gowanus expressway i-278 project...and (3) avoidance of community impacts due to emergency closures....
TRANSCRIPT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTSCOPING MEMORANDUM
GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECTPIN X729.94
Between 92nd Street and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel/BQEBorough of Brooklyn, New York
July 1997
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
July 1997
Dear Reader:
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is preparing a Draft EnvironmentaImpact Statement (DEIS) for the project on the Gowanus Expressway (I-278) between 92nd Streeand the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel/Brooklyn Queens Expressway. As part of the DEIS preparationprocess, NYSDOT conducted a "scoping" process to identify the social, economic andenvironmental issues to be evaluated in the DEIS. This process ensures that the DEIS is a concise,accurate and comprehensive document that covers all concerns and issues for public and agencreview.
The scoping activities included scoping discussions with other agencies, public scoping meetings,and related public outreach efforts. Many individuals, organizations and interest groups participatedin this process, and helped our agency better understand those issues of greatest importance andconcern to the community, and those for which detailed studies were considered most essential inunderstanding the potential beneficial and adverse impacts of various project alternatives.
The enclosed Scoping Memorandum represents a summary and formal documentation of the resultsof this process, and will be used by NYSDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) toprepare the DEIS. It provides an outline of how the potentially feasible project alternatives will beselected, and how the potential impacts of each will be analyzed.
Thank you for your valuable assistance in the scoping process. Your participation has beenimportant in assuring that the Gowanus Expressway project can successfully proceed with minimaand acceptable impacts.
Very truly yours,
Crai SiracusaDeputy Regional DirectorNYSDOT Region 11
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. OVERVIEW OF GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1a. Location and History of the Gowanus Expressway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1b. Gowanus Expressway Project - Project Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1c. Environmental Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4d. Role of the Scoping Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. DEIS SCOPING ACTIVITIES FOR THE GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY PROJECT . . . 5
3. SUMMARY & RESULTS OF SCOPING MEETINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7a. Summary of Key Topics Raised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7b. Non-DEIS Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9c. Scope of the DEIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
• Proposed Purpose & Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10• Proposed Project Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10• Probable Impacts of Project Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. PROJECTED SCHEDULE FOR EIS PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE SCOPING PROCESS . . 20
2
SCOPING MEMORANDUMGOWANUS EXPRESSWAY PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTJuly 1997
1. OVERVIEW OF GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY PROJECT
a. Location and History of the Gowanus Expressway
The Gowanus Expressway was built in 1941 and expanded in the 1950s and 1960s to become acomponent of the region’s Interstate highway network. The expressway has not had a majorrehabilitation in more than 30 years. This 5.7-mile long highway between 92nd Street and theBrooklyn Battery Tunnel is a critical component of the highway system in the New York Citymetropolitan area. As part of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (BQE -- Interstate 278), it is theonly mixed-traffic, limited access interstate highway in Brooklyn. It provides connections withkey highway facilities, including the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge (VNB), Shore Parkway, ProspectExpressway, and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel (BBT), and serves the boroughs of Brooklyn,Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island.
The Gowanus Expressway viaduct is one continuous highway bridge, stretching from SixthAvenue and 65th Street to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. The route is a vital link for themovement of people and goods in Brooklyn and the metropolitan area, and its operation isessential to the economic health of the area. Daily traffic volumes over the Gowanus Canal (thesection between the Prospect Expressway and the BBT), is 175,000 vehicles, with aproportionately high number of trucks. Two-thirds of the trucks using the facility serve westernBrooklyn, while the rest are through trips serving New York City, Long Island, and other regionalneeds. Brooklyn is the primary origin of expressway users, with Staten Island second, whileManhattan is the leading destination.
b. Project Purpose
The Gowanus Expressway Project began in 1985 with plans to rehabilitate portions of thehighway and to create a median bus lane. Preliminary studies preformed at that time indicatedextensive deterioration of the highway, and NYSDOT decided in 1990 to rehabilitate the entireviaduct.
The project purpose is to preserve transportation services of the Gowanus Expressway that arecurrently in jeopardy due to accelerating deterioration of the structure. Without any majorrehabilitation in the past 30 years, the steel structure and the riding surfaces are experiencingextensive deterioration. The condition of the viaduct surface and structural steel is continuouslymonitored and the structure is frequently repaired. The extensive repair work causes traf ficdiversions and increasing uncertainty regarding the safe life span remaining in the structure. Afiscally responsible solu tion should be implemented quickly and cost effectively.
Three ways to achieve this goal include: (1) rehabilitating, (2) reconstructing, or (3) replacing theexisting expressway. Reconstruction or rehabilitation will not only rebuild or preserve the existing
3
facility, but will also include, as practical, changes to resolve the operational and safetydeficiencies of the existing facility. Replacement actions are of significantly larger scope, but stillmust be designed to provide: (1) people and goods moving services equivalent to those currentlyprovided by the Gowanus Expressway; (2) continuity with adjacent portions of interstate (I-278);and (3) avoidance of community impacts due to emergency closures.
The Metropolitan Region’s Long Range Plan does not recommend increasing the number ofgeneral use travel lanes of the Gowanus Expressway. It does, however, recommend that acontinuous High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane be implemented along the GowanusExpressway, and that opportunities for improving operating deficiencies be considered whenportions of this route are upgraded, replaced, or rehabilitated.
Based on NYSDOT’s study of existing conditions and deficiencies of this study area, the purposeof the project can be defined as to:
· Preserve the transportation services and capacity currently provided by the GowanusExpressway;
· Provide a structurally sound transportation system;
· Enhance the safety, mobility and operations in the corridor;
· Minimize environmental, social and economic impact;
· Minimize the acquisition of property; and
· Minimize community disruption during construction.
These stated purposes of the proposed project would be achieved by meeting the basic projectobjectives, which fall into the following three areas:
· Transportation Goals:
Preserve the transportation services and capacity currently provided by the highway,and provide services that are efficient, reliable, enhance safety and operationaleffectiveness, and are designed to accommodate traffic demand in a cost-effectivemanner.
Objective 1: Eliminate infrastructure deficiencies; Objective 2: Improve traffic operations and safety;
Objective 3: Preserve existing transportation services and capacity, includingconnections to regional and local roadway networks;
Objective 4: Improve the highway’s geometrics;
Objective 5: Be consistent with the long-range plan of the region’s MetropolitanTransportation Organization -- MPO (the New York MetropolitanTransportation Council in the New York City region).
4
· Mobility Goals
Implement measures to move people and goods more effectively on I-278 between theVNB and the BQE.
Objective 1: Provide a continuous Bus/HOV lane;
Objective 2: Eliminate or remove traffic bottlenecks;
Objective 3: Divert vehicle trips to alternative modes;
Objective 4: Improve goods movement on I-278.
· Program Goals
During Construction: provide transportation service which is feasible to construct;minimizes adverse social, economic and environmental impacts; is cost effective; andwhich minimizes the investment of limited resources.
Objective 1: Minimize construction, right-of-way, operations and maintenance costs;
Objective 2: Minimize social and economic impacts on the community;
Objective 3: Minimize air quality and other environmental impacts;
Objective 4: Minimize construction duration and traffic diversions.
Long-Term: provide transportation service which maximizes social, economic andenvironmental benefits; minimizes adverse social, economic and environmentalimpacts; and which is generally acceptable to the surrounding community.
Objective 5: Minimize acquisition of residential and commercial properties and adverseimpacts on these uses;
Objective 6: Minimize adverse effects on historic sites, or on educational, religious orrecreational facilities;
Objective 7: Maximize beneficial and minimize adverse impacts on air quality;
5
a. Environmental Review Process
Since the mid-1980s, the escalating deterioration of the Expressway has increased the necessaryscale of work required on the Expressway, resulting in the decision to rehabilitate the entireviaduct and (where feasible) to improve interchanges. With this expansion in the required levelof work, NYSDOT decided in 1992 to prepare an Environmental Assessment under proceduresmandated by the Federal-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the New YorkState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). On October 16, 1995 the Draft DesignReport/Environmental Assessment/Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation was released for public review.
Due to the nature and number of comments received, NYSDOT, in consultation with theFederal Highway Administration (FHWA), concluded that it was appropriate to prepare anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. The Draft and Final EIS documents willbe used by each involved agency to consider environmental concerns when making decisions.These documents will also serve as a public disclosure of the project’s environmental effects.
b. Role of the Scoping Process
The scoping process is the earliest opportunity for the public to be involved in the DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement (DEIS) process. It is a public process designed to determinethe scope of issues to be considered and addressed in the DEIS. The purpose of scoping is toensure that the DEIS is a concise, accurate and comprehensive document that covers allconcerns and issues for public and agency review. This Scoping Memorandum represents asummary and formal documentation of the results of this process, and will be used by NYSDOTand FHWA to finalize the scope of the DEIS and the alternatives to be considered.
