Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Canal Area Transportation Study

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 144

									                New York Metropolitan Transportation Council



Canal Area Transportation Study
                                                  (CATS)




Final Report for Public Review - December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



                                                             Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 1 
CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 5 
CHAPTER II – STUDY AREA CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 9 
  II-1      ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEY ................................................................................................................... 9 
  II-2      PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY ............................................................................................................................. 12 
     II-2.1  Pedestrian Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 15 
  II-3      TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................... 18 
     II-3.1  Traffic Volume Patterns....................................................................................................................... 18 
     II-3.2  Overview of Traffic Congestion .......................................................................................................... 19 
     II-3.3  Travel Time and Delay Surveys .......................................................................................................... 25 
     II-3.4  Aerial Photography to Identify Areas of Congestion ........................................................................... 30 
  II-4      FIELD INVENTORY ..................................................................................................................................... 36 
  II-5      SAFETY ..................................................................................................................................................... 37 
     II-5.1  Overview of Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 38 
     II-5.2  Intersections with Highest Number of Crashes .................................................................................... 41 
  II-6      GOODS MOVEMENT................................................................................................................................... 41 
     II-6.1  Composition of Traffic Stream ............................................................................................................ 44 
  II-7      PARKING ................................................................................................................................................... 48 
     II-7.1  Typical User Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 48 
     II-7.2  On-Street and Off-Street Parking Surveys ........................................................................................... 50 
  II-8      LAND USE ................................................................................................................................................. 50 
     II-8.1  Existing Land Use, Development Density, and Zoning ....................................................................... 50 
     II-8.2  Historic Districts and Resources .......................................................................................................... 62 
     II-8.3  Other Applicable Policies and Plans .................................................................................................... 62 
CHAPTER III – COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................. 64 
  III-1  GOALS AND STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................................... 64 
  III-2  COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS ........................................................................................................................ 67 
CHAPTER IV – DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS AND
SCENARIOS .............................................................................................................................................................. 69 
  IV-1  GUIDING PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................................................. 70 
  IV-2  STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY RESEARCH .......................................................................... 73 
    IV-2.1     Transportation System Management Concepts ............................................................................... 73 
    IV-2.2     Summary Findings .......................................................................................................................... 75 
  IV-3  SCREENING PROCESS ................................................................................................................................. 76 
    IV-3.1     Step 1 – Organize Ideas and Suggested Actions ............................................................................. 78 
    IV-3.2     Step 2 –Review Issues and Concerns .............................................................................................. 78 
    IV-3.3     Step 3 –Major Flaw Screening of Suggested Actions ..................................................................... 78 
    IV-3.4     Step 4 –Assemble Suggested Actions Into Scenarios ..................................................................... 79 
  IV-4  POTENTIAL CATS II ACTIONS FOR SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 79 
  IV-5  LAND USE SCENARIOS .............................................................................................................................. 85 
    IV-5.1     Known Planned Development Projects ........................................................................................... 85 
    IV-5.2     Baseline Land Use Forecast ............................................................................................................ 87 
    IV-5.3     Alternative Land Use Scenarios ...................................................................................................... 91 
CHAPTER V – ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL ONE AND LEVEL TWO SCENARIOS ...................................... 93 
  V-1    NEW YORK BEST PRACTICE MODEL (NYBPM) ........................................................................................ 93 
  V-2    DETAILED SCENARIOS ............................................................................................................................... 94 
    V-2.1  HOV3+ Lane in the Holland Tunnel ................................................................................................... 94 
    V-2.2  HOV Lanes on the Manhattan Bridge or other East River Crossings .................................................. 95 
    V-2.3  One-way Pair–Canal Street Eastbound/Grand Street Westbound ........................................................ 95 
    V-2.4  Encourage Increased Use of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel .................................................................. 95 


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                                                                             i
                                                                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



