TABLE OF CONTENTS

---

Rehabilitation/Replacement of the Brooklyn Queens Expressway from Atlantic Avenue to Sands Street Kings County (Brooklyn), New York

Draft Scope of Work Prepared in accordance with the New York City Environmental Quality Review process

January 17, 2018 1

CEQR Number: 18DOT026K

www.BQE-i278.com

Polly Trottenberg, Commissioner New York City Department of Transportation

this page intentionally left blank

BQE Atlantic to Sands

Table of Contents 1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

2.

Need and Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1

Project Need ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1

The Need to Improve Safety ..................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.2

The Need to Correct Infrastructure Deterioration .......................................................................... 3

2.1.3

The Need to Correct or Improve Roadway Deficiencies ............................................................... 4

2.1.4

The Need to Improve Traffic operations ............................................................................................. 5

2.2 3.

Description of Existing Roadway ................................................................................................................. 1

Purpose of the Project ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Objective 1: Improve roadway and structural conditions of the BQE from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue:.............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Objective 2: Maintain or improve the connectivity to and from the BQE between Sands Street and Atlantic Avenue:.................................................................................................................................................... 6 Objective 3: Improve traffic safety and roadway operations: .................................................................... 6 Objective 4: Enhance the manner in which the BQE fits within the neighborhood context of the communities through which it spans. .................................................................................................................. 6

4.

Project Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.1

Background and Planning Context .............................................................................................................. 6

4.2

Alternatives Considered for this Project................................................................................................. 10

4.2.1

No Build/Maintenance Alternative (no Build alternative) ........................................................ 10

4.2.2

The Rehabilitation Alternative .............................................................................................................. 10

4.2.3

Replacement on the Existing Alignment Alternative ................................................................... 10

4.2.4

Replacement on New Alignment alternatives ................................................................................. 10

4.2.5

Tunnel Alternatives .................................................................................................................................... 10

4.3

Alternatives Being Eliminated .................................................................................................................... 11

4.3.1

Rehabilitation Alternative ....................................................................................................................... 11

4.3.2

Replacement on New Alignment Alternatives ................................................................................ 11

4.3.3

Tunnel Alternatives .................................................................................................................................... 11

4.4 4.4.1

Alternatives Being Carried Forward Into This EIS ............................................................................. 12 No Build Alternative................................................................................................................................... 12

Draft Scope of Work

i

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands

4.4.2 5.

6.

Replacement on the Existing Alignment Alternative (Build Alternative)............................ 13

Analysis Framework .................................................................................................................................................. 13 5.1

Study Areas ......................................................................................................................................................... 13

5.2

Analysis Year ...................................................................................................................................................... 14

CEQR ................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 6.1

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Scope of Work ................................................................... 15

6.1.1

Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 15

6.1.2

Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy .................................................................................................... 15

6.1.3

Socioeconomic Conditions....................................................................................................................... 16

6.1.4

Community Facilities and Services ...................................................................................................... 17

6.1.5

Open Space ..................................................................................................................................................... 17

6.1.6

Shadows .......................................................................................................................................................... 17

6.1.7

Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 17

6.1.8

Urban Design and Visual Resources .................................................................................................... 18

6.1.9

Natural Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 19

6.1.10 Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................. 20 6.1.11 Water and Sewer Infrastructure ........................................................................................................... 20 6.1.12 Solid Waste and Sanitation Services ................................................................................................... 20 6.1.13 Energy .............................................................................................................................................................. 21 6.1.14 Transportation ............................................................................................................................................. 21 6.1.15 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 6.1.16 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ............................................................................ 24 6.1.17 Noise ................................................................................................................................................................. 25 6.1.18 Public Health ................................................................................................................................................. 26 6.1.19 Neighborhood Character.......................................................................................................................... 26 6.1.20 Construction Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 26 6.1.21 Mitigation ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 6.1.22 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................... 28 6.1.23 Summary Chapters ..................................................................................................................................... 29 7.

Additional Studies....................................................................................................................................................... 29

8.

Agency and Public Involvement............................................................................................................................ 32

January 17, 2018

ii

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

Appendix A:

Draft Alternatives Evaluation Technical Memorandum, 2011, NYSDOT

Appendix B:

Tunnel Feasibility Study, NYCDOT, 2016

Appendix C:

Origin-Destination Study, NYCDOT, 2016

Appendix D:

In-Depth Bridge Inspection Reports, NYCDOT, 2016 and 2017-Reports 1 and 2

List of Figures Figure 1:

Follows Page

Project Limits ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Figure 2a-2b: Photographs.......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3

Project Context .................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 4

Roadway Deficiencies ....................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 5

Alternatives Considered in 2011 Evaluation .......................................................................... 8

Figure 6

Study Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 7

Land Use ............................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 8

Zoning ................................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 9

Open Space .......................................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 10

Transportation Study Area ........................................................................................................... 21

Figure 11

Traffic Modeling Area...................................................................................................................... 21

Draft Scope of Work

iii

January 17, 2018

this page intentionally left blank

BQE Atlantic to Sands

1. Introduction The proposed project would rehabilitate or replace the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (BQE)/Interstate 278 (I 278) from Atlantic Avenue to Sands Street in the Borough of Brooklyn (Kings County, New York) (the “Proposed Project”). The Proposed Project limits extend from Sands Street on the east/north to south of Atlantic Avenue on the west/south including the entire Atlantic Avenue interchange. The Proposed Project limits comprise the BQE footprint, including the roadway, shoulders and offsets, support structures, and entrance and exit ramps (see Figure 1). The north end of the Proposed Project limits is at Sands Street in the Vinegar Hill neighborhood near the Manhattan Bridge. West of Sands Street, the BQE passes through the DUMBO neighborhood and then south past the Brooklyn Bridge. The BQE then extends southward near the East River, through the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood. The southern end of the Proposed Project limits is at Atlantic Avenue in the Cobble Hill neighborhood. The Proposed Project would be funded by the City under the direction of the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT). Therefore, the Proposed Project requires review under the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) with NYCDOT as the lead agency. CEQR provides a means for City agencies and decision-makers to: systematically consider environmental effects along with other aspects of project planning and design; evaluate reasonable alternatives; identify the process by which agencies review proposed discretionary actions to identify and disclose the potential adverse effects those actions may have on the environment; and develop mitigation measures for those impacts, where appropriate and practicable. CEQR is the City of New York’s (the “City”) process for implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). SEQRA permits a local government to promulgate its own procedures provided they are no less protective of the environment, and provide no less public participation, and judicial review than provided for by the state rules (6 NYCRR 617.14(b)). Therefore, the City promulgated its own procedures, known as CEQR, in order to take into account the special circumstances of the City’s urban environment. In implementing SEQRA, the CEQR process requires City agencies to assess, disclose, and mitigate to the greatest extent practicable, the environmental consequences of their decisions to fund, directly undertake, or approve a project in the City of New York. Based on the Proposed Project’s location and the scope of the undertaking, and after careful consideration of the potential social, economic, and environmental effects of the Proposed Project, NYCDOT has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. Scoping is the first step in the preparation of the EIS and provides an early opportunity for the public and other agencies to be involved in the EIS process. It helps determine the range of issues and considerations to be evaluated in the EIS. This Draft Scope of Work includes a description of the Proposed Project and the actions necessary for its implementation, presents the proposed framework for the EIS analysis, and discusses the procedures to be followed in the preparation of the Draft EIS (DEIS). 1.1 Description of Existing Roadway The Proposed Project involves an approximately 1.5-mile section of the BQE. The existing BQE is designated as Interstate 278 (I-278) and is a limited access highway. I-278 begins at the Bruckner Interchange in the Hunts Point neighborhood of the Bronx. It continues through Queens, Draft Scope of Work

1

January 17, 2018

10/11/2017

NH MA DGE

GE ID BR

BRI

N LY

AN ATT

K OO BR

CADMAN PLAZA EAST

ST R EET HEN RY

GOL D STREET MYRTLE AVENUE

EET

CLIN T ON STR EET

EET

BROOKLYN BRIDGE

FUR MAN STR EET COL UMB STR IA H EET EIGH TS WIL LOW

Heig hts P Broo klyn

STR

N ST REE T

UE

STA TE

ON ST R

REM SE

EST ZA W

RT

JORA LEM

VEN

N PLA

COU

A SH

A CADM

GRA CE

TBU

rom

SANDS STREET

ORA NGE STR EET

F LA

Brooklyn Bridge Park

ena de

EAST RIVER

ANT IC

AVE N

UE

COL UMB IA S TRE ET

ATL

Primary Project Area

The Rehabilitation of the BQE (I-278) from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue Borough of Brooklyn

0

1,000 FEET

Project Limits Figure 1

BQE Atlantic to Sands

Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Union County, New Jersey, and it terminates at U.S. Route 1/9 in Linden, New Jersey. Within the Proposed Project limits, I-278 has six travel lanes—three in each direction—and no shoulders. It is elevated above grade for much of the area within the Proposed Project limits (see Figures 2a and 2b). Observing from north to south, at the northern Proposed Project limit is Sands Street, where the roadway sits on two adjacent, elevated structures. From Sands Street, the roadway curves northward and westward for a short distance (approximately 800 feet). Bridge Park and Jay Street are situated below it, and the Manhattan Bridge’s lower roadway is above. Between the Manhattan Bridge and the Brooklyn Bridge, the roadway curves westward and then southward. The eastbound/northbound (Queens bound) and westbound/southbound (Staten Island bound) roadway structures gradually separate from one another, with the Staten Island bound lanes tucking beneath the Queens bound lanes. In the Queens bound direction, a ramp gradually splits off the right lane of the mainline to merge with a westbound (Manhattan bound) Brooklyn Bridge ramp. The BQE passes below the Brooklyn Bridge and is elevated above grade, ramping down alongside Vine Street and reaching grade near Hillside Park, where the roadway passes beneath Columbia Heights. The BQE curves southward and westward toward the East River waterfront, running alongside and partially above Furman Street, which lies between the BQE and next to Brooklyn Bridge Park. Along Columbia Heights, near its intersection with Orange Street, the BQE begins its triple cantilever section, which supports two levels of traffic and the Brooklyn Heights Promenade. Overall, the triple cantilever section of the BQE carries six lanes of traffic. The first cantilever above Furman Street supports the three Staten Island bound lanes and the second cantilever supports the three Queens bound lanes. The top cantilever supports the Brooklyn Heights Promenade, a public open space with waterfront views across Brooklyn Bridge Park. The Brooklyn Heights Promenade terminates at Remsen Street, as does the top cantilever section. The BQE continues as a double cantilever until it gradually separates and the two levels join alongside one another as it passes over Atlantic Avenue. The cantilever ends just north of the Atlantic Avenue bridge, and the BQE transitions to an at-grade highway. This segment of the BQE is a critical link of I-278, which is the sole Interstate highway in Brooklyn connecting it to Manhattan, Staten Island, and Queens (see Figure 3). The segment of the BQE within the Proposed Project limits carries an average weekday daily traffic volume of approximately 153,000 vehicles, including a substantial number of trucks (up to 13 percent of the total average weekday traffic). The BQE within the Proposed Project limits includes multiple bridges along with other supporting structures such as retaining walls. Several of the bridges, including the triple-cantilever section, are constructed of reinforced concrete, while others are composed of multi-girder steel and concrete-encased steel construction. There are two direct connections between this segment of the BQE and lower Manhattan via the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges: from the Queens bound BQE to the Manhattan bound Brooklyn Bridge; and from the Queens bound BQE to the Manhattan bound Manhattan Bridge. All other connections between those roadways, drivers must use a combination of ramps and service streets. This requires drivers on some routes to navigate neighborhood streets for as much as half a mile. January 17, 2018

2

Draft Scope of Work

11.3.17

The Rehabilitation of the BQE (I-278) from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue Borough of Brooklyn

View from Bridge Park, facing northeast

1

View of the triple cantilever from Brooklyn Bridge Park, facing southeast

2

Photographs Figure 2a

11.3.17

View of the Manhattan Bridge (above) and the BQE (below) from Jay St and York St, facing south

3

View from Furman St under the triple cantilever, facing northeast

4

The Rehabilitation of the BQE (I-278) from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue Borough of Brooklyn

Photographs Figure 2b

10.12.17

RF

KB

RID

GRA

GE

ND

RAL CENT

K PAR

WAY

ND

EX

PR

ES

SW AY

Asto r ia

LO

NG

IS

LA

BROOKLYN-QUEENS EXPWY

QUEENS

QUEENS MIDTOWN TUNNEL EA ST RI VE

MANHATTAN

R

BROOKLYN WILLIAMSB

MA BRO

OKLY

NH

AT TA N

N BR

BR

IDGE

ID

GE

URG BRIDGE

SANDS STREET

Brooklyn Heights ATLANTIC AVENUE

Red Hook

Project Location

The Rehabilitation of the BQE (I-278) from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue Borough of Brooklyn

0

2 MILES

Project Context

Figure 3

BQE Atlantic to Sands

2. Need and Purpose 2.1 Project Need The section of the BQE from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue is marked by widespread signs of deterioration and roadway features that do not reflect current design standards, causing numerous challenges for the travelling public. These include frequent lane closures, higher than standard crash rates, and diversion of truck traffic to local streets. Studies conducted over the past decade have revealed substantial structural deterioration that, if left unaddressed, is likely to lead to roadway restrictions or closures. The rehabilitation and/or replacement of the BQE is needed for the following reasons: 2.1.1

The Need to Improve Safety

The crash rate within this section of the BQE exceeds the statewide average for roadways of this classification. These crashes include high-volume-related and merge-related, rear-end collisions and sideswipes. Incidents of this type result in harm to individuals and properties, and financial losses. Crashes also frequently result in increased congestion, severe delays along a substantial length of the BQE, and the diversion of vehicles onto the local street network. According to a recent New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) study, several Priority Investigation Locations (PILs) and crash clusters were identified within the Proposed Project limits. The NYSDOT study identified PILs at the Atlantic Avenue intersection and along the approaches to it, in both directions. The NYSDOT study revealed that the crash rates for the PIL segments were 3.6 and 5.6 times the statewide average for similar facilities in the Queens bound and Staten Island bound directions, respectively. In addition, in the Brooklyn Bridge/Cadman Plaza vicinity, crash clusters were identified in each direction. At this location, crash rates were determined to be 2.1 and 1.1 times the statewide average in the Queens bound and Staten Island bound directions, respectively. 2.1.2

The Need to Correct Infrastructure Deterioration

Construction of the BQE was completed in 1954, according to the design practices of the time, and its bridges have undergone only limited structural rehabilitation since then. They are now considerably deteriorated, and inspections revealed advanced deterioration in the concrete superstructures and substructures. Visible signs of superstructure deterioration include scaling, efflorescence, transverse cracking, map cracking, and spalling, with exposed and corroded rebar at the underdeck. The cantilever structures lack a waterproofing membrane, thereby allowing permeation of water and de-icing salts into the concrete, which accelerates deterioration. Water leaking through failed expansion joint seals also contributed to structural deterioration. The section of the BQE known as the “triple cantilever” (between Orange and Remsen Streets) possesses unusual engineering characteristics. Its three levels of cantilevered structure are supported by a vertical wall that also serves to hold back the earth behind it. Thus, there is a complex system of forces acting to hold up the cantilevered decks and soil, and moving one of its parts affects the others. Addressing the structural issues of the BQE is further complicated because work needs to be undertaken within an intensely congested environment. A number of interim repairs to structures were completed by NYCDOT in recent years to correct identified problems and extend the life of the bridges. Frequent maintenance and repair efforts Draft Scope of Work

3

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands

and their associated lane closures, while necessary to maintain the integrity of the bridges, exacerbate congestion on the BQE, requiring diversion of traffic to local streets. These repairs have been costly and do not provide a long-term solution to the problem in this corridor. The BQE deterioration will continue to worsen over time; this must be addressed immediately to avert the need to close or restrict access to the BQE in the future. 2.1.3

The Need to Correct or Improve Roadway Deficiencies

Roadway deficiencies are widespread throughout the Proposed Project limits. Deficiencies of the numerous bridges and other highway components have been well documented by NYCDOT and NYSDOT. These deficiencies are described below (see Figure 4): 







1

Narrow Lane Widths: The highway segment within the Proposed Project limits is characterized by non-standard, narrow lane widths (10.5 feet). The current standard lane width for an Interstate highway is 12 feet. The narrow lane widths cause challenges, particularly in the event of a breakdown, crash, or incident that requires the closure of one or more moving lanes. When a lane is shut down, the result is often heavy congestion, severe delays, and the diversion of some vehicles onto local streets. Absence of Shoulders: The current standard width for right shoulders on an Interstate highway is a minimum of ten feet. The current standard width of the left shoulder is a minimum of four feet. Given the traffic volumes on this roadway, the absence of shoulders, which is nonstandard for an Interstate highway, provides no buffer for access for emergency vehicles, construction or repair vehicles and personnel in the event of a crash, breakdown, or other emergency. Because the BQE lacks shoulders, even a minor roadway event can result in severe backup. This often results in heavy congestion and severe delays. Short Merge Distances, and Acceleration and Deceleration Lanes: A merge is when multiple lanes converge and reduce to fewer lanes. The existing merge distances and acceleration and deceleration lanes along the BQE, on-ramps and off-ramps at Cadman Plaza and at Atlantic Avenue are nonstandard. Low Vertical Clearances: Vertical clearance describes the distance between a roadway surface and a bridge or other structure that passes over it. Standard minimum vertical clearance for an Interstate roadway is 14 feet, but 14 feet 6 inches or higher is preferred.1 Nonstandard vertical clearances exist at the following locations: beneath the Brooklyn Heights Promenade along the Queens bound BQE, where the clearance is 13 feet 2 inches; beneath the Brooklyn Heights Promenade along the Staten Island Bound BQE, where the clearance is 13 feet 9 inches; along the Queens bound BQE beneath Columbia Heights, where the clearance is 13 feet 9 inches; at Old Fulton Street beneath the BQE, where the clearance is 13 feet 9 inches; and at Washington Street/York Street, where the clearance to the underside of the Staten Island bound roadway is 13 feet 4 inches. The nonstandard clearances result in the diversion of some large trucks onto local streets.

