design report - new york state department of transportation · design report january 2017 bridge...

DESIGN REPORT

January 2017

Bridge Project Rehabilitation of BIN 1065260

79th Street over Gowanus Expressway PIN: X806.58

Queens County, New York County, Kings County City of New York

January 2017 Design Report PIN X806.58

iii

LIST OF PREPARERS Group Director Responsible for Production of the Design Approval Document:

John Daza, P.E., Principal, STV Incorporated Description of Work Performed: Directed the preparation of the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

Note: It is a violation of law for any person, unless they are acting under the direction of a licensed professional engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor, to alter an item in any way. If an item bearing the stamp of a licensed professional is altered, the altering engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor shall stamp the document and include the notation "altered by" followed by their signature, the date of such alteration, and a specific description of the alteration.


iv

COVER ............................................................................................................................................................................ i

PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET ........................................................................................................................................... ii

LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................. iv-viii

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

1.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2. PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2.1. Where is the Project Located? ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed? ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project? .................................................................................. 1-4

1.3. WHAT ALTERNATIVE(S) ARE BEING CONSIDERED? ..................................................................................................... 1-4 1.4 HOW WILL THE ALTERNATIVE(S) AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT? ....................................................................................... 1-4 1.5. WHAT ARE THE COSTS & SCHEDULE? ...................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.6. WHICH ALTERNATIVE IS PREFERRED? ....................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.7. WHAT ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT? ....................................................................................... 1-6

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS....................... 2-1

2.1. PROJECT HISTORY ................................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2. TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND LAND USE ................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1.1. Local Comprehensive Plans (“Master Plan”)........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans ......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.2. Transportation Corridor ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes .................................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs.......................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans ............................................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments ................................................ 2-2

2.3. TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS, DEFICIENCIES AND ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... 2-2 2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance ...................................................................................... 2-2

2.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS)............................................................................ 2-2 2.3.1.2. Control of Access ................................................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices ......................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) .............................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay ................................................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility ............................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis ......................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access ....................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions ........................................................................................ 2-6 2.3.1.11. Lighting .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................... 2-6

2.3.2. Multimodal .............................................................................................................................................. 2-7 2.3.2.1. Pedestrians .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3.2.2. Bicyclists............................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3.2.3. Transit .................................................................................................................................................................. 2-7 2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports .................................................................................................................. 2-7 2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) ................................................................... 2-7

2.3.3. Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section ..................................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Minimum Standards .......................................................................... 2-7 2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder....................................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems ................................................................................................................................................ 2-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS


v

2.3.3.5. Geotechnical ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-8 2.3.3.6. Structure .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-8 2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts .................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Barriers and Railing ..................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.3.9. Utilities ............................................................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities ............................................................................................................................................. 2-10

2.3.4. Potential Enhancement Opportunities ................................................................................................... 2-11 2.3.4.1. Landscape .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-11 2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Enhancements .............................................................................................. 2-11

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY ............................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Alternative 1: No-Build ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Alternative 2: Deck Replacement with Rehabilitation of Superstructure and Substructure ............. 3-2 3.1.3 Alternative 3: Superstructure Replacement with Substructure Rehabilitation ................................. 3-3 3.1.4 Alternative 4: Bridge Replacement ................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2. FEASIBLE BUILD ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.1.1 Alternative 1: No-Build .................................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.1.2 Alternative 2: Deck Replacement with Rehabilitation of Superstructure and Substructure .......................... 3-6

3.2.2 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................................ 3-8 3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative(s) ............................................................................................... 3-8

3.2.3.1. Design Standards ................................................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements ...................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters .................................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.3. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance ...................................................................................... 3-8

3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System ...................................................................................... 3-8 3.3.1.2. Control of Access ................................................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices ......................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ............................................................................................................ 3-10 3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay ............................................................................................................................................... 3-10 3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................................. 3-10 3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility ............................................................................................................................. 3-10 3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis ....................................................................................... 3-12 3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access ................................................................................ 3-12 3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues .............................................................................................. 3-12 3.3.1.11. Lighting ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-12 3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................... 3-13 3.3.1.13. Constructability Review ................................................................................................................................... 3-13

3.3.2. Multimodal ............................................................................................................................................ 3-13 3.3.2.1. Pedestrians ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-13 3.3.2.2. Bicyclists............................................................................................................................................................. 3-13 3.3.2.3. Transit ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-13 3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports ................................................................................................................ 3-13 3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) .......................................................... 3-13

3.3.3. Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section ................................................................................................................................ 3-13 3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements .................................................................................................................. 3-14 3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder..................................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems .............................................................................................................................................. 3-14 3.3.3.5. Geotechnical ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.3.3.6. Structures .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts .................................................................................................................... 3-15 3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators ................................................................................... 3-15 3.3.3.9. Utilities ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-15 3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities ............................................................................................................................................. 3-15

3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements ...................................................................................... 3-15


vi

3.3.5. NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA) ................................................................ 3-15

CHAPTER 4 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND CONSEQUENCES ............................. 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Environmental Classification..................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1.1 NEPA Classification ............................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1.2 SEQR Classification................................................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.2 Coordination with Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2.1 NEPA Cooperating and Participating Agencies ..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 SOCIAL ................................................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.1.2 Comprehensive Plans and Zoning ......................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion ................................................................................................ 4-3

4.2.2.1 Community Cohesion............................................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.2.2.2 Home and Business Relocations ........................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed .......................................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.3.1 Elderly and/or Disabled Persons or Groups .......................................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.3.2 Transit Dependent ................................................................................................................................................ 4-5 4.2.3.3 Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups (Environmental Justice) ...................................................................... 4-5

4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship .................................................................... 4-5 4.2.4.1 School Districts ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.4.2 Recreational Areas ................................................................................................................................................ 4-5 4.2.4.3 Places of Worship ................................................................................................................................................. 4-5

4.3 ECONOMIC .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies .................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.3.2 Business District Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.3 Specific Business Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL .................................................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.4.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.4.1.1 State Freshwater Wetlands .................................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.4.1.2 State Tidal Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.4.1.3 Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.1.4 Executive Order 11990 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.1.5 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 4-7

4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses .................................................................................................. 4-7 4.4.2.1 Surface Waters ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.2.2 Surface Water Classification and Standards ......................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.2.3 Stream Bed and Bank Protection .......................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.2.4 Airport and Airway Improvement ......................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.2.5 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 4-7

4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers ....................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.3.1 State Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers ........................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.3.2 National Wild and Scenic Rivers ........................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4.3.3 Section 4(f) Involvement ....................................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4.3.4 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 4-8

4.4.4 Navigable Waters ..................................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4.4.1 State Regulated Waters ........................................................................................................................................ 4-8 4.4.4.2 Office of General Services Lands and Navigable Waters ...................................................................................... 4-8 4.4.4.3 Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 9 ....................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4.4.4 Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10 ..................................................................................................................... 4-8

4.4.5 Floodplains ................................................................................................................................................ 4-8 4.4.5.1 State Flood Insurance Compliance Program ......................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4.5.2 Executive Order 11988 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-9

4.4.6 Coastal Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 4-9 4.4.6.1 State Coastal Zone Management Program ........................................................................................................... 4-9 4.4.6.2 State Coastal Erosion Hazard Area........................................................................................................................ 4-9 4.4.6.3 Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Program .................................................................................. 4-9 4.4.6.4 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) ............................... 4-9


vii

4.4.7 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs ................................................................................... 4-9 4.4.7.1 Aquifers ................................................................................................................................................................ 4-9 4.4.7.2 Drinking Water Supply Wells (Public and Private Wells) and Reservoirs .............................................................. 4-9

4.4.8 Stormwater Management ...................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources ................................................................................................. 4-10

4.4.9.1 Fish, Wildlife, and Waterfowl ............................................................................................................................. 4-10 4.4.9.2 Habitat Areas, Wildlife Refuges, and Wildfowl Refuges ..................................................................................... 4-10 4.4.9.3 Endangered and Threatened Species ................................................................................................................. 4-10 4.4.9.4 Invasive Species .................................................................................................................................................. 4-10 4.4.9.5 Roadside Vegetation Management .................................................................................................................... 4-10

4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas ................................................................................................................ 4-11 4.4.10.1 State Critical Environmental Areas ................................................................................................................... 4-11 4.4.10.2 State Forest Preserve Lands .............................................................................................................................. 4-11

4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 4-11 4.4.11.1 National Heritage Areas Program ..................................................................................................................... 4-11 4.4.11.2 National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 / State Historic Preservation Act – Section 14.09 ................ 4-11 4.4.11.3 Architectural Resources .................................................................................................................................... 4-11 4.4.11.4 Archaeological Resources ................................................................................................................................. 4-11 4.4.11.5 Historic Bridges ................................................................................................................................................. 4-11 4.4.11.6 Historic Parkways .............................................................................................................................................. 4-11 4.4.11.7 Native American Involvement .......................................................................................................................... 4-12 4.4.11.8 Section 4(f) Involvement ................................................................................................................................... 4-12

4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources ........................................................................................................ 4-12 4.4.12.1 State Heritage Area Program ............................................................................................................................ 4-12 4.4.12.2 National Heritage Areas Program ..................................................................................................................... 4-12 4.4.12.3 National Registry of Natural Landmarks ........................................................................................................... 4-12 4.4.12.4 Section 4(f) Involvement ................................................................................................................................... 4-12 4.4.12.5 Section 6(f) Involvement ................................................................................................................................... 4-12 4.4.12.6 Section 1010 Involvement ................................................................................................................................ 4-12

4.4.13 Visual Resources ................................................................................................................................... 4-13 4.4.13.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-13 4.4.13.2 Effects Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 4-13

4.4.14 Farmlands ............................................................................................................................................. 4-13 4.4.14.1 State Farmland and Agricultural Districts ......................................................................................................... 4-13 4.4.14.2 Federal Prime and Unique Farmland ................................................................................................................ 4-13

4.4.15 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 4-13 4.4.15.1 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................................................... 4-13 4.4.15.2 Transportation Conformity ............................................................................................................................... 4-14 4.4.15.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Microscale Analysis ..................................................................................................... 4-14 4.4.15.4 Mesoscale Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 4-14 4.4.15.5 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Analysis ........................................................................................................ 4-14 4.4.15.6 Particulate Matter (PM) Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 4-14 4.4.15.7 Greenhouse Gas Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 4-15 4.4.16 Energy .................................................................................................................................................................. 4-15

4.4.17 Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-15 4.4.18 Asbestos ................................................................................................................................................ 4-17

4.4.18.1 Screening .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-17 4.4.18.2 Assessment and Quantification ........................................................................................................................ 4-17 4.4.18.3 Mitigation Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 4-18

4.4.19 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials................................................................................... 4-18 4.5 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................................ 4-18 4.6 INDIRECT, SECONDARY, AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................................. 4-18


viii

Figures Figure 1 Regional Location Map ................................................................................................................................. 1-2 Figure 2 Photo Location Map ...................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 3 Land Use Map ............................................................................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4 Environmental Justice Communities Map ..................................................................................................... 4-4 Exhibits Exhibit 1 Environmental Summary .............................................................................................................................. 1-4 Exhibit 2 Project Schedule .......................................................................................................................................... 1-5 Exhibit 3 Comparison of Alternatives’ Total Project Cost ............................................................................................ 1-6 Exhibit 4 Classification Data for 79th Street Bridge ...................................................................................................... 2-2 Exhibit 5 Physical Operating Conditions of Signalized Intersections at 79th Street Bridge .......................................... 2-3 Exhibit 6 Speed Data for 79th Street Bridge ................................................................................................................ 2-3 Exhibit 7 Traffic Data for 79th Street Bridge ................................................................................................................. 2-4 Exhibit 8 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes for 79th Street Bridge ....................................................................... 2-4 Exhibit 9 Intersection Level of Service and Delays at 79th Street Bridge ..................................................................... 2-5 Exhibit 10 Accident Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Exhibit 11 Collision Summary at 79th Street Bridge ..................................................................................................... 2-6 Exhibit 12 Existing Guide Railing, Barriers, and Bridge Railing at 79th Street Bridge ................................................ 2-10 Exhibit 13 Existing Utilities on 79th Street Bridge ...................................................................................................... 2-10 Exhibit 14 Summary of Feasible Alternative Costs for 79th Street Bridge .................................................................... 3-7 Exhibit 15 Critical Design Elements for 79th Street Bridge .......................................................................................... 3-9 Exhibit 16 Work Zone Traffic Control Summary for 79th Street Bridge ...................................................................... 3-12 Exhibit 17 Monitored Peak Hour Noise Levels .......................................................................................................... 4-15 Exhibit 18 Construction Noise Assessment Results .................................................................................................. 4-16

Appendices

A. Plans, Typical Sections, Elevations, and Work Zone Traffic Control

B. Environmental Information

C. Traffic Information

D. Smart Growth Screening Tool

E. Structures Information

F. Cost Estimate for Preferred Alternative


1-1

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. Introduction This Design Report (DR) was prepared to address structural deficiencies at BIN 1065260 – 79th Street over Gowanus Expressway in Brooklyn, New York. The DR identifies the existing structural deficiencies, establishes objectives, evaluates alternative solutions to improve or eliminate these deficiencies, and recommends a preferred alternative to be advanced into Final Design. This report was prepared in accordance with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Project Development Manual, 17 NYCRR (New York Codes, Rules and Regulations) Part 15, and 23 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 771. The funding allocation for this project is 20% State and 80% Federal.

