Draft Scoping Document for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for the

Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant for the Subway Line between the 33rd Street/ South Station and the / Station

May 2016

MTA Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

This page intentionally blank. MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1.1 Project Overview ...... 5 1.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act Process ...... 7 2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED, AND DESCRIPTION ...... 9 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ...... 9 3.1 Initial Alternatives Development ...... 9 3.1.1 Above-Grade Alternatives ...... 10 3.1.2 Below-Grade Alternatives South of East 36th Street or North of East 40th Street ...... 10 3.1.3 Results for Analysis ...... 10 3.2 Description of Potential Alternatives ...... 11 3.2.1 Alternative 1 ...... 11 3.2.2 Alternative 2 ...... 11 3.2.3 Alternative 3 ...... 15 3.2.4 Alternative 4 ...... 15 3.2.5 Alternative 5 ...... 15 3.2.6 Alternative 6 ...... 19 3.2.7 Alternative 7 ...... 19 3.2.8 Alternative 8 ...... 19 3.2.9 Alternative 9 ...... 23 3.2.10 Alternative 10 ...... 23 3.2.11 Alternative 11 ...... 23 3.2.12 Alternative 12 ...... 31 3.2.13 Alternative 13 ...... 31 3.3 Summary of Alternatives Analysis ...... 31 3.3.1 Comparative Analysis ...... 31 3.3.2 Environmental Comparative Analysis ...... 42 3.3.3 Economic Comparative Analysis ...... 57 3.3.4 Integrated Engineering/Environmental/Economic Comparative Analysis ...... 59 4.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ...... 59 5.0 METHODOLOGIES FOR PREPARING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ...... 60 5.1 Discussion of Project Description ...... 60 5.2 Discussion of Alternatives Evaluation ...... 61 5.3 Discussion/Evaluation of Transportation ...... 61 5.4 Discussion/Evaluation of Socioeconomic Conditions, Community Disruption, Displacements and Relocations, Temporary and Permanent Easements, and Vaults ..... 62 5.5 Discussion/Evaluation of Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy ...... 63 5.6 Discussion/Evaluation of Open Space/Parklands and Recreational Facilities ...... 64 5.7 Discussion/Evaluation of Community Facilities and Services ...... 64 5.8 Discussion/Evaluation of Community Character/Urban Design and Visual Resources/Visual and Aesthetics ...... 64 5.9 Discussion/Evaluation for Historic and Cultural Resources ...... 64 5.10 Discussion/Evaluation of Air Quality ...... 66

Draft Scoping Document i MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

5.11 Discussion/Evaluation of Noise and Vibration ...... 67 5.12 Discussion/Evaluation of Infrastructure, Energy, and Solid Waste ...... 68 5.13 Discussion/Evaluation of Natural Resources ...... 68 5.14 Discussion/Evaluation of Contaminated and Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ...... 68 5.15 Discussion/Evaluation of Coastal Zone Consistency ...... 68 5.16 Discussion/Evaluation of Safety and Security ...... 69 5.17 Discussion/Evaluation of Environmental Justice ...... 69 5.18 Discussion/Evaluation of Coordinated Cumulative Effects ...... 69 5.19 Discussion/Evaluation of Mitigation ...... 69 5.20 Discussion Evaluation of Other Study Categories ...... 69 5.20.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...... 69 5.20.2 Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Project ...... 69 5.20.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...... 69 6.0 PLAN FOR PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ...... 69 7.0 PROTOCOL FOR PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ...... 70

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: PROJECT STUDY AREA ...... 6 FIGURE 2: OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 8 FIGURE 3: ALTERNATIVE 1 PLAN ...... 12 FIGURE 4: ALTERNATIVE 1 SECTION A-A ...... 12 FIGURE 5: ALTERNATIVES 1 TO 8 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION B-B ...... 13 FIGURE 6: ALTERNATIVE 2 PLAN ...... 14 FIGURE 7: ALTERNATIVE 2 SECTION A-A ...... 14 FIGURE 8: ALTERNATIVE 3 PLAN ...... 16 FIGURE 9: ALTERNATIVE 3 SECTION A-A ...... 16 FIGURE 10: ALTERNATIVE 4 PLAN ...... 17 FIGURE 11: ALTERNATIVE 4 SECTION A-A ...... 17 FIGURE 12: ALTERNATIVE 5 PLAN ...... 18 FIGURE 13: ALTERNATIVE 5 SECTION A-A ...... 18 FIGURE 14: ALTERNATIVE 6 PLAN ...... 20 FIGURE 15: ALTERNATIVE 6 SECTION A-A ...... 20 FIGURE 16: ALTERNATIVE 7 PLAN ...... 21 FIGURE 17: ALTERNATIVE 7 SECTION A-A ...... 21 FIGURE 18: ALTERNATIVE 8 PLAN ...... 22 FIGURE 19: ALTERNATIVE 8 SECTION A-A ...... 22 FIGURE 20: ALTERNATIVE 9 PLAN ...... 24 FIGURE 21: ALTERNATIVE 9 SECTION A-A ...... 25 FIGURE 22: ALTERNATIVE 9 SECTION B-B ...... 25 FIGURE 23: ALTERNATIVE 10 PLAN ...... 26 FIGURE 24: ALTERNATIVE 10 SECTION A-A ...... 26 FIGURE 25: ALTERNATIVE 10 SECTION B-B ...... 27

Draft Scoping Document ii MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

FIGURE 26: ALTERNATIVE 11 PLAN ...... 28 FIGURE 27: ALTERNATIVE 11 SECTION A-A ...... 29 FIGURE 28: ALTERNATIVE 11 SECTION B-B ...... 30 FIGURE 29: ALTERNATIVE 12 PLAN ...... 32 FIGURE 30: ALTERNATIVE 12 SECTION A-A ...... 33 FIGURE 31: ALTERNATIVE 12 SECTION B-B ...... 34 FIGURE 32: ALTERNATIVE 13 PLAN ...... 35 FIGURE 33: ALTERNATIVE 13 SECTION A-A ...... 35 FIGURE 34: ALTERNATIVE 13 SECTION B-B ...... 36

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: COMPARATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ...... 42 TABLE 2: COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS...... 58 TABLE 3: COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ...... 58 TABLE 4: INTEGRATED COMPARATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX ...... 59

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Alternatives Analysis/Feasibility Evaluation Report Appendix B: SEQRA Full Environmental Assessment Form and Positive Declaration

Draft Scoping Document iii MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line ACRONYMS

AA/FE Alternatives Analysis/Feasibility Evaluation ATR automatic traffic recorder CO carbon monoxide cfm cubic feet per minute EAF Environmental Assessment Form EIS environmental impact statement FTA Federal Transit Administration LPC Landmarks Preservation Commission MPT maintenance and protection of traffic MTA NYCT MTA New York City Transit NFPA National Fire Protection Association NO2 nitrogen dioxide NYCDCP New York City Department of City Planning NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection NYCDOB New York City Department of Buildings NYCDOT New York City Department of Transportation NYCRR New York Codes, Rules and Regulation NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation OPRHP New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation PM2.5 and PM10 Fine particulate matter up to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) and coarse particulate matter between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Office S/NR State/National Registers of Historic Places SO2 sulfur dioxide TPPN Technical Policy and Procedure Notice USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Draft Scoping Document iv MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City Transit (MTA NYCT) proposes to construct and operate an emergency ventilation plant (EVP) on the Lexington Avenue Subway Line between the 33rd Street/Park Avenue South Station and the Grand Central Terminal/42nd Street Station, located on Park Avenue in the Murray Hill neighborhood of in New York City (the Proposed Project). The Proposed Project would provide the necessary mechanical ventilation to improve life safety during a fire/smoke condition to the tunnel section of the Lexington Avenue Subway Line between the two subway stations (the project study area), which currently has no such protection. The project study area is identified in Figure 1, page 6. The purpose of the EVP is to provide a tenable environment along the egress route for the emergency evacuation of subway passengers during a fire/smoke condition. In 1994, MTA NYCT completed a comprehensive ventilation study that evaluated every operational subway tunnel section in New York City to determine the magnitude of requirements to comply with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 130 Standard for emergency ventilation. A hazard assessment also was conducted to prioritize the locations that should be addressed first, considering engineering, construction, and economic factors. This priority index ranked each MTA NYCT subway tunnel section in order of priority from 1—as most critical for safety—to 252—least critical, and, since then, there has been an ongoing program of rehabilitating, expanding, and constructing new ventilation plants throughout the system. In October 2015, MTA proposed its MTA Capital Program 2015-2019 to the MTA Board1; the proposed program included this statement: “…line equipment investments including…two fan plants on the Lexington and 6th Avenue lines, one new to protect an area that currently has no plants and one to replace an existing undersized unit.”

The referenced Lexington Avenue Line area that currently has no fan plants is, in fact, the tunnel segment under Park Avenue between 33rd Street and 42nd Street identified in the 1994 MTA NYCT comprehensive ventilation study, which gives this tunnel segment a priority index ranking of 5. To achieve the goal of providing emergency ventilation to the tunnel segment on the Lexington Avenue Subway Line, several site configurations (Alternatives) were considered, including: . Constructing an EVP above‐grade on property adjacent to Park Avenue between East 33rd and East 42nd Streets. . Constructing an EVP below‐grade (in the streetbed) east or west of Park Avenue and the Lexington Avenue Subway Line tunnels (Note: the Lexington Avenue Subway Line runs under Park Avenue in this area of Manhattan between the East 33rd and East 42nd Street stations). . Constructing an EVP below the exit ramp of the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) roadway tunnel between East 39th and East 40th Streets. . Constructing an EVP below‐grade between the northbound and southbound subway tunnels below the NYCDOT roadway tunnel between East 37th and East 38th Streets.

1 MTA Capital Program 2015-2019, Page 64. Available at http://web.mta.info/capital/pdf/MTA_15- 19_Capital%20Plan_Board_WEB%20v3.pdf.

Draft Scoping Document 5 Lexington Avenue Subway Line Tunnel - Priority Ranking of 5

0 250 500 1,000 Feet ± Legend Alternative Locations Project Location !( NYC Subway Stations Emergency Ventilation Plant NYC Subway Lines Lexington Avenue Line 4-5-6 E 33rd Street to E 42nd Street, 7 Manhattan, New York B-D-F-M S Figure - 1 Source : New York City Transit; New York City Department of City Planning (PLUTO data); ESRI World Street Map. MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

. Constructing an EVP below‐grade under the northbound lanes on Park Avenue (above the northbound subway tunnel) between East 37th and East 39th Streets or between East 36th Street and East 38th Street. In the early planning of the Proposed Project, an Alternative Analysis and Feasibility Evaluation (AA/FE) (see Appendix A) was performed on a range of site configurations to (1) remove those sites from further consideration that have major constructability constraints and (2) identify those sites that have a reasonable potential to meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Project. Thirteen (13) Potential Alternatives (see Figure 2, page 8) resulted, and MTA NYCT developed and refined them based on engineering design considerations (e.g., feasibility, constructability, schedule, etc.), cost factors, and environmental effects. The 13 Potential Alternatives are summarized in Chapter 3 of this document. Based on the AA/FE, Candidate Alternatives 11 and 12 have been identified as having the greatest potential to minimize engineering, costs, and environmental effects from among the Potential Alternatives. Candidate Alternatives 11 and 12 are located in the streetbed of the northbound traffic lanes of Park Avenue. Alternative 11 would be located below the northbound lanes on Park Avenue between 37th Street and 39th Street, and Alternative 12 would be located below the northbound traffic lanes on Park Avenue between 36th Street and 38th Street. These two Candidate Alternatives remain under consideration by MTA NYCT and will be evaluated further along with the No-Action Alternative during the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. A final decision on the Candidate Alternative(s) to advance to the draft EIS will be provided in the final Scoping Document, after any other reasonable alternatives revealed and screened as a result of the scoping process are reviewed and/or considered. 1.2 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS Pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulation Part 617 (6 NYCRR): “The basic purpose of SEQR is to incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the existing planning, review and decision-making processes of state, regional and local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQR requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they directly undertake, fund or approve may have a significant impact on the environment, and, if it is determined that the action may have a significant adverse impact, prepare or request an environmental impact statement.” MTA NYCT, acting as lead state agency for the environmental review, prepared an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for the Proposed Project and determined that the project may have significant effects/impacts on the environment. The Proposed Project would be classified as a Type 1 action because the array of alternatives under consideration would be within or contiguous to designated historic and parkland resources, including the Murray Hill Historic District (which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places) and the Park Avenue Malls (parkland within the jurisdiction of the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation). Type 1 actions are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and may require an EIS. The SEQRA Full EAF and Positive Declaration have been issued and are provided in Appendix B. The draft and final EIS will be prepared in accordance with all applicable state laws and regulations. The public scoping process begins with the publication of this draft Scoping Document. The purpose of this document is to provide the public and governmental agencies with an initial opportunity to comment on the draft EIS process, including the project’s purpose and need, the alternatives considered, and the study areas/methodologies to be used in the analyses. This draft Scoping Document provides a description of the project’s purpose and need (Section 2); the potential alternatives under consideration (Section 3);

Draft Scoping Document 7

E 40 ST Alt 9 Alt

Alt 7 Alt 8 E 39 ST

Alt 5 Alt 6 E 38 ST Alt 11 Alt

Alt 10

Alt 3 Alt 4 E 37 ST

Alt 12 Alt Alt 13 Alt

Madison Ave Madison Lexington Ave Lexington

Alt 1 Alt 2 E 36 ST

1

E 35 ST

Legend 050 100 200 Feet O Proposed Alternative Locations Alternatives Overview

Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Line E 33rd Street to E 42nd Street, Manhattan, New York

Figure 2 Source : New York City Transit; ESRI World Street Map. MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

the potential significant effects/impacts of the project (Section 4); the methodologies to be used for the draft EIS environmental analyses (Section 5); and the plan for public and agency involvement (Section 6). Section 7 provides information regarding the protocol to be used at the public meeting that will be held on June 16, 2016, to solicit comments on this draft Scoping Document. 2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE, NEED, AND DESCRIPTION The original system, built in the early 20th century, had no ventilation plants; all were added later. The original system relied on the trains’ piston action and fresh air from the open gratings (natural ventilation) to ventilate the tunnels. However, the need to further ventilate tunnels was an early concern for MTA NYCT. Although fan equipment was not installed at the outset, fan chambers were excavated and constructed with the intent of equipping them at a later date, if required. In fact, there are still empty fan chambers (having no mechanical equipment) within the system, although none of these unequipped fan chambers are located in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to provide emergency mechanical ventilation to the Lexington Avenue Subway Line tunnels between the 33rd Street/Park Avenue South and Grand Central Terminal/42nd Street stations (see Figure 1). The Proposed Project will provide a tenable environment along the egress route for the emergency evacuation of subway passengers during a fire/smoke condition in the tunnel. The EVP would contain multiple fans having a nominal capacity of 500,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) in order to achieve the necessary air velocity in the tunnel to control the movement of smoke and provide tenable evacuation routes in the tunnel segment. The proposed EVP project is currently included in the MTA’s 2015–2019 Capital Program to construct new or expanded fan plants at the highest priority locations in the subway system.2 Construction of the EVP is expected to begin in 2017, and the EVP is expected to be operational in 2021. The construction period would take approximately 4.5 years to complete, though above-ground disruptions (e.g., lane closures) are expected to be limited to less than 2 years. 3.0 ALTERNATIVES The evaluation of alternatives for the proposed ventilation plant involved progressive layers of screenings. Initially, MTA NYCT reviewed a broad range of alternatives and eliminated those that would clearly not meet the need for the project or would not be feasible because of extraordinary engineering, economic, or environmental implications. Thirteen Potential Alternatives resulted from that screening and were further developed in terms of their engineering, economic, and environmental features and analyzed in an AA/FE (Appendix A). The AA/FE includes integrated analyses of the engineering, economic, and environmental implications of each Potential Alternative and concludes with the identification of the Candidate Alternatives to be advanced to the draft EIS for further detailed analysis. The alternatives development process is described in greater detail in the sections below. 3.1 INITIAL ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT To achieve the goal of providing emergency ventilation to the tunnel section on the Lexington Avenue Subway Line, various preliminary design methods and sites were initially considered, including: . Constructing an EVP above-grade, on property adjacent to Park Avenue between East 33rd and East 42nd Streets.

