appendix q air quality analysis · 2019-01-30 · table q-1. the caa identifies two types of...

PIN X735.82 Van Wyck Expressway Capacity and Access Improvements to JFK Airport Project DEIS APPENDICES

APPENDIX Q Air Quality Analysis

PIN X735.82 Van Wyck Expressway Capacity and Access Improvements to JFK Airport Project DDR/DEIS

Q-i

Contents

Air Quality Analysis .......................................................................... Q-1 Q.1 APPLICABLE AIR POLLUTANTS .......................................................................................... Q-1

Q.1.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Criteria Pollutants .................................. Q-1 Q.1.1.1 Ozone (O3)................................................................................................................... Q-4 Q.1.1.2 Carbon Monoxide (CO) ................................................................................................ Q-4 Q.1.1.3 Particulate Matter......................................................................................................... Q-5 Q.1.1.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) ................................................................................................ Q-6 Q.1.1.5 Lead (Pb) ..................................................................................................................... Q-6 Q.1.1.6 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) .................................................................................................... Q-6

Q.1.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics ............................................................................................. Q-7 Q.1.3 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases .................................................................... Q-9 Q.1.4 Energy .......................................................................................................................... Q-9

Q.2 MONITORED CRITERIA POLLUTANT LEVELS .................................................................. Q-10 Q.3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ Q-11

Q.3.1 Emission Factor Development ................................................................................... Q-11 Q.3.1.1 Mesoscale Runs ........................................................................................................ Q-11 Q.3.1.2 Microscale Runs ........................................................................................................ Q-12

Q.3.2 Traffic Network Selection ........................................................................................... Q-14 Q.3.2.1 MSAT Study Area ...................................................................................................... Q-15 Q.3.2.2 Mesoscale Study Area ............................................................................................... Q-15 Q.3.2.3 Microscale Study Area ............................................................................................... Q-16

Q.3.3 Mesoscale Analysis ................................................................................................... Q-21 Q.3.4 CO Microscale Analysis ............................................................................................. Q-21 Q.3.5 Particulate Matter Microscale Analyses ..................................................................... Q-25 Q.3.6 Construction Analysis ................................................................................................ Q-36

Q.4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... Q-36 Q.4.1 Mesoscale Analysis ................................................................................................... Q-36 Q.4.2 Microscale Analysis ................................................................................................... Q-39

Q.4.2.1 Carbon Monoxide ...................................................................................................... Q-39 Q.4.2.2 Particulate Matter....................................................................................................... Q-39

Q.4.3 Construction Analysis ................................................................................................ Q-47 Q.5 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... Q-50

Attachments Link Network Spreadsheets (provided electronically)

MOVES2014a Model Files (provided electronically)

AERMOD Model Files (provided electronically)

Van Wyck Expressway Capacity and Access Improvements to JFK Airport Project DDR/DEIS PIN X735.82 APPENDIX Q. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

Q-ii

Tables

Table Q-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards .............................................................................. Q-3 Table Q-2. Ambient Air Quality Monitored Data................................................................................... Q-10 Table Q-3. MOVES RunSpec Options ................................................................................................. Q-11 Table Q-4. MOVES County Data Manager Inputs ............................................................................... Q-12 Table Q-5. Re-Entrained Road Dust Parameters ................................................................................ Q-14 Table Q-6. Vehicle Weight by MOVES Source Type ........................................................................... Q-14 Table Q-7. Overall Intersection Level of Service ................................................................................. Q-22 Table Q-8. Intersection Volumes (LOS D or Worse under Build Conditions) ...................................... Q-23 Table Q-9. 2025 Total Emissions (grams/hour) ................................................................................... Q-26 Table Q-10. Time Periods ...................................................................................................................... Q-26 Table Q-11. Mesoscale Emission Burdens (tons/year) ......................................................................... Q-37 Table Q-12. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emission Burdens (tons/year) ................................................... Q-37 Table Q-13. On-Road (Direct) Energy and GHG Burdens .................................................................... Q-38 Table Q-14. Predicted 24-hour PM10 Design Value Concentrations, 2025 ........................................... Q-40 Table Q-15. Predicted 24-hour PM2.5 Design Value Concentrations, 2025 ........................................... Q-40 Table Q-16. Predicted Annual PM2.5 Design Value Concentrations, 2025 ............................................ Q-40 Table Q-17. Construction GHG Emissions and Energy Use (Annual)* ................................................. Q-48 Table Q-18. Total Direct and Indirect GHG Emissions and Energy Use ............................................... Q-49

Figures

Figure Q-1. General Project Study Area ................................................................................................. Q-2 Figure Q-2. National 8-Hour Average Carbon Monoxide Levels (1980–2016) ....................................... Q-5 Figure Q-3. Relative Particulate Matter Size ........................................................................................... Q-5 Figure Q-4. FHWA Projected National MSAT Emission Trends 2010 - 2050 for Vehicles Operating

on Roadways Using USEPA’s MOVES2014a Model .......................................................... Q-8 Figure Q-5. Regional Build Alternative vs. No Build Alternative with ±5% Change in Annual

Average Daily Traffic (2045) .............................................................................................. Q-17 Figure Q-6. Mobile Source Air Toxics and Mesoscale Analyses Study Area ....................................... Q-18 Figure Q-7. Mobile Source Air Toxics and Mesoscale Analysis Roadway Network ............................. Q-19 Figure Q-8. Project Corridor Build Alternative vs. No Build Alternative with ±5% Change in Annual

Average Daily Traffic (2045) .............................................................................................. Q-20 Figure Q-9. Particulate Matter Model Screenshot Overview (AERMOD) ............................................. Q-28 Figure Q-10. Particulate Matter Model Screenshot by Sections (North to South) .................................. Q-29 Figure Q-11. 24-Hour PM10 No Build Contours (µg/m3) .......................................................................... Q-41 Figure Q-12. 24-Hour PM10 Build Contours (µg/m3)................................................................................ Q-42 Figure Q-13. 24-Hour PM2.5 No Build Contours (µg/m3) ......................................................................... Q-43 Figure Q-14. 24-Hour PM2.5 Build Contours (µg/m3) ............................................................................... Q-44 Figure Q-15. Annual PM2.5 No Build Contours (µg/m3) ........................................................................... Q-45 Figure Q-16. Annual PM2.5 Build Contours (µg/m3) ................................................................................. Q-46

PIN X735.82 Van Wyck Expressway Capacity and Access Improvements to JFK Airport Project DDR/DEIS

Q-1

Air Quality Analysis

Q.1 APPLICABLE AIR POLLUTANTS

Figure Q-1 depicts the general Van Wyck Expressway (VWE) Project Study Area.

Air quality analyses were conducted to assess the potential effects of the Build Alternative on air quality in the Study Area. This analysis included both mesoscale (regional) and microscale (local) analyses of pollutants.

Q.1.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Criteria Pollutants

The Clean Air Act (CAA) sets forth the framework and goals for improving air quality to protect public health in the United States. The CAA requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six “criteria” pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). The NAAQS prescribe the maximum allowable ambient concentrations for criteria pollutants as outlined in Table Q-1.

The CAA identifies two types of ambient air quality standards. Primary standards have been established to protect public health, while secondary standards are intended to protect the nation's welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation and other aspects of the general welfare. New York State has adopted these standards (both primary and secondary) as the state standards.

The CAA requires that the USEPA publish a list of all geographic areas in compliance with the NAAQS, and those not attaining the NAAQS. Areas not in NAAQS compliance are deemed nonattainment areas. Areas that have insufficient data to make a determination are deemed unclassified, and are treated as being attainment areas until proven otherwise. A maintenance area is an area that was previously designated as nonattainment for a particular pollutant, but has since demonstrated compliance with the NAAQS for that pollutant. An area’s designation is based on data collected by the state monitoring network on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.

