Bruckner-Sheridan Expressway Interchange and Hunts Point Peninsula Access EIS (Design Phases I-IV)

NEPA Scoping Report

August 2007

Design Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Design Phases I-IV) D010319 P.I.N. X730.39 Route I-278 / I-895

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Table of Contents

NEPA Scoping Report A. Introduction...... 1 B. Background and Problem Definition ...... 1 Deficiencies at Interchange ...... 2 Hunts Point Access Difficulties ...... 2 C. How Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures were Developed...... 2 D. Alternatives Considered During Scoping ...... 3 E. Process Used to Evaluate the Alternatives...... 5 Ranking of Objectives...... 5 Qualitative Screening ...... 6 Quantitative Screening ...... 7 F. Public/Agency Participation ...... 9 G. Alternatives Moving Forward to the DEIS...... 11

TOC-1 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

List of Tables

1 Project Goals and Objectives ...... 3 2 Proposed Alternatives After Public Hearings and Comment Period...... 4 3 Ranking of Objectives for Screening Alternatives...... 6 4 Qualitative Screening of Alternatives ...... 8 5 Scoring Summary for Quantitative Screening...... 9 6 Public Outreach Activities...... 9

Appendices

Appendix A ...... 12 • Stakeholders List • Technical Advisory Committee List • Ranking of Objectives – Respondents List • Qualitative Screening Expert Panels - Respondents List Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………………. 25 • Final Conceptual Alternatives

August 20, 2007 2 NEPA Scoping Report

A. INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the Scoping Process, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction and Hunts Point Peninsula Access Improvement Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It concludes with the selection of alternatives which will be included in the project’s Draft EIS (DEIS) and therefore the report also serves to document the closing of the Scoping Process. The NEPA Scoping Process began on February 20, 2003 when a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register by the Federal Highway Administration. A Draft Briefing Document for the project was published and made available to the public and other interested groups and public agencies in March 2003. The Draft Briefing Document included an initial purpose and need statement as well as a preliminary set of goals and objectives, project alternatives and environmental analyses to be conducted in the EIS. Two public scoping hearings were held in March 2003 and, as discussed below, public participation and agency coordination has continued throughout the Scoping Process. A Final Briefing Document, which responded to comments received during the scoping hearings and subsequent comment period, was issued on August 7, 2003. It is currently posted on the project’s website.

B. BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM DEFINITION This project is being undertaken to address the operational, geometric, and safety issues related to the existing bottleneck situation at the interchange of the Sheridan Expressway (I-895) and the Bruckner Expressway (I-278). More than 130,000 vehicles use these expressways every day. The project is also intended to address vehicular access between the expressway system and the Hunts Point Peninsula. The peninsula, which is home to three of the largest food markets in the world, is a major economic focal point of the Bronx and as such is a significant traffic generator in the area. The Hunts Point Peninsula alone generates 77,000 vehicles per day, including 15,000 trucks. Studies addressing the transportation deficiencies in the Hunts Point area began as far back as 1986 with the completion of the Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange and Hunts Point Access Study. Following the release of this study, several other studies on transportation and access in the Hunts Point area were completed. The current effort began in earnest with the publication the NYSDOT’s Expanded Project Proposal (EPP) in 1997 for the Bruckner-Sheridan Expressway Interchange Improvements and was used as the starting point for the NEPA process. Through meetings and discussions with agencies and project stakeholders, several additional options were considered and later formalized onto nine alternatives for evaluation. The problems with the interchange and Hunts Point Access are summarized below:

1 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

DEFICIENCIES AT INTERCHANGE The existing interchange suffers from geometric and operational deficiencies with resulting safety issues and a bottleneck condition which slows traffic flow on I-278 at this location. There is a severe grade-change as the Bruckner Expressway goes from being an elevated roadway (west of the interchange) to an at-grade facility to the east; at the same location there is a fairly sharp curve in the Bruckner Expressway's mainline and service roads; finally, the expressway narrows from 3 lanes to 2 lanes in each direction at the interchange.

HUNTS POINT ACCESS DIFFICULTIES The interchange is located adjacent to the Hunts Point Peninsula, where currently three of the world's largest food distribution centers (Produce, Meat and Fish markets) are operating simultaneously, as well as a large number of other industrial, public utility, institutional, and commercial entities and a moderately large residential enclave. Existing access between the peninsula and the interstate highway system is poor, with vehicles—particularly trucks—having to travel circuitously on local roads before encountering access or egress points to the expressways.