Scoping is also an opportunity for the public to recommend the consideration of otheralternatives. In deciding which actions will be evaluated further in the environmental reviewprocess, NYSDOT will consider:
· whether the action meets the project’s purpose and goals as listed above;
· how well the action maintains the transportation services currently provided by theGowanus Expressway;
· the relative cost of these services or other benefits; and
· whether short- and long-term environmental, social and economic impacts can beminimized given the implementation of the alternative.
6
2. DEIS SCOPING ACTIVITIES FOR THE GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY PROJECT
The DEIS scoping process normally involves:
(1) scoping discussions with other agencies, particularly those with a direct orindirect involvement in the proposed project’s corridor and study area; and
(2) public scoping meetings, which are held to provide the public with informationabout the project, and to assist in formulating the scope of the environmentalstudies in the DEIS. Plans showing alternatives being considered to date arepresented, with agency personnel available to answer questions. Comments onthe proposed project and the scope of the DEIS are then received from thepublic.
The scoping process completed for the DEIS for the Gowanus Expressway Project included thefollowing three components:
(1) formal public scoping meetings,(2) meetings with public agencies, and(3) related public outreach efforts
The following is a listing of the formal public scoping meetings, the informal follow-up scopingmeetings, and the agency meeting held as part of the DEIS Scoping Process for the project:
Formal Meeting #1
Tuesday, January 14, 1997
Brook lyn Boro ugh Hall
Court Room
209 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, NY
Session I: 3:00 - 5:30 P.M.
Session II : 6:30 - 9:00 P.M.
Informal Meeting #1
Tuesday, February 27, 1997
St. Mary’s Church
467 Court Street
Brooklyn, NY 11231
Session I: 5:30 - 7:30 P.M.
Formal Meeting #2
Wed., January 22, 1997
St. Michaels Church
Auditorium
4222 4th Avenue
Brooklyn, NY
Session I: 3:00 - 5:30 P.M.
Session II : 6:30 - 9:00 P.M.
Informal Meeting #2
Wed., March 5, 1997
Our Lady of Angeles
Auditorium
347 74th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11209
Session I: 6:30 - 8:00 P.M.
Formal Meeting #3
Thursday, January 30, 1997
New Dorp H igh School Auditorium
465 New Do rp Lane
Staten Island, NY
Session I: 5:30 - 7:00 P.M.
Session II : 8:00 - 9:30 P.M.
Agency Scoping Meeting
Monday, April 7, 1997
NYSDOT, Region 11
Hunts Point Plaza
47-40 21st Street, Room 820
Long Island City, NY 11101
Session I: 10:00 A.M.
7
Input from these various activities were received and recorded as follows:
· A stenographic record was kept for each of the three formal public scoping meetings,augmented by note-taking by representatives of the Gowanus project team. Writtencomments were also submitted at these hearings, and a “Scoping Comment Sheet”within the Scoping Information Package provided a simple form on which attendeescould write down and submit scoping comments.
· Written comments were separately mailed or faxed to NYSDOT’s offices as part of theoverall public scoping process.
· Comments made at the two informal scoping meetings were taken down by multiplemembers of the Gowanus project team, with all attendees’ notes compared andconsolidated to insure a complete and comprehensive record. Draft minutes of theinformal scoping meetings were also shared with the parties that sponsored the meetings(Congresswoman Velasquez and Congressman Towns for the February 27, 1997meeting and N.Y. State Democratic Committeeman Ralph J. Perfetto for the March 5,1997 meeting) to provide a further check on the completeness of the comments recordedfrom those meetings.
· Comments on DEIS scoping issues were obtained from other involved governmentagencies in writing and at the Agency Scoping meeting held April 7, 1997.
Formally, the time period for the receipt of comments on the DEIS scope was closed on March5, 1997. However, NYSDOT continued to allow scoping input past that date throughparticipation in (a) the two informal scoping meetings noted above, and (b) the GowanusExpressway Task Force, which was formed during the Environmental Assessment process andincludes elected officials, community boards, local civic and business organizations and otherinterested parties.
The Gowanus Expressway Task Force will continue to serve as the main instrument for thepublic participation program and as the springboard for outreach to the wider general public.Persons interested in obtaining further information on the Task Force can contact the Office ofthe Brooklyn Borough President at 718-802-3900 .
The next step in the scoping process was the integration of public input from the oral andwritten comments received through each one of the forums noted above. With these commentssuccessfully recorded and categorized, the substantive DEIS issues and concerns become part ofthe public record and are reflected as warranted in the planned scope of the DEIS.
The following sections summarize the results of the scoping process.
8
3. SUMMARY & RESULTS OF SCOPING MEETINGS
a. Summary of Key Topics Raised
During the DEIS scoping process, oral and written comments were submitted by manyindividuals, agencies and organizations. The following is a summary of the key commentsmade during this process -- i.e., those that were stated most frequently, and which held the mostimportance in terms of possible impact on the proposed project development or on the mannerin which it is analyzed in the DEIS. A more detailed listing of the comments made during thescoping process is provided in a separate Appendix to this report, which also includes copies ofthe hearing transcripts and all written comments submitted at the hearings or separately toNYSDOT. The ways in which the scope of the DEIS was developed in response to comments isthen described.
Comment: A Tunnel Alternative Should be Included in the DEIS
Numerous commentors called for the inclusion of some type of tunnel alternative in the DEIS.There were a variety of concepts mentioned, including different possible locations for the tunnel(under 3rd Avenue, under 2nd Avenue, along the shoreline, etc.), starting and ending at differentpoints along the highway (starting at 92nd Street near the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, starting at65th Street, exiting at various locations in Red Hook), and including connections to the localroadway and highway system as mandated by the project’s ob jectives and goals as presented inSection 1.b above. Many viewed the work being done by the Regional Plan Association (RPA)to identify possible tunnel concepts as an initial effort in this process, and called for NYSDOTto work with RPA and the community groups to study these concepts further.
Comment: Other Alternatives. While the tunnel concept received the most support, interestin other alternatives was also mentioned by a number of commentors. These included (a)“waterfront” highway concepts, with unspecified ideas regarding location or type of highway(tunnel, at-grade, viaduct); (b) some of the alternatives presented in the EA, particularly thoseincluding some form of rail transit within the highway’s reconstruction design or change in theuse of the proposed Bus/HOV lane; (c) alternative viaduct schemes (e.g., double-deckingconcept along 3rd Avenue or other avenues); (d) possible future tunneling of the BQE north ofthe Gowanus Expressway study limits (i.e., through Carroll Gardens and Brooklyn Heights),and (e) an alternative (viaduct or tunnel) that would increase the highway’s capacity above itspresent level. The treatment of these alternatives in the DEIS is discussed in Section 3.c below.
Comment: Potential Effects of the Project on Comm unity Health
A number of commentors stated that: (a) neighborhoods near the Gowanus Expressway,especially Sunset Park, have high rates of asthma, emphysema and other respiratory diseaseswithin the their residential populations, (b) the highway was a factor in these high rates, and (c)construction-related activities would exacerbate these problems. They called for the DEIS toinclude these health-related concerns in its analyses. In addition, the construction of a tunnel toreplace the existing viaduct, with vehicular emissions released further away from residentialpopulations, was mentioned by some as a way to reduce these health problems.
9
Comment: Traffic Impacts during Construction
Many commentors feared that traffic conditions in the communities near the highway would besubstantially worsened during construction. The major concern was large numbers of vehicles,especially trucks, diverting off the viaduct to avoid construction areas, and using local streets(especially the north-south avenues) as diversion routes. These actions would result incongestion, delays, higher accident rates, unsafe pedestrian conditions, vibration impacts onbuildings, and other problems. Construction activities and equipment blocking traffic lanes andremoving parking (primarily along 3rd Avenue) was also mentioned, reducing accessibility andparking availability for local residents and businesses. The commentors wanted these impactsstudied, and mitigation measures identified, in the DEIS.