Queens County is classified as a nonattainment area for O3, as well as a maintenance area for CO and particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Queens County is in attainment for all other pollutants. A brief description of each pollutant is given below.


Q-2

Figure Q-1. General Project Study Area

Project Corridor

PIN X735.82 Van Wyck Expressway Capacity and Access Improvements to JFK Airport Project DDR/DEIS APPENDIX Q. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

Q-3

Table Q-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Primary/

Secondary Averaging

Time Level Form

Carbon Monoxide Primary 8-hour 9 ppm

Not to be exceeded more than once per year 1-hour 35 ppm

Lead Primary and secondary

Rolling 3-month

average 0.15 µg/m3 (1) Not to be exceeded

Nitrogen Dioxide Primary 1-hour 100 ppb 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum

concentrations, averaged over 3 years Primary and secondary Annual 53 ppb (2) Annual Mean

Ozone Primary and secondary 8-hour 0.070 ppm (3) Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr

concentration, averaged over 3 years

Particulate Matter

PM2.5

Primary Annual 12 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years Secondary Annual 15 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years Primary and secondary 24-hour 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

PM10 Primary and secondary 24-hour 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more than once per year

on average over 3 years

Sulfur Dioxide Primary 1-hour 75 ppb (4) 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum

concentrations, averaged over 3 years Secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year

Source: USEPA Office of Air and Radiation, https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8542.html

Footnotes: (1) Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 µg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an

area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 year, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

(2) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which is shown here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard.

(3) Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) O3 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards.

(4) The previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain areas: (1) any area for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards, and (2) any area for which implementation plans providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard have not been submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) call under the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)). A SIP call is a USEPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its State Implementation Plan to demonstrate attainment of the required NAAQS.

https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8542.html


Q-4

Q.1.1.1 Ozone (O3) O3 is a colorless toxic gas. O3 is found in both the Earth’s upper and lower atmospheric levels. In the upper atmosphere, O3 is a naturally occurring gas that helps to prevent the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays from reaching the Earth. In the lower layer of the atmosphere, the formation of O3 is mostly the result of human activity, although O3 also occurs because of hydrocarbons released by plants and soil. O3 is not directly emitted into the atmosphere; in the lower atmosphere, it forms through a series of photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight, hydrocarbons (HC) (primarily volatile organic compounds or VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). VOCs and NOx are emitted from industrial sources and from automobiles. Substantial O3 formation generally requires stagnant atmospheric conditions with strong sunlight; thus, elevated concentrations of O3 are generally a concern in the summer. O3 is the main ingredient of smog and, upon entering the bloodstream via respiration, interferes with the transfer of oxygen to sensitive tissues in the heart and brain. O3 also damages vegetation by inhibiting its growth.

Q.1.1.2 Carbon Monoxide (CO) CO is a colorless gas that interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the brain. CO is emitted almost exclusively from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Motor vehicle emissions (on-road motor vehicle exhaust) are the primary source of CO. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO emissions may come from motor vehicle exhaust. Prolonged exposure to high levels of CO can cause headaches, drowsiness, loss of equilibrium, or heart disease. CO levels are generally highest in the colder months of the year when temperature inversions (when warmer air traps colder air near the ground) and/or stable atmospheric conditions are more frequent.

CO concentrations can vary greatly over relatively short distances. Elevated concentrations of CO are typically found near congested intersections containing slow moving traffic, and in areas where atmospheric dispersion is inhibited by urban “street canyon” conditions. Consequently, CO concentrations are predicted on a microscale basis.

National 8-hour average CO levels have decreased by 85% between 1980 and 2016 (Figure Q-2). This reduction is due largely to the CAA. The CAA required USEPA to issue a series of rules to reduce pollution from vehicle exhaust, refueling emissions and evaporating gasoline. As a result, emissions from a new car purchased today are over 90 percent cleaner than a new vehicle purchased in 1970.1 This applies to SUVs and pickup trucks, as well. As cleaner vehicles enter the national fleet and older vehicles are taken out of service, emissions continue to drop.

1 USEPA, History of Reducing Air Pollution from Transportation in the United States,

https://www.epa.gov/air-pollution-transportation/accomplishments-and-success-air-pollution-transportation

https://www.epa.gov/air-pollution-transportation/accomplishments-and-success-air-pollution-transportation


Q-5

Figure Q-2. National 8-Hour Average Carbon Monoxide Levels (1980–2016)

Source: https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/carbon-monoxide-trends#conat

Q.1.1.3 Particulate Matter Particulate pollution is composed of solid particles or liquid droplets that are small enough to remain suspended in the air. In general, particulate pollution can include dust, soot, salts, acids, metals and smoke; these can be irritating but usually are not poisonous. Particulate pollution also can include bits of solid or liquid substances that can be highly toxic. Of concern are those particles that are smaller than, or equal to, 10 microns (PM10) or 2.5 microns (PM2.5) in size. A micron, also referred to as a micrometer, is a millionth of a meter. PM10 refers to particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter, about one seventh the thickness of a human hair (Figure Q-3).

Figure Q-3. Relative Particulate Matter Size

Source: USEPA Office of Air and Radiation

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/carbon-monoxide-trends#conat


Q-6

Major sources of PM10 include motor vehicles; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. Suspended particulates produce haze and reduce visibility. Data collected through numerous nationwide studies indicate that most of the PM10 comes from the following:

• Fugitive dust

• Wind erosion

• Agricultural and forestry sources

A small portion of PM is the product of fuel combustion processes. In the case of PM2.5, the combustion of fossil fuels accounts for a majority of this pollutant. The main health effect of airborne particulate matter is on the respiratory system. PM2.5 refers to particulates that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter, roughly 1/28th the diameter of a human hair (Figure Q-3). Sources of PM2.5 include fuel combustion (from motor vehicles, power generation, and industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and wood stoves. In addition, PM2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from gases such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and VOCs. Like PM10, PM2.5 can penetrate the human respiratory system, resulting in damage to tissues upon inhalation. The effects of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions for a project are examined on the localized, or microscale, and mesoscale bases.

Q.1.1.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NO2, a brownish gas, irritates the lungs. It can cause breathing difficulties at high concentrations. Like O3, NO2 is not directly emitted, but is formed through a reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO2 are collectively referred to as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and are major contributors to ozone formation. NO2 also contributes to the formation of PM10. At atmospheric concentration, NO2 is only potentially irritating. In high concentrations, the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm).

Q.1.1.5 Lead (Pb) Pb is a stable element that persists and accumulates both in the environment and in animals. Its principal effects in humans are on the blood-forming, nervous, and renal systems. Lead levels in the urban environment from mobile sources have substantially decreased due to the federally mandated switch to lead-free gasoline.

Q.1.1.6 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) SO2 is a product of high-sulfur fuel combustion. The main sources of SO2 are coal and oil combustion used in power stations, industry and for domestic heating. Industrial chemical manufacturing is another source of SO2. SO2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs. It can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. SO2 can also yellow plant leaves and erode iron and steel.


Q-7

Q.1.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics

Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the USEPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The USEPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8,430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk Information System (http://www.epa.gov/iris). In addition, the USEPA identified nine compounds with substantial contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 2011 National Air Toxics Assessment (https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment). These are 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, diesel particulate matter, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) considers these the priority mobile source air toxics (MSATs), the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future USEPA rules.

