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 northern 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 southward to Lower Manhattan (either a subway spur or direct commuter rail link) was eliminated from further analysis because it addressed only a small portion of the study area riders (primarily commuters from Westchester and Connecticut) and its costs were high compared with other alternatives that would provide a similar benefit. F. Second Avenue Subway—43rd Street Interline Connection This alternative would connect a Second Avenue subway across 42nd Street to the Broadway line. With a stop at Grand Central, this would allow commuters a second express train to Lower Manhattan. This option was not a stand-alone alternative because it would not adequately address access or capacity issues for the southern portions of the study area. It was also eliminated as a possible component to a combination alternative because of its high cost compared to other alternatives that would provide similar transportation benefits. G. Second Avenue Subway—43rd Street New Jersey Connection This alternative would connect the full Second Avenue Subway to an east-west subway along 43rd Street. Although it did not specifically address the issues defined for the MESA study area, it was under consideration in the Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) study. It was therefore included as a routing addition in the full subway option (1A, above), and remained under active consideration until it was dropped by the ARC study.

2. LEXINGTON AVENUE SUBWAY SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS A. Lexington Avenue Subway Signal Improvements Signal improvements on the Lexington line would theoretically help to increase capacity, by allowing more trains per hour to proceed safely along the route. However, this benefit would be marginal, since it would not affect significantly the dwell times of trains in the stations, an important issue, particularly at the transfer stations. Like all suggested improvements to the Lexington Avenue line, this alternative would not make rapid transit more accessible to the underserved portions of the study area. It was therefore eliminated as a stand-alone alternative. However, in combination with other service improvements aimed at reducing dwell time problems, it was thought that the alternative might be a useful component of the TSM Alternative. This possibility was ruled out because the costs far outweighed the benefits. Such signal improvements would be made over the long term, independent of the MESA study, but not within the study’s timeframe. B. Lexington Avenue Subway Platform Extensions Extending platforms on the Lexington Avenue line would permit NYCT to lengthen the trains from 10 to 12 cars, carrying up to 20 percent more passengers through the system. Despite this increase in capacity, the improvement would not make transit more accessible to the underserved portions of the study area. Furthermore, compared with the costs of extending the plat-

2-4 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

forms, the benefits would be minimal. It was therefore eliminated from further study as a stand- alone alternative. In addition, because of the high expected cost of implementation and the diffi- culty expected in terms of its construction (the modifications would affect virtually all platforms along the entire line [4, 5, and 6 trains]), the alternative was not considered suitable for inclusion in the TSM Alternative or reasonable as a component of a combination alternative. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration in this study. C. Lexington Avenue Subway Segmented Connections to Other Subway Lines (Conversion of Northern Lexington Avenue Subway Lines to B Division Service) This alternative would connect the northern half of the Lexington Avenue line (either the express or local tracks) with the Broadway line through a new tunnel connection to the 63rd Street tunnel near where the two lines cross at Lexington Avenue. Because the two lines carry different sized trains (Broadway line “B Division” trains are larger than Lexington Avenue “A Division” trains), the Lexington Avenue line north of 63rd Street would be converted to the larger B Division cars. This is theoretically possible because the tunnels north of 42nd Street were originally built to wider B Division standards. Service on the Lexington Avenue line south of 59th Street would remain in A Division configuration and terminate in the vicinity of 59th Street. This alternative was intended to increase capacity by adding the Broadway express tracks to the system and by increasing the capacity of the trains themselves. This alternative would not stand alone, because it would not address many of the access and service issues of the study area. It was not evaluated for any combination or enhancement options because it would not improve transit accessibility for the midtown core, and it would be extremely costly and disruptive to rail operations. D. Lexington Avenue Subway Local Service Extension to Lower Manhattan An extension of the Lexington Avenue subway local service to Lower Manhattan was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative, because it would address only a portion of study area transportation issues; however, it was included as a component of combination Alternative 10D. E. Lexington Avenue Subway Skip-Stop Operation Lexington Avenue Subway Skip-Stop Operation was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative because it would only minimally address study area transportation issues, but it was retained as a potential component either of a combination alternative or of the TSM Alternative.

3. NEW METRO-NORTH STATIONS IN THE BRONX AND UPPER MANHATTAN The alternative to add Metro-North railroad stops in the Bronx and Upper Manhattan was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative because it would offer limited access improvements to underserved portions of the study area and would not increase capacity materially. Also, because the costs would be very high, particularly compared with the benefits accrued, this option was also eliminated from consideration as a component of the TSM Alternative.

2-5 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

4. BUS ALTERNATIVES A. Bus Service on Dedicated Avenue This option would dedicate either First or Second Avenue to two-way bus service, limiting private traffic essentially to local deliveries. This would allow the buses to increase speed and reduce travel time. This alternative would meet the study goals, and was therefore retained for further review as one stand-alone alternative with two routing options. B. Bus Service on Paired Avenues This service would provide two primary bus lanes each on First and Second Avenue, in a design similar but superior to those provided on Madison Avenue. Local deliveries and drop-offs would be permitted in a special curbside standing lane; bus stops would be built out into this lane, so that buses would never have to enter the standing lane to pick up and drop off passengers, and the likelihood of illegal standing in bus stops would be greatly reduced. This somewhat “self- enforcing” option was found to address most project goals and was thus retained in the reduced long list of alternatives. C. Trolley Bus on Dedicated Busway Trolley-bus in a dedicated busway was retained as a stand-alone alternative since it satisfied preliminary evaluation criteria. This alternative could be considered a technology option to either Alternative 4A or 4B. D. FDR Drive Busway A dedicated lane for buses and high occupancy vehicles on the FDR Drive was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative because it would not address many of the problems in the study area. It would only serve a limited portion of the study area, catering instead to longer-distance commuters. However, it was retained as a candidate for possible inclusion in the TSM Alternative.

5. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE A. Light Rail Transit Service on Dedicated Avenue LRT on an avenue dedicated to its two-way service would extend from South Ferry to 125th Street in this alternative. This system would meet many of the project goals, and so was retained in the first reduced long list. B. Light Rail Transit Service on Paired Avenues LRT service from South Ferry to 125th Street on First and Second Avenues was also considered. This alternative met the basic project goals and so was retained in the reduced long list.

6. PRIVATE FRANCHISED JITNEY SERVICE Private franchise jitney service is a flexible service with various possible routings and higher capacities than taxi cabs. It would not, however, provide enough capacity to relieve transit or on- street traffic congestion. Therefore, it was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative but retained as a candidate for inclusion in the TSM Alternative.

2-6 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

7. FERRY SERVICE ON EAST RIVER WITH SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE Ferry service on the East River with shuttle bus service would offer new transit service to a limited market area, but would not materially reduce crowding on the Lexington Avenue subway; and would only partially address the accessibility needs identified in the study area. There- fore, it was eliminated as a stand-alone alternative but was retained as a candidate for inclusion in the TSM Alternative because of its expected net benefits.

8. NEW EAST RIVER STOPS ON EXISTING EAST-WEST SUBWAY SERVICE New East River stops on three existing east-west subway lines were proposed in this alternative at the following locations: First Avenue at 63rd Street on the Q route; First Avenue at 59th Street on the Broadway line; First Avenue at 42nd Street on the 7 route; and Avenue C at 14th Street on the L route. This alternative would improve subway accessibility in currently underserved areas but would not provide any congestion relief to the study area’s north-south transit corridors, thereby limiting potential service improvements to many portions of the MESA project corridor. It was therefore eliminated as a stand-alone alternative. In addition, due to considerable expense and construction difficulties, and marginal effect on the study area, most of the options within this alternative were eliminated from further consideration in the study. However, because of public interest, the proposed station on the L route at 14th Street and Avenue C was retained for possible inclusion in the TSM Alternative.

9. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS The TSM improvements alternative, by definition, will remain as a stand-alone alternative through the end of the entire evaluation process. The components of the TSM have evolved as the study has progressed. At the close of the coarse screen, the TSM Alternative could have potentially included the following: ! Bus lane operational improvements; ! Express and local bus operations improvements such as stop-spacing; ! Lexington Avenue skip-stop operation (Alternative 2E); ! FDR Drive busway/HOV (Alternative 4D); ! Ridesharing on the FDR Drive; ! Private jitney service particularly from the Upper East Side to Lower Manhattan and from Midtown to Lower Manhattan (Alternative 6); ! Ferry service on the East River with shuttle bus service (Alternative 7); ! Subway station improvements; ! New subway passenger transfers between Broadway/Lafayette Street (B, Q, D, and F lines) and Bleecker Street station northbound (No. 6) and between 63rd Street on the B and Q lines and the Lexington Avenue station at 59th-60th Street (No. 6 and the R and N lines); ! New L station at 14th Street and Avenue C (part of Alternative 9); and ! Traffic engineering improvements.

10. COMBINATION ALTERNATIVES The idea of the combination alternatives is to combine viable options that cannot otherwise stand alone to meet project goals. The combination alternatives were as follows:

2-7 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

! Alternative 10A. Second Avenue subway north of 42nd Street and LRT service from East Midtown south to the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan; ! Alternative 10B. Second Avenue subway north of 63rd Street and a busway from East Mid- town south to the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan; ! Alternative 10C. Second Avenue subway north of 63rd Street and LRT service in the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan; ! Alternative 10D. Second Avenue subway north of 63rd Street, with extension of the Lexington Avenue Local (No. 6 route) subway service beyond the Brooklyn Bridge stop and bus service improvements in the Lower East Side.

11. ELEVATED TRANSIT Elevated transit was considered along Second or First Avenues. Such an option would meet the study’s transportation goals, but its visual impact and community compatibility (third goal) issues would be potentially significant; community reaction to this option was also quite negative. This alternative would not fulfill several of the project goals. It was therefore eliminated from further consideration.

12. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build alternative will be carried through the entire study. It is the option that decision makers will take if they decide to reject the TSM and other “Build” alternatives. It consists of all transportation facilities and services likely to exist in the future study year (2020), and is discussed further in Section C of this chapter. These elements would also be included in the TSM and other Build alternatives.

CONCLUSIONS: PRELIMINARY REDUCED LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES Given the elimination of some and combination of others from the long list, the preliminary reduced long list of alternatives was renumbered, as shown in Table 2-1.

EVALUATING THE REDUCED LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES The preliminary reduced long list of alternatives was narrowed through three successive screens in Task 5, as shown in Figure 2-1 and described below.

SCREEN 1: CONFIRMATION OF FEASIBILITY The first screen dealt with final confirmation of feasibility. During this screen, preliminary engineering drawings were prepared, as necessary, to identify those alternatives that were clearly infeasible. As a result of this analysis, the extension of the No. 6 line from City Hall to Lower Manhattan, a component of Alternative 10, was eliminated. Because of existing development both above and below ground, the new alignment would have to cross five other subway lines, or be so deep that it would avoid these lines altogether. Given the relatively shallow depth of rock in Lower Manhattan, a deep alignment, even if it were possible, would have to be constructed using the very disruptive cut-and-cover method. Feasible elements of Alternative 10 were included in other alternatives, and the list was reduced by one, to become the “final” reduced long list considered in Screen 2 (see Table 2-2).

2-8 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

Table 2-1 Summary of Coarse Screen Matrix

Elimi- Could Be New Old # Long List TSM nated Combined # Reduced Long List 1 Second Avenue Subway A Original Alignment 3 Original Alignment B North of 63rd Street X C South of 63rd Street X D Eastward Alignment 3 Original Alignment Routing Option E Connection to GCT X F 43rd Street Inter-line X G New Jersey Connection 3 Original Alignment Routing Option 2 Lexington Avenue Line A Signal Improvements X X 4 Paired with Bus B Platform Extensions X C “X” Scheme (segmented X connections) D Local Service Extension to X Lower Manhattan E Skip Stop X X 3 New Metro North Stations X 4 Bus/Trolley/HOV 4 Bus Alternative A Bus on Dedicated Avenue 4 Bus Routing Option B Bus on Paired Avenues 4 Bus Routing Option C Trolley on Dedicated Ave 5 Trolley on Dedicated Avenue D HOV Lane on FDR Drive X 5 Light Rail Transit 6 LRT Alternative A LRT on Dedicated Avenue 6 LRT Routing Option B LRT on Paired Avenues 6 LRT Routing Option 6 Private Franchised Jitney X 7 Ferry Service on East River X with Shuttle Bus 8 New East River Stops X 9 TSM Improvements 2 TSM Alternative 10 Combination Alternatives 7 Subway North with LRT to the south 8 Subway North with bus to the south 9 Subway North with LRT in Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan 10 Subway North, Extend Local to Lower Manhattan, Bus Improvements 11 Elevated Transit X 12 No Action 1 No Action

2-9 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

Table 2-2 Reduced Long List of Alternatives

No. Name Description 1 No Build Includes all transportation facilities and services likely to exist in the forecast year (such as 63rd Street/Queens Boulevard line connection). Free transfers between buses and subways are included in the No Build Alternative. All elements of this alternative are included in the other alternatives. 2 Transportation Systems Refers to a set of low-to-moderate cost improvements that are more readily Management implementable than major capital cost alternatives. In this study, TSM improvements may be in the range of several million dollars or more. The TSM Alternative is refined in later evaluations as lower-cost improvements that do not pass the screening process are added. 3 Second Avenue Subway with Refers to a new subway line following the original Second Avenue subway Options (Eastern Alignment, alignment along Second Avenue, Chrystie Street, St. James Place, and New Jersey Connection) Water Street with station spacing every 10 to 15 blocks. One potential Eastern Alignment Option would veer eastward in the East Village and Lower East Side along 10th Street, Avenue B, and East Broadway. The potential New Jersey Connection Option would add an east-west branch connecting Grand Central and New Jersey. 4 Bus Service on Dedicated or Would create a two-way busway along an avenue or a one-way pair of Paired Avenues with busways on two avenues. In most of the study area, First and Second Resignalization of Lexington Avenues would be used; local streets would be used in the Lower East Avenue Line Side and Lower Manhattan. Signals on the Lexington Avenue line would be updated to provide additional train through-put capacity. 5 Trolley Bus on Dedicated Would run Trolley Bus service on First or Second Avenue, powered by Busway overhead electrical wires. Trolley buses could be linked together to provide more passenger capacity. 6 Light Rail Service on Dedi- Proposes an LRT line in a separated right-of-way along the entire length of cated or Paired Avenues the study area. In the dedicated option, the LRT line would run two-way on adjacent tracks on First or Second Avenues and on local streets in Lower Manhattan. In the paired avenues option, the LRT would run south on one avenue and north on another, except south of Houston Street where the line would run in both directions on parallel tracks on as yet to be determined streets. 7 Northern Segment of Second Proposes a new East Side subway extension along Second Avenue from Avenue Subway with LRT in the northern edge of the study area to 63rd Street, and a LRT system, either Eastern Midtown, Lower East on dedicated or paired avenues, in East Midtown (south of 63rd Street), the Side, and Lower Manhattan Lower East Side, and Lower Manhattan. 8 Northern Segment of the Proposes a new East Side subway extension along Second Avenue from Second Avenue Subway with the northern edge of the study area to 63rd Street, and a dedicated Bus Service in East Midtown, busway, either on dedicated or paired avenues, in East Midtown (south of the Lower East Side, and 63rd Street), the Lower East Side, and Lower Manhattan. Lower Manhattan 9 Northern Segment of the Proposes a new East Side subway extension along Second Avenue from Second Avenue Subway with the northern edge of the study area to 63rd Street or Grand Central Terminal LRT in the Lower East Side and a LRT system, either on dedicated or paired avenues, in the Lower East and Lower Manhattan Side and Lower Manhattan.

