Chapter 6: Traffic and Transportation 6.1 Introduction

Home , One Liberty Plaza, Whitehall Street

MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

CHAPTER 6: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the results of the analysis of the potential impacts of the construction and operation of the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC) on traffic and transportation. The chapter is divided into two (2) separate sub-chapters as follows:

• Sub-Chapter 6 Part A (6A) Traffic and Parking; and, • Sub-Chapter 6 Part B (6B) Transit and Pedestrians.

Each sub-chapter includes a description of the relevant study area, analysis methodology, affected environment and environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts to Traffic and Transportation are discussed in Chapter 20.

6.1.1 CONTEXT AND KEY ISSUES

The Fulton Street – Broadway Nassau Station Complex (Existing Complex) is a major transit hub in Lower Manhattan that serves numerous New York City Transit (NYCT) subway lines. Through an intricate system of corridors, ramps and stairways, free transfers can be made among all of these lines within the Existing Complex. The Existing Complex is an important east-west connector to other transit modes including Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) service and trans-Hudson ferry service. The Existing Complex is also located within close proximity to centers of economic activity including the World Trade Center (WTC) site and the World Financial Center (WFC). Fulton Street at street-level represents a major east-west pedestrian corridor in Lower Manhattan that connects the South Street Seaport to the east with Church Street to the west.

Even though the different transportation modes (e.g. subways, PATH and ferry) in Lower Manhattan are in close proximity to each other and to the major destinations, there is poor connectivity among existing transportation facilities and centers of activity (especially to the west), subway lines and the street. Moreover, subway stations in Lower Manhattan lack the strong visual presence necessary for easy and efficient pedestrian navigation. The individual subway lines were constructed independently and not part of a unified system. Many of the subway entrances were constructed in the early 1900’s with narrow stairways incorporated into existing buildings. These stairways have limited visibility from the street and are obscured, dark and difficult to find inhibiting access to the stations from the street. Many of the subway entrances open directly to narrow, crowded sidewalks and streets, which reduces visibility of the entrance and creates additional congestion.

Subway riders using the Existing Complex lose time traveling through the convoluted system of underground tunnels and passageways and there is confusion due to the circuitous pedestrian movement at street-level. Inside the Existing Complex, access to the subway platforms from the street requires repeated up-and-down movements through platforms and corridors in order to reach the desired subway platform. Transfers between subway lines within the Existing Complex are very complicated and crowded. This is due to the fact that the pedestrian subway connections were constructed to fit the pre- existing independent subway lines and the interconnections could not be optimized to accommodate the prevailing pedestrian flow patterns and volumes. Because of the Existing Complex’s age, there are many existing subway structures that are substandard and inefficient in accommodating the current ridership.

Before September 11, these subway lines provided access to jobs for many of the employees working in the vicinity of the Existing Complex including the WTC site. They also served passengers transferring from the PATH to the NYCT subway system and residents of Lower Manhattan. Few passengers using the Existing Complex transferred to or from private or NYCT buses operating in the vicinity of the Existing Complex. As a result of September 11, the PATH terminal, all of the WTC buildings and

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-1

MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation parking facilities and the 19 Cortlandt Street Station were destroyed. 19 service was disrupted through the WTC site and the RW Cortlandt Street and E WTC Stations were closed for extended periods of time. Several neighboring buildings were severely damaged. Economic activity in terms of jobs, businesses and residents in Lower Manhattan declined dramatically since then. Daily subway boardings at the Existing Complex dropped 12 percent from 2001 to 2003. Traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Existing Complex also were reduced in comparison to 2001. Overall transportation functionality in Lower Manhattan, both locally and regionally, was severely impaired by the events of September 11. This impairment was further exacerbated by deficiencies in the existing transit facilities, including the Existing Complex.

By the end of 2003, conditions in Lower Manhattan had begun to improve with the opening of the temporary WTC PATH station. All of the subway stations near the WTC site RW Cortlandt Street and the E WTC Stations) have been reopened with the exception of the 19 Cortlandt Street Station. New subway stairs have been constructed on the west side of Church Street to access the southbound RW Cortlandt Street Station platform. This access was formerly provided within the WTC site. The subway tunnel through the WTC site has been reconstructed, allowing the 19 trains to serve the South Ferry and Rector Street Stations.

To successfully support revitalization of Lower Manhattan, improvements to transit facilities are not only needed to restore transportation functionality, but to accommodate the range of changes that September 11 has triggered in the broader context of Lower Manhattan’s recovery. This includes the redevelopment of the WTC site, anticipated increases in visitor activity and shifts in land uses from commercial to residential. The Statue of Liberty already receives 3.5 million visitors per year departing from Lower Manhattan, while the original observation deck for the WTC site received approximately two (2) million visitors per year. The WTC Memorial has the potential to receive five (5) million visitors per year or more. Transit is one of many modes that visitors to Lower Manhattan can use. Improvements to Lower Manhattan’s existing transportation facilities would not only improve visitor experiences, but would also substantially raise the quality of life for the area’s residents and workers. These advances are important in retaining and developing Lower Manhattan’s commercial base.

6.1.2 CONCLUSIONS

TRAFFIC AND PARKING

The construction of the FSTC requires the temporary closure of Dey Street to through traffic and parking between Church Street and Broadway and the temporary closure of Fulton Street between Broadway and Nassau Street. Traffic projected to use Dey and Fulton Streets would be reassigned to alternate routes in the study area. None of the intersections analyzed are forecast to experience an impact as a result of truck traffic generated by construction traffic or related lane and roadway closures. Delay increases would be relatively minor and all would be within the established threshold of 10 seconds. All of the roadway and lane closures proposed as part of the FSTC construction activities would remove curb loading and unloading from the study area. Since no on-street parking spaces for vehicles would be lost as a result of these curb closures, no impacts are anticipated for the off-street parking facilities. The closure of Dey and Fulton Streets to through traffic would limit truck access to businesses. A portion of the total right-of- way (ROW) width on these roads would be used to maintain a vehicular travel lane for emergency access/local deliveries. Alternative loading areas could also be established to accommodate truck deliveries during construction.

In 2008 and 2025, a portion of the pedestrians currently traversing Broadway and Church Street would be expected to use the Dey Street Passageway. As the amount of pedestrian traffic crossing these streets would be reduced, relative to the 2008 and 2025 No Action Alternative, circulation conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic are less likely to occur, especially during peak hours. Although this benefit would be marginal and not directly measurable, it would contribute to a better flow of vehicular traffic and pedestrian safety, including construction traffic associated with the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects still under construction in 2008. October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-2

MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Since minimal to no vehicular traffic is projected to be generated by either Build Alternative (see Chapter 3: Alternatives for a full description) in 2008 or 2025, no adverse impacts on traffic or parking conditions are anticipated as a result of construction or operation of the FSTC. Since there would be no adverse impacts, no mitigation measures would be required.

In order to manage traffic and minimize the impact on vehicular flows during the construction of the NYCT improvements, Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) plans would be developed for this project. These plans would need to be coordinated with the plans developed by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) for the Memorial and Redevelopment Plan for the WTC site and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) for the Permanent WTC PATH Terminal. The New York City Department of Design and Construction (NYCDDC) street reconstruction projects and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Route 9A Reconstruction south of Chambers Street would also have a direct effect on the traffic volumes and traffic patterns. New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) approvals for vehicular travel lane and sidewalk closures would take into account all of the construction projects that would be occurring simultaneously in Lower Manhattan.

TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIANS

Pedestrian flow along Fulton and Dey Streets would be maintained throughout the duration of construction of the FSTC. Pedestrian flows are anticipated to shift from Dey Street to Cortlandt and Fulton Streets, some crosswalk flows are projected to increase and some are projected to decrease as a result. During the AM peak period, four (4) crosswalks are projected to worsen in terms of pedestrian flow while five (5) are projected to improve. Since the congestion increases projected at some crosswalk locations in 2005/2006 (as a result of pedestrian diversions during the construction period) would be temporary and are offset by improvements at other crosswalk locations, the increases in congestion are not considered significant. During construction, special accommodations would be made to not encumber Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access on Fulton Street, Dey Street or Broadway by providing ADA compliant ramp systems and sidewalk surface treatment.

During construction, strategic construction phasing would be used to substantially reduce impacts to the patrons of the Existing Complex by providing new pedestrian pathways prior to the removal of existing facilities. Construction would be advanced early in those areas that are not currently well utilized in order to provide refuge for passengers away from necessary construction in the congested areas of the station in later stages. General station rehabilitation would also be advanced where possible to provide tangible improvements to the users of the station at the earliest possible time to offset the unavoidable inconveniences associated with the construction of larger project elements.

The FSTC project would greatly enhance pedestrian flow in the Study Area in 2008 and 2025 in comparison to the No Action Alternative. All elements projected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) E or F in the No Action Alternative would be substantially improved under both Build Alternatives.

The diversion of pedestrians from street-level crosswalks, as would occur under the No Action Alternative, to the subsurface Dey Street Passageway for the Build Alternatives would reduce street-level congestion and improve crosswalk LOS. Pedestrian flows are anticipated to shift from Dey, Cortlandt, Fulton and Vesey/Ann Streets to the Dey Street Passageway, reducing some crosswalk flows across Church Street and Broadway. During the AM peak period under Alternative 9, eight (8) crosswalks in 2008 and 18 crosswalks in 2025 are projected to operate at an improved LOS (at least one (1) LOS letter grade) with improved pedestrian flow. In addition, another six (6) crosswalks in 2008 and 11 crosswalks in 2025 are projected to improve in terms of pedestrian flow. During the PM peak period under Alternative 9, six (6) crosswalks in 2008 and 18 crosswalks in 2025 are projected to operate at an improved LOS (at least one (1) LOS grade) with improved pedestrian flow. Another eight (8) crosswalks in 2008 and 11 crosswalks in 2025 are projected to improve in terms of pedestrian flow.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-3

MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Under Alternative 9, pedestrians could not enter the Entry Facility on John Street or Broadway via the Corbin Building. Pedestrians would have to use either the Dey Street Passageway west of Broadway or walk around the northeast corner of Broadway and John Street, resulting in higher pedestrian volumes in these areas. As a result, a few locations are projected to operate at a better LOS in Alternative 10 - the Preferred Alternative than Alternative 9. In 2008, the south crosswalk at the Broadway and Dey Street intersection is projected to improve from LOS E to D during the AM peak hour and from D to B during the PM peak hour in the Preferred Alternative. The northeast corner of Broadway and John Street is projected to improve from LOS C to B during both peak hours in the Preferred Alternative. In 2025, the south crosswalk at the Broadway and Dey Street intersection is projected to improve from LOS E to D during the AM peak hour and from D to B during the PM peak hour in the Preferred Alternative. The northeast corner of Broadway and John Street is projected to improve from D to B during the AM peak hour and from LOS C to B during the PM peak hour in the Preferred Alternative.

In 2025 under Alternative 9, pedestrians using the Dey Street Passageway would reduce their travel time between Church Street and Broadway in comparison to walking at street level such as in the No Action Alternative.

Under Alternative 9, approximately 235,177 hours per year would be saved by pedestrians in comparison to the No Action Alternative for all pedestrian flows combined that would benefit from this improved circulation. Some pedestrians using the Dey Street Passageway to travel to destinations east of Broadway via John Street would still benefit from not having to cross Broadway at street-level. However, they would need to exit the Dey Street Passageway via the Central Station Concourse, exit the Entry Facility east of Broadway, and walk west and south at street level onto John Street. The time saved by not crossing Broadway at street level is nullified by the circuitous movement through the Entry Facility in order to travel east on John Street. Some pedestrians using the Dey Street Passageway to travel to destinations east of Broadway on John Street would opt to exit on the west side of Broadway and cross Broadway at street level since the average travel times via the Entry Facility or via crossing Broadway (with traffic lights) are projected to be approximately equivalent.

In 2025 under the Preferred Alternative, pedestrians using the Dey Street Passageway would reduce their travel time between Church Street and Broadway in comparison to walking at street level such as in the No Action Alternative.

Under the Preferred Alternative, approximately 258,049 hours per year would be saved by pedestrians in comparison to the No Action Alternative for all pedestrian flows combined that would benefit from this improved circulation. Pedestrians using the Dey Street Passageway to travel to destinations east of Broadway via John Street would still benefit from not having to cross Broadway at street-level. As described above for Alternative 9, these pedestrians would exit the Dey Street Passageway via the Central Station Concourse, exit the Entry Facility east of Broadway, and walk west and south at street-level onto John Street. Alternatively, these pedestrians could exit the Dey Street Passageway on the west side of Broadway and cross Broadway at street-level.

However, the Preferred Alternative would provide direct access from the Dey Street Passageway via the lobby of the Corbin Building to John Street. This convenient access to destinations east of Broadway translates into an additional time savings of approximately 22,872 hours per year for pedestrians under the Preferred Alternative in comparison to Alternative 9.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-4

MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENTS (EPCs)

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) NYCT recognizes the importance of avoiding and minimizing adverse impacts. In coordination with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and sponsors of other Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects, they propose to implement a common set of EPCs. EPCs include design elements, construction techniques and/or operating procedures that would be proactively used to reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts. EPCs that can be quantifiably described and used to avoid impacts are specifically identified should they be used for the foregoing analysis. Other more qualitative EPCs relate to processes to improve project development and implementation and are used “above and beyond” any particular mitigation measure that may be required to address an identified adverse impact, so as to further improve local environmental quality during construction and operation.

Listed below are the common EPCs related to access and circulation that would be implemented by MTA NYCT and other sponsors of Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects:

• Establishment of a project-specific pedestrian and vehicular maintenance and protection plan; • Promotion of public awareness through mechanisms such as: signage, telephone hotlines and web site updates; • Ensure sufficient alternate street, building and station access during the construction period; and, • Regular communication with the NYCDOT and participation in its construction coordination efforts.

In addition to the above, additional project-specific EPCs may be developed by MTA NYCT as the project progresses through design and construction.

MTA NYCT would also implement a Construction Environmental Protection Program (CEPP) during construction of the FSTC. The CEPP would include proactive measures to prevent environmental impacts during construction wherever possible and would include a MPT plan.

6.3 STUDY AREA

The study area for the analyses performed in this chapter comprises the area of the FSTC (see Chapter 1: Purpose and Need) and the surrounding area of Lower Manhattan from the Hudson River to the East River.

The northern limit of the study area is Chambers Street. Figure 6-1 depicts the overall study area and provides the existing direction of street flow and the midday roadway closures for pedestrians. All analyses conducted for traffic, parking, transit and pedestrians were within the overall study area. Specific study areas for areas of analyses, where applicable, were provided in the appropriate sections that follow.

Table 6-1 provides a summary of the potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the No Action and Build Alternatives.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-5

ORE S S P T EN HO K AR W C D A I ST RD R S A T

V HARRI SON ST W A LK ER ST R

E T W Legend T H S IT R FR E E N A S Y N T V O K ApproximateI A L R C S IN Project Location H W L Legend A D E S M D O T B U N E A A Route 9A R H T R Traffic Study Area S O HO D ST R M W S B B A OR T AY S T AR W ST H D Midday Street Closures ST WARREN ST

Direction of Traffic Flow T D V S U A AN H E T D MURRAY ST S S Street Closures (2003) C N I T E R E W E R H A T N D T E N E P R ST E E E A O C R N R L

G S PARK PL T

BARCLAY ST T

S T W S O K R E PAR W '

E S P A R N B U N E C S E E T K S F M T R LIBERTY ST A A N N K S F T O ST JAMES PLAC V R A T S D F T N UL E CARLISLE ST T ON H S T T U CEDAR ST M O A S REC ID T W E S P TOR S P N T E T I T D S C H N S L F A T E L O F K M U A LI B E S G E S S GREENWICH ST W T A C S A S JOHN ST E L T L S K L A T M S N S FLETCHER ST A T N M F L IA U S P L L T CHURCH ST L T Y I O R W N E S T T T T EX S A T CH L B S AN R BROADWAY GE A W P E E L P N WATER ST T S T BROOKLYN N BATTERY TUNNEL O BEAVER ST R F

WHITEHALL ST R BATTERY PL E SOUTH ST STONE ST OLD SLIP

STATE ST

A D FDR DR

S T ,.

Fulton Street Transit Center Study Area (Street names & directions 2003 Conditions) 500 0 500 Feet Figure 6-1 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-1 Summary of Comparison of Alternatives

2005/2006 Planned Action 2008 2025 (Construction) (for 2005/2006 Impact) (Initial Operation) (Full Operation)

Increased vehicular Increased vehicular congestion, increase in congestion, increase in street-level pedestrian street-level pedestrian No Action congestion, and poor N/A congestion, and poor Same as 2008. Alternative wayfinding and pedestrian wayfinding and congestion in the FSTC pedestrian congestion Complex. in the FSTC Complex.

Temporary street and lane closures and the MPT plans are reassignment of traffic to anticipated to minimize Improved flow of alternate local roads. No the effect of vehicular traffic, substantial impacts on construction related reduction in street-level Alternative intersections. Temporary traffic, roadway pedestrian congestion, Same as 2008. 9 changes in surface and closures, pedestrian and improved pedestrian flows would diversions and station wayfinding and increase congestion at element closures with pedestrian flow in the some locations in the respect to access and FSTC Complex. study area, but no circulation. substantial impacts. Alternative 10 - the Same as Alternative 9. Same as Alternative 9. Same as Alternative 9. Same as 2008. Preferred Alternative Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-7

MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

SUB-CHAPTER 6A: TRAFFIC AND PARKING 6A.1 INTRODUCTION

This sub-chapter describes the traffic operations, travel characteristics and parking conditions within the Study Area for the proposed construction and operation of the FSTC. It also describes the results of field data surveys, traffic volume development and the traffic and parking operations in the Study Area.

This chapter also discusses intersections and parking facilities that may be affected by the construction and operation of the FSTC. Section 6A.2 defines the roadway network of the Study Area, Section 6A.3 outlines the key intersections used in analysis and Section 6A.4 outlines the analysis methodology used to evaluate traffic and parking. Section 6A.5 characterizes the condition of the traffic and parking environment in the Study Area in 2003. Within Section 6A.6, the impact of the project alternatives upon the intersections and parking facilities in the Study Area are evaluated. Section 6A.7 provides a summary of the adverse impacts identified in Section 6A.6. Where the potential for impacts is identified, mitigation measures are described, as appropriate.

6A.2 ROADWAY NETWORK

The street network in the Study Area is generally comprised of a grid pattern (see Figure 6-1). The main north-south travel routes through the Study Area are Broadway and Church Street. Each of these streets is comprised of two (2) through travel lanes, a parking lane and a dedicated bus lane. Traffic operates southbound only on Broadway and northbound only on Church Street. Both Broadway and Church Street are designated as NYCDOT truck routes. Other north-south routes through the Study Area include Route 9A (also known as West Street), Water, South, William and Nassau Streets. Route 9A, Water and South Streets are designated as official truck routes by the NYCDOT. Each of these streets permits two (2)-way travel. Currently, NYCDOT is reconstructing William Street throughout the Study Area. Nassau Street is a northbound one (1)-way street that is closed on weekdays to motor vehicles from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM.

In terms of east-west streets, Liberty Street is a one (1)-way eastbound street that connects to Maiden Lane permitting travel in east-west direction across Lower Manhattan. Liberty Street is not a designated NYCDOT truck route. Vesey Street (a two (2)-way street) and Barclay Street (one (1)-way westbound) are designated NYCDOT truck routes north of the proposed location of the FSTC. Currently, Liberty and Vesey Streets are closed to through traffic west of the proposed FSTC between Route 9A and Church Street to facilitate the recovery of the WTC site. Barclay Street is closed between Route 9A and West Broadway and is temporarily one (1)-way eastbound east of West Broadway during NYCDOT roadway reconstruction. Two (2) other east-west streets, John and Fulton Streets, are closed on weekdays to motor vehicles between Broadway and South Street from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM.

Streets to the east of Broadway are mostly narrow and are not designed to accommodate trucks. For this reason, a Restricted Truck Zone has been established by NYCDOT between Broadway/Whitehall Street and Water Street south of the Brooklyn Bridge. Through trucking is not permitted within this area. This area can only be accessed by smaller trucks (33 feet in length or shorter) making deliveries to properties and businesses located within this area. Truck circulation is accommodated on the NYCDOT designated truck routes surrounding this area (Broadway, Whitehall and Water Streets).

Prior to September 11, safety issues in the Study Area related to circulation conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic, especially during the morning and evening peak hours. The crossing of Church Street and Broadway by large numbers of pedestrians during these peak hours occurs simultaneously with peak flows of cars and buses. “Green” crossing time for pedestrians was constrained by the need to move vehicular traffic on both roads that are bus and truck routes. Under current conditions, traffic volumes have decreased, relative to pre-September 11 conditions, reflecting the current stage of economic

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-8 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation recovery in Lower Manhattan. Similarly, without the development that existed prior to September 11 at the WTC site, the volumes of pedestrian traffic coming from the WTC site as well as elsewhere in Lower Manhattan have decreased relative to pre-September 11 conditions.

6A.3 KEY INTERSECTIONS

Key intersections were identified to describe the existing transportation network and assess potential impacts. They were selected based on proximity to the proposed FSTC, roadway traffic volumes, the relationship to critical air quality receptor locations and the potential effect of construction activities on each intersection. The locations of the intersections studied are presented in Figure 6-2. The following 26 intersections (24 signalized and two (2) unsignalized) were selected for traffic analysis within the Study Area:

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Location #1: Chambers Street and Route 9A; Location #2: Chambers Street and West Broadway/Hudson Street; Location #3: Chambers and Church Streets; Location #4: Chambers Street and Broadway; Location #5: Church and Barclay Streets; Location #6: Church and Vesey Streets; Location #7: Church and Fulton Streets; Location #8: Church and Dey Streets; Location #9: Church and Cortlandt Streets; Location #10: Broadway and Barclay Street; Location #11: Broadway and Vesey Street/Park Row; Location #12: Broadway and Fulton Street; Location #13: Broadway and John/Dey Streets; Location #14: Broadway and Cortlandt Street/Maiden Lane; Location #15: Nassau and Fulton Streets; Location #16: Pearl and Robert Wagner Streets; Location #17: Pearl and Frankfort Streets/Dover Street; Location #18: Pearl and State Streets; Location #19: Water and Fulton Streets; Location #20: Water Street and Maiden Lane; Location #21: Water and Broad Streets; Location #22: South Street and Old Slip; Location #23: Water Street and Old Slip; and, Location #24: Battery Place/State Street.

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Location #25: South Street and Maiden Lane; and, Location #26: John and Nassau Streets.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-9 ORE S S P T EN HO K AR W C D A I ST RD R S A T

V HARRI SON ST W A F LK RA ER N W S KL HI T R IN TE

E T S S Legend T T T S R 1 E N ApproximateIV O C S ProjectR Location H Y L Legend A D E M A O B U N E W A Route 9A R H T R S D H D Traffic Study Area S A O W T M O ST B O AS R AY R S T AR B T H D Key Intersection ST 2 W Location WARREN ST

T V D S 3 U A AN H E T D MURRAY ST S S N C T I E E RE W R H AD T T N 4 E N E S R T E P O E C E R A N R G PARK PL L S T

5 BARCLAY ST T

S T 6 W S O K R E 10 PAR W 7 ' E 11 S P 8 A R N B U D 12 N E C E S E Y T E S K S F T M T R LIBERTY ST 9 A A 16 13 15 N N K S F T O ST JAMES PLAC V R A T 14 S D 26 F T N UL E CARLISLE ST T ON 17 H S T T U CEDAR ST M O A S REC ID T W E S P TOR S P N T E T I T D S C H N S L F A T E L F K M U A O LI B E S G E S S GREENWICH ST W T A C S A S JOHN ST E L T L S K L A T 19 M S N S FLETCHER ST A T N M F L IA U S P L L T CHURCH ST L T Y I O R W N E S T T T T EX S 20 A T CH L B S A R BROADWAY NG A W E E PL P E 25 N WATER ST T S T BROOKLYN N BATTERY TUNNEL O BEAVER ST R 24 F WHITEHALL ST R BATTERY PL 23 E SOUTH ST STONE ST OLD SLIP

STATE ST 22 18 21 B

D FDR DR S T ,.

