table iv-23: summary of impacts to park properties

Final Environmental Impact Statement Section IV.B

Kosciuszko Bridge Project IV-139 September 2008

TABLE IV-23: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO PARK PROPERTIES

Alternative RA-5

Alternative RA-6

Alternative BR-2

Alternative BR-3

Alternative BR-5

Sergeant William Dougherty Playground

Temporary Use (m2) 223 m2

(2,400 ft2)

258 m2

(2,777 ft2)

237 m2

(2,551 ft2)

237 m2

(2,551 ft2)

153 m2

(1,647 ft2)

Permanent Use (m2) 601 m2

(6,469 ft2)

297 m2

(3,197 ft2)

445 m2

(4,790 ft2)

445 m2

(4,790 ft2)

1,299 m2

(13,982 ft2)

TABLE IV-24: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PARK MITIGATION AND IMPROVEMENTS

Existing/No Build RA-5 RA-6 BR-2 BR-3 BR-5

Parkland

Brooklyn (m2) 3,037 7,547 7,687 7,565 7,568 6,948

Queens (m2) 0 8,841 6,390 8,855 8,716 9,804

Total (m2) 3,037 16,388 14,077 16,420 16,284 16,752

Streetscaping No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bikeway/Walkway No Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Boat Launches 0 2 2 2 2 2

B.3.g. Farmland Assessment

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 USC 4201-4209) and §305 of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law protect active farmland from conversion to non-farm uses without public review and consideration. As there is no active (or dormant) farmland within the project area, such an evaluation is not necessary.

B.3.h. Air, Noise and Energy

This section describes the air quality, noise, and energy studies conducted for this project. Further detail on the air quality and noise studies can be found in Appendices N and O, respectively.

AIR QUALITY

OVERVIEW

Air pollutants are emitted by a wide variety of sources, including stationary (direct) sources, and mobile, or vehicular (indirect), sources. The project would affect vehicular emissions by changing traffic volumes and operations. These changes, as well as modifications to roadway alignments, could also affect localized pollutant concentrations. The project’s potential effects on both emissions and local pollutant concentrations are considered in this section.



BACKGROUND

The Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act of 1970 mandated the development of air quality standards protective of the public health. This Act, updated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA90), initiated the development of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS, shown in Table IV-25, are the air quality standards developed for pollutants of general concern – also known as criteria pollutants. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. At minimum, the states adopt the federal standards (or, if awaiting formal adoption, use them to determine compliance). The CAAA90 requires that the air quality effects of transportation projects be studied to determine whether they conform to its requirements, which are the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.



TABLE IV-25: NATIONAL (AND STATE) AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)

Averaging Periods Federal Primary

Standards (µg/m3) Federal Secondary Standards (µg/m3)

New York State Standards (ppm)

Carbon Monoxide

Maximum 8-hour Average(1) 10,000 (9.0 ppm) None Same

Maximum 1-hour Average(1) 40,000 (35 ppm) None Same

Fine Particulates (PM2.5)

Annual(2) 15 Same Same

24-hour(3) 35 Same Same

Inhalable Particulates (PM10)

Annual(4) None None None

24-hour(1) 150 Same Same

Ozone

Maximum 8-hour Average(5) 157 (0.08 ppm) Same Same

Hydrocarbons (non-methane)

3-hour Average (6-9 a.m.) None None 0.24

Nitrogen Dioxide

Annual Arithmetic Mean 100 (0.053 ppm) Same Same

Lead

Three-month Mean 1.5 Same Same

Sulfur Oxides

Annual 80 (0.03 ppm) None Same

24-hour(1) 365 (0.14 ppm) None Same

3-hour(1) None 1300 (0.5 ppm) Same Source: 40 CFR part 50 National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards

6 NYCRR Part 257: Air Quality Standards

Notes:

PPM = parts per million

(1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

(2) The 3-year average of the weighted annual mean concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 ug/m3.

(3) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 ug/m3.

(4) Citing a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution, USEPA revoked the annual PM10 standard in 2006 (effective December 17, 2006)..

(5) The 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations measured at each monitor in an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm.



Since this project is being undertaken by NYSDOT with funding from FHWA, the project is subject to the Transportation Conformity Section22 of the CAAA90. This section establishes the criteria for determining whether federally-funded transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the goals of the CAAA90.

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Each state, including the State of New York, must prepare a SIP that demonstrates how it will sufficiently reduce emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources to attain the NAAQS. The region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), NYMTC, also must show that the emissions implications of the projects included in its Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) conform to the NAAQS goals of the SIP. The TIP includes a regional emissions analysis that incorporates the emissions effects of all transportation projects and traffic control measures that are included in the TIP. The entirety of the TIP must conform to the SIP; however, individual projects that are listed in the TIP need not individually demonstrate conformance with respect to regional emissions.

The 2008-2012 TIP, adopted by NYMTC in October 2007 and approved by the federal agencies in December 2007, includes final design, right-of-way, and approximately $391 million in construction funds (FY 2011 and FY 2012) for the replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge. The additional funds required for construction of the preferred alternative (approximately $239 million) must be included in the TIP for 2010 to 2014.

Individual projects must demonstrate project-level conformance with the goals of the SIP, which are the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. By following the guidance in the EPM, NYSDOT ensures that project-level analyses follow federal and state requirements in a consistent and complete manner. EPM Sections 1.1 and 1.2 provide guidance on the analysis of carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM), respectively.

Pollutants of Concern

Certain criteria pollutants are a concern if local concentrations become elevated. These pollutants are often assessed on a local, or microscale level. Most criteria pollutants are also a concern based on their total emissions over a larger area than the immediate project area. These total emissions are assessed at a regional and / or area-wide (mesoscale) level.

As discussed above, a project’s regional effects on emissions are considered, in aggregate, with all projects on the TIP. NYSDOT’s EPM requires that project-level assessments include area-wide (mesoscale) analysis if the project includes certain features or if it would cause regionally significant effects on traffic operations. This project has been determined to be regionally significant and therefore requires mesoscale analysis of transportation-related criteria pollutants.

Carbon Monoxide: CO is a toxic odorless and colorless gas that is principally emitted by incomplete combustion of fossil and other fuels. CO disperses rapidly from the point of emissions. Thus, CO levels can vary greatly over short distances and are associated with the source of the pollutant generation. Local CO concentrations are evaluated where increases in

22 The Transportation Conformity Section of the Clean Air Act is given in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93, “Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Funded, Developed or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act”.



traffic volumes, changes in congestion levels or travel speeds, or changes in roadway geometry could materially increase these concentrations.

The project would modify the BQE alignment, affect volumes and speeds on the BQE, and redistribute vehicular trips on the local street network. Therefore, the potential for the project to affect local CO concentrations has been assessed. Since the project may have regionally significant effect on traffic operations, the mesoscale effects on CO have also been assessed.

Particulates: Inhalable particulates (PM10) and fine particles (PM2.5) are small particles with geometric diameter less than 10 μm and 2.5 μm, respectively. Particles of this size can reach the deep portions of the respiratory tract, causing irritation and contributing to disease. These particles can also adsorb other pollutants onto their surfaces. They comprise a wide variety of constituents, and come from a wide variety of sources, both natural and man-made.

Particulates are not normally a concern from gasoline-fueled fleets, but diesel-fueled fleets, such as trucks and buses, can be a material source of particulates. Particulate concentrations can vary widely over short distances and are associated with the point of their generation or entrainment into the air, although the smaller PM2.5 can persist and remain airborne far longer than the larger PM10.

The project could affect volumes on the BQE, could attract additional truck trips onto local roadways, such as Vandervoort Avenue and Meeker Avenue, and would also redistribute trips, including truck trips, between the highway and the local street network.

The project is in attainment of the NAAQS for PM10 and emissions of this pollutant are expected to decrease over time. For such situations, USEPA has determined that no further studies are required to determine that localized PM10 impacts would not occur. Since the area is in a non-attainment area for PM2.5, the effects on local PM2.5 concentrations have been examined. (Note that while the USEPA updated the NAAQS standard for 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, lowering it from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3, the new standard will not take effect for regional conformity purposes until December 2009.)

Ozone and Ozone Precursors: Ozone is a colorless, odorless gas that, in the upper atmosphere, protects against the harmful effects of solar radiation. However, at ground level, ozone is an eye and respiratory irritant and a major component of smog. Vehicles do not emit ozone but they do emit hydrocarbons (HC), which are a form of the criteria pollutant class called Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). These pollutants are precursors of ozone, and form ozone in the presence of sunlight. However, since they must first react chemically, their effects are realized far downwind from their actual release points.

These pollutants are, therefore a regional concern, and their effects are analyzed on a regional basis as part of the SIP/TIP conformity determination. This project is listed as non-exempt on the TIP. This means that the regional effects of the project’s emissions on its air quality control regions (the counties of Queens and Kings) will be assessed by NYMTC as part of the SIP/TIP Clean Air Act Conformity Determination.

Since the project may have regionally significant effect on traffic operations, the project’s area-wide (mesoscale) effects on HC and NOx have been assessed.

Lead: Lead from motor vehicle emissions is no longer a concern following the conversion to lead-free gasoline. FHWA has made the following statement regarding lead impacts:



Emissions of lead from motor vehicles have decreased significantly as a result of lead being phased out as an additive in motor vehicle fuels. The FHWA has advised that microscale lead analyses for highway projects are not needed or warranted. Lead emissions from highways have been virtually eliminated as a result of the regulation and legislation prohibiting the manufacture, sale or introduction into commerce of any engine requiring leaded gasoline since model year 1992, sale of only unleaded gasoline, and the requirement for reformulated gasoline to contain no heavy metals (such as lead).23

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): Sulfur levels in motor vehicle fuels are extremely low. SO2 is primarily a stationary-source pollutant emitted from the combustion of coal or oil and is not a concern for highway-related projects.

Mobile Source Air Toxics

In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, USEPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. USEPA has identified six of these air toxics as priority MSATs: benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, diesel particulate matter/diesel exhaust organic gases, acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline.

On March 29, 2001, USEPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (66 FR 17229). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule, USEPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in Figure IV-70, “U.S Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions 2000 - 2020.”

23 EPM Section 1.1; January 2001, p 1.1-111.



FIGURE IV-70: U.S. ANNUAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) VS. MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS EMISSIONS, 2000-2020

Under authority of Clean Air Act Section 202(I), USEPA issued a final rule on February 26, 2007 further addressing MSATs. The rule will reduce MSATs through the following measures: (1) lowering the benzene content in gasoline; (2) reducing exhaust emissions from passenger vehicles operated at cold temperatures (under 75 degrees); and (3) reducing emissions that evaporate from, and permeate through, portable fuel containers.

Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis

This FEIS includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this FEIS. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information.

Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project.

1. Emissions: The USEPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway

0

3

6

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020-

100,000

200,000

VMT (trillions/year)

Emissions (tons/year)

Benzene (-57%)

DPM+DEOG (-87%)

Formaldehyde (-65%)

Acetaldehyde (-62%)1,3-Butadiene (-60%)

Acrolein (-63%)

VMT (+64%)

Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000 , Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2-generated factors for elemental carbon, organic carbon and SO4 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns.



projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model--emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity rule, USEPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis.

These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions. MOBILE 6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.

2. Dispersion. The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The USEPA’s current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time at some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess potential health risk. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) is conducting research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific MSAT background concentrations.

3. Exposure Levels and Health Effects. Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments



would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis.

Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses.

Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of USEPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level.

The USEPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. The USEPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from USEPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.

Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.

The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure.

Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in animals.

1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.

Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure.

Diesel exhaust is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.

Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary non-cancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies.

There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by USEPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health



implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary of the series is not expected for several years.

Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes – particularly respiratory problems.24 Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project.

Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts on the human environment.”

In this document, FHWA has provided a qualitative assessment of MSAT emissions and has acknowledged that all the project alternatives may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Attainment Status of the Study Area

In order to monitor attainment of the NAAQS, the CAAA90 defined air quality control regions. USEPA assigns designations for attainment or non-attainment to each region and, for non-attainment areas, also assigns severity of non-attainment. The CAAA90 also created “maintenance periods” during which areas that recently attained the standards must show that they will continue to meet them over a 20-year period. State SIPs must demonstrate how they will maintain compliance before they can be designated as an attainment area for a given pollutant.

The Kosciuszko Bridge Project is located in both Queens and Kings Counties. Both counties are:

Maintenance areas for CO,

24 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-II (2000); Highway Health Hazards, The Sierra Club (2004) summarizing 24 Studies on the relationship between health and air quality); NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health studies cited therein.



Moderate non-attainment areas for the 8-hour ozone standard,

Non-attainment areas for PM2.5, and

Attainment areas for all other pollutants.

