Manhattan Eut Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

SUBWAY WITH LIGHT RAIL OPTION ON LOWER EAST SIDE

(BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2)
OVERVIEW AND AUGNMENT
This alternative would contain all the elements of Build Alternative 1, but would add an LRT to
serve the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan (see Figure 2-11). The recommendation to
include an LRT emerged from a substantial planning and alternatives analysis for the provision
of additional capacity transit service to this underserved neighborhood. In refining the LRT
plan, NYCT and the project engineers were guided by the engineering goals and criteria cited
above and four specific conditions:
• Modeling and other analyses showed that a full-length LRT would not meet the transporta­
tion demands of the entire corridor, but LRT service to connect the Lower East Side to
north-south subway service and to Lower Manhattan was feasible in meeting the needs of
the population south of 14th Street.
• The existing nmnel section under Canal Street east of Allen Street and the easternmost plat­
form in the Nassau Street Line/Chambers Street station could accommodate an LRT vehicle.
• The LRT can follow existing streets, since its minimum turning radius is only 82 feet.
• There is an opportunity for mixed auto and LRT flows in some segments of the LRT align-
ment to help maintain lane capacity for the areas with significant auto traffic.
As a result of these factors, the basic alignment of the proposed two-way LRT would begin near
the intersection of Water and Broad Streets, and proceed along Water and Pearl Streets to
Frankfort Street, where it would descend into a new tunnel to the Chambers Street/Brooklyn
Bridge station of the Nassau Street (J and M) subway line (see Figure 2-12). From there it would
continue in an existing tunnel section under Centre and Canal Streets to approximately Ludlow

2-24

Digitized by Google
 -
•
•
t. 75th St. 80th St. B5th St.
f t'S
701h SI.
5
160 ...... , .... , ....
140 .. .......... ,lrr. :� ............ 140
120 120
100 . i 100
BO BO

I
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0

I
·20 -20
Lenox Hill YorlcVWle
Section 1 Statoon Station

I 160
85111 St. 901h St. 95111 St. 100th St. 105111 St.
-160

I 140
120
100
.............. .. ........
-140
-120
100
80

I 60
40
20
60
40
20
0 0

I ·20
YorlcVille
Station Section 2
96th Street
Station
Franklin
Station
·20

I 105thSt. 110th St. 115th St. 120th St. 125th St.

I
-160
-140

100 100

I
80 80
""���.��--.:.._____�
60-F�-;.,L..__�-L__J���� 60
40 40
20 20

I -----------1-------------------------------------------+-'-
0 0
-20 ...... ·20
Franklin 125th Street
Station Section 3 Station

I
Legend \

mill] Soil & Fill

CJ
I
8edrock

[=:J Proposed Subway Tunnel

� Existing Subway Tunnel

I
- Existing Sewer

·-·
Section 2 above

I _,..
-­·- a
12(Ml9l ,� ..

I ·-_,-:
I Figure 2-9
Build Alternative 1 Profile
I
Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives

Digitized by Google
 f

I
I
I
I
M«ropoltlan
MuHum
olAII
I
I
Central
Park ·1
Legend
--- Zone Boundary
I
- Existing Tunnel

� Tunnei,ng (TBM)
I
I
E:;;:;:;:;l Cut and Cover

�Mining

""""'" Existing Subway Line

"" ..... Existing Subway Station

I
Proposed Subway Station I
I
� Possible Shaft and
Staging Site (one required)

1
I
To N/R
Exp,ess
feet o 500
I..-
1000
I
r'*I
I
Tracks Sncth Ava

meters o IS24 �.H

Figure 2-10
Construction Methods I
I
Upper East Side Zone Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives

Digitized by Google
I
I
I
I
I
I Island

I
I
I
I
I Legend

I --- Zone Boundary

Ex1st1ng Tunnel
===::j t:===
I
�� Tunneling (TBM)

E;:;:;:;;:;!
fl..'i."i..%1
Cut and Cover

Mining
-............
�� IL------'

