Response to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIS1
Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIS1
A. INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes and responds to comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) received during the public comment period. Public review began in May 2004 with the publication of the DSEIS. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) held a public hearing on June 24, 2004. Sections B and C list all agencies, elected officials, organizations, and individuals that commented on the DSEIS. Section D contains a summary of all comments made and a response to each of those comments. These summaries convey the substance of the comments made, but do not necessarily quote the comments verbatim. Comments are organized by subject matter and generally parallel the chapter structure of the FSEIS. Where similar views were expressed by more than one commenter, those comments have been grouped and addressed together.
B. LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMENTED AT THE HEARING ON THE DSEIS
ELECTED OFFICIALS 1. Martin Connor, New York State Senator 2. Alan Gerson, New York City Council Member 3. Deborah Glick, New York State Assembly Member 4. Sheldon Silver, New York State Assembly Speaker
ORGANIZATIONS 5. Battery Park City United, Helene Seeman 6. Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York (Civic Alliance), Petra Todorovich 7. Clean Air Campaign, Marcy Benstock 8. Coalition to Save West Street, John Dellaportas 9. Community Board 1, Richard Kennedy, Vice Chairman 10. Downtown Alliance, Jennifer Hensley 11. Environmental Defense, Ariel Tesher 12. Gateway Plaza Tenants Association, Jeff Galloway 13. General Contractors Association of New York, Jeff Elmer
1 This chapter is new for the FSEIS.
19-1 Route 9A Project FSEIS
14. Institute for Rational Urban Mobility (IRUM), George Haikalis 15. Lower Manhattan Emergency Preservation Fund (LMEPF), Ken Lustbader 16. Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA (PCAC), William Henderson, Associate Director 17. Rebuild Downtown Our Town, Jesse Pozzuoli 18. Regional Planning Association (RPA), Petra Todorovich 19. Straphangers Campaign, Gene Russianoff 20. Tri-State Transportation Campaign, Nancy Christensen 21. World Trade Center Committee, Richard Kennedy, Chairman 22. World Trade Center Environmental Organization (WTC Environmental Organization), Jenna Orkin 23. World Trade Center Restoration Movement (WTC Restoration Movement), Louis Epstein
INDIVIDUALS 24. Kathleen Bachand, Resident of Battery Park City 25. Joanne Chernow, Resident of Battery Park City 26. Steven Faust, American Institute of Certified Planners 27. Laura Hegedus, Resident of 225 Rector Place 28. Betty Heller, Resident of Battery Park City 29. Peter Levenson, 90 West Street 30. Thornton Lathrop, Resident of Battery Park City 31. Frederick Ling, Resident of Battery Park City, licensed engineer 32. Bill Love, Resident of Battery Park City, Coalition to Save West Street, Vice Chair 33. Lois McNally, Resident of Battery Park City 34. Ben Hemric, Resident of Soho 35. Jean Silliman, Resident of Battery Park City, member of Coalition to Save West Street 36. Michael Sinansky, Resident of Battery Park City, licensed engineer 37. Robert Thibault, Resident of the West Village 38. Karlene Wiese, Resident of Battery Park City C. LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO E-MAILED COMMENTS ON THE DSEIS
ORGANIZATIONS 39. AAA Automobile Club of New York 40. Coalition of 911 Families, Anthony Gardner, Executive Board Member 41. Community Board No. 1 42. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
19-2 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
43. Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT), Noreen Doyle, Executive Vice President 44. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, George Leventis
INDIVIDUALS 45. Monique Balsamo, Resident of Battery Park City 46. Barbara Beehler, Resident of Battery Park City 47. Claudia Bogdanos, Resident of Battery Park City 48. Debra Bogosian, Resident of Battery Park City 49. Arline L. Bronzaft, Ph.D 50. Alexander Butziger 51. Martin E. Coleman, Resident of Gateway Plaza 52. Justine Cuccia, Resident of Battery Park City 53. Russell D’Oench III, Resident of Battery Park City 54. Susan Duffy, Resident of Battery Park City 55. Brett Goldman 56. Gerald A. Hanweck, Ph.D., Resident of Lower Manhattan 57. Benjamin Hemric 58. Todd Hirschberg, Resident of 200 Rector Place 59. Jeff Holck 60. KP Hudzen, Resident of Battery Park City 61. Richard Joffe, Resident of 380 Rector Place 62. Michael Keit 63. Jerry Killiam, Resident of Battery Park City 64. Joe Loltisko, Resident of Battery Park City 65. Julie Kuehndorf, Resident of Battery Park City 66. Denise Levine 67. Harry Malakoff, Resident of West 12th Street 68. Jane Mancino, Resident of Battery Park City 69. Lisa Margolin, Resident of Battery Park City 70. Sigi Moeslinger, Resident of Rector Street 71. Maria Ouranitsas, Resident of Battery Park City 72. Rebuild Downtown Our Town, Jeff Pozzuoli 73. Bob Rosen, Resident of Liberty House 74. Rafael Saenz 75. Richard Schuemacher, Resident of Battery Park City 76. Helen Seemen 77. Dave Stanke
19-3 Route 9A Project FSEIS
78. Erika Sullivan, Resident of downtown Manhattan 79. Denis Tim, Resident of Gateway Plaza 80. Eric Tucker, Resident of Battery Park City 81. Saint Nicholas Church, DJ Hodson 82. Angelique Vandervis, Resident of Battery Park City 83. Emily Weschsler, Resident of Rector Place 84. Andrew Williams, Matrix Partners International D. LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO MAILED OR FAXED COMMENTS ON THE DSEIS
ORGANIZATIONS 85. ABNY, William C. Rudin, Chairman 86. AT&T, Sarah M. Ayer, Senior Attorney 87. The Battery Conservancy, Warrie Price 88. Battery Park City Authority, Timothy S. Carey, President & CEO 89. Brookfield, John E. Zuccotti, Chairman 90. Building Trades Employers’ Association (BTEANYC), Louis J. Coletti, President & CEO 91. Cadwalader, W. Christopher White 92. City of New York Parks & Recreation (Parks), Joshua Laird 93. CBRE, CB Richard Ellis 94. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (Cleary Gottlieb), Allan G. Sperling 95. Coalition to Save West Street, William C. Love, Jr. 96. Cobbler Express, Carmine Colletti 97. Community Board No. 1 (CB No. 1) 98. Cooper, Robertson & Partners, Alexander Cooper, Partner 99. Downtown Lower Manhattan Association, Inc., Robert Douglass 100. Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects, Stanton Eckstut, Principal 101. EPA, Robert Hargrove, Chief 102. Goldman Sachs, Timur Galen, Managing Director 103. Gruzen Samton LLP, Jordan L. Gruzen, Partner 104. Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler (HR&A), John H. Alschuler, Jr. 105. Helfand Architecture, Margaret Helfand 106. Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT), Noreen Doyle, Executive Vice President 107. Lower Manhattan Emergency Preservation Fund (LMEPF), Ken Lustbader 108. Morgan & Finnegan, LLP, Christopher A. Hughes 109. New York Building Congress, Richard Anderson
19-4 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
110. New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), Naim Rasheed, Chief 111. Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), Steven Spinola, President 112. SouthWestNY, Abraham Merchant 113. Verizon, John Bachmore, Director 114. World Financial Center Arts & Events Program (WFC), Debra Simon, Executive Director
INDIVIDUALS 115. Benjamin Hemric 116. Thornton Lathrop, Resident of Battery Park City 117. Frederick F. Ling, University of Texas at Austin 118. Leonard Litwin 119. T. Nga Trinh 120. Douglas A. Willinger, Takoma Park Highway Design Studio E. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PROCESS
Comment 1: It’s difficult to proceed when it appears that the decision has already been made by a governor who has tunnel vision, and a Battery Park City president who has yet to demonstrate harmony with Battery Park City residents. (Silliman, Hegedus) Who is making this decision? We want to know where the democratic process is. Does the governor ever hear the unanimity with which we are speaking? Anyone that has walked around the neighborhood knows that the concept of this tunnel is absurd and unnecessary, but he is the only one that supports it. (BPC United) The only people who favor this tunnel are those who would directly profit from its construction. Why don’t politicians (Pataki in particular) do something for the true benefit of the people instead of taking care of friends and business associates? (Hudzen, Coleman) Response: NYSDOT is obligated, by law, to follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. After considering all of the data and information contained in the FSEIS together with the data, information, and coments received throughout the public comment period, NYSDOT, in cooperation with FHWA, will identify a preferred alternative in the FSEIS. The selection of a preferred alternative will be made based on an objective application of the project’s goals and objectives as outlined in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need,” as measured against all available data, information, and comments. See Chapter 2A, “Preferred Alternative,” for a discussion of the Preferred Alternative.
19-5 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Comment 2: The fundamental problem is the Department’s attempt to piggy-back this so- called Supplemental EIS onto another EIS that was produced in 1994. Under environmental law that is patently illegal. Manhattan is particularly different than it was then and it is absurd to base a 2004 analysis on 1994 numbers. We believe that a complete new EIS is required, at least for the tunnel alternatives, and that the SEIS process does not meet legal requirements. (Coalition to Save West Street) If you do a Supplemental EIS, the first EIS has to analyze the big picture. In this case, the first EIS never looked at a tunnel. The SEIS is just a shortcut and will be thrown out of court. (Coalition to Save West Street, Straphangers Campaign) Response: FHWA’s regulation states: “…a draft EIS, final EIS, or supplemental EIS may be supplemented at any time. An EIS shall be supplemented whenever the Administration determines that (1) changes to the proposed action would result in significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS; or (2) new information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS.” The analyses in the Draft Supplemental EIS are based on new data for both existing and future conditions specifically developed as part of the Federal Transportation Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects Cumulative Analysis Framework. The data and analysis methodologies are consistent with those employed by PANYNJ’s Permanent WTC PATH Terminal EIS, MTA/NYCT’s Fulton Street Transit Center EIS, and South Ferry Terminal Environmental Assessment.
Comment 3: The FHWA must prepare a full, new Federal EIS under NEPA. This new EIS must not segment consideration of a tunneled West Street and the River development site. Unless both projects are cancelled, both of these wasteful, environmentally destructive pork barrel projects need to be assessed in valid, new Federal EISs which should start from scratch. (Clean Air Campaign) Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 2, above
Comment 4: We do not believe the projected impact studies on health, pollution, and expense and feel that there is some kind of hidden agenda. (McNally) Response: The data and methodologies used in the DSEIS are consistent with those used in other federally funded Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects.
Comment 5: A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) mentioned in Chapter 2 should be provided to all of the NHPA Section 106 consulting parties, and
19-6 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
should be included as an appendix to subsequent versions of the DSEIS. (The Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: The MOU has been provided to the consulting parties and has been included in the FSEIS.
Comment 6: Although the choice of 2006 as a construction year may be appropriate, the choices of 2007 and 2025 make little sense. 2007 is too early and 2025 is too remote. 2009 would be a more appropriate early post-construction analysis year. (CB No. 1) Response: EISs for transportation projects like Route 9A typically assess conditions for an opening year and a design year. The opening year is also known as the Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) and the design year is typically the ETC plus 20 to 30 years. While different alternatives may be completed in slightly different years, the analysis needs to be based on the same year for comparative purposes. Transportation projects do not assume that all of the growth occurs in the opening year. It is generally accepted practice on transportation projects to apply regional forecasting models that assume continual growth rather than the stepped growth. However, to be consistent with the other federally funded transportation projects (e.g., PATH and Fulton Transit Center) 2025 was selected as the future analysis year. While 2025 may seem remote, it actually results in a more conservative estimation of project-related operational impacts. For the FSEIS the ETC has been changed from 2007 to 2009.
Comment 7: The proposed amendment to the Programmatic Agreement (PA) should address consulting parties more specifically. (LMEPF) Response: The PA has been amended to clarify the roles of the consulting parties.
PURPOSE AND NEED
Comment 8: The Permanent WTC PATH Terminal is incorrectly discussed as a subheading under the Promenade South Project, and as a result is not listed in the DSEIS Table of Contents. (The Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: The headings have been corrected in the FSEIS.
Comment 9: The discussion of the current planning context in regard to the PATH Project should note that FTA and the Port Authority have committed to avoid impacts to a minimum of 97 per cent of the area of the footprint of the former north WTC tower and a minimum of 50 per cent of the area of the footprint of the former south WTC tower. (The Coalition of 9/11 Families)
19-7 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Response: The discussion of the WTC Permanent PATH Terminal in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need,” is provided to give a brief discussion of the various downtown initiatives. It is not intended to provide the design detail suggested in the comment.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Comment 10: The time saved by using the Short Bypass is not substantial enough to justify the exorbitant costs, about $860 million. (Silver, Glick, Civic Alliance, RPA, Tri- State Transportation Campaign, Hegedus, WTC Restoration Movement, Vandervis, Bogosian) Response: Comment noted. Please see Comment 44 for additional discussion of the cost/benefit analysis.
Comment 11: We support the At-Grade Alternative and are firmly opposed to any of the below-grade alternatives. The bypass alternatives are too expensive, too disruptive, and too dangerous. (Glick, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, PCAC, Levenson, Gateway Plaza Tenants Association, Faust, Duffy, Rosen, CB No. 1, Lathrop) RPA recommends the At-Grade Alternative to improve pedestrian connections and traffic flow in Lower Manhattan over the long term. (RPA, Tri-State Transportation Campaign) The At-Grade Alternative will enable the landscaped boulevard concept. It will create eight lanes of moving traffic, will cost less and will connect beautifully with uptown portions of Route 9A. It will be very respectful to the area. (Wiese, Straphangers Campaign) The two Short Bypass Alternatives fail to meet stated project goals because of the extent of the opposition to these alternatives. The huge cost and long-term construction disruption to businesses and residents emphasizes the failure of the Route 9A tunnel alternatives to meet project goals for this job. The At-Grade Alternative makes a lot of sense. (Sinansky) The At-Grade Alternative would be the best choice. (Bachand, Gerson, Love, Faust, Butziger, Ling) I oppose the “West Street Tunnel.” The problems include the noise, the pollution and the cost. In this case the end result would not be worth it. There are no benefits to the West Street Tunnel. I urge you to consider the at-grade highway instead. (Ouranitsas, Joffe, Stanke, Seemen, Mancino, Schuemacher, Vandervis, Hudzen) There is no need for a bypass tunnel on lower West Street. (Kuehndorf, Vandervis, D’Oench, Killiam)
19-8 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 12: We oppose any plans that include a bypass tunnel for the Route 9A West Street redevelopment project. (Connor, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, Wiese, PCAC, Straphangers Campaign, Gerson, Thibault, Clean Air Campaign, Hirschberg, Beehler, Weschsler, Moeslinger, Cuccia, Balsamo, Sullivan, Koltisko, Ouranitsas, Rosen, Lathrop) We support a more pedestrian-friendly West Street. What we oppose is a wasteful, hazardous and pointless billion dollar West Street car tunnel. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 13: Accommodation of the Libeskind plan, at the expense of returning to pre-2001 conditions, is a harmful constraint on the options for the redevelopment of Route 9A. (WTC Restoration Movement) Response: The Libeskind Plan for the redevelopment of the WTC Site was selected by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) in a separate and distinct public process. A Record of Decision for that project was issued by HUD/LMDC on June 2, 2004. The Route 9A Project alternatives have been developed in consideration of the proposed WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan as developed by LMDC. As part of the NEPA review, NYSDOT must consider the redevelopment plans by LMDC in assessing the consistency of its alternatives with the public plans and policies of other agencies. Neither FHWA nor NYSDOT are the decision-makers under NEPA with respect to the redevelopment plans for the WTC Site.
Comment 14: The best plan for redeveloping Route 9A lies somewhere between the No- Action Alternative, the At-Grade Alternative, and restoration of the roadway as it was three years ago. (WTC Restoration Movement) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 15: With the tunnel option Battery Park City will actually be losing buffer space where it is most critically needed. (Chernow, Lathrop) Response: The buffer space between the west curb of the southbound roadway and Battery Park City property line would change for all Build alternatives. Overall the total buffer area is greatest for the Short Bypass between West Thames Street and Chambers Street at 6.02 acres. All areas are less than the current 6.52 acres due to a shift of the Route 9A roadway outside the WTC Site bathtub area.