The 2007 USEPA rule requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. Using USEPA’s MOVES2014a model, as shown in Figure Q-4, the FHWA estimates that even if vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) increases by 45 percent from 2010 to 2050 as forecast, a combined reduction of 91 percent in the total annual emissions for the priority MSATs is projected over the same time period.


Q-8

Figure Q-4. FHWA Projected National MSAT Emission Trends 2010 - 2050 for Vehicles Operating on Roadways Using USEPA’s MOVES2014a Model

Source: USEPA MOVES2014a model runs conducted by FHWA, September 2016 Note: Trends for specific locations may be different, depending on locally derived information representing vehicle-miles traveled, vehicle

speeds, vehicle mix, fuels, emission control programs, meteorology, and other factors.


Q-9

Q.1.3 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

Climate change is a national and global concern. While Earth has gone through many natural climate variations in its history, there is general agreement that Earth’s climate is currently changing at an accelerated rate and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute to this rapid change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up the largest component of these GHG emissions. Other prominent transportation-related GHGs include methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to allow comparisons of the global warming impacts of different GHGs. Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emissions of one ton of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of one ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The larger the GWP, the more that a given gas warms Earth compared to CO2 over that period. The time period used for GWPs is typically 100 years. GWPs provide a common unit of measure, allowing analysts to sum emission estimates of different gases (e.g., to compile a national GHG inventory) for comparison and reduction opportunities in the future.

• CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the period used. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that will last thousands of years.

• Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 25 for a 100-year timescale. CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade, which is a shorter period than CO2. However, CH4 absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.

• Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year period. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years.

GHGs are reported in CO2 Equivalents (CO2e), which is a combined measure of GHG emissions weighted according to the GWP of each gas, relative to CO2. CO2 equivalent is calculated within the MOVES2014a model from CO2, N2O and CH4 mass emissions according to the following equation:

CO2e = CO2 x GWPCO2 + CH4 x GWPCH4 + N2O x GWPN2O

To date, no national standards have been established for GHGs, nor has the USEPA established criteria or thresholds for ambient GHG emissions. The USEPA has, however, established GHG emission standards for motor vehicles.

Q.1.4 Energy

Transportation energy use comprises operational (direct) and construction (indirect) energy consumption. Direct transportation energy is a function of traffic and vehicle characteristics affecting fuel consumption (i.e., volume, speed, distance traveled, vehicle mix, thermal value of the fuel being used for roadway vehicles). Indirect energy consumption consists of non-recoverable, one-time energy expenditures associated with construction of physical infrastructure associated with a project. Energy


Q-10

is commonly measured in terms of British thermal units (Btu). A Btu is defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.

Q.2 MONITORED CRITERIA POLLUTANT LEVELS

Table Q-2 presents monitored data in Queens from the USEPA and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for all pollutants except lead, which is not monitored at this location. Lead is monitored at IS #52 in the Bronx and the data from that monitor, as noted, are presented in Table Q-2. As shown in the table, there were several exceedances of the ozone standard, but no exceedances of any of the other criteria pollutants.

Table Q-2. Ambient Air Quality Monitored Data

Queens College

65-30 Kissena Blvd Parking Lot#6 Queens

2015 2016 2017

Carbon Monoxide (CO) [ppm]

1-H

our Maximum 2.1 1.6 1.7

2nd Maximum 1.9 1.5 1.3 # of Exceedances 0 0 0

8-H

our Maximum 1.4 1.2 0.9

2nd Maximum 1.4 1.1 0.9 # of Exceedances 0 0 0

Particulate Matter [µg/m3]1

PM

10 Maximum 24-Hour 40 44 30

Second Maximum 38 31 28 # of Exceedances 0 0 0

PM

2.5 24-Hour 98th Percentile 22.7 17 17

Mean Annual 8.1 6.7 7.1

Ozone (O3) [ppm]

8-H

our

First Highest 0.081 0.083 0.086 Second Highest 0.079 0.082 0.080 Third Highest 0.076 0.075 0.079 Fourth Highest 0.073 0.071 0.079 # of Days Standard Exceeded 5 6 6

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) [ppb]

1-Hour 98th Percentile 63.4 57.1 59 Annual Mean 17.16 15.81 15.25

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) [ppb]

1-Hour 99th Percentile 9.3 6.9 5.0 # of Days Standard Exceeded 0 0 0

Lead (Pb)2 [µg/m3] Rolling 3-Month Average 0.0061 0.0047 N/A*

Sources: USEPA AirData, https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data; NYSDEC, http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8536.html 1The number of exceedances for PM2.5 and NO2 are not available due to the form of the standards. There is only one value annually for these

pollutants. 2Lead data is from IS #52 in the Bronx, as lead is not monitored at Queens College. 2017 lead data are not yet available.

https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data



Q-11

Q.3 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Q.3.1 Emission Factor Development

The USEPA’s emission model, MOVES2014a, was used to estimate the mobile source emission factors for the analyses. MOVES2014a provides great flexibility to capture the influence of time of day, car and bus/truck activity, vehicle speeds, and seasonal weather effects on emission rates from vehicles. MOVES2014a calculates emission-related parameters, such as total mass emissions and vehicle activity (hours operated and miles traveled). From this output, emission rates (e.g., grams/vehicle-mile for moving vehicles or grams/vehicle-hour for idling vehicles) can be determined for a variety of spatio-temporal scales.

MOVES2014a requires the use of site-specific input data for traffic volumes, vehicle types, fuel parameters, age distribution, and other input, as discussed below. By using site-specific data, the emission results reflect the traffic characteristics of the roadways affected by the Project.

Q.3.1.1 Mesoscale Runs

MOVES2014a was used to estimate emission burdens of criteria pollutants, MSATs, and GHG from the mesoscale roadway network. County-specific MOVES input data were developed by the NYSDEC. These county-specific data and project-specific link-by-link traffic data were used to develop project-specific input files to demonstrate the effects of the Build Alternative for each scenario analyzed (Build and No Build Alternatives for estimated time of completion [ETC], ETC+10, and ETC+20). Table Q-3 and Table Q-4 describe specific MOVES inputs.

Table Q-3. MOVES RunSpec Options

MOVES Tab Model Selections

Scale County scale Inventory calculation type

Time Span Hourly time aggregation including all months, days, and hours Geographic Bounds Queens County Vehicles/Equipment All on-road vehicle and fuel type combinations Road Type Urban restricted and urban unrestricted road types were selected

Pollutants and Processes

Selected pollutants included criteria pollutants, MSATs, CO2e and their precursors Processes included running exhaust, evaporative permeation, evaporative fuel leaks, and crankcase running exhaust. Brake-wear and tire-wear emissions are included in the particulate matter results

Manage Input Data Sets Selected New York State Low Emission Vehicle program input database provided by NYSDEC

Output Output was generated by fuel type to differentiate diesel PM from PM produced by other fuel types


Q-12

Table Q-4. MOVES County Data Manager Inputs

County Data Manager Tab Data Source Age Distribution NYSDEC I/M Programs NYSDEC Ramp Fraction NYSDEC Source Type Population Created from project traffic data Fuel NYSDEC Meteorology Data NYSDEC Hoteling NYSDEC Vehicle Type Vehicle-Miles Travelled Created from project traffic data Average Speed Distribution Created from project traffic data Road Type Distribution Created from project traffic data

Q.3.1.2 Microscale Runs MOVES2014a was used to develop the emission factors for CO, PM10 and PM2.5 for the microscale analyses. The following additional input selections are common to all MOVES2014a runs:

• Geographic bounds: Queens County

• Road types: urban restricted access and urban unrestricted access

When run at the project-scale, project-specific and Queens County-specific data were imported into MOVES2014a. Queens County-specific data were obtained from the NYSDEC for fuel supply and fuel formulation (gasoline and diesel), the vehicle inspection and maintenance program applicable to the area, meteorology, vehicle-age distribution, and alternative fuel vehicle technology availability.

