Riverside South FEIS 2

/
RIVERSIDE
: .:,..
SOU T H·
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
STATEMENT
CEQR No. as-253M
Section II.)
Through
End
CEQR CONTACTS
Mr. Joseph W. Ketas
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Environmental Assessment
Department of Environmental Protection
59-17 Junction Boulevard, 11 th Floor
Elmhurst, New York 11373
(718) 595-4409
Ms. Annette M. Barbaccla
Director
Environmental Assessment and Review Division
Department of aty Planning
22 Reade Street, Room 4E
New York, New York 10007
(212) 720-3420 .
PREPARED BY
Allee King Rosen &- Fleming, Inc.
Philip Habib &- Associates;
Slve, paget &- Riesel --- Counsel
;.. : ..\.
October '992
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
FIRAt ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CEQR No. as-253M
Oct;o'ber 11. 1992
CEQR CONTACTS
Mr .. Joseph W. Ketas Ms: Annette M. Barbaccia

Assistant Commissioner Director
Office of Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment and
Department of Environmental Protection Review DiviSion
59-17 Junction Boulevard, 11th Floor Departmenc of City Planning
glmhurst, New York 11373 22 Reade Street, Room 4E
(718) 595-4409 New YorK, New York 10007
(212) 720-3420
Prepared for: Penn Yards Associaces

prepared by: Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc~
Philip Habib & Associates
PRE PARERS OF THE EIS
SPORSOK. PENN YARDS ASSOCIATES

725 FI~H AVENUE
NEW' YORK, NY 10022
212-832-2000
ALLEE KING ROSEN & FLEMING, INC.
117 EAST 29th STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10016
212-696-0670
TRAFFIC CONSULTANT PHILIP HABIB & AssoCIATES
39 WEST 29th STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10001
212-686-0091
SIVE., PAGET & RIESEL, P. C.
460 PARK AVENuE
NEW' YORK, NY
212-421-2150
HAZARDOUS MATERIAlS AKR.F, INC.
CONSULTANT 117 EAST 29th STREEt
NEW YORK, NY 10016
21t-696-0670
SUPPLDENTAllY Alll QUALITY WALTER G. HOYDYSH
STUDIES ESSCO
45.-43 37th STREET
LONG ISLAND CITY, NY 11101
718-786-3948
SHADOW DIACllAlIS AND VIa ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION CENtER
COJllUJ)OU GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AND URBAN POLICY
NEW' SCHOOL FoR SOCIAL RESEARCH
65 FIFTH AVENuE
. NEW YO~, NY 10021
lAWLER, MATUSKY & SKELLY
ONE BLUE HILL PLAZA
PEARL RIVER, NY 10965
914';735-8300-
VENTIlATION STUDIES PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.
ONE PENN PLAZA .-
NEW YORK; NY 10119
212-465-5251
CEQR REVIEW AGENCIES DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW DIVISION
22 READE STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007
ANNETTE M. BARBACCIA, DIRECTOR
JEREMIAH H. ~ANDREVA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
59-17 JUNCTION BOULEVARD
ELMHURST, NY 11373·5107,
JOSEPH W. KETAS, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ANGELA LICATA, PROJECt MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANsPORTATION
OFFICE OF PROJECT ANALYSIS
40 WORTH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10013
HENRY COLON; DIRECTOR
·MICHAEL GRAHAM, PROJECT MANAGER
FINAL ENVIRONMENtAL IMPACT' STATEMENT
RlVEllSIDE SOUTH
TABLE or CONTENTS
VOLUME _I.
FOREWoRD F-l
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR.Y
ClIlAPl."ER. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-1
A. PROJECT OVERVIEW- 1-1
B. SACKGROUND to THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1-3
C. DESCRIPTION of THE PROPOSED paOJECT 1-9
D. RELOCATION OF THE MILLER HIGHWAY

E. REQUIR~D ACTIONS 1-33
CBAPTE& II. EXISTING AND FDTUllE CONDITIONS AND pllOilABtE IHPACTS II.A-1
OF THE PROPOSED noJlCT
A. INTRODUCTION I1.A-l
lL LAND USE AND ZONING n.B-1
lntr()duction II.B-1
Issues and Approach 11.S-1
Study Area Definition II.B-l
Recent Development History 11".S-2
Project Site II.B-2
Study Area 1t.B~2
Land Use n.S-7
Existing Conditi()ns II.B-7
The Future Without the Project II.B-14
Probable Impacts of the proposed Projec~ n.Ba22
Zoning . II.B-27
Existing Conditions 11.B-27
The Future Without ehe Project II. B-35
Probable Impacts of the proposed Project Il.B-36
DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE POTENTIAL Faa H.C-l

SECONDARY aESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT
Introd.uction 11.C-l
Study Area Definition n.C-l
Methogology II.C-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Conti~ue4)
Page -Humber
EXisting Conditions n.C~3

Population and Housing characteristics and Trench; I1.C-3
Data From the Census of Population and Housi.ng I1.C~3
Housing Market Activity II. c-24
Cooperative and Condominium Conversion II. C~24
Other Factors Affecting the Vulnerabiliey of Area I1.C-30
Residents
Conclusions II.C~58
The Future Without the Project ·II.C-60
Residential Market· Conditions II.C-60
Protection of Residents II. C-62
Demographic Characteristics of the Stuay Area II. C~63
Potentially Vulnerable Popula~ion I1.C-63
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project 11. C~64
Introduction II. C-64
The Proposed Project II. C-65
Neighborhood Context II.C~66
. Project Impacts I1.C-67
D. COMMUNITY FACIlITIES AND SERVICES II. D-l
lntroduction 1I.D-l
Exis~ing Conditions II.D-1
Police I1.D-1
Fire Protection 11. D-2
Schools I1.D-2
Day Care Facilities I1.D~6 .
Public Libraries I1.D-8
Health Care Facilities 11.0-9
The Future Without the Project II. D-9
Police 11. 0-11
Fire II. D-12
Public Schools . I1.D-12
Day. Care Facilities II.D-17
Libraries . 1l.0-17
Health Care Facilities II.D .. 18
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.D-18
Project Characteristics II.D .. 18
Police 11.0-19
Fire II.D .. 20
Schools 1l.0-20
Public and Private Day Care Fscilieiei II.D-25
Public Libraries 11. D-26
Health Care Facilities I1.D-26
E. URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL CHARACTER 11. E-1

Introduction 11.E-1
Existing Conditions 11. E-1
Project Site 11.£-1·
Study Area 11.E-3
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
TABLE OF CONtENifS (Continue~)"
The Future Without the project 1l.E-12

1997 n.E-l2
2002 II. E-l4
Probable Impacts of the Proposed projec~ I1.E-l4
Project Design 1l.E&15
Urban Design Relationship of the Proposed Project ILE-ll
to the Surrounding Area 1997
Urban Design Relationship of the Proposed Projeot tLE-24
to the Surrounding Area 2002
F. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PLAN II.F-l

Introduction n.F-l
Summary of Consistency with the New York State II.F-1
Coastal Zone Management Program
Development 11. F-1
Public Access II.F-2
Recreation Resources II .F-2
Scenic Quality ILF-3
Flooding and"Erasion II.F .. 3
Air Quality II. F-3
Noise II. F-4
New York City Waterfront Revitaliza~ion Program Policies II.F-4
a. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION II. G-l

Ineroduction 11 .G-l
Methodology II.G-l
Study Area for Residential Analysis II.G-3
Study Area for Commercial Analysis II.G-3
EXlseing Conditions II.G-3
Inventory of Open Space and Recreaeion Facilities n.G-3
Open Space User Populations tLG-l6
Assessment of Adequacy of Existing II.G-20
Open Space Resources
The Future Without the Project II.G-27
Proposed Development in the Study Areas II.G-28
InVentory of Open Space and Recreational Facilities II.G-28
Open Space User Populations II.G-30
Assessment of Adequacy of Open Spaoe Resource II.G-31
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project .lI.G-35
Project Open Space Plan II.G-35
Project-Generated Demand 1l.G&39
Assessment of Project Impacts II.G-39
Impacts Without Corps Permits l1.G-43
H. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES II.H-l

Background History n,H-l"
Historic Period up to the Mid-19th Century II.H-l
After 1850 n.H&2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT· STATEMENT
R.IVERSIDE SOUTH
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Existing Conditions II.H~5

Historic Resources I1.H-5
Archaeological Resources 1l.H~16
The Future Without the Project II.H . . 27
1997 .II.H~27
2002 I1.H~28
Probable Impacts of the Proposea Project lI.H~28
1997 11.H-28
2002 I1.H-32
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS II. 1-1

Introduction 11.1-1
Issues 11.1-1
Study Area 1l.1~1
Existing Conditions II.I-1
Project Site n.I-1
Study Area ~~.1~2
The Future Without the Project. n .1-.15
Px:oject Site 11.1-15
Study Area 11.1~15
Probable Impacts of the proposed Project 11.1·17
Construction Period Impacts on the Project Site 1l.I-17
Operational Impacts of the proposed Project 11.1-21
Retail Study Area 11.1-24
Industrial Study Area It. 1-28
IOutlO!: I I
J. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 1l.J~1
Introduction 1I.J-1
Existing Conditions Il.J~2
Vehicular Traffic II .J-2
Parking . 1l.J~7
Transit Services I1.J -7
Pedestrian Activity II.J-22
The Future Without the Project Il.J -28
Introduction 11.J~28
1997 No Build Conditions I1.J-29
2002 No Build Conditions 11.J -40
Probable Impacts of the Proposea Project Il.J-56
Introduction Il.J-56
1997 project: Impacts II.J . . 63
2002 Project Impact:s Il.J-83
Ie AIR QUAL1TY II.K ... 1

Introduction Il.K-l
Pollutants ·for Analysis 11.K-1
Air Quality Standards II.K<~
RIVER.SIDE SOUTH
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continue~)
Page ltumbtt
Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations from . Il.K-5

Mobile Sources
Introduction II.K-S
Dispersion Modeis for Microscale Analyses II.K-6
Worst-Case Meteorological Conditions II.K-7
Analysis Years II.K-8
Vehicle Emissions Data 1l.K~8
Traffic Data II.K-12
Background Concentrations Il.K~12
Mobile Source Receptor Locations in primary and II.K-13
Extended Study Areas
Applicability of Models Il.K-1S
Parking Garages II.K-1S
Amtrak Analysis II.K~16
Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations from lI.K-17
Stationary Sources
Fluid Modeling of Impacts from Con Edison Facility II.K-17
Dispersion Modeling of Impacts from Projectis Boilers II.K~25
Cavity Regions II.K-26
Background Concentrations I1.K-27
Existing Conditions II.K .. 27
Primary Study Area: Existing Monitored Air Quality Il.K-27
Condi~ions (1990)
Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in the II.K-29
Project Area
The Future Without the Project Il.K-30
Introduction II.K~30
1997 II.K-30
2002 Il.K·32
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.K-33
Introduction II.K&33
1997 II.K-33
2002 11.K-37
to NOISE I I .L-I
Introduction and Methodology 11. 1.-1
Effects of Noise on People II.L-I
"A"-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) lI.L-2
Human Perception and Community Response to Changes 11.1.-2
in Noise Levels
Statistical Noise Levels 11. t.~2
Noise Descriptors Used in Impact Assessment II.L-S
Noise Standards and Criteria 11.1.-5
Future Noise Prediction Methodology II.L-9
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT "STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SouTH
TABLE or CONTENTS (Continued)
Page 'Number
Exis~ing Conditions II.L-9
Site Description II. L-9
Noise Monitoring 1l.L-ll
Instrumentation 11.L-ll"
Results of Baseline Measuremen~s II. L-l3
The Future Without the project 1l.L-l3
1997 11. L-13
2002 ILL-l3
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.L-13
1997 n.L-l3
2002 11. L-18
Relocated Miller Highway Scenario II.L-20
Mi HAZARDOUS MATERIALS II.M-l

Existing Conditions 11.M-l
Subsurface Conditions II.M-l
Land Use History II.M-2
Overview of Soil and Groundwater Testing It.M-3
and Remediation II.M-3
" Sampling Program Results II.M-7
Potential Human Health Risks of Identified Chemicals II.M-12
The Future Without the Project 11.M-13
probable Impacts of the Proposed project II.M-14
Impacts During Construct.ion I1.M~14
Impacts During Operation II.M-15
N. NATURAL RESOURCES IIoN .. l

Hydrology, Tides, and Floodplain Conditions II.N-1
Introduction 11.N .. l
Existing Conditions II.N·l
The Future Without the Project II.N- 3
Probable I~pacts of ehe proposed Projec~ II.N- 3
Ecology and Wetlands II.N-7
Introduction 11.N·7
EXisting Conditions II.N-7
The Future Without the project II.N-l0
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.N-lCl
o. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER 11.0-1

Introduction 11.0 .. 1
Existing Conditions 11.0-1
Clinton 11.0 .. 1
Columbus Circle/Linooln Square II. 0- 2
Upper West Side 11.0~2
The Future Without the Projeot 11.0-3
1997 I1.0 .. 3
2002 11iO-4
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
TABLE OF CONTENTS· (Continue4)
Probable Impacts·o£ ~he Proposed Projece II.O-4

1997 Il.O-4
2002 tI.O~5
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOLID ~ASTE 11.1'-1

Introduction II.P .. l
E:&isting Conditions tI.P-l
Water Supply II.p~1
Sanitary Sewage and Storm Water Disposal Il.P-2
Solid Waste· II.P~9
Telephone and Other Communications . II.P-9
the Future Without the Project II. 1'-10
Water Supply II,P .. lO
Sanitary Sewage and Storm Water Disposal tI.P~ll
Solid Waste II.P-l7
Telephone and Other Communications Il.P·2l
Probable Impacts of the proposed Project II.P-21
Water Supply II. P-21
Sanitary Sewage and S~orm Water Disposal II.P-23
ENERGY II.Q-l
Existing Conditions I.I.Q-l
Electricity Il.Q-l
Natural Gas II.Q-l
Steam .Il.Q-l
Oil II.Q-l
The Future Without the Project· ILQ-2
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project II.Q-2
Electricity tI.Q-2
Heating and Cooling Systems II.Q-3
R. CONS'tRUCTION IMPACTS II.R-l

Conseruction Sequencing II.R-l
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Projece II.R-2
Land Use and Neighborhood Character II.R-2
Historic Resources II.R-2
Economic Conditions 11.R-4
Traffic II.R-4
. Air Qualiey 11.R&6
Noise Il.R-8
Hazardous Materials tLR-15
Energy Consumption II.R-lS
Relocation of the Miller Highway II .R-16
llIVEll~IDE SOUTH
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continue4)
Page Number
III-l
A. INTRODUCTION Ill-l
B. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE IlI-l

C. LESSER DENSITY. ALTERNATIVE
D. STUDIO/OFFICE/SPORTS COMPLEX Al..'l'EaNATIVE. llI-26
E. SEWAGE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES. HI-37
CIIAPTElI. tv. ·KITlGATION JlFASUllES IV-l

A. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES IV-l
B. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV-3
C. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION IV-6
D. AIR QUALITY lV-45
E. NOISE IV-52
F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALs lv-56
CIIAPTF.& V. tiRHITlGATED ADVEllSE IHPACTS V-l

A. COMMUNITY FACIl..ITI:E:S AND SERVICES V-l
B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION V-l
C. AIR QUALITY V-2
D. NOIsE V-3
E. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS V-3
YOlllJiE III
CIAHElt VI. JlESPONSE TO COlIJIDTS VI-1
A. lNTRODUCTION Vl-1
B. LIST OF GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMENTED ON THE DEIS. VI-2
FINAL ENVIltOHMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
TABLE or CONTENTS (Continued)
PAge Number
C. RESPONSE to COMMENTS VI·9
PROJECT D£SCRIPTION VI~9

Certification VI-9
Long-Term Development/Rescrictlve Declaratiofi VI·9
Project Elements Vl-14
Park VI-21
ltelocated Highway VI·40
Density VI .. 43
Studio VI·53
Other Project Description Items VI-57
PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT vl .. 61

Cumulative Impacts VI-61
Land Use and Zoning VI-63
Demographics and the Potential for Secondary Displacement vl~64
Community Facilities and Services VI-69
Open Space and Recreation VI-79
Waterfront Revitalization Plan VI~82
Historic and Archa~ologieal Resources VI-84
Urban Design and Visual Quality VI~87
Neighorhood Character VI .. 95
Economic Conditions VI-97
Traffic and Transporcation VI·108
Air Quality VI-137
Noise VI&147
Hazardous Materials VI-1S0
Infrastructure and Solid Waste VI-lSl
Energy VI-174
Natural Resources VI-176
Construction Impacts VI-178
ALTERNATIVES '11-182
fOFC/Rail Freight
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page lifwp,ber
APPENDIX VOLUME I
APPENDIX A Pedestrian Winds AnalYBis
APPENDIX B Traffic
APPENDIX C Air QUality
APPENDIX D Noie.
APPENDIX VOIJIHE II
APPENDIX E Hazardous Materials
APPENDIX F Letter from Fire Department
APPENDIX G View Corridors
ApPENDIX B Shadow Studies

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC~ STATEMENT
'RIVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF TABLES
jage Number
S-1 Parcel-by-Parcel Land Use Program (Above Grade) S-3

1-1 Parcel-by-Parce1 Land Use Program 1-15
1-2 Zoning Calculations 1-16

It.S-1 Study Area Development, 1969-1991 n.B-4
I1.S-2 1990 Study Area Population and Housing Density II.B-1S

11.S-3 . Proposed and Potential Development ILB-16
in the Land Use study Area
It.S~4 Study Area Population and"Housing Densiey II.B-22
1997 and 2002
ILB-5 Study Area Populaeion and Hotising Density
1997 and 2002
II. B- 6 Summary of Zoning J)iseri~t.s in the Stud.y Area II.B-30
II.C-1 Population II .C-4
I1.c-2 Total Housing Units II.C-6
II.C-3 Households II.C-8
Il.c-4 One- and Two-Person Households 1l.C-9
ll.c-S Age cohorts, 1970, 1980, 1990

It.C-6 Median Family Income, 1969, 1979, 1989 I1.C-13
II.c-7 Median Household Income 1l.C-1S
II.C-8 Persons with Income Below the Poverey Level II.C-16
II.e-9 Level of Educational Attairtmene Among Persons 2S Years I1.C-17

and Older, 1970 and 1980 .
II.C-10 Occupacional Cbaracteriscics 1l.C-19
II.C-l1 Occupied Units and owner-Occupied Housing Units II. C- 20
II,C-12 Number of Units in S~rUC~Yre II. c- 22

II.C-13 ferson by Units in Structure, Renter Occupied 1990 lI,C-23
FINAL ENVIRO~NTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
rage Number
II.C-14 Year of Construction of Residential Units, 1980 II.C-25

lI.C~15 Buildings vith Co-op and Condominium Offering plans II.C~26
II.C-16 Existing Cooperative and Condominium Buildings II.C-31

in the Study Area
II.C-17 Single-Room Occupancy (SaO) Units in ehe II.C~37
Riverside South Study Area
11.C-lS Units in the Study Area Not Available for SRO Occupancy II.C-43
II.C-19 Public and Publicly Assisted Housing 11.c-48
II.D-l Public School Utilization, Capacity,· and Enrollment n .D- 3

1991-1992 School Year·-- District 3, Region 1
11,0-2 Enrollment History, 1981-1992, Districe 3, Region I, I1.D-4

E;I.ementary and Intermediate Schools
lI.D-3 Other Educational Facilities, Day Care Centers, and 11.0-7

Libraries in the Study Area
II .0-4 Health Care Facilities and Institutional Residences in . It. D-10
the Study Area
II.D-5 StUdents Gene~ated by 1997 and 2002 No Build Projects in 11.0-13

District 3, Region I
11.0-6 Public School Students Generated by the .proposed Project II.D~21

(90-10 Unit Mix)
II.D-7 Public School Students Generated by the Proposed Project 11,0-22

(80-20 Unit Mix)
II.C-l Open Space and Public Recreation Resources in Study Area 11.G-4
II.C-2 Residential Population of the Residential Open Space lI.G-17

~tudy Area: 1980, 1990
IIiG-3 Age Characteristics of the Resideneial Open Space II.C-lS

Study Area Population: 1980
n.0-4 1979 Income Characurise1cs in the II. G-19

Residential Open Space Study Area
ILG-5 Households with Access to at Least One Vehicle: 1980 Il.G-21

RIVERSIDE SOUTH
II.G . . 6 New Commercial Development in the Open Space Study Areal

1980-1990
II.G-7 Daytime Population in the Open Space Residential St~dy Area II.G-23
II.G-8 Daytime and Residential Population in the

Commercial Open Space Study Area
II.G-9 Guidelines for Open Space Needs: EXisting Conditions" n.G-26

in the Residential Open Space Study Area
IIiG-lO GUidelines for Open Space Needs: Existing Conditions II.G-27

in the Commercial Open Space StUdy Area
II.G-l1 Analysis of the Adequacy of Open Space Resources· n.G-32

in the Residential Study Area -- No Build Conditions
II.G-12 Analysis of the Adequacy of Open Space Resources II.C-34
in the Commercial Study Area "-- No Build Conditions
1l.G-l3 Analysis of On-Site Open Space Condit.ions with

the Proposed project, 1997, 2002
t1.C-l4 Analysis of the Adequacy of Active Open Space Resources II.G-42

in the Residential Study Area with the
Proposed Project, 1997
t1.G-lS Analysis of the Adequacy of Open Space Resources in the II.G-43

Residential Study Area with the Proposed projec't, 2002
II.G-16 Analysis of the Adequacy of Passive Open Space Resources

Without corps Authorization, 1997
II.a-l Historic Resources in the Study Area ILH,,7
II.t-1 Inventory of Retail and Service Establishments" II.I-3

in the Retail Study Area
11.1-2 Summary of Uses in Industrial study Are~: 1991 t1.1-5
II.I-3 Industrial Study Area Businesses U.t-6
1l.1-4 Summary of Uses in the Industrial Study Area: 1986
II. 1-5 Construction Value of the Proposed Project 11.1·18

11.1-6 Summary of the Economic Effects from Construction II.I-19
of the Proposed Project by Phase
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF TABLES (Contiuued)
Page Nmober
11.1-7 Projected Permanent Employment on Redeveloped Sices 11.1-22

Within the proposed Project
11.1-8 E~penditure Potential by Phase I Project Residen~s 11.1-25
II. 1-9 Demand for Convenience Retail by phase 1 Residents II. 1-27
11.1-10 Expenditure Potential by Project ReSidents 11.1-29
11.1-11 Demand for Convenience Retail by Phase 1 Project Residents 11.1-31
II.J-l 1991 EXisting Congested Locations II.J-S
lI.J-2 On-Street Parking Supply' lI.J-8
11..J-3 Riverside South Off-Street Parking Inven~ory II.J-9
lI.J-4 Weekday Entering Turnstile Counts II.J .. 10
II.J-5 Stairway Level of Service . Descriptions 11 .. J .. 11
Il.J-6 59th Street Columbus Circle Station, II.J .. 13

Existing Conditions
11.J-7 66th Street IRT Station, 1991 Existing Condi'tio.ns 11.J-15
II.J-8 72nd Street IRT Station, 1991 E~isting Conditions II.J-17
lI.J-9 Relationship of LOS to Available Space II.J-18
11..1 .. 10 72nd Street taT Station Mezzanine Time/Space l.evel of 1l.J-1.9

Ser'Vic.e Analysis, 1991 Existing Conc11tions
11.J-11 Assessment of Platform Conditions, II.J-21

72nd Street IaT Station '-- Southbound Placform,
1991 E~isting Conditions
1l.J--12 Line Haul Analysis, 1991 Existing COfiditions II.J .. 23
II.J-13 Bus Routes Serving 'the Project Area 11..1-24
11.J-14 1991 Existing Local Bus Conditions II.J .. 25
11..1-15 Pedestrian Levels of Service, Existing Peak Hour Conditions 11.J-27
11.J-16 1997 No Build VIC Ratios a~ Congested Locations n.J-30
1l.J-11 1997 No Build Off-Street Parking II.J-32

RIVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF TABLES' (Continued),
Page Numbu
II.j~18 66th Street IRT Station, 1997 No Build Conaieions I1.J-33

11.J-19 72nd Street-Broadway IRT Station, 1997 No Build Conditions II.J~35
11.J-20 72nd Street IRT Station Mezzanine Level of Service I1.J-36

Analysis, 1997 No Build Conditions
II.J~21 Assessment of Platform Conditions, II.J-37
72nd Street IRT Station -- Southbound Platform,
1997 No Buiid Conditions
lI.Ja22 line Haul Analysis, 1997 No Build Conciidons II.J.-38
II.J-23 1997 No BuIld Local Bus Condieions II.J-39
II •.J-24 Pedestrian Levels of Service, 1997 No Build II.J-41

Peak Hour Conditions"
Il.J-25 2002 No Build VIC Ratios at Congested l.ocations Il.J-43
II.J -26 2002 No Build Off-Street Parking II .. J-45
II.J-27 59th Street-Columbus Circle Station, II.J-46

2002 No BuIld Conditions
Il.J-28 66th Street IRT Station, "2002 No Build Condieions
Il.J-29 72nd Street IRT Station, 2002 No Build Condieions Il.J-49
Il.J-30 72nd Street IRT Station Mezzanine Level of Service Il.J-SO

Analysis, 2002 No Build Conditions
II.J-31 Assessment" of Platform Conditions, II.J-51

72nd Street IRT Station -- Southbound Platform;
2002 No Build Conditions, AM Peak Hour
II.J-32 Line Haul Analysis, 2002 No Build Conditions II.J -52
II.J~33 2002 No Build Local Bus Conditions n :J~54
II.J~34 Pedestrian Levels of Service, II .J~5S

2002 No Build Peak Hour Conditions
11.J-3S Elemen~s of the Proposed Project n.J-SS
II.J;36 Trip Generation and Modal Spitt Assumptions for

. ltl.varside South
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
L!St OF TABLES (Continued)

Page Number
n.J-37 Project-Generated Peak Hour Travel Demand n ..1-61

I1.J-38 subway Station Trip Assignment for Proposed Projec~ n.J-62
11 . .1·39 1997 Intersection Approaches with Significane Impacts II.J -65

in the project Study Area
11.J-40 Locations wit~ Significant Impacts in the

Extended Study Area in 1997
11 . .1541 1997 On-Site Garages II.J-70
1l.J-42 1997 Parking Utilization n.J-71
11.J-43 Subway Station Trips, 1997 Build Conditions il . .1-73
n.J-44 66th Street 1aT Station, 1997 Build Conditions I.I~j-74
II.J-4S 72nd Street IaT Station, 1997 Build Conditions 11..1-76

II.J-46 72nd Street IaT Station Mezzanine 'Level of Service ti . .1-77
Analysis, 1997 Build Conditions
11.J-47 72nd Street IaT Station -- Southbound Pla~form, II.• J-79

1997 Build Conditions
n.J-48 Line Haul Analysis, 1997 Build Conditfons n.J-80
11.J-49 Local Bus Network, 1997 Build Conditions n.J-82
11,J-50 Pedestrian Levels of Service, 1997 Build Conditions 11 . .1-84
11.J-51 2002 Intersection Approaches with Signifioant Impacts

in the Project Study Area
11.J-52 Intersections Exceeding 30 VPH Threshold II.J -89

in the Extended Study Area in 2002
1I.J-53 Locations with Signi£ican~ impacts

in the Extended Study Area in 2002
11.J-54 PM Peak Hour Ramp Merge Analysis at 72nd Street II.J-94
II.J-55 On-Site Garages II.J -95
11.J-56 2002 Parking Utilization II.J -95
II.J-S7 Subway Station Trips U.J-97

FINAL ENVlkONMENTAL IMPACT" STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
PagejfWnber
11.J·58 59th Street-Columbus Circle Seation, 2002 Build Conditions II.J~99
11.J-59 66th Street lRT Station, 2002 Build Conditions 11.J-100
11.J-60 72nd Street lRT Station, 2002 Build Conditions 11.J-102
11.J~6l 72nd Street IRT Station Mezzanine Level of Service 11.J-104

Analysis, 2002 Build Conditions
Il.J-62 72nd Street IRT Station"- Southbound P1aeforBl; n.J·IOS

2002 Build Conditions
II.J~63 Line Haul Analysis, 2002 Build Conditions 11.J~106
11.J·64 Local Bus Network, 2002 Build Conditions II.J-10B
11.J·65 Pedestrian Levels of Service, 2002 Build Conditions II.J-109
11.J-66 Relocated Highway Build Impacts I1.J-112
II.K-l National and New York State Ambient Air Quality S~afidards 11.K-4
II.K-2 E~isting Traffic Vehicle Operating Conditions -- 11.1<·10

kegional Values
11.1<-3 Mobile Source Receptor Locations in Primary Study Area II.K-14
11.1<-4 Maximum Monitored Background Oata for Pollutants Studied 11.K-19

in the Stationary Source Fluid Modeling Analysis
n .1<-5 Con Edison St"ack and Emissions Oat a II .K-20
11.K-6 Representative Monitored Ambien~ Air Quality Daea, 1990 t1.K-28

(E~cept Where Noted)
II.K-7 Maximum Predicted 1- and 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide 1I.K-29

Concentrations for 1991 (parts per million)
11.K-8 Future (1997) Maximum Predicted 1- and 8-Hour Ca~bon 11.K-31

Monoxide Concentrations Without the Project in the"
Projec~ Study Area (parts per million)
11.K-9 Maximum Projected Concentrations for No Build Conditions II.K-31

DUe to Emissions From Con Edison's West 59th Street
Generating Facility (ug/m3)
FINAL ENVIR.ONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF TABLES '(Continued)
tt.K-lO. Future (2002) Maximum Predicted 1- and 8-Hour Carbon Il.K;32

Monoxide Concentrations Without the Project in the
, Project Study Area (parts per million)
Il.K-l1 Future (1997) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide II.K;34

Concentrations· Both With and Without the project in
the Primary Study Area (parts per million)
II.K-12 Future (2002) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Carbon MonoXide 11.K-38
CQncentrations Both With and Without the Project in
the Primary Study Area (parts per million)
II.K-13 Future (2002) Predicted Maximum 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide II.K-40

Concentrations Both With and Without the Proje'ct ana
the Relocated Highway at Off-Site Locations
in the Primary Study Area
II.K-14 Future 2002 Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide II.K~41

. Concentrations in the Extended Study Area
II.K-1S Maximum Projected Concentrations for Build Conditions II.K-43

Due to Emissions From Con Edison's West 59th Street:
Generating Facility (ug/m3) Summary Table
II.K-16 All Reanalysis Probes II.K-44
II.K-17 Maximum Predicted Concentrations from ISC Modeling for II.K-45

Build Conditions in the Year 2002 DUe to Emissions From
HVAC Equipment at the Project Site '(ug/m3)
II.K-1S Maximum Predicted Concentrations Within Cavity Regions II.K;46

From Screen Modeling for Build Conditions in ehe
Year 2002 Due to Emissions from HVAC Equipment:
at the Project Site (us/m3)
II.L-l Common Noise Levels Il.L-3
ILL-2 'Average Ability to Perceive .Change.s in Noise Levels ILL-4
It.L-) CommUnity Response to Increases in Noise Levels 11.L-4
I1.L-4 City of New York Ambient Noise Quality Criteria (dBA) It.L-6
ILt.-5 CEPO . . CEQR Noise Exposure Standards for Noise Receptors 11.1.-7
for Use in City Environmental Impact R.eview
II.L-6 Attenuaeion Values Called for by CEPO-CEQR Exterior Noise II.L-8

Categories
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
ftge NWnber
11.1-7 Noise Levels Identified as Requisite eo Protect Healeh il.t-10

and Welfare with an Adequae8 Margin of Saf8~y
II. L-8 Noise Receptor Locations II.L-12
II .L-9 E~isting Noise Levels (dBA) It .t-14
11.1-10 Maximum 1 10 (1) Noise Levels Without ehe Project in 1997 ll. L-16
Il.l-ll Maximum· L 1O (1) Noise Levels Without: ehe Project in 2002 U.L-16
Il.1-12 Maximum 1 10 (1) Noise Levels With the project in 1997 1l.1-17
lLl-13 Maximum 1 10 (1) Noise Levels With the Project in 2002 U.L-19
n. L-14 MaximUin L10 (1) NoiSe Levels in t:ne New Park wi en ehe U.L-21
Relocated Highway
II,P-1 North River WPCP Secondary Treatment Operating U.l?-3
Characteristics, 1991-1992
rl.p&2 1991 New York City Department of Environmental Protection II. p-s
Harbor Survey -- Preliminary Raw Data
1LP-3 Existing Sewer Capacities and Flows II. P-8
Il.P-4 North River Drainage Basin Subst:antial U.P-12

No Build Developments
11,P-S Water Consumption at FutUre-Without-the-Project II.P-14

Development Sites in the North River Drainage Basin
II.P-6 Sewage Flows to the North River YPCP in

the FUture Without the Project
II,P-7 Additional Sanitary Sewage Flows fr~m Future-Wiehout- lLP-19

the-Project Development Siees in the project's
Sewerage Area
11.P-8 Future-Wiehout-the-Project Dry-Weather Sewer II.P-20

Capacities ana Flows
11,P-9 Estimated Water Usage by Proposed Project Il.P-22
11,P-10 Soltd Waste Genera~1on at the Proposed Project 1l.P-2.5
11.&-1 VibratiOn-Induced RisK Criteria for Historic. Buildings

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL" IMPACT STATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF TABLES (Contillued),
Page Number
II.R-2 Traffic Conditions During Construction of the H.R-7

Proposed Project, 1997
Il.R-3 LaqSound Levels Emitted from Each Phase of II.R-10

Construction Activity at 500 Feet
1l.R-4 summary of Construction Contribution to Ambient Sound II.R-ll

Levels, elBA L.q (l)
II.R-5 Highest" Off-Site Daytime Sound Levels During Construction Il.R-13
1l.R-6 Vibration-Induced Risk Criteria for Buildings II.R-14
In-l Parcel-by-Parcel Breakdown, Lesser Density Alternative 111-1
IlI-2 Comparison of Open Space Demand and Active Open Space IlI-11
Ratios Between the Lesser Density Alternative
and the Proposed Project
In-3 Transportation Forecast, Lesser Density Alternative 111-13
UI-4 Comparison of Future Traffic Conditions, IIl-14

Lesser Density Alternative and Proposed Projec~
"III-5 Significantly Impacted Locations in the Extended Study Area, 111-16

Lesser Density Alternative and Proposed Project"
III-6 72nd Street Subway Station Stairway Condition~, ttl> 19

1997 and 2002, Lesser Densi~y Alternaeive
lII-7 Local Bus Conditions for 1997 and 2002', HI-20

Lesser Density Alternative
1II-8 Pedestrian Levels of Service, Lesser Density Alternative III-21

1997 and 2002
III-9 66th Street Subway Station Conditions, 2002 Build, 111 .. 23

Lesser Density Alternative'
III-10 Trip Generation and Modal Splie Assumptions for

Studio/Offiee/Sports Complex Alternative
tlt .. l l Transportation Forecast for StUdio/Office/Sports

Complex Alternative
Comparison of Future Traffic Conditions, 111-31

Studio/Office/Spor~s Complex Alternative
and proposed Pr~ject
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF TABLES (Continued),
Page Nwnber
III-13 59th Street -- Columbus Circle Station 2002 Build Condieions 111-33
With Studio/Office/Sports Complex
Ill-lit. Local Bus Network, Studio/Office/Sports Complex Al~ernaeive 111-34
III-iS Pedestrian Levels of Service Studio/Office! ItI.-36

Sports Complex Alternative
IV . . l 1997 No Build, Build, and Build with Midgat1.on VIC Ratios IV-lO
IV-2 Summary of 1997 Mitigation Measures IV-II
IV-3 1997 Extended Area Mitigation V/C Ratios 1V-16
IV-4 1997 Extended Area Mitigation Measures tV-17
IV-5 72nd Street lRT Station, 1997 Build 1V-20

with Mitigation C.onditions
1V-6 72nd Street lRT Station, Southbound Platform 1997 Build IV-23
with Mitigation Conditions, AM Peak Hour
IV-7 2002 No Build, Build, and Build with Mitigation VIC Ratios 1V-27
1V-8 Summary of 2002 Mitigation Measures IV-28
1V-9 2002 Extended·Area No Build. Build; and Build. with IV-33

Mitigation V/C Ratios
IV-10 2002 Extended Area Mitigation Measures IV-35
IV-11 Mitigation With Relocated Highway IV-38
1\7-12 72nd Street lRT Station, 2002 Build IV-40

wi~h Mitigation Conditions
1\7-13 72rid Street IRT Station, Southbound Platform 2002 Build IV-41
with Mitigation Conditions, AM Peak Hour
1V-14 66th Street tRT Station, 2002 Build wi~h IV-43

Mitigation Conditions
Future (1997) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide IV-46

Concentrations with Traffic Mitigation
in the Project Study Area (parts per million)
FINAL ENVIRONMENT~ IMPACT STAtEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST or TABLES (Continued)
Zag. Number
1\7-16 Future (2002) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide 1V-47

Concentrations ~ith Traffic Mitigation
in the Project Study Area (parts per million)
1'1-17 Future (2002) Maximum Predicted 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide 1\7-48

Concentrations with Traffic Mitiga~ion
in the Extended Study Area
IV-18 Maximum Projected Conceneraeions for Build Conditions wieh IV-50

proposed Mitigation
1V-19 Maximum L1D(1) Noise Levels at LOcations Where Traffic Would IV-52
Change with Traffic Mieigac10n for ehe Project in 1997
Maximum 1.1D (1) Noise Levels at: Locations Where Traffic Would IV-54
Change with traffic Mitiga~ion for the Project in 2002
IV-21 Maximum LiiHl) Noise Levels in the New Park with Traffic IV-55
Mitigation and the Relocated Highway
FINAL ENVIR.ONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
R.IVER.SIDE SOUTH
LIST OF :rIGUltES
Following
Page Num.h.R
I-I Regional Location

1-2 Site Location 1-2
1-3 Immediate Site Context 1-2
1-4 Topography and Depth to Bedrock
1-5 Site Plan Showing Existing Highway 1-10
1-6 North Neighborhood

I· 7 South Neighborhood 1-11
1-8. Access and Circulation 1-18
1-9 Conceptual Park Plan 1-21
1-10 Interim Open Space plan 1-26
1-11 Site Plan Showing Relocated Highway 1-33
1-12 Proposed Zoning

II.B-l Study Area Boundary ILB-l
1l.B-·2 Study Area Development. 1969-1991 I1.B-6
n.B-3 Project Site land Use I1.B-7
II.B-4 Study Area Land Use ILB-8
II.B-S Notable Buildings -. Primary Study Area lLB-9
II.B-6 Retail Establishments in the Study Area Ii.B-9
11.B-7 Notable Buildings •• Secondary Study Area lI.B-11
1LB 8 5
Proposed Development iIi the Larttl Use Study Area II.B-16
it.B-9 Project Site Zoning Il.B-28
It.S-10 Study Area Zoning
II.B-ll Proposed Zoning II.B-36
II.C-1 Demographic Study Area II.C-l

R.IVER.SIDE SOUTH
LIST OF FlGURES (Continued)
P'o11oviDg
rage Number
tt.D-l Municipal Services -- Police; Fire, and Sanitation II.D-l

Facilities
II.D-2 public Schools in Distriet 3 -- Region I II.D-2
tt.D~3 Private Schools, Day Care Facilities, and II.D-7-
Libraries in the study Area
II.D-4 aealth Care Facilities 1l.D-9
II.E-l Project Site Photographs H.E-l
II.E-2 Project Site Photographs 11. E-1
11.E-3 Project Site Photographs· n. E-1

II.E-4 Views of Piers G, a, and I n.E-l
II.E-5 project Site Photographs II.E-l
11.E-6 Views from Site Toward Manhattart II. E-2
11.E-7 Views from Site Toward Manhattan 11.E-2

II.E-8 Southern End of Project Site II. E-2
II.E-9 View of Project Site from West End Avenue 11.E-2

II.E-I0 View of Project Site from Freedom Place 11. E-3
Il.E-l1 Visual Context in the Study Area 11.E-3·
11.E-12 Predominant Building Types n.E-3
II.E-13 Building aeights in the Study Area n.E-3
11.E-14 Residential and Commercial Towers n.E-3
1I.E-15 Key '&0 Photographs of Study Area II.E-5

11.E-16 Predominant Building Types in Clinton II. E .. 5
11.£-17 59th Street Wes&ern View Corridor Il.li:-5
tt.E-1S 60th Street Western View Corridor 1l.,E-S

I1.E-19 61st Street Western View Corridor I1.E-5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC·T ·stATEMENT
R.lVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF FIGURES (Coneinued)

FollOW'ing
Page_ ..Rumbat.
II.E~20 Vehicular and Pedeserian Rou~es lneerrupted by Superblocks n.E-6

II.E~21 Walls, Platform Edges; and Buildings Without windows. n.E-8
II.E~22 Lincoln Center II.E-8
ILE~23 Amsterdam Houses II.E~8
11.E-24 Lincoln Towers 11.E-9

11.E-25 Freedom Place tt.E-9
n.E-26 61st Street Western View Corridor tt.E-9
n.E-27 62nd Street Western View n.E-9
II.E-28 63rd Street Western View Corrido~ n.E-9
11.E-29 64th Street Western View Corridor n.E-9
11.E-30 65th Street Western View Corridor II.E-9
H.E-3l 66th Street Western View Corridor II .. E-9
n.E-32 67th and 68th streees II.E~9
II.E-33 69th Street ILE~9
11.E-34 Amsterdam AVenue North from 70th Stree~ II.E-It

11.E-35 71st Street II. E-11
X1.E-36 72nd Street II.E-l1

11.E-37 Views toward Site at i2nd Sereet and Riverside Park II. E .. ll
11,E-38 70th Street Western View Corridor II.E .. 11
n.E-39 Project Elevation II.E-16

·n .E-40 View of the Proj ect from ehe North; 2002 II. E~16
11.E-41 View of the Project ftomthe Wese, 2002 II.E-18
II.G-l Open Space Study Area -- Residential and Commercial 11.0-3

Study Areas
R.IVER.SIDE SOUTH
LIST OF FIOuR.ES (Continued)
Following
Pa&e_ Bilm'ber
II.G-2 Open Space and Recreational Facilities II .G-3
n.H-1 Historic Resources Il.H-6

II.H~2 Riverside Park and Drive 11.H-9
II.H-3 Row Houses at West 72nd Street and Riverside Drive 11.H-9
11.H-4 Chatsworth Apartments and Annex I1.H-10
Il.H-5 West 71st Street Historic Dis~rict II.H-10
11.H-6 Former IRT Power House 11.H-11
II.H-7 Bridges or Commissioners Map 1807-1811 11.H-18
II.H-8 Original Shoreline of Project Site 11.H-19
II.H-9 Project Site a10ck Between $9th and 60th Streets 11.H-24
11.1-1 Study Area ,Boundaries II.I~l
11.1-2 Retail Establishments in the Study Area II.l~2
11.1-3 Industrial study Area Land Use -~ 54eh ~o 6lst Street 11.1-4
11.1-4 Industrial study Area BUsinesses -- 54eh eo 618& Street 11. 1-4
II.J-l Transportation Study Area II.J-l

lI.J-2 Locations of Counting program II.J-2
II.J-3 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes' II.J-2
II.J-4 Existing VIC Ratios II.J -4
II.J-S' Existing Off-Street Parking II.J .. 7
II.J-6 Study Area Subway Stations II.J-IO
Il.J-7 59th Street Subway Complex .- 1991 Existing Conditions
n.J-8 66th Street IRT Station 1991 Existing Conditions II .J-14
II.J-9 '2nd Sereet tRT Station 1991 Existing Conditions n.J-16
II.J-10 Study Area Bus Routes Il.J-23

:FINAL ENVIRoNMENTAL IMPACT StATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF :FIGURES "(Continued)
lollowing
Page Rwnber
ll.j-Il Pedestrian Level-of-Service Definitions n.J-26
II.j-12 1997 No Build Traffic Volumes n.J-29
11.j-l3 1997 No Build VIC Ratios 11.J-29
11,j-14 2002 No Build Traffic Volumes tl.J-42
II.J-15 2002 No Build VIC Ratios n.J-42
11.J-16 59th Street Subway Complex -- 2002 No Build Conditiofis II.J-45
II.J~17 Proposed Street and Garage Plan II.J-56
11.J-18 1997 Traffic Increment
It.J-19 1997 Build traffic Volumes II .J-63
11.3-20 1997 Build Vo1ume-to-Capacity Raeios II.J-63
11.J-21 Redistribution of Project Traffic Outside of Study Area It :J-67
11.J-22 Traffic Diversions -- 2002 Build Conditions II.J-85

II.J-23 Project-Generated Traffic-- 2002 Build Conditions It.J-85
II.J-24 2002 Traffic Increment n.J-85
11.J-25 2002 Build Traffic Volumes
II.J-26 2002 Build Vo1ume-to-Capac1ty Ratios n.J-85
II.J-27 2002 Build Networks n.J-IIO
II.K-l Mobile Sources Recepcor Locations in chs Primary n.K-13

Study" Area
It.L-l Noise Receptor Loca~ions 1~.L-12
II.l-2 Noise Recep~or locations II.L"'16
II.M-l 1988 sampling Plan - Study Subareas II.M-5

lI.N-l Hudson River Depchs at the Project Site II.N-l
n.N-2
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' stATEMENT
RIVERSIDE SOUTH
LIST OF FIGURES (Con'tinued)
FolloviDg
page Rwnber
II.N-3 Waterfront Elements of the Conceptual Park Plan II.N-3
II.N-4 Modification to Relieving Platform Wes~ 63rd to Il.N-3

West 66th Streets
II.P-l Existing Yater Mains 1l.P-2
II.P-2 Existing Se~ers
II.P-3 Significant Proposed Development in the II.P-17

Trunk Sewer Drainage Area
n.p-4 Proposed Water Mains
II.P-S Proposed Storm and Sanitary Sewers II.P-23
II.R-l Noise Receptor Locations 1l.R-10

'II 1-1 layout o'f 1. 4 mgd Se'l\tage Treatment Plant nl-38
111-2 Layout of 2.0 mgd Sewage Treatment Plant 111-38
IV-l Typical Block -- Wes~ End Avenue lmprovemert~ Plan ,IV-7
tV-2 72nd Street/Broadway IRT Station Mitigation -- IV-18

Street Level Plan'
IV-3 72nd Street/Broadway IRT Station Mitigation IV-18

'Platform Plan, New Stairways'
IV-4 72nd Street/BroadwayIRT Station Mitigation IV-18

Section Through New Stairways eo Southbound pla~form
IV-S Distribution of Waiting Passengers Existing Versus IV-21

. 73rd Street Mi~iga~ion Plan
1\7-6 66th Street/Broadway 1RT Station Mitigatiort 1\7-42
New Headhouse at 72nd Street Subway Station VI-123

J. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Introduction
The primary transportation study area for the Riverside South project ex-
tends from West 55th Street on the south to West 79th Street on the north, and
from Central Park West-Eighth Avenue on the east to the Hudson River on the
west. The project study area extends south along Twelfth AVenue to 51st
Street. This primary transportation study area is shown in Figure II.J-l. In
addition to this primary area, traffic analyses Were also conducted along sev-
'eral corridors extending outward from the study area. This extended area anal-
ysis and description of the corridors are discussed later in this section.
Within this study area, the local street network generally follows the
standard New York City grid system, although several of the ar1;erials are two-
way streets, and portions of the grid are interrupted by large, superblock de-
velopments. Three of the fiVe principal north-south arterials (West End Ave-
nue, Broadway, and Central Park West) are two-way streets with Amsterdam Avenue
(northbound) and Columbus Avenue (southbound) forming a one-way arterial coup-
let. The Amsterdam Avenue-Columbus Avenue couplet is the main north-south
truck route in the area. Principal east-west roadways -- West 79th Street,
West 72nd Street and West 57th-West 56th Streets -- have interchanges with the
Miller Highway-Henry Hudson Parkway, the only limited-access highway on ,the
West Side of Manhattan. The West 65th Street-West 66th Street one-way couplet
(66th Street westbound, 65th Street eastbound) provides cross-Manhattan traffic
serv~ce between West End Avenue and the East Side of Manhattan via roadways
through Central Park.
DeVelopments since World War II have sUbstantially altered the operations

'of the local street system. Along West 'End Avenue, several "superblocks" have
been created by the formation of housing developments between West 62nd and
West 64th Streets (Amsterdam Houses) and between West 66th and We'st 70th
Streets (Lincoln Towers), which interrupt five of the area's east-west grid
streets at Amsterdam Avenue. Between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues., Lincoln
Center and Fordham Unive~sity interrupt 6lst, 63rd, and 64th Streets.
Next to the project site, several east-west streets are interrupted at

Amsterdam Avenue by Lincoln Towers (67th, 68th, and 69th Streets) and Amsterdam
Houses (62nd and 63rd Streets). Similarly, 64th and 65th Streets end at West
End Avenue because of the historical presence of the rail yards on the project
site and the adjacent New York Times freight facilities between 6lst and 65th
Streets. Twelfth Avenue terminates at the southwest corner of the project site
because of the rail yards.
The Miller Highway (Henry Hudson Parkway north of 72nd Street) is a pas-
senger-ear-only roadway that terminates in the vicinity of West 56th Street.
South of this point, the highway becomes an at-grade arterial along Twelfth
Avenue. North of West 57th Street, the highway is elevated, with a northbound
entrance and exit at West 72nd Street and a full interchange (northbound and
southbound entranCes and exits) at West 19th Street. S~veral major segm~nts of
this highway were recently rehabilit~ted from West 72nd Street to the George
Washirt,tofi Iridge. The Miller Highway from 56th to '2nd Streets is undergoing
n.J-l
Transportation Study Area
Figure II.J-1
\
1>'1
CIS
~
~
H
~____~~~~r--=~~~~____~7e Museum Ot
CIS III Natural
~ c.. History
c
0
en
~
::I
::z::
p..
H 78
C
-....
e.l
73
72ncl
Lincoln
Towers
68th
·65th
Lincoln "
• Center
z
o
en
Q
I!
~
::
Fordham
University
59th
, _ ........... ....... ~
...........
......... . ~.:."';;ii~ . . . i •• : .i.,;~i'i.~L • • • •
I.
57th
j I
. ............ .. Truck Route

• Intersection Analyzed
• Additional InterSection AnalyZed
for Air Quality
a major renoVation effort to replace dilapidated structures and "improve geo-
metries. This renovation is expected to be completed in 1995.
There are five subway stations with a total of eight subway lines serving
the study area. The Seventh AVenUe IRT lines have stops along Broadway at 59th
Street-Columbus Circle, 66th, 72nd, and 79th Streets. IND service is available
at 59th Street-Columbus Circle and at 72nd Street at Central Fark West. There
are many bus routes serving the study area, including four north-south routes
along Amsterdam, Columbus, and West End Avenues, and Broadway, plus east-west
bus routes on 57th, 65th-66th, 72nd, and 79th S-treets.
In addition to its traffic and transit features, the study area also con-
tains several thousand on- and off-street parking spaces. The on-street system
provides supply for residents and is subject to alternate-side-of-the-st_reet
parking regulations as well as for bUsiness via loading/service zones. The
off-street system provides capacity for both residents and employees/visitors
(weekdays) and is spread throughout the study area with concentrations west of
Columbus Avenue.
This section of the EIS details the various traffic and transportation
systems. These include vehicular traffic, parking, public transportation,
including subways and buses, and pedestrians. First existing and future No
Build c;onditions are analyzed, and then the proposed project's effect- on these
transportation systems are quantified and any potential significant impacts are
-identified. Because Riverside South is analyzed in two development phases
(1997 and 2002), future No-Build-and Build conditions analyses -are presented
for each of these phases. Mitigation measures are presented and analyzed- for
effectiveness in reducing or eliminating significant project impacts in Chap-
ter IV.
Existing Conditions
VehicularT.raffic_
The traffic for existing 1991 conditions was developed from a combination
of two sources: (a) the Route 9A traffic network, which has a base year of
1988, (b) updated with an intersection counting program done in April 1991 for
the 8-9 AM, noon-1 FM, and 5-6 FM peak hours at all key locations in the study
area. In addition to the 1991 intersection counts, automatic traffic recorder
(ATR) counts were also conducted at the same time throughout the study area to
supplement the traffic data resources. Figure II.J-2 shows the locations of
the 1991 counting program and Figure II.J-3 shows the AM, midday, and FM peak
hour volumes for 1991 existing conditions for this West Side tra(fic network.
On the western edge of the study area, the Miller Highway carries peak
direction traffic of 4,425 vehicles per hour (vph) southbound in the morning
and 3,350 vph northbound in the FM peak hour. Twelfth Avenue at the terminus
of the highway has three southbound lanes and four northbound lanes (divided
into express anG service roadways). The avenue serves as a distribution road-
way for highway traffic as well as serving as the westernmost exp~ess arterial
for Manhattan.
II.J-2
Locations of Counting Program
. Figure II.J-2
\ ~--~~~--~~~~--~~----~~~79~
Museum Of
Natural
Histor,y
72nd
Lincoln
Towera
66th
65th
Lincom
Center
z
o
rn
Q
C
= fordham
UniverSity
59t.b.
57th
All
,..>
.,...:
I
• One-Day Count
@ Three-Day Count
--- ATR Count
RIVERSIDE
S 0_ U -,- H ,. Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Figure II.J-3
725/851/135 1707/1182/1313
J!5/331/470 ~18/3C5/40S
211/::71/351
79th
'78 MUseum Of
Natural
History
1/705
66th
65th
1450/136/1181104/S74/1"
1_/1132/1215
Lincoln "J---l~----~
Center
141111/1I07!1US
"12/::5
~
_1.1!.11/1zag/l"1
1_ 13M, .......
ordham
University ...........-----''r--''''-;
Legend: AM/Midday/PM
Running parallel to the Miller Highway is West End Avenue .. a two-way arte-
rial with two lanes in each direction plus parking. (Parking is typically pro-
hibited in peak periods at congested intersections.) Peak direction southbound
volumes range between 725 vph and 1,525 vph in the AM period and northbound 850
Vph to 1,300 in the PM period.
Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues are adjacent one-way facilities forming the
main north-south arterial couplet on the West Side. Amsterdam Avenue is north-
bound and contains five traffic lanes plus parking, and peaks in the PM period
with volumes ranging from 1,550 to 2,425 vph .. Columbus Avenue is southbound
and contains three traffic lanes plus parking north of 65th Street, with the
roadway expanding to 4 traffic lanes plus parking south of this point. Colum~
bus Avenue peaks in the AM peak hour with volumes ranging between 1,450 and
2,025 vph.
Both Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues intersect with Broadway, a two-way

six-lane diagonal· arterial traversing the study area. Each of these arterial-
arterial intersections (one at 7lst Street, the other at 65th Street) require
three-phase signal control, which results in a lower capacity, thereby making
these locations the principal north-south bottlenecks on the grid network.
Broadway peaks southbound· in the AM with volumes between 725 vph and 1,200 vph;
and northbound in the PM with volumes between 525 vph and 850 vph.
Central Park West is a two-way arterial with two lanes in each direction
plus parking. Central Park West (Eighth Avenue) also intersects Broadway, at
Columbus Circle, which is a quasi-traffic circle with signals. at key points.
Central Park West's two-way traffic volume ranges between 950 and 1,275.vph in
the AM and 1,200 and 1,600 vph in the PM peak hour. Most segments of the aVe-
nue have balanced north-south flows, and selected locations peak in one direc-
tion or the other depending on the time of day.
The principal cross streets in the study area are 57th, 65th-66th, and
72nd Streets. 57th and 72nd Streets have similar geometric characteristics:
both are two-way 60-foot-wide streets that provide two travel lanes in each
direction plus parking. Both 57th and 72nd Streets have interchanges with the
Miller Highway-Henry Hudson Parkway and are therefore attractive cross-streets"
for through traffic flows. On 57th Street -Volumes range from 1,025 vph to
1,200 vph in the AM and 1,100 vph to 1,300 vph in the PM peak hours. 72nd
Street has relatively balanced flows, with·typical two-way volumes ranging from
525 vph to 925 vph in the AM and 800 to 1,125 vph in the PM peak hours.
The 65th-66th Street eastbound-westbound couplet typically has two or more

travel lanes on each approach and is heavily used, not only for its East Side-
West Side connection, but also because the West Side grid, with its superblocks
south of 70th Street, has resulted in few continuous cross-streets between West
"End Avenue and Central Park West. Traffic volumes on 66th StrEiet peak west-
bound in the PM peak hour wieh volumes ranging be~ween 500 and 700 Vph, and
65th Street has a lesser peak eastbound in the AM with volumes ranging between
425 and 625 vph. .
In addition to these streets, the proposed project would abut Freedom

Place, a low volume (eypically 100 'V'ph) sO-foot-wide two-way roadway providing
continuity between Wes~ 66~h and West 70th Streets. Freedom Plaoe.functions as
a service serest for Linooln Towers; being used for refuse collection and ao-
cess to parking facilities.
11.J-3
Capacity Analysis
The Creighton, Hamburg, Inc~ (CHI) methodology, a revised version o~ the

Highway Capacity Manual (1965) technique developed for traffic studies in Man-
hattan, was used for intersection capacity analysis. Factors considered in
establishing traffic conditions including traffic volumes and vehicle mix
(e.g., percentage of trucks, buses, cars), . turning· movements, conflicting pe-
destrian volumes, signal timing, number of travel lanes, and other roadway
geometry. This procedure provides a volume-to-capacity (vic) ratio for each·
intersection approach. this value represents the ratio of traffic volumes at
an approach to its traffic-carrying capacity. A value of 1.0 means that the
volumes have reached capacity -- a condition that represents extensive conges-
tion and traffic delays. In contrast, a value of 0.50 means that only half the
available capacity is currently used, ·and traffic flows are generally qUite·
good. A value of 0.85 is considered by the New York City Department of Trans-
portation (NYCDOT) as the level at which serious traffic problems start to
occur.
Traffic conditions at each of the intersections shown in Figure II.J-l

were calculated using the CHI methodology for the AM, midday, and PM peak
hours. Figure I1.J-4 shows the resulting vic ratios and Table lI.J-l identi-
fies those intersection approaches that exhibit peak period congestion (vic
ratio OVer 0.85) under existing i991 conditions. The following describes con-
ditions along each north south corridor.
Along Twelfth Avenue, the intersection at 57th Street experiences north-

bound (vic - 1.017 on the express lanes) and westboUnd (vic - 0.871) congestion
in the PM peak hour. The northbound congestion typically spills back for sev-
eral blocks south of 57th Stree.t, thereby reducing the effective green time
available for the northbound movements at their upstream intersections. At
56th Street in the AM peak, the northbound express (vic - 1.016) lane experi-
ences congestion, whereas in the PM peak hour the northbound spillback from
57th Street also resul.ts in congestion at 56th Street. At 55th Street, in
addition to the congestion experienced by the northbound express lanes in the
. PM peak hour, the westbound 55th Street approach is congested in the AM and
midday peak hours with vic ratios of 1.008 and 1.000, respectively. At 54th
Street, the northbound lane is congested in the PM peak hour with a vic ratio
of 1.044.
On the West End Avenue-EleVenth AVenue corridor, several intersections

experience congestion. On the 79th Street eastbound approach, the AM and PM
vic ratios are 0.860 and 0.983, respectively, whereas at the 72nd Street in-
tersection, the eastbound approach in the AM (vic'" 0.869), the westbound ap-
proach in the PM (vic'" 0.923), and the northbound· left-turn lane in the AM and
PM (vic'" 1.000 and 0.973) are also congested. At 71st Street, ~he westbound
approach reaches· a midday vic ratio of 0.958; and the southbound approach to
65th Street is congested in the AM peak hour with a Vic ratio of 0.963 dUe
primarily to a substantial left-turn movement. At the lower end of the corrid-
or, the southbound approach at 57th Street reaehes a Vic of 0.912 in the AM and
the northbound approach is also congested with a PM vic ratio of 0.959. Be-
cause of the substantial exiting volume from the highway, che e!lstbound ap-
proach at 56th Streee reaches capacity (vic ratib 1.015y) ~n the AM peak hour
whereas the 55th Street intersection has congestion westbound in the midday
(vic'" 0.937).
11.J-4
Existing VIe Ratios
Figure·II.J-4
Museum Of
Natural
History
\ "
74
.171/.1./.147 .541/.511/.1151 .511/.715
Lincoln .,
To".er~423/._/05411
z
o
fIl
i ._I._/.5R
Fordham
.151/.&51
University
.771/._
~:
, I'
~
.. Nce
~~----~~~~r---------~~------~~~--------~~~
I i~~~~~~~~==~==~~~----~~;=~~~~----~~~~~~------~~~~
",.iti/.TII 21/MS/.157
d:' ~:
...
... .c =<
AM/PM
Table II. J-1
1991 EXISTING CONGESTED LOCATIONS

VOL!
PEAK CAP.
STREET APPROACH TOO RATIO
----~-------------------------------~------------
12TM AVE. HB (WSHY) @ 57TH ST. PM 1.017
57TH ST. WB THRU @ 12TH AVE.(WSHY) PM 0.B71
12TH AVE. HB.@ 56TH ST. (HIGHWAY) AM 1.016

PM 0.998
12TH AVE.HB @ 55TM ST(HIGHWAY) PM 1.052
55TM ST.WS @ 12TH AVE AM 1.008

HD 1.000
12TH AVE.HB @ 54 ST(HIGHWAY) PM 1.044
79TM ST. EB @ WEST END AM 0.860

PH 0.983
WEST END HBLT @ 72ND ST. AM 1.000
PM 0.973
72ND ST. EB @ WEST EHD AM 0.869

----------------------------------------------~--
72ND ST. WS @ WEST END PH 0.923
71ST ST. WB @ WEST END HD D.958
WEST END SB @ 65TM ST. AM 0.963
WEST END SB @ 57TH ST. AM 0.912
WEST END HB @ 57TH ST. PH 0.959
56TH ST.EB @ 11TH AVE. AM 1.015
55TH sr.WB @ 11TH AVE HD 0.937
AMSTERDAM HB @ BROADWAY/72ND ST. PM 0.868

• • • • •2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • =••••sm••••••••
BROADWAY SB @ AMSTERDAM/71ST ST. AM 0.932
PM 0.897
AMSTERDAM HB @ BROADWAY/7lST ST.

. PM 0.976
.
-----------------------------------------~-------
BROADWAY HB @ AMSTERDAM/71ST ST. HD 0.867
PH 0.928
55TH ST.WB @ 10TH AVE PM 0.952
COLUMBUS.SB @ 67TH ST AM 0.879
BROADWAY SB @ 65TH ST./COLUMBUS AM 0.981

PH 0.863
BROADWAY NB @ 65TH ST. /COLUMBUS PM 0.917
COLlI1BUS SB @ 65TH ST. /BROADWAY AM 1.011

HO 0.975
PH 0.962
••••••••••••••••••••••••s ••••••••••••••••••••••••
57TH ST. EB @ COLI.I1BUS AM 0.927
PM 0.925
65TM ST. EB @CENTRAL PARK WEST PM 0.869
COL. CIRCLE SB TO 8'WAY @ 8TH AVE. AM 0.865

-------~---------------~~----------~-------------
8TH AVE. NB @ COL.CIRCl.E PH 0.850
57TH ST. we @ BTH AVE PM D.8B4
II.J-'
Along the Amsterdam Avenu~ corridor, the principal congested 10cation'is
at 11st Street, where the northbound approach reaches a vIc ratio of 0.976 in
the PM peak hour. In addition, in the lower portion of the corridor, the west-
bound 55th'Street approach is congested, with a vIc ratio of 0.952 in the PM
peak hour.
The Columbus AvenUe corridor experiences southbound congestion in the AM

at 67th Street, with a vIc ratio of 0.879. At 65th Street, the key bottleneck
in the corridor, the southbound Columbus Avenue approach has vIc ratios 1.011,
0.975, and 0.962 in the AM, midday, and PM peak hours respectively, whereas the
Broadway southbound approach has vIc ratios of 0.981 and 0.863 in the AM and PM
peak hours, and northbound Broadway has PM congestion with a vIc ratio of
0.917. At the 57th Street intersection, the eastbound approach has vIc ratios
of 0.927 and 0.925 in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
The Central Park West-Eight~ Avenue corridor experiences eastbound conges-

tion in the PM at 65th Street, with a vIc ratio of 0.869. In the lower corri-
dor, within Columbus Circle, the southbound approach to Eighth Avenue experi-
ences congestion in the AM, with a vIc ratio of 0.865, whereas the northbound
Bighth Avenue approach has a vIc ratio of 0.850 in the PM. Further south, at
57th Street, the westbound approach vIc ratio reaches 0.884 in the PM peak
hour.
Except for the critical 71st Street and 65th Street intersections dis-
cussed above, the Broadway corridor does not experience congestion except on
selected cross-street approaches. At 62nd Street, the westbound approach has a
vIc ratio of 0.932 in the midday peak hour. .
Travel Time and. V.ehi.c1e C1assif.i.cation Studies
Traffic speeds in the local street network vary considerably by time of.
day and location. Speeds are primarily affected by traffic volumes and turning
movements, side friction (e.g., parked vehicles along the curb), and signal
coordination (especially on cross streets). Signals on the one-way north-south
arterials, Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues, are progressively timed (i.e., sig-
nals turn green in a sequence that matches the flow of traffic), and signals On
the ·two-way north-south roadways, 'W'est End Avenue, Broadway, and Central Park
West are blocked coordinated (i.e., signals turn green at all intersections
simultaneously with traffic flowing in blocks or platoons of vehicles). All
cross-street signals appear to be uncoordinated with those on other area road-
ways, and the timing of almost all signals in the area is fixed (i. e., the
amount of green time does not vary by time of day). The signals with variable
time controls are at Riverside Drive at 72nd Street and 79th Street, West: End
AVenue at 72nd Street, and along Twelfth AVenue.
Travel time and delay st:udies were conducted on key roadways in the River-
side South network in April 1991. Simultaneous area-wide vehicle classifica-
tion counts were also taken. The inventory was conducted in ehe AM and PM peak
hours. The results of the traffic speed and vehicle classification surveys are
presented in Appendix B.
lLj-6
Parking
Surveys of on-street and off-street parking supply and demand conditions

were conducted throughout the study area as part of the· Trump City DEIS. The
off-street parking inventory was updated in September 1991.. These surveys were
divided into zones as shown in rigure II.J-5. The on-street supply includes a
substantial amount of alternate-side-of-the-street parking, most of which is on
local cross streets, although some is located on the main arterials (West End
Avenue, Central Park ~est, and Broadway north of 72nd Street). The off-street:
supply includes spaces in open lots and garages (primarily the latter).
The field inventory of on-street auto parking indicates that the area's
curbside auto demand exceeds supply during all periods of the \oreekday in this
area. Double parking on cross streets is common, especially during periods
\orhen alternate-side-of-the-street parking regulations are in effect (primarily
8-11 AM). Table II.J-2 .shows a summary of the total amount of legally·avail-
able on-street parking spaces in each zone on a typical \oreekday. Data are
provided on metered, unmetered, and authorized (reserved for specified auto
users) spaces. Overall, there is a potential supply of about 1,800 long- .and
short-term auto spaces at curbside after alternate-side-of-the-street regula-
tions expire at 2 PM.
Most of the street system south of Wes't 66th Street is controlled by No

Parking 8 AM-6 PM regulations. Although not countec;l in auto parking supply,
these spaces provide opportunities for auto standing and truck loading/
unloading ..
The off-street parking supply has heen divided into zones of ~ess than
1,000 feet from the site and 1,000 to 2,000 feet from the site. Table II.J-3
shows the existing licensed off-street parking facilities for each parking zone
in the study area and·their approximate utilization periods based on field'
observations. The location of these facilities in each zone is shown in Figure
II.J-5. Overall, there is a supply of about 9,700 off-street spaces with aboue
46 percent \orithin 1,000 feet of the site. The utilization of these spaces at
2 PM and 7 PM was checked in the field through.visual inspection and by inter-
viewing the operators. Overall utilization throughout the day in the entire
parking study area remains relatively constant in the 77 percent-86 percent
range, however wi~hin 1,000 feet of the site, the midday rate is 84 percent and
the PM rate is 89 percent. of the 16 facilities within 1,000 feet of the site,
four are at near capacity conditions (occupancy at or over 95 percent) in the
midday, and nine are near capacity in the eve~ing.
Subway Service
Within the study area for the proposed project there are five subway sta-
tions served by eight subway lines. Four of the stations are located along
Broadway at 59th Street (IRT/IND), 66th Street (tRT) , 72nd Street (IRT), and
79th sereet (IRT). The fifth staeion is at 72nd Street and Central Park West
(INn). The 72nd Street INt> station and the 79th Street-Broadway (IRT) are not
j
included in this analysis 'because gf their distance from the project and prQ-.
jected very 'light usage 'by project-r;eneraten trips. The locationof the three
II.J -7
Existing Off-Street Parking
Figure 11.)-5
.. m
79th
"
~
'I Museum Of .!II

...
II
Natural
\
~
History
II
72iid
66th
65th
zo
en
Q
;:1
::
69th
57th
"_2_·_ _
51.
',OOO·Foot Perimeter
~ -- 2,OOO.Foot Perimeter
Tabl.e II.l'-2
OR-S1'BDT PAlnRG S'Il'PPLY
---------I~. _________________ ~I.~--------------.---.I- _____________ w ______ 1

TIME LOCATION I AvenUes cross-Streets
PERIOO I, I M UM AUTH TOTAL I M UM AUTH TOTAL I
··-~···--I-----------·--·-···- ----·-·--····-------·I-·--~·---·-----------I
10 AM 1 57TH ST-65TH sT 140 60 15 215 I 55 90 110 255 I
I I
I 66TH ST-72ND sT '10 60 170 I 135 370 55 560 I
I I I
I~~----·--·--·-----~- ·_--_··_------------·1·------------_···----1
1 ToTAL 250 120 15 385 1 190 460 ;65 815 1
·~··~---·I-·-------·--~-·---~- --·-···-------------·I~·--··--------------·I
1 PM . I 5nH ST-65TH ST '40 120 15 275 1 S5 190 110 355 I
1 1
I 66TH sT·72ND Sf 110 120 230 I 13S· 730 55 920 I
I 1 I
I··-··-·-~~--------··I·---··---------··---·I··--·---------_·-----1
1 TOTAL . I 250 240 15 S05 I· 190 920 165 1275 1
------···1··--·------------···1··--··_------_···----1--------------···----1
3 PM I 57TH ST-65TH ST I 140 120 15 275 I S5 190 1'0 355 I
I I I .
I I 66tH ST-72ND ST 1'10 120 230 I 135 730 55 9Z0 1
I I I I I
I I----·-·-----·······-I---------··~·-···----I·---·-·············--1
I 1 TOTAL I 250 240 15 50S I 1'0 920 165 1275 1
I·······--I---------·--·-······I-··-~------~-········I---_·_-_············-1
M : Metered parking
iJM : Urmeterecl parking, primatHy alternate-side·of·th~-street
parking avaiLabLe on any specific weekday.
AufH : Reserved parking for specified auto parkers
II.J·8
Table II.J-3
.. ,
rivERsIDE soriTa on .. sTliUr rAilD:RG DlVEftO&y
rAC!LITY ~ITHIN 1000-FooT RADiUS OF THE ?ROJ£CT SIT£ £511:11.TED C:STIHAT&:D

WEEKDAYS OCCUPANCY (') AVAILABLE CAPACITY
FACILITY LICENCE LlCENCE
NUMBER OPERATOR NID!BER CAPACITY :.!ICDAY PM !-!IDDAY PH
---------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Square ~est End Avenue COI~. 885291 850 85 75 128 213
2 Alezander Parking Corp. 811953 374 85 95 56 19
3 64 West End Parking Corp. 761016 106 100 85 a 16
4 Wilson Parking Corp. 836345 100 85 70 15 30
St. Luke - Roosevelt i32908 190 95 90 10 19
6 57th & 11th Parking Corp. 429031 1000 80 85 ioo 150
~eyers Parking Inc. -129874 86 90 70 9 26
B Lincoln Square Apts. 369187 77 90 100 8 o
9 Lincoln Square Apts. 369188 22 80 100 -I a
10 Lincoln Tower Apts. - 368170 445 80 100 89 o
11 Lincoln Tower Apts. ~ 5 368646 163 100 100 o o
12 Lincoln Square Apts. 368648 24 100 100 o a
13 Lincoln Square Apts. 368647 42 LaO 100 a a
14 Lincoln Tower Apts. - 2 367771 . 320 80 100 64 o
15 Lincoln Tower Apts. ~ 3 367994 411 80 100 82 o
16 11 Riverside Garage Corp. 429467 200 70 90 6-0 20
tOTAl. CAPACITY 4410 AVAILABLE CAP, 725 -193
84% 89%
FACILITY WITHIN 2000-FooT RADIUS OF THE PROJECT SITE ESTIMATED EST!:o\ATED
WEEKDAYS OCCUPANCY Ii) AVAILABLE CAPACITY
FACILITY LICENCE· LICENCE

NUMBER OPERATOR~_& ___
________________________________ 5
NUMBER
__________________* __________________________________________ ~&
CApACITY MICDAY PM MIDDAY __
PM --~
& ___
17 Ansonia Garage 808714 110 50 80 55 22

18 BEW Parking Inc. 429522 100 30 100 70 o
19 Barmaz Parking Corp. 884128 75 30 90 53 8
20 Hertz 42739B 250 30 50 175 125
21 Amsterdam Parking Corp. 427638 400 40 100 240 o
22 RT Parking Corp. 427539 350 40. 90 210 35
23 Avis(not posted) 427308 300 50 80 150 60
24 Beacon Garage Corp. 882302 210 100 100 a o
25 Berkley Garage Corp. 427385 278 60 100 111 o
26 Sherman Square Garage 693369 236 65 70 83 11
27 Omni Parking Corp •. 368322 271 70 70 81 81
28 Lincoln Square Apts. 369186 158 80 100 32 o
29 Di1ight Parking Corp. 817003 80 100 60 o 32
30 165 W. 66th Street parking Corp. 368337 77 90 70 8 23
31 138-140 West 65tb Street 368395 721 80 80 144 144
32 JoMeg Garage Corp.· 769373 83 70 9Q 25 8
33 Columbus Realty Assoc. 780842 205 80 90 4] 21
34 Hack Parking Corp. 469436 318 100 80 o 64
35 Allie Garage Corp. 813398 125 80 . 70 25 38
36 Effective Parking Corp. 368157 55· 70 50 17 28
37 Apex Parking Corp. . 368300 378 100 80 o 76
38 Rapid - 63 St. Corp. 427688 80 80 60 16 32
39 411 W. 55th Corp. 427688 175 80 90 35 18
40 Rea Parking 429103 65 90 80 7 13
41 Hatty's W. 53 Street 429470 50 100 80 o 10
42 Harty's W. 53 Street 367336 50 90 80 5 10
43 Rez Patking 429832 78 80 80 16 16
TOTAL CAPACITY 5218 AvAIt.ABL£ CAP. 1599 . 935
70\ 82\
* NYCDOT considers occupancy at or above 95 percent to be at capacity.
lI.J-9
Table lI.J-4
'WEEKDAY ENTEll.ING TUBNSTlLE COUNTS*
Station 1987 1988 198"9 1990 .
59th Street 36,266 37,259 38,626 37,220

66th Street 10,885 11,803 12,809 11,893
72nd Street 23,"521 24,"423" 24,941 24,833
" Source: New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) Counts
stations analyzed and the lines serving them are shown in Figure II.J-6. As
indicated in table II.J-4, the nUmber of passengers entering the three stations
on an average weekday increased during .the late 1980's before declining between
1989 and 1990.
As is characteristic· of stations serving" Midtown Manhattan, demand levels

are highest during both the AM and PM peak hours (8-9 AM and 5-6 PM, respec-
tively), with the AM peak hour usually the more critical of the two periods.
Subway service is generally good at all three stations, but is characterized by
some peak-hour congestion on adjacent sidewalks, stairs, token booth areas, and
subway platforms, and in subway cars ..
Stations in the study area were surveyed in June and September 199i to
determine the level of existing usage. Surveys of persons entering and exiting
the 72nd Street lRT station in June 1991 indicated a lower peak" hour usage of
this station than was documented in the Trump City DElS. Unlike the other two
stations analyzed, both the mezzanine and southbound platform of the 72nd
Street IRT station are to be analyzed as critical station elements. Therefore;
the higher volumes documented in the trump City DElS were used as a conserva-
tive estimate of existing station patronage at 72nd Street.
The usage data for each station Were used to quantitatively establish
existing volume-to-capacity (vic) ratios and levels of service (LOS) at criti-
cal points within the stations. VIC ratios relate passenger flows to the pas-
senger handling capacity of a particular element within a station (e.g., stair-
ways, turnstiles, etc.). LOS relates quantitative measures of pedestrian flow
rates or crowding (e.g., number of persons walking up and doWn a stairway,
number of persons waiting on a platform, etc.) to qualitative levels of comfort
ranging from A to F. The usage of these terms in analyzing conditions within
stations is discussed in the following sections in greater detail.
During June and September 1991, pedestrian surveys were conducted at the
three stations serving the project site: 72nd Street and Broadway (IRT), 66th
Street and Broadway (IRT), and 59th Street and Columbus Circle (IRT,IND). The
purpose of these surveys was to analyze the existing levels of service at key
subway entrances, stairways; mezzanines and platform areas within ehese sta·
tions. Counts were cortduceed durIng the AM peak (8-9 AM) and PM peak (5-6 PM)
hours. The information has been analyzed and the results for each station are
presented below.
1l.J-lO
IIiBS .Study Area Subway Stations
. Figure II.J-6
\
~----~------+~--~~--~=---------~79~
79th Street
....1--1- IRT Station Museum Of
Natural
History
,.
72nd St eet
IRT. Sta ion
72nd Street _ _..! 72nd

INO tation
Lincoln
Towers
66th Street
IRT Stotion
Lincoln
Center
:z:
~
0
rn
i
= Fordham
University
(;01
t.>
59t1i
10-91
59th S.tr.e.e.tICol;umbus Circle - - IND. and. Tit!. The 59th Street station has a
large mezzanine, three full-time token·booths and 10 entrances, including the
high-turnstile (iron maiden) entrance at 59th Street and Central Park South.
There are a total of 13 stairways and two escalators between the sidewalk and
the mezzanine levels. this station is an INO and IR! interdivisional transfer
station (i.e., free transfers among all lines), serving six lines (A, B, C, 0,
1, and 9). A schematic drawing of the key station elements within this station
is presented in Figure II;J-7.
As noted earlier, ridership at this station has remained relatively con-

stant over the past four years with an overall increase in ridership of 3 per-
cent between 1987 and 1990. Recent field surveys and data provided by the New
York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) indicate that the station's most pressing
problems include poor station entrance locations, congestion at transfer points
between I~D and IRT lines, conges~ion on the IRT platforms, and passenger con-
fusion resulting from the· station's design.
StairwaYs and Control Areas: LOS and vic conditions at the stairways
leading to and from the platforms and at fare array areas were analyzed based
on the procedure described in the New York City Transit Authority's Stat.ion
Planning and Design ~uideline$ and using LOS parameters presented in PedestrIan
Planning and DesIgn by John Fruin (MAUDEP, 1971). A description of pedestrian
LOS categories (A through F) for stairways is providedirt Table II.J-S.
Table II.J'-5
STAIR.VAT lIItvzl. OF SEaVICE DESCRIPTIONS
Level of Service .cOliliilents
A Up to 5 Free Flow
B 5 - 7 Minor reverse flows will cause minor

conflicts.
C 7 - 10 Slig~t restrictions in speed and some diffi-

culties in reverse flows.
D 10 - 13 Significan~ restrictions in speed and diffi-

culties in reverse flows.
Ii: 13 17 Reductions of speeds, serious reverse traffic

conflicts, and intermi~tent stoppages.
F More chan 17 Complete breakdown in traffic flow.

w
Persons per· foot width of stairway. per minute.
S~ce: Pedestrian Planning and Design by john Fruin. MAUDEP, 1971.
Under the Fruin methodology; transit s~ations are considered to opera~e

satisfactorily at LOS 0 Or better during peak flow periods within peak hours.
tl.J-ll
59th Street Subway Complex
1991 Existing .Conditions
. Figure II.J-7
• Stairs to Street
\ Blat S1.
•
I8l
Escalator to Street
Token Booth
lID Turnstile Array
$ High Wheel Exit
.8 High Turnstile
CENTRAL
80th St. PAR K
1
1
\ 1
\ 1
\1
~1\
1 \
1 \
1 \
59th Street! 1 \ 59th St.
Columbus Cit'cle 1 \
1 \
1
58th St.
51th St.
10091
Following Fruin's concept of intermittent arrival patterns or "micropeaks"
in transit facilities, LOS analyses (based on Fruin's persons/foot/minute --'
PFM -- statistic) and vic ratio calculations (based on a planning capacity of
10 PFM -- equivalent to an LOS of C/D) were perfo~ed for existing stairway
conditions for the selected AM and PM periods, based on the peak five-minute
volumes within each hour. Effective stairway width was calculated as the width
between the handrails multiplied by a factor of 0.8 to account for reverse flow
frictions (i.e., conflicts between persons going up and down the stairway). A
20 percent reduction in capaCity due to friction was conservatively assumed in
all cases to assure a worst-case analysis. This analytical criterion was used
to assess stairway and turnstile operating conditions at the 59th Street subway
station.
Entrance stairways with the potential to be impacted by the development of

the proposed project were analyzed. These include Stair Sl and Escalators E1
and E2 at S8th Street-Central Park West, Stair S2 located on a traffic island
at 60th Street-Broadway, and Stair S3 located in front of the Paramount Co~u
nications Building. In addition, fare control area R-1S8 was also e~amined.
Table II.J-6 presents the.v/c and LOS values at the station's stairways
and escalators and at the 60th Street-Broadway fare array during the AM and PM
peak hours. As these data indicate, all stairways with the exception of stair-
way S3 operate well within capacity during peak hours. Stairway S3, on the
south side of the Paramount Communications Building, operates at LOS D during
both peak hours. Both escalators opera~e at tos A in both the AM and PM peak
hours, as do·the turnstiles at the 60th Street-Broadway fare array.
Although project-generated trips exiting the S9th Street-Columbus Circle

station would be divided among the station's three fare control areas, a major-
ity of project trips entering the station would do so via fare control area
R-1S8, located at 60th Street and Broadway (next to the downtown tRT platform).
Therefore, the analysis of fare array conditions at this station focused on
this entrance as it is. the most likely to be impacted as a result of the pro-
posed project. The analysis indicates that the entrance/exit capacity at this
.10cation is sufficient to service existing demand, with a maximum vic ratio of
0.27 during the PM peak hour.
Platforms: There are five platforms at this subway station. Two platforms
are used by the No.1 and No.9 IRT trains (Broadway locals), and three by the
A, B, C, and D INn trains (Eighth Avenue ·lines). The middle platform of the
three parallel island platforms serving the Eighth Avenue line is currently
closed to the public.
Existing conditions on the IRT platforms at the 59th Street station are
characterized by areas of spot congestion near stairways and areas of ob-
structed lines of sight along the platforms .. IND platforms at this station
tend to be less crowded, although spot clustering does occur during AM and PM
peak hours near stairways. Such crowding patterns are tyPical in most central-
ly located subway stations where interdivisional transfers are possible.
6.6.th S.tre.e't-Broadway - IRT. The station at 66th Street anq. Broadway is a

local stop for the No.1 and No.9 IRT trains. This station is located near
Lincoln Center, bany educational facilities, and ehe many commercial and' retail
establishments along Broadway. It is directly linked to Lincoln Center through
a connection with the main fare collection area at 65th Street. Annual pai4
Table II.J-6
59TH STREET-COLUKBUS CnCLE STATION ;' '-"
EXISTIRG CORDiTIORS
'.
E'f'lICtive
F-ac;1ity Peak Width (1 ) Qapacity Pk Ii Min.
No. Location PwriGd (Feat) (PfIM)(2) V01Ul8(4) PFM(5) VIC LoB
S1
--------
58th St .... AM
--------
8.20
--------
82
---------
36 0.88 0.09
---A
Col.-bue Ci rcla PM 8.20 82 70 1.71 0.17 A
S2 Tr.f'f'ic Island AM 3.86 39 121 6.26 0.63 B

BroadW.y/6oth PM 3.86 39 154 7.97 0.80 C
sa South Si de of' AM 6.71 88 365 10.79 1.08 D

G .. W Building PM 6.77 68 340 10.05 1.00 D
E1 Up Escal.tor" AM 42-inch 102 (3) 207 nla 0.41 A

Near 58th St. PM Escal.tor 102 (3) 85 nla 0.13 A
E2 DaMn Escal.tor AM 42-inch 102 (3) 29 niB 0.06 A

....r 58th St. PM Escal.tor 102 (3) 113 nla 0.22 A
R- F.... Arr.y • 11M Enter 96 50 nla 0.10 A

15i 60th St....t (6) Exit 146 72 n/a 0.10. A
PM Enter 96 130 nla 0.27 A
Exit 146 24 nla 0.03 A
---- -------------- --------- -------- --------- ----- --.-
(1) Ef'f'ect:ive Width ....urad as .~dth t.tween the handrails
aultipHed by a f'actor of' o. a to account f'or" reve,... '''_B.
(2) Stair capacity basad on NVCTA guidBlinits of' 10 PFM.
PPM = persons Par Minute.
(3) Escalator capacity baaed uPon HYCTA gLI;deli ......
(4) SouI'C8: Sap'tallber 1991 f'ield count•.
(5) Parsons Per Foot W,dth of Stlli ....y Par Minut••
(s) Includaa: 3 antar-anly turnati'in, 3 ax;t-an'iy tiuffift; lea and ana axil gata.
Peak Hauni 8AM .... .

Ipji ...PM
n.J-13·
entries ae this station increased by 9 percent iiuring the 1987-1990" period,'
a.lehough they declined between 1989 and 1990.
Fig~reII.J-8 shows the location of the 66th Street station's entrances.

There are four ways to enter the station:
o From Lincoln Center passageways, with access to these areas provided

from Amsterdam Avenue, from 63rd and 65th Streets midpoint between
Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues, and from various locations within che
Lincoln Center complex. The principal passageways of interest are
those connecting Amsterdam Avenue at 64th Street to the 65th Streec-
Columbus Avenue control area. (See Figure II.J-8 for the location
where these passageways connect to the station's control area.)
o From Columbus Avenue at 65th Street (stairway 02 in Figure II.J-8),

which serves the downtoWn and (via an underpass) the uptown plat-
forms.
o From the northwe"st (stairway Sl) and southeast (stairway S2) corners
of 66th Street and Broadway, directly serving the downtown and uptown.
platforms, respectively.
The two str~et leve1entrances at 66th Street and Broadway both operate
part time. The entrance on the west side of Broadway at 66th Street is open
between 7 AM an~ 6:30 .PM, Monday through Friday, and the entrance on the east
side of Broadway is open between 6 AM and 1 AM, Monday through Saturday. The
65th Street entrance is open 24 hours a day.
St:airways and Cont:rol Areas: The results of the 1991 peak hour field
counts and analyses of stairways at the 66th Street Station are presented 'in
table II.J-7. These studies utilized the same capacity analysis methodology.
applied to the 59th Street subway station assessment. "
The worst conditions were observed during the AM peak at the two 66th
Street stairways east and west of Broadway (stairways S2 and Sl in Figure
II.J-8). LOS n"conditions occur at stairway S2, and stairway Sl operates at
tos C. Much of this demand is, the result of the large number of students en
route to the nearby Martin Luther King High School and the High School for the
Performing Arts. Ouring the PM peak hour, when the number of student trips is
far lower (most having occurred in the 3-4·PM period), stairway Sl operates at
LOS B, and stairway S2 operates at LOS A. Both stairway 02 and the passageway
to Lincoln Center operate at LOS A during both peak periods.
The results of the vIc analyses of the control area's turnstiles and exie
gates assessments are also presented in Table II.J-7 for the station's three
control areas. All three control areas currently operate at LOS A during both
the AM and PM peak hours. It is important to note that the field counts used
for the analysis also include those riders that use subway passes (e.g., stu-
dents).
PiaIforms: The two side platforms at the 66th Street station" currently
operate at acceptable levels of service. Because this station is a local sta-
tion, it was decided in consultation with represeneatives of Meeropo11ean
Transportation Authority (MTA) that it would not be necessary to perform a
detailed platform analysiS.
11 •.1-14
66th Street IRT Station
1991 EXisting Conditions
Figure 11.)-8
~ Stairs to Street
[gJ Token Booth
\
66th St.
65th St.
Ramp Up to Lineoln Center

---.I
Passageways and Garage
10·91
Table II . .1-7 .
66TH STREET IllT STATION
1991 EXISTiNG CORDITIORS
Effact,v.
Faci1ity Peak Width (1) capacity Pk 5 Min.
No. Loeation Period (Feat) (PPM) (2)a
_______ Vo'lurnri(3) PPMt 4 > VIC LOS
S1
--------
NW Corner of S6tl'!
------
AM ---------
4.34 43 ---------
159 '7.33
.----
0.73 C
& Broadway PM 4.34 43 129 5.95 0.60 B
S2 SE Corner of 66th AM 4.34 43 25B 11.90 1. 19 D

& Broadway PM 4.34 43 83 3.83 0.38 A
02 Stair ~o Lincoln AM 4.34 43 76 3.51 0.35 A

Center i Columbus PM 4.34 43 66 3.04 0.30 A
Ramp ttl Lincoln AM 8.00 120 100 2.50 o. ,1 A

Center S c01umbus PM B.OO 120 40 1.00 0.01 A
R· Dwn~wn Fare Array AM Enter' 104· 73 n/a 0.14 A

1S0 8 66th Street (5 ). Exit 110 86 nla 0.16 A
PM Enter 104 116 nla 0.22 A
Exit ;10 13 nla 0.02 A
R- Uptown Fare Array AM Enter 32 9 nla 0.06 A

159 66th Street (5) Exit 94 249 lila 0.5'3 A
" PM Enter 32 31 nla 0.19 A
Exit 94 52 n/a 0.11 A
Roo Li licoln Center AM Enter ... Exit 192 176 fila 0.18 A
160A Fare Array (5) PM Enter ... Exit 192 106 tl/a 0.11 A
--------
_ _ _ _ _ Iiii' _ _ _
-_._---------- ------------
(1) Effective Width measured as width between the handrails
multiplied by a factOr of 0.8 to account for reverse flOws.
(2) Stair capaCity based on NVCTA guidelines of 10 pFM.
Ramp capacity !:lased upon t~YCTA gUideline of 15 PFM.
Turnstile and exit gate capacities based upgn IIVO:TA 9l.1ideHnits.
PPM =Persons Per Minute.
(3) SoUrGe: September 1991 Field Counts.
(4) Persons Per Foot Width of StairWay Per Minute.
(Sl Far. AF~ay Configurations:
R-;5B: 2 two~"ay turnst;l •• R~1BD: 2 entrance turns~;les R-1I10A: 6 two-way turnstiles

1 exit;tlnly tu~nsti'a 2 high entraiice. turnstiles
high ~evo'v,ng .x;t gat. 2 high rBvoiving exit gates
; exit gate
Peak Hours: 8AM - gAM
5PH liPM
II.J .. 15
72nd Street-Broadway IRT. The location and plan for the 72nd Street s~a
tion are presented in Figure II.J-9. As this exhibit indicates, the entrance
mezzanine/token booth area is located on a traffic island at the intersection
of Broadway and Yest 72nd Street~ Pedestrian access to this station is compli-
cated by the constant vehicular traffic that surrounds the station.
The mezzanine area is accessed by north and south entrances. Field counts
indicate that the north entrance is more heavily utilized than the south en-
trance. There are two possible reasons for this: (1) the northern entrance is
closer to the often crowded Broadway and 72nd Street intersection where pedes-
trian traffic is consistently heavy; and (2) the low iron fence that surrounds
the traffic island limits access to the southernmost entrance to a small open-
ing at the southern end of the island.
Inside this station (the exterior of which is a New York City Landmark as
well as a National Register-listed property), there are separate turnstile
arrays and token booths for the uptown (northbound) and dOWnto~ (southbound)
platforms. Access to the uptown platform is via seven two-way turnstiles, and
the downtown platform is served by five two-way turnstiles.
This configuration of the station's fare control area dates from September
1989 and resulted in the elimination of a free transfer between uptown and
downtown trains.
Stairways and Control Areas: Table II.J-8 s'Umlnarizes the existing LOS and
vic analysis for each of the five stairways leading to and from the platforms
at the 72nd Street IRT subway station. In general, all of the stairways at
this station are very substandard in width and operate at vic ratios of over
1.0 for either the AM or PM peak period. LOS conditions are poor in the peak
directions during rush hours (i.e., southbound platform stairs in the AM peak
and northbound platform stairs in the PM peak), with stairways P5/P7 and Pl/P~
operating at LOS F in the AM and stairway P4 operating "at "tos F in the PM. In
addition, stairways P8/P9 and P6 operate at LOS D and E, respectively, in the
PM peak hour. All stairways operate at acceptable levels in the off-peak
direction.
VIC ratios and levels of service were also calculated for the uptown
(R-l6lA) and downtown (R-16l) fare arrays. The vic analyses of these station
elements, presented in"Table II.J-8, indicate that the entrance/exit capacity
at both the uptown and downtown arrays is sufficient to service existing de-
mand, with a maximum vic ratio of 0.69 for the downto~ turnstiles in the AM
peak hour.
Circulation around the token booths and turnstiles is most restricted

during the AM peak because of the high volume of entering passengers. Condi-
tions in the mezzanine area were quantified using a Time-Space procedure out-
lined by Gregory Benz in Pedestrian Time-Space Concept: A New Approach to the
Planning and Design of Pedestrian Facilities (January 1986). This procedure
calculates the amount of available space for each pedestrian (square feet per
person) under peak Gondieions. A ratio is determined that relaces this avail-
able space to che LOS ranges for circulaCion detailed in J. Fruinis Pedestrian
Planning and De~lgn (1971); as shown below in Table tt.J-g.
II.J-16
72nd Street IRT Station
1991 Existing ~onditions
Figure II .. J-9
\ ~
I8J
Stairs to Street
Token Booth.
72nd St.
71st St.
Table 11 •.:r-8
72RD STREET liT STATION. 1991 EXISTING CONDITIONS
o 0
Effective
Facility Peak Width (1) Capacity Pk 5 Min • .
No. Location PariCid (i'eet) (PPM) (2) V01U1118(3) PFM(4) VIC LOS
P5/P7
--------
North Downtown
------
A/o4
---------
2.'74
---._---
27
----..----
264 19.30 1.93 F
Platform Stai,. PH 2.74 2'7 134 9.80 0.98 C
PliP3 South Downtown A/o4 :?'74 27 287 20.98 ::!.10 F

Platform Stair PH 2.74 27 111 8.11 0.81 C
P8/f19 North Uptown A/o4 2.74 27 71 5.19 0.52 8

Platform Stair PH 2.74 27 ISO 10.98 1. 10 0
P6 Center Uptown A/o4 2.'74 27 122 8.92 0.89 C

Platform Sta,r PH 2.74 27 0 230 1S.S1 1. 68 E
P4 South Uptown A/o4 2.74 2'7 126 9.:?1 0.92 C

Platform Stai" PH 2.74 27 256 18.71 1.87 F
R- Uptown Entranca
ISlA (7 two-way AH nla 224 319 n/a 0.28 A
turristi 'es) PH Ma 224 636 nla 0.57 A
R- Downtown Entrance
iS1 (5 two-way A/o4 nla 160 551 ri/a 0.69 8
turnstiles) PM iila '60 245 nla 0,3; A
W~
------
__ _______
--------- -------- _I11III_------
(1) Effective Wi~th measured as width betwaen the handrails

multiplied by a factor gf 0.8 to a¢count for revarsa flows.
o
(2) Stidr capaclty b...d on NVCTA gUidel;nes 0; 10 PFH.

lutnsti 'e capaCity :: 32 PPM j:lel" turnstile (PPM .
Persons Par M;nutaj;
(3) Source: Tfl.illlP City bits.
(. ) Per-sons FI.r Foot WH:tth "f StairwaY Per- Minuta.
°It.J-17
Table II.J~9
RELATIONSHIP OF LOS TO AVAILABLE SPACE
AV'erage Sq. Fe.

Level of Service Per Person Circulation Category ___ _
A 35 or greater Free flow.

B 25 -
35 Minor reverse flows will cause
minor conflicts.
C 15 25 Slight restrictions in speed and
some conflicts with reverse flows.
D 10 - 15 Significant restr~ctions in
speeds, with reverse flows seVere-
ly restricted. .
E 5 - lO Reductions of speeds, serious
reverse traffic conflicts, and
intermittent stoppages.
F 5 or less Complete breakdown in pedestrian
:flow.
Source: Fruin, Pedestrian Plaililing and Design (1971).
The results of the Los analysis for the mezzanine area are presented in
Table II.J-IO. As is shown, under 1991 eXisting conditions, the mezzanine is
operating at LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hours. Average circulation
area per person is about 34 square feet during both peak hours.
Platforms: The 72nd Street station's two island platforms are used to
board and exit northbound and southbound IRT local (Nos. 1 and 9) and express
. (Nos. 2 and 3) trains. All stairways between the platforms and mezzanine level
are located near the middle of each platform. Queues of passengers waiting to
use these stairways frequently form because of the stairway's limited capacity
and the large pedestrian volumes during the AM and PM peak hours.
Detailed peak hour passenger counts conducted for the Trump City DEIS at
both the northbound and southbound platforms indicated that the northbound
platform operates at acceptable levels of service; crowding is more of a prob-
lem on the southbound platform. The differences are primarily because the
southbound platform operates more as a departure platform, and the northbound
platform is mainly an arrival platform. Departure platforms are generally more
crowded because passengers waiting for trains are the primary cause of platform
crowding. In contrast, on arriving platforms most passengers exit immediately
after leaving the train. Therefore, all detailed analyses focused on the
'southbound platform. Because these departure-related problems were observed to
occur on a consistent basis only in the AM peak hour on weekdays, all analyses
of existing and future conditions focused on ~hat time period.
To analyze differences in crowding at various locations, the southbound

platform was divided inea 10 sub-sections, or one for each of the 10 subway
cars in the typical train serving this station, As the number of people
counted using the southbound platforIii during the peak hours was ·greater in the
n.J-lS
Table II.• J -10
721m STaDT I&T STATION lIEZZAHIBE TIllE/SPACE LEVEL or SEB.VItE AlilALYSIS
1991 EXISTING CORDITIORS
Total Queu. Walk Av.,.aga

Total Spac'it 1991 EXisting ·Average ,n. Spacit Module 'fi_-Spac'it T;_"Spac. TI •• -Spac. Total C'rculation
Avanabl. 5 M~n Volumes (tn Minutes) ( H; sq. 't.) Avanabl. ReQui ...d Av.ilabl. W.,k Tt_ A,..a/P.riNIn
(". ft.) Walk Queue Walk ou.ue Walk au.u. ( •• ,. -IIUn) (ii.,. -liii,) (ii.,.-_1n) (iUnut•• ) CiiQ. ft. ) I.OS
11M
~------:.---
752.0 870 52 0.12 0.75 7.5 i.O
---------~
3780,0
_____ . . . w.o __
234.0
______ ...... _iiIII
3528.0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ aIf . .
104.4
-----.......---
33.S S
PM 752. " 882 37 0.12 0.75 Us 8.0 3780.0 186.5 U!l3.5 ;05.1 34.0 j
.,..k Hour.: 8AM 9AI4

SPM - iPi04
Il,J-19
Trump City DElS data than in counts conducted in June 1991, the more conserva-
tive- Trump City data were used. Movem~nt patt~rns on the platform-were estab-
lished using data on riders entering and leaving stairways during peak 5-minute
conditions, as well as data on the distribution by zone of riders waiting for
and leaving from arriving and departing trains and transferring between express
and local trains. The time-space methodology Used to analyze conditions in the
station's token booth area was applied to assess the LOS conditions on the
platform. Because the heaviest crowding occurred during train delays, condi-
tions were analyzed under "one missed headway" condition, which simulated
crowding on the platform under the projection that no trains on any of the
station's four lines arrived during an -approximately seven-minute period. The
duration gf the period was based on average headway conditions -- the average
time between trains -- for the two express and two local lines.
LoS conditions were analyzed using two methods:
o Avai.lable Time-Space Capaci.ty. Average time-space (T-S) requirements

throughout the seven-minute period were-analyzed, accounting for
arriving passengers walking within and through as well as waiting in
each of the 10 zones. No departing or ~ransferring passengers_were
projected because no trains were assumed to be arriving under this
simulation. All waiting passengers were assumed to require the mini-
mum amount of space sufficient to be at LOS C conditions (7 square
feet per person), and walking passengers were assumed to require the
LOS C minimum for walking activities of 15 square feet per person.
Projecting the time-space requirements for the total amount of walk-
ing and waiting activity on the platform, the net amount of time-
space available on the platform and in each sub-zone was calculated.
This percentage provides a measure of the percentage increase in
passenger activity that an area could handle before conditions
reached -the LOS D level.
o "Snap.sho_t.n.Crowding Conditions. This procedure analyzed worst-:case

conditions at the end of the seven-minute period, just prior to -the
arrival of the first ·train. It represents the amount of available
space on the platform, divided by-the total number of passengers on
the platform at that instant.. Therefore, conditions are expressed in
square feet per person ~erms, with the associated LOS values for
waiting conditions under those space conditions also provided. Poor
LOS waiting conditions mean that waiting passengers are crowded to-
gether creating uncomfortable conditions.
Table II.J-ll presents crowding conditions during the AM peak hour on the
southbound platform under both of these methodologies under existing condi-
tions. The data in Table II.J-ll indicate that the southbound platform has a
considerable amount of available space over its entire length. However, an
analysis of platform space occupaney by section indicates that under the "snap-
shot" crowding assessment at the end of the delay period, 6 of the 10 zones
operate at LOS C (between 7 and 10 square feet per pedestrian), and one zone
(No.6) operates a~ LOS D under these conditions. The fact ehat crowding is
most seVere in that zone reflects the location of the platform's stairways;
which requires that all passengers heading to and from the platform'S norfhern
half walk into or through zone 0; and the highest percentage of waiting passen-
gers also use that zone.
II.J-20
Table Il.,J-ll
ASSESSMENT OF PLATFORM CONDITIONS
12ND STBEET lR'r STATION - ~ SOUTHBOUND PLAttOD
1991 EXISTING COND1TIONS
AM PEAK HOUR
------------------------------------
. "Snapshot"
Assessment
Percent of after 7 Min.
7 Minute T--S ----------~----
Zone Available(,) SF/Per(2) L.OS
--~-----
------~-------
1 62% 10.3 B
2 53% 8.8 C
3 45% 8.3 C
4 45% 7.8 C
5 34% 7.2 C
6 23% 6.8 0
7 33% 7. 1 C
8 52% 9.5 C
9 68% 13.3 A
10 83% 23.1 A
Platform 50~ 9. 1 C
Total:
-----~-~----~~~~-----~~---~~~~~----~
Notes:
(1) T-$ : Time-Space.
(2) Square Feet Per Person.
AM Peak Hour~ SAM - 9AM
11.J-21
Line, Haul Analysis. AM and PM peak hour subway line usage as estiinated by
the NYCTA is presented in Table II~J-12. Most lines exhibit some excess capac~
ity. There is, however, significant crowding on several lines at the peak load
point, which is defined as the crossing point into or out of the Manhattan
Central Business District (CBb). The peak load point is under the East River
for those routes headed to/from the Manhattan CBO froin Brooklyn and at 60th
Street for those routes headed to/from the CBb via Manhattan, Queens, and the
Bro~. Because the Nos. 1 and 9 1RT lines 'terminate at South Ferry and do not
cross into Brooklyn, data for the 60th Street peak load was used for trains
running in both the northbound and southbound directions on this line during
both peak hours.
Table 11.J-12 shows that the Nos. 2 and 3 1RT line's currently have a'defi-
cit of capacity (-14 percent) in the southbound' direction and a capacity sur-'
plus of 4 percent in the northbound direction during the AM peak hour. All
other lines serving stations within the study area are operating with available
capacity at the peak load point. The most congested of these lines are the
Nos. 1 and 9 lines, which currently operate at 91 percent of capacity in the
southbound direction during the AM peak hour.
The project area is serVed by eight bus routes, including four north-sou~h
routes and four east-west routes,as shown in Figure II.J~lO. The north-south
buses operate on Columbus Avenue, Amsterdam Avenue, West End Avenue, and Broad-
way. The east-west buses operate on, 79th, 72nd, 66th, 65th, and 57thy Streets
and use Freedom Place and West End Avenue near the project site for turn-around'
purposes. The MlO, a north-south route operating on Eighth Avenue-Central Park
West and Broadway-Seventh Avenue, is not included in this analysis because of
its distance from the project and the presence of other north-south routes more
convenient to the project site. The MTA has extended one of its crosstown
routes north of the study area (the M79) to Riverside Drive, with free trans-
fers to the M5 route. The end points of the bus routes and the roadways these
routes follow within the study area are described in Table II.J-13.
Bus utilization rates at peak load points on the principal routes serving
the project's stUdy area were determined based on data collected from 1989
through 1991 by the NYCTA. Peak load points represent those locations on the
route where the buses generally are the most crowded.
Table II.J-14 shows the 1991 existing conditions for the local bus routes
within the stUdy area. All of these routes have available peak direction ca~
pacity during both peak hours with the exception of the MS route which has a
deficit of 11 buses during the AM peak hour.
The proposed project is spread over 13 blocks (froin 59th to 72nd Street),
and consequently pedestrian flows to and from the site would tend to be spread
out. The primary component of project-generated pedestrian demand would be
pedestrians en route to and from the subway. As a result, project~generated
pedestrian trips would be mose concentrated near, entrances to area subway sta-
tions. The following four intersections chat wer~ found to be impacted loca~
tions in the Trump City DElS are examined:
II.J-22
Table 11.J-12
LIRE HAUl. ANALYSIS
1991 EXISTIRG CORDITIOWS
Percent of
r;.e Number of tlUlllber of Design Passenger Capacity
Line Period Direction Trains/Houre'l Cars/Hour(1) Capacity[Z) VOlume[11 Available
1,9 AM Southbound 15 150 18,000 16.364 9"

Northbound 14 140 16,800 6,543 61:1: ,
PM Southbound 12 120 14.400 5.941 59%
~_M _______________________________
14
_____________
Northbound ~
140 a ___________________
16.800 13.565 19%
~-~-----------~------------
2,3 Southbound 20 191 22,920 26.057 -14%

Northbound 17 162 19,440 18.701 4"
PM Southbound 16 151 18,120 14 ,509 20%
Northbound 18 173 20.780 18.160 13"
----------------------------~------------~-----------------------------------------------------
A AM Southbound 10 B4 17,203 10,002 42"
Northbound 13 110 22,528 18,154 19%
PM Southbound 15 128 26.214 15,279 42%
Northbound 9 B2 16,794 9,307 45"
, ,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B AM Southbound 5 50 11,000 4,284 61"
Northbound 8 80 17,600 8.578 51:1:
PM Southbound 8 80 17 ,600 5,392 69%
Northbound 6 '60 13,200 2,797 79%
ailiili _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .iIi. __________ iiII _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ... _ _ ~ _ _ _ _i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - - - -
C Southbound
AM 6 48 8.640 2.963 66~
lIorthbound 8 66 11,880 6,358 41%

PM Southbound 7 56 10,080 2.973 71%
NorthboUnd
_________________ 6 _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ... _ _48
________________ _ _ M~_~~ _ _ 8.640
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~M_~ ___ ~ _______ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 71%
2.553
D AM Southbound 10 80 17 ,600 10,757 39%

Northbound 10 80 17.600 9,221 48~
PM SouthbOund 7 56 12,320 4,953 &O~
NOr"thtJound 8 64 14,080 6,843 51"

-------~~-----------.~---------~~-~--------------~---------------------~---------g----~-----~--
Notas: e1l SOurclt: lIeW York City Transit AUthority 1990 Cordon COUri~.
[2i lasea Upon: 1,2;3,9 trains. all with 8 or 10 cars 8 120.'spaeas per, ~al"
A trains: 33X with 10 cars 8 1BO spaces per car
67' with 8 Cars 8 220 spaces par Gal"
C trains: a"-with'O cars' ;80 spaces pel" car
B,D tra;nsi ai; w~th 8 ~aFs • 220 spaces par Gar
II.,J"23 '
Study Area Bus Routes
Figure II.J-10.
79th
'II Museum Of
.J-----~~--~~--~~--------~~ Natural
History
72fid
66th
65th
14
Lincoln
Center
Fordham
University
59th
57th
:5~
ee<
I
o Route ierminus
Table 11.J-13
BUS ROUTES SERVING THE PROJECT AREA
Bus
Line OperatOr Terminal lloute.Vitbin Study Area.
MS NYCTA Houston St. Northwest - South~est along

G.W. Bridge Broadway, East· West along
Bus Terminal 72nd Street
M7 NYCTA W. 14th St. Northwest along Broadway

W. 147th Se. South along Columbus Avenue
East along 58th Street
Mll NYCTA Hudson St. North along AIIlsterdattl Avenue
W 133rd St. South along Columbus Avenue
M57 NYC'l'A Sutton Pl. So. East - West along 57th St.
72nd St./West North - South along West End
End Avenue Avenue
M66 NYCTA York Avenue East along 65th Street
West End Avenue West along 66th Street
M72 NYCTA York Avenue East -West on 72nd Street
Freedolll Place North - South on West End Ave.
with loop on Freedom Place
M79 lITCtA East End Ave. West along Slst St. & 79th St.
Riverside Or. East along 79th St. & Slst St.
M104 NYCTA E. 42nd Streee Northwest - Southeast along
W. 129th Street Bro&away
1l.J-24
Table II . .1·14·
1991 IIISTING LoCAL BUS aONDITIORS
Peak Oirection Peak "aur' Buses

• Avg, PaslMlngsl"s/Bu!l
a.b
Avaiiabi. Capacity in
C
AM/PM Psak Hour ~ ___________

__ Peak
aiii Dil"ection'
iiiii_ in the Peak Hour . _iiiii~
ths __________________
Peak 'H,..ction
--------------- PM
------------~------
PM AM PM
Route AM AM
145 SBINB 11 12 61 38 -11 254
',",7 SB/N8 9 10 45 57 135 30
1411 SB/NB 8 7. 50 45 80 105
1457 EB/WB 9 1 45 55 135 35
1466 EB/WB 12 10 41 52 156 80
M72 E8/WB 7 7 24 30 252 210
M19 WB/wa 1B 14 51 55 162 70
14104 SBINB 24 23 53 49 iiis 253
Source: N't'CTA Ridersi'!;p Surveys.

b
At the peak icaG pcint.
Peak Hours: SAM - 9AM

.SPM - IPM
11.J·25
0 Broadway at nnd Street;
0 Broadway at 66th Street;
0 Broadway at 6Sth Street; and
0 Broadway at 60th Street (next to the 60th Street lRT station
entrance).
All are located on Broadway near subway station entrances. The analyses
include LOS conditions at street corners and crosswalks that would be used by
project-generated trips. Hourly pedestrian counts were performed during the AM
(8 AM-9 AM) and PM (S PM-6 PM) peak hours on weekdays during June 1991 (at 72nd
Street) and September 1991 (60th, 65th, and 66th Streets).
LOS analyses of sidewalk, street corner, and crosswalk conditions along

the West End Avenue, Broadway, Amsterd~ Avenue, and Columbus Avenue corridors
were performed for the Trump City DElS. These quantitative analyses found im-
pacts at four intersections as a result of project-generated pedestrian trips:
60th Street-Broadway, 65th Street'-Broadway, 66th Street, and 72nd Street-Broad·
way. As the proposed Riverside South development would generate far fewer peak
hour pedestrian trips than the much larger Trump City project, it is reasonable
to assume that those intersections not expected to be impacted by Trump City
trips would also not be impacted by' the smaller number of Riverside South
trips. Therefore, only the four intersections found to be impacted by Trump
City pedestrian demand will be examined in this analysis. As no stUdy area
sidewalks were impacted in the trump City DEIS, none are included in this
analysis.
The following sections outline ,the results of analysis under existing

conditions at the four intersections listed above.
The methodology used in these analyses follows the procedures presented'in

The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report No. 209, Transportation Re-
search Board, Washington, D.C., 1985). ·Under this methodology, the number of
available square feet of space (excluding space not available for pedestrian
occupancy due to such obstructions as light posts, signs, phone booths, news-
stands, and fire hydrants) is compared to the flow of pedestrians traveling
through or waiting at the stre·et corner to establish the number of square feet
per pedestrian available at that location during the peak analysis period.
This procedure accounts for both the total.number of pedestrians at a given
street corner as well as friction between pedestrian flows passing through each
corner. Pedestrian concentrations are related to various Levels of Service, as
outlined in Figure II.J-II. All pedestrian volumes used in the street corner
analyses were based on the peak IS-minute period established during the inven-
tory phase. Analyses were performed for the peak IS-minute period in the AM
and PM on weekdays and table lI.J-lS presents the existing levels of service at
each of the analyzed street corners during selected time periods.
As the data in table lI.J-lS indicate, pedestrian levels of service are

generally good at the street corners analyzed with the exception of the 72nd
Street-Broadway ineersection. At the 72nd Sereet-Broadway intersection, during
both the AM and PM peak hours, the southwest corner currently operates at LOS D
(21 square feet: per pedestrian and 15 square feet per pedestrian, respective:,
1y) . The southeast cotnet operaees ·,ilt LOS D (20 sqUare feet per pedestrian)
during the PM peak hour only. The heavy pedestrian flows on these two corners
II.J·26
RIVERSIDE
SOUTH Pedestrian Level-of-Service Definitions
Figure II.J-'1
LEVEL OF SERVICE A
Pedestrian Space: ~ 130 sq H/ped Flow Rate: ~ 2 ped/min/ft ·~--~---..... ·.·-0,

It
,
•~
At walkway LOS A. pedestrians basically move in desired paths without altering I ~
their movements in response to other pedestrians. Walking speeds are freely •
•
--••••• ______ _______ J• •
selected. and conflicts between pedestrians are unlikely.
LEVEL OF SERVICE B
Pedestrian Space: ~ 40 sq ft/pad Flow Rate: ~ 7 ped/min/ft

r-\-----{!)
At LOS B. sufficient area is provided to allow pedestrians to freely select
walking speeds. to bypass other pedestrians. and to avoid crossing conflicts Witli
others. At this level •. pedestrians begil'l to be aware of other pedestrians. and to
respond to their presence in the selection of walking path.
f
I•
........._-----.
it \ II
.---....------.!
LEVEL OF SERVICE C
___. __ .~ - 0
e·\
Pedestrian Space: ~ 24 sq ft/pad Flow Rate: ~ 10 ped/min/ft
· ------------,,\.:.1
·••I~
At LOS C. sufficient space is available to select normal walking speeds; and to
bypass other pedestrians in primarily unidirectional streams. Where reverse-
direction or crossing movements exist. minor conflicts will occur. and speeds . ,•
and volume will be somewhat lower.
--._---._----------------------_!•
LEVEL OF SERVICE 0
Pedestrian Space: ~ 15 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: ~ 15 ped/min/ft
At LOS D. freedom to select individual walking speed and to bypass other

pedestrians is restricted. Where crossing or reverse-flow movements exist. the
probability of conflict is high •. and its avoidance requires frequent changes in
speed and position. The LOS provides reasonably fluid flOW; however.
considerable friction and interaction between pedestrians is likely to occur.
LEVEL OF SERVICE E
Pedestrian Space: ~ 6 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: ~ 25 ped/min/ft
At LOS E. virtually all pedestrians would have their normal walking speed
restricted. requiring frequent adjustment of gail At the lower range of this LOS.
forward movement is possible only by "shuffling." Insufficient space is provided
for passing of slower pedestrians. Cross- or reverse-flow movements are
possible only with extreme difficulties. Design volumes approach the limit of
walkway capacity. with resulting stoppages and interruptions to flow.
LEVEL OF SERVICE F
Pedestrian Space: S 6 sq ft/ped Flow Rate: variable "\,

o
,
At LOS F. all walking speeds are severely restricted. and forward progress is \
,,
made only by "shuffling." There is frequent. unavoidable contact with other ,,
,,
pedestrians. Cross- and reverse-flow movements are virtually impossible. Flow is
sporadic and unstable. Space is more characteristic of queued pedestrians than
of moving pedestrian streams.
..
~ ~~~~~~~.-.~
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209

Transportation Research Board; Washington, D.C. (198.5)
12091
'Table II.J-1S'
PEDESTRld LEVELS SEaVICE or
EXISTING POlt BOUll CONDITIONS
)
STREET CORNERS
-------------- AM PEAK HOuR PM PEAK HOUR
Location
__ w .. ____
Corner S.F./Ped. i.OS S.F./Ped. i.OS
_=;;;;;;301."___
---------
60th Street/ Northwest 120 B 89 B
Broadway Southwest 124 B 100 B
65~h Street/ Northwest 592 A 175 A

Broadway Southwest 292 A 83 B
66th Street/ Northeast 238 A 86 B

Bi"Oadwa,v Northwest 138 A 94 B
Southeast 86 B 84 B
Southwest 445 A 410 A
721'10 Street/ Southeast 31 C 20 0

BI"Q;!dw;!,y Southwest 21 0 15 0
CROSSWALK LOCATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOuR
----------------.--
Location Crosswalk S.F./Ped. bOS Sif'./Ped. LOS
- -.. -
.... ~- ...
--------;;;;;
;;;;; .._-_ ---
...
---------
60~h Street/ South 32 C 33 C
Bl"Qadway West 56 B 35 C
65th Street/ South 267 A 76 B

Broadway West ;12 B 31 C
66'th S~reetl North 82 B 42 B

Broadway South 28 C 55 B
East 72 B 20 0
wes~ S1 B 24 C
72nd Stl"eet/ South 27 C 22 i>

Broadway West 40 C 27 C
II.J -27
are primarily due to the entrance to the 72nd Street IRT subway station located
in a head house building next to the southeast corner. The presence of this
structure, along with a newsstand and an iron fence at curbside, restrict the
amount of space available to store pedestrian queues. Storage space on the
southwest corner is reduced by the presence of a grocery fruit s.tand.
Crosswalk Analysis
The analysis of crosswalk conditions is based on the two-way peak IS-min-

ute pedestrian volumes at the crosswalks of the analyzed corners in the study .
area. Following a procedure similar to that used for street corner analyses,
.the available crosswalk space and signal timing are compared with the hi-direc-
tional flows to ascertain the amount of square feet per pedestrian to arrive at
the LOS for each crosswalk.
The results of this analysis, based on 1985 Highway Capaciry Manual proce-
dures, are also shown in Table' II.J-15. As shown in Table II.J-15, all 'the
crosswalks analyzed currently operate at LOS C or better during the AM peak
hour. During the PM peak hour, two crosswalks operate at LOS D: the east
crosswalk at 66th Street-Broadway (20 square feet per pedes~rian), and the
south crosswalk at 72nd Street-Broadway (22 square feet: per pedest;rian). The
heavy pedestrian flows at 66th and 72nd Streets are primarily due to the pres&
ence of subway entrances on adjacent corners.
The Future Vithout the Project
Intro.due ti.on
For future analysis, because of development phasing, two future years have
been examined. The year 1997 is the first analysis year (Phase I) and repre-
sents the year when development of those parcels between 64th and 72nd Stree~s
can be completed. The year 2002 is the second analysis year (Phase II) and
represents the year when development of the remaining parcels, located between
59th and 64th Streets, can be completed.
The No Build traffic and transportation for' these two analysis years as-
sumes a background growth of 0.5 percent per year in travel and parking de·
mands, plus the site specific increased travel and parking demands dUe to
proposed and/or likely developments in the study area (see section II.B).
As described in section II.B, "Land Use and Zoning," three proposed devel·
opment sites are located next to or very near the project site -- the West 60th
Street Rezoning site between 60th and 61st Streets east of West: End Avenue, the
Manhattan West: site between 62nd and 64th Streets west of West End Avenue, and
the Capital Cities/ABC site between 64th and 65th Streets west Qf West End Ave~
nue. The approved Manhattan West project would include construction of a 63rd/
64~h St:reet circulation loop connected to West: End Avenue and the provision of
a left-turn slot; on t;he sout:hbound approach at 65th street afid West End Avenue
prior to 1997 to address sianificartt impacts of that project.
H.J-2S
1997 No Build.' .C.ortditions
Vehl.cular .Traffic
To obtain 1997 No Build vehicular traffic conditions, packground growth

plus traffic demand from development sites was added to the 1991 base network,
and approved mitigation from No Build development sites applied. In terms of
the vehicular roadway network, it is assumed that the present roadway system
remains essentially unchanged with the following two exceptions: first, it is
assumed that reconstruction of the Miller Highway between 59th and 72nd Streets
would be completed by 1997, and second, that· the Manhattan West project's 63rdl
64th Street circulation loop connected to West End Avenue would also be com·
pleted by 1997.
Figures II.J·12 and II.J-13 show the 1997 peak hour volumes and vic ratios
in the study area. Table II.J-16 compares 1991 and 1997 traffic conditions,
including those new locations that would become congested in the 1991-1997
interval.
As shown in Table II.J-16, all the very congested traffic locations in the
network would continue to worsen. On twelfth Avenue, the northbound PM vic
ratios at 54th, 55th, 56th, and 57th Streets would rise to 1.076, 1.084, 1.028,
and 1.048 respectively, with the AM northbound express lanes vic ratio at 56th
Street beginning to exceed capacity at 1.047.
Along West End Avenue, the 79th Street eastbound approach in the PM would
increase to 1.137 and at 72nd Street the northbound left turn would exceed \
capacity in.both the AM and PM peak hours, with vic ratios of 1.348 and ~.2l5,
respectively .. the recurring southbound AM problem on West End Avenue at 65th
Street would be reduced substantially with the implementation of mitigation for
Manhattan West, described above, but would still have a vic ratio of 0.927,· J
whereas at 59th Street, due to development projects, the vic ratio would exceed
capacity on the westbound approach, with a vic ratio of 1.193. Further south
on West End AvenuelEleventh Avenue, saturated conditions can be expected north-
bound in the PM at 57th Street, with a vic ratio of 1.059, and eastbound at
56th Street in the AM, where the vic ratio would rise to 1.050.
In the Amsterdam AvenuelColumbus Avenue corridors, the critical 7lst and

