Bronx Arterial Needs Major Investment Study Executive Summary March 2004 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)