2-10 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

SCREEN 2: DEFINITION AND EVALUATION OF ROUTING OPTIONS The second and third screens addressed a number of issues regarding feasibility and impact for the seven remaining “build” alternatives in continuously increasing detail; the No Build and TSM Alternatives were carried straight through the process. The second screen required that the alternatives be more completely defined. The reduced long list contained rather generic alternatives: the general routes were known, but the specifics had not been resolved. The exact locations of the termini were unknown, several alternatives did not specify a particular street (First or Second Avenue, Avenue B, C, or D, e.g.), and sites for storage and maintenance yards had not been identified. This screen, then, involved substantially more refinement in defining the routing, alignment, and engineering options for each alternative. The engineering options addressed particular areas along the alternatives’ alignments and tunneling methods as follows: Engineering Options 63rd Street Flexing Connection. For alternatives involving a connection between the East Side subway extension on Second Avenue north of 63rd Street and the previously constructed 63rd Street subway, there were three configuration options: a two-track station (“two track”); a four-track station with two tracks joining the 63rd Street subway and two proceeding south for a possible extension at a later date (“four track”); and a two-track station with two tail tracks continuing south for a possible extension at a later date (“two track with tail”). Northern Connection to the Lexington Line. For alternatives involving a connection between the East Side subway extension and the Pelham Line (No. 6) subway, there were four configuration options: a station parallel to the Lexington Avenue 125th Street station with a connecting passage for passenger transfers (“parallel station”); a station perpendicular to the Lexington Avenue 125th Street station with a connecting passage for passenger transfers (“perpendicular station”); a connection to the Lexington Avenue Harlem River tubes at Lexington Avenue (“connection”); and a new tunnel under the Harlem River at Second Avenue (“new tunnel”). Transition from Second Avenue to Lexington Avenue. For alternatives involving a transition from the new 125th Street station and the existing tunnel segments beneath Second Avenue, there were three crossover configuration options: an “S” curve immediately south of 125th Street Station with a crossover between the two curves (“between the two curves”); an “S” curve several blocks south of the 125th Street station with a crossover immediately south of the 125th Street station (“south of 125th”); and an “S” curve immediately south of the 125th Street station with a crossover immediately north of the 125th Street station (“north of 125th”). Canal Street Flip. For alternatives involving use of the Broadway line, there were two options at Canal Street: direct service to lower Manhattan requiring track reconfiguration and platform construction to permit the express trains to continue directly to lower Manhattan and route the local over the Manhattan Bridge (“flip”); and indirect service to Lower Manhattan requiring a transfer from express to local service at Union Square or Canal Street to continue southward in Manhattan “without flip”). Tunneling Method. For alternatives involving tunnel construction, there were three tunneling options: “cut-and-cover”; tunnel-boring machine (“boring”); and “mining.”

2-11 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

Screen 2 Criteria The second screen also set criteria for this level of evaluation. In the evaluation, the alternatives and their routing options were grouped by mode so that they could be evaluated against similar modes (subway to subway, bus to bus, LRT to LRT). The evaluation criteria are summarized as follows: ! Total cost: This was a comparative analysis, showing the relative range of costs between same-mode options. ! Average speed: In this comparison, a fast speed was 15 to 20 mph, medium was 10 to 15 mph, and slow was less than 10 mph. ! Potential for free subway-to-subway transfer. ! Impacts on the existing transit system. These include such effects as the elimination, rerouting, reduction, or increase of existing routes due to a new service. A substantial, irreparable adverse impact was required for this criterion alone to eliminate an alternative. ! Other service changes to the existing system. This criterion examined various operational changes that would be necessary to accommodate a new service. These would not eliminate an alternative unless they were found to be prohibitive. ! Use of existing tunnels. A subway or LRT routing option’s use of existing tunnels with available capacity was considered a plus. ! Engineering complications. Potential engineering difficulties were identified at this stage; these were important to the elimination of certain options. ! Unresolved issues. Issues such as the potential termini of alignments, turnaround problems, intermodal connections, and connections with other MISs in the region were identified; these were either resolved through further analysis or identified as potentially unresolvable. ! Potential for public/community support. Alternatives were rated as low, medium, high, or very high in potential community support, depending essentially on community-related impacts, such as disruption (e.g., if curb-side deliveries were to be substantially limited), and increased traffic congestion. ! Expanded rapid transit area. Each option was evaluated for its ability to provide rapid transit service to a previously underserved area. ! Ridership. Early model results helped to provide a comparative analysis of the ridership levels that might be attracted to each option within a given mode of travel. ! Street/Operations Impacts. This criterion more clearly defined the effect an alternative would have after it was constructed. Subway options, all underground, received a “low” impact rating, while the surface transportation systems received varying ratings. ! Legal issues. Problems in jurisdiction, property taking, easements, and other legal issues were identified. These did not necessarily eliminate an alternative, unless they were deemed to make an option unimplementable.

2-12 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

! Construction impacts. Methods of construction were reviewed and rated; cut-and-cover, the most disruptive form of subway construction was to be kept to a minimum, for example. ! Possibility of phased construction. Given the reality that limitations on the availability of capital funds year by year might require the phasing of construction, those alternatives that did not allow for reasonable phasing were eliminated. ! Implementation. Alternatives were defined by how quickly they could be in service. Short- term is less than 5 years, medium term is 5 to 10 years, and long-term is greater than 10 years. As a result of this screen, several of the reduced long list alternatives were reconfigured and re- combined and two were eliminated. Specifically, the bus options (Alternative 4) were, on closer analysis, not suitable as stand alone alternatives. The option of priority lane service on First and Second Avenues was determined to be the least disruptive, most flexible and best preferred option by the community, and so it was included as an option in Alternative 2: TSM Alternative. The electric trolley bus option (Alternative 5) was also carried as an option of the TSM Alternative. Of the subway options in Alternative 3, the full north-south subway was continued to the next screen as Alternative 3A and the eastward alignment was reconfigured as a Lower East Side subway shuttle with connections to existing subways and combined with a “North Subway” (new construction along Second Avenue, connecting at 63rd Street to the Broadway express tracks and at 125th Street to the Pelham Bay line) as Alternative 3C for further analysis. All other suboptions (full subway eastward alignment, connections to other lines, connections to a new east-west transit line, e.g.) were eliminated based on cost-effectiveness and impact factors. Two LRT options were also continued as Alternatives 6A and 6B. The two-way LRT on a single avenue was determined to be the least disruptive and most cost effective option. It could follow a straight route to/from Lower Manhattan, passing through the Lower East Side along First Avenue/Allen Street, or it could turn eastward on 14th Street to Avenue D through the East Village and Lower East Side before going underground in an existing tunnel to bypass Chatham Square and back onto the downtown routing on Water Street. Combination Alternative 7, which paired the subway north of 63rd Street with the LRT south from 63rd Street as in Alternative 6B was eliminated because it would not perform appreciably better than alternatives with shorter LRT segments and was thus not cost-effective. Combination Alternatives 8 and 9 were continued; Alternative 8 consists of the subway north of 63rd Street (as in Alternative 3A) with the enhanced bus service included in the TSM Alternative. Preliminary model results found it to produce significant improvements to crowding on the Lexington Avenue line and the bus treatments would provide improvements in other study area subareas. Alternative 9 is Alternative 8 plus the LRT through the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan described in Alternative 6B. The shorter list of alternatives is presented in Table 2-3.