Recent Air Quality Data

Table IV-26 shows recently reported pollutant concentrations at the monitoring stations nearest to the project vicinity for those transportation-related pollutants for which there are promulgated NAAQS. The locations of these monitoring stations are shown in Figure IV-71, “NYSDEC Air Quality Monitoring Locations Brooklyn and Queens.”

TABLE IV-26: RECENTLY MONITORED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS

Source: Publication DAR 05-1, NY State 2005 Air Quality Report, Ambient Air Monitoring System Notes: 1: Citing a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particle pollution, USEPA revoked the annual

PM10 standard in 2006 (effective December 17, 2006). 2: Based on less than 75 percent available data. 3: PM2.5 sampling at PS 274 was terminated on June 13, 2006. 4: Ozone sampling was terminated at College Point on January 5, 2006.

The table shows that ambient concentrations in the study area are in compliance with the NAAQS except for ozone, which is a regional problem throughout the northeastern United States, and fine particles (PM2.5).

Pollutant Monitoring Location

Averaging Period

Units NAAQS 2004 2005 2006 3-yr Annual Average

1-hour ppm 35.0 ------ 5.0 5.9 ------

8-hour ppm 9.0 ------ 2.4 2.5 ------

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Brooklyn Transit

Annual ppm ------ 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9

24-hour µg/m3 150 ------ ------ ------ ------ Inhalable Particulates (PM10)

JHS 126

Annual µg/m3 ------1 17 ------ ------ ------

24-hour µg/m3 35 36.9 36.3 37.7 ------ JHS 126

Annual µg/m3 15 14.0 15.3 12.7 14.0

24-hour µg/m3 35 29.4 32.8 25.12 ------ PS 274

Annual µg/m3 15 14.1 13.7 ------3 ------

24-hour µg/m3 35 32.0 37.2 35.8 ------

Fine Particles (PM2.5)

Maspeth Library

Annual µg/m3 15 14.6 15.3 13.6 14.5

8-hour ppm 0.08 0.064 0.073 ------4 ------ College Point

Annual ppm ------ 0.016 0.017 ------4 ------

8-hour ppm 0.08 0.075 0.086 0.078 0.079

Ozone

Queens College

Annual ppm ------ 0.018 0.020 0.021 0.020



ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

NYSDOT has developed air quality analysis guidelines in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of its EPM. These guidelines ensure that potential project impacts are assessed in a fair and consistent manner that assures compliance with federal and state requirements. The air quality analysis performed for this project complies with guidance in the EPM.

Impact Criteria

Carbon Monoxide (CO): For CO, an impact would occur if 1-hour or 8-hour concentrations, including background levels, were predicted to exceed the corresponding NAAQS (35 ppm and 9 ppm for the 1-hour and 8-hour standards, respectively).

Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5): A PM2.5 impact would occur if predicted 24-hour or annual concentrations would exceed the corresponding NAAQS (15 and 35 µg/m3 for the annual and 24-hour standards, respectively). A PM10 impact would occur if predicted 24-hour concentrations would exceed 150 µg/m3.

As discussed below, the evaluation of the potential for CO impacts has been drawn using the quantitative methods outlined in the EPM. In contrast, the evaluation of potential particulate impacts has been drawn based on qualitative assessment, as required by USEPA (in 71 FR 12468).

MESOSCALE ANALYSIS

A mesoscale analysis identifies the changes in traffic emissions over the area where the project could affect traffic operations, i.e., the Traffic Study Area. Mesoscale analysis studies the effects of the five transportation-related criteria pollutants of area-wide concern: CO, NOx, VOCs, PM10 and PM2.5. The analysis was performed for the project’s Estimated Time of Completion (ETC), ETC+10, and ETC+20, which correspond to the years 2015, 2025, and 2035.

Peak Hour traffic estimates were used along with 24-hour data (measured as part of the data collection performed for the project in 2002) to estimate daily traffic operating characteristics for each roadway included in the traffic study Area throughout the typical weekday.

These operating characteristics were combined with roadway lengths and emission factors developed with MOBILE 6.225, the latest mobile source emissions model developed by USEPA, to estimate daily emissions for each of the project alternatives, for each of the three years of interest. Additional details on the calculations are provided in the Air Quality Study Appendix N.

The results are shown in Tables IV-27, IV-28, and IV-29.

25 See User’s Guide to MOBILE6.1 and MOBILE6.2, USEPA Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, No. EPA-420-R-03-010.



TABLE IV-27: COMPARISON OF DAILY EMISSIONS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS – 2015

Pollutant No Build RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, BR-5 Change RA-6 Change

Carbon Monoxide (CO [tons]) 36.6 37.2 1.70% 37.0 1.26%

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx [kg]) 1,744.9 1,769.9 1.43% 1,765.0 1.15%

Hydrocarbons (VOCs [kg]) 1,358.9 1,373.1 1.05% 1,355.0 -0.28%

Inhalable Particulates (PM10 [kg]) 93.9 95.4 1.62% 95.4 1.62%

Fine particles (PM2.5 [kg]) 52.5 53.3 1.57% 53.4 1.58%


Pollutant No Build RA-5, BR-2,

BR-3, BR-5 Change RA-6 Change


Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx [kg]) 860.1 870.1 1.16% 866.9 0.79%

Hydrocarbons (VOCs [kg]) 885.0 885.8 0.10% 874.1 -1.22%




Pollutant No Build RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, BR-5 Change RA-6 Change


Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx [kg]) 712.5 724.5 1.69% 722.7 1.44%

Hydrocarbons (VOCs [kg]) 942.2 952.6 1.11% 943.2 0.11%



The predicted emissions for Alternatives RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5 are identical, and are presented in the table under the heading “RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, BR-5”. These alternatives differ from each other in alignment and certain other features, but the number of lanes, capacities and other features relevant to traffic operations are identical. Thus, the traffic characteristics, and, therefore, predicted emissions are identical.

A comparison of emissions between the alternatives shows that pollutant emissions would generally increase somewhat with the project alternatives, although VOC levels would decrease slightly with the RA-6 Alternative in the a.m. peak hour for 2015 and 2025.

Neither alternative is strictly better with respect to all pollutants, as emissions would increase more (or decrease less) differently for the various years and pollutants.

When evaluating these results, one of the predictive limitations of the MOBILE 6.2 emissions model should be considered. In addition to those traffic characteristics considered in the



analysis, emissions are also sensitive to drive cycles and driving behavior, particularly acceleration, braking and gear shifting. In addition to improving travel speed on the BQE and on the Vandervoort entrance ramp, the operational improvements of the project would also smooth the traffic flows, especially in the peak traffic periods. That is, traffic would be much closer to steady-state, cruising travel than they would without the project. MOBILE 6.2 cannot reflect the emissions effects of this project benefit. Therefore, the emissions with the project have been over-estimated in this regard.

As discussed in Section II.A.2., the cumulative effects of emissions from transportation projects are evaluated for Clean Air Act Conformity by NYMTC, as part of their regional emission model. The project’s emissions will be found to conform to the Clean Air Act as long as the TIP with which it is listed is found to conform.

FHWA considers a project-level particulate emissions increase of 2.0 percent or greater relative to the No Build Alternative to be a potential impact. This threshold would be exceeded in 2035 only. This result, however, should be evaluated in the context of the overestimate in emissions with the project discussed in the prior section.

Diesel-fueled vehicles, comprised mostly of the heavier trucks and buses, are responsible for most mobile-source emitted particulates. Mitigation of this project impact would, in practice, require reducing particulate emissions from these vehicle classes. This can be accomplished either by reducing the rate of particulate emissions from these vehicles or by reducing truck / bus VMT or idling within the study area.

USEPA has required several control strategies to reduce particulate emissions from diesel-fueled vehicles, including the use of lower-sulfur fuels, particulate filters, and other emissions control equipment. These control technologies will become increasingly effective as newer, less polluting vehicles replace the current and older vehicles in the fleet. Their effectiveness is reflected in the lower particulate emissions predicted in 2025 and 2035 relative to 2015. However, the effects of these control technologies apply equally with the No Build and Project Alternatives.

Since the project’s emissions were calculated over the entire study area, which comprises the street network and highways over a large portion of both Kings and Queens Counties, it is not feasible to impose modifications on truck / bus behavior so as to reduce emissions below the threshold. Thus, this is an unavoidable impact of the project.

MICROSCALE ANALYSIS

Microscale analysis deals with the project’s potential effects on local ambient air pollutant concentrations with CO and PM the pollutants of concern. This section describes the methodology and results of the microscale analysis for the project.

Microscale analysis is performed only for the year or years that are likely to generate the highest emissions. Because the study area is located in a maintenance area for CO and nonattainment for PM2.5, analysis was performed for ETC (2015) and the worse of ETC+10 (2025) or ETC+20 (2035), which analysis showed to be ETC+20 (2035).



Carbon Monoxide

The microscale analysis for CO has been performed using a tiered approach that included selection of analysis locations and screening. The selection and screening steps are used to identify the locations most likely to result in air quality impacts, and to determine whether more detailed levels of analysis would be required.

Selection of Analysis Locations

The selected analysis locations are those most likely to be impacted by the project. Six intersection locations were selected as per the EPM procedures. Only signalized intersections were considered. Non-signalized intersections do not typically cause elevated pollutant concentrations, as there are little or no pollutant contributions from queue sources.

As per the EPM, three intersections in the traffic study area were identified using data from the traffic study for 2035 and considering the following factors:

Potential adverse effects due to the project;

Highest volumes; and

Proximity to the project.

In addition to these factors, CO levels are sensitive to low speeds and queuing. Therefore, as required by the EPM, the three potentially affected intersections with the worst Level of Service (LOS) were also identified. While LOS was the principal selection criterion, additional consideration was given to intersections:

Closer to the project site,

Having higher volumes on the most congested approach, and

Considering volumes on the (less congested) cross-streets.

The top three intersections based on highest volume and worst LOS are shown in Table IV-30.



TABLE IV-30: CANDIDATE LOCATIONS FOR MICROSCALE ANALYSIS

Highest-Volume Locations

Peak Hour Volume (Both Directions)

Location Peak Period No Build Build Cross Street

Meeker Avenue at McGuiness Boulevard/Humboldt Street (Bridge Replacement Alternatives) p.m. 2,574(1) 2,845 3,103(2)

Meeker Avenue at Vandervoort Avenue (Bridge Replacement Alternatives) p.m. 1,019 1,251 1,026

Vandervoort Avenue at Grand Street (Rehabilitation with Auxiliary Lanes Alternatives) a.m. 801 1,022 1,873

Worst LOS Locations

Location Peak Period Build Alternative V/C Ratio

Fresh Pond Road between Flushing Avenue and Elliot Avenue a.m. RA-6 1.70

McGuiness Boulevard between Meeker Avenue eastbound and Meeker Avenue Westbound (under the BQE) a.m. RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, BR-5 1.62

Metropolitan between Marcy Avenue and Meeker Avenue a.m. RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, BR-5 1.57 Notes:

(1) Peak hour volumes for the No Build and Build Alternatives indicate predicted 2035 traffic volumes for the first named street of intersection location.

(2) Peak hour volumes in the “Cross Street” column indicate predicted 2035 traffic volumes for the second named street.

Screening Analysis

CO screening has been applied to the six locations identified in Table IV-31 The goal of screening is to determine which, if any, of the candidate intersections require additional quantitative analysis to determine the potential for CO impacts.

Intersections with LOS of A, B, or C are generally excluded from further consideration unless very sensitive receptors, such as schools, hospitals, or retirement communities, are identified. The candidate locations would all have LOS of D or worse in at least one candidate year.

Signalized intersections are screened to determine if Level I CO analysis is required by comparing the maximum one-way approach volume at the intersection to the (corresponding) volume threshold.26 The volume threshold, which reaches a maximum value of 4,000 vehicles, depends on the idling and free-flow CO emission rates. If the projected volume is below the threshold, then a CO impact would not occur, and no further study is required at that location.

For this purpose, volumes, vehicle classifications and emission factors projected for the final analysis year (2035) were used. The results are shown in Table IV-31.

26 Table 3c in Chapter I of the EPM.



TABLE IV-31: VOLUME SCREENING FOR CO

Emission Factor Estimates(1)

Intersection Free Flow (g/veh-mi)

Idle (g/hr)

Volume Threshold

(veh/hr)

Maximum Approach

Volume (veh/hr) (1)

Further Analysis Required?