     V-3    TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND EVALUATIONS ................................................................................................. 97 
       V-3.1  First Level Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 97 
       V-3.2  SECOND LEVEL SCENARIOS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 101 
     V-4    CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 107 
CHAPTER VI – DEVELOPMENT OF CANAL STREET ALTERNATIVES................................................. 108 
  VI-1  TWO-WAY ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................................................... 108 
    VI-1.1   Left-Turn Restrictions along Canal Street between Elizabeth Street and Lafayette Street ........... 109 
    VI-1.2   Curb Extensions along Canal Street between Elizabeth Street and Mulberry Street .................... 112 
    VI-1.3   Curb Extensions along Canal Street between Mulberry Street and Lafayette Street .................... 112 
    VI-1.4   Modification of Canal Street Cross Section between Broadway and Avenue of the Americas .... 113 
  VI-2  ONE-WAY ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................................. 113 
  VI-3  COMMON ELEMENTS: TWO-WAY AND ONE-WAY ALTERNATIVES ........................................................ 116 
    VI-3.1   Reconfiguration of the Intersection of Canal Street at the Bowery/Manhattan Bridge ................. 116 
    VI-3.2   Modification of Canal Street Cross Section between Hudson Street and Washington Street ....... 117 
  VI-4  URBAN DESIGN ....................................................................................................................................... 117 
CHAPTER VII – DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE SCENARIOS USING THE VISSIM
MICRO-SIMULATION TRAFFIC MODEL ....................................................................................................... 121 
  VII-1  DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASE-YEAR 2008 MODELS ................................................................................. 122 
    VII-1.1  2008 Network Development ......................................................................................................... 122 
    VII-1.2  2008 Peak-Period Demand Matrix Development ......................................................................... 122 
    VII-1.3  2008 Model Validation ................................................................................................................. 123 
  VII-2  COMPARISONS OF AREA-WIDE AND SEGMENT-LEVEL TRAVEL TIMES: 2030 NO-BUILD, TWO-WAY, AND
  ONE-WAY ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................................... 123 
CHAPTER VIII – CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ................................................................................... 137 




ii
Canal Area Transportation Study,



                                                              List of Tables

TABLE II-1:     CLASSIFICATIONS OF POSSIBLE TRIPS..................................................................................................... 9 
TABLE II-2:     DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS-OF-SERVICE AND CRITERIA FOR PEDESTRIANS: PLATOON FLOW
                CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 13 
TABLE II-3:     LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR REPRESENTATIVE SIDEWALKS (PM PEAK PERIOD) ......................................... 16 
TABLE II-4:     LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR REPRESENTATIVE CROSSWALKS (PM PEAK PERIOD) ...................................... 16 
TABLE II-5:     LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR REPRESENTATIVE SIDEWALKS (SUNDAY PEAK PERIOD) ................................. 17 
TABLE II-6:     LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR REPRESENTATIVE CROSSWALKS (SUNDAY PEAK PERIOD) .............................. 18 
TABLE II-7:     SIDEWALK AND ROADWAY WIDTHS ALONG CANAL STREET (EAST TO WEST) ..................................... 37 
TABLE II-8:     TYPES OF CRASHES AT SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA (NYS DMV DATA FOR A
                THREE-YEAR PERIOD, 1999 TO 2001)................................................................................................... 42 
TABLE II-9:     OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES IN OR NEAR CATS II STUDY AREA ................................................. 52 
TABLE II-10:    RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (2005) ............................................................. 60 
TABLE II-11:    GENERAL ZONING DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................... 60 
TABLE IV-1:     AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORITY - SUMMARY .......................................................................... 76 
TABLE IV-2:     APPLICATION OF MAJOR FLAW CRITERIA............................................................................................. 79 
TABLE IV-3:     ACTIONS FOR SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 80 
TABLE IV-4:     ACTIONS DELETED ............................................................................................................................... 81 
TABLE IV-5:     ACTIONS REFERRED TO OTHERS........................................................................................................... 83 
TABLE IV-6:     ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED OR PROGRAMMED .......................................................................................... 84 
TABLE IV-7:     ADJUSTMENTS TO NYMTC 2030 HOUSEHOLD POPULATION FORECASTS ............................................ 89 
TABLE IV-8:     COMPARISON OF BASELINE AND ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS ............................................... 91 
TABLE V-1:      HOLLAND TUNNEL HOV 3+ AM CROSSING VOLUME CHANGES – HUDSON RIVER CROSSINGS .......... 97 
TABLE V-2:      MANHATTAN BRIDGE HOV 2+ AM CROSSING VOLUME CHANGES – EAST RIVER CROSSINGS ........... 99 
TABLE V-3:      ONE-WAY PAIR–CANAL STREET EASTBOUND/GRAND STREET WESTBOUND CROSSING
                VOLUME CHANGES – EAST AND HUDSON RIVER CROSSINGS ............................................................. 100 
TABLE V-4:      SECOND LEVEL SCENARIOS COMPARISON WITH THE HOLLAND TUNNEL HOV3+ SCENARIO
                AT THE HUDSON RIVER CROSSINGS .................................................................................................... 103 
TABLE V-5       SECOND LEVEL SCENARIOS COMPARISON WITH THE MANHATTAN BRIDGE HOV2+ SCENARIO
                AT THE EAST RIVER CROSSINGS ......................................................................................................... 105 
TABLE VI-1:     SUMMARY OF PEAK-HOUR LEFT TURN VOLUMES AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATE ROUTES IF
                MOVEMENT WAS PROHIBITED ............................................................................................................ 111 
TABLE VI-2:     ESTIMATED MIDBLOCK SIDEWALK AND ROADWAY WIDTHS ALONG CANAL STREET (EAST TO
                WEST)*............................................................................................................................................... 119 
TABLE VII-1:    AREA-WIDE NETWORK PERFORMANCE (WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR) .............................................. 126 
TABLE VII-2:    AREA-WIDE NETWORK PERFORMANCE (WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR) ............................................... 127 
TABLE VII-3:    AREA-WIDE NETWORK PERFORMANCE (SUNDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR) .......................................... 127 
TABLE VII-4:    PROJECT PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC SPEED (MPH) COMPARISONS (SEGMENTS ALONG SELECTED
                SCREENLINES) .................................................................................................................................... 128 
TABLE VII-5:    PROJECT PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISONS (SEGMENTS ALONG SELECTED
                SCREENLINES) .................................................................................................................................... 129 
TABLE VII-6:    QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE ALTERNATIVES IN RELATION TO CATS II GUIDING
                PRINCIPLES* ................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                                                                        iii
                                                                                                                       Canal Area Transportation Study