Fulton Street Transit Center

Traffic Study Area 500 0 500 Feet Figure 6-2 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 6A.4 METHODOLOGY

Data was compiled for the pre-September 11 Reference Condition using previous studies and for existing conditions in 2003. The sources for pre-existing data are presented in Section 6A.3.1 below. Intersection capacity analyses were conducted at the 26 key intersections in the Study Area using the analytical procedures described in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000, published by the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. The Synchro (Version Five (5)) traffic signal coordination software package was used to model these intersections within the Study Area. This software is used by the NYSDOT as part of the environmental review of the proposed modifications to Route 9A and by NYCT for environmental analysis for the South Ferry Terminal. Since the potential areas of environmental impact for the construction of the FSTC, the South Ferry Terminal and Route 9A overlap, the use of Synchro was deemed appropriate, as this enabled the coordination of the traffic analyses of these projects. The WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan General Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) used the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) consistent with the analytical procedures of the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual. Since the Study Area of the PATH Reconstruction EIS was completely within the WTC Study Area, it was determined that this EIS would follow the same traffic analysis methodology and use the HCS. Since the Synchro and HCS programs are based upon the analytical procedures of the HCM, the analysis results are comparable. The criteria used to define LOS for each type of facility and impact criteria are described below in Sections 6A.4.2 and 6A.4.3.

6A.4.1 DATA COLLECTION

Vehicular turning movement counts were conducted at the 26 key intersections on a mid-week day (i.e., Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) in the spring of 2003 during the AM (7:00 to 10:00) and PM (4:00 to 7:00) peak traffic periods. The peak traffic period was established based on the period with the highest level of background traffic in the Study Area. NYCT performed all turning movement counts except at the intersections within the Route 9A Study Area, which were performed by NYSDOT. In an effort to expedite the recovery of Lower Manhattan, all traffic data collected was shared by NYCT and NYSDOT. Six (6) vehicle class categories (cars, sport utility vehicles, light trucks, medium trucks, heavy trucks and buses) were counted at all key locations. The turning movement counts were recorded in 15-minute intervals during each peak period. The peak hour within each peak period was determined by summing the total of the four (4) highest consecutive 15-minute intervals for all key intersection locations. These volumes were also used to calculate the peak hour factors (PHF) and heavy vehicle percentages for each of the intersection approaches during each weekday peak hour.

A physical inventory of each key intersection was performed. Field reconnaissance surveys were conducted at these intersections to establish the existing physical characteristics including roadway and lane widths, the number of travel lanes, crosswalk widths, curb parking regulations, lane utilization (turn prohibitions), bus stop locations and signal timing/phasing data. The intersection signal timing data was provided by the NYCDOT Signal Department. The data was field checked at the signalized intersections within the Study Area to evaluate actual traffic operating conditions. Continuous, 24-hour, directional Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) machine counts were conducted for a seven (7)-day period in the spring of 2003. ATR counts were conducted at the 13 locations in the Study Area concurrent with the turning movement counts.

Travel time, travel speed and delay data were collected along Route 9A, West Broadway, Church Street, Broadway, Nassau Street, Water Street, South Street, Broad Street, Old Slip, Maiden Lane, John Street, Fulton Street, Vesey/Ann Street, Barclay Street and Chambers Street concurrent with the collection of other traffic data. The travel time data were collected at the intersections being studied using the “floating test car” method, where the survey car travels with the flow of traffic to record travel speeds. These speeds reflect current conditions that account for lane and roadway closures and construction activity. Anticipated changes to the roadway network such as the opening of streets currently closed to traffic and the implementation of the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan were incorporated into the calculation of future speeds. October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-11 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Parking studies are typically conducted for projects that generate demand for parking, such as residential and commercial development, or new recreational or cultural facilities. The FSTC itself would not include land uses that would generate parking demand (the small-scale retail incorporated in the FSTC being a relatively small component and not greater than that currently existing), nor would it induce such land uses. To determine whether the FSTC would otherwise affect the parking conditions in Lower Manhattan during construction or operation, either by an increase in demand or a reduction of supply, an inventory of parking facilities was conducted.

The parking study includes a Study Area that encompasses parking facilities (i.e., parking lots and garages and on-street curb spaces) in which vehicular traffic destined for locations in the vicinity of the project site would likely park. The extent of the area corresponds to the maximum distance that someone driving in New York City to these locations in the vicinity of the site would be willing to walk. In general, about a quarter-mile walk is considered the maximum distance from primary off-street parking facilities to a residential or work destination. An on-street parking utilization survey was conducted within the traffic Study Area during the midday peak period in the fall of 2003. In addition, all off-street parking facilities within a quarter-mile radius of the proposed FSTC were inventoried during the midday period in the fall of 2003.

For the pre-September 11 Reference Condition, physical inventory data, traffic volumes and parking data were obtained from previous environmental impact studies and traffic studies completed between 1999 and 2001 for locations in Lower Manhattan. Travel time, travel speed and delay data were calculated based upon the change in delay at the critical intersection locations between 2001 and 2003 conditions. Data for off-street parking conditions were collected from existing documents, such as the New York Stock Exchange New Facility Final EIS (FEIS) (Empire State Economic Development Corporation, December 2000) and the Battery Park City (BPC) Fifth Supplemental FEIS (BPC Authority, July 2000).

6A.4.2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

The LOS of a signalized intersection is defined in terms of control delay per vehicle (seconds per vehicle). Control delay is the portion of total delay experienced by a motorist that is attributable to the traffic signal. It is comprised of initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay and final acceleration delay. The LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as defined in the HCM, are provided in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria

CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE LOS (Seconds Per Vehicle) A < 10 B > 10 to 20 C > 20 to 35 D > 35 to 55 E > 55 to 80 F > 80 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.

LOS A describes operations with minimal delays, up to 10 seconds per vehicle, while LOS F describes operations with delays in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. Under LOS F, excessive delays and longer queues are common as a result of over-saturated conditions (i.e., demand rates exceeding the capacity). Delays experienced at LOS A, B, C or D (below 55 seconds per vehicle) are referred to in the HCM as generally considered “acceptable” operating conditions, while LOS E and F are considered generally “unacceptable” operating conditions. October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-12 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 6A.4.3 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

The LOS for a stop sign controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and LOS control delay is the portion of total delay experienced by a motorist that is attributable to a stop sign, is defined for each critical traffic movement in the intersection and is not defined for the intersection as a whole. The LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections, as defined in the HCM, are provided in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria

AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY LOS (Seconds Per Vehicle) A <10 B >10 to 15 C >15 to 25 D >25 to 35 E >35 to 50 F >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.

6A.4.4 INTERSECTION IMPACT CRITERIA

Generally, traffic impacts may result from either construction of a project or its subsequent operation. However, since minimal to no traffic is projected to be generated by the Proposed FSTC in the future, no adverse traffic impacts are anticipated. Alternatively, this analysis considers changes that would result from the addition of construction vehicle traffic to the roadway network and associated construction activities (i.e., lane closures, street closures, detours, etc.). These definitions are consistent with the traffic impact criteria developed by NYSDOT to assess temporary construction conditions for transportation projects. These criteria are used by the FTA and NYCT for large-scale transit projects in the City and are also used by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NYSDOT for the Route 9A project to assess temporary construction impacts for these projects. Potential traffic impacts are defined as follows:

• Intersections operating at LOS A, B, C, or D that deteriorate to LOS E or F from No Action to Action conditions, providing that the average vehicle delay increase is 10 seconds or more; • Intersections operating at LOS E that deteriorate to LOS F, providing that the average vehicle delay increases by 10 seconds or more; and, • Intersections remaining at either LOS E or F but with delay increases of 10 seconds or more. 6A.5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 6A.5.1 TRAFFIC

As discussed in Section 6A.3, 26 intersections (two (2) unsignalized and 24 signalized) in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC were analyzed for 2003 daily peak operating conditions using the Synchro software package, based upon the HCM. Traffic volumes, pedestrian crosswalk volumes, signal timing, intersection geometry (lane utilization, lane widths, parking regulations, etc.), and other pertinent information regarding each intersection were entered into the Synchro network. The resulting output, consisting of a vehicle capacity ratio (v/c), individual movement and approach delays (seconds/vehicle), individual movement and approach LOS, and average queue length (feet) among others, are presented in Appendix D.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-13 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation This LOS analysis focused on the AM traffic peak hour (8:15-9:15 AM) and the PM traffic peak hour (5:00-6:00 PM). The selected traffic peak hours reflect the period of highest background traffic volumes in the Study Area. The results of the LOS analysis are summarized in Table 6-4. The 2003 traffic flow volumes developed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are presented in Appendix D.

Table 6-4 2003 Existing Conditions Signalized Intersection Approach LOS Summary

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Results Total Approaches % Total Approaches % A 5 7.6 7 10.6 B 22 33.3 25 37.9 C 26 39.4 29 43.9 D 6 9.1 2 3.0 E 2 3.0 0 0.0 F 5 7.6 3 4.5 Total Approaches* 66 100.0 66 100.0 * Note: The number of approaches varies based upon roadway configurations and conditions for the various analysis years and periods. Percentages are rounded. Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

As presented in Table 6-4, for the AM peak hour, seven (7) out of the 66 intersection approaches analyzed (10.6 percent) operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F. For the PM peak hour, three (3) out of the 66 intersection approaches analyzed (4.5 percent) operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F. A list of intersections and movements that operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, or both is provided below. The remaining intersections operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #1: Chambers Street and West Street/Route 9A The eastbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street operated at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The westbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street operated at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound through/right movement on West Street/Route 9A operated at LOS F during the AM peak hour.

Location #3: Chambers and Church Streets The eastbound left/through movement on Chambers Street operates at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #4: Chambers Street and Broadway The westbound left-turn movement on Chambers Street operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall westbound approach (including the through movement) operates at LOS D.

Location #10: Broadway and Barclay Street The westbound left-turn movement on Barclay Street operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour, while the overall eastbound approach (including the left/through movement) operates at LOS D.

Location #16: Pearl and Robert Wagner Streets The eastbound left/through/right movement on Robert Wagner Street operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. The westbound left-turn movement on Robert Wagner Street operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall westbound approach (including the through and right movements) operates at LOS E. The westbound left-turn movement on Robert Wagner Street operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour and the overall westbound approach (including the through and right movements) operates at LOS D. The northbound left/through movement on Pearl Street operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour, while the overall northbound approach (including the

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-14 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation right-turn movement) operates at LOS D. The southbound left-turn movement on Pearl Street operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall southbound approach (including the through movement) operates at LOS C.

Location #17: Pearl and Frankfort/Dover Streets The eastbound left-turn movement on Frankfort/Dover Streets operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour while the eastbound approach (including the left/through/right movement) operates at LOS D.

Location #22: South Street and Old Slip The westbound right-turn movement on Old Slip operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour while the westbound approach (including the through movement) also operates at LOS F.

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

All approaches of the two (2) unsignalized intersections analyzed for the 2003 Existing Condition operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

6A.5.2 PARKING

OFF-STREET PARKING

An inventory of off-street parking facilities within a quarter-mile radius of the proposed FSTC was conducted during the midday period (10:00 AM to 3:00 PM) in October 2003. This is typically the time of day when parking facilities reach their maximum occupancy. Eleven parking establishments were surveyed; their licensed capacities and spaces occupied at the time of the survey are summarized in Table 6-5. The location and Study Area of these off-street parking facilities is identified in Figure 6-3. A total of 1,455 spaces were identified within the area surveyed.

The largest facility is located at 80 Gold Street and is operated by Ropetmar Garage Inc. This facility has 351 spaces and accounts for 24 percent of the Study Area’s total available off-street parking supply. Based on the results of the inventory, approximately 70 percent of all available surveyed spaces were occupied during the midday peak hour, resulting in 432 spaces during the midday peak hour.

In comparison to 2001, the number of off-street parking facilities in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC has been reduced. Two (2) of the facilities surveyed were at capacity pre-September 11. However, the 2003 existing condition inventory reflects that the percentage of utilization of these facilities is now below capacity. In addition, due to the events of September 11, approximately 2,000 off-street parking spaces were lost.

This loss of spaces was attributed to the destruction of the WTC Lot No. 1, which contained 1,850 spaces and the loss of the Vista Hotel at 3 WTC, which had 150 spaces. The number of parking spaces was reduced in comparison with pre-September 11 conditions. However, the parking demand in the Study Area has also decreased since then. The midday parking utilization is 70 percent in 2003, as compared with 91 percent before September 11.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-15 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-5 2003 Off-Street Parking Facility Inventory Within A Quarter-Mile Radius of Proposed FSTC Site

Midday Peak Period Location License Licensed Parking Facility Address Percent Spaces # # Capacity Demand Utilization Available 140-150 Liberty 1 Edison Parking Management 979088 122 Closed Street

2 Lot # 1 WTC WTC 1,850 Closed

3 3 WTC Vista Hotel, WTC 150 Closed

4-5 WTC (Church 4 Central Parking System, Inc. Street near Cortlandt 93073 250 Data Not Provided by Facility Owner Street.)

5 Millenium Hilton Parking1 47 Church Street 929603 65 Data Not Provided by Facility Owner

6 Church Street Parking, LLC 110 Church Street 1126970 88 Data Not Provided by Facility Owner

7 BGB Parking System 6 Barclay Street 927233 86 Data Not Provided by Facility Owner

8 Central Parking Systems Inc. 169 William Street 958863 52 35 67% 17

9 NYU Downtown Hospital 170 William Street 965766 110 110 100% 0

25-27 Beekman Street 25-27 Beekman 10 367147 149 Data Not Provided by Facility Owner Associates Street 85 John Street Parking 11 85 John Street 1023034 60 36 60% 24 Garage LLC2

12 Cliff Parking LLC 19 - 21 Cliff Street 1078641 87 52 60% 35

13 Marlo Towers5 56 Fulton Street 1098936 280 140 50% 140

14 Pearl Parking LLC3 18 - 24 Cliff Street 1068098 150 135 90% 15

251 Pearl Street Parking 15 4 251 Pearl Street 1102765 92 Private Lot LLC

16 John Street Parking 57 Ann Street 958408 276 251 91% 25

17 McParking, LLC 13 Gold Street 1040786 19 19 98% 0

18 80 John Street Parking LLC 80 John Street 1022696 29 28 96% One (1)

19 Central Parking System 100 John Street 1104794 41 25 60% 16

20 Pearl Parking LLC 243 -253 Pearl Street 1068100 90 Data Not Provided by Facility Owner

21 Ropetmar Garage Inc. 80 Gold Street 692160 351 193 55% 158

Total 1,455 1,023 70% 432 Notes: 1 Known as Central Parking System of New York in 2001 2 Known as John Street Parking Garage in 2001 3 Known as Edison Parking Management in 2001 4 Known as Edison Parking Management in 2001 5 Known as Downtown Parking Corp. in 2001 Sources: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Eng-Wong Taub & Associates, 2004.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-16 Legend Approximate Project Location 1/4-Mile Land Use 6 Study Area Curb Lines # Parking Facilities

Note: For list of Off-Street Parking Facilities see Table 6-4

5 10 9 8 16

11 13 12 18 20 15 17 19 14 ,.

Off-Street Parking 2003

Figure 6-3 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation ON-STREET PARKING

An on-street parking utilization survey was conducted within the traffic Study Area during the midday peak period (10:00 AM to 3:00 PM) in June 2003. The on-street inventory included an accounting of all posted curbside regulations within the Study Area (see Figure 6-4). The Study Area for on-street parking included the blocks that would be affected by FSTC construction activity. Restrictive parking regulations are used in the vicinity of the project site due to narrow streets and heavy pedestrian flows. Curb lanes are mainly used for standing or loading activities on the major and minor streets. For example, truck loading and unloading is permitted along the east curb of Broadway while “No Standing” regulations are posted on the west side of Broadway. Similarly, truck loading and unloading is permitted adjacent to the project site along the north curbs of Fulton and John Streets while parking and standing is prohibited along the south curbs of both streets. Due to the heavy pedestrian flows in the vicinity of the project site, John, Fulton and Nassau Streets are closed on weekdays to motor vehicles from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM. At the time of the inventory, the east curb lane of Broadway between John Street and Maiden Lane was closed due to construction. As previously noted, William Street is currently being reconstructed by NYCDOT.

Table 6-6 shows the number of curbside parking spaces occupied on the streets in the vicinity of the project site on a weekday during the midday period. As shown in Table 6-6, curbside activity by vans and trucks was found to be heaviest on Fulton and John Streets between Broadway and Nassau Street. On Fulton Street between Church Street and Broadway, taxis waiting for passengers occupied most of the parking spaces. The section of Fulton Street between William and Gold Streets was occupied by authorized vehicles (police officers, fire fighters, etc.). Some of the curb activity did not conform to the existing regulations and were not legally parked. All vehicles were included in Table 6-6 whether they were parked legally or not.

Table 6-6 2003 On-Street Parking Facility Inventory

Occupied Spaces Street Block Car Van Truck Bus Total Vesey and Fulton Streets (east side) 1 3 0 0 4 Broadway Fulton and John Streets (east side) 3 3 0 0 6 Maiden Lane and Liberty Street (east side) 3 5 2 0 10 Church John Street and Maiden Lane (west side) 0 0 0 3 3 Street John Street and Maiden Lane (east side) 0 0 0 1 1 Church Street and Broadway (south side) 6 2 3 0 11 Broadway and Nassau Street (north side) 1 6 2 0 9 Fulton Nassau and Dutch Streets (south side) 1 4 1 0 6 Street Dutch and William Streets (south side) 1 5 0 0 6 William and Gold Streets (south side) 8 2 1 0 11 Dey Street Church Street and Broadway 0 5 2 0 7 John Street Broadway and Nassau Street 4 3 5 0 12 Total 86 Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-18 .

t .

t S

Vesey St. S . u

a m St Church St

Broadway s a i s d l ll a i 1 2 3 o

P 12 N 19 20 5 13 11 11 5 W 11 G Fulton St. P PPP

5 17 11 9 10 8 6 15 11 12 14 14 8 12

. 1 2 3 13

14 8 13 St 5

11 23 1 5 WTC 7 5 12 h

c 21 22

Dey St. 13 1

u 6

P D 18 5 19 20 23 P 1 1 2 3 6 J 1 ohn 1 St. 23 Cortlandt St. Ma iden Ln. 23 7 1 2 3 P

Liberty St.

Code Parking Regulation 1 No Permit Zone; No Standing Saturday & Sunday No Standing 2 7:00 AM- 10:00 AM; 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM No Standing except Truck Loading & Unloading 3 10:00 AM- 4:00 PM Mondayto Friday 5 No Standing Anytime Buses only 6 7:00 AM- 10:00 AM; 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM Mondayto Friday Bus Lane; Buses only 7 Legend 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM; Mondayto Friday No Standing except Truck Loading & Unloading 8 7:00 AM- 7:00 PM Mondayto Friday 9 No Standing Anytime Taxi Stand Project Site - At Grade 10 No Standing Hotel Loading Zone 11 No Standing from 7:00 AMto 7:00 PM (Proposed Entry Facility/ Dey St. Access Building) No Standing 11:00 AMto 2:00 PM 12 Mondayto Friday No Standing except Truck Loading & Unloading P On-Street Parking 13 7:00 AM- 11:00 AM; 2:00 PM - 7:00 PM Mondayto Friday ,. 14 No Standing Hotel Loading Zone Construction Zone (10/20/03) Blue Zone No Parking 15 7:00 AM- 7:00 PM Mondayto Friday N 16 No Parking Anytime Fulton Street Transit Center Pedestrian St. No Motor Veh. Street Closed (10/20/03) 17 11:00 AMto 2:00 PM Mondayto Friday E No Standing except Loading & Unloading 18 7:00 AM- 7:00 PM Mondayto Friday Bus Lane On-Street Parking 2003 19 Bus Layover Zone 20 No Standing except Authorized Vehicles NYC only W 21 No Standing 10:00 AM- 6:00 PM Including Sunday Parking Regulations 22 No Standing except Truck Loading & Unloading Figure 6-4 23 Bus Stop S MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 6A.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6A.6.1 INTRODUCTION

The assessment of potential impacts was performed for three (3) analysis years. Each analysis year included an assessment of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 9, and the Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 3: Alternatives for details). These alternatives were compared against the future conditions without the Proposed Action to determine impacts. The Future conditions without the Proposed Action include the following Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects: South Ferry Terminal, Permanent WTC PATH Terminal, Route 9A reconstruction and WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan as relevant (see Chapter 20). The pre-September 11 Reference Condition was also evaluated as part of the analysis of traffic and parking conditions to characterize potential impacts relative to traffic conditions existing prior to September 11 (see below).

As discussed in Chapter 2 – Analysis Framework, the following years were identified for detailed analysis:

• Analysis Year for Assessing Construction Impacts: 2005/2006; • Analysis Year for Assessing Initial Operational Impacts: 2008; and, • Analysis Year for Assessing Full Operational Impacts: 2025. 6A.6.2 PRE-SEPTEMBER 11 REFERENCE CONDITION

Due to the effects of September 11 traffic and parking conditions in 2003 in Lower Manhattan are not considered truly representative of normal conditions in Lower Manhattan and instead reflect a “Recovery Condition”. For the purposes of the Draft EIS (DEIS), it is assumed that current and planned revitalization efforts will be successful so that the level of economic activity and growth projected prior to September 11 for the years following September 11 will be realized (see Chapter 2: Analysis Framework). In recognition of this, and in conjunction with the environmental analyses being carried out for other major Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects, the analysis of traffic and parking for the FSTC includes a pre- September 11 “Reference Condition.” The Reference Condition is defined as the existing conditions in Lower Manhattan on September 10, 2001. The pre-September 11 Reference Condition is presented to provide a context for understanding impacts, along with the typical Build/No Action analysis.

TRAFFIC

Signalized Intersections

The 2001 traffic flow volumes developed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are presented in Appendix D. The same 26 intersections in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC were analyzed for daily peak operating conditions using the Synchro software package with traffic volumes, pedestrian crosswalk volumes, signal timing, intersection geometry (lane utilization, lane widths, parking regulations, etc.), and other pertinent information for each intersection representing 2001 conditions. The detailed output is summarized in Appendix D and the LOS analysis summary is presented in Table 6-7.

The 24 signalized intersections were analyzed for the 2001 pre-September 11 Reference Condition during the AM and PM peak hours. For the AM peak hour, eight (8) of the 66 intersection approaches analyzed (12.1 percent) operated at an unacceptable LOS E or F. For the PM peak hour, ten (10) of the 66 intersection approaches (15.2 percent) operated at an unacceptable LOS E or F. A list of intersections and movements that operated at an unacceptable LOS E or F during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, or both is provided below. The remaining intersections operated at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-20 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-7 Pre-September 11 Reference Condition (2001) Signalized Intersection Approach LOS Summary

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Results Total Approaches % Total Approaches % A 2 3.0 5 7.6 B 24 36.4 21 31.8 C 28 42.4 27 40.9 D 4 6.1 3 4.5 E 2 3.0 4 6.1 F 6 9.1 6 9.1 Total Approaches* 66 100.0 66 100.0 * Note: The number of approaches varies based upon roadway configurations and conditions for the various analysis years and periods. Percentages are rounded. Source: Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Location #1: Chambers Street and West Street/Route 9A The eastbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street operated at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The westbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street operated at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #3: Chambers and Church Streets The eastbound left/through movement on Chambers Street operated at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #10: Broadway and Barclay Street The westbound left-turn and through movements and the overall westbound approach on Barclay Street operated at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The westbound left-turn movement operated at LOS E during the PM peak hour, while the overall westbound approach (including the left/through movement) operated at LOS E.

Location #11: Broadway and Vesey Street/Park Row The eastbound left-turn and left/through/right movements and the overall westbound approach on Vesey Street operated at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #16: Pearl and Robert Wagner Streets The eastbound left/through/right movement on Robert Wagner Street operated at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The westbound left-turn movement on Robert Wagner Street operated at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall westbound approach (including the through and right movements) operated at LOS F. The westbound left-turn movement on Robert Wagner Street operated at LOS E during the PM peak hour and the overall westbound approach (including the through and right movements) also operated at LOS E. The southbound left-turn movement on Pearl Street operated at LOS E during the AM peak hour, while the overall southbound approach (including the through movement) operated at LOS C.

Location #17: Pearl and Frankfort/Dover Streets The eastbound left-turn movement on Frankfort/Dover Streets operated at LOS F during the AM peak hour while the eastbound approach (including the left/through/right movement) operated at LOS E. The eastbound left-turn movement on Frankfort/Dover Streets operated at LOS E during the PM peak hour while the eastbound approach (including the left/through/right movement) operated at LOS D.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-21 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Location #19: Water and Fulton Streets The northbound left/through movement on Water Street operated at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #24: Battery Place and Broadway/State Street The southbound left/right movement on Broadway/State Street operated at LOS F during the PM peak hour.

