2A-1 Chapter 2A: Preferred Alternative 1 A. INTRODUCTION This chapter assesses the performance of the three project alternatives against the project goals and objectives and recommends a Preferred Alternative. As discussed in Chapter 1, as an outgrowth of the project’s purpose and need, the Route 9A Project, subsequent to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, adopted nine goals which were used to guide the development of project alternatives and ultimately select a preferred alternative which best met the goals and objectives. For each project goal, objectives were developed subsequently to assist in the evaluation of each of the alternative’s performance. Table 2A-1 shows the nine project goals and the corresponding objectives. As shown in the table, Goals VI and VII do not have corresponding objectives since they are “alternative neutral” and were not used in the evaluation of, or the selection of, the preferred alternative. Essentially, these are project-wide goals and do not differ among alternatives. Table 2A-1 Route 9A Project Goals and Objectives Goal Objectives I Permanently restore functionality of Route 9A. Provide acceptable level of vehicular corridor operations. Provide vehicular access to cross-streets and planned developments. Accommodate traffic on Route 9A from inland streets. II Improve pedestrian access and movements along and across Route 9A. Improve east-west and north-south pedestrian connections. Improve pedestrian gateways to the new civic spaces of the WTC Site. Maintain continuous Class I Bikeway. III Provide for an appropriate and respectful setting for the WTC Memorial. Provide for a design that complements and provides transition and opportunities for the WTC Memorial. Minimize intrusion of vehicular roadway-oriented operations from the Memorial Site. IV Enhance green area and open space. Provide additional green area and open space while improving quality. V Support economic recovery and development of Lower Manhattan. Enhance mobility and goods movement. Restore or create vehicular/pedestrian access. VI Ensure community involvement and public participation in an open and inclusive process. The project conducted an outreach program to engage the public in the process. VII Coordinate with other major transportation and development projects. All alternatives are compatible with other Lower Manhattan Projects. VIII Avoid or minimize environmental and construction impacts to community. Minimize adverse impacts during construction. Improve, to the extent possible, environmental quality in Lower Manhattan. IX Provide a safe, timely, and cost- effective transportation solution. Provide a safe transportation system. Provide a timely solution. Provide a cost-effective solution. 1 This chapter is new for the FSEIS.
Transcript
2A-1
Chapter 2A: Preferred Alternative1
A. INTRODUCTION This chapter assesses the performance of the three project alternatives against the project goals and objectives and recommends a Preferred Alternative. As discussed in Chapter 1, as an outgrowth of the project’s purpose and need, the Route 9A Project, subsequent to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, adopted nine goals which were used to guide the development of project alternatives and ultimately select a preferred alternative which best met the goals and objectives. For each project goal, objectives were developed subsequently to assist in the evaluation of each of the alternative’s performance. Table 2A-1 shows the nine project goals and the corresponding objectives. As shown in the table, Goals VI and VII do not have corresponding objectives since they are “alternative neutral” and were not used in the evaluation of, or the selection of, the preferred alternative. Essentially, these are project-wide goals and do not differ among alternatives.
Table 2A-1Route 9A Project Goals and Objectives
Goal Objectives I Permanently restore functionality
of Route 9A. Provide acceptable level of vehicular corridor operations.
Provide vehicular access to cross-streets and planned developments.
Accommodate traffic on Route 9A from inland streets. II Improve pedestrian access and
movements along and across Route 9A.
Improve east-west and north-south pedestrian connections.Improve pedestrian gateways to the new civic spaces of the
WTC Site. Maintain continuous Class I Bikeway.
III Provide for an appropriate and respectful setting for the WTC
Memorial.
Provide for a design that complements and provides transition and opportunities for the WTC Memorial.
Minimize intrusion of vehicular roadway-oriented operations from the Memorial Site.
IV Enhance green area and open space.
Provide additional green area and open space while improving quality.
V Support economic recovery and development of Lower Manhattan.
Enhance mobility and goods movement. Restore or create vehicular/pedestrian access.
VI Ensure community involvement and public participation in an open
and inclusive process.
The project conducted an outreach program to engage the public in the process.