SCREEN 3: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES The final screen involved an analysis of specific quantitative and qualitative data for each of the remaining alternatives. Preliminary model output was available, as were ridership and travel time

2-13 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS and capital cost estimates; these formed the basis for a “partial” cost benefit analysis, as shown in Table 2-4. Qualitative screening criteria were added at this stage, including a definition of accessibility, potential for displacement, service to low income, minority, and transit-dependent populations, community character effects, such as impacts on land use/public policy, visual character, open space, historic resources, and archaeological resources, hazardous materials issues, traffic impacts, impact on parking and goods delivery, air quality impacts, compatibility with existing transit system, and a general analysis of construction impacts. As a result of this analysis, three of the five remaining Build alternatives (Alternatives 3A, 3C, and 6) were eliminated. As shown in Table 2-4, Alternatives 3A and 3C had the highest capital and operating costs and high cost factors (dollars per hour saved or hours spent in a less crowded subway car). Alternative 6 was eliminated because of its substantial potential impacts in the major issues categories. These alternatives performed well in improving accessibility, but other, less ex- pensive or disruptive alternatives performed well in this category too. The evaluation also found that the proposed bus lanes fit the definition of the TSM alternative, and thus were moved from the Build alternatives. This would allow a clearer comparison among the project alternatives. More detailed engineering analysis subsequent to the screening process eliminated the connection to the existing Pelham Bay route north of 125th Street in Alternatives 8 and 9. Although this northward connection and the full subway south of 63rd Street were eliminated from further consideration in this study, the preliminary engineering of Alternatives 8 and 9 would not prevent these options from being built at a later time. In addition, the two-track/two tail track option at 63rd Street, and the Canal “flip,” allowing the new route to proceed on the Broadway line express tracks directly to Lower Manhattan, were included in the Build alternatives.

2-14 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

Table 2-3 Reduced Long List of Alternatives

No. Name Description 1 No Build Includes all transportation facilities and services likely to exist in the forecast year (such as 63rd Street/Queens Boulevard line connection). Free transfers between buses and subways are included in the No Build Alternative. All elements of this alternative are included in the other alternatives. 2 Transportation Systems A set of low-to-moderate cost improvements that are more readily implementable Management (TSM) than major capital cost alternatives, yet can provide solutions in both the short and long term. In this study the TSM could include bus service changes, priority bus lanes, passenger/train control improvements, free transfers, station improvements, and other possible measures. 3A Second Avenue Subway Refers to a new subway line running between Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx with 125th Street-Pelham and Whitehall Street in Manhattan. This alternative would make use of the Connection existing Pelham Bay line (No. 6 route) north of the 125th Street Station on the Lexington Avenue line. New subway construction would connect the existing Pelham line and Lexington local tunnels to the new Second Avenue subway near 112th Street. Lexington Avenue local service would terminate at 125th Street. The subway would connect to the 63rd Street (B, Q lines) subway. The Second Avenue subway would continue south beneath Second Avenue, Chrystie Street, St. James Place, Pearl, and Water Streets to its terminus at Whitehall. This alternative would be combined with bus route improvements on the Lower East Side. 3C Broadway/Pelham Routing This two-part alternative would introduce new subway service to residents of of the Second Avenue East Harlem, the Upper East Side, and the Lower East Side. The individual parts Subway with Lower East of this alternative would: Side Subway Shuttle 1. Make use of the existing Pelham Bay line (No. 6 route) north of the 125th Street station on the Lexington Avenue line. New subway construction would connect the existing Pelham line and Lexington local tunnels to the new Second Avenue subway near 112th Street. The Second Avenue subway would continue south beneath Second Avenue to a connection with the western leg of the 63rd Street route (B, Q lines). From there, it would continue south on the Broadway express tracks (previously the N express), and cross the East River via the Manhattan Bridge. 2. Introduce new subway service to the Lower East Side by using the 14th Street L route, which would extend between 14th Street/Avenue C and the Chambers Street station on the J/M/Z lines. New construction would be required under Avenue C, as well as portions of East Broadway and Canal. New connections would be made to the Canarsie line (L) and to the Nassau Street route’s (J/M/Z) Chambers Street station, where the line would terminate. 6A Light Rail Transit (LRT) on Proposes a two-track LRT route in a center-of-street right-of-way between the First Avenue Metro-North Station at 125th Street/Park Avenue and Whitehall Street in Lower Manhattan. The routing would extend between Park and First Avenues via 125 Street and between 125th and Houston Streets via First Avenue. At Houston Street, the LRT would extend south along Allen Street, connect to the Nassau Street subway (J/M/Z) via a tunnel under Canal Street, return to the surface after the Chambers Street station via Frankfort Street, and continue on St. James Place and Water Street to its terminus at Whitehall Street.

2-15 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

Table 2-3 (Continued) Reduced Long List of Alternatives

No. Name Description 8 Broadway/Pelham Routing This two-part alternative would introduce new subway service to residents of of the East Side Subway East Harlem and the Upper East Side and improved bus service to East Midtown Extension with Enhanced and the Lower East Side South of 63rd Street. The individual parts of this Bus Service South of 63rd alternative would: Street 1. See Alternative 3C, part 1, above.

2. Provide a two-lane dedicated bus lane on First and Second Avenues to serve the area between 63rd and 14th Streets in East Midtown. Bus routing changes and improved service would be implemented in the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan. 9 Broadway/Pelham Routing This three-part alternative would provide new subway service to residents of of the East Side Subway the Upper East Side, new LRT service to people living in the Lower East Side, Extension with LRT in the and improved bus service to people living in the East Side and Lower East Side Lower East Side and south of 63rd Street. The individual parts of this alternative would: Lower Manhattan 1. See Alternative 3C, part 1, above. 2. See Alternative 8, part 2, above. 3. Introduce a two-track LRT route in the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan that would extend from 14th Street/Union Square to Whitehall Street in Lower Manhattan. This alternative would provide LRT service in the center of the street east of Union Square along 14th Street to Avenue D, pass under the Williamsburg Bridge on Avenue D before turning west on Delancey Street, south on Pitt Street and East Broadway to Canal Street. The LRT would dip below ground and enter into the now-unused Canal Street subway and make use of an abandoned connection between the Canal Street subway and the Nassau Street route (J/M/Z) to the Chambers Street station. The LRT would resurface on Dover/Frankfort Street just west of Pearl/Water Streets, where it would then continue south to its terminus at Whitehall Street.