Unsignalized Intersections

All approaches of the two (2) unsignalized intersections analyzed for the 2003 Existing Condition operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

PARKING

Off-Street Parking

An inventory of off-street parking facilities for the 2001 pre-September 11 Reference Condition within a quarter-mile radius of the FSTC project site was compiled from previous environmental impact studies conducted for the New York Stock Exchange New Facility FEIS (Empire State Development Corporation, December 2000) and the BPC Fifth Supplemental FEIS (BPC Authority, July 2000). Figure 6-5 identifies the location of the off-street parking facilities in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC. Fifteen off-street parking facilities were surveyed, totaling 3,578 spaces. As indicated in Table 6-8, the largest facility was located at the WTC and accounted for 57 percent of the parking Study Area’s total available parking supply with 1,850 spaces. The second largest facility was the Downtown Park Garage Corp. located at 56 Fulton Street. The parking inventory shows that the average midday parking utilization was 91 percent for all facilities. A total of 317 parking spaces were available within a quarter-mile of the proposed FSTC during the midday peak period.

On-Street Parking

On-street parking regulations in the area of the proposed FSTC were similar in 2001 to the 2003 Existing Condition. Generally, restrictive parking regulations were utilized along Lower Manhattan curbs due to narrow streets and heavy vehicle and pedestrian flows. Posted curbside regulations along the proposed FSTC curbs typically prohibited standing and/or parking except for truck loading and unloading.

6A.6.3 ANALYSIS YEAR 2005/2006 (CONSTRUCTION)

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The peak construction period is assumed to occur within a 12-month span covering 2005 and 2006. For the purpose of performing a conservative analysis, the higher 2006 traffic data were used. Traffic volumes and off-street parking within the Study Area were developed for the 2006 No Action Alternative during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. The 2003 traffic volumes and off-street parking accumulation totals were increased using a growth rate of 1.76 percent per year (5.28 percent from 2003 to 2006) to develop the 2006 No Action Alternative traffic volumes and off-street parking projections. This rate is based on the annual growth rate derived from the MTA’s Regional Travel Forecasting Model (RTFM), which uses regional demographic forecasts developed by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC). This rate includes all planned and committed developments through 2006 as part of the background growth for Lower Manhattan. A description of the land use assumptions for Lower Manhattan for the analysis years is presented in Chapter 7: Social and Economic Conditions.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-22 Legend Approximate Project Location 1/4-Mile Land Use 6 Study Area Curb Lines # Parking Facilities

Note: See Off-Street Parking Description on Table 6-7 2 3

5 10 9 8 4

11 13 12

15 14 ,.

Off-Street Parking 2001 Pre-September 11 Reference Condition Figure 6-5 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-8 2001 Off-Street Parking Facility Inventory Within a Quarter Mile Radius of Proposed FSTC Site

Midday Peak Period Location License Licensed Parking Facility Address # # Capacity Percent Spaces Demand Utilization Available Edison Parking 140-150 Liberty 1 979088 122 116 95% 6 Management Street 2 Lot # 1 WTC WTC 1,850 1850 100% 0

3 3 WTC Vista Hotel, WTC 150 150 100% 0

4-5 WTC (Church Central Parking System, 4 Street near Cortlandt 93073 250 88 35% 162 Inc. Street) 47 Church Street Central Parking System 5 (entry/exit on Fulton 929603 65 65 100% 0 of New York Street) Church Street Parking, 6 110 Church Street 1126970 88 35 40% 53 LLC

7 BGB Parking System 6 Barclay Street 927233 86 86 100% 0 Central Parking Systems 8 169 William Street 958863 52 52 100% 0 Inc. 9 NYU Downtown Hospital 170 William Street 965766 110 110 100% 0 25-27 Beekman Street 25-27 Beekman 10 367147 149 149 100% 0 Associates Street John Street Parking 11 John Street 1023034 60 30 50% 30 Garage 12 Cliff Parking LLC 19 - 21 Cliff Street 1019232 74 74 100% 0 Downtown Park Garage 13 56 Fulton Street 367980 280 238 85% 42 Corp. Edison Parking 14 18 - 24 Cliff Street 955428 150 135 90% 15 Management Edison Parking 15 18 - 24 Cliff Street 978143 92 83 90% 9 Management Total 3,578 3,261 91% 317 Source: New York Stock Exchange New Facility FEIS and Battery Park City EIS, 2000.

Traffic

The roadway configuration in the Study Area in 2006 reflects the construction recovery activities in Lower Manhattan, including the Lower Manhattan roadway reconstruction program being implemented by NYCDOT. In 2006, Vesey and Liberty Streets will be closed to through traffic between Route 9A and Church Street. By 2006, Barclay Street between Church Street and Route 9A would be reinstated as a one (1)-way westbound thoroughfare. The NYCDOT roadway reconstruction projects would be occurring in 2006 on Church Street and Broadway north of Vesey Street and on Water Street south of Peck Street. Within the NYCDOT work areas, two (2) travel lanes would be provided on Church Street and Broadway and one (1) travel lane would be provided in each direction on Water Street (see Chapter 4: Construction Methods and Activities). In 2006, the bus lane on Church Street would be closed and on- street parking would not be allowed on Church Street and Broadway. On-street parking would still be permitted on Water Street during 2005 and 2006.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-24 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation The generation of construction traffic by each of the four (4) Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects was developed based on preliminary construction information confirmed with each project sponsor in November 2003, including the PANYNJ (Permanent WTC PATH Terminal), NYCT (South Ferry Terminal), NYSDOT (Route 9A Reconstruction), and LMDC (WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan). An overview of the construction assumptions for the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects (including the FSTC) is presented in Chapter 4: Construction Methods and Activities and Appendices C and N. This includes information regarding construction schedules, construction truck routing and site construction equipment and staging areas.

The construction vehicles expected to be used to rebuild Lower Manhattan would be comprised of light vehicles, such as contractor vans and pickup trucks and heavy vehicles such as concrete mixers, dump trucks, trailers, etc. The construction activities that are projected to occur in the peak analysis year were assumed to be comprised of construction vehicles in the percentages shown in Table 6-9.

For analysis purposes, it was assumed that all concrete mixers, dump trucks for excavation, deconstruction debris and spoils removal and trailers carrying structural steel were heavy trucks. The service/utility/fuel vehicles were assumed to be half heavy and half light trucks. All subcontractor vehicles were assumed to be light trucks. Construction workers are expected to use predominantly mass transit. The daily peak construction vehicles projected for each of the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects (except FSTC) in 2006 in terms of total and percentage of heavy and light trucks is summarized in Table 6-10.

Table 6-9 Projected Construction Vehicle Percentages

Vehicle Type Percentage Concrete 25 Heavy Trucks (includes spoils transportation) 20 Service/Utility/Fuel 25 Subcontractors 30 Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Table 6-10 2006 Daily Construction Vehicles of Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects

Heavy Light Heavy Light Total Lower Manhattan Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Recovery Projects (% of (% of (No.) (No.) Total) (No.) Total) WTC Memorial and 694 69.1 310 30.9 1,004 Redevelopment Plan Permanent WTC PATH Terminal 173 72.7 65 27.3 238 Route 9A Reconstruction 304 93.3 22 6.7 326 South Ferry Terminal 150 60.5 98 39.5 248 Total 1,321 72.7 495 27.3 1,816 Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

The assignment of construction vehicles to the Lower Manhattan traffic network was based on coordination among the sponsors of Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects as well as NYCDOT, in summer and autumn 2003, with the objective to minimize impacts of truck traffic on the local roadway network (see Figure 6-6). This was achieved by optimizing the use of existing NYCDOT truck routes and by limiting the overlap of truck routes for each project. The distribution of construction vehicles of the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects onto the traffic network in 2005/2006 is summarized in Table 6- 11.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-25 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-11 Typical Daily Construction Vehicle Distribution of Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects

Vehicle Type Distribution Concrete 100% Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens Heavy Trucks (includes spoils transportation) 100% New Jersey and points west Service/Utility/Fuel Trucks 33% Manhattan, 33% Brooklyn/Queens 33% New Jersey Sub-contractor 50% Brooklyn\Queens, 50% New Jersey Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

With regard to construction scheduling, the South Ferry Terminal project would be constructed with a 16- hour work day (7:00 AM to 11:00 PM). A 10-hour work day (7:00 AM to 5:00 PM) was assumed for the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan, Route 9A and the Permanent WTC PATH Terminal reconstruction. The primary travel route to be used by the South Ferry Project would be Broadway and Church Street. For the WTC, Route 9A and the Permanent WTC PATH Terminal reconstruction, the primary travel route would be Route 9A. The construction vehicle haul routes in Lower Manhattan for each of these projects are presented in Figure 6-6. The workday lengths and truck routes were developed in coordination with the sponsors of the other Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects. The number of construction vehicles projected to be generated by the other Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects (South Ferry Terminal, WTC Memorial and Redevelopment, Route 9A and the Permanent WTC PATH Terminal reconstruction) in 2006 was added to the 2006 background traffic network to establish the 2006 traffic conditions without the FSTC (No Action Alternative). The 2006 No Action traffic flow volumes developed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are presented in Appendix D.

In conjunction with the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects, MPT plans will be implemented by project sponsors, such as PANYNJ and LMDC, in coordination with NYCDOT, NYCDDC and NYSDOT to minimize interruption of vehicular and pedestrian circulation.

A key aspect of these efforts will be pedestrian safety. Measures to be considered during the development of detailed MPT plans would include pedestrian signage, physical demarcations and/or barriers for dedicated pedestrian zones, Traffic Enforcement Agents (TEA) to direct vehicular and pedestrian circulation, especially during peak hours, management of truck delivery schedules, both associated with construction activities and operation of existing businesses in the area and strict enforcement of parking rules to minimize crowding of narrower east-west streets.

Signalized Intersections

The same 26 intersections (two (2) unsignalized and 24 signalized) in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC were analyzed for daily peak operating conditions using the Synchro software package. The projected 2006 traffic volumes and the same geometry assumed for the 2003 existing conditions were used in the analysis. The exceptions to this were the NYCDOT Roadway Reconstruction Projects and the reinstatement of Barclay Street as a thoroughfare. The detailed output is summarized in Appendix D and the LOS analysis summary is presented in Table 6-12.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-26 G RA ND ST BR B O EACH ST O L N MO T IS ORE S S P T EN HO K AR W C D A I R S D T R T S S A T

V R HARR E ISON T ST X A W B A F LK RA ER N S HE KL I T ST R IN TE E S S T T T EO T T LegendLegend S N S R A E R E N D V Y T Route 9A I C O T R H A W Route 9A A S O E M W Y D R B D T A E U H F R S T SS H H T A WTC/PATH OA O L S T R M E BA B AS Y R AR South Ferry S T D W T S South Ferry DU N T AN E Existing Truck Routes WARREN ST E C R ST Existing NYCDOTV T E S A A DE Truck RoutesD H S P N T EL C L S E I MURRAY ST T

H W

T N R E O P E N E R A R PARK P L S T E B

V R I BRB

N ROW RK O PA

S E S C D P A R L U B U P E C H D E E EY K S F M T R LIBERTY ST A A AMES PLACE N N FU K L S F TO T O V N A R A S N T T N S D S T N T T E S T CARLISLEC ST S OVER ST H U T A M S U IA S M L O CEDARC ST A L S N A I W I RECTOR ST D W T TH E S P AM N D T E E C L S C S L FF K S REENWICH ST R A O LI B T U G C E S H JO E L B CHURCC K R M O P HN ST B I FL A R O N N I K E ET F D L L S CHER S T U S G Y P W T L T E N A T Y LL O R S N E T T S T T E T T X S A CH T B S A L S NG R R W E A E PL E TERT ST E P N T OOKLYN S TE T BEAVER ST N R BATTEBATTERYRY PLPL THT S IVE STONE ST R LD SLIP ST A E

O A D D FDRF DR

Fulton Street Transit Center Proposed Truck Routes, Lower Manhattan Projects (Excluding Fulton Street Transit Center) 5000500Feet T Figure 6-6 B Source: NYC DoITT Landbase; NYC DCP In MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-12 2006 No Action Alternative Signalized Intersection Approach LOS Summary

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Results Total Approaches % Total Approaches % A 2 3.1 5 7.8 B 15 23.4 16 25.0 C 24 37.5 29 45.3 D 6 9.4 5 7.8 E 6 9.4 3 4.7 F 11 17.2 6 9.4 Total Approaches* 64 100.0 64 100.0 * Note: The number of approaches varies based upon roadway configurations and conditions for the various analysis years and periods. Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

The 24 signalized intersections were analyzed for the 2006 No Action Alternative for the AM and PM peak hours. For the AM peak hour, 17 of the 66 intersection approaches (16.6 percent) are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F. For the PM peak hour, nine (9) of the 64 intersection approaches analyzed (14.1 percent) are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F. A list of intersections and movements that are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, or both has been provided below. The intersections not listed are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #1: Chambers Street and West Street/Route 9A The eastbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The westbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The southbound through/right movement on West Street/Route 9A is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour.

Location #3: Chambers and Church Streets The eastbound left/through movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #4: Chambers Street and Broadway The westbound left-turn movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall westbound approach (including the through movement) is projected to operate at LOS E.

Location #5: Church Street and Barclay Street The northbound left/through movement on Church Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour.

Location #6: Church Street and Vesey Street The northbound left/through/right movement on Church Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall northbound approach (including the right movement) is projected to operate at LOS E.

Location #10: Broadway and Barclay Street Both the westbound left-turn and left/through movements on Barclay Street are projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. The southbound through/right movement on Broadway is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-28 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Location #11: Broadway and Vesey Street/Park Row The southbound left-turn movement on Broadway is projected to operate at LOS E and the southbound through movement is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall southbound approach is projected to operate at LOS F. The southbound left-turn movement on Broadway is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, while the overall southbound approach (including the through movement) is projected to operate at LOS E.

Location #16: Pearl and Robert Wagner Streets The eastbound left/through/right movement on Robert Wagner Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The westbound left-turn movement on Robert Wagner Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours, while the overall westbound approach (including the through and right movements) is projected to operate at LOS E. The northbound left/through movement on Pearl Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall westbound approach (including the right-turn movement) is projected to operate at LOS E. The southbound left-turn movement on Pearl Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall southbound approach (including the through movement) is projected to operate at LOS D.

Location #17: Pearl and Frankfort/Dover Streets The eastbound left-turn movement on Frankfort/Dover Streets is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall eastbound approach (including the left/through/right movement) is projected to operate at LOS D.

Location #19: Water and Fulton Streets The northbound left/through movement on Water Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #21: Water and Broad Streets The northbound left/through/right movement on Water Street is projected to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour.

Location #22: South Street and Old Slip The westbound right-turn movement on Old Slip is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall eastbound approach (including the through movement) is also projected to operate at LOS F.

Location #23: Water Street and Old Slip The northbound left/through/right movement on Water Street is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour.

Unsignalized Intersections

The two (2) unsignalized intersections analyzed for the 2006 No Action Alternative are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Parking

Based upon the annual growth rate derived from the MTA’s RTFM, the total number of utilized off-street parking spaces projected in 2006 for facilities within a quarter-mile of the FSTC is estimated at 1,077. Assuming the available off-street parking supply remains constant at 1,455 spaces, this represents a 74 percent midday utilization rate and a surplus of 378 spaces. On-street parking levels are projected to be similar to 2003 conditions.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-29 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation ALTERNATIVE 9

Under this alternative, conditions in 2006 were developed by adding the FSTC construction vehicles to the 2006 conditions without the FSTC (see above). These conditions include traffic associated with anticipated background growth and construction traffic associated with the other Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects, as described for the No Action Alternative. The construction of the FSTC requires the closure of Dey Street to through traffic and parking between Church Street and Broadway, the closure of Fulton Street between Broadway and Nassau Street, and the closure of John Street between Broadway and Nassau Street. In addition, construction staging areas are proposed for the east side of Broadway between Fulton and John Streets, the north side of John Street between Broadway and Nassau Street and the east side of Church Street between Cortlandt and Fulton Streets. Traffic projected to use Dey, Fulton and John Streets was reassigned to alternate routes in the Study Area. It was assumed that southbound Broadway and northbound Church Street between Vesey and Cortlandt Streets would be limited to two (2) travel lanes in each direction with no parking lane or exclusive bus lane.

It is anticipated that most of the subsurface construction for the FSTC Project that would occur within the public ROW would be performed beneath a deck to permit pedestrian and limited vehicular traffic during normal business hours (cut-and-cover construction). Due to the requirements for pedestrian flow, it is anticipated that the Dey Street Passageway and AC mezzanine would utilize the full width of the street ROW. However, only a portion of the total ROW width would be used to maintain emergency access/local deliveries and sidewalks on the north side and south side of Fulton Street and Dey Street for building access/egress. The remaining ROW within the active construction area would be closed to above ground pedestrian and traffic flow. Except for curb loading and unloading for Century 21, no through traffic would be permitted on Fulton Street or Dey Street during the construction period. The location of work area would shift within the ROW as the construction operation proceeds, helping to accelerate construction. The MPT plans for vehicular and pedestrian traffic during construction would be subject to review and approval by the NYCDOT Office of Construction Mitigation and Coordination (NYCDOT - OCMC).

NYCT will address safety issues associated with vehicular circulation in 2006 by developing detailed MPT Plans in coordination with PANYNJ, LMDC, NYSDOT, NYCDOT and NYCDDC to minimize interruption of vehicular and pedestrian circulation. A key aspect of these efforts will be pedestrian safety. Measures to be considered during the development of the detailed MPT plans would include clear pedestrian signage system, physical demarcations and/or barriers for dedicated pedestrian zones, TEA to direct vehicular and pedestrian circulation, especially during peak hours, management of truck delivery schedules, both associated with construction activities and operation of existing businesses in the area and strict enforcement of parking rules to minimize crowding of narrower east-west streets. NYCT will require from its contractors that sheds be constructed over temporary sidewalks to ensure pedestrian safety.

Traffic

With regard to construction scheduling, a 16-hour work day (7:00 AM to 11:00 PM) would be used for the FSTC. The primary travel routes to be used by the FSTC construction vehicles would be Broadway and Church Street. These routes were selected in cooperation with NYCDOT and other agencies in order to minimize traffic conflicts with other Lower Manhattan projects. The construction vehicle haul routes proposed in Lower Manhattan for the FSTC are provided in Figure 6-7. A summary of these traffic volumes is provided in Appendix D. The daily peak construction vehicles projected for each of the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects (including FSTC) in 2006 in terms of total and percentage of heavy and light trucks is summarized in Table 6-13.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-30 G R AND ST BR B O EACH ST L N MO T IS ORE S S P T EN HO K AR W C D A I R S D T R T S S A T

V R HARR E ISON T ST X A W B A F LK RAN ER S HE KL I T S R IN TE E L S S T T T EO T T Legend S N S R A E R E N D V Y T I C O T R H A W A S O E M W Y Approximate Project D R B D T A E U H F R A S T Location S H H T A S O O L S T R M E BA B AS Y R AR S T D Proposed Truck Routes W T S DU N T Fulton Street Transit AN E WARREN ST E C R ST Center V T E S A A DE D H S P N T EL C L S I T Existing NYCDOTE MURRAY ST H W

T N Truck RoutesR E P E E R A R PARK PL L S T E

BRB

E OW V KR I PAR R C S A P L N R P B U O E C E E S DEY ST K S F LI M T R D BE ANN ST A A JAMES PLAC R N N U T K Y S F ST T O H V R A T S D T N T FULTON ST E CARSC S OVER ST H CARLISLE ST U T A U S T S O M S A S N A W H ID T T RECTOR ST C E S P H E AM R N D T E L S C S U L FF K S A O LI B T GREENWICH ST G C E S JOHN ST E L B ST K R PINE ST M O M B FLETCHER S A R O N I K D L L S G Y P W T E N A WILLIA Y LL R S E T T T E T T X S A CH B S A L NG R W E A PL E TER ST E P N T OOKLYN S T TUNNE T N EAVER ST O R BATTERYBATTERY PLPL THT ST I IVE STONE ST R L D S L ST I A P E

A D FDR DR

Pier 6

L S ,AR. PE Poten Fulton Street Transit Center Proposed Truck Routes, Fulton Street Transit Center 5000500Feet T U Source: NYC DoITT Landbase; NYC DCP Figure 6-7 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-13 2006 Daily Construction Vehicles

Heavy Light Heavy Light Total Lower Manhattan Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Recovery Projects (% of (% of (No.) (No.) Total) (No.) Total) WTC and Memorial 694 69.1 310 30.9 1,004 Permanent WTC PATH Terminal 173 72.7 65 27.3 238 Route 9A Reconstruction 304 93.3 22 6.7 326 South Ferry Terminal 150 60.5 98 39.5 248 FSTC 262 78.9 70 21.1 332 Total 1,583 73.7 565 26.3 2,148 Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

The same 26 intersections (two (2) unsignalized and 24 signalized) in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC were analyzed for daily peak operating conditions using the Synchro software package. The projected 2006 traffic volumes and the same geometry assumed for the 2006 No Action Alternative were used in the analysis. The detailed output is summarized in Appendix D and the LOS analysis summary is presented in Table 6-14.

The 24 signalized intersections were analyzed for the 2006 Build condition for the AM and PM peak hours. For the AM peak hour, 17 of the 64 intersection approaches (26.6 percent) are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F. For the PM peak hour, nine (9) of the 64 intersection approaches (14.0 percent) are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F. A list of intersections and movements that are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, or both has been provided below. The intersections not listed are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 6-14 2006 Construction Condition Signalized Intersection Approach LOS Summary

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Results Total Approaches % Total Approaches % A 3 4.7 5 7.8 B 14 21.9 16 25.0 C 24 37.5 29 45.3 D 6 9.4 5 7.8 E 5 7.8 2 3.1 F 12 18.8 7 10.9 Total Approaches* 64 100.0 64 100.0 * Note: The number of approaches varies based upon roadway configurations and conditions for the various analysis years and periods. Percentages are rounded. Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Location #1: Chambers Street and West Street/Route 9A The eastbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The westbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound through/right movement on West Street/Route 9A is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-32 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Location #3: Chambers and Church Streets The eastbound left/through movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #5: Church Street and Barclay Street The northbound left/through movement on Church Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour.

Location #11: Broadway and Vesey Street/Park Row The southbound left-turn movement on Broadway is projected to operate at LOS E and the southbound through movement is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall southbound approach is projected to operate at LOS F. The southbound left-turn movement on Broadway is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, while the overall southbound approach (including the through movement) is projected to operate at LOS E.

Location #19: Water and Fulton Streets The northbound left/through movement on Water Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #21: Water and Broad Streets The northbound left/through/right movement on Water Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-33 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Location #22: South Street and Old Slip The westbound right-turn movement on Old Slip is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall eastbound approach (including the through movement) is also projected to operate at LOS F.

Location #23: Water Street and Old Slip The northbound left/through/right movement on Water Street is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour.

Unsignalized Intersections

The two (2) unsignalized intersections analyzed for the 2006 No Action Alternative are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE

Traffic

The criteria presented in Section 6A.3.3 were used to determine traffic impacts in the Study Area in 2006. The future No Action Alternative for the AM and PM peak hours was compared to the future 2006 Build condition to determine the impact of the FSTC-generated construction traffic. As a result of construction activity projected for 2006, none of the intersections in the study area are forecast to experience an impact. Delay increases are relatively minor and all are within the tolerance of 10 seconds.

Parking

All of the roadway and lane closures proposed as part of the FSTC construction activities would remove curb loading and unloading from the Study Area. Since no on-street parking spaces for vehicles would be lost as a result of these curb closures, no impacts are anticipated for the off-street parking facilities. The closure of Dey Street for construction of the Dey Street Passageway between Church Street and Broadway to through vehicles could affect truck access to Century 21 and other businesses. A portion of the total ROW width on Dey Street would be used to maintain emergency access and destination deliveries. Alternative loading areas could also be established on the west side of Broadway or the north side of Cortlandt Street during construction. Access to Dey Street could also be provided at the extreme east or west end of Dey Street during the various stages of construction. The closure of Fulton Street between Broadway and Nassau Street would also disrupt truck access to the local businesses. A portion of the total ROW width on Fulton Street would be used to maintain emergency access/local deliveries. Access to Fulton Street could also be provided at the east or west end of this block during the various stages of construction. The construction of the FSTC would eliminate most of the ground floor retail fronting on the east side of Broadway between Fulton and John Streets, limiting the need for truck access. The curb activities conducted on the east side of Church Street between Cortlandt and Fulton Streets could be relocated to adjacent curb locations. The curb activity projected during construction in 2006 is depicted on Figure 6-8.

