SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES AND ALTERNATIVE PACKAGES 1.0 INTRODUCTION § Description of Alternative § Disadvantages of Alternative § Areas of Focus § Responsible Agencies A multi-step screening process was formulated for the Bronx Arterial Needs Major Investment Study (BAN § Accompanying Figures § Implementation Time Frame MIS) to develop and evaluate potential alternatives and alternative packages that would address the major § Modes Benefited by Alternative § Possible Combination of Alternatives deficiencies in the Cross Bronx Expressway and Major Deegan Expressway corridors. The following process § Study Goals Targeted by Alternative § Recommendations provided a basis for decision-making regarding the numerous transportation suggestions, options, alternatives § Advantage of Alternative and packages while maintaining the integrity of the study goals and objectives: § Identify needs and establish study goals The Fact Sheets were presented in the following sequence in the document “Potential Alternatives and § Assemble a list of suggestions and improvement options Alternative Packages, March 2002”: § Conduct a four-tier qualitative screening analysis of the suggestions and improvement options § Conduct a comparative analysis of the potential improvements that progressed through the screening No. 1: No Build Alternative analysis § Develop alternative packages from those projects selected to advance in the BAN MIS No. 2: Transportation System Management (TSM) and Travel Demand Management (TDM) Improvements § Evaluate alternative packages relative to each other and to the no-build alternative (the condition in the No. 3: Interchange Improvements in Cross Bronx Expressway Corridor build year if nothing occurs except currently programmed and funded projects) No. 4: Washington Bridge Diversion The step-by-step process can be viewed in Figure 1. The study has progressed through the development of No. 5: Mainline Improvements on Major Deegan Expressway, South of 145th Street alternative packages. No. 6: Interchange Improvements in Major Deegan Expressway Corridor Due to the multi-modal nature of this project, there are a number of agencies with jurisdiction for many of the No. 7: Service Roads in Major Deegan Expressway Corridor improvement alternatives. For this reason, several coordination meetings were held with these agencies to No. 8: Improvements at Highbridge Interchange review and discuss the alternatives within their jurisdiction. At the end of this document, there are th th recommendations for up to three, multi-modal improvement packages for more detailed analysis (Section No. 9: Restoration of Trans-Manhattan Expressway Tunnels under W. 178 and W. 179 Streets 3.0). These recommendations are based on the feedback received at the meetings with these agencies as well No. 10: Decking Segments of the Cross Bronx Expressway as the input received from the Steering Committee and Working Groups. These recommendations were No. 11: Connector Roads in Cross Bronx Expressway Corridor presented for review by the Steering Committee and Working Groups before a decision was made of the final packages to evaluate. No. 12: High Quality Bus Rapid Transit Facility on Cross Bronx Expressway Connector Roads No. 13: Pedestrian and Bicyclist Improvements in the Bronx 2.0 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE FACT SHEETS No. 14: Enhanced Bus Network Serving the Bronx No. 15: Enhanced Subway Service in the Bronx The development of the following list of Fact Sheets was based on the twenty-seven potential alternatives that No. 16: Enhanced MTA Metro-North Railroad Service in the Bronx passed the multi-tiered screening process. This process is documented in “Framework for Developing and Evaluating Potential Alternatives and Alternative Packages, August 2001.” No. 17: Inter-Modal Hub near New MTA Metro-North Railroad Station at Yankee Stadium No. 18: Bronx-Based Ferry Service The fact sheets and conceptual plans focused on improvement alternatives for the two primary corridors, Cross Bronx Expressway and Major Deegan Expressway, and addressed concerns with traffic operations and No. 19: Park-And-Ride Facilities in Northern Bronx and Southern Westchester County safety, transit services, goods movement, and bicycle and pedestrian mobility in these congested highway No. 20: Goods Movement in the Bronx corridors. In addition, special consideration was given to the Highbridge Interchange area, which provides a connection between the Cross Bronx and Major Deegan expressways. This area extends along the Trans- No. 21: Priority Treatment for Trucks on the Cross Bronx Expressway Manhattan Expressway/Cross Bronx Expressway from Henry Hudson Parkway to Jerome Avenue and along No. 22: Value Pricing at Existing Toll Bridges Serving the Bronx the