2-16

Table 2-4 Conclusion Continued Bus added Eliminated Continued; Eliminated Eliminated bus to TSM Continued; bus to TSM Archeology

™ Ž Ž Ž Ž • • Historic Resources Historic

™ ™ ™ ™ ™ • • on Indirect Space Open

™ Ž Ž Ž Ž • • Open Space Direct Space Open

™

Ž Ž • • • • Potential Impacts Transit System Compatibility System Transit

Ž Ž • • • • • Parking/Goods Delivery Parking/Goods

Ž Ž Ž • • • • Air Quality Air

™ ™ ™ Ž Ž • • Traffic Impacts Traffic

™ ™ Ž Ž

• • • = high to very high adverse impact potential Employment Accessibility Employment Ž

˜ — — — — • • Population Accessibility Population — — ˜ — — • • NA NA 0.48 0.38 0.36 0.73 0.48 Cost Ratio Partial Benefit/ 21.6 50.0 34.1 37.9 26.4 ed NA NA Less Hour Crowd Refined Long List Alternatives Evaluation Summary List Alternatives Evaluation Refined Long 23.6 28.4 31.2 14.4 23.4 NA NA Dollars Per Hour Saved = moderate adverse impact potential; ™

NA NA 225.0 520.4 354.6 108.0 274.9 Total NA NA 24.5 35.1 32.0 10.2 27.9 O&M Annual Costs* 98.8 NA NA 200.5 485.3 322.6 246.0 Capital = no change, little impact; • = moderate benefit; ˜ Alternative = substantial benefit; — 2. Transportation System Management 8. North Subway/Bus Combination 1. No Build 3A. Full Length Second Avenue Subway 3C. North Subway/Lower East Side Subway Shuttle 6A. Full Length LRT 9B/9C. North Subway/LRT and Bus Combinations dollars; NA = not applicable in this analysis. * Annual costs are presented in millions of 1997

2-17 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

The No Build, TSM, and Alternatives 8 and 9 remain as project alternatives and are discussed in Section C of this chapter. They have been renumbered as No Build, TSM, Build Alternative 1 (was Alternative 8), and Build Alternative 2 (was Alternative 9). C. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION The screening and evaluation of a full range of alternatives, summarized above, resulted in four alternatives being carried forward in the MIS/DEIS. As described below, these comprise No Build, TSM, and two Build alternatives. These latter options were subjected to further engineering analysis, which refined them again, as necessary. The engineering effort was guided by five engineering design goals: ! Maximize the number of people transported in the study corridor for the funds expended. ! Minimize the property/environmental impacts in the study corridor. ! Maximize convenience and connectivity for the potential passengers of the system. ! Minimize the operational/maintenance impacts on the existing subway system. ! Provide for maximum flexibility for subway modifications in the future. Engineering criteria were also applied to both subway and light rail options as follows: ! Horizontal and vertical alignments ! Construction methods—i.e., cut-and-cover vs. tunneling (e.g., deep bore, mining) ! Constructibility ! Stations ! Ventilation ! Drainage ! Traction power and electrical distribution ! Signaling ! Maintenance/storage facilities ! Property impacts ! Utilities ! Environmental impacts ! Total project cost estimates

NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative consists of those improvements in the city’s transportation system instituted after 1995 (the base year for the MESA study) that would be in place by 2020. This includes completion of MTA operating agency initiatives to bring the system into a state of good repair (such as the purchase of new subway cars, rehabilitation of certain stations, track improvements, etc.) and three specific changes. The first improvement, which took place on July 4, 1997, was introduction of the MetroCard. The second, also a policy initiative, was a system-

2-18 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

wide free transfer between bus and subway* implemented in July 1998 with the introduction of unlimited ride passes, effectively adding subway to subway transfer options (e.g., between the northbound 6 train at Bleecker Street and the D, E, F, and Q trains at Broadway/Lafayette Street). The third, under construction now, is the 63rd Street Tunnel Connector, a 1,500-foot connection between the Queens Boulevard line and the subway portion of the 63rd Street tunnel. Once completed, 12 trains per hour (Q service) will be able to extend service (which now brings trains from Sixth Avenue along 63rd Street to Roosevelt Island and the 21st Street station in Long Island City) onto the Queens Boulevard line express tracks, as shown in Figure 2-2. The remaining capacity on the express tracks (18 trains per hour) will be used by the E train; the F train will operate at current levels, but on the local tracks only. Both the E and F trains will continue to use the 53rd Street subway tunnel.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (TSM) ALTERNATIVE The TSM Alternative is a relatively low-cost option that could be implemented to partially meet project goals and objectives. It was developed by considering and combining elements of several of the alternatives that did not, by themselves, sufficiently satisfy project goals and objectives to warrant further consideration. The TSM Alternative contains three major transit elements, described below. Additional ferry service, privately franchised jitney service and use of electric trolley buses are not specifically proposed in this alternative, although implementation of these systems is not precluded.

LEXINGTON AVENUE LINE STATION DWELL TIME IMPROVEMENTS As part of an operational strategy, this improvement would reduce delays on the Lexington Avenue line by encouraging trains to travel more closely. Trains would approach stations slowly, making full use of existing signals. In addition, platform management personnel would be em- ployed at key stations to assist in efficient loading and unloading of trains. Together, these changes could add one additional train during each peak hour in the busiest direction.

NEW YORK BUS LANES Also developed for this study, the TSM Alternative proposes bus priority lanes, called “New York Bus Lanes,” on First and Second Avenues between Houston and 96th Streets. This bus lane concept (see Figure 2-3) would retain a significant portion of the right curb lane for goods deliveries, taxi pickups and drop-offs, and metered parking. The adjacent one or two lanes (depending on location) would be for primary bus use. Where there is a bus stop along a given block, the sidewalk would be built out into the delivery lane so that the curb would be adjacent to the bus lane. This would help keep the bus stop clear of parked or standing vehicles by physically defining the rest of the block for curbside activities. Buses would not have completely exclusive use of the bus lanes, since right-turning vehicles would be allowed to enter as would

* Because basic data for the MESA study was gathered in 1995, “existing conditions,” as assessed in this report, do not include a free transfer between subway and bus or the unlimited ride pass. The assessment of future conditions, both without and with project alternatives, includes the free transfer, which was instituted in July 1997.