ALTERNATIVE 10 - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The construction conditions for the Preferred Alternative, as they relate to traffic and parking, are essentially identical to Alternative 9. As described in Chapter 4: Construction Methods and Alternatives, differences in construction process, methods and schedule between Alternative 9 and the Preferred Alternative relate to differences in treatment of the Corbin Building during construction. They would not result in material differences for the purposes of the traffic and parking analyses. All analyses and results for Alternative 9, as discussed above, therefore also apply to the Preferred Alternative. The one difference is that the curb activities conducted on the north side of John Street between Broadway and Nassau Street could be relocated to adjacent curb locations as a result of the Preferred Alternative.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-34 .

. t . t

Vesey St. S S .

a m St Church St Broadway

s a i d s l ll 1 2 3 i a P 12 o

19 20 N 5 13 11 11 5 W 11 G Fulton St. P PPP

5 17 11 9 10 8 6 15 11 12 14 14 8 12

. 1 2 3 13

14 8 13 St 5

11 23 1 5 WTC 7 5 12 h

c 21 22

Dey St. 13 1

u 6

P D 18 5 19 20 23 P 1 1 2 3 6 11

23 Jo hn S Cortland St. t. Ma iden Ln. 23 7 1 2 3 P

Liberty St.

Code Parking Regulation 1 No Permit Zone; No Standing Saturday & Sunday No Standing 2 7:00 AM- 10:00 AM; 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM No Standing except Truck Loading & Unloading 3 10:00 AM- 4:00 PM Mondayto Friday 5 No Standing Anytime Buses only 6 7:00 AM- 10:00 AM; 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM Mondayto Friday Bus Lane; Buses only 7 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM; Mondayto Friday No Standing except Truck Loading & Unloading 8 7:00 AM- 7:00 PM Mondayto Friday Legend 9 No Standing Anytime Taxi Stand 10 No Standing Hotel Loading Zone 11 No Standing from 7:00 AMto 7:00 PM No Standing 11:00 AMto 2:00 PM 12 Project Site - At Grade Mondayto Friday No Standing except Truck Loading & Unloading (Proposed Entry Facility/ Dey St. Access Building) 13 7:00 AM- 11:00 AM; 2:00 PM - 7:00 PM Mondayto Friday ,. 14 No Standing Hotel Loading Zone P On-Street Parking Blue Zone No Parking 15 7:00 AM- 7:00 PM Mondayto Friday N 16 No Parking Anytime Lane/Roadway Closures Fulton Street Transit Center Pedestrian St. No Motor Veh. 17 11:00 AMto 2:00 PM Mondayto Friday E No Standing except Loading & Unloading 18 7:00 AM- 7:00 PM Mondayto Friday Bus Lane On-Street Parking 2006 19 Bus Layover Zone 20 No Standing except Authorized Vehicles NYC only W 21 No Standing 10:00 AM- 6:00 PM Including Sunday Parking Regulations 22 No Standing except Truck Loading & Unloading Figure 6-8 23 Bus Stop S MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 6A.6.4 ANALYSIS YEAR 2008 (INITIAL OPERATIONAL YEAR)

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Traffic volumes within the Study Area were developed for the 2008 No Action Alternative during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. To develop the No Action Alternative traffic volumes, the 2003 Existing Condition traffic volumes were increased using a growth rate of 1.138 percent per year (5.69 percent from 2003 to 2008). This rate is based on the annual growth rate derived from the MTA’s RTFM based upon regional demographic forecasts. This rate includes all planned and committed developments through 2008 as part of the background growth for Lower Manhattan. The 2008 No Action traffic flow volumes developed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are presented in Appendix D.

Traffic

The same 26 intersections (two (2) unsignalized and 24 signalized) in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC were analyzed for daily peak operating conditions using the Synchro software package. The projected 2008 traffic volumes and the same geometry assumed for the 2006 No Action existing conditions were used in the analysis. The detailed output is summarized in Appendix D and the LOS analysis summary is presented in Table 6-15.

The 24 signalized intersections in the Study Area were analyzed for the 2008 No Action Alternative during the AM and PM peak hours. For the AM peak hour, thirteen (13) of the 66 intersection approaches (19.7 percent) are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F. For the PM peak hour, four (4) of the 66 intersection approaches (six (6) percent) are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F. A list of intersections and movements that are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, or both are provided below. The intersections not listed are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 6-15 2008 No Action Alternative Signalized Intersection Approach LOS Summary

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Results Total Approaches % Total Approaches % A 4 6.1 5 7.6 B 23 34.8 22 33.3 C 23 34.8 31 47.0 D 3 4.5 4 6.1 E 6 9.1 1 1.5 F 7 10.6 3 4.5 Total Approaches 66 100.0 66 100.0 * Note: The number of approaches varies based upon roadway configurations and conditions for the various analysis years and periods. Percentages are rounded Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Location #1: Chambers Street and West Street/Route 9A The eastbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The westbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound through/right movement on West Street/Route 9A is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour.

Location #3: Chambers and Church Streets The eastbound left/through movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-36 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Location #4: Chambers Street and Broadway The westbound left-turn movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall westbound approach (including the through movement) is projected to operate at LOS E.

Location #10: Broadway and Barclay Street Both the westbound left-turn and left/through movements and the overall westbound approach on Barclay Street are projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour.

Location #11: Broadway and Vesey Street/Park Row The southbound through movement on Broadway is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall southbound approach (including the left-turn movement) is projected to operate at LOS E.

Location #16: Pearl and Robert Wagner Streets The eastbound left/through/right movement on Robert Wagner Street is projected to operate at LOS F, during both the AM and PM peak hours. The westbound left-turn movement on Robert Wagner Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour and at LOS E during the PM peak hour, while the overall westbound approach (including the through/right movement) is projected to operate at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound left/through movement on Pearl Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall northbound approach (including the right-turn movement) is projected to operate at LOS E. The southbound left-turn movement on Pearl Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour, while the overall southbound approach (including the right-turn movement) is projected to operate at LOS D.

Location #19: Water and Fulton Streets The northbound left/through movement on Water Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour.

Location #22: South Street and Old Slip The westbound right movement and the overall westbound approach on Old Slip are projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour.

Unsignalized Intersections

The two (2) unsignalized intersections analyzed for the 2008 No Action Alternative are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Parking

The off-street facilities in the vicinity of the FSTC site are projected to have sufficient capacity in 2008 to accommodate background growth in the Study Area. On-street parking levels are projected to be similar to 2003 conditions.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-37 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation ALTERNATIVE 9

Construction of Alternative 9 would be completed by 2008 and the alternative would have been in operation for its first full year in 2008. Minimal to no vehicular traffic is projected to be generated by Alternative 9 in 2008 and the alternative would therefore not create adverse impacts on traffic or parking conditions in 2008. Therefore, the intersection LOS for Alternative 9 in 2008 would be the same as the 2008 No Action Alternative.

In 2008, a portion of the pedestrians currently traversing Broadway and Church Street would be expected to use the Dey Street Passageway. As the amount of pedestrian traffic crossing these streets will be reduced, relative to the 2008 No Action Alternative, circulation conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic are less likely to occur, especially during peak hours. Although this benefit would be marginal and not directly measurable, it would be expected to contribute to a better flow of vehicular traffic and pedestrian safety, including construction traffic associated with the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects still under construction in 2008.

ALTERNATIVE 10 - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would also be completed by 2007 and the alternative would have been in operation for its first full year in 2008. As was the case with Alternative 9, there would be no adverse impacts on traffic or parking conditions in 2008. In addition, the reduction in the number of pedestrians crossing Broadway and Church Street would be similar to Alternative 9 and would be expected to contribute to a better flow of vehicular traffic and pedestrian safety, including construction traffic associated with the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects still under construction in 2008.

6A.6.5 ANALYSIS YEAR 2025 (FULL OPERATIONAL YEAR)

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Traffic volumes within the Study Area were developed for the 2025 No Action Alternative during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. To develop the No Action Alternative traffic volumes, the pre- September 11 Reference Condition traffic volumes were increased using a growth rate of 0.406 percent per year (10.15 percent from 2000 to 2025). This rate is based on the annual growth rate derived from the MTA’s RTFM based upon NYMTC regional demographic forecasts. This rate includes all planned and committed developments through 2025 as part of the background growth for Lower Manhattan. The 2025 No Action traffic flow volumes developed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours are presented in Appendix D.

Traffic

The same 26 intersections (two (2) unsignalized and 24 signalized) in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC were analyzed for daily peak operating conditions using the Synchro software package using the traffic volumes, pedestrian crosswalk volumes, signal timing, intersection geometry (lane utilization, lane widths, parking regulations, etc.), and other pertinent information for each intersection representing 2001 conditions. The detailed output is summarized in Appendix D and the LOS analysis summary is presented in Table 6-16.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-38 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-16 2025 No Action Alternative Signalized Intersection Approach LOS Summary

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Results Total Approaches % Total Approaches % A 2 3.0 5 7.6 B 22 33.3 19 28.8 C 22 33.3 25 37.9 D 8 12.1 4 6.1 E 4 6.1 2 3.0 F 8 12.1 11 16.7 Total Approaches 66 100.0 66 100.0 * Note: The number of approaches varies based upon roadway configurations and conditions for the various analysis years and periods. Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

The 24 signalized intersections were analyzed for the 2025 condition for the AM and PM peak hours. For the AM peak hour, 12 of the 66 intersection approaches (18.2 percent) are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F. For the PM peak hour, 13 of the 66 intersection approaches (19.7 percent) are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F. A list of intersections and movements that are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, or both has been provided below. The intersections not listed are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #1: Chambers Street and West Street/Route 9A The eastbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The westbound left/through/right movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The westbound left/through and right-turn movements on Chambers Streets are projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The northbound through/right movement on West Street/Route 9A is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #3: Chambers and Church Streets The eastbound left/through movement on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #4: Chambers Street and Broadway The westbound through movement and the overall westbound approach on Chambers Street is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. The westbound left-turn movement and the overall westbound approach on Chambers Street are projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour.

Location #10: Broadway and Barclay Street The westbound left-turn and left/through movements on Barclay Street are projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. The westbound left-turn and left/through movements on Barclay Street are projected to operate at LOS E and F, respectively, during the PM peak hour.

Location #11: Broadway and Vesey Street/Park Row The eastbound left-turn and left/through/right movements on Vesey Street are projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #16: Pearl and Robert Wagner Streets The eastbound left/through/right movement on Robert Wagner Street is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. The eastbound left/through/right movement on Robert Wagner Street is

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-39 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The westbound left-turn movement on Robert Wagner Street is projected to operate at LOS F, while the overall westbound approach (including the through/right movement) is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The southbound left-turn movement on Pearl Street is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The overall southbound approach (including the right movement) is projected to operate at LOS D and LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

Location #17: Pearl and Frankfort/Dover Streets The eastbound left-turn movement on Frankfort/Dover Streets is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours, while the overall eastbound approach (including the through/right movement) is projected to operate at LOS E. The northbound left/through movement is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, while the overall northbound approach (including the left-turn movement) is projected to operate at LOS F.

Location #19: Water and Fulton Streets The northbound left/through movement on Water Street is projected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Location #21: Water and Broad Street The eastbound left-turn movement on Broad Street is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour, while the overall eastbound approach (including the through/right and left/through/right movements) is projected to operate at LOS D.

Location #24: Battery Place and Broadway/State Street The northbound left-turn movement on Battery Place is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hours.

Unsignalized Intersections

The two (2) unsignalized intersections analyzed for the 2025 No Action Alternative are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

Parking

The off-street facilities in the vicinity of the FSTC site are projected to have sufficient capacity in 2025 to accommodate limited background growth in the Study Area. As part of the environmental review process, individual traffic generating projects (like the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan) would need to address parking demand at facilities located either on or off-site. It is anticipated that on-street parking activity in the vicinity of the FSTC site will increase from current conditions as Lower Manhattan recovers. However, since no on-street parking is currently permitted adjacent to the Existing Complex, no adverse impacts on parking conditions are anticipated to be caused by either FSTC Build Alternative.

ALTERNATIVE 9

By 2025, Alternative 9 would have been in operation for almost two (2) decades. Alternative 9 would generate minimal to no traffic in 2025 relative to the 2025 No Action Alternative and, therefore, it would not create adverse impacts on traffic or parking conditions in 2025. Thus, the intersection LOS for Alternative 9 in 2025 would be the same as for the No Action Alternative in 2025.

In 2025, the redevelopment west of Church Street in accordance with the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan would have been in place for several years and the FSTC would be expected to operate with full patronage. A portion of the pedestrians traversing Broadway and Church Street would be expected to use the Dey Street Passageway. As the amount of pedestrian traffic crossing these streets will be reduced, relative to the 2025 No Action Alternative, circulation conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic would be less likely to occur, especially during peak hours. Although this benefit would

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-40 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation be marginal and not directly measurable, it would contribute to a better flow of vehicular traffic and improved pedestrian safety.

ALTERNATIVE 10 - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

By 2025, the FSTC under the Preferred Alternative would also be in operation for almost two (2) decades. As is the case with Alternative 9, there would be no adverse impacts on traffic or parking conditions in 2025. In addition, the reduction in the number of pedestrians crossing Broadway and Church Street would be similar to Alternative 9 and would contribute to a better flow of vehicular traffic and pedestrian safety in 2025.

6A.7 SUMMARY OF ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

In order to manage traffic and minimize the impact on vehicular flows during the construction of the NYCT improvements, MPT plans would be developed for this project in coordination with NYCDOT. These plans would be coordinated with the plans developed by LMDC for the Memorial and Redevelopment of the WTC Site and the PANYNJ for the Permanent WTC PATH Terminal. The NYCDDC street reconstruction projects and the NYSDOT Route 9A Reconstruction south of Chambers Street will also have a direct effect on the traffic volumes and traffic patterns. NYCDOT approvals for vehicular travel lane and sidewalk closures will take into account all of the construction projects that will be occurring simultaneously in Lower Manhattan.

Since the traffic analysis was conducted, the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects participating in the Lower Manhattan Construction Coordination Group have continued to coordinate their refined construction schedules. As a result of this process, the extent of overlap of construction activities is being reduced from that originally assumed for the analysis, when few details on the projects’ design were available and highly conservative assumptions had to be made to account for uncertainty. MTA NYCT will continue this construction coordination process during actual construction to avoid logistical interference.

Based upon the comparison of the traffic analysis results for the No Action (which includes all planned and committed developments) and Build conditions in 2006, none of the intersections studied is projected to be impacted. However, since the exclusive bus lane would be lost to construction on Broadway and Church Street in the area of construction, buses would temporarily use the general-use lanes in this area. The FSTC would not include traffic generating land uses (e.g. residential or commercial land use), nor would it induce such land uses. Since minimal to no vehicular traffic is projected to be generated by Alternative 9 or the Preferred Alternative in 2008 or 2025, no adverse impacts on traffic or parking conditions are anticipated.

Since there would be no adverse impacts on traffic or parking, no mitigation measures would be required.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-41 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

SUB-CHAPTER 6B: TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIANS 6B.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the potential transit and pedestrian impacts of the FSTC alternatives. The 2003 existing and the pre-September 11 Reference Conditions were included as baseline conditions. Three (3) future years were analyzed: 2005/2006 was analyzed to assess short-term construction effects; 2008 was analyzed to assess the effects of the FSTC during its initial full year of operation; and 2025 was analyzed to assess the long-term operational effects. Analyses were performed for: the No Action Alternative; Alternative 9 and the Preferred Alternative. The reopening of the temporary WTC PATH station in November 2003 was not included in the 2003 existing conditions analysis since ridership levels have not stabilized due to the short time the station has been open and the holiday season. However, the projected PATH pedestrian activity in the Study Area was incorporated into the 2006, 2008 and 2025 analyses. The analyses were performed for transit operations, for pedestrian movements at crosswalk locations and walkways in close proximity to the FSTC and for subway elements including stairways, escalators, turnstiles and High Entrance/Exit Turnstiles (HEETs).

Sidewalks on Dey, Fulton, and John Streets are narrow, as they reflect the old street patterns in Lower Manhattan, causing pedestrians to spill over into the street itself, resulting in potential conflicts and safety issues with vehicular traffic and deliveries to stores. Street space available to pedestrians is further limited by both legally and illegally parked vehicles, which sometimes park partially on the sidewalk. These conditions are of greater concern to pedestrians with wheelchairs or strollers as well as pedestrians that are less mobile or agile overall. Current construction activity in the vicinity of the project site, including 7 WTC, a new residential tower at Maiden Lane and William Street and NYCDOT’s Lower Manhattan Street Reconstruction along William Street, does not directly affect pedestrian safety conditions near the project site.

6B.2 STUDY AREA

The Study Area for the analysis of transit and pedestrians comprises the area of the FSTC (see Chapter 1: Purpose and Need) and the surrounding area of Lower Manhattan from the Hudson River to the East River. The northern limit of the Study Area is Chambers Street. The following subway stations were analyzed in the Study Area and are presented in Figure 6-9.

1. 23 Fulton Street Station; 2. AC Broadway-Nassau Station; 3. JMZ Fulton Street Station; 4. 45 Fulton Street Station; 1 5. RWTP PT Cortlandt Street Station; and, 6. E WTC Station.

The following pedestrian crosswalk analysis locations are presented in Figure 6-10.

1. Church and Vesey Streets; 2. Church and Fulton Streets; 3. Church and Dey Streets; 4. Church and Cortlandt Streets; 5. Church and Liberty Streets;

1 TP PT Prior to the reopening of the Manhattan Bridge in February 2004, this station was served by the N train instead of the W train. This service change should not substantially change boardings and alightings at this station. Similarly, the overall results of the analysis presented should not be affected by this service change.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-42 ORE S S P T EN HO K AR W C D A I ST RD R S A T

V HARRI SON ST W A F LK RA ER N W S KL HI T R IN TE E S S T T T R E V I C T R H Y L LegendLegend A S E M A O B N E N Route 9A R W T AR S O D H D Subway Station S A O W T S M S B O O T A Location D A R Y R S T A U S H R B T S D H T W WARREN ST

T V D S U A AN H E T D MURRAY ST S S N C T I E E RE W R H AD T T N E N E S R T E P O E C E R A N R G PARK PL L S T

BARCLAYBA ST T S E T W S O K R E PAR W ' FU LT E O S N A P ST N R N B U S C D T E RW EY E E S K S F T JMZ M T R LIBERTY ST AC A A N N 45 K S F T O ST JAMES PLAC V 23 R A T S D T N T E CARLISLE ST S U H A T S U S M O A A S N REC CEDAR ST ID T W E S P TOR S P N D T E TH IN L S C A E L FF K M T A O LI B E S G E S S GREENWICH ST W T C S A JOHN ST E L T L K L T M S S FLETCHER ST A T N M F L IA U S P L L T CHURCH ST L T Y I O R W N E S T T T T EX S A T CH L B S AN R BROADWAY GE A W P E E L P N WATER ST T S T BROOKLYN N BATTERY TUNNEL O BEAVER ST R F

WHITEHALL ST R BATTERY PL E SOUTH ST STONE ST OLD SLIP

STATE ST

B R ,. O

D FDR DR S Fulton Street Transit Center T Subway Station Locations 500 0 500 Feet Figure 6-9 Source: NYC DoITT Landbase; NYC DCP ORE S S P T EN HO K AR W C D A I ST RD R S A T

V HARRI SON ST W A F LK RA ER N W S KL HI T R IN TE E S S Legend T T T R E ApproximateV I C T ProjectR Location H Y L Legend A S E M A O B N E N Route 9A R W T AR S O D H D Traffic Study Area S A O W T S M S B O O T A D A R Y R S T A U S H R B T S D Pedestrian Crosswalk H T W Analysis Location WARREN ST

T V D S U A AN H E T D MURRAY ST S S N C T I E E RE W R H AD T T N E N E S R T E P O E C E R A N R G PARK PL L S T

BARCLAY ST T

S T 5 W S O K R E PAR W 4 7 ' E S 6 P 3 A R N B U D N E C E 8 S E Y T E S K S F 2 T M T R LIBERTY ST A A N N 9 12 K S F T O ST JAMES PLAC V 1 R A T 10 S D 13 F T N UL E CARLISLE ST T ON H 11 S T T U CEDAR ST M O A S REC ID T W E S P TOR S P N T E T I T D S C H N S L F A T E L F K M U A O LI B E S G E S S GREENWICH ST W T A C S A S JOHN ST E L T L S K L A T M S N S FLETCHER ST A T N M F L IA U S P L L T CHURCH ST L T Y I O R W N E S T T T T EX S A T CH L B S AN R BROADWAY GE A W P E E L P N WATER ST T S T BROOKLYN N BATTERY TUNNEL O BEAVER ST R F

WHITEHALL ST R BATTERY PL E SOUTH ST STONE ST OLD SLIP

STATE ST

D FDR DR S T ,.

Fulton Street Transit Center Pedestrian Crosswalk 500 0 500 Analysis Locations Feet Source: NYC DoITT Landbase; NYC DCP Figure 6-10 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 6. Broadway and John/Dey Streets; 7. Broadway and Ann Street; 8. Park Row and Ann Street; 9. Broadway and Fulton Street; 10. Broadway and Cortlandt Street/Maiden Lane; 11. Broadway and Liberty Street; 12. Nassau and Fulton Streets; and, 13. Nassau and John Streets.

The corner and sidewalk locations closest to the proposed FSTC site were analyzed to determine if the construction or the operation of the FSTC would affect their operation. The corner locations analyzed include the northeast corner of the Broadway and John Street intersection and the southeast corner of the Broadway and Fulton Street intersection. The sidewalk locations analyzed include the north side of John Street between Broadway and Nassau Street, the east side of Broadway between John and Fulton Streets and the south side of Fulton Street between Broadway and Nassau Street.

6B.3 METHODOLOGY

Data for the pre-September 11 Reference Condition were collected from previous studies and data to characterize existing conditions were collected in 2003. The methods for collecting data are presented in Section 6B.3.1. The detailed quantitative methodologies for transit analyses are presented in Section 6B.3.2. Quantitative analyses were performed for transit facilities, shown in Section 6B.3.3 and were based upon the NYCT’s Station Planning and Design Guidelines. The analyses conducted for surface pedestrians (see Section 6B.3.4) were performed using the analytical procedures described in the HCM; Special Report 209, 3rd Edition, 1994. Section 6B.3.5 includes a discussion of the criteria used to determine impacts in 2006, 2008 and 2025. The impact criteria for transit analyses are based on NYCT’s Loading Guidelines and Station Planning and Design Guidelines.

6B.3.1 DATA COLLECTION

SUBWAYS

Pedestrian counts at all station elements in the Existing Complex (23 Fulton Street, AC Broadway- Nassau, JMZ Fulton Street, 45 Fulton Street), WTC E Terminal and RW Cortlandt Street Station were conducted during the AM and PM peak periods in the spring of 2003 on a mid-week day (i.e., Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) during the morning (7:30 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:30 to 6:00 PM) peak periods. These counts were summarized into 15-minute intervals during each peak period. Measurements were taken at all of these elements and the effective widths of the elements were calculated. NYCT Operations Planning collected subway boarding, alighting, on board passenger data and service frequencies for the subway lines serving Lower Manhattan during the AM peak hour in the Spring of 2003.

Counts of all station elements in the Existing Complex, WTC E Terminal and RW Cortlandt Street Station were derived for the AM and PM peak periods in the spring of 2001 based upon turnstile registration data provided by NYCT Operations Planning. Dimensions of all of these elements in 2003 were the same as those in 2001 except for the new RW Cortlandt Street Station stairs constructed on the west side of Church Street. The widths of elements that were destroyed or closed were scaled from the as-built plans of the subway stations provided by NYCT. Historical subway boarding, alighting, on board passenger data and service frequencies were provided by NYCT Operations Planning for the subway lines serving Lower Manhattan during the AM peak hour in the Spring of 2001.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-45 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation PEDESTRIANS

Pedestrian counts were conducted in the spring of 2003 at all major crosswalk locations in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC on a mid-week day (Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday) during the morning (7:00 to 10:00 AM), midday (11:00 AM to 2:00 PM) and afternoon (3:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods. These counts were summarized into 15-minute intervals during each peak period. For the pre-September 11 Reference Condition, data were provided for the major crosswalk locations from the PANYNJ. For locations where pre-September 11 data counts were not available, the 2003 count data was adjusted to reflect the higher pedestrian activity levels in 2001 using land use data.

6B.3.2 SUBWAY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The analysis of subway line haul in the Study Area considers the number of persons traveling past a fixed point on a subway line in a given direction during the peak hour. The line haul ridership levels at the fixed point are then compared with the subway line’s hourly capacity. The line haul capacity of a subway line is calculated by multiplying the number of scheduled peak hour trains by NYCT’s per-car guideline capacity for trains used on that line. There are three (3) different sizes of subway cars used throughout the NYCT subway system: 51-foot cars used on Subdivision A (numbered routes, plus the 42nd Street Shuttle) and 60-foot or 75-foot cars on Subdivision B (lettered routes). The practical capacity of these cars is 110 (for 51-foot cars), 145 (for 60-foot cars) or 175 (for 75-foot cars) persons per subway car, including both seated and standing passengers. Once the capacity is reached, boarding and alighting becomes difficult and movement through the train is severely limited.

