DOCSLIB.ORG

AC Transit East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project in Alameda County Historic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AC Transit East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project in Alameda County Historic AC Transit East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project in Alameda County Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, §102 (42 U.S.C. §4332); Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. §5301(e), §5323(b) and §5324(b)); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, §106 (16 U.S.C. §470f); 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508; 23 CFR Part 771; Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice); and California Environmental Quality Act, PRC 21000 et seq.; and the State of California CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code, 15000 et seq. by the U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Transit Administration and the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) First Addendum November 2010 8%&0)3*'328)287 4EKI 7YQQEV]SJ*MRHMRKW 4VSNIGX0SGEXMSR(IWGVMTXMSRERH%VIESJ4SXIRXMEP)JJIGXW 4VSNIGX0SGEXMSR +IRIVEP4VSNIGX(IWGVMTXMSR %VIESJ4SXIRXMEP)JJIGX %4) 'SRWYPXMRK4EVXMIW%RH4YFPMG4EVXMGMTEXMSR 7YQQEV]3J-HIRXMJMGEXMSR)JJSVXW %VGLEISPSKMGEP6IWIEVGL ,MWXSVMG6IWIEVGL %HHIRHYQ'YPXYVEP6IWSYVGIW7YVZI]W 4VSTIVXMIW-HIRXMJMIH ,MWXSVMG6IWSYVGIW %VGLEISPSKMGEP6IWSYVGIW *MRHMRKW 6IJIVIRGIW %TTIRHM\%HHMXMSREP6IGSVH7IEVGL(SGYQIRXEXMSR %TTIRHM\*MKYVIW%VIESJ4SXIRXMEP)JJIGX %4) JSV%VGLEISPSK] Separate File-ASR %TTIRHM\*MKYVIW%VGLMXIGXYVI%VIESJ4SXIRXMEP)JJIGX %4) Separate File-HPIER %TTIRHM\%HHIRHYQ%VGLEISPSKMGEP7YVZI]6ITSVX %76 Separate File %TTIRHM\%HHIRHYQ,MWXSVMG4VSTIVX]-RZIRXSV]ERH )ZEPYEXMSR6ITSVX ,4-)6 Separate File 1ETW 1ET4VSNIGX0SGEXMSR MM 1ETE4VSNIGX:MGMRMX] MMM 1ETF4VSNIGX:MGMRMX] MZ M G ILMANAN ST. Y T 123 S W . R T J S G N D I U K R H NI VE . T R O SI L TY X . F I AV S E. M X S a n O BERKELEYBERKELEY. T S DW . B IGHT AN R C F r a n c i s c o . W RO Y VE F R O . T . W T A A P Y . N DU University of California U . RA . N E K B a y ME T E A Berkeley V A C V V E. A R U A C T 13 E A T AS G S H A O B Y E L H A S VE. L B L A E. O P V C A N 13 A A LC AT S RA . Z E V A RD A VE. STANFO H P 24 . T A S R S I EG L L 123 24 O TEL Robert Sibley H 4 Volcanic Reg. M 0 T ac H 580 A S BROADWAY Preserve R T. TER. B TH . LV T D U S . R W E N . G LI . R E Y A T N D ON W D A DM K IE MORA P A . Y P GA V A E ST AV A . W E. L 14 D 7 E T A T D H T O H N E R A S K T R 2 B OAKL RD. M . AND AVE. A 0 T E M H . SNAK E S V 1 T A 2 . 1 T D 1 H . N RD. T T A OAKLAND H CANYON S S R RD U T N G E .P S . O H .R T S 13 P .R . K E .. C H S JA . AVE E Lake R O Merritt S H 580 WA K E A L R F R O D. E O LV N PARK B T F H R I L W L Y. B AVE L LN V O D C IN . 14TH AVE. L E In V Redwood n A e . D E r 3R V 2 A Regional H a E L Park rb A o V r T RUI F AVE. 35TH ST. GH HI ALALAMAMEDAEDA 580 F OO S TH S K ILL K Y BL M Y L V L D. a I c I N E. A N E AV R E 185 T ARRYY H MIN U SE R I U N F R . P T W . E R Y U R . R . N P . A E R AV T . R I O RD A San Leandro M . 73 N n a A c t Bay h L A o . R RD B B n Coliseum T LV L HU y Complex V B D D R R A . E / N E G C . R R 1 B E B O L B 4 L F V N V T T 580 D E H D . G . A E S V H T E . OLF C G L IN h TH VE. K 98 A S a b o Oakland t Knowland Park International Airport R D . E . 1 4 R R T H e e g g S i i T o o . n n a DAVIS ST a l . l FEIS/R Project Terminus VD. P MARINA BL 185 P a a rk 580 rk B A SAN N C DEIS/R Alignment R LEANDRO O Option F T S a n F r a n c i s c o A V E . H B a y AL CY . ON D D V R. L B N A I R E P S E H HAYWARD 238 AC Transit East Bay BRT Project PROJECT LOCATION Map 1 T F H R I L WY L . B AVE L LN V O D C TH IN . 14 AVE. L E I V n A Redwood n . e D E r V 23R A Regional H a E r L Park b I ALA o N V r ITTV T U E R RN F E. H AV A 35T T I O N A L ST. B H LV G HI D . / ALAMEDA 1 580 77 4 t h FO S OTH S T. S K ILL K Y BL MacM Y L VD a L I . c I N E. A N E AV R E 185 T ARY H MIN U SE R U F R A . W P nt . R Y. U h . R . P ony . VE R A San Leandro . R RD Bay . 73 M a c A RD. RT Coliseum B HUR L Complex V B D AN R . E G C R R BL E BL O B F V N V T 580 D. E D. C G AV E h H E a . b LF o GO L IN t TH E. K 98 AV S Oakland International Knowland Park Airport R D . E . 