2-19 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS vehicles headed to or away from the curb. From Houston to 14th Streets, one lane would be set aside for buses; between 14th and 96th Streets, there would be two primary bus lanes. The bus lanes would be separated from the remaining general traffic lanes by rumble strips com- posed of closely-spaced, raised, round, 8-inch in diameter reflective channel markers attached to the pavement. The driver of a vehicle crossing the marker would feel and hear its presence; this would discourage drivers from entering the bus lanes without precluding such entry (if it were necessary) and would be more self-enforcing than lane striping. Traffic personnel would also enforce the bus lane regulations. The New York Bus Lanes would increase bus speeds and improve bus travel time and reliability, since buses would compete less with other traffic. Because curb deliveries would still be allowed, impacts to local businesses would be reduced. LOWER EAST SIDE BUS IMPROVEMENTS The New York Bus Lanes are not appropriate for Lower East Side streets, which are narrow and often do not follow the traditional north-south grid. Thus, a series of new bus routes and route modifications are also proposed as part of the TSM Alternative in this area to address long-standing gaps in the existing bus network. As shown in Figure 2-4, these include: ! Creation of a new M22 route, which would combine the existing M22 with the northern half of the M21. The northeastbound M22 would turn left onto Jackson Street, left onto Grand Street, right onto Kazan Street, left onto Delancey Street North, and then right onto Avenue C to follow the remainder of the current M21 route to 34th Street. Headways are assumed to be 8 minutes during the peak periods, 12 minutes at other weekday times, and 15 minutes on weekends and at night. ! Modification of the M21 to serve the Grand Street corridor, by having the eastbound route turn right onto Chrystie Street rather than continuing all the way crosstown to the FDR Drive, then left onto Grand Street, right onto the FDR Drive service road, right onto Cherry Street, right onto Jackson Street, left onto westbound Grand Street, right onto northbound Chrystie Street, left onto westbound Houston Street, and then continue with the western half of the current M21 route. This alternative would simulate a return of the Grand Street crosstown bus that the community has requested, but would be more effective since the route would encounter less surface congestion and offer more convenient subway connections. ! Creation of a new M15D route, which would be a new branch of the M15, replacing the M15 runs that are currently short-turned at Houston Street. The new route would turn from southbound Second Avenue at 14th Street, continue to Avenue D, where it would follow the route of the current M14D southward. This new route would offer the same frequency of service as is available on the M15 runs that short-turn at Houston Street. ! Increase in service on the M15 route by operating articulated buses, which have higher capacity than the current buses. Capacity would increase by about 50 percent. ! Modify the M14D route to use Avenue C between 10th and 14th Streets, and reduce its frequency of service by about 10 percent, since the new M15D would also operate in the Lower East Side.

2-20 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

SUBWAY ALTERNATIVE (BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1) Build Alternative 1 involves construction of a new East Side subway extension. That alternative is summarized below and described in much greater detail in the Final Engineering Report (provided in Appendix D).

OVERVIEW AND ALIGNMENT This alternative would provide express subway service on the existing Broadway line north from one of three termini (lower level of City Hall station, Whitehall Street station, or 95th Street station in Brooklyn) to 63rd Street, to join a new subway line extending northward beneath Second Avenue to approximately 115th Street (see Figure 2-5). From there the new subway would transition via a curved tunnel alignment to a location adjacent to the east side of the 125th Street station on the Lexington Avenue line (see Figure 2-6). The system would provide “B Division” service, with trains consisting of eight 75-foot cars. In refining the subway plan, NYCT and the project engineers were guided by the engineering goals and criteria cited above and the following specific conditions: ! The existing segments of the Second Avenue subway should be utilized. These are located between 99th and 105th Streets, 110th and 120th Streets, and a small area of the 63rd Street tunnel built to allow a connection. ! The modeling studies showed that building a direct connection between an East Side subway extension and the Bronx would benefit a limited number of passengers, and a subway terminal station adjacent to the Lexington Avenue station at 125th Street would be most desirable from a cost-benefit standpoint. ! The system should be built to permit future connections to the Bronx and/or to a new subway south of 63rd Street, should either prove desirable in the future. To this end, the proposed subway would retain the potential for continuing to the north or connecting to the No. 6 Pelham line, from its 129th Street terminus, north of the 125th Street station. Similarly, the potential for continuing the subway line south of 63rd Street would be provided. ! The system should be designed to permit its construction in stages (e.g., so that, for example, initial service to 86th Street could begin while the northern piece was under construction). ! The modeling studies also showed significant ridership benefits of providing through express service on the same train between the Upper East Side/Harlem and Lower Manhattan via the 63rd Street line and Broadway express service. The new subway’s stations, changes to existing Broadway line express service, ancillary facilities, signals, rolling stock, and maintenance and storage facilities are described below and detailed in Appendix D.

NEW SUBWAY STATIONS Five new stations would serve the new East Side subway extension, spaced approximately 10 blocks apart along Second Avenue. As shown in Figure 2-6, the most southerly station, Lenox Hill station, would extend between 69th and 72nd Street; the next, Yorkville station, would be between 83rd and 86th Streets; followed by East 96th Street station, extending from 95th Street to

2-21 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS just north of 97th Street; and Franklin station, between 106th and 109th Streets; to the final 125th Street station that would extend between 124th and 126th Streets. This last station would be connected to the 125th Street station on the Lexington Avenue line, for free transfer to the 4, 5, and 6 trains, serving the Bronx. In addition, during the public outreach process (see Chapter 23), community members in East Harlem requested an additional subway station north of 96th Street. Therefore, the possibility of including a sixth station at 116th Street will be analyzed in full in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Most stations would have a mezzanine above the tracks and platform, where passengers could pay their fare and access either the uptown or downtown trains. As shown in Figure 2-7, the mezzanine would be about 25 feet below street level. Stairs and elevators to and from the street would be provided; in some cases, access would be via stairs within building lobbies or within the building line, since buildings constructed after 1973 along the original Second Avenue subway alignment are required under the New York City Zoning Resolution, if the Department of City Planning so determines, to make room for such entryways (this is described in more detail in Chapter 3, “Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy”). Stations would have either side or center platforms, depending on design constraints. The 125th Street station, shown in Figure 2-8, would be different from the others, because it must accommodate expected heavy passenger transfers. It would provide several passageways to connect to the existing Lexington Avenue line; also, it would be fairly deep, with the mezzanine under the bedrock, to avoid having to acquire properties above. South of the new Lenox Hill station at 69th-72nd Street, the new subway service would continue on the 63rd Street line and then onto the Broadway express tracks to Lower Manhattan. The service would stop at 63rd Street at Lexington Avenue, Broadway at 57th Street, 42nd Street (Times Square), 34th Street, 14th Street (Union Square), Canal Street, City Hall, Cortlandt Street, Rector Street, and Whitehall Street.

CHANGES TO EXPRESS SERVICE AT CANAL STREET (“CANAL STREET FLIP”) Currently, the 63rd Street line connects to both the Sixth Avenue and Broadway lines, as shown in Figure 2-2. The connection to the Broadway line, north of the 57th Street station, is only to the express tracks. Trains operating on the Broadway express tracks south of 57th Street must travel over the Manhattan Bridge into Brooklyn; only local service continues south of Canal Street to Lower Manhattan. There is no provision for through service into Lower Manhattan via the Broadway express tracks. To achieve the study’s objective of through express service to Lower Manhattan, the express tracks in the vicinity of Canal Street would have to be modified to allow express trains onto the local tracks south of Canal Street. The local tracks would also have to be modified to allow local trains onto the express tracks east of Canal Street, so as to provide through local service over the Manhattan Bridge into Brooklyn. By making these permanent track connections (called the “Canal Street Flip”), which are described in more detail in Appendix D, the express tracks would be connected to continue to Lower Manhattan. This would permit through Second Avenue service to Lower Manhattan,

2-22 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

while making use of the Broadway line’s express tracks in Midtown. Some Second Avenue trains would short-turn at either the City Hall (lower level) or Whitehall Street stations during the peak periods. Other trains would continue to Brooklyn via the Montague Street tunnel. The proposed Canal Street Flip would affect the trip for existing Broadway line passengers. Manhattan-bound passengers who currently ride express trains over the Manhattan Bridge would instead ride local trains, with up to five additional stops (up to 2.5 minutes) added to their trip compared to the express route. This would only be the case if their destination was 57th Street and Seventh Avenue, an express stop. On the other hand, the Canal Street Flip would eliminate the need to transfer to the local service for Manhattan-bound passengers destined for local stops, such as the heavily used 49th Street station or four other more lightly used local stations. For these passengers, travel time would either remain the same or be shortened. Brooklyn-bound passengers who would ride express trains over the Manhattan Bridge in the future without the project would instead need to transfer to the Broadway local service in Manhattan, or these riders could chose an alternate route to Brooklyn by continuing on the new express service into Lower Manhattan and through the Montague Street tunnel. Conversely, passengers traveling from Brooklyn to Lower Manhattan, who today would use the Broadway local service via the Montague Street tunnel, would instead need to transfer to the express service at the Union Square or Canal Street station.

