project scoping report/ final design report · january 2017 project scoping report/final design...

PROJECT SCOPING REPORT/FINAL DESIGN REPORT

January 2017

Bridge Rehabilitation Project

PIN: X731.45 BIN: 1-06666-9, 1-06666-A, 1-06666-B,1-06666-C, & 1-06666-D

Rehabilitation of Bruckner Expressway Viaduct (I-278) fromRFK Bridge to East 141st St

Borough of the BronxBronx County

January 2017 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN X731.45

i

PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET(Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU Matrix)

A. IPP Approval: The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program.The IPP was signed by:

Sonia A. Pichardo 6/13/2014

Regional Director, NYSDOT, Region 11 Date

B. Recommendation forScoping & DesignApproval:

The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program.

Director of Planning and Program Management,NYSDOT, Region 11

Date

C. Recommendation forScoping, Design, &Nonstandard FeatureApproval:

All requirements requisite to these actions and approvals have been met, therequired independent quality control reviews separate from the functional groupreviews have been accomplished, and the work is consistent with establishedstandards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise noted andexplained.

Director of Engineering, NYSDOT, Region 11 Date

D. Nonstandard FeatureApproval:

The nonstandard features have been adequately justified and it is not prudent toeliminate them as part of this project.

FHWA Date

E. Scoping & DesignApproval:

The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program.

Regional Director, NYSDOT, Region 11 Date

The required environmental determinations have been made and the preferredalternative for this project is ready for final design.

FHWA Date


iii

COVER (Title / PIN / Location)

PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET ................................................................................................................ iLIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................................ ii

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-11.2 Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 Where is the Project Located? .............................................................................................. 1-11.2.2 Why is the Project Needed? .................................................................................................. 1-41.2.3 What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project? ................................................................. 1-4

1.3 What Alternatives are Being Considered?.................................................................................... 1-51.4 Environmental Review ................................................................................................................. 1-61.5 How will the Alternatives Affect the Environment? ........................................................................ 1-71.6 What are the Costs & Schedules? ............................................................................................... 1-81.7 Which Alternative is Preferred? ................................................................................................... 1-91.8 What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement? ................................................................... 1-10

CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Local Plans for the Project Area .................................................................................................. 2-12.2. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments .......................... 2-12.3 Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations .................................... 2-1

2.3.1 Traffic and Safety and Maintenance Operations .................................................................... 2-12.3.2 Complete Streets ................................................................................................................ 2-142.3.3 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... 2-14

2.4 Miscellaneous ........................................................................................................................... 2-262.4.1 NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA) ............................................. 2-26

CHAPTER 3 – SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................... 3-1

3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) .................................................................................. 3-13.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) ...................................................................... 3-13.3 Additional Environmental Information........................................................................................... 3-1

3.3.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 3-23.3.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion ............................................................................ 3-23.3.3 General Social Groups .......................................................................................................... 3-23.3.4 School Districts, Recreation Areas and Places of Worship .................................................... 3-23.3.5 Regional and Local Economies ............................................................................................. 3-23.3.6 Business Districts ................................................................................................................. 3-23.3.7 Specific Business Impacts..................................................................................................... 3-33.3.8 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................. 3-33.3.9 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses ............................................................................... 3-33.3.10 Navigable Waters................................................................................................................ 3-33.3.11 Floodplains ......................................................................................................................... 3-33.3.12 Coastal Resources .............................................................................................................. 3-33.3.13 Stormwater Management .................................................................................................... 3-33.3.14 Historic and Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 3-43.3.15 Parks and Recreational Resources ..................................................................................... 3-53.3.16 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 3-53.3.17 Noise .................................................................................................................................. 3-73.3.18 Energy ................................................................................................................................ 3-73.3.19 Asbestos ............................................................................................................................. 3-73.3.20 Contaminated and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 3-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS


iv

APPENDICESA. Maps, Plans & Typical SectionsB. Environmental InformationC. Traffic InformationD. Structures InformationE. Non-Standard Features JustificationF. Stakeholders and Public InputG. Survey and Right-of-Way InformationH. Work Zone Traffic ControlI. Miscellaneous


1-1

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

The Bruckner Expressway (I-278) extends from the intersection with the RFK Bridge approach at thesouth to the Hutchinson River Parkway at the north end. This project involves the area from the RFKBridge approach to E.141st Street. This section of highway is supported on a structure known as theBruckner Expressway Viaduct. This document refers to northbound and southbound directions for theBruckner Expressway to conform to the record documents.

An EIS was progressed beginning in 2002 for the Bruckner/Sheridan Interchange project. In order toaddress the most critical needs of the poorly rated Bruckner Expressway Viaduct, the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) issued a notice in 2012 to rescind the Bruckner/Sheridan Interchange EIS and toadvance a state of good repair project to address the deterioration of the deck, steel members, joints,bearings and other minor work needed to upgrade the bridge condition.

As a result, this project involves the rehabilitation of a portion of the viaduct. A complete bridge deckreplacement is considered with upgrades to safety features, signing and lighting. Special attention isgiven to the Work Zone Traffic Control with the development of WZTC strategies which includeconstruction staging, temporary detours, service road detours, restrictive work hours, and/or specialconstruction methods. Use of precast concrete deck systems and high early strength concrete areconsidered.

The project is being coordinated with other agencies and the local Community Board. A comprehensivePublic Outreach Program is being implemented.

This report was prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual, 17 NYCRR(New York Codes, Rules and Regulations) Part 15, and 23 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 771.Transportation needs have been identified (section 1.2.2), objectives established (1.2.3) to address theneeds, and cost-effective alternatives developed (1.3). This project is federally funded.

1.2 Purpose and Need

1.2.1 Where is the Project Located?

The project is located within the Borough of the Bronx, Bronx County in the City of New York. See Figure1-1 for a Project Area Map. See Figure 1-2 on page 1-4 for Project Location Map.

1.2.1.1 Bridge Data

Exhibit 1.2.1.1 –Bridge DataBIN Numbers 1-06666-9 1-06666-A 1-06666-B 1-06666-C 1-06666-DRoute Name Bruckner

ExpresswayViaduct,

I278

Ramp NX,RFK Bridge toNB Bruckner

Ramp RC, SBBruckner toRFK Bridge

Ramp SB, SBBruckner to

Major Deegan

Ramp RD,138th St to NB

Bruckner

Reference Markers RM 278I X1M1 3000 - 278I X1M1 3008; RM 278I X1M1 4000 - 278I X1M1 4008Feature Crossed Bruckner BoulevardCity/Village/Town City of New YorkCounty Bronx CountyLength 2,820 FT 848 FT 904 FT 1,310 FT 314 FTWidth (out to out) 94 FT 47 FT 40’-6” 40’-6” 27 FTNo. of Spans 43 14 14 21 5


1-2

BINs 1066669, 106666A, 106666C and 106666D are owned and maintained by the NYSDOT. BIN106666B is jointly owned and maintained by the NYSDOT and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority(TBTA).


1-3

Project Location MapFigure 1-2


1-4

1.2.2 Why is the Project Needed?

This project is intended to address roadway and structural deficiencies associated with the poorlydeteriorated bridge deck, deteriorated concrete pier columns, bearings, pedestals and othermiscellaneous structural work needed as well as structural steel painting. Addressing the poor structuralconditions will bring the structure to a state of good repair and will extend the life expectancy of thebridges.

A review of the latest inspection reports (2013 and 2014) was conducted. Visual inspections of eachstructure verified the conditions as documented in the Biennial Inspections Reports. Appendix D containscopies of the Biennial Inspection Reports and Visual Inspection Reports. In addition an in-depthinspection was performed. The In-Depth Inspection Report is also found in Appendix D.

The scope of the bridge rehabilitation project was determined based on the conditions of the elements.Elements with a rating of 4 and lower were considered for addition to the project scope. Below is asummary table of the conditions found. Ratings 4 and below are bold. In addition a visual map of thedeck conditions is found in Appendix D.

Exhibit 1.2.2 – Existing Bridge Element Ratings

Rating/Element

General Recommendation Rating 4 and 5 (1)

Computed Condition Rating 3.507 to 4.746

Abutment Backwalls 4Abutment Stem 4Abutment Wingwalls 5Seat and Pedestals 3Bearings 1Primary members 4Secondary members 5Sidewalks and Fascias 4Structural Deck 3Wearing Surface 4Piers 3Joints 3

(1) Rating for BINs 1-06666-9, 1-06666-B and 1-06666-C is 4. Rating for BINs 1-06666-A and 1-06666-D is 5.

1.2.3 What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project?

The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the Bruckner Expressway Viaduct. The following objectiveshave been established to support the project’s purpose and need:

(1) Restore the general condition ratings to fair (5) or greater, for at least 30 years using costeffective techniques to minimize the life cycle cost of maintenance and repair. Replace the deficient concrete deck slab and wearing surface with a new 9½” thick concrete

deck with integral wearing surface as per NYSDOT standards; Replace all joints with new armorless joint system as per NYSDOT standards;


1-5

Replace bearings as necessary as per NYSDOT standards; Paint structural steel as necessary as per NYSDOT standards; Perform local repairs to deficient steel stringers as necessary; Perform local concrete repairs to substructure elements, such as pedestals; pier caps,

abutment stems and backwalls as necessary; Replace approach slabs within project limits to complement deck replacement.

(2) Replace the bridge deck with deck designed for HS25 live loading.

(3) Improve/upgrade non-conforming bridge rail.

1.3 What Alternatives are Being Considered?

The following alternatives are being considered:

Alternative 1 - No-Build: The No-Build Alternative assumes no improvements in the project area otherthan those planned or implemented as part of routine maintenance and to address safety and red flags.Although it does not meet the Project Objectives, the No-Build Alternative is included to serve as abaseline condition against which the benefits and effects of the build alternatives are evaluated.

Alternative 2 – Corrective Maintenance/Minor Rehabilitation: The corrective maintenance/minorrehabilitation alternative shall improve the structure by addressing element specific localized repairs. Thisalternative includes restoration or replacement of expansion bearings and bridge joint systems;completion of full or partial depth repairs of the structural deck; localized repairs of reinforced concretepiers and columns; and restoration of primary structural steel members. The life cycle cost ofmaintenance and repair will not be minimized since minor rehabilitation work is effective for serviceabilityonly. (NYSDOT is undertaking contract D262631 for Corrective Maintenance and localized repair work ofseveral of the project structures.) This alternative does not meet many of the Project Objectives and willnot be discussed further.

Alternative 3 – Major Rehabilitation/Bridge Deck Replacement (Preferred Alternative): The majorreplacement/deck replacement alternative shall improve the service life and allow the structures to satisfyall the project objectives. This project involves work beyond the deck replacement. Many of the bearingsare rated in poor condition and should be replaced. Although seismic retrofit was not part of the scope ofthis project, previous seismic reports identified the current steel rocker bearings as one of the mainvulnerabilities of the structures. (See Seismic Vulnerability Reports in Appendix D.) Any bearingrecommendations will consider the option of replacing steel rocker bearings with elastomeric bearings. Inaddition, localized sub-structure repairs or improvements shall be completed to improve condition ratingsfor all bridge components. The structural steel will be painted as necessary per NYSDOT standards.Overhead sign structures will be replaced within the project limits per NYSDOT standards. The use ofstainless steel reinforcement is also considered to provide for bridge deck longevity, consistent with theexpected remaining useful life of the structure. This Alternative meets all of the Project Objectives and istherefore the Preferred Alternative.


