Appendix E Alternatives Supporting Materials

APPENDIX E

Alternatives Supporting Materials

E.1 COORDINATION WITH METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

E.2 COORDINATION WITH NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

E.3 COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINSITRATION (FRA) AND AMTRAK

APPENDIX E.1

Coordination with MTA

▪ Meeting Notes, March 2, 2021

▪ Meeting Notes, November 20, 2020


▪ Email Correspondence

▪ Meeting Notes, September 5, 2019

▪ Meeting Materials, March 2, 2021

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION MARCH 2021

LGA Access Improvement Project EIS | 1 | Agency Coordination Meeting

LGA Access Improvement Project EIS March 2, 2021

MTA Coordination Meeting 12:00 p.m. EST

18061104 Teleconference

MEETING FACILITATOR: S. Culberson

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

Andrew Brooks FAA AEA-610 [email protected]

Marie Jenet FAA NY ADO [email protected] Jean Wolfers-Lawrence FAA [email protected] John Doyle FAA Legal [email protected] Jacob Balter MTA - LIRR [email protected] Donna Betty MTA - LIRR [email protected] Colleen Channer MTA – HQ Legal [email protected] Lou Oliva MTA – HQ Legal [email protected] Steve Culberson Ricondo [email protected] Allison Sampson Ricondo [email protected] Lisa Reznar Ricondo [email protected] Dave Full RS&H [email protected]

SUMMARY OF MEETING DISCUSSION FAA and the EIS Team met with MTA to discuss Sunnyside Yards and potential effects to Sunnyside Yards

that could occur from some of the rail alternatives.

FAA and the EIS Team was seeking clarification based on public comments concerning alternatives that would stop or go through Sunnyside Yards

Sunnyside Yards — MTA stated that based on the East Side Access plan they are aware that Sunnyside Yards contains a lot

of areas of sandy soils from historic wetlands/drainage areas. There are also drainage issues in the yard. — Sunnyside Yards contains yard tracks and mainline tracks – all of the tracks are utilized. — The East Side Access project will increase usage of the mainline tracks through the yards. — MTA suggested clarification of whether the station would be on ground level or underground – they

assumed underground because the rail line was described as being in a tunnel. — Underground alternatives would face the following issues:

o Poor soil conditions

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION MARCH 2021


o Difficulty in locating elevators, vent plants, and power plants o There is no room for these facilities within the yards

— Any alternative that would include a station at the yards would have issues connecting to the existing road network.

— Any aboveground alternatives would displace maintenance and storage yards and would impact operation of the yard.

Alternatives Initiating at Sunnyside Yards — Initiating new service from Sunnyside Yards would be problematic. — There is no room to store trains or cars in the yards at ground level. — If the station is underground, construction would disrupt operations of the yard, and still have issue of

where trains and cars could be stored, as it would be impractical to store them underground and impossible to store them at LGA.

— A transition to an underground station would also require some tracks to be displaced.

ATTACHMENTS: DISTRIBUTION: 18061104 [See attendee list] Read File


FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NOVEMBER 2020


LGA Access Improvement Project EIS November 20, 2020






Marie Jenet FAA NY ADO [email protected] Jean Wolfers-Lawrence FAA [email protected] John Doyle FAA Legal [email protected] Jacob Balter MTA - LIRR [email protected] Donna Betty MTA - LIRR [email protected] Linda Messina MTA – LIRR Legal [email protected] Lisa Schreibman MTA - NYCT [email protected] Colleen Channer MTA – HQ Legal [email protected] Lou Oliva MTA – HQ Legal [email protected] Steve Culberson Ricondo [email protected]

SUMMARY OF MEETING DISCUSSION FAA and the EIS Team provided a few questions to MTA prior to the meeting based on comments received

during the public review period on the Draft EIS.

MTA Funding — The MTA Board announced the 2021-2024 financial plan this week, which may include service cuts

during this time period. — At this time there is no service plan for 2025 or beyond, so MTA cannot commit to the service levels

they will be able to provide at Mets-Willets Point. — The MTA Board will meet in December; at that time, it is expected that they will take any actions needed

to enact the 2021-2024 financial plan, which could include service cuts of up to 50 percent. — Ridership on the 7 Line is currently at about 30 percent of pre-COVID levels. NYCT may enact service

cuts of up to 40 percent. — Weekday ridership on the LIRR Port Washington Branch is currently at about 27 percent of pre-COVID

levels. — MTA expects that as the COVID public health emergency eases, ridership will come back. At this point,

they anticipate that it will take about 3 years for ridership to reach pre-COVID levels.



— As ridership increases, they will adjust their service plans accordingly.

Capital Plan/Projects Underway — East Side Access project is moving ahead with a projected 2022 opening. — The train stock to enable East Side Access is still part of the budget/capital plan. However, the MTA

Capital Program is currently on-pause due the MTA financial situation. — Unlike planned infrastructure projects which have long lead times and are difficult to start and stop,

there is much more flexibility on changing service levels to meet demand.