1 4 Re Re T H g g S i i T o o . n n a DAVIS ST a l . l 112 FEIS/R Project Terminus P 185 P a a r 580 r k B k A N SAN C SAN R O F LEANDRO T A DEIS/R Alignment V E Option . H AL CY . ON D D V S a n F r a n c i s c o R. L B B a y N IA R E P S N E H HAYWARD 238 AC Transit East Bay BRT Project PROJECT VICINITY Map 2b SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The purpose of this document is to request concurrence from the State Office of Historic Preservation with regard to determinations of National Register eligibility or ineligibility for evaluated cultural resources and to document a proposed finding of “No Historic Properties Affected. The Alameda County (AC) Transit District proposes to upgrade bus service to a high- level express service, known as East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (EBBRT) along an approximately 18-mile arterial corridor through the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, California (Maps 1, 2a-2b). (Corridor length to BayFair BART is 18 miles; corri- dor length of revised project for FEIS terminating at San Leandro BART is 14.4 miles.) In 2004-2005, Archaeological/Historical Consultants carried out an archaeological survey and prepared an Archaeological Survey Report to encompass proposed alternative routes for the EBBRT Project (Baker 2005). At the same time JRP Historical Consulting carried out an historic property survey and prepared an Historic Properties Inventory and Evaluation Report (JRP Historical Consulting 2005). In 2010 final decisions have been made about project alternatives and a Preferred Alternative for the project was chosen. An Addendum Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) and Addendum Historic Properties Inventory and Evaluation Report (HRIER) were prepared in 2010 to address cultural resources in the new Area of Potential Effect (APE) that were not included in the 2005 reports. One new prehistoric archaeological site and 102 historical resources (i.e., those buildings, groups of buildings or structures that were constructed in or before 1965) are addressed in the addendum reports. Prehistoric archaeological site, P-01-010808, located in downtown Oakland in a deeply buried context, was recorded in 2006 based on newspaper accounts. It has not been formally evaluated because of its context. It can, however, be considered eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register under Criterion D, information potential, for purposes of the present undertaking only, if it is protected from any potential effects by the establishment and enforcement of an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), in which cultural values are protected from adverse effects. The area of this site— Broadway between 13th and 14th Streets in Oakland, California—should be delineated as an ESA. An ESA action plan, probably involving archaeological monitoring during construction, should be developed for this and all other sites in the Preferred Alternative (see Baker 2005 for discussion of other areas of archaeological sensitivity). Of the 102 historical resources in the new alignment, eight are listed in the National Register or have been determined eligible for the National Register, or appear eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties are historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. The new APE also includes fourteen resources that do not appear to be eligible for the National Register but are listed or eligible for listing in a local register of historic resources; therefore they are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 3: Description of Construction Methods and Activities A. INTRODUCTION
    Chapter 3: Description of Construction Methods and Activities A. INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the construction process for the Second Avenue Subway. Potential envi- ronmental impacts that could result from its construction, as well as mitigation measures to lessen their effects, are discussed in subsequent technical chapters. A preliminary sequencing plan for the proposed construction activities is also identified, although this plan could still change as engineering evolves and depending on the availability of funding. At this time, design of the Second Avenue Subway is still ongoing, and will continue to evolve over the next year. Consequently, this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) assesses the range of construction methods and