised of committee members that share a specific interest or field of expertise and examined the project’s objectives from the perspective of that category. The four expert panels and the objectives they were asked to score are as follows.

• Transportation Efficiency and Security: The Transportation Efficiency and Security expert panel scored alternatives based on Objectives 1.1 and 8.1;

• Environmental Issues and Impacts and Quality of Life: The Environmental Issues and Impacts on Quality of Life expert panel scored alternatives based on Objectives: 1.5/6.2, 2.1/5.1, 2.2/6.1, 2.3, 5.2, and 6.3;

• Economic Development: The Economic Development expert panel scored alternatives based on Objectives 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3; and

• System Safety: The System Safety expert panel scored alternatives based on Objectives 4.1 and 4.2.

In addition to the scoring undertaken by the expert panels, NYSDOT scored alternatives based on objective 7.1, which relates to cost.

After assessing the alternatives, the panel members rated the level of performance for each alternative on a scale of 0 to 4 (four being the highest). The panelists rated the various alternatives to indicate the level to which they met the objectives assigned to their specific panel. The expert panel ratings were then compiled into a summary matrix and weighted, based on the overall ranking of the objectives, to determine which alternatives rated highest and were overall most responsive to the project’s objectives.

To complete the Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committee input on the qualitative screening process, the members of both committees discussed each panel’s ratings at a combined Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committee meeting on March 30, 2004. Spokespersons for each expert panel discussed their panel’s ratings and the issues that influenced their decisions, which included:

• Access to the Hunts Point Markets; • Reducing vehicular traffic on local streets; • Pedestrian access to open space; and • Investment of State/Federal funding.

For the purposes of the alternatives screening and scoring it was assumed that the land made available by de-mapping the Sheridan Expressway would most likely become open space that


August 1, 2007 10

includes a bikeway or multi-use path. However, it should be noted that under federal law the proposed project is an undertaking by NYSDOT that must ultimately serve a transportation purpose and need. Neither NYSDOT nor FHWA have the responsibility or authority to undertake land use planning and development no matter how enticing those plans may be. As a state highway department, NYSDOT, in conjunction with FHWA, must determine whether the Sheridan Expressway serves a transportation purpose. Since the Sheridan Expressway is an interstate facility, constructed with federal funds, any de-mapping of the roadway would require the approval of FHWA pursuant to 23 CFR 620. Furthermore, NYSDOT would also need to determine the roadway is no longer necessary for transportation purposes before transferring the land to another state agency or the city of New York. Any plans regarding the future land use options for the de-mapped roadway would be undertaken by the agency that acquired the land.

After consideration of these factors and the composite scores of the qualitative assessment (see Attachment A), NYSDOT and the Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committees recommended the five highest-ranked alternatives be carried forward for the quantified screening.

QUALITATIVE SCREENING RESULTS

Table 4 summarizes the results of the expert panels’ qualitative screening, and a more detailed matrix of the scoring is provided in Attachment A.

The demap Sheridan Expressway alternatives (Alternatives 1A and 1B) received high scores for the objectives related to environmental issues and quality of life, but scored poorly for the trans-portation economic development, system safety, and cost objectives. The high scores for environmental issues and quality of life reflect the priority of that expert panel to increase parklands with the demapping of the Sheridan Expressway. The environmental and quality of life expert panel also gave Alternatives 1A and 1B high scores for the air quality objectives, but they did not consider the effect of traffic diversions to local streets on air quality with the demapping of the Sheridan Expressway. The other panels, which considered the transportation, safety, and economic benefits, ranked Alternatives 1A and 1B among the bottom four of the nine alternatives. Overall, Alternatives 1A and 1B ranked second and fourth among the nine alternatives.

The Sheridan Interchange Edgewater–Hunts Point Alternatives (Alternatives 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D) received high scores for objectives related to transportation system efficiency and security as well as system safety. Alternatives 2C and 2D also received high scores for the objectives related to economic development, but Alternatives 2A and 2B scored poorly. All of the Sheridan Interchange Edgewater–Hunts Points Alternatives scored poorly for the environmental issues and quality of life objectives. Overall, Alternatives 2C and 2D were ranked among the top five of the nine alternatives while Alternatives 2A and 2B ranked among the lowest four alternatives. Overall, Alternative 2C ranked 1st among the nine alternatives with a score of 101, and Alternative 2D ranked 5th with a score of 74. Alternatives 2A and 2B were ranked among the bottom four of the nine alternatives and were discarded from further consideration.

The Port Morris–Hunts Point Alternatives (Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C) varied in terms of the overall rankings. Alternative 3A received poor rankings for all of the objectives except system safety. Alternative 3C scored well in terms of cost but was poorly scored with respect to the other objectives. Alternative 3B received favorable scores for the objectives related to transportation system efficiency and security, economic development, and system safety, but it scored poorly for objectives related to environmental issues and quality of life.