Comment: Other Traffic Issues. A wide variety of other traffic-related comments weremade during the scoping process, including: (a) traffic safety concerns related to highervolumes (due to diversion), construction traffic, and traffic diverted past sensitive land uses likeschools, senior citizen centers and similar uses; (b) general traffic growth or changes inemployment patterns and associated traffic patterns and volume; (c) recent or future changes involumes along specific routes (e.g. , Third Avenue, near various entrance/exit ramps, etc.) andfor specific projects (e.g., proposed Hub Port and rail freight tunnel); (d) specific suggestionsfor traffic management strategies, during construction or on a permanent basis, to improvetraffic flow or safety (e.g., bicycle lanes, better signalization, etc.); and (e) continuity of theexisting HOVL during construction. The ways in which the scope of the DEIS will addressthese concerns is described in Section 3.c.
Comment: Economic Impacts of Highway Reconstruction
Numerous commentors stated that construction of the proposed project would result insubstantial adverse impacts on the residential, commercial and industrial land uses in thesurrounding communities. Most of this related to the traffic concerns noted in the commentabove. Business owners stated that construction-related delays would slow down truck pick-upand delivery, make it harder for customers and employees to get to their locations, and ingeneral reduce the viability of their presen t locations near the Gowanus Expressway. Somecommentors mentioned concerns regarding a specific business or group of businesses (usuallythose with whom the commentor was affiliated), while others focused on areawide economicconcerns. Many called for measures (signage, traffic agents, etc.) to insure that (a) traffic wasnot diverted down into the community, and (b) vehicular access to local businesses wasmaintained during construction. Programs were requested to provide economic assistance (e.g.,low-interest loans) for businesses and property owners impacted by construction.
10
Comment: Long-Term Land Use and Economic Impacts of Highway
Many speakers at the scoping meetings stated that construction of the existing expressway,especially the viaduct section along 3rd Avenue in Sunset Park, had divided the community andhad a long-term adverse impact on the viability of the surrounding neighborhoods. In assessingthe potential impacts of reconstructing the viaduct, they wanted these local land use andeconomic impacts to be reflected in the DEIS, including the impacts on business activities,property values and future economic growth. In this context, when considering the tunnelalternative, these commentors called for the DEIS to include the expected positive economicimpact of the viaduct’s removal on growth along and near 3rd Avenue, on property values, andon property and other tax revenues generated in the community.
b. Non-DEIS Comments
Comment: Major Investment Study
Numerous individuals and groups commented that a project of this type and magnitude requiredthe completion of a Major Investment Study (MIS) prior to, or possibly simultaneous to,completion of the DEIS. The rationales given to support this position were: (a) the cost and sizeof the project, (b) that an MIS would identify the economic impacts of the project, (c) the plansfor a cross-harbor rail freight tunnel and a “Hub Port” container facility on the Brooklynwaterfront, and (d) that consideration of a tunnel alternative required an MIS. The commentorsindicated that all of these parallel proposals for transportation projects must be reflected in theDEIS.
FHWA and the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council have already determined that anMIS is not required for this project. The DEIS and FEIS will contain appropriate analyses toaddress these issues.
Comment: Community Engineer
Many of the participants at scoping meetings requested that NYSDOT provide funds for a“Community Engineer” who could provide the local community groups with an independentassessment of the often complex and lengthy documents produced during the EIS process.NYSDOT indicated that throughout the previous EA process and into the DEIS process, it hadprovided detailed assessments of all aspects of the project, responded to community requests toconsider project changes and held numerous, regularly scheduled meetings with communitygroups and elected officials. Given this history, and that this same close cooperation with thecommunity would continue, the role of Community Engineer is essentially being provided byNYSDOT and its overall project team.
The Brooklyn Borough President recently decided to provide funds for a community engineer towork with the Gowanus Expressway Task Force on the Gowanus Pro ject, and is presentlyworking with New York City DOT on the best method of selecting and retaining an appropriatefirm. NYSDOT will work cooperatively with whatever firm is selected by the Task Force.
11
c. Scope of DEIS
Based on the review of the extensive public comments made on the DEIS process, by localcitizens, businesses and var ious organizations and interest groups, as well as involved publicagencies, the scope of the DEIS has been defined. The following is a listing of the projectedscope for each section of the DEIS. The areas where the scope reflects the comments receivedduring the public scoping process are noted.
· Proposed Purpose & Need
The basic goals and purpose of the proposed project, as originally defined in the EA, restated inthe Scoping Information Package (January 1997) and presented above in Section 1.b, have notchanged. As discussed below, some of the actions previously proposed in the EA to meet thosegoals have been revised or refined based on further engineering studies. Based on scopingcomments, further studies by NYSDOT, and continued discussions with community groups andelected officials, new alternative actions have also been suggested
· Proposed Project Alternatives
The DEIS will include a detailed screening of all alternatives presented in the EA and sincemodified, as well as all reasonable alternatives requested for consideration during the scopingprocess. The DEIS will screen each of these concepts in the context of the project’s goals andobjectives. This screening process, the results of which will be presented in the DEIS, will selectfor detailed consideration only those alternatives found to be reasonably consistent with theproposed project’s goals and needs.
The following is a full listing of alternatives that were either defined during the EA process orwere added for consideration since the EA based on further engineering studies and discussionswith community groups and elected officials. As noted above, the DEIS will document theprocess by which alternatives were screened for detailed consideration in the DEIS.
« No Build Alternative. Under NEPA and SEQRA regulations, the DEIS isrequired to include a “No Build” or “No Action” alternative. The No Build“Maintenance” Alternative, as presented in the Scoping Information Package,”essentially means “Do Nothing” except continue the current practice of makingrepairs to the most serious areas of deterioration, such as patching holes in theconcrete deck and steel beams. However, the results of on-going monitoring ofthe Expressway indicate that the long-term viability of this type of “repair asneeded” approach must be re-evaluated, since the viaduct’s underlying structuralproblems would eventually make major rehabilitation or replacement of thistransportation facility inevitable. These issues will be fully discussed in theDEIS.
12
« Rehabilitation with Operational and Safety Improvements Alternative. Thisalternative would replace the deteriorated deck, rehab or replace structuralmembers between 6th Avenue and Clinton Street, and make majorimprovements to the highway’s interchanges (BQE-Gowanus, Gowanus-Prospect, Gowanus-Shore Pkwy); further refinements to this alternative havebeen under study by NYSDOT since the EA (e.g., 3rd Avenue access ramp,38th/39th Street access ramps, etc.), as discussed later in this section;
« Tunnel Alternatives. In response to comments in the scoping process, detailedassessments of possible tunnel alternatives are being performed as part of theDEIS process. These studies, being performed in close consultation with theGowanus Expressway Task Force, will have three phases:
· Phase 1. Potential tunnel routes and alignments will be identified,utilizing available data on subsurface conditions, utilities, buildingfoundations, subways, etc., to screen possible candidates in terms of keyengineering issues and potential impacts.
· Phase 2. If feasible routes are identified , these alternative routes willreceive a planning-level analysis. Preliminary engineering drawings willbe prepared which follow established design criteria and identifypossible portal locations, interchange configurations, right-of-wayrequirements and related preliminary design issues. Preliminaryassessments of the project’s construction duration and staging, short-term (during construction) and long-term traffic impacts, and potentialsocial, economic and environmental impacts will be completed. Capitaland operating cost ranges for both full and partial tunnel options, usingbore and cut-cover tunnel construction methods, will be prepared.
· Phase 3. The results of the first two phases will be reviewed with theGowanus Expressway Task Force, the RPA and others as appropriate.For any tunnel alternative deemed financable and cost-effective andwhich meets the project’s goals and objectives, more detailedengineering, environmental and socio-economic analyses will beperformed, consistent with the level prepared for other rehabilitation andreconstruction options receiving detailed consideration in the DEIS.
The DEIS will include the results of this tunnel review process, up to the levelwarranted by the three-phase assessment process noted above.
« Innovative Construction Techniques. In response to public concern over thepossible diversion of traffic into the surrounding community duringconstruction, and the projected length of the construction process, NYSDOT hasexplored a number of innovative ways of constructing the highway. Theseconcepts, which were summarized in the Scoping Information Package, included:
q four innovative construction methods of constructing and phasing the
13
basic rehabilitation project, and
q two other innovative construction methods -- relief viaduct aboveexisting structure and new bi-level structure -- which would result in asomewhat different highway viaduct than presently exists, and thereforedifferent alternatives.
The DEIS will assess and document these proposed construction alternatives.