Vandervoort Avenue at Grand Street 4.36 32.6 4,000 1,457 No

Meeker Avenue at McGuiness Boulevard /Humboldt Street 13.15 33.1 2,809 1,455 No

Meeker Avenue at Vandervoort Avenue 4.26 33.8 4,000 1,251 No

Fresh Pond Road between Flushing Avenue and Elliot Avenue 3.31 31.3 4,000 1,727 No

McGuiness Boulevard Between Meeker Avenue eastbound and Meeker Avenue Westbound (under the BQE)

3.82 34.9 4,000 584 No

Metropolitan between Marcy Avenue and Meeker Avenue 13.79 34.5 2,942 1,098 No

Note: (1) Emissions indicated for highest emitting approach at this intersection.

These results show that the projected volumes are well below their corresponding threshold. Therefore, there is no potential for exceedances of the CO standard at these locations and no further CO analysis is required.

Particulates

The project’s potential effects on local particulate concentrations are examined through hot-spot analysis. On March 10, 2006, USEPA published a final rule that establishes the transportation conformity criteria and procedures for local (hot-spot) air quality analysis for particulates, in PM2.5 and PM10 non-attainment and maintenance areas.27

Conformity-related hot-spot analyses for PM2.5 and/or PM10 are required only in nonattainment and maintenance areas. That is, for Clean Air Act conformity purposes, projects located in attainment areas do not require analysis under the final rule. The Kosciuszko Bridge is one of four bridges over Newtown Creek between Brooklyn (Kings County) and Queens (Queens County). Both counties are attainment areas for PM10 and nonattainment areas for PM2.5. However, under NEPA and SEQR, assessment of air quality effects is required for all air pollutants of concern. Thus, the project’s potential to create hot-spots for both PM10 and PM2.5 have been examined.

USEPA and FHWA jointly published guidance (EPA420-B-06-902) on implementing qualitative analysis, as specified in the final rule. It notes that guidelines for quantitative analysis for local particulate concentrations are under development by USEPA. Once the appropriate methods and modeling guidance are available and published in the Federal Register, quantitative hot-spot analyses will be required.

27 “PM2.5 and PM10 Hot-Spot Analyses in Project-level Transportation Conformity Determinations for the New PM2.5 and Existing PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (71 FR 12468), 3/29/06.



The qualitative analysis focuses on existing air quality conditions and how they are projected to change over time, with and without the proposed project. This is accomplished by considering:

Existing air quality data and trends, particularly pollutant concentrations at monitoring stations in (or representative of) the area;

Future estimated air quality, including:

o emissions reduction programs;

o evaluation of the changes required to meet attainment; and

o Changes in the built and natural environment that might affect particulate dispersion; and

The expected effects of the project on traffic emissions. Since diesel vehicles are responsible for most particulate emissions, emphasis is placed on these vehicles’ emissions.

As with CO, a particulate impact would occur if the project is predicted to cause any of the particulate-related NAAQS (shown in Table IV-25) to be exceeded, or an existing exceedance to be exacerbated. As with CO, the project’s ETC (2015) and critical analysis year (2035) were considered.

Existing Conditions in the Vicinity of the Project

Recently measured particulate concentrations at the three monitors closest to the project were shown earlier in Table IV-26. The monitoring stations at PS 274 and the Maspeth Library measure PM2.5 but do not measure PM10.

As shown in the table, PM10 concentrations at JHS 126 (the only monitor in the vicinity of the project that measures this pollutant) are unavailable for 24-hour sampling for the last three years. Although the previous annual standard (50 µg/m3) has recently been revoked, the 2004 PM10 concentration at this location was well below the standard. None of the three operating PM10 monitors in New York City have recorded a 24-hour concentration above 70 µg/m3 during the last three years for which data is available, well below the standard (150 µg/m3). Annual PM2.5 concentrations are close to the 15 µg/m3 standard at all three of the monitoring locations, but the three-year average annual concentration (the applicable form of the standard) is attained at each monitor. With the recent modification to the PM2.5 standard (reduced from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3), two locations (Maspeth Library and JHS 126) that were previously well below the standard, have recently monitored values above the standard.

Based on the measured values:

Concentrations in the Study Area have currently achieved the applicable PM10 standards. Reductions in future emissions of this pollutant are desirable, but are not required in attaining the standards.

Concentrations at the monitors in the Study Area would likely achieve the PM2.5 standards with modest (about 3 percent) decreases in overall PM2.5 emissions.



Evaluation of Future Air Quality Conditions in the Vicinity of the Project

Future air quality conditions in the project vicinity will be affected by several factors. Emission factors will be principally affected by technology and emissions policies on future vehicular and non-vehicular sources. Vehicular emissions will also depend on VMT in the area as well as changes to traffic flow and/or congestion. The overall effect would also depend on the relative importance of vehicular sources relative to non-vehicular sources.

USEPA maintains the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), an emissions database categorized by emissions source category.28 Table IV-32 shows the NEI’s estimates of the relative importance of on-road vehicular travel for particulate emissions, by source category, for 2001.

TABLE IV-32: VEHICULAR COMPONENT OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS

Pollutant Brooklyn Queens

PM10 8% 5%

PM2.5 15% 8% Source: USEPA Final 1999 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Database, version 3. Estimates are for 2001.

The table shows that the vehicular component of particulate emissions is small. The remaining emissions are attributable mostly to combustion of fuel and other sources.

Future Regional Vehicular Emissions Trends

Regional vehicular particulate emissions will trend lower due to a combination of technological improvements and policy requirements. The 2007 heavy-duty engine standards will result in the introduction of new, highly effective control technologies for heavy-duty engines, beginning in 2007.29

Since Kings and Queens Counties are in non-attainment areas for PM2.5, NYMTC performed regional modeling for that pollutant. Their analysis incorporates the effects of regional travel, policies and plans that affect regional travel and emissions. They recently developed the projections shown in Table IV-33 for the NYMTC region (which includes New York City, Long island, and the lower Hudson Valley):

TABLE IV-33: NYMTC PROJECTIONS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE REGIONAL PM2.5 EMISSIONS

Calendar Year 2002 2010 2020 2025 2030

Projected PM2.5 Emissions (tons / year) 2,017 1,462 973 981 1,004 Source: Demonstration of Transportation Conformity for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 Non-Attainment Area, 11/13/06.

28 The NEI is intended for informatory purposes, but not regulatory purposes. It provides summaries of its data based on information provided by state agencies, but its data are not the state’s official emission database.

29 “Heavy-duty Engine, Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements - Final Rule” (Signed 12/21/00)



These projections show that regional PM2.5 emissions from vehicular travel are expected to decrease to less than half of their 2002 level by 2020, and increase only slightly thereafter. Much of the benefit would be obtained from known technological improvements, which were assumed to phase in between 2002 and 2020. Additional reductions after 2020 are likely as further control strategies are developed and implemented.

Thus, between 2004 and the analysis years, regional vehicular PM2.5 emissions will decrease by 40 to 50 percent, or more if and when new technologies are developed and adopted.

The mesoscale analysis for the project includes future emissions estimates for both PM10 and PM2.5 within the Study Area. To provide a comparison with baseline conditions, emissions for 2004 were developed, and compared to the predicted future No Build estimates. The results are shown in Table IV-34.

TABLE IV-34: PROJECTED EMISSIONS TRENDS IN THE STUDY AREA

Emissions Estimates [kg]

Pollutant 2004 2015 Change 2025 Change 2035 Change

Inhalable Particulates (PM10 [kg]) 181.1 93.9 -48% 86.2 -52% 89.1 -51%

Fine particles (PM2.5 [kg]) 64.0 52.5 -18% 44.3 -31% 45.5 -29%

The predictions for the Study Area show the same trend as for the Region, although the predicted reductions are somewhat lower.

Significant decreases in emissions are also seen in vehicular emission factors (as per MOBILE 6.2). This can be seen in Table IV-35, which shows typical fleet-average particulate emission factors for various years.

TABLE IV-35: PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR TRENDS

Emission Factors (grams/veh-mi) By Calendar Year

Pollutant 2004 2015 2025 2035

PM10 0.0457 0.0245 0.0215 0.0211

PM2.5 0.0243 0.0137 0.0110 0.0107 Source: NYSDOT website (http://www.dot.state.ny.us/eab/epm/m6/m6tables.html)

Table IV-34 shows reductions in particulate emission factors of more than 50 percent between 2004 and 2025. When considered with growth in regional VMT, these values are consistent with the regional emissions projections developed by NYMTC.

Vehicular emission factors are currently estimated to decrease only slightly between 2025 and 2035. However, as with NYMTC’s regional estimates, the emission factors only reflect the phase-in of current policies and technologies. Additional reductions are likely after 2020, as further control strategies are developed and implemented.



Effect of the Project on VMT and Heavy Diesel Vehicle Travel

Of interest to evaluating the potential effects on particulate emissions are the project’s effects on overall VMT, heavy diesel VMT, and congestion / traffic flow within the Study Area. Estimates of VMT effects are based on TransCAD modeling performed for the traffic study.

Diesel vehicles are of primary concern for vehicular particulate emissions, since this category is the highest emitter. Peak hour heavy diesel and total VMT estimates are shown in Table IV-36.

TABLE IV-36: ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR HEAVY VEHICLE AND TOTAL VMT

Period Year Alternative Heavy Diesel Vehicle VMT

% of Total VMT

Total Study Area VMT

Change in VMT

No Build 15,648 7.5% 208,561

RA-6 16,086 7.6% 210,296 0.8% 2015

RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, BR-5 15,887 7.5% 212,352 1.8%

No Build 17,678 7.7% 228,685

RA-6 19,120 8.1% 234,756 2.7%

AM

2035

RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, BR-5 18,150 7.7% 234,927 2.7%

No Build 2,183 1.1% 208,539

RA-6 2,230 1.1% 211,055 1.2% 2015

RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, BR-5 2,222 1.1% 211,108 1.2%

No Build 3,834 1.7% 229,278

RA-6 3,917 1.7% 233,009 1.6%

PM

2035

RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, BR-5 3,931 1.7% 233,428 1.8%

As shown in the table, the expected peak hour VMT increases are modest. Daily VMT increases in the Study Area, with the project, are expected to be similar, ranging from between slightly over 1 percent in 2015 to about 2.5 percent in 2035. The net increases would come from modest increases in VMT.

The project would not create or alter any truck or bus routes. Therefore, project-related increases in heavy vehicle VMT are expected to be proportional to the overall VMT increases. This is consistent with the traffic analyses for the local street network, which predicts no material changes to heavy vehicle percentages.

While the BQE and LIE are major truck routes, most heavy vehicle traffic are gas-fueled vehicles, which emit substantially less particulates than do diesel-fueled vehicles. The table shows that heavy diesel VMT would be highest in the a.m. peak period at about 8 percent, but drops to between 1 percent and 2 percent in the p.m. peak period. Based on these values, daily heavy diesel VMT is estimated at about 5 percent – well below the 8 percent criteria specified in the USEPA guidance for significant diesel vehicle traffic.



Effect of the Project on Traffic Operations

The effects of the project on traffic operations are described in Section III.C.2.b, which shows the traffic projections for 2015 (the ETC year) and 2045 (the project’s design year). While projections are not shown for 2035 (the critical analysis year for the hot-spot analysis), the trends for 2035 are similar to those shown for 2045. As discussed, the project would materially increase travel speed, reduce congestion and delays, and generally smooth traffic flows on the BQE. The expected benefits on the BQE are greater in the eastbound direction, since traffic flow in the westbound direction is limited by congested conditions west of the project limits. Projections show greater benefits for 2015 (the ETC year) than for 2045 (the project’s design year) due to additional demand in 2045, although significant benefits to travel speed and reductions in congestion are still expected. Most of the benefits result from the improvements on the BQE and on the Meeker Avenue entrance ramp.

At certain locations, particularly at intersections along Meeker Avenue and on the Vandervoort Avenue entrance ramp, volumes would increase as vehicles use these roadways to exit the local street network and access the BQE. Volumes would generally increase by 10 to 15 percent along Meeker Avenue, and up to 25 percent (in the a.m. peak period) on the Vandervoort Avenue entrance ramp. Conversely, volumes along many major arterial roadways, such as McGuinness Boulevard, Metropolitan Avenue and Grand Street, would decrease with the Build Alternatives. Despite the volume increases, the project would generally reduce delays and improve levels of service at intersections along Meeker Avenue, although modest increases in peak period delay are predicted at some approaches to Morgan Avenue and Kingsland Avenue in 2045. The project would either improve or have no material affect at other studies locations.

The project would significantly reduce delays at the Meeker Avenue intersections with Vandervoort Avenue (eastbound) and with Apollo Street (westbound). These are the closest intersections to the improved entrance ramp. While the benefits would vary for the different alternatives and peak periods, the project would reduce delays on these roadways by about 40 to 50 percent.