NYSDOT Bridge Manual, 2006, Section 2.2, https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/repository/manuals/brmanusc/2011_nysdot_Br_Man_repl_pgs.pdf (Access September 2017.)

January 17, 2018

4

Draft Scope of Work

Steep Grades and Limited Sight Distance Low Vertical Clearance Non-Standard Sharp Curve Exit Ramp

Non-Standard Sharp Curve Exit Ramp

Low Vertical

Narrow Lane Widths (10.5ft)

Clearance

Absence of Shoulders (Typical) Non-Standard

Non-Standard Sharp Curve Entrance Ramp with No Acceleration Lane Non-Standard Sharp

Roadway Deficiencies Figure 4

Curve Exit Ramp Non-Standard Non-Standard Sharp Curve Entrance Ramp with No

Sharp Curve Engineering Constraints

Acceleration Lane BQE within

0

250 500 Feet

Project Limits

³

Sources of Data: NYC Department of City Planning, NYSGIS, ESRI, Bing

BQE Atlantic to Sands



Horizontal Curvatures and Limited Stopping Sight Distances: This segment of the BQE is characterized by nonstandard horizontal curves, and locations with limited stopping sight distances. Stopping sight distance is “the distance needed for drivers to see an object on the roadway ahead and bring their vehicles to safe stop before colliding with the object.” The distances are derived for various design speeds based on assumptions for driver reaction time, the braking ability of most vehicles under wet pavement conditions, and the friction provided by most pavement surfaces, assuming good tires.”2 Nonstandard horizontal curvatures and limited sight stopping distances are roadway factors that may contribute to an elevated crash rate. These conditions occur at several locations along this portion of the BQE. The BQE has multiple segments with nonstandard horizontal curvatures. The two entrance ramps to the Queens bound BQE at Atlantic Avenue lack acceleration lanes, and entry to the BQE is controlled by stop signs, which is nonstandard. The lack of an acceleration lane disrupts the flow of traffic and does not permit adjustments in speeds of both through and entering vehicles so that the driver of the entering vehicle can position the vehicle opposite a gap in the through-traffic stream and maneuver into that gap. The combination of a sharp curvature, nonstandard sight distance, and the lack of an acceleration lane, results in one of the highest crash rates in New York State. The Columbia Heights to Brooklyn Bridge segment of the BQE has nonstandard horizontal curvatures and steep vertical grades. The combination of vertical grades and nonstandard horizontal curvatures creates a roller coaster effect and results in nonstandard stopping sight distances. The exit ramp from the Queens bound BQE to Cadman Plaza has a short deceleration lane and limited sight distance. The Brooklyn Bridge to Sands Street segment of the BQE and the exit ramp from the Queens bound BQE to the Brooklyn Bridge have nonstandard horizontal curvatures. 2.1.4

The Need to Improve Traffic operations

Roadway capacity is “the maximum rate at which vehicles can pass through a given point in an hour under prevailing conditions.”4 The demand of this segment of the BQE during most of the day exceeds the prevailing capacity, resulting in heavy congestion and delays. Operational deficiencies, due to nonstandard features, also result in severe congestion. According to automatic traffic counts conducted in 2016, the BQE was estimated to carry a daily traffic volume of 153,000 vehicles between Exit 27, Atlantic Avenue, and Exit 28B, Brooklyn Bridge. 2.2

Purpose of the Project

The purpose of the Proposed Project is to address the structural deterioration and operational deficiencies of the BQE from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue in order to maintain safe and efficient regional and local connectivity for the traveling public and the movement of goods and services.

3. Project Objectives The development and evaluation of alternatives for the Proposed Project will be guided by the following objectives: 2

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_stopdistance.cfm (Access September 2017.)

Draft Scope of Work

5

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands

Objective 1: Improve roadway and structural conditions of the BQE from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue:    

Bring all roadway elements into a state of good repair through rehabilitation or replacement, including at-grade roadways and structures; Address critical nonstandard features as reasonable and practicable; Minimize diversion of commercial vehicles to local streets due to substandard vertical clearances or other conditions; and Provide a facility with a 75-year service life.

Objective 2: Maintain or improve the connectivity to and from the BQE between Sands Street and Atlantic Avenue: 

Maintain and/or improve BQE access to local streets and the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges.

Objective 3: Improve traffic safety and roadway operations:     

Improve nonstandard features (i.e., horizontal alignment, vertical profile, lane width, lateral clearance, etc.) that contribute to congestion and safety concerns; Improve nonstandard deceleration or acceleration lanes, to the extent feasible; Provide for a facility that is cost-effective to operate and maintain; Minimize the need for roadway closures for maintenance that contribute to congestion and safety concerns; and Maintain and/or improve access, for inspection, maintenance and construction personnel.

Objective 4: Enhance the manner in which the BQE fits within the neighborhood context of the communities through which it spans.   

Enhance pedestrian mobility and connectivity across the highway corridor; Enhance access to parklands; Provide urban design and aesthetic features to be compatible with the surrounding communities;

  

Minimize construction impacts to local communities and the public; Minimize the impacts of highway operations on local communities and the public; and Minimize the diversion of heavy vehicles to local streets.

4. Project Alternatives The identification, consideration, and analysis of alternatives are key to the environmental review processes. Consideration of alternatives leads to a solution that satisfies the transportation needs and meets the Proposed Project’s purpose and objectives. 4.1 Background and Planning Context Engineering studies have been undertaken in this section of the BQE. As a result of this extensive work, much is known about the operational conditions of the roadway, options for alignments, and January 17, 2018

6

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

their potential impacts. Inspection findings have also provided some information about the structural condition of the roadway and the rate at which roadway deterioration is anticipated to occur. The information obtained over the course of these studies, conducted with substantial outreach, has resulted in a body of knowledge that will inform this EIS. Among these studies are the following: 









In-Depth Inspection Report, NYSDOT, 1999: In 1999, NYSDOT undertook a structural engineering inspection and investigation, and seismic vulnerability study for the BQE between Atlantic Avenue and Washington Street in Brooklyn. Ground penetrating radar, deck and wall coring and testing, concrete encasement removal and replacement, and structural steel coupon and reinforcing steel sample taking and testing were among the testing techniques used. Denoted by “Bridge Identification Numbers” (BINs), each BIN may identify either a single bridge or discreet components of a larger structure. This study evaluated twelve BINs, including the triple-cantilever section, which is identified by five separate BINs. Structures ranged from generally fair to poor condition. (Although previous studies cited a quantity of 21 bridges within this segment, in actuality there are 21 BINs). Seismic Evaluation Report, 2003: In 2003, NYSDOT undertook an analysis of the seismic strength of the BQE. The study looked at several complex earthquake scenarios for the various types of structures that comprise the BQE between Atlantic Avenue and Sands Street. The study concluded that some portions of the structure could sustain damage from the types of earthquakes studied, but the structure would not be likely to collapse. At some connections and bearings, substantial damage is predicted, but the study found that many locations and details would be able to withstand the damage without risk of collapse. In several locations, retrofits were recommended to strengthen connections among structural components. Seismic Analysis and Vulnerability Assessment, Rehabilitation Design Alternatives, NYSDOT, 2004: In 2004, the NYSDOT conducted a comprehensive study that built upon the 1999 indepth inspection to assess the structural condition and load rating of the BQE between Atlantic Avenue and Washington Street and made recommendations to return the structures to a state of good repair. Rehabilitation recommendations included replacement of the roadway wearing surfaces, and repair of unsound concrete and steel reinforcement. Replacement of curbs, railings, drainage systems, and stone veneers, and installation of additional reinforcement were recommended at various locations. At several locations, complete replacement of the reinforced concrete deck was recommended. NYSDOT Environmental Impact Statement, 2009: In April 2009, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in cooperation with NYSDOT published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Tier 1 analysis of a 2-tiered Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the NEPA to evaluate alternatives and make corridor level decisions regarding the rehabilitation or reconstruction of the BQE and to identify a general alignment and corridor for proposed improvements to the BQE between Sands Street and Atlantic Avenue. In June 2009, a draft scoping document was published. A Draft EIS was prepared, but it was not completed. Draft Alternatives Evaluation Technical Memorandum, 2011: In 2011, NYSDOT prepared a Draft Alternatives Evaluation Technical Memorandum (see Appendix A) that evaluated a long list of alternatives to determine the degree to which they would satisfy the purpose and need of the project, as it was identified in the 2009 Draft Scoping Document. The Technical

Draft Scope of Work

7

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands

Memorandum was prepared as a supporting document to the Draft EIS that was underway at that time, but the Draft EIS was not completed. The Technical Memorandum considered the following twelve alternatives. - Two that included the rehabilitation of the roadway within the current alignment; -

Two that included the reconstruction of the roadway partially along the existing alignment and partially on a new alignment, one to the north and one to the south of the existing alignment;

-

Seven tunnel alignments, which varied in the number of tubes, (two have a single tube of three lanes, two have two tubes of two lanes each, and three have two tubes of three lanes each), and in their alignments (some pass beneath the East River, some pass beneath downtown Brooklyn and one passes beneath the existing BQE corridor);and

-

One alternative that explored Transportation System Management (TSM) and Travel Demand Management (TDM), which could be implemented in addition to or in the absence of the rehabilitation or replacement options.

The Technical Memorandum evaluated the alternatives based on a set of screening criteria and their ability to:



-

Meet Project goals and objectives;

-

Avoid community impacts, including the extent of diversion from established Project limits and potential effects on Environmental Justice populations;

-

Be funded and the potential effect on funding the Regional Transportation Program;

-

To meet or address engineering and structural considerations;

-

Improve traffic operations and safety by addressing nonstandard features;

-

Reduce construction-period/long term diversion to local streets; and

-

Avoid adverse environmental effects, which includes consideration of impacts to residential and business properties.

Tunnel Feasibility Study, NYCDOT, 2016: In 2016, NYCDOT undertook a study to further assess the feasibility of the tunnel alternatives identified in the NYSDOT Draft Alternatives Evaluation Technical Memorandum (see Appendix B). The tunnel alternatives are described in Section 3.2.5 and shown in Figure 5. The development and evaluation of alternatives in the Tunnel Feasibility Study was primarily based on the following: - The needs of the profile and cross-section to be compliant with FHWA and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards; -

The need to demonstrate the feasibility of boring the tunnel based on tunnel boring machine geometric restrictions; and

-

The need to avoid conflicts with existing underground New York City Transit (NYCT) subway tunnels, or major New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) water tunnels, none of which can be relocated; and the need for appropriate clearances between these tunnels and the highway tunnels.

January 17, 2018

8

Draft Scope of Work

10.10.17

WIL

LIA

MANHATTAN

MS

BUR

GB

RID

GE

TO EXIT 33 MA NHA NB TT A

OO

RID

BR YN

GE

KL ST

E

G ID

BR FUR

S ST HICK

Brid

CADMAN PLAZ A EAST

TILLARY ST

T RY S

AVE

AZ A W

MYRTLE AVE

ST

ES T

HEN

PARK AVE

SH

A N PL

Broo

SANDS ST

CLI N

T ON

BROOKLYN

ATL A

NTIC

TO SUNSET PARK

AVE

klyn

RI

ST

TBU FLA

ST

N GE

CAD M

EA

ORA

GRAND

VE

R

ge P

ark

MA N

YORK ST

AVE

KAN

E ST .

UNIO

N ST

4TH

AV E

VE NA

TO MIL

HA

TO EXIT 24 0

R-1

T-1 Under Down Brooklyn Tunnel

W-1 T-1 Modification/Extension

CS-1

T-2 Existing BQE Alignment Tunnel

W-2 Straight-Line Tunnel Between Exits 24 & 30

S-1

T-3 Outboard Tunnel

W-3 Outboard Tunnel Connecting Sunset Park & Exit 33

S-2

The Rehabilitation of the BQE (I-278) from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue Borough of Brooklyn

2,000 FEET

W-4 Fourth Ave/ Outboard Tunnel Between Exits 24 & 30

Alternatives Considered in 2011 Evaluation from Draft Alternatives Technical Memorandum, NYSDOT, Jan. 2011 (Appendix A) Figure 5

BQE Atlantic to Sands

The study also looked at the potential requirements of ventilation, portal locations, and connections to the existing BQE sections, potential impact on the foundations of the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, and property requirements and other community impacts. The study found that four of the seven tunnel alternatives (T-1/W-1, T-2, and W-4) would conflict with major water tunnels, and therefore, would be infeasible. One tunnel alternative (T-3) would lie directly beneath the Brooklyn anchorage of the Manhattan Bridge, and therefore, would also be infeasible. One tunnel alternative (W-2) passed this level of geometric screening (i.e. it was not deemed infeasible) but detailed engineering and lengthy design efforts would be necessary to confirm its feasibility. This tunnel alternative does not eliminate the need to maintain the existing structures that carry the BQE within the corridor, which would need to be maintained as a collector-distributor roadway, as the tunnel would accommodate only through-traffic. 



