Project Purpose and Need

Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need A. INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the need for the proposed Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives (MESA) project. Existing deficiencies in providing transit service on the East Side of Manhattan are summarized, based on the project s Interim Report No. 1, Draft Inventory and Review of Current Operational and Service Issues (July 1996), and subsequent assessment of current and future conditions. The identification of problems has been a major factor in determining the project s goals and objectives, also detailed below, which themselves form the basis for the evaluation of alternatives (see discussion in Chapter 2). This chapter also describes other major investment studies and planning programs that affect the proposed action and its goals, and discusses the review and approval processes. B. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION/LOCATION The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority * (MTA), in cooperation with MTA New York City Transit Authority (NYCT), are undertaking a Major Investment Study (MIS) to consider options for improving transit access and mobility on Manhattan s East Side. As shown in Figure 1-1, the alternatives would provide service to an area including Lower Manhattan, the Lower East Side, East Midtown, the Upper East Side, and East Harlem. A secondary area, just west of the primary area south of 59th Street, has also been considered in this MIS. The primary project area contains a variety of land uses, encompassing the dense commercial districts of Lower Manhattan and East Midtown (the third largest and largest central business districts [CBDs] in the nation, respectively), the ethnically diverse residential neighborhoods and shopping districts of the Lower East Side, the elegant shopping and hotel districts along Fifth and Madison Avenues, the city s most affluent residential neighborhoods (e.g., Sutton and Beekman Places in East Midtown, Fifth and Park Avenues in the Upper East Side), several major medical and learning institutions (New York University; Hunter and other CUNY colleges; and Beekman, Beth Israel, Bellevue, NYU, New York, Lenox Hill, Mount Sinai, Metropolitan, and North General Hospitals), the intensely developed residential areas of the Upper East Side (generally east of Lexington Avenue), and the homes, housing projects, and lively shopping areas of East Harlem. The secondary area adds Soho, the Herald Square shopping district, Times Square, the theater district, the Clinton residential neighborhood, and the remainder of Manhattan s CBD, centered primarily along Sixth Avenue. In the primary area, only the Lexington Avenue line (4, 5, 6 lines) provides full north-south rapid transit service. South of 64th Street (primarily in the East Midtown zone), several east-west lines * The legal name of MTA New York City Transit is New York City Transit Authority. 1-1

Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS (Q, N, R, 7, Shuttle, and L) cross the area and connect to other north-south services. The N and R trains provide north-south service along Broadway from 57th Street to Lower Manhattan. Several subway lines serve the Lower East Side (F, B, D, Q, and J, M, Z), but these do not offer direct north-south service on the East Side, and their stations are at some distance from residents living in the easterly portions of the neighborhood. In contrast, Lower Manhattan at the island s tip is served by the great majority of the city s through subway lines. On the surface, a regular grid of north-south avenues and cross streets serves most of the study area. Bus service is available on all major north-south avenues (except Park Avenue north of Grand Central Terminal) and all major crosstown routes. C. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION OVERVIEW As Manhattan developed during the 19th century, its growth was supported by expanding transit service. Elevated train lines brought New Yorkers to Manhattan s center from northern Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. By the 1890's, the Sixth and Ninth Avenue elevated train lines (combining to one service north of 53rd Street) provided rapid transit to the west side, and the Second and Third Avenue els served the east side. All lines offered connections to the Bronx and all were supported by surface transit in the form of trolleys. A separate network of elevated lines in Brooklyn served Lower Manhattan via the Brooklyn Bridge. The first two decades of the 20th century saw construction of subway lines through the study area as well, and by 1920, those traveling to, through, or from the East Side could choose to take one of three north-south rapid transit lines: the Lexington Avenue (subway), and the Second and Third Avenue els. (In 1921, the els carried 384 million passengers.) As the subway network expanded, however, and lines were added to and from Queens, Manhattan s els became less and less popular with New Yorkers. They began to shut down in the 1930's, and by 1942 the Second Avenue el was discontinued with the promise of a new subway line on that route. The Third Avenue el was closed in 1955. Although the Sixth and Ninth Avenue els were replaced by the Eighth and Sixth Avenue subway lines on the West Side, no such improvement occurred on the East Side, even though it is the more densely developed of the two areas. For the last four decades, only the Lexington Avenue line (4, 5, and 6 trains) has provided north-south rapid transit service through the East Side. The closing of the els took place during a time of great growth in the city. The economy of the city was strong through the late 1940's, the 1950's, and the early 1960's. The removal of the noise, shadows, and barriers created by the els helped to fuel a development boom on the Upper East Side (high-rise residences) and in East Midtown (primarily office buildings). This coincided with a sharp reduction in industrial uses in the far east side and construction of a number of public and publicly assisted housing projects on the Lower East Side, Upper East Side, and in East Harlem. By the mid-1960's, it was clear that rapid transit service on the east side of Manhattan was deficient. As the then-chairman of MTA, William Ronan, noted, You can t go on building office buildings, apartment buildings, without planning for adequate transit. MTA proposed a new Second Avenue subway line for the East Side and actually began construction in 1972. But the project became a casualty of the city s fiscal crises of the early 1970's; subway construction stopped in 1975. Construction of office and apartment buildings has not stopped, 1-2

Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need however; despite a hiatus in the 1970's and another in the early 1990's, the study area has seen substantial commercial and residential development in the past two decades and is expected to see considerably more through 2020, the project s analysis year. The purpose of the MESA study is to address the problems and deficiencies associated with continuing growth on Manhattan s East Side served by an aging and inadequate transit infrastructure. Issues of transportation service, congestion, and socioeconomic needs are discussed below. STUDY AREA PROBLEMS AND NEEDS INTRODUCTION Manhattan s East Side is densely developed with residential, retail, and commercial office uses, and includes two of the largest central business districts (CBDs) in the nation, East Midtown and Lower Manhattan. With nearly 700,000 residents and some 1.2 million jobs at the core of the greater metropolitan area, the primary study area plays a key role in the overall travel patterns throughout the region. Each day, millions of people travel in the study area as they commute to and from work. Most of these trips begin outside the area, but area residents also account for a large number of trips (about 18 percent). Those who work in the study area overwhelmingly make their journey-to-work on public transit: as reported in the 1990 U.S. Census, 78.5 percent use the subway, bus, rail, or ferry to get to and from their jobs during the morning and evening rush hours. The overall numbers are large enough so that even the relatively small percentage of trips by car (13.5 percent) translates to about 60,000 autos during the AM peak hour (assuming an average auto occupancy for each of 1.64, the average auto occupancy rate for vehicles entering Manhattan between 7 AM and 10 AM in 1995, as reported in the New York City Department of Transportation s 1995 Manhattan River Crossings, published in 1997). Most (77 percent) of the journey-to-work trips to the study area come from the five boroughs: Manhattan (30 percent), Brooklyn (18 percent), Queens (18 percent), the Bronx (8 percent), and Staten Island (3 percent). Other areas, in descending order of trip contributions, are New Jersey (10 percent), Nassau County (5 percent), Westchester County (4 percent), Suffolk County (2 percent), Connecticut (1 percent), and Rockland County (less than 1 percent). In addition to work trips are trips made for other purposes, including shopping, entertainment, and tourism (the study area contains many of the city s major museums, monuments, and other tourist attractions). During the AM peak hour on an average weekday, approximately 72,000 Lexington Avenue line subway riders, 22,000 bus passengers, and 35,000 Metro-North passengers enter the East Side business district. This level of activity has, in many cases, far exceeded capacity. The level of crowding on the Lexington Avenue subway system, in particular, has significantly affected reliability and comfort. The system cannot attract new riders because uncomfortable conditions and unreliable schedules at times force customers to change their transit route or mode. Further, with only one line serving most of the East Side, subway stations are often too far away from the residents and workers they are intended to serve. Above ground, the city s streets and highways are ill-equipped to take on any extra demand. Indeed, traffic flow, which has doubled since the 1940's, is a major contributor to the region s air quality problems. High levels of crosstown traffic, heavy pedestrian volumes, goods deliveries, 1-3

Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS double-parking, and the large number of buses needed to accommodate excessive demand have all combined to make chronic, severe congestion throughout the city s busy streets. Without some action, this situation will not abate. Employment and population in the primary and secondary study areas are expected to increase in the future, with 320,730 workers and 73,620 residents added by 2020. The remainder of Manhattan, which influences travel through the study areas, will also see population and employment increases. STUDY AREA PROBLEMS AND NEEDS Five categories of interrelated needs have been identified in the MESA study area, as described below: Capacity Capacity refers to the physical ability of a transportation system, or any of its elements, to carry travelers from one point to another. The capacity is defined as an amount ( volume ) of passengers or vehicles that can be accommodated by a street s traffic lanes, or by an intersection, subway tunnel, bus, stairwell, platform, train or sidewalk (or the combination of any of these) during a specified time frame, such as an hour or part of an hour, a peak period (three hours, normally during the rush hour ), a day, or a year. Volumes are compared to capacities (this is known as a volume-to-capacity, or v/c ratio) to determine severity of crowding on a transportation system. The limited capacity on all transportation system elements, given the extraordinary travel demand in the study area, has led to the following specific study area concerns:! Overcrowding on the Lexington Avenue Line Trains. The Lexington Avenue line carries very high volumes of passengers. In 1994, on an average weekday, a total of some 645,300 passengers entered the stations between Bowling Green and 125th Street. This was the highest of any segment in the city. Because of these high volumes, the trains are overcrowded, particularly during the AM and PM peak hours. For example, in a 1995 survey, over 30 percent of the express train cars leaving Fulton Street during those peak hours carried more than the guideline capacity of 110 persons per car. More than 80 percent of the train cars traveling southbound in the morning at the 86th Street station were observed to be over capacity; and at Grand Central Terminal, this condition was observed in 85 percent of the cars. At Union Square in the evening peak, 55 percent of the northbound cars were observed to be over guideline capacity.! Overcrowding in Lexington Avenue Line Stations. Stations on the Lexington Avenue line, which is one of the oldest subways in the city, have generally low passenger capacity (compared with some of the stations constructed later). The inadequate platforms and stairwells and their use by great numbers of passengers entering, exiting, and transferring in the stations have led to overcrowding and congestion, particularly during peak periods.! Inability to Meet Demand on North-South Bus Lines. The three most heavily used bus corridors in the United States all fall within the study area boundaries (First/Second Avenue, Third/Lexington Avenue, Madison/Fifth Avenue). All of these routes are often very crowded, with many standees; the most crowded locations are in East Midtown and the Upper East Side. In addition, north-south buses are scheduled as often as every 2 minutes 1-4

Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need during the peak hours to meet the considerable study area demand. This frequent service, combined with high ridership (which increases the time it takes to let passengers leave and enter the bus, called dwell time ), heavy street congestion, double-parked cars and other blockages in bus lanes and at bus stops, and the timing of traffic lights can alter the orderly flow of buses, so that later buses catch up to delayed buses, and they all arrive in a bunch at the next bus stop ( bus bunching ). This creates gaps in service (increasing travel times) and also contributes to surface traffic congestion. It is also an indication that bus service is operating beyond its practical capacity.! Severely Constrained Vehicular Traffic. Traffic volumes in the study area are very high and have been relatively constant since 1985 at about 11 million vehicles per day. Congestion is widespread throughout the study area, but particularly severe in East Midtown, which has two of the major portals to Manhattan the Queensboro Bridge and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and is the center of commercial activity in the city. Approaches to the Williamsburg, Manhattan, and Brooklyn Bridges are also regularly overcrowded. Streets south of Delancey Street on the Lower East Side and in Lower Manhattan are often crowded because of relatively high vehicular volumes, irregular street patterns, and narrow streets. Transit Accessibility Transit accessibility refers to the distance that a resident, worker, or visitor is from rapid transit. For purposes of this study, a reasonable distance is considered to be approximately a 5- to 10-minute walk to/from a subway station or bus stop.! Study Area Neighborhoods have Poor Transit Accessibility. A 5- to 10-minute walk from Lexington Avenue eastward extends to approximately Second Avenue, assuming the pedestrian does not need to turn north or south more than a block or two. For locations on streets between subway stops, the 5- to 10-minute walk would take someone no farther east than Third Avenue, because of the time spent heading not only east but also north or south. Given the shape of Manhattan s eastern shore, this leaves considerable portions of the study area far from a subway. The greatest concentrations of residential population thus denied reasonable rapid transit accessibility are in the Upper and Lower East Side neighborhoods (about 30 percent of study area residents), but some residents of East Harlem and East Midtown face the same problem. Portions of the Lower East Side and East Midtown are accessible to east-west subways, but, particularly on the Lower East Side, connections to north-south lines are not convenient. At the time of the MESA study s basic data gathering (1995), there was no free transfer between subway and bus, so that many of those living far from a subway stop were forced to pay two fares. *! Lack of Local Service to Lower Manhattan. Local service on the Lexington Avenue Line is not available south of the Brooklyn Bridge station. This forces passengers to transfer at Brooklyn Bridge or another express stop to travel to the heart of the city s financial district * Because basic data for the MESA study was gathered in 1995, existing conditions, as assessed in this report, do not include a free transfer between subway and bus. The assessment of future conditions, both without and with project alternatives, includes the free transfer, which was instituted in July 1997. 1-5

Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS or on to Brooklyn. The transfer contributes to overcrowding on train platforms and lengthens travel time. Travel Time Travel time refers to the amount of time spent traveling from the trip s beginning ( origin ) to its end ( destination ). Total trip time includes the time spent using each type ( mode ) of transportation (e.g., walk, bus, subway, rail, auto, bicycle). Waiting, boarding, transfer, and alighting time are also included. Travel time is related to capacity and to accessibility. Where a system is congested, generally expressed as a high volume-to-capacity ratio, travel time increases it takes longer to pass through the turnstiles, negotiate the stairs, and get on and off trains; the trains are delayed in the stations and miss their schedules, causing further back-up in the tunnels, and bus and other vehicles travel at lower speeds. And where rapid transit is not readily accessible, requiring a long walk or transfers and waiting, travel time also increases. The types of travel time problems that plague the study area s transportation system are as follows:! Excessive Dwell Times. Train dwell times (the time a train is stopped within a station to open its doors and let passengers on and off) are overly long at many of the Lexington Avenue line stations due to the large number of passengers getting on and off and overcrowding in the train cars. The excessive dwell times decrease a train s ability to maintain its schedule, with the result that there are slow-downs and back-ups all along the line during peak periods. This decreases speeds and increases travel time on all trains (not just the ones with excessive dwell times) and has the effect of reducing the hourly capacity (trains per hour) of the system.! Slow Train Speeds During Peak Travel Times. Due largely to excessive dwell times, train speeds are markedly slower during peak times than at other times, a condition that runs counter to the service goals of the system. For example, the maximum scheduled peak-hour travel time on the Lexington Avenue express line between Bowling Green and 125th Street is 32 minutes, compared with 23 minutes at other times.! Very Slow Bus Speeds. Because of traffic congestion, bus speeds are often very slow, with unpredictable delays occurring throughout the day, particularly during peak travel times. For example, the average north-south bus speeds during the weekday midday peak on most routes are between 5 and 7 mph; during a Saturday afternoon, the speeds range from 7 to 9 mph.! Slow Vehicular Speeds. High traffic volumes and frequent congestion lead to slow speeds for all vehicles traveling on study area streets. As noted above, bus bunching, which often results when the bus system is operating beyond its practical capacity, also contributes to overall traffic congestion. The slow speeds make any travel through Manhattan during peak periods time-consuming and inefficient. High traffic volumes moving at very slow speeds contribute to a deterioration of air quality (cars and trucks are less efficient at slow speeds and thus produce greater amounts of air pollutants). 1-6

Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need Flexibility Flexibility refers to the adaptability of a transportation system to accommodate the travel demands within the system if one component of the system fails. In addition, flexibility refers to a system s ability to accommodate future growth. As noted below, the problems described above contribute to unpredictability and lack of reliability, which greatly decrease the transportation system s flexibility.! Unpredictable Subway Service. Due to such volume related problems as high dwell times, overcrowding, and congestion on platforms, subway service is frequently unpredictable. These conditions serve to decrease the reliability, flexibility, and potential for intermodal connections between public transportation systems.! Unreliable Bus Service. As discussed above, traffic congestion, operating over capacity, and bus-bunching create unreliable bus service. This decreases flexibility of the system and makes transfers (which are often required with bus travel in the study area) particularly difficult.! No Ability to Accommodate Future Growth. The existing transportation system in the study area is already congested from high travel demand that it cannot fully accommodate. Population and employment are predicted to continue to increase in the study area, so that in the future travel demands will only increase. Further, other transit projects, if built, will add to ridership on East Side subways and buses (see below for a discussion of MTA/Long Island Rail Road [LIRR] East Side Access). The existing system cannot accommodate all of this future growth. Environmental and Socioeconomic Concerns The lack of capacity and resulting congestion on the city s transportation system contributes to the deterioration of a range of environmental and socioeconomic conditions. These include air quality, neighborhood character, and the economic vitality of the city s regional and local commercial areas, as described briefly below:! New York City is currently designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide and ozone, both of which are associated with internal combustion sources, such as vehicular traffic. Without good public transit access, people tend to seek alternative travel modes, principally taxi and automobiles. These trends, if allowed to continue, would result in increased emissions of air pollutants. Preventing further deterioration of air quality is an essential component of the project.! The congestion and inconvenience associated with the increasing lack of capacity in the area s transportation system, its inaccessibility to many residents, its unreliability and slow speeds, and its inability to cope with change and growth, have led to certain problems of neighborhood character and socioeconomic conditions. Specifically, lack of access to transit, either through distance from stations or because the transit system is overcrowded, uncomfortable, and unreliable, has the effect of making a community less attractive for development or reinvestment and discourages access to local businesses as well as regional commercial centers. Vehicular congestion has a similarly discouraging effect on socioeconomic conditions, making access difficult for travel and for goods and services, and adding noise and confusion to a neighborhood s ambience. 1-7

Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS D. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND PLANNING CONTEXT BACKGROUND In November 1967, Governor Rockefeller asked his newly created Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Authority ( MCTA, now the MTA) to prepare a comprehensive plan and action program of transportation improvements for the New York State portion of the metropolitan region. In its February 1968 report to the governor, Metropolitan Transportation, a Program for Action, MCTA proposed a major program of rehabilitation, modernization, purchase of new equipment, and construction of new projects to extend and enhance the existing system. The Second Avenue subway was one of the new projects: in its first phase it was to be built from East 34th Street northward on a new route to Dyre Avenue in the Bronx, with a connection to the upper Pelham Bay line via a newly built connection. In Manhattan, the subway was to connect at 63rd Street to Queens and to the West Side, and also to a new LIRR terminal located on Third Avenue near 48th Street. Construction of the 63rd Street tunnel, which was under way at the time, was to be expedited to accommodate LIRR east-side access, Second Avenue subway service, and an express connection to the Queens Boulevard line (with a new high-speed express track along the LIRR Main Line right-of-way), and to extend service to the Sixth Avenue IND line and the Seventh Avenue BMT line in Manhattan. In its second phase, the Second Avenue subway was to extend southward to Water Street to a new terminal beneath Water Street near Whitehall Street. Transfers to and from this line were to be provided at Grand, Houston, and 14th Streets. By 1973, MTA reported in 1968-1973, The Ten Year Program at the Halfway Mark, that the comprehensive plan had been refined, the first phase of the Second Avenue subway was in construction (the groundbreaking was in the fall of 1972), and the Bronx and southern Manhattan pieces were in final design. The 63rd Street tunnel and subway were under construction in Manhattan, as were certain pieces of the program for extending and improving service on the Queens Boulevard line. Unfortunately, when the 1973 report was published, New York City was headed into a serious fiscal crisis, and by 1975, work on the Second Avenue had stopped. Approximately 1 mile of subway tunnel had been constructed, primarily in East Harlem, and tunnel connections to the 63rd Street tunnel subway service had been completed. Although many elements of the original comprehensive plan and action program, including the Second Avenue subway, were not completed, some were; of these the most relevant to the MESA study is the 63rd Street tunnel, with subway connections from Long Island City to the Sixth Avenue line. Perhaps most important, the original work identified transit needs that persist today; many of the transit projects now under consideration or under construction can trace their origins to the 1968 plan. CURRENT PLANNING CONTEXT MTA LONG-RANGE PLANNING FRAMEWORK MTA has developed the Long Range Planning Framework to create a unified program of improvements to its subway and commuter rail systems. These improvements are aimed at alleviating overcrowding, reducing travel time, better connecting the rail and subway lines, providing 1-8

Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need high-quality service, and extending service to underserved areas. Like the Ten-Year Program of 1968, this effort recognizes that although a current map of the region s subway and rail lines would show little difference from one produced a half-century ago, the areas and the passengers that they serve have seen tremendous change. In the expectation of continued changes in the 21st century, MTA has begun examining how its network can be expanded and adapted to meet long-term access and mobility needs. Ease of transportation is essential to support economic growth and productivity and to keep the region a good place to live and work. To this end, MTA and its operating authorities, in coordination with FTA and other agencies, as appropriate, are undertaking seven coordinated but independent major investment studies, including the MESA study. The other six are as described in the subsections below. All seven studies are being coordinated through the MTA Long Range Planning Framework Group, which consists of study managers and key staff from MTA and its subsidiaries, LIRR, Metro-North, and NYCT, and additional input from the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). In particular, the group has worked to make sure that the same assumptions for such items as regional forecasts, current and future levels of transit service evaluation, the future shape of the regional transit network, and common evaluation criteria are used. Although these projects, if built, would be part of the region s overall transportation system, they are independent of one another. Each has its own purpose and need; each is subject to its own assessment and alternatives evaluations; and each can be built without that action affecting the decision to build any other. East River Crossing Study Sponsored by MTA and NYCT, this study assesses alternative strategies to improve transit service between Brooklyn and Manhattan, particularly considering the long-term reliability of the East River bridges for continued transit service. The Draft MIS Report for the project, completed in October 1997, concluded that the preferred alternative would construct a connection at Rutgers Street/DeKalb Avenue, to allow trains now limited to the Manhattan Bridge to also use the Rutgers Street tunnel. This would be accompanied by operational changes, including service rerouting, lengthening of the No. 3 trains to increase their capacity, and creating new transfers between Lawrence and Jay Street stations in Brooklyn and from Broadway/Lafayette and Bleecker Street (northbound) stations in Manhattan. This proposal must now be subject to public review and consideration by the MTA Board of Directors. If the Board decides to proceed, environmental studies and additional public review would be required, and the preferred alternative could be included in the next MTA Capital Program, the 20-Year Needs, and NYMTC s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), depending on priorities, financial constraints, and other MISs on the same time line. The MESA study, aware that the capacity of the Rutgers Street tunnel might be thus limited, did not conflict with this facility. Long Island Rail Road East Side Access Project In this study, MTA and the LIRR evaluated alternatives for improving mobility between Long Island (Brooklyn, Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk) and Manhattan s East Side. The study is driven by the serious capacity limitations of Penn Station; the continued growth in population, labor force, and employment; and the location of jobs on the East Side. According to the MIS, published in April 1998, the locally preferred alternative would be to bring some LIRR trains directly to Grand Central Terminal by using the already-built lower level railroad tracks in the 1-9

Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS 63rd Street tunnel. This plan would require that a connection from the LIRR to the tunnel be constructed within Sunnyside Yard, and a deep tunnel be built under Park Avenue to bring LIRR trains from the 63rd Street tunnel to the lower level of Grand Central Terminal. A DEIS will be prepared for the preferred alternative by mid-2000. After public review of the DEIS, an FEIS will be prepared, and the project will be included in the programs and regional plans cited for the East River Crossing Study, above. This project s locally preferred alternative, to bring LIRR trains to Grand Central Terminal instead of creating a new East Side Terminal (previously planned for Third Avenue between 47th and 53rd Streets) eliminated as a potential project objective the extension of the subway on Second Avenue south of 63rd Street to provide an intermodal transfer opportunity. In addition, increased numbers of riders from the LIRR onto the Lexington Avenue line could add to the current overcrowding on that line, underscoring the need for improvements to the East Side s subway service. Access to the Region s Core (ARC) This study a joint undertaking of MTA, PANYNJ, and New Jersey Transit began in January 1995 to examine long-term transportation initiatives to improve access and mobility from New Jersey to Long Island, through Manhattan s central business district ( the core ). The ARC study considered a full range of alternatives and has now narrowed them down to one, known as Alternative AA, with shared commuter rail facilities that will allow rail movements from Long Island, through Grand Central Terminal and Penn Station, westward through a new Hudson River Tunnel, with access to the Northeast Corridor and New Jersey Transit main line in New Jersey. This recommended alternative is undergoing further feasibility analysis during Phase 3 of the study, according to the ARC Milestone Summary Report released in July 1998. Depending on the outcome of Phase 3, preparation of an EIS for the alternative would be the next step. The MESA study coordinated with ARC as it considered various options that connected to a new east side subway in midtown. Lower Manhattan Access This study is intended to identify, evaluate, and recommend alternatives for short- and long-term access improvements to Lower Manhattan for New York s suburban commuters using Metro- North or the LIRR. This 30-month MTA study, which began in the fall of 1997, is a key component of a city and state effort to maintain and enhance Lower Manhattan as a strong office center as well as a 24-hour community, serving residents, workers, shoppers, and tourists (see discussion below, as well). In this study, the short-term options are particularly important. These would include steps that could be implemented quickly to improve the transfer from rail terminals to the subway and to improve the commuter s sense of comfort and convenience. Such options might encompass operating practices, rolling stock, and station improvements. Longer- term strategies would address the total commuting trip and might include major facilities such as new routes, new stations, or altered use of existing facilities. Metro-North Penn Station Access Metro-North has recently begun an MIS to consider options for bringing commuter trains into Penn Station. Currently, Amtrak trains use this route for long-distance travel. 1-10

Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need LaGuardia Subway Access Study This MTA/NYCT study was initiated by a cooperative partnership among the State and City of New York, the Queens Borough President s Office, MTA, and PANYNJ to develop one-seat rail rapid transit access from Lower and Midtown Manhattan to LaGuardia Airport, emphasizing an extension of the Broadway Line N train. Work on an Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS) was begun in March 1999. OTHER MAJOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Several major projects now under construction affect the planning context for MESA. These are: the 63rd Street tunnel connection to the Queens Boulevard line to be completed in 2001, and provision of access to the street from the northern end of Grand Central Terminal. In addition, NYCT has programmed and is implementing a wide range of track, signal, car, facility, lighting, and infrastructure improvements throughout the transit system, including the Lexington Avenue and 63rd Street lines, intended to bring the subways to a state of good repair. Outside Manhattan, PANYNJ is currently constructing Airtrain, a $1.5 billion new light rail link to John F. Kennedy International Airport. The project s first two phases, to be completed in 2002, are a 2-mile loop around the airport, linking nine passenger terminals; and a 3.3-mile extension from the airport s terminal area to rental car areas, long-term and employee parking, and the Howard Beach subway station on the A line. The project will also include a 3.1-mile connection between the airport and LIRR s Jamaica station in Queens (also the location of the E, J, and Z subway lines). Assuming final approvals are granted, this segment is to be completed in 2003. LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANS FOR THE SERVICE AREA Regional Transportation Plan: Mobility for the Millennium The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), in cooperation with state and local transportation agencies, is responsible for the development of a financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the New York Metropolitan Region. The RTP, Mobility for the Millennium, A Transportation Plan for the New York Region, identifies issues and sets goals and objectives to guide transportation decision-making in the context of funding constraints and other limitations on the degree of transportation improvement that can be expected. The plan presents a vision of where the region s decision-makers want the transportation system to be by 2020. The following goals of the plan are relevant to the MESA study:! Achieve and maintain a state of good repair on the transportation system. Objectives related to this goal include bringing transit infrastructure to a state of good repair and maintaining the system on a normal replacement cycle.! Maximize the transportation system s level of service and manage demand. This mobility goal includes the objectives of increasing the market share of all transit modes, including (among others) rail rapid transit, local and express bus, ferry, and commuter rail.! Improve the safety and security of the mass transportation system, including improving the environment of transit stations and facilities, and addressing the mobility needs of the elderly and physically challenged. 1-11

Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS! Improve regional environmental quality, balance environmental quality with the region s mobility and economic activity, and conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). A particularly relevant objective related to this goal is to minimize the growth in vehicular traffic (vehicle miles traveled), thus reducing air pollution from cars, buses, and trucks (mobile source emissions).! Identify public and private funding resources to implement the long-range plan. This goal, through its objectives, fosters increasing operating efficiencies in transportation systems, minimizing the time needed to implement projects, and developing new privatization efforts as well as innovative financing techniques.! Continue to monitor the performance of the long-range plan, adding measures and projects, as necessary to achieve the goals of the plan. The TIP addresses and coordinates specific transportation projects in the region in accordance with regional transportation goals. The MESA study is included in the TIP. In addition, NYMTC with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is developing the Congestion Management System (CMS) as mandated by the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21, formerly mandated as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]) to carry out regional goals. CMS is not yet in final form, but has interim policies that reflect the goals and objectives cited above. 42nd Street Light Rail Transit The New York City Department of Transportation and the local development corporation (LDC), 42nd Street Redevelopment Corporation, proposed and the City Council approved a light rail line across 42nd Street from river to river, with a terminus at the Convention Center. The MESA study reviewed these plans, held discussions with LDC and with the various Business Improvement Districts on 42nd Street and, as a result, located certain stations on the alternatives examined to accommodate more convenient passenger transfers between the MESA alternatives and the proposed 42nd Street light rail. New York State Air Quality Implementation Program Under the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1977 and 1990, areas of the country that exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) must prepare air quality plans demonstrating how standards will be attained. New York City, as part of a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide and ozone, is held to the commitments of the New York State Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP). The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has submitted the carbon monoxide SIP demonstration of attainment study to EPA in November 1992 and is awaiting final approval. The SIP contains control programs and contingency measures necessary to reduce carbon monoxide emissions to meet the standard in New York City by the CAAA attainment date of December 21, 1995. After the submission of the November 1992 carbon monoxide attainment demonstration, EPA revised the attainment date to December 31, 1996. For ozone, the CAAA requires a series of SIP revisions. These revisions included air quality control measures for target years emission reductions of ozone precursor emissions (volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides) and for an ozone attainment demonstration by 2007. NYSDEC submitted the final SIP revision for attainment of the one-hour ozone standard by 2007 for the New York City/Lower Orange County 1-12

Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need Metropolitan Area to EPA in November 1998. Under the 1990 CAAA, the MESA project is required to conform to the purpose and specific requirements of the SIP, cause no new violations, no exacerbation of existing violations, and no delays in the achievement of NAAQS or interim emissions reductions milestones. The NYMTC LRP and TIP must also conform to the SIP. E. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES MESA project goals, and the objectives to support them, reflect the need to address defined problems and respond to regional and local planning issues and community concerns. They were developed at the start of the planning process and refined during initial problem identification and public outreach. A statement of each goal is presented below, followed by a list of related objectives. GOAL 1: IMPROVE MOBILITY ON THE EAST SIDE OF MANHATTAN A. Reduce overcrowding and congestion of current transit lines, particularly the Lexington Avenue line. B. Improve accessibility to Lower Manhattan Financial District, Lower East Side, East Midtown, Upper East Side, and East Harlem, focusing on those far east areas that are at some distance from existing north-south subway service. C. Extend existing transit routes where appropriate to accommodate transit demands. D. Accommodate projected future ridership. E. Improve reliability of existing transit services. F. Improve integration with other metropolitan-area system programs. G. Minimize transit delays. H. Maximize transit safety. I. Maximize use of transit J. Reduce travel time. K. Reduce traffic congestion. L. Improve pedestrian conditions. M. Improve intermodal (bicycle, pedestrian, bus, subway, express bus, limited-stop buses) connections. GOAL 2: ACHIEVE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS A. Maximize operating and capital cost-effectiveness. B. Stimulate appropriate economic development and jobs. C. Maximize off-peak ridership. D. Support staging and up-grade initiatives. 1-13

Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS E. Choose alternatives that can be implemented with available resources. GOAL 3: MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS A. Reduce air pollution Reduce non-transit vehicle-miles traveled. B. Reduce energy consumption Reduce non-transit vehicle-miles traveled. C. Minimize noise impacts. D. Minimize property takings and other displacements. E. Maintain character, compatibility with land use. F. Maintain character, compatibility with neighborhood. G. Support existing and planned economic activities. H. Minimize community disruption during construction. I. Create aesthetically pleasing transit alternatives. J. Protect historical and archaeological resources, parklands, and environmentally sensitive areas. K. Minimize impacts on water quality and flooding. L. Maximize rider security and comfort. F. PROJECT STATUS AND STUDY ORGANIZATION The MESA study is a Major Investment Study (MIS), undertaken in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), ISTEA, and the joint implementation regulations of the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration (FHWA/FTA). An MIS examines a full range of potential options for solving defined transportation problems in a specific area and, using multi-disciplinary technical analysis and public input, evaluates feasible options fully, so that a locally preferred alternative can be identified. All major transit and highway capacity investments must be subject to an MIS before they can be incorporated into the region s transportation plans (RTP and TIP). To be acceptable under the regulations, a proposed project must be justified, based on a comprehensive review of its mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost-effectiveness, and operating efficiencies. Because New York City and its metropolitan area comprise a vast network of transportation systems, many of which qualify for study under the MIS program, MTA has set up a Long Range Planning Framework to coordinate all of the system expansion studies and make sure that the same assumptions and appropriate study approaches are used and that common criteria are applied. MESA s first milestone was to be accepted into the Long Range Planning Framework so that the MIS could begin, which occurred in January 1995. STUDY ORGANIZATION The study is organized into eight tasks, as follows: 1-14

