This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Transportation Contact Person: Robin Stout, President, MSDC 633 Third Avenue, 36th Floor New York, New York 10017 212 803‐3819 firstname.lastname@example.org th Project Location: 421 8 Avenue, Farley Post Office Building, located between 8th and 9th Avenues and between West 31st and 33rd Streets, New York, New York. Congressional District: NY‐8 Project Sponsor: New York State Amount of TIGER Grant Funds Being Requested: $98,271,730
I. Introduction Penn Station is the busiest train station in the country. It is the most heavily trafficked gateway into the nation’s largest city, serving both the 8 million residents of New York City (the “City”) and an additional 12 million people in the surrounding metropolitan region as well as 8.5 million intercity rail passengers annually. On an average weekday, approximately 640,000 passengers use the station. It is the central hub for the Long Island Rail Road (“LIRR”) and New Jersey Transit (“NJT”) – the largest and third largest commuter railroads in the nation – and the place where 60% of the intercity rail passengers on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and 25% of all intercity rail passengers in the country originate or terminate their trips. Penn Station is also a critical link to the City subway system – 14 of the City’s 25 subway lines are integrated into or are located within one block of the station. In short, Penn Station is the lynchpin of the mass transit system in the Northeast. Because of their size and density, the City and metropolitan region depend heavily on public transportation in general, and Penn Station, in particular, to move people efficiently, stimulate economic growth and improve the quality of the environment by reducing pollution and relieving airspace and highway congestion. New York State (the “State”) and the City have actively encouraged transit‐oriented development and discouraged urban sprawl. An important example is the Hudson Yards District directly to the west of Penn Station. The City rezoned this 47‐block area in 2005 to stimulate both commercial and residential development, is extending the #7 subway line to service the area, and anticipates between one and two million square feet of new development in the area per year for an extended period of time once the real estate market in the City begins to rebound. The expansion of Penn Station to service this new district is critical to its success. Notwithstanding its vital role at the center of rail transit in the City, Penn Station has serious deficiencies that constrain service delivery and efforts to increase intercity rail and transit ridership. As a result, it has become the central choke point in ongoing federal, State and local efforts to increase rail and mass transit ridership, develop high‐speed rail and take automobiles off the roads. The Station is operating at more than 100% of capacity, and station congestion is getting worse as ridership on all three of its tenant railroads‐ Amtrak, LIRR and NJT‐ has been steadily growing and is projected to continue increasing. Pedestrian movement during rush hour at the LIRR and NJT concourses is difficult and quickly deteriorates to Level of Service (LOS) E and F in even moderate delay conditions (see Appendix K for a photograph of typical peak hour crowding on the NJT concourse). Amtrak’s busiest train station is an unattractive, undersized, inefficient, underground facility that is a poor sister to the grand stations at other major cities on the Northeast Corridor. While it serves many passengers today, Penn Station must grow if it is to accommodate rising demand. Moynihan Station will address this problem by expanding Penn Station to include a new, world‐class th station in the historic Farley Post Office Building, directly across 8 Avenue from Penn Station. The Moynihan Station Project (the “Project”), in its full form, will create a new sky‐lit train hall, on the scale of Grand Central Terminal, to which Amtrak will relocate its passenger operations, will dramatically increase vertical access to and from trains, will enable the three railroads to maximize their use of existing platforms that already extend west of Penn Station under the Farley Building, and will provide station entrances west of Eighth Avenue. The new station will also be part of a public‐private partnership involving a private development team that will develop approximately one million square feet of the Farley Building and its Western Annex for retail, office and institutional uses, and incorporate unused development rights from the Farley Building in new residential and/or commercial development on nearby sites. In addition to its transportation benefits, Moynihan Station is an important historic preservation project and, as it entails the renovation of an underused landmark, will meet the highest standards for green development. The Farley Building was designed by McKim, Mead and White, the architects for the original Pennsylvania Station, and was expressly designed to complement the original station. It would
not be possible to construct a new station building today in the same monumental style, from the ground up, without a massive capital outlay. The Farley Building, because of the care taken in designing it, and the quality of the materials used in its construction, offers an opportunity to reclaim some of the lost glory of the original Pennsylvania Station at a fraction of the cost of a new structure. By virtue of its central location, the creative re‐use of a landmark, and maximizing the use of existing below‐grade tracks and platforms, the Project meets the most critical tests for sustainable development – it makes the most of existing infrastructure in a dense urban area rather than calling for new construction (and the usage of new materials) on either scarce open space or space that should logically be preserved for other public needs. Phase I of the Project, for which this TIGER Application seeks $98,281,730, is the critical first step in expanding Penn Station, relieving congestion, and opening the doors of the Moynihan/Penn Station complex to the development district to the west. Phase I consists of significant improvements to the below‐grade rail infrastructure in and around Penn Station that have independent utility and will increase capacity for both intercity and commuter rail services, enhance subway connections, reduce congestion, allow for easier access by persons with disabilities, and improve passenger safety and security. Additionally, Phase I will serve as an engine for economic recovery and future development through the creation of thousands of construction‐related jobs, and thousands more associated with transit‐oriented development in the Hudson Yards District. Specifically, and as further detailed in this Application, Phase I would: • Expand the existing West End Concourse (“WEC”) by doubling its length and width, thereby providing access to eight tracks that are not currently served by this concourse, significantly enhancing passenger circulation space, and for the first time providing space for the sale of tickets (by vending machine) on the concourse; • Provide thirteen new vertical access points to and from platforms, significantly reducing the time required for passengers to clear the platforms, plus six new vertical access points from the WEC to the street; th st • Provide two above‐grade entrances through the Farley Building west of 8 Avenue at 31 and rd 33 Streets, decreasing congestion at Penn Station and improving access to the development district to the west; • Expand the existing passageway below 33rd Street (the “33rd Street Connector”) between Penn Station and the WEC by doubling its width, thereby increasing capacity, providing access to the subways and the new NJT station to be built a block north, and to facilitating compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and • Improve Penn Station safety and security by adding six new platform ventilation fan rooms beneath the Farley Building, which with the faster egress described above, will maximize the extent to which the Station complies with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 130 (hereinafter defined). Upon completion, Phase I will save nearly 470,000 passenger hours annually for NJT and LIRR passengers, over 28,000 passenger hours annually for Amtrak passengers and, over 225,000 passenger hours for riders shifting from buses, ferries and cars to rail. Additionally, these mode shifts will yield a savings of almost 20 million vehicle‐miles traveled per year. Construction spending on Phase I is expected to generate or support almost 2,500 job‐years of employment and $134.7 million in payroll wages (in 2009 dollars). It is anticipated that at least $41 million of the construction spending on Phase I will be awarded to minority‐owned, woman‐owned, small or disadvantaged firms. Furthermore, Phase I of the project is
expected to generate travel, economic development and life safety benefits ranging between $498‐548 million, when discounted at 7%, depending on whether the hypothetical scenario of an emergency evacuation is included. If the same benefits are discounted at 3%, they range from $1.048‐1.12 billion. Phase I has independent utility and will produce significant benefits on its own even if Phase II is delayed, and is the necessary pre‐requisite to Phase II. Phase II of the Project will include a new Train Hall and station facilities for Amtrak and related development in the Farley Complex. The Phase I below‐grade construction, in the midst of daily operations by three busy railroads, is complex and requires close coordination and substantial force account work by the railroads (e.g., closure of tracks, rerouting of trains, de‐energizing catenary and third rail, and ensuring flag protection while construction workers perform tasks on or near tracks in active use). The construction schedule for Phase I accounts for the need to do much of the construction work in the trainshed at night and on weekends during track outages, in order to keep Penn Station in operation. Phase I below‐grade construction must be advanced in a timely manner to ensure that the Phase II above‐grade work can proceed with adequate room for staging and marshalling labor and equipment, and without unnecessary obstruction or delay. The above‐grade Phase II construction does not involve major work in the train shed and therefore will proceed more quickly than Phase I. The objective is to complete Phases I and II at the same time. The Project has been developed in consultation with federal, State, and City governments, Amtrak, the LIRR, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), NJT, environmental, historic preservation and transportation advocates, elected officials and community groups. II. Project Description Phase I Phase I, which is the subject of this Application, consists of the following: • Expand the existing WEC by doubling its length and width, to significantly enhance passenger circulation space. The WEC would be extended to Penn Station’s southern retaining wall, providing access to 17 tracks as compared to the 9 tracks served today (platforms 3 through 11 will be served as compared to 7 through 11 today). The larger WEC will be of benefit to NJT and Amtrak passengers and will serve all the LIRR tracks. The WEC will be large enough to accommodate ticket vending machines for LIRR passengers, who now must buy their tickets at the other end of Penn Station (approximately 800 feet away at 7th Avenue). Also, the WEC expansion will allow for future WEC access to Platforms 1 and 2 (for NJT) and to Platform 12 (aka the Diagonal Platform for Amtrak’s Empire Corridor and/or potential future Metro North service, which is part of Phase II of the Project). • Provide thirteen new WEC vertical access points to and from the platforms, plus six additional elevators, stairs and escalators between the WEC and the Farley Building, significantly reducing the time required for platform clearance. Vertical access is critical at Penn Station, because the tracks are located three levels below grade, and the speed with which passengers can get in and out of the station has a direct bearing on train throughput. Vertical access is particularly important at the west end of Penn Station, because the existing tracks and platforms extend under the Farley Building, but today there is little or no vertical access from this end of the platforms. The WEC expansion is critical to maximizing the use of the existing track‐level infrastructure at Penn Station. th • Provide two new above‐grade entrances west of 8 Avenue into the Farley Building, improving access, decreasing congestion at Penn Station and opening up the Moynihan/Penn Station
complex to the development district to the west. Passengers will be able to enter the station at the corners of 31st and 33rd Streets through the historic Farley Building and new improved public plazas. The entrances will flank the magisterial staircase leading up to the retail lobby of the Post Office and will restore some of the grandeur associated with entering the station that was lost when the original Penn Station was torn down in the 1960’s. • Expand and renovate the existing 33rd Street Connector between Penn and the WEC by doubling its width, thereby increasing capacity and making it ADA‐compliant for the first time. This will accommodate passenger flow between Penn, the WEC, and Moynihan Station, as well as provide direct access to the 8th Avenue A, C, and E subway lines, and to the NJT station under 34th Street that will open when NJT completes the tunnel under the Hudson River now under construction. Improve Penn Station safety and security by creating new platform ventilation beneath Farley. Six new ventilation fan rooms would provide additional, much‐needed emergency platform ventilation capacity and include critical design elements and features that would adhere, to the maximum extent practicable, to guidelines established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 130: Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems.