2 MTA Capital Program 2015-2019, p.64. Available at: http://web.mta.info/capital/pdf/CapitalProgram2015-19_WEB%20v4%20FINAL_small.pdf

Draft Scoping Document 9 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

. Constructing an EVP below-grade (in the streetbed) east or west of Park Avenue and the Lexington Avenue Subway Line tunnels (Note: the Lexington Avenue Subway Line runs under Park Avenue in this area of Manhattan between the East 33rd and East 42nd Street stations). . Constructing an EVP below the exit ramp of the NYCDOT roadway tunnel (between East 39th and East 40th Streets). . Constructing an EVP below-grade between the northbound and southbound subway tunnels and under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel (between East 36th and East 39th Streets) . Constructing an EVP below the northbound lanes of Park Avenue (above the northbound subway tunnel) between East 36th and East 39th Streets. Alternatives within the streetbed of Park Avenue southbound were found not feasible because the ventilation plant plenum would be unable to tie into the existing subway tunnels given the tunnel configurations approaching Grand Central. A preliminary screening analysis was performed to eliminate alternatives that clearly would not be feasible and to further develop the engineering, economic, and environmental analyses on the most promising design options (Potential Alternatives). The results of the preliminary screening are summarized below. 3.1.1 Above-Grade Alternatives There are no suitable vacant properties in the vicinity of the subject Lexington Avenue Subway Line tunnels to support an above-grade EVP. An above-grade EVP in the area would involve substantial acquisition of existing commercial or residential property for MTA NYCT use. Therefore, MTA NYCT would only consider an above-grade option for this project if all below-grade options are found to be not feasible. 3.1.2 Below-Grade Alternatives South of East 36th Street or North of East 40th Street Below-grade EVP alternatives located south of East 36th Street or north of East 40th Street were found to be not feasible. The air dynamics of ventilation generally indicate that, in a uniform tunnel segment, the ideal emergency ventilation location from a mechanical ventilation perspective is, nominally, the midpoint of the tunnel segment between stations. However, the subway tunnel segment in this section splits into several branches as it approaches Grand Central; shifting the ventilation “centroid” farther north from the geographical midpoint to a position nominally at East 38th Street. The EVP could however, be located away from that “ideal,” but the fan capacity, structure size, and project cost would increase as the plant is moved away from the “ideal,” towards either station. An EVP located south of East 36th or north of East 40th Street would need a capacity substantially greater than 500,000 cfm.3 To achieve greater capacity, the EVP would require additional fans, a larger footprint (to house the fans), increased cost and produce greater construction impacts. Therefore, alternatives located south of East 36th Street or north of East 40th Street were eliminated from further consideration. 3.1.3 Results for Analysis The preliminary screening resulted in 13 below-grade Potential Alternatives: . East 36th Street immediately east or immediately west of Park Avenue . East 37th Street immediately east or immediately west of Park Avenue

3 During the subsequent evaluation of alternatives, it was determined that an alternative on East 36th Street would also require a capacity greater than 500,000 cfm. Nevertheless, the alternatives on East 36th Street (Alternatives 1 and 2) were retained in the AA/FE to document the analysis process undertaken.

Draft Scoping Document 10 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

. East 38th Street immediately east or immediately west of Park Avenue . East 39th Street immediately east or immediately west of Park Avenue . Below the NYCDOT roadway tunnel, between East 37th and East 38th Streets . Below the NYCDOT roadway tunnel exit ramp, between East 39th and East 40th Streets . Below the northbound lanes on Park Avenue, between East 36th and East 38th Streets . Below the northbound lanes on Park Avenue, between East 37th and East 39th Streets . Below the northbound lanes on Park Avenue, between East 36th and 37th Streets 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES The Potential Alternatives were analyzed to determine which would present the greatest potential to minimize, in aggregate, engineering, economic, and environmental effects/impacts if implemented. This section provides a summary of the 13 Potential Alternatives. Figure 2 provides an overview of the location of the Potential Alternatives discussed in this section. For a more detailed description and mapping of each alternative, refer to the AA/FE provided in Appendix A. All of the alternatives discussed below involve an EVP that would be located in the streetbed, where the only visible component of the operating plant would be ventilation grates and access hatches in the sidewalk. Operation of the facility would occur only during an emergency and for periodic system testing. Thus, the potential for significant adverse effects/impacts would principally relate to the approximate 4.5-year construction period of the EVP. 3.2.1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would construct an EVP in the streetbed of East 36th Street between Park Avenue and (Figure 3, page 12). As shown in Figures 4 and 5 (pages 12 and 13), the distribution plenum (ducting) would extend east toward Park Avenue from the plant, under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel and over the top of the southbound Lexington Avenue Line tunnel, and then descend to track level to serve the northbound and southbound tunnels of the Lexington Avenue Line. Wall penetrations from the plenum and shaft would connect to the east wall of the Lexington Ave Line southbound tunnel and to the west wall of the Lexington Avenue Line northbound tunnel. New subway ventilation gratings (vent bays) would be constructed at street level along the sidewalk on the north side of East 36th Street. Sidewalk hatches also would be constructed for MTA NYCT personnel and equipment access. The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative, extending into both sidewalks of East 36th Street for a distance of approximately 200 feet west of Park Avenue, and into the intersection on the southbound lanes of Park Avenue. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel and between the subway tunnels. 3.2.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would construct an EVP in the streetbed of East 36th Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue (Figure 6, page 14). As shown in Figure 7 (page 14), the distribution plenum would extend west toward Park Avenue from the plant, over the top of the northbound Lexington Avenue tunnel, and then descend to track level to serve the northbound and southbound tunnels of the Lexington Avenue Line. Wall penetrations from the plenum and shaft would connect to the east wall of the Lexington Avenue Line southbound tunnel and to the west wall of the Lexington Avenue Line northbound tunnel. New vent bays would be constructed at street level along the sidewalk on the north side of East 36th Street. Sidewalk hatches would also be constructed for MTA NYCT personnel and equipment access.

Draft Scoping Document 11 Figure - 3

Figure - 4

12 EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING (VARIES) (VARIES) STREET GRATING AT SIDEWALK

VAULT CONDITION (MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST)

FAN CHAMBER

NEW EMERGENCY VENTILATION PLANT

Alternatives 1 - 8 Figure - 5 Typical Cross-Section B-B

13

Pg No Figure - 6

Figure - 7

14 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative, extending into both sidewalks of East 36th Street for a distance of approximately 200 feet east of Park Avenue, and into the intersection on the northbound lanes of Park Avenue. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel and between the subway tunnels. 3.2.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would construct an EVP in the streetbed of East 37th Street between Park Avenue and Madison Avenue (Figure 8, page 16). As shown in Figure 9 (page 16), the distribution plenum would extend east toward Park Avenue from the plant, over the Lexington Avenue Line southbound subway tunnel and under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel, and then descend to track level to serve the northbound and southbound tunnels of the Lexington Avenue Line. The wall penetrations from the plenum and shaft would connect to the east wall of the Lexington Avenue Subway Line southbound tunnel and to the west wall Lexington Avenue Line northbound tunnel. New vent bays would be constructed at street level along the sidewalk on the north side of East 37th Street. Sidewalk hatches would also be constructed for MTA NYCT personnel and equipment access. The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative, extending into both sidewalks of East 37th Street for a distance of approximately 200 feet west of Park Avenue, and into the intersection on the southbound lanes of Park Avenue. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel and between the subway tunnels. 3.2.4 Alternative 4 Alternative 4 would construct an EVP in the streetbed of East 37th Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue (Figure 10, page 16). As shown in Figure 11 (page 17), the distribution plenum would extend west toward Park Avenue from the plant, over the top of the northbound Lexington Avenue tunnel, and descend to track level to serve the northbound and southbound tunnels of the Lexington Avenue Line. Under Alternative 4, wall penetrations from the plenum and shaft would connect to the east wall of the Lexington Avenue Line southbound tunnel and to the west wall Lexington Avenue Line northbound tunnel. New vent bays would be constructed at street level along the sidewalk on the north side of East 37th Street. Sidewalk hatches would also be constructed for MTA NYCT personnel and equipment access. The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative, extending into both sidewalks of East 37th Street for a distance of approximately 200 feet east of Park Avenue, and into the intersection on the northbound lanes of Park Avenue. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel and between the subway tunnels. 3.2.5 Alternative 5 Alternative 5 would construct an EVP in the streetbed of East 38th Street between Park Avenue and Madison Avenue (Figure 12, page 18). As shown in Figure 13 (page 18), the distribution plenum would extend east toward Park Avenue from the plant, over the top of the southbound Lexington Avenue Line tunnel and under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel, and descend to track level to serve the northbound and southbound tunnels of the Lexington Avenue Line. Wall penetrations from the plenum and shaft would connect to the east wall of the Lexington Avenue Line southbound tunnel and to the west wall of the Lexington Avenue Line northbound tunnel. New vent bays would be constructed at street level along the sidewalk on the north side of East 38th Street. Sidewalk hatches would also be constructed for MTA NYCT personnel and equipment access. The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative, extending into both sidewalks of East 38th Street for a distance of approximately 200 feet west of Park Avenue, and into the

Draft Scoping Document 15 Figure - 8

Figure - 9

16 Figure - 10

Figure - 11

17 Figure - 12

Figure - 13

18 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

intersection on the southbound lanes of Park Avenue. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel and between the subway tunnels. 3.2.6 Alternative 6 Alternative 6 would construct an EVP in the streetbed of East 38th Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue (Figure 14, page 20). As shown in Figure 15 (page 20), the distribution plenum would extend west toward Park Avenue from the plant, over the top of the northbound Lexington Avenue tunnel, and descend to track level to serve the northbound and southbound tunnels of the Lexington Avenue Line. Wall penetrations from the plenum and shaft would connect to the east wall of the Lexington Avenue Line southbound tunnel and to the west wall of the Lexington Avenue Line northbound tunnel. New vent bays would be constructed at street level along the sidewalk on the north side of East 38th Street. Sidewalk hatches would also be constructed for MTA NYCT personnel and equipment access. The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative, extending into both sidewalks of East 36th Street for a distance of approximately 200 feet east of Park Avenue, and into the intersection on the northbound lanes of Park Avenue. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel and between the subway tunnels. 3.2.7 Alternative 7 Alternative 7 would construct an EVP in the streetbed of East 39th Street between Park Avenue and Madison Avenue (Figure 16, page 21). As shown in Figure 17 (page 21), the distribution plenum would descend down from the plant, extend east toward Park Avenue underneath the subway tunnels, and then up to track level to serve the tunnels. The plenum would be routed below the subway tunnels because insufficient vertical clearance exists between the top of the Lexington Avenue Line tunnels and the bottom of the NYCDOT roadway tunnel (5 feet, 9 inches) for a plenum to be routed over the top of the subway tunnels. Wall penetrations from the plenum and shaft would connect to the east wall of the Lexington Avenue Line southbound tunnel and to the west wall of the Lexington Avenue Line northbound tunnel. New vent bays would be constructed at street level along the sidewalk on the north side of East 39th Street. Sidewalk hatches would also be constructed for MTA NYCT personnel and equipment access. The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative, extending into both sidewalks of East 39th Street for a distance of approximately 200 feet west of Park Avenue, and into the intersection on the southbound lanes of Park Avenue. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel and between the subway tunnels. 3.2.8 Alternative 8 Alternative 8 would construct an EVP in the streetbed of East 39th Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue (Figure 18, page 22). As shown in Figure 19 (page 22), the distribution plenum would descend down from the plant and extend west toward Park Avenue underneath the subway tunnels, and then ascend to track level. (Similar to the case for the Alternative 7, insufficient vertical clearance exists between the top of the Lexington Avenue Line tunnels and the bottom of the NYCDOT roadway tunnel [5 feet, 9 inches] for a plenum to be routed over the top of the subway tunnels.) Wall penetrations from the plenum and shaft would connect to the east wall of the Lexington Avenue Line southbound tunnel and to the west wall of the Lexington Avenue Line northbound tunnel. New vent bays would be constructed at street level along the sidewalk on the north side of East 39th Street. Sidewalk hatches would also be constructed for MTA NYCT personnel and equipment access. The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative, extending into both sidewalks of East 39th Street for a distance of approximately 200 feet east of Park Avenue, and into the

Draft Scoping Document 19 Figure - 14

Figure - 15

20 Figure - 16

Figure - 17

21 Figure - 18

Figure - 19

22 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

intersection on the northbound lanes of Park Avenue. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel and between the subway tunnels. 3.2.9 Alternative 9 Alternative 9 would construct an EVP under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel (in the median in Park Avenue) between East 39th Street and East 40th Street (Figures 20, 21, and 22, pages 24 and 25). The EVP would need to extend the full width of the NYCDOT roadway tunnel ramp and would extend under northbound and southbound lanes of Park Avenue. The plant would be located above the Lexington Avenue Subway Line northbound and southbound tunnels and would connect to the tunnels with a distribution plenum. A ventilation plenum connecting to the sidewalk of Park Avenue would be required, passing over the Lexington Avenue Line northbound tunnel. An access tunnel would be constructed in the streetbed of the northbound lanes of Park Avenue. The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative in the northbound and southbound lanes on both sides of the Park Avenue Mall/NYCDOT Roadway Tunnel for the entire block. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the subway tunnels, the Park Avenue Roadway Tunnel, and between the subway tunnels. 3.2.10 Alternative 10 Alternative 10 would construct a bi-level EVP in the streetbed of Park Avenue and the NYCDOT roadway tunnel between East 37th Street and East 38th Street (Figure 23, page 26). As shown in Figures 24 and 25 (pages 26 and 27), the EVP would be located between the Lexington Avenue Subway Line northbound and southbound tunnels and would connect directly to the tunnels without a distribution plenum. Vent bays connecting to the east sidewalk of Park Avenue would be required, passing over the Lexington Avenue Line northbound tunnel. An access tunnel would be constructed in the streetbed of the northbound lanes of Park Avenue. The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative in the northbound and southbound lanes on both sides of the Park Avenue Mall/NYCDOT Roadway Tunnel for the entire block. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the subway tunnels, the Park Avenue Roadway Tunnel, and between the subway tunnels. 3.2.11 Alternative 11 Alternative 11 would construct an EVP in the streetbed of the northbound lanes on Park Avenue between East 37th Street and East 39th Street (Figure 26, page 28). As shown in Figures 27 and 28 (pages 29 and 31), the EVP would be located directly above the Lexington Avenue Subway Line northbound tunnel, and the distribution plenum would lead from the bottom of the fan chambers and descend down to the track level to reach the northbound and southbound subway tunnels. The EVP would be composed of two chambers, one between East 37th and East 38th Streets and one between East 38th and East 39th Streets. A plenum connecting the two fan chambers would be located under the intersection of East 38th Street and Park Avenue. The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative in the northbound lanes of Park Avenue and partially extending into the adjacent sidewalks from 37th Street to 39th Street. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the subway tunnels, the Park Avenue Roadway Tunnel, and between the subway tunnels.