Subway line haul analysis was conducted only for the AM period since travel during the AM peak period is more concentrated than the PM peak period. PM peak hour subway ridership is generally 85 percent that of the AM peak hour ridership (NYCT, 2003).

6B.3.3 STATION ELEMENT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Detailed subway pedestrian analyses were conducted for all subway elements in the Study Area using the analytical procedures consistent with NYCT capacity guidelines, which are based on the peak 15-minute period volumes. The results are organized into LOS measures, which define the flow of pedestrians and the level of congestion. Pedestrian LOS looks at the relative ease with which pedestrian movements are made and how much space is available to make them. Pedestrian LOS ranges from A (lowest level of congestion) to F (highest level of congestion). For subway stairways, LOS A is characterized by unrestricted flow while pedestrian flow is slightly restricted for LOS B. At LOS C, pedestrian movement is somewhat restricted but with a fluid rate of speed. Walking speeds are reduced and reverse flows and cross flows are severely restricted at LOS D. For LOS E, walking speed is restricted, there is insufficient room to pass and counter-flow movements are difficult. LOS F is characterized by severe congestion with limited pedestrian flow, starting and stopping of movement and the formation of queues.

LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODS FOR STAIRWAYS, CORRIDORS AND RAMPS

The LOS for stairways, corridors and ramps was evaluated based on the ratio of the observed volume to the standard. The breakpoint between LOS C and LOS D at a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of 1.00 has been established by NYCT as the minimum acceptable standard for pedestrian conditions. Therefore, LOS C/D is used to determine the design capacity of the critical stairway, corridor and ramp locations in a station during each peak 15-minute period. The processing of pedestrians at LOS C/D for facilities such as stairways, corridors and ramps is reduced by zero (0) to 20 percent based upon opposing flow volumes. This accounts for the “friction” of pedestrians traveling in both directions. In accordance with NYCT guidelines, the capacity of the stairways, corridors and ramps was further reduced by 25 percent to account for peaking or surging within the 15-minute period. The LOS criteria for pedestrian stairways, corridors and ramps are defined in Table 6-17.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-46 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-17 LOS Criteria for Stairways, Corridors, and Ramp

Volume/Service Volume LOS between LOS C and LOS D A < 0.45 B > 0.45 to < 0.70 C > 0.70 to < 1.00 D > 1.00 to < 1.33 E > 1.33 to < 1.67 F > 1.67 Source: NYC Transit, 2003.

LOS ANALYSIS METHODS FOR ESCALATORS AND TURNSTILES

The capacity of an escalator is based upon the incline speed and the size of the steps. According to Pedestrian Planning and Design (John J. Fruin, 2002), for example, an escalator with a width at the hips of 32 inches, width at the treads of 24 inches and an incline speed of 90 feet per minute (68 steps per minute) has a maximum theoretical capacity of approximately 5,000 persons per hour. However, the nominal capacity of an escalator is actually less when unused space on each step, arrival patterns and boarding characteristics are factored in. As a result, the nominal capacity of the same escalator, based upon a rate of one (1) person for every other step, is 34 persons per minute. This equates to a nominal capacity of approximately 2,040 persons per hour or 510 persons per 15 minutes. NYCT guidelines require that this capacity be further reduced by 25 percent to account for peaking within the 15-minute period. According to NYCT criteria, the LOS criteria have been developed based upon the 15-minute v/c ratios and summarized in Table 6-18.

According to the NYCT design guidelines, the theoretical capacity of a regular hip-height turnstile is 30 persons per minute for entries, 40 persons per minute for exits and 32 persons per minute for combined entries and exits. A HEET is a tall revolving gate that permits entrance flows with a MetroCard and does not restrict exit flows. The theoretical capacity of a HEET is 20 persons per minute. These LOS thresholds for turnstiles and HEETs are the same as for escalators and can be found in Table 6-18.

Table 6-18 LOS Criteria for Escalators and Turnstiles

LOS Volume/Capacity Ratio A < 0.20 B > 0.20 to < 0.40 C > 0.40 to < 0.60 D > 0.60 to < 0.80 E > 0.80 to < 1.00 F > 1.00 Source: NYC Transit, 2003.

6B.3.4 SURFACE PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

LOS ANALYSIS METHODS FOR CROSSWALKS AND CORNERS

The capacity of a crosswalk or corner is evaluated in terms of speed, density, space and flow. LOS is evaluated on the basis of square feet per pedestrian. The calculation of pedestrian flow for crosswalks is based upon the maximum surge, which represents the worst-case pedestrian flow. The maximum surge is defined as the point where the maximum numbers of pedestrians are in the crosswalk. This generally

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-47 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation occurs shortly after the green/walk phase of a crosswalk begins. The number of opposing left-turn and right-turn vehicles were incorporated into the crosswalk analysis.

LOS between A and D reflects acceptable operating conditions, while LOS E and F represent undesirable operating conditions. Under LOS F conditions, pedestrian flow is sporadic and unstable, resulting in unavoidable contact among pedestrians. The peak 15-minute period volume is used to perform all surface pedestrian analyses. The LOS criteria for crosswalks and corners, as defined in the HCM, are presented in Table 6-19.

Table 6-19 LOS Criteria for Crosswalks/Corners

LOS Square Feet/Pedestrian A > 130 B < 130 to > 40 C < 40 to > 24 D < 24 to > 15 E < 15 to > 6 F < 6 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM); Special Report 209, 3rd Edition, 1994.

LOS ANALYSIS METHODS FOR SIDEWALKS/WALKWAYS

The LOS of sidewalks and walkways is based upon the calculation of the average number of pedestrians per minute per foot of effective walkway width. However, walkways are directly influenced by other elements of the transportation network. To more accurately estimate the dynamics of walking, a platoon factor is applied in the calculation of pedestrian flow. This reflects the tendency of pedestrians to move in congregated groups (platoons) and generally results in an LOS one (1) level lower than average flow rates. A comfortable walking experience usually occurs at LOS C/D or better. At LOS D, individual walking speeds and the ability to pass other pedestrians may be restricted. At LOS E, individual walking speeds become a function of the pedestrian platoon and often result in flow interruptions. Severe restriction and unavoidable contact with other pedestrians is typical of LOS F conditions. A summary of the LOS criteria is presented in Table 6-20.

Table 6-20 LOS Criteria for Sidewalks/Walkways

Space Flow Rate LOS (Square Feet/Pedestrian) (Pedestrians/Minute/Foot) A > 130 > 2 B > 40 > 7 C > 24 > 10 D > 15 > 15 E > 6 > 25 F < 6 < 25 Source: Highway Capacity Manual; Special Report 209, 3rd Edition, 1994.

6B.3.5 IMPACT CRITERIA

NYCT’s Loading Guidelines and Station Planning and Design Guidelines were used as a guide to determine transit impacts in the Study Area in 2006, 2008 and 2025. Future No Action Alternatives without the FSTC alternatives are compared with future build conditions with each of the FSTC Build Alternatives. The criteria used to determine impacts for each type of analysis are presented in the following section. October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-48 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation IMPACT CRITERIA FOR SUBWAYS

The projected increase in AM peak hour ridership on a per-car basis is compared to passenger volumes at a fixed point for analysis of a subway line. As previously noted, NYCT’s Loading Guidelines identify the capacity of each subway car type. An impact occurs when ridership is projected to exceed 95 percent of the guideline capacity. The use of 95 percent of guideline capacity provides a cushion to account for uneven loading on trains, or other variations in ridership or passenger counts.

IMPACT CRITERIA FOR STATION ELEMENTS

Impact Criteria for Stairways

For stairways, impacts are determined in terms of the width increment threshold (stairway widening) needed to restore the future LOS with the Proposed Action to the future No Action Alternative. Impacts are identified for a location if it is projected to operate at LOS D, E or F in the future No Action Alternative and requires a widening of six (6), three (3) or one (1) inches, respectively, to return the future conditions with the Proposed Action to the future No Action Alternative.

Impact Criteria for Corridors and Ramps

For corridors and passageways, impacts are identified if a location is projected to operate at LOS D, E or F in the future No Action Alternative and requires a widening of 12, six (6) or three (3) inches or more, respectively, to return the future conditions with the Proposed Action to the future No Action Alternative.

Impact Criteria for Escalators and Turnstiles

Proposed actions that cause the v/c ratio to increase from below 1.00 in the projected future condition without the Proposed Action to a v/c ratio of 1.00 or greater in the projected future condition with the Proposed Action would be considered an impact. When a facility operates above a v/c of 1.00, an increase of 0.01 would be considered an impact.

IMPACT CRITERIA FOR SURFACE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

Impact Criteria for Crosswalks/Corners

The threshold for determining impacts to crosswalks and corners in Lower Manhattan is associated with a minimum average occupancy of 15 square feet per pedestrian (the breakpoint between LOS D and E). Crosswalks or corners that have a projected future without the Proposed Action with an average occupancy above 15 square feet per pedestrian (LOS A through D) may be impacted if the pedestrian area occupancy falls to 14 square feet per pedestrian or lower as a result of the Proposed Action. Crosswalks or corners that have a projected future without the Proposed Action average occupancy below 15 square feet per pedestrian (LOS E or F) may be impacted if the pedestrian area occupancy falls by one (1) square foot per pedestrian or more as a result of the Proposed Action. The maximum surge conditions were used in the analysis of crosswalks.

Impact Criteria for Sidewalks/Walkways

For sidewalk and walkway locations within Lower Manhattan, an impact may take place if an increase in the pedestrian flow rate of two (2) pedestrians per foot per minute or more in the future conditions with the Proposed Action occurs at a location that has a projected future condition without the Proposed Action flow rate over 15 pedestrians per foot per minute (the breakpoint between LOS D and E). Platoon (group of pedestrians) conditions were used in the analysis of sidewalks/walkways.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-49 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 6B.4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The 2003 Existing Condition includes all transit and pedestrian activities that existed in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC during the Spring of 2003. This includes all NYCT subway service that was restored to Lower Manhattan. All connections between the existing transit facilities and the WTC site remain closed. New subway stairs were constructed on the west side of Church Street to replace the access to the southbound RW platform formerly provided within the WTC site. Because the data compiled for the analysis preceded the opening of the temporary WTC PATH Station, the 2003 Existing Conditions assumes that the PATH service between New Jersey and Lower Manhattan has not yet been restored. However, all of the future conditions incorporate the PATH service as part of the analyses.

6B.4.1 SUBWAY

The following section describes the NYCT subway stations that currently serve the area in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC. A total of six (6) stations are currently in close proximity to the proposed FSTC including the 23 Fulton Street, AC Broadway-Nassau, JMZ Fulton Street, 45 Fulton Street, RW Cortlandt Street and the E WTC Stations. The following provides details relating to operations at these subway stations in 2003. The AM peak hour alightings and boardings in 2000 were compared with 2003 data for each of the subway stations

SUBWAY OPERATIONS

23 Fulton Street Station

This station is located under William Street between Ann and John Streets and features a narrow center island platform with several stairways to the mezzanine above. After September 11, AM peak hour alightings at this station declined by nearly one-third from 1,231 (2000) to 863 (2003) for northbound passengers and by nearly a quarter from 1,000 to 776 for southbound passengers. Passenger boardings at this station increased from 100 to 167 in the northbound direction and from 425 to 579 in the southbound direction.

AC Broadway-Nassau Station

The AC Broadway-Nassau Station is oriented east to west below Fulton Street between Broadway and William Street. Two (2) separate mezzanines are provided to facilitate pedestrian movements and transfers to other subway lines. The west mezzanine connects Broadway 45 lines to Nassau Street JMZ lines northbound) and the east mezzanine connects Nassau Street JMZ lines southbound) to William Street (23 lines). Access between the east and west mezzanines are available on the platform. This station consists of two (2) tracks and one (1) center island platform.

After September 11, the overall AM peak hour alightings and boardings at this station declined slightly. Northbound A train alightings declined from 8,484 to 6,786 passengers, while the C train alightings declined from 1,571 to 1,299 passengers. Southbound alightings on the A train increased slightly from 1,601 to 1,672 passengers, while southbound C train alightings declined from 208 to 182 passengers. The total northbound A and C train boardings increased nearly 60 percent, from 840 to 1,321 passengers, while southbound A and C train boardings increased four (4) percent from 1,104 to 1,150 passengers.

JMZ Fulton Street Station

The Fulton Street JMZ Station is located below Nassau Street, between Beekman and John Streets. Due to the narrow width of Nassau Street, this station is comprised of two (2) levels with one (1) platform and one (1) track per level. The northbound track is located on the lower level and the southbound

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-50 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation platform is on the upper level. After September 11, AM peak hour alightings at this station for southbound JZ trains declined by just over 30 percent from 1,838 to 1,274 passengers. Alightings for northbound M trains increased over 200 percent (most likely due to the shift of employment to the east side of Lower Manhattan) from 135 to 409, while alightings on southbound M trains declined nearly 40 percent, from 718 to 445. Passenger boardings on combined northbound and southbound JZ trains declined 18 percent from 931 to 762.

45 Fulton Street Station

The 45 Fulton Street Station is located below Broadway between Fulton and Cortlandt Streets and has separate northbound and southbound platforms. There are multiple street entrances from either side of Broadway. Connections to the other subway lines can be made via a pedestrian walkway below Fulton Street. Since September 11, AM peak hour alightings at the 45 Fulton Street Station declined dramatically. Northbound alightings declined nearly 50 percent from approximately 4,000 to about 2,100 passengers. Southbound alightings declined from nearly 9,500 to just over 5,800, a reduction of nearly 40 percent. AM peak hour boardings at this station declined at a lower rate than alightings. Northbound boardings declined from approximately 4,000 to 3,643 passengers while southbound boardings declined from approximately 1,500 to 932 passengers.

RW Cortlandt Street Station

The RW Cortlandt Street Station is located below Church Street, between Fulton and Liberty Streets. Currently, this station does not have any direct connections to other neighboring subway stations. This station features split platforms with fare turnstiles located at the platform level at four (4) locations (two (2) on each side). The station platforms and the underpass at the north end of the station, which were rehabilitated in 1998-99, allowed access between the two (2) platforms and the WTC shopping concourse (via escalators). The underpass remains open and connects to the temporary WTC PATH station. The south end of the station also has an underpass that is currently closed that formerly provided access to the street, WTC concourse and an office building (One Liberty Plaza).

Since September 11, AM peak hour alightings and boardings at the RW Cortlandt Street Station have declined substantially. Northbound and southbound W train alightings declined 69 percent from nearly 2,600 to 819 passengers and R train alightings declined 53 percent from approximately 1,750 to 825 passengers. Boardings at this station during this period consist of only 60 passengers on northbound and southbound W trains and only 72 passengers boarding R trains.

E WTC Station

The E WTC Station occupies the southern portion of a larger subway complex and is the southern terminus for E service in Manhattan. The terminal station has two (2) tracks with an island platform. The E WTC Station platform extends from Park Place to the WTC site. This station is located just to the south of the AC Chambers Street Station. At the south end of this station, a platform level exit ramp connected to the WTC concourse prior to September 11. Since September 11, overall AM peak hour alightings and boardings at the E WTC Station have declined substantially. Alightings have declined 29 percent from 6,784 to 4,774 passengers (over 2,000 fewer passengers), while boardings declined from 714 to 83 passengers since PATH service has been suspended.

SUBWAY RIDERSHIP

Subway line haul analyses were performed using ridership and subway data provided by NYCT, NYCT loading guidelines and station entering and station exiting volumes. Using these data, v/c ratios (percent of capacity) were calculated for each subway line during the morning peak hour (8:00 – 9:00 AM). The results are summarized in Table 6-21. Baseline Condition (2003) AM peak period passenger volumes for the 11 subway lines (six (6) stations) in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC show great disparity, ranging October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-51 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation from less than 100 to over 17,000. The five (5) busiest subway lines were the northbound A train at Broadway-Nassau Street (16,979 passengers), the northbound and southbound 4 trains at Fulton Street (9,574 and 9,092 passengers respectively), the southbound 5 train at Fulton Street (8,963 passengers) and the southbound 2 train at Fulton Street (7,188). Passenger volumes are low on the southbound C train at Broadway-Nassau Street (457), the northbound JZ train at Fulton Street (32) and the southbound W train at Cortlandt Street (72 passengers).

Table 6-21 2003—Current Conditions Subway Line Haul Analysis

Total Trains Trains Cars Trains Car Peak Entering Station Leaving Station Route(s) Station Direction Per Per Cap.* Hour v/c v/c Train Hour Volumes Volumes Capacity Ratio Ratio 23 Fulton Street Northbound 10 110 19 20,900 10,741 0.51 10,045 0.48 23 Fulton Street Southbound 10 110 24 26,400 11,044 0.42 10,847 0.41 45 Fulton Street Northbound 10 110 24 26,400 16,739 0.63 18,284 0.69 45 Fulton Street Southbound 10 110 25 27,500 18,055 0.66 13,259 0.48 Broadway A Northbound 10 145 18 26,100 16,980 0.65 11,338 0.43 Nassau street Broadway A Southbound 10 145 9 13,050 4,845 0.37 4,279 0.33 Nassau Broadway C Northbound 8 145 8 9,280 3,447 0.37 2,325 0.25 Nassau Broadway C Southbound 8 145 6 6,960 457 0.07 319 0.05 Nassau E WTC Northbound 10 145 12 17,400 0 0.00 83 0.00 E WTC Southbound 10 145 12 17,400 4,774 0.27 0 0.00 JMZ Fulton Street Northbound 10 145 18 26,100 815 0.03 591 0.02 JMZ Fulton Street Southbound 10 145 19 27,550 4,099 0.15 2,979 0.11 Cortlandt RW Northbound 8 175 14 19,600 4,236 0.22 3,147 0.16 Street Cortlandt RW Northbound 8 175 15 21,000 907 0.04 474 0.02 Street * Note: Subway car capacity based on NYCT Loading Guidelines. Source: NYCT, 2003.

This analysis finds that none of the Lower Manhattan subway lines are characterized by demand in excess of capacity, that is, v/c ratios in excess of 1.0. The northbound 45 train at the Fulton Street Station has an exiting station v/c ratio of 0.69, the highest among all subway lines. The southbound 45 train at the Fulton Street Station had an entering station v/c ratio of 0.66. The W and R trains at the Cortlandt Street Station, E trains at WTC and the C trains at Broadway-Nassau Street Stations have entering station v/c ratios below 0.40.

6B.4.2 STATION ELEMENTS

The analysis locations at the 23 Fulton Street, AC Broadway-Nassau, JMZ Fulton Street, 45 Fulton Street, RW Cortlandt Street and the E WTC Stations generally operate at LOS C or better during the peak periods. However, there are capacity constraints at a few locations during the AM and PM peak periods. Locations that have an LOS D or worse during any of the peak periods are shown in Table 6-22. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D. The analysis locations are identified in Figures 6-11 through 6-14.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-52 Legend

Stairs

Fulton Street Transit Center

Street Level Subway Elements

NottoScale Figure 6-11 Legend

Stairs

HXT/HEET Turnstiles Turnstiles

Fulton Street Transit Center East End Mezzanine Level Subway Elements NottoScale Figure 6-12 Legend

Stairs

HXT/HEET Turnstiles Turnstiles

Fulton Street Transit Center West End Mezzanine Level Subway Elements

NottoScale Figure 6-13 Legend

Stairs

HXT/HEET Turnstiles Turnstiles WTC Concourse

S-5/ S-7 S-9/ S-11 WTC Concourse P-3 A/B

U-1/U-3

A52. X1 A-53

A52. X2 P-1 A/B

S-1/ S-3 A-52

N/R SB Platform N/R SB Platform U9 A/B N/R NB Platform N/R NB Platform

P-2 A-50 S-6/ P-6 S-8/ P-8

S4/ P4 A-51 U-2/U-4 U-6/U-8 1 Liberty Plaza ,.

Fulton Street Transit Center RW Cortlandt Street Station Subway Elements

NottoScale Figure 6-14 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-22 2003—Current Conditions Subway Pedestrian Analysis Locations with LOS D or Worse During Peak Periods

AM Peak PM Peak Station Element v/c LOS v/c LOS R2 Transfer ramp to 23 1.17 D 0.96 C P4 Stairway to platform 1.75 F 1.47 E PL19 Transfer stairway 1.10 D 0.77 C AC Broadway-Nassau Station R5 Transfer ramp 1.21 D 0.75 C P5 Stairway to platform 1.43 E 0.85 C P7 Stairway to platform 1.28 D 0.91 C R8 Transfer ramp 1.40 E 0.79 C R113 (North) turnstile 0.66 D 0.61 D 23 P4 Stairway to platform 1.62 E 1.55 E Fulton Street Station M1/S1 (North) stairways to street 1.36 E 1.64 E R2 Transfer ramp to AC 1.17 D 0.96 C R8 (West) to 45 northbound platform 1.48 E 0.69 B M2/O2 Stairways to street 0.70 C 2.11 F 45 Fulton Street Station ML5 Stairway to platform 2.01 F 1.39 E ML6A/B Transfer stairways to AC 0.16 A 1.39 E S3/M3 Stairways to street 1.32 D 0.78 C Notes: v/c = volume/capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service, HEET = High Entrance/Exit Turnstile; HXT = High Revolving Exit Gate. LOS determination based on v/c ratios varies for each element type (see Section 6B.3). Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

6B.4.3 SURFACE PEDESTRIANS

CROSSWALKS/CORNERS

Thirteen intersections around the project site were analyzed using 2003 pedestrian data. Of these 13 intersections, five (5) intersections were found to have at least one (1) crosswalk with LOS E during the AM or PM peak periods. There were no intersections with a crosswalk operating at LOS F. Broadway and Ann Street was the worst intersection location, with a total of three (3) out of eight (8) crosswalks operating at LOS E. The results are summarized in Tables 6-23 and 6-24.

The two (2) corner locations adjacent to the project Site were analyzed using 2003 pedestrian data. These corner locations operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-57 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-23 2003—Existing Conditions Crosswalk Analysis (LOS E or F)

AM Period LOS PM Period LOS Intersection Crosswalk Location Crosswalk Location North East South West North East South West Church Street & Vesey Street B C B D B C B E Church Street & Fulton Street A D A - A E A - Broadway & Ann Street A D B E B E B E Park Row & Ann Street B E - - B E - - Nassau Street & Fulton Street E B D B D C D C Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Table 6-24 2003—Existing Conditions Crosswalk Analysis Summary

Crosswalk Weekday Weekday % % LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS A, B or C 34 72.3 34 72.3 LOS D 10 21.3 8 17.0 LOS E 3 6.4 5 10.6 LOS F 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total Crosswalks 47 100.0 47 100.0 Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

SIDEWALKS

The three (3) sidewalk locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2003 pedestrian data. These sidewalk locations operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

6B.5 IMPACT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON 6B.5.1 INTRODUCTION

The assessment of potential impacts on transit and pedestrians was performed for three (3) analysis years. Each analysis year included an assessment of the No Action Alternative and the FSTC Build Alternatives 9 and the Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 3: Alternatives for details). These alternatives were compared against the future conditions without the FSTC to determine impacts. The future conditions without the FSTC project include the following Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects: South Ferry Terminal, Permanent WTC PATH Terminal, Route 9A Reconstruction, and the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan as relevant (see Chapter 20). The pre-September 11 Reference Condition was also evaluated, as part of the analysis of transit and pedestrian conditions, to characterize potential impacts relative to conditions existing prior to September 11 (see below).

As discussed in Chapter 2: Analysis Framework, the following years were identified for detailed analysis:

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-58 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation 6B.5.2 PRE-SEPTEMBER 11 REFERENCE CONDITION

Due to the effects of September 11 transit and pedestrian conditions in 2003 in Lower Manhattan are not considered truly representative of normal conditions in Lower Manhattan. For the purposes of the DEIS, it is assumed that current and planned revitalization efforts would be successful so that the level of economic activity would return to that projected prior to September 11 (see Chapter 2: Analysis Framework). In recognition of this, and in conjunction with the environmental analyses being carried out for other major Lower Manhattan projects, the analysis of transit and pedestrians for the FSTC includes a pre-September 11 “Reference Condition”. The Reference Condition is defined as the existing conditions in Lower Manhattan on September 10, 2001. Where potential environmental impacts are identified, and a need for mitigation is established, mitigation measures would be developed using the Reference Condition as a baseline. To the extent practicable, mitigation would be considered with the objective of returning environmental conditions to the levels prior to September 11. Where appropriate and feasible, further mitigation measures may also be formulated to address additional adverse impacts.

