appendix e alternatives supporting materialsricondoprojects.com/lgaaccess/appendix...

APPENDIX E

Alternatives Supporting Materials

E.1 MTA MEETING NOTES, SEPTEMBER 5, 2019

E.2 LETTER FROM NYCDEP, SEPTEMBER 13, 2019

APPENDIX E.1

MTA Meeting Notes, September 5, 2019

LGA AirTrain – EIS September 5, 2019

ATTENDANCE SHEET

Name Company Telephone Number Email Addresses

Judith A. Schwartz MTA Legal 212-878-1032 [email protected]

David Sanchez FAA NYADO 718-995-5776 [email protected]

Marie Jenet FAA NYADO 718-995-5777 [email protected]

David Fish FAA AEA 718-553-3331 [email protected]

David Full RS-H 415-780-4602 [email protected]

Michelle Cohen LGA Redevelopment 212-435-3770 [email protected]

Adam McCool LIRR-DPM 516-523-0147 [email protected]

Bryan Bertoli LIRR-SUC PLAN 347-494-6711 [email protected]

Jacob Balter LIRR-Strategic Investments 718-558-3856 [email protected]

Donna Betty LIRR-Strategic Investments 718-558-3832 [email protected]

Garth H. Mcintosh NYCT-Buses 718-566-3502 [email protected]

Louis Oliva MTA Legal 212-878-4633 [email protected]

Joseph Chan MTA RE 212-878-8316 [email protected]

John Doyle FAA Legal 718-553-3270 [email protected]

John Williams Ricondo 415-992-5892 [email protected]

Steven Loehr NYCT-DOS 646-252-2884 [email protected]

Andrew Teodorescu FAA Legal 718-977-6511 [email protected]

Allison Sampson Ricondo 248-767-9645 [email protected]

Andrew Greenberg MTA RE 212-878-7434 [email protected]

Dibya Shahi DY Consultants 212-635-3838 [email protected]

Wendy Yu DY Consultants 212-635-3838 [email protected]

LGA AirTrain – EIS September 5, 2019

ATTENDANCE SHEET

Name Company Telephone Number Email Addresses

Jean Wolfers-Lawrence Andrew Brooks Faith Tabafunda Matt Discenna Steve Culberson Lisa Schreibman David Moss

FAA FAA PANYNJPANYNJRicondoMTA-NYCT

MTA-Bus

212-267-9747 718-553-2511 212-435-3462 212-435-3722 312-479-8710 646-252-5953

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

2 | P a g e

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SEPTEMBER 2019 DRAFT

LGA Access Improvement Project EIS September 5, 2019

MTA Coordination Meeting 9:00 a.m. EST

18061104 MTA, 2 Broadway, NY, NY

MEETING FACILITATOR: S. Culberson

NOTE TAKER(S): S. Culberson, J. Doyle MEETING ATTENDEES REPRESENTING EMAIL

SEE ATTACHED

SUMMARY OF MEETING DISCUSSION FAA and the EIS Team provided written questions to MTA prior to the meeting. MTA submitted responses

to most of the questions on September 4 (see attached).

Bus Service — MTA is getting ready to initiate a redesign of the bus routes in Queens at the end of October 2019.

They anticipate being able to distribute draft routes in November for review and discussion. MTA anticipates that the final redesigned bus network would be published in April 2020 with implementation sometime in 2021.

— Redesign of bus network will be relevant for cumulative impacts and traffic analysis. — MTA is considering routes from downtown Flushing to LGA. The proposed Willets Point Development

may have a route along Seaver Way. — The network is going to be redesigned regardless of whether the AirTrain is approved/constructed, but

it will be designed in a way to make it flexible. — Q48 bus route may be altered as part of the redesign. Anticipate that the Q33, Q42, and Q72 lines will

be adjusted as part of the redesign effort. — MTA anticipates that the M60 and Q70 bus lines will run whether or not the Port Authority’s proposed

alternative is implemented. If the Port Authority’s proposed alternative is implemented it may result insome schedule changes, but no changes to these bus lines would occur for at least 6 months after the Port Authority’s proposed alternative opens (assuming it is approved) to allow MTA time to assess how and if bus ridership changes as a result of the proposed project.

— MTA anticipates sharing information with agencies in late October/early November 2019.

Long Island Rail Road – Port Washington Branch — The LIRR anticipates providing service at the Mets-Willets Point Station with up to 4 trains per hour.

Currently LIRR provides 30-minute service at the station during event days in each direction (NY Mets games, U.S. Tennis Open, etc.). LIRR would provide shuttle service from the Mets-Willets Point Station to Woodside and Grand Central Station (1 additional run per hour in each direction) and from the Mets-Willets Point Station to Woodside and Grand Central Station (1 additional run per hour in each direction). When fully operational, LIRR could run 4 trains per hour in each direction.

LGA Access Improvement Project EIS | 1 | Agency Coordination Meeting


— Existing Port Washington Branch trains would continue to run on the existing tracks; the new shuttle service would run on two outside tracks (1 on other side of the existing tracks) that would be constructed as part of the Port Authority’s proposed alternative.

— East Side Access project will be online in 2023, which will provide additional trains and allow for new shuttle service. Existing trains range in length from 6 to 12 cars.

— Increased service will require Mets-Willets Point to be a two-platform station; no modifications needed at Woodside.

— East River tunnels are currently planned to be rehabilitated between 2023 and 2028. LIRR is planning for the outage of one East River tunnel throughout this time period, which may limit the number of trains in each direction to 3 per hour during peak periods. Additional cars are needed to support East Side Access.

— No minimum ridership is needed to sustain/justify the shuttle service — The anticipated train service is expected to support/accommodate any additional development at

Willets Point — Fares for the shuttle service are to be determined, but LIRR does not anticipate that fares would be any

different than current prices. Implementation of city-fare could have an impact but that would apply city-wide.

— Stopping at the Woodside Station only adds 1 minute to overall travel time. — Railyard expansion project at Port Washington is planned but not required to support the Mets-Willets

Point proposed service increases. — AirTrain passenger projections are not projected to have a significant effect on the LIRR or NYCT lines.

Some congestion may occur on the platforms for the transfers, with the added consideration of passengers’ luggage.

— For heavy rail grade is limited to a maximum of 3 percent. — Requested information on cost-per-mile for new rail. Requested information on whether construction

costs for 2nd Avenue Line was reasonable to apply for new rail lines. — MTA is exempt from City-law statewide, and they are exempt from certain SEQR requirements if the

project would impact less than 10 acres in size. If the project is greater than 10 acres in size, some SEQR requirements apply.

— MTA had plans to make the Mets-Willets Point Station ADA compliant and improve/install new signal infrastructue; as part of the Port Authority’s proposed alternative they propose to extend the platform amd raise the track above the 100-year floodplain elevation for resiliency/adaptation.

— MTA has an existing policy in incorporate resiliency/adaptation features when they need to construct or reconstruct infrastructure. ADA updates alone would not trigger incorporation of resiliency/adaptation features. MTA is taking advantage of the changes necessitated by the Port Authority’s proposed project to incorporate those design features.

New York City Transit 7 Line.