                                                              List of Figures

FIGURE I-1:  CATS STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................... 7 
FIGURE II-1:  ORIGIN – DESTINATION SURVEY LOCATIONS ....................................................................................... 10 
FIGURE II-2:  PEDESTRIAN COUNT LOCATIONS .......................................................................................................... 14 
FIGURE II-3:  2005 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR [8–9 AM]) ....................................... 21 
FIGURE II-4:  2005 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR [5–6 PM]) ........................................ 22 
FIGURE II-5:  2005 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SUNDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR [3–4 PM]) ................................... 23 
FIGURE II-6:  AVERAGE VEHICULAR SPEEDS (AM PEAK PERIOD) ............................................................................. 28 
FIGURE II-7:  AVERAGE VEHICULAR SPEEDS (PM PEAK PERIOD) .............................................................................. 29 
FIGURE II-8:  AVERAGE VEHICULAR SPEEDS (SUNDAY PEAK PERIOD) ...................................................................... 31 
FIGURE II-9:  IDENTIFIED AREAS OF CONGESTION (AM) ........................................................................................... 32 
FIGURE II-10:  IDENTIFIED AREAS OF CONGESTION (PM) ............................................................................................ 34 
FIGURE II-11:  IDENTIFIED AREAS OF CONGESTION (SUNDAY) .................................................................................... 35 
FIGURE II-12:  REPRESENTATIVE CROSS SECTIONS...................................................................................................... 36 
FIGURE II-13:  TOTAL CRASHES ................................................................................................................................... 39 
FIGURE II-14:  PEDESTRIAN CRASHES .......................................................................................................................... 40 
FIGURE II-15:  NEW YORK CITY TRUCK ROUTES IN LOWER MANHATTAN .................................................................. 43 
FIGURE II-16:  BLOCK FACES INCLUDED IN ON-STREET PARKING SURVEY ................................................................. 51 
FIGURE II-17:  OFF STREET PARKING LOCATIONS IN OR NEAR CATS II STUDY AREA................................................ 52 
FIGURE II-18:  STUDY AREA NEIGHBORHOODS, CENSUS TRACTS AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES ............................. 56 
FIGURE II-19:  EXISTING LAND USE ............................................................................................................................. 57 
FIGURE IV-1:  SCREENING PROCESS ............................................................................................................................ 77 
FIGURE IV-2:  COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD POPULATION PROJECTIONS ................................................................... 86 
FIGURE IV-3:  COMPARISON OF EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS ...................................................................................... 86 
FIGURE IV-4:  COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD POPULATION IN LAND USE SCENARIOS ................................................. 92 
FIGURE IV-5:  COMPARISON OF EMPLOYMENT IN LAND USE SCENARIOS .................................................................... 92 
FIGURE V-1:  HOLLAND TUNNEL HOV 3+ PRIORITY ACCESS PLAN .......................................................................... 96 
FIGURE VI-1:  EASTBOUND LEFT-TURN PROHIBITIONS & POTENTIAL ALTERNATE ROUTES ..................................... 110 
FIGURE VI-2:  WESTBOUND LEFT-TURN PROHIBITIONS & POTENTIAL ALTERNATE ROUTES .................................... 111 
FIGURE VII-1: CATS II MICRO-SIMULATION MODEL COVERAGE AREA ................................................................... 121 
FIGURE VII-2: MODELED VS. OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR) ..................................... 124 
FIGURE VII-3: MODELED VS. OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR) ..................................... 124 
FIGURE VII-4: MODELED VS. OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES ( SUNDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR) ................................ 125 