Attached as Appendix A are (1) a diagram showing the platforms and tracks located beneath the Farley rd Building, as well as the planned Phase I improvements to the West End Concourse and 33 Street th Connector and the six new ventilation fan rooms; and (2) a diagram showing one level up (8 Avenue grade). Additionally, please see Appendix A for a diagram showing the location of the Farley Building in relationship to Penn Station and the surrounding area, including the Hudson Yards District, and Appendix K for an aerial photograph of the Farley Complex, and an artist’s rendering of the front of the new Moynihan Station, showing one of the new entrances on 8th Avenue. Completion of Phase I will have independent utility, but will also mark the necessary first step in the long‐ awaited revitalization of the entire Penn Station complex – expanding its capacity, enhancing its frequency and quality of service, and creating or enabling thousands of new jobs – all of which are fundamental pre‐requisites to accommodate long‐term regional growth in population, employment, and transportation. Phase II Phase II, which will be compatible with and build upon Phase I, will be separately funded and constructed. Phase II will include the following: • A new, iconic, sky‐lit, train hall and related new facilities for rail passengers in the Farley Building. Amtrak will be the anchor transportation tenant. Facilities will include a train hall and main concourse (slightly larger than Grand Central Terminal), dedicated Amtrak ticketing, waiting, and boarding areas, and more than fifteen new vertical access points to/from platforms (in addition to those created in Phase I). • Intermodal Hall. This grand entrance hall will have a glass and metal skylight and will provide mid‐ block entrances to the Farley Building from both West 33rd and West 31st Streets. • Improved Passenger Circulation. An approximately 30 percent increase in the combined total of passenger stairs, escalators, and elevators; an approximately 50 percent increase in passenger circulation space; and direct access from the Farley Building to 10 of the 12 the platforms at track level.
Building systems and infrastructure improvements. The Farley Building’s mechanical systems would be upgraded to meet the needs of the new station and reconfigured facility. Landmark restoration. The historic Farley Building and its Western Annex, designed by McKim, Meade & White, is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is designated as a landmark by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. The exterior of this complex would undergo a comprehensive building restoration, with stonework and mortar cleaned and refurbished, and windows restored and replaced as necessary. Transit Oriented Retail. Approximately 86,000 square feet of transit‐oriented retail and commercial space will be created. This space is in addition to the approximately 300,000‐square‐ foot train station. Activation of the diagonal mail platform. Platform 12 would be lengthened and vertical circulation elements added to allow the two adjacent tracks beneath the Farley Building, which have never been used for passenger service, to accommodate additional Amtrak Empire Service trains, and/or potentially Metro‐North service.
III. Project Parties, Background and Qualifications The applicant is the New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”). NYSDOT is an executive agency of New York State, established pursuant to Section 11, et seq. of the New York State Transportation Law. NYSDOT’s functions, powers and duties include the coordination and development of comprehensive, balanced transportation policy and planning for the State to meet present and future statewide needs for adequate, safe and efficient transportation facilities and services at reasonable cost to the public; and coordinating and assisting in the development and operation of such transportation facilities and services. The State and NYSDOT have worked together with the following governmental entities to develop the Project and this application: A. Moynihan Station Development Corporation (“MSDC”), a public benefit corporation and a subsidiary of Empire State Development Corporation (“ESDC”), the primary economic development agency of the State. MSDC was specifically created to advance the development of a new passenger rail station for the City, and has been involved in the planning and design work for Moynihan Station, and in securing funding partners for the Project, since its formation in the mid‐1990s. ESDC (web site: www.empire.state.ny.us) is a public benefit corporation that administers a series of loan, grant, and technical assistance programs to attract and retain business in the State. ESDC purchased the Farley Complex in 2007 to facilitate its adaptive reuse as a train station. B. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the “PA”), a bi‐state agency created by Compact between the states of New York and New Jersey, and approved by the U.S. Congress, has developed this Application together with MSDC and will be part of the team that will oversee the Project with MSDC going forward. The PA (web site: www.panynj.gov) is charged with designing, building and operating public transportation facilities, and currently operates and maintains a network of five major airports (JFK, LaGuardia, Newark Liberty, Teterboro and Stewart), six interstate bridges and tunnels, two interstate bus stations, six port terminals (passenger and cargo), and a commuter rail system (PATH) serving the City’s greater metropolitan area.
C. The three operating railroads that currently serve Penn Station: Amtrak, which operates all of the nation’s intercity passenger rail service; the LIRR and NJT, which provide commuter rail service in New York and New Jersey. 1. Amtrak was created by the federal government in 1972 to operate and maintain the nation’s network of intercity rail passenger service. In fiscal year 2008, Amtrak carried approximately 28.7 million passengers, of which 8.5 million passed through Penn Station, by far the busiest station in the entire country. 2. The LIRR is a unit of the MTA, a public authority established by the State to operate various public transportation services in the City’s greater metropolitan area. The LIRR, the nation’s busiest commuter railroad, carries approximately 88.5 million passengers per year, of which more than 66 million use Penn Station. 3. NJT is New Jersey’s public transportation corporation. It was established by the State of New Jersey to provide transportation services (bus, rail and light rail) between various points within New Jersey and between New Jersey and the City. NJT, the nation’s third busiest commuter railroad, carries approximately 82.5 million passengers per year, of which 47.5 million use Penn Station. IV. Shovel Ready Criteria; Feasibility The Phase I work that is the subject of this Application, is both technically and financially feasible for the following reasons: A. Realistic Schedule. Phase I project elements, including the WEC and platform ventilation systems, are substantially designed, and construction of these elements can commence by mid‐2010. Below is the currently projected schedule for Phase I, including a description of the work, cost, and jobs created by calendar quarter, from commencement to completion. The projected schedule has been carefully and conservatively developed, by MSDC’s engineering consultants (URS) in conjunction with the PA’s Engineering Department, to reflect the complexity of advancing construction within the Amtrak trainshed while at the same time keeping Penn Station fully operational while work is ongoing. Phase I trainshed work generally requires Amtrak, LIRR and/or NJT to de‐energize catenary and/or third rail, and to take tracks out of service, which is not possible during peak load periods (Monday‐Friday, early morning to late evening). Accordingly, a good portion of the Phase I work must take place during nights and weekends. Night work is typically limited to between 11 PM and 5 AM. Weekend work has a roughly 52‐hour window (between late Friday evening and early Monday morning) but, because of Amtrak operations, major holidays, and other station work (e.g., repairs to the East River and Hudson River tunnels, which normally take place over weekends), this window may be available for as few as 32 weekends a year on average. Moreover, when Amtrak does provide a specific track outage, it will likely only de‐energize two adjacent tracks at a time. This limits the work area to space directly above the de‐energized catenary and tracks. All of these factors were taken into account in developing the attached schedule, which reflects a conservative overall construction duration to substantial completion of all Phase I elements of 72 months.