« Access Re-evaluation. In response to requests made by community and businessgroups, NYSDOT will re-evaluate the findings in the EA regarding highwayaccess at the following locations:
q 38th/39th Street On-Ramps -- adding on-ramps from the vicinity of38th/39th Street to the inbound and outbound Gowanus expressway:these ramp concepts will be assessed in the DEIS; it is also assumed thatany other alternatives under consideration (e.g., innovative viaductconcepts, tunnel options) should similarly expand access to the highwayin the 38th/39th Street area;
q Red Hook-BQE Inbound Ramp -- proposed closing of the tunnel rampconnecting the BBT to the northbound BQE, as proposed in the EA; theclosing of this tunnel ramp is presently being reevaluated by NYSDOTand will be assessed in the DEIS;
q Third Avenue-Shore Parkway On-Ramp to Inbound Gowanus --revisions to the Shore Parkway/Third Avenue interchange presented inthe EA called for the Third Avenue on-ramp to be closed; based onfurther studies of this proposal, NYSDOT has decided that the ThirdAvenue access ramp should remain as part of any viaduct rehabilitationalternative, and will be retained as a key highway access point for theproject alternatives.
q Henry Street Pedestrian Bridge -- the EA indicated that this bridgemight have to be relocated, but further studies by NYSDOT haveidentified ways to keep this bridge in its present location; this same typeof pedestrian access will also be considered in the project alternativesunder review.
The results of these studies will be discussed and documented in the DEIS.
« Alternatives Addressed in the EA. The EA included detailed consideration of anumber of other project alternatives, including:
· Reconstruct Interstate on New Alignment;
· At-grade Controlled-access Interstate;
· At-grade Arterial Within Existing ROW;
14
· At-grade Arterial Within Existing ROW With LRT Line.
As with the other alternatives noted above, the DEIS will document the processby which these alternatives were screened against the project’s goals andobjectives, and only those that are selected will receive detailed considera tion inthe DEIS.
« Other Project Alternatives. A number of commentors expressed in terest insome of the other alternatives presented in the EA, and wanted them to beconsidered in the DEIS. As noted above, all alternatives presented in the EAwill be discussed in the DEIS, although only those deemed both reasonable andfeasible in the context of the project’s goals and objectives will receive detailedassessment in the DEIS. The scoping process indicated interest in various“waterfront” proposals, both at-grade and elevated, those that included railtransit within the reconstructed highway (e.g., the At-Grade Arterial WithinExisting ROW with LRT Line from the EA), “double-decking” or similaralternative viaduct designs, and the possible future tunneling of sections of theBQE north of the Gowanus Expressway study area (i.e., those passing throughCarrol Gardens and Brooklyn Heights). These and other project concepts willbe presented in the DEIS, along with an assessment of whether each conceptwarrants further study based on its reasonable consistency with the proposedproject’s goals and needs.
• Probable Impacts of Project Alternatives
« Land Use, Neighborhood Character & Socioeconomic Conditions. For thealternatives selected for detailed analysis, the DEIS will include a thoroughassessment of the existing land use and socio-economic conditions in theproject’s study area. This section will include compliance with the requirementsof Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice inMinority Populations and Low Income Populations, which assesses whether anyof the project alternatives receiving full consideration in the DEIS would havedisproportionally high and adverse effects on minority and low incomepopulations.
As noted under Section 3.a above, considerable concern was voiced during thescoping process regarding the potential impacts of the proposed project onproperty values, local employment levels and future development in thesurrounding communities. These concerns focused primarily on construction-related impacts, but also mentioned the possible long-term effects of re-establishing a highway that some commentors felt had divided the communityand suppressed development in ad jacent neighborhoods. (These latter commentswere typically given in relation to possible tunnel alternatives.)
Reflecting the considerable amount of concern mentioned in this area, and thefact that a wide range of possible alternatives are being considered, the DEISwill include an assessment of these types of local land use, development,economic and fiscal impacts. These will include impacts on the viability of
15
existing businesses, possible changes in local property values, and associatedlocal property and related business taxes. Each of the project alternatives willalso be assessed under common economic and cost-benefit criteria, taking intoaccount construction, right-of-way, operations and maintenance costs andrelated benefits to highway users due to reduced travel time, reduced accidents,and improved incident management.
« Traffic (Long-Term Impacts), Public Transit & Freight Considerations. TheDEIS will review the planning status of the trans-harbor rail freight tunnel, andthe Hub-Port for the Brooklyn waterfront. These proposals are presently underpreliminary review by a number of local and regional agencies. NYSDOT willassess the effects of these proposals on the Gowanus project. If these proposalsare not in design development stages sufficient for our study, developmentassumptions will be made in consultation with the agencies in charge of theseprojects to help us perform this analysis. This work will be incorporated into theoverall assessment of planned development in the area.
The DEIS will include an assessment of the area’s transit network under existingand future conditions, and the potential impact of the project’s alternatives tothose conditions. A number of commentors noted that improvements to varioustransit services in the Gowanus corridor or elsewhere (e.g., Staten Island ferry,various subway or bus service concepts) could help conditions on the GowanusExpressway. The DEIS will include a reevaluation of these and other types ofTransportation Systems Management (TSM) measures that could potentiallyimpact conditions in the Gowanus corridor. Continuation of Park-’n’-Ride lotsafter highway reconstruction is completed will be addressed, along with variousmethods of continuing HOV lane operations throughout the construction phase.
« Truck Traffic Issues. Many commentors noted the substantial number of truckstraveling on the highway and , more importantly, on local streets through theirneighborhoods. They wanted the DEIS to consider this issue in a number ofways, including (a) controlling diversion of trucks from the highway duringconstruction, and (b) the present ramp system and whether revisions to it couldreduce the use of local streets by trucks.
The EA included extensive analyses of freight movements in the Gowanuscorridor, by both truck freight and other freight modes. The DEIS will includean assessment of truck freight patterns in the Gowanus corridor, includingidentification of major truck generators in the area, and present and projectedtruck volumes on the highway and along key arterials during and afterconstruction. The extent to which proposed changes in the highway under eachalternative would alter the routing of trucks in the corridor (e.g., due to the38th/39th Street on-ramps) will be fully assessed, along with the associatedimpacts on traffic flow, air and noise quality, and related issues.
« Air Quality & Noise.
Air Quality. The general approach to the air quality analyses will be the same as
16
presented in the EA. The EA studies included microscale dispersion analysis todetermine the potential for the proposed project (either during construction or ona long-term basis) to have significant adverse impacts on carbon monoxide (CO)concentrations during peak traffic conditions. Predicted CO concentrations werethen compared against the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)for CO. Construction period assessments in the EA were performed for 12locations, focusing on those avenues and key cross streets most likely to beimpacted by diverted traffic. Analysis of the fully built project focused on fivelocations near those portions of the expressway with operational changes.
The same modeling procedures will be followed in the DEIS, although thenumber and location of CO analyses will likely be different than those in theEA, since (a) traffic diversion during construction is projected to be less due toinnovative construction procedures, (b) the operational changes for which theNYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) requires analysis will besomewhat different in the DEIS, and (c) some alternatives not considered in theEA may be analyzed in the DEIS. Under each alternative receiving detailedanalysis, the screening and selection of locations for analysis, and the associatedmodeling studies, will be performed following procedures outlined in the EPM.
As noted in Section 3.a above, concerns were raised about connections betweenair quality and health in the surrounding communities, bo th due to the highway’sreconstruction and its long-term presence in the community. In response to thesecomments, NYSDOT will do an assessment of particulate concentrations inareas near the expressway, and the potential of those concentrations to exceedthe health-based NAAQS for particulates. (The latest Federal guidance onparticulates, including the proposed change from PM10 to PM2.5 criteria, will befollowed in these studies.) The results of these studies will be documented in theDEIS.
As required under Federal and State regulations, conformity of the proposedproject with the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990 will alsobe documented.
Noise Analysis. The noise analysis in the DEIS will follow the procedures andmethods presented in the EPM. The EA included analyses of potential changesin ambient sound levels during construction and upon completion of the project.Seven locations directly adjacent to the existing viaduct, from the vicinity of theBBT/Hamilton Avenue interchange to the 7th Avenue ramp at 66th Street, wereanalyzed. Measures to potentially mitigate sound levels at various locations wereidentified and assessed. Noise impacts due to project construction -- both fromdiverted traffic and from construction equipment and activities -- were alsoaddressed. These same procedures, consistent with the EPM and applicableFederal guidelines, will be carried out of each of the project alternativesanalyzed in the DEIS.