65th Street intersections with Broadway would be further constrained. On Am-
sterdSjD. Avenue northbound in the PM at 7lst Street, the vic ratios would rise
to 1.074, and Columbus AVenue southbound at 65th Street would be at or over
capacity in all pe·ak hours with vic ratios of 1.070, 1.040, and 1.033 in the
AM, midday, and PM peak hours. Further south on the Amsterdam AVenue (Tenth
Avenue) corridor, PM traffic headed to the highway would congest the westbound
55th Street approach with a vic ratio of 1. 010. On the 57th Streee eastbound
approach at Columbus Avenue (Ninth Avenue), capacity (v/c = O.996).and neat ca-
pacity (vic D 0.985) conditions are e~pected in the AM and PM peak hours,
respectively.
Overall in 1997; for the analyzed study area intersections, 47 approaches

would have vic ratios exceeding 0.850 in one or more peak hours. ,This compares
with 31 such approaches in 1991. Further; of ~hese 47 approaches, 18 would ,
have vic ratios of more than 1.000 in one or more peak hours compared with 8 in
1991 ..
II.J .. 29
1997 No Build Traffic Volumes
Figure 11.)-12
...
VI
79th U
Museum Of
Natural
History
\.
zo
en
Q "1/1"
;:,
1_/1010/IU2
1701/1_/2»4 11ft/II"
== • . Fordham
a/_:"Ii"=:O':"-----I University
IOII/III03/IIU' . IJU/IHI
111/171/12.11
"~2/12---~----------------+---------------~~------------~
U"/I41/IU' 1111./101./1:111
.cI U IH/10I/114-
!'! ~ 1440/'44/1012
.... --. 'ID/I22III"
,,-57th
.d U
... >
oa·...-:
I
'''./I77I/I1U
AM/PM
1997 No Build·V/C Ratios
.Figure II.J-13
Museum ot
Natural
History
o
U
'II
\
....
It.
zo
en
Q
~
:=
. 722/..,I/.n1
_/.5»/'»!
-In/.,,,/U', ] AAI..... dI'III ..B!. ~'1fiItift
.Ii"M.,.74i _/"".7I·~
:5:
Q-C: ==
CO-C:
·1 1
legend: AM/MIdday/PM
AM/PM
. iO-02
Table XI~J-16
1997 NO BUILD VIC RATIOS AT CONGESTED LOCATIONS
1991 1997 1991 1997
EXIST NBLD EXIST NBLD
PEAK VIC VIC PEAK VIC VIC
STREET APPROACH TOO RATIO RATIO STREET APPROACH TOD RATIO RATIO
----------------------------------.------:---------------------:
12TH AVE. NB (WSHY) @ 57TH ST. PM: 1.017 1.048.
-----------------------------------~-----:---------------------:
55TH ST.we @ llTH AVE KD 0.937 0.978.:
______________ ~------------------~_------I-M---------~---------: =========================================:====================='
57TH ST. WB THRU @ 12TH AVE.(WSHY) PM 0.871 0.898 • AMSTERDAM NB @ BROADIiIAY/72N1> ST. PH 0·.868 0.952 *
.===========Z2=================~~========:a========c===========1 ========c============:===========~~======I=··======~===========
12TH AVE. NB @56TH ST. (HIGHWAY) AM 1.016 1.047 • BROADWAY SB @ AMSTERDAM/ AM 0.932 0.994 *
PM 0.998 1.028 '* 71ST ST. KD 0.783 0.865 **
========Z========::1======z=========:t====== :·ecc==================: PH 0.897 1.001 •
12TH AVE.NB @,55TH ST.(HI~AY) PM 1.052 1.084 •
----------------------------~--.---------:.--------------------
HB @BROADWAY/71ST ST. KD 0.862 **
----------------------------------~------r---------------------: AMSTERDAM 0.777
55TH ST.we @ 12TH AVE AM 1.068 1.111.: PH 0.976 1.074 •
KD 1.000 1.086.:
==========e======c==================~====I=====·===============1
----------------------------------------·1---------------------
BROADWAY NB @ AMSTERDAM/11ST ST. KD 0.867 ' 0.947 t
12TH AVE.NB @ 54 ST.(HIGHWAY) PH 1.044 1.076. PH 0.928 1.030 *
===a=========a:z======_==================:=_===================: ======================~==================:====================:
12TH AVE.SB @51 ST AM: 0.808 0.853 •• : AMSTERDAM NB @ 57TH ST. PH 0.843 0.926 **
----~---------------------------~--------I--~------------------:
0.855 .* :
=========================================:~==============::====
51 ST WS @ 12 AVE. PH : . 0.830 55TH ST.we @ 10TH AVE PH 0.952 1.010 *
====~==z=================================:===========~=========1 ========~================================,~=:==:==========:====
79TH ST. D @ WEST END AM I 0.860 0.96'8..: COLUMBUS.S8 @ 67TH ST AM 0.879 0.935.
PH: 0.983 1.137 '* : =========================================:=========~.==========
====~==cscz.=~=~z=====a===.=e.c==========IE.~========.=========1 COLUMBUS SB @ 66TH ST. AM 0.813 0.867 **
WEST END SB @ 72ND ST. HD: 0.751· 0.853 *. : ==================~==~===================I============ =========
---------------------------------------~I---------~·----------: BROADWAY SB @ 65TH ST./COLUMBUS AM 0.981 1 •.054 *
EST END NB TH/RT @ 72ND ST. AM : 0.844 0.921 ** : KD 0.794 0.878 **
HD : 0.838 0.904 t. : PH
_ _ _ _ _ _ ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • 0.863 0.977 • 0_
______________ 8 _____ : .. ___________________
PH: 0.826 0.902 •• :

---------------------------~~~----------~:---------~~----------: BROADWAY NB @ 65TH ST./COLUHBUS PH 0.917 0.976 •
WEST END NBLT @ 72ND ST. AM: 0.804 1. 348 •• : --------~--------------------------------:--~------------------
PH: 0.973 1.215. COLUMBUS SB @ 65TH ST./BROADWAY AM 1.011 1.070 *
-----------------------------------------:---------------------: HD 0.975 1.040 *
72ND ST. EB @' WEST END AM 0.869 0.929 '* : PH 0.962 1.033 *
-----------------------------------------:------------~--------:
72ND ST. we @ WEST END PM 1 0.923 0.988 *
========~================~~~=============I======z==============1
=======================-==========&======1=====================
COLUMBUS SB @ 57TH ST.
---------------------------~-------------:---------------------
AM 0.829 0.936 *.
WEST END,SB @ 71ST ST. AM: 0.783 0.854 •• : 57TH ST. EB @ COLUMBUS AM 0.927 0.996 *
0.878 **
-----------------------------------------I~--------------------1
7lST ST. we @ WEST END AM: 0.780 0.898 ** :
HD
PH
0.830
0.925 0.985 *
KD: 0.958 1.091 • =========================================I~====================
===========_:s=======s===_===============I =sz==================1
WEST END SB @ 70TH ST. AM: 0.811 0.888 •• :
====~=.=.=================z=z========:===f=====================1
55TH ST.WS @ 9TH AVE HD
PH
0.820
0.829
0.863
0.870
=======~~=========:============c=========:==~==================
*.**
WEST END SB @ 65TH ST. AM 0.963 0.927 '* .: '65TH ST. EB @ CENTRAL PARK WES1' AM 0.848 0.948 **
====a==_===a=============================:=============~=======I PH : 0.869 0.971 *
WEST END SB @ 64 ST. AM 0.818 0.938 •• : =======f::t===========o===============~======:
COL. CIRCLE SB TO B'WAY @ 8TH AVE.
==ii:=================:
===.=.==.========sa======~.R====.===~====:=====s============::=: AM ,0.865 0.936. :
WEST END SB @ 61ST ST. AM 0.716 0.867 .. :
--------------------~-----------~--------:-----------------~---I
8TH AVE.NII @ ~OL.CIRCLE
==c·====~=========_===·====~=============I=·=========~=========1 PH : 0.850 0.912.
WEST END SB @60TH ST. AM: 0.709 0.854 •• : =======~~===================.=e=~========I=====================1
====.z=.===2a.zsz=.===~=a=====.====s=====I=~~=·========-=======: 57TH ST.we @ 8TH AVE AM 0.809 0.876 ** :
59TH ST. we @ WEST END AM : 0.639 0.894 ** : HD 0.805 0.899 ** :
PH: 0.831 1.193 •• : PH' 0.884 0.975· * :
==c.==c~z==a= •• ~===c=.=.~===.=== ••• =D====I=ac=~=.==z===========1 ••
====~=====.============ =====~=========~:==========e==========:
WEST END SB @ 57TH ST. AM: 0.912 0.946 t : 62ND ST.WS @ BROADWAY HD : 0.932 1.019 '*
----~------------------------------------:---------------------1 •• ••
~=========~.========== =~==~====== ====:==========c==~======a:
WEST END NB @ 57TH ST. PM: 0.959 1.059.: 57TH ST. ill i BROADWAY AM 0.791 0.856":
•• ••
~======.==.=====.== =.a====.a~=zzz====:= •• ==================:
11TH AVE.NB @ 56TH s1' PM: 0.835 0.916**:
------------------------~-------~--------:---------------------,
56TH ST.EB @ WEST END AM 1.015 1.050 •
•=.~=========s.====.=.s====·==·=~========I==·==========~~~=====I
• LOCATION WHERE VIC WOULD BE GREATER THAN .850 uNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS
*. LOCAtION WHERE VIC WOULD IE LESS tHAH .850 uNDER £lISTING cONDItIONS
II.J-30
Parking
In 1997, off-street parking conditions are expected to continue to be very

constrained within the study area. Within the 1,000-foot contour of the site,
the 374-space supply on the Manhattan West site would be eliminated. Further,
several other proposed development projects, such as Roosevelt Hospital,
Brodsky ~ast, and Columbus Center, would create parking demands that exceed
their planned parking provisions. It is also assumed that the demand for park-
ing, including the parking demand from future No Build development sites, would
increase at a rate of 0.5 percent per year. As a result, within 1,000 feet of
the proposed site, projected utilization levels are assumed to increase from 84
percent to 94 percent in· the midday and from· 89 percent to 100 percent in the
PM. In the 1,000- to 2,000-foot parking zone, utilization rates are expected
to rise from 70 percent to 75 percent in the midday and from 82 percent to 86
percent in the PM. These results are shown in Table II.J-17.
The on-street supply of spaces would be expect·ed to remain constant or

decline. As with· off-street conditions, on-street demand is expected to grow
at least at the background rate of 0.5 percent per year. Because of its cur-
rent fully utilized conditions, on~street parking demand -~ primarily residen-
tial -- would exceed supply in 1991.
Subway Service
. The analysis of 1997 No Build subway conditions assumed a background

growth rate of 0.5 percent per year for the analysis of the individual stations
as well as for line haul conditions. To this was added the demand generated by
each development site for the 1997 analysis year. Trips were assigned to spe-
cific station entrances and individual stairs within each station based on the
mOS4 direct path between each station and development site.
The following sections present an analysis of 1997 No Build conditions at

two of the three study area subway stations. No project-generated trip~ are
assigned to the 59th Street-Columbus Circle station in the 1997 Build year
analysis because of the distance between the station and the bUildings that
would be constructed in Phase 1 of the proj-ect. Therefore, this station \>las
not analyzed for 1997 No Build conditions. No Build line haul conditions for
1991 are also examined .
.6.6.th. Str.eet-Broadway. IRT.
8.taiXW1flYs and Control. Areas: Table II.J-18 summarizes the 1997 ~o Build
LOS and vic ratios for the street stairways and fare control areas at the 66th
Street-Broadway IRt station. As shown in table lI~J.18, except for street
stair S2, all street stairways, fare arrays, and the ramp to Lincoln Center for
both. existing and 1997 No Build conditions would operate at level of service
(LOS) C or better. Stairway S2; for both existing and 1997 No Build condi-
tions, would operate at LOs D during the AM peak hour, primarily because of the
heavy demand en roUee to nearby high schools. All ehree fare arrays and the
ramp to Lincoln Center would remain at their existing levels of service under
1997 No Build conditions.
Il.J-3l
Table 11 . .1-17
1997 NO BUILD OFF-STREET PARkING
Percentage Percentage
Midday PJI Utilization Utilization
1_.000 - Foot z.one CApacity Parkers Parkers ___tdday PH
Exist:ing 4,410 3;685 3,917 84% 89%

No Build 1997 4,036 3;796 4,035 94% 100%
1.000-2.000- Midday PJI 'Ot:ilization Utilization
Foot Zone.· . Capa.cux Parkers Zukers ._ .Hiddi1,.. ..----.PJI .
Existing $,278 3,679 4,343 70% 82%

No Bu1id i997 5,278 3;939 4,558 75% 86%
Il,J .. 32
Table II.J'-lB
66TH STllEE'l IR.T S7.A.TION
1997 NO BtflUl CONDITIONS
Effact'lve
Facility Peall Width (0 CaD.Ctty PII 5 Mtn.
tlo. Location ,iOOiii
... 1ad (I".lft \ (PPMl{2\
_iii ___ .. __ Va'iWiiii(31 PF~"41 VIC Los
---
____
-------- --------~ -----_....-

81 NW Cornar of 66th AM 4.34 43 173 7.97 0.80 C
& Broadway PI4 4.34 43 165 7.80 0.76 C
82 SE Co.. ne .. of 66th AM 4.34 43 281 12.95 1.29 D

" Broadway- PM 4.34 43 127 5.B8 0.59 B
02 Stair to Lincoln At4 4.34 43 182 8.41 0.84 C

Cantar 8 ColumbUS PM 4.34 43 194 8.95 0.89 C
R_I) to Lincoln AM 8.00 80 125 3.13 0.31 A

Center 8 ColumbUS PM 1.00 80 58 1.48 0.15 A
R~ Dwntwn Far. Array AM Enter 104 78 nla 0.15 A

160
• 88th Str.et (5\
PM
Exit
Ent.r
110
104
96
125
nla
n/.
0.17
0.24
A
A
Exit 110 38 nla 0.07 A
~- Uptown F.... Array AM Enter' 32 18 nla 0.10 A

151 • 66th Street (5\ Exit 94 2114 n/. _ 0.56 A
PM Enter 32 48 n/. 0.30 A
Exit 94 80 n/a 0.17 A
R- Ltncoln Cant.r AM Enter + Exit 192 307 n/. 0.32 A

110A F.ra Array (51 P~t Entilr + Exit
___ w ________ 192 253 fII. 0.21 A
----- -------------- ------ -------- ----.....-- ------
(11 Effective Width ...sured aa width batw. .n t~ handrail •
• ultipli.d by • factor of 0.8 to account fo .. rav.rsil flaw ••
(21 St.ir capacity ba.. d on NVCTA gui~li"*. Of 10 PPM.
PPM =Peraon. Per Minute.
(3) A••u•••• O.5X par year background .~th rata fra. 1911 to 1997.
(4\ Persona P... Foot Width of StairWaY Pa .. Minute.
(5) Pare arr.y configuration••
R-1SI: :2 tWO-Nay turnettla. R-;IO: Z entrance turnsttl ••

, .xi~-anly turnsttl. 2 high .ntranD* tu~.ti' ••
; high revolving iiKit ,atil 2 high ...voly1ng .Kit ,.t••
1 iixU: ,.tii
' ••11 Haurs: 8AM 9AM
5Pi4 IPM
tI.J-33
S.tairways.and Control Area: As shown in Table II.J-19, under 1997 No
Build conditions, the station's internal stairways would remain heavily con-
gested during both the AM and PM peak hours. The two stairways serving the
southbound (downtown) platform would be operating at LOS F during the AM peak
hout, and two of the three stairways serVing the northbound (uptown) platform
'Would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The station's two turnstile
arrays would operate at lOS C or better during both peak periods.
The results of the analysis of circulation conditions in' the station's

head house mezzanine area under 1997 No Build conditions are shown in'Table
II.J-20. As shown, the mezzanine would continue to operate at LOS B during
both the AM and PM peak hours. Average circulation area per person would be
about 32 square feet during both peak hours.
Platforms: Table II.J-2l presents the analysis of crowding conditions on

the southbound platform during the AM peak hour under 1997 No Build conditions.
The results shown in Table II.J-2l indicate that the southbound platform would
continue to have available capacity over its entire length. However, the anal-
ysis of platform space occupancy by section indicates that under the "snapshot"
crowding assessment at the end of the delay period, 5 of the 10 zones would
operate at LOS C (between 7 and 10 square feet per pedestrian), and three zones
near the platform's stairways (Nos. 5, 6, and 7) would operate at LOS D ·under
1997 No Build conditions.
Subway Line.Ha~ Analysis. AM and PM peak hour subway line usage for 1997
No Build conditions is presented in Table II.J-22. Most lines 'Would continue
to operate with some excess capacity at their peak load points. However, the
significant crowding presently occurring on several lines· would worsen. Table
II.J-22 shows that the Nos. 2 and 3 IRT lines would have a deficit of capacity
of 17 percent in the southbound direction and would be operating at capacity in
the northbound direction during the AM peak hour.. the Nos. 1 and 9 IRT lines
would operate with a capacity surplus of 4 percent in the southbound direction
during the AM peak hour (down from 9 percent under existing conditions).
Bus. Operations
Table II.J-23 shows the 1997 No Build conditions for the local bus routes
within the stUdy area. Bus trips generated by future development projects were
assigned to indiVidual bus routes based on their projected directional pat-
terns, the proximity·of each route to individual development sites, and each
bus route's share of existing bus ridership. As shown in Table II.J-23, six
routes would experience capacity deficits at their respective peak load points
in one or both peak hours. The deficits would range from 9 spaces on the M7
rouee in the AM peak hour to 140 spaces on the M7 route in the PM peak hour.
Two routes, the M5 and the M104 would experience capacity deficies in the AM
j
peak hour only, and two routes, the M57 and the M66, would have a deficit in
the PM peak hour only. In addition; the MSi would be opera~ing at capacity in
the AM peak hour. Two rou~es, the M7 and Mil would experience capacity defi-
cits during both peak hours. .
Table I1 . .J-19
72ND STlUtET-BaoADWAY IK.T STA'tION
1997 NO BUILD CONDITIONS
Effective
Facility Peak Width (1) Capacity Pk 5 H1n.
LOS
------:.2.14-
No. Location Period (Feet) (PPM)! 2) VOluina(3) PFH(4) VIC
P5/P7
-------
North Downtown AM
....
-------~
21
--;;;;;;~----
274 20.02 2.00 F
Platform Stair PM 2.74 27 142 10.38 1.04 D
P1/P3 South Downtown AM 2.74 27 298 21.76 2.18 F
P-latform Stair PM 2.14 27 '18 B.65 0.86 C
P8/P9 North Uptown AM 2.74 27 74 5.42 0.54 B
Platform Stair PM 2.74 27 157 11.44 1.14 _ D
P6 Center Uptown AM 2.74 27 128 9.33 0.93 C
Platform Stair PM 2.74 21 239 17 .46 1. 75 F
P4 South Uptown AM 2.74 27 132 9.63 0.9S .c
Platform Stair PM 2.74 27 266 ;9.42 1.94 ;F
R- Uptown Entrance
161A (7 two-way AM *** 224 335 *** 0.30 A
turnstiles) PM *** 224 660 Itlt* 0.59 A
Hi1 (5 two-way AM *** 160 573 *** 0.72 C
turnstiles) PM 160 259 0.32 A
*** ***
(1) Effective Width measured as width between the hanqrails
multiplled by a factor Of 0.8 to account for reverse flows.
(2 ) Stair capacity based on NYCTA guidelines of 10 PFM.
Turnstile capacity m 3Z PPM per turnstl1e (PPM = Persons Per Minute).
(3) Assumes a 0.5l per year backgrOund growth fate from 1991 to ;997.
(4) Persons Per Foot Width Of Sta1rway Per M1nute.
Peak Hours: SAH - 9AM

5PM - SPM
Il.J-3S
Table II.·J-20
'l2RD STREET IB.T STATION lIEZZAliDJE LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Total Queue Walk Average

Tota 1 Space 1997 No Build Average Time Space Module n",a-space nile-Space Ti . .-Space Total Circulation
Available 5 Min Volumes {in minutes} (in sq. ft.) Availabl. Required ·Availabl. Walk Tim. Ar.a/P.raon
~.q.. f"t.) Walk Qu.ue Walk Queue Walk Queue (s.f.-lIIin) (8.f.-lIin). (a.f • .,..in) (.inutaa) ,aq. ft.) lOS
-,---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------- -----------
1M. 152.0 9011 54. 0.12 0.75 7.5 8.0 37110.0 242.8 3517.2 108.7 32 .• 3 B
JIIM; 152.0 920 39 0.12 0.75 7.5 11.0 37110.0 178.1 3583.9 110.5 32.4 B
Source: Philip Habtb I Associatea

IH
H Peak Houra: ~AM - 9AM
Lo SPM - IIPM
I,
\loll
0'1
· Table I1.J-21
?2ND STilET IllT STATION - - SOO"nlBOUND PLATFOBX
AM PEAK HOUR
----------------------------------
"Snapshot"
Assessment
7 M'inute T-5 ------------
zone Avail able( 1 ) SF/PerUO L.OS
------
__ iiiII _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 60% 9.8 C
2 50% 8.4 C
3 42% 7.9 C
4 42% 7.4 C
5 30% 6.8 D
6 19% 6.5 D
7 30% 6.8 D
8 49% 9.0 C
9 66% 12.6 B
10 82% 22.0 A
Platform 47% s.7 C
Total:
Notes:
(1) T-S = Time-Space.
(2) SQuare Feet Pet Petson.
AM Peak Hour: 8AM SAM
II.']-3?
Table II.J-22·
LIRE HAUL ANALYSIS

19,97 NO BUILD CONDITIONS
]9191 ]C]I'91
Nb-Build E'xisting
Sch,eduledP'ercent of Percent of
Time Number of Number of Design Passenger C'apaci ty Passenger Capacity
Une Period Direction Trains/Hour[l] Cars/Hour[l] Capacity[2] Vo1ume[3] Available Vo1ume[l] Available
_._----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
][,9: AM, Southbound 15 ISO' 18,000 17,355 4%, 16,364 9%
Northbound 14 14'0 -l6,'eOO 6,822 59% 6,543 61%
PM Southbound 12 120 14,4'00 6,251 5:7% 5.941 59%,
JII1cu'thbound 14 140 16,800 14,692 13% 13,565 19%
-.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,.
'I
2~. 3, AM Southbound 20 19'1 22.920 26,855 -17% 26,057 -14%
Nc,rthbound 17 162 19,4'40 19,498 Ot 18,701 4%
PH Southbound 16 151 l8,120 15,268 16% 14,509 20%
Northbound 18 l!7.3 20.760 18,720 10% 18,160 13%
I,' lIM, Southbound 10 8'4 17,203 10,397 40% 10,002 42%
N'orthbound 13 no 2;2,528 18,830 16% 18,154 19%
PM Southbound 15' 128 26,214 15,961 39% 15,279 42%
IIlbrthbound 9' 82 16,194 9,125 42% 9,301 45%
H:
H:
e AM Southbound 5 50 U,OOO 4,454 60% 4,284 61%
0, NIO'Ithbound 8 80 n,,600 8,900 49% 8',578 51%
Lt,
• PM, Southbound 8 eo 17,600 5,632 68% 5,392 69%
w No'rthbound 6 60 13,2'00 .. " 2.930 78% 2,797 79%
011
_._----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(: . AM, Southbound 6 4'8' 8,640 3,078 64% 2,963 66%
Northbound 8 66' 11,880 6,594 45% 6',358 4'7%
PM Southbound 7' 56 10,080 3,103 69% 2,973 71%
N1odhbound 6 48 . 6,640 2,668 69% 2,553 71%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III AM, Southbound 10 8'0' l!7,600 11,180 31% 10,757 39%
No'rthbound 10 80 11,600 9.566 46% 9,221 48%
PM Southbound 1 56 }2',320 5,114: 58% 4'.953 60%
JIIIo,rt hbound 8' 64 H,080 7,155 49% 6,843 51%
No,test [1] Source: New York City Transit Authority 1990 Cordon Count.
Elli Based Upon: 1,2,3,9 trains:. all with 10 cars @ 120 spaces per car
It t.rains: 3'3% with 10 cars @ 180 spaces per car
6,7'% with 8 cats @ 220 spaces per car
(: trains: all with 10 cars @ 180 s~aces per car
B.D' trains: all with 8' cars @ 220 spaces per car
m:3) Assumes a background growth rate of 0.5% per year from 1991 to 1997.
'I'.ble II.J-23
1997 NO BUILD LOCAL BUS CORDITIONS
II b
Peak 01rection Peak Hour Buses Projected Passengers! Available Capacity in
AM/PM Peak Hour in Peak Direction Bus in the Peak Hour the Peak Direction
--------------- ~---------------- -------------------- ---------------------
Route AM PM AM' PH AM PM
l I
HS Sa/NB 11: 1:2 66 45 -88 180
fl1:1 SS/NB 9 10 en 1'4 -9 -140
1411:1 sa/NB 8 7 6~ 10 -72 -70'
"57 EB/WB 9 l' 60 1"7 0 -119
M66 EB/WB 1:2 10 5,1' 6,7 ., 36 -70

1
H
H M,72 EB/WB 7 1 26 32 238 196
"
Lt
"
w' M1'9 We!WB 1'8 14 51 55 1'62 70
-c'
Ml04 SB/NB 24 23 52 60 I -48 0
\1
a
Source: NYCTA Ridership Surveys.
IiJ,
B:as'ed upon a capacity of 60 persons per bus.
Peak Hours: 8AM - 9AM
5PH - 6PM
Pedestrian Activity
Table 11.J-24 shows the results of the pedestrian analyses at key street
corner and crosswalk locations in the study area for 1997 No Build conditions.
Pedestrians traveling to and from development sites were assigned to the local
pedestrian network, with subway station entrance/exit locations as the princi-
pal origins· and destinations of these additional trips during the peak hours.
Because no 1997 Build year project-generated subway trips were assigned to the
59th Street-Columbus Circle Station, the adjacent street corners and crosswalks
at 60th Street/Broadway are not analyzed for 1997 No Build conditions. Assign-
ments to individual crosswalks· and street corner locations at the three inter-
sections analyzed were done on the basis of the locations of the development
sites in question and the existing distribution of pedestrians at those
locations. .
Street Corner Analysis. The results shown in Table 11.J-24 indicate that,
except for the 72hd Street-Broadway intersection, pedestrian levels of service
would remain generally good at the street corners analyzed. At the 72nd
Street-Broadway intersection, the southwest corner would operate at·LOS D (19
square feet per pedestrian) during the AM pea~ hour and tos E (13 square feet
per pedestrian) dur:l-ng the PM peak hour. For existing conditions, this corner
operates at LOS D during both peak hours. the southeast corner would continue
to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour only.
Crosswalk Analysis. As shown in Table l1.J-24, all of the crosswalks

analyzed would continue to operate at LOS C or better during .the AM peak hour
under 1997 No Build conditions. During the PM peak hour, the west cros~walk at
66th Street/Broadway would drop from LOS C to tos D by 1997. The east cross-
walk at 66th Street/Broadway, and the south crosswalk at 72nd Street/Broadway
would all continue to operate at tos D. All other crosswalks would operate at
LOS C or better during the PM peak hour for 1997 No Build conditions.
2002 No. Build Conditions
Vehicular. Traffic
The same demandinethodology used to obtain 1997 No Build conditions was

used to obtain 2002 No Build conditions. In terms of the 2002 No Build vehicu-
lar roadway network, it is assumed that the 1997 No Build roadway system would
remain essentially unchanged with the following exception: it is assumed that
by the year 2002, the Route 9A Reconstruction project improvements -- between
the Battery and 59th Street along the West Street/Twelfth Avenue corridor -~
would have been completed. Currently, the New York State Department of Trans~
portation is in the process of preparing a DEIS for the Route 9A Reconstruceion
Project, and there is currently no preferred or recommended roadway alterna-
"tive. Based on discussion with NYCDOT, it was assumed that for purposes of
this project's E1S, the "Basic Reeonstruction Alternative" aligilnlent should be
used for the vehicular roadway network. This at-grade alternative provides
only modest improvements in terms of roadway cspsGity and is not expected to
appreciably alter traffiG patterns along GrOSS streets that intersect with and
provide access to Route 9A.
II.J-40
Table II~.J-24
PIDESTRIAR LEVELs OF SEaVICE
1991 NO BUILD lEAK ~oua CORD1TIORS
STREET CORNERS
_----_
-_....... _-- .... AM PEAK HOUR PM pEAK HOuR
Location Corner S,F./Ped. LOS S.F./Ped. lOS

-------- --------- -------- .-.
65th Street/- Northwest 558 A 163 A
Broadway Southwest 142 A 60 8

Bl"OadwBY Northwest 131 A sa B
Southeast 80 B 78 B
72nd Street/ Southeast 29 ~ 19 0

Broadway Southwest. HI 0 i3 E
CROSSWALK LOCATIONS
--~~-----~~~-------
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location Crosswalk S. L/Ped. I..OS S,F./,Ped. l.OS

--;;;;;~---- ---..... _--- --------,;;;;; ---------
6Sth Street/ South 119 B 52 B
Broadway West 104 B 30 C
66th Stl"eet/ Nortl'l 73 B 38 B

East 66 B 19 D
West 48 B 23 0
72mi Streetl South 26 C 21 D

Broadway Welit 37 C 25 C
II.J-41
It should be noted that NYCDOT is ,gradually developing the Manhattan ~om
puter signalization project, which would optimize capacity and speed on the
Manhattan grid. The proposed project's No Build analysis conserVatiVely does
not assume implementation of that system.
Similar to 1997 No Build conditions, the projected increases in demand in

the year 2002 would further increase congestion at study area intersections.
Figures 11.J-14 and II.J-15 show the e~pected 2002 No Build peak hour volumes
and vic ratios on the traffic network, and Table 11.J-25 shows the congested
intersection approaches.
rhe reconstruction of Route 9A would imp'rove conditions in that corridor,

thereby eliminating several 1997 locations that had vic ratios e~ceeding 1.00.
As shown in Table 11.J-25, along Twelfth Avenue, 55th Street westbound would
exceed capacity in both the AM and PM peak hours, with vic ratios of 1.162 and
1.118, respectively. At 54th Street, the westbound approach in the PM peak
hour would reach a vic ratio of 1.033. These are anticipated to be the only
study area locations in the year 2002 with at or near capacity conditions in
the Route 9A corridor.
Along West End Avenue, the 79th Street eastbound approach in the AM and PM
would increase to 1.026 and 1.202, respectively, and at 72nd, Street the north-
bound left-turn would exceed capacity in both the AM and PM peak hours, with
very seVere vic ratios of 1.423 and 1.319, respectively. Along 72nd Street,
the westbound PM vic ratio of 0.990 would almost reach saturation, and on 7lst ,
Street, the westbound midday vic ratio would reach 1.128. The recurring south-
bound AM problem on West End Avenue at 65th Street, expected to be reduced sub-
stantially with the Manhattan West mitigation, would still have an AM vic ratio
of 0.967, whereas at 59th Street, due to development projects, the PM v./c ratio
would e~ceed capacity on the westbound approach with a vic ratio of 1.286.
Farther south on West End Avenue/Eleventh Avenue, saturated conditions can be
e~pected northbound in the PM at 57th Street with a vic ratio of 1.097" and
eastbound at 56th Street in the 'AM, where the vic ratio would rise to 1.q75.
With increased highway-bound traffic, the 55th Street midday vic ratio is 'also
e~pected to rise to 1.017.
In the Amsterdam Avenue/Columbus ~venue corridors, the critical 7lst and

,65th Street intersections with Broadway would'be further constrained. On Am-
sterdam Avenue northbound in the PM at 71st Street, the vic ratio would rise to
1.115, and Columbus Avenue southbound at 65th Street would be oVer capacity in
all peak hours, with vic ratios of 1.106, 1.090, and 1.073 in the AM, midday,
and pM peak hours, respeetively. Also at this critical 65th Street intersec-
tion, Broadway southbound would exceed capacity in the AM and PM with vic ra-
tios of 1.124 and 1.027, respectively, and northbound in the PM with a vic
ratio of 1.022. Far~her south on the Amsterdam AVenue (Tenth Avenue) corridor,
PM traffic headed to the highway would congest the westbound 55th Street ap-
proach with a vic ratio of 1.066, and on the 57th Street eastbound approach at
Columbus Avenue (Ninth Avenue), capacity conditions are expected in the AM and
~M peak hours with a vic ratio of· 1.030 in both periods.
On the lower portion of Broadway in the study area, 62nd Street westbound
traffic would become saturated in the midday peak hour with a vic ratio of
1.047.
2002 No Build Traffic Volumes
. Figure II.J-14
ZII/32:/4Z7
l'Z/U7/~71
79th
Museum Of
Natural
History
.;;
1:1
r-____~~________~+_--~--------------~~~------------H~~
'II
z
o
en
CI
~
...
AM/PM
2002· No Build V Ie Ratios
Fig~re ILJ-1 S
•• ~a/~7/.3U .lI42/.4%0/.'22 .310/.... '/...0 1511 Ill/ 7~
. ._ ~~ .lI'2/.'14/.lIZ71 .IIY.5!H1/.'" Il..,/.lI54/.7U .~"'.1511."1

79th
7' Museum Of
Natural
History
\ \
Riversidel
Park \
Q
t)
74
Jl:~/.3"/~' ._/.=/._~~ .3a7/.u'/'''~

.57 /""/.571 .3»/~7/.U'
:'--.3,,,.lsl/.32'
•~.'D5/.182 0l .573/.7'7/·"5."'/.10'/.1' '

.452/ .7,,/·4IJ-
P\..
I"
.531/.4H/ '''',
. ~
'1I!1I![OZ7/.D41_.~
.......-I
._1.484/~0 ., 1/."./.'0'
.1201.704/__
.• ,z/J../J.......
_ .•,5/..,3/.•tO
.•U/.l7l/....
:....- . . . ,.50.1._
.lIlil.:.a8/.7A
1It .507/.!.u/.7U
72nd
.lU/SI/.7l#> 1.1I!2/.U5/'.o-n
1.'U(,I"(!.3~I.t5'/-!~!f?U
~____~.U~I~/
./.1 .~ •• t5/.I~~~I!L
.. ~~~~/"'~~~.~+--==~.I~~I.~I~~I~.~II~__~~==~~~'~.5~7.~.~.~
,." .•n/.....I.7I.
••~____~______________L4
Jl5·/.D4I/Jl44 11 ""/.11'1,.115 ['\,63/.J10/1.01l
\ .J27/.1l'/.7" 05471.'''1.717 ~""/.373/"'2 I ....
IID/.I ••,i:j; ....1.10,1 '.2111/.»0/.<2•
.154~.174/.7U .•'1l/.3 4/.'''\ ••
\ Uncoln t,r-;..-~~----I--------I~
Towers . '\ 1.ou/.72~
..5051.521/.lll ,,/.415/....~271/.3••1.- I
~/.»4/.au
t '1lZ/.J57/.~~"/.lUi.",
,.521/.413 I _1.737/.'"
""
~ I.-- ."".152/.213
.712/ /.1411
.'
.
.52'/.520/."2
t .25·/·"~UI-'"77.1Sl/.'"
.510/..../.5"
4ll 471/.51'
J •
II'?
"~/.5A/.5U1
I
.5A/.5371.I3. 1..--.575/.542/.732" ::; cc. •••• "._1._/.517
,'41/.13'1.105 It Ifz!~~~~~;~:O~\ .4A/.510/.ltt ~ 66th
.117/...7/..-,"._/.510/.51' 1.104/1.010/1.073 65th
_ _. 1:5"/.54'1."3 \_
~ ... ,/._/.573'""-9> .UV..../.7. . _~ I.GIf1T.6S771.0al -t S70/._1.7ri
.1U/.73'/.... lI.5tl/.n'I.71s ,. .412/._, .I5I/.II3/'Jl22
~.52./:S15/.551 .5111.100/.71' .• "".504 14 .1I~/.15t/.145
.nZ/Jl'I.I33 . Lincoln S7t/.475 \:.5,20/.7"
MI/.Wl/.75'1 .115/.700/••" Center
z I ; ~DI3/.071/.D13 .110/.... n
'f Y
o ~-.22-I-/-I.,f-~-..22=7;II"i.5lll:;jAmm/.5I~t:;rdam . 1e/.5"/.lI2~.2U/._
en Houses --' .5..I ...~/.~ ~s./1.D47/.•!~
§ _ ,_ i.-.13~'.I~/.ac, t- 4\_ ...
= _/__ . I.-
_1.710/.-
.1. .542/,'11/•.., F0t:dha~
UnIversIty
.7<2/.13' !.J-31.221/.415 '\.
.2"~/··~1
~~
j
104
.II1/.Al/.715 • /·u1/.74IJ ....1.7s.'
.,557/.472/.42••
•710/.-511/.5"
_ ...".751,;'....] •• ._1""1.711
!to
ll/,IU/,'7Z'
d:
ca<
I
Atv!/PM
Table II.J-2S
2002 NO BUILD VIC RATIOS AT CONGESTED LOCATIONS
1991 2002 1991 ·2002

EXIST IIILD EXIST HBLD
PEAK VIC VIC PEAK VIC VIC
STREET APPROACH 'rOD RATIO RATIO STREET APPROACH TOO RATIO RATIO
-----------------------------------------:---------------------l
12TH AVE. III @ 56TH ST.(81GllWAY) AH: 1.016 0.861. 1 ----------------------------------------:---------------------:
11TH AVE.SB @ 55TH ST AH 1 0.757 0.B54 .. :
-----------------------------------------1---------------------:
12TH AVE sa r.£FT @ 56TH ST. 1m 1 0.549 0.869 •• : ----------------------------------------,---------------------1
55TH ST.WS @ 11TH AVE lID: 0.937 1.017.:
PH I 0.575 0.911.*: s.sa~s.a.s~ ••••••• s ••••••• s •••••• a •••••• : •••• s •••••••••••••••• 1
••••••••••••• s ••••••• ~ •• a ••••• s •••••••••• : ••••••••••••••••••••• , AMSTERDAM HI @BROADWAY/72ND ST. MD; 0.750 0.855 •• :
12TH AVE.SB
_____ TBRD @ 55TH ST AH:: _____________
___________________________________ 0.732 0.850 •• I
--------1 ••••••••••••••• =••••••••••••••••••••••••
PM la1 •••••
0.868 •• =••••••••
0.981.:1
~
2
.
=
~
S5'l'H S'l'.WI! @ 12'l'H AVE AH I 1.008 1.162 • BROADWAY sa @ AHSTEliDAH/71ST ST. Nt I 0.932 1.052.:
1m I 1.000 1.118., 1m: 0.78-3 0.895 .. I
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••al ••••• •••••• •••••••••• : PH : 0.897 1;041.:
54 ST VB @
••••••••• 12 AVE.
a••••••••••• s ••••••••••••••••••• PH ,I••••••••••••••••••••
0.750 1.033 ••cl1 ----------------------------------------,---------------------,
AHSiERDAM HI @ BROADWAY/7lST ST. AM 1 0.729 0.861 •• :
12'l'H AVE.sa @ 51 ST All: 0.808 0.879 .. l i m O . 777 0.895 .. I
--------------------~-----------~~------:---------------------: PH 0.976 1.115. 1
51 ST VB • 12 AVE. PH I 0.830 0.876 •• :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ••••••••••••••••• s ••• '
-----------------~----------------------:---------------------1
lROADWAY H8 @AMSTERDAH/71s! ST. HD 0.867 0.980 * :
'79'l'H ST. ED @ lUVERSIDE PM I 0.736 0.876 •• 1 PH , 0.928 1.063.:
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • • • ~• • • • • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • • • • • • •2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • :
79'l'H ST. ED @ WEST EIID Nt : 0.860 1.026. I AMSTERDAH III @ 57TH ST. MD : 0.741 0.856 •• :
PH : 0.983 1.202.: PM 1 0.843 0.964 •• :
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1••••••••••••••••••••• 1 •••••••••••c •••••••••••••••••••••••••••sl·.·.·.·••••• • •••• ~ ••• ~
!lIST EIID 58 a 72HD ST. AH 1 0.752 0.892 .. 1 55'n1 ST.WS@ 10TH AVE PM : 0.952 1.066.:
MD : 0.751 0.905 •• I ••••••••••••••••=••••••••• D~ • • • • • • • • • • • • t •••••••••••••••• =•• aa:
PH: 0.710 0.882 •• 1 COLUMBUS SB @79TH ST. AM 1 0.778 0.856 •• :
____ ~-----_--- ____-_--____ -_-·~-----~-- __ I-~~- ___--_w __ --------: ..... ...........................••....=: ••••••••••••••••••••• :
~
IIEST END Ha TH/R! @ 72HD ST. AH : 0.844 0.960" I COLUMBUS sa @ 72IfD ST. . AM : 0.780 0.861 •• :
KD I 0.838 0.891 •• : ••••=••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• :s •••••• c •••• ~ •••••••• :
PH I 0.826 0.922 ••. : COLUMBUS.S8 @ 67TH ST AM I 0.879 0.968.:
--------------------~--------------------:---~-----------------J ..=••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• : ••••••••••••••••••••• r
WEST EIID HaLT @ 72ND ST. All: 8.804 1.423 •• I COLUMBUS sa @ 66TH ST. Nt 1 0.813 0.897 •• 1
MD : 0.654 0.899 •• : MD: 0.760 0.853' •• 1
PH: 0.913 1.319 *: ••••••••: ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••*: ••••••••••••••••••••• :
-----------------------------------------\---------------------I
'72IID ST. ED @ WEST EIID All: 0.869 0~952. I
BROADWAY S8 @ 65TH ST./COLUHBUS 1 AH:
1m 1
0.981
0.794
1.124.
0.910 •• :
-----------------------------------------:---------------------I
72IID ST. WI! @ WEST END PH : 0.923 0.990.:
PM \ 0.863 1.027. 1
.--------------------------------.. ------~.I---------------------:
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••• 1 BROADWAY HI @ 65TH Ir./COLUMBUS HD: 0.780 0.883 •• I
_________________________________________
WEST EIID 51 @ 71ST ST. AM 1 I _____________________
0.783 0.891 .. :
1 __________________________________ ~ _____ ________ ~ _________ 1
PM:I __ a 0.917 1.022 •
71ST ST. WS @ WEST EIID AH I 0.780 0.928 •• : COLUMBUS 51 @ 6S'l'H ST./liROAllWAY AH' 1.011 1.106.;
1m: 0.958 1.128. I 1m 0.975 1.090.:
••••••••••••••••• ~ ••••• ~ •••• s ••••••••••• c:a •• 2 ••••••••••••••••• 1 PM. 0.962 1.073.:
WIST END sa @70TH ST. AM I 0.811 0.9%7 •• : ••••••=••••••• ~ •• s •••• ~.a2.* •••••••••••• :~.* •••••• =••••••••••• :
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 1••••••••••••••••••••• : COLUMBUS S8 @ 57TH ST. AM: 0.829 0.980 •• I
WEST END SB @65TH ST. AM 1 0.963 • 0.967. : MD : 0.703 0.871 •• 1
••••••••••• ~ •••••••••••• a •••••••••••••••• : •••••• &••••••••••••••
WEST £lID S8 @ 64 S'l'. All : 0.818 0.983" I
1 ---------~-------------------------~----I---------------------:
57TH ST. ED @ COLUMBUS AM 1 0.927 1.030.:
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• : ••••• s ••••••••••••••• , MD : 0.830 0.906 •• :
WEST END sa @63 ST. AM: 0.716 0.861 •• : PH : 0.925 1.030. I
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1••••••••••••••••••••• , ••••••• a••••••••••e.=•• •••••••• ••••
~ ~ =•• :sa ••••• ~s=: •••••••••• :
_.·••.•·.··sa .••••··••sr.···.········.···.····f·
WEST EIID $B @ 61ST ST.
WISr END @60TH
AH 1 0.716
AN:. ••··.···!i••.••.•••••: .
0.709
0.904 •• l"
0.891 •• I
......................................... : •••••••••••••••••••s*1
55T11 ST.WB @ 9TH AVE
•••••• =•• ==.=•••••••
MD 1 0.820
PH I 0.829
s •••••••• =•• a •••• =s.:~.=s
65TH ST. EB. @.CENTRAL PARK WEST AM l 0.848
••••••••••••••••• :
0.885 •• :
0.895 •• :
1.007 •• :
WEST END 58 @59TH ST. '" 1 0.694 0.873 •• : WEST HD : 0.726 0.857 •• 1
------------------·------··----~--------·I---------------------: PH : 0.869 1.021. ~
59TH Sf. VB @WEST END AM , 0.639 0.960 •• : •••••• % • • =....=S.B ••••• a.~ ••• c •••••••••• :a•••••••••••••••••••• :
MD I 0.56~ 0.943 •• 1 COL.CIRCLE sa TO B'WAY @TH AV!. ' " : 0.865 0.955.:
PH ,:•••••••••••••••••••••
.......................................... 0.831 1.286 •• 11. ----------·-----------------~------~~---I---------------------1
8'rII. AVE.KB @ COL. CIRCLE PM : 0.850 0.938.:
WEST EHD sa @ 57TH ST. . 1M: , O.91Z 0.976.: •••••••••••••••••••••••=.iliI.iiil••••••••••·'silc:s••••••••••••••••.•.t
----------------------~------~----~----:--~--------------.--~: 57TH ST.WS @ 8TH AVE AH: 0.809 0.904 •• 1
. . , DID IfB @ 57TH ST. MD : 0.750- 0.862 •• : lID : 0.805 0.927 •• :
0.959 • ___________
_________________________________________ : _________ 1.09'7.:1 PH: 0.884
••••••••• s ••••••••••••••••••••• a••••• ••• I••• ·s PM :
1.004.::
•••• ssil •••••••••
57TH ST. WB @ IIEST END PH : 0.82'7 0.861 •• I 6ZIID ST.W i 8ROADWAY 1m: 0.!I32 1.047.:
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••• : ••••••••••••••••••••••••• s •••••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••• 1
11TH AVE.1fB @ 56Tl1 ST PH I 0.835 0.946 •• : . S8T11 ST. lB @ BROADWAY MD : 0.746 0.852 •• :
---------.. ----------------~-------------:------~--------------.I
56Tl1 ST.IB • !lEST EIID AH 1.015 1.075 •
..................... a •••••••••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••• :
57Tl1 ft. a i 8RDA1:1lfA'i AM 1 0.791 0.881 ali :
•
.. i.Oe&TiOif IiIIEiiE VIC IQILD R LaB TiWi .i5ii _a
iliiii •••• 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ••iil:·••••••••••••••Ii• • 1
IiOCATIOff WIlER! VIe 1IDUu) IE UfIEl'fER 'l'Uif • ISO IiNDER £llftiJiG CDJIDITIQlfS
UiS'tlllC GOimltiOH&
••••:i•••••••::i•••••• iiii. . . . . . . . . . . . .: i••iiii I=•••••:.iiilUro ••• :i.iiiiS.S I
. .
n.J-43
Overall, for the analyzed intersections, 54' approaches are predicted to
have vic ratios exceeding 0.850 in one or more peak hours in the year 200'2.
This compares with 31 such approaches in 1991 and 47 in 1997. Of the 54 con-
gested approaches in 2002, 20 are expected to haVe vic ratios greater than
1.000, compared with 8 in 1991 and 18 in 1997.
Parking
Between 1997 and 2002, a 0.5 percent per year growth in existing demand is
assumed from 1997 to 2002. This includes the increased demand from future No
Build development sites. On the basis of these projections, utilization rates
for off-street parking would be 96 percent in the midday and 1.02 percent in
the PM (this excess spills oVer to the secondary area). In the secondary area
1,000 to 2,000 feet from ~he site, the utilization rate would be 76 percent in
the midday and 90 percent in the PM period. These resUlts are shown in Table
H.J-26.
Subway Services
Future sUbway conditions within the study area are analyzed for the 2002.
No Build conditions. The same forecasting methodology used for the 1997 No
Build analyses Was used to obtain the 2002 No .Build results'.
5.9.th.Street-Columbus. Circle IRT and IND. It is expected that by 2002, the

Columbus Center proj ect would have been completed adj acent to the. 59th Street-
.Columbus Circle station. As part of that project, a number of improvements to
the station are planned, including:
o The construction of a new 8-foot sidewalk stairway on the west side

of Broadway between Columbus Circle and 60th Street (stairway S5 in
Figure 11.J-16). The new stairway would be opposite the existing
stairway in the Broadway median at 60th Street (S2) and, like this
stairway, would lead to the downtown IRT platform, where the fare
contro1'area would be expanded.
o The reopening and reconfiguration of an existing 6~foot sidewalk

stairway (S4 in Figure 11.J-16) on tne west side of Central Park West
between Columbus Circle and 6lst Street. This stairway would serve
the same portion of the 1ND mezzanine that is currently served by
stairway S3, south of the Paramount Communications Building. Im-
provements to pedestrian circulation within the 1ND mezzanine are
also planned.
o The construction of a new stairway between the IND mezzanine and the
southbound IND platform.
o The reconfiguration of the fare control area at the base of the esca~
lators in the IND mezzanine.
S.tJtirwaV$ and Control. Ar.eas.: The analysis of 2002 No Build conditions at

the 59th Street-Columbus Circle station incorporates the improvements described
above. Projected peak hour trips from future No .Build development sites have
been assigned ~o the appropriate station elements. The results of the analysis
are presented in Table II.J-27. As shg~ in the table; all stairways; escala-
tors, and fa~e arrays analyzed would operate at LOS B or better for 2002 No
II.J-44
Table II •.)' ... 26
2002 RO BUILD OFF-STREET PARKlNG
MIDDAY PM Utilization Utilization
1000 Foot Zone Capacity Parker Parker MIDDAY PM
--------------------
EXisting
--------
4410
~------
3685
-------
3917 -----------
84% --------------
89%
No Build 2002 4036 3888 4132 96% 102%
*
MIDDAY PM Utilization Utilization
1000-2000 Foot Zone Capacity Parker Parker MIDDAY PM
----------~---------
Existing
--------
5278
------- -------
3679 4343 -----------
70% -------------
82%
No Build 2002 5278 4031 4767 76% 90%
**
* volumes exceed the capacity'within the 1000 foot Zone
. u Include split 'over voiwnes from 1000 f.oot Zona
tt.J .. 4S
59th Street Subway Complex
2002 'No Build Conditions
Figure II.J-16
~ Stairs to street
II Escalator to Street
1:81 Token Booth
IUD Turnstile Azray
(9 High Wheel Exit
- '($! $I High Turnstile
51st St. "'0
~
~9'-+'
!A
.
CENTRAL~\
'----
GOth St. \ PAR 'K ~

\
\
\
\
,,
"\,
,, \
\
\
,,, \
\
\
,,,
59th Street/ \ 59th St.
Columbus Circle \
58t.h St.
57th St.
·Table II.J-27·
59TH STBEET-COlDHBUS ClkCL! STATtON

2002 NO BlJIl.I) COIDITIOR5 .
Effective
Facility Peak Width {1} capacity Pk S Min.
No. Location Period (Feet)
--_ __...._- (PPM)(2) Volume(3} PFM(2) viC LOS
---- 58th--------
51 St. AM
...
8.20
--------
82
=o;;:.::;;;; __ ;a _ _ _
72 1.16 0.18 A
"
Columbus Circle PM 8.20 82 121 2.95 0.29 A
S2 Traffic· Island AM 3.86 39 57 2.95 0.30 A
Broadway/60th PM 3.86 39 77 3.98 0.40 A
53 South Side of AM 6. 77 68 347 ;0.26 1.03 0
G " 101 Building PM 6.77 68 371 iO.96 1.10 0
S4 N.W. Corner of AM 4.20 (4) 42 88 (6) 4.19 0.42 A

CPW/Col. Cir. PM 4.20 (4) 42 92 (6) 4.37 0.44 A
55 S.W. Corner of AM 5.80 (5) 58 '53 (7) 5.26 0.53 B
Broadway/60th PM 5.80 (5) 58 169 (7) 5.84 0.58 B
El Up Escalator AM 42-inch 102 (8) 297 nla 0.58 A
Near 58th St. PM Escalator 102 (8) 158 n/~ 0.31 A
£2 Down Escalator AM 42-inch 102 (8) 81 n/a 0.16 A
Near 58th St. PM Escalator 102 (8) 214 nla 0.42 A
R- Fare Array @ AM Enter 128 (9) 113 nla 0.18 A
158 60th Street Exit 114 (9) 96 n/a 0.1'7 A
PM Enter 128 (9) 208 nla 0.33 A
Exit 114 (9) 37 nla 0.07 A
---- --~----------- --------- -------- --------- ------
multiplied by a factor of 0.8 to account for reverse fiOW$.
(2) Stair capacity based on NvCTA guidelines of 10 PFM.
PPM. = Persons Per Minute. .
PFM = Persons Per Foot Width of Stairway Per Minute.
(3) Assumes a 0.5% per year background growth rate from 1991 to 2002.
(4) Based on a planned stair width of 6 feet (Columbus Center FEIS)
minus 9" for railings.
(5) Based on a planned stair width of a feet (Columbus Center FElS)
minus 9" for railings.
(6) Assuming a diversion of 20% of the demand from stairway 53.
(7) Assuming a diversion of 60% of the eemand from s~airwa~ 52.
(8) NVCTA Station Plann'ing and DeSign Guidelines.
(9) Based on a planned 6 twg-~a1 turnstiles and one ~1t gat~
(Columbus cente~ FEIS),
Peak Hoi.ir"S1 BAM - gAM
SPM - ,PM
II.J -46
Build conditions, with the exception of stairway S3 at the south side of the
Paramount Communications Building. This stairway, which operates at LOS D in
both peak hours for existing conditions, would continue to operate at LOS D for
2002 No Build conditions. Stairway S2, located in the traffic island at Broad-
way and 60th Street, would experience improved operating conditions in 2002 as
a result of the construction of stairway S5 as part of the Columbus Center
mitigation. Stairway S2'would operate at lOs A during both peak hours for 2002
No Build conditions, instead of eo tos B in the AM and lOS C in the PM for
existing conditions.
66th Street-Broadway -- 1RT..
Stairways and Control Areas: Table II.J-28 sUlnlllarizes the 2002 No Build
lOs andv/c ratios for the street stairways and fare corttrol areas at the 66th
Street-Broadway -- 1RT station. With the exception of stairway S2, all of the I
stairways and fare control areas, both for existing and 2002'No Build condi-
tions, operate at'LOS C or better. Stairway S2 would drop from LOS D to LOS E
in the AM peak hour and from LOS A to LOS B in the PM peak hour. The heavy AM
peak hour demand at this stairway would continue to result from flows of stu- ,~
dents en route to nearby high schools. The ramp to Lincoln Center and the ~
station's three fare arrays would continue to operate at LOS A for 2002 No
Build conditions.
72nd Street-Broadway IRT.
Stairways and Control. Area:' As shown in Table II.J-29, under 2002 No

Build conditions, the station's internal stairways would remain heavily con-
gested during both the AM and PM peak hours. The two stairways serving the
southbound (downtown) platform would be operating at LOS F during the AM peak
hour, and two of the three stairways serving the northbound (uptown) platform
would operate at LOS Fduring the PM peak hour. The station's two turnstile
arrays would operate at LOS C or better during both peak periods.
The results of the analysis of circulation condi~ions in the station's

head house mezzanine area under 2002 No Build conditio'ns are shown in Table
II.J-30. As shown, the mezzanine would continue to operate at LOS &during
both the AM and PM peak hours. Average ~irculation area per person would be
about 31 square feet during both peak hours. '
PlatfoImS.: Table 11.J-3l presents the analysis of crowding co~ditions on

the southbound platform during the AM peak hour under 2002 No Build conditions.
The results shown in Table II.J-3l indicate that the southbound platform would
continue to have available capacity oVer its entire length. However, the anal-
ysis of platform space occupancy by section indicates that under the "snapshoe"
crowding assessment at the end of the delay period, 4 of the 10 zones would
operate at LOS C (between 7 and 10 square feet per pedestrian), and three zones
near the platform's stairways (Nos. 5, 6, and 7) would operate ~e LoS D under
2002 No Build conditions. One zone would operate ae the threshold between
LOS C and LOS D (7 square feet per pedestrian).
Subway Line Haul Analysis.. AM and PM peak hour subway line usage for 2002
No Build conditions is presented in Table 1I.J-32. Most lines would con~inue
to operate with some excess capacity.ae their peak load points. However, the
significant, crowding currently occurring on several lines would worsen for 2002
II.J-47
Table II~J'-28
66T1 ST.KIIT IaT S~TIOR. 2002 BO BUlLD COBDITIONS
effective
Faoi11ty Peak Width (1) Capacity Pk 5 Min.
tlo. Loeation Period (F..tl (!'PM)(2)
___ .iiilii ___ Vgl~(3) !'FM(4) VIC bas
S1
--------
NW COrner of 66th AM ---------
4.34 43 ---------
188
------
8.57 0.88 C
• Broadway PM 4.34 43 180 8.31 0.83 C
82 SE Corner of 66th AJ.t 4.34 43 297 U.71 1.37 E

• Broadway PM 4.34 43 141 11.48 0.85 B
02 Stair to Lincoln AM 4.34 43 190 8.77 0.88 C

Center I Columbue PM 4.34 43 205 9 ..... 0.94 C
Ramp to Lincoln At·t 8.00 80 128 3.19 0.32 A

Center , Columbus PM 8.00 80· 59 1.48 0.15 A
R- Dwntwn Fare Array AM Enter 104 ·83 n/a 0.111 A

1110 I 88th street (5) Exit 110 103 nla 0.19 A
PM Entel' 104 132 nla 0.25 A
Exit 110 48 n/a 0.09 A
R- uptown Fare Array AM Enter 32 24 nla 0.15 A

159 I 18th Street (5) Exit 94 274 nla 0.58 A
PI~ Enter 32 58 nla 0.35 ·A
Exit 94 85 I'I/a 0.18 A
Ra Lincoln Center AM Enter ... Exit 192 319 nla o.n A

1BOA Far. Array (5) PM ,-
Enter ... Exit 192 2114 Ma 0.27 A
--_ ...... -----....... -----.------ --------
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ iiii
(11 Eff.ctive Width.•ea.ured as width between the handrails

multiplied by a factor of 0.8 to account for rever.. flows.
(21 Stair capacity based on NVCTA 9uidalinee of 10 PFM.
PPM =
Pareone Per Minute.
(3) Aesu..s a 0.5S per year background growth ..ate fra. 1991 to 2002.·
(4) ~e .. son9 Per Foot Width of StairwaY P8r Minute.
(51 Fare array configuration••
R-'59: 2 two-way turn.tile. R-1BO: 2 entrance turn.~ile.

exit-only turnatil. 2 high entrance t"i"ft8Ul ••
hi.gn ntvolY1nt 81th gllte 2 high ravolY1ng .Xit tata.
, 81th gilt_
Paak "aural BAM - gAM
!SliM 5 iiPM
11.J-48
Table 1I.3-29
721m STRUT lllT STATION. 2002 NO BUILD CONDITIONS
Effective
Facil i ty Peak Width (1) Capacity Pk 5 Min.
No. Location Perioa (Feet) (PPM\( 2) Valule(3) . PFH(4) VIC LOS
. . . . __
------.-
iiiiii~
iiiiiii _ _ _ . . . . .
----~----
P5/P7 North Downtown AM 2.H 27 284 20.73 2.07 F
Platform. Stair PM 2.74 27 147 10.77 1.08 0
Pl/P3 South Downtown AM 2.14 27 308 22.50 . 2.25 F

Platform. Stai·r PM 2.14 n 123 9.00 0.90· e
P8/P9 North Uptown AM 2.74· ' 27 78 5.69 0.57 B
Platforn Stair PM 2.14 27 160 11. 71 1.17 D
P6 Center Uptown AM 2.74 27 134 9.77 0.98 ..,.
Platform Stair PM 2.74 27 246 17.96 1. 80 F
P4 South Uptown AM 2.74 27 138 10.08 1. 01 D
Platform. Stair PM 2.14 27 274 20.04 2.00 F
R~ Uptown Entrance
16lA (7 two-way AM n/a 224 349 n/a 0.31 A
turnstiles) PM n/a 224 680 n/a 0.61 B
R.- Downtown Entrance

161 (5 two-way AM n/a 160 591 n/a 0.74 C
turnstiles) PM n/a 160 271 n/a 0.34 A
~ .. - ...... -..... _--- --------- -------- _.--_ .. _-- _.---- • • • Ii

au1tip1ied by a factor of 0.8 to account for reverse flows.
(2) Stair capacity based on NYCTA gUidelines of 10 PFH.
Turnstile capacity = 32 PPM per turnstile (PPM = Persons Per Minute).
(3) !ssuaes a 0.5% per year background growth rate frol 1991 to 3002.
(4) Persons Per Foot Width of Stairway Per Minute.
Peak Bours: 8AM - 9AM

SPM ;; 6PM
1I.J·49
Table II'.J-30
l'2:ND STREET D.T STATioN HEZZARIRK LEVEL 01' saVICR ARALYSIS
1'ota1 Oueue Van Average

'll'ot.al Space 2'0'02 No-Build Average Tile Space Module Tile-Space T"il1e-Space file-Space Total Circulation
Annable 5 Kin Voluies Un linutes) (in sq. ft.) Available Required Available Walk Tile Area/,Person
~sq]. ft.} i'aU Oueue Walk Oueue Walk Oueue (s.f.-min) (s.f.-li~1 [S.f.-lin) (Iinutes) fsq. ft.J' LOS
.._--.. _---- -_._------- ---------- ---------- --._----- ----.------
1M lS2.G 940 56 0.12 0.15 1.50 6.00 3160.0 250.1 3509.3 112.8 n.t B
PM 752.0 953 41 O.ll 0.15 1.50 6.00 3160.0 184. 0 .3516.0 114.3 n.3 B
IH
IH
Pea;k Hours: BAM - 91K
'-4
5n, - &PM
I
VI
0'
Table II . .J - 31
721m . STRUT IRT STATION - ~ SOUTHBOUND PLATP'OD
2002 BO BUILD CONDITIONS
nSnapshot n
Assessment
7 Minute T-S _ _ _ _ _ .... iIiiI _ _ _ _ _
Zone Avaiiab1eiiii_" SF/Per LOS

1
iIiIi~ _______
58%
------
9.4
---
C
2 48% 8.0 C
3 39% 7.5 C
4 39% 7.0 C/D
5 27% 6.5 D
6 15% 6.2 D
7 26% 6.5 D
8 47% 8.6 C
9 65% 12.0 B
10 81% 20.9 A
PlatfOrm 45% B.3
Total .
C
11.J-.51
'1able 11..1-32
'LINE HAUL ANALYSIS.. 2002 110 BuiLD CONDITIOIllS
20(i)12 llCJI'91
No-Build Existing
Scheduled Percent of Percent of
'Ji"ime Numher of Number of Design Passenger Capacity Passenger Capacity
Line Period Direction Trains{Hour{l] Cars/Hour{l] Capacity{2] Volurne(3) Available ,Vo1urne(1) Available
---------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------------------------------------------
1,9 AM, Southbound 15 150 18,000 17,839 1% 16,364 9%
No,rthbound 14 140 16,800 7,007 58% 6,543 61%
PM Southbound 12 120 14,4'00 6,434 55% 5,941 59%
librthbound 14 140 16,800 15,127 10% 13,565 19%
2~. 3, AM Southbound 20 191 22',920 27,515 -20% 26,057 -14%
IITc'rthbound 17 162 19,440 20,026 -3% 18,701 4%
PM, Southbound 16 151 18,120 15,713 . 13% 14,509 20%
Northbound 18 173 20,760 19,184 8% 18,160 13%
-.------------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------------------------
111 . 11M Southbound ' 10 B4 17,203 10,652 38% 10,002 42%
Northbound 13 110 2'2,528 19,317 14% 18,154 19%
PM Southbound 15 128 2'6,214 16,397 37% 15,279 42%
Northbound 9 82 16,794 9,968 41% 9,307 45%
H B liM' Southbound 5 50 11,000 4,563 59% 4,284 61%

.
IH
~ PM,
Northbound
Southbound
8
8
8'0
80
1'~" 600
17,600
9,131
5,786
48%
67%
8,578
5,392
51%
69%
I'
U1 1ITt>,r'thbound 6 60' 13,2'00 3;003 77% 2.797 79%,
N·
_._----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c: AM Southbound 6 48' 8,640 ,.3,153 64% 2,963 66%
Northbound 8 66 11,880 .", 6,765 43% 6,358 47%
JIM, Southbound 7 56 10,080 3,188 68% 2,973 71%
Northbound' 6 48 8,640 2,734 68% 2,553 71%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID 11M, Southbound 10 8'0 17,600 1l,455 35% 10,757 39%
1IIIorthbound 10 BO 17,600 9,813 44% 9,221 48%
'PM, Southbound 7 56 12,320 5,315 57% 4,953 60%
Northbound 8 64 14,080 7,334 48% 6,843 51%
-,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: [I] Source: New York City Transit Authority 1990 Cordon Count~
f2:1 Based Upon: 1,2,3,9 trains: all with 10 cars @ 120 spaces per car
A trains: 33' with 10 cars @ 180 spaces per car
IIi,n. wi th 8 cars @ 220 spaces per car
Chains: all with 10 cars @180 spaces per car
B.Dtrains: all with 8 cars @ 220 spaces per car
[31] Assumes a background growth rate of' 0.5% per year from 1991 to 2002.
No Build conditions. Table II.J-32 shows that the .Nos. 2 and 3 IRT .lines would
have a deficit of capacity of 20 percent in the southbound direction and 3 per-
cent in the northbound direction during the AM peak hour. Ouring the PM peak
hour, available capacity in the northbound direction would fall from 13 percent
to 8 percent. The Nos. 1 and 9 IRT lines 'would operate with a capacity surplus
of 1 percent in the southbound direction during the AM peak hour (down from
9 percent under existing conditions).
Bus Operati.ons
Table II.J-33 shows the 2002 No Build conditions for the local bus routes
within the study area. Bus trips generated by future No Build developmen~s
were assigned to individual bus routes based on their projected directional
patterns, the proximity of each route to individual development sites, and each
bus route's share of e~isting bus ridership. As shown in Table II.J-33, six
routes would experience capacity deficits at their respective peak load points
in one or both peak hours for 2002 No Build conditions. The deficits would
range from 45 spaces on the M57 route in the AM peak hour to 190 spaces on the
M7 route in the PM peak hour. The M5, would experience a capacity deficit in
the AM peak hour only, while the M66 would experience a capacity deficit in the
PM peak hour only. Four routes -- the M7, Ml1, MS7, and M104 -- would experi-
ence capacity deficits during both peak hours. The M72 and M79 routes would
continue to have capacity surplus'es at their peak load points during both peak
hours.
Pede s trian Activi.ty
Table II.J-34 shows the results of the pedestrian analyses at key loca-
tions in the study area for 2002 No Build conditions. The same pedestrian
assignment methodology used to analyze 1997 No Build conditions·was used to
analyze 2002 No Build pedestrian conditions. The following sections present
the results of the 2002 No Build analyses for key street corner and crosswalk
locations within the study area.
Stree.t..c.orner.Analysis. The results shown in Table Il.J-34 indicate that,

except for the 72nd Street-Broadway intersection, pedestrian levels of service
would remain generally good at the street corners' analyzed. At the 72nd
Street-Broadway intersection, the southwest corner would operate at LOS 0 (17
square feet per pedestrian) during the AM peak hour and LOS E (13 square feet
per pedestrian) during the PM peak hour . . For existing conditions, this corner
operates at LOS D during both peak hours. The southeast corner would continue
to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour only.
C~osswalk Analysis. As shown in Table II.J-34, all of the crosswalks

analyzed would continue to operate at LOS C or better during the AM peak hour
for 2002 No Build conditions. During the PM peak hour, the south crosswalk at
60th Street/Broadway ana the wese crosswalk at 66th Street-Broadway would both
drop from L'()S C to LOS D by 2002. The east crosswalk at 66th Street-Broadway
and the south crosswalk at 72nd sereee would continue to operate at LeS D. All
other crosswalks would operate at LOS C or better during the PM peak hour.
1I.J-53
Table II.J-33
2002 NQ BUILD WCAL BUS CONDITIONS
a, b
Peak Direction Peak Hour Buses Projected Passengers/ Available Capacity in
AM/PM Peak Hour i'n Peak Direction Bus in the Peak Hour the Peak 01 rect i'on
lRoute
--------------- -----------------
AM PM
--------------------
AM PM
---------------------
AM PM
M5
M11'
se/NB
SB/NB
11'
9
12
1'0
11;
67
48
79
-121
-63
144
-:-190 ,
l1li11 se/NB 8 1 715 17 -120 -119
10-1:
.
11-4:
M15,7
H66
M!72
EB/WB
EB/WB
EB/WB
1'2
9
1
l'
10
l'
65
5,9
2~8
82
1'2
32
-45
t2
224
-1'54
-120
1:96
,
~
I
VI
~ M19 WS/WB 1'8 14 51 56 162 56
MI104 SB/NB 24 2'3 65 62 -12'0 -46
a
Source: NYCTA Ridershi'p Surveys.
b
Based upon a capacity,of 60 persons per bus.
Peak Hours: BAM - 9AM
5PH - 6PM
Tabl.e II.J-34
PEDESTlUAN LEVELS OF SE:B.VICE

2002 NO BUILD PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS
STREET CORNERS
--------_ .........._- AM PEAK HOuR PM PEAK HOuR
SiF'/Pedi -S.F./Ped. LOS
-_Location
... -.. _--
Corner
.... -.-----
LOS
----=----
60th Street/ Northwest 116 B 84 B
Broadway Southwest 89 B 66 B
65th Street/ Northwes:t 52B A 160 A
Broadway .Southwest '39 A 56 B
Broadway Northwest , 17 B 80 B
Soutlieast 72 B 68 B
72nd Street/ Soutneast 21 C 19 0

8roadway Southwest 11 0 13 E
CROSSWALK LOCATIONS
--.---------------- AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Location Crosswalk SiFi/Ped. LOS SiFi/Ped. lOS
-------- ----_ .......... --------- --==-----
60th Street/ South .25 C 20 .0
65th Street/ South i16 B 51 B
66th Street/ Nor<th 64 B 35 C

East· 48 B 16 D
West 44 B 21 D
72nd Street/ South 24 ·c 20 D
Broadway West 3S C 25 C
II.J .. SS·
Probable Impacts of the Proposed Project
lntroduc.tion
The proposed project would have a roadway system of public and private
streets e~tending westward generally along the Manhattan grid to a new north-
south arterial Riverside Drive extension. The 45-foot-Wide Riverside Drive
would run from 59th Street to 72nd Street and would be able to accommodate a
future relocation of the Miller Highway beneath it (see discussion below).
Aside from the 59th and 72nd Street termini, the project would also include
str~et connections to the external grid at 6lst, 63rd, 64th, 66th, and 70~h
Streets, all of which would provide access to/from West End Avenue. In addi-
tion to the new Drive, the street system would include an additional north-· .
south street -- Freedom Place South, which would connect 6lst and 64th Streets
and provide internal circulation for the site and the adjacent Manhattan West
development .. Figure Il.J-17 shows the proposed street plan.
The on-site roadway plan would also include private service driveways
along the grid system at 62nd, .65th, 67th, 69th, and 7lst Streets. The service
driveways, mapped as public access easements, are designed as pedestrian
streets, but would also provide land-service functions (service, garage access,
etc.) along each segment·. The private on- site driveway at 7lst Street would
not be connected (except for emergency vehicles) to the off-site street at the
property boundary.
In addition to the new street system, the proposed project would modify
the following elements of the current roadway system:
o The northbound Miller Highway exit ramp at 72nd Street is proposed to

be permanently closed, with most traffic diverting at the south at
59th Street, initially to West End Avenue during Phase I of the pro·
ject and finally to the neW Riverside Drive, and the remainder con-
tinuing nortn to the 79th Street exit;
o The roadbed of Freedom place between 66th and 70th Streets would be
narrowed from 50 feet to 35 feet, and converted to one-way northbound
operation; and
o The mapped, but unbuilt, 64th Street between the project site and
~est End Avenue would be narrowed from 55 feet to 44 feet. Sixty-
fourth Street would be one-way eastbound between the Drive and ~est
End Avenue, thereby completing the 66th Street "in"/64th Street "out"
couplet.
The proposed project is analyzed in two phases, with Build years of 1997
and 2002 for phases 1 and II, respectiVely. It is anticipated that the devel-
opment of the project would proceed from north to south, beginning at 72nd
Street and ending at 59th Street. Similarly, it is anticipated that the on~
site transportation system (roadways and parking) would also be constructed in
the same north~to-south sequence. The first phase of development would see
project completion from 72nd Street to 64th Street ana the second phase would
continue to full development from 64th Street to 59th Streee·;
5-92
JJlU.·U·UII'
.i 1 nn. _ A~
~ll
:'
1\!'Ul'UUtUU'
: :" nil DID AmoIIl I
U~UUiL
,j : :
WI11 IJII &moIIl __
~. ~
Jr •• .H "'1"
:I
t
-'},'
~ II i dn~CQ/I!I~~=r4,=~;;;iI:=--~~=-:::9'/~----.
I
I. ~~N
~i"ltt
I, • GARAGE I • GARAGE J I I GARAGE K 442 CARS B
I I GE G/H 326 CARS 473 CARS I I 458 CARS .~
I I 179CARS I ! ' II , ~I
~:!!:!:::::;;;~ \.!:::::=::::!::!~=~ -';;;;~__ II; :: • '/1 ;
~ ~
' : II GARAGEL GARAGEM
! ~~. ~~
I~
...•
~: ;. .", '7
..
• ,
~W'!M.!M;;C "--~.
....
. . .......... , . .
.0 aLI' HICNW,'
. . . . . . . . . .. .. '1'
i
~~
. ... ~~
.,~ ....
M ."--_ _
.- .. _......................... . . . . . .-.. . . . . . . . . . ~......, "\.~......................

..... .... ! ". ni n n...-.,.,\........•
I FI
__..._'-".'."---1""'--'.'
f
\·"1 It:-- . . Jr~F==l._.. _. . .-.---•.
..,....1
/'" ("\;
-". l
"'UIS • • • IY'.
Proposed Street and Garage Plan

Hg,ure 11.)-17
The on-site Riverside Drive 'extension would' be designed so that a re~o
cated Miller Highway could be accommodated partially beneath it. The Drive
would be built as a viaduct for most of its length north of 6lst Street. The
relocated highway is separate from this development project and would be the
subject of an approval process independent of this project's approval 'process.
It is anticipated that the relocated highway could obtain required approvals
and be operational by the'year 2002 (i.e., in this project's Phase II analysis
year). However, it is not anticipated that the relocated highway could be
operational by 1997 (i.e., in this project's Phase I analysis year)'. Conse-
quently, the 1997 Phase I traffic analysis examines Build conditions without a
relocated highway, whereas the 2002 Phase II traffic analysis'examines Build
conditions both without and with a relocated highway.
With the relocated highway, the on-site traffic network would remain un-
changed except for the ~onnection between the Riverside Drive extension and
southbound Twelfth AVenue. If the highway is not relocated, the'Riverside
Drive extension would pass below the elevated highway to meet Twelfth Avenue.
If the highway is relocated, two basic configurations are possible for the
connection of Riverside Drive and Twelfth Avenue -- an "at-grade" connection
and an· elevated connection. This EIS also presents a preliminary assessment of
the effects of an at-grade relocated highway at 59th Street, which would re-
quire elimination of the current east-west through movement" under the current
59th Street viaduct.
In addition, as directed by NYCDOT, it has been assumed that by 2002,

.regardless of whe.ther the Riverside South Project is approved, at least the
minimum improvements would have been made along Route 9A (i.e., the Basic Re-
construction Alternative). These roadway improvements have been incorporated
in the both the No Build and Build conditions analyzed for 2002 herein.
The traffic flow characteristics of Riverside South have two unique fea-
tures when compared with most development projects elsewhere in Manhattan, and
these features substantially. affect traffic impacts, especially within the
existing grid. First, the project is located along the western edge of the
street system, alongside the Miller Highway and TWelfth Avenue. Approximately
40 percent,of vehicle trips to/from Riverside South arrive/depart via the high-
way or Twelfth Avenue, thereby reducing to about 60 percent the portion 9f
traffic flow within the grid. Second, the project would create a new street
system configuration with a new western edge roadway (new Riverside Drive) con-
necting 72nd Street to Twelfth Avenue at 59th Street, along with accompanying
ne~ cross streets connecting the grid. Construction of the new system itself
would begin to lower' traffic volumes on most immediately .surrounding streets
(especially West End Avenue) as normal traffic patterns adjust and the system
is used by non-project traffic.
The trips expected to be generated by the site reflects the characteris~

tics of the varied land uses in the proposed project -- residential, studio,
office, neighborhood retail, professional offices, cinema, and park. The resi-
dential component represents about three-quarters of the proposed project's
floor area, and that use's travel patterns would be predominantly outbound in
the morning and inbound in the evening. The studi%ffice components of the
project would contain employees predominantly arriving in the morning and de-
parting in the evening, These travel patterns would partially counterbalance
II.J-S7
the resic1ential patterns. The other uses would. v·roduce smaller travel demands
and have more· balanced hourly travel patterns.
For purposes of eravel forecas~irtg, ~he individual land uses presefi~ed in

Table 11.J·35 were assumed for each phase. of the proposed project.
Table 11.3-35
Il'..!ImNTS OF 'tIlE ftOPOSED PROJECT
Land _Uses .Phas.e· 1* . .Phase II .T.oLal.

Residential 3,135 DU 2,565 DU 5,700 DU
Studio 2;000,000 gsf 2;000,000 gsf
Office 330·,000 gsf 330,000 gsf
Professional Off.ices 93,000 gsf 72,000 gsf 165,000 gsf
Neighborhood/Office 79,000 gaf 109,000 gsf 188,000 gsf
Retail
Cinema 6 Screens 6 Screens
Park...... 13 acres·· 10 acres 23 acres· ...
Notes:
...
Phase! -- development to 64 Street.
Includes potential 350-seat· restaurant within or adjacent to the park.
Table II.J-36 summarizes the transportation planning assumptions (i.e.,

trip generation rates, modal split, vehicle occupancy, temporal distribution,
etc.) by individual land uses utilized in the traffic and transportation ana-
·lyses. For residential trips, a trip rate of 8.075 daily trips/dwelling unit
was assumed. the neighborhood retail forecast assumes little destination re.~
tail (predominantly walk-trips). ·Of particular note are the transportation
planning assumptions for the professional offices and the park. For planning
purposes, the ground floor of every residential tower is assumed to have pro-
fessional offices. Similarly, the proposed waterfront park is conservatively
assumed to have substantial active open space and a 350-seat restaurant, even
though less active space is actually anticipated, because these uses would
generate more trips than passive space.
the trip generation/modal split information for residential uses shown in

Table II.J-36 was developed for the DEls for the project proposed at that time;
which did not include any affordable housing units. The nElS e~amined an a1-
ternative containing affordable housing (see DEIS pages 111-26 through 111-32).
the analysis of the Affordable Housing Alternative contained in .the DEIS con-
cluded that with regard to traffic and transportation, in terms of the number
of traffic and transit trips genera~ed during peak hours, ~he increased number
of residents ehat would result from providing affordable housing rather ~han
market-rate housing would be counterbalanced by a decrease in the proportion of
journey-to-work tr~ps. This would conservatively result in the same number of
vehicular and ~ransit trips for both the proposed project (which did not.Con-
tain ~ffordable housing units); and the Affordable Housing Alternative
II.J-58
'lable II.J-36
1BIP GENERATION AND BODAL SPLIT ASSUKPTIONS Foa RIVERSIDE SOOTH
Hlidghborhood RetaU Professional

Residential Retail Office Office StudIo S'pace Restaurant Park Clneplex
l'~eUliinary -------.----- ------------ ------------ ----------- ----.--.----- .-.. ------------ ----------- -------- ------ .. --
PIQjt!ct Components 5100 D.U. 142,000 gsf 46,000 gsf ]]0,000 gsf 2,000,000 gsf 165,000,gsf ]50 Seats 2] Acres 6 Screens
(bI) ~c:I' ~c:) fcc) (d') (al (e) leI
'II'lip, Generation : 8.075 205 75 18 1111 21.5 1'13 139 800
(person trip per day) per dwell Ing per 1000 gsf per 1000 gsf per 1000 gsf per 1000 gsf per 1000 gsf per 1000 gsf per acre per screen
Imlt
~cl' (cl (d)

Mbda1 Split (I) DtilPH Midday AM/PM Midday Employees Visitors
-----------------
Auto U
91
(e)
2!
(cl
2
],
l'
-------
2 9}' C) 2
],
,
---------
24
15:
(d')
.,
17
leI
U
Ig)
i
Tad II l' ] 61 4 3 01 1,0
lIu5 16
,
6 6 12 6 15/1] 6 13 9 l 5;
"
51mbway
Walk
lao
]0
34
1010
B:3 n
lOG
6, 62
li2
100
8]
100
6 56/61
14/13
100/100 100
6
B3
69
6
---------
100
28
24:
100
11
62
100
5;
'8
100
4;0
40
100
I
Vehicle Occupancy
.'------------------. C:c;) C:C!: } reI I tcll tel (d) (e) (g)
"uto ]J,.65 li.6i5 1.65 I.bS 1.65 li.6S 2.20 2.BO 1.90
'lad 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.4:0 l!.40 2'.lO 11.40 1.90
Ir-I:
.
It-II
to.., T'ruek-Trlp Generation :
~el'
0;08
eel
0.l5
C:Ci:}
0.22
Gc}
0.16
(el
0.16 0.20
(dlt (d)
3.60
Qc:l
01.4a
I
l'l$eJ:Iicle trip per uni t) per D.U. per 1000 gsf per 1000 gsf per 1000 gsf per 1000 gsf per 1000 gsf per 1000 gsf per 1000 gsf
Ull
\Q
lPeak Hour Demand'

------------------. [bo) (b1 (fJ (b) (c) (h) (cl (hI ' (c) (h} (d) (h) (aJ (h) (e) (c) (hI
Idt 9i,1 6.0 3.1 6.0 11.8 6.0 l1.B B.O 11.11 8.0 B.] 4.2 8.0 0.0 6.0 5.0 0.0 6.0
MIldday 4'.1 1.0 19.0 11.0 23.7 11.0 15.0 11.0 15.0 11.0 11.1 11.0 17.2 11.0 20.0 2.0 11.0
IPI:t UI.7 10.0 9.6 1.0 12.5 1.0 13.7 2.0 10.] 2.0 4.2 B.4 2.0 7.7 1.0 10.0 . 6.8 1.0
lin/Clot Split (%)

AM 2:6180 50/50 60/40 95/5 B6/14 117/13 80120
Midday 50/50 50/50 50/50 48/52 48'/52 65/35 50/50 55/45 97/3
PHi 65135 SOl 50 20/80 15/85 9/91 26/14 5:0/50 45/55 50/50
Reference Sources
ta,J Pushkarev" Zupan, .' Urban Space for Pedestrians·
~bl Manhattan West lEIS, p. 'lVB-13a.
t:CJI T'IiWDP City OEIS, p. llIF-59.
~:(!II St. Luke Roosevelt Hospital FElS, p. IV-7l.
(e,) Ukeles Associates Inc., "The Users Of Riverside Park'
(II 60:tb Street Rezoning PDEIS.
GgJ Cblumbus Center FEIS, p2.v-5B.
~MI T'rucks peak hours patterns, 50/50 split 1n all hours
1
(which contained approximately 20 percent low-income housing units). subse-
quent to development of this information, during the period between publication
of the bEIS and preparation of the FEIS, the project was modified to include afi
affordable housing component. Consequently, the trip generation and modal
split assumptions for residential Uses used for the DElS and shown in Table
II.J-36 have also been used for the current proposed project (which contains an
affordable housing component). these values have been used to determine peak
hour travel demands and to assess project impacts.
Based on the planning assumptions outlined in Table II.J-36, the proposed

project would generate a total'of 118,268 daily person-trips in the 2002 Build
year. This would include 46,032 trips generated by the project's residential
component, 29,112 trips generated by the project's retail component, 5,940
trips generated by the project's office component, and 20,000 trips generated
by thepropos~d studio. Other project components would account for the remaifi&
ing 17,184 daily person-trips.
Table II.J-37 shows the expected travel demand for each phase of develop-
ment. OVerall, in the year 2002 the fully developed proposed project would
generate 1,085 vph, 903 vph, and 1,198 vph, r~spectively, in the AM, midday,
and PM peak hours on a typical weekday, and these trips would be added to the
surrounding highway and street systems. In terms of transit, in the year 2002
the fully developed proposed project would generate 3,244, 1,459, and 3,597
subway trips during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively, and 1,139,
950, and 1,304 bus trips during these same three peak periods.
Trips are assigned to subway stations based on the distance between each
station and the individual development blocks of the proposed project. The
percentages of subway trips assigned from each development block to each subway
station in Phase I (1997) and Phase II (2002) are shown in Table II.J-38.
Buildings ~o be constructed by the 1997 Build year would be located north

of 64th Street. Therefore, no 1997 Build year project-generated subway trips
are assigned to the 59th Street-Columbus Circle station because of this sta-
tion's distance from these buildings. Similarly, no additional 2002 Build year
project-generated subway trips are assigned to the 72nd Street IRT station,
since bUildings in Phase II are to be located south of 64th Street.
Because no project-generated trips are assigned to the 59th Street-ColUln-

bus Circle station in the 1997 Build year, the Build analysis for this station
focuses only on the 2002 Build condition. However, while no additional proj-
ect-generated trips are assigned to the 72nd Street IRT station between 1997
and the 2002 Build year, the EIS includes an analysis of this station for both
the 1997 and 2002 Build conditions. The 66th Street IRT station is analyzed
under both 1997 and 2002 Build conditions, since trips from both phases of the
proposed project are aSSigned to this station,.
The pedestrian analyses for ,this project examine both street corners and
crosswalks located adjacent: to subway station entrances. The project~generated
pedestrian demand at these loca~iorts is principally trips between the subway
stations and the project site. Since no 1997 Build year project-generated
subway trips are assigned to the 59th Street-Columbus Circle station; ~he adja-
cent sereee Gorners and crosswalks at 60eh Street/Broadway are,fiot,analyzed for
. . .
Table II.J-37
1997
Phase I
Local Express
Pe.ak Autos Taxi Bus Bus Subway Truck
. Hour
_ _ _ _ _ _ iiiiO _ _
in out in out in out in out ;n out in out

AM 56 / 130 125 / 125 90 / 258 10 /- 2 293 / 578 12 I 12
Midday 108 I 96 94 I 94 190 I 184 2 I 3 342 I 321 11 I 11
PM 147 / 108 139 I 139 286 / '89 5 / 8 612 I 421 10 I 10
2002
Phase II
(FULL DEVELOPMENT)
Local Express
Peak Autos Taxi Bus Bus Subway Truck·
Hour
.--------- in out in out in out· in out ; n- out in out
240 I 257
I
AM 262 / 262 415 / 536 171 / 17 2172 I 1220 32 I 32
Midday 201 / 180 220 / 220 472 / 467 5 I 6 761 / 69B 41 / 41
PM· 274 / 324 218 I 278 550 / 667 25 / '82 1328 / 2453 22 I 22
1I.J-61
Table .II. J - 38
SUBWAY STATION TaIP ASSIGNHENT FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
P_e.r.c_e'ntage of TriRs Assimed bX Station

Dev.elopment:
Ilo~ 59t:h-S.tte.eji 6~St~elt: :Z2nd St:reet
Phase I A 0% OX 100%
(1991) B 0 0 100
C 0 0 100
D 0 25 75
E 0 50 50
F 0 100 0
G 0 100 0
H 0 100 0
Park 0 SO 20
Phase II I 50 50 0
(2002) J 50 SO 0
K 100 0 0
L 100 0 0
M 100 0 0
N (Studio) 100 0 0
0 100 0 0
the 1997 Sui1d condition. However, while no additional project-generated sub-

way trips are assigned to the 72nd Street IRT station in 2002, the adjacent
street corners and crosswalks at 72nd Street/Broadway are analyzed for both the
1997 and 2002 Suild conditions.
The proposed project's 3,500 off-street parking spaces would be located in

12 garages. The 12 garages wo~ld be spread throughout·the project to avoid
localized concentrations of vehicles. The studi%ffice block would contain
hea~-in off-street truck loading/unloading facilities that would be accessed/
egressed via 59th Street. The curbside space. provided by the new on-site pub-
lic and private street system would accommodate all loading/unloading and ser-
vice requirements for other project land uses.
the project, by providing either public or private streets at each grid

cross-street (except 60th Street), would distribute pedestrian moveme~ts across
13 corridors. Each private street would be mapped as a public access easement
(thereby permitting unrestricted pedestrian flows) ·and, when combined with the
mapped public streets, would provide a high-capacity pedestrian network.
Traf.fic Assignment
The assignment of peak hour traffic and transit (discussed in a subsequent

section) demands to the area's transportation systems is based primarily on
projected origin-destination patterns of work-oriented trip-making: (a) resi-
dents of the project going to work ·or (b) employees of the studi%ffice com-
plex arriving for work. Appendix! provides details of these origin/destina-
tion patterfis and their sources.
I1.J-62
The origin-destination patterns determine how traffic arrives at or de-
parts from the edges of the traffic study area. Traffic within the project
site is assigned to each on-site block based on the most direct travel path.
In 1997, the project's street system is expected to be completed only

north of 64th Street. Consequently, vehicular access/egress to the site from
the south would be via West End Avenue. The proposed closure of the northbound
Miller Highway off-ramp at 72nd Street would result in traffic diverting both
to the 79th Street Henry Hudson Parkway off-ramp and 59th Street leading to
northbound West End Avenue from the south.
By 2002, when the project's street system would be fully developed and a
new westernmost roadway (Riverside Drive extension) would be constructed, con-
nectingRiverside Drive directly to Twelfth Avenue, several diversion patterns
are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project: (1) the West End
Avenue traffic currently headed to the northbound 72nd Street on-ramp to the
Henry Hudson ParkWay would use either of several new cross streets (especially
66th Street) and then head north on the new Riverside Drive extension to access
the on-ramp; (2) current traffic on both Riverside Drive and West End Avenue at
79th Street that has origins/destinations along the lower end of Twelfth Ave-
nue/West Street would divert from these streets to the new Riverside Drive
extension to access the TWelfth Avenue corridor; and (3) traffic from several
nearby No Build projects, such as Manhattan West and Capital Cities/ABC, would
use the new roadways, especially for access to/from Twelfth Avenue and the
Henry Hudson Parkway. As in 1997, the closure of the lightly used northbound
Miller Highway off-ramp at 72nd'Street would result in most of this traffic
. diverting to northbound TWelfth Avenue/Riverside Drive extension to access 72nd
Street. Appendix B provides additional details about these diversions. The
new Riverside Drive extension, north of 66th Street, is expected to divert
volumes in the AM peak hour of 350 vph (272 vph northbound, 78 vph southbound)
and 430 vph in the PM peak hour (378 vph northbound, 52 vph southbound). This
. diverted traffic is drawn primarily from West End Avenue, with the principal
benefit being the northbound left-turn at the 72nd Street intersection.
Most of the traffic flow benefits (due to diversions) of the new street
system would not be realized until the Riverside Drive extension is completed
to its southern terminus at 59th Street/Twelfth Avenue in 2002. For the Phase
I analysis, all project traffic to/from the south must exit onto West End Ave-
nue, and the north-south through diversions to Twelfth Avenue/59th Street would
not occur. Therefore, without these diversions, the Phase I condition (in
1997) would actually result in more traffic on por~ions of West End Avenue ~han
the full development Phase II condition (in 2002).
1997 Project lmpacts
Vehi.cular .Traffic
Figure II.J-lS shows the combined project-generated traffic increment ana

network diversions for Phase I, Figure lI.J-19 shows the 1997 Build volumes,
and Figure II.J-20 shows the 1997 Build vic ratios for the projece s~udy area.
The 1997 Build volumes on the network were calculated by adding the project-
generated traffic increment to the 1997 No Build volumes adjusted to reflect
fie~work diversions as discussed above. The 1997 Build vic ratids were calcu-
lated based On the CHI analysis methodology.
111;111 1997 Traffic Increment
Figure II.J-18
'7/25/25 1 './25/24 2/4/4'1 Ii/Ii/" ,....

1
~~/tlr
~ 79th IXl
11
CI:I 'Ii 2-.. "'/'~",
~
~ 1
~ 22/21/27 7/9/. /3/3 23/24/'1.B 78 Museum Or .!II:
c..'"
'" NB.tural CI:I
~
CI:I "Q
Il..
i Q)
:.- ~
c:
.i. ~
History
77,';;i_
\
"Q
s::0 ..
....: '" ....'c:"

~
.... Q) Q) Q)
.... -'lQ)
~ __ IIIc: ~ ~~
III Q III
"t:I Q)
Q; .}:
::I " .U
G.l
== -<
.\
0
U
~
'"s:: L .- --_.- 75
.Q! ~i\TeI'Side\
:;
Park _.\ . - 7•
\ - ._o~,~~~ - 7S
.
~'i/J2f3.
-12~~,234/-204
4e/e5/7. ~ -.-< "/D/D
1",--./ ......... ,.L1~2.1
I/'Ii~ 18/'9/2'
___
·f7/i 14- . 10:'/18 __
f. a,'1
~Ii
41r,-·e ~5\!-"/:-;;
~3!,3.t:'2Y:~:: _ 1
~JY'~2
18/1;/20
1/5/1 .,.- - .(B'
t 72nd
~= _ . \~/l'/l4 _-3/-'/:"1. _. 71 7/./1
t '1'4/'4
,.4/80-;:'
T-":74/-224/-171
-- .
15/,iI/l.'
~ .... 'D
\-- ~"'/~2"1-221
Lincoln
Towers
2/31
3/l/2t
\'417/12
I./8/'~ 2/3l
"-
,----
"
.88
2/~/3t '4/'\ 12/ 2/ 3

-- -- .17
'4/1/'~'I': ~7
10/53/'0 l/!/l l. '/Z
2/3/Jt
10.--58/47/74 --- - ........ 32/2:iJ48_ . _ . ". ,? "~/t~ .,u'./20·
SIT -
66th
~45/-113/~27 '2/'O/~:\
2;/1/2.1 3"-'/Z
80/41170 22/21/30 ISft/'3 ~- 65th
~-- 4Z/27/l1t-
-- ..
40/25/31_
.-
,: iii"'"
-;';;v 'I
48/ZI/OO ~52/-107/.Z0 15/14/Z3 11/13 '~~/"/"
~
,,/,~. -
-.--
", ..,00-+ Lincoln "
ie/ea/to ~'30/'2/'4e center 1!/13 lii/;~2/1I
z . as
o ~1fi3of:('''
Amster d am U/,,!\~~l;1I
en
Q
i:l Houses - -_.
___ le/,o/
I4
l __ .82
== lit/II/II
It.
21/;¥27
ordham 't"'
University .
4 l
-
_!'o",
__ II
../II/to
Izt/.2/,4i 18/ul \
.- ." -.~
,.c:GI
..->
N<
11,01,,,
15/15/8.
34/ZI/33
129/12/1'"
~3t/42/11
-
ZI/18/2I
. -
ZI/1I
20/'.
..
. i\D
ColumbuS"
Circle '-.l
- _.5.1
59th
. 101'0/'7'"
Z7/Z0/Z1 ~2I/31/44 2.3/IS/I'l
.~\
i. 11/11/17
- I't/il -- ..
5/3/4=+
.~.'/IoL\4
'f'fo-
- 1!'lJ!l1i.
';·!f·~
II'
57th
/101/'1/105 (Sl 22/"/22
~
11/IZ/1I 11/11/21 t
ia/-Z7/-52 (E)
- .. - .. --- .sI_ lO/iS/ IS
-'~~f71/IOI (Sl l7i l %l1l1 10/12/11 2'/I7/22~

i 1M/-27/-H (El
~~
t~172/IOI ISl
28/I./ZI
~
!M/-Z'/- (E) 11/12/1' 'ii/ill114
1/54 _ ..5JI
,.c:GI ,.c:GI ,.c:GI ,.c:GI
... > ..-> .... ~
~~
/S4 1-/72/101 (S)
-44/-28/_ (Q
", ...
... < 0<
.... =<
'.-
q/q/n
I I
AM/PM
1997 Build Traffic Volumes
.Fi9~re 11.)-19
"0/.7'/:72 724/55l/570 7C7/IOl/.aa7 .n./I281/ •., •
- - •.~ I~148/5l~ ~/l4l/"7 1I~!lllD/5.t . -27413'0/<'7 79th

>.
III
~ Museum Of
~ Natural"
III History
\ 1/1
'"-
::I
;...
...
o
tJ
-...=
II
Riverside
Park
\u/'21/170
\•~ 2504/351/42'
'1'4
3;7/271/511 1D5/"5/'07'~ 't.l .Ol/.OZ/tll

-4=114--11./131/.2.
z
o
en
Q
:::!
=
R~. ---'411/10
~IH/I7I2/UJ4
~:
-
11:1<
I
AM/PM
RIVERSIDE
S <) U-T H .1997 Build Volume-Yo-Capacity Ratios
Figure II.J-20
j :;
c
,,~
,-
Riverside\ \
Park \~____~__________~~______________;-__________~~'~4
..!pzt.3ao/.l24 .J'./'»./._~ ~'7/•• '4/.4U

..1_/':»/.00' ~/.J2'/"21
, -""",,7/.313
. _I". t:O/.x7/. "

r/~/.iOCr. Uncoln'
\ ~
~2/.sol/oS..
To'Wers.... ..! '\.~u/~:~~~

.:.:,o:'--i_ _ _ _ _ _ _
/.5GS/•
'If(.
1-_~4~5::lV~.3:.:;70:l:/;:.
,
_/.-/.415
•• ..lI!l.j1
I!
T"7/.3S0/'U2~·./.35'1.4lt:
~/.Ift/.10401 I __1.451 ·~/.7OI/·1IO
... " .... ' .. 118 _&7
Z
Q
en
Q
:;,
=
... "'I/:n·/iifj
:521/. .
.c:: u
1/.'·· L.iGitM
-
wJ~
c-<
:H~
1CoiI;
I
AM/PM
Traffic impacts are considered. to be significant if the project's traffic
increases a No Build v/c ratio of 0.850 or greater by 0.010 or greater, or
raises a No Build v/c ratio above the threshold v/c ratio of 0.850, then a·
significant adverse project vehicular impact has occurred. Using the 1997 .
Build year volumes, a capacity analysis was performed for the network to iden-
tify any impacted locations and the magnitude of the impacts.
Primary .S.tudy Area. The proposed project would create a new street system
on the project site. By 1997, this system would only be completed between 72nd
and 64th Streets. All intersections would be controlled by stop signs on the
cross streets. Due to the low volumes on the internal streets, no detailed
traffic analyses have been performed for Phase I conditions. Appendix B con-
tains traffic analyses of the internal on-site streets for the fully develop~d.
project for Phase II conditions.
Table II.J-39 shows the 25 intersection approach locations in the primary

study area where significan~ project traffic impacts are predicted to occur in
1997. The significantly affected locations are described below.
TWelfth Avenue: Along the .twelfth Avenue corridor, the proposed project
would increase the No Build v/c ratio on the northbound local or service lanes
at 56th Street from 0.812 to 0.888 in the AM peak hour, and on the southbound
local or service lanes at' 55th Street from 0.585 to 0.902 and from 0.707 to
0.927 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. At 51"st Street, the AM
v/c ratio would increase from 0.853 to 0.869.
I
Riverside Drive: Along the Riverside Drive corridor, at .the Henry Hudson
Parkway exit at 79th Street, the proposed project would increase the No Build
v/c ratio on eastbound 79th Street at Riverside Drive from 0.836 to 0.894 dur-
ing the PM peak hour.
I
West End Avenue: While the proposed project would substantially reduce
the northbound left-tur~ volumes at 72nd Street, significant impacts are pre-
dicted to occur at other approaches at this intersection. On the southbound
approach, No Build v/c ratios would increase from 0.841 to 0.862, 0.853 to I
0.895, and 0.837 to 0.869 during the AM, midday, and pM peak hours, respective-
1y. Also on the northbound through/right approach,' No Build v/c ratios would
increase from 0.921 to 1.083, 0.904 to 0.958 1 and 0.902 to 1.006 during the AM,
midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. On the westbound 72nd Street approach
I
to West End Avenue, the No Build vic ratio 1o10uld increase from 0.988 to 1.022
during the PM peak hour.
Farther south on West End Avenue at 65th Street, the No Build vic ratio
lo1ou1d increase from 0.927 to 0.972 on the southbound approach during the AM
peak hour. At 64th Street, the No Buildv/c ratio would increase from 0.938 to
I
0.969 on the southbound approach during the AM peak hour, and on the northbound
approach the No Build vic ratio would increase from 0.789 to 0.946 during the
PM peak hour. At 63rd Street, the southbound No Build vic ratio on West End
Avenue wOuld increase from 0.823 to 0.875 during the AM peak hour, and at 6lse 1
Street; the southbound approach would also be affected during the AM peak hour
with the No Build v/c ratio increasing from 0.867 to 0.924. Continuing south,
during the AM peak hour significant impacts are expected southbound at boeh
60th and 59th Streets where ehe No Build v/c rados are predicted to increase
from 0.854 to 0,912 and 0.829 to 0.903; respective~y. Eastbound at 59th 1
· Table II.J-39
1997 INTERSECTION APPROACHES vrm SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

IR THE PROJEC'l' STDDY AREA
I
M
'1997 1997 P
NO-BUILD BUiLD DELTA A
PEAK VIC VIC VIC C
STREET APPROACH TOO RATIO RATIO RATIO T
-----------------------------------------:~-----------------------------:
12TH AVE. NB @ 56TH ST. (LOCAL) AM 0.812 0.888 0.07~ ** :
=====:=================~===========c~====I===========~==================:
12TH AVE.SB SERVICE RD.@ 55TH ST. AM: 0.585 0.902 0.317 ** :
PH : 0.707 0.927 0.220 ** :
========~===============~====2===========1~=============================1
12TH AVE.S8 @51 ST AM 0.853 0.869 0.016 ** :
============~==================~~~=======t==c=================~=========:
79TH ST. EB @RIVERSIDE PH : 0.836 0.894 0.058 ** .:
=====================~=~~=========:====:::~=========£~==================:
WEST END SB @72ND ST. AM : 0.841 0.862 0.021 ** :
HD 0.853 0.895 0.042 ** :
PH 0.837 0.869 0.032 ** :
-----------------------------------------:-------------------------_
WEST END NB TH/RT @72ND ST. AM 0.921 1.083 0.162 ......**_-::
HD 0.904 0.958 0.054.*:
PM 0.902 1.006 0.104 ** :
-------------------------------.---------:------------------.---~-------:
72ND ST. WB @WEST END PH : 0.988 ·1.022 0.034 *. :
=====================~===================:==============================:
WEST END SB @65TH ST. AM 0.927 0.972 0.045 ** :
=========================================:====================~=========:
WEST END S8 @ 64 ST. 0.938 0.969 0.031 ** :
----~------------------------------------I--------------------~---------:
WES~ END NB @ 64 ST. PM 0.789 0.946 .0.157.*:
======.=====::;:============================:: ============================:i: I
WEST END S8 @ 63 ST. AM 0.823 0.875 0.052 ** :
=========================================1===================~I:=========:
WEST END SB @ 61ST ST. AM 0.867 0.924 0.057 *. :
===================================~=====I=========~====================1
WEST END SB @ 60TH ST. 0.854 0.912 0.058 .. :
z=================================c====== I ==~================::=====.===== :
WEST END SB @ 59TH ST.. AM : 0.829 0.903 0.074 ** :
-----------------------------------------:-----~------------------------:
59TH ST. ED @WEST END AM 0.534 0.859 0.325 ** :
=========================================1==============================1
WEST END SB @57TH ST. AM 0.946 0.965 0.019 ** :
-----------------------------------------:----------~-------------~-----I
WEST END NB @ 57TH ST. PM: 1•.059 1.070. 0.011 .. :
=====~===================================1=&============================:
11TH AvE.NB @ 56TH ST PH 0.916 0.926 0.010 ** :
===============~=========================I========a====~===============ml
AMSTERDAM NB @BROADWAY/71ST ST. KD 0.862 0.874 0.012 ** :
PH' 1.074 1.085 0.011.*:
===================================••AM
BROADWAY SB @65TH ST./COLUHBUS
==_=I========a
1.054
•• c==============s==cl
1.072 0.018 ** :
PH 0.977 0.990 0.013 •• :
-----------------------------------------:--------~-----------~---------I
BROADWAY NB @65TH ST./COLUMBUS HD: 0.844 0.857 0.013 ** :
PH : 0.976 0.998 0.022 ** :
========================z==============c=I ==============================~
COLUMBUS SB @57TH ST. AM : 0.936 0.946 0.010 ** :
===========:=========~=================.K:~=============================:.
65TH ST. ED @CENTRAL pARI( WEST AM: 0.948 0.973 0.025 u :
PH : 0.971 0.992 0.021 ** :
================================E~=======:========
COL.CIRCLE S8 TO B'WAY @ 8TH AVE. AM 0.936
•• SB=~================:
0.948 0.012 .* :
====5==~==============~=============.=Z==:==.===================~=======:
57TH ST.WS @9TH AVE PM 0.975 0.987 0.012 •• :
===========.===~~~~===========BS~.=======:======.s.~=~==s~===========.c£:
it DENOTES IMPACTED LOCATiON
Il.J -65
Street, project traffic would increase the No Build v/c ratio from 0.534 to'
0.859 during the AM peak hour. "
Significant traffic impacts are also expected on West End Avenue at 57th
and 56th Streets in the AM and PM peak hours. At 57th Street on the .southbound
approach, the No Build v/c ratio would increase from 0.946 to 0.965 during the
AM peak hour;and on the northbound approach, .the No Build v/c ratio would in-
crease from 1.059 to 1.070 during the PM peak hour. At 56th Street on the
northbound approach, the No Build v/c ratio would increase from 0.916 to 0.926
during PM peak hQur.
Amsterdam Avenue: Along this corridor,one significant impact would oc-

cur. At 7lst Street on the northbound Amsterdam Avenue approach, No Build v/c
ratios would increase from 0~862 to 0.874 and 1.074 to 1.085 during the midday
and PM peak hours, respectively.
Columbus Avenue: Significant; impacts along the Co,lumbus Avenue corridor

are also expected at two locations -- at 65th and 57th Streets. At 65th Street
on the southbound Broadway approach, No Build v/c ratios would increase from
1.054 to 1.072, and from 0.977 to 0.990 during the AM and PM peak hours, re-
spectively, and on northbound Broadway, No Build v/c ratios would increase from
0.844 to 0.857 and from 0.976 to 0.998 during the AM and PM peak hours, respec-
tively. At 57th Street on the southbound approach, the No Build v/c ratio
would increase from 0.936 to 0.946 during the AM peak hour.
Central Park WestlELghth Avenue: Significant impacts along the Central

Park West/Eighth AVenue corridor are,expected at the 65th and 57th Street ,in-
tersections. At 65th Street on the eastbound approach, the No Build v/c ratio
would increase from 0.948 to 0.973 in the AM and 0.971 to 0.992 during the PM
peak hour, and at 57th Street on the westbound approach, the No Build,v/c ratio
would increase from 0.975 to 0.987, also during the ,PM peak hours, respective-
ly. In addition, within Columbus Circle, the AM v/c ratio- on southbound Broad-
way at Eighth Avenue would increase from 0.936 to 0.948'.
Summary: In total, Phase I project-generated traffic would significantly

impact 25 intersection approaches in the study area during one or more peak
hours. Five of these intersection approaches would have vic ratios greater
than 1.000 in the 1997 Build condition (versus three with v/c ratios greater
than 1.000 in the No Build condition). of the 25 impacted approaches, 14 in-
tersection approaches are along" West End Avenue. These impacts would occur
because, as discussed earlier, during Phase 'I of the project, _the connection
between the new Riverside Drive extension and Twelfth Avenue would not be com-
pleted, and consequently, most southbound project traffic, plus much of the
northbound traffic diverted from the closed northbound 72nd Street exit ramp,
would use West End Avenue. The connection between the new Riverside Drive
extension and Twelfth Avenue would be completed'by 2002 and cons~quently, the
Phase II analysis reflects this configuration.
Extended Study Area. In addition to the traffic assessment for the proj-
ect study area, the project's demand forecast indicates that project-generated
vehicles may have impacts along specific corridors (i.e.; TWelfth Avenue) Ou~
side the projectis primary traffic study area. Analyses of traffic impacts in
this extended study areas were performed and the results gf these analyses are
disoussed below.
II.J-66 '
Overview; In calculating the potential traffic impacts of a project, a
primary traffic study area was defined in the vicinity of the proposed site.
Typically, project-generated vehicular trips were projected to have origins/
destinations outside the'project study area and the assignment process assumed
no project-generated trips with both an origin and destinat.ion within the study
area. Using the procedures described above for the primary study area, all
project-generated vehicles (autos, full and empty taxis, and trucks) were as-
signed from the site to the project study area boundary.
Because of the size of the proposed project, the volume of traffic that it
would generate warrants a more quantitative assessment of the potential for
traffic impacts beyond the borders of the primary study .area. This assessment
requires a procedure that allows project-generated traffic to be tracked to and
from locations outside the primary traffic study area.
Assignmen.t. of Traffic in the Extended Ar.ea: As proj ect traffic leaves the
study area, the greater 'the distance from the site, the more the project traf~
fic is diffused throughout the roadway network, and the more difficult it be-
comes to attribute these trips solely to the project. These factors are p,ar-
ticularly true in such areas as Manhattan, with its high-density roadway grid
and dense levels of development. As a hyPothetical example, Figure II.J-21
shows that under No Build conditions, trips would be made by persons living a~
points A and B that, under Build conditions', would be redirected to the new
project site; i.e., these trips would not all be new trips, but rather trips
redistributed from one destination to another .
. Within the primary study area along roadway segments close to the project
site, the increase in traffic is directly attributable to the proposed project
and traffic assignment options are relatively limited. However, as the geo-
graphic area of analysis is expanded sufficiently to. include the origin end of
these trips (e.g., points A and B in the example noted above). double counting
may take place for such vehicle components as empty taxis and pickup/delivery
trucks.
From the boundaries of the study area, traffic volumes generated by the
proposed project in the three peak weekday hours have been assigned to and from
their projected origin/destination locations. Trips to and from the major
river crossings were assigned through Manhattan's roadway network, based on
both direct path assignment procedures and the traffic patterns of existing
travelers heading to' and from these crossings.
Defining S.cre.enirut Crlt.eria for Locations in .the. EX.t.ended Area: Having

assigned project trips to the arterial network in the extended area, a screen-
ing procedure was employed to identify locations where project-generated traf-
fic could'have a potential significant adverse impact on traffic conditions a~
specified intersections. This screening methodology identifies potential traf-
fic impact locations due to ~he project and defines the limi~s to whieh the
analysis must follow projeet traffic along these corridors. A further, more
detailed assessment of traffic conditions WaS then performed a~ ~hose intersec-
tions ideneified by this soreening procedure as poeehtial signi£ican~ impace
locations.
The sereening process establishes a screening value tha~ represents the

volume of added traffic that would warrant detailed intersection analysis. In
II.J-67
HIVERSIDE
s (> U T H Redistribution of Project Traffic
Outside Study Area of
Figure II.J~21
.Metropolitan Area
_._."'i_ .•. _...