1-6

The following bridge deck replacement types are considered:

Cast-in-place Bridge Deck Replacement Type: Replaces the existing concrete deck with a newcast in place reinforced concrete deck, designed to act composite with the supporting steelmembers. Due to the need to maintain traffic on the bridge during construction, the deck wouldneed to be replaced in several longitudinal strips joining over the supporting steel members. Thetraditional cast-in-place deck provides ease of construction and reduced cost but requires longterm lane closures. Lack of deck crack control can lead to rebar corrosion, reduced life span andincreased maintenance costs.

Precast Concrete Deck Panels Replacement Type: Replaces the existing deck with new precastconcrete deck panels. Similar to the Cast-in-place alternative, the deck will be constructed inseveral longitudinal strips. Closure pours with high early strength grout will be needed to connectthe deck to the supporting steel. At the completion of the deck replacement, an overlay between1” to 2” thick of Polyester Polymer Concrete (PPC) can be installed to even the wearing surfaceand seal the deck. The framing plan variations from span to span may result in inconsistent panelsizes, shifts in the joint lines, and increased cost. The use of this type of decking will allow theredecking to be performed during nighttime and/or weekends only, minimizing the impact to trafficfor this corridor. In addition, precast concrete panels are more durable and uniform than theircast-in-place counterparts because of the controlled fabrication environment and stringent qualitycontrol during production. This will result in a longer life span of the deck and reduction to itsmaintenance cost.

Exodermic Bridge Deck Panels Replacement Type: Replaces the existing deck with new“Exodermic” deck panels. The deck will be constructed in several longitudinal strips. The“Exodermic” deck is essentially a steel grid deck with concrete poured into the panels and madecomposite with the steel superstructure by welding headed studs to stringers. It could be precastwith the deck for speed of construction, or cast in place. Similar to the Precast Deck Panels, a 1”thick PPC layer can be installed at the completion to provide for a smooth riding surface and sealthe deck. Other overlay materials compatible with concrete can be used such as latex modifiedconcrete (LMC), microsilica concrete, or a membrane with asphaltic concrete overlay. This typeof deck can weigh up to 50% less than a reinforced concrete deck designed for the same span.Reducing the dead load on the structure can often mean increasing the live load rating. Precastexodermic deck can be erected during a short nighttime work window allowing the bridge to befully open to traffic during the peak hours. The deck is easily maintained with standard materialsand techniques.

Alternative 4 – Full Bridge Replacement: Full replacement of the Bruckner Expressway Viaductstructures is not within the current project scope. While the alternative would meet many of the projectobjectives it would not be cost effective to replace the substructure and superstructure elements that ingeneral are in acceptable condition. This alternative will not be considered further.

A more in-depth discussion of the design criteria, non-standard features and evaluation of alternatives isprovided in Chapter 2 of this report.

1.4 Environmental Review

This project is being progressed as a NEPA Class II action (Categorical Exclusion) because it does notindividually or cumulatively have a significant environmental impact and is excluded from the requirementto prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) asdocumented in the Federal Environmental Approvals Worksheet (FEAW) and documentation provided inthis Final Design Report.

New York State Department of Transportation has determined that this project is a SEQRA Type II Actionin accordance with 17 NYCRR, Part 15. No further SEQRA processing is required. The project has been


1-7

identified as a Type II action since it does not violate any of the criteria contained in subdivision (d) ofSection 15.14, and is of a scale and scope illustrated by the following Section 1.5.

1.5 How will the Alternatives Affect the Environment?

Proposed Mitigation:

Because the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to the human or naturalenvironments, no mitigation measures have been developed or are proposed. If prior to or during thecourse of construction any reasonably foreseen or apparent impacts to any particular resource areidentified, they will be minimized to the extent practical and feasible.

Anticipated Permits/Certifications Coastal Zone Consistency Certification Statement from the New York State Department of

State Coastal Zone Local Waterfront Revitalization Certification from the New York City

Department of City Planning

Coordination/Consultation Coordination with Federal Highway Administration Coordination with New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination with the New York Natural Heritage Program

Others Construction Staging Permit Construction Solid Waste Disposal Permit Local Permits

Exhibit 1.5 Comparison of AlternativesCategory No Build Alternative 3

Wetland impacts None None

100 year floodplainimpact None None

ArcheologicalSites Impacted None None

Section 106 /Section 4(f)

impactsNone No Adverse Effect

Air Quality None De Minimis

Noise None De MinimisImpact to forested

areas None None

Property impacts None NoneEnvironmental

Justice None No Disproportionately High orAdverse Impacts


1-8

1.6 What are the Costs & Schedules?

Design approval is scheduled for February of 2017 with construction scheduled to begin in 2017 as aDesign Build project. Estimates shown are for Cast-In-Place Deck Option and multi-staged constructionwith no lane closures. A detailed discussion of Work Zone Traffic Control options is found in Chapter 2 ofthis report.

Exhibit 1.6.a - Project Schedule

Activity Date Occurred/Tentative

Scope Approval July 2014

Design Approval February 2017

ROW Acquisition N/A

Contract Award Letting November 2017

Construction Start March 2018

Construction Complete December 2019


1-9

Exhibit 1.6.b – Project Costs (in millions of dollars)

Activities No Build Alternative 3

Construction CostsBridge 0 94.551

Highway 0 19.179

SPDES Permit Compliance 0 0

Incidentals (10%) 0 11.373

Subtotal 1 0 125.103

Contingency (15% at Design Approval) 0 18.765


Unanticipated Work (2%) 0 2.877


Mobilization (4%) 0 5.870


Design, QA/QC, CI (20%) 0 30.523

ROW Costs 0 0

Total Alternative Costs 0 183.139

1.7 Which Alternative is Preferred?

Only one feasible build alternative (Alternative 3 – Major Rehabilitation/Deck Replacement) has beenidentified that meets the project objectives. A decision to enter final design will not be made until after theenvironmental determination and evaluation of the comments on the draft design approval document andcomments received from the public informational meeting.


1-10

1.8 What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement?

Exhibit 1.8Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates

Activity Date Occurred/Tentative

Public Informational Meeting November 17, 2016

Current Project Letting date November 2017

Refer to Appendix F for project correspondence.

For questions or comments you can contact:

Mini M. Varghese, Project Manager(PIN) X731.45

email: [email protected]: (718) 482-4726

Mailing AddressNew York State Department of Transportation

Region 11 Engineering Unit47-40 21st Street

Long Island City, New York 11101

The remainder of this report is a detailed technical evaluation of the existing conditions, the proposedalternatives, the impacts of the alternatives, copies of technical reports and plans and other supportinginformation.


2-1

CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT INFORMATION

This chapter addresses the history and existing context of the project site, including the existingconditions, deficiencies, and needs for this part of the Bruckner Expressway.

2.1 Local Plans for the Project Area

Preliminary Design of this project is on the approved Statewide Transportation Improvement Program(STIP) as project No. X731.45.

The Regional Transportation Plan for the borough of The Bronx (Plan 2040, Adopted September 4, 2013)has been reviewed. This project is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan.

2.2. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments

The Bruckner Expressway (I-278) is bounded by several major transportation facilities. The MajorDeegan Expressway (I-87) is the western limit. The southern limit is the ramps to the RFK TriboroughBridge (I-278). To the north is the Sheridan Expressway (I-895). NYSDOT is currently in the designphase of two projects on the Major Deegan Expressway for the rehabilitation of several structures.Coordination of construction phasing will be done during final design.

The NYSDOT has also proceeded onto the construction phase of the corrective maintenance project ofthe Bruckner Expressway Viaduct via Contract D262631; the maintenance and rehabilitation workproposed in Contract D262631 was taken into consideration for the recommended work shown in thisreport.

In addition NYCDOT has ongoing projects along Bruckner Boulevard implementing pedestrian safetyimprovements. The projects are currently under construction and scheduled to be completed prior to thisproject.

2.3 Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations

2.3.1 Traffic and Safety and Maintenance Operations

2.3.1.1 Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS)


2-2

Exhibit 2.3.1.1 Functional Classification

Route(s) Bruckner Expressway (I-278)

FunctionalClassification Urban Principal Arterial Interstate

National Highway System(NHS) Yes

Designated Truck AccessRoute Yes

QualifyingHighway No

Within 1 mile (1.6 km) ofa Qualifying Highway Yes

Within the 16 ft (4.9 m)vertical clearancenetwork

Yes

2.3.1.2 Control of Access

The Bruckner Expressway (I-278) throughout the project area is a limited access highway. Southboundtraffic in the project area can exit to Bronx River Avenue (Exit 51) and Hunts Point Avenue/Hunts PointMarket (Exit 50). Further to the south, there is an entrance ramp from the southbound SheridanExpressway (I-895) and an exit ramp at East 138th Street (Exit 48). All remaining southbound traffic mustexit to the northbound Major Deegan Expressway (I-87) at Exit 47 or continue to the southbound RFKTriborough Bridge (I-278). In the northbound direction, the Bruckner Expressway (I-278) originates fromthe northbound RFK Triborough Bridge (I-278) and is joined by the southbound Major DeeganExpressway (I-87). Further to the north, an entrance ramp is provided from East 138th Street, followed bythe exit ramp (Exit 49) to the northbound Sheridan Expressway (I-895), and an entrance ramp from HuntsPoint Avenue.

2.3.1.3 Traffic Control Devices

There are no existing traffic control devices on the Bruckner Expressway.

2.3.1.4 Traffic Volumes

2.3.1.4. (1) Existing traffic volumes –The Bruckner Expressway (I-278) is a north/south highway connecting the New England Thruway (I-95)to the Major Deegan Expressway (I-87) and RFK Triborough Bridge (I-278). In order to establish acurrent database for evaluating potential traffic effects of the proposed project, extensive traffic datacollection for the existing roadway network and intersections in the vicinity of the project was undertaken.This data will serve as the foundation from which future traffic volumes are forecasted and evaluated.

Continuous 24-hour Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) counts were performed along the followingroadways from Saturday, June 13, 2015 through Friday, June 19, 2015. The volumes were summarizedin 15-minute increments and the summaries of the ATR counts are provided in Appendix C.1.

Automatic Traffic Recorder Count Locations1. Bronx Kill Crossing Split to NB Major Deegan Expressway (at Exit 47)2. Bronx Kill Crossing Split to NB Bruckner Expressway (at Exit 47)3. Bronx Kill Crossing Split to E 138th Street (at Exit 47)


2-3

4. Major Deegan Expressway Exit Ramp to NB Bruckner Expressway5. SB Bruckner Expressway Exit Ramp to RFK Bridge6. SB Bruckner Expressway Exit Ramp to NB Major Deegan Expressway7. NB Bruckner Expressway On-Ramp from E 138th Street8. SB Bruckner Expressway Exit Ramp to E 138th Street (Exit 48)9. NB Bruckner Expressway Mainline (at Leggett Avenue)10. SB Bruckner Expressway Mainline (at Leggett Avenue)11. NB Bruckner Expressway Split to Bruckner Expressway (at Exit 49)12. NB Bruckner Expressway Split to Sheridan Expressway (at Exit 49)13. NB Bruckner Expressway On-Ramp from Bruckner Boulevard (near Edgewater Road)14. SB Bruckner Expressway Exit Ramp to Hunts Point Avenue (at Exit 50)15. Major Deegan Expressway Exit Ramp to RFK Bridge (at Exit 1)16. Major Deegan Expressway Entrance Ramp from Bruckner Boulevard17. Major Deegan Expressway Exit Ramp to E 134th Street (at Exit 1)

Based upon the collected ATR traffic volumes, the selected peak hours are as follows:

Weekday AM: 7:30 – 8:30 AM; Weekday Midday: 1:00 – 2:00 PM; Weekday PM: 3:15 – 4:15 PM; Saturday Midday: 1:45 – 2:45 PM; and, Saturday PM: 3:15 – 4:15 PM.

