Bronx Arterial Needs Major Investment Study Executive Summary March 2004

Home , Arthur Avenue, Bronx River Parkway, Bronx Terminal Market, Bruckner Expressway, Cross Bronx Expressway, Macombs Dam Bridge

New York State Department of Transportation

URBITRAN

Submitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc.

In association with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Howard / Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. Eng-Wong, Taub and Associates Herbert S. Levinson

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1.0 INTRODUCTION

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) initiated the Bronx Arterial Needs Major Investment Study (BAN MIS) to identify and develop transportation solutions from a multi-modal travel perspective. The focus of the BAN MIS was on the arterial system in the Bronx and, in particular, the Cross Bronx Expressway (CBE, I-95) and Major Deegan Expressway (MDE, I-87). Improvement alternatives were developed to address concerns with traffic operations and safety, transit services, goods movement, and bicycle and pedestrian mobility in these congested highway corridors. Special consideration was given to the Highbridge Interchange, which provides a connection between the CBE and MDE and the George Washington Bridge (GWB).

The purpose of the BAN MIS was to assess current and future travel conditions and problems and to develop projects, programs and strategies to improve the movement of people and goods on the CBE and MDE corridors. Figure ES-1 shows a map of the study area, which includes the CBE from the GWB to the Throgs Neck and Bronx-Whitestone bridges and the MDE from the Triborough Bridge to the Bronx/Westchester county border.

The Final Report does not provide any formal recommendations or preferred alternatives. The strategy is to look at the existing program of projects and to find ones that could integrate some of the improvement alternatives from this study. However, with several of the improvement alternatives, further detailed analysis work and coordination with other public agencies would be needed.

The study progressed through the following phases:

! Coordination ! Study Issues and Goals ! Data Collection and Inventory ! Analysis of Existing Conditions ! Development of Alternatives and Alternative Packages ! Evaluation of Alternative Packages

The study process to accomplish these phases is presented in Figure ES-2.

ES.2.0 COORDINATION

A stakeholder and public outreach program between NYSDOT and various state and non-state agencies, working groups, elected officials and the public was established at the beginning of the BAN MIS, and remained active throughout the study process.

ES-1

The program established a Steering Committee and five Working Groups. The Steering Committee served as the primary resource for input and review of key issues and overall project progress at the agency level. Members included representatives from NYSDOT, NYCDOT, PANY&NJ, NYCDCP, NYCEDC, NYMTC, MTA NYCT, MTA MNR, Bronx Borough President’s Office, USDOT, and TRANSCOM. The Working Groups consisted of five sub- committees that concentrated on specific issues in the CBE and MDE corridors. The specific areas included Traffic Operations and Safety, Transit Services, Goods Movement, Bicyclists and Pedestrians, and Environmental Issues/Economic Development. Members included representatives from the Steering Committee and community groups as well as interested individuals. The committee structure and relationship with NYSDOT is shown in Figure ES-3.

Open houses, workshops, coordination and committee meetings, newsletters and a project website helped to keep the stakeholders and public both involved and informed. Their continuous participation and contribution guided the BAN MIS through several key steps – identification of issues and concerns, establishment of study goals, identification and screening of potential improvement options, and development and evaluation of alternatives and packages. Their efforts are reflected in the Final Report.

ES.3.0 STUDY ISSUES AND GOALS

A set of issues and goals was developed to address existing and potential future transportation deficiencies and needs. These issues and goals were presented at meetings early in the study to get feedback from the broad array of stakeholders. The goals were then refined based on their comments. Below are the major issues that were identified and the goals developed to address these issues:

Issue: Major Congestion Goal: Correct Traffic Operational Deficiencies

Issue: High Accident Rates Goal: Correct Safety Deficiencies

Issue: Poor Bridge Conditions Goal: Repair Bridge Structures to Good Condition

Issue: Inter-Modal Opportunities Goals: Coordinate Improvements to Encourage Inter-Modal Travel Enhance the Use of Public Transportation Facilities

Issue: Few Opportunities for Pedestrian and Bicyclists Goals: Improve Pedestrian Safety and Circulation Improve Accessibility to Regional Bikeway Network

Issue: Quality of Life Goal: Enhance Air Quality and Noise Conditions

ES-4

Issue: Persons and Goods Movement Mobility Goals: Increase Transportation System Efficiency and Mobility for Persons and Goods Maximize Positive Impacts of Transportation

Issue: Community and Economic Development Opportunities Goals: Promote Economic Growth and Development Enhance Community Goals and Aspiration

ES.4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

The “Existing Conditions and Problem Identification Report,” Technical Memorandum #2, detailed the results of an extensive data collection and research effort identifying transportation conditions and related information for the Bronx and Northern Manhattan. Data characterizing operational performance and traffic conditions were collected from field observations and aerial surveys. State accident data were compiled. Surveys of motorist, transit, and truck travel patterns were examined. Characteristics of the Bronx population, land use, cultural assets (such as the park system and Yankee Stadium), commercial and industrial activity, and proposed plans were compiled. In addition, physical and environmental constraints were identified. Attributes of the highway and adjoining street system were field inventoried. Regional goods movement activities and patterns were examined. Transit systems operating in the Bronx were catalogued and their ridership patterns reviewed. The components of the Bronx greenway system and existing and proposed bicycle routes were identified. As a result of these efforts, a comprehensive assessment of transportation in the study area was done.