« Cultural Resources. The assessment of potential impacts on historic andarchaeological resources in the project’s study area will be similar in detail and
17
format to the assessments included in the EA. These studies will thereforeinclude a review of all known historic and archaeological resources in theproject area, and an assessment of the extent to which these resources could bepotentially impacted by any of the proposed alternatives, both duringconstruction and after completion.
« Visual Character. The assessment of the visual environment within the projectarea under existing conditions, and the potential changes that the proposedproject alternatives would have on those conditions, will be included in theDEIS. This section will substantially follow the visual environment and impactassessments included in the EA. Those analyses, and those to be completed forthe DEIS, focused on the visual environment near the three main segments ofthe highway -- 92nd Street to Lief Erickson Park/65th Street, along the 3rdAvenue viaduct, and from the Prospect interchange to the BQE. The dominanceof the highway in those areas, and how the proposed project would alter thoseenvironments will then be assessed for each of the project alternatives.
« Water Resources & Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology. These analyses will besimilar in format and content to the sections on ecology and aquatic andterrestrial wildlife presented in the EA. The principal water resources withpotential involvement with the project are the Gowanus Canal and Creek and theGowanus Bay.
« Coastal Zone Management and Floodplains. These analyses will be similarin format and content to the Coastal Zone Management and FloodplainManagement sections of the EA. These studies focus on the project sconsistency with applicable coastal zone plans and programs of New York Cityand State, the possible impacts of the project’s construction or long-termoperation on floodplain conditions in the project area.
« Utilities and Other Infrastructure. The analyses in this section will be similarto the analyses included in the u tilities assessment included in the EA. Thesestudies will focus on the extent to which the proposed project alternatives wouldresult in the relocation or other impacts on area utilities.
« Hazardous Materials. This section will be similar in format and content to thesections on contaminated materials that were included in the EA. These studiesaddress the extent to which the proposed project would require construction inareas potentially contaminated by past industrial, transportation or commercialuses of the properties in question. Previously performed field surveys andsampling will be updated or expanded where needed, and measures to mitigatepotential problems will be identified.
« Energy. This section will assess the potential energy impacts of the proposedaction -- both energy used in construction of the various project alternatives andchanges in energy use by vehicles in the corridor (primarily due to higheraverage speeds and less diversion onto alternative routes).
18
« Construction Impacts. As in the EA, the DEIS will include assessments ofconstruction-period traffic, noise and air quality conditions that were reviewedearlier in this scope.
As in the EA, the potential for traffic effects during construction will receive adetailed assessment for the feasib le alternatives. The studies will estimate theamount of traffic diversion from the highway that is projected to occur duringconstruction, assign that diverted traffic to the local roadway network based onpast studies and surveys of drivers’ origin-destination patterns and theirreactions to similar construction events. The traffic effects will then be assessedand measures to limit the amount of diversion and to smooth the flow of trafficon local streets will then be identified and assessed. The amount ofconstruction-related traffic diversion to be predicted in the DEIS is expected tobe considerably less than the level estimated in the EA, due to the developmentof innovative construction techniques that will enable a greater portion of thehighway’s capacity to be maintained during critical peak traffic periods.
The applicability of mitigation concepts raised in scoping to help reduceconstruction period traffic problems -- e.g., traffic agents, interactive signage,etc. -- will be addressed. Finally, a considerable number of comments wereraised regarding construction safety concerns due to traffic near sensitive landuses -- schools, senior centers, parks, etc. The DEIS will include an assessmentof this issue, and (where needed) will identify and assess measures to mitigatethese types of safety concerns.
The DEIS will also include an assessment of construction period effects in eachof the key social, economic and environmental impact areas, including the issuesof air and noise quality and land use and local economic conditions, which werementioned most frequently during the DEIS scoping process.
« Section 4(f) Evaluation. A Draft Section 4(f) evaluation is required since theproposed project would potentially take publicly-owned recreational space fortransportation purposes. The Section 4(f) evaluation will be similar in formatand content to the equivalent section included in the EA. The analysis in the EAidentified the potential need to acquire portions of three park areas to enableimprovements to be made in highway ramps in those areas -- the Vincent J. DiMattina Playground, and two unnamed park areas: one at 3rd and HamiltonAvenues, and a second at 7th Avenue and 65th Street. The Section 4(f)evaluation in the DEIS will reassess the need for those areas, or any other areasassociated with the proposed project alternatives. The usage levels andconditions of these park areas, the impacts of the proposed project alternativeson these parks (access, noise, air quality, etc.), and the potential for otheralternatives to avoid these impacts or action to minimize the harm to these areaswill also be assessed.
« Other Sections of the DEIS. The DEIS will also include the followingadditional sections:
19
· Executive Summary -- summarizes the proposed project s purpose andneeds, the identified project alternatives, the projected impacts of thosealternatives, and any required mitigation measures, as well as briefsummaries of all other sections of the DEIS;
· Relation Between Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment &Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity -- relatesthe short term beneficial and adverse impacts during construction withthe projected changes in the long-term productivity of the facility and itsrelation to local and regional goals;
· Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources -- brieflysummarizes the natural and man-made resources that would beirreversibly used in develop ing the proposed project;
· Summary of Impacts of Proposed Project Alternatives -- summarizes intabular and text format the beneficial and adverse impacts of each of theproject alternatives and presented in the DEIS’s impact section;
· Summary of Mitigation Commitments -- summarizes the measuresidentified under each project alternative to mitigate projected impacts,either related to construction activities on to long-term project impacts;
· Agency and Public Participation and Coordination -- summarizes theefforts by NYSDOT prior to and throughout the DEIS process to involvethe public and to coordinate with transportation and other agencies.
These sections are standard components of any DEIS for this type of project,and they will be prepared in a manner consistent with applicable state andfederal guidelines.
« Other Issue Raised in the Scoping Process. The DEIS scoping processgenerated a wide-ranging set of comments on almost every section of the DEIS.Many of them stated concerns and scoping issues that were already scheduledfor full assessment in the DEIS (e.g., traffic impacts, assessment of constructiontraffic, consideration of other projects in the area, analysis of air and noisequality impacts, etc.). There were calls for continued, close and responsiveinteraction with community groups throughout the DEIS process -- somethingthat NYSDOT has done throughout the EA process and will continue to doduring the EIS process. Each of those comments has not been called out in thisreport, as they are already incorporated into the DEIS scope and associatedplans for public involvement and participation. While these comments did notraise new issues, they did emphasize for NYSDOT the importance of theseissues to the community, and provided critical localized input about institutionswithin the community that will help focus the DEIS’s analyses.
4. PROJECTED SCHEDULE FOR EIS PROCESS
20
The DEIS will be prepared consistent with all applicable Federal and State requ irements andguidelines. Upon review and acceptance of the DEIS by FHWA, the document is published andmade available for public review. A number of public hearings will be held on the DEIS, similarin format to the recent scoping meetings. At those hearings, members of the public as well asinterested groups and agencies will submit oral and written comments on the DEIS. The FinalEIS will include any changes or additions required in the EIS based on these comments, as wellas written responses to each comment. After the FEIS is accepted by FHWA, it is published forpublic review. Based on the content of the FEIS, the FHWA will prepare requiredenvironmental “findings” and a “Record of Decision” indicating the conclusions of the EISprocess and the grounds on which a particular alternative is to be selected, and grant final designapproval for the selected alternative. It is presently projected that the DEIS will be circulatedfor public review in the Spring of 1998.
5. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS DURING SCOPING PROCESS
The four tables provided below summarize the oral and written scoping comments that weregenerated during the public scoping process. These tables list the individuals who made thecomments, their affiliation, and the topics with which each commentor was concerned.
These tables include:
• Table 1 lists the names of the individuals who spoke at a scoping meeting. For eachcommentor, the location of the scoping meeting at which that person spoke (1 =Borough Hall, 2 = St. Michael’s Church, etc.), and the time of the session (A =afternoon, B = evening) are noted. If the person in question is speaking on someoneelse’s behalf, this is also indicated. Each commentor is then assigned a number, whichis then used in Table 2.
• Table 2 summarizes the comments made by each speaker (whose numbers are listedalong the left-hand side) according to the common topics of concern, which are listedalong the top. An “X” indicates that the speaker in question expressed either an interestor concern with the given topic.
• Table 3 is similar to Table 1, except that it lists the names of individuals who madewritten scoping comments. The “Affiliation” column lists the group or organization thatthe speaker represents or is a member of, or the group or individual on whose behalf thecomments were submitted. Each submitter was assigned a “Packet # ” which was usedto organize the review of the large volume of written comments.