VII Coordinate with other major transportation and development
projects.
All alternatives are compatible with other Lower Manhattan Projects.
VIII Avoid or minimize environmental and construction impacts to
community.
Minimize adverse impacts during construction. Improve, to the extent possible, environmental quality in
Lower Manhattan. IX Provide a safe, timely, and cost-
effective transportation solution. Provide a safe transportation system.
Provide a timely solution. Provide a cost-effective solution.
1 This chapter is new for the FSEIS.
Route 9A Project FSEIS
2A-2
The performance of each project alternative was evaluated against each objective shown above using transportation, design, engineering and environmental measures. Figure 2A-1 shows a summary of the analysis. The following section discusses each of the goals in detail.
B. ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
GOAL I: PERMANENTLY RESTORE FUNCTIONALITY OF ROUTE 9A
OBJECTIVE: PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF VEHICULAR CORRIDOR OPERATIONS. PROVIDE VEHICULAR ACCESS TO CROSS-STREETS AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. ACCOMMODATE TRAFFIC ON ROUTE 9A FROM INLAND STREETS.
For this goal, the three project alternatives (No Action, At-Grade, Short Bypass) were evaluated for three objectives as shown in Table 2A-1.
The first objective, which assesses vehicle corridor operations, was evaluated using person-hours-of-delay (PHD) for Route 9A. This measure assesses how well the roadway would function during the project’s design year (2025). PHD is similar to vehicle-hours-of-delay (VHD) but also accounts for multiple occupancy vehicles such as transit buses. While other intersection-specific measures such as LOS and queue lengths are discussed in the FSEIS for impact assessment, the total delay figure provides a more complete and corridor-wide evaluation of the project.
The No Action Alternative would result in a total annual PHD of 968,000 hours in 2025 with an average travel speed of 8 and 9 mph in the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. These measures indicate severe congestion throughout the Route 9A corridor and, therefore, the No Action Alternative would not meet the first objective. By reducing the annual PHD to 662,000 hours and increasing travel speeds on Route 9A to 10 to 15 mph, the At-Grade Alternative would meet this objective. With the Short Bypass Alternative, the annual PHD would be reduced to 615,000 hours. By improving the performance of Route 9A over the At-Grade Alternative and increasing travel speeds to 11 to 12 mph on the surface streets and 19 to 24 mph in the bypass, the Short Bypass Alternative would also meet this objective.
With respect to the second objective of providing vehicular access to cross-streets and planned developments, all alternatives would meet this objective.
With respect to the third objective of accommodating inland traffic on Route 9A, both build alternatives would divert traffic to Route 9A that would, under the No Action Alternative, travel on Church Street, Broadway, and Greenwich Street. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not meet this objective.
Since the No Action Alternative would fail to meet two of the three stated objectives and result in severe congestion along Route 9A, it would fail to meet Goal I. By meeting all three objectives, the At-Grade Alternative would meet this goal. Since the Short Bypass Alternative would meet all three objectives as well, it would also meet this goal.
Route 9A Alternatives EvaluationFIGURE S-2
5.13.05
GOAL NO-ACTION AT-GRADE SHORT BYPASS
I. PERMANENTLY RESTORE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF ROUTE 9A/ WEST STREET 2. IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS ALONG AND ACROSS ROUTE 9A 3. PROVIDE FOR AN APPROPRIATE AND RESPECTFUL SETTING FOR THE WTC MEMORIAL 4. ENHANCE GREEN AREAS AND OPEN SPACE 5. SUPPORT ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND REDEVELOPMENT OF LOWER MANHATTAN 6. ENSURE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN AN OPEN AND INCLUSIVE PROCESS 7. COORDINATE WITH OTHER MAJOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 8. AVOID OR MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TO THE COMMUNITY 9. PROVIDE A SAFE, TIMELY AND COST EFFECTIVE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION
Exceeds Goal
Meets Goals
Neutral
Does Not Meet Goals
Fails
LEGEND:
Route 9A Alternatives EvaluationFIGURE 2A-1
Chapter 2A: Preferred Alternatives
2A-3
GOAL II: IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS ALONG AND ACROSS ROUTE 9A
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE EAST-WEST PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS. IMPROVE NORTH-SOUTH PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS. MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS CLASS I BIKEWAY.