C. HOW GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES WERE DEVELOPED During the course of previous studies, and prior to the public scoping hearings, NYSDOT held several open houses in the Bronx and meetings with community boards, along with discussions with community groups and local businesses. From these efforts, NYSDOT gained an initial understanding of what issues were of most concern to community members, business groups, planning agencies and other stakeholders. Comments received at the project’s public scoping hearings and subsequent comment period, provided NYSDOT with additional insight into the issues of concern in the area relevant to the proposed project and modified the initial set of project goals and objectives. Performance measures for each objective were then defined. The performance measures, which assess the degree to which an objective is attained, were used in the quantitative screening described below. One or more performance measures were defined for each objective. A performance measure is used to assess the degree to which the objective is attained. Measures are selected that can be observed and predicted, and that can distinguish differences among alternatives. The project’s Final Briefing Document identified eight goals and supporting objectives as shown in Table 1.

August 20, 2007 2 NEPA Scoping Report

Table 1 Project Goals and Objectives Goal Objective 1 Improve 1.1 Minimize travel delays within the primary study area Transportation 1.2 Minimize delays resulting from incidents on expressways System Efficiency and Reliability 1.3 Enhance traffic network infrastructure 1.4 Promote public transit service 1.5 Improve bicycle and pedestrian travel 2 Enhance Quality of 2.1 Reduce the number of trucks on local streets Life 2.2 Improve access to parks 2.3 Minimize disruption to the community resulting from highway construction and operation 3 Support Economic 3.1 Provide direct truck access to Hunts Point peninsula markets Development 3.2 Maintain and improve rail freight service to South Bronx industries and Hunts Point Markets 3.3 Reduce truck miles and hours traveled 3.4 Promote waterborne freight access to Hunts Point 4 Reduce Accidents 4.1 Increase pedestrian safety and reduce accidents, accident rates, and severity at busy primary study area intersections 4.2 Reduce accidents, accident rates, and severity on the expressway system in the primary study area 5 Minimize Adverse 5.1 Reduce truck emissions in residential areas Environmental 5.2 Minimize and mitigate adverse environmental impacts resulting from highway construction and Impacts operation 6 Support 6.1 Provide access to planned parkland and recreational facilities Environmental 6.2 Support the development of regional bicycle/pedestrian routes Enhancements 6.3 Support the development of river-front open space on the Bronx River and on the East River 7 Financial Viability 7.1 Minimize capital cost while meeting project objectives 7.2 Maximize the cost effectiveness of transportation system investments 8 Maintain Security 8.1 Maintain alternative routes and delivery systems for vital freight needs in the event of a security breach on key interstate facilities

D. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED DURING SCOPING As part of the scoping process, different interchange reconstruction options were identified from a number of previous studies (Expanded Project Proposal) and through the public scoping hearings and meetings with agencies, public officials, and community groups. Eleven options dealt with interchange reconstruction variations. The remaining 10 options focused on access to Hunts Point and were subdivided based on access via Edgewater Road, Leggett Avenue, and Port Morris. These 21 options were chosen for their ability to address the deficiencies at the Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange and deficiencies in existing Hunts Pt. access. With input received at the public hearings and subsequent comment period, the project team combined the different options into nine alternatives (see Table 2), which were carried forward for further consideration and screening. All of the alternatives include riconstruction of the Bruckner/Sheridan interchange with the Bruckner having three lanes in each direction of traffic and improved geometrics. The nine alternatives were further analyzed, screened and ultimately reduced to four alternatives to be studied further in the DEIS.

3 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

Table 2 Proposed Alternatives After Public Hearings and Comment Period

Sheridan Leggett Avenue Alt. Expressway Interchange Edgewater Road Bruckner Boulevard Other Components Connection Between Four ramps at Leggett Cross Bronx Expwy Ave—from eastbound 1A Demap and West Farms and westbound Road. Pedestrian Bruckner Expwy. Improvements. Two ramps at Leggett Connection between

Expressway Ave—from eastbound Connection to Cross Bronx Expwy 1B Demap Demap Sheridan Sheridan Demap Expwy. and to Bruckner Boulevard and West Farms westbound Expwy. Road Reconstruct ramps Ramps between Direct access between westbound Bruckner and Two ramps at Leggett between Hunts Point Bruckner Blvd to Sheridan Ave—from eastbound 2A and Sheridan Expwy and between Expressways Expwy. and to Expressway via eastbound Bruckner eastbound to westbound Expwy. Edgewater Road Expwy to Bruckner northbound Boulevard Reconstruct ramp Direct ramps between Eastbound between Sheridan Direct access Bruckner Two ramps at Leggett Expressway between Hunts Point Expressway to Ave—from eastbound 2B southbound to and Sheridan Bruckner Boulevard. Expwy. and to Bruckner Expressway via Construct ramp westbound Expwy. Expressway Edgewater Road between EB westbound Bruckner Blvd to Expwy. Ramps between Bruckner and Extension to No ramp eastbound Sheridan 2C Ramps to/from the west Sheridan Bruckner Boulevard Expressways Expressway to Expressway eastbound to