Effect of the Project on Emissions in the Study Area

The mesoscale analysis considers roadway emissions in the Study Area. The results (Tables IV-27 through IV-29) show that the project could increase daily PM10 and PM2.5 emissions relative to the No Build Alternative by up to:

1.6 percent for all alternatives in 2015,

1.8 percent for all alternatives in 2025,

2.5 percent for all alternatives except Alternative RA-6 in 2035, and

2.7 percent for Alternative RA-6 in 2035.

These results parallel the increases in overall VMT expected for the project.

When considering the predicted increases in emissions from the Build Alternatives, it should be noted that the project includes several benefits that are not accounted for in the mesoscale



analysis, due to limitations in estimating emission factors with MOBILE 6.2. Thus, as discussed in the “Mesoscale Analysis” section above, the emissions estimates with the project are conservative. The project would reduce congestion on both the expressways and local street network. It would also both reduce hours of delay and smooth traffic flow by reducing stop-and-go driving. Both factors would lead to reduced emissions by reducing fuel consumption. However, MOBILE 6.2, which was used to develop the emission factor estimates, cannot reflect these benefits.

The project would increase traffic volumes, as discussed. However, by reducing congestion, delays, and generally improving traffic operations, the project would reduce localized and total emissions. At those locations where the project would increase volumes, notably on the BQE and along Meeker Avenue, project-related improvements would reduce delays and congestion, resulting in materially lower per-vehicle emissions and lower overall emissions.

Conclusions

Based on the findings in this section, it is concluded that the project meets project-level conformity requirements, and would not impact PM10 or PM2.5 concentrations by causing exceedances of the NAAQS or exacerbating those exceedances. The expected decreases in vehicular emissions in the region and the Study Area should be sufficient to permit attainment of the standards. The modest increases in emissions expected from the project would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of those standards. These conclusions are based on the factors described below.

Existing PM2.5 concentrations are marginally above the 35 µg/m3 24-hour standard at the three monitoring locations nearest the project. Concentrations are close to, but below the 15 µg/m3 annual standard.

Overall, area-wide vehicular emissions represent about eight percent of PM2.5 emissions in Queens and about 15 percent in Brooklyn. New York State regulations control stationary and other non-vehicular sources to ensure that existing sources are controlled and that emissions from new sources would not prevent attainment or maintenance of the particulate standards.

Vehicular PM2.5 emissions in the region are expected to decrease by about 40 percent in 2015 and by about 50 percent in 2035. Similarly decreases of 18 percent and 30 percent are expected for the Study Area. These expectations are conservative, since they do not account for any benefits from new technology or policies that may be implemented between now and 2020.

Overall, VMT would increase with the project. The amount of increase would vary by analysis year and alternative, ranging from 0.8 percent to 2.7 percent. The project’s effects on heavy diesel vehicle travel are expected to be proportional to the overall changes. That is, heavy diesel vehicle fractions are not expected to change appreciably with the project alternatives. This is relevant because heavy diesel vehicles are the principle emitters of PM2.5.

While the BQE and several important roadways in the Study Area carry significant truck volume, daily average heavy diesel fraction is about five percent – well below the EPA criteria for significance of eight percent.



The Build Alternatives would increase vehicular emissions, relative to the No Build Alternative. However, these increases are small (less than three percent) compared to the reductions in vehicular emissions expected between current and future conditions (up to 30 percent). These reductions are expected to more than offset any increased emissions that would result from the project and result in study area concentrations below the 35 µg/m3 standard and no impact under NEPA. Meeting the new 35 µg/m3 standard would ensure that the project also meets the 65 µg/m3 standard still in effect (until December 2009) for project-level conformity determinations.

The project would decrease volumes along most of the local street network, as vehicles choose to use the improved BQE. Volumes on Meeker Avenue, which serves as an access road to the BQE, would increase. The Build Alternatives would materially reduce delays and congestion along the BQE and generally, along Meeker Avenue, resulting in lower fuel consumption and emissions than without the project. Thus, the emissions estimates for the Build Alternatives are conservative, and represent overestimates of the amount of pollutant that would probably be emitted.

MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS

As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. However, even though reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSATs at the project level, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions—if any—from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at:

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm

For each alternative in this FEIS, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the VMT assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because, as described in Section III.C.2.b, the auxiliary lanes would increase the efficiency of the roadway and would attract rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. This increase in VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for the Build Alternatives along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds; according to USEPA’s MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.

Because the estimated VMT under each of the Build Alternatives are nearly the same, varying by less than three percent, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the Build Alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of USEPA’s national control programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of



fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the USEPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.

Each of the Build Alternatives would construct one or more parallel structures that would locate some traffic closer to adjacent homes or businesses; therefore, there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No Build Alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum, when a highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternatives could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, USEPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.

CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS

Local particulate concentrations can become elevated due to construction work, and, depending on factors such as meteorology, the particulate matter can remain airborne for several hours. NYSDOT has provisions to control construction-related airborne particulates in Section 107-12 (Soil Erosion, Water, and Air Pollution Abatement) of the NYSDOT Standard Specifications - Construction and Materials. Typical measures include the use of watering and cover materials, and the application of desiccants (drying agents) such as calcium chloride. From the perspective of local concentrations, which represent a self-correcting condition following construction, these measures have proven effective in limiting the amount of PM that results from the temporary use of construction equipment.

The EPM requires an assessment of regional-level PM emissions during construction for projects that require a PM analysis and for which construction would persist for more than three years (which includes this project). Construction-period hot-spot analyses are required only for projects where construction would persist for five years or more at the same location. While the construction period for Alternative BR-2 is expected to be approximately six years, construction of this alternative (as with the other Build Alternatives) would not persist at a single location for more than two years. Therefore, construction-period hot-spot impacts have not been considered.

Screening Analysis

NYSDOT has developed a screening procedure to determine whether advanced analysis is required for construction-related PM. Any project estimated to generate more than 15 tons of either PM2.5 or PM10 in a single year of construction requires advanced analysis. According to NYSDOT guidance, construction costs reasonably reflect construction equipment activity. The preliminary design of the project has been used to identify the second year of construction (2012) as the costliest construction year (and likely the peak construction activity year) for the project.

Construction costs for Alternative BR-5, selected as typical for the reconstruction alternatives for this year are currently estimated as $184 million. The EPM provides calendar-year and region-



specific ratios of PM-to-construction costs for both PM10 and PM2.5 for calendar year 2012. Using these factors, construction of Alternative BR-5 would result in PM emissions in 2012 of 46.7 tons for PM10 and 43.0 tons for PM2.5 per year, respectively. While different alternatives would have different costs, and therefore, different particulate emissions, they would not vary widely enough to change the conclusion that the results clearly exceed the 15 tons / year threshold, and an advanced PM construction period analysis would be required for the selected alternative.

Advanced Analysis

The advanced analysis would use USEPA’s NONROAD model and reflect project-specific non-road equipment that would be used for the project. Some of the necessary data must be obtained from the contractor(s) that is awarded the construction contracts, so all the data required for the advanced assessment would not be available during the DEIS or FEIS phases of the project. As per EPM guidance, the advanced assessment would be performed in coordination with NYSDOT Environment Analysis Bureau (EAB) prior to the construction work, based on information obtained from the selected contractor.

If the advanced analysis re-confirms that PM emissions would exceed 15 tons/year, then the project could potentially impact PM emissions during construction, and mitigation measures would be evaluated with the goal of reducing emissions below 15 tons/year, or else by the maximum amount practicable. Any identified mitigation measures would be committed to prior to construction. The selected measures would be implemented throughout the construction of the project – not only during the highest construction-cost year.

Regardless of the 15 tons/year threshold, NYSDOT would require contractors to utilize all feasible and reasonable equipment and alternative methods to reduce emissions to the greatest amount feasible.

NOISE

OVERVIEW

Noise is defined as unwanted sound and can come from both man-made and natural sources. Noise can interrupt human activities and can result in annoyance in areas where a low noise environment is either conducive or essential to those activities, such as residential areas. This section assesses the potential for the proposed project to cause noise impacts at developed areas in the vicinity of the project. Land uses adjacent to the project that have been considered in the assessment include the residences in both Brooklyn and Queens in the vicinity of the bridge, Sergeant William Dougherty Playground (in Brooklyn) and Old Calvary Cemetery (in Queens). (Table IV-40 shows the estimated number of impacted properties.) Additional details about the noise analysis are provided in the Noise Study Technical Report in Appendix O.



Sound levels are measured in decibels (dB) and normally vary between 40 and 100 dB. To reflect human hearing, “A-weighting” is commonly applied to sound levels. A-weighted sound levels emphasize sounds in the audible range by reducing or eliminating the effects of very low and high frequency sounds. A-weighted sound levels are measured in dBA. Typical activities and the sound levels that they generate are shown in Figure IV-75, “Common Indoor and Outdoor Sound Levels,” below.

Decibels are logarithmic, but incorporate a factor of 10. That is, an increase of 10 dBA results from a ten-fold increase in sound pressure. Most people perceive a 10 dBA increase as a doubling in loudness. A change of 3 dBA is generally considered to be the smallest day-to-day change that most people can perceive, while a 5 dBA change is clearly perceptible to most people.

NOISE DESCRIPTORS

The values shown in Figure IV-72,” Common Indoor and Outdoor Sound Levels” represent typical instantaneous sound levels associated with the listed activities. However, in practice, sound levels vary over time, sometimes substantially. In order to describe sound levels over a period of time, various noise descriptors are used. Such descriptors either average the sound energy over time or identify the sound level exceeded a certain portion of that time. The most appropriate noise descriptor for given conditions depends on both the nature of the dominant noise sources and the potentially affected land uses.

The most frequently used noise descriptor is the equivalent hourly noise level and is represented as Leq(h), Leq(1), or, more simply, as Leq. Leq represents the average sound level over a period of one hour.

Even relatively steady sound levels vary over time. For example, while a vehicle horn may be very loud, and people often find it annoying, if it is used for only a few seconds, it has almost no effect on Leq. Leq is used in this study to describe the existing noise environment and predicted sound levels that would be expected following the construction of the alternatives.

Other noise descriptors were used to evaluate noise during construction which describe the maximum instantaneous sound level and the sound level exceeded “n” percent of

FIGURE IV-72: COMMON INDOOR AND OUTDOOR SOUND LEVELS



the time, respectively. For example, the L10 level is the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the time during some time interval. These descriptors are useful in describing noises that are short-term or event-driven, which makes them useful to describe construction sound levels.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The procedures and requirements for studying noise stem from FHWA requirements and standards. Each state has adopted these requirements and standards. In addition, NYSDOT has provided state-specific implementing regulations and guidance.

Regulations and Guidance Documents

FHWA and New York State regulations and guidance dictate the framework and specify the required procedures to assess noise for projects undertaken by NYSDOT:

23 CFR Part 772: Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. This is the FHWA regulation governing noise assessment of highway projects. The New York State noise policy adheres to and implements this regulation.

FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement, Policy and Guidelines (June 1995). This is FHWA’s guidance document that describes how projects should implement 23 CFR 772.

NYSDOT, Environmental Analysis Bureau, Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM), Chapter 3.1 Noise Analysis Procedures: Project Environmental Guidelines (rev. August 1998). This is NYSDOT’s commentary and state-specific guidance on the requirements and implementation of 23 CFR 772.

NYSDOT, Environmental Analysis Bureau, New York State Noise Analysis Policy, (rev. August 1998). 23 CFR 772 requires that each state’s department of transportation prepare its own formal noise policy. This document contains NYSDOT’s formal noise policy.

Project Classification

23 CFR 772, FHWA guidance and the EPM categorize certain projects as being Type I highway projects. Such projects require a noise study, and that study must follow the guidance in 23 CFR 772. A Type I highway project is defined as “a proposed federal or federal-aid highway project for the construction of a highway on new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway that significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through-traffic lanes.”30

Each of the Build Alternatives, as described in Section III.C.1, qualifies the project as a Type I highway project under 23 CFR 772, meeting the criterion for changes in alignment. Therefore, under the regulation, a noise study is required.

30 23 CFR 772 5(h).



Impact Evaluation Criteria

There are two separate criteria for identifying traffic noise impacts: the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) and a “substantial increase”. Both types of impact have the same consequence in that either one triggers the need to consider noise abatement.

There are no explicit federal criteria to evaluate noise impacts during construction. However, the NYSDOT noise policy provides that an impact will not normally occur if construction noise levels are below 85 dBA.

The Noise Abatement Criteria

FHWA developed the NAC to establish noise levels at which abatement measures must be considered. The applicable NAC depends on the land use activity, as shown in Table IV-37.

TABLE IV-37: NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA

Activity Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category

A 57 (Exterior)

Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.

B 67 (Exterior)

Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.

C 72 (Exterior)

Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.

D * Undeveloped lands.

E 52 (Interior)

Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.