Moynihan Project - Phase 1 Schedule
Platform Ventilation 2009 Q4 Design Procurement 2010 Q1 Design / CFD Smoke Analysis Q2 Design / Amtrak Review Q3 Design / Final Amtrak Approval Q4 Design and Equipment Procurement 2011 Q1 Design and Major Equipment Procurement Q2 Bid /Award Main Package; Equipment Testing, Mobilization Starts Q3 Mobilization and Demolition Start Q4 Demolition and Construction / Excavation for Column Foundations 2012 Q1 Construction: Foundation Q2 Construction: Structural Steel Shop Drawings Q3 Construction: Structural Steel and Drawings / Fabrication Q4 Construction: Start Steel Erection 2013 Q1 Construction: Construction Fan Rooms Q2 Construction: Steel Erection, major electrical rough-in Q3 Construction: Construction Fan Rooms; major electrical rough-in Q4 Construction: Set Fans within the Rooms 2014 Q1 Construction: Set Fans within the Rooms Q2 Construction: fan room floors, walls Dollars 1,458,000 1,458,000 1,458,000 4,833,000 West End Concourse Design Procurement Design Design Design/Construction starts: AMTRAK begins catenary relocation 5,333,000 Design work ongoing: AMTRAK continues with catenary relocation 5,833,000 Bid /Award Main Package, AMTRAK continues catenary relocation work 5,533,000 Bid /Award Main Package, AMTRAK completes catenary relocation work Dollars 1,671,907 1,671,907 1,671,907 1,671,907 1,671,907 2,528,462 3,131,769 Total 3,129,907 3,129,907 3,129,907 6,504,907 7,004,907 8,361,463 8,664,769 National Jobs (Job-years) 33 32 32 66 71 82 85
5,840,000 Mobilization; Construction begins North end of WEC 6,166,000 Mobilization; Construction begins, staging areas developed, openings created 6,166,000 Construction begins, demolition of existing WEC select elements 6,322,000 Construction; steel surveys, shop drawings, demolition continues 7,573,000 Construction of all West End Concourse Components 8,073,000 Construction of all West End Concourse Components 8,073,000 Construction of all West End Concourse Components 7,603,290 Construction of all West End Concourse Components 7,573,290 Construction; Punch List and 8th Avenue Grade Entrance Close-out 7,160,000 Construction; Punch List and 8th Avenue Grade Entrance Close-out 6,747,000 Construction; Punch List and 8th Avenue Grade Entrance Close-out 6,335,000 Construction of WEC to Platform 3, Additional Landings, WEC to Platform 1 & 2, and 33rd Street Connector Construction of WEC to Platform 3, Additional Landings and 33rd Street Connector 5,322,000 Construction; Punch List and WEC to Platform 1 & 2 close out 3,446,000 Construction; Punch List and WEC to Platform 1 & 2 close out 3,033,000 Construction of WEC Remaining Components 2,708,000 Construction of WEC to Platform 3 Construction of WEC Remaining Components 2,142,000 Punch List and WEC to Platform 3 and Additional Landings Close out; 1,612,000 Punch List and WEC to Platform 3 Close out; Construction of 33rd Street Connector Continues Construction of 33rd Street Connector Continues Construction of 33rd Street Connector Continues Punch List and 33rd Street Connector Close out Punch List and 33rd Street Connector Close out $ 127,800,584 Total West End Concourse
6,251,073 6,521,137 7,116,970 7,116,970 7,273,445 7,273,445 7,273,445 6,973,445 6,973,445 6,973,445
12,417,073 12,843,137 14,689,971 15,189,971 15,346,445 14,876,735 14,846,735 14,133,445 13,720,444 13,308,444
118 122 140 145 142 138 137 131 123 120
Q3 Construction: fan room floors, walls Q4 Construction: System tie-ins, connections to AMTRAK systems 2015 Q1 Construction: System tie-ins, connections to AMTRAK systems Q2 Construction: Testing, Configuration and Operations Q3 Punch List / Testing, Configuration and Operations , start Project Closeout Q4 Punch List / Project Close-out
2016 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
3,366,061 2,948,702 1,931,769 1,528,462 $ 139,330,998
3,366,061 2,948,702 1,931,769 1,528,462 $ 267,131,582
29 25 16 13 2,494
Total Platform Ventilation
B. Design Work Substantially Advanced. Design of the expanded West End Concourse (WEC) is almost complete. Construction documents were essentially taken to the 90% completion stage in late 2006, and submitted to Amtrak for approval, along with a force account schedule and cost estimate. Modest revisions will be required to reflect extension of the WEC to the south retaining wall of Penn Station (in 2006, the WEC was to be extended only to Platform 3), and modified staircases. It is anticipated that Amtrak review of the WEC will be completed by no later than early 2010. Additionally, a force account agreement will be entered into with Amtrak prior to commencement of the Phase I work. With respect to platform ventilation, in August 2006, MSDC submitted a 90% complete construction package to Amtrak. Amtrak requested certain modifications, which were made and incorporated into the design. The final plans will be resubmitted to Amtrak, with the requisite computer‐simulated smoke/fire modeling, for Amtrak’s final approval, which is expected no later than early 2010. C. Environmental Reviews Nearing Completion. A number of federal and State discretionary actions are needed in order to implement the Project, and therefore the Project is undergoing environmental review under both the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). MSDC, ESDC and the PA are confident that the environmental review process, already underway, can be completed by year end 2009 and will confirm that the current Project, including the proposed Phase I work, will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated through identified and readily available measures. This confidence is based on the following: 1) Detailed Draft EA Already Submitted; Builds on Substantial Prior Work. The lead agency for purposes of NEPA is FRA. FRA is currently considering a draft Environmental Assessment (“EA”) for the Project, which was submitted by MSDC and ESDC on August 24, 2009. This draft EA analyzes the full Project in detail, including Phase I and Phase II, and builds upon the substantial body of environmental review work already completed by FRA, USPS, MSDC and ESDC, with respect to the proposed development of a new train station in the Farley Complex, including, most recently, a final environmental impact statement, issued by ESDC under SEQRA in 2006 (the “2006 SEQRA FEIS”), for the same basic proposal [available at: www.nylovesbiz.com/MoynihanStation/FEIS_default.asp], and a final EA issued jointly by USPS and FRA in 2006 (the “2006 NEPA EA”) (see Appendix H), based in large measure on the 2006 SEQRA FEIS. USPS issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) in 2006 based on this EA prior to selling the Farley Complex to ESDC (see Appendix H). Prior to 2006, the proposal to construct a new train station in the Farley Building had been the subject of multiple environmental reviews, and decision‐making under both NEPA and SEQRA. In 1995, FRA issued a draft EA followed by a final EA in 1999. Based on the final EA, FRA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) in 1999 (see Appendix I), and ESDC issued a negative declaration under SEQRA in 2003. 2) Current Project is Very Similar to What Was Analyzed in 2006. The Project is very similar to what was analyzed in the 2006 SEQRA FEIS and the 2006 NEPA EA. Based on the 2006 NEPA EA, USPS issued a FONSI. Similarly, MSDC and ESDC concluded, on the basis of the 2006 SEQRA FEIS, that the project as then proposed would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts that could not readily be addressed and mitigated. Although changes in scope and in background conditions warranted an updated NEPA and SEQRA review, the draft EA that was recently submitted to the FRA is intended to fulfill that purpose and reaches the same conclusion. 3) Consultations with FRA. Before submitting the draft EA, MSDC and ESDC, through counsel, discussed applicable NEPA requirements with FRA staff and the proposed approach towards satisfying those requirements − namely, the preparation and submission of a detailed draft EA, building upon the 2006 SEQRA FEIS. Based on the draft EA, it is expected that a new FONSI could be issued by FRA,
imposing as conditions those mitigation measures identified in the draft EA, just as USPS did in 2006 and FRA did in 1999. The final decision of whether or not to accept the draft EA and issue a FONSI rests with the FRA. If issued, it would constitute the sole remaining environmental approval under NEPA. MSDC and ESDC are prepared to continue a dialogue with FRA, to respond to any questions or comments, to prepare a final EA, and (if requested) to prepare a draft FONSI for FRA review and consideration. 4) Remaining SEQRA Review. With respect to SEQRA, a technical memorandum, similar to the draft EA, is being prepared to determine whether any project modifications or changes in circumstances occurring since preparation of the 2006 SEQRA FEIS require further examination in a supplemental EIS. If the technical memorandum demonstrates that the updated Project does not present any significant adverse environmental impacts not previously addressed in the 2006 SEQRA FEIS, it is anticipated that ESDC and MSDC would determine that no supplemental EIS under SEQRA is required, thereby completing the SEQRA review of the updated Project. 5) No Approvals Required Under Historic Review Laws. No approvals are expected to be required with respect to the Project under the applicable historic review laws and regulations. Consultation has and will continue to take place with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) and other consulting parties identified pursuant to the Section 106 process, as required by federal and State law, and it is anticipated that SHPO will confirm in a revised Programmatic Agreement (that would replace a Programmatic Agreement executed in 2006 (see Appendix J) that, subject to review of the final design, it expects the current Project would not have any adverse effect on historic resources. In the event FRA determines, on the basis of the draft EA submitted on August 24, 2009 and the Section 106 consultation process, that the Project would not have adverse effects on the Farley Complex, the de minimis exemption to the Section 4(f) requirements would be applicable, and no additional findings would be needed to satisfy the requirements of that statute. D. Legislative Approval. The Project, including Phase I, will require approval of the New York State Public Authorities Control Board (“PACB”), a body consisting of one representative each from the New York State Assembly, the New York State Senate, and the New York State Governor’s Office. Such approval will be sought in late 2009, and should take approximately five months. No other legislative approvals are required. E. Project Already Incorporated into State and Local Transportation Planning. The Project, including the Phase I improvements described in this Application, is included in both the region’s Transportation Improvement Program (“TIP”) and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Project (“STIP”). The Metropolitan Planning Organization (“MPO”) covering the Project is the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (“NYMTC”). NYMTC’s current TIP was adopted in October 2007 and covers the federal fiscal year (FFY) period of 2008‐12 (October 1, 2007 thru September 30, 2012). The Project was part of this adopted program. On December 10, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration formally approved the New York Statewide TIP (STIP) for the same period (FYY 2008‐2012), which included the Project. The approved TIP listing does not identify all currently available public funding sources, and is, therefore, in the process of being amended. The amended listing will reflect the increase in total funding, amend the name of the project, and update the project description. NYMTC has worked closely with project staff on the amendment and it is expected to be completed by the end of 2009.