11 August 1, 2007

Table 4 Qualitative Screening of Alternatives

Alternative

Expert Panel Objective Max/Min

Rank-based Weight 1A 1B 2A 2B 2C 2D 3A 3B 3C

1.1 Minimize travel delays within the primary study area. Min 4.29 1.3 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 1.3 2.3 1.0 Transportation Efficiency and

Security 8.1 Maintain alternative routes and delivery systems for vital freight needs in the event of a security breach on key interstate facilities Max 0.97 1.5 2.0 2.5 4.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.5 2.5

2.2 Improve access to parks 6.1 Provide access to planned parkland and recreational facilities

Max 3.39 3.7 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.2 2.0

2.3 Minimize disruption to the community resulting from highway construction and operation Min 3.16 3.7 3.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0

2.1 Reduce the number of trucks on local streets 5.1 Reduce truck emissions in residential areas

Min 7.79 3.7 3.7 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.2 2.0 0.6

5.2 Minimize and mitigate adverse environmental impacts resulting from highway construction and operation Min 2.5 3.7 3.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 0.6 0.0 1.2 2.0

1.5 Improve bicycle and pedestrian travel 6.2 Support the development of regional bicycle/pedestrian routes

Max 2.08 3.7 2.7 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.4

Environmental Issues and Impacts on

Quality of Life

6.3 Support the development of river-front open space on the Bronx River and on the East River Max 2.45 3.7 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.8

3.1 Provide direct truck access from expressways to Hunts Point peninsula markets Max 5.53 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.3 4.0 3.1 0.2 2.0 0.1

3.2 Maintain and improve rail freight service to South Bronx industries and Hunts Point markets Max 2.26 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.1 3.9 3.1 0.1 2.1 0.1

Economic Development

3.3 Reduce truck miles and hours traveled Min 2.68 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.3 4.0 3.2 0.2 2.0 0.1

4.1 Increase pedestrian safety and reduce accidents, accident rates, and severity at busy primary study area intersections Min 4.08 0.3 0.5 2.2 2.5 3.5 2.0 2.5 3.7 1.0

System Safety 4.2 Reduce accidents, accident rates, and severity on the

expressway system in the primary study area Min 2.58 0.3 0.5 2.2 2.5 3.5 2.0 2.5 3.7 1.0

NYSDOT 7.1 Minimize capital costs while meeting overall project objectives Min 0.29 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 Total 89 84 51 45 101 74 37 86 43

Note: Shaded area shows highest ranking alternatives carried forward to Quantitative Screening


August 1, 2007 12

NYSDOT selected the five top-performing alternatives from the qualitative screening to assess in further detail as part of the quantitative screening. Based on the results of the qualitative screening, Alternatives 1A, 1B, 2C, 2D, and 3B were carried forward while Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3C were discarded.

QUANTITATIVE SCREENING

REFINEMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

Subsequent to the qualitative screening, NYSDOT further evaluated Alternative 3B. Alternative 3B would provide an additional rail freight line from Harlem River Yard at grade across Port Morris and Oak Point and along Oak Point and East Bay Avenues to existing tracks in the Produce Market. The other elements of this alternative are similar to Alternative 2D.

If Alternative 3B could divert commercial shipments from truck to rail, truck trips on highways into the Bronx would be reduced. Reducing the number of over-the-road trucks would in turn reduce vehicular emissions of air pollutants.

Upon further study, it was determined that Alternative 3B would not serve the purposes or achieve the benefits that were originally expected. Surveys of the area revealed that truck deliveries to the Hunts Point markets occur at night, and they enter Hunts Point before AM peak hours. Thus, traffic is lighter on area roadways during the peak times for truck arrivals. Trucks depart the markets during AM peak hours. Although there are a variety of destinations, many are local. It is unlikely that local truck trips would divert to rail. Consequently, Alternative 3B would not likely divert a substantial volume of truck deliveries to rail.

Deficiencies in the region’s rail delivery system also constrain its implementation at Hunts Point. Trip times would be longer for rail than for trucks. Rail carriers, such as CSX, and potential customers in the Hunts Point markets have not indicated support for a new rail freight line in addition to the existing line. Furthermore, the rail line would be at-grade within the streets. Trains operating in the streets of Port Morris and Hunts Point would cause conflicts with traffic and business operations and would also increase potential for vehicular accidents and conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists.

NYSDOT determined that the costs and impacts of a new rail freight line across Port Morris, Oak Point, and Hunts Point would not be warranted by the anticipated demand or its anticipated benefits. Thus, Alternative 3B was discarded, and the remaining four alternatives were advanced for quantified screening.

MODELING AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Whereas the qualitative screening scored and ranked alternatives based on input from project’s Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committees, the quantitative screening applies transportation demand forecast model results to score alternatives based on a series of performance measures.

Performance Measures Performance measures were developed for the 14 objectives that were scored for the qualitative screening. One or more performance measures were defined for each objective. A performance measure is used to assess the degree to which the objective is attained. Measures are selected that can be observed and predicted, and that can distinguish differences among alternatives.


13 August 1, 2007

Preliminary performance measures were presented to the Stakeholders and Technical Advisory Committees in December 2004, and members suggested that several measures be added, including a measure that quantifies noise in parks. The suggested noise measure was not added since it was infeasible to evaluate at this stage. However, noise levels in nearby parks will be addressed in the EIS.

The performance measures are transportation, land use, and cost and are derived from two basic sources: 1) an area wide traffic simulation using the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s (NYMTC’s) Best Practices Model (BPM); and 2) Alternative designs based on maps and current conceptual engineering plans. Table 5 shows the objectives and the supporting performance measures. The methodology for quantifying the performance measures is described below.