— There are no plans to rehabilitate the Mets-Willets Point Subway Station for the 7 Line or make any service changes. Based on the projected ridership for AirTrain passengers, it is not expected that the subway system would be significantly affected by the increase in passengers from the AirTrain. Improvements to the 7 Line (Communications Based Train Control or CBTC) were recently implemented on the 7 Line. CBTC provides an approximate 8 percent increase in capacity.

— MTA also noted that there is quite a bit of capacity on the 7 Line in the opposite direction during rush hours. For example, during morning rush hours, trains bound for Manhattan are quite full, while trains bound out of Manhattan (e.g., toward LGA) are nearly empty.

— MTA will provide ridership and capacity numbers for the 7 Line to FAA. — MTA does not have current plans to make all stations ADA compliant; their goal is to have an ADA

compliant stations within 2 stations of any station. — Extensions to elevated subway lines have not been built by MTA in decades, so they do not have any

cost per mile estimates. The Second Avenue subway line was recommended as a reference point for cost to construct underground subways.

— MTA stated that if an alternative included a branch off of an existing line, additional subway cars would be needed to extend branch service out to LGA. Check past studies regarding yard capacity for such additional trains.

— Steinway alternative - would be difficult to increase service coming from Queens; would need more cars and storage to maintain service, but could pose issues to the 59th Street Tunnel especially absent re-signaling.

— MTA stated that a branch off the 7 Line was not feasible. The 7 Line already has the maximum number of trains running on the line into Manhattan and the signals have already been improved. All 7 Line trains have 11 cars, which is the maximum length that MTA runs.

FAA/EIS Team requested the following additional information from MTA: — NYCT Bus:

o Q70 ridership data o M60 ridership data

— NYCT Subway: o 7 Line ridership data o 7 Line capacity (how many trains are run per day and capacity of 11-car train) o Second Avenue Subway costs o 7 Line extension costs

ATTACHMENTS: DISTRIBUTION: Attendee List 18061104 Responses from MTA [See attendee list]


LGA Airtrain EIS Meeting on 9‐5‐19 (00100488).DOCX

FAA Questions for discussion with MTA (LIRR & NYCT/MTA Bus):

1. New Shuttle Service from Willets Point to Penn Station and Willets Point to Grand Central Station:

a) Would there be any intermediate stops? Yes, a stop at Woodside station will also be made to allow for connection

opportunities to the east end of Long Island.

b) Service headways for trains during weekdays and weekends and how many trains per hour would access both Penn Station and Grand Central and continue east to other City stations and Port Washington. Upon completion of the East Side Access project, the East River Tunnel

rehabilitation, and a yard expansion project in Port Washington, two trains per hour per direction will operate to/from Penn Station and two trains per hour will operate to/from Grand Central. This allows for a 15‐minute service headway at Mets‐Willets Point (MWP). The table below shows the service pattern which is required to provide a balanced service to Port Washington branch customer east of Mets‐Willets. It should also be noted that when possible, peak period, peak direction service will be offered using existing Port Washington branch trains.

Stop Time Western Terminal Train Type

10:00 AM Penn Station MWP Shuttle

10:15 AM Penn Station Port Washington Branch

10:30 AM Grand Central MWP Shuttle

10:45 AM Grand Central Port Washington Branch

c) How would these service increases be funded? LIRR Operating Budget

d) Any increase in maintenance vehicle access? The new LIRR platforms will be wider. In addition to the customer circulation

benefits that this provides, it will allow for easier access for maintenance carts, lifts and other machinery along the lengths of the platforms. In addition, part of the LIRR’s project involves reconstructing the existing Maintenance of Way (MofW) Track. This track is used as a critical access point to bring high‐rail vehicles, track cars and other equipment from the roadway onto the Port Washington Branch tracks. This MofW track supports a host of maintenance and operational response activities.

e) Maximum peak hour capacity of the Port Washington line.

Page 1 of 4


Currently during the AM peak hour (7:45 AM to 8:45 AM), the LIRR operates eight westbound trains along the Port Washington branch with a capacity of approximately 9,000 seats. Upon completion of the East Side Access project, the East River Tunnel rehabilitation, and a yard expansion project in Port Washington, it is anticipated that up to two peak hour trains will be added along with approximately 1,800 seats.

2. LIRR Willets Point Station

a) Is LIRR conducing any SEQRA analysis of their proposed changes to the LIRR Willets Point Station? No. This project is exempted from SEQRA review under the New York State Public

Authorities Law exemption.

b) What station design features is LIRR considering? (2) Platforms 1200LF x 27’W with full length canopy coverage (4) New Revenue Tracks and (1) MOW Maintenance Track New signals, switches and interlockings (4) Platform level heated waiting rooms Full length snow melt system (platforms only) NFPA emergency stairs/bridge on east and west ends connecting both platforms (2) ADA elevators per platform (2) extra wide stairs per platform ADA required 2’ tactile strips (2) Station BOH buildings at east and west end at new passerelle level. Buildings will

have space allocated for Stations, Transportation, MTA police and MTA security personnel

Included in the BOH buildings will be I.T. and Communications Rooms, janitors’ closets, storage rooms, refuse storage, showers, lockers, welfare room, bathrooms, and kitchen area

(1) BOH building will have ticket selling/info booth and both buildings will have adequate queuing/gating space and ticket vending machines. Fare gating and ticket collection during events will be a combination of ticket collectors and a swing gate barrier system

Typical platform and station enhancements will include wayfinding signage, LED lighting, LCD information screens, digital interactive kiosks, public Wi‐Fi, charging ports, CCTV cameras and help point stations.

3. Confirm that no other capacity improvements for NYCT 7 Line beyond implementation of CBTC. NYCT: Correct, no other capacity projects are currently planned

4. Will there be any service increases along the 7 line to support the proposed AirTrain? NYCT: No service increases are expected. During off‐peak hours when there may

be room to increase service, as with all subway service, conditions will be monitored

Page 2 of 4


and service adjusted as necessary if compatible with both track and maintenance constraints

5. Resiliency of Mets‐Willets Point LIRR Station. For improvements associated with the LGA AirTrain project, would the tracks and platform be raised by 2‐3 feet? What is the extent/limits associated with this improvement? 2300LF between station interlockings 2&3. In addition, all critical infrastructure e.g.

signal huts, communications huts, emergency generators, snow melt huts etc. will be built above flood elevation.

6. What stations beyond Mets‐Willets Point, Grand Central and Penn Station would be served by the proposed shuttle service? See response #1a above.

7. Would both Grand Central and Penn Station be served every 15 minutes or would shuttle alternate between these stations? Meaning would there be 4 trains an hour from Penn and 4 trains an hour from GCT or would it be only 4 trains total per hour with 2 from Penn and 2 from GCT (i.e. 1 PW Branch and 1 shuttle each)? See response #1b above.

8. Do you have information on boardings at LGA for the Q70 and M60, both recent boardings and boardings over time, if possible. Also, if there’s any knowledge about how many boardings are by employees vs. air pax on these routes, that would be very useful. NYCT: We are currently looking into ridership records and will provide. We do not

have information on employees vs. airline passengers

9. Has there been any planning for ridership changes that may occur/need to occur as a result of the proposed Willets Point development? The planned improvements to the LIRR’s Mets‐Willets Point station and associated

infrastructure would support any future ridership demands associated with Willets Point development.