For project-specific vehicle data input, a detailed road link network was used in MOVES2014a to capture vehicle volumes (i.e., vehicles per hour), vehicle types (e.g., cars, buses/trucks), speed, and link type on the affected roadways. A road link, as defined in MOVES2014a, describes a defined segment of road or street that has uniform traffic behavior, such as constant volume and speed, that results in a unique emission rate. Typically, one road link is used to describe traffic behavior between intersections. Beyond the intersection or another road juncture point where traffic volume, vehicle-type distribution, and/or speed has changed due to vehicles turning off the link, other vehicles turning onto the link, etc., a different road link is used to describe traffic characteristics since the traffic data in that segment may result in a different emission rate. Furthermore, each roadway link was assigned a specific roadway grade based upon GIS elevation data from the State of New York.2

Emission factors for each road link were determined by dividing calculated emission burdens on each link by miles traveled on each link based on the link’s unique project-specific vehicle mix. Vehicle mixes vary from link to link, road type to road type, and by time periods. Separate vehicle mixes were used for AM and PM periods. For midday and overnight periods, an average of the AM and PM vehicle mixes were applied. Each link’s unique vehicle mix was developed from project-specific traffic data

2 Elevation data located at http://gis.ny.gov/elevation/contours/contours-nyc.htm

http://gis.ny.gov/elevation/contours/contours-nyc.htm


Q-13

provided for the following vehicle types: passenger car, motorcycle, truck, tractor trailer, and bus. MOVES defaults for Queens County were used to further distribute the data to the 13 source types required by MOVES. For each scenario, 16 MOVES runs (four time periods multiplied by four seasons) were completed to account for variations in traffic and climatological conditions. Meteorological data from the month of January were used to represent the first quarter of the year; April was used to represent the second quarter; July was used to represent the third quarter; and October was used to represent the fourth quarter.

Project-specific vehicle volumes (vehicles per hour) were input for each link based on traffic data. Traffic volumes and vehicle-type distributions per link were based on the traffic study (Appendix B of this document) for the Project’s ETC, ETC+10 and ETC+20.

Emissions from PM2.5 account for running exhaust, crankcase running exhaust, tire-wear, and brake-wear, while PM10 emissions account for running exhaust, crankcase running exhaust, tire-wear, brake-wear and re-entrained dust. This is consistent with recommendations in the USEPA’s Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-spot Analysis in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas.

As all roads in the Study Area are paved, Equation 1 from the USEPA’s AP42 guidance, Chapter 13.2 – Fugitive Dust from Paved Roads, was utilized. Equation 1 states:

E =(k(sL)0.91 x (W)1.02)

Where:

E = particulate emission factor in terms of k units

k = particle size multiplier for particle size range and units of interest

sL = road surface silt loading (grams per square meter)

W = average weight (tons) of the vehicles traveling the road.

Table Q-5 highlights values used in Equation 1 to calculate re-entrained PM10 emission rates along paved roads. Table Q-6 presents the vehicle weight assumptions used for each MOVES source type.


Q-14

Table Q-5. Re-Entrained Road Dust Parameters

Variable Value Roads Source

k 1 gram/VMT All AP42 Table 13.2.1-1

sL

0.015 grams/m2 >10,000 ADT, limited access AP42 Table 13.2.1-2

0.03 grams/m2 >10,000 ADT, unrestricted AP42 Table 13.2.1-2

0.06 grams/m2 5,000 – 10,000 ADT AP42 Table 13.2.1-2

Winter Correction

1x All >10,000 AP42 Table 13.2.1-2

2x All between 5,000 – 10,000 AP42 Table 13.2.1-2

Weight* 4.8 tons VWE mainline and ramps Project-specific 2.9 tons HOV lanes and parkways Project-specific 4.1 tons Service Roads Project-specific

* Weight was calculated using MOVES2014 source type/road type data

Table Q-6. Vehicle Weight by MOVES Source Type

MOVES ID Source Type Weight (pounds)* 11 Motorcycle 700 21 Passenger Car 5,000 31 Passenger Truck 7,000 32 Light Commercial Truck 9,000 41 Intercity Bus 70,000 42 Transit Bus 70,000 43 School Bus 70,000 51 Refuse Truck 29,500 52 Single Unit Short-Haul Truck 29,500 53 Single Unit Long-Haul truck 29,500 54 Motor Home 70,000 61 Combination Short-Haul Truck 46,500 62 Combination Long-Haul Truck 46,500

*Weight was calculated based on data from NYSDEC – PM2.5 SIP, Appendix E (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/sippm25rrmpappe.pdf) and vehicle manufacturer specifications (http://www.autos.com/car-buying/vehicle-weight-averages-for-certain-models)

Q.3.2 Traffic Network Selection

The Project is in Queens County, New York. Queens County is a borough of New York City that physically sits on Long Island, with major bodies of water located at both the north and south ends of the county (refer to Figure Q-1).

The major roadways in Queens, as well as on Long Island, are situated on either east-west or north-south corridors. The VWE (I-678) is one of the major north-south corridors in Queens, leading from the Throgs Neck Bridge and Whitestone Bridge in the north (which connect Queens to the Bronx) to

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/sippm25rrmpappe.pdf

http://www.autos.com/car-buying/vehicle-weight-averages-for-certain-models


Q-15

JFK Airport in the south. The other major north-south roadways in Queens County are the Clearview Expressway (I-295) and the Cross Island Parkway, both of which are located east of the VWE.

The selection of the MSAT analysis network is discussed below, along with a description of the mesoscale air quality network and the particulate matter microscale analysis study area.

Q.3.2.1 MSAT Study Area The annual average daily traffic (AADT) on the VWE is currently at or above 191,000 and the Project would increase the capacity of the VWE within the project limits. As such, the Project has been analyzed as a “project with higher potential MSAT effects,” as described in the FHWA Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents) and a quantitative MSAT analysis was conducted.

For quantitative MSAT analyses, FHWA recommends analyzing all segments associated with a project, plus those segments expecting meaningful changes in emissions as a result of the Project. The affected network for the Project was defined using project-specific information and the following metrics outlined by FHWA3:

• ± 5% change or more in AADT on congested highway links with level of service (LOS) of D or worse

The MSAT Study Area was refined by conducting a comparison between the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative traffic volumes for the year 2045 roadway links with +/- 5% change in AADT (Figure Q-5). As shown in Figure Q-5, the Project would increase volumes (red links in Figure Q-5) on the VWE. Conversely, the Project would reduce traffic (green links in Figure Q-5) on the other major north-south highways (Clearview Expressway and Cross Island Parkway).

The roadways in the MSAT Study Area (Figure Q-6) include the roadway segments associated with the Project and other roadways that are expected to have meaningful MSAT emission changes as a result of the Build Alternative. Based upon local knowledge of the traffic network, the area selected for analysis is framed by the major north-south roadways (the VWE and the Cross Island Parkway), and therefore, does not include roadways to the west of the VWE or to the east of the Cross Island Parkway.

To evaluate the overall VMT changes due to the Project, continuous roadways were included, even if only individual segments of the roadway demonstrated the +/-5% change in AADT (Figure Q-7). Without the inclusion of these continuous roadways, the analysis could artificially increase the VMT and MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative.

Q.3.2.2 Mesoscale Study Area The same analysis network that was used for the MSAT analysis was also used for the mesoscale, GHG and energy analyses. The traffic network used for these analyses is presented in Figure Q-7. All major arterials and highways in the analysis area (blue links) are included in this traffic network.