Shuttle Service from Mets-Willets Point Station. — FAA appreciates that service commitments beyond 2024 is not possible at this time, but is concerned

that they are being asked to approve a project that is partly dependent on LIRR providing service frequency between Mets-Willets Point and Manhattan (Penn Station and Grand Central).

— MTA stated that they will have the ability to provide the service if the ridership demand is there and the infrastructure improvements to Mets-Willets Point Station are made. Part of the ridership demand would be met by LIRR trains that already pass through the Mets-Willets Point Station, which LIRR could accommodate. However, if service cuts are made system-wide and continue into 2026, that would affect the frequency of service at Mets-Willets Point as well.

Alternatives Screening Criteria — One of the screening criteria used by FAA was disruption to peak hour transit service. FAA revisited

with MTA the question of the severity of disruption that would occur. o Port Washington Branch of the LIRR is single track east of Great Neck o Any disruption to Port Washington Branch affects the slots through the East River Tunnels o Thus, any disruption to Port Washington Branch trains during peak hours would have a very

significant impact on LIRR and other railroads using the East River Tunnels o LIRR also examined whether it was possible to use buses or to switch riders to the 7 Line and

determined that neither option was feasible o Port Washington Branch has the third highest ridership in the LIRR system, approximately 45,000

riders each weekday (pre-COVID) o Any service outages on this branch are planned during weekends or overnight, and always avoids

periods when the NY Mets are playing home games or US Open matches. o Similarly, the 7 Line is one of the busiest NYCT subway lines – it is consistently busy throughout the

day. o FAA can reach out to Lisa Schreibman with additional questions concerning disruption to subway

service. — Another screening criterion used by FAA was impacts to major infrastructure including utilities. FAA

asked whether MTA considered utilities in construction of the Second Avenue Subway line. o MTA stated that they had to relocate a significant number of utilities, at significant cost.



o The Second Avenue subway was constructed using a boring machine to excavate the tunnels; it was not a cut and cover method.

o A primary reason the #7 subway extension went so deep was to have the tunnel completely go through rock. Depth of the tunnel was also driven by the need to avoid the Port Authority Bus Terminal ramps, Lincoln tunnel and other major infrastructure.

o For the Second Avenue Subway, as the line was an underground subway, they could not completely avoid utilities, particularly at the underground subway stations. The relocation of utilities led to limited utility disruptions and travel lane restrictions.

o Lisa Schreibman will provide to FAA information on utility relocations and costs associated with the Second Avenue subway.

Fair Fares NYC Program — FAA received comments about the impact the proposed APM would have on implementation of the

Fair Fares NYC Program. — MTA states that the Fair Fares NYC Program is a program where NYC pays for half the subway or bus

fare for people below the poverty level living in NYC. — LIRR currently has a pilot program (Atlantic Ticket) for riders of the Atlantic Branchtraveling within

Brooklyn and Queens, testing out a reduced fare. — However, LIRR has no plans to implement such a program NYC-wide or on the Port Washington Branch. — The proposed LGA APM would have no effect on the LIRR Atlantic Ticket program.



FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION MARCH 2020 DRAFT

Meeting Summary | 1 | MTA Coordination Meeting

LGA Access Improvement Project EIS March 25, 2020



MEETING FACILITATOR: S. Culberson NOTE TAKER(S): A. Sampson

MEETING ATTENDEES REPRESENTING EMAIL

Marie Jenet FAA NY ADO [email protected] Andrew Brooks FAA AEA-610 [email protected] Laura Price FAA Legal [email protected] Jean Wolfers-Lawrence FAA Headquarters [email protected] John Williams Ricondo [email protected] Steve Culberson Ricondo [email protected] Allison Sampson Ricondo [email protected] Michelle Cohen Port Authority [email protected] Jim Beers Port Authority [email protected] Jacob Balter MTA LIRR [email protected] Adam McCool MTA LIRR [email protected] Anthony Febrizio MTA NYCT [email protected]

SUMMARY OF MEETING DISCUSSION 1) “NO ACTION” FOR THE METS-WILLETS POINT LIRR STATION

Consists of upgrades to the station for compliance with ADA standards – The project was contemplated between 2012 to 2014 and had undergone design work – Extensions of the existing revenue service platform, including lighting and associated components, to

increase from 8-car to 12-car trains – Demolish and replace the two existing stair cases at the western end of the station and construct a

new elevator for ADA access, to be located west of the Passerelle – The project would not have any effect on the Passerelle Pedestrian Bridge or the Canopy

Any resiliency modifications for the station would only be considered as part of the LGA Access Improvement Project and would not be considered for a stand-alone project. LIRR would only implement if a major renovation of the station was being done.

LIRR inspectors have repeatedly flagged structural concerns with the Passerelle over the LIRR station and tracks. If the bridge is not replaced, additional measures will need to take place to address.