Sheridan Interchange Edgewater – Hunts Point northbound Extension to Direct Bruckner- 2D Sheridan Sheridan ramps. Expressway Ramps between Bruckner and Extension to Sheridan Truckway from 3A Ramps to/from the west Sheridan Expressways Harlem River Yard Expressway eastbound to northbound Ramps between Ramp westbound Bruckner and Bruckner Boulevard Extension to Railway from Harlem Sheridan to Expressway and 3B Ramps to/from the west Sheridan River Yard to Expressways eastbound Bruckner Expressway markets eastbound to Expressway to northbound Boulevard Port Morris – Hunts Point Road from Port 3C Demap Ramps to/from west Morris to Hunts Point Note: * All alternative packages include a high-level 6 lane crossing of the Bronx river for the Bruckner Expressway and the use of the existing bascule bridges (in either fixed or un-fixed position) for the crossing of the Bronx River by the Bruckner Boulevard.

August 20, 2007 4 NEPA Scoping Report

E. PROCESS USED TO EVALUATE THE ALTERNATIVES The last screening process was used to evaluate the nine project alternatives and to select the alternatives to carry forward for detailed evaluation in the EIS was as follows: 1. Ranking of Objectives: The project’s Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committee were asked to rank the project’s objectives as an aid to NYSDOT to identify the priorities to be achieved by the various project alternatives. 2. Qualitative Screening: After the objectives were ranked, the Stakeholders and Technical Advisory Committees participated in a process to evaluate the nine alternatives based on qualitative measures. The stakeholders numerically rated aspects of each and the alternatives. The five highest-scoring alternatives were then advanced to the next level of screening. 3. Quantitative Screening: The four remaining alternatives (as discussed below one alternative was discarded between the qualitative and quantitative screening) were then evaluated based on a set of performance measures. The performance measures were developed based on the project’s goals and objectives, and they allow for quantifiable and measurable criteria to be applied to the various objectives for the project. Transportation demand forecasting efforts were undertaken to develop the performance metrics; the results were tabulated, and a composite score was developed for each of the alternatives.

RANKING OF OBJECTIVES NYSDOT requested members of the project’s Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committees to rank the objectives on a scale of 1 to 10, with 38 members responding. Table 3 lists the combined objectives by rank, their total score based on the 38 responses, and their average score. A detailed explanation of the methodology is included in the Alternatives Screening Report, August 2007. The subsequent qualitative and quantitative screening of alternatives was based on the 13 objectives ranked highest by the Stakeholders and Technical Advisory Committees (except for the 7th ranked objective dealing with elimination of non- standard features, which should be accomplished by all feasible build alternatives). Although ranked low by the committees, performance measures were also developed for the 18th and 20th-ranked objectives, which are related to funding and security and must be considered by state and federal decision-makers. Thus, a total of 14 objectives were used to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the project alternatives and are shaded in Table 3.

5 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

Table 3 Ranking of Objectives for Screening Alternatives Total Average Rank Objective Score Score 1* 2.1 Reduce the number of trucks on local streets 296 7.79 5.1 Reduce truck emissions in residential areas 2 3.1 Provide direct truck access from expressways to Hunts Point 210 5.53 peninsula markets. 3 1.1 Minimize travel delays within the primary study area. 163 4.29 4 4.1 Increase pedestrian safety and reduce accidents, accident 155 4.08 rates, and severity at busy primary study area intersections 5* 2.2 Improve access to parks 129 3.39 6.1 Provide access to planned parkland and recreational facilities 6 2.3 Minimize disruption to the community resulting from highway 120 3.16 construction and operation 7 1.3 Enhance traffic network infrastructure 110 2.89 8 3.3 Reduce truck miles and hours traveled 102 2.68 9 4.2 Reduce accidents, accident rates, and severity on the 98 2.58 expressway system in the primary study area 10 5.2 Minimize and mitigate adverse environmental impacts 95 2.50 resulting from highway construction and operation 11 6.3 Support the development of river-front open space on the 93 2.45 Bronx River and on the East River 12 3.2 Maintain and improve rail freight service to South Bronx 86 2.26 Industries and Hunts Point Markets. 13* 1.5 Improve bicycle and pedestrian travel 79 2.08 6.2 Support the development of regional bicycle/pedestrian routes 14 1.4 Promote public transit service 74 1.95 15 1.2 Minimize delays resulting from incidents on expressways 66 1.74 16 7.2 Maximize the cost effectiveness of transportation system 54 1.42 investments 17 3.4 Promote waterborne freight access to Hunts Point 38 1.00 18 8.1 Maintain alternative routes and delivery systems for vital 37 0.97 freight needs in the event of a security breach on key interstate facilities 19 Secure funding sources for recommended project 29 0.76 improvements 20 7.1 Minimize capital costs while meeting overall project 11 0.29 objectives Notes: * Objectives were combined for ranking. Objectives used for screening alternatives are shaded.