The investigation and analyses, combined with the input from the public involvement efforts, resulted in the identification of transportation constraints in the study area. These transportation constraints for the CBE and MDE corridors are shown in Figures ES-4 and ES-5, respectively. In addition to these figures, Tables ES-1 and ES-2 show the calculated accident rates for the ten highest highway segments on the CBE and MDE, respectively. These results confirm the issues that were identified and the corresponding goals that were established at the beginning of this study.

ES.5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES AND PACKAGES

Several steps were formulated that proved to be a useful approach in the development and analysis of potential alternatives and packages for the CBE and MDE corridors. The process can be viewed in Figure ES-6.

ES.5.1 Screening Process

Extensive coordination and public open house meetings were conducted to assist with the identification of improvement suggestions for the CBE and MDE. The meetings were successful and nearly 260 suggestions for improvement were compiled. These suggestions addressed issues concerning traffic congestion and safety, goods movement, environmental and economic

ES-6

TABLE ES-1 TEN SEGMENTS WITH HIGH ACCIDENT RATES (1995-1997) CROSS BRONX EXPRESSWAY MAINLINE

(3) Accident Rates Rank By Reference Marker (1) 3-Year 3-Year Location AADT (2) (acc/mvm) Accident Total Avg. Distance (miles) Calc.(4) State(5) Rate 95IX1M21006 95IX1M21008 CBE EB, Jerome Avenue 67,150 420 140 19.04 2.15 1 0.30 95IX1M22004 95IX1M22006 CBE WB, west of Jerome Avenue 50,350 248 83 14.99 2.15 2 0.30 95IX1M22039 95IX1M22041 CBE WB, east of Westchester Avenue 55,310 268 89 14.75 2.15 3 0.30 95IX1M21000 95IX1M21002 CBE EB, Highbridge Interchange 67,150 263 88 11.92 2.15 4 0.30 95IX1M22028 95IX1M22030 CBE WB, west of Bronx River Parkway 50,350 181 60 10.94 2.15 5 0.30 95IX1M21043 95IX1M21045 CBE EB, west of Bruckner Expressway 53,040 188 63 10.79 2.15 6 0.30 95IX1M21039 95IX1M21041 CBE EB, east of Westchester Avenue 63,060 199 66 9.61 2.15 7 0.30 95IX1M21023 95IX1M21025 CBE EB, Boston Road 67,150 189 63 8.57 2.15 8 0.30 95IX1M21010 95IX1M21012 CBE EB, east of Grand Concourse 67,150 153 51 6.94 2.15 9 0.30 95IX1M21016 95IX1M21020 CBE EB, east of Third Avenue (6) 67,150 134 45 3.64 2.15 10 0.50

Alexander Hamilton Bridge to Hutchinson 95IX1M2(1/2)000 295IX1M2(1/2)016 CBE 58,130 3,772 1,257 6.05 2.15 Overall River Parkway / Bruckner Expressway 9.8 (EB / WB Directions)

Notes: 1. AADT – Average Annual Daily Traffic 2. Accident data obtained from NYSDOT SASS database for January 1995 to December 1997. 3. Accident rate is expressed in terms of million vehicle-miles (mvm). 4. Calculated accident rate = (Number of accidents x 1,000,000) / (3 years x AADT x 365 x length of segment in miles). 5. Statewide average accident rate represents rate for urban, controlled-access, divided, six-lane highways. 6. NYSDOT High Accident Location Report, February 1998.

ES-9

TABLE ES-2 TEN SEGMENTS WITH HIGH ACCIDENT RATES (1995-1997) MAJOR DEEGAN EXPRESSWAY MAINLINE

(3) Accident Rates Rank By Reference Marker (1) 3-Year 3-Year Location AADT (2) (acc/mvm) Accident Total Avg. Distance (miles) Calc.(4) State(5) Rate 87IX1M11030 87IX1M11032 MDE NB, south of Highbridge Interchange 60,540 309 103 15.54 2.15 1 0.30 87IX1M11058 87IX1M11060 MDE NB, West 230th Street 55,110 192 64 10.61 2.15 2 030 87IX1M12030 87IX1M12032 MDE SB, south of Highbridge Interchange 60,140 123 41 6.23 2.15 3 0.30 87IX1M11020 87IX1M11022 MDE NB, south of Macombs Dam Bridge 53,890 109 36 6.16 2.15 4 0.30 87IX1M11013 87IX1M11015 MDE NB, north of East 138th Street 64,420 128 43 6.05 2.15 5 0.30 87IX1M11042 87IX1M11044 MDE NB, West 179th Street 66,050 130 43 5.99 2.15 6 0.30 87IX1M11065 87IX1M11067 MDE NB, south of Van Cortlandt Park South 53,380 104 35 5.93 2.15 7 0.30 87IX1M11046 87IX1M11048 MDE NB, south of West Fordham Road 63,710 112 37 5.35 2.15 8 0.30 87IX1M11062 87IX1M11064 MDE NB, West 234th Street 51,790 89 30 5.23 2.15 9 0.30 87IX1M11005 87IX1M11007 MDE NB, Willis Avenue Bridge 59,730 98 33 4.99 2.15 10 0.30