2) PASSERELLE ALTERNATIVES

South of the NYCT 7 Line – Would disrupt access from 126th Street to the Casey Stengel Bus Depot, the MTA NYCT Corona

Maintenance Facility, and the NYCT 7 Line Corona Yard during construction of the OMSF – Construction of the structural support foundations for the APM system may impact existing buildings

located adjacent to the APM station – This alternative would impact the internal roadway that all buses use to access the existing MTA Bus

Washing Facility and the MTA NYCT Casey Stengel Bus Depot. The internal roadway is located immediately adjacent to the South Field parking lot and cannot be re-routed. Port Authority will provide a graphic to FAA that depicts existing circulation

– An existing 72-inch water main is located along the alignment of the internal roadway/South Field parking lot boundary; Port Authority will provide a graphic to FAA

North of NYCT 7 Line – Construction occurring directly adjacent to the NYCT 7 Line Mets-Willets Point Subway Station would

be a major disruption to the operation of the 7 Line as well as to the access and operations of the station, especially during events at Citi Field

– There is the potential to undermine the station & line structures with directly adjacent structural support foundations

Above the NYCT 7 Line – MTA considers this alternative having the most significant impacts of the discussed alternatives – Construction of this alignment would essentially shut down the NYCT 7 Line – It is likely that a portion of the NYCT 7 Line would need to be rebuilt to co-locate the APM and subway

station and structures

West of Passerelle – Rail tracks at the NYCT 7 Line Corona Yard are located very tight together and there is physically no

room to construct foundations or support columns between the tracks. Tracks would need to be redesigned to accommodate APM foundations, with approximately 50 percent of the tracks needing to be relocated.

– Construction over the NYCT 7 Line Corona Yard would be a major disruption to the NYCT 7 Line service along the entire line

– Difficulty in providing a clear customer path of travel to the LIRR Station as there is no room between the Corona Yard tracks and the LIRR tracks; construction of a separate walkway in this area would most likely cause disruption to LIRR and NYCT operations

East of Passerelle – Pedestrian connections to the LIRR station would require increased complexity over Corona Yard and

LIRR tracks



– Ability to construct pedestrian walkway and APM Station in this location without impacting NYCT 7 Line Corona Maintenance Facility operations

Above the LIRR – LIRR considers this alternative having the most significant impacts to the Port Washington line – Construction of this alignment would essentially shut down the LIRR Port Washington Branch – It is likely that a portion of the LIRR would need to be rebuilt to co-locate the APM station / structures

and subway infrastructure.

Proposed Alternative Alignment – A new Passerelle bridge located adjacent to its current location would provide less risk in disrupting

utilities (power, signals, and communication lines) that are currently under the existing Passerelle bridge to the NYCT 7 Line Corona Yard, NYCT 7 Line and the MTA NYCT Casey Stengel Bus Depot

– NYCT and LIRR have a strong preference for installing new utilities under a relocated bridge, doing a cutover once, and then dismantling the existing utilities and Passerelle bridge, as this reduces operational risk to their facilities


1

Stephen Culberson

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

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

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

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

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

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3

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

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

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

We also have two follow‐up questions:

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

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

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

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

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

4

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

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

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

212-878-7105| [email protected]

▪ Meeting Notes, September 5, 2019

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SEPTEMBER 2019


LGA Access Improvement Project EIS September 5, 2019

MTA Coordination Meeting 9:00 a.m. EST

18061104 MTA, 2 Broadway, NY, NY


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

SEE ATTACHED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York City Transit 7 Line.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

o Q70 ridership data o M60 ridership data

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

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

LGA AirTrain – EIS September 5, 2019

ATTENDANCE SHEET

Judith A. Schwartz MTA Legal David Sanchez FAA NYADO 718-995-5776 Marie Jenet FAA NYADO David Fish FAA AEA David Full RS-H Michelle Cohen LGA Redevelopment 212-435-3770 Adam McCool LIRR-DPM 516-523-0147 Bryan Bertoli LIRR-SUC PLAN Jacob Balter LIRR-Strategic Investments Donna Betty Garth H. Mcintosh NYCT-Buses 718-566-3502 Louis Oliva

LIRR-Strategic Investments

MTA Legal Joseph Chan MTA RE John Doyle FAA Legal John Williams Ricondo Steven Loehr NYCT-DOS Andrew Teodorescu FAA Legal Allison Sampson Ricondo 248-767-9645 Andrew Greenberg MTA RE Dibya Shahi DY Consultants Wendy Yu DY Consultants

Name Company Telephone Number Email Addresses

212-878-1032

718-995-5777 718-553-3331 415-780-4602

347-494-6711 718-558-3856 718-558-3832

212-878-4633 212-878-8316

718-553-3270 415-992-5892

646-252-2884 718-977-6511

212-878-7434 212-635-3838 212-635-3838

[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]

2 | P a g e

LGA AirTrain – EIS September 5, 2019

ATTENDANCE SHEET

Name Company Telephone Number Email Addresses Jean Wolfers-Lawrence FAA 212-267-9747 Andrew Brooks FAA 718-553-2511 [email protected] Faith Tabafunda PANYNJ 212-435-3462 [email protected] Matt Discenna PANYNJ 212-435-3722 [email protected] Steve Culberson Ricondo 312-479-8710 [email protected] Lisa Schreibman MTA-NYCT 646-252-5953 [email protected] David Moss MTA-Bus

Page 1 of 4

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

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

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

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

opportunities to the east end of Long Island.