•
Study Area
•
I I
• •
I I
• •
I PrOject Site I
• •
I I
• •
I I
• •
I I
• •
I I
•
l..iIII... •
•
_._11'" •.:.
: It--Build
.iiI........
· ..1 :..J....-T· ::
·• . .••
ripS
• ~ •••• i i i i i •• t) ••••••• I •••••••• i •• i ••••• ' •• i •• i.i.~ :•
•• :•
•
• : : No-Build :
•
• • Trips :•
·
:• •
•
1 :•
: •••• " , •••• , •••• 1••• ,11 •••••••••••••••• II.III •• ~
. .
_ Areas of overlap for Build and No..Build Trips

coordination with NYCDOT~ this scr~ening value Was set at a combined total of
30 vph on competing approaches at any intersection in any peak hour.
To screen for potential impacts in the extended area, the project's in-
crement at each intersection was compared with the screening value of 30 vph.
Where the total traffic added by the project would be 30 vph or less, the in-
tersection was not analyzed further for traffic impacts. For principal inter-
sections and peak hours where the project would potentially have volumes
greater than 30 vph, a standard CHI vic analysis was performed at these inter-
sections.
No Build Traffic Projection in. Extended Area: To establish No Build vol-

umes at intersections in the e~tended area, volumes on all intersection ap-
proaches were increased by the same percentage growth factors as in the primary
study area tr~ffic analyses. As noted in section II.B, "Land Use," future
development in the primary study area is conservatively projected to be sub-
stantial during the 1991 to 2002.period, and the use of this percentage is a
conservative traffic growth estimator for the e~tended study area.
·The main potential network change in the .extended area would be the devel-
opment of the 42nd Street ·Light Rail Transitway. The transitway, which has a
build year of 1996, would convert 42nd Street to one-way westbound between
Eleventh and Second Avenues. Preliminary information about expected changes in
. traffic patterns has been obtained from NYCOOT. Traffic diversions 'are likely
between 37th and 47th Streets· across Manhattan. The proposed Riverside South
project would not exceed the 30.vph intersection threshold at. locations poten-
. tially affected by the transitway, except at Twelfth Avenue and 42nd Str.eet.
At this location, the transitway is expected to reduce turning volumes from
Twelfth Avenue, because of the lack of eastbound 42nd Street through traffic
movements. In addition, preliminary mitigation is proposed for the transitway
at this intersection (the only one analyzed for Riverside South that would be
. modified because of the Transitway). These modifications include a rephasing
of the signal and a widening of the southbound approach from two to three
lanes. Appendix B provides a description of the effect of the 42nd Street
Light Rail Transitway on the proposed project.
Ext.ended Area TrMI.Lc. Impacts in 1997: Due to the limited development of

the proposed project in 1997, the only corridor that would e~ceed the 30 vph
threshold beyond the study area is Twelfth Avenue from 42nd Street to 23rd
Street/gleventh AVenue (see Table II.J-40). As noted preViously, in 1997 the
roadway improVements proj ec ted for the year 2002 (1. e., Route 9A) would not be
completed. Applying the No Build and Build forecasting methodology described
above; impaces along this corridor were determined. At 42nd Street; the vic ~
ratio on the souehbound approach would increase from 0.840 to 0.861 during the
AM peak hour. At 34th Streee; ehe vic ratios on ehe northbound express roadway
would increase from 0.921 to 0.939 and 1.044 ~o 1.071 during the midday and PM
·II.J-68
Table II.J-40
lDCA~IONS VITH SIGNIFICANT IHl'ACTS IN THE EX':rENDO STUDY AllU. IN 1991
I
M
1991 1997 1997 DELTA P
EXISTING NO-BUILD BUILD VIC A
PEAK VIC VIC VIC RATIO C
STREET APPROACH TOO RATIO RAilO RATIO (1 ) T
==========================================~~====================================
12TH AVENUE CORRIDOR
==============================
====~========.~==============~~==============================#==================
12iH AVE. SB THRU @ 42ND ST. ' AM 0.801 0.840 0.861 '0.021 **
=========~====================================-s~===============================
12TH AVE. NB @34TH ST. MD 0.864 0.921 0.939 0.018 **
PM 0.980 1. 044 ' 1.071 0.027 **
============a=~==========~==============================.8======================
12TH AVE. NB @23RD ST. PM 0.922 0.983 1.005 0.022 **
12TH AVE. SB @ 23RD ST. AM 0.8'1 0.842 0.862 0.020 **
============================================a=.=~===============================
12TH AVE. NB @ 11TH AVE. ,PM 0.9'2 0.972 0.994 0.022 ••
===============================aiiiiiiiiHil===e============================C:iic==ii==ii==
** -DENOTES SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
,(') -BUI~D vic RATIO MINUS NOBUILD VIC RAilO
peak hours, respectively. At 23rd Street, the No Build vic ratio on the, north-
,bound'approach 'Would increase from 0.983 to 1.005 during the PM. peak hour,
whereas on the southbound approach, the vic ratio would increase from 0.842 to
0.862 during the AM peak hour. Finally, at the nearby. Eleventh Avenue inter-
section, the vic ratio on the northbound approach would increase.from 0.972 to
OVerall, the proposed project would have significant traffic impacts in

tne extended area at five principal intersection approaches in 1997 in one or
more peak hours. of these impacted approaches, two would be greater than 1.000
in the 1997 Build condition (Versus one in the, No Build). In addition, the
proposed project would have significant impacts at some intermediate intersec-
tions along this corridor.
The inclusion of the preliminary mitigation proposed for the 42nd Street
Transitway at the intersection of Twelfth Avenue and 42nd Street would revise
the analysis at that intersection. The table below c'ompares vic ratios at 42nd
Street and Twelfth Avenue at the southbound through approach with and without
the Transitway. As shown in the table, the proposed project's AM impact on the
southbound through approach would be eliminated with the Transitway mitigation.
Without Transitway With Transitvay

.Approach Peak Hour No Build VIe Build VIe No. Build. JlLe Build v.LJj
Twelfth Avenue South- AM 0.840 0.861- 0.704 0.721
bound Through
* . Denotes impacted location.
In 1997, the proposed project would provide 1,500 parking spaces in six
garages. Table II.J-41 shows the individual garage capacieies and Figure
II.J-18 shows their locations on the proposed site. Table II.J-4l also shows
that, except for Garage A; which would be accessible only from the private, 71se
Street, all garages would have entrances from the public streets, with possible
additional enerances from adjaGent private streets.
Table 11.3-41
1997 OR-SITB GARAGES
Possible
Name Loca.tion .capaci~ .. Ac.c.es.L..F.r,ODl - Additipnal Acsess
A bet. 72nd-71st St. 327 (A) 1 71st St. (Pvt)2
B bet. 71st-70th St. 290 (A) 70th St. (Pub)3 7ist St.
(PVt.)
C bet. 70th 69th
a St. 280 (A) 70eh St. (Pub) 69th St.
(Pvt.)
D" bet. 69th-68th St. 210 (A) 68eh St. (Pub) 69th St.
(PvC.)
ElF bet. 68th-66t:h St. 214 (A) 68th St. (Pub) 67th se,
(PVt,)
G/H bet. 66th~64th St. 179 (A) 64th St. (Pub) 65th St. (Pvt.)
Phase t Total l,SOO
Rotes:
1 (A) - attendant parking spaoes.
a (Pvt) - access from a privaee street.
3 (Pub) K access frOm a public street.
II.J-10
· "
At the end of Phase I, it is B;ssUiIled that the 850-space on"-site public lot:
and the private spaces leased to Con Ed (about 150 spaces) would still be func-
tional, and that access to these spaces would be via their current 60th and
59th Streets access points. Therefore, it is anticip~ted that in 1997 there
would be a total of 2,500 on-site parking spaces.
OVernight demand for new residential parking at the proposed project is

estimated to be 0.45 spaces per dwelling unit, given the expected uniformly
high-income on-site population and average dwelling unit size of about 1,050
square feet. The parking requirements of the .other uses are estimated based on
their respective trip generation and modal "sp~it (auto usage) characteristics.
Table II.J-42 shows the expected midday and PM peak accumulation for the indi-
vidual uses in the projecc for phase 1.
Table II,J-42 shows chat ehe expected midday utilization raee would be 79
percent ana the overnight utilization rate would be 94 percent. Therefore, the
parking provided would be sufficient to meet the Phase I parking demand, and nO
significant parking impact: would occur for Phase I conditiofis.
Table lI.J-42
1997 PARKING UTILIZATION
Accumulation (Spaces)
lfidday Evenin&--
Residential 1,058 1,411
Professional Offices 61
Retail 23
Park ...-M
Phase I Demand 1,191 1,411
New Phase I Supply 1.500 1,500
Phase I Garage Utilization 19% 94t.
It should be noted that if the proposed project includes affordable hous-

ing units, overnight demand would be reduced. Parking demand for affordable
housing units is estimated to be 0.35 spaces per unit. With 20 percent of the
units affordable, the number of sPaces required would be reduced by 114 spaces.
The resultant utilization rate would be 72 percent at midday and 86 percent
overnight.
Suhway "Service
The number of subway passengers generated by each phase of "Riverside South

was calculated based on the trip generation and modal split assumptions out-
lined at the beginning of this impact analysis. Passengers were assigned to
individual subway lines by direction (uptown vs. downtoWn), and time of day (AM
vs. PM) based on trip generation, cemparal distribu~iofi, and origin/destina-
tion; Passengers were then assigned to individual entrances and stairways
based on the distance to each aevelapmefit block afia Ofi existing entrance and
n.J-71
exit patterns. Worst-case assumpt~ons were used in. this assignment process,
with passengers assumed to enter the nearest stairway or entrance regardless of
existing or projected future congestion (i.e~, passengers were not assumed to
avoid congested locations).
Table 1I.J-43 shows the project-generated subway trip assignments used to

determine passenger loads for the analyses . . the iropacts of these additional
passenger loads at each of the affected station components (stairways, turn-
stiles, etc.) were analyzed using the methodologies described above under "Ex-
isting Conditions."
Increased demand at station stairways was judged to. constitute a sign.if~

icant impact in accordance with City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)
guidelines published May 7, 1990. These guidelines dictate that at stairways
with a LOs D or worse, there is a significant impact if the stair would have to
be widened as follows to regain No Build vic levels:
Significant Impact Based

Build LOS on....R.eguJ.red Widening
b 2: 6"
E ~ 3·"
F ~ 1"
The required widening is calculated as the effective No Build stairway width
times the project-induced pedestrian volumes, divided by the No Build pedes-
trian volumes.
The following sections outline the impact of project-generated trips at

each of the analyzed subway stations for 1997 Build conditions . . An analysis of
line haul conditions for the 1997 BUild year is also presented.
66th Str.e.et.-Br.oadwax IRT.
Stairways and.Contro.!. Areas: Under 1997 Build conditions, development of

part of the new park and blocks D, E, F, G, and H of the proposed project would
generate increased ridership demand at the 66th Street-Broadway IRT station.
It is projected that 350 project-generated trips would occur at this station
during the AM peak hour, of which approximately 66 percent would be entering
the subway system and approximately 34 percent would be exiting the system (see
Table II.J-43). During the PM peak hour, it is projected that 423 project-gEm-
erated trips would use this station, of which approximately 41 percent would be
entering and approximately 59 percent would be exiting.
As shown in Table I1.J-44, with the exception of street stair S2, all
street stairW~Ys, fare arrays', and the ramp to. Lincoln Center would operate a~
LOS C or better under 1997 Build conditions and no significant impacts would
occur. Stairway S2 is predicted to operate at LOS b during the AM peak hour
for No Build conditions, and would fall to LOS E during this time period with \.
the proposed project. These congested conditions are primarily the result of
the heavy demand placed on this stairway by students en route to nearby high
schools. Based on the CEQR impaot criteria previously outlined; ·the Addition
gf 13 projec~-&enerated erips to this stairway during the pea~ fiVe minutes in
the AM peak hour would not ,result in a signifisAnt impact.
Tapie lI.J-43
SUBWAY STATION TRIPS, 1997 BUILD cONblTIONS
AM PEAK HOUR
59TH STREET 66TH STREET nND STREET

Total Nwnbe~ IRT/IND IRT IRT
of Trips A,B,C,D,1,9 1,9 1,2,3,9
Origin/
Destination Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
===============-=======._====== .=~=======-=== =====._====== --==========-
MANHATTAN 490 168 0 0 196 70 294 98
BRONX 8 18 0 0 4 7 4 11
QUEENS 12 25 0 0 5 10 8 15
BROOKLYN 42 31 0 0 17 12 26 19
STATEN ISLAND 5 8 0 0 2 4 3 4
MASSAU/SUFFOLK 12 17 0 0 5 8 8 10
OTHER ~/NJ/CT 9 26 0 0 4 9 5 18
.~~==~5~=.S=~~5.a.====~ •• ====~s iic~=======ii:i:::== ====i::ii===-====== iiii=:=========i:iI:
TOTAL 578 293 o o 231 119 347 174
PM PEAK HOUR
59TH STREET 66TH STREET 72ND STREET

Total Number IltT/IND IRT IRT
of '1'~ips A,S;C;D,1,9 1,9 1,2,3;9 '
Origin/
Destination Enter Exit Ente~ Exit Enter Exit Ente~ Exit
==========~===================_ ====== •• ~===== =~aa========_ =============
MANHATTAN 328 514 0 0 137 211 191 304
BRONx 10 9 0 0 4 4 6 5
QUEENS 18 17 0 0 8 7 10 10
BROOKLYN 32 42 0 0 12 17 20 26
STATEN ISLAND 6 6 0 0 2 3 4' 3
MASSAU/SUFFOLK 12 12 0 0 5 5 8 8
OTHER NY/NJ/C'l' 15 12 0 0 6 5 10 e
====c_========_================ •• _======= •• == =====a~=.==== =._=~========
TOTAL 421 o o 173 250 246 362
11.J-73
'.Iable II.J-44
fii,6'th STREET IB.T STATION. 1997 BUILD CONDITIONS
Eff.ctlv. No-Build Pk 5 Min. Build 1'917 '117 R.Qul,..d

lfacfllty P.ak Width (f) Capacity Pk 5' Min. p,.oj.ct P.ak 5 Min. Build Build No Build atatMlay
ND. Il.ocatl'on P.,.fod' I'Fa.t) fPPM)(2) VolUBI. rnc,.. . .nt VOl'UII. PFM(2) VIC lOS VIC lOS WIdanlns('!)
-------- --------- -------- -------. -----.--- .---------- ----------- .
eli1' HK Co,.n.,. of 68th AM 4'.3'4 43 1'73 20 '93 B.a9 0.81 C 0.10 C

I, Broadwa, PM 4.3'4 43 1B5" 21 ,.BI 1.57 0.11 C 0.711 C
ft S£ Co,.n.,. of" B6th AM 4.54 43 za, t3 Z94 13.55 1.35 E 1.29 0 2.41 ( 3"
I Broadwa, pn 4'.3'4 43' 1'27 21 148 8.85 0.B8 8 0.59 B
Cl2 Stal,. to Uncaln AM 4.3'4 4! ,a2 1't 193 8.92 0.89 C 0.14 C
hnt.,. • ColUilbu. PM 4.34 43 '94 10 204 9.4'1 0.94 C o.n C
R....D to Lincoln AM S.OO BO 1'2'5 0 125 !.13 0.31 A 0.31 A

Camt.,. • Columbus PM 8.00 8'0, SB 0 sa 1'.48 0.15 A 0.15 A
Ai-' o.ntwn F.,.. A,.,.ay AN Ent.,. 104 ·71 1a !t4' nla 0.1S A 0.15 A
1110 • Bllth St,.•• t (4) Exit 11'0 98 4 100 nl. 0.18 A 0.f7 A
PM: Ent.,. 10'4 1'25 1'2 137 nl'a O.ZI A 0.24 A
EII.ft no 38 9' 47 n(a 0.09 A 0.07 A
H, Ai-' Uptown Far. ",.r., AN' Ent.r n HI' 5 2" n/a 0.1S A 0.10 A
H 151 • IItlth St,.••t (4) Exit 94' 2e:4 8 272 n/. 0.58 A 0.5' A
.'
'-4, PM Ent.r 3'2 48 4 52' n'iI 0.32 A 0.30 A
"
"'-11
EII.it 94 80 17 ..7 n/. 0.2" A 0.17 A
~
A",' ILincpln Cant.r AM Enter + b i t 192 307 11' 3,18 n/. 0.33 A 0.32 A
110A Fa,.. "Arr., (4) PM £"nt.r + Exit 1'92 2$S 1'0 2113' nl'a 0".27 A 0.28 A
---. -------------- ------------ -------- ----.---- --------- ----------- -----------
1'11) Effectlv. Width . . . .u,..d' •• width betw•• n the hand,.an •

• ultfDli.d by a ~.cto,. of' 0.' to account for r.v.,. •• rlowa.
£2:) Stafr caDacU, ba. .d' on tlYCTA guld.line. of 10 PFM.
PIfM • P.raon. P.,. Foot Width of Bt.l,.wa, P.r Mlnut ••
"Ii'M .. P.reon. Pa,. M"I nut ••
un Mlnl.ua raQul'r.d .talM1a, wl'daninl to .itlg.t. 'l!Ipact (inch•• }.
(:4-1 Far. A,.ray Confleu,.ation.:
e" manot•• a .'gn,'flcant '_D.ct.
111-1059: 2 two-way turn.tn•• A'-1t50: 2 .ntranc. tu,.n.tn.a R-1eOA: e two-wa, turn.tn ••

1 .dt-onl, tu,.n.tn. 2.hieh .ntrance turnstil ••
11 IiIfgh r.volvlng .x,t g.t. 2 hllh revolving .1I1't gata.
11 .xU gat.
P.ak Hour.: BAM - lAM
!111M, - 6PM
7_2ndStreet-Broadway IRT.
Stairways and Control Area: Under 1997 Build conditions" deve10pmenE of

blocks A, B, C, 0, and E of the proposed project, as well as part of the ne~
park, would generate increased ridership demand at the 72nd Street-Broadway IRT
station. It is projected that 521 project-generated trips would occur at this
station during the AM peak hour, of which appro:x.imate1y 67 percent would be
entering the subway system and approximately 36 percent would be e:x.iting the
system (see Table II.J-43). During the PM peak hour, it is projected that 610
project-generated trips would use this station, of which approximately 41 per-
cent would be entering and appro:x.imate1y 59 percent would be exiting.
As shown in Table II.J-45, during the AM peak hour, platform stairways P11
P3 and P5/P7 are predicted to operate at LOS F for No Build conditions, and
would continue to operate at LOS F for 1997 Build conditions. As described
under "Existi!lg Conditions," the stairways at this -station are substandard.
Based on the CEQR criteria, the addition of 17 project-generated trips to each
of these southbound platform stairways during the peak five minutes in the AM
peak hour would result in a significant impact at each stair. (As shown above.
CEQR criteria define a stairway-widening required to reach No Build conditions
of 1 inch or greater as a significant impact when the stairway is operating at
LOS F.) Stairway P1/P3 would require a widening of 1.88 inches to attain No
Build levels, while stairway P5/P7wou1d require a widening of 2.04 inches.
Also, during the AM peak hour, stairways P4 and P6 would change from LOS C
operation for No Build conditions to LOS _0 for Build conditions as a result of
project-generated demand. However, no significant impacts are anticipated at
these stairways as the stairway widening required to reach No Build levels
(3.24 and 3.34 inches, respectively) are less than the CEQR threshold of 6
inches at tos D.
During the pM peak hour, northbound platform stairways P4 and P6 are

predicted to operate at LOS F for No Build conditions, and would continue to
operate at LOS F under ~ui1d conditions. The addition of 17 project-generated
trips to each of these stairways during the peak five minutes in the PM peak
~our would result in a significant impact at each stair based on the CEQR cri-
teria (stairway widenings required to reach No Build levels would be 2.10
inches and 2.34 inches, respectively). During the- PM peak hour, stairways PSI
P7 and P8/P9 are predicted to operate at LOS 0 for No Bu.ild conditions, and
would continue to operate at LOS D during this time period with the proposed
project. Based on the CEQR impact criteria, project-generated trips to these
stairways would not result in significant impacts. The fare array at the up-
town entrance (control booth R-161A) would drop from tos A for No Build condi-
tions to LOS B during the PM peak hour for Build conditions.
All other stairways and -fare arrays would remain at their No Build levels
of service during.both peak hours for Build conditions and would not experience
any significant impacts.
The results of the analysis of circulation conditions in the station'S

head house mezzanine area for Build conditions are shown in Table Il.J -46. The
mezzanine is predicted to operate at LOS B for No Build conditio~s, and would
continue to operate at LOS B for Build conditions during bQt~ehe AM and PM
peak hours. The average circulation area per person would decrease by 2.0
square feet. from approximately 32 squate feet for No Build conditions to about
30 squate feet during both peak hours.
II.J .. 75
"able II.J-45
l2nd STREET IRT STATION. 1997 BUILD CONDITIONS
IEffifec:t 1va ' Nb-BUlld Pic. 5 H1n. Bulld 1991 1997 Required
Facility Peak Width (1) Capacity Pk 5 Hin. Project Peak 5 Hin. Build , Bulld No Build Stairway
NO. LocaUon Per:i'od' , (feet) (PPH)(2) Volume Increment Volume PFM(2) viC LOS VIC LOS Widening(3)
--------
PS/P7 North Downtown AM
---------
2.7'1 21
---------
214
--------- -----------
17 291
------ -----
21.21
--- ----- --- -----------
2.13 F 2.00 F 2.04 > 1" ...
1P'1atfonn Stair PM ,2.74 21 142 17 159 11.62 1.16 D 1.04 D 3.93 < 6"
P11/Pl South Downtown AM 2.74 27 298 17 315 23.00 2.30 F 2.18 F 1.88 :. 1'" •
P1iatform Stair PM 2.14 21 118 17 135 9.89 0.99 C 0.86 C
NIH North Uptown AM 2.74 27 74 6 ee 5.86 0.59 8 0.54 8
Platform Stair PM 2'.7'1 21 1'57 9' 166 12.10 1.21 D 1.14 0 1.89 < 6"
P6, Center Uptown AM 2.74 27 128 13 141 10.28 1.03 0 0.93 C 3.34 < 6"
P1atform Stair PM 2.74 27 239 17 256 18.71 1.81 F 1.75 F 2.34 > 1"'"
II-! P'4' South Uptown AM 2.74 27 132 13 145 10.58 1.06 0 0.96 C 3.24 c 6"
.c:....,
11-1 P1:atform Stair PM 2.14 21 266 1'7 283 20.66 2.07 F 1.94 F 2.10 > 1" ...
"
.....,1
QII,
II·
1,6U
Uptown Entrance
(7 two-way
w..nstnes)
AM
PH
.-..
"
224
224
335
660
32
43
361
103
nla
nla
0.33 A
0.63 8
0.30 A
0.59 A
AI-
161
Downtown Entrance
(,5, two-way
tUll'1'lStHes)
-----------
AM'
PM'
"""
"
---------
.. 160
160
513
259
---------
33
34
606
293
--------- -----------
nil.
nil.
0.76 C
0.37 A
0.72 C
0.32 A
------ ----- --- ----- --- ------------
en Effective Width measured' as width between the handrails
lIII'ltipl1ed by a factor of 0.8 to account for reverse flows.
(2-)Stair capaCity based' on NYCTA gUidelines of 10 PFH.
PIM,. Persons 'Per Foot Width of Stairway Per Minute.
PPM, • Persons Per Minute.
(3) I!\,i,nimum required stairway widening tei mi'Ugate impact ('i'nches).
• Denotes a s1'gntffcant 1'mpact •
Peak Ifours; BAH - 9AM
SI/H - 61'H
Table II.J-46
12nci STREET IRT STATION MEZZANINE LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

1997 BUILD CONDITIONS
10tal ~ Walk A""r a9i!

Total Spiaci 1997 8ul1d A_llIe 1111i1i Space Hodul. nme-space T1me-Space l1 ....Space 'total (;il'Culation
Availabl. 5 Hin Volunei (In minutes) (in sq. ft. ) Ava1labi. RequlnK1 Avallabl. walk 11... Araa/Person
AM
(sq. ft.)
-"--752.0
-----;;,,;.;;;;;;
Walk Qi;8UII
971 56
walk ~ Walk Queuii
0.12 0.75 7.50 6.00

a(a.
_ f._
-miii)
mo.o
.-. (s.f.-nil';) (s. f. -min) (m,l1UtlIS)
---
.--............
354.0
--~
3506.0 116.5
-_..-.....
(!Sq. ft.)
30.1
LOS
9
PH 752.0 997 46 0.12 0.75 7.50 6.00 3760.0 205.2 3554.8 119.7 ago '1 Ii
Peak iicNl'Sl SAM" 9AM

SlIM - SlIM
.'.
PLatforms: Table II.J-47 presents the analysis of conditions on the
southbound platform during the AM peak hour for Build conditions. The results
shown in Table II.J-47 indicate that the s9uthbound platform would continue to
have available capacity in all 2;ones, although the percent available would be
reduced from the No Build condition. Overall, the percent aVailable would
decrease by 3 percent, from 47 p.ercent for No Build conditions to 44 percent
for Build conditions. Under the snapshot app'roach (an instantaneous measure-
ment of crowding at the end of the 7-minute analysis period), all zones would
continue to operate at their No Build levels of service, with the exception of
zone 4, which would operate at the LOS C/D threshold under Build conditions .
compared with LOS C for the No Build. No significant platform impacts for any
zone are expected. Overall, the available space would decrease by 0.5 square
feet per person, from 8.7 square feet per person for No Build conditions to 8.2
square feet per person for Build conditions.
Subway. Line. Haul Analy.s.is. AM and PM peak hour subway line usage for 1997
Build conditions is presented in Table II.J-48. Most lines are predicted to
continue to operate with some excess capacity at their peak load points. How-
ever, the Nos~ 2 and 3 IRT lines would continue to experience significant
crowding during the AM peak hour, with a 1 percent decrease in capacity in the
southbound direction. The capacity deficit would be 18 percent in the south-
bound direction, up from 17 percent for 1997. No Build conditions. In the
northbound direction, these lines would continue to operate essentially at
capacity during the AM peak hour.· During the PM peak hour, available capacity
.on these lines would drop by 1 percent in the northbound direction (from 10
pe'rcent for '1997 No Buiid condition to 9 percent with the project) and remain
at 16 percent in the southbound direction. Crowding would also occur on the
Nos. 1 and 9 IRT lines in the southbound direction, where available, capacity
would fall by 1 percent, to 3 percent (down from 4 percent in the No Build
condition) during the AM peak hour. The changes in line haul conditions due ~g
the proposed project would be minimal, and therefore no significant impact is'
expected in 1997.
Bus Operations
Local Bus..S.e.rvic.e. Local (intra-Manhattan) bus demand generated by the

proposed project would total 348 trips in the AM peak hour and 475 trips in the
PM peak hour for 1997 Build conditions. The number of bus trips, their origin/
destination patterns,. and temporal distributions were forecast based on the
assumptions outlined in Appendix B. Local bus demand was determined individu-
ally for each of the eight blocks planned for development under Phase I, along
with the proposed park, due to the size of the proposed proJect and the associ;
ated walking distances to the various routes. Yhere more than one route could
serve tlte ~ame block and origin/destination zone, ridership was assigned in
proportion to each route's relative share of existing ridership in the travel
corridor, modified by a utility factor to account for convenience . . If th~
nearest stop on a route was within one-quarter mile of a block, the relative
share of existing ridership was used unchanged (utility factor;:; 1). If the
route was between one-quarur and one-half mile from a. pareicular block, the
relative share of existing ridership was reduced by one-half (utility faceor =
0.5). If the nearest seop ort a rou~e was greater than one;half mile away. that
route was considered fiot to serve that block (utility factor = 0).
lLJ;78
12nd STREET IRT STATION. SOUTHBoUND plATFORM. 1997 BUILD CONDITIONS
1997 NO BUILD CONDITIONS 1997 BUILD CONDITIONS

--~~--~------------------------li -g~-------------~~-------------
"SnapshOt "Snapshot"
Assessi'l'ierit Assessment
Pel"Cent of after' '7 Mili. Percent of after '7 Min.
7 Minute T"S
Zone Avai1able -------~----
SF/Per LOS ZOne
7 Minute T~S
Available
.a __________
..
~----------
SF/Per LOS.
, ------------
60% 9.8 C , 58% 9.3 C
2 50% 8.4 C 2 48% 8.0 C
3 42% 7.9 C 3 39% 7.5 C
4 42% .7.4 C 4 39% 7.0. elo
5 30% 6.8 0 5 27% 6.5 0
6 19% 6.5 0 6 15% 6.2 0
7 30% 6.8 0 7 26% 6.4 0
8 49% 9.0 C 8 47% 8.6 C
9 66% 12.6 B 9 65% 12.0 8
10 82% 22.0 A ,0 81% 20.S A
Piatfori'li 47% 8.7 C PlatfOrm 44% 8.2 C

Total: Total:
I1.J-19
'.liable II.J-48
un HAUL ARALYSIS. 1997 BUILD CONDITIONS
199:7 1997
Build ND-Build
Scheduled Percent of' !,'ercent of
Time Number of Number of Design Passenger Capacity Passenger Capacity
Lli.ne Period Direction Trains/Rourl1] Cars/Hourl1] Capacity'[2] Volume Available Volume Available
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,,91 " AM, Southbound 15 150 18,000 17,538 3%, H,355 4%.
lIIIo'rthbound 14 140 16',800 6,906 59% 6,822 59%
PM Southbound 12 120 14',400 6,365 56% 6.251 57%
Northbound 14 140 16,800 14,868 12% 14,692 13%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.31 11M, Southbound 20 191 22,920 27,043 -18% 26,855 -17%
ll/io,rthbound 17 162' 19,4'40 19,522 0% 19,498 0%
PM, Southbound 16 151 18;120 15,293 16% 15,268 16%
lIIIorthbound 18 173 20,760 18,910 9% 18.720' 10%
H
-.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southbound 10 8'4 17,203 10,'402
" . Ii
.Lo
H A AM
Northbound 13 no 22,528 18,835
40%
16%
10,397
18,830
40%
16%
•
011
PM Scuthbound 15 12'8 2'6,214 15,967. 39'% 15,961 39%
0' Northbound 9 82 16,194 9,731 4;2% 9,725 42%
Bi AM Southbound 5 50 11,000 4,4'54 60% 4,454 60%
Northbound 8 80 17,600 8.900 49% 8,900 49%
PM Southbound 8 80 17,600 5,632 68% 5,632 68%
Northbound 6 60 13,2'00 .' 2,930 78% 2,930 78%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---.---------
c: AM, Southbound 6 4'8' 8,640 3,079 64% 3,078 64%'
NO'Ithbound 8 66 11,880 6,596 45% 6',594 45%
E'M Southbound 7 56 10,080 3,104 69% 3,103 69%
Northbound 6 48 8,640 2,669 69% 2,668 69%
-_._-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------~-------------------- -------------
U 11M Southbound 10 8'0 17,600 11,180 37% 11,180 37%
1II0'l"thbound 10 80 n,600 9,566 46% 9,566 46%
PM; Southbound 1 56 12,320 5,174 58% 5,174 58%
Niodhbound 8 64 14,080 7,155 49% 7,155 49%
-,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JIIlo,tes: [1] Source: New York City Transit Authority 1990 Cordon Count.
~2~] Based Upon: 1, 2, 3,9 trains: all wi th 10 cars @ 120 spaces per car.
A trains: 33'% with 10 cars @ 180 spaces per. car.
67'% wi th 8 cars @ 220 spaces per car.
C tlains: all with 10 cars @ 180 spaces per car.
B,D trains: all with 8 cars @ 220 spaces per car.
Table II.J-49 shows 1997 Build conditions for the local bus routes within
the study area. The six routes with capacity deficits in the peak direction
for 1997 No Build conditions (i. e.; the M~ in the AM peak hour, the M7 in both
the AM and PM peak hours, the M~l in both the AM and PM peak hours, the M57in
the PM peak hour, the M66 in the. PM peak hour, and the MI04' in the AM peak
hour) would continue to experience deficits under 1997 Build conditions. In
addition, the M57 route, which would be operating at capacity in the AM peak
hour under No Build conditions, would experience a deficit of 32 spaces under
Build conditions, and the MI04, which would operate at capacity in the PM peak
hour under No Build conditions, would experience a deficit of 46 spaces under
Build conditions. The deficits would range from the 21 spaces (one bus) on the
M7 route during the. AM peak hour to 154 spaces (three buses) on the M7 route in
the PM peak hour. One route, the MS, would experience a capacity deficit in
the AM peak hour only, while the M66 would have a deficit in the PM peak hour
only. Four routes, the M7, MIl, M57, and MI04, would experienc~ deficits dur-
ing both peak hours. Giyen the deficit nature of No Build local bus opera-
tions, significant impacts are expected in the AM peak hour on the MS, MS7, and
MI04, and in the PM peak hour on the MIl, M66, and M104. However, as standard
practice, the New York City Transit Authority routinely conducts ridership.
counts and adjusts bus service frequency, within operating and fiscal con-
straints, to meet its service criteria, and would be expected to do so on these
bus routes as well.
Expr.e.ss Bus Service. In the 1997 Build year, express bus demand generated
. by the prop?sed project. would to~al 12 trips in the AM peak hour (83 percent
entering the project and 17 percent exiting) and 13 trips in the PM peak hour
(38 percent entering and 62 percent exiting). Since a majority of the express
bus routes connecting Manhattan with outlying boroughs andsuburba~ communities
are privately operated, and the operating companies routinely adjust capacity
to meet increases or decreases in demand, no significant impacts to express bus
service are anticipated for 1997 Build conditions:
P.e.destrian Activity
Pedestrians traveling to and from individual blocks were assigned to the

local pedestrian network, with subway station entrance/exit locations as the
principal origins and destinations of these trips during the peak hours. As-
signments to individual crosswalks and street corner locations at the inter-
sections analyzed we~e made on the basis of the locations of the blocks in
question and the existing distribution of pedestrians at those locations.
Street corners and crosswalks located adjacent to the 66th Street IRT and 72nd
Street IRT subway stations were. analyzed.
~e ~etermination of a significant pedestrian impact Was based on CEQR

guidelines published May 7, 1990. According to CEQR criteria, a significant
pedestrian impact requiring mitigation at a corner or crosswalk is .defined as a
decrease in the space allocation increment of 1.0 square foot per pedestrian or
more (rounded to the nearest tert~h square foot) between No Build and Build con-
ditions, where the space allocation per pedestrian is equal to or less than the
threshold of 20.0 square feet of corner or crosswalk area under NQ Build conai-
tions; or where it becomes equal to or less than this threshold as. a result of
the proposed action.
II.J-Sl
'J!ab1~ II • .J-49 .
LOCAL BUS HENOH. 1997 BUILD CONDITIONS
p'eak .Hour Buse.

•• 1!997 No Bui ld
Avanable Capacity b
1997 Bul1d
Pro.iect I'ncrement
1'997 Build b
Ptrak Direction "vanable Capacfty in
AM/PM Peak Hour in Peak Direction i'n the Peak Direction fn Peak Direction the Peak Direction
--------------- ----------------- -,-------------------- ----------------- ---------------------
Raute AM PM AU PM Atl PM AM PM
litl!! 8B/HB ff 12 -88 180 36 . 12 -1'2( • 188
11111 SBIUB r 10 -9 -140 12 1'( -n -154
NoH 88/N8 II 7' -12 -10 1:0 3'7 -82 -1'07 •
1457 EB/HB 9 7' 0 -1'19 3:2 2S -32 • -142

H
..Lo,
H
, M88 E8IW8 12 10 3'8 .-70 34 33 2 -1'OS •

CD
Ii'<ol
N72 E8/W8 1 7' 238 198 9 12 229 1'U
Mill HB/HB 1'8' 14 1'82 70 2 5 180 65
~n04 SBINB 24 23 -4'8' 0 38 411 -88 • -(8 •
.,
Source: NYClA Rider.hip.Surveys.
b
•••• d·upon a capacfty af 80 perean. par bu••
• Denote. a aignfftcant 'IIIPact.
Peak Hour.: BAM - lAM

5PM - 8PM
Table II.J-50 shows the resuit;s of ,!=he pedestrian analysis at key street
corner and crosswalk locations in the study area for 1997 Build conditions.
Street Go_rne_r. Analys.is. The results sho'W'n in Ta~le II.J -50 indicate tha~
the proposed project would result in a s~gnificant pedestrian impact at the
southwest corner of 72nd Street/Broadway during the AM peak hour for 1997 Build.
conditions. Although the corner would continue to operate at its No Build
level of service (LOS D), the area per pedestrian would drop by 1.2 square
feet, from 18.6 square feet to 17.4 square feet, as a result of project-gener-
ated demand. Since the space allocation per pedestrian would decrease by
greater than 1.0 square foot, and the corner is below the 20 square feet/pedes"
_trian threshold, this corner is considered significantly impacted based on the
GEQR criteria.
During the PM peak hour, the southeast corner at 72nd Street/Broadway

would continue to operate at LOS D, and the southwest corner-would continue to
operate at LOS E.- Since the area per pedestrian would decrease by less-than
the CEQR threshold of 1.0 square foot at each of these corners, no significant
impacts would occur during the PM peak hour for 1997 Build conditions. All
other corners analyzed would opera~e at LOS C or bette~ during both peak hours
for 1997 Build conditions.
Crosswalk Analysis. As shown-in Table II.J-50, all of the crosswalks

analyzed would continue to operate at LOS C or better during the AM peak hour
for 1997 Build conditions. During the PM peak hour, all crosswalks would
continue to operate at their No Build levels of service, with three crosswalks
continuing to operate at LOS D. Since the area per pedestrian would decrease
by less than the CEQR threshold of 1.0 square foot at each of these crosswalks,
or would operate with greater than 20 square feet per pedestrian, no signifi"
cant impacts would occur during the PM peak hour for 1997 Build conditions.
Mitigation
Chapter IV presents proposed-measures to- mitigate all of the significant

Phase I transportation impacts, boch in the project study area and in the ex~
tended study area.
2002 Project Impacts

Vehicular Traff_ic
Primary Study Area. Full development of the site and its street system,
in addition to adding project-generated-traffic to roadways in the study area,
would result in the following changes in traffic flows in the area: (a) the
displacement of the users of current on-site parking lot spaces to new on-site
garages; (b) the closure of the on-site business at 59th Street; and (c) the
diversion of additional non-project traffic onto the new street system. Be-
cause the traffic generated by the on-site business is very light and much of
it occurs during off-peak hours, ng traffic credit for its closure is assumed
itl the analysis.
II.J-83
Table 1I..1-50
PEDESTi!AR LEVELS OF SEaVICE, 1997 BUILD CONDITIONS
STREET CORNERS
-------------- AM PEAK HCXJR PM PEAiC HOUil
1997 NO BUILD 1997 BUILD 1997 NO BUILD 1997 BUlbD
Location Corner S.F./Peci. bOS S.F./Ped. lOS S.f./Peel. LOS I.F./Peel. i.os
-_ .... --- .. _------ .... _------ ..... _---- ---------
65th Street/ Northwest 55S.3 A 55S.3 A 162.S A 162.S A
Broadway. Southwest 141.7 A 134.2 A 59.5 B 57.3 B
66th Street/ Northeast 213.0 A 213.0 A SO.1 B 80.1 B
Broadway Northwest 130.8 A 118.4 B 88.3 8 82.3 B
Southeast 80.3 B 75.9 B 77.8 8 73.4 B
Southwest 425.1 A 406.2 A 384.7 A 361.9 A
72nd Street/ Southeast 28.8 C 27.1 C 19.4 0 18.9 0

Broadway SouthNest 18.6 0 17.4 '* D 13.5 E 12.9 E
CROSSWALK LOCATIONS
------------------- AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
'997 NO BUILD 1997 BUlbD 1997 NO BUILD 1997 BuiLD
Location CrosswaLk S.f./Peci. LOS S.F./Pi!d. LoS $,F./Peci. bOS S.f./Ped. LOs
_ _ IIf _ _ . _ .
---_ .... - _._------ _ _ iii .. _ _ _ _ _
-------.- .... __ ....

65th Street/ South 119.3 B 119.3 B 52.1 8 52.1 B
Broadway West ;03.6 B '03.6 B 29.6 C 29.6 C
66th Street/ North 73.1 B 13.1 B 3S.3 C 38.3 C

Broadway South 26.5 C 24.8 C 50.6 B 43.4 B
East 65.5 B 65.5 B 1S.7 D 18.7 D
West 47.7 B 45.1 B 22.6 0 22.1 D
72f1d Street/ South 25.5 C 24.2 C 20.9 0 20.0 D
Broadway West 36.9 C 36.• 9 C 25.3 C 25.3 C
* Denotes a significant ililll1ct.
II ,J-84
Since the project would provi~e a.new westernmost street (i.e. ,R~ver~ide
Drive extension) connecting Riverside Drive at 72nd Street to Twelfth Avenue at
59th Street, diversions are expected to occur. Figure II.J-22 shows the ex-
pected AM, midday, and PM peak hour diversion volumes.. It is anticipated that
there would be a substantial reduction in traffic on portions of West End Ave~
nue (e.g., 186 Vph northbound at 72nd Street in the PM, 112 vph·southbound at
65th Street in the AM), whereas increases in.traffic are expected on the new
Riverside Drive extension and to a lesser extent, on Riverside Drive north of
72nd Street.
Figure II.J-23 shows the proposed project's generated traffic (autos,

taxis ,. trucks) when fully developed. This tr·affic is spread throughout the
network, with concentrations along key corridors. Figure II.J-24 shows the
total traffic effect of the proposed project by combining the diverted traffic
from Figure II.J-22 with the project-generated traffic shown in Figure II.J-23.
The 2002 Build network volumes, which combine the No Build traffic volumes
shown in Figure II.J-14 with the total project's traffic volumes shown in Fig-
ure II.J-24, are presented in Figure I1.J-25. Figure II.J-26 shows the vic
ratios for 2002 Build conditions.
The proposed project would create a new street system on the project site.
This system would have traffic signals along Riverside Drive· extension at 6ls~;
63rd, 66th, and 70th Streets. None of these internal intersections are expect;
ed to have peak hour vic ratio exceeding 0.85 on any approach. Appendix B
contains traffic analyses of the fully developed internal on-site streets.
Table II.J-5l shows the locations where significant traffic impacts are
predicted to occur· for 2002 Build conditions in the primary study· area. The
proposed project would have significant traffic impacts at 25 intersection ap-
proach locations in the project study area in one or more peak hours. A de-
scription of the significantly impacted locations follows.
Twe.lf.th. Avenue: At 51st Street, the proposed proj ect would increase the
No Build vic ratio on southbound TWelfth Avenue from 0.879 to 0.914 in the· AM
peak hour .
. Rivers.id.e Drive: Along the Riverside Drive corridor at the Henry Hudson
. Parkway exit at 79th Street, the proposed project would increase the No Build
vic ratios on eastbound 79th Street from 0.811 to 0.892 and 0.876 to 0.971 dur-
ing the AM and PM peak hours, respectiVely. Additional traffic (due to proj-
ect-generated and diVerted traffic) at the current Riverside, Drive/72nd Street
intersection would result in significant impacts on the southbound·approach in
the PM peak hour, with the No Build vic ratio increasing from 0.641 to·0.999.
·Wes.to End. Avenue: At 72nd Street, significant impacts would be expected

during all three analysis periods. On the southbound approach, vic ratios
would· increase from 0.892 in the No Build to 0.935, 0.905 to 1.010, and 0.882
to 0.963 during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively; on the east-
bound approach, vic ratios would increase from 0.952 in the No Build to 1.034
and from 0.734 to 0.882 dyring the AM and PM peak hours, respectively; and on
the westboytld approaeh, the No Build vic ratio would increase from 0.990 to
1.044 in the PM peak hour. At 63rd.street, the No Build vic ratio would in;
crease from 0.861 to 0.905 during ehe AM p·eak hour. At 59th Street; the No
Ii.J-8S
RIVERSIDE
S o-u T H Traffic Diversi"ons 20GZ Build Condition
Figure 11.)-22
\ Riverside
Pa.rk
SITE ~-----e5th
82
z
o
rn -12/-53/-1'
Q
•
"a
~----------~----------57th
RIVERSIDE
s «> U T H Project Generated Traffic 2002 Build Condition
Figure II.J .. 23
28/51/" 24/5fJ/~ 4/1/8
-- ~'/Z/2_
~
III ,/2/l---t,. 79th
_IT
1=
17
...
,:.I [/41/47 13/'7/11 /I/S - - ~/5'/53 _71 Museum Or
as Natural
Q.,
1... GI
'C
r:I
(oQ-
l !
~
History
s::0 ~
.... GI
~ III
~ _1 GIGI
.... ~
\
:
III
~
::I a1 Q - ~ -
-<
==
t'
s::
\ \ -- ___ '11
I:! Jitiversicie\
Park \ - - ______ '4
\ ---
1/Z/2h
iI5/'U/I41\t:7J ,-/5Z/50
- ..,5/25/a i/~~~~
lI/.o/4'
_30/2J/;n
" 7'"7/M .... lZ/~ l1I1TII, "/iT,. ~ ,./"/,. t 72ud
'I/:D/lt 10/1./'2 38/.0/0'
~-----lI.....~~~~---:d:----~-----~---4----=-======.n
"'-l'i/i/ij
38/.0/4'\
-''''
"/11 \
- '4/'/1 III
15/1I/1.t 14/1/\ 13/11

III
,1/li/25f _4/277~ 13/.0/1

- - _...
•~ ,,/.a/I 11/4/'
- 7 5 5In,_
- 10/./1 "/to I...
I';;.
__ _
57/33/12
l ... '''''/41
-oL....
1= 4Z/U/34 3/1/2 - - 68th
SIT :-=~
I/II/It \ .
I- 1117/11/12 10/11/11 34/31/57 11/7/'0~ __ 65th
~----~~~~~------~~~~------~~-=~--
11/42/11""-' '1/4VII-r~ "/2'/"~
72/1,5/53 ,./,./S2 31/21/5. 11/.1 1/11/11
~ __ 4 '1/12 ..
,.....""':iIl..../"5..",'r.r:"',~
_~-----~-==l Lincoln ~: ---
:z:
I . '1~/7'/7' 1/13/11 Center './11 "/'2~" .~
o
rn
Q =~~/ _ f lHous~!!I
l/rii:sterdam\.l.
I'/'/~~'i _ __ tI/'5/'I
J IZ
5 ;. ~ 15/82/15 t"jaF~rdham It/IIJ ____ ~"/'~l
V
;---;;"~/"/T.-;:;'22=_:&-rr,----1- University '\
-. 103/11/'"]
'0'/14/11 II/Ill
~----~--~-~-~~~~------~--~--~~--------~
--
13/74/107 11101/14/1'
I..... ,./nI.. '-- 1711l1G
44/37 \~D
Ali
~~
....! .~/7i "/15/11

t.-,/./Z
f 1~33{1e/134
It
16-./40/"
!14/4S~ 1137/ll/31
IlIfl~lI ~
!.-,.o./3./)I
ike/../4I
''''~,.;
l ------
I_/II/I.'!
~133{1e/'" iII/3'/3II~'7/3'''''
JI...;.llISI.
t'331ft/1)4
n'/1I/14 --- .. -,=11
8/27/)0 51/4I/5Z
., ~»/II/I34 -< ... '"

•• ....
'11111/'
-
~'»III/I34 Legend: AM/MIdday/PM

AM/PM
2002 Traffic Increment
Figure 11.)-24
11/5t/4j 2'l~O/" ./1/1
>.
ILl/III IL 79th
~
1/1
CIJ
III
~
i= "
.:cJ.. '711 Museum Of
Natural
~III
~
III
C. History Ilo
~ .,.,.-;;;
=
o
"CJ
CICI
~~
,t:lCIJ J.o
~
~I~
III
"CJ
::J
~ .... , .,. CIJ
I:
= -< 0
t,)
."
U
Riverside\ \
.,.
\
Park "\
~----~---------r~-------------+------------~
'/2IZ~M
"!0;.1_
.~ 11/"1' .,,'0/"
I 17/1/1S
111,,11 '111111 It 72nd.
.,. lIl"/1l
\-- ",all"I"/~J ,~>

'III
I A.
~____________-d________~~~~__~~~.~n~==______~-
t . I~! Il/I.., "/4/1
I
I -8/11/7
'02/171,"
11117/Z11
'75"""'"
to/I •
n/4 ,. ''',0'0 MI/2D/..
' .. -1/-t!'J ~ '(:Xi:~ J/t/zt-- 66th
SIT _ -I/-I/~ I_I-ZZI/-'U ••/15/72 '\ I\,. 65th
-- .",.,.,_ "/4""_,\~ ../21/ ........ +
_/_U/_IUIJ.,o/-za'l-m "/,, 1/"1" II
J:_ -ID/-ZI/-U . .2/"/" ~.:u;/...'t';""_ _ _ _"'.:::j.
zo
\"
"
I
r----r~~-~~
" In7it4
'~~vHI -1 ••/-217/-27D
Lincoln
Center
/
II II 1I/'Z
~
~--~r-----~.~~
I-I "/I/I~I/II
/"
g
f
u/.=&i Amsterdam,
___ !!:,21 -uHou!le~ .. L.-.. . ~ It
:IS - 2/-21/-11 . II/II, -.~

1:.- 2Dtn/~ Fordham ~ \I/U/'~,
University '\
V
l00/U/tl4 -
-no/12/" u/n/. 11/"1
o.
-11/-Sl/-I4_~--------+--------:IlI-------l.,.
_111<1 71/22/41
.0."'_ "ta/'D ... _
*'/31
I l~D
59th
-U/i", -7/-1V-14
n/6/1 lill
AM/PM
2002 Build Traffic Volumes
Figl;lre II.J~2S
79th
,',. Museum Of
Natural
History
~~-=~~~~~~#=~~~~~~~~~~~~1rfth
"65th
1747/174e/24G3
f---r-==rr==~c..:.=:"""""'--I Uncoln Im/l_
Center
:z:
o
en
Q
:::J
=
17-
57th
- ru
Ililt/lt20!Z717
-'=">
....
...
0<
AM/PM
RIVERSIDE
-s (> U T - H ·2002 Build Volume ..To-Capacity Ratios
Figure II.J-26
79th
Museum Of
Natural
History
-
."
='
Riverside·
\
\
Park
z
o
en
Q
;:)
:i:
.:Ja/..
. - ,_. ,. -
'O"j .........~tI~· ... . i - -
.=0
.... >
c:D~
Legend: AM/MIdday/PM
I
AM/PM
Table ILJ-5l.
2002 INTERSECTION APF.ROACBES VITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

IN THE PROJEOT STUJ)Y A1UtA I
M
2002 ·2002 P
NO-BUILD BUILD DELTA A
PEAK VIC VIC VIC C
STREET APPROACH TOO RATIO RATIO RATIO T
-----------------------------------------:------------------------------;
12TH AVE.SB @ 51 ST AM 0.879 0.914 .~.035 ** :
======~================~=================f==========~===================1
79TH ST. EB @ RIVERSIDE AM : 0.811 0.892 0.081 ** I
PH : 0.876 0.971 0.095 ** :
======================~~=================f========~=~==~================l
RIVERSIDE SB @72ND ST. PH : 0.641 0.999 0.358 ** :
========~======================= ••• cc====:===================cs=====a:=el
WEST END SB @ 72ND ST. AM 0.892 0.935 0.043 ** :
MD 0.905 1.010 0.105 ** :
PH 0.882 0.963 0.081 ** :
-... -- ..------------------------.. -
72ND ST. EB @WEST END
... -------~-:----------- ... ------------------:
AM 0.952 1.034 0.082 ** :
PH 0.734 0.882 0.148 ** :
-----------------------------------------1------------------------------1
72ND ST. \riB @WEST END PH 0.990 1.044 0.054 ** :
===================~====s========~~======~===============%====~=====a==~:
WEST END SB @ 63 ST. 'AM : 0.861 0.905 0.044 ** I
======~========================S=========t5:============================:
59TH ST. we @WEST END AM 0.960 1.159 0.199 ** :
He 0.943 1.077 0.134 ** :
PH 1.286 1.450 ·0.164 ** :
===============================~=========:===================~~=========:
WEST END.SB @ 58TH ST AM 0.846 0.877 0.031 ** :
=========================================:==c=c======~==================:
57TH ST. \riB @ WEST END PH : ·0.861 0.926 0.065 ** :
=========================================:========~=cc======~~==========:
AMSTERDAM HB @ BROADWAY/72ND ST. He 0.855 0.872 0;017 ** :
PH 0.981 0.996 0.015 ** :
===============================~~========r==============================1
AMSTERDAM NB @ BROADWAY/71ST ST. AM 0.861 0.882 0.021 **
He 0·.895 0.920 0.025 1'*
PH 1.115 1.138 0.023 **
================================~===z====~===========================~==
AMSTERDAM NB @57TH ST. He 0.856 0.880 0.024 **
PH 0.964 0·.980 0.016 **
===================================~~====:=====================~========
COLUMBUS SB @79TH ST. AM 0.856 0.866 0.010 **
="=.=======================================
COLUMBUS SB @ 66TH ST. PH
J ==================11===========.
0.846 0.856 0.010 ** I
=================================.==~====:=============~========~===.===
BROADWAY SB @65TH ST./COLUMBUS AM 1.124 1.140 0.016 **
PH 1.027 l.037 0.010 **
------------"'!'---------...-----:....----------:----------------------...
BROADWAY NB @65TH ST./COLUMBUS He 0.883 0.897
_--..... -
0.014 **
PH 1.022 1.045 0.023 **
=========================:=:=:::==========:=========:=======cm===========
COLUMBUS SB @ 57TH ST. AM· 0 . 980 .1.003 0 . OU **
He I ____0.871
--_______________________________________ ___ _ 0.894
- - - - - - - - - 0.023 **- - .
-------
w aw w
57TH ST. ED @ COLUMBUS AM 1.030 1.047 0.017 ** :

He 0.906 0.927 0.021 ** :
PH 1.030 1.056 0.026 ** :
====="=======:=======I:~==================iiii: iiiiii=t:====::===lI:"================ :
65TH ST. ED @ CENTRAL PARK WEST AM 1.007 1.061 0.054 ** :
He 0.857 0.886 0.029 ** :
PH 1.021 1.080 0.059 ·u :
===================================a====clc•• =~=========================:
COL.CIRCLE SB TO B'WAY @ 8TH AVE. AM 0.955 0.966 0.011 ** :
======================.===~======~e.=====:=============================_:
_________________________ ~w~ • • _ . _________ : ______________________________ ~
57TH ST.EB @ 8TH AVE PH 0.836 0.857. 0.021 ** :
57TH ST.WS @ 8TH AVE AM 0.904 0.933 0.029 ** :
He 0.927 0.949 0.022 ** :
PH 1.004 1.028 0.024 ** :
"====================~===================·I··c=======.===================:
58TH ST. ED @ BROADWAY He : 0.852 0.869 0.017 ** :
=a.========================.== ••••• e.===~:========~=~======:=~====:=====:
57TH ST. EB @BRoADWAY AM: 0.881. 0.896 0.015 *1 :
He : 0.842 0.860 0.011 ** :
•• =~~==a===========D•• smas.~========~====:==============================i
** DENOTES IMPACTm toCATI0H .
Build v/c ratios on the westbound appr"o"ach would "increase from 0.960 to 1.159,
0.943 to 1. 077, and 1. 286 to 1.-450 -during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours,
respectively. At 58th Street, the southbound No Build v/c ratio would increase
from 0.846 to 0.877 during the AM peak hour. At 57th Street, the westbound
approach No Build v/c ratio would increase from 0.861°to 0.926 during the PM
peak hour.
Amsterdam Avenue: The proposed project would have significant impacts a~

72nd, 7lst, and 57th Streets along this corridor. At the 72nd Street north-
bound approach, No Build v/c ratios would increase from 0.855 to 0.872 and
0.981 to 0.996 during the ·midday and PM peak hours, respectively. At 71st
Street northbound, No Build v/c ratios would increase from 0.861 to 0.882,
0.895 to 0.920, and "1.115 to 1.138 during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours,
respectively. Farther to the south at 57th Street, No Build v/c ratios on the
northbound approach would increase from 0.856 to 0.880 and 0.964 to 0.980 dur-
ing the midday and PM peak hours, respectively.
Columbus. Av.enue: When fully developed, the proposed project would have
significant traffic impacts at the 79th, 66th, 65th, and 57th Streetintersec~
tions. At 79th Street, project-generated traffic on the southbound approach
would increase the No Build v/c ratio from 0.856 to 0.866 during the AM peak
hour; at the 66th Street southbound approach, the No Build v/c ratio would
increase from 0.846 to 0.856 during the PM peak hour; and at the Broadway/65th
Street intersection, southbound No Build v/c ratios would increase from 1.124
to 1.140 and 1.027 to 1.037 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively,
while northbound v/c ratios would increase from 0.883 to 0.897 and 1.022 to
1.045 during the midday and PM peak hours, respectively.
"At 57th Street, Columbus Avenue and eastbound 57th Street would be signif~
icant1y impacted. On the southbound approach, the v/c ratios would increase
from 0.980 to 1.003 and 0.871 to 0.894 during the AM and midday peak hours,
"respectively. On the eastbound approach, the No Build v/c ratios would in-
crease from 1. 030 to 1. 047, 0.906 to 0.927, and 1. 030 to 1. 056 during the AM,"
midday and PM peak hours, respectively.
Central Park West/Eighth Av.enu"e: At the 65th Street intersection, project

traffic headed to the Ea.se Side would significantly impact the eastbound ap-"
proach, with No Build v/c ratios increasing from" 1.007 to 1.061, 0.857 to
0.866, and 1.021 to 1.080 during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respective~
1y. At 57th Street, both the eastbound and westbound approaches would be im-
pacted, with the No Build v/c ratio on the eastbound approach increasing from
0.836 to 0.857 during the PM peak hour and the No Buildv/c ratios on the wes~~
bound approach increasing from 0.904 to 0.933, 0.927 to 0.949, and 1.004 to
1.028 during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. In addition,
within Columbus Circle, the AM v/c ratio on southbound Broadway at Eighth Ave-
nue would increase from 0.955 to 0.966. South of Columbus Circle ort Broadway,
the proposed project would increase the midday v/c ratio on eastbound 58th
Street from O. 852 to 0.86"9, and on eastbound 57th S~reet from 0.881 to 0.896
and 0.842 to 0.860 in the AM ana midday peak hours, respectively.
Summary: In total, in the year 2002 with the full development (Phase II),
project-generated traffic would significantly impact 25: intersection approaches
in the primary study area d~ring oneoor more peak hours, with 11 having v/c
ratios grea~er than 1.000 (versus 7 with vIc ratios grea~er than 1.000 in the
No Build condition). Seven of the 25 significantly impacted approaches in
II.J~87
Phase II are along 'West End Avenue ..This is a substantial reduction from the
phase I results, which yielded 14 affected approaches along West End Avenue.
The comparison of Phase I Versus Phase II· impact conditions demonstrates the
importance of a continuous on-site Riverside Drive co~necting the eXisting
Riverside Drive north of 72nd Street to Twelfth Avenue at 5.9th Street.
Extend.ed Study Area. In addition to the traffic assessment for the pri-
mary study area, the project's demand forecast indicates that substantial num"
bers of project-generated vehicles may have impacts along specific corridors
(i.e., Twelfth Avenue) outside the primary traffic study area. Analyses of
traffic impacts in the extended study area were performed using the methodology
previously discussed.
Applying the assignment procedures outlined above for the proposed proj-
ect's traffic for full Build conditions and searching for those key intersec-
tions where this 2002 project increment exceeded 30 vph per approach in any
peak hour, four corridors were identified for more detailed analysis for 2002.
These corridors were:
o Twelfth Avenue corridor (Basic Reconstruction Al·ternative) from. 42nd

Street to Vesey Str~et;
o Ninth/Tenth AVenue corridor from 'the southern border of the primary

study area (at 55th Street) to ~he 49th/50th Street crosstown
couplet;
o East 65th/66th Street corridor, from Fifth AVenue to Park Avenue on

the East Side; and
o West 86th Street corridor, from RiVerside brive to Amsterdam Avenue.
In addition to these corridors, 57th Street at Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh

Avenues Was analyzed for year 2002 conditions.
Not every intersection within these corridors exceeded the 30 vph

threshold in all peak hours. Only those principal intersections on the corri-
dor and those peak hours that exceeded the threshold were analyzed in detail.
These 22 intersections along the corridors are shown in Table II.J-52; Table
II.J-53 shows the' locations where, based on NYCDOT criteria, significant traf-
fic i~pacts are predicted to occur for 2002 Build conditions. The proposed
project would have significant traffic impacts at 20 of these 22 principal
intersection approach locations in the extended study area in one or more peak
hours. In addition, the proposed project would have significant impacts at
some intermediate locations along these corridors. The following is a descrip-
tion of the significantly impacted locations' in 2002.
Twelfth Av.enue/We.s.t. Stre.e.t CouLd.or: 'When fully developed in the 2002

Build year, the proposed project would have Significant impacts at the inter-
sections of Twelfth Avenue, including the principal ones at 42nd Street, 34eh
Street, 23rd Street, Eleventh Avenue, Canal Street, Chambers Street, and Murray
Street. At 42nd Street, the northbound through-movement would be. significantly
impacted by project-generated traffic during the PM peak hour, with the vic
ratio increasing from 0.837 to 0.870. The southbound left-turn movement at
42nd S~reet'wguld also be impacted in the PM peak hout; with the v/c ratio
increasing from 1,040 to 1,051,
II.J,,88
Table II.J=S2
INTERSECTIONS IttCElDING 30 VPB TlIRl:SaOLD

]]if TIlE n·.rERDED STUDY AItKA IN 2,002
JH' Hidda:r ~
Twel.£.th Av.enue..C_~~,
42nd Street X X X
34th Street X X X
23rd Street X X X
Eleventh Avenue X X X
Canal Street X X
Chambers Street X X
Murray Street X X
Vesey Street X X
NinthlT~nth Av~nUes CDrd~QI
Nineh Avenue
49th Street X X
50th Street X 'X
Tenth Avenue
49th Street X. X
50th Street X X
East 65thl66th Streets Cortj dor
66t:h Street
Fifth Avenue X X X
Madison Avenue X X X
Park Avenue X X
65th Street
Fifth Avenue X X
Madison Avenue X X
Park Avenue X X
West 86th S.tr.e.et. .corridor
Riverside Drive X X 'X
West End Avenue X X
Broaaway
Amsterdam Avefiue X X X
II.J-89
Table "II.J-53
LOCATIONS VITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IN THE EXTENDED STUDY AREA IN 2002
I
2002 LOCATIONS H
============== 1991 2002 2002 DELTA P
PEAl( " VIC VIC VIC RATIO C
STREET APPROACH TOD RATIO RATIO RATIO (1) T
=============================~=====~=:===============~=~========================:
==============================
~===============================================================================1
______________________________________
12TH AVE. NB TH @ 42ND ST. PM ___________________
0.918 0.837 ~~
0.870 0.033
5_~-----------------~:
** 1
12TH AVE. SB LT @ 42ND ST. PM 0.927 1.040 1.051 0.011 **
=================================.=========:::===!!!!~===============.=:=~============ :
12TH AVE. NB @34TH ST. AM 0.903 0.856 0.890 0.034 **
MD 0.864 0.940 0.972 0.032 **
p~" 0.980 1.082 1.125 0.043 **
--------~~-----------------~~-~~-----------------------------------------~ ______ I
12TH AVE. SB @ 34TH ST. AM 0.616 0.906 0.952 0.046 **
HD 0.739 0.918 0.962 0.044 **
PH 0.549 1.026 1.097 0.071 **
~========================:=~=m==================:===============================
12TH AVE. NB @ 23RD ST. AM ** 0.828 0.904 0.941 0.037
MD ** 0.778" 0.873 0.908 0.035
PH ** 0.922 1.033 1.077 0.044
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" 12TH AVE. SB @ 23RD ST. 0.811 0.855 0.885" 0.030 **
========================~===~~~================~~~==============================
12TH AVE. NB @ 11TH AVE. AM 0.819 0.895 0.932 0.037 **
____________________________________ • PM 0.912 1.022 1.065 0.043 **
__ iiii . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
12TH AVE. SB @ 11TH AVE. "

0.777 "
0.886 0.916" "0.030 **"
=====================~~========================~=============~=====:=~==========
WEST ST. SB TH @ CANAL ST. (N) AM 0.700 1.lSt 1.170 0.018 **
PM 0.577 0.949 0.969 0.020 **
====~==~~====================:====~=====================.================~~~====
WEST ST. NB @ CHAMBERS ST.
_ _ _ _ iiii _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ __________________
0.817 ~_iiii
Q.949 0.962 0.013 **
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ iiii _ _ _ _ _ _
WEST ST. SB LT @ CHAMBERS ST. PM 0.850 0.930 0.951 0.021 **

===================================:~~=====================z===================~
WEST ST. SB @ MURRAY' ST. 0.937 1.015 1.029 0.014 *.
~======================~~~~================m~~~==================~~~============
u ...D£NOTES SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
( 1) -BUI~ vIe RATIO MIlroS NOBUILD vIe RATIO
LOCATIONS VITH SIGNIFICANT DlPACTS IN THE EXTENDED STUDY AREA iN 2002
I
2002 LOCATIONS M
=====f:!::======= 1991 2002 2002 DELTA P
PEAK VIC VIC VIC RATIO C
STREET APPROACH TOD RATIO RATIO RATIO ( 1) T
=====================:::=========!!============~===,~=========5'====================== I
65/66TH ST. CORRIDOR
=====~=~===================~==
==============================a:========================~============~==========
66 ST. WB @ MADISON AVE. AM 0.823 0.968 1.011 0.043 **
MD 0.714 0.840 0.866 0.026 **
PM 0.808 0.950 0.992 0.042 **
==============,===========e:=:::e===================;:===============================:
65 ST. EB @MADISON AVE. AM 0.941 1.107 1.132 0.025 **
PM 0.935 1.100 1.135 0.035 **
~======================~~===========~e===========~===========================~==
65 ST. EB @ PARK AVE. PM 0.756 0.889 0.922 0.033 **
======================~========~~=========~=============~===============~=======
86TH ST. CORRIDOR
========================~=====
==/====;:===:;==============c=============~=~===========::==============~==========!: I
RIVERSIDE DR SB @86TH ST . 0.865 0.969 0.989 0.020 **.
====.;===~===========~==========~~============~======= ===~===~=========~~========I
ADDI~IONAL LOCATIONS
=~=========~==========~=======
=============~========================~==========sc=============================
57TH ST EB @ 7TH AVE. MD 0.811 0.896 0.906 0.010 **
========~===============================================================~=======
57TH ST EB @ 6TH AVE. AM 0.791 0.877 0.894 0.01.1 **
----------------------------~--~--------------~---------~-----------------------
57TH ST WB @ 6TH AVE. AM 0.877 0.978 1.005 0.027 **.
MD 0~884 1.004 1.017 0.013 **
=.========~=====================!:========================c=============:::=~=======
57TH ST EB @ 5TH AVE. AM 1:020 1.116 1.132 0.016 **
MD 0.886 ' 0.979 0.989 0.010 **
PM 0.968 1.062 1.081 0.019 **
=======~=========~~========~==~======================~~===========~~c===========
n -DENOTES SIGHIFICAifr IMPACT
(1) -BUILD VIC RAiJ.iIO MINUS MOSUILD vIC RATIO.
II.J-91
At 34th Street, the northbound. approach of Twelfth Avenue would be signif-
icantly impacted in all three peak hours, with the v/c ratios increasing from
0.856 to 0.890, 0.940 to 0.972, and 1.082 to 1.125 during the AM,midday, and
PM peak hours, respectively. The southbound Twelfth Avenue approach would also
be impacted in all three peak hours as a result of project-generated traffic,
and v/c ratios would increase from 0.906 to 0.952, 0.918 to 0.962, and 1.026 to
1.097 in the AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively.
At 23rd Street, the northbound approach would be impacted in all three

peak hours, with the v/c ratios. increasing from 0.904 to 0.941, 0.873 to 0.908,
and l.033 to l.077 during the AM, midday., and.PM peak hours, respectively. The
southbound approach would also be impacted, but during the AM peak hour only,
when the v/c ratio would increase from 0.855 to 0.885 as a result of project-
generated traffic.
At Eleventh Avenue, the northbound approach would be impacted during the

AM and PM peak hours, with the v/e ratios increasing from 0.895 to 0.932 and
1.022 to 1.065, respectively. The southbound approach would be impacted during
the AM peak hour only, with the v/c ratio increasing from. 0.886 to 0.916.
At Canal· Street, the southbound through movement would be impacted, with

the v/c ratios increasing from 1.152 to 1.170 and 0.949 to 0.969 during the AM
At Chambers Street, the rtorthbound approach would be impacted by project-

generated trips in the AM peak hour, with the v/c ratio increasing from 0.949
·to 0.962, whereas in the PM peak, the southbound left turn would have an·in-
creased v/c ratio from 0.930 to 0.951.
At Murray Street, the southbound approach would be impacted by project-

generated trips in the AM peak hour only, with the v/c ratio increasing from
1. 015 to l. 029.
The inclusion of the preliminary mitigation proposed for the 42nd Street
Transitway at the intersection of Twelfth AVenue and 42nd Street would revise
the analysis at that intersection. The table below compares v/c ratios at 42nd
Street and Twe1fth'Avenue at the southbound left turn ana northbound through/
right approaches with and without the Transitway. As shown in the table, the
proposed project's PM impact on the southbound left turn in 2002 would be elim-
inated, while the impact on the nor~hbound through/right approach in the PM
would remain. (Appendix B provides a description of the effect of the 42nd
Street Light Rail Transitway on the proposed project.)
.. lithout: Transitway Vith .Transitway n
. Approach Peak Hour No Bui1d...YLC bUd. vII: RO· Build tIQ iluild Vto
Twelfth Avenue Sou~hw PM 1. 040 1.051* 0.391 0.398
bound Left Turn
Twelfth Avenue Northw
PM 0.837 0.870* 0.830 0.864*
bound 'through
.. Denotes impacted location.
Ninth Avenue/T~venua~orrldoI: As aemonserated in Table lI.J-52; no

significant impacts are expected at 49th or 50th Streets· in this corridor.
II.J·92
East 65thI6.6.th Stre.e.t. Corridor,: When fully d~veloped in the 2002 Build
year, the proposed project would have significant impacts along 66th Street at
Madison Avenue, where the westbound approach would be impacted in all three
peak hours, with the vic ratios increasing from 0.968 to 1.011, 0.840 to '0.866,
and 0.950 to 0.992 during the AM, midday, 'and PM p'eak 'hours, respectively ..
Along 65th Street, the proposed project ,would have significant impacts at
Madison and Park Avenues. At Madison Avenue, the eastbound approach would be
impacted in the AM and PM peak hours, with the vic ratios increasing from 1.107
to 1.132 and 1.100 to 1.135 in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. At Park
Avenue, project-generated traffic would impact the eastbound approach during
the PM peak hour, with the vic ratio increasing from 0 ..889 to 0.922.
West 86th Street Corridor: When fully developed in the 2002 Build year,'
the proposed project would have significant impacts only at Riverside Drive.
At Riverside Drive, the southbound approach would be impacted during the AM
peak hour, with the vic ratio increasing from 0.969 to 0.,989.
Additiona.l. 57th Stre.e,t. Loc.a.tLon Impacts: In addition to these corridors,

the proposed project would have significant traffic impacts on eastbound 57th
Street at Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Avenues. At Fifth Avenue, the eastbound
vic ratio would increase from 1.116 to 1.132, 0.979 to 0.989, and 1. 062 to
1.081 in the AM, midday,' and PM peak hours, respectively, whereas eastbound at
Sixth Avenue, the AM vic ratio would increase from 0.877 to 0.894, and at Sev-
enth Avenue, the midday vic ratio would increase from 0.896 to 0.906. West-'
bound at Six~h Avenue, the vic ratios would increase from 0.978 to 1.005 and
1.004 to 1.017 in the AM and midday peak hours, respectively.
Henry. Ruds.on .P.arkway. Analys.is. An analysiS Was performed to examl.ne im-

pacts of the proposed project on traffic conditions on the Henry Hudson parkway
and its ramps from 72nd Street to 96th Street. When fully developed'in 2002,
the proposed project would generate 85 vph southbound in the AM and 107 vph
northbound in the PM on the parkway.
Southbound project-generated traffic would exit the parkway at 79th

·Street. The project would add incremental traffic to the ramp volume, but
would not significantly affect traffic flow on the exit ramp. However, all of
the exiting parkway traffic would flow from the ramp to the 79th Street/
Riverside DriVe intersection. As discussed above, the eastbound approach to
the 79th Street/Riverside Drive intersection (this is the approach fed by the
exit volumes from the parkway) would be significantly impacted due to the pro~
posed project during both the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, while
southbound project-generated traffic would not significantly affect the park-
way, it would contribute to the significant impacts predicted to occur at the
eastbound approach to the 79th Street/Riverside Drive intersection.
To evaluate the potential effects of northbound project-generated traffic

on the parkway, the northbound merge at the 72nd Street on-ramp was evaluated
under PM flow conditions. When the highway1s curren~ rehabilieation is com-
pleted in 1995, the roadway will have three lanes in each direction, with the
72nd Street northbound on-ramp's volume merging with highway traffic, compared
with the current configuration, which provides a,separate additional highway
lane Qedica~ed eo aCGgmmoda~ing ~he on-ramp traffic. Table' II.J-54 shows the
results of an analysis of existing and 2002 No !uild and Build merge conditions
1I.J-93
at this ramp. The analysis was prepared using .the 1985 Highway Capacit, ra~p
merge· analysis methodology. The results shown in Table II.J - 54 demonstrate
that the proposed project would not influence the LOS of the Henry Hudson Park~
way north of 72nd Street, but would result in a somewhat poorer LOS at the 72nd
Street merge itself. The HCM defines LOS for the merge lane (the right lane)
based on volume as follows: LOS A == 0 to 600 passenger cars per· hour (pcph),
LOS B - 601 to 1,000· pcph, LOS C = 1,001 to 1,450 pcph, LoS D = 1,451 to"1,750
pcph, LOS E ... 1,751 to 2,000 pcph; and LOS F == more than 2;000 pcph. Under
2002 No Build conditions, the merge volume of 1,652 pcph would operate near the
upper end of the LOS D range. The increase of 111 pcph in merge volume due ~g
~he proposed project would raise the merge volume to 1,763 pcph; essentially at
the LOS DIE threshold (1,751 pcph).
Table II. J -54
PH PEAK HOUlllWlP BROE ANALYSlS AT 725» STREET
NorthbOWld
Highway Volume Ramp Herge
Approaching Ramp Volume Volume
(pcphl ___ _ (pcph) Highway__ LOS 'Mette.LOS Cpcphl
Existing 3,353 687 t> B* 687
2002 No Build 3,537 831 D o 1,652
2002 Build 3,485 938 D DjE 1,763
* Lane added under existing conditions.
It .shoUld be noted that under No Build conditions, traffic arriving at the

on-ramp does so in·sizab1e westbound pulses (or platoons) discharged from the
Riverside Drivej72nd Street intersection. Under Build conditions, traffic flow
to the ramp would be substantially more uniform (easing the merge) with a~rivw
als from both westbound 72nd" Street and northbound on Riverside Drive exten-
sion. Therefore, while traffic ·flows at the 72nd Street merge in the PM are
expected to be heavy (though relatively free~flowing) in both the 2002 No Build
and Build conditions, the added merge ~ol~e of less than two passenger cars
·each minute should not measurably affect conditions at ~his location.
Parking
With the full development of the site, six additional new garages would be
added to the six garages developed in Phase I, bringing the total off-street
spaces to 3,500. Table II.J-SS shows the individual garage capacities and
Figure II.J-IB shows their locations on the project site.
Before the end of Phase II, it is assumed that the present ort-site 8S0-
space public parking lot and the iSO-space private parking lot (leased to Con
Edison) would close and their demands would be assigned to the 12 new on-site
garages. The Phase II development; of the southern portion of the site would
create t;hree relatively large garages (J, K, and N; see Table Il.J-5S); each
with between 450 ana 500 spaces. Table 11.J-56 shows the overall midday and PM
utilization for the Dew 12-garage parking system,
ILJ -94
. Table II.J-5.5·
OR~SI':rE GARAGES
Possible Addi;
H8lDe .. ..Lo.c.a.t.i.on CaImci'tI Access From. - ...timlaLAc.c.e.s..s
A bet. 72nd-71st St. 327 (A)l 71st St. (Pvt)3
B bet .. 7lst-70th St. 290 (A) 70th St. (Pub)4 7lst St. (Pvt.)
C bet. 70th-69th St. 280 (A) 70th St. (Pub) 69th St. (Pvt.)
D ·bet. 69th-68th St. 210 (A) 68th St. (Pub) 69th St. (Pvt.)
ElF bet. 68th-66th St. 214 (A) 68th St. (Pub) 67th St;. (Pvt.)
G/H bet. 66th-64th St. 179 (A) 64th St. (Pub) 65th St. (Pvt.)
Phase I Total 1,500
I bet. 64th-63rd St. 326 (A) 63rd St. (Pub) 64th se. (Pub. )
J bet. 63rd-62nd St. 473 (A) 63rd St. (Pub) 62nd St. (Pvt;. )
K bet. 62nd·6lst.St. 458 (A) 6lst St. (Pub) 62nd St. (Pvt.)
L bet. 61st-60th St. 149 (A) 615t St. (Pub)
M bet. 60th-,;geh Se, 152 (A) 59th St. (Pub)
N bet. 6lst-59th St. 442 (S)2 61st and 5geh St.
(Pub)
Phase .n Total 2,000
project Total 3,500
Table Il.J-56
2002 PAlUUNG 1l":rILIZATION
Accumula;&i..cm 'S~acesl
. Use .... ~i.ddaX Ji:veniM
Residential 1,924 2; 565
Studio and Office· 338 50
Professional Offi~es 109
Retail 59
. Cinema 10 57
Park 66
Subtotal 2,506 2,672
On-Site Demand lhOOO 875
Total· 3,506 3;547
New Phase II Supply 3,500 3;500
Utilization Rate 100% 101%
During the weekday midday period, the expected departure of approximately

25 percent of the overnight residential demand would provide for a portion of
the garage capacity for the daytime users. Table II.J-56 shows that providing
3,500 spaces would essentially result in a fully utilized off-street parking
system during all periods, with 100 percent utilization at midday and 101 per-
cent in the lat:e evening. GiVen that: full utilization of the off-street park-
in, system occurs beeween 95 percertc and 100 percent; of capaciey; some minor
amounts of parking demand may be displaced to the new on-site curb spaces.
II.J-95
If 20 percent of· the units are. affordable, . the number of space~ required
would be reduced by 114 spaces. The resultant utilization rate would be 97
percent at midday arid 98 percent overnight, with parking supply meeting demand
at both periods.
Table II.J-56 also shows that the existing on-site demand at midday would
represent about 29 percent of the midday demand and the 875 replacement spaces
at night would represent 25 percent of the demand in that period. In the year
2002, north of 64th Street, project resident and non-resident demand would
represent 80 percent of capacity in the midday and 94 percent in the evening.
South of 64th Street, these figures are 65 percent and 63 percent, respective-
ly. The remaining spaces would be utilized as replacement spaces for former
on-site parkers.
During the weekend, there would be a substantial drop-off in parking de-

mand compared with weekdays, from the studio and office elements of the proj-
ect. Any additional demands from·the proposed park, professional office, re-
tail, or from weekend shows at the cinema could be accommodated in the proposed
garages or on the new roadways. Therefore, with the fully utilized parking
system accommodating both the project-generated and replacement spaces, no
significant parking impacts are expected from the proposed development.
Dn-Stree.t Spac.es. When fully developed, the public streets on the site .-
Riverside Drive extension; 70th, 68th, and 64th Streets; Freedom Place South,
and 63rd and 6lst Streets -- are expected to provide curb space for bus stops,
hydrants, loading zones, and. metered and non-metered spaces. The private
streets would be designed as pedestrian streets with no on-street parking.ex-
cept loading/unloading to service abutting properties: While the final parking
regulations on the public streets would likely be determined by NYCDOT after
construction, it is expected that between 150 and 200 curbside spaces would be
added to the area's supply. This additional supply would offset all the curb-
side spaces eliminated in the mitigation plan designed to ·address potential
traffic impacts of the proposed project (see chapter IV) and retain on-site any
potential project-related, off-street parking shortfalls.
The subway trip distribution and assignment methodology described for the
analysis of 1997 BU.ild. conditions was used for the analysis of 2002 Build con-
ditions.The 59th Street-Columbus Circle station, which was not included in
the 1997 Build year analysis since no trips· were assigned to this station in
Phase I of the proposed project, is included as part of the 2002 Build year
analysis since subway trips from phase 11 of the proposed projece are assigned
to this station. Table I1.J-57 shows the project-generated subway trip assign-
ments used to determine passenger loads for the analyses.
The following sections analyze the impact of project-generaeed trips at

eaGh of the analyzed subway stations for 2002 Build conditions. An analysis of
line haul conditions for the 2002 Build year is also presented,
n.J-96·
Table II.J-"S7
SUBWAY S7ATloR TRIPS
AM PEAK HOUR
59TH STREET 66TH "STREET 72ND STREET

Total Number IRT/IND IRT IRT
of Trips A,B,C,O,1,9 1,9 1,2,3,9
Origin/
Destination Enter E;xit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
==================m============ =============== ============= =============
MANHATTAN 960 650 379 451 288 101 294 98
BRONX 26 212 17 191 5 11 4 11
QUEENS 45 339 31 309 7 15 8 15
BROOKLYN 107 372 57 335 25 19 26 19
STATEN ISLAND 12 68 6 59 3 5 3 4
MASSAU/SUFFO:t.K 35 216 21 196 7 11 8 10
OTHER NY/NJ/CT 35 315 25 284 5 14 5 18
========D==========~~========== ====!::::======== ======!i!!!!=:f:=== =============
TOTAL 1220 535 1824 339 174 347 174
PM PEAl< HOUR
59TH STREET 66TH STREET 72ND'STREET

Total Number IRT/IND IRT IRT
of Trips A,:S,C,O,1,9 1,9 1,2,3,9
Origin/
Destination Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
===============================
MANHATTAN '972 1025
==============
586 419
=============
195 303
:::i::::::::ce=:l:::
191 304
BRONX 213 36 201 26 6 6 6 5
QUEENS 327 57 306 38 11 10 10 10
BROOKLYN 367 107 329 57 18 25 20 26
STATEN ISLAND 66 14 59 7 3 4 4 3
MASSAU / SUFF"OL~ 208 40 194 26 7 7 8 8
OTHER NY/NJ/CT 300 49 282" 35 9 7 10 8
================~============~=
TOTAL 2453 1328
==============
1957 607
=======~.====
248 360
===="=========
248 362
Il.J-97
59th S.t.r.eet-Columbus Circle, IRT. .and .IND. '
Stairways and Control Areas: Under 2002 Build conditions, development of

residential blocks I, J, K, .L, M, and 0, plus the office/studio comple~ (N) of
the proposed project would generate increased ridership demand at· the·. 59th
Street-Columbus Circle IRT/IND station. It is projected that 2,359 project-
generated trips would occur at this station in the AM peak hour, of which ap-
pro~imately 23 percent would be entering the subway system and 77 percent would
be exiting the system (see Table II.J-57). During the PM peak hour, it is
projected that 2,564 project-generated trips would Use this station, of which
approximately 76 percent would be entering and 24 percent would be e~iting.
As shown in Table II.J-58, it is anticipated that street stairway S3 would

be significantly impacted in both the AM and PM peak hours as a result of proj-
ect-generated subway trips in the 2002 Build year. This stairway, which is
private, would continue to operate at LOS D during both peak hours; however,
the addition of 84 project-generated trips during the peak 5 minutes in the AM
peak hour and 38 project-generated trips during the peak 5 minutes in the PM
. I.
peak hour would result in a significant impact based on the CEQR criteria. As
previously outlined, CEQR guidelines define a required stairway widening of 6,
inches or greater to attain No Build levels as a significant impact when the
stairway is operating at LOS D. Stairway S3 would require 'widening by 19.66
inches to mitigate the impact of project-generated demand in the AM peak hour
and 8.32 inches during the PM peak hour. All other stairways and the ,IRT fare
array at 60th Street would operate at LOS C or better for 2002 Build conditions
and would not e~p'erience any significant impacts.
Eff.ects of ColumbUS Center MLtigatian: The 2002 Build analysis for the
59th Street -- Col~bus Circle IRT station assUmes that the mitigation proposed
for this station as part of the Columbus Center development is in place. This
mitigation includes the construction of two neW street stairways. The first,
located at the northwest corner of Central Park West and Columbus Circle
(stairway S4 in Figure II.J-16), would divert d.emand from existing stairway S3.
The second, located at the southwest corner of 60th Street and Broadway (stair-
way S5 in Figure II.J-16) would divert demand from e~isting stairway S2.
6.6.th .Street-Broadway IRT.
Stairw.ays..and. .Contro.l Are.as: For 2002 Build conditions, 50- percent of the
demand generated by the development of Parcels E, I, and J, 25 percent of the
demand generated by Parcel D, and 100 percent of the demand generated by Par-
cels F, G, and H, and the park would utilize the 66th Street-Broadway IRT
station. It is e~pected that 513 project-generated trips would occur at this
station in the AM pe~k hour, of which approximately 66 percent would be enter-
ing the subway system and 34 percent would be exiting the system (see Table
11.J-57). During the PM peak hour, it is projected that 608 project-generated
trips would use this station, of which approximateiy 41 percent would be enter-
ing and 59 percent would be exiting.
As shown in Table lI.J-59, with the e~ception of street stairways S2 and

02, all stairways, fare arrays, and the ramp to Lincoln Center would operate at
LaS C or better for 2002 Build eonditions and would not experience any signifi-
cant impacts. Stairway S2.would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour, both
for No Build ana Build cOfia~tions; primarily because of the heavy demand of
II.J-98
Table 11.3-58
59TH ST.REET-COLUKBUS CIRCLE STATION, 2002 BUIlD CONDITIONS
Effect"'e No-Build Pk 5 Min. Bunll 2002 2002 R.QUtred

Facility Width II) Capacity iiI< 5 Min. Ptoject PiI.k 5 Min. Build Bund No Build StairWay
No. Location (hilti (PPMi(4) Va'ii.iiill tns~nt Valuaa jiFM(4) VIC Los VIC ~os "'a&n1ng(7)
...--
51 5Bth St." AM B.20 112 72 21 93 2.27 0.23 A 0.18 A
Colu.bus·Clrcl. PM B.20 B2 121 ~I 157 3.B3 0.38 A 0.29 A
52 Traffic Island At~ 3.811 39 57 11 IB 3.52 0.35 A 0.30 A

Broadway/IIOth pl~ 3.8C1 39 77 37 114 5.90 0.59 B ,0.40 A
S3 South Sids of AM 11.77 IB 347 84 431 12,74 1.27 a 1.03 D n.ee > 15"
a l W Building PM 11.77 II 371 3B 409 ;2.09 1.21 a 1.10 D 1.32 ) is"
94 'II.W. Corner of 4.20 (2) 42 8B 21 109 5.19 0.52 B 0.42 A

CPW/Col. CII". 4.20 12\ 42 92 10 102 4.14 0.4B A 0.44 A
55 S.W. Corner o~ AM 5.80 (3) 5B 153 lB3 11.30 0.83 B 0.53 ~

Broaaway/ClOth PI,' 5.BO (3) 5B 189 2'7" 9.157 0.98 C 0.58 B
'El Uo EScalator AM 42-;m:h 102 (5) 297 102 399 n/a 0.7B C 0.5B A
Nea,.. 5Bth St. PM Escalatot 102 IS) 15B 34 192 nla 0.3B A 0.31 A
E2 Dow" Escalator AM 42-inch 102 (5) Bl 111 9'7 nla 0.19 A 0.115 A
Ile.r 58th 9t. P~' Escalator 102 (5i 214 511 270 n/a 0.53 A 0.42 A
R- ,Fa"" Array • At·, Enter 12B '113 (Cll 311 149 n/a 0.23 A 0.18 A
1511 80th Street b.it 114 911 (II) 5 101 n/a 0.18 A 0.17 A
Pt.I Entel" 128 20B (Ill 140 348 'nla 0.54 A 0.33 A
b.it 114 3'1 /8) 5 42 iii. '0.07 A 0.07 'A
(Ii Effective Width meaaured as width batwe.n the handrail.

8ultlplled by a factor of O.B to acCount for reverse flowi.
(2) Based on a olanned stair width of 8 feet (Coluabus Cant... FEI!)
.Inus 9" for railing ••
(3) Based on a plann.d stair width Of B feet (CblU.bus Cent... FEI!I
ainus 9" for rail;ns••
(4) Stair Capsclty based on NVCTA guideline. of 10 PFM.
PFM = Persons per Foot Width of stairWay Per Minute.
=
PPM Persons Par Minute.
IS) IIVCTA Station Plilnni,ris and a"alliln Gulhiinail.
(Ill Baaad on a planned II two-way turn.ti' •• and vne s~tt gata
(Colu.bU8 Cantsr FEIS).
(7) Mini.us stairway w,asning "sQutf.d ta .it'g.t. '.paat itnch•• ).
• Danat ••• si~n'ft~int '.pact.
P.ak Hau"s: lAM.. iAM

5PM - IPM
II.J-99
'1abla II.J-59
',6th STREET IB.T STATION. 2002 BUILD CONDITIONS
Eff.ctiv. No-Build Pk 5 Min. Build 2U02 2002 R.qui ...d

lfaciTity P••k " Width In C.p.city PI< 5 Min. P ..oj.ct P•• k 5 Min. Build Build No Bund St.i .. w.y
Ro,. t.oe.tion P... iod (F •• t) fPPMl(21 Vol_. Inc .....nt Vill_. PFM(2) VIC LOS VIC LOS Widening (3)
S,'
--------
IAf Co ..ner 0" 88th AM'
---------
4.34
--------
43
---------
t88
---------
22
-----------
20B 9.58 0.98 C 0.88 C
-----------
Ii Bro.dw.y PM 4.34 43 1BO 25 205 B.48 0.85 C 0.83 C
Si2 SE Corn... of 88th AM 4',34 43 297 15 312 14,40 1.44 E 1.37 E 2.13 < 3"
.. a..oadH.y PIlI 4.3'4 43 f41 25' 168 7.64 0.78 C 0.15 B
m! St.i .. to Lincoln AM 4.34 43 190 27 217 10.02 1.00 D 0.88 C 7.39 8" •
C.nt... • C01u.bu. PM 4.34 4'3 205 25 230 10.59 1.08 D 0.14 C 1.38 I'" •
RoP to t.incoln AM 1'.00 80 128 0 128 3.11 0.32 A • 0.3Z A

c.nt.r • Coluabu. PIlI 1.00 80 59 0 59: 1.48 0.15 A 0.15 A
R~ Dwntwn Far. A.. ray AM' Ent.r 104 I'S ta 99 n/. 0 •.11 A 0.18 A
160' I 16th St ....t (4) EXft 110 103 B 109 n/. 0.20 A 0.11 A
PM Ent... 104 182 'Z 144 n/. 0.28 A 0.25 A
bi,t 110 48' '3 Bl n/. 0.11 A 0.09 A
R- UPtown F.r. A..... y Af.1 Ent.r 32 2'4 5' 29 nl. 0.111 A 0.15 A
1'-1: 115. I 11th Str••t (4) Exit 94 274 10 284 n/a O.BO B 0.58 A
....: PH Ent.r 3'2 5'8 4 80 n/. 0.37 A 0.35 A
~ E~ft 94 85' 21 lOa n/. 0.23 A 0.18 A
I
.....
0 IIJ- Lincoln C.nt ... AM E·nt.r + Ex i t 192 319 27 348 nl. 0.38 A 0.33 A
0,
li801A Fa.r. A.. r.y (4) PM Ent... + Exit 192 214 25 289 n/. 0.30 A 0.27 A
---- ---.---------- -----------. -------- --------- --------- .---------- ---------.-
fU Eff.ctiv. Width ••••ur.d· •• wtdth b.ttI•• n the hand·r.n •

• Ullti"H.d by • fr.ctor of' 0."1 to account fo .....v..... flow ••
(2~1 St.ir C."aclty ba•• d on RYCTA guld.lin•• of 10 PFM.
Plflll = P.non. P.r Foot Width of Stairway P... Minut ••
,IPM = P.r.on. P.r Minut••
• 3I) Mini.u. r.qui·r.d .•t.i .. way widllning to .ittgat. t."act (fncha.).
Co(!) f.r. Array Conftgur.Uon.:
• Danot•• a .'·gni·fic.nt t·.".ct.
R~159: 2 two-way turn.tn•• R-lI10: 2 .ntranc. turn.Ul •• R-180A: 8 two-w.y tum.Ul••

t .lIn-only turn.ttl. 2" ht'gh .ntrance turn.tn ••
1· Mgh r.volving .xft gat. 2.hfgh ... volvfng .x~t g.t••
11 _ft g.ta
P.ak Hou... : lAM - BAM
IPM. - 6PM
students en route to nearby high sc:hools. The additi"on of 15 project-generatec1
trips to this stairway during the peak 5 minutes in the AM peak hour would not
result in a significant impact, as the stairway widening required to attain No
Build levels (2.63 inches) is below the 3-inch CEQR t~reshold for los E.
The LOS at street stairway 02 would fall from LOS Cduring both peak hours
for 2002 No Build conditions to LOS D during. both peak hours for 2002 Build
conditions. The addition to this stairway of 27 project-generated trips during
the peak 5 minutes in the AM peak hour and 25 project-generated trips during-
the peak 5 minutes in the PM peak hour would result in significant impacts at
this stairway. The stairway widening required to attain No Build levels for
each peak hour would be 7.39 inches for the AM and 6.36 inches for the PM,
which are greater than the 6-inch CEQR threshold for los O.
72:nd Str~et-Broadway IRT.
S.ta.irways and Control Area:. Under 2002 Build conditions, development of

Parcels A, B, C, D, and E of the p'roposed project (already fully deVeloped by
1997), as well as part of the neW park, would generate increased ridership de-
mand at the 72nd Street-Broadway IRT station. _ It is projected that 521 proj-
ect-generated trips wou1d'occur at this station during the AM peak hour, of
which approximately 67 percent would be entering the subway system and approxi-
mately 33 percent would be exiting the system (see Table II.J -57). During the
PM peak hour, it is projected that 610 project-generated trips would use this
station, of which approximately 41 percent would be entering and approximately
59 percent would be exiting.
As shown in Table II.J-60, during the AM peak hour, platform stairways P1/
P3 and P5/P7 are predicted to operate at los F for No Build conditions, and
would continue to operate at LOS F for 1997 Build conditions. As described
under "Existing Conditions," the stairways at this station are substandard .
. Based on the CEQR criteria, the addition of 17 project-generated trips to each
of these southbound platform stairways during the peak five minutes in the AM
peak hour would result in a significant impact at each stair. (As shown above,
CEQR criteria define a stairway widening required to reach No Build conditions
of 1 inch or greater as a significant impact when the stairway is operating at
LOS F.) Stairway.P1/P3 would require a widening of 1.81 inches to attain No
Build levels, while stairway P5/P7 would require a widening of 1.97 inches.
Stairway P6 would drop from LOS C for No Build conditions to lOS 0 during the
AM peak hour for Build conditions. As the stairway widening required to reach
No Build conditions (3.19-inches) is less than the CEQR threshold for LOS 0
(6 inches), this would not result in a significant impact.
During the PM peak hour, uptown platform stairways P4 and P6 are predictec1
to operate at LOS F for No Build conditions, and would continue ~o operate at
LOS F under Build conditions. The ac1dition of 17 project-generated trips to
each of these stairways during the peak 5 minutes in the PM peak hour would re-
sult in a significant impac~ a~ each stair based on ehe CEQR criteria (stairway
widenings required to reach No Build levels would be 2.04 inches and. 2.27 in-
ches; respectively).
All other stairways and fare arrays would remain at their No Build levels
o£ service during both peak hours for Build conditions ana woul~ nQt experienoe
any significant impacts.
II.J -101
Table 1I • .1-60
72ud STREET I&T STATION, 2002 BUll.D aOBDrrIORS
Effective No-Build PM 5 I'Iin. Bulla 200l! 2002 Raqu;i"eG

Facility Peak Width (1) Capacity PM 5 Hin. PrQjac:t Piiak II Hln. Build Buna NO BililllStai ...... )'
Yol_ vIc lOS vIC
No. Locatien
P5/P'; North Oowntown

Platfe"" Stair
Period
AM
I'll
(Fiiitt)
---
2.74
2.74
(PPH){2)
27
27
-----
YolliN
284
147
Ifc,.T..,rt
____ ...... _
17
17
301 21.97
PFH(2)
'-;0;;;;;:.;:;;;;;;;;;;;;; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
164 12.02·
2.20 F
1.20 D
_Ooii_
~ ..
2.07 F
1.08 D
baS loiidening(3)
~
- . .---_.0:. __..
1.97 :. 1" •
3.79 < 6"
Pl/p3 South Downtown AM 2.74 27 308 17 325 23.74 2.37 F 2.25 F 1.81 ~ 1" ..
Platfe"" Stair I'll 2.74 27 123 17 140 10.24 1.02 D 0.90 C 4.53 < 6"
P8/P9 North Uptown AM 2.74 27 78 6 84 6.13 0.61 8 0.57 B

Platfe"" Stair I'll 2.74 27 160 9 169 12.37 1.24 D 1.17 D 1.84 .. 6"
P6 Center Uptown AM 2.74 27 134 13 147 10.72 1.07 D 0.98 C 3.19 < 6"
Pl atfe"" Sta ir I'll 2.74 27 246 17 263 ;9.20 1.92 F 1.80 F 2.27 > 1" •
P4 South Uptown AM 2.74 27 138 13 151 ;1.03 1.10 D 1.01 0 3.09 .: 6"
Platfe"" Stair· I'll 2.7of . 27 274 17 291 21.2~ 2.13 F 2.00 F 2.04 ,. ;" ..
R- Uptown Entrance
'6'A (7 two-way AM nla . 224 349 32 381 ~/a 0.34 A 0.3' A
turnstiles) I'll nla 224 680 43 723 nla 0.65 8 C.G1 8
11- ~ Entrance
161 (5 'two-way AM nla 160 591 33 624 "I. 0.78 c 0.'74 C
tumstl1es)
--~-----
I'll nla
----~--
160
(1) EffflC'tive Width measured as width bet_II the handrails

------ 3'71
-~-
34 305 nla
- - - ____ ~ 0.38
___ A _0.34
= _ _ A _ _____;;;; __ =a
.0:.-'_
... ltipl1ed by • facto'r ef 0.8 to _ n t for ~ flQ\riS.

(2) ~tair capacity based on NYCTA ~1I~dioH;;n of '0 PFH.
PFM • Parsons Per Foot Wiilfoh of SUiNa), Per H1nutil.
PIfH • Parsons Pili' Hiillite.
(3) 1'1,,,1_ 1"8q\l1N11 sai ....ay "iaiiHng to mltlgatil illiPK't (inc::his).
.. IieI'lQt8i i iiOnHiCiflt Impact.
II.J .. 102
The results of the analysis o~ cir~ulation conditions in the station'S
head house· mezzanine area for Build conditions are shown in Table II.J-Gl. The
mezzanine is predicted to operate at LOS B for No Build conditions, and would
continue to operate at LOS B for Build conditions during both the AM and PM
peak hours. The average circulation area per person would decrease by 2.0
square feet, from approximately 31 square feet for No Build conditions to about
29 square feet during both peak hours,.
Platforms: Table II.J-62 presents the analysis of conditions on the

southbound platform during the AM peak hour for Build conditions. The results
shown in Table II.J-62 indicate that the southbound platform would continue to
have available capacity in all zones, al.though the percent available would be
reduced from the No Build condition. Overall, the percent available would
decrease by 3 percent, from 45 percent for No Build conditions to 4·2 percent
for 2002 Build conditions. Under the snapshot approach (an instantaneous mea-
surement of ·crowding at the. end of the seven-minute analysis period), all zones
would continue to operate at their No Build levels of service (note: Zone 4 is
at the 7.0 sf/ped threshold for LOS C/D under No Build conditions), and no sig-
nificant platform impacts are expected. Overall, the available space would de-
crease by 0.4 square feet per person, from 8.3 square feet per person for No
Build conditions to 7.9 square feet per person for Build conditions.
Subway Line Ha1-1l Analysis. The AM and PM peak hour subway line usage for
the 2002 Build year is presented in Table II.J-63. As is shown, most lines
would continue to operate with some excess capacity at their peak load points.
However, the Nos. 2 and 3 IRT lines would continue to experience significant
crowding during the AM peak hour, with a 1 percent decrease in capacity, from a
capacity deficit of 20 percent in the southbound direction in the No Build to a
deficit of 21 percent for 2002 Build conditions. Similarly, in the northbound
direction, these lines would have a 1 percent decrease in capacity, with a
capacity deficit of 4 percent during the AM peak hour (up from 3 percent for
2002 No Build conditions). During the PM peak hour, available capacity on
these lines would drop by 1 perc·ent to 7 percent in the northbound direct.ion
(down from 8 percent for 2002 No Build conditions) and remain at 13 percent in
the southbound direction. The project would not have· a significant impact on
these lines.
crowding would also occur on the Nos. 1 and 9 IRT lines in the AM peak
hour, when there would be a capacity deficit of 3 percent in the southbound
direction for 2002 Build year conditions as opposed to a capacity surplus of
1 percent for 2002 No Build conditions (a change of 4 percent). While the MTA
does not specify impact criteria for line haul operations, the change from +1
percent to -3· percent in aVailable capacity in the AM on the IRT Nos. i and 9
lines would appear to constitute a significant impact to line haul conditions.
During the PM peak hour, available capacity in the northbound direction would 1
fall by 5 percent, from 10 percent for 2002 No Build conditions to 5 percent
for 2002 Build conditions. this change during the PM peak hour would not be a
significant impact.
Bus Operatinns
L~cALJ1U$_ Seryiee. Local (intra~Manhattan) bus demand generated by the

proposed project would total 951 trips in the AM peak hour and 1,117 trips in
the PM peak hour for 2002 Build conditions. The same bus trip distribution and
11.3-103
Table lI.J-6l
72nd STKEET lllT STATION HEZZANINE LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

2002 BUILD CONDItIONS
Total Queue Walk AveragE!

Total Space 2002 Build AverliGe Time Space Modu'e T~me-Spate Time-Space Time-SpaC:E! Total Circulation
Available 5 Min VoiumE!S (1n minutes) ('in sq. ft.) Available Ri!quired Avai lable Waik Time Ai'"ea/Person
(sq. ft.) Walk Queue Wah Queue Walk Queue (s.f • ..m;n) (s.f ...m1n) (S.f.-iiiin) (minutes) (sq. ft.) LOS
...--------.;; ----------
_ _ . . _500 _ _ _ _ _
----;;,.;...- -- -----..-:.-
...
~----------
AM 752.0 100S sa 0.12 0.75 7.50· 6.00 3760.0 261.9 34ga.1 12CUI 29.0 8
PH 75itO ,029 47 0.12 0.75 7.60 6.00 3760.0 213.1 3546.9 123.6 29.7 B
Peak Hours: sAM .. gAM

SPM .. 813M
Ta'ble II. J .. ,; 2
l2na STREET IRT STATION SOlrl'DOmm PLATFORH. 2002 BUILD CONDITIONS-
2002 NO BUILD CONDITIONS 2002 BUILD CONDITIONS

__ a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-------_._---------------------
"Snapshot" "Snapshot"
Assessment Assessment
Percent of a-Fter 7 M'ri. Pel"Cent of after 7 Min.
7 Minute T-S ------------- '7 Minute T-S ------------
Zone Ava,lable S~/Per bOS Zone Available SF/Per LOS
. . _--------=- --------;--
1 58% 9.4 C 1 -56% 8.9 C
2 48% 8.0 C 2 45% 7.6 C
3 39% 7.5 C 3 36% 7.1 C
4 39% 7.0 C/O 4 36% 6.7 0
5 27% 6.5 0 5 23% 6.2 0
6 15% 6.2 0 6 11% 5.9 0
7 26% 6.5 0 7 22% 6. 1 0
S 47% 8.6 C 8 44% 8.2 C
9 65% 12.0 B 9 63% 11.4 B
10' S1% 20.9 A 10 80% 19.9 A
45% 8.3 C piatfOnn 421 7.9 C
Total =
II.J·10S
'Iable II.J-63
~ HAUL ANALYSIS" 2002 BUILD CONDITIONS
200'2 2002
Build N'o,-Build
Sdleduled Percent of Percent of
T'ilme Number of Number of Design Passeng,er Capaci ty Passenger Capacity
Line Period Direction Trains/Hour[l] Cars/Hour[11 Capacity[2] Volume Available Volume Available
1.9 AM, Southbound 15 150 18.000 18,525 -3% 17,839 1%
No,rthbound 14 14'0 16,800 7,313 5,7% 7,007 58%
PM S,outhbound 12 120 14',400 6,871 52% 6,434 55%
No,rthbound 14 140 16,800 15,903 5% 15,,127 10%
-,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,.3 AM, Southbound 20 191 22.920 27,674 -21%, 27,515 -20%
II/Iorthbound 17 162 19,440 20,149 -4% 20,026 -3%
PM Southbound 16 . 151 18.120 15,844 13% 15,713 13%
N1a,rthbound 18 173' 20,760 19,.357 7% 19.184 8%
_._----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A ' AM Southbound 10 84 17,203 10,714 38% 10,652 38%
N'o'rthbound 13 110 22,528 19,416 14% 19.317 14%
PM Southbound 15 128 26,214 16,,512 37% 16,397 37%
No'rthbound 9 82 16.794 10,042 40% 9.968 41%
.HH: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B: AM, Southbound 5 50 11,000 4.590 58% 4:,563 59%
c;."
II/Iorthbound 8 80 17,600 9,308 47% 9,131 48%
11-'.
o PM, Southbound 8 80 17,600 5,826 67% 5,786 67%
CIJ\. rio'rthbound 6 60 13,200 , :'3.029 '77% 3,003 77%
-----------------------~------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------- ------------
c: AM Southbound 6 48 8,640 3,174 63% 3,.153 64% '
riorthbound 8 66 11,880 6,799 43% 6,,765 43%
PM, Southbound 7 56 10.080 3,210 68% 3,188 68%
Illbrthbound 6 48 8,640 2.757 68% 2,734 68%
_._--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------
ml AM, Southbound 10 80 17,600 11,520 35% 11,455 3,5%
No,~thbound 10 80 ' 17,600 10,005 43% 9.813 44%
PM Southbound 7 56 12,320 5,348 57% 5,.315 57%
No,rthbound 8 64 14.080 7,396 48% 7,334 48%
--------------------------------------------------~--- ------------------------------------------------------------------
II/Io.tes: [I], Source: New York City Transit Authority 1990 Cordon Count.
[1) Based Upon: 1,2,3,9 trains: all wi~h 10 cars @120 spaces per car.
1\. trains: 33% with 10 cars @ 180 spaces per car.
67'% wi th 8 cars @ 220 spaces per car.
C t~ains: all with 10 cars @ 180 spaces per car.
B~D trains: all with a cars @220 spaces per car.
assignment methodology described for the analysis of 1997 Build conditions was
used for the analysis of 2002 Build conditions.
TallIe II.J-64 shows the 2002 Build conditions for the local bus routes
within the study area. As is shown, the six routes with capacity deficits in
the peak dir~ction for 2002 No Build conditions would continue to experience
deficits for 2002 Build conditions. The deficits would range from 56 spaces
(one bus) on the M66 route during the AM peak hour to 240 spaces (four buses)
on the M1l route in the PM peak hour. One route, the M5, would experience a
capacity deficit in the AM peak hour only, while five routes, the M7, M1l, M57,
M66, and M104, vould experience deficits during both peak hours. ·The M72 and
M79 routes vou1d continue to have surplus peak direction capacity during both
peak hours under 2002 Build conditions. Given the deficit nature of local bus
operations, significant impacts are expected on the M5 route in the AM, and on
the M11, M57, M66, and M104 in both the AM and PM peak hours. However, as
standard practice, the New York City Transit Authority routinely conducts
ridership counts and adjusts bus s·ervice frequency to meet its service
criteria, and would be expected to do so on these bus routes as well.
Expres.s: Bus Service. In the 2.002 Build year, express bus demand gener-
ated by the proposed project would total 188 trips in the AM peak hour (91 per-
cent entering the project and 9 percent exiting) and 187 trips in the PM peak
hour· (13 percent entering and 87 percent exiting). Since a majority of the
express bus route's connecting Manhattan with outlying boroughs and suburban
communities are privately operated, and the operating companies routinely ad-
just capacity ·to·meet increases or decreases in demand, no significant impacts
to express bus service are anticipqted for 2002 Build conditions. .
The pedestrian trip distribution and assignment methodology described fo~

the analysis of 1997 Build conditions was used for the analysis of 2002 Build
conditions. Street corners and crosswalks located adjacent to the 59th Street-
Columbus Circle, 66th Street IRT, and 72nd Street IRT subway stations are ana-
lyzed for the 2002 Build year. Table II.J-65 shows the results of the pedes-
trian analyses at key street corner and crosswalk locations in the study area
for 2002 Build conditions.
Stre.et Corner Analysis. The results shown in Table II.J -65 indicate that
for 2002 Build conditions, no significant pedestrian impacts are anticipated at
any analyzed street corner as a result of project-ge.nerated pedestrian demand.
Though no street corner impacts are anticipat~d under 2002 Build conditions, it
should be noted that project-generated demand would result in a significant
pedestrian impact at the southwest corner of' 72nd Street/Broadway during the AM
peak. hour under 1997 Build conditions. As all project-generated pedestrian
trips would have occurred at 72nd Street/Broadway by the 1997 Build Year, the
increase in demand at this corner resulting from background growth betveen 1997
and 2002, and from No Build sites scheduled for completion during ehis time
period, reduces the proportion of project-generated trips to overall pedestrian
demand at this corner. Therefore, while the decrease in the space allocaeion
per pedestrian is 1.2 square feet under 1997 Build conditions and results in a
significant impact under CEQR criteria; the decrease in space allocation per
pedestrian is only 0.8 square feet per pedestrian under 2002 Build conditions
and does not result in a significant pedestrian impact.
II.J-107
'J'able II.J-64
LOCAL BUS RE'NOIlX.. 2002· BUILD CONDITIONS
III 2002 tlo Bui ld 2002 Build 2002 Build b

Paak Direction Peak Hour Buses Ava;lable Capacity b Project Increment Available Capacity in
lMJPM Peak Hour in Peak Direction in the Peak Direction in Peak Direction the Peak Direction
--------------- ----------------- --------------------- ----------------- ---------------------
Route AM PM AM PM 11M PM AM PM
MS, S8/NB 11 12 -121 144 68 25 -189 • 119
1411' S8mB 9 10 -63 -190 29 29 -92 -219

Ii
Mrl1 SB/NI 8 7 -1:20 -119 38 121 -158 • -240 •
1-1:
..1-1: 111:51 fl/WB 9 7 -u -154 87 62 -132 • -216 •
Le.
II
......
0,
011·
1468 EB/w1 12 10 12 -120 61 64 -5·8 • -184 •
I
147'2: EB/WI 7 7 224 198 21 27 1i18 169
MIlS WB/WI 18 14 1'62 58 2 5: 110 51
1111104 SBltlB 24 23 -'[20 -46 84 88 -204 • -13'2 •
III
SOurc.: "VCTA Ridership Surveys.
b
•••• d upon a capacity of 80 paraona par bUB •
• Denotea a aignificant impact.
P••k Houra: 8AM - 9AM

511'M - 6PM
Table II.j'-6S .
PEDESTRlAN LEVELS OF SERVICE

2002 iUILD cONt>ltIONS
STREET CORNERS
-------------;;;;; AM PEAK HOUR PH PEAK HOUR
2002 NO BUILD 2002 BiHbD 2002 NO !WH.O 2002 BUll.D
Location Corner S.F./Ped. bOS S.F./Ped, l.OS S.F./Ped. LOS. S.F./Ped. LOS
-------- --------- -----_._- _&11_------ --------
60th Street/ Northwest 115.S B 84.7 B 84.2 B 74.4 B
Broadway Southwest 88.6 B 60.3 B 66.3 B 47.6 B
65th Street/ Northwest ·52S.4 A 52S.4 A 160.0 A 160.0 A
Broadway Southwest 138.6 A 119.3 B 56.1 B 52.9 B
66th Street/ Northeast 175.S A 175.S A 70.0 B 70.0 B

Br'Oadway Northwest 117.4 B 107.2 B 80.4 B 74.2 B
Southeast 71.6 B 66.5 B 67.7 B 62.6 B
Southwest 397.9 A 373.7 A 354.6 A 329.1 A
72nd Street/ Southeast 27.1 C 25.7 C 1S.9 0 1S.0 0

Broadway Southwest 16.7 0 15.9 D 12.S 'E 12.2 E
CROSSWALK LOCATIONS
----~-----~--------
2002 NO BUIbO 2002 BUIl.D 2002 NO BUILD 2002 BUILD
Location
--------
Crossliia1k
---------
S.F./Ped, l.OS
---.:.;.-----
S.F./Ped,
---~------
LOS
-S.F./Ped.
.. ...
:;;;;;;;-- -~
bOS S.F./Ped.
--------
bOS
60th Street/ South 25.0 C 20.7 0 20.2 0 16.9 Iii 0

Broadway West 52.S B 52.8 B 34.0 C 34.0 C
65th Street/ South 116.3 B 116.3 B 50.7 B 50.7 B
Br'oadway West ;01.2 B ;01.2 B 28.9 C 28.9 C
56th Street/ North 63.6 B 63.6 B 35.3 C 35.3 C
Br'Qadway South 25.0 C 23.3 0 44;6 B 37.6 C
East 47.9 8 47.9 B 16.0 0 16.0 0
West 4:3,6 B 41.4 B 2i.1 D 20.6 D
'2nd Stl"eQt/ South 24.; C 22.9 [) 20,' D 19,2 D

Broadway West 35~' C 35,1 C 24,6 G 24.6 C
Iii benetes a s,gn,f~cant 1mpact ,
11.J .. 109
.cr.osswalk Analysis .. As shown ~n Table II.J -65, the south crosswalk at·
60th Street/Broadway would be significantly affected by the proposed project
during the PM peak hour in the 2002 Build year. The decrease in area per pe-
destrian of .3.3 square feet (from 20.2 square feet/pe~estrian for No Build con-
ditions to 16.9 square feet/pedestrian for Build conditions) in the EM peak
hour exceeds the CEQR threshold of 1 square foot when total area per pedestrian
is equal to or less than 20 square feet.
The south crosswalks at 60th Street/Broadway and 66th Street/Broadway

during the AM peak hour, the east and west crosswalks at 66th Street/Broadway
during the PM peak hour, and the south crosswalk at 72nd Street/Broadway during
both peak hours would all operate at tos 0 under 2002 Build conditions. How-
eVer, none of these locations would be significantly impacted based on CEQR
criteria. All other crosswalks analyzed would operate at LOS C or better for
2002 Build conditions.
chapter IV presents proposed measures to mitigate all of the project's

significant transportation impacts, both in the primary study and in the ex-
tended areas.
Traf£ic Effects of Relocated Hi.ghw.ay. on 2002 Build Ne.twork
A planning study of the potential relocation of the Miller Highway has

recently been.initiated by the New York State Urban Development Corporation.
The relocated highway from its northern point at 75th Street to 61st Street
would be functionally identical (from a traffic flow Viewpoint) to the elevated
highway analyzed for 2002 Build conditions. That is, the relocated highway
would also have three lanes in each direction and a northbound entrance ramp at
72nd Street (northbound exit at 72nd Street would also be closed on the relo-
cated highway) .
South of 61st Street, the alignment and functionality of the relocated

highway would be influenced by the various alternatives being studied by NYSDOT
as part of the Route 9A Reconstruction Project between the Battery and 59th
Street. A determination with respect to Route 9A is not likely during the
reView process for Riverside Souto. This proposed project (as previously dis-
cussed) assumes that the Basic .Reconstruction Alternative for Route 9A would
haVe been implemented by 2002.
The Basic Reconstruction Alternative, an arterial improvement alternative,

when connected to the relocated highway would likely result in an at-grade
highway between 57th and 61st Streets, creating a newall-movement intersection
at 57th Street and severing the current underpass of the Miller Highway at 59th
Street.· This represents the worst-case scenario for that a1tern~tive. Figure
II.J -27 shows a likely line diagram configuration for the relocated highway _ .9-
between 57th and 61st Streets. The diagram shows that, functionally, the 7'
street underpass at 59th Street would be replaced by the overpass at 61st
Street. Therefore, most traffic using the underpass (almost entirely westbound
flows of 60 vph, 80 vph, and 134 vph in 2002 AM, midday, and PM peak hours,
respeccively) would relocate from 59th Street to 61st Street, when 6lst Street
is built west of West End Avenue. As also illustrated in Figure II.J-27, 57th
Street would be opened; and there would be an east-west connection to chs west
end of 57th Street. Opening 57th Street would create a new left turn from
II.J-IIO·
2002 Build Networks
Figure II.J-27
59th ST
_ \ U~De:RPASS .
~
-
58 SERVICE RD ELEVATED
,
-- ---- --
-
, 2th AvE j..... RAMP TO 59th
-sT-\L - ...... .. ..
~
MILLER
HIGHWAY
--
'"'- --- - --- --
--- SERVICC:
N8
RC -
/'
V
- . - -
- --
-r--
...... ~-
---
" , RIVERSIDE
o RIVe: so
" .
" lt
:,- .;:
"- .&.
---
-- , 11th AVE . --
I
WEST
."--
ENO
,AVE
It
67th 58th 59th

" 60th 61st
2002 BUILD NETWORK FOR MILLER

HIGHWAY IN PRESENT LOCATION
61st ST
-
58 SERVICe: RD
----
- _.1 OVERPAS~_
- -- --- -
- \ ::::::::.
12th AVe:
- --
AT-:GRAOe: HIGHWAY")
- ---
.
--- ...... -.
N9 SERVice;
-RD-
. - .- ..... ---.
-- .-
-
It , It
RIVERSIDE
DRIVE SO
It
.1.7 .&. .
It
--
-- ---
, , Hh AVE
,t 1
WEST END --
,Ave;
57th 58th 59th 60th 51st
2002 BUILD NETWORK FOR RELOCATED

MILLER HIGHWAY
southboundaoute 9A, thereby relieving the current heavy left turn at 56th
Street.
Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for conditions with the

relocated highway for both No Build and Build scenarios. the No Build scenario
examines conditions without the proposed project, but with the traffic diver-
sions resulting from the relocated highway. The Build scenario examines condi-
tions with the proposed project and the relocated highway. Impacts are based
on comparing the resulting vic ratios for these two conditions. The analysis
focused on those areas between 6lst and 56th Streets where traffic volume
changes are likely in 2002.
Table II.J-66 compares the No Build with the relocated highway with the
Build with the relocated highway for year 2002. As shown in the table, the
network changes from a new full intersection at 57th Street plus the potential
elimination of the 59th S,treet underpass in the Basic aeconstruction Alterna-
tive would not ·result in any new impact locations due to project traffic.
Seven of the eight intersection approaches significantly impacted with the
network without the relocated highway would also be impacted with the ne'two.rk
.with the reloca.ced highway. There would be one approach impacted by the pro
posed project without relocation (Yest End Avenue southbound at 58th Street in
the AM) that would no longer be impacted wit~ the relocated highway network.
. Chapter· IV discusses mitigation for these extended area locations.
ILJ-lll
Tapie II.J'-66
REtOCATED HIGHWAY BUILD DlPAGTS

PROPOSED I -RELOCATED RELOCATED I
PROJECT H HIGHWAY HIGHWAY H
2002 2002 P 2002 2002 P
HO-BUILD SUlLO BbD-HBLD A HO-BUILD BtiILD ObO-HBLD A
pEAK VIC VIC • VIC e VIC '11le VIC C·
STREET Al'f'ROACH TOO RATIO RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO RATIO 'r
---------------a-·------~~·
12TH AVE. SBTH @ 57 ST. AM:
_______
I-·----------~------ ---··------,-------------------·------------l
: 0.780 0.844 0.027 :
HD : : 0.503 0.554 0.027 :
PH . : 0.598 0.671 0.037 :
~----------------·----------------I------------------~---~-------:-------------------.------------:
12TH AVE. SBLT @ 57 ST. AM: : 0.771 0.771 0.000 :
HD : : 0.766 0.766 0.000 :
PH : : 0.845 .0.845 0.000
. ________________________ a _________ I ________ _________ ------------:-------------------•• -----------:
~
:
12TH AVE. NB @ 57 ST. AM: 0.216 0.576 0.360 : . 0.349 0.588 0.239 :
HD : 0.308 0.602 0.294 : 0.400 0.518 0.118 :
. PH : 0.203 0.556 0.353 : 0.334 0.474 0.140 :
--------------------------------~-I--------·---------------------:------~-·----------·------------I
12TH AVE. HB (WSHY) @ AM : 0.000 0.827 0.792 -0.035 :
57TH ST. HD : 0.000 0.429 0.420 .. 0.009
PH : 0.000 0.880 0.864 ~0.016
------------------------·~~------~I·--------~--------------------:----------.~-------.~-~---------:
57TH S~. Wi TH/RT @ 12TH AV£ AM .: 0.334 0.336· 0.002 : 0.282 0.284 0.002 :
(WSHY) HD : 0.352 0.356 0.004 : 0.556 0.563 0.007 :
_____________ ___________________
~
PM : 0.535 0.537
~I----------_-------- ___________
0.002 :a
: _______________________________
0.846 0.849 0.003 ::
57TH ST. WiLT @12TH AVE. AM: 0.334 0.336 0.002 : 0.651 0.385 -0.266 :
HD : 0.352 0.356 0.004 : 0.953 0.581 -0.372 :
PH : 0.535 0.537 0.002 : 0.999 0.535 -0.464 :
=========================cc=======I=aE===============: ====:======:==.==:=======a============:=~=:=:
12TH AVE. NB @ 56TH ST. AM·: 0.508 0.719 0.211 0.508 0.719 0.211
(LOCAL) . Mf) : 0.404 0.491 0.087 0.404 0.491 0.081
____ • _______ ___________________
~ PM: ________
0.300• ________
0.410 __ 0.110
~_I -_-_-.a_-_----__
_________ :-__ 0.300 ~ 0.410
~ .~ _____ ---__ .:
0.110
12TH AVE. HB @56TH ST. AM: 0.861 0.825 -0.036 :. 0.861 0.825 -0.036 :
(HIGHWAY) HI> : 0.377 0.370 .. 0.007 : 0.3770.370 -0.007 :
. PM : 0.775 0.761 -0.014 : 0.775 0.761 -0.014 :
------------~---------------------I------------------------------:-------- .. ----------------------:
12TH AVE. SS THRU. @ 56TH ST. AM: 0.649 0.649 0.000 : 0.669 0.669 0.000 :
HI> : 0.446 0.446 0.000 : 0.467 0.467 0.000 :
PH: 0.542 0.542 0.000 l 0.561 0.561 0.000 :
----------~-----~-----------------:--~---------------------------:--------------------------------;
12TH AVE SB LEFT @ 56TH ST. AM: 0.760 0.760 0.000 : 0.318 0.318 0.000
HD : 0.869 0.869 0.000 : 0.461 0.461 0.000
PH : 0.911 0.911 0.000 : 0.460 0.460 0.000
-------·------~----------~--------t------------------------------:--------------------------------:
12TH AVE SB SERVIcE RD, AM: 0.046 0.109 0.063 : 0.029 0.112 0.083
@ 56 ST. HQ : 0.047 0.088 0.041 : 0.031 0.094 0.063
PM: 0.064 0.126 0.062 : 0.037 0.131 0.094 I
====~===~===::=:==.=========.&====:======:===================~m==:=========~======================:·
WEST END SB @ 61ST ST. AM: 0.904 0.892 ~0.012 : 0.904 0.892 -0.012 :
HD : 0.710 0.708 -0.002 : 0.710 0.711 0.001 :
PH : 0.804 0.792 -0.012 I 0.804 0.812 0.008 :
----------------------------------1------------------------------:----------------------------.---:
WEST END NB @ 61ST st. AM: 0.604 0.703 0.099 : 0.604 0.711 0.107 :
HD : 0.621 0.648 0.027 : 0.621 0.658 0.037 :
PM : 0.740 0.768 0.028 0.740' 0.772 0.032
------------------.-.-------------:-~--.-------------------------:--------------------------------:
61 ST. EB @ iIEST END AM : 0.338 0.338 : 0.000 0.338 0.338 :
HD : 0.330· 0.330 : 0.000 0.330 ·0.330 :
PK : 0.529 0.529 : 0.000 0.529 . 0.52~ :
============:========a============I=================_: =~======~.=:========E==~=======e~~======§m~=1
WESt END SB @ 60TH St. AM: 0.891 0.869 -0.022 0.891 0.869 -0.022
MD : 0.668 0.686 0.018 0.668 0.678 0.010
PM: 0.765 0.800 0.035 0.765 0.779 0.014
----------------------------------1------------------------------:--------------------------------
WEST END HS @ 60TH ST. AM : 0.657 0.691 0.034 0.657 0.696 0.039
HD I 0.656 0.658 0.002 0.656 . 0.662 0.006
PK : 0.752 0.770 0.018 0.752 0.774 0.022
-------.. -----------------_---------1------------------ ----~------- f _;;&; _________ -: ________,___ ;;;:ao_ ..... ____ ... _ I
60TH ST. £B @WEsT £NO AVE AM I 0.103 0.001 -0.102 :. 0.103 0.001 -0.102 :
KD : 0.198 0.001 ~O.197 0.198 0.001 -0.197 :
PH: 0.304 0.001 -0.303 I 0.304 0.001 -0.303 I
===.~:====.=c====:==m.5========
.. DENOTe; IMPACTED WCATIDif
•• =!=====. •• ==:~~~~~=.~=========.==:=======.======== •• c==:=======.a~'
iI.J-112.
Table Ir.J-66 (Continued)
Jl.ELOCATED HIGHWAY BUILD DlPACTS

PROPOSm 1 tIELOCAtm RELOCATED 1
PRojECT It KIGHVAY HIGIIWAY H
2002 2002 p 2002 2002 P
lIo-BUILD BUILD 8LD-IIBLD A No-SUILD BUILD iLD-NSLD A
PEAK VIC VIC VIC C VIC VIC VIC C
STitEEr APPROACH TOIl RATIO RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO RATIO T
--------.--.-.----.---.-... -----a~l------------------~-----------:-- ______________________________ ~
VEST END sa @ 59TH ST. All : 0.873 0.836 -G.037 : 0.856 0.836 -0.020 :
HD : 0.635 0.613 -0.022 : 0.617 0.602 -0.015 :
PIt: 0.752 O. n4 -0.028 : 0.713 0.686 -0.027 :
------------------~-.------------:-------_&_--------------------;--------------------------------:
VEST END lIB @ 59TH ST. All: 0.603 0.636 0.033 : 0.588 0.636 0.048 :
HD : 0.587 0.595 0.008 : 0.573 0.595 0.022 :
PH I 0.701 0.713 0.012 : 0.6B6 0.706 0.020 :
----------------------------------I------------------------------l-------------~-----------.---.--1
59TH ST. EB IllEST END All: 0.573 0.679 0.10& : 0.573 0.679 0.10& :
HD : 0.537 0.&41 0.104 : 0.537 0.6U 0.104 :
PIt: 0.407 0.500 0.093 : 0.401 0.500· 0.093 :
--------.-.-----------------------:-~--------------------------:.-------
59TH ST. lIB e WEST END
.
All : '0.960 . 1.159
lIP:
0.199 t.:
0.943
0.962
t.: 0.943
1.07'7
..-------~-----~-~:
1.159
0.134
.1.077
0.197 t. :
0.134 t. :
..--
PIt: 1.2S6 t.: 1.286
1.450 0.164
1.450 0.164 to :
.....................••..••••...•. ,••......•••......•.···········1···..·······•··.··· •••...·······:
VEST END.58 I 58TH ST All: 0.846 0.877 0.031 Ie: 0.907 0.877 -0.030 :
HD: 0.576 0.611 0.035 0.644· 0.611 -0.033 :
PH: 0.670 0.731 0.061 I 0.767 0.731 -0.036
---------------------~~~--··I·--------·--------~~------~I··------------------------------)
VEST END.HB @ 58TH ST All I 0.696 0.726 0.030 : 0.686 0.726 0.040 :
HD : 0.645 0.• 653 0.008 0.636 0.653 0.017 :
PH I 0.830 . 0.838 0.008 I 0.821 0.838 0.017 :
--------------------------·-------I·~------~~~------~------------I--------------------------------:
58TH Sf.EB @WEST END AvE AM: 0.139 0.139 0.000 : 0.139 0.139 0.000
HD : 0.242 0.242 0.000 I 0.242 0.242 0.000
PIt I 0.206 0.206 0.000 I 0.206 0.206 0.000 :
••••••••••••••••••••••••••• i •••••• f i ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• : .• ii •••••••••••••• ~ •••••••••• _.; •• :
VEST END sa @ 57TH ST. All I 0.976 0.984 0.008 : 1.088 0.989 -0.099 I
. HD I 0.703 0.724 0.021 : 0.820 0.728 -0.092 :
PH I 0.744 0.770 0.026 : 0.896 0.778 -0.118
----------------------~~-----:----------·------·--------·
VEST END HB @ 57TH ST. All: 0.805 O.BOO -0.005 ..·f·~--..w-------------
I 0.737 0.732 .. -0.005
----------I:
HD : 0.862 0.849 -0.013 : 0.816 0.799 -0.017 I
PIt I 1.097 1.079 -G.018 : 1.029 1.012 -0.017 :
----------------------------------:.---------.~-------.-----------:
57TH ST. EB @ WEST END All I 0.794 0.794 0.000 : ..~---
1.244...¥--------------
1.244 0.000 -------f:
HD I
______.______________
57TH ST. WB @WEST END
PH:
._w~~:----.--
All :;
0.640
0.645
0.742·
__-_--_---______-_-___ ____-_--______________________
0.540
0.645
0.829
0.000
0.000
0.087,:
~:_-
:
:
0.901
0.858
0.731
0.901 0.000
0.858, 0.000
0.812 0.081":
1
KD I 0.688 0.741 0.054 I 0.679 0.735 0.056 I

PH: 0.861 0.926 0.065 t.: 0.865 '0.926 0.061 t. :
.................................. :••......••...••.......•......• :••......•.•.........•........... :
AHSTERDAK Hi @57TH Sf. AM: 0.749 0.772 0.023 : 0.703 0.722 0.019 I
HD: 0.856 0.880 0.024 t.: 0.830 0.854 0.024 to :
. PH: 0.964 0.980 0.016 t_ I ,0.934 0.956 0.022 t. :
------.----.-.-------------------af-·-------~-------··~-----·
57TH ST. EB @ AIISTERIWI All I 0.650 0.658 O.OOB ... ::·&·---------------
0.757 0.772--------------f
0.015 :
HD: 0.5800.595 0.015 I 0.638 0.653 0.015 :
PH: 0.708 0.719 0.011 I 0.780 0.800 0.020
, - - - - - - - - - - - - . . -1 ....___________ Mw-.. _______OIIII'iii: -a. .-----------------------f
57TH ST. WB @ lIKSTEIIDAII All: 0.606 0.642 0.03& : 0.638 0.680 0.042 :
HD I 0.610 0.641 0.031 : 0.659 0.690 0.031 I
'": 0.630 0.661 0.031 : 0.673 0.705 0.032 :
.................................. , ••••••••••••••••••••••........ I a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t
COLDHBUS sa @ 57TH ST. AM: 0.980 1.003 0.023 t.: 0.985 1.008 0.023 t. :
KD: 0.871 0.894 0.023 . . : 0.875 0.898 0.023 •• :
----------------·1------
57TH Sf. EB @ COUlMBllS
PB I
'All I
KD :
0.804
1.0301.047
0.825.
0.906 . 0.927
0.021
-t.:
0.017
0.021 •• I
:
1 -1.059
- - - 1.08Z
0.808
- ---- 0.023
0.922
0.825
0.937
0.017 :
t. I
0.015 •• :
I
PB: 1.030 1.056 0.02& •• : 1.053 1.073 0.020 •• :
__________•_______________'1 -1--------------------------1
57TH Sf. WI I CDLUHBUS IN: 0.547 0.582 0.035 : 0.547 0.58Z 0.035 I
MD: 0.482 0.506 0.024 I 0.482 0.506 0.024
PB: 0.586 0.609 0.023 I 0.586 0.609 0.023 I
.................................. :.............................. :································1

ITIl AVE.HB • 57Ti1 ST All: 0.47. 0.... 0.010 I 0.471 0.4'4 0.013 I
MD I 0.5&7 0.574 0.007 : 0~563 0.571 0.008
0~638
57TH Sf.EB
--------.. . -----1--------..·. ---------_·-"---; --"-'. ._'-------..-------..----:
@ 8TH AVE
PB
AM I
: 0.631
0.787
0.642
0.805
0.011
0.01' :
: 0.626
0.814 0.832
0.012
0.018 :
I
HD : 0.690 0.70& 0.016 : 0.702 0.718 0.016 :
-------------·----1--------------.
St.w e
57TH ITB AVE
PH:
All I
..... 0.836
0.904
0.857
D.933
0.021 .. I
------------1
------1·
0.029 •• : 0.029 •• :
0.'54
0.904
0.815
··--.....
0.933
0.021 •• :
MD : 0.921 0.949 0.OZ2 •• : 0.022 •• : 0.921 0.949