Four objectives were used to evaluate the project alternatives performance with respect to this goal. All alternatives would maintain a continuous Class I Bikeway and therefore meet this objective. The alternatives were evaluated on the remaining three objectives:
• Improving east-west pedestrian connections/access. • Improving north-south pedestrian connections/access. • Create pedestrian gateways to new and improved civic spaces. Measures used to evaluate these objectives as they relate to pedestrian service along Route 9A included the number of pedestrian crossings provided; the number of travel lanes and distance pedestrians would need to cross; median width; the need for pedestrian bridges; and, the pedestrian experience, including the proximity to vehicular traffic as well as the number of potential vehicular pedestrian conflicts. Further, with the redevelopment of the World Trade Center Site into a complex of cultural, commercial, and memorial civic space, pedestrian access along and across Route 9A will need to accommodate these new users. Since more than 70 percent of the expected 20,000 pedestrian crossings in the AM peak period in 2025 along Route 9A from West Thames to Chambers Street occur between Liberty and Vesey Streets, most of the assessment focused on this segment of the roadway.
Over the entire length of roadway, the number of pedestrian crossings with each alternative would be similar but the experience during pedestrian crossings would vary as described below. This difference is most notable adjacent to the WFC/WTC area (Liberty to Vesey Streets) where the majority of pedestrian demand is located. At Albany and Murray Streets the experiences also vary, while at Warren and Chambers Street they remain the same.
Under the At-Grade Alternative an adequate median width/refuge area of 20 feet is provided at Liberty, Fulton, and Vesey Streets. The overall crossing width of the 8 to 10 lanes varies from 114 to 140 feet. For the No Action Alternative the number of lanes (6 or 7) and overall width (90 feet) is less but the median area is much narrower (6 to 16 feet) at crossing locations. With the Short Bypass Alternative the crossing at these three streets has the fewest number of lanes (4 or 5). The median width for the Short Bypass is the same as the At-Grade Alternative at the heavy Fulton Street crossing, but much wider at Liberty and Vesey Streets due to the presence of bypass portals. The overall crossing width for the bypass surface roads at these two cross streets is approximately 160 to 170 feet at the portals. At the Albany and Murray Street intersections a median/refuge area is provided within the overall crossing width of 150 to 160 feet.
Because of the distance and number of lanes to be traversed and the heavy traffic along Route 9A, it is anticipated that the existing pedestrian bridge at Liberty Street would be retained or replaced under the No Action and At-Grade Alternatives. Therefore, these alternatives would require a pedestrian bridge to match conditions prior to September 11, 2001. The Route 9A roadway was considered a barrier by 88 percent of the public who participated in the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation’s Listening to the City Conference (July 2002). However, several WTC Site features would help to improve the crossing experience from pre-September 11, 2001 conditions under the At-Grade and Short Bypass Alternatives. A new crossing will be
Route 9A Project FSEIS
2A-4
provided at the proposed Fulton Street Extension intersection; the east approach to the south bridge at Liberty Street would be from a proposed LMDC/PANYNJ raised Liberty Park; and there would be no WTC garage ramps in the 9A median that created additional pedestrian/vehicle interaction points prior to 9/11. Furthermore, additional study during the detailed design phase will assess the need for pedestrian bridges at specific locations.
Therefore, the At-Grade Alternative would meet the objective of improving east–west connections. The No Action would be neutral with respect to the objective due to a narrowed median/refuge area. The Short Bypass would exceed the objective due to less lanes and less traffic volume with adequate refuge at areas of highest pedestrian demand.
With respect to the objective of improving north–south pedestrian connections, the No Action Alternative would not widen the narrow 8 to 10 foot wide sidewalks along the east side between the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel and Albany Street. This results in the No Action Alternative failing to meet this objective. Since both the At-Grade and Short Bypass Alternatives include sidewalk widening they would meet this objective.
