Chapter 16: Cumulative Effects

A. INTRODUCTION The federal Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), set forth at 40 CFR Part 1500- 1508, require federal agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their actions, including not only direct and indirect effects, but also cumulative effects. Cumulative impacts result from the incremental consequences of an action (the project) when added to other past and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative effects of an action may be undetectable when viewed in the individual context of direct and even indirect impacts, but nevertheless when added to other actions can eventually lead to a measurable environmental change. Cumulative impacts are the net result of both the proposed project and the other improvements planned in, near, and around the project. Chapters 4 through 15 of this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) assess the potential direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives for a range of technical areas. This chapter addresses cumulative effects of the proposed project in combination with the conditions presented in the No Action Alternative sections of the previous chapters. It also considers the potential for cumulative effects from other reasonably foreseeable actions. As described in Chapter 1, “Project Purpose and Need,” and Chapter 4, “Land Use, Public Policy, and Neighborhood Character,” the Route 9A Project is part of the larger redevelopment of Lower that includes transportation and development projects being sponsored by both public and private entities. Although funded and planned separately, the construction and operation of these various projects would have a cumulative effect on the character and quality of Lower Manhattan and the region, as a whole, both during and after construction. Recognizing the potential impacts of such large-scale development in a relatively small geographic area, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) charged the lead federal agencies to develop a framework for the analysis of cumulative impacts for projects being reviewed under NEPA. As described in Chapter 2, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) prepared its Approach to Cumulative Effects Analysis for the Lower Manhattan Recovery Effort (July 2003). The approach described in FTA’s guidance ensures consistency between projects through a coordinated set of analysis assumptions and methodologies for all of the transportation recovery projects. As individual projects advance through the NEPA process, the analysis and any identified impacts are incorporated into the documentation of later projects to ensure a consistent, up-to-date, and comprehensive evaluation of potential cumulative effects. To expedite the environmental review process, the study of cumulative effects will focus on subject areas that are prone to potential adverse effects. The federal partners and local project sponsors have coordinated to identify five key areas with the highest potential for adverse cumulative effects:

16-1 Route 9A Project DSEIS

• Access and circulation; • Air quality; • Noise and vibration; • Cultural and historic resources; and • Economic factors. The local project sponsors have coordinated amongst themselves and with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), FTA, and EPA to develop consistent methodologies, assumptions, data sources, and impact criteria for the evaluation of impacts under each of the five cumulative effects subject areas. Representatives of the five major Lower Manhattan recovery projects (World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan, Permanent WTC PATH Terminal, Route 9A Project, Fulton Street Transit Center, and South Ferry Terminal) have participated in regular coordination meetings to review project specifics, environmental review, and general project coordination.

B. METHODOLOGY A coordinated effort was undertaken to develop construction analysis assumptions for the Lower Manhattan recovery projects (i.e., World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan, permanent WTC PATH Terminal, Route 9A Project, Fulton Street Transit Center, and South Ferry Terminal). The individual elements of the construction efforts and subsequent truck trip and equipment generation were summarized by the individual project sponsors for use in the analysis of potential impacts within each project’s environmental review documentation. The specific activities assumed for the construction analysis of the Route 9A Project are described in Chapter 3 “Construction Practices.” Elements of the other projects, assessed as part of this cumulative analysis, are described below. As described in Chapters 4 through 15 of this SEIS, the Short Bypass Alternative has the greatest potential for significant impacts during the construction period as compared to the No Action and the At-Grade Alternatives. Thus, the Short Bypass Alternative was assessed as part of this cumulative effects analysis to provide for a conservative estimate of potential impacts from all of the Lower Manhattan recovery projects.

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENTS Facilitated by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) and FTA, the State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), PANYNJ of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) have developed a unified environmental analysis framework for the Lower Manhattan transportation recovery projects, which is summarized in a document dated September 3, 2003 and is discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives.” As part of this effort, these agencies developed conceptual environmental performance commitments (EPCs) that would be further defined and developed during each project’s environmental review and design process, and implemented during construction to mitigate or minimize adverse effects on the environment. The EPCs that have been specified for the construction of the Route 9A Project, and which were described in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” have been accounted for in the analysis of construction period impacts described in Chapters 4 through 15 of this SEIS, where appropriate. Similarly, the measures that have been signed by the other agencies for their individual projects

16-2 Chapter 16: Cumulative Effects have been incorporated into the cumulative assessment of construction period impacts that follows below.

DESCRIPTION OF CONCURRENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS It is estimated that four major government sponsored Lower Manhattan recovery projects, as well as private development projects, would be in construction in 2006 concurrent with the peak construction activity for the Route 9A Project. Figure 16-1 shows the assumed construction schedules for these projects, which are mapped on Figure 16-2. Due to the volume of construction activity in 2006, this year has been designated as the peak year for analysis purposes, and is expected to generate the largest cumulative number of construction related vehicle traffic, and equipment use.

LOWER MANHATTAN RECOVERY PROJECTS The federal government is sponsoring four major Lower Manhattan Recovery projects in addition to the Route 9A Project. These projects are briefly described below along with the construction work that is expected to occur in the peak year of 2006. WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan (Figure 16-2, Reference No. 1) Rebuilding of the WTC Site would provide for the construction of a WTC Memorial and memorial-related improvements, up to 10 million square feet of commercial office space, up to 1 million square feet of retail space, up to 1 million square feet of conference center and hotel facilities, new open space areas, museum and cultural facilities and certain infrastructure improvements, including below-grade parking for automobiles and buses, and security facilities. The reopening of Greenwich and Fulton Streets through the WTC Site and the reconfiguring of Cedar and Washington Streets through the Southern Site are also included. The rebuilding of the WTC would take place over approximately 12 years, from mid- to late 2004 to the end of 2015. The most intense period of activity is anticipated to occur between the 3rd quarter of 2004 and 4th quarter of 2008 with a peak period occurring in 2006. In 2006, the following activities would continue or commence: • Demolition of Hudson and Manhattan (H&M) Terminal and excavation of East Bathtub; • Construction of WTC Concourse and Freedom Tower foundations; • Construction of Tower 2 foundation and below-grade retail; • Construction of Towers 3 and 4 foundations and below-grade retail; and • Construction of east bathtub above-grade retail. By the end of 2005, the full build out of the sub-grade space of the site would have commenced. This would involve the construction of sub-grade retail, concourse, and utility space in all areas of the site except the area beneath the temporary PATH concourse (which would be excavated following the construction of an alternative temporary exit to Church Street for PATH passengers). As part of this work, the foundations and core of the Freedom Tower would be constructed early. These activities would be largely complete by the end of 2006. It is likely that the construction of the first tower (Freedom Tower) in the northwest quadrant would be fast- tracked. The topping out of the Freedom Tower up to the 70th floor, exclusive of the iconic top, is anticipated in the 3rd quarter of 2006. Elsewhere on the site in 2006, it is assumed that construction of the sub-grade build out of the site east of the Nos. 1/9 lines (the southeast and northeast quadrants of the site) would be