3 Found in FHWA’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Conducting Quantitative MSAT Analysis for FHWA NEPA

Documents, located at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/moves_msat_faq.cfm

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/moves_msat_faq.cfm


Q-16

Q.3.2.3 Microscale Study Area When considering the entire analysis area, regional VMT would decrease with the Build Alternative, versus the No Build Alternative. However, traffic within the Project corridor would increase with the Project. A higher resolution Study Area is provided in Figure Q-8, to provide greater detail of traffic volume increases on the VWE mainline and cross streets, as well as the traffic volume decreases on the VWE service roads. As such, the impacted intersections are located along the project corridor, at major cross streets and service roads. As the Study Area is classified as a maintenance area for CO and PM2.5, hot-spot analyses were conducted to demonstrate project-level conformity.

For CO, all intersections in the project corridor screened out according to the procedures in the NYSDOT’s Environmental Manual (TEM), and therefore did not require a detailed microscale CO analysis (see Sections Q.3.4 and Q.4.2.1).

The VWE mainline has an AADT of approximately 191,000 and average daily truck percentages of 5 percent corridor-wide, with highest peak period truck percentages of 9.5 northbound and 10.1 percent southbound. This variation in truck percentages is reflected in the link-by-link traffic data used to generate emission factors for each time period analyzed, as described in Section Q.3.2.1. The Build Alternative would increase traffic volumes of both autos and trucks by approximately 9.4 percent along the mainline corridor and would place sources closer to sensitive receptors. As such, the Project is considered one of air quality concern for PM and a microscale analysis was conducted following USEPA’s Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas.

The PM microscale analysis focused on the immediate project corridor. As shown in Figure Q-5, under the Build Alternative, traffic volumes on the road networks adjacent to the project corridor would be lower than the No Build Alternative, while traffic volumes on the mainline would be higher than the No Build Alternative. Therefore, the particulate matter microscale model accounts for the entire 3.5-mile project corridor and major intersections within that area.


Q-17

Figure Q-5. Regional Build Alternative vs. No Build Alternative with ±5% Change in Annual Average Daily Traffic (2045)


Q-18

Figure Q-6. Mobile Source Air Toxics and Mesoscale Analyses Study Area


Q-19

Figure Q-7. Mobile Source Air Toxics and Mesoscale Analysis Roadway Network

Project Limits


Q-20

Figure Q-8. Project Corridor Build Alternative vs. No Build Alternative with ±5% Change in Annual Average Daily Traffic (2045)


Q-21

Q.3.3 Mesoscale Analysis

Following the guidance in the NYSDOT TEM, Chapter 1.1, as revised in December 2012, a mesoscale air quality analysis was conducted for roadways in the Study Area. Emission burdens for carbon monoxide (CO), VOCs, nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and MSATs were calculated based on link-by-link traffic data. The FHWA Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, most recently updated on October 18, 2016, was followed for the MSAT analysis. Greenhouse gases (in terms of CO2e) and energy use were also calculated as part of the mesoscale analysis.

Emission burdens were calculated, as described in Section Q.3.1, using the MOVES2014a emissions model for the Build and No Build Alternatives for ETC, ETC+10, and ETC+20. The results of the mesoscale analysis were used to determine the critical year for the microscale analyses.

Q.3.4 CO Microscale Analysis

Following NYSDOT TEM Chapter 1.1, a CO microscale/hot-spot screening analysis was conducted for intersections and roadways affected by the Project. This analysis was based on traffic analyses reflecting ETC, ETC+10 and ETC+20. As per the referenced guidance, if an intersection or roadway has a Build Alternative LOS of C or better, the intersection passes the screening and no further analysis is required. If the intersection has a LOS of D or below due to the Project, it is then screened by the criteria below:

• A 10 percent or more reduction in the source-receptor distance

• A 10 percent or more increase in traffic volume on affected roadways for ETC, ETC+10 or ETC+20

• A 10 percent or more increase in vehicle emissions for ETC, ETC+10 or ETC+20

• Any increase in the number of queued lanes for ETC, ETC+10 or ETC+20

• A 20 percent reduction in speed, when Build estimated average speed is at 30 mph or less

If the intersections affected by the Project pass this screening criteria, no CO hot-spot analysis is required. If any of the intersections affected by the Project meet any of the criteria listed above, volume threshold screening, as detailed in Section 9.A.i.I-3 of the NYSDOT TEM Chapter 1.1, is conducted. The emission factors applied within this screening are generated using USEPA’s MOVES2014a emissions model. For this analysis, the volume threshold screening was immediately applied to all intersections with LOS of D or worse.

Table Q-7 presents the LOS at all 20 intersections screened in the Study Area. Per the NYSDOT TEM, only those intersections with a Build LOS of D or below have been screened further. As such, Table Q-8 presents the volumes for the 13 intersections with LOS D or below.

These 13 intersections were then screened according to the volume threshold screening, as detailed in Section I-3 of the NYSDOT TEM Chapter 1.1. The emission factors applied within this screening were calculated with USEPA’s MOVES2014a emission model and represent the year of ETC. ETC emissions were applied to be conservative, as future analysis years would have lower emission rates. The results of this screening are provided in Section Q.4.2.1.


Q-22

Table Q-7. Overall Intersection Level of Service

Intersection

No Build Build AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

ETC (2025)

ETC+10 (2035)

ETC+20 (2045)

ETC (2025)

ETC+10 (2035)

ETC+20 (2045)

ETC (2025)

ETC+10 (2035)

ETC+20 (2045)

ETC (2025)

ETC+10 (2035)

ETC+20 (2045)

SB 138th St & Hillside Ave C C C C C C C C C C C C SB Van Wyck & Jamaica Ave D D E D D E E F E C F E SB Van Wyck & Atlantic Ave C E C D E E C D D C D E SB Van Wyck & 101st Ave C C D B B B D E D C E F SB Van Wyck & Liberty Ave C C C C C C C C B B C C SB Van Wyck & 109th Ave C B C B B B B C C B C B SB Van Wyck & Linden Blvd C C C C D C C C C C C C SB Van Wyck & Foch Blvd B B C A A B B B C B B B SB Van Wyck & Rockaway Blvd C C D B C B D C D B C B SB Van Wyck & 133rd Ave F F F F E F D F F D F F NB 138th St & Hillside Ave E E D C F D D D D C D D NB Van Wyck & Jamaica Ave E D E D E E D E E C E E NB Van Wyck & Atlantic Ave D D F E F F D C F B C F NB Van Wyck & 101st Ave B C C C C C C C D C C C NB Van Wyck & Liberty Ave E E F E D F D D F C D F NB Van Wyck & 109th Ave B B B B B C B B C B B C NB Van Wyck & Linden Blvd C C F E F F C C F C C F NB Van Wyck & Foch Blvd B B B C C C B C C C C C NB Van Wyck & Rockaway Blvd D D F E E F E E F C E F NB Van Wyck & 133rd Ave C E E E E E B C E B C E


Q-23

Table Q-8. Intersection Volumes (LOS D or Worse under Build Conditions)

Intersection Direction


ETC (2025)

ETC + 10 (2035)

ETC + 20 (2045)

ETC (2025)

ETC + 10 (2035)

ETC + 20 (2045)

ETC (2025)

ETC + 10 (2035)

ETC + 20 (2045)

ETC (2025)

ETC + 10 (2035)

ETC + 20 (2045)