QUALITATIVE SCREENING The first step in the qualitative screening process began in November 2003 at a workshop with members of the project’s Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committees. The workshop

August 20, 2007 6 NEPA Scoping Report focused on gathering committee input on the nine alternatives (1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3A, 3B and 3C) identified during the public scoping process. Numerous comments were received that reflected the interests of the business, environmental, community and agencies. NYSDOT refined the nine alternatives after analyzing these and other comments provided at the workshop. To further guide the screening process and to provide a cross-section of the various interests represented on the Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committee, four “expert panels” comprised of Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committee members were formed. The members are listed in Appendix A. Each panel was comprised of committee members that share a specific interest or field of expertise and examined the project’s objectives from the perspective of that category. The “expert panels” included: (1) transportation efficiency and security; (2) environmental issues and impacts and qualify of life; (3) economic development; and (4) system safety. The members of both committees discussed each panel’s ratings at a combined Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committee meeting on March 30, 2004. Spokespersons for each expert panel discussed their panel’s ratings and the issues that influenced their decisions. After consideration of various factors and the composite scores of the qualitative assessment, NYSDOT and the Stakeholders and Technical Advisory Committees recommended the five highest-ranked alternatives be carried forward for the quantified screening. Table 4 shows how each of the alternatives scored in the qualitative screening process.

QUANTITATIVE SCREENING Five alternatives (1A, 1B, 2C, 2D and 3B) were to be carried over for quantitative screening. However, after the qualitative screening, NYSDOT further evaluated Alternative 3B, which would have created a rail link to the Hunt’s Point Market. Upon further consideration, NYSDOT determined this alternative was not viable given cost, safety, and operational considerations and limited demand. It was, therefore, eliminated from further consideration.

METHODOLOGY The quantitative screen analytically calculated the performance of the objectives used for the qualitative screening (as ranked by the Stakeholders and Technical Advisory Committee (see Table 3). It applied transportation demand forecast modeling results to calculate the performance measures. The performance measures were derived from two sources: 1) an area wide traffic demand forecasting using the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s (NYMTC’s) Best Practices Model (BPM); and 2) Alternative designs based on current conceptual engineering plans. Performance measures were first calculated for the No Build Alternative, which was used as a comparison base to evaluate the performance of the four other Build Alternatives.

SCREENING RESULTS Table 5 shows how each alternative scored in the quantitative screening process.

7 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

Table 4 Qualitative Screening of Alternatives

Rank- Alternative Max based Expert Panel Objective /Min Weight 1A 1B 2A 2B 2C 2D 3A 3B 3C Transportation 1.1 Minimize travel delays within the primary study area. Min 4.29 1.3 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 1.3 2.3 1.0 Efficiency and Maintain alternative routes and delivery systems for vital freight 8.1 Max 0.97 1.5 2.0 2.5 4.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.5 2.5 Security needs in the event of a security breach on key interstate facilities 2.2 Improve access to parks Max 3.39 3.7 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.2 2.0 6.1 Provide access to planned parkland and recreational facilities Minimize disruption to the community resulting from highway 2.3 Min 3.16 3.7 3.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 construction and operation 2.1 Reduce the number of trucks on local streets Environmental Min 7.79 3.7 3.7 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.2 2.0 0.6 Issues and 5.1 Reduce truck emissions in residential areas Impacts on Minimize and mitigate adverse environmental impacts resulting 5.2 Min 2.5 3.7 3.3 0.2 1.0 1.7 0.6 0.0 1.2 2.0 Quality of Life from highway construction and operation 1.5 Improve bicycle and pedestrian travel Max 2.08 3.7 2.7 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.4 6.2 Support the development of regional bicycle/pedestrian routes Support the development of river-front open space on the Bronx 6.3 Max 2.45 3.7 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.8 River and on the East River Provide direct truck access from expressways to Hunts Point 3.1 Max 5.53 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.3 4.0 3.1 0.2 2.0 0.1 peninsula markets Economic Maintain and improve rail freight service to South Bronx industries Development 3.2 Max 2.26 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.1 3.9 3.1 0.1 2.1 0.1 and Hunts Point markets 3.3 Reduce truck miles and hours traveled Min 2.68 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.3 4.0 3.2 0.2 2.0 0.1 Increase pedestrian safety and reduce accidents, accident rates, 4.1 Min 4.08 0.3 0.5 2.2 2.5 3.5 2.0 2.5 3.7 1.0 and severity at busy primary study area intersections System Safety Reduce accidents, accident rates, and severity on the 4.2 Min 2.58 0.3 0.5 2.2 2.5 3.5 2.0 2.5 3.7 1.0 expressway system in the primary study area NYSDOT 7.1 Minimize capital costs while meeting overall project objectives Min 0.29 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 Total 89 84 51 45 101 74 37 86 43 Note: Shaded area shows highest ranking alternatives carried forward to Quantitative Screening