All traffic data was summarized and balanced for the five peak hours to be used for analysis purposes.The balanced flow diagrams for the weekday AM, weekday midday, weekday PM, Saturday midday, andSaturday PM peak hours are provided in Appendix C.

The key traffic statistics for the northbound and southbound Bruckner Expressway (I-278) mainline interms of directional distribution, peak hour factor, and percentage of trucks were calculated for the fivepeak hours (Exhibit - 2.3.1.4.a). In addition, the percentage of daily trucks in both directions wascalculated for this corridor.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.4.a Traffic Data

Route I-278 Northbound I-278 SouthboundWeekday DirectionalDistribution

47% AM, 49% Midday, & 49% PM 53% AM, 51% Midday, & 51% PM

Saturday DirectionalDistribution

54% Midday, & 51% PM 46% Midday, & 49% PM

Weekday Peak HourFactor

0.92 AM, 0.99 Midday, 0.97 PM 0.93 AM, 0.96 Midday, 0.97 PM

Saturday Peak HourFactor

0.95 Midday, 0.97 PM 0.91 Midday, 0.93 PM

Weekday % PeakHour Trucks*

9% AM, 15% Midday, & 12% PM 10% AM, 10% Midday, & 10% PM

Saturday % PeakHour Trucks*

7% Midday, 6% PM 4% Midday, 4% PM

Weekday % DailyTrucks*

12% 10%

Saturday % DailyTrucks*

7% 4%

* Data was collected at Bryant Avenue Pedestrian Bridge.


2-4

2.3.1.4. (2) Future no build design year traffic volume forecasts –

Based upon the New York Best Practice Model (NYBPM), an annual growth rate of 0.3% was forecastedand applied to the Existing Condition volumes in 2015 to calculate future traffic volumes for the EstimatedTime of Completion (ETC) and ETC+20. The ETC and ETC+20 are projected to be 2022 and 2042,respectively.

The existing and future forecasted volumes for each time period are provided in Exhibit - 2.3.1.4.b.

Exhibit 2.3.1.4.b Existing and Future Traffic Volumes

I-278Year ADT DHV

Existing(2015) 138,600 8,840

ETC(2022) 141,100 9,030

ETC+20(2042) 150,300 9,580

ETC+30(2052) 154,800 9,880

Note: ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion

2.3.1.5 Speeds

2.3.1.5.1 Travel Speed and Delay Runs

Travel time estimates were developed for three weekday peak periods (6:00 - 10:00 AM, 11:00 AM - 2:00PM, and 4:00 - 7:00 PM) and two Saturday peak periods (11:00 AM - 3:00 PM and 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM) byperforming travel speed and delay runs on eight travel routes. The "floating car" method was used toobtain a minimum of three runs in each travel direction during the AM, midday and PM peak periods on atypical mid-weekday and on a Saturday. The test cars were driven at prevailing speeds in the generaltraffic stream along each particular travel route, and the results were recorded using a GPS recorder.Elapsed time, mileage, and delays (e.g., crash, signal, vehicle breakdown, etc.) were recorded atdesignated checkpoints such as interchanges and major cross streets over a predetermined travel route.Any atypical or non-recurring conditions were recorded by each surveyor in an effort to exclude traveltime and delay data that is not representative of normal operating peak period conditions. The eight travelroutes followed for travel speed and delay runs included:

Route 1: Bruckner Boulevard NB from Saint Ann's Avenue to Bronx River Avenue

Route 2: Bruckner Boulevard SB from Bronx River Avenue to Saint Ann's Avenue

Route 3: Major Deegan Expressway/Bruckner Expressway NB from Willis Avenue to Bronx RiverAvenue

Route 4: Bruckner Expressway SB/Major Deegan Expressway from Bronx River Avenue to WillisAvenue

Route 5: NB from Hunts Point Peninsula to 177th Street (using local streets and SheridanExpressway)


2-5

Route 6: SB from 177th Street to Hunts Point Peninsula (using Sheridan Expressway and localstreets)

Route 7: NB Bruckner Expressway 138th Street Entrance Ramp to NB Sheridan Expressway177th Street Exit Ramp

Route 8: SB Sheridan Expressway 177th Entrance Ramp to SB Bruckner Expressway 138th

Street Exit Ramp

The objective of the travel speed and delay runs was to compare the travel speed and time of vehiclestravelling along the Bruckner Expressway to that of vehicles using Bruckner Boulevard. The results of thetravel speed and delay runs in terms of average travel time and speed are provided below and inAppendix C.3:

Weekday AM Peak Period

Route 1: Average Travel Time: 9.5 min; Average Speed: 15.6 mph Route 2: Average Travel Time: 9.0 min; Average Speed: 16.8 mph




Weekday Midday Peak Period





Weekday PM Peak Period






2-6

Saturday Midday Peak Period





Saturday PM Peak Period





2.3.1.5.2 Spot Speed

A spot speed study was conducted on the Bruckner Expressway (I-278) with the objective of identifyingan 85th percentile speed for a sample of vehicles at three particular locations. Speeds were collectedbetween the hours of 5:00 and 8:00 AM on a Sunday to best represent free flow speed conditions.Approximately 100 speed readings were recorded in both directions during the four hour period utilizing aradar speed gun. Free flow speeds were retrieved from vehicles spaced by an acceptable headway, asdetermined by engineering judgment, to avoid inaccurate speed recordings. Speed data was retrievedfrom vehicles traveling on the Bruckner Expressway (I-278) in the northbound direction at the E. 138th

Street Entrance Ramp and in the southbound direction at the Sheridan Expressway entrance ramp.

According to the field data collected, the 85th percentile speeds were calculated to be 64 mph(northbound) and 59 mph (southbound). Based on the prevailing geometric conditions (i.e. no shouldersand posted 50 mph speed limit), the results of the actual travel speeds recorded during theaforementioned spot speed survey, and engineering judgment, it is recommended that a design speed of65 mph be used in both travel directions on the Bruckner Expressway for the proposed condition. SpotSpeed summary data for both travel directions on the Bruckner Expressway (I-278) is provided inAppendix C.4. Speed data is provided in Exhibit 2.3.1.5.2.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.5.2Speed Data

Route I-278 Northbound I-278 SouthboundExisting Speed Limit 50 MPH 50 MPHOperating Speed and MethodUsed for Measurement

64 MPH (Spot Speed Study) 59 MPH (Spot Speed Study)


2-7

2.3.1.6 Level of ServiceDetailed capacity analyses were performed in the vicinity of the project site to assess traffic conditions.Traffic volumes on the Bruckner Expressway peak during the weekday AM, weekday PM, and SaturdayPM periods, and as such, these peak hours were chosen for further analysis. The capacity and level ofservice (LOS) analysis was performed in accordance with the standard analytical methodology prescribedin the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). CORSIM(version 6.3) was used to analyze mainline segments and ramps along the Bruckner Expressway.

The results of the mainline segment and ramp capacity analyses for the weekday AM, weekday PM, andSaturday PM peak hours including Existing (2015), ETC (2022), and ETC +20 (2042) conditions in termsof LOS are summarized below in Exhibits 2.3.1.6.a, 2.3.1.6.b, and 2.3.1.6.c. The detailed results forhighway analyses are provided in Appendix C.5.

The RPPM does not anticipate capacity improvements within 35 years.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.6.aHighway Design Year Analysis Results

Level of Service (Density - passenger car per mile per lane)Weekday AM Period – Segments/Ramps

LOCATION (Northbound) EXISTING (2015) ETC (2022) ETC+20 (2042)Entrance Ramp from Major Deegan

Expressway (Ramp NB)(to Bruckner Expressway)

D (32.1) D (32.7) E (35.1)

Entrance Ramp from RFK Bridge (RampNX)

(to Bruckner Expressway)

D (33.9) E (35.1) E (38.1)

Entrance Ramp from E 138th Street(Ramp RD)

(to Bruckner Expressway)F (49.4) F (51.0) F (55.5)

Northbound Bruckner Expressway(E 138th Street Entrance to Sheridan

Expressway Exit)D (29.9) D (30.5) D (32.5)

LOCATION (Southbound) EXISTING (2015) ETC (2022) ETC+20 (2042)Southbound Bruckner Expressway(E 138th Street Exit to Major Deegan

Expressway ExitF (87.1) F (88.6) F (102.1)

Exit Ramp to Major Deegan Expressway(Ramp SB)

(from Bruckner Expressway)F (90.2) F (90.1) F (91.0)

Exit Ramp to RFK Bridge (Ramp RC)(from Bruckner Expressway) D (26.2) D (26.3) D (26.8)


2-8

Exhibit - 2.3.1.6.bHighway Design Year Analysis Results

Level of Service (Density - passenger car per mile per lane)Weekday PM Period – Segments/Ramps



F (50.3) F (65.4) F (116.2)

Entrance Ramp from RFK Bridge(Ramp NX)





Expressway Exit)F (82.8) F (95.3) F (101.8)





Exit Ramp to RFK Bridge (Ramp RC)(from Bruckner Expressway) C (22.2) C (22.2) C (22.2)

Exhibit - 2.3.1.6.cHighway Design Year Analysis Results

Level of Service (Density - passenger car per mile per lane)Saturday PM Period – Segments/Ramps



D (35.0) E (43.7) F (103.1)


(to Bruckner Expressway)E (42.7) F (56.2) F (109.4)




Expressway Exit)F (48.7) F (83.3) F (118.0)





Exit Ramp to RFK Bridge (Ramp RC)(from Bruckner Expressway) D (26.3) D (26.9) D (27.2)


2-9

2.3.1.6. (1) Existing level of service and capacity analysis –

Based upon the results of the CORSIM analyses, the majority of freeway segments and ramps operate ator near capacity during most of the studied peak hours. A summary of these results follows.

Northbound The following ramps operate at LOS E or better during the weekday AM and Saturday PM peak

hours, but operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour:o Entrance Ramp (Ramp NB) from Major Deegan Expressway (to Bruckner

Expressway)o Entrance Ramp (Ramp NX) from RFK Bridge (to Bruckner Expressway)

The following segments/ramps operate at LOS F during all peak hours:o Entrance Ramp (Ramp RD) from E 138th Street (to Bruckner Expressway)

The following segments at LOS E or better in the weekday AM peak hour, and LOS F in theweekday PM and Saturday PM peak hours.

o Northbound Bruckner Expressway (E 138th Street Entrance to Sheridan Expressway Exit)

Southbound The following segments/ramps operate at LOS E or better during all peak hours:

o Exit Ramp to RFK Bridge (Ramp RC) (from Bruckner Expressway)

The following segments/ramps operate at LOS F during all peak hours:o Southbound Bruckner Expressway (E 138th Street Exit to Major Deegan Expressway

Exito Exit Ramp to Major Deegan Expressway (Ramp SB) (from Bruckner Expressway)

2.3.1.6. (2) Future Build design year level of service –

Based upon the analysis results, the densities for all but one of the studied freeway segments and rampsare projected to increase for the Build Conditions (ETC (2022) and ETC+20 (2042) in comparison with theExisting Condition. A summary of changes in LOS between the Existing Condition and Build Conditionsfollow.