PIt I 1.004 1.0il 0.aZ4 i.: a.aZt •• : 1.0a4 1.021
................................ ~! •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• f ••••••••••• i •••••••••••••••••••• !
II.J-113
K. AIR QUALITY
Introduction
This section identifies and quantifies all the significant air quality
impacts predicted to occur from the operation of the proposed project. The
potential for significant effects may result from emissions generated during
construction of the project and from stationary sources on the project site ~
emissions from on-site heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems,
emissions from motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site (mobile
sources), and from changes in flow characteristics due to the effect of proj-
ect's structures on the emissions from the Con Edison's West 59th Street gener-
ating facility (stationary source). Potential air quality impacts during con-
struction are described below in section II.R.
pollutants for Analysis
In New York City, ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide, ozone, and

lead are predominantly influenced by mobile source emissions; emissions o'f
nitrogen oxides and inhalable particulate coine from both mobile and stationary
sources; emissions of sulfur dioxide are associated mainly with stationary
sources.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is produced from the incomplete combUstion of gaso-

line and other fossil fuels. In New York City, about 80 percent of carbon mon-
oxide emissions are from motor vehicles. Carbon monoxide concentrations can
vary greatly over relatively short .distances. Elevated concentrations are
usually limited to locations near crowded intersections, along heavily trave1eG
and congested roadways, and area~ where dispersion is inhibited by urban
"street canyon" conditions. Consequently, it is important to predict concen-
trations of carbon monoxide on a localized or microscale basis .
. The project would increase traffic volwnes on streets'within the primary

and extended study areas and could therefore result in localized increases in
carbon monoxide levels. Emissions from on-site parking garages and from the
venting of the Amtrak tunnel that would pass beneath the site's eastern bound w
ary, and the manner in which these pollutants combine with emissions from vehi~
cles on adjacent streets, also require analyses.
Ni.tr.ogen Oxides and OZ.one.
Nitrogen oxides are of concern because of their role as precursors in the

formatdon of ozone. There is also a standard for average annual NO z concentra-
tions, which is normally examined only for large fossil fuelenerg.y sources.
Ozone is formed through a series of reactions that take place in the atmosphere
in the presence of sunlight. Because the reactions are slow and occur as the
pollutants are diffusingdownwind elevated ozone levels are often. found many
j
miles from sources bf the precursor ~ollutants. The effaces of nitrogen oxide
emissions from mobile sources are therefore generally examined on a regional
II.K-l
· .
basis. The change in regional mobi~e source emissions of these pollutants is
related to the total number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel
throughout the New York metropolitan area. The proposed project would not have
a significant effect on the overall volume of vehicular travel in the metrop-
olitan area. It would not, therefore, have any measurable impact on regional
nitrogen o~ide emissions or on ozone levels, and a macrosca1e analysis is not
warranted.
Stationary sources such as the 59th Street Con Edison plant and the poten-
tial boilers of the proposed project can have high nitrogen oxide emissions
(primarily nitrogen o~ide and nitrogen dioxide). Therefore, analyses of im-
pacts from the proj ect' s potential boilers and' the effe'ct of the proposed proj-
ect,s buildings on the dispersion of the plumes from the Con Edison stacks, and
the resulting changes in nitrogen dioxide levels at ground level' and elevated
receptors on tl:te project site and in the surrounding community, are required
and are presented in this chapter.
Lead emissions are principally associated.with industrial sources and

motor vehicles that Use gasoline containing lead additives. Most U.S. vehicles
prodUced since 1975, and all produced after 1980, are designed to use unleaded
fuel. As these newer vehicles have replaced the older ones, motor-vehic1e-
related lead emissions have decreased. As a result, ambient concentrations of
. lead have declined significantiy. Nationally, the average measured atmospheric
lead level in 1985 was only about one-quarter the level in 197~.
In 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new

rules drastically reducing the amount of lead permitted in leaded gasoline.
The maximum allowable lead level in leaded gasoline was reduced from the previ-
ous limit of 1.1 grams per gallon to 0.5 grams per gallon effective July 1,
1985, and to 0.1 grams per gallon effective January 1, 1986. Monitoring re-
sults indicate that this action has been effective in s.ignificant1y reducing
atmospheric lead levels. Even at locations in the New York City area where
traffic volumes are very high, atmospheric lead concentrations are far below
the national standard of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (three-month average).
Inha1ab1e Particulat.e.s- - 1'1110
Particulate matter is emitted into the atmosphere from a variety of

sources: industrial facilities, power plants, construction activity, etc.
Gasoline-powered vehicles do not produce any significant quantities of particu-
late emissions. Diesel-powered vehicles, especially heavy trucks and buses, do
emit particulates; and inha1ab1e particulate concentrations may, therefore, be
locally elevated near roadways with high volumes of heavy diesel-powered vehi-
cles. With respect to particulates, the primarY concern is with' those particu-
lates that are less than 10 ~m in diameter (PM10 ) and therefore irihalAb1e. Air
quality monitoring indicates that iriha1able particulate annual average concen-
trations in Manhatean are at or slightly above the national primary standard,
which accounts for health effects. Mobile sources associated with the project
would not emit any significant quanti~ies of particulates. HoweVer, analyses
of potential impacts from PMlO emitted by the Con Edison plant and the boilers
of the proposed project are required and are presented in this section.
'II .K-2
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions are primarily associated with the combus-
tion of sulfur-containing fuels: oil and coal. No significant quantities are
emitted from mobile sources. Monitored sulfur dioxide concentrations in Man-
hattan are well below the national standards. Analyses of potential impacts
from S02 emitted by the Con Edison plant and the boilers of the proposed proj5
aGe are required and are presented in this section.
Summary
The areas of potentially significant air quality impacts from the pr~posed
proj~ct that require detailed air quality analysis are the following:
o Effects of the proposed project on CO concentrations from increased

traffic generated by the proposed development, including concentra-
tionson new streets within the project site, and at locations within
the proposed park;
o Emissions from parking garages and Amtrak tunnel within the project
site;
o Potential on- and off-site stationary source impacts of the proposed

project (for sulfur dioxide, PM10 ' and nitrogen dioxide), including
(a) the impacts from the plumes of the adjacent West 59th Street Con
Edi~on facility on project buildings; (b) the effect of the project's
buildings on the dispersion of the West 59th Street facility's plumes
in the surrounding neighborhood; and (c) on- and off-site impacts due
to the project boilers' exhausts combined with the calculated impacts
from the West 59th Street facility's plumes. .
o Effects on the CO emissions exiting the relocated Miller Highway

adjacent to the proposed park.
Air. Quality Standards
As required by the Clean Air Act, primary and secondary National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six major air pollut-
ants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, inha1able particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide, and lead. (Hydrocarbon standards have been rescinded because
these pollutants are primarily of concern only in their role as ozone precur-
sors.) Table II.K-1 shows the standards for these pollutants. These standards
have also been adopted as the ambient air quality standards for the State of
New York. ~e primary standards protect the public health, and represent
levels at which there are no known significant effects on hUinan health. The
secondary standards are intended to protect the nation's welfare; and account
for air pollutant effects on soil, waeer, visibility; materials, vegetation,
and other aspects of the environment. For carbon monoxide; nitrogen dioxide;
ozone. and 1nhalable particulates; the primary and secofida~y standards are the
same,
n.x-)
Table I1.1:-1
NATIONAL AND MEV YOU STATE AKBIENT AIIl QUALITY STANDARDS
Micrograms Kicrograms
Per CUbic Per CUbiC
Pollutant Keeer Kater
Carbon· Motl6Xide
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration· 9 9
Maximum l·Hour Concetltracion~ 35 35
Lead
Maximum Arithmetic Mean AVer- 1.5
aged OVer 3 Consecutive Months
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual Arithmetic Average 0.05 100 0.05 100
Ozone
I-Hour Maximum 0.12 235 0.12 235
Inhalable Particulates (PM10 )

Annual Geometric Mean 50
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration· . 150
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0,0:3 80
Maximum 24·Hour Concentration W 0.14 365
Maximum 3-Hour ConcentrationW 0.50 1,300
Rotes:
•W Not ~o be exceeded more than once a year.
S~ces: 40 erR :part 50 _.. National Primary ang Secondary Ambient Air Quali ~y
Standards 40 erR 50.12 iiNatl.onal Primary and Secondary Standard for
Lead; ii 43 CFtt 46245
II.K-4
State Implementation .Plan -<SIP,)
The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977 and 1990, requires each state to
demonstrate .in a state implementation plan (SIP) the.manner in which it will
attain the NAAQS. The 1,990 AnIendments are structured to revise a state's ex-
isting SIP by adding and/or updating specific programs or requirements. A
state continues to be obligated to all exist~ng SIP commitments until it shows
an acceptable sUbstitution. In the New York metropolitan area, the national
standard for ozone and the 8-hour average carbon monoxide standard continue to
be exceeded. (No violations of the I-hour average carbon monOXide standard
have been recorded for many years.) A continuing element of the New York's slp
is an ongoing effort to identify and mitigate "hot spots" -- locations with
elevated carbon monoxide levels. Various transportation and air quality model-
ing efforts by the city have identified many sites within the city with poten-
tial violations of the CO standard. The city has committed itself to a variety
of areawide (vehicle inspection and maintenance, increased traffic enforcemenc,
etc.) and site-specific measures to reduce carbon monoxide levels and eliminate
hot spots. As mandated by the 1990 Amendments, the city is preparing the SlP
revisions to demonstrate how the CO NAAQS will be met py December 1995.
In addition to the NAAQS, there are de minimis criteria to assess the

significance of impacts on air quality that would result from a proposed devel-
opment. These set the minimum change in carbon monoxide concentration that
defines a significant environmental impact. Thus, significant impacts are
defined as: (1) an increase of O.,? ppm or more in the maximum 8-hour average
carbon monoxide concentration at a location where the predicted No Build 8-hour
concentration is equal to or above 8 ppm or (2) an increase of more than half
the difference between baseline concentrations and the 8-hour standard, \<Then No
Build concentrations are below 8.0 ppm.
To compare estimated carbon monox.ide concentrations with the national and

state ambient air quality standards for car~on monoxide (which are based on l-
and 8-hour averages of carbon monoxide concentrations), estimates of inaxi~um
concentrations for these same periods must be prepared.
Hethodology for PredicttDg Pollutant Concentrations from HObile Sources
The prediction of motor-vehicle-generated carbon monoxide concentrations

in an urban environment characterized by meteorological phenomena, traffic
conditions, and physical configurations is·a challenging problem. The rate at
which carbon monoxide mixes with the air and becomes dispersed is a subject of·
considerable research, debate, and investigation among air quality analysts.
Air pollutant dispersion models simulate mathematically how traffic, mete-

orology, and geometry combine to affect pollutant concentrations. The mathe-
maefcal expressions and formulations that c:omprisethe various models attempt
to describe an extremely complex physical phenomenon as closely as possible.
it.K-5
However, because all models contain. simplifications. and approximations of actu-
al conditions and interactions, and' because a worst-case condition is of mos~
interest, most of these dispersion models are conservative and tend to over-
predict pollutant concentrations, particularly under ~dverse meteorological
conditions.
The carbon monoxide analysis 'for the proposed project has employed a mod-
eling approach approved by EPA that has been widely used for evaluating air
quality impacts of projects in New York City, New York State, and throughout
the country. This approach yields conservative estimates of carbon monoxide
concentrations and resulting air quality impacts caused by the project. The
following section presents a summary of the assessment methodologies used ,to
analyze the impacts of the proposed project associated with (a) vehicular.emis-
sions on local streets on and off the project site;' and (b) emissions from .
vents from on-site project garages and the forced air ventilation system for
the Amtrak tunnel.
Dispersion MO.deTs..foI. MicI.o.s.cale. Analyses
To determine motor-vehicle-generated carbon monoxide concentrations adja-

cent to city streets and highways, the applicability of three dispersion models
-- the HIWAY-2 model, the APRAC-lA street canyon model, and the cANNY model
Was considered .
. In most cases, maximum 1- and 8-hour carbon monoxide concentrations were'

determined us~ng the HIWAY-2 model developed by the EPA (User's Guide for
HIWAY-2, A Highway Air Pollutions Model, Publication No. EPA-600/8-80-0l8,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina). The HIWAY-2 model is a Gaussian model
deVeloped by EPA for predicting carbon monoxide concentrat~ons along roadway
segment~. Gaussian models assume that the dispersion of pollutants downwind of
a pollution source follow a Gaussian (or normal) distribution. In making esti-
mates of pollutant concentrations for an at-grade roadway or city street, emis-
sions are considered to be equivalent to a series of finite line sources. Each
lane of traffic is modeled as though it were a straight, continuous finite line
source with a uniform emission rate. Carbon monoxide concentrations downwind
are found by numerical integration along the line source of a simple Gaussian
point-source plume.
The HIWAY-2 model is an approved EPA.state-of-the-art dispersion model

that has been widely used for evaluating carbon monoxide concentrations caused
by mobile sources throughout the country. As such, it represents the current
state-of-the-art in the field.
In situations where shallow canyons are created by buildings on both sides

of a street, the Stanford Research Institute APRAC-lA street canyon model
(User's Manual for the APRAC-'1A Diffusion Model COlliputer Program, Publication
No. EPA-650/3~73-00l, Ann Arbor, Michigan) was also applied. Where shallo'W
canyons were identified, a screening analysis 'Was performed (see discussion
later on in this section). The results. from the model predicting the highes~
projected concentrations 'Were reported in che impacc analyses.
The APRAG-IA model (APRAC) is a semi-empirical model, specifically devel-

oped to calculate poltut:an~ COficencrations at recepeor sites' Within urban.
areas; incluaingshallow street canyons (i.e., canyons where the ratio of
11.1<-6
buildirtg height to facade-to-facade. width is betweert 0.7 and 1.'5). This model
calculates pollutant concerttrations withirt art urban street cartyon for wirtds
either leeward, wirtdward, or parallel to the street axis. Maximum predicted
concentrations at ground level are usually found ass~ing a leeward wind.
In situations where deep canyorts are created by buildings ort both sides of
a street, the New York City Department of Env.ironmenta1 Protection (DEP)-devel-
oped CANNY model is usually applied. This model uses parameters artd equations
derived from experimental and field studies to simulate pollutant dispersion
Urtder deep canyon conditions. The model has been validated for use in Manhat-
tan where canyon street aspect ratios (i.e., the ratio of aver-age building
height to street width) are 2.0 or more. Where the canyon street aspect ratio
is between 1.5 and 2.0, the decision regarding canyort type is made ort a case-
by-case basis. No deep cartyon would be created on the project site.
A screerting analysis of the maximum potential incremertta1 increase irt CO

concentrations from the project-gerterated traffic at both deep canyort and shal-
low canyon sites in both the primary and extended study area'was performed.
the screening analyses demonstrated that the project did not have the poterttial
for any significartt impacts at these locations (see Appendix C).
Worst-Case Mete.oro1ogica1 Condi.tions
In general, the transport artd concentration of pollutants from ve~i~ular

sources are influenced by three principa1.meteoro1ogical factors: wind direc-
~iort, wind speed, ,and atmospheric stability.
Wirtd direction influences the accumu1ation·of pollutants at a particular

receptor 1Qcation. Wirtd direction was chosen to ,maximize pollutant concerttra-
tions at each of the predictiort sites. tn applying the HIWAY-2 model, the wind
angle was varied to determine the worst-case wind direction resultirtg in the
maximum cortcentrations.
Following the recommertdations contained in the EPA-developed indirect

source review procedures (Guidelines for Air Qualiry Planning and AnalYSis,
Volume 9 (Revised): Evaluaring Indirecr,Sources, ~ub1ication No. EPA-450/4-
78-001, Research Triangle Park, North Caro1ina)-, carbon monoxide computations
were performed using a wirtd speed of 1 meter/second, stability class D, and a
persistertce factor of 0.7 for ~he 8-hour period. tn addition, to be cortserva-
tive,.· a 30 Fahrenheit ambient temperature was assumed for the emissions COinpU-
0
t.atiorts. At each receptor location, the wind angle that maximized the pollut-
artt concentrations was used in the analysis regardless of frequertcy of
occurrence.
Generally, low wirtd speeds limit the disp.ersion of emitt~d pollutants from
highway sources and increase downwind concentrations. Higher win~ speeds in-
crease dispersion and decrease pollutant concentrations. All predictiorts were
made assuming low wind speed conditions.
Stability is a measure of atmospheric turbulence. 1£ the atmosphere is

stable, little vertical mixing of pollutants at d.ifferent altitudes occurs and
pollutant concentrations tend to increase. Conversely, under unstable atmos-
pheric conditions, vertical mixing of pollutants is enhanced and resultant
grotind-level concentrations tend to decrease. Generally, the atmosphere in
. II.K-7
urban environments tends ·to be relatively unstable because of increased mechan-
ical and thermal turbulence caused by the roughness of the urban terrain and
other factors. All predictions were made assuming neutral atmospheric
condi tions .
Analysis Year.s
The carbon monoxide microsca1e analysis was performed for three years --
1991, to determine eXisting conditions; 1997, the year of completion for Phase
I of the project; and 2002, the Phase II year of completion. The 1997 and 2002
analyses were done both without (the No Build) and with the proposed project
(Build). In later years, because of federally mandated vehicular emission
reduction requirements along with vehicle turnover, carbon monoxide concentra~
tions are expected to decrease.
V_ehic1e Emissions nata
To predict ambient concentrations of pollutants generated by vehicular

traffic, emissions from vehicle exhaust systems must-be estimated accurately.
Vehicular emissions were computed using the EPA-developed Mobile Source Emis-
sions Model, MOBILE4.1, (User's Guide to Mobile 4.1: Mobile Source Emission
Factor Model, Publication EPA-AA-TEB-9l-01, July 1991, Ann Arbor, Michigan).
Emission estimates were made for seven classes of motor vehicles:
0 Light-duty, gasoline-powered automobiles,
0 Light. duty , gaso1ine-pow~red fleet medallion taxis,
0 Light-duty, gasoline-powered non-fleet medallion taxis,
0 Light-duty, gasoline-powered non-medallion taxis,
Light-duty, gasoline-powered trucks,

,
0
0 Heavy-duty, gasoline-powered trucks, and
0 Heavy-duty, diesel-powered vehicles.
No light-duty diesel-power~d vehicles (automobiles and taxis), light-duty

diesel-powered trucks, and motorcycles were.assumed. In the case of motorcy-
cles, the number of such vehicles on any street is generally small. In the
case of diesel-powered vehicles, emissions from a comparable class of gaso1ine-
powered vehicles were included. Carbon monoxide emissions from the gasoline-
powere~ vehicles are higher than the comparable diesel-powered vehicle emis-
sions, and thus yield conservative estimates of total composite emissions and
concentrations. No creaits for the use of·oxygenated fuel. in th~ future were
taken in these analyses.
Emission estimates were based on implementation of the New York State auto
and light-duty gasoline-powered truck inspection and maintenance (I&M) program
begun in January 1982 and the taxi 16M program begun in October 1977. The I&M
prolram requires annual inspections of automobiles and light trucks to aeter-
mine if carbon monoxide ana hydrocarbon emissions from the vehicles' exhaust
systems ate below strict emission standards. Vehicles failing the emissions .
ILK-8 .
test must undergo maintenance and p~ss a re-test to be registered in New 'York
State.
Heavy-duty vehicle emission estimates' reflect local' engine displacement

and vehicle loading characteristics. Light-duty truck' emissions were based on
an assumed 73 percent-27 percent 'split between trucks weighing less than 6,000
pounds and trucks weighing 6,000 to 8,500 pounds. These data were obtained
from DEP and are based on vehicle registration data.
For automobiles and light-duty gasoline-powered trucks, emission estimates

account for three possible vehicle operating conditions: cold-vehicle opera-
tion, hot-start operation, and hot-stabilized operation. It is important to
distinguish between these three operating categories, because vehicles emit
carbon monoxide at different rates depending on whether they are cold or warmed
up. Cold vehicles emit higher emissions th~n hot vehicles. All taxis Were
assumed to be operating in a hot-stabilized mode; all arriving project-gener-
ated autos were assumed to be operating in a hot-stabilized mode; and all de-
parting project-gen~rated autos were assumed to be operating in a cold mode.
Auto operating conditions used in the eXisting and future No Build emission
calculations were obtained from data supplied by DEP (Report No. 34 Revised),
and thermal state surveys performed for this stUdy and the Route 9A Reconstruc-
tion Project. In addition, vehicular traffic in the No Build and Build sc~nar~
ios generated from six proposed future developments -- the Roosevelt Hospital,
West 60th Street Rezoning Project, Columbus Center, Capital Cities/ABC projecc,
Manhattan West, and Brodsky East sites -- was distinguished in the emissions
. calculations for the primary 'study area (i.e., emissions for traffic depart-
ing/arriving to each respective development site were calculated following the
same methodology employed for the proposed project's generated traffic in the
primary study area). Light-duty truck operating conditions 'Were based on data
supplied by the Tri-State Regional Planning Association for Manhattan. Table
n.K-2 summarizes these conditions and the values .obtained from thermal state
surveys.
AUc() thermal state surveys were performed at the follo'Wing locations and
time periods:
o 57.thStreet and Columbus Av.enue - - Surveys were performed in the AM

peak hour in November 1990 for the Trump City DElS.
o C.olumbus Av.enue... Broadway. and 65th S.tr.e.e.t -- Survey data were col-
lected for the Route 9A Reconstruction Proj ect at these locations £o.r
the AM and PM peak hours in the fall of 1989. Survey data for 65eh
Street east of Columbus Avenue 'Were applied for 65th Streee fr()m
Columbus Avenue to "Fifth Avenue.
o Twelfth Av.enue, 57th Street, .and .55.th .Street Surveys 'Were per-
formed for this study at these locations in the PM peak hour in the
summer of 1991.
o Elevtnth Avenua/.51.th....s..tieet and 42nd.....S.ttee.t/Twelfth Av.e.nue. - - Surveys

were performed for this study at the critical approaches to these
intersections in the PM peak hour in the spring of 1992,'
11.1<-9
Table ILK-2·
EXISTING TRAFFIC VEHIClJ: OPERA'rING CONDITIONS REGIONAL vAUfEs
Aut.os (X Co1d) ~
Hidtgyp Uptown Valley DD-im);own .
AM Peak 6.1 22.8 16.9 3.1
PM Peak 27.6 26.3 29.7 20.8
Light-Duty Gaso~ine Trucks ex Cold)

: 4.1% in all areas and time pe~iods
VALDES AT SURVEYED LOCATIONS

....Autos '% Cold)
B.oadvay S.egment .. __ . _ ---.AH trK
Columbus Avenue north of 65th Street 25 24
Columbus Avenue south of 65th Street 22 24
Broadway southbound north of 65th Street 14 21
Broadway southbound south of 65th Street 18. :n
Broadway northbound near 65th Street 17 25
65th Street west of Broadway 10 23
65th Street east of Broadway (to Fifth Avenue) 15 23
57th Street westbound at Eleventh AVenue N~ 32

57th Street westbound at Twelfth Avenue NA 57
57th Street eastbound at ~est End Avenue NA 12
Twelfth Avenue northbound at 55th Street NA 11
Twelfth Avenue northbound (Main) at 57th seree~ NA 15
Twelfth Avenue northbound (Svc) at 57th Stree~ NA 12
Twelfth Avenue northbound (Svc) above 57~h Street NA 31
Miller Highway northbound NA 23
Eleventh Avenue northbound at 57th Street NA 40
Twelfth Ayertue northbound at 42nd Stree.t NA 21
42nd Street westbound at Twelfth Avenue ·NA 38
57th Street westbound at Columbus Avenue 16 NA

57th Street eastbound at Columbus Avenue 10 NA
. Columbus Avenue at 57th Stree~ 22 NA
1velfth AvenuelWest.Corridor --.AutOS (I Cold)

B.oaduy Segmept AX .-PH
Southbound:
Miller HighwaY-55th Street: 0 0
Service Road (59th-55th Streets) NA NA
55th-53rd Street 7 2
53rd-·34th Street 7 15
34th Street 7 15
34th-Chambers Street 8 16
Chambers Street 7 3
Chambers-Vesey Street 7 4
South of Vesey Street 15 17
II.K-10
Table ·~I.K-2 (Continued)
EXISTING TRAFFIC VEHICLE OPERATING CONDITIONS
TXelfth Avenue/iest Corridor. (C.C'iltCtp,ued) . ~utps (S Cold)

Roadway. Semen,. ----.AH --.PH
Northbound:
57th-55th Streets 14 14
55th-53rd Streets 14 11
53rd-34th Street 14 21
34th Street 13 13
. 34th-Chambers Street 13 18
Chambers Street 6 18
South of Vesey Street 4 18
Approaches to Twelfth. Avenue in. E%Unded Smdy Area Autos ,% Cold)

. Roadvn Segment All --.PH
Westbound:
42nd Street 8 38
34th Street 22 26
Chambers Street: 8 8
Chambers~Vesey Street 7 8
South of ·Vesey sereet 7 2i
Eastbound:
42nd Street 8 14
34th Street 8 14
Chambers Street 7· 13
,South gf Vesey Street 7 21
Rotes:
* Midtown: 34th co 60th Street; Uptown: north of 60th Streee;.
Valley: 34th to Canal Streee; Downtown: SQuth of Canal Street.
NA Survey data not: available for these periods. Corresponding &s-

gional Values are used instead.
U.K-ll
o Twelfth Avenue/West S.tr.ee.t Corridor - - Survey data were collected at
the 34th Street/TWelfth Avenue and Chambers StreetjWest Street inter~
sections in connection with the Route 9A Study by the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) in 1989: These data were used
to establish auto thermal states on Twelfth AvenuejWest Street and
the westbound cross street approaches and eastbound cross street de-
parture links to this corridor in the extended study area, except for
locations where surveys were performed for this study. The thermal
states for vehicles traveling north on the Miller Highway were as-
sumed to be the same as vehicles heading north above 57th Street.
Autos traveling south on the Miller Highway were assumed to be all
hot stabilized.
Except for the analyses at the above locations and corresponding time
periods, the auto thermal states of the existing traffic for the air quality
analyses in the primary and extended study areas were based on DEP's Report No.
34 data.
Traffic Data
Traffic data for the air quality analysis were derived from traffic counts
and other information developed as part of the project's traffic analysis de-
scribed in section 11.J, above. For the air quality analysis, the AM and PM
periods Were subjected to full-scale microscale analysis using AM and PM peak
traffic data. These time periods were selected for the mobile source analysis
, because almost all the project-generated significant traffic impacts in the
primary study area from Phase I (see Table II.J-39) and full build-out (see
Table 11.J -51) and in the extended study area (see Tables II.J -40 and II.J -53)
would occur in these time periods. The incremental 8-hour average ·carbon mon-
oxide impacts from the project-generated traffic in the AM and PM peak periods
would all be below de minimis threshold levels in,the primary and extended
study areas. The amount of project-generated traffic would be much more exten- >t
sive in the AM and PM periods compared with those predicted for the midday
period. therefore, no significant air quality impacts would have been calcu-
lated utilizing midday traffic data. Because base traffic volumes and project-
I
generated traffic would be less on Saturday than during the weekday peak peri a
ods analyzed, incremental increases in CO concentrations due to the project
would also be less. Hence, no Saturday traffic or air quality analyses were
performed.
The peak 8-hour concentrations were determined by applying a persistence

factor of 0.7 to the maximum predicted 1-hour local impact values. this per-
sistence factor takes account of the fact that over eight hours, vehicle vol-
umes will fluctuate downward from the peak, speeds may vary, and wind direc-
tions and·speeds will change somewhat as compared with the conserva~ive assump-
tions used for the single highes~ hour.
Background concentrations are those pollutant concentrations not directly

accounted for ~hrough the modeling analysis (which directly accounts for vehic~
u1ar-generated emissions on the streets Within 1;600 feet and 1ine-of-sigh~ of
the receptor location). Background concentrations must be added to modeling
results to obtain total pollutant concentrations at a prediction site.
One-hour average carbon monoxide b.ackground concentrations used in. thi,s
analysis were B.2, 5.6, and 5.3 parts per million (ppm) for the 1991, 1997, and
2002 predictions, respectively. Eight-hour average carbon monoxide background
concentrations used in this analysis were 4.3, 2.9, a~d 2.B ppm for the 1991,
1997, and 2002 predictions, respectively. These values obtained from DEP are
based on carbon monoxide concentrations measured in 1990 at New'York State De-
partment of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) monitoring stations and are ad-
justed to reflect the reduced vehicular emissions expected in the analysis
years. For purposes of this adjustment, based on EPA concurrence, it was as-
sumed that 20 percent of the background value is caused by non-highway emis-
sions that have remained relatively unchanged with time and that BO percent of
the background value is caused by mobile sources that decrease with time. This
decrease reflects the increasing numbers of federally mandated lower-emission
vehicles that are projected to enter the vehicle fleet as older, higher pollut-
ing vehicles are retired (i.e., vehicle turnover), and the continuing benefits
of the New York 16M program.
Mobile Source Receptor Locations in Primary and_ Extended Study Areas'
. Because of the amount of project-generated traffic assigned beyond the

boundaries of the primary study area, "extended study area" analyses were per-
formed for both traffic and air quality. As discussed in more detail later in
this section (see Extended Study Area l.ocations),the geographic extent of the
extended study area air quality analysis was determined by a multistep screen-
i~g procedure that followed the project traffic until those volumes were no
longer sufficient to create a significant adverse air quality impact under New
York City de minimis guidelines. Where the potential for significant impacts
was identified, de'tailed air quality analyses were performed .
. Primary Study Are~ Receptor Locations
The primary study area extends from 55th to 79th Street and from.Central
Park West to the Hudson River. 'Recep~or sites in the primary study area, ex-
ternal to the project site, are shown in: Figure tt.K-l. Receptor sites were
placed on streets next to the project site, major feeders to the project site,
and congested streets in the primary stUdy area.
These receptor sites were selected because they are the locations where
the greatest air quality impacts and maximum changes in the carbon monoxide
concentrations would be expected. They are locations where the largest levels
of project-generated traffic are expected and. overall constrained traffic con-
ditions exist. A listing of the receptor locations in the primary study area,
external to the project site, is provided in Table I1.K-3. Several receptors
were placed at these intersections to model the various sidewalk locations. tn
"the °1997 and 2002 Build scenarios, additional receptors were. analyzed at the
Rive~side Drive extension intersections with 66th and 72nd S~reets (sites 15
and 14, respectively), in addition to two receptors that were placed at ground
level· in the park 15 feet east of the existing e'levated Miller Highway (sites
16 and 17). Of these four sites, only site 14A is currently accessible to the
public. The remainder of these four sites are at elevated locations above the
existing project site grade. therefore, background pollutant levels are re-
ported later in the text at sites 15 to 17 for che existing and No Build condi·
tions, while microscale modeling results at sice l4A are reported for this
location under existing and No Build. eonditions.
II.K-13
RIVERSIDE , Air Quality Mobile Sources Receptor Locations
SOUTH
, in the Primary Study Area
- . , ' Figure II.K-1
\ I I \ \ L-J Lw. 75TH ST. --.-J I I
\ =~ I I \ \ U 7~THST.=-oJ I[w. I
\ -- I I -\ \ \J I[W.73RDST.=-oJ -I
.. cQ ~ ~ \fD &; II I
_ W. 72ND ST.
r FI!P!!r--~.~fD~ I[ -=oJ
• ~==~
I
I W. 71ST ST.
I
\ II 1\\ I, lW,70THST,=-oJ
.tl~ ~\\
\\
\\~
D,
D"~u
I [W69THsr.=:J
I CSHTHST=-oJ
C,S7THST,=-oJ
~:.,~LS,.:
~
e,::
m I[
l.66THST\\~
=a'1 ~ I
Ie?
=~====::: m- W. 65TH ST. -
\ td I J 'I \CW.64THST.J
J~
~
1
"
' UNCOLN
~R
,
~\
\ \
\W. 63RD ST. !
1\, ,D\\ I~
~ ~ ~D \DI'
".~~ W'61srsrll~il
:. W.62NDST.___
• l~lw.60THST'_' 18 0-- . \\\1"

' \J
C
----- "~G)
I/)
0 .
.i. --
'W.S9THST.=-:=J
iL--S~ I~----,~~~
r----------,<
I~[ -
< W. 58TH ST.
=:J~
< ...--_ _--,
6 C
• e~~\ ... I-
GiJ~bD
w. 57TH ST.
I~D ~
::z:::
~~I.tr.r.'II~-I!!P.I~~pr;'S\ eq ~ -~ pI! I~D \

\\\~ J I \\\ I [W.56THST.~ I I '\
~\ w. 55TH ST. r---
lI~fD I I 1\,. I [ WJ4THSL

=::J I I~_
DE wrrr I _ \\\ [=:J I ;::L===
JI L
~
CliNTON --- --- r: w. 5aROjIT,
\ PARK I
.
\1\J lW.52NgST.~I
-
, __ _
--
I 1I - iiI 1 I I 1 "'-1-
o 1000FEIIT _
L _ I
.. _ - - Project Site Boundary , $CAl,.E
CD Air Quality Mobile Sources Receptor Location
j.92 . . . . . . ._ _ _ _ _iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_ _ _ _ _....._ _ _ _ _ _Illliliiiii_ _ _ __

Ta.ble II.K-3
HOB:rl.E soUlteR RECEPTOR. LOCATIONS IN PRIMARY STUDY AREA
hc:eptor Site.a " Location
lA-D West End Avenue and 72nd Street

2A-F Amsterdam Avenue, Broadway, and 72nd Street
3A-D Columbus Avenue, Broadway, and 66th Street
4A-D Columbus Avenue, Broadway, and 65th Street
5A-D West End Avenue and 66th Street
6A-C West End Avenue and 65th Street
7A-D West End Avenue and 64th Street
SA-C West End Avenue and 6lst Street
9A-i> West End Avenue and 59th Street
'lOA-D Twelfth Avenue (57th-55th Streets)
llA-D 57th Street and West End Avenue
l2A-D 57th Street and Amsterdam Avenue
13A-D 57th Street and Columbus Avenue
14A-C 72nd Street and new Riverside Drive extension
15A-D 66th Street and new Riverside Drive extension
16 New park 'near 72nd Street
17 New park across from 66th Street '
Extended, .S,tudy_ Area locations
To identify locations of potential significant air quality impacts in the

extended study area, a screening procedure Was developed to conservatively
identify all locations where project-related traffic could potentially increase
local CO concentrations by 0.5 ppm or more :-- the smallest de minimis increase
in CO concentrations us~d to define a significant impact. Minimum vehicle
criteria (MVC) thresholds were established to determine the volume of project
vehicles below which no significant air quality impacts could occur., MVC were
developed for different roadway configurations, and were dependent on whether
the project-generated traffic was departing from or arriving at the project
site. Appendix C.l provides the extensive procedures and calculations per-
formed to generate the MVC. At locations in the extended stUdy area where the
proj ect' s incremental traffic would be gre"ater than the corresponding MVC, a
second-level screening analysis was performed. This consisted of calCUlating
the incremental carbon monoxide emissions predicted at these locations by uti-
lizing a conservative assumption that this increase in carbon monoxide emis-
sions would occur over a segment of 1,600 feet from'the extended area analysis
location. This is a conservative estimate, since maximUlD incremental carbon
monoxide emissions are usually only calculated for a Significantly shorter
distance when full microscale modeling is performed.
Locations that failed the second-level screen (i.e., showed the potential
to have an S-hour carbon monoxide incremental impact greater than 0.5 parts per
million in either 1997 at' 2002) were then subjected. to a third-l~vel screening
analysis. This consisted of modeling all distinct street s~gments within at
least 800 feet of the intersection pf c~mcern, .and extending the carbon mon~x
ide emissions for the last street segments to 1,600 feet from the analysis
location in the air quality modeling. Receptor sites were placed at all four
corners of these intersections under third-level scre~ning analysis. Eight-
hour persistence factors, carbon monoxide background concentrations, and ambi-
ent temperatures that were utilized for the full-scale mobile source modeling
were also included in this third-level screening analysis. Auto thermal states
. reported in Table II.K-2 were employed for the second- and third-level screen-
ing analysis sites in the extended study area.
App~icability of Models
The HIWAY-2 model is applicable to all 53 receptor sites in the primary

study area external to the project site and all 8 receptor sites on the project
site and provides a good indication of the project-generated traffic effects. I
The APRAC model was used in. the screening analysis for shallow canyons.
The Use of deep canyon models in the primary study area was explored. The
following assumptions are fundamental to the CANNY model:
o Wind is channeled along the canyon. In general, this has been found
to occur for aspect ratios (i.e., ratios of average building height
to facade-to-facade width) of about 2.0 or more; hence, the classi-
fication deep canyon. At aspect ratios of less than 2.0, channeling
does not necessarily occur and variable air flows, vortex flows,
and/or plume flows may occur. Consequently, the applicability of ·the
CANNY model to situations with aspect ratios of below. 2.0 in the
range l.5 to 2.0 may be inappropriate because the assumptions under-
lying the model are not necessarily valid in those circumstances and;
in such cases, the applicability of the CANNY model must be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis ..
o Canyon is uniform. The model assumes the canyon is uniform and re-
sults in a uniform distribution of concentration. Consequently·, . the
J;I1odel is not applicable on non-uniform streets, such as locations
where there are either low or no buildings for some distance either
on one or both sides of the street.
o Canyon length is sufficiently long. The model is a steady state

model and assumes that pollutant concentrations build in the downwind
direction until flow out of the canyon top becomes equal to the emis-
sion rate in the roadway. Consequently, the canyon muse ·be of suffi-
cient length to attain a stable concentration profile. This'length
has been estimated to be about 5.00 meters ..
. The receptor sites in the primary study area do not meet at ll!ast one of the
criteria for applicability of DiP-developed CANNY deep canyon model listed
above. Consequently, the CANNY deep canyon model was not used for any sites in
the primary study area.
P.a..rking Qarages
An analysis was performed to determine maximum potential impacts from the

exhausts of the proposea garages; ventilation ~ystems. Because cola-starting
1I.K-15
automobiles leaving .the garages would emit far higher levels of carbon monoxiae
than hot-stabilized vehicles entering the garage, impacts from each garage
would be greatest during those periods. that averaged the largest number of
departing vehicles. The anticipated hourlY ins and outs to each of the proj-
ect's enclosed parking garages for- both the 1997 and 2002 Build years are re-
ported in Appendix B. Maximum I-hour carbon monoxide concentrations within
each of the project's garages in 1997 and 2002 were calculated based on these
hourly ins and outs. Maximum 8-hour carbon monoxide levels adjacent to the
vents exhausting the emissions from these garages were calculated following the
procedures discussed below.
It was assumed that there would be only two exhaust vents for a typical
garage on the project site. Both Vents were also assumed to be at a height of
only 12 feet above grade. A Gaussian ~ispersion model was applied in the anal-
ysis of the eXit emissions from a typical garage's (Le., Parcels ElF) exhaus'C
system. Carbon monoxide concentrations were computed for receptors placed at a
pedestrian level height on the north sidewalk of a representative cross stree'C
(i.e., 66th Street) on the project site. The maximum 8-hour carbon monoxide
concentration produced by the vent was added to the local on-street mobile
source impact at 66th Street to determine representative maximum CO concentra-
tions at pedestrian level near any of the garage vent locations on the project
site. The receptor site for this analysis was placed on 66th Street because
this. cross street would process the largest amount of on-street vehicular traf-
fic, and therefore, would yield the highest predicted carbon monoxide concen-
trations on any of the sidewalks. in the cross streets of the project site.
Peak CO concentrations calcul~ted within these garages were estimated

assuming the minimum ventilation rate required by the New York City Building
Code (1 cfm air/ft 2 of garage area). An ambient temperature of 4S D F waS as-
sumed for the estimation of CO emission rates within the garages. Autos de-
parting each garage were assumed to idle for one minute before starting to
travel to the garage exits.
A forced air ventilation system for the Amtrak tunnel under the eastern
end of the project site would be incorporated into the project's design. Air
would be forced into the Amtrak tunnel and the exhaust would be discharged at
the northern (below·Riverside Park) and southern (east of West End Avenue and
north of 58th Street) portals of the Amtrak.tunnelunder the full build scenar-
io. For this analYsis, it was assumed that a turbine-engine locomotive would
idle within the tunnel for as many as 30 minutes.
Ut:lder the full Build-out scenario (Phase 11), only the southern por'tal of
the tunnel would po'Centially exhaust carbon monoxide that could interact with
on-street emissions. Maximum potential impacts.from the Amtrak tunnel's ex-
haust were added eo conservative screening-level carbon monoxiae concentrations
calculated from on-street sources for a receptor placed at 58th Street and West
End Avefiue.
II .K-16
Hetbodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations· fro. Stationary Sources
Potential stationary source air quality impac~s of the proposed project

include ehe following:
1) The effects of impingement of emiss~ons from nearby Con Edison's Wese

59th Street generating plant (Con Edison facility);
2) The effects of aerodynamic turbulence induced by the proposed project

structures on the dispersion of pollutants emitted by the Con EdiSon
facility at off-site locations;
3) The effects of emissions of air pollutants from boilers' exhaust of

the proposed development on locations on- and off-site.
Items land 2 listed above were analyzed for the full Build-out scenario
using fluid modeling procedures that were performed in an Atmospheric Boundary
Layer Yind Tunnel (ABLwt). Item 1 for the Phase I (1997) scenario and item 3
for the full Build-out scenario. were determined employing the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) - developed Industrial Source Complex model. The de-
tailed methodologies followed in evaluating stationary source impacts of the
proposed project are discussed below.
Fluid Modeling of Impacts from .Con Ediso~ Facility
The analysis of the potential impacts from the emissions from the Con
Edison facility under No Build and Build conditions was carried out with fluid
modeling procedures as recommended by the Guideline for Fluid Modeling of At-
mospheric Diffusion, (EPA-600/8-8l-009), April 1981; Guideline for Use of Fluid
Modeling to Determine Good Engineering Practice Stack Height (EPA-450/4-81-
003), July 1981; and the requirements of the New York City DEP.
Fluid modeling was· used for this analysis because of the dominant role
played by both proposed and existing buildings on air movement in the area.
Dispersion of the plumes from the Con Edison facility would be altered by the
effect of these buildings on wind patterns and by the intense eddies created by
the interaction of wind with the buildings. The dispersion created by these
factors predominates over the dispersion effects of regional atmospheric fac-
tors, such as thermal gradients.
However, before performing the fluid modeling studies, a screening ana-

lysis using the ISC2 model, recently released by the EPA and described in
User's Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC2) Dispersion-Models (EPA-
340/4-92-008a) , was performe~ to determine whether 1997 Phase I conditions
(Le., buildings l,ocated north of 64th Street)· were too far from the C·on Edison
West 59th Street generating plant to be affected by, or to caUSe an effect on
emissions from that facility. That analysis showed that the phase I buildings;
which are more than 1,400 feet from the Con Edison faciliey, would neither be
affected by nor cause an effect on emissions from the facility (see Appendix
C.2 for the screening analYSis repore). Consequenely, detailed fluid modeling
staeionary source studies of the Con Edison facility were performed only for No
Build and the 2002 full Build conditions. .
Il.K-17
The fluid modeling studies for. the project are described in Appendix.C.3.
Pertinent information concerning the study methodology is summarized below.
Meteor.ology and Background
, The air quality predictions are based on actual hourly meteorological

conditions as measured at 'La Guardia Airport ·for the five-year period 1983-
1987. to obtain the total pollutant concentrations, the predicted pollutant
levels from the Con Edison facility were added to corresponding background con-
centrations. Background concentrations for monitored stationary source polluc&
ant levels were derived from three locations: DEC City College Monitor (SOz),
Bowery Savings Bank (PM10 ), and P.S. 59 (NOz). Background values used'in this
study are presented in Table II.K-4. As shown in Table II.K-4, maximum annual
and second highest 3-hour monitored pollutant background concentrations were
used in this analysis. 'Actual daily 24-hour sulfur dioxide values that were
measured at the City College monitor during the 1983-1987 period'were summed
with the corresponding 24-hour impacts determined from the fluid modeling to
determine maximum predicted concentrations for comparison with standards.
Background levels of pollutants at this waterfront site would be expected

to be generallY.lower than the SOz levels monitored at City College of New York
(CCNY) and the PM10 levels monitored at Seventh Avenue and 34th Street. The
SOz monitor at CCNY is in an area where there is a large number of sources
surrounding the monitor. The PM10 monitor at Seventh Avenue is in one of the
most congested areas of Manhattan, and is· also situated in a .shallow canyon.
Because PM10is measured only every sixth day at the DEC monitors, a mea-
sured daily aVerage PM10 background is not available for calcUlation of 24-hour
average concentrations. to ensure that projected concentrations of PM10 are
conservative, the greatest 2nd-highest value for any of the three years for
which data are available is used as a conservatiVe estimate of background con-
centration for every day projected.
Air q~ality predictions were based on the Con Edison facility operating
load that yields the highest short-term concen~rations. ' Emission and stack
dat~ for the Con Edison facility are given in table 11.1<- 5. This table sets
forth the maximum emission rates for S02 and PMiO, as reported by Con Edison,
based on operations at 100 percent of capacity. In the first analysis, differ-
ent maximum values were used to model "worst-case" short-term concentrations
from those presented ·in Table I1.K-5. the fluid modeling, studies included
part-load tests (75 percent) to determine if total pollutant concentrations at
receptor locations would be higher if the plant were operated at less than 100
percent capacity. In general, these tests showed that the highest pollutant
levels were obtained for the full load condieions.' In some cases" the part-
load tests showed values comparable or even slightly higher than the full load
eests; but not ae a level that would cause a violation of standard.
Emission data are shown only for stacks No. 1 and No.~. Emissions are
not reported for stack No. 7 because Con Edison has retired this stacK and
remitted the DEc permit for this stack.
II.R-1S
Table II.K-4
MAXDIUIl 1I0NITORED BACKGROuND DATA roa. POLUJTANTS STUDIED

IN THE STATIONA&Y SOtJ'RCI FLUID HODELINe AHAl.YSIS
Pollutant Ooncentration
Inhalab1e Particulates (PM 10.) ~l) gg/m 3

Annual Arithmetic Mean 43
Second Maximum 24 Hour Average
a 92
Sylfur Dioxide (SO:!) (2) ug/m3

Annual Arithmetic Mean 52
(4)
24·Hour Average
Second Maximum 3-Hour Average
NLtr.og,en.Diox.ides (NQ2) (;3) ug/m3

Annual Arithmetic Average 92
Notes:
Values shown are Maximum for Annual and Second Maximum for 3-oour and 24-hour
periods.
(1)
Measured at Bowery Savings Bank for 1985-1988.
(2)
Measured at DEC City College Monitoring Station for 1985-1988.
(3)
Measured at DEC P.S. 59 Monitoring Station for 1989.
The 24-hour values for each day measured at City College were used for
the fluid modeling analysis, and a representative worst-case 24-hour
S02 background value of _183 }Jg/m3 was utilized in the mathematical
modeling performed to determinemax~~um pollutant impacts from the
project's boilers (except at one on-site receptor location where the
daily background for one day in 1985 and in 1987 were added to the
corresponding days when the maximum impacts-from the project's boilers
were calculated).
(05)
The second maximum 3-hour average over ~ multiyear period (377 }Jg/M3 )
was utilized for all cases, except for one day in 1985 in the analysis
of the impacts from the project's boilers. The maximum 3-hour 802 im-
pact calculated for one receptor in 1985 from the project's potential
boilers was summed with the third highest 3-hour S02 concentration
measured in the same month to yield conservative estimates of the max-
imum 3-hour S02 levels at this location.
tI.K-19
1"able II. x. . . 5
CON EDISOH STACK AND EHISSIONS DATA
Ve~t ~bLJitfeet Stacks _

'Stae); 1 Stack 5
Ground height above MSL (M) 5.9 5.9

Stack height above grade (M) 154.6 69.2
Stack inside diameter (M) 5;030 4.572
Emission Velocity (m/s)

Maximum* 18.6 14.6
Annua1,Average 3.0 11.6
Emission Temperature (~K) 461 477
Emission of S02 (g/s)

Maximum* 83.98 56.83
Annual Average 11. 6$ 11.15
Em:ission of PM 10 (g/s);O"
Maximum* 11.51 7.79.
Annual Average 1. 60 1. 53
Emission of NO a (g/s)*u
Annual Average 4.88 4.26
N01:es:
Annual average f"igures also provided by Con Edison on their permit.

* Maximum means 100 percent of permitted capacity gf Con Edison
facility.
*.. PM10 emissions are 85 percent of Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)
emissions, 0.05 lb TSP emission/Million BTU.
*** N02 emissions were oalculated as 55 perGent of the total NO~ emissions.
Only annual average NOa emission rates are reported sinGe the NOz stan-
dard corresponds to this time averaging period.
Source: Memorandum from Con Edison (DominiCK Mormile)
.U.K-20
The PM10 impacts were based on emissions c·a.l"culated with a.. 'l'SP emissi9ns
rate of 0.05, and a ratio of PM 10 t~ TSP emissions of 0.85. The 0.05 TSP value
waS agreed to by DEC as a conservative estimate to be used in ~lSs for calcula&
tion of PM 10 emissions from the Con Edison facility. ~his value is b~sed on
actual stack tests of TSP performed by Con Edison .
. The annual nitrogen dioxide impacts from the Con Edison facility were
calculated assuming that 55 percent of the nitrogen oxides (NO x > emitted from
this facility are nitrogen dioxide (N0 2 ). This estimate of che annual average
N0 2 /NO x was provided by the New York City DEP after consultation with EPA.
Annual average impacts were estimated by scaling the I-hour wind tunnel
impacts by the ratio of the annual average load of the plant to the lowest
tested loads.
A major factor contributing to conservative projections of pollutant lev-

els is theasswnption that both stacks at the Con Edison facility operate at
100 percent of permit capacity, when in fact neither of the stacks routinely
emit at 100 percent of capacity.
The fluid modeling study was performed in the 6-foot by 8-foot by 92-foot
ABLWT owned and operated by Environmental Science and Services Corporation
(ESSCO). This facility is especially designed for modeling atmospheric diffu-
sion and has been ~sed to conduct more than 100 similar fluid modeling studies.
Following EPA modeling criteria, appropriate scale factors and wind tunnel
model parameters were calculated. The size of all buildings that have the
potential to significantly affect pollutant levels and the general topography
in the stationary source Air Quality Study Area (AQSA) were examined. Based on
the extent of the AQSA and the dimensions of the ESSCO Atmospheric Boundary
Layer Wind Tunnel, a linear scale factor of 1:600 (1 inch = 50 feet) was se-
lected for the physical model~
A scale model of the AQSA was designed using real estate maps obtained
from the Sanborn Map Company, field investigations, available blueprints for
specific buildings, and photographs of the project area. The scale model of
the AQSA included the Con Edison facility, existing buildings in the surround-
ing area, the major planned soft site developments near the project site, and
the proposed Riverside South development.
For this analysis, the AQSA was centered on the West 59th Street Con Edi-
son facility and had a. radius of 2,100 feet (see Appendix C.3, Figure 3-1).
The radius of the AQSA was determined on the basis of preliminary testing,
which showed that maximum ground-level downwash concentrations would occur
within this distance. For purposes of the fluid modeling studies, certain
buildings were modeled in detail and others were modeled as slabs. All build-
ings within the AQSA that have the potential to significantly affect pollutant
levels were modeled in detail. (Buildings with the potential for significantly
affecting pollutant levels were termed "significant buildings.") Probes were
placed at a variety of locations (see page II.K 23 for discussion of receptor
5
locatiOns); inclUding all 19catiofiS where the potential for significant imPacts
would be most likely to occur. .
Additional complexity arises 'fpr "8., ~odel to predict flow over a general
urban area arid/or elevated terrain, "Therefore, appropriate adjustments 'Were
made for upwind structures and for the roughness of the model ~urface. The
effect of upwind surface conditions on the velocity of. the wind results in a
variation 'With elevation described genera~ly by a profile; i.e., a mathematical
description of the variation of wind speed with elevation. Based on wind-
profile data and an evaluation of surface roughness in the AQSA, the wind ve-
locity profile was varied as a function of wind direction (thus in accordance
with terrain).
Outside the AQSA, the urban surroundings were modeled using either a phys-
ical model of the relevant upwind and downwind urban environment or equivalent
"ground-level roughness, each of which serves to duplicate the dispersion pat-
tern of emissions from the Con Edison facility beyond the AQSA.
First, the wind tunnel was calibrated following EPA procedures. An at-
mospheric dispersion comparability test Was performed. This test provides an
evaluation of the flow and dispersion characteristics in the wind tunnel in the
absence of buildings, other surface structures or large surface roughness, and/
or elevated terrain. In such a context, the fluid model must show comparabili-
ty to that described by the basic Gaussian plume distribution (Turner, 1970).
This basic calibration test waS performed in accordance with Guideline for Use
of Fluid Modeling to Determine Good Engineering FracLice SLack Height (EPA-450/
4~81-003), July 1981.
According to the EPA fluid modeling guidelines, the plume trajectory in

the wind tunnel" should be matched to that in the field. To do so, the follow-
tng procedures were used:
o The thermal buoyancy length scale was matched in the model and the
prototype.
o The momentum length scale was matched in the model and the prototype.
o The effluent flow was tripped.
o the geometry of the model stacks was undistorted.
After the wind tunnel was calibrated according to EPA procedures, the "
scale model was installed in the wind tunnel and the model emission flow syseem
and associated equipment were calibrated. Next, preliminary testing was per-
formed to determine critical wind speeds and wind directions that yield the
highest pollutant concentrations within the AQSA. Some preliminary testing of
operating load was also done. These preliminary tests were performed in the
same manner as the standard tests descrIbed below.
The ranges of wind directions and wind speeds for which the plumes from
the Con Edison stacks have the potential of interacting with the proposed
structures were determined. Wind direction was varied in increments of 5 de~
grees. The range of wind speeds was between 3 meters per second (iii/S) and
1.2 m/s.
Because of the size of the AQSA,. it was divided intg four distince sectors
for analysis (see Appendix C.3 Figure C.3~5a). Each sector has a distinct
j
range of domiriant wind directions (relative to Con Edison plant north) and
number of receptor probe locations. These sectors were identified as follows.
o The project site and ~he areas immediately east of the site were
separated into two sectors relative to 'the Con Edison plant: (1) the
northwest, wind directions 280° to 0° and (2) the northeast, wind
directions 0° to 60°.
o The third and fourth sectors of the AQSA are also defined relative eo
the Con Edison plant: (3) the region east of the Con Edison plant,
wind directions 60° to 120°; and (4) the region south of the plant,
wind directions 120° to 230°.
once all critical test parameters were determined, the following tests anG
analyses were performed:
o Controlled mass emissions of ethane (C 2H6 ) tracer gas were introduced

into the model as Con Edison stack effluent. The wind speed and wind
direction were varied while plant operating load was maintained at
the selected value.
o Air quality samples were collected with probes on the ground and on
the surface of buildings specific, to the sector for which a particu-
lar test was being run.' (See receptor probe distribution maps for
each sector in Appendix C.3.) Probe locations were selected to cover
all areas of potential 'exposure of people and air intake vent
locations.
o Full scale S02, PMiO ' and N0 2 concentrations were calculated from the
wind tunnel data. These were tabulated as a function of wind speed
and direction for each sampling probe.
o These wind tunnel derived concentrations were used in a computer

program to determine hourly concentrations for each hour during the
five-year period 1983-1987. Hourly concentrations were used to com-
pute 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual average values.' Background concen-
trations were added to the concentration to determine the total con-
centration of each pollutant at each receptor.
Receptor Locations
Initially, in consultation with NYCDEP, a total of 129 receptor sites were

selected in wind sectors northeast, east, and south of Con Edison's West 59th
Street generating station for evaluation of future No Build conditions, and a
total of 181 receptor sites was selected in wind sectors northeast, northwest,
east, and south of Con Edison'S West 59th Street generation station ,for evalua-
tion of future Build conditions. (No receptor sites in the northwest sector
were included in the evaluation of future No Build conditions since this region
would be uninhabited for No Build conditions.) The receptor sites inclUded
both ground-level and elevated locations. The 181 receptor sites examined for
the evaluation of future Build conditions included the 129 receptor, sites exam-
ined for the evaluation of future No Build conditions. The 52 additional re-
ceptor sites examined for the evaluation of future Build conditions were 10-
cated,On streets and structures on the project s~te; predominantly in the
II.K-23
northwest sector. Several of these 52 additional rece'ptor sites were at loca-
tions on sealed buildings and were 'used to provide information for design pur-
poses, and not to determine project impacts. For example, in the northeast
sector, Probes 77 through 80, 84, and 85 were located at elevated locations on
the studio-office building. The windows in this cOlnllleorcial building would be
sealed and, based upon the results of the fluid modeling studies, by proper
placement of the air intakes, pollutant leve~s within the building would be
below standards. Similarly, in the northwest sector, initially the applicant
proposed that the residential building on Parcel Kl would be sealed on the ease
face above elevation 330 feet and on the south face above eleVation 335 feet"
the residential building on Parcel K2 would· be sealed on the south face above
elevation 285 feet and on the west face above'elevation 283 feet, and the resi-
dential building on Parcel Jl would be sealed on the east face above elevation
I
355 feet and on the south face above elevation 350 feet. (It was initially
proposed to seal these portions of these buildings to avoid potential exceed-
ances of standards. this is no longer needed or proposed with the project
mitigation. See section IV.D.) These residential buildings would be sealed by
not having operable windows for ventilation on these faces above the specified
elevations. The operable windows to satisfy legal requirements would be on the
other faces of the buildings. In addition, this space may be considered for
Use for other· purposes, such as for a health club for building residents.
The initial analysis was performed during the fall and winter of 1991, and
the results of that analysis, including probe-by-probe concentrations, are con-
tained in Appendb, C. 3. Subsequent to the initial submission, the applicant
was informed that Con Edison revised stack and emission data for the West 59th
.Street generating station (the· values shown in Table II.K-5 are these reVised
values) . The revised stack parameters increased the ma~dinum emission rates and
emission velocities, and decreased the annual emission rates and emission ve-
locities. In general, these changes were not substantial. Because the initial
analysis results (see Appendix C.3) indicated that there was the potential at
some locations for S02 concentrations to exceeo the NAAQS, it was decided in
consultation with NYCDEP to perform additional wind tunnel studies using the
revised emissions and stack parameters. Based on proportionally increasing the
results of the initial wind tunnel studies performed using 'the "old"emission
values to reflect the recently updated information supplied by Con Edison on
emissions from the. 59th Street faciliey those receptor sites where additional
wind tunnel seudies were necessary were identified.
The following receptor locations were selected for these additional

studies:
Building
BUUd.ing 'robe # Face Height Wind Se.cmr
Bldg. L (N.Wing 7 South 265 ft. Northwest
Bldg. Kl 10 East 375 Northwest:

Bldg. Kl 11 East: 340 Northwest
Bldg. K1 12 South 375 Norehwest
Bldg. K1 13 South 340 Northwest
II .K .. 24
8Uild,ini (cODt:inued)
Building Probe '# Face Height lUnd _S_e_ctO:r
Bldg. K2 21 West - 315 Northwest

Bldg. K2 22 West 285 Northwest
Bldg. Jl 24 East 380 Northwest

Bldg. Jl 25 East 350 Northwest
Bldg. Jl 26 South 380 Northwest
Bldg. Jl 27 South 350 Northwest
Bldg. I (S.Tower) 36 East 460 Northwest

Bldg. I (S.Tower) 37 East 410 Northwest
Bldg. I (S.Tower) 38 South 460 Northwest
Bldg. I (S.Tower) 39 South 410 Northwest
Bldg. I (N.Tower) 40 ' East ,460 Northwest
555 W. 57th St. 7 North 315 South
The results of these additional studies are reported in Appendix C.6 and the
concentrations obtained from these 'additional studies are discussed in the
results section of this EIS.
In addition to the probe locations-listed ,above, at elevated locations on

several buildirigs -- Probes 25 and 26 on the west faces of the building at 515
West 59th Street; Probes 28, 29, 30, and 3i on the west face and Probes 32, 33,
34, and 35 on the south face of the proposed Macklowe building; Probes 3, 8,
and 9 on the north and west faces of the building at 790 EleVenth Avenue, and
on the project site; and Probes 73 and 75 on the south and west faces of Build-
'ing K3 -- 24-hour S02 concentrations may exceed 365 ug/m3.
Whenever the projected concentrations of' a pollutant would 'exceed the

NAAQS, the term "exceedance" is used to identify the event. - A violation of the
NAAQS occurs only if the exceedance is projected for a space generaily accessi-
ble to the public, such as the street or a rooftop athletic club. Under EPA
standards, an exceedance at an elevated receptor'that is not generally accessi-
ble to the public (such as operable windows) is not considered a violation.
However, under CEQR, New York City requires disclosure of exceedanc~s on the
surface of buildings with operable windows. In the discussion of project im-
pacts, both "exceedances" and "violations" are considered significant impactS.
A significant impact for these pollutants is defined as causing or exacerbating
either violations or exceedances.
Dis-p-er.s_Lon M.o_deling,o,f .Impacts from Proj ect' s Boilers
The analysis of potential impacts from the emissions from the boilers of
the full Build-ou~ scenario on locations on- and off-site Were evaluated with
the new Industrial Source Complex (ISC2) mathematical dispersion model. The
EPA-developed lSC model calculates pollutant concentrations from one or more
point sources (i.e., stacks) based on hourly meteorological data.
Computations with the ISC2 model to determine impacts from the proposed
project's emissions were made assillilirtg stack tip QowttW"asn; buoyancy-induced
It.k-2S
dispersion, gradual plume rise, RAM-urban dispersion coefficients and wind :
profile exponents, no collapsing of stable stability classes, with and without
building downwash, and elimination of calms. The meteorological data set con~
sistedof five years of meteorological data: surface data collected at La
Guardia Airport (1983-1987) and upper air data collected at Atlantic City, N.J,
(1983-1987).
The ISC2 modeling yields conservative estimates of pollutant impacts fronI

the boilers of the proposed full build-out. Computations with the ISC2 model
were performed! modeling three distinct source groups: (1) all the boiler ex-
hauststacks of the proposed project, (2) the "Con Edison 59th Street generating
station stacks Nos. 1 and 5, and (3) the Con Edison and project's stacks.
Receptors were placed on the higher levels of the project's buildings and all
tall structures on Riverside Drive near 72nd Street and along West End Avenue
from 72nd Street to 58th Street. Results from the three different sourc~ group
combinations"were examined"to determine the relative predicted impacts from the
project's boilers relative t? the predicted impactS calculated from the Cort
Edison facility. Full load, 75 percent load, and annual average loads for the
project's boilers and the Con Edison facility were analyzed.
Emissions Data and Stack .Parameters
As noted earlier, the engineering designs for the proposed buildings'

heating and cooling systems are in a very early stage of development. The
general operational characteristics of the systems have not been defined. HQw-
ever, the proposed project is committed to using boilers fueled by either low-
sulfur No.2 oil, natural gas, or steam supplied by Con Edison to meet the
heating demands of the proposed development except for Parcels F and N, where
only natural gas or steam would be used. To be conservative, this analysis as-
sumes that low-sulfur No. 2 oil would be the fuel used at all parcels, except
for F and N. Emission rates from the" project's potential boilers for sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and inhalable particulates were calculated by apply-
ing emission factors from EPA's CompilsLion of Air PolluLant Emission FSCLors
(AP-42) to estimates of fuel con~umption rates. Estimates of the annual aver-
age consumption and Dlaximum demand rates for each parcel of the proposed devel-
opment were supplied by the mechanical engineers who would be designing the
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning sys~ems for the proposed project.
The maximum short-term. and average annual boiler emission rates for each build-
ing in the proposed project and stack parameters for each boiler stack are pro-
vided in Appendix C.4. It was conservatively assumed for this analysis that
all NOx emitted by the project's boilers would be NO z '
CaVity Regions
It is apparent that under certain meteorological conditions, the exhaust

from the proposed project's boilers could be entrapped for short periods in
each of the respective cavity regions Greated by each proposed structure. The
predicted impacts in a cavity zone are inversely proportional to the surface
area of the building (perpendieular to the wind direction) and to the wind
sPeed required to entrap most of the exhaust plume, it was conservatively
assumed in this analysis that all the exhaust would be entrapped in a cavity
zone.
Maximum predicted short-term s.ulfur dioxide and PM1il impact·s were calcu-
lated for two perpendicular cross-seceional areas of the proposed structures.
Maximum potential cavity impacts were calculated using the SCREEN model recom-
mended by EPA in Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of
Stationary Sources, EPA-450/4-88-0l0. Meteorological persistence factors of
0.9 and 0.4 were used to calculate the maximum 3- and 24-hour cavity pollutant
impact concentrations, respectively.
Background Concentrations
The background parameters ·listed in Tabl~ II.K-4 for the fluid modeling
analysis were also used with the ISC2 and SCREEN modeling, except where noted
in Table II.K-4. The 24-hour S02 background level of 183 ~g/m3 .listed in Table·
II.K-4 represents the maximum second-highest 24-hour S02 level monitored in any
year at the C~ty College monieor between 1985-1989.
Existing Conditions
Primary: Study: Area: Existing Monitored Air Ouality Conditions.. Cl9.9.0}
Represe.ntative Monitored P.ollutants. Levels
Monitored concentrations of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates.

and nitrogen dioxide ambient air quality data for the area are. shown in Table
II.K-6. These values are the most recent monitored data available that has
been compiled by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
for these locations. Areawide ozone concentrations (although no.t shown in the
table) and 8-hour average CO concentrations are the only monitored pollutant
levels that continue to exceed the NAAQS. Sulfur dioxide, particulates, and
pitrogen dioxide levels are below standards.
Mobile Sour.c.e. P.o.llutant M.onit.or.s.. The monitor at 59th Street at Lexing-

ton-Third Avenue recorded three exceedances of the 8-hour NAAQS for carbon
monoxide, the key mobile source pollutant. The 59th Street site was selected
by DEC for monitoring because it best represents CO concentrations at a loca-
tion with high traffic volumes and severe traffic conditions. The monitored
carbon monoxide values at the 59th Street site cannot be used to derive back-
ground concentrations because this is a street level monitor that records pol-
lutant concentrations attributable to background and local on-street sources.
Stationary Source Pollutant Monitors. The only DEC monitor for stationary
source pollutants on the Upper West Side of Manhattan was at City College (Con-
vent Avenue at 140th Street), which was used for the background concentrations
of S02' The monitor for inhalable particulates on ehe Bowery Savings Bank
(34th Streee ae Seveneh Avenue) was used for PMlil baekground. In the absence
of a West Side monitor for NOa ; the values from the P.s. 59 station at 228 East
S7eh Serest were used. The use of these values are discussed in more detail in
the "Stationary Source Impact" section.
II .K-21
Table :U.K-6
REPRESENTATIVE KONITO:&ED AKBIENT AIR QUAl.ITY DATA

1990 "(~C!PT VS!RE NOTED) .
No. of
ExeeecUm.ces of
"Conc.entrations " "F.edera~ St.andard
Second
Pollutau5 ..Location c Unit:s Period "san JU.ghest lilghe.$..t Pr:hnary Secondary
CO Alexander's ppm 8-hour 11. 3 10.8 3 :3

Dept. Store l-hour 11.0 15.0 0 0
59th Stree~
between
Third and
LeXington
AVenues
SO:/ City Golleg~ ppm Annual .Ol6 0

Convent Ave· 24-hour .055 .046 0
nue and 3-houl' ,093 ,088 0
140th Street:
ParUeu-
laus
Bowery Sav·
ings Bank
/Jg/m'J Annual
24-hgur
37 --
80 65
0
0
0
0
(PM 10 ) Seventh Ave-
nue and 34th
Street
p. S. 59," 228 ppiii Annual 0.046 o o

East 57th
Street
Note:
Values are for calendar year 1989 because SOt mgnitorirtg at City Col- "
lege was "discontinued on November 16; 1989.
Source: New York State Air Quality Report. Ambient Air Monitoring Systems,
Annual 19.89 DAR-90-l and Annual 1990 DAR.-91-L
II.K-28
Predicted .Carbon Monoxide Concentrations .in .the .ProJect Area
As noted previously, receptors were placed at multiple sidewalk locations

next to the 15 primary intersections under .ana1ysisand at two locations in ~he
park that would be built as part of the proposed project (for a total of 61 re-
ceptor locations). The receptor with the highest predicted carbon monoxide
concentrations is used to represent these intersection sites for the existing
conditions. Carbon monoxide concentrations were calculated for each recepcor
location, at each intersection, for both the AM and PM peak periods.
Table II.K-7 shows the maximum predicted existing (1991) carbon monoxide
1- an~ 8-hour concentrations at these locations. the values shown are ehe'
highest predicted concentrations for each receptor location for either the·AM
or PM peak conditions. Background values in 1991 are reported at sites 15 co
17, since they are currently located at elevated heights above ehe current
grade on the project site. Detailed results for each receptor location for
each time period analyzed are contained in Appendix C.l .
. Table II.~-7
JlAXIM1DI PREDICTED 1- ARJ) 8-HOUR. CARBON KONOXIDE CONCERTBATIORS FOil 1991

(parts per million)
keceptor Time
---.Si.t.e. Location PeriDil .i-Hour I-Hour
1 .West End Avenue and 72nd Street PM 15.5 9.4*

2 Amsterdam Avenue, Broadway, and 72nd Street PM 14.7 8.8
3 Columbus Avenue, Broadway, and 66eh Sereec AM 17.4 10.8*
4 Columbus Avenue, Broadway, and 65th Street AM 17.3 10.6*
5 West End Avenue and 66th Street PM 12.6 7.4
8 West End Avenue and 61st Street AM 11.2 6.4
9 West End Avenue and 59th Street PM 11. 9 6.9
10 Twelfth Avenue (57th-55th Street) PM 22.1 14.0;0
11 57th Street and West End Avenue PM 19.5 12.2*
12 57th Street and Amsterdam Avenue PM 14.2 8.5
13 57th Street and Columbus Avenue· AM 16.0 9.8*
14 Riverside Drive (Ext.) ana 72nd Street AM 10.2 5.7
15 Riverside Drive (Exe.) and 66th Sereee 8.2 4.3
16 New proposed Park at 72na Sereet 8.2 4.3
17 New Proposed Park at: 66th Street: 8.2 4.3
~ Exceeds 8-hour standard of 9 ppm.
Ae all recepeor sites, the maximum predicted 1 nour concentrations are

w
within the standard of 35 ppm. However, ehe maximum prediceed8~hour concen-

trations. for 1991 at six intersection sites - - Site·s 1 (West End Avenue and
II ,K-29
72nd Street), 3 (Columbus, Broadway; 66th street), 4 (Columbus, Broadway, 65th
Street), 10 (Twelfth Avenues and 57th-55th Streets), 11 (57th Street and 'West
End Avenue), and 13 (57th Street and Columbus Avenue) -- exceed the standard of
9 ppm. The Violations at these sites reflect the congested craffic. co~ditions
(i.e., high traffic volumes and low travel speeds) on roadways adjacent· to
these. sites.
The Future Without the Project
Introduction
Future conditions without the proposed project, in both the year 1997 and
the year 2002, are discussed below. The analyses are presented separately in
terms of mobile and stationary sources.
Carbon monoxide concentrations without the proposed project were deter-

mined for the 1997 analysis year using the methodology previously described.
Table 11.&-8 shows future (1997) maximUin predicted 1- and 8-hour carbon ·monox-
ide concentrations without the proposed proj ect (i. e., 1997. No Build values) at:
the 15 analysis int:ersections i.n the primary study area and at two locations in
the park that would be built as part of the proposed project. The values shown
are the highest predicted concentrations for each receptor location for either
AM or PM peak period conditions. Background values in 1997 are reported at
sites 15 to 17, since they are at locations that would be at elevated heights
above the project site grade in 1997 without the project. Detailed results for
each receptor location for each time period analyzed are contained in Appendix
C.l.
The 1997 results indicate that in the future without the project, no vio-
lations of either the 1- or8-hour standards are predicted to occur at any of
the sites analyzed in the project study area. The highest predicted 8-hour
concentration would be 8.7 ppm at Site 10, which is below the 8-hour carbon
monoxide standard of 9.0 ppm.
The predicted 1997 No Build values are lower than the 1991 existing con-
centrations. These lower future concentrations reflect the beneficial effeces
of continued vehicle turnoVer, which increases the percentage of the vehicle
fleet equipped with enhanced emission control technology.
Statio.nary Sources
Fluid modeling studies Were performed to determine pollutant concentra-

tions for conditions without the proposed project (i.e., No Build values) due
to emissions from Con Edison's West 59th Street generating facility. the ana-
lysis procedures were described preViously. Detailed probe-by-probe results
are contained in Append1~ c.4. Table II.K-9 shows a comparison of ehe probes
with the highest values, and the standards for each of the analysis pollutants
II .K-30
(see Table II.K-IS, below, for probe-by~probe reanalysis results) . Except for
the 24-hour S02 levels.at the upper'level air intake location of a sealed com-
mercial building (55'5 West 57th Street -- Probe 14) all 'the projected maximum
j
values are below the standards. At 555 West 57th Stre~t, four'exceeaances of
the 24;hour SOz standard are predicted to occur.
Table ILK-8
I'lJTOllE (1997) HAXnIOlI pREDICTED 1- AND 8-BOtJll CARBON llONOXIDE CONcENTRATIOlilS

WITHOUT THE PROJECT IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA
(parts per million)
:Receptor Time
Site . . La.cati.on . . . .. ___ _ nrirul 1--JlQW; 8-Hour
1 West End Avenue and 72nd Street PM 11.6 7.1

2 Amsterdam AVenue, Broadway, and 72nd. Streee PM 10.7 6.5
3 Columbus Avenue, Broadway, and 66th Street AM 12.1 7.5
5 West End Avenue and 66tn Street PM 9.0 5.3
6 West End Avenue and 65th Street AM 8.7 5.1
8 West 'End Avenue and 61st Street AM 8.5 5.0
9 West End Avenue and S9th Street PM 9.0 5.3
10 Twel'fth AVenue (57th-55th Street:) PM 13.8 8.7
11 57th Street and West End.Avenue PM 13.6 8.5
13 57th Street and Columbus Avenue AM 11.2 6.8
14 Riverside Drive (Extension) and 72nd Street: AM 7.4 4.2
15 Riverside Drive (Extension) and 66th St~eet . 5.6 2.9
16 New proposed Park at 72nd Stree~ 5.6 2.~
, 17 New Proposed Park at 66th Streee 5.6 2.9
Table II.K-9
HAXTMUH PROJECTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR NO BUILD CONDITIONS DUE TO

EMISSIONS FROll CON ·EDISON'S.VEST 59TH STREET GENERATING FACILITY (uI/m3)
Ha%imum
Pollutane .'t.ime. .Pe.ri.o.d .. Scandaxil _ \t.ali1e .l..o.catJJnL .... __
sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 80 62.0 555 W. 57th St.~Probe
14
24-liour 365 426.4;' 555 W. 57th St.=Probe 14
3-Hour 1,300 1,233*'" NE Sector-Probe 33
Particulates (PM 10 ) Annual Average 50 44.4 555 w, 57th St,=Probe 14
24-Hour 150 146.2 555 W. 57eh St.=Probe 1
Annual Average 100 95.S 555 W. 57th St.-Probe 14
Exceeaance of National Ambient Air Quality Standard

Estimated based. on proportionally increasing results obtained using
"old" Con Eciison emission values
II,K-3i
Carbon monoxide concentrations without the proposed project were deter-
mined for the 2002·analysis year ·using the methodology preViously described.
Table II.K-lO shows future (2002) maximum predicted 1- and 8-hour carbon monox-
ide concentrations without the proposed project (i.e., the 2002 No Build val-
ues) at all the sites analyzed in the primary study area. The values shown are
the highest predicted concentrations for each receptor location for either AM
or ~M peak hour conditions. Background values in 2002 are reported at sites 15
to 17, since they are at locations that would be at elevated heights above the
project site grade in 2002 without the project. Deeai1ed results for each
receptor location for each time period analyzed are contained in Appendix C.l.
Table II. Ko-10
P'UTOllE (2002) MAXDIIJJI PJlEDICTED 1- ARD 8-HOUB. CABBOR JlOROXIDE CORCERTRATIORS

WITHOUT 'lUI PIlOJ'ECT IN '11IE PkOJ'ECT STUDY AIlEA
(parts per m£11ion)
B.eceptor Time
Site Location Period l-BOUI.' 8-Bour
1 'West End Avenue and 72nd Street PM 10.2 6.2

2 Amsterdam Avenue, Broadway, and 72tui Street PM 10.0 6.1
4 Columbus Avenue, Broadway, and 65th Street PM 11.3 7.0
6 West End AVenue and 65th Street AM 8.1 4;8
7 West End AVenue and 64th Street AM 8.2 4.8
8 West End Avenue and 61st Street AM 7.9 4.6
10 TWelfth Avenue (57th-55th Street) PM 9.7 5.9
11 57th Street and West End AVenue . PM 12.5 7.9
13 57th Street and Columbus Avenue AM 10.2 6.2
14 Riversl.de Drive (Extension) and 72nd Street AM 6.9 3.9
15 Riverside DriVe (Extension) and 66th Street 5.3 2.8
16 New Proposed Park at 72nd Street 5.3 2.8
17 New Proposed Park at 66th Street 5.3 2.8
The 2002 results indicate that in the future without the proje.ct, Iio'Vio~
lations of either the 1- or 8-hour standards are predicted to occur at any of
the sites arta1yzed in the primary study area. The 2002 No Build values are
lower than both the 1997 No Build and 1991 existing concentrations. Again,
these lower future concentrations reflect the beneficial effects of continued
vehicle turnover, which increases the percentage of the vehicle fl~et equipped
with enhanced emission control technology.
II .K-32
Pollutant levels in 2002 due to emissions from Con Edison~s West 59th
Street generating facility are expected to be the same.· as the value.s .p~edicteQ
to occur in 1997. No changes in emission quantities, seack operating charac-
teris.tics, or No Build proj ects are expected that would change the values.
Probable t.p&cts of the Proposed Project
Introduction
Operation of the proposed project would result in increased mobile source

emissions. The proposed· project would also affect areawide stationary source
emissions from Con Edison's West 59th Street generation facility and would
increase areawide stationary source emissions due to emissions from the proj-
ect's heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. Each of these areas
of potential impact is examined below.
It should also be noted that the analyses presented in this section are
all based on the assumption that the city and/or state approvals necessary to
close the Miller Highway northbound exit ramp at 72nd Street will be obtained.
The closure of this, ramp is not certain because it must: undergo a discretionary
approval action of its own. Should this action not be approved by relevant
agencies and the closure of this ramp not be possible, the project would have
to be redesigned and undergo a new review process.. .
Mobile Source Analysis
Carbon monoxide concentrations with the proposed project Were predicted

for the 1997 analysis year using the methodology previously described. The
results are presented for three separate study regimes -- the primary study
area, the eX,tended study area, and the project garages. The 1997 mobile source
air quality analysis examines carbon monoxide concentrations only with the.
rehab~litated Miller Highway, and does not examine conditions with a relocated
Miller Highway, since the relocated highway would not be expected to be opera-
tional by 1997.
P.r.imar.y- .S.t.udY; Ar.e.a.Tab1e II .K-ll shows the maximum predicted future

(1997) carbon monoxide 8-hour concentrations with the proposed project (i.e.,
the 1997 Build values) ·at all the analysis sites in the primary study area.
Receptor locations on the project site Were analyzed at 66th and 72nd Streets
because these cross streets would process the largest amount of traffic within
and near the project site. The values shown are the highest predicted concen~
trations for each receptor location for either AM or PM peak period conditions.
At site 1, ewo sets of values are reported because the maximum predicted pol-
lutant levels wi'thout the project were calculated with the PM peak traffic
data, while the AM peak data yielded the maxim~ predicted pollutant levels
with the project. At sites Sand 9, two sets of values are reported because
the maximum levels were calculated atone corner during the PM peak period
n.R-33
without ~he project and at another 'corrier with the project, while atsite'14 1
the same phenomena occurred with th~ AM traffic data. Background values in
1997 are repor~ed a~ sites 15 to 17 without the project since they are at loca-
tions that would be at elevated heights above the project site . grade in 1997.
Detailed resul~s for each receptor location for each time period analyzed show-
ing both the 1- and 8 - hour concentrations 'are Gontained in Appendix C. 1.
Table II.It-11
FUTURE (1997) MAXTMUK PREDICTED 8-HOUR CARBON HOROXlDE CONCENTRATIONS§

BOTH WITH AND WITHOUT THE PR.oJECT IN THE PRlIWty ST'nDY AREA t
(parts pe~ .ill1on)
Receptor Without-the With

Site Location ..... . Project: Proj.eJit
1 West End Avenue and 72nd Street 6.5/7.1 6.6/6.3

2 Amsterdam Avenue, Broadway, and 72nd. Street 6.5 6.6
3 Columbus Avenue, Broadway, and 66th S~ree~ 7.5 7.5
4 Columbus Avenue, Broadway, and 6Sth Street 7.4 7.5
5 West End Avenue and 66th Street 5.0/5.3 5.5/5.4
6 West End Avenue and 65th Street 5.1 5.4
8 West End Avenue and 6lst Street 5.0 5.5
9 West End Avenue and 59th Street 5.1/5.3 5.8/5.6
10 Twel~th Avenue (57th-55th Street) 8.7 8.7
11 57th Street and West End Avenue 8.5 8.7
12· 57th Street and Amsterdam Avenue 6.2 6.3
13 57th Street and Columbus Avenue 6.8 7.0
14 Riverside Drive (Ext.) and 72nd Street 2.9/4.2 4.9/4.2
15 Riverside Drive (Ext.) and 66th Street 2.9* 3.8
16 New Proposed Park at 72nd Street . 2.9;0- 4.0
17 New Proposed Park at 66th Street 2.9'" . 3.8
Note: * Background concentrations .in 1997.
The 1997 results indicate that in the future with the project, no viola-
tions of either the 1- or 8-hour standards are predicted to occur. 'l'he highest
predicted 8-hour concentration, both with and without the proposed project,
would be 8.7 ppm,. which is below the 8-hour carbon monoxide standard of 9.0 ppm.
Between the DElS and FElS, the traffic impact analysis (presented in sec-
tion ll.J) has been revised to incorporate an updated development program for
the Ansonia Post Office site. An air quality analysis which was performed with ~
these changes in the traffic networks indicated that the maximum predicted 8- ~
hour average total carbon monoxide concentrations (both with and without the
project) would be at most 0.1 ppm greater than any of the respective values
reported in Table ll.K-ll. Therefore, the project would not result in any
significant air quality mobile source impacts; and 1997 a-hout' average eoeal
carbon monoxide coneentra~iOfiS at all selected receptor si~es utilizing infor·
mation from the revised traffic analysis would be less than the applicable
ambient standard,
n.K-34
EVen though the proposed project would add additional traffic to the area;
at some locations Build concentrations would be the same as or lower than No
Build values. This is because of traffic diversions from the eXisting local
street network that would be expected to occur due to the closing of the Miller
Highway exit ramp at 72nd Street and diversions resulting from the new street
segments created as part of the proposed project. These diversions would re-
sult in decreases in traffic volumes and increases in speed at some previously
congested locations.
In terms of impact, increases in concentrations due to the proposed proj-

ect would be within de minimis criteria, and therefore the proposed project
would noe result in any significant mobile source air quality impacts ~ithin
the primary study area.
An analysis of potential cumulative impacts from the Amtrak tunnel and on-
street sources was perfo~ed for the full Build scenario (2002) following the
methodology discussed previously. As discussed under the impacts section for
2002, no significant air quality impacts ~ere determined for the full Build
scenario. Therefore, no significant impacts at the southern portal of the '
project site after completion of the Phase I development from 72nd Street to
64th Street would occur, since the full Build scenario represents a worst-case
analysis for cumulative on-street and Amtrak ,tunnel carbon mono}{ide emission's.
Extended Study Area. To determine whether the prop.osed project might have
significant mobile source impacts ,outside the primary study area at locations
adjacent to major travel routes to and from the project site, a second~level
screening analysis was performed at three intersections along the Twelfth Ave-
nue/West Street corridor (i.e., 42nd, 34th, and 23rd Streets). These were' the
only locations where the number of project-generated vehicles exceeded the
applicable minimum vehicle criterion. All the sites examined passed the sec-
ond-level screen (i.e., yielded values that would not result in significant air
quality impacts due to the proposed project). The Twelfth Avenue and 42nd
Street second-level screening analysis performed for the DEIS indicated the
need for a third-level screening analysis at this location, and the subsequent
third-level screening analysis performed for the DEIS showed that increments in
carbon monoxide levels due to the project would be ~ithin de minimis levels.
Between the DEIS and FEIS, the second-level screening analysis was revised for
Twelfth Avenue and ~2nd Street to account for revisions in the traffic impact
analysis (i.e., increa~e in capacities at Twelfth Avenue northbound at 42nd
Street, ,discussed in section II.J). The revised FEIS second-level screening
analysis a.t this location resulted in the project's incremental traffic passing
this second-level sc'reen (i. e., maximum potential impacts less than de minimis
criteria). Therefore, the proposed project would not have any significant
mobile s~urce air quality impacts in the extended study area.
Although the revised second-level screening analysis for the FEIS indi·
cates that the proposed project ~ould not create a significant air quality
impact at Twelfth AVenue and 42nd Street in 1997, a third-level screening anal-
ysis was performed to determine ~hether or not maximum predicted a-hour carbon
mono}{ide levels in 1997 ~ith and without the project at ~his intersection would
be less than the applicable ambient standard. the results from the ,revised
third-level screening analysis, which was performed with the FEIS traffic data,
yielded a maximum 1997 No Build a-hour carbon monoxide concentration of 8.8 ppm
4nd a maximum '1997 Build 8-hour cOncefitration of 9.0 ppm at this location.
Based on these results, there would.not be a predicted exceedance of the 8-hour
carbon monoxide standard in 1997 at this location either with or without the
I
project.
Furthermore, the recently proposed 42nd Street Light Rail Transitway

(which is in the early stages of design) would make 42nd Street westbound one-
way between Second and Eleventh AVenues along. with an at-grade Light Rail. ·The
Riverside South project under full Build conditions would only generate a maxi-
mum of four trips eastbound on 42nd Street, which would turn off 42nd Street to
head southbound on Eleventh Avenue. Therefore, there would be no diversion of
project-generated traffic eastbound on 42nd ·St.reet. Between the DEIS and FEIS j
a second-level screening analysis Was performed for the Twelfth AVertue artd 42nd
Street intersection with the proposed Transitway in 1997. The ~esu1ts of this
analysis indicated that the proposed project's maximum incremental irtcrease in
carbon monoxid~ levels at this location with the proposed transitway would be
less than that calculated without the Transitway. Since maximum incremental
increases in carbon monoxide cortcentratiorts from project-generated traffic in
1997 without the transitway passed the screening analyses at this location, the
project would not result in a significant air quality impact at Twelfth Avenue
and 42nd Street with the proposed Transitway. .In addition, the incremental
traffic generated by the proposed project on the other aVenues that intersect
42nd Street are below the applicable Minimum Vehicle Criteria. Based on the
above, the potential for significant· air quality impacts from the proj ect- gen-
erated traffic on and near 42nd Street with the proposed Transitway in 1997
·wou1d be the same or less than the potential for impacts disclosed in the DEIS.
Garage. Ana~ys.is. The phase I development program for the proposed p·rojec~
inclUdes six garages containing approximately 1,500 parking spaces. In the
traffic impact section, Table II.J-39 shows the indiVidual garage capacities
and Figure n:J-17 shows the individual garage locations on the project site.
The garages would have their entrances and exits on the east-west cross
streets. With the exception of West 66th Street, there would be garage en-
trances on all the cross streets between West 64th and 71st Streets.
An analysis was performed to determine the maximum potential impacts from

the exhausts of the proposed garages' ventilation systems following the method-
ology discussed ea~lier. The maximum 1-hour CO concentration calculated within
any of the project's garages in phase I was 14.0. ppm. Representative maximum
cumulative impacts from the exhaust of the project's garages and on-street
sources were calculated for a receptor on 66th Street between the proposed
Riverside Drive extension and Freedom Place.
The results show no exceedances of the de m~n~m~s criteria or violations

of the NAAQS. Concentrations of maximum predicted 8-hour Co levels from this
cumulatiVe impact analysis in 1997 were 4.8 ppm on the 66th Street sidewalk.
Therefore, there would be no Significant aLt qualiey impacts generated by t:he
project's Phase I garage exhaust vents.
Con E.dis_on'.s West 59th Street: Generating Fegili.ty. As previously diS-

cussed, a screenirtg analysis using the ISC2 model showed that the phase 1 proj-
ect buildinss; ali of which would be located. ngrth of 64th Streee~ would nei-
ther be affestea by nor cause an effect on emissions from Con Edison's West
59th Street generating facility. (The results of this screening analysis are
contained in Appendi~ C.2.) Since Phase I of the proposed project would not be
significantly impacted by the Con Edison facility, nor would it have a signif-
icant influence on the dispersion of these emissions, there was no need to
perform detailed fluid modeling studies to. analyze this condition.
Proj.ec.t Site. WAC Equipment. As previously described, mathematical model-

ing studies using the ISC2 and SCREEN models were performed to determine pol-
lutant concentrations for conditions with the full Build proposed project.
While no final decision has been made concerning the fuel to be used, the pro-
posed project is committed to using boilers fueled by either low-sulfur No. 2
o.il, natural gas, or steam supplied by Con Edison in all buildings included in
Phase I except for Parcel F, where only natural gas or s~eam would be used.
For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that boilers in all the buildings
in Phase I would use low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil except for building F, which
would use natural gas. The analysis is conservative since if·additional .build~
ings Use natural gas or steam, lower pollutant emissions, and thus lower pre-
dicted concentrations, would be obtained. In fact, if steam were used, there
would be no emissions of air pollutants from the HVAC equipment at the proposed
project site.
The results of the full Build analysis for the project's HVAC equipment
indicate that there would be no significant impacts generated·by the project's
boilers' emissions (see discussion under 2002 impacts, below). Therefore, .
since emissions from the boilers would be less in 1997 compared with 2002·,
there would be no sign~ficant impacts generated by the project's boilers in
·Phase I also.
1997 State Implementation Plan Consistency
All the maximum predicted increment~l impacts from the project-generated

traffic in the primary and secondary study areas would be less than de minimis
values, and therefore the proposed project would not result in significant air
quality impacts. Furthermore, all ·the mobile sources receptor locations ana-
lyzed under the phase I 1997 scenario in the primary study area had predicted
8-hour carbon mono~ide levels less than the corresponding ambient air- standard.
Therefore, construction and operation of Phase I of the project in 1997 would ,
be consistent with the goals of the New 'York seat~ Implementation Plan.
Carbon monoxide concentrations with the proposed project were determined

for the 2002 analysis year using the methodology previously described. The
results are presented for three separate study regimes -- the primary study
area, the extended study area, and the project garages. The primary study area
analysis examines carbon monoxide concenerations first with the rehabilitated
Miller Highway, and then with a proposed relocated Miller Highway (i.e.; assum-
ing that the relocated highway projest would obtain its approvals and would be
operational by 2002).
II.K-37
Primary: .study Are.a. Table II. K-12 . shows the maximum predicted future
(2002) carbon monoxide 8-hour concentrations with the proposed project (Le.,
the 2002 Build values) at all the analysis sites in the primary study area.·
The values shown in Table II.K-12 are with the rehabilitated Miller Highway.
The values shown are the highest predicted concentrations for ea~h receptor
location for either AM or PM peak period conditions. At site 1, two sets of
values are reported because. the maximum pred~cted pollutant levels without the
project were calculated with the PM peak traffic data, while the AM peak data
yielded the maximum predicted pollutant leveis with the project. At site 14,
two sets of values are reported, because the maximum values were calculated at
one corner during the AM peak period without ~he project and at another corner
with the project in 2002. Background values in 2002 are reported at sites 15
to 17 without the project, since they are at locations that would b~at ele-
vated heights above the project grade in 2002 without the project. Detailed
results for each receptor location for each time period analyzed, showing both
the 1- and 8~hour concentrations, are contained in Appendix C.l.
Table II. K-l2
P'IJTOkE (2002) PRED1CTED 1IAXDIOH a-BOUlt CARBON JlONOXIDK CONCENTRATIONS

BOTH VITB AND tlI'l1IOUT TIlE PB.OJEC'l IN TIl£ PJIllIAR'I sTUDt AREA
(parts per mllion)
l.ecept:or Without the With

~t__
Lo.cation .. Project Project
1 West End Avenue and 72nd Street 5.9/6.2 5.8/5.6

2. Amsterdam Avenue, Broadway, and 72nd Street 6.1 6'.3
3 Columbus Avenue, Broadway, and 66~h sereee 7.0 7.1
4 COlUDibus Avenue; Broadway, and 65th Street 7.0 7.2
6 West End Avenue and 6'5th Street 4.8 4.6
8 West End Avenue and 61st Street 4.6 4.8
10 Twelfth Avenue (57th-55th Street) 5.9 6.0
11 57th Street and West End Avenue 7.9 7.8
12 57th Street and Amsterdam Avenue 5.9 6.1
13 57th Street and Columbus Avenue 6.2 6.6
14 Riverside Drive (Ext.) and 72nd Street 3.9/2.8 4.2/4.6
15 Riverside Drive (Ext.) and 66th Street 2.8* 3.8
16 New Proposed Park at 72nd Stree~ 2.8* 3.9
17 New proposed Park at 66eh Street 2.8'" ).7
* Background concentrations in 2002.
In terms of impact, projected increases in coficentraeions due to the pro-

posed project would be within de minimis criteria, and therefore the proposed
project would not result in any significant mobile source air quality impacts
within the project study area.
II .K-38
The results indicate that in 2002 with the project, no violations of
either the 1- or 8-hour carbon monoxide standards are predicted to occur. Even
though the proposed project adds additional traffic to the area, at some loca-
tions Build concentrations are the same as, or lower than No Build values.
This is because of traffic diversions that would be expected to occur due to
the proposed closing of the Miller Highway exit ramp at 72nd Street, and due. tg
diversion resulting from the new street segments created as part of the pro-
posed project. These diversions would result in decreases in traffic volumes
and increases in speed at some previously congested locations. More diversions
are expected to occur for 2002 Build conditions than for 1997 Build conditions
due to the completion of the Riverside Drive· extension between 72nd Street ana
59th Street.
Between the DEIS and FEIS, the traffic impact analysis (presented in sec-
tion II.J) has been revised to incorporate· an updated development program for
the Ansonia Post Office site. An air quality analysis that was performed with
these changes in the traffic networks indicated that the maximum predicted
8-hour average total carbon monoxide concentrations (both with and without the
project) would be at most 0.1 ppm greater than any of the respective values
reported in Table II.K-12. Therefore, the project would not result in any
significant afr quality mobile source impacts, and 2002 8-hour average total
carbon monoxide concentrations at all selected receptor sites utilizing infor-
mation from the revised traffic analysis would be less than the applicable
ambient standard.
Maximum potential cumulative· impacts from the carbon monoxide emissions

ventilated from the Amtrak portal opening off-site on the eastern side of·West
End Avenue north of 58th Street and on-street sources on the adjacent West End
Avenue link were evaluated following the worst-case screening methodology dis-
cussed earlier. The maximum predicted No Build and Build carbon monoxide
8-hour concentrations calculated for a receptor adjacent to the Amtrak portal
near 58th Street in 2002 were 4.5 and 5.2 ppm, respectively. Since this incre-
mental impact would be less than the de minimis criteria, no significant im-
pacts are predicted from the proposed Amtrak tunnel ventilation system.
Re.lo.cationof Miller Highway. If the Miller Highway is relocated, as dis~

cussed in the traffic impact section, traffic volumes and speeds near the in-
tersections of 57th Street and cross avenues (approximately from Twelfth to
Columbus Avenues) in the year 2002 could be significantly affected by a
potential redesign of the Twelfth Avenue and 57th Street intersection (i.e.,
creation of a southbound left turn from the Miller Highway onto eastbound 57th
Street and a new westbound left turn from 57th Street onto southbound Twelfth
Avenue). An air quality analysis at the selected receptor sites (i.e., loca-
tions that would be affected by a redesign of the Twelfth Avenue and 57th
Street intersection) along the 57th Street corridor (mobile sourc~ receptor
sites 10-13) was performed for the year 2002 with this alternative relocated
highway design in place. Maximum predi.cted carbon monoxide 8-hour concentra-
tions in 2002 with and without the proposed Riverside South development for
this alternative were calculated, and the results of this analysis are dis-
played in Table II.K-13. Two sets of values are displayed at each receptor
site in Table II.K-13. Orie set corresponds eo the maximum predicted 2002 No
Build and Build levels without the relocated highway, while the oeher see Qis~
plays the corresponding values with a relocated highway, the values ·shown are
the highese predicted concentration for each receptor loc£ation for either the
AM or PM peak conditions,
II .1<·39
Table II.K-13
FUTURE (2002) PREDICTED MAXTMUH a-HOUR CAlBOR MONOXIDE

CORCERTllATIONS BOTH liJITR AIm WITHOUT THE PIl:OJEC'l AND THE
IlELOCATED HIGHWAY AT on':'SITE LOCATIONS IR 'tIlE PRIMARY STUDY ABEA
Vl~h~t BigS--X Relocation With HighvaX ae~ocatigg

Site Location Ko Im1d Build No Build Iy,ild
10 Twelfth Avenue 5.9 6.0 7,6 7.6
(57th-55th Streets
ll. 57th Street and 7.9 7.8 8.3 1.5
West End Avenue
12 57th Street and 5.9 6.1 5.9 6.2
Amsterdam Avenue
13 57th Street and 6.2 6.6 6.0 6.1
Colwnbus AVenue
In terms of impact, projected increases in concentrations due to the pro-

posed project with or without the relocated highway would be within de minimis
criteria, and therefore, the proposed project would not result in any signifi-
cant .mobile source air quality impacts at off-site locations in the primary
study area.
In 2002, with the project and the relocated highway, no violations of

either the 1- or 8-hour carbon monoxide standards are predicted to occur at
off-site locations. The other on-site locations that would be affected by the
highway relocation would be immediately adjacent to the relocated highway.
Therefore, four locations that would potentially be affected by the relocation
have. been selected to disclose the effects of the relocated highway at on-site
locations -- Sites 14 and 15 along the Riverside Drive extension at 72nd and
66th Streets, and-Sites 16 and 17 in the new proposed park. The relocated
highway would be expected to have a ventilation system. Preliminary feasibili-
ty studies have been prepared which show that a ventilation system can be prov-
ided as part of the highway relocation project that would result in maximum 8-
hour carbon monoxide concentrations less than 9 ppm with the partially enclosed
relocated highway roadway, based on a system capacity of approximately 2.3 mil- ~
lion cfm (see Appendix C.5). Except for short, approximately one-block/
sections north of 6lst Street, north of 65th Street and north of 69th Street
that contain gratings (with 100 square feet of opening per 100 linear feet of
covered length), the roadway would have an opening of approximately 35 feet
over the southbound lanes. If the maximum concentrations with the partially
enclosed roadway are at these _levels, then at locations adjacent to the roadway
(Le., within ~he proposed park, on the sidewalks along the new Riverside
Drive, etc.), due to dispersion, concentrations would be eVen lower than on the
roadway. Analyses show that with the ·relocated highway, carbon monoxide con-
centrations would be below ambient air quality standards; maximum 8-hour carbon
monoxide concentrations adjacent to the highway would be below 9 ppm. Since No
Build values would be approximately at background levels (i.e., 2~8 ppm), the
incremental increase in carbon monoxide concentrations with the relocated Mill-
er Highway would exceed de minimis values. This would represent a significant
impact. Potential mitigation measures are discussed in section IV.D. ~
ILK-40
Extende.d .S_t.udy. Ar_e.a. To determine. whether the proposed proj ect might ~ave
signi·ficant mobile source impacts oUtside the primary study area at locations
adjacent to major travel routes to and from the project site, a second-level
screening analysis Was performed at one intersection along Amsterdam AVenue
(i.e., at 79th Street), one intersection along Riverside Drive (also at 79th
Street), six intersections along the Twelfth Avenue/West Street corridor (i.e.,
at 42nd, 34th, 23rd Street, Canal, Chamber, &nd Vesey Streets), one intersec-
tion along 65th Street (i.e~, at Fifth Avenue), and one intersection along
Ninth Avenue (i.e., at 48th Street). These were the locations where the number
of project-generated vehicles is sufficient to "trip" the minimum vehicle cri-
teria. This criteria along with the extended study area screening methodology
have been described previously. With the exception of three sites, all the
sites examined passed the second-level screen (i.e., yielded values that would
not exceed de minimis criteria and would not result in significant air quality
impacts due to the proposed project). At three sites -- Twelfth AVenue and
42nd Street,· Twelfth Avenue.and 34th Street, and Twelfth Avenue and 23rd Street
during both the AM and PM peak periods -- the second·level screening analysis
yielded results indicating the potential for significant impacts due to
project-generated traffic. Consequently, a third-level screening analysis,
using the methodology discussed previously, was performed for these locat.ions
for the peak periods when potential for exceedance of the de minimis criteria
was exhibited after the second-level screening analysis. Table II.K-14 shows
the maximum predicted 2002 No Build and Build 8-hour carbon monoxide concentra-
tions at these locations using the third-level screening analysis. (Detailed
results for each receptor location for each time period analyzed, showing boeh
the 1- and 8-hour concentrations, are contained in Appendix C.I.) All these·
maximum predicted values are below. the respective carbon monoxide standards.
tn addition, the difference between the Build and No Build values are less than
the de minimis criteria values. Therefore, the proposed project would not have
any significant mobile source air quality impacts in the extended study area.
·Table II.K-l4
FOTORE 2002 HAXIKDH PREDICTED 8-HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE

CONCENTRATIONS IN ~ EXTENDED sTtJl)Y AllEA
(parts pe~ million)
2002
. - -. .Location ~ ..
. - - - - . -- No Build _Build .
Twelfth Avenue and 42nd Street 8.0 8.4
Twelfth Avenue and 34th Street 6.8 7:8
Twelfth Avenue and 23rd Street 6.9 7.4
The recently proposed 42nd Street Light Rail Transitway (which is in its
earliest stages of design) would make 42nd Street wes~bound one-way between
Second and Eleventh Avenues along with at-grade Light Rail. The project under
full Build conditions would only generate a maximum of four trips eastbound on
42no Street; which would turn off 42nd Street to head southbound on Eleventh
Avenue. Therefore, there would be no diversion of project~&enerated traffic
eastbound on 42nd Street. Between the OElS and FEIS, the Twelfth Avenue and
I
ILK-41
42nd Street intersection with the proposed Transitway and a Route 9A Basic
Reconstruction alternative adopted in 2002, was subjected to a second-level
screening analysis. The results of this analysis indicated that the project's
maximum incremental increase in carbon monoxide levels· at this location with
the proposed Transitway would be'less than that calculated without the Transi'e&
way. Since maximum incremental increases in carbon monoxide concentrations
frolIl project-gene:rated traffic in 2002 without the Transitway passed the
screening analysis at this location, the project would not result in a signifi-
cant air quality impact at Twelfth Avenue and 42nd Street with the proposed
Transitway. In addition, the incremental traffic generated by the proposed
project on the other avenues that intersect 42nd Street are well below the
applicable MinilIlUlIl Vehicle Criteria. Based on the above, the potential for
significant air quality impacts from the project-generated traffic on and near
42nd Street with the proposed Transitway in 2002 would be the same or less than
the potential for impacts disclosed in the DEIS.
Garage Analysis. Th~ full development program for' the proposed project
includes 12 garages containing 3,500 parking spaces. In the traffic impact
section, Table II.J-5l shows the individual garage capacities and Figure
II.J-18 shows the garages' locations, on the project site. The garages would
have their entrances and exits on the east-west cross streets. With theexcep~
tion of West 60th and 66th Streets, there would be garage entrances on all the
cross streets between 59th and 7lst Streets.
An analysis was perforlJled to determine maximum potential impacts from the

exhaust of the· proposed garage's ventilation systems following the methodology
discussed previously. The maximum I-hour carbon monoxide concentration calcu-
lated within any of the project's garages in phase II was 17.5 ppm. Represen-
tative maximum cumulative impacts from the exhaust of the project's garages and
on-street sources were calculated for a receptor on 66th Street between the
proposed Riverside Drive extension and Freedom Place (as was done for the 199~
garage impact analysis).
The result shows no exceedances of de mlnlmlS criteria or violations of

the NAAQS. Concentrations of maximum predicted 8-hour CO levels from this
cumulative impact analysis in 2002 were 4.1 ppm ort the 66th Street sidewalks.
Therefore, there would be no significant air quality impacts generated by the
project's Phase II garages' exhaust vents.
Stationary Source Analysis
Con Edis~n's West 59th Street Generating Facility. As previously de-

scribed, fluid modeling studies were performed to determine pollutant concen-
trations for conditions with the proposed project. Detailed probe-by-probe
results are contained in Appendices C.3 and C.6.. Table II.K-lS shows a summary
of the probes with the highest values. the' res~lts for all the probes in the
reanalYsis are shown in Table II.K-16. Several receptor sites that were used
for design purposes have been included in this table.
At the upper air intake location of a sealed commercial bUilding (555 West
57eh street); the project exacerbates exceedances at four looations where there
are predicted No Build 8&ceedanGes of the 24-hour S02 standard and creates an
II.K-42
exceedance at another location on t~e building. In.Addieion, three locations
on 555 West 57th Street also have potential PM 10 exceedances created by the
project. Therefore, at this location, the project would have a signi£ica~t
impact.
Table ILK-15
MAXlMUH rkOJ£CTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR BUILD CONDITIONS DUE TO

EHISSIONS FROB CON EDISON'S WEST 59TH sTREET GENERATiNG fACILITY (ug/m3)
S'OHHAIlY TABLE
Haximum .
Pollutant Time Period Standard _. Value. Location
. Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average SO 66.1 555 W. 57th St.-Probe 14
24-Hour 365 507 .S'" 555 W. 57th St.~Probe 14
3-Hour 1,300 1,212.3 555 W. 57th St.-Probe 14
Particulates (PM1O ) Annual Average 50 44.9 555 W. 57th St.-Probe 14
24-Hour 150 15S.8* 555 W. 57th St.~Probe 14
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 100 97.4 555 W. 57th St.~Probe 14
... Exceedance of National Ambient Air Quality Standard
. Three other proposed residential buildings - - Kl, K2, ·and J1 - - have 24- .
hour S02 exceedances at elevated receptors. Those exceedances represent po-
tential significant impacts of the proposal. However, it may be possible to
seal the faces of the building at and above elevations where these exceedances
were predicted to occur as a mitigation technique. However, this measure has
not been analyzed or approved by DEP.
The initial analyses utilizing the earlier stack parameters indicated that
the .proposed project would create two exceedances of the 24-hour S02 standard
at two locations on the.Macklowe building (receptors 30 and 34). It is possi-
ble that with the new stack parameters, the project could create two exceed-
ances of the 24-hour S02 standard at elevated locations on several other build-
1ngs, specifically on the west faces of the building at 515 West 59th Street,
on the west and south faces of the proposed Macklowe building, on the north and
west faces of the building at 790 Eleventh Avenue, and on the south and west
faces of Building K3 on the project site. These exceedances would represent
significant adverse impacts. Use of an "indoor/oUtdoor factor" (i.e., a factor
that takes into account that on cold days, windows are closed and indoor con-
centrations are lower than outdoor values) inay reduce these levels (excluding
Buildings Kl, K2, and Jl, which have not been analyzed using an indoor/outdoor
factor) to within standards at all locations except·Macklowe and Building
(K3). At Macklowe and Building 0 (K3), the application of the indoor/outdoor
°
argument is questionable because the exceedances are predicted to occur on days
when the average temperature would be in the mid- to upper 40s, and therefore
it is possible that windows could be open.
Even with ehe use of this indoor/outdoor factor, exceedances of the 24-
hour SOz standard would occur and additional mitigation measures;. such as a
stack extension or connecting one of the Stack No~ 5 boilers. eo Seack No.1,
woula have eo be implemented to avoid significant impacts. Mitigation meAsures
are disoussed in Chapter IV.
Table ILK-16
ALL REANALY~XS PROBES
NO BUILD VALUES BUILD VALUES

·502 =i~.10 !
;
502 I
IAnnuail
• ?M.'O N02
Annual I
, -
I Annwii I
$~Of I :'==UDlt.
! !
''''~ i...!levJm
Ann\lai I
AvoL- L24-Ht I
I
::-Hr t Ava. I :~"-. ~
.\w,- Ava, i 24-Hr I l-Hr __ ':'VCL- I :~r
SoW! I $SSW. Si'Uist. I

!
~ i, 3'5 50,4 I
I
410.1 I ;oa.o
I
".1 Ii ~46.2 55.2 65.4 J82.7
,,I :~i'5.6 II 448
u.3
I
I 1:!s.1
~SS.4
I
I
i
2
3
4
I
I
I
130
315
130
:0.8
sa.4
ss.z I
313.6 i ;iU
335.1 I 33U
275.2 I S3:"
!i 43.7
.13.9
.13..4
I
I
~29.0
:~1
118.9
93JI
94,4
93.2.
61.S
65.2
;g.5
355.8 I 7Stl.4
~S4.S
319.1
i
!
1074.8
;IB.7
i
I
.u8
44.0
I :51.6
! :29.4
I ! . I 315 54,9 250.8 I 548.4 I 43,4

II "4,5 33.1 57.S 290.4 !
ZS2..2 I 5az.O
e67.7 I
!
J3.S
.13.5
I
i
~zz.&
~ ::3.0
I
I
I
5
7
I
!
I
::l0
:lIS
$4,0
51.3
2SO.1 I 516.2 j
399.8 I :e43.J I
i
43.3
",3
I
1'0.5
~:5,' I 92-&
95.5
a~.
S6.0
501.9
SO.,
.I3S.1
342..0 II
1112.4
801.2
4.4.8
.1.4. I
I 1.£8.9
I 134.7
I
I
9
13
'4
i
i
'30
Z2S
~
~8
5Q,1
S2.1i
I
292.6 I 7'U8
383.3 I ~.iI
4iii.' I ~C$i,j
I
!
43.S
442
U.4
I
~23.1
l3S.2
l4ol;1
I 95.4
95.1
6:3.1i
60.1
US.2
:07.&
',42.5
1212.3
.1.4.&
44.9
I
Ii
150.4
158.&
i ,
Nart/iwilii
I.! .·1
I!!~ I. (N, W'1iiij) I ~ Ii ,45
:55 1
I
;g .•
sa.4
!
I
3S3.2 105'.1
3:30.4 I ;97.9 i
44.0
. .:3.9
I
I
140.2
~~.1
2
!I i, 3 I
i
::15 I, I
I
57.4 I
I
~O7.2 I ;06.4
i
i .13..7 I ~:!1.2
,
I I i .l.l.3 I :.13.8
! . . . t<1
"5 37'S
340
61.2
SO.6
I
I
296.2
371.1
:110.71
1071.0 I ·"2 I 140.1
5
7
I 310
27D
;g.6
sa.2
I 342.4
295.2
588.6
909.7 I
".0
.13..9
I
I
1:l5.3
129.7
8 375
61.3 387.2 "26.3 ".3 I 142.5
i 340
60.6 ~7.2 1077.6 442 I 139.5
·310 59.4 ~U 993.9 44.0 I 134.2

10
11 27D
58.2 292.7 900.7 43.9
I 129.0
Bi.iii:Iiii) t<2 12 315

60.0 :!S3..2
364.6'
1147.3
1100.1
44.1
44.0
I 137.2
135.3
59.2
13 285 1046.5 .13.1 127.8
51.9 328.3
14 2S5 9/ii.& 43.7 1%1.8
56.8 289.5
15 225 1150.7 44.1 138.7
60.3 396JI
16 315 44.0 135.5
59.5 367.3 1112.0
17 285 1032.0 43.8 121.5
58.0 328.3
18 2S5 43.7 1%1.1
56.7 ·2BS.7 950.&
19 225
59.7 37:10 996.6 44.1 138.1
Buiding.11 2D ~ 44.0 137.7
9.5 360.4 979.2
21 350 901.3 43.9 132.4
58.& 33Q.1
2Z 320 43.8 129.0
23 290
58.0 309.' 882.4
59.1 375.0 991.4 44.1 138.9
24 38D 44.0 137.'
59.4 361.1 975.3
2S
21
%I
350
320
290
58..5
51.9
33SJI
311.4
910.4
895.9
43.9
43.a
132.7
12L9
-
, 971.3 44.0 132.1
59.' 3S:L4
Notd:Wui a_I (S.TiMii, 21 480
51.2 347.1 936.5 44.0 131.1
2lI .QS
33U 912.4 44.0 121.1
8.0
30 410 , 147.1 43.1 121..4
51.3 311.'
31 315 311.0 971.1 44.0 133.3
51.5
3Z 480
-
44.0 132,4
ZI 435
51.3 351.1 -" 1311.1
511.0 346.0 901.3. 440
3& 410 32IL5 . 85Q.I 43.1 127.3
5U
35
11.5 3&1.3 901., 44.0 132.1
_iCitT-t 31 480
51.1 330.0 173.7 M.O 1ZI.J
31 CIS 8Zl.7 '43.1 121L3
51.. 311.$
31 410 327.1 831.1 44.0 127.1
51.0
31 410 43.1 127.2
• 321.$
5U 812.0
CIS
5u 312.1· 114•• 43.1 tZ5.2
41 ,;0
.-
- . .-
80 50 150 ;00 80 365 1300
·II.K-44
Project Site HVAC Eguipment. As previously described, mathematical model·
ing studies using the ISC2 model were performed to determine pollutant concen-
trations from the proposed project's boilers. While no final decision has been
made concerning the fuel to be used, the proposed project is committed to usine;
boilers fueled by either low-sulfur No.2 oil, natural gas, or steam supplied
by C~n Edison, except for Parcels F and N, where only natural gas or steam
would be used. For purposes of this analysis', it was conservatively assumed
that boilers in all the buildings, except the buildings proposed for Parcels F
and N, would Use low-sulfur No. 2 fuel oil. It was assumed that the boilers
for bUildings on Parcel F and N would use natural gas. The analysis is conser-
VatiVe since if natural gas or steam is used at additional buildings, lower
pollutant emissions, and thus lower predicted concentrations would be obtained.
In fact, if steam were used,. there would be no emissions of air pollutants from
staeionary sources from the proposed project.
Table II.K-17 shows a comparison of the probes with the highest values,
and the standards for each of the analysis pollutants. All the projected maxi~
mum values from the project's emissions shown in the table are below the
standards.
As Was discussed earlier in the methodology section, m~ximum potential

cumUlative impacts from the project's potential HVAC stack emissions and the
Con Edison facility's emissions were evaluated by utilizing the ISC2 model to
simulate worst-case impacts from (1) the project's boilers' exhaust emissions,
(2) the Con Edison facility's emissions, and (3) simultaneous emissions from
the project's and.Con Edison facility'S stacks. Maximum-predicted impacts from
the projece's emissions are shown in Table II.K-17. All ehe maximum predicted
impacts from the project;s po~ential boiler systems were predicted to occur at
a recep~or site at the top of the southern face of Parcel D of the proposed
project.
Table II.K-17
MAXTMUK PREDICTED CONCERTiATIOBS FROM ISC MODELING FOa BUILD CONDITIONS

n. .TIlE YU8.. 2002 DUE TO EllISSIOBS FIlOM HVAC BqUIPHIR't
AT TIlE Pl.OJECT SITE
(ug/a3 )
Pollut.ant. _T.iJD.e .Period Seandard lIa:z::lmum Vali1e

Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 80 56.1
24 .. Hour 365 307.3
3-Rour 1;300 ·1;274.4
Particulates (PMio) Annual Average 50 43.1
24 .. Hour ISO 137.0
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 100 94.9
The ISC2 model has been developed with the intent to provide conservative
estimates of pollutant levels at recepeor lOGations from stationary (i.e;,
point) sources. Fluid modeling studies of the Con Edison facility are consid-
erably more accurate in estimating pollutant concentrations than the ISC model,
II .K .. 4S
because th~y account for all the local eddies and turbulence .generated by the
nearby structures, which the ISC2 computer program model attempts to simulate
generically by providing conservative estimates of pollutant impacts at se-
lected receptor locations relative to given stacks. The maximum predicted im-
pacts from the 1SC2 modeling of the Con Edison facility were greater at off-
site locations than those estimated from the project's boilers. The maximum
incremental contribution from the project's emissions at the receptor locations
where the ISC2 modeling yielded the highest pollutant concentrations from the
Con Edison facility are inconsequential compared with the localized impact from
the Con Edison facility (i.e., maximum contribution of project's emissions was'
less' than 1 percent of total predicted pollutant concentration over a 24-hour
averaging period where the 1SC2 model yielded maximum impacts from the Con Edi-
son stacks). Similarly, the locations and time periods for which the maximum
impacts Were calculated from the project's boilers' emissions had no signifi-
cant contributions from the Con Edison facility. Therefore, ~here would be no
significant cumulative impacts' from the project's emissions from HVAC equipment
and the Con Edison'facility. '
Cavitx .Regions. the EPA-developed SCREEN model was employed to determine

maximum pollutant concentration within the cavity regions adjacent to each of
the project buildings, following the methodology described earlier. The maxi-
mum predicted pollutant concentrations within any of the buildings' cavity re~
gions are shown in Table 11.K-lS. As shown in Table 11.K-lS, all the maximum '
predicted pollutant concentrations are below the respective standaras and,
therefore there would be no significant impacts within the caVity zones of the
project's structures.
Table II.X-1S
MAXDIUII PREDICTED CONCERTIlATIONS WITHIN CAVlTY REGIONS

nOH SCIlEER HODELING FOB. BUILD CORDITIONS
IN THE 'tEA& 2002 DOE TO EllISSIOR'S nOH BVAC £QUIPJIENT
AT THE PB.OJECT SITE
. (ug/1l3)
Pollutant time Perig4 S..tandard Haz:imum Value

Sulfur Dioxide 24-Hour 365 251.2
3-Hour 1,300 530.4
Particulates' (PM10 ) 24-Hour 150 94.4
2QQ~State Implementation Plan ConSistency
All the mobile sources receptor locations analyzed under the full Build
2002 scenario in the primary study area and subjected to ~hird-level screening
analyses in the extended study area had predicted 8-hour carbon. monoxide levels
less tban the correspon.aing ambien.t air standard. Therefore, since there would
be no violations gf s·tandards I construction of the full Build project in 20,02,
would be consistent with the New York SCaCe Implementation plan.
L. NOISE •.
Introduct~on and Kethodology
The principal impacts of the proposed pr,oject on ambient noise levels

would result from the increased automobile traffic generated by the proposed
residential and commercial uses in the project.
Noise pollution in an urban area comes from numerous sources. Some are
activities essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the city's inhabit-
ants: noise from emergency vehicle sirens, garbage collection operations, and
construction and maintenance equipment. Other sources, such as aircraft and
traffic, stem from the movement of people and goods, activities that are essen-
tia1,to the viability of the city as a place to live and do business. These
activities are.necessary 'to a city; the noise they produce is undesirable.
Urban noise detracts from the quality of the living environment, and there 15
increasing evidence that excessive noise represents a threat to public health.
There would be five principal effects on ambient noise levels from con-
~truction and operation of the proposed project:
o Ambient noise impacts on the community related to operation of the

project; in particular, the effect of vehicular traffic related to
the use of the buildings, and stationary sources of noise from the
operation of air circulation and ventilation devices;
o Potential impacts on persons within the proposed buildings 1". e. ,

impacts on interior noise levels due to high ambient noise levels;
o The noise from the operation of the parking facilities;
o Potential impacts on persons using the proposed park; and
o The impact of noise emissions during construction.
Rf.f.e.c.t.s. of Noise on People
Quantitative information on the effects of airborne noise on people is

well documented. If sufficiently loud, noise may adversely affect people in a
number of ways. For example, noise may interfere with human activities such as
sleep, speeGh communication, and tasks requiring concentration or coordination.
It may also cause annoyance, hearing damage, and other physiological problems.
While it is possible to study these effects o~ people ort an average or statis-
tical baSis, it must be remembered tha~ all the stated effects of noise .on
people vary greatly with the individual. Several noise scales and rating meth-
ods are used to quantify the effeces of noise upon people. These scales and
methods consider faceors such as loudness, duration; time of occurrence, and
changes of noise level with time.
I1.L-l
_"An-Weight_ed. Sound Level (dBA)
Noise is typically measured in units called decibels (dBA)" which are 10

times the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure_squared to a standard
reference presence squared. Since loudness is important in the assessment of
the effects of noise on people, the dependence of loudness on frequency must be
taken into account in the noise scale used in environmental assessments. One
of the simplified scales that accounts for the dependence of perceived loudness
on frequency is a weighting network, known as A-weighting, in the measurement
system to simulate the response_of the human ear. For most noise assessments;
the A-weighted sound level, or dBA, is used-b~cause of its widespread recogni-
tion and its close correlation with human perception. In the current study,
all measured noise levels are reported in dBA or A-weighted dec~bels. Common
noise levels in dBA are given in Table 11.1.-1.
Human Perception and Community Response_ to Changes in Noise Levels
The average ability 9f an individual to perceive changes in noise levels

is well documented (see Table 11.1.-2). Generally, changes in noise levels of
less than 3 dBA are barely perceptible to most_listeners, whereas 10 dBA
changes are no~ally perceived as doublings (or halvings) of noise levels.
these gUidelines permit direct estimation of an individual's probable percep~
tion of changes in noise levels.
As stated, noise affects people in terms of individual reactions to spe-

cific effects, such as interference with speech, sleep, and other activities .
.It is also possible to characterize the effects of noise on people by studying
the aggregate response of people in cOinmUnities. The rating method used for
this purpose is based on a statistical analysis of the fluctuations in noise
levels within a community, and integrating the fluctuating sound energy over a
known period of time, for example, 1 hour or 24 hours.
Various government and research institutions have proposed guidelines that

attempt to relate changes in noise levels to COinmunity response. One COinmonly
applied criterion for estimating response is incorporated into the community
response scale proposed by the International Standards Organization (ISO) of
the United Nations' (see Table II.L-3). This scale relates changes in noise
level to the degree of community response and permits direct estimation of the
probable response of a cOinmunity to predicted change in noise level.
Statistical Nois~ Levels
It is a typical practice to describe several important features of fluctu-

ating or time-varying noise using statistical quantities. The commonly used
statistical noise levels are the percentile levels L1 , L10 ; Lso. and ~o. These
percentile levels represent ~he percentage of .the observed time ·period during
which a given noise level is exceeded. For example, L 10 represents the noise
level exceeded 10 peroent of ehe time during the period of measurement. It is
normally taken as the mean of the peak noise levels during the passage of vehi-
cles on ehe highway. Lgo represents the level exceeaea 90 percent of the time
ana 1s normally taken as the background level. Discrete event peak levels are
given as Ll levels.
II.1.-2
Table· 11.1.-1
COKHOM NOISE LEVELS
. _ SPlUld Source
Military jet, air raid siren 130

I
Amplified rock music 110
I
Jet takeoff at 500 meters 100
Train horn at 30 meters I
Freight train at 30 meters 95
Heavy truck at 15 meters 90
Busy city street, ioud shout I
Busy traffic intersection 80
I
Highway traffic at 15 meters, ~rain 70
Predominantly industrial area

I
60
Light car traffic at lS·meters, city or
commercial areas or residen~ial
areas close to industry
Background noise in ~n offiGe so
Suburban areas wieh medium densicy
transportation
Public library
I
40
I
Sgf~ whisper at 5 meters 30
Threshold of hearing . l
lIo1:e: A 10 dBA increase in level appears eo double the loudness,. and a 10
dBA decrease halves the apparent loudness.
Source: Allee King ROsen & Fleming; Inc.
n.L-3
T4ble .II.L-2
AVERAGE ABILITY .To PERCEIVE CHANGES IN NOISE ~lS
Chii.fige (db) . 'Suman Perception of .sound

2-3 Barely perceptible
5 Readily noticeable
10 A doubling or hAlving of che loudness of Bound
20 A "dramatic change"
40 Difference between a faintly aUdible sound and
very lOUd sound
Bolt: Beranek and Newman, Ine., Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway

Traffic, Report No. PB-222-703. Prepared for Federal Highway
AdMinistra~iofi; June 1973.
Table ll.l.-l
COIKDRITY RESPONSE TO INCREASES IN RolsE LEVELS
cMfige CdlA) . Ca.t.egoxy .. D.e.s.£zo.ip.tion
o None No observed reaction

5 Little Sporadic complaints
10 Mediwn Widespread complaints
15 Strong Threats of commurtiey action

20 very Berong Vigorous c.ommuniey accion
lnternat:ional Standards organization, Nolse ASsessment with Respect

to Community RespOnses; ISO/TC 43; (New York: United Nations; No~
vember 1969)
II .L-4
Another useful indek is the eq~ivalent continuous level (Leq ). It is de-
fined as the level of continuous sound containing the same amount of acoustical
energy as the fluctuating sound over the same period of time. .Leq is used in
the prediction of future noise levels by adding the coptributions from new
sources of noise to the existing levels, and in relating annoyance to increase
in noise levels.
The relationship between Leq and the levels of exceedance is worth noting.
Because Laq is defined in energy rather than straight numerical terms, it is
not simply related to the levels of exceedance. If the noise fluctuates very
little, then Leq will approximate Lso or the'm~dian level. If the noise fluc-
tuates broadly, then the Leq will be approximately equal to the L10 value. If
extreme fluctuations are present, the Leq will exceed ~o or the.background
level by 10 or more decibels. Thus" the relationship between Leq and the lev-
els of exceed~nce will depend upon the character of the noise. In community
noise measurements, it has been observed that the Laq generally lies between LiD
and LSD' The relationship betweeR Leq and exceedance levels has been used in
the current studies to characterize the noise sources and to determine the
nature and extent of their impact at all receptor locations.
A noise "rating developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

for specification of community noise from all sources is the day-night sound
level (~). For the ~ rating, a weighting penalty of 10 dBA is ad~ed to the
nighttime hourly equivalent levels (Leq) from 10 PM to 7 AM before computing
the 24-hour energy average. The nighttime penalty is intended to account for
the fact that noise, at night, when people are trying to sleep, is judged more
. annoying than the same noise during the daytime. L dn is along· term desc.ripeor
of the potential annoyance and was not used in this analysis.
Noise Descriptors. Used in Impact Assessment
For purposes of the project, the level exceeded 10 percent of a one-hour

period (L10 (1»' and the maximum one-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(l»' have
been selected as the noise descriptors to be used in the noise impact evalua-
tion. L10 is the descriptor used in CEPO-CEQR seandards for vehicular traffic
noise. Maximum one~hour equivalent sound levels are used to provide an indi-
cation of highest expected sound levels. Hourly s~atistical noise levels ahd
Leq levels are used ~o characterize the relevan~ noise sources and ~heir re1a~
tive importance at each receptor loca~ion.
Noise levels associated with the construction and operation of the project
are subject to the emission source prOVisions of the New York City Noise Con-
trol Code and to noiSe thresholds set for the CEQR process. Other standards
and guidelines promulgated by federal agencies do not apply to projece noise
conero1, but are useful to review, in that they es~ablish measures of impacts.
Construction equipment is regulaeedby ~he Noise Control Act: of 1972.
New York CitX- Noise Code
The New York City Noise Control Code promulgates sound-level standards for
motor vehicles, air compressors; and paving breakers; requires that all eX~
bausts be muffled; and prohibits aU unnecessary nC'.lise adjacent' to l3snC'.lols,
. II .L=5
hospitals, or courts. ' The code further limits construction activities to week-
days between 7.AM and 6 PM.
In 1979, Section 1403.3-6.01 of the code was re-enacted as Local Law No.
64. This new law established ~bient noise quality criteria and standards
based on existing land use zoning designations. Table II.L-4 summarizes the
ambient noise quality criteria established under Local Law No. 64. conformance
with the noise level values contained in the law is determined by considering
noise emitted directly from stationary activities within the boundaries of a
project. Construction activities and noise sources outside the boundaries of a
project are not included within the provisions of this.law.
Table ILL-4
Daytfill8. Nighttime
Limits· Limits·
Ambient Noise .Standards Quality Zone (ANOZ) C7 Ali-10 PM) (10 p-.7....AKl
Low-Density Residential (R1 to R3) Land Use 60 50

(N1)
High~Density Residential (R4 to RIO) 65 55
Land Use (N2)
Conunerc.ia1 and Manufacturing (el to CS, ,0 ,0
Ml to M3) Land Use (N3)
* Leq(l hou2:)
Source: City of New York Local Law No. 64.
Ne.w YO.rk .CEP.o-.GEOR No.is.e Standards
The New York City Department of Environmenta1'Protection has set external

noise exposure guidelines. These guidelines are shown on Tables II.L-5 and
II. L-6. Noise exposure is classified into four categories - - acceptable, mar-
ginally acceptable, marginally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable. The
CEPO-CEQR standards for traffic noise are based on maintaining an acceptable
interior noise level for the worst-case hour L1D less than or equal to 4S dBA.
Standards for aircraft and train noise are different and are listed in Tables
lI.L-5 and 1I.t-6.
tn addition, ~ project-generated increase'of 3 dBA or more at a noise

receptor is considered to be a significant adverse noise impact that requires
mitigation. When the source of noise is traffic; the assessment is made using
the L10(l) descriptor.
1LL-6
, ___ II.L-5 ~a
OPO-CEQR. ROISE EXPOSURE STAIIDARDS FOR ROISE RECEPTORS FOR USE, IR CITr EllVIRORKERTAL IMPACT REVIEW1
1I01ae Ileceptor Tille Acceptable Ceneral

Claaaification Period External
~jJ' s 5,5dBA (worst hour)
L10 ~ 55dBA (worst hour) •" 55 < L10 65dBA(worst hour)

2~>BO'"
~
"
• 65 ( L10 ~ BOdBA(worst hourJ

III
' ., I:I
" 12\,
:Ilncluding f 7AM-llPM I' Ll0~65dBA(worst hour)
,
•I, 65 < L10 ~ 70dBA (worst hour) I
I 70 ( L10 ~ BOdBA(worst hOUI) \ill' L10 > BOdBA (worst hOUI)
residential
h.otels and I1.1PM-7AM l L 0S55dBA(WOIst hOUI)
DJ.G)tels 1 I. i 55 ( L10 S 70dBA (WOlst hOUI) I! 70 < L10 S BOdBA(worst hour) e: 1 L~o > BOdBA (worst hOUl:)
Schools,
museums,
i,""
CiI',
co' ....0
I:Il1ilraries, It
G:ourts, 0., p.,
II:'"
houses of 0'
p. I: Y'
worship, tJI:
,... ....,
transient
S'ame as
>-' Same as
il1\.
S'ame as H' Same as
VII
hotels and '0- H' 'Il-
H
motels, .pub- Residential Day Residential Day VI Residential Day Residential Day tJI
.H lie meeting (7 AM - 11 PM) (J AM - 11 PM) a.
bI
(7 AM - 11 PM) ....0' (7 AM - 11 PM) >-
t"4
"
rooms. audi- >- A,
;-.II ti:.oriums " and'
out-patient
public
h.ealth fa- , " II I u.
III
c:fHties : II I• ~
Ccommercial
I
,
Same as ' L .' , . ~ame as •• Same as VI
Residential Day I
, Residential Day I Residential Day a.
OUice
n AM - 11 PM) I
• (7 AM - 11 PM)
I
•
I
('1 AM - 11 PM) 'r:
I
Industrial.
pullllic areas See t See Note 4 I' f See Note 4 J' J See Note 4 I' See Note 4
anly'" N:ote 4
SOurce: NYC Department of Environmental Protection (adopted policy 1983).