August 20, 2007 8 NEPA Scoping Report

Table 5 Scoring Summary for Quantitative Screening Expert Panel Categories/ Alternative Goals and Objectives 1A 1B 2C 2D

Transportation Efficiency and Security -21.8 -15.2 13.2 13.5 (Objectives 1.1 and 8.1) Environmental Issues and Impacts on Quality of Life 91.6 99.2 67.8 51.9 (Objectives 2.2/6.1, 2.3, 2.1, 5.1, 5.2, 1.5/6.2, and 6.3) Economic Development -37.2 -15.9 56.0 53.8 (Objectives 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3) System Safety 2.2 6.5 11.5 10.2 (Objectives 4.1 and 4.2) Total: 35 75 149 129

F. PUBLIC/AGENCY PARTICIPATION Federal and state regulations set in place a formal process for receipt and consideration of public comment on the DEIS. The NYSDOT public participation program has incorporated the formal process, and gone well beyond these basic federal requirements, maintaining an open exchange of information between stakeholders and NYSDOT throughout the entire study. Briefing meetings and public outreach activities are shown in Table 6. Table 6 Public Outreach Activities 2002 Briefing for Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr. June 22, 2002 Project Newsletter #1 Published October 2002 Project Open Houses Held October 10 & 15, 2002 Briefing for NYS Assemblyman Ruben Diaz, Jr. October 23, 2002 Briefing for the Hunts Point Economic Development Corp. November 6, 2002 Briefing for Bronx Community Board #11 December 10, 2002 Briefing for Auto-Free New York December 17, 2002 Briefing for Councilman Ruben Diaz, Sr. December 20, 2002 2003 Briefing for Congressman Joseph Crowley January 22, 2003 Briefing for Bronx Community Board #3 January 27, 2003 Briefing for Bronx Community Board #1 February 3, 2003 Briefing for Bronx Community Board #9 February 5, 2003 Briefing for NYS Assemblywoman Carmen Arroyo February 8, 2003 Briefing for NYS Assemblyman Peter Rivera February 13, 2003 Briefing for The Point/South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corp. February 14, 2003 Briefing for South Bronx River Watershed Alliance February 25, 2003 Project Newsletter #2 Published March 2003 Public Scoping Hearings Held March 18 & 20, 2003 Briefing for Congressman Jose Serrano April 23, 2003 Project Advisory Committee Meeting #1 May 1, 2003 Briefing for Hunts Point Economic Development Corporation’s Transportation May 7, 2003 Roundtable Project Stakeholder Committee Meeting #1 May 8, 2003 Combined Advisory & Stakeholder Meeting #2 October 2, 2003 Combined Advisory & Stakeholder Meeting #3 & Alternatives Workshop November 20, 2003 Briefing for Hunts Point Terminal Produce Cooperative Association December 19, 2003

9 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

Table 6 (cont’d) Public Outreach Activities 2004 Economic Development Expert Panel Meeting March 16, 2004 Transportation System Safety Expert Panel Meeting March 17, 2004 Transportation Efficiency/Security Expert Panel Meeting March 18, 2004 Environmental/Quality of Life Expert Panel Meeting March 24, 2004 Combined Advisory & Stakeholder Committee Meeting #4 March 30, 2004 Update briefing for Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr. May 6, 2004 Update briefing for Assemblyman Peter Rivera May 13, 2004 Briefing for Krasdale Foods May 18, 2004 Update briefing for Councilman Jose Serrano Jr. May 25, 2004 Update briefing for Congressman Joseph Crowley May 26, 2004 Update briefing for Bronx Community Board #11 June 1, 2004 Update briefing for Bronx Community Board # 9 June 10, 2004 Advisory & Stakeholder Committee Traffic Modeling Workshop June 22, 2004 Update briefing for Assemblywoman Carmen Arroyo June 25, 2004 Briefing for the Hunts Point Terminal Produce Cooperative Association & the July 29, 2004 Hunts Point Logistical Enhancement Study team Project Newsletter #3 Published August 2004 Project Fact Sheet #1 Published November 2004 Combined Advisory & Stakeholder Committee Meeting #5 November 15, 2004 Project Fact Sheet #2 Published December 2004 Combined Advisory& Stakeholder Committee Meeting #6 December 16, 2004 2005 Advisory and Stakeholder Committee Open Space Workshop February 3, 2005 Briefing for New York City Councilmember Maria del Carmen Arroyo April 19, 2005 Update briefing for Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr. April 22, 2005 Briefing for Bronx Community Board #2 April 25, 2005 Update briefing for Bronx Community Board # 9 May 12, 2005 Project Newsletter #4 Published June 2005 Combined Advisory & Stakeholder Committee Meeting #7 June 14, 2005 Update briefing for Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr August 17, 2005 Combined Advisory & Stakeholder Committee Meeting #8 September 28, 2005 Public Open House #2 September 29, 2005 2006 Update briefing for Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr. June 15, 2006 Briefing for Bronx Borough Board June 22, 2006 Combined Advisory & Stakeholder Committee Meeting #9 June 29, 2006 Project Newsletter #5 Published July 2006 Update briefing for Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr. August 23, 2006 Update briefing for Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr.’s Staff September 6, 2006 Update briefing for Bronx Community Board #2 September 13, 2006 Update briefing for Bronx Community Board #9 October 23, 2006 Update briefing for Bronx Community Board #3 October 24, 2006 Briefing for Hunts Point Chamber of Commerce October 24, 2006 Briefing to Assemblyman Ruben Diaz, Jr., Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., October 31, 2006 Councilmember Maria del Carmen Arroyo Update briefing for Assemblyman Ruben Diaz, Jr., Senator Ruben Diaz, SBRWA December 4, 2006 2007 Briefing for Bronx Community Board #6 January 24, 2007 Update Briefing for Elected Officials, Community Boards and Commercial January 26, 2007 Interests Update briefing for Bronx Community Board # 2 February 28, 2007