Transportation-Based Performance Measures

The main transportation-derived performance measures include: total vehicle hours of travel (VHT); truck volume; truck vehicle hours of travel (TVHT), truck vehicle miles of travel (TVMT), travel times; vehicle pollutant emissions (HC, NOx, CO, PM); and accidents.

The transportation-based performance measures were derived based on travel-demand network modeling for each alternative in the 2030 analysis year for the AM and PM peak periods of travel. Consistent with FHWA requirements, NYMTC’s BPM was the basis of the quantified modeling of the transportation-related performance measures. The BPM produces region-wide, macro-level forecasts of trip-making for future years, including 2030, based on 1) committed or proposed highway and transit network changes and adjustments; and 2) forecasted socioeconomic data, which generates both passenger and freight/service trip-making characteristic.

The Bronx County roadway network and trip tables by vehicle class were extracted from the regional BPM simulation for the year 2000. The extracted roadway network was then enhanced to include streets in the primary study area. A traffic and travel data collection effort was undertaken to update the 2000 baseline BPM traffic simulation. The result was 2003 Bronx 6-10 AM and 3-7 PM peak period vehicle-class trip tables. These trips were then assigned to their respective zones and a validation process was conducted so as to reproduce travel-patterns and traffic volume counts.

The first step in quantifying the performance measures for the 2030 analysis year was to develop a 2030 baseline (“No Build”) alternative. The modeling of the 2030 No Build alternative incorporated the roadway and transit projects that are committed in NYMTC’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) coupled with NYMTC’s socioeconomic forecasts for 2030. The 2003 Bronx AM and PM peak period trip-tables were then factored and balanced based on the region-wide growth projections and were validated to ensure that major development projects within the Bronx were properly reflected. A 2030 roadway network was coded to reflect local improvements that would occur with the No Build alternative. Following completion of the No- Build alternative modeling, the modeling runs were done for the Build Alternatives and results were compared to the No Build alternative.

Other Performance Measures

Other performance measures such as acres of parkland, right-of-way acquisition, and cost were developed based on maps, plans, and conceptual engineering of the alternatives that were carried forward for quantified screening.


August 1, 2007 14 DRAFT

Scoring The quantified scoring of the alternatives applied the modeled results to the rank-based weight of objectives. First, the individual performance measure values were normalized by applying the percent change between the No Action and Build conditions and were multiplied by the rank-based average weight from the qualitative screen. The result was then assigned a positive or negative value depending on the nature of the measure. For example, a measured decrease in delay is considered favorable, so in this case, the negative output value of the model was converted to a positive score. The individual measures were then summed for each alternative, and the alternatives were ranked by their composite scores.

Certain objectives could not be easily modeled at this time or the results could not be scored. The performance measure for community disruption was property takings; however, this measure could not be compared to a baseline condition since property takings would not occur in the no action alternative. It was not feasible to estimate delivery time by rail. While accident rates were calculated for Objectives 4.1 and 4.2, the score was based on the total accidents. Capital and right-of-way costs (Objective 7.1) were calculated for each alternative, but the alternatives were not scored based on cost.

QUANTIFIED SCREENING RESULTS

Table 5 presents a summary of the scoring results for the quantified screening of alternatives. Attachment B shows the detailed scoring table. The following describes the scoring results for each of the project objectives used in the quantitative screening.

• Objective 1.1: Objective 1.1 was quantified in terms of travel time. Removing the Sheridan Expressway (Alternatives 1A and 1B) would decrease travel time by up to 2 percent as compared to the No Action alternative; however, Alternatives 2C and 2D reduce travel time by 3 percent. Therefore, Alternatives 2C and 2D achieve higher scores with respect to meeting Objective 1.1.

• Objective 8.1: Objective 8.1 was quantified as the number of interstate highway access routes to Hunts Point markets. Alternatives 1A and 1B would remove the Sheridan Expressway and would decrease the number of routes as compared to the No Action alternative. Alternatives 2C and 2D would maintain the same number of interstate access routes as compared to the No Action alternative. Therefore, Alternatives 1A and 1B receive a negative score for Objective 8.1 while Alternatives 2C and 2D receive a score of 0.

• Objectives 2.2 and 6.1: Access to parklands (Objective 2.2 and 6.1) was quantified as acres of open space per 1,000 residents. Alternatives 1A and 1B could add up to 15 acres of open space with the removal of the Sheridan Expressway, but Alternatives 2C and 2D would not result in substantial new open space. In total, Alternatives 1A and 1B could provide for 2.28 acres of open space per 1,000 residents while Alternatives 2C and 2D would provide for 2.19 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. When compared to the No Action alternative, Alternatives 2C and 2D would not change the open space ratio, but Alternatives 1A and 1B would increase the open space ratio.