Major Deegan Expressway from the Highbridge Interchange to Macombs Dam Bridge. The area also includes connections with the George Washington Bridge, Henry Hudson Parkway and the upper west side of Manhattan, Harlem River Drive, Washington Bridge, Amsterdam Avenue and Jerome Avenue The Fact Sheets are not included in this summary document. For more information, contact New York State Department of Transportation (Region 11) by clicking on Contact Information on the For each Fact Sheet, the following information and evaluation criteria were provided: BAN MIS website. Bronx Arterial Needs Major Investment Study 1 FIGURE 1 3.0 RECOMMENDATION OF ALTERNATIVE PACKAGES ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS This section presents three alternative packages of multi-modal improvements for review by the BAN MIS Steering Committee and Working Groups. Based on comments received, these three packages will be refined and subjected to further analysis and evaluation using the modeling tools developed for this study. (In Define Needs and addition, a separate package of Transportation System Management (TSM) and Travel Demand Management Establish Goals (TDM) improvements was developed and is presented in Fact Sheet No. 2. The potential benefits of these improvements relative to the long-term needs are expected to be limited and are not included in the following three alternative packages.) Compile List of The three alternative packages are recommended based on preliminary operational and engineering feasibility Suggestions and Improvement Options and discussion at coordination meetings with several of the responsible implementation agencies and with the Steering Committee and Working Groups. The improvement alternatives selected for each package are shown bulleted in Table 1. Qualitative Each of the three packages is a stand-alone and multi-modal set of improvement alternatives that addresses Screening Analysis the project issues and goals. All three packages include elements to improve traffic flow and safety along the Cross Bronx and Major Deegan expressways, particularly at locations where relatively high accidents rates First-Tier have been identified and where bottlenecks often adversely affect both mainline and local traffic operations. Major Flaw Analysis These include improvements to critical interchanges along these facilities. All three packages include improvements for transit services, goods movement and pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Bronx. Second-Tier Steering Committee and The first package is the most basic operational set of improvements. Although, it includes improvements at a Working Groups Feedback number of the CBE and MDE interchanges with safety and operational problems, it does not include measures that would benefit significantly the Highbridge Interchange. The first package does include, Third-Tier A gency and Public Input however, a segment of the proposed Cross Bronx Connector Road (Fact Sheet No. 11), extending from Implementation Potential Washington Bridge/University Avenue to Jerome Avenue. This may help to reduce congestion and accidents that consistently plague the westernmost segment of the Cross Bronx Expressway throughout the day. Fourth-Tier Consistency with The second and third packages include long-term solutions to correct safety and operational problems at the Study Issues and Goals Highbridge Interchange (Fact Sheet Nos. 8 and 9) and, in particular, at the Alexander Hamilton Bridge. Both packages include extension of the Cross Bronx Connector Roads from Washington Bridge/University Avenue Comparative Screening Analysis to Hugh Grant Circle. The connector roads may be used for a number of different scenarios that include general purpose, an exclusive bus rapid transit facility, and a combination of the two uses. The travel demand model will be used to screen and identify the arrangement for the connector roads. The results will be presented in the next step, Evaluation of Alternative Packages. The main difference between the second and third packages is the improvement at the Highbridge Interchange. The second package includes the restoration th th Development of of the TME tunnels under W. 178 and W. 179 streets. The tunnels may be configured at their termini in a Alternative Packages number of different arrangements involving the Alexander Hamilton Bridge or Washington Bridge on the eastern end and the George Washington Bridge (Upper or Lower Levels), Henry Hudson Parkway, and Riverside Drive on the western end. These various options will be screened to identify which option for the two TME tunnels would be selected for Alternative Package No. 2. The third package includes a new bridge over the Harlem River connecting the Major Deegan Expressway with the westbound Trans-Manhattan Evaluation