NYCT: NYCT has had meetings with EDC and discussed the new Willets Point development, but the new network will be in place before any substantial build‐out of the development occurs.

10. New York City Transit Bus and the MTA Bus Company are currently working on a Bus Network Redesign to reconfigure bus routing in Queens. Will the LaGuardia AirTrain be considered as part of this redesign process and, if so, will new routes be created to service the Willets Point Station. Will new bus connections to Willets Point be operated by the MTABC or the NYCTB?

NYCT: NYCT anticipates launching the redesigned Queens Bus Network some time in 2021. It is a blank‐slate redesign, completely from scratch. The MTA Bus Company and New York City Transit are jointly working on the combined Queens network. It

Page 3 of 4


will be a single network that covers Queens, served by depots belonging to each entity. New routes, once developed, will be assigned to depots based on proximity of each depot to the start and ends of the new routes, in order to minimize unnecessary deadhead travel.

The new network will be in place before the new AirTrain opens, and NYCT’s network will be designed with an understanding that AirTrain might reduce the need for certain connections, such as between Willets Point and LGA. Any changes to the new network would be made several months after the AirTrain opens, so that NYCT would have ridership numbers to evaluate the services.

11. Once the LaGuardia AirTrain is complete, will the Q48 bus route still be necessary? If so, do you anticipate significant service modifications to handle changes in ridership? NYCT: The Q48 as it exists today will no longer exist once the new network has

been implemented. There will likely be a Flushing‐to‐LGA connection in the redesigned network. There will definitely be a bus route on Roosevelt Avenue. Whether these two pieces of service are combined into one route has not yet been determined.

12. Capacity of 7 line, station platforms, stairwells, corridors, and passageways, station agent booths/control areas, turnstiles, and other critical station elements to accommodate projected volumes of passengers in the future with the proposed project in place. NYCT: No major changes to the 7 line station is currently anticipated within the

MTA 2020‐2024 Capital Program.

13. Capacity of LIRR Port Washington line, station platforms, stairwells, corridors, and passageways, station agent booths/control areas, turnstiles, and other critical station elements to accommodate projected volumes of passengers in the future with the proposed project in place. LIRR stations facilities at other Port Washington Branch stations are suitable to

accommodate projected future branch ridership and future service assumptions.

14. Information on any MTA or LIRR projects that will occur in Queens over the next 10 years (for cumulative impact analysis purposes) LIRR plans to undertake normal State of Good Repair / Normal Replacement

projects in Queens involving Stations, Track, Line Structures, Communications, Signals, Power and Shops & Yards assets. LIRR also plans to make all stations ADA accessible over the next 10 years.

Page 4 of 4

MTA Initial Discussion Responses for FAA / LGA AirTrain/ LIRR Mets-Willets Point Station 5.21.2019

1. What is the timing of the services changes to the Port Washington branch that is needed to support the AirTrain Project?

The development of LIRR future Service Plans is an ongoing, dynamic effort that factors in the infrastructure and rolling stock that will be in service during the particular timetable period. A future LIRR Service Plan will be developed which can be implemented in conjunction with the opening of the LaGuardia AirTrain. Station stops will be added to Port Washington branch trains and shuttle trains to/from Penn Station and Grand Central will be used to provide 15-min service to Mets-Willets Point and the AirTrain.

Currently, there are a number of major projects which are in various stages of design/construction (including Harold Interlocking Improvements & East River Tunnel Rehabilitation) that will shape the service that can be provided under future service plans. It should be noted that five year capital programs reflect a package of fleet and infrastructure investment projects which are undertaken separately from the development of train service plans.

2. Is LIRR moving forward with the extension of platform “A” and ADA improvements to the Mets-Willets Point Station independent of the AirTrain Project? What is the timing of those improvements?

Prior to the launch of the AirTrain project, LIRR prepared a design for the extension of Platform A and a new ADA elevator. However, this design is not being advanced into construction. Instead, the LIRR undertook a new station design whose planning and layout has been coordinated with the AirTrain project. Under a scenario where the AirTrain were not to advance, the LIRR would have the earlier (pre-AirTrain) station design available for future use.

A LIRR Mets-Willets Point Station project (reflecting the coordination with AirTrain) will be included in the MTA’s 2020-2024 Capital Program, which is expected to be approved by the MTA Board and submitted to the New York State Capital Program Review Board in Fall 2019. The project will demolish the existing platform A and construct two new Platforms (Platform A and Platform B). Both of these will be new 12-car length platforms, with new station components, including tactile warning strips and new elevators, providing ADA accessibility. [SEE APPENDIX]

The LIRR’s Mets-Willets Point Station Improvements is being planned and designed as a separate, stand-alone project from the AirTrain. The project – which does not use Federal funds and thus does not fall under NEPA – is subject to the NYS SEQRA environmental law. As the project involves improvements within an active transportation right-of-way, it is exempt from SEQRA under the NYS Public Authorities Law. LIRR has completed a Project Plan document as part of the preliminary design process.


3. Station improvements at Mets-Willets Point needed for the AirTrain project – will all of those be done by the PANYNJ as part of the AirTrain project (same construction timeframe)? If not, what is the schedule?

Construction of the LIRR’s Mets-Willets Point station is planned to progress concurrently with the LaGuardia AirTrain construction. The two projects will continue to coordinate closely. A design-build contractor is anticipated to undertake the construction, with construction work at the LIRR’s station supported by LIRR Engineering Department forces. It is currently anticipated that the design-build contractor would be procured by the Port Authority as part of the overall AirTrain design-build contract.

4. Are there any planned improvements to the 7 train line? Any capacity improvements?

This past week with the introduction of CBTC on the #7 line, we just increased capacity on the #7 line from 25-27 trains per hour to 29 trains per hour. Each train carries 1,210 riders per our loading guidelines, so that in the peak hour we can now carry 2,420-2,840 additional riders.

5. Are there any station improvements needed for the Mets-Willets Point 7 station to accommodate the proposed AirTrain Project? If so, what are they and when are they planned to be implemented?

No major structural changes are planned for the Mets-Willets Point 7 Station are planned or deemed necessary at this time.

6. Are there any planned improvements at the Mets-Willets Point 7 station that will happen regardless of the proposed AirTrain Project? If so, what are they and when are they planned to be implemented?

No plans for the Mets-Willets Point 7 Station are deemed necessary at this time.

7. Newest ridership on LGA-focused routes (e.g., M60, Q70 services and their connections) Sarah Wyss can get you M60 ridership and Mark Holmes can get you Q70 ridership.

M60 – The current average weekday (rolling-12 month) ridership on the M60 is 15,922. This represents a roughly 0.4% increase over the previous 12-month period.

Q70 - The current average weekday (rolling-12 month) ridership on the Q70 is 4,823. This represents a roughly 2.0% increase over the previous 12-month period.


8. Any expected service changes (i.e, changes in travel time, frequencies, etc.) on LIRR Port Washington line, 7 train, N/W trains, and or any of the above LGA services (M60, Q70).