19-9 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Comment 16: There are creative ways to link both sides of West Street with the At-Grade Alternative, which is outlined in the EIS. (Silliman) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 17: While we want West Street to remain six lanes, as in the No-Action Alternative, we would like to see the road gain all of the pedestrian improvements that are included in the eight-lane, At-Grade plan. (Rebuild Downtown Our Town) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 18: We see the benefits that a Short Bypass Alternative would offer. It would divert through traffic underground and away from the memorial, while maintaining at- grade access for local traffic. Also convenient and beautified at-grade crossings for pedestrians, and the landscaping, would make the corridor more inviting and attractive. (Downtown Alliance, Holck) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 19: What is needed is a comprehensive street circulation and rail transit investment plan for Lower Manhattan. Then the billion dollars set aside for the Route 9A underpass could be used for more viable projects that reduce car use and enhance the livability and economic vitality of the nation’s premier financial center. (Haikalis) Response: The Route 9A Project is only one of several transportation projects planned for Lower Manhattan that will be funded from the $4.55 billion federal recovery package. Most of the funding in that package is related to transit projects. Route 9A is a key component of the overall transportation network serving Lower Manhattan. It provides service not only to automobiles and taxis but also to buses, trucks, pedestrians, and bicyclists. As discussed in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need,” the goals of the project include restoring functionality to this major arterial. While the region has embarked on a much needed program to improve commuter rail and transit service throughout the region, the transportation service provided by Route 9A to all its users will be an important component of the economic recovery of Lower Manhattan. Therefore, given the expected growth of vehicular traffic in Lower Manhattan over the next 20 years, the Route 9A alternatives have been assessed based on their ability to service this demand. While reducing car usage throughout the Greater New York area may be desired, it goes well beyond the goals and objectives of the current Route 9A Lower Manhattan Project. Furthermore, in January 2004, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the New York City area prepared a comprehensive Regional Transportation Plan update for the entire New York City metropolitan area. Chapter 4 of the
19-10 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
report addresses transportation plans for Lower Manhattan. The report discusses available funding and identifies nine projects that include transit improvements, ferry improvements, local street restoration, Route 9A improvements, and other related transportation projects. All of these projects are aimed at improving the quality of life and economic viability of Lower Manhattan. The report and other information on regional planning issues are available on the NYMTC website: www.nymtc.org.
Comment 20: Only the No-Build and At-Grade plans are acceptable. (Chernow) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 21: The bypass plans don’t account for the quality of life of residents of Battery Park City or of the western side of the financial district. (Lathrop) Response: The FSEIS assesses the effects of the project alternatives based on a number of social, economic, and environmental attributes which contribute to the study area’s quality of life on both a short- and long-term basis as well as for potential secondary and cumulative effects. Some examples include traffic, safety, aesthetics, air quality, and noise. When significant impacts are predicted, such as for construction noise and air quality, measures to mitigate those impacts are discussed.
Comment 22: The footprint premise narrows the available space between the former World Trade Center and the front of Battery Park City, making adequate pedestrian and motor vehicle spaces more difficult than if extra feet were borrowed from the Trade Center Site. (Faust) Response: The Route 9A Project has been developed in coordination with the other agencies planning for the redevelopment of the WTC Site. LMDC selected a Redevelopment Plan for the site which includes retention of the western slurry wall as part of the overall Memorial Plan. As one of its project goals, the Route 9A alternatives should complement this plan. NYSDOT would not examine alternatives that would be inconsistent with LMDC’s selected plan. Therefore, the alignment of all alternatives at the WTC Site between Liberty and Vesey Streets no longer have Route 9A elements being restored east of the slurry wall and into the WTC bathtub area and Memorial Site. As a result, a westerly shift of the northbound roadway will be required. This places the At- Grade Alternative roadway closer to the WFC at most locations between Liberty and Vesey reducing the west frontage there. See response to Comment 13 for further information.
Comment 23: If the tunnel is built it will interfere with the PATH underpass and cause it to be two levels below street level. (Faust)
19-11 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Response: The PATH pedestrian concourse beneath West Street would have the same elevation for all alternatives, since the concourse would be at an elevation that is compatible with pedestrian movements from the PATH Terminal. This would place it beneath NYCDEP’s large combined 78-inch interceptor sewer. Furthermore, there is insufficient clearance to place the concourse over the sewer while still providing for the extensive utility systems in that space.
Comment 24: Saint Nicholas Church and Spiritual Center recommends evaluation of a fifth alternative for the reconstruction of Route 9A. Its components include slight modifications to the At-Grade Alternative: Reconstruct eight travel lanes, four in each direction, adjacent to the WTC Site as existed before September 11, 2001; Construct Cedar Street as a one-way westbound roadway from and to Liberty Street as a one-way eastbound roadway between Greenwich Street and Route 9A; provide Cedar Street intersection with pedestrian crossing and permit access to both southbound and northbound Route 9A; and close the Albany Street intersection. The required construction for the Cedar Street Option is similar to the At-Grade Alternative, hence construction cost and duration is likely to be similar. (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America) If the Route 9A tunnel is constructed, the Cedar Street Portal is the only alternative that positively supports the redevelopment of the St. Nicholas Church on the south site. It will allow for a future collaborative design with the Memorial Site to the north and Battery Park. (Langan) Response: Any changes in local streets or street directions, including access ramps at the WTC Site, would require coordination with and concurrence from LMDC, PANYNJ, New York City, and NYSDOT for the treatment at West Street. At the present time these agencies are considering access to the garage/security/truck area off the southside of Liberty Street.
Comment 25: There is a bias towards the tunnel option as revealed in the fuller discussion in connection with a tunnel option and the more favorable schedule in the Executive Summary. All the mistakes in this document seem to be in favor of the Bypass alternatives. Table S-4 contains many exaggerations and the authors seem to be pulling out all the stops to make the tunnel look comparatively superior. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: All alternatives have been evaluated equally. In some cases, especially for the construction analysis, the Short Bypass Alternative is discussed in more detail because it is more complex. Furthermore, as part of the cumulative effects analysis in each of the EIS’s for the Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects, all agencies agreed that the Short Bypass Alternative would be analyzed in each project’s detailed assessment. In the FSEIS, additional air quality analysis for construction of the At-Grade Alternative has been added to the document.
19-12 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
With respect to the construction schedule, the document discloses that since it would provide for a more conservative estimate of the potential impacts, the Short Bypass Alternative would require double-shifts for a 43-month completion. Without the double-shifts the construction of the Short Bypass Alternatives would increase to 5 years. All work would be subject to the Environmental Performance Commitments (EPCs).
Comment 26: It looks like NYSDOT included the Cedar Street Portal option to demonstrate that the Liberty Street Portal option isn’t so bad after all and we should grasp it as a “middle ground compromise.” (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The Short Bypass Cedar Street Portal Option was identified for study and evaluation in the DSEIS since it matched the extension of the WTC Site south to Cedar Street, as discussed in the LMDC GEIS. It was considered to have merit by possibly helping to address site issues at the Liberty Street location for the WTC Memorial, pedestrian flow, vehicular circulation, and truck and bus access/egress for the site. For several reasons as stated on page 2-13 it has been eliminated from further consideration.
Comment 27: We understand that the “potential egress ramp from the WTC Site to northbound Route 9A in the median area” that is mentioned as possibly being in the At-Grade Alternative will not be included in that alternative. We strongly agree with that decision. It would have been the worst feature of the At-Grade Alternative. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: This option is not longer under consideration.
Comment 28: We note the explicit statements that the At-Grade Alternative “would not yield substantial adverse environmental effects,” and that the Bypass Alternative “represents the project’s greatest potential for adverse construction impacts.” These are accurate statements of the additional risks inherent in the tunnel alternatives and a powerful reason for choosing the At-Grade Alternative. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 29: It is our judgment that the bypass will greatly enhance the memorial in a way that the eight-lane boulevard will not. We believe the mobility and pedestrian safety benefits of the bypass are significant. We support the proposed bypass. (AAA) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 30: NYSDOT, through the DSEIS, makes a bold assertion in the DSEIS, but does not explain in detail, why it feels that the Short Bypass Tunnel provides a more
19-13 Route 9A Project FSEIS
appropriate and respectful setting for the WTC Memorial. We need to examine why a six-lane, or possibly eight-lane, street would in any way be inappropriate or disrespectful to a World Trade Center Memorial. This is a city, this is an urban area. Why suburbanize our core area of the City for a memorial? (Hemric) Whether the Bypass Alternatives would provide a meaningful benefit to the memorial experience is wholly dependent on the traffic assumptions and analyses. With the transportation realities of Route 9A, there will be little difference with regard to the memorial experience under any of the alternatives. (Gateway Plaza Tenants Association) We must ensure that traffic congestion on West Street does not detract from the memorial experience. (Downtown Alliance) Response: The covering of some, or all of, Route 9A adjacent to the Memorial Site was a consistent theme in many of the proposed plans for the redevelopment of the WTC site. As described in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need,” the project alternatives analyzed in the FSEIS—including the Short Bypass Alternative— have been developed by NYSDOT in consideration of the other Lower Manhattan recovery projects, especially the proposed WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan. The original urban design study for the redevelopment of the WTC site was guided by LMDC’s Revised Blueprint for the Future of Lower Manhattan. One of the guiding principles of the Revised Blueprint included “respecting the site of the WTC as a place of remembrance.” Guided by the Revised Blueprint, LMDC and its urban designers prepared six concepts for redevelopment of the site. All six featured a portion of Route 9A below-grade that reduced pavement and traffic adjacent to the memorial. Several resembled the Short Bypass Alternative. As discussed in Chapter 2A, “Preferred Alternative,” while the At- Grade Alternative as designed meets the goal of providing an appropriate and respectful setting for the WTC Memorial the Short Bypass Alternative would exceed that goal.
Comment 31: I think the tunnel is a good idea. I fully support it. (Saenz) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 32: Shouldn’t the DSEIS have studied the impact of each of the three major alternatives on the Port Authority’s proposed pedestrian tunnel beneath West Street (which would link the permanent PATH Terminal with the World Financial Center)? (Hemrick) Response: NYSDOT has been coordinating the location of the PATH pedestrian concourse with the PANYNJ for all alternatives. As discussed in response to Comment 23, the selection of a Route 9A alternative would not significantly affect the PANYNJ’s proposed pedestrian concourse. Issues such as required utility and
19-14 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
sewer relocations continue to be identified and addressed in greater detail. This design effort will continue to be progressed into the next phase.
Comment 33: All of the alternatives under consideration by NYSDOT would allow for construction of the planned park uses despite reducing the amount of land available for the permanent Hudson River Park in this area. Both the At-Grade Alternative and the two Short-Bypass Alternatives (Liberty Street Portal and Cedar Street Portal) would provide important safety and visual benefits to users of the Hudson River Park. While all alternatives would reduce the land available for the permanent park in this area, the differences between these reductions is relatively minor: no more than 0.2 acres in any case. As stated above, these reductions would not materially affect the park plans. (HPRT) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 34: The eight individual actions that will be at least partially within the Route 9A corridor, and which are described as “to be constructed under a NYSDOT contract” have the potential to affect historic features of the WTC Site. The DSEIS needs to clarify the relationship of FHWA to these projects. In particular the FHWA needs to indicate if FHWA funds will be involved. Any federal involvement might necessitate the need for FHWA to comply with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. (The Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: The eight (now six) individual actions referred to in the comment are discussed on page 2-6 of the FSEIS. These are actions related to the proposals by the PANYNJ for its WTC Permanent PATH Terminal and LMDC for its WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan. FHWA would not be funding these projects. These actions would, however, possibly require construction within the Route 9A right-of-way. The agencies, with input from LMDC and LMCCC, will cooperatively decide which of them can most efficiently perform each part of the work to be constructed in the right of way of Route 9A. For this reason, the FSEIS does not contain any statement as to which of the agencies will eventually hold the contract for any of the project work on NYSDOT’s property.
Comment 35: We note that the need to avoid impacts to historic resources, especially those associated with the WTC Site, is not listed as a consideration in developing alternatives. (The Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: Project Goal No. 8 states “Avoid or minimize environmental and construction impacts to the community.” As discussed in the FSEIS, Cultural Resources (both historic structures and archaeological resources) is one of the areas that is addressed as part of the environmental assessment. As part of that assessment, the avoidance and minimization of potential impacts to all historic resources within the project’s area of potential effect (APE) is considered. Furthermore, as
19-15 Route 9A Project FSEIS
stated in Chapter 6, “Cultural Resources” all of the Route 9A alternatives would be designed with a westward shift to preserve the integrity of the WTC Site.
Comment 36: We strongly support the Memorial Park Tunnel because of its clear and significant traffic, environmental, and safety advantages. The alternative, an at- grade highway, would be a 10-lane thoroughfare, challenging to cross at a single light. It would fix a busy highway in the WTC Memorial’s front yard. (HR&A, WFC, Brookfield, REBNY, ABNY, Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects, Cooper, Robertson & Partners, BTEANYC, Cadwalader, Cobbler Express, Leonard Litwin, T. Nga Trinh, Cleary Gottlieb, SouthWestNY, Downtown Lower Manhattan Association, Inc., CBRE, Morgan & Finnegan, The Battery Conservancy, Helfand Architecture, Gruzen Samton LLP, New York Building Congress, Battery Park City Authority) The Memorial Park Tunnel is of overwhelming importance to the creation of a respectful memorial at the WTC. (WFC) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 37: Of the Bypass alternatives presented, the Cedar Street Portal is the most successful at realizing the goal of improving movement along and across Route 9A while being respectful to the WTC Memorial. It eliminates the southbound weave of local street traffic to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel and pedestrian/vehicle conflicts at Albany Street. It needs additional improvement to meet our demands, but it has the greatest potential of the bypass alternatives. (Battery Park City Authority) Response: Comment noted. However, as discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” this option has been eliminated from further consideration.
Comment 38: The At-Grade Alternative increases safety by allowing the most grade separated pedestrian crossings. However, unless these bridges are connected to active land uses/landscape their usefulness is minimized. (Battery Park City Authority) Response: The assertion that the At-Grade Alternatives increase safety over the No Build and/or Short Bypass Alternatives because of reduced pedestrian-vehicle conflicts is incorrect. The potential pedestrian-vehicle activity for the At-Grade Alternative is greater than the No Build and Short Bypass as indicated in Chapter 8C, “Pedestrians” (page 8C-9). In fact, due to the reduced traffic volumes on the surface, a pedestrian bridge is not needed with the Short Bypass Alternative. One of the key objectives/criteria of successful pedestrian bridges is to connect bridges in a seamless manner and to be compatible with adjacent land use. During the design phase of the selected alternative, further studies will be progressed between West Thames Street and Chambers Street to determine
19-16 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
pedestrian bridge feasibility. Locations being studied are Rector/Carlisle, Liberty, Murray, and Warren Streets. Outside of the FSEIS efforts, NYSDOT is also studying pedestrian bridge feasibility at Morris Street in conjunction with LMDC’s Greenwich Street studies.
Comment 39: Regarding all the alternatives, existing community park uses within the future Hudson River Park boundary should be maintained. The new designs should make a seamless transition into Segment 3 of Hudson River Park to the north. (Parks) Response: NYSDOT will continue to coordinate with HRPT and BPCA regarding these uses.
Comment 40: Chapter 4, page 4-15 should clarify that the limits of the future Hudson River Park are already established; however the jurisdiction will not be officially transferred until the highway is complete and certified by the NYSDOT commissioner. (Parks) Response: The statements in Chapter 4, page 4-15 regarding the establishment of the limits for the proposed future HRP are correct as stated. The legislation establishing the HRPT (and HRP) indicates how the limits of the HRP will be established after the Route 9A/West Street boundaries are determined, constructed and certified to by NYSDOT. Those actions have not occurred to date.
Comment 41: We note that the Short Bypass Alternative as planned would conflict with the Site 26 plan. The potential lay-by lane on the Route 9A frontage of Site 26 should be included in the DSEIS per our letter. We propose that in the At-Grade Alternative at the intersection of Route 9A with Murray Street, a second northbound left turn lane be provided consistent with the dual left turn lane that currently exists at that location. (Goldman Sachs) Response: Concepts developed for the Short Bypass show that a lay-by lane in front of Site 26 can be provided. NYSDOT will continue to coordinate the Site 26 development with the Route 9A Project. These coordination efforts involve Battery Park City Authority, Hudson River Park Trust, the developers of Site 26, and others. Coordination efforts will involve access for vehicles and pedestrians, frontage treatments, utility relocations, construction staging and traffic maintenance as well as property issues. The At-Grade Alternative has been modified to add a second northbound left turn at Murray Street.