Draft Scoping Document 23 SOUTH NORTH & SOUTH NORTH EAST 40TH BOUND BOUND BOUND EAST 40TH STREET STREET 6 4 6 5

PARK AVENUE B PARK AVENUE

PLENUM

A A

FAN CHAMBER

EDR/ CONTROL ROOM

EAST 39TH EAST 39TH STREET B STREET

D.O.T. TUNNEL

Alternative 9 Plan Figure - 20 Park Avenue Between East 39th and East 40th Street

24 Figure - 21

Figure - 22

25 PARK AVENUE MEDIAN PARK AVENUE

EAST 38TH EAST 38TH STREET B STREET

PLENUM

A A

FAN CHAMBER

EDR/ CONTROL ROOM 4 4 5 5 B EAST 37TH 6 6 EAST 37TH STREET SOUTH D.O.T. NORTH STREET BOUND TUNNEL BOUND

Figure - 23

Figure - 24

26

- 25 - B Figure

27 PARK AVENUE MEDIAN PARK AVENUE

EAST 39TH EAST 39TH STREET STREET

B

EDR/ CONTROL ROOM

FAN CHAMBER

A EAST 38TH A EAST 38TH STREET PLENUM STREET

FAN CHAMBER

EDR/ CONTROL ROOM

B EAST 37TH EAST 37TH STREET STREET 4 4 5 5 6 6 SOUTH D.O.T. NORTH BOUND TUNNEL BOUND Alternative 11 - Plan N Park Avenue Between East 37th Street and East 39th Street Figure - 26

28 Figure - 27

29 Figure - 28 30 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

3.2.12 Alternative 12 Alternative 12 would construct an EVP in the streetbed of the northbound lanes on Park Avenue between East 36th Street and East 38th Street (Figure 29, page 32). As shown in Figures 30 and 31 (pages 33 and 34), the EVP would be located directly above the Lexington Avenue Subway Line northbound tunnel, and the distribution plenum would lead from the bottom of the fan chambers and descend down to the track level to reach the northbound and southbound subway tunnels. The EVP would be composed of two chambers, one between East 36th and East 37th Streets and one between East 37th and East 38th Streets. A plenum connecting the two fan chambers would be located under the intersection of East 37th Street and Park Avenue. The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative in the northbound lanes of Park Avenue and partially extending into the adjacent sidewalks from 36th Street to 38th Street. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the subway tunnels, the Park Avenue Roadway Tunnel, and between the subway tunnels. 3.2.13 Alternative 13 Alternative 13 would construct a single level EVP in the streetbed of the northbound lanes on Park Avenue and the adjacent sidewalk, between East 36th Street and East 37th Street (Figure 32, page 35). As shown in Figures 33 and 34 (pages 35 and 36), the EVP would be located directly above the Lexington Avenue Subway Line northbound tunnel, and the distribution plenum would extend from the bottom of the EVP chamber to reach the northbound and southbound subway tunnels. Because of the single-chamber design (unlike the double-chamber design of Alternatives 11 and 12), the width of the chamber for Alternative 13 would be approximately 55 feet, potentially extending beyond the property lines of the adjacent residential buildings. The cut and cover method of construction would be used for this Alternative in the northbound lanes of Park Avenue and completely extending into the adjacent sidewalk from 36th Street to 37th Street. Mining techniques would be used to advance the excavation under the subway tunnels, the Park Avenue Roadway Tunnel, and between the subway tunnels. 3.3 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This section summarizes the AA/FE conclusions regarding the engineering, economic, and environmental analyses of the Proposed Alternatives and provides a preliminary identification of the Candidate Alternatives recommended to be advanced to the draft EIS (refer to the AA/FE in Appendix A for details of the methodology and criteria.) 3.3.1 Engineering Comparative Analysis The objective of the comparative engineering analysis was to assess how the alternatives achieve the potential to minimize significant adverse impacts related to various engineering domains. Four engineering domains were included for analysis, and related criteria were established to assess each alternative. • Utilities. This domain addresses utility protection and relocation considerations, with a particular emphasis on those utility impacts that could entail substantial complexity, such as relocation of 24-inch steam mains, Oil-o-Static lines, city sewer, NYCDOT roadway tunnel storm sewer, or utility vaults.

Draft Scoping Document 31 PARK AVENUE MEDIAN PARK AVENUE

EAST 38TH EAST 38TH STREET STREET

B

EDR/ CONTROL ROOM

FAN CHAMBER

EAST 37TH A A EAST 37TH STREET PLENUM STREET

FAN CHAMBER

EDR/ CONTROL ROOM

B EAST 36TH EAST 36TH STREET STREET 4 4 5 5 6 6 SOUTH D.O.T. NORTH BOUND TUNNEL BOUND

N Figure - 29

32 Figure - 30

33 Figure - 31 34 Figure - 32

Figure - 33

35 Figure - 34

36 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

• Structural/Civil/Mechanical. This engineering domain addresses the following aspects:

o Minimum ventilation capacity required to achieve critical air flow velocity necessary to control the movement of smoke in the subway tunnels. The required ventilation capacity can vary depending on the configuration of the tunnel segments served and the distance of the ventilation fans from the “centroid” of the tunnel segments to be served (see Section 3.1.2 for further discussion). This centroid has been established to be in the vicinity of East 38th Street for this tunnel segment project.

o The subsurface elevation of the ventilation plant structure relative to the subway tunnel track served. This criterion concerns the vertical setting of a ventilation plant from a flood control perspective. Locating the ventilation plant at a higher elevation than the base of rail is preferable to minimize potential flooding and damage to fan plant components.

o Other concerns that contribute to the complexity of constructing a below-grade EVP and were included as criteria in the evaluation are: . the availability of space (below grade footprint) in which to locate the fan chamber, the plenum, and other ancillary facilities (EDR rooms, etc.) required to operate the ventilation plant; . the lateral and vertical impediments to constructing in the streetbed associated with underground utility infrastructure (natural gas, steam, electrical, communication, water, sewer, fire hydrant connections and other critical infrastructure); . the proximity of the NYCDOT roadway tunnel to the MTA Lexington Avenue Subway tunnels that would require structural support (underpinning) of both the NYCDOT Park Avenue roadway and the MTA subway tunnel infrastructure; . the proximity of existing building structures within the zone of influence of the planned excavation that could require installation of load sustaining construction support and a structural system composed of steel members to be installed to support the street decking during the construction of the fan plant; and . the potential need for securing temporary and/or permanent easements. • Institutional/Community. This domain addresses the impacts resulting from construction activities that can affect the community such as: temporary removal of stoops and step-down entrances to buildings; access restrictions; and inconveniences to residences, institutions, businesses and other activities located adjacent to the construction zone. • Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT)/Staging/Storage. This domain addresses impacts related to temporary roadway closures, detours, loss of on-street parking, and the logistics of construction staging. The engineering analysis also identifies the alternatives that were determined to not be physically feasible, or where the constructability and engineering constraints presented by the alternatives would inhibit/limit construction. Those alternatives were removed from further consideration. A summary discussion of engineering issues for each alternative is provided below, followed by the overall conclusions of the comparative engineering evaluation.

Draft Scoping Document 37 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Table 1 provides a notation summary of the engineering implications of each alternative as Major (-), Moderate (o) or Minor (+). Alternative 1 This alternative, located in the streetbed on East 36th Street between Park Avenue and Madison Avenue, presents severe constructability concerns. Because of its off-centroid location, the fan capacity required to achieve the critical velocity in the subway tunnel section would have to be substantially larger than the capacity required for alternatives closer to the “centroid.” The greater fan capacity would require a much larger size facility, which, in combination with the spatial constraints of this location, would create major construction difficulties and higher costs. Furthermore, the space constraints presented by the plenum routing would constrict the air flow and reduce the effectiveness of the ventilation system to manage the smoke/fire conditions. Alternative 1 would require partial closure of East 36th Street, which is a NYCDOT “THRU Street,” and thus, a critical street for conveying east-west traffic. Because of the importance of this street to traffic flow, impacts from partial closure on traffic could be substantial. The construction on narrow streets and the proximity of the residential and historic buildings (Morgan Library and Museum) to the excavation would require extensive support-of-excavation and may require temporary and permanent easements. Summary. As given in overview notation form on Table 1, Alternative 1 presents Major (-) concerns regarding utilities, institutional/community impacts, and MPT/staging/storage. Furthermore, the physical plenum configuration constraints and mechanical limitations presented by this alternative would make the construction of the EVP not feasible; therefore, Alternative 1 was eliminated from further consideration in the engineering analysis.

Alternative 2 This alternative, located in the streetbed of East 36th Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue, presents a significant constructability issue. Similar to Alternative 1, because of its off-centroid location, the fan capacity required to achieve the critical velocity in the subway tunnel section would be substantially larger than required compared to the alternatives closer to the “centroid.” Because of the large size of the facility, this would create major construction difficulties and greatly add to construction costs. Alternative 2 would require partial closure of East 36th Street, a NYCDOT THRU Street, which could have substantial traffic impacts for the reasons noted under Alternative 1. Summary. As given in overview notation form on Table 1, Alternative 2 presents Major (-) concerns regarding utilities, institutional/community impacts, and MPT/staging/storage. A major construction impact is the impedance of traffic flow on a main NYCDOT THRU street. In addition to the aforementioned, the mechanical capacity limitations of Alternative 2 are a fatal flaw that would make this EVP alternative not feasible; therefore, Alternative 2 was eliminated from further consideration in the engineering analysis. Alternative 3 This alternative, located in the streetbed on East 37th Street between Park Avenue and Madison Avenue, presents constructability complexities, including insufficient cross-sectional area between the roof of the southbound Lexington Avenue Subway Line tunnel and the floor of the NYCDOT roadway tunnel to route the plenum; the need for structural support (underpinning) of the NYCDOT roadway tunnel and the storm sewer; narrow streets; and, the proximity of buildings to the excavation that would require the temporary removal of five stoops/step-down entrances. Alternative 3 would require partial closure of East 37th Street (a NYCDOT THRU Street), which could have substantial traffic impacts for the same reasons as noted in Alternatives 1 and 2. The construction on a narrow street and the proximity of the residential and

Draft Scoping Document 38 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

historic buildings (Union Club, etc.) to the excavation would require extensive support-of-excavation and may require temporary and permanent easements. Summary. As given in overview notation form on Table 1, Alternative 3 presents Major (-) constructability constraints regarding utilities and impacts related to structural/civil/mechanical and institutional/community issues and MPT/staging/storage. Alternative 4 Construction of this alternative, located in the streetbed on East 37th Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue, would require the relocation of a 24-inch steam main and replacement of two utility vaults. In addition to the utility concerns, construction/excavation on this narrow residential street would: require extensive support-of-excavation and produce significant impacts to the residences, resulting from the temporary removal of 11 stoops/step-down entrances. Alternative 4 would require partial closure of East 37th Street (a NYCDOT THRU Street), which could have substantial traffic impacts for the reasons noted under Alternative 1. Summary. As given in overview notation form on Table 1, Alternative 4 presents Major (-) concerns regarding utilities, institutional/community impacts, and MPT/staging/storage and Moderate (o) concerns regarding structural/civil/ mechanical engineering. Alternative 5 This alternative, located in the streetbed of 38th Street between Park Avenue and Madison Avenue, presents severe constructability concerns and was therefore eliminated from further consideration from an engineering perspective. The space between the Park Avenue road tunnel/storm sewer and the subway tunnel would be too narrow to route the plenum between the fan chamber and each of the subway tunnels, rendering construction of the ventilation plant at this location not feasible. In addition, construction/excavation on this narrow residential street would require extensive support-of-excavation and produce significant impacts to the residences as a result of the temporary removal of nine stoops/step-down entrances. Summary. As given in overview notation form on Table 1, Alternative 5 presents Major (-) concerns regarding utilities, institutional/community impacts, and MPT/staging/storage. Because Alternative 5 was deemed not feasible based on structural/civil/mechanical criteria, it was eliminated from further engineering consideration. Alternative 6 Construction of this alternative, located in the streetbed of 38th Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue, would result in major disruption to residential buildings and a community facility (the Church of Our Saviour) along the narrow residential street. Construction/excavation on this narrow residential street would require extensive support-of-excavation and produce significant impacts to the residences, resulting from the temporary removal of 11 stoops/step-down entrances and cause temporary disruption to the services of the house of worship. Summary. As given in overview notation form on Table 1, Alternative 6 presents Major (-) concerns regarding institutional/community impacts and MPT/staging/storage and Moderate (o) concerns regarding utilities and structural/civil/mechanical engineering. Alternative 7 This alternative, located in the streetbed of East 39th Street between Park Avenue and Madison Avenue, would require routing the plenum below two active subway tunnels by mining below the tunnels, which