LIRR - Port Washington Line

In conjunction with the opening of the AirTrain, the LIRR’s Mets-Willets Point station will become a regular (full time) station. Regularly scheduled Port Washington Branch trains will stop at this station, and timetables will be adjusted to reflect these schedule changes. As part of this future service plan, LIRR shuttle trains operating between Manhattan (Penn Station or Grand Central Terminal) and Mets-Willets Point, which will supplement the regular Port Washington Branch service.

NYCT #7

#7 service and N/W Astoria peak service is currently at maximum service; long-range plans for the N/W Astoria service call for increases after implementation of CBTC and additional switch. These improvements will be advanced in future capital plans.


APPENDIX – LIRR Mets-Willets Point Station Renderings

ATTACHMENT 1

Email from the MTA

1

Stephen Culberson

From: Schwartz, Judith <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 1:12 PMTo: Balter, Jacob; Stephen Culberson; Colon, Kathleen; Greenberg, Andrew; Moss, David; Loehr, Steven;

Schreibman, Lisa; Chan, Joseph C.; Wendy Yu; [email protected]; Allison Sampson; Teodorescu, Andrew P (FAA); John Williams; Doyle, John (FAA); Oliva, Louis; Mcintosh, Garth.H; Betty, Donna; Sanchez, David (FAA); Jenet, Marie (FAA); [email protected]; Cohen, Michelle; McCool, Adam; Bertoli, Bryan; Brooks, Andrew (FAA); [email protected]; [email protected]; Bernstein, Joshua; Bergen, Zach; Ascher, Andrea D; Kane, Meredith J; Schaffer, Marissa

Subject: RE: Emailing: LGA AirTrain - EIS Meeting Attendance Sheet 9.5.19 (00100604x7A901).DOCX

In response to questions regarding the 7 line service question, please find the following response. PS. CBTC means communicatons based train control—you can wiki ___ For the information below, Operations Planning’s Rail Planning unit used 2018 observed customer counts and 2019 service levels. They used the 2019 service levels because CBTC significantly improved the level of service over what was provided in 2018. They used 2018 counts because that is the most recent year for which we have counts. Peak Direction In the AM peak, the peak direction is Manhattan bound. In that direction, the 7 local has a peak load point at 40th Street with a volume of 13,442 and a volume/capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.79. The 7 express has a peak load point at Woodside‐61st Street with a volume of 16,333 and a V/C of 0.90. In the PM peak the peak direction in Queens bound. In that direction, the 7 local has a peak load point at Queensboro Plaza with a volume of 10,727 and a V/C ratio of 0.74. The 7 express has a peak load point at Queensboro Plaza with a volume of 12,109 and a V/C of 0.84. Reverse Peak Direction AM towards Queens the peak load point is 5th Avenue with 6,446 customers and a V/C of 0.19. PM towards Manhattan the peak load point is Grand Central with 7,159 customers and a V/C of 0.20. While there is currently some capacity in the peak direction for additional customers, it should be noted that the majority of this capacity is subscribed by the build‐out of the Willets Point neighborhood. The rezoning of the neighborhood took place under the Bloomberg administration and has been stalled and reconfigured several times. So, the actual development has not happened yet

From: Schwartz, Judith Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 2:16 PM To: Balter, Jacob <[email protected]>; Stephen Culberson <[email protected]>; Colon, Kathleen <[email protected]>; Greenberg, Andrew <[email protected]>; Moss, David <[email protected]>; Loehr, Steven <[email protected]>; Schreibman, Lisa <[email protected]>; Chan, Joseph C. <[email protected]>; Wendy Yu <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Allison Sampson <[email protected]>; Teodorescu, Andrew P (FAA) <[email protected]>; John Williams <[email protected]>; Doyle, John (FAA) <[email protected]>; Oliva, Louis <[email protected]>; Mcintosh, Garth.H <[email protected]>; Betty, Donna <[email protected]>; Sanchez, David (FAA) <[email protected]>; Jenet, Marie (FAA) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Cohen, Michelle <[email protected]>; McCool, Adam <[email protected]>; Bertoli, Bryan <[email protected]>; Brooks, Andrew (FAA)

2

<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bernstein, Joshua <[email protected]>; Bergen, Zach <[email protected]>; Ascher, Andrea D <[email protected]>; Kane, Meredith J <[email protected]>; Schaffer, Marissa <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Emailing: LGA AirTrain ‐ EIS Meeting Attendance Sheet 9.5.19 (00100604x7A901).DOCX Please find a response to the following question.

o Does NYCT have a design standard for maximum percent slope allowed for subway tracks? For example, we believe that most heavy rail systems have a maximum 3% grade design standard. Is there a similar standard for NYCT subway trains? NYCT Response: the maximum grade permitted for new subway construction is 3.0%.

From: Balter, Jacob Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 10:47 AM To: Stephen Culberson <[email protected]>; Colon, Kathleen <[email protected]>; Schwartz, Judith <[email protected]>; Greenberg, Andrew <[email protected]>; Moss, David <[email protected]>; Loehr, Steven <[email protected]>; Schreibman, Lisa <[email protected]>; Chan, Joseph C. <[email protected]>; Wendy Yu <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Allison Sampson <[email protected]>; Teodorescu, Andrew P (FAA) <[email protected]>; John Williams <[email protected]>; Doyle, John (FAA) <[email protected]>; Oliva, Louis <[email protected]>; Mcintosh, Garth.H <[email protected]>; Betty, Donna <[email protected]>; Sanchez, David (FAA) <[email protected]>; Jenet, Marie (FAA) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Cohen, Michelle <[email protected]>; McCool, Adam <[email protected]>; Bertoli, Bryan <[email protected]>; Brooks, Andrew (FAA) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Emailing: LGA AirTrain ‐ EIS Meeting Attendance Sheet 9.5.19 (00100604x7A901).DOCX Below please find a response to one of the follow-up questions.

o During a meeting we held with MTA in May, it was our understanding that under current plans the LIRR Mets-Willets Point Station would only become a full-time station if the Port Authority’s proposal for the LGA AirTrain was implemented. Can you please confirm?

o That is correct. The LIRR Planning efforts undertaken prior to the conception of the AirTrain project had assumed ADA and state of good repair investments in the LIRR Mets-Willets Station, with the station (at that time) assumed to remain as a Special Events station and not have full time service.

Jacob A. Balter Director – Strategic Investments MTA Long Island Rail Road (718) 558-3856 Cell (347) 480-6916 [email protected]

From: Stephen Culberson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 10:40 AM To: Colon, Kathleen <[email protected]>; Schwartz, Judith <[email protected]>; Greenberg, Andrew <[email protected]>; Moss, David <[email protected]>; Loehr, Steven <[email protected]>; Schreibman, Lisa <[email protected]>; Chan, Joseph C. <[email protected]>; Wendy Yu <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Allison Sampson <[email protected]>; Teodorescu, Andrew P (FAA) <[email protected]>; John Williams <[email protected]>; Doyle, John (FAA) <[email protected]>; Oliva, Louis <[email protected]>; Mcintosh, Garth.H <[email protected]>; Betty, Donna <[email protected]>;

3

Balter, Jacob <[email protected]>; Sanchez, David (FAA) <[email protected]>; Jenet, Marie (FAA) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Cohen, Michelle <[email protected]>; McCool, Adam <[email protected]>; Bertoli, Bryan <[email protected]>; Brooks, Andrew (FAA) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Emailing: LGA AirTrain ‐ EIS Meeting Attendance Sheet 9.5.19 (00100604x7A901).DOCX Importance: High Thank you, Kathleen. The list of items we requested during Thursday’s meeting is below.