Northbound The following segments/ramps are not projected to worsen to LOS F between the Existing

Conditions and Build Conditions during all peak hours:o Entrance Ramp (Ramp RD) from E 138th Street (to Bruckner Expressway)o Northbound Bruckner Expressway (E 138th Street Entrance to Sheridan Expressway

Exit)

The Entrance Ramp (Ramp NB) from Major Deegan Expressway (to Bruckner Expressway)during the Saturday PM peak hour is projected to worsen from LOS E in the Existing Condition toLOS F in the ETC (2022), ETC+20 (2042) build years.

The Entrance Ramp (Ramp NX) from RFK Bridge (to Bruckner Expressway) is projected toworsen from LOS E in the Existing Condition to LOS F during the Saturday PM peak hour for allbuild years.

Southbound The following segments/ramps are not projected to worsen to LOS F between the Existing

Conditions and Build Conditions during all peak hours:o Southbound Bruckner Expressway (E 138th Street Exit to Major Deegan Expressway


2-10

Exit)o Exit Ramp to Major Deegan Expressway (Ramp SB) (from Bruckner Expressway)o Exit Ramp to RFK Bridge (Ramp RC) (from Bruckner Expressway)

2.3.1.7 Work Zone Safety & Mobility

A. Work Zone Traffic Control (WZTC) Plan

The project area is defined by the following:

Project Area (approx. 324,000SF):

From RFK Bridge Ramps to E141st Street (Ramp NB abutmentto Bent 43) (Refer to Project Area Map in Figure 2-1)

Project Area MapFigure 2-1

Below is a description of the Work Zone Traffic Control plan and the traffic analysis.

Construction staging (approximately 324,000 SF): From RFK Bridge Ramps to E141st

Street (Ramp NB abutment to Bent 43)o Southbound Bruckner Expressway consists of three lanes and split to two double lanes exit

ramps to Major Deegan Expressway and to RFK Bridge.o Northbound Bruckner Expressway consists of three lanes: one lane from Major Deegan

Expressway, one lane from RFK Bridge, and one lane from Ramp RD.


2-11

Three construction staging options were considered. See table below.

Table of Construction Staging OptionsOption No. Stages Required

1 52 43 3

Below is a brief description of WZTC options:

o Construction staging - Option 1 (staged construction): Travel lane widths will be reduced toaccommodate staged construction. Eleven (11) ft minimum lane width will be used. All existing trafficlanes will be kept open during peak hours and will be temporarily closed during non-peak hours. Totalof 5 long term stages will be required and one weekend stage will be needed for entrance Ramp RD.Ramps SB, RC, NB and NX will be constructed utilizing one lane long term closure. Refer toAppendix H for WZTC plans and sections.

o Construction staging - Option 2 (accelerated staged construction): Similar to Option 1, travel lanewidths will be reduced to accommodate staged construction. Eleven (11) ft minimum lane width willbe used. One northbound travel lane will be closed throughout construction. Ramp RC and Ramp NXto and from RFK Bridge will be closed and detour routes will be provided. Total of 4 long term stageswill be required and one weekend stage will be needed for entrance Ramp RD. Refer to Appendix Hfor WZTC plans and sections.

o Construction staging - Option 3 (reversible operation on ramp NB): Similar to Option 1, Travel lanewidths will be reduced to accommodate staged construction. Eleven (11) ft minimum lane width willbe used. Two travel lanes will be closed throughout construction (one southbound lane and onenorthbound lane). Ramp SB to Major Deegan will be closed and southbound traffic will be shifted toRamp NB. Ramp NB will utilize two-way traffic. Traffic will need to cross over to Ramp NB andwidening/pavement modifications at Major Deegan EXPWY will be needed. Ramp RC and Ramp NXto and from RFK Bridge will be closed and detour routes will be provided. Total of 3 long term stageswill be required and one weekend stage will be needed for entrance Ramp RD. Refer to Appendix Hfor WZTC plans and sections.

Option 1 is recommended based on traffic impact and the length of traffic queues; refer to trafficanalysis below for more details.

Traffic AnalysisDetailed capacity analyses were performed for the WZTC staging plans for the construction area.CORSIM (version 6.3) was used to analyze mainline segments and ramps within each work zone duringthe peak periods projected to experience the worst congestion.

Detailed analysis was conducted for the Weekday PM period, as it is projected to experience the highestvolumes and congestion during construction. Exhibit 2.3.1.7 – 1 details the level of service and density foreach segment and ramp within the project area. Exhibit 2.3.1.7-2 details queue lengths and unprocessedvolumes. Queue Length Diagrams are found in Appendix C.


2-12

Exhibit - 2.3.1.7-1Highway Design Year 2019 Analysis Results

Level of Service (Density - passenger car per mile per lane)Weekday PM Period – Segments/Ramps

LOCATION (Northbound) NO-BUILD OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3RFK Bridge

(to Bruckner Expressway) F (79.4) F (80.7) F (84.1) F (113.7)

Entrance Ramp from Major DeeganExpressway (Ramp NB)(to Bruckner Expressway)

F (57.0) F (58.9) E (37.8)* F (154.3)


(to Bruckner Expressway)F (97.0) F (98.2) CLOSED F (139.7)

LOCATION (Southbound) NO-BUILD OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3Southbound Bruckner Expressway(E 138th Street Exit to Major Deegan

Expressway ExitF (103.5) F (114.2) F (117.8) F (148.6)


(from Bruckner Expressway)F (108.9) F (103.1)** F (104.8)** CLOSED

Exit Ramp to RFK Bridge(Ramp RC)

(from Bruckner Expressway)C (22.0) C (25.1) CLOSED C (20.3)**

* Lower conflicting volumes due to closure of Ramp NX and diversion of all RFK Bridge traffic to localstreet network.** Lower ramp volumes due to metered upstream traffic in work zone.

Exhibit - 2.3.1.7-2Highway Design Year 2019 Analysis Results

Queue Length (Feet)Weekday PM Period – Segments/Ramps

NORTHBOUND NO-BUILD OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3

Total Queue Length 12,500 13,300 14,500 19,300

SOUTHBOUND

Total Queue Length 5,600 7,600 29,100 25,800

o Construction staging - Option 1 (staged construction): As there will be no reduction in travel lanes orramp closures during the peak hours, there will be no significant differences between the No-Buildand Option 1.

o Construction staging - Option 2 (accelerated staged construction): This closure causes severequeuing as vehicles exit from the RFK Bridge, with the queue extending to the south edge ofRandall’s Island, as well as large queues on the local detour route to the E 138th Street EntranceRamp. In the southbound direction, the detour of RFK Bridge traffic to Ramp RE creates substantialcongestion upstream of the project area, with the queue extending onto I-95 southbound.

o Construction staging - Option 3 (two-way operation on ramp NB): Stage 1 was analyzed in Option 3in order to represent the worst-case scenario. In the northbound direction, the merge of Ramp NBfrom the Major Deegan Expressway and Ramp NX from the RFK Bridge causes severe queuingalong both ramps and upstream mainline segments with the RFK Bridge queue extending to theQueens side of the RFK Bridge. In the southbound direction, the loss of one travel lane, the closure of


2-13

Ramp SB, and subsequent diversion of Major Deegan Expressway traffic to Ramp NB, is projected toresult in increased congestion along the Bruckner Expressway mainline and heavy queues. Thesouthbound queue in Option 3 is projected to extend from the Major Deegan Expressway through theproject area to the Bruckner Interchange with I-95.

B. Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010)

The Region has determined that the subject project is significant per 23 CFR 630.1010.

A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR630.1012. The TMP will consist of:

• A Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan• A Transportation Operations (TO) component• A Public Information component (PI)

2.3.1.8 Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis

An accident analysis was performed as part of a Highway Safety Investigation (HSI) conducted inaccordance with NYS Highway Design Manual Chapter 5 in 2014 (HSI N14001). Crash data from thetwo-year period of 11/2010 – 10/2012 was collected and analyzed for the HSI. The accident rate for thenorthbound segment of Route I-278 based on the data was 1.29 accidents per million vehicle miles. Thisis the same as the 2010-2012 statewide accident rate for similar facilities (mainline 6 lane urbancontrolled access (full)), which is 1.29 accidents per million vehicle miles. The accident rate for thesouthbound segment of Route I-278 was 1.22 accidents per million vehicle miles. This is slightly belowthe 2010-2012 statewide accident rate for similar facilities.

There were no Priority Investigation Locations (PILs) identified within the study area.The predominant accident types are:

Exhibit 2.3.1.8.aCollision Summary

Route NB I-278, From RM 3000 (RFK Bridge) to RM 3007 (E 141st Street)Type of Collision Number Percentage

Rear End 14 40%Overtaking 12 34%

Fixed Object 8 23%Other 1 3%

Exhibit 2.3.1.8.bCollision Summary

Route SB I-278, From RM 4007 (E 141st Street) to RM 4000 (RFK Bridge)Type of Collision Number Percentage

Rear End 17 52%Overtaking 9 27%

Fixed Object 6 18%Other 1 3%

Rear-end (40% northbound and 52% southbound) and overtaking (34% northbound and 27%southbound) were the predominant types of crashes in this segment and the majority of the crashes (63%


2-14

northbound and 64% southbound) were classified as Property Damage Only. A detailed accident analysisincluding an accident summary (TE-213), collision diagrams (TE-56), and recommendations forimprovements appear in HSI Study N14001, which evaluated safety conditions along the length of theBruckner Expressway between the Hutchinson River Parkway and New York/Bronx County Line. Thedeficiencies identified in HSI N14001 included, but are not limited to, deteriorated pavement, fadedpavement markings, and non-standard guide signs and warning signs. Proposed short-termimprovements included repairing the pavement and resurfacing it with Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) overlays,refreshing faded pavement markings, and replacing non-standard guide signs and warning signs.

2.3.1.9 Lighting and ITS

There is existing lighting on the bridge and underdeck lighting. It is expected the existing lighting will bereplaced matching current standards during this project.

There is an existing NYSDOT ITS system on the structure. This system must be maintained duringconstruction, using a temporary system if necessary, and shall be restored, tested and operational afterthe end of the project.

2.3.1.10 Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction

The bridges are owned and maintained by NYSDOT. The ITS utilities carried on the bridge are ownedand maintained by NYSDOT. The Electric utilities for lighting carried on the bridge are owned byNYSDOT and maintained by NYCDOT.

2.3.2 Complete Streets

2.3.2.1 Pedestrians

Pedestrians are prohibited from accessing interstate highways such as the Bruckner Expresswayaccording to state law. The Bruckner Expressway viaduct is elevated and not accessible to pedestrians.Adequate crossings connecting both sides of the expressway are available below the structure.