1.2. Purpose and Need

1.2.1. Where is the Project Located?

The 79th Street Bridge over Gowanus Expressway carries three lanes of westbound traffic. Refer to Figures 1 and 2.

(1) BIN number: 1065260 (2) Feature Carried: 79th Street (3) Feature Crossed: Gowanus Expressway (4) City: New York (5) County: Kings (6) Length: 243 feet (7) Width: 54 feet (8) Nearest Cross St West: 7th Avenue southbound (9) Nearest Cross St East: 7th Avenue northbound

1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed?

The 79th Street Bridge over Gowanus Expressway has deteriorated structural elements. There have not been any major maintenance repair or rehabilitation projects since construction of the bridge in 1964. Based on the 2016 Inspection Report, the structural deck has severe deterioration. The underside of the deck exhibits large areas of spalling with exposed rebar and other large areas with map cracking, delamination and hollow sounding. The railings are in mostly fair to good condition, but they have not been crash tested in accordance with NCHRP 350 criteria and are considered nonconforming features and in need of replacement. The concrete pedestals exhibit numerous areas of cracks. One of the pedestals at begin (west) abutment is spalled with exposed rebar. The underside of the pier cap beam at Pier #2 exhibits significant deterioration with concrete spalls and exposed rebar. Steel bearings exhibit minor to moderate corrosion causing expansion bearings not to function as originally designed. There are scattered areas of scaling and hollow sounding on the faces of abutments and piers. Asphalt pavement contains cracks with few asphalt potholes and uneven surfaces. The 2016 Inspection Report is provided in Appendix E.


1-2

Figure 1 Regional Location Map


1-3

Figure 2 Photo Location Map


1-4

1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project?

The purpose of this project is to improve the bridge condition. The following objectives have been established to support the project purpose:

1. Replace the structurally deficient roadway deck. 2. Rehabilitate or replace deficient structural elements to ensure the bridge remains serviceable for

40 years. 3. Improve existing nonstandard geometric deficiencies on the bridge. 4. Develop a staged work zone traffic control (WZTC) plan that could minimize delays. 5. Maintain where practicable existing design elements that contribute to the historic character of the

bridge and surrounding community.

1.3. What Alternative(s) Are Being Considered?

A range of alternatives has been considered, including no-build, deck replacement, superstructure replacement, and complete bridge replacement. A brief description of each alternative is provided below. Detailed descriptions are provided in Section 3.1. Alternative 1: No-Build. This alternative would provide no capital improvement project, except for routine maintenance work. This alternative would result in the continued deterioration of the structure with progressively lower condition ratings and possible safety hazards. This alternative is retained for comparison with the feasible alternative for 79th Street in Chapter 3. Alternative 2: Deck Replacement with Rehabilitation of Superstructure and Substructure. This alternative consists of a new bridge deck, bridge railings, cap beam at Pier 2, and new elastomeric bearings at Pier 2. Localized cleaning and painting of the steel would be required to areas around shear studs, areas of bearing replacements, and areas with peeling paint. Concrete spalled areas on the exposed faces of the substructure would be repaired. Alternative 3: Superstructure Replacement with Substructure Rehabilitation. Similar to Alternative 2, this alternative would replace the bridge deck, bridge railings, and cap beam and bearings at Pier 2; however, Alternative 3 also includes replacement of the superstructure and all existing bearings. Concrete pedestals would be removed and replaced on the abutments and retained piers. New elastomeric bearings would be installed. The steel superstructure would be replaced with new continuous steel girders pending the investigation of the existing piers. Any concrete spalled areas on the exposed faces of the abutments and piers would be repaired using appropriate types of repairs, depending on the size and depth of the spalled area. Alternative 4: Bridge Replacement. This alternative would replace the bridge in-kind on existing alignment. The steel superstructure would be replaced with new two-span continuous steel girders. The new superstructure design would ensure a minimum vertical clearance of 14’-6”. The new substructure would consist of two new reinforced concrete abutments, and one reinforced concrete pier located on the median of the Gowanus Expressway.

1.4 How will the Alternative(s) Affect the Environment?

Exhibit 1 Environmental Summary

NEPA Classification Categorical Exclusion BY FHWA

SEQR Type: Type II BY NYSDOT


1-5

NEPA Classification: The project is being progressed as a Class II action (Categorical Exclusion) because the project does not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental impact and is excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) as documented in the Federal Environmental Approvals Worksheet (FEAW). 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 primarily a “bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacementO” and does not significantly impact the environment. Refer to Appendix B for the FEAW. State Environmental Quality Review: In accordance with 17 NYCRR, Part 15, “Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act”, the Department has determined that the project is a SEQR Type II Action, since the project does not violate any of the criteria contained in subdivision (d) of Section 15.14. This project is a Type II action identified in 17 NYCRR Part 15, Section 15.14, Subdivision (e), Item 37, Paragraph (iv), “the replacement, reconstruction or rehabilitation, at present sites or immediately adjacent thereto, of existing bridges, culverts or other transportation structures, including railroad crossing structures, not involving substantial expansion of the structure.” No further SEQR processing is required. Detailed environmental information is provided in Chapter 4. Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination: Listed below are anticipated permits, certifications, and coordination required for this project. Certifications

• New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO): SHPO is required to certify the proposed project would have no impact on the historic features.

Coordination • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) • New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) • New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) • New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) • New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR) • New York City Fire Department (FDNY) • Metropolitan Transit Authority New York City Transit (MTA NYCT) Bus Operations • Private utilities • Elected Officials • Community Representatives

Others

• Construction Staging Permit

1.5. What Are The Costs & Schedule?

Design and construction of the 79th Street Bridge is part of NYSDOT Design Build Project D900041 Region 11 Rehabilitation of I-278 Bridges (PIN X731.47). Design approval is scheduled for October 2017 with Letting in March 2018.

Exhibit 2 Project Schedule

Activity Date Occurred/Tentative

Design Approval October 2017 ROW Acquisition N/A Draft RFP November 2017

Final RFP January 2018

Letting March 2018


1-6

1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred?

The Preferred Alternative for 79th Street is Alternative 2: Deck Replacement with Rehabilitation of Superstructure and Substructure. This alternative best meets the Project Objectives as follows:

• This alternative fully meets the project objective to replace the structurally deficient roadway deck (new 9½”-thick monolithic deck).

• This alternative fully meets the project objective to rehabilitate or replace deficient structural elements (replacement of bearings at Pier 2 and minor repairs to superstructure and substructure).

• Existing horizontal and vertical geometry and related features meet design standards.

• Construction could be performed in two stages, while maintaining one one-way travel lane and pedestrian and bicycle access during construction. Construction duration is estimated to be fourteen months, assuming WZTC option 1 with a detour (see Section 3.3.1.7 (2)).

• This alternative does not alter existing design elements that contribute to the historic character of the bridge and surrounding community.

1.7. What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement?

This project is primarily a deck replacement project. The deck slab will be replaced within the footprint of the existing structure. Minor superstructure and substructure rehabilitation associated with the replacement of the deck slab is also included. Neither a public hearing nor a public information meeting is required for this work; however, an information meeting with Community Board 10 will be scheduled during the final design stage, if needed. It is anticipated that advisory agencies and local officials will attend this meeting. NYSDOT will decide on the alternative selected. Design approval for this project is expected in October 2017. For questions or comments, you can contact: Syed Rahman, PE, Project Engineer Tariq Bashir, PE, Project Manager E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 718-482-4693 Telephone: 718-482-4691 Please include the six-digit Project Identification Number (PIN): X806.58

Mailing Address:

New York State Department of Transportation Region 11 Design

47-40 21st Street, 5th Floor Long Island City, New York 11101

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

Exhibit 3 Comparison of Alternatives’ Total Project Cost (Millions)

BIN 1065260 79th Street

over Gowanus Expwy

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

No-Build Deck

Replacement Superstructure Replacement

Bridge Replacement

Total Cost $0 $5.77 $27.83 $34.79


2-1

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS This chapter addresses the history and existing context of the project site, including the existing conditions, deficiencies, and needs.

2.1. Project History

The Draft Design Report (DDR) and preliminary design for BIN 1065260–79th Street over Gowanus Expressway was initiated under PIN X806.58 along with three other bridges, including BIN 1072010–Astoria Boulevard over Eastbound BQE Ramp, BIN 1055630–Rockaway Boulevard over Van Wyck Expressway, and BIN 107701A–139th Street Ramp to Northbound Harlem River Drive. The DDR was submitted to NYSDOT in October 2015. In August 2016, NYSDOT decided to accelerate design and construction of the 79th Street Bridge as part of NYSDOT Design Build Project D900041 Region 11 Rehabilitation of I-278 Bridges (PIN X731.47), and this standalone DR was prepared.

2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use

2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area

2.2.1.1. Local Comprehensive Plans (“Master Plan”) New York City’s One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City outlines the sustainability and resiliency initiatives for the City. Among the Plan’s transportation goals is that NYC’s transportation network will be reliable, safe, sustainable, and accessible, all to meet the needs of all New Yorkers, and support the city’s growing economy. The initiatives that address this transportation goal include improving the existing infrastructure that accommodates transit services and expanding the City’s bike network. A related plan goal is Vision Zero, which is a commitment to improve street safety in every neighborhood to reduce the number of traffic fatalities to zero. This project is consistent with the City’s Plan as:

• Opportunities to provide bike lanes on the 79th Street Bridge will be examined as this is a potential future NYCDOT bike route as per the 2015 NYCDOT Bike Map.

• The bridge accommodates a NYCT bus route, and these infrastructure improvements will help to maintain service reliability.

• Opportunities to increase traffic safety will be addressed. 2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans There are no approved developments planned within the project area that will impact traffic operations.

2.2.2. Transportation Corridor

2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway processes approximately 8,200 vpd and is part of NYCDOT’s Brooklyn Local Truck Route Network and serves NYCT’s B16 route.


2-2

2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes There are no alternative routes that would be suitable as a permanent detour. The traffic volumes processed by the 79th Street Bridge cannot be accommodated by the adjacent bridge spans or nearby local roadway network.

2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs The bridge does not limit mobility within along the 79th Street corridor. The number of through travel lanes on the bridge is balanced with the up and downstream road networks.

2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans This project is on the approved Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as Project No. X80658 / AQC:A19P.

2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments There are no plans to reconstruct or widen this highway segment, or the adjoining segments, within the next 20 years. 79th Street is a one-way westbound roadway that begins at the intersection of Fort Hamilton Parkway and 78th Street to the east and ends at Shore Road to the west. The three-lane, curbed roadway spans over the Gowanus Expressway and within the project limits is classified as an urban principal arterial with a 25 mph speed limit. Fort Hamilton Parkway is a two-way, five lane urban principal arterial. 78th Street is a one-way eastbound local road. West of the structure, 79th Street intersects with 7th Avenue and continues west as a one-lane local road with curbed parking lanes. All roadways within the project limits are curbed with concrete sidewalk and have a speed limit of 25 mph. The existing pavement surface and pavement markings are in fair condition.

2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations

2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance

2.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS)

Exhibit 4 Classification Data for 79th Street Bridge

Route(s) 79th Street

Functional Classification

Urban Principal Arterial - Other

National Highway System (NHS)

Yes

Designated Truck Access Route

No

Qualifying Highway

No

Within 1 mile of a Qualifying Highway

No

Within the 16 feet vertical clearance network

No


2-3

2.3.1.2. Control of Access The 79th Street Bridge is located on the city street network and is uncontrolled.

2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices There are traffic signs within the project limits, as well as traffic signals with pedestrian-crossing signals and push-button controls. The existing signs within the project area are generally regulatory and guide signs in nature, and consist of roadway use signs, intersection movement signs, information signs, pedestrian signs, route and guide marker signs, and warning signs. The existing traffic signals, signs and markings conform to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The project will replace standard traffic signs removed or damaged during construction. Pavement markings will be replaced as required. The following signs are provided on the 79th Street Bridge:

• one pedestrian crossing ahead warning sign • one Verrazano-Narrows Bridge guide sign at the 7th Avenue South intersection • two one-way signs at the 7th Avenue south intersection

There are signalized intersections at each end of the 79th Street Bridge. Exhibit 5 below lists each signal location, type, number of phases, and pedestrian control based on signal timing information provided by NYCDOT and verified by field observations. The signal cycle length and timing varies by time of day on a fixed schedule.