Triborough Bridge / Bruckner Expressway 87IX1M1(1/2)000 87IX1M1(1/2)085 MDE 57,650 2,314 771 2.16 2.15 Overall to Westchester County Line 17.00 (NB / SB Directions)

ES-10

concerns, pedestrian and bicycle needs and transit services. Table ES-3 shows the distribution of suggestions for improvements.

TABLE ES-3 DISTRIBUTION OF SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS

Categories Number of Suggestions Percentage Transit Services 89 35% Traffic Operations and Safety 66 26% Goods Movement 42 16% Pedestrian and Bicyclist Needs 42 16% Environmental and Economic Concerns 18 7% Total 257 100%

Each of the nearly 260 suggestions was subjected to a four-tiered qualitative screening process to define further, how well each met the study needs. The steps involved were:

! First-Tier: Major Flaw Analysis ! Second-Tier: Steering Committee and Working Groups Feedback ! Third-Tier: Implementation Potential ! Fourth-Tier: Consistency with Study Needs and Goals

The first three tiers were used to select improvement suggestions that were progressed as potential alternatives. The fourth tier was used to develop three balanced, multi-modal alternative packages that were then evaluated quantitatively. At the end of the process, nearly 45 potential alternatives were selected and were combined into three alternatives packages. Table ES-4 shows how the potential alternatives were distributed into the three packages. Figure ES-7 shows graphically the alternative packages on an area map.

ES.5.2 Alternatives and Alternative Packages

Each of the three packages is a stand-alone and multi-modal set of improvement alternatives that addresses the study issues and goals. All three packages include elements to improve traffic flow and safety along the CBE and MDE, particularly at locations where relatively high accidents rates have been identified and where bottlenecks often adversely affect both mainline and local traffic operations. These include improvements to critical interchanges along these facilities. All three packages include improvements for transit services, goods movement and pedestrian and bicycle mobility in the Bronx. The basic elements that comprise each package are summarized as follows:

Package 1 consists of transit operational improvements that include bus network improvements, enhanced subway and MTA Metro-North service, and pedestrian/bicycle improvements. The highway elements include interchange improvements along the CBE and MDE, a southbound MDE service road, and the westernmost segment of the Connector Roads for the CBE corridor between the Washington Bridge/University Avenue and Jerome Avenue.

ES-12 TABLE ES-4 ALTERNATIVE PACKAGES

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PACKAGES Alternative Packages Alternatives No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Interchange Improvements in Cross Bronx Expressway Corridor ! Reversal of WB Entrance and Exit Ramps from/to White Plains Road " " " and Rosedale Avenue and Closure of WB Entrance Ramp from Rosedale Avenue ! Reversal of EB Entrance and Exit Ramps to/from Hugh Grant Circle " " " and Castle Hill Road ! Closure of EB Exit Ramp to White Plains Road " " ! WB Auxiliary Lane from Castle Hill Road Entrance Ramp to E. 174th " " Street/Rosedale Avenue Exit Ramp ! WB Auxiliary Lane from Sheridan Expressway Entrance Ramps to " " Third Avenue Exit Ramp ! Reconstruction of Cross Bronx Expressway/Sheridan " " Expressway/Bronx River Parkway/E.177th Street Interchange Interchange Improvements in Major Deegan Expressway Corridor ! Reversal of NB Entrance and Exit Ramp at E. 135th Street (near " Brook Avenue) and Reconstruction of Triborough Bridge/Bruckner Expressway Interchange ! Reconstruction of SB Exit Ramp to E. 138th Street – Widen Ramp " Approach ! Reconstruction of SB Exit Ramp to E. 138th Street – Flyovers to " " Madison Avenue Bridge and Third Avenue Bridge via Major Deegan Boulevard ! Additional Storage Lengths on NB and SB Exit Ramps to Cross " " " Bronx Expressway and Trans-Manhattan Expressway ! NB Auxiliary Lane from W. 179th Street Entrance Ramp to Fordham " " " Road Exit Ramp ! Reconstruction of W. Fordham Road Interchange – Single Point " " " Interchange ! Relocation of NB Entrance Ramp from W. 230th Street to W. 234th " " " Street and NB Auxiliary Lane from W. 234th Street Entrance Ramp to Van Cortlandt Park South Exit Ramp Service Roads in Major Deegan Expressway Corridor ! Major Deegan Expressway SB Service Road from Highbridge " " Interchange to Yankee Stadium and Bronx Terminal Market Improvements at Highbridge Interchange ! Restoration of Trans-Manhattan Expressway Tunnels under W. 178th " and W. 179th Streets ! New WB Bridge over Harlem River " Cross Bronx Connector Road System ! Washington Bridge/University Avenue – Jerome Avenue " " " ! Jerome Avenue – Hugh Grant Circle " "