Origin-Destination Study, NYCDOT, 2016: An origin-destination (O-D) study was conducted for the section of the BQE and connecting roadways that would be pertinent to the Proposed Project (see Appendix C). An O-D study is used to determine where people originate their trips and what their destinations are. This provides information that is used in traffic modeling and provides insights into existing and future transportation needs. This study utilized data collected for New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s (NYMTC) Best Practices Model (NYBPM). The BQE O-D study revealed the following patterns of travel: In the morning Queens bound direction, 54 percent of cars and 21 percent of trucks and commercial vehicles exit the BQE within the Proposed Project limits, while in the Staten Island direction, 57 percent of cars and 64 percent of trucks and commercial vehicles exit within the Proposed Project limits. In the evening, in the Queens bound direction, 45 percent of cars and 25 percent of trucks and commercial vehicles exit within the Proposed Project limits, while in the Staten Island bound direction 29 percent of cars and 69 percent of trucks and commercial vehicles exit within the Proposed Project limits. In-Depth Bridge Inspection Reports, NYCDOT, 2016 and 2017: A series of inspections of bridges on the BQE were undertaken along the BQE from Atlantic Avenue to Sands Street (see Appendix D). The inspections included deck evaluation, load rating, material sample collection and testing, hazardous materials testing and other related services. The findings varied from structure to structure, but some of the recommendations and findings were generally consistent throughout the reports. The reports found that: the structures show signs of their 60+ year old age, and defects are the result of their exposure to the deleterious effects of weathering, water infiltration, and deicing salts. The primary members of the structures were generally found to be in fair to good condition. Expansion joints are presently leaking, resulting in water infiltration, which will continue to cause corrosion and deterioration of the deck slab without remedial action. The reports recommend reconstruction of various walls and other elements throughout the study area. The load ratings generally show adequate capacity, however the 10-year Predicted Condition (the load rating anticipated for year 2026 and beyond), shows a load rating lower than what is necessary for the truck traffic currently using the roadway. Therefore, it is anticipated that in 2026, the section of the highway within the Proposed Project limits would not be able to accommodate the heavier trucks.

Draft Scope of Work

9

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands

4.2 Alternatives Considered for the Proposed Project The following alternatives have been considered and reviewed based on prior studies and current information. 4.2.1 No Build/Maintenance Alternative (No Build Alternative) CEQR requires the evaluation of a No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative serves as the baseline with which to compare other alternatives. The No Build Alternative would retain the highway in its existing configuration. Nonstandard features would remain and maintenance and repairs would continue to be performed to address roadway operations and the safety of the traveling public. The roadway surface would be periodically repaved and fixtures repaired to the extent feasible. Major structural degradation would not be addressed and deterioration would continue. Roadway or lane closures may be necessary in the future should repairs be insufficient to make the roadway safe for the traveling public. Individual bridges may be considered or advanced for rehabilitation or reconstruction, but would not be part of this Proposed Project. 4.2.2 The Rehabilitation Alternative The rehabilitation alternative would rehabilitate the BQE on its existing alignment. It would maintain existing features but rehabilitate pavement and rehabilitate or reconstruct bridges to achieve a state of good repair. Existing geometric features would remain as they are at present and nonstandard features would remain as they currently are. Existing connections between the BQE and local streets would be unchanged. All signage, lighting, roadway barriers, and drainage would be replaced. 4.2.3 Replacement on the Existing Alignment Alternative The Replacement of the BQE on its existing alignment would involve rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of the highway along the existing right-of-way. Nonstandard features would be minimized or eliminated to the greatest extent possible without resulting in structural effects on buildings or the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges. Existing connections between the BQE and local streets would remain as they currently are or they would be improved. All bridges and roadway surfaces would be rehabilitated or replaced to achieve a state of good repair. All signage, lighting, roadway barriers, and drainage would be replaced. 4.2.4

Replacement on New Alignment alternatives

Two options were considered that would replace the existing BQE along a new alignment. The new alignment would meet current highway design standards. Portions of the alignment would be located within the existing corridor; portions would diverge either to the north/east or the south/west of the existing alignment through DUMBO or Brooklyn Heights, respectively (see Figure 5, Alternatives S-1 and S-2). All infrastructure would be new and would meet current engineering standards for vertical clearances, lane widths, shoulders, stopping sight distances, horizontal curvatures, and ramp lengths. These alternatives would require the acquisition of approximately 700 to 800 properties, some of which would be historic resources. 4.2.5 Tunnel Alternatives Seven tunnel alignment alternatives were studied. They comprise a range of potential locations and configurations. Four alternatives would be located close to the existing alignment: one would January 17, 2018

10

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

run beneath the existing BQE (T-2), one north of the existing alignment with a subaqueous segment (T-3), and two would run south of it (T-1 and W-1). Three other alternatives would veer further away from the existing BQE alignment: one would run beneath downtown Brooklyn beneath Fourth Avenue (W-4), one would be predominantly under the East River, connecting the Williamsburg area with Sunset Park (W-3); one would run from Grand Avenue to the Gowanus Expressway at 50th Street (W-2). All of the tunnel alternatives would result in, or require: construction of one or more ventilation buildings, property takings for the permanent location of tunnel portals, ventilation buildings, construction staging easements, and property takings above the tunnels. All of the tunnel alternatives would result in an increase in annual operational and maintenance costs; reduced roadway capacity, and loss of access from the BQE to the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges and other local streets. 4.3 Alternatives Being Eliminated Based on the extensive analyses previously performed, and with consideration of the Proposed Project’s purpose and need, and goals and objectives, the following alternatives are being eliminated from further analysis in this Proposed Project: 4.3.1 Rehabilitation Alternative The rehabilitation alternative would not eliminate the nonstandard geometric features that exist currently, but pavement would be rehabilitated and bridges would be rehabilitated or reconstructed as necessary. That alternative is being eliminated as it would not result in improved roadway safety and operations, and would retain all of the existing nonstandard features. Because clearances would remain low, tractor-trailers, and other large vehicles would likely divert to local streets. While it would address infrastructure deterioration, it would not improve or correct roadway deficiencies. As such, the rehabilitation alternative would not meet the purpose and need. The rehabilitation alternative is being eliminated from further consideration in the EIS. 4.3.2 Replacement on New Alignment Alternatives The replacement of the BQE on a new alignment alternatives are being eliminated from further consideration due to the severity of adverse impacts that would result from the implementation of either of these options. Although both of the replacement options would address Objectives 1, 2, and 3, they would not address Objective 4. It is anticipated that either of these options would result in the acquisition of more than 700 to 800 properties, including the removal of parkland and historic structures; would not provide urban design and aesthetic features that would be compatible with the surrounding communities; and would not be compatible with neighborhood character. Impacts of construction to local communities would be intensive. As such, these alternatives will not be carried forward to the EIS. 4.3.3 Tunnel Alternatives All of the tunnel alternatives would result in property takings required to permanently locate tunnel portals and ventilation facilities, and for temporary construction of those features. All of the tunnel options would not provide access to the Manhattan Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge, and local streets, and would reroute traffic including trucks to local street networks.

Draft Scope of Work

11

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands

When studied in regard to their three-dimensional, geometric feasibility, four of the tunnel alternatives were deemed infeasible as a result of their alignment conflicting with major water tunnels (T-1/W-1, T-2, and W-4). One alternative (T-3) would present substantial disruptions in a congested area; however, the critical concern is that this tunnel would lie directly beneath the Brooklyn anchorage of the Manhattan Bridge, which presents a highly undesirable condition. One tunnel alternative (W-2) did not present such geometric conflict. However, as stated above, substantial detailed design efforts would be necessary to confirm its feasibility. This alternative would accommodate only through traffic, due to its location and length and its lack of entrances and exits within the current BQE area. The Origin-Destination Study (see Appendix C) demonstrated that the destination of a high percentage of trips falls within the Proposed Project limits in both the AM and PM, and therefore would not be accommodated with the tunnel under the W-2 alternative. Because of the large numbers of cars, and trucks and commercial vehicles that need to exit the BQE within that area there would remain a need to retain the existing BQE facility to accommodate the demand, even if the W-2 tunnel alternative would be constructed. All of the tunnel alternatives would partially meet the Proposed Project objectives in that nonstandard features would be addressed. However, connections between the BQE and the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges would not be maintained or improved. Locations at which there would be tunnel portals and ventilation facilities, connectivity within the affected neighborhoods would be diminished. Therefore, Objective 4 would not be met. The tunnel alternatives would result in substantial permanent increase in maintenance and operational costs for NYCDOT. The tunnel alternatives would not have sufficient roadway capacity to replace the current capacity of roadway. The tunnel study found only one of the tunnel alternatives to be potentially feasible. That alternative would require the retention and continued viability of the BQE from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue. Because all but one tunnel alternative was determined to be infeasible, and because the one tunnel potentially feasible alternative would still require the functionality of the existing BQE facility, all tunnel alternatives are being eliminated from further consideration in this EIS, and this EIS will disclose the urgent need to address the advancing deterioration of the existing BQE. The decision for this Proposed Project to be limited to addressing the deterioration of the existing BQE does not preclude or diminish any potential future consideration and implementation of a feasible tunnel option. 4.4 Alternatives Being Carried Forward Into This EIS The following alternatives will be analyzed in this EIS. 4.4.1 No Build Alternative As required by CEQR, the No Build Alternative will serve as the baseline to which the other alternatives are compared. The No Build Alternative would retain the highway in its existing configuration. Nonstandard features would remain as currently configured. Maintenance and repairs would continue to be performed to address the safety of the traveling public, and safety measures would be implemented to the extent feasible and practicable. The roadway surface would be periodically repaved and repaired to the extent feasible. Major structural degradation would not be addressed and deterioration would continue. Roadway or lane closures may be necessary in the future should repairs be insufficient to ensure the safety of the traveling public. January 17, 2018

12

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

Individual bridges may be considered or advanced for rehabilitation or reconstruction, but would not be part of this Proposed Project. The environmental effects of the No Build Alternative will be disclosed in the EIS. 4.4.2 Replacement on the Existing Alignment Alternative (Build Alternative) The Replacement on the Existing Alignment Alternative (Replacement Alternative) would generally follow the existing alignment of the BQE but would also include roadway widening and adjustments to improve or correct nonstandard features to the extent practicable. All of the bridges and structures would be rehabilitated or replaced as needed to achieve a state of good repair. The roadway would contain six travel lanes, three in each direction, with right shoulders. Onramps and off-ramps, acceleration and deceleration lanes, weaving distances, and shoulders would be brought to standard to the extent feasible. Vertical clearances along the roadway would be brought up to the 14-foot standard or greater to allow for trucks to remain on the roadway rather than diverting to local streets. On-ramp and offramp stopping sight distances, and horizontal curvatures would be improved. Connections to the Manhattan Bridge and Brooklyn Bridge would remain as they currently exist, or would be improved. Bridges across the BQE would be rehabilitated or replaced. The Brooklyn Heights Promenade would be rebuilt. Right lane shoulders would be provided along much of the roadway and left lane shoulders would be provided where possible. Guiderail and drainage system components would be replaced and updated, as would pavement markings and lighting. The roadway would be designed to achieve a 75-year service life. The environmental effects of the Replacement Alternative will be disclosed in the EIS.

5. Analysis Framework The CEQR Technical Manual will serve as a general guide on the methodologies and impact criteria for evaluating the Proposed Project’s potential effects on the various environmental technical areas to be studied. In disclosing impacts, the EIS will consider the Proposed Project’s potential adverse effects on its environmental setting. It is anticipated that the Proposed Project would be operational in 2028. Consequently, the environmental setting is not the current environment, but the future environment. Therefore, the technical analyses and consideration of alternatives include descriptions of existing conditions, conditions in the future without the Proposed Project (the No Build condition), and conditions in the future with the Proposed Project (the Build condition). The incremental difference between the No Build and Build conditions is analyzed to determine the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Project. 5.1 Study Areas The analysis will consider the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Project on both the primary and secondary study areas. The primary study area comprises a one-quarter mile boundary from the Proposed Project limits. This includes the roadway area, structures that support the roadway, on-ramps and off-ramps, signage, and drainage structures that are part of the highway infrastructure as well as adjacent land uses within the one-quarter mile buffer.

Draft Scope of Work

13

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands

The secondary study area is defined as the primary study area plus the adjacent surface roadways. For this Proposed Project, the secondary study area is defined as: the area from the northern Proposed Project limit at Sands Street, the area between Cadman Plaza West/Old Fulton Street and York Street; Vine Street, Hillside Park to Willow Street; Furman Street to the Brooklyn Heights Promenade; and Adam Yauch Park to Furman Street. The study areas will extend westward to the bulkhead line and eastward to approximately Clinton Street in Brooklyn Heights/Cobble Hill, Parts of Cadman Plaza Park, and the bulkhead line in DUMBO to Hudson Avenue/Navy Street (see Figure 6). 5.2 Analysis Year The potential environmental impacts of all alternatives carried forward for detailed evaluation will be evaluated for the following analysis years:  Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) (2028);  Design Year, which is ETC plus 30 years (2058); and  Construction Year (generally the mid-year of construction). The Design Year was identified based on guidance and procedures from FHWA for its projects.

6. CEQR As noted above, NYCDOT, as lead agency in the environmental review process, determined that the Proposed Project has the potential to result in adverse environmental impacts, and therefore, pursuant to CEQR procedures, will initiate an EIS in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations, including the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the City’s Executive Order No. 91, and CEQR regulations (August 24, 1977), as well as the relevant guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual. This Draft Scope of Work was prepared in accordance with those laws and regulations and following the CEQR Technical Manual guidelines. In accordance with the CEQR process, this Draft Scope of Work is being distributed for public review. A public meeting will be held: February 27, 2018 from 5pm to 8pm Dock Street School, 19 Dock Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201 There will be a presentation at 5:30, followed by public testimony on the Draft Scope of Work. Written comments on the Draft Scope of Work can be mailed or emailed to the contact person noted below: Tanvi Pandya Project Manager BQE Project Team 605 Third Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10158 email: [email protected] January 17, 2018

14

Draft Scope of Work

10/12/2017

NH MA DGE

GE ID BR

BRI

N LY

AN ATT

K OO BR

CADMAN PLAZA EAST

ST R EET HEN RY

GOL D STREET MYRTLE AVENUE

EET

CLIN T ON STR EET

EET

BROOKLYN BRIDGE

FUR MAN STR EET COL UMB STR IA H EET EIGH TS WIL LOW

Heig hts P Broo klyn

STR

N ST REE T

UE

STA TE

ON ST R

REM SE

EST ZA W

RT

JORA LEM

VEN

N PLA

COU

A SH

A CADM

GRA CE

TBU

rom

SANDS STREET

ORA NGE STR EET

F LA

Brooklyn Bridge Park

ena de

EAST RIVER

ANT IC

AVE N

UE

COL UMB IA S TRE ET

ATL

Primary Project Area

0

1,000 FEET

Secondary Project Area Study Area Boundary (Quarter-mile Perimeter) The Rehabilitation of the BQE (I-278) from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue Borough of Brooklyn

Project/Study Areas Figure 6

BQE Atlantic to Sands

Written comments on the Draft Scope of Work will be accepted until 5:00 PM, March 12, 2018. A Final Scope of Work will then be prepared—taking into consideration comments received during the public comment period and incorporating any appropriate changes to the analysis—to direct the content and preparation of a DEIS. As the next step in the process, once NYCDOT has determined that the DEIS is complete, the DEIS with Notice of Completion will be issued that will be subject to additional public review, in accordance with the CEQR process, with a public hearing and a period for public comment. A Final EIS (FEIS) will then be prepared to respond to those comments. The NYCDOT as lead agency will make the CEQR findings based on the FEIS. As described in greater detail below, the EIS will contain:      

A description of the Proposed Project, the proposed project approvals, and the environmental setting; An analysis of the potential for adverse environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Project; A description of measures proposed to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse environmental impacts disclosed in the EIS; An identification of adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the Proposed Project is implemented; A discussion of alternatives to the Proposed Project; and A discussion of any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources to the Proposed Project.