SB Van Wyck & Jamaica Ave

NB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SB 725 1125 789 785 1260 1142 945 820 789 350 400 1142 EB 620 525 711 700 685 764 700 690 711 690 695 764 WB 770 665 868 885 730 924 915 1105 868 850 840 924

SB Van Wyck & Atlantic Ave


SB Van Wyck & 101st Ave


SB Van Wyck & Rockaway Blvd


SB Van Wyck & 133rd Ave


NB 138th St & Hillside Ave

NB 1175 1170 1190 930 1390 1096 845 895 1190 780 845 1096 SB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EB 895 975 1105 745 780 846 1015 1075 1105 805 815 846 WB 1140 1120 1275 1010 1040 1188 1150 1130 1235 1015 1040 1188

NB Van Wyck & Jamaica Ave



Q-24

Table Q-8. Intersection Volumes (LOS D or Worse under Build Conditions) (continued)

Intersection Direction


ETC (2025)

ETC + 10 (2035)

ETC + 20 (2045)

ETC (2025)

ETC + 10 (2035)

ETC + 20 (2045)

ETC (2025)

ETC + 10 (2035)

ETC + 20 (2045)

ETC (2025)

ETC + 10 (2035)

ETC + 20 (2045)

NB Van Wyck & Atlantic Ave


NB Van Wyck & 101st Ave


NB Van Wyck & Liberty Ave


NB Van Wyck & Linden Blvd


NB Van Wyck & Rockaway Blvd


NB Van Wyck & 133rd Ave



Q-25

Q.3.5 Particulate Matter Microscale Analyses

The procedures prescribed in the NYSDOT TEM and the USEPA Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-spot Analysis in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas were utilized to conduct the PM2.5/PM10 microscale air quality analyses. The VWE has an AADT of approximately 191,000 with average daily truck percentages of 5 percent corridor-wide, with highest peak period truck percentages of 9.5 northbound and 10.1 percent southbound. This variation in truck percentages is reflected in the link-by-link traffic data used to generate emission factors for each time period analyzed, as described in Section Q.3.2.1. The Build Alternative would increase traffic volumes of both autos and trucks by approximately 9.4 percent along the mainline corridor and would place sources closer to sensitive receptors. As such, per 40 CFR Part 93.123, the Project is considered one of air quality concern for PM and microscale analyses were performed for the No Build and Build Alternatives.

Particulate matter microscale analyses were conducted for the Project’s critical analysis year (2025), as determined by the mesoscale analysis. The modeling was conducted to estimate PM2.5/PM10 concentrations using the USEPA’s AERMOD dispersion model with emission factors by link from the MOVES2014a model runs.

Dispersion models use mathematical formulations to characterize the atmospheric processes that disperse pollutants, which in this case are the emissions generated by the vehicles moving and/or idling on the affected roadways. AERMOD is currently the USEPA’s state-of-the-art model for predicting pollution concentrations from emission sources. Based on estimated emission rates and meteorological inputs, AERMOD was used to predict PM2.5/PM10 concentrations at the selected receptor locations.

Modeled roadway links included the entire VWE, service roads, and major cross streets. Inputs to the modeling analysis consisted of detailed information about the affected roadways, including link lengths, road segment widths, vehicular volumes per hour, emission factors, receptor locations, and hourly meteorological data.

As discussed in Section Q.3.1, PM2.5 emissions account for running exhaust, crankcase running exhaust, tire-wear, and brake-wear emissions, and PM10 emissions account for running exhaust, crankcase running exhaust, tire-wear, brake-wear and re-entrained dust emissions. On-road vehicle emissions were estimated using MOVES2014a. MOVES input relies on link-specific data. The PM2.5/PM10 emissions vary by time of day and time of year. Volume and speed data for each source were obtained from the traffic analysis for the AM peak, midday, PM peak and overnight, using quarterly climate conditions.

The speeds used in the analysis included delay resulting from traffic signals at intersections. The Build Alternative would increase traffic volumes by approximately 9.4 percent along the mainline corridor. As such, the microscale PM modeling included the VWE mainline, service roads, arterial crossroads and on-off ramps (including intersections). Therefore, the modeling captures the area where the highest levels of project-related PM concentrations are expected to occur.

Table Q-9 presents the total emissions for all links in the network analyzed for particulate matter. As shown in the table, the winter (1st Quarter) emissions are the highest, as compared to the other


Q-26

seasons. Therefore, it was determined that winter conditions represented worst-case emissions. To be conservative, winter emissions were applied to all seasons, in units of grams, for the four time periods shown in Table Q-10.

Table Q-9. 2025 Total Emissions (grams/hour)

Alternative Pollutant Q1 (January) Q2 (April) Q3 (July) Q4 (October)

No Build PM2.5 4,261 4,135 4,069 4,110 PM10 17,699 17,558 17,484 17,529

Build PM2.5 4,622 4,370 4,236 4,581 PM10 15,787 15,513 15,364 15,456

Table Q-10. Time Periods

Time Period Hours AM 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. MD 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. PM 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. ON 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

Five years of meteorological data (2013 to 2017) were input into the AERMOD program to calculate the annual and 24-hour PM levels at the receptors analyzed. Five years of surface air meteorological data and upper air meteorological data were obtained from LaGuardia Airport in Queens, New York.

Figure Q-9 presents the AERMOD model screenshot of the analysis, where the green lines represent the roadway links and the yellow represent the receptor grids. Pursuant to the NYSDOT’s TEM and USEPA guidance, receptors were sited five meters (approximately 16 feet) from the source of emissions (VWE and service roads right-of-way), with a grid of receptors spaced at 25 meters (approximately 82 feet) nearer to the VWE and 50 meters (approximately 164 feet) farther from the VWE. Receptors were placed up to 1,000 meters (approximately 3,280 feet) from the source of emissions.

The Study Area was extended out from the intersection of Linden Boulevard and the VWE, which is the section of the Project that shows a +5 percent increase on both the VWE and a cross street. The Study Area was extended out to encompass the entire project corridor (approximately 3.5 miles) and major arterial crossroads. Receptors were included in the Long Island Rail Road right-of-way, as well as at the Jamaica Station platforms. The Study Area encompasses all sensitive land uses and residential areas adjacent to the VWE. A receptor height of 1.8 meters (approximately 6 feet) was used to represent breathing height for ground-level receptors. For the receptors at Jamaica Train Station, a height of 2.8 meters (approximately 9 feet) was used to account for the elevation of the train platforms. Figure Q-10 presents high resolution sections of the Study Area, from the north to the south, along with the VWE right-of-way line and the project limit.

Microscale modeling is used to predict PM concentrations due to motor vehicle emissions on roadways. Model results are summed with background levels to quantify cumulative air pollution concentrations from vehicles and existing sources. The background level is the component of the total concentration not accounted for through the microscale modeling analysis.


Q-27

A PM2.5 annual background of 7.3 µg/m3 was added to the modeled values. This is the three-year average of the annual mean concentrations measured at the Queens College monitor (Table Q-2), the closest monitoring station to the project corridor. A PM2.5 24-hour background of 18.9 µg/m3 was added to the modeled values. This is the three-year average of the 98th percentile concentrations measured at the Queens College monitor from 2015-2017. A PM10 24-hour background of 38 µg/m3 was added to the modeled values. This is the three-year average of the maximum concentrations measured at the Queens College monitor from 2015 to 2017.