‐ NYCT Bus: o Q70 ridership data o M60 ridership data

‐ NYCT Subway: o 7 Line ridership data o 7 Line capacity (how many trains are run per day and capacity of 11‐car train) o Second Avenue Subway costs o 7 Line extension costs

We also have two follow‐up questions:

o During a meeting we held with MTA in May, it was our understanding that under current plans the LIRR Mets‐Willets Point Station would only become a full‐time station if the Port Authority’s proposal for the LGA AirTrain was implemented. Can you please confirm?

o Does NYCT have a design standard for maximum percent slope allowed for subway tracks? For example, we believe that most heavy rail systems have a maximum 3% grade design standard. Is there a similar standard for NYCT subway trains?

We would appreciate receiving this information this week, if at all possible. Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions. Thank you! Stephen Culberson | Vice President

RICONDO 20 N CLARK STREET | SUITE 1500 | CHICAGO, IL 60602 | UNITED STATES TEL 312-606-0611 x136 | DIRECT 312-212-8812 | MOBILE 312-479-8710 6033 W CENTURY BOULEVARD | SUITE 840 | LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 TEL 312-606-0611 x136 | DIRECT 312-212-8812 | MOBILE 312-479-8710 This communication may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended for the sole use of addressee. If you are not the addressee you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please promptly notify the sender by reply email and immediately delete this message from your system. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. (“Ricondo”) does not accept responsibility for the content of any email transmitted for reasons other than approved business purposes. Regarding services for U.S. clients: Ricondo is not registered as a “municipal advisor” under Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Section 15B”) and Ricondo is not acting as a municipal advisor. This communication and any opinions, assumptions, views or information contained herein or in any attachment to this communication are not intended to be, and do not constitute, “advice” within the meaning of Section 15B.

From: Colon, Kathleen <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 11:36 AM To: Schwartz, Judith <[email protected]>; Greenberg, Andrew <[email protected]>; Moss, David

4

<[email protected]>; Loehr, Steven <[email protected]>; Schreibman, Lisa <[email protected]>; Chan, Joseph C. <[email protected]>; Wendy Yu <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Allison Sampson <[email protected]>; Teodorescu, Andrew P (FAA) <[email protected]>; John Williams <[email protected]>; Doyle, John (FAA) <[email protected]>; Oliva, Louis <[email protected]>; Mcintosh, Garth.H <[email protected]>; Betty, Donna <[email protected]>; Balter, Jacob <[email protected]>; Sanchez, David (FAA) <[email protected]>; Jenet, Marie (FAA) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Cohen, Michelle <[email protected]>; McCool, Adam <[email protected]>; Bertoli, Bryan <[email protected]>; Brooks, Andrew (FAA) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Stephen Culberson <[email protected]> Subject: Emailing: LGA AirTrain ‐ EIS Meeting Attendance Sheet 9.5.19 (00100604x7A901).DOCX

Good afternoon, As per Judith Schwartz’s instructions, attached is a copy of the attendance list for the LGA AirTrain – EIS Meeting which took place on Thursday, September 5, 2019. Kathleen Colon Principal Executive Secretary

Office of the General Counsel 2 Broadway, B4.127 |New York, NY 10004

212-878-7105| [email protected]

APPENDIX E.2

Letter from NYCDEP, September 13, 2019

Environmental Protection

Vincent Sapienza, P.E. Co111missio11er

Anastaslos Georgelis, P.E. Deputy Commissioner Bureau of Water & Sewer Operations

59-17 Junction Boulevard Flushing, NY 11373

[email protected]

[email protected]

September 13, 2019

DYConsultants

40 Wall Street, Suite 500

New York, NY 10005

Attn. Mrs. Dibya Shahi

Re: Subway extension routes 88, 8C and 8E for LaGuardia Airport

Dear Mrs. Shahi,

This is in response to your e-mail submittal dated August 13, 2019 requesting more utility information for the above referenced project. Please be advised of the following comments for each proposed subway extension route.

Route 88 (Proposed Elevated stmcture) Potential concerns:

A. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Bureau of Water and Sewer Operations (BWSO} - General comments:

A. I For all the locations where the existing sewers/water mains are crossing under the proposed elevated subway structure, DEP requirement is to maintain at least 15-feet edge to edge clearance between the edge of the elevated structure foundation and the edge of DEP 'Sewer/water main. This 15-feet minimum clearance could be increased based on the size/depth of the sewer/water main (based on influence line). This required clearance will reduce the impact to our infrastructure and facilitate the future maintenance and reconstruction. For the locations where the proposed Route 88 alignment crosses existing DEP infrastructure please see the respective comments below.

A.2 For all the locations where the existing sewers/water mains are parallel to the proposed elevated subway structure, DEP requirement is to maintain at least 15-feet edge to edge clearance between the edge of the elevated structure foundation and the edge of DEP sewer/water main. This 15-feet minimum clearance could be increased based on the size/depth of the sewer/water main (based on influence tine). This required clearance will reduce the impact to our infrastructure and facilitate the future maintenance and reconstruction. If the footprint of the proposed elevated subway structure is to be located directly above the DEP infrastructure, then the proposed vertical clearance between the bottom of the subway elevated structure and the top of the street grade must be provided to DEP. Based on the provided information of the vertical clearance, this office will determine whether the footprint ofthe elevated subway structure can be located directly above DEP infrastructure or what specific vertical clearance must be maintained. Generally DEP does not allow any parallel

Pagel of 12

mailto:[email protected]


elevated structure directly above DEP infrastructure as it will restrict DEP maintenance and reconstruction activities. For the locations where the proposed Route 8B alignment is parallel to the existing DEP infrastructure please see the respective comments below.

A.3 If the requested vertical clearance indicated on comment no.2 is not acceptable to DEP, then DEP will provide either the specific height of vertical clearance required to be maintained or will recommend to relocate the existing DEP infrastructure outside the footprint ofelevated subway structure if the DEP's required vertical clearance cannot be maintained.

A.4 If any DEP infrastructure is required to be replaced/relocated due to the impact of the proposed elevated subway construction, then it should be done as per DEP latest standard specifications and requirements and also at no cost to NYC DEP.

A.5 When building in close proximity to DEP BWSO sewer infrastructure (storm sewer, sanitary sewer and combined sewer), BWSO requests CCTV inspection of the said infrastructure be performed before the start and at the end of the construction and also installation of settlement /vibration monitors for the period of construction. Please coordinate with BWSO CSI (Collection Systems Investigation) before performing the CCTV inspection of the sewers.

A.6 All the DEP water mains that will be impacted as a result of the subway extension project must be relocated, replaced and/or upsized (if required) according to the requirements of DEP/BWSO Distribution, and at no cost to DEP.

A.7 There are numerous NYS DOT owned sewers that are parallel to and nearby the proposed subway extension alignment. Consultant might need to get the approval from State DOT for work nearby these mentioned sewers.

A.8 All DEP utilities impacted due to construction must be protected, relocated, repaired, and/or replaced as required by and at no additional cost to DEP (see the list of locations of potential impacts at the respective comments below).