IIDtea: (i) In addition. any new activity shall not increase the ambient noise level by 3 dBA or more; (U) CEPO-CEQR Noise Standards for
tra,in noise are similar totne above aircraft noise standards: the noise category for train noise is found by taking the Ldu value
fo,r such train noise to be. an LL. (Ldn contour) value (see table on the following page).
, Heasurements and projections of noise exposures are to be made at appropriate heights above site boundaries as given by ANSI Standards.
2: 1racts of land where serenity and' quiet are extraordinarily important and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
these q~al:tties is essential for ,the area to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particuIa.r parks or
portions of parks or open spaces dedicated or recognized ~y appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of
, serenity and quiet. E'xamples are grouIJ.ds for amb1,11atory hospital patients and patients and residents of sanitariums and' old-age homes,
3, One may use the FAA-approved Ldn contours supplied by the Port AuthQrity, or the noise contours may 1)e computed from the federally
a,pproved INK Computer Model using flight data supplied by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
• External Noise Exposure standards for industrial areas of sounds produced' by industrial operations other than operating motor vehicles
olr other transportation facilities are spelled out in the NYC Zoning Resolution. Sections 42-20 and 42-,21. The referenced stand&;rds
apply to MI, M2, and M3 manufacturing districts and to adjoining residence districts (performance standards are octave band standards)
Table II.L-6
ATTENUATION VALDES CAIJRD FOR BY CEPO-CEQR EXTERIOR NOISE CATEGORIES
1Ioise . Ilarg1nally
Catelto1'T AcceDtable Kargfnall~ Unacce~table Clearl~ Unacce~table
<:n (II) (1) (H) (III)

Attenuationll 2'5 dB(A) 30 dB(A) 35 dB(A) 40 dB(A) 45 dB(A) 50 dB(A)
Vehicularb, c 65<L1OS70 70<L1.oS 75 75<L1.oS8O 80<L1OS85 85<L1OS90 90<L1OS95

Moise
'Frsinlil, c 60<~~65 65<~70 70<LttnS75 75<Ldn~80 80<~nS85 85<~nS90

Noise
H'
H' Aircraftb-, c
t". Noise N/A N'/A-
6,O<L~ S65 65<Lln S70 70<L~ S75 Lcfu >75
"
COl
1Iotes:
a The above composite window-wall attenuation values are for residential dwellings. Commercial
o,ffice spaces and meeting rooms would be 5 dB(A) less in each category. All the above categories
x:'e:quire a closed window situation and lience an alternate means of ventilation.
iii Dlifferent descriptors are used for each noise source: L1.0 for vehicular traffic; Lcm. for train
IIJo,ise; and L~ (Ldn Contour") for aircraft noise. "", t
C The various noise sources at a receptor location are. measured and reported separately in accordance
with generally accepted procedures for assessing an overall noise level. Cases where there is not
a clearly dominant noise source require a judicious decision based on adequate field experience and:
analysis to determine the final noise categ,ory that is deemed appropriate for the overall noise
exposure at each noise receptor site .
.. Lela requires a 2'4-hour measurement or supportive analysis if a shorter period is employed.
t, LJri, - "Lcm Contour" is an annual average of ~ values ("y" indicates "yearly average").
As a result of the above act, a document entitled "Inform~tion on lev¢ls
of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an
Adequate Margin of Safety" was published in 1974 by· the EPA (see Table II. L,"7) ,
These levels do not constitute enforceable federal regulations or standards.
They are provided for informational purposes. only.
FUture Noise Prediction Methodology
The future noise level would comprise the combined effect of future traf-
fic (both project- and non-project-generated) and ambient noise levels. The·
procedures discussed here present the methodology for predicting the future
noise levels.
When the existing roadways would continue to exist in the future, the pre-
dictions of future traffic noise are based on a calculation using measured
existing noise levels and predicted changes in traffic volumes to determine No
Build and Build levels. Twenty~four hours of existing, No Build, and Build
traffic volumes were determined. The vehicular traffic volumes were converted
into Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) values, for which one medium-duty truck
(having a gross weight between 9,400 and 25,000 pounds) is ·assumed to generate
the noise equivalent of 16 cars, and one heaVY-duty truck (having a gross .
weight of more. than 25,000 pounds) is assUmed to generate the noise equivalent
of 85 cars, according to FHWA noise criteria. Proportioning these PCE volumes
with measured noise data in conjunction with an interpolation model yields 24
hours of existing and future noise levels. Since sound levels use a logarith-
mic scale, this model proportions logarithmically with traffic change .ratios.
For example, assume that traffic is the dominant noise source at a particular
location. If the existing traffic volume on a street is 100 PCE and if the
future traffic volume were increased by 50 PCE to a total of 150 PCE, the noise
level (L10 ) would increase by 1.8 dBA. If the future traffic were increased by
100 PCE, or doubled to a total of 200 PCE, the noise level (L10 ) WQu1d increase
hy 3.0 dBA. An increase in noise levels of 3.0 dSA or greater over No Build
conditions would constitute a significant impact. ·Therefore, a doubling of
traffic where traffic is the dominant source of noise results in a significant
noise impact.
When future roadways do not currently exist or when construction activity

was in progress during noise readings, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) STAMINA Version 2.0 traffic noise computer model was used to predict
noise levels on the new roads.
&Eiating Conditions
S.l teo D.e.scrip-t.ion
Within the project site are N2 (high-density residential land use) and N3
(commercial land use) Ambient Noise Quality Zones (ANQZ). Noise level limits
for the N2 zone are 65 dBA f~r daytime (7 AM-lO PM) and 55 dBA for nighttime
(10 PM-' AM), Noise level limits for the N3 zone ·are 70 dBA at all times,
II. L-9
· T"ble II. L-1 .
BOISE LlVELS IDENTIFIED AS REQUISITE TO l'llOi"EC'r PUBLIq IlFAI.TB

AlfD WSUAUVITII AN ADEQUATE 1iAllGlN' 0, sAFETY
Effe.c.1L Area
Hearing Loss All areas
Ou~door aoeivity interference t.cin~55 dB Ou~doors in residential areas

ann annoyance and farms, and other outdoor.'
areas where people spend
widely varying amounts of
time ana oeher places in
which qUiet is a basis· for
use.
Outdoor areas where people

spend limieea amounts of
time, such as school yards,
playgrounds, etc.
Indoor aceivity interference Indoor residential areas

and annoyance
o~her indoor areas wieh human

aceivities, such 3S schools,
etc.
Source: Report No. EPA-SSO/9-74-004, March 1974.
I1.L-10
The only on-site road is the Miller Highway·, which carries more" than 6, boO
vehicles per hour dUring peak periods. The Miller Highway is elevated over the
site, which is vacant land ex·cept for the Amtrak rail lines on ·the eastern end.
The noise on-site is characterized by vehicular noise, -particularly noise from
vehicles on the elevated Miller Highway. Helicopter and airplane flyovers are
not significant noise sources. Amtrak trains pass through the site a maximum
of twice per hour and thus do not contribute to the dominant noise in the area.
Noise Monitoring
Ambient sound levels were measured in the vicinity of the proposed site in
April and May 1981 and NoVember 4 and 26, 1991. All the accumulated data are
summarized in Appendix 0.1.
The validity of the 1981 data for use in this study was assessed in 1985
and 1987 by remeasuring representative locations. The data were reassessed by
Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc., in October 1991. Only a few locations were
examined as part of this reassessment. Since noise levels in the study area
are a function of traffic volumes, even assuming a growth rate for traffic of
1.0 percent per year, over a 10-year,time period noise levels would be expected
to increase by less than 1 dBA compared to measurements made in 1981. This in-
crease is not considered a significant change. OVerall, these measurements
found that ambient noise levels have increased by less than 3.0 dBA since 1981.
However, since maximum potential impacts would be most likely realized using
the lower baseline data, the analysis uses the 1981 database. A full assess-
ment of the validity of-the use of these data is presented in Appendix 0.1.
Measurement locations used in 1981 and 1991 are listed in Table II.L-B,
below, and shown in Figure II.L-1.
Each of these locations represents a site where-actual noise measurements

were taken.
All receptor locations represent an area rather than a point and reflect
conditions in the general vicinity of that location. The receptor locations
represent the key locations for both traffic and construction noise impace as-
sessment. They include sensitive noise locations (i.e., residences, park loca~
tions, etc.); they are the locations that would be expected to experience the
largest impacts from the proposed project. (See Appendix 0.1 for further de-
tails. ) Similarly, since sound levels are a:t·tenuated by both increased dis-
tance and intervening buildings as one moves away from the construction site,
these same receptors represent a comprehensive, wors~-case set of locations for
estimating construction noise impacts. (See section II.R, "Construction Im-
pacts,". for further details.) .
Instrumentation
In 1981, ambient sound was measured using a Bruel & kjaer 4426 Noise Level
Analyzer. The measurements made in 1985 and 1987 were made using a Metrosonics
db601 Sound Level Analyzer. In 1991, a Larson DaVis Labs Model 700 TyPe 1
sound level meter was used. All instrumentation systems conform to applicable
ANSl specificaeions, Before and afeer each measutemerte period, the sound mea~
suring syseems were calibrated using a General Radio lS62-A Sound level Oa11- _
. brator with the appropriate adaptor.
n.L-ll
Table II.L-8
RaISE BECEPTOR·toCATlORS
lilobe Reoeptor . . . . Lo.cati.on._ .
1 West 72nd Street, south side, 100 feet 'West of West End
Avenue
2 West 70th Street, midway between West. End AVenue and Free~
dom Place
3 Freedom Place, midway between West 66th and West 70th
Streets, west of Lincoln towers
4 West 66th Street, 250 feet wes~ of Amsterdam AVenue at
Martin Luther King High School and near La Guardia High
School
5 West End Avenue, 60 feet south of Wes~ 61st Stree~ at 2nd
story window of Firestone dealership, 6 feet from facade
6 Amsterdam Avenue, midway between West 58th and Wese 59th
Streets, adjacent: to Roosevelt Hospital and opposite High
School
. of .the
. Arts
7 West 59th Street, 100 feet east of 12th AVenUe at the Con
Edison plant
8 West 59th Street, 50 feet east of West End Avenue
9 West 64th Street west of the Miller Highway in the area of
the proposed waterfront park
10 West 72nd Street west of the Miller High'Way in the area of
the proposed waterfront park
11 West 64th Street east of the Miller Highway along the
proposed exeension of Riverside Drive
12 West 71st Stree~ east of the Miller Highway, along the
proposed extension of Riverside Drive
1l.1..-12
Noise Receptor Locations
. Figure II.L.. 1
\
oa
W.7OTHST. -
f ------ D~c
·... " "
·-·~·~1
~" ;11"
r."
",' ,
- ~"'-.""'-.. ...,
f
' " __
:t"_._.
"
-p'
,
<,,",
,~ '~
( ) ~
-:" ',. ,
· r ·-·-·-~' ,,' H
- I.
L ______
________
. ...(,
,...._._._.roo' I~
~
~
:::I
e ( J
-..
.D
r-
0: '-w. &rnI ST.
~~~·-·-·1
<:
o
C/)
L._._._.~
•
bb I I
=w. HST.
II
I•
a 1
:::>
:r: """'._._/oj-
1 " ,',;11' .
:"-~~..,.<-
' ,' . .
...
'
.." ,I
.',.. ..'""...11
"
"
.,.' ,
•
•
1•
1 ,:: ,', t W.6OTIIST . ..
r-------
• I__I I ._.~._IIii.li .mQO
:il-w~r'¥' ... . ~- ..
,--- III ~ I ~ ][ o 5DOFEET

.. ;;:;;C;;:~I
Ie:=:::
. - - . - Projett Site Boundary SCALE
o NOise Receptor Location

Noise monitoring results at the 12 receptor locations are.summarized in
Table II. L-9.
Measured noise levels fall into ~he "marginally acceptable" New York CEPO;
CEQR category at receptor locations 2, 3, and 4, and the "marginally unaccept-
able" category at receptor locations 1 and 5 through 12.
The Puture Vithout the Project
Future noise levels without the project are not expected to increase ap-
preciably over exiSting levels in' 1997. Without. the proposed project, traffic
volumes are expected to increase noise levels by up to 2.6 dBA in 1997. A sum;
mary of maximum noise levels and increases predicted to occur at monitored
noise-sensitive locations is shown in Table ILL-10, below. As is shown in
Table II. t-lO', t 10 (1) noise 'levels would increase by less than :3.0 elBA at all
monitored locations in 1997. Therefore, there would be no impact for No Build
conditions in 1997. A complete list of expected hourly t 10 (1) nOiSe levels
without the project is shown in Tables 0.1-13 through 0.1-22 in Appendix D.l.
Future noise levels without the project are not expected to increase sig-
nificantly over existing levels in 2002. \o1ithout the proposed project, traffic
volumes are expected to increase noise levels by up to 2.9 dBA in 2002. A sum;
mary of maximum noise levels and increases predicted to occur at monitored
noise-sensitive locations is shown in Table II.L-ll, below. As is shown in
Table II. L-ll, L10 (1) nOiSe levels would increase by less than :3.0 dSA. at all
monitored locations in 2002. Therefore, there would be no impact for No Build
conditions in 2002. A complete list of expected hourly blO(l) noise levels
without the project is shown in Tables 0.1-47 ~hrough 0.1-56 in Appendix D.l.
Probable Impacts or the PropOsed Project
Potential noise impacts generated by the proposed project were determined

using the methodology previously described. the receptor locations used for
the impact analysis are shown in Figure II.L-2. Reviews of traffic data unde~
No Build and Build conditions indicate that changes in traffic at: other loca-
tions in the study area are not expected to be. sufficiently larg'e to. cause a
significant noise impact.
A summary of maximum noise levels and increases predicted to occur at

noise-sensitive monitored locations for Build cofidieions is shown in Table
11.L-12. The proposed project would noe result in a doubling of ·peE traffic
Table I~.L-9
EXISTING ROISE LEvELS (dJlA) *
aece~tor Locat~on Time Period

A1I PH
Peak lidelay Peak Rlghttlme
1. West 7ind" Street

Leq (l) 69 70 67 67
L 1O (1) 70 71 69 69
2. West 70th Stree't

Leq (l) 65 62 65 59
L1O (1) 67 65 67 62
3. Freedom PlaGe
Leq (l) 64 67 63 64
L 1O (1) 64 66 63 64
4. West 66th Seree't

Leq(l) 67 67 66 65
L1O (1) 68 69 68 67
5. West End Avenue

L eq (l) " NA 72 68 65
L 1O (1) NA 74 71 68
6. Amsterdam Avenue
Le!i(l) 73 75 70 66
L UH1 ) 78 78 74 72
7. West 59th Street

L.q(l.) 67 NA 67 61
L10n ) 71 61 69 63
Il.L-14
Table I~.L-9 (Continued)
EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (aBA)"
_ Receptor Location .Tim.eJeriQQ
8. Wes·t 59th Stree t/We,S't End Avenue

Leq (1) 74 74 75 72
L 10 (1) 75 76 75 74
9. West 64~n St:reet: - Proposed Park

l.eq(l) 73** 72 .... 70~~ ***
75" 74 .... 73~~ .**

L10(1)
10. West 72nd Sereet &

Proposed Park
Leq(l) 73*" 74** 64 55
L 1O (1) 76*· 7S·* 69 S8
11. West 64eh Street - Proposed Riverside Drive

ww*
l..eq ( 1) 69 69 69
~'ii'li
1..10 (1) .71 71 72
12. West 7lst: St:reet - Proposed Riverside Drive

b eq (l) 69 65 67 62
1..10 0.) 73 68 70 64
Note:
These numbers reflect total noise levels, including the contributions
from all single-event occurrences; such as ambulances; sirens, aircraft
flyovers; etc.
Construction activity was ongoing near and during measurements . .
Site inaccessible at night.
NA ... Not available from Trump City DEIS Qa,ta.
II.LOolS
Ta)Jle II.L-10
MAI'JlC"'tDI ~O(i) BOISE l..EVEi.5 WITHOUT THE PR.OJECT IN 1997 (dBA)
l.eceptor Ezisting No Build iIb::lmum

LDeatipn i.eye1s .1.9Jl.L Leye.lS 1991 Increas.e
1 71.0 71.5 1.0

2 68.9 69·.0 0.2
3 66.0 66.1 1.~
4 69.5 70.4 1.5

5 74.0 74.7 1.5
6 78.2 78.6 1.7
7 71.0 72.8 1.8
8 ·76.0 77 .8 2.6
Table II.L-1l
MAxnIOH ~O(1) ROISE J..EttLS WITHOUT. THE P&OJECT iN 2002 .(dBA)
:Receptor blsting No Build Haximum

Lo.cst.i.m Leyels 2-002 Le'Yels 2002 Increase
'i
1 71.0 71.8 1.2

2 68.9 69.0 1.1
3 66.0 66.2 1.8
4 69.5 70.8 1.7
5 74.0 74.8 1.7
6 18.2 78.9 1.9
'7 7l.a 73.0 2.8
8 76.0 78.S 2.9
II.L-16
'. Figure II.L-2 .
D§]C era
W.7DTHST.
[ ) r ):
-
'S 0 ( )
......
I...W. 86THST.
~I
w HST.
I ...
II
[OOj §3
~ ~rJ:o;s 3
2:S~~JVl
~I
~W.ItST
......-rn.
.
1 13 D
o 50QFEET
I .. - j. I
.........- - Project Site Boundary . SCALE
o Noise Receptor Location

N parcei Name
volwnes on any street in the study area, As shown in Table II.L-12, L10(1)
noise' levels would increase by less than 3.0 dBA at all noise-sensitiVe moni-
tored locations in 1997. Therefore. no significant noise impac·t would result
from the proposed project. The negative increases (decreases) at location 1,
on Yest 72nd Street, would be caused by the closing of the. 72nd Street ramp to
the Miller Highway and the resulting diverted traffic. No increases are listed
for locations 11 and 12 because the land at these locations is currently va-
cant, the new section of RiVerside DriVe does not currently exist and would not
exist for No Build conditions. There are no noise-sensitive locations outside
the project that would be affected by the project at these locations. At re-
ceptor locations 9 and 10 in the park (locati~n 10 is adjacent to the actiVe
open space; location 9 is a passive open space area), noise levels would be
comparable (i.e., within 3 dBA) with future No Build noise levels . . Noise lev-
els at residential buildings in the project study area, including adjacent
residential buildings, would not be significantly impacted by ehe proposed
projece. There are no locations where the project would produce a doubling of
traffic peEs and hence a significant noise impac~ .. A complete lise of expeceed
hourly L1iH1 ) noise levels wieh the proposed project is shown irt Tables D.1-23
through D.1-34 in Appendix 0.1.
Table II.L-l2
MUllmlI Ltoe!) NOISE LEVELS WITH THE n.OJECT IN 1997 (dBA)
Receptor No Build Build Haximum

Locad.on . Levels Levell Change
1 71. 5 70.6 -0.4
2 69.0 69.4 1.7
3 66.1 67.3 2,3
4 70.4 70.5 0.4
5 74.7 74.8 0.3
6 78'.6 78.6 0.1
7 72.8 73,6 1.4
8 77 .8 77 .8 0.0
9 71.4 71.4 0.0
10 69.9 69.9 0.0
11
'II
64.3·
..
12 * 66.9
..
No Build levels will be, comparable to Build

values, and the maximum change would be
less than 3 <mA.
All locations would remain in the same CEPO~CEQR categories as in the No

Bulld conditions. All project buildings would have ex~erior double-glazed
windows and ait conditioning such thae window/wall noise attenuat~on would be
U.t-D
at least 30 dBA. The ,building on Parcel M would contain ~dditional.'window/wall
noise attenuation to achieve at least a 35 dBA noise reduction. (These levels
of attenuation are dictated by the projected 2002 noise levels at receptor
locations 7, II, and 12.) This would 'ensure that interior noise levels at all
proposed residential buildings would not exceed the 45' dBA 1..10 (1) CEPO.-CEQR
requirement.
By 1997, the waterfront elements of the proposed park (i.e., those ele-
ments of the proposed park located west of the existing Miller Highway) would
be completed. Noise receptor locations 9 and 10 are located within this por-
tion of the proposed park. Traffic on the Miller Highway would result in L10 (1)
noise levels within this portion of the park in the high 60 to low 70 dBA
range. these noise levels would be higher than those generallY recommended fot
outdoor activities and would exceed the CEPO-CEQR 55 dBA L1O(1 ) guideline level.
This exceedance of the CEPO-CEQR guideline level would result in a significant
impact on park users. However, noise levels in this part of the propo'sed park
would be comparable to levels in a number of existing parks in New York City
(i.e., the park along the FDR Drive and other parks adjacent ~o roadways, such
as Riverside Park). In addition, .based upon noise measurements at school play=
grounds, '* which showed 77 dBA t lDel ) noise levels at the playground boundaries,
noise levels within this portion of'the proposed park, adjacent to playgrounds
and other active recreation areas, would exceed the CEPO-CEQR 55 dBA LID(1 )
gUideline level. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce noise
levels to within ·the CEPO-CEQR 55 dBA L1o (1) guideline level at the portions of
the waterfront park to be completed in 1997.
A summary of maximum noise levels and increases in No Build noise levels

predicted to occur at noise-sensitive monitored locations for Build conditions
is shown in Tabie II.L-l3. The proposed project wOl,lld not result in a doubling
of PCE traffic volumes on any street in the study area. As shown in Table
II.L-l3, L1D (1) noise levels would increase by less than' 3.0 dBA at all noiSe-
sensitive monitored locations in 2002. Therefore, no significant noise impact
would result from the proposed project. The negative increases (decreases) at
location I, on West 72nd Street, would be caused by the closing of the 72nd
Street ramp to the Miller Highway and the resulting diverted traffic. No in-
creases are listed for locations 11 and 12 because the land at these locations
is currently vacant" the new s~ction of Riverside Drive does not currently
exist and would not exist for No Build conditions, and there are no noise-sen-
sitive locations outside the project ,that w'ould be affected by the project. At
receptor locations 9 and 10 in the park, noise leVels would be comparable
(i.e., within 3 dBA) with future No Build noise levels. Noise levels at resi-
dential buildings in the project study area; including adjacent residential
buildings, would not be significafi~ly impacted by the proposed project. There
are no locations where the proj ecE would produc"e a doubling of t,raffic and
hence a significant noise impact. A complete list of expected hourly LICH1 )
noise levels wiEh Ehe proposed projecE is shown in Tables D.l~57 through 0.1-68
in Appendix D.l.
'* Field observations perfprmed by Allee King Rosen & Fleming. Inc. on November
24, 1987, and field observations performed by the DEF during October 1987.
Noise levels generated by the elevated Miller Highway alone were calculat-
ed for locations 11 and 12, resulting in maximum L10(1) levels of 66.4 and 69.0
dBA, respectively. Using these No Build levels, Build levels at locations. 11
and 12 are less than 3.0 dBA below Build values.
All locations would remain in the same CEPO-CEQR categories as in the No

Build conditions, except location 8. Location 8, on West 59th Street near West
End Avenue, would change from "marginally unacceptable" to "clearly unaccept-
able"; however, the maximum L1o(1) increase caused by the project would be 1.8
dBA, and would not be significant. All project buildings would have exterior
double-glazed windows and air conditioning such that window/wall noise attenu-
atiot:J. would be at least 30 dBA (based upon noise levels at receptor locations
11 and 12). The building on parcel M would contain additional window/wall
noise attenuation to achieve at least a 35 dBA noise reduction (based upon.
noise levels at receptor location 7). This would ensure that interior noise
levels would not exceed the 45 dBA L1ii(1) CEPO-CEQR requirement.
Maximwn noise levels predicted to occur in the proposed park be'tween Riv-
erside Drive and the Hudson River are listed in Tables 0.1-65 through D.1-68 in
Appendix 0.1.
.,r.
Table II.L-ll
MAXDmJI ~O(1) IIOISE LEVElS WlTl THE PROJECT IB 2002 (dBA)

B.eceptor Bo Bulld Bulld Jla::idmum
J.qC4J!:L9D J.evels Leyels Increase
1 71.8 7l.2 -0.1
2 69.0 69.9 2.4
3 66.2 67.3 2.3
4 70.8 7l.0 0.6
5 74.8 74.9 0.2
6 78.9 79.0 0.2
7 73.0 74.0 l.5
8 78.5 80.3 l.8
9 7l.5 7l.5 0.0
10 70,0 70.0 0.0
11
12
*
. .68.7
69.4
.'*
Bote:
* No Build levels will be comparable to Build
values, and the maximum change would be
less than' 3 dBA.
Once construction is complete, L10(1) noiSe levels in the park would be in

the mid-60s to low 70s dBA range, generated by vehicular traffic on the Miller
Highway and Riverside Drive aircraft f1yovers, and background noise from the
j
urban activity in the area. These noise levels would be higher than those
generally recommended for outdoor activities (i.e., they would exceed the CEPO-
CEQR S5 diA L1il guideline level), but would be comparable to levels in existing
parks in New York City (i.e' the park along the ~DR Drive, and other parks
j
11.L-19
adjacent to roadways, such as Riverside Park).· This exceedance ot the CEPO-
CEQR gUideline level would result in a significant impact on park users. There
are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce noise levels to within CEPO-CEQR
recommended park levels.
Based on noise measurements at school playgrounds,'" which showed 77 dBA

L1O(1 ) noise levels at the playground boundari~s, noise levels within the pro-
posed park, adjacent to playgrounds and other active recreation areas, would
exceed the CEPO-CEQR 55 dBA L10(1) guideline level. There are no feasible mid·
gation measures to reduce noise levels to within the CEPO-CEQR 55 dBA L1o (1 )
guideline level.
An analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of relocating the Miller

Highway upland, partially under the new Riverside Drive extension between West
59th and 72nd Streets. Details of the expected Llo(l) noise levels at receptors
in the new park are listed in Tables D.1-69 to D.1-72 in Appendix D.l. As
described in Chapter I, "Project Description," the highway would be at least
partial.ly open to the park and the' park terrain between the highway and the
Hudson River would consist of a berm sloped downhill from Riverside Drive to
the Hudson River. Note that the Ll()(l) levels in Table D.1-6"9, at park loea·
tions near the river -- i.e., at Location 9 -- would be generated from vehicu-
lar traffic alone. The actual LlO(l) noise levels at those lOcations would
likely be up to 10 dBA higher than those listed in Tables 0.1-69 because of the
other noise sourceS in the area (e.g., aircraft, boat, and' activity within the
park) .
Table II.L-14 shows maximum L10(1) levels expected at receptors in the new
park with the relocated highway. Noise levels are listed for 2002 only because
the highway relocation would not be completed before 2002.
LlO(1 ) noise levels in the park would be slightly lower within 100 feet of
the relocated highway than with the existing elevated highway because the relo· \
cated highway would be partially covered (i.e., the northbound lanes are cov-
ered and the southbound lanes are partially covered) and shielded from recep-
tors. Noise levels in the park near the Hudson'River would be as much as 10
dBA lower with the relocated highway because traffic on the Miller Highway is
the dominant noise source in its current configuration. As with the antici-
pated design, noise . levels. in the park would exceed those generally recommendeci
for outdoor activities, but would be comparable to levels in existing parks in
New York City adjacent to major roadways. Noise levels in the park would ex;
ceed the CEPO-CEQR 5S dBA L10 guideline level and would thereby result in a
significant impact on park users. Based upon noise measurements at school
playground;s,'" which showed 77 dBA LiOO ) noise levels at the playground bound·
aries, noise levels within the proposed park, adjacent to playgrounds and other
ac~ive recrea~ion areas; would exceed the CEPO-CEQR SS dBA LiO(l) guideline
level. There are no feasible mitigation measures ~o reduce noise levels to
wi thin the CEPO - CEQR 5S dBA LUJ( 1) guide line leVel.
Field observa~igns performed by Allee King Rosen & Fleming; Inc. on November
24, 1987 and field observations performed by DEP during October 1987.
Noise generated by activities in the park ·amphitheater would l10t signi.fi-
cantly affect noise levels away from the amphitheater. The amphitheater and
any associated loudspeaker systems will be oriented toward the Mudson River.
Therefore, sound will be projected out over the river toward New Jersey rather
than upland toward the Riverside South project site artd surrounding ~ommufi1ty.
Table II.L-14
lIAXIHUH ~O(1) NOISE LEVELS IN THE NEW PDX

WITH THE Ul.OOAftD illGBVAY (dBA)
Receptor 2002
Locati.on Build Levels
9 45.5"
10 66.5*
11 67.7
12 68.9
.. Traffic noise alone; actual

levels would'be up to 10 dBA
higher because of activi~ies
within t~e park.
No significant amount of noise would be generated by the ventilation sys-

tem's mechanical equipment since air intakes would contain silencers; all
equipment would be muffled ana equipmen~ enclosures would be acoustically
j
treated to reduce noise transmission. Consequently, ambient noise levels would

fiot be impacted by these potential noise sources,
II.L-21'
M. HAZARDOUS MATEllIALS
This section summarizes findings of studies conducted Co establish whether

any hazardous constituents are present in site soils and/or groundwater. The
complete results of these studies are located in Appendix E' of this documene.
Existing Conditions
T,opo graphy:
The elevation of the site ranges from 8 feet above mean sea level at the
bulkhead along the river', to about 16 feet above mean sea level in the south-
east corner of the site between 60th and 61st Streets. The southern half of
the site is near~y level, while the northern half slopes gently towards the
river.
The site is covered by a layer of miscellaneous fill from 20 to 50 feet

deep. The fill is composed of fine to medium sand with some silt, coarse sand
and gravel"brick fragments, 'ashes, cinders, and traces of silty clay. Debris,
including timber, railroad ties, and the remains of bUilding foundations, have
been found in the fill layer.
Over most of the site, except along the eastern edge, the fill is under-
lain by a layer of river mud described as gray, organic silty clay. This layer
may be over 50 feet thick at the river's edge and tapers off to a thin layer
towards the east. A layer of sandor till is found between the silty clay and
bedrock over most of the site.
The bedrock under the site is the Manhattan Schist. ,Bedrock is 10 to,30
feet below the ground surface at the eastern edge of the site and dips to a
depth of about 100 feet at the edge of the river and over 200 feet at the pier-
head line.
Hydrology
Groundwater is found in the fill material on the site 'at a depth of from
10 to 12 feet below the ground surface. The elevation of the groundwater sur-
face slopes about five feet downward from the southeastern edge of the site to
the bUlkhead. Groundwater flow is generally froin east to west, but there are
significant local variations in flow resulting from the heterogeneity of the
fill. This water table aquifer is hydraulically connected to the Hudson River.
Groundwater levels in wells within about 200 feet of the river have been found
to be tidally influenced.
the organic silty clay below the fill appears eo act as a confining layer.
Permeability tests indicate that this maeerial has a low permeability on the .
otde~ of 10-: 8 feet per minute.
n.M-l
The sand and till layers benea!=h the silty clay constitute- a separat~
aquifer which apparently has little hydraulic interconnection with the water
table aquifer. Monitoring wells installed in this deeper layer show that this
aquifer is under pressure, and exhibits a potentiometr~c surface about 1 foot
above that of the water table aquifer. This indicates that an upward vertical
gradient exists from the deeper confined aquifer to the water table aquifer.
The history of the site and the surrounding area are discussed in Section
II.H, "Historic and Archaeological Resources." Portions of the site history
relevant to the potential presence of hazardous materials on the site are sum~
tnarized belo'W.
On-Site Land Uses
Almost the entire site, except for two small areas along the southeastern
edge, was created by landfitling. The Hudson River Railroad, constructed in
1849 along the edge of the river, is now the Amtrak right-of-way which lies- on
the eastern edge of the site. A few small areas of the site were filled in the
1850's and 1860's, and the entire site was filled to the current shoreline by
about 1880.
The first development was at the southern end of the site, between_ 59th
and 60th Streets, where a bone blacking factory artd later a forge were located
in the middle of ~he nineteenth century. By 1879 the site was filled as far
north as 67th Street, with the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad freighe
yard, the Union Stockyards, and grain elevators occupying the area from 59th to
65th Streets. A complex of buildings at the northern end of the landfill,
between 66th and 67th Streets is identified on an 1879 map as "Oil Works".
By_ 1909 the freight yard extended all the way to 72nd Street with a loco-
motiVe turntable and repair facility located near the northern end of the site
between 7lst and 72nd Streets~ The elevated Miller Highway was built across
the site in the 1930's.
A 19Sf map shows all traces of the stockyard pens removed and replaced by
new railroad platforms and sidings. Food products were still-a ~ajor part of
the freight handled, as indicated by the presence of two "chicken platforms"
and three "milk platforms"..
Fire Department records show that two 15,000 gallon ~nd one 20,000 gallon
underground storage tanks were installed in the locomotive repair area in 1960.
L~akage of diesel fue~ from one of the 15,000 gallon tanks was reported in
1974. As described below, all these tanks have been removed. _
Rail freight activity declined through the 1960's and 1970;s; and railroad
operations terminated in the early 1980's. The tracks and some of the other
structures on the site were removed at that time.
Il.M-2
Adjacent Land Uses
The area to the south of the site has been largely industl;'ial and cOiDiner-
cial since the late nineteenth century. In addition tp the power plant between
59th and 60th ·Streets, which was built arQund the turn of the century to pro-
vide electrical power for the IRT subway, this area has contained lumberyards,
stoneyards, and ironworks. Beginning in the .1920's, a large number of auto-
related businesses, including auto dealerships, repair shops, and garages were
located in this area.
To the west of the site, along West End Avenue, auto-related bUsinesses
were mixed with residential row houses, tenements, and high-rise apartment
buildings. A few industrial facilities were also located in this area, includ-
ing large gas storage tanks on the east side of West End Avenue between 58th
and 59th Streets and 65th and 66th Streets. A 1926 map, shows a storage battery
factory on the northwest corner of 64th Street and West End Avenue.
Subsurface leakage of petroleum products has been detected on two proper-

ties located directly adjacent to the southern portion of the site, on the west
side of 'West End Avenue at 62nd Street. The property on the south was occupied
by gasoline stations from the 1920's until the Mobil gasoline station on the
site closed in 1988. The property on the north was used for the trucking oper-
ations associated with the New York· Times printing plant, which was located
between 63rd and 65th Streets and operated from 1959 to 1976. This property·
was later occupied by Jimmy's Towing, an auto service operation which is· still
on the site. Both properties are now part of the proposed Manhattan West de-
.velopment site.· Several programs of soil, groundwater, and soil gas testing
were performed on this site in 1988 and 1989. Two areas of significant gaso,.
line ·contamination of soil and groundwater were detected: one near the eastern
portion of the former Mobil station, and one to the west of Jimmy's Towing,
adjacent to the Riverside South site. The owner of this property has entered
into a consent agreement with New York State DEC to remediate this contamina-
tion. Testing programs have not detected any effects of this gasoline leakage
on the Riverside South site. .
Because of the past use of the site as a ra11road freight yard and a loco-
motive repair facility, and eVidence of the presence of oil in soil and ground-
water in the former locomotive repair area at the northern end of th~ site, a
number of environmental studies have been performed on the property from 1983
through 1990. The history of these studies is summarized below.
The first soil and groundwater testing on the site was performed in 1983
for a former owner of the property. This work was aimed at defining .the extent
of the presence of petroleUm hydrocarbons in the locomotive repair area. Twen-
ty soil borings were performed and groundwater monitoring wells were installed
at twelve of the boring locations. Eighteen soil samples were analyzed for
peeroleum hydrocarbons. Extrac&s from these samples were also analyzed ohro-
matographically eo de&ermine potential sources of GOfit~ination based on ~he
types and relative quantities of hydrocarbons present.
II .M-3
Petroleum hydrocarbons Were d~tected in all of the soil samples at concen-
trations ranging up to 2,220 parts 'per million. The analyses indicated the
presence of diesel oil, lubricating oil, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). Floating petroleum product Was p~esent on the "groundwater surface in
three of the monitoring wells, "one just west of the fonner" location of the
railroad turntable and tWo further west near the river's edge.
Further groundwater studies indicated that the presence of floating petro.-

leum product on the groundwater was limited to the area west of the former
turntable location, with the thickness of the layer increasing towards the
river. Dissolved petroleum product was present in groundwater from wells
throughout the locomotive repair area, with concentratiQns increasing from less
than 1 part per million on the eastern side of the area to over 500 parts per
million close to the river.
Based on these studies, a system to remove floating petroleum product from

the groundwater in this "area was designed. A Consent Order to install and
operate this product recovery system was agreed to with the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation in 1986. (A copy of the Consent Order
is included in Appendix E.) The product recovery system was installed in"1987.
The system consists of two recovery wells with pumping rates that are varied
with tide level to overcome the effects of tidal fluctuations and to facilitate
the. flow of waterborne petroleum compounds "towards the wells for collection and
removal. This system, which is ·temporarily closed, is expected to continue to
operate, and has recovered over 400 gallons of petroleum product. The ehick-
ness of the floating product and the presence'of dissolved hydrocarbons in the
groundwater are monitored monthly. The most recent monitoring report (covering
test results from April, May, and June 1991) indicates that significant amoun~s
of floating product are limited to a small area close to the river, and "the
maximum level of dissolved hydrocarbons detected in groundwater was 6.2 parts
per million.
19_87 Site Evaluation
In 1987, Fanning Phillips & Molnar performed a study for the Trump Organi-
zation aimed at investigating the potential for the presence of "hazardous mate-
rials on the site as a whole. The study included research on the land use
history of the site, review of agency records, examination of historical aerial
photographs, and an inspection of the site. A soil gas survey Was performed,
and S9il and groundwater samples were collected from areas where organic vapors
were detected. Three pairs of shallow and deep monitoring wells were installed
to investigate the properties of the shallow and deep aquifers. Mounds of soil
which were piled on the site and sediments in two catch basins were sampled ang
analyz"ed.
The mounds of soil and debris materials were removed from th~ site and
disposed of in late 1987 at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island. This
material was determined not to constitute hazardous waste by testing for prior-
ity pollutant metals, base neutral organic compounds, volatile organic COin-
pounds, phenolic compounds, pesticides, herbicides, and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazargoUs characteristics including EP toxicity. These
tests were conducted by The Trump Organization and the u.s; Envirortmentai Pro~
tection Agency (EPA). A copy of the EPA test results is included in Appendix
E;
II.M-4
A careful review of past soil, ground water, and surface ~ater studies was
undertaken in 1988 by the te~ of Dames & Moore and Fapning, Phillips & Molnar.
Review results were submitted to DEP, and a Supplemental Sampling Plan, dated
July 5, 1988 was prepared in conjunction with DEP to further characterize soil
and water conditions. Both the review of existing data and the Supplemental
Sampling Plan recottllD.endations were organized by project: site areas as shown in
Figure II.M-l.
The Supplemental Sampling "Plan was devel~ped to collect the following

types of data:
o More information regarding chemicals located in shallow soils along

the Hudson River shoreline;
o Further ¢haracterizati~n of groundwater quality throughout the site;
o Vertical distribution of substances found in soils in central part of

site;
o More information regarding shallow soils in northeastern portion of

site;
o Further characterization of volatile organic compounds in shallow

soils (northern and central site);
o Background soils data from Riverside Park and other adjacent areasj
o Study of miscellaneous items including the following: potential

influence of West 66th Street Combined Sewer Outfall Pipe (city-
owned) on subsurface soils and groundwater quality; soils near ground
surface and water that ponds near the Amtrak right-of-way between
West 60th and West 6lst Streets; areas of stained soil, stressed
vegetation, and abandoned drums; determination of whether storage
tanks are located underground in northwestern portion of site.
The Supplemental Sampling Plan included the installation of 11 ground

water monitoring wells, the drilling of 31 soils borings, soil vapor sampling
at 58 locations, and the analysis of 77 soil samples, 20 groundwater samples
and 23 Quality Assurance/Quality Control samples. The Supplemental Sampling
Plan delineated 14 separate objectives related to specific "portions of or con-
di'tions at the project site. The plan also specified the chemical analyses to
be performed for each objective's soil samples and/or groundwa'ter samples. In
general. soil samples were analyzed for the following chemical residuals:
o EPA priority pollutant metals (PP metals): antimony, arsenic, beryl-

lium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel selenium,
silver, thallium and zinc;
o Organic compounds in the base neutral semivolatile fraction of the

EPA Target Compound List (referred to as B/Ns);
o Volatile organi~ compounds on the EPA Target Compound List (VOas);
"11.M-5
1988 Sampling Plan-Study Subareas
Figure II.M-1
\ ~
r -,
I. - ..I
Location of
existing structure
Extent of site excluded

from investigation
Location of sewer
==::l)
outfall pipeline
Site security office
Location of underground
B storage tanks
Approximate boundaries Of "pgrtiQils·

of tlie site as used in the report
:~;:;::;:;:~t~i~;;;:=:::==: 66th st.

••• -J ••••••••••••
.••:~<.:.:.:.:-:.:
..................
Cl: ••••••
.
·:'z-:-:·:-:-:·:
.... UJ·.·.·.· ..".·.
I.&J
:......................
-: -: 0: -: -: -: -: -:.
> ..•.. en· ........•...
..... « ........... .
:::::.~:::::::::::::
:-:.:-:-:-:.:-:-:-:
. . . . . . . . . ...
.......................
................. .
·.·.···.·.·.·.;,L;~~:l
z ,;
'"
c?'....
0
V)
0 ~
:;
:t I
i
10-91
(Note: PP metals are the 13 metals listed above, all of which have .been desig-
nated by the Federal 'Water Polluti~n Control Act as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977 (PL95-2l7, December 28, 1977), amended by 46.FR 2266, January 8,
1981 and amended by 46.FR 10723, February 4, 1981. Tqe EPA Target Compound
List is a list of 150 organic and inorganic chemicals which has been adopted as
part of the standard analysis program used in the federal Superfund program.
The base neutral semivo1atile "fraction of the Target Compound List comprises Sl
chemicals and the volatile organic fraction" comprises 35 chemicals.)
Additional testing of soils in particular locations included testing for

one or more of the following: organic compounds in the acid-extractable semi-
volatile fraction of the EPA Target Compound List, phenols, PCBs, cyanide~
pesticides, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH).
Groundwater was tested for one or more of the following constituents: PP

metals, VQCs, B/Ns, phenols, acid-extractable organic compounds, total dis-
solved solids' (TDS) , chloride, PCBs, cyanide, and pesticides.
A more detailed list of the data collected and a description of the meth-
ods used are presented in the Supplemental Sampling Plan Report, which appears
in Appendix E.
Field activities were conducted in accordance with Quality Assurance/

Quality Control (QA/QC) protocols established by EPA and approved by the DEP in
the Supplemental Sampling Plan. These protocols stipulate procedures for col-
lecting, stor~ng, labeling, tracking the" transport of, and analyzing soil and
groundwater samples. The protocols specify the types of sample containers and
methods of washing sampling equipment, and include provisions to double-check
that field-collected samples are not inadvertently contaminated (Le., that
constituents enclosed in the sample vial or bottle are not contaminated by
equipment that has touched other soils, for example). A number of different
methods (which include testing clean water poured into containers on-site,
testing water poured into containers in a laboratory and then taken to the
site, and testing clean water poured over equipment used for sampling) are used
in combination to assess whether contamination has occurred. Further, methods
for double-checking the accuracy of laboratory results are specified by the
QA/QC protocols. The full range of QA/QC protocols are described in Volume II
of the Supplemental Sampling Plan Report included in Appendix E.
The work performed under the Supplemental Sampling Plan included excava-
tion and removal of two underground storage tanks located near the loading dock
area at the south end of the site. Soil samples were col1ec~ed from the exca-
vation for analysis. In addition, a magnetometer survey was performed and tes~
pits dug to attempt to find remaining tanks in the locomotiVe repair area.
Empty concrete vaults were fQund to be presene at the former locations of three
underground tanks "which had been recorded in this area.
Supplemental Sampling plan results and findings were reviewed by DSf and
the New York Cicy Department of Health (DOH). TWo phases of additional eestifig
were conducted based on DEP and DOH comments, which required the following
additional work:
1) Further characterization pf soil and groundwater near the location
where two SOO-gallon tanks were removed to aSsess whe~her petroleum
leakage had occurred;
2) Further characterization of groundwater in two wells located in the

northeastern portion of the site where a low level of' vinyl chloride
was identified in a single well, and further study ~o determine the
lateral extent of the vinyl chloride; and
3) A secondary soil vapor survey in selected locations to confirm that

volatile constituents other than methane were present only at very
low concentrations.
All studies requested by DEP and DOH have been conducted pursuant to sam-
pling plans submitted to the city for approval prior to the testing. The same
protocols developed for the 1988 Sampling Plan were followed. Results of these
studies are summarized below.
Satnpling Program Results
Appli.cable Standards and Evaluation Methods
Neither the federal government nor New York State has developed standards
or guidelines for the evaluation of chemical concentrations in soil. The only
exception is that the EPA has developed a prioritization level for lead in soil
tliat sets 1,000 mg/kg as a benchmark to help determine whether mitigation mea-
sures should be considered. Because of the absence of governmental standards,
a combination of professional experience and the use of local and regional
background concentrations for comparison has evolved as an accepted method of
eval~ating chemical concentrations in soil.
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for

construction workers set permissible exposure limits (PELS) for air concentra-
tions of dUst containing certain organics constituents and for levels of vapor
for certain chemical constituents. These standards for chemicals of possible
concern at the site are presented in Appendix E.
These two approaches were used to evaluaOte the presence chemical residuals
at the'site and their potential impacts. The OSHA standards have been incorpo-
rated into the project's Construction Health and Safety plan.
As fully detailed in Appendix E, a number of metals and organic cons~itu

ents' (both semi-volatile and volatile) were found to be present on-site. Many
of .~he metals are present in concentrations greater than those present in local
and rOegional background soil sainples. Organic constituents such as volatile
organic compounds, total phenols, and base-neutral organic compounds were found
at isolated locations on the site at levels considered to be eleva~ed.
Many of these constituents and the levels of their concentrations are

typical of highly urbani~ed areas, and are associated with the burning of coal;
oil. refuse. ana other fuels. Examples are the class of chemicals called the
iI.M-7
· .
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs). However, the maximum conc,entrations
of chemicals detected on-site occur' in specific locations where chemicals may
have been released or may have migrated to the site. For inseance, ehe past
use of petroleum products on-site may·have contributed to the presence of vola-
eile organic compounds and semi-vQlatile organic constituents.
The identified chemicals and their concentrations were ·screened to deeer-

mine which could potentially pose risks to h~an health. The following crite~
ria were used:
o Potential toxicity;
o Frequency of detection in analyzed samples;
o Environmental persistence of detec&ed chemicals; and
o Range of detected concentration.
The following chemicals were identified as having the greatest potential

to be of concern to human health:
o Two potential chemical carcinogens arsenic and carcinogenic poly-

cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. (CPAHs);
Q One noncarcinogen -- lead;
o Ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and nonca·rcino~

genic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (NCPAHs) are located in soil
samples throughout the northwestern portion of the site, where free-
floating petroleum product was observed on the water table· and where
a recovery program is ongoing.
The locations of the greatest concentrations of the selected chemicals of

potential concern are summarized below. Specific information regarding the
concentrations of sampled chemicals in soil, groundwater, and vapor testing
appear in the documents of Appendix E. Raw data are included in the tables of
the Supplemental Sampling Plan Report. SUininary data are included in the tables
presented in Appendix E, follo'Wing the Supplemental Sampling Plan Report.
A description of the greatest concentr.a:tions of the selected chemicals of

potential concern and the Supplemental Sampling Plan Report subareas in which
they were identified follows. Areas of high methane readings are also noted
below. The health concern associated with methane is related to its potential
for explosion when confined. Under present·site conditions, continuous path-
ways for the release of methane into the air are available through site soils,
preventing the confinement of gases.
East _Central Portion of Site. The average soil concentrations fall within
background ranges for all of the chemicals of coneern, while maximum concentra-
tions of arsenic, lead; and· cadmium exceed background ranges. One high methane
vapor reading was identified about 150 feet ea$& of the Miller Highway jUS&
north of 66th Street. Methane was measured using an organic vapor analyzer
H.M-a
(Foxboro Flame Ionization Detector)~ which has a maximum measurement capacity
of 1,000 ppm for methane. High readings as defined here are readings at the
top of the scale, which indicate levels of 1,000 ppm or greater.
Along the Hudson Riv.er .(Southwest Yest Central. and Northwest Portions o£
Site). The average soil concentrations fall within the background ranges mea-
sured for all the chemicals of concern, although maximum concentrations of
arsenic, lead, and CPAH are above background ranges. High methane vapor read-
ings were identified at three shoreline locations between 66th and 69th
Streets.
Former Locomotive Area. The average and maximum s~il concentrations oof
leadoexceed measured background ranges, and the maximum concentration of CPAH
also exceeds the background concentration range. The lead content of one soil
sample located in this area exceeds the EPA lead prioritization level, while
the lead content of all other site soil samples is below the prioritization
level. In addition, the following volatile organic compounds (ethylbenzene,
tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene) and the semi-volatile organic non-
carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or NCPAHs, are present at ele-
vated levels. As discussed previously, pumping to recover free petroleum prod-
uct is ongoing in this area. .
Southeast Portion of Site. The geometric mean and maximum soil concentra-
tions of arsenic are above background ranges, and the maximum concentrations of
cadmium and CPAHs also exceed their background ranges.
Groundwater. The lead, mercury, and phenol concentrations in many of the

unfiltered site groundwater samples, and especially those in the central and
northeastern portions of the site, exceed New York State drinking water stan-
dards and Ambient Yater Quality Guidance Criteria. The phenols are not consid-
ered to be of potential concern to human health because they are likely to be
nat~rally occurring, and since they are less toxic than the chemicals of poten-
tial concern noted earlier.
A number of factors support the conclusion that site phenols occur natu-
rally. First, phenols ·can result from the breakdown of organic substances that
occur naturally in soils and waters, and certain layers of site soils are known
to have a high organic content. Second, a test that identifies 11 manmade
acid-extractable phenolic compounds (as identified by two applicable ~PA tests)
was performed on an aggregate total of 34 ·soil and groundwater samples. the
fact that none of these tests detected any of the 11 compounds is another indi-
cator that the on-site phenols are likely to be naturally occurring. The site
groundwater is not used for drinking water or for any other purposes resulting
in human contact with groundwater.
MiscellaneD~. the removal of all known·tanks has been confirmed. Soils

in the southeast portion of the site where 12 drums were formerly located were
found to have elevated concentrations of priority pollutant metals (PP metals)
and base-neutral extractable volatile organic compounds (BINs). the soils near
the Amtrak property in the northeast portion of the site, the soils in the
stressed vegetation areas close &0 ~he Hudson River; and the orange stained
surface areas were found &0 have PP metals, :SINs;. ana volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs). The concentrations of vOCs were below levels .of significant
concern.
II.M-9
The Supplemental Sampling Plan, Report evalu'ated the West 66th Street. com-
bined sewe~ outfall pipe, an outfall that would not be used by the project bue
that crosses the site. This study notes that elevated total d~ssolved solids
and chloride concentrations indicate that leakage frolD, this pipe is occurring.
the soils in this area have elevated concentrations cif PP metals .. However, ~he
concentration of metals from this source, either in soils or in groundwater,
does not present a significant adverse impact.
Findings of Additional T.es.tin£- Requested by DEP and DOH. Subsequent to

Review..0£..the. Supplemental Sampling Plan Report
Further detail regarding the sampling and analysis discussed beldw is

contained is two documents prepared jointly by Dames & Moore and Fanning, phil-
lips and Molnar: an October 26, 1989 letter report submitted to DEP and a
February 2, 1990 report· entitled, "Results of the Additional Sampling Efforts,
Trump City site." Both reports are included in Appendix E. .
S.econdary Vap.or. Survey. A secondary soil vapor survey was conducted in

locations selected by DEP and DOH to determine more definitively whether vola-
tile constituents other than methane are present. In the northeast portion of
the site, soil vapor samples were obtained from two depths (from 3 to 5 feet
and from 5 to 8 feet) at each of six locations. In the central portion of the
site, vapor samples were taken at six locations at depths of 3 to 5 feet.
Methane was found to be the major component of all vapor samples. The· highest
total BTEX vapor reading was 0.27 ppm, a concentration that is not of concern
.and is well below. the DEP's standard of 10 ppm for further study of BTEX
vapors.
F.ormer. Und.ergr.ound Storage Tank Area. Further characterization of soil

and groundwater near the location where two 500-gallon tanks were removed was
undertaken to assess whether petroleum leakage has occurred. Because of the
presence of concrete blocks in the former tank excavation, a test pit, rather
than a boring, was dug approximately 10 feet west of, and hydraulically down-
gradient of, the former tank locations. A soil sample was collected from the
side walls of the excavation at a depth of approximately 6.5 feet, and benzene;
ethylbenzene, and xylene were detected . . Benzene, toluene, and xylene, but no
ethylbenzene were detected in groundwater from ~ell OB-i.
To define the areal dimension of the hydrocarbons within soil and/or

groundwater, a soil vapor· survey was performed the asphalt-covered area down-
gradient and west of the former tank location. This survey indicated a soil-
gas hydrocarbon vapor plume extending beneath the asphalt~paved area approxi·
mately 125 feet west of the former underground storage tank area, but did not
indicate the extension of the plume westward beyond the edge of the asphalt-
covered area.
Four groundwater monitoring wells were installed to investigate further

the area west of the former tank area. Two soil samples were obtained at each
well location, one in the unsaturated zone and one in the capillary fringe.
One groundwater sample was taken at each well. Each monitoring well was
screened 5 feet below ana 5 feet above the groundwater table. The soils and
groundwater samples were tested f.or VOCs, PARs, total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPHs), and lead. The same protocol as outlined in the 1988 Supplemental Sam-
pling Plan was used; and included the testing of field and trip blanKs.
11.M-10
·
Soils testing detected only one VOC, trichloroethane, which wa~ found in
four of the eight samples. Extremely low concentrations of this compound,
ranging froin 13-26 p"arts per" billion (ppb) , were detected.
PARs were detected at two of the sample locations. However, thase concen-
trations are similar to background concentrations of PARs for this area (see
Riverside Park Analysis in the report entitled, "Final Report Results of the
Supplemental Sampling Plan, April 1989" in Appendix E.)
Elevated concentrations of TPHCs were detected in both shallow and deeper

soil samples at a single location (MW-3), with the 4 to 6 foot sample having a
significantly higher concentration than the shallower sample. This appears to
be a localized condition. BTEX was not detected, indicating that the elevated
TPH concentrations are unrelated to the former petroleum storage tanks. Ele-
"vated concentrations of lead were detected in all eight locations.
Groundwater sampling found none of the target compounds (benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzen~, and xylene) in any of the four samples. For the purpose of veri-
fying these results, a second round of sampling Was carried out. Again, no
BTEX compounds were detected.
No detected concentrations of'VOCs, PARs, or TPHCs were fo~nd in any of

the groundwater samples. Lead was detected in one sample at a concentration of
27 mg/l. This slightly exceeds the DEC lead standard for Class "GA," which is
25 ppb. As discussed previously, since the water at the site is not used for
drinking, this does not pose any potential risk to human health.
The results of soil testing indicate no detection of BTEX and low concen-
trations of other VOCS in the shallow surface soils that do not"require further
investigation. No evidence of gasoline-related byProducts was detecbed in the
soil or groundwater west of the former tank storage,area. It therefore appears
that the hYdrocarbon vapor plume previously identified "was caused by vapor '
trapped between the soil and asphalt, and that there is no continuing source to
produce such vapors.
Concentrations of TPHC were found at only one location at a depth from 2

to 6 feet. Similarly, a lead level exceeding background conditions was identi~
fied at only one location at a "depth of 4 to 6 feet. Because each of these
conditions is presently isolat~d from human exposure, neither is a health
concern.
Vinyl Chloride. The first phase of additional study included testing of

groundwater in two wells located in the northeastern portion of the site where
a low level of vinyl chloride was identified in a single well. A second phase
was "then designed to determine the lateral extent of the vinyl chloride.
Additional groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells OB-4

and OB-8 and analyzed for VOCs. The sample from well OB-4 contained 63 ~g/l of
vinyl chloride and 41 ~g/l of trichloroethene. tn addition, an isomer of di-
chloroethene and an unknown compound were tentatively identified at eseiina~ed
GOficen~rations of 30 ~g/l and 7 ~g/l. respectively. No other vecs were detect-
ed in the groundwater samples or blanks.
II.M-ll
To define the lateral extent ~f ·these volatile compounds, three ~dditional
monitoring wells were installed, two downgradient and one upgradient from well
OB-4. Soil samples ware collected during the drilling of the three new wells
and Were tested for VOCs. Vinyl chloride 'was not detected in any of the soil
samples. The highest concentration of total VOCs was detected in the up-
gradient well at 0.05 milligrams· per kilogram, with acetone and trichloroethane
identified. The soil concentrations are below levels of concern.
Four groundwater samples, one from each well, were analyzed for VOCs.
Vinyl chloride was detected only in the original well (OB-4). The highest
concentrations of total VOCs were also detected in this well, with
l,2-dichloroethane (0.028 mg/l) and vinyl chloride (0.057 mg/l) detected.
These concentrations are below levels of concern and probably represent degra-
dation products.
The absence of vinyl chloride in the soil samples indicates a very limited
areal extent. Since vinyl chloride was only detected in the groundwater of a
single well (OB-4), it is apparently limited to the immediate area of OB-4.
The limited amount of the compound does not present a significant adverse im-
pact. Groundwater at the site is not used for consumption or any other
purpose.
Potential Human Health Risks of Identified Chemicals.
Potential routes of exposure eo elevated levels of chemicals of concern

can include· direct contact between soil and skin (dermal), breathing of sus-
pended soil particles (inhalation), swallowing soil (ingeseion), or drinking
water (oral). A brief description of the potential health risks for chemicals
of concern identified at the project site follows ..
g Arsenic is a knoWn human carcinogen. lphalation can potentially

cause lung cancer, while exposure by other routes can potentially
lead to skin cancer.
g Lead can cause alterations in the nervous system and the blood forma-
tion system.
g Exposure to Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (CPAHs) can

potentially lead to cancer at both the site of exposure and systemi-
cally.
o Non-carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PARs) can also

produce toxic effects in humans, but generally only at high doses.
o ·VOCs such as ethylbenzene when inhaled for a short period can result
in sleepiness, fatigue, headache, and mild eye and respiratory·irri-
tation. Longer term exposures can result in adverse effects to the
liver and kidney. Among the VOCs of potential concern at the site,
trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene are classified as probable
human carcinogens (a category indica~ifig suf£icien~ evidence from
animal studies, but inadequate evidence from human epidemiological
studies, to be classified as a known human carcinogen),·
11.H-12
The potential for adverse hea~th impacts is'a fUnction of'chemical concen;
trations, the magnitude of exposure to such chemicals, and the chemicals'
toxicity.
Under existing conditions, the only people regularly outdoors' on-site are
parking lot attendants and people parking their vehicles. Because the area
used for parking is paved; there is no direct contact with site soil and no
activities that disturb soil. Therefore, the potential risks to these people
are negligible. In addition, the site is surrounded by chain link fencing and
access to the site is greatly limited. As a result, potential risks to indi-
viduals who may occasionally trespass on site are also considered to be
negligible. .
The site's groundwater is not presently used for drinking water or for any
other purposes resulting in human contact with groundwater, and the proposed
project would not make use of groundwater.
Without the construction of the proposed project, the geologic, topograph-

ic, and soil conditions of the site will remain essentially as they are now,
though the bulkhead and piers along the site's shoreline will continue.to dete-
riorate, exacerbating erosion. Chemical residuals in site soil will not have a
significant adver~e impact upon human health under the No~Build condition,
since no extensive soil-moving activities will occur.
The product recovery system constructed at the northern portion of the

site will continue to operate under the terms of the 1986 Consent Order with
New York State DEC until the petroleum present on the groundwater has been
adequately cleaned up. Chemical residuals in site soils will diminish over
time. Both organic and inorganic compounds will continue to migrate, as they
do now, cowards the groundwater. The rate of migration will differ for each
chemical based on its solubility in percolating rainwater and. the ability of
the site soils to retain each one. No s~gnificant impact to the receiving
groundwater will result.
The limited amount of vinyl chloride in the soil will also continue to
dissipate as the portion that volatilizes into the soil gas discharges into the
atmosphere and the portion that may be dissolved by downward percolating dissi-
pa~es bydi1u~ion and natural microbial processes in the groundwacer.
The leaky combin~d sewer thac extends from 66eh Street across the site to
discharge in the Hudson River is expected to be repaired by the city in the
future without the project.
II.M-13
Probable Impacts of the proposed Pr.ojec·t
linpAAts. During Construc.tion
Soils
Analysis of soil samples from the site showed the presence of elevated
levels of metals and organic chemicals at some locations. Soil gas surveys
detected high methane levels in some areas. In areas where concentrations of ,
chemicals and metals of concern and methane are greatest, the following signif~
icant impacts to construction workers could occur:
g In the former locomotive repair area (located" on the northwestern

portion of the site -- see Figure II.M-l), where concentrations of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are highest, a significant adverse
.impact to construction workers could result from the. inhalation of
volatiles released during trenching. The term, "trenching," refers
to digging or excavating soil so that a worker is surrounded by soil
on two or more sides. The more enclosed or c.onfined the area, the
greater the potential for the accumulation and subsequent inhalation
of vapors.
o Exposure of construction workers to elevated levels of metals (arsen~

ic and lead), VOCs, or PAHs in soils on the site through direct skin
contact (dermal contact), through breathing suspended soil particles
(inhalation), or through swallowing of soil (ingestion) after project
development could result in a significant adverse impact.
In those areas where high methane levels were detected, the trapping of
methane beneath newly paved or covered areas when confined to an enclosed area
'could pose a condition of concern. This represents a potential significant ad~
verse impact both during and after construction of the project. However, pr.e-
cautions during and after construction would mitigate these impacts (see Chap-
ter IV, "Mitigation Measures") .
.Gr.oundwa ter
Analysis of groundwater samples from the site showed that some metals ang
organic compounds were present at levels exceeding New York State drinking
water standards and Ambient Water Quality Guidance Criteria. These findings do
not indicate significant adverse impacts to human health because the site
groundwater would not be used for drinking water or for any other purposes
resulting in human contact with groundwater. There would be no significant
adverse impacts due to construction activities causing groundwater discharge
from the site to the Hudson River.
Where foundation depths would extend below the water table level, dewater-
ing would likely be necessary during construction 6f foundations. Dewatering
involves pumping of groundwater froiil an area of construction and discharging,
the pumped water SO that it does not reenter the construction area. ln gener-
al; po~en~ial dewaeerifig impacts are those related to changes in groundwa~er
conditions during pumpinl and those rela~ed to the quality of the discharged
water.
II.M-14
An estimate of maximum dewatering can be made based on yields of monitor-
i.ng we.1ls at the site. This estimate is that to dewater an area of 275 feet by
500 feet, nearly one city block, would require a maximum pumping rate of 20
gallons per minute (gpm). It should be necessary to maintain this rate for
approximately one week. After ·this, a pumping rate of 10 gpm should keep the
excavation dry.
Water pumped from the site during construction activities (i.e., dewater-
ing) would be conveyed via a pipeline extending the point of discharge so that
contact with construction workers would not occur. Point-source testing of the
pumped groundwater would be conducted to meet all applicable regulatory
requirements.
All pumped groundwater of sufficient quality (i.e., of the same or higher

water classification as the Hudson River adjacent to the site) would be dis-
ch~rged into the river . . Such discharge would require the approval of DEC and
would be subject to the 'State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
regulations. Discharge of 'groundwater through existing storm drainage mains
into the Hudson River would require the approval of the New York City Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection (DEP). Testing would occur before site exca-
vation. It would be conducted by qualified staff and laboratories pursuant to
a protocol specified by the appropriate regulatory agency.
Pumped groundwater that is not of sufficient quality to be discharged into

the Hudson River would be discharged into the New York City sewage treatment
plant system sUbject to receipt'of permits from the DEP's Bureau of Water Pol~
1ution Control and Bureau of Sewers, and from the DEP's Industrial Waste Con-
trol Section. Groundwater would have to satisfy the quality standards set
forth in the DEP "Rules and Regulations Relating to the Use of the'Pub1ic Sew w
ers, Including SeWer Surcharges" to meet permit requirements. If disposal of
this groundwater is not approved for discharge into the sewage treatment sys-
tem, the groundwater would be treated to reduce chemical constituents to levels
acceptable for release into the Hudson River. A variety of standard methods,
such as filtering through actiVated granUlar charcoal to reduce organic con-
stituents and precipitation to reduce metal concentrations, are available and
would be used as needed to improVe ~he quality ·of groundwater before discharge.
If treatment of groundwater is required, the treatment units would be

placed on the construction site where dewatering is occurring. The low flow
rate of 10 gallons per minute (gpm) would require a small unit no bigger than a
Van or small truck. The unit would be in place only during dewatering activi~
ties, during foundation construction. Once the foundations are in place, dewa-
tering would no longer be necessary and the treatment unit ·would be removed
from the site.
Proposed mitigation measures for the identified potential significant

adverse impacts are discussed in Chapter IV, "Mitigation Measures."
Impacts During. OperAtion
Analysis of soil samples from the site showed that at most locations, no
hazardous chemicals were present at concentrations significantly higher than
background levels. Based. on these find.ings, there would be fiosignificant
adve.t'se impacts either during or after construction of the project over most of
the site.
n.M-1S
Soil gas surveys detected high methane levels in some areas. In those
areas, the trapping of methane beneath newly paVed or covered areas when con-
fined to an enclosed area could result in explosive conditions. This repre·
Sents a potential significant adverse impact both during and after construction
of the project. As described in Chapter IV, "Mitigation Measures," methane
hazards would be mitigated by insealling venting systems below structures where
required.
Analysis of groundwater samples from the site showed that some metals ana
organic compounds were present .at levels exceeding New York State drinking
water standards and Ambient Water Quality Guipance Criteria. These findings do
not represent significant adverse impacts eo human health; since the site
groundwater would not be used for drinking water or for any other purposes
resulting in human contact with groundwater.
Proposed mitigation measures for the identified potential significant

adverse impacts are discussed itl Chapter IV, "Mitigation Measures. ii
N. NATURAL RESoURCES
Hydrology. Tides. and Floodplain Conditions
The project site's location next to the Hudson River subjects the site to
effects from the river, such as flooding. Conversely, also because of this
proximity, the proposed project has the potential to affect the river. This
section presents information concerning the hydrology of the Hudson River, in-
cluding tidal effects and flooding, and how they could be affected by the pro-
posed project. "
Exis.ting .Condi tions
The Hudson River forms the western border of the project site. The Hudson
travels a distance of 306 miles from its source at Lake Tear of the Clouds in
the Adirondack Mountains to its mouth in Upper New York Bay, and drains a wa-
tershed of approximately 13,500 square miles. The tidal influence of the At-
lantic Ocean extends northward up the Hudson to the Federal Dam at Troy, New
York. From Troy to New York City, fresh water flows toward the ocean, where it
is discharged, and salt water moves beneath the freshwater with the tides.
The stretch of the Hudson River next to the'project site ranges from 3,700
to 4,350 feet in'width. Beyond the pierhead lines of New York and New Jersey,
the depth of the Hudson RiVer ranges from about 30 to 52 feet below mean low
water; The 76.4-acre project site includes approximately 19.2 acres underwater
in the Hudson River. Within the project site, waters are deepest at the north-
ern end and shallowest at the southern end. A small coVe or inlet is located
between 59th and 62nd Streets. In this location, water depths range from 19 eo
23 feet (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmosphere Admin-
istration, National Ocean Survey, Maps Nos. 12335 and 12341 -- see"Figure
II.N-1). However, preliminary depth surveys conducted for the previously pro-
posed Lincoln West project on this site haVe also identified areas (parallel 'to
65th through 72nd Street) "that are less than 6 feet deep at mean low water.
There are no intertidal, high marsh, or shoal-mud flat wetlands on the

project site, including the small cove at 62nd Street. The shallow w~ters of
the Hudson River (below 6 feet at mean low water) are classified by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) as a littoral zone, a
class of tidal wetlands. The subject of on-site wetlands is discussed later in
this section.
In the project vicinity, the river is representative of a mixed tidal

estuary where seawater is partially diluted by upriver freshwater discharges.
Freshwater flows usually follow a seasonal pattern. The runoff of snowmelt in
upriver areas produces maximum flows during the spring. During the summer, the
flows decrease to their lowest levels. The flows then increase during the fall
and winter months, but are significantly smaller in volume than the maximum
spring flows. The Hudson River adjacent to the project site is a designated'
Class 1 waterway and is considered sui~able for secondary contact recreation
and fishing, It is also considered suitable for fish propagation and survival.
II.N-l
RIVERSIDE
SOUTH H~dson.River Depths at the Project. Site
Figure II.N-l
.
~1 / ' ... ~o
I IJii ",(;) ;q,.br
X ~'2. ;
tJo I _1
Iir~ i ?,f;;)
1JO
liP
~\
I ~(;)
~ I lit" br\ ~br I ?,~
'!~ I ~~ ~ '!J~ '?>'}.f '}.~
J ~'l
~
br\ ,?>'O
l2,~
,~ r
br1-
I brt?
~'}.
I "'~
I
brIO
brl).
~ro
~?,\,oo 'JIL-
°o~
k'
btO
brl ~\
I~O br~ ",tJ
~ Ib.~ lirf;)
,?>1
bet° ~~
'!Jbr
I." ~ro
\
I
:'lDC
br~ br() ~1
f br~
I
Iii'" '1Jf;;)
./ f
1ir9J br~ "b'JI
'b9J
.:'~1
1Ir~
br~
I
~
br~
br\ tI-
bt~
IirtJ
~.,
~:
: ?,o
:"JC
f-Jo
Iii'" '1ir1
,-E>
~q
~: 1.br
\ JC
I
,~\ ~'
br1 ",ib
lit'
. 'l~
\\ ]C
l~
be'O
. ~o br9J
brbr
k' 'b1 ?.' '"--JC'
b;1
1
~? I
bt~
br¢"
flrib
Iir~
boE) o· lC
. lit'?
I
~o
bt<O
- --"'~-
I
I
~,
~o
INro bt"
1It~
",1
u.'PJ
r::_=_=_=_==I'J
,,..-;;.;.....;;;-w,. 59TH STREET
C
r
~C ~ ,?C ~\ ~o IIrq be?.
0L
~7,
~C ,;' "'~
bt'¢
",<:l G;?' ~'} >t:JC bo1
c,'" ~7, r.,C IlrCO

~~ bora
- - - Project Site Boundary

l:::::;:~::::::~J Area of River with a Depth Less than 3 Fatho;"s (18 feet)
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrati~n
National Ocean Suntty, Map Number 12341
U.S. Department of Commerce; Washington; D.C. (1982)
The mean tidal range in the Hudson River "is 4.2 feet at the project site.
The spring tide range at the site is 5.0 feet. Mean high water is at 2.10 feet
above mean sea level and mean low water is at -2.10 feet below mean sea level.
Tidal currents in the area are strong, with maximUm velocities of 2.8
knots normally occurring during spring low water ebb tides. Conditions differ
greatly where piers are located along the shqreline. Within interpier basins,
tidal velocities are slowed to 0.2 to 0.4 knots.
Groundwater on the project site is generally located between 5 and 10 feet

below the ground surface in the' fill material. Within 200 feet of 'the Hudson
River, the depths to groundwater vary with the river's tidal action. The di-
rection of groundwater flow at the site is from east to west toward the Hudson
River. Pumping tests performed in 1983 and well Yields obtained in 1988 indf-
cate that groundwater flows vary on site .. with pump test results ranging from
0.042 gallons per minute to 15 gallons per minute.
Along the western edge of the site, the water table aqUifer is tidally
influenced by the Hudson RiVer. However, this tidal influence was not observed
more. than 200 feet east of the Hudson River.
A clayey silt layer, which ranges in thickness from a few feet to 40 feet,
separates nearly all of the fill material (the top layer of site soils) from a
sandy layer under the clay. Beneath the sandy layer, most of which ranges from
a few feet to 20 feet in depth, is bedrock. The spaces between sand grains are
filled with water which is under pressure and which pushes up~ard toward the
clay layer. There is very lit,tle interconnection between the water table in
the fill material and the water aqUifer in the sand layer (i.e., interconnec-
tion only occurs in isolated areas along the eastern edge of the project site).
Rain and snowmelt from the project site either percolate into the miscellaneous
fill that composes the site soils or flow directly into the Hudson River.
,Ponding occurs where debris or the flatness of the terrain prevents drainage
toward the riVer. The collection and discharge of stormwater from developed
lands next to the site is described in section II.P, "Utilities and Solid
'Waste."
The shoreline. of the project site is within the 100-year floodplain as

delineated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM). A 100-year flood (also called the base flood) is a flood
haVing a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. As
shown in Figure II.N-2, this flood hazard area extends inland on the project
site for a distance ranging from approximately 100 feet at the northern end
(north of 66th Street) to almost 500 feet: at the southern end (between 63rd and
59th Streets).
According to the FIRM map, the base flood elevation is 10 feet above mean
sea level. Construction within flood hazard areas is regulated under New York
City Local Law No. 33 of 1988.
The piers located along the western edge of the project site are unused
and in poor condition. Many have been burned, and all are in advanced states
of deterioration. The deterioration ranges from those piers that can still be
walked on to those that have been reduced to several rotted beams and pilings
stickipg up out of the water.
RIVERSIDE
s <> U T H . Area Flooded During ·lOO-Year Storm
. Figure II.N-2
..
.r ii
----
•- • - PrOject Site
g t ] lOO-Vear Flood Plain o 2DO 400 100 100 FEttf
i I I ~~'~ !
SCALI
In the future without the project, there will be no changes to the hydrol-
ogy characteristics of the Hudson River including the areas of ' the site that
are within the 100-year floodplain. Siltation in the river would tend to con-
I
tinue to make the near shore area shallower but over the 10 year's until Phase
II is completed, this phenomenon is not expec.ted to significantly change the
bottom contours of the river because this area has not been dredged in recent
times making the current condition stable.
Pr,obabl,e. .Impac.ts, .0£ .the. Pr.op-ose.d Pr.oj.e.c.t
Pr,op.oEed. P,ark Plans. .f.or, the. Wat,erfront Areas
The project's 21.5-acre park, described in detail in Chapter I, "Project

Description,." would include modifications of the site's existing edge with the
Hudson RiVer (see Figure It'.N-3). Starting at the north end of the site, the
bulkhead from 72nd'Street to Pier I at 70th Street'would be repaired in-kind
and in-place. This repair would not require any new elements to be placed
within the water. Pier I would be renovated by replacing elements of the su-
perstructure, principally the surface deck and some of the supporting beams.
No repair or replacement of existing piles would be performed.
I,..L
South of Pier I, the existing crib-wall would be repaired in-place and in-
kind to maint~in stability and appearance. No in-water work is anticipated in
this section of the shore., The transfer bridge at 69th Street would be, stab-i-
lized by securing any loose pieces through welding or clamping. Only' the su-
perstructure above ,the high water line would be affected by this work.
South of 69th Str'eet to the inlet at 62nd Street, there is currently a

relieving platform consisting of a riprap wall along the land's edge with a
platform extending out to the bulkhead line with facing on the outer edge and a
concrete wall at the top edge.
To create the park's natural area, the facing and concrete wall would be
remoVed from the relieving platform and portions of the platform would be cut
out to form an irregular edge (see Figu~e II.N-4). On top of the remaining
,portion of the platform, a stone riprap edge would be placed along with a natu 5
ral cover of soil and plants. This treatment would make the edge appear as a
natural shoreline. The piles remaining after removal of portions of the edge
of the relieving platform would be cut at the mudline. ~
At 62nd Street, an existing inlet would have its riprap shoreline 'protec-
tion shaped to form a series of terraces ,from low water up to the existing
grade'. This would allow public access down to the water's edge along the flat
,portions of the terraces. Between 62nd Street and 60th Street, the existing
crib would be refaced for appearance and repaired as necessary for structural
ineegrity. South of 60th Street, the edge is riprap. The project proposes to
install sheet piling upland of this riprap eo prevene any slippage of the site
in the evane ehe Sanitation. Department dredges the area north of its 59th
Street Marine Transfer Station pier.
II.N-3
10·92
~.
), II 121'.1 I t:=IJ tl IJ II ." U til 'L1 'L1 IJ 1I I· f U LU 'IJ 1I IJ lI UlJ U W Lf"ldJ 1I HJ U [t IJ U IJ-t~
WEST END AVENUE
'tu (.;:::::==--
-"-"-"
'U---=j)
.--.--.
~". :; .. L
I i -,1
M!
t; .. . --.--.--
c
~
~
.",....oo./ABC
RIVERSIDEDRWE~-~ l==m~1t: r--':::::~l~!i=-- .1:
.' PARK ______ ~

,lli:lf'
Alt"II~I'
t--1:A
n !
tu
~II ----
_ -~JIIlFI II
" REPAIR BULKHEAD (CRIBWAll) • I"
REMOVE PORTIONS OF THE RELIEVING PLATFORM
10 FORM A NAlURAl SHAPED EDGE "I" RESHAPE RESHAPE
11114IAP "[ ~EP~IR BULKHEAD (CRIBWALL11" RIP-RAP "I I
IN COVE
----
.: \xSJ. f·······
"~'
I
~~~~~.-~
,,~, ~~:~ ~. .~
3:' ,':......
~:-;':::::::~:::;-~:':';:;~::'::-:::::'~\~~-;~~~'::;'.::::ti.:~":~':':::':;;-';~::-;::';:':;:'::':":'.:..-,-'--;--..:....: ... '; ...... '.:;:.:< . _~~11':
. . ta··.' ."-"'~,."- ~:..~,-

--=:;-~~------------,. . "
,,~ ~" ~~/-~g .. '
<t
~ ~~-:---==--.:." ...- ..-
..
"v·:.>-
. ~
'-~-'fB: ...._~~._/( ...
.. ::r-:::--_ .:-t--.~~~ -::,.:--- .
':-' ·,-~::::::.-~~I fi,
-~~'t.' -'
. . . .~\~',_~~~._ .
I . • l.'
---
) .. - - L", ~~~~~~~~.JfS-~ '. . .
c: PEDESTR~"~IE~
PILE-SUP~~~""" ~ ""--,,,~ ~
:::-"~--:> .. ,~ 9"
I
DEMOLISH PLATFORM NEW'O'WODE ".' /'
• AND REPAIR BULKHEAD (CRIBWALL) .. "~';c.\~", ~c-~ #,/
'-:':~C~~:·~~'~~~3~_'9i:it~:~.~~'\~::::~ / .
EXTEND ESPLANADE ON
LANDWARD SIDE OF
BULKHEAD STABILIZE
TRANSFER
--
BRIDGE
SUPER- CONSTRUCT NEW 10' WIDE ,-
STRUCTURE • PEDESTRIAN PIERS
•
IN WATER
CUT SELECTIVE INTERIER PILES
OF PILE FIELDS BETWEEN MLW AND MHW
i
I.
REPAIR PIER I HUDSON RIVER

NEW DECK SURFACE
OVER EXISTING DECK
.\ o 200 4DOfUT
I f
ICALE
'f
Waterfront Elements of the
Conceptual Park Plan
Figure II.N-3
I:
I
10-92
W,.,...'l/E pR.OT"eCTION- E)(CAr'll/o.TE 5><.$TIN'1. FIL.L-,