15 August 1, 2007

Table 5 Quantitative Screening of Alternatives – Performance Measures and Scoring Results

Alternative

Goal Objective Performance Measure Max/Min

Rank-based Weight 1A 1B 2C 2D

1.1 Minimize travel delays within the primary study area. Total VHT Min 4.29 2.42 9.05 13.19 13.53 Transportation Efficiency and

Security 8.1 Maintain alternative routes and delivery systems for vital freight needs in the event of a security breach on key interstate facilities

Access Routes Max 0.97 -24.25 -24.25 0.00 0.00

2.2 Improve access to parks

6.1 Provide access to planned parkland and recreational facilities

Acres / 1,000 residents Max 3.39 13.17 13.17 0.00 0.00

2.3 Minimize disruption to the community resulting from highway construction and operation Property takings and disruptions Min 3.16 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Truck VMT Hunts Point residential streets Min 0.78 3.48 14.77 10.71 9.56 2.1 Reduce the number of trucks on local streets

Truck VMT on local and arterial streets Min 3.12 14.75 13.43 39.40 27.37

5.1 Reduce truck emissions in residential areas Total annual truck emissions of NOx and PM in primary study area Min 3.90 4.93 12.94 12.94 11.71

5.2 Minimize and mitigate adverse environmental impacts resulting from highway construction and operation

Total annual vehicle emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx , and PM in primary and secondary study

areas Min 2.50 -0.05 0.54 0.52 0.75

1.5 Improve bicycle and pedestrian travel

6.2 Support the development of regional bicycle/pedestrian routes

Bike path route miles Max 2.08 35.51 35.51 5.07 5.07

Total Acres Max N/A N/A N/A n/A N/A

Environmental Issues and Impacts on

Quality of Life

6.3 Support the development of river-front open space on the Bronx River and on the East River Total Waterfront Acres Max 2.45 19.65 19.65 0.00 0.00

3.1 Provide direct truck access from expressways to Hunts Point peninsula markets Travel time to/from Alexander Hamilton Bridge Min 5.53 -37.27 -19.15 49.77 47.05

3.2 Maintain and improve rail freight service to South Bronx industries and Hunts Point markets Delivery Time Min 2.26 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Truck VMT Min 1.34 -0.64 0.16 1.19 1.54

Economic Development

3.3 Reduce truck miles and hours traveled Truck VHT Min 1.34 0.71 3.13 5.08 5.23

4.1 Increase pedestrian safety and reduce accidents, accident rates, and severity at busy primary study area intersections

Accidents / year Min 4.08 System Safety

4.2 Reduce accidents, accident rates, and severity on the expressway system in the primary study area Accidents / year Min 2.58

2.22 6.52 11.47 10.18

Capital cost (millions of dollars) Min 407.0 327.4 362.2 274.5 NYSDOT 7.1 Minimize capital costs while meeting overall project

objectives Right-of-way cost (millions of dollars) Min 0.29

6.1 5.4 6.1 4.5


August 1, 2007 16

• Objective 2.3: As described above, the performance measure for Objective 2.3, property takings, was quantified, but a score could not be computed since there is no comparative value for the No Action alternative. Alternatives 1B and 2D would each require acquisition of six commercial properties. Alternative 1A would require acquisition of seven properties, and Alternative 2C would require acquisition of eight properties. Two easements over Amtrak and CSX railroad property would be required for all of the Build alternatives.

• Objective 2.1: Two performance measures were used to quantify the relative benefits of each alternative with respect to Objective 2.1. Estimates of truck VMT were prepared for 1) local streets in the Hunts Point residential areas; and 2) arterial and local streets in the larger primary study area. All of the alternatives would decrease truck VMT on both local and arterial streets as compared to the No Action alternative. Alternative 1B would achieve nearly a 20 percent reduction in truck VMT on local streets in the Hunts Point residential area, but it would result in the lowest overall reduction on streets in the primary study area, resulting in the lowest overall score for Objective 2.1. Alternative 2C received the highest overall score and achieves a reduction in truck VMT of 13.8 percent on local streets in the Hunts Point residential area and 12.6 percent in the study area overall.

• Objective 5.1: To quantify the performance measure for Objective 5.1, air quality modeling was conducted using the estimated truck VMT to predict emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter for each alternative. Emissions were predicted to decrease for each build alternative as compared to the No Action alternative. Alternative 1A would result in the smallest reduction in emissions (-1.3 percent) while Alternative 2C would result in the greatest reduction (-3.3 percent); thus, Alternative 2C scored highest with respect to meeting Objective 5.1.

• Objective 5.2: Two performance measures were anticipated to be used for Objective 5.2—total vehicle emissions in the study area and increases in noise at nearby receptors. As described above, increases in noise could not be predicted at this stage of analysis and was not scored. Vehicle emissions for carbon dioxide (CO), volatile organ compounds (VOCs), NOx , and PM were estimated for the primary and secondary study areas based on the total VMT. The analyses indicated that Alternative 1A would not reduce the vehicle emissions compared to future No Build estimates, while Alternatives 1B and 2C would decrease emissions by approximately 0.2 percent, and Alternative 2D would decrease emissions by approximately 0.3 percent.

• Objectives 1.5 and 6.2: New route-miles of bike path were used as the performance measure for Objectives 1.5 and 6.2. Alternatives 1A and 1B would demap the Sheridan Expressway, and it was assumed that up to 3.5 miles of new bike paths could be provided within the abandoned right-of-way. Roadway reconfigurations under Alternatives 2C and 2D could also provide for bike paths, but the increase would be less than one mile. Thus, Alternatives 1A and 1B score higher with respect to Objectives 1.5 and 6.2 than Alternatives 2C and 2D.