Source: 23 CFR 772

* There is no criterion for undeveloped lands (Category D).

23 CFR 772 requires that noise abatement must be considered at locations where the predicted future sound levels would approach (within 1 dBA) or exceed the Leq(h) levels for the corresponding NAC activity category for the Build Alternatives.

Substantial Increase

An impact would also occur, and abatement must be considered, where the project would raise predicted future sound levels above existing levels by 6 dBA or more, even if the NAC are not exceeded. This is another impact criterion, and is referred to as a substantial increase.

LAND USES

To evaluate project noise effects, the location and density of developed land uses with human activities adjacent to the project must be considered. The land use activities that could be affected by the project determine the applicable NAC.

A map showing land uses in the vicinity of the bridge is included as Figure IV-73, “Land Uses in the Project Area.” (Land uses in the vicinity of the project are described in detail in Section



II.C.1.c.) The sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the project include Sergeant William Dougherty Playground, Old Calvary Cemetery and residential areas shown in yellow on Figure IV-73.

Developed outdoor land uses in the vicinity of the project with human activities that could benefit from a reduced noise environment include the residences and public areas near the BQE and Meeker Avenue in Brooklyn, and the residences near the BQE and the LIE in Queens. All such locations are Land Use Category B (shown earlier in Table IV-37). There are also developed commercial and industrial land uses in the vicinity of the project, but these land uses do not include any outdoor locations with human activities. While these areas are Land Use Category C according to the NAC, since there are no outdoor activities that would benefit from a reduced noise environment, there is no potential for impact.

Thus, the land uses that have been considered in the assessment include the residences in both Brooklyn and Queens in the vicinity of the bridge, Sergeant William Dougherty Playground (in Brooklyn) and Old Calvary Cemetery (in Queens).

SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT

Both long-term and short-term sound level measurements31 were performed as part of this study.

Long-Term Measurements

Long-term measurement is performed over a 24-hour or longer period to identify the peak noise hour and to provide data on the daily noise patterns in the area. The peak noise hour is used for short-term measurement and for sound level predictions.

For this project, long-term measurement was performed in Brooklyn on October 26th-27th, 2004 and in Queens on October 27th-28th, 2004. For the Brooklyn location, the sound meter was placed on the rooftop at 785 Meeker Avenue. For the Queens location, the meter was placed in the rear yard of 42-21 54th Drive. The details of the long-term measurement are provided in the Noise Study Technical Report included in Appendix O.

The results showed that sound levels very close to the maximum levels measured at each meter persist (within 1 dBA) from 5:30 a.m. until 2:45 p.m. in Brooklyn and from 5:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. in Queens. Thus, any 1-hour period that falls within both of these time periods (5:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m.) could represent the peak noise hour. As described in Section II.C.1.h, the traffic study shows that the a.m. peak traffic hour occurs from 6:45 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. Since this traffic peak hour falls within the peak noise periods observed at both meters and that the largest traffic effects would occur in the peak traffic hours, the a.m. peak traffic hour was selected as the peak noise hour for short-term measurement and sound level predictions.

Short-Term Measurements

Short term measurements are performed for 15-20 minute periods to characterize the existing noise environment and to provide context for calculating existing and future sound levels.

31 Both long and short-term monitoring procedures followed FHWA (and EPM) guidelines given in Measurement of Highway Related Noise, FHWA-PD-96-046.



These measurements were performed on November 10, 2004 between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in Queens and between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on November 17, 2004 in Brooklyn. Six measurement locations were selected in Brooklyn and four in Queens. A detailed discussion of the short-term measurement process, locations, and results is provided in the Noise Study Technical Report included in Appendix O.

Sound levels in Brooklyn at measurement locations that are adjacent to either Vandervoort Avenue or Meeker Avenue (and the BQE) were found to exceed the NAC. The remaining locations are either in backyards or on a side street several houses away from the BQE and were found to be below the NAC. During the field measurements it was observed that the dominant noise source was the local street network. This was true at all measurement locations, including those adjacent to the BQE, though the effect was more pronounced at locations not adjacent to the BQE.

In Queens, sound levels at measurement locations adjacent to the BQE or LIE exceed the NAC, while the remaining locations, which are located at least two blocks from either expressway, do not exceed the NAC. In contrast to the measurement locations in Brooklyn, it was observed that the dominant noise sources in Queens were the BQE and/or the LIE.

TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTIONS

The FHWA Traffic Noise Model32 (TNM) Version 2.5 was used to predict sound levels at various locations, referred to as receivers, where traffic noise from the operation of the project could affect these levels. Estimates of the project’s construction effects are dealt with separately.

TNM is the state-of-the-art FHWA model used to compute sound levels and assess the effectiveness of sound barriers for FHWA and NYSDOT projects. It incorporates estimates of traffic noise emissions, with geometric data, such as roadway coordinates, terrain features, the effects of barriers, and distances from the noise sources. Traffic noise emissions are calculated based on estimates of vehicular volumes, speeds and composition (the amount of autos, trucks and buses).

TNM was used to predict sound levels at receivers on developed land uses with human activities that could benefit from a reduced noise environment. These receivers are located on land uses identified as Land Use Category B during the land use review. The receiver locations in Brooklyn and Queens are shown in Figure IV-74, “Existing and No Build Receiver Locations in Brooklyn,” and Figure IV-75, “Receivers in Queens for Existing Conditions and All Alternatives,” respectively.

Sound levels were calculated at the receivers for the a.m. peak period for existing traffic conditions as well as for the future project alternatives, including the No Build Alternative. The sound levels for existing conditions are compared to those predicted for the project alternatives and the results are compared to the NAC and the 6-dBA threshold for a substantial increase.

To varying degrees, the project’s Build Alternatives would modify existing open space and create additional open space in Brooklyn. All of the alternatives would realign Cherry Street requiring acquisition of a portion of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground. Alternatives RA-5,

32 FHWA Traffic Noise Model, FHWA-PD-96-009 and DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-98-01; version 2.5 (Final Report, April 2004)



RA-6, BR-2, and BR-3 would each require the acquisition of a strip of the playground approximately 5 m (16 ft) wide on the north side of the park. Alternative BR-5 would encroach further, requiring use of approximately 23 m (75 ft) of open space along the north side of the park. Such acquisition would be a Section 4(f) impact that would be partially mitigated through the creation of additional parkland immediately to the east on the same block.

To evaluate future noise levels within the proposed open space, several receivers were added to represent these areas. As shown in Figure IV-76, “Receivers in Brooklyn for Alternatives RA-5, RA-6, BR-2, and BR-3,” and Figure IV-77, “Receivers in Brooklyn for Alternative BR-5,” a new receiver (B22), was added to the calculations for the Build Alternatives to show predicted sound levels in the expanded Sergeant William Dougherty Playground. Under Alternative BR-5, receiver B20 would no longer be located in open space and therefore was removed from the analysis as a receiver for that alternative only, as shown in Figure IV-77, “Receivers in Brooklyn for the BR-5 Alternative.” Each of the Build Alternatives would also create additional open space north of the BQE near Van Dam Street and, therefore, additional receivers (B23, B24, B25, and B26) were added in this area as well (see Figure IV-76, “Receivers in Brooklyn for Alternatives RA-5, RA-6, BR-2, and BR-3,” and Figure IV-77, “Receivers in Brooklyn for Alternative BR-5”).

Predicted Sound Levels

Sound levels predicted using TNM for existing conditions and for each of the alternatives, including the No Build Alternative, are shown in Tables IV-38 and IV-39. Predicted sound level changes between existing conditions and the No Build Alternative range from no change (0 dBA) to an increase of 3 dBA. The change in sound levels with the Build Alternatives, relative to the No Build Alternative, range from a decrease of 3 dBA (locations B9, B14, and B20) to an increase of 2 dBA (locations B6, B17, B19, and B21).



TABLE IV-38: PREDICTED EXISTING AND 2045 SOUND LEVELS – BROOKLYN RECEIVERS

Sound Levels (Leq in dBA)

Project Alternatives

ID Receiver Description Existing No Build RA-5 RA-6 BR-2 BR-3 BR-5

B1 149 Kingsland Avenue 71 72 72 72 72 72 72


B3 6 Lombardy Street 67 67 68 68 68 68 68


B5 687 Meeker Avenue 74 76 77 77 77 77 77

B6 28 Sutton Street 55 55 56 57 56 56 56

B7 559 Morgan Avenue 62 64 64 64 64 64 64

B8 735 Meeker Avenue 73 73 74 74 74 74 73

B9 763 Meeker Avenue 75 77 77 77 77 77 74

B10 15 Apollo Street (Backyard) 54 54 54 55 54 54 54

B11 15 Apollo Street (Front) 64 67 66 67 66 66 66

B12 13 Van Dam Street (Backyard) 56 56 57 57 57 57 56

B13 13 Van Dam Street (Front) 70 70 71 71 71 71 71

B14 795 Meeker Avenue 73 75 74 73 74 74 72

B15 503 Vandervoort Avenue 69 72 73 72 73 73 73

B16 473 Vandervoort Avenue 70 72 73 73 73 73 73

B17 Keyspan/Greenpoint Ballpark 73 75 77 76 77 77 77

B18 81 Beadel Street 58 60 61 61 61 61 61

B19 114 Beadel Street 61 63 65 64 65 65 65

B20 Sergeant William Dougherty Playground North 75 77 75 74 75 75 ---

B21 Sergeant William Dougherty Playground South 72 73 74 73 74 74 75

B22 Sergeant William Dougherty Playground East --- --- 70 69 70 70 73

B23 Meeker Avenue Open Space #1 --- --- 72 73 72 72 ---

B24 Meeker Avenue Open Space #2 --- --- --- --- --- --- 76

B25 Meeker Avenue Open Space #3 --- --- --- --- --- --- 71

B26 Meeker Avenue Open Space #4 --- --- --- --- --- --- 65 Note: Values in bold approach or exceed the NAC



TABLE 39: PREDICTED EXISTING AND 2045 SOUND LEVELS – QUEENS RECEIVERS


Project Alternatives

ID Receiver Description Existing No Build RA-5 RA-6 BR-2 BR-3 BR-5

Q1 Calvary Cemetery (100' from Laurel Hill Boulevard.)

62 65 64 65 63 64 63

Q2 Calvary Cemetery (50' from Laurel Hill Boulevard.)

63 66 64 65 64 64 64

Q3 42-21 54th Drive (backyard) 68 69 67 69 67 68 ---

Q4 54-38 43rd Street (front) 65 66 66 66 68 67 ---

Q5 44th Street at 54th Road 62 63 63 62 63 63 63

Q6 53rd Ave between 44th & 46th Streets

68 68 68 68 68 68 68

Note: Values in bold approach or exceed the NAC

Locations that are impacted by noise under existing conditions, i.e., where sound levels are 66 dBA or greater, would continue to be impacted in the future. Most locations that are not impacted under existing conditions would continue to not be impacted, but there are a few exceptions, as noted in the tables. These include receiver B11 (the front of 15 Apollo Street, in Brooklyn) for all future alternatives; Q4 (the front of 54-38 43rd Street, in Queens for all except Alternative BR-5; and Q2 (the receiver in Old Calvary Cemetery closer to the BQE) in the No Build Alternative only (i.e., sound levels are below the impact threshold with all of the project alternatives).

Identification of Impacts

23 CFR 772 requires that noise impacts be identified. This is done by quantifying the number of properties that would be impacted with each project alternative. To achieve this, the impacted properties near the project for each alternative (including the No Build Alternative), were identified based on whether an outdoor portion of the property would lie within the 66-dBA contour line. The 66 dBA sound-level contour line was estimated using the sound levels predicted with TNM.

For this purpose, each individual residential unit at a location is considered a single property. The number of dwelling units within each impacted residential property was estimated using the New York City Department of Finance’s Real Property Assessment Database. The estimates of impacted properties are shown in Table IV-40.



TABLE IV-40: ESTIMATED NUMBER OF IMPACTED PROPERTIES

Number of Impacted Dwelling Units or Properties

Property Location / Type Project Build Alternatives

Brooklyn No Build RA-5 RA-6 BR-2 BR-3 BR-5

Residential (# Dwelling Units) 426 432 444 432 432 414

Other (Park/Open Space) 2 3 3 3 3 4

Queens No Build RA-5 RA-6 BR-2 BR-3 BR-5

Residential (# Dwelling Units) 27 27 27 27 27 26

Other (Calvary Cemetery) 1 0 0 0 0 0

In Brooklyn, each of the Build Alternatives, except for BR-5, would modestly increase the number of impacted dwelling units relative to the No Build Alternative. BR-5 would shift the BQE’s alignment to the south, away from the more densely populated residential areas, thus reducing the number of impacted locations. In contrast, RA-6 would shift the BQE slightly closer to the more residential area to the north, increasing the volumes in the westbound direction, which is closer to the more residential area to the north, increasing the number of impacted dwelling units relative to the other Build Alternatives.