A.8.1. Sewer relocations will require an approved Drainage Proposal plan or Amended Drainage Plan followed by an approved Private Sewer/Drain Plan before construction. The review time of these items should be accounted for in the project schedule.

A.9 All DEP utilities that are not exposed during construction but are within the zone of influence for ground movement will require monitoring during construction (refer to Section 76 of DEP Standard Sewer and Water Main Specifications).

A.IOPreliminary and Detailed Construction Impact Assessment report for all DEP utilities impacted by the proposed subway extension routes should be submitted. The report shall include contingency plans during emergency or unforeseen conditions.

Page 2 or 12

A.11 The consultants are responsible for maintenance of flow in the DEP infrastructure during construction. All maintenance of flow plans are to be submitted to the DEP Engineering and Construction unit. All relocations and maintenance of flow cost shall be the responsibility of the consultant.

A.12Unlimited constructability access for future DEP infrastructure along the three proposed alignments shall be provided for future maintenance and construction upgrades.

B. DEP's Bureau of Wastewater Treatment (BWT) - General comments:

B. l DEP BWT request that the support columns/foundation ofelevated subway structure not to be located above BWT infrastructure and a clearance ofat least 15-feet should be kept on either side as indicated also on comment no.A. I and comment no.A.2.

B.2 DEP BWT also requests that plans/design proposals be submitted to BWT for evaluation/approval.

B.3 When building in close proximity to DEP BWT infrastructure, BWT requests CCTV inspection of the interceptors be performed before the start and at the end of the construction and also installation of settlement/vibration monitors for the period of construction. Please coordinate with BWT to perfonn the CCfV inspection of existing interceptor sewer.

C. DEP' s Office of the Agency Chief Engineer (OACE) - Specific comments:

C. I The overhead route results in the least impact to the Flushing Bay CSO Tunnel. Support columns would need to be closely coordinated to avoid the tunnel alignment and CSOs BB-003, BB-005 and BB-005_24 (Overflow from 24th Avenue Weir) and CSO 041 and clearance to be maintained as indicated on comment no. A. I and comment no. A.2.

C.2 The overhead route would also need to be coordinated with any conveyance routes along 19th Avenue that are being considered for future connection of BB-005 and BB-005_24.

C.3 The above grade routes need to be coordinated to avoid the High Level Interceptor which is located in 19th A venue. Crossing of the Low Level Interceptor also needs to be coordinated for each proposed subway extension route.

C.4 Subway extension Route 8B crosses through the area where the Dewatering Pump Station is proposed. The subway extension route would need to be adjusted or the dewatering pump station would need to be moved to avoid the conflict. The Dept. of Sanitation leases this site. Modifications to the CSO tunnel alignment and dewatering PS siting would also need to be coordinated with DOS (Dept. of Sanitation) facilities in place and/or planned for this site. The lease would also need to be modified with the owner of the property.

D. DEP's Bureau of Water and Sewer Operation (BWSO) Specific Comments:

Pagel of 12

D. l There are existing small size distribution water mains along 3 P1 Street, 19111 Avenue and all the cross-streets overlapping/intersecting with the alignment of the proposed Route 88 which would be potentially impacted. However, please refer to the list below for larger size water infrastructure that would be potentially impacted by the proposed LGA subway extension Route 88:

D.1.1. The proposed Route 88 alignment is crossing the City Water Tunnel No. 2 near the intersection of 19th Avenue & Steinway Street.

D.1.2. There is a 60-inch dia. trunk water main located in 191h Avenue between Steinway Street and 41 si Street, coming from Steinway Street on the north of 191

h A venue and continuing in 4151 Street on the south of 191h Avenue. The proposed Route 88 alignment is shown to be parallel and coincide with the alignment of this existing 60-inch trunk main at the said section in 19111 A venue. Proposed Route B is also crossing the trunk main in either one or both of the streets mentioned above.

D.1.3. There is a 20-inch Cast Iron water main along the 2P1 Avenue which is crossing the proposed Route 88 at Steinway Street. Depending on the proximity and extent of the proposed work the mentioned 20-inch C.I. pipe might have to be partially replaced.

D.1.4. There are 20-inch & 24-inch Cast Iron water main branches crossing the proposed Route 88 near the 94111 Street Bridge over Grand Central Parkway. Depending on the proximity and extent of the proposed work the mentioned 20-inch & 24-inch Cast Iron might have to be replaced as per restraint length requirements.

D.2 There are several existing small sewers in 3151 Street, 191h Avenue and most of the crossstreets (crossing) intersecting/ (coinciding/overlapping) parallel to the alignment of the proposed Route 88 which would be potentially impacted. However, please refer to the list below for larger size sewer infrastructure that would be potentially impacted by the proposed LGA subway extension Route 88:

D.2.1. The following existing sewers are all crossing the alignment of the proposed Route 88 at the intersection of 2Qlli A venue and 3151 Street

D.2.1.ii 96-inch dia. interceptor sewer (approx. 55-feet below grade) D.2.1.iii 60-inch combined sewer (continuing to the south-east of the

intersection) (approx. 15-feet below grade) D.2.1.iv 39-in combined sewer (coming to the intersection from the north

west) (approx. 15-feet below grade)

D.2.2. There are several existing sewer chambers coinciding with the alignment of the proposed Route 8B, e.g. at the intersections of I 9111 A venue with 45111 Street, Hazen Street, 801h Street, and at the intersection of Ditmars Boulevard with 82nd

Street.

D.2.3. There is an existing 66-inch dia. CSO and its outfall at Luyster Creek which is parallel to & coincides with the alignment of the proposed Route 88 along I 9111

Page 4 ofl2

https://D.2.1.iv

https://D.2.1.ii

A venue east of 37th Street. The depth of the outfall is approximately to-feet below grade. The foundation of this sewer is partially on piles near the outfall

D.2.4. The following sewers are all parallel to & coinciding with the alignment of the proposed Route 8B along 19th Avenue as explained below:

D.2.4.ii 108x l08-inch interceptor between 45th Street & 8 t •1 Street (sewer depth is approx. 5 to 15-feet below grade)

D.2.4.iii 24-inch dia. interceptor between 37th Street & 45th Street (sewer depth is approx. 10 to 15-feet below grade)

D.2.4.iv 78x42-in storm sewer between Steinway Street & 45th Street (sewer depth is approx. 5 to 15-feet below grade)

D.2.4.v 68x43-in storm sewer between 45th Street & 46th Street (sewer depth is approx. 5 to 15-feet below grade)

D.2.5. The following interceptors are crossing the alignment of the proposed Route 8B along 19th Avenue as explained below:

D.2.5.ii 96-inch dia. interceptor crosses at the intersection of 19th Ave and 43n1 Street (sewer depth is approx. 55-feet below grade)

D.2.5.iii l08xl08-inch interceptor sewer crosses at the north-east of the intersection of 19th A venue and 45th Street (sewer depth is approx. 5 to 15-feet below grade)

D.2.5.iv l26x69-inch CSO crosses at the intersection of 19th Avenue and Hazen Street. Sewer depth is approx. 20-feet below grade at this location and its foundation is on timber piles.