Draft Scoping Document 39 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

would entail a high level of construction complexity and risk and would require extensive and complicated structural support of the active subway infrastructure. Construction/excavation on this narrow residential and commercial-lined street also would require extensive support-of-excavation and produce significant impacts to the residences and commerce, resulting from the temporary removal of eight stoops/step- down entrances. Summary. As given in overview notation form on Table 1, Alternative 7 presents Major (-) concerns regarding utilities, structural/civil/mechanical engineering, institutional/community impacts, and MPT/staging/storage. Alternative 8 This alternative, located in the streetbed of East 39th Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue, would require routing the plenum below the two active subway tunnels by mining below the tunnels and would entail a high level of construction complexity and risk. The fan chamber would be constructed such that it would be, in part, below the subway tunnel’s base of rails, a condition that is undesirable because of the risk of flooding the EVP chamber. Construction/excavation on this narrow residential and commercial-lined street would also require extensive support-of-excavation and produce significant impacts to the residences and commerce resulting from the temporary removal of ten stoops/step-down entrances. Summary. As given in overview form on Table 1, Alternative 8 presents Major (-) concerns regarding utilities, structural/civil/mechanical engineering, institutional/community impacts, and MPT/staging/storage. Alternative 9 Alternative 9 would be located in the streetbed on Park Avenue below the NYCDOT roadway tunnel sloping ramp between East 39th and East 40th Street. The EVP and its plenum would be “sandwiched” between the NYCDOT Park Avenue traffic tunnel ramp and NYCT Lexington Avenue subway tunnels, which present severe space constraints and would not be feasible to construct; therefore, Alternative 9 was eliminated from further consideration from an engineering perspective. In addition to the space constraints, there would be significant traffic impacts resulting from the closure of the NYCDOT roadway tunnel and the temporary closure of travel lanes on Park Avenue northbound and southbound during construction. Summary. As given in overview notation form on Table 1, Alternative 9 presents Major (-) concerns regarding utilities and MPT/staging/storage and Moderate (o) concerns regarding institutional/community impacts. Because Alternative 9 was deemed not feasible based on structural/civil/mechanical criteria, it was eliminated from further engineering consideration. Alternative 10 Alternative 10 would be located below the NYCDOT roadway tunnel between East 37th Street and East 38th Street. The two level EVP would be located below the NYCDOT roadway tunnel and between the two subway tunnels at depth. Construction of this alternative would require structural support (underpinning) of the NYCDOT roadway tunnel/storm sewer and affect the adjacent subway tunnels, adding to the complexity and risk. Part of the fan chamber would be below the subway tunnels’ base of rails, a condition that is undesirable because of the risk of flooding the EVP. Intermittent closure of the NYCDOT roadway tunnel during construction would greatly impede traffic flow on Park Avenue. Eight buildings (residential, commercial, and institutional/community) could potentially be within the influence zone of the excavation and thus would require support-of-excavation.

Draft Scoping Document 40 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Summary. As given in overview notation form on Table 1, Alternative 10 presents Major (‐) concerns regarding utilities, structural/civil/mechanical engineering, and MPT/staging/storage and Moderate (o) concerns regarding institutional/community impacts. Alternative 11 Alternative 11 would be located in the streetbed of the northbound lanes on Park Avenue between East 37th Street and East 39th Street. The advantage of this alternative is the reduced width of the EVP footprint compared to the wider footprints of Alternatives 1 through 10 and 13. This 44‐foot‐wide EVP could fit horizontally in the streetbed of the northbound lanes of Park Avenue between East 37th and East 39th Streets; and would extend under the sidewalk on the east side of the avenue. It has constructability advantages: little to no underpinning of infrastructure; adequate space to route the plenum and install the EVP; footprint of the EVP and construction activity would not encroach on the properties (outside of the building and property lines) on Park Avenue; sidewalks on the east side of Park Avenue would be narrowed but maintained during construction; reduced disruption to the residences, commerce and community. Major utilities (Oil‐O‐Static, sewers, steam mains, would be maintained and protected during construction. Partial closure of the northbound lanes on Park Avenue would be required. Summary. As given in overview notation form on Table 1, Alternative 11 presents Major (‐) concerns regarding utilities and MPT/staging/storage and Moderate (o) concerns regarding institutional/community impacts and structural/civil/mechanical engineering. Alternative 12 This alternative, similar to Alternative 11, would be located in the streetbed of the northbound lanes on Park Avenue between East 36th Street and East 38th Street. The 44‐foot‐wide EVP could fit horizontally in the streetbed of Park Avenue between East 36th and East 38th Streets, extending under the sidewalk on the east side of the avenue. It has several constructability advantages, including little to no underpinning of infrastructure; adequate space to route the plenum and install the EVP; the footprint of the EVP and construction activity would not encroach on the properties (outside of the building and property lines) on Park Avenue; sidewalks on the east side of Park Avenue would be narrowed but maintained during construction; and reduced disruption to the residences, commerce, and community. Major utilities (Oil‐ O‐Static, sewers, and steam mains) would be maintained and protected during construction. Partial closure of the northbound lanes on Park Avenue would be required. Summary. As given in overview notation form on Table 1, Alternative 12 presents Major (‐) concerns regarding utilities and MPT/staging/storage and Moderate (o) concerns regarding institutional/community impacts and structural/civil/mechanical engineering. Alternative 13 This alternative would be located in the streetbed of northbound lanes of Park Avenue between East 36th Street and East 37th Street and extend to the sidewalk and beyond the building line on the east side of Park Avenue. Because the width of the northbound lanes and sidewalk on Park Avenue is too narrow to accommodate the 55‐foot‐wide EVP without intruding onto property and building lines, this alternative would require property acquisition(s). Constructability of this alternative would be extremely complex and face considerable risk; therefore, Alternative 13 was determined to not be feasible and was removed from further consideration from the engineering perspective. Summary. As given in overview notation form on Table 1, Alternative 13 presents Major (‐) concerns regarding utilities and MPT/staging/storage. Because Alternative 13 was deemed not feasible based on structural/civil/mechanical and institutional/community impact criteria, it was eliminated from further engineering consideration.

Draft Scoping Document 41 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Conclusions The following conclusions were reached based on engineering analyses and the intent of MTA NYCT to best minimize engineering implications/complications regarding the Lexington Avenue EVP construction and operation: . Alternatives 1, 2, 5, 9, and 13 are not feasible from an engineering perspective, and, as such, are removed from further consideration. . From among the remaining alternatives, Alternatives, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 exhibit a preponderance of major concerns from the engineering perspective. . Alternatives 6, 11, and 12 present the greatest potential to minimize adverse engineering effects. Only Alternatives 6, 11, and 12 will be given further consideration for decision-analysis from the engineering standpoint. Alternative 6 is located on East 38th Street on the east side of Park Avenue, and Alternatives 11 and 12 are located in the streetbed of the northbound lanes of Park Avenue.

TABLE 1: COMPARATIVE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

Alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Utilities – – – – – O – – – – – – – Structural/Civil/ – – – O – O – – – – O O – Mechanical Institutional/ – – – – – – – – O O O O – Community Maintenance and Protection of Traffic/ – – – – – – – – – – – – – Staging/ Storage Summary

– Major Impact 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 2 (count)

O Moderate Impact *NF *NF 1 *NF 2 *NF 1 2 2 *NF (count) - - -

+ Minor Impact - (count) ------*NF Not Feasible (also indicated by orange shading).

3.3.2 Environmental Comparative Analysis The EVP alternatives are located in the Murray Hill neighborhood of Manhattan, a dense urban area of mixed commercial, institutional, and residential uses, as well as historic resources and community facilities. Appendix A provides various street views of the area and maps depicting land use, historic resources, community facilities, and the location of unique buildings. Park Avenue is a wide, multi-lane thoroughfare with traffic lanes separated by a vegetated median—the Park Avenue Malls—under the jurisdiction of New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Park Avenue is characterized by wide

Draft Scoping Document 42 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

sidewalks and is lined with large mixed use buildings (residential and commercial buildings) and notable buildings such as the and the Church of Our Saviour. In contrast, cross-town streets are narrow and have a smaller-scale neighborhood setting. Many of the crosstown streets are tree-lined and include brownstone-type row houses; large corner apartment buildings (located at the intersection of Park Avenue) with professional offices; and cultural institutions, such as the Morgan Library and Museum. The project area plays an important role in the City’s transportation network. Park Avenue is a major north-south connector for vehicular traffic, and the route for part of the Lexington Avenue subway. Nearby, the north-south approaches to the Queens-Midtown Tunnel collect and empty traffic onto two east-west streets (36th street-east bound and 37th street-west bound) in the Murray Hill neighborhood; the Queens-Midtown Tunnel serves as a major connection between and Queens. The objective of the comparative environmental analysis of the alternatives was to assess the potential to minimize adverse impacts/effects of construction of the EVP in relation to various environmental resource domains. Similar to the Engineering Analysis, it was determined that the impacts/effects would be experienced during the construction of the Proposed Project. A preliminary review of the Project Area (Murray Hill neighborhood) identified the following environmental domains that would be affected by and/or be particularly sensitive to potential environmental impacts: historic and cultural resources, traffic/parking, transit/pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, socioeconomic effects, open space resources, community facilities, community character, visual resources and urban design, and cumulative effects. Similar to the engineering analysis discussed in the previous sections, criteria were developed to analyze and compare the potential environmental impacts of the Potential Alternatives. A summary discussion of environmental criteria and the effects/impacts for each alternative is provided below, followed by the overall conclusions of the comparative environmental evaluation. Table 2, on page 58, provides a notation summary of the environmental implications of each alternative as Major (-), Moderate (o), or Minor (+). The environmental criteria used in this comparative evaluation of alternatives address three levels of potential effect: . Major Effect (‐): the proposed alternative detracts from supporting the goal of minimizing potential adverse effects on the environmental resource . Moderate Effect (o): the proposed alternative achieves limited or marginal support of the goal of minimizing potential adverse effects on the environmental resource . Minor Effect (+): the proposed alternative supports the goal of minimizing potential adverse effects on the environmental resource The environmental resource category criteria are identified below, and a detailed analysis of the environmental effects/impacts associated with each Potential Alternative is provided in the following subsections. Historic and Cultural Resources Criteria . Major (‐): construction would occur on or adjacent to a designated historic resource. . Moderate (o): construction would occur within a historic district, but would not be adjacent to any listed or eligible historic structure. . Minor (+): construction would occur outside of an historic district and not adjacent to any listed or eligible historic structure.

Draft Scoping Document 43 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Traffic Criteria . Major (‐): construction would require:

o taking two moving lanes of traffic on an approach with three moving lanes of traffic; or o taking one lane on a NYCDOT THRU street with two moving lanes of traffic; or o completely closing a street (or one direction of a two‐way street) for more than 6 months such that more than 300 vehicles would be diverted per hour for 4 or more hours on an average weekday. . Moderate (o): construction would require taking one moving lane of traffic on an approach with two moving lanes of traffic (no temporary roadway closures to through traffic would be required). . Minor (+): construction would require taking one moving lane of traffic on an approach with three moving lanes of traffic (no temporary roadway closures to through traffic would be required). Parking Criteria . Major (-): construction would require:

o removing on-street parking on both sides of a side street for an entire block; or o removing on-street parking on one side of a street or avenue for two or more blocks; or o significantly impede/obstruct/eliminate deliveries to businesses and residents. . Moderate (o): construction would require:

o removing on-street parking on one side of a side street or avenue for an entire block; or o removing on-street parking for both sides of a side street or avenue for one-half or less of an entire block. . Minor (+): construction would require removing on-street parking for one-half or less of an entire block for one side of the street or avenue. Pedestrian Criteria . Major (-): construction would require decking of sidewalks and creating sidewalk bridges to building entrances. . Moderate (o): construction would require decking of sidewalks but no sidewalk bridges. . Minor (+): construction would require no decking of sidewalks or sidewalk bridges. Noise and Vibration Criteria . Major (-): construction would be required to occur at night or in areas adjacent to noise sensitive land uses (i.e., residential, institutions, medical offices, schools, hotels, and embassies) and/or would produce vibration within 90 feet of historic structures.4

4 The 90-foot threshold for historic resources is based on NYCDOB’s Technical Policy and Procedure Notice #10/88. See http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/ppn/tppn1088.pdf

Draft Scoping Document 44 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

. Moderate (o): construction would occur beyond 90 feet of historic resources and primarily in areas adjacent to commercial/industrial land uses considered relatively less sensitive to noise and vibration. . Minor (+): construction would occur primarily in areas with a potential buffer between the construction activity and the nearest occupied buildings and/or with usual and customary mitigation. Air Quality Criteria . Major (-): construction activities (diesel equipment and trucks) would occur adjacent to publicly accessible sidewalks and sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, hospitals, schools). . Moderate (o): construction would occur within 100 to 300 feet of sensitive land uses. . Minor (+): construction site would be more than 300 feet from sensitive land uses. Socioeconomic Effects Criteria . Major (-): project would displace active business(es). . Moderate (o): project would limit the use of local business operations or require access diversions for local businesses for a period of 6 months or more. . Minor (+): construction would not disrupt or only minimally disrupt businesses. Open Space Criteria For purposes of this analysis, open space resources include all publicly accessible open space (as defined by the 2014 CEQR Technical Manual). This includes landscaped medians, such as the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation’s Park Avenue Malls. . Major (-): the alternative would permanently encroach on public open space resources. . Moderate (o): construction would temporarily limit the use (e.g., access) or enjoyment of public open space for extended periods or conflict with documented community open space objectives. . Minor (+): construction and operation of the alternative would have no direct impact on open space and minimal indirect impacts (such as noise). Community Facilities Criteria . Major (-): the project location would significantly interfere with the access, operation, or safety of a community facility or its patrons. . Moderate (o): the project may limit access and require rerouting of vehicular access of emergency vehicles or persons working at or attending an institution (e.g., hospital/school/house-of-worship/firehouse). . Minor (+): the project would not affect/interfere with major institutions/community facilities or operation of these facilities. Community Character, Visual Resources and Urban Design Criteria . Major (-): construction would substantially impair streetscape features (e.g., street trees, curb cuts, street walls, street furniture) and/or community activities during the construction period and/or beyond.