The marginal increase in impacted park/open space areas in the Brooklyn Study Area reflects the new open space areas that would be created by the project. The project would not create any new impacts in existing park/open space areas. Under the RA-5, RA-6, BR-2, and BR-3 Alternatives, three park/open space properties would be impacted including the Sergeant Dougherty Playground and the two new park areas near the base of the Apollo Street ramp. Under the BR-5 Alternative, four properties would be impacted including: the Sergeant Dougherty Playground; a parcel immediately east of Sergeant Dougherty Playground (proposed as part of the playground expansion); the new park area at the Meeker Avenue triangle (near the Apollo Street ramp); and a proposed linear park area on the north side of the Apollo Street ramp.

In Queens, the project alternatives have almost no effect on the number of impacted properties.

Since the results show that there are locations where the impact thresholds are exceeded, noise abatement for the impacted receivers must be considered and evaluated.

TRAFFIC NOISE ABATEMENT

23 CFR 772 provides the following six possible traffic noise abatement measures:

1. Traffic management measures; 2. Alteration of roadway geometry; 3. Construction of noise barriers; 4. Acquisition of property rights, on predominantly unimproved (undeveloped) property in

order to preempt development that would (subsequently) be impacted by noise; and 5. Insulation of publicly-owned schools.

Each measure can be useful for abating noise, but there are limitations as to where each measure may be applied. When considering abatement, the goal is to provide the optimum



noise reduction using methods that are both feasible and reasonable. A measure’s feasibility stems from whether it would be acoustically effective and implementable; that is, a measure must provide a substantial noise reduction and be practical to construct. If feasible, a measure’s reasonableness would then be evaluated based on its cost, benefits, appeal, and the effect(s) on the community. If a measure is found to be both feasible and reasonable, then it would be recommended for implementation as part of the project’s design.

Each of the abatement measures listed above was evaluated to determine its feasibility. A detailed discussion of each measure with respect to this project is provided in the Noise Study Technical Report included in Appendix O. The only measure that could be feasible would be noise barriers. A review of existing land uses on properties adjacent to or near the BQE revealed that the only feasible locations to install a noise barrier would be on the structure of the BQE itself. Other potential locations that are considered infeasible due to existing structures on private properties that are sited on zero lot lines with no setback. As a result, structures are located right up to the property line. A barrier at this location would not be appropriate or desirable. Where setbacks from the right-of-way (highway, street or sidewalk) do exist such as Sergeant William Dougherty Playground, a very tall barrier would not be desirable for aesthetic reasons and shadow impacts. The lack of visibility from an opaque concrete wall would also jeopardize public safety by not allowing police to view the park from Meeker Avenue and portions of Vandevoort Avenue. For these reasons, a very tall barrier placed on the playground’s right of way is infeasible. As a result, only the only location possible for barriers would be to place it on the BQE structure.

The initial evaluation criterion for the feasibility of sound barriers is the sound level reduction, or insertion loss, that would be provided by a noise barrier. NYSDOT strives to obtain maximum insertion loss while recognizing optimal abatement may be all that is achievable. NYSDOT strives to achieve a 10 dBA insertion loss, if possible, with at least 7 dBA achieved at the residence most benefited by the barrier. The study evaluated the effects of very tall barriers (5.5 m [18 ft]) that would obtain the maximum achievable insertion loss. While barriers could be installed on (the sides of) the BQE, they would not be acoustically effective, as the maximum insertion loss that could be obtained at any residence would only be 4 dBA. Thus noise barriers are not feasible and no noise abatement measures have been recommended.

Other Measures That May Be Implemented

While none of the abatement measures provided in 23 CFR 772 would be feasible, there are measures that can be included with the project that could reduce the annoyance associated with elevated sound levels, and help create a more comfortable audible environment. These are not noise abatement measures, however.

When trucks and other heavy vehicles pass over uneven joints on a high-speed truck route, such as the BQE, their passage can make noises that are often perceived as annoying, even though these events have little or no effect on the overall sound levels. Currently there are several locations where uneven portions of the BQE deck yield such noises. By replacing the deck over the length of the project limits, each of the project alternatives would correct this condition. Smoother pavement and even joints are often perceived as less annoying, even though they do not noticeably reduce sound levels.



The presence of sparse vegetation, such as a small number of trees between a roadway source and a receiver, does not shield the receiver from a noticeable amount of roadway noise, and has no effect on sound levels (Leq). However, it can often reduce the perception of noise and result in a more comfortable environment. The use of trees has other positive effects, as well, in terms of creating a more pleasant environment. Each of the project alternatives includes an open space and streetscaping plan, discussed in Section IV.B.3.f.,that includes improvements to the planned open space areas and several local streets near the project.

In addition, the Build Alternatives could incorporate the use of sound-absorptive paneling or other materials in locations where the fascia of the BQE could create sound reflections towards residences, such as the Brooklyn Connector area of the BQE, along Meeker Avenue.

While none of these elements would be considered noise abatement measures, in combination they could improve the attractiveness and comfort level of the area and could reduce the perceived annoyance from roadway noise. The details of these measures would be determined during final design phase of the project.

NOISE DURING CONSTRUCTION

Noise at the construction sites would be intermittent and the intensity of it would vary. The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. As a result, noise levels are anticipated to peak only during periods where noisy construction activities occur close to the receptor.

Construction Noise Abatement Criteria

The construction noise analyses were conducted using the New York City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual and NYSDEC guidelines as appropriate.

FHWA Guidelines

The FHWA's noise abatement policy provides general guidelines for construction noise assessment and abatement (23 CFR Part 772, 2005; FHWA, 1977), which includes the following necessary actions:

Identify land uses or activities which may be affected by noise from construction of the project. The identification is to be performed during the project development studies;

Determine the measures which are needed in the plans and specifications to minimize or eliminate adverse construction noise impacts to the community. This determination shall include a weighing of the benefits achieved and the overall adverse social, economic, and environmental effects and the costs of the abatement measures; and

Incorporate the needed abatement measures in the plans and specifications.

Noise criteria for evaluating construction noise impacts have not been developed by the FHWA. However, the FHWA recommends the following factors should be considered:

Difference between existing noise levels in the area and the expected construction noise levels;



Absolute level of expected construction noise activities;

Noise sensitivity of adjacent land uses; and

Total duration of construction in an area affecting noise sensitive land uses.

In addition, the FHWA guidelines recommend low-cost, easy-to-implement construction noise abatement measures to be incorporated into project plans and specifications as follows:

Contractor shall comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and ordinances which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract;

Construction work-hour limits shall be according to state and local regulations;

Internal combustion engines, used for any purpose on the job or related to the job, shall be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine shall operate without a muffler;

Dump and haul trucks shall not utilize "tail gate banging" during dumping;

Use of back-up alarms should be minimized in favor of a flag waver” to direct the vehicle moving in reverse when near sensitive areas.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology described earlier in this document to obtain and predict existing noise levels at sensitive receptor locations in Brooklyn and Queens were employed for background levels in this construction analysis. The same receptors used in that section were considered in this evaluation.

Construction noise levels were calculated assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates for six hours out of an eight-hour work shift when in use. Calculations also assume that the equipment is operated at full load for 70 percent of the time while being used. An "acoustic center", a location in each construction zone that would receive the noisiest equipment noise is determined for various construction areas to allow noise levels to be calculated at each of the receptors. The construction calculations were performed for each alternative’s stages of construction and activities associated with it as described earlier in this section. The highest average noise levels of each construction stage (or period) at each “acoustic center” was calculated to assess impacts. The calculated noise levels provide a comparison of noise levels using different pieces of equipment used in different activities.

EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION NOISE

This section describes potential impacts to receptors during the construction period of the proposed Build Alternatives.

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative includes only the continuation of NYSDOT’s aggressive maintenance and repair program; no long-term construction is planned under this alternative. While it is not foreseen at this time that major portions of the Main Span, Brooklyn Connector or Brooklyn and



Queens Approach would require replacement or major reconstruction, the possibility exists in the bridge’s lifespan. Nonetheless, this document assumes there would be no construction related noise for the No Build Alternative beyond activities and noise level already experienced in road reconstruction, pavement replacement or other routine maintenance projects.

Build Alternatives

For each receptor location the Build Alternative expected to result in the greatest large impact was selected for analysis.

For Brooklyn receptors on the north side of the BQE, construction activities associated with Alternatives RA-6 and BR-3 would have the greatest potential for noise impacts due to the proposed alignments of the two alternatives shifting north of the existing alignment, closer to residences north of the BQE. It is noted, however, that these would least likely have noise impacts upon Sgt. William Dougherty Playground on the south side of the BQE.

Alternative BR-5 would shift the BQE to the south, providing a greater likelihood of noise impacts upon Sgt. William Dougherty Playground. This alterative, however, would be least likely to have noise impacts upon residences, the proposed open space areas, and other receptors on the north side. The construction period analyzes potential noise impacts to the same 27 receptors, including the residences on the north side of the BQE and the playground on the south side of the BQE, identified earlier in this document. It is noted, however, that while access to the playground would be retained as much as possible during construction, it is unlikely that users will continue to utilize the playground due to the proximity of construction activities and equipment.

Tables IV-41 and IV-42 show the predicted worst-case noise level impacts at each of the receptor locations for the Brooklyn and Queens study areas. Potentially significant, temporary noise impacts would occur at some point during the construction period at 22 of the 27 receptor locations in the Brooklyn and Queens study areas. It is noted that at various locations existing noise levels are already at high levels (and above CEQR criteria) primarily due to existing local street traffic. Traffic from the BQE, especially at locations along Meeker Avenue, contributes to the noise levels, as does occasional noise from stationary sources.



TABLE IV-41: PREDICTED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS – BROOKLYN STUDY AREA


ID Receiver Description Existing

Noise

Maximum Construction

Noise1

Cumulative NoiseLevel2

Noise Level

Increase3 Noise Impact4

B1 149 Kingsland Avenue 71 77 78 +7 Yes

B2 146 Kingsland Avenue 70 77 78 +8 Yes

B3 6 Lombardy Street 67 79 79 +12 Yes5

B4 176 Kingsland Avenue 69 80 80 +11 Yes5

B5 687 Meeker Avenue 74 88 88 +14 Yes5

B6 28 Sutton Street 55 72 72 +17 Yes5

B7 559 Morgan Avenue 62 74 74 +12 Yes5



B10 15 Apollo Street (Backyard) 54 65 65 +11 Yes5

B11 15 Apollo Street (Front) 64 78 78 +14 Yes5

B12 13 Van Dam Street (Backyard) 56 60 61 +5 Yes

B13 13 Van Dam Street (Front) 70 75 76 +6 Yes


B15 503 Vandervoort Avenue 69 68 72 +3 No

B16 473 Vandervoort Avenue 70 67 72 +2 No

B17 KeySpan/Greenpoint Ballpark 73 67 74 +1 No

B18 81 Beadel Street 58 60 62 +4 No6

B19 114 Beadel Street 61 60 64 +3 No6

B20 Sergeant William Dougherty Playground North 75 82 83 +8 Yes

B21 Sergeant William Dougherty Playground South 72 76 77 +5 Yes

Notes: 1. Maximum construction levels are based on equipment types, duration of usage, distance, and the number of simultaneously operating pieces of equipment. The maximum is the highest average noise level that occurs during all stages of construction.

2. Cumulative noise level is the maximum construction noise level combined with the exiting No Build noise levels. 3. Increase is the cumulative noise level above the No Build noise level. 4. Construction noise impacts are according to CEQR noise criteria. 5. Additional construction noise mitigation measures may be required at this location according to NYSDEC Guidelines. 6. Adverse impact but no additional analysis or abatement measures required.



TABLE IV-42: PREDICTED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS – QUEENS STUDY AREA


ID Receiver Description Existing

Noise

Maximum Construction

Noise1

Cumulative NoiseLevel2

Noise Level

Increase3 Noise Impact4

Q1 Old Calvary Cemetery (100' from Laurel Hill Boulevard.) 62 88 88 +26 Yes5

Q2 Old Calvary Cemetery (50' from Laurel Hill Boulevard.) 63 90 90 +27 Yes5

Q3 42-21 54th Drive (backyard) 68 95 95 +27 Yes5

Q4 54-38 43rd Street (front) 65 95 95 +30 Yes5

Q5 44th Street at 54th Road 62 88 88 +26 Yes5

Q6 53rd Ave between 44th & 46th Streets 68 85 85 +17 Yes5

Notes: 1. Maximum construction levels are based on equipment types, duration of usage, distance, and the number of simultaneously operating pieces of equipment. The maximum is the highest average noise level that occurs during all stages of construction.