16-3 Route 9A Project DSEIS complete by the 4th quarter. The expanded Southern Site (south of Liberty Street) would have been excavated by the beginning of 2006, and the sub-grade build out of that space would continue through until early 2007. Approximately in mid-2006, the fit-out and installation of the curtain wall for the Freedom Tower would commence. In the 3rd quarter the east bathtub retail fit-out would commence. The Memorial itself, and associated cultural and open spaces, would be commenced in late 2006. Construction of the Memorial, cultural space, Freedom Tower and retail fit-out, would continue until mid to late 2008. As described in the World Trade Center Memorial and Redevelopment Plan Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, the full completion of the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan is anticipated by 2015. Current plans call for the construction of the site’s retail components from 2008 to 2009. Four additional office towers would be constructed between 2009 and 2015. Permanent WTC PATH Terminal (Figure 16-2, Reference No. 2) PANYNJ proposes to construct a permanent WTC PATH Terminal to the east of Route 9A on the WTC Site between Vesey and Liberty Streets. PANYNJ is currently considering three alternatives; a No Action Alternative where the temporary PATH station at the WTC Site would remain in operation as long as possible; a new terminal with an underground connection beneath Church Street to Liberty Plaza; and a new terminal without the connection to Liberty Plaza. Either new terminal would include an underground connection beneath Route 9A to the World Financial Center. For the purposes of this analysis, the new terminal with the West and Church Street underground pedestrian concourses has been assumed since it would result in the highest level of construction activity as compared to other alternatives, and has the greatest potential for construction impacts. Construction of the project has been disaggregated into six elements as follows: • Element 1—Permanent tracks, platform conversion, mezzanine and concourse construction; • Element 2—Construction of tunnels under the Nos. 1/9 subway lines; • Element 3—Route 9A connection, construction of concourse under the roadway; • Element 4—Construction of Liberty Plaza connection; • Element 5—Excavation/Deconstruction of Temporary Station; and • Element 6—Construction of PATH Terminal Building. In 2006, the peak construction year for this impact assessment, Elements 1 through 4 would be under construction. Fulton Street Transit Center (Figure 16-2, Reference No. 3) Similar to the above projects, the concept design and proposed construction methods for the FSTC have not yet been finalized and preliminary engineering has not been undertaken. The project has been disaggregated into six components as follows: • Component 1; Tunneling for underpasses, beneath the R/W line/Church St. and Nos. 4/5 line/ routes. Widening of 4/5 line northbound platform; • Component 2; Concourse under Dey Street, cut and cover construction; • Component 3; Building stabilization, specifically the , retrofit of the basement of the Millennium Hotel and structures adjacent to the 189 Broadway excavation; • Component 4; Transit Center construction, includes de-construction and overbuild;

16-4 Chapter 16: Cumulative Effects

• Component 5; Widening existing A/C line mezzanines; and • Component 6; Staging, temporary equipment storage, truck parking, crane pick-up access, and loading area. In 2006, the peak construction year for this impact assessment, all components except 3 and 4 would be under construction. Outside the site footprint, rehabilitation of the No. 4/5 Line Fulton Street Station and new access for the southbound No. 4/5 line at would also be under construction in 2006. Tunneling For Underpasses. The current Transit Center conceptual design locates a concourse structure directly beneath the existing N/R line located beneath the existing Nos. 4/5 line located beneath Broadway. In addition, it is intended that the Nos. 4/5 line northbound platform be widened beneath the east side of Broadway. To maintain traffic on Broadway and Church Street, and to limit disruption to subway service, the tunneling operation would most likely require an incremental underpinning sequence of adjoining structures along the east side of Broadway between Fulton and John Streets, in conjunction with careful monitoring of vibration and subway track movement. Concourse Construction Under Dey Street. The rock strata elevation below Dey Street lies beneath the proposed depth of excavation. Consequently, it is probable that the concourse would be constructed using “cut and cover” construction methods. Widening of A/C Line Mezzanine. The A/C line mezzanine would be widened and reconstructed using a “top-down” sequential cut and cover sequence similar to the concourse construction at Dey Street. While the amount of actual required volume of excavation is far less than that required for the Dey Street concourse, the A/C line mezzanine widening is complicated by the need to maintain operation of the A/C line platforms. In addition, the structure of the rail tunnel itself is extremely sensitive to reductions and increases of overburden stress applied to the modular tunnel rings. Staging. In the absence of a formal construction plan, it is envisaged that staging areas would be closed to pedestrian and vehicular traffic for the duration of the relevant construction activity. The preliminary list of staging areas is as follows: • Dey Street, both lanes and both sidewalks (in addition to the Dey Street roadway surface); • Broadway, one eastern lane and sidewalk; • Fulton Street, both lanes and both sidewalks between Broadway and Nassau; • John Street, one lane and sidewalk; and • Church Street, one eastern lane and sidewalk (for the width of Dey Street). South Ferry Terminal (Figure 16-2, Reference No. 4) The South Ferry Terminal would be constructed generally within the limits of Peter Minuit Plaza, and immediately north of the newly reconstructed Whitehall Ferry Terminal. The South Ferry Terminal Project is expected to be in construction from mid-2004 to the end of 2007, with the peak construction activity occurring within a 12-month period from mid-2005 to mid-2006. All excavation and street restoration work is expected to be completed by the end of 2006. Street preparation work for the South Ferry Terminal under Peter Minuit Plaza would occur first in 2004. Construction of the approach tunnels, including underpinning of the existing Nos. 1/9 and 4/5 subway tunnels, in the eastern edge of Battery Park would occur next, from September 2004 through April 2005. Terminal construction would occur in 2005 and 2006, and the bellmouth

16-5 Route 9A Project DSEIS and fan plant construction would occur in 2006. Construction of the bellmouth would require reconstruction of about 275 feet of existing subway tunnel. The reconstruction would require demolition of portions of the subway roof and sidewalls. Finishing work would continue from mid-2006 to the end of 2007 and would occur underground. In 2006, the peak construction year for this impact assessment, the following elements would be under construction. • Cut and cover tunneling operations; • R/W line connection to South Ferry; • Underpin Nos. 1/9 and Nos. 4/5 lines for South Ferry Station; • Construct bellmouth; and • Ventilation plant construction.