19-17 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Comment 42: The SEIS exclusion of any Long Tunnel Concept (LTC) options reflects reasoning dependent upon double standards and unstated assumptions. Criteria used to reject the LTC would also reject all of the other listed alternatives. It side steps any acknowledgement of its numerous long-term environmental and economic benefits. An LTC should incorporate the following: extending the Route 9A southbound lanes to connect with the Battery Park Underpass; extending the Route 9A/WST northbound lanes to the Battery Park Underpass; and providing direct tunnel connections between the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel and the Battery Park Underpass. (Willinger) Response: As discussed on pages 2-12 and 2-13, the LTC was eliminated from further consideration due to its inability to meet several key goals of the project.
PROJECT COST
Comment 43: The bypass alternatives are an enormous waste of government funds. The difference in cost of $685 million between the Bypass and At-Grade Alternatives could be used for more important projects, such as completing the Hudson River Park, Second Avenue Subway improvements, addressing the City’s homeless problem and affordable housing crisis, or building more schools. (Glick, Connor, WTC Restoration Movement, Silliman, Civic Alliance, RPA, Heller, Sinansky, Straphangers Campaign, Gateway Plaza Tenants Association, Chernow, Bachand, Clean Air Campaign, Faust, Vandervis, Williams, Hudzen, Hirschberg, Hanweck, PCAC, Gateway Plaza Tenants Association, Love, Timm, Margolin, Moeslinger, Bogosian, Cuccia, Balsamo, Stanke, Seemen, Sullivan, Bogdanos, Duffy, Tucker, Killiam, CB No. 1, Hirschberg) The $860 million should be more appropriately allocated to the rebuilding of the WTC proper. Burying the highway that runs next to the memorial has hardly any such value at all. (Butziger) Funds should instead go to a regional transportation hub at Fulton Street. (Koltisko) The money is sorely needed for the health care of people who are or will become sick from the environmental disaster of September 11. (WTC Environmental Organization) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 44: Not insignificant is a thorough cost/benefit analysis of the Short Bypass Alternative weighed against the eight-lane At-Grade Alternative. We must allocate Lower Manhattan funding wisely. (Downtown Alliance, CB No. 1) Response: The difficulty in preparing a cost/benefit comparison of the alternatives is that a monetary value would need to be developed for all of the project goals and
19-18 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
objectives. While standard values are available for travel time savings, goods movement, accidents avoided, and pollutant reductions, monetary values would have to be assigned to each alternative with respect to its ability to meet other project goals (e.g., provide for a proper setting for the WTC Memorial, provide green/open space, etc.). Assigning these benefits would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Furthermore, the value of some of these goals just cannot be placed in economic terms.
Comment 45: The more extensive Cedar Street Portal Alternative does not have a cost associated with it in the EIS. It will clearly be more than $860 million. (Gateway Plaza Tenants Association) Response: The Cedar Street Portal Option has been discarded from further consideration
Comment 46: The better solution is more costly, but the $860 million explicitly allocated for the Memorial Park Tunnel is available and does not conflict with other projects. (HR&A, WFC, Brookfield, REBNY, ABNY, Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects, Cooper, Robertson & Partners, BTEANYC, Cadwalader, Cobbler Express, Leonard Litwin, T. Nga Trinh, Cleary Gottlieb, SouthWestNY, Downtown Lower Manhattan Association, Inc., CBRE, Morgan & Finnegan, The Battery Conservancy, Helfand Architecture, Gruzen Samton LLP, New York Building Congress) Response: Comment noted.
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
Comment 47: The Short Bypass Alternative would require a substantially longer, more disruptive construction schedule of approximately three and a half years. (Silver, Connor, Civic Alliance, PCAC, Sinansky, Faust, Glick, Stanke, Seemen, Tucker) The Short Bypass Alternative will present tremendous disruption to the communities located in proximity to the construction area. That the Bypass Alternative would require two ten-hour shifts daily, Monday through Friday, for a period of three to four years, is completely unacceptable. (Silver, Gerson, Love) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 48: NYSDOT should work closely with the community to establish a reasonable construction schedule that is acceptable to those living in Battery Park City and the surrounding area. (Silver, Chernow, Bogosian) Response: NYSDOT is committed to working closely with the community and the other Lower Manhattan project sponsors to minimize the adverse environmental
19-19 Route 9A Project FSEIS
effects during the construction of the Route 9A Project. Pursuant to Governor Pataki’s Executive Order (November 22, 2004), NYSDOT will coordinate the reconstruction of Route 9A through the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center. As described in the Executive Order, the Command Center is responsible for “communicating with residents, businesses, and the general public through a communications director working with each agency’s communications and public outreach personnel; providing a central focus on issues critical to the local community and the construction industry, by coordinating initiatives, public outreach, and information.” Through this forum and through independent outreach efforts, NYSDOT will continue to build on its community involvement activities as project details evolve.
Comment 49: The Coordinated Construction Act of Lower Manhattan requires use of diesel fuel with no greater than 15 parts per million for off-road equipment with 50 horsepower and above, and requires retrofitting of equipment to control emissions of particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen. (Silver) Emissions from on-road trucks should be cut. We recommend that Route 9A construction projects utilize the ultra-low sulfur fuel already in use, at the start of the construction and onward. (Environmental Defense) We suggest that all construction equipment be marked with a label that certifies that they are using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, as well as the retrofit technology. (Environmental Defense) Response: NYSDOT has already committed to the use of ultra-low sulfur fuel (ULSD) and equipment retrofits to reduce the emissions of pollutants during construction and therefore would be in compliance with the Coordinated Construction Act of Lower Manhattan. The construction documents will include a Special Note requiring contractors to submit a list of diesel-powered equipment to be used on-site. On a bi-weekly basis the contractor will be required to update the list and give NYSDOT certified copies of fuel deliveries identifying quantity, source, and quality of the ULSD. Since on-road trucks would be coming from a variety of locations, NYSDOT would not be able to control the fuel used in these mostly delivery trucks. However, it should be noted that on-road trucks are subject to EPA’s fuel use regulations that will require ULSD (15 ppm) by June 2006.
Comment 50: I am skeptical of the EIS’s claim that regardless of the alternatives, At- or Below-Grade, the same number of trucks, two hundred per day, would be needed for construction. (Glick) Response: The assertion that the same number of peak construction trucks would be needed regardless of whether the At-Grade or Short Bypass Alternative is chosen is correct. Over the entire duration of the project, the Short Bypass
19-20 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Alternative would require more trucks than the At-Grade Alternative (approximately 55,000 versus 30,000). However, the average truck trips-per-day is the same at approximately 50 to 60 trips for either alternative. During times of peak activity, including excavation and bracing for the PANYNJ/LMDC elements, the two alternatives have similar peak construction truck generation rates. Due to differences in construction staging, however, the peak demand for construction trucks occurs at different stages during the construction period. The peak demand for construction trucks for both alternatives is approximately 200 trucks per day.
Comment 51: The noise and ground-borne vibrations from construction of the Short Bypass would be worse than those from the At-Grade Alternative because of the additional equipment required to create a tunnel. (Glick) Response: The single largest difference in noise impacts between the Short Bypass and At- Grade Alternatives is the duration of construction activities. While there are some differences in the type and number of equipment to be employed during construction of either alternative at some locations, as shown in Table 10-6 of the SEIS, the At-Grade Alternative would result in higher predicted hourly noise levels than the Short Bypass Alternative at some locations. This is because the equipment specific to that alternative may be operating close to the receptor under consideration, and would only occur during the time the equipment is in use at that location. Since much of the equipment used to build either alternative is the same, including excavating for PANYNJ/LMDC work in the corridor, the absolute noise levels for the two alternatives are not substantially different. However, as the FSEIS discusses on page 10-11, there are differences in the duration of impacts for each alternative. See response to Comments 56 and 73 for additional discussion on ground-borne vibrations during construction.
Comment 52: The projected timetable for building this tunnel is ridiculously short. How did the timetable get reduced from the original six-year estimate? (BPC United) Response: The Short Bypass Alternative was never estimated to require six years for completion. As discussed on page 2-12 of the DSEIS, the Long Tunnel Concept (LTC) was estimated to take five to six years for construction and this was one of the reasons it was eliminated from further consideration. The project timetable includes the planning, environmental review, and preliminary engineering process that precedes the actual construction period. The Short Bypass construction schedule has an approximate duration of 43 months. This schedule is obtainable due to double-shift work operations and parallel construction activities.
19-21 Route 9A Project FSEIS
The physical size of the work site also enables the use of non-conflicting parallel construction activities. When construction activities are completed in parallel instead of sequentially, the overall critical path schedule is reduced.
Comment 53: The commitments adopted for environmental control construction should be at least as stringent as those of New York City’s Local Law 77, and now the new Coordinated Construction Act of Lower Manhattan. They require diesel, where it is available, and the best available retrofit technology. (Environmental Defense) Response: The commitments in the DSEIS were for the use of ULSD and diesel retrofits where practicable. As discussed in this FSEIS, the sponsors of the Lower Manhattan Recovery Project are striving to maximize the use of DPF retrofits, which are more effective than DOCs in reducing the emissions of particulate matter.
Comment 54: Emissions from on-road trucks should be cut. We recommend that Route 9A construction projects utilize the ultra-low sulfur fuel already in use, at the start of the construction and onward. (Environmental Defense) Response: Since on-road trucks would be coming from a variety of locations, NYSDOT would not be able to control the fuel used in these mostly delivery trucks. However, it should be noted that on-road trucks are subject to EPA’s fuel use regulations that will require ULSD (15 ppm) by June 2006.
Comment 55: We suggest that all construction equipment be marked with a label that certifies that they are using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, as well as the retrofit technology. (Environmental Defense) Response: The construction documents will include a Special Note requiring contractors to submit a list of diesel-powered equipment to be used on-site. On a bi-weekly basis the contractor will be required to update the list and give NYSDOT certified copies of fuel deliveries identifying quantity, source, and quality of the ULSD.
Comment 56: Reconstruction of Route 9A must be carefully monitored under the jurisdiction of the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center. Movement of materials and workers must be coordinated with other projects. (Downtown Alliance) We are concerned with the cumulative impact of numerous construction projects on the surrounding historic properties and recommend the projects be coordinated by a single entity. We recommend that state of the art vibration monitoring be implemented and an increase of the vibration standards currently in place. (LMEPF)
19-22 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
We need to consider the impact of vibrations from construction activity on historic properties in the immediate area. Likewise the Verizon building would be at risk. (Gerson, Love) Response: As previously discussed, NYSDOT is committed to continuing coordination during the construction phase of the Route 9A Project with the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center. Furthermore, the coordinated cumulative construction impact assessment has documented all of the historic resources that may be susceptible to vibration-related effects due to the various projects and where these effects overlap. The project sponsors of the federally- funded transportation recovery projects have committed to protecting these resources from construction-related vibrations and have (or will have) developed specifications and monitoring programs for inclusion into the construction documents. Potential impacts to historic buildings from construction-related vibrations are discussed on Pages 10-11 through 10-16 and pages 16-22 through 16-24. The Barclay-Vesey Building (Verizon) is one of the structures discussed. NYSDOT will employ a Building Condition Survey and Vibration Criteria Special Note as part of the construction document for any selected alternative which will be used to avoid potential damage to these structures. These criteria have been used satisfactorily for projects throughout New York City including construction of the Route 9A Project and the Vesey Street Bridge.
Comment 57: We were told that the 78-inch sewer would not need to be relocated for the At- Grade Alternative yet the DSEIS says it would. Likewise with construction of slurry walls. This needs to be clarified. (Coalition to Save West Street) Where is the Interceptor Sewer in the EIS drawings? (Keit) Response: NYSDOT’s work in Route 9A for the At-Grade Alternative does not require relocation of the 78-inch interceptor sewer. Section A-A on Figures 2-2 and 2-3 of the FSEIS have been corrected accordingly. Chapter 3, “Construction Practices,” of the DSEIS described the worst-case scenario of work for the At-Grade Alternative including PA/LMDC work for a possible busway to Site 26, an egress ramp in the Route 9A median, etc. Since the busway and ramp have been dropped from further consideration, Chapter 3 has been revised to indicate no relocation of the sewer for NYSDOT work. Coordination will continue with the PANYNJ and LMDC regarding their work (pedestrian concourse, PATH vents, cooling lines, slurry wall extension) and any affects on utilities and sewers in the Route 9A corridor.
Comment 58: Residents are concerned about rat infestation as a result of increased digging. (Coalition to Save West Street)
19-23 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Response: NYSDOT standard specifications and design documents will address the issue of potential rat infestation during construction. Remediation procedures and action plans will be identified and monitored during construction by NYSDOT inspection forces.
Comment 59: Under “Schedule” in the Executive Summary it says the overall time of construction of the At-Grade Alternative is 2 to 2.5 years. Then on page S-14 it says 2 years. Page 2-8 says 2 to 2.5 years but pages 3-1 and 3-6 say 2 years again. This is one incidence of apparent pro-tunnel bias. It looks like the extra six months was added in certain places to try to make the difference in construction time between the At-Grade Alternative and a tunnel look smaller. (Coalition to Save West Street) Under “Schedule” on page S-11, we note that the Short Bypass Alternative will take “a total of 3 years.” But on page 3-1, in discussing the two Bypass Alternatives, it says “construction would essentially be complete and open to traffic in 3 to 4 years, with an additional 6 months for ancillary work.” In other words, the real construction time is 3.5 to 4.5 years. Then it says that the Liberty Street Portal Option would take approximately 3.5 years. This again suggests bias toward the tunnel option. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The 6-month discrepancy in construction time is the time associated between opening the roadway/bypass to traffic and completing the finishing touches such as plantings and sidewalk and median area treatments. The schedules in the FSEIS have been updated to include pre-Stage 1 work related to LMDC and PANYNJ elements. The current schedule for the At-Grade Alternative is 26 months versus 43 months for the Short Bypass Alternative.
Comment 60: The construction times for the Bypass assume “two 10-hour shifts 5 days per week.” This is a huge issue for BPC residents and cannot be allowed to happen. A shift to a more reasonable construction schedule will inevitably stretch out the construction times for the tunnel alternatives and make the latter even more unacceptable in comparison to the At-Grade Alternative. (Coalition to Save West Street, CB No. 1) Response: As discussed in the DSEIS, both the At-Grade and Short Bypass Alternatives would require some stages of construction to be completed with double shifts. Construction of the Short Bypass Alternative would require more double shifts than the At-Grade Alternative. While the DSEIS and FSEIS have presented a reasonably conservative scenario with respect to the construction impact assessment, it is not possible at this time to determine the exact percentage of time double shifts would be used in the construction of each alternative. However, the intent of the double shifts is to lessen the overall construction schedule and thereby reduce the disruption to the community and foster the recovery of Lower Manhattan.
19-24 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Comment 61: As you know, Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT) has applied for funding from the LMDC to support construction of Segment 3 of Hudson River Park. In the event that this funding is secured, some Segment 3 park construction may take place as early as spring of 2005. It is likely that one of the first park construction activities would involve reconstructing Pier 25. Because of both the distance between Pier 25 and the area that would be affected by Route 9A’s planned work under any of the alternatives, we do not anticipate any significant potential for construction overlap. Nevertheless, we are alerting you to our schedule to assist you in your ongoing planning efforts. We suggest that it would be beneficial to both of our projects to have construction coordination meetings regarding the Chambers Street vicinity once you have identified your preferred alternative. (HRPT) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 62: The construction impact of the At-Grade Alternative will be considerably less severe than either of the Short Bypass Alternatives. (CB No. 1) Response: During times of peak activity the two alternatives would have very similar impacts considering all work in the Route 9A corridor. However, as noted, the Short Bypass Alternative would result in impacts over a greater length of time than the At-Grade Alternative.