Exhibit 5 Physical Operating Conditions of Signalized Intersections at 79th Street Bridge

Intersection Type of Signal Direction of

Travel Lane

Configuration

Number of Phases, Cycle

Length

Pedestrian Controls

79th Street and 7th Avenue SB

Fixed Time - Coordinated

WB SB

L & T TR

2, 120 sec N

79th Street and Fort Hamilton

Parkway

Fixed Time - Coordinated

NB off-ramp NB 7th Ave

WB

LT & R TR T

3, 120 sec N

2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) There are no ITS systems in operation or planned for the project area.

2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay Portable radar guns were used to establish 85th percentile speeds on the bridge. Radar spot speeds were compiled under expected free-flow traffic conditions during the off-peak 7-10 AM period on Sunday, March 15, 2015. A total of 100 speed readings were taken at the bridge for each travel direction. A summary of the 85th percentile speeds are presented in Exhibit 6.

Exhibit 6 Speed Data for 79th Street Bridge

Existing Speed Limit 25 mph

Operating Speed and Method Used for Measurement

28 mph, portable radar gun


2-4

2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes

2.3.1.6. (1) Existing traffic volumes Traffic counts, including manual turning movement/vehicle classification (TMC) counts at the study area intersections, as well as 24-hour automatic traffic recorder (ATR) machine counts, were conducted during the week of March 16, 2015 while schools were in session. Annual daily traffic and average annual daily traffic were obtained from the NYSDOT Traffic Data Viewer where available or were estimated using ATR volumes. A discussion of the development of existing and future year traffic volumes as well as existing and future year traffic flow diagrams are presented in Appendix C. Exhibits 7 and 8 provide a summary of the traffic data.

Exhibit 7 Traffic Data for 79th Street Bridge (b/w 7th Avenue SB and Fort Hamilton Parkway)

Period AM PM

Directional Distribution Westbound only Westbound only

Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.96

% Peak Hour Trucks 4 3

Exhibit 8 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes for 79th Street Bridge

(b/w Fort Hamilton Parkway and 7th Avenue SB)

Year AADT DHV

Existing (2015)

7,300 620

ETC (2021)

7,500 640

ETC+20 (2041)

7,900 670

Note: ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion

2.3.1.6. (2) Future no-build design year traffic volume forecasts The estimated time of completion (ETC) year of 2021 was determined based on the assumptions that it would take approximately two to three years to complete the design phase, and approximately three years for construction to be completed. The ETC + 20 design year was selected per PDM Appendix 5 as this is a bridge deck replacement project. The background growth rates for each analysis location are listed below and were estimated using the rates provided in the NYC CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 16 – Transportation, Table 16-4.


2-5

2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility Each of the intersections comprising the traffic study area was analyzed in terms of its capacity to accommodate existing traffic volumes as defined by the resulting levels of service. Capacity analyses were performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, and analyzed using HCS and Synchro software. Capacity analyses were performed at major intersections within the project vicinity and summarized in Exhibit 9. A traffic study documenting existing and construction conditions was prepared and is provided in Appendix C. The traffic study findings for existing conditions are presented below. The analyses showed that both study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service with overall operations at level of service (LOS) mid-D or better.

Exhibit 9 Intersection Level of Service and Delays at 79th Street Bridge

Control Control Control

Delay Delay Delay

AM Peak

79th St & Ft. Hamilton Pkwy

Gowanus Expwy Ramp NB LTR 0.87 42.2 D 0.89 42.8 D 0.94 44.1 D

Ft. Hamilton Parkway SB LR 0.56 38.4 D 0.58 38.9 D 0.60 39.9 D

R 0.55 37.9 D 0.56 38.4 D 0.59 39.4 D

Overall Intersection - 40.3 D 40.8 D 42.0 D

79th St & 7th Ave SB

79th Street WB LT 0.23 1.8 A 0.24 1.8 A 0.25 1.8 A

7th Avenue SB TR 0.31 30.0 C 0.32 30.2 C 0.34 30.9 C

Overall Intersection - 15.5 B 15.6 B 15.9 B

PM Peak

79th St & Ft. Hamilton Pkwy

Gowanus Expwy Ramp NB LTR 0.99 49.3 D 1.02 50.5 D 1.07 53.0 D

Ft. Hamilton Parkway SB LR 0.52 33.6 C 0.54 34.0 C 0.56 34.8 C

R 0.50 33.1 C 0.52 33.4 C 0.55 34.2 C

Overall Intersection - 41.3 D 42.1 D 43.7 D

79th St & 7th Ave SB

79th Street WB LT 0.25 8.7 A 0.25 9.0 A 0.27 9.5 A

7th Avenue SB TR 0.46 13.0 B 0.47 12.9 B 0.49 12.8 B

Overall Intersection - 11.2 B 11.3 B 11.4 B

INTERSECTION & APPROACH Mvt.

Existing (2015) ETC (2021) ETC + 20 (2041)

V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS


2-6

2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis An accident analysis was performed in accordance with the Highway Design Manual Chapter 5 in 2015. Exhibit 10 lists the entering AADT, total accidents, and accident rate for the 79th Street Bridge intersections within the study area, along with the NY State average accident rate for intersections of the same type. No accidents have been recorded in the three-year study period on the 79th Street Bridge. An accident analysis including an accident summary (TE-213) and collision diagrams (TE-56) is provided in Appendix C.

Exhibit 10 Accident Summary at 79th Street

Location Entering AADT

Total Accidents

Accident Rate

(acc/mev)

NY State Accident

Rate

Fort Hamilton Parkway and 7th Avenue NB 19,700 4 0.19 0.47 79th Street and 7th Avenue SB 18,400 6 0.30 0.47

Exhibit 11

Collision Summary at 79th Street Bridge

Type of Collision Number Percentage

Rear End 4 40 Sideswipe 2 20

Fixed Object 2 20 Right Angle 1 10

Bicyclist 1 10

2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access The closest fire station is Engine 284, Ladder 149, which is within a half mile of the bridge at 79th Street between 11th and 12th avenues. The closest police station is the 68th Precinct and is located more than a half mile from the bridge. Construction conditions are not expected to impede ambulance access or public safety service. 2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions The NYCDOT Parking Regulation Map indicates a “No Standing Anytime” regulation for the bridge. 2.3.1.11. Lighting The 79th Street Bridge and the vicinity have adequate street lighting, and there are no plans for the municipality to install additional lighting. Underdeck lighting needs repair or replacement (e.g., missing lens covers and bulbs).

2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction According to the NYSDOT Local Highway Inventory, the current ownership and maintenance responsibilities for 79th Street belong to NYCDOT. The bridge itself is owned by NYSDOT.


2-7

2.3.2. Multimodal

2.3.2.1. Pedestrians The 79th Street Bridge was assessed for its ability to serve pedestrians and any significant pedestrian generators nearby were identified. A Pedestrian Generator Checklist is provided in Appendix C. An approximately 9-foot wide sidewalk currently exists on the north side of the 79th Street Bridge only. Pedestrian volumes across the 79th Street Bridge are high during the AM peak hour, as approximately 350 pedestrians cross the bridge. Most pedestrians travel east across the bridge in the morning peak to reach P.S. 127, the McKinley Park School, which is located at the southeast corner of the 79th Street/Fort Hamilton Parkway/7th Avenue North intersection. High-visibility crosswalks are provided across the intersection on the typical pedestrian path from the bridge to the school at the north and east approaches. Pedestrian volumes during the PM peak hour are lower, totaling about 120 persons. Curb ramps are provided from the bridge sidewalks at each crosswalk location. 2.3.2.2. Bicyclists The 79th Street Bridge was assessed for its ability to serve bicyclists. There are no existing designated bike lanes in the vicinity of the bridge. Currently, bicyclists must use either the curb lane with vehicular traffic or walk their bikes on the sidewalks over the bridge, which are shared with pedestrians. Ten or fewer bicyclists were observed using the sidewalk on the 79th Street Bridge during the AM and PM peak hours. The 2015 NYCDOT Bike Map indicates that the 79th Street Bridge is a potential future bike route that would connect with the exclusive and shared bike lanes on northbound 7th Avenue. 2.3.2.3. Transit MTA’s B16 route operates across the 79th Street Bridge with headways of ranging between five and ten minutes during the peak hours. This route operates between Fort Hamilton and Prospect Lefferts Gardens, and the nearest bus stop is east of the bridge on Fort Hamilton Parkway east of the 7th Avenue intersection.

2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports There are no airports, railroad stations, or port entrances within or in the vicinity of the project limits.

2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) McKinley Park is located three blocks north of the 79th Street Bridge. None of the park or its entrances fall within the project limits; therefore, the project does not affect access to recreation areas.

2.3.3. Infrastructure

2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section Refer to Appendix A for existing typical sections.

2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Minimum Standards There are no existing nonstandard features at the 79th Street Bridge over Gowanus Expressway.

2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder The bridge currently has an asphalt overlay on the concrete deck slab. The pavement is in good condition in Spans 1 and 2, and there is minor deterioration in the pavement in Spans 3 and 4. The approach roadway condition is fair. Asphalt pavement contains cracks with areas of asphalt potholes and uneven surfaces.


2-8

2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems There are no catch basins located on the structure; however, there is an inlet located near the intersection in Span 1. Rainfall drains naturally towards low points outside of the bridge limits. The drainage area will not be increased under this project. The current drainage pattern is sufficient.

2.3.3.5. Geotechnical The soil conditions for the 79th Street Bridge were not evaluated since replacement alternatives are not feasible.

2.3.3.6. Structure 2.3.3.6.1 Description The 79th Street Bridge is a four span steel framed structure. It has approximately a 243 foot span length and carries three lanes of traffic over the Gowanus Expressway. The structure has an approximate width of 54 feet. The bridge consists of four simply supported spans with steel multi-girder superstructure and a 7”-thick reinforced concrete monolithic deck with 2.5”-thick asphalt concrete wearing overlay. The superstructure is supported on steel bearings under all girders. The substructure consists of two isolated pedestal stub concrete abutment on concrete spread footings and three multi-column concrete piers with a cap beam with individual pedestals under the steel girders. The piers are also founded on concrete spread footings. Joints on abutment and piers are armorless. The structure data for 79th Street Bridge are listed below:

(a) BIN 1065260

(b) Featured Carried and Crossed

79th Street over the Gowanus Expressway

(c) Type of Bridge, Number and Length of Spans

Multi-steel girder and reinforced concrete deck superstructure supported on reinforced concrete piers and abutments Four simply supported spans: Span 1 is 62’-0”, Spans 2 and 3 are 59’-1”, and Span 4 is 61’-11”

(d) Width of Travel Lanes, Parking Lanes, and Shoulders

Three travel lanes at 12’-0” each Two 2’-0” shoulders No parking lanes

(e) Sidewalks One 9’-0 ¼” sidewalk on north side of the bridge

(f) Utilities Carried

One 2-4” Con Edison conduits One 6-4” Con Edison conduits One 5-4” NYCDOT Street Lighting conduits One 12” National Grid gas pipe in 16” sleeve One 16” National Grid gas pipe in 20” sleeve

2.3.3.6.2 Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical)

The horizontal clearance is approximately two feet. The minimum vertical clearance of the bridge to the lower roadway is 14’-11”. 2.3.3.6.3 History & Deficiencies The existing 79th Street Bridge was built in 1964. The bridge is a four-span steel framed structure and carries three lanes of traffic over the Gowanus Expressway. There are no nonstandard features on the 79th Street Bridge, but the existing bridge railings are considered nonconforming features.


2-9

2.3.3.6.4 Inspection Based on the 2016 Inspection Report, the structural deck has severe deterioration. The underside of the deck exhibits large areas of spalling with exposed rebar and other large areas with map cracking, delamination and hollow sounding. The concrete pedestals exhibit numerous areas of cracks. One of the pedestals at begin (west) abutment is spalled with exposed rebar. The underside of the pier cap beam at Pier #2 exhibits significant deterioration with concrete spalls and exposed rebar. Steel bearings exhibit minor to moderate corrosion causing expansion bearings not to function as originally designed. There are scattered areas of scaling and hollow sounding on the faces of abutments and piers. According to the 2016 Inspection Report, general bridge rating is as follows:

(a) Federal Sufficiency Rating: 73.4

(b) State Condition Rating: 4.625

(c) AASHTO bridge element rating on a scale of 1 (good) to 4 (severe) with 5 (not applicable):

Bridge Element Measurement Unit Total

Quantity

State 1

(Qty.)