6.1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Scope of Work The EIS will contain the following analyses, which will be conducted utilizing the methodologies described below: 6.1.1 Project Description The project description introduces the reader to the Proposed Project and provides the project information from which impacts are assessed. The chapter will contain a detailed description of the Proposed Project; the background and history of the Proposed Project; a summary of previous investigations and actions; and a statement of purpose and need, and anticipated benefits of the Proposed Project. The chapter will identify the permits and approvals required for the Proposed Project, including other discretionary actions and review by responsible state and federal agencies. The role of NYCDOT, the lead agency for CEQR, will also be described. Any environmental requirements necessary as part of the Proposed Project will also be identified. 6.1.2 Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy A land use analysis characterizes the uses and development trends in the area that may be affected by a proposed project and determines whether a proposed project is either compatible with those conditions or whether it may affect them. Similarly, the analysis considers the project’s compliance with, and effect on, the area’s zoning and other applicable public policies. Following CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, the land use, zoning, and public policy analysis will be conducted within a study area extending ¼-mile from the Proposed Project limits (see Figures 7 and 8). The boundaries have been chosen to include those communities and uses that could Draft Scope of Work

15

January 17, 2018

11/3/2017

BI K GE RI D GE N B RI D TTA AN B NHA TT MA A N H A M

O BR OK G ID

ATH

BR

EP

N LY E

JOHN STREET

A MP

R

MO N

ROE

WIL

PLA

CE

LOW

FUR M

STR

AN S

EET

TRE

ET

CADMAN PLAZA EAST

YORK STREET

CE C O

URT

GOLD STREET

GAR

DEN

PLA

CE

GRA

AM I T

Y ST

REE

T

PLA

CE

ET NG

WA BA LT

CK

RR

IC

STR O

TRE RY S

HEN

VER

PLA

CE

WY

CHE E

TIFF ANY HIC KS S PLACE TRE ET

PA C

DE AN OF F

EN

STR

STR

STR

EET

BER

GE

NS

STA T IFIC

STR

TR

STR

ES

TR E

ET

EET

EET

EET

EET

EET 0

Project Area

Public Facilities and Institutions

Study Area (Quarter-Mile boundary)

Residential

Commercial and Office Buildings

Residential with Commercial Below

Hotels

Transportation and Utility

Industrial and Manufacturing

Vacant Land

Open Space and Outdoor Recreation

Vacant Building

Parking Facilities

Under Construction

The Rehabilitation of the BQE (I-278) from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue Borough of Brooklyn

1,000 FEET

Land Use Study Area Figure 7

11/3/2017

M3-1 M1-2/R8 C6-2A M1-2/R8A

MX-2 M1-4/R8A

M1-4/R7A

M1-5/R9-1 M1-2/R8

M1-2

R6B

R6A

M1-2/R6

M1-6

M1-2

R7-2

R8

RB6 C4-3 C4-3 RB6

R7-1

C6-2

R7-1

C6-4

C6-1

R6

LH-1

C5-4 C5-2A

R6

C6-1A C6-6

SV-1

M2-1

M1-4

DB

C6-4.5 Source: NYC Dept. of City Planning, July 2015

C5-4

C5-4

C6-2A C1-6

R6A R6B R7A

R6A

R6B

C6-4 R7A

M1-1 R6B Project Area

C1-3 Commercial Overlay District

Study Area (Quarter-Mile boundary)

C1-5 Commercial Overlay District

Zoning Districts

C2-4 Commercial Overlay District

Limited Height District

C2-3 Commercial Overlay District

R6B 0

R8A

500 FEET

Special Purpose District

The Rehabilitation of the BQE (I-278) from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue Borough of Brooklyn

Zoning Study Area Figure 8

BQE Atlantic to Sands

potentially be affected by the Proposed Project. Key issues include the compatibility of the Proposed Project with existing patterns of development, and nearby residences and commercial facilities; the Proposed Project’s consistency with underlying zoning, and officially approved or adopted future plans and programs; and the Proposed Project’s potential effects on sensitive uses and neighborhood activity patterns. The land use analysis will characterize the uses and development trends in the area that may be affected by the Proposed Project, describe the public policies that guide development, and determine whether the Proposed Project is compatible with those conditions and policies or whether it may affect them. In addition to considering the Proposed Project’s effects in terms of land use compatibility and trends in zoning and public policy, this chapter will also provide a baseline for other analyses. The land use chapter will provide the following: 

A brief development history of the sites and the study area. The study areas will include the Proposed Project limits and a distance of approximately ¼-mile around this area;  Describe conditions in the study area, including existing uses and the underlying zoning;  Describe land use patterns in the study area, including recent development trends;  Describe existing zoning and recent zoning actions, if any, in the study area;  Describe other public policies that may apply to the study area, including any formal neighborhood or community plans;  Identify other future projects in the study area that would be completed by the analysis year. Describe how these projects would affect land use patterns and development trends. Also, describe any pending zoning actions or other public policy actions that could affect land use patterns and trends in the study areas, including plans for public improvement; and  Assess the impacts of the Proposed Project on land use and land use trends, zoning, and public policy. Proposed Project impacts related to issues of compatibility with surrounding land use, consistency with zoning and other public policies, and the effect of the Proposed Project on development trends and conditions in the area will be assessed. The Proposed Project limits are located in the New York City Coastal Zone; therefore, an assessment of the Proposed Project’s consistency with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) will be prepared. 6.1.3 Socioeconomic Conditions The socioeconomic character of an area includes its population, housing, and economic activity. Socioeconomic changes can occur when a project directly or indirectly changes any of these elements. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, the six principal issues of concern are whether a project would result in: (1) direct residential displacement; (2) direct business displacement; (3) indirect residential displacement; (4) indirect business displacement due to increased rents; (5) indirect business displacement due to retail market saturation; and (6) adverse effects on a specific industry. The Proposed Project would unlikely exceed any of the thresholds requiring a detailed socioeconomic analysis. To confirm this conclusion, the DEIS will include a preliminary screening assessment of the Proposed Project, consistent with CEQR.

January 17, 2018

16

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

6.1.4 Community Facilities and Services The CEQR Technical Manual defines community facilities as public or publicly funded schools, libraries, childcare centers, health care facilities, and fire and police protection. A project can affect these facilities and services when it physically displaces or alters a community facility or causes a change in population that may affect the services delivered by a community facility, such as by creating a demand that could not be met by the existing facility. The Proposed Project would be unlikely to exceed any of the thresholds requiring a detailed community facilities analysis. To confirm this conclusion, the DEIS will include a preliminary screening assessment of the Proposed Project consistent with CEQR. 6.1.5 Open Space The CEQR Technical Manual recommends performing an open space assessment if a project would have a direct or indirect effect on an area open space. The Proposed Project would not introduce a new residential or non-residential population warranting an analysis of indirect effects. However, the potential temporary or permanent changes to parklands that may result from the Proposed Project will warrant an assessment of direct effects on area open spaces, in particular open spaces located adjacent to the Proposed Project’s alignment (see Figure 9). Specifically, if relevant, potential displacement of open space and recreational resources and potential increases in noise, air pollutants, or shadows from the Proposed Project on adjacent public open spaces will be assessed. 6.1.6 Shadows The CEQR Technical Manual recommends a shadows assessment for proposed projects that would result in new structures (or additions to existing structures) greater than 50 feet in height or located adjacent to, or across the street from, a sunlight-sensitive resource. Such resources include publicly accessible open spaces, sunlight-sensitive natural features, or historic resources with sun-sensitive features. If warranted (i.e., if the proposed modifications to the BQE structure increase the height or footprint of the structure or would otherwise potentially create new shadows on adjacent sensitive resources, particularly adjacent open spaces), a shadows assessment will be provided following the methodology described in the CEQR Technical Manual. 6.1.7 Historic and Cultural Resources The CEQR Technical Manual identifies historic and cultural resources as districts, buildings, structures, sites, and objects of historical, aesthetic, cultural, and archaeological importance. Historic and cultural resources include designated New York City Landmarks (NYCLs) and Historic Districts; properties calendared for consideration as NYCLs by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) or determined eligible for NYCL designation (NYCLeligible); properties listed on the State and National Register of Historic Places (S/NR) or formally determined eligible for S/NR listing (S/NR-eligible), or properties contained within a S/NR listed or eligible district; properties recommended by the New York State Board for listing on the S/NR; National Historic Landmarks (NHLs); and potential historic resources (i.e., properties not identified by one of the programs listed above, but that appear to meet their eligibility requirements). According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a historic and cultural resources assessment is recommended if there is the potential to affect either archaeological or architectural resources.

Draft Scope of Work

17

January 17, 2018

ON LT ST

OLD DOCK ST

MID DAG H

BRIDGE ST

PEA RL ST

WASHINGTON ST

MAIN ST

JAY ST

SM ITH

ST

ST

DE AN

T

GOLD ST

PRINCE ST FLE

PLA CE

NS

NS T

ELM

RM ERH OR

ST

ET ST

M PL AC ER U BO

SCH E

STO

T

T

FUL TO N

HO YT S

AVE

ST

NTIC

STA TE S

LIV ING

BO ND ST

PEARL ST

WILLOUGHBY ST

E

CLIN TO

N ST

ACE SID NEY PL

T ST

Project Area

METROTEC H RDWAY

DUFFIELD ST

HEN RY S T

HICK S EN P LAC E GAR D

RE S S ST

Avalon Fort Greene plaza

MetroTech Commons

Columbus Plaza

COU R

ST

TECH PLACE

BRIDGE ST

MON R

COL L

OE P LAC E

EGE PLA C

E CON G

AMI TY

ADAMS ST

WS T WIL LO

ST EN

HICK S

WA RR

PAC IFIC

ST

COL UM B IA S T

Source: NYC Dept. of City Planning, July 2015

REM SEN ST HUN TS L ANE

ATL A

Van Voorhees Park

AY W SS

Adam Yauch Park

ST

ST

E PR EX

JORAL EMON

JOHNSON ST

Columbus Park

ION

URT

NS EE

ST

MON TAG UE

TILLARY ST

Korean War Veterans' Plaza

S TEN

PON T

Mclaughlin Park

E EX

PIER RE

E

CONCORD ST CHAPEL ST

H AV

LAN

NASSAU ST

BUS

LOV E

Walt Cadman Whitman Plaza Park

FLAT

Pierrepont Plgd Feature

EST CA DMAN PLA ZA W

ST

QU

PPL E ST

CLA RK

Trinity Park

HIGH ST

ST

N LY

PINE A

S ANDS ST

K OO BR

NGE

Brooklyn Heights Promenade

E CO

PROSPECT ST

ST Chapin Park CRANB ERR Y ST Fruit Street Sitting Area ORA

Fort Sterling Park

GRA C

Clumber Corner

Bar YORK ST Bridge And Park Grill Park

LAWRENCE ST

Y KL OO Harry BR

FRONT ST

FU

T

LD

O AY SSW E R XP SE POP EN LAR UE Q ST N

PLYMOUTH ST

ST ADAM S

ST

AN S

DGE

K DOC

GE ID

FUR M

BRI

BR

NEW

N LY

Anchorage ST Plaza

HTY

Hillside Park

Brooklyn Bridge Park

WATER ST

FLEET ALLEY

11/3/2017

N TTA NHA MA

K OO BR DOU G

JOHN ST

ST 0

500 FEET

Open Space

The Rehabilitation of the BQE (I-278) from Sands Street to Atlantic Avenue Borough of Brooklyn

Open Space Study Area Figure 9

BQE Atlantic to Sands

The Proposed Project is located within or near several designated historic districts, including the Brooklyn Heights Historic District and the Fulton Ferry Historic District. The study area may also be sensitive for archaeological resources, subject to further consultation with LPC and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (State Historic Preservation Office; SHPO). The triple-cantilever structure, a major component of the Proposed Project, has also been determined National Register-eligible as part of FHWA’s List of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway System. A historic and cultural resources analysis will be prepared consistent with the CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, which will include the following:  





 



Identify and delineate the Proposed Project’s study area (the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for direct and indirect effects in consultation with LPC and SHPO; Assess the potential for archaeological resources in the area to be directly affected (the Proposed Project study area) in consultation with LPC and SHPO. If necessary, a Phase 1a Archaeological survey will be prepared, and based on a review by LPC and SHPO, conclusions and recommendations will be summarized. If any additional archaeological investigations are required (e.g., Phase 2 testing and Phase 3 Data Recovery) and completed during the environmental review, the conclusions and recommendations of these investigations will be summarized in the DEIS; if work cannot be completed until after environmental review, the commitments to undertake necessary steps with appropriate consultation will be summarized. All archaeological reports and protocols will be submitted to LPC and SHPO for review and comment and all agency comment letters will be included as an appendix; Map and briefly describe designated architectural resources within the APE, Proposed Project limits, and study area; (study area that is roughly 400-foot from the existing BQE) surrounding the Proposed Project limits; Consistent with the CEQR Technical Manual, conduct a field survey of the study area to identify any potential architectural resources that could be affected by the Proposed Project. The field survey will be supplemented with research at relevant repositories, online sources, and current sources prepared by LPC and SHPO; Seek determinations of eligibility from LPC and SHPO for any potential architectural resources. Map and describe any architectural resources identified through this process; Assess the potential for the Proposed Project to have direct, physical impacts on architectural and archaeological resources. Assess the Proposed Project’s potential to result in any visual and contextual impacts on architectural resources. The analysis will include a description of the consultation undertaken with LPC and SHPO; and Identify any measures that would be necessary to mitigate and/or reduce any potential adverse impacts on historic or cultural resources, in consultation with LPC and SHPO.

6.1.8 Urban Design and Visual Resources According to the methodologies of the CEQR Technical Manual, a visual resource is the connection from the public realm to important natural or built features, including views of the waterfront, public parks, landmark structures or districts, otherwise distinct buildings or groups of

January 17, 2018

18

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

buildings, or natural resources.3 If a project would result in physical changes that could be observed by a pedestrian from street level and could potentially change or restrict views of those visual resources, a preliminary assessment of urban design and visual resources should be prepared. Only projects that result in physical alterations beyond that allowed by zoning (i.e., projects that include modifications to zoning requirements relating to yard, height and setback, or built floor area) should be assessed. The DEIS will include a preliminary screening assessment of the Proposed Project’s potential to affect the urban design and visual resources of the study area. A detailed analysis will be prepared if warranted based on the preliminary assessment. 6.1.9 Natural Resources An assessment of natural resources is conducted when a natural resource is present on or near a development site and the project may involve the direct or indirect disturbance of that resource. The CEQR Technical Manual defines natural resources as water resources, including surface water bodies and groundwater; wetlands, including freshwater and tidal wetlands; terrestrial resources, such as grasslands and thickets; shoreline resources, such as beaches, dunes, and bluffs; gardens and other ornamental landscaping; and natural resources that may be associated with built resources, such as old piers and other waterfront structures. The Proposed Project would result in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of an existing roadway that features limited natural resources. A screening evaluation will be performed to characterize existing natural resources in the study area based on site reconnaissance, review of existing information, and consultation with responsible agencies, including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 







3

A field investigation will be conducted to determine existing terrestrial and aquatic ecological characteristics in the existing and proposed right-of-way. The nature, extent, and significance of potential impacts, including impacts during construction, of the Proposed Project on fish and wildlife habitat will be evaluated. General determinations of the amount and type of vegetation to be disturbed, special habitats that might be damaged, and possible interruption of fish and wildlife movements will be included. Appropriate avoidance, minimization of harm, and mitigation measures to compensate for Proposed Project impacts will also be determined. The DEIS will evaluate the effects of construction activities on surface water bodies and designated wetlands, including projected changes to surface water bodies and wetlands, and appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures. Sources of surface water pollution could include sediment from erosion and surface water drainage. The DEIS will evaluate the potential impact on the groundwater system of the study area. This includes short-term construction impacts, long-term Proposed Project impacts, and the development of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures. The DEIS will discuss the proximity of the Proposed Project to designated floodplains and the impacts that would result from the Proposed Project. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain boundaries for a 100-year flood will be determined. The analysis will be completed in accordance with FHWA methodology.

Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination. (2014). City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual

Draft Scope of Work

19

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands

6.1.10 Hazardous Materials According to the CEQR Technical Manual, a hazardous materials assessment should be conducted when elevated levels of hazardous materials exist on a site, when a project would increase pathways to their exposures, either human or environmental, or when an action would introduce new activities or processes using hazardous materials, thereby increasing the risk of human or environmental exposure. Relying on available field reviews, government databases, and appropriate mapping, the DEIS will document the location of potential sites of concern with relation to hazardous waste and contaminated materials. These could include aboveground or underground storage tanks, sites with historical use or storage of hazardous materials, sites of hazardous materials spills, or other physical indicators of possible contamination. Sites of potential concern will be determined in conformance with the NYSDOT The Environmental Manual (TEM) The DEIS will also describe any construction procedures for the Proposed Project that may result in disturbances of hazardous waste and contaminated materials, including asbestos containing materials. The analysis will identify the need for additional site investigation (e.g., collection and laboratory analysis of soil, groundwater, or soil vapor samples) and procedures required to reduce the potential for adverse impacts due to hazardous materials, including procedures during construction to manage and dispose of excavated material and procedures to protect the health of local residents and Proposed Project construction workers. 6.1.11 Water and Sewer Infrastructure A water and sewer infrastructure assessment assesses whether a project may adversely affect the City’s water distribution or sewer system. The CEQR Technical Manual recommends that a water and sewer infrastructure analysis be performed only on projects that increase density or change drainage conditions on a large site. The Proposed Project would not result in residential or commercial development and would not likely exceed the thresholds of the CEQR Technical Manual requiring a water and sewer infrastructure analysis, and the rehabilitation or replacement of the BQE would be unlikely to substantially alter drainage conditions on the roadway. The DEIS will include a preliminary screening assessment of the Proposed Project’s potential to affect any water and sewer infrastructure. 6.1.12 Solid Waste and Sanitation Services A solid waste and sanitation services assessment determines whether a project has the potential to cause a substantial increase in solid waste production that could overburden available waste management capacity or otherwise be inconsistent with New York City’s Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) or with New York State policy. The CEQR Technical Manual recommends a detailed analysis of solid waste impacts for projects that would result in substantial amounts of solid waste (generally 50 tons per week or more). The Proposed Project is limited to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of a section of the BQE and would not likely result in new development that generates solid waste (e.g., a commercial or residential development). The DEIS will include a preliminary screening assessment of the Proposed Project’s potential to affect any solid waste and sanitation services.

January 17, 2018

20

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

6.1.13 Energy The CEQR Technical Manual recommends a detailed analysis of energy impacts for projects that could substantially affect the transmission or generation of energy, or cause substantial new consumption of utility energy (e.g., electricity, natural gas, or steam). The Proposed Project would not substantially affect the transmission or generation of energy. In addition, the Proposed Project would only affect a section of the roadway and would not result in new development that requires utility energy services; therefore, the Proposed Project would not likely result in increased energy consumption. The DEIS will include a preliminary screening assessment of the Proposed Project’s potential effects on utility energy. In addition, the Proposed Project’s direct and indirect energy consumption during construction (i.e., energy required to produce and transport construction materials) will be estimated as part of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change analysis, described below. 6.1.14 Transportation The CEQR Technical Manual prescribes technical analyses be undertaken to determine potential project impacts on “key technical areas of the transportation system.” These areas include traffic, transit, pedestrians, and parking. Separate assessments of project impacts on each individual technical area are used to determine whether a project may adversely affect a specific area of the transportation system.4 TRAFFIC The examination of traffic effects will include evaluation of vehicular access and circulation. It will also assess existing conditions and potential impacts of the Proposed Project alternatives (see Section 4.4) on study intersections and corridors. This detailed analysis will include the following tasks: 



4

Study area: the study area includes all mainline and ramp segments from Atlantic Avenue to Sands Street as well as 108 intersections (see Figure 10). The 108 selected intersections include potential detour routes during construction and intersections that may otherwise be affected by construction-related traffic flow changes (see also Section 6.1.20). These intersections are mostly located in neighborhoods that abut this section of the highway, including Brooklyn Heights, Downtown Brooklyn, DUMBO, Vinegar Hill, and Carroll Gardens. The study area also includes intersections south of the Gowanus Canal. The intersections located away from the study area were chosen because of their proximity and/or direct access to the BQE. Traffic data collection: traffic data collection was conducted during the fall of 2016. This work included manual and automated traffic counts, and collection of relevant historical counts from the NYCDOT Traffic Information Management System (TIMS). These data were summarized and used to develop a large-scale, detailed traffic model (see Figure 11). The model will support ongoing traffic analysis throughout the Proposed Project. If air quality and/or noise analyses (see Sections 6.1.15 and 6.1.17) show that the Proposed Project may cause

Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination. (2014). City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual

Draft Scope of Work

21

January 17, 2018

ST RE E NE VIN S

PL

9 AVENUE

SB UR GS TW ES T

WELDING ROAD

WILL IAM

14 AVENUE

A SS E MBLY

US PO L

WASHINGTON AVENUE

ROAD

7A VE NU AC E E

EL DE LP NT LA ON CE PL AC E

ALLE STR E

Y

ET

VEN UE

PEC T PL

P LA

ACE

CE

STE RLIN G

PLAC

E

ST J O

LINC O LN

EAS TER N

HNS PL

P LA

CE

ACE

LINC OL N

PAR KW E A Y AS TE

PLAC E RN P ARK WAY

AC E

T

NU E 6A VE

AC E PL

PL AC E

E R DR IV E

JA CK S

ST ER

I

R

LD

AC E

T

LN R

OAD

E V

T HI L

ALLEY

O PR

ST RE E

PL

NU E

18

10

T

AV ST EN RE UE ET

ST RE E

DS OR

AV E

§ ¦ ¨

WI N

EC T

VE OCEAN A

ST RE E

27

17

NU E

Y

O LINC

NUE

T EC SP

11

PR OS P

16

AV E

WE B

CE N T

ON

AL L

EY

E

EY AL L

EY

KAY AVENUE

AY EAST W

WEST W

AY

REET

T

TR EE T BO ND S

WH I TW

NU E

NU E 2A VE

AL L

NU E AV E

NAVY WALK

GOLD STREET

DUFFIELD STREET

FL GOLD STREET EE TS TR EE T

T ST RE E HO YT

T ST RE E TH SM I

TOM P PL AC E N

TO

IL M

EY AL L 4

HE M

EET STR CO UR T

3A VE

CLI NTO N

ACE

UE EN

Y

PRINC E STREET

JAY STREET

LAWRENCE STREET

BRIDGE STR EET

SID NEY LA C E K IN SP

NG P STR O

ST R EET

TRE ET HEN RY S

TRE ET SS

2 STREET

ADAMS STREET

ADAMS STR EET

ALLEY

PLA CE

PEARL STREET

CADMAN PLAZA EAST

CE P LA MO NRO E

CE P LA GAR DEN

LA C E

BIA ST R EET TIF F AN YP HIC LAC KS E STR EET CH EEV ER P LA CE

CO LU M

Y ALL E

WEST S T

MAIN STREET N QU BIA EE HEI NS GH TS WIL LO W STR EET

B RO OK LY

CO LU M

E LAC WP WIL LO

ET TRE NT S BRU

HIC K

S PL

³

E

IV

R

EA S ID

VE

E NU

OD WO

AV FF RU

UE EN

0.5NUE VE E A Miles OK

O CR

ET

NU E

RK PA

T

STRE EAST 21

IV E

Figure 10 D S EA

0

TH PA

DR

AV E

RK PA

T ES

CE LA EP AC R R TE AL LE T ET Y EE RE CE ST TR LA YS IL T P E B E EL ER E AC SE ND AC RR VA PL TE VE E RE

W

Transportation Study Area

T

5

LEFF ERT

AV

GO G W OW AN A US NU EX S E PR XP ES RE SW SS AY WA

NUE

VAN

N AVE

TRE ET

O CLASS

PLACE

ET G STR E DOWNIN ALLEY E AVENU GRAND LACE IDGE P CAMBR

PLACE

SS

PLACE

CE O N P LA EMERS EET EN STR STEUB

NU E

T N STREE RYERSO

PL

E AVENU GRAND

ES ST JAM

ER Y

AC E

E TAAFF

E AVENU GRAND

ET N STR E

HIC K

AD

NU E

EY

O

AV E

L AL

UE EN AV

EY

PL

VEN UE

ATLA NTIC AVE NUE PAC IFIC STR EET

PLAZ A

T

E HBY AV

N CLIFTO

A GATES

PAR K

ST RE E

R ST

H US TB

2

D OR DF BE

L AL

2S TR EE

O RYER S

TR EE T

PR O S

MO NT GO M

GA RF IEL D

R

RKS A

P

T

EN UE

T

UN IO N

A KE

A FL

ST RE E

ALD AV MC DON

T

ST RE E

ET

T

ST RE E

ST RE E

REET

20

UT

T

ST RE E

14

S

T

E NU

ST RE E

UE

23

T HALL S

T

ST RE E

BO

EY

A

ST RE E

T

21 T

RE

T

T ST RE ET RE ET

36

38

T

ST RE E

R

ST

T

SW

ST RE E

ST RE ET ST RE ET

L AL

12

ES

39

ST

T

28

ST RE E

ST RE E

T

ON S

T

PR EX

34

37

29

ST RE E 33

35

T

ST RE E

T

PR E

ST RE E

T EC

32

T

27

T

22

ST RE E

PR OS PE ST CT RE EX ET

ST RE E 11

P OS

ST RE E

ST RE E

3S TR EE 4S T TR EE T

5S 6S TR TR EE EE T T

VE EA

15

R AY P

31

ST RE E

26

T

ST RE E

T

Y AVEN

7S TR EE 8S T TR EE T

T

O

EN UE

DEA N

ST JO HN SP LA L IN CE CO LN PL AC E BE RK EL EY PL AC E

T CA RR OL LS TR EE

T

SW

30

25

TR EE

FU LT

EN UE ST M A

1S TR EE

13

19

ST R EET

AV

AS SS DE TR GR EE AW T TT S TR ST EE RE T ET

PR ES IDE NT S

YL

LA

T

17

ST RE E

AR KS

L WAVER

T

AL L Y

28

AL

T

W

2S TR EE

10

24

T

ST M

TTE AV

EA S T

ET

TRE ET

ST RE E

H WY T

SA CK E

UE EN

NT S

STR E

HA

AV

BR Y A

EC K

STR EET

AC E

LAFAYE

ST

HAL L

UR NE Y

ET

N TO MI L HA

SIG O

UE EN

STR EET

ER STR E

T

PL

E AVENU

AV

CRE AM

9S TR EE

WA RR EN

T

N CLINTO

N TO MI L HA

6S TR EE

AR KS

TA

G WILLOU

EN UE BILT AV

5S TR EE

TR EE

DO UG L

LS TR 1S EE 2S T T TR RE EE ET 3S T TR 4S EE TR 5S T EE TR T EE T

4P LA C E

TR EE

T

CA RR OL

STR EET LUQ HUN U ER T IN GTO STR NS EET TRE ET WE ST 9S TRE HU MI L NTI ET LS NG TRE TON WE ET STR ST 9S EET TRE CEN ET GAR TRE MA L NET L STR BU S EET HS CEN TRE TRE ET STR LOR EET R AI NE STR EET BAY

TR EE

RS

PARK AVENUE

R VAND E

NEL SON

1P LA C E

BU TL E

FLUSHING AVENUE

E DN RO

NUE

278

PR ES STR IDE EET NT S

2P LA C E

3P LA C E

§ ¦ ¨

CAR RO LL

NS

ST M

E

§ ¦ ¨ 478

TRE ET

BE RG E

T

M

T

T EE

ONT AVE

ET

NT S

U

ST RE

IDE

AS SS DE TR GR EE AW T ST RE ET

FF ST RE ET WA RR EN ST RE E

T

CLERM

E

DO UG L

ET IX STRE ST FEL

W N

PR E S

WY CK O

6

E RE ST

E FT GRE

TRE ET CAR RO LL S SU M TRE MI T ET STR EET

TR EE T

T

ET

NT S

CS

E DS STR

BO

IDE

PA CIF I

MYRTLE AVENUE

L IV SC GR IN G HE OV ST RM EP ON ER LA ST HO CE RE RN ET ST RE ET ST AT ES TR EE T

E RE ST

ALLEY

PL AC E ASHLAND L PLACE ROCKWEL EET NAVY STR AVENU E HUDSON

PR E S

F IC STR EET YS TRE CO E T NG RES SS TRE WA ET RR EN ST LT I RE CS ET TR EE T

AM IT

EN

TECH PLACE

PAC I

WA RR EN ST RE BA LT I ET CS TR EE T BA

5

CHAPEL STREET

ALLEY

T

AR ST EDW

UE STR REM EET SEN ST R EET

CO URT

E RE ST

UE T N AVEN I STREE CARLTO ET AD ELPH REET D STRE AND ST OXFOR SOUTH ARK CUMBERL GTON P WASHIN ET D STRE K OXFOR WAL SOUTH UE TON D AVEN HING RTLAN O WAS OUTH P S E UE T P LA C EN ELLIOT E E AV SOUTH NE PLAC AVENU SH FT GREE BU CE NE PLA AT FL