Comment 63: The DSEIS does not adequately address the effects of construction on traffic or the effects of staging areas for equipment and workers on vehicular or pedestrian traffic, air pollution, or other considerations. (CB No. 1) Response: The DSEIS and FSEIS include detailed descriptions of construction and graphics depicting staging in Chapter 3, “Construction Practices.” In addition, Appendix B, “Engineering Drawings,” includes detailed drawings of the maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT) plans and staging to be employed during construction of the At-Grade and Short Bypass Alternatives. This information together with the equipment list and truck generation rates developed for construction of each alternative was used in the traffic, air quality, and noise impact assessment. The impact assessment for traffic can be found on pages 8A-9 through 8A-12 of the FSEIS while pedestrian MPT is discussed on page 3-8. The construction air quality analysis is discussed on pages 9-17 through 9-21, including Figures 9-2 through 9-11. Air quality mitigation during construction of the project is discussed on pages 9-26 through 9-31, including Figures 9-12 through 9-21. This is the same level of analysis and methodology used in the federally-funded transit projects (i.e., Permanent WTC PATH Terminal and Fulton Street Transit Center) sponsored by FTA.
Comment 64: We are concerned about the impact this construction will have on the retention and attraction of corporate tenants. (CB No. 1)
19-25 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Response: NYSDOT, MTA/NYCT and PANYNJ have developed, in cooperation with FTA and FHWA, a series of Environmental Performance Commitments (EPCs) to avoid or minimize the adverse cumulative effects of the federally-funded Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects. One of the six main areas covered by the commitments is economic effects. NYSDOT is committed to working with the Lower Manhattan business community to ensure that any adverse effects of construction are minimized, and continued access and mobility is available to adjacent property owners.
Comment 65: For all the lasting benefits the Memorial Park Tunnel provides, its projected construction period is at most one year more than the at-grade highway. (HR&A, WFC, Brookfield, REBNY, ABNY, Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects, Cooper, Robertson & Partners, BTEANYC, Cadwalader, Cobbler Express, Leonard Litwin, T. Nga Trinh, Cleary Gottlieb, SouthWestNY, Downtown Lower Manhattan Association, Inc., CBRE, Morgan & Finnegan, The Battery Conservancy, Helfand Architecture, Gruzen Samton LLP, New York Building Congress) Response: Comment noted.
LAND USE, PUBLIC POLICY, AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
Comment 66: If NYSDOT chooses the Short Tunnel Option, it could help open up the waterfront and make it more accessible for residents, workers, and visitors to the area. (General Contractors Association of New York) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 67: The residential community would greatly benefit from a six-lane street which does not separate it from its access to services and retail. (Rebuild Downtown Our Town) Response: The No Action Alternative, with its six lanes, results in an estimated 1.8 million person hours of delay during the course of a year. This level of congestion causes a number of significant queues on Route 9A and creates an over- saturation on inland streets. Together, these conditions would cause gridlock or near-gridlock conditions which would adversely impact the residential and commercial community, including emergency response time.
Comment 68: We note the use of the word “magnified” in comparing the alleged benefits of the Liberty Street Portal version of the Bypass to the benefits from the At-Grade Alternative. It is a tacit admission that the At-Grade Alternative provides all the benefits claimed for the Bypass Alternative. (Coalition to Save West Street)
19-26 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Response: As discussed in Chapter 2A, “Preferred Alternative,” the At-Grade Alternative provides many of the same benefits as the Short Bypass Alternative. With respect to some project goals and objectives it performs better than the Short Bypass Alternative. However, the Short Bypass does perform better with respect to overall mobility and specifically in providing for an appropriate and respectful setting for the WTC Memorial. On balance, though, the At-Grade Alternative has been recommended as the Preferred Alternative.
Comment 69: We note the unsubstantiated prattle about the substantial benefit to neighborhood character from the Liberty Street Portal version of the Bypass— phrases like “improving the overall aesthetic character of the highway” and “a more favorable pedestrian environment.” This does not square with aesthetically displeasing tunnel ramps in our neighborhood. (Coalition to Save West Street) There is no mention of the visual effect of the tunnel ramp directly in front of the Barclay-Vesey Building. This is another pro-tunnel bias. (Coalition to Save West Street) If the Bypass Alternative is adopted, the redevelopment of 90 West Street would be severely impacted. Once the project is complete they’ll be left with an express ramp in front of the main entrance. That, coupled with the parking facility under Cedar Street, makes our redevelopment almost unmarketable. (Levenson)
We view the portals and their approaches to the Short Bypass as negative visual impacts. (RPA) Response: The elements composing a neighborhood’s character are varied. For the Route 9A Project, the aspect of neighborhood character that would be affected the most is transportation. Overall, the Short Bypass Alternatives reduce traffic congestion to the greatest extent, thereby increasing mobility for pedestrians and motorists alike. This not only affects Route 9A, but also the major north-south arteries such as Broadway and Church Street. The ramps to the Short Bypass only encompass a small portion of the entire roadway project. The visual impact associated with these ramps would be more than offset by the mitigation provided and the improved pedestrian and aesthetic quality of the remainder of the roadway, particularly that portion adjacent to the WTC Site. The north approach portal to the bypass is located adjacent to the Barclay-Vesey Building (140 West Street). The approach portals would be aesthetically treated and screened with vegetation. In addition the east sidewalk area would be widened adjacent to this historic building. Also the amount of surface road traffic and the number of travel lanes immediately adjacent to the building would be substantially reduced. It is not anticipated that the ramps to the short
19-27 Route 9A Project FSEIS
bypass would adversely affect the context of the Barcly-Vesey Building as this building has been located in the context of a busy highway for several decades. In addition, the former ramps to the underground parking areas of the World Trade Center had been visible near this building as well as the north pedestrian bridge.
Comment 70: We request that the “Existing Conditions” section of the “Land Use and Neighborhood Character” chapter be revised to indicate that a number of the existing interim uses west of the existing Route 9A bikeway and east of the Battery Park City boundary are effectively part of Hudson River Park. This includes a portion of the ball fields and P.S. /I.S. 89 described on page 4-9 and the active and passive uses listed on page 4-10. We think this treatment would be more consistent with the legislative intent of the Hudson River Park Act. (HRPT) Response: The language in the DSEIS was correct.
Comment 71: If the Bypass Alternative is adopted, the redevelopment of 90 West Street would be severely impacted. Once the project is complete they’ll be left with an express ramp in front of the main entrance. That, coupled with the parking facility under Cedar Street, makes our redevelopment almost unmarketable. (Levenson) Response: If the bypass were selected, there would be only two northbound surface lanes adjacent to 90 West Street with substantially less traffic (two lanes in bypass) versus the four-lane At-Grade Alternative. The east sidewalk area would also be widened in front of 90 West Street and plantings and aesthetically treated portal walls for the bypass will be provided.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Comment 72: The Short Bypass Alternative requires the potential removal of the historic Hudson River Bulkhead. The tunnel is surely not worth the sacrifice of this treasured part of New York City history, especially at the additional cost of $685 million. (Glick) There is no mention of the severity of the impact on this historic resource due to the Short Bypass. (Coalition to Save West Street) We note the statement that “The Hudson River Bulkhead would not be impacted by the NYSDOT’s At-Grade Alternative”. This is a major difference from the Bypass alternatives and mitigates in favor of the At-Grade Alternative. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The portion of the bulkhead in this area is not visible and was buried when Battery Park City was constructed. As stated in the DSEIS and FSEIS, the Short
19-28 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Bypass Alternative may impact this resource (see Chapter 6, “Cultural Resources,” Figure 6-2). The bulkhead was exposed during construction of the temporary Vesey Street Pedestrian Bridge. Photographs were taken of the exposed portions of the bulkhead and submitted to SHPO. SHPO concluded that the documentation satisfactorily recorded the fragmentary remains of the bulkhead and that the project would have no adverse effect. If an adverse impact were detected, it is anticipated that photographic documentation of the bulkhead as part of this project would mitigate any adverse effects. The Short Bypass Alternative may require removal of portions of the Hudson River Bulkhead at Vesey Street due to sewer and utility relocations. Further detailed design would be necessary to determine the extent of the disturbance. This would be presented to SHPO as part of a Programmatic Agreement regarding Historic/Cultural Resources. We have provided a simplified graphic showing the potential extent of impact to the bulkhead for relocated utilities.
Comment 73: The risk to historic buildings from groundborne vibrations is totally ignored in the discussion of the two Bypass Alternatives (yet mentioned in the discussion of the At-Grade Alternative). This is a major omission. (Coalition to Save West Street) Tunnel ramps will be built directly in front of 90 West Street and the Verizon building, and only a short distance from other buildings of historic significance. The higher noise levels projected for these locations translate into stronger ground vibrations. (Love, Coalition to Save West Street) Despite the clear evidence that noise will be a bigger problem with the Bypass, nowhere in the document does that translate into an acknowledgement that the Short Bypass may pose more groundborne vibration risk for historical structures, especially near the ramps. (Love, Gerson, LMEPF) The discussion on Vibrations fails to make a distinction between the impact of the At-Grade and Short Bypass Alternatives. There will be much higher levels of groundborne vibrations transmitted to surrounding buildings than if the At- Grade Alternative is chosen. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: Potential impacts to historic structures from construction of the Short Bypass Alternative were not ignored in the DSEIS. Since the discussion for the At- Grade Alternative preceded the discussion for the Short Bypass Alternative in the executive summary, the impacts were called out as being the same. This is common in EISs when the potential impacts due to various alternatives are the same and require the same mitigation. Higher noise levels do not necessarily translate into higher vibration levels. Noise is airborne while vibration is ground-borne. Some equipment, like pile- drivers, create noise while transferring energy into the ground, while others,
19-29 Route 9A Project FSEIS
such as exhaust from machinery, do not. Furthermore, noise is additive and averaged over a specific time period. Therefore, several pieces of equipment operating at the same time will increase the ambient noise levels adjacent to the construction site. Vibrations are singular events which are not additive but represent the peak particle velocity for a given activity. In most circumstances, the maximum vibration levels at a site are based on one or two specific types (e.g., rock blasting, pile driving, etc.) of equipment that may be needed to construct the project. Due to the required elements of the PANYNJ/LMDC projects within the Route 9A corridor, the At-Grade Alternative, as assessed in the DSEIS, included cut- off/slurry walls in very close proximity to 90 West Street and the Barclay-Vesey Building. These activities would produce the same potential for vibration- related impacts as would construction of the Short Bypass Alternatives. Since all alternatives would require the operation of equipment in close proximity to historic structures that could potentially exceed the threshold criteria for vibration, NYSDOT would implement measures to protect these resources. A Building Condition Survey and Vibration Criteria Special Note would be the basis for vibration monitoring and preventive measures to avoid damage to these buildings. In that the Short Bypass Alternative is a larger project of longer duration, the risk to historic structures would be greater than with the other alternatives. However, with the implementation of the vibration mitigation plan, none of the alternatives would significantly impact these historic structures. It should be noted that more intensive (e.g., rock blasting) construction activities for foundations of high-rise residential and commercial buildings routinely occur in close proximity to historic structures throughout New York City.
Comment 74: HRPT acknowledges the existence of the historic bulkhead described in Chapter 6, “Cultural Resources.” We note that the treatment of this structure is governed by the “Programmatic Agreement Among the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the New York State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Development of the Hudson River Park along Manhattan’s West Side in New York City, New York.” HRPT therefore requests to be included in planning related to any construction activities that would affect the bulkhead. (HRPT) Response: NYSDOT intends to comply with the provisions of the Programmatic Agreement and any Amendments thereto.
Comment 75: The coalition rejects the assumption that the Coordinated Determination of National Register Eligibility provides a proper basis for subsequent analyses of the Project’s impacts on the WTC Site. We believe the Coordinated
19-30 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Determination is faulty in many regards, including a failure to properly define the period of significance of the WTC Site, the failure to acknowledge the significance of the site under more than one National register eligibility criterion and the improper application of the concepts of integrity. (Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: In response to concerns by several consulting parties, Don L. Klima of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation sent a letter to Carol Shull, Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, on June 8, 2004, requesting advice on interpreting the exceptional character of the WTC Site. In a July 19, 2004, letter to Mr. Klima, Ms. Shull gave general guidance regarding the evaluation of historic properties and did not identify any shortcomings with the Coordinated Determination of National Register Eligibility (DOE). FHWA and NYSDOT believe that the DOE is sufficient for the purposes of the Route 9A Section 106 assessment. In addition, all of the Route 9A Alternatives have been designed to avoid the currently exposed slurry wall of the WTC Site. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” portions of the pre-September 11, 2001, roadway covered approximately 40 feet of the westernmost portion of the WTC “Bathtub.” Now that the “Bathtub” and western slurry wall is fully exposed, each Route 9A Alternative’s alignment has been shifted farther west than the previous roadway to avoid covering these elements at the WTC Site.
Comment 76: The statement that the Route 9A Project will not result in “use” of historic property and that a Section 4(f) statement is not required, while it may be correct, cannot be supported with the information currently available. It is not possible to say that the Route 9A project will not involve the “use” of some of the uninventoried features of the WTC complex. (Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: None of the Route 9A alternatives would involve construction within the 16- acre WTC Site. Therefore, any additional, un-inventoried features discovered on the site would not be affected by the Route 9A Project.
Comment 77: Page S-13, Section H, states that the Route 9A Project “would be preceded by an early action construction project”[s]. These projects include the PATH below-grade pedestrian concourse, below-grade egress ramps from the WTC site, and the possible relocation of the WTC Site’s river water cooling lines. The relationship between these projects and the Route 9A Project needs to be clarified. (Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: As the response to Comment 34 indicates these are not FHWA/NYSDOT actions but would involve construction within the Route 9A right-of-way. Therefore, some portions of these elements need to be constructed before the main effort for Route 9A begins.
19-31 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Comment 78: Table S-3: The discussion of impacts to archeological resources of the various alternatives refers only to prehistoric archaeological resources. What about historic period archeological resources? (Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: The one known historic period archaeological resource, the Hudson River Bulkhead, is discussed in Table S-3.
Comment 79: Table S-25: The WTC Site is the only one of four resources identified as being affected that is not discussed in the text of the section. This should be corrected. (Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: This has been corrected in the FSEIS.
Comment 80: It should be made clear that FHWA cannot use the NEPA process in lieu of the Section 106 process to satisfy National Historic Preservation Act obligations. (Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: Please see Chapter 6, “Cultural Resources,” under Section B, “Regulatory Context.”
Comment 81: The statement that buildings that were part of the pre-September 11 WTC were determined ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places in 1989, while correct, is very misleading. (Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: The statement is part of a larger section that explains that “as of September 11, 2001, no agency had determined that the WTC or any structure anywhere on the WTC Site was eligible for listing on the National Register or otherwise considered a historic resource.”
Comment 82: The discussion of the WTC Site needs to be revised. The existing physical elements at the site don’t just “help” convey a feeling of what happened on September 11, 2001, as the DSEIS says. They are essential to conveying the significance of the events of that day. (Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: The text has been revised to state that “some elements contribute to the significance of the events of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath.”
Comment 83: The SEIS should note who was advised, and when they were advised that the National Park Service “does not anticipate a decision in the near future” on the designation of the WTC Site as a National Historic Landmark. (Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: The text has been revised and this statement has been deleted.
19-32 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Comment 84: The Coalition notes and supports the actions taken by FHWA/NYSDOT to shift design alternatives farther west to avoid covering the bathtub and western slurry wall at the WTC Site. (Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: Comment noted.
VISUAL CHARACTER
Comment 85: The first alternative, refurbishing the temporary roadway opened on March 29, 2002, is extremely attractive because it would simply beautify a strip of roadway that has already proven itself. (Connor) Response: Comment noted. See response to Comment 92.
Comment 86: We need to examine why a six-lane, or possibly eight-lane, street would in any way be inappropriate or disrespectful to a World Trade Center Memorial. This is a city, an urban area. Why suburbanize our core area of the City for a memorial? (Hemric) Response: See response to Comment 30.
OPEN SPACE
Comment 87: The 40-foot long strip of grass between lanes of speeding traffic is unlikely to be popular as a recreational venue with Hudson River Park less than one thousand feet away. (Glick, Hemric, Faust) Response: The median area has been established to provide an ample area for vegetative plantings and refuge for pedestrian crossings between the WFC and WTC Site. It was intended to be a part of the transportation facility and not treated as a recreational venue.
TRAFFIC
Comment 88: During peak hours the bypass will speed up traffic only for the short distance of the bypass. Traffic merges result in significant bottlenecks. Without the merge, traffic could be expected to flow much more smoothly through the area in front of the Battery Park City ball fields, continuing past PS 89 and Stuyvesant High School. (Glick, Silliman) Traffic movement at the portals and weaving at the south end of the bypass is problematic. (RPA) Response: Traffic exiting the bypass, northbound at Murray Street and southbound at Albany Street, would be managed by traffic signals. In order to eliminate weaving south of Albany Street between southbound traffic using the bypass
19-33 Route 9A Project FSEIS
and that using the surface road, a three-phase signal would be implemented at Albany Street. This signal phasing would allow both the bypass traffic and the surface traffic to access the West Street Tunnel without weaving. At the northern end of the bypass, at Murray Street, traffic would be controlled by a two-phased traffic signal—a third phase is not needed.