• Objective 6.3: Objective 6.3 was quantified in terms of new acreage of open space that may be provided with implementation of the build alternatives. Up to 15 acres of waterfront accessible open space might be added by removing Sheridan Expressway, but substantial additional open space would not result under Alternatives 2C and 2D. As a result, Alternatives 1A and 1B would increase open space in the study area by 13 percent as compared to the No Action alternative and Alternatives 2C and 2D would increase open space by 0 percent.


17 August 1, 2007

• Objective 3.1: The performance measures for scoring alternatives based on Objective 3.1 was the estimated travel time to and from the Hunts Point markets to and from the Alexander Hamilton Bridge. Alternatives 1A and 1B, which remove the Sheridan Expressway, would increase travel times by 6.8 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively, and therefore, receive a negative score with respect to Objective 3.1. Alternatives 2C and 2D would decrease travel times by 8.9 and 8.4 percent, respectively, resulting in positive scores.

• Objective 3.3: The performance measures for Objective 3.3 were Truck VMT and Truck VHT. Alternative 1A would result in a 0.5 percent increase in Truck VMT as compared to the No Action Alternative. Alternatives 1B, 2C, and 2D would reduce Truck VMT. The highest reduction (1.1 percent) would be achieved with Alternative 2D. All four Build alternatives would decrease Truck VHT, but Alternatives 2C and 2D result in higher reductions in Truck VHT than Alternatives 1A and 1B. Overall, Alternative 2D scored highest with respect to Objective 3.3.

• Objectives 4.1 and 4.2: Accidents on local arterials and expressways were estimated from travel demand model outputs and current accident rates. In general, accidents are proportional to traffic volume, and rates tend to be lower on expressways than on arterials and local streets. All the Build alternatives decrease accidents to some extent as compared to the No Action alternative. Alternative 2C would result in the greatest reduction in accidents (-1.7 percent), and Alternative 1A would result in the smallest reduction (-0.3 percent).

• Objective 7.1: Conceptual cost estimates for design, right-of-way, and construction total $413 million for Alternative 1A, $333 million for Alternative 1B, $368 million for Alternative 2C, and $280 million for Alternative 2D. Thus, Alternative 2D is the least expensive and Alternative 1A is most expensive.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Table 6 shows the overall scoring of the alternatives from the quantitative screening analysis.

Table 6Summary of Quantitative Screening of Alternatives

Alternative Goals and Objectives 1A 1B 2C 2D

Transportation Efficiency and Security (Objectives 1.1 and 8.1)

-21.8 -15.2 13.2 13.5

Environmental Issues and Impacts on Quality of Life (Objectives 2.2/6.1, 2.3, 2.1, 5.1, 5.2, 1.5/6.2, and 6.3)

91.6 99.2 67.8 51.9

Economic Development (Objectives 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3)

-37.2 -15.9 56.0 53.8

System Safety (Objectives 4.1 and 4.2) 2.2 6.5 11.5 10.2

Total: 35 75 149 129

With respect to the objectives pertaining to transportation efficiency and security goals, Alternatives 2C and 2D have total scores of 13.2 and 13.9. Alternatives 1A and 1B received negative scores since they would reduce the number of interstate access routes to Hunts Point markets. However, Alternatives 1B scored slightly better than Alternative 1A since it was predicted to achieve a greater reduction in VHT.


August 1, 2007 18

Alternatives 1A and 1B scored highest for the objectives pertaining to environmental and quality of life goals. This is largely attributed to the potential increase in open space and bike paths from the demapping of the Sheridan Expressway, which accounted for 68 points of their respective totals. Alternatives 2C and 2D scored well with respect to Objective 2.1, but because they would not result in a substantial increase in parklands and bike paths, Alternative 2C ranked 3rd and Alternative 2D ranked 4th for environmental impacts and quality of life.

With respect to the objectives pertaining to economic development goals, Alternatives 2C and 2D received the highest scores since they would reduce travel times to and from the Alexander Hamilton Bridge as compared to the No Action condition. Conversely, Alternatives 1A and 1B would increase travel times, which resulted in negative scores. The alternatives had similar scores for Objective 3.3. Overall, Alternative 2C ranked highest for economic development while Alternative 1A ranked lowest.

Alternatives 2C and 2D would result in a higher reduction in accident rates than Alternatives 1A and 1B, and therefore, produced better scores for the objectives pertaining to safety. Alternative 2C ranked first with a score of 11.5 while Alternative 1A ranked fourth with a score of 2.2.

Alternative 2C had the highest composite score for the quantitative screening of 149 followed by Alternative 2D with a score of 129. Despite their high rankings for the goals pertaining to environmental impacts and quality of life, Alternatives 1A and 1B achieved much lower composite scores. Alternative 1B ranked third with a score of 75, and Alternative 1A ranked last with a score of 35.