MO NTA G

Y CL

ER

E RE ST

Without Calibration LR OA D

ET RE T S

ND PORT LA NORTH

ALK

3

UE AVEN

STREET

R T ST Data Calibration without Y EE

PLACE NORTH ELLIOTT

LA N E

DRIVEWA Y

TH PA

LE W

RA I

NU E

4 BIK E P ATH

TRE ET ALL EY

ION

With Calibration AV E

AVEN UE

R AMP

PIN EAP P

LO VE

GRA CE

YORK STREET

NBE RRY S

AV

IK E

MORR IS

AY SW ES

AD

E

EB I DG BR

G ID

WATER STREET

AV EN UE

E

BR

RO IL RA

YN

N TTA

KL

JOHN STR EET

PLYMOUTH STREET

FRONT STREET

PR EX CRA

GE E

MARSHALL STREET

DIVIS

SOUTH 9

Study Intersections

8 AVENUE

O O

E IV DR

10 STR EET

Legend

HUDSON AVENU E

EE T

TR OL

BR

907L

N E

R

D

§ ¦ ¨

ES

A NH MA

IP

DS

SL

LA

R ST EA

ER IV

ET RE ST T EE R ST

F

ER

EN

HN

H TC

D

JO

E FL

GM AI

SOUTH

E AD AN PL

KENT AVE NU

ET RE

CK PE

C

T FS LI F

C EN

UE

UE EN AV RD O DF

UE

BE

EN AV S G

ET

IG

RE

DR T EE

UE

TR

ET

EN

RS

AP

RC Y

ST

RE

AV

HOP K IN

RT

RE

LE

E S S TRE

ST

RE

ET

T

S TRE E

E LL E RY PA RK

ET

TT

T

E AV ENU

P LA CE L K IN G TRE E T K TON S

MA RTIN S TO C

MY RTL

VE RNO

N

U E AVEN

E

E AV ENU A VENU

GH B Y WIL LOU

E

TR E E T HART S

AVEN U

EE K I S TR

T

E

E O S TRE S CIUS ZK ENU TT E A V

T

E

E N P LA C

KE

E

E Y S TRE

MON R O

T

E E S TRE

T

PEARL STR EET

ERT

S PL A

T

WATER STR E NUE EET

P UTNA

M AV

JE FF E R

FRONT STREET

C

BREV O

NUE

E Y S TRE

MA C ON

OR T PL

E

ET K S TRE

HA LS E

YORK STREET

CE

HANCO

EN U S ON A V

ACE

T

S TR E E

T

HUDSON AVENUE

QUINC

FULTON STREET

NU E

HERKIMER STR EET DR HERKIM I VEWAY ER PLACE

ND A VE

MP

RA

E

VENUE

GRA

E

T ER N PA R KW AY B UNIO TILLARY STREET IKE PATH N ST REE TILLARY T

PRE SIDENT ALLE Y STREET A LLE Y

CROW N STREET MONTG OMER Y

EV ARD EMPIRE BOUL

RE ET STER LING ST LEF

CE

ET MA PL E STRE

PL A

PL

RE ET MIDWOOD ST

ALL EY

L L EY

TE S

0

TR EE

T

O

ALL E Y

N ENUE PA RKSSID TRE AV

EE T TR ENUE ECLA ET RKSON AV

CE

ET

LA

RE ET

ER HO RN S

DEKALB AVENUE Figure 11 TR E

ON S

RP

SC H

L IV IN G ST

TR EE T

ST RE ET HA WT HO RNE

WINTHROEPRST M

ST A

FU LT

RE ET FE NIM ORE ST

BO ND S

SM I

TH

ST RE E

T

GA L

LA

AD RUTLA ND RO

0.25 Miles

HA NO VE

TIN

Traffic Modeling Area

UM

BO ER

E TD R IV

TR EE T

AS

CS

E

PA CIF I

ALL EY

ALL EY

WILLOUGHBY STR S AV ENUE FE RT EET

A CE

E I R

EET STR

V

D

CO UR T

L H IL

ALL EY

STR EET

CE SULLIVA N PLA

DUFFIELD STREET

LAWRENCE STREET

CE VE R

PL A

E

N KL

IN PEARL STRE ET A VE N U M

E

LUD LAM PLA CE

METROTECH WALK

ALLEY

GOLD STREET FL EE TS TR EE T

ALLEY

TEC CARHRO PLA CE EET LL STR

BROOKLY N AVE NU E

T

LINCO LN PLA CE EAS TER N PAR KW AY EAS STREET TER N PARKW AY

FLEET WALK

L ST R EE

FRA CE NT ER D R IV

ST JOHNS PLA CE

FLEET PLACE

ROL

EA S

PRINCE STREET

CAR

CON CORD ST REET

CHAPEL STREET CATHEDRAL PLACE

ADAMS STR EET

LN P LA C E

CE

P R AM NASSAU STREET

GOLD STREET

CE

CADMAN PLAZA EAST

A LIN LKCO

G PL A

CE

ROGE RS AVE NU

CT P LA

ADAMS STREET

R LIN

P LA MO NRO E

PLA CE

R

E EK E M

RO

YE ME VE HA

BER R Y STR EE

LE W

SPE

CE

SID NEY E

NU VE 11 A

ST EB

AS S E M BLY

WELDING ROAD

WASHINGT ON AVENUE 14 AVENUE

ROA D

TRE ET SS

TRE ET

CE P LA UE EN AV 10

ER

ET

ST

RY

BA

E N S TRE MA DIS O

IC A VE

ST R EET

LYN

BR O OK

GAR DEN UE

AV 8

CLI NTO N

NT G

AT E RF RO OKL YN W

BRO

E NU VE 6A

E PL AC N SO CK JA EN

HIC K

RE EN WA QU PIE E Y RR E ENS PO N EXP TP RES LA C SW E AY CO LU M B I AH 7A E IG VE HTS NU E WIL LO W STR EET

PL

ON

NT

DE

E

NU

VE

4A

Y AL LE

MA

T

CE P LA HAM DUN

KAY AVENUE

EAST W AY

T EE TR SS V IN NE

CE

E AC

LA LP EL TW HI W

E

NU

VE

3A

Y Y AL LE

AL LE

AY SW

E W AL YTH LE E Y A

ET RE ST R VE RI

IV E FD IV E R D R

RD R W AY

T WE S T S TRE E

FLEET PLACE

DUFF IELD STRE ET

GOLD STR E ET

BRIDGE STRE ET

ET RE ST YT HO ET RE ST ND BO

E

NU

VE

2A

Y

ES

HEN RY S

LAWRENCE STRE ET

JAY STRE ET

PEARL STREE T E ET RE ST

IT H SM

EY

A LL

AL LE

PR EX US AN W GO AY SW

NU

EE STR IF F ER SH

NAVY STRE ET 2 STREET

ADA MS STREET ADAMS STRE ET

ALLE Y AC

UR CO

SP LA

TO M

EET STR RY HEN ES

WE S T

MAIN STREET PL UM ER BO

ET TS T RE

ET

NS T RE CE

TO CLIN

P K IN

EET

STR KS HIC

PR EX

VE

T

T EE

EET

STR

TS TR

GE RID

P IT

FD

ELD KS

HIC

CADMAN PLAZ A EAST

WIL

STR

EET S TR

HE IG

L OW

B IA

L UM CO

EET

A HT S Y

W SS

RE EX P

NS EE QU YN O KL

BRO

CE YP LA AN

TIF F

EET STR

CO US

G

RE

T PA LM COUR

AN

A

BO

ST

ION

W

W

A LL

UT

AV ENUE

GO

A

ET

E NS

UE

W

RE

EXT

EN

DL

ST

ST

NOST RA ND

AV

ID

N

O LT

N

UE EN AV

2

U E AVEN

TO N A

CK EE

B UE

EN AV

EA NU

T AVE EE T LK STR EE T

OL RF NO

GE RID

BA

CE NT L UM

B IA

A LL

EY

EE T S TR NT

NB RU E

AV

E NU VE 2A

E NU

TR XS SE ES KS TR

LO W LUD

A LL

STR

EE

T EE DS TR AR CH

T

OR

STR

T EE STR EN

T EE

EE

RY CH

ET RE ST XT ER

ET RE ST RE

1A

T

ERY B OW

EE

TH S T RE

ET STI ES T FO RS REET YTH STR

T ST R MOT

E LIZ

ABE

EET

ET RE ST BY OS CR

VE

LA

AY

ER

DW

RC

OA BR

ME

W S

F FO

ET YE TT FA

NE

RE ST

EE GR

AY

ET

DW

RE

OA

ST

BR

ER

T ES

ST OO

W

ET

ST

RE

E

ET

ST

RE

LL IV SU

VA RICK

S LA NE ET RE ST

CH

RO

SU

Y AL LE

ET RE AN

ST

ST RE ET

ST RE ET

HUDS ON

ST JOHN UR CH

VA R

ST

TH RIAN PA

ALLE Y

HT

UE

IG

EN

EET

AV

S TR

M

EET

A HA

ST RE ET

STR

T ST RE ET

GR LE O NA RD

KS

ET

RD

DW

HU MBOLD

RE ST

VA

ET

LE

BIA

ND

RE

OU SB

T LS

UM

ET

WE

COL

RE

ET

ST

RE

EL

ST

MO

NE

HIC

IE

DIA

ST RE ET

M

O ET

T

SH

ET

ES

T

E RE

UE

E

LO RIMER

TR

SE

ET

SE

S EY EL

W

EL

RE

RA

EET H OU L

D

RI

IN N

Y S TE

VE

GU

STR

AM CE AIT PL Y ST CE ET RE

AVENU

A

R TE

Y

PRO K PL A

T

NTI CA VEN UE

F IC

EE

ET

AD LINCO LN RO

I VE

AL LE

PAC I

D AR

RE

TBU F LA

ATL A

E

ET

EET

AV ENUE

RE

STR

OCEA N

ST

TRE ET

T

AC

ST

EN

UE

EE

PL

R ST

ET

AV

OR

YW

RE

PE DE ST

N

DS

ST

T

O

IN

E

EE

IS

ET

EN

H

NN

STR EE T

BOERUM

RR

RE

AV

ET

CE

CT

ET

RE ET STAG G ST S ST RE ET SCHOLE ET LE ST RE RO SE ME ENUE AV SE MONT RO

ET

FF P LA

PE

ST

ST RE

ST RE

WA R S O

17

ET

TR

ST RE

EET RD S TR S A NDFO EET RTH S TR EET E R S TR

RE

16 S W

H5

H3

ST RE ET

ST RE ET MA UJ ER RE ET ST CK EY N

T

R ST

SPENC

ST

OS

ST RE ET AINS LIE ST RE ET

WA LW O

20

PR

27

H4

RE ET DE VOE ST

GRAND

UT

ET YE A ST RE

POW ERS

TE

SO

CONS EL

P ULA S

E R P LA C

§ ¦ ¨

ET

E

CLA V E

T

ANE

E

T

EE

HUN TS L

REET

C

EE A N S TR

TR

E MO N ST

ST R EET

TR E E

G

HE

S K IL LM

JORA L

GA TE S

P LA CE

T

T

CO URT

A VENU

IR V IN G

EE

GE N

ANT

JOHNSON STREET

UE S

U

ET

E RE

ST

PE

VEN UE KENT A E E P LA C

T

TR

ET

DR

0.5 Miles

ON TS TRE

REM SEN

BER

ET

ET

E

ES

RE

TA A F F

12 S

GRA CE

STR E

PAR

LA N E

UT

Y

EE

PL AC

MO NTA G

18 Y

PITERE RERTE P

RY

W

R

ED TL

N LY

UGH B Y

ET G S TRE

ET

TR

ME

LO E VE

2S

T

GO

PL AC

EN

EET

LA FA Y E

DOW NIN

RE

NT

STR

KO

STRDEAN ST R EET EE AT L

ALL E

STR E

PE

DE K A LB

A TL

PIN EAP P

PE

ST

A LL E Y

ET

ET

ST

LD

A L WIL LO LE Y

LA C E IDG E P

ET

ET

IE

ERR YS

PLAZ A

SC T RLAR EE K T

ST WE

ET

RE

RE

ET

AL LE ET

ET

ST

EE

RF

AY

RE

RE

23 RE

TR

T

SW

ST

RE

RE

RE

RE

ST

21

EE

MO

T

T

14 S

ES

ET

ST

ST

ST

24

ET

ST

TR

ION

ET

GA

3S

CE

RU

LE F F

L EY

GH E

O

T EE

C A MB R

S

Y

LS TR E

UN

HO

GRE E N

UE

O

LE AL

EE

ET

OL

LA R

UT

CLIFT O

EN

PR

ET

EE

TR

RE

RR

R ST

AP

T

AV

RE

TR

CA

1S

4S

T

ST

KE

TR

E RE

HE

H

15 S

NT

T

ST

SS

US

ST

PR

RE

29

ST

T

EX

ET

27

28

EE

CT

ET

RE

EE

11 S TR

PE

33

RE

ST

TR

ET

22

26

IDE

EE

T EE

TB

UE 13 S

EE

LA

CE OL NP LA CE BE RK EL EY PL A

RO

A FL

10 S

EN

ET

ST

ST

25

TR

SP

HO

ET

SO

R ST

AV

ET

T

EET

ST

5S

HN

ST RE

UT

TR E

E

ES

JO

IFIC STR

SM AIVDED NA U

CRA NB ST

PR

ARK

ET

LIN C

H2

PE S

ET

T

PO P

ET

UT

ST RE

ST RE ET

BA YA RD

ME T ROP O L ITAN AVENUE

HO

H1

UE

RE ET FR OS T ST

NG

AVENU

T

LI

SO

GRA ND

RE

RE

ET

ENUE O N AV CLA S S CE O N P LA E ME R S E ET EN STR

ST

ST

UT

ST EU B

EE

SS

STR EE

E

ST M

S

CE E S P LA

TR

AW

NU

DN

EY

S T JA M

GR

VE

ET

T

TS

T

AV

T

DE

ET

SA

RO

EA

UE

N TO

EN

EE

CK

RK

RE

ET

T

ER

E A VE N U

T

EE

SA ET

UE

WATER STREET

PAC

MA

M LY

EE ON S TR

TR

LS TR E

LA

ET

C

RYERS

OL

ET

UG

ST

ST

H4 ST H5 RE S TR ET EE A LL T EY

NU E AVE

G RA ND

TR

DO

RE

CE

IO N

T

RR

RE

ST

LA

RE

6

RE

NO R NO T H RT 10 H ST 9 ST RE RE ET NO ET RT H 8 ST RE ET

EET

N ST REE

ET

1S

EE

ST

EN

SP

H

ST

LE X ING

DO UG HT Y RK

ST

5

EN

E

TR

TL ER

MA

RR

UT

T

RE

WA

EN

SOUT H ST RE ET FLUS HING AVE NUE

278

SO

8 S TR EE

RYE RSO

ST

MARK ET STRE ET PAUL DING STREET

§ ¦ ¨

SO

9 S TR EE

NU LY A V E

ST

BU

ET

ET

ET

4

H

RT

T

SO

ET

TRE E HA LL S

3S

RE

RE

RE

ST

AV

M IL HA

ON

34

36

TR

ST

ET

EE

ET

WA V E R

EN

RE

AV

UE N AVEN

RE

ST

AD

VEN UE

ST

RR

CIF IC

IL RO

CLINTO

SS

ET

PA

UE

RB IL T A

T

RA

SH

VANDE

EE

EN

RU

ST

ENU E

RE

LA

LT

32

ST

RE

10 S TR

D IV IS

T

ST

TR

H

RT

ET

SO

TR E

SOUTH

ON T A V

ST

UG

MI

ST

3S

CLE R M

TR

HA

31

ST 37 0 RE S

T

T

FS

TR E

ST E E T R

E X S TR E

E

RE

S T FE LI

E 28

UT H

E

N FT GR EE

U EN 30

ET

EE

TR EE T

OF

ALL EY

RE

ET

TR

ARD S S

AW

E

2S

ST

ST EDW

NT

17

ST

CE

L PL AC E

CK

WA DO

CA

4S

19

35

LA

PLAC E

IDE

E

UER

EP

AS HLAN D

AV LUQ

L AC

TH

ON LT

4P

ES

E

L AC

PA

MI

3P

ET

AV EN UE

HA

L AC

RE

ES

OV

ROCK WE L

EL

2P

GR

EET

L AC

ST AT

RE

KE

DE

PR

1P

ST

BI

WY

EET

STR

GR

ST

HUDS ON

ENT

T

NN

S ID

STR

IO N

U YT

ION

RN

NS

UN PRE

HO

XTE

EET

ER

EE

ET

ET

S TR

RM

ST ON

NU

ST RE

ET

EET

NG

AVE

RE

RE

S TR

SS

LIV I HE

SH

NE

ST

ST

IT Y

RE

SC

EE

BU

KA

EN

LT I C

NG

EET

AV

ALLEY ALLE Y

S TR

ALL EY

T FL A

BA

CO RR

IFIC STR

ALLEY

TECH P LACE

E

T NUE I ST REE O N AVE CA RLT ADELPH T S TRE E R LA ND RK C U MB E T TO N PA D STR EE W AS HING OXF OR SOUTH ENU E AND AV P ORTL S OUTH P LA CE E LLIO TT PLAC E S OUTH GR EE NE E FT E PLAC

TILLA RY STRE ET

5

RE

RT

NO

LE AL

CHAP EL STRE ET

NA V Y

EPO

PLA CE NORTH ELLIOT T

LK

EE T

ST

ST

V UA

HA

TH

WA

R

4

T EE

E RE

3

1S

EE T

Y

PA STR

P LE

ST

3

E

ET

E

KE RK

EAP

VEN U

H

LE AL

BI P IN

T

EY

RE

U

D CLA

EE

R IS A

RT

NO

Y

AN

WATE R STRE ET

H

NA

ET

A SS

ET

EN

D A LL

ST

LE AL

PE STR

7

NO

RT

ET

AV

G PLYM OUTH STRE ET

RE

RE

ET

RE

E LE

D

E

BR

IDG

YN

RE

9S

IDG

R NB

KL GH

S TR

SOUTH

EE TR 5S STR T EE TR EET NEL EE T SO T 2S NS TR T RE HU ET EE ET MIL NT I LS T 5S NG T RE TO TR NS ET T RE EE ET CEN T 6S 9S T RE TR TR MA L EE L EE BUS T T HS 6S CEN T RE TR ET T RE EE STR T LO R EET RA IN 7S ES TR T RE CR EE ET EAM 8S T ER TR BAY STR EE STR EET T EE T 9S TR EE T HA LL E CK STR EET BR YAN TS TR E ET ST