OTHER LOWER MANHATTAN PROJECTS

Lower Manhattan Street Reconstruction Program The Department of Design and Construction (DDC) is undertaking an aggressive program to reconstruct the majority of local streets in Lower Manhattan. DDC has prepared a preliminary phasing plan for this program, which covers the area south of Canal Street between the Hudson and East Rivers. The extent of street reconstruction varies, depending on the type of roadway, its history of previous repairs, and the level of subsequent damage. In some cases streets would be repaved, but other streets would be fully reconstructed, including utility relocation, sidewalk reconstruction, and new pavement. Based on DDC’s preliminary program, the following streets may be reconstructed between June 2005 and May 2007 and may occur concurrently with the peak construction activity for the Route 9A Project: • Canal Street from Hudson Street to Bowery Street (June 2006 to May 2007); • Worth Street from Hudson Street to Park Row (June 2005 to May 2006); • from Chambers Street to Barclay Street (June 2006 to May 2007); • West Broadway from to Chambers Street (June 2006 to May 2007); • Church Street and Trinity Place from Chambers Street to Morris Street (June 2005 to May 2006); • Barclay Street from Route 9A to West Broadway (June 2006 to May 2007); • Vesey Street from Route 9A to Broadway (June 2006 to May 2007); • Liberty Street from Route 9A to Broadway (June 2006 to May 2007); • Cedar Street from Route 9A to Washington Street (June 2006 to May 2007); • Washington Street from Liberty Street to Cedar Street (June 2006 to May 2007); • Washington Street from Vesey Street to Barclay Street (June 2006 to May 2007); • Fulton Street from Church Street to Viaduct (June 2005 to May 2006); • Frankfort and Dover Streets from Park Row to South Street Viaduct (June 2005 to May 2006); • Dey Street from Church Street to Broadway (June 2005 to May 2006); and • South Street Viaduct from to Brooklyn Bridge (June 2006 to May 2007). It is assumed that DDC’s street reconstruction program would be fully coordinated with the Lower Manhattan recovery projects and that certain street reconstruction projects, including reconstruction of streets in the vicinity of Route 9A and the WTC Site, would be postponed until

16-6 Chapter 16: Cumulative Effects recovery efforts were fully or nearly completed to avoid disturbance to reconstructed roadways by construction activities for the other projects. Private Development The analysis presented in Chapter 4, “Land Use, Public Policy, and Neighborhood Character,” showed that six projects, primarily residential developments, may be completed in 2006 or 2007. Associated construction activities may overlap with construction of Route 9A. These projects are as follows: • Washington Street Urban Renewal Area (WSURA) Site 5C, a 422,000 gross-square-foot (gsf) residential building with ground floor retail and a community facility; • 23 / 15 , a residential building with approximately 1,321 units; • Battery Park City (BPC) Site 3, an approximately 540,000 gsf residential building with 38,500 square feet of institutional use; • BPC Site 23, an approximately 280,000 gsf residential building with ground floor retail; • BPC Site 24, an approximately 260,000 gsf residential building with ground floor retail; and • 448 Greenwich Street, a 120,000 gsf residential building. To estimate the potential cumulative impacts of these private developments, assumptions were made regarding the type, length, and stages of construction that would be required. In New York City, new commercial and residential construction typically requires 18 to 24 months from demolition to final fit-out. To be conservative, it was assumed that private developments shown in Figure 16-1 would have an 18-month construction period. It is assumed that the construction of these private developments would follow typical methods and procedures for new buildings in Lower Manhattan. The New Facility Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (December 13, 2000), described proposed activities for its construction. These general assumptions were used for the private developments identified above. The New York Stock Exchange FEIS identified four major phases of construction: demolition, foundations, tower core and shell construction, and interior construction. The estimated truck activity for each of theses phases is presented in Table 16-1. Table 16-1 Typical Construction Period Truck Trip Generation for Private Developments Phase Peak Average Daily Truck Trips (One-Way) Demolition 30 Foundations 30 Tower core and shell construction 10 to 15 Interior construction 25 to 35 Source: New York Stock Exchange New Facility Final Environmental Impact Statement (December 13, 2000)

The New York Stock Exchange expansion would have been a 600,000 gsf building, which is considerably larger than that proposed for WSURA Site 5C, BPC Sites 2, 23, and 24, and 440 Greenwich Street. It is expected that exterior and interior construction of these smaller buildings would require less debris removal and fewer deliveries than would be necessary for the Stock Exchange expansion. Thus, the estimates presented in Table 16-1 are considered a conservative

16-7 Route 9A Project DSEIS estimate of truck trips generated by the proposed private developments in Lower Manhattan during the peak construction year. BPC Sites 3, 23, and 24 and WSURA Site 5C would not require demolition. Thus the construction for these projects would begin with the foundations phase. Based on a typical construction schedule for a high-rise building and on currently planned completion dates, it is assumed that BPC Sites 3, 23, and 24, WSURA Site 5C, 448 Greenwich Street would be either nearing the end of the tower core and shell construct phase or in the interior construction phases concurrent with peak construction activity for the Route 9A Project. Only the 23 Wall/ project would potentially be in demolition or foundation construction. The assessment of post-September 11, 2001 traffic conditions, which are the basis of projected 2006 construction period traffic networks, were developed using counts conducted in spring and fall of 2003 (see Chapter 8A, “Traffic.”). During this period, several construction projects in Lower Manhattan were ongoing, including the temporary WTC PATH Terminal, DDC’s street reconstruction program, BPC Sites, 10 Liberty Street, and 2 Gold Street. The traffic counts included their associated construction vehicle trips. It is expected that the private development projects described above would generate an equivalent or lesser volume of construction vehicle trips in the 2006 analysis year. Therefore, the construction vehicle trips associated with the private development projects are considered as part of the 2006 base traffic network.

CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES AND TRUCK ROUTES Table 16-2 presents the construction related truck trips that would be generated by each of the Lower Manhattan recovery projects in 2006. The sponsors of the federally funded, Lower Manhattan recovery projects have coordinated to establish routes for individual site access during construction. As shown in Figure 16-3, trucks would enter and exit Lower Manhattan from six principal gateways: Holland Tunnel, Manhattan Bridge, Route 9A, Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, Bowery, and Broadway/Avenue of the Americas. Within Lower Manhattan, these trucks would use Route 9A, Church Street, Broadway, Water Street, and South Street. (Note: Only two- and three-axle single-units trucks are currently permitted in the Holland Tunnel. Larger trucks are not permitted and will need to use alternate routes unless the ban is lifted. The PANYNJ does not currently plan on removing the restrictions in the foreseeable future.) Table 16-2 Truck Trips Generated By Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects—2006 Project Heavy Trucks Light Trucks Total Trucks WTC MRP 694 310 1004 WTC PATH 173 65 238 Route 9A Project 160 24 184 FSTC 262 70 332 South Ferry Terminal 150 98 220 Total 1439 567 2006 Note: WTC MRP refers to WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan. WTC PATH refers to the permanent WTC PATH Terminal. Source: For projects other than Route 9A the data is based on a study for the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan by The Louis Berger Group, Construction and Cumulative Effects (October 15, 2003);

16-8 Chapter 16: Cumulative Effects

ON-SITE EQUIPMENT For three of the Lower Manhattan recovery projects (WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan, permanent WTC PATH Terminal, and Fulton Street Transit Center) that would be constructed concurrent with the Route 9A Project, an estimate of on-site equipment was made to support the cumulative analyses. Construction of the South Ferry Terminal is anticipated to occur during the same time period, but its site is located approximately ½-mile south of the major activities associated with the Short Bypass Alternative. Therefore, no overlapping effects with South Ferry Terminal’s on-site sources are expected for the peak condition and they were not included in the stationary source analyses for air and noise. Appendix F presents the on-site equipment that would be generated by the three Lower Manhattan recovery projects identified above for the peak 2006 construction year while Chapter 3, “Construction Practices,” describes this information for the Short Bypass Alternative. For each project work zone on these sites, the types, numbers, and durations of use for each piece of equipment is included in Table 3-1. Although the total duration (in months) is provided for summary purposes, many pieces of equipment may operate during only portions of the period. For additional details on the use of the equipment at each site, refer to Appendix F.