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

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

Stop Time Western Terminal Train Type

10:00 AM Penn Station MWP Shuttle

10:15 AM Penn Station Port Washington Branch

10:30 AM Grand Central MWP Shuttle

10:45 AM Grand Central Port Washington Branch

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

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

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

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

Page 2 of 4


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

2. LIRR Willets Point Station

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

Authorities Law exemption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 of 4


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

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

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

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

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

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

have information on employees vs. airline passengers

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 4


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

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

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

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

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

MTA 2020‐2024 Capital Program.

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

accommodate projected future branch ridership and future service assumptions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

LIRR - Port Washington Line

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

NYCT #7

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


APPENDIX – LIRR Mets-Willets Point Station Renderings




APPENDIX E.2

Coordination with NYCDEP

▪ Meeting Notes, January 22, 2021


▪ Letter from NYCDEP, September 13, 2019

▪ Meeting Notes, August 7, 2019


FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION JANUARY 2021


LGA Access Improvement Project EIS January 22, 2021

NYC DEP Coordination Meeting 10:00 a.m. EST





Marie Jenet FAA NY ADO [email protected] Jean Wolfers-Lawrence FAA [email protected] Dean McMath FAA [email protected] John Doyle FAA Legal [email protected] Andrew Teoderescu FAA Legal [email protected] Guo Zhan Wu NYC DEP [email protected] Andy Lu NYC DEP [email protected] Lixin Cheng NYC DEP [email protected] Steve Carrea NYC DEP [email protected] Jannine McColgan NYC DEP [email protected] Steve Culberson Ricondo [email protected] Allison Sampson Ricondo [email protected] Dave Full RS&H [email protected] Wendy Yu DY Consultants [email protected] Dibya Shahi DY Consultants [email protected]

SUMMARY OF MEETING DISCUSSION A call was held to discuss sewer interceptors and combined sewer outfalls in the vicinity of LGA, the

feasibility of relocating these facilities, and/or avoiding them.

Sewer Interceptors — Sewer interceptors are not typically relocated; they are pressurized systems, which are very difficult to

construct and maintain o Elevation and slope are critical to their operation o Interceptors receive flows from local sanitary and combined sewers and convey the flow to pump

stations o Most projects avoid impacting interceptors due to the time, cost, and difficulty in relocating them



o DEP staff on the call could not remember any project that necessitated relocation of an interceptor o Any relocation would require land acquisition, street grading, shoreline restoration, bulkhead

reconstruction, utility relocation, changing connections from each house to the relocated line o Design would take at least 3 years and an additional 10 years to construct o During the construction of a relocated interceptor, sewer backups and flooding would be

unavoidable and would require fluming, which is a temporary pipe that would need to be used during construction.

Sewage would need to be pumped through the temporary pipe or flume, which would create potential noise and air quality issues.

Service impacts would be likely, as construction would need to interrupt sewer, water, and other utilities

Fluming of an interceptor is very difficult as it’s a pressurized system During heavy rainfall events, the flume would not be able to accommodate the extra flow,

resulting in sewer backups and flooding, as there are high fluctuations in flows during storm events

o Interceptor relocation would require a feasibility study to conduct surveys, identify slopes and utility interferences, develop plans, determine geotechnical conditions, conduct flow modeling and hydraulic studies

o Relocation would require changes to the pump station, as any change to the system would require design changes to the pump stations

Sanitary Sewer/Combined Sewer Outfall — Sanitary sewer and combined sewer outfalls (CSO) are not pressurized; operate by gravity only — DEP staff stated that is it not very common to relocate a CSO as they are tied to outfalls; relocation of

an outfall requires permits from both the US Army Corps of Engineers and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

— Would require feasibility study o Any relocation would require land acquisition, street grading, shoreline restoration, bulkhead

reconstruction, utility relocation, changing connections from each house to the relocated line o Design would take at least 3 years and an additional 10 years to construct o Sewer backups and flooding would be unavoidable; would require fluming, which is a temporary

pipe that would need to be used during construction. Sewage would need to be pumped through the temporary pipe or flume, which would

create potential noise and air quality issues. Service impacts would be likely, as would need to interrupt sewer, water, and other utilities Fluming of sanitary sewers and CSO are complicated



During heavy rainfall events, the flume would not be able to accommodate the extra flow, resulting in sewer backups and flooding

o CSO near LGA is a triple trunk/triple box o Covers 34 drainage plans over a large geographic area; any relocation has the potential to require

revisions to all the drainage plans

Constructing in Vicinity of Interceptor/CSO — DEP requires a minimum 15-foot clearance from an interceptor or CSO; in some instances the separation

can be reduced if structural support/protection is provided — DEP staff were not aware of any unusual issues associated with the extension of the 7 Line — Hudson River tunnels were constructed deeper than the interceptor. That interceptor is supported on

piles that extend 20 feet below the interceptor. Construction of the Hudson River tunnels required providing adequate support for the piles to avoid impacting the interceptor.