State 2

(Qty.)

State 3

(Qty.)

State 4

(Qty.)

State 5

(Qty.)

12 - Reinforced Concrete Deck SQFT - Square Foot 3323 399 1329 1196 399 0

107 - Steel Open Girder/Beam LNFT - Linear Foot 434 347 87 0 0 0

113 - Steel Stringer LNFT - Linear Foot 434 347 87 0 0 0 PR205 - Reinforced Concrete Column EA - Each 4 1 2 1 0 0 BA215 - Reinforced Concrete Abutment LNFT - Linear Foot 68 42 23 3 0 0 BA220 - Reinforced Concrete Pile/Cap Footing LNFT - Linear Foot 74 0 0 0 0 74 PR220 - Reinforced Concrete Pile/Cap Footing LNFT - Linear Foot 74 0 0 0 0 74 PR234 - Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap LNFT - Linear Foot 58 16 28 11 3 0

BA302 - Compression Joint Seal LNFT - Linear Foot 53 42 11 0 0 0

PR302 - Compression Joint Seal LNFT - Linear Foot 5 3 2 0 0 0

PR310 - Elastomeric Bearing EA - Each 7 4 2 0 0 0

BA313 - Fixed Bearing EA - Each 7 6 1 0 0 0

PR313 - Fixed Bearing EA - Each 7 4 2 0 0 0 BA321 - Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab SQFT - Square Foot 2143 600 1029 407 107 0

330 - Metal Bridge Railing LNFT - Linear Foot 124 77 42 5 0 0

333 - Other Bridge Railing LNFT - Linear Foot 124 77 42 5 0 0

BA800 - Erosion or Scour LNFT - Linear Foot 68 68 0 0 0 0

PR800 - Erosion or Scour LNFT - Linear Foot 58 58 0 0 0 0

BW800 - Erosion or Scour LNFT - Linear Foot 62 50 12 0 0 0

810 - Sidewalk SQFT - Square Foot 744 461 253 30 0 0

811 - Curb LNFT - Linear Foot 124 99 25 0 0 0

830 - Secondary Members EA - Each 1 1 0 0 0 0

BA851 - Abutment Pedestal EA - Each 7 4 2 0 0 0

PR852 - Pier Pedestal EA - Each 14 9 5 1 0 0


2-10

2.3.3.6.5 Restrictions The bridge is currently open and no posted loading will be required in the near future. There will not be any restrictions imposed upon public or emergency equipment. 2.3.3.6.6 Future Conditions If no improvements are made to the bridge, there will be continued deterioration of the structure with progressively lower condition rating and possible safety hazards. 2.3.3.6.7 Waterway A Coast Guard checklist is not required.

2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts

There are no bridges or culverts over waterways within the project limits. There are no dams in the vicinity of the project that would be adversely affected.

2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Barriers and Railing

2.3.3.9. Utilities

Exhibit 13 Existing Utilities on

79th Street over Gowanus Expressway Owner Type Location/Side Length Condition/Conflict1

Con Edison 2-4” electric conduits

Between Girders 1 and 2 (north side of bridge)

243 ft Good condition1

National Grid 12” gas main in 16” Sleeve



National Grid 16” gas main in 20” sleeve



Con Edison 6-4” electric conduits

Between Girders 5 and 6 (south side of bridge)


NYCDOT Street Lighting

5-4” conduits Between Girders 6 and 7 (south side of bridge)


1 Temporary support or relocation would be required during construction. Coordination with utility owners required during final design.

2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities There are no railroads within the project limits and no at-grade crossings within a half-mile that could impact traffic conditions.

Exhibit 12 Existing Guide Railing, Barriers, and Railing

at 79th Street over Gowanus Expressway

Type Location/Side Length

Condition

Bridge Railing / Chain Link Fence

On right and left side of bridge

486 ft Good condition with minor rust


2-11

2.3.4. Potential Enhancement Opportunities

This section focuses on the existing areas to identify potential enhancement opportunities related to the project and to help avoid and minimize impacts. Chapter 4 focuses on the impacts, enhancements, and mitigation.

2.3.4.1. Landscape 2.3.4.1. (1) Terrain The terrain is flat with sloping vegetated areas along the bridge abutment areas. 2.3.4.1. (2) Unusual Weather Conditions There are no unusual weather conditions within the project area. 2.3.4.1. (3) Visual Resources Overall, visual resources at the bridge are limited due to the urban nature of the project areas. The 79th Street Bridge is located in a mixed commercial and residential area. There are street trees visible from the bridge location. The most significant resource is the tree-filled bridge abutment areas located on all four quadrants of the bridge. It is assumed that these areas were part of a planned landscape planning initiative based on the tree species observed. Within 100 feet of the bridge on either side, approximately 70 trees over 4-inch DBH are located in these areas. These plantings add value by providing shade, visual appeal and they provide value by softening the urban landscape of the Gowanus Expressway. 2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Enhancements Opportunities for environmental enhancements in the project limits include replacing trees that will be impacted as part of the construction activities in the bridge abutment areas.


3-1

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES This chapter discusses the alternatives considered and examines the engineering aspects for all feasible alternatives to address project objectives in Chapter 1 of this report.

3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study

The range of alternatives considered to determine feasible alternatives includes: 1) No-Build/Maintenance, 2) Deck Replacement, 3) Superstructure Replacement, and 4) Bridge Replacement. The bridge alternatives are described in detail below. Typical sections and elevations provided herein are not to scale and are provided for reference only. Full size (11x17) plans, typical sections, and elevations are provided in Appendix A for the existing (no-build) condition and preferred alternative.

3.1.1 Alternative 1: No-Build

The no-build/maintenance alternative would result in the continued deterioration of the structure with progressively lower condition ratings and possible safety hazards. The bridge concrete deck has severe deterioration. Implementation of this alternative would not address the prevailing deficiencies and would not achieve project objectives. Alternative 1 is not considered a feasible alternative, but will be used for comparison with the feasible alternatives in Section 3.2.1.4.


3-2

3.1.2 Alternative 2: Deck Replacement with Rehabilitation of Superstructure and Substructure

This alternative would replace the bridge deck, bridge railing, cap beam at Pier 2, and bearings at Pier 2. The existing superstructure would still be able to carry an HS20 live load as specified in the NYSDOT Bridge Manual. The bridge horizontal and vertical alignments would be retained. The width of the new bridge deck would be the same as the existing. As specified in the 2014 NYSDOT Bridge Manual, the new deck would be 9½”-thick monolithic with integral wearing surface. Localized cleaning and painting of the steel would be required to areas around shear studs, areas of bearing replacements, as well as those areas of peeling paint. The existing superstructure would still be able to carry an HS20 live load as specified in the NYSDOT Bridge Manual. Concrete spalled areas on the exposed faces of the substructure would be repaired using appropriate type of repairs depending on the size and depth of the spalled area.

The construction duration for this alternative would be 15 months, assuming WZTC Option 1 (see Section 3.3.1.7 (2)) with a detour during removal of the existing concrete deck, sidewalk, barriers, bridge railings, cap beam and bearings at Pier 2; construction of a new cap beam at Pier 2; installation of new elastomeric bearings at Pier 2; cleaning and painting of the existing girders and installation of studs; installation of new deck slab, sidewalk, concrete barriers, bridge railings; and repair of the concrete faces on the substructure. Construction of this alternative could be performed in two stages. One lane of vehicular traffic, in addition to pedestrian and bicycle access would be maintained during each stage of construction on 79th Street. Lane and shoulder closures on the Gowanus Expressway would be required at different periods during each construction stage to protect Gowanus Expressway traffic during deck removal and installation and for the jacking operations. The deck would be carefully removed from the girders, and the girders would be repaired and painted as needed. The vertical clearance would not be reduced over active travel lanes during construction. Alternative 2 fully meets the project objective to replace the structurally deficient roadway deck (new 9½”-thick monolithic deck) and fully meets the objective to rehabilitate or replace structurally deficient structural elements (cap beam and bearings at Pier 2 with minor repairs to superstructure and substructure). There are no existing nonstandard geometric deficiencies on 79th Street. The rehabilitation cost of Alternative 2 (deck replacement) is 17% of the bridge replacement cost of Alternative 4, and thus qualifies the bridge for rehabilitation, not replacement, per the Bridge Rehabilitation or Replacement Selection Guidelines. Alternative 2 is considered feasible and worthy of further investigation (see Section 3.2.1.3).


3-3

3.1.3 Alternative 3: Superstructure Replacement with Substructure Rehabilitation

Alternative 3 would include all of the improvements of Alternative 2, including replacement of the bridge deck, bridge railings, and cap beam and bearings at Pier 2. In addition, Alternative 3 would replace the steel superstructure with new continuous steel girders pending the investigation of the existing piers. Upgrading the steel framing system would allow the bridge to meet current NYSDOT Bridge Manual standards for HL-93 and NYSDOT permit vehicle live loading. The bridge horizontal and vertical alignments would be retained, and the width of the new bridge deck would be the same as the existing with a new 9½”-thick monolithic structural deck. All three of the existing piers are the same type and size and are generally in good condition, with the exception of the cap beam at Pier 2. Concrete pedestals would be removed and replaced on the abutments and retained piers. New elastomeric bearings would be installed. Any concrete spalled areas on the exposed faces of the abutments and piers would be repaired using appropriate type of repairs depending on the size and depth of the spalled area.

The construction duration for this alternative would be 19 months, assuming WZTC Option 1 (see Section 3.3.1.7 (2)) with a detour during removal of the existing concrete deck, sidewalk, barriers, bridge railings, steel bearings, steel girders, modification of pier(s), installation of new elastomeric bearings, new steel girders, and construction of new slabs, sidewalk, concrete barriers, and bridge railings. Similar to Alternative 2, construction of this alternative could be performed in two stages. One lane of vehicular traffic, in addition to pedestrian and bicycle access would be maintained during each stage of construction on 79th Street. Lane and shoulder closures on the Gowanus Expressway would be required at different periods during each construction stage to protect Gowanus Expressway traffic during the operations of the removal of the existing superstructure, modification of the piers, and installation of new superstructure. The deck and steel superstructure would be carefully removed as per pre-approved plans. The vertical clearance would not be reduced over active travel lanes during construction. Alternative 3 fully meets the project objectives to replace the structurally deficient roadway deck (new 9½”-thick monolithic deck) and to rehabilitate or replace structurally deficient structural elements (superstructure replacement with new bearings and substructure repairs). There are no existing nonstandard geometric deficiencies on 79th Street. This alternative was evaluated in accordance with the Bridge Rehabilitation or Replacement Selection Guideline. The rehabilitation cost of Alternative 3 (superstructure replacement) is 80% of the bridge replacement cost of Alternative 4, and given that the primary steel members (rated 5 to 6) and secondary steel members (rated 5 to 6) are in good condition, more cost effective methods could be utilized to achieve project objectives. The cost of deck replacement (Alternative 2) is 21% of the cost of superstructure replacement (Alternative 3). Therefore, Alternative 3 is not considered feasible and is eliminated from further study.


3-4

3.1.4 Alternative 4: Bridge Replacement

This alternative would replace the bridge on existing alignment. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, the bridge horizontal and vertical alignments would be retained, and the width of the new bridge deck would be the same as the existing with a new 9½”-thick monolithic structural deck. The steel superstructure would be replaced with new two-span continuous steel girders. The new superstructure design would ensure a minimum vertical clearance of 14’-6”. Upon completion of upgrading the steel framing, the bridge would meet current NYSDOT Bridge Manual standards for HL-93 and NYSDOT permit vehicle live loading. The new substructure would consist of two new reinforced concrete abutments, and one reinforced concrete pier located on the median of the Gowanus Expressway. Integral abutments will be investigated as the first desirable option for their cost effectiveness and durability. If integral abutments are not feasible, then semi-integral abutments would be constructed to provide for a jointless bridge deck.