• Table 4, identical in form to Table 2 , indicates that the written comments in questionexpressed either an interest or concern with the given topic.
Table 1
COMMENTERS AT THE SCOPING MEETINGS CONCERNING THE GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT
Site Location Commenter # Commenter Name Commenter for
1A 1 Howard Golden1A 2 Ralph Perfetto1A 3 Howard Graubard Senator Connor1A 4 Robert Cassara1A 5 Frederick Hilles1A 6 Meg Braun1A 7 JoAnne Simon1A 8 Blaine Palmer1A 9 Carol Olson1A 10 Louise Finney1B 11 Kenneth Fisher1B 12 Celia Cacace1B 13 Elizabeth Daly1B 14 Lawrence Stelter1B 15 Ellen Colyer1B 16 Bill Galligan1B 17 Joan Millman1B 18 Mohammed Adamjee1B 19 Richard Gualtieri1B 20 Walter Goodman1B 21 Mark Leger2A 22 Honarable Joan Griffin McCabe2A 23 Buddy Scotto2A 24 Maryann Maltese Vincent Gentile2A 25 Tracy McDonagh Sal Albanese2A 26 Tracy McDonagh Carole Snyder2A 27 Noel Feustel2A 28 Richard Hernandez Martin Connor2A 29 S. M. Kojina-Allen2A 30 Charles F. Otey2A 31 Jane McGroarty2A 32 Daniel Dray2A 33 Helen Soloski2A 34 Richard Cusumano2A 35 Robert Bernard2A 36 Beatrice De Sapio2A 37 John Logue2A 38 Edward Wade2A 39 Rick Gimeranez2B 40 Honorable Nydia Velazquez2B 41 Amanda Bonilla Felix W. Ortiz2B 42 Albert Appleton2B 43 Steve Faust2B 44 Dominick Massa2B 45 Ronald LaClaustra
Table 1
COMMENTERS AT THE SCOPING MEETINGS CONCERNING THE GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT
Site Location Commenter # Commenter Name Commenter for
2B 46 Ben Meskin2B 47 Ann Grieco2B 48 Victoria Fuentes2B 49 Arthur Springer2B 50 Carol Mezzacappa2B 51 Craig Gabrian2B 52 Eleanor Preiss2B 53 Jack Deacon2B 54 Paul Harrison2B 55 Margaret Hughes2B 56 Robert Cassara2B 57 Lucy Lopez2B 58 Susan Peebles2B 59 John McGettrick2B 60 Elizabeth Yeampierre2B 61 Marilyn Kneeland2B 62 Sister Mary Geraldine2B 63 Carlos Salamanca2B 64 Eddie Bautista2B 65 Angel Rodriguez2B 66 Susan Matloff2B 67 Larry Littlefield2B 68 Mariano Chavez3A 69 Thomas Jost Guy Molinari3A 70 Mark Palladino John A. Fusco3A 71 Vincent Gentile3A 72 George Haikalis3B 73 Bob Ballard, Jr.3B 74 Greg Kisloff Robert R. Crawford4B 75 Salvatore F. Albanese4B 76 James F. Brennan4B 77 Elizabeth Rose Daly4B 78 JoAnne Simon4B 79 Buddy Scotto4B 80 Jerry Armer4B 81 Frank Verderame4B 82 Colleen Giunta4B 83 Robert Bernard4B 84 Ben Meskin4B 85 Stephen DiBrienza4B 86 Paul Harrison4B 87 Edie Stone4B 88 Nancy Felella4B 89 Carl Picco4B 90 Anthony Puglisi
Table 1
COMMENTERS AT THE SCOPING MEETINGS CONCERNING THE GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECT
Site Location Commenter # Commenter Name Commenter for
5B 91 Bruce Solomon Vincent Gentile5B 92 Chuck Otey5B 93 Bob Cassero5B 94 Cody McLone5B 95 Phyllis O'neill5B 96 Robert Bernard5B 97 Victoria Hotnuo6A 98 Naomi Leisman6A 99 Michael Primeggia6A 100 Michele Bager6A 101 Karen Alexander6A 102 Lou Venech6A 103 David Fogel6A 104 Palmer Reale6A 105 John Ardizone6A 106 Joseph Cocozza6A 107 Gonzalo Corredor6A 104 Paul Gawkowski
Site Locations & Sessions1 Borough Hall, Brooklyn2 St. Michaels Church, Brooklyn3 New Dorp High School, State Island4 St. Mary's Church, Brooklyn5 Our Lady of Angels Auditorium, Brooklyn6 NYSDOT, Region 11, Long Island CityA Afternoon SessionB Evening Session
Table 2
GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECTMATRIX OF SCOPING MEETINGS ISSUES
SITE SPEAKER ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECO. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRANSIT FREIGHT MISCELLANEOUS
Tun
nel
Ful
l Eva
luat
ion
of th
e A
lt.
Alte
rnat
ive
1
Alte
rnat
ive
2
Alte
rnat
ive
3-5
Alte
rnat
ive
6A-6
B
1st A
ve. /
Wat
erfr
ont A
lign.
Gro
und
Leve
l
Con
gest
ion
Pol
lutio
n/A
ir Q
ualit
y
Gen
eral
Qua
lity
of L
ife
Noi
se
Hea
lth/A
sthm
a/de
aths
Eco
nom
ic Im
pact
Gen
eral
Bus
ines
s / I
nd. I
mpa
ct
Spe
cific
Are
as/L
ocat
ions
Tra
ffic
Impa
ct S
tudy
Tra
ffic
Gro
wth
/Cou
nts
Bet
ter
Tra
ffic
Sig
nals
Tol
ls
Sch
ool S
afet
y Is
sues
Con
stru
ctio
n D
amag
es
Cha
ngin
g Jo
b P
atte
rns
Gen
eral
Saf
ety
Issu
es
Bic
ycle
Pat
h
Par
king
Issu
es
Sub
way
Ligh
t Rai
l
Bus
/HO
V L
ane
Rai
l
Tru
ckin
g
Com
mun
ity E
ngin
eer
M. I
. S.
OTHER
1A 1 X X X X X X X X X1A 2 X X X X X X X1A 3 X X X X X X X1A 4 X X1A 5 X X X1A 6 X X1A 7 X X X X X X X X X1A 8 X X1A 9 X1A 10 X X X X X X X1B 11 X X1B 12 X X X X1B 13 X X X X X X1B 14 X X X X1B 15 X1B 16 X X X X X X X1B 17 X X X1B 18 X1B 19 X X X1B 20 X X X X X1B 21 X X The Organic Community Garden.
2A 22 X X X X X X X X X X X X X2A 23 X X X X X X X X2A 24 X2A 25 X X X2A 26 X X X X2A 27 X X X X X2A 28 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X2A 29 X2A 30 X X X X X2A 31 X X X X X2A 32 X X X X X X X X Surveys returned
2A 33 X X X X X X2A 34 X X X2A 35 X X X X X X X2A 36 X X X X X X X X X X2A 37 X X X X X2A 38 X X X X X X X2A 39 X X X X X X X X X X2B 40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X One more scoping meeting in Bklyn.
2B 41 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Table 2
GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECTMATRIX OF SCOPING MEETINGS ISSUES
SITE SPEAKER ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECO. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRANSIT FREIGHT MISCELLANEOUS
Tun
nel
Ful
l Eva
luat
ion
of th
e A
lt.
Alte
rnat
ive
1
Alte
rnat
ive
2
Alte
rnat
ive
3-5
Alte
rnat
ive
6A-6
B
1st A
ve. /
Wat
erfr
ont A
lign.
Gro
und
Leve
l
Con
gest
ion
Pol
lutio
n/A
ir Q
ualit
y
Gen
eral
Qua
lity
of L
ife
Noi
se
Hea
lth/A
sthm
a/de
aths
Eco
nom
ic Im
pact
Gen
eral
Bus
ines
s / I
nd. I
mpa
ct
Spe
cific
Are
as/L
ocat
ions
Tra
ffic
Impa
ct S
tudy
Tra
ffic
Gro
wth
/Cou
nts
Bet
ter
Tra
ffic
Sig
nals
Tol
ls
Sch
ool S
afet
y Is
sues
Con
stru
ctio
n D
amag
es
Cha
ngin
g Jo
b P
atte
rns
Gen
eral
Saf
ety
Issu
es
Bic
ycle
Pat
h
Par
king
Issu
es
Sub
way
Ligh
t Rai
l
Bus
/HO
V L
ane
Rai
l
Tru
ckin
g
Com
mun
ity E
ngin
eer
M. I
. S.