I
'-----" ""-------' '------'

'"'"'"'' Ex1st1ng Subway Line EAST

"" e '"' Existing Subway Station RIVER

I
Proposed Subway Station
...____..
Possible Sha� and
Staging S,te (one required)

I
I
Central
Park

I Figure 2-10
Construction Methods

I
Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives

Digitized by G00East
8 e
Harlem Zone
I
I Chapter 2: Project Altemadves

I Street, where it would swface and travel along the center of East Broadway to Grand Street and
then tum north to K87.811 to Columbia Street, traveling under the Williamsburg Bridge and onto
Avenue D up to 14th Street. The right-of-way would extend across 14th Street between Avenue

I D and Union Square. To acconunodate the LRT right-of-way, Avenue D, now two-way, would
become one-way southbound.

I
Along this alignment, the new LRT service would travel on a pair of tracks (one northbound
track and one southbound). For most of the route, the at-grade track would be shared with
rubber-tired vehicles (cars, trucks, buses, bicycles): the tracks in these segments would be
embedded within the pavement so that general traffic could use the right-of-way as well, except

I at LRT stations. In certain sections of the route, however, the LRT right-of-way would be
separated from vehicular traffic. This includes the tunnel segment of the route, the portals
connecting the nmnel to the at-grade section of the route, and the portion of the alignment along

I Avenue D. Vehicles would be able to turn onto side streets across the tracks, however. The
relationship of the LRT service and vehicular traffic is analyud in detail in Chapter 9 (section
F) of this document.

I The new LRT is described in detail in Appendix D and is summarized below.

LRT STATIONS

I As shown in Figure 2-12, stations would be provided at Broad Street and Pine Street on Water
Street, near Fulton and Pearl Streets, within the Chambers Street/Brooklyn Bridge station near

I
the J and M trains, at Essex Street on Canal Street, near Grand Street on Kazan Street, near
Houston, 8th, and 13th Streets on Avenue D, and at Avenue B, First Avenue, Irving Place, and
Union Square on 14th Street.

I LRT stations would have 200-foot-long platforms, at grade in the center of the street or on the
side, accessible from the crosswalks at nearby intersections. Depending on the location, there
would be two side platforms or one center platform ( see Figure 2-13).The platforms would be

I
low (approximately curb height) and would offer typical amenities, such as lighting, benches,
canopies, and windscreens. An exception would be at Seward Park and Straus and Union
Squares, where the design of the "stations" would be minimized to avoid visual and other

I
intrusions on these parks.

LRT EQUIPMENT

I
The light rail cars would be two-section, articulated vehicles. These would be capable of being
coupled to two-section vehicles should service warrant it. Each articulated LRT vehicle would
be about 96.5 feet long; a two-car LRT train with two pairs would be about 193 feet long. (In

I
contrast, a typical city bus is 40 feet long; an articulated bus is 60 feet.) The car widths would
be rather narrow, at 7.5 feet, to minimize intrusion on narrow streets. The floor would be low,
allowing passengers to get on and off from a curb-height platform. An overhead wire system

I
•
(also referred to as an overhead collection system, or OCS) would power the LRT; the conduits,
which require a minimum height of 11.8 feet, would be attached to poles or colunms, placed
approximately 100 feet apart.

• 2-25

II Digitized by Google
Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS

ANCILLARY FACILIDES
In addition, the light rail transit system would require six electrical substations to provide power
for the new line. These stations, each about 3,800 square feet in size, would be located below
grade. Possible locations for the new substations are as follows:
• At the proposed storage yard
• Adjacent to Union Square
• Near the 13th Street station
• Near the Grand Street station
• Near the Chambers Street station
• Near the Broad Street station

SIGNALS
The light rail train control systems are anticipated to include a combination of fixed-block
signaling with Automatic Train Protection for the underground portion and line of sight
operation with limited traffic signal preemption for the surface portion. The goal is a cost­
effective installation that provides for safe operation at reasonable headways in the underground
portion of the alignment and a competitive running time for the at-grade portions.

MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE

Storage and repairs for the LRT vehicles would be accommodated at an underground facility,
which would be built on property along the south side of Delancey Street, from Essex Street to
just east of Clinton Street (see Figure 2-12). It is estimated that 37 vehicles would be stored
there. This property is city-0wned and has been largely cleared for the Seward Park Urban Rene­
wal Area Extension. It is now in use for shopper parking. One building, the Essex Street Market
building, remains on the western edge of the site along Essex Street. Under the proposed layout,
the yard tracks would occupy the area beneath the shoppers' parking lot, the existing streets
(Norfolk and Suffolk Streets) that run north and south through the site, and the Essex Street
market building. It would use some of the space presently occupied by an abandoned trolley
loop in the Essex-Delancey Street subway station (see Appendix D for details). The facility
would not affect any existing structures other than the Essex Street Market building, which
could be underpilllled to remain in place during construction of the underground facility. All of
the property that would be occupied by the proposed facility is owned by the City of New York.
NYCT and the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), which
controls the site, will review joint development opportunities associated with the underground
yard construction.
LRT vehicles would reach the new yard by turning from Avenue D at the Williamsburg Bridge
onto track to be constructed along Delancey Street South adjacent to the bridge. This track
would descend into a portal between Pitt and Ridge Streets, and then continue in a tunnel
beneath Delancey Street South until the yard.

CONSTRUCT/ON METHOD
As detailed in Chapter 15, construction of the LRT would involve preparing the street and
laying track. In addition, a limited length of new, shallow cut-and-cover tunnel would be
excavated on Frankfort Street between Pearl and Chambers Streets and on Canal Street between
Christie and Ludlow Streets. Excavation would also be required for a new ramp and tunnel on

2-26

Digitized by Google
 ...........• ,....
.

Central

Legend
--- Zone Boundary
•
..·... IL
, -- . -=- =-
n©(!) ···········
.
Exi5ting Subway Lint:

...... ::_ .l:m�,.....,6� •.• .,,Gl(D:::;• _ ····O···· Exi5ting Station

······<······�----=----- Propo5t:d Subway Lint:
: • :- O!.J
:::::
M M Propo5t:d Station
r«111 u .. , 1(0)

� ·----- LRT Track

meters 11
re,
:104 K (,l'N.fo IIIII Below Grade LRT Track

CJ LRT St.ation

:C:C,�- • Portal

Figure 2-11
Manhanan East Side Transit Alternatives Route Map with Build Alternative 2

Digitized by Google
 EAST
RIVER

Legend
--- Zone Boundary
·----· LRT Track

:C:C:C: Below Grade LRT Track

'--------------------! -- Exi5ting LRTTunnel
fo:et Cl �J IINNJ
I : I : I CJ Sta&ion

I I 1�1.4
meters o
I , .10,lI .k :cc[!,-• Port81

Main&enance & Storage

111 Facility (Below Grade)

Figure 2-12
LRT Alignment
Lower Manhattan Zone Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives

Digitized by Google
•
• ((SJ
• \
\

•
\ EAST
\ RIVER

•
\
\
\
\ =\
•
q ea.1\

•
\

•
\
\
\
\
\

___ l.one Boundary

===
·----• LRT Tracie

Below Grade LRT Tracie

EAST
-- Exi,ting LRT Tunm:I
RIVER Station
Brooklyn Bridge

fect O 500 1 IXXl

I : I : I
I I I I
me,m � 152 � :I04.M

Figure 2-1.
LRT Alignmen
Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives Lower East Side Zon
Digitized by Google
 �
Track 1 Track 2

I
9'·1 • W ler I.
I
I
9•.3• ± 0 141h St.