The construction duration for this alternative would be 24 months, assuming WZTC Option 1 (see Section 3.3.1.7 (2)) with a detour during the removal and reconstruction of the entire existing superstructure and substructure. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, construction of this alternative could be performed in two stages. One lane of vehicular traffic, in addition to pedestrian and bicycle access would be maintained during each stage of construction on 79th Street. Lane and shoulder closures on the Gowanus Expressway would be required at different periods during each construction stage to protect Gowanus Expressway traffic during the operations of the removal of the existing superstructure, substructure, and the construction of new center pier. The existing deck and steel superstructure, and existing piers would be carefully removed as per pre-approved plans. The vertical clearance would not be reduced over active travel lanes during construction. Alternative 4 fully meets the project objectives to replace the structurally deficient roadway deck (new 9½”-thick monolithic deck) and to rehabilitate or replace structurally deficient structural elements (complete bridge replacement). There are no existing nonstandard geometric deficiencies on 79th Street. When evaluating this alternative in accordance with the Bridge Rehabilitation or Replacement Selection Guideline,


3-5

it was determined that the bridge should be rehabilitated, not replaced. The rehabilitation cost of Alternative 2 (deck replacement) is 17% of the bridge replacement cost of Alternative 4. In addition, primary steel members (rated 5 to 6) and secondary steel members (rated 5 to 6) are in good condition. Therefore, Alternative 4 is not considered feasible and is eliminated from further study.

3.2. Feasible Build Alternatives

3.2.1. Description of Feasible Alternatives

3.2.1.1 Alternative 1: No-Build

The no-build/maintenance alternative would result in the continued deterioration of the 79th Street Bridge with progressively lower condition ratings and possible safety hazards. This alternative is not considered a feasible alternative, but is presented in this section for comparison with the feasible alternatives. Key elements of this alternative include:

Geometry There are no nonstandard features on the 79th Street Bridge. This alternative would retain the existing horizontal and vertical alignments of the structure, including overall width and length.

Operational This alternative would not affect operations.

Control of Access Control of access remains the same. Right of Way No ROW impacts. Environmental No environmental impacts. Cost Total estimated cost of this alternative is $0M. It is assumed that NYSDOT

maintenance will perform all recommended repairs and maintenance required to keep the bridge in service.

Project Goals This alternative does not meet the project objective to replace the structurally deficient roadway deck. This alternative does not meet the project objective to rehabilitate or replace deficient structural elements to ensure the bridge remains serviceable for 40 years. There are no nonstandard geometric features on the 79th Street Bridge. Staged WZTC is not applicable to this alternative. This alternative does not alter existing design elements that contribute to the historic character of the bridge and surrounding community.


3-6

3.2.1.2 Alternative 2: Deck Replacement with Rehabilitation of Superstructure and Substructure

This alternative consists of a new bridge deck, bridge railings, cap beam at Pier 2, and elastomeric bearings at Pier 2. Localized cleaning and painting of the steel would be required to areas around shear studs, areas of bearing replacements, as well as those areas of peeling paint. Concrete spalled areas on the exposed faces of the substructure would be repaired. Key elements of this alternative include:

Geometry There are no nonstandard features on the 79th Street Bridge. This alternative would retain the existing horizontal and vertical alignments of the structure, including overall width and length.

Operational One lane of vehicular traffic, in addition to pedestrian and bicycle access would be maintained during each stage of construction on 79th Street. Detour to encourage traffic to use Bay Ridge Parkway Bridge and 7th Avenue South to Fort Hamilton Parkway. Lane and shoulder closures on the Gowanus Expressway would be required at different periods during each construction stage to protect Gowanus Expressway traffic during deck removal and installation, and for the jacking operations.

Control of Access Control of access remains the same.

Right of Way No ROW impacts. Environmental No environmental impacts. Cost Total estimated cost of this alternative is $5.77M. Project Goals This alternative fully meets the project objective to replace the structurally deficient

roadway deck (new 9½”-thick monolithic deck). This alternative fully meets the project objective to rehabilitate or replace deficient structural elements (cap beam and bearings at Pier 2 with minor repairs to superstructure and substructure). There are no nonstandard geometric features on the 79th Street Bridge. Construction could be performed in two stages to minimize delays. Construction duration is estimated to be fifteen months. This alternative does not alter existing design elements that contribute to the historic character of the bridge and surrounding community.


3-7

A summary of the cost for the feasible alternatives at 79th Street is provided below. The detailed cost estimate for Alternative 2 is provided in Appendix F.

Exhibit 14 Summary of Feasible Alternative Costs - Million Dollars (Calculated Year)

for 79th Street Bridge

Activities

Alt 1 Alt 2

No Build Deck

Replacement

Construction

Bridge $0.00 $3.05

Highway $0.00 $0.00

Incidentals1 15% $0.00 $0.46

Subtotal 1 $0.00 $3.51

Contingency (30% @ Scoping Stage) $0.00 $1.05

Subtotal 2 $0.00 $4.56

Field Change Orders (2%) $0.00 $0.09

Subtotal 3 $0.00 $4.65

Mobilization (4%) $0.00 $0.19

Subtotal 4 $0.00 $4.84

Expected Award Amount (Inflated @ 3%/yr to midpoint of Construction (2018) $0.00 $5.29

Construction Inspection (10%) $0.00 $0.48

ROW Costs (N/A) $0.00 $0.00

Total Cost $0.00 $5.77

Notes:

1 The potential cost increase due to unknown or un-tabulated items.


3-8

3.2.2 Preferred Alternative

The alternative that best meets the project objectives is Alternative 2: Deck Replacement with Rehabilitation of Superstructure and Substructure. Alternative 2 fully meets the project objective to replace the structurally deficient roadway deck (new 9½”-thick monolithic deck) and fully meets the objective to rehabilitate or replace structurally deficient structural elements (minor repairs to superstructure and substructure). The primary steel members (rated 5 to 6) and secondary steel members (rated 5 to 6) are in good condition. There are no existing nonstandard geometric deficiencies on 79th Street. Alternative 2 is 17% of the cost of the bridge replacement alternative (Alternative 4).

3.2.3. Design Criteria for Feasible Alternative(s)

3.2.3.1. Design Standards

3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements

The critical design elements are tabulated in Exhibit 15. A design speed of 35 mph was recommended based on the following factors:

• 79th Street over the bridge is classified as an “Urban Principal Arterial - Other.” • The measured off-peak 85th percentile speed is 28 mph, but the 85th percentile must fall within the

design speed range for the functional class of the roadway (HDM 2.7.2.4.A). For an urban area, the design speed range is 35 mph to 45 mph.

In consultation with the Traffic Engineering & Safety Division, a design speed of 35 mph was selected based on the minimum allowable design speed for the functional class.

3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters None.

3.3. Engineering Considerations

3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance

3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System This project will not change the functional classification of the highway.

3.3.1.2. Control of Access Access control to the bridge will remain the same.

3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices 3.3.1.3. (1) Traffic Signals No new traffic signals are proposed at any of the bridge locations in this project.


3-9

* Nonstandard Feature (none) 1 The Traffic Engineering & Safety Division has concurred that the use of a design speed of 35 mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume.

Exhibit 15 Critical Design Elements for 79th Street Bridge

(in accordance with HDM §2.7)

PIN: X806.58 NHS (Y/N): Yes

Route No. & Name: 79th Street Functional Class: Urban Principal Arterial – Other

Project Type: Bridge Rehabilitation Design Classification (AASHTO Class)

Urban Arterial (HDM Section 2.7.2.4)

% Trucks: 4% Terrain: Level

ADT: 8,000 Truck Access Rte.: Access: No Qualifying: No

Element Standard

Criteria

Existing Conditions

Proposed Conditions

1 Design Speed1 Min. functional class speed (35 mph) or speed based on 85th percentile speed (28 mph)

HDM Section 2.7.2.4 A

30 mph

35 mph

2 Lane Width 11 ft. min, 12 ft. desirable HDM Section 2.7.2.4 B

HDM Exhibit 2-4

12’

12’

3 Shoulder Width Curbed shoulder: 0’ min, 1’-2’ desirable HDM Section 2.7.2.4 C

HDM Exhibit 2-4a

2’ right

2’ left

2’ right

2’ left

4 Horizontal Curve Radius

371’ Min. @ emax = 4% HDM Section 2.7.2.4 D

HDM Exhibit 2-4a

Tangent Section

Tangent Section

5 Superelevation 4% max. HDM Section 2.7.2.4 E

N/A

N/A

6 Stopping Sight Distance

(Horizontal & Vertical)

250’ Min. HDM Section 2.7.2.4 F

HDM Exhibit 2-4a

Greater than 250’

Greater than 250’

7 Maximum Grade 7% max. HDM Section 2.7.2.4 G

HDM Exhibit 2-4a

2.1%

2.1%

8 Cross Slope 1.5% min. to 2.5% max. HDM Section 2.7.2.4 H

Normal Crown

Normal Crown

9 Vertical Clearance

14 ft. min., 14’-6” desirable Bridge Manual Table 2-2

14’-11”

14’-11”

10 Design Loading Structural Capacity

Bridge Rehab: HS-20 live load Bridge Manual Section 2.6.2

HS 20 live load

HS 20 live load

11 ADA Compliance 5’-6” clear width on structure HDM 18.6.5.1

9’-0 ¼” sidewalk

9’-0 ¼” sidewalk


3-10

3.3.1.3. (2) Signs Existing signs will be evaluated and replaced as necessary. New signs will be added where required. Curve warning and speed advisory signs will be added for the non-standard curvature.

3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) No ITS measures are proposed.

3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay 3.3.1.5. (1) Proposed Speed Limit The existing posted speed limits will be retained upon completion of the project. 3.3.1.5. (2) Travel Time Estimates The bridge rehabilitation, once completed, will not significantly add or reduce roadway capacity on the bridge; therefore, no substantial increase or decrease of travel times is anticipated as compared to the No Build condition. Refer to Exhibit 6 for existing Speed Data. 3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes The bridge rehabilitation, once completed, will not significantly add or reduce roadway capacity on the bridge; therefore, no anticipated changes in traffic volumes as compared to the No Build condition are expected. Refer to Exhibit 8 for existing and future traffic volumes.

3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility

3.3.1.7 (1) At Project Completion & Design Year The bridge rehabilitation, once completed, will not significantly add or reduce roadway capacity on the bridge; therefore, no anticipated changes in traffic levels of service as compared to the No Build condition are expected. Please refer to Exhibit 9 in Section 2.3.1.7 for existing and future traffic LOS.

3.3.1.7 (2) – Work Zone Safety & Mobility A. Work Zone Traffic Control Plan Maintaining traffic flow on and around the 79th Street Bridge during construction will be a major issue. Maintenance of traffic/work zone traffic control (WZTC) will require careful sequencing of construction to maintain the continuity of traffic flow and provide adequate safety for both motorists and construction workers. Impacts to the traveling public would be minimized, and access to abutting residences, commercial establishments, and retail businesses would be maintained. The contractor will be required to inform the local New York City Police and Fire Departments, as well as schools, of construction scheduling so that they are aware of construction activities. A Traffic Study for Construction Phase Conditions was prepared (see Appendix C). A summary of the construction phase traffic study findings and a description of the WZTC schemes being considered are provided below. Conceptual WZTC plans are provided in Appendix A. Traffic operations for the rehabilitation of the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway were tested assuming that only one travel lane would be provided on the 79th Street Bridge. Traffic analysis results of this construction phase condition indicated that a significant traffic impact during the weekday AM and PM


3-11

peak periods would be experienced by the westbound Fort Hamilton Parkway approach to 7th Avenue North. This traffic impact could be mitigated by diverting a portion of the traffic (about 100 vehicles per hour) to the Bay Ridge Parkway Bridge and 7th Avenue South. Motorists could be encouraged to use the Bay Ridge Parkway Bridge through the use of variable messaging signs located at the approaches to the Bay Ridge Parkway/Fort Hamilton Parkway intersection which would be activated during the peak hours to alert motorists about potential delays along Fort Hamilton Parkway due to the 79th Street Bridge construction and to seek alternate routes. This mitigation would alleviate the potential traffic impacts at the Fort Hamilton Parkway approach to 7th Avenue North, and intersections along the proposed detour route would be able to accommodate approximately 100 vehicles per hour without experiencing significant traffic impacts. A second approach to mitigating traffic impacts could be mitigated by building a temporary pedestrian bridge north of the 79th Street Bridge, which would allow for the removal of the sidewalk on the 79th Street Bridge during construction, thereby allowing traffic to use this space for a second travel lane. Providing two narrow travel lanes of (approximately 10’-0” to 11’-0” wide) on the 79th Street Bridge during construction would allow traffic to operate similar to existing conditions and would not result in any significant traffic impacts. Northbound Gowanus Expressway traffic volumes tend to decrease to less than 1,450 vph within the 11 PM to 5 AM period, allowing for two of three lanes to be closed without substantial traffic queuing. From 12 to 2 AM, volumes are under 2,900 vph, which would allow for a single lane closure. Traffic volumes on the northbound Gowanus Expressway auxiliary lanes under the 79th Street Bridge are generally less than 200 vph during 11 PM to 5 AM period. Southbound Gowanus Expressway traffic volumes also tend to decrease to less than 1,450 vph during the 12 to 6 AM period, which would allow for two of three lanes to be closed without causing substantial traffic queuing. Between 10 PM and 7 AM, traffic volumes are generally under 2,900 vph, which would allow for a single lane closure. Southbound traffic volumes on the Gowanus Expressway auxiliary lanes under the 79th Street Bridge are generally less than 200 vph during 12 to 6 AM period. Three options for WZTC were considered for the 79th Street Bridge, as described below (see Exhibit 16).