ANCILLARY FACILITIES In addition to tracks and stations, the new subway line would also require construction of other ancillary facilities, such as substations, pump rooms, and fan plants. Typically, these would be grouped at the new stations, to limit disturbance during construction and provide easy access for maintenance. However, certain facilities would have to be located between the stations, including ventilation shafts and emergency fan chambers. When possible, the project would share the use of existing transit facilities. The various ancillary facilities would include the following: ! Ventilation shafts. These shafts are required to provide fresh air to the tunnels below through grates in the sidewalk above. Vent shafts would be located approximately every 400 feet for the length of the new tunnel. ! Emergency fan chambers. These would be located approximately midway between stations, to provide supplementary mechanical ventilation to the subway tunnel and emergency ventilation to clear smoke from the tunnels. ! Drainage. Pump stations would be provided at all low points along new tunnel sections, and would be accessible from the track and from access hatches in the sidewalk. ! Traction power and electrical distribution. To meet the power requirements for the new subway, it is expected that five substations would need to be constructed in the new subway segment (the new subway’s power needs would be too great to share the use of existing substations). Each new substation would be fed with both normal and reserve Consolidated Edison service and would contain a station battery and charger, fire detection and alarm system, intrusion detector system, and remote terminal unit that would communicate with NYCT’s Power Control Center on West 53rd Street. Traction power to trains would be provided via the traditional third rail.

2-23 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

SIGNALS It is assumed that the signaling system implemented for the new East Side subway extension would be a Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) system, contingent on the success of a prototype system currently being planned for the Canarsie line. The CBTC is an improvement over the traditional signal system, and its technology will be state of the art. The CBTC, also known as “moving block” train control, would use an independent communica- tion network and computers to determine safe train separation and permissible speeds of following trains. It would be more flexible than the fixed signal block lengths and discrete speed commands now in place, because it could continuously update train positions, distances, and travel speeds. In effect, CBTC creates a large number of infinitesimally small blocks, each with its own speed command. This allows a system to recover more quickly from dwell-time induced train delays, because a train can follow a “delayed” train more closely without having to come to a complete stop. Consequently, the CBTC system builds greater capacity into a given train system than the traditional signal system. However, if it is decided to use traditional, fixed block, trip stop signal technology, there would be no significant change in cost or operation for the project compared with the CBTC system.

ROLLING STOCK The new subway cars would most likely be the same or similar to those cars to be purchased for other lines on the B Division. Existing B Division cars could also operate on this line, depending on the signal system used (see above). More information on rolling stock is provided in Appendix D, as well as in Chapter 20.

MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE FACILITIES The new subway service would also require new space at a yard for subway trains when not in use, as well as for light maintenance. Based on the anticipated operating plans and the integration of the new subway with the existing N and R lines, it is estimated that storage space would be required for approximately 32 trains, each consisting of eight 75-foot cars. With relatively minor modifications, sufficient space is available at existing NYCT yards. It is currently anticipated that the existing NYCT yard in Brooklyn at 36th/38th Street near the junction of the Fourth Avenue subway and the West End lines could accommodate the light maintenance, inspection, and storage of the new line’s additional cars. Heavy maintenance would be performed at the Coney Island facility. To accommodate the project, the 36th-38th Street Yard would be reconfigured, with up to 10 new storage tracks added and some loading and unloading operations relocated to a new set of team tracks. The changes would not alter the basic purpose of the yard today, which is the handling and transfer of track hardware and the storage of trains. Reconfiguration of the yard near 10th Avenue and 38th Street could involve minor impacts to private property. These will be explored in the Final EIS. Detailed information on the current and proposed use of this yard is provided in Appendix D (the Final Engineering Report). The heavy maintenance required for the new subway would be performed at the existing Coney Island subway yard or another NYCT yard. This would require alterations to the yard to expand an inspection shop, but this would not result in environmental impacts to the surrounding area.

2-24 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

TUNNEL DEPTH AND CONSTRUCTION METHOD The depth of the new subway tunnel depended on several factors, including the depth of existing tunnels and stations at its termini, the need to use previously constructed tunnel sections, the objective of avoiding the disruption caused by “cut-and-cover” construction, and the quality and depth of rock beneath Second Avenue (see Figure 2-9). The construction plan maximizes use of the tunnel-bore method or a drill-and-blast mining method, both well beneath the surface. Cut-and-cover, which requires excavation from the street surface, would be limited to station areas, placement of vent shafts, and other sections and connections where it could not be avoided, as shown on Figure 2-10. For the duration of the construction, access to the deep tunnel work would be via a construction shaft. Depending on its location, this site could also be used as a construction staging location. As detailed in Chapter 15 of this MIS/DEIS, numerous candidate locations were considered as possible sites for the shaft and staging area. Three locations remain under consideration, from which a single site will be selected. The candidate locations are as follows: ! The site currently reserved for possible use for the access shaft and staging area for the MTA/LIRR East Side Access project. This site, under jurisdiction of the MTA, is on the east side of Second Avenue between 62nd and 63rd Streets and is occupied by a garden furnishings retailer. ! The east side of Second Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets. This private property is currently occupied by low-rise commercial buildings. ! A site on the west side of Second Avenue between 96th and 97th Streets. This private property is occupied by a low-rise lumber store. More information on these shaft sites and the construction techniques to be used for the project is provided in Chapter 15.

PROPERTY ISSUES This alternative would require the purchase of easements for the tunnel below private properties and possible compensation to merchants and property owners for disruption during cut-and- cover construction. Project cost estimates assumed 50 percent of assessed value of business properties facing the cut-and-cover construction sections in addition to the costs of permanent easements needed in certain areas. The alternative would also require the use of public or private property for up to 10 years to accommodate the shaft access to the tunnel boring machine. In addition, as mentioned above, work proposed at the 36th-38th Street Yard in Brooklyn could affect private property. More information on easements is provided in Chapter 3; Chapter 15 describes possible effects to merchants and property owners during construction.