1

Stephen Culberson

From: Wu, Guo Zhan <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 2:36 PMTo: Wendy Yu; Dibya Shahi; Wynne, Thomas A.; McColgan, JannineCc: Stephen Culberson; Allison Sampson; Dave Full; Regan Beck; Azam, Shofiqule; Carrea, SteveSubject: RE: LGA EIS - Utilities Impact

Wendy and Dibya, Below is our quick bullets for impact of relocating CSO and interceptor:

There are not many feasible routes for relocation due to street width, grade, and existing infrastructure built out: Feasibility study should be done for the alignment/route of the relocated sewers to satisfy DEP clearance requirements between relocated sewers and existing utilities (6 feet edge to edge clearance). Relocated sewers preferable route is within street ROW. LGA should evaluate the width/grade of the streets to find the available lanes of the relocated sewers.

Impact to other existing utilities: Relocated sewer may impact other existing utilities (water main, gas main, electric line, etc.) that will trigger other utilities replacement/relocation.

Relocating interceptor and CSO may require additional pump stations which may further complicate the projects and impact to other public and private utilities. It will require land acquisition.

Relocating CSO will also need to relocate and reconstruct outfall which will also impact shoreline/pier head/bulkhead, and may require to extend outfall and build riprap beyond bulkhead line. Such relocation works may take more than 3 years to design and 10 years to construct.

Relocating interceptors and CSO will require temporary fluming of the sewer flow which is very expensive. There will be potential sewer backups and flooding, and also causing community impact and environmental impact.

Interceptor and CSO relocation may need land acquisition and/or easement from private property.

Impact to existing ADP: Drainage plans require to be amended due change in sewer and interceptor route. For outfall impacted area alone is about 6000 acres and will take about a year to do feasibility studies, and interceptors relocation will most likely require 34 drainage plans amendments, and each drainage plan can take 3 years to develop and finalize.

It will be costly and timely to relocate CSO and interceptor which cost estimate can only be done after lengthy feasibility studies and drainage plan amendments.

Guo Zhan (John) Wu, P. E. | Chief, Regulatory Review NYC Environmental Protection | Bureau of Water & Sewer Operations 59-17 Junction Boulevard – 3rd Fl. Low Rise, Flushing, NY 11373 (O) 718-595-5191 | [email protected]

From: Wendy Yu <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2021 2:34 PM To: Dibya Shahi <[email protected]>; Wynne, Thomas A. <[email protected]>; McColgan, Jannine <[email protected]>; Wu, Guo Zhan <[email protected]> Cc: Stephen Culberson <[email protected]>; Allison Sampson <[email protected]>; Full, David

2

<[email protected]>; Regan Beck <[email protected]> Subject: RE: LGA EIS ‐ Utilities Impact Hi Tom, In addition to what Dibya has mentioned below, we think it will be extremely beneficial if we can have the following information provided in your bullet listing:

High level cost estimate

Feasibility and logistics

Agency involvement, process, and timeframe

Wendy Yu Airport Civil Engineer I | DY Consultants phone: 212.635.3838 We have moved! Please note our new office address: 40 Wall Street, Suite 500, New York, NY 10005

From: Dibya Shahi <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 10:58 AM To: Wynne, Thomas A. <[email protected]>; McColgan, Jannine <[email protected]>; Wu, Guo Zhan <[email protected]> Cc: Wendy Yu <[email protected]>; Stephen Culberson <[email protected]>; Allison Sampson <[email protected]>; Full, David <[email protected]>; Regan Beck <[email protected]> Subject: RE: LGA EIS ‐ Utilities Impact Hi Tom, Happy New Year! Can we get a status update on the high level bullet points for the relocation of the high level interceptor or combined sewer outfall? Thanks,

Dibya Shahi Airport Engineer | DY Consultants phone: 212.635.3838 We have moved! Please note our new office address: 40 Wall Street, Suite 500, New York, NY 10005

From: Wynne, Thomas A. <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 4:56 PM To: Dibya Shahi <[email protected]>; McColgan, Jannine <[email protected]>; Wu, Guo Zhan <[email protected]> Cc: Wendy Yu <[email protected]>; Stephen Culberson <[email protected]>; Allison Sampson <[email protected]>; Full, David <[email protected]>; Regan Beck <[email protected]> Subject: RE: LGA EIS ‐ Utilities Impact + Jannine and Zhan who manage Plan Review Dibya, Our Plan Review unit can develop some high level bullet points but suffice it to say that moving either of them would be complicated and costly. Especially if the new route were to trigger pump stations or land acquisition. Tom