Chapter 1: Project Purpose and Need Task 1, Problem Definition. This initial task involved gathering all available data from a variety of sources and conducting reconnaissance surveys, in order to define problems in such a way as to direct the formulation of study goals and objectives and prepare a draft study scope. Task 2, Future Projections. In this task, current conditions were projected into the future study year, defined as 2020, to understand the long-term issues that the east side transportation system faces. As part of this task, under the guidance of the Long Range Planning Framework, the growth of population and employment from 1995 to 2020 was estimated for the primary and secondary study areas, and a model was developed to predict future ridership for use in the evaluation of alternatives. This work is summarized in Chapters 4, 5, and 9. Task 3, Public Outreach. NYCT has undertaken an extensive, ongoing public and agency outreach program, which includes regular meetings with three groups formed to guide the study: a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), composed of other expert state and local agencies and elected officials to give technical guidance during the course of the work; a Public Advisory Committee (PAC) made up of individuals and civic groups from throughout the study area, to lend their local knowledge and their opinions in all aspects of the study, particularly the identification and evaluation of alternatives; and the MTA Long Range Planning Framework Working Group to coordinate among the several MISs now under way. NYCT and its study team also hold presentations and workshops for the general public and local community boards, maintain a mailing list and dedicated MESA hotline with a full-time MESA public outreach coordinator, offer electronic access through the NYMTC bulletin board, maintain a MESA e-mail address, prepare informational documents, and meet with any group that expresses an interest in learning about, reviewing, and commenting on the project alternatives. This work is detailed in Chapter 23. Task 4, Identification of Alternative Strategies. In this task, the project problems and needs identified in Task 1 provided the basis for developing the study goals and objectives and for brainstorming a long list of alternative solutions. Task 5. Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives. In the first phase of Task 5, the long list of alternatives was subject to an initial, coarse-level, fatal-flaw screening analysis that combined some alternatives and eliminated others. The remaining reduced long list was subject to a more detailed evaluation of engineering, cost, patronage, socioeconomic, and environmental factors to further filter the project alternatives. As a result of Tasks 4 and 5, the study is now assessing four alternatives, as described below in Chapter 2, Project Alternatives. The process of the two tasks is described in detail three documents: Problems and Needs Statement (July 1995), Development of Alternatives, Volume 1, October 1996, and Evaluation of Alternatives, Volume 2 (September 1997). Task 6. Detailed Evaluation of Remaining Alternatives. The four remaining alternatives were evaluated in detail sufficient for final patronage projections, assessment of engineering and operational issues, costing and financing, and identification of specific impacts and mitigation. Most of the Task 6 analyses are found in this MIS/DEIS (Chapters 3 through 22). The engineering studies of the two build alternatives are presented in the Final Engineering Report in Appendices D-F to this document. Task 7 and 8. MIS/DEIS Report and Recommendations. The MIS/DEIS report summarizes the results of the MESA study in a form that allows the decision-makers to understand the 1-15

Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS consequences of their choice. It addresses the planning and evaluation process, describes alternatives considered, identifies all significant impacts of each project alternative, presents mitigation to ameliorate those impacts that are adverse, and assesses the financial, socioeconomic, and environmental trade-offs among alternatives. The document also summarizes the public outreach program. Once this document has been subject to public review, the public outreach report and project status discussion will be updated, and NYCT, in consultation with the TAC and the Long Range Planning Framework Policy Committee, will recommend a locally preferred alternative plus strategies that can be implemented in short-term, while the longer-term project (if one is recommended) is in design and construction. The rationale for the selection will be described in a chapter appended to the MIS/DEIS. PROJECT STATUS The MESA study began early in 1995, after it was accepted in the MTA s Long Range Planning Framework. Tasks 1, 2, and 3 began immediately. The project s first major public meeting was to scope the study to present the purpose and need for the study and elicit comments on the alternatives to be considered, on the social, environmental, or economic impacts to be addressed in the MIS/DEIS, and on project goals and objectives. In accordance with NEPA regulations, the scoping meeting was advertised in the Federal Register and local news media. The meeting took place in July 1995, when the work of Task 1 was nearly completed, problems had been defined, and a preliminary long list of alternatives had been identified; a final scoping document, containing the written and oral comments on the project and its scope, was issued in December 1995. Following the scoping meeting, Task 4 began. More or refined alternatives were identified through technical study and in discussion with the TAC, PAC, other agencies, and through public outreach. With comments from the public in hand, the long list and reduced long list of alternatives were evaluated in Task 5. The evaluation of the reduced long list was also presented in the public outreach program with a meeting in November 1996 and several discussions and workshops. Once the four project alternatives were identified, the work of Task 6 began. On its completion, this MIS/DEIS was prepared (Tasks 7 and 8), to allow the evaluation to be publicly reviewed. This MIS/DEIS has been prepared in accordance with the regulations of NEPA. The ultimate decision by NYCT, the MTA Board, and the FTA to fund a locally preferred alternative cannot be undertaken without NEPA environmental review, which requires that the proposed action and its alternatives be assessed comprehensively for their potential to generate significant adverse impacts, that measures to mitigate these impacts be identified, and that the entire process take place in coordination with other agencies and the public. Public review begins with publication of this MIS/DEIS. A public hearing will be held as part of the public review process to receive public comments, after which the review period will extend to receive additional comments and the review will be documented in a Final MIS/DEIS. Subsequent to this phase, NYCT, MTA, and FTA will review the report and comments. If approved, the project will require a Final EIS (FEIS) on the proposed locally preferred alternative. The FEIS will add to the Final MIS/DEIS, updating of the community outreach effort and probable refinements in the locally preferred alternative. After the FEIS is complete, the agencies can decide whether to fund and implement the project. 1-16