2.3.2.2 Bicyclists

According to state law, bicyclists are prohibited from riding on interstate highways such as the BrucknerExpressway. Bicyclists cannot easily access the elevated Bruckner Expressway viaduct roadways.Bicyclists may utilize Bruckner Boulevard and local streets below the viaduct.

2.3.3 Infrastructure

2.3.3.1 Design Standards

The current editions of the following standards will be utilized:

NYSDOT Bridge Manual (U.S. Customary Edition) NYSDOT Highway Design Manual NYSDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Bridge AISC Manual of Steel Construction: Load and Resistance Factor Design


2-15

2.3.3.2 Critical Design Elements

Exhibits 2.3.3.2.a through c are the design criteria for the mainline and ramps. The mainline table, Exhibit2.3.3.2.a includes the design criteria for the mainline Bruckner. Exhibits 2.3.3.2.b and c are shown for theramps, one for ramps with a design speed of 50 mph and the second for ramps with a design speed of 40mph.


2-16

Exhibit 2.3.3.2.aCritical Design Elements for I-278/Bruckner Expressway

PIN: X731.45 NHS (Y/N): YesRoute No. & Name: I-278/Bruckner Expressway

(Mainline)Functional Classification: Urban Principal Arterial

InterstateProject Type: Reconstruction Design Classification: Interstate

% Trucks: 12% Terrain: LevelADT: 141,400 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Access-Yes; Qualifying-No

Element HDM Reference Standard ExistingCondition

ProposedCondition

1 Design Speed HDM Section 2.7.1.1 A 65 mph1 65 mph 65 mph

2Lane Width

One Lane= Two Lanes=

HDM Section 2.7.1.1 B 12 ft. Min. 12 ft. Min. 12 ft. Min.(Retain Existing)

3Shoulder Width Left= Right=

HDM Section 2.7.1.1 CExhibit 2-2 and Bridge

Manual Section 24 ft. Min.10 ft. Min.

4 ft. Min.3’-5” Min.*

4 ft. Min.3’-5” Min.*

(Retain Existing)

4 Bridge Roadway Width

HDM Section 2.7.1.1 Dand Bridge Manual

Section 2.3.1Table 2-1

Full Approach Width Full ApproachWidth

Full ApproachWidth

(Retain Existing)

5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.1.1 EExhibit 2-2 3% 1.8% 1.8%

(Retain Existing)

6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.1.1 FExhibit 2-2 1660 ft. Min. 4,000 ft. 4,000 ft.

(Retain Existing)7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.1.1 G 6% Max. 6.25% Max.* 6.0% Max.

8 Stopping Sight Distance HDM Section 2.7.1.1 HExhibit 2-2 645 ft. Min. 574 ft. Min.*

(Vertical)574 ft. Min.*

(Retain Existing)

9

Horizontal Clearance Without Barrier= With Barrier= HDM Section 2.7.1.1 l

15 ft. Min.4 ft. or Full Shoulderwidth, whichever is

greater

N/A3 ft. 5 in. Min.*

N/A3 ft. 5 in. Min.*

(Retain Existing)

10 Vertical Clearance(above traveled way)

Bridge ManualSection 2.4Table 2-2

16 ft. Min > 16 ft. > 16 ft.(Retain Existing)

11 Travel Lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.1.1 K 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 1.5% to 2% 1.5% to 2%(Retain Existing)

12 Rollover Between Travel Lanes=At Edge of Travelled Way= HDM Section 2.7.1.1 L 4% Max.

8% Max.3.5% Max.4% Max.

3.5% Max.4% Max

(Retain Existing)

13 Structural Capacity

Bridge ManualSection 2.6.2

HS 20 Live Load HS 20 Live Load

HS 25 Live Load(Deck)

HS 20 Live Load(Other Elements)

14 Level of ServiceHDM-Section 2.7.1.1 N

(Heavily DevelopedMetro)

DD

F*F*

F*F*

15 Control of Access HDM-Section 2.7.1.1 O Full Full Full

1) The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of 65 mph is consistent with theanticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume.*Denotes non-standard feature.


2-17

Exhibit 2.3.3.2.bCritical Design Elements for I-278/Bruckner Expressway Ramps


(RAMPS NB, SB, RC, NX)Functional Classification: Turning Roadway

Project Type: Reconstruction Design Classification: Interstate Ramp% Trucks: 8% Terrain: Level

ADT: 24,900 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Access-Yes; Qualifying-No


ProposedCondition


2Traveled Way Width

One Lane=Two Lanes=

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 BExhibit 2-9a 23 ft.

32 ft.N/A

36’-4” Min.N/A

37’-6” Min.


HDM Section 2.7.5.2 CExhibit 2-10

0 ft. Min, 2 ft. Des0 ft. Min, 2 ft. Des

1’-11” Min.1’-11” Min.

2’-6” Min.2’-6” Min.

4 Bridge Roadway Width HDM Section 2.7.5.2 D Full Approach Width Full ApproachWidth

Full ApproachWidth

(Retain Existing)

5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.5.2 EExhibit 2-10 5% 4.8% 4.8%

(Retain Existing)

6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.5.2 FExhibit 2-10 833 ft. Min. 292 ft. Min.* 292 ft. Min.*

(Retain Existing)

7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G 6% Max. 5.2% Max. 5.2% Max(Retain Existing)

8 Stopping Sight Distance HDM Section 2.7.5.2 HExhibit 2-10 425 ft. Min. 238 ft. Min *

(Vertical)238 ft. Min*

(Retain Existing)

9

Horizontal Clearance Left= Right= Under structures= HDM Section 2.7.5.2 l

3 ft. Min.6 ft. Min.

4 ft. beyond outsideshoulders to pier or

abutment

1’-11” Min.*1’-11” Min.*4 ft. beyond

outside shouldersto pier orabutment

2’-6” Min.*2’-6” Min.*

4 ft. beyondoutside shoulders

to pier orabutment



16’ ft. Min16’-6” ft. Desirable 14 ft. 6 in.* 14 ft. 6 in.*

(Retain Existing)

11 Travel Lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 1.5% to 2% 1.5% to 2% Max.(Retain Existing)

12 Rollover Between Travel Lanes=At Edge of Travelled Way=

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L 4% Max.8% Max.

4% Max.8% Max.

4% Max.8% Max

(Retain Existing)






14 Level of ServiceHDM Section 2.7.5.2 N


D F* F*

(1) The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of 50 mph is consistent with theanticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume.*Denotes non-standard feature.


2-18

Exhibit 2.3.3.2.cCritical Design Elements for I-278/Bruckner Expressway Ramps


(RAMP RD)Functional Classification: Turning Roadway

Project Type: Reconstruction Design Classification: Interstate Ramp% Trucks: 7% Max. Terrain: Level

ADT: 33,100 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Access-Yes; Qualifying-No


ProposedCondition


2Traveled Way Width

One Lane=Two Lanes=

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 BExhibit 2-9a 17 ft.

28 ft.19’-10”

N/A20 ft.N/A


HDM Section 2.7.5.2 CExhibit 2-10 2 ft. Min.

2 ft. Min.1’-5” Min.1’-5” Min.


4 Bridge Roadway Width HDM Section 2.7.5.2 D Full Approach Width Full ApproachWidth

Full ApproachWidth

5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.5.2 EExhibit 2-10 6% 6.87%* 6.87%*

(Retain Existing)

6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.5.2 FExhibit 2-10 485 ft. Min. R>1,000 ft. R>1,000 ft.

(Retain Existing)

7 Superelevation Rate HDM Section 2.7.5.2 G 6% Max. 2.0% Max. 2.0% Max.(Retain Existing)

8 Stopping Sight Distance HDM Section 2.7.5.2 HExhibit 2-10 305 ft. Min. 251 ft. Min.*

(Vertical)251 ft. Min.*

(Retain Existing)

9

Horizontal Clearance Left= Right= Under structures= HDM Section 2.7.5.2 l


4 ft. beyond outsideshoulders to pier or

abutment

1’-5” Min.*1’-5” Min.*

Min. 0 ft. beyondoutside shoulders

to pier orabutment*

2 ft. Min.*2 ft. Min.*

Min. 0 ft. beyondoutside shoulders

to pier orabutment*

(Retain Existing)



16’ ft. Min16’-6” ft Desirable N/A N/A

11 Travel Lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.5.2 K 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 1.5% to 2%1.5% Min. to 2%

Max.(Retain Existing)

12 Rollover Between Travel Lanes=At Edge of Travelled Way=

HDM Section 2.7.5.2 L 4% Max.8% Max.

0%0%

0%0%






14 Level of ServiceHDM Section 2.7.5.2 N


D F* F*

(1) The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of 40 mph is consistent with theanticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume.*Denotes non-standard feature.


2-19

2.3.3.3 Other Design Parameters

In addition to bridge design parameters listed in Critical Design Elements, Exhibit 2.3.3.2.a to 2.3.3.2.c,the following shall be considered:

Exhibit 2.3.3.3Other Design Parameters

Element Standard Existing Conditions Proposed ConditionMinimum traffic lane widthduring staged construction

Truck Traffic 11’ MinBM Section 2.3.3 N/A Minimum 11 ft.

Bridge Railing Service Level TL-5BM Table 6-1

Concrete Barrier withhandrail in some areas

3’-6” Single-SlopeConcrete Barrier

2.3.3.4 Existing and Proposed Highway/Bridge Plan and Section

Refer to Appendix A for existing plans and sections, and for proposed plans and typical sections of thepreferred alternative.

2.3.3.5 Non-Standard/Non-Conforming Features

The following non-standard features are proposed to be retained. Table E.1 in Appendix E of this reportis a list of the existing non-standard feature locations.

Shoulder Width – The existing Right Shoulder Width for the Mainline does not meet the standard 10 ftminimum width. This feature cannot be corrected within the scope of the project as the existing bridgewidth will be retained. This non-standard feature will be retained. See the Non-Standard FeatureJustification form in Appendix E of this report.

Maximum Grade – The existing vertical grades exceed the specified maximum along Ramp RD. Thisfeature cannot be corrected within the scope of the project as the existing grades and touch down pointswill be retained. This non-standard feature will be retained. See the Non-Standard Feature Justificationform in Appendix E of this report.

Horizontal Curvature – The existing horizontal curvatures are below the specified minimum at severallocations along Ramps NB, SB, RC and NX. This feature cannot be corrected within the scope of theproject as the existing bridge horizontal alignment will be retained. This non-standard feature will beretained. See the Non-Standard Feature Justification form in Appendix E of this report.

Stopping Sight Distance – The existing horizontal stopping sight distance is less than the specifiedminimum at one location along the mainline and along Ramps NB, SB, NX, RC, and RD. This featurecannot be corrected within the scope of the project as the existing bridge horizontal and verticalalignments will be retained. This non-standard feature will be retained. See the Non-Standard FeatureJustification form in Appendix E of this report.

Horizontal Clearance – The existing horizontal clearance is less than the specified minimum along themainline and along Ramps NX and RD. This feature cannot be corrected within the scope of the projectas the existing bridge horizontal alignment and width will be retained. A slight improvement at Ramp RDis proposed. This non-standard feature will be retained. See the Non-Standard Feature Justification formin Appendix E of this report.

Vertical Clearance - The existing vertical clearance is less than the specified minimum along Ramp RC.This feature cannot be corrected within the scope of the project as the existing bridge horizontal andvertical alignments will be retained. This non-standard feature will be retained. See the Non-StandardFeature Justification form in Appendix E of this report.