Comment 89: In the long term, building the bypass tunnel could ensure less traffic congestion and reduce air pollution in the downtown area. (General Contractors Association of New York, Silver, RPA, Faust) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 90: The Short Bypass Alternative would remove several thousand vehicles per hour from surface traffic at the site of the proposed World Trade Center. (General Contractors Association of New York) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 91: The At-Grade Alternative costs only $40 million more than the No Action Alternative, yet it cuts the vehicle hours of delay during peak periods by over half. (RPA) Response: The At-Grade Alternative reduces delay by 25 percent during peak hours compared with the No Action Alternative. The Short Bypass reduces the No Action delay by 34 percent. The differential cost for the alternatives will be measured against all project goals, including the reduction in vehicle delay.
Comment 92: We have observed that the existing six lanes have proven perfectly capable of handling the existing traffic. We see no need for an eight-lane street or a need to expedite traffic, as there are no plans to increase the capacities of the FDR and the Holland Tunnel. (Rebuild Downtown Our Town, Goldman, Bogosian) Response: Due to growth in Lower Manhattan, as well as re-occupancy of buildings in Lower Manhattan, traffic is expected to increase significantly in the area. If vehicles cannot be accommodated on Route 9A they would use one of the inland streets. Due to the lower capacity of the six-lane No Action Alternative, fewer vehicles would use Route 9A. This would result in more traffic on inland streets, especially Church Street and Broadway, where bus volumes are high. As a result the No Action Alternative yields 1.8 million annual person hours of delay. This compares with the At-Grade Alternative which yields 1.3 million person hours of delay and the Short Bypass which yields 1.1 million annual person hours of delay.
Comment 93: If the bypass is built, some uptown residents may be encouraged to drive rather than take public transit. (Glick)
19-34 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
The reconstruction of West Street is an excellent opportunity to improve access through planning that takes as a governing principle zero increase in traffic in the area. (PCAC) Response: The possibility of induced demand was examined in the DSEIS (and originally for a much larger project in the 1994 FEIS) and was dismissed from further study. The possibility of additional roadway capacity drawing more vehicles to the study area could conceivably occur if the project involved a new river crossing or additional lanes on the existing bridges and tunnels. However, the examination of alternatives for this project includes a 1,200 foot segment of Route 9A that, unless the capacity is restored to the system, will become a bottleneck. A reduced Route 9A capacity would only divert traffic to inland streets thereby increasing congestion, and resulting negative impacts, in those areas. In addition many of the goals and objectives of the Route 9A Project include the need for improvements to Route 9A not directly related to traffic service.
Comment 94: The maps do not show the Liberty Street truck ramp. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The Figures in Chapter 2 (Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4) have been updated to show the locations of the access and egress ramps to the WTC Site south of Liberty Street.
Comment 95: To reduce traffic, specific curtailment measures, like congestion pricing, elimination of parking, and reduction of road space, should be planned. When the highway collapsed in 1973, some 93 percent of the traffic decline failed to appear on adjacent arterials. It simply disappeared. (Haikalis) Research has shown that if you add capacity, you will only draw additional vehicles, which will exasperate the existing traffic conditions. (Rebuild Downtown Our Town, BPC United, Haikalis) Response: The 1994 FEIS examined a variety of Transportation System Management (TSM)/Demand Management measures to determine if they could resolve traffic congestion conditions in the future. The study found that while some positive effects could be derived from TSM measures, they did not reduce Route 9A volumes or relieve traffic congestion on inland streets to the level required. Reducing the number of travel lanes on Route 9A would cause added traffic congestion on inland streets, particularly Church and Broadway, routes heavily used by bus transit. See response to Comment 98 for additional information.
Comment 96: A benefit of the Bypass Alternatives is segregating through traffic on Route 9A, and thereby supposedly improving traffic flow. Assumptions regarding how much and what type of traffic will use the bypass versus remaining at-grade and
19-35 Route 9A Project FSEIS
these assumptions have been constantly shifting, as this alternative has progressed in the approval process. (Gateway Plaza Tenants Association, Coalition to Save West Street) It would seem that the 75 percent figure overstates the effectiveness of a tunnel in lessening surface traffic past the WTC site. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: Projections for tunnel usage were based on origin and destination data. Table 8A-10 presents traffic volumes at-grade and in the bypass at various screenlines on Route 9A. Since origin and destination patterns change throughout the day it is expected that the percentage of vehicles using the bypass would also vary. For example, at Liberty Street during the AM peak hour approximately 59 percent of the northbound and 53 percent of the southbound traffic uses the Bypass (Liberty Portal). In the PM peak hour these figures are 73 percent and 56 percent, respectively.
Comment 97: Local traffic will be traveling on far less functional roadways under the bypass alternatives than would be available with the At-Grade Alternative. (Gateway Plaza Tenants Association) Under the Bypass Alternatives we will have two lanes, with no turn lanes, handling all local traffic, including most traffic to the World Trade Center and, most likely, all truck traffic. (Gateway Plaza Tenants Association) Under “Albany Street to Murray Street” for the Bypass Alternative, we note the loss of the ability to make a left turn from Route 9A at Murray Street, which is yet another disadvantage of a tunnel for local residents. (Coalition to Save West Street) The absences of turn lanes under the Short Bypass Alternatives should be addressed by the FSEIS. (CB No. 1) The bypass plans reduce our access directly to Route 9A by three streets from BPC and at least that many from the areas to the east. They limit access during an emergency and will restrict our ability to evacuate. (Lathrop) The elimination of the surface Albany Street vehicular and pedestrian crossing at West Street under the Cedar Street Portal Option is hugely isolating for BPC as far as vehicle access is concerned. (Coalition to Save West Street) Community concerns that the Short Bypass Alternatives would increase the isolation felt by BPC and other area residents must be addressed in the final EIS for this project. (PCAC) Response: The surface roads in the Short Bypass Alternative between Albany and Murray Streets would function as a city street rather than an arterial street. All local connections would occur from the surface streets. Traffic to Battery Place/West Thames Street and Warren/Chambers Streets would be unchanged. Emergency vehicles could use the bypass or surface streets under emergency conditions.
19-36 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
The current design for the Short Bypass Alternative includes left turn lanes at Vesey and Liberty Streets. With the Short Bypass, all current traffic movements are retained at Albany Street. Northbound West Street traffic cannot currently turn into BPC—they must turn in at Liberty Street. That condition would be the same with the Short Bypass Alternative. The Cedar Street Portal Option for the Short Bypass Alternative is no longer under consideration.
Comment 98: Segmenting consideration of this project from a proper assessment of traffic generating development west and east of Route 9A, at least as far north as West 79th Street, violates the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. (Clean Air Campaign) If the Hudson River Park Trust Authority succeeds in subsidizing all the non- water dependent and traffic-generating development in and over the river, then traffic and pollution on Route 9A, and in and around the $700 million plus tunnels, will be greater than predicted. (Clean Air Campaign) Simply projecting historical data on traffic flow and other key measures, without considering the added complexities associated with placing a tunnel next to what is destined to become a major US tourist attraction, will not suffice. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The traffic analysis in the FSEIS does consider increases in traffic due to future development throughout Manhattan. The forecasts are based on growth estimates developed by the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) NYTMC and is used as the baseline for planning all of the region’s transportation projects.
Comment 99: The fact that Route 9A will become a speedway with the tunnel is not something that will make it easier to travel along. (Hemric) Response: The posted speed limit for the bypass would be 30 mph and the entry/exit points would be signal controlled. This, in conjunction with coordinated traffic signals, would manage the speed of vehicles using both the bypass and surface roadways.
Comment 100: It is imperative that you install a full traffic signal at the intersection of West and Bethune streets. The safety of every driver and passenger in a westbound vehicle is at serious risk at this corner. (Malakoff) Response: This location is north of the area of focus of the FSEIS. However, NYSDOT will consider this request.
19-37 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Comment 101: Are plans for south of Chambers Street only? Route 9A is very congested in all directions. Response: The study area focus of the FSEIS is Route 9A between Chambers Street and West Thames Street. The 1994 FEIS, which is being supplemented by this effort, addressed conditions along Route 9A from 59th Street to Battery Place.
Comment 102: No apparent effort has been made to assess the effect of tourist-related traffic drawn to the site for “drive by” viewing and stopping to drop people off. Simply projecting historical traffic flows for this section of West Street is clearly inadequate. (Coalition to Save West Street, CB No. 1) The analysis of the impact of commuter and tourist buses on the area should include study years up to 2025. (CB No. 1) Response: Drop-off/pick-up areas will be evaluated in greater detail as part of continuing ongoing frontage studies for BPC (1 WFC, 2 WFC/3 WFC, and Site 26) and the WTC Site. The current design does not consider providing any facility adjacent to northbound Route 9A for pick up, drop off or standing of any kind. During peak hours vehicles passing through the area are likely to be commuters, familiar with the area and the presence of the WTC Memorial and Freedom Tower.
Comment 103: Assuming your traffic volume models are correct regarding how peak hour traffic volumes are constrained by capacity limitations of bridges and tunnels, this would seem to eliminate any argument for long-term economic benefits of a tunnel—that it would draw more shoppers and workers to Lower Manhattan. Also, it is not clear to us how this would prevent more vehicles from being drawn into Lower Manhattan if traffic through a Bypass tunnel does indeed move faster for four blocks (wouldn’t faster moving traffic on West Street allow more inbound vehicles to pass a given point in the BBT in a fixed period?). (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The intent of the tunnel is not to draw more shoppers and workers to Lower Manhattan. The demand for transportation services along Route 9A is the same for all alternatives which are then assessed on how well they can meet this demand. For example, under the No Action Alternative this demand cannot be met with the six-lane design, the result in near gridlock on some streets in the study area. The At-Grade Alternative does a better job of meeting this demand while the Short Bypass Alternative does slightly better. Providing greater capacity for four blocks will not induce additional traffic into Manhattan. Capacity is constrained at the bridges and tunnels entering Manhattan as well as key approaches to the Chambers to West Thames Street segment of Route 9A understudy in the FSEIS. The BBT/West Thames intersection meters traffic entering northbound Route 9A from Brooklyn, the
19-38 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
FDR Drive, and Battery Place. In the southbound direction traffic is metered past two intersections—Canal/West Street and Chambers/West Street.
Comment 104: The first page of Table S-4 states that the Bypass provides a “higher level of transportation services than other alternatives” and “would remove the greatest amount of traffic from inland streets.” The analysis shows, however, that all of the Build alternatives deal adequately with traffic and the additional amount shifted from inland streets by the Bypass is marginal. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The Short Bypass draws the most traffic from inland streets benefiting land use, neighborhood character, public policy, and socio-economic conditions in Lower Manhattan. A reduction in traffic on narrow, congested, local streets does provide benefits in those areas noted. The shift of traffic from inland streets may seem small but the positive effects on transit (buses) in operation on Trinity/Church Streets and Broadway translate into substantial improvements in terms of person-hours of delay. The Short Bypass during the AM and PM peak hours corresponds to a saving of 200,000 passenger hours of delay a year, compared to the eight-lane At-Grade Alternative.
Comment 105: When discussing future traffic needs for Lower Manhattan, shouldn’t the DSEIS have studied and noted how the traffic needs of a 24/7 urban district are different than those for a more “9 to 5” district (e.g., traffic is spread out more evenly around a 24-hour day and around a 7-day week)? (Hemrick) Response: The traffic forecasts reflect the future development of residential uses resulting from both new project site development as well as the conversion of office buildings to residential use. These changes, reflecting a more “24/7” urban district are thus reflected in the analyses. Because of the more 24/7 environment it is expected that traffic would grow more during periods outside of the peak hours.
Comment 106: The Draft SEIS did not discuss the traffic effects resulting from the Route 9A alternatives and changes in the street network that are proposed by the WTC Redevelopment Plan, such as the reconnection of Fulton with Greenwich Street and with Route 9A. The Final SEIS should be explicit regarding the traffic impacts from each alternative to the reconnected streets and the intersections in the WTC Site and conversely the impact to Route 9A from the change in the street grid. (EPA) Response: The DSEIS properly assumed that the streets planned and analyzed in LMDC’s approved WTC GEIS will be constructed as part of the build out of the World Trade Center Site. As such the No Build, At-Grade, and Short Bypass Alternatives each assume that Greenwich Street and Fulton Streets will be
19-39 Route 9A Project FSEIS
extended. Since the LMDC is proposing the streets, the impact of these streets, versus no new streets, would logically need to be included in the WTC GEIS, not the Route 9A SEIS. The Route 9A traffic analysis (and air quality and noise impact assessment) have been updated for the FSEIS to reflect the most current planning at the WTC Site.
Comment 107: Cumulatively, for both rush hours combined, the numbers of vehicles shifted is 800 for the At-Grade Alternative and 1030 for the Short Bypass Alternative. Assuming that this is a “benefit” that favors the Bypass, it is hardly enough to justify an alternative that is five times as expensive. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The advantages and disadvantages of the Short Bypass Alternative do not solely rely on differences in traffic on inland streets. There are a number of other considerations, some quantifiable and others only qualitative. Furthermore, the effects of the diverted traffic on congestion are not linear. Therefore, modest reductions in vehicles could result in a much greater reduction in congestion in the study area.
Comment 108: The Final SEIS should indicate whether or not the transit improvements across lower Manhattan were considered when arriving at the traffic assessments of the project. (EPA) The DSEIS also doesn’t seem to account for various plans for increased public transit into the area e.g., longer PATH trains into a permanent PATH Terminal, longer trains into the South Ferry station, a Second Avenue subway, an extension of the L.I.R.R. into Lower Manhattan, a direct link to JFK, increased use of ferries, etc. (Hemrick) Response: There are several major transit projects as part of the Lower Manhattan Recovery effort. The future Route 9A traffic forecasts are based on the region’s MPO (NYMTC) Best Practices Model and development and population estimates for the year 2025. That model considers improvements in transit service as well as new transit projects included in the Transportation Improvement Plan. The model results show both an increase in transit and vehicular trips, but transit trips increase by a larger percentage because of the transit improvements planned and their resulting improvement in transit access to Lower Manhattan.
Comment 109: The Draft SEIS did not discuss what would become of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel (BBT) truck inspection security checkpoint. The Final SEIS should discuss whether this current program will continue or if there will be modifications to the truck inspection regime depending on the alternative. (EPA)
19-40 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Response: The FSEIS assumes that the truck inspections that are currently occurring on northbound West Street at the tunnel approach will continue to the same extent as they are now. Additionally, it is assumed that cars and city buses will be the only vehicles allowed to enter the BBT via the entrance ramp that connects with southbound Route 9A. Trucks are currently prohibited from entering the BBT via the southbound West Street Underpass.
Comment 110: While the Short Bypass might enhance through traffic flow along the length of the Bypass, it would do so by segregating local and through traffic in a manner that could result in degrading the flow of local traffic and traffic destined for Lower Manhattan. (CB No. 1) Response: The impacts of each alternative along the route between West Thames Street and Chambers Street have been assessed in the FSEIS. Specific performance at each intersection is summarized in Chapter 8, with details provided in the appendix.
Comment 111: The At-Grade Alternative will have the same traffic capacity as the Bypass Alternatives, but will have more flexibility to handle shifting proportions of local and through traffic, and would be less likely to be subject to security closures. (CB No. 1) Response: The Short Bypass Alternative would have somewhat greater flexibility than the At-Grade Alternative since there are two roadways in each direction as opposed to one. Traffic would use either the surface road or bypass road in the case of an incident and be able to shift local and through traffic away from an incident or operational closures on surface streets due to security needs.
Comment 112: The Cedar Street Portal Bypass Alternative would be the most disruptive Alternative for local traffic. (CB No. 1) The DSEIS does not adequately address the Cedar Street Portal Option, which would appear to have more significant effects on traffic than the Liberty Street Portal Option. (CB No. 1) Response: The Cedar Street Portal Option is no longer under consideration.