Ili:'.Oc.t< e:.elUt\.-a~ E(il"',,"'- F:.ePL .....Ce' TO ~l..Ope SHO'NtJ'
'2:!.T THICl<.tl0I'T. WIC6 WITH PRepJ..~D FO~MW\..ATB'D
...,...... n:'5 ~Ji:'OUTe.O PL. ..... NT'INGi, I!>,Do.,SE
SE.T.&"'C.IC.S,...5 RE~b. NEW SLape
~~~'\-----;t-=:::~~=-==~==~~~I~~O~I±~~~~----i---------------------------~~~~~~----
f'ILJeJl. eL.QTH-
Dca; a~\J"""1- ~
~lI ~e., ""'"" . ~oe"5 ~ __

,..,~ C::c::tPIl:k~~~S
CONC.. eT " •
1-0
. ,............
CO"'CRETE •
e .....
012 EQu .....L- 5T,60..e;'l..I'Z.A.TIQ""
" ... ...
-±: s!. wA.1..1.. TO REM ....... " ....
~
..... pL-.-...NTINC!\
~ _ _ _ _ _ ,. ' \'.. ' ~' • ,,"';','- . .lI EXIST·4RAOE.
ee R5M.:'JV. ~..... 1_' _ . ----. ~..-'.".~ .: ,....I.:... V',.,.'".~I""\ "-' •.j'.-; \\,~, ). "1I
ELO.OMH. W
¥=
~,
"I
I '\
~
_. "', t, 'X" t..;\\~\
.,~ ".'8<\\t\)i~7)}~,,,~
'
."~> T"'i"Y:l~ ~~. . . '~i"".::;' g e;
,\V"~ "",,,.
;
e.L-4.~·M ,-w 1:7 /', ' CoMel..sE.O S~~IT""JeY
. C::ONTINU-=-" _ . - = - "1 , _ ---
\. e:)(I'ST. PII'"E 1 '
. "!51!.¥i'!!R.
..... NP STORM f '
_ . " '
/ E")(\"STIt-.l GJ ' )'

11111111 Ii ". SOIL.. .e,,c:...CJ<.F"ILL.. Y
EXT5:L TIM!:!!..
~.'5- e.elofTs I I II
.' .
~"j
@+!-o""c..
h..-
OIIiZlG!~ PFl~e.
PertH &,--'28'
:J I ,
I I
-< I.
II
\1'
L'-~I~T' RIP RAP
FIL.L- TO ~eM,60...i ....
e:Xl.sT~
C~le:. WAL-L-
TIMe>I;!Oi:
!ill ROCK FIL..L-E.O
I
,I
~.
I •
w
CUT AWAY PLATFORM AND
CI:JT PILES PER FIGURE II.N-2 ~
~'
0 1 5 fa 'Z'Si FT.
II I
Modification to Relieving Platform

w. 63rd to W. 66th Streets
lFigure II.N-4
The final element of the water£ront edge treatment would be a series of
pedestrian paths along the edge. These paths would be a continuation of the'
Riverside Park esplanade. They would be on the landward face 9f the bulkpead
from 72nd Street to 68th Street, where the relieving platform is. At 68th
Street, the paths would swing out into the water as a 10-foot-wide pier struc-
ture, returning to land at 66th Street. They would follow the shore to 62nd
Street, where they would rejoin the upland .edge where the crib wall currently
exists, running to the southern boundary of the site at 59th Street. The pier
structure would be supported on piles spaced 15 feet on center for its approxi-
mately 200-foot length where it swings into the river at 68th Street.
The existing piers at 63rd and 64th Streets (Piers.B and D) would be.re-
moved for a distance of 50 feet from the shore to prevent public access f.rom
the shore. The three northern piers would have some of the interior piles cut
to between mean low and high water to form a varying pattern as the tides
change.
Two pedestrian piers, 10 feet wide, would run at an acute angle to the
shore. The'piers would be supported on pile bents consisting of 2 piles each.
The pile bents would be spaced 15 feet on center. As shown in Figure II.N-3,
the piers are separated by a distance of 60 to 110 feet with the greater dis-
tance at the end of the piers. The first pier would be at 59th Street and the
second pier at 60th Street, extending 200 and 100 feet into the river, respec-
tively, about halfway out to the pierhead line. These pedestrian piers would
each be about 500 feet in length.
The potential impacts resulting from the waterfront structures proposed as

a part of the park may be associated with a possible reduction in local veloci-
ty in the river, which could caUse increased sedimentation. Such sedimentation
could affect the habitat and oxygen resources of the affected area.
The impacts of these shoreline modifications to the hydrology of the river

would be minimal. The bulkhead repair from 72nd Street to 68th Street wou14
not result in any elements being added in the water, and therefore would not
affect the river's hydrology.
Repairs to the transfer bridge at 69th Street would be limited to the

superstructure above the water, not affecting the river.
The modification of the relieving platform between 67th Street and 62nd
Street would remove structures from the river for the most part; except at the
very north of this segment. where the 10-foot path would extend out approxi-
mately 50 feet from the existing edge over about 200 feet.
The treatment of the inlet at 62nd Street would consist of reshaping and
replacing existing riprap by cutting back the existing riprap and replacing it
with new stone. There would be no change in the shape of the inlet; nor would
there be any addition of riprap into the riveris waters. The reshaped riprap
would not affect the flow of the riVer.
The five existing piers between 62nd and 67th Streets would be left .in
place, except for the shoreward 50 feet of the two southernmost piers (Piers B
1
and D). 'Removing this segment of the piers combined with the removal of por-
tions of the relieving platform would improve tidal circulation in this area by
removing obstructions to tidal currents.
The pedestrian piers at the south of the proj ect would not signific'antly
impe4e tidal circulation because of their narrowness (10 feet), light loads
(pedestrians only), and orientation (mostly parallel to the shore).
Overall, the project would add elements that could reduce velocity in the
river within the pierhead line, including the pedestrian piers., as well as
removing structures that would result in improved circulation on the site be-
tween 67th and 63rd Streets. In the areas where localized reductions in veloc&
ity are possible, sedimentation could increase.
To assess the impact of the proposed shoreline modifications·, a study of

the sedimentation characteristics of this portion of the Hudson River was per-
formed. This study examined the sedimentation process as it occurs in the Hud-
son River, based upon existing studies of the river. Data concerning the rate
of sedimentation occurring at other locations along the West Side of Manhattan
were analyzed, including dredging records of the New York City Sanitation De-
partment marine transfer station at 59th Street, the pier immediately south of
the project site; and the Passenger Ship Terminal located from 44th to 58th
Street, just south of the sanitation pier.
The study examined each element of the proposed waterfront structures for
their potential fo~ modifying the existing sedimentation p~tterns in this por-
tion of the river. The study further examined t~e potential for changes iden-
tifiedin sedimentation to affect water quality or the aquatic habitat of the
site's waters.
This study concluded that although sedimentation rates along this segment
of the Hudson River are high where dredging maintains deep waters in the quies-
cent interpier basins (1 to 2 feet per year), the waters in the immediate area
of the project shoreline are most probably close to an equilibrium condition,
where sediments deposited from the river equal those scoured by tidal currents.
Since there .has been no dredging or other' disturpance of .the river bottom at
the site, the result of such an equilibrium condition is to maintain nearly
unch~nging bottom contours.
The area between the sanitation pier on the south and Pier I on the north
end of the site is one long interpier basin, with the remnants of pier struc-
tures within the basin'. The activities proposed within this basin were found
to affect only the area within this basin and would not have effects on the
river beyond the immediate site waters. The elements of the project that have
a potential to affect sedimentation within the site~s interpier ba~in Were
found to be the removal of piles for the landward 50 feet of two of the fiVe
existing piers, the removal of portions of the relieving platform between 63rd
and 67th Streets, and the addition of the lO-foot-wide pedestrian piers between
59th and 62na Streets.
The study concluded that the removal of piles from the ewo p1ers and por-
tions of the relieving platform would slightly improve circulation in the neat
shore area. Because the rivet velocities are lowest neatest to shore, the
lI.N-5
improved .circulation would not likely have a significant effect on s·edimenta:'
tion/scouring and would not result in a measurable change in the botto~ con-
tours in this portion of the ·site.
To·assess potential impact from neW structures, a ~athematical model was

used to determine if the new piles would reduce velocities sufficiently to
increase sedimentation. The conclusion of this ~odeling effo·rt was that there
would be a reduced velocity zone within 2.2 feet of a row of piles, but that
the velocities would still be sufficient to prevent significant new sedimenta-
tion from occurring.
In the area of the relieving platform, the area very close to shore where
velocities are already close to that required for sedimentation, the reduction
would result in so~e increased sedimentation. No significant change in water
depths, however, would be expected in this area.
In the south portion of the site where pedestrian piers extend out farther
into the river, it is concluded that even the small area that could be affected
by reduced velocities, 2 to 6 feet from the rows of piles, would be offset by
the i~proved circulation that would result from removal of piles in the reliev-
ing platform area immediately to the "north of these piers .
.The study concludes that there would be no change in sedimentation compo-

sition and, therefore, the sediment's oxygen demand. Thus, the new structures
proposed for the waters off the project site would not adversely affect dis-
solved oxygen levels in" the Hudson River, including the local waters of the
site. Additionally, because there ~ould be no significant changes in the sedi-
mentation at the site, there would be no significant impacts to the aquatic
resources of this area of the Hudson River.
The potential for impacts on the aquatic resources of the Hudson River was
analyzed by examining the magnitude of ~odification of the "habitat that would
be affected by the project. Factors that influence the use of the area by
aquatic organisms include flow patterns, current velocity, water depth, and the
presence of physical structures and substrate types.
The proposed changes to the physical characteristics of the site are

s~all.· Most of the existing structures would re~ain with activities above the
waterline. Removal of the piles" associated with the re1ieving'p1atform and the
first 50 feet of two of the eJ(isting pie·rs W9uld still leave ~ost of these
structures in place. The addition of piles for the pedestrian piers would
offset some of those lost. The loss of a s~a11 portion of the existing piles
might slightly reduce the use of the project site area by fishes, but because
all oth.er i~portant habitat factors would not· be significantly changed, the
potential changes in use of the project area are. expected to be insignificant.
Furthermore, there would be little change in the avail il,b 1e substrate for en-
crusting benthic life on the sice by the proposed activities. Thus; the pro-
duction of benthic life, the pri~ary food source for most fishes would not
significantly change.
The sedimencacion analysis concluded there would be no significant change

in current velocities or water depths caused by the proposed project keeping
j
these aspects of the site's habitat essentially unChanged.

For a discussion of impacts on aquatic resources during consU'UG~iOni see \.
section ·II.R, "Construction Impact~·."
:Ecology and Wetlands
Existing on-site inland vegetation and wildlife consist of those species

'Well adapted to disturbed areas. The site is located adjacent to the 'Hudson
River, which is a designated tidal wetland. This section of the Hudson River
is within the Lower Hudson Reach, designated a significant coastal fish and
wildlife habitat. This section describes the terrestrial ecology of the site
and the presence of wetlands on and adjacent to the development area.
As described in section II.H, "Historic and Archaeological Resources," and.

section II.B, "Land Use and-Zoning," the project site has been used for indus-
trial and commercial activities. It noW includes railroad· tracks that pass
along its eastern perimeter, and its western boundary includes areas that·were
once used for docking_ The site is predominantly vacant, and scattered with
debris and masonry dumped along the shoreline and on other parts·ofthe site.
At the shoreline, the surface of the site is approximately 3 feet above high
tide level. The western area along the shore is bounded by bulkhead struc-
tures. However, in some places this bUlkhead has been breached or covered by
building de·bris, concrete, pipes, other rubble, and some litter. In late 1987,
mounds of soil and debris were removed from the center of the site, between the
Miller Highway and the railroad right-of-way at about 65th Street. The materi-
al Was tested and found not to constitute hazardous wasee, and was· then dis-
posed of at the Fresh Kills landfill. The testing procedure and resul~s are
discussed in section II.M, "Hazardous Materials.fl.
The central portion of the site is currently being used as a staging area
and material storage area for the reconstruction of the Miller Highway. this
activity has resulted in the regrading of the site with the subsequen~ loss of
vegetation along the entire length of the highway.
ExisJ~.ing Conditions
T.erxe.s.t.rial Ecology
Currently, the project site provides habitat only to those wildlife and
plant species adapted to highly disturbed area. The project site currently
provides a favorable habitat for large numbers of rats. Birds common to the
area include starlings, English sparrows, grackles, robins, blue jays, and
pigeons. Several species of sea gulls and terns are also found along the
'Hudson.
Vegetation on the site was typical of a disturbed upland area and was
dominated by weedy herbaceous species, predomina~ely ragweed (Ambrosia
artemisiifolia) , which covered mUGh of the site. A few other weedy species;
such as Queen Anne's Lace (Daucus carats) and foxtail grass (Hordeum spp.) were
interspersed throughoue ehe site. Some small trees also eX1Se on the si~e; .
primarily ~rees-of-heaven (Ailanthus altlsslma); which grow ofi the site afid
next to the shore.
II.N-7
A p.atch of reeds (Phragniites a.ustralis) , sometimes a wetland indicat~r
plant, was found in the east-central portion of the site in an area of mounded
fill mixed with some rubble (at approximately 64th to 65th Street). The reeds
were poorly developed and interspersed with upland spe~ies such as those men·
tioned above. On examination, it appeared that the s'oils associated with the
reeds allowed more rapid percolation of water than is characteristic of wet-
land~related soils. In addition, the topography indicated upland conditions in
this area.
Reeds were also observed growing in a narrow ditch along the bulkhead nex~
to the riVer. This is most likely because of the runoff in the ditch and pond~
ing, which would provide moisture to the associated vegetation. The presence
of these few reeds is not indicative of tidal wetlands. Their appearance and
growth characteristics ~- a thin, patchy limited distribution _. are not indica
ative of wetlands and represent, rather, a random growth that is due to recent
and temporary localized conditions.
On-Site Wetlands
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has

mapped tidal and freshwater wetlands systems through the state in an effort to
preserve important resource areas. Direct communication with the DEC Region II
staff indicates that one category (zone) of tidal wetland, the Littoral zone,
has been mapped along the eastern shore of the Hudson River, including ·that
portion that serves as the project site's .western edge. Littoral zone tidal
wetlands occur in. the shallow areas of water along the edg'es of tidally influ-
enced waterways where the water depth is less than 6 feet at mean low water.
At the project site, the naVigation chart for this section of the Hudson River
shows the 6-foot-depth contour following the pierhead line, except between 60th
and 6lst Streets, where the depths are approximately 20 feet to within 50 feet
of the shoreline. The biological importance (i.e., the contribution to marine
food production) of Littoral zones varies greatly, although typically little
vegetation grows in these zones in New York City. because of the high turbidity
of the waters. No' other wetlands, either tidal or fresh, have been mapped on
the proposed project site.
Carpenter Environmental Associates, Inc. (CEA) conducted a site visit on

March 30, 1987, to examine the proj ect site for the presence of wetlands. The
site' investigation team included a wetlands specialist and a botanist spacial·
izing in wetlands vegetati.on. Areas exhibiting potential wetland characteris-
tics were observed at both high and low tides during the day of the site visie.
As discussed below, CEA's field investigation results were. consistent with the
DEC maps, identifying Littoral zone ~idal wetland along ehe shoreline as the
only wetland present.
CEA examined the site and the area cHrecdy we'st of the bulkhead during
low tide conditions at 3 PM on March 30, 1987, to identify the vegetation and
physical feaeures in ehe in~er~idal zone; and conditions associated with the
Hudson River at ehis point.
The subserace of the intertidal zone next to the site Was largely observed
to be sandy and rocky. No vascular plants were observed growing in this area.
tI .N-8
This absence indicates that no intertidal wetlands are present. Instead, at-
tached algae were observed to cover much of this zone, indicative of the Littg~
ral zone that has been mapped by the DEC along the edge of the'property, west
of t~e eXisting bulkhead.
Endangered/Threatened Species
No plants defined by the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended, or the New York State Environmental Conservation Law were identified
on the project site. The New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-'
tion (DEC) Significant Habitat Unit conducted a search of its Natural Heritage
Program database for historic records of sightings of vegetation and wildlife
with a status of endangered, threatened, rare, protected, or exploitably vul·
nerable on the project site. The Natural Heritage Program database contains no
records of any special status species located on the project ~ite.
Wildlife Resciurc.esand Habitat
The project site's waters are likely to provide habitat for those species
of benthic organisms and aquatic species that are tyPically found in the lower
Hudson River. As discussed below, this area has been considered for designa-
tion as a Significant Coastal Habitat because of the presence of a diverse
community of benthic, planktonic, and pelagic species, including striped bass.,
winter flounder, summer flounder, white perch, Atlantic. tomcat, Atlantic.sil-
versides, bay anchovy, hogchokers, and American eel. The area may. also be used
by bluefish, weakfish, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, American shad, and blue
·crabs. The lower Hudson also provides habitat for several species of wintering
waterfowl, including canvasback, scaup, mergansers, mallards, and Canadian
geese.
Significant Coastal Habitats
The DEC has designated 15 locations within the City of New rQrk to be de·s- ,
ignated as critical coastal habitats. The Hudson River .from.the Battery north
for a distance of 19 miles has been designated because of the importance of the
Hudson to striped bass and other fish resources. .
I
The designation provides an additional level of protection to these waters
by requiring a habitat impairment test to be met prior to granting permits to
allow changes to the habitat. The habitat impairment test for the Hudson River
would not allow activities that would:
o Destroy the habitat; or
o Significantly impair the Viability of the habitat.
The habitat impairment test would be applied for any coastal management
review performed with federal or state permits and in a S/CEQR reV1ew. The
review is covered under one of the 44 state coastal management policies cofi~
tained in both the state coastal management plan and the local New York City
Waterfront RevitaliZation Plan (see also section n. F iiwaterfront
j 1
Revitalization Plan").
The _Future Without the Proi-ect
In the future without the project, t~e site would ~emain vacant and the
scrub vegetation would continue to develop. The shoreline condition of the
currently deteriorated bulkheads would continue to deteriorate and perhaps
further collapse where the deterioration is the worst, near 60th to 62nd Stree~
and near 70th Street. This expansion of the areas of collapsed bulkhead would
promote erosion of the shore with deposition of the eroded soils into the Hud-
son River. This unintentional filling of the river would reduce the water
depths near the shore creating a larger portion of the lands under water on the
site that meet the criteria defining a wetland. The further collapse of bulk-
heads would also provide a soft edge adjacent to the intertidal zone. These
soft edges would extend the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) over development of the uplands within 150
feet of the waters edge.
In 1997, there is n~t likely to be much change at the site. The areas of
disturbed vegetation resulting from the current rebuilding of the Miller High-
way would likely be revegetated with the same weedy species that occur on the
undisturbed portions of the site.
In 2002, the deterioration of the shore~ine structures would be advanced

and the effects noted above would likely occur. Some pioneer species of trees
may take hold, like the Tree of Heaven, which occurs .on the site today.
The small patches of wetiand vegetation that occur sporadically on the

site·would likely remain the same as today or be eliminated because the upland
portion. of the site doesn't have the hydrologiGal characteristics to support
significant wetland vegetation.
Pr~bable Impacts of the _Froposed Project
The modifications to the existing shoreline structures proposed as a part

of the Conceptual Park Plan have the potential to benefit the site's habitats
as well as adverse~y impaoting these habitats; including benthic; hard surfac-
es; and pelagic.
Terrestrial Ec.olo_~
No_significant impacts are expected on the terrestrial ecology on the

project site. The site is highly disturbed and currently supports only vegeta-
tive and wildlife species that are adapted to highly disturbed urban areas.
All project-related Gonstruction actiVities would OGGUr in these areas. The
waterfro~t park proposed for ehe site could provide an improved habitat for
wildlife species, such as squirrels and bird species; including those al~eady
noted on the site.
The shoreline activities proposed as a part of the project's park a~e not
anticipated to Cause any signifi·cant impacts to the aquatic ecology· resources.
The repair of Pier 1 would be limited to the above water portions of the pier. ~
Repair of the bulkheads would not significantly change the· surface area
exposed ·to water. New timber would be quickly colonized, resulting in the same
condition as today.
Repairs to the transfer bridge at West 69th Street would be limited exclu-
sively to areas above high tide and not affect the ecology of the site.
The modification of the relieving platform would remove piles and facing
witpin the intertidal zone (see Figure II.N-2). The underside of the platform,
however, would be opened to sunlight and improved tidal circulation, improving
the habitat value of this portion of the site by allowing for revegetation
through exposure to sunlight. The removal of portions of some·of the piles on
three piers at 67th, 66th, and 65th Streets and piles within 50 feet of shore
for the two southern piel;'s at 64th and 63rd Streets would also ·eliminate some
intertidal substrate for food resources and fish resting and hiding areas. The
I
majority of the piles, however, would remain in place and continue to provide
food resources and those other attributes.
Reshaping the riprap in the inlet at 62nd Street would not add or subtract
froin the aquatic resources of the site, but would simply rearrange the avail-
able substrate. Hiding places within the rocks would continue to exist in a
different form in this area. There would be no change in the shape of the
inlet nor would there be any addition of riprap into the river's waters.
Placement of a sheet pil~ wall behind the riprap on the southern shoreline
would not place any structure in the water and thus would not affect aquatic
. ecology.
The pedestrian piers at the southern end would add pilings.to the site,
spaced 15 feet off center. This widely spaced array would noesignificantly
affect tidal flows. These new piles would offse~ in par~ the removal of piles j
elsewhere on the site.
~
The study of sedimentation patterns in this area of the Hudson River indi-
cates that there would be no significant changes in the water depths or oxygen
resources caused by the proposed project. the. habiea~ in this area would not
be significantly affected.
I
For a discussion of impacts on ecology and wetlands during construction;
see section II. R; "Construction Impacts."
n.N-U
O. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
Introduction
The character of a neighborhood is a fu~ction of a variety of factors

including land use patterns, the nature and quality of the building stock, the
presence of notable institutions or public spaces, the character of the exist-
ing residents, the presence of particular concentrations of economic activity;.
and the presence of important cultural and/or historical resources. These have
been described in detail in various preceding sections of the EIS and will be
summarized in this section. The purpose of this analysis is to summarize in
one place the overall consequences of the project on the character of the
neighborhoods surrounding the project site. The study area generally corre-
sponds to the land use study area presented on Figure II.B-l·and extends to
West 79th Street on the north,· Central Park West/Eighth Avenue.on the east,
West 52nd Street on the south, and the Hudson RiVer on the west.
Existtng Conditions
The study area is characterized by a mix of land uses, building types and
scale, a mix of housing types and residents and the presence of or proximity ~o
major public institutions and regional recreati.onal resources. Substantial
. changes have taken place in the character of this study area over the past
several decades. In certain portions of the study area, notably the Columbus
Circle/Lincoln Square area, the changes in character are clearly reflected in
the land use changes that haVe accompanied large-scale development activities
that have occurred in the entire post-war period. In other sections, where
physical changes have not been as eVident, changes in character have resul~ed
from changes in the socioeconomic composition of the popUlation or, in the case
of Columbus Avenue, turnover that·has occurred in the area's retail base.
For ease of presentation, this section will describe neighborhopd charac-

ter based on the study area .divisions presented on Figure II.E-11.
G~int_o.n
From a neighborhood character perspective, the Clinton subarea -can be

thought of as haVing two components. To the east of Tenth Avenue, Clinton is
primarily a low-rise residential neighborhood functioning within the tradition-
al Manhattan street grid, with a preponderance of low- and moderate-income
residents. The Ninth Avenue retail corridor, one of the more distinctive shOp-
ping districts in Manhattan, is a center of neighborhood activity. The area
has been marked by comparatively little development activity over the past
decade, the exceptions being the Encore Apartments ort Eighth Avenue between
53rd and 54~h Streets and Midwest Court; located between S2nd and 53rd Streets
to the west of Ninth Avenue.
To 'the west of Tenth Avenue, extending north to 6lst Street:, the chara.cter
of the Clinton subarea is established by a concen~ra~iori of low-rise induserial
buildings. these buildings house a mix of uses; inclUding nYilleroys facilities
related to televidon and film production (including the large CBS Broadcast
n.O-l
Center Qn 51th Street) and auto shqwroQms and pther auto-related uses. th~
pattern of use is broken only by the presence of DeWitt Clinton Park,
Harborview Terrace, a residential building constructed by the New York City
Housing Authority in the Clinton Urban Renewal Area, apd the Ford Building, a
large office building located on 57th Street and Eleventh Avenue. With the
exception of Harborview Terrace, constructed in 1977, ana the Ford Building,
constructed in 1970~ this area has seen little new development ac~ivi~y in
decades.
The character of the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square neighborhood is de-

fined by several factors:
g The irregular street grid established by Broadway as it crosses diag-

onally through tl:lis area and the various superblocks that resulted
from large-scale urban renewal projects constructed in the post-war
years;
g Large-scale residential projects, principally Lincoln Towers and

Amsterdam Houses;
o High-rise residential bUildings that have been constructed throughout

the. area since 1969, but particularly on Broadway, Amsterdam Avenue,
and 57th and 59th Streets;
o The presence of large-scale institutions such as Lincoln Center for

the Performing Arts, Fordham University, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospi w
tal, and the now predominantly Vacant New York Coliseum;
a Selected· large-scale commercial development including the Paramount

Communications Building, the Capital Cities/ABC world headquarters,
and assorted other proauctionfacilities for ABC; and
o The stately, pre-war ·residential buildings along Central Park West,

in the blocks between Central Park West and Broadway, and along 57th
Street.
Population patterns and trends reflect the development activity over the
past 30 years with a combination of low-income, primarily minority residents
(in the Amsterdam Houses); senior citiZens (primarily in Lincoln Towers); and
affluent young professionals attracted to the thousands of new residential
units added since 1970.
Physically, the Upper West Side subarea has gone through comparatively few
changes over the past decades. Large-scale construction has been limited to
the Alexandria on 72nd Street at Broadway, the Copley at 68th Street and Broad-
way and the Coronado at 70th Street and Broadway. Therefore, the subarea's
character has been shaped by its mix of low~ ana rilid·riSe pre-war residential
buildings that follow a regular pattern along the Manhattan street grid and by
noteworthy buildings, including many lanamarKs. Most distinctive are ~he
buildings that line Central Park Wese, including the DakQ~a; ~he.San Remo
Apartmepts; ang the Majestic Apartments; the Ansonia gfi Broadway between 73rd
II.O-2
and 74th. Streets; and the Apthorp op 79th Street. Also contributing to the
character of the Upper West Side subarea is its loca~ioh between two of
Manhattan's most prominent parks -- Gentral Park on the east a~d Riverside Park
on the west. Commercial activity, principally retail \,lseS along Columbus AVe·
nue, Broadway, and Amsterdam Avenue, also contribute to neighborhood activity
patterns that help to define neighborhood character.
The population of the Upper West Side subarea has generally been affluent,
reflecting the underlying quality of its residehtial stock. Interspersed with
this wealthier population have been lower income residents living primarily in
the area's stock of older hotels.
Clinton
Changes in the character of the northern portion of the Clinton subarea

are expected as a result of new development activity north of 60th Street,
which will make this limited area more in line with the character of.the Colum-
bus Circle/Lincoln Square subarea. Substantive changes in the character of the
balance of the Clinton subarea are nOt expected by 1997 in the future without
the project.
Columhus Circle/Lincoln S.guar.e
Consistent with the trends over the past two decades, new development
activity will continue to affect the character of the Columbus Circle/Lincoln
Square area by 1997. The most dramatic transformation will occur at Columbus
Circle itself with the construction of Columbus Center, a large-scale, 63-story
mixed-use project scheduled to replace the eXisting New York Coliseum. Changes
around the campus of St. luke's-Roosevelt Hospital will also be dramatic as the
hospital completes its modernization and expansion program and as new residen-
tial buildings are.completed. Adjacent to the project site, two new projects,
Manhattan West and Capital CitieS/ABC, will bring a development intensity and
type of use more typical of the patterns to .the east. Popula~ion patterns will
not appreciably change, although consistent with past trends, the number of
remaining low- and moderate-income permanent tenants in the area's small stock
o£ hotels will continue to decline.
Up-per. West Side
No substan~ive
change in the chataceer of. ~he Upper West Side subarea is
expec~ea by 1997 in the future without
~he project. The long-term decline in
housing opportunities for persons of low- ana moaerate-income is expected to
continue.
Aside from some possible additional residential construction north of 39th
Street, no substantive change in the character of the Clinton subarea is ex-
pected by 2002.
Columbus. Cir.clelLincoln Square
While no specific development projects are proposed for completion between

1997 and 2002 in the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square subarea, there are a number
of soft sites (Le., sites currently developed at densities substantially.·below
what the underlying zoning would allow), where development could reasonably be
projected once market conditions improve. These projects will continue the
development patterns evident over the past two decades.
Potential soft sites also exist along Broadway in the Upper West Side
subarea, which may afford development opportunities in the period between 1997
and 2002. OVerall, the character of this subarea, shaped by its pre-war devel-
opment patterns, its landmark structures and its proximity to two large region-
al parks, will not substantiv~ly change in the future with~ut the project.
As noted throughout the EIS, the proposed project would sub~tantially

change the character of the project site. An existing predominantly vacant,
isolated site would be transformed into a large scale, predominantly residen-
tiai, community that through the extension of the city street grid and the
creation of a large waterfront path, would be physically linked with the sur-
rounding neighborhoods. The project would add a significant amount of building
bulk, population, and economic activity to this area and, unlike most residen-
tial projects constructed over the past 20 years, would provide substantial
affordable housing opportunities. This would be consistent with other afford-
able housing projects in the general stUdy area.
By 1997, all project parcels north of 64th Street are projected to be

completed. This would add over 3,000 residential units with a mix of market
rate and low, moderate, and middle income units, new retail space, and approxi-
mately 8.6 ac~es of the proje·ct's eventual 25-acre waterfront park.
G~int.on
The Phase I development is physically isolated from the Clinton subarea

and is unlikely to significantly affect the underlying physical and socio-eco-
nomic character of that area. The construction of the first phase of the wa-
terfront park, which would extend to 59th Street, would provide a substan~ial
amenity to residents of the Clinton subarea and would provide improved access
to the larger expanse of Riverside Park to the north.
IIiO-4
Columbus Circl.el1.incoln Sguar.e.
In most respects, the proposed Phase I development would be consistent

with and would enhance the character of the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square
area. The uses introduced on-site would be consistent with many of the struc-
tures in this subarea and the types of use added over the past 20 years and the
heights of bUildings would be consistent with; the heights of buildings con- 1
structed during the last t~o decades and those proposed for development in the
future without the project. The project's built form would be consistent with
that of Central Park West and less consistent with the overall form of the
remainder of this subarea which is dominated by large-scale superblock develop-
ments and irregularly shaped blocks resulting from Broadway's diagonal path
through the area.
While the population attracted to the proposed project is expected to be

consistent with the charac~er of the residents attracted to this area over the
past two decades, the provision of affordable units would diversify the proj-
ect's population, making it more consistent with the overall character of the
study area's population. Nonetheless, the Phase I development would accelerate
displacement pressures for certain lo'W- and moderate-income residents of. the
area, principally residents of hotels and unregulated rental apartments locatea
to the immediate east of the proJect site. The project would provide area
residents with access to the waterfront, a previously unavailable amenity that
would enhance the character of the area.
Upper West Side
In its design', the project would reflect the character of the Upper West
Side subarea. Specifically, the project would be developed on an extended city
street grid, drawing Riverside Drive south from its current southern boundary
at 72nd Street, and extending the east-west street grid from West End Avenue
and Freedom Place. Like the Upper West Side, taller buildings on the project
site would be located on the north-south streets (in this case, the exte~sion
of Riverside Drive) and on the wider cross streets such as 70th Street. Lower-
rise buildings, including toWn house elements, would be placed on other cross
streets. By placing residential towers across from the park, the project wou1a
be sImilar in form to the pattern of d~ve1opment along both Riverside Drive and
. Central Park West. Building heights would be' somewhat taller than those found
on the Upper West Side, although they would be most similar at the project
site's northernmost end to ensure a smooth continuation of the Riverside Drive
streetscape at 72nd Street.
"Between 1997 and 2002, the remaining sections of the pr9ject are expected
to be completed. This includes all of ~he development parcels located south of
64th Street and the balance of the waterfront park. Most of this phase would
be similar to the primarily residential character of phase 1 of the project;
which would be laid out on an even street grid; with one exception -- an 8-
story s~udio building with two 2i-story office towers on a superblock at the
southern end of the site.
Il.O-S
Clinton
The superblock development proposed for the southern end of the project
site would be taller than most development in the Clinton subarea. It would be
similar in character to the 19-story Ford Building, ~t 555 West 57th Street,
but most of the buildings in this subarea are either law-rise residential or
industrial buildings.
Residential development in Phase II of the proposed project would be simi-

lar to that constructed in Phase I. Side street development would be similar
to low-rise buildings found in Clinton, while taller bUildings would be in
character with few of Clinton's residential buildings, including the Clinton
Towers and Harborview Terrace developments. The provision of affordable units
would add a population on site that better reflec~s the population composition
of Clinton than strictly market rate development. The populatiop. of Clinton
would benefit by the completion of the waterfront park, an enhancement to
neighborhood character.
With the exception of 60th Street, Phase II of the proposed project would
extend the existing city street grid onto the project site in this subarea and
open up access to the waterfront for residents of the Columbus Circle/Lincoln
Square area. The creation of the superblock echoes a COmmon element of the
Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area where' Lincoln Towers, .Amsterdam Houses,
Lincoln Center, and Fordham University are a few of the many developments on
oversized blocks. The height and density of buildings developed in Phase I I
would also be consistent with structures found in this subarea.
The extension of RiverSide Drive, the placement of reSidential buildings

fronting along the new park between 59th and 64th Streets, and the location of
low-rise residential buildings on side streets wouldtontinue to mirror the
character of the Upper West Side. The creation of the superblock at the souch-
ern end gf .the site would sgn~rast with the predominant form of the Upper West
Side but would be sufficiently distant: from it to minimize any differensB.
II.O-6
P. INFRASTRUCTURE.AND SOLlD 'WASTE
Introduction
Development of the site would result in a demand for utility services at a

location where there is little current demand. This section presents the ex-
isting utilities serving the site, the improvements eo these services proposed
to serve the Riverside South development, and the estimated demand generated by
this development. The effects of the new demand on the ability of the city's
infrastructure to service this project are analyzed.
Ezistfng conditions
Water Supp.~y
Water. Supply System
New York City obtains water from three water supply systems that form a
network of reservoirs, aqueducts, and tunnels extending as far as 125 miles
north of the city. Within the city, a grid of distribution mains distribute
water to consumers.
The Delaware and Catskill systems collect water from the Catskill Moun-
tains and deliver it to the Hillview Reservoir in Yonkers. From there, it is
distributed to the rest of the city through one of two tunnels, City Tunnel
No.1, which goes through the Bronx and Manhattan to Brooklyn, and Ci·ty Tunnel
No.2, which goes through the Bronx, Queens, and BrQoklyn (and from there
through the Richmond Tunnel to Staten Island). A third. tunnel, City Tunnel
No.3, is under construction.
The Croton system collects water from Westchester and Putnam Counties and
delivers it to the Jerome Park Reservoir in the Bronx. From there, it is dis-
tributed to the Bronx and Manhattan through the New Croton· Aqueduct, which goes
through the Bronx and Manhattan to the Central Park Reservoir.
Wate.r .C.onsumption
Water consumption in the city is approximately 1,400 million gallons per

day (mgd). In Manhattan, average consumption is approximately 420 mga, and
peak cpnsumption is approximately 500 mgd. The Croton system is at a lower
pressure than the Delaware and Catskill systems and supplies domestic uses pri-
marily. The higher pressure Delaware/Catskill ~ystem serves the. fire hydrants
in areas where both systems occur, such as near the project site, as well as
domestic uses. Approximately 110 mgd of the Manhattan consumption is supplied
by the Croton system, of which approximately 15 mgd is supplied to the West
Side of Manhattan.
The site is now served by the Delaware/Catskill system; which provides

water to Jay-Gee Motorhomes, which operates in the buildings along 59th Street
on the site; and fot fire protection for the Miller Highway.
II-F-l .
Croton system water mains near the pr"oject site include a .36-inch main
under West End Avenue, installed in 1897, and a 48-inch "main under Amsterdam
Avenue (installed before 1870)." The 36-inch main (1898) and 20-inch main (be-
fore 1870) under Broadway carry water from the Delaware/Catskill system, which
also includes a grid of 12-inch mains under West; End Avenue, Amsterdam Avenue,
Broadway, and virtually every cross street down to the project site except
70th, 7lst, and 72nd Streets, which are underlain by 6-inch mains. (This grid
of smaller mains was installed between 1877 and 1983, generally in the 1880's,
the 1940' s ,. the 1960' s, or 1983.)
On the project site itself are two private mains connected to the grid of
Delaware/Catskill system mains. They include a 12-inch main under the Miller
Highway and a 6-inch main that runs into the site from 60th Street. These
mains, both remnants from the site's use as a rail yard, are in poor condition
and are not in· use. The·10cations of water mains in the area are shown in Fig-
ure II.P-l.
Fire Hydrants
Fire .hydrants are located along all streets in the area at intervals of
apprpximately 250 feet. The hydrants are fed primarily from the grid of 12-
inch and 6-inch Delaware/Catskill system mains, though some hydrants on West
End AVenue come off the 36-inch Croton system main under that street. On the
. project site itself, hydrants' are located along the private mains. the loca~
tions of hYdrants in the area are also shoWn in Figure II.P-l.
Sewage Tr.e.atment
Sewage on the WestSide of Manhattan north of Bank Street is treated in

the North River Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), located on the Hudson
River between 137th and 145th Streets. This plant began operation in March
1986. Prior to that time, sewage from the West Side of Manhattan was dis-
charged untreated into the Hudson and Harlem Rivers.
Beginning in April 1991, the plant began operation as a full secondary

treatm~nt facility. Secondary treatment removes biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) through oxidation processes that depend on biological growth. BOD is
defined as the quantity of dissolved oxygen required by bacteria to oxidize
organic matter. It is the most widely used measurement of pollution from sew-
age effluent. The plant is designed to have a BOD removal rate of 85 percent
or better.'
The SPDES permit for the North RiVer WPCP contains limits on BOD and Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) , measures of the organic strength of the sewage. The
organic content of the sewage impairs water quality by utilizing oxygen in the
receiving water. The degree of removal of BOD and TSS is set under che Federal
Clean Water Act to be a minimum of 85 percent or to result in a maximum 30-day
average concentration of 30 milligrams per liter of effluent (mg/i). The SPDEs
permit allows higher concentrations over shorter time periods as follows:
severt-oay average, 45 mg/l; ~-hour average, SO ms/I. The 85 percent removal
requirement applies to both the 30-day and 7-day averages.
E~isting Water Mains
Figure II.P.. 1
a:
.UJ
-
:>
• •
_ ••-.. Project Site Boundary

------ Delaware/Catskill System Main
- - Croton System Main (diameter as noted) (12-, except 6- where noted)
- - Private Main (6- or 12-, as noted) • Existing Hydrant
12091
The-permit further specifies a-maximum mass loading discharge allowable
for BOD and TSS. The limitations on BOD and TSS in the SPDES permit are set
based on achieving water quality standards in the Hudson River ..
Table II.P-l presents the SPDESpermit limits and operating data for the
North River WPCP for the latest 12 months of operation. These data indicate
that the plant discharged an average of 39.4 'percent of the allowable mass of
BOD and 36.5 percent of the allowable TSS. The plant's average annual flow for
the 12 months ending August 1992 was within the SPDES permit flow limit. The
plant exceeded the SPDES flow limitation for 6 of the last 12 months and ex-
ceeded the SPDES limit for percent removal of suspended solids for 1 of the 12
months. Thus, the North River WPCP exceeds its permit limitations of flow ana
occasionally for TSS percentage removal but consistently meets the mass loading
limies by a wide margin. The last six months of records incHcaee a subseantia1
reduction in flows to che plane over the period one year ago •.
Table I1.P-1
NOIlTH B.IVER nop SECONDARY TREATMENT OPERATING ·CIlARACTElUSTICS

1991-1992
~:f1uent .JlODs Efflue.nt 'tSsL

Dry
Weather
Flow Percent: POunds/ Percent Pounds/
Konth (KGD) __ .Da!: mgll Rsmoval
September 180
J!i&L!
10
J.leliI..oval
90 15,012 10 88
---»8:1- -
15,012 -rL
1991
October 199 13 87 21,576 13 86 21,576
November 182 14 88 21,250 17 81 25,804
December 115 15 86 21,893 13 86 18,97"4
January 176 15 87 22,018 15 86 22,018
1992
February 158 ·14 90 18,448 . 14 89 18,448
March 158 15 88 19,765 9 90 11,859
April 157 14 89 18,331 11 88 14,403
May 147 10 92 12,260 11 89 13,486
June 161 8 92 10,742 8 92 10,742
July 165 7 92 9,633 10 89 13,761
AuguSt: 171 7 93 9,983 8 90 11,409
AVerage 169.1 12 90 16,742 12 87 15,507
Permit 170 30 85% 42,530 30 8~% 42;530

Limit
Rote; Bold values exceed SPDES permit limitation.
II. P-3
Although· the North River WPCP.is discharging fewer pollutants than allowed
under its SPDES permit, water quality in the Hudson River continues to show
signs of impact from organic discharges. Most of the s~wage discharges in New
Jersey have not yet achieved s~condary treatment. Dissolved oxygen near the
North River WPCP is monitored during the summer months by the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) annual Harbor Survey. The pre-
liminary 1991 data for dissolved oxygen are presented in Table ·II.P-2. These
data show that the average DO in the river meets the water quality standard of
4.0 mg/1 through most of the summer, as do the surface samples throughout the
summer. The DO at the river's bottom, however, drops below the standard
throughout the summer.
Since secondary treatment operation at North River began on May 1, 1991,

there have been seven exceedances at the plant of the SPDES permit limit for
maximum individual samples of fecal coliforms. The 30-day and 7-day geometric
~ean fecal coliform levels have been consistently met. The NYCDEP preliminary
harbor survey ·data for fecal coliform (see Table II.P-2) show no violations of
the water quality standards for fecal coliform in the Hudson River. The prin·
cipal source of fecal coliform in the Hudson River is from combined sewer over-
flows where raw sewage mixed with urban storm water is discharged without any
disinfection to the Hudson River.
Since commencing secondary treatment, the North River WPCP has experienced
severe odor problems. The NYCDEP prepared a study to determine the causes of
the odor problems and developed a plan to contain the sources of odors. The
odor abatemen~ program developed from this study consist of a four-action pro-
gram; as follows:
Phase 1: Immediate action to enclose open channels that contain recycled

sludge from the biological portion of the secondary treatment
units. Estimated completion date -- March 1993.
Phase 2: Immediate action to enclose some of the arches along the north
and east sides of the plant and vent areas enclosed under
Phase 1 to a temporary dedicated odor treatment system. Esti-
mated completion date -- June 1993.
Phase 3: Provide covers over the primary settling tanks, inlet area to
tanks, install air ducts to vent the enclosed areas to a new
primary tank odor treatment system, and vent the exhaust from
this odor treatment system to the existing exhaust stack from
the. North Area Odor Control System. Estimated completion date
- - September 1994. .
Pnase· 4: Collect vent gas from the digesters and treat in new, dedicated
odor treatment system; expand the existing North Area Odor Con-
trol RoOm to accept phase 1 odor sources; remove temporary
Phase 2 odor treatment system; ene10se addi~ional open channels
and boxes; and convey to the expanded odor treatment system.
Estimated completion date -- June 1995.
At the completion Bf the four-phase odor abatement program, all identified

potential odor sources would be eliminated by enclosing the soureesand venting
the ~nGlosures into an expanded odor treatment system. The entire program
H.P-4
Table ILP-2
1991 tmw YORK CITY DEPARTHERT OF ENVIROmiENTAL PR.OTECTION BAUOR SURVEY

PllELIHINARY DATA
~iSSOL~d~2en (mgli}. U£al . Coliform -(itllO~l

S.i..te Date. . ...%mL .Bitttom 6xerag e _.'lop _ Bottom.
N3 6/19/91 5.7 5.3 5.5 236 218
N3B 6/19/91 5.7 5.3 5.5 200 600
N3 7/1/91 5.8 4.1 5.0 255 418
N3B 7/~/91 5.9 4.3 5.1 345
N3 7/24/91 7.5 4.9 6.2 200 400
N3B 7/24/91 7.6 4.8 6.2 200 200
N3 7/31/91 5.6 3.7 4.7 60 500
N3B 7/31/91 5:2 3 8. 4.5 218 400
N3 8/5/91 8.4 3.9 6.2 40 20
N3B 8/5/91 8.3 4.7 6.5 55 20
N3 8/6/91 6.9 4.1 5.5 200 200
N3B 8/6/91 7.2 3:9 5.6 200 200
N3 8/15/91 5.0 3.7 4.4 20 309
N3B 8/15/91 5.1 3.5 4.3 40 327
N3 8/26/91 4.5 4.2 4.4 340 273
N3B 8/26/91 4.7 4.2 4.5 255 18
N3 9/10/91 4.8 4.4 4.6 840 600
N3B 9/10/91 5.2 4.2 4.7 1,100 420
N3 9/26/91· 4;0 3 .. 8 3~_9 1,500 1,600
N'3:B 9/26/91 4.4 .L! 4.2 1,500 2;000
Rote: Station N3 is located off 155th Street, Manhattan.

Station N3! is located off 125~h Street, Manhattan.
The wacer quality standard for dissolved oxygen" in ehe HUclson
River in this area is 4.0 mg/l.
The fecal coliform seanclard for che Hudson River in this area is
2 OOO/loomi.
j
Underlined values GO fiDe meet the water quality standard;
ILP-S
would be completed prior to the co~pleti~n of Phase I of the Riverside South
project.
The city is also initiating a study of the emissi~n of volatile organic

compounds from its water pollution control plants, in response to requirements
of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air A·ct. The new requirements are aimed at
controlling the emission of toxics to the air that may be carcinogenic and/or
precursors to ozone production in the atmosphere. This study will quantify the
amount of these chemicals entering the city's WPCPs, measure the emissions to
the plant buildings and to the atmosphere, and assess the impact on neighbor-
hoods of these emissions. Based on this study, the need for treatment of ex-
haust gasses from the plants will be determined.
The North River WPCP's discharge is regulated by New York State under a
I
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit, which limits the
dry-weather maximum average monthly flow to 170 mgd (dry-weather flow is the
plant's sanitary sewage flow oh days without a storm event). As shown in Table
II.P-l, for the last year ending August 1992, the North River WPCP experienced
a maximum monthly dry weather flow of 199 mgd, and exceeded the 170 mgd SPDES
limit during five other months. The yearly average monthly flow over the
latest year, however, was 169.1 mgd, within the requirements of the permit.
Sewers
The sewer system in the area around the project site includes feeder sew-
ers, trunk sewers, and an interceptor sewer. All but the interceptor are "com~
. bined" sewers -.~ they carry both sanitary sewage (i.e., wastewater from resi~
dential, commercial, and industrial land uses) and storm water runoff. There
are also "regulators" to control flows from the trunk sewers to the interceptor
and a "relief" SeWer between two of the trunk sewers. A map of existing sewers
is presented in Figure II.P-2.
Colle.c.tion .S.ewers. Collection sewers lie under virtually every street in

the area, collecting sewage from the adjacent· land Uses. The sewers in the·
project area were installed between 1864 and 1940. The· collection sewers, most
of which were installed in the 19th century, come in many sizes and ~hapes.
Those under the crosstown streets are typically 1 to 2 feet in diameter, while
those under West End AVenue are generally around· 3 feet by 4 feet. The collec~
tion sewers feed into trunk sewers.
Trunk .s.e.weYs. Trunk sewers lie under 59th, 66th, and 72nd Streets. The
trunk sewer under 59th Street, installed in 1932, ranges in size from 4-feet by
2-feet 8~inches to 5~feet 3-inches by 5-feet 3-inches. It ends in a 48-inch-
diameter outfall in the Hudson River at the end of Pier 99. The seWer under
66th Street, installed in 1864 and 1940, ranges in size from 4~feet by 2-feet
8-inches to 5-feet by 5-feet 6-inches. It crosses the project site through a
lS-foot-wide easement. It ends in a 5-feet; by 5-feet outfall in the Hudson
River (a. 1983 inspection revealed that the 66th Street outfall was never built
as shown on drawings; the documents show a concrete, square-cross-sectioned box
culvert; but the outfall is really a brick oval connected to box culvert .
stubs). The sewer under 72nd Street, installed in 1879, is 7-feet by 7-£eet.
It ends in two outfalls, one 3-feet by 4-feet and the other 5~feet by '-feet,
in the Hudson River. All the outfalls are approximately 5 feet below mean low
U.P-6
Existing S,ewers
Figure JI.P-2
I,
,_- .. ..
i
- L.__,..,. . . . . . . . . .,
"-"-"--' c>-
r"'-··-----I ~
::
CI
,--"---'
L._.._ .. --,
L . _.---.
i
.....
a;
w
!-"~
L ______ il~ __
',"-"
L . _ ..
o :iaIi 400 eao l1li FEET

I I I _ I I
>
Un
_ •• - Project Site Boundary Outfall. ~
- Interceptor Sewer ••••••• Feeder Sewer

• Regulator .......... Direction of sewage Flow
.. - Trunk Sewer
water l~vel in the Hudson River. The condition of the sewers is not known, but
no complaints regarding these seWers have been registered with the DEP. The
trunk sewers feed into the interceptor sewer.
Interceptor Sewer. To convey sewage to the North River WPCP, an intercep-

tor sewer, constructed in 1969 and still in excellent condition, runs 11 miles
along the West Side of Manhattan between Greenwich Village and Spuyten Duyvil.
In the vicinity of the project site, the interceptor runs north under Eleventhl
West End AvenUe, turns west at 72nd Street, and continues north under Riverside
Drive. Near the project site, it is lO-feet 6-inches by lO-feet 6-inches south
of 66th Street and ll-feet 6-{nches by l1-fe~t 6-inches north of 66th Street.
Regulators. Before the North River WPCP began operation, the trunk sewers
carried sewage to the outfalls in the Hudson River. Now, however, each trunk
sewer feeds ~nto the interceptor sewer through a "regulator" chamber that con-
trols the flow from the trunk seWer to the interceptor. The regulators are set
to allow two time·s the mean dry-.weather flow into the interceptor. Thus in dry
weather, all sewage from the trunk sewers flows into the interceptor. In
storms, however, if the flow of the trunk seWers exceeds two to three times the
mean dry-weather flow, some sewage overflows .and is discharged directly into
the Hudson River, bypassing the interceptor and the North River WPCP. The
overflow would consist largely of storm water, but would also contain sanitary
sewage.
Relief Sewer. A "relief" sewer, located under the east property line of
the project site paralleling F~eedom Place, branches north from the 66th Street
trunk sewer at a point downstream from the 66th Street regUlator and runs into
the regulator on the 72nd Street trunk sewer. The relief sewer does not col-
lect sewage from the surrounding community. except from 70th anq 7lst Streets
west of West End Avenue. Rather, it serves primarily to direct overflow from
the 66th Street outfall to the 72nd Street trunk sewer. The condition of the
sewer, which was installed in 1929, is not known. The sewer ranges in size
from 3-feet 4-inches by 3-feet to 5-feet 5-inches by 5-feet.
Trunk.Sewer Capacities. The mean dry-weather flows (i.e., sanitary flows)

going through each of the three regulators to· the interceptor are considerably·
less than the volumes for which the regulators are set. A comparison of the
existing dry-weather flows and the capacity of each regulator is presented in
'fable II .P- 3.
The storm water flow discharging through the 59th Street and 72nd Street
outfal1s is less than the capacity of the outfalls. The flow discharged to the
66th Street sewer, however, exceeds ~he capacity of the outfall. Thus sOme
flow byPasses the outfall and is discharged via the relief sewer and the 72nd
Street outfall. A comparison of the existing storm wate~ flows and the capaci·
·ty of each outfall is also presented in Table II.P-3.
Storm Wate.L.RunoH
Storm water generated on the project site flows across the site and dis-
charges directly to the Hudson River. Some of the storm water infiltrates into
the site's bate soils and enters the site's groundwater, where it flows slowiy
to the Hudson River. There are no separate storm sewers or cOilibitted sewers
serving the site.
II .P-7
·"
Table II.P-3
EXISTING SEWER. CAPACITIEs ARD i'LQWS
(iDcubic feet per second)
DRY VEATBEll :nov
.. -.S.ever
Capac icy of Regulator (as set) 8.70 24.20 15.00

Mean Dry Wea'ther Flow 4·4.8. lL..8.l ~
Unusea Capacity 4.22 12.39 9.42
59th Sereet 66chSt:t:eet 71nd Street
Design Capaciey of Outfall 198.00 305.00 780.00

Storm waeer Flow 156.75 479.48 455.92
Unused Capacity 41.25 324.08
*
Notes:
Flow exceeds capacity. Overflow directed through relief sewer to 12nd
S'treet sewer
SiJ\irce: CQsent;.irti Associates i fiE'P Bureau of Water Supply aoa Waste'
Collection.
1I.P-8
In New York City, solid waste generated by residential uses is picked up
by the Department of Sanitation. Waste generated by non-residential uses (of-
fice, retail, etc.) is removed by private haulers. The Department of Sanita~
tion disposes of domestic refuse at one of the city's incinerators or at the
city's remaining landfill at Fresh Kills.
In the part of the study area north of 59th Street, regular collection is
made by the Department of Sanitation's Manhattan West 7 district, which has
boUndaries identical to Community District 7. In the part south of 59th
Street, regular collection is made by the Manhattan West 4 district, with boun-
daries identical to Community District 4.
In District 7, which serves the project site, a total of 28 trucks are

used to collect refuse three times a week. The Manhattan West 7 district,
which includes the project site, collects an average of 1,440 tons of solid
waste per week, based on 1991 data. Based on the" 1990 population in District 7
of 210,993, the current solid waste generation for this area is 1.95 pounds per
person per day. New York City residential wastes are disposed of at the Fresh
Kills landfill in Staten Island. Commercial and business refuse ("commercial"
referring to retail or restaurant Uses and "business" referring to office uses)
is transported either to Fresh Kills (where priVate carters pay a tipping fee
for disposal) or to private landfills in upstate New York or out of state.
Fresh Kills takes in approximately 24,000 tons of solid waste daily (about
90 percent of the solid waste generated in New York City), from the Departmen't
of Sanitation as well as from private carters. The Department of Sanitation
also collects solid waste from city agencies, street trash cans, lot cleaning,
and street sweepers, all of which goes to Fresh Kills.
Most of the solid waste collected arrives at the Fresh Kills landfill by
barge. The remainder is brought by truck. The barges are loaded at mar~ne
transfer stations. On the West Side of Manhattan these stations are located on
the Hudson River at Gansevoort "Street, 59th Street (at Pier 99), and 135th
Street. The marine transfer stations handle solid waste from areas closest to
them, to make the travel time between the pick-up area and the transfer station
as short as possible. The marine transfer st"ations on the West Side of Manhat"
tan handle about 9,000 tons of solid waste a day. The solid waste from Manhat~
tan West 7 district is equal to about two barge loads a week.
Currently, the project: site generates no residential refuse and ~nly a

minor amount of commercial refuse from the business on the site.
Telephone and Other Communications
New York Telephone provides telephone service in New York City. The com-
pany has exchanges near the project: site On 50th Street between Ninth and Tenth
Avenues and on 73rd Street between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues. The main
cables in the distribution system near the project site run under West End
Avenue, On the projeot site, telephone service is provided to the bUildings at
the southern end.
I1,p,,9
Th~re are no police· or fire call boxes; telegraph, or closed qircui E 'tele;'
Vl.Sl.on cables on the site. However, police and fire call boxes do exist on the
entire periphery of· the site.
The Future Vithout the Project
Water Supply
Water consumption
Water use in the city has been growing. over the last several decades and
is e~pected to continue growing into the future over the time horizon of the
Riverside South project. DEP estimates the rate of growth in water Use at 0.5
percent per year, if no conservation measures are enacted. However, because of
the limited capacity of the New Y.ork City water supply system, the city has
embarked on a two-fold effort to address this problem. First, the city has
initiated a water conservation program that seeks to reduce water use, princi-
pally by metering water use at each connection, and through the requirement
that all new water fi~tures he of a low flow design. Other measures such as
leak detection programs and locking fire hydrant caps are aimed at further
reducing the city's use of water. DEP projects that water conservation mea-
sUres for the pe·riod 1991 through 2002 in the North Ri.ver 'WPCP basin will ex-
ceed the growth in water Use. therefore, future water use in the Borough of
Manhattan is .conservatively projected to remain at or below the current average
use of 420 mgd with peak Use of S~O.mgd.
The second water initiative by the city is to seek new water supplies that
could supplement the existing capacity. To this end, the city has formed the
Mayor's Intergovernmental Task Force on New York City Water Supply Needs to
coordinate and oVersee efforts by the city and the U.S.' Army Corps of Engineers
in examining potential new water supply sources. The two main methods being
studied to increase the city's supply are Use of the Chelsea Pump Station to
take fresh water from the Hudson River, as was most recently done in 1989; and
pumping groundwater from the Brooklyn/Queens aquifer. Studies indicate that up
to 400 mgd could be added to the supply capacity by long· term skimming of Hud-
son River water during high-flow periods. Groundwater pumping of the Brooklyn/
Queens aquifer currently suppljes about 30 mgd through the Jamaica 'Water Compa-
ny. It is estimated that this source coul~be increased to about 120 mgd.
Together, these two neW sources along with emergency water cOnserVation during
drought conditions should enable the city to continue to supply a. reliable safe
yield in case of droughts.
The current and projected water use for the City of New York exceeds the
safe yield of the supply system .. to prevent running out of water, the city
monitors available water in the system's reservoirs and implements emergency
measures during drought conditions Eo reduce demand to below the safe yield of
the supply system.
The development sites expected in the study area in the future without the
proj ect are presented in Table II. 1'-4 for the Phase I (1997) and Phase II
(2002) analysis years for the area served by the North River wacer pollutiOn.
Control Plant. The water use from chese development projects, includin! both
consumptive uses such as air conditionin! and non-consumptive uses stich as
II.P-10
domestic water demand, have been estimated, as presented in Table II. P- 5. As
shown in the table, these are expe<:;ted to total 4.58 mgd by 1997 with an addi~
tional 2.59 mgd by the build-out year of 2002. These projections include con-
sumptive water use for air conditioning of 1.53 mgd and 0.54 mgd for 1997 and
1
2002, respectively. These estimates assume that all users of the project site
are new to the City of New York. Since a number of residents and employees
would be existing residents or employed within the city, these estimates are
conservatively high. .
At the project site, there will be no change in water consumption from the
current negligible use through the project completion date of 2002.
local Distribution System
The DEP's Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Collection is planning no

major changes in the water distribution system on the Upper West Side. It is,
however, planning to replace certain 6-inch and l2-inch Oelaware/Catskill sys-
tem mains with 20-inch mains that would connect with the Croton mains under
West End Avenue, Amsterdam Avenue, and Broadway. In the vicinity of the pro-
ject site, the work includes replacement of the 12-inch main under 59th Street
between West End and Twelfth Avenues, replacement of the 12-inch main under
66th Street between Amsterdam AVenue and Freedom Place, and replacement of the
6-inch mains under 70th and 7lst'Streets between Amsterdam Avenue and the west-
ern ends of those streets.
In the future without the project, sewage generation in the North River
drainage basin will be affected by a continuation of the historic growth in per
capita water use as well as in the number of users, tending to increase flows
to the·WPCP. Countering this growth are city programs to reduce water USe and
to eliminate extraneo.u·s flows into the sewer system. The net result, as re-
flected in the analysis below, is projected to be an overall reduction in sew-
. age generation to the North River WPCP in the project Build year of 1997 and
2002.
The city estimates that water use would increase by 0.5 percent per year
within the North River bas.in without cons'ervation and flow reduction measures.
This increase would result from both the increase in users within the basin and
the increase in the per capita Use of the existing users. Applying this rate
to the current annual average dry weather flow to the North River WPCP results
in flows of 174.7 mgd and 179.5 mgd in 1997 and 2002, respectively. Maximum I
monthly flows would not increase at the same rate because the maximum month is
influenced by ex~raneous flows such as fire hydrant openings. ~
Countering this background growth in water use and subsequent sewage gen-
eration are the city's programs for water conservation and flow reduction mea-
sures. The citywide conservation program consists of the folloWing elements:
o Universal metering. To provide water meters to all users of water.
Water bills would reflect actual use for each metered facility·; pro-
viding a direct link between water use and payment for water service.
II.p-l1
T~ble II.p~4·
NORTH RiVER. DRAINAGE BASIN
SUBSTANTIAL NO BUILD DEVEtoPHENTS
..
TO 19.9.7 BU.ber of 'ihdts
Hap
Ref. Dwelling Hotel lDseit:llticmal/
~ . . p.ro1.ec.t thdtil RDOiiB Coaaercial Special Use.
1 Roosevelt Hospi~al 61S*
2 Alfred II 285 8,000
3 Macklo'We 335 62,750
4 Brodsky East 644 158,000 30,000
5 Columbus Center 700 l,260,ODO 550,000
6 YMCA 215 28,000
7 Fordham University 1,000**
8 Manhattan West 1,000 35,000 8,000***
13,000****
9 ABC 66th Street Site 150,000
10 Capital Cities ABCI 937 27,500 14,000 2S0;000
West End Avenue (studio)
**;rr;Tr
11 Lincoln Square 314 177,000 10,000
(Ansonia Post Offioe)
Folk Art Museum 192,000 ~9 ; 000*****
Rockefeller Plaza West 1,600,000 78,000
2 Times Square 297,000 so, 000
Americas Tower 930,000
Drug Enforcement 532,000
Administration
42nd Street North 1;529,000
42nd Street South 979,000
Postal Services (Morgan 780,000
Annex)
270 Seventh Avenue 257
2 West 106 (Tower) 374
1532-48 ~road~ay 724,000 6SjOOO
Essex House 145 590
620 Avenue of the 609,000
Americas
Hudson 42 1,230 50,000
Convention Center Front 610 300 1,080,000
Door District
401 West 31st (Olympia 1,700,000
& York)
1'1 Penn Plaza 680,000
l.azard 1,100,000
1;046 890 13,845,250 902,000 iiiverse
+1; 000" Uses
Notes I
'1/
beds
dormitory rOoms
*** community facility
**** heahh ~lub
***** mUseum
+ See Figure II.P-3
ILP-12
Table Il-.1'-4 (Continued)
NORTH RIVEJl.. DRAINAGE BASIN

SUBSTANTUL NO BUILD DEVltLOP.KENTS
TO 2002 llullber of Unite

Hap
h f• heling Hotel Iut:'icutioDal/
• 0.+ Pro1.e.c.t. __ linUs RooiiB ked.;'] Use
12 Macklowe West 60th Street 190

13 Milstein, Tenth Avenue 300
and 54th Street
14 1860 Broadway 265 113;000 38,000
15 Cinema Studio Site 198 85,000
16 John Jay (445 West 59th 456
Street)
17 2121 Broadway 170 19,000
18 8 West 70th Street 108
19 Chemical/Saloon 176 76;000 25,000
20 235 West 63rd Street 242
21 1961 Broadway 249 83,000 27,000
22 2180 Broadway I7D- 19,000
23 318 Amsterdam 133 20,000
Port Authority Bus 1 OOO.OOO
j
Terminal
Milstein/West 44th '740 180,000*
Street
34th Street Rezoning 318,000
235-239 West 51st Street 383
HudsOn River Center 1 SOO
j
Sixth Avenue Rezon1n$ 1,100 416;000

696 Sixth AvenUe 412
42nd Street 750 2,230,000 520;000 1;500,000
iDart
128,000
theatre
4 j 909 2,633 4,321,000 636,000 diverse

uses
..'* sehool
See Fiaure 11.'-3
:n.p-13
'fable II. P-5
VATER CO)fS'DiIPTION AT FOT'l1RE-WITHOU'!'-TBE-PROJECT DEVEI.ol'HENT SItES

IN THE 'RORTl! RIVER DRAiNAGE AREA
Space
(~bousand square feet Water Consumption
unless otherwise noted) . (pd)
1997 _ .. 2:002 2002(5)

Residential (Unies) (2)
Domestic 112.0 gpd/perSOfi 1.3,863
persons persons
Retail
Domestic 0;10 gpd/st 902 636 '90,200 63,600
A/C 0.17 gpa/sf 902 .63_6 153....350 108,000
Total 243,550 171; 600
Won-Retail Commercial(3)
Domestic 25.0 gpd/person 55,225 17,300 1;380,675 432,500
persons persons
A/C 100.0 gpo/ks! 13, e07. ] - 3B_0.;., 700 432,000
Total 2,761,375 846,500'
Institutional/(4) 0,1 gpd/sf 1;323 2;108 132,300 210,800
Other Uses
All Development
Domescic 3,623,535 2,050,900
A/e 1 , .5 34', 050 54.0_,0_0_0.
Toeal 4,557,585 2;590;900
(1)
Rates used to project Riverside South consumption.
(2) Includes apartments, hotel, and dormitory units as presented in "The Ft!·
ture Without the Project" in the "Land Use" section.
(3)
Includes all non-residential space as outlined in iiThe Future Without the
Project," "Land Use" section.
(4)
Includes schools. television studios, post offices; museums, etc.
(5) Development projected to occur between 1995 and 2002.
gpd - gallons per day; kaf ~ thousand square teet; A/e = air Gonaitioning make-
up waesr
Source: McKeown & FrafiZ; biG.; AIlsa King ROsen & Fleming I Inc.
II.p .. 14
o LoW':..floW' retrofits. The ,current program for retrofitting low-flow
plumbing fixtures is applicable to public housing. The city is
studying ways to extend an ince~tive program ~o encourage retrofit-
ting private faciliti.es.
o Sonar..leak .de.tectio.n . . This program would exam~ne every major water

main at a frequency of once every three years or less to test for
water leaks.
o Hydrant .lo.cking .devic.e.s. Replace the standard caps that can be

opened by any large wrench to ones that require a special wrench 'that
only city personnel would have access to.
o Residential and commercial water audits. Free water audits would be

provided to examine water use in residential and commercial struc-
tures and recommend specific measures to reduce water and sewer
charges through reduction in water use;
o Continuous I-I studies. The DEP would continue the efforts to exam-
ine and eliminate extraneous sources of flows, such as groundwater
infiltration into broken or leaky SeWer pipes, from entering the
sewer system.
o DEP HPD training. The·DEP under this program would work with the
Department of Housing Preservation and Development to train the
superintenden·t staff a·t public housing proj ects on methods to mini-
mize water use through proper monitoring and maintenance of the
plumbing system and other water-using systems.
o Environmental education. The DEP would execute a program to educate

the public about the importance of water conservation to the quality
of the environment.
The installation of water meters within the North River drainage area is
under way and will be essentially complete by 1997. The retrofitting of plumb~
ing fixtures within the basin is estima~ed to occur over a 30~year period as
existing high-flow devices fail and are replaced by new low-flow fixtures. The
DEP has estimated .tha~ the combined savings in water use and subsequent sewage
generation from mete~ing and low-flow fix'tures to be 5.2 mgd by 1997, with an
additional savings of 2.2 mgd by 2002.
The savings for low-flow fixtures is based on the DEP's estimate that cur-
rent per capital water use in the North River basin of 137 gallons per day
would b~ r~duced by 25 gallons per day to ·a total of 112 gallons per day. This
savings results from reduction in water use by toilets from 5 to 7 gallons per
flush to 1.6 gallons per flush, reduction of shower flows from 4 to 5 gAllons
per minu~e to 3 gallons per minute, and a small reduction in faucet flows.
On July 1, 1992, the City of New York signed an Order on Consent for the
North. River Water Pollution Control Plant. In this order; the city agrees to a
speGific program of flow reduction that contains specific measures. relating to
the North River basin. These measures are:
·a. Flow monitoring within trunK sewers that handle 70 percent of the
flow to the WPCP.
II.P-l5
b. Replace defective tide gates that allow Hudson River water to enter
the sewer syste~ at high ·tides.
c. Intensified leak detection and repair progrruffi to increase the fre-

quency of" sonar inspection in ehis basin from once every three years
to once every nine ~onths.
d. Intensified hydrant ~onitoring to close off open hydranes and ins~all

locking caps on an accelerated schedule.
e. Accelerated residential/commercial water audits and testing of large

water meters for accuracy.
f. Educ.ation and training outreach program within the North lHvel' basin.
g. Acce"Ierated water ~etering within the North River basin.
h. Co~p1ete low-flow-fixture retrofit program for public housing.
The NYCDEP has estimated that, as a result of the accelerated schedule for ~he
water conservation program" and the program to remoVe extraneous flows from the
system; principally by replacement of defective tide gates, a savings of 11.25
mgd would be achieved by the year 1997 as follows:
Consent Order Hi1estone water Savings (mgdl

Tide Gate Repla~ernent 5.1
Areawide leak detection 2.0
Hydrant Shutoffs 1.0
Hydrant locks (3,600) 1.5
200 Commercial Water Audits 0.25
Housing Authority Retrofits 1.4
Total 11.25
This savings is over and above the savings attributed to the citywide water
conservation program.
Table II.P-4, above, presents the proposed and approved projects within
the North River WPCP Basin. The water use by these projects is presented in
Table II.P-5, also above, including both consumptive and non-consumptive uses.
Cons~ptive Uses are those that do not return water to the sewer system, such
as air conditioning systems. Nonconsurnptive uses, such as tyPical household
uses, send water to the sewer system. these projects would add 2.9 rugd to the
existing flows by 1997 with an additional 2.0 mgd by the year 2002. These
projected increases in water use are very conservative in that they double
count increases in flows in the background growth factor, which included in-
creases in population and employment as well as increased per capita water Use.
This methodology 1s further conservative irt that it assumes that every project
proposed or approved would aceually be built and ehae they would all be fully
II.P-16
occupied, and by new residents fro~ .outside the c'atchment area. These asswnp-
tions are much higher than the Regional Plan Association projections of popula~
tion and employment, which project lower increases for the entire Borough of
Manhattan than this methodology projects for the North.River basin alone.
Table II.P-6 'presents a summary of the expected additions and subtractions

to the sewage flow to the North River WPCP for the analysis years of 1997 and
2002. To these flows are added the sewage flows generated by the proposed
projects within the North River drainage area, also shown on Table II.P-6.
The total projected flows for 1997 and 2002 without the project are 161.2
a£nld 165.8 hrngd. ~:se flows are.lower. thanhthe current 1991-~992 flows, re -
I .
ecting t e ant1c1pated reduct10ns f rom t e water con~ervatlon program. Th e
North'River WPCP currently meets the mass discharge loadings for both BOD and ~
TSS, and the plant is projected to continue to meet these in the fu~ure withgu~ ~
the project.
Trunk Sewe.rs and Regulators
New developments expected in the future without the project will add to
the dry-weather flows through the trunk sewers near the project site. A map
showing the developments projected for the collection areas for the 59th, 66th,
and 72nd Street sewers is presented in Figure II.P-3 (sewage from developmen~s
outside the indicated collection areas would flow into trunk sewers to the
north or south). Sanitary sewage from the developments in the 5~th, 66th, and
72nd Street collection areas will total 0.96 mgd by 1997 and an additional 0.40
. mgd by 2002. A breakdown of sewage generation by ~runk sewer collection area
is presented in Table II.P-7.
A comparison of future dry-weather flows with existing flows and the ca-
pacity of each regulator is presented iri Table II.P-8. The mean dry-weather
flow going through each regulator will continue to be less ~han the volumes the
regulators are designed to pass on to the interseptor.
Storm Water
In contrast to the sanitary flow, no growth.is projected for storm water

flow, as there will be no substantial new areas of impervious surfaces to gen-
erate runoff. Most of the sites expected to be developed in Ehe future without
the project are already covered with impervious surfaces. At the project si~e,
there will be no change iIi the storm water flows as ~here will be no develop-
ment on the site.
The No Build development projects in Sanitation District 7 are projected

to add 4,407 new residents to the district (in apartments, hotel rooms, and
dormitories) by 1997 and an additional 3,748 by the build-out year of 2002
without the proposed project. Commercial development in the study area will be
collected by private carters and disposed of eieher in New York City or else-
where; depending on the economics for each individual c~rter.
Using the daily solid waste produceion for District 7 of 1.95 pounds per
. person; new residents will produce a total of 4.3 tons per day; or 30.1 tons
Il.P-l7
RIVERSIDE
s~ 0- U T H
Significant Proposed Development in the
. Trunk Sewer Drainage Area
MUSEUM
AMERICAN
OF
NATURAL
HISTORY'
LJ .figure II.P-3
~_
t '.:
()
o 1000 FEET
- - - - Project Site Boundary ~:::::r==--:::J-:J
CI
SCAbS
- - Trunk Sewer Collection Area
G) Proposed Development Site
12'91 _ _ _ _ _ _IIIIiiii
.....
· IIiiiii---iili-_...._ _....llliiiiiiilllilllliilillliiilllil_ _~N;;jjotiie:.S.ee.T.ab.leiillii..Pii-l.f0ii.rrjiief.er.en.ce.n.um_b~ei'S
1iiiiii--
..
Table II.P-6
SEWAGE FLOWS TO THE NORTH RIVER ¥PCP IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROJECT
Jb:isting'* 1997
][,',91 2002
Vater Vater
Annual Backgrotmd Conservation Consent No Build Annual Background Conservation No Build Annual
Average Growth Credits Order Projects .... Average Growth Credits Projects .... Average
H
H
TorrAL 169.1 +5.6 -5.2 -11.25 +2.9 161;2 +4.8 -2.2 +2.0 165.8
"tI
"
1-"
00"
110'
Assumes same distribution for annual average and' maximum month .
..... No Build projects are presented in Tables II.P-4 and II.P-5.
Table II.P-7
ADDlTIONAL SANITARY SEWAGE FLOWS FROll

P"D'TDRE"VITHOUT-THE~lRO.1E~T DEVELOPHENT SITES
IN TiiE lROJ'KCT' S SEWERAGE AREA
A. 59th Street Trunk Sever

Space .. Sewage 110W (gpdl
_ _~I1a!!!!:!'~tc:::e_(l_)_""'"""-'-= ---.1997 -.2.002 1997 --.2..0.02. .
Residential (2) U2.0 gpd/person 4,736* 1,412*' 530,400 158,100

Retail 0.1 gpd/sf 65** 0 6,500 .0
3
Non_-RetaiJ CoIJlinerc ial ( ) 25 gpd/person 883* 1,400'" 22,075 _35,_0.00
All Developme:nt 559,500 193,100
B. 66th S1:reet: Trunk Sewer

S;gace. Sewage Plow (gpdl
.. --.ltate(1)_. ),997 200.2.. _ .199.7... 2002
Residential (2) 112.0 gpd/person 2,900* 1,540* 324,800 172,500

Retail 0.1 gpd/sf 55** 109",0; 5,500 10,900
_Non -Re_tai 1 Conun~rcial_~3 ) 25 . gpd/person 1,352'"
All Development
1,088* 33,8.0.0
364,100
_.2..7.;200
210,600 I
C. 72nd Street Trunk Sever
Sewage FIOlLJgpd)
1997 _2002
Residential (2) 112.0 gpd/person 211" 0 23,600 o

Retail 0.1 gpd/sf 20 ... • 0 2;000 o
_Non.-Retaq. Commercial (3) 25 gpo/person 0 0 0 Q
All Development 25,600 o
Notes:
(1)
Rates used to project Trump City consumption.
(2) Includes apartments, hotel, and donnitory uni.ts as presented in "TOe
Future Without 'the Project," "Land Use" section.
(3) Includes all non-residential space as Qutlined in lithe Future Without
the project," "Land Use" section .
... persons
•• ksf
gpd = gallons per day; kef - thousand square feet; A/e e air conditioning
make-up water
. II.P-19
Table II.P-8
FtJT'Oll:!-WITHOUT .. TBE-PROJECT DRY ~WEATHER SEWER. CAn-CITIES AND FLOwS

(IN cusIc IEET PER SECOND)
5~~~aexeet ~6th Street 72nd Street
Capacity of Regulator (as se~) 8.70 24.20 15.00
1989 Mean Dry-Weather Flow 4.48 11.81 5.58
1997 No Build Dry Weather Flow from O~6_ O---SJi 0.04

Future Development Siees (see Table
II.P-7)
1997 No Build Flows'" 5.34 12.37 5.62
Unused Capacity (1997) 3.42 11.83 9.. 38
2002·No Build Dry Weather Flow from

Future Development Sites
2002 No Build Flows ·5.58 12.70 5.62
Unused Capacity (2002) 3.12 11. SO 9.38
Rol;e:
• Projections for 1997 for the North River Treatment Plant catchment
area indicate that flows to the plant will decrease over the 1989-
1997 period because of the city's conservation program. Because the
same reduction would oeeur in the Riverside South study area, these
projections at each of the trunk sewers in that area represent a
worst-case; conservative analysis of 1997 No Build Gonditions.
McKeown & Franz; Inc.; 1990; Allee King Rosen & Fleming,
Ino. 1991.
I
II.p-20
per week by 1997. By· 2002, a total of 8.0 tons· per day or a total pf 55.7 tons
per week of solid waste will be pro"duced. This residential refuse generated in
1997 represents a 2:1 percent increase oVer the existing average residential
collection of 1,440 tons per week and ·a 3.8 percent in~rease by 2002.
In accordance with the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan, the
city recently passed a law (Local Law 19) requiring that res·idents and busi-
nesses separate recyclable material from solid waste, and that 25 percent of
the city's solid waste be recycled. District 7 has implemented the city recy-
cling program. On September 14, 1992, the city enacted a mandatory recycling
law that requires 40 percent of the city's solid waste to be recycled. This
should reduce the volume of solid waste to be disposed of at the city's land 5
fills. Fresh Kills, the city's only landfill, is scheduled to close in the
year 2008. Until Fresh Kills is closed, enough capacity remains in the city's
solid waste disposal system to accommodate expected growth. Planning and de-
sign activities are under way to replace the Fresh Kills landfill after its
closure with new landfills or other treatmertt/disposal.facilieies.
On the project site, there is no expected change in the current negligible

solid waste generation.
Without construction of the proposed project, no added demand for serVice

will occur on the project site.
The new residential, retail, and commercial development proposed for the
Riverside South project would place new demands on the city's infrastructure.·
As described in Chapter I, "Project Description," the project would add 3,100
new residential units by 1997, with an additional 2,600 by the year 2002. Re-
tail uses would total 58,000 square feet by 1997, with a total of 137,800 by
2002. Commercial space would total 90,600 square feet by 1997, with a total of
2.. 2 million square feet by 2002. of the residential development, up to 20
percent may be affordable housing, which by reason of a higher occupancy rate
causes higher sewage generatio~. This analysis conservatively assumes that all
the proj ect' s res idents would be new to· the city. As detailed in Chapter I, a
number of improvements eo the site's infras~ructure are planned .
. The proj ect' s water use has been proj ected USl.ng the. rates applied to
other developments in the drainage basin in the· future without the project, as
presented in Table II.P-9.
The project '(ifould result in a total increase in average water Use of 0.73
mgd in 1997, of which 0.02 mgd would be consumptive air-conditioning use. By
full build-ou~ in 2002, the project would demand a tocal of 1.69 mgd, of which
0.08 mgd would be air~condicioning use. These uses represenc an increase in
New York City water Use gf 0.05 percent in 1997 afid 0.10 percent by 2002. This
II.P-21
ESTIHATED VATER USAGE BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT,
Vater Consumption
Rate _ _ ___(nCt)
-.-2002_
Residential ",'It
Domestic 112 gpd/ 3,100 5,700 691,600 1;271,600
person unit:s units
Retail
(above grade)
Domestic 0.10 gpd/sf 58,000 138,000 5,800 13 ,800
A/e 0.17 gpd/sf 58,000 138,000 .9--.90.0 2.3....5.00
Total 15; iOO 37,300
Retail
(below grade)
Domestic 0.10 gpd/s£ -45,000 4,500
A/e 0.17 -gpd/s£ 45,000 ].}OO
Total 12,200 -
Non-Retail Co~er~
cial
Domeseic 25 gpdp/ 380 2,000 9,500 50,000
person persons persons
A/e 0.10 gpd/s£ 90,000 463,000 .9~OO_O 46 300
Total 16;600 86,300
Movie Theater
Domestic 5 gpd/seae 1,800 9,000
seats
A/e 0.1? gpd/s£ 37,000 . _6....10.0
Total 15,300
Studio
Domestic 20 gpd 4,000 80,000
employees
A/e 0.10 gpd/s! 1;800;000 180,000
All Development
Domestic 706,500 1,428,900
A/e 18,900 83,B_0.0_
Total 7i5,SOO 1,692,700
Square feet of space unless otherwise notad.

** Based on an average occupancy of 1.85 persons per unit foi the project-,
except for the assumed maximum 20 percent affordable hoysing component;
which is expected to have an occupancy of 2.56- persons per unit. I
increase would not signif'icantly 'a~fect the city" s ability to supply water
. reliably.
Peak water use is estim~ted at three times the av~rage use. The peak
demand occurs in the morning hours, with a lesser peak in the late' afternoon.
The project would draw water from mUltiple locations from 59th Street up to
72nd Street; therefore, no single water main.would experience the estimated
peak flows of 2.16 mgd in 1997 and 5.04 mgd by 2002. The flow would be drawn I
from five different locations with 20-inch pipes at four withdrawal points
(6lst, 64th, 66th, and 7lst Streets) and the l2-inch main on 59th Street.
Assuming a worst case of even distribution between these five 'pipes, the 12-
inch pipe on 59th Street would see an increase in peak flow of 0.4 mgd' in 1997
and 0.85 mgd in 2002. The pressure drop in this l2-inch line between the with~
drawal point and its connection to the 36-inch main on West End Avenue, a dis-
tance of approximately 700 feet, would be a maximum of 4 psi in 1997 and 4.4
psi in 2002, assuming a flow of 2.5 mgd in this pipe before the project's with- \
drawal. Once the feed mains reach the 36-inch main on West End Avenue, the
water would be drawn from more sources, further reducing the flow increment in
any single pipe. this level of pressure drop would not cause water pressure in
this portion of the water supply system to drop below minimum acceptable pres=·
sures for domestic services of 20 psi.
To serve the water demand of the project, water m~ins would be constructed
on the site as illustrated in Figure II.P-4. These mains would be of a· size
that would meet the capacity needs of the project. With the proposed improve-
ments, the projected demand would not produce any significant change in water
pressure in the n~ighborhood b~cause the water to the project is drawn from a
grid at multiple poines, dispersing the demand throughout the area.
Sanitary Sewage and S~Qrm~atarnisposal
s.ewage Treatment
Riverside South is projected to generate a total of 0.71 mgd of sewage by

1997, with a total of 1.42 mgd by full build-out in 2002. These flows, added
to the No Build flows to the North River WPCP, would result in annual average
flows of l6i.9 mgd by 1997 and 167.2 mgd by 2002. these'projected flows are
less than the current flows to the plant (1991-1992) and are below the SPDES
permit flow limit through the implementation of an aggressive flow reduction
program now being undertak.en by the Department of Environmental Protection.
Annual average dry weather flows at the plant have seen dramatic reductions
since the. publication·of the DEIS (lB2.4 mgd to 169.1 mgd) .. In addition, 'the
plant should continue to meet its SFDES mass discharge limits for both BOD and
tss and may occasionally exceed the percent removal limit for TSS.
Sewers
Collection Sewer.s.. The project would extend the city sewer system onto
the project site, as shown in Figure Ii.P-5. These sewers would be designed to
accommodate the project's peak flows as well as any off-siee flows passing
ehrough the site. There would be no impacts from 'these extensions of the sys-
tem on the existing sewers serving the neighborhood, as the de~lgn of the sew;
e~S accounts for all Use~s.
Prop·osed Water Mains
Figure II.P-4
0:
UJ )
-.
::>
0:
/
<:
0
C()
Q
::::,
:r:
tS9th St.
I
- ••- - Project Site Boundary

- - Croton System Main (diameter as noted) - - - - Proposed Water Une
(20', except where noted)
- - - Existing Private Main (dial1"leter as noted)
• Existing Hydrant·
----... Delaware/catskill System Main
(12-, exc:ept wh~re noted) o Propo.sed Hydrant
RIVERSIDE
- -
s ~-o_-:u 'r-H
- --"------
Note: The sanitary and storm sewer systems are separate on the project site. o 200 400
I I J
the 66th Street outfall sewer is a combined sewer.
. --............. Project Site Boundary - - • Trunk Sewer ... Direction o(Sewage Flow
- Interceptor Sewer > Outfall - - - Proposed Storm Sewer
I Regulator •••••••• Feeder' Sewer - • - Proposed Sanitary SeWer
Trunk Sew.er.s. The total sewage generation from the proj ect would be
smaller than the available unused capacities in the 59th, 66th, and 72nd
Streets sewers during dry weather flows, and for all but the 6~th Street sewer
during wet 'Weather, there would be no impacts on the t;runk sewers from the
project. A new storm relief sewer proposed by DEP to be constructed under 66th
Street would eliminate the current need to byPass these flows to 72nd Street,
allo~ing each sewer to operate under capacity.
Storm Water. The storm water drainage grid for the project site would be
separate from the collection sewers, as shown in Figure II.P-5. The storm
water collected by these lines would be discharged to those existing outfalls
that have adequate capacity for this increased flow. As described in ""Existing ,
Conditions," above, outfalls are located at 59th, 66th, and 72nd Streets. The I'
storm water from the site would not pass through the regulators and thus would
not increase flows to the regulators. All inlets to the s~orm water collection
system would contain catch basins to prevent floatables in the runoff from
flowing to the river. These basins would contain hoods to prevent floatable
material from discharging into the sewer. They would also contain drop sec- ~
tiotls to collect heavy material prior to discharge.
The direct discharge of stormwater separate from the combined sewer system
is in accordance with the policy of the city and the NeW York State Department
of Environmental Conservation to separate sanitary and storm sewers wherever it
is practical to do so to. minimize combined sewer overflows.
The proj ect would generate a total of 7.25 ."tons of solid waste per day by
1997 and 24.7 tons per day by 2002, as shown in Table II.P-IO. If the city
achieves its recycling goals, the quantity of solid waste to be disposed of at
the Fresh Kills landfill would be reduced by up to 25 percent. AssUming a
worst case of no recycling, the addition of the project's solid waste to the
Fresh Kills landfill would re.present an increase of 0.03 percent by 1997 and
0.11 percent by 2002. this is not a significant change over current disposal \
levels. Within Sanitation Distric~ 7, the project's residential refuse would
increase the collection by 0.42 percent by 1997 and 0.76 percent by 2002.
These increases are ngt significant and could be accOmn'lo"dated by realloca,tion
gf ~ruck routes using the existingSanitatign Department collection flee~.
Table II-. P-lO
soun WASTE GENERATION AT 'tim PROPOSED PROJECT'
Solid Vaste Solid Vaste

- Sc:rurce- . Generation Generation
Cpetspns) _. (]bs/day) Ct.MS Ida,;)
llate'"'
ClbsldJp) 1997 2002 ---.l.9Jl7. _ 2002 1917 .. --.aooL _
Residential 1. 95 6,200 5,150 12,090 22,133 6.05 11.07
Retail 5 180 400 900 2,OOc)- 0.45 1.00

(above grade)
Retail 5 130 650 0.33

(below grade)
Non-Retail COifi- 4 380 2,000 1;500 8,000 0.7S 4.00

mercial
Movie Theaeer 0.36 1;800 650 0.33

seats
Studios 4 4,000 16,000 8.00
All Development 14,490 49,433 7.25 24.7

.. Per kesiaene or Employee
** Residents or Employees
II.P-25
Q. ENERGY
EEisting Conditions
Manhattan, along with most other parts of New York City and most of West-
chester County, ·is supplied with electricity by Consolidated Edison. In 1985,
the utility sold 36.8 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, of which
15.9 billion kwh were supplied to Manhattan. ln that year Consolidated Edison
had a peak load of 8.8 million kilowatts and a total summer capacity of 11.1
million kilowatts.
No primary electrical service is now provided to the project site. There

are existing l3-ki10vo1t· (kv) primary feeders under West End Avenue. They
originate at a Consolidated Edison substation on the east side of West End
Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets. Through transformers, the feeders pro-
vide 208/l20-volt secondary service to the eastern edge of. the site and the
buildings on 59th Street on the site. Existing electric lines are also located
beneath West 59th Street, West 66th Street, Freedom place, West 70th Street,
and West 7lst Street.
Natural Gas
Natural gas in Manhattan, the Bronx, and parts of Queens and Westchester
County is provided by Consolidated Edison. In 1985, the utility sold 84 bi1·
lion cubic feet of natural gas to its retail customers.
The project site currently has no gas service. Eight inch diameter dis~
tribution pipes are located under West 59th Street, West 71st Street, and West
End Avenue. Six-inch-diameter gas lines are located under West 66th and West
70th Streets.
S.team
Consolidated Edison provides steam to parts of Manhattan. Steam sales in

1985 were 26.4 billion pounds. Although the project site is not provided with
steam service, the Consolidated Edison power plant on 59th Street between Elev-
enth and TWelfth Avenues (immediately south of the site) generates steam for
certain buildings in the area. A steam main runs north from this plant under
West End Avenue as far as 70th Street. From the plant to 65th Street, the line
has a diameter of 24 inches. From 65th Street to 70th Street; the diameter is
12 inches: A 4-inch steam line runs beneath West 70th Street west of West End
Avenue.
Fuel oil is supplied by private companies operating in the area. New York
is an import center for foreign petroleum and the terminus of four petroleum
pipelines from the Gulf of Mexico area, thus having ample supply of fuel oil;
II.Q-l
The Future Without the Froject
Without construction of the proposed project, uti.Hty systems in ~he area

will remain as they are, though increases in demand and consumption of elec-
tricity, gas, steam, and oil will be expected from other development.
Probable Impacts of the Froposed Project
This project is committed to serve as a 'model of energy conservation.

Sustainable development guidelines have been developed for the project. These
guidelines call for the use of a variety of energy efficiency measures that are
cost-justifiable, defined as capable of achieving a five-year payback. Among
the materials and systems' that would be governed by these guidelines are: the
structures' thermal envelope, glass and glazing, lighting systems, heat-
ing/cooling and fuel selections, major equipment and energy management and
control systems. The program will be administered by a design and review board
which will prepare reports of energy consumption and savings and be presented
to public agencies. It is anticipated that the sustainable development guide-
lines will result in a significant savings in energy usage.
At a minimum, buildings at the proposed project would meet the current New
York State Energy Conservation Construction Code, and future updates where
applicable, which establishes performance standards for overall building per-
formance,including heating, ventilating, air conditioning, lighting; and me-
chanical systems . . To reduce heat loss, it also establishes standards for ex-
terior building envelopes. . - {~
-The following- section provides -a "worst case" analysis and analyzes energy
impacts assuming usage rates based upon adherence to the requirements of the
New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code, and does not accou~t for
the energy savings that are expected to be achieved based upon the sustairiable
development guidelines that the- project is committed to implementing. This
worst case analysis shows that the proposed-project: would not have a signifi-
cant: energy impact. Consequently, implementation of the proposed sustainable
- development program will reduce energy consumption and lessen ehe insignificant
impacts described below. -
Proposed electric lines would run along West 6lst Street, Riverside Drive
extension, West 66th Street, West 70th Street, and West 7lst Street. Connec~
tions would be made to exis~ing electric lines at 59th Stree~, the intersection
of West 6lst Street and West End Avenue, West 66th Street at Freedom Place,
West 10th Street at Freedom Place, and at West 7lst Street.
the projectis electricity demand would include typical residential and

commercial needs -- e.g., ligheing, refrigeration, elevaeors, and other mechan-
ical equipment. The project's electricity demand would total about 227 billion
British Thermal Units (BTU) or 66.5 'million kwh per year. (This estimate is
based on factors from Energy Consumption in New Building Design: An Impace
Assessmene Be A$H~ seBfiaBCa 90-75 by Arthur D. Little, InG" Washington,
II .Q-2
D.C., fOF the Federal Energy Admini~tration, March 1976.) This· constitutes
less than 1 percent of the quaneity of electricity supplied to Manhattan annu~
ally by Consolidated Edison and would not result in any significant service
problems for the utility.
He.at.ing and Cooling Systems
Heating and cooling systems would be fueled by a combination of natural

gas, steam, and/or oil, and electricity. Currently, the extent to which each
fuel would be used has not been determined, except that either natural gas or
steam would be used at Parcels F and N. Therefore, three analyses were per-
formed, one for each fuel tyPe. To estimate the maximum use of these fuels,
each analysis considers a caSe in which one fuel is used to power the entire
system.
Natura~ .Gas
Underground connections would be m~de from the project site to the exist~
ing gas lines at 59th, 66th, 70th, and 7lst Streets. The trunk section of the
proposed gas main would rUn along West 6lst Street to Riverside Drive exten-
sion, and along Riverside Drive between West 6ist Street and West 7lst Street.
As described above, the project's heating and cooling energy needs would
be fueled with natural gas, steam, and/or oil, and electricity. If the proj~
. ect'S heating and cooling systems are entirely. fueled with natural gas, these
systems would demand aboue 0.6 b.illion cubic feet of natural gas per year.
This amounts to less than 1 percent of Consolidated Edison's total annual na~ua
ral gas sales.
If used, steam would be provided to the project site via connection to

Consolidated Edison steam lines. A new line would be installed to connect a~
West 6lst Street with the existing 24-inch line under West End Avenue and at
West 70th Street with an existing 4-inch steam line. The line would run be-
.neath West 6lst Street, RiverSide Drive extension, and West 70th Street.
If the project's heating and cooling systems are ent:irely fueled by st:eam,
these systems would demand about 0.6 billion pounds of seeam per year. this
amounts to about 2.3 percent of Consolidated Edison's total annual sales.
If the projeceis heaeing and cooling systems are entirely fueled by oil.
about 5.4 million gallons of oil would be used each year. This would not have
a. significant impact On the ample supply of 0:1.1 provided by priVate companies
to the area.
lI.Q-3
It. CO~STRUCTIONIMPACts
.'
After publication of the DEIS, the applicant and the Manhattan Borough
President signed a Memorandum of Understanding (dated August 26, 1992) that
contained two items that ~inimize possible construction i~pacts. One item
relates to creation of a "Construction Liais~n Committee" (ctC) , and the second
relates to employment opportunities. There are described below.
Prior to the start of any site work, a CLC would be established for the
purpose of acting as a liaison between the project and the adjacent co~unity.
The CLC shall be co~prised of representatives of the developer, the Manhattan
Borough President, area elected officials, Community Boards No. 7 and 4,repre-
sentatives from the residential and commercial develop~ents in the immediate .
area of the project site (including Lincoln Towers and Amsterdam Houses), and
representatives of relevant city agencies charged with oversight of construc-
tion of the project (including the Departments of Buildings, Transportation,
Environmental Protection, Parks and Recreation, and Sanitation). Names, tele-
phone n~bers, and a description of the ~ethod for contacting the CLC would be
posted at several location on the site. The etc would ~eet regularly in public
to discuss the status of construction and any proble~s, consult with affected
me~bers of the public, and seek to resolve any problems that arise.
With regard to e~ployment opportunities, the applica~t has agreed to

strive to ~ake this project a model of econo~ic opportunity. As part of this
effort, the applicant will endeavor to e·mploy women and persons of color as
~e~bers of the construction work force, and endeavor to require contractors to
retain MBEjWBE firms as contractors and vendors in connection with construction
work. Where feasible and appropriate, the applicant will ~ake Use of any and
all state and city affirmative action and s~all business enterprise programs in
connection with the construction of this project. This would include the
city's Office of Economic and Financial Opportunity, as well as UDC's affirma-
tive action programs. Affirmative efforts will be made to involve business
enterprises, not-for-profit entities, community-based organizations and local
residents from Lincoln Square (Amsterdam Houses), Harlem, West Harlem, Manhat-
·tan Valley and Clinton neighborhoods; as con~rac~ors, vendors and members of
the work force. The applicant will recruit from toeal training and Assistance
(TAP) centers and other programs opera~eQ by ~he Department of Employment;
where appropriate.
Construction Sequencing
The following analyses are based on an approximate construction schedule,

developed with consideration· to eypical cons't.ruc'tion equipment and eiining; as
well as the structures 'to be built. The overall schedule for the project as-
sumes the following:
o Construction of the project: wguld begin in eariy i993 and would be

completed by the end gf 2002.
II .R-l
o The Phase I development would run from early 1993 through 1997 al;'ld
would include constructidn of all parcels between 72nd and 64th
Streets (Parcels A through H), adjacent portions of the Riverside
DriVe extension and east-West cross streets,.a portion of the water-
front park, and associated infrastructure improvements. Construction
would begin at the northern end and continue south.
o Construction would begin on a new parcel approximately every seven

months, with several parcels under construction simultaneously.
o phase II would begin in 1997 and would be completed by the end of

2002, and would include the balance of the parcels, the waterfront
park, the street system, and infrastructure improvements.
The peak construction year for the project would be 1999. During the
typical day, an average of 800 workers would be employed on-site. A maximum of
1,000 workers Would be on-site daily during peak construction days. To facili-
tate site access, ·the service roads under the Miller Highway and next to t:he
Amtrak passenger tracks from 59th Street to 7Znd Street would be used.
The analyses in this section consider the effects of construction 6f ~he

proposed project and the possible effects of relocating the Miller Highway.
Reconstruction of the existing Miller Highway is fiOt considered.
Land u.s.e. and Neighborhood Character
·Despite the size of the propose.d project, two factors would minimize po-
tential impacts on land use and neighborhood character. First, the si·te is
currently underutilized; therefore, the level of on-site activity that could
potentially be disrupted from the construction of the project would be negligi-
ble. Second, the project site is large, which would allow all construction
actiVity to be staged on-site, which would minimize disruption to the surrourtd a
ing conununity.
As noted in section II.H, a number of historic resources are located close

to the project site and therefore could be affected by construction activities.
These include the Chatsworth Apartments and Annex on West 72nd Street; NoS. 1
and 3 Riverside DriVe and 309 and 311 West 72nd Street, at the northeast .comet
of Riverside Drive and West 72nd Street; some of the buildings of the West 71st
Street Historic District, and the Consolidated Edison Power House on 59th
Street. The Chatsworth abuts the project site on both 72nd and ilst Street;
the houses at the corner of Riverside DriVe and West 72nd Street are approxi-
mately 320 to 360 feet from the northern boundary of the ptoject size; the West
i1st Street HistoriG District betins approxima~ely 75 feet from the sitej and
the power house is about 50 feet from the project site.
A p'otential impact ·on these h~storic resources is physical da~age result~
ing from vibration during construction. According to the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) Standard Recommended
Practice for Evaluation of Transportation Related Eartpborne Vibrations,"
vibrations generated by construction equipment, when within 1,000 feet of his~
toric or residential buildings, may be perceptible and potentially damaging to
structures.· Table II.R-I shows the maximum distances from the site at which
vibrations from various construction activities would be perceptible or could
result in architectural or structural damage to buildings within that distance,
For example, vibrations from pile driVing would be perceptible for as far as
200 feet from the site. Historic buildings within 90 feet of ~he pile driving
could be subject to architectural· damage and; within 12 feet, eo structural
damage. Architectural damage includes cosmetic effects to buildings, such as
cracking; while structural damage risks the 'building's support.
'Table II.R-l
VIBRATION-INDUCED RISK CRITERIA FDR HISTORIC BUILD1NGS
Damage J~isk Distanct!_ (Fee.J;.)

perceptible Distance·
Activit.y. . <Feet) Arch i tectur.a.l (l) seruc tural!!!
Blasting 1,000 400 60
Pile Driving· 200 90 12
Pavement Breaking ];50 60 8
Bulldozing 60 30 3
He.avy Truck Traffic 50 20 :3
Jackhanuners 30 15. 2
Notes:
(1) Based on a damage threshold gf 0.1 inches per second peak vibration
velocity.
(2)
Based on a structural damage threshold of 2.0 inches per. second vibration
velocity.
S01¢ces: WiSs, John F., i'Cons'truction Vibrations: State-of· the~Art. " Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering ·Division, Proceedings.of the American
SOCiety of CiVil Engineers, Volume 107; No. GT2, February 1981,
Standard Recommended PraCbice for Evaluation of Transportation Relat-
ed Vibrations, AASHTO Designation: &S~81 (1986).
* AA5HTO Designation: &S-81 (1986).

To determine the potential eff.~cts of ground-borne vibrations from truck
traffic, the peak vibration velocity generated by a truck -- typically, approx-
imately 0.03 inches per second at a distance of 50 feet* -- is ~ompared w~th
the vibration velocity that could damage a bUilding. Vibration velocity levels
of 0.20 inches per second could result in architectural damage to typical resi-
dential· buildings. ** Because of the often uncertain structural condition of
historic resources, a peak ground vibration. velocity of 0.10 inches per second
is the generally accepted threshold for possible architectural impacts to his-
toric structures.**· Peak ground vibration velocities of 2.0 inches per sec-
ond could cause structural damage. These thresholds are all considerably high-
er than the Vibration velocity of 0.03 inches per second generated by passing
trucks.
Assessment of Proj e.c.t Impac_t.s
During construction, blasting may be necessary at the north end of the

project site,· and pile driving and other typical construction activities are
likely to occur throughout the site. Therefore, based on the information pro-
Vided in Table II.R-l, potential impacts could occur to the Chatsworth from any
of these construction activities listed in Table II.R-l; to the row houses on 1
the northeast corner of Riverside DriVe and West 72nd Street from blasting; to
the West 7lst Street Historic District from blasting or pile driving; and to
the Con Edison PoWer House from pile driving and pavement breaking. Potential
mitigation measures for these potential impacts are discussed in Chapter IV,
"Mitigation Measures."
Economic Condi tions
As explained in detail in section II. I, "Economic Conditions," construc-

tion of the proposed project would generate an estimated 21,000 .person years of
employment -- 18,560 person years direct on-site and 8,440 person years gener-
ated off-site. Total tax revenues generated by the project's construction
activities would be approximately $222 million -- $151 million for New York
State and $71 million for New York City.
Traffic
Based on a review of the proposed construction schedule, the on-site roads

that would be completed, and the amount of activity that would be generated in
already-occupied project space during construction, the greatest potential for
significant traffic impacts in the study area would occur in 1997; at ehe end
of Phase I. In that year, the proj ec t' s roadway ne·twork would be only partial-
ly completeo (eo 64th Street) and there would be simultaneous construction
activity on s.ever~l apartment buildings at: 'ehat: time.
* Source: Wiss, John F., AseE Proceedings; February 19S1.
Source: AASHTO Designation: as-S1 (1986).

*** source: Wiss, John t,; A5CE proceedings, February 1981,
As described above, construction activity in 1997 would employ approxi-
mately 1,000 on-site workers during any given workday. These construc~ion
employment estimates are based on total construction labor costs and average
annual labor salary levels, as presented in section ~I,I, "Economic
Conditions."
The following transportation planning projections have been made in con&

nection with the travel of these workers to and from ~he work site:
The aggregate auto modal split for construction workers is projected

at 50 percent·, with variations according to the geographic locations
of the workers' origin/destination zones.
o Or_igin-bestination Patterns
The origin/destination patterns of construction workers is projected

to be the same as those for journey-to-work trips. for proposed proj-
ect employees.
The typical construction shift is 8 AM-4 PM on weekdays. It was

conserVatively projected that 10 percent of the 'construction employee
trips generated would occur in the AM'peak (8 AM-9 AM), with a 95
percent/5 percent inbound/outbound directional distribution, 5 per-
cent in the midday peak (12 Noon-l PM), with 50 percent/50 percent
inbound/outbound, and 20 percent in the PM peak (5. PM-6 PM), with a
5 percent/95 perce~t directional split. Auto trips are assigned tot
from the proposed construction entrance at Twelfth Avenue and 59th
Street.
Based on experience with construction methods and practices at other

buildings in Manhatt·an, it is anticipated that during a typical work-
day there would·be approximately 150 truck trips (in and out). This
would include some excavation on one site, while concrete and other
supplies were being delivered to a second site .. In analyzing condi-
tions in the peak hours in 1997, it was projected that approximately
30 two-way trips would be made during both the AM and midday peaks;
while no two-way trips would occur during the PM peak, as the site
would be typically secured by that time.' Truck trips were assigned
to the network using the same deSignated truck routes as the proj-
ect's truck trips, and routed to the entrance at Twelfth Avenue and
59th Street.
Traffic capacity analy.ses were performed in the primary stUdy area for
1997 by addifig the construction-related traffic to the future Build volumes
11.1-5
project~d for that year. Construc~ion traffic 'was added to the unmitigated
Build traffic network, as outlined in the impact analysis in section II.J, to
assess the incremental effects of construction activity in 1997. 'the extent to
which the traffic improvement measures proposed would be sufficient to mitigate
the construction-related impacts was also assessed.
Table 1I.R-2 provides a comparison of the vic ratios under No Build, Build
with Construction, and Mitigation conditions in the study area. Table II.R-2
shows that, with the combination of project-generated traffic and construction
traffic, there would be three new impact locations, and a fourth location al-
ready impacted in a different peak hour. On West End Avenue southbound at 71st
Street, there would be AM peak hour impacts with the 1997 No-Build vic ratios
rising from 0.854 to 0.867. On westbound 59th Street at West End Avenue, the
No Build vic ratios would rise from 0.894 to 0.937 and from 0.826 to 0.860
during the AM and midday peak hours, respectively, and, on eastbound 57th
Street at Columbus Avenue, the No Build vic ratio would rise from 0.996 to
1.006 during the AM peak hour. Additional AM and midday peak impacts are ex-
pected on westbound 57th Stree~ at Eighth Avenue with the vic ratios rising
from 0.876 to 0.888 and from 0.899 to 0.910, respectively.
As shown in Table II.R-2, the i997 mitigation for the proposed project
(see Table 1V-2 in Chapter IV) is sufficient to accommodate the additional
effects to construction traffic. At the intersections of West End Avenue and
,~ 71st Street, the 'relocation of the M72 bus from the southbound .avenue provides
the needed mitigation, whereas the signal timing and other improvements in the
1997 mitigaticm 'plan eliminate the significant impacts at the other locations.
Air .Duality
Possible impacts on local air quality during construction of the' proposed

project include:
o Fugitive dust (particulate) emissions from land clearing operations

and demolition; and
o Mobile source emisSions, including hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and

carbon monoxide emissions, from construction workers' private vehi-
cles, from disruptions in traffic near the construction site, and
. from construction equj.pment at the construction site.
Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive dust emissions from land clearing operations can occur from exea·
vation, hauling, dumping, spreading; grading', compaction, wind erosion, and
traffic over unpaved areas. Demolition typically produces particulates up to a
height equal to that of the structure being removed. Actual quantities of
emissions depend on the extent and nature of the clearing operations, the type
of equipment employed, the physical characteristics of the underlying soil, the
speed at which construction vehicles are operated, and the type of fugitive
dust control methods employed. 'the U,S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has suggesced; in general; an overall emission rate of about 1.2 ~gns of par-
tiCUlate/acre/month gf active Construction from all phases of land Clearing
n.R-6
'l:able II.R.-2
TIlA¥fIC COBDITlONS DOllING CONSmUCTION OF THE PllOPOSED PROJECT. 1997
I I
1997 K 1997 K
1997 CIIIISTR. P COIISTR. P
IIO-BUILD BUILD DELTA A BUILD KIT DELTA A
PEAK VIC VIC VIC C VIC VIC C
STREET APPIIDACII !OIl RATIO RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO T
----------··--..--------.. ------.. ----------1-....--------------------------_ . . ----------------:
12TH AVE. lIB, 56TH ST.(LOCALI AM I 0.812 0.891 0.079.. 0.805 -0.007 I
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ::. ••••••••••• 1••••••••••••• =••••••••••••••• 1: • • == ••••••••••••• :
1m AVE.6B SERVICE RD •• 55TH ST. AM I 0.585 0.903 0.1l8.. 0.793 0.208 I
PH I 0.707 0.962 0.255.. 0.844 0.137 I
AM I 0.853 0.870 0.017..
3········1I
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • =.:.2 • •
1m A9E.6B • 51 ST 0.847 -0.006
......................•..................
7m ST. I I ' RIVERSIDE
,.........•..
PH I 0.836
···········::.······················i:1
0.894 0.058.. 0.788 -0.048 I
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1•••••••••••••••••• ii: •••••••••••••• ~ •••• =-•••••••• ,
iIEsT IIID &B I 7:II1II IT. AM I 0.841 0.862 0.021.. 0.684 -0.157 I
lID I 0.853 0.896 0.043.. 0.765 -0.088 I
'" I 0.837 0.869 0.032.. 0.691 -0.146 I
--------------------------_·_--...........---.. 1....----_ ... _-------------..----------------------:
IIEST IIID lIB Tl/ft e 7ZIID IT. AM I 0.921 1.083 0.162.. 0.914 -0.007 :
lID I 0.904 0.959 0.055.. 0.179 -0.025 I
PH I 0.902 1.009 0.107.. 0.887 -0.015 :
----------------------------------------1--------------------------------------------..--:
7:II1II 8T. 118 • IiEST EIID PH I 0.918 1.023 0.035.. 0.982 -0.006 I
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1•••••••••••••••••••• :11 ••••••••••••••••••••••••• :.:
IiEST IIID &B • 71ST ST.
·········································I·······~····
WEST IIID 8B • 65TH ST. , AM I 0.927 . U.978 0.051..
AM I 0.854
....................................,
0.867 0.013'"
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• s . . . . . . . . . . I•••••••••• .: ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• :11 • • • • • :c 1

0.1l7 -0.017
0.928 0.001 :
:
WEST lID 88 e 64 ST. AM I 0.938 0.977 0.039.' 0.879 -0.059 I

----------------------------------------1---------------------------------------------.. -1
IllEST IIID lIB 1 64 ST. PH I 0.789 0.961 0.172.. O.IDZ 0.013 I
·········································1·······:1:··&·
IiEST DID &B • 63 ST. AM I 0.823
...................................
0.881 0.058.. 0.850 0.027
:I
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 111 , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 • • • : ;
iIEsT IIID 6B • 611T ST. AM I 0.867 0.930 0.063.. 0.112 -0.055 :

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1••••••• '1;11 • • • • • s ••••••••••••••• s ••••••••••••••••• :
IiEST IIID 6B • 60TH ST. AM I 0.854 0.919 0.065.. 0.787 -0.067 I
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • at • • • • • • • • • • • • :.:.I ••••••• :II • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • :z~ •••••••• s ••• :11 ~
IiEST IIID &B • 59TH ST. AM I 0.829 0.910 0.0,81.. 0.801 -U.028 I
;,;;-.;:-ii-;-;a;-;;-----------··_-;--:---ii:;;;----ii:;i;-:;:i;i-::-·_·ii:;;i--;:;ii----1
-------------_..-----------------.......... ----1--------_ .... _-----------------..-------- ------~-·I
59TH 8T. lIB • WiST END AM I 0.894 0.937 0.043 ••• 0.837 -0.U57 :
lID I 0.826 0.160 0.034... 0.768 -0.058 I
........................................... 1•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;
WEST IIID 6B • S7T8 &T. All I 0.946 0.969 0.023 t. 0.823 -0.123 I
---------------------------------------1--------------------------------------------...... :
ifEST IIID lIB • 57T8 ST. PH I 1.059 1.071 0.012.. 1.024 -0.035 I
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••3 ••••• ' ....... .';1.= ••• zs •••••••••••••••• :i •••••••••••• c •• =I
11TH AVE.IIB • 56TH ST PH: 0.916 0.926 0.010" 8.9U8 -0.OU8 I
•••••••••••••••••••••••• : •• 3 ••••••••••• :::1.1 ..........:. •••••••••••••• iI ••••••• c .. :I • • • • =~ •• ii: •• .::
AKSTERDAK lIB • BROADIIAY/11ST ST. lID I 0.862 0.876 0.014" 0.844 -0.018 :
PH I 1.074 1.U86 0.012.. 1.046 -0.028 I
••••••••••••••••••• :I.z: ••••••••••••• c ••••• t•••••••• CII:c ...• • • • :a ••• ::.•••••••• ==s •• It • • itai: •••• ~.=:
BIioADIIAY &B • 65TH ST./COLUII8US AM I 1.054 1.072 0.018.' 1.023 -0.031
. ?II:
-------------------------------------_
IAOAIIWAY liB • 65TH ST./COLUMBUS
. :-.. _-----_. . . _-----.. --..-------..
KG I
0.977
0.144
0.990 O.Oll..
0.157 0.013.'
0.944 ~0.033
-----~------~-----I
0.818 ·0.026 I
I
. PH : 0.976 0.998 0.022., 0.952 ~0.U24 I

......................................... =1··············. ················=:.::·II:·c ••••c••••• ,
Q)LUllBUB 6B e 57TH ST.
_______________________________ All 1
..... _______ I__________
0.936 ... 0.95U 0.014.. 0.922 -0.014
110 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ... _ ... _ _ 110 ... _ ... _ _ ~------- ..... -_1I
57T8 IT. D • Q)LUIIBUS AM I 0.996 1.006 0.010 ••• 0.964 -0.032 I
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• : •••••••• : ••••••••••• z •••••• cil ••••••••••••••• c.iI::
65TH ST. II • CENTRAL PARK WEST All I 0.948 0.973 0.025.. 0.901 -0.047 I
PH I 0.971 0.994 0.023.. U.921 -0.050 I
•••••••• s ••••••••••••••• s •••••••••••••••• : ••••••••••••••••••••••• a •••• i i ••••••·••••••••• ii:
Q)L.C1RCLE 8B TO B'WAY • 1ft AVE. AM I 0.936 0.948 0.012.. 0.916 ·0.020 I
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1•••••••••••••••••••••••• ii.s ••••••• =••••••••• i i i '
51rB ST.1I8 I 8TH AYIl AM I 0.176 0.88B OoUlZ ••• 0.856 -0.020 :
lID I 0.899 0.910 0.011 ••Ii 0.877 -0.022 :
PH I 0.975 0.987 0.012.' D.9SZ -1i.liiiJ I
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• :111 •••••••••••• 1I.1II ••••••••• i •• iiiiii •••••••••••••• .ii I
to DIi1IO'rii lII1'AiitiD 1iOCA1'1011 II1II 1'0 l'iIOf'OIllD PJWict'
"i DIIIOHS willftD IiOCAfiGii iiIiE to .IIOPOSID .~ • OOIISTRIiCfiOil
II.a .. l
operatiOjlS with no fugitive dust· coptrol measure·s. However, this is a na.tional
estimate and actual emissions would vary widely depending on many factors,
including the intensity and type of land clearing operations . . Much of the
fugitive dust generated by construction activities con~ists of relatively
large-size particles, which are expected to settle within a short 'dist'ance from
the construction site and not significantly impact the nearby buildings or
people.
For this project, demolition (which would only occur in Phase Il), excava-
tion, and construction would be conducted with the care mandated by the site's
proximity to active uses. All appropriate fugitive dust control -- including
watering of exposed areas ~nd dust covers for trucks -- would be employed. ln
addition, all necessary measures would be implemented to ensure that the New
York City Air Pollution Control Code regulating construction-related dust emis-
sions is followed. As a resUlt, no significant air quality impa~ts from fugi-
tive dust emissions would be anticipated.
Mohi le Sour.c.e. Emiss.i.ons
The carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from construction workers driving to

the site and construction equipment operating at the site would not signifi-
cantly affect air quality conditions. Construction vehicles are typically
diesel-powered and therefore emit relatively low amounts of CO. Localized
increases in mobile source emissions would be minimized by incorporating· traf-
fic maintenance requirements into the construction contract documents to ensure
chat:
o Construction requiring temporary street closings for the relocation

of utilities and for other purposes in heavily traveled areas would
be performed, to the maximum extene possible, during off-peak hours;
o Existing number of traffic lanes would be maintained to the maximum

extent possible; and
o Idling of delivery trucks or other eqUipment would not be permitted

~uring periods when they are b~ing unloaded or are not in active use.
All'construction at the site would be coordinated through ehe Mayor's Transpor-

tation and Construction C90rdination Council co ensure that traffic lanes and
pedestrian paehways past the project site are maintained to the maximum extent
practicable.
Impacts on community noise levels during construction of the. proposed

project would include noise and 'vibration froin const:ruction equipment operation
and noise from construction vehicles traveling to and from the siu. A signif-
icant adverse noise impact would be defined as an increase in ambienc noise
levels of 3.0 d8A or more generated by project construction activities.
II.R-!
Canstructi.an Naise Saurc.es
The precise type and number .of canstruction equipment pla~ned far use at
the prapased praject has nat been clearly defined at this time. Therefare, an
estimate of construction equipment-use scenarias has been develaped far each
phase .of constructian thraugh consultation with the praject's canstructian
manager. Tables D.2-l thraugh D.2-9 in Appendix D.2 list for each phase .of
canstruction activities the equipment expected to be used, the A-weighted saund
pressure level (SPt) at 50 feet, the number .of each kind of equipment expected
to be .operating, and expected equipment usage factors. In addition, each table
shows for each phase .of construction activity, the compasite SPL emitted from
,the center of canstruction activity at 500 feet. These camposite SPLs are
summarized in Table 11.&-3. These values were calculated assuming that all ehe
equipment in use during that phase is located at the pO-int clasest to the re-
ceptor site being analyzed. In reality, the equipment would be dispersed
around each building site.
Constructian Noise Predictian Model
The methodology used ta predict the impact .of canstructian activities ta

the ambient SPL is discussed in detail in Appendix D.2. The noise equipment
model utilized takes inta account the number .of pieces .of equipment .operating,
the fraction of time each piece .of equipment is .operating, the maximum A-
weighted SPL of each piece of equipment, atmaspheric attenuatian .of sound
(i.e., source/receptar distance noise re1atianship), and attenuatian af'sound
with changes in terrain, buildings, etc. The ~esultant SPL values were loga-
rithmically added together at each noise receptar locatian and reparted in
terms .of hourly energy-averaged equivalent (Leq(lJ) values in units of dBA. The
specific Leq(lJ values were derived from logarithmically combining the values
listed in Table D.2-1 through D.2-9 in Appendix D.2 and Table II.R-3 in accor-
dance with the expected construction schedule described abave.
teq(lJ noise levels generated at each receptor location'from construction

vehicles and the praject-generated vehicles in 1997 were analyzed using the
same methadology as that used in sectian II.L for vehicular' traffic noise.
These vehicular noise values were then added logarithmically ta the'- construc-
tian noise values to derive' a tatal canstructian Leq(l) at each receptor loca-
tion. The project impacts were then determined 'based on the tatal construction
Leq(l)S and the existing Leq(iJS.
The noise receptar locations analyzed are the saine as those used foi:' the
project-generated traffic noise analysis discussed in section 11.t. They are
shoWn in relation ta parcel locations in Figure II.R-I. There is a locatian
CI, between West 70th and 7lst Streets in Figure 11.&-1 that was analyzed for
construction noise impacts only because it directly abuts the project site and
is at a residential building. No traffic noise analysis was performed ae Cl
because no traffic passes this location in any scenario; Existing noise levels
at C1 would be the same as those at location 12;
Table n .R-4 summariZes the results of the Gonstr~ction noise impac,t anal-
ysis both during phase I and Phase II of construction. Minimum daytime noise
n.R-9
.
Table II.R.-3
L.q SOURl) LEVELS EHITTlm FROH EACH· PHASE OF CON$TllUCTION AC'lrvITf
. AT 500 FEET
Average SOUnd Leve1

Construction Phase . moBA
Clearing/Excavation for Buildings Requiring Blasting 78
Clearing/Excavation for Buildings Requiring pile 67

Driving
Pile Driving 75
Concrete Foundations for Buildings Requiring pile 65

Driving
Foundation for Buildings Requiring Blasting 66
. Erection of Residential Buildings 67
Erection of Studio Building 76
Finishing for Steel Frame Buildings 68
Landscaping 67
Miller Highway Roadwork 70

. . Figure ILR-1
,: .. ,! O~Q
.~ ·r' [ )
o 500FEEf
I
- - Project Site Boundary SCALE
o Noise Rec::eptor Location

N Parcel Name
8092
Table II.R.-4
StOOWlY OF' CONSTRUCTION COlmlIBUTION TO AKBIDT SOORD LEVELS. dB&. l..q(1)
PHASE I (1993-1997)
Kaximull. Change
Daytille 1.aq(1)+
JIIlnbnJm. lIazi:aum Daytille 1IU:l.Dnm lraziaum Total Due to Construc-
Without Construction L.,q(1) With Construction L.q(1) With tion During
);Dcation·· (Existing 1991) Construction Traffic --~(1)- Construction Dan·ime
1 6,7 7'1., J8 79- 12'
2~ 6,3 7'8 78 15
.,.
3, 6,1 19 79- 18
4 6,5 68 68 7'1 6
5 €i,9 73 68 14 5
(, Jll 7'6 62 J6 5,
1 59 7'5 65 15 ll.6
8 13 81... 6-5 8ll 8
~a 69 8,6, 86 17
11-11
11-11 PJW;E II (1997-2002)
liIII
•
11-1 JlSzi.mua Change
11-1
JUnmum DaytfD.e 1.aq(1) + lIazimull Daytime lrazimum lIazimula Total Due to Construc-
Without Construction L.q(1) With Construction L.q(1) with tion During
Location-H {Build l297} Construction Traffic --bq(1) Construction Daxtim:e
1
2:
6,1
6,4
11. 64
68·
12
68 4
5·
...
3, 63 14 74 11
4 66 68 68 71 5
5 10, 7') 8] 81 U
6 72. 76 74 18 6
7 60 15 an 87 21
8 73· 81... 86 87 14
9 10 . 76 76, 6
llO
C:l
64
6,9
. 68
66
6,8
71
til.
2.
.. No, construction traffic is expected to pass ·this location.

+ 1i..aq(1} values were estimated based on measured L10 (1) levels (Leq(l) - L10 (1) - 2) .
.... "ark construction would not be completed before 1997 at locations 9 to 12; they were therefore not included here.
H Park construction would not be completed before 2002 at locations 11 and 12; they were therefore not included here.
levels without construction, as well as the two components of the maximum day-
time' noise level with construction (1. e., construction traffic noise levels and
construction equipment noise levels) are shown. Daytime Leq(l) noise levels
from traffic alone would increase by more than 3.0 dBA,at monitored locations 7
and 8 on West 59th Street. These Significant increases would be caused by
heavy truck traffic, using West 59th Street as a major feeder street to the
site.
Noise levels shown have been rounded to the nearest whole numbers. As
shown in Table II.R-4, noise levels would increase by up to 18 dBA during Phase
I of construction and by up to 27 dBA during ,Phase II of construction resulting
in significant adverse noise impacts. These high increases would only occur at
locations next to pile driving actiVities that would occur for a maximum of
three months. Details of maximum noise levels expected at each off-site recep-
tor location for each year of construction activity are shown in Table II.R-5.
Details of the entire analysis are contained in Appendix D.2.
Although these construction activities would'last only a few months at

each location, increases of more than 5 dBA over No Build Leq levels would be
intrusive to people occupying buildings or walking in the immediate area during
the hours when construction actiVities are taking place. Mitigation measures
for these significant noise impacts are discussed in Chapter IV.
Blasting Noise and Vibration
New York State and New York City each have regulations for blas~ing. 1n
New York City, noise produced by the detonation of explosives shall not exceed
95 dBA when measur'ed on the "A" scale on a general purpose sound level meter
meeting ANSI standard S1.4-l97l and set at "slow response." The noise ,from
blasting, although audible over large distances, is not dangerous to humans and
animals because of its very short duration. For persons at a close, but safe
diseance, to the blast, the blast noise might be startling. The developer
would ensure that the contractor would get all necessary certification from the
New York City Fire Department before any detonations. '
The blast oVer pressure may rattle windows in buildings between West 70th
and West 72nd Streets facing the site., This would occur only during the first
, three months of construction in 1993. Windows and window frames that are old
and in poor condition may rattle the most. Persons indoors, who may not hear
the blast, may be disturbed by the noise from the window rattle.
Off-site blast oVer pressure (noise) and vibration are readily coptrolled
by the amount of explosive used and the delay assigned to each blast. To en-
sure that these blast limits are ,being complied with, the construction contrac-
tor ~ould monitor the sound and vibration from the blast at the nearest resi-
dential dwelling.
Table 11.&-6 shows Vibration-induced risk criteria for buildings near con-
struction activity.
The Chatsworth Apartments mentioned in the historic resOUrces portiOn of

this section, the residential buildings between West 70th and 7lst Streets next
to the project site; may be at risk for architectural damage from blasting and
pile driving. As stated above; the construction contractor would monitor the
vibrations at these buildings to ensure ,that damage does not occur.
11.R-12
HIGHEST OFF-SITE DAYTIME SOUND LEVELS
DURING CONSTRUCTION
... -. Rbise.ReseRto~ Locat~_
.. 2_ 3 ~ 5 _6_ 7 ---'L . -'ll.
1991* 69 67 64 68 72 76 69 74 69
1993 78 78 .73 65 64 60 62 62 86
1994 71 74 76 63 60 57 58 57 78
1995 71 74 79 66 62 58 60 60 74
1996 67 71 76 67 63 59 61 61 71
1997 64 68 74 68 68 62 65 65 66
1998 61 64 70 68 75 66 72 69 62
1999 59 61 66 65 74 65 77 70 60
2000 57 60 62 64 80 69 84 80 59
2001 60 62 65 67 87 74- 87 86 60
2002 59 60 63 66 81 73 86 86 S9
.gtes~ All values are maximum A-weighted sgund levels in d8A generated
Leq(l)
by construction activities only. In all cases; these maximum levels
would not be sustained for the entire year. A duration of three
months would be a mote realistic estimate.
* Existing conditions without construction noise;
. Il.R-13
Table II.R-6
VIBRATION-INDUCED axSIt" ClUTERIA FOR BUILDINGS 1 • 1
JDamage Potential Distafice (r;)

Struotural
Perceptible
Act:LvUy pistance. CFt) His'Coric ltesldentia.l
Blasting 1;000 400 300 60

Pile Driving 200 90 50 12
Pavement Breaking 15(). . 60 40 8
Bulldozing 60 30 20 3
Heavy TrucK Traffic SO 20 15 3
Jack HainIJiers 30 15 10 2
Sources:
1. Wiss, John F. "Construction Vibrations: Stat-e,.of-the-Art." Journal of

the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceedings. of the Aiilerican.
Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 107, No. GT2, February 1981.
2. Standard RSGommended Practice for Evaluation gf Transportation Related

Earthborne Vibrations. AASHtO Design.ation: R8-81(1986).
II .&-14·
Hazardous Materials
In areas of the project site with high concentrations of chemicals, metals

of concern, or methane in the soil, significant impacts could occur to con-
struction workers. In the northwestern portion of the site, where concentra-
tions of volatile organic compounds are highest, a significant adverse impact
to construction workers could result from inhalation of volatiles during
trenching. Trenching is digging or excavating soil so that a worker is sur-
rounded by soil on two or more sides. A significant adverse impact could also
occur from exposure of construction workers to elevated levels of metals, vola-
tile organic compounds, or PARs in soils on the site through contact with skin,
. bre~thing suspended soil particles, or swallowing of soil. In areas where high
methane levels were detected, trapping of methane beneath newly paved or cov- .
ered areas could result in explosive conditions. This represents a potential
.significant adverse impact both during and after construction of the project.
In additIon, groundwater at some locations on the site contains metals and

organic compounds at levels-exceeding New York State drinking water standards
and Ambient Water Quality Guidance Criteria. This would not represent a sig-
nificant adverse impact to human health, nor would it cause significant impacts
because of construction activities causing groundwater discharge to the Hudson
River. Where foundation depths would extend below the water table level, de-
watering would be necessary during construction. During dewatering, ground-
water would be tested and, then, subject to approval from ·the appropriate regu-
lating agencies and depending on its quality, would be pumped to the Hudson .
River or to the North River Water Pollution Control Plant, or would be treated
and then pumped to the Hudson River.
These potential impacts to construction workers are described in detail in

section II.M, "Hazardous Materials." Proposed mitigation measures f~r the
identified potential significant adVerse impacts are discussed in Chapter IV,
"Mitigation Measures."
Energy Consumption
Energy required for construction, known as embodied energy, is expended

extracting raw materials, manufacturing and fabricating the product, handling
and transporting them to the site, and placing the materials in the building.
According to Energy Use for Building Construction, prepared by the Energy Re-
search and Development Administration, approximately 70 percent of the energy
embodied in new construction is attributable to the manufacture of the basic
construction materials and components. The remaining embodied energy is divid-
ed among direct fuel purchases, wholesale and retail trade, business and pro-
fessional services, transportation of materials, furnishing, and construction
machinery and equipment.
Detailed information on the quantities of the various bUilding materials

to be used for construction of the proposed development are not available at
this stage of the design process. However, based on experience with similar
construction, the proposed project is expected to have a total energy consump-
tion for materials of approximately 8,869 billion !TUs. Consumption of energy
during construction must be considered an irretrievable commitment of re-
sources. As an example of the amount eonsumed annually; the .·embocHed energy
for construction materials consumed in the United States in 1967 was about 6
quadrillion BTDs, which represented about 9 percent of the overall national
energy use that year. Utilization of construction methods that reduce energy
consumption, and consequently costs, would be encoura.ged during every phase of
the construction.
Relocation of .the Miller Highway