F. Funding Sources Have Been Identified and Secured. NYSDOT, ESDC, MSDC and the PA have worked hard to identify and secure a package of funding sources covering all of the projected costs of Phase I work. The overall Project has received several federal funding awards since its inception. These have included awards within the recent rounds of the various transportation authorization bills passed by Congress, as well as specific earmarks within other funding bills. Starting in 1997, the Project was provided funding as part of ISTEA, and later received funding within the TEA‐21 authorization process. FHWA funding, managed by New York State and matched with State funds, provided an additional source of funding for the Project in its early stages. These sources, combined with local matches provided by the City, paid for all public pre‐construction and planning costs for the Project. Other federal funding was included in spending bills for fiscal years 2001‐2003, although these funds remain currently un‐obligated. The projected costs of the Phase I work, and the sources of funds to be applied to cover such costs are summarized below: Total estimated cost of Phase I work: $267 Million Funding Sources: TIGER Discretionary Grant: $98, 281,730 Other funds (federal, State and local) $168,718,270 The currently available public funding sources for Phase I are: Federal PL 104‐59 (ISTEA/NHSDA) Executed $5,167,062 PL 105‐66 Executed $12,000,000 PL 105‐178 (TEA‐21) Executed $16,478,285 FY 01 PL 106‐346 Not Executed $19,956,856 FY 02 PL 107‐87 Not Executed $20,000,000 FY 03 PL108‐7 Not Executed $19,870,000 SAFETEA‐LU Not Executed $15,000,000 FHWA Executed $1,246,067 Total Federal sources: $109,718,270 State/Local Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Not Executed $10,000,000 Metropolitan Transportation Authority Not Executed $35,000,000 Other State and Local Funds (CMAQ application pending) Not Executed $14,000,000 Total State/Local sources: $59,000,000 Total Sources: $168,718,270 Project Cost: $267,000,000 TIGER Request: $98,281,730 The total estimated cost includes a contingency factor of 10% (approximately $25 Million), to address potential overruns. This is consistent with contingency reserves established for large infrastructure projects, including FRA projects. In addition, MSDC, ESDC and the PA are advancing the Phase I work on
behalf of the State. It is anticipated that the State, and/or MSDC, ESDC and the PA, will absorb any cost overruns not covered by the contingency amount. G. An Experienced Project Team Has Been Assembled to Manage the Work Going Forward. The Phase I work going forward will be jointly managed by senior officials at MSDC and the PA, assisted by a team of nationally‐recognized engineering, design and environmental consultants. The overall coordinator of the Phase I project will be Andrew Lynn (PA ‐ Senior Advisor to the Executive Director and Director of Regional Development), assisted by Robin Stout (MSDC – President), Peter Rinaldi (PA ‐ Assistant Director for Special Projects ‐ PA Engineering Department), and Mark D. Hoffer (PA ‐ Special Advisor to the Executive Director and Senior Counsel). Each of these individuals has 25‐35 years of public nd and private sector experience, including work on major public projects such as Moynihan Station, the 42 nd Street Bus Terminal, the World Trade Center, the PATH commuter rail system, the 42 Street (Times Square) Development Project, and the Jacob Javits Convention Center. The team has been supplemented by outstanding, internationally recognized consultants, including but not limited to: Skidmore Owings & Merrill, long‐term design architects for the Project; Systra Engineering, specializing in below‐grade coordination with the railroads; Severud Associates, providing structural engineering; URS, providing engineering, design, and "owner's representative" services; AKRF, an environmental services firm with decades of specialized expertise in Manhattan mega‐projects; and Bryan Cave, a multi‐disciplinary law firm with specialties in real estate and environmental law. H. Significant Experience in Managing Federal Grants. The PA, which has developed this Application with MSDC and, together with MSDC, will be part of the team that will administer the Project going forward, has successfully managed previous federal grants that are equal to or substantially greater in amount than the TIGER Discretionary Grant being sought herein. The PA manages an extensive program of capital investments in its transportation facilities. It currently anticipates spending approximately $26 billion on such investments during the 10 year period of 2007‐2016. I. Significant In‐House Financial Management Capabilities. With respect to financial management of the Phase I work, both ESDC (the parent of MSDC) and the PA are established governmental organizations, each having been in existence for decades. Each organization has a chief financial officer and an in‐house accounting and treasury staff. Each has the legal authority to issue bonds, notes and other evidence of indebtedness, and each regularly issues debt instruments for general corporate purposes that has been highly rated by national rating organizations (The PA’s Consolidated Bonds were most recently rated Aa3 by Moody’s Investors Service, AA‐ by Standard & Poor’s, and AA‐ by Fitch; ESDC’s senior general corporate purpose debt was most recently rated Aaa by Moody’s, AAA by Standard & Poor’s, and AAA by Fitch). J. Wide Support for the Project. The Project, including the Phase I work, enjoys wide support from many stakeholders including transportation advocacy and historic preservation groups, the real estate and construction industry, State and City elected officials. (See Appendix B for letters of support. ) For all of the above reasons, NYSDOT, ESDC, MSDC and the PA believe that the Phase I project is feasible, and that timely completion of the Phase I work can be readily achieved. Although any large‐scale construction project poses risks, the aforementioned parties believe that the risks in this case are manageable and have been effectively addressed. V. Long‐Term Outcome Discussion A. Summary. Phase I of the Project will make significant improvements to the capacity and functionality of the Penn Station complex as a whole. By rehabilitating existing, and building new, concourse space and vertical access points, Phase I will improve existing elements of Penn and will reduce overall operational stress and cost (See “State of Good Repair” below). Phase I elements will also
directly increase the economic competitiveness of not only the Far West Side of Manhattan, but of the City and the entire region. This has national and international ramifications as global companies make world‐wide decisions on where to locate their operations (See “Economic Competitiveness” below). Further, the Phase I improvements improve mobility and connectivity, and the reuse of existing facilities over existing rail tracks is a very efficient use of resources (See “Livability” and “Sustainability” below). The platform ventilation improvements are critical life‐safety enhancements that will safeguard the lives of hundreds of thousands of people daily (See “Safety and Security” below). Finally, Phase I will be coordinated with the Access to the Region’s Core (“ARC”) Project and the expansion of the #7 subway line; these two projects are companion projects to the larger Project, and will also assist in moving employees and residents to and from new commercial development expected throughout the Far West Side. B. State of Good Repair. Existing Penn Station operates well beyond its capacity, is inefficiently organized, fails to operate in full compliance with NFPA 130 life safety standards, and consists of many antiquated elements in need of rehabilitation. These defects constrain and discourage both inter‐city and commuter passenger rail travel into the City, impede the implementation of true High Speed Rail on both the Northeast and Empire Corridors, and constitute a drag on the entire New York/New Jersey regional economy. Without efficient and welcoming public transit access, fewer people will live, work, play, visit, and spend in the region, and projected future growth will fail to materialize. Phase I will begin to take direct, tangible, quantifiable steps to substantially alleviate constraining conditions in the Penn Station complex, and specifically will repair, rehabilitate, and extend existing Station elements such as the West rd End Concourse, the 33 Street Connector, and Platform Ventilation, which in their current inadequate condition do not adequately serve Penn’s existing passengers (let alone additional future passengers) and therefore threaten economic growth and stability. 1) Historical Design Issues of Access and Ventilation. For decades, federal, State, regional, and City transportation officials have labored to improve Penn Station. One critical design flaw in the Penn Station complex for today’s rail passengers is that although approximately one‐third of the length of Penn’s platforms extends beneath Farley (west of 8th Avenue), for decades there was no passenger vertical access beneath Farley. This is a vestige of Penn Station’s days as primarily an inter‐city hub in the first half of the last century, when the eastern two‐thirds of the platforms (east of 8th Avenue) was more than sufficient for passenger rail, and the western one‐third of the platforms (west of 8th Avenue) were dedicated to USPS for “mail‐by‐rail” (hence, the Farley Post Office). The physical structures have not changed, but demand has undergone a staggering reversal: in the latter half of the last century, through today, passenger rail travel (particularly commuting) has expanded exponentially, while USPS reliance on rail transport has dwindled to essentially nothing. Therefore, although no mail has been dropped from Farley to the platforms in years, nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of commuters who every day board or exit the western third of trains (beneath Farley) are forced to walk hundreds of feet east before they can access Penn Station and the City beyond. This keeps the platforms dangerously crowded beyond their capacity, increases train dwell time, and generally clogs inter‐city and commuter rail traffic throughout the entire region and the entire Northeast Corridor. The LIRR recognized this situation, and began to address it with the construction of the WEC, completed th in 1988. For the first time, platform access for passengers became available west of 8 Avenue, but only for Platforms 7 to 11 (Penn Station’s northern‐most platforms, used primarily by LIRR), and not to Farley (which remained a postal facility). Senator Moynihan took the Farley possibilities much further by conceiving of the conversion of the Farley Building itself into a train hall with myriad direct connections to all platforms and to the WEC. Additionally, again as a result of the historic “Penn passenger”/”Farley mail” split, for decades platform ventilation has existed in the trainshed only between 7th and 8th Avenues. No platform ventilation exists west of 8th Avenue, although the entire Farley block has been decked over (to 9th Avenue) for more than 70 years. Such an arrangement would present difficulties in the event of an emergency smoke condition in the trainshed, and fails to comply with NFPA Standard 130 (see “Safety” below).