OTHER
2B 42 X X X X2B 43 X X X X X X X X2B 44 X X X2B 45 X X X X2B 46 X X X X X X X More scoping meetings in Bklyn.
2B 47 X X X X X2B 48 X X X X X X2B 49 X X X X2B 50 X X X X X X X X X X X X X2B 51 X X X X X X X2B 52 X X X X2B 53 X X Give the community back to the people. Consider 1st Avenue.
2B 54 X X X X X X X X X X X X2B 55 X X X X X X X2B 56 X X X X X X X X X2B 57 X X X X X X2B 58 X X X X X X2B 59 X X X X2B 60 X X X X X X2B 61 X X X X X X2B 62 X X X X X X X X X X2B 63 X X X X X X2B 64 X X X X X X X X X X X X X2B 65 X X X X X X X X X2B 66 X X X X X X X X X2B 67 X X2B 68 X X X3A 69 X X X X X X X Improved SI Ferry & Railway Services.
3A 70 X X X X X X X X3A 71 X X X X3A 72 X X X X X X X3B 73 X X X X3B 74 X X X X X4B 75 X X X X X X Info.should appear regulary in the press
4B 76 X X X X X Tunnel option has lower life-cycle costs
4B 77 X Use engineering students to study new alternatives
4B 78 X X Use engineering students to study new alternatives
4B 79 X X X X X X Gowanus needs a Calming Study
4B 80 X X The State needs an incident mgm system that works.
4B 81 X X X X X X4B 82 X X X
Table 2
GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECTMATRIX OF SCOPING MEETINGS ISSUES
SITE SPEAKER ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECO. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRANSIT FREIGHT MISCELLANEOUS
Tun
nel
Ful
l Eva
luat
ion
of th
e A
lt.
Alte
rnat
ive
1
Alte
rnat
ive
2
Alte
rnat
ive
3-5
Alte
rnat
ive
6A-6
B
1st A
ve. /
Wat
erfr
ont A
lign.
Gro
und
Leve
l
Con
gest
ion
Pol
lutio
n/A
ir Q
ualit
y
Gen
eral
Qua
lity
of L
ife
Noi
se
Hea
lth/A
sthm
a/de
aths
Eco
nom
ic Im
pact
Gen
eral
Bus
ines
s / I
nd. I
mpa
ct
Spe
cific
Are
as/L
ocat
ions
Tra
ffic
Impa
ct S
tudy
Tra
ffic
Gro
wth
/Cou
nts
Bet
ter
Tra
ffic
Sig
nals
Tol
ls
Sch
ool S
afet
y Is
sues
Con
stru
ctio
n D
amag
es
Cha
ngin
g Jo
b P
atte
rns
Gen
eral
Saf
ety
Issu
es
Bic
ycle
Pat
h
Par
king
Issu
es
Sub
way
Ligh
t Rai
l
Bus
/HO
V L
ane
Rai
l
Tru
ckin
g
Com
mun
ity E
ngin
eer
M. I
. S.
OTHER
4B 83 X X X X Education & enforcement to Sunset Park residents
4B 84 X X X X X X4B 85 X X X X X X4B 86 X X X X Consider Koscousko & LI corridor as part of MIS
4B 87 X X X X X4B 88 X X 9th Street is too narrow for 2-way traffic
4B 89 X4B 90 X X5B 91 X X X5B 92 X X X X X X X5B 93 X X X5B 94 X5B 95 Should document everything.
5B 96 X X5B 97 X6A 98 X X6A 99 X X6A 100 X X X6A 101 X X X X6A 102 X X6A 103 X X X X X6A 104 X X X X6A 105 X6A 106 X6A 107 X6A 104 XSite Locations & Sessions
1 Borough Hall, Brooklyn
2 St. Michaels Church, Brooklyn
3 New Dorp High School, State Island
4 St. Mary's Church, Brooklyn
5 Our Lady of Angels Auditorium, Brooklyn
6 NYSDOT, Region 11, Long Island City
A Afternoon Session
B Evening Session
Table 3
DEIS Scoping MeetingsWritten Comments
Pack # Last Name First Name Affiliation1 Albanese Sal F. New York City Council
2 Anastasi J.J. PASCO
3 Annonymous Resident
4 Appleton Albert F. Regional Plan Association
5 Armer Jerry Cobble Hill Association
6 Asciutto JoAnn Principal - PS 314
7 Baer Kenneth J. Resident
8 Balboza Sandy Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association
9 Basile Robert J. LWP Lucky Window Products
10 Bell Sandra Bay Ridge Sunset Park Dialysis Center
11 Berger Karyl Resident
12-14 Bernard Robert 72nd Precinct Community Council President
15 Bonilla Amanda Assemblyman Felix W. Ortiz
16 Borrone Lillian The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
17 Boyle Robert Con Edison
18 Burke G. Gregory Prospect Expressway Committee
19 Caldwell Marion L. MTA Bridges and Tunnels
20,21 Cassara Robert Resident
22 Clemente Frank Clem Snacks, Inc.
23 Cogen Nancy Resident
24-26 Connor Martin New York State Senate
27 Crockenberg Edie Resident
28 Daly Elizabeth Rose Resident
29 Davidson Peter Davidson Pipe Supply Co., Inc.
30 DeCorato Joseph Cagney Industries Ltd.
31 DeLuca Carolyn Community Board 10
32,33 Desapio Beatrice Community Board Chairperson
34 Deutsch Itchie Ace Surgical Supply Co.
35 Diamondstone Kenneth Resident
36,37 Dray Danial Southwest Brooklyn Industrial Development Corp.
38 Durso Deanna Pork Packers, Inc.
39 Feldman Arlene B. Federal Aviation Administration
40 Ferguson John J. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
41 Figliolia Alfonso Sunset Industrial Park Associates
42 Forni Lawrence Teacher IS 259
43 Fusco R. Ben Creative Energies, Inc.
Table 3
Pack # Last Name First Name Affiliation44 Gabrian Craig Young Dancers in Repertoir Co-Director
45 Gandolfo M. Resident
46 Geraldine Sister Mary Center for Family Life Director
47-49 Giordano Tony Sunset Park Restoration
50,51 Golden Howard Borough of Brooklyn President
52 Haggerty James W. Corps of Engineers, New York District
53 Haikalis George Auto-Free New York
54 Hallmark Rufus Resident
55 Hanan Martin Ceramic World
56 Hargrove Robert W. The Environmental Protection Agency
57 Harrison Paul Transportation Alternatives
58 Hayes Kevin F. Resident
59 Hernandez Richard NYS Senator Martin Connor
59a Hevesi Alan G. NYC Controller
60,61 Hilles Fredrick W. Atlantic Avenue Association Local Development Corp.
62 Holt Kenneth W. National Center for Environmental Health
63 Hughes Margaret Neighbors Envisioning the Waterfront
64 Jones George H. Resident
65 Jost Thomas Borough Pres. Guy V. Molinari
66,67 Kaiserman Carl B. ROSTAS, Park Slope Civic Council Inc.
68 Kassof Gary First Coast Guard District Chief
69 Ketcham Brian Community Consulting Services, Inc.
70,71 Kneeland Marilyn A. Resident
72 Lapp Floyd NYC Dept. of City Planning
73 Livoti Philip Apsco Enterprises
74 Lopez Lucy Resident
75 Maltese Maryann NYS Senator Vincent Gentile
76 Matloff Susan Female District Leader - 51st AD
77 McCabe Joan Griffen City Council Member
78 McGroarty Jane The Brooklyn Heights Association
79 McLoughlin Anita Young Dancers in Repertoir Parent
80 Mead Lawrence Mead & Josipovich, Inc.
81 Mezzacappa Carol Young Dancers in Repertoir Director
82 Miller Pam Resident
83 Millman Joan Democratic District Leader
84 Molinari Susan Congresswoman
85 Muir John C. Brooklyn Center for the Urban Environment
86 Murphy Robert A. Wire-O Binding Co., Inc.
Table 3
Pack # Last Name First Name Affiliation87 Nadler et al US Representatives for Gowanus Project Area