C. PROBABLE SHORT-TERM, CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS

ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Impact Assessment The traffic data discussed above and shown in Table 16-2 was used to determine the number of vehicles that would use Route 9A to access the construction sites of the respective Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects. As shown in Table 16-3, up to 86 vehicles in the peak hour would use Route 9A in each direction during the critical analysis year of 2006. Approximately ¼ of those vehicles would be due to the construction of Route 9A Short Bypass Alternative. Table 16- 4 shows the results of the traffic analysis with and without the construction of the five Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects. As shown, construction of these projects would not result in significant adverse impacts along Route 9A based on the criteria discussed in Chapter 8A, “Traffic.” Table 16-3 2006 Construction Period: Peak Hour Construction Vehicle Traffic ( Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects) Total Vehicles Route 9A-Generated Intersection Added AM/PM Vehicles AM/PM Chambers St 86/86 24/24 Murray St 86/86 24/24 Vesey St 77/78 27/28 Liberty St 45/66 27/28 Albany St 55/55 31/31

16-9 Route 9A Project DSEIS

Table 16-4 2006 Construction Period: Comparison of Levels of Service for Route 9A Intersections without and with the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Movement Baseline Cumulative Construction Baseline Cumulative Construction L D D D D EB T D D C C R D D C C L F F E E WB T F F E E Chambers St & R C C C C Rt 9A (West St) T C D C C NB R C D C C L E E D D SB T B B B B R B B B B Intersection C C C C L C C C C EB T C C C C R C C C C L C C D D Warren St & Route 9A NB T A A A A (West St.) R A A A A T B B B B SB R B B B B Intersection A A B B L C C D D EB T C C D D R C C D D L C C D D WB T D D D D R D D D D Murray St. & Route 9A L D D D D (West St.) NB T C C C C R C C C C L D D D D SB T A A B B R A A B B Intersection C C C C L D D A B EB T D D A D Vesey St. & T C C D D WB Route 9A NB R C C D D (West St.) T B B A A NB R B B N/A N/A Intersection B B A A T C C D D EB R D D D D Vesey St. & L A A A A Route 9A SB SB (West St.) T B B A A R B B A A Intersection B B B B L A D A A EB T A D A A Liberty St. & L C C B B Route 9A NB NB (West St.) T C C B B R N/A N/A N/A N/A Intersection C C B B T D D D D EB R D D D D Liberty St. & WB T D D D D Route 9A SB L N/A N/A N/A N/A (West St.) SB T A A B B R A A B B Intersection B B B B L C C D D EB T C C D D R C C D D Albany St. & Route 9A T B B B B NB (West St.) R B B B B T C C B B SB R C C B B Intersection C C B B

16-10 Chapter 16: Cumulative Effects

Mitigation While the cumulative traffic effects of the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects would not significantly impact conditions along Route 9A, NYSDOT is committed to providing an overall traffic management plan during construction to minimize congestion and delays and to maintain access to and within Lower Manhattan.

AIR QUALITY The analysis of the potential cumulative impact of activities related to the construction of the Route 9A Project and the other Lower Manhattan reconstruction projects on air quality are described in this section. The general methodology used for cumulative analyses was identical to that used for the project impacts. Additional information regarding air quality in the context of the aftermath of September 11, 2001; air quality standards and benchmarks for determining the significance of impacts; background pollutant levels; and general procedures for air quality modeling can be found in Chapter 9, “Air Quality.” Since almost all stationary construction equipment and trucks use diesel engines, the main pollutants of concern for local analysis are NO2, and particulate matter, emitted both as engine exhaust and fugitive dust, and analyzed as PM2.5 and PM10. Neither onsite nor offsite parking would be provided for construction workers, other than for a few working vehicles; construction workers would be arriving mostly by carpool, vanpool, or public transportation. Therefore, no significant increase in light duty gas vehicle trips is expected. Since diesel engines emit very little carbon monoxide (CO), analysis of CO from construction engines on-site was not warranted. The combined impact of construction related traffic on intersections, which could potentially impact the running speeds or idling times of background traffic and the ensuing CO concentrations was analyzed. The diesel fuels used for on-road vehicles contain low concentrations of sulfur, and pursuant to the EPCs, the on-site non-road diesel construction engines would be using ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD). Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the site are therefore not of concern. The analysis of on-site sources at each of the four Lower Manhattan Recovery sites in 2006 considered the numbers and types of equipment in each work zone at each of the sites; the period of use (e.g., days or months); the percentage of time it would be operated during the period; and the size of the equipment. (See “On-Site Equipment, above and Appendix F for more information on the on-site and mobile sources assumed in the analysis.) All diesel construction engines, excluding on-road trucks, would use ULSD. Furthermore, where practicable, engines larger than 60 horsepower (HP) would include emissions reduction measures to reduce emissions of PM and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that PM emissions from all such engines would be reduced by 40 percent—the reduction achieved by using diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC). PM emissions may be reduced by 85 percent or higher in cases where diesel particle filters (DPF) would be used. Since it is uncertain at this time what emission reduction technologies would be most efficient with each equipment type, and since DOCs are more efficient at reducing VOC emissions, which are ozone precursors and are of regional concern, the EPCs provide the flexibility to utilize either DOC or DPF control technologies. Therefore, the minimum PM emissions reduction of DOCs was assumed for this analysis. To predict average concentrations for the time periods corresponding to the appropriate standards and impact criteria, on-site emissions were modeled for two time periods: 24 hours for

16-11 Route 9A Project DSEIS

PM and annual averages for PM and NO2. These emissions were based on the construction activity predicted for each of those time scales, as described above and in Appendix F. Typical daily activity emissions were calculated for the various phases averaged over the year to produce annual emission rates for each work zone. Peak day activity emissions were calculated for each phase, and the values calculated for the period with the highest total emissions from all work zones were used for the 24-hour emission rates. A detailed description of emission factors from the various models described above and total emission rates based on construction activities in each zone is presented in Appendix F. On-Road Carbon Monoxide Analysis Maximum predicted CO concentrations in 2006 were predicted at two intersections along Route 9A, similar to the analysis for the proposed project. These locations are of concern because of the high level of traffic currently using the roadway and the potential for construction vehicles to adversely affect traffic flow and thereby increase CO emissions at critical intersections. The analysis includes all construction vehicles from the five major Lower Manhattan recovery projects and total approximately 2,000 per day. Approximately, a third of the construction vehicles would use Route 9A to access the WTC/PATH/Route 9A construction work areas. As shown in Table 16-5, maximum predicted 8-hour average CO concentrations would increase by 0.6 ppm over the condition without any activity from the five major projects. With that increase, total CO concentrations would still be well below the NAAQS. Table 16-5 Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Average to Concentrations in 2006 Site No Action Cumulative Route 9A and Liberty Street 5.1 5.7 Route 9A and Vesey Street 5.5 5.5 Note: National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO is 9 ppm.