2-20

The following non-conforming features will be addressed as part of the construction.

Bridge Deck – The existing reinforced concrete bridge decks in the project area have a thickness of 8 ½inches with a 1 ½ inch thick asphalt overlay. The above will be replaced with a 9 ½ inch thick reinforcedconcrete bridge deck with integral wearing surface in accordance with NYSDOT standards.

Bridge Railing – The existing concrete barrier with one-rail bridge railing is non-conforming and will bereplaced with 3’-6” single-sloped concrete barrier, adequate for a TL-5 service level, as detailed onNYSDOT Bridge Detail sheets.

2.3.3.6 Pavement and Shoulder Conditions

The Bruckner Expressway project is a bridge rehabilitation project and does not include at-grade roadwaypavement reconstruction.

2.3.3.7 Drainage Systems

Drainage work will include the spread analysis on the bridge deck surface to determine the extent of thespread into travel lanes and the adequacy of the scuppers at the existing locations. Scuppers will bereplaced as part of the new bridge deck and the downspout will utilize the existing piping locations totransfer drainage to the ground. Drainage pipes will be replaced as needed.

2.3.3.8 Geotechnical

The Bruckner Expressway project is a bridge deck replacement project with limited seismic retrofits. Thescope of work does not include complete geotechnical and seismic analysis. Therefore, geotechnicalinvestigations are not included.

2.3.3.9 Structures

The project proposes to replace the existing concrete deck and joints, replace bearings and minor repairsof steel members and substructures. The following is a description of the existing bridges included in thisproject.


2-21

Exhibit 2.3.3.9.aStructure Data

DATA EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTUREBIN 1066669 1066669Feature Carried/Crossed See Below See Below

Type of Bridge Steel multi-girder with reinforcedconcrete deck

Steel multi-girder with reinforcedconcrete deck

Number and Length ofSpans

176 Spans. Span length varies(43 spans included in this project)

176 Spans. Span length varies(43 spans included in this project)

Lane Width(s) 12’-0” 12’-0”Shoulder Width(s) 3’-5” – 4’-1¼” 3’-11¾” - 4’-0”Sidewalk(s) None NoneUtilities Carried See Section 2.3.3.12 See Section 2.3.3.12Vertical Clearance(s) Varies, >16’ Varies, >16’Federal Sufficiency Rating 58 TBDState Condition Rating 3.507 5 Minimum

Feature Carried/Crossed – BIN 1066669 carries the northbound and southbound lanes of theBruckner Expressway (I-278) over Bruckner Blvd and extends from the RFK Bridge approach atthe south end to the E165th St. at the north end.

Type of Bridge – BIN 1066669 is a 176-span structure that begins as a ramp carrying two lanesof northbound traffic from the Major Deegan Expressway to the Bruckner Expressway (I-278)then transitions to a six lane highway carrying both north and southbound traffic. At its maximum,the highway is 94 feet in width measured from the outer faces of the parapets and has a minimumwidth of 40’-6” feet. The steel framing consists of multiple rolled steel girders supporting areinforced concrete deck, concrete median barriers and concrete parapet barriers with steelbridge rails. The structural span configuration consists of a combination of simple spans and up to3-span continuous spans. The steel girders are supported by steel rocker bearings. Theabutments are conventional concrete cantilever types supported on cast-in-place concretes piles.The Begin approach ramp is supported by concrete with brick façade concrete retaining wallssupported on concrete footings. The End Approach is supported by a similar structure, in additionto a concrete retaining wall aligning the existing railroad tracks. The superstructure is primarilysupported by reinforced concrete pier caps with multiple reinforced concrete columns oroccasional steel box beam pier caps with reinforced concrete columns. The piers are founded onreinforced concrete footings supported by steel or cast-in-place concrete piles.

History & Deficiencies – The bridge was constructed in 1959 under three (3) separatecontracts: Contract No. FIBE 58-4, Contract No. FIBE 57-3 and FIBE 60-1.

As per the biennial inspection report completed in November 2013, deficiencies on the structuraldeck, expansion bearings & joints, concrete piers and steel girders have caused poor conditionratings of the bridge structure. In recent years, minor rehabilitation work has been done toaddress localized repairs of various bridge elements to maintain serviceability of the bridge.Currently, this bridge is under NYSDOT Contract D262631, for corrective maintenance work.

Inspection - See the latest biennial inspection report in Appendix D.

Restrictions – The Bridge is currently open to traffic with no restrictions.

Waterway – N/A


2-22

Exhibit 2.3.3.9.bStructure Data

DATA EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTUREBIN 106666A 106666AFeature Carried/Crossed See Below See Below



Number and Length ofSpans 14 Spans, Span length varies 14 Spans, Span length varies

Lane Width(s) One Lane = 21’-0” Two Lanes =12’-0” Each

One Lane = 21’-0” Two Lanes =12’-0” Each

Shoulder Width(s) 1’-11” 2’-6””Sidewalk(s) None NoneUtilities Carried See Section 2.3.3.12 See Section 2.3.3.12Vertical Clearance(s) N/A N/AFederal SufficiencyRating 97 TBD

State Condition Rating 4.746 5 Minimum

Feature Carried/Crossed – BIN 106666A carries the northbound entrance ramp to the BrucknerExpressway (I-278) from the RFK Tri-borough Bridge (I-278) and extends approximately from theRFK bridge approach at the south end to E138th St at the north end.

Type of Bridge – BIN 106666A is a 14-span ramp structure that carries one to two lanes ofnorthbound traffic with a typical width of 47’-0” measured from the outer faces of the parapets.The steel framing consists of multiple rolled steel girders supporting a reinforced concrete deckand concrete parapet barriers with steel bridge rails. The structural span configuration consists ofa combination of simply supported spans and up to 3-span continuous spans. The steel girdersare supported by steel rocker bearings. The end abutment is a conventional concrete cantilevertypes supported on cast-in-place concretes piles. The End Approach ramp is supported byconcrete with brick façade retaining walls supported on reinforced concrete footings. The BeginApproach ties into the mainline of the Bruckner Expressway. The superstructure is supported byreinforced concrete pier caps with multiple reinforced concrete columns. The mostly hammerhead piers are founded on reinforced concrete footings supported by steel or cast-in-placeconcrete piles.

History & Deficiencies – The 14 span bridge was constructed in 1959 under Contract No. FIBE58-4.

As per biennial the inspection report completed in October 2013, deficiencies on the underside ofthe structural deck, expansion bearing components, concrete piers and exposed concretefootings have caused poor condition ratings. In recent years, minor rehabilitation or correctivemaintenance work has been done to address localized repairs of various bridge elements. Theexisting structure is not slated for minor rehabilitation work in the near future.


Restrictions – The bridge is currently open to traffic with no restrictions.

Waterway – N/A


2-23

Exhibit 2.3.3.9.cStructure Data

DATA EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTUREBIN 106666B 106666BFeature Carried/Crossed See Below See Below




Lane Width(s) 12’-0” 12’-0”Shoulder Width(s) 3’-5” – 8’-11” 4’-0” – 9’-6”Sidewalk(s) None NoneUtilities Carried See Section 2.3.3.12 See Section 2.3.3.12Vertical Clearance(s) 14’-6” 14’-6”Federal Sufficiency Rating 76 TBDState Condition Rating 4.155 5 Minimum

Feature Carried/Crossed – BIN 106666B carries the southbound exit ramp from the BrucknerExpressway (I-278) to the RFK Tri-borough Bridge (I-278) and extends approximately from theRFK bridge approach at the south end to E138th St. at the north end.

Type of Bridge – BIN 106666B is a 14-span structure that carries two lanes of southboundtraffic with a maximum width of 40’-6” measured from the outer faces of the parapets. The steelframing consists of multiple rolled steel girders supporting a reinforced concrete deck andconcrete parapet barriers with steel bridge rails. The structural span configuration consists of acombination of simply supported spans and up to 3-span continuous spans. The steel girders aresupported by steel rocker bearings. The end abutment is a conventional concrete cantilever typesupported on cast-in-place concretes piles. The End Approach ramp is supported by concretewith brick façade concrete retaining walls supported on reinforced concrete footings. The BeginApproach ties the ramp into the mainline of the Bruckner Expressway. The superstructure issupported by reinforced concrete pier caps with multiple reinforced concrete columns. The piers,a combination of hammer head and multi-column with pier caps, are founded on reinforcedconcrete footings supported by steel or cast-in-place concrete piles.

History & Deficiencies –The 14 span bridge was constructed in 1959 under Contract No. FIBE58-4.

As per the biennial inspection report completed in May 2014, deficiencies on the underside of thestructural deck, expansion bearing components, and concrete piers have caused poor ratings. Inrecent years, minor rehabilitation or corrective maintenance work has been done to addresslocalized repairs of various bridge elements. The existing structure is not slated for minorrehabilitation work in the near future.


Restrictions – The bridge is currently open to traffic with no restrictions.

Waterway – N/A


2-24

Exhibit 2.3.3.9.dStructure Data

DATA EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTURE

BIN 106666C 106666CFeature Carried/Crossed See Below See Below




Lane Width(s) 12’-0” 12’-0”Shoulder Width(s) 3’-5” – 8’-11” 4’-0” – 9’-6”Sidewalk(s) None NoneUtilities Carried See Section 2.3.3.12 See Section 2.3.3.12Vertical Clearance(s) N/A N/AFederal Sufficiency Rating 83 TBDState Condition Rating 4.085 5 Minimum

Feature Carried/Crossed – BIN 106666C carries the southbound exit ramp from the BrucknerExpressway (I-278) to the Major Deegan Expressway (I-87) and extends from Cypress Ave at thesouth end to E139th St. at the north end.

Type of Bridge – BIN 106666C is a 21-span structure that carries two lanes of southboundtraffic with a typical width of 40’-6” measured from the outer faces of the parapet. The steelframing consists of multiple rolled steel girders supporting a reinforced concrete deck andconcrete parapet barriers with steel bridge rails. The structural span configuration consists of acombination of simply supported spans and up to 3-span continuous spans. The steel girders aresupported by steel rocker bearings. The end abutment is a conventional concrete cantilever typesupported on cast-in-place concretes piles. The End Approach ramp is supported by concretewith brick façade concrete retaining walls supported on reinforced concrete footings. The BeginApproach ramp ties the ramp into the mainline of the Bruckner Expressway. The superstructure issupported by reinforced concrete pier caps with multiple reinforced concrete columns. The piers,a combination of hammer head and multi-column with pier caps, are founded on reinforcedconcrete footings supported by steel or cast-in-place concrete piles.

History & Deficiencies – The Bridge was constructed in 1959 under Contract No. FIBE 58-4.

As per the biennial inspection report completed in September 2014, deficiencies on the undersideof the structural deck, expansion bearings, concrete piers & cap beams and end approach havecaused poor ratings. In recent years, minor rehabilitation or corrective maintenance work hasbeen done to address localized repairs of various bridge elements to maintain serviceability of thebridge. Currently, this bridge is under NYSDOT Contract D262631, for corrective maintenancework.