iv
Canal Area Transportation Study,




Executive Summary

Overview
A multitude of transportation and safety issues on and around Canal Street in lower Manhattan
led the members and staff of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) to
use Federal planning funds to undertake the multi-faceted Canal Area Transportation Study,
known as CATS. The purpose of CATS was to identify significant transportation-related issues
in the area bounded by Houston Street to the north, Chambers Street to the south, and from the
East River to the Hudson River, and to ultimately propose a series of potential actions to address
those issues. This two track planning study was managed by NYMTC staff and a Steering
Committee comprised of relevant NYMTC member agencies. The CATS process was advised by
a Stakeholders Committee that included representatives of area elected officials, businesses, not-
for-profit and community and advocacy organizations, and continuous community involvement.

HOW CATS WAS EXECUTED
The first track of CATS, which was initiated in 2002, involved outreach to the community and
the relevant agencies to identify significant short-term measures to improve safety, infrastructure
and mobility in the study area. Several measures were subsequently been undertaken as a result
of this outreach including repaving Canal Street with high visibility crosswalks; retiming traffic
signals and repairing and cleaning streetlights along Canal Street; addressing signage issues at
the Holland Tunnel and Manhattan Bridge; exploring improvements to traffic enforcement;
defining the transportation elements of the new triangle park near Varick Street; and defining
short-term improvements along Allen Street.

CATS Track II was a longer-term, regional, multi-modal transportation study initiated in 2005 to
identify and develop medium- and long-term transportation improvements in the study area. In
addition, findings from this study will be used by the New York City Department of
Transportation as a basis for planning and designing the pending reconstruction of Canal Street.

As with Track I, a community involvement program was conducted throughout Track II to
gather and share information and build consensus on potential improvements. A series of public
meetings and workshops were held in the area to give the community an opportunity to provide
input to help produce a vision for Canal Street, including developing the study’s Guiding
Principles; establishing and confirming relevant concerns to be addressed; and identifying and
reviewing potential improvement options. Additionally, members of a diverse Stakeholders
Committee provided valuable insight into community issues and concerns from the perspective
of their constituencies.

Extensive data was collected from the study area as part of Track II, including traffic and
pedestrian counts, travel time and delay information, aerial congestion mapping, an origin-
destination survey, on- and off-street parking surveys, and accident data.

Guiding Principles established for Track II focused on quality of life in the study area; the
accessibility of the study area to those traveling to it; the mobility and safety of travelers within


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                      1
                                                                        Canal Area Transportation Study



the study area; and the implementation feasibility of transportation improvements which would
emerge from the study. These Principles set parameters for identifying, screening and developing
improvement options and alternatives. To assist in determining implementation feasibility, the
statutory and regulatory authority of the public agencies that would implement the improvements
was researched to ascertain whether or not specific actions or concepts fell within the purview of
those agencies.

HOW CATS TRACK II ASSESSED POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS
Nearly 120 potential actions were identified by the CATS study team as a result of the
community involvement process and from the relevant agencies to improve mobility and safety
for both vehicular traffic and pedestrians in the study area. Potential future land use scenarios
also were analyzed in the study area, which considered existing development trends and possible
or proposed changes in zoning.