6B.5.3 SUBWAY

SUBWAY OPERATIONS

23 Fulton Street Station

Prior to September 11, the Fulton Street 23 station served as an alighting point for commuters from the Bronx, Upper West Side, Brooklyn and Penn Station who worked at office buildings in the northeastern quadrant of the Financial District. During the AM peak hour, 1,231 people alighted from northbound 2 and 3 trains and just over 1,000 people alighted from southbound 2 and 3 trains. Only 100 people boarded northbound and 425 boarded southbound 2 and 3 trains, indicating that there was little reverse commuting from this station.

AC Broadway-Nassau Station

Prior to September 11, the AC Broadway-Nassau Station was an alighting point for commuters from Upper Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Port Authority Bus Terminal and Pennsylvania Station that worked at the WTC and office buildings between Broadway and the East River. Due to its close proximity to the AC Chambers Street Station, alighting passengers destined for the WTC were split between these two (2) stations. The majority of southbound passengers alighted at the AC Chambers Street Station and majority of northbound passengers alighted at the AC Broadway-Nassau Street Station. This station is both the southernmost Manhattan station of the Eighth Avenue subway and the sole transfer for access downtown toward Bowling Green or uptown toward East Midtown; such connectivity is provided via the Lexington 45 line. AM peak hour alightings and boardings are generally much higher for the express A train than the local C train. Northbound alighting volumes from the A train were 8,484 people compared with only 1,571 for the C train. Southbound alighting volumes were 1,601 and 208 for the A and C trains, respectively. Northbound boarding volumes were 744 people for the A train and 96 for the C train. Southbound boarding volumes were higher for the A train (1,064) than for the C train (52).

JMZ Fulton Street Station

Prior to September 11, the Fulton Street JMZ Station served as an alighting point for commuters from Jamaica, southern Queens and Brooklyn who worked at the WTC and surrounding area. During the AM peak hour, most station use was from persons alighting from southbound trains, which is the peak commuting direction from Queens and northern Brooklyn during the AM period. A total of 1,838 people alighted from southbound JZ trains and 718 people alighted from M trains at this station. Passenger boardings on southbound JZ trains were high (724), even though this is the second to last stop on the

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-59 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation route. Northbound JZ train boardings were 207, while only nine (9) people alighted from northbound JZ trains as this is the second station on the route). Northbound M trains delivered 135 passengers to the station, most likely boarding at Brooklyn stations. The combined northbound and southbound M train boardings were low (three (3)) at this station.

45 Fulton Street Station

Prior to September 11, the 45 Fulton Street Station served as an alighting point for commuters from the Bronx, Upper East Side, Brooklyn and Grand Central Station that worked at the WTC and nearby offices in the northern portion of the Financial District. During the AM peak hour, approximately 4,000 passengers alighted from northbound 45 trains and nearly 9,500 passengers alighted from southbound 45 trains. Passenger boarding volumes at this station were 4,000 for all northbound trains, nearly equaling the number of people that alighted from northbound trains. Many of these boarding passengers may have transferred from the adjacent AC station. Approximately 1,500 persons boarded for all southbound trains.

RW Cortlandt Street Station

Prior to September 11, the RW Cortlandt Street Station served as an alighting point for commuters from Queens, Brooklyn and Midtown Manhattan working in the WTC, or WFC via connecting skybridges. Of the two (2) subway lines that served this station, the W train had slightly more passenger movements than the R train. W train service was more frequent with one (1) additional scheduled train in each direction in the AM peak hour. AM peak hour northbound and southbound alighting volumes were nearly 2,600 for the W train and approximately 1,750 for the R train. Boarding volumes for each line were much lower than the alighting volumes. A total of 631 passengers boarded the northbound and southbound W trains and 344 boarded the northbound and southbound R trains.

E WTC Station

Prior to September 11, the E WTC terminal station served as an alighting point for commuters from Queens, Port Authority Bus Terminal and Pennsylvania Station, providing direct access from this station to the WTC concourse subsurface. Since this station is a terminal station, AM peak hour alightings can only be measured from southbound trains and boardings from northbound trains. Alighting volumes at this station were 6,784 and boarding volumes were 714 passengers during the AM peak hour.

SUBWAY RIDERSHIP

Subway Line Haul analyses were performed using ridership and subway data provided by NYCT, NYCT Loading Guidelines and station entering and station exiting volumes. V/c ratios (percent of capacity) were calculated for each subway line during the peak morning hour (8:00 – 9:00 AM) using these data.

The pre-September 11 passenger volumes for the 13 subway lines (six (6) stations) that served the Fulton Street area showed no clear travel pattern and varied by individual subway line and direction. The only subway lines that operated at or above capacity were the southbound 45 trains at Fulton Street that had an entering station v/c ratio of 1.14. The southbound 45 trains leaving the station operated at 76 percent of capacity. The 45 trains leaving and entering Fulton Street in the northbound direction operated at 84 percent of capacity in both directions. The northbound 23 trains at Fulton Street had entering station v/c ratios of 0.62 and 0.41, respectively, in the northbound and southbound directions. The northbound A train at Broadway-Nassau had a northbound entering station v/c ratio of 0.80. The other subway lines that served the Fulton Street area, including the JZ and M train at Fulton Street, the W and R trains at Cortlandt Street and the E train at WTC all operated well below capacity. Table 6-25 summarizes the line haul results for the stations serving the FSTC area in 2001.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-60 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-25 Pre-September 11 - Reference Condition Subway Line Haul Analysis

Total Trains Trains Cars Trains Car Peak Entering Station Leaving Station Route(s) Station Direction Per Per Cap.* Hour v/c v/c Train Hour Volumes Volumes Capacity Ratio Ratio 23 Fulton Street Northbound 10 110 19 20,900 12,915 0.62 11,784 0.56 23 Fulton Street Southbound 10 110 24 26,400 10,735 0.41 10,151 0.38 45 Fulton Street Northbound 9 110 26 25,740 21,549 0.84 21,642 0.84 45 Fulton Street Southbound 9 110 21 20,790 23,692 1.14 15,736 0.76 Broadway A Northbound 10 145 18 26,100 20,902 0.80 13,162 0.50 Nassau Broadway A Southbound 10 145 10 14,500 4,150 0.29 3,603 0.25 Nassau Broadway C Northbound 8 145 8 9,280 4,335 0.47 2,860 0.31 Nassau Broadway C Southbound 8 145 8 6,960 529 0.08 373 0.05 Nassau E WTC Northbound 10 145 12 17,400 0 0.00 714 0.04 E WTC Southbound 10 145 12 17,400 6,784 0.39 0 0.00 JMZ Fulton Street Northbound 10 145 20 29,000 484 0.02 549 0.02 JMZ Fulton Street Southbound 10 145 19 27,550 7,432 0.27 5,601 0.20 RW Cortlandt Street Northbound 8 175 15 21,000 5,696 0.27 3,251 0.15 RW Cortlandt Street Northbound 8 175 23 32,200 2,038 0.06 1,120 0.03 * Note: Subway car capacity based on NYCT Loading Guidelines. Source: NYCT, 2003.

6B.5.4 STATION ELEMENTS

The locations analyzed at the 23 Fulton Street, AC Broadway-Nassau, JMZ Fulton Street, 45 Fulton Street, RW Cortlandt Street and E WTC Stations generally operated at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak periods. However, there were capacity limitations at some locations during the AM and PM peak periods. Locations that have LOS D or worse during any peak period are shown in Table 6- 26, which also summarizes the v/c ratios (percent of capacity) and the LOS of the station elements based upon the 15-minute volumes for each time period and the effective width of each stairway. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-61 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-26 2001 Pre-September 11 Condition Subway Pedestrian Analysis Locations with LOS D or Worse During Peak Periods

AM Peak PM Peak Station Element v/c LOS v/c LOS R2 Transfer ramp to 23 1.11 D 0.91 C P3 Stairway to platform 1.03 D 0.77 C P4 Stairway to platform 1.87 F 1.53 E PL19 Transfer stairway 1.21 D 0.84 C AC R5 Transfer ramp 1.35 E 0.83 C Broadway-Nassau Station P5 Stairway to platform 1.59 E 0.95 C P7 Stairway to platform 1.43 E 1.02 D R8 Transfer ramp 1.56 E 0.88 C P9A/B & P10A/B stairways to platform 1.06 D 0.87 C ML7A/ML7B Transfer stairways 1.08 D 0.99 C R113 (North) turnstile 0.68 D 0.63 D 23 P4 Stairway to platform 1.36 E 1.30 D Fulton Street Station M1/S1 (North) stairways to street 1.14 D 1.37 E R2 Transfer ramp to AC 1.11 D 0.91 C R8 (West) to 45 northbound platform 1.52 E 0.68 B M2/O2 Stairways to street 0.98 C 2.94 F ML7A/B transfer stairways to AC 1.08 D 0.99 C ML5 Stairway to platform 2.24 F 1.54 E 45 Fulton Street Station ML6A/B Transfer stairways to AC 0.18 A 1.55 E S6/M8 Stairways to street 0.00 A 1.86 F O6/O5 Stairways to street 0.64 B 1.14 D S1/M1 Stairways to street 1.02 D 0.31 A S3/M3 Stairways to street 1.60 E 0.94 C Notes: HEET = High Entrance/Exit Turnstile; HXT = High Revolving Exit Gate. LOS determination based on v/c ratios varies for each element type (see Section 6B.3). Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

6B.5.5 SURFACE PEDESTRIANS

CROSSWALKS/CORNERS

Thirteen intersections in the vicinity of the WTC site were analyzed using 2001 pedestrian data. Of these 13 intersections, all but two (2) intersections had at least one (1) crosswalk approach operating at LOS E or F during the AM or PM periods. Church and Liberty Streets was the worst intersection location, with a total of three (3) out of eight (8) crosswalks that operated at LOS E and two (2) out of eight (8) crosswalks that operated at LOS F. The results are summarized in Tables 6-27 and 6-28.

The two (2) corner locations adjacent to the project site were analyzed using 2001 pedestrian data. These corner locations operated at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-62 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-27 Pre-September 11 - Reference Condition Crosswalk Analysis (LOS E or F)

AM Period LOS PM Period LOS Intersection Crosswalk Location Crosswalk Location North East South West North East South West Church & Vesey Streets B D C E B D C E Church & Fulton Streets C E E - B E E - Church & Dey Streets D E D - E E E - Church & Cortland Streets B C C - B E C - Church & Liberty Streets E B F F E C D E Broadway & Ann Street B E B E B E B F Park Row & Ann Street B E - - C F - - Broadway & John Street D E E E C E C E Broadway & Cortlandt Street E C E C C D C C Broadway & Liberty Street C C C C C E C C Nassau & Fulton Streets E B D B D C D C Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Table 6-28 Pre-September 11- -Reference Condition Crosswalk Analysis Summary

Crosswalk Weekday Weekday % % LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS A, B or C 24 51.1 24 51.1 LOS D 7 14.9 8 17.0 LOS E 14 29.8 13 27.7 LOS F 2 4.3 2 4.3 Total Crosswalks 47 100.0 47 100.0 Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

SIDEWALKS

The three (3) sidewalk locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2001 pedestrian data. These sidewalk locations operated at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods, with the exception of the north side of John Street between Broadway and Nassau Street that operated at LOS E during these periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

6B.5.6 ANALYSIS YEAR 2005/2006 (CONSTRUCTION)

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Transit, subway station pedestrian and pedestrian crosswalk volumes within the Study Area were developed for the 2006 No Action Alternative during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. To develop the No Action Alternative volumes, the 2003 Existing Condition volumes were increased using growth rates derived from MTA’s RTFM based upon regional demographic forecasts. These rates include all planned and committed developments through 2006, including other relevant Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects, as part of the background growth for Lower Manhattan.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-63 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Subway Service

Subway line haul analyses were performed for the 2006 No Action Alternative for each subway line during the morning peak hour (8:00 – 9:00 AM) and the results are summarized in Table 6-29. No Action Alternative (2006) AM peak period passenger volumes for the 12 subway lines (six (6) stations) in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC show the northbound 45 trains at the Fulton Street Station have an exiting station v/c ratio of 0.72, the highest among all subway lines. The W and R trains at the Cortlandt Street Station and the C trains at Broadway-Nassau Street Stations have entering station v/c ratios below 0.30. NYCT proposes to return the W train to the Manhattan Bridge in 2004 and institute W train service from Astoria to Whitehall Street as a local replacement.

Table 6-29 2006 No Action Alternative Subway Line Haul Analysis

Trains Trains Cars Trains Total Car Entering Station Leaving Station Route(s) Station Direction Per Per Peak Hour Cap.* v/c v/c Train Hour Capacity Volumes Volumes Ratio Ratio 23 Fulton Street Northbound 10 110 19 20,900 11,149 0.53 10,427 0.50 23 Fulton Street Southbound 10 110 24 26,400 11,464 0.43 11,259 0.43 45 Fulton Street Northbound 10 110 24 26,400 17,375 0.66 18,979 0.72 45 Fulton Street Southbound 10 110 25 27,500 18,741 0.68 13,763 0.50 Broadway A Northbound 10 145 18 26,100 17,625 0.68 11,768 0.45 Nassau street Broadway A Southbound 10 145 9 13,050 5,029 0.39 4,441 0.34 Nassau Broadway C Northbound 8 145 8 9,280 3,578 0.39 2,413 0.26 Nassau Broadway C Southbound 8 145 6 6,960 475 0.07 332 0.05 Nassau E WTC Northbound 10 145 12 17,400 0 0.00 86 0.00 E WTC Southbound 10 145 12 17,400 4,955 0.28 0 0.00 JMZ Fulton Street Northbound 10 145 18 26,100 846 0.03 613 0.02 JMZ Fulton Street Southbound 10 145 19 27,550 4,255 0.15 3,092 0.11 RW Cortlandt Street Northbound 8 175 14 19,600 4,397 0.22 3,267 0.17 RW Cortlandt Street Northbound 8 175 15 21,000 941 0.04 492 0.02 * Note: Subway car capacity based on NYCT Loading Guidelines. Source: NYCT, 2003.

Station Elements

The analysis locations at the 23 Fulton Street, AC Broadway-Nassau, JMZ Fulton Street, 45 Fulton Street, RW Cortlandt Street and E WTC Stations generally operate at LOS C or better during the peak periods. However, there are capacity constraints at a few locations during the AM and PM peak periods. Locations that have an LOS D or worse during the peak periods are shown in Table 6-30. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-64 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-30 2006 No Action Alternative Subway Pedestrian Analysis Locations With LOS D or Worse During Peak Periods

AM Peak PM Peak Station Element v/c LOS v/c LOS R2 Transfer ramp to 23 1.20 D 0.99 C P3 Stairway to platform 1.02 D 0.78 C P4 Stairway to platform 1.80 F 1.52 E PL19 Transfer stairway 1.15 D 0.80 C AC Broadway-Nassau Station R5 Transfer ramp 1.26 D 0.78 C P5 Stairway to platform 1.48 E 0.89 C P7 Stairway to platform 1.33 E 0.95 C R8 Transfer ramp 1.47 E 0.83 C ML7A/Ml7B Transfer stairways 1.01 D 0.92 C R113 (North) turnstile 0.68 D 0.63 D P4 Stairway to platform 1.66 E 1.59 E 23 Fulton Street Station M1/S1 (North) stairways to street 1.39 E 1.68 F M1/S1 (South) Stairways to street 0.91 C 1.00 D R2 Transfer ramp to AC 1.20 D 0.99 C R8 (West) to 45 northbound platform 1.55 E 0.72 B M2/O2 Stairways to street 0.73 C 2.20 F 45 ML7A/B Transfer stairways to AC 1.01 D 0.92 C Fulton Street Station ML5 Stairway to platform 2.09 F 1.44 E ML6A/B Transfer stairways to AC 0.16 A 1.45 E S3/M3 Stairways to street 1.38 E 0.81 C Notes: HEET = High Entrance/Exit Turnstile; HXT = High Revolving Exit Gate. LOS determination based on v/c ratios varies for each element type (see Section 6B.3) Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Crosswalks/Corners

Thirteen intersections around the project site were analyzed using 2006 No Action pedestrian data. Of these 13 intersections, eight (8) intersections were found to have at least one (1) crosswalk approach projected to operate at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak periods. The west crosswalk at the Church and Vesey Streets intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The results are summarized in Tables 6-31 and 6-32.

The two (2) corner locations adjacent to the project site were analyzed using 2006 pedestrian data. These corner locations are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

Sidewalks

The three (3) sidewalk locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2006 pedestrian data. These sidewalk locations are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-65 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-31 2006 – No Action Alternative Crosswalk Analysis (LOS E or F)

AM Period LOS PM Period LOS Intersection Crosswalk Location Crosswalk Location North East South West North East South West Church & Vesey Streets B C C F B D D F Church & Fulton Streets B D C - B E C - Church & Liberty Streets E B D E E C C E Broadway & Ann Street B D C E B E C E Park Row & Ann Street B E - - B E - - Broadway & Fulton Street C D E C C C D D Broadway & John Street D D E D C E D D Nassau & Fulton Streets E B D B D C D C Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Table 6-32 2006 – No Action Alternative Crosswalk Analysis Summary

Crosswalk Weekday Weekday % % LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS A, B or C 27 57.4 26 55.3 LOS D 12 25.5 13 27.7 LOS E 7 14.9 7 14.9 LOS F 1 2.1 1 2.1 Total Crosswalks 47 100.0 47 100.0 Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

ALTERNATIVE 9

The major construction work required within the existing stations of the new FSTC would impact the movement of pedestrians between the street, platform and mezzanine levels. MPT plans of vehicular and pedestrian traffic at street-level, including maintaining access to area businesses, would be required because construction of the FSTC requires a sizeable street excavation. As the design develops and more detailed constructability reviews are completed, the focus would be on how best to limit the impacts of major construction through two (2) key approaches: strategic construction sequencing and provision of temporary pedestrian routes. Stations would be kept open to the greatest extent possible, although passenger safety must be ensured. Where possible, this may be done by maintaining both northbound and southbound traffic from one (1) platform track. Other less complex aspects of the work, such as leak remediation, repairing tile work and painting the station walls and columns at platform level, may be performed during off-peak service outages or by closing off portions of the platforms with temporary barricades and screening.

Under this alternative, pedestrian access along Dey Street between Broadway and Church Street and along Fulton Street between Nassau Street and Broadway would be restricted due to FSTC construction activities. This is reflected in the analysis by assuming that a portion of the pedestrians otherwise using Dey and Fulton Streets would choose to use unrestricted streets parallel to construction-restricted Dey and Fulton Streets. During the construction period, pedestrian access to some station elements may be temporarily restricted due to construction activities. This is reflected in the analysis by assuming that subway patrons would use alternate station elements during the construction period to reflect in the analysis the complete or partial closure of some station elements due to construction activities. October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-66 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Subway Service

Although commuters may be inconvenienced during construction, most changes in schedule and transfer would occur during evenings and weekends. In addition, due to the fact that in 2005/2006 ridership levels would be below pre-September 11 levels as Lower Manhattan would still be recovering, crowding in the Existing Complex would be less, thereby easing the inconvenience of construction. In general, passengers using the Existing Complex were expected to continue to use the Existing Complex during construction of the FSTC, as the minor inconveniences of construction are not outweighed by the cost and inconvenience of other transit options. Based on empirical data on other large-scale station rehabilitation projects such as Times Square and Atlantic Terminal (both in New York City), ridership is relatively independent from construction-related inconvenience.

Station Elements

Partial and intermittent closures of some stations, existing pedestrian pathways, fare control areas and stairways would occur even with careful selection of the method and phasing of construction. Where new routes cannot be constructed in advance, temporary pedestrian pathways would be provided. Some existing, part-time fare control areas and stairways may require temporary conversion to full time. Significant planning would also be required to direct passengers safely around construction and public outreach is needed to alert them to alternative transit options. Temporary transfer paths through existing spaces that are undergoing significant reconstruction would be provided through protected corridors. Additionally, opportunities to open new spaces before they are finished to provide temporary pedestrian pathways would be investigated. For example, after deconstruction of the buildings between John and Fulton Streets, the newly constructed basement of the Transit Center building is being investigated for use as a key temporary transfer between the AC and the 45. Temporary corridors through this basement would be developed to protect the patrons from the continuing construction overhead. This temporary transfer would eliminate the heavy congestion at the north end of the 45 platform and facilitate its reconfiguration and rehabilitation.

During the construction period, some station elements may accommodate diverted flows from partial or complete closures of other station elements. The effect is that some station elements would operate with higher congestion than projected in the 2006 No Action Alternative. NYCT would develop MPT plans that would minimize congested conditions to the greatest extent possible. Construction work would be scheduled and performed as part of NYCT’s regular program for scheduling service diversions for construction projects. Some customers may experience slightly longer travel times on nights and/or weekends as a result of the construction at FSTC. Individual construction issues are provided for each station.

23 Fulton Street Station

The construction of the entrance at 135 William Street (including the ADA elevator) would require construction phasing to minimize impacts to users of the station. The new stairs on the north side of Fulton Street would be constructed at 150 William Street first to improve access to the north end mezzanine before the existing north end stair and access through private property is abandoned and the space is used to satisfy program needs.

The new stair from the 23 mezzanine to the platform can be constructed during a weekend closure of the station. Additionally, these new stairs would be installed in an existing well within the mezzanine floor and no significant impacts to passengers are expected. The most difficult construction efforts at this station would be the new stairs to the AC platform from the 23 platform and the new vertical connection between the 23 mezzanine and the reconfigured AC mezzanine. Initial constructability reviews indicate that the 23 platform can remain in service during construction of these stairs, but platform space would be constrained. A barricade would be erected around the opening in the platform, which would only allow for three (3) feet between the barricade and the platform edge. Platform

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-67 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation conductors must ensure that passengers do not gather in these constrained areas, as these areas should only be used by passengers to exit the trains and move to their final destination.

The new stairs from the 23 platform to the AC platform must be constructed in advance of the AC mezzanine reconstruction, which would sever the existing ramp from the 23 mezzanine. These new stairs would provide a critical transfer link between the 23 and the AC during the AC mezzanine reconstruction. With this new stair, transfers can also be made to the other lines serving the complex via the AC platform.

AC Broadway-Nassau Station

Construction of the 23 to AC platform stairs would be largely transparent to users of the AC station. Localized closure of the extreme eastern end of the platform would be required and temporary screening would be erected. Early construction of these stairs is critical to maintaining AC operations during construction of the AC mezzanine so that transfers can be made from the 23. Reconstruction of the AC mezzanine would take place during three (3) distinct phases in order to minimize impacts to pedestrian. The first phase would be the reconstruction of the east end mezzanine. As discussed, this would follow the construction of the 23 to AC platform stairs to maintain the transfer between these two (2) lines throughout the project. Following the reconstruction of the east end mezzanine, the mezzanine to platform stairs in this area would be rehabilitated.

Reconstruction of the western AC mezzanine is one of the most complicated elements of the overall project. As a more detailed design develops, geotechnical conditions are verified, and constructibility reviews advance, it may prove impractical to continue passenger operations within the Broadway-Nassau station. Maintaining system safety is the highest priority, and if adequate access and egress cannot be maintained, it may be necessary to close the station for an extended period. However, based on current analyses, it appears that operations to the station can be maintained although the transfer to the Fulton Street 45 station may be severed for an extended period. It is currently assumed that the west end mezzanine would be broken into two (2) or three (3) separate phases to minimize impacts to the 45 to AC transfer. The western section, extending from Nassau Street to east of the most western AC platform stair, would be combined with the FSTC building construction. The mezzanine west of Nassau Street would be widened to the north and south, which would require substantial new structural elements and raising the mezzanine floor. This would require reconstruction of the mezzanine to platform stairs. During reconstruction of these stairs, passenger paths at the platform level would be maintained around the base of the stairs to allow for circulation and transfer movements.

JMZ Fulton Street Station

It is not likely that access can be maintained to either platform of the JMZ station from Fulton Street or from the AC mezzanine during construction of the major new vertical circulation linking these platforms to the reconstructed AC mezzanine. The southbound platform of the JMZ can still be accessed during this construction via the existing south street stairs and entrance to John Street. However, it is likely that the northbound platform would need to be closed during this construction. The possibility of maintaining service to this station by providing bi-directional service via the southbound platform would be investigated. For northbound passengers heading to Queens, a transfer from the Lexington Avenue 45 line is available at the Chambers Street Station. A potential connection may also be made at Jay Street-Lawrence Street in Brooklyn if that transfer connection is completed prior to construction of the FSTC and AC west mezzanine portions.