activities that may be required, using a reasonable worst case approach throughout to describe potential impacts. In other words, where a variety of construction techniques could reasonably be used to build a particular project element, the method that would result in the worst overall impacts is the one that has been selected for analysis. The Second Avenue Subway would consist largely of twin tunnels with outside diameters of up to 23½ feet. (The tunnels described in the SDEIS would have had outside diameters of 21 feet.) Each tunnel would be approximately 8.5 miles long, running from East Harlem to Lower Manhattan. Sixteen new stations, numerous fan plants and ventilation cooling facilities, pumping stations, electrical power substations, new train storage yards, and various other elements would also be built. As described later in this chapter, where possible, construction would take place underground to minimize disruptions at the surface. Between approximately 92nd and 4th Streets (instead of 6th Street as described in the SDEIS), and again from Maiden Lane south, where Manhattan’s hard bedrock is relatively close to the surface, tunnels and stations would mostly be constructed underground in the rock, by one of several mining techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions
    Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Conditions A. INTRODUCTION This chapter analyzes whether the proposed actions would result in changes in residential and economic activity that would constitute significant adverse socioeconomic impacts as defined by the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual.1 The proposed actions would result in the redevelopment of an underutilized site with an approximately 214,000- square-foot (sf), 60-foot-tall commercial building currently anticipated to be a BJ’s Wholesale Club along with up to three other retail stores on the second level, 690 parking spaces, and approximately 2.4 acres of publicly accessible waterfront open space. The Brooklyn Bay Center site (“project site”) is located at 1752 Shore Parkway between Shore Parkway South to the east, Gravesend Bay (Lower New York Bay) to the west, and between the prolongation of 24th Avenue to the north and the prolongation of Bay 37th Street to the south. The objective of the socioeconomic conditions analysis is to determine if the introduction of the retail uses planned under the proposed actions would directly or indirectly impact population, housing stock, or economic activities in the local study area or in the larger retail trade area. Pursuant to the CEQR Technical Manual, significant impacts could occur if an action meets one or more of the following tests: (1) if the action would lead to the direct displacement of residents such that the socioeconomic profile of the neighborhood would be substantially altered; (2) if the action would lead to the displacement of substantial numbers of businesses or employees, or would displace a business that plays a critical role in the community; (3) if the action would result in substantial new development that is markedly different from existing uses in a neighborhood; (4) if the action would affect real estate market conditions not only on the site anticipated to be developed, but in a larger study area; or (5) if the action would have a significant adverse effect on economic conditions in a specific industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Recchia Based on New York City Council Discretionary Funding (2009-2013)
    Recchia Based on New York City Council Discretionary Funding (2009-2013) Fiscal Year Source Council Member 2012 Local Recchia Page 1 of 768 10/03/2021 Recchia Based on New York City Council Discretionary Funding (2009-2013) Legal Name EIN Status Astella Development Corporation 112458675- Cleared Page 2 of 768 10/03/2021 Recchia Based on New York City Council Discretionary Funding (2009-2013) Amount Agency Program Name 15000.00 DSBS Page 3 of 768 10/03/2021 Recchia Based on New York City Council Discretionary Funding (2009-2013) Street Address 1 Street Address 2 1618 Mermaid Ave Page 4 of 768 10/03/2021 Recchia Based on New York City Council Discretionary Funding (2009-2013) Postcode Purpose of Funds 11224 Astella Development Corp.’s “Mermaid Ave. Makeover Clean Streets Campaign†will rid Mermaid Ave. sidewalks and street corners of liter