These historic design issues stymie the potential for Penn Station and threaten future economic growth and stability for the entire New York/New Jersey region. 2) Current Plan to Substantially Upgrade Existing Access and Ventilation, and Minimize Life‐Cycle Costs. Phase I of the Project will immediately address these issues by rehabilitating and expanding the WEC, creating thirteen new passenger vertical access points between the platforms and the WEC, creating WEC access directly to/from 8th Avenue, rehabilitating and expanding the 33rd Street Connector between WEC, the subway, and Penn Station, and creating six new platform ventilation fan rooms in the trainshed beneath Farley to extend the existing system currently in operation at Penn Station. These improvements are part of, and are wholly consistent with, federal, State, City, and railroad efforts to maintain Penn Station complex facilities in a state of good repair. But even further than merely rehabilitating and improving current facilities, the Phase I work will substantially lessen the strain on, increase the useful life of, and reduce costs connected with the maintenance of, existing circulation and ventilation elements throughout the Penn Station complex as a whole. Thus, by extending the life and reducing the cost of maintaining the Penn Station complex facilities as a whole, these improvements lay the groundwork for a future new train hall within the Farley Building (part of Phase II) and future increases in train and passenger capacity, which are fundamental pre‐requisites to future regional transportation and economic growth. 3) Funding Capital and Operating Costs. The Phase I capital construction budget is $267 million, of which $98,281,730 is sought via this TIGER Application and the remainder would be funded as set forth in Part IV, “Shovel Ready Criteria; Feasibility” above. Revenue sources available to pay for the costs of long‐term operation and maintenance of Phase I facilities can be divided into several sources. Amtrak will be responsible for on‐going operation and maintenance of new platform ventilation, so as to coordinate fully with the existing ventilation under Penn. It is expected that LIRR and NJT will participate in the upkeep of the extended WEC for the benefit and comfort of their passengers. The trainshed space is owned by Amtrak, which has an agreement with LIRR for the existing WEC. This agreement will serve as a model for future arrangements between Amtrak, LIRR and NJT with respect to the WEC. The capital costs of the Phase I work will be covered as described above. It is expected that the capital costs of Phase II of the Project will be financed through a combination of some or all of the following sources: (1) payments by private developers of the non‐train station portion of the Farley Building; (2) retail revenue generated in the new train hall; (3) funding from the PA; (4) CMAQ funding; (5) City contributions from its capital budget and/or incremental tax revenues or payments in lieu of taxes; (6) federal funds awarded by the FRA under its High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program; and (7) the sale of unused development rights from the Farley Building, which will be used to support new residential/commercial construction in the immediate area. C. Economic Competitiveness. Phase I of the Project is expected to create significant economic benefits for the City and the greater metropolitan region. The Project will facilitate the efficient and safe movement of commuters, and inter‐city travelers through Penn Station, the most heavily trafficked transportation hub in North America. The WEC expansion and platform ventilation project is expected to generate tangible transportation benefits through: Time savings for rail passengers in and around Penn Station resulting from reduced queuing and congestion and shorter walk distances; and Increased railroad ridership resulting from a shift to rail travel from other modes. The time savings benefits result from four different factors: reduced time required to clear platforms following train arrivals, shorter walking distances for passengers going to or coming from locations on the
West Side of Manhattan and the Eighth Avenue Subway, and reduced congestion within the Penn Station concourses. The addition of vertical circulation elements to the expanded WEC will result in faster platform clearance and will reduce passenger queuing times by 85,500 passenger‐hours annually. Improved access for users of Penn Station provides a more direct route to the West Side of Manhattan, an area expected to receive up to 50 million square feet of new residential and office space in the coming decades. The improvement in accessibility is expected to reduce walking for the 1,823 passengers (1,770 commuters and 53 intercity travelers) that will walk to and from locations to the west of Penn Station in the year 2015 using the WEC. Annually, the reduction translates into a cumulative walk time‐savings of 201,340 passenger‐hours. The WEC extension offers passengers the same opportunity for a more direct and less congested walking path to and from the Eighth Avenue Subway station. On average, these passengers will save approximately 200 feet in walk distance, which, at an average walk speed of 3.5 ft/sec, generates an average time‐savings of slightly less than two minutes per trip. Peak hour cumulative passenger time‐ savings in the year 2015 would be 197,000 passenger‐hours annually. The additional concourse space of the extended WEC will divert passengers away from Penn Station’s biggest bottlenecks to reduce congestion and consequential delays. The reduction in congestion levels is expected to improve peak level of service from D to C at major bottleneck locations throughout the station. For the year, 2015, the reduction translates into daily time‐savings of 3,000 passenger‐minutes and cumulative annual savings of 14,000 passenger‐hours. As previously described, Phase I will reduce platform queuing times during the peak periods, which can reduce the length of time that trains need to dwell in the station and potentially shorten the intervals between trains arriving at a platform to discharge passengers. The reduction in overall queue times would be on the order of 0.5 minutes per train. With the station operating at or above its practical capacity during the peak periods, the augmentation of the station’s throughput capacity by even a small amount will result in the ability of the railroads to carry incrementally more passengers. An analysis was performed of a hypothetical morning peak hour. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that (1) space for one additional commuter train within the peak period is made available by the passenger circulation benefits of the WEC expansion, (2) latent demand will exist for this additional capacity, and (3) peak period commuters will shift to trains from other modes (including driving to Manhattan, driving to a Hudson River ferry, and taking commuter buses). One additional full‐length NJT peak train would carry approximately 1,600 passengers. The annual NJT ridership increment attributable to the project would be approximately 800,000 trips. Over the course of a year, trips diverted to rail would result in a reduction of 640,000 bus‐miles and 4.7 million vehicle‐miles traveled (VMT) annually. Commuters switching from other modes of transportation would also realize a time savings benefit. Assuming an average time‐savings of approximately 11 minutes per trip (equivalent to an increase in average speed from 30 mph to 35 mph), passengers shifting from bus to rail would save 122,000 passenger‐hours of travel time per year. For passengers shifting from the ferry and auto modes, assuming an average time savings of approximately 10 minutes per trip, the associated time savings would be 26,700 passenger‐hours of travel time per year. These ferry and auto passengers would also realize an out‐of‐pocket cost savings associated with not having to park either in Manhattan parking garages or at the Hudson River ferry terminals. Amtrak also would realize an incremental capacity benefit during the commuter peak periods, associated with shorter platform clearance times, modest reductions in average platform dwell times and reduced pedestrian congestion within the portions of the station jointly used by Amtrak and the commuter
railroads. This analysis assumes a shift of 560 daily passengers to intercity rail, with two‐thirds being diverted from air travel and one‐third from the automobile mode. The mode shift to intercity rails would yield an annual savings of approximately 77,500 passenger‐hours in travel time and nearly 13.9 million VMT in the Northeast Corridor. The time‐savings of individuals as a result of faster platform clearance, and reduced congestion and walk time is reinvested in the economy. By reducing the transportation costs of Penn Station users, the New York City region increases productivity and efficiency. Increased productivity in the largest U.S. regional economy, which contributes the largest share to the national Gross Domestic Product, has substantial effects on the economic competitiveness and growth of the Nation. In addition, the project’s location supports new growth that will increase transit use, reduce high‐cost auto‐dependency, and thereby indirectly increase the Region’s and the Nation’s economic development and productivity. D. Livability. Phase I of the Project focuses entirely on improving passenger mobility and safety in the nation’s busiest rail station by enabling faster boarding and exiting, reduced train dwell time, and reduced congestion in the Moynihan/Penn Station complex, for all Penn Station users. In addition, Phase I is the necessary first step to Phase II’s new train hall and to any long‐term plan to add tracks and platforms at existing Penn Station. Collectively, these Moynihan Station improvements become a lynchpin between the region’s housing markets and its main commercial market, and will make rail a more attractive commuting choice, thereby encouraging transit‐related development and density in accordance with sound urban planning. Taken as a whole, Phase I will accomplish the following: 1) Enhances User Mobility and Modal Connectivity. As demonstarted under “Economic Competitiveness” above, Phase I improvements will enable more people to move more quickly through Penn Station, to the subway, and to the street. Ticketing and improved information displays in the WEC will reduce passenger boarding, exiting, and transfer times. Currently, passengers seeking to transfer between railroads are required to exit from their arriving concourse before seeing displays with departing train information for other railroads. rd th st th The new street level exits from the WEC on 33 Street and 8 Avenue and 31 Street and 8 Avenue will reduce congestion in Penn Station and give rail riders direct access to the street and to bus and taxi connections. Conversely, these entrances give surface travelers, for the first time, rail access through the historic Farley Building, which was designed as a companion to the original Pennsylvania Station. Thus, the Phase I improvements as a whole expand the traveling public’s opportunities for easily and conveniently transferring between modes. 