ES-13 TABLE ES-4 (CONTINUED) ALTERNATIVE PACKAGES

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE PACKAGES Alternative Packages Alternatives No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 High Quality Bus Rapid Transit Facility on the Cross Bronx Connector Road System ! Limited Stop BRT Service " " ! Local BRT Service " " Pedestrian and Bicyclist Improvements in the Bronx ! Facility across Washington Bridge " " " ! Restoration of High Bridge " " " ! Facility and Connections on Cross Bronx Connector Roads " " Enhanced Bus Network Serving the Bronx ! Improved Connections to Metro-North Stations in the Bronx " " " ! Other New East-West Local and Limited Routes " " " ! Common Fare Policy Between NYCT and “Bee-Line” Service " " " ! Extension of “Bee-Line” Routes " " " ! Improved Bus Connections to the GWB Bus Station " " " ! New Limited Routes Utilizing Cross Bronx High Quality Transit " " Facility Enhanced Subway Service in the Bronx ! All-Day Weekday Express Service on No. 5 Line (White Plains " " " Road) ! Weekday Express Services on B and D Lines (Grand Concourse) " " " Enhanced MTA Metro-North Railroad Service in the Bronx ! Increased Service to Stations as Feasible with Existing Capacity " " " ! Rehabilitation of Bronx Stations as Needed and Additional Amenities " " " ! Improve Local Bus Access to Stations in the Bronx " " " ! Improve Pedestrian Access to Stations in the Bronx " " " ! Maintain Fare Policies that Encourage Ridership " " " ! Reevaluate Enter/Exit Policy at Fordham and 125th Street Stations " " " ! Additional Service, if Made Possible by Future Track Capacity " Improvements Inter-Modal Hub near New MTA Metro-North Railroad Station at Yankee Stadium ! Bus Stops and Turnaround " " ! Modification of Local Bus Routes to Serve Rail Station " " ! Pedestrian Connections Between Subway, Rail and Ferry " " Bronx-Based Ferry Service ! Throgs Neck and Soundview to/from Manhattan (East Side) " " " ! Riverdale to/from Manhattan (West Side) " " " ! Yankee Stadium to/from Manhattan (East Side) " " Park-And-Ride Facilities in Northern Bronx and Southern Westchester County ! Van Cortlandt Park Golf Parking Lot " " " ! Yonkers Raceway " " " Goods Movement in the Bronx " " "

ES-14

Packages 2 and 3 consist of elements from Package 1, plus common elements such as full Cross Bronx Connector Roads with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, an inter-modal hub at the proposed Metro-North Yankee Stadium Station, a westbound auxiliary lane on the CBE from the Sheridan Expressway to Third Avenue, improvements at the CBE/Bronx River Parkway/Sheridan Expressway/E. 177th Street Interchange, and a southbound flyover at E. 138th Street for the MDE.

Package 2 also includes the options for the Trans-Manhattan Expressway (TME) tunnels under West 178th and 179th streets. This improvement would help improve operations at the Highbridge Interchange. The tunnel options are:

! Option EB 3 – 178th Street tunnel connection from the Henry Hudson Parkway and the George Washington Bridge (lower level) to Amsterdam Avenue and the Washington Bridge

! Option WB 1/2 – 179th Street tunnel connection from Amsterdam Avenue and the Washington Bridge to the Henry Hudson Parkway, Riverside Drive and W. 181st Street

! Option WB 3 – 179th Street tunnel connection from the Major Deegan Expressway via the Alexander Hamilton Bridge to the George Washington Bridge (upper level)

Package 3 adds to Package 1 a new westbound bridge over the Harlem River and northbound MDE improvements at E. 135th Street near the Triborough Bridge. It also considers two options for the Cross Bronx Connector Roads -- BRT only and mixed BRT/general use.

Each package offers many important improvement concepts. Key concepts found in Alternative Packages 2 and 3 are the:

! Cross Bronx Connector Roads (Packages 2 and 3) -- offering better east-west mobility ! TME tunnels under W. 178th and W. 179th streets (Package 2) or the new westbound bridge over the Harlem River (Package 3) -- either one providing congestion relief to the Highbridge Interchange ! Northbound MDE improvements at E. 135th Street near the Triborough Bridge/Bruckner Expressway Interchange (Package 3) -- providing better access to Harlem River Yard

Some of the advantages and issues to consider for each of the improvement alternatives are highlighted below:

Cross Bronx Connector Roads (Figure ES-8)

Advantages: ! Improve east-west mobility for local traffic ! Provide opportunities for new and improved transit services ! Provide opportunities to deck-over portions of the CBE, creating green spaces and improving neighborhood connectivity ! Improve pedestrian safety and accessibility ! Could construct connector roads in multiple stages