Comment 113: The DSEIS provides inadequate information to assess the different traffic effects of the different proposed alternatives. It provides inadequate guidance as to how much more disruptive the Short Bypass Alternatives would be to traffic during construction than the At-Grade Alternative. (CB No. 1) Response: The FSEIS assesses the peak construction activity for the Short Bypass as a worst case. Further estimates prepared since the draft indicate that the same number of peak daily trucks (200) are estimated during the peak of construction.
19-41 Route 9A Project FSEIS
The difference, therefore, between the two alternatives is not the peak construction activity but the duration.
Comment 114: The DSEIS doesn’t analyze mid-day hours which are the hours during which the vast majority of WTC visitors will use Route 9A. (CB No. 1) Response: During the course of conducting the traffic studies for the DSEIS and FSEIS it was determined that the hour of highest traffic northbound occurred during the AM peak hour (8-9 AM) and the hour of highest southbound traffic occurred during the PM peak hour (5-6 PM). As a result these two hours became the design hours for which each alternative design was tested. This is consistent with the design hours studied in the 1994 FEIS for Route 9A.
Comment 115: The At-Grade Alternative would exacerbate conflicts between pedestrians trying to negotiate its mammoth width and speeding traffic. It would add significantly to existing traffic congestion as future civic, cultural, and commercial development occurs. The Memorial Park Tunnel would relieve congestion by attracting 75 percent of the through traffic while local traffic would use the 4- lane street above. (HR&A, WFC, Brookfield, REBNY, ABNY, Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects, Cooper, Robertson & Partners, BTEANYC, Cadwalader, Cobbler Express, Leonard Litwin, T. Nga Trinh, Cleary Gottlieb, SouthWestNY, Downtown Lower Manhattan Association, Inc., CBRE, Morgan & Finnegan, The Battery Conservancy, Helfand Architecture, New York Building Congress) Response: The At-Grade Alternative, while designed to provide safe refuge in the median areas at pedestrian crossings, does result in potentially more vehicle/pedestrian conflicts than with the Short Bypass Alternative between Liberty and Vesey Streets. While pedestrian bridges are being considered for both alternatives, none are needed at Liberty Street or the remainder of the WTC Site (Fulton Street) for the Short Bypass due to the large reduction in surface traffic and number of lanes to cross.
Comment 116: In addition to providing service for through vehicles traveling to and from the BBT, it is important to retain access to the WFC, the North and South Residential neighborhoods of Battery Park City and to the WTC Memorial. This includes incorporating the demand of residents, workers and tourists to this area in the future, as well as existing through traffic commuters. (Battery Park City Authority) Response: The traffic studies have included all of the existing and future activity (through 2025) in BPC and the WTC Site as well as many other development projects in Lower Manhattan.
19-42 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Comment 117: Please provide complete networks for the 2007 No Action Alternative, Short Bypass Alternative and At-Grade Alternative. Those provided in Appendix E Part I are not complete as they do not include the same intersections as those included in the 2003 existing conditions. (NYCDOT) Response: The networks included in the DSEIS and FSEIS appendices include all Route 9A intersections between West Thames Street and Chambers Street. These are all the intersections that have been analyzed.
Comment 118: Please add the following projects to Table 7 as well as the proposed improvement measures: Battery Park City Site 26, and WSURA Site 5C. (NYCDOT) Response: Our initial studies included the development of Site 26 as well as the development of WSURA Site 5C. Since both projects are planned to be completed after 2007, they have only been included in our 2025 analyses.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Comment 119: The expanded use of public transportation should play a prominent role in planning for the area, together with the use of state-of-the-art transportation management techniques. (PCAC) Response: Comment noted.
PEDESTRIANS
Comment 120: Pedestrian access across West Street could be improved by improvements to the roadway at grade level, including signal timing, high visibility crosswalks, pedestrian bulb-outs at crosswalks, and well-designed, amply provided medians and crosswalks at the Fulton Street extension. (Tri-State Transportation Campaign, PCAC) Response: The design details noted were all applied to the At-Grade Alternative and pre- September 11 reconstruction of the Route 9A Boulevard. These treatments would be examined again for use with the Preferred Alternative.
Comment 121: Arguably, there will be a slightly improved pedestrian crossing experience between Liberty and Vesey with the Bypass Alternatives. (Gateway Plaza Tenants Association) Response: Comment noted.
19-43 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Comment 122: It is imperative that the destroyed pedestrian bridges be permanently replaced so that there is access from BPC to the WTC Site and beyond. (Chernow, Gateway Plaza Tenants Association) I question the intent to remove the Vesey Street pedestrian bridge. (WTC Restoration Movement) We ask that a replacement pedestrian bridge be part of any Route 9A alternative. (Gateway Plaza Tenants Association) We are using the foot bridges and they are fine for crossing the highway. (Tucker) Response: The Liberty Street pedestrian bridge would be modified or replaced with the At- Grade Alternative. It would in all likelihood be removed with the Short Bypass since at-grade crossings would be easier with this alternative. The temporary Rector Street and Vesey Street Bridges would be removed. Permanent bridges in the vicinity of Rector, Vesey, Murray, and Warren Streets would be studied and further evaluated during the design phase. A future bridge at Morris Street is also under study.
Comment 123: A widening of the sidewalk area, between Albany and Murray Streets, will add to the quality of the pedestrian experience. (Gerson) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 124: To provide for clearance in the tunnel and signage and drainage, and soil on top for landscaping, the tunnel will push the pedestrian tunnel 30 feet lower than it normally is which means that people will have to be going down an extra three and a half stories just to get under West Street. This would not improve pedestrian movement across Route 9A. (Hemric) Response: The PANYNJ’s underground concourse is situated some three levels below grade. The underground route is part of a half mile east-west passageway that is generally level and connects the WFC with the Fulton Street stations and the others in between. At some point the passageway needs to provide vertical access that brings pedestrians up to the surface, three levels higher. Regardless of the alternative, this vertical distance will need to be traveled. Since it is more efficient to provide this vertical access in one location, it has been provided for on the west side of Route 9A. For further information see response to Comment 23.
Comment 125: The Port Authority has stated that it is also seriously considering, as an alternate to a pedestrian tunnel, the construction of a weather-protected pedestrian bridge, similar to the destroyed North Bridge that crossed West Street prior to
19-44 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
September 11. Shouldn’t the Draft SEIS have examined how the impacts of the three major alternatives that are under study would be altered should such a bridge be constructed? (Hemrick) The Port Authority has also stated that it is more inclined to construct a weather protected bridge (light-filled and convenient) if the Short Bypass Tunnel is NOT built, and more inclined to build pedestrian tunnel (inconvenient, artificially lighted, and claustrophobic) if the Short Bypass Tunnel is built? Shouldn’t this impact (increasing the likelihood of the construction of a less desirable all- weather pedestrian crossing) on the Port Authority’s ultimate decision be considered a possible negative impact of the Short Bypass Tunnel Alternative? (Hemrick) Response: In the EIS for the Permanent WTC PATH Terminal, the Port Authority stated that they “may” elect to construct a bridge over Route 9A if the Short Bypass is not selected. Their preferred option, as shown on all their drawings, is an underground pedestrian concourse. The Short Bypass Alternative would reduce the cost of the pedestrian concourse since utility relocations and much of the excavation would be borne by the Route 9A Project. Whether the Port Authority ultimately selects a bridge or tunnel would have little bearing on the evaluation of the Route 9A alternatives. All alternatives could be constructed with either a bridge or an underground concourse.
Comment 126: The exhaust from vehicles using the Short Bypass Tunnel would be vented at the tunnel openings which happen to be adjacent to the major east-west pedestrian crossings of Vesey Street and Liberty Street (with the Liberty Street Portal) and Cedar Street (with the Cedar Street Portal). Wouldn’t this have a negative impact on pedestrians crossing West Street and shouldn’t this have been noted as a negative impact of the Short Bypass Tunnel? (Hemrick) Response: Under the Short Bypass Alternative, pedestrians must only pass four lanes of traffic as opposed to eight under the At-Grade Alternative. Since emissions from queued vehicles contribute a disproportionate amount of the local CO problems at major intersections, total emissions with the Short Bypass Alternative are less than the At-Grade Alternative. In any case, while crossing the roadway, pedestrians are exposed to higher levels of pollutants for a very brief time. These short-term exposures do not affect individuals like the longer-term exposures that are regulated under the federal Clean Air Act. Therefore, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been developed using specific time-averaging periods to protect the public health. The shortest time period in the NAAQS is for the 1-hour carbon monoxide (CO) standard. There is also an 8-hour average CO standard. With respect to particulate matter, standards have been established for 24-hour average and annual average concentrations. This dictates that the evaluation of each alternative’s effect on ambient air quality be assessed using receptors that
19-45 Route 9A Project FSEIS
would be indicative of the general public’s exposure on a basis consistent with the NAAQS time averaging periods. In addition, to provide a common analysis basis, these receptors should be in the same general location for all alternatives (i.e., along a sidewalk that exists under all alternatives.) The analysis conducted for the FSEIS and shown in Chapter 9, “Air Quality,” has demonstrated that there would be no exceedances of the NAAQS with the Short Bypass Alternative.
Comment 127: When assessing the impacts of the Short Bypass Tunnel Alternative, the Draft SEIS seems to ignore the negative impact that tearing down the Liberty Street pedestrian bridge will have on east-west pedestrian connectivity. Shouldn’t such a degradation of east-west pedestrian connectivity have been considered a negative effect of the Short Bypass Tunnel? (Hemrick) Response: One of the benefits of the Short Bypass Alternatives is that pedestrian bridges are not necessary between Vesey and Liberty Streets. Crossing at-grade is preferred over the use of pedestrian bridges. This is because the Short Bypass gives a reduction in surface lanes (four vs. eight through lanes), roadway crossing widths, and, surface traffic. Another improvement is a wide pedestrian median area between the north and southbound surface streets.
Comment 128: In general, the DSEIS seems to boldly assert—without supporting logic or evidence—that the construction of a short bypass tunnel would somehow increase east-west connectivity for pedestrians (despite the absence of weather- protected crossing, dangerous tunnel entrances, concentrations of air pollutants at two of major pedestrian crossings, etc.) Therefore, shouldn’t the DSEIS explain in more detail how it assumes that a Short Bypass Tunnel would somehow improve east-west pedestrian connectivity? (Hemrick) While a Short Bypass would enhance at-grade east-west pedestrian connectivity between Liberty and Vesey Streets, it would do so at the expense of reducing pedestrian connectivity in other adjacent areas heavily traveled by area residents and workers. (CB No. 1) Response: As part of LMDC’s July 2002 outreach meetings, 88 percent of the participants felt that eliminating Route 9A as a barrier was “important” or “very important.” This was for an at-grade roadway with its two pedestrian bridges between the WFC and the WTC. The Short Bypass Alternative eliminates the need for these bridges as discussed in response to the previous comment and reduces the pavement and traffic lanes which are creating this barrier. For further information, see response to Comment 130 and Comment 126 with respect to air quality.
19-46 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Comment 129: We request to be involved in determining the exact placement/location of any pedestrian bridges, escalators and/or staircases on or adjacent to either Hudson River Park or Route 9A’s bikeway. (HRPT) Response: Comment noted. NYSDOT will continue to coordinate with HRPT with respect to many design aspects of the project including the location of any possible pedestrian bridges.
Comment 130: The At-Grade Alternative requires pedestrians to cross greater distances. However, it also provides better vehicular access by allowing more opportunity for left-turns and by providing exclusive left-turn lanes and signal phases. (Battery Park City Authority) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 131: Regarding the No Action Alternative, we support the construction of the Morris Street Bridge and a pedestrian bridge at Murray Street. We recommend left turns at Albany Street to provide access from the south to the South Residential Neighborhood. (Battery Park City Authority) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 132: Some of the alternatives call for the removal of pedestrian bridges, to be replaced with at-grade crossings. We see this as a positive change that will improve access to the bikeway and waterfront. (Parks) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 133: We view the portals and their approaches to the Short Bypass as a potential safety hazard to pedestrians. (RPA) On the safety front, the tunnel fails since it will involve ramps where cars speed up. (WTC Environmental Organization) The treatment of traffic safety is totally inadequate and unacceptable. In concluding that the Bypass is safer, it ignores the safety problem of pedestrians crossing in front of tunnel ramps. We know from the Park Avenue tunnel in midtown New York City that ramps are a major safety hazard for pedestrians. This omission is a major failing and again suggests the inadequacy of the SEIS approach in adequately analyzing the tunnel alternatives. (Coalition to Save West Street) The unsightly tunnel ramps will be hazardous for pedestrians to cross. (Silliman, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, Straphangers Campaign, Hemric, Glick, Gateway Plaza Association, Gerson, Moeslinger, CB No. 1)
19-47 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Conflicts with the portals in the Short Bypass Alternatives could negatively impact pedestrian safety. (PCAC) None of the Route 9A drawings show realistic pedestrian and car encounters at the ramps or any of the signs and barricades that are going to have to happen. (Chernow) To suddenly turn a southbound highway into a two-lane road, with two suppressed lanes, will confuse drivers and create bottlenecks and traffic congestion at the tunnel entrances and exits, which will endanger pedestrians. (Chernow) Response: Safety of pedestrians crossing West Street is of prime consideration in design for the portals of the Short Bypass Alternative. The entire portal/street design concept for West Street portals at Liberty/Albany and Vesey/Murray Street is based on pedestrian friendly, traffic calming techniques that include landscaping, clear pedestrian crossing delineation, and wide median refuge areas. Pedestrian crossings at portal approaches at Albany and Murray Streets will have 20-foot-wide refuge areas in the center median area to provide for reduced length of pedestrian crossing distance of each roadway. Furthermore, a pedestrian bridge to BPC is being considered for all build alternatives in the vicinity of Rector/Albany Streets to replace the temporary Rector Street Bridge. In addition a new bridge crossing could be provided at Murray Street to connect with a development site (BPC Site 26) at that location. These bridge location studies will continue into the detailed design phase. The Short Bypass would have state of the art tunnel lighting, greater sight lines, and standard lane widths. The design of the Short Bypass portals would be more pedestrian friendly incorporating details to maximize sight lines refuge, etc. The Short Bypass pavement crossing distances would be much shorter between safe refuge areas than at the Park Avenue crossings. The Bypass would be adequately signed and marked to minimize potential driver confusion as to direction of travel and the pedestrian analysis shows that the pedestrian crossings operate at acceptable levels of service. The geometrics of the alternatives, including refuge islands, pedestrian crossings, and pavement markups, are indicated in Appendix B, “Engineering Drawings.”
AIR QUALITY
Comment 134: Total emissions from the bypass and at-grade traffic lanes will be greater for the Bypass Alternatives than the At-Grade Alternative. Emissions from cars in the tunnel will be vented directly onto the streets above and the bypass will increase the overall number of cars on West Street. (Glick)
19-48 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Response: While the Short Bypass Alternative would increase VMT on Route 9A as compared to the At-Grade Alternative they would be diverted from inland streets that operate at a lower LOS than Route 9A would. Total pollutant emissions for the study area would be lower with the Short Bypass Alternative than with the At-Grade Alternative due to the slightly higher level of service provided by the former. This includes the emissions of vehicles using Route 9A and other arterials in the study area such as Church Street and Broadway. For
regional pollutants like ozone and PM2.5 the contribution to the area-wide pollutant burden from all roadways in the study area is very important when considering the effects of each alternative. The detailed technical analysis can be found in Appendix F, “Air Quality,” of the FSEIS.
Comment 135: The DSEIS ignores the effects the construction of Route 9A will have on air quality and noise by explaining that these elements will be bad anyway because of work being done on other projects in the area. It is ridiculous to say that the consequences of this project will be negligible because they are masked by others. (Glick) Response: In Chapters 9 and 10 of the DSEIS, the construction-related effects of the Route 9A Project upon air quality and noise are outlined in detail. Figures 9-2 through 9-11 indicate the increase in particulate matter due to construction of Route 9A alone. Pages 9-17 through 9-21 illustrate in tables and in the text the project’s effects on particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide. No where does it state that “that these elements would be bad anyway because of work by others….” Similarly, the noise analysis examined construction related impacts at 14 locations (see Table 10-6). Impacts were identified at several locations generally for receptors adjacent to the corridor. The text on page 10-10 states that “proposed Route 9A construction operations would result in adverse noise impacts at sensitive receptors immediately adjacent to the project site. These impacts would continue for a considerable period of time, and could occur during nighttime and weekend hours….” Mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts are discussed on pages 10-5 through 10-18.