BR

TA

O RR

DA

NO

NO AND

AT

O

A LC

§ ¦ ¨

SO RG

S OUTH

BR

GH

EN TS C AR TR E R ET SU M OL L S T M IT R STR EET EET

478

BU

NH

E

HU

S ID

WE

MS

SOUT H STRE ET

JOHN STRE ET

RE

MC

G

WA

ET

L IA

MA

ID

IP SL

P IE

PAC

EE T

WI L

907L

LO V

AM

ST R

GR

MARS HALL STRE ET

M ID

H

LK

GE

ET

RT

ST

ST

ST

T DS

HENRY

§ ¦ ¨

EL AN E NT STR EET MO NT A GU GR ACE ES T RE R CO ET U R T E MS E NS T RE JO R A ET L EM O N ST RE E T A IT KEN PL A CE

NG

NO

11

14 ST

OR

T S TRE E

YORK STREET

RI

5W AL K

4W A

DE

ST RE ET

CHERRY

ST

H

H

13

E

ET

MOR

AB

ST

KF

EA

FRONT STRE ET

SE

T

RT

12

RT

H

NU

BR

CK

ET

PRE

EA

LA N WI L C E Y S T L IA M S REET BU RG BR GR AP BRO AN PR DS OM OA CH TR ES EE T REE T T

DW AY

RIV E DRD

N A DE F

EE

EC

YN ST

LA R ESP

TR

H

RT

AV ENUE

KL

EA

E R IV

R E ET

4S

NO

RT

Study Intersections VE NA

ST

NS TR E

ST

PA TH

ED

TO

NO

PE DE ST RIA N

A

O

LE Y

IN G

ET

NO

ET

TH RIAN PA

UN N M

AL

EA ST BROA

RE

PE DE ST

DIVISIO N ST REET

2S T

NO

TA

M EET

EA ST

Y

ET

RE

Study Roadways

RE ET QUAY ST

AT

PEL L ST R

EA

ET

NH

RIV

7S T

ET OA K ST RE

ET

ET

RE

UNION

ET

T

ST

RE

T RS

MA

T

EA

8S T

LY E

ET

EE

ST

ST RE

ST RE

RE

ST RE

E

ST RE

ST RE

ER

TR

EE

AL LE

14

13

CA

ET

T

O

R

T EE

1S

TR

ST

Legend

RE ET NOBL E ST

RE

EE

PE

L

AN

ST

ET

ET

AL

RE

ST

EA

EA

ET

ST

HE

BR

RE

W

ST

E

ET

ET

EE T

T T E EE RE R ST ST HN ER JO H C ET N L FL

M

T FS T ST CLIF RE ET A ID E

PI NE

RE

RE

RE ET EA ST 5S

ST RE ET

TH ST ET

PL AT

ST

Y

CE PL A ES HAY W AL O IN R D K CAR P AR

AN RE

EA

CE

ST RE ET ST RE ET

6S T

C LIN T ON

ST R

M ST

ST

T

10

RE

EY

D

EE

ST

ET

ST

NS

AR

3S TR

ST

EA RE

15

ST

W

EA

IP PIKE SL H RE ET C H P A T PIKE ST O A IAN PR TR AP ES B R PED AN G E A TT R ID NH B S T REE T AN M AR K ET

PA

IN

9S T

ST

IN

NE

ET

PR

ST

ST

ET

AL LE

ET

ST RE WH ET IT E ST R

EK N

ET

CE

ET

ET ST

LA

EA

EA

ER

RE

RE

11

ET

ET

RE

ST

RE

5S T

EA

TT

RE

ST

ST

ST RE

BB

ER

S

EA

12

GU

LK

ST RE

NE

SP

ST

ST

T

NG

HO

RD

JO

RK

EA

EN UE

ST RE ET MIL TO N

ST

NA

EA

T

MA

O IN T AV

EE

RI

ST

T

GREE NP

ER

PE

BE AN

EA

MA

BI KE

ET

HA AN

ST

GR

EE

ST RE

NK

LIS

DU A E

ST RE

TR

14

BA

T

WA

AD

4S

ST

DO

S TRE E

SP

78

RE

T

EA EA

TR

§ ¦ ¨

ER

CE

MS

STRE ET

WA TT S

CK

R PL A

TR

BL EE

N ST RE ET

ES

UL

W

GE

DOMINICK

A STO

ET

MO

RE

JE W

C WES T HO US TO

ST

INE

RE ET WES T ST

³

M AR

LE NO X ROAD

BQE Atlantic to Sands



substantial adverse impacts, additional targeted traffic data collection may be undertaken to validate these conclusions, in accordance with CEQR Technical Manual guidelines. Analysis tools: The following tools have been used to analyze the study area: - Synchro Version 10 – Synchro is a traffic optimization software. It was used to analyze the 108 signalized and stop-controlled intersections described above. This work will inform the air quality and noise analyses in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. -



Aimsun Version 8.1 This transportation modeling software was used to develop a microscopic traffic model (a model that simulates the actions and behavior of individual drivers) to provide a comprehensive analysis of the BQE mainline, ramps, and interchanges. This software provides output about key variables like traffic density and speed. This output will be post-processed according to Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 standards, in order to derive information about highway areas, including interchanges, where vehicle conflicts can occur as traffic streams merge and/or diverge, or cross each other.

Existing Conditions Analysis: Current peak hour traffic volumes for four peak periods will be used to assess the capacity of the BQE mainline and ramps, and of the study area intersections. Peak periods were determined based on the results of automated and manual weekday and weekend traffic counts that were conducted in 2016 and that comply with CEQR guidance. These peak periods are as follows: - Weekday AM (8:00 AM – 9:00 AM) -

Weekday Midday (12:00 PM – 1:00 PM)

-

Weekday PM (5:00 PM – 6:00 PM)

-

Saturday Peak (3:30 PM – 4:30 PM)



Future No Action Condition: The Proposed Project’s anticipated build year, or Estimated Time of Completion (ETC), is 2028. Traffic analysis for the No Action Condition will include estimation of volumes and levels of service for the ETC year. This analysis will include examination of the four peak hours. Current daily peak hour traffic will be grown to obtain inputs for the ETC year. Appropriate annual background growth rates will be determined according to CEQR Technical Manual guidelines, and will be based on historical and current traffic counts. Trip-making assessments of programmed and potential development activities within the study area will also be conducted. This analysis will include consideration of “soft sites,” where no development proposals currently exist, but where development may reasonably be expected to occur by the projected build year, based on current zoning regulations. Finally, the analysis will consider any programmed changes to roadway geometry, direction, or infrastructure that would affect traffic volumes and roadway capacity and levels of service.



Future With-Action Condition: Similar analyses will be undertaken to determine the effects of With-Action conditions when the Proposed Project is built and fully operational. These analyses will cover the ETC year and the Design (or ETC+30) year, which is 2058. The traffic models described above will be used to quantify changes in local and regional traffic patterns that would result from changes to the roadway network. Future anticipated growth rates and

January 17, 2018

22

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

other metrics for the No Action and With-Action Conditions will be compared to determine whether the Proposed Project will have a substantial impact on study area local streets, and for the highway mainline and ramps within the study area. BUS SERVICE The Proposed Project will be planned to accommodate and, where possible, to improve bus transit operations. Any impacts to existing and planned bus transit routes and facilities will be quantified and mapped. If relocation of bus stops or other facilities is required, those actions will be coordinated with relevant responsible agencies, including New York City Transit. The EIS will document any proposed changes in transit services. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The pedestrian facilities analysis will include an examination of pedestrian impacts at any location affected by any permanent changes to the road network. This analysis will be based on CEQR Technical Manual guidance. The number of pedestrian facility locations to be studied will be based on agency and stakeholder input, and on the results of traffic analysis activities described above; locations will include the Brooklyn Heights Promenade, Brooklyn Bridge Park, and intersections near the highway ramps within the Proposed Project limits. PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND VEHICULAR SAFETY ASSESSMENT Recent study area crash data will be obtained from NYCDOT to examine vehicular and pedestrian safety issues. These data will be analyzed to identify high vehicle or high pedestrian/bike crash locations, based on CEQR criteria. Design scenarios will be reviewed to avoid adverse impacts to pedestrian or vehicle safety. Feasible improvement measures will be identified in consultation with NYCDOT, in order to mitigate any potential safety issues identified during this review. State and federal crash reduction factors will be used to develop proposed improvements to both highways/ramps and local intersections. PARKING CONDITIONS The Proposed Project is not anticipated to affect demand for parking or reduce the amount of available local parking. On- and off-street parking assessments will be conducted, however, to ensure that construction-related parking demand is accommodated. In addition, due to potential traffic diversion, parking may need to be removed to provide additional travel lane (capacity). If any permanent parking loss would occur, an analysis would be prepared according to CEQR guidelines. 6.1.15 Air Quality Under CEQR, an air quality analysis determines whether a project would result in stationary or mobile sources of pollutant emissions that could have an adverse impact on ambient air quality. The Proposed Project would not include any new permanent stationary emission sources such as building heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment; therefore, a stationary source analysis is not warranted. However, the Proposed Project may result in changes to the BQE’s geometry and/or alignment (e.g., modifications to the alignment of on- and off-ramps). In addition, while the Proposed Project would not result in any changes to roadway capacity, it may alter traffic patterns on the BQE and on surrounding local streets (e.g., by allowing for large trucks Draft Scope of Work

23

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands

to remain on the BQE, thereby reducing the number of trucks on local streets). Therefore, a mobile source air quality analysis is warranted. The quality of our air is characterized by levels of certain pollutant gases or microscopic particles. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six air pollutants of concern to air quality (carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide). In addition to NAAQS, emissions of other pollutants from vehicles (known as mobile source air toxics, or MSATs) are also often considered for large transportation projects. The air quality analysis for the EIS will identify whether implementation of the Proposed Project would result in any exceedances of NAAQS or any substantial increases or decreases in air pollutant emissions. The air quality analysis will include a mesoscale (regional) and a microscale (local, or “hot-spot”) analysis. The mesoscale analysis will estimate the net change in emissions associated with the Proposed Project, stemming from the projected changes in speed, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and roadway type and configuration. The microscale analysis will be conducted to project future carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) levels at intersections where the greatest increase in traffic is projected and where sensitive uses, such as residences, are closest. The air quality analysis in the EIS will consist of the followings steps: 

Establish study area: The study area for the mesoscale analysis will conform to the transportation (traffic) study area. The study area for the microscale analysis will include up to three worst-case intersections that would be conservatively representative of the entire traffic study area.  Identify the NAAQS and discuss the study area’s attainment status;  Describe existing pollutant concentrations based on data from NYSDEC air monitoring stations;  [Mesoscale Analysis] Using the USEPA MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator) model, estimate criteria pollutant and MSAT emissions with the Proposed Project (i.e., No Action and With Action scenarios), within the mesoscale study area, for ETC, ETC +10 and ETC +30;  [Microscale Analysis] Perform a CO and PM screening to determine where a detailed air quality analysis would be needed. For locations where a detailed analysis is required, CO and/or PM levels will be modeled using the MOVES model to calculate emissions and the CAL3QHC model to assess the dispersion of the pollutants. CAL3QHC is a model accepted by USEPA for assessing air quality impacts resulting from the operation of highways. The critical analysis year (i.e., the year when the potential for the greatest impact is likely) will be modeled;  Determine whether the Proposed Project would result in exceedances of the NAAQS;  If adverse impacts on air quality are identified, develop mitigation measures, as appropriate. The air quality analysis will be undertaken in accordance with all Federal and State requirements. 6.1.16 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change In accordance with the CEQR Technical Manual, a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis discloses the GHG emissions that could result from a large-scale project, and assesses the consistency of the project with the City’s goals to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, this chapter January 17, 2018

24

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

of the DEIS will quantify Proposed Project-generated GHG emissions and assess the consistency of the Proposed Project with the City’s established GHG reduction goal. Emissions will be estimated based on the change in vehicle speeds and miles traveled due to the Proposed Project. Direct energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with vehicle operations will be estimated using the MOVES model, based on forecasts of vehicle miles traveled. Direct and indirect energy consumption during construction (i.e., energy required to produce and transport construction materials) will also be estimated. Features of the Proposed Project that demonstrate consistency with the City’s GHG reduction goal will be described. As the study area is located in a flood hazard zone, the potential impacts of climate change on the Proposed Project will be evaluated. The discussion will focus on sea level rise and changes in storm frequency projected to result from global climate change and the potential future impact of those changes on the Proposed Project’s infrastructure. 6.1.17 Noise A noise analysis will be included in the EIS, as the Proposed Project may result in changes to the BQE’s geometry and/or alignment (e.g., modifications to the alignment of on- and off-ramps) and may alter traffic patterns on the BQE and on surrounding local streets (e.g., by allowing for large trucks to remain on the BQE, thereby reducing the number of trucks on local streets). The noise analysis will examine the Proposed Project’s potential effects on sensitive noise receptors (including residences, health care facilities, schools, open space, etc.). If adverse impacts are identified, impacts would be mitigated or avoided to the greatest extent practicable. The following tasks will be performed in compliance with CEQR Technical Manual guidelines: 

 





Based on the traffic studies (described above, under “Transportation”) a screening analysis will be conducted to determine whether there are any locations where there is the potential for the Proposed Project to result in adverse noise impacts (i.e., doubling Noise Passenger Car Equivalents [PCEs]) due to action-generated traffic. Noise survey locations will be selected to represent sites of sensitive uses. At the identified locations, noise measurements will be conducted during typical weekday AM, PM peak, midnight, 24-hour periods (coinciding with the traffic peak periods as well as sensitive average periods for aircraft flight noise), as applicable. Noise measurements will be measured in units of “A” weighted decibel scale (dBA) as well as one-third octave bands. The measured noise level descriptors will include equivalent noise level (Leq), day and night noise level (Ldn), maximum level (Lmax), minimum level (Lmin), and statistical percentile levels such as L1, L10, L50, and L90. A summary table of existing measured noise levels will be provided as part of the EIS. Following procedures outlined in the CEQR Technical Manual for assessing mobile source noise impacts, future No-Action and With-Action noise levels will be estimated at the noise receptor locations based on acoustical fundaments. All projections will be made with Leq noise descriptor. At any sensitive receptors where the screening analysis indicates the potential for a doubling of traffic between the No-Action and With-Action conditions, noise level increases resulting from traffic associated with the Proposed Project will be determined using acoustical

Draft Scope of Work

25

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands



fundamentals and mathematical modeling techniques specified by the CEQR Technical Manual. The FHWA Traffic Noise Model will be used to analyze noise associated with the Proposed Project. The projected noise levels will be compared to both NYSDOT and CEQR noise impact criteria to identify potential noise impacts.