2. Cumulative noise level is the maximum construction noise level combined with the future no-build noise levels. 3. Increase is the cumulative noise level above the future No Build noise level. 4. Construction noise impacts are according to CEQR noise criteria. 5. Additional construction noise abatement measures may be required at this location according to NYSDEC Guidelines. 6. Adverse impact but no additional analysis or abatement measures required.

It is noted that at various locations existing noise levels are already at high levels (and above CEQR criteria) primarily due to existing local street traffic. Traffic from the BQE, especially at locations along Meeker Avenue, contributes to the noise levels, as well as occasional noise from stationary sources.

RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION NOISE CONTROL

During the construction period, some of the sensitive receptors that are close to the project construction activities may be exposed to high noise levels. Effective noise control during the construction of a project means minimizing noise disturbances to the surrounding community. Noise monitoring during construction may be required to effectively minimize noise disturbances during construction. A combination of abatement and mitigation techniques with equipment noise control and administrative measures would be selected to provide the most effective means to minimize effects of the construction activity noise.

The following control measures shall be implemented in order to minimize noise disturbances at sensitive receptors during periods of construction:

Construction Equipment Noise Control

Ensure that all equipment items have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement measures, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration isolators, intact and operational. All construction equipment should be inspected at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise control devices



(e.g., mufflers and shrouding, etc.); Equipment noise levels should be measured periodically at standard distances to insure reasonable noise levels are maintained;

Temporary noise barriers (e.g., noise tents, acoustic screens) may be required in certain areas;

Noise control silencers may be required for stationary equipment;

The use of hydraulic or electric equipment is generally quieter than diesel equipment and should be used wherever possible;

Turn off idling equipment;

Regularly scheduled maintenance should be performed on all construction equipment to ensure that abnormally high noise levels do not begin to occur. This includes inspection of equipment mufflers, sealing of air leaks in high pressure lines, keeping acoustic engine shrouding and engine access compartments closed up.

Administrative Measures

Maintain good public relations with the community including local officials, especially with a dedicated community liaison or representative who can be contacted anytime when construction activity occurs. Provide frequent activity updates of all construction activities;

Conduct all construction activity during the hours permitted according to New York City Noise Code and other applicable rules and regulations;

Implement a construction noise monitoring program to reduce construction noise levels;

Plan noisier operations during time periods that are less disturbing to receptors. Limit noisier construction equipment to a maximum number of consecutive days occurring in the same area;

Keep noise levels relatively uniform and avoid impulsive noises;

The use of rotary/auger drills and vibratory piling is generally quieter than pile drivers and should be used wherever possible;

Cutting of materials and mixing of concrete off site would reduce noise levels. These and other forms of off-site construction processing should be exercised whenever possible;

Noisy equipment should be located as far away as possible from noise receptors whenever possible.

Use lower level beepers or spotters in place of alarms.

Application of the abatement measures would reduce the construction noise at the sensitive receptors; however, a temporary increase in noise would likely occur.



ENERGY

Any major transportation project requires an energy impact analysis that considers the type and amount of energy consumed during and after the project. Both the regional significance of the Kosciuszko Bridge Project as well as the guidelines established in 1987 by FHWA 33 requires the completion of a quantitative energy analysis for direct and indirect energy consumption by the proposed alternatives. The methodology described below is based on the following guidance documents:

NYSDOT’s “Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis,” November 2003;

California Department of Transportation's (CALTRANS) “Energy Requirements for Transportation Systems,” adopted by FHWA in June 1980; and

CALTRANS’ “Energy and Transportation Systems,” July 1983.

Two types of energy consumption, direct and indirect, are analyzed in this section. Direct energy is best defined as the energy consumed in the actual propulsion of a vehicle operating on the completed facility. Indirect energy is best defined as the remaining energy consumed by the construction and operation of a transportation system including the energy it takes to construct and maintain the facility. Throughout this section energy is measured using British Thermal Units (Btus), frequently expressed as Giga Btus (GBtus) (1 Giga Btu = 1 x 109 Btus).

DIRECT ENERGY

Direct Energy includes the impacts of operation after the facility is constructed as well as the actual propulsion of a vehicle operating on the completed facility. Energy requirements have been estimated for the same three analysis years as the mesoscale (area-wide) air quality analysis: 2015, 2025, and 2035.

The energy analysis for this project provides estimates of daily energy consumption requirements for a typical weekday. Details regarding the methodology used to convert peak hour traffic volumes into 24-hour volumes can be found in Appendix O.

NYSDOT guidance provides two methods to analyze direct energy, the Urban Fuel Consumption Method and the Vehicle Mile Traveled (VMT) Fuel Consumption Method. The Urban Fuel Consumption Method explicitly estimates vehicular energy consumption resulting from travel on the facility and is applicable only for auto and truck travel. It is appropriate for urban traffic flows because it accounts for speed changes in that environment and is based on energy consumption rates that depend on vehicle type (weight), travel speed, vehicular miles of travel, and calendar year of operation. Although this method is only valid for flat roadways, (zero degree grade), the effects of grade are incorporated through adjustment factors. Thus, it requires detailed traffic volume, classification and speed predictions, as well as roadway grades for the affected roadway network.

33 Source: Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, July 2006, New York State Department of Transportation.



To estimate direct energy consumption from buses, the VMT Fuel Consumption Method was used. This simpler method considers only vehicular miles of travel by vehicle type, and multiplies them by energy intensity factors. For simplicity, the bus energy consumption analysis was performed on a link-by-link basis, along with the calculations for autos and trucks.

Traffic and Related Inputs

The energy analysis considered vehicle travel in both the Primary and Secondary Traffic Study Areas (see Section II.C.1.g for a description), which encompass all roadways that may be affected by the project.

NYMTC’s Best Practice Model (BPM) was employed to produce peak hour traffic forecasts that result from regional changes in land use and transportation systems. To provide a more detailed traffic analysis, a sub-area model comprising both the Primary and Secondary Traffic Study Areas was created. This model was calibrated and validated for the 2002 base year traffic conditions. To obtain the forecasted traffic volumes, both the BPM and the sub-area model were modified to reflect the impacts of future land uses and transportation system changes on travel patterns. For more information on this analysis, see Section II.C.1.h.

Due to their similarity at the sub-area level, Alternatives RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5 are identical with regards to the direct energy analysis. Projections for Alternative RA-6 vary due to the difference in lane configuration on the BQE (4 eastbound lanes, 5 westbound lanes).

Peak hour traffic projections for the analysis years 2015, 2025, and 2035 were then estimated for the No Build Alternative, Alternative RA-6 and Alternatives RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5.

Among its other outputs, the sub-area model results include the following parameters that are required for the analysis of each defined roadway link and each direction of traffic flow:

Balanced traffic volumes;

Average speed; and

Vehicle fleet characteristics (expressed as vehicles per hour for the major vehicle types) that distinguish between:

o Autos,

o Light trucks,

o Medium/heavy trucks, and

o Buses.

Roadway grades were identified for key project roadways, both with and without the project, using project plans. An effort was also made to identify grades for arterial roadways outside of the project construction limits based on data availability, focusing on roadways closer to the project. Roadway grades were identified for a limited subset of the remaining traffic network within the study area and others were estimated with lower precision.



Description of the Calculations

The base fuel consumption rates are tabulated at 5 mph increments from speeds of 5 to 50 mph. Since energy consumption can vary materially with travel speed, energy consumption rates for the projected speed values were estimated using a method consistent with NYSDOT guidance for mesoscale air quality analysis. There were no roadways whose projected grades were estimated to be outside of the tabulated range.

Simultaneously, with the Urban Fuel Method for autos and trucks, each link’s energy requirements for buses were calculated using the VMT Fuel Consumption Method. To do this, the VMT for buses was multiplied by the energy intensity for buses, 43,817 Btu/VMT34.

The direct energy requirements for each vehicle type, on each link, were summed to obtain the total energy for that link. The energy requirement for each link was summed to estimate the total required for the network.

Table IV-43 summarizes the estimated daily direct energy use by vehicles traveling within the Primary and Secondary Traffic Study Areas. As shown, Alternatives RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5 would consume comparable amounts of energy to the No Build in 2015 and 2025 and slightly higher amounts in 2035, while Alternative RA-6 would required greater energy consumption in each year than either the No Build or the other Build Alternatives.

TABLE IV-43: PREDICTED DAILY DIRECT ENERGY USE (GBTU/DAY)

Year No Build Alternatives RA-5, BR-

2, BR-3, and BR-5 Alternative RA-6

2015 6.84 6.83 6.89

2025 6.95 6.95 7.07

2035 7.49 7.53 7.81

The small changes in direct energy consumption shown in Table IV-39 are the result of two separate and partially offsetting effects. The Build Alternatives result in modest net increases in roadway network VMT (which vary from 1.3% to 2.7%, depending on the analysis year and time of day). This effect would increase energy consumption. In contrast, the Build Alternatives also increase speeds and smooth traffic flows along the BQE in both directions during the peak traffic periods. Peak hour traffic speeds on the BQE also vary by alternative and peak period, (see Chapter II, Section 3.2.b). These effects increase energy consumption efficiency. The net effect of increased fuel efficiency at higher speeds and additional fuel consumption are reflected in the table.

However, smoothing traffic flows reduce stop-and-go driving behavior. This would also reduce fuel consumption, but the fuel consumption method is not sensitive to driving cycle, and does not reflect this benefit. Thus, the estimates for the Build Alternatives are conservative, and may overestimate any increases, or underestimate any decreases in fuel consumption

34 Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 22.



Tables IV-44 through IV-49 present more detailed data for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and for the off-peak periods.

TABLE IV-44: PEAK-HOUR DIRECT ENERGY USE FOR 2035 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Energy Usage (MBTU) Area Roadway Type

No Build RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5

Change RA-6 Change

AM Peak Hour

Expressway 121.1 121.3 0.2 126.5 5.3

Arterial 56.1 58.0 1.9 61.3 5.2

Queens Study Area

Local 63.3 62.8 -0.5 62.2 -1.1

All Roadways 240.5 242.1 1.6 249.9 9.4

Expressway 120.1 122.8 2.7 143.6 23.5

Arterial 85.4 82.9 -2.4 83.3 -2.1

Brooklyn Study Area

Local 79.9 80.2 0.3 81.0 1.1

All Roadways 285.4 286.0 0.7 307.9 22.6

Total 525.9 528.1 2.3 557.9 32.0

PM Peak Hour

Expressway 43.8 43.5 -0.3 43.6 -0.2

Arterial 16.5 16.4 -0.1 17.0 0.5

Queens Study Area

Local 17.9 18.2 0.3 18.1 0.1

All Roadways 78.2 78.1 -0.1 78.7 0.5

Expressway 40.7 42.3 1.6 44.1 3.3

Arterial 28.8 29.2 0.4 28.9 0.0

Brooklyn Study Area

Local 24.9 25.6 0.7 24.9 0.0

All Roadways 94.4 97.0 2.6 97.8 3.4

Total 172.6 175.2 2.6 176.5 3.9 Note: Peak hour values are for representative hour within a.m. (6 a.m. – 10 a.m.) and p.m. (4 p.m. – 8 p.m.) peak periods.