D.2.5.v 108x96-inch storm sewer crosses at the intersection of 19th Avenue and 80th Street. Sewer depth is approx. 20-feet below grade at this location and its foundation is on piles.

D.2.6. There is a l 75x96-inch CSO crossing the alignment of the proposed Route 8B at the south of intersection of 19th A venue and 82nd Street. (sewer depth is approx. 5 to 15-feet below grade)

D.2.7. There is also an existing 120xl08-inch interceptor crossing with the alignment ofthe proposed Route 8B twice, at the intersections of (the extension of) Ditmars Boulevard with (the extensions of) 83rd Street and 88th Street. (sewer depth is approx. 15 to 25-feet below grade)

Page; 5 of 12

https://D.2.5.iv

https://D.2.5.ii

https://D.2.4.iv

https://D.2.4.ii

Route 8C (tunnel ,tructurc. depth~ 60-fect, i.e.+ '20-fect dia. & + 40-fect of cO\erl Potential concern":

A. DEP, Bureau of Water and Sewer Operation {BWSO) - General comments:

A.1 When building in close proximity to DEP BWSO sewer infrastructure (storm sewer, sanitary sewer and combined sewer), BWSO requests CCTV inspection of the said infrastructure be performed before the start and at the end of the construction and also installation of settlement /vibration monitors for the period of construction. Please coordinate with BWSO CSI (Collection Systems Investigation) before performing the CCTV inspection of the sewers.


A.3 All the DEP water mains that will be impacted as a result ofthe subway extension project must be relocated, replaced and/or upsized (if required) according to the requirements of DEP/BWSO Distribution, and at no cost to DEP.

A.4 There are numerous NYS DOT owned sewers that are parallel to and nearby the proposed subway extension alignment. Consultant might need to get the approval from State DOT for work nearby these mentioned sewers.

A.5 All DEP utilities impacted due to construction must be protected, relocated, repaired, and/or replaced as required by and at no additional cost to DEP (sec the list of locations of potential impacts at the respective comments below).



A.7 Preliminary and Detailed Construction Impact Assessment report for all DEP utilities impacted by the proposed subway extension routes should be submitted. The report shall include contingency plans during emergency or unforeseen conditions.


A.9 Unlimited constructability access for future DEP infrastructure along the three proposed alignments shall be provided for future maintenance and construction upgrades.

Page 6 of 12

B. DEP's Bureau of Wastewater Treatment (BWD - General comments:

B. I DEP BWT has reservation regarding the proposed sub-surface Option which pose serious, sustained multiple interferences with the large concrete box interceptor sewers (a critical component of the Collection system) that range in size from 96" to 120'' at varying depths from 7 feet (HL) to 36 feet. (LL). Proposed subway tunnel structure will impact BWT interceptor sewer system.

B.2 DEP BWT is very concerned about construction of a tunnel, either below or above our BWT infrastructure that may undermine the structural integrity and support system. In addition, it may restrict access for maintenance, repair, cleaning and replacement in case of a catastrophic failure.

B.3 DEP BWT also requests that plans/design proposals be submitted to BWT for evaluation/approval.

B.4 When building in close proximity to DEP BWT infrastructure, BWT requests CCTV inspection of the interceptors be performed before the start and at the end of the construction and also installation of settlement/vibration monitors for the period of construction. Please coordinate with BWT to perform the CCTV inspection of existing interceptor sewer.

C. DEP' s Office of the Agency Chief Engineer (OACE) - Specific comments:

C. l The below grade routes need to be coordinated to avoid the High Level Interceptor which is located in 19th Avenue. Crossing of the Low Level Interceptor also needs to be coordinated for each proposed subway extension route.

C.2 For the below grade route, the CSO tunnel would need to be lowered to pass under the subway tube at the 19th A venue for proposed subway extension Route 8C.

C.3 Subway extension Route 8C crosses through the area where the Dewatering Pump Station is proposed. The subway extension route would need to be adjusted or the dewatering pump station would need to be moved to avoid the conflict. The Dept. of Sanitation leases this site. Modifications to the CSO tunnel alignment and dewatering PS siting would also need to be coordinated with DOS (Dept. of Sanitation) facilities in place and/or planned for this site. The lease would also need to be modified with the owner of the property.

D. DEP's Bureau of Water and Sewer Operation <BWSO) Specific Comments:

0.1 The proposed Route 8E tunnel alignment would potentially impact several small size existing water mains. However, he proposed Route 8C alignment is also crossing the City Water Tunnel No. 2 near the intersection of 191

h A venue & Steinway Street.

0.2 The proposed Route 8E tunnel alignment would potentially impact several small size existing sewers. However, there are several locations where deep and large size existing

Page 7 of 12

sewers (typically interceptor sewers going to Bowery Bay WWTP) would potentially interfere with the proposed Route SC alignment. For more specific information please see below:

0.2.1. 96-inch dia. interceptor sewer crosses the Route 8C alignment near the intersection of 20th A venue and 3 l s1 Street, and its depth is approx. 55-feet below grade at this location

D.2.2. 96-inch dia. interceptor sewer crosses the Route 8C alignment near the intersection of 19th A venue and 43rd Street, and its depth is approx. 55-feet below grade at this location

0.2.3. 108x 108-inch interceptor sewer crosses the Route SC alignment at the intersection of 19m A venue and 45th Street, and its depth is approx. 25-feet below grade at this location

0.2.4. 126x69-inch CSO crossing the Route 8C alignment at the north of the intersection of 19th A venue and Hazen Street. Sewer depth is approx. 20-feet below grade at this location and its foundation is on timber piles.

0.2.5. l08x96-inch storm sewer crossing the Route 8C alignment at the north of the intersection of 19th Avenue and 80th Street. Sewer depth is approx. 20-feet below grade at this location and its foundation is on piles.

0.2.6. l 75x96-inch CSO crossing the Route SC alignment at the north of the intersection of 19th A venue and 81 s1 Street. Sewer depth is approx. l0-feet below grade at this location and its foundation is on piles.

0.2.7. 120x 108-inch interceptor crossing with the alignment of the proposed Route 8B twice, at the intersections of (the extension of) Ditmars Boulevard with (the extensions of) g4m Street and g7t1, Street. Interceptor sewer depth is approximately 15-feet below grade at this location

Page 8 of 12

Route 8E (tunnel !'>tructuw. depth - 60-feet, i.e.+ 20-fcet dia. & + 40-fcet of cover) PotenLial concern..,:

A. DEP. Bureau of Water and Sewer Operation {BWSO) - General comments:

A. I When building in close proximity to DEP BWSO sewer infrastructure (storm sewer, sanitary sewer and combined sewer), BWSO requests CCTV inspection of the said infrastructure be performed before the start and at the end of the construction and also installation of settlement /vibration monitors for the period of construction. Please coordinate with BWSO CSI (Collection Systems Investigation) before performing the CCTV inspection of the sewers.


A.3 All the DEP water mains that will be impacted as a result of the subway extension project must be relocated, replaced and/or upsized (if required) according to the requirements of DEP/BWSO Distribution. and at no cost to DEP.

A.4 There are numerous NYS DOT owned sewers that are crossing/parallel to and nearby the proposed subway extension alignment. Consultant might need to get the approval from State DOT for work nearby these mentioned sewers.