and surface dirt and stains. Astella will collaborate with the NYC Department of Sanitation, the Coney Island Board of Trade, and Mermaid Ave. merchants to provide these services. Members of the Coney Island Board of Trade, in which Astella helped to revitalize and provides technical assistance, have noted that while most merchants keep the sidewalk area in front of their stores free of liter according to city law, additional liter and sidewalk dirt and stains accumulate throughout the remainder of the day. In addition, according to a survey of Mermaid Ave. merchants conducted by an Astella intern in 2010, cleanliness of Mermaid Ave. was cited as the number one concern among merchants on Mermaid Ave. A cleaner commercial corridor will inspire confidence and pride in the neighborhood, provide a welcoming environment for shoppers, a boost for Mermaid Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 23: Response to Comments on the SDEIS1
    Chapter 23: Response to Comments on the SDEIS1 A. INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes and responds to all substantive comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) published in March 2003 for the Second Avenue Subway. Public review for the SDEIS began on March 2003, with publication and distribution of the document. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) held two public hearings to receive comments on the document: on May 12, 2003 in the auditorium of the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House at One Bowling Green (Lower Manhattan); and on May 13, 2003, in the Hecksher Auditorium at El Museo del Barrio, 1230 Fifth Avenue (at 104th Street in East Harlem). The public comment period remained open until June 10, 2003. The SDEIS was circulated to involved and interested agencies and other parties and posted on the MTA’s website, and notice of its availability and the public hearing were published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2003. To advertise the public hearing, MTA published notices in the New York Post, Hoy, Amsterdam News, Chinese World Journal, and New York Daily News. In addition, information on the public hearing was posted on the MTA’s website, a notice of public hearing was mailed to all public officials and interested parties in the MTA service area; and a press release announcing the hearing was sent to all media outlets in the area. Bilingual signs announcing the hearing were posted in all MTA New York City Transit (NYCT) subway stations and on some buses. Brochures were handed out in major Manhattan East Side NYCT subway stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2: Project Alternatives
    Chapter 2: Project Alternatives A. INTRODUCTION Numerous alternatives have been developed and analyzed for a new Second Avenue Subway since the project was first conceived nearly 75 years ago. Although routes continued to evolve during those seven decades, three major plans were developed: a 1929 plan with an alignment under Second Avenue and Water Street, 1940s plans with a similar alignment to the 1929 plan but with additional connections to the Nassau Street Line and the Manhattan Bridge, and a 1968 plan (also along Second Avenue and Water Street), which was partially constructed in East Harlem and the Lower East Side in the late 1970s before construction was suspended because of New York City’s fiscal situation at the time. Most recently, MTA/NYCT undertook an extensive Major Investment Study (MIS) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), published in 1999, that analyzed a wide range of possible alternatives to ease transit problems on Manhattan’s East Side. That study, known as the Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives (MESA) Study, was undertaken in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the MIS process established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), now the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). For more information on the process and the extensive public outreach effort for the MESA Study, see Chapter 4, “Public Outreach and Review Process.” The MIS/DEIS evaluated a large number of possible alternatives, considering the project’s goals and objectives,
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D.2 Transportation
