Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need A. INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the need for the proposed Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives (MESA) project. Existing deficiencies in providing transit service on the East Side of Manhattan are summarized, based on the project’s Interim Report No. 1, Draft Inventory and Review of Current Operational and Service Issues (July 1996), and subsequent assessment of current and future conditions. The identification of problems has been a major factor in determining the project’s goals and objectives, also detailed below, which themselves form the basis for the evaluation of alternatives (see discussion in Chapter 2). This chapter also describes other major investment studies and planning programs that affect the proposed action and its goals, and dis- cusses the review and approval processes. B. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION/LOCATION The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), in cooperation with MTA New York City Transit Authority (NYCT),* are undertaking a Major Investment Study (MIS) to consider options for improving transit access and mobility on Manhattan’s East Side. As shown in Figure 1-1, the alternatives would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, has also been considered in this MIS. The primary project area contains a variety of land uses, encompassing the dense commercial districts of Lower Manhattan and East Midtown (the third largest and largest central business districts [CBDs] in the nation, respectively), the ethnically diverse residential neighborhoods and shopping districts of the Lower East Side, the elegant shopping and hotel districts along Fifth and Madison Avenues, the city’s most affluent residential neighborhoods (e.g., Sutton and Beekman Places in East Midtown, Fifth and Park Avenues in the Upper East Side), several major medical and learning institutions (New York University; Hunter and other CUNY colleges; and Beekman, Beth Israel, Bellevue, NYU, New York, Lenox Hill, Mount Sinai, Metropolitan, and North General Hospitals), the intensely developed residential areas of the Upper East Side (generally east of Lexington Avenue), and the homes, housing projects, and lively shopping areas of East Harlem. The secondary area adds Soho, the Herald Square shopping district, Times Square, the theater district, the Clinton residential neighborhood, and the remainder of Manhat- tan’s CBD, centered primarily along Sixth Avenue. In the primary area, only the Lexington Avenue line (4, 5, 6 lines) provides full north-south rapid transit service. South of 64th Street (primarily in the East Midtown zone), several east-west lines * The legal name of MTA New York City Transit is New York City Transit Authority. 1-1 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS (Q, N, R, 7, Shuttle, and L) cross the area and connect to other north-south services. The N and R trains provide north-south service along Broadway from 57th Street to Lower Manhattan. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side (F, B, D, Q, and J, M, Z), but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side, and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the easterly portions of the neighborhood. In contrast, Lower Manhattan at the island’s tip is served by the great majority of the city’s through subway lines. On the surface, a regular grid of north-south avenues and cross streets serves most of the study area. Bus service is available on all major north-south avenues (except Park Avenue north of Grand Central Terminal) and all major crosstown routes. C. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION OVERVIEW As Manhattan developed during the 19th century, its growth was supported by expanding transit service. Elevated train lines brought New Yorkers to Manhattan’s center from northern Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. By the 1890's, the Sixth and Ninth Avenue elevated train lines (combining to one service north of 53rd Street) provided rapid transit to the west side, and the Second and Third Avenue “els” served the east side. All lines offered connections to the Bronx and all were supported by surface transit in the form of trolleys. A separate network of elevated lines in Brooklyn served Lower Manhattan via the Brooklyn Bridge. The first two decades of the 20th century saw construction of subway lines through the study area as well, and by 1920, those traveling to, through, or from the East Side could choose to take one of three north-south rapid transit lines: the Lexington Avenue (subway), and the Second and Third Avenue els. (In 1921, the els carried 384 million passengers.) As the subway network expanded, however, and lines were added to and from Queens, Manhattan’s els became less and less popular with New Yorkers. They began to shut down in the 1930's, and by 1942 the Second Avenue el was discontinued with the promise of a new subway line on that route. The Third Avenue el was closed in 1955. Although the Sixth and Ninth Avenue els were replaced by the Eighth and Sixth Avenue subway lines on the West Side, no such improvement occurred on the East Side, even though it is the more densely developed of the two areas. For the last four decades, only the Lexington Avenue line (4, 5, and 6 trains) has provided north-south rapid transit service through the East Side. The closing of the els took place during a time of great growth in the city. The economy of the city was strong through the late 1940's, the 1950's, and the early 1960's. The removal of the noise, shadows, and barriers created by the els helped to fuel a development boom on the Upper East Side (high-rise residences) and in East Midtown (primarily office buildings). This coincided with a sharp reduction in industrial uses in the “far” east side and construction of a number of public and publicly assisted housing projects on the Lower East Side, Upper East Side, and in East Harlem. By the mid-1960's, it was clear that rapid transit service on the east side of Manhattan was deficient. As the then-chairman of MTA, William Ronan, noted, “You can’t go on building office buildings, apartment buildings, without planning for adequate transit.” MTA proposed a new Second Avenue subway line for the East Side and actually began construction in 1972. But the project became a casualty of the city’s fiscal crises of the early 1970's; subway construction stopped in 1975. Construction of office and apartment buildings has not stopped, 1-2 Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need however; despite a hiatus in the 1970's and another in the early 1990's, the study area has seen substantial commercial and residential development in the past two decades and is expected to see considerably more through 2020, the project’s analysis year. The purpose of the MESA study is to address the problems and deficiencies associated with continuing growth on Manhattan’s East Side served by an aging and inadequate transit infra- structure. Issues of transportation service, congestion, and socioeconomic needs are discussed below. STUDY AREA PROBLEMS AND NEEDS INTRODUCTION Manhattan’s East Side is densely developed with residential, retail, and commercial office uses, and includes two of the largest central business districts (CBDs) in the nation, East Midtown and Lower Manhattan. With nearly 700,000 residents and some 1.2 million jobs at the core of the greater metropolitan area, the primary study area plays a key role in the overall travel patterns throughout the region. Each day, millions of people travel in the study area as they commute to and from work. Most of these trips begin outside the area, but area residents also account for a large number of trips (about 18 percent). Those who work in the study area overwhelmingly make their “journey-to-work” on public transit: as reported in the 1990 U.S. Census, 78.5 percent use the subway, bus, rail, or ferry to get to and from their jobs during the morning and evening rush hours. The overall numbers are large enough so that even the relatively small percentage of trips by car (13.5 percent) translates to about 60,000 autos during the AM peak hour (assuming an average auto occupancy for each of 1.64, the average auto occupancy rate for vehicles entering Manhattan between 7 AM and 10 AM in 1995, as reported in the New York City Department of Transportation’s 1995 Manhattan River Crossings, published in 1997). Most (77 percent) of the journey-to-work trips to the study area come from the five boroughs: Manhattan (30 percent), Brooklyn (18 percent), Queens (18 percent), the Bronx (8 percent), and Staten Island (3 percent). Other areas, in descending order of trip contributions, are New Jersey (10 percent), Nassau County (5 percent), Westchester County (4 percent), Suffolk County (2 percent), Connecticut (1 percent), and Rockland County (less than 1 percent). In addition to work trips are trips made for other purposes, including shopping, entertainment, and tourism (the study area contains many of the city’s major museums, monuments, and other tourist attractions). During the AM peak hour on an average weekday, approximately 72,000 Lexington Avenue line subway riders, 22,000 bus passengers, and 35,000 Metro-North passengers enter the East Side business district. This level of activity has, in many cases, far exceeded capacity. The level of crowding on the Lexington Avenue subway system, in particular, has significantly affected relia- bility and comfort. The system cannot attract new riders because uncomfortable conditions and unreliable schedules at times force customers to change their transit route or mode.