A.5 All DEP utilities impacted due to construction must be protected, relocated, repaired, and/or replaced as required by and at no additional cost to DEP (see the list of locations of potential impacts at the respective comments below).



A.7 Preliminary and Detailed Construction Impact Assessment report for all DEP utilities impacted by the proposed subway extension routes should be submitted. The report shall include contingency plans during emergency or unforeseen conditions.


A.9 Unlimited constructability access for future DEP infrastructure along the three proposed alignments shall be provided for future maintenance and construction upgrades.

Page 9 of 12

B. OEP's Bureau of Wastewater Treatment (BWT) - General comments:

B. l OEP BWT has reservation regarding the proposed sub-surface Option which pose serious, sustained multiple interferences with the large concrete box interceptor sewers (a critical component of the Collection system) that range in size from 96" to 120" at varying depths from 7 feet (HL) to 36 feet. (LL). Proposed subway tunnel structure will impact BWT interceptor sewer system.

B.2 OEP BWT is very concerned about construction of a tunnel, either below or above our BWT infrastructure that may undermine the structural integrity and support system. In addition, it may restrict access for maintenance, repair, cleaning and replacement in case of a catastrophic failure.

B.3 OEP BWT also requests that plans/design proposals be submitted to BWT for evaluation/approval.

B.4 When building in close proximity to OEP BWT infrastructure, BWT requests CCTV inspection of the interceptors be performed before the start and at the end of the construction and also installation of settlement/vibration monitors for the period of construction. Please coordinate with BWT to perform the CCTV inspection of existing interceptor sewer.

C. OEP's Office of the Agency Chief Engineer (OACE) - Specific comments:

C. l For the below grade route, the CSO tunnel would need to be lowered to pass under the subway tube at the Grand Central Parkway crossing (subway extension Route SE).

0. OEP's Bureau of Water and Sewer Operation <BWSO) Specific Comments:

0.1 The proposed Route SE tunnel alignment would potentially impact several small size existing water mains. However, this proposed alignment is also parallel and coinciding with the alignment of the City Water Tunnel No. 2 in Steinway Street between 35th

Avenue and Astoria Boulevard South/Grand Central Parkway and is crossing the City Water Tunnel No. 3 nearthe intersection of35th A venue and Steinway Street. Moreover. the proposed Route SE alignment is shown passing near two existing water shafts, at the intersections ofSteinway Street with l) 35th Avenue and 2) Grand Central Parkway.

0.2 The proposed Route SE tunnel alignment would potentially impact several small size existing sewers. However, please sec below for a list of the existing larger size sewer infrastructure that might be impacted by the proposed LGA subway extension Route SE alignment:

0.2.1. 82x90-in maximum size (variable in size) reinforced concrete (and partly Cast Iron pipe) combined sewer is parallel & coincides with proposed Route SE alignment in Northern Boulevard, from 36th Street to Steinway Street. The approximate depth of this sewer at this location is 20-feet below grade. The

Page 10 or 12

above mentioned box sewer is found near the north curbline of the Northern Boulevard whereas there is another 20-inch dia. (partly vitrified clay/concrete/cast iron pipe) combined sewer located near the south curbline of Northern Boulevard. The 20-inch dia. sewer is found at a similar depth of approximately 20-feet below grade as well.

D.2.2. 42x38-inch combined concrete sewer is parallel to & coinciding with the proposed Route SE alignment in Steinway Street between Northern Boulevard and 35th Avenue. This sewer has a depth varying between 20-feet to 25-feet below grade.

D.2.3. 5 lx32-inch combined concrete sewer is parallel to & coinciding with the proposed Route 8E alignment in Steinway Street between 35th A venue and 34ih A venue. This sewer has a depth varying between 20-feet to 25-feet below grade, the deeper part found nearer to Broadway.

D.2.4. 78x71-inch combined reinforced concrete (partly 72-inch dia. Cast Iron pipe) sewer is parallel to & coinciding with the proposed Route 8E alignment in Steinway Street (near west curbline) between 34th Avenue and Broadway. The sewer has a depth varying between 20-feet to 25-feet below grade.

D.2.5. 72x65-inch combined reinforced concrete sewer is parallel to & coinciding with the proposed Route SE alignment in Steinway Street (neareastcurbline) between 34th Avenue and Broadway. The sewer has an approximate depth of 25-feet below grade.

D.2.6. 54x44-inch (variable size) combined brick sewer is parallel to & coinciding with the proposed Route SE alignment in Steinway Street between 35th Avenue and 28th Avenue. The sewer has a depth varying between 15-feet to 20-feet below grade.

D.2.7. 132x60-inch double barrel storm reinforced concrete sewer is crossing Route SE alignment at the intersection of Grand Central Parkway and SOth Street. The depth of the existing sewer varies from 10-feet to 20-feet below grade at this location.

D.2.8. 129x96-inch double barrel combined sewer is crossing Route 8E alignment at the intersection of Grand Central Parkway and 82nd Street. The depth of the existing sewer is approximately 30-feet below grade at this location. The foundation of this existing sewer is on timber piles.

D.2.9. 120x 108-inch interceptor crossing with the alignment of the proposed Route 8E near the intersection of Grand Central Parkway with 90th Street. Interceptor sewer depth is approximately 20-feet below grade at this location

Page 11 of 12

For questions please contact Arian Nova @ ;[email protected] or 718-595-5391. Address all submission and correspondence to Mr. Guo Zhan Wu, P.E., Chief, Regulatory Review, BWSO, NYCDEP, 59-17 Junction Blvd, (Low Rise Building, 3rd floor); Flushing NY 11373

Very truly yours,

~ Guo Zhan Wu, P.E.

Chief, Regulatory Review

CC: Thomas Wynne, P.E., Executive Director, Engineering and Planning

Jannine McColgan, P .E., Director, Engineering, BWSO

Frank Loncar, Director, Collections and Resource Recovery Operations, BWT

Guo Zhan Wu, P.E .• Chief, Regulatory Review, BWSO

Jerry Volgende, P.E., Division Chief, Collections Facilities Operations, BWT

Keith Mahoney, Office of Agency Chief Engineer

Gregory Mayes, Office of Agency Chief Engineer

Sham Hemraj, P.E., Chief, Distribution Engineering, BWSO

Frank Kulcsar, P.E., Section Chief, Planning and Analysis, BWT

Steve Carrea, P.E., Chief, Drainage and Modeling, BWSO

Shofiqule Azam, P.E., Section Chief, Plan Review, BWSO

Kenneth Craft, P.E., Section Chief, Drainage and Modeling, BWSO

Lilian Cheng, P.E., EiC, Drainage and Modeling, BWSO

Mohammad Karim, P.E., EiC, Plan Review, BWSO

Andy Lu, P.E., Review Engineer, Drainage and Modeling, BWSO

Arian Nova, Review Engineer, Plan Review, BWSO

Wendy Yu, DYConsultants

Matthew DiScenna, Port Authority New York New Jersey

Michelle Cohen, Port Authority New York New Jersey

File:AN, Plan Review

Rose Temple, Record No. 48949

Page 12 of 12


appendix e alternatives supporting materialsricondoprojects.com/lgaaccess/appendix...

Documents