I. 1Q'·0" Oedlcaled I 12·-o· I 10·-o: Dedicated • I

I
LAT Line LAT Lane

'1yplcal Center Platform

I
I
/ /

I. 10·-o·
Track 1
12'·6"
�
Track 2
10·-o· .I
lyplcal Side Platform•

-Trolley Wire � Track 1 � Track 2

. Support Cable 2 ·-o·

- Trolley Wire

I
'-Building Building-

10·-o· n·-o· ,·. 10·-o· 11'·0" 10'·0"

Curb Lane Mixed Use Turn Lane Mixed Use Curb Lane

'typical Section Between Station•

feet II '"
mctrrs o

Figure 2-13
LRT Stations and Vehicles Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives

Digitized by Google
I
I Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

I Delancey Street South between Kaz.an and Clinton Streets, and at the proposed yard site. At the
yard, the Essex Street Market building could be underpinned to remain in place above the new
facility.

I PROPERTY ISSUES

I
The LRT would be constructed entirely within public property. Its construction period would
not be as disruptive or as long as the cut-and-cover segments of the subway alternative.
Although its presence and operation would alter traffic patterns, the initial estimate of impacts
foWld them not to be so adverse as to assess property impact costs against the project. Chapter

I 5 details the potential for effects on business properties along the LRT route; Chapter 15
describes possible effects during construction.

I SELECTION OF A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Following publication and public review of this MIS/DEIS, a locally preferred alternative will
be selected and a Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared (this process is described in

I more detail in Chapter 1). The locally preferred alternative may be one of the alternatives
described above (TSM, Build Alternative 1, or Build Alternative 2), or it may join elements
from each of those alternatives to form a combination alternative.

I D. PRELIMINARY PROJECT COSTS

I
The capital cost estimate for the TSM Alternative is $204 million (1997 dollars). The cost
estimate for the East Side subway extension (Build Alternative 1) is estimated at $3.88 billion.
This estimate uses tunneling costs similar to other major investment rail projects, such as the

I
MTA/LIRR East Side Access Project, as presented in its MIS (April 1998). The Lower East

•
Side LRT (in Build Alternative 2) would cost an additional $1.21 billion, for a total coast of
$5.09 billion. All of these estimates represent hard costs (cost of easements and property,
construction materials and labor costs), as well as rolling stock, but exclude "soft costs."

•
Estimated incremental annual operation and maintenance costs (over the No Build Alternative)
for the TSM and Build 1 and Build 2 Alternatives are, respectively, $6.5 million, $25.8 million,
and $36.7 million (1997 dollars). •:•

•
I
I
I
I
' 2-27

Digitized by Google
 Chapter 9: Transportation (Parking)

Table9G-2
Parking Impacts of LRT Under Build Alternative 2:
Number of Curb Parking or Delivery Spaces Lost
Weekday
Street Segment Peak Periods
Water Street between Broad and Wall Streets -44
Water Street between Wall and Fulton Streets -25
Peart Street between Fulton and Frankfort Streets -17
Frankfort Street between Pearl and Gold Streets -4
Canal Street between Chrvstie and Essex Streets -14
East Broadwav between Essex and Grand Streets -72
Grand Street between East Broadway and Kazan Street -9
Kazan Street between Grand and Delancev Streets -20
Columbia Street between Delancey and Houston Streets -80
Avenue D between Houston and 14th Streets -95
14th Street between Avenue D and First Avenue -47
14th Street between First and Third Avenues -7
14th Street between Third Avenue and Broadwav -8
TOTAL -442