The new civic, cultural, and commercial spaces being created in this WTC Site location establish sight lines and pedestrian desire lines. All alternatives accommodate the restored Fulton Street crossing which the Mayor’s Vision for Lower Manhattan envisions as an east/west river-to-river pedestrian-friendly corridor. The Short Bypass Alternative has 60 percent less vehicular traffic at the surface, and fewer lanes to cross, providing better pedestrian access than the At-Grade and the No Action Alternatives. All alternatives provide a wide frontage/sidewalk/buffer area adjacent to and approaching the WTC Memorial and Freedom Tower and the historic Barclay-Vesey (Verizon) Building. The pedestrian bridge at Liberty Street may also connect directly with the proposed raised Liberty Park. Both the At-Grade and Short Bypass create north–south promenades connecting the Battery and WTC Site. Therefore, for the reasons noted here and previously, the Short Bypass Alternative as well as the At-Grade Alternative meet the objective of creating pedestrian gateways to new and improved civic spaces.
With the pedestrian bridge, the No Action Alternative would result in conditions similar to what was present prior to September 11, 2001, and would not improve conditions. The No Action Alternative would therefore be neutral with respect to the goal of improving pedestrian movements along and across Route 9A. The At-Grade Alternative would meet the goal while the Short Bypass Alternative would exceed the goal.
GOAL III: PROVIDE FOR AN APPROPRIATE AND RESPECTFUL SETTING FOR THE WTC MEMORIAL
OBJECTIVE: PROVIDE FOR A DESIGN THAT COMPLEMENTS AND PROVIDES TRANSITION FOR THE WTC MEMORIAL. MAXIMIZE DISTANCE OF ROADWAY FROM MEMORIAL.
The plans for a World Trade Center Memorial is the single most significant difference between future conditions set forth in the Route 9A 1994 FEIS and future conditions in this FSEIS. Two objectives were used to evaluate this goal:
• Minimize the intrusion of vehicular roadway operations. • Provide for a design that complements the WTC Memorial by providing an aesthetic setting. The measures used to evaluate the performance of the project alternatives against these objectives include the number of vehicles on Route 9A passing the Memorial site; and the
Chapter 2A: Preferred Alternatives
2A-5
amount of frontage and green and open space provided adjacent to the Memorial site. Under the No Action Alternative approximately 29 million vehicles per year would pass the site of the WTC Memorial on Route 9A. With the At-Grade Alternative this figure would increase to 30.3 million since it would restore the roadway to its pre-September 11, 2001 capacity. The Short Bypass Alternative would reduce the number of vehicles on the surface of Route 9A passing the WTC Memorial to 12.3 million per year. An additional 18 million vehicles per year would pass the site unseen via the underground bypass structure. This reduction in vehicles would lead to a 3 dBA reduction in noise level of the Memorial Site with the Short Bypass Alternative compared to either the No Action or At-Grade Alternatives.
The design for the Memorial has evolved since the DSEIS was prepared. The current plan proposes a park-like setting with steps rising from the adjacent streets, including West Street, to connect to a level area. The grade level of Route 9A surface has been raised in the At-Grade and Short Bypass Alternatives to be closer to the elevations of the Memorial site while the No Action Alternative would remain up to seven feet lower. Based on grading either Route 9A build Alternative would be compatible with the Memorial concept for the WTC area while the No Action Alternative would be less compatible.
The At-Grade alternative as well as the Short Bypass Alternative would also complement the Memorial and provide transitional opportunities and minimize roadway intrusions due to the wider frontage and green space provided as well as the construction of improved north–south linkages and improved east–west crossings at Liberty, Fulton, and Vesey Streets. Prior to September 11, the Route 9A roadway and east sidewalk area extended 45 feet into and over the WTC Site basement and within the slurry wall/bathtub area. To be consistent with future WTC Memorial and Redevelopment plans, Route 9A has been shifted away from the slurry wall to maximize the frontage/sidewalk area/open space and buffering between the northbound roadway and Memorial for all alternatives. The No Action Alternative provides 1.2 acres of east side buffer area, while the At-Grade Alternative provides 1.0 acres and the Short Bypass Alternative 1.3 acres. By comparison, the east sidewalk area prior to September 11 consisted of only 0.2 acres of buffer.