Particulate Matter and Nitrogen Dioxide Analyses The highest predicted increase in pollutant concentrations due to construction activity in the vicinity of the construction sites is presented in Table 16-6; the concentrations include contributions from both on-road sources and on-site construction activity emissions. The total predicted concentrations, including background levels (both monitored and modeled local traffic contributions) and the increment due to the project only, are presented in Table 16-7.

16-12 Chapter 16: Cumulative Effects

Table 16–6 2006 Construction Period: Highest Predicted Increase in Pollutant Concentrations 3 Average Maximum Increase [µg/m ] Pollutant Period Receptor Type Cumulative—All Projects Highest of All Receptors 27.7** NO2 Annual Residential Buildings / Hotel 26.3** Highest of All Receptors 70.2* 24-hour Residential Buildings / Hotel 36.6* PM2.5 Other Locations Along Access Routes 0.4 Annual Neighborhood Scale 0.60* Highest of All Receptors 86.0** 24-hour Residential Buildings / Hotel 43.4** Other Locations Along Access Routes 4.5 PM10 Highest of All Receptors 5.00 Annual Residential Buildings / Hotel 4.37 Other Locations Along Access Routes 1.42 3 3 Notes: Benchmark levels for PM2.5 of 5 µg/m and 0.1 µg/m for 24-hour and annual average increases are NYCDEP/NYSDEC interim guidance threshold levels. For determination of adverse impacts, these values are applied in the absence of specific criteria. * Indicates significant increase in concentration–exceeding the interim guidance threshold. ** Substantial increment not leading to exceedance of the NAAQS.

Table 16–7 2006 Construction Period: Highest Predicted Total Pollutant Concentrations Maximum Concentration [µg/m3] Pollutant Average Period Receptor Type Cumulative—All Projects Highest of All Receptors 99.7 NO2 Annual Residential Buildings / Hotel 98.3 Highest of All Receptors 117.2* 24-hour Residential Buildings / Hotel 83.0* PM2.5 Other Locations Along Access Routes 48.1 Annual Neighborhood Scale 17.76* Highest of All Receptors 146.4 24-hour Residential Buildings / Hotel 97.6 Other Locations Along Access Routes 63.7 PM 10 Highest of All Receptors 32.5 Annual Residential Buildings / Hotel 31.0 Other Locations Along Access Routes 28.8 Notes: All total concentrations include background contributions from local mobile sources, as well as regional 3 3 background values as follows: NO2—Annual average 72 µg/m ; PM2.5—Annual average 17.1 µg/m (highest of 2000-2002 annual values); 24-hour average 44.0 µg/m3 (highest of the three 2nd highest 24- 3 3 hour averages in 2000-2002); PM10—Annual average 22 µg/m ; 24-hour average 50 µg/m * Indicates concentration exceeding the NAAQS 3 3 The NAAQS are as follows: NO2—Annual = 100 µg/m ; PM2.5—24-hour = 65 µg/m and Annual = 15 3 3 3 µg/m ; PM10—24-hour = 150 µg/m and Annual = 50 µg/m

16-13 Route 9A Project DSEIS

To illustrate the effects of the emissions from construction on existing air quality in the vicinity of the project, isopleths (i.e., lines of equal concentration increases) were developed based on the results of the air quality dispersion modeling. Figures 16-4 through 16-6 show the increase in annual average PM10, 24-hour average PM10, and 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations due to cumulative construction activity for the year 2006, respectively.

The increase in maximum PM10 concentrations is predicted to range up to a maximum of 86.4 µg/m3 on a 24-hour basis, and 5.0 µg/m3 on an annual basis in close proximity to the site. These potential maximums would occur at the temporary bikeway along Route 9A. Increases at other locations would be significantly lower, with a maximum increase at residential locations of 43.4 µg/m3 and 4.5 µg/m3 on a 24-hour and annual basis, respectively.

The total PM10 concentrations in close proximity to the construction sites, presented in Table 16-7, were not predicted to exceed the annual NAAQS. However, a potential significant increase 3 of 86.0 µg/m in 24-hour PM10 concentrations was predicted at one receptor along the temporary bikeway near Route 9A. This would only occur when peak construction was taking place near that receptor, and the total of 146.4 µg/m3 would only occur if background levels actually reach the peak 50 µg/m3 at the same time. At all other locations, concentrations would be considerably lower, as can be seen in Figure 16-4.

The predicted increase in maximum PM2.5 concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the sites would be up to a maximum of 70.2 µg/m3 and 0.60 µg/m3 on a 24-hour average, and neighborhood scale annual average basis, respectively. The increase in PM2.5 concentrations was predicted to exceed the interim guidance threshold values. As shown in Figure 16-5, the increase 3 in 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations would exceed the 5 µg/m threshold over a much larger area than shown previously for construction of the Route 9A project alone. The concentrations decrease rapidly with the distance from the sites, and no exceedance of the threshold values would be expected at a distance of approximately 1,300 feet from the sources. The cumulative effect of construction activity of the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects, if not mitigated, would result in an adverse impact on PM2.5 concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the project site.

The 24-hour average PM10 shows a very similar pattern as the PM2.5 concentration increases, while the annual average PM10 concentration shows a more general pattern over the study area. This is expected, since over the long-term, the influence of different wind directions and the scattering of construction equipment throughout the area should produce a somewhat smoothing of the concentration increases. The 24-hour average concentration increases are much more influenced by a single activity that may produce higher short-term concentration increases. In any event, these results indicate that additional mitigation is necessary to decrease concentration of particulate matter beyond the 40 percent reduction assumed by inclusion of DOCs.

Since official average PM2.5 background concentrations over a 3-year period are not available, the total PM2.5 concentrations presented are based on the highest monitored level in the years 3 2000-2002. Based on the highest monitored annual PM2.5 concentration of 17.1 µg/m , the 3 annual neighborhood scale PM2.5 concentration would increase to 17.76 µg/m . Current annual 3 measured background levels of PM2.5 exceed the NAAQS of 15 µg/m ; predicted increments are therefore compared with the threshold levels to determine the significance of impacts, as presented above. Based on the highest measured 24-hour background concentration of 44 µg/m3, the predicted 24- hour average PM2.5 concentrations at locations immediately adjacent to the site could potentially

16-14 Chapter 16: Cumulative Effects

3 exceed the PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS level of 65 µg/m without further mitigation measures. As shown in Figure 16-6, these exceedances would not be expected at residential locations, and could occur at three locations of intense construction activity: within 300 feet of the construction activity along Route 9A, at the intersection of Church and Liberty Streets, and in the near vicinity of the Fulton Street Transit Center. Further mitigation measures beyond the currently proposed EPCs are discussed below. The above concentrations were predicted assuming a 40 percent reduction in particulate matter emissions based on the use of ULSD fuel in conjunction with diesel oxygen catalysts. Without these EPCs, predicted concentrations would be much higher. Additional pollution reduction estimates are discussed below.