The LRT would proceed northward from its terminus at Broad Street within the center of Water
Street and Pearl Street. Curb parking or deliveries would be pennitted along this length of the
two streets except adjacent to proposed LRT stops between Broad Street and Coenties Slip, at
Pine Street (where the LRT platform would extend for about 50 feet on each side of Pine Street),
and between Fulton and Beekman Streets, and where additional capacity would be needed to
accommodate traffic flow. General vehicle traffic (autos, taxis, commercial vehicles, etc.) would
be permitted to drive on the LRT tracks, so parking would still be permitted in the curb lanes at
some locations. A total of about 86 curb spaces would be lost adjacent to the three LRT stops,
encompassing metered parking on three of the six blocks, truck deliveries on two of the others,
and for traffic impact mitigation purposes on other blocks.
The LRT would then turn west onto Frankfort Street, enter a tunnel section along the north side
of Frankfort Street just west of Pearl Street, and continue in that tunnel section until emerging
at street level just cast of Allen Street. Since current regulations along Frankfort Street allow for
only a limited number of authorized New York City Department of Housing Preservation and
Development (NYCHPD) vehicles near Gold Street, only four curb spaces would be lost in this
segment. There is a surface parking area atop a sidewalk/median area adjacent to the north curb
of Frankfort Street (under the ramp to the Brooklyn Bridge) which appears to be accessible by
vehicles mounting the north curb; access to this parking area would need to restricted to another
location since vehicles seeking to park there would not be pennitted to cross over the LRT
tracks.
The LRT would emerge from this tunnel section along the north side of Canal Street just east of
Allen Street, rise up to street level and operate along the north curb. It would then run complete­
ly at street level along Canal Street until Canal Street merges into East Broadway just east of
Essex Street, at Strauss Square. Approximately 14 curb spaces would be lost along the north

9G-7

Digitized by Google
Manhattan East Side Transit AJternadves MIS/DEIS

side of Canal Street between Allen Street and Essex Street. General traffic would operate one­
way eastbound between Allen and Essex Streets with curb parking permitted along the south
side of Canal Street. This operational plan was preferable to the alternative of operating the LRT
in the middle of Canal Street and prohibiting curb parking and deliveries on both sides of the
street. At Strauss Square, nine curb spaces designated as a taxi relief area would need to be re­
located to another site in the area.
The LRT would then continue along East Broadway to Grand Street. The specific alignment of
the LRT would be slightly offset from the exact centerline along East Broadway in order to ac­
commodate trucking activity along the south side of East Broadway between Essex and
Jefferson Streets. Vchicle traffic would be permitted to drive on the LRT tracks; nevertheless,
due to the relatively narrow 44-foot width of East Broadway along much of its length, about 72
curb parking/delivery/loading spaces would need to be removed along the north side of the
street. Shifting the LRT alignment back to the middle of East Broadway east of Pitt Street could
reduce the number of parking spaces lost.
The LR T would then tum right from East Broadway onto the south side of Grand Street and
make a left tum onto Kazan Street just one short block to the east. Curb use along the south side
of Grand Street would be precluded for the short 200-foot block between East Broadway and
Kazan Street; thus, nine curb spaces would be eliminated. The LRT alignment would then con­
tinue north on Kazan Street. Kazan Street's narrow roadway would preclude parking activity

:a
and LRT operation; 20 spaces would be lost on the west side of this street.
The LRT would proceed under the Williamsburg Bridge, and continue north on Columbia Street
and Avenue D along the east side of the street to 14th Street. Parking and dropoff activity on the

:a
east side would thus be precluded by the operation of the LRT. Similarly, where LRT stops are
to be provided-at its Houston Street stop about 300 feet south of Houston Street itself, between
7th and 8th Streets, and between 12th and 13th Streets-curb parking would be prohibited along
the west side of Columbia Street/Avenue D also. A total loss of 17 5 curb parking or delivery
spaces is anticipated for the Columbia Street/Avenue D corridor. There are also a number of
curb cuts along Columbia Street and Avenue D that provide access to off-street surface parking
lots within the housing complexes that abut the street. Access to these parking facilities would
need to be maintained.
The LRT would then tum left from Avenue D onto 14th Street and proceed within the middle
of 14th Street to its northern terminus adjacent to Union Square. Curb parking would generally
be allowed on 14th Street, except near proposed LRT stops at First A venue, Third A venue, and
Irving Place. The greatest number of curb space losses would occur between Avenue D and First
Avenue (about 47 spaces) where such parking is generally allowed along the north side of the
street adjacent to Stuyvesant Town and, closer to Avenue D, for Con Edison employees. From
First A venue west to Union Square, another 15 spaces would be lost.
Thus, overall, the LRT would necessitate a reduction of about 442 curb parking/delivery/loading
spaces during the peak periods on a typical weekday. For those sections of the alignment with
LRT tracks located along the curb, such losses would occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Residents using such spaces for daytime or overnight parking would need to find alternative