Waterway – N/A


2-25

Exhibit 2.3.3.9.eStructure Data

DATA EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTUREBIN 106666D 106666DFeature Carried/Crossed See Below See Below




Lane Width(s) 20’-0” 20’-0”Shoulder Width(s) 1’-5” 2’-0”Sidewalk(s) None NoneUtilities Carried See Section 2.3.3.12 See Section 2.3.3.12Vertical Clearance(s) 12’-10” 12’-10”Federal Sufficiency Rating 94 TBDState Condition Rating 4.718 5 Minimum

Feature Carried/Crossed – BIN 106666D carries the northbound entrance ramp to the BrucknerExpressway (I-278) from Bruckner Blvd and extends from approximately E138th St. at the southend to E140th St. at the north end.

Type of Bridge – BIN 106666D is a 5-span structure that carries one lane of northbound trafficwith a width of 27’-0” measured from the outer faces of the parapets. The steel framing consistsof multiple rolled steel girders supporting a reinforced concrete deck and concrete parapetbarriers with steel bridge rails. The structural span configuration consists of two simply supportedspans and one 3-span continuous span. The steel girders are supported by steel rocker bearings.The end abutment is a conventional concrete cantilever type supported on cast-in-placeconcretes piles. The End Approach ramp is supported by concrete with brick façade concreteretaining walls supported on reinforced concrete footings. The Begin Approach ties the ramp intothe mainline of the Bruckner Expressway. The superstructure is supported by reinforced concretepier caps with multiple reinforced concrete columns. The hammer head piers are founded onreinforced concrete footings supported by steel or cast-in-place concrete piles.

History & Deficiencies – The 5 span bridge was constructed in 1962 under Contract No. FIBE58-4.

As per the inspection report completed August 2014, deficiencies on the underside of thestructural deck and expansion bearings have caused poor ratings. In recent years, minorrehabilitation or corrective maintenance work has been done to address localized repairs ofvarious bridge elements. The existing structure is not slated for minor rehabilitation work in thenear future.



Waterway – N/A


2-26

2.3.3.10 Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts

There are no bridge crossings over waterways or culverts involved in this project. There are no dams inthe vicinity of the project.

2.3.3.11 Constructability Review

The NYSDOT Regional Construction Group will review this project and any concerns raised will beaddressed.

2.3.3.12 Utilities

The Bruckner Expressway project is a bridge rehabilitation project. As such, the focus is on utilitiescarried by the Bruckner Expressway viaduct. Electrical conduits are carried under the existing deck andare embedded in the concrete bridge parapets for the bridge deck lighting and ITS. Along with the bridgedeck and parapet replacement, this system will be replaced with a new system of conduits and lightassemblies.

Along Bruckner Boulevard and surrounding roadways there are existing underground electric, fiber optic,water, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and gas utilities. The utilities along Bruckner Boulevard will not beaffected by this project.

2.3.3.13 Right of Way

The scope of work involves bridge rehabilitation and Right of Way acquisition is not required for thisproject.

Refer to the ROW Plan in Appendix G.

2.3.3.14 Landscaping/Environmental Enhancement

The project setting is urban with limited opportunities for landscape enhancements. Also, the majority ofthe project is elevated structures with all concrete decks.

2.4 Miscellaneous

2.4.1 NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA)

Pursuant to ECL Article 6, this project is compliant with the New York State Smart Growth PublicInfrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA). It is a maintenance and repair project that will ensure the long-timeviability of critical transportation infrastructure.


3-1

CHAPTER 3 – SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTALCONSIDERATIONS

Refer to the Environmental Checklist included in Appendix B for information on all environmental issuesfor which the project was screened. Appendix B Figure 3-1 shows the Study Area for this environmentalanalysis.

3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

This project is being progressed as a NEPA Class II action (Categorical Exclusion) because it does notindividually or cumulatively have a significant environmental impact and is excluded from the requirementto prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) asdocumented in the Federal Environmental Approvals Worksheet (FEAW) and following discussion in thischapter.

Specifically, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s regulations in 23 CFR 771.117(c)this project is one of the project types described in the ‘C’ list as “Modernization of a highway byresurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction…” and does not significantly impact theenvironment. Refer to Appendix B for the FEAW.

3.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

New York State Department of Transportation is the SEQRA lead agency as per 17 NYCRR Part 15“Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act”, Section 15.5. TheDepartment has determined that this project is a SEQRA Type II Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR,Part 15. No further SEQRA processing is required. The project has been identified as a Type II action,per 17 NYCRR Section 15.14, Subdivision (e), Item 37, Paragraph (iv). This permits the project to beclassified as Type II since the project does not violate any of the criteria contained in subdivision (d) ofSection 15.14, and is of a scale and scope illustrated by the following:

(iv) replacement, reconstruction or rehabilitation, at present site or immediately adjacentthereto, of existing bridges, culverts or other transportation structures, including railroadcrossing structures, not involving substantial expansion of the structure.

3.3 Additional Environmental Information

For the following resources, the Proposed Project requires no analysis due to the lack of that resource orissue within the project limits:

Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Aquifers, Wells, and Reservoirs General Ecology and Wildlife Resources Threatened and Endangered Species Critical Environmental Areas Visual Resources Farmlands

Other resources are present in the project limits, but would sustain no significant impact as a result of theProposed Project, as follows:


3-2

3.3.1 Land UseThe Bruckner Expressway, along with the Major Deegan Expressway and the Arthur V. SheridanExpressway, provides highway access to the southwestern part of the Bronx, creating a southern loop onthe east-west conduit of I-95 from New Jersey and Manhattan east through the Bronx, to Queens andLong Island. The Proposed Project is bounded by the Mott Haven and Woodstock sections to thenorthwest, the Crotona Park section to the northeast, the Port Morris section to the southwest, and theHunts Point section to the southeast. The project area supports a mix of wholesale, industrial,commercial, transportation and residential uses (see Appendix B Figure 3-2).

The Proposed Project would not entail the construction of new roadway, an increase in the capacity of theexisting roadway, or new or modified points of access to the highway. Rather, the Proposed Project wouldcomprise only the restoration and rehabilitation of the existing Bruckner Expressway within its existingright-of-way and footprint. Thus, the Proposed Project would not change land use within the project limits,and it would result in no significant impact to land use.

3.3.2 Neighborhoods and Community CohesionThe residential sections of the project limits are characterized by neighborhoods and communities largelydelineated by the orientation of major thoroughfares. The Proposed Project would not divide theseneighborhoods or isolate any part of any neighborhood. The Proposed Project involves no displacementor relocation of the residences or businesses. While ingress and egress ramp closures would be requiredduring the Proposed Project’s construction phase, these closures would be temporary and would notsubstantially impair the ability of residents and nonresidents to access the neighborhoods. Thus, theProposed Project would not result in significant impacts to neighborhoods and community cohesion.

3.3.3 General Social GroupsSocial groups in the Study Area include a high concentration of low-income and minority populations.These populations exist in the Study Area generally, and at a Census Tract Block Group level inparticularly, mostly in excess of the rate at which similar populations are found both in the borough of theBronx and in New York City as a whole (see Appendix B Figure 3-3). Nonetheless, as the ProposedProject would not result in any significant impacts, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts tominority or low income populations or social groups would occur.

Also, because the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts, no disproportionately high andadverse impacts would affect elderly and/or disabled persons or groups, or, particularly because transitavailability would not be changed, transit-dependent individuals.

3.3.4 School Districts, Recreation Areas and Places of WorshipThe Study Area contains numerous community facilities, such as school districts containing multipleindividual schools, recreation areas, and places of worship (see Appendix B Figure 3-4). The ProposedProject would not relocate or change access to these facilities, and therefore, it would not impact thesefacilities.

3.3.5 Regional and Local EconomiesThe Rehabilitation of the Bruckner Expressway would occur within existing NYSDOT right-of-way, andthere would be no acquisition of property. The proposed reduction in speed during construction would notsubstantially impact travel times for commuters, trucks, and other traffic through the area. While theProposed Project would include the temporary closure of ingress and egress ramps associated with theBruckner Expressway during construction, NYSDOT would manage access to commercial and industrialfacilities through a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) Plan. Thus, the Proposed Project wouldnot significantly impact the regional or local economy.

3.3.6 Business DistrictsThe Study Area is characterized by a mix of industrial, commercial and residential uses. Businesses arefound throughout the Study Area, and do not comprise a specific district. While the Proposed Projectwould include the temporary closure of ingress and egress ramps associated with the Bruckner


3-3

Expressway during construction, access to businesses within the Study Area would not be impacted.Parking would be maintained along local roadways that serve businesses, and transit stops would not bechanged. Thus, no significant impacts to Study Area business facilities or access to these businesses areexpected.

3.3.7 Specific Business ImpactsBecause business properties would not be acquired and access to businesses would be maintained, nosignificant impacts to any specific business interests in the Study Area are expected.

3.3.8 WetlandsThere are no NYSDEC-regulated freshwater wetlands or regulated adjacent areas in the Study Area perthe NYSDEC Environmental Mapper, April 26, 2016. Based on a review of National Wetlands Inventorymaps, no federal jurisdictional wetlands are located within the Study Area.

3.3.9 Surface Waterbodies and WatercoursesNo Waters of the United States or other streams, ponds, or waterbodies are located in the study area(see Appendix B Figure 3-6), and therefore, no impacts to surface waterbodies or watercourses wouldoccur.

3.3.10 Navigable WatersNo work for the Proposed Project would take place within a navigable waterway.

3.3.11 FloodplainsPortions of the Proposed Project Area are located within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains of theEast River (see Appendix B Figure 3-7). Those floodplains are affected by regional storm tide levels ofthe East River and the Long Island Sound, which is controlled by offshore water levels, wind patterns, andbathymetric and topographic features. The Proposed Project would not displace any additional floodwater volume over what it displaces under existing conditions. No additional structures would beconstructed within the floodplain. The Proposed Project would not significantly encroach on thefloodplains, would not present significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facilitythat is needed for emergency vehicles, and would not impact natural beneficial floodplain functions andvalues. Therefore, no significant impact to floodplains would result.

3.3.12 Coastal ResourcesThe Proposed Project is located in a State Coastal Zone Management area (see Appendix B Figure 3-8)and is federally funded. A Federal-Aid Notification has been sent to the New York State Department ofState, and a Coastal Assessment Form was completed (see Appendix B). The assessment concludesthat the Proposed Project would be consistent with Coastal Zone policies.

The Proposed Project is located within the South Bronx Significant Maritime and Industrial Area.Accordingly, a New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Assessment Form wascompleted (see Appendix B). The assessment concludes that the Proposed Project would be consistentwith the New York City Waterfront Revitalization Program.

The Proposed Project is not located in or near a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.

3.3.13 Stormwater ManagementProjects that disturb soils or increase impervious surface have the potential to affect the quality andquantity of stormwater run-off that may discharge into surface or subsurface waters. The ProposedProject would not increase impervious surface, but instead would consist of the redecking of an existingelevated roadway. As a result, stormwater in the form of runoff from impervious surfaces would not


3-4

exceed quantities under existing conditions, and would be controlled through the implementation ofstandard collection and treatment practices.

The Proposed Project would include erosion and sedimentation control measures as set forth inNYSDOT’s statewide construction erosion and sedimentation control specifications, standard constructiondetails, and design and construction guidance procedures.

Because of the minimal nature of soil disturbance and because no increase in impervious surface area isproposed, the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts in terms of stormwatermanagement.