By substantially reducing the number of surface lanes and vehicular traffic adjacent to the Memorial and creating a large buffer area, the Short Bypass Alternative would exceed the goal of providing for an appropriate and respectful setting for the WTC Memorial. The At-Grade Alternative, while having all traffic on a wider surface roadway, also creates a wide buffer area and therefore meets the goal. The No Action Alternative would provide a wide buffer but results in severe traffic congestion on the adjacent streets, which would minimize the success of this goal. Furthermore, the large disparity in elevations between the Memorial surface plane and roadway, and limited transitional opportunities also contribute to the No Action Alternative failing to meet this goal.
GOAL IV: ENHANCE GREEN AREAS AND OPEN SPACE
OBJECTIVE: PROVIDE ADDITIONAL GREEN AREA AND OPEN SPACE WHILE IMPROVING QUALITY.
Prior to September 11, the 20.5 acres in the 9A right-of-way corridor between West Thames and Chambers Streets consisted of 12 acres of roadway and 8.5 acres of green space/open space. All Alternatives reduce the pavement area and increase green/open space. The No Action
Route 9A Project FSEIS
2A-6
Alternative provides 11.0 acres for an increase of 30 percent of green/open space, the At-Grade Alternative 10.4 acres (+22 percent) and the Short Bypass Alternative 11.1 acres (+30 percent).
The At-Grade and Short Bypass Alternatives would significantly improve the quality of the green/open space within the Route 9A corridor between West Thames and Chambers Streets by incorporating features that would enhance the area and improve upon urban design features constructed prior to September 11. By definition, the No Action Alternative would incorporate fewer urban design and landscape features, but opportunities exist to add them at additional cost.
Therefore with respect to the goal of enhancing green areas and open space the No Action Alternative would remain neutral (without adding to the cost), while the At-Grade Alternative and Short Bypass Alternatives would meet the goal.
GOAL V: SUPPORT ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND REDEVELOPMENT OF LOWER MANHATTAN
OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE MOBILITY AND GOODS MOVEMENT. RESTORE OR CREATE VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
The performance of the project alternatives with respect to this goal was evaluated considering two objectives as shown in Table 2A-1. Similar to the evaluation of Goal I, the annual person hours of delay (PHD) was used as a measure of performance of the first objective since it would most accurately reflect the ability of the transportation system to support the economic recovery of Lower Manhattan. However, the PHD for the entire project study area (i.e. south of Chambers Street and west of Broadway) was used for the comparison, since the economic viability and the redevelopment potential of Lower Manhattan are directly related to the movement of goods and people throughout its street network. Route 9A plays a major role in the ability of this system to function properly and provide the needed mobility to sustain the economic growth in an urban area and be consistent with the public policy plans discussed in Chapter 4 for Lower Manhattan.
With the No Action Alternative annual PHD in the study area in 2025 would be 1.85 million hours. The At-Grade Alternative would substantially reduce the annual PHD to 1.35 million hours. The lowest annual PHD would occur with the Short Bypass Alternative (1.14 million hours). Therefore, both build alternatives would meet this objective.
With respect to enhancing and restoring pedestrian and vehicular access, as discussed above under Goal I, both build alternatives would meet this objective.
Since the No Action Alternative would result in widespread congestion throughout Lower Manhattan, it would not meet this goal. While the Short Bypass Alternative’s performance with respect to mobility, as evidenced by the lower PHD, is marginally better than the At-Grade Alternative, the latter’s construction cost is much less. This, in turn, would make the performance of the At-Grade Alternative equal to the Short Bypass Alternative with respect to this goal. Therefore, both build alternatives would meet this goal.
Chapter 2A: Preferred Alternatives
2A-7
GOAL VI: ENSURE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN AN OPEN AND INCLUSIVE PROCESS
OBJECTIVE: THE PROJECT CONDUCTED AN OUTREACH PROGRAM TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC IN THE PROCESS.