2-25 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

SUBWAY WITH LIGHT RAIL OPTION ON LOWER EAST SIDE (BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2)

OVERVIEW AND ALIGNMENT This alternative would contain all the elements of Build Alternative 1, but would add an LRT to serve the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan (see Figure 2-11). The recommendation to include an LRT emerged from a substantial planning and alternatives analysis for the provision of additional capacity transit service to this underserved neighborhood. In refining the LRT plan, NYCT and the project engineers were guided by the engineering goals and criteria cited above and four specific conditions: ! Modeling and other analyses showed that a full-length LRT would not meet the transportation demands of the entire corridor, but LRT service to connect the Lower East Side to north-south subway service and to Lower Manhattan was feasible in meeting the needs of the population south of 14th Street. ! The existing tunnel section under Canal Street east of Allen Street and the easternmost platform in the Nassau Street Line/Chambers Street station could accommodate an LRT vehicle. ! The LRT can follow existing streets, since its minimum turning radius is only 82 feet. ! There is an opportunity for mixed auto and LRT flows in some segments of the LRT alignment to help maintain lane capacity for the areas with significant auto traffic. As a result of these factors, the basic alignment of the proposed two-way LRT would begin near the intersection of Water and Broad Streets, and proceed along Water and Pearl Streets to Frankfort Street, where it would descend into a new tunnel to the Chambers Street/Brooklyn Bridge station of the Nassau Street (J and M) subway line (see Figure 2-12). From there it would continue in an existing tunnel section under Centre and Canal Streets to approximately Ludlow Street, where it would surface and travel along the center of East Broadway to Grand Street and then turn north to Kazan to Columbia Street, traveling under the Williamsburg Bridge and onto Avenue D up to 14th Street. The right-of-way would extend across 14th Street between Avenue D and Union Square. To accommodate the LRT right-of-way, Avenue D, now two-way, would become one-way southbound. Along this alignment, the new LRT service would travel on a pair of tracks (one northbound track and one southbound). For most of the route, the at-grade track would be shared with rubber-tired vehicles (cars, trucks, buses, bicycles): the tracks in these segments would be embedded within the pavement so that general traffic could use the right-of-way as well, except at LRT stations. In certain sections of the route, however, the LRT right-of-way would be separated from vehicular traffic. This includes the tunnel segment of the route, the portals connecting the tunnel to the at-grade section of the route, and the portion of the alignment along Avenue D. Vehicles would be able to turn onto side streets across the tracks, however. The relationship of the LRT service and vehicular traffic is analyzed in detail in Chapter 9 (section F) of this document. The new LRT is described in detail in Appendix D and is summarized below.

2-26 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

LRT STATIONS As shown in Figure 2-12, stations would be provided at Broad Street and Pine Street on Water Street, near Fulton and Pearl Streets, within the Chambers Street/Brooklyn Bridge station near the J and M trains, at Essex Street on Canal Street, near Grand Street on Kazan Street, near Houston, 8th, and 13th Streets on Avenue D, and at Avenue B, First Avenue, Irving Place, and Union Square on 14th Street. LRT stations would have 200-foot-long platforms, at grade in the center of the street or on the side, accessible from the crosswalks at nearby intersections. Depending on the location, there would be two side platforms or one center platform (see Figure 2-13).The platforms would be low (approximately curb height) and would offer typical amenities, such as lighting, benches, canopies, and windscreens. An exception would be at Seward Park and Straus and Union Squares, where the design of the “stations” would be minimized to avoid visual and other intrusions on these parks.

LRT EQUIPMENT The light rail cars would be two-section, articulated vehicles. These would be capable of being coupled to two-section vehicles should service warrant it. Each articulated LRT vehicle would be about 96.5 feet long; a two-car LRT train with two pairs would be about 193 feet long. (In contrast, a typical city bus is 40 feet long; an articulated bus is 60 feet.) The car widths would be rather narrow, at 7.5 feet, to minimize intrusion on narrow streets. The floor would be low, allowing passengers to get on and off from a curb-height platform. An overhead wire system (also referred to as an overhead collection system, or OCS) would power the LRT; the conduits, which require a minimum height of 11.8 feet, would be attached to poles or columns, placed approximately 100 feet apart.

ANCILLARY FACILITIES In addition, the light rail transit system would require six electrical substations to provide power for the new line. These stations, each about 3,800 square feet in size, would be located below grade. Possible locations for the new substations are as follows: ! At the proposed storage yard ! Adjacent to Union Square ! Near the 13th Street station ! Near the Grand Street station ! Near the Chambers Street station ! Near the Broad Street station

SIGNALS The light rail train control systems are anticipated to include a combination of fixed-block signaling with Automatic Train Protection for the underground portion and line of sight operation with limited traffic signal preemption for the surface portion. The goal is a cost-effective installation that provides for safe operation at reasonable headways in the underground portion of the alignment and a competitive running time for the at-grade portions.

2-27 Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE Storage and repairs for the LRT vehicles would be accommodated at an underground facility, which would be built on property along the south side of Delancey Street, from Essex Street to just east of Clinton Street (see Figure 2-12). It is estimated that 37 vehicles would be stored there. This property is city-owned and has been largely cleared for the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area Extension. It is now in use for shopper parking. One building, the Essex Street Market building, remains on the western edge of the site along Essex Street. Under the proposed layout, the yard tracks would occupy the area beneath the shoppers’ parking lot, the existing streets (Norfolk and Suffolk Streets) that run north and south through the site, and the Essex Street market building. It would use some of the space presently occupied by an abandoned trolley loop in the Essex-Delancey Street subway station (see Appendix D for details). The facility would not affect any existing structures other than the Essex Street Market building, which could be underpinned to remain in place during construction of the underground facility. All of the property that would be occupied by the proposed facility is owned by the City of New York. NYCT and the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), which controls the site, will review joint development opportunities associated with the underground yard construction. LRT vehicles would reach the new yard by turning from Avenue D at the Williamsburg Bridge onto track to be constructed along Delancey Street South adjacent to the bridge. This track would descend into a portal between Pitt and Ridge Streets, and then continue in a tunnel beneath Delancey Street South until the yard.

CONSTRUCTION METHOD As detailed in Chapter 15, construction of the LRT would involve preparing the street and laying track. In addition, a limited length of new, shallow cut-and-cover tunnel would be excavated on Frankfort Street between Pearl and Chambers Streets and on Canal Street between Christie and Ludlow Streets. Excavation would also be required for a new ramp and tunnel on Delancey Street South between Kazan and Clinton Streets, and at the proposed yard site. At the yard, the Essex Street Market building could be underpinned to remain in place above the new facility.

PROPERTY ISSUES The LRT would be constructed entirely within public property. Its construction period would not be as disruptive or as long as the cut-and-cover segments of the subway alternative. Although its presence and operation would alter traffic patterns, the initial estimate of impacts found them not to be so adverse as to assess property impact costs against the project. Chapter 5 details the potential for effects on business properties along the LRT route; Chapter 15 describes possible effects during construction.

SELECTION OF A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Following publication and public review of this MIS/DEIS, a locally preferred alternative will be selected and a Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared (this process is described in more detail in Chapter 1). The locally preferred alternative may be one of the alternatives described above (TSM, Build Alternative 1, or Build Alternative 2), or it may join elements from each of those alternatives to form a combination alternative.

2-28 Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

D. PRELIMINARY PROJECT COSTS The capital cost estimate for the TSM Alternative is $204 million (1997 dollars). The cost estimate for the East Side subway extension (Build Alternative 1) is estimated at $3.88 billion. This estimate uses tunneling costs similar to other major investment rail projects, such as the MTA/LIRR East Side Access Project, as presented in its MIS (April 1998). The Lower East Side LRT (in Build Alternative 2) would cost an additional $1.21 billion, for a total coast of $5.09 billion. All of these estimates represent hard costs (cost of easements and property, construction materials and labor costs), as well as rolling stock, but exclude “soft costs.” Estimated incremental annual operation and maintenance costs (over the No Build Alternative) for the TSM and Build 1 and Build 2 Alternatives are, respectively, $6.5 million, $25.8 million, and $36.7 million (1997 dollars). v

2-29