ES-16

Issues: ! Require major capital investment ! Require coordination with other responsible implementing agencies ! Could involve environmental studies ! Could temporarily affect travel adversely during construction ! May be used as an alternate route for the CBE if an accident/incident occurs on the mainline

Trans-Manhattan Expressway Tunnels under W. 178th and W. 179th Streets (Figures ES-9, ES-10 and ES-11)

Advantages: ! EB 3 diverts some eastbound traffic from the TME to the 178th Street tunnel ! WB 1/2 and WB 3 divert some westbound traffic from the TME to the 179th Street tunnel ! WB 1/2 reduces westbound weaving movements on the AHB ! WB 3 eliminates westbound weaving movements on the AHB and reduces congestion on the MDE

Issues: ! All options require reconstruction of the eastbound and westbound tunnel portals at both ends and coordination with other responsible transportation agencies ! EB 3 requires relocation of the Harlem River Drive ramp with the TME ! EB 3 eliminates local eastbound access from the Henry Hudson Parkway to W. 178th Street and requires reconstruction of the Henry Hudson Parkway ramp to the eastbound tunnel in order to provide local access to W. 178th Street ! WB 1/2 increases traffic on Washington Bridge ! WB 3 requires extensive investigation of western terminus operation due to a large number of converging traffic movements ! WB 3 requires trucks be allowed to use the lower level of the George Washington Bridge

New Westbound Bridge over Harlem River (Figure ES-12)

Advantages: ! Simplifies movements by segregating traffic on the AHB ! Reduces weaving movements on the AHB ! Improves traffic operations on the AHB ! Takes traffic, particularly trucks, away from the Highbridge Interchange

Issues: ! Involves construction of a new bridge structure over the Harlem River ! Involves reconstruction of Harlem River Drive/Trans-Manhattan Expressway connection ! Requires assessment of potential environmental impacts on the Harlem River and High Bridge Park

ES-18

MDE Improvements at E. 135th Street near the Triborough Bridge/Bruckner Expressway Interchange (Figure ES-13)

Advantages: ! Moves weaving movements from expressway to E. 135th Street ! Improves connection to Harlem River Inter-Modal Rail Yard via Brook Avenue and St. Ann’s Place. ! May reduce number of accidents on ramp and at ramp junctures

Issues: ! Involves reconstruction of the Triborough Bridge/Bruckner Expressway Interchange ! Creates consecutive northbound entrance ramps on MDE from Brook and Willis avenues ! May affect bridge structures and roadside retaining walls

ES.6.0 MODELING PROCESS

The three alternative packages that were developed were subjected to a comprehensive evaluation process using a modeling platform that integrated a regional and sub-regional travel demand model with a traffic micro-simulation model. The travel demand forecasting process incorporated elements from the NYMTC’s regional Best Practice Model (BPM) as well as newly calibrated trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice and land use models. The end result was an analytical framework capable of reflecting baseline conditions upon which the alternative packages were evaluated. In addition to the travel demand models, a sub-area micro-simulation model was used to assess traffic operating conditions on the CBE and MDE. The integrated travel demand/traffic operation platform provided an effective modeling framework to evaluate the alternative packages in an urban environment.

The travel demand and micro-simulation models used to evaluate the BAN MIS alternative packages are illustrated in Figure ES-14. The BAN MIS Regional Project Model (RPM) estimated the changes in travel demand due to the improvements on the highway system and the enhanced transit services within the 28-county New York Metropolitan Area. The RPM was divided into a primary and secondary study area. The primary study area, where the effects of alternative packages were assessed, consisted of the Bronx and Northern Manhattan (north of Central Park). The BAN MIS model was calibrated to reproduce, within sufficient accuracy, available observed roadway and transit volumes within this area. Tri-state travel patterns were captured via the secondary study area, which extended to the Dutchess/Columbia county line (NY) to the north, to New Haven County (CT) to the east, to the Delaware River (NY/PA state line) to the west and Ocean County (NJ) to the south. The sub-regional demand model analyzed the effects of each alternative package at a localized level within the primary study area, defined as the Bronx and Northern Manhattan (north of Central Park). The objective of the sub-regional travel demand model was two-fold. It supplemented the RPM with more accurate detailing of the transportation network for the analysis of the alternative packages while also providing travel patterns for the subsequent traffic operations simulation model (Paramics) for the CBE and MDE. The travel demand model was combined with the Land Use Model to incorporate the potential land use/transportation interactions in the evaluation of the high-end alternative package (i.e., Packages 2 and 3). A land use model was applied to determine potential household generation impacts of the alternative packages.

ES-23

In addition to the travel demand model, the Paramics micro-simulation model was used primarily to assess traffic operating conditions along the CBE and MDE. The integrated travel demand/traffic operation platform provided an effective modeling framework to evaluate the alternative packages in an urban environment. Figure ES-15 illustrates the elements of this framework.

ES.7.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PACKAGES

Before the alternative packages were evaluated, the travel demand and micro-simulation models were calibrated and validated based on traffic and transit data both obtained and collected for the BAN MIS. The models were developed for the AM and PM peak periods, defined as 6 AM – 10 AM and 3 PM – 7 PM, respectively. Results are presented for the AM and PM peak hours, defined as 8 AM – 9 AM and 5 PM – 6 PM.