The project’s community outreach program included contact with the local community board and several public meetings (on June 24 and November 19, 2003 and June 2, 2004). The Public Hearing on the DSEIS, held on June 24, 2004, was attended by 83 people; 38 submitted comments during the public speaking portion. Comments on the DSEIS were accepted through July 28, 2004. Approximately 120 elected officials, organizations, and individuals provided comments on the DSEIS. The project’s community outreach program also maintained a website, a project “hotline,” and accepted approximately 40 comments through email. Furthermore, as part of the outreach program, consulting parties, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, were also invited to participate in the public process review.
The performance of each alternative does not differ with respect to this goal and, therefore, all alternatives would meet the goal.
GOAL VII: COORDINATE WITH OTHER MAJOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
OBJECTIVE: ALL ALTERNATIVES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER LOWER MANHATTAN PROJECTS.
All alternatives would be compatible with the other major projects planned as part of the Lower Manhattan recovery effort and the project team has been coordinating their efforts with the other design teams and project sponsors. For more than two years, regular meetings have been held with representatives of the Port Authority, Silverstein Properties, LMDC, MTA, FTA, and others to coordinate their respective projects. Numerous meetings and design discussions have been held with representatives of NYCDEP and the private utility companies. This coordination will continue and expand as an alternative is selected.
The construction of the selected alternative would also be coordinated with the other lower Manhattan Recovery Projects. One of the groups set up by LMDC is the Lower Manhattan Construction Group (LMCCG). NYSDOT has taken a leadership role in this group by regularly meeting with the involved agencies and laying the groundwork for a functioning traffic operations center that will be used to manage construction traffic for Lower Manhattan and has participated in other working groups, including logistics, scheduling, utilities, etc.
GOAL VIII: AVOID OR MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS TO THE COMMUNITY
OBJECTIVE: MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION. IMPROVE, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN LOWER MANHATTAN.
Under this goal, the project alternatives were evaluated separately for their performance with regard to potential long- and short-term environmental effects. Short-term impacts are associated with the construction phase of the project, while long-term effects are associated with the operational phase of the project once completed.
Route 9A Project FSEIS
2A-8
The project alternatives performance in meeting the short-term objective was evaluated by considering construction duration, potential for adverse environmental impacts and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation.
All alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, would require construction activities that would generate truck traffic, and lead to increases in air pollutant emissions and noise levels. Through the adoption of the Environmental Performance Commitments and additional mitigation measures proposed in the FSEIS, the adverse effects of construction of all alternatives have been reduced substantially.
As discussed in Chapter 9, “Air Quality” and Chapter 10, “Noise,” the differences in predicted pollutant concentrations and noise levels during construction between the At-Grade or the Short Bypass Alternatives in the peak construction year would not be substantial. In some cases, construction of the At-Grade Alternative would result in higher noise levels or air pollutant concentrations than the Short Bypass Alternative. The maximum predicted levels are a function of when specific activities and construction equipment would be operating in close proximity to sensitive locations. Throughout the peak construction year, the At-Grade Alternative would generate approximately 80 percent of the pollutant emissions that would be produced by construction of the Short Bypass Alternative. The major difference, therefore, with respect to the three alternatives would be the duration and scope of the construction activities. Since the No Action and At-Grade Alternatives could be completed in a much shorter time (25 and 26 months respectively) than the Short Bypass Alternatives (43 months) they would meet this objective. Due to the longer construction duration and complexity (e.g., utility relocations, etc.), but in consideration of the proposed mitigation measures, the performance of the Short Bypass Alternatives with respect to this objective would be neutral.
To evaluate the long-term environmental performance of the project alternatives several measures are considered. While the project alternatives do not differ in their performance with respect to natural resources or water quality, there are differences with respect to air quality and noise. Furthermore, since the performance of the project alternatives with respect to the transportation system are considered in other project goals, the performance with respect to Goal VIII concentrates on non-transportation elements of the environment.
With respect to the long-term effects of the project, the No Action Alternative would lead to an increase in pollutant emissions (64 to 71 more tons annually) in Lower Manhattan as compared to the build alternatives, and therefore would not meet this objective. Both build alternatives would meet this objective by reducing pollutant emissions over the No Action Alternative.