Through a screening process, four future improvement scenarios were selected for evaluation
based on their potential to reduce or significantly alter future traffic volumes in the study area,
which was judged as critically important to the Guiding Principles defined for the study. The
improvement scenarios consisted of:

•   Implementing a High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane that would allow access for buses and
    vehicles with three or more passengers in the Holland Tunnel, while continuing the
    restrictions on large trucks promulgated by the Port Authority for the Holland Tunnel.
•   Implementing HOV lanes on the Manhattan Bridge that would allow access for buses and
    vehicles with two or more passengers.
•   Altering traffic regulations to create of a one-way pair between Canal Street and Grand
    Street, with Canal Street converted to eastbound-only lanes between the Avenue of the
    Americas and the Bowery, and Grand Street to westbound-only lanes between Chrystie
    Street and Avenue of the Americas.
•   Using variable message signage and other traffic management measures to notify drivers in
    Brooklyn destined for the Holland Tunnel and the west side of Manhattan of comparable
    travel times, and encourage them to consider using the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel as an
    alternative to the Manhattan and Brooklyn bridges, with a reciprocal arrangement for drivers
    in New Jersey approaching the Holland Tunnel en route to Brooklyn, providing information
    on the travel time to Brooklyn via Route 9A and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel versus Canal
    Street and the Manhattan Bridge.

These scenarios were quantitatively evaluated using NYMTC’s regional, multi-modal travel
demand model, the New York Best Practice Model (NYBPM), to simulate traffic conditions and
impacts in the study area for the 2030 horizon year of the study. The Brooklyn/Manhattan traffic
diversion scenario could not be quantitatively evaluated with the NYBPM, but was assessed
qualitatively.

After the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of these scenarios individually and in several
combinations, the HOV scenario for the Holland Tunnel was eliminated as it resulted in
significant diversion to other Hudson River and Staten Island-New Jersey crossings. In addition,


2                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



modeling revealed minimal net easing of congestion in Manhattan as excess traffic nearby
redistributed itself to streets receiving reduced tunnel volumes. The team advanced the
Manhattan Bridge HOV scenario and Brooklyn/Manhattan traffic diversion scenario. A
supplementary micro-simulation traffic flow analysis was conducted on the Canal Street-Grand
Street one-way pair scenario and an alternative two-way scenario for Canal Street, both of which
incorporated traffic and pedestrian safety. Additionally, Urban Design and Parking Management
considerations were developed to accompany whichever alternative emerged from the
supplementary analysis.

Subsequent to the evaluation, the New York City Department of Transportation implemented an
HOV lane inbound on the Manhattan Bridge during the weekday morning peak period.

THE SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS AT THE CONCLUSION OF CATS TRACK II
The supplementary analysis undertaken at the conclusion of Track II examined the impacts of the
Canal Street-Grand Street one-way pair scenario and an alternative two-way scenario for Canal
Street in much greater detail using multi-modal micro-simulation traffic flow software. As part
of this supplementary analysis, conceptual designs for the Canal Street one-way and two-way
alternatives were developed that looked at specific changes in the area based on each scenario,
but that also included modifications that would be common to both. The conceptual designs
examined modified curb lines and widened sidewalks; sidewalk bulb-outs at intersections; and
exclusive turn lanes.

To quantify the impacts of the one-way and two-way alternatives, both were analyzed in
comparison to a 2030 “no build” forecast. Under the no-action forecast, the existing conditions
experienced by pedestrians and vehicular traffic are projected to worsen significantly by 2030 if
no modifications are made, with area-wide traffic delays projected to increase by 50 percent
during the weekday afternoon peak hour and by nearly 40 percent during the weekday morning
and Sunday midday peak hours. In addition, the existing pedestrian overcrowding along the
Canal Street corridor is expected to worsen during the same periods.

The results of the detailed analysis of the one- and two-way alternatives relative to the no action
forecast were assessed in relation to the study Guiding Principles. Although both alternatives
would be expected to enhance the pedestrian environment along Canal Street, they offer mixed
results regarding overall quality of life, mobility, accessibility and safety.

Both alternatives will enhance pedestrian movement, but have a more complex impact on
vehicular traffic. Left-turn vehicular conflicts with pedestrians are problematic along Canal
Street. A motorist initiating a left turn based on a gap in the opposing vehicular traffic, usually
encounters pedestrians in the left crosswalk. As a result, a motorist may need to stop for
pedestrians, and then may block vehicles approaching in the opposing traffic lane(s).
Incorporating left turn restrictions in the two-way alternative would significantly reduce
pedestrian-vehicle left-turn conflicts and would allow for some sidewalk widening.