ES.7.1 No-Build Alternative

Using the validated base year modeling framework (1996/1997), the No-Build alternative was developed. The No-Build alternative represents the baseline to which the alternative packages were evaluated and compared. The No-Build alternative included no significant changes to the base highway and transit networks with the exception of those committed and/or programmed transportation improvement projects considered pertinent to the CBE and MDE by the future analysis year of 2020. A list of these highway and transit network changes, reviewed with the Steering Committee and Working Groups, was identified for incorporation into the 2020 BAN MIS modeling framework. They are summarized in Table ES-5 and Table ES-6.

TABLE ES-5 PROGRAMMED AND FUNDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS INCLUDED IN 2020 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

Project Description Lead Agency Addition of HOV Lane on Gowanus Expressway NYSDOT Construction of New Ramp from Palisades Interstate Parkway to George PANY&NJ Washington Bridge Lower Level Free-Flow Toll Plaza Technology at Hudson River Crossings PANY&NJ Addition of HOV Lanes on Long Island Expressway from Exit 30 to Exit NYSDOT 64 Change of Toll Policy on I-87 (SB Direction) at the Spring Valley Fixed NYSTA Toll Barrier Retention of Current Toll Policies on All Other Toll Facilities in the Project TBTA Study Area PANY&NJ Reinstatement of (Pre-9/11) Policy to Permit Trucks on Both Upper and PANY&NJ Lower Levels of the George Washington Bridge

ES-26

TABLE ES-6 PROGRAMMED AND FUNDED TRANSIT PROJECTS INCLUDED IN 2020 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

Project Description Lead Agency LIRR’s East Side Access to Grand Central Terminal (GCT) – Provide new LIRR connection between Sunnyside Yard and GCT via the 63rd Street MTA LIRR Tunnel New Year 2020 LIRR Service Schedule and Route Systems as developed MTA LIRR for the East Side Access Plan New Year 2020 MNR Service Schedule and Route Systems as developed MTA MNR for the East Side Access Plan Hudson Line – Provide a new station at Cortlandt between Peekskill MTA MNR Station and Croton-Harmon Station JFK Airport Light Rail Service (LRS) – Provide new Light Rail connection and services (1) between LIRR/NYCT Jamaica Subway Station & JFK PANY&NJ Airport and (2) between Howard Beach Subway Station & JFK Airport Secaucus Transfer – Provide a new NJT station at Secaucus. Provide transfers, via Secaucus Station, between NJT Passaic/Bergen/Main/ Morris NJT & Essex Lines and NJT Northeast Corridor/North Jersey Coast Lines Northeast Corridor Line – Provide a new NJT station (Newark Airport NJT Station) between NJT North Elizabeth Station and Newark Penn Station Activation of MetroCard System MTA NYCT

The following list summarizes the important evaluation results for the No-Build alternative:

Highway

! Operating conditions would deteriorate along the MDE between the Highbridge Interchange and W. Fordham Road and at E. 138th Street.

! The CBE corridor would experience increased congestion during the AM and PM peak hours.

! Operating conditions would deteriorate at the Highbridge Interchange.

! A 40 percent increase is projected for Vehicle-Hours of Delay (VHD) during the PM peak period for the primary study area (i.e., the Bronx and Northern Manhattan).

Transit

! A moderate increase is projected in bus ridership in the Bronx and Northern Manhattan due to the projected increased congestion on the highway/street network.

ES-28

ES.7.2 Alternative Package 1

Alternative Package 1 consists of transit service enhancements throughout the Bronx and Northern Manhattan, as well as a basic set of highway improvements along the MDE and CBE.

The following list highlights the important evaluation results for Alternative Package 1:

Highway

! There would be minor operating improvements along the MDE at E. 138th Street and W. Fordham Road.

! There would be minor operating improvements along the westbound CBE between White Plains Road and Arthur Avenue.

! There would be no significant operating improvements expected at the Highbridge Interchange.

! There would be no significant improvement in VHD for the AM and PM peak periods overall for the primary study area (i.e., the Bronx and Northern Manhattan).

Transit

! A 6 percent increase is projected in bus ridership in the Bronx and Northern Manhattan due to transit operational improvements.

ES.7.3 Alternative Package 2

Alternative Package 2 consists of Package 1 improvements plus additional elements. Specifically, Package 2 incorporates the entire Cross Bronx Connector Road System and its related transit elements, as well as the TME tunnels under W. 178th and W. 179th streets. Since there are two westbound tunnel options, and one eastbound tunnel option, Package 2 was modeling in two variations, as follows:

! Package 2 – WB 1/2 consists of Tunnel Option WB 1/2 and the EB tunnel option ! Package 2 – WB 3 consists of Tunnel Option WB 3 and the EB tunnel option

The following list highlights the important evaluation results for Alternative Package 2:

Highway

! There would be varying degrees of operational improvement at the Highbridge Interchange depending on the westbound tunnel option.