August 20, 2007 10 NEPA Scoping Report

Two public scoping hearings took place in March 2003 where input was received from the public helping to define the elements of the project. In addition regular newsletters have been published that keep the public informed of the progress of the project. These newsletters were issued in both English and Spanish. Finally, NYSDOT has updated its website on a regular basis as the project moves forward. As reviewed in Section C, the goals and objectives were developed based, in part, on input received through the public outreach process. Constituents had the opportunity to comment on and rank the objectives, so that the comprehensive list reflected the community’s interests. Everyone from residents, to elected officials to businesses was and is urged to offer their input, which provides guidance in moving the EIS forward or pinpointing where revisions need to be made. Prior to the start of the demand forecast modeling, a Technical Advisory Committee/ Stakeholder meeting was held in 2004 where representatives from the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) explained NYMTC’s role in the Region and the making of the Demand Forecasting Model (Best Practice Model) that is used for this project. This event was followed by a modeling workshop to explain to stakeholders how the model works and the assumptions and the data to be input to the model.. To keep stakeholders current on the work of the study, open houses, Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committees meetings and briefings of interested agencies, Bronx elected representatives, community boards, civic/environmental and commercial interests were held in 2005 to show the results of the model on the No-Build alternative. A similar process applied in 2006 in presenting and gaining stakeholder feedback on the modeling results for the four surviving Build alternatives. Scoping was informed with comprehensive public and agency participation. After development of the goals, objectives, and performance measures between 2004 and February 2007, there were eight combined Technical Advisory Committee/Stakeholder Committee meetings, two open houses, two workshops and 31 briefings of public and agency representatives.

G. ALTERNATIVES MOVING FORWARD TO THE DEIS The results of the evaluation of the four remaining alternatives concluded that Alternatives 2C and 2D would best meet the project’s goals and objectives, while Alternatives 1A and 1B would not. However, due to concerns expressed by several public stakeholders and in keeping with the intent and spirit of NEPA regarding responsiveness to stakeholder input, NYSDOT is recommending to the Federal Highway Administration that all four of the remaining alternatives, 1A, 1B, 2C and 2D move forward to the DEIS. Ï

11 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

Appendix A

• Stakeholders List • Technical Advisory Committee List • Ranking of Objectives – Respondents List • Qualitative Screening Expert Panels - Respondents List

August 20, 2007 12 NEPA Scoping Report

Stakeholders List 161st Street Street Merchants Association 163rd Street Improvement Council 41st Police Precinct A & J Produce Corporation A & P A. L. Eastmond & Sons Inc. A.L. Bazzini Nut Company AA Truck Renting Corp. Abyssinian Development Corporation AFL Fresh and Frozen Alianza Dominicana Allerton Avenue Co-Ops Tenant Association Anderson Avenue HDFC Automobile Club of New York, Inc. B. Rosen & Sons Baldor Specialty Foods Banana Kelly Community Improvement Association Bedford Mosholu Community Association Belmont/Arthur Avenue Local Development Benfica Trucking Bovis Lend Lease Bridgefield Civic League Bronx Charter School for the Arts Bronx Community Board 9 Bronx Community Board 1 Bronx Community Board 10 Bronx Community Board 11 Bronx Community Board 12 Bronx Community Board 2 Bronx Community Board 3 Bronx Community Board 4 Bronx Community Board 5 Bronx Community Board 6 Bronx Community Board 7 Bronx Community Board 8 Bronx Community College--Grants Office