Draft Scoping Document 45 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

. Moderate (o): construction would have continuing impacts on streetscape elements/community activities for 6 months. . Minor (+): construction would result in intermittent interruptions to streetscape features and occasionally affect community activities. Cumulative Effects Criteria . Major (-): other major construction project(s) within immediate proximity to the project (less than one city block) would occur simultaneously with the construction of the project and would affect adjacent nearby sensitive land uses for an extended period. . Moderate (o): other major construction project(s) would occur simultaneous with the construction of the project within 300 to 500 feet (one to two city blocks) of each other and would affect sensitive land uses for a period of more than 6 months. . Minor (+): other major construction project(s) would occur simultaneously with the construction of the project but are more than 500 feet (two city blocks) from the project’s work area; or no other major construction projects would occur simultaneously. Alternative 1 Construction of this alternative, located in the streetbed on East 36th Street between Park Avenue and Madison Avenue, would have major impacts on the following resources: historic resources, traffic, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, community facilities, and community character/visual/urban design resources. Construction/excavation of the EVP would be on a narrow side street in the Murray Hill Historic District. The proposed work would occur near/adjacent to a significant historic building (Morgan Library and Museum, a National Historic Landmark and a New York City Landmark) and would require support-of- excavation to protect it from damage, per New York City Department of Buildings (NYCDOB) and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requirements. Excavation of the street and sidewalk would require temporary decking and bridging to maintain pedestrian access to residential buildings and garage, including the Morgan Library and Museum for more than 2 years. Construction activities and construction equipment would generate noise and vibration impacts, air quality impacts, and traffic congestion (diversion of traffic from a major NYCDOT THRU street) in close proximity to receptors (residential land use) and sensitive institutions (e.g., the Morgan Library and Museum) for more than 2 years. Construction would reduce the two travel lanes of a high-volume crosstown THRU Street (Queens- Midtown Tunnel, 36th Street) to one travel lane for approximately 2 years, resulting in major traffic impacts. On-street parking would be limited and potentially eliminated during construction, and access to the garage in the work area would be significantly impacted for more than 4 years while construction is ongoing. Seven mature trees would be removed during construction, and three could be replanted after completion of construction. This would permanently alter the aesthetic character of the street. Obstruction of the view of the Union League Club, a New York City Landmark, by construction equipment would have major visual impact on a historic structure. Socioeconomic effects would be moderate. There would be no business or residential displacements; however, accessibility to some businesses (e.g., offices, garage) would be reduced/affected.

Draft Scoping Document 46 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may result in a construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and could produce cumulative impacts. Construction activity would have minor impacts on the private open space of the Morgan Library and Museum (e.g., noise, visual, access). Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 1 presents: Major (-) impacts to historic resources, traffic, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, community facilities, and community character/visual/urban design resources; Moderate (o) socioeconomic effects and cumulative impacts; and Minor (+) concerns related to open space resource impacts. Alternative 2 Construction of this alternative, located in the streetbed of East 36th Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue, would have major impacts on the following resources: historic resources, traffic, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, and community character/visual/urban design resources as described below. Construction of the EVP would occur within the Murray Hill National Register Historic District. Furthermore, its construction in a relatively narrow side street would occur immediately adjacent to historic row houses. Excavation of the street and sidewalk would require temporary decking and bridging to maintain pedestrian access to residential buildings and garage for more than 2 years. Construction activities and construction equipment would generate noise and vibration impacts, air quality impacts, and traffic congestion (diversion of traffic from a major NYCDOT THRU street) in close proximity to receptors (residential land use) for more than 2 years. Construction would reduce the two travel lanes of a high-volume crosstown THRU Street (Queens- Midtown Tunnel, 36th Street) to one travel lane for approximately 2 years, resulting in major traffic impacts. On-street parking would be limited and potentially eliminated during construction, and access to the garage in the work area would be significantly impacted for more than 4 years while construction is ongoing. During the 4 years of construction, building entrances would be affected, and the aesthetics of the street would be impacted by the removal of 13 sidewalk trees. Impacts from Alternative 2 on community facilities and socioeconomic conditions would be moderate because no business or residential displacements would occur as a result of construction. However, access to some business offices would be affected. Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may produce construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and cause cumulative impacts. Impacts on open space resources would be minor. Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 2 presents: Major (-) impacts to historic resources, traffic, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, and community character/visual/urban design resources; Moderate (o) socioeconomic effects, impacts to community facilities, and cumulative impacts; and Minor (+) concerns related to open space resource impacts. Alternative 3 This alternative, located in the streetbed on East 37th Street between Park Avenue and Madison Avenue, would have major impacts on the following resources: historic resources, traffic, parking, pedestrians,

Draft Scoping Document 47 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

noise and vibration, air quality, community facilities, and community character/visual/urban design resources. Construction of the EVP would occur within the Murray Hill National Register Historic District in the immediate vicinity of several historic buildings (the Phelps Stokes–J.P. Morgan Jr. House, a National Historic Landmark; the Union League Club, and the Joseph De Lamar Mansion), requiring support-of- excavation and monitoring, per NYCDOB and SHPO requirements. Excavation of the street and sidewalk would require temporary decking and bridging to maintain pedestrian access to residential buildings for more than 2 years. Construction activities and construction equipment would generate noise and vibration impacts, air quality impacts, and traffic congestion (diversion of traffic from a major NYCDOT THRU street) in close proximity to receptors (residential land use) and sensitive institutions (e.g., the Morgan Library and Museum) for more than 2 years. Construction would reduce the two travel lanes of a high-volume THRU Street (37th Street) to one travel lane for approximately 2 years, causing congestion at East 37th Street and on streets in its immediate vicinity and adversely affecting cross-town traffic as well as connections to the Queens-Midtown Tunnel. On-street parking would limited, and potentially eliminated, for more than 4 years while construction is ongoing. During the 4 years of construction, building entrances would be affected and the aesthetics of the street would be impacted by the removal of 6 mature trees from the sidewalk. This would permanently alter the aesthetic character of the street. Socioeconomic effects would be moderate because no business or residential displacements would occur as a result of construction. However, access to the Morgan Shop at the Morgan Library and Museum and several physician offices would be impacted due to reduced lanes and/or street closures during construction. Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may produce construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and result in cumulative impacts. Impacts on open space resources would be minor. Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 3 presents: Major (-) impacts to historic resources, traffic, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, community facilities, and community character/visual/urban design resources; Moderate (o) socioeconomic effects and cumulative impacts; and Minor (+) concerns related to open space resource impacts. Alternative 4 Construction of this alternative, located in the streetbed on East 37th Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue, would have major impacts concerning historic resources, traffic, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, and community character/visual/urban design resources as described below. Construction/excavation of the EVP would be on a narrow side street in the Murray Hill Historic District, requiring support-of-excavation and monitoring of adjacent historic row houses. This alternative could cause visual effects to the historic Adelaide L.T. Douglas Residence (the Permanent Mission of Guatemala to the UN) at 57 Park Avenue, a New York City Landmark. The Park Avenue curb lane staging area also would potentially affect the Church of Our Saviour, identified as a contributing element of the National Register Historic District.

Draft Scoping Document 48 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Excavation of the street and sidewalk would require temporary decking and bridging to maintain pedestrian access to residential buildings and parking garage for more than 2 years. In addition, construction activities and equipment would generate noise and vibration impacts, air quality impacts, and traffic congestion in close proximity to receptors (residential land use) and sensitive institutions (e.g., the Church of Our Saviour) for more than 2 years. Construction would reduce the two travel lanes of a high-volume THRU Street (37th Street) to one travel lane for approximately 2 years, causing congestion at East 37th Street and on streets in its immediate vicinity and adversely affecting cross-town traffic and connections to the Queens-Midtown Tunnel. On- street parking would limited, and potentially eliminated, during construction and access to the garage in the work area would be significantly impacted for more than 4 years while construction is ongoing. The removal of four mature trees from the sidewalk would permanently alter the aesthetic character of the street. No business or residential displacements would occur as a result of construction. However, access to several physicians’ offices and a parking garage located on the south side of East 37th Street— although maintained—would be impacted as a result of reduced lanes and/or street closures during construction. Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may produce construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and could have cumulative impacts. Impacts on open space resources would be minor. Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 4 presents Major (-) impacts to historic resources, traffic, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, and community character/visual/urban design resources; Moderate (o) socioeconomic effects, impacts on community facilities, and cumulative impacts; and Minor (+) concerns related to open space resource impacts. Alternative 5 Construction of this alternative, located in the streetbed on East 38th Street between Park Avenue and Madison Avenue, would have major impacts related to: historic resources, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, community facilities, and community character/visual /urban design resources. Excavation for the EVP would occur within the Murray Hill National Register Historic District in the immediate vicinity of several historic buildings, including the Middleton S. and Emilie Neilson Burrill House (a New York City Landmark) and would require support-of-excavation to protect it from damage, per NYCDOB and SHPO requirements. Excavation of the street and sidewalk would require temporary decking and bridging to maintain pedestrian access to residential buildings, hotels, and the Burrill House for more than 2 years. Construction activities and construction equipment would generate noise and vibration impacts, air quality impacts, and traffic congestion in close proximity to receptors (residential land use) and sensitive institutions (e.g., the Burrill House) for more than 2 years. On-street parking would limited, and potentially eliminated, during construction, and access to the garage in the work area would be significantly impacted for more than 4 years while construction is ongoing. The aesthetics of the street would be impacted by the removal of four mature trees from the sidewalk. This would permanently alter the aesthetic character of the street. No business or residential displacements would occur as a result of construction. Access to residences and businesses along East 38th Street would be maintained but would be impacted due to reduced lanes and/or street closures during construction.

Draft Scoping Document 49 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may produce construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and could have cumulative impacts. Impacts on open space resources would be minor. Impacts from Alternative 5 on community facilities would be minor; no community facilities are located in the immediate vicinity. Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 5 presents: Major (-) impacts to historic resources, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, and community character/visual/urban design resources; Moderate (o) traffic impacts, socioeconomic effects, and cumulative impacts; and Minor (+) concerns related to open space resource impacts and community facilities. Alternative 6 Construction of this alternative, located in the streetbed of East 38th Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue, would have major impacts to historic resources, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, community facilities, and community character/visual/urban design resources. With the exception of impacts associated with the permanent loss of street trees, any impacts from Alternative 6 would be temporary and limited to the construction period. Construction of the EVP would occur within the Murray Hill National Register Historic District, in the immediate vicinity of several historic buildings constructed and the Church of Our Saviour. The curb lane staging area on Park Avenue would potentially have an adverse visual effect on the historic Adelaide L.T. Douglas Residence (the Permanent Mission of Guatemala to the UN) at 57 Park Avenue, a New York City Landmark. Construction activities and construction equipment would generate noise and vibration impacts, air quality impacts, and traffic congestion in close proximity to receptors (residential land use) and sensitive institutions for more than 2 years. Construction would reduce or potentially eliminate on-street parking and would require sidewalk closures, decking, and bridging to maintain access to some buildings, service entrances, and residences for more than 2 years. Although access would be maintained, access to businesses, residences, and the Church of Our Saviour would be adversely affected. Removal of three mature street trees would permanently alter the aesthetic character of the street. No business or residential displacements would occur as a result of construction, although access to one restaurant would be limited as a result of reduced lanes and/or closures (as well as reduced sidewalk width). Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may produce construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and could have cumulative impacts. Impacts on open space resources would be minor. Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 6 presents: Major (-) impacts to historic resources, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, community character/visual/urban design resources, and community facilities; Moderate (o) traffic impacts, socioeconomic effects, and cumulative impacts; and Minor (+) concerns related to open space resource impacts.

Draft Scoping Document 50 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Alternative 7 Construction of this alternative, located in the streetbed of East 39th Street between Park Avenue and Madison Avenue, would have major impacts to historic resources, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, community facilities, and community character/visual/urban design resources. Construction of the EVP would occur within the Murray Hill National Register Historic District adjacent to a historic building constructed in 1955 and row houses from the 1860s. Excavation of the street and sidewalk would require temporary decking and bridging to maintain pedestrian access to residential buildings for more than 2 years. Construction activities and construction equipment would generate noise and vibration impacts, air quality impacts, and traffic congestion in close proximity to receptors for more than 2 years. On-street parking would limited, and potentially eliminated, during construction, and access to the garages in the work area would be significantly impacted for more than 4 years while construction is ongoing. Although access would be maintained, access to businesses and residences would be adversely affected. Construction and temporary lane closures on East 39th Street would increase congestion and interfere with vehicular and pedestrian access to the Consulate General of Mexico, and construction noise and vibration could interfere with the function of the facility. During the 4 years of construction, building entrances would be affected, and the aesthetics of the street would be impacted by the removal of four mature trees from the sidewalk. After construction, these trees could be replanted. No business or residential displacements would occur as a result of construction, although construction would affect access to restaurants, a hotel, and parking garages as a result of reduced lanes and/or closures (as well as reduced sidewalk width). Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may produce construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and could have cumulative impacts. Impacts on open space resources would be minor. Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 7 presents: Major (-) impacts to historic resources, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, community character/visual/urban design resources, and community facilities; Moderate (o) traffic impacts, socioeconomic effects, and cumulative impacts; and Minor (+) concerns related to open space resource impacts. Alternative 8 Construction of this alternative, located in the streetbed of East 39th Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue, would have major impacts to historic resources, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, community facilities, and community character/visual/urban design resources. Construction would occur within the Murray Hill National Register Historic District in the immediate vicinity of row houses built between 1860 and 1880 and an apartment building constructed in 1924. These historic/sensitive structures could be impacted by construction activity; extensive support-of-excavation measures and monitoring would be required. Excavation of the street and sidewalk would require temporary decking and bridging to maintain pedestrian access to residential buildings for more than 2 years. Construction activities and construction equipment would generate noise and vibration impacts, air quality impacts, and traffic congestion in close proximity to receptors for more than 2 years. On-street parking would limited, and potentially eliminated, during construction, and access to the garage in the

Draft Scoping Document 51 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

work area would be significantly impacted for more than 4 years while construction is ongoing. Although access would be maintained, access to businesses and residences would be adversely affected. During the 4 years of construction, building entrances would be affected, and the aesthetics of the street would be impacted by the removal of eight mature trees from the sidewalk. Three sidewalk tree areas would be permanently displaced by ventilation gratings. This would permanently alter the aesthetic character of the street. No business or residential displacements would occur as a result of construction. Although access to businesses, including a hotel and a restaurant, and the parking garage on the north side of East 39th Street would be maintained, it would be affected as a result of reduced lanes and/or closures (as well as reduced sidewalk width). Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may produce construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and could have cumulative impacts. Impacts from Alternative 8 on community facilities would be minor; no community facilities are located in the immediate vicinity. Impacts on open space resources would be minor. Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 8 presents: Major (-) impacts to historic resources, parking, pedestrians, noise and vibration, air quality, and community character/visual/urban design resources; Moderate (o) traffic impacts, socioeconomic effects, and cumulative impacts; and Minor (+) concerns related to open space resources and community facilities. Alternative 9 Construction of this alternative, located under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel ramp between East 39th Street and East 40th Street, would have fewer environmental impacts when compared to the side-street alternatives largely because of the facility’s distance from residential and commercial land uses. However, Alternative 9 would have major impacts associated with traffic as a result of its location under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel. Construction would require closure of the NYCDOT roadway tunnel for at least 2 years. Closing the NYCDOT roadway tunnel would divert traffic to Park Avenue, incrementally increasing congestion. Construction would generate moderate impacts to parking, air quality, socioeconomic conditions, and community character because the alternative would provide approximately 50 feet between the most intense focus of construction activity and commercial buildings on either side of Park Avenue. Alternative 9 would affect access to commercial businesses along Park Avenue as a result of reduced lanes and/or street closures during construction. Pedestrian access along sidewalks on Park Avenue would be maintained. Eight street trees on the east side of Park Avenue would be permanently removed for construction of sidewalk gratings, affecting the aesthetic character of the area. Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may produce construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and could have cumulative impacts. Alternative 9 is located outside the boundaries of the Murray Hill National Register Historic District and would not be adjacent to any individually designated historic resources.