With respect to future noise levels in 2025, the only substantive difference between the alternatives would occur at the Memorial Site and several locations in the vicinity of the bypass itself. At all other locations, noise levels for the project alternatives would be within 1 or 2 dBA. At the Memorial Site, the Short Bypass Alternative would lead to a 3 dBA reduction in noise levels, as compared to the No Action and At-Grade Alternatives.
Finally, with respect to historic resources, all alternatives would be subject to the programmatic agreement with SHPO, FHWA, and the ACHP that has been developed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on these resources.
In conclusion, while its short-term effects would be minimized, due to its long-term increase in air pollutant emissions, the No Action Alternative would not meet this goal. Due to its ability to meet both objectives, the At-Grade Alternative would exceed this goal. The Short Bypass Alternative would result in enhanced long-term benefits at the expense of longer adverse short-
Chapter 2A: Preferred Alternatives
2A-9
term effects. Since long-term effects by definition cover an extended period of time they would tend to offset the short-term adverse effects. Therefore, the Short Bypass Alternative would meet this goal.
GOAL IX: PROVIDE A SAFE, TIMELY AND COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTION
OBJECTIVE: PROVIDE A SAFE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. PROVIDE A TIMELY SOLUTION. PROVIDE A COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTION.
This goal includes three separate goals which must be evaluated separately. For example, an alternative may be safe and timely but not necessarily cost-effective.
All alternatives, by adhering to specific NYSDOT design criteria, would be designed for safe traffic and pedestrian operations and, therefore, would meet this objective. However, since the build alternatives would reduce the number of annual accidents along Route 9A, their performance would exceed this objective.
With their shorter construction schedules, the No Action and At-Grade Alternatives would be more timely than the Short Bypass Alternative. Based on current construction schedules for the WTC Memorial, it is possible that the Short Bypass Alternative would still be under construction when the memorial opens. Therefore, it would not be considered timely, as compared to the No Action and At-Grade alternatives, and would not meet this objective.
Since the No Action Alternative would not be effective in solving the future transportation needs of Route 9A, it could not be considered cost-effective. Due to its much lower cost, while providing the nearly equivalent transportation service as the Short Bypass Alternative, the At-Grade Alternative would meet the objective of cost-effectiveness. The additional cost of the Short Bypass Alternative, in many respects, is a result of the alternative’s ability to exceed Goal III: “Providing For An Appropriate And Respectful Setting For The WTC Memorial.” While the Short Bypass Alternative would provide an additional benefit over the At-Grade Alternative with respect to setting at the WTC Memorial, it would not be considered as cost-effective as the latter. Therefore, in consideration of all three objectives, the At-Grade Alternative is deemed to exceed this goal while the Short Bypass Alternative would meet the goal.
Due to its failure to meet two objectives, the No Action Alternative would not meet this goal.
C. CONCLUSION Due to its inability to meet the basic transportation needs of the Route 9A corridor as well as failing to meet several project goals, the No Action Alternative could not be recommended.
As discussed above, both build (At-Grade and Short Bypass) Alternatives would meet or exceed all of the project goals developed as part of the project’s purpose and need. While their performance is similar with respect to improving transportation service over the No Action Alternative, both along Route 9A and throughout Lower Manhattan, their performance differs in other respects. Both build Alternatives would exceed two project goals. The Short Bypass Alternative would exceed Goal II: “Improve Pedestrian Movements Along and Across Route 9A” and Goal III: “Provide for an Appropriate and Respectful Setting for the WTC Memorial.” The At-Grade Alternative would exceed Goal VIII: “Avoid or Minimize Environmental and Construction Impacts to the Community” and Goal IX: “Provide a Safe, Timely and Cost-Effective Solution.” The At-Grade Alternative successfully achieves the project goals at a significantly lower cost, with a shorter construction
Route 9A Project FSEIS
2A-10
period. It also minimizes impacts to public and private utilities, reducing risks of future outages that would affect Lower Manhattan’s economic recovery. Therefore, for these reasons and in consideration of many of the public comments received, the At-Grade Alternative is recommended as the Preferred Alternative (Figure 2A-2 depicts the urban design plan for the Preferred At-Grade Alternative).