2) Improves Accessibility and Transportation Services. The expanded and extended WEC and 33rd Street Connector, will, for the first time, be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Incline angles will be reduced to allow for safe passage for customers with wheelchairs and ease of passage for customers with mobility issues. In addition, the improved 33rd Street Connector will now allow those customers to access the 8th Avenue subways from Penn Station, Farley and the WEC. 3) Comprehensive Planning Process. The Project design is the culmination of coordination and planning among many stakeholders. Government agencies, including ESDC, MSDC, USPS, the PA, SHPO, the New York City Office of the Mayor and the Department of City Planning, have collaborated on the design and worked to maximize improvements for commuters and neighborhood residents alike. As the coordinating agency, MSDC has worked closely with the railroads and civic groups, including Friends of Moynihan Station and the Municipal Arts Society to incorporate their ideas. The public has had the opportunity to comment on the design through numerous public hearings throughout the process.
E. Sustainability. The Project as a whole, including Phase I, is expected to divert passenger trips to more energy‐efficient travel modes, thereby reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The shift to rail will also reduce criteria pollutant emissions within the New York‐North New Jersey‐Long Island, NY‐NJ‐CT PM2.5 and ozone nonattainment areas (New York and New Jersey portions). In order to quantify the energy and emissions benefits from Phase I, the following assumptions were made: 1) Although some mode shift from bus to rail is predicted to occur, it is conservatively assumed that bus headways will not be increased (i.e., bus frequency will not decrease). Therefore, bus emissions were not assumed to be reduced. Similarly, predicted reductions in aviation emissions were not included, although passenger air trips may be reduced. 2) Increase in rail ridership is not assumed to result in increased emissions from rail since significant capacity currently exists in the system. According to the Amtrak National Fact Sheet: FY 2008 (Amtrak, February 2009), Amtrak sold 8,739,345 tickets to/from NYC in 2008. The increase in annual Amtrak ridership due to Phase I is estimated to be 280,000 trips, representing a 3.2% increase, equivalent to less than 1 additional passenger per car. Similarly, the NJ Transit Annual Report, 2008 (NJ Transit, 2009) reported 52.9 million riders for FY2008 on the Newark Division. If we assume half of those are to/from Penn Station (it is likely more) that would result in 26.5 million. The Phase I increment on NJ Transit lines is estimated to be 800,000 trips—an approximate increase of 1.5% (likely less). 3) Vehicle criteria pollutant emissions were calculated based on EPA’s Mobile6.2 emissions model, using the latest assumptions available from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Criteria pollutant emission reductions were calculated only within the nonattainment areas. 4) Greenhouse gas emission reductions were calculated for all vehicle trips reduced, based on an average fuel economy rate of 22.1 miles per gallon in 2015,1 and 8,877 grams of CO2 per gallon of gasoline2 (this includes only direct emissions—an additional 22% would be reduced upstream due to the reduction in extraction, refining, and transport of fuels). The emission factors and mileage calculations are presented in detail in Appendix C. The predicted reduction in vehicular emissions due to Phase I in 2015 would be as follows: Pollutant Emissions Reduced (tons per year) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 2.8 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 4.1 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 74.1 Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.2 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 0.1 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 6,378 Gasoline Consumption Reduced: 651,771 gallons per year. Note: Criteria pollutant reductions include emissions within nonattainment areas only. CO2 emission reductions include all areas.
Energy Information Administration, An Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook, 2009. Table 7: Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption. 2 Based on the carbon content of gasoline. The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 600.113).
Since reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption is both a State and City goal under the State Energy Plan, PlaNYC, New York State Executive Order 24 of 2009 and other policies and initiatives, the Project would be consistent with those policies. F. Safety and Security. Phase I is a passenger rail transportation facility rehabilitation that will significantly upgrade safety and security for the more than 640,000 passenger trips that pass through the Penn Station complex on a daily basis, not simply in emergency situations, but also for the “day‐in, day‐ out” rail passenger in ordinary circumstances. 1) Life Safety ‐ Ordinary Circumstances. Today, in ordinary circumstances, the platforms and concourses of Penn carry crowds far in excess of their intended capacities. This not only compromises the ability to navigate the complex in any sort of prompt or efficient manner, but more importantly produces dangerously overcrowded conditions. Further, in circumstances where two or more trains simultaneously board or discharge in close proximity, these conditions become even worse. When even modest delays occur, levels of service can promptly fall to “F”, or virtual stand‐still, with lengthy dwell times at platforms, and an occasional need to restrict movement at Penn (e.g., on certain occasions, due to congestion, the LIRR has found it necessary to close off its entrance to Penn Station on 34th Street). If extraordinary disruption were to occur (whether explosive, air‐borne, or otherwise), the likely result would be catastrophic. These are unacceptable concerns in the country’s busiest transportation facility. Phase I will redistribute passenger loads over a wider area, which will substantially ease congestion and reduce conflicting movements of inter‐city and commuter rail users at both access points and concourses. It will also provide easier and faster access for passengers descending to or coming up from the platform level, for passengers moving from Penn Station to Farley and vice versa, and for passengers moving between the WEC, the 8th Avenue subway and Penn Station. 2) Life Safety – Emergency Evacuation. As noted above, for most of Penn Station’s platforms, approximately one‐third of the platform length lies under the Farley Building. However, there are currently no vertical access points allowing passengers to ascend from the platform level to the Farley Building and then out to the street. Instead, they must walk hundreds of feet eastward to utilize stairways, elevators and escalators located beneath Penn Station. In the event of a fire or other emergency, this could create a dangerous condition, especially during the morning and evening peak periods. Moreover, there is currently no platform ventilation system in place covering the portions of platforms lying under the Farley Building, even though these areas can become crowded with both commuter and intercity rail passengers. In the event of a fire or smoke condition, passengers could be exposed to serious injury due to smoke inhalation, or ‐‐‐ even worse ‐‐‐ could become confused or uncertain as to how to evacuate the station if these areas become filled with smoke. The Phase I work addresses these issues in two ways. First, as already described, the extension and expansion of the WEC, and the creation of new vertical access points under the Farley Building, will allow passengers at the western end of platforms to ascend from the platforms and exit the Moynihan/Penn Station complex much more quickly and directly. Second, the installation of platform ventilation systems under Farley, similar to that already in place under Penn, will allow smoke to be more readily purged from the platform level, thus avoiding smoke‐related injuries and improving visibility for safer and more efficient station evacuation. The probability of occurrence of a fire or other emergency incident at Penn Station and the magnitude of the benefit that the proposed project would generate compared to the existing conditions is difficult to quantify. In the absence of a rigorous risk assessment, however, an analysis has identified two hypothetical scenarios where the improved configuration of passenger egress points would reduce the size of the population of passengers vulnerable to an emergency event. One scenario is a track fire or other significant smoke‐generating incident at platform level. The second scenario would be a fire or other emergency occurring at the level of the WEC or within the Eighth Avenue Subway station, requiring evacuation to street level of the occupants of the WEC.