Draft Scoping Document 52 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Construction of this alternative would have minor impacts to pedestrian circulation, noise and vibration, and open space resources. Alternative 9 would have minor impacts to community facilities; no such facilities are located in the immediate vicinity. Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 9 presents: Major (-) impacts to traffic; Moderate (o) impacts to parking, air quality, socioeconomic conditions, community character/visual/urban design resources, and cumulative effects and Minor (+) concerns related to historic and cultural resources, pedestrian circulation, noise and vibration, open space resources, and community facilities. Alternative 10 This alternative, located under the NYCDOT roadway tunnel ramp between East 37th Street and East 38th Street, would have fewer environmental impacts when compared to the side-street alternatives largely because of the facility’s distance from residential and commercial land uses. However, Alternative 10 would have major impacts associated with historic and cultural resources, noise and vibration, air quality, and community facilities. Construction of the EVP would occur within the boundaries of the Murray Hill National Register Historic District and adjacent to the National Register-listed Adelaide L.T. Douglas House (also a New York City Landmark). Construction activities at this site would require monitoring and support-of-excavation of several buildings to protect them from damage, per NYCDOB and SHPO requirements, including the Adelaide L.T. Douglas House. The curb lane staging area on Park Avenue would potentially have an adverse visual effect on the Adelaide L.T. Douglas House and other contributing elements to the historic district, including the Church of Our Saviour. Construction and excavation would occur within approximately 20 feet of building lines along the east side of Park Avenue, creating the potential for noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receptors, such as the Permanent Mission of Guatemala to the UN, Church of Our Saviour, and residences. There could be an increase in traffic noise related to traffic diversions caused by the reduction in travel lanes on Park Avenue. Excavation would occur near the Church of Our Saviour, and on-street parking would not be available in front of the church on Park Avenue. Temporary lane closures on Park Avenue could affect vehicle and pedestrian access by increasing congestion in the vicinity. Noise and vibration impacts could interfere with events and functions at the church (construction is not expected to occur on weekends, but weekday events and functions could be affected). Construction of Alternative 10 would have moderate impacts to traffic by restricting Park Avenue northbound from three travel lanes to one travel lane for about 3 years and requiring intermittent closures of the NYCDOT roadway tunnel (for underpinning). Alternative 10 would have moderate impacts to parking by eliminating availability on the east side of Park Avenue between East 37th Street and East 38th Street for approximately 3 years. Alternative 10 would have moderate impacts to air quality based on the proximity of the construction activity and heavy equipment to sensitive land uses. No business or residential displacements would occur as a result of construction. However, Alternative 10 would affect access to commercial businesses along Park Avenue as a result of reduced lanes and/or street closures during construction. Pedestrian access along sidewalks on Park Avenue would be maintained.

Draft Scoping Document 53 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Alternative 10 would have moderate impacts to community character/visual/urban design resources due to the permanent removal of two mature street trees. Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may produce construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and could have cumulative impacts. Alternative 10 would have minor impacts to pedestrian circulation and public open space resources. Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 10 presents: Major (-) impacts to historic and cultural resources, noise and vibration, and community facilities; Moderate (o) impacts to traffic, parking, air quality, socioeconomic conditions, community character/visual/urban design resources, and cumulative effects; and Minor (+) concerns related to pedestrian circulation and open space resources. Alternative 11 Construction of this alternative, located in the northbound streetbed of Park Avenue between East 37th and East 39th Street, would have fewer environmental impacts when compared to the side-street alternatives largely because of the facility’s distance from residential and commercial land uses. However, Alternative 11 would have major impacts associated with historic and cultural resources, noise and vibration, and community facilities. Excavation would occur within the boundaries of the Murray Hill National Register Historic District and adjacent to the National Register-listed Adelaide L.T. Douglas House at 57 Park Avenue (a New York City Landmark). Construction activities at this site would require monitoring and support-of-excavation of several buildings, including the Adelaide L.T. Douglas House, to protect them from damage, per NYCDOB and SHPO requirements. The curb lane staging area on Park Avenue would potentially have an adverse visual effect on the Adelaide L.T. Douglas House and other contributing elements to the historic district, including the Church of Our Saviour. Alternative 11 would involve construction near the Church of Our Saviour, and on-street passenger drop- off would not be available in front of the church on Park Avenue. Temporary lane closures on Park Avenue could affect vehicle and pedestrian access by increasing congestion in the vicinity. Noise and vibration impacts could interfere with events and functions at the church (construction is not expected to occur on weekends, but weekday events and functions could be affected). Construction would restrict Park Avenue northbound from three travel lands to one for approximately 2 years while traffic would be diverted to the adjacent curb lane to maintain one travel lane throughout construction. Parking would be eliminated on the east side of Park Avenue between East 37th Street and East 39th Street for approximately 2 years to accommodate construction. The removal of on-street parking in these areas would affect parking supply in the area. The potential for air quality (dust and air emissions) impacts would be expected to be moderate because construction would occur approximately 20 feet from buildings along the east side of Park Avenue. The potential for increased traffic congestion on the street may result in increases in vehicular emissions associated with idling conditions. No business or residential displacements would occur as a result of construction. However, Alternative 11 would affect access to commercial businesses along Park Avenue as a result of reduced lanes and/or street closures during construction. Alternative 11 would have moderate impacts to community character/visual/urban design resources. Construction of Alternative 11 would result in disruption to the institutional and residential land uses

Draft Scoping Document 54 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

adjacent to the construction area on the east side of Park Avenue and seven trees would be permanently replaced by grating. Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may produce construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and could have cumulative impacts. Alternative 11 would have minor impacts to pedestrian circulation due to the width of the sidewalks that would remain unaffected by construction. Alternative 11 would have minor impacts to public open space. Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 11 presents Major (-) impacts to historic and cultural resources, noise and vibration, and community facilities; Moderate (o) impacts to traffic, parking, air quality, socioeconomic conditions, community character/visual/urban design resources, and cumulative effects; and Minor (+) concerns related to pedestrian circulation and open space resources. Alternative 12 Alternative 12, located in the northbound streetbed of Park Avenue between East 36th and East 38th Street, would have fewer environmental impacts when compared to the side-street alternatives largely because of the facility’s distance from residential and commercial land uses. However, Alternative 12 would have major impacts associated with historic and cultural resources, traffic, noise and vibration, and community facilities. Excavation would occur within the boundaries of the Murray Hill National Register Historic District and adjacent to the National Register-listed Adelaide L.T. Douglas House at 57 Park Avenue (a New York City Landmark). Construction activities at this site would require monitoring and support-of-excavation of several buildings, including the Adelaide L.T. Douglas House, to ensure protection from damage, per NYCDOB and SHPO requirements. The curb lane staging area on Park Avenue would potentially have an adverse visual effect on the Adelaide L.T. Douglas House and other contributing elements to the historic district, including the Church of Our Saviour. Construction would restrict Park Avenue northbound from three travel lanes to one for approximately 2 years. During these periods, traffic would be diverted to the adjacent curb lane to maintain one travel lane throughout construction. Parking would be eliminated on the east side of Park Avenue between East 36th Street and East 38th Street for approximately 2 years to accommodate construction. The removal of on-street parking in these areas would affect parking supply in the area. Construction and excavation would occur within approximately 20 feet of building lines along the east side of Park Avenue between East 36th Street and East 38th Street, potentially generating noise and vibration impacts to the Permanent Mission of Guatemala to the UN, Church of Our Saviour, and residences. Because of construction activities near the Church of Our Saviour, passenger drop-off from Park Avenue would not be available. Noise and vibration impacts could interfere with events and functions at the church (construction is not expected to occur on weekends, but weekday events and functions could be affected). Construction activity would occur approximately 20 feet from adjacent buildings along the east side of Park Avenue, potentially generating moderate air quality impacts. No business or residential displacements would occur as a result of construction. However, access to commercial businesses along Park Avenue could be affected as a result of reduced lanes and/or street closures during construction. Pedestrian access along sidewalks on Park Avenue would be maintained.

Draft Scoping Document 55 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Seven trees would be permanently eliminated by ventilation gratings, thereby changing the aesthetics of the street. Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may produce construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and could have cumulative impacts. Alternative 12 would have minor impacts to pedestrian circulation due to the width of the sidewalks that would remain unaffected by construction. Alternative 12 would have minor impacts to public open space. Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 12 presents: Major (-) impacts to historic and cultural resources, traffic, noise and vibration, and community facilities; Moderate (o) impacts to parking, air quality, socioeconomic conditions, community character/visual/urban design resources, and cumulative effects; and Minor (+) concerns related to pedestrian circulation and open space resources. Alternative 13 Alternative 13, located in the streetbed and adjacent sidewalk of northbound Park Avenue between East 36th and East 37th Streets, would have major impacts associated with historic and cultural resources, pedestrian circulation, noise and vibration, air quality, socioeconomics, and community character/visual/urban design resources. Construction would occur within the boundaries of the Murray Hill National Register Historic District and would potentially encroach into a building that contributes to the historic district. The potential that the construction/excavation and permanent footprint limits would extend beyond the building line would require, at a minimum, a permanent easement. Because of the likelihood of considerable permanent building footprint intrusion, Alternative 13 would be avoided compared to the other alternatives. Construction would require sidewalk closure on the east side of Park Avenue between East 36th Street and East 37th Street because the entire sidewalk would be within the potential excavation area. Sidewalk decking and bridging would be required to maintain access to some buildings. As such, pedestrian circulation would be restricted. Although access would be maintained, access to businesses and residences would be adversely affected. Construction and excavation would occur adjacent to the building line along the east side of Park Avenue between East 36th Street and East 37th Street, generating noise and vibration impacts to sensitive receptors, such as residences and historic buildings. Alternative 13 would have major impacts on air quality based on the proximity of the construction activity and heavy equipment to sensitive land uses. Additionally, the potential for increased traffic congestion on the street may result in increases in vehicular emissions associated with idling conditions. The width of the fan chamber under Alternative 13 would require encroachment into the building line of structures along the east side of Park Avenue, resulting in substantial residential and displacement impacts. Even if direct displacement could be avoided, there would be indirect impacts to businesses and offices located on the east side of Park Avenue adjacent to the construction zone. During a portion of the construction duration, the sidewalk would be closed and/or restricted, and traffic would be restricted to one travel lane. Although access to buildings would be maintained, a café and other businesses that are located on the east side of Park Avenue between East 36th and East 37th Streets would be adversely affected.

Draft Scoping Document 56 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Four street trees in the east sidewalk of Park Avenue would be permanently removed, changing the aesthetic character of the street. Construction would restrict Park Avenue northbound from three travel lanes to one for approximately 3 years. Parking would be eliminated on the east side of Park Avenue between East 36th Street and East 37th Street for approximately 3 years to accommodate construction activities. The removal of on-street parking in these areas would affect parking supply in the area. Redevelopment of the block bounded by East 43rd Street, East 42nd Street, Madison Avenue, and Vanderbilt Avenue, and construction of a 65-story commercial tower by 2021 may produce construction schedule overlap with the Proposed Project and could have cumulative impacts. Impacts on open space resources would be minor. Alternative 13 would have minor impacts to community facilities; no such facilities are located in the immediate vicinity. Summary. As illustrated in overview notation on Table 2, Alternative 13 presents: Major (-) impacts to historic and cultural resources, pedestrian circulation, noise and vibration, air quality, socioeconomics, and community character/visual/urban design resources; Moderate (o) impacts to traffic, parking, and cumulative effects; and Minor (+) concerns related to open space resources and to community facilities. Conclusion In conclusion, the environmental impact analysis presented in Table 2 indicates the following from the array of 13 alternatives: . The preponderance of potential Major (-) environmental impacts occur with Alternatives 1 through 8 (side street alternatives) and Alternative 13 (along Park Avenue northbound). . The preponderance of potential Moderate (O) and Minor (+) environmental impacts relate to Alternatives 9, 10, 11, and 12. Therefore, only Alternatives 9, 10, 11, and 12 will be considered further for decision-analysis from the environmental standpoint. 3.3.3 Economic Comparative Analysis Construction cost estimates have been generated to provide a comparable index of cost for three categories of alternatives: alternatives located on side streets west of Park Avenue, alternatives located on side streets east of Park Avenue, and alternatives located along Park Avenue. Within each of these categories, construction cost elements include: site preparation, excavation, construction of the physical EVP plenum and personnel and equipment access, underpinning support, mechanical equipment, and where applicable, property acquisition costs. The comparative costs are given below in mid-2015 dollars, and the primary “driver” of the cost differences among the alternatives is the amount of rock excavation that would be required in each alternative: . Location east of Park Avenue: $93.9 million . Location west of Park Avenue: $96 million . Location in Park Avenue: $85.5 million

Draft Scoping Document 57 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

TABLE 2: COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Historic and Cultural Resources – – – – – – – – + – – – –

Traffic – – – – O O O O – O O – O Parking – – – – – – – – O O O O O Pedestrian – – – – – – – – + + + + – Noise and Vibration – – – – – – – – + – – – – Air Quality – – – – – – – – O O O O – Socioeconomic Effects O O O O O O O O O O O O – Open Space Resources + + + + + + + + + + + + + Community Facilities – O – O + – – + + – – – + Community Character, Visual – – – – – – – – O O O O – Resources and Urban Design Cumulative Effects O O O O O O O O O O O O O Summary 8 7 8 7 6 7 7 6 1 3 3 4 6 – Major Impact (count)

2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 5 6 6 5 3 O Moderate Impact (Count)

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 5 2 2 2 2 + Minor Impact (Count)

Orange shading indicates those alternatives found not feasible based on the engineering evaluation.

Each estimate is based on a confidence level of a nominal 20 percent given the conceptual nature of the design information. The construction costs for the “east” and “west” of Park Avenue alternatives are considered, comparatively Major (-), and the construction costs for the “in Park Avenue alternatives” are considered Moderate (O). The graphic representation of the comparative economic evaluation among the alternatives is provided in the Comparative Cost Analysis in Table 3.