• 79th Street WZTC Option 1 (One lane with detour): This option would consist of two stages and maintain one-way, one lane vehicular traffic with pedestrian and bicycle traffic maintained throughout construction. Traffic signals may need to be adjusted to allow for additional green time in the direction of the one-way traffic crossing the bridge to minimize delays due to reduced traffic lanes. Traffic would be detoured as described above. The total estimated construction duration is 15 months.

• 79th Street WZTC Option 2 (Two lanes with temporary bridge): This option would consist of five

stages and maintain two lanes of traffic on 79th Street Bridge. A temporary bridge for pedestrians, and possibly utilities, would be constructed in Stage 1 on the north side. Stage 2 would consist of the removal of the existing sidewalk on bridge in order to accommodate vehicular traffic in Stage 3. The total estimated construction duration is 17 months.

• 79th Street WZTC Option 3 (Two lanes with no temporary bridge): This option would consist of six stages and maintain two travel lanes and a sidewalk for pedestrians on the 79th Street Bridge. No temporary bridges would be constructed. This option would require removal of the existing sidewalk in Stage 1 to allow for two lanes of travel and pedestrian traffic during subsequent construction stages. The total estimated construction duration is 21 months.


3-12

Exhibit 16 Work Zone Traffic Control Summary

for 79th Street Bridge

WZTC-1 WZTC-2 WZTC-3

NUMBER OF STAGES 2 5 6

NUMBER OF TRAVEL LANES ON 79th STREET

1 2 2

TEMPORARY PEDESTRIAN/UTILITY BRIDGE REQUIRED1

NO YES NO

DETOUR REQUIRED1 YES NO NO

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DURATION FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 2)

15 MONTHS 17 MONTHS 21 MONTHS

B. Special Provisions WZTC for the 79th Street Bridge will need to be coordinated with the 86th Street Bridge under PIN X807.23. C. Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010) The Region has determined that the 79th Street Bridge project is significant per 23 CFR 630.1010. A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared per 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of a Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan. Transportation Operations (TO) and Public Information (PI) components of the TMP will be considered during final design. 3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis The accident rates for the 79th Street Bridge were less than the statewide average accident rates; therefore, no accident reduction or prevention measures have been identified at these project locations.

3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access

The proposed bridge rehabilitation project is not anticipated to change the traffic operations on or approaching the bridge location; consequently, traffic operations are anticipated to be similar to the No Build condition. Refer to Appendix C and Section 3.3.1.7 (2) for a discussion of anticipated traffic operations during construction.

3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues No parking regulation changes are proposed.

3.3.1.11. Lighting Underdeck lighting will be replaced or repaired, where needed.


3-13

3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction The preferred alternative will not change the ownership and maintenance responsibilities (see Section 2.3.1.12).

3.3.1.13. Constructability Review The Regional Construction Group will be consulted during final design.

3.3.2. Multimodal

3.3.2.1. Pedestrians No significant changes to the existing pedestrian facilities are proposed. The existing sidewalk for the modest 350 peak hour pedestrian volume across the 79th Street Bridge on the north side of the bridge would remain. Accessible pedestrian facilities would be provided on the 79th Street Bridge per ADA guidelines. Sidewalks would meet or exceed the minimum 5’-0” widths, and curb ramps would be provided at all crosswalk locations.

3.3.2.2. Bicyclists No special provisions are proposed to accommodate bicyclists. The 2015 NYCDOT Bike Map indicates that the 79th Street Bridge is a potential future bike route that would connect with the exclusive and shared bike lanes on northbound 7th Avenue. Opportunities to provide a shared or exclusive bike lane across the 79th Street Bridge will be assessed for the preferred alternative.

3.3.2.3. Transit No changes are proposed for transit. However, bus stops at intersections adjacent to the 79th Street Bridge may require temporary relocations due to construction staging.

3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports No changes are proposed and no conflicts are expected between the preferred bridge alternatives and nearby airports, railroad stations, or port facilities.

3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) No access changes to recreational areas are proposed.

3.3.3. Infrastructure

3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section Refer to Appendix A for proposed typical sections. 3.3.3.1. (1) Right of Way There are no proposed ROW acquisitions.


3-14

3.3.3.1. (2) Curb Steel faced curb is located on both sides of 79th Street Bridge. All proposed curb within the project limits will be steel faced curb. 3.3.3.1. (3) Grades There are no proposed profile changes. The existing 2.1% grade does not warrant a climbing lane. 3.3.3.1. (4) Intersection Geometry and Conditions The existing intersection geometry will be retained.

3.3.3.1. (5) Roadside Elements

a) Snow Storage, Sidewalks, Utility Strips, Bikeways, Bus Stops - Snow storage procedures will remain unchanged. There are no bus stops and bike lanes within the project limits.

b) Driveways - There are no driveways within the project limits. c) Clear Zone - The clear zone will be two feet wide on the south side and approximately 11 feet wide

on the north side.

3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements

3.3.3.2. (1) Nonstandard Features There are no existing nonstandard geometric features or cross section elements on the 79th Street Bridge. The deck replacement alternative complies with the geometric features and cross section elements in the design criteria. 3.3.3.2. (2) Non-Conforming Features There will be no nonconforming features within the project limits.

3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder The proposed pavement on the 79th Street Bridge over Gowanus Expressway will be an integral wearing surface as part of a new monolithic concrete deck slab.

3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems Overall drainage patterns within the project limits will not be altered. A closed drainage system consisting of catch basins and drainage pipes will be maintained. Existing drainage structures will be cleaned and frame and grate adjustments may be necessary.

3.3.3.5. Geotechnical No special techniques or considerations are needed for a deck replacement project.

3.3.3.6. Structures Alternatives regarding the rehabilitation and replacement of the bridge are discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.


3-15

3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts There are no bridges or culverts over waterways within the project limits. There are no dams in the vicinity of the project that would be adversely affected.

3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators All guiderail within the project limits including bridge railing will be evaluated during final design for conformance to design standards and replaced or repaired, if necessary.

3.3.3.9. Utilities Utility relocations will be coordinated with the utility owners during preliminary and final design to ensure continuous service throughout the duration of construction activities.

3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities There are no railroads within the project limits and no at-grade crossings within a half-mile.

3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements Refer to Chapter 4 for complete discussion.

3.3.5. NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA)

Pursuant to ECL Article 6, this project is compliant with the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA). To the extent practicable, this project has met the relevant criteria as described in ECL § 6-0107. The Smart Growth Screening Tool was used to assess the project’s consistency and alignment with relevant Smart Growth criteria. The tool was completed by STV for inclusion in the DR (see Appendix D) and reflects the current project scope.


4-1

CHAPTER 4 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS and CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Environmental Classification

4.1.1.1 NEPA Classification

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway bridge rehabilitation project (e.g., deck replacement) is being progressed as a Class II action (Categorical Exclusion) because it does not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental impact and is excluded from the requirement to prepare an or an EIS or EA as documented in the FEAW and following discussion in this chapter. 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 primarily a “bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacementO” and does not significantly impact the environment. Refer to Appendix B for the FEAW.

4.1.1.2 SEQR Classification

In accordance with 17 NYCRR, Part 15, “Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act,” the Department has determined that the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project is a SEQR Type II Action, since the project does not violate any of the criteria contained in subdivision (d) of Section 15.14. This bridge rehabilitation project (e.g., deck replacement) is a Type II action identified in 17 NYCRR Part 15, Section 15.14, Subdivision (e), Item 37, Paragraph (iv), “the replacement, reconstruction or rehabilitation, at present sites or immediately adjacent thereto, of existing bridges, culverts or other transportation structures, including railroad crossing structures, not involving substantial expansion of the structure.” No further SEQR processing is required.

4.1.2 Coordination with Agencies

4.1.2.1 NEPA Cooperating and Participating Agencies

The following agencies are Cooperating Agencies in accordance with 23 CFR 771.111(d):

• New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)

4.2 Social

The purpose of this section is to discuss the social environment in the vicinity of the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway. The project site is located in the established section of Dyker Heights, New York City (Kings County). The proposed project is a deck replacement of the existing bridge. No significant impacts to the natural, social or physical environs are anticipated with this project; therefore, no temporary or permanent, direct or indirect effects to social conditions of the surrounding neighborhood are expected with the project completed, or during its construction.

4.2.1 Land Use

The 79th Street Bridge is located in a densely developed New York City neighborhood (see Figure 3).


4-2


4-3

4.2.1.1 Demographics and Affected Population

The 79th Street Bridge is located within potential NYSDEC Environmental Justice (EJ) Areas (see Figure 4). The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project area is located within Census Tract 142 in Kings County. This New York City neighborhood is urban in character, with single- and multi-family residences developed to the east and west of the bridge. P.S. 127, The McKinley Park School, is located approximately 120 feet southeast of the bridge. Kathy Reilly Triangle is located approximately 190 feet northeast of the bridge along Fort Hamilton Parkway. This park area is landscaped with gardens and shrubbery, offers a series of benches, and has views across 7th Avenue toward the project site. The U.S. Census Bureau 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates indicate that Census Tract 142 has a total population of approximately 2,980 persons. The median reported age was approximately 34.4 years, with 13.6% of the population being reported at age 65 or older. Of the population that is over 65 years of age, approximately 21% of them identify as disabled. According to the Census data collected, Census Tract 142, Block Group 1 and Census Tract 132, Block Group 2 are potential NYSDEC Environmental Justice Area, based on income level and minority status, respectively. Within these Block Groups, approximately 26% and 64% of the populations identify as minority, respectively. Approximately 32% and 6% of the populations are below the federal poverty level. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that approximately 18.2% of all households include no person age 14 or older who speaks only English or English “very well.” Approximately 21.5% of the population in the Census Tract commutes individually by car, truck, or van. The mean travel time to work is 43.1 minutes. Census data indicate that approximately 62.9% of the population commutes by public transportation. Two bus routes stop along Fort Hamilton Parkway within two blocks of the project site.

4.2.1.2 Comprehensive Plans and Zoning

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will occur within the existing NYSDOT right-of-way and be limited to repair and rehabilitation of the existing bridge structure; therefore, the proposed project will be consistent with local planning policy and will not affect local zoning.

4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion

4.2.2.1 Community Cohesion

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will modify an existing roadway bridge within the existing NYSDOT right-of-way. No occupied dwellings or land will be acquired as part of this project. The proposed project will not directly or indirectly affect populations or development patterns. Therefore, the project will not divide neighborhoods, isolate part of the neighborhood, generate new development or otherwise affect community cohesion.

4.2.2.2 Home and Business Relocations

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will modify an existing roadway bridge within the existing NYSDOT right-of-way. No occupied dwellings/businesses or land will be acquired as part of this project. The proposed deck replacement will require no displacement of residences or businesses and there will be no relocation impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will not cause adverse impacts to neighborhood character and stability.


4-4


4-5

4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed

4.2.3.1 Elderly and/or Disabled Persons or Groups

U.S. Census data do not indicate a significant concentration of elderly or disabled persons in the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project area. Census data indicate that approximately 13.6% of the population living near the project site were age 65 or older (refer to Section 4.2.1.1). The area contains adequate sidewalks and crosswalks for pedestrians including the handicapped and elderly. This project will ensure pedestrian safety and continued accessibility throughout construction and will maintain the existing network of sidewalks when complete. Therefore, the proposed project will result in no adverse effects to the elderly or disabled populations.

4.2.3.2 Transit Dependent

The B16 and B70 buses run along Fort Hamilton Parkway, and the B4 makes stops along Bay Ridge Parkway, in serving the area surrounding the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site.

4.2.3.3 Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups (Environmental Justice)

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site is not located in a Census Tract that includes a population that may qualify as a potential Environmental Justice Community (U.S. Census Bureau 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates). The proposed deck replacement will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts, and therefore will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. The proposed project will ensure continued, safe operability of this bridge, which is a critical component of the roadway infrastructure serving the City.