An important consideration that cannot be easily determined from the objective performance measures shown in Table 4 are the proposed alternatives micro-scale effect on local roads. These effects include possible changes in traffic volumes, congestion, air pollutant concentrations, noise levels and the resultant cumulative effect on neighborhood character. Due to the loss of approximately 5 lane-miles of Sheridan Expressway roadway, and the re-routing of approximately 58,000 vehicles per day, the de-map Sheridan Alternatives (1A and 1B) would lead to an increase in traffic over the No-Build alternative, on several key arterials in the study area. The transportation demand forecasting analysis captures the number of vehicles that would be diverted throughout the network as well as shows where the diversions would occur. Overall, Alternative 1A would lead to a major increase in traffic in Community Boards #3 and #9 in the AM peak period and Community Boards #2 and #3 in the PM peak period. Alternative 1B would lead to a major increase in traffic in Community Board #2 (PM peak period), Community Board #3 (both peak periods) and Community Board #9 (AM peak period). It would lead to a decrease in both AM and PM peak periods in Community Board #6. Alternatives 2C and 2D would lead to a major decrease in traffic for both time periods in Community Boards #2 and #9 and the AM peak period in Community Board #6. Alternative 2D would also lead to a major decrease in traffic in Community Board #3 in the AM peak period.

With respect to individual streets in the primary study area some key findings are as follows:

• Alternative 1A, in the 6-10 AM peak period would lead to major increases of traffic on portions of Southern Boulevard, Bronx River Avenue, Westchester Avenue, Metcalf Avenue and Rosedale. These streets as well as West Farms Road would see truck volumes increase by more than 50. In the 3-7 PM peak period, increase along Southern Boulevard would rise to 700 to 1600 vehicles and up to 200 more trucks. Other streets with major traffic and/or truck increases include 163rd Street, Tiffany Street, Prospect Street, West Farms, East Tremont Avenue and Boston Road.


19 August 1, 2007

• Alternative 1B, in the AM peak period, would generally lead to somewhat the same level of increases in traffic (i.e. Southern Boulevard with increases of 200 to 700 vehicles, West Farms Road, Southern and Westchester Avenue with more than 50 trucks), except those streets located in Community Board #6 where a major decrease in traffic would occur. In the AM peak period there will be major increases on most roads north of Westchester Avenue in CB#3, with Southern Boulevard increasing by 400 to 1,200 vehicles.

• In Alternative 2C the AM peak period will show major decreases in traffic in CB#2 on roads such as Southern Boulevard, Westchester Avenue, and the north-south streets. CB#9 will also experience major decreases in both AM and PM periods on Bronx River Avenue and Westchester Avenue.

• In Alternative 2D, major decreases will occur in the AM period in CB#2 on Southern Blvd, Westchester Avenue, and in CB#9 on Bronx River Avenue, Westchester Avenue, Metcalf Avenue and 174th Street. During the PM period, many streets in CB# 2, 3, 6, and 9 will show major decreases such as on West Farms Road, Boston Road, East Tremont Avenue, Westchester Avenue and Bronx River Avenue.

The increases in traffic volumes on local roadways described above can lead to adverse secondary effects which need to be considered as part of the alternatives analysis. These adverse effects include increased congestion which can, in turn, lead to a reduction in mobility and access on a local level potentially disrupting the residential and business communities. This additional traffic, especially heavy-duty diesel trucks which emit approximately 20 to 25 times the particulate matter of autos, would also lead to increases in vehicular-related pollutant emissions. The increases in emissions would lead to higher pollutant concentrations along heavily traveled roadways thereby adversely affecting public health on a localized basis. Ambient noise levels would also be affected by these increases in vehicles particularly trucks which produce a noise level equivalent of more than 45 autos. The area-wide or macro-scale modeling cannot capture these effects since they are related to changes in traffic and/or truck volumes on individual streets. Therefore, while all alternatives may show similar results in the reduction of air pollutants in the primary or secondary area, they would have profound differences on the local level. Alternatives 1A and 1B would lead to unacceptable increases in traffic on both local and arterial streets throughout the project’s study area. These increases in traffic volumes would lead to adverse environmental effects on the local level as described above.

The results of the screening of performance measures, would suggest that Alternatives 2C and 2D would best meet the project’s goals and objectives while Alternatives 1A and 1B would not.

While Alternatives 1A and 1B scored well with respect to the project goals related to Environmental Issues and Impacts on Quality of Life, most of the points scored are a result of the creation of new parkland and/or bikeways. If the adverse environmental effects of the traffic diversions onto local streets were considered under this Goal, the performance of Alternatives 1A and 1B would most likely decrease substantially offsetting any benefit from the new open space. Most importantly however, are the alternatives performance with respect to the transportation and economic development goals. Alternatives 1A and 1B result in negative scores and fail to meet the project goals and objectives regarding Transportation Efficiency and Security and Economic Development.

In conclusion, the analysis indicates that Alternatives 2C and 2D best meet the goals and objectives of the Bruckner/Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction and Access to the Hunts Point Peninsula, while Alternatives 1A and 1B do not.