For the platform level scenario, emergency egress platform clearance times are calculated for the existing condition and for the Moynihan Station Phase I condition with the WEC extension constructed. The methodology report attached as Appendix D, contains a table that compares the time needed to clear selected platforms (3 through 6) of passengers with a full trainload of passengers simultaneously occupying each platform track and indicates the extent to which platform clearance time would be reduced as a result of the WEC improvements. Using the maximum clearance rate for stairs and escalators, according to NFPA 130 criteria, the table calculates the number passengers who would be exposed or vulnerable to adverse conditions at the platform level with the existing configuration, but who would be able to safely exit the platforms under the proposed configuration. The average for the four platforms would be 933 passengers. Assuming a hypothetical casualty rate of 10 percent for a serious incident at track level, one occurrence of this emergency scenario could generate an estimated 93 casualties (see Appendix D, Section 3, “Life Safety‐Emergency Evacuation”). Farley would also reduce the time needed to get passengers from any point within the station complex to a point of safe refuge at street level, thanks to more vertical circulation elements, and two additional station entry/exit points. Having 9 street exits instead of the existing 7 will increase the overall throughput capacity of the station’s street‐level entrances from 2,200 persons/minute to 2,600 persons/minute. The methodology report attached as Appendix D, contains a table that presents an estimate of the incremental egress capacity benefits of the Moynihan Phase I project relative to existing conditions. The project will eliminate an existing cul‐de‐sac condition and increase street egress capacity by a greater amount than ridership is estimated to increase. Once again, assuming a hypothetical casualty rate of 10 percent, one occurrence of this emergency evacuation could cause an estimated 82 casualties (see Appendix D, Section 3, “Life Safety‐Emergency Evacuation”). 3) Roadway Accident Reduction. The reduction of auto and bus VMT will result in safety improvements in the form of fewer incidences of traffic accidents for local and regional users of the roadway network. The total expected annual VMT savings of 18.5 million would lead to a reduction in fatalities and accidents. The per‐VMT rates of all freeway accidents were obtained from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 3 The per‐VMT accident rates applied to the total VMT reduction translates to 7 fatalities, 428 injury accidents, 834 property‐damage‐only accidents, and 280 minor accidents avoided over the analysis period. V. Long‐Term Outcomes, Benefit/Cost Analysis Requirements A. Introduction. As explained more fully in other sections of this Application, Phase I of the Project is expected to create significant economic, safety, and environmental benefits for City and surrounding region. Several primary benefits of Phase I are quantified in economic terms in the following analysis: o Time savings for rail passengers in and around Penn Station resulting from reduced queuing and congestion and shorter walk distances; o Vehicle operating, ownership, and parking cost savings associated with less vehicles trips and vehicle miles traveled; o Safety gains from reduced highway and roadway accidents; o Improved life safety conditions within the station; and o Environmental benefits from reduced vehicle emissions. The primary results of the economic benefits analysis are summarized in Table 1 below. At a 7% real discount rate, the Present Value (PV) of the Phase I total benefits is $498 million for the base case scenario. At a 3% discount rate, the PV of the Phase I benefits would be $1.05 billion.
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2009, “2008 Traffic Safety Annual Assessment‐ Highlights”
Table 1: Summary of Benefits at 7% Real Discount Rate in the Base Case Scenario Benefit Category Benefits (2009$M) Value of Benefits (2009$M) Discounted @ 3% $300.5 $53.6 $132.0 $19.9 Value of Benefits (2009$M) Discounted @ 7% $143.3 $25.5 $63.4 $9.5
Local Travel Time Savings Benefit Intercity Travel Time Savings Benefit Vehicle Operating & Ownership Cost Savings Benefits Parking Cost Saving Benefits
Economic Competitiveness $603 $107.4 $266.8 $40 Safety
Roadway Accident Reduction Safety Benefits Environmental Benefits
$1,009.1 Sustainability $80.2 2,106.5
TOTAL Benefit For details regarding methodology of development of this analysis please refer to the “Moynihan Station Project‐Phase I: Economic Benefit‐Cost Analysis Report, September 2009, attached as Appendix D. B. Economic Competitiveness Travel Time Savings: There are two main categories of travel time benefits that were included in the benefits quantification: 1) Existing rail users (i.e., walk/ wait travel time savings): This includes, travel‐time savings for rail passengers in and around Penn Station resulting from reduced queuing and congestion and shorter walk distances. These will be accrued by both local as well as intercity rail passengers. 2) New rail users (i.e., trips diverted to rail from other modes such as bus, auto and air) Incremental railroad ridership will result from people shifting from other modes – buses (in case of local passenger), autos (in case of both local and intercity passengers) and air (in case of intercity passengers) – to rail. In accordance with the United States Department of Transportation (“USDOT”) guidance, the travel time of new rail users was valued at weighted average rates prescribed for all purposes. The travel time of existing rail users (which mainly includes walk and wait time that has greater disutility than in‐vehicle time) was valued at 100% of personal travel value of time. The values of time as used in the analysis are summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Hourly Values of Time in 2009 Dollars 4 Travel Time Category Local In‐Vehicle Travel Time (all modes) Local and Intercity Travel Walk/ Wait Time Intercity In‐Vehicle Travel Time (all modes) Hourly Value of Time (2009 $/ Hour) $16.88 $26.59 $24.95
Using the above assumptions, time savings benefits were estimated to have a present value of $168.8 million over the evaluation period. Vehicle Operating and Ownership Cost Savings Benefits: With fewer automobiles on the road, and hence fewer miles traveled there will be reduction in auto operating and ownership costs for non‐transit users. In terms of operating costs, shifting from driving to transit reduces overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 18.5 million miles annually, which provides savings in the marginal costs of auto travel (fuel, maintenance and tires). The reduction in auto VMT due to the Moynihan Station project will result in reduced vehicle operating costs, vehicle ownership costs for households, and reductions in vehicle usage costs. Overall vehicle operating cost, ownership and usage cost is valued at a weighted average rate of $0.36 per vehicle mile (in 2009 dollars). Vehicle operating cost benefits accruing from the Moynihan Station project are estimated to have a present value of $63.4 million over the evaluation period. Furthermore, as a result of the auto VMT savings, fuel consumption is reduced by nearly 700 thousand gallons annually. Reducing the use of fuel, and thereby lessening U.S. dependence on foreign supply of oil, is a key imperative of the nation’s economic competitiveness and sustainability policy. Parking Cost Reductions: Reductions in the number of auto trips caused by the Moynihan Station may also reduce expenditures on parking, depending on trip destinations. With additional rail use, short‐term parking benefits could manifest in terms of reduced demand for parking spaces, and hence, potentially lower parking costs. In the long run, reduced land requirements for parking facilities may free up land for other uses. An estimate of parking cost savings based on number of one‐way auto trips eliminated was found to be a $1,000,000 annually in 2009 dollars. This assumes that 75% of the eliminated auto trips use the parking at a ferry station and 25% use parking available in Manhattan. This results in parking cost savings of $9.5 million over the evaluation period in present value terms. D. Safety 1) Accident Reduction Safety Benefits: Reductions in VMT lower the incidence of traffic accidents, which results in direct savings. Highway accident frequencies obtained from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are applied to annual VMT reduction estimates obtained from the regional travel demand model. Using $6,000,000 (in year 2009 dollars) as the value of a statistical life
All values of time were obtained from Revised USDOT Guidance: Value of Travel Time in Economic Analysis, 2003 in 2000 dollars and escalated to 2009 dollars based on a factor of 1.26 as proposed by USDOT in Response to Questions and Requests for Clarification Submitted to DOT regarding the TIGER Discretionary Grants Program, August 28, 2009.
