Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

Chapter 2: Project Alternatives A. INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes an intense 3-year effort to consider and recommend options to solve pressing existing and future transportation problems on Manhattan’s East Side. Section B ad- dresses the evaluation process, in which a great number of alternatives were evaluated to select the four project alternatives for consideration in this MIS/DEIS. Section C describes the four project alternatives and Section D presents preliminary cost estimates. The evaluation of the long and reduced long list of alternatives is presented in full detail in two reports: Development of Alternatives, Volume 1 (October 1996), and Evaluation of Alternatives, Volume 2 (Sep- tember 1997). The refined engineering evaluation and details of the two project “build” alternatives are presented in the Final Engineering Report, in Appendices D, E, and F to this document. B. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES APPROACH The basic alternatives development and evaluation approach for the MESA study was to consider all options suggested, evaluating each against the project’s goals and objectives (see Chapter 1, Section G). MTA New York City Transit (NYCT) and the project team accepted recommen- dations from other agencies, the PAC, members of civic groups, and the public, in addition to those being generated by the study’s planners and engineers. From a large list, these alternatives were grouped (some suggestions were essentially the same as others) and organized into a somewhat smaller list, called the “long list” of alternatives. This was subjected to a coarse screen using relatively broad criteria, which eliminated those options that could not reasonably be built and combined others together to form several new full “combination” alternatives. Pre- liminary findings were discussed with the TAC, PAC, MTA Long Range Planning Framework working group, community boards, and the general public, and then further modified. The end result was a “reduced long list” of alternatives. Using much more detailed criteria, including engineering and preliminary cost analysis, traffic, environmental and socioeconomic information, and transportation modeling, the reduced long list was reviewed in three successive screens. This phase included substantial refinement to the options as required by the more detailed analyses undertaken. The work was closely supervised by NYCT engineering staff, and it was coordinated with other state and city agencies, as appropriate, and again discussed in the public outreach program. The evaluation concluded that four alternatives would be addressed in detail in this MIS/DEIS: No Build; Transportation Systems Management (TSM); new Second Avenue subway north of 63rd Street with access to the Broadway express tracks down to Lower Manhattan; and the same subway supplemented by new light rail transit (LRT) serving the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. 2-1 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS SCREENING THE LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES To evaluate the long list of alternatives, a “coarse” screen was used, containing enough information to determine whether a given alternative met the project goals and objectives or whether a critical flaw or obstacle would prevent an alternative from being implemented. As part of this initial screen, and based on the study goals and objectives, each alternative was evaluated as an independent entity in terms of its ability to satisfy the following major issues in the study area (see Figure 1-1): ! Accessibility, Capacity and Market Areas Served: The evaluation process addressed such issues as: providing increased mass transit into and within the transportation corridor; attracting new ridership to mass transit; and providing expanded mass transit services to currently underserved zones in the study area including the Lower East Side and the Upper East Side, particularly east of Second Avenue. ! Economic Feasibility, Cost Effectiveness, and Equity Issues: The evaluation addressed such issues as: whether the proposed technology is known to be practical and implementable; whether at a preliminary level the expected benefits outweigh the order-of- magnitude costs and whether the impacts of the candidate alternative, both positive and negative, are equitably distributed among those communities that will experience the impacts. ! Environmental and Community Compatibility Issues: All alternatives had to comply with the Clean Air Act and State Implementation Programs, respond to the needs of the immedi- ate and larger community, and expand mass transit in the study corridor while protecting the physical and social environment. ! Street and Subsurface Transportation and Transit Congestion Issues: All alternatives were required to alleviate crowding on existing transit lines, highway corridors and, specifically, the East Side transportation corridor; reduce travel times; and maintain or improve adequate parking and loading areas throughout the project corridor. If the alternative adequately addressed these issues, it was then subject to a series of questions, as follows: ! Does this alternative stand alone? If the alternative adequately addressed the study goals and objectives and was able, by itself, to address the major transportation problems in the study area, it was considered a “stand-alone” alternative. ! If not, would this alternative better address study area issues if it were combined with another alternative? Each “does not stand alone” alternative was further evaluated to determine whether it could be combined with other alternatives to form one alternative that addressed the study goals and objectives. Potential components of the TSM alternative were also identified in this way. ! If the alternative does not stand alone, can it be considered a routing or other type of option for a stand-alone alternative? ! Are there any major flaws in the alternative that would prevent its implementation? 2-2 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives Once the coarse screen evaluation was nearly complete, the project team presented the alternatives to the Public Advisory Committee and held workshops and focused meetings in all five study area zones (shown on Figure 1-1). These discussions also helped to hone the long list. Long list alternatives that did not stand alone were either eliminated or combined with other alternatives to help create well-rounded solutions to the transit and transportation issues on the East Side of Manhattan. If, during the screening process, the issues related to an alternative appeared too complex for a quick screen, a “white paper” was prepared for that alternative. The intent of the white paper was to provide the team with more information on an alternative so that the benefits or impediments could be assessed and a well informed decision (i.e., whether the alternative would be screened out or whether it may be combined with another alternative to better satisfy the study area needs) could be made. The long list alternatives are described briefly below, along with the conclusions of their evaluation (see also Table 2-1 on page 2-9). 1. RAPID TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES* A. Original Full 1974 Alignment of the Second Avenue Subway The Original Full 1974 Alignment of the Second Avenue Subway would extend from Water Street north, primarily along Chrystie Street and Second Avenue, and over a new crossing of the Harlem River to the Bronx. This alternative would meet project goals and thus remained as a stand-alone alternative. It was also determined that two other subway options could serve as routing options under this alternative; these are alternatives 1D and 1G, described below. B. Second Avenue Subway North Second Avenue Subway North (from East Midtown to East Harlem) was eliminated as a stand- alone alternative because it would provide accessibility and increased capacity only to the north- ern sections of the study area. It was retained as a possible component of a combination alternative. Ultimately, this alternative became a key component of the Build alternatives as the East Side subway extension. C. Second Avenue Subway South Second Avenue Subway South (between East Midtown and Lower Manhattan) was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative because it would serve only the southern portion of the study area, would be difficult to implement, and would not be cost-effective compared to other alternatives that would provide similar improvements. D. Second Avenue Subway Eastward Alignment This subway alternative would veer eastward along East Broadway, move north beneath Avenue B to East 10th Street and then return to Second Avenue, thus serving the Lower East * Rapid transit lines were initially considered for any of the avenues east of Lexington Avenue. Second Avenue was chosen early on as being the most appropriate because (1) a route on Third Avenue would too closely duplicate the Lexington Avenue Line’s service area; (2) a subway route on First Avenue would be difficult because of the Queensboro Bridge, the street configuration near the United Nations, and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel; and (3) no other route could make use of the tunnel sections already built for the original Second Avenue subway. 2-3 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS Side. Because its only difference from 1A is the alignment in the Lower East Side, it was added as a routing option to the Second Avenue Subway Original Alignment. E. Second Avenue Subway with Southbound Connection To/From Grand Central Terminal This connection from Grand Central Terminal

Load more