4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship

4.2.4.1 School Districts

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site is within District 20 School District. PS 127, the McKinley Park School, is located approximately 120 feet east of the project site. Sidewalks exist within the project site and are used by students from the adjacent neighborhood. It is not expected that there will be any long-term adverse impacts to the school. No significant construction-related or long-term impacts are expected with the proposed project.

4.2.4.2 Recreational Areas

Kathy Reilly Triangle is located approximately 190 feet northeast of the proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site. The project will occur within the existing NYSDOT right-of-way and be limited to repair and rehabilitation of the existing bridge structure. Access to the park will be protected during construction and will not be affected. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any impacts to any publicly accessible recreational open space resources.

4.2.4.3 Places of Worship No places of worship are within 400 feet of the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any impacts to places of worship.


4-6

4.3 Economic

4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will replace a component (e.g., deck) of the existing bridge structure within the existing NYSDOT right-of-way. The proposed project will not result in changes to land use (see Chapter 4.2.1) or changes to neighborhoods and community cohesion (see Chapter 4.2.2), and there are no economic development zones located in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project will not be expected to affect general economic conditions, tax base, employment opportunities, or property values.

4.3.2 Business District Impacts

No core business district (such as a designated “Central Business District” or a concentration of neighborhood commercial uses) is located within 400 feet of the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site. No special incentive zone or other type of designated business district (such as an industrial business zone) is located in the project site. Further, no significant traffic-related or other environmental impacts are anticipated with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in business district impacts.

4.3.3 Specific Business Impacts

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will replace a component of the existing bridge structure within the existing NYSDOT right-of-way. As indicated in chapters 2 and 3, potential local re-routing of traffic will be expected during construction only, and will be temporary and therefore not significant; these effects will be limited in duration, and will not affect the character of specific businesses. No acquisition of any businesses is required for this project. The proposed project will result in no permanent changes to traffic volumes, the character of the surrounding neighborhood, or the character of specific businesses. Access to businesses will be maintained during construction. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in specific business impacts.

4.4 Environmental

4.4.1 Wetlands

4.4.1.1 State Freshwater Wetlands

Based on field investigation (September 2015) and the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Map for Kings County (NYSDEC Environmental Mapper, referencing U.S.G.S. The Narrows Quadrangle New York-New Jersey and Jersey City Quadrangle New Jersey-New York, 2013), there are no NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands or regulated adjacent areas (100 feet) within 400 feet of the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site. No further investigation is required, and Environmental Conservation Law, Article 24 is satisfied.

4.4.1.2 State Tidal Wetlands

A review of the NYSDEC GIS wetland data files indicates that there are no NYSDEC jurisdictional tidal wetlands or regulated adjacent areas within or near the project limits of the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway. Therefore, ECL Article 25 does not apply.


4-7

4.4.1.3 Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site has been reviewed for wetlands in accordance with the criteria defined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. No wetlands have been identified near the project site, and it has been determined the project will not impact areas that meet these criteria.

4.4.1.4 Executive Order 11990

Based on a site visit, there are no wetlands located within the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project area of potential effect. Executive Order 11990 does not apply to this project.

4.4.1.5 Mitigation Summary

No wetlands will be affected by the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project. Therefore, no wetland mitigation/monitoring plan is required.

4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses

4.4.2.1 Surface Waters

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project activities do not involve excavation in, or the discharge of dredged or fill material into, Waters of the U.S.; therefore, no permits under this Section are required.

4.4.2.2 Surface Water Classification and Standards

Based upon a review of the NYSDEC GIS data maps for regulated streams, no surface waterways are located within the proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project limits.

4.4.2.3 Stream Bed and Bank Protection

Based upon a review of the NYSDEC GIS database, and as verified by a site visit, no protected streams, nor 50-foot regulated stream banks (on either side of a regulated stream) are located within the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project area.

4.4.2.4 Airport and Airway Improvement

N/A. The proposed highway bridge projects do not involve airport uses or improvements.


The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will not result in effects to surface water. Therefore, no mitigation/monitoring plan for surface waterbodies or watercourses is required.

4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

4.4.3.1 State Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers

No NYSDEC Designated, Study or Inventory State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers are located within 400 feet of the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site. No further review is warranted.


4-8

4.4.3.2 National Wild and Scenic Rivers

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site is not located within the vicinity of a National Wild and Scenic River as shown by the Nationwide Rivers Inventory List of National Wild and Scenic Rivers. No further review is warranted.

4.4.3.3 Section 4(f) Involvement

The 79th Street over the Gowanus Expressway project site is not located in or adjacent to a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. No further Section 4(f) consideration is required with regard to wildlife and waterfowl refuges.


No rivers are affected by the proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project. Therefore, no mitigation/monitoring plan for surface wild, scenic, and recreational rivers is required.

4.4.4 Navigable Waters

4.4.4.1 State Regulated Waters

No state regulated navigable waters are located within 400 feet of the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any effect to state regulated navigable waters.

4.4.4.2 Office of General Services Lands and Navigable Waters

No OGS underwater holdings are located within 400 feet of the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any effect to OGS underwater holdings.

4.4.4.3 Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 9

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project does not involve the construction or modification of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over any navigable water of the United States. Therefore, Section 9 is not applicable.

4.4.4.4 Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project does not involve the creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States, nor does it alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of any navigable water of the United States. Therefore, Section 10 is not applicable.

4.4.5 Floodplains

4.4.5.1 State Flood Insurance Compliance Program

As shown on the GIS data base for the 100 year floodplains, the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site is not located within a regulated floodplain.


4-9

4.4.5.2 Executive Order 11988

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will not impact any floodplains. Therefore, EO 11988 does not apply.

4.4.6 Coastal Resources

4.4.6.1 State Coastal Zone Management Program

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project is not located in a State CZM area, according to the Coastal Zone Area Map from the NYS Department of State’s Coastal Zone Management Unit.

4.4.6.2 State Coastal Erosion Hazard Area

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site is not located in or near a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.

4.4.6.3 Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Program

According to NYS DOS “List of Approved Coastal Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs),” dated March 2007, the proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project is not located in a Local Waterfront Revitalization Area. The project is not located within a Special Natural Waterfront Area or a Significant Maritime and Industrial Area, as outlined in the NYC Department of City Planning’s “The New Waterfront Revitalization Program.” Therefore, no further action is required with regard to Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Program consideration.

4.4.6.4 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA)

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project is not located in, or near a coastal area under the jurisdiction of the CBRA or the CBIA.

4.4.7 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs

4.4.7.1 Aquifers

NYSDEC aquifer GIS data files indicate that the proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project is not located in an identified Primary Water Supply or Principal Aquifer Area. No further investigation is required.

4.4.7.2 Drinking Water Supply Wells (Public and Private Wells) and Reservoirs

There are no municipal drinking water wells, wellhead influence zones, or reservoirs within or near the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project area, according to the NYS Department of Health Drinking Water Protection Program (https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/; September 2015).


4-10

4.4.8 Stormwater Management

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will disturb less than one acre and will not require a SPDES permit. While this project is not required to assess the requirements for stormwater management practices, they will be considered where reasonable and feasible.

4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources

4.4.9.1 Fish, Wildlife, and Waterfowl

According to USFWS’s IPaC Trust Resource Report dated September 17, 2015, the Piping Plover, Red Knot, Roseate tern and Seabeach amaranth have been known to be present within the vicinity of the project site; however, there is no critical habitat within the project area for any of the named species. An updated USFWS’s IPaC request was submitted on November 23, 2016. The same species were identified, and again, no critical habitat was identified within the project area. Correspondence with USFWS is included in Appendix B. A field investigation in September 2015 of the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site verified that the shoreline and marine coastal habitats of the three birds and one plant species was not present.

4.4.9.2 Habitat Areas, Wildlife Refuges, and Wildfowl Refuges

A field investigation in September 2015 confirmed no wildlife or waterfowl refuge is located within 400 feet of the proposed 79th Street over the Gowanus Expressway project. No further consideration is warranted.

4.4.9.3 Endangered and Threatened Species

A field investigation in September 2015, following review of NYSDEC GIS information database, confirmed that no state-protected, threatened, or endangered species are located within 400 feet of the proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site. NYSDEC was contacted to confirm that no state endangered or threatened species will be affected by the project. According to NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program letter dated October 9, 2015, there are no records of rare or state-listed animals or plants, or significant natural communities on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site. USFWS was also contacted, as discussed in Section 4.4.9.1. A Request for FHWA Concurrence with No Effect Determination was prepared by NYSDOT in November 2016. See Appendix B for correspondence.

4.4.9.4 Invasive Species

A field investigation in September 2015 confirmed that Norway maple (Acer platanoides) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) were both growing in the forested tracts adjacent to the 79th Street Bridge. These trees are both considered invasive species in New York State, according to DECs Prohibited and Regulated Invasive Plants Guide (2010). Precautions will be taken to prevent the introduction of invasive species during project design and construction.

4.4.9.5 Roadside Vegetation Management

Existing roadside vegetation surrounding the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway consists primarily of maintained lawn areas, wooded areas, and waste areas. It is anticipated that conditions with the project complete will resemble existing conditions.


4-11

4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas

4.4.10.1 State Critical Environmental Areas

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project does not involve work in or near a Critical Environmental Area identified by the NYSDEC.

4.4.10.2 State Forest Preserve Lands

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project does not involve work in or near state forest preserve lands identified by the NYSDEC.

4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources

4.4.11.1 National Heritage Areas Program

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will not impact areas identified as National Heritage Areas.

4.4.11.2 National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 / State Historic Preservation Act – Section 14.09

SHPO reviewed the project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Based on the review, it is the New York SHPO’s opinion that the project will have no adverse effect on archaeological and/or historical resources listed in or eligible for the New York State and National Register of Historic Places. Correspondence from SHPO is included in Appendix B.

4.4.11.3 Architectural Resources

The proposed project does not involve federally owned, jurisdictional or controlled property that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, Section 110 does not apply.

4.4.11.4 Archaeological Resources

The proposed project will not require project activities within previously undisturbed areas that have the potential to contain archeological resources. Thus, a 4(f) evaluation will not be required for archaeological resources.

4.4.11.5 Historic Bridges

While the 79th Street Bridge is 54 years old, there are no other bridges over 50 years old or listed on NYSDOT’s Historic Bridge Inventory that are located within the project’s area of potential effect.

4.4.11.6 Historic Parkways

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project does not have the potential to impact any historic parkways.


4-12

4.4.11.7 Native American Involvement

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project does not lie within Federal, Tribal, or Indian-owned property. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 does not apply. Furthermore, conformance with this Act is covered in the Section 106 Process.


The Section 106 consultation (described in Section 4.4.11.2) concluded that the proposed project would have no adverse effect on archaeological and/or historical resources. A 4(f) evaluation will not be required for archaeological resources or historical resources.

4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources

4.4.12.1 State Heritage Area Program

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will not impact areas identified as State Heritage Areas.

4.4.12.2 National Heritage Areas Program

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will not impact areas identified as National Heritage Areas.

4.4.12.3 National Registry of Natural Landmarks

No listed national significant natural areas are located within 400 feet of the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site.


Kathy Reilly Triangle is located approximately 190 feet northeast of the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site. The proposed deck replacement will not directly or indirectly affect parklands or access to it, either during construction or after project completion. Therefore, no further action is required under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act as it relates to parks and recreational resources.


The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation was contacted on September 17, 2015 to confirm that the proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will not impact parklands or facilities that have been partially or fully federally funded through the Land and Water Conservation Act. Therefore, no further consideration under Section 6(f) is required.

4.4.12.6 Section 1010 Involvement

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project does not involve the use of land from a park to which Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program funds have been applied.


4-13

4.4.13 Visual Resources

4.4.13.1 Introduction

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway will replace a component of the existing bridge structure (deck replacement) and will not substantially alter the profile or form of the bridge structure as visible from surrounding areas. Therefore, no visual effects are anticipated, and no further analysis is warranted.

4.4.13.2 Effects Assessment

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project area is located within Census Tract 142 in Kings County. This New York City neighborhood is urban in character, with and single and multi-family residences developed to the east and west of the bridge. P.S. 127, The McKinley Park School, is located approximately 120 feet southeast of the bridge. Kathy Reilly Triangle is located approximately 190 feet northeast of the bridge along Fort Hamilton Parkway. This area consists of benches surrounding gardens and shrubbery, and has views of the bridge. The proposed project will not substantially alter the profile or form of the bridge structure as visible from surrounding areas. Therefore, no changes to the visual environs are anticipated, and no further analysis is warranted.