Attachment A Qualitative Screening Matrix

BRUCKNER - SHERIDAN INTERCHANGE AND ACCESS TO HUNTS POINT

RATINGS OF ALTERNATIVES by EXPERT PANELS

EXPERT PANEL:TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

EFFICIENCY / SECURITY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES / IMPACTS & QUALITY OF LIFE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM SAFETY

GOALS:TRANSPORT

SYSTEM EFFICIENCY

SECURITY QUALITY OF LIFE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REDUCE ACCIDENTS FINANCIAL

VIABILITY

OBJECTIVES: Travel Delays Alternate Routes

Access to Parks2

Community Disruption

Trucks/Emissions on Streets2

Highway Construction &

OperationBike/ped Routes2 Riverfront

Open SpaceDirect Truck

AccessRail Freight

Service Truck Travel Streets & Intersections

Expressway System Cost Magnitude

Minimize / Maximize: Min Max Max Min Min Min Max Max Max Max Min Min Min Min WeightedRank-based (average) Weight: 4.29 0.97 3.39 3.16 7.79 2.5 2.08 2.45 5.53 2.26 2.68 4.08 2.58 0.29 Total

Package ALTERNATIVES1

Options Level3

1 DEMAP SHERIDAN EXPRESSWAY LEGGETT AVE INTERCHANGE

1A Bruckner Blvd existing bridge Leggett ramps to/from east and west 1.3 1.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 89

1B

Bruckner Blvd fixed bridge. Ramp EB: Bruckner Blvd to Expwy. Edgewater Rd to Bruckner. Leggett ramps to/from west

2.3 2.0 2.2 3.3 3.7 3.3 2.7 2.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.5 2.0 84

2 SHERIDAN INTERCHANGE EDGEWATER - HUNTS POINT

Leggett Ave Interchange

2A

No Sheridan ramps. Ramp EB: Bruckner Blvd to Expwy. Edgewater Rd Extension to Sheridan Expwy. Leggett ramps to/from west

3.0 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 2.2 2.2 1.0 51

2B 2A + Bruckner-Sheridan Ramp: SB to WB. No Ramp WB Bruckner Blvd to Expwy 3.0 4.0 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 2.5 2.5 1.0 45

2C2B + Bruckner-Sheridan Ramp EB to NB. No Ramp EB Bruckner Expwy to Blvd No Ramp WB Bruckner Blvd to Expwy

3.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.2 1.7 0.5 0.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.5 3.5 1.0 101

No Leggett Ave Interchange

2D Direct Bruckner-Sheridan ramps. Edgewater Rd Extension to Sheridan Expwy. 3.5 3.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 2.0 2.0 3.0 74

3 PORT MORRIS - HUNTS POINT No Leggett Ave Interchange

3A 2A + Truckway from Harlem River Yard 1.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 2.5 2.5 4.0 37

3B2C + Railway from Harlem River Yard to Markets + Ramps WB Bruckner Blvd to Expwy & EB Bruckner Expwy to Blvd

2.3 3.5 1.2 0.8 2.0 1.2 0.2 0.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 3.7 3.7 2.0 86

3C 1B + Road from Port Morris to Hunts Point 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 0.6 2.0 1.4 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.0 4.0 43

2 Combined weights of two related objectives 3 Level of achievement of objective: 4 (highest) to 0 (lowest)

The four alternatives rated lowest by Panel

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

W:\Projects\20110 - NYS DOT-BRUCKNER SHERIDAN INTERCHG\DRAFTS\Alts Screening Report\040602.NYSDOT.GL.Expert Panal Rating Final.xls 3/5/2007

Attachment B Quantitative Screening Matrix

BRUCKNER - SHERIDAN INTERCHANGE AND ACCESS TO HUNTS POINT EIS 6/21/2006

QUANTITATIVE RATINGS OF ALTERNATIVES

EFFICIENCY SECURITY

OBJECTIVES:1.1

Travel Delays

8.1 Alternate Routes

5.1 Truck Emissions on

Streets**

1.5 Bike/ped Routes

6.3 Open Space

6.3 Open Space

2.2 Access to Open Space

2.3 Community Disruption

3.1 Direct Truck Access

3.2 Rail Freight Service

3.3 Truck Travel 4.1 Arterial Streets

4.2 Expressways TOTAL

PERFORMANCE MEASURES:Auto, Van & Truck Hours2

Access Routes3

Truck Miles HP

Residential

Truck Miles Arterial +Local4

NOx, PM5 Vehicle Emissions6

Sound Levels7

Bike Paths route miles

Acres Total7

Acres Waterfront8

Acres / 1000 Residents8

Takings, Disruptions

Travel Time to/from

Alexander Hamilton Bridge

Delivery Time9 Truck VMT2 Truck VHT2 Accidents

/ year10Accidents

/ year10Accidents

/ year10Capital

$millions

Right of Way

$millions

Minimize / Maximize: Min Max Min Min Min Min Min Max Max Max Max Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min MinRank-based (average) Weight: 4.29 0.97 0.78 3.12 3.90 2.5 1.25 2.08 -- 2.45 3.39 3.16 5.53 2.26 1.34 1.34 4.08 2.58 6.66 0.29

0 NO BUILD 2030 113,776 4 269 23,976 1.26 15,306 NA 20.5 386 187 2.19 0 34.5 173,460 8,731 6,914 2,379 9,293 0 0

Change: No Build/Existing: 25% 0% -36% 24% -89% -54% 1364% 80% 1236% 28% -- 21% 15% 30% 19% 9% 16% #REF! --