(VSL), and using the ratios prescribed by USDOT to value other accidents as a fraction of the VSL, the associated annual economic savings were computed. 5 The present value of accident savings benefits accruing from the Moynihan Station project over the evaluation period are estimated at $239.8 million. 2) Life Safety – Emergency Evacuation: There are insufficient data to quantify definitively the probability of occurrence of a fire or other emergency incident at Penn Station and the magnitude of the benefit that the proposed project would generate compared to the existing conditions. However, to add some quantification to the project’s life‐safety benefits in the absence of a rigorous risk assessment, a sensitivity analysis was also performed to analyze a hypothetical scenario where two accidents have a 10% probability of occurring in 2020, resulting in 175 casualties. For this scenario, the probability‐weighted present value of the economic benefit of avoiding these impacts is estimated to be 6 $50 million (using a 7% discount rate). If these benefits were included in the benefits analysis, the present value of the project’s total economic benefits would be $548 million. Using a 3% discount rate, the present value would be $1.12 billion. E. Sustainability Environmental Benefits: As indicated above, one other key benefit of reduction in VMT is a reduction in emissions. With fewer vehicles on the road, there will be a reduction in such pollutants as Carbon Dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas), Sulfur Dioxide, Particulate Matter, Nitrogen Oxides, and Volatile Organic Compounds. Average vehicle emissions, for both autos and trucks for each of the above‐named pollutants, in terms of grams per mile traveled, were obtained from the Caltrans Cal‐B/C model, as well as the EPA’s MOBILE6 Vehicle Emissions Modeling Software. 7 The total amount (in tons) of avoided emissions was computed using the differential VMT. The health cost of emissions per ton was obtained from National Center for Statistics and Analysis. 8 These were then applied to the emissions rate and an annual health cost of avoided emissions was estimated. Using the above assumptions, the present value of the monetary benefits accrued due to saved emissions, are estimated at $16.9 million in present value terms over the evaluation period. VI. Job Creation & Economic Stimulus During Phase I of the Project, a total of $256.1 million, net of finance and insurance costs, will be spent on the Project. The impact of the construction spending will benefit not only the economy of the New York Metropolitan region, but also the broader national economy through the ripple effects of materials and equipment purchases and the spending of workers employed by the Project. Construction spending on Phase I is expected to generate or support almost 2,500 job‐years of employment and $134.7 million in payroll wages (in 2009 dollars) for the nation. In the immediate region of the Phase I work (see Appendix for a profile of the region), it is estimated that the construction outlays will create or support nearly 1,560 job‐years of employment and $88.4 million in payroll wages (in 2009 dollars). Direct employment from developing Phase I is estimated at 820 job‐years, with wages of $55.2
Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in Departmental Analysis, U.S. DOT, March 18, 2009. If the scenario assumed the accidents had a 100% chance of occurring in year 2020, the economic benefit of avoiding these accidents would be approximately $500 million in present value terms. 7 http://epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm 8 USDOT Benefit‐Cost Guidelines; Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, March 2009.
million. The distribution of total construction impacts over the design/construction of Phase I is given in the Phase I schedule appearing in Part IV, “Shovel Ready Criteria; Feasibility.” The PA and the other sponsoring agencies for the Project have a history of using minority‐owned, woman‐ owned, small and disadvantaged businesses in procurement awards and encouraging their participation in sub‐contracting opportunities. From 2002 – 2007, for example, the PA awarded construction, engineering and goods and services contracts totaling $7.1 billion, of which $1.1 billion, or 15.7 percent, went to either minority, woman‐owned or small businesses (see Appendix F on PA Minority Participation). Based on this historical ratio, it is anticipated that at least $41 million of the construction spending on Phase I will be awarded to minority‐owned, woman‐owned, small or disadvantaged firms. Job Generation during the Operational Phase Operation and maintenance spending on the completed Phase I is expected to total $1.4 million annually. It is estimated that this level of spending will support 14 total permanent jobs nationally, with annual wages of $0.8 million (in 2009 dollars). VII. Secondary Benefit Discussion A. Innovation. Moynihan Station is a creative response to the daunting challenge of expanding Penn Station – a station in a dense urban setting with tracks and platforms laid out over a century ago that was never intended to be the nation’s busiest commuter rail station as well as its busiest intercity rail station. The Project will create a major new 21st Century train station by making the most out of resources at hand. The Farley Building was designed with a grand façade in the fashion of the original Penn Station, but the interior was built to be a postal facility, serviced by tracks and platforms directly below. The design team led by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, has found a way to convert a dark, drab covered courtyard, where mail was sorted for decades, into a grand sky‐lit train hall on the scale of Grand Central Terminal. Cutting holes in the Farley floor plates will provide access from the train hall to the existing platforms and tracks under the building. The undersized West End Concourse will be expanded and integrated into Farley. In this process, a beautiful landmark that now is largely off limits to the public will become accessible to many thousands of railroad passengers every day. This process will begin with the two new entrances into the th st th rd Farley Building at 8 Avenue and 31 Street and 8 Avenue and 33 Street, which are part of Phase I. This adaptive reuse of Farley allows for the creation of a striking new station and new intercity and commuter capacity at a fraction of the cost of constructing a new building from scratch. The environmental benefits in the form saved energy and material are massive when this renovation is compared to green field or new building construction. The stone, steel, concrete, metals and other materials conserved by the innovative reuse of the Farley Building can be measured by thousands of tons, by hundreds of millions of dollars, and by countless BTU’s saved. B. Partnership. The Moynihan Station Project involves a remarkable collaboration over many years of federal agencies (USDOT, the FRA, the Senate, the House), state agencies (ESDC, MSDC, NYSDOT, the State Historic Preservation Office), the City (Mayor’s Office, City Economic Development Corporation, Department of City Planning, Community Boards 4 and 5, City DOT), railroads (Amtrak, LIRR, NJT, MTA, and MTA New York City Transit), private developers (The Related Companies and Vornado realty Trust were conditionally designated in 2005 to develop the commercial portions of Farley), the United States Postal Service (which will remain a major tenant of the Farley Building), and the bi‐state PA. Each of these participants in the Project has devoted significant resources to advancing it since the late Senator Moynihan first proposed expanding Penn Station into the Farley Building. A number of business, transportation and civic groups have played an active role in supporting and shaping the project, including the Regional Plan Association, Friends of Moynihan Station, the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Municipal Arts Society, the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Tri‐State th Transportation Campaign, Transportation Alternatives, the 34 Street Partnership, the General
Contractors Association, the Partnership for New York City, the Real Estate Board of New York, the Building and Construction Trades Council, the New York Building Congress and the Building Trades Employers’ Association. Many of these groups have written letters of support, which are attached in Appendix B. In addition, Amtrak and the State recently announced a general agreement on the basic terms and conditions that will lead to the development of Moynihan Station and the relocation of Amtrak services to the new train hall to be constructed in the Farley Building. See Appendix G attached hereto. Collectively, this participation reflects wide consensus that the Project will deliver national, regional, and local benefits to a vast array of stakeholders. VIII. Evaluation of Project Performance MSDC and the PA propose to monitor and evaluate the performance of the Phase I project in a number of ways, and to periodically report the results to USDOT. At present, MSDC and the PA contemplate taking the following steps to monitor and evaluate project performance: • Construction employment generated by Phase I– collect payroll information and/or provide forms to contractors and subcontractors to report on numbers of workers engaged in construction of Phase I. • Increased ridership on Amtrak, LIRR and NJT – collect data from each railroad to ascertain increases in ridership. • Shifts from Other Modes ‐ conduct surveys to determine whether riders switched from other modes and whether the Phase I improvements were a motivating factor. rd • Increased passenger usage of the WEC and 33 Street Connector – conduct passenger counts and/or prepare and collect surveys to estimate numbers of passengers using expanded WEC and 33rd Street Connectors. • Level of Use of New 8th Avenue entrances ‐ conduct passenger counts and/or prepare and collect surveys to estimate numbers of passengers using new 8th Avenue entrances into the Farley Building. • Rents and Vacancy Rates in Surrounding Area ‐ conduct market research (brokers, City records, other sources) to ascertain whether rents have risen and vacancies have declined in the surrounding area as a result of the larger Moynihan Station Project, including Phase I. MSDC and the PA would be willing to entertain additional or alternative measures to monitor and evaluate project performance, based on consultation with and input from USDOT. IX. Certifications A.
Section 1511 Certification
The Governor’s Section 1511 Certification for this project will be executed after grant approval. It will indicate that the project has received the full review and vetting required by law and that the investment is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. It will also indicate that the specific information required by Section 1511 concerning the investment (a description of the investment, the estimated total cost, and the amount of ARRA funds to be used) is provided on the New York Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Appendices – Table of Contents Appendix A: Station Diagrams and Area Maps Appendix B: Letters of Support Appendix C: Emissions Benefits of West End Concourse Extension Appendix D: Moynihan Station Project‐Phase I: Economic Benefit‐Cost Analysis Report Appendix E: Profile of the 26‐County New York‐New Jersey Metropolitan Region Appendix F: Port Authority MWBE Participation Summary Appendix G: Press Release from the Office of the Governor of the State of New York Appendix H: 2006 USPS NEPA Environmental Assessment Appendix I: 1999 FRA Finding of No Significant Impact Appendix J: 2006 Programmatic Agreement Appendix K: Additional Photos and Rendering
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.