Q-28

Figure Q-9. Particulate Matter Model Screenshot Overview (AERMOD)

Note: Green lines indicate links modeled and yellow grids represent receptor placement

Northern Project Limit (Hoover Avenue)

Southern Project Limit (Federal Circle)

VWE

Belt Pkwy


Q-29

Figure Q-10. Particulate Matter Model Screenshot by Sections (North to South)


Northern Project Limit

(Hoover Avenue)


Q-30

Figure Q-10. Particulate Matter Model Screenshot by Sections (North to South) (continued)



Q-31




Q-32




Q-33




Q-34



Belt Parkway


Q-35



JFK Airport

Southern Project Limit

(Federal Circle)


Q-36

Q.3.6 Construction Analysis

The GHG emissions and energy use from construction of the Build Alternative were calculated using FHWA’s Infrastructure Carbon Estimator, a spreadsheet tool that estimates GHG emissions and energy use from the construction of transportation facilities. The Infrastructure Carbon Estimator was used to analyze the GHG emissions and energy use from construction of the VWE, including associated structures such as bridges. This analysis was based on specific project inputs, including average daily traffic (ADT) of the facility, lane-miles of roadway widening and construction, and lane-miles of bridge widening and construction. The tool also estimates annual GHG emissions and energy use from the construction impacts on vehicle operations, which cause vehicle delay.

Q.4 RESULTS

Q.4.1 Mesoscale Analysis

In accordance with NYSDOT guidance, a mesoscale analysis was conducted, using MOVES2014a, for the project ETC (2025), ETC+10 (2035) and ETC+20 (2045), as described in Section Q.3.3. The mesoscale analysis was conducted for criteria pollutants, MSATs, GHGs and energy use.

Table Q-11 presents the VMT and emission burdens of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 under the No Build and Build Alternatives. In all analysis years, the VMT and emission burdens are lower under the Build Alternative.

Table Q-12 presents the emission burdens of MSATs under the No Build and Build Alternatives. In all analysis years, MSATs are lower under the Build Alternative.

Table Q-13 presents the emission burdens of GHGs in terms of CO2e, as well as differences in energy consumption, under the No Build and Build Alternatives. In all analysis years, both direct CO2e and energy consumption are lower under the Build Alternative.

For VOC, NOx, CO, PM2.5, MSATs, CO2e and energy, the highest burdens are in the ETC (2025), under both the Build Alternative and the No Build Alternative. The only exception to this is PM10, which shows the highest year as 2035. However, this is due to the higher contribution of brake wear and tire wear emissions in the PM10 results. The increase in VMT for the Build Alternative from 2025 to 2035 is over 6%. Even though PM10 exhaust emissions continue to decrease in future years, the increase of brake wear and tire wear emissions due to the VMT increase resulted in a net increase of PM10 emissions in 2035.


Q-37

Table Q-11. Mesoscale Emission Burdens (tons/year)

Pollutant

2025 2035 2045

No Build Build %

Difference No Build Build %


Difference VMT (miles/year) 3,498,772,269 3,395,117,242 -3% 3,651,394,322 3,606,289,748 -1% 3,779,535,650 3,673,613,888 -3%

VOC 780.6 747.4 -4% 579.6 569.1 -2% 494.0 475.9 -4% NOx 800.0 756.7 -5% 422.9 413.9 -2% 341.2 326.9 -4% CO 10,868.3 10,634.9 -2% 7,610.7 7,568.9 -1% 6,357.0 6,237.2 -2% PM10 298.3 255.3 -14% 282.4 263.7 -7% 273.9 246.2 -10% PM2.5 75.4 68.0 -10% 55.0 52.3 -5% 47.7 44.0 -8%

Table Q-12. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emission Burdens (tons/year)

Pollutant

2025 2035 2045

No Build Build %




1,3-Butadiene 4.1 4.0 -3% 3.0 3.0 -1% 2.5 2.4 -3% Acetaldehyde 10.3 9.9 -5% 7.5 7.4 -2% 6.4 6.1 -4% Acrolein 0.9 0.8 -6% 0.6 0.6 -2% 0.5 0.5 -4% Benzene 21.8 21.1 -3% 15.6 15.4 -1% 13.0 12.6 -3% Diesel PM 20.2 17.1 -15% 7.5 7.2 -4% 5.4 5.0 -6% Ethylbenzene 8.9 8.6 -3% 6.1 6.0 -1% 5.1 5.0 -3% Formaldehyde 11.1 10.3 -7% 8.0 7.8 -3% 7.0 6.7 -5% Naphthalene 1.6 1.5 -5% 1.1 1.1 -2% 0.9 0.9 -4% Polycyclic Organic Matter 0.6 0.6 -5% 0.4 0.3 -2% 0.3 0.3 -3%


Q-38

Table Q-13. On-Road (Direct) Energy and GHG Burdens

Pollutant

2025 2035 2045

No Build Build %




CO2e (tons/year) 1,650,523 1,538,424 -7% 1,466,819 1,423,513 -3% 1,368,901 1,297,299 -5%

Energy (MBtu/year) 19,493,383 18,168,521 -7% 17,304,286 16,793,172 -3% 16,143,140 15,365,741 -5%

MBtu = Million British thermal units


Q-39

Q.4.2 Microscale Analysis

Following the NYSDOT TEM, microscale analyses were conducted for the year of expected highest emissions, which is 2025 (ETC), as determined through the mesoscale analysis. If the microscale analyses for the ETC do not indicate an exceedance of the applicable NAAQS, then no exceedances are expected in other years.

Q.4.2.1 Carbon Monoxide The emission factors applied within the volume threshold screening are from USEPA’s MOVES2014a model and represent the year of ETC. CO emission factors were generated for both idle and the posted speed (25 mph) on local roadways in the Study Area. The resulting emission factors are as follows:

• Idle = 4.3 grams per hour

• 25 mph = 1.9 grams per mile

Upon comparison to Table 3C in the TEM, when applying the above emission factors, intersections in the project corridor would screen out if the traffic volume is less than 4,000 vehicles per hour at any approach of an intersection. None of the intersections have volumes close to 4,000 at any approach. Therefore, a CO microscale analysis is not warranted or required.

The Build Alternative would not increase traffic volumes or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to jeopardize attainment of the NAAQS for CO.

Q.4.2.2 Particulate Matter The PM2.5 and PM10 design value concentrations (including background) are summarized in Table Q-14, Table Q-15, and Table Q-16. These concentrations are given for 2025 (ETC), which was determined to be the critical year for the analysis based on the mesoscale analysis results. These concentrations represent the worst-case locations within the Study Area.

As shown in the tables, PM10 concentrations are substantially higher under the No Build Alternative, as compared to the Build Alternative. This is due to the contribution of road dust, which plays a major role in the total concentrations of PM10. Road dust concentrations vary on a link-by-link basis, based upon the roadway type and the volume on each roadway link. There is a much larger contribution of road dust for links with less than 10,000 AADT, as compared to those with more than 10,000 AADT. For several local roadways in close proximity to receptors, the small changes in volume between the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative have resulted in larger changes in road dust concentrations because the No Build AADT is slightly less than 10,000, while the Build AADT is slightly over 10,000. For example, a westbound link on Jamaica Avenue has a 16 percent lower AADT under the No Build Alternative, as compared to the Build Alternative; however, since this change crosses the 10,000 AADT threshold, it translates into a 95 percent increase in fugitive dust under the No Build Alternative, as compared to the Build Alternative.

Road dust is not a substantial contributor to PM2.5 levels in the Study Area and was not included in the analysis. As shown in the tables, PM2.5 levels at the worst-case receptors are higher under the Build Alternative, as compared to the No Build Alternative. This is mainly due to higher volumes in the project corridor, as well as traffic sources moving closer to receptors under the Build Alternative. The concentrations shown represent the receptors with the maximum design value concentrations. As


Q-40

there is a grid receptor network covering the entire project corridor, under the Build Alternative, some receptors would experience higher concentrations and some would experience lower concentrations, as compared to the No Build Alternative. For more information on the dispersion of pollutants, please refer to the contours in Figure Q-11 through Figure Q-16.