3

From: Dibya Shahi <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 12:46 PM To: Wynne, Thomas A. <[email protected]> Cc: Wendy Yu <[email protected]>; Stephen Culberson <[email protected]>; Allison Sampson <[email protected]>; Full, David <[email protected]>; Regan Beck <[email protected]> Subject: LGA EIS ‐ Utilities Impact Hi Tom, I hope all is well since we spoke. As you may be aware, we received some comments on the DEIS and are diligently working on addressing those. We will like some additional information on the underground utilities. As noted in the DEP comment letter provided on September 13, 2019, the proposed subway extension routes for Alternative 8B, 8C, and 8E will have potential impacts to the high level interceptor or combined sewer outfall. Is it possible to relocate either of these facilities and if so, conceptually what will that entail? Please let us know a timeframe in which you will be able to get back to us. Of course, the earlier the better but we understand it is the holiday season. We look forward to hearing back from you! Have a safe and happy holiday! Best,

Dibya Shahi Airport Engineer

Zweig 2020 "Hot Firm" "Best Firm to Work For"

p: 212.635.3838 a: 40 Wall Street, Suite 500

New York, NY 10005 w: www.dyconsultants.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure.

▪ Letter from NYCDEP, September 13, 2019

MV September 13, 2019

DYConsultants

40 Wall Street, Suite 500

New York, NY 10005

Attn. Mrs. Dibya Shahi

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

Dear Mrs. Shahi,

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

Route 8B (Proposed Elevated structure) Potential concerns:

A. Department of Environmental Protection (PEP). Bureau of Water and SewerOperations (BWSO) - General comments:

A.l For all the locations where the existing sewers/water mains are crossing underthe proposed elevated subway structure, DEP requirement is to maintain at least15-feet edge to edge clearance between the edge of the elevated structurefoundation and the edge of DEP sewer/water main. This 15-feet minimumclearance could be increased based on the size/depth of the sewer/water main(based on influence line). This required clearance will reduce the impact to ourinfrastructure and facilitate the future maintenance and reconstruction. For thelocations where the proposed Route 8B alignment crosses existing DEPinfrastructure please see the respective comments below.

A.2 For all the locations where the existing sewers/water mains are parallel to theproposed elevated subway structure, DEP requirement is to maintain at least15-feet edge to edge clearance between the edge of the elevated structurefoundation and the edge of DEP sewer/water main. This 15-feet minimumclearance could be increased based on the size/depth of the sewer/water main(based on influence line). This required clearance will reduce the impact to ourinfrastructure and facilitate the future maintenance and reconstruction. If thefootprint of the proposed elevated subway structure is to be located directlyabove the DEP infrastructure, then the proposed vertical clearance between thebottom of the subway elevated structure and the top of the street grade must beprovided to DEP. Based on the provided information of the vertical clearance,this office will determine whether the footprint of the elevated subway structurecan be located directly above DEP infrastructure or what specific verticalclearance must be maintained. Generally DEP does not allow any parallel

EnvironmentalProtection

Vincent Sapienza, P.E.Commissioner

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

59-17 Junction BoulevardFlushing, NY 11373

[email protected]

[email protected]

Page 1 of 12

D.1 There are existing small size distribution water mains along 31st Street, 19"' Avenue andall the cross-streets overlapping/intersecting with the alignment of the proposed Route8B which would be potentially impacted. However, please refer to the list below forlarger size water infrastructure that would be potentially impacted by the proposed LGAsubway extension Route 8B:

D.1.1. The proposed Route 8B alignment is crossing the City Water Tunnel No. 2 nearthe intersection of 19th Avenue & Steinway Street.

D.1.2. There is a 60-inch dia. trunk water main located in 19th Avenue between SteinwayStreet and 415' Street, coming from Steinway Street on the north of 19lh Avenueand continuing in 41st Street on the south of 1901 Avenue. The proposed Route 8Balignment is shown to be parallel and coincide with the alignment of this existing60-inch trunk main at the said section in 19th Avenue. Proposed Route B is alsocrossing the trunk main in either one or both of the streets mentioned above.

D.1.3. There is a 20-inch Cast Iron water main along the 21s' Avenue which is crossingthe proposed Route 8B at Steinway Street. Depending on the proximity and extentof the proposed work the mentioned 20-inch C.I. pipe might have to be partiallyreplaced.

D.1.4. There are 20-inch & 24-inch Cast Iron water main branches crossing the proposedRoute 8B near the 94th Street Bridge over Grand Central Parkway. Depending onthe proximity and extent of the proposed work the mentioned 20-inch & 24-inchCast Iron might have to be replaced as per restraint length requirements.