Comment 136: In the long term, building the bypass tunnel could ensure less traffic congestion and reduce air pollution in the downtown area. (General Contractors Association of New York) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 137: Where direct emissions controls are not possible, we urge NYSDOT to invest in emissions reductions from other sources like low emission fuels. (Environ- mental Defense)
19-49 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Response: NYSDOT is committed to using ultra-low sulfur fuel for on-site construction equipment.
Comment 138: The net emissions impact of this project should be zero. If there are still exceedances for particulate matters of 10 or 2.5 micrometers in diameter, despite using all the mitigation measures on the project, the DOT should find offsetting reduction measures elsewhere. (Environmental Defense) Response: A net emissions increase of zero for construction of the project is neither realistic nor required to mitigate the project’s potential adverse impacts. NYSDOT, in conjunction with the other local sponsors for the federally funded Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects, has committed to a series of measures to reduce emissions of pollutants from diesel-powered equipment.
Comment 139: Using the language “where practicable” is not appropriate for this type of project. (Environmental Defense) Response: The “where practicable” phrase has been part of the Environmental Performance Commitments developed early in the planning process for the federally-funded Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects, developed in conjunction with FTA. As discussed in Chapter 16, “Cumulative Impacts” it is unclear at this point whether all of the equipment can be retrofitted with DPFs which result in lower emissions; engines that cannot be retrofitted will be fitted with DOCs which are less efficient than DPFs but still significantly reduce tailpipe emissions.
Comment 140: We urge this project to develop a powerful enforcement plan and mechanism for compliance. In addition, we strongly support on-site emissions testing to ensure compliance and accountability. (Environmental Defense) Response: NYSDOT has prepared several Special Notes which will be used during construction of the project. These include a Building Condition Survey and Vibration Criteria Note, Noise Control Note, Ultra Low Sulfur Fuel Note, Health and Safety Specification and Diesel Emission Control Note.
Comment 141: If New York City wants to comply with the EPA’s new standards by 2010, the West Street tunnel should definitely not be built. (Thibault) Response: In 2010, both build alternatives would result in reduction in vehicular emissions in the study area, as compared to the No Action Alternative.
Comment 142: Claims that increased pollution in and from the tunnels will not be a problem in 2025 are based on the flawed traffic model from the 1980s, used in the 1994 EIS which understated the traffic and air pollution to be generated by misplaced
19-50 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
development in and over the Hudson River west of Route 9A. (Clean Air Campaign) One reason to doubt the environmental benefits of the Bypass Alternative is that they are based on the traffic model which we believe to be flawed. We conclude that any post-construction air pollution benefit is speculative at best and must be weighed against the certainty that, during construction, the Bypass Alternative will spew out far more pollutants than the At-Grade Alternative. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The traffic model developed for the Route 9A Project for the 1994 FEIS represented the state-of-the-art for forecasting future traffic conditions in Manhattan. It was updated for the DSEIS based on newly collected data and information supplied by NYMTC. The assertion that the traffic model is flawed is incorrect since the projections are based on the MPO’s Best Practices Model. As shown in Chapter 9 of the FSEIS, the pollutant concentrations during construction of either alternative would be similar. The difference would be that these concentrations would persist for a longer time with the Short Bypass as opposed to the At-Grade.
Comment 143: Environmentally the tunnel will provide little, if any, benefit even after construction, since the highly polluted air within the tunnel will ultimately find its way out at both ends. (WTC Environmental Organization) Response: The air quality analysis in the FSEIS includes the emissions of pollutants at the tunnel portals. However, fewer total pollutants are emitted by the Short Bypass Alternative than the At-Grade or No Action Alternatives along Route 9A. It is true that the tunnel concentrates those pollutants in a smaller area than what would occur under the At-Grade Alternative, but the issue is more complex than that. This complex situation is reflected in the results of the microscale CO and PM analyses shown in Tables 9-9 through 9-15 of the DSEIS and FSEIS. Depending upon the actual receptor (i.e., sidewalk) location along Route 9A, an alternative may increase concentrations at one location and decrease them at another location or intersection. These concentrations are highly localized and within 100 to 200 feet of the roadway the microscale effects are less noticeable with area wide effects beginning to define the Project’s overall effect.
Comment 144: The expected use of a jet fan ventilation system will inevitably concentrate pollutants at the ends of the tunnel which is not good for those with apartments overlooking the ramp. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: As discussed above in response to Comment 126, the air quality analysis in the FSEIS considered the effects of pollutant emissions from the bypass portals at receptors along the east and west sidewalks of Route 9A, to conservatively
19-51 Route 9A Project FSEIS
determine the effects on nearby residents. The results of the analysis indicate that none of the alternatives would cause exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Concentrations at elevated locations in nearby buildings would be even lower.
Comment 145: The data in these two tables (9-11 and 9-15) do not show the environmental impact in the immediate area of the project like some of the other numbers do. Projections over such a large “study area” are subject to much more uncertainty because there are a lot more factors that can influence them. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The data in Tables 9-11 and 9-15 (9-12 and 9-16 in the FSEIS) are not meant to show the effect of the project alternatives in the immediate area of Route 9A. This is represented in Tables 9-9 through 9-11 and 9-13 through 9-15. All of the traffic, air quality, and noise analyses in the FSEIS include some uncertainty in that they are based on mathematical models that are attempting to simulate complex physical and human behavior. However, it is incorrect to assume that the microscale analysis has less uncertainty than the mesoscale analysis because the projections are over a larger study area. It can be argued that the uncertainties over a larger study area tend to smooth the data and provide a more robust understanding of the environmental effects of each alternative. In addition, the mesoscale analysis does not have to consider the effects of dispersion and meteorology on ambient concentrations. In that respect, it contains less uncertainty than the localized or microscale analysis. Both analyses, which were conducted using EPA-approved methodologies, are included to provide relevant information with respect to the various effects of the project alternatives. One analysis does not include more uncertainty than another.
Comment 146: The projected pollution numbers in Chapter 9 of the DSEIS, which show the more localized impact along West Street, do not favor the Short Bypass Alternative and, in some cases disfavor it. Examples of the latter are: On page 9- 16 of the DSEIS it says that “Both annual neighborhood scale and 24-hour
average highest increases in PM2.5 concentrations were substantial, predicted to exceed the interim guidance threshold values…”; or on pages 9-17 and 9-18 of
the DSEIS, the values for PM2.5 in each table show certain numbers indicating “substantial adverse impact-exceeding the interim guidance thresholds” in Table 9-6 and “substantial adverse impact-exceeding the NAAQS” in Table 9-7. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The discussion on pages 9-16, 9-17, and 9-18 of the DSEIS and 9-17 through 9-20 of the FSEIS are related to the air quality effects during construction of the Short Bypass Alternative. Construction of this alternative would result in
impacts on ambient air quality due to emissions of PM2.5. However, these
19-52 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
impacts would also occur with the At-Grade Alternative with mitigation as proposed in the DSEIS. Additional mitigation has been proposed for the FSEIS and the results of that analysis for both the At-Grade and Short Bypass Alternatives is shown in Chapter 9.
Comment 147: Based on the numbers presented in the DSEIS, the At-Grade Alternative yields, on average, almost two-thirds of the projected positive environmental benefits of the Bypass Alternative shown in tables 9-11 and 9-15 but for 20 percent of the cost. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: These tables, which have been updated for the FSEIS, show that the reduction in air pollutants within the study area due to the Short Bypass Alternative as compared to the At-Grade Alternative would be 20 and 10 percent in 2009 and 2015, respectively.
Comment 148: We are concerned with the project’s PM2.5 and NO2 emission impacts that are predicted to occur at certain receptors. The Draft SEIS indicates that
individually the emissions of PM2.5, and cumulatively the concentration of PM10, PM2.5 and NO2 will come close to or exceed the national ambient air quality standards in the peak construction years. Also, the cumulative emissions of
PM2.5 could still exceed both the 24-hour and the annual NAAQS. We recommend the final SEIS contain a more detailed discussion of the NO2 emissions data used to support the conclusions found in the document and describe other measures that can be implemented to further minimize the
emissions of PM2.5. (EPA) Response: Additional mitigation has been proposed in the FSEIS which would further reduce the emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.
Comment 149: We strongly support the proposed Environmental Performance Commitments (EPCs). The Draft SEIS is unclear as to how the percentage of emission reduction was calculated and applied. It appears that the 67 per cent emission reduction is applied to the maximum total particulate matter concentrations. There is still the issue of what portion of the emissions, and what reductions, can be achieved from equipment with less than 50 horsepower. Therefore,
applying the 67 per cent reduction to the total of all PM2.5 emissions would be incorrect. We suggest that other emission sources and mitigation technologies will need further examination in the Final SEIS. (EPA) Response: The base case scenario included only the EPCs as originally stated, which applied a reduction of 40 percent only to engines of 60 hp or greater, under the assumption that DOCs would be used. As described in Chapters 9 and 16, emphasis on PM reduction could significantly reduce emissions, up to a reduction of 80 percent in engine emissions. The DSEIS did not apply specific reduction since a mitigation scenario was not yet available, and just stated that
19-53 Route 9A Project FSEIS
the possible mitigation measures, if applied, would reduce emissions to the maximum extent practicable. The 80 percent reduction assumed some electrification, extensive application of DPFs, and the use of DOCs where DPFs are not possible. The FSEIS includes a detailed mitigation scenario.
Comment 150: While the Draft SEIS does present a good discussion of mesoscale analysis in terms of the build and no build emissions, it states that only emissions from motor vehicles were included and only the operational years were evaluated. A mesoscale analysis of the critical construction year, 2006, that includes both on- road and off-road sources should also be performed. We suggest that the final SEIS provide that analysis and the breakdown of each category’s emissions contribution. (EPA) Response: No emissions other than mobile source are expected in the operational phase. A mesoscale analysis of construction equipment and vehicles has been added to the FSEIS. See Chapter 9, “Air Quality,” for the Route 9A Project and Chapter 16, “Cumulative Impacts,” for the cumulative analysis.
Comment 151: The Draft SEIS did not provide a discussion of NOx or VOCs. A cumulative inventory of the emissions of NOx and VOC, as precursors to ozone formation, would have been appropriate. The Final SEIS should contain such analyses and also discuss other projects outside of lower Manhattan that will have an impact on regional air emissions. (EPA)
Response: The DSEIS did discuss regional emissions of NOx and VOC (see Table 9–11 of the DSEIS and 9-12 in the FSEIS) in the operational phase. As described in the response to Comment 150 above, a mesoscale emissions analysis for the construction phase has been added as well, and the cumulative emissions from other reconstruction projects are also presented in Chapter 16, “Cumulative Effects,” of the FSEIS.
Comment 152: To improve our understanding of the air quality issues, we would like to review the emission factors, technical background data, and the assumptions used for the air pollutant modeling, in both the No Action condition and in the project conditions for the years analyzed. (EPA) Response: This information is included in Appendix F which has been provided to the US EPA.
Comment 153: At both analysis locations, the maximum annual average PM10 concentration decreases slightly for both the At Grade and Short Bypass Alternatives but does not change for the No Action Alternative making the latter an unacceptable option. Offsetting reduction measures should be implemented anywhere in the
19-54 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
impacted areas if there are still exceedances of PM10 and PM2.5 despite using all available mitigation measures. (CB No. 1) Response: With respect to long-term operational effects of the project alternatives on ambient concentrations of particulate matter, the differences shown in Tables 9-10, 9-11, 9-14, and 9-15 are not significant. With respect to construction- related air quality, as discussed in Chapter 9, “Air Quality” of the FSEIS, additional mitigation has been proposed to further reduce emissions of particulate matter. With this mitigation, there would be no exceedances of the
PM10 standards. With respect to PM2.5, the additional mitigation would reduce the possibility of an exceedance of the 24-hour standard to a small area adjacent to the roadway. As discussed in Chapter 9, “Air Quality,” the exceedance of the standard would only occur under a rare occurrence of peak construction activity, low wind speeds, and high background levels. With respect to annual averages, the proposed mitigation would reduce the maximum predicted concentrations at residential/hotel receptors to 0.5 and 0.4 ug/m3 with the Short Bypass and At- Grade Alternatives, respectively.
Comment 154: We are concerned that particulate matter emitted from diesel engines working on the Proposed Action will be “substantially higher” than New York City’s interim guidance threshold and will “substantially exceed” the EPA’s air quality standards. We recommend the following measures: develop an air-monitoring program throughout the site of the Proposed Action; enforce New York City’s three consecutive minute idling regulations for vehicles with diesel engines; require that all vehicles use state-of-the-art emissions filters and ultra low sulfur fuels. (CB No. 1) Response: With the exception of the air monitoring program all of the measures cited are part of NYSDOT’s EPCs. Currently the project sponsors of the federally-funded Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects are developing plans for an air quality monitoring program which would be used during construction of their projects. At this time, it is expected that the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center (LMCCC) will manage the monitoring program.
Comment 155: Improved traffic flow and reduced congestion also means less pollution from stalled, idling vehicles with the tunnel alternative. Traffic fumes from the trucks and cars clogging West Street with the At-Grade Alternative will inevitably make the WTC Site less pleasant and, at times, less healthy. (HR&A, WFC, Brookfield, REBNY) Response: Comment noted.
Comment 156: In Table 9-11, regarding 2007 annual pollutant emission, the Short-Bypass is shown to be better in three out of four areas: 10 percent better in volatile organic compound, 6 percent better in nitrous oxide, and 5 percent better in carbon
19-55 Route 9A Project FSEIS
monoxide. In this short tunnel, drivers would tend to speed up, burning gasoline at a high rate. It does not take more than 10 percent speeding up to produce a result like the At-Grade Alternative. (Ling) Response: The analysis in Table 9-11 (9-12 in the FSEIS) includes the increases in travel speed with the Short Bypass Alternative.
NOISE
Comment 157: I want to discuss how the project will minimize noise and assure equipment meets noise criteria throughout the construction site. (Bronzaft) Response: Chapter 10, “Noise,” (Tables 10-12 through 10-15) and Chapter 16, “Cumulative Effects,” (page 16-23) describe measures that NYSDOT is considering to mitigate the adverse effects of construction noise. In terms of compliance, NYSDOT will include a Noise Control Special Note in the construction documents. This Note will include construction equipment noise emission limits that the contractor will be required to meet. The Special Note will also include a Certificate of Equipment Noise Compliance and procedures for noise testing that the contractor will be required to submit to NYSDOT or its representative. All equipment used on site will be re-tested at three-month intervals. Without valid certificates of noise compliance, the equipment shall not be used on the construction site.
Comment 158: While the below-grade option might reduce some of the noise, the existence of above-grade traffic will cause much of this noise to persist. (Glick) Response: The Short Bypass Alternative would lower noise levels at the Memorial site by approximately 3 dBA over the At-Grade Alternative.
Comment 159: The north tunnel ramp shows noise levels during construction (86) that exceed the NYSDOT guidance level while the south tunnel ramp does not because they do not measure at a comparable location near Albany Street. It seems fair to say that noise levels will exceed the NYSDOT guidance level during the construction of the south ramp as well as the north ramp. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: Noise levels adjacent to the construction of the south ramp would be comparable to those predicted by the north ramp. However, it should be noted that the analysis locations shown in Table 10-6 and Figure 10-1 are not keyed to specific construction activities, but actual buildings along the corridor where assessments were conducted.
Comment 160: There are cheaper ways to mitigate street noise than spending an incremental $685 million on a tunnel. The proposed shift of the roadway to the west should
19-56 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
help in this regard. This touted benefit seems aimed mainly at tourists and the vision of some (Downtown Alliance) for a “bucolic” WTC setting which seems inappropriate for a major urban commercial, retail, and transportation center. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: Comment noted. See Response to Comment 30.
Comment 161: For the Short Bypass Alternative, the adverse impacts would be far more significant where construction noise standards will be exceeded for residential, hotel, and office uses. (CB No. 1) Response: The FSEIS does acknowledge that the Short Bypass Alternatives would have greater noise impacts during construction than either the At-Grade or No Action Alternatives.