Annual average NO2 concentrations were predicted to increase substantially by up to a maximum of 27.7 µg/m3 in the immediate vicinity of the site, with the total concentration, including background levels, potentially reaching 99.7 µg/m3. As described above, the maximum NO2 concentrations are conservatively high since they assume a NO to NO2 conversion rate which is much higher than that which would occur at the nearest receptors where the highest values were predicted. Exceedance of the NO2 standard is not predicted. Mitigation proposed to reduce PM would include emissions minimization (such as electrification) and may reduce NO2 emissions as well. Mitigation As described in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives” and Chapter 3, “Construction Practices,” NYSDOT would implement EPCs to reduce the potential construction period impacts of their project. These measures were developed through a coordinated effort of the sponsors of the Lower Manhattan recovery projects and would be incorporated into construction of each project to cumulatively reduce air quality emissions. Although measures to reduce the emission of particulate matter from construction activities have been incorporated into the existing project and taken into account in this analysis, significant adverse impacts have been predicted in the vicinity of the site. Since the cumulative impact from the other major projects are predicted to impact air quality in the same area, further coordinated action would be necessary to reduce emissions from all construction activities to minimize the emission of particulate matter. With a commitment by all of the major reconstruction projects to implement a combination of the mitigation measures shown in Chapter 9, “Air Quality,” projected PM emissions from construction equipment could be substantially reduced. The effectiveness of such mitigation has been assessed by modeling a mitigation cumulative construction scenario. The general methodology for this analysis follows the procedures described above for the analysis of air quality impacts from construction. The precise emissions reduction for each engine type is not yet known, since some of the applications suggested have yet to be tested and are currently under investigation by the NYSDOT. However, existing information suggests that DPF level reduction is technically achievable for most engines types that would be operating on site. For the purpose of this assessment, it was assumed that 75 percent of engines of 50 HP or greater would be able to employ DPFs or other equivalent technologies achieving a reduction of 90 percent in PM emissions. The remainder, 25 percent, was assumed to employ DOCs or other

16-15 Route 9A Project DSEIS equivalent technologies reducing 40 percent of the PM emissions.1 These reductions include the reduction in PM emissions due to the use of ULSD. As discussed above, all smaller engines would be using ULSD and achieve a 14 percent reduction in PM as compared to the emissions predicted with normal nonroad fuel. The highest predicted microscale (local) increase in pollutant concentrations at various types of locations due to mitigated construction activity of all major Lower Manhattan reconstruction activities are presented in Table 16-8, and in Figures 16-7 through 16-9. The concentrations at locations adjacent to the construction sites include contributions from both on-road sources and on-site construction activity emissions. The concentrations marked “Other locations Along Access Routes” represent the highest predicted impacts from on-road sources at more distant locations that would not be impacted by the construction activity on-site. Total concentrations, including background levels, are presented in Table 16-9. Table 16-8 2006 Construction Period: Highest Predicted Cumulative Increase in Pollutant Concentrations with Mitigation Average Maximum Increase [µg/m3] Pollutant Period Receptor Type Cumulative–All Projects Highest of All Receptors 27.2** NO2 Annual Residential Buildings / Hotel 24.1** Highest of All Receptors 26.6* 24-hour Residential Buildings / Hotel 14.3* PM2.5 Other Locations on Access Routes 0.40 Annual Neighborhood Scale 0.26* Highest of All Receptors 38.9 24-hour Residential Buildings / Hotel 19.3 Other Locations on Access Routes 4.5 PM10 Highest of All Receptors 3.0 Annual Residential Buildings / Hotel 2.2 Other Locations on Access Routes 1.4 3 Notes: NYCDEP/NYSDEC interim guidance threshold levels for PM2.5 are 5 µg/m and 0.3 µg/m3 for 24-hour and annual average increases respectively. For determination of adverse impacts, these values are applied in the absence of specific criteria. * Indicates increase exceeding the interim guidance thresholds ** Indicates substantial increment not leading to exceedance of the NAAQS

The maximum predicted PM2.5 increments presented above are significantly lower than those predicted for the base case. Maximum cumulative PM2.5 increments were predicted to be reduced by mitigation by approximately 67 percent. More important, as can be seen in Fig. 16-9, the extent of peak increments which could lead to exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 could be reduced to a single location adjacent to the site boundary, along the West Street

1 This modeling assumption was based on research indicated that most diesel equipment over 150 hp has the capability to successfully employ DPFs, while fewer pieces of equipment in the 50–150 hp range are able to do so. The majority of the projects’ air emissions from construction equipment are released by engines over 150 hp.

16-16 Chapter 16: Cumulative Effects bikeway. The occurrence of such an exceedance would depend on the coincidence of peak background levels above the 98th percentile together with peak construction activity and the extreme meteorological conditions that led to the concentration predicted in the model. Such an occurrence, although possible, is not likely and in any event would be rare. This would be a temporary situation, limited to a small area immediately adjacent to the Route 9A construction site and would not be expected to occur in subsequent years during which construction activity would be reduced. Table 16-9 2006 Construction Period: Highest Predicted Total Pollutant Concentrations with Mitigation Average Maximum Concentration [µg/m3] Pollutant Receptor Type Period Cumulative–All Projects Highest of All Receptors 99.2 NO2 Annual Residential Buildings / Hotel 96.1 Highest of All Receptors 73.6* 24-hour Residential Buildings / Hotel 60.7 PM2.5 Other Locations on Access Routes 48.1 Annual Neighborhood Scale 17.4 Highest of All Receptors 99.3 24-hour Residential Buildings / Hotel 73.5 Other Locations on Access Routes 63.6 PM 10 Highest of All Receptors 30.5 Annual Residential Buildings / Hotel 28.8 Other Locations on Access Routes 28.8 Notes: All total concentrations include calculated background contributions from local mobile sources, as 3 well as measured regional background values as follows: NO2—Annual average 72 µg/m ; 3 PM2.5—Annual average 17.1 µg/m (highest of 2000-2002 annual values); 24-hour average 44.0 3 µg/m (highest of the three 2nd highest 24-hour averages in 2000-2002); PM10—Annual average 24 µg/m3 ; 24-hour average 50 µg/m3 3 3 The NAAQS are as follows: NO2—Annual = 100 µg/m ; PM2.5—24-hour = 65 µg/m and Annual = 3 3 3 15 µg/m ; PM10—24-hour = 150 µg/m and Annual = 50 µg/m Cumulative and project-generated maximum concentrations may occur at a different time and/or location. * Indicates concentration exceeding the NAAQS

NOISE AND VIBRATION As discussed in Chapter 10 “Noise,” construction of the Route 9A Project would result in substantial noise increases at sensitive land uses in close proximity to the construction site. These results were based on an analysis of the expected construction activities and their duration for the year 2006. The combination of noise from all pieces of equipment operating during the same time period was calculated by logarithmically combining the Leq values for each piece of equipment. Similarly, a cumulative noise analysis including noise generating activities from the Lower Manhattan recovery projects has been conducted for a series of receptor locations by logarithmically combining Leq values from the different projects at common receptor locations.