    APPENDIX D.2 TRANSPORTATION Appendix D.2: Transportation A. SURFACE TRANSIT EXISTING LOCAL BUS SERVICE This section of the Appendix provides detailed information on existing bus service through the study area. Other information on surface transit, including a description of impacts is provided in Chapter 5C. Table D.2-1 highlights the major corridors through Manhattan’s East Side and the key bus routes that operate along them. Over 600 buses operate in the study area during peak hours and, as presented in Table D.2-2, the East Midtown area has the highest volume of peak hour local buses. Table D.2-1 Overview of Major Bus Corridors and Routes on Manhattan’s East Side Corridor Key Routes Fifth and Madison Avenues M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 (only on Fifth Avenue), and, to a lesser degree, Q32 Lexington and Third Avenues M98, M101, M102, and M103 First and Second Avenues M15 York Avenue M31 Avenues A, B, C, and D M9, M14, and M21 East Broadway and Madison Street (Lower East Side) M9 and M22 Allen Street (Lower East Side) and Water Street (Lower M15 Manhattan) Table D.2-2 Scheduled Local Buses in the Peak Hours AM No. PM No. of of Study Area Zone Buses Buses East Harlem (M1, M2, M3, M4, M15, M60, M96, M98, M100, M101, M102, M103, M106, 183 155 M116, and BX15) Upper East Side (M1, M2, M3, M4, M15, M30, M31, M66, M72, M79, M86, M96, M98, M101, 267 214 M102, M103, M106, Q32, Q60, and Q101) East Midtown (M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M15, M16, M21, M27, M30, M31, M34, M42, M50, M57, 360 265 M98, M101, M102, M103, M104, Q32, Q60, and Q101) Gramercy Park / Union Square (M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M9, M14, M15, M16, M21, 255 216 M23, M34, M98, M101, M102, M103, and Q32) Lower East Side (M1, M2, M3, M5, M6, M7, M8, M9, M14, M15, M21, M22, M101, M102, 191 156 M103, and B39) Lower Manhattan (M1, M6, M9, M15, M20, M21, M22, M103, and B51) 91 78 Source: 2000 Bus Route Profiles D.2-1 Second Avenue Subway FEIS Frequency of bus service is generally high, with scheduled headways (the time between buses) on some routes as low as 1.5 minutes during the peak periods (e.g., on the M15 in the AM peak).
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Dashboard Project Locations
    Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Dashboard Project Locations Project Number Project Number Sequence Plan Series ET060102 1 6 ET070209 1 6 ET090201 1 6 G5090115 1 5 T5060405 2 5 T6070342 1 6 T7080620 35 7 T6060307 6 6 ET090207 2 6 G7090105 1 7 D701BW07 1 7 T6070307 1 6 T6160611 13 6 M6030116 1 6 T5090412 1 5 L60204UW 1 6 T6100406 1 6 T6080649 15 6 T7080613 21 7 Page 1 of 1428 10/01/2021 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Dashboard Project Locations Capital Plan Agency Name Capital Plan 2010 - 2014 Security / Disaster Recovery Capital Plan 2010 - 2014 Security / Disaster Recovery Capital Plan 2010 - 2014 Security / Disaster Recovery Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Capital Construction Company Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 New York City Transit Capital Plan 2010 - 2014 New York City Transit Capital Plan 2015 - 2019 New York City Transit Capital Plan 2010 - 2014 New York City Transit Capital Plan 2010 - 2014 Security / Disaster Recovery Capital Plan 2015 - 2019 Capital Construction Company Capital Plan 2015 - 2019 Bridges And Tunnels Capital Plan 2010 - 2014 New York City Transit Capital Plan 2010 - 2014 New York City Transit Capital Plan 2010 - 2014 Metro-North Railroad Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 New York City Transit Capital Plan 2010 - 2014 Long Island Rail Road Capital Plan 2010 - 2014 New York City Transit Capital Plan 2010 - 2014 New York City Transit Capital Plan 2015 - 2019 New York City Transit Page 2 of 1428 10/01/2021 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Dashboard Project Locations Category Description
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E.1 Social and Economic Conditions