However, the assessment determined that the wider Canal Street sidewalks in the one-way
alternative would be offset by the negative traffic impact of the one-way pair on both Grand
Street and Spring Street. Mobility is adversely affected in the one-way pair alternative due to the
congestion that is projected from insufficient eastbound capacity within the study area generally.


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                    3
                                                                       Canal Area Transportation Study



It also revealed that the left-turn prohibitions in the two-way alternative will impact traffic
volume on certain side streets, but generally improve mobility on Canal Street.

Both alternatives would have a positive impact on pedestrian safety due to wider sidewalks,
improved street crossings and eliminating certain conflicts involving turning vehicles. In
addition, both alternatives appear to be implementable within a time frame consistent with a
future Canal Street reconstruction project.

WHAT CATS RECOMMENDS
Based on the supplemental analysis and assessment of its results using the Guiding Principles,
the Canal Street two-way alternative is proposed as the preferred alternative for the Canal Street
reconstruction project, in conjunction with the Manhattan Bridge HOV lane and traffic
management measures to encourage more optimal use of the available water crossings.
Additionally, the current truck restrictions in the Holland Tunnel, which were continued by the
Port Authority, should be maintained as part of the preferred alternative.

Implementation of the recommended Urban Design Framework Plan and Parking Management
Plan is also part of the preferred alternative. The Urban Design Plan offers a “high-level road
map” of opportunities and preliminary urban design criteria for the Canal Street corridor. The
Plan identifies typical street sections along Canal Street and illustrates opportunities for
improving pedestrian flow and safety and implementing urban design elements along the
corridor to improve the street environment. The Parking Management Plan provides goals and
objectives and strategies to enhance parking management in the study area, which will positively
impact mobility, accessibility and safety.

Finally, the preferred alternative envisions the continuation of the inter-agency planning
coordination that has taken place as part of CATS beyond the end of this extensive study effort
to implement the preferred alternative and address the range of functions that Canal Street
serves.




4                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,




         CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION
The Canal Area Transportation Study (CATS) was a two-phase effort on the part of the New
York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the agencies responsible for
transportation services and infrastructure, and the affected communities to define solutions to
transportation problems in the Canal Street area. NYMTC is the regional council of governments
which serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for New York City, Long Island and the
lower Hudson Valley.

The first phase, CATS Track I, was initiated in 2002 and identified short-term, localized
improvements to the study area. CATS Track II encompassed a more regional, multi-modal
study of transportation issues to identify and develop medium and long-term transportation
improvements that are focused on Canal Street in a study area bounded by Houston Street to the
north, Chambers Street to the south, and from the East River to the east, to the Hudson River to
the west (see Figure I-1).

Canal Street is defined as a Principal Arterial and serves multiple purposes. The study was
designed to respond to and balance dual concerns about the continued viability of Canal Street as
a “main street” and as a critical regional transportation link between the Manhattan Bridge and
the Holland Tunnel.

Canal Street is one of the streets funded for capital reconstruction through the Federal Highway
Administration's World Trade Center Emergency Relief program. NYCDOT agreed to use
findings from this study to inform the planning and design for Canal Street reconstruction.

The study was conducted in eight tasks:

•   TASK 1: Administrative Structure. Within this task, there were Steering Committee,
    Stakeholders Committee, and other coordination meetings with participants from other
    studies.
•   TASK 2: Continuous Community Involvement Process. This task consisted of a multi-
    faceted effort to both advise the community of the study progress and findings, and to gather
    public input to and build consensus on a vision for the study area and on the development of
    land use and transportation improvement scenarios. The effort involved visioning workshops,
    modeling and alternative workshops, small group meetings, development of a study web site
    and a fact sheet.
•   TASK 3: Inventory of Current Studies and Projects and Data Collection. In addition to
    compiling relevant existing data in the study area, a focused data collection program was
    conducted to provide information on traffic and parking characteristics, traffic operations, the
    use of the corridor by through and local traffic, and data for input to the traffic modeling
    efforts.



Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                     5
                                                                       Canal Area Transportation Study



•   TASK 4: Guiding Principles. The development of guiding principles evolved from a
    combination of the efforts conducted in Tasks 1 and 2. The guiding principles were applied
    in the process to screen and evaluate transportation and land use scenarios.
•   TASK 5: Medium- and Long-Term Improvement Scenarios. Medium- and long-term
    transportation improvement scenarios were identified, screened and developed in
    conformance with the study’s guiding principles.
•   TASK 6: Scenario Testing. The selected future scenarios were tested and evaluated
    primarily utilizing the NYMTC Best Practice Model and the VISSIM traffic simulation
    model.
•   TASK 7: Community Review. An open house meeting was conducted to provide for
    community review of the alternative scenarios and the evaluation findings.
•   TASK 8: Final Improvement Recommendations and Evaluation. Based upon the
    evaluation performed in Task 6 and the feedback received in Task 7, final conclusions were
    documented in this report and in the concept plans for the tested scenarios.

This report for CATS presents an assessment of study area conditions, including pedestrian
mobility, traffic conditions, and safety; provides an overview of the community involvement
efforts; describes the process used in the development and screening of improvement concepts;
summarizes the results of the assessment of the future scenarios; and presents the study findings.




6                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



FIGURE I-1:           CATS STUDY AREA




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010   7
                                                       Canal Area Transportation Study



    THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.




8                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,




         CHAPTER II – STUDY AREA CONDITIONS
This chapter presents an assessment of study area conditions, including origin-destination
patterns, pedestrian mobility, traffic conditions, safety, goods movement, and land use. It is
based on a compilation of available data from secondary sources as well as a collection of
additional data to help prepare a comprehensive assessment of study area conditions. It should be
noted that changes may have occurred since the data collection. The more significant of these
changes were reflected in the analyses of future traffic conditions that are presented in
subsequent chapters.

II-1       ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEY
To assist in the identification of transportation improvements, an origin-destination survey was
performed to provide information about the travel patterns on Canal Street, i.e., the percentages
of through and local traffic.

The origin-destination survey was performed in March and April 2005 to determine the
associated traffic patterns along the Canal Street corridor (see Figure II-1 for survey locations).
For the purposes of the CATS II Origin-Destination survey, the patterns were defined as:

•   THROUGH MANHATTAN (Through) – Any trip that had an origin and destination
    outside of Manhattan.
•   MANHATTAN ORIGIN and/or DESTINATION OUTSIDE STUDY AREA
    (Manhattan) – Any trip that had an origin and/or destination in Manhattan, but not in the
    study area. The study area was defined as between Houston Street and Chambers Street and
    the East River to the Hudson River.
•   LOCAL ORIGIN and/or DESTINATION (Local) – Any trip that had an origin and/or a
    destination within the study area.

Table II-1 shows some examples of how trips were classified.

TABLE II-1:       CLASSIFICATIONS OF POSSIBLE TRIPS

                                Trip                              Through   Manhattan    Local
Started in Williamsburg, Brooklyn and ended in Trenton, New
                                                                     X
Jersey with no stops in the study area
Started at 125th Street in Manhattan and ended at Battery Park
                                                                                X
with no stops in the study area
Started at 125th Street in Manhattan and ended in Brooklyn with
                                                                                X
no stops in the study area
Started in Williamsburg, Brooklyn and ended at Mott Street                                 X
Started in Trenton, New Jersey and ended at Wooster Street                                 X
Started at 125th Street and ended on Canal Street                                          X
Started on Mott Street and ended at Wooster Street                                         X




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                    9
                                                                        Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE II-1:       ORIGIN – DESTINATION SURVEY LOCATIONS




The survey was conducted during three peak traffic periods: Weekday 6:30 AM to 10:30 AM,
Weekday 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM and Sunday 2:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Drivers were interviewed when
they stopped at red lights as they exited the Canal Street corridor at every exit point on Canal
Street between Hudson Street and the Bowery. Except for Hudson Street and the Bowery, drivers
were interviewed at the next downstream signal from Canal Street. All possible users were
represented in the sample by capturing all possible exit points on Canal Street between the
Bowery and Hudson Street.

The goal of the survey was to create a statistically valid and accurate portrayal of local,
Manhattan and through traffic along the Canal Street corridor. The sample size of the survey was
4,540 vehicles that exited the Canal Street corridor in the three peak periods. The sample error
and confidence interval are noted in the results for each of the peak periods included in the
survey. Using the information obtained for each intersection, intersections of interest were
grouped to answer specific questions.