UTILITIES
Comment 162: The Bypass necessitates that utilities be relocated which will inevitably result in sewer, water main, and communication disruptions that would not result from the At-Grade Alternative. Not to mention incurring a huge and unnecessary cost. (Glick. Gerson, Love) The extensive relocations of utility systems required between Albany and Murray Streets under the Bypass Alternative represents the potential for all sorts of problems and delays. These risks seem unacceptable given a cheaper and less problematic option—the At-Grade Alternative. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The Route 9A At-Grade Alternative taken unto itself would not require utility/sewer relocations. However, potential WTC Site and PATH improvements proposed by the LMDC and PANYNJ that are within the Route 9A right-of-way would require extensive utility relocations as described on pages 2-7 and 13-1 and 13-2 of the FSEIS.
Comment 163: A negative aspect of the tunnel involves the building of a new slurry wall to hold back the Hudson River from overflowing in Battery Park City and also relocation of underground utilities. (Silliman) Response: A new water cut-off wall/slurry wall would be required for the Short Bypass construction and would require utility relocations which would be included in the overall utility relocation plan. A water cut-off wall/slurry wall construction would not be required for the Route 9A At-Grade Alternative. However, it is noted that potential WTC Site and PATH improvements proposed by the LMDC and PANYNJ that are within the Route 9A ROW (e.g., pedestrian concourse, PATH ventilation plenums,
19-57 Route 9A Project FSEIS
cooling lines, and south site extension) will require water cut-off wall/slurry wall construction and associated utility relocations.
Comment 164: Verizon is concerned that the telecommunications service, including emergency services, to Lower Manhattan may once again be disrupted or degraded unless: the underground pedestrian concourse connecting the WTC site to the WFC, to be located beneath Route 9A, does not disrupt or prevent Verizon’s current and future use of Route 9A as a utility pathway; NYSDOT promptly notifies Verizon as to the selected Route 9A alternative; the location of the designated route is not changed once it is approved; the Route 9A entry point for Verizon conduits is not impeded, to accommodate network diversity for future tenants to the WTC site; Verizon is given uninterrupted and unimpeded access to all conduits and manholes located within the project areas in Lower Manhattan, both during construction and after; and NYSDOT, PANYNJ and LMDC support Verizon’s efforts to recover its restoration costs resulting from the reconstruction projects under the Partial Action Plan. (Verizon) Response: A coordinated effort is required between NYSDOT, PANYNJ, LMDC, New York City, MTA/NYCT, and utility companies to address utility relocations in the downtown area and, more specifically, those relocations in the vicinity of the WTC Site (especially Liberty Street and West Street). NYSDOT has been working with the PANYNJ to identify PANYNJ/LMDC utility impacts in the Route 9A corridor. Meetings will be held with the utility companies to update them on current findings/address relocation requirements. Possible PANYNJ/LMDC impacts are due to: the pedestrian concourse beneath West Street; relocated river intake and discharge lines; WTC Site slurry wall extension between Liberty and Cedar Streets; the south site expansion bounded by Liberty, West, Cedar, Washington, Albany and Greenwich Streets and the PATH ventilation and egress stairway below grade plenums in West Street. NYSDOT will promptly notify Verizon and other utility companies of the preferred alternative (identified in this FSEIS). It is noted that regardless of the Route 9A Alternative selected, utility relocations will be required based on WTC Site plans as noted above. The degree of access requirements for utility companies and their facilities during and after construction will be reviewed at detailed coordination meetings between the designers and utility representatives. Similar meetings would be held during construction with contractor involvement. NYSDOT recognizes that utility relocations/requirements are key issues that need to be further addressed in the next phase of design work. It is also recognized that many utility relocations are a required first step in the overall reconstruction and early action work is needed to provide adequate time for utility companies to reconnect communication and electrical cables as well as gas and steam mains.
19-58 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Comment 165: The Cedar Street Portal described in the Route 9A DSEIS is an area of concern, as the extension of the bypass tunnel would require that Verizon relocate an additional 85,000 duct feet of conduit. The DSEIS fails to reveal the adverse impacts that may occur unless the mitigation proposed by Verizon is implemented. These include timing delays, service disruptions, disruptions to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and wasted costs. (Verizon) Response: The Cedar Street Portal Option of the Short Bypass has been discarded from further consideration.
Comment 166: The conduits and cables and supporting facilities within the bed of Route 9A may have to be removed and relocated as a result of the Route 9A Project, at considerable cost to Verizon. (Verizon) Response: See Response to Comment 164.
Comment 167: Regarding Route 9A and PATH Terminal redevelopment plans, if mitigation proposed by Verizon is not employed, the end result could be: the loss of Route 9A and Church Street as viable utility pathways; an impairment of the Verizon Building on 140 West Street as a telecommunication switching facility; timing delays in project completion; the risk of service disruption; adverse effects on vehicular and pedestrian traffic; and wasted financial resources. (Verizon) Response: See response to Comment 164.
Comment 168: AT&T supports: establishing a coordinated planning approach for the various projects; implementing achievable time frames; avoiding any permanent impairment of utility infrastructure along the Route 9A pathway; avoiding unnecessary additional costs to carriers; and treating all carriers with infrastructure in the project areas in a non-discriminatory manner. (AT&T) Response: Comment noted. Please see Response to Comment 164.
ENERGY
Comment 169: The tunnel dinosaur alternatives would also waste energy at a time when drastic energy conservation is our only hope of keeping New York City safe, and our only hope of aiding energy independence. (Clean Air Campaign) Response: While the Short Bypass Alternative would require more energy to construct than the other alternatives, it would result in lower long-term energy consumption since vehicle hours would be reduced not only on Route 9A but also other major north-south corridors in Lower Manhattan.
19-59 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Comment 170: In Table S-3 the number shown on the third page, under Energy and Greenhouse Gases, under the Short Bypass Alternative, of 4,084 tons, is wrong. The actual number (page 14-5) is 162,734 tons. We cannot help but note that all the mistakes in this document seem to be in favor of the Bypass Alternatives. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: These numbers have been updated for the FSEIS.
Comment 171: The difference in tons of carbon emitted for the At-Grade Alternative versus the Bypass Alternative is clear evidence of how much more environmental damage will take place during construction of a Bypass tunnel in comparison to the At- Grade Alternative. (Coalition to Save West Street) The second page of Table S-4 says that greenhouse gas emissions will be lowest with the Bypass yet fails to mention the much higher emissions of greenhouse gases during construction (162,734 tons for the Bypass vs. 33,115 tons for the At-Grade Alternative). (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The difference in the production of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide) during construction is a function of the energy expended. A higher cost alternative would result in a greater generation of greenhouse gases than a lower cost one.
However, the tons of CO2 generated by any alternative during construction would not result in any adverse effects in Lower Manhattan. Table S-4 is only intended to compare the long term effects of the project alternatives. Construction related effects are summarized in Table S-3.
CONTAMINATED MATERIALS
Comment 172: Regarding the Bypass construction we note the reference to potential problems related to steam pipes and other buried utilities that may be coated with asbestos. Yet the document states that “impacts to groundwater are not considered likely” during the At-Grade improvements of the No Action and At- Grade Alternatives. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: Under any of the alternatives, the removal of hazardous materials would be conducted in a manner protective of the environment in accordance with federal and state regulations. Asbestos is an airborne contaminant and inhalation hazard which does not dissolve in water. Therefore asbestos is not considered a potential groundwater contaminant.
Comment 173: The DSEIS admits that the Short Bypass Alternative could require more contaminated soil to be handled and removed. It seems that BPC could be back to a similar situation to that in the months after September 11, with trucks filled
19-60 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
with contaminated material being trucked out of the area. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: Since it requires greater excavation, the Short Bypass Alternative has the potential to result in a greater amount of contaminated materials being removed. However, most of the additional excavation is at a depth that would not have been affected by the events of September 11, 2001. Results of subsurface testing concluded between the DSEIS and FSEIS revealed no hazardous materials present in the soil or groundwater beneath Route 9A. The sampling revealed material similar to the material encountered during the construction of the Route 9A Project between 1996 and 2001.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Comment 174: The Cumulative Effects chapter in the DSEIS fails to address the environmental impact of the enormous truck back-ups on West Street that are likely to result from the Liberty Street truck ramp planned by the Port Authority as part of the West Street tunnel renovation. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: Discussions with Port Authority designers of the underground facility have indicated that off street storage for almost 900 linear feet of vehicles is available. Their studies have indicated that more than sufficient capacity is provided. The Port Authority is also considering other design alternatives for access to/from the WTC Site, each of which provides a permissible amount of off street storage.
Comment 175: Table 16-10 fails to recognize (except with respect to the Hudson River Bulkhead) the fact that the Bypass Alternative represents the worst threat to historic resources. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: All alternatives would require a Building Protection Plan during construction to avoid adverse effects on historic structures. With the plan in place, the Short Bypass Alternative would not present a worse threat to the historic structures along Route 9A.
Comment 176: Table 16-8 does not show the highest noise level for Receptor Site 4 (which would occur under the Cedar Street Portal Option and would result in a substantially higher noise level). So again the noise problem at the south ramp (and in front of historic and soon to be residential 90 West Street) is being underestimated in this document, as well as the associated groundborne vibration problem at that location. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The cumulative analysis was conducted for the Short Bypass Liberty Street Portal Option. As shown in Table 16-11, the cumulative effects are highly influenced by the construction activity at the southern extension of the WTC
19-61 Route 9A Project FSEIS
Site. Under the Cedar Street Portal Option (which is no longer under consideration), maximum hourly noise levels without mitigation due to Route 9A would be closer to 86 dBA and the cumulative noise level would increase accordingly.
Comment 177: We believe that the Promenade South Project should undergo an environmental review as cumulative traffic, noise, and air quality impacts from all the simultaneous redevelopment projects are considerably different now from the 1994 analysis. (CB No. 1) Response: Consistent with FHWA regulations, an FEIS re-evaluation was prepared for the Promenade South Project. Since the project is essentially the same as the 1994 Preferred Alternative, no additional environmental review was necessary. While the cumulative construction effects may be different than what was predicted in 1994, NYSDOT will be constructing the Promenade South Project with the EPCs developed for the Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects. The use of a critical year, in the cumulative assessment, is intended to determine the highest level of impacts that could be expected during the timeframe from approximately 2005 to 2009. Mitigation measures are then developed to avoid or minimize these potential impacts. The same measures developed in the 2006 analysis would be applied for duration of each project’s construction.
Comment 178: We request that the elements of the Early Action Project be properly analyzed as part of the Route 9A FSEIS. (CB No. 1) Response: The elements of the Early Action Project (i.e., pre-Stage 1) are analyzed as part of Route 9A’s construction impact assessment and are included in Stage 1 of each project alternative. As discussed above, in response to Comment 177, they would not affect the cumulative impact assessment for the critical year. If conditions were analyzed for Stage 1, traffic, air quality, and noise levels would be lower than those predicted for Stage 2. Therefore, applying the same mitigation measures from the start of construction would ensure that the levels are less than those reported for Stage 2 with mitigation.
Comment 179: We believe the DSEIS underestimates the cumulative effect of the numerous and substantial construction and development projects in Lower Manhattan for three reasons: (1) The use of differing methodologies for estimating key effects (2) Adding effects specifically attributable to each different project fails to take proper account of the synergistic effects on economic growth and development that the Proposed Action and multiple other planned projects can be expected to have on Lower Manhattan (3) Key projects are ignored, including planned Goldman Sachs headquarters, deconstruction of 130 Liberty Street, and the development of Sites 5B and 5C adjacent to Route 9A between Murray and Chambers Streets. (CB No. 1)
19-62 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
Due to lack of information from some project sponsors, we feel that the SEIS must describe and acknowledge, with an explanation, the deficiencies in the cumulative effects analysis. (Coalition of 9/11 Families) Response: The cumulative analysis in the DSEIS and this FSEIS are based on the same assumptions as the other Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects with respect to which projects are included in the estimated construction assessment and which are included in the background. In developing the list of projects to be included in the cumulative effects analysis, each project sponsor prepared schedules. In some cases, such as the demolition of 130 Liberty Street, the planned activities would not occur in the critical analysis year. Based on current planning, it would seem that the original analysis assumes too much construction at one time and most likely overestimates impacts. In addition, pages 16-6 through 16-8 of the FSEIS discuss how the private development projects relate to the cumulative construction analysis. With respect to differing methodologies, there are, in fact, very few differences. All of the cumulative analyses in the federal transportation EIS’s for Lower Manhattan use the same criteria for traffic and air quality impact assessment. In fact Figures 16-3 through 16-22 of this FSEIS and Figures 15-4 through 15-23 of the FTA/PANYNJ’s Permanent WTC PATH Terminal FEIS are exactly the same. The only difference in the Route 9A Project FSEIS and the transit projects’ (PATH, Fulton Transit Center) EISs is with respect to the noise impact criteria. FHWA uses an hourly value of 85 dBA while FTA uses an 8-hour and 30-day average value. However, the cumulative assessment in both the Route 9A and Permanent WTC PATH EISs both predict impacts at the same locations.
MITIGATION
Comment 180: If there is monitoring, it should be third party monitoring, without entailing a conflict of interest. (WTC Environmental Organization) Response: At this time, NYSDOT, along with the other sponsors of the federally funded Lower Manhattan recovery projects, are working with the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center (LMCCC) in developing a construction air quality monitoring program. It is expected that the LMCCC would most likely manage the air quality monitoring program.
Comment 181: The first page of Table S-4 suggests the “potential adverse effects of the Bypass ramps” can be mitigated by “utilizing a high standard of detailing and materials on their walls.” This seems like a very flimsy mitigation for such a major problem. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: Table S-4 is a “summary” of probable impacts and does not present the details related to those summary statements. Chapter 7, “Visual Resources,” page 7-4, notes that the Bypass ramps cause some concern regarding negative visual
19-63 Route 9A Project FSEIS
impacts but these are far outweighed by the positive impacts of the Bypass identified for all viewer groups, except motorists in the depressed Bypass, in the WFC/WTC visual district. Additional details and information on the mitigation measures (“high standard of detailing and materials on their walls”) is presented in Appendix D, “Visual Resource Assessment.”
Comment 182: The DSEIS unreasonably concludes that with respect to mitigation measures “none of the measures were found to be reasonable and feasible” and that project related noise impacts would therefore not be abated. (CB No. 1) Response: This conclusion was made with respect to the long-term operational noise impacts and applied to all alternatives including the No Action Alternative. Essentially, it was concluded that noise abatement measures, such as barriers along the length of Route 9A, would not be reasonable or feasible. Mitigation for noise impacts during construction has been proposed.
Comment 183: We urge NYSDOT to implement all practicable noise abatement measures. (CB No. 1) Response: NYSDOT is committed to implementing all practicable noise abatement measures during construction.
Comment 184: Verizon proposes the following mitigation measures: coordination between all parties involved in the various redevelopment projects; establish an alternate telecommunications route; grant adequate rights to a designated route for the sub-surface placement of conduits and cables; establish realistic timeframes; and mitigate financial impact—extend tentative deadline. (Verizon) Response: NYSDOT recognizes the importance of continued coordination with Verizon and the other involved parties to minimize and avoid adverse impacts to the utilities within the Route 9A corridor during construction of the Lower Manhattan Recovery Project. Please also see Response to Comment 164.
COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Comment 185: The DSEIS makes clear that the At-Grade Alternative meets the project objectives as well as the Bypass does, with less short-term construction impact. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: There are distinct differences in how, and to what extent, each of the Alternatives (No-Build, At-Grade, Short Bypass) meet, or do not meet, project goals and objectives. An objective comparison of alternatives regarding their ability to, and to the extent they do, meet the project goals and objectives is presented in Chapter 2A, “Preferred Alternative,” of this FSEIS.
19-64 Chapter 19: Response to Comments on the DSEIS
SECURITY
Comment 186: Security concerns are likely to make the at-grade traffic situation even worse under the bypass alternatives. The bypass would run a mere 15 feet parallel to the WTC slurry wall. (Gateway Plaza Tenants Association, CB No. 1) The Bypass plans limit access during an emergency and will restrict our ability to evacuate. (Lathrop) During security alerts, having a tunnel would mean major traffic disruptions at critical times. (Coalition to Save West Street) Response: The Short Bypass Alternative offers the advantage of a second possible route, which take vehicles past the WTC Site and Memorial. This additional route provides for operational flexibility and better preserves a continuous north-south movement. In addition, the possible alignment of the surface roads allows a greater buffer between vehicles and the WTC Site.
Comment 187: With the tunnel option you would be creating a new terrorist target. (Chernow, Lathrop) Response: Security/hardening measures would be undertaken for all alternatives in consultation with NYPD and other stakeholders. Ï
19-65