The New York State Urban Development corporation, in conjunction with the
NYCDOT, NYSDOT, and Federal Highway Administration, are studying the relocation
of the Miller 'Highway to an inboard location beneath and next·to the extension
of Riverside Drive proposed as part of the Riverside South project. Any deci~
sion to relocate the highway would be made independently of the approval and
plans for the proposed Riverside South project and would be sUbject to its own
independent and separate environmental review.
Accordingly, details concerning alternatives, schedules, and construction

staging for relocation of the Miller Highway are not yet fully available. If
the Miller 'Highway were to be relocated inboard on the project site, the new
highway would run between 72nd Street and 59th Street, partly beneath the ex-
tension of Riverside Drive proposed as part of the project. The existing ele-
vated highway would be demolished. A general description of the relocation of
the highway and its effects follows.
Schedule..and. .phasing
Assuming that planning, environmental analyses, design, funding, and the

necessary approvals for the relocated highway can be accomplished over the next
four years, it is anticipated that relocation of the highway would begin in
1996, and could be completed by 1999. Therefore, the construction would occur
at the same time as construction of the Riverside South project in some ·areas.
It is e'Xpected that the first phase of the .highway relocation would be to

construct the at-grade section of the roadway between 61st and 70th Streets.
This 2,300-foot section would be totally outside of the existing Miller Highway
viaduct. lts construction would take about 18 months. This construction would
require coordination between contractors to avoid conflicts with project .con-
struction.
After completion of this at-grade segment, the next phase of the highway
relocation would be north of 70th Street, including the connection to the Henry
Hudson Parkway in Riverside Park. This phase of construction would involve
detouring traffic from one side of the road to the other while demolition of
the existing roadway and construction of the new road beneath it take place.
The northbound exit ramp at 72nd Street would be permanently closed. A minimum
of two travel lanes in each direction would be maintained on the highway. This
section of construction would also require some construction in Riverside Park,
to connect the new, lower highway to the Henry Hudson Parkway. This would in-
volve lowering the parkway by about 8 feet at 72nd Street, sloped up to meet
existing grade at 75th Street. A small work area -- about 10 feet wide --
would be required alongside the highway (first on one side and then on ~he
other). The pedestrian walkway at 73rd Street might also be ~emporarily
closed. When construction .is completed, the park ahd walkway would be re-
opened. The highway would be permanene1y lowered in elevation; and the arched
substructure .of the hilhway at 72nd Street would be removed.
ILR-16
The next phase of highway relocation would be the southern portion, fr·om
6lst Street to 59th. Street, where the new highway would connect to Route 9AI
Twelfth Avenue. The configuration of.this section would depend on the final
alternative selected for Route 9A. The connection could be elevated or at-
grade, depending on the alternative selected. In either case, the new roadway
would be co~structed beneath the existing viaduct.·
The final phase in relocation of the highway would be demolition of the

existing viaduct. This would occur once the new, relocated highway had been
essentially completed. Access to the waterfront would be interrupted during
this approximately nine-month period, but with a limited number of protected
crossings maintained.
Land Use
Similar to construction of the proposed project, construction of·the relo-

cated Miller Highway would have minimal disruptions for the surrounding co~u
nity because the construction site is separated from the community. Coordina-
tion between contractors would also ensure minimal conflicts with construction
activity related to the proposed pr~ject.
Open Space..and Rec.reational Facilities
Construction of the relocated highway -- specifically, demolition of the

elevated viaduct -- could have temporary effects on the new waterfront park.
First, completion of a· portion of the project's park would not occur until
after the relocation is complete .. Second, during demolition of the viaduct,
access to portions of the waterfront and other parts of the park would be tem-
porarily limited. HoweVer, a few protected crossings would be maintained, so
that at any given time access to the waterfront would be available . .
In addition, construction of the northern portion. of the relocated high~ay

would have temporary effects on Riverside Park. Alongside the highway right-
of-way from 72nd to about 75th Street, a small strip of park would be used as a
construction staging area. It is expected that this would occur on only one
side of the right-of-way at a time. During this phase of construction, the
pedestrian underpass beneath the highway at 73rd Street in the park would be
closed, to be reopened when the construction is completed.
As described above, construction activity would have temporary effects on

Riverside Park adjacent to the highway right-of-way between 72nd and 75th
Streets. Riverside Park is a New York City· Landmark and is listed on the State
and. National Registers of Historic Places. A small strip of park alongside the
highway would be used as a construction staging area, and the pedestrian under-
pass at 72nd Street would be temporarily closed. When the highway relocation
is completed, the Henry Hudson Parkway from 72nd to 75th Street would be lower
than it is now. This lowering in elevation would involve removing che massive
arches that support the roadway. Therefore; che relocation of the highway
eould have impacts on Riverside Park with respect to views from the park of and
over the highway.
Traffi.c
Throughout construction activities related to the relocat~on of the high-

way, a minimum of two traffic lanes in each direction would be maintained on
the Miller Highway. When the new roadway would be completed from 59th Stree~
through 72nd Street, traffic would be relocated from the Viaduct to the new
roadway, and then the old elevated highway would be demolished.
It is estimated that a maximum of 100 to 200 construction workers would be

involved in the highway relocation. With an auto modal split of 50 percent
(the saine as for the proposed project's construction workers), this would re-
sult in 100 to 200 auto trips to and from the site each day. Construction
shifts typically run from 8 AM to 4 PM each day. In a typical day, fewer. than
50 trucks trips would likely be generated by this construction actiVity.
Air Quality
As with the proposed project, it is expected that all appropriate fugitive

dUst control and other measures would be employed during construction of t~e .
relocated highway to ensure that the New York City Air Pollution Control Code
is followed. The CO emissions from construction workers driving to the site
and construction equipment operating at the site would not significantly af£ec~
air quality conditions.
Noise
As described above, relocation of the highway would include both construc-

tion of the neW highway and demolition of the old elevated highway. Bot~ of
these phases would be noisy.
Unshielded highway construction noise is typically in the upper 70s to .

lower 80s dBA range at 100 feet from operations. However, the nearest noise-
sensitiVe uses to the construction actiVities -- the neW park and nearby resi-
dential buildings -- would be shielded from this noise, as described below.
As part of the construction of the new highway, a retaining wall would be

erected on the west side of the highway. This wall would shield any completed
portions of the park from highway construction noise. In addition, the eastern
section of the new park, adjacent to this retaining wall would not yet be built
when t~e highway construction is being performed, so sensitive park uses would
be at least 100 feet away. In addition, because the relocated highway would be
below Riverside Drive, Riverside DriVe would shield the nearby residential
buildings from the construction noise. The shielding provided by the retaining
wall for the park and by Riverside Drive for residential buildings would be in
the range 'of 10 to 15 dBA. Therefore, ·noise .levels in the new park and at the
closest noise-sensitive buildings generated by the construction actiVities
would be, at most, in the high 60s to low 70s dBA range. (Absent ~he retaining
wall on the west side of the highway, noise levels in the park would be in the
low to mid-70 dBA range.) These levels would no~ be sigfiifiGafi~ly higher than
comparable ambient conditions without cons~rUGtiofi aGtivities in the general.
study area.
n.R-iS
Oemo1ition of the existing highway would generate brief sessions of very
high (above 90 dBA) noise levels in the new park within 100 feet of the activi-
ties. The demolition process is expected to occur after the relocated highway
has been completed (in 1999 at the earliest) and to ~ake between 6 and 9
months. Because these high noise sessions would be accompanied by falling
debris, park access would be limited to the area from approximately 50 feet to
the east to 20 feet to the west of the demolition activities. At the nearest
noise-sensitive locations to the demolition, 50 feet away in the new park and
100 feet away at the residential buildings between West 70th and 72nd Streets,
maximum noise levels from the activities would be in the high 80s to low 90s
dBA range. These levels would be intrusive to indoor and outdoor activities.
South of West 70th Street, demolition activities would be 300 to 1,000 feet
away from noise-sensitive buildings and the associated noise levels would be in
the low to mid-70s dBA range. Since these levels would be comparable to those
without the demolition activities, no significant impacts on ind90r activities
would be expected for indoor activities from 'the highway demolition.
Vibrations from debris striking ~he ground may be perceptible at noise-

sensitive locations within 1,000 feet of aemolieion aceivities; however, these
vibration levels would be below thresholas of concetn fot damage eo any build~·
ings in the area.
II.R-19
CHAPTER .
lii~ . ALTERNATIVES
A. INTRODUCTION
As noted in chapter I, "Project Description," because of the past Use of

the project site, any development of the project site would require a special
permit pursuant to section 74-681 of the New York City Zoning Resolution to
allow developments within or over railroad or transit right-of-way or yards.
Therefore, no development of the project site could proceed as-of-right. This
chapter analyzes three alternatives to the proposed project -- the No Build Al-
ternative, the Lesser Density Alternative, and the Studio/Office/Spores Complex
Alternative. In addition, sewage treaement aleernatives are examined.
B. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No Build Alternative assumes that the development site would remain 1n
its current condition and the proposed project would not be built. This alter-
native is described throughout the .E1S under the sections entHled "The :Future
Without the Project," and is sUlntnarized below.
Land Use and Zoning
Under the No Build Alternative, no significant change in land Use would

occur on the project site by 1997 or 2002. The development site would most
likely remain as it is today, partly occupied, underutilized, and isolated from
the surrounding areas. The existing city street grid would.not be extended
onto the site, and Freedom Place would not be. improved.
The elevated Miller Highway would be rehabilitated and would remain in ies
current location under thiS .a1ternative. In contrast, with the proposed proj-
ect' it is possible that· the highway would be relotated. this would not occur
under the No Build AlternatiVe.
The existing zoning on the project site would remain unchanged.·
Demographics and the Po~ential for Secondary Residential Displacement
Under the No Build Alternative, the study area's population is expected to

continue to grow as proposed new market-rate residential developments add as
many as 9,300 residents by 1997 and 4,300 additional residents by 2002. This
would be an intrease of about 13 percent over the GUrrent population in the
area. The population trends evident over the past two decades would tontinue
under the No .Build Alternative. Specifically, the trends toward a wealthie.r,
professional populaeiofi and increasing home ownership wguld GOfi~lnue under this
alternative. Displacement pressures,· which have led to a reduction in the
housing.stock available to low- and. moderate-income residents, would continue
under the No Build Alternative. Displacement pressures would be somewhat less
for 10w- and moderate-income residents living in the area between West 70th and
72nd Streets between Amsterdam Avenue and' the project ~"ite compared with the
proposed project.
No residents would be added to the project site under this alternative.

ln contrast, the proposed project is expected to add about 6,200 residents by
1991 and 5,150 more by 2002.
Community Facilities and Se~ices
The No Build Alternative would not place added demands on community facil-
ities and services, since, unlike the proposed project, it would not generate a
new residential or worker population. A projected increase in population, par-
ticularly because of residential projects proposed for the area, would resul~
in potential overcrowding in the local public elementary and intermediate
schools under this alternative and some additional localized demand for such
services as police, sanitation, and private day care.
Urban Design and Visual Character
Under the No Build Alternative, the project site would remain the same,
and views of and across the site would not change. The shoreline would remain
inaccessible to the public. Adjacent to the site, several propose'd new 'devel-
opments would change the Visual character of the area by adding tall new build-
ings to a currently vacant area. These buildings would partially block some
views of the site and water'front, create new view corridors, and, overall,
change the immediate context of the southern half of the project site from
largely vacant and industrial to high-rise residential, making the area more
like the Lincoln Square area to the east. In the rest of the study area, sev~
eral proposed projects would add tall new towers, reinforcing the emerging
high-rise residential character of the area.
Waterfront Revitalization Plan
The No Build Alternative would forego the opportunity' created by the pro-
posed project to enhance enjoyment of the waterfront and redevelop an underused
waterfront site. Under this alternative, the bulkheads along the site's shore-
line would not be repaired, the project's new i5-acre waeerfront park would not
be created, and public access to ~he waterfront would not be provided.
Open Space and Recreation
Under this alternative, the 25 acres of publicly accessible open space

cre~ted by .ehe project would noe be created, and Pier I would not be rehabili·
tateo for ~ecreatigfial use. An opportunity eo link Riverside Park to the
UI·2
propose~ Hudson RiVer esplanade sbu~h of 59th Street would be lost. The open
space study area would remain deficient in actiVe open space resources, but
both the residential and daytime populations would be adequa~e~yserved by
passive recreational spaces.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
the historic resources close to the project site -- the West 69th Street
transfer bridge, Riverside Park and Drive, th~ four row houses at the northeast
corner of West 72nd Street and RiVerside Drive, the Chatsworth Apartments and
Annex, the West 7lst Street Historic District, and the Consolid~ted Edison
Power House -- would remain unchanged, and new residential towers and an ex-
tended street grid on the projec~ site would not change their settings, ·al-
though three proposed developments between 6lst and 64th Streets would block
some views of the Con Ed Power HOuse. Riverside Drive would not be extended
south onto the project site, and Riverside Park would not connect to a new
waterfront park to its south.
Economic Conditions
Under the No Build AlternatiVe, jobs and tax revenues generated by con-
struction and operation of the proposed project would be foregone. The number
.of employees on the site and the tax reVenues, including real estate tax·reve a
nues, generated by activities on the site are not expected to change apprecia-
bly, and would remain far below what the project site could support.
the retail/service study area would gain new residents and a substantial
amount of retail space, but would not see the additional 137,800 square feet of
retail space, 163,400 square feet of professional office space, 300,000 square
feet of general purpose office space, 1.8 million square feet of studio space;
and 5,700 dwelling units expected with the proposed project.
Under both this alternative and the proposed project, industrial uses in
the area between Amsterdam and West End Avenues from 59th Street to 6lst Street
would be subject to displacement pressures. Industrial uses would continue to
maintain a strong presence south of 58th Street. The potential boost to sup-
port businesses in the film industry in the study area as a result of the de-
velopment of the studio building on the project site would be lost.
Traffic and TranspOrtation
Under the No Build Alternative, no new person or vehicle trips would be

generated from the project site. Proposed developments in the stUdy area,
together with general background growth of 0.5 percent in travel and parking
demands, would add traffic to the area's intersections. All the very congested
traffic locations would continue to worsen. By 1997, 47 approaches would have
volume-to·capaciuy (v/c) ratios exceeding 0.S5 in One or more peak hours, indi-
cating that the approaches are operating near, at, or above capacity. This
compares with 31 such approaches in 1991. Further; of these 47 approaches; 18
would h~ve vic ratios of more than ;.00, . indicating oversaturated conditions,
compared with 8 in 1991. By 2002, 54 approaches would have vic ratios greater
than 0.85 in one or more peak hours, and 20 of those approache~ would have vic
I
ratios of more than 1.00.
New extensions of 63rd and 64th Streets would continue west of West End
Avenue to the project site boundary under this alternative, but no new streets
would extend onto the project site.
In 1997, with the addition of new residents from proposed developments,

most stairways and fare areas in the 66th Street IRT subway station would con-
.tinue to operate at existing levels of service (LOS). One stairWay would con-
tinue to operate at LOS D during the morning peak because of the large number
of high school students who use this station in the morning, and another would
operate at LOS C during both the morning and evening peak hours. At the 72nd
Street IRT'station in 1997, the station's internal stairways' would remain heav-
ily congested at LOS F during both·the AM and PM peak hours. These stairs
would continue to remain substandard relative to current design standards.
Most subway lines would continue to have excess capacity at their peak load
points during the AM and PM peak hours, but the existing significant crowding
on several lines would worsen. The Nos. 2 and 3 IRT lines would have a deficit
of capacity of 17 percent in the southbound direction and would operate at
capacity northbound during the AM peak hour; the Nos. 1 and 9 IRT lines would
have a capacity surplus of 4 percent.
By 2002, crowding at the 66th Street IRT s·tation would worsen, particular·
. ly during the AM peak hour because of the heavy flows of students. One stair-
way would drop from LOS D to E and another two will operate at LOS C during
both' peak hours. At the 59th Street IRT and IND station, stairways would oper-
ate at LOS B or better, except one, which would continue to operate at LOS D in
both peak hours. Most subway lines. would continue to have excess capacity at
peak load points in 2002, but the significant crowding on several lines would
worsen. The Nos. 2 and 3 IRT lines would have a deficit of'capacity of 20 .
percent southbound and 3 percent northbound during the ~ornirtg p~ak, and the
Nos. land 9 lines would have a capaCity of ~ percent.
By 1997 and 2002, six bus lines would have ~apaci~y deficits at their peak
load points in one or boch peak hours.
Air Quality
Under the No Build Alternative, no violations of carbon monoxide standards

are predicted to occur at receptor sites in either the primary or extended
study areas in the years 1997 or 2002. However, for this alternative, an ex w I
ceedartce of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is expected co
occur for the 24·hour S02 standard at the air intakes at 555 West 57th Street.
With the proposed project, this exceedance would be exacerbated. Also at this
location, the project would cause an exceedance of the 24-hour PM iO standard. I
1II-4
Noise
Future noise levels without the project are e~pec~ed to increase by less
than 3 dBAover existing levels, and therefore this change would be barely
perceptible.
Hazardous lfaterials
Under the No Build Alternative, the geologic, topographic, and soil condi-
tions of the site would re~ain as they are now. Che~ical residuals within the
soil would not have any potential significant adverse impact on human health,
since no extensive soil-moving activities would occur. The product recovery
system operating in the northern portion of the site, which is temporarily
suspended, would continue to operate under the terms·of the 1986 Consent Order
with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) until
the petroleum present in the groundwater has been removed. However, no other
actions would be taken to ~itigate the other areas of con~amination that exist
on the site, as they would with the proposed project.
Natural Resources
Under·this alternative, the bulkheads along the project site would not be
repaired or replaced, and siltation in the Hudson River would continue to ~ake
the near shore area shallower. However, this is not expected to significantly
change the bottom contours of the river.
The site would re~ain vacant and sparsely covered wieh scrub vegetation in
the No Build Alternative. Siltation would continue along the shoreline, reduc~
ing the water depths near the shore and creating a larger area along ehe shore-
line that ~eets the criteria defining a weeland.
Neighborhood Character
Under this alternative, no new bUildings, .uses, or residen~s would be

added to the project site ana neighborhood character would remain unchartged.
Utilities and Solid Vaste
Under this alternative, de~ands on the water supply and generation of

sewage and solid waste collection would remain negligible on the project site.
Additional demand for water would be generated by No Build developments and
additional solid waste and sewage would be generated. Flows to the North River
Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) are expected to decrease as aresult of
various conservation and irtfileraeion/inflow progr~s being implemented. the
plane would ooneinue eo meee ies State Pollutant Dischar&e Eliminaeion System
(SPDES) ~imits for mass dischatge loadings of biological oxygen demand and
111-5
suspended solids. The City of New York has eneered into a Cons·ent: Order with
the DEC'seteing forth specific measures ~o be undertaken within a specific time
period t:o reauce flows to the WPCP (see section II.F). Ir)
Energy
Use of utilities -- including electriciey, gas, steam, and telephone ser-

vice -- on the project site would also remain negligible under the No Build
Alternative.
Construction Impacts
Under this alternative, no construction would occur on the project site

and therefore the temporary impacts caused by construction of the proposed
project would not occur.
c. LESSER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Since the proposed project would result in certain significant impacts, a

Lesser Density AlternatiVe was examined to determine if it would reduce or
eliminate those impacts . . The -Lesser Density AlternatiVe assessed has a .total
of 7.3 mill'ion zoning square feet (zsf), approximately 12 percent smaller than
the proposed development. An alternative of this size was chosen because it is
essentially equal in size with the Lincoln West project, the previously ap-
proved project for the project site. The alternative was being assessed to
show the differences in environmental impacts between a reduced density alter~
native and the proposed project. The developer is not proposing to build the
reduced density alternative.
For analysis purposes, it was assumed that under the Lesser Density Alter-·
native developmen~ on each parcel would be reduced by 12 percent with the re-
dUctions in floor area evenly distributed among Uses and buildings on each
parcel. Table 111-1 provides a breakdown of the size of each building under
this alternative. Similar to the project, for worst-case analyses, it was as~
sumed that 20 percent of the units would be set aside for affordable housing
for low-income families, except in ehe schOOls analysis. For analysis of im-
pacts on schools, this analYSis assumes a comparable breakdown as for the
project.
The reduction in floor area on each parc¢l would result in'certain design
changes. For the residential buildings on parcels A through 1 and L, 11, and 0,
the reduction in floor area would result in shorter bUildings with lower
streetwalls. The reductions would range from two stories on parcels G and M to
six stories on parcels Band C. Because of stationary source air quality con-
Siderations, the reduction in floor area ort residential parcels J and K would
be aehieved not by lowering the height of the towers on those parcels but by
reducing the wings gf ~heir residential s~r\ictures. Similarly •. the. overall
height of the commercial building on parcel N would be maintained but to
IU-6
..
Table
.'
I11-1
PARCEL BY PARCEL BREAKDOWN

LESSER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
------.proposed PrOject: .1&.U.er pensity Alte~ative
Parcel No. of Flo.ors ZSF No, of iilO~Ji ZSF

Residential
A 32 317,017 28 278,637.
B 49 627,134 43 552,731
C 46 334,454 40 469,536
D 40 470,150 35 412,388
E 33 441,351 29 387,876
F 27 355,009 24 311,537
G 18 285,697 16 257,977
H 29 379,125 26 333,250
I 42 543,590 37 478,133
J 38/28 721,535 38/28 629,418
K 33/28 677 ,646 33/28 595,761
L 23 287,814 20 242,913
M 18 301,876 16 273,150
0 28 .---.l.61· 141 25 229.626
Residential 6.203.545 5.452.933

Total
Office/
Studio
N 30 :2 100,000 .
j 30 1,847,000
TOTAL 8.300.000 7.300.000
HI·7
achieve ~he reduction in floor area, the internal layout of the studio spa~e
would b~ altered, with higher flooi-to~ceiling" heights that would accommodate a
variety of needs.
Land Use and ZO'Iling
the effects on study area land use under the Lesser Density Alternative
would be similar to those of the proposed project. It would replace a current~
ly underutilized site with a large-scale, mixed-use project. It would provide
a mix of uses identical to the proposed project and would be consistent with
the patterns of land Use and land use trends within the surrounding neighbor-
hood. Neither the proposed project nor the Lesser Density Alternative would be
expected to create significant secondary development land use impacts.
Demographics and the Potential for Secondary Residential Displacement
This alternative would add 12 percent fewer dwelling units and residents
than the proposed development -- approximately 5,000 dwelling units and 9,988
new residents compared with 5,700 units and 11,350 residents generated by the
proposed project. The new residents would be of similar character and age mix
to those of the proposed project and similar in character to the residents who
have been moving into the "study area over the past two decades. As with the
proposed project, development under this alternative could be expected to in-
crease displacement pressures on residents of single-room-occupancy (SRO)
dwellings and unregulated rental apartments in buildings near the project Site.
Approximately 960 residents would be more vulnerable to displacement as a re-
sult"of development of both the proposed project and the Lesser Density
Alternative.
CODIIIlUDity Facilities and Servic"es
This alternative would generate a proportionally smaller demand on local

community facilities and services. Most notably, under the 90-10 unit mix (90
percent market, 10 percent affordable low-income units) the Lesser Density
Alternative would generate 640 public school students -- 335 elementary school
students, 197 intermediate school students, and 106 public high school stu-
dents. Under the 80-20 unit mix (80 percent market rate and 10 percent low
income, 5 percent moderate income, and 5 percent middle income affordable
units), the Lesser Density Alternative would generate 743 public school stu-
dents -- 379 elementary school students, 225 intermediate school students, ana
139 high school students. As with the proposed project, these additional stu-
dents would have a significant impact on public elementary and intermedia~e
school resources even with fewer students generated. The overcrowding at both
the elementary and intermediate school level under this alternative would re-
quire comparable mi~igation as ~he proposed projec~ 1.e., the provision of
additional elementary school space on~site for sale or lease to the Board of
t11~8
Education sufficient to accoIDlnodate 600 elementary school students., However,
in the ctbsence of a commitment from the Board of Education to lease or purchase
space on-site, this 'alternative would result in a significant unmitigated ele-
mentary and intermediate school impact'. Neither the p~oposed proj ece nor de~
velopment of the Lesser Density Alternative would appreciably affec~ .conditions
at the high school level.
Urban Design and Visual Character
As shown in Table 111-1, this alternative would have shorter buildings on

all of the development parcels than the proposed project except for parcels J,
K, and N. As indicated in the table, the towers would be two to six stories
shorter. In addition, the streetwa11 of each of the buildings would be reduced
in height by one or two stories. Overall, however,the project would 'appear
the salI\e, and would be of similar.design. materials, bulk, and scale.
Vaterfront kevitalization Plan
, The development under the Lesser Density AlternatiVe is essentially a

slightly scaled down version of the proposed project. Its basic elements and
design would be the same as the proposed project. Therefore, its relationship
to the city a~d 'state coastal zone policies would be similar to the proposed
project.
Development under this alternative would affect open space conditions in.
two ways. First, this alternative would generate approximately 1,350 fewer
residents and 800 fewer workers than the proposed project, which would result
in somewhat reduced demand for publicly accessible recreational facilities.
Second, the smaller project would generate less funding for the waterfront
park.' Given essentially fixed 'infrastruc~ure costs (for sewer, water, roads,
and other similar improvements>.. the reduction in available funding for the
waterfront park would be greater than the 12'percent reduction in density.
While the reduction in.available funding would not affect the ,size of the park,
the character of the park would. be of a lesser quality than the park provided
under the proposed project. HoweVer, it is assumed tha~ the facilities provid-
ed in the park would remain essentially unchanged and would include tot-lots
for ,toddlers and children, active recreational uses for teenagers, young
adules, and others, and lawns, walkways, sitting areas, and a community garden
serving the elderly and other user groups seeking passive recreational facili-
ties. As with the propOsed park, the pha~ing of a park under a Lesser Density
Alternative would similarly be affected by the relocation of the Miller Highway
and the need to coordinate construction activities with the new highway.
III-9
In addition, as with the proposed project, if .the Miller aighway remains
in place, this alternative's park would be smaller and of still lesser quality
than with a relocated highway. The park would be traVersed by the elevated
structure and much of the park would be beneath the highway. Park users ~ould
always be aware of the presence of the highway and'would not enjoy expansive,
unimpeded views of the riVer.
The combination of a reduction in demand created by fewer residents and

workers and changes in the quality of the Waterfront park would not appreciably
affect the conclusions reached regarding open space impacts for the proposed
project. The amount of passive space provided on-site in both Phase I and at
full build-out would meet the needs of residents and workers under both the
prop'osed project and the Lesser Density AlternatiVe (see Table III-2). B~sed
on DCP guidelines, the amount of active open space provided on-site would be .
insufficient to meet project-generated demand on-site under both the proposed
project and the Lesser Density Alternative. While the active open space ratios
in both 1997 ·and 2002 would be better under the alternative, active open ratios
would improve compared with-both 1997 and 2002 No Build conditions for both the 17":
proposed project and the Lesser Density Alternative. Thus, neither the Lesser
Density Alternative nor the proposed project would produce significant active
open space impacts.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
Like the proposed project, this alternative would alter the contexts of
nearby historic resources -- including the Chatsworth Apartments, the West 7lst
Street Historic District, the Consolidated Edison Power House, and four town
houses at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and 72nd Stree.t, and the West
69th Street transfer bridge - - by converting the predominantly vacant' site to a
part of the urban streetscape. The slight reduction in building heights with
the alternatiVe would not alter the effects on those resources, which are not
expected to be significant with the project or this alternative. A protection
plan would have to be implemented during construction to avoid adverse impacts
on these resources under both the proposed project and the Lesser Density AL-
ternative. Both the alternative and the project are expected to respect the
integrity of Riverside Park, another historic resource. On-site, both would
retain the West 69th Street transfer bridge, which has been found to be eligi-
ble for listing On the State and National ·Registers.
•
Both the development of the proposed projec~ and the Lesser Density Alter-
native would disturb or destroy potential prehistoric archaeological r'esources
~hat may be locaud a~ ~wo loca~ions on. 'the si~e'; Archaeological us~itig in
these locations before const~uction would be required with both the project and
this alternat.ive;
Table 111-2
COMPARISON OF OpEN SPACE DEHAND·ARD ACTIVE opEN SPACE RATIOS

BET'IiiEDJ '.rIlE LESSER. DERSln AL":tEIRATIVE AIm THE' PllOPOSED PROJECT'*"
. __ -.1.927 ... --.20..02_

histiDg Proposed Lesser Densir" Proposed Lesser Density
gOllditi.ml.S. fto.ject: ----&lteftLati"ftL ftgjeet: ll~ertultive
Population
Residents 0 6,200 5,450 11,350 9,990
Workers 0 765 670 6,815 6,000
Open Space Demand

Passive- 0 3.1 2.7 5.7 5.0
Residents
Passive-Workers 0 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.9
Active- Q ]2 .~ 10.....9 22,;J 20-,_0
Residefl'tS
Total 0.000 15.6 13.7 29.4 25.9
Open Space
Provided
Active 0 1.7 1.7 3.0 3.0
Passive Q iJ. oW. 22-0 ~
Total () 2.5 2.5 25.0 25.0
Study Area
Active Open 0.21 0.196 0.197 0.191 0.193
Space Ratio
'* This analysis assumes relocation of the highway.
111-11
Ecottomi~ Conditions
This alternative would generate proportionately less total economic activ-

ity during construction than the proposed project, ana, after construction,
would employ proportionally fewer workers. In total, approximately $492.0 mil-
lion'in construction-related activity would be lost, which translates into
approximately 3,200 person-years of construction employment (both direct and
indirect) and $26.4 million in tax revenues for New York City and State. Ap-
prox~mately 800 fewer permanent jobs would be created on-site.
Traffic and Transportation
The Lesser Density Alternative would have the same street system and 3,200
off-street parking spaces. Therefore, by proportionally reducing the size of
each component of the project, the travel demand for the overall project would
be reduced by approximately 12 percent compared with the proposed project.
table III-3 shows a comparison of the travel demand for each phase of the a1- ,
ternatiVe and provides a comparison with the proposed project. As an example.
in the AM peak hour of Phase I (1997), this alternative would generate 404
vehicle trips (autos, taxis, trucks) compared with 460 vehicles per hour (vph)
for the proposed project. Similarly, in the AM peak hour of Phase II, the
alternative would generate 955 Vph versus ,1,085 vph for the proposed project.
'rhe following sect;ions provide a comparison of transportatIon-related impacts
of the alternative with those of the proposed project.
1997 Phas.e. T .C.onditions
Table III-4 shows the intersection approaches in the primary study area
that would be impacted by this alternative in Phase I, and Table 1II-5 shows
the approaches for the extended study area. In the primary area, Table 111-4
shows that ~n Phase I this alternative WQu1d have 22 significantly impacted
intersection approaches in one or more peak hours, compared wieh 25 signifi-
cantly impacted approaches for the proposed project. The three lneerseceiofi
approaches that would no longer be significantly impaceed are:
o 59th Street eastbound at West End AVenue in ehe AM;
o Eleventh Avenue northbound at 56th Street in the PM; and
o Columbus Avenue southbound at 57th Street in the AM ..
Because three fewer intersections would experience significant impacts with the
Lesser Density Alternative, three fewer intersections would require mitigation.
Those approaches significantly impacted by this a1eerna~ive would require the
same tyPes of mitigation (i.e., signal changes. changes in parking regulations;
channelization, etc.) as the proposed projece.
In the extended study area; all six principal intersection approaches im-
pacted by the proposed project would also be impacted by the alternative (see
Table III-S) i
IU-12
TRANSPOR.TA1l0N FORECAST. LESSER DENSlT'f ALTERNATIVE
__ ~ _______ ¥ PROPOSED PROJECT

__________________________ a~____ _______ ~ _______________________________
7.3M ZSF ALTERNATIVE _
Peak Local Express LQcal Express
Hour Auto Taxi BUs Bus Subway Trucks Auto Taxi BUs Bus Subway Trucks
1997 PHASE I
------------
AM 186 250 348 12 87l 24 164 220 305 11 766 20
Midday 204 188 374 5 663 22 183 166 329 5 583 18
PM 255 278 4·75 13 1033 20 225 244 418 12 ·909 18
======:================~==~===========m~============~===========:~===============~============
____
2002 IIIIIi_~
PHASE ______
II
AM 497 524 951 188 3392 64 437 462 835 169 2984 56
MidQilY JBl 440 939 11 1459 82 340 387 827 10 1283 10
PM 59B 556 1111 lB7 3781 44 527 491 982 168 3312 40
llI-13
'lULl. of
COMf~RIS0N OF FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS.

aESSER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE AND PROPOSED PROJECT
PROPOSED I I PROPOSED I I
PROJECT M 7.3M GSF M PROJECT M 7.3M GSF M
J,g191 1997 P 1997 . P 2002 2002 P 2002 P
N~~ElUILD BUILD BLD-NBLD A BUILD BLD-NBLD A NO-BUILD BUILD BLD-NBLD A BUILD BLD-NBLD A
PUJC VIC VIC VIC C VIC VIC C VIC VIC VIC C VIC VIC C
S~REET APPROACH TOO RATIO RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO T
-,-~--------------------------------------:----------------------------~-~----------------------~----------- -------------------1----------------------:
12TH AVE. NB @ 56TH ST.(LOCAL) J.H ( 0.812 0.888 0.076 ** I 0.883 0.071.. I
==~======================================;============ ==================t======================:==============================l.======================:
12TIt 'NE.SB SERVICE RD.@ 55TH ST. ~_"I 0.585 0.902 ** I 0.864 0.279 ** I
0.317 I:
ii'!!I, 0.107 0.927 ** I 0.902 0.195 **
0.220 I: I:
=========================================t===c==========================I,======================t=========== ===================t======================~
12'1.18 AVE.SB @ 51 ST ~-'{ 0.B53 0.869 0.016 ** I. 0.867 0.014 i t I. 0.879 0.914 0.035 ** t 0.909 0.030 ** i,
==:================================~=====~==============================r======================~============ ==================r======================t
79rfH, ST. EB @ RIVERSIDE J.H I.. U 0'.811 0.892 0.OB1 ** I 0.B83 0.072 ** I
PM : 0.8,36 0.894 0.058 ** I. 0.889 0.053 ** 0.876 0.971
I. 0.095 ** I 0.970 0.094 ** I
================c========================:============ ==================t~========~============I============ =====:============:,======================
RIVERSIDE SB @ 72ND ST. PM I I I 01.641 0.999 0.358 ** I 0.956 0.315 ..
:========================================1:==============================:======================1==============================1:======================
WEST END SB @ 72ND ST. 1."1 0.841 0.862 0.021 ** I 0.860 0.019 ** 0.892 0.935 0.043 ** I, 0.931 0.039 **
1m' 0.853 0.8,95 0.042 ** I 0.887 0.034 ** 0.905 1.010 0.105 **: 0.996 0.091 **
'Hi 0.837 0.869 0.032 ** I 0.866 0.029 ** 0.882 0.963 0.081 **: 0.951 0.069 **
-----------------------------------------~------------------------------~----------------------~------------ ------------------f---------------·------
WEST· END NB TH/RT @ 72ND ST. 1."1 : 0.921 1.083 0.162 ** I 1.082 0.161 ** (
~ 01.904 0.958 0.054 ** i. 0.951 0.053 ** I
PM 0.902 1.0060.104 **: 1.005 0.103 ** I:
-----------------------------------------:------------ ------------------t-----------------~---l------------- -----------------t----------------------
H l'lND ST. EB @ WEST END 1."1 I I Cil.9'52 1.034 0.082 ** I. 1.029 0.077 **
11-1
11-1
1i'1!I,. I, I 11.734 01.882 0.148 ** I 0.865 0.131 **
--------------~--------------------------t------------------------------I----------------------~------------ ------------------:----------------------
1-"
~.
"J'2ND ST. WB @ WEST END PM r 0.988 1.022 0.034 ** I 1.017 0.029 ** I 0.990 1.044 0.054 ** I 1.034 0.044 '** •
============z============================t==============================t======================f==============================1.======================1
WEST END SB @ 65TH ST. AM r 0.927 0.972 0.045 **: 0.966 0.039 ** :. i; :
===============c=========================t==============================f======================!==============================1:======================1
WEST END SB @ 64 ST. 1.."1 f 0.938 0.969 0.031 ** I 0.965 0.027 ** i I: I:
---------------------. ------- --------- ---: ------,-------------------:----- r---------- ------------ : -------------- ---------------- 1
:1
:1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WEST END NB @ 64 ST. PM : 0.789 0.946 0,157 ** I 0.938 0.149 ** I I I:

=========================================1:==============================I======================f======================:======:[======================'
WEST END S8 @ 63 ST. A."I : 0.823 0.875 0.052 i t : 0.872 0.049 ** : 0.861 0.905 0.044 i t I 0.898 0.037 **
~===========c============================r============ ========:====::===::=:====================[=======:=== ===================I================~=====
WEST END SB @ 61ST ST. A.If 0.867 0.924 0.057 ** I 0.917 0.050 ** I;
=========================================:===========:==================f======================f==============================1'======================
WEST· END S8 @ 60TH ST. A.1Il f 0.854 0.912 0.058 u I 0.905 0.051 ** I Ii
==~====:=================================:============ ==================[======================1==============================[======================
WEST END SB @ 59TH ST. A.1Il r 0.829 0.903 0.074 **
I 0.892 0.063 u I I
-_·_--------------------------------------1----------- -------------------1----------------------::------------------------------:----------------------
59TH ST. EB @ WEST END AM 0.534 0.859 0.325 u I 0.849 0.315 I I
-----------------------------------------1:----------- -------------------I~----------------------~---------- --------------------:----------------------
5~THST. WB @ WEST END . AM I:' I 01.960 1.159 0.199 ** I 1.150 0.190 **
. I!D I: I 01.943 1.077 0.134 ** I. 1.074 0.131 **
PHi I, I: I 1.2e6 1.450 0.164 ** I. 1.445 0.159 **
===============================~=========~==============================II======================~==============================I~======================
WEST' END.SB @ 58TH ST '_Ill r :. I 9.8146 0.817 0.031 ** I 0.871 0.025 ..
=========================================~============ ==================r======================r==============================r======================
*tI, DENOTES IMPACTED LOCATION . .
TABLl ·4
COMI't.RISON OF FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS,

aESSER DENS~TY ALTERNATIVE AND PROPOSED PROJECT
PROPOSED I I PROPOSED I Jj
PROJECT K 7.31'1 GSF K PROJECT K 7.31'1 GSF K
19'!I!'jI 1997 P 1997 P 2002 2002 P 2002 p
Nm~BUILD BUILD BLD-NBLD A BUILD BLD-NBLD A NO-BUILD BUILD BLD-NBLD A BUILD BLD-NBLD A
I'BK WC WC VIC C VIC VIC C VIC VIC VIC C VIC VIC C
S~REET APPROACH TOD RATIO RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO T
-----------------------------------------f------------ ------------------:~----------------------::------------------------------~--------------------_-II
WEST END SB @ 57TH ST.
WEST END NB @ 57TH ST.

AM
PM
:
,
I
0.946
1.059
0.965
1.070
0.019
0.011
it
it
[
I
0.963
1.069
0.017
0.010
it I . I
------ ---------_------------------- ------- '--""::'".---.- . . --------------------- r---------------------- !..."-:---------------------------- ~ -------------- -------- Ii
At I . I:
.
:
:,
. . ----------------------------------------::------------------------------f---------------------~::--------- ---------------------::----------------------11
5~'IlH· ST. we Ii! WEST END PM r I I: 0'.86,1 0.926 0.065 ** I. 0.920 0.059 ** "
=================c===========z===========r========~====================:'======================f============~=================r======================~
UTH: AVE.NB @ 56TH ST PH I· O.!n6 0.926 0.010 ** I 0.925 0.009 I : ;
==::=============:========================;1 ========= ==="===== ============= I~==================·== == :=========== ====s:============== r====================== i
IIMSTERDAM NB @ BROADWAY/72ND ST. MIl I I: I ~.8'55 0.872 0.017 I 0.869 0.014 ** ** :
PM : I: I 11.9181 0.996 0.015 I 0.994 0.013 I ** **
=========================================:============ ==================r========~=============:'==============================r======================~
AMSTERDAM NB Ii! BROADWAY/1lST ST. AM I 1 I: 0.861 0.882 0.021 u I. 0.879 0.018 ** I.
191, 0.862 0.874 0.012 ... I O.B72 0.010 I 0.895 0.920 0.025 **I 0.916 0.021 u t **
PMi I: 1.0r74 1.085 0.011 ** I 1.0~4 0,010 u I 1.115 1.138 0.023 u I. 1.135 0.020 ** I
=========================================:~==============================~I======================r==============================~======================~
AMSTERDAM NB @ 57TH ST. MD I : : . : \11.856 O.8BO 0.024 **: 0.878 0.022 **
PH I :: : ~.964 '0.980 0.016 ** I 0.978 0.014 ** i
=========================================r============ ==================f=================~====:==============================:===================~==::
CQI!.UMBUS SB @ 79TH ST. AM 1 I I : 0.Sl56 0.866 0.010 u t. 0.865 0.009 I.
=========================================f============ ==================r======================t:=======~============~=========fK==:==================r
11-1
CCIlI!.UMBUS SB @ 66TH ST. PM t I l : 0.846, 0.856 0.010 0.855 0.009 ** I i
11-1 =:=======================================1============ ==================:======================1~=================~============f=================:====t
11-1 BROADWAY SB @ 65TH ST./COLUHBUS AM I 1.05·4 1.072 O.OlB 1.067 0.013 **: 1.124 1.140 0.016 ** :
I 1.138 0.014 ** ** :
....VI, PM ::0.9'77 0.990 0.013 I· 0.988 0.011 ** 1.027 1.037 0.010· ** : 1.036 0.009 I *":
------------------------~----------------~------------------------------r----------------------~---------------------------~--~--------p-------------I
BROADWAY NB Ii! 65TH ST./COLUHBUS MD 0.844· 0.a57 0.013 ** I 0.856 0.012 ** I ·0.883 0.897 0.014 ** I 0.895 0.012 ** I
PH 0.976 0.998 0.022 ** I 0.995 0.019 ** t 1.022 1.045 0.023 ** t 1.042 0.020 ** t
::=======================================f============ ==============~===r======================:============ ==================[======================r
Cl:Il!.UMBUS SB @ 57TH ST. AM 0.936 0.946 0.010 ** I 0.945 0.009 0.980 1.003 0.023 ** t. 1.000 0.020 ** I
t!lII O.811 0.894 0.023 ** I. 0.891 0.020 ** l
-,----------------------------------------~----------- -------------------:----------------------1:------------------------------t----------------------:
5,1~H ST. EB @ COLUMBUS AM I I: 1.0'30 1.047 0.017 ** 1 1.045 0.015 ** :
!'!iI' I! :: 01.906 0.927 0.021 **: 0.925 0.019 ** :
PtIi I: " I l.0130 1.D56 0.026 ** t 1.053 0.023 ** I
=========~===c==.========================r============ ==================:1=========:============1=========== ===================t======================:~
65f1?H. ST. EB @ CENTRAL PARK WEST AM I 0.!J48 0.973 0.025 ** I 0.970 0.022 ** I 1.007 1.061 0.054 ** I 1.054 0.047 ** I
WEST m I I : . : , 0.1il15·1 0.886 0.029 ** I 0.882 0.025 **
PM : 0~971 0.992 0.021 **: 0.989 0.018 ** I 1.021 1.080 0.059 ** t 1.077 0.056 ** I
=:8:1==»= == == == ====c ===== ==== ===== === ==== ==r:: == == =:: == == === =:::: ==== === == == ==·r == === == == =======:: == === f= ======= === == == == ::== ~= == == ===r=== ==== ====== =====:: ===[
I:
• '.1
COL.• CIRCLE SB TO B'WAY @ 8TH AVE. AM I 0.936 0.948 0.012 I ** 0.946 ** : 0.955 0.966 0.011 **: 0.965 0.010 **
0.010
, ===~:==&============================c====I'============================== 1'====================== f========== ====================1======================
5i1'I1H ST.EB @ 8TH AVE PH t I: l 01.836 0.857 0.021 i t t 0.854 0.018 At
_________________________________________ ~--- ___ - __ --- ------------------f----------------------:------------------------------11----------------------
5i~'JIH ST.WS @ 8TH AVE AH : 01.904 **
0.933. 0.029 ** I 0.930 0.026
lilli' 1 ~.9127 **
0.949 0.022 **: 0.947 0.020
" PM
0.9"75 0.987 0.012 **, 0.986 0.011, ** I 1.004 it I **
1.028 0.024 1.025 0.021
==================&=&======~=============r============ ==================f======================I==============================f======================
58,TH ST. EB @ BROADWAY MD r : II 0 •. 85·2 0.869 0.017 *' t. 0.867 0.015 ** •
==:==============~========================r=========== ===================:======================1'==============================f======================f
.S.1TK ST. EB @ BROADWAY AM I I: 0'.88:1 0.896 0.015 ** I 0.895 0.014 ** I
Mm' " I: : 01.84,2 0.860 0.018 ** I 0.860 0.018 ** :
=========:=.=::==:================~======= ;1============ ===============-=== :'====================== r========== ==================== :===============:====== =r
•• DENOTES IMPACTED LOCATION .
Ta" l.l.l.-::t
SJ!CRII'ICAR'l'LY DlPACTED LOCA'I'IORS D 'l'IIE U'ftRDED 8'1'ODY AIlU..

USSEI. DERSI'I'f AL'RIlRA'lIR AIID .I.O,OBED· PI.OJBC'l
PROPOSED I I PROPOSED 1 I
PROJECT M 7.3M ZSF M PROJECT M 7.3M ZSF H
LCJ91 1997 BLD-NBLD P 1997 BLD-NBLD I' 2002 2002 BLD-NBLD I' 2002 BLD-NBLD I'
NO-BUILD BUILD DELTA A BUILD DELTA A NO-BUILD BUILD DELTA A BUILD DELTA A
PEAK V/C V/C VIC C V/C V/C C VIC VIC . VIC C VIC V/C C
STREET APPROACH TOO RATIO RATIO RATtO T RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO T
===================================t============================t=====================lr==============================t======================.I:
12TH AVENUE CORRIDOR Ii
============================== I
===================================1:============================[=====================[1:==============================1======================1
~2'llH AVE. NB TH @ UNO ST. PH I. I H: 0·.837 0.870 0.033 t 0.866 0.029 it: *II
-----------------------------------~----------------------------r---------------------:~------------------------------::----------------------~
l'2'11R AVE. SB THRU @ UND ST. AM I 0.840 0.861 0.021 i t I 0.858 O.our *II I I . · :: I:
-----~-----------------------------:------------------
12TH AVE. SB LT @ UNO ST. PM I
----------I---------------------'t------------------------------1:----------------------::
I I lunD 1.051 O.Oll i t I 1.049 0.009 :.
==:=================================1============================t===================== r==============================t======================:
12TH AVE. NB @ 34TH ST. AM I :i I Q.856 0.890 0.034 *II I 0.886 0.030 **1
MIl' I, 0.921 0.939 0.018 it I. 0.936 0.015 ** I 0.940 0.972 0.032 ** I 0.968 0.028 **1
PM Ii 1.644 1.071 0.027 it I. 1.068 0.024 it I. 1.082 1.125 0.043 .. I 1.119 0.037 **:
-----------------------------------~--------~-------------------t--------------------- t------------------------------t----------------------:·
l.2'llH AVE. SB @ 34TH ST. AM I. II 0'.906 0.952 0.0"'6 ** I. 0.947 0.041 **L
IiID I ,I 01.918 ·0.962 0.044 ** I. 0.956 0.038 ul.
PM : I U E..026 1.097 0.011 I 1.088 0.062 ui. **
==:================================1============================1=====================1:1==============================r.======================~
urH AVE. NB @ 23RD ST. AM I : : . I:: 0.904 ·0.941 0.037 I 0.937 0.033 **': **
MIl' I, II III' 0.B13 0.908 0.035 ** I 0.904 0.031 **:.
I'M I: 6.983 1.005 0.022 ** I. 1.003 0.020 ** U 1.033 1.077 0.044 **: 1.071 0.038 **:
11-41 -----------------------------------~-------------------------~--~---------------------:~:------------------------------::----------------------~
H U'llH AVE. SB @ 23RD ST. AM [0.842 0.862 0.020 ** I 0.859 0.017 ** I I 0.855 0.885 0.030 ** I 0.882 .0.027 **"1
H
===================================t============================r=====================lt==============================I:======================t
I-" 12TH AVE. NB @ 11TH AVE. AM I I I!I 0.895 0.932 0.037 ** I. 0.978 0.033 ui.
CI:i'
&M I 0.972 0.994 0.022 ** I 0.991 0.019 ** II 1.022 1.065 0.0~3 **:. 1.060 0.038 ttl
-----------------------------------t----------------------------t---------~-----------~r------------------------------:----------------------:
UTH AVE. SB @ 11TH AVE. AM : :1 :1:: 11.886 0.916 0.030 ** I 0.912 0.026 **:
::=================================t============================[=====================rt==============================1======================1
tftlS'l' ST.SB TH @ CANAL ST.(N)AM 1 I I~ 1.152 1.170 0.018 i t I. 1.168 0.016 **1.
PH I 1 1:1 01.949 6.969 0.020 ** I. 0.967 0.018 **l
===================================~============================t=====================tr==============================t======================,:
IilEST' ST. NB @ CHAMBERS ST. AM I . I: I: I . 0.949 0.962' 0.013 i t : . 0.960 0.011 **:
-----------------------------------t----------------------------r---------------------~I------------------------------:----------------------~
nST' ST. S8 LT @ CHAMBERS ST. PH: I: ::: 0.930 0.951 0.021 ** I 0.949 0.019 tal
=:==================~============~=t==============~=====~=======r=====================tr==============================:====================~=r
WES'l" ST. SB @ MURRAY ST. AM :. : :~ l.015 1~629 0.014 **: 1.027 0.012 it:
===================================t============================r=====================:r==========-======~============1:======================:
65;./66TH ST. C O R R I D O R · .
==;======== ===== === ======= =====
==================================~I================== ==========I=====================rt==============================f======================f
66 ST. WB @ MADISON AVE. AM I ' I: :1: 0.968 1.011 0.043 1.006 0.038 ul. **:
MD' I! I: II! 0.840 0.866 0.026 ** 1 0.863 0.023 **1.
I'M :: : : . ! : : 0'.9:50 .0.992 O.OU **: 0.987 0.037 ttl
==~================================r============================f=====================rr==============================1======================[
6i5,BT.EB@MADISONAVE. AMI 1 I:: l.10,1 1.132 0.025**1. 1.131 0.024 **:
I!H I I 1..100 1.135 n
0.035 ** I. 1.131 0.031 it:
==:=================================[===================~========l==============~======::r==============================t==================~===:
65 ST.. EB @ PARK AVE. PM : :: I:: (j.8B'9 0.922 0.033 ** I. 0.918 0.029 it:.
===================================:=================~==========r======~==============tl'==============================[===========~==========t
f. -DENOTES SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .
2able 111-5 (Contiaued)
Sl:GRIPICABTLY IIIPACTED LOCATIONS IB. 'lIII aTUDED STUDY ·AIlEA.

ussa bEBSIn AL'lDRA'lIVE .ARb PIlOMSED PIlOJEC'l
IIIOPOSED I I PROPOSED I I
IPROJECf PROJECf 7.311 IS'
1.'97
IICI-BUILD BUILD DEL!A
" 7.3M ISF
1997 BLD-HBLD P
A
1997 BLD-1I8I.D P
BUILD DEL'fA A
" 2002 2002
IIO-BUILD BUILD
BLD-HBLD P
DELTA· A
"
2002
BUILD
BLD-HBLD P
DEL'fA A
"
IBAK VIC VIC VIC C VIC VIC C VIC VIC VIC C VIC VIC C
SlrRBE'I' APPROACH TOO RA'I'IO RA'I'IO RA'I'IO 'I' RA'I'IO RA'I'IO 'I' RA'I'IO RA'I'JO RA'I'JO 'I' RA'I'IO RATIO 'I'
::== =:::::1;1::: == =I: =~ =======:=:=== ==== === 1:=== ==========:z=::z:z =======z=: 1;=================== == II =_:= == ==I: =========== =======-== 1= ========:== == ==:: ==:::::: I:
861H ST. CORRIDOR I: II ~
===z==========:a::r.===:1=======~:a2 I: . . . 1:1 ~
=================================== 1:=====================::1::=-:==== 1:===================== It.==================:::=====:=== I:========:z============= r.
RIVERSIDB DR SB • 86'fH 8! AM I. [ II 0.969 0.989 0.020" I. 0.987 0.018 "I
========= ••• =========c===:a.sc:IIs===a 1:_::':====1:==== ===a====II=z====.I:•• ======.====c=-=•••• =-: J: 1:_._=======21:========= ===1:=.=•• =1:=.===_== ============== I
ADOI'I'IOKAL LOCA'I'IOH8
====-==-==.===================
====. ==:11. =••• ===:1===== a: ===za======= r =ac======_:a=za===lIut.===_I:cz===== _===c: :lIlZ=:==IUI'S [ 1:_====== ==== :111:================= I: ••••:_ •• ==_====:a::===:1:== I
.c ...
5,'1T881 EB • 7TH AVE. lID ( I H 0.896 0.906 0.0.10. •• I 0.905 0.009 I
======ZB •••• =======================(=== •• ===~.======.=_::a::.s=z=c= I =_========a===== •••== I [= •• ====_========s=== =======z=zr~2Q======a============I:
5ma B'I' ED • 6'1'H AVE. AM J I II 0.877 0.894 0.017 .. I 0..892 0.015.. I.
-.---------------------------------1;----':"-------------;----------1:---------------------11
S1'IH B'I' VII • 6'1'H AVE. AM I . I II
;",-----------------------------1---------------------
0.918 1.005 0.027 .. I 1.002
-I:
0.024.. I.
lID· I. I: II 1.004 1.017 O.o.ll .. I. 1.015 0.011" I
~= ==:r===== .. & a:::I:::I:I: a= ==:: .a. ===:.. == == l:a.s.:z:I::D= s••• _c ••••• =z •••• == I::l• • • z:.zzz.==a:zl:zc:_. 1"1 =z===z ====.C===Z:-=:111===_:==-'::11 ==1:=:-.===11'= ==. =e= == =:==:= = I
SHU 81 EB • 5'1'U . AVE. AM I I II 1.116 1.132 0.016 •• I. 1.131 0.015 •• I
ID I. Ii III 0,.979 0.9S9 0.010 .. I. 0.988 0.009 I
,It I: Ii IlJ' 1.062 1.081 0.019 .. I 1.0.79 0.017" I
===a== == == ::1::1== ==: == ==:= =a= ======. == 1====:1:=== .==·.=.aa.==.=:.=•••• IIZ:II.=s.==.==s==•• a==== I: 1:.. == ZSIZ========Z= 1:1 =======:l:Z.:=== I=-=z==== ==21=========== =t
•• -DENOTES 81G11IF1CAMI IMPACT
H:
H: )
H:
....."
II-'
Parking
No significant parking impacts were identified for the pr~posed project

and none are expected for this Lesser Density Alternative.
Subways
The proposed project showed a significant impact on four stairways at the

72ndStreet West Side IRT subway. This was the only station impacted in
Phase I. The conditions in this station with the Lesser Density Alternative
are shown in Table 111-6. As indicated in th~ table, under this alternative,
the same four stairs -- P5/P7, Pl/P3, P4, and P6 -- would also experience sig-
nificant impacts. No mezzanine or platform level impacts were found for the
proposed project and none are expected for this alternative.
For line haUl subway conditions, no impacts were found for the proposed
project and none are expected for· this alternative during Phase I.
Buses
Table 111-7 compares the 1997 local bus conditions for Lesser Density Al-
ternative with those for the proposed project. As shown in the table, this
alternative would impact two routes in the AM peak hour and two in the PM peak
hour, versus three in the AM peak hour and three in the PM peak hour for the
. proposed project. This alternative would eliminate three significant impacts
on bus service caused by the proposed project: in the AM peak. hour, the MS7
.bus route would not experience· significant impacts under this alternative, and
in the PM peak period, the M66 route would not be impacted.
The proposed project showed a significant pedestrian impact on the south-

west corner of 72nd Street and Broadway during the AM peak hour. As indicaeed
in Table 111-8, under the Lesser nensity Alternative this corner would also
experience a significant impact during the AM peak hour.
2002 Phase II. .Cond.itions
Traffic
Tables 111-4 and 111-5, above, show the intersections that would have
significant impacts with this alternative in Phase II, for both the primary and
extended study areas. In the primary area, the alternative would significantly
impact 23 intersection approaches in one or more peak hours compared to 25 for
the proposed project. The two approaches th~t would no longer have significant
impacts are:
o Columbus Avenue southbound at 79th Street in the AM peak hour; and
o Columbus Avenue southbound at 66th Street in the PM peak hour.
In addition; Broadway southbound at 65th Street in the PM peak· hour would no

longer have a significant impact; the significant impact during. uhe.AM peak
hour would remain for this approach. Those locations significantly impacted by
IIl-18
Table 111-6
l'2RD STREET SUBWAY STATIOR STAIB.WAY CORDITIORS. 1997 ARB 2002.

USSER. DERSIn ALTDRATIVE
II'reposed' P'nilljlOsed'
Il'r.aject 7'.3M ZSF Project 7.3M ZSF
11991 1997 Req",ired 1997 Required 2002 2002 Required 2002 Required
IFaci:Hty Peak No Build Bui ld Stairway Build Stairway NO Build Build Stairway Build Stairway"
Nb. tocati'on Per1'ext' viC LOS viC LOS Widening, viC LOS Widening vIC LOS vIC LOS Widening I VIC LOS
_____ ___ _Widening
_________ _
P5/P7 North Downtown AM 2.00 F 2.13 F* '2.04> 1"

I ~---- --- ----------- ;~
II 2.11 F* 1. 79 > 1"
----- --- ----- --- -----------
2.07 F 2.20 F* 1.97 > 1" I 2. 18 F* 1 . 73 > 1"
P'larform Sta i r PM 1.04 D 1.16 D 3.93 < 6" 1.15 0 3.46 < 6" 1.08 D 1.20 D 3.79 < 6" 1.19 D 3.33 < 6"
P1.fP3 South Downtown AM 2.18 F 2.30 F* 1.88 > 1" 2.28 F* 1.65 > 1" 2.25 F 2.37 F* 1.81 > 1" 2.36 F* 1.60 > 1""'
Pl:atform Stair PM 0.86 C 0.99 C 0.97 C 0.90 C 1.02 D 4.53 < 6" 1.01 D 3.99'< 6"
IPS/P9 North Uptown AM 0.54 B 0.59 B 0.58 B 0.57 B 0.61 B 0.61 B

Plia-tform Stair PM 1.14 0 1.21 D 1.B9 < 6" 1.20 0 1.66 <: 6" 1.17 D 1.24 0 1.84 < 6" 1.23 D 1.62 < 6"
11'6, Center Uptown AM 0.93 C 1.03 0 3.34 < 6'" 1.02 0 2.94 < 6'" 0.98 C 1.07 D 3.19 < 6" 1.06 D 2.81 < 6"
1I'1iatform Stair PM 1.75 F 1.87 F* 2.34 > 1" 1. B6 F* 2.06 > 1" 1.80 F 1.92 F* 2.27 > 1" 1.91 F* 2.00 > 1"
11'4 South Uptown AM 0.96 C 1.06 0 3.24 < 6" 1.05 0 2.85 < 6" 1.01 0 1.10 0 3.09 < 6" 1.09 D 2.72<6"
!HI ' lI"latform Stair PM 1.94 F 2.07 F* 2.10 > 1" 2.05 ___
I _____ F* _1.85 > 1"_
_________ 2.00 F 2.13 F* 2.04 > 1" ,2.11 F. 1.79 > l~
11-1
11-1 I
----- --- -----------
•
It-'
0(0,
*' Oeootes a si'g,nificant impact.

..able 111-7
LOCAL BUS CORDITIOBS 10a 1997 ABO 2002

USSU. DKRSITY ALTD.RATIYK
l''roposed' Proposed
i'm:oject 7.3M ZSF 'roj'ect 1'.3M ZSF
19,91 19>9., 1997 2002 2002 2002
'eak No Build a Build a Build a No Build a Build a Build a
1I~,[ection Available Cap. Available Cap. Available Cap. Available Cap. Available Cap. Available Cap.
DIPM in the Peak in the Peak in the Peak in the Peak in the Peak in the Peak
l'eak Hour Direction D'rrection Direction D'irection D'irection D'irection
--------.-- ------------------ ------------------
PM
I: ---~-------~------ t~ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
liIolllte AM PM AM AM PM "
'.1. AM PH AM PM AM PH
'"
",
MS, SB/NB -88 180 -124 • 168 -120 * 169
,,",
"" -121 144 -189 • 119 -181 * 122
" :'92
MJ SS/NB -9 -140 -21 -154 -20 -152 "., -63 -190 -219 -89 -216
IIIU SB/NS -72 -70 -8'2 -107 • ,•,• -81 -103 •
"
-120 -119 -158 * -240 • -153 • -225 •
,
I
1157 EB/WB 0 -119 -32 • -142 " -28 -139 -45 -154 -132 • -216 • -122 • -209 *
M66 EI!/WB 36 -70 2 -103 * 6 -99 12 -120 -56 • -184 * -48 • -176 *
Mn A/WB 238 196 229 184 230 185 224 196 198 169 201 172
M.79 WB/WB 162 70 160 65 160 66 I 162 56 160 51 160 52
H II
H
..
H 111104 SB/NS -48 0 -8'6 * -46 • -81 • -40 • """ -120 -46 -204 * -132 • -194 • -122 •
NI, '
0'
•Based upon a capadty of 60 persons per bus.

t Denotes a si!P1Ulcant impact.
l'eak Hours: 8AM - 9AM
5PM - 6PM
rable 111-8
l'OES'l'RIAI1 LEVELS 01' SDVICE.,

I.8SSER. DENSITY AL'lBIlRA'lIVE
lI'97 ARB 2002
S:JTREET CORNERS
PROPOSED II'ROPOSED
PROJECT 7.3M ZSF PROJECT 7.3M ZSF
1997 NO BUILD 1997 BUILD 1997 BUILD 11997 NO BUILD 1997 BUILD 1997 BUILD
Locatfon COrner S.F./Ped. LOS S.F./Ped. LOS S.F./Ped. Losls.F./Ped. LOS S.F./Ped.LOS S.F./Ped. LOS
12nd Street! Southeast 28.8 C 27.1 C 27.1 C 19.4 D 18.9 D 1B.9 D

Broadway Southwest 18.6 D 17.4 * D 17.5* 0 13.5 E 12.9 E 13.1 E
€ROSSWALK LOCATIONS
AMi PEAK HOUR !PM PEAK HOUR
H PROPOSED IPROPOSED
IH PROJECT 7. 3M ZSF PROJECT 7. 3M ZSF
11-1: 2002 NO BUILD 2002 BUILD
Ir 2002 BUILD 12002 NO BUILD 2002 BUILD 2002 BUILD
....
110.1;
'
lI.ocati'on Crosswalk S.F./Ped. LOS S.F./Ped. LOS S.F./Ped. LOS S.F./Ped. LOS S.F./Ped. LOS S.F./Ped. LOS
60th Streetl South 25.0 C 20.7 D 21.2 D 20.2 0 16.9 * D 17.2 * D

Broadway West 52.8 B S2.B B 52.8 B 34.0 C 34.0 C 34.0 C
.. Demotes a sf'gnfffcant fmpact.

this alternative would require the same types of m~tigation as presented for
the proposed project. .'
In the extended study area, this alternative would have significant'im-

pacts on 18 principal intersection approaches, compared to 20 with the proposed
project (see Table 111-5). The Twelfth Avenue southbound left turn at 42nd
Street in the PM peak hour and the 57th Stre~t eastbound approach at Seventh
Avenue in the midday peak hour, which would be significantly impacted with the
proposed project, would not be impacted by this alternative . . Similar mitiga-
tion would be required with this alternative and with the proposed project.
Parking
No significant parking impacts were identified for the proposed proj ec,t
and none are expected for this Lesser Density Alternative.
Consistent with the analysis undertaken for the proposed project for the
59th Street Columbus Circle station, the analyses of the Lesser Density Alter-
native assume the implementatfon of mitigation measures at the Columbus Circle
Station as part of the Columbus Center project. The only stairway impact ex-
pected under this alternatiVe at·the 59th Street Columbus Circle station is
stair S3 in both the AM and PM peak hours. This stair would require an equiva-
lent stairway widening of 16.06 inches (greater than 6 inches at LOS D) in the
AM and 6.94 tnches (greater than 6 inches at LOS D) in the PM. This stairway
would be the only impacted stair during either peak hour with the Lesser Densi- '
ty Alternative and the proposed project.
At the 66th Street IRT station, the proposed project showed a significant
impact at stairway 02 during both the AM and PM peak hours. As shown in Table
111-9, this impact would remain in the AM peak hour under the Lesser Density
Alternative, but would not occur in the PM peak hour.
Neither the proposed project nor the Lesser Density AlternatiVe would add
·trips to the 72nd Street IRT station from the phase II development. BecaUse of
trips added from the Phase I development, thiS al·ternative would have signif-
icant impacts on the same 4 stairs -- P5/P7, Pl/P3, P4, and P6 -- as the pro-
posed project (see Table 111-6) in 2002. No platform or mezzanine level im-
pacts were found for the proposed project· and none are expected for this
alternative.
In terms of line haul SUbway conditions, an AM impact on the southbound

IRT Nos. land 9 lines was predicted to occur with' the proposed project. Simi-
lar to the proposed project., this alternative would reduce excess capacity from
3 percent to. -1 percent and therefore would also have a significant lifie-ha~l
impact on the southbound IaT local.
Table 111-7 compares the 2002 local bus conditions for this alternative
with the proposed project. As shown in the table, this alternative would have
significant impaots on the same five bus routes in the AM p'eak period and f()our
routes in the PM peak hour a~ the proposed project.
IIl~22
Table III-9 .
"eh ST.B.Eft LDSEIl

~AY STATIO. COllDITIOBS. 2002 BlttLD.
DDlSl'tl ALTEIU!lATl'VE
Proposed
Project
2002 2002 Required 2002 Required
Facility Peak· No Build No Build Stairway Build Stairway
No. Location Period VIC LOS VIC LOS Widening VIC LOS Widening(3)
Sl
--------
NW Corner of 66th
------ -----
AM 0.86
_ _ iii
C 0.96 C
---------_ .. -: 1
1 0.94 C -----------
& Broadway PM 0.83 C 0.95 C 1
1 0.93 C
1
1
S2 SE Coiner of 66th AM 1.37 E 1.44 E 2.63 < 3" 1
1 1.44 E 2.45 < 3"
& Broadway PM 0.65 B 0.76 B .1
1 0.75 B
I'
1
02 Stair to Lincoln AM 0.88 C l.00 D* 7.39 > 6" 1
1 0.99 D* 6.57 > 6"
Center @ Col.Wfibus PM 0.94 C 1.06 Dw 6.36 > 6;; 1
L05 D 5.59 < 6"
,
1
1
IlI-23
Pedestrians.
This alternative would result in the same significant AM peak hour pedes-
trian impact on the southwest corner of 72nd Street and Broadway as would occur
with the proposed project (see Table 111-8). In addition, both this'alterna-
tive and the proposed project would result in a significant PM impact on the
south crosswalk at 60th Street and Broadway .. The same mitigation identified
for the proposed projece at these locations would also be applicable for this
alternative.
Air Quality
With fewer traffic trips expected under the Lesser Density Alternative,
concentrations of carbon monoxide would be somewhat reduced compared with the
proposed project. However, neither the proposed project nor the Lesser DenSiey
Alternative would result in any significant impacts or Violations of the 1- or
8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide and both
would be in compliance with the Sta~e Implementation Plan. Both the project
and this alternative would exacerbate the No Build exceedance of ~he 24-hour I.
S02 standard at the air intakes at 555 West 57th Street and cauSe exceedances
of the 24-hour PM 10 standard,
Roise
Noise levels in the waterfront park with both the proposed project and
Lesser Density Alternative would be higher than those generally recommended for
outdoor recreation areas and would therefore result·in a significant impact on
park users. No other significant noise impacts would result from either the
proposed project or the Lesser Density Alternative.
Hazardous Materials
Conditions with respect to. soil and groundwater would be the same with the
proposed project and the Lesser Density Alternative. At selected locations,
soil samples indicate the presence of elevated levels of metals and organic
chemicals. High methane levels are also indicated in some portions of the
project site. A remediation plan would be necessary for the proposed project
and this alternative to prevent human contact with all site soils. In addi-
tion, measures would have to be taken with both.the proposed project and this
alternative to ensure the safety of construction workers. Groundwa~er pumped
during dewatering may require treatmen~ eo reduce chemical concentrations be-
fore discharge into ~he aUQsOfi River with both the proposed project and the
Lesser Density Alternative.
III-24
Natural ResOUrces
No significant i~pacts on the waters of the Hudson River are expected to

result from the development of either the proposed project or the Lesser Densi-
ty Alternative. Similarly, no ·significant adverse impaces on the terrestrial
ecology of the project site are expected with eiener ehe proposed projecc or
the Lesser Density Alternative.
Re~ghborhood Character
Although it would add somewhat shorter buildings and 12 percent fewer

residents, this alternative would have essentially the same effect on neighbor-
hood character as the proposed project.
Infrastructure and Solid Vaste
With fewer residents and office workers, the Lesser Density Alternative
would use less water and generate proportionally less sewage and solid waste.
At completion, this alternatiVe .would use a total 0.£ 1. 49 million gallons per
day (~gd) of water, 203,100 gallons per day or 12 percent less than the pro-
posed project, but like the ·proposed project, its impacts on the New York City
water distribution would be i~perceptible.
This alternative would also generate approxi~ately 12 percent less sewage

than the proposed project. As with the proposed project, under this alterna-
.r-
tive, flows to the North River plant are projected to remain within the plantis
rated capacity. I·
This ·alternative would also generate Eiboue 12 percent less solia waste
than the proposed project hut would have the same effect on New York City's
solid waste collection syscem.
Energy
Like the proposed project, no significant effects on ~nergy would result

from the Lesser Density Alternative.
CODstructiou r.pacts
While overall development under the Lesser Density Alternative would be

somewhat less than the proposed project, it would still represent a large-scale
develop~ent project, with a construction Schedule extending for a.period of
nearly a decade. As with the proposed project, construction activities on-site
would have to be eoordifiaced with construeeiofi accivities related eo che cur-
ren~ rehabilitation of the Miller Highway and future constrUctiOn activities
IIl-25
related to the relocation of the highway and "demolition of the existing"
highway.
Potential impacts on the adjacent landmark Ch~tsworth Apartments, the

four row houses at the northeast corner of 72nd Street and Riverside "Drive, the
West 7.lst Street Historic District, and the Con Edison Power House would be
similar to those with the proposed project, requiring mitigation. Significant
changes in noise levels (particularly within the waterfront park) would be
expected from construction activities with both the proposed project and the
Lesser Density Alternative. Precautions would have to be taken during con-
struction of both the Lesser Density Alternative and the proposed pr~ject to
protect construction workers from exposure to potential hazardous substances
"during construction. Dewatering activities during construction would also
require similar treatment with both the Lesser Density Alternative and with the
proposed project.
D. STUDIO/OFFICE/SPORTS COMPLEX ALTERNATIVE
This alternative examines a scenario in which the dev~lopment program for

the 2.1 million-square-foot commercial building on Parcel N would consist of
1 million zoning square feet (zsf) of studio space (versus 1.B million zsf with
the proposed project), 300,000 zsf of general office space (the same as" the
proposed project), and an BOO,OOO-zsf Olympic caliber spqrts and training com-
"plex. The building envelope "would remain unchanged under this alternative,
primarily because, as with the proposed project, the studio facility would
require the large floor plate that can be acconimodated on this superblock par-
cel. A special permit would be required for the sports complex from the Board
of Standards and Appeals (BSA). At the present time, the actions proposed for
the Riverside South project do not include a BSA special permit. "
The sports complex woul~ contain a variety of facilities, including swim-

ming pools, basketball and volleyball courts, courts for a variety of racket
sports, skating rinks, bowling alleys, gymnastics areas, and areas for sports
medicine. " It is anticipated that this would be an Olympic caliber facility and
would attract users other than project: residents. Like the proposed project,
this alternative would be completed in phase II of ehe project by 2002.
The analysis of this alternative beloW' focuses only on those environmental

areas where there is likely to be a substantive difference from the proposed
project.
Land Use and Zoning
The effects of this alternative on study area land use would be similar to
those of the proposed project. It would. replace a currently underutilized site
with a large-scale. mixed-use project. It would provide a nearly identical mix
of useS as the proposed project with the excepeion of the building on Parcel N.
Although the size of the building would remain unchanged at 2.1 million square
feet; ehe program of Uses would be somewhat differen~j with somewha~ less seu~
dio spaoe and the addition of a sports complex, Like the proposed projeot, it
III - 26
would be consistent with the patterns of land use and land use trendS within
the surrounding neighborhood. Neither the proposed project nor this alterna-
tive would be expected to create significafi~ secondary developmen~ lana use
impacts.
Under this alternative, users of the sports complex, itself a recreational

facility, would not be considered among the commercial open space user popula-
tion. Since the studio component of this alternative is smaller than with the
proposed project (the office component of this alternative is the same as with
the proposed project), the commercial open space uSer population would. be pro&
portionately .smaller than with the proposed project. Therefore. as with the
proposed project, the passive recreational space being provided on-site by 2002
would be sufficient to mee~ the beed of the office and studio workers in this
alternative .
.. 'traffic and Transportation
The estimated travel characteristics for this alternative are based on

surveys conducted at large health clubs in New York and Chicago and the pro-
posed physical composition of the proposed complex. Overall,' a weekday trip
generation rate of 30 trips/l;OOO gross square feet (gsf) is used for analysis.
This is higher than the 20 to 25 trips/I,OOO gsf found in a survey of the
325,000-gsf East Bank Club in Chicago (one 'of the largest health clubs in the
country), but less than the 44.7 trips/lOOO gsf found for the 134,000, gsf
Vertical Club on Manhattan's East Side. A large portion (40 percent) of this
. alternative is made up of court space, swimming pools, and skating rinks for
Olympic-style training. As such, a lower trip rate than the pure health club
model would provide a reasonable and accurate forecast. Even at the 30 trips/
1,000 gsf rate, this yields approximately 10,000-12,000 persons training,
coaching, or just exercising at this facility 'during the course of a weekday
(since there is no spectator seating). Table 111-10 provides a summary of the
transportation planning assumptions used for this alternative. The same plan-
ning assumptions were used for the office and studio components of this alter-
native as were used for the proposed project.
Table III~ll provides an overview of the tripmaking for this alternative

versus that of the proposed project. As noted in Table III-II, traffic volumes
for ehis alternative are lower in the AM and midday peak hours and slightly (SO
vph) higher in the PM peak hour than for the proposed project. .Because of the
expected higher rate of transit utilization for the trainees; subway and bus
ridership is expected to be higher in all peak hours under this alternative
than for ~he proposed project. The following provides an impact assessment of
this alternative on the transportation system.
Table III:-10
TRIP GENEllA.TION AND HODAL SPLIT ASSUHP'lIONS POll

STUDIO/OFFICE/SPORTS OOMPLEX AL~TIVE
PROJECT COMPONENTS 880,000 gsf
rrRIP GENERATION weekday ~ 30 ~r~ps per 1000 gsf

(person trips per day)
MODAL SPLIT (, )
Auto 61
Taxi 4
Bus 12
Subway 44
Walk 34
PEAK HOUR DEMAND (')
AM 3.9 2
Midday 3.7
PM 9.1
SAT 9.8
IN/OUT SPLIT
AM " "41/59 2
r~idday 54/46
PM 75/25
SAT 52/48
VEHICLE OCCUPANCY
Auto 2.00 3
Taxi 2.00
TRUCK-TRIP GENERATION 0.04 trips/l000 95£4
PEAK !lOUR DEMAND (%) "

AM 6.0 3
Midday 11.0
PM 0.0
SAT 0.0
1 Philip Habib and Associates."

2 Vertical Club Survey, 1986.
3 Manhattan West FEIS.
4 Trump City DEls.
III-2S
'tab1e II1-11
TRANSPORTATION FORECAsT FOR STUDI%nICE/SPORTS COHPLEX ALTDJ!lATrn
PROPOsED PROJECT SPORTS TRAINING FACILITY ALTERNATIVE

Peak ---------------------------------"
boca1 Express ---------- -----------.----------~------------------
I.oca 1 ~Ptess
... -----
Hour'
2002 PHASE n
Auto Taxi Bus Bus Subway Trucks Auto· Taxi Bus Bus Si.ibway Tn.cks
---------
AM 497 524 951 188 3392 64 469 524 969 130 3225 $4
M'~Qay
PH
381
598
440
556
939
""
l'
i87
1459
3781
82
44
393
613
424 974
592 ;317
13
147
1771
4;59
70
40
ItI·29
Traffic
Table 111-12 compares the study area's traffic impact locations for this
alternative versus those for the proposed project for year 2002 conditions. As
shown in the table, the alternative has the same impact locations as the pro-
posed project except for two locations: Twelfth Avenue northbound at 54th
Street in the PM, which would only have significant impacts for this alterna-
tive and not with the proposed project, and Columbus Avenue southbound at 79th
Street in the AM, which would have significant impacts with the proposed proj-
ect but not with this alterna~ive. At the Twelfth Avenue/54th Street intersec·
tion, the v /c ratio would increase from 0,'783 in the No Build to 0.860 in the
alternatiVe Build. This impact could be mitigated with minor signal timing or
intersection control measures. Given the lower AM and midday peak hour volumes
and only slightly higher PM peak volumes, the mitigation plan for the proposed
project would also mitigate all 'Che othe'r alternative impacts. This would also
apply to both the primary and extended traffic study areas. Table 111-12 shows
the mitigated vic' ratios.
Parking
This alternative would require about 50 fewer spaces than the proposed
project during the midday weekday period, but would have almost the same over-
night demand as the proposed project, when the residen~ial characteristics of
the project govern parking needs. Garage N (under the studio) would remain at
the 442 spaces indicated for the proposed project, and therefore no parking
impacts are anticipat;ed for thi"s alternative.
Subway:
As shown in Table III-II, above, this alternative would likely create

higher transit usage than the proposed project. Since changes due to this al-
. ternative only influence the 59th Street-Columbus Circle station, Table 111-13
shows the resultant impacts at that station. Impacts'at the 72nd Street and
66th Street stations would be identical to those of the proposed project.
Stairway S3, which would he impacted in both the AM and PM peak hours with
the proposed project, would continue to be impacted under this alternative. In
addition, the greater number of ,subway trips generated by this alternative in
the PM peak hour would result in an additional impact at stairway S5. This is
the new stairway proposed as part of the Columbus Center project. To avoid
this impact, stairway S5 would need to he widened (or initially constructed) to
a dimensiort of 8'-6 11 (instead of 8'-0"), which would result in a year 2002 vic.
ratio of 0.94 (less than 1.00) and a level of service C with this alternative.
Table 111-14 compares the 2002 local bus conditions for this alternative
with those of the proposed project. As shown in the table, this alternative
would have significant impacts on. six bus routes in the AM peak hour (versus
five for the proposed project) and fiVe bus routes in the PM peak hour (versus
four for the proposed project). Unlike the proposed project, .this alternative
would impact the M7 roUte in both the AM and PM peak houts, reqti~ring the addi-
tion of two additional MI buses in the AM and four aaaitional M7 buses in the
IlI,,30
TAILE 111-12
mDMPARlSON OF FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS,. SPORTS TRAINING FACILITY AND PROPOSED PROJECT
]. 1 ] I
II'ROI'OSED PROJ. H 2002 M SPORTS ALT. M SPORTS ALT. M·
2002 2602 DELTA P BUILD MIT DELTA P 2002 DELTA P BUILD HIT DELTA P
PEAk: NO-BUILD BUILD viC A viC viC A BUILD VIC A vic vIC A
S~REET APPROACH TOD vIC RATIO vIC RATIO RATIO C RATIO RATIO C vIC RATIO RATIO C RATIO RATIO C
-----------------------------------------
12~H AVE.SB @ 51ST ST. AM
---------------------------------T~-
0.879 0.914 0.035 **
:------------------T~-
0.875 -0.004
·------~---------------T--
0.916 0.037 **
--------------------T~-I:
0.877 -0.002
===~==~==.====c=z.= •••• 1
====.====z====~===I=====================~==========~.== ,=.~=.==============.=
•.
===========xa==_===z:=_== =:z.===_=z===ca••• _.a._ I
1
79~H ST. EB @ RIVERSIDE AM I 0.811 0.892 0.081 **, 0.835 0.024 0.882 0.071 ** 0.826 0.015
mM I 0.876 0.971 0.095 ** 0.855 -0.021 0.973 0.097 ** 0.857 -0.019
;;;~;;i~~=S;. @=;2~~=;;~="=·===~=·====;"= :==.... =~:~;~==. ===~~;;;=="===~:;;. ::= .....~~;;=......~:~;;==== ="="=~~;;="·""=O~;a·:;" •........O~;2....=..O~2~~. =. ~I:
===================.===================== 1==================================== .==================== ======================m.. z===.========.=.===~= •• I
NEST END SB @ 72ND ST. AM. I 0.892 0.935 0.043 ** 0.832 -0.060 0.937 0.045 ** 0.834 -0.058
Mill' I 0.905 1.010 0.105 ** 0.862 -0.043 1.009 0.104 ** 0.861 -0.044
Pfili i Q.882 0.963 0.081 ** 0.838 -0.044 0.967 0.085 ** 0.841 -0.041
H'
----------------------------------------- 1--------------------;--------------- --------------------- ------------------------- .========z==.==~=======
H J2ND ST. EB.@ WEST END AM 0.952 1.034 0.082 ** 0.887 -0.065 1.035 0.083 **, 0.887 -0.065
H PfiI, I 0.134 0.882 0.148 ** O. 7~ 0.022 0.881 0.147 ** 0.755 0.021
"
..." -----____________________________________ I----~------------------------------- --------------------- ------------------------- ==•• =~.a.=====.=~===== •
t-' 12ND ST. WB @ WEST END PM 1 0.990 1.044 0.054 ** 0.921 -0.069 1.049 0.059 ** I 0.926 -O.O~ I
==.====a==.a======•••• ===.=============== I========Z=_.======================.= =================a=== ===========.=••• ==_===c== I===.==~=====.=D=.===.=.I,
WEST END SB @ 63 ST. AM 0 •. 861 0.905 0.044 ** 0.850 -0.011 0.902 0.041 ** I 0.846 -0.015
=====================c=================== =================================:=: =========.=======.==~ ===============_==ac===== ccm========~••
I • 1
=.=======
sailK ST. WB @ WEST END AM. 0 •. 960 1.159 0.199 ** 0.942 -0.018 1.149 0.189 ** 0.937 -0.023
. . IIID 0."943 1.077 0.134 ** 0.906 -0.037 1.076 0.133 **: 0.905 -0.038
PH, li.286 1.450 0.164** 1.173 -0.113 I 1.460 0.174** 1.178 -0.108 1
.===.=====.====m=.==.a======.==========~= ===========:=e:==========:=:====:=== ==============:====== 1========================= 1===============··======

NEST END.SB @ 58TK ST AM 0.846 0.877 0.031 ** 0.722 -0.124 I ·0.877 0.031 .** 1 0 •. 723 -0.123
;' ====================-==================== ==========:===:========:=========:== ==========::===:===== 1========================= .=======================
57Tt!· ST. WB @ WEST END PM 0.861 0.926 0.065 ** 1 0.811 :-0.050 1 0.943 0.082 ** 0.813 -0.048
================= •••••• ==== ••============ ===========••• _=====================1=====================
I===Z===========Z=====:=== =============_m========
MSTERDAM.N8 @ BROAIlWAY/72ND ST. MD 0.855 0.872 0.017 **, 0.855 0.000 0.872 0.017 **, 0.855 0.000
!PM 0.981 0.996 0.015 ** 0.976 1 -0.005 0.996 0.015 **
1 0.976 -0.005 1
===================··_===================1===============================~====l===================== I=================~======= ======================-11

IiMSTEROAM NB @ BROADWAY! AM I 0.861 0.882 0.021 **, 0.849 -0.012 0.882 0.021 ** 0.850 -0.011
J1Sli ST. HD 0.895
1 . 0.920 0.025 **, 0.886 -0.009 0.920 0.025 ** 0.886 -0.009
PIlI; I 1.115 1.138 0.023 ** 1.096 -0.019 1.138 0.023 ** 1.096 -0.019. I
====_=============_:•••• ====a============ 1==============_===================== 1===================== ====z========•• m~=u====== I-=========c============t
AMSTERDAM N8 @ 57TH ST. MD 0.856 0.880 0.024 **, 0.838 -0.018 0.880 0.024 **, 0.838 -0.018
. Pfill i 0.964 0.980 0.016 ** 0.937 -0.027 0.982 O. 01.8 ~* 1 0.939 -0.025. 1
c:===============••••• ==c==.============= 1===================================: ========:==========-= ========::=:::===.=•• -.== 1==-========= •• ==-======11
•
** DENOTES IMPACTED LOCATION
@I DENOTES LOCATION MITIGATED DUE TO IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED VAN SERVICES.
]ABLE 111-12. continued
COMPARISON OF FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. SPORTS TRAINING FACILITY AND PROPOSED PROJECT
l 1 11 1I
PRmWOSED PROJ. M 2002 H SPORTS ALT. H SPORTS ALT. H
2OQ2 2002 DELTA P BUILD HIT DELTA P 2002 DELTA P BUILD MITDELTA P
PEAK NO-BUILD BUILD vIC A vIC vIC
vIC A vIC
BUILD viC A A
Sf'REET APPROACH vIC
TOO vIC RATIO RATIO RATIO C vIC RATIO RATIO C
RATIO RATIO C RATIO, RATIO C
-----------------------------------------
ODtl!t1BUS SB @ 79TH ST. AM
---------------------------------T--
0.856 0.866 0.010 **
------------------t--
.0.850 -0.006
----------------------t--
0.865 0.009
:--------------------t--
I 0.849 -0.007
========~=========.E.~=Z================= =============:==================::== ===a====••••e===:==== ===c===__ =====_=:_.=:=••• 1=•••===•••••••••••===.=
CC1LI!t1BUS SB @ 66TH ST. PH I 0 •. 846 0.856 0.010 ** 0.831 -0.015 0.856 0.010 ** I 0.831 -0.015
=====================c=================== ,============================:=====:_ ========:==:=:======= ==============_==========
. ,====_.=a==•• =••===_==_=
BROADWAY SB @ 65TH ST./COLlJ>1BUS AM I 1.124 1.140 0.016 ** 1.087 -0.037 1.140 0 •. 016 **, 1•. 087 -0.037
!PM I 1,.027 1.037 0.010 ** 0.989 -0.038 1.038 0.011 ** I 0.990 -0.037
----------------------------------------- I-----~------------------------------ --------------------- 1------------------------- l====C:.S.C.:._=••• =•••=
BROADWAY HB @ 65TH ST./COLlI1BUS MD, 0.883 0.997' 0.014 ** 0.855 -0.028 0.897 0.014 **, 0.855 -0.028
PHi i li.022 1.045 0.023 ** 0.996 -0.026 1.044 0.022 ** I 0.996 -0.026
SK=======~========.====================== I=================================~== =====.=a==~========== =====.======z~=======a=2= I===-.======_== ••• a_._==
C::OUJMBUS SB @ 57TH ST. AM. 0.980 1.003 0~023 ** 0.974 -0.006 . 1.004 0.024 **, 0.974 -0.006
H- .II11II' I 0.871, 0.894 0.023 ** 0.867 -0.004 I 0.893 0.022 ** I 0.867 -0.004
H:
!HI
I'
-----------------------------------------
5~lH ST. EB @COLlI1BUS AM
1------------------------------------1---------------------
1.030 1.047' 0.017 **, 1.004 -0.026
1-------------------------
1.047 0.017 **,
I========~====··=·a.c.==
1.004 -0.026
""',
I)oJI MIll, 0.906 0.927 0.021 **, 0.888 -0.018 , 0.927 0.021 **, 0.888 -0.018
PHi 1.030· 1.056 0.026 ** I 1.012 -0.018 I 1.054 0.024 **. 1.011 -0.019 I
===~===================================== ===============================:==:: 1===================== 1========================2 ==============.=.==~z==11
651'H ST. EB @ CENTRAL PARK AM' 1.007 1.061 0.054 **, 0.983 -0.024 , 1.060 0.053 ** 0.982 -0.025
NEST MD 0.857 0.886 0.029 **, 0.821 -0.036 0.885 D.028 ** 0.820 -0.037
PM, 1.021 1.080 0.059 ** I 1.000 -0.021 I 1.078 0.057 ** 0.99B -0.023 ,
~==2==========~==~== •• ============~====== ==================================== 1===================== 1============~=.2=====~==~ ========a=======••=_=== I
CC1L.CIRCLE SB TO B'WAY @ 8TH AVE.' AM 0.955 0.966 0.011 ** I 0.934 -0.021 I 0.966 0.011 ** 0.934 -0.021 I
-----------------------------------------
8TH AVE. NB @OOL. CIRCLE AM
------------------------------------
0.938 0.942 0.004
1---------------------
0.929 -0.021 @
,-------------------------
0.943 0.005
-----------------------
0.929 -0.009 @ ,
,
===.==============.==~=================== ===============:;::==================== I ===================== I,==========IZ==-==========a: ====.===.:a.=••
j I z.=c=~a:==
5~H ST.EB @8TH AVE PH. 0.836 0.857 0.021 ** 0.826 -0.010 0.855 0.019 ** 0.825 -0.011
============.==:[:====.a= I,I
5~TH ST.WB @8TH AVE AM 0.904 0.933 0.029 ** 0.900 -0.004 0.931 0.027 ** 0.897 -0.007
HD 0.927 0.949 0.022 ** 0.915 -0.012 0.949 0.022 ** 0.915 -0.012
lIfti I li.004 1.028 0.024 ** 0.991 -0.013 1.031 0.027 ** 0.994 -0.010
==================a•••z== ••============== I==================================~= =======:============= ========================= ===.~~===~===K=.=.= •• ==
56TH ST. EB @ BROADWAY MD I 0.852 0.869 0.017 ** 0~840 -0.012 0.869 0.017 ** i 0.840 -0.012
=================~==.======&============= I==========================~========= =====================,========================zl===========.C=Z·~&=====I'
51TH ST. EB @ BROADWAY AM~ 0.881 0.896 0.015 ** 0.871 -0.010 0.896 0.015 **, 0.871 -0.010
Mm I 0.842 0.860, 0.018 ** . 0.836 -0.006 I 0.860 0.018 ** I 0.836 -0.006
=============z.===••••=======•••••• ====== ====================================1=====================1====_=======_====.======= 1====·==·=a==•• K • •~ • • ===
*- DENOTES IMPACTED LOCATION
@ DENOTES LOCATION MITIGATED DUE TO IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED VAN SERVICES.
Table III-l3
59th STREET - - COLUHBUS CIRCLE STATION

2002 BUILD CONDITIONS VITH STUDIO/OFFICE/SrOaTS COiiPLU
Effective No-Build Pk 5 Min. Build 2002 2002 Re~uired

FaciW:y Peak Width (I! Capacity Pk 5 Hin. Project Peak S Min. Build Build No Sii~lc Sta:tliay
No. Location Period (Feet! (PPM)! 4) Volllle Illcreent Volule PFK(4) ViC LOS V'/C LOS IUdelling(7)
58th St. ,
.---_. ._--_._.-
8.20
--------82 .1Ii ........ __ ......--- ......_---- ------ ----- ---
19 91 2.23 0.22 1
... w _____
0.18 1
....,. ........
81 1M 72
Col UIDUS ~: rel A PM 8.20 62 121 41 162 3.54 0.39 A 0.29 A
82 Traffic ~5:and AM 3.B6 39 57 10, 67 3.48 0.35 A 0.30 A
Broadway/60th PM 3.86 39 77 42 119 6.15 0.61 B 0,40 1
83 South Side of AM 6.77 68 347 77 424 12.54 1.25 D 1.03 'D 18.0B ) 6' *
G, Ii Buildine PM 6.17 68 371 43 U4 12.23 1.22 D 1.10 D 9.40 ) 61 •
S4 N.W. Corner of AM 4.20 (2) 42 88 19 101 5.11 0.51 B O.U A

CPWiCo1. Ci r. PM 4.10 (2) 42 92 11 103 4.91 0.49 A 0.44 A
S5 S.w. Corner of AM 5.80 (3) 58 153 28 180 6.21 0.62 B 0.53 B
Bro,adwoY! 60th PM 5.BO (3) 58 169 122 292 10.05 1. 01 D 0.58 B SUi) 6· i
El Up Escalator AI! 4Hnch 102 (5) 297 94 391 n/a ' 0.77 C 0.58 A
liear 58th St. PM Escalator 102 (5) 158 38 196 nja 0.38 A 0.31 A
E2 Down Esca:ator AM 4Hnch 102 (5) . 81 15 95 nia 0.19 A 0.16 A
Nesr 58th St. PM Escalator 102 (5) 2H 63 277 n/a 0.54 A 0.42 A
R- Fare Array @ AM Enter 128 113 (6) 33 146 n/a 0.23 A UB A

iSB 60tli Stre&t Elit 114 96 (6) 5 101' ' n/a 0.18 A 0.17 A
PM Enter 128 208 (6) 158 366 ' nja 0.57 A 0.33 A
Ezit 114 37 (6) 6 43 n!a 0.08 A 0.07 A
-... _.------------ _._------ -------- _._._---- _.lIOiliiii •• a iiil5... iii". ilia. • • • Ii • • • • •
,(I) Effective Widtb leasured as width between the bancrails

1ID1tiplied by a factor of 0.8 to acconnt for reverse flows •.
(2) Based on a planned stair widtb of 6 feet [Coluabus Canter FEIS)
aiUllS 9" for railings. '
(3) Based on a planned stair widtb of 8 :eet (Colulbus Clntlr FEtS)
linus 91 for raiiings.
(4) Stair Capacity hasld OD HYC~l guidelines of 10 PFK.
PFM = Persons per Foot iidth of Stairvay Per Kiuute.
PP~ : Persots Fer Kinute.
(5), KlCtl Station PlanniDg and Desien Guidelines.
(6) Based on a planned 6 two-way turnstiles and one ezit gate
,(ColuabiiS Ce~tBr FEIS).
(7) Kinianl stairway widening required tD iitigate iipact (inches).
• DlDotes a significant ilpBct;
PeaK Iilum BAM ;; SAil

SF! • 'PK
lii-H
Table 111-14
WCAL BUS liENOR. STUDIO/OFFICE/SPORTS COHPLEX ALTEBRATIVE
b iii
Proposed Project Sports Alternative
a. 2002 No Build 2002 Build 2002 Build
Peak Direction Peak Hour Buses Available Capacity b Available Capacity in Available Capacity in
WIPM Peak Hour in Peak Direction i~ the Peak Direction the Peak Direction the Peak Direction
--------------- ----------------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
Route 1M PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1i15 SB/HB 11 12 -121 144 -189 * 119 -190 * 115
Mil SBINB 9 10 -6.1 -190 -92 -219 -93 * -2.24 *
MIl SB/HB 8 1 -120 -119 -158 * -240 * -159 * -262 *
IH
H
. IH M51 EB/WI 9 1 -4'5 -154 -132 * -216 * -134 * -227 *
I
\001'
#'
M6,6 EB/WB 12 10 12 -120 -56 * -184 * -57 * -196 .*
H12 EI:l/WI 1 1 224 196 198 169 191 164
1i119 WllWl 18 14 Ui2 56 160 51 160 50
M~04 SB/NB 24 23 -120 -46 -204 * -132 * -206 * -147 *
a
Source: NYCTA Ridership Surveys.
b .
lased upon a capacity of' 60 persons per bus •
• Denotes.a slgnlflcant illpact.
faak Hours: 8AM - 9AM
5fM - 6PM
PM for mitigation. The mitigation identified' for the proposed project would be
adequate to mitigate the impac'Cs on the remaining routes, with the exception of
the M1l route in the PM, where five additional buses would be required (versus
four for the proposed project), and the M66 route i~ the pM where. fo~r addi~
tional buses would be required (versus three for the proposed project) .
. As standard prac~ice, the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) routine~
1y conducts ridership counts and adjusts bus service frequency, within fiscal
and operating constraints, to meet its service criteria. Therefore, no proj-
ect-sponsored mitigation would be needed or provided eo addr~ss these impacts.
P.edestrians
As shown in Table 111-15, this alternative would result in the same PM

peak hour pedestrian impact on the south crosswalk at 60th sereet and Broadway
as the proposed project. The same mitigation identified for the proposed proj~
ect (widening of ~his crosswalk from its current 12 feet in width to 15 feee in
width) would also be applisab1e for this alternative.
Air Quality
As discussed above in the traffic impact assessment for this alternative,

traffic volumes with this alternative in the PM period would only be approxi-
.mate1y 50 vehicles per hour greater than those estimated for the proposed proj-
ect in 2002 (approximately 1,200 Vph). In addition, the only neW traffic im-
pact location (compared to those resulting from' the proposed project) would be
at Twe1f~h Avenue northbound at 54th Street in the PM period under this alter-
native. As shown in Table II.K-13 in section II.K of the EIS, maximum pre-
dicted 8~hour average carbon monoxide concentrations. both with and without the
proposed project and the relocated highway in 2002 near this Twelfth Avenue
intersection would be below the applicable standard, and incremental impacts
from the proposed project would be within de minimis criteria. The minor in-
cremental difference in the generated vehicular traffic in ehe PM period be-
tween the proposed project and this alternative. would nO.t result in any changes
in the findings determined for the proposed project.
This alternative would have the same stationary source air quality impacts
as the proposed project.
Boise
Noise levels wi~h ~his alternative would be similar to noise levels with
ehe proposed project. In both cases noise levels at receptor sites would not
be significantly different from No Build values.
1II-35
')labie 111-15
PEDESTIlIAR LEVElS 'OF SERVICE

STUDIO/OFFICE/SPORTS COHPLEX ALTERNATIVE
CROSSWALK LOCAtIONS
IR PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR .
PROPOSED SPORTS PROPOSED SPORT~
PROJECT FACILITY II, PROJECT FACILITY
1002 NO BUILD 2002 BUILD 2002 BUILD [2002 .NO BUILD 2002 BUILD 2002 BUILD
IH
H
~
H Location Crosswalk S.F./Ped. LOS S.F./Ped. LOS S.F./Ped. LOSIS.F./Ped. LOS S.F./Ped: LOS S.F./Ped. LOS
.'
W'
QI'I,
--------- ---1---------
I,
---
60thStreetl South 25.0 C 20.7 D 21.0 D 20.2 D 16.9. D 16.5. D
Bl10adway West 5'2.8 B 52.8 B 52.8 B ]4.0 C 34.0 C ]4.0 C
., Denotes a significant i.pact.

Utilities and Solid Vaste
This alternative would place greate'r demand OD infrastructure than the

proposed project. Unlike the 'office/studio building in the proposed project,
the sports complex included under this alternative would presumably attract
users during evenings and weekends in addition to normal working hours. Heavy
use of showers and other facilities related to the sports complex would result
in greater water usage and sewage generation,
E. SEWAGE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
If the North River Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) cannot accommodate
project-generated sewage flows, there are several potential alternatives.
These are either (1) treatment of the sewage at the project site or (2) flow
reductions in the North River service area. Each of these alternatives is
discussed hereafter.
On-Site Treatment
A conventional sewage treatment plant or natural systems could treat the

project's estimated 1."42 million gallons per day (mgd) of domestic sewage on-
site. The effluent from either treatment system could be directly discharged
to the Hudson River. The effluent, or Some portion of it, could ~lso be used
for beneficial purposes on-site, i.e., irrigation of park plantings.
The use of on-site treatment for the project's sewage would require a
SPDES permit to allow the discharge of the treated effluent to the Hudson
River. If the existing city outfall at 72nd Street were used for discharging
the effluent, the existing permit covering this outfall would need to be modi-
fied to coVer this new use. The effluent limits for an on-site plant would be
the same as those for the North River WPCP: that 85 percent of the Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) be removed with an efflu&
ent concentratio~ no higher than 30 mS!l for BOD ,and TSS.
Conventional Sewage Treatment
Conventional" sewage treatment uses a combination of physical and biologi·

cal processes to remove the solids and the dissolved organic material in the
sewage. The process concentrates the pollutants into a sludge and allows dis-
charge of a purified effluent into the receiving water. The process use~ for
secondary treatment would be the same as that used at the city Water Pollution
Control Plants -- the activated sludge process. This biological treatment pro-
cess uSes concentrated bacteria (the activated slUdge) to assimilate the organ-
ics in the sewage and convert that matter into carbon dioxide and additional
bacterial mass. The activated sludge is then removed from the liquid in a
secondary se~~ling tank; ~he liquid is discharged af~er disinfection, and ~he
sludge is further processed for dispgsal as a solid waste, The quantity gf
lII-37
sludge generated by the activated sludge process varies depending on the· time
that the sewage/sludge mixture is aerated. One variation of the activated
sludge process, called contact stabilization, minimizes the time of aeration.
this results in a large volume of sludge to be dispo.sed of but minimi.zes the
space requirements for the treatment plant. At the other extreme is the ex-
tended aeration process, which aerates the. sewage/sludge mixture for an ex-
tended period -- up to 24 hours, compared with the typical 6 hours in a stan-
dard activated sludge process. This process minimizes the sludge produced but
requires a larger plant area. The process can be either continuous as in the
city plants or a batch process. The latter is more efficient for smaller
plants because of the variability of the flow from small systems over. the day.
For the Riverside South site, a sequential batch system was determined to
be most efficient. This system utilizes the Same tank to provide the biologi-
cal oxidation of the waste and the subsequent settling of the biological solias
produced. The system uses mUltiple tanks so that as one is filling and treat-
ing waste others can be in the settling mode. This type of system has the ad-
vantage that it can be built in stages without any compromise in treatment ef-
ficiency and can provide additional treatmen~ in the form of nitrogen removal
in the·fu~ure without additional tanks being required.
The equipment associated with the sequential batch system are as follows:
o Pump station -- To lift the sewage from the undergrOund sewer ·to ~he
above-grade treatment facility.·
o Screens -- To remove large solid materials that ·may get into the
site's sewer system.
o Comminutation -- a grinder that chops up any large solids so ~hey may

be processed in the biological tank.
o Batch Reactors -- providing 18 hours of detention time for aeration

of the waste and subsequent settling of the solids.
o Disinfection -- To reduce the bacter~al content of the sewage efflu-

ent prior to discharge; usually using chlorine. Ozone and ultra-
violet light may also be used to disinfect the sewage. If chlorine
is used, dechlorination prior to discharge is required. This is
accomplished by· adding a reducing agent, stich as sulfur dioxide or
sodium meta-bisulfate, to the effluent.
oRe-aeration -- To raise the effluent dissolved oxygen prior to

discharge.
o Sludge digestion aerobically oxidizes the sludge to reduce the

volume for ultimate disposal
A conceptual site plan has been developed for two potential plant sizes to
serve the Riverside South project, 1.4 mgd to serve the project alone and 2.0
mgd to serve the project and other large proposed projects in the study area
near Riverside South. Figures 111-1 and 111-2 presene a layout gf the units
for an on-site sewage treatment plant. The location is under Riverside Drive )1
between 69th and 72nG Streets. The smaller plant would only extend to 70th
Street.
UI-38
10092
~-----'
---- .-
~i
,'" '
.------' t-
W
1&1
t-a::
t;j U)t-
lIJU)
I 1,
w
a:
....
U)
3 ...
~"
..t:
I-
IIIItVERSIOE DR.
....
(J) ! ~~o~~ni.~ 15 FT:
ILl PLANT
3: ENCLOSURE
.'
,45tHFEcrL
r--b,d-
;~":!!:=.'.H-------
SLUDGE
TRAIiiSFER
STAnON
(PUMPS AND
FITTINGS FOR
CONNECTION
. DID --"'\
TO TANKER
• ~::r:'"'" I, TRUCK HOSE 1
~
I
VI h. •. ill Ii iii Iii ill Ii III Ii h! II
-",
C. "C __ ....
t
p. (
, \
lEal i
• • I r r - - l l i l__ UII ---.n. 11r--,l1r----Tl1r-::Jl1
l
IU I
-
1 ____ _ ~
I
I:
!!
i II Ii If
------1"-[[[J I
'11
.
I
--.----......
I
I
'
MILLER HIGHWAY
..LL ------1-'------1 I"' I
crOLU'UNS I.TYP.I
I:
0' a 10" JI IOOFEET
II II I • I
8CAU!
Layout of 1.4 MGD Sewage Treatment Plant

fig,ure 111-1
10-92
I--"~'"
tii
w
CIC
/'
l-
e/)
~ ~~~!;R~!f.!1~5~·T AT ,,,. St.

GROUND EL. 12 H!
f-
"l
"J
---~
I1:C!lMMINUTOR
______:lR£HTYP.I
1o.0ADING~· C'EQUIPMENT'
C.HAMBER.
__ ._.J!!!!".1...
~
.~~~.I'\=.=:;
___ .:... ______ _
oouai.-w. .. ,f' --.. :. . .
_____ - -I '=-_--
MIll IL ER HIGHWAY
SLUDGE
1iIUNSFEA
'filiON
!PUMPS AHD
flUIHGS fOR
1.liIIlIO,<,'El CONNECTION
'D YAHKER
i"tn:f DijJ-!~~
TRUCK HOSE I
.Lj ~
-!~@l_~lill ------t--------t-------r-[[[D
I '0
. I 1
0
,. "'I
II I I ' II
COLUMNS I TYP.I
I ' I
II
G
IIICALI II lUi
I 1IIOFEET
I
Layout of 2.0 MGD Sewage Treatment Plant

lFig.ure U1-2
The plant would be totally enclosed within a building to allow for an ef·
fective odor control system to be implemented. Staee regulations governing the
design of treatment facilities mandate minimum ventilation rates for enclosed
areas within a sewage treatment plant. these ventilation requirements are de-
signed to prevent the possible build-up of toxic or explosive gases in the
enclosed areas. For a totally enclosed plant; the entire ventilation air flow
would be processed through activated charcoal filters to remove any odor-pro-
ducing chemicals.
Effect on Open Space
The location of the on-site STP would not affect either active or passive
open space on the site since it is possible to locate the plant under Riverside
Drive.
Actions and Approvals
Construction of a proposed on-site- treatment facility would require a spe-

cial permit from the City of New York. Therefore, it would be subject to the
Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) and-require discretionary approval by
the City Planning Commission and New York City Council. In addition, a State
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (SPDES Permit) would have to be obtained
from DEC for any sewage discharge from the facility into the Hudson·River.
Natural .System Treatment
The use of natural systems to remove pollutants has been analyzed for
feasibility. "Natural" wastewater treatment systems use "natural" environmen-
tal components -- such as vegetation, soil,· and microorganisms ~- to provide
the required treatment. Natural treatment systems typically use less energy
and produce less sludge than conventional treatment systems; however, suffi-
_cient land of suitable character must be available. The Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation's Manual on Natural Systems for Wastewater-Treatment (WPCF MOP,
1990) states that these systems are usually better suited for small communities
and rural areas, because of the need for and availability of suitable land area.
(WPCF, 1990). Conventional wastewater treatment systems also use "natural"
microorganisms to 'treat wastewater; however, higher concentrations of microor-.
ganisms are used, and energy is used for mixing and oxygen supply, so that the
land area required is significantly less than for a "natural treatment system. ii
Two general types of natural systems are in use, soil-based and aquatic~based
systems. The following discusses each of chese systems as alternatives for
treatment of the Riverside South project's sewage.
Soil-Based Natur.al Treatmen.t $_ystems
Soil-based treatment systems can be divided into subsurface disposal sys-

tems, such as septic tank leach field units still commonly used in rural areas,
and land "treatment systems where wastewater is applied a"t the surfa.ce of the
soil. Subsurface disposal systems are not p~ac~ical and not reGommended for
wascewa~er flows greater ~han 50,000 gallons per day beGause of che diffiGulty
in predicting and monitoring ehe performance of these types of. systems;
Land treatment systems can be categorized as slow rate, rapid infiltra-
tion, and overland flow. In slow rate land treatment, the wastewater is ap-
plied at a controlled rate to a vegetated land surface. In cold climates,
wastewater may have to be temporarily stored during the vegetation's nongrowing
season. In rapid infiltration land· treatment, wastewater is applied at a con-
trolled rate to shallow basins in moderately to high permeable soils. Much
higher hydraulic loadings are used for rapid infiltration than for slow rate
treatment and vegetation is not usually a component of the rapid infiltration
system. The higher loading rates used for rapid infiltration systems require a
more thorough evaluation of soil and subsurface geohydrological conditions.
Preapplication treatment equivalent to primary treatment should be incorporated
. into the treatment system to avoid rapid clogging at the infiltration surface,
and p.eriodic maintenance of the basin surface is usually required (WPCF, 1990).
Pretreatment, including grit removal and screening, is .recommended for

overland flow land treatment. This type of treatment system consists of waste-
water applied to ·the upper reaches of carefully prepared grass·-covered slopes.
The wastewater flows in a thin sheet on the vegetated surface to runoff collec-
tion ditches. Wastewater is usually applied to the slope several hours per day
during the operational season, which may be limited by·cold weather during the
winter months.
Aquatic-Based Natural Treatment Systems
Aquatic-based treatment systems include stabilization ponds, aquatic sys-

tems with floa-t::ing plants, and w·etland systems" Stabilization pond systems
generally require less area than most soil-based systems, but do not produce a
comparable effluent. Water hyacinths are the plant most commonly used for
aquatic systems with plants; however, current research has also included penny-
wort, duckweed, and some rooted species. Treatment performance depends on the
design and operation of the system and a routine harvest of the plants is nec-
·essary to sustain high performance levels. The water hyacinth systems that are
currently treating wastewater in the United States are located in the warm
climates of the southern states. If a water hyacinth system were to be used
for the Riverside South project, it would have to be located in a greenhouse
and be heated in winter. Duckweed is more cold-tolerant than water hyacinths
and combined systems of several aquatic plants may be suitable for locations
with greater climatic variations, according to the literature (WPCF, 1990).
The third type of aquatic-based treatment system is a wetland system.

Naturally occurring wetlands can be used or a wetland system can be construct~
ed. Two types of constructed wetlands are the free water surface type, where
the water in the system is exposed to the atmosphere and surface re-aeration is
the major oxygen source; and the veget~ted submerged bed tyPe, in which the
water level is maintained at or below the surface of the permeable media used
in the bed. For treatment of municipal wastewater in a wetland sys~ern, treat-
ment equivalent to primary treatment is generally used eo avoid excessive
solids build-up in the upstream portion of the system (WPCF, 1990).
ThA types of natural treatment systems considered for treatment of 'the

wastewater generated by the Riverside" South project are rapid infiltration and
III-40
constructed wetlands. Both of these systems would require primary pretreat-
ment. Stabilization ponds have been eliminated from consideration as they
would not produce an effluent comparable to a rapid infiltration or-constructed
wetland system, and the other systems discussed above have been eliminateq
because they would not be able to produce a high quality effluent, and in fact
might not be able to operate at all, during the coldest part of the year. The
two systems considered for the Riverside South project are discussed below.
Rapid Infiltration
Although rapid infiltration is under consideration for use at Riverside

South, it should be noted that a thorough evaluation of soil, including fill
sources and subsurface geohydrological conditions, would have to be conduc~ed
to determine if use of such a system would be feasible at the site. The actual
infiltration rate at the site would have to be determined to design such a sys-
tem. The range of hydraulic loadings given in the literature is 150 to 2,500
gallons per 'square foot per year. At the design flow rate of 1.3 million
gallons per day (mgd) for the Riverside South project, the area required would
range from 4.4 acres at the maximum hydraulic loading rate to 72.6 acres at the
minimum rate given. The actual loading rate would likely fall somewhere in be-
tween in the range of tens of acres, but would have to be determined through
testing on-site.
Constructed Wetlands
Two types of constructed wetland treatment systems are currently in use:

free water surface and vegetated submerged beds (VSB). As the major advantages
of the VSB are greater cold tolerance, minimization of vector and odor prob-
lems, and possible greater assimilation to potential per unit of land area, the
VSB system would probably be better suited to the Riverside Sou'th project. The
bed width would be determined by hydraulic capacity of the soils, and the bed
length by pollutant removal requirements. The WPCF MOP gives an upper organic
loading rate of 100 po~nds per acre per day and a range of hydraulic loadings
of 70 to 550 gallons per square foot per year. Based on the maximum hydraulic
loading rate of 550 gallons per square foot per year, 20 acres of land would be
required. Based on the maximum organic loading rate given, the acreage re-
quired would be 26 acres, assuming an influent BODs of 240 lng/l.
Feas.ibilitv of .Natural sy;stems. .at Riverside .South
Because of the limited land available at the Riverside South site, use of
a natural treatment system for treatment of the proposed project's entire
wastewater stream is not feasible. However, a demonstration could be carried
out on a very small scale using one of the processes described above. Such a
demonstration could be integrated into the overall park design. Because of the
inherent risk to .health from human contact w{th the liqUid in such a system,
public access to such a demonstration system would have to be carefully con-
trolled to avoid contact with the trea~ment system. Only a small portion 6f
the sewage flow could be accommodated in such a demonstration project and thus
this would not materially reduce the flow to be treated at North River or by an
on-site conventignal treatment plant.
III-41
Flow Reductions to North River VPCP
No. Net .Increase in Flow
Reduction in existing flows to the North River plant through retrofitting

of existing high-flow plumbing fixtures within the North River service area
with water-saving devices ·could reduce the flow to the North River WPCP by an
amount equal to the sewage generation of the Riverside South project. Such a
reduction would result in no change in flow to the North River WPCP from the
project's use of the facility for sewage disposal.
According to DEP, retrofitting residential units with low-flo~ plumbing

fixtures would achieve a savings of 25 gallons per capita per day. Using the
1990 Manhattan housing occupancy of two persons per household, the project
would- have ·to retrofit 26",600 households to accommodate the proj ect' s expected
sewage generation of 1.42 mgd. The water savings. from retrofitting would come
from using toilets that consume 1.6 gallons per flush rather than the current 5
to 7 gallon per flush models in older homes, replacing old shower heads that
use 4 to 5 gallons per minute with heads that use only 3 gallons per minute,
and placing flow restricters on faucet-s.
The Riverside South project would be amenable to participating in such a

program if it were administered by the city and if there were a cost recovery
program that would result in sewage costs not significantly different from.
those charged other users.of the North River WPCP. The Riverside South project
would put up the initial capital in stages as each phase of the project is
built and expect the return within a 10-year period at market interest rates sO
that there would be no net cost to the project. The project could either pay
regular water and sewer charges for the use of the city sewerage system, as any
other project would, and be paid baCk by the administering agency or could be
repaid through reduced water and sewer charges for the project.
Because sewer charges woul~ accrue to the project in full in this alterna-
tive, a cost recovery program for the capital cost of retrofitting would be
required to make this alternative viable. Such a program would require the
administering agency to locate the 26,600 households willing to participate l.n
. the program, develop a method to collect funds from the participants based on
water bill savings, and solicit. and supervise contractors to perform the actual
installations. The cost of retrofitting a single bathroom with a new toilet, a
shower head, and faucet aerators is estimated at approximately $500. The total
cost of retrofitting needed to result in no net flow increase from the·River-
side South project would be about $13 million plus the cost of administering
the program. Total costs are estimated at approximately $15 million.
s to.r.a~e .Tank
If the discharge of the Riverside South sewage into the North RiVer WPCP
is deemed eo cause an adverse impact on the discharge of combined sewage over-
flows, the project could eliminate this concern be providing an on-~;iee storage
system for the sewage. The storage system would divert the project's sewage to
a holding tank during periods when t"here. are overflows .u the local regulator j
ana bleed the sewage back into the sewer system during dry weather periods.
III-42
Such a system is similar "to the eso abatement· proposals that the city is plan-
ning for Flushing .Bay. The average duration of overflows determined by DEP for
the North River basin is approximately 6 hours. Therefore, the storage tank
would have to be about 350,000 gallons or 44,500 cubic feet in volume to hold
the sewage for that period. A·tank 50 by 80 feet and 10 fee~ deep would accom-
modate this volume. .
Operation would be automatic, in response to monitoring of the 72nd Stree~

regulator. When an overflow Was detected, a signal to an electric valve would
divert the flow. When the overflow was over, a pump would, after a delay peri-
od, pump out the tank to the sewer so that the tank would be empty for the next
overflow. Since overflows· occur on average once every three days according to
DEP, the rate of pumping may be set significantly lower than the normal sewage
flow ~aee. Therefore, during dry weather periods; the flow from the project
would not be abnormally high,
111-43
CHAPTER IV. MITIGATION MEASURES
The previous sections of this EIS have identified certain potential sig-
nificant adverse impacts that require mitigation. these include impacts on
public elementary school resources; histor~c and archaeological resources from
project construction activities; traffic, subway, bus, and pedestrian conai·
tions; construction noise; hazardous waste, etc. Where specifiC measures are
not identified to mitigate potential significant impaces; these impacts are
described in Chapter V, "Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. ,t
A. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Public Elementary Schools
As described in section 11.0, "Community Facilities and Services," assum-

ing a mix of 90 percent market "rate and 10 percent low income affordable units,
the proposed project would generate a total of 726 public school students --
381 elementary school students, 224 intermediate school students, and 121 high
school students. The respective figures for Phase I are 2·10 (elementary), 124
(intermediate), and 66 (high school) students. Assuming an 80-20 housing mix
(80 percent m~rket-rate and 10 percent low-income, 5 percent moderate-income,
and 5 percent middle-income affordable units), the project would generate 844
public school students -- 430 elementary school (236 Phase I); 256 intermediate
school (140 Phase I), and 158 public high school students (87 Phase I).
The public elementary school students generated in Phase I would have a

Significant impact on elementary school resources by exacerbating local over-
crowding that would already exist in the future without the project. The pro-
jected overcrowding at 'the two elementary schools serving the project area
(P;S. 191 and P.S. 199) could be potentially mieigated in the following ways:
o The District could provide additional classroom space by consolidat-

ing or relocating administrative uses from schools. freeing space for
either magnet programs or Some of the students from P.S. 191 and P.S.
199.
o The Board of Education (BOE) could move the magnet intermediate

school programs from one of the elementary schools to another under-
utilized elementary or middle school in the districe. Other schools,
such as P.S. 9, I.S. 44, P.S. 165, or jHS 118 would have sufficient
cap~city to accommodate such a move.. "
o The district could redistribute grades from P.S. 191 and P.S. 199 to
underuti1ized schools in other parts of the Qis~rict -- i.e., P.S. 9,
P.S. 165, 1.S; 44, and J.H.S. lIS (se~~ing up elementary annexes in
the laeter two schools).
The provision of additional school space within the development"for

rental by the Board of Education.
These mitigation measures are pending BO'E approval and could be done in-
crementally as needed. Absent the commitment for implementation of one or more ~
of these measures, the project would have an unmitigated significant impact on
local elementary school resources.
Under either affordable housing scenario, the students generated by the

full build-out of the project in 2002 would significantly impact both elementa-
ry and intermediate school resources. According to the Department of City
Planning and the Board ,of Education, these impacts could not be mitigated
through use of administrative actions. to mitigate these im~acts, the project
would provide, for sale or lease at fair market value to the Board o~ Educa-
tion, additional elementary school space on-site sufficient to accommodate 600
public elementary school students. Under the 90-10 scenario, this school would
accommodate all but 5 project-generated elementary and the equivalent number of
intermediate school students. Under the 80-20 scenario, all but 86 of the
project-generated elementary and the equivalent number of intermediate school
students could be accommodated in the new space. The remaining students could
be accommodated through the provision of an early childhood learning center in
additional leased community facil,ity space on-site or absorbed within the dis-
trict., Accordingly, the district could assign off-site elementary school stu-
dents to the site facility and assign project-generated intermediate school
students to off-site schools. Without a commitment from the Board of Education
to such a shift, however, the proposed project would have an unmitigated ad-
verse impact on intermediate school capacity. Without a decision on the part
of the Board of Educaeion to lease or purchase school space on-site, the proj-
,ect would have an unmitigated significant impast on eleme~tary and intermediate
schools. '
The provision of the school space on-site would have additional conse·
quences beyond mitigating ehe projecc's school impacts. these are described
below.
Land Use
The prov1s1on of new public school Space ort~site would create a land use
change on the project site. This change' would.TIot'be significant since ie
would not increase the overall floor area permitted on-site and'a public'school
wou~d be a complementary land use to the project and the surrounding area.
As is increasingly coIlimon, neW school space could be'used during non-

school hours for a variety of community-related purposes.
Open ~Bace ,and RecreatLunal ResQutces
Since t~e additional elementary school space is intended to primarily

serve project-generated elementary school students and students from nearby, it
would not significantly affect open space conditions as portrayed in section
II.G. It would likely intenSify Use of the projectis new park during school
hours. Consistent with current Board of Education practice; the addieional
school space could provide additional indoor recreational opportunities for
area residents.
IV-2
Economic Conditions
The purchase or lease of new school space on-site would require additional
public expenditures.
Because of the typical travel characteristics of elementary schools, there

is negligible travel in the midday (12-1 PM) or PM (5-6 PM) peak hours. HoWe
ever, the additional school space is expected to generate .25 vehicle trips in
the AM peak hour. For the mitigated network, the travel demand for the school
has been added to the AM peak hour for traffic analysis purposes in the year
2002. Even with the additional school space, the project would have no non-
mitigatible traffic impacts. The same mitigation for the proposed project
would mitigate all of the project's impacts with or· without the new school.
Air. Ouali ty;
The minor incremental difference in the generated vehicular traffic in the

AM period between the proposed proJect. and the project with this mitigation
would not result in any changes from the air qualit.y findings determined for
the proposed project.
Noise
Noise levels with the traffic generated by the school mitigation wo~ld be
similar to noise levels without the· school mitigation (1. e., Build values would
not be significantly different from No Build values), However, in the event
that a school playground is provided, school playgrounds typically generate
maximum L10(1) levels, of 77 dBA at the playground boundary, and 75 dBA at 15
feet from the playground boundary. Therefore, to avoid the potential to create
a significant impact on adjacent receptor locations, school playground areas
would be carefully sited, and if feasible, noise mitigation measures, such as
noise barriers, would be utilized.
B. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Historic Resources
As described in section II. R, "Construction Impacts," construction of the

proposed project could affect nearby historic resources. In addition, measures
proposed to mitigate significant project impacts on operations at the 72nd
Street lRt station could affect historic resources.
Effe.c.ts 0.£ .Traffic and.lI.a.ns.portation Mit.igation
As described later in this section, one measure proposed to mitigate Sig-

nificant project impacts at the 72nd Street tRT station would involve construc-
tion of a new entrance to the station. This entrance would be located on the
fioreh side of 72nd Screet by expanding the median of BroaQway. the new head-
j
house would include new sCalrways and a widened platform. As noted in section
Iv-3
II.H, the 72rid Street station headhouse is a New York City Landmark. The land-
marked elements of the station include the white glazed tiles, continuous mo-
saic borders, and 14 mosaic panels located along the wall adjacent to the two
local tracks. The reconstruc~ion of 226 feet of the eastern wall as required
under this mitigation plan would result in the demolition ~f' the tiled sidewall
and two of that wall's seven mosaics. Thus, this mitigation measure would
result in a potential significant adverse impact on historic resources. This
impact could be mitigated by performing the reconstruction in consultation with
the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). When similar wall
reconstruction plans were envisioned in connection with earlier plans for this
station, a variety of mitigation schemes were considered by the LPC" including
re-use of the existing tiles and/or mosaics where possible, and/or the use of
suitable replacement tiles and reproductions of the mosaics. After the final
station designs for the mitigation plan are completed, these same types of
options would be discussed with the LPC. If the reconstruction occurs without
implementation of any of these options, then this mitigation measure would
result in a significant unmitigated impact on his"toric resources.
In addition, this new station entrance would be located adjacent to Verdi

Park, a New York City Landmark also listed on the State and National Registers.
However, this would not result in a significant impact on that resource.
Cons.cructionlmpac ts
As described in section II.R, "Construction Impacts," construction activi ..

ties on the project site could have a significant adverse impact on nearby
I
historic resources -- the Chatsworth Apartments, the row houses at 309 and 311
west 72nd Street and 1 and 3 Riverside Drive, the West 71st Street Historic
District, and the Con Ed Power House.
To protect the foundations and building fabric of these resources, the

applicant (and its agents, employees, successors, or assigns) would comply with
the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission's (LPC) guidelines for ,con ..
struction adjacent to a historic landmark. These guidelines·require that the
applicant develop, carry out, and maintain construction procedures to protect
the foundations and the building structures of landmark s'ites. The applicant
would compile information initially and as construction proceeds, including bue
not limited to the following:
Q An evaluation of the water level, ex,tent, flow, fluctuations, and

variations On the site and adjacent properties;
o Borings and soil reports of the water table, establishing composition

stability and condition;
o Sheetpiling or cofferdam design;
o Existing foundation and structural condition information and documen-

tation for the historic property or properties and the related site;
o Formulation of maximum vibration tolerances based on impact and dura ..

tlon consideration using accepted engineering standards for old
buildings. Monitoring shall utilize tell-tales; seismographic equip-
ment, and horizontal and lateral movement scales in addition to other
IV-4
required techniques to'establish vibration effects of piledriving or
other construction methods on the historic building structure.
This information would be submitted by an indep~ndent monito~ing,consul

tant, who would be a foundation and structural engineer selected by the appli-
cant and whose credentials would be approved by the LPC or other appropriate
city agency. The information would be evaluated by the LPC and/or appropriate
resources with respect to the techniques to be used to protect the historic
structures and sites, to avoid significant variations in the water table under
SUGh buildings, and to mitigate the effects of piledriving and other construc-
tion techniques. The consultant's reports and any comments prepared w:ould be
submitceQ to the appropriate city agencies as determined by LPC.
the following construction requirements would also be met:

g Construction would proceed according to final plans as approved by
the Department of Buildings;
o Tn~ monitoring consultant referred to above would be retained by the

applicant at its sole cost and expense to monitor the construction of
the project on a regular basis to ensure that the, existing conditions
of the historic buildings and sites remain unaffected. This consul-
tant would prepare reports on the monitoring for submission to the
LPC and distribution as appropriate.
g Should the LPC on the advice of a structural engineer and the consul-
tant identify the beginnings of any damage to a historic building
foundation and/or structure during construction, immediate steps
would be taken by the consultant to have the construction company
halt work, revise operations to prevent further damage to the ~istor
ic structure, and repair the damage. Work would not recommence be-
fore the LPC approves the proposed revisions. Repair work on the
Landmark would be done only in accordance with permits issued by the
Commission under the Landmarks Law.
o ~e applicant would either carry adequate insurance'to the extent

available at reasonable rates to cover the expenses of, restoration
and/or replacement of any historic structures damaged by construction
operations, or make alternative prOVisions to provide a sufficient
fund to cover the expenses of restoration and/or replacement. The
insurance or aleernate provisions would be approved by the LPC.
Archaeological Resources
As described in secti.on II.H, "Historic and Archaeological Resources," two

areas of the project site -- both between 59th and 62nd Streets -- may be ar-
chaeologically sensitive. The proposed project would disturb or destroy any
subsurface prehistoric remains in those locations. to mitigate this potential
significant impact, Phase IB archaeological testing would be carri.ed out in the
cwo narrow strips of fast land (i;e;; original land instead of fill) located
between 59th Street and 62nd Street. The proximity of this fast land to known
IV-S
fresh water ~treams and to· a cove between 60th and 61st Street indicates a po-
tential for use by prehistoric populations. This testing would provide evi-
dence of the presence or absence of prehistoric archaeological evidence·on
these buried land surfaces.
Three or four backhoe trenches would be excavated to penetrate the origi-

nal land before landfilling. Samples of any deposits potentially associated
with prehistoric remains would be screened through a quarter-inch mesh for the
recovery of artifacts.
A detailed trenching plan would be submitted to the New York City Land-
. marks Preservati.on Commission (LPC) for review and approval before any field
work, and results of the Phase IB testing would be submitted to the LPC.
Should any artifacts of potential significance be found, further testing would
be carried out as necessary to identify the boundaries and s.ignificance of the
find. Plans for a second pha~e of testing would be submitted to LPC for review
and approval. Plans for documentation of any finds would also· be submitted to
LPC.
C. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Introduction
This section details proposed traffic and transportation mitigation meas-

ures to eliminate significant project impacts. Each of the two analysis years
is examined separately -- 1997 and 2002 -- and mitigation measures are examined
for the proposed project's traffic, subway, bus, and pedestrian impacts.
Traffic Mitigation Measures
The traffic mitigation measures proposed·, if implemented, would reduce the

vic ratio at each significantly impacted location to its No Build value, where
possible. In a few cases, where No Build vic ratios are relatively low, Build
vic ratios with mitigation (which eliminates Significant traffic impacts) would
remain above predicted No Build levels after implementation of available, fea a
sible traffic mitigation measures. This conaition results from a variety of

constraining factors, as follows:
o Maintaining signal coordination on cross streets;
o Maintaining sufficient capacity on cross streets to avoid or mitigate

traffic impacu on that appro·ach;
Ensuring adequate pedestrian green time at intersection crossings;

and
o traffic conditions trade-offs between approaches because of concerns

regarding possible air quality i~pacts.
In general, mieigation can be achieved through a comb1naeion of physical

ana op~rational changes in the traffic system. The traffic mitigation plan for
IV-6
~he proposed project has four elements -- one physical improvement and three
operational changes. These are as follows.
Physical Improvements .Q££-Site
o Implementation of a West End Avenue Improvement Plan (WIP);
o Implementation of a 23rd Stree'C/Twelfth Avenue mit:igaeion plan;
Operational Improvements
o Change in street directions of 6lst and 64th ·Stree'Cs;
o Change in signal timing and hardware improvements; and
o Changes in pa,rking regulations.
Not all of these measures are required for both phases. The following
section describes the specific combination of improvements to be implemented
under each phase, and the effectiveness of these measures· in mitigating project
impacts in each Build year.
The developer is committed to funding all the proposed traffic mitigation J

measures, including such physical improvements as the WIP and 23rd Street/
Twelfth Avenue mitigation plans, and such operational meaSures as changes in
street direction, parking regulations, and signal timingjhardware.
West End Avenue Improvement .Plan (WIP)
West End Avenue south of 70th Street has a curb-to-curb width of 70 fe~t,
but is currently striped for four travel lanes plus parking. This is because
south of 62nd Street there is a 4-foot median in the middle of West End AVenue
(with a 33-foot travel way on either side of the median), while the curb-to-
curb width north of 70th Street is only 60 feet. It is proposed to restripe
West End Avenue for seven lO-foot lanes from 62nd Street.to 70th Street and to
remove the median from West End Avenue and repave and restripe the roadway
between 57th and 62nd Streets to provide seven lO-foot lanes (see Figure IV-I).
The center lane ~n this configuration would be a left-turn lane at each inter-
section (or major garage entrance) and the curb lanes would be for parking when
not needed for traffic flow. This proposed configuration would match the con-
figuration south of 57th Street, where the center (or seventh lane) has already
been added by NYCDOT. This WIP would be implemented by 1997.
Changing Stre.et .Directio.n .of. .6.1st and 64th .S.tre.ets
Currently, in the southern portion of the West End Avenue corridor, 58th,
60th, 6lst, and 65th Streets are eastbound one-way streets and 57th and 59th
Streets are two-way streets. There is limited westbound access in this area.
Traffic traveling from the east to land uses in the southern half of the proj-
ect site must use either 57th or 59th Street, resul'ting ill significant traffic
impacts on these streets. It is proposed to make 6Ist Street: one .. way westbound.
between Amsterdam and West End Avenues. This would reduce the projectis impact
on the 57th and 59th Street/West End Avenue intersections and. lower the number
of northbound. left .. turns from West End. Avenue into the project at 6lst and 64th
Streets.
IV-7
RINERSIDE
S -0 _=--u_- ;T~ H Typical Block --- West End Avenue
. Improvement Plan
Figure IV-l
1 1
~ISTING CURB
\
1 1
.1 1
- - - WEST 64th STREET
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
We:ST 63rd STREET
1 1
1 I II
I I II
o 2S . . !ill 75 1GOFEr
t . \ ) j I
SCALE
In addition to changing 6lst Street· to one-way wastbound, it is also pro-
posed to change 64th Street between West End Avenue and Amsterdam Avenue from
the current westbound to an eastbound street to match the eastbound configura-
tion of the on-site 64th Street. This change is mora for consistency of the
streat system, but there are also traffic benefits from the resultant lo~ering
of traffic at the Yest End Avenue/65th Street intersection. Both the 6Ist and
64th Street direction changes would be made in 2002.
Signal Timing and Hardware Improvements
At a number of locations, traffic signals ~ou1d be retimed to process

.project traffic more effectively. In addition, the mitigation plan would also
include upgrading selected intersection controllers Co provide time-date coor-
dination that could provide several different signal timing plans for different
peak hours. These would be implemented as needed in both 1997 and 2002.
Parking Regulations
The mitigation plan also recommends the elimination of parking where nec-
essary in selected peak hours in both 1997 and 2002. the parking elimination
varies from "daylighting" (a 75- to 100-foot parking restriction at an inter-
section approach), to elimination of standing on entire blockfaces. As the
proposed project's internal roadway plan would have curbside parking on most.
roadways, any parking removed for traffic mitigation purposes would be offset
by the new on-site supply created in this area.
Transit Bus Rerouting