D.2 There are several existing small sewers in 31s'Street, 19th Avenue and most of the cross-streets (crossing) intersecting / (coinciding/overlapping) parallel to the alignment of theproposed Route 8B which would be potentially impacted. However, please refer to thelist below for larger size sewer infrastructure that would be potentially impacted by theproposed LGA subway extension Route 8B:

D.2.1. The following existing sewers are all crossing the alignment of the proposedRoute 8B at the intersection of 20th Avenue and 31st Street

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

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

west) (approx. 15-feet below grade)

D.2.2. There are several existing sewer chambers coinciding with the alignment of theproposed Route 8B, e.g. at the intersections of 19th Avenue with 45lh Street,Hazen Street, 80u> Street, and at the intersection of Ditmars Boulevard with 82nd

Street.D.2.3. There is an existing 66-inch dia. CSO and its outfall at Luyster Creek which is

parallel to & coincides with the alignment of the proposed Route 8B along 19th

Page 4 of 12

▪ Meeting Notes, August 7, 2019

LAGUARDIA AIRPORT AUGUST 7, 2019

LGA Access Improvement Project EIS | 1 | DEP Meeting

LGA EIS Alternatives – Underground Utilities August 7, 2019

DEP Coordination Meeting 3:00 p.m. EST

MEETING FACILITATOR: W.Yu

NOTE TAKER(S): D. Shahi MEETING ATTENDEES REPRESENTING EMAIL


Stephen Culberson Ricondo [email protected]

Jennae Andrews-Simpson DEP [email protected]

Thomas Wynne DEP [email protected]

Diane Hammerman DEP [email protected]

Jannine McColgan DEP [email protected]

Guo Zhan Wu DEP [email protected]

Wendy Yu DY Consultants [email protected]

Dibya Shahi DY Consultants [email protected]

Teleconference

SUMMARY OF MEETING DISCUSSION 1. INTRODUCTIONS/AGENDA REVIEW

A meeting was held with NYC DEP to discuss utilities and potential effects of various alternatives on existing utilities.

2. ALTERNATIVES A. SUBWAY EXTENSION ALTERNATIVES

Elevated Subway Structure

— 8A-From Astoria Boulevard Subway Station: Elevated Above Astoria Boulevard and Grand Central

Parkway Alternative — 8B-From Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station: Elevated Above 31st Street and 19th Avenue

Alternative — 8D-From Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station: Elevated Above Ditmars Boulevard and Grand

Central Parkway Alternative — 8F-From Roosevelt Avenue-Jackson Heights Subway Station: Elevated Above 82nd and Grand

Central Parkway — 8G-From Mets-Willets Point Station: Elevated Above Roosevelt Avenue and Flushing Bay

Promenade Alternative



Subterranean Structure

— 8C-From Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station: Tunnel Beneath 31st Street and 19th Avenue Alternative

— 8E-From 36th Street Subway Station: Tunnel Beneath Steinway Street and Grand Central Parkway Alternative

B. RAIL ALTERNATIVES

Subterranean Structure

— 10A-From Sunnyside Yards via Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and Grand Central Parkway

Alternative — 10B-From Midtown Manhattan via New Tunnel Beneath East River Alternative — 10C-From Upper East Side via New Tunnel Beneath East River Alternative

3. DATA REQUEST

Major utility infrastructures along these alignments Water Mains or Sewer Mains that serve a large population in Queens and if they will be impacted by

some of these alignments High-level information on the depth of various utilities around these alignments which will help

screen some of these alternatives out from advancing into further analysis Any facility that cannot be relocated or isn’t practical to relocate from cost perspective Depth of the subterranean tunnels or any other design assumptions for any of these alternatives are

unknown at this point Once some of these alternatives are screened out based on impact on major infrastructure other

alternatives will move on to further in-depth analysis

4. DEP’S COMMENTS

DEP has planned water and sewer lines projects around these areas that might impact these alignments

Alternative from Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station: Tunnel Beneath 31st Street and 19th Avenue Alternative might have significant impact on the Wastewater Treatment Plant located along the alignment

ConEd has a large powerplant near the alignment for Alternatives 8A, 8B, and 8C, which may also pose issues.

5. NEXT STEPS

DY/EIS Team will identify those alternatives that are subterranean or have portions that transition underground.



DY/EIS Team will provide conceptual guidance on depth, width, and height of potential tunnels. DY/EIS Team will provide desired schedule for receipt of information. Once DEP has above information, DEP will determine what they can provide in the identified

timeframe.

APPENDIX E.3

Coordination with FRA and Amtrak







LGA Access Improvement Project EIS January 8, 2021

Amtrak Coordination Meeting 1:00 p.m. EST





Marie Jenet FAA NY ADO [email protected] Jean Wolfers-Lawrence FAA [email protected] John Doyle FAA Legal [email protected] Andrew Teoderescu FAA Legal [email protected] Marlys Osterhues FRA [email protected] Ken Walther FRA Ray Verelle Amtrak [email protected] Steve Culberson Ricondo [email protected] Allison Sampson Ricondo [email protected] Dave Full RS&H [email protected]

SUMMARY OF MEETING DISCUSSION FAA and the EIS Team setup a meeting with Amtrak to discuss the Hell Gate Trestle and potential effects to

Amtrak operations that could result based on different alternatives.

Hell Gate Trestle Operations — Amtrak operates 35 trains a day on Hell Gate Trestle – nearly all trains traveling northeast of New York

travel via the Hell Gate Trestle. — CSX also operates freight trains on the Hell Gate Trestle along with a couple of smaller local freight

trains.