88 New York Cross Harbor Railroad
89 O'Hara Elizabeth Resident
90 Paci Bruce Utrecht Manufacturing Corp.
91 Palinkas Robert Mariposa Products Corporation
92 Palmer Blaine Resident
93 Reed Sheryl Young Dancers in Repertoir Parent
94 Reichman Harry The Maramont Corporation
95 Reuter Lawrence G. MTA New York City Transit
96 Rittgers Jon Deputy Regional Administrator - USDOC
97 Robles Genoveva Resident
98 Rodgers Rebecca J. Advisory Council On Historic Preservation
99 Rodriguez Angel Democratic State Committee
100 Salamanca Carlos Hispanic Young People's Alternatives
101 Santucci Gina NYC Landmarks Preservation Commision
102 S'Dao Richard Silly Phillie Creations Inc.
103 Seligman M. Lowel-Light Manufacturing
104 Sillaro Santo N. Sillaro Sons
105,106 Simon Jo Anne Boerum Hill Association
106a Simon et al Attendees of Gowanus Scoping Meeting
107 Smith Patricia S. Member of the Brown Hill Association
108 Snyder Carole A. American Lung Association of Brooklyn
109 Spessot Julius Juno Chef's
110 Springer Arthur Asthma/Emphysema Network
111 Theler Jean Resident
112 van Slyke Irene Resident
113 Vazquez Florence Resident
114 Velazquez Nydia M. Congresswoman
115 Verderame Frank First Place Tri-Block Association
116 Walsh Robert J. Lutheran Medical Center
117 Wheeler William MTA Metropolitan Transportaion Authority
118 Yeampierre Elizabeth C. United Puerto Rican Organization of Sunset Park
Table 4
GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECTMATRIX OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS
Written Com. ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECO. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRANSIT FREIGHT MISCELLANEOUS
Tun
nel
Ful
l Eva
luat
ion
of th
e A
lt.
Alte
rnat
ive
1
Alte
rnat
ive
2
Alte
rnat
ive
3-5
Alte
rnat
ive
6A-6
B
1st A
ve. /
Wat
erfr
ont A
lign.
Gro
und
Leve
l
Con
gest
ion
Pol
lutio
n/A
ir Q
ualit
y
Gen
eral
Qua
lity
of L
ife
Noi
se
Hea
lth/A
sthm
a/de
aths
Eco
nom
ic Im
pact
Gen
eral
Bus
ines
s / I
nd. I
mpa
ct
Spe
cific
Are
as/L
ocat
ions
Tra
ffic
Impa
ct S
tudy
Tra
ffic
Gro
wth
/Cou
nts
Bet
ter
Tra
ffic
Sig
nals
Tol
ls
Sch
ool S
afet
y Is
sues
Con
stru
ctio
n D
amag
es
Cha
ngin
g Jo
b P
atte
rns
Gen
eral
Saf
ety
Issu
es
Bic
ycle
Pat
h
Acc
iden
ts
Par
king
Issu
es
Sub
way
Ligh
t Rai
l
Bus
/HO
V L
ane
Rai
l
Tru
ckin
g
Com
mun
ity E
ngin
eer
M. I
. S.
OTHER
1 X X X X X X X X X X X Info.should appear regulary in the press
2 X X X3 X X X X X Anonymous
4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X The proposal to add a lane to the start of the BQE
6 X X7 X X X X X X X8 X X X X X X X X X X Include Atlantic Ave. in Study
9 X X No tolls at Battery Tunnel
10 X X X11 X X12 X X X X X X X X X X13 X X14 X X X X Education & enforcement to Sunset Park residents
15 X X16 X X17 X X X18 X X19 Will cooperate on study
20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X21 X X X X X X X X X22 X X X X23 X24 X X X X X X X X X Consider mass transit options (not specific)
25 X X X26 X X X X X X X X X27 X X X X X28 X X X X X X Consider an engineering student for new alternative.
29 X X X Construct upper level
30 X X X Construct upper level
31 X X32 X X X X X X X X X X Make 38th/39th Street Exit full interchange
33 X X X X X X X X X X34 X X35 X X X X X X36 X X X X X X X X Surveys returned
37 X X X X X X X X Surveys returned
38 X X X39 No comments at this time
40 Will participate as necessary
41 X X X X
Table 4
GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECTMATRIX OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS
Written Com. ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECO. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRANSIT FREIGHT MISCELLANEOUS
Tun
nel
Ful
l Eva
luat
ion
of th
e A
lt.
Alte
rnat
ive
1
Alte
rnat
ive
2
Alte
rnat
ive
3-5
Alte
rnat
ive
6A-6
B
1st A
ve. /
Wat
erfr
ont A
lign.
Gro
und
Leve
l
Con
gest
ion
Pol
lutio
n/A
ir Q
ualit
y
Gen
eral
Qua
lity
of L
ife
Noi
se
Hea
lth/A
sthm
a/de
aths
Eco
nom
ic Im
pact
Gen
eral
Bus
ines
s / I
nd. I
mpa
ct
Spe
cific
Are
as/L
ocat
ions
Tra
ffic
Impa
ct S
tudy
Tra
ffic
Gro
wth
/Cou
nts
Bet
ter
Tra
ffic
Sig
nals
Tol
ls
Sch
ool S
afet
y Is
sues
Con
stru
ctio
n D
amag
es
Cha
ngin
g Jo
b P
atte
rns
Gen
eral
Saf
ety
Issu
es
Bic
ycle
Pat
h
Acc
iden
ts
Par
king
Issu
es
Sub
way
Ligh
t Rai
l
Bus
/HO
V L
ane
Rai
l
Tru
ckin
g
Com
mun
ity E
ngin
eer
M. I
. S.
OTHER
42 X X X Park n' Ride lot in Staten Island to Bayridge subway
43 X X X X44 X X X X X X45 X X Home damaged by traffic conditions
46 X X X X X X X X X47 Concerned that disreputable contractors not be used
4849 X X X X X X X X X X Community input is necessary
50 X X X X X X X X X51 X X X X X X X X X52 Need permit to dredge canal
53 X X X X X X X54 X X X X55 X X X X56 X X57 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Consider Koscousko & LI corridor as part of MIS
58 X X X X59 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X60 X X X61 X X X62 X X X X X X X63 X X X64 X X X X X X X Improved SI Ferry & Railway Services.
65 X X X66 X X X Consider life-cycle cost alternatives
67 Permit needed from Coast Guard for canal work
68 X X X X X X X X X69 X X X X X X70 X X X71 Willing to participate in study
72 X X X73 X X X X X X74 X75 X X X X X X X X X76 X X X X X X X X X X X X X77 X78 X X X X X79 X X X X80 X X X X81 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X82 X X
Table 4
GOWANUS EXPRESSWAY I-278 PROJECTMATRIX OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS
Written Com. ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIO-ECO. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TRANSIT FREIGHT MISCELLANEOUS
Tun
nel
Ful
l Eva
luat
ion
of th
e A
lt.
Alte
rnat
ive
1
Alte
rnat
ive
2
Alte
rnat
ive
3-5
Alte
rnat
ive
6A-6
B
1st A
ve. /
Wat
erfr
ont A
lign.
Gro
und
Leve
l
Con
gest
ion
Pol
lutio
n/A
ir Q
ualit
y
Gen
eral
Qua
lity
of L
ife
Noi
se
Hea
lth/A
sthm
a/de
aths
Eco
nom
ic Im
pact
Gen
eral
Bus
ines
s / I
nd. I
mpa
ct
Spe
cific
Are
as/L
ocat
ions
Tra
ffic
Impa
ct S
tudy
Tra
ffic
Gro
wth
/Cou
nts
Bet
ter
Tra
ffic
Sig
nals
Tol
ls
Sch
ool S
afet
y Is
sues
Con
stru
ctio
n D
amag
es
Cha
ngin
g Jo
b P
atte
rns
Gen
eral
Saf
ety
Issu
es
Bic
ycle
Pat
h
Acc
iden
ts
Par
king
Issu
es
Sub
way
Ligh
t Rai
l
Bus
/HO
V L
ane
Rai
l
Tru
ckin
g
Com
mun
ity E
ngin
eer
M. I
. S.
OTHER
83 X X X84 X X X85 X X X86 X X X X87 X88 X X X X89 X X X90 X X X X91 X X X X92 X X93 X X X94 X X X X95 X X X Include transit alternatives in any option
9697 X X X X X98 No historic properties noted
99 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X100 X X X X X X101 Willing to participate
102 X X X X103 X X X X104 X X X X105 X X X X X X X X X X Consider an engineering student for new alternative.
106 X X X X X X X107 X X108 X X X X109 X X X X110 X X X X111 X X112 X X X X113 X X X114 X115 X X X X X X116117 X X X X118 X X X X X X