. The bus transit mitigation discussion in this chapter calls for adjustment
of routes· to bring bus service directly into the proposed proj ect. the routes
to be changed are the M66 and M12, and these changes would all be made by 1997.
The mitigated traffic analysis reflects che changes in these. bus rouCings.
1997
The following sections provide the specific mitigation measures required

in each analysis year, and analyze the effectiVeness of these measures. Addi-
tional details on the vic calculations under mitigated conditions are provided
in AppendiX B.
Traffic Mitigation
For both the 1991 and 2002 analyst"s years, No Build, Build, and Build with
Mitigation vic ratios are sho~ at each intersection approach where development
of the project would significantly impact traffic conditions. Actions intended
to mitigate impacts at certain approachas can impact conditions on other ap-
proaches of the same intersection because of trade-offs required to improve the
overall efficiency of the intersection. those lOcations where the mitigation
measures have the potential for such impacts are noted B:nQ the analyses of all
approaches to the intersection have been provided to show thac the proposed·
mitigation measures do not result in significant impacts on other approaches.
1\1 .. 8
Phase I project-generated traffic· would result in significant traffic· imw
pacts at 25 intersection approaches in the study area during one or more peak
hours. Table IV-l shows the No Build, Build, and Build with Mitigation vic
ratios at each of these intersections. The specific improvement measures pro-
posed for 1997 are summarized in Table IV-2, along with each measure's impact
on the traffic oper.ation assumptions used in the vic analyses. With the imple-
mentation of the mitigation measures, all of the project's impacts in the proj-
ect study area would be mitigated. At locations where the vic ratio would be
greater than 0.85; the mitigation measures would reduce the vic ratio to less
than 0.85 or to the No Build levels or below. One significant impact would
remain in the extended study area, at Twelfth Avenue and 23rd Street, as dis-
cussed below.
A discussion of the specific mitigation measures proposed for each inter-

section and the resulting change in vic ratios at significantly impacted ap-
proaches follows. .
Twelfth AVenue at 56th Street
The project-generated demand plus diversion resulting from the closure of

the 72nd Street exit ramp would increase the vic ratio on the local lanes on
northbound Twelfth Avenue. This impact would be mitigated by transferring 6
seconds of green time from the triple-southbound left-turn to the northbound
direction during the AM peak period. The effect would be to reduce che Build
vic ratio from 0.888 to 0.802. 1
Twelfth Avenue at 55th Street
The impact on the southbound service lane at 55th Street would be miti-
gated by transferring 3 seconds of green time from the southbound through move- I
ment·to the service road in all periods to reduce the AM and PM peak hour Build
vic ratios from 0.902 to 0.791 and from 0.927 to 0.814, respectively. 1
Twelfth Avenue .at51st Street
The impact on southbound Twelfth Avenu~ can be mitigated by transferring

3 seconds of green time from 51st Street in the AM peak hour, thereby reducing
I
. the Build vic ratio from 0.869 to 0.847.
Riverside Drive. at 79th Street
The impact of project-generated traffic on the eastbound approach. during

the PM peak hour would be mitigated by transferring 6 seconds of green time
from the north-south direction to 79th Street. This would mitigate the impact \
and reduce the Build vic ratio from 0.894 to 0.787 during the· PM peak hour.
Wes.tEnd Avenue at 7.2nd .Rtre.et
A combination of signal timing, parking regulations, and rerouting of the

M72 bus would mitigate the impact at this location. Seven seconds of green
time would be added to the norch-south phase during the AM peak period, 4 sec-
onds during the midday peak perioa, 'and 6 seconds duting ehe PM peak period.
This would be accomplished by transferring 4 seconds from the leading pedes-
trian phases during all three time periods. and by transferring ~. seconds and
Table IV-I
1997 BO BUILD, BUILD, AND BUllJ) VITH MITIGATION VIC RATIOS
I 1
M M
1997 1997 P 1997 P
NO-BUILD BUILD DELTA A SUILD MIT DELTA A
STREET APPROACH TOD kAT 10 RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIOT
-----------------------~-----------------:-----------------------------~:-.------------------:
12TH AVE. NB @ 56TH ST. [LOCAL) AM 0.812 0.888 0.076 **: 0.802 -0.010
=================================;~=~====l========z=====================::=~============z=ii=:
12TH AVE.SB SERVICE RD. @ 55TH ST. AM 0.585 0.902 0.317 **: 0.791 0.206 :
PM 0.707 0.927 0.220 **: 0.814 0.107 :
==================================~======:==============================:~=~=================:
12TH AVE.SB @ 51ST AM 0.853 0.869 0.016 "* : 0.847 -0.006 I
I
=======================~==~~====~ ••• =====:===============~=::==========~I··c=================:

79TH ST. ED @ RIVERSIDE PM: 0.B36 0.894 0.058 **: 0.7B1 ~0.049 :
===============================~=:=:====a:=========.====================:===============~=s==l
WEST END SB @ 72ND ST. AM: 0.841 0.862 0.021 **: 0.684 -0.157
MD • : 0.853 0.895 0.042 **: 0.764 -0.OB9
PM 0.837 0.B69 0.032 **: 0.691 -0.146
-----------~-----------------------------:-------~------------~-~---~--~:-~------------------:
WEST END NB TH/RT @ 72ND ST. AM 0.921 1.083 0.162 ** : 0.913 -0.008
MD 0.904 0.958 0.054 ** : 0.B7B -0.026
PM 0.902 1.006" 0.104 ** : 0.BB5 -0.017
-----------------------------------------:------------------~~----------~--------------------~
72ND ST. WB @ WEST END PM: 0.98B 1.022 0.034 **: 0.982 -0.006 !
========================~==============:=:==============================l====================:
WEST END SB @ 65TH ST. AM: 0.927 0.972 0.045 **: 0.922 -0.005
=========================================!==============================l===============:====~
WEST END SB @ 64 ST. AM 0.93B 0.969 0.031 **: 0.B72 -0.066 :
----------~------------------------------:------------------------------:--------------------:
WEST END NB @ 64 ST. PM 0.789 0.946 0.157 **: 0.790' 0.001
=========================================l==============================:================~===:
WEST END SB @ 63 ST. AM 0.823 0.875 0.052 **: 0.843 0.020
===========================~=~=========~=:==============================:====================:
WEST END SB @ 61ST ST. AM 0.867 0.924 0.057 **: 0.B06 -0 ..061
========~==~==========~==~===============:==================~==========~:====================:
WEST END SB @ 60TH ST. ~1 0.B54 0.912 0.058 **: 0.781 -0.073
========================================~:==~========z==================:========:=========c=:
WEST END SB @59TH ST. AM 0.829 0.903 0.074 **: 0.795 -0.034
-------------------------~-------------.-:-
59TH ST. ED @ WEST END AM
..0.534
-----~-~~-----~~~--~-------.:--------.-----~~~~~~:
0.B59 0.325 *": 0.511 -0.023 :
===========~=============================:==========~===================l===============~=~==:
WEST END SB @ 57TH ST. AM : __ _____
_________________________________________ 0.946 •• _a 0.965 0.019 ** :
_______ __________
~ ~
0.B20 -0.126
:---------------~.~~.:
WEST END NB @ 57TH ST. PM 1.059 1.070. 0.011 1.024 -0.035 **:
~~ ===========~=~=================~~========:========:==5=~===~se======~===:==================~~~
11TH AVE.NB @ 56TH ST PM 0.916 0.926 0.010 **: 0.908 -0.008 :
===============================~~~~=.==.z:.~==================~=====~===:=c&=================:
AMSTERDAM NB @ BROADWAY/71ST ST. MD 0.B62 0.B74 0.012 **: 0.B42 -0.020
PM 1.074 1.0B5 0.011 *.: 1.045 -0.029
===============================5.Kj======I=========~====================l===============~~~~=:
BROADWAY SB @65TH ST./COLUMBUS AM 1.054 1.072 O.OlB **: 1.023 ~0.031
_____________________ ____ __ ______
~_~_~
PM :_________
~
0.917
~~
0.990
~M~_~_~ __.__________
0.013 **: 0.944
~:----~--- ___
~0.033
------~g_:
BROADWAY MB @ 65TH ST./COLliMliliS Me 0.B44 0.857 0.01] **: O.OlB ~0.026 :

PM 0.976 0.99B 0.022 **: 0.952 -0.024 :
===========================~=====.=c=====:=================~~::=====~==D:====================:
COLUMBUS SB @ 5'71H ST. AM 0.936 0.946 0.010 **: 0.919 -0.017 :
===============================~~:=.a== •• :&=====================~=======:=.==================:
65TH ST. ED @ CENTRAL PARK WEST AM 0.94B 0.973' 0.025 **: 0.901 -0.047
PM 0.971 0.992 0.021 **: 0.919 -0.052
=========================:==~==~===a===.=:=.a================~==~=======:====5==============~:
COL.CIRCLE SB TO a'WAY @ BTH AVE. AM: 0.936 0.94B 0.012 **: 0.916 -0.020 :
==~================~=:====~~== ••••• ======:==========:==~e~~=;===z=am===s:===============::~~::
57TH ST.WS @ 8TH AVE PH . 0.975 0.907 0.012 H: 0.952 -0.023 :
•• ~=========s•••• ~===============:==::~==:====~===~=====================1===========_:_======1
•• DENOTES IMPACTED LOCATION
IV-10
, Table IV-2
S'OIIIWlY 0" 1997 lIITlGATIOR IIUSUIlBS
RO~Inter&ec~ian _ Action [11 __ IfXH-t fa)
1. 12th Ave./S6eh NB +6 see. AM

Street SB/LT -6 sec. AM
2.
3.
12th Ave./55eh
Street
12th Ave./51st
12th Ave. S:8-3 sec.
55th St. +3 sec.
12th Ave. SI +3 sec. AM

\
Street 51st St. -3 sec. AM
Riverside Drive/ Riverside Dr. -6 sec., PM

79th Street 79th St. +6 sec., PM
S. West End Ave./ West End NB Thru +7 sec. AM,

72nd Streee '+4 sec. MD, +6 sec. PM
72nd St. ~3 sec. AM,
-2 sec. PM
Leading ped. phases -4 seC.
72nd St. NS WB(4-7PM) EML from 2.00 to 2.25
72nd St. NS EB (any time) EB RT factor - 1.00
6. West End/65th YIP
Street NB/SH +1 sec
EB,lWB -1 seO.
7. West End/64th WIP, NB Lt factor - 1.00

Street West End +5 sec
64th St. -5 sec.
8. West End/63rd WIP NB LT factor 1.00

Street West End +2 sec.
63rd St. -2 sec.
9. West End/61st WIP NB LT factor a 1.00

Street West End SB, NS (7-10AM) EML from 2.0 to 2.25
10. West Etut/60eh WIP SB loT factor - 1.00
Street West End SB, NS (7~10AM) EMt from 2 to 2.25
n. West End/59th WIP NB&5B LT Factors - 1
Street West End sa; NS (7-10AM) EML 2.0 to 2.25
59th St. EB striped for 2 OCt. 1. 0 to 1.';
lanes
West End Ave. -3 sec.
j
S9 St.; +3 seo.
IV-II
Table IV~·2 (COntinued)
SUlDlAB.Y OF 1997 lIl'tlGATIOR JIKAS1JIlES
N~~ Intersection Ac;:tiOn 1.1 J Efiec~ 12 J
12. West End/57&h WIP SB LT factor - 1.00

Street West End SB; NS (7-10AM) EML 2 to 2.25
West End +2 sec.
57th St. -2 sec.
57th St. WB NS, (4-ipM) WB RT factor - 1.00
13. 11th Ave./56th Ye.st End PM +1 sec. Time/Date Coordinator

Street 56th St. PM -1 sec.
14. Broadway/Amster & Amsterdam Ave. +1 sec.

dam/71st Street 71st Street -1 sec.
15. Broadway/Colum- Broadway +1 sec.;

bus/65th Streee 65th St. -1 sec.,
16. Columbus Ave./ 57th St. WB/LT -2 sec.

57th Street Columbus +1 sec.
57th St. EB +1 sec.
11. Central Park CPW SB/Lt~2 sec.

West/65th Street 65th Street +2 sec.
18. Broadway SB/ Broadway +1 sec. AM

8th Avenue 8th Ave. -1 sac. AM
19 8th·Ave./S7th 8th Ave. -1 sec.

St:rest 57t:h St: . +1 sec. ,
[1] SB - westbound; NB = northbound, SB - southbound, ED - eastbound

WIP - West End Improvement Plan, NS - No Standing
[2l RT E right turn factor; EML - effective moving lafie.
IV-12
2 seconds from the east-west approaches during the AM and PM peak hours,' re-
spectively. Even after mitigation, pedestrian crossing times would be ample
for these 60-foot-wide crossings, with 36 seconds available for the south
crosswalk, 36 seconds available for the north crosswalk, 32 seconds available
for the east crosswalk, and 32 seconds available for the west crosswalk. A no-
standing (any time) regulation ~ould be implemented on the 72nd eastbound ap-
l
proach from Riverside Drive to West End Avenue. In addition, a no-standing 4-7
PM regulation would be implemented on the westbound approach for a distance of
100 feet from the intersection. The effect of these mitigation measures would
be to reduce the Build vic ratios on the southbound approach.from 0.862 to
0.684, from 0.895 to 0.764 and from 0.869 to 0.691 during the AM, mid4ay, and
PM peak hours, respectively, and the northbound through/right movement's Build .
vIc ratios would be reduced from 1.083 to 0.913, 0.958 to 0.878, and 1.006 to
0.885 during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. The vic ratio of
the westbound approach' would be reduced from 1.022 to 0.982 during the PM peak
hour. These measures would mitigate project impacts at this intersection.
West End Avenue at 65th .Street
The implementation of the WIP and the transfer of 1 second of green time
from the east-west to north-south movement would mitigate the project's impacts
by reducing the southbound Build vIc ratio from 0.972 to 0.922 during the AM J
peak hour.
West End Avenueat6.4th Street
With the construction of the ne~ 64th Street, signal'timings at this in-
tersection would be revised. Five seconds of green would be transferred from
64th Street to West End Avenue during all time periods and, in conjunction with
the WIP, Build vic ratios on the southbound approach would be reduced f:tom
0.969 to 0.872 during the AM peak hour, and on the northbound approach from
0.946 to 0.790 during the PM.peak hour. these measures ~ould miUgate project
l
impacts at this intersection.
West End Ayenue at 63rd Street
The project's impact during the AM peak period at this location would be
mitigated by the WIP and the transfer of 2 seconds of green time from the east-
west to the north-south approaches. This would reduce the AM Build vic ratio 1
from 0.875 to 0.843.
The construction. of the WIP plus the installation of no standing 7-10 AM

. southbound from 62nd to 57th Streets (to match the regulation' south of 57th
Street) would mitigate the project's AM impact and' reduce the Build vIc ratios
from 0.912 to 0.781 at 60th Street and 0.924 to 0.806 at 61st Street.
We~t. End. Av:enue at 59th Str.e.et
In addition to the Wlf ana the southbound fio~standing regulations on West

End Avenue, it is proposed to restrtpe the 59th Street eastbound approach with~
in 150 feet of the intersection to provide two 10~foot approach lanes (one as a
left-turn lane and one as a through/right-turn lane) and implement-no standing
curbside regulatio~s near this approach, and the transfer of 3 seconds green
time from West End Avenue to 59th Street. These measures ~ould mitigate the
project's AM impact by reducing the Build vic ratios southbound from 0.903 eo ,-
0.795 -and eastbound from 0.859 td 0.511. -
\Jest End Avenue at 57th Street
The WIP plus the southbound no-standing 7-10 AM regulations, when combined
with the transfer of 2 second of green time from the east-~est to the north-
south approaches and the installation of no-standing 4-7 PM curbside regula-
tions on westbound 57th Street, would fully mitigate the project's AM and PM
impacts at this location. The Build vic ratios on the southbound approach
~ould be reduced from 0.965 to 0.820 during the AM peak hour, and on the noreh-
bound approach would be reduced from 1.070 to 1.024 during the PM peak hour. \
Eleventh Avenue at 56th .Street
The proposed project's impact on the northbound approach during the PM

peak hour would be mitigated by th~ transfer of 1 second of green time from
56eh Street to \Jest End Avenue, thereby reducing ehe Build vic ratio from 0.926
to 0.908. -I
Amsterdam Avenue at 7lstStreet
The proposed proJect's-midday and PM impacts at this location ~ould be

mitigated by transferring 1 seconq of green time from the east-west phase to
the Amsterdam Avenue phase during all three peak periods, thereby reducing the
Build vic ratios from 0.874 to 0.842 and 1.085 to 1.045 during the midday and
PM peak hours, respectively.
Columbus Avenue .at Broadway/65th street
The proposed project's impacts on Broadway would be mitigated by the

transfer of 1 second of green time from the 65th Street phase to the Broadway
phase during all time periods. This ~ould reduce the Build vic ratios ort
southbound Broadway from 1.072 to 1.023 and 0.990 to 0.944 during the AM and PM \
peak hours, respectively, and on northbound Broadway from 0.857 to 0.B18 and
0.998 to 0.952 during the midday and PM peak hours, respeceively.
Columbus Avenue at _S7thStreet
Modifying the signal timing by reducing the westbound left turn phase by
2 secQnds, and transferring 1 secortd to the -eastbound and 1 second to the
southbound phases ~ould reduce the Build vic ratio on Columbus Avenue from
0.946 to 0.919 during AM peak hour. This would completely mitig-ate all projec't
impacts at this location.
CentralP-ark West at .65th .S.treet
Reducing the southbound left-turn phase by 2 seconds and transferring this

green time to the 65th Street approach would reduce the Build vic ratio from
0.973 to 0.901 and from 0.992 to 0.919 during the AM and PM peak hours, raspec- \
tively, thereby mitigating the project impacts at this location,
1V-14
Broadway at Eighth Avenue
The AM impact at this location can be mitigated by transferring 1 second

of green time from Eighth Avenue to Broadway during ~his period, thereby reduc·
ing the southbound vic ratio from 0.948 to 0.916.
Eighth Avenue and 57th Street
The transfer of 1 second of green from Eighth Avenue to 57th Street during
all three peak periods would mitigate the project's impact and reduce the Build
vic ratio from 0.987 to 0.952 on the westbound 57th Street approach during the
PM peak hour.
Traffic Mitigation in .the .Extended TrafficStudx Area
As presented in section II.J under "Probable Impacts of the Proposed Proj-

ect," in 1997., project·generated traffic would result in significant traffic
impacts at four principal intersections (i.e., five intersection approaches)
along the Twelfth AvenuejWest Street corridor in the extended study area.' In
addition, the proposed project would have a significant impact at intermediate
intersections. The same types of mitigation measures for the principal inter
sections would mitigate project impacts at. these intermediate intersections.
With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the project's impacts in
the extended study area would be mitigated at all locations, as discussed
below.
As shown in Tables IV-3 and IV-4, signal timing and control changes would
eliminate the project impacts at all locations except on the southbound 'ap-
proach at 23rd Street during the AM peak hour, where the impact could only be
mitigated by physical improvements that would increase roadway capacity at this
location. The 23rd Street location is actually a network of three intersec~
tions: 1) 23rd Street at Twelfth Avenue, 2) 23rd Street at Eleventh Avenue, and
3) Eleventh Avenue at Twelfth Avenue. Mitigation changes to one intersection
typically would affect all intersections.
Impacts at this location can be mitigated by providi'ng three southbound

lanes, which could be accomplished by eliminating the southbound and northbound
left-turn lanes at 23rd Street and by adjusting the median barrier (moving it
to the east) to maximize the available southbound roadway space without affect-
ing t~e two northbound lanes. There would be three southbound lanes on Twelfth
Avenue beginning at 26th Street and ending at a southbound left-turn at 16th
Street (an overhead gantry would be needed to indicate the.left-turn-only na-
ture of the lane south of the critical Eleventh Avenue/Twelfth Avenue interseca
tion). The 16th Street terminus for the southbound lane is appropriate because
of traffic calming measures planned by NYCDOT in its West Chelsea Traf~ic
Study. These measures would make 18th Street one-way westbound between Tenth
and Twelfth Avenues, thereby eliminating the southbound left-turn from Twelfth
Avenue. In the event that these traffic calming measures are delayed or not
implemented, the proposed mitigation would eliminate the southbound left turn
at 18th Street. In addition, providing the three southbound lanes on Twelfth
Avenue in this segment permits Eleventh Avenue southbound between·23rd Street
and Twelfth Avenue to be re-seriped for three lanes instead of the .present two
lanes. As demonstrated in Table IV-3, the proposed lane configtira~ign would
eliminate the projectis traffic impacts at these intersections in 1997.
tV,,15
Table IV-3'
1997 EXTENDED AREA HITlGATION VIC RATIOS
I I
1997 LOCATIONS H H
:z=========:z=:z= 1997 1997 DELTA P 1997 DELTA P
NOBUILO BUILD vIC A BUILD MIT vIC A
PEAK vIC vIC RATIO C vIC RATIO C
STREET APPROACH TOO RATIO RATIO (1) T RATIO (2) T
===========aa========================================================I======~=============~==~=I
12TH AVE. SB THRU @42ND ST. AM 0.840 0.861 0.021 ** 0.850 0.010
=====a==========z=============================================~====~= ~5=======.~.=============
12TH AVE. NB @ 34TH ST. . MD 0.921 0.939 0.018 ** 0.880 -0.041
PH 1.044 1.071 0.027 ** 0.968 . -0.076
====~.=a====a=============~==================Z==K::==~.===========a_ •••~===•••=.============
12TH AVE. NB @23RO ST. PH 0.983 1.005 0.022 ** 0.965 =0.018
12TH AVE. SB @23RD ST. AM 0.842 0.862 0.020 ** 0.562 =0.280
12TH AVE; NB @11TH AVE. PH 0.972 0.994 0.022 ** 0.910 -0.002
IV-16
Table.rv-4
1997 EXTENDED AREA lIITICATION IlEASURES
Int.ers.ection Action.
Twelfth Avenue/42nd S~reet NB LT -l.S seconds AM
SB TH +l.S seconds AM
ISO-second cycle in PM
2. Twelf~h Avenue/34th Stree~ ISO-second cycle in PM
NB +3.S seconds in MD
WB -3.S seconds in MD
3. Twelfth Avenue/23rd Street ISO-second cycle in PM
SB LT prohibited (add ~hrough
lane)
4. Twelfth Avenue/Ele~efith Avenue ISO-second cycle in PM
Eleventh Avenue/23rd St:reet:
SB LT add one lane
SB +2 seconds
EB/WB -2 seconds
Suhway Service Mitigation
Project-generated subway trips would result in significant :impacts at four

of the 72nd Street IRT station's· platform stairs in 1997 (north do~toWn plat-
form stair PS/P7 and south doWntown platform stair Pl/P3 during the AM peak
hour, and center uptown platform stair P6 and south uptown platform stair P4
during the PM peak hour). In addition, the project would add passengers to the
station's already crowded southbound platform. All four of the impacted stair-
ways are currently operating at LOS F arid are severely congested. Both with
·and without the proposed project in the future, if no improvements are made, .
they would continue to operate at LOS F and be severely congeste.d. With the·
addition of project-generated sub~ay riders, between 1.~ and 2.4 inches of
stair widening would be required to fully mitigate the project impacts. This
would constitute a significant impact (see the discussion of subway impacts in
section lI.J).
Two meaSures modification to the existing stairways, and providing a

new station entrance at the S9th Street subway s~ation -- have been ·examined to
try to mitigate project impacts at this station. These measures are described
below.
Modific.at.ion to the .Existing Stair.w.ay.s
Because of the location of the 72nd Street subway entrance and its land-
mark status, it is not physically possible to expand the width of the existing
stairway openings.
P.ro...v.i.ding a ...Naw...B.tation .Enttance
While project impacts cannot be mitigated by modifying ~he existing stair-

ways, it is feasible to mitigate prgjeG~ impacts and significantly improve con-
ditions at ~his station by providing the mitigation pian, which inclUdes a new
1'1,,17
station entrance and the associated improvement package, described below. The
developer proposes to commit $5 million for this measure, with the city and MTA
funding the remainder. There is no comm~tment by the city and MTA regarding
I
any contributions by these en~ities to fund this mitigation at this time. In
the absence of this mitigation, there would be significant" unmitigated maSs
transit impacts.
New Station Entrance. A new station entrance or "headhouse" would be

created on the north side of 72nd Street by expanding the median of Broadway.
The location and design of this structure are shown in Figures IV-2 to IV-4.
The new headhouse would include a control booth and set of turnstiles at its
northern end, from which passengers could access either" the southbound or
northbound platform.
New Stairways. The new headhouse would include two new stairways (PlO and
Pll, each 5 feet 8 inch~s wide) leading from the' new mezzanine to the south-
·bound platform, and one 8-foot stairway (P12) leading to the northbound plat-
form. These would substantially expand the stairway capacity of the existing
station.
Pedestrian Mall. To enable the stairways to reach the platforms, the new
station would occupy approximately 18 feet of northbound Broadway between "72nd
and 73rd Streets, leaving 22 feet to handle traffic. this portion of Broadway
is very lightly used (existing volumes are 66, 78, and 47 vehicles per hour in
the AM, midday, and PM peaks, respectively), as primarily buses on northbound
Broadway and Amsterdam" Avenue can access this section, and turning restrictions
on "72nd Street further limit traffic.
Given these factors, the plan proposes that northbound Broadway be closed
to traffic between 72nd and 73rd Streets, creating a pedestrian mall area that
would extend to the current sidewalks adjacent to Verdi Park. Local buses (the
Ml04 route) would be re-routed onto Amsterdam Avenue and West 73rd Street, with
the existing Ml04 bus stop relocated north of 73rd Street. The pedestrian mall
would include kiosks providing bus and subway service information, special pav-
ing blocks to demarcate it as a mall area, and plantings and benches north and
east of the station to enhance the attractiveness of that location. The minor
amount of non-bus traffic that uses this section of Broadway would be diverted
to Amsterdam Avenue and 73rd Street, where vehicles are provided with a free
right turn onto nort~bound Broadway.
Broadway southbound would be narrowed from 40 to approximately 38 feet,

which would include the taking of a maximum of 4 feet of sidewalk space (from
24 feet existing width to a minimum of 20 feet future width) from the portions
of the western Broadway -- sidewalk between 72nd and 73rd Streets opposite the
new headhouse. As roughly 50 percent of the "demand at the existing headhouse
is en route to/from the north, the diversion of these trips to the" new head-
house would substantially reduce pedestrian flows through the 72nd Street/
Broadway intersection. It is therefore anticipated that the small reduction in
sidewalk width on the west side of Broadway would not substantially affect
pedestrian conditions at that location. With the proposed headhouse in place,
southbound Broadway would still have three southbound lanes, one of which would
be available for parkins in all periods, with no resulting change in vIc
levels. "
IV-1S
RIVERSIDE
s <> ~cu T H 72nd Street/Broadway IRT Station Mitigation
Street Level Plan
Figure IV-2
/ ;' .!
/ ,' I ' ;,
, .........: .j
I,' I>-
..... I I
,. 1
'" I 'a
......... ......... I,'..
.
Jt!.
. ;ft,
.
---
~'I .
....
........ , .........
" '\ /
\ /
) /
I \
I
I
I ~ liiDJ )
I L
~
/
I ra l / .
/ ..........
"'-
.........
f
I
- ___ ~.w
liD
I / -...... .
I , '/ /
, I
I ,;1 /
I 1:
;1 I I
/
- ___I--
o 20 40._.... ~.
Fwt
i·'
l
I
I I
I i::t
.~
/
I i;
OJ /
I :--.
/ -z.",
l /
'I .,
N'
:s'
I
\- --- --- --- --- --- ---
..'".
e.
II
'
,
=.
........
m
a,
l
:e
"aDa
&,",<
tt;;
Z
CDI ~ -t
~:
3 ~
1"1:\
a. .....
:iDa
g,. . . tG
-
O CD It ....
o :::a -.
Iii I' -is
I 0
Z:s
8
8
End of Platform
~ .
Outside Face of New Sidewall Structure
-_~'" ..3:....
."
C!Q
cDJf.a
r-r ••
t .., - Da
~~, ~
a < ,,<,DJ, :s0
~ II
Ww.
",'2
Outline 0' Proposed Kiosk Structure

r· - - - · - -----------il'
~--------------l'
tI . . III
,·1 III
i I Control
Area
w. 72nd SI. Sidewalk
JIIlatform
nack
_ _Feel
II·
-
5i 10' (5
72nd Street/Broadway IRT Station Mitigation

S:ectlon Through New Stairways t~ Southbound Platform
lFigure IV-4
Revised Platform Configuration. The new stairway (P12 in Figure IV-2) to
be added at the northern end of the uptown platform would result in no effec-
tive loss of platform space. However, to provide adequate clearance space for
work crews to walk past these new stairs, the local track and 226 feet of the
adjacent eastern wall would be relocated to the east to allow the platform to
be widened at that location. On the southbound platform, the platform would be
extended one subway car length (51 feet) to the north, with an equivalent
length removed from the platform's southern end to maintain its overall 525-
foot length. The overall redesign of the platform, including the new stair-
ways, would increase the amount of available platform space by approximately
3 percent.
As noted in section II.J, the 72nd Street station headhouse is a New York
City Landmark. The landmarked elements of the station include the white glazed
tiles, continuous mosaic borders, and 14 mosaic panels located along the wall
adjacent to the two local tracks. The reconstruction of 226 feet of the east-
ern wall as required under this ·mitigation plan would result in the demolition
of the tiled sidewall and two of that wall's seVen mosaics. When similar wall
reconstruction plans were envisioned in connection with earlier plans for this
station, a variety of mitigation schemes were considered by the Landmarks Pres~
ervation Commission (LPC) , including re-use of the existing tiles and/or mosa-
ics where possible, and/or the use of suitable replacement tiles and reproduc-
tions of the mosaics. After the final station designs for the mitigation plan
are completed, these same types of options would be discussed with the LPC,
which must grant the final approval for any changes to these station elements.
Impacts on Station Operations.
Stairway Operation: Under the proposed station expansion, there would be

a combined total of 13.4 feet of effective stairway width on four stairways
leading to and from the downtown platform -- 5.5 feet at the existing station's
two stairways and 7.9 feet at the proposed two additional stairways. Effective
width on the uptown platform stairways would increase to 14.0 feet -- 8.2 feet
at the existing station and 5.8 feet at the proposed new stairway. The pro-
posed new headhouse entrance would have more than half of the stairway capacity'
of the combined new station. Surveys performed at the station indicate that
passengers arriving at the station are currently evenly distributed from the
north and south, while those added by the project would arrive from south of
72nd Street. This analysis. assumed that 50 percent of the future Build peak
hour passengers would shift to the new headhouse. However, due to the fact
that the proposed uptown stair (P12) would be an end stairway, with three
stairways located south of it, it is projected that approximately 60 percent of
the northbound passengers would use the existing three stairs to the south of
that stairwaY, while 40 percent would use the new stair.
Based on these projections, the reSUlting passenger assignments would

subst~ntially lessen congestion on the existing stairways, as shown in Table
IV-S. While volumes on stairways Pl/P3, and P5/P7 in the AM peak and stairways
P4 and. P6 in the PM peak would. still exceed individual stairway capacity, all
vic ratios and LOS conditions would be substantially improved relative to No
Build condHions. Occasional spillbacks onto platforms and/oJ:" mezzanines would
still occur; though less frequently and of shorter duration than under eurrent
conditions.
1\7-19
Table IV-5
l2ND STREET IB.T STATION. 1997 BUILD WITH JIITIGATION CONDITIONS
Effective No-Build Build Bld w/Mit Build 1997 1997 1997

FaciHtlt Peak Width (1) Capacity Pk 5 Min. Pk. 5 Min. Pk. 5 Min. w/Mit No Build Build Bld w/Mit
1'kI,. Location Period (Feet) (PPM)(2) Volume Volume Volume PFM(2) VIC LOS VIC LOS viC LOS
-------- --------- -------- --------- ------~--- ---------- ------ ----- --- ----- --- ----- ---
P5/P7 North Downtown AM 2.74 27 274 291 154 11.25 2.00 F 2.13 F* 1.13 0
P'latfonn Stair PM 2.74 27 1:42 1:59 88 6.43 1.04 0 1.16 0 0.64 B
Pl/P3 South Downtown AM 2.74 27 298 315 166 12.12 2.18 F 2.30 F* 1.21 0
P'latfonn Stair PM 2.74 27 1:18 1:35 76 5.57 0.86 C 0.99 C 0.56 B
PBJ~9· North Uptown AM 2.• 74 27 74 Bill 50 3.65 0.54 B 0.59 B 0.36 A
P'lat.forrn Sta i I" PM 2.• 74 27 157 ° 1;66 103 7.51 1. 14. D 1.21 D 0.75 C
P6i Center Uptown AM 2... 74 27 128 141 89 6.53 0.93 C 1.03 D 0.65 8
po]atfonn Stair PM 2.• 74 27 239 256 160 11 •. 71 1.75 F 1.87 F* l.17 0
IH
<:
, P4 S/Duth Uptown AM 2.• 74 27 132 145 91 6;64 0.96 C 1.06 D 0.66 B
to.:! Pllatfonn Stair PM 2.74 27 266 283 176 12.88 1.94 F 2.07 F* 1.29 0
o·
P1:0 New Entry Kiosk AM' 3.94 39 0 III 1143 7.26 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.73 C
SOuth Downtown PM 3.94 39 0 Q 65 3.31 n/a nla n/a nla ° 0.33 A
Pl:atfonn Stair
Pll New Entry Kiosk AM 3.94 39 0 0 1143 7.26 nla n/a nla n/a 0.73 C
North Downtown PM 3.94 39 0 0 65 3.31 n/a n/a nla n/a 0.33 A
P'1atfonn Stair
P12: New Entry Kiosk AM 5.80 58 0 0 135 4.67 nla n/a nla n/a 0.47 A
IJIptown Platform PM 5.80 58 0 0 265 9.14 nla n/a nla n/a 0.91 C
Stair
R'- Uptown Entrance
16i1A (7 two-way AM n/a 224 335 367 231 nla 0.30 A 0.33 A 0.21 A
tliJl"mstHes) PM n/a 224 660 703 438 nla 0.59 A 0.63 B 0.39 A
161 (5 two-walt AM n/a 160 573 606 320 nla 0.72 C 0.76 C 0.40 A
tturnst1'les) PM n/a 160 259 293 163 n/a 0.32 A 0.37 A 0.20 A
----------- --------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- ------ ----- --- ----- --- ----- ---
1\1U!1'tipUed by a factor of 0.8 to account for reverse flows.
(2}1 Stair capacity based on NVCTA guidelines of 10 PFM.
PFH, & Persons Per Foot Width of Stairway Per Minute.
PPM, = Persons Per Minute.
* Denotes a significant impact.
Mezzanine-Control Area: The approximately 50 percent reduction in passen-
ger' volumes in the existing control area would substantially lower passenger
crowding in that area, with resulting LOS levels well below existing
conditions.
The proposed creation of the new headhouse north of 72nd Street would
reduce passenger volumes ~y approximately 50 percent in the existing control
area. This would further improve the already satisfactory operation of this
area when compared with No Build and existing conditions. The new control area
would be sufficiently large to operate well within LOS C/D design conditions
under peak 5-minute conditions.
Impact of Station 1mprovements on Platform Crowding: As not~d in the

analyses in section II.J, platform crowding is most serious on the southbound
platform in the AM peak. Crowding analyses were performed under a "one missed
headway" scenario (no trains for seven minutes) under the following two
procedures:
o Percent of Available Capacity: The percent of additional walking-

waiting activity that an area could absorb before operating at an
average of LOS D conditions through the seven-minute analysis period.
o "Snapshot" LOS conditions at the end of the seven-minute analysis

period: Based on the square feet per person (SF/P) in each zone juse
prior to the arrival of the next train.
Under 1997 No Build conditions, each of the 10 zones under the existing
station plan would have available capacity under the seven-minute "missed head-
way" analyses used to assess platform crowding -- i.e., the average passenger
would still be walking and waiting in LOS C conditions. However, at the very
end of the seven-minute period (the'"snapshot" assessment of conditions), pas-
sengers waiting in three subzones would experience LOS D conditions. With
Phase I of the project in place~ there would still be available capacitY'in all
zones to maintain average LOS C conditions during the delay period, with the
number of zones at LOS D at the end of that period under the snapshot assess-
ment remaining at three, with zone 4 operating at the LOSC/D threshold.
Under existing conditions, only one set of stairs located in the southern
half of 'the platform is available for passengers entering and leaving the
southbound trains. The proposed 73rd Street headhouse plan, by effectively
moving the platform one zone to the north and 'adding two additiona~ stairs,
provides for a better distribution of arriving passengers along the platform
while providing more locations for departing passengers to exit from the plat-
form. Figure IV-5 provides a graphic comparison of'distribution of passengers
in the platform's subzones on the southbound platform in the 'AM peak under the
current station plan and the projected distribution under the 73rd Street head-
house' plan. The reVised distribueion reflects a more eVen distribution of
passengers than under the current plan, with greater use of the end zOnes. The
reassignment of In, Out, and Waiting passengers was based on ehe existing pae-
terns observed ae ehe statign and gn the change in the location and number of
stairways under the revised plan.
IV-21
4~92
~~
Existing
73rd St
Distribution of Waiting Passeng,ers

Existing vs. 73rd Street Mitigation Plan
lFigure IV-5
Table IV-6 presents the results of these analyses for 1997 Build with
mitigation conditions. The percentage of available capacity on the overall
platform would be 47 percent (the same as under 1997 No Build conditions), with
all zones still having available capacity. In the snapshot analysis, six ~f
these zones would operate at LOS C while one (zone 5) would operate at LOS D at
the last instant of the seven-minute analysis period. This compares with five
and three zones operating at LOS C and LOS. D, respectively, under the snapshot
analysis for 1997 No Build conditions.
As these data indicate, the proposed mitigation would result in an im-

provement in overall platform operations, with fewer zones operating under
LOS D conditions. It must be noted that the projections shown for crowding are
based on conditions in a peak seven-minute period within the peak hour, with.
full occupancy of the project and all land uses generating trips at their high-
est annual levels. Average crowding conditions in any given peak hour would be
noticeably less.
Imnacts on Vehicular Traffic During Construction. Northbound Broadway

between 72nd and 73rd Streets would be closed at the start of construction and
would remain closed to all bu~ buses to create a transit mall in that location.
The minor amounts of non-bus traffic that formerly turned onto northbound
Broadway would be diverted onto Amsterdam Avenue, from which drivers would turn
left onto 73rd Street to connect·with northbound Broadway. All intersection
app~oaches affected by this diversion, which would remain· after the station
construction was completed, would have adequate capacity to handle the addi-
tional traffic. Southbound Broadway lanes would be restricted from three to
two moving lanes during the construction of portions of the new headhouse and
realignment of the curbs. These restricted lane conditions would last approxi-
mately six to nine months; Work on the new stationhouse would also involve the
northern half of 72nd Street between Amsterdam Avenue and Broadway for approxi-
mately six to nine months. During that period, two lanes of traffic would be
mai.ntained in each direction.
The mitigation plan described above would both mitigate project impacts
and alleviate the congested conditions that currently exist and are projected
·to exist at this station in the future, both with and without the proposed
project. At this time, the estimated cost of this plan, assuming that it is ~
constructed by NYeTA, is $25,000,000 at the midpoint of construction. The
developer proposes to commit $5 million for the mitigation plan, with the city
and the MTA funding the remainder. The developer's commitment is greater than
the proposed project's share of the impact on the 72nd ·Street station. Approx-
imately 6 to 7 percent of the future 1997 volumes entering and exiting the sta-
tion in the peak direction in the peak hour would be Riverside Soueh trips, and
therefore the fair share allocation for the project should be 6 to 7 percent of
improvement costs, as compared with the estimated 20 percent share committed to
by the developer .. However, becaUSe of the unique substandard conditions at
this station, where ehe only remedy for che historically eOfigescea conditions
is the Gonstruccion of the new headhouse, should ehe ciey and MIA not commie to
chair share of the mitigation plan, there would be an unmitigated significant
impaot.
1\'-22
Table ZV-6
_ 721m S'l'llEET mT STATIO.. SOllTBBOmm PLATP'OllH

1997 BUILD vrm xrttGATIOlll CORDITIOBS j All PUIC HOft
1997 NO BUILD CONOITIONS 1997 BulbD CONOITIONS 1997 BUILO WITH MITIGATION
"Snapshotif "Snapshot if "Snapshoti '
Assessment Assessment AssesSinent
PerCent of after '7 Mtn. Pel"cent of after '7 Min.
_ _ _ _ _ _. . iii~_ ... _
Percent of after 1 Min. ~_
_ _ _ ..,;_iii _ _ _ _
'7 Minute T-5 ------------ 7 Minute T-S 1 Minute T-S

Zone Ava'i1ab1a SF/Per i.O-S Avaiiable
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ iiiiili
SF/Pel" !.OS Avaiiable
_ _ _ iii;;;;;; _ _ _ _ _ _ _
SF/Pel" LOS
1
------------
60% 9.8 C 58% 9.3 C 54% 8.4 C
2 50% 8.4 C 48% 8.0 C 51% 8.7 C
3 42% 7.9 C 39% 7.5 C 44% 8.7 C
4 42% 7.4 C 39% 7.0 C/D 44% 7.6 C
5 30% 6.8 0 27% 6.5 0 14% 5.7 0
6 19% 6.5 0 15% 6.2 0 35% 7.5 C
7 30% 6.8 0 26% 6.4 0 40% 7.3 C
8 49% 9.0 C 47% 8.6 C 55% 11.3 B
9 66% 12.6 B 65% 12.0 B 59% 10.4 "S
10 82% 22.0 A 81% 20.8 A 67% 12.0 8
Platform
"Total: 47%
_iii_iii ________________ 'S.7
~_~ ___ ~_a_~~_______________________
C 44% 8.2
iii _ _ _ ~
C 47% "S.S
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ iii _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
C
iii_~_
Note: Zones are rev'ised under m1tigated coriait1an aUe to the extensiOn of tne-seuthbound p'atform
to the north by iipproiii'imate'l SO feet.
IV-23
'r:
Bus Service Mitigatfon
It is anticipated that the proposed project would have a significant im-

pact on five local bus routes (i.e., the M5, and M57 during the AM peak hour,
the MIl and M66 during the PM peak hour, and the M104 during both the AM and PM
peak hours). To provide enough capacity to service projected demand, three
buses would need to be added to the MS route, one bus to the M51 route, and tWg
buses to the M104 route during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the
Mll and M66 routes would each require two additional buses, while the MI04
route would require the addition of a single peak hour bus.
As standard practice, the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) routine-
.1y conducts ridership counts and adjusts bus service frequency, within operat~
ing and fiscal constraints, to meet its service criteria. Therefore, no
project-sponsored mitigation would be needed, nor provided to address these
impacts.
However, to improve bus transit access to the proposed project, several

existing NYCTA bus routes would be adjusted to bring bus service directly into
the project site. The routes to b~ changed are the M66 and M72, and these
changes would all be made by 1997. The M66 and M72 routes currently have their
turn-around loops near the western periphery gf the project site. The proposed
route adjustments would provide direct access to the proposed project by relo-
cating these turn-around points to within the project site itself. The follow~
ing describe the chan~es that would be made to each route.
M66 Route
This crosstown route currently uses 65th Street eastbound and 66th Street
westbound, with West End Avenue as its turn-around link. The proposed change
would extend the route onto the project site, substituting Riverside Drive
between 64th and 66th Streets as the turn-around link., Eastbound buses would
travel between 64th Street and their original 65th Street route via West End
Avenue. The proposed rerouting would leave existing off-site M66 service rela-
tively unchanged, while providing bus service to the project site on Riverside
Drive between 64th And 66th Streets. The route's length would increase by
approximately 1,700 feet.
Within the study area, this crosstown route currently travels east-west on
72nd Street, accessing its turn-around loop on Freedom Place via West End Ave-
nue. The proposed change would extend the westbound portion of the route from
West End Avenue to Riverside Drive. The buses would then travel south on
Riverside Drive through ~he project site before turning east onto 66th Street
and then nor-ch onto West End Avenue to 72rid Street. The proposed rerouting
would remove M72 service from Freedom Place and from 70~h Street between West
End Avenue and Freedom Place. It would provide bus service ~o the project: si-ce
on Rivers.ide Drive between 66-cn and 12nd Streets. the route's length would be
increased by approximately 1;200 feet.
IV-24
As nDted abDve, the M66 and M72 bus· rDUtes wDu1d be rerDuted DntD the site
as part Df the mitigatiDn fDr the prDpDsed prDject. The proximity Df these bUB
services to. the prDject site wDuld increase their attractivenes~ as a mDde
chDice fDr prDject-generated erips. It is likely that there wDu1d be SDme
diversiDn from other mDdes, with,taxis as the mDst prDbable SDurCe Df diverted
trips. HDwever, the analysis Df Build with mitigatiDn traffic cDnditiDns dDes
nDt take into. aCCDunt these diverted trips and should therefDre be considered
cDnservative in this regard.
Pedestrian Mitigation
FDr 1997 Build cDnditiDns, prDject-generated pedestrian demand, primarily

en rDute to. and frDm the 72nd Street IRT statiDn, WDu1d result in a significant
pedestrian impact during the AM peak hDur at the sDuthwest CDrner Df the 72nd
Street/BrDadway intersectiDn. This CDrner wDuld Dperate at LOS D, with 17.4
square feet Df corner area pe~ pedestrian. The impact wDuld be mitigated by
the cDnstructiDn 'Df a 20-fDDt-IDng' by 6-fDDt-deep sidewalk extimsiDn Dr "bulb"
a1Dng the 72nd Street face Df the CDmer. This additiDna1 CDrner area would
prDvide fDr 33.4 square feet per pedestrian and result in LOS C DperatiDn dur-
ing the AM peak hDur. The CDrner wDuld be extended by 'utilizing a pDrtion of
the parking lane a1Dng the sDuth side of 72nd Street (with the two travel lanes
remaining unaffected), and therefore this mitigatiDn wDu1d have no. effect Dn
vehicle f1Dw thrDugh the intersectiDn.
It shDuld be nDted that the previDus1y discussed mitigatiDn.plan fDr the

nnd Street IRI: station (cDnstructing a new station entrance near 73rd Street)
wDuld result in the diversiDn Df apprDximate1y 50 percent of subway-related
pedestrian demand frDm the impacted southwest CDrner. If the mitigation is
implemented, then the diversion of pedestrians t:hat wDuld result wDuld mitigate
the impact at this corner and eliminate the need for Ggnstructing additional
sidewalk space. "
2002
Traffic.MitigatiDn
With the implementatiDn Df the mitigatiDn measures, all Df the prDject's

impacts in the prDject study area wDu1d be mitigated. At IDcations 'where the
vic ratio wDuld be greate~ than 0.85, the mitigatiDn measures would reduce the
vic ratio. to. less than 0.85 Dr to' the No. Build levels Dr belDw. One signifi-
cant impact wDu1d remain in the extended study area, at Twelfth Avenue and 23rd
Street, as discussed below.
In 2002, the mitigation measures implemented in 1997 wDu1d remain in ef-

fect:. This includes the imp1ementatiDn of the West End Avenue Improvement
Plan .. In 2002; the majDr new mitigatiDn measures required would be changing
the direction of 64th Streee (to. one·way eastbound) and 61st Street (to one-way
wesebound). These mieigation measures eombinea with operational changes would
mitilate all the projeGtis impacts in the project traffic study area.
In the year 2002, with full development (Phase II) project-generated traf-
fic would result in significant traffic impacts at 25 intersection approaches
in the study area during one or more pea~ hours. Table IV-7 shows the No
Build, Build, and Build with Mitigation vic ratios at each intersection ap-
proach where the proposed proj"ect would result in signific"ant" traffic impacts;
The specific improvement measures proposed for 2002 are summarized in Table
IV-8, along with each measure's impac~ on the traffic operation assumptions
used in the vic analyses.
The following is a discussion of the mitigation measures proposed at ea~h

intersection and the resulting change in vic ratios at significantly impacted
approaches.
Twelfth Avenue at 51st Street
The impact on the ~outhbound approach in the AM would be mitigated by

transferring 5 seconds of green time from the westbound 51st Street approach ~n
the AM peak hour. The effect would be to reduce the Build vic ratio from 0.914
to 0.875.
Riverside Drive atZ9th "Street
The impact of added project traffic on the eastbound approach during the
AM and PM peak hours would be mitigated by transferring 3 and 6 seconds of
green time, respectively, from the north-south direction to 79th Street. This
would mitigate the impact an"d reduce the Build vic ratio from 0.892 to 0.835
and 0.971 to 0.855 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
. I
Riverside Drive _at 72nd Street
The transfer of 6 seconds from the eastbound through and the left-turn
phase to Riverside Drive would mitigate the impact during the PM peak hour on
the southbound approach. The Build vic ratio would be reduced from 0.999 to
West End Avenue _atZ2nd Street
A combinatio~ of signal timing and changes in parking regulations would

mitigate the impact ~t this location. (The analysis also reflects the rerout-
ing of the M72 bus.) The southbound approach would receive 4 seconds of green
time from the leading pedestrian phases in all peak hours. Even after mitiga-
tion, pedestrian crOSSing times would be ample for these 60-foot-wide cross-
ings, with 36 seconds available for the south crosswalk, 36 seconds available
for the north crosswalk, 32 seconds available for the east crosswalk, and 32
seconds a~ailable for the west crosswalk. A "no-standing (any time) reg~lation
would be implemented along the south curb of 72nd Street from West" End Avenue
to Riverside Drive. A "no-standing 4-7 PM regulation would also be implemented
on the 72nd Street westbound approach for a distance of 100 feet from the" in-
tersection. The effect of these mitigation measures would be to reduce the vic
ratio~ of the southbound approach from 0.935 to 0.828, 1.010 to 0.862, and
0.963 to 0.838 during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. The
Build vIc ratio for the eastbound approach would be reduced from 1.034 to O. SS·7
Iv-26
Table IV-7
2002 NO ButIJ), BUILD, AND Bun.D WITH lIITlGATION V10 BATIOS
I I
H H
2002 2002 P 2002 P
1IO-8UILD BUILD DELTA A WILD HIT DELTA A
STREET APPROACH 'rOD RATIO RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO T
--------.. --..------..----....... --... ------.........- r---------..........-----.......
12TH AVE.sa • 51 ST AM: 0.S79 0.914
---------1----------..
0.035 .•• : 0.875
------.. . . . . . . :I
-0.004
aa.z:z ••••• aa ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• : •••••• :z ••••••••••••••••••• az •• : c •• :I • • • • :::I' • • • • • • • • • • • • =:
7m ST. EB • RIVERSIDE AM : O.Sll 0.892 0.081 •• : 0.835 0.024 :
PH : 0.876 0.971 0.095 •• : 0.855 -0.021 :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.: • • • • :. • • • • :1 • • • • • : • • • • • • • • • ::i ••••••••••••• :.: •••• :I: =-= ••••••••••••••••••• .:: I
RIVERSIDE sa • 72HD ST. PH I 0.641 0.999 0.358 .. : 0.834 0.193 :
•••• aa •••••••••••••••••••••••••• :.:. . . . . . . . . : •••••••••••• z.a ••••• z ••••••••• : •••••••••••••••••••• a. (
WEST IIID 58 • 72ND ST. AM : 0.892 0.935 0.043 .. : 0.832 -0.060
MD : 0.905 1.0111. 0.105 .. : 0.862 -0.043
. PH : 0.8B2· 0.963 0.081 •• I 0.838 -0.044
----------..---------------------.. . . . . -: ------.. -----------"". .----------1
72HD ST. EB • VEST END o.on ..
AM
0.952
. . .-..------.. -------..---:
: 1.034 I 0.887 -0.065
I
.0.734
PH : 0.B82 0.148 •• : 0.756 0.022 •
--------------------------------..... _------ I----.. ------------------~------ :------------------..---1
72HD ST. 1018 • VEST END PH I 0.990 1.1144 0.054 •• I 0.921 -0.069 :
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • =-8 • • • =-••••••••••• : •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• : •••• c •• ::1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • =1
VEST EIID sa • 63 ST. AM : 0.861 0.905 0.044 •• I 0.850 -0.011 I

• • • • • • • • ::I' • • • • • • • • • • • :s.I:.::z •••••••••• a •••• &!; ••••••• -= ....................... 1•••••••••••••••••••••• :
59TH ST. 1018 • VEST END AM I 0.960 1.159 0.199.•• I 0.942 -0.018 :
MD : 0.943 1.077 0.ll4 •• I 0.906 -0.037 :
PH I 1.286 1.450 0.164 .. I 1.173 -0.113 :
......... =....................:z ••• =••••••• :I:: .......... I:= ••••
.:= •• z:r.z::ll::.: ••• a ~ ••••••••••••••• ::1' • • • • • =:
WEST lIID.sa ! 58TH ST AM I 0.846 0.877 0.031 •• I 0.722 -0.124 I
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• .: : ••••••••• ==z.z ••••• z•••••• lI:a.z t••••• OI • • • • • z••• a: .. :.-:r•• :l1
57TH ST. 1018 • VEST END PH : 0.861 0.926 0.065 •• : 0.8U -0.050 :
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 'C •• =.=••••::r: •• ::1 •••••••••••• =•• :1 • • • • • • • ==.1:: •••••••••
s.3II ••••••• a •• 1
e
AMSTERDAM NB IIROAIIWAYI72HD ST. MD': 0.B55 0.872 0.017 .. I 0.855 0.000
PH : 0.981 0.996 0.015 .. I 0.976 -0.005 I
•••••••••••••••••• :1:= ....=•••••••• :. ••• : . 8 8 8 : • • • • • • • • •:. • • • • •:. • • :1: • • 311 •••• =•• :.:1 c •••••• =••••••••••• 2.a:
AMSTERDAM NB e BROADWAY/71ST ST; AM I' 0.861 0.882 0.021 •• : 0.M9 -0.012 :
MD·: 0.895 0.920 0.025 •• I 0.886 -0.009 :
PH I 1.115 1.138 0.023 •• I 1.096 -0.019 I
••••••••••••••••••••••••••• c •••• :1.=.:.z ••• : ...........=••••• :1':1'.:1 ••••• 2311=::1.::1::1. : ••••• :11 • • • • • :11 • • • • • • • ::1==:
AMSTERDAM NB e 57TH ST. MD I 0.856 0.880 0.024 •• I 0.838 -0.011 :
PH I 0.964 0.910 0.016 •• I 0.937 -0.027 I
•••••• =•• =•••••••••• ::I::I===•• == ••• :i:iii.:i ••••• : •••••••• :i •••••• =s •• a ••••••• ss. t •••••••••••••••••••• == ;
COLUMBUS S8 • 79TH ST. AM : 0.856 0.866 0.010 •• I 0.850 -0.006 I
••••• z••••••••••••••:I:z===.:z ••••• iiii •••
:.=i.: :I• • • • • • • • • • • • z..... ~ a••••••••••• : ••
:I.:I • • • • • • =•••• z•• ::I.1
COLUllBUS sa • 66TH ST. PH I 0.846 0.856 0.010 •• : 0.831 -0.015 :

••••••••••••••••••••••• =.= ••••• =:1311= •••••• : ::1.:1: ••• :1 • • =•••••••• :111: • • • • • • • • • • t •••••••••••••••••••• z.:
BROADWAY sa @ 65TH ST./COLUMBUS AM I 1.124 1.140 0.016 •• I 1.087 -0.037 :
. PH : 1.027 1.037 0.010 "' I 0.9a9 -0.038 :
i;;;;~iy-;;-@-6;TH-ST:i~~~;;;;;;-·····;;;;·· i···ii:iiii;····ii:ii;:;····ii:iii;·;;· i···;:ii;;·_·:;:ii2ii··· i 5
.-
PH: 1.022 1.045 0.023 •• : 0.996 -0.026 I

••••••••• a •••••••••••• a.=I: ••••••• := •••••• =I=.= •• z •• =::r.:r.==Z''Z=:lZ.:=:I:a=:lS~.E= 1=....=.a.=:::I:I ••••• :===.== I
COLUMBUS S8 • 57TH ST. AM : 0.980 1.003 0.023.': 0.974 -0.006 :
MD : 0.171 0.B94 0.023 •• : 0.867 -0.004 :.
--------...... -------... -----... -...... • ... • .....• .... ·--... ··1 .. ··-... ---··..·-... - ... --•••----..... -... -: .---... ---------------..... (
57TH ST. EB @ COLUllBuS AM: 1.030 1.047 0.017 tt I 1.004 -0.026
MD 0.906 0.927 0.021 •• I 0.888 -0.018
PH I 1.030 1.056 0.026 .. : 1.012 -0.018
,~;=;;:·;=i·;:;:~=;=·dS;=Bi=ii; •• iailii~~~;iiiiii~;6iiii;O~;;;=:::i; ii.~~;;j.z·:o:;i;iiSi. i
: 0.851 0.886
MD 0.029 •• I 0.821 -0.036 :
I 1.021 1.080
PH 0.059 •• I 1.000 -0.021 :
•••••• c ••••• : •• == ••• =.:-c:t==.::z:==:r===••• ::::I1 =.II:==='C===:::I==~S=zs=====s====== r==-===.:: •••• =-.1: ••• =.===:
COL.CIRCLE
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ......58
_ _ _'1'0
____ 8_' WAY
• __ ... • _ _ _ _AVE.
_ _8TH _ _ _ _ 1_______
_ _ .. ___ 00\ _AM: 0.955... ____ 0.966
... ---.. -;,;;-......0.011
--... ----;,;:
•• : i i ______________
0.934 -0.021
... _____ :1 i1i
8T1 AVE. lIB @ COL.CIRCLE PH I 0.938 0.942 0.004 I o.ng

-0.009 , :
=:
•••••••• z:l': ••• .lI: • • :e •••••• s:i •• siliii .. iii:ii..i:.:u== I zi:lli:l.~ ••• i.:.: •• :i... =.;.s •• s •• :i •• =%:::18==_=:1: ••• ::1:1 • • :1'.::':.=.=:
57TH ST.EB @ 8nI AVE .. ___________ ii .. ____
_____________________ PH,;,_:I _________
0.836 ;,;_;,,;..,;0.857 0.021 •• ;0; :
________________ 0.826 I--------iiii_-----------:
-0.010 :
57TH ST.WB I 8TH AVE AM I 0.904 0.933 0.029 •• I 0.900 -0.004
MD : 0.927 0.949 0.022 •• I 0.915 -0.012
PH I 1.004 1.028 0.024 ... : 0.991 -0.013 I
1: : •••••• s •••••••• =••i:iii::r.s::ls ••• : : •••••••••••••••••••• lia:
• • :I: • • :I • • • • • ::I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ::.::I:. • • • • i: ••••••
5BT1i ST. EB • BRIlA1IIiAY KD I 0.852 0.869 0.017 •• I 0.840 -0.012 :

• • • • • • • • • • • • • II • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 'C •• : =.........2••••• = ••• i:i....a.lIs.==: I •••••• z•••• I: • • • • • • • • • , :
5Tl'K ST. Ell • BROADWAY AM I 0.881 0.896 0.015 .. I 0.811 -0.010 I

liD I 0,842 0.860 0.018 *.
I 0,1l6 -0 , Oilli
•••••••••• i ..........ii. . . . . . . . . .ii ••••••••••• I .............1I •• Ii.iiil •• i •••• _ ••• i •••••••••••••••••••••• i
I
i i DSIIO'I1:s iMPACTED LOCATIO!!
I DiIIOI'iS LOCATiO!! KlTlGATiiI DUE to iiiPAtT or mE PROPoSED VAIl SERVICU
IV~27
Table .IV-B
SUIDWlY 01' 2002 IIITlGATIOR KU.SmtES
RO. Intersection Action tll Ef£e£t (21.
1, 12th Ave./51st 12th Ave. SB +5 sec. AM

St:reet: 51st St. WB -5 sec. AM
2. Riverside Drive/ Riverside Drive -3 sec. AM;

79th Street -6 sec. PM
79th St. +3 sec. AM,
+6 sec. PM
3, Riverside Drive/ Riverside Dr. +6 sec. PM

72nd sereee 72nd St. EB Thru/LT
-6 sec. PM.
4. West End/l2nd West End SB +4 sec. EML from 2.00 to 2.25 RT

Street Leading Pede Phases factor fO 1. 00
-4 sac.
72nd St. WB NS(4-7PM)
72nd St. EB NS (any time)
5.• West End/64th One-Way EB 64t:h se. SB Lt factor ~ 1.00

Street WIP
6, West End/63rd West End SB + 2 sec. NB LT factor - 1.00
Street 63rd St. -2 sec.
WIP
7, West End/6lst One-Way WB GIst St. WB RT £~ctor s 1.00
Sereet NS anytime north curb' NB LT factor ~ 1.00
WIP
s. West: End/59th lVIP NB/SB/LT Faccor - 1

Street West End SB, NS (7-10AM) EMl. 2.0 to 2.25
59th St. EB striped for EM!.. L 0 to 1. 5
2 lanes
West End Ave. -3 sec.
59th St. WB/EB +3 sec.
9. West End/58eh
Street
YIP
West End SB, NS (7-10AM)
SB LT f<!lefOr
EML 2 to 2.25 - 1.00
10, West End/57eh 57th St. WB NS; 4-7PM WB RT factor iii 1.00
Street
ll. Broadway/Amster- SB/NB +1 sec.

dam/72nd Street: l2nd Street: ·1 sec.
12. Broadway/Amster- Ams'Cerdam Ave.. +1 lec.

dam/71st Street '1st St. WB ·1 sec.
IV-2S
Table IV-a (ContiDued)
stDIIWt.Y 01' 2002 JlI'l'IGATIOB JlEASOliU
NO. Intersection Action [1]
13, Amsterdam/57th Amsterdam Ave. +2 sec.

Street 57th Street ·2 sec.
14. Co1umbus/79t:h Columbus Ave. +1 sec.

15. Columbus/66th Columbus Ave. +1 sec.

16, B' TJlay/Columbus/ BroadTJIay +1 sec.
65th Street: 65th Street -1 sec.
17. Columbus/57di 57th St. WB/LT -2 sec.

Street Columbus +1 sec.
57th St. EB +1 sec.
18, Central Park SB/LT -2 sec.
West/65th Street 65th Street +2 sec.
19,
I
Broadway SB/ Broadway +1 sec. AM/-l sec, PM
8th Ave. 8th Ave. :.1 sec. AM/+l sec. PM
20. 8th Ave./57ch 8th Ave. ';'1 sec.
Street 57th St. +1 sec.
21. Broadway/58th, Broadway ·1 sec.

St:reet 58th St. +1 sec.
22. Broadway/57th Broadway -1 sec,.

Street 57t:h St. +1 sec.
[1) SB = westbound; NB ~ northbound; SB - southbound, ED - eastbound

WIP - West End Improvement Plan, NS - No Standing
[2] aT - ri'ght turn factor; EML - effective moving lane.
1\1-29
and 0.882 to 0.756 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. On the west-
bound approach, the Build vic ratio would be reduced from 1.044 to 0.921 during
the PM peak hour. These reductions in the vic ratios would effectively miti-
gate the significant traffic impacts at these locations.
West End Avenue at 63rd Street
The project's impact during the AM peak hour at this location would be
mitigated by the WIP and the transfer of 2 seconds of green time from the east-
west to the north-south approaches. With these measures the Build vic ratio
would be reduced from 0.905 to 0.838 during the AM peak hour.
West End Avenue at 59th Street
In addition to the WIP, the conversion of 61st Street to one-way west-

bound, and the southbound no-standing regulations on Yest End Avenue during the
AM peak hour from' 62nd to 57th S"treet, the proposed project's impacts at this
intersection would be mitigated by the proposed restriping of the 59th Street:
eastbound approach within 150 feet·of the intersection to provide two 10-foot
approach lanes (one left-turn, one through/right-turn), and appropriate no
standing curbside regulations near this approach. In addition, 59th Street
would receive 3 seconds of green time from the northbound and southbound ap-
proaches during all three peak hours. Thes~ mitigation meaSures would mitigate
the project's impacts on the westbound approach by reducing the Build vic ra-
tios from 1.159 to 0.942, 1.077 to 0.906, and 1.450 to 1.173 during the AM,
midday, and PM peak hours, rel!lpective1y.
West End Avenue .at .58th Street
The WIP plus the southbound NO-Standing 7-10 AM regulations would mitigate
this AM impact, reducing the Build vic ratio from 0.877 to 0.722.
The WIP, combined with the installation of no-standing 4-7 PM regulations

on westbound 57th Street, and the conversion o'f 61st Street to one-way west-
bound, would fully mitigate the project's PM peak hour impacts at this loca-
tion. The Build vic ratio on the westboUnd approach would be reduced from
0.926 to 0.811 during the PM peak hour. .
The proposed project's impact on the northbound approach would be miti-

gated by transferring 1 second of green time from 72nd Street to Broadway/Am-
sterdam Avenue. This would reduce the northbound approach Build vic ratios
from 0.872 to 0.855 and 0.996 to 0.976 during' the midday and PM peak hout's;
respectively.
Alnster<iamAv:e.nue at 71s.t .. Street
The proposed project's impacts at this location would be mitigated by

transferring 1 second of green time from the east-west phase to the Amsterdam
AVenue phase during all three peak hours. This would r~dtice the Build vic
ratios from 0.882 to 0.849, 0.920 ~o 0.886, and 1.138 to 1.096 during the AM,
midday, and PM peak hours, respectively.
Amsterdam Avenue _at 57th Street
The proposed project's impacts at this location would be mitigated·by

transferring 2 seconds of green time from the Amsterdam Avenue phase to the
57th Street phase. This would reduce the Build vic ratios from 0.880 ~o 0.838
and 0.980 to 0.937 during the midday and PM peak hours, respectively.
Columbus_ Avenue at 79th Street
The impact to the southbound approach during the AM peak hour would be
mitigated by transferring 1 second of green time from the eastbound 79th Stree~
approach to Broadway. The effect of this mi~igation would be ~o reduce ·the
Build vic ratio during the AM peak hour from 0.866 to 0.850.
Columbus Avenue at 66th Street
The proposed project's impact's at this location would be mitigated by

transferring 1 second of green time from the 66th Street phase to the Columbus
Avenue phase. This would reduce the vic ratio for the Columbus Avenue approach
from 0.856 to 0.831 during the PM peak hour.
Columbus Avenue _at _Broadway/6~thStreet
The proposed project's impacts on Broadway would be -mitigated by the

transfer of 1 second of green time from the 65th Street phase to the Broadway
phase during. all three peak periods. The effect of this mitigation would be to·
reduce the Build vic ratios on the southbound Broadway approach from 1.140 to
1.087 and 1.037 to 0.989 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Build
vic ratios on the no~thbound Broadway approach would be reduced from 0.897 to
0.855 and 1.045 to 0.996 during the midday and PM peak hours, respectively.
Columbus Avenue_at 57th Street
Modification of the signal timing plan at this intersection would mitigate

the proposed project's impacts by reducing the westbound left turn phase by 2
- seconds, transferring 1 second to the east:bourtd and 1 second to the southbound
phases. This mitigation would reduce the Build vic ratiO on Columbus AVenue
from 1.003 to 0.974 and 0.894 to 0.867 during the AM and midday peak hours,
respectively. At the eastbound approach, the aui1d vic ratio would be reduced
from 1.047 to 1.004, 0.927 to 0.888, and -1.056 to 1.012 during the AM, midday,
Central _rark West: at ~5th _Street
The proposed project's -impacts on Central Park West would be mitigated by

transferring. 2 seconds of green time from the southbound left turn phase to the
65th Street approach. this would reduce the Build vic ratio from 1.061 to
0.983, 0.886 to 0.821, and 1.080 to 1.000 during the AM, midday; and PM peak
hours, respectively.
BroadwAy at .Eighth ..Mlenue
The AM impaGt at this losation can be mitigated by transferring 1 s~sgnd

of green time from Eighth Avenue to Broadway du~~ng that peak hour; thereby
IV-31
reducing the Build v/c ratio from 0.966 to 0.934 on Broadway. The PM impa'ct
would be expected with proposed van service in the mitigation network; however,
this impact would be mitigated by transferring 1 second of green from Broadway
southbound to Eighth Avenue. This would reduce the Build v/o ratio of 0.948 to
0.929.
Eighth Avenue .at. 57th Street
The transfer of 1 second of green from Eighth Avenue to 57th Street during
all three peak periods would mitigate the project's impact and reduce the Build
v/c ratio from 0.933 to 0.900, 0.949 to 0.915, and 1.028 to 0.991 during the
AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. On the eastbound approach, the
effect of the mitigation would be to reduce the Build v/c ratio frpm 0.857 to
Broadway at 58th Street
The midday impact on the eastbound approach to this intersection can be

mitigated by the transfer of 1 second of green time from Broadway to 58th
Street, thereby reducing the eastbound Build v/c ratio from 0.869 to 0.840.
Broadway at 57th .S.treet
The transfer of I second of green time from Broadway to 57th Street re-
duces the Build v/c ratio on the eastbound approach from 0.896 to 0.871 and.
from 0.860 to 0.836 in the AM and midday peak hours, respectively, thereby
mitigating the traffic impact.
Traffic Mitigation in the.Extended Traffic .Study.: Area
With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the project's impacts

in the extended study area would be mitigated at all locations, as discussed
belm~. I-r.
As noted in the discussion of traffic impacts in section II.J, in the year
2002, project-generated traffic would result' in significant traffic impacts at
12 principal intersections (i.e., 15 intersection approaches) along the Twelfth
'Avenue/ West Street, 65th/66th Street, and 86th Street corridors during one or
more peak hours. Table IV-9 shows the v/c ratios for the No Build, Build, and
Build with Mitigation scenarios at these 12 principal locations and Table IV-IO
shows the proposed mitigation actions at each location. (In addition, the
proposed project would have a significant impact at intermediate intersections.
The same types of measures used for the principal intersections would mitigate
any project impacts at the intermediate interseotion.) The following para-
grapns summarize the mitigation for each corridor analyzed in' the extended
. area.
Twelfth Avenue. .c.o.rridor. As noted in Table IV -10, a combination of signal

timing and intersection control measures along the Twelfth Avenue corridor
would completely mitigate the project impacts at 42nd, 34th, Canal, Chambers,
and Murray Streets. At the intersections of Twelfth Avenue, 23rd Street; ana
Eleveneh Avenue, the impacts could be mitigated by the physical improvements
described previously; in conjunction with minor signal timing changes.
IV-32
Table IV-9
2002 EX'tENDED AREA NO Bttn.J>., BUI~. AND BUII..D VITa HITIGATION vIe RATIOS
I I
2002 LOCATIONS M M
============== 2002 2002 DELTA P 2002 DELTA P
NO-BUILD BUILD vIC A BUILD MIT vIC A
PEAK vIC VIC RATIO C vIC RATIO C
STREET APPROACH TOO RATIO RATIO (1) T RATIO (2) T
~=====::z=~====================-========::z=::zza:zs==========~============I~=======================zl
=============::z=z=a::a::Z==~=====:I:===============iiail:====*===========-==_= ===z:======.=====~=====:Z3=
12TH AVE. NB TH @42ND ST.
_______________ PH 0.837 0.B70 0.033 ** 0.808 -0.029
Wi,;;;;;~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
12TH AVE. SB LT @42ND ST. PH 1.040 1.051 0.011 ** 1.026 -0.014

===============:===========~~=====
12TH AVE. NB @ 34TH ST.
••==========.======z:========2az====
0.856 0.034 ,**
==================_======
AM' 0.890 0.762 -0.094
MD 0.940 0.972 0.032 ** 0.911 -0.029
PH 1.082 1. 125 0.043 ** 1.016 -0.066
12TH AVE. S8 @ 34TH ST. AM 0.906 0.952
** 0.046 0.887 -0.019
MD 0.918 0.962
** 0.044 0.902 -0.016
PH 1.026 1.097
** 0.071 0.944 -0.082
=======================================::1=====================:f:====iiii ===================ZE~=.=
12TH AVE. NB @ 23RD ST. AM 0.904 0.941 0.037 ** 0.901 -0.003
MD 0.873 0.908 0.035 ** 0.833 -0.040
PH 1.033 1.071 0.044 ** 1.033 0.000
12TH AVE. 58 @23RD'ST. AM 0.855 0.885 0.030 ** 0.576 -0.279
12TH AVE. NB @11TH AVE. AM ' '0.895 0.932 0.037 ** 0.889 -0.006
PH 1.022 1.065 0.043 ** 1.020 -0.002
------------------------------------------------------------------~--
12TH AVE. SB @ 11TH AVE. AM 0.886 0.916 0.030 ** -_&_---------------------
0.568 -0.318
========~===z===============~===============~=~=z:===============~== ====~==================~=
WEST ST. S8 TH @ CANAL ST. (N) AM 1.152 1.170 0.0~8 1.146 -0.006 **
PH 0.949 0.969 0.020 ** 0.949 0.000
===========.=.==========================~===_=================_====§=
0.013 ••
••=================~==~a&
WEST ST. NB @CHAMBERS ST. AM 0.949 0.962 -0.003
-----------------------------------------------~-~-------------------
WEST ST. SB LT @CHAMBERS ST. PH 0.930 0.021 IIiIli
0.951 -------------------------
O.SSO -0.050
======z========.========.=============~=====~~===s§=================E =====••z~========~=======
WEST ST. sa
@ MURRAY ST. AM , .015
1.029 Q 0.014 1.009 -0.006
==========~==~=========c===================~~===
** -DENOTES SIGNIFICANT IMPACT'
••_.===============~ ======_cam=============~=
'(1) -BulbD vic RATtO. MINUS NOBUlbD vIc RATIO
(2) -BuILD MIT VIc RATIO MINUS NOsUlbD vIC .RATIO
IV .. 33
Table IV-9 (Continued)
2002 ErtENDED AREA NO BUILD. BUn:.:o. AND aUILD WITH HITIGATION V/e BAT~OS
I I
M M
2002 2002· DELTA. P 2002 DELTA P
No-BOILD BOILD VIC A BOILD MIT VIC A
PEAK VIC VIC RATIO C VIC RATIO C
STREET APPROACH TOD RATIO RATIO (1) T RATIO (2) or
====================~==============~~2~===================~==========l======~===============e=='
65/66TH ST. CORRIDOR
==============================
========================~~====================~================~~==== =========================
66 ST. we @MADISON AVE. AM 0.968 1.011 0.043 ** 0.892 -0.076
MD 0.840 0.866 0.026 ** 0.765 -0.075
PM 0.950 0.992 0.042 ** 0.878 -0.072
.===================================================================== =========================
65 ST. EB @MADISON ~VE. AM 1.107 1.132 0.025** 1.096 -0.011
PM 1.100 1.135 0.035 ** 1.099 -0.001
====================================================================~ =========================
65 ST. EB @PARK AVE. PM 0.889 0.922 0.033 ** 0.846 -0.043
=================~~~====================~=================~========== ===========~=============
86TH ST. CORRIDOR
======~=======================
=============================~~================~=====================I==============~=====~====:
RIVERSIDE DR SB @86TH ST AM 0.969 0.989 0.020 ** 0.956 -0.013
====================~~:===============~==============================~=========================~
ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS
==============================
============================~======================================~=:=========================
57TH ST EB @ 7TH AVE. MD 0.896 0.906 0.010 ** 0.881 -0.015
=====~==========~===~================m===============================I====~~===================
57TH ST EB @ 6TH AVE. AM 0.877 0.894 0.017 ** 0.865 -0.012
----------------------------------~~~-----------------~~~------------ --~----------------------
57TH ST WB @ 6TH AVE. . AM 0.978 1.005 0.027 ** 0.973 -0.005
MD 1.004 1.017 0.013 ** 0.984 -0.020
==============~==~==~===============:~~============================== ==~======================
57'1'H ·ST EB @ 5TH AVE. AM 1.116 1.132 ,0.016 ** 1.099 -0.017
MD
PM
0.979
1.062
0.989
1.081
0.010
0.019
•• 0.960
1.050
-0.019
-0.012
**
======================================~=====================~======== =====~ti==================
** -DENOTEs SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
(1) -BOILD VIc RATIO MINUS ROBUILD VIC RATIO
(2) -BUILD MIT VIC RATIO MINUS ROBUILD VIC RATIO
IV-34
Table IV-lO
2002 &i:tKlmED ABU. lIrlIGAfiOR lIPASUllES
-'teL. IntersectiOll Aeti.on Jl1 . Effect (2)

l. 12th Avenue/42nd Street ls0-second cycle in PM
2. 12~h Avenue/34eh Street ISO-second cycle in AM and PM
12th Ave. +3.5 seconds in MD
34th St. -3.5 seconds in MD
'SBLT +3 seconds in MD
WBLT -3 seconds in MD
3. 12th Avenue/23rd Street ISO-second cycle in PM
SBLT prohibited (add through
lane)
12th Ave. +5 seconds in AM
+7 seconds in MD
23rd Street -5 seconds in AM
-2 seconds in midday
Eliminate leading ped. phase MD,
PM
4. 12 th Ave. /11 th lsO-second cycle in PM
12th Avenue +3 seconds in AM
11th Avenue -3 seconds in.AM
11th Avenue SB add one lane
11th Avenue/23rd Street, sa +2
seconds EB/WB -2 seconds
5. West St~eet/Canal West St. +2 sec. AM, PM
Street Canal St. -2 sec. AM, PM
6. West St./Chambers St. West St'. sBLt -1 sec. AM
West St. NB +1 sec. AM
7. West Street/Murray West St. NB/SB +1.5 sec. AM
Street NB/SB LT Phase -1.5 sec. AM
Express Van Service to Lower
Manhattan
8. 12th AVenue Corridor 66th St. WB NS (any time)
South curb
9. 66th Street/Madison Madison AVenUe -1 sec. AM; PM EML 2 to 2.2S
Avenue 65th Street +1 sec. AM; PK
10. 65th Street/Madison Park Ave. -2 sec. PM Time date
Avenue . 65th· St. +2 sec. PM coordinator
11. 65th Street/Park Avenue Riverside Drive +2 sec. 'time date
86th Streee -2 sec. coord.:inator I
12. 86th Sereet/Riverside
Drive
13. 57th Street/7th Avenue 7th Ave. -1 sec
57th St. +1 sec
57th St. +1 sec
1'1-35
Table IV-10 (ContiDued)
2002 u:rDDED .AQA lII'!IGA'l'IOB IIUSlJll.IS
__~ DDtersection Effect (2]

57t:h St. +-1 sec
Rotes:
[1] WB .,westbound, NB - northbo~d, SB - southbound, is - eastbouna

WIP - West End Improvement Plan, NS - No Seandirtg
[2] RT· right turn factor; EML - effective moving lane
IV .. 36
Although it is assumed that the Route 9A Basic Reconstruction alternative
would be in place in 2002, there is almost no functional difference be~een the
existing and Basic Reconstruction confi~rations. Under the Basic Reconstruc-
tion alternative, the median ~s designed to be 19 feet wide. Therefore, by
reducing this to 8 feet. a third southbound lane can be provided on EleVenth
AVenue southbound at Twelfth Avenue, as described above. As demonstrated in
Table IV-9, the proposed lane configuration would eliminate the project's traf~
fic impacts at these intersections in 2002.
East 65th/66th Street Corridor. As demonstrated in Tables IV-9 and IV-lO,

project impacts in this corridor on 66th Street at Madison Avenue and 65th
Street at Madison and Park Avenues would be fully mitig·ated by a combination of
signal improvements and changes in parking regulations.
Wes.t .86thStreet Corridor. The impact in this corridor on the southbound

Riverside Drive approach at 86th Street during the AM peak hour would be fully
mitigated by minor signal timing changes, as shown in Tables IV-9 and IV-lO.
Additional Locations. The impact on 57th Street can be fully mitigated by

minor changes in signal timing at Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Avenues.
Traffic Effects of Relocated Highway ~m 2002 Mit.igat.e_d Network
As discussed in section II:J, the effect of the relocated highway would be

to close the 59th Street·underpass at Twelfth Avenue, replacing it wit~ an
overpass at 6lst Street. Ari analysis was conducted at the West End Avenue
intersections at 59th, 60th, and 61st Streets to evaluate the effect of the
changed traffic flow with the 2002 mitigated network, including the conversion
of 6lst Street to westbound operation. Table IV-II presents the Vic ra~ios at
these intersections, and, as shown in the table, the proposed mitigation plan
would also be fully effective under this relocated highway condition.
Suhway _Service Mitigation
7.2nd B.treet/Broadway IRt
As described in section II.J, project-generated subway trips would have

significant impacts at the 72nd Street IRT station by the year 1997; no addi-
tional project-generated subway trips are expected to use this station in
Phase.II of the proposed project.
In 2002, the.proposed project would have significant impacts at four

stairways within the 72nd Street/Broadway IRT station. The same two measures
-- mOdification to the existing stairways and providing a new station entrance
-- which are discussed in the 1997 subway service mitigation section of ehis
17j
chapter, would be possible lIlicigation measures and are discussed below'-
MQQifi..c.at_Um_oLthe Exhting Stai rway.s.. Because of the location of the

72nd Street subway entrance; it is not physically possible to expand the width
gf the existing stairway openifig~.
IV .. 37
Table IV -11 .
HITlGATION WITH RELOCATED HIGmlAY
RELOCATED R£LOCATED I R£LOCATED I

HIGHWAY HIGHWAY HIGHWAY
H H
2002 2002 P 2002 P
NO-BUILD BUILD HIT BLDH-NBLD A
BUILD BLD-NBLD A
PEAK VIC vIC VIC C VIC VIC C
STREET APPROACH TOO RATIO RATIO RATIO T RATIO RATIO T
--------------------------------t--------~------------------·---1----------------------1
59TH ST. WB @WEST END AM: 0.962 1.159 0.197 •• : 0.760 -0.202 :
HD I 0.943 1.077 0.134.-: 0.725 -0.218 :
PM; 1.286 1.450 0.164.-: 0.928 -0.358 :
================================1=========··=_======== ==~====:=·I======================I
57TH ST. WB @WEST END PH: 0.865 0.926 0.061 •• : 0.812 -0.053 I
=========:============:=~~c&====I===========:~=====·e===========I~===================~.'
AMSTERDAM Nil @ 57TH ST. KD: 0.830 0.854 0.024 u I 0.812 -0.018
PH: 0.934 0.956 0.022 .. I 0.909 -0.025.
====z=====================•• c===f===========~~=:====== ==========:=Ea===================
COLUMBUS 58 @57TH ST. AM: 0.985 1.008 0.023 •• : 0.969 -0.016
____________________________ 5 KD I1______________
___ 0.875 0.898 0.023 •• 1
• ______ __________ : _____0.859
~ -0.016
____ • _________ 55
51TH st. EB @COLUHBUS AM: 1.059 1.082 0.023 •• I 1.037 -0.022

HD: 0.922 0.937 0.015 •• : 0.898 -0.024
PH: 1.053 1.073 0.020 u I· 1.029 -0.024
========================:===.==~:========~e~~a==============~===:
PH: 0.854 0.875 0.021 •• :
•• ================.c==1
~~ ________________ a _______ : __________ • ____________________ , ______________________ ~
_ww ___
57TH ST.EB @ 8TH AVE 0.843 -0.011 I
57TH st.WS @8TH AVE AH I 0.904 0.933 0.029 •• : 0.900 -0.004
MIl I 0.927 0.949 0.022.,.: 0~915 "0.012
Pit: 1.004 1.028 0.024.,.: 0.991 -0.013
.a•••• ==a.==============ss.=====t=====~== •••• =============Sa=•• =:=========~=e= ••• ======1
iij DENOTES IMPACTED LOCATION
1'1-38
Providing a New Station Entranc_~. _As discussed in the 1997 mitigation
analyses, the construction of a new 73rd Street headhouse has been identified
as feasible mitigation. This plan would include a new headhouse north of 72nd
Street in the median of Broadway, with two new 5-foot-8-inch stairs leading to
the southbound platform and a new 8-foot stairway leading to the northbound
platform. The southbound platform would also be extended 52 feet to the north
to allow for a better distribution of passengers on that platform.
With the implementation of the 73rd Street headhouse plan, v/c ratios and
LOS conditions of the station's stairways would improve, as shown in Table
IV-12. Although peak 5-minute congestion levels would still be relatively high
on the existing stairways under either scheme, all project impacts would be
fully mitigated and v/c levels would be lower than und_er existing and No Build
conditions. In addition, the v/c values shown are for peak 5-minute conditions
that would not hold for the entire hour. While passenger volumes in certain
periods would still exceed individual stairway capacity, stairway congestion
would be more intermittent than under current conditions.
The roughly 50 percent reduction in passenger volumes in the existing

control area would further improve the already satisfactory operating condi-
tions in that area. The new control area within the 73rd Street headhouse
would be sufficiently large to operate well within LOS C conditions under peak
5-minute conditions.
Impaccof Station Improvements _on PlatformCrowdin~: As o~tlined in the

1997 Build with mitigation analyses, platform crowding is most serious on the
southbound platform in the AM peak. Under 2002 No Build conditions, each of
the 10 zones under the existing station plan would have available capacity
under the 7-minute "missed headway" analyses used to assess platform crowding
-- i.e., the average passengers would still be walking and waiting in LOS C
condi tions . However, at the very end o'f the 7 -minute period (the snapshot as-
'sessment of conditions just prior to the arrival of the fi~st t~ain), passen~
gers waiting in several sub - zones would experience LOS D condi t,ipns. With,
Phase II of the project in place; there would still be available capacity in
all zones to maintain average LOS C conditions during the delay period, al-
though the number of zones at LOS D at the' end of that period under-the snap-
shot assessment would remaih at four under Builq conditions.
Under existing conditions, only one set of stairs located in the southern
half of the platform is available for passengers entering and leaving the
southbound trains. The proposed plan, by effectively moving the platform one
zone to the north and adding two additional stairs, provides for a better dis-
tribution of arriving passengers along the platform while providing more loca-
tions for departing passengers to exit from the platform. Table IV-l3 presents
the results of platform crowding analyses for 2002 Build with mitigation condi-
tions. The percentage of available capacity on the overall platform would be
44 percent, with all zones still having available capacity. trt the snapshot
analysis, six of these zones would operate at LOS G; while two would operate at
LoS D at the lase instant ot the 7-minute analysis period. This compares with
four zones operating at LoS C; one zone at the LOS C/D threshold; and three
zones at LOS D ufid~r the snapshot analysis for 2002 No ~uild conditions.
IV-39
Table IV-l2
72ND STREET IRT STATION. 2002 BUILD VITH HITIGATION CONDITIONS
E:ffective No-Build Build Bld w/Mit Build 2002 2002 2002

lFaci;l tty Peak Width (1) CapaCity Pk 5 Min. Pk. 5 Min. Pk. 5 Min. wlMit No Build Build Bld w/Mit
Net"- loea ti'on Period (Feet) (PPM)(2) Volume Volume Volume PFM(2) VIC LOS vIC LOS vIC LOS
--------
1I'5/p7 North Downtown
--------- -------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------ ----- --- ----- --- ----- ---
AM 2.74 27 284 301 159 11.64 2.07 F 2.20 F* 1.16 D
Pl:atform Stair PM 2.74 27 147 164 92 6.70 1.08 D 1.20 D 0.67 B
1I'1/P3 South Downtown AM 2.74 27 308· 325 171 12.53 2.25 F 2.37 F* 1.25 D
Platform Stair, PM 2.74 27 123 140 80 '5.82 0.90 C 1.02 D 0.58 B
1l'S/P9 North Uptown AM 2.74 27 78 84 53 3.87 0.57 B 0.61 8 0.39 A
Platform Stair PM 2.74 27 160 . 169 105 7.67 1. 17 D 1.24 D 0.77 C
P6 Center Uptown AM 2.74 27 134 . 147 93 6.81 0.98 C 1.07 D 0.. 68 8
P'latform Stai"r' PM 2.74 27 246 263 165 12.03 1.80 F 1.92 F* 1.20 D
Pot Sowth Uptown AM 2.74 27 138 151 96 7.00 1.01 D 1.10 D 0.708/C
IH P'latform S1;air PM 2.74 27 274 291 182 13.31 2.00 F 2.13 F* 1.33 E
<:
•
~
(:)
Pl0: New Entry Kiosk AM 3.94 39 0 0 l47 7.49 nla nla nla nla 0.75 C,
Sooth Downtown PM 3.94 39 0 a 67 3.39 nla nla nla nla 0.34 A
P'latform Stair
P'11 New Entry Kiosk AM 3.94. 39 0 -0 147 7.49 nla nla nla nla 0.75 C
IIIbrth Downtown PM 3.94 39 0 0 67 3.39 nla nla nla nla 0.34 A
lP'latform Stair
P12: New Entry Kiosk AM 5.80 58 0 0 140 4.81 nla nla nla nla 0.48 A
IiIptown Platform PM 5.80 58 0 0 271 9.36 nla nla nla nla 0.94 C
Stair
Ai- Uptown Entrance
1'61A (7 two-way AM nla 224 349 381 241 nla 0.31 A 0.34 A. 0.22 A
t"Wrnsti"les) PM nla 224 680 723 452 nla 0.61 8 0.65 8 0.40 A
111- Downtown Entrance
'16il (5, two-way AM nla 160 591 624 330 nla 0.74 C 0.78 C 0.41 A
tlilrnst Hes) PM nla 160 271 305 172 nla 0.34 A 0.38 A 0.22 A
-----_ ..._--- --------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- ------ ----- --- ----- --- ----- ---
(1.),Effective Width measured as width between the handrai.ls
mu.ltiplfed by a factor of 0.8 to account for reverse flows.
(2)' Stair capacity based on NYCTA guidelines of 10 PFM.
'FH. = Persons Per Foot Width of Stairway Per Minute.
WPH = Persons Per Minute.
• Denotes a s1'gn1f1cant impact.
Table IV-13
721m STREET lR.T STATION; SOUTBBOtJm) PLATFORM

2002 BlJIlJ) nTH HITIGATION CONDITlONS AX PEAK HOUB. j
2002 NO BUILD CONDITIONS 2002 BUILD CONDITIONS 2002 BUILD WITH MITIGATION
"SnapshOti ! "Snapshot,I "Snapshot';
AssesS/nent AssesSillent Assessment
Percent of after '1/'1in. PerCent of after" '1 M·lli. Percent of after 7 Min.
_ _ . . . . _ _ ;a,;;;~~ _ _ _
7 Minute T-8 ------------ 7 Miniolte T"S _---------

...... 7 Minute T-S
Zone Ava'i1abla SF/Per L.OS Available SF/Per LOS Ava'ilable SF/Per' L.OS
1 ------------
58% 9.4 C·
. . 1I5 _ _ iii" _ _ _ _ iiO _ _
56% B.9
---c ------------
52% 8.0 C,
2 48% 8.0 .C 45% 7.6 C 49% 8.3 C
3 39% 7.5 C 36% 7.1 C. 41% 8.3 C
4 39% 1.0 C/O 36% 6.7 0 42% 7.2 C
5 27% 6.5 0 23% 6.2 0 10% 5.4 0
6 15% 6.2 0 11% 5.9 0 32% 7.2 C
7 26% 6.5 0 22% 6. 1 0 37% 6.9 0
8 47% 8.6 C 44% 8.2 C 53% 10.8 B
9 65% 12.0 B 63% 1'.4 B 57!!: 9.9 C
10 81% 20.9 A 80% '9.9 A 66% 11.4 B
Piat+'orm
Total: 45% 8.3 C 42% 7.9 C 44% B.1 C
_~--_------~--------~_~~----------------~~------------ ______________ • _ _ ~ _ _ iii _ _ _ iiiiiiiiiiii_iii~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ iii _ _ _
NotiH Zones ate revlsea unaer mitigated GOncHt1gi'i QUe to the extension of the SQi-.itllbOulid p1a'tfonn
to the north by app'f'o~,maiely SO feet,
IV-41
It must be noted that the projections shown for crowding 'are based on
conditions in a peak 7-minute period within the peak hour, with full occupancy
of the project and all land uses generating trips at their highest annual lev-
els. Average crowding conditions at any given peak hour would be noticeably
less. Stairway crowding would be considerably less at this station than under
No Build conditions.
66th Street/BroadwayIRT .Station
As discussed in section II.J, the proposed project would have a signifi-

cant impact on stairway 02 (65th Street/L1ncoln Center) in both the AM and PM
peak hours under 2002 Build conditions (see Figure IV-6 for location of identi-
'fied stairways). This stairway impact would be mitigated by the construction
of a new 8-foot stairway (03 in Figure IV-6) directly north of the exi.sting 02
stairway at 65th Street and Columbus Avenue. The construction of the stairway
would also require the realignment of the existing fare control area, including
the relocation of' the token booth and exit gates, as shown in Figure IV-6.
This new stairway would share the Build volumes with the existing 02 stairway
(assumed to be an even 50 percent/50 percent split in these analyses). As
shown in Table IV-14, this would lower the AM peak vic ratio at 02 to 0.50 (LOS
B) versus 0:88 (LOS C) and 1.00 (LOS D) under the 2002 No Build and Build con-
ditions, respectively. In the PM peak hour, the vic ratio would be 0.53
(LOS B) versus 0.94 (LOS C) and 1.06 (LOS D) under 2002 No Build and Build
conditions, respectively. This would both eliminate the project's significant
impacts at this station and mitigate conditions to below No Build values. The ".Y
applicant has committed to providing this mitigation (estimated by the appli-
cant's consultants to cost approximately $2 million). I
5.9.thStreet-Columbus Circle S.tation
During Phase II of the project, project-generated trips would have signif-

icant impacts at stairway S3 at the 59th Street-Columbus Circle station (the
circular stairway to the Paramount Communications building above). Both with
and without the proposed project, this stairway is predicted to operate at
LOS D. However, the proposed project would have a significant impact on opera~
tion of the stair during the peak five-minute 'period in both the AM and PM peak
hours (primarily due to employees en route to/from the studi%ffice site at
the southern end of the proposed project). With the proposed project, the
stairway would operate at 12.74 PFM during 'the AM peak period and at 12.09 PFM
during the PM peak period (see section Il.J). These flow rates are midway in
the LOS D range (10.0 to 13.0 PFM). At LOS D, operations on the stair would
remain relatively free flow, although the density of flow would be increased by
the new trips.
Stairway S3 is a private stair, t:he modification of which would require

the participation of an uninvolved private owner, and, since the conditions
with the proposed project are within LOS D operations during the peak 5 min-
utes, no mitigation is proposed. The impact at: stairway 83 would remain
unmitigated.
Suhway Line Haul
Project-generated subway line haul demand in the 2002 Build year would
result in a change of available capacity from +1 percent to -3 percent on the
IRT Nos. 1 and 9 lines in the AM peak hour, Although the MTA does'not specify
IV-42
RIVER5IDE_
50UcIH 66th Street/Broadway IRT Station Mitigation
Figure IV-6
I
,. I
II u,
;
1
N
~
I
l..........
--........-_FWt
o iO
'I!ab.l.e IV-14
II
66th STREET nT STATION. 2002 BUILD
UITH HITIGATIOH' CONDITIONS
Enecthe No-Build Build Build w/Mit Build 2002 2002 2002

factlfty Peak Width (1) Capacity Pk 5 Min. Pk 5 Min. Peak 5 Min. w/Mit. Ho Build Build Bld .. /Mit
HD. location Period (FeeU (PPM)(21 VolUllla Voluaa VolUMa PFM(21 VIC lOS VIC lOS VIC LOS
Si1 IIW Corner ot' 66th AM 4.34 .. 3 1811 208 208 '.58 0.88 C 0.'8 C 0.911 C
I, ~road"ay PM 4.34 43 180 205 205 .... 8 0.83 C 0.'5 C 0.'5 C
S2 BE Corner ot' 66th AM ".34 43 287 312 312 14."0 1.37 E 1.44 E 1.4" E
I, ~oad"ay PM ".34 43 141 HIli 188 7.114 0.85 B 0.711 C 0.711 C
02 Stair to lincoln AM ".34 .. 3 190 217 10. 5.01 0.88 C 1.00 D II 0.50 B
Center • Colunbu. PM ".34 .. 3 205 230 115 5.30 .0.... C 1.011 D II 0.53 B
031 Na" North Stair AM 5.80 58 o o 10. 3.7" n/. n/a n/a n/a 0.31 A
to lincoln Canter PM 5.80 58 o o 115 3.'8 n/a n/a n/. n/. 0.40 A
•. Calu.bu. Avenue
R..p to lfncoln AM 1.00 80' 128 12S 128 3.1' 0.12 A 0.32 A 0.32 A
t-I
<:
Cllnter • ColUlllbu. PM 1.00 10 5. 5. 5. 1."8 0.15 A 0.15 A 0.15 A
I
-I> R~ DNntwn Fare Array AM Enter .10" 83 99 8. n/a 0.11 A 0.1' A 0.19 A
(.,J
116G • Illth Straet (3) Exit 110 103 10. 109 n/a 0.11 A 0.20 A 0.20 A
PHi Emtar 10.. 132 144 144 n/a 0.25 A 0.28 A 0.28 A
Exit no 48 81 111 n/a 0,01 A O.~f A 0.11 A
R~ Uptown Fare Array AM Enter 32 24 29 2. n/a 0.15 A 0.18 A 0.18 A

115. • IIlIth Streat (3) Exit 94 274 284 284 n/a 0.51 A 0.80 B 0.80 8
!i'HI Emtar 32 58 110 110 n/a' 0.35 A 0.37 A 0.37 A
Exit 94 85 fOil 108 n/a 0.11 A 0.23 A 0.23 A
R~ Uncoln C.nter AM Enter + Exit 192 319 348 341 n/a 0.33 A 0.38 A 0.38 A
118GA Fare Array t31 PM Entar + Exit 192 264 289 289 n/a 0.27 A 0.30 A 0.30 A
,'111, Eft'ective Width ....ured aa width ~t"aen tha handrana

. .Ui'pHad by a factor of 0.8 to account for rev.r.. flowa.
~2l Stair Capacity ba.. d an NYCTA guicMlfnll. of 10 PFM.
PFII II Parean. "ar Faat Width of Stairway Par Minuta.

PPM = Paraan. Par Minuta.
431' fara Array Configurationa:
• UI: 2 t"o-way tumatna. R-f80: 2 .ntranca turn.ttl •• R-180A: 8 twa-way turnetfla.

fl .xt't-only turn.tna 2 hiah .ntrance turn.tila.
1 h~gh r.volving .xtt ,ata Z high r.volving axit gat••
11 edt .at.
II D.mot•• a atgniftcant i_Dact.
impact criteria for ·line haul operations, this would appear to constitute a
significant impact. However, any systemwide changes to subway service are the
responsibility of the MTA and, ~herefore, no project-sponsored mitigation would
be provided.
Light Rail .Easement
Pursuant to the conditions of a Restrictive Declaration, the proposed

project would provide an easement beneath project buildings for a single-track
light rail line that would access existing lay-up yards north of 72nd Street.
Space would also be provided in exchange for the provision of stations to ac-
commodate project residents. A light rail system would divert the project's
transit users to the new system and would reduce project impacts at existing
facilities. However, since there is currently no commitment to build a new
light rail 'system, no credit has been taken for the mitigating effect such a
system would provide. .
Bus Service.Mitigation
It is anticipated that five l~c.al bus routes would be impacted by proj ect-
generated trips in one or both peak hours under 2002 Build conditions (the M5
in the AM peak hour, and the MIL, M57, M66, and MI04 during both the AM and PM
peak hours). To provide enough capacity to service projected demand during the
AM peak hour, four buses would need to be added to the M5 route, three buses to
the MIL route, three buses to the M57 route, one bus to the M66 route, and four
buses to the.MI04 route. During the PM peak hour, the MIL and M57 route~ would
require the addition of four buses to meet projected demand, While the M66 and
MI04 routes would each require three additional buses.
As standard practice, the New York City Transit Authority routinelY con-
ducts ridership counts and adjusts bus service frequency, within operating and
fiscal constraints, to meet its service criteria. Tberefore, no project-spon-
sored mitigation would be provided.
As described above in the discussion of bus service mitigation in 1997,

several existing NYCTA bus routes would be adjusted to bring service directly
-into the project site. The routes to be changed are the M66 and M72, and these
changes would all be made by 1997. No additional changes to study a~ea bus
routes are proposed for the 2002 Build. year .
Pedestrian Mitigation
For 2002 Build conditions, project-generated pedestrian demand, primarily

en route to and from the 59th Street-Columbus Circle IRT/IND station, would
result in a significant impact during the PM peak hour at the south crosswalk
of the 60th Street/Broadway intersection. thiS l2-£oot wide crosswalk would
operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour, with 16.9 square feet per pedestrian.
The impact would be mitigated by restriping the crosswalk to a width of 15
feet. The additional crosswalk area would result: in 21.1 square feet per ped-
estrian and LOS 0 operation during the PM peak hour. This operatin~ condition
would constitute an improvement over the 2002 No Build condition gf 20.2 square
feet per pedestrian (LOS D) during the PM peak hour.
1'1-44
As described above in discussion of mitigation for 1997 pedestrian condi"
tions, project-generated pedestrian demand, primarily en route to and from the
72nd Street IRT station, would result in a significant impact during ehe.AM
peak hour at the southwest corner of the 72nd Str~et/Broadway intersection
under the 1997 Build condieion. The sidewalk widening proposed to mitigae~
this impact would be in plaoeby 1997.
D. AIR QUALITY
Hobile Sources
Intr,oduc tion
As discussed in section II.K, the proposed project would not result in any
significant mobile source air quality impacts. The air quality analysis con-
sidered both mobile sources (i.e., vehicular traffic) and stationary sources
(i.e., the Con Edison power plant's stacks or the project's heating system).
However, proposed measures to mitigate significant traffic impacts would result
in somewhat different traffic patterns, which could result in different carbon
monoxide concentrations 'at given 'study area intersections than those analyzed
in section II.K. Therefore, to assess the effects of the'proposed traffic
mitigation measures, the mobile source analysis was repeated to reexamine car-
bon monoxide .concentrations at receptor sites both in the project study area
and in the extended study area. This reanalysis used the same meehodologies
utilized for the impact analyses described in seceion II.K.
PrimatY Study Area
Table IV-1S shows 'the maximum predicted 1997 No Build, Build, and Build
with mitigation 8-hour carbon monoxide concentrations at the 15 analysis inter-
sections in the primary study area and two locations in the new proposed park.
The values shown are the highest predicted concentrations for each receptor
location for either the AM or PM peak period. At site 1, two sets of values
are reported because the maximum predicted pollutant levels without the project
were calculated with the PM peak traffic data, while the AM peak data yielded
the maximum predicted pollutant levels with the project and with the proposed
mitigation. At site 6, two sets of values are reported because the maximum
predicted pollutant levels with the project were calculated with the AM peak
traffic data, while the PM peak data yielded the maximum predicted pollutant
levels with the project and the proposed traffic mitigation. At sites 5 and 9,
two sets of vplue~ are reported because the maximum levels were calculated at
one corner during the PM peak period without the project and at another corner
with the project and the proposed mitigation, while at site 14 the same phenom-
ena occurred with the AM traffio data. For all three analysis conditions, all
of the predicted concentrations are below standards. In terms of impaot, ehs
increases in concentrations due to the proposed project, both with and without
traffic mitigation, would be within de minimis oriteria, an~ therefore the
proposed project, both with and withou~ ~raffic mitiga~ion; would not result in
any significant mobile source ai~ quality impaots within the primary study
area.
Iv .. 45
Table IV-1S·
FOTORE (1997) HAXDIUH PREDICTED 8-HotJR CAUON MONOXIDE

OONCENTRATIONSnm ·TRAFFIC lIlTIGATION IN ~ n.OJECT S~Y. ~
(parts per million) .
Build '511
&eceptor Hiti-
Site _ _ _ _ _ _ _.......~......Lo=c==·a::..:t:.:i==.o."n:-_~___~___"'__"".__.'-'._____0 Build Build . gation
1 West End Avenue and 72nd S~reet 6.5/7.1 6.6/6.3. 6.1/6.2

2 Amsterdam Avenue, Broadway, and 72nd Street 6.5 6.6 6.5
3 Columbus Avenue, Broadway, and 66th Street 7.5 7.5 7.4
5 West End Avenue and 66th Street 5.0/5.3 5,·5/5.4 5.4/5.3
6 West End Avenue and 65th Street 5.1/5.1 5.4/5.3 4.9/5.2
7 West End Avenue and 64th Street 5.1 6.0 5.4
8 West End Avenue and 61st Street 5.0 5.5 5.1
9 West End Avenue and 59th Street 5.1/5.3 5.8/5.6 S.7/5.6·
10 Twelfth Avenue (57th-55th Streets) 8.7 8.7 8.7
11 57th Street and West End Avenue 8.5 8.7 8.3
12 57th Street and Amsterdam Avenue· 6.2 6.3 6.2
13 57th Street and Columbus AVenue 6.8 7.0 ·6.8
14 Riverside Drive (Extension) and 72nd Street 2.9/4.2 4.9/4.2 4.9/4.2
15 Riverside Drive (Extension) and 66th Street 2.9* 3'.8 3.8
16 New Proposed Park at 72nd Sereet 2: 9" 4.0 4.0
17 New Proposed Park at 66eh Street 2.9" 3.8 3.8
Note: " Background concentratiofis in 1997.
Extended .~tudy Area
The proposed traffic mitigation for the predicted significant traffic im-
pacts in the extended study area would not change the traffic volumes at any
intersections; it would only increase speeds at street approaches with pre-
dicted significant traffic impacts. An updated analysis performed for the FEIS
showed that the project-generated traffic would pass the first- or second-level
screening analyses at all . intersections in the extended study area. Therefore,
the proposed project, both with and without traffic mitigation~ would not have
any significant mobil~ source air quality impacts in the extended study area .
.P.r.imary S tu,dy; Ar.e..a
Table IV-l6 shows the maximum predicted 2002 No Build, 13uild, and Build
with mitigation 8-hour carbon monoxide concentrations at the 15 analysis inter-
sections in the primary study area and two locations in the new proposed park.
At sice 11 two sets of values are reported because the maximum predicted pol-
lutant levels without the project were calculated with the PM peak traffic
IV-46
data, while the AM peak data yielded the maximum predicted pollutant levels
with the project and the proposed mitigation. At site 14, two sets of values
are reported, because the maximum values were calculated at one corner during
the AM peak period without the project and at another corner with the project
in 200'2. For all three analysis conditions, all of the predicted co'ncentra-
tions are below standards. In terms of impact, the increases in concentrations
due to the proposed project, both with and without traffic mitigation, would be
within de minimis criteria, and therefore the proposed project, both with and
wi~hout traffic mitigation, would not result in any significant mobile source
air quality impacts within the project study area.
Table IV-l6
FUTURE (2002) MAXIMU1I PREDICTED 8-HOUR ,CARBON MONOXIDE

CONCENTRATIONS VITH TRAFFIC HITIGATION IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA
(parts per .tIlian)
Receptor Build with
Sit~ Location , li(LBuild Build Ki,t.igation
1 West End Avenue and 72nd Street 5.9/6.2 5.S/5.7 5.5/5.5
2 Amsterdam Avenue, Broadway, and 72nd Street: 6.1 6.3 6.1
5 West End Avenue and 66th Street 4.9 4.S 4.7
6 West,End Avenue and 65th Street 4.S 4.6 4.5
7 West End Avenue and 64th .Street 4.S 4.7 4.6
S West End Avenue and 61st Street 4.6 4.S 4.6
9 West End Avenue and 59th Street 5.0 5.3 4.9
10 Twelfth Avenue (57th-55th Street) 5.9 6.0 6.4
11 57th Street and West End Avenue 7,.9 7.S 7".7
12 57th Street and Amsterdam AVenue 5.9 6.1 5.S
13 57th Street and Columbus Avenue 6.2 6.6 6.3
14 Riverside Drive (Extension) and 72nd Street 3.9/2.8 4.2/4.6 4.2/4.6'
15 Riverside Drive (Extension) and 66th Street 2. S. . 3.S 3.8
16 New Proposed Park at 72nd Street 2:8* 3.9 3.9
17 New Proposed Park at 66th Street 2.8*' 3.7 3.7
Note: * Background concentrations in' 2002.
Relocatio,n ,of ,the Mille.L .Highway
With the Miller Highway relocated, maximum' S-hour carbon monoxide concen-
trations adjacent to the highway would be below 9 ppm: Since No Build values
would be approximately at background levels (i.e., 2.8 ppm), the increase in
concentration with the relocated Miller Highway would be a Significant impact.
The mieigation would be eo provide a full transverse ventilation system. One
of the roadway aesign options being explored as part of the unc-sponsored high-
way relocation planning study is for a fully covered highway wich a full trans-
verse ventilation system. Therefore, the relocation study may recommend, and
IV~47
ultimately a· highway with a full transverse ventilation system may be provided.
However, absent a commitment for this mitigation for the proposed Riverside
South project, and in the absence of any.air quality violations of standard, it
is not proposed to provide th~s mitigation. thus, there would be a significant
unmitigated air quality impact.
Extended $tudy Area
The proposed traffic mitigation for the e~tended study area would not
change the traffic volumes at any intersections, it would only affect speeds.
Both with and without the proposed traffic mitigation, three intersection loca-
tions -- Twelfth Avenue and 42nd Street, Twelfth Avenue· and 34th Street, and
Twelfth Avenue and 23rd Street during both the AM and PM peak periods -- did
not pass the second-level screen in the extended study area. The second-level·
screening analysis yielded results that indicate the potential for significant
impacts due to project-generated traffic at these locations. Detailed micro~
scale third-level screening analyses were performed for these three intersec-
tion locations. Table IV-17 shows the maximum predicted 2002 8-hour carbon
monoxide concentrations for No Build, Build, and Build with mitigation condi-
tions. All of the maximum 8-hour carbon monoxide concentrations are below the
8-hour carbon monoxide standard. In addition, the differences between both the
Build and Build with mitigation, and the N~ Build value are less than the ·de
minimis criteria values. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any
sianificane mobile source air quality impacts in ehe extended study area.
Table IV-l7
FDTOllE (2002) lIAXIHOH PREDICTED 8-HOlJR CARBON BONOnnl:

CONCENTRATIONS WITH TRAFFIC HITlGATION IN TIlE EnI:NDED STODY AREA
(par~s per million)·
Build with
Location. _ No Build Build Hit~igation
Twelfth Avenue and 42nd Street 8.0 8.4 8.3
Twelfth Avenue and 34th Street 6.8 7.8 6.1
Twelfth Avenue and 23rd Street 6.9 7.4 7.4
Stationary Sources
As described in section II.K, the proposed project would have a signifi-

cant impact on the upper intake locatipn of ~ sealed commercial building at 555
West 57th Street, would have potential significant impacts at elevated ·loca-
tions of proposed residential buildings KI, K2, K3, and Jl, and would have
significant impacts at elevated locations on the proposed Macklowe building;
I
~
515 West 59th Street, and 790 Eleventh Avenue. '
Subsequent to publication of the DEIS, additional stationary source fluid

modeling studies were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a mitigation
measure eha~ would COfinect one of the three boilers currently emit~ifig pollu-
tants through StacK No. 5 to StaCK No. 1 at the Con Edison West 59th Street
1\7 .. 48
facility. Therefore, 33 percent of the emission from Stack No.5 would·be
shifted to Stack No.1, which is a considerably taller stack than Stack No. S
(see Table II.K-5 for stack data). Table IV-1S shows the maximum pollutant
concentrations that are projected to occur with thecimplementatiqnof this
mitigation measure. Details of this fluid modeling study are contained in
Ap~endix C.7.
With implementation of this mitigation measure all of the pollutant

levels, both on and off the project site, would be below standards with the
following two exceptions:
o At the proposed studi%ffice site,the maximum 24-hour S02 and PM10 con-
.centrations at Probe No. 79 would exceed the applicable standards. How-
ever, the values with this mitigation measure are less than the values
without mitigation. More importantly, this probe is located at an elevat-
ed location (i.e., elevation 350 feet) on the exterior of a sealed commer-
cial building; no one would be exposed to these pollutant levels; air
intakes for the building HVAC system would not be placed at this location;
and no violation of standards would occur.
o At 555 West 57th Street, the maximum 24-hour S02 concentrations at Probes
Nos. 1 and 14 would exceed the applicable standards. However, the values
with this mitigation measure are less than the values without mitigation.
Both Probes Nos. 1 and 14 are located at elevated locations, on the exte-
rior of a sealed commercial building. However, Probe No. 14 is at the
upper level·air intake for the building HVAC system. Air from this loca-
tion provides some of the air utilized on.the 14th through 19th floors of
the building. The remaining air for these floors comes from supply air
units on the 7th floor. Based on a conservative analysis that aSsumed 24-
hour exposure,· the second maximum 24-hour S02 concentration within the
building for the year when two exceedances are predicted at the upper air
intake would be 329 ug/m3 . therefore, no violation of standards would
occur at this location. .
The implementation of this mitigation measure would eliminate the need to

seal any parts of proposed residential buildings Jl, Rl, K2. and Q (K3). All
concentrations, including those locations which previously were' assumed ·to be
sea~ed on these buildings, would be below NAAQS.
Con Edison has agree'~ that this measure is feasible and that they would
agree to its implementation if it is funded by the applicant. Con Edison will
be reqUired; before this measure is implemented, to apply to the New York St:ste
Department of Environmental Conservation for an amendment of their air quality
permits; a discretionary action.
" People ~n a commercial building typically spend 8 to 10 hours in the bUlla-

ing; and do not have a 24-hour exposure within the bUilding.
1v-49
rable IV-IS
MAXlMDH PR.O.J'E(j-'rED coBCdtRAUOBS POI. BUILD CORDInO.S WItH PROPOSED HITlcaUO.
.502 PIl10-- BOz....-

SlevatioD Ammal ADnual Ammal
..Ae.G~ La.cation P...robe ,feet}. "'erage Z4..JlQur ~BOIlr Avera,e U,",Bour Averace
Eas~ .515 Wes!: 59th 25 375 57.5 275.0 725.2 43.7 117.9 94.1
Street
26 270 57.2 279.0 693.7 43.7 117.8 94.0
27 165 57.7 297.8 666.4 43.8 120.0 94.2
Northeast Macklawe 28 470 58.9 319.7 980.3 43.9 128.5 94.6
29 370 59.5 319.7 925.2 44.0 128.3 94.9
30 2J0 61.2 355.8 878.1 44.3 127.8 95.5
31 170 58.7 310.6 712.2 43.9 119.5 94.6
32 470 59.6 329.1 1,006.0 44.0 129,8 94.9
33 370 59.4 324·.3 933.0 44.0 128.0 94.8
34 270 61.2 360.0 848.6 44.3 128.0 95.5
35 170 57.8 301.5 705.9 43.8 118.3 94.2
BuUding 0 73 315 60.6 334.2 835.4 44.2 134.2 95.3
74 285 59.5 306.7 782.4 44.0 130.3 94.9
75 315 60.3 304.5 828.9 44.1 130.0 95.2
76 285 59.0 278.6 787.2 44.0 126.4 94.7
Office Tower 77 350 60.8 326.8 797.6 44.2 135.1 95.4
78 350 55.7 248.7 572.0 43 •. 5 .107.9 93.4
79 350 65.9 '*527.6 1,218.6 44.9 "152.4 97.3
80 350 57.3 308.5 724.4 43.7 119.2 94.0
84 165 54.7 248.7 554.4 43.4 105.9 93.0
85 165 56.0 260.7 628.5 43.5 112.7 93.5
Southeast.5S5 West 51th 1 315 68.0 *383.8 945.8 45.2 141.9 98.1
Street
2 130 63.1 305.4 790.4 44.5 129.8 96.3
3 315 66.4 345.3 879.3 45.0 134.6 97·.5
4 130 60.3 290.4 648.0· 44.1 121.2 95.2
5 315 58.7 257.4 622.2 43.9 115.2 94.6
6 130 56.3 254.4 553.1 43.6 109.4 93.7
7 315 67.5 350.2 1,006.6 45.1 ·137.3 97.9
8 130 61.6 290.8 751.5 44.3 128.8 95.7
13 325 65.5 328.5 1,007.0 44.8 134.3 97.2
14 325 67.8 *378.2 1,044.1 45.2 141.1 98.1
South 790 Eleventh Avenue .3 380 62.0 326.5 756.7 44.4 .131.7 95.8
4 190 60.6 296.8 682.6 44.2 121.0 95.3
5 ground 58.7 283.2 610.5 43.9 117.3 94.5
7 ground 60.1 292.3 636.6 44.1 118.6 95.1
8 380 61.1 315.4 744.8 44.2 129.8 95.5
9 190 60.1 296.3 686.5 44.1 117.9 95.1
13 380 61.3 306.4 691.4 44.3 125.5 95.6
NorthwestBuilding K1 4 375 61.1 294.6 916.3 44~2 125.8 95.5
5 340 60.7 294.0 854.5 44.2 124.5 95.3
6 310 60.6 290.0 820.6 44.2 124.5 95.3
7 270 60.3 282.6 812.9 44.1 123.9 95.2
8 37.5 61.3 295.5 929.8 44.3 124.7 95.6
9 340 60.9 294.9 817 .4 44.2 123.3 95.4
10 310 60.4 29:L4 810.5 44.1 121.4 95.2
11 270 60.2 2B6.9 789.9 44.1 121.4· 9.5.1
Exceedafice gf standards. IV-50

Table IV-II (continued)
IIATJ'JfIWf PROJECl'ED COIICDtRATIOB5 :roJ. BUILD COIIDlrIOB5 WIrs PIlOP05ED mTlGAUo.
5°2 PH..1o ~2-=

:ilevatiOii AmnIal Amnaal. A:mnaal.
Sector . -- _Lo..caUDiL_ . !!!!!l!! ,teet} ~era,e 14-Bour 3-HOur AVJrate 24-Bour Averate
Building K2 12 315 62.1 347.9 1;017.7 44.4 130.0 95.9
13 285 61.4 333.7 961.6 44.3 126.9 95.6
14 255 60.1 299.7 899.9 44.1 122.3 95.1
15 225 59.5 284.6 869.5 44.0 120.2 94.9
16 315 62.4 359.8 1,012.9 44.4 131.4 96.0
17 285 61.6 341.0 968.4 44.3 128.9 95.7
18 255 60.4 313.0 896.0 44.1 124.1 95.2
19 225 59.2 280.6 851.0 44.0 119.7 94.7
Building J1 46 420 61.1 306.5 806.0 44.2 123.4 95.5
20 380 60.6 298.0 777.2 44.2 122.0 95.3
21 350 60.4 299.1 772.1 44.1 123.0 95.2
22 320 60.2 295.0 758.9 44.1 122.2 95.1
23 290 60.1 292.1 757 •.5 44.1 122.1 95.1
Northwest Building. Jl 47 420 60.7 304.6 789.0 44.2 121.8 95.3
24 380 60.4 300.3 762.4 44.1 121.7 95.2
25 350 60.-1 293.5 796.5 44.1 123.0 95.1
26 320 59.9 288.9 797.9 44.1 122.9 95.0
27 290 59.6 281.6 783.9 44.0 121.8 94.9
Building J2 42 315 59.3 280.1 809.7 44.0 117.2 94.8
43 265 58.4 259.2 782.4 43.9 114.2 94.5
44 315 59.3 274.2 826.0 44.0 117.0 94.8
45 265 58.5 257.1 769.6 43.9 - 113.6 94.5
Bldg.l (s. Tawer) 28 460 60.5- 285.0 775.7 44.2 121.9 95.2
29 435 60.4 28-3.2 766.5 44.1 121.6 9-5.2
30 410 60.1 279.5 760.8 44.1 121.1 95.1
31 385 60.0 279.4 754.2 44.1 120.7 95.1
32 460 60.6 283.1 766.0 44.2 122.0 95.3
33 435 60.4 278.4 743.9 44.1 121.2 95.2
34 410 60.1 .274.7 724.3 44.1 120.0 95.1
35 385 59.7 273.0 107~8 44.1 118.4 94.9
Bldg.l (6. Tower) 36 460 60.3 271.4 760.1 44.1 122.1 95.2
37 435 59.9 267.0 145.4 44.1 121.3 95.0
38 410 59.5 261.2 125.4 44.0 119.6 .94.9
39 460 60.3 274.8 168.3 44.1 122.5 95.2
40 435 S9.6 267.1 ,4,.8 44.0 120.1 94.9
41 410 59.3 260.6 727.5 44.0 118.6 94.8
IV-51
E. NoISE
As described in section II.L, operation of the proposed project ~ould no~

result in any significant noise impacts. The analysis in section II.L consid-
ers the various noise-producing factors in the study area, including traffic.
However, the proposed measures to mitigate significant traffic impacts would
change traffic volumes on given intersections in the study area from those
analyzed. Therefore, the potential for noise impacts generated by traffie
mitigation for the proposed project was determined using the mechoaology previ~
ously described. .
In addition, ~he project's construction would have significant noise im-

pacts. Mitigation for these impacts is discussed below.
No~se from Traffic Hit~ga~ion Heasures
A summary of maximum noise levels and increases at the four monitored

locations ~here traffic volumes would change as a result of mitigation measures
is shown in Table IV-19. The traffic mitigation would not result in a doubling
of peE traffic volumes on any street in the study area. As shoWn in Table
IV-20, L10(1) noise levels would increase by less than 3.0 dBA at a·ll noise-sen-
sitive monitored locations in ·1997. Therefore, no significant noise impact
would result from the traffic mitigation for proposed project. No increases
are listed for monitored locations 11 and 12 because the land at these loca-
tions is currently Vacant, the ne~ section of Riverside Drive does not current-
ly e~ist. and there are no noise-sensitive locations Qucside the project that
~ould be affected by the project at these locations. A complete list of ex-
pected hourly blO(1) noise levels with the proposed project is shown in Tables
0.1-77 through 0.1-80 in Appendix 0.1.
Table IV-19
lfAXJllUH ~O(l) NOISE LltVEIS AT LOCA'l'IONS WHERE TRAFFIC WOUlJ) CHANGE

nTH TRAFFIC BITlGATION :rOll THE PROJECT IN "1997 (dBA)
Honi~ored No Builet Bu~ld Haximum

l.Qca."tion I.e:vels l.eul..S Increas__
1 71.5 72.4 2·.6
2 69.0 68.4 1.1
'Ii 'It
11 67.9
12 * 68.0
.
Rote:
No Build levels and increases are not
listed because ehe land would be vacant
without the project.
tV-52
All locations would remain in the same CEPO-CEQR categories as they are in
the No Build conditions. All project buildings would have ·exterior doub1e-
glazed windows and air conditioning such that window/wall noise attenuation
would be at least 30 dBA. This would ensure that interior noise levels would
not exceed the 45 dBA LlO (1) CEPO-CEQR requirement.
As discussed in section II.L of the FEIS, noise levels at locations within

the portions of the park completed by the year 1997 would exceed the CEPO-CEQR
55 dBA Llo guideline value. This is due principally to noise generated by
vehicles using the elevated Miller Highway. Noise levels in the park would be
comparable to levels in existing parks adjacent to heavily traveled roadways in
. New York City. In addition, based on noise measurements at school p1ay-
·grounds, * which yielded LlO(l) values of 77 dBA at the p-1ayground boundary and
75 dBA at a distance of 15 feet from the playground boundary, noise levels
adjacent to active play areas in the portions of the park cqmpleted by the year
1997, would exceed the CEPO-C~QR 55 dBA Llo guideline value. There is no fea-
sible mitigation· to achieve the 5S dBA Llo guideline value through the portions
of the park completed by the year 1997. Therefore, ehe significant noise im-
pact on park users would remain unmitigated.
A summary of maximum noise levels and increases at the eight monitored.

locations where traffic volumes would change because of mitigation meas~res is
shoWn in Table IV-20. The traffic mitigation would not result in a doubling of
PCE traffic volumes on any street in the study· area. As shown in Table IV-20,
LlO (1) noise levels would increase by less than 3.0 dBA at all noise-sensitive
monitored locations in 2002. Therefore, no significant noise impact would
result from traffic mitigation for the proposed project. No increases are
listed for monitored locations 11 and 12 because the land at these locations is
currently vacant, the new section of Riverside Drive does not currently exist,
. and there are no noise-sensitive locations outside the proJect that would be.
affected by the project at these .locations . . A complete list of. expected hourly·
Llo (1) noise levels with the proposed project is shown i.n Tables 0.1-89 through
0.1-96 in Appendix 0.1.
All locations wi11·remain in the same CEPO~CEQR categories as they are in

the No Build conditions, except Monitored Location 8. Location 8, on West 59th
Street near West End Avenue, would change from "marginally unacceptable" to
"clearly unacceptable;" however, the maximum LlO(l) increase caused by the proj-
ect would be 1.8 dBA, barely perceptible change, and the same change that would
occur with the project without traffic mitigation. All project buildings would
have exterior double-glazed windows and air conditioning such that window/wall
noise attenuation would be at: least 30.dBA. The building on parcel M would
have additional window/wall noise attenuation to achieve at least a 35 dBA
noise reduction. This would ensure that interior noise levels would no~ exceed
the 45 dBA LiOO,) CEPO-CEQR requirement.
Noise measurements at: two school playground sites made by Allee King Rosen
& Fleming; Inc., on November 24; 1981, and noise measurements at 10 school
playground sites performea by DEP during October 1987.
IV-53
Table lV-20·
HA'J'TKOH ~O(U NOISE LEVELS AT LoCATIONS WUEB.E TRAFFIC VOUl.D CHANGE

nTH TRAFFIC HITIGATION FOB. TIlE PROJECT IN 2002 (dBA)
lIonit:ored No Build Build HuimuiD

Location ~v.els_ l.ev:els. Increase
1 71. 8 72.8 2.8
2 69.0 69.4 2,4
4 70.8 71.1 0.7
5 74.8 74.8 0.1
6 78.9 79.0 0.2
8 .
78.5 80.3 1.8
11 70.6 •
12 • 70.1 •
Hote:
. . No Build levels and increases are not
listed becaUse ehe land would be vacant
wiehoue the project.
Maximum noise levels in the new park would be less than 3.0 dBA higher
than those without the project. This would be an imperceptible diff~rence 'in
noise levels.
As discussed in section II.L of the FEIS, noise levels at locations within

the park with the rehabilitated elevated highway would. exceed the CEPO-CEQR 5S
dBA L10 guideline level. This would. be most prevalent a·t locations adj acent to
the highway, and is due principally to noise generated by vehicles using the
roadway. Noise levels in the park would be comparable to levels in existing
parks adjacent to roadways in New York City. The current rehabilitation proj-
ect for ehe elevated highway do·es not include providing noise barriers. How-
ever, in the event that a decision is made not to relocate the highway, the
feasibility of adding noise mitigation. measures, such as noise barriers, to the
. elevated highway would be explored as part of· final park design studies. The
analysis contained in this EIS is a conservative analysis and does not account
for the attenuation that might ·be achieve.d if such measures were implemented.
Implementation of barriers mayreauce traffic-·generated noise levels to within
CEPO-CEQR guideline levels. However, even with implementation of this. type of
mitigation, noise levels adjacene to active play areas (based on measurements
at school playgrounds", which yielded L10(1) values of 77 dBA at the playground
boundary and 75 dBA ae a distance of 15 feet from the playground boundary)
would exceed ehe CEPO-CEQR 55 dBA L10 guideline level. There is fiO feasible
mitigation to achieve the S5 dBA 1.10 gUideline level throughout ehe park.
Therefore; ~he significant noise impact on park users would remain unmieigated .
• BaseQ on noise measurements at two school playground. siees .made by Allee

King Rosen & Fleming, Inc,; on November 24, 1987; and noise measurements at
lO.sshool playground sites performed by DEP during October 1981.
IV-54
Relocated Miller _Highwa~ $cenario
As was done for the project, an analysis was performed to evaluate the
effect of relocating the Miller Highway upland, partially under the new River-
side Drive between West 59th and 72nd Streets. Details of the expected LlC(l)
noise levels at receptors in the new park are listed in Tables D.l·97 to
D.I-IOO in Appendix D.l. It was assumed that the highway would be at least
partially open to the park and that the park terrain beeween the highway and
the Hudson River would consist of a berm sloped downhill from Riverside Drive
to the Hudson River.
Table IV-21 shows maximum L10 (1) levels expected at receptors in the new
park with the relocated highway. Noise levels are listed for 2002 only because
the related highway would not be completed before 2002.
Table IV-2l
MAXTKOH L10Cl) NOISE LEVELS IN THE NEW PARK WITH '1R.UFlc HITlGATION
- AND THE RELOCATED HIGHWAY (dBA)
Monitored 2002
Location Bui.ld Lev:e1s
9 46.2"
10 67.0"
11 69.6
12 69.6
Traffic noise alone; actual levels would be up to 10

dBA higher because of activities Within the park.
Maximum LlO(l) noise levels in the park would be slightly lower than those
with the project and the relocated highway bec_ause of the shielding of the
highway by Rivers~de Drive. Noise levels in the park near the Hudson RiVer
would be as much as 10 dBA lower with the relocated highway because traffic on
the Miller Highway is the dominant noise source in its current configuration.
Noise levels in the park would exceed those generally recommended for outdoor I
activities, but would be comparable to levels in existing parks adjacent to
heavily traveled roadways in New York City. Noise levels in the park, both
with and without the relocated highway, would exceed the CEPO-CEQR 55 dBA LlD
guideline level and therefore result in a significant impact on park users.
This would be most prevalent at locations immediately adjacent to either the
~elocated or rebuilt highway, and is due to noise generated by vehicles using
the roadway. However, with the relocated highway, noise levels in the park may
be less than those shoWn in section lI.L. This is because noise attenuation
measures may be ueilized for the new roadway. This may inolude noise absorp-
tion material and the use of noise barriers. In addition, one of the roadway
design options being explored as part of the UDC sponsored highway relocation
planning study is for a covered, fully ventilated highway. There is no commie-
ment, at this time, to implement any of these measures. The an_alys1s contained
IV-55
in this EIS is a conserVative analysis and does not account for any of these
design features, which if implemented may reduce noise levels to within CEPO-
CEQR guideline levels. However, even with implementation of these types of
mitigation measures, noise levels adjacent to active play areas (based on mea-
surements at school playgrounds, "'. which yielded L10(1) values of 77 ciBA at the
playground boundary and 75 dBA at a distance of 15 feet from ehe playground
boundary) would exceed the CEPO-CEQR 55 ciBA L10 guideline level. There is no
feasible mitigation eo achieve this 5S dBA L10 guideline level throughout the
park.
Construction Noise
To mitigate the significant noise impacts gene·rated by construction-re-

lated noise, the developer would attempt to assure that the Leq(lh hour) would be
~ 75 dBA at the nearest residential property line and'~80 dBA at the nearest
commercial building; these noise thresholds are promulgated by DEP for con-
struction noise associated with tunneling permits and, whenever possible, gen w
erally for all construction activi~y. The developer would meet with the con-
struction contractors and explore the feasibility of noise control measures,
such as quiet equipment and the erection of barriers, to comply with the stan-
dards above. As discussed in section I!. R, DEP noise thresholds are expected
to be exceeded a·t several locations, especially those next to .the project site,
resulting in u~itiga~ible adverse noise impacts during construction.
The developer ,would also ensure that the contractors follow the guidelines
given in the DNA report, "Construction Noise Mitigation Measures" (CON-79-00l,
July 1979). property line sound and vibration level measurements would be 'made
ona monthly basis and the results compared with the estimated off-site souna
levels detailed in this report to assess the effectiveness of these measures.
These monthly reports would be submitted ~o DEP. The need for more frequent
sound measurement reports during periods of particularly high construction
noise would be determined in consultadon with DEli based. ort more detailed. cort-
scruction schedUles.
F. S4ZARDOUS MATERIALS
As described in sec'tion 11.M; "Hazard.ous .Materials," there is a potential

for significant adverse impacts resulcing from the presence of hazardous mate-
rials in the soil and groundwater on the site. Mitigaeion for these impacts is
described below. '
'" Based on noise measurements at two school playground sites made by Allee
King ROsen & Fleming, lnc' i on November 24, 1987, and noise measurements at
lO school playground sites performed by DEP during October 1987.
IV-56
Soils
Remedial alternatives for contaminated soils .include but are not limited
to:
o Isolation/containment;
o Excavation and disposal in landfills;
o E~cavation and land treatment on-site (land farming);
o E~cavation and aeration/enhanced volatiliza~ion;
o Excavation and on-site thermal treatment;
o Chemical fixation;
o In .situ bioremediation; and
o Passive remediation.
The proposed project plans would result in the capping of most site soils
with impervious surfaces or clean fill (an isolation/containment solution).
For those areas not to be paved or built upon, a remediation program that pre-
vents human cDntact with all site soils has been developed. This plan includes
mitigation during construction, as well as after full project development. The
elements of the plan follow.
The off-site disposal of any site soil would be accomplished incompliance

with all applicable la\o1s and regulations. The analyses of site soils indicate
that the materials would not constitute hazardous waste as defined by federal
regulations.
Clean Soil Cover
To remoVe the potential for direct human contact with site soils, 2 feet
of clean soil fill would be placed upon all areas not covered by paving or
other building materials. The clean cover soil would then be planted with
lawn, trees, or other landscaping. These measures would effectively prevent
direct contact with e~isting site soils and eliminate any potential concern
regarding PAHs and metals. In areas of limited extent, e~cavation of 2 feet of
soil prior to the placement of clean fill may be required due to design or
topographic constraints.
Temp-QJ~ary;Gravel CoVer. 1'.1 an During .GonstructiO:n/Go.nstruction Mitigat.ion

Measures. for. l'.r.o.te.ction. o.LAdj.acent Qff ...8.i1:e..and On-S.ite. .Res.idents
those portions of the site that would be used for construction staging
areas subject to truck traffic or to other activities that might disturb soil
would be covered with a layer of gravel. The uSe of gravel would minimize
potential fugitive dUst releases and erosion, thus reducing the generation of
dust and the movement of sediment into the Hudson River. While construction
Iv-57
staging areas would be fenced to prevent access to the public, the gravel cover
would also prevent direct contact with soils even in the event that a trespass-
er gains access.
Active staging areas would be monitored by an independent site safety

officer for airborne particulate levels. Should particulate levels exceed the
action level specified in the Construction Phase Health and Safety Plan dis-
cussed below, such dust suppression techniques as watering or application of a
polymer would be used. The site safety officer would decide on the specific
technique to be implemented on a case-by-case basis.
Those areas not used as construction staging areas that would remain unde-
veloped during development of the project would be fenced to prevent trespass-
ing and potential contact with site soils.
Construction Phase Health and Safe.ty; .Plan
A Construction Phase Health and Safety Plan has been developed as a compo-
nent of the mitigation program for all phases of construction, with particular
attention given to trenching activities in the former locomotive area. The .
plan, which has been approved by the DEP Division of Hazardous Materials Pro-
gram, combines air monitoring within 100 feet doWnwind of construction areas
during soil-disturbing activities with actions described above to reduce air-
borne levels of chemicals. Monitoring would be conducted by an independent
site safety officer. The Construction Health and Safety Plan is included in
Appendix E.
Potential Ventilation of Hethane
The presence of methane, which is limited to particular portions of the

site as previously described, would be mitigated as a result of the soil aera-
tion that would occur during normal soil handling during site preparation and
construction. These activities would typically include excavation, clearing,
and grading, using a variety of earth-moving ma~hiries, such as bulldozers and
tractors. Construction activities would result in aeration of soil, thereby
red~cing the potential buildup of soil gases. Th~se portions of the site sche-
duled for development in the later construction phases would experience, over a
period of several years, a reduction in the levels of methane.
Before construction in areas where high methane readings have been iden-
tified, soil gases would be monitored by the site safety officer to ensure that
methane is not present at potentially explosive levels. If methane is measured
at 1 percent or lower of its lower explosive limit" no additional ,soil aeration
would be reqUired. If levels over 1 percent of the lower explosive limit are
measured, then additional soil aeration techniques would be applied. This
would likely include installation of a passive venting system below the struc-
ture to consist of a porous bedding material (gravel) placed under an around a
structure's foundation. Perforated PVC pipes, installed vertically around the
structure ae regular ineervals; would allow escape of methane to ambient air,
preventing its buildup in soil gases. Methane is formed rtaturally as organic
ma~erial decomposes ana is no~ a toxic substanCe, For this reason; its release
presents fiO significant adverse impac~ to ambient air quality,
IV-58
Groundwater Remediation Alternati"V'es and Potential B.emedlatlon Program
for Water Pumping During Dewa~ering
Remedial alterna~ives for "reducing levels of metallic parameters of con-

cern from groundwater include bti~ are not limi~eQ to:
o Coagulation/flocculation/precipitation;
o Neu~ralization;
o Clarification;
o Filtration;
o Ion exchange; and
o Reverse osmosis.
Potential mitigation alternatives for organics include:
o Chemical oxidation;
o Ultraviolet photolysis and hydrogen peroxide oxidation;
o Ultraviolet photolysis and o~onation;
o Stripping;
o Adsorption;
o Surface biologic treatment; and
o In situ bioremediation.
It is either expected that most groundwater pumped during dewatering would"

meet water quality standards for release either directly to the Hudson River or
to the New York City sewage tr"eatment system. this would be determined by
water quality testing and review of tests by NYSDEC and NYCDEP. Testing would
occur before each construction phase and would be conducted to meet all
specifications of the involved agencies.
Some site groundwater may require treatment to reduce chemica.lconcentra-

tions" prior to discharge. Because "of the low levels "of concentrations found at
the" site, it is expected that the above technologies, either individually or in
combination, would reduce metals to meet the applicable standards.
As discussed in "Impacts," no other groundwa~er remediation (other than

that which may be needed for dewatering effluent) would be required. several
factors must be considered in evaluating the need for remediating groundwater,
including the level and extent of con~amination, the current and future use gf
the groundwater, and the applicable groundwater standards. Although site
IV-59
groundwater was found to contain met"als exceeding applicable state groundwater
guidelines for potable water supply, the exceedances are generally small and
limited to selected areas. Also, groundwater at the s~te is not used currently
and would not be used in the f~ture as a ·source of drinking water.
lormer Tank Storage Area
Although the results of testing indicate no evidence of gasoline-related

by-products in the soil or groundwater west of ehe former tank storage area,
and no continuing source to produce such vapors, to be prudent, vapor testing
of the soils would occur prior co oonstruction; and any nesessary mieigaeion
(i.e.; aeration of soils) would be carrieG out in accordance with the Construc-
tion Phase Health anG Safety Plan.
Iv-60
CHAPTER V. "UNMITIGATED ADVERSE IMPACTS
Certain potential significant adverse impacts have been identift"ed in

Chapter II of this EIS. Measures to mitigate several of these impacts are
described in Chapter IV. Where no measures are proposed to mitigate signifi-
cant impacts, these are described as unavoidable adverse impacts.
A. COMMUNITY FAClLITIES AND SERVICES
Public Schools
In 1997, project-generated elementary school students would have a signif-

icant impact on elementary school resources by exacerbating conditions of over-
crowding that would already exist without the project at P.S. 191 and P.S. 199. J
The projected overcrowding could be potentially mitigated by shifting magnet·
intermediate school programs out of elementary schools serving the site to
underutilized schools in School District 3; consolidating or relocating admin-
istrative uses from schools; redistricting grades from P.S. 191 and P.S. 199 to
underutilized schools in other parts of School District 3; or leasing ·school
space that could be constructed on the project site. These mitigation measures
are pending appro~al by the Board of Education and could be effected increment-
ally as needed. Without a Board of Education commitment for implementation of
these measures, the project would have an unmitigated significant impact on
elementary school resources in 1997.
In 2002, project-generated students would significantly impact both ele-

mentary and intermediate school conditions in School District 3, necessitating
the addition of school space .on-site to accommodate project-generated students.
The developer has ·committed to providing space for 600 additional elementary
school seats on-site for sale or lease to the Board of Education at fair market
rate. Und~r this arrangement, the district wo~ld have the flexibility to shift
other off-site elementary school students to the project school space. Shift-
ing.off-site elementary school students to the on-site school space would, in
turn, free up space within area schools that could be used to alleviate the
overcrowding in the district's intermediate schools. Without a commitment from
the Board of Education to such a shift, however, the proposed project would
have an unmitigated. adverse impact On intermediate school· capacity. Without a
Board of Education commitment to lease or purchase this space on-site, the
project would have an·unmitigated. significant impact on elementary and interme-
diate school resources in 2002. .
B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
As described in Chapter IV, "Mitigation;" the proposed mitigation plan

would elimina~e all traffiC, transit, and pedestrian impacts resulting from the ~
proposed project with the following exceptions. ~
'.1-1
Transportation
Subways
Subway Stations
In 1997, platform stairways Pl/P3 and P5/P7 at the 72nd Street IRT station
would be impacted by project-generated trips during the AM peak hour, and plat~
form stairways P4 and P6 would be impacted during the PM peak hour. These
stairways at the 72nd Street IRT station are substandard and would be crowded
in No Build c·onditions. In 2002, street stairway 02 at the 66th Street IRT
station would be impacted by project-generated trips d~ring both the AM and PM
peak hours. In 2002, street stairway S3 at the 59th Street-Columbus Circle
station (adjacent to the Paramount Communications building) would be impacted
by project-generated trips during both the AM and PM peak hours. A mitigation
plan that would mitigate the project impacts at the 72nd Street IRT station has
been proposed. At this time, the applicant's .consultants have estimated the
cost of this plan, assuming that it is constructed by the New York City Transit
Authority (NYCTA), to be $25-$35 million at the midpoirit of construction. the
developer proposes to commit $5 million for the mitigation plan, with the city
and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) funding the remainder. If
the city and the MTA do not commit·to their share of the mitigation, there
would be an unmitigated impact at this station. No project-sponsored mitiga-
tion is proposed for fully eliminating the impacts at the 59th s~reet-Columbus
Circle station,. and they would remain unmitigated.
Subway Line Haul
In 2002, the Nos. 1 and 9 IRT lines would have a capacity deficit of 3
percent in the southbound direction during the AM peak hour, compared with a
·capacity surplus of 1 percent under 2002 No Build conditions (a change of 4
percent). Although the MTA does not specify impact criteri~ for .line haul
operations, the change from +1 percent to -3 percent in available capacity on
these lines appears to constitute a significant impact to line haul.conditions.
No project-sponsored mitigation would be provided.
Buses
In both 1997 and 2002, five local bus routes, the M5, MIl, M57, M66, and
MI04, would be impacted by project-generated trips in one or both peak hours.
As standard practice, the NYCTA routinely conducts ridership counts and adjusts
service frequency, within operating and fiscal constraints, to meet its service
criteria. Therefore I no project-spofiso.rea mitigation would be provided.
c. AIR QUALITY
In terms of mobile source air quality, relocation of the Miller Highway

would produce carbon mofioxide levels that are below standards but which exceed
de minimis values, and would therefore result in a Significant impact. Without
mitigation, this impact would be an unmitigated adverse impact.
V-2
D. NOISE
Both with and without the relocated"Miller Highway, noise levels in the
proposed project's park would "exceed the GEPO-GEQR 55 dBAL10 guideline level,
and would therefore result in a" significant impact on park users. There is no
feasible mitigation for this impact and it would be an unmitigated adverse 1
impac.t.
E. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
During the construction of the project, efforts will be made to mitigate

significant impacts from construction noise by assuring that the Leq (lIi hour)
would be ~ 75 dBA at the nearest residential property line and s 80 dBA at the
nearest commercial builaing; these noise thresholds are promulgated by DEP for
construc.tion noise. these thresholds are expected to be exceeded at several
locations; especially at chose next to the project site, resulting in unmiti-
gatible adverse construction noise impacts.

Riverside South FEIS 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Riverside South FEIS 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

/

CEQR No. as-253M

Oct;o'ber 11. 1992

Mr .. Joseph W. Ketas Ms: Annette M. Barbaccia

Prepared for: Penn Yards Associaces

SPORSOK. PENN YARDS ASSOCIATES

ClIlAPl."ER. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-1

A. PROJECT OVERVIEW- 1-1

B. SACKGROUND to THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1-3

C. DESCRIPTION of THE PROPOSED paOJECT 1-9

D. RELOCATION OF THE MILLER HIGHWAY

DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE POTENTIAL Faa H.C-l

EXisting Conditions n.C~3

E. URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL CHARACTER 11. E-1

The Future Without the project 1l.E-12

F. WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PLAN II.F-l

a. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION II. G-l

H. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES II.H-l

Existing Conditions II.H~5

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS II. 1-1

Ie AIR QUAL1TY II.K ... 1

Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations from . Il.K-5

Mi HAZARDOUS MATERIALS II.M-l

N. NATURAL RESOURCES IIoN .. l

o. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER 11.0-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS· (Continue4)

Probable Impacts·o£ ~he Proposed Projece II.O-4

INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOLID ~ASTE 11.1'-1

R. CONS'tRUCTION IMPACTS II.R-l

B. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE IlI-l

E. SEWAGE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES. HI-37

CIIAPTElI. tv. ·KITlGATION JlFASUllES IV-l

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALs lv-56

CIIAPTF.& V. tiRHITlGATED ADVEllSE IHPACTS V-l

E. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS V-3

CIAHElt VI. JlESPONSE TO COlIJIDTS VI-1

C. RESPONSE to COMMENTS VI·9

PROJECT D£SCRIPTION VI~9

PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT vl .. 61

APPENDIX A Pedestrian Winds AnalYBis

APPENDIX C Air QUality

APPENDIX E Hazardous Materials

APPENDIX F Letter from Fire Department

APPENDIX G View Corridors

ApPENDIX B Shadow Studies

S-1 Parcel-by-Parcel Land Use Program (Above Grade) S-3

1-2 Zoning Calculations 1-16

I1.S-2 1990 Study Area Population and Housing Density II.B-1S

I1.c-2 Total Housing Units II.C-6

II.C-3 Households II.C-8

Il.c-4 One- and Two-Person Households 1l.C-9

ll.c-S Age cohorts, 1970, 1980, 1990

II.C-8 Persons with Income Below the Poverey Level II.C-16

II.e-9 Level of Educational Attairtmene Among Persons 2S Years I1.C-17

II.C-10 Occupacional Cbaracteriscics 1l.C-19

II.C-l1 Occupied Units and owner-Occupied Housing Units II. C- 20

II,C-12 Number of Units in S~rUC~Yre II. c- 22

II.C-14 Year of Construction of Residential Units, 1980 II.C-25

II.C-16 Existing Cooperative and Condominium Buildings II.C-31

II.C-19 Public and Publicly Assisted Housing 11.c-48

II.D-l Public School Utilization, Capacity,· and Enrollment n .D- 3

11,0-2 Enrollment History, 1981-1992, Districe 3, Region I, I1.D-4

lI.D-3 Other Educational Facilities, Day Care Centers, and 11.0-7