45 Fulton Street Station

The north end of the platform is congested and would be significantly reconfigured. The south end of the station is lightly used because there is no platform to street access south of Dey Street. As such portions

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-68 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation of the platform could be closed off and construction would be scarcely noticed. The new entrances to Cortlandt Street and Maiden Lane would be advanced early. General station renovations at the south end, along with the new stairs would provide relief from north end congestion and construction as the project progresses. With these early improvements, nearly half of the platform length at the southern end would be available and the new exits would relieve the high traffic volumes on the existing street stairs. The new Dey Street Access Plaza entrance on the west side of Broadway would also be advanced to the platform level before major north end reconfiguration. To facilitate the construction of this new entrance, the design team is investigating the possibility of temporary stairs from Broadway to the southbound platform. On the northbound platform, temporary expansion of the existing John Street stairs and conversion of the fare control area to full-time is being investigated.

The temporary closure of the transfer between the AC and the 45 associated with the complete reconstruction of the AC mezzanine would be the most significant pedestrian impact at the Fulton Street 45 station. Additionally, the closure of street stairs at Dey and John Streets required with the deconstruction of the property at 189 Broadway would represent a significant impact to station access and egress. These impacts to customers would be lessened when the entrances at Cortlandt Street at the south end of the platform are opened. These impacts can be further minimized through strategic construction staging, construction of temporary access and egress stairs and conversion of part-time fare control areas to permanent fare control areas.

No significant impacts are expected during the general station rehabilitation, construction of the southbound platform access from 195 Broadway, or opening up the northbound platform to the planned FSTC building. A key early element of the work at the 45 station would be the new south end entrances to Cortlandt Street and Maiden Lane. These new stairs would provide access to the station from areas south of Dey Street well away from the most significant construction associated with the FSTC project. Once these new stairs have been constructed, it would be possible to begin deconstruction of the property at 189 Broadway, which would require closure of the stairs through the basement of that building.

To further offset the loss of the two (2) street stairs at the center of the station, the possibility of providing temporary sidewalk stairs in front of 189 Broadway and the temporary widening of the existing street stairs on the south side of John Street is under investigation. However, since the sidewalk on the east side of Broadway and the north side of John Street would be relocated during the construction of the Entry Facility, it would be difficult to further impede pedestrian flow along these arteries by making entrance improvements on the west side of Broadway and the south side of John Street.

Opening the northbound platform to the FSTC Entry Facility and construction of the new southbound platform access from 195 Broadway would largely take place behind temporary barricades. As such, the extent of impacts would primarily be a temporary decrease in the functional width of these platforms by approximately two (2) to three (3) feet. This reduction of width occurs at the widest area of the southbound platform, but at the most congested area on the northbound platform. Therefore, this work would take place during the period of time in which the transfer between the 45 station and the AC station is closed. Closure of this transfer would significantly reduce platform congestion relative to current conditions.

Reconstruction of the AC mezzanine at the north end of the Fulton Street 45 Station would be phased to minimize the length of time during which access from Fulton Street is closed. However, there would be a period of time during which this street access and the full time fare control area (N95) there is closed. To minimize the impacts of these closures, the fare control area at the north end of the southbound platform may be converted to full time operation. Temporary access directly from the existing underpass to the northbound platform would then be provided by temporary stairs rather than by the existing ramps within the AC mezzanine. Additionally, passengers can choose to enter the station at the street stair on the south side of John Street.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-69 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

RW Cortlandt Street Station

The existing fare control area at the northbound platform is currently served by two (2) street stairs. It is not anticipated that construction could be phased to maintain access to this fare control area. This will be confirmed during final design. Additionally, an alternate entrance is available at Cortlandt Street. Localized platform closures at the northbound platform are expected during the connection of the new Dey Street concourse and Millenium Hotel entrance to the northbound platform. The existing underpass would be closed for a significant period for widening and to construct the Dey Street Passageway. This is not expected to create significant impacts since the current demand is low. This passageway served as the primary access between the northbound RW and the WTC complex prior to September 11. No significant pedestrian impacts are expected during the construction of the Dey Street Passageway or the related Millenium Hotel entrance and ADA improvements.

E WTC Station

No significant pedestrian impacts are expected with the proposed E to RW connection.

Crosswalks/Corners

Thirteen intersections around the project site were analyzed using 2006 Build pedestrian data. Of these 13 intersections, nine (9) intersections were found to have at least one (1) crosswalk approach operating at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak periods. The west crosswalk at the Church and Vesey Streets intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The results are summarized in Tables 6-33 and 6-34.

Table 6-33 2006 - Construction Conditions Crosswalk Analysis (LOS E or F)

AM Period LOS PM Period LOS Intersection Crosswalk Location Crosswalk Location North East South West North East South West Church & Vesey Streets B C C F B D D F Church & Fulton Streets B D D - B E C - Church & Liberty Streets E B D E E C C E Broadway & Ann Street B D C E B E C E Park Row & Ann Street B E - - B E - - Broadway & Fulton Street C D E C C C E D Broadway & John Street B D D D B E B D Broadway & Cortland Street D B E B C C D C Nassau & Fulton Streets E B D B D C D C Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

The crosswalk analysis results for the 2006 Alternative 9 condition were compared with the 2006 No Action Alternative for the AM and PM peak hours (see Figures 6-15 and 6-16, respectively). Because pedestrian flows are anticipated to shift from Dey Street (which is projected to be under construction in 2006) to Cortlandt and Fulton Streets, some crosswalk flows are projected to increase and some are projected to decrease as a result. During the AM peak period, four (4) crosswalks are projected to worsen in terms of pedestrian flow while five (5) are projected to improve. Since the congestion increases projected at some crosswalk locations in 2006 (as a result of pedestrian diversions during the construction period) would be temporary and are offset by improvements at other crosswalk locations, the increases in congestion are not considered significant.

The two (2) corner locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2006 pedestrian data. The physical layout of the corners during construction were used in the analysis. The northeast corner of October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-70 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation the Broadway and John Street intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. However, the southeast corner of the Broadway and Fulton Street intersection is projected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak period.

Table 6-34 2006—Construction Conditions Crosswalk Analysis Summary

Crosswalk Weekday Weekday % % LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS A, B or C 28 59.6 27 57.4 LOS D 11 23.4 11 23.4 LOS E 7 14.9 8 17.0 LOS F 1 2.1 1 2.1 Total Crosswalks 47 100.0 47 100.0 Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Sidewalks

Pedestrian flow along Fulton and Dey Streets would be maintained throughout the duration of construction. However, these streets would be closed to through vehicular traffic. In absence of through vehicular traffic, adequate accommodations could be made through construction site layout to provide space for pedestrian circulation functionally equivalent to the No Action Alternative. During the AC mezzanine widening under Fulton Street, sidewalk pedestrians would be affected. Because of the small lot buildings and heavy street-level retail, it is necessary to provide continuous access to all of the adjacent uses. Through pedestrians can divert to either Ann Street to the north or to Maiden Lane to the south. Access to the 31-story Western Electric Building (except street-level retail) is on Broadway and not on Fulton Street. It may be possible for pedestrians to access the seven (7)-story Aetna Casualty and Surety Building from William Street or Ann Street during construction instead of Fulton Street.

It is anticipated that during the construction of the Dey Street Passageway, the majority of the through pedestrian movements would be diverted to the adjacent streets. The major pedestrian trip generator on this block is the Century 21 discount Department Store. The main entrance is located on the south side of Dey Street and a secondary entrance is located on Church Street. The main entrance to the 33-story office tower above Century 21 is located on Cortlandt Street and should be unaffected by construction. The restaurant and 16-story building above on the south side of the block, just west of the new Dey Street entrance, would need continuous access. The 29-story building at 195 Broadway on the north side of Dey Street fronts on Dey, Broadway and Fulton Street and it is anticipated that most pedestrian access would shift away from the Dey Street building entrance.

The Millenium Hotel at the Church Street end of Dey Street would be affected by the construction of the RW - E Connector. Pedestrian access to the Millenium Hotel on Church Street would also be affected during the sheeting/excavation/underpinning/decking/backfill/utility restoration phases of the Dey Street Passageway construction and at any time that sidewalk deck panels are removed for construction. Pedestrians on the west side of Church Street would also be affected during these operations. Due to the large numbers of pedestrians associated with the recently restored (November, 2003) PATH service, it would be necessary to restrict the physical size of excavation on the west sidewalk to minimize the effect on pedestrians.

The construction and staging activities proposed along the west side of the proposed FSTC Entry Facility between Fulton and John Streets would require the use of a portion of the existing east side sidewalk on Broadway. To offset the loss of sidewalk space at this location, the eastern curb lane on Broadway between Fulton and John Streets would be used to provide the requisite pedestrian flow. A MPT plan would be developed to separate traffic flows and pedestrian flows. Access to the subway stations would also be maintained throughout the duration of construction. October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-71 Legend Approximate Project Location No Build vs. Build Condition Decrease in Level of Service and Reduced Pedestrian Flow

No Change in Level of Service but Reduced Pedestrian Flow No Change in Level of Service or Pedestrian Flow No Change in Level of Service and Improved Pedestrian Flow Increase in Level of Service and Improved Pedestrian Flow

2006 AM Peak Period Pedestrian Crosswalk Analysis Results Figure 6-15 Legend Approximate Project Location No Build vs. Build Condition Decrease in Level of Service and Reduced Pedestrian Flow

No Change in Level of Service but Reduced Pedestrian Flow No Change in Level of Service or Pedestrian Flow No Change in Level of Service and Improved Pedestrian Flow Increased Level of Service and Improved Pedestrian Flow

2006 PM Peak Period Pedestrian Crosswalk Analysis Results Figure 6-16 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation During construction, special accommodations would be made so as not to encumber ADA access on Fulton Street, Dey Street, or Broadway by providing ADA compliant ramp systems and sidewalk surface treatment. It is possible that pedestrians (and especially PATH patrons) choose Fulton Street (between Church Street and Broadway) and John Street (between Broadway and Nassau Street) over Dey and Fulton Streets to travel east-west during the morning rush hour. Because economic activity in Lower Manhattan is still below pre-September 11 conditions in 2005/2006, it is not anticipated that any overflow to these streets would result in conditions worse than pre-September 11 conditions.

NYCT would address safety issues associated with pedestrian circulation in 2006 by developing detailed MPT plans in coordination with PANYNJ, LMDC, NYSDOT, NYCDOT and NYCDDC to minimize interruption of vehicular and pedestrian circulation. A key aspect of these efforts would be pedestrian safety. Measures to be considered during the development of the detailed MPT plans would include: a clear pedestrian signage system; physical demarcations and/or barriers for dedicated pedestrian zones; TEA to direct vehicular and pedestrian circulation, especially during peak hours; management of truck delivery schedules, both associated with construction activities and operation of existing businesses in the area; and strict enforcement of parking rules to minimize crowding of narrower east-west streets. NYCT would require from its contractors that sheds be constructed over temporary sidewalks to ensure pedestrian safety.

To minimize any potential impacts, a “Pedestrian Way-Finding Plan” would be prepared and implemented during construction. Appropriate signage for businesses and civic amenities would be added and public awareness promoted through mechanisms such as signage, telephone hotline, and Web site updates. A Visitor Center/Project Information Office would be established during construction, with sensitivity to local cultural resources and visual resources. Public information outlets that would receive and provide current information about access during construction would be identified, and all property acquisition would be undertaken within the framework of the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act and in accordance with the New York State Eminent Domain Procedure Law.

The three (3) sidewalk locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2006 pedestrian data. The physical layout of the sidewalks during construction was used in the analysis. These sidewalk locations are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods.

ALTERNATIVE 10 - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Construction of the Preferred Alternative, as it relates to transit and pedestrians, is essentially identical to Alternative 9. As described in Chapter 4, differences in construction process, methods and schedule between Alternative 9 and 10 relate to differences in the treatment of the Corbin Building during construction. There would not be any material differences for the purposes of the transit and pedestrians analyses. All analyses and results for Alternative 9, as discussed above, therefore also apply to the Preferred Alternative.

6B.5.7 ANALYSIS YEAR 2008 (INITIAL OPERATIONAL YEAR)

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Transit, subway station pedestrian and pedestrian crosswalk volumes within the Study Area were developed for the 2008 No Action Alternative during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. To develop the No Action Alternative volumes, the 2003 Existing Condition volumes were increased using growth rates derived from MTA’s RTFM based upon regional demographic forecasts. These rates include all planned and committed developments (including other relevant Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects) through 2008 as part of the background growth for Lower Manhattan.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-74 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Subway Service

Subway line haul analyses were performed for the 2008 No Action Alternative for each subway line during the morning peak hour (8:00 – 9:00 AM) and the results are summarized in Table 6-35. No Action Alternative (2008) AM peak period passenger volumes for the 12 subway lines (six (6) stations) in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC show the northbound 45 trains at the Fulton Street Station has an exiting station v/c ratio of 0.73, the highest among all subway lines. The W and R trains at the Cortlandt Street Station and the C trains at Broadway-Nassau Street Stations have entering station v/c ratios below 0.40.

Table 6-35 2008 No Action Alternative Subway Line Haul Analysis

Trains Trains Cars Trains Total Car Entering Station Leaving Station Route(s) Station Direction Per Per Peak Hour Cap.* v/c v/c Train Hour Capacity Volumes Volumes Ratio Ratio 23 Fulton Street Northbound 10 110 19 20,900 11,278 0.54 10,547 0.50 23 Fulton Street Southbound 10 110 24 26,400 11,596 0.44 11,389 0.43 45 Fulton Street Northbound 10 110 24 26,400 17,576 0.67 19,198 0.73 45 Fulton Street Southbound 10 110 25 27,500 18,958 0.69 13,922 0.51 Broadway A Northbound 10 145 18 26,100 17,829 0.68 11,904 0.46 Nassau street Broadway A Southbound 10 145 9 13,050 5,087 0.39 4,492 0.34 Nassau Broadway C Northbound 8 145 8 9,280 3,619 0.39 2,441 0.26 Nassau Broadway C Southbound 8 145 6 6,960 480 0.07 335 0.05 Nassau E WTC Northbound 10 145 12 17,400 0 0.00 87 0.01 E WTC Southbound 10 145 12 17,400 5,013 0.29 0 0.00 JMZ Fulton Street Northbound 10 145 18 26,100 856 0.03 621 0.02 JMZ Fulton Street Southbound 10 145 19 27,550 4,304 0.16 3,128 0.11 Cortlandt RW Northbound 8 175 14 19,600 4,448 0.23 3,304 0.17 Street Cortlandt RW Northbound 8 175 15 21,000 952 0.05 498 0.02 Street * Note: Subway car capacity based on NYCT Loading Guidelines. Source: NYCT, 2003.

Station Elements

The analysis locations at the 23 Fulton Street, AC Broadway-Nassau, JMZ Fulton Street, 45 Fulton Street, RW Cortlandt Street and the E WTC Stations generally operate at LOS C or better during the peak periods. However, there are capacity constraints at a few locations during the AM and PM peak periods. Locations that have an LOS D or worse during the peak periods are shown in Table 6- 36. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

Crosswalks/Corners

Thirteen intersections around the project site were analyzed using 2008 No Action pedestrian data. Of these 13 intersections, nine (9) intersections were found to have at least one (1) crosswalk approach operating at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak periods. The west approach at the intersection of Church and Vesey Streets is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The LOS results are summarized in Tables 6-37 and 6-38. October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-75 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation The two (2) corner locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2008 pedestrian data. These corners are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

Table 6-36 2008 No Action Alternative Subway Pedestrian Analysis Locations With LOS D or Worse During Peak Periods

AM Peak PM Peak Station Element v/c LOS v/c LOS R2 Transfer ramp to 23 1.22 D 1.01 D P3 Stairway to platform 1.03 D 0.78 C P4 Stairway to platform 1.83 F 1.55 E PL19 Transfer stairway 1.16 D 0.81 C AC R5 Transfer ramp 1.27 D 0.80 C Broadway-Nassau Station P5 Stairway to platform 1.50 E 0.90 C P7 Stairway to platform 1.35 E 0.96 C R8 Transfer ramp 1.50 E 0.85 C P9A/B & P10A/B Stairways to platform 1.00 D 0.82 C ML7A/Ml7B Transfer stairways 1.02 D 0.93 C R113 (North) turnstile 0.70 D 0.64 D P4 Stairway to platform 1.68 F 1.61 E 23 Fulton Street Station M1/S1 (North) stairways to street 1.41 E 1.70 F M1/S1 (South) stairways to street 0.92 C 1.02 D R2 Transfer ramp to AC 1.22 D 1.01 D R8 (West) to 45 northbound platform 1.58 E 0.73 C M2/O2 Stairways to street 0.75 C 2.25 F 45 ML7A/B Transfer stairways to AC 1.02 D 0.93 C Fulton Street Station ML5 Stairway to platform 2.11 F 1.46 E ML6A/B Transfer stairways to AC 0.17 A 1.46 E S3/M3 Stairways to street 1.41 E 0.83 C Notes: HEET = High Entrance/Exit Turnstile; HXT = High Revolving Exit Gate. LOS determination based on v/c ratios varies for each element type (see Section 6B.3). Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-76 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-37 2008 - No Action Alternative Crosswalk Analysis (LOS E or F)

AM Period LOS PM Period LOS Intersection Crosswalk Location Crosswalk Location North East South West North East South West Church & Vesey Streets B C C E B D D F Church & Fulton Streets B D D - B E C - Church & Dey Streets B C E - B D D - Church & Liberty Streets D B C E D C B D Broadway & Ann Street B D C E B E C E Park Row & Ann Street B E - - B E - - Broadway & Fulton Street C D E C C C D D Broadway & John Street D D E D C E D D Nassau & Fulton Streets E B D B D C D C Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Table 6-38 2008 - No Action Alternative Crosswalk Analysis Summary

Crosswalk Weekday Weekday % % LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS A, B or C 28 59.6 27 57.4 LOS D 11 23.4 14 29.8 LOS E 8 17.0 5 10.6 LOS F 0 0.0 1 2.1 Total Crosswalks 47 100.0 47 100.0 Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Sidewalks

The three (3) sidewalk locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2008 pedestrian data. These sidewalk locations are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

ALTERNATIVE 9

Construction of Alternative 9 would be completed by 2007 and this alternative would have been in operation for its first full year in 2008. In 2008, a portion of the pedestrians currently traversing Broadway and Church Street would be expected to use the Dey Street Passageway. As the number of pedestrians crossing these crosswalks would be reduced relative to the 2008 No Action Alternative, pedestrian circulation would generally be improved in the Study Area. This benefit is measurable relative to the No Action Alternative.

Subway Service

Subway Line Haul analyses were not performed for Alternative 9 since the number of persons traveling on subway lines through the FSTC would increase only marginally due to improved transfer flows between the connecting subway lines in comparison to the No Action Alternative during the peak morning hour (8:00 – 9:00 AM).

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-77 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Station Elements

The FSTC project would greatly enhance pedestrian flow throughout all of the subway elements in comparison to the No Action Alternative. All elements projected to operate at LOS E or F in the No Action Alternative would be corrected by Alternative 9. With implementation of Alternative 9, there would be only a few elements that would be projected to operate at LOS D in 2008. Locations that would operate at LOS D or worse in 2008 are shown in Table 6-39. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

By 2008, full realization of the operational benefits of the FSTC would not yet be achieved, as Lower Manhattan would not yet be fully redeveloped and the subway system would continue to operate with lower than normal levels of patronage. However, patrons would enjoy a much improved subway system that is more easily navigable, safer and much more accessible, resulting in the reduction of travel time. In particular, the FSTC would be better accessible for people with disabilities, via new ADA-compliant elevators from the street to the subway system, as well as ADA-compliant platform connections within the system.

Table 6-39 2008 Alternative 9 Condition Subway Pedestrian Analysis Locations With LOS D or Worse During Peak Periods

AM Peak PM Peak Station Element v/c LOS v/c LOS P4 Stairway to platform 1.13 D 0.90 C AC Broadway-Nassau Stairway next to escalator 0.79 C 1.04 D Station Escalator (UP) 0.67 D 0.16 A JMZ Stairway next to escalator 0.79 C 1.04 D Fulton Street Station Stairway next to escalator 0.79 C 1.04 D M1/S1 (North) stairways to street 0.97 C 1.28 D 23 Stairway next to escalator 1.03 D 1.14 D Fulton Street Station Escalator (UP) AC mezzanine 0.61 D 0.04 A Escalator (DN) AC mezzanine 0.04 A 0.68 D Notes: HEET = High Entrance/Exit Turnstile; HXT = High Revolving Exit Gate. LOS determination based on v/c ratios varies for each element type (see Section 6B.3) Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Crosswalks/Corners

Thirteen intersections around the project site were analyzed using 2008 Build pedestrian data. The crosswalk and corner analyses consider that passage through the Corbin Building would not be permitted under Alternative 9 and pedestrians must either access the Dey Street Passageway west of Broadway or walk around the northeast corner of Broadway and John Street. Of these 13 intersections, seven (7) intersections were found to have at least one (1) crosswalk approach operating at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak periods. The west approach at the intersection of Church and Vesey Streets is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The diversion of pedestrians using the crosswalks in the No Action Alternative to the subsurface Dey Street Passageway greatly reduces street-level pedestrians and improves crosswalk LOS in the Study Area. These locations include Church and Dey Streets, Broadway and Fulton Street and Broadway and John Street. The results are summarized in Tables 6-40 and 6-41. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-78 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-40 2008 Alternative 9 Condition Crosswalk Analysis (LOS E or F)

AM Period LOS PM Period LOS Intersection Crosswalk Location Crosswalk Location North East South West North East South West Church & Vesey Streets B C B E B D C F Church & Fulton Streets A D A - A E A - Church & Liberty Streets D B C E D C B D Broadway & Ann Street B D C E B E C E Park Row & Ann Street B E - - B E - - Broadway & John Street C D E D C E D D Nassau & Fulton Streets E B D B D C D C Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Table 6-41 2008 Build Condition (Alternative 9) Crosswalk Analysis Summary

Crosswalk Weekday Weekday % % LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS A, B or C 31 66.0 30 63.8 LOS D 10 21.3 11 23.4 LOS E 6 12.8 5 10.6 LOS F 0 0.0 1 2.1 Total Crosswalks 47 100.0 47 100.0 Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

The crosswalk analysis results for the 2008 Operational Condition were compared with the 2008 No Action Alternative for the AM and PM peak hours (see Figures 6-17 and 6-18, respectively). Because pedestrian flows are anticipated to shift from Dey Street, Cortlandt Street, Fulton Street and Vesey/Ann Streets to the Dey Street Passageway, some crosswalk flows across Church Street and Broadway are projected to decrease as a result. During the AM peak period, eight (8) crosswalks are projected to operate at an improved LOS (at least one (1) LOS letter grade) and pedestrian flow while another six (6) crosswalks are projected to improve in terms of pedestrian flow in the Build condition. Six (6) crosswalks are projected to operate at an improved LOS (at least one (1) LOS grade) and pedestrian flow while another eight (8) crosswalks are projected to improve in terms of pedestrian flow in the Build condition during the PM peak period. An additional benefit of relocating pedestrians subsurface into the Dey Street Passageway is to minimize the number of pedestrian/vehicular conflicts at intersections, resulting in improved safety.

The two (2) corner locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2008 Build pedestrian data. These corners are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

Sidewalks

The three (3) sidewalk locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2008 Build pedestrian data. These sidewalk locations are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-79 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation ALTERNATIVE 10 - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would be completed by 2007 and the alternative would have been in operation for its first full year in 2008. In 2008, a portion of the pedestrians currently traversing Broadway and Church Street would be expected to use the Dey Street Passageway. As the number of pedestrians crossing these crosswalks would be reduced relative to the 2008 No Action Alternative, pedestrian circulation would generally be improved in the Study Area. This benefit is measurable relative to the No Action Alternative. In general, the analysis results for transit, station elements, crosswalks and sidewalks would be virtually identical to Alternative 9.

Subway Service

Subway Line Haul analyses were not performed during the Preferred Alternative since the number of persons traveling on subway lines through the FSTC would increase only marginally due to improved transfer flows between the connecting subway lines in comparison to the No Action Alternative during the peak morning hour (8:00 – 9:00 AM).