TABLE 3: COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Summary Cost Rating – – – – – – – – O O O O O

KEY – Major Impact O Moderate Impact Orange shading indicates those alternatives found not feasible based on the engineering evaluation.

Draft Scoping Document 58 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7 (west of Park Avenue) and Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8 (east of Park Avenue) demonstrate Major (-) capital cost exposure, while Alternatives 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (along Park Avenue) present a Moderate (O) capital cost exposure (comparatively) for the associated EVPs. Conclusion On the basis of capital cost, the alternatives located along Park Avenue (9, 10, 11, 12, and 13) present the best opportunity to minimize economic effects because they would incur the least construction costs from among the 13 alternatives. As such, only Alternatives 9 through 13 were considered for further decision- analysis from an economic standpoint. Alternatives located in streets east and west of Park Avenue would incur approximately 10 to 12 percent higher construction costs than those along Park Avenue. (Note: Alternatives east of Park Avenue would cost approximately 2 percent less than those alternatives west of Park Avenue.) 3.3.4 Integrated Engineering/Environmental/Economic Comparative Analysis Table 4 shows the collective and integrated analyses of engineering, economic, and environmental considerations applied to the evaluation of the 13 Potential Alternative EVPs. From among the 13 Potential Alternatives, MTA NYCT selected 2 as the Candidate Alternatives for consideration in the EIS— Alternatives 11 and 12. Alternative 11 offers the greatest potential to minimize adverse engineering, economic, and environmental effects and is followed closely by Alternative 12. The principal difference between Alternatives 11 and 12 from an environmental standpoint is that Alternative 12 would potentially impact East 37th Street, a NYCDOT THRU Street. A final decision on which Candidate Alternatives will be evaluated in the draft EIS will be made following consideration of public input through the scoping process, including substantive comments on the AA/FE (Appendix A).

TABLE 4: INTEGRATED COMPARATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX

Alternative Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Engineering*   

Environmental*    

Economics*     

*  denotes those alternatives that provide the greatest potential to minimize adverse effects in the criterion category noted. Orange shading indicates those alternatives found not feasible based on the engineering evaluation. 4.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT Potentially significant environmental effects/impacts resulting from constructing and operating the Candidate Alternative EVPs identified in the EAF (see Appendix B) include: . Impacts to Historic Resources—Because portions of the project area would be located within the National Register and/or New York City Murray Hill Historic District and numerous individual

Draft Scoping Document 59 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

historic resources are present in the project area, construction in the vicinity of these resources could result in temporary or permanent impacts and require mitigation. . Noise, Vibration, and Air Quality Impact to Sensitive Receptors—Given the dense mix of buildings in the project area, it is likely that construction activity would occur in close proximity to sensitive land uses and for extended periods of time. Therefore, construction activity could potentially result in impacts related to noise, vibration, and air quality. . Impacts to Transportation—Traffic and pedestrian movement could be impacted temporarily during construction as a result of temporary lane closures, detours, or other traffic modifications required to allow construction of an EVP in the streetbed. 5.0 METHODOLOGIES FOR PREPARING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The draft EIS will assess the environmental effects/impacts of the Candidate Alternatives considered most promising based on the results of the scoping process. The greatest potential for environmental effects/impacts is anticipated to occur during the peak construction year, which would be the second year of the 4.5 years of construction period. The analysis of operational impacts will largely be qualitative in nature because the facility would not have any effects or impacts unless it is in emergency (i.e., fire, smoke conditions) operation mode or during routine testing/inspection. These effects/impacts during the operating condition will be addressed in the air quality, noise and vibration study subject areas. Future development in the project area expected during the construction period, including other anticipated public and private developments and background growth, will be considered to assess the cumulative effects/impacts of the Proposed Project. A comparison will be made between the effects/impacts for each of the technical areas considered in the EIS of the Proposed Project in the peak construction analysis year and conditions without the proposed plant (No-Build Alternative). The draft EIS will contain the following: . a description of the Proposed Project and its environmental setting . a description of the Alternatives Evaluation . a description of the No-Build condition, construction condition, and operating condition . a description of the Candidate Alternatives . an assessment of the short-term (construction-related) impacts of Candidate Alternatives (the construction condition will be prepared for 2018, while the operational condition will be prepared for 2021) . identification of any potential significant adverse environmental impacts that could not be avoided with implementation of the Proposed Project Technical discussions will include, but will not be limited to the matters given below. 5.1 DISCUSSION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION The draft EIS will introduce the reader to the project and set the context for assessing impacts. The Candidate Alternatives will be described in sufficient detail to provide the public and decision makers with a clear understanding of the full range of regulatory actions/processes required. The project description will encompass:

Draft Scoping Document 60 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

. a description of the Proposed Project . a detailed description of the proposed EVP Candidate Alternatives . a description of the planning rationale, as well as purpose and need for the action 5.2 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION The EIS will include a discussion of the alternatives analysis and feasibility evaluation work discussed in Section 3.0 of this draft Scoping Document, and in Appendix A. 5.3 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION A transportation study will be conducted to evaluate the effects of the Candidate Alternatives on traffic, parking, transit, and pedestrians during construction. Key issues will include the relatively high traffic volumes on 36th and 37th Streets leading to and from the Queens-Midtown Tunnel, the potential impact of traffic diversions on congested intersections, and plans to maintain traffic flow and local access during construction. Identification of the Traffic Study Area. The study area will include intersections bounded by 40th Street on the north, Lexington Avenue to the east, 35th Street to the south, and Madison Avenue to the west. Traffic analyses will be conducted for 18 intersections, including: . Lexington Avenue, all six intersections between 35th and 40th Streets . Park Avenue, all six intersections between 35th and 40th Streets . Madison Avenue, all six intersections between 35th and 40th Streets Traffic Data Collection and Traffic Volume Development. The following traffic data will be collected as part of the transportation technical study: . Collection of 24-hour automatic traffic recorder (ATR) count data – Data will be collected for a Monday through Friday period, summarized in 15-minute intervals, and used to identify the temporal distribution in the vicinity of the possible alternatives. It is anticipated that ATR counts will be conducted at the following locations: 36th, 37th, and 38th Streets between Madison and Lexington Avenues and Park Avenue between 36th and 38th Streets. . Collection of turning movement and sample vehicle classification count data at the 18 intersections selected for detailed analyses – The manual traffic count data will be collected at the same time as the ATR counts on one representative midweek day (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) during the AM, midday, and PM peak periods. . Collection of parking data during the morning and afternoon peak periods when restrictions are and are not in effect – An inventory will be made of the supply and utilization of all off- and on- street parking locations within 1,500 feet (a typical “walkable” radius) of the proposed construction area. . Inventory of physical conditions of the street network – This inventory will include lane, roadway, crosswalk, and sidewalk widths; traffic controls; traffic signal timings and phasing; turning movement restrictions; posted parking restrictions; traffic flow conditions (i.e., effective roadway widths); and parking conditions (i.e., utilization of curb parking). On-record traffic signal timing information will be requested from NYCDOT. . Determination of existing traffic volumes in the study area – Existing traffic volumes during the morning, midday, and evening peak hours will be determined.

Draft Scoping Document 61 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

. Determination of future traffic volumes during the morning, midday, and evening peak hours as a result of background traffic growth and other proposed projects, if any, in the study area (No Build conditions) – Any planned roadway improvements that would affect a change in traffic operations in the study area (i.e., intersection widening, a new traffic signal) will be obtained from NYCDOT and New York City Department of City Planning (NYCDCP) and incorporated into the development of the No Build traffic volumes. Assessment of Project Impacts and Required Mitigation. The future traffic and parking conditions will be quantitatively assessed to determine the potential impacts for the construction-phase period. No traffic or parking analyses of the operational phase of the proposed EVP are required because there would be no permanent change to the street network or increase in trips generated by the project. Within the construction condition analyses, the volume of traffic expected to be diverted on streets affected by each Candidate Alternative, the likely routes they would be reasonably expected to use, and the impacts on study area intersections will be determined. Vehicular analyses will be conducted using the methodologies outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. Volume-to-capacity ratios, movement and approach delays, and levels of service will be reported. Traffic analyses will be evaluated against CEQR Technical Manual criteria to determine if the Proposed Project would result in any significant adverse traffic impacts during the construction period. The number of on-street parking spaces that could be eliminated during the construction of each of the Candidate Alternatives will be estimated. A quantitative analysis of the area within a 1,500 feet (a typical “walkable” radius emanating from the construction site block) of each Candidate Alternative will be then be conducted to determine the impact of parking conditions in the area. These displaced on-street vehicles will be assumed to park on-street elsewhere, thus adding to the overall new on-street parking demand. In coordination with NYCDOT, a conceptual Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Plan will be developed that defines proposed lane and/or street closures in the vicinity of each Candidate Alternative. Transit and Pedestrians . Conditions will be observed at the most critical pedestrian locations potentially impeded by construction of the EVPs, such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and access routes to subway stations and bus stops. . Pedestrian conditions will be qualitatively assessed at two locations where the potential exists for significant impacts during construction. Qualitative observations of pedestrian flows will be conducted at other study area sidewalks, and spot counts will be conducted at affected locations that currently exceed capacity and at those that may be adversely affected during the construction period. . Pedestrian access through the area and to land uses adjacent to the potential construction sites will be described. . Potential impacts to bus stops and/or bus routes will not be affected because there are no routes along the proposed Candidate Alternatives. 5.4 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS, COMMUNITY DISRUPTION, DISPLACEMENTS AND RELOCATIONS, TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS, AND VAULTS The socioeconomic conditions analyses will focus on the Proposed Project’s effects/impacts immediately surrounding the project study area. While the proposed EVP would not introduce a new population or

Draft Scoping Document 62 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

create permanent jobs in the neighborhood, it could have temporary effects/impacts on the local population in terms of access and air and noise disturbances during construction. Population Characteristics. Information on existing population and housing characteristics in the Murray Hill neighborhood will be summarized using U.S. Census data. The analysis will focus on temporary construction-related impacts and effects on the existing population in the study area. Economic Conditions. Information regarding existing conditions on the number of jobs by industry within the study area will be provided, and any large/notable employers will be identified. Retail and restaurant establishments will be identified by type within the study area and in detail on the streets surrounding the Candidate Alternatives, using field surveys and secondary source research. Impacts to local commercial activity that may be caused by the construction will be discussed and temporary impacts on business access and pedestrian flows and temporary changes to the visual environment will be qualitatively considered. Community Disruption. The community disruption section will address the overall impact of construction activities on the community by summarizing information from the construction impacts, transportation, and visual impact analyses. Displacements and Relocations. If property acquisition is necessary or a home will be displaced by any of the Candidate Alternatives, information will be gathered on housing market conditions, and a relocation plan will be developed consistent with federal and state requirements. The proposed EVP would be designed to avoid and minimize disruptions to private property, and given that the majority of project elements are within public rights-of-way, displacements appear unlikely at this time. Nevertheless, should the need for residential or business displacements become evident during the design development of the project, any impacts will be documented in the EIS. Summary tables and mapping will be prepared for all displacements, and compensation and relocation assistance to be provided to displaced persons or businesses will be discussed. Temporary and Permanent Easements and Vaults. Construction could potentially affect features such as sidewalk vaults and other easements, including utility easements that may extend into the construction zone. As applicable, such features would be investigated in coordination with the relevant entities such as NYCDOT and Con Edison as the environmental review process advances. 5.5 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY The midtown Manhattan neighborhood of Murray Hill is a mix of residential and commercial uses, with retail shops lining the avenues. This centrally located neighborhood lies between such notable landmarks as the Chrysler Building, , and Grand Central Terminal. Its is revealed in elegant residential buildings that range from 1920s apartment houses to preserved row houses on side streets. It also hosts many prominent institutional uses, including the City University of New York Graduate Center, Stern College for Women of University, the Morgan Library and Museum, Scandinavia House–the Nordic Center in America, the Mexican Cultural Institute of New York, and the Union League Club of New York. Murray Hill is also home to various consulates and missions. . Existing land uses and zoning will be identified in an 800-foot-radius study area to characterize the general area that surrounds the Candidate Alternative EVP locations, and specific uses will be defined that will most likely be affected by construction and operation. . A description will be prepared of existing land use, zoning, and public policy in the study area based on field survey, NYCDCP studies and plans, and available data from the Community District Needs Statements.

Draft Scoping Document 63 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

. A description of land use trends and the identification of anticipated future projects in the study area and a description of land use plans and re-zoning proposals will be developed based on discussions with NYCDCP and other appropriate public agencies and available resources. . An assessment of the effects/impacts of the Proposed Project on existing land use, land use trends, zoning, and public policy (including consistency with community plans) in the study area and specifically at the EVP sites will be made. 5.6 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF OPEN SPACE/PARKLANDS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES The evaluation of open space in this densely developed part of the City is necessary both because the Park Avenue Malls (landscaped medians) qualify as public open space, and also because Murray Hill hosts a variety of publicly accessible privately owned open space. An inventory of open space/park land and recreation will be coordinated with the land use inventory and related EIS studies. The CEQR Technical Manual and Publicly Accessible Private Open Space will be used as sources in the analysis. 5.7 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES While an in-street EVP alternative is unlikely to affect community facilities directly through changes to land use or surrounding development, there is the potential for indirect effects. An inventory of community facilities will be conducted in concert with the noise, vibration, and air quality analyses. Potential indirect effects to community facilities that may result during construction or operation, as supported by other technical analyses, will be reported in the EIS pursuant to the CEQR Technical Manual. This effort will also inform the community character assessment of the EIS. 5.8 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER/URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES/VISUAL AND AESTHETICS Murray Hill is a distinctive neighborhood with a variety of attributes that include its proximity to major New York City landmarks and its historic properties and attractive streetscapes. While an in-street EVP alternative would not be expected to alter community character, temporary construction activities could result in effects to community character and the visual environment. The EIS will provide a description of the visual environment immediately surrounding the Candidate Alternative EVP construction sites, as well as the study area’s urban design character and visual resources. This will include a survey of building height, bulk, type, identified view corridors, streetscape elements, street hierarchy, and landscaping features (e.g., street trees). Impacts to visual resources and view-sheds will be discussed, including the duration of impacts, populations exposed to the change in views, and mitigation measures incorporated in the project to minimize impacts. 5.9 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION FOR HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources are districts, buildings, structures, sites, and objects of historical, aesthetic, cultural, and archaeological importance. Historic resources and archaeological resources require both distinctly different study areas and evaluation protocols specific to above- and below-grade sensitivity. An assessment of historic resources defined as buildings or structures is usually needed for projects that are located adjacent to listed or eligible historic or landmark structures or within historic districts. This includes: designated New York City Landmarks (NYCL); properties calendared for consideration as landmarks by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC); properties listed in the State/National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR) or contained within a district listed in or formally determined eligible for S/NR listing; properties recommended by the New York State Historic Preservation Office within the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) for listing on the S/NR;