Energy Usage (MBTU)

Area Roadway Type No Build RA-5, BR-2, BR-3,

and BR-5 Change RA-6 Change

AM Peak Hour

Expressway 129.1 129.2 0.1 131.4 2.2

Arterial 44.6 44.6 -0.1 49.0 4.4 Queens Study Area

Local 61.5 61.2 -0.4 60.6 -1.0

All Roadways 235.3 234.9 -0.4 241.0 5.7

Expressway 107.5 105.4 -2.2 120.1 12.5

Arterial 61.1 60.6 -0.4 61.2 0.1 Brooklyn Study Area

Local 72.9 72.9 0.0 74.5 1.5

All Roadways 241.5 238.9 -2.6 255.7 14.2

Total 476.8 473.8 -3.0 496.7 19.8

PM Peak Hour

Expressway 42.0 42.5 0.5 42.6 0.6

Arterial 16.2 16.2 0.0 16.8 0.6 Queens Study Area

Local 17.4 17.9 0.5 17.5 0.1

All Roadways 75.6 76.6 1.0 76.9 1.3

Expressway 39.7 41.2 1.5 43.4 3.7

Arterial 28.3 28.7 0.4 28.0 -0.3 Brooklyn Study Area Local 23.9 24.9 1.0 24.3 0.4

All Roadways 91.8 94.8 3.0 95.7 3.8





Energy Usage (MBTU)

Area Roadway Type No Build RA-5, BR-2, BR-3,

and BR-5 Change RA-6 Change

AM Peak Hour

Expressway 109.9 110.2 0.4 111.3 1.4


Local 57.9 58.4 0.6 57.6 -0.3

All Roadways 220.9 221.6 0.7 222.3 1.4

Expressway 112.3 110.9 -1.4 119.3 7.0

Arterial 74.5 74.4 -0.1 73.8 -0.7 Brooklyn Study Area

Local 70.5 70.5 0.0 70.7 0.2

All Roadways 257.3 255.8 -1.5 263.8 6.5

Total 478.2 477.4 -0.8 486.1 7.9

PM Peak Hour

Expressway 38.2 38.3 0.1 38.3 0.1

Arterial 12.7 12.5 -0.2 12.1 -0.6 Queens Study Area

Local 14.7 14.6 -0.1 14.3 -0.4

All Roadways 65.6 65.5 -0.2 64.7 -0.9

Expressway 32.4 34.2 1.8 34.9 2.6

Arterial 20.9 21.3 0.4 20.2 -0.7 Brooklyn Study Area

Local 19.0 19.1 0.1 18.7 -0.3

All Roadways 72.3 74.6 2.4 73.9 1.6




TABLE IV-47: OFF-PEAK PERIOD DIRECT ENERGY USE FOR 2035 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Energy Usage (MBTU)

Area Roadway Types No Build

RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5 Change RA-6 Change

Pre-AM Period (12 a.m. – 6 a.m.)

Expressway 206.7 201.8 -5.0 211.4 4.7


Local 83.0 81.9 -1.1 81.9 -1.1

All Roadways 360.9 353.8 -7.1 367.4 6.5

Expressway 205.6 205.0 -0.6 246.3 40.7

Arterial 109.4 109.5 0.2 110.7 1.3 Brooklyn Study Area

Local 104.0 103.4 -0.5 104.6 0.6

All Roadways 418.9 417.9 -1.0 461.6 42.7

Total 779.8 771.7 -8.1 829.0 49.2

Mid-day Period (10 a.m. – 4 p.m.)

Expressway 942.7 937.2 -5.4 949.3 6.7


Local 348.1 344.3 -3.8 338.4 -9.7

All Roadways 1609.7 1597.4 -12.3 1617.3 7.7

Expressway 996.7 1034.1 37.5 1102.6 105.9


Local 451.4 447.9 -3.5 452.6 1.2

All Roadways 1922.1 1949.2 27.1 2028.5 106.3

Total 3531.8 3546.6 14.8 3645.8 114.0

Post-PM Period (8 p.m. – 12 a.m.)

Expressway 118.2 118.1 -0.2 118.3 0.1

Arterial 29.1 29.0 -0.1 30.1 1.0 Queens Study Area Local 33.5 34.0 0.5 33.8 0.3

All Roadways 180.8 181.1 0.3 182.3 1.4

Expressway 108.0 114.5 6.4 115.8 7.7

Arterial 54.3 54.6 0.3 54.3 0.0 Brooklyn Study Area Local 45.8 46.9 1.1 45.9 0.2

All Roadways 208.1 215.9 7.8 216.0 7.9

Total 388.9 397.0 8.1 398.3 9.4 Note: Off-peak period values are for sum of entire period.




Energy Usage (MBTU)




Expressway 227.4 226.9 -0.5 231.6 4.2


Local 81.9 80.6 -1.3 80.6 -1.3

All Roadways 364.8 363.1 -1.8 372.8 8.0

Expressway 191.6 226.9 35.3 214.7 23.1

Arterial 82.6 55.6 -27.0 82.8 0.2 Brooklyn Study Area

Local 96.7 80.6 -16.1 98.1 1.3

All Roadways 370.9 363.1 -7.9 395.6 24.6

Total 735.8 726.1 -9.6 768.4 32.6


Expressway 940.7 919.3 -21.4 928.2 -12.5


Local 345.9 339.7 -6.2 334.4 -11.5

All Roadways 1528.4 1501.7 -26.8 1525.9 -2.6

Expressway 1002.8 1020.5 17.7 1091.9 89.1


Local 414.4 412.6 -1.8 420.0 5.6

All Roadways 1771.6 1779.8 8.2 1863.6 92.0

Total 3300.0 3281.5 -18.5 3389.5 89.5


Expressway 85.5 114.3 28.7 114.5 28.9


Local 32.8 33.5 0.8 32.9 0.2

All Roadways 147.3 176.7 29.4 177.5 30.2

Expressway 110.2 113.3 3.1 115.6 5.4

Arterial 53.1 53.6 0.4 52.7 -0.4 Brooklyn Study Area

Local 44.5 46.0 1.5 45.2 0.7

All Roadways 207.8 212.9 5.1 213.5 5.7

Total 355.1 389.6 34.5 390.9 35.8

Note: Off-peak period values are for sum of entire period.




Energy Usage (MBTU)




Expressway 189.0 188.3 -0.7 191.0 2.0


Local 77.9 77.5 -0.4 77.3 -0.6

All Roadways 333.2 331.7 -1.5 334.9 1.8

Expressway 203.3 199.9 -3.4 219.5 16.2


Local 94.7 94.1 -0.6 94.6 -0.2

All Roadways 399.8 395.4 -4.4 414.3 14.5

Total 733.0 727.0 -5.9 749.2 16.2


Expressway 910.5 909.7 -0.8 920.1 9.5


Local 323.1 322.5 -0.6 317.1 -6.0

All Roadways 1522.0 1524.1 2.1 1526.5 4.5

Expressway 969.6 964.9 -4.7 998.7 29.1


Local 398.9 395.7 -3.3 397.2 -1.7

All Roadways 1799.9 1785.2 -14.7 1818.6 18.8

Total 3321.9 3309.3 -12.6 3345.2 23.3


Expressway 105.4 106.2 0.8 106.5 1.2

Arterial 22.9 22.5 -0.3 22.8 -0.1 Queens Study Area

Local 27.8 27.7 -0.2 27.1 -0.7

All Roadways 156.1 156.4 0.3 156.4 0.4

Expressway 90.9 95.5 4.6 96.0 5.1

Arterial 39.8 40.2 0.5 39.8 0.0 Brooklyn Study Area

Local 35.6 35.7 0.1 35.5 -0.1

All Roadways 166.3 171.5 5.2 171.3 5.0

Total 322.4 327.9 5.5 327.7 5.4 Note: Off-peak period values are for sum of entire period.



INDIRECT ENERGY

Indirect energy is best defined as the remaining energy consumed in the construction and operation of the transportation system. Calculations for this energy type can be broken down into two components: roadway maintenance and construction.

For the energy analysis of roadway maintenance, the required data input consists of lane-miles and the type of pavement used. Because the differences in lane-miles requiring maintenance between the Build Alternatives would be negligible, the indirect energy analysis focuses on the differences among the proposed alternatives in the energy consumed during construction.

Energy consumption during construction consists of all the energy expended on production and transport of materials, powering on-site equipment, and worker transportation. This energy use is estimated on a per-lane-mile basis, accounting for the type of construction (resurfacing, new bridge, etc.), using the guidelines adopted by NYSDOT, shown in Table IV-50. NYSDOT guidance does not provide an energy consumption factor for temporary structures. Because of the magnitude of temporary structure employed in the Build Alternatives, a factor was estimated. These energy construction factors were applied to the lane-mileage of each alternative to provide an estimate of how much energy each proposed alternative would require.

TABLE IV-50: CONSTRUCTION ENERGY FACTORS

Type of Improvement Construction Energy Consumed per Rural*-

Lane-Mile (GBtu/mi)

Surface Roadway

New construction 12.70

Relocation 10.50

Reconstruction 5.20

Restoration and rehabilitation 2.30

Resurfacing 0.75

Major widening 5.00

Minor widening 1.90

Temporary Structure 1.50

Bridges

New bridges 192

Bridge replacement 222

Major rehabilitation 134.4

Minor rehabilitation 11.91

Temporary bridge 7.8 Note: Rural energy consumption estimates (shown) are increased by 20% for urban construction.

Source: USDOE’s Assessment of Energy Impacts of Improving Highway-Infrastructure Materials, 1995.



Description of the Calculations

The lane-mileage of each type of construction activity was estimated based on the area of each construction type required for each alternative, as shown in Table IV-51 below.

TABLE IV-51: QUANTITY OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE FOR EACH BUILD ALTERNATIVE

Replaced/ Rehabilitated

Structure New Structure Temporary Structure

Local Street Reconstruction

Alternative Ft2 Lane-miles Ft2

Lane-miles Ft2

Lane-miles Ft2 Lane-miles

RA-5 687,553 10.9 366,118 5.8 247,796 3.9 515,000 8.1

RA-6 687,553 10.9 263,339 4.2 236,125 3.7 515,000 8.1

BR-2 687,553 10.9 437,422 6.9 334,923 5.3 515,000 8.1

BR-3 687,553 10.9 435,555 6.9 262,930 4.1 515,000 8.1

BR-5 687,553 10.9 475,377 7.5 139,249 2.2 515,000 8.1 Note: 1 lane-mile = 1 mile x 12 feet. Calculations include travel lanes, shoulders, and bikeway/walkways (where applicable)

The data in Table IV-52 represent the amount of energy consumed by the construction of each Build Alternative. These values were obtained by applying the appropriate construction factor (Table IV-50) to the area of construction for each alternative (Table IV-51) and applying the rural-urban conversion factor. Finally this energy consumption was annualized to provide an estimate of the amount of indirect energy each alternative would consume over a 20-year period.

TABLE IV-52: INDIRECT ENERGY CONSUMED BY EACH ALTERNATIVE IN GBTUS

Alternative Rehabilitated

Structure Replaced Structure

New Structure

Temporary Structure

Local Street Reconstruction Total

Annualized (20 yrs)

RA-5 1,750 0 1,331 37 51 3,169 158

RA-6 1,750 0 859 35 51 2,694 135

BR-2 0 2,891 1,591 49 51 4,582 229

BR-3 0 2,891 1,584 39 51 4,564 228

BR-5 0 2,891 1,729 21 51 4,691 235

As seen in the above table, Alternatives RA-5 and RA-6, which call for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge with a new parallel bridge, would consume the least amount of indirect energy. The difference between these two alternatives can be primarily attributed to the inclusion of a bikeway/walkway in Alternative RA-5, which is not included in Alternative RA-6. The Bridge Replacement Alternatives have very similar construction energy consumption, with Alternative BR-5 requiring slightly more energy.

GREENHOUSE GASES

According to the aforementioned NYSDOT “Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis,” the combustion of fossil fuel is the main source of greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide [CO2])



emissions. Since the adoption of the New York State Energy Board’s 2002 State Energy Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, higher goals in terms of efficiency and reduced consumption have been set for the New York State transportation sector. Due to the potential for the Build Alternatives to change traffic patterns and energy consumption within the project area, an analysis of greenhouses gases, produced by both direct and indirect energy, is included in this section.

Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated based on a direct conversion from the energy consumption estimates described above. One GBtu of energy consumed results in the production of approximately 70 metric tons of greenhouse gases. Table IV-53 estimates the daily CO2 emissions based on direct energy consumption (energy consumed by vehicles operating on the facility). As shown, by 2035, Alternative RA-6 is projected to produce the highest emission levels, with the other Build Alternatives emitting only slightly more CO2 than the No Build Alternative.

TABLE IV-53: PREDICTED DAILY CO2 EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS/DAY) FOR DIRECT ENERGY

Alternative 2015 2025 2035

No Build 481 489 527

RA-6 484 497 549

RA-5, BR-2, BR-3, and BR-5 481 488 529

Table IV-54 shows the total amount of CO2 that would be emitted as a result of the indirect energy (construction and maintenance) consumed by each of the Build Alternatives.

TABLE IV-54: PREDICTED CO2 EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS) FOR INDIRECT ENERGY

Alternative Total Indirect CO2

Emissions Annualized Indirect CO2

Emissions (20 years)

RA-5 223,000 11,150

RA-6 190,000 9,500

BR-2 322,000 16,100

BR-3 321,000 16,050

BR-5 330,000 16,500

Unlike the results found from the direct energy consumption, RA-6 emits the fewest tons of CO2 over a 20 year period than all of the other Build Alternatives. This can be attributed to the fact that Alternative RA-6 requires the least amount of indirect energy to be expended on construction as seen in Table IV-54.

B.3.i. Contaminated Materials Assessment

This section analyzes the potential presence and type of contaminated materials that may be encountered as a result of the construction and operation of the Build Alternatives. Contaminated materials are toxic or potentially harmful substances that may be present in soil, groundwater, river sediments, and building materials; and are frequently encountered during construction activities in urban areas that have been subject to past disturbance from