Station Elements

The Preferred Alternative would greatly enhance pedestrian flow throughout all of the subway elements in comparison to the No Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would correct all of the elements projected to operate at LOS E or F in the No Action Alternative. With implementation of the Preferred Alternative, only a few station elements would be operating at LOS D in 2008. Locations operating at LOS D or worse during peak periods are shown in Table 6-42. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

By 2008, full realization of the benefits would not yet be achieved, as Lower Manhattan would not yet be fully redeveloped and the subway system would continue to operate with lower than normal levels of patronage. However, patrons would enjoy a much improved subway system that is more easily navigable, safer and much more accessible, resulting in the reduction of travel time. In particular, the FSTC would be better accessible for people with disabilities, via new ADA-compliant elevators from the street to the subway system, as well as ADA-compliant platform connections within the system

Table 6-42 2008 Build Condition (Alternative 10 - the Preferred Alternative) Subway Pedestrian Analysis Locations With LOS D or Worse During Peak Periods

M1/S1 (North) stairways to street 0.97 C 1.28 D 23 Stairway next to escalator 1.03 D 1.14 D Fulton Street Station Escalator (UP) AC mezzanine 0.61 D 0.04 A Escalator (DN) AC mezzanine 0.04 A 0.68 D Notes: HEET = High Entrance/Exit Turnstile; HXT = High Revolving Exit Gate. LOS determination based on v/c ratios varies for each element type (see Section 6B.3). Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-80 Legend Approximate Project Location No Build Vs. Build Condition Decrease in Level of Service and Reduced Pedestrian Flow

No Change in Level of Service but Reduced Pedestrian Flow No Change in Level of Service or Pedestrian Flow No Change in Level of Service and Improved Pedestrian Flow Increased in Level of Service and Improved Pedestrian Flow

2008 AM Peak Period Pedestrian Crosswalk Analysis Results Figure 6-17 Legend Approximate Project Location No Build Vs. Build Condition Decrease in Level of Service and Reduced Pedestrian Flow

2008 PM Peak Period Pedestrian Crosswalk Analysis Results Figure 6-18 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Crosswalks/Corners

The analysis results would be identical to those for Alternative 9 with the exception of the south crosswalk at the Broadway and Dey Street intersection and the northeast corner of Broadway and John Street. This crosswalk and corner are projected to operate with substantially less congestion than in Alternative 9. The crosswalk would improve from LOS E to D during the AM peak hour and from D to B during the PM peak hour. The corner would improve from LOS C to B during both peak hours. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

Sidewalks

6B.5.8 ANALYSIS YEAR 2025 (FULL OPERATIONAL YEAR)

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Transit, subway station pedestrian and pedestrian crosswalk volumes within the Study Area were developed for the 2025 No Action Alternative during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. This was accomplished by increasing the 2003 Existing Condition volumes using growth rates for individual zones in Lower Manhattan derived from MTA’s RTFM based upon regional demographic forecasts. These rates include all planned and committed developments through 2025 as part of the background growth for Lower Manhattan.

Subway Service

Subway line haul analyses were performed for the 2025 No Action Alternative for each subway line during the morning peak hour (8:00 – 9:00 AM) and the results are summarized in Table 6-43. No Action Alternative (2025) AM peak period passenger volumes for the 12 subway lines (six (6) stations) in the vicinity of the proposed FSTC show the northbound 45 trains at the Fulton Street Station have an exiting station v/c ratio of 0.81, the highest among all subway lines. The W and R trains at the Cortlandt Street Station and the C trains at Broadway-Nassau Street Stations have entering station v/c ratios below 0.45.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-83 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-43 2025 No Action Alternative Subway Line Haul Analysis

Trains Trains Cars Trains Total Car Entering Station Leaving Station Route(s) Station Direction Per Per Peak Hour Cap. v/c v/c Train Hour Capacity Volumes Volumes Ratio Ratio 23 Fulton Street Northbound 10 110 19 20,900 12,556 0.60 11,743 0.56 23 Fulton Street Southbound 10 110 24 26,400 12,910 0.49 12,680 0.48 45 Fulton Street Northbound 10 110 24 26,400 19,568 0.74 21,374 0.81 45 Fulton Street Southbound 10 110 25 27,500 21,106 0.77 15,500 0.56 Broadway A Northbound 10 145 18 26,100 19,849 0.76 13,254 0.51 Nassau street Broadway A Southbound 10 145 9 13,050 5,663 0.43 5,002 0.38 Nassau Broadway C Northbound 8 145 8 9,280 4,029 0.43 2,718 0.29 Nassau Broadway C Southbound 8 145 6 6,960 535 0.08 373 0.05 Nassau E WTC Northbound 10 145 12 17,400 0 0.00 97 0.01 E WTC Southbound 10 145 12 17,400 5,581 0.32 0 0.00 JMZ Fulton Street Northbound 10 145 18 26,100 953 0.04 691 0.03 JMZ Fulton Street Southbound 10 145 19 27,550 4,792 0.17 3,482 0.13 Cortlandt RW Northbound 8 175 14 19,600 4,952 0.25 3,679 0.19 Street Cortlandt RW Northbound 8 175 15 21,000 1,060 0.05 554 0.03 Street * Note: Subway car capacity based on NYCT Loading Guidelines. Source: NYCT, 2003.

Station Elements

The analysis locations at the 23 Fulton Street, AC Broadway-Nassau, JMZ Fulton Street, 45 Fulton Street, RW Cortlandt Street and the E WTC Stations are generally projected to operate at LOS C or better during the peak periods. However, there are capacity constraints at many locations during the AM and PM peak periods. Locations with LOS D or worse during peak periods are shown in Table 6-44. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-84 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-44 2025 No Action Alternative Subway Pedestrian Analysis Locations With LOS D or Worse During Peak Periods

AM Peak PM Peak Station Element v/c LOS v/c LOS R2 Transfer ramp to 23 1.37 E 1.13 D P1 Stairway to platform 0.99 C 1.06 D P3 Stairway to platform 1.19 D 0.89 C P4 Stairway to platform 2.08 F 1.78 F AC PL17 Transfer stairway 1.02 D 0.84 C Broadway-Nassau Station PL19 Transfer stairway 1.33 E 0.91 C R5 Transfer ramp 1.15 D 0.72 C P5 Stairway to platform 1.36 E 0.81 C P7 Stairway to platform 1.22 D 0.87 C R8 Transfer ramp 1.62 E 0.92 C R113 (North) turnstile 0.84 E 0.78 D P1 Stairway to platform 0.77 C 1.15 D 23 P4 Stairway to platform 1.68 F 1.61 E Fulton Street Station M1/S1 (North) stairways to street 1.40 E 1.70 F M1/S1 (South) stairways to street 0.91 C 1.01 D R2 Transfer ramp to AC 1.37 E 1.13 D R8 (West) to 45 northbound platform 1.71 F 0.79 C M2/O2 Stairways to street 1.08 D 3.24 F R208 North HEET 0.00 A 2.36 F R206 South 3 HEETs and 2 HEETs 0.33 B 0.64 D 45 ML5 Stairway to Platform 1.92 F 1.32 D Fulton Street Station ML6A/B Transfer stairways to AC 0.15 A 1.33 D S6/M8 Stairways to street 0.00 A 2.69 F O6/O5 Stairways to street 0.70 C 1.26 D S1/M1 Stairways to street 1.12 D 0.35 A S3/M3 Stairways to street 1.76 F 1.04 D Notes: HEET = High Entrance/Exit Turnstile; HXT = High Revolving Exit Gate LOS determination based on v/c ratios varies for each element type (see Section 6B.3). Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-85 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Crosswalks/Corners

Thirteen intersections around the project site were analyzed using 2025 No Action pedestrian data. Of these 13 intersections, 12 intersections were found to have at least one (1) crosswalk approach operating at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak periods. The west approach at the Church and Vesey Streets intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The results are summarized in Tables 6-45 and 6-46.

Table 6-45 2025—No Action Alternative Crosswalk Analysis (LOS E or F)

AM Period LOS PM Period LOS Intersection Crosswalk Location Crosswalk Location North East South West North East South West Church and Vesey Streets D E D F D E E F Church and Fulton Streets E D E D E E E D Church and Dey Streets E D E - E D E - Church and Liberty Streets E B D E E C C E Broadway and Ann Streets B E C E B E C E Park Row and Ann Streets B E - - B E - - Broadway and Fulton Streets E D E D E D E D Broadway and John Streets E E E D E E E E Broadway and Cortland Streets E C E D D D D D Nassau and Fulton Streets E B D B D C D C Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Table 6-46 2025—No Action Alternative Crosswalk Analysis Summary

Crosswalk Weekday Weekday % % LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS A, B or C 15 31.3 13 27.1 LOS D 14 29.2 16 33.3 LOS E 18 37.5 18 37.5 LOS F 1 2.1 1 2.1 Total Crosswalks 48 100.0 48 100.0 Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

The two (2) corner locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2025 pedestrian data. These corners are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

Sidewalks

The three (3) sidewalk locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2025 pedestrian data. These sidewalk locations are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-86 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation ALTERNATIVE 9

By 2025 Alternative 9 would have been in operation for almost two (2) decades. In 2025, a large portion of the redevelopment west of Church Street in accordance with the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan would have been in place for several years and the FSTC would be expected to operate with full patronage. A portion of the pedestrians traversing Broadway and Church Street would be expected to use the Dey Street Passageway. As the number of pedestrians crossing these crosswalks would be reduced relative to the 2025 No Action Alternative, pedestrian circulation would generally be improved in the Study Area. This benefit is measurable relative to the No Action Alternative.

Subway Service

Station Elements

The analysis locations at the 23 Fulton Street, AC Broadway-Nassau, JMZ Fulton Street, 45 Fulton Street, RW Cortlandt Street and E WTC Stations all are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the peak periods. Only some marginal capacity constraints remain at a few locations during the AM and PM peak periods. Locations with LOS D or worse during the peak periods are shown in Table 6- 47. Overall, the subway elements operate much better as a result of Alternative 9 compared to the No Action Alternative. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

The improved operational conditions of the station elements in 2025 would result in a direct benefit for Lower Manhattan mobility. By 2025, Lower Manhattan would have been fully redeveloped and would have resumed the economic growth projected prior to September 11. The economic growth of Lower Manhattan during the preceding decades would have been supported by a much improved subway system that is more easily navigable, safer and much more accessible. This would result in the reduction of travel time by an estimated 900,000 hours per year for all commuters combined using the FSTC.

In particular, the FSTC would have been providing better accessibility for people with disabilities, via new ADA-compliant elevators from the street to the subway system, as well as ADA-compliant platform connections within the system, ADA access, where none now exist, would be provided among all stations (45, AC, 23, JMZ) in one of the system's busiest station complexes. This would facilitate fuller participation in Lower Manhattan’s economic and cultural resources and increased ability for all to reside in Lower Manhattan.

Crosswalks/Corners

Thirteen intersections around the project site were analyzed using 2025 Build pedestrian data. The crosswalk and corner analyses consider that passage through the Corbin Building would not be permitted in this alternative and pedestrians must either access the Dey Street Passageway west of Broadway or walk around the northeast corner of Broadway and John Street. Of these 13 intersections, 12 intersections were found to have at least one (1) crosswalk approach operating at LOS E or F during the AM or PM peak periods. The diversion of pedestrians using the crosswalks in the No Action Alternative to the subsurface Dey Street Passageway greatly reduces street-level pedestrians and improves crosswalk LOS in the Study Area. The results are summarized in Tables 6-48 and 6-49. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-87 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-47 2025 Build Alternative 9 Condition Subway Pedestrian Analysis Locations With LOS D or Worse During Peak Periods

AM Peak PM Peak Station Element v/c LOS v/c LOS C3 AC Platform stair 1.30 D 1.00 D C4 AC Platform stair 1.30 D 1.00 D C5 AC Platform stair 1.33 D 1.03 D Concourse Level C8 Escalator up to platform (North) 0.63 D 0.05 A C9 Escalator up to platform (South) 0.59 C 0.62 D C23 Escalator down from platform to street 0.65 D 0.37 B C24 Escalator down from platform to underpass 0.09 A 0.63 D P8 HEETs SB 45 platform (NW corner) 0.76 D 0.17 A P9A Stairways to street 1.14 D 0.25 A P17 Stairway to street 0.47 B 1.06 D Platform Level P19 Escalator down from street (South) 0.11 A 0.61 D Fulton Street Station P15 Escalator up from platform to World of Golf 0.63 D 0.05 A 45 C23 Escalator down from platform to street 0.65 D 0.37 B C24 Escalator down from platform to underpass 0.09 A 0.63 D P9A Stairways to street 1.14 D 0.25 A P17 Stairway to street 0.47 B 1.06 D Street-level P19 Escalator down from street (South) 0.11 A 0.61 D P15 Escalator up from platform to World of Golf 0.63 D 0.05 A P1 Stairway to platform 0.85 C 1.24 D P2 Stairway to platform 1.08 D 0.66 B AC P3 Stairway to platform 1.30 D 0.99 C Broadway-Nassau Station P4 Stairway to platform 1.29 D 1.03 D PL18 Stairway next to escalator 0.87 C 1.16 D Escalator (UP) 0.78 D 0.18 A JMZ Stairway next to escalator 0.87 C 1.16 D Broadway-Nassau Station A77 (East) Turnstile 0.55 C 0.60 D R113 (South) turnstiles and HEETS 0.62 D 0.70 D R113 (North) HEET 0.67 D 0.59 C P1 Stairway to platform 0.77 C 1.15 D 23 M1/S1 (North) stairways to street 0.97 C 1.27 D Fulton Street Station Stairway next to escalator 1.23 D 1.30 D Escalator (UP) AC mezzanine 0.71 D 0.05 A Escalator (DN) AC mezzanine 0.07 A 0.77 D R114 HEETS 0.61 D 0.34 B Notes: HEET = High Entrance/Exit Turnstile; HXT = High Revolving Exit Gate. LOS determination based on v/c ratios varies for each element type (see Section 6B.3). Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-88 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-48 2025 Alternative 9 Condition Crosswalk Analysis (LOS E or F)

AM Period LOS PM Period LOS Intersection Crosswalk Location Crosswalk Location North East South West North East South West Church and Vesey Streets D E C E D E D F Church and Fulton Streets C D B C C E B C Church and Dey Streets B D C - C D C - Church and Liberty Streets E B D E E C C E Broadway and Ann Street B D C E B E C E Park Row and Ann Street B E - - B E - - Broadway and John Street C D E D C E D D Broadway and Cortland Street D C E C C D C C Nassau and Fulton Streets E B D B D C D C Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

Table 6-49 2025 Alternative 9 Condition Crosswalk Analysis Summary

Crosswalk Weekday Weekday % % LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS A, B or C 27 56.3 26 54.2 LOS D 12 25 13 27.1 LOS E 9 18.8 8 16.7 LOS F 0 0.0 1 2.1 Total Crosswalks 48 100.0 48 100.0 Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

The crosswalk analysis results for the 2025 Operational Condition were compared with the 2025 No Action Alternative for the AM and PM peak hours (see Figures 6-19 and 6-20, respectively). Because pedestrian flows are anticipated to shift from Dey Street, Cortlandt Street, Fulton Street and Vesey/Ann Streets to the Dey Street Passageway, some crosswalk flows across Church Street and Broadway are projected to decrease as a result. During the AM peak period, 18 crosswalks are projected to operate at an improved LOS (at least one (1) LOS grade) and pedestrian flow while another 11 crosswalks are projected to improve in terms of pedestrian flow in the Build condition.

A total of 18 crosswalks are projected to operate at an improved LOS (at least one (1) LOS letter grade) and pedestrian flow while another 11 crosswalks are projected to improve in terms of pedestrian flow in the Build condition during the PM peak period. An additional benefit of relocating pedestrians subsurface into the Dey Street Passageway is to minimize the number of pedestrian/vehicular conflicts at intersections, resulting in improved safety.

The two (2) corner locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2025 Build pedestrian data. These corners are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D. The pedestrian flow at these corners would be better under Alternative 9 compared to No Action Alternatives, as describe below. The improved flow would also reduce conflicts with vehicular traffic and potential safety issues. The fact that Broadway is also a bus route and a City truck route further emphasizes the issue of safety at these locations.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-89 Legend Approximate Project Location No Build Vs. Build Condition Decrease in Level of Service and Reduced Pedestrian Flow

2025 AM Peak Period Pedestrian Crosswalk Analysis Results Figure 6-19 Legend Approximate Project Location No Build Vs. Build Condition Decrease in Level of Service and Reduced Pedestrian Flow

2025 PM Peak Period Pedestrian Crosswalk Analysis Results Figure 6-20 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation Sidewalks

The three (3) sidewalk locations located around the site of the Entry Facility were analyzed using 2025 Build pedestrian data. These sidewalk locations are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. The conditions in 2025 under Alternative 9 would represent an improvement over the No Action Alternative in 2025 at these sidewalk locations and patrons would save time traveling from east to west and west to east. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

Subway patrons traveling from the area west of Broadway to John Street east of Broadway would use the Dey Street Passageway and would continue subsurface via the Central Station Concourse to their subway destinations. In contrast, under the No Action Alternative, subway patrons on their way east in the morning peak would mingle with the crowded pedestrian movement on Dey Street and would occupy the sidewalks east of Broadway before entering a subway entrance east of Broadway. The reduced volumes of subway patrons at the sidewalks around the Entry Facility would benefit the pedestrian flow on these sidewalks, in particular the northern sidewalk of John Street, which is shared by subway patrons, as well as pedestrians traveling to destinations east of Broadway.

ALTERNATIVE 10 - THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

By 2025, the Preferred Alternative would have been in operation for almost two (2) decades. In 2025, a large portion of the redevelopment west of Church Street in accordance with the WTC Memorial and Redevelopment Plan would have been in place for several years and the FSTC would be expected to operate with full patronage. A portion of the pedestrians traversing Broadway and Church Street would be expected to use the Dey Street Passageway. As the number of pedestrians crossing these crosswalks would be reduced relative to the 2025 No Action Alternative, pedestrian circulation would generally be improved in the Study Area. This benefit is measurable relative to the No Action Alternative.

Subway Service

Subway Line Haul analyses were not performed for the Preferred Alternative since the number of persons traveling on subway lines through the FSTC would increase only marginally due to improved transfer flows between the connecting subway lines in comparison to the No Action Alternative during the peak morning hour (8:00 – 9:00 AM).

Station Elements

The analysis locations at the 23 Fulton Street, AC Broadway-Nassau, JMZ Fulton Street, 45 Fulton Street, RW Cortlandt Street and the E WTC Stations all are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the peak periods. Only marginal capacity constraints would remain at a few locations during the AM and PM peak periods. Locations with LOS D or worse during the peak periods are shown in Table 6-50. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

The improved operational conditions of the station elements in 2025 would result in a direct benefit for Lower Manhattan mobility. By 2025 Lower Manhattan would have been fully redeveloped and would have resumed the economic growth projected prior to September 11. The economic growth of Lower Manhattan during the preceding decades would have been supported by a much improved subway system that is more easily navigable, safer and much more accessible. This would result in the reduction of travel time by an estimated 900,000 hours per year for all commuters combined using the FSTC.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-92 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation

Table 6-50 2025 Alternative 10 - the Preferred Alternative Condition Subway Pedestrian Analysis Locations With LOS D or Worse During Peak Periods

Fulton Street Station Platform Level P17 Stairway to street 0.47 B 1.06 D

45 P15 Escalator up from platform to World of Golf 0.63 D 0.01 A C23 Escalator down from platform to street 0.75 D 0.42 C C24 Escalator down from platform to underpass 0.14 A 0.75 D P9A Stairways to street 1.14 D 0.25 A Street-Level P17 Stairway to street 0.47 B 1.06 D P15 Escalator up from platform to World of Golf 0.63 D 0.01 A P1 Stairway to platform 0.85 C 1.24 D P2 Stairway to platform 1.08 D 0.66 B

AC P3 Stairway to platform 1.30 D 0.99 C Broadway-Nassau Station P4 Stairway to platform 1.29 D 1.03 D PL18 Stairway next to escalator 0.87 C 1.16 D Escalator (UP) 0.78 D 0.18 A JMZ Stairway next to escalator 0.87 C 1.16 D Broadway-Nassau Station A77 (East) Turnstile 0.55 C 0.60 D R113 (South) turnstiles and HEETS 0.62 D 0.70 D R113 (North) HEET 0.67 D 0.59 C P1 Stairway to platform 0.77 C 1.15 D 23 M1/S1 (South) stairways to street 0.91 C 1.02 D Fulton Street Station Stairway next to escalator 1.23 D 1.30 D Escalator (UP) AC mezzanine 0.71 D 0.05 A Escalator (DN) AC mezzanine 0.07 A 0.77 D R114 HEETS 0.61 D 0.34 B Notes: HEET = High Entrance/Exit Turnstile; HXT = High Revolving Exit Gate. LOS determination based on v/c ratios varies for each element type (see Section 6B.3). Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2004.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-93 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation In particular, the FSTC would have been providing better accessibility for people with disabilities, via new ADA-compliant elevators from the street to the subway system, as well as ADA-compliant platform connections within the system, ADA access, where none now exists, would be provided among all stations (45, AC, 23, JMZ) in one of the system’s busiest station complexes. This would facilitate the fullest participation in Lower Manhattan’s economic and cultural resources and increased ability for all to reside in Lower Manhattan.

Crosswalks/Corners

The analysis results indicate that the pedestrian flow at these corners would be better under Alternative 9 compared to the No Action Alternative, as describe below. The improved flow would also reduce conflicts with vehicular traffic and potential safety issues. The fact that Broadway is also a bus route and a City truck route further emphasizes the issue of safety at these locations

Pedestrian flow would be identical to Alternative 9, with the exception of the south crosswalk at the Broadway and Dey Street intersection and the northeast corner of Broadway and John Street. This crosswalk and corner are projected to operate with substantially less congestion than in Alternative 9. The crosswalk would improve from LOS E to D during the AM peak hour and from D to B during the PM peak hour. The corner would improve from D to B during the AM peak hour and from LOS C to B during the PM peak hour. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

Sidewalks

The three (3) sidewalk locations located around the project site were analyzed using 2025 Build pedestrian data. These sidewalk locations are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak periods. The conditions in 2025 under the Preferred Alternative would represent an improvement over the No Action Alternative in 2025 at these sidewalk locations and patrons would save time traveling from east to west and west to east. It would also represent an improvement compared to Alternative 9. Detailed analysis results for all locations are summarized in Appendix D.

Subway patrons traveling from the area west of Broadway to John Street east of Broadway would use the Dey Street Passageway and would continue subsurface via the Central Station Concourse to their subway destinations. In contrast, under the No Action Alternative, subway patrons on their way east in the morning peak would mingle with the crowded pedestrian movement on Dey Street and would occupy the sidewalks east of Broadway before entering a subway entrance east of Broadway. The reduced volumes of subway patrons on the sidewalks around the Entry Facility would benefit the pedestrian flow on these sidewalks, in particular the northern sidewalk of John Street, which is shared by subway patrons, as well as pedestrians traveling to destinations east of Broadway.

6B.6 SUMMARY OF ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

During construction, strategic construction phasing would be used to significantly reduce impacts to the patrons of the stations by providing new pedestrian pathways before the existing ones are removed. Construction would be advanced early in those areas that are not currently well utilized in order to provide refuge for passengers away from necessary construction in the congested areas of the station in later stages. General station rehabilitation would also be advanced where possible to provide tangible improvements to the users of the station at the earliest possible time to offset the unavoidable inconveniences associated with the construction of larger project elements.

No adverse impacts on transit or pedestrians would occur as a result of construction or operation of the FSTC under either Alternative 9 or the Preferred Alternative. Since there would be no adverse impacts, no mitigation measures would be required. In order to manage traffic and minimize the impact on vehicular flows during construction of the FSTC elements, MPT plans would be developed for the

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-94 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation project. These plans would be coordinated with the MPT plans developed by LMDC, PANYNJ, NYCDDC, NYSDOT and NYCDOT for their respective Lower Manhattan projects. Since the transit and pedestrian analysis was conducted, the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects participating in the Lower Manhattan Construction Coordination Group have continued to coordinate their refined construction schedules. As a result of this process, the extent of overlap of construction activities is being reduced from that originally assumed for the analysis, when few details on the projects’ design were available and highly conservative assumptions had to be made to account for uncertainty. MTA NYCT will continue this construction coordination process during actual construction to avoid logistical interference. For pedestrians, strategic construction phasing would be used to substantially reduce impacts to customers of the Existing Complex during construction, by providing new pedestrian pathways prior to the removal of existing facilities and providing tangible improvements at the earliest possible time to offset the inconveniences associated with construction of the larger project elements. NYCT would also implement a CEPP during construction of the FSTC; the CEPP would include proactive measures to prevent environmental impacts during construction wherever possible, and would include the MPT Plans.

October 2004 6.0 Traffic and Transportation 6-95

This Page Intentionally Left Blank