Relocating/Raising Hell Gate Trestle — If an alternative would require either the relocation or raising of the trestle, a parallel trestle would need

to be constructed with a maximum 1% grade and be in place prior to disturbing the existing trestle. — The trestle is over 100 years old and made of very dense steel, making it difficult to relocate or replace. — Any alternative that would impact the trestle would be of major concern to Amtrak. — Based on density of development in the area, it would be very difficult to find right-of-way to construct

a temporary parallel trestle as it would require a significant corridor.



Alternatives — Amtrak agreed that extension of the existing elevated subway north of the Astoria Station would

probably not affect the trestle. — Any alternative that required excavation underneath the trestle or adjacent to existing pilings would be

of concern; studies would need to be undertaken and measures implemented to protect the trestle and its pilings/foundations.

— It is unclear whether a subterranean station could be constructed underneath the trestle without impacting it.






FRA Coordination Meeting 12:00 p.m. EST



NOTE TAKER(S): S. Culberson



Dave Sanchez FAA NY ADO [email protected]

Jean Wolfers-Lawrence FAA [email protected]

John Doyle FAA [email protected]

Andrew Teoderescu FAA [email protected]

Peter Schwartz FRA [email protected]

Laura Schick FRA [email protected]

Marlys Osterhues FRA [email protected]

David Valenstein FRA [email protected]

Brandon Bratcher FRA [email protected]

Matthew Mielke FRA [email protected]

Stephanie Perez FRA [email protected]

Steve Culberson Ricondo [email protected]

Allison Sampson Ricondo [email protected]

Dave Full RS&H [email protected]

SUMMARY OF MEETING DISCUSSION

▪ FAA and the EIS Team setup a meeting with FRA to discuss alternatives screening criteria that FRA typically

uses on rail projects.

▪ FRA Alternatives Screening Criteria

— Ability to be time competitive

Used to assess mode shift and travel times of alternatives

— Reliability – particularly considered as a main factor for high-speed rail projects

Issue when trains share rail with cargo or freight trains

Dedicated tracks increase reliability of passenger service

Used in the evaluation of alternatives on the California High Speed Rail project



Also compared to use of highways as an alternative; highways remain vulnerable to traffic

disruptions, accidents, weather, etc.

Other examples include the Tampa-Orlando High Speed Rail EIS and Dallas-Houston High Speed

Rail EIS

Northeast Corridor EIS evaluated alternatives based on time sensitive service (number of trips within

a given timeframe)

B&P Tunnel through Baltimore also used rail service and reliability as part of the purpose and need

for the project

— Other screening criteria often used includes operating performance, constructability effects, impacts to

service, and connectivity/accessibility

ATTACHMENTS: DISTRIBUTION:

18061104

[See attendee list]

Read File





FRA Coordination Meeting 10:00 a.m. EST



NOTE TAKER(S): S. Culberson



Marie Jenet FAA NY ADO [email protected]

Jean Wolfers-Lawrence FAA [email protected]

Peter Schwartz FRA [email protected]

Laura Schick FRA [email protected]

Marlys Osterhues FRA [email protected]

Dick Coswell FRA [email protected]

Bryan Rodda FRA [email protected]

Rebecca Reyes FRA [email protected]

Amishi Castelli FRA [email protected]

Steve Culberson Ricondo [email protected]

Allison Sampson Ricondo [email protected]

Dave Full RS&H [email protected]

SUMMARY OF MEETING DISCUSSION

▪ FAA and the EIS Team setup a meeting with FRA to discuss the Hell Gate Trestle and alternatives screening

criteria that FRA typically uses on rail projects.

▪ Hell Gate Trestle Structure

— Elevation of structure would make it difficult to relocate. Any shutdown of the bridge would be

extremely disruptive to inter-city rail operations.

— Need to maintain the existing grades; raising the trestle at any one location may be impossible to

achieve due to the existing length of the trestle and the limitations on grade change. Would require

elevating a signification portion of the structure.

— All existing supports are on bedrock. The steel is probably not conventional steel, as it was constructed

over 100 years ago.

— Amtrak and freight trains use the trestle on a daily basis; there is no alternative route that could be used

by these trains.

▪ Subway Alternatives

mailto:[email protected]



— Alternative 8A would impact the trestle because it would require elevating the height of the trestle to

allow for construction of an elevated subway line underneath the trestle.

— Alternatives 8B and 8D may not impact the trestle – could extend the N-W Line tracks to the north away

from the trestle. Any excavation within 20-30 feet of any support structure would be of concern due to

the age of the structure.

— Alternative 8C may impact the trestle – may not be able to excavate a subway and subterranean station

underneath the trestle along 31st Street as this could affect the footings for the trestle, particularly if

they are not on bedrock. Risk to the trestle would need to be evaluated.

— Alternative 8E may impact the trestle – may not be able to excavate a subway underneath the trestle,

particularly if footings aren’t on bedrock. Risk to the trestle would need to be evaluated.

▪ Separate call on alternatives screening criteria will be held next week.

ATTACHMENTS: DISTRIBUTION:

18061104

[See attendee list]

Read File

Documents

Appendix E Alternatives Supporting Materials