! Tunnel Option WB 1/2 is projected to process 120 vph during the AM peak hour and 300 vph during the PM peak hour.

ES-29

! Tunnel Option WB 3 is projected to process 830 vph during the AM peak hour and 620 vph during the PM peak hour.

! Tunnel Option EB 3 is projected to process 740 vph during the AM peak hour and 380 vph during the PM peak hour in Package 2 – WB 1/2.

! Tunnel Option EB 3 is projected to process 720 vph during the AM peak hour and 380 vph during the PM peak hour in Package 2 – WB 3.

! There would be operational improvements along the MDE at E. 138th Street and W. Fordham Road.

! There would be reduced congestion along the eastbound and westbound CBE during the AM and PM peak hours.

! A 7 percent reduction is projected for VHD during the PM peak period for the primary study area (i.e., the Bronx and Northern Manhattan).

Transit

! A 30 percent increase is estimated in bus ridership in the Bronx and Northern Manhattan due to the Cross Bronx Connector Roads and transit operational improvements.

ES.7.4 Alternative Package 3

Alternative Package 3 consists of Package 1 improvements plus additional elements. Specifically, Package 3 incorporates the entire Cross Bronx Connector Road System and its related transit elements, a new bridge over the Harlem River, and northbound MDE improvements at E. 135th Street. Two variations of Package 3 were modeled to help analyze the effects of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on the Cross Bronx Connector Road System as follows:

! Package 3 with BRT only on the new viaduct segments of the Cross Bronx Connector Roads ! Package 3 with Mixed BRT / General Use on the new viaduct segments of the Cross Bronx Connector Roads

The following list highlights the important evaluation results for Alternative Package 3:

Highway

! There would be improved operations at the Highbridge Interchange due to the new Harlem River Bridge.

! The new Harlem River Bridge is projected to process an average 170 vph during the AM peak hour and 380 vph during the PM peak hour.

ES-30

! There would be improved operations along the MDE at E. 138th Street, W. Fordham Road, and near the Triborough Bridge.

! There would be reduced congestion along the eastbound and westbound CBE during the AM and PM peak hours.

! A 7 percent reduction is projected for VHD during the PM peak period for the primary study area (i.e., the Bronx and Northern Manhattan).

! Overall volumes on the Cross Bronx Connector Roads would be reduced with a BRT restricted use compared to a shared BRT/general use operation.

Transit

! A 30 percent increase is projected in bus ridership in the Bronx and Northern Manhattan due to the Cross Bronx Connector Roads and transit operational improvements.

ES.7.5 Major Evaluation Conclusions

The major conclusions of the evaluation of alternative packages are:

1. All packages are projected to improve operating conditions relative to the No-Build alternative.

2. Operations with Packages 2 and 3 are projected to improve as compared to Package 1 due to the reduction of weaving on the westbound AHB and the extension of the Cross Bronx Connector Roads to Hugh Grant Circle. However, the restoration of the 178th and 179th Street Tunnels included in these packages requires further analysis.

3. The operating characteristics of Package 2 – WB 3 are better than those of Package 2 – WB 1/2 since the weaving on the westbound AHB is eliminated completely in Package 2 – WB 3. However, the merge on the westbound TME Outer Roadway in Package 2 – WB 3 at W. 179th Street, approaching the upper level of the GWB, is avoided in Package 2 – WB 1/2.

4. Further exploration of the 179th Street Tunnel Option WB 3 in Package 2 is needed beyond this MIS phase. In particular, further investigation into the alternative configurations and treatments at the western terminus is required. In addition, currently large trucks are not allowed on the lower level of the GWB. If this ban continues, further study would be required.

5. The optimal package may involve a combination of elements from Package 2 and Package 3. In particular, further improvements in Package 3 could potentially be achieved by eliminating the weaving on the AHB by restricting access to the westbound TME from Amsterdam Avenue and the Washington Bridge. Similarly, improvements could potentially be achieved in Package 2 – WB 3 by introducing the reversal of the northbound entrance and exit Ramp at E. 135th Street (near Brook Avenue) and reconstruction of the Triborough

ES-31

Bridge/Bruckner Expressway Interchange. These improvements are currently incorporated in Package 3 to eliminate the weaving movements onto the segments downstream of the Triborough Bridge entrance to the MDE.

6. Transit improvements in Package 1 result in a small increase in bus ridership in the Bronx and Northern Manhattan.

7. Transit improvements in Packages 2 and 3 result in significant increases in bus ridership in the Bronx and Northern Manhattan, primarily due to the Cross Bronx Connector Roads.

8. Bus ridership projections in Package 3 are similar whether the Cross Bronx Connector Roads are operated as BRT only or as a shared BRT/general use facility.

ES.7.6 Costs

The associated cost for each of the highway improvement alternatives is summarized in Table ES-7. Costs were not developed for transit, pedestrian/bicyclist and goods movement improvement options since implementation and cost estimates were assumed to be developed by the implementing agency other than the NYSDOT (i.e., NYCDOT, NYCEDC and MTA- NYCT).