    APPENDIX E.1 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Appendix E.1: Social and Economic Conditions OVERVIEW This appendix supports Chapter 6, “Social and Economic Conditions,” of the FEIS, with additional information on the small study areas, on methods of analysis, and on overall zoning and public policy in the entire study area, as follows. E.1: Station and Shaft Site Study Areas E.2: Maps and Photographs of Station and Shaft Site Study Areas E.3: Zoning Background E.4: Zoning Maps for Neighborhood Zones E.5: Methodologies E.1. STATION AND SHAFT SITE STUDY AREAS INTRODUCTION Section E.1 of the appendix focuses on the existing social and economic conditions in the smaller “station study areas,” which comprise those blocks surrounding a proposed construction site that could be most directly affected by construction activities (as well as the specific activities associated with new stations once the project is operational). Station study areas generally extend one avenue east and west of the subway alignment, and one block north and south of the station excavation area except where “superblocks” (combined city blocks) exist, in which case the station study areas may extend an extra block. If a shaft site or staging area is proposed within a station study area, one combined study area is used for both activities. In certain cases, a proposed station is located at the border of two neighborhood zones, with a portion of the station study area falling within each zone. In these instances, the station is analyzed within the northern of the two neighborhood zones where a portion of the station is located and this analysis is referenced in the southern neighborhood zone that also contains a portion of the station area.
    [Show full text]
  • Overall Status (As Per 2009 Re-Baseline Plan)
    Fulton Center Project Overview Overall Status (as per 2009 Re-Baseline Plan) Item Comments Schedule Overall project on schedule for June 2014 substantial completion Cost Trending below current budget of $1.4 billion 2 - 1 Highlights Progress • Continue installation of Fulton Center curtain wall (50% complete); expected completion late Fall 2012 (vs. September, as stated in May 2012 CPOC Report). • Reopened transfer between J/Z and A/C Station August 2012. • Corbin Building façade restoration continuing (80% complete). 90 Day Look Ahead • Open the Dey Street Entrance that connects to the Southern platform of the 4/5 (opening October 2012). • Complete Corbin Building façade restoration and remove scaffolding. • The Dey Street Concourse and other interim milestones will be discussed separately. September 24, 2012 1 Fulton Center Cost & Schedule Performance Total Project – Actual vs. May-2009 Re-Baseline Plan 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 Cumulative Thru Apr-12 Thru Aug-12 600 Planned $ 944 M $ 1,041 M 400 $ Millions Actual $ 986 M $ 1,059 M 200 Actual vs. Plan 104.4% 101.7% 2 - 2 0 Jul-09 Dec-09 May-10 Oct-10 Mar-11 Aug-11 Jan-12 Jun-12 Nov-12 Apr-13 Sep-13 Feb-14 * Actual represents expended; does not include retainage. 3rd Party Construction – Actual vs. May-2009 Re-Baseline Plan 700 600 500 400 Cumulative Thru Apr-12 Thru Aug-12 300 Planned $446 M $510 M 200 Actual $540 M $600 M $ Millions 100 Actual vs. Plan 121.1% 117.7% 0 Jul-09 Dec-09 May-10 Oct-10 Mar-11 Aug-11 Jan-12 Jun-12 Nov-12 Apr-13 Sep-13 Feb-14 * Actual represents expended; does not include retainage.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Dashboard Agencies Detail
    Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Dashboard Agencies Detail Project Number Capital Plan Agency Name Plan Revision D501CB08 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200504 D501CB08 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200512 D501CB08 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200612 D501CB08 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200807 D501CB08 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200907 D501CB08 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 999999 D501TN85 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200504 D501TN85 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200512 D501TN85 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200612 D501TN85 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200807 D501TN85 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200907 D501TN85 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 999999 D502BW89 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200504 D502BW89 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200512 D502BW89 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200612 D502BW89 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200807 D502BW89 Capital Plan 2005 - 2009 Bridges and Tunnels 200907 Page 1 of 822 09/24/2021 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Dashboard Agencies Detail Budget Submission Date Project Description 2005 Apr. Deck and Structural Rehabilitation - Cross Bay Bridge 2005 Dec. Deck and Structural Rehabilitation - Cross Bay Bridge 2006 Dec. Deck and Structural Rehabilitation - Cross Bay Bridge 2008 Jul. Deck and Structural Rehabilitation - Cross Bay Bridge 2009 Jul. Deck and Structural Rehabilitation - Cross Bay Bridge Current Deck and structural rehabilitation - Cross Bay Bridge. 