No exceedances of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS were predicted under the Build Alternative. Contour maps of the results are presented in Figure Q-11 through Figure Q-16.

Table Q-14. Predicted 24-hour PM10 Design Value Concentrations, 2025

Alternative

Background Concentration

(µg/m3) Modeled Concentration

(µg/m3)

Total Concentration*

(µg/m3) No Build

38 102 140

Build 58 96 * Total concentrations = modeled results + 24-hour PM10 background

24-hour PM10 standard = 150 µg/m3 µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

Table Q-15. Predicted 24-hour PM2.5 Design Value Concentrations, 2025

Alternative



(µg/m3)


(µg/m3) No Build

18.9 5.6 24.5

Build 8.6 27.5 * Total concentrations = modeled results + 24-hour PM2.5 background

24-hour PM2.5 standard = 35 µg/m3 µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

Table Q-16. Predicted Annual PM2.5 Design Value Concentrations, 2025

Alternative



(µg/m3)


(µg/m3) No Build

7.3 2.4 9.7

Build 3.8 11.1 * Total concentrations = modeled results + Annual PM2.5 background

Annual PM2.5 standard = 12 µg/m3 µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter


Q-41

Figure Q-11. 24-Hour PM10 No Build Contours (µg/m3)

Maximum Design Value Concentration

140 µg/m3


Q-42

Figure Q-12. 24-Hour PM10 Build Contours (µg/m3)


96 µg/m3


Q-43

Figure Q-13. 24-Hour PM2.5 No Build Contours (µg/m3)


24.5 µg/m3


Q-44

Figure Q-14. 24-Hour PM2.5 Build Contours (µg/m3)


27.5 µg/m3


Q-45

Figure Q-15. Annual PM2.5 No Build Contours (µg/m3)


9.7 µg/m3


Q-46

Figure Q-16. Annual PM2.5 Build Contours (µg/m3)


11.1 µg/m3


Q-47

Q.4.3 Construction Effects

Construction of the Build Alternative is anticipated to occur over a four to five-year period, separated into three construction phases. Construction would begin with reconstruction of the overpass bridges, followed by the mainline managed-use lane construction. Traffic would be maintained on the VWE using staged construction and lane shifts. The number of existing mainline travel lanes would not decrease during peak periods; however, lane closures would be allowed during off-peak, evening and nighttime hours. It is not anticipated that off-site roadway detours or traffic diversions would be required for traffic on the VWE. Furthermore, traffic diversion is not expected to last more than 2 years for any of the construction phases. Therefore, an air quality analysis for traffic during construction is not required.

Construction-related effects are short-term and include increases in particulate matter in the form of fugitive dust (from ground clearing and preparation, grading, stockpiling of materials, on-site movement of equipment, and transportation of construction materials), as well as exhaust emissions from material delivery trucks, construction equipment, and worker’s private vehicles. Dust emissions typically occur during dry weather, periods of maximum demolition, construction activities, or high wind conditions.

Construction management of the Project would include environmental measures imposed on contractors within the contract limits and in areas adjacent to and/or affected by the work. As detailed in the NYSDOT Engineering Instruction 17-006, §107-11 Air Quality Protection, construction work would be planned and executed in a manner that would minimize air emissions. Air quality control measures for construction of this Project would include the following:

• Use of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel in construction equipment

• Provisions limiting idle time for diesel-powered equipment to three consecutive minutes for delivery and dump trucks and all other diesel-powered equipment, with certain exceptions (e.g., when a vehicle is forced to remain motionless due to traffic conditions, a vehicle is being serviced, or in extremely cold temperatures (less than 25 degrees Fahrenheit))

• Positioning stationary equipment exhausts to minimize exposure to sensitive receptors

• Proactive and corrective measures for dust control

• Restrictions on burning of any material on the contract site • Protection techniques and/or systems when performing drilling, cutting, or similar operations that

impact air quality

Table Q-17 presents the GHG emissions and energy use from construction of the Project, calculated using FHWA’s Infrastructure Carbon Estimator.

Table Q-18 presents the combined direct and indirect GHG emissions and energy use of the Project. For the combined direct and indirect emissions and energy use, the totals have been annualized based upon a project life of 20 years. Indirect No Build emissions and energy use associated with maintenance activities have also been included. As shown in the table, even when including annualized emissions and energy use from construction of the Project, the Build Alternative emissions and energy use are lower than those under No Build.


Q-48

Table Q-17. Construction GHG Emissions and Energy Use (Annual)*

Construction Element CO2e (tons) Energy Use (MBtu) Materials 1,628 19,108 Construction Equipment 639 7,948 Routine Maintenance 52 653

Operational Element CO2e (tons) Energy Use (MBtu) Construction Impacts to Vehicle Delay 420 4,282 Annual Total 2,740 31,991

* Construction emissions are presented annually, based on 4.5 years of mainline construction.


Q-49

Table Q-18. Total Direct and Indirect GHG Emissions and Energy Use

Pollutant

2025 2035 2045

No Build Build %



Difference Direct

CO2e (tons/yr) 1,650,523 1,538,424 -7% 1,466,819 1,423,513 -3% 1,368,901 1,297,299 -5%

Energy (MBtu/yr) 19,493,383 18,168,521 -7% 17,304,286 16,793,172 -3% 16,143,140 15,365,741 -5%

Indirect* CO2e** (tons/yr) 44 616 -- 44 616 -- 44 616 --

Energy** (MBtu/yr) 563 7,198 -- 563 7,198 -- 563 7,198 --

TOTAL (Direct + Indirect) CO2e (tons/yr) 1,650,567 1,539,040 -7% 1,466,863 1,424,129 -3% 1,368,945 1,297,915 -5%

Energy (MBtu/yr) 19,493,946 18,175,719 -7% 17,304,849 16,800,370 -3% 16,143,703 15,372,939 -5%

MBtu = Million British thermal units * Indirect emissions and energy use have been annualized over 20 years for comparison to lifetime project emissions and energy use. ** No Build indirect emissions and energy use consist solely of maintenance activities.


Q-50

Q.5 REFERENCES

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Conducting Quantitative MSAT Analysis for FHWA NEPA Documents. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/moves_msat_faq.pdf. Accessed January 2018.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. October 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/msat/index.cfm

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2016. Air Quality Monitoring Data http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8406.html. Accessed June 2018.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2015. National Ambient Air Quality Standards, http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8542.html. Accessed March 2018.

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). 2001. The Environmental Manual (TEM). (Formerly known as Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM). Chapter 1.1 - Air Quality. Updated December 2012. Screening procedures updated April 2018.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Greenhouse Gas and Energy Consumption Rates for On-road Vehicles, Updates for MOVES2014. October 2015. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100NNUQ.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. November 2015. https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/project-level-conformity-and-hot-spot-analyses#pmguidance

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Air Trends – Carbon Monoxide.https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/carbon-monoxide-trends#conat. Accessed January 2018.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). AirData. https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data. Accessed June 2018.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Understanding Global Warming Potentials. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials Accessed January 2018.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model –AERMOD. Report No EPA-454/B-03-001. September 2004. https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/aermod/aermodugb.pdf.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/moves_msat_faq.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/moves_msat_faq.pdf

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/msat/index.cfm



https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100NNUQ.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/project-level-conformity-and-hot-spot-analyses#pmguidance

https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/project-level-conformity-and-hot-spot-analyses#pmguidance

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/carbon-monoxide-trends#conat



https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/aermod/aermodugb.pdf