BUILD ALTERNATIVES 2030

1 DEMAP SHERIDAN EXPRESSWAY LEGGETT AVE INTERCHANGE

1A Leggett Ave ramps to/from east and west 113,135 3 257 22,841 1.248 15,309 NA 24.0 401 202 2.28 7 36.8 174,289 8,685 6,947 2,315 9,262 407.0 6.1

Change: 1A/No Build -0.6% -25% -4.5% -4.7% -1.3% 0.0% 17.1% 3.9% 8.0% 3.9% 6.7% 0.5% -0.5% 0.5% -2.7% -0.3% Score: weighted change 2.42 -24.25 3.48 14.75 4.93 -0.05 0.00 35.51 19.65 13.17 -37.27 -0.64 0.71 2.22 35

1B Leggett Ave ramps to/from west. Edgewater Rd intersection with Bruckner Blvd. 111,376 3 218 22,943 1.229 15,273 NA 24.0 401 202 2.28 6 35.7 173,256 8,527 6,890 2,312 9,202 327.4 5.4

Change: 1B/No Build -2.1% -25% -19.0% -4.3% -2.8% -0.2% 17.1% 3.9% 8.0% 3.9% 3.5% -0.1% -2.3% -0.3% -2.8% -1.0%

Score: weighted change 9.05 -24.25 14.77 13.43 10.79 0.54 0.00 35.51 19.65 13.17 -19.15 0.16 3.13 6.52 83

2 SHERIDAN INTERCHANGE EDGEWATER - HUNTS POINT

Leggett Ave Interchange

2CLeggett Ave ramps to/from west. Direct Bruckner-Sheridan ramps. Edgewater Rd extension to/from Sheridan Expressway.

110,277 4 232 20,944 1.222 15,274 NA 21.0 386.0 187.0 2.19 8 31.4 171,917 8,400 6,742 2,391 9,133 362.2 6.1

Change: 2C/No Build -3.1% 0.0% -13.8% -12.6% -3.3% -0.2% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -9.0% -0.9% -3.8% -2.5% 0.5% -1.7%

Score: weighted change 13.19 0.00 10.71 39.40 12.94 0.52 0.00 5.07 0.00 0.00 49.77 1.19 5.08 11.47 149No Leggett Ave Interchange

2D

Direct Bruckner-Sheridan ramps. Edgewater Rd Extension to/from Sheridan Expwy.Ramps to/from Bruckner Expwy west of Edgewater

110,187 4 236 21,870 1.226 15,260 NA 21.0 386.0 187.0 2.19 6 31.6 171,469 8,390 6,769 2,382 9,151 274.5 4.5

Change: 2D/No Build -3.2% 0.0% -12.3% -8.8% -3.0% -0.3% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -8.5% -1.1% -3.9% -2.1% 0.1% -1.5%

Score: weighted change 13.53 0.00 9.56 27.37 11.71 0.75 0.00 5.07 0.00 0.00 47.05 1.54 5.23 10.18 132

3 PORT MORRIS - HUNTS POINT No Leggett Ave Interchange

3B 2D + Railway from Harlem River Yard to Markets 303.5 >4.5

**Metrics produced by BPM / Bronx subarea model ***Analysis based on BPM / Bronx subarea model

3I-278; I-95/I-895; I-87/I-278; I-278/I-95 NE

*All Alternatives include 6-lane elevated Bruckner Expressway, and ramps: to Bronx River Avenue; WB Bruckner Expy to Bruckner Blvd at Whitlock; EB Bruckner Blvd to Bruckner Expy east of Edgewater Road.

does not compute, since No-Build = 0.

8 including adjacent regional parks: Soundview; Crotona; & St. Mary's

Pollutant emissions are expected to decrease over time, in spite of increases in traffic, as a result of a number of legislative actions aimed at reducing vehicle emissions, which will become effective between now and 2030.

6 estimated total emissions from vehicular sources in the overall (primary + secondary) study area, in tons/year for CO, VOCs, NOx, and PM, collectively.

Total Weighted

Scores

REDUCE ACCIDENTS FINANCIAL VIABILITY

7.1 Cost Magnitude

rates reduced: 5% Bruckner Expwy; 10% Bruckner Blvd

QUALITY OF LIFE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Existing rail spur to be upgraded in all alternatives, providing adequately for larger railcars and more shipments by rail. Another rail freight line at grade across Port Morris, Oak Point and Hunts Point streets would not be warranted by moderate demand.

GOALS:

1See Technical Report: GOALS, OBJECTIVES and PERFORMANCE MEASURES for background.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENTSTRANSPORTATION

2.1 Trucks on Streets

5.2 Highway Construction & Operation

7Not feasible at this stage to analyze sound levels. Noise is to be modeled for EIS.

10 based on analysis of accidents in Primary Study Area, and forecasts of weekday traffic.

9Rail line to be upgraded -- no difference among alternatives.

2Primary+Secondary Study Areas

4 other Primary Study Area streets (minus

Hunts Point residential)

5 estimated emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Particulate Matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM), in the Primary Study Area, in tons/year.

T:\29254\Alts\EVALUATION\0060621 QUANTITATIVE MATRIX 1A_1B_2C_2D Scores_GOALS

Date post:	15-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Alternatives Screening Report 01608 · at the same location there is a fairly sharp curve in the...

Documents