2005 Apr. Suspended Span Cable Rewrap. 2005 Dec. Suspended Span Cable Rewrap. 2006 Dec. Suspended Span Cable Rewrap.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2009 Bulletin.Pub
    TheNEW YORK DIVISION BULLETIN - NOVEMBER, 2009 Bulletin New York Division, Electric Railroaders’ Association Vol. 52, No. 11 November, 2009 The Bulletin STEINWAY LINES QUIT 70 YEARS AGO Published by the New Street railways, which served northern City, Astoria, and Middle Village. York Division, Electric Queens for 70 years, ceased operating on On December 29, 1903, the Interborough Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box November 1, 1939. The first horse car line, Rapid Transit Company acquired control of 3001, New York, New the Dutch Kills Line, started running in 1869 NY&Q through the purchase of a majority of York 10008-3001. from the 34th Street ferry to the 92nd Street its capital stock. ferry via a circuitous route before it was re- At first, the company prospered because of routed to 31st Street. increased population in Queens. But riding For general inquiries, contact us at nydiv@ During the next few years, several other declined after the Long Island Rail Road electricrailroaders.org small companies, which were eventually started operating to Penn Station in 1910 and or by phone at (212) merged with the New York & Queens, started IRT was extended to Corona and Astoria in 986-4482 (voice mail operating in northern Queens. 1917. Oddly enough, IRT’s trains competed available). ERA’s website is On January 30, 1892, the franchises and with their own subsidiary, the trolley cars. www.electricrailroaders. property of the Steinway & Hunters Point During the post-World War I inflation, most org. Railway Company were sold under foreclo- transit lines were operating at a loss, but they sure to William Steinway for $75,000, and were not allowed to raise the fare, which was Editorial Staff: conveyed to him by deed executed March 5, still a nickel.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5B: Transportation—Subway and Commuter Rail A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
    Chapter 5B: Transportation—Subway and Commuter Rail As described in Chapter 1, “Project Purpose and Need,” Manhattan’s East Side is served by only one north-south subway line, the Lexington Avenue Line (456). As a result, the Lexington Avenue Line is crowded, and service delays occur. The proposed Second Avenue Subway Line would significantly expand north-south subway service on the East Side, improving transit conditions for residents, workers, and visitors. In addition to the benefit of the new subway line, the East Side would also see greatly improved conditions on the Lexington Avenue Line. This chapter describes the new Second Avenue Subway’s effects on the Lexington Avenue Line and on other elements of the city’s subway system, operated by Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) New York City Transit (NYCT), and other MTA-operated services. As described later in this chapter, these effects include temporary service disruptions that would occur during construction as well as the permanent benefits that would result once the project is operational. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS SERVICE PROVIDED NYCT’s existing subway system on the East Side of Manhattan is described below. PRIMARY EAST SIDE SUBWAY SERVICE Within Manhattan, southbound service on the Lexington Avenue Line (456) begins at 125th Street (originating from points in the Bronx). Local service on the southbound 6 route ends at the Brooklyn Bridge Station, and the last express stop within Manhattan on the 45 routes is at the Bowling Green Station. South of this station, service continues into Brooklyn. Nine of the 23 stations on the Lexington Avenue Line in Manhattan are express stops.
    [Show full text]