ES.7.7 Implementation

Formal recommendations are often not part of an MIS. The Final Report does not provide a recommendation or a preferred alternative. The current strategy is to look at the existing program of projects to find ones that could integrate some of the improvement alternatives from this MIS. Further detailed analysis work would need to be done under these programmed projects. There is also the potential to program new projects based on the improvement alternatives in this MIS. However, the tunnel options and the new bridge over the Harlem River would require additional investigation, analysis and coordination with other implementing agencies.

ES-32 TABLE ES-7 COST OF ALTERNATIVES AND PACKAGES

COSTS (2002 DOLLARS) ALTERNATIVES PACKAGE 1 PACKAGE 2 PACKAGE 3

Interchange Improvements in Cross Bronx Expressway Corridor Reversal of Westbound Entrance and Exit Ramps from/to White Plains Road and Rosedale Avenue and Closure of Westbound Entrance Ramp $ 9,300,000 $ 9,300,000 $ 9,300,000 from Rosedale Avenue

Reversal of Eastbound Entrance and Exit Ramps to/from Hugh Grant $ 8,900,000 $ 8,900,000 $ 8,900,000 Circle and Castle Hill Road

Closure of Eastbound Exit Ramp to White Plains Road $ - $ 200,000 $ 200,000

Westbound Auxiliary Lane from Castle Hill Road Entrance Ramp to E. $ - $ 76,400,000 $ 76,400,000 174th Street/ Rosedale Avenue Exit Ramp

Westbound Auxiliary Lane between Sheridan Expressway Entrance $ - $ 77,100,000 $ 77,100,000 Ramps and Third Avenue Exit Ramp

Reconstruction of CBE/Sheridan Expressway/Bronx River Parkway/E. (1) (1) $ - $ 235,000,000 $ 235,000,000 177th Street Interchange

Interchange Improvements in Major Deegan Expressway Corridor Reversal of Northbound Entrance and Exit Ramps at E. 135th Street (near Brook Avenue) and Reconstruction of Triborough Bridge/Bruckner $ - $ - $ 16,800,000 Expressway Interchange

Reconstruction of Southbound Exit Ramp to E. 138th Street - Widen $ 1,000,000 Ramp Approach

Madison Avenue Bridge and Third Avenue Bridge via Major Deegan $ - $ 31,600,000 $ 31,600,000 Boulevard

Additional Storage Lengths at Northbound and Southbound Exit Ramps to $ 4,700,000 $ 4,700,000 $ 4,700,000 CBE and TME

Northbound Auxiliary Lane from W. 179th Street Entrance Ramp to $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Fordham Road Exit Ramp

Reconstruction of W. Fordham Road Interchange - Single Point $ 2,800,000 $ 2,800,000 $ 2,800,000 Interchange

Relocation of Northbound Entrance Ramp from W. 230th Street to W. 234th Street and Northbound Auxiliary Lane from W. 234th Street $ 5,100,000 $ 5,100,000 $ 5,100,000 Entrance Ramp to Van Cortlandt Park South Exit Ramp

Service Roads in Major Deegan Expressway Corridors Major Deegan Expressway Southbound Service Road from Highbridge $ - $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 Interchange to Yankee Stadium and Bronx Terminal Market

Improvements at Highbridge Interchange New Bridge over Harlem River $ - $ - $ 100,400,000

Restoration of Trans-Manhattan Expressway Tunnels under W. 178th and W. 179th Streets EB 3 Option $ - $ 35,200,000 $ - WB 1/2 Option $ - $ 45,700,000 $ - WB 3 Option $ - $ 54,900,000 $ -

Cross Bronx Connector Road System Washington Bridge/University Avenue - Jerome Avenue $ 67,000,000 $ 67,000,000 $ 67,000,000 Jerome Avenue - Hugh Grant Circle $ - $ 297,100,000 $ 297,100,000

TOTAL COST OF PACKAGE$ 99,800,000 $ 907,100,000 (2) $ 943,400,000 $ 916,300,000 (3) Notes: (1) The cost of this improvement will depend on the selected alternative developed in the Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange EIS, which is currently underway. For this MIS, a preliminary cost from a previous study has been included. (2) Cost with EB 3 Option and WB 1/2 Option (3) Cost with EB 3 Option and WB 3 Option

ES-33 F 212.366.6200 G N URBITRAN O H S M O E N 71 W H AX CRANTON DISON EW OLYOKE EW AKLAND LENDALE EADQUARTERS FCSAS IN ALSO FFICES ONTVILLE 212.366.6214 H Y EST AVEN , NJ ORK , MA , CA , CA , PA 23 , N , NJ , CT RD EW S TREET Y ORK 10010

E N G I N E E R S • A R C H I T E C T S • P L A N N E R S 718.482.4559 P N L 47-40 21 H ONG ANN AND LANNING UNTERS EW Y I SLAND ORK P ST OINT S S C TATE TREET ITY D P LAZA , NY11101 EVELOPMENT D PRMN OF EPARTMENT , R EGION T RANSPORTATION 11