16-17 Route 9A Project DSEIS

Table 16-8 shows maximum predicted Leq noise levels in the year 2006 with construction of the major construction projects as discussed earlier in this chapter. The predicted noise levels with construction of the Route 9A Project alone are also shown for comparison. The results of the analysis indicate that the cumulative effect of all of the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects would result in additional exceedances of the 85 dBA threshold. At the Albany Street site, construction noise levels would be primarily affected by the construction of the southern extension of the WTC site. However, the results at sites 5 and 6 indicate that construction of Route 9A would substantially contribute to the construction noise exceedance criteria at these locations. Table 16-8 Cumulative Construction Noise Levels (in dBA) Route 9A Construction Cumulative Receptor Noise Levels Noise Levels Site Location Leq(1) Leq(1) 4 Albany Street between Route 9A and 73 88 Washington Street (Marriott Hotel) 5 Route 9A between Liberty Street and 92 97 Vesey Street (World Financial Center) 6 Vesey Street between North End 86 87 Avenue and Route 9A (Embassy Suites)

The results of the cumulative analysis show that construction operations would substantially increase noise levels at sensitive receptors immediately adjacent to the sites of the various major recovery projects. In addition, these impacts would occur for a considerable period of time. The construction projects would also result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the stage of construction, the equipment and construction methods employed, and the distance from the construction to buildings and vibration-sensitive structures. As shown in Table 16-9, construction equipment such as pile drivers can produce levels that exceed the 0.12 and 0.20 inches per second vibration damage threshold criterion for fragile buildings at distances of 50 feet. At distances closer to the construction equipment (20 feet or less), additional equipment such as clam shovel drop, caisson drilling, and large bulldozers can produce levels exceeding the vibration threshold criterion for fragile buildings. Figure 16-10 shows the historic/fragile buildings within a 50-and 100-foot radius from the project site, which captures any potential vibration problems due to construction activity. The vibration levels would be 0.23 or greater at the historic/fragile buildings within 50 feet from the construction area, during activities such as pile driving.

16-18 Chapter 16: Cumulative Effects

Table 16-9 Vibration Source Levels Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second) Equipment 5 feet 10 feet 20 feet 30 feet 40 feet 50 feet Pile driver (typical impact) 7.20 2.55 0.90 0.49 0.32 0.23 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 2.26 0.80 0.28 0.15 0.10 0.07 Hydromill slurry wall in soil 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Hydromill slurry wall in rock 0.19 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Large bulldozer 1.00 0.35 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.03 Caisson drilling 1.00 0.35 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.03 Loaded trucks 0.85 0.30 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.03 Jackhammer 0.39 0.14 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 Small bulldozer 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Noise and Vibration Abatement • In addition to EPCs, further design considerations to minimize the potential adverse impacts are discussed below since under the cumulative analysis it is even more apparent that without particular care and coordination sensitive uses adjacent to the major reconstruction projects would be adversely affected by noise. The use of acoustic barriers and walled enclosures around certain construction activities. For example, noise tents/enclosures could be used around workers using jackhammers. A temporary noise barrier of 20-foot in height could be installed along the fence line/property line of the project site to reduce the noise levels. In addition, temporary barriers (e.g., wood panels on top of Jersey barriers) could also be positioned adjacent to and moved along slurry wall and other construction operations, etc.; • The placement of construction equipment in shielded locations, such as below grade in the project site, if possible; • The installation of silencers on jackhammers, air compressors, generators, light plants and cranes to reduce noise levels at specific locations (i.e., adjacent to existing residential); • The use of electrically operated equipment, rather than combustion equipment, wherever possible; • The use of soil beds, timber planking and/or exterior rubber lining on truck body and aluminum carrying case to reduce rock impact noise during truck load/unloading operations; • The use of drive-through, street-level truck enclosures for truck loading and unloading; • The use of sheds/enclosures at concrete pump sites during concrete truck unloading; and • The placement of most loading/unloading inside the bathtub and away from areas on the streets levels, if possible. NYSDOT, in conjunction with MTA, PANYNJ, LMDC, and the federal funding agencies, would continue to develop and further refine the implementation plans as they pertain to noise and vibration impacts during construction.

16-19 Route 9A Project DSEIS

CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Individual components of the five Lower Manhattan recovery projects may have potential adverse effects to historic resources within their respective Area of Potential Effect (APE) during construction. This assessment of cumulative effects for the concurrent construction of the Route 9A Project with the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan, FSTC, permanent WTC PATH Terminal, and South Ferry Terminal focuses on the APE defined for this EIS. The potential cumulative effects to historic resources within the APE for the Route 9A Project are presented in Table 16-10. Table 16-10 Cumulative Effects Analysis for Historic Resources within the Route 9A Area of Potential Effect

Potential Effects Resource Mitigation Hudson River Bulkhead (Battery PATH: Construction of the below- Amendment to Programmatic Place to West 59th Street) grade pedestrian concourse to the Agreement WFC Route 9A: Reconstruction activities for Short Bypass only Barclay-Vesey Building (140 West Route 9A, WTC and PATH: Amendment to Programmatic Street) potential effects from ground borne Agreement and develop Construction vibrations and dewatering Protection Plan(s) WTC Site (bounded by Vesey, WTC and PATH: construction Amendment to Programmatic Church and Liberty Streets and activities Agreement Route 9A) WTC and PATH: may affect potential archaeological resources in the northeast and southeast corners of the WTC Site Route 9A and WTC: effects from Amendment to Programmatic ground borne vibrations and Agreement and develop Construction dewatering Protection Plan(s) New York Evening Post Building Route 9A: effects from ground Amendment to Programmatic (75 West Street) borne vibrations Agreement and develop Construction Protection Plan(s) 40 Rector Street Building Route 9A: effects from ground Amendment to Programmatic borne vibrations Agreement and develop Construction Protection Plan(s) Frasch Building (56 West Street) Route 9A: effects from ground Amendment to Programmatic borne vibrations Agreement and develop Construction Protection Plan(s) Crystal Building (47-49 West Route 9A: effects from ground Amendment to Programmatic Street) borne vibrations Agreement and develop Construction Protection Plan(s)