3.3.14 Historic and Cultural Resources3.3.14.1 National Heritage Areas ProgramThere are no National Heritage Areas near the project limits.

3.3.14.2 National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 / State Historic Preservation Act– Section 14.09The Bruckner Expressway (I-278) is exempt from the requirements of Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act under a nationwide exemption for the Interstate Highway System, issued by theAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation on March 10, 2005. The exemption also applies to the SheridanExpressway (I-895). Certain elements identified on the Final List of Nationally and ExceptionallySignificant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway System, published in the Federal Register onDecember 19, 2006, are excluded from the Section 106 exemption. Interstate elements on this listcontinue to be subject to consideration under Section 106. However, the Bruckner Expressway is not onthe list of features excluded from the exemption. While the Cross-Bronx Expressway (I-95) is on the list offeatures excluded from the exemption, the project will not affect this resource.

23 U.S. Code Section 103 allows for individual elements of the interstate system to be considered historicsites subject to compliance with Section 303 of Title 49 or Section 138 of Title 23, as applicable, andSection 106. While the viaduct to be rehabilitated is an individual element of the Interstate System thatcould, in practice, be considered a historic site under Section 303 of Title 49 or Section 138 of Title 23,the Bruckner Expressway itself is not on the list of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features.Therefore, the viaduct to be rehabilitated, including any of its component elements, would not haveexceptional historic significance. The proposed project would, therefore, have No Effect on the BrucknerExpressway under Section 106.

3.3.14.3 Architectural ResourcesHistoric architectural properties, eligible for inclusion in, or listed on, the National Register of HistoricPlaces, have been identified along the blocks that abut Bruckner Boulevard in the area of proposedconstruction. However, the project’s activities do not have the potential to cause effects on these historicproperties since it would not involve ground disturbance, and above ground activities would be about 60feet away from these structures. Thus, the project would have No Effect on architectural properties withinthe project’s area of potential effect.

3.3.14.4 Archaeological ResourcesThe proposed work associated with the project will occur within the Bruckner Expressway viaduct, andproposed work will not involve any ground disturbance. Therefore, there is no potential for the presenceof archaeological resources within the proposed area of disturbance for the project.

3.3.14.5 Historic BridgesThere are no historic bridges located within the study area.

3.3.14.6 Historic Parkways


3-5

This project is not located near any Historic Parkways.

3.3.15 Parks and Recreational ResourcesParks and recreational resources in the study area are shown in Appendix B Figure 3-4. The ProposedProject would not require the disturbance of parklands or recreational resources, either physically orconstructively. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts on parklands orrecreational resources.

3.3.16 Air QualityThe Proposed Project would result in diversions due to temporary lane closures covering the project areaduring the span of the Proposed Project’s construction period. A critical location with diversions wasevaluated for potential effects on carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) emissions.

CO screenings analyses and evaluation of PM emissions for the project area were prepared using resultsfrom the traffic analysis (see Appendix C) for the worst-case time period, which is the weekday PM peakhour (3:15 PM – 4:15 PM) for each respective construction year. For the project area, the constructionyear analyzed is 2019. The analysis year was evaluated for the CO and PM screening analyses.

3.3.16.1 Regulatory Framework

Air quality is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the Clean Air Act(CAA) and its amendments, aimed to achieve and maintain criteria pollutant levels lower than theconcentrations defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and revised periodicallyby the USEPA. If the NAAQS are exceeded in any given state, the CAA mandates that the stateformulate and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to attain the NAAQS. The air qualityevaluation for the Proposed Project is based on the general State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA) guidance from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC),NYSDOT’s The Environmental Manual (TEM), and USEPA modeling guidance.

3.3.16.2 Transportation ConformityThe preliminary design for the project is currently listed in the approved New York MetropolitanTransportation Council (NYMTC) 2014-2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and theProposed Project is anticipated to be added to the TIP.

The Proposed Project is categorized as an exempt project under 40 CFR, Part 93.126; therefore, theProposed Project is exempt from conformity analyses.

3.3.16.3 Carbon MonoxideThe screening analysis for CO was conducted according to the NYSDOT TEM for the peak periodanalyzed for the analysis year 2019 at a critical location, which is Bruckner Boulevard and East 138thStreet.

Since the critical location is expected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or worse and experience anincrease of traffic volume of more than 10 percent due to diversions from lane closure onto roadways thatwould be closer to sensitive receptors, Volume Threshold Screening was conducted at an approachprojected to experience an increase in traffic volume.

Since this critical location is expected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or worse and experience anincrease of traffic volume of more than 10 percent due to diversions from lane closure onto roadways thatwould be closer to sensitive receptors, Volume Threshold Screening was conducted at approachesprojected to experience an increase in traffic volume.

The approach with the highest peak-hour volume in the year 2019 would be eastbound BrucknerBoulevard at East 138th Street, with 1,478 vehicles. This would be below the Volume Threshold criteria of


3-6

3,800 vehicles per hour, based on a comparison of the emission factors obtained from the USEPAMOVES 2014a model and Table 3c of the TEM.

Based on the above, a CO microscale air quality analysis is not necessary since the Proposed Projectwould not increase traffic volumes, reduce source-receptor distances, or change other existing conditionsto such a degree as to jeopardize continued attainment of the NAAQS. Also, no individual construction-related diversion or detour by area is planned that would last for more than one year (two consecutive COseasons).

3.3.16.4 Mesoscale AnalysisThe Proposed Project would not substantially affect air quality conditions over a large area and is not aregionally significant project, as defined in 6 NYCRR Part 240 and 40 CFR 93.101. It also does not meetany of the criteria of the NYSDOT TEM Air Quality Chapter that would warrant a mesoscale analysis.Therefore, a mesoscale analysis is not required.

3.3.16.5 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)The amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) if othervariables, such as fleet mix, remains constant. The Proposed Project is not expected to result in changesin peak hour VMT or fleet mix, and there would be no increase in capacity for the roadways affected bythe Proposed Project. Since the estimated peak hour VMT is not expected to substantially increase, it isexpected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions from the Proposed Project.In addition, emissions would likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of USEPA'snational control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 80 percentbetween 2010 and 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mixand 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 theproject area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases. Based on the FHWA December 2012updated interim guidance on MSATs, the Proposed Project will have no meaningful potential impacts; itdoes not require further MSATs analysis because it is exempt from transportation conformityrequirements under 40 CFR 93.126.

3.3.16.6 Particulate MatterNYSDOT guidance states that PM microscale/hot-spot analysis under SEQRA should be based on theUSEPA guidance Transportation Conformity Guidance to Quantitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 andPM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. The USEPA guidance lists the types of projects that couldbe of concern for PM. These projects include those that have a substantial number or would substantiallyincrease the number of diesel vehicles.

The current vehicle mix in the overall project area is approximately 90 percent cars, 7 percent trucks, and3 percent buses for the northeast bound direction and approximately 91 percent cars, 6 percent trucks,and 3 percent buses in the southwest bound direction. Since the Proposed Project is only expected todivert vehicles during lane closure, there would be no change in the overall vehicle mix, and thepercentage of diesel vehicles traveling to the area would not increase as a result of the Proposed Project.While the number of heavy duty vehicles diverted may be large, the diverted traffic would still beoperating at the same location but at a different elevation, since diverted vehicles are anticipated to usethe Bruckner Boulevard (both express and local lanes) below the Bruckner Expressway/I-278. However,travel speeds on the lower-level lanes would be reduced and could therefore result in an overall increasein peak hour emissions.

Travel speeds for diverted traffic would be reduced from the range of approximately 5 to 10 mph on theBruckner Expressway to the range of approximately 1 to 9 mph on the Bruckner Boulevard express andlocal lanes.


3-7

For the areas with local lanes, the diversions would also include some diesel vehicles within the existingmix rerouting to these local lanes, which in some cases are closer to sensitive receptors. However, theseincreases from diverted traffic would be dispersed onto all lower-level travel lanes and would not beconcentrated on the local lanes, and there would be a reduction of vehicles traveling on the upper-levelexpressway in all areas. The overall traffic volumes and vehicle mix would remain the same. Therefore,the changes in PM emissions in the areas studied are not expected to result in PM concentrationsexceeding the NAAQS at any nearby receptors. Because the Proposed Project is not a project of airquality concern according to the criteria in the Transportation Conformity Regulation at 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1), no quantitative microscale analysis for PM is warranted.

3.3.17 NoiseThe Proposed Project also would not substantially alter the horizontal or vertical roadway alignment suchthat vehicular traffic and its associated noise would be closer to sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) andthereby raise the noise levels experienced at those sensitive receptors. Because there would be nochange in horizontal or vertical alignment, no noise analysis is needed under the NYSDOT NoiseAnalysis Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.18 of The Environmental Manual). Because the ProposedProject would not create a change in alignment or capacity, it would not result in any significant impacts interms of noise.

Construction activities would result in increased noise levels at sensitive receptors. Construction noisewould be mitigated to the extent practicable through the implementation of standard measures, includinglimitations on construction days and hours. All measures undertaken to mitigate potential noise impactswould be set forth in a Noise Mitigation Plan, which is required under the New York City Noise Code(Local Law of 2005).

3.3.18 EnergyThe Proposed Project would require the use of energy (gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity) during theconstruction phase for the purpose of operating construction equipment, with no energy use abovebaseline conditions in the operational phase. However, the Proposed Project does not warrant an energyanalysis, as it would not substantially impact energy utilization.

3.3.19 AsbestosA preliminary asbestos assessment of the project area was performed to identify any asbestos containingmaterials (ACM) and suspect asbestos containing materials (SACM) that may be disturbed or affected byproject activities (see Appendix B). The assessment consisted of a site visit in April 2016 as well as areview of record plans and as-built drawings.

Both the site visit and the document review indicate that ACMs and SACMs exist in the project area,including in portions of the Bruckner Expressway infrastructure that would be replaced as part of theProposed Project. Based on the preliminary assessment, collection and laboratory analysis of SACMsmust be performed. Any ACMs to be impacted by project construction would require development andincorporation of abatement design specifications into project design documentation and use of licensedand certified asbestos abatement contractors during construction. With these measures, the ProposedProject would not result in significant adverse impacts with respect to ACMs.

3.3.20 Contaminated and Hazardous MaterialsA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted to identify the presence or likelypresence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the project site (see AppendixB). The ESA was conducted in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527-13, which specifically sets forthstandards and procedures for conducting an ESA. The ESA consisted of a site visit in February, 2016 andreview of pertinent state and federal databases and historical fire insurance maps.

The ESA indicated that Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC), or likely presence of contaminatedand, potentially, hazardous materials exist proximate to the project site. Past and present uses that arelikely to have impacted the project site subsurface include gasoline stations, auto repair facilities, garageswith petroleum storage tanks, a Con Edison substation, an herbicide manufacturer, and piano factories.


3-8

While these RECs exist proximate to the project site, the nature of the Proposed Project – replacingdecking on an elevated structure, with no or little ground disturbance – would obviate or minimize theneed to disturb any contaminated or hazardous materials that may be present in the soil.

No impact in terms of contaminated and hazardous materials would be expected. However, in the eventthat contaminated or hazardous materials are encountered during the course of construction, suchmaterials would be managed in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements.


APPENDICES

project scoping report/ final design report · january 2017 project scoping report/final design...

Documents