6.1.18 Public Health According to the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual, a public health assessment may be warranted if an unmitigated impact is identified in other CEQR analysis areas, such as air quality, water quality, hazardous materials, or noise. If unmitigated impacts are identified in any one of these technical areas and the lead agency determines that a public health assessment is warranted, an analysis will be provided for that specific technical area. 6.1.19 Neighborhood Character Neighborhood character is determined by a number of factors, including land use, socioeconomic conditions, open space, historic and cultural resources, urban design, visual resources, shadows, transportation, and noise. According to the CEQR Technical Manual guidance, an assessment of neighborhood character is generally needed when a project has the potential to result in adverse impacts in one of the technical areas presented above, or when a project may have moderate effects on several of the elements that define a neighborhood’s character. Therefore, if warranted based on an evaluation of the Proposed Project’s impacts, an assessment of neighborhood character would be prepared following the methodologies outlined in the CEQR Technical Manual. The analysis would begin with a preliminary assessment, which would involve identifying the defining features of the area that contribute to its character. If the preliminary assessment establishes that the Proposed Project would affect a contributing element of neighborhood character, a detailed assessment will be prepared to examine the potential neighborhood character-related effects of the Proposed Project through a comparison of future conditions both with and without the Proposed Project. 6.1.20 Construction Impacts Construction impacts, though temporary, can have a disruptive and noticeable effect on the adjacent community, as well as people passing through the area. The Proposed Project, because of its anticipated construction activities and duration, as well as potential changes to vehicular and pedestrian circulation (e.g., lane closures or loss of moving lanes and sidewalks) and its proximity to sensitive receptor locations such as residences and open space, may have the potential for construction impacts. Therefore, a construction assessment will be performed for potential construction-related impacts. This assessment will describe the construction schedule and logistics, discuss anticipated on-site activities, and provide estimates of construction workers and truck deliveries for the Proposed Project. Technical areas to be assessed include the following: Transportation This assessment will consider construction logistics and construction vehicle trips during peak travel hours and peak construction hours, in order to determine potential transportation-related impacts. Because construction peak hours will not align with the traffic peak hours described January 17, 2018

26

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

above, this evaluation will include analysis of the effects of construction-related impacts during overnight hours. In addition to added construction vehicle and truck staging and trips, construction impacts may include temporary traffic lane closures or other capacity losses that would cause traffic backups or diversions, or that would otherwise adversely affect local or regional traffic flow. A detailed analysis of the traffic effects resulting from the Proposed Project construction will be conducted where detouring of existing traffic may be required. Similar evaluations will be conducted of any temporary closure, narrowing, or other impedance of pedestrian, transit, and/or parking facilities. The likely potential geographic extent of these impacts is defined by the intersections and area encompassed by the study area (see Section 6.1.14). In accordance with the CEQR Technical Manual, a detailed traffic analysis will be performed for intersections expected to incur 50 or more incremental trips in passenger car equivalents (PCEs) to identify the potential for traffic impacts. The analysis will utilize data from the detailed traffic simulation modeling described above, under “Transportation,” incorporating the estimated peakhour trips associated with the construction of the Proposed Project during peak construction. Traffic levels during the construction period will be compared to the impact criteria outlined in the CEQR Technical Manual to determine the potential for adverse traffic impacts. Where potential impacts are identified, improvements would be explored to mitigate those impacts to the extent practicable. The construction transportation section will also identify the number of parking spaces that may be needed during peak construction and discuss the potential Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) strategies that may be employed to reduce the effects of the construction of the Proposed Project on nearby transportation systems. Air Quality Emissions from on-site construction equipment and on-road construction-related vehicles, as well as dust generating construction activities, have the potential to affect air quality. This assessment will include a quantitative air quality analysis of onsite construction activities using the USEPA NONROAD Emission Model and USEPA/American Meteorological Society (AMS) AERMOD dispersion model to determine the potential for air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptor locations. Because the level of construction activities would vary from phase to phase, the approach to formulate the reasonable worst-case scenarios for analysis will be based on an estimated monthly construction work schedule, equipment employed, equipment emission rate, and usage factors. The periods of highest emissions nearest to sensitive receptor locations will be identified for modeling since they are expected to be the periods of greatest impacts. Other less intensive construction periods will either be modeled or presented as a qualitative discussion, based on the reasonable worst-case period results. In addition, if required, a mobile source analysis at representative intersection(s) will be conducted using the USEPA mobile source emissions model, MOVES, and dispersion model CAL3QHC/CAL3QHCR. Noise and Vibration The construction noise impact section will include a detailed analysis of noise from construction of the Proposed Project. As part of the detailed construction noise analysis, noise receptors will be located at sensitive receptors (i.e., residences, open spaces, churches, schools, etc.) near the study area, including Proposed Project construction work areas and potential staging sites. Existing noise levels at the selected receptors will be determined by noise measurements, Draft Scope of Work

27

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands

including either 24-hour continuous noise level measurements or 60-minute spot measurements. The measurements will be conducted using Type I instrumentation. Recorded metrics will include Leq, L1, L10, and L90. The analysis will select representative worst-case time periods, and for each selected analysis period. Noise levels due to construction will be predicted at each sensitive receptor. If necessary based on the results of the construction noise analysis, the feasibility, practicability, and effectiveness of implementing measures to mitigate any construction noise impacts will be examined. Construction activities have the potential to result in vibration levels that may result in structural or architectural damage, and/or annoyance or interference with vibration-sensitive activities. A construction vibration assessment will be performed. This assessment will determine critical distances at which various pieces of equipment may cause damage or annoyance to nearby buildings based on the type of equipment, the building construction, and applicable vibration level criteria. Should it be necessary for certain construction equipment to be located closer to a building than its critical distance, vibration mitigation options will be proposed. Historic Resources Construction activities have the potential to result in inadvertent damage to fragile, historic structures in close proximity to the construction zone. The EIS will document procedures to protect these structures from such damage to the extent practicable. Open Space Construction of the Proposed Project would have potential temporary effects on adjacent open spaces. An assessment of the Proposed Project’s temporary effects on adjacent publicly accessible open spaces, due to the construction will be provided. Other Technical Areas As appropriate, other areas of environmental assessment for potential construction-related impacts will be discussed, including but not limited to historic and cultural resources, hazardous materials, natural resources, socioeconomic conditions, community facilities, and land use and neighborhood character. 6.1.21 Mitigation Where adverse impacts that meet CEQR thresholds for significance have been identified for the Proposed Project, measures to mitigate those impacts will be described. The mitigation chapter will address the anticipated impacts requiring mitigation, likely mitigation measures, and the timing of the mitigation measures. Where impacts cannot be practicably mitigated, they will be disclosed as unavoidable adverse impacts. 6.1.22 Alternatives CEQR requires an analysis of a No Build Alternative (without the Proposed Project), which in this case assumes that the BQE would operate in its current configuration with routine maintenance as needed and until such time that structure deficiencies could warrant its full closure. Other alternatives to be considered include the Proposed Project alternatives eliminated based on previously performed analyses (the rehabilitation, replacement on a new alignment, and tunnel alternatives), as discussed above. January 17, 2018

28

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

6.1.23 Summary Chapters Several summary chapters will be prepared, focusing on various aspects of the EIS, as set forth in the regulations and the CEQR Technical Manual. They are as follows: 

  

Executive Summary. Once the EIS technical sections have been prepared, a concise executive summary will be drafted. The executive summary will utilize relevant material from the body of the EIS to describe the Proposed Project, the environmental impacts, measures to mitigate those impacts, and alternatives to the Proposed Project. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Those impacts, if any, that could not be avoided and could not be practicably mitigated, will be listed in this chapter. Growth-Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Project. This chapter will focus on whether the Proposed Project has the potential to induce new development within the surrounding area. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources. This chapter focuses on those resources that would be irretrievably committed if the Proposed Project is built.

7. Additional Studies This Proposed Project is being undertaken in accordance with the guidance of CEQR. If federal funds become available, an environmental analysis would be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A NEPA analysis would require some additional studies and procedural steps to fully comply with the NEPA project development process. In order to be prepared in the event federal funding becomes available or federal approvals are sought, NYCDOT is expediting certain studies required under NEPA, but not under CEQR. These studies will be undertaken at this time, concurrent with this CEQR analysis. These studies are: Indirect and Cumulative Effects (40 CFR Part 1500-1508); Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966; Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA); and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Part 1500-1508) define indirect impacts as those that are “caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” Generally, these impacts are induced by a project. Indirect effects can occur within the full range of impact areas, such as changes in land use, economic conditions, traffic congestion, air quality, noise, vibration, and natural resources. This chapter will evaluate any indirect effects, both adverse and beneficial, that may occur as a result of the Proposed Project. NEPA also requires consideration of cumulative effects of a project. Cumulative impacts may result from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR 1508.8). The analysis will address cumulative impacts to both environmental resources and socioeconomic conditions. Environmental Justice Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, an environmental justice analysis will be prepared to identify any disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations that could

Draft Scope of Work

29

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands

result from the Proposed Project. The analysis will follow methodologies and guidance established by the CEQ, USDOT Order 5610.2(a), and FHWA Order 6640.23A. In accordance with USDOT policy, this analysis will help ensure that “positive corrective action can be taken” to avoid or minimize disproportionately high and adverse impacts.5 

Establish study area: In general, the environmental justice analysis study area will include block groups (consistent with 2010 U.S. Census geographies) within ¼-mile of the Proposed Project limits. If the technical analyses indicate potential for adverse impacts in areas outside the ¼-mile radius, the study area will be expanded accordingly.  Environmental justice communities (i.e., minority or low-income populations) within the study area will be identified (as defined by FHWA Order 6640.23A) using data from the 2010 U.S. Census and the most recent American Community Survey (ACS).  The environmental justice analysis will examine the potential effects of the Proposed Project for the full range of environmental topic areas addressed in the CEQR EIS and then determine whether the Proposed Project would result in disproportionately high and adverse (direct or indirect) impacts on minority and low-income populations.  If potential disproportionately high and adverse impacts are identified, potential measures to mitigate impacts on environmental justice communities will be discussed.  This analysis will also identify and describe efforts to engage environmental justice communities in the Proposed Project. Section 106 Many funding programs and approvals by FHWA are subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800), which mandates that federal agencies consider the effects of their actions on any properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the National Register and afford the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Section 106 regulations consider properties to be historic if they are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that meet the criteria for the NRHP. If the agency's undertaking could affect historic properties, the agency determines the scope of appropriate identification efforts and then proceeds to identify historic properties in the area of potential effects. The agency reviews background information, consults with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), tribal organizations, and others, seeks information from knowledgeable parties, and conducts additional studies as necessary (collectively, “parties”, “consulting parties”, or “Section 106 consulting parties”). Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed in the NHRP are considered; unlisted properties are evaluated against the National Park Service's published criteria, in consultation with SHPO and any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that may attach religious or cultural importance to them. If the agency finds that historic properties are present, it proceeds to assess possible adverse effects. The agency, in consultation with SHPO makes an assessment of adverse effects on the identified historic properties based on criteria found in ACHP's regulations.

5

USDOT, “Department of Transportation Updated Environmental Justice Order 5610.2(a).” May 2012.

January 17, 2018

30

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

If the agency agrees that there will be no adverse effect, the agency proceeds with the undertaking and any agreed-upon mitigation. If the agency finds that there is an adverse effect, or if the parties cannot agree and ACHP determines within 15 days that there is an adverse effect, the agency begins consultation to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. The agency consults to resolve adverse effects with SHPO and others, which may include Indian tribes, local governments, permit or license applicants, and members of the public. ACHP may participate in consultation when there are substantial impacts to important historic properties, when a case presents important questions of policy or interpretation, when there is a potential for procedural problems, or when there are issues of concern to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Consultation usually results in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which outlines measures that the agency will take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. In some cases, the consulting parties may agree that no such measures are possible, but that the adverse effects must be accepted in the public interest. The agency proceeds with its undertaking under the terms of the MOA. The regulations emphasize consultation with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, in keeping with the 1992 amendments to NHPA. Consultation with an Indian tribe must respect tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government relationship between FHWA and Indian tribes. Even if an Indian tribe has not been certified by the National Park Service (NPS) to have a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer who can act for SHPO on its lands, it must be consulted about undertakings on or affecting its lands on the same basis and in addition to SHPO. The views of the public must be solicited and considered throughout the process. The Proposed Project’s compliance with Section 106 will be documented in the Historic and Cultural Resources chapter of the EIS. Section 110(f) If it is determined that the Proposed Project would directly and adversely affect the Brooklyn Heights Historic District, Brooklyn Bridge, or any other National Historic Landmark (NHL), the project would also be required to comply with Section 110(f) of the NHPA, which mandates that federal agencies undertake such planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to such landmarks. When an agency's undertaking directly and adversely affects an NHL, or when federal permits, licenses, grants, and other programs and projects under its jurisdiction or carried out by a state or local government pursuant to a federal delegation or approval affect an NHL, the agency, NYCDOT in conjunction with FHWA in this case, should consider all prudent and feasible alternatives to avoid an adverse effect on the NHL. ACHP must be included in any consultation following a determination by NYCDOT, in conjunction with FHWA, that its undertaking will have an adverse effect on an NHL. ACHP must notify the Secretary of Interior and may request the Secretary to provide a report to ACHP detailing the significance of the affected NHL under section 213 of the NHPA and recommending measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects. ACHP must report the outcome of the process to the Secretary of Interior.

Draft Scope of Work

31

January 17, 2018

BQE Atlantic to Sands

The Proposed Project’s compliance with Section 110(f) will be coordinated with consultation efforts for Section 106 and will be documented in the Historic and Cultural Resources chapter of the CEQR EIS. Section 4(f) Section 4(f) prohibits USDOT (which includes FHWA) from approving any project that “uses” or adversely affects public parks, wildlife refuges, or historic resources unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to that use and all measures to minimize harm have been incorporated into the Proposed Project. The Section 4(f) evaluation will build on the findings of the Cultural Resources chapter and the Land Use and Community Character chapter (with respect to parks and recreational resources). Potential uses of Section 4(f) properties will be identified, as will any feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid those uses and all planning efforts to minimize harm to 4(f) properties resulting from unavoidable uses. Section 6(f) The U.S. Department of Interior provides funding under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) for state and local efforts to plan, acquire, or develop land to advance outdoor recreational activities. When a project may incorporate lands that may have received LWCFA improvement funds, the project sponsor must undertake a Section 6(f) evaluation. NYCDOT in consultation with FHWA will determine whether any such properties would be affected by the Proposed Project and conduct a Section 6(f) evaluation if necessary. NPS is responsible for granting approval, provided that prior to any conversion of parkland, all practical alternatives have been evaluated, converted parkland would be replaced or substituted at a location of equal or better land value and usefulness, and any proposed conversion and substitution are in accordance with the applicable statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan (SCORP). Section 7, Endangered Species Act The DEIS would evaluate the effect on endangered species, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (16 USC §§ 1531-1544; 50 CFR Part 402). Section 7 of this act requires FHWA to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for projects that may jeopardize threatened or endangered species, or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitats. As part of this effort, NYSDOT would consult with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Natural Heritage Program to identify state-listed species of special concern.

8. Agency and Public Involvement Public Engagement Plan Public involvement is an integral part of the transportation planning process. NYCDOT will provide opportunities for open, collaborative, and meaningful public and agency participation throughout the environmental review process under the CEQR EIS. Notifications of the publication of pertinent environmental documents will appear in the various official and local publications required under CEQR. A Public Engagement Plan (PEP) is being prepared for the Proposed Project and will be implemented during the Proposed Project’s development and public review. The PEP identifies the appropriate forums and means of communication that will be utilized to inform stakeholders January 17, 2018

32

Draft Scope of Work

BQE Atlantic to Sands

and obtain their input. The public engagement process will conform with the requirements of CEQR, Section 106, and Section 4(f) requirements. The PEP also identifies additional activities that will be undertaken to engage the public and build consensus for the Proposed Project’s selected alternative, in particular public meetings and workshops that go beyond the applicable environmental review requirements. The PEP outlines the steps that will be undertaken to address critical communities with special needs, including limited English proficient (LEP), minority, and/or low-income communities in conformance with applicable requirements, such as Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice). If a NEPA environmental analysis is undertaken, all public outreach and engagement activities will comply with the requirements of NEPA, including issuance of applicable notifications in the appropriate publications and publication of official documents. Agency Coordination Plan If a NEPA environmental process is undertaken, an Agency Coordination Plan will be prepared in accordance with all FHWA requirements. NYCDOT, in coordination with FHWA, would establish a list of potential interested and involved cooperating and participating agencies. Those agencies would be invited to participate in the environmental review process by serving as Cooperating and/or Participating Agencies. According to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR § 1508.5), a Cooperating Agency is any Federal agency, other than a Lead Agency, that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project or project alternative. A state or local agency of similar qualifications or, when the effects are on a reservation, a federally recognized Native American tribe, may also serve as a Cooperating Agency. Participating Agencies are those federal, state, or local agencies or federally recognized Native American tribes with an interest in the project. In accordance with SAFETEA-LU Section 6002, Cooperating Agencies are also Participating Agencies. Cooperating and Participating Agencies are responsible for identifying, as early as practicable, any issues of concern regarding the project’s potential environmental or socioeconomic impacts that could substantially delay or prevent an agency from granting a permit or other approval. Meetings would be held with the agencies throughout the environmental review process to update them on the status of the Proposed Project and discuss other topics as appropriate. 

Draft Scope of Work

33

January 17, 2018