Draft Scoping Document 64 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

National Historic Landmarks; and properties not identified by one of the programs or agencies listed above, but that meet their eligibility requirements. The New York City Building Code provides some measures of protection for all NYCL properties against accidental damage from adjacent construction by requiring that all buildings, lots, and service facilities adjacent to foundation and earthwork areas be protected and supported. Additional protective measures apply to designated NYCL and S/NR-listed historic buildings located within 90 linear feet of a proposed construction site. For these structures, the NYCDOB’s Technical Policy and Procedure Notice (TPPN) #10/88 applies. TPPN #10/88 supplements the standard building protections afforded by the Building Code by requiring, among other things, a monitoring program to reduce the likelihood of construction damage to adjacent NYCL-designated or S/NR-listed resources (within 90 feet) and to detect at an early stage the beginnings of damage so that construction procedures can be changed. Historic resources that are listed in the S/NR or that have been found eligible for S/NR listings are given a measure of protection from the impacts of federally sponsored or federally assisted projects under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and are similarly protected against impacts resulting from state-sponsored or state-assisted projects under the State Historic Preservation Act. Although preservation is not mandated, federal and state agencies must attempt to avoid adverse impacts on such resources through a notice, review, and consultation process. Private property owners using private funds can, however, alter or demolish their properties without such a review process. For the purposes of the new EVP, the Historic Resources Study Area would be defined as the footprint to be altered by the required EVP installation plus an approximate 400-foot radius, which is typically adequate for the assessment of historic resources, in terms of physical, visual, and historical relationships. The archaeological area of potential effect (APE) is limited to those specific areas where project-related excavation or ground disturbance is likely and would result in new in-ground disturbance. The initial Phase I evaluation would be completed in reference to the standard review process of the New York City LPC. The research effort for cultural resources is anticipated to include the following types of activities: . Field visit to the project area to assess and photograph existing conditions. . Examination of the archaeological site files of the New York State Museum, OPRHP, and LPC for reported archaeological sites. . Examination of the OPRHP’s computerized database for inventoried structures on each of the Candidate Alternative sites and properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the S/NR. . Examination and presentation of copies of pertinent historic maps and Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps that document the development of the area and help to establish subsurface conditions. . Review of available soil boring logs to further establish subsurface conditions. . Review of LPC Designation Report(s) as applicable to the area of potential effect. . Review of previous cultural resource reports conducted within or adjacent to the Project Area, including the New York City Department of City Planning’s East Side Midtown Rezoning EIS. Additional research may include review of historic photographs, maps, building department records, historical accounts, existing soil borings, and general environmental information. A report detailing the results of the literature review and site visit will be prepared in accordance with The Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections in New York

Draft Scoping Document 65 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

State5 and to meet OPRHP’s Phase I Archaeological Report Format Requirements.6 The Phase IA report will present the results of these site file searches and previous surveys in table format. The report will also include brief pre-contact and historic overviews for the area and archaeological sensitivity assessments. The draft EIS will summarize the findings of this research and identify and evaluate the potential effects/impacts of the Candidate Alternatives on historic and archaeological resources during construction and operation. Construction Environmental Protection Plan measures will be developed, depending on the potential impacts identified. 5.10 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF AIR QUALITY Mobile and stationary emissions will be examined in the context of the proposed construction and operation of the Candidate Alternative EVPs. For the Proposed Project, the key issues related to air quality include: . vehicular emissions from construction-related street traffic diversions (mobile) . emissions from construction equipment and activities (mobile and stationary) . emissions from the future operation of the proposed EVP (stationary - during testing and emergencies only)

Pollutants of concern include carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and greenhouse gases. Air quality analyses will be carried out in accordance with the most recent revisions of the CEQR Technical Manual and other relevant guidance and protocols provided by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) analysis is not needed because mobile sources are not a significant source of SO2 emissions. Also, the CEQR Technical Manual does not recommend SO2 analysis for mobile sources or construction impacts; SO2 would only be analyzed for stationary sources such as boilers or power plants. Mobile Source Analysis. For each Candidate Alternative, a screening level analysis based on procedures found in the CEQR Technical Manual and NYCDEP PM2.5 incremental impact guidance material will be conducted to identify those air quality intersections that will be studied in detail. For the selected worst- case intersections, micro scale mobile source analysis using CEQR Technical Manual procedures will be conducted to estimate potential impacts. This analysis will employ the USEPA CAL3QHC dispersion model for the CO micro scale analysis, the CAL3QHCR dispersion model for the PM10 and the PM2.5 analyses, and the latest USEPA emission model. Stationary Source Analysis. During the construction of the proposed EVP, in addition to mobile source emissions from vehicle diversions, on-site construction equipment and activities could also contribute to increases in pollutant concentrations. As a result, a detailed construction emission analysis will be conducted for the worst case construction activity year. The analysis will consider types of equipment and activities, as well as their duration and location relative to nearby sensitive receptors. Construction- related equipment and activity emissions will be obtained from USEPA’s AP-42, MOVES, and NONROAD models. The detailed construction emission analysis will be conducted using USEPA’s AERMOD dispersion model. Pollutants including CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 will be considered for all detailed stationary source analyses. Short-term and long-term pollutant concentrations will be estimated.

5 https://www.nysm.nysed.gov/services/233/curation.html 6 http://nysparks.com/shpo/environmental-review/documents/PhaseIReportStandards.pdf

Draft Scoping Document 66 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

The EVP would only be operated during periodic testing and emergencies. As a result, a qualitative assessment of the potential effects of the Candidate Alternative ventilation exhaust on nearby receptors will be provided. 5.11 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF NOISE AND VIBRATION The principal issues of concern with respect to the construction and operation of the proposed EVP include: . during construction, noise from diverted traffic and construction-related vehicles trips . during construction, stationary noise and vibration from on-site construction equipment and activities . during operations (testing and emergencies only), stationary noise and vibration from the operation of the EVP fan system The noise and vibration assessments will be conducted according to the guidance contained in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006),7 as well as elements of the CEQR Technical Manual. Mobile Source Noise and Vibration. A mobile noise assessment, as per the CEQR Technical Manual, will be conducted to determine the potential for impact. In support of the noise assessment, peak hour traffic noise monitoring will be conducted for each alternative at up to eight locations to establish baseline noise conditions surrounding the project area. Monitoring will be conducted at those locations that would most likely experience increases as a result of construction-related traffic. Simultaneous traffic counts will also be performed. A noise screening analysis using the CEQR Technical Manual will be conducted to determine locations that have the greatest potential for impact. Should noise screening identify a significant project-related volume increase (an approximate doubling of passenger car equivalents), detailed modeling will be conducted using the logarithmic prediction procedure described in the CEQR Technical Manual. If it is determined that the logarithmic prediction procedure would not be appropriate for estimating project-related noise levels, the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model will be used in place of it. No assessment of vibration-related mobile sources will be conducted because rubber wheeled vehicles have a low potential to create significant vibration. Stationary Source Noise and Vibration. Noise from the Candidate Alternative construction sites would include machinery, equipment vehicles and associated activities. The Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.1 will be used to determine noise equipment source levels and to assess the potential for noise impact at sensitive receptors near the project construction site. Modeled results will be compared to existing noise levels and the FTA construction noise criteria as contained in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006). The extent and duration of potential noise impacts at each potentially affected noise receptor location during each stage and phase of construction will be considered. Results will be reported for each of the Candidate Alternative EVPs. Site Construction-Related Vibration Impacts. Potential impacts from construction-related vibration will be assessed with respect to both human annoyance and building and historic structure damage. Similar to the noise assessment, FTA annoyance and construction criteria will be used for the analyses. Construction schedule, activity, and equipment data developed for the noise assessment will also be used for the vibration assessment, noting in particular activities such as impact pile driving and blasting, which

7 http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf

Draft Scoping Document 67 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

represent the highest potential for vibration impacts. To determine baseline vibration conditions, existing vibration levels will be monitored at up to five locations for each of the Candidate Alternatives. Particular consideration will be given to locations nearby historic buildings and structures within the project area that would be close to the construction site and or activities. Noise and Vibration from Emergency Ventilation Plant Operation. The potential for noise and vibration generated by the EVP operation to propagate to street level towards sensitive receptors will be qualitatively addressed in the context of the known plant mechanical specifications. 5.12 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE, ENERGY, AND SOLID WASTE Construction of the EVP may require relocation of some in-street utilities, and these will be documented in the draft EIS. The draft EIS will document the anticipated demand for energy consumption generated by the Candidate Alternative EVPs. However, a detailed energy analysis will not be necessary because the EVP will be designed in accordance with the New York State Energy Conservation Code, which is reflective of State and City energy policies. Operation of the Candidate Alternative EVPs will not result in significant solid waste generation because these facilities are not staffed. Nor would the alternatives under consideration directly displace or physically alter an existing solid waste facility. Therefore, no analysis of operational conditions with respect to solid waste impacts will be undertaken in the draft EIS. During construction activities, construction and demolition debris will be generated. Measures to manage the solid waste consistent with NYSDEC Part 360 regulations will be described in the draft EIS. 5.13 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES The study area comprises a densely developed urban environment with limited potential to support significant natural resources. A coordination letter will be sent to NYSDEC, Nongame and Natural Heritage Program regarding the project to confirm that no special status species are likely to be present in the project area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New York Field Office’s online project review process will also be completed. 5.14 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF CONTAMINATED AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT The draft and final EIS will assess the potential for the Proposed Project to result in short-term exposure to hazardous materials during construction using available published information (i.e., regulatory databases) and consultation with appropriate agencies (e.g., NYSDEC, New York City Fire Department). The extent and nature of potential hazardous material contamination and the management measures that would be implemented to minimize/avoid exposure will be described in the EIS. Hazardous materials and evaluation of such materials and the management of such material during construction will be based on Phase I Environmental Site Assessments for the Candidate Alternatives. 5.15 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY The project area is located within a central area of Manhattan that is slightly elevated and not located within the mapped Coastal Zone, according to Waterfront Revitalization Program information maintained by NYCDCP. Therefore, no detailed assessment of Proposed Project compliance with the Waterfront Revitalization Program is necessary in the EIS.

Draft Scoping Document 68 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

5.16 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF SAFETY AND SECURITY The EIS will identify, to the extent allowed by MTA NYCT policy, safety and security aspects related to the design, construction, and operation of the proposed EVP. 5.17 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Based on a preliminary review of USEPA’s Environmental Justice mapping application, the majority of the census blocks along Park Avenue within the project area have a relatively low percentage of minority residents (less than 10 percent) as well as a low percentage of persons in poverty. The project area does not appear to contain any potential environmental justice communities designated by NYSDEC. Therefore, further environmental justice analysis consistent with NYSDEC Commissioner Policy 29, Environmental Justice and Permitting is not required. These findings would be confirmed through formal designation of logical study area boundaries and socioeconomic data analysis supporting this section of the EIS. 5.18 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF COORDINATED CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Because few to no permanent impacts are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project, the consideration of cumulative impacts will be focused on construction impacts, and in particular, the incorporation of other construction projects that may occur concurrently with the Proposed Project. For example, construction elements of the Long Island Railroad East Side Access project are currently active in the study area, and planning is underway for construction of the One Vanderbilt skyscraper. An inventory of reasonably foreseeable development projects identified through review of planning documents and coordination with other agencies will form the basis for assessing cumulative effects. 5.19 DISCUSSION/EVALUATION OF MITIGATION The mitigation chapter will provide a concise summary of the mitigation commitments and Construction Environmental Protection Plan measures developed for the various technical analyses in the EIS. Where significant adverse impacts are identified, measures that will mitigate these impacts, either partially or fully, will be identified. Mitigation measures will be designed to minimize or avoid to the fullest extent practicable, given costs and other factors, any significant adverse impact. Where the impacts cannot be mitigated, they will be described as unavoidable adverse impacts in the EIS. 5.20 DISCUSSION EVALUATION OF OTHER STUDY CATEGORIES 5.20.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts If the implementation of the project will result in significant adverse impacts, regardless of the mitigation employed or where mitigation is not possible, such impacts will be described. 5.20.2 Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Project The potential for the Proposed Project to induce growth will be assessed and summarized. 5.20.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources The extent to which the Proposed Project will foreclose future options to utilize resources or the extent to which it will involve trade-offs between short-term environmental gains and long-term losses will be addressed, as will potential short-term losses compared to long-term benefits. 6.0 PLAN FOR PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT A public scoping meeting will be held on June 16, 2016, at which time the public will have an opportunity to provide comments on this document. A presentation on the Alternatives Analysis/Feasibility

Draft Scoping Document 69 MTA New York City Transit Proposed Emergency Ventilation Plant Lexington Avenue Subway Line

Evaluation, the Candidate Alternatives under consideration, and the scope of draft EIS analyses will be given. The public will have an opportunity to review the materials and provide comments (including written comments). Those comments will be addressed and incorporated as appropriate into a Final Scoping Document that will be issued by MTA NYCT. Once the draft EIS is completed, and MTA NYCT determines that the document is ready for public circulation and comment, MTA NYCT will prepare a Notice of Completion, publish the notice in the Environmental Notice Bulletin, and distribute the draft EIS. A public hearing will be held to give the public the opportunity to comment on the draft EIS. MTA NYCT will maintain a record of all comments received during the draft EIS public hearing and the comment period regarding the draft EIS. Preparation of the final EIS is expected to require the incorporation of revisions to the draft EIS reflecting clarifications, additional information, and responses to comments made during the public comment period. The final EIS will include a separate chapter summarizing the comments received and presenting (or referencing) the responses to the comments. The final EIS will also identify the Preferred Alternative for construction and operation. 7.0 PROTOCOL FOR PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING A Public Scoping Meeting will be held, during which time the public will have an opportunity to provide comments on this document. The meeting date, location, and time are as follows:

June 16, 2016, 6:30 p.m. Beth Israel's Podell Hall 1 Nathan D. Perlman Place (between East 15th & East 16th Streets)

The public comment period will close as of 5:00 PM on July 1, 2016. All written comments should be submitted at the scoping meeting or mailed to: NYCT Emergency Ventilation Plant Mr. Emil F. Dul, P.E. Principal Environmental Engineer MTA New York City Transit 2 , 5th Floor New York, NY 10004

All mailed comments must be postmarked by July 1, 2016.

Draft Scoping Document 70