4.4.14 Farmlands

4.4.14.1 State Farmland and Agricultural Districts

Based on a review of the NYS Agricultural District Maps for Kings County, the proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project is not located in or adjacent to an Agricultural District.

4.4.14.2 Federal Prime and Unique Farmland

The proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project activities will not convert any prime or unique farmland, or farmland of state or local importance, as defined by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, to a nonagricultural use.

4.4.15 Air Quality

4.4.15.1 Regulatory Framework The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has identified several criteria pollutants as being of concern nationwide: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). As a result, the EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all of these criteria pollutants and has categorized these standards as “primary” and “secondary.” Primary standards are designed to establish limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. In addition to criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATS) are also of concern. The Clean Air Act (CAA) was amended in 1977 to require each state to maintain a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for achieving compliance with the NAAQS. In 1990, the act was amended again to strengthen regulation of both stationary and motor vehicle emission sources. Conformity to the SIP is defined under the 1990 CAA amendments as “conformity to an implementation plan’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the national ambient air quality standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards.”


4-14

The CAA defines non-attainment areas as geographic regions that have not met one or more of the NAAQS. When an area within a state is designated as non-attainment by the USEPA, the state is required to develop and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which would describe how it will meet the NAAQS under deadlines established by the CAA. The project is located in the NYC metropolitan area, which has been designated as non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone and a maintenance area for PM2.5 and CO. The NYC metropolitan area is in attainment of all other criteria pollutants. Under the 1990 CAA amendments, the U.S. Department of Transportation cannot fund, authorize, or approve federal actions to support programs or projects that are not first found to conform to the CAA requirements. The following section includes a more detailed description of transportation conformity.

4.4.15.2 Transportation Conformity

The 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project site is located within the New York City Metropolitan Area in Kings County, which is considered an ozone marginal non-attainment area. The project is designated as an exempt project on the Transportation Plan and the TIP for the NYC Metropolitan Area. This TIP has been found to conform by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council and FHWA/FTA, approved by amendment to the FFY 2014 – 2018 TIP on December 4, 2014 by NYMTC and signed by FHWA on April 9, 2015. The project’s design scope and concept have not changed since the TIP amendment determination was made.

4.4.15.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Microscale Analysis

An air quality analysis for CO is not required since the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project will not increase traffic volumes, reduce source-receptor distances by 10% or more, or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to jeopardize attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The project comes from the currently conforming Transportation Plan and currently conforming TIP approved by amendment to the FFY 2014 – 2018 TIP on December 4, 2014 by NYMTC and signed by FHWA on April 9, 2015. The project is exempt and does not require a project-level conformity determination.

4.4.15.4 Mesoscale Analysis

A Mesoscale Analysis is not required for the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway. The project does not significantly affect air quality conditions over a large area and is not a project of regional significance, nor does the size and scope of the project meet any of the criteria in the NYSDOT EPM/TEM Air Quality Chapter that would warrant a Mesoscale Analysis.

4.4.15.5 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Analysis

A MSAT Analysis is not required for the 79th Street Bridge over Gowanus Expressway. The project qualifies as a Categorical Exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117 (c), and there is no meaningful impact on traffic volumes or vehicle mix.

4.4.15.6 Particulate Matter (PM) Analysis

PM analysis is not required for the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project. The proposed project would not introduce a significant number of heavy duty diesel vehicle trips to any traffic intersection. Therefore, the project is not of the type listed in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1), and would therefore not be considered a project of local air quality concern for PM2.5. Finally, the proposed project has been classified as a NEPA Categorical Exclusion, a SEQR Type II action that would not result in increased traffic volumes.


4-15

4.4.15.7 Greenhouse Gas Analysis

A Greenhouse Gas Analysis is not required for the 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway. The project cost will be less than $50 million, and none of the criteria that would warrant an analysis under the NYSDOT ESB Draft 2003 Energy and Greenhouse Gas guidance would be met. Furthermore, since no additional vehicle trips would be generated and greenhouse gas emissions are directly related to vehicle emissions, significant impacts from greenhouse gas emissions are not expected.

4.4.16 Energy

An energy assessment is not required for the proposed 79th Street Bridge over the Gowanus Expressway project since it is not expected to:

a. Increase or decrease VMT; b. Generate additional vehicle trips; c. Significantly affect land use development patterns; d. Result in a shift in travel patterns; or e. Significantly increase or decrease vehicle operating speeds.

Therefore, the project will not significantly affect energy consumption.

4.4.17 Noise

The deck replacement for the 79th Street Bridge would be constructed in the same location as the existing bridge. It does not increase the number of through traffic lanes, nor does it significantly change the horizontal or vertical alignment in the vicinity of a receptor. This project is not a Type I project, as defined by 23 CFR 772 and does not require a formal noise study. However, a noise analysis was conducted to assess the impacts of construction noise, which may be expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. The procedures followed for this analysis are in accordance with the Federal-Aid Program Guide, 23 CFR 772, “Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, and the NYSDOT Noise Analysis Policy. Existing Conditions A survey of existing conditions was performed and land uses were identified. One-hour noise measurements were conducted at two representative single family residences at 7820 7th Avenue and 7723 Fort Hamilton Parkway. The monitors were located near the property lines of the buildings. Monitoring was conducted during the AM, midday and PM peak time periods on September 16th. Exhibit 17 shows the results of the noise monitoring program.

Exhibit 17

Monitored Peak Hour Noise Levels

Site#1: 7820 7th Avenue (Single Family Residential Housing)

Time of Day

Leq (dBA)

L10 (dBA)

AM 70.1 72.6

Midday 70.9 72.9

PM 70.7 71.5


4-16

Site#2: 7723 Ft Hamilton Parkway (Single Family Residential Housing)

Time of Day

Leq (dBA)

L10 (dBA)

AM 67.4 69.7

Midday 67.6 69.0

PM 67.2 69.2

Construction Noise Assessment Major on-site stationary activities would include deck removal, placement of the new deck, and the cleaning, painting and repair of the superstructure and substructure. Off-site mobile source construction activities would be related to any traffic diversions, employee trips and /or any other vehicular movement associated with the construction, particularly truck trips. Utilizing FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), the construction noise assessment considered equipment combinations typical of bridge rehabilitation and construction to determine if the resulting Leq would surpass the NYSDOT’s construction noise impact level of 85 dBA. The construction noise assessment is based on the adjustment of referenced noise emission values to the different source-to-receptor distances. All source-to-receptor distances were conservatively measured from the edge of construction activities to the edge of the closest receptors. The results of the modeling, as summarized in Exhibit 18, indicate that future construction noise levels would be below the NYSDOT criteria threshold of 85 dBA. As a result, significant noise impacts are not expected for any nearby sensitive receptors.

Exhibit 18 Construction Noise Assessment Results

Bridge Location Receptor ID Land Use

Maximum Predicted Leq Noise Level

(dBA)

79th Street

7820 7th Avenue Residential 80.6

7723 Fort Hamilton Parkway Residential 75.4

PS 127 School 77.4 In addition to the NYSDOT criteria, the 2005 NYC Noise Code also regulates construction noise. Potential impacts from construction activities will be minimized by using properly maintained and muffled equipment and adhering to the permitted hours specified in the Code. In addition, construction materials will be handled and transported in a manner that avoids unnecessary noise. Adherence to these procedures will cause any significant adverse construction-related noise impacts to be unlikely. Provisions should be made in the contract and specifications to ensure that the contractor makes every reasonable effort to minimize construction noise through abatement measures, such as work-hour controls, maintenance of muffler systems, public information regarding construction scheduling and limitations on idling equipment. Noise Mitigation Summary Short-term construction noise may impact abutting receptors to some extent due to the character of the project and some of the operations involved. However, no unusual noise mitigation is expected to be necessary for the work proposed under this project. Daytime construction activity during the regular work week should limit sleep disturbance problems. Locating high noise level equipment away from sensitive receptors, awareness of potential noise problems and complaints, and maintenance of proper muffling devices should minimize construction noise impacts.


4-17

4.4.18 Asbestos

An asbestos assessment was performed to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) within the bridge structure and utility conduits affected by the project. This assessment was in general conformance with Chapter 4.4.19 Asbestos Management, of the NYSDOT’s The Environmental Manual (TEM). Record plans were reviewed for the bridge structure and a preliminary site visit was performed to identify suspect ACMs. Additional coordinated field inspections were performed to confirm the identified ACMs and to collect bulk samples of suspect ACM identified during the preliminary site visit. The bulk samples were submitted for laboratory analysis to determine asbestos content.

4.4.18.1 Screening

An asbestos screening was performed, and the following areas of potential asbestos material were identified:

a) Asbestos Slipsheet/Bond Breaker Material at top of abutment backwalls (this material was sampled and tested under a previous project and found to be asbestos containing);

b) Transite (ACM) Conduits suspended by hangers beneath the bridge (2-4” and 6-4” conduits); c) Suspect black bearing pad located at pier bearing locations; d) Suspect orange bearing pad located at abutment bearing locations; e) Suspect caulks located top of deck within longitudinal curb joints, top of deck pier expansion joints,

and top of deck at wingwall joints; f) Suspect black bituminous joint fillers located at pier 1 jersey barrier at base, at east abutment

backwall conduit penetration (between S1-S2), and at east abutment (joint between wingwall and deck slab);

g) Suspect black sealer located at east abutment backwall 16"main penetration (between S3-S4).

4.4.18.2 Assessment and Quantification

An asbestos assessment has been completed for the 79th Street Bridge over Gowanus Expressway project. Prior to the asbestos assessment, an asbestos sampling and analysis plan for bulk sampling and analysis of all suspect ACMs was prepared and submitted to the NYSDOT. Using the asbestos sampling and analysis plan as a guide, a detailed asbestos assessment was performed which included a review of “as builts” and utilities, on-site visual inspections, bulk sampling of suspect ACMs, and confirmatory laboratory analysis to determine the presence of asbestos. The following materials were determined to be asbestos containing:

• Asbestos Slipsheet/Bond Breaker Material at top of abutment backwalls; • Transite (ACM) Conduits suspended by hangers beneath the bridge (2-4” and 6-4” conduits); • Utility Pipe Insulation located at the 16” main between S1 and S2 stringers; and at the 20” main

between S3 and S4 stringers. In addition to containing asbestos, the insulation contains PCBs at levels that are above the Hazardous Waste classification level of 50 ppm;

• Black Sealer located at the east abutment backwall 16"main penetration between S3-S4. The quantity of asbestos containing materials requiring abatement for this project will depend on the final scope of work as presented in the contract plans. Only impacted asbestos containing materials will need to be abated. A summary of these findings will be sent to the NYSDOL at PS&E to comply with NYSDOL’s Industrial Code Rule No. 56 preconstruction notification requirements. A copy of the “as builts” and the consultant sampling results will be kept in the project files, and is available for review.


4-18


No special site specific variances are anticipated. Existing Departmental blanket variances or existing variances will be sufficient for this project. An Asbestos Special Note and Specifications will need to be prepared by NYSDOT personnel or a consultant with an Asbestos Designer License.

4.4.19 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials

A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening was not required at the 79th Street Bridge over Gowanus Expressway site.

4.5 Construction Effects and Mitigation Measures

As detailed previously in Sections 4.4.15 (Air), 4.4.17 (Noise), 4.4.18 (Asbestos), and 4.4.19 (Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials), minor construction period effects are anticipated with the proposed bridge rehabilitation project. The effects would be of limited duration and potential impacts would be mitigated as described in the respective sections, e.g., if asbestos were determined to be present during construction, appropriate measures would be put in place to protect the health and safety of workers and the general public. The proposed project may result in short-term noise during construction, which would not be a significant adverse impact, as it would be limited in duration. Standard mitigation, such as construction scheduling (e.g., daytime construction), would be sufficient to ensure that no significant construction period impacts with regard to noise would be expected with the proposed project. No detours would last as long as two consecutive CO seasons; therefore, no air quality analysis of construction activities would be required. A construction health and safety plan would ensure the health and safety of workers and the general public in the vicinity of the proposed project during construction, and appropriate pedestrian protection and accident prevention measures would be put in place as part of the traffic management plan during construction.

4.6 Indirect, Secondary, and Cumulative Effects

The project consists of rehabilitating or replacing an existing bridge that would neither change capacity nor access provided by existing roadway infrastructure, but would maintain existing levels of service. As summarized throughout Chapter 4, no significant impacts would result with the proposed project. Further, no substantial effects to the physical, social, or biological environs would be anticipated with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to cause or induce indirect, secondary, or cumulative effects.

design report - new york state department of transportation · design report january 2017 bridge...

Documents