As described in Chapter 6, “Cultural Resources,” the Route 9A Project, itself, may have direct effects to the Hudson River Bulkhead and possible indirect effects to historic buildings from construction-related vibration. For mitigation of any adverse effects to the bulkhead, NYSDOT would consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) per the amendment to the 1994 Programmatic Agreement that would be developed. In addition, adherence to construction protection plans developed in consultation with SHPO would avoid any adverse effects to historic resources. Similarly, the other Lower Manhattan recovery projects would prepare a Construction Protection Plan in consultation with SHPO. These plans would identify resources in the APEs that would

16-20 Chapter 16: Cumulative Effects require special protections during construction and would describe measures to be undertaken to protect these resources from construction-related noise, vibration, and/or dewatering that could jeopardize their structural integrity. These construction protection plans would be coordinated with the noise and vibration assessments conducted for each project’s environmental review documentation. The proposed pedestrian connection to the World Financial Center for PANYNJ’s WTC PATH Terminal would be constructed through the Hudson River Bulkhead. Alteration of the bulkhead would require mitigation based on the amendment to the 1994 Programmatic Agreement that would be developed. Some limited areas of the eastern side of the WTC Site and the block south of Liberty Street between Route 9A and Washington Street would require testing and monitoring, respectively, to avoid adverse effects to archaeological resources. Taken cumulatively, no unmitigable adverse effects to archaeological resources would be anticipated from construction of the Route 9A Project and the other Lower Manhattan recovery projects.

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Construction Benefits The five Lower Manhattan recovery projects would create thousands of jobs during the construction-period. Not only would these projects spur employment within Lower Manhattan, but they would provide jobs for the region, as a whole, with the off-site production of materials. These projects would also directly enhance the local economy with the expenditure of dollars for labor and materials and with the generation of tax revenues. In addition to the effects on the local economy, businesses in Lower Manhattan would benefit from daily expenditures by the construction workforce induced by the recovery projects. This would provide an expanded customer base for retail and convenience stores, as well as restaurants, delicatessens, and pharmacies. Business Disruption Construction activities in general have the potential to disrupt business and retail operations as a result of restricted access for pedestrians (customers) and vehicles (deliveries). The Route 9A Project, itself, is unlikely to directly restrict access for extended periods of time throughout its construction stage since three travel lanes would be maintained along Route 9A during the construction period. Some temporary access restrictions may occur on Vesey and Liberty Streets for some elements of the Short Bypass, but NYSDOT would implement a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) Plan to maintain movement through these areas to the extent possible. (See Chapter 8A, “Traffic.”) NYSDOT has also recently completed a pedestrian bridge across Route 9A at Vesey Street that would connect to an at-grade protected pedestrian walkway along Vesey Street from the temporary WTC PATH station entrance on Church Street. The new Vesey Street bridge, in combination with the bridge at Liberty Street, would maintain access between Church Street and Battery Park City for businesses, workers, commuters, and residents. Construction of the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan is not expected to result in the long-term, full-closure of streets in Lower Manhattan because most construction activities would be within the WTC Site itself. For activities that may require disruption to traffic, LMDC would develop a MPT Plan in coordination with the other project sponsors to ensure that access is maintained to local business throughout the construction period.

16-21 Route 9A Project DSEIS

PANYNJ would coordinate with NYSDOT in constructing the West Street concourse such that access along Route 9A is maintained. Similarly, PANYNJ would develop an MPT for construction of the Liberty Plaza connection under Church Street. Much of the work associated with construction of the permanent WTC PATH Terminal would be contained within the WTC Site and would not require any extensive access restrictions to local businesses. The FSTC would include construction of the Dey Street Passageway between Broadway and Church Street and the pedestrian connector between the N/R subway station at Church Street and the E subway terminal on the WTC Site. The construction at Dey Street would affect deliveries to Dey Street and in particular Century 21, a major department store in the area. Access to Century 21 could also be affected by construction truck traffic associated with the FSTC, the permanent WTC PATH Terminal, the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan, and with DDC’s proposed reconstruction of Church Street. Vehicular access to portions of Fulton Street would also be temporarily disrupted in certain locations; however alternate access points would be made available for service and deliveries. For example, alternative loading areas could be established on the north side of Cortlandt Street during construction to enable truck access to Century 21. NYSDOT and NYCDOT are working with the sponsors of the Lower Manhattan recovery projects to coordinate and develop MPT plans that would ensure access is maintained through the area as individual projects proceed into their construction phases. This coordinated plan would help to minimize the potential adverse economic effects to business during the construction period.

D. PROBABLE LONG-TERM, OPERATIONAL EFFECTS The federal government has pledged billions of dollars for the redevelopment and revitalization of Lower Manhattan. These funds recognize the devastating short- and long-term effects of the terrorist attacks to Lower Manhattan and the region, as a whole. As such, the five major Lower Manhattan recovery projects have been planned and coordinated to provide for the short-term recovery of facilities that were damaged or lost and the long-term economic vitality of Lower Manhattan, New York City, and the region, as a whole. Within the framework of each individual project’s environmental review processes, certain alternatives are being evaluated for the potential direct and indirect impacts. Cumulative, some of these alternatives could limit the long-term benefits of the Lower Manhattan recovery efforts. In each of the previous chapters, the potential long-term effects of the project alternatives has been discussed. By definition, these impact assessments include as part of their analysis, a consideration of other projects likely to be completed by the project’s 2025 design year. The impact analysis conducted for traffic, pedestrians, air quality, and noise is based on future forecasts that assume the full recovery of Lower Manhattan, including the redevelopment of the WTC. Therefore, the analysis in Chapters 8, 9, and 10 fully assess the cumulative effects of the project alternatives in conjunction with the other Lower Manhattan recovery projects. The following sections summarize the potential benefits and limitations of the three alternatives considered as part of the SEIS.

16-22 Chapter 16: Cumulative Effects

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE With respect to the long-term cumulative effects of the Lower Manhattan recovery projects, the No Action Alternative would not provide the positive benefits of the proposed project’s Build alternatives. In fact, as discussed in Chapter 8A, “Traffic,” Chapter 8C, “Pedestrians,” and Chapter 9, “Air Quality,” the No Action Alternative would result in increased traffic congestion, reduced pedestrian access, and increased air pollution emissions in Lower Manhattan, compared with the project’s build alternatives. Chapter 4, “Land Use, Public Policy, and Neighborhood Character,” and Chapter 5, “Socioeconomic Conditions,” describe how the operational aspects of the No Action Alternative could have an adverse effect on the economic recovery of Lower Manhattan and not support the public policy goals and plans for the WTC Site redevelopment.

BUILD ALTERNATIVES As described in Chapters 4 through 15, both the At-Grade and Short Bypass Alternatives would generally provide a long-term transportation benefit, compared with the No Action Alternative in Lower Manhattan. While the alternatives may differ slightly in their effects on individual intersections and roadway segments, they would generally result in improved traffic and pedestrian flow along and across the corridor, compared with the No Action Alternative. The Short Bypass Alternative would, however, result in more transportation benefits and lower noise levels in the vicinity of the WTC site than the At-Grade Alternative. Ï

16-23