13 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

Stakeholders List (cont’d) Bronx Council for Economic Development Bronx Jewish Community Council Bronx Lesbian and Gay Health Source Consortium Bronx Museum Of the Arts Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation Bronx River Alliance Bronx Venture Corporation Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Burnside Development Corporation Cablevision Systems Corporation Casita Maria Inc. Castle Hill Merchants Association Citizens Council for New York Claremont Homeowners and Tenants Association Coca-Cola Bottling Company of N.Y. Columbia University School of Journalism Concerned Citizens of Baychester Co-Op City Jewish Community Council, Inc. Council of Belmont Organizations Country Club Civic Association Crotona Community Coalition Dairyland USA Corp. D’Arrigo Brothers of New York Eastchester Road/Gun Hill Road Business Association Edgewater Park Cooperative Federation for European Americans Ferry Point Civic Association Fierman Produce Exchange Fordham Bedford Housing Corporation Fordham University Friends of Pelham Bay Park Frito-Lay Inc. Gary Plastic Packaging Greening for Breathing Harlem Commercial Development Corporation Highbridge Community Housing Development Fund Highbridge Community Life Center

August 20, 2007 14 NEPA Scoping Report

Stakeholders List (cont’d) Highbridge Gardens Community Center Hub Center for Change for the South Bronx Hugo Neu Corporation Hunts Point Co-Op Market Hunts Point Economic Development Corporation Hunts Point Fuel Corporation Hunts Point Produce Market Hunts Point Terminal Produce Cooperative Association Inner City Press/ Community on the Move Inter Neighborhood Housing Corporation International Truck Brokerage Inwood Community Services J. Bauer Consulting Associates, Inc. Kingsbridge Heights Neighborhood Improvement Association KLD Associates, Inc. Kleiman & Hochberg Krasdale Foods Latin American Chaplins Association Latin American Clergy Association Legal Services For New York City, LSNY – Bronx Loan Buy Inc M.B.D. Community Housing Corporation Manhattan College Master Purveyors MB Trucking Company McKinley Community Center Melrose Community Center Mendon Truck Leasing and Rental Mid-Bronx Desperadoes Mid-Bronx Housing Development Fund Mid-Bronx Senior Citizens Council Morris Park Community Association Morrisania II Apartments Mothers on the Move Mott Haven Community Center Nathel & Nathel, Inc. National Puerto Rican Parade Inc.

15 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

Stakeholders List (cont’d) Nature's Best Produce Nebraskaland New Haven Distribution New Plymouth Beef Corp. New York Bus Service New York City Department of Transportation New York City Environmental Justice Alliance New York City Mission Society New York City Sierra Club New York Power Authority New York State Department of Transportation New York State Motor Enterprises New York Working Program North Atlantic Energy Inc. Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation Nos Quedamos New York City Council: District 11 New York City Council: District 12 New York City Council: District 13 New York City Council: District 14 New York City Council: District 15 New York City Council: District 16 New York City Council: District 17 New York City Council: District 18 New York City Council: District 20 NYESC Acquisition Corp d/b/a Health Care Waste Services New York State Assembly: District 80 New York State Assembly: District 86 New York State Assembly: District 133 New York State Assembly: District 76 New York State Assembly: District 77 New York State Assembly: District 78 New York State Assembly: District 79 New York State Assembly: District 81 New York State Assembly: District 82 New York State Assembly: District 83 New York State Assembly: District 84

August 20, 2007 16 NEPA Scoping Report

Stakeholders List (cont’d) New York State Assembly: District 85 New York State Senate: District 28 New York State Senate: District 32 New York State Senate: District 33 New York State Senate: District 34 New York State Senate: District 36 Office of Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr. Olinville Taxpayers Association Paper Enterprises, Inc. Paradise Products Phipps Head Start Port Morris Restoration Pratt Institute for Community and Environmental Development PROMESA Housing Development Fund Corporation Regional Plan Association Riverbay Corporation Rotary Club of The Bronx S. Katzman Produce Inc Sal's Hauling SEBCO Social Services SL Benfica Transportation South Bronx Headstart South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation South Bronx Revitalization Organization Sultana Distributions Services Inc. Sustainable South Bronx SYNAGRO Corporation Target Interstate Systems The Point Community Development Corporation The Salvation Army Bronx Citadel The Salvation Army-Mens Social Service Center The Salvation Army-New York, Tremont Thruway Homeowners Transportation Alternatives Tremont Senior Citizen Center Tri-State Transportation Campaign United Staffing

17 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

Stakeholders List (cont’d) United States Small Business Administration University Heights Educational and Cultural Development Community Center Urbitran United States Congress: District 16 United States Congress: District 17 United States Congress: District 7 United States Senate Van Nest Civic Association Victory Food Service Dist. Corp Vista Food Exchange Inc. Waterbury/LaSalle Civic Association Wave Hill Westside Foods Westside Poultry Wildlife Conservation Society Woodlawn Heights Taxpayers YMCA-Bronx YMCA-Bronx Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice

August 20, 2007 18 NEPA Scoping Report

Technical Advisory Committee List Federal Highway Administration Metropolitan Transit Authority New York City Department of City Planning New York City Department of Design and Construction New York City Department of Environmental Protection New York City Department of Parks and Recreation New York City Department of Sanitation New York City Department of Transportation New York City Police Department New York Metropolitan Transportation Council New York State Department of Transportation Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

19 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

Ranking of Objectives – Respondents List

A.L. Bazzini Co. AFL Hothouse Produce Anderson Avenue HDFC Bronx Borough President’s Office Bronx Community Board # 2 Bronx Community Board #12 Bronx Community Board #4 Bronx River Alliance DairyLand Fordham University Hunt’s Point Terminal Produce Coop Assoc. Hunts Point Economic Development Corporation Metropolitan Transit Authority – Bridges and Tunnels Metropolitan Transit Authority – New York City Transit Mother’s on the Move New York Bus Service New York City Department of City Planning New York City Department of Environmental Protection New York City Department of Sanitation New York City Department of Transportation New York City Department of Transportation – Bridges New York City Department of Transportation – Bronx Borough Commissioner New York City Department of Transportation – OCMC – Highways New York City Department of Transportation – Roadway Repair and Maintenance New York City Environmental Justice Alliance New York City Parks and Recreation New York City Parks and Recreation – Planning New York City Police Department New York State Department of Transportation – DQAB New York State Department of Transportation – Planning New York State Department of Transportation – Rail Agreement Section

August 20, 2007 20 NEPA Scoping Report

Ranking of Objectives – Respondents’ List (Cont’d)

Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development Regional Plan Association Sustainable South Bronx The Point Community Development Corporation Tri-State Transportation Campaign Westside Foods Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice

21 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

Qualitative Screening Expert Panels – Respondents List

Economic Development Group

Invited Attended

New York City Economic Development Corporation New York Metropolitan Transportation Council New York State Department of Transportation Yes Hunts Point Economic Development Corporation Yes Hunts Point Produce Market Yes Hunts Point Cooperative Market Fulton Fish Market Automobile Club of New York Inc (AAA) A.L. Bazzinni Nut Company Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation Coca Cola Bottling Company Dairy Land USA Corp. Frito Lay Inc. Westside Food Inc. S. Katzman Produce Inc. Yes Anderson Avenue HDFC US Small Business Administration Nebraskaland Inc. AFL Fresh and Frozen Inc Krasdale Food NYS Motor Truck Assn. Regional Plan Association South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation Target Interstate Mayor’s Office of Economic Development New York City Economic Development Corporation Constantinople & Vallone George Arzt Communications International Truck Brokerage MB Trucking Company New York Bus Service NYC Dept. of Small Business Services NYS Motor Truck Association Office of Mayor Michael Bloomberg Cooseman’s Yes Albee Tomato Yes

August 20, 2007 22 NEPA Scoping Report

Qualitative Screening Expert Panels – Respondents List (Cont’n)

Environmental Group

Invited Attended

Bronx River Alliance Yes New York City Department of Parks and Recreation Yes Bronx Community Board 1 Bronx Community Board 2 Bronx Community Board 3 Bronx Community Board 9 Mothers on the Move New York City Environmental Justice Alliance Pratt Institute Yes Sustainable South Bronx Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice Yes The Point Development Corp. Cherry Tree Association Transportation Alternatives Tri-State Transportation Campaign Yes Metropolitan Transportation Authority – Bridges and Tunnels Yes

23 August 20, 2007 Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange Reconstruction Project

Qualitative Screening Expert Panels – Respondents List (Cont’n)

Transportation Efficiency

Invited Attended

Bronx Community Board 1 Bronx Community Board 2 Bronx Community Board 3 Bronx Community Board 9 NYSDOT New York City Department of Transportation New York City Department of City Planning–Transportation Yes NYPD Yes New York Metropolitan Transportation Council Yes Metropolitan Transportation Authority – Manhattan/Bronx Bus Planning-Operations Planning Metropolitan Transportation Authority – Bridges and Tunnels Yes Metropolitan Transportation Authority – New York City Transit Yes New York City Department of Sanitation New York City Department of Environmental Protection Port Authority of New York and New Jersey New York City Department of Planning-Bronx New York Bus Service Transportation Alternatives Pratt Institute Yes Tri-State Transportation Campaign Yes

System Safety

Invited Attended

NYSDOT Yes Automobile Club of New York Inc (AAA) NYPD Yes NYCDOT Yes

August 20, 2007 24 NEPA Scoping Report

Appendix B

FINAL CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES

25 August 20, 2007