•
parking locations. Businesses currently relying on such spaces for deliveries would be affected
more significantly since "front door" dropoffs could no longer occur. For other sections of the
alignment where the LRT tracks would be located in the middle of the street (e.g., Water and
Pearl Streets, 14th Street), these curb spaces would probably be lost from 7 AM to 7 PM since

9G-8

Digitized by Google
I
I Chapter 9: Transportation (Parking)

I
•
traffic volumes are at fairly equivalent levels throughout the working hours of the day. Resi­
dents, local employees, or shoppers using such spaces in daytime hours would need to find
suitable alternatives; local businesses would be similarly affected unless they could schedule de­

•
liveries for early morning or nighttime hours when curb use would be permitted.

PARKING MITIGATION

•
With the TSM Alternative, the New York Bus Lanes would add a significant amount of curb
parking/delivery/loading spaces within the overall study area in the AM and PM peak periods,
but would reduce such spaces overall during the midday period and within specific segments of

•
the study area during the AM and PM peaks (see Table 9G-l ). For several segments of the area,
the net reduction in curb spaces is relatively small. For other areas, such losses are fairly signifi­
cant but may be considered partially or fully offset by net gains during other periods of the day

•
(local businesses, for example, may be able to schedule deliveries for time periods when curb
space would become available under the New York Bus Lanes plan). Mitigation does not appear
to be necessary for this alternative.

•
With Build Alternative 2, the LRT system would create a net reduction of about 442 curb spaces
areawide along the alignment. For several segments, net losses are relatively small and would
not necessitate mitigation; for example, four spaces would be lost on Frankfort Street (the

•
spaces lost are spaces authorized/designated for NYCHPD vehicles) and nine spaces would be
lost along Grand Street between East Broadway and Kuan Street. For other segments, there are
parking lots nearby that might, for example, be able to accommodate the loss of on-street me­

•
tered spaces. This might include, for example, parking demand for curb spaces lost on Pearl
Street north of Fulton Street that could be accommodated by nearby parking lots and garages
depending on their utilization levels.

•
Yet, there are other segments along the LRT alignment where lost curb spaces may prove more
critical and it may be beneficial to create new alternative spaces. This could include, for exam­
ple, the approximately 175 spaces lost along Columbia Street and Avenue D. Mitigation, in

•
terms of replacing lost spaces with new off-street parking lots, would require an independent
parking needs and traffic impact analysis and is not proposed as part of this alternative's miti­
gation package.

•
The traffic and parking studies conducted for the TSM Alternative and the LRT component of
Build Alternative 2 indicate that there are trade-offs between traffic level of service needs and

•
local area parking needs. The designs of the New York Bus Lanes and the LRT system, com­
pleted at a concept level for this MIS, included preliminary block-by-block judgments on the
number of traffic lanes needed to provide for reasonably smooth traffic flow versus the need to
maintain curb lanes for local stores and businesses. It is possible that future refinements of

•
either of these alternatives, should one of them be selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative,
would reallocate a curb lane from its initial assumption as a "traffic lane" to a new designation
as a �·curb parking/delivery lane" if the need for the latter proves to be more significant than the

•
former. This means that if parking/deliveries on a given block are deemed more important than
maintaining an adequate traffic level of service, then that decision may be made at the next plan­
ning/design level. Alternatively, should traffic levels of service be given a higher priority, com­

•
mercial deliveries would have to be accommodated in some other manner. Thus, the relative
importance of significant traffic impacts versus significant parking impacts-and which is more
important to mitigate---i:an be decided at a future date. It is also possible that modest sidewalk

•
width reductions could preserve curb parking lanes along several blocks of the LRT alignment.

9G-9

Digitized by Google