II-1.1a AM Peak Period
The following were the computed percentages of local, Manhattan and through traffic on Canal
Street, overall, for the AM peak period. In total, 61 percent of traffic in the AM peak period was
through or Manhattan traffic, i.e., non-local traffic that did not have an origin or destination in
the Canal Street area. The remainder was local traffic. From origin-destination results for
individual intersections, the AM peak period was dominated by traffic that was bound for the
Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges, as well as the Civic Centre. This suggested that Canal Street’s
dual role as a regional connector and local main street shifted towards serving regional travelers




10                                                  Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



in the AM peak period. The Canal Street area was not a destination in this period, as there were
few pedestrians observed and many stores and restaurants were not yet open.

                                         All Traffic Using Canal Street
                                           Weekday 6:30-10:30 AM




                     34%
                                                    39%
                                                                   Local Origin and/or Destination


                                                                   ManhattanOrigin and/or Destination
                                                                   Outside of Study Area

                                                                   Through Manhattan




                                   27%




                              Sample Error ± 5%, Confidence Interval ± 10%

II-1.1b PM Peak Period
In the PM peak period, 72 percent of traffic was non-local and the remaining 18 percent was
local. Canal Street became more of a regional connector during the time period, although
pedestrian activity increased and many stores were open. Results for individual intersections
suggested the majority of traffic using Canal Street was bound for the Holland Tunnel,
Manhattan Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge and Williamsburg Bridge.

                                         All Traffic Using Canal Street
                                            Weekday 3:00 - 7:00 PM



                                                     28%



                     40%                                            Local Origin and/or Destination

                                                                    ManhattanOrigin and/or
                                                                    Destination Outside of Study Area
                                                                    Through Manhattan




                                              32%




                               Sample Error± 4%, Confidence Interval ± 9%




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                           11
                                                                                   Canal Area Transportation Study



II-1.1c Sunday Peak Period
Only 49 percent of traffic on Sunday was non-local, while 51 percent of traffic using Canal
Street was local. Of the three surveyed time periods, Sunday had the highest percentage of local
traffic. This helped to explain the increased delays, queues and congestion during the Sunday
time period. Vehicles that used Canal Street on Sunday were more likely to be accessing cross-
streets, looking for parking and stopping to shop, dine or discharge passengers. This increased
the number of conflicts with turning vehicles and parked vehicles, which slowed speeds and
increased delays.

                                      All Traffic Using Canal Street
                                           Sunday 2:00-6:00 PM




                   33%
                                                                  Local Origin and/or Destination


                                                                  ManhattanOrigin and/or
                                                                  Destination Outside of Study Area
                                                       51%
                                                                  Through Manhattan




                         16%



                          Sample Error± 5%, Confidence Interval ± 11%

II-2       PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY
Canal Street is one of New York City’s major attractions for residents and tourists. Food,
clothing, hardware and souvenirs are some of the goods available for sale on the sidewalks of
Canal Street. Additionally, Canal Street is a destination for sightseeing and dining. As a result, a
high volume of pedestrians can be found on relatively narrow sidewalks and crosswalks,
especially during afternoons and weekends.

Input from the CATS II Steering and Stakeholder Committees, Community Meetings and field
observations indicated that these conditions affected pedestrian mobility on Canal Street.
Specifically:
•    Pedestrians were breaking stride, slowing down or stopping on sidewalks and crosswalks;
•    Pedestrians were walking in the traffic lane; and
•    Pedestrians were in conflict with turning vehicles.

In an effort to quantify the extent of the described problems, sample pedestrian counts were
performed at ten intersections and ten sidewalks on Canal Street in March 2005 (see Figure II-2
for locations). The locations selected for analysis were either previously identified by CATS I


12                                                      Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



and other studies as having pedestrian issues, or were observed to be problematic. These counts
were performed concurrently with turning movement counts to document the interaction between
turning vehicles and pedestrians. Counts were performed for each of the three identified peak
periods (weekday AM, weekday PM and Sunday midday).

All pedestrian level-of-service (LOS) analyses described in this report were conducted using the
methodologies documented in the Millennium Edition (year 2000 version) of the Highway
Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. A brief overview of LOS,
and the pedestrian conditions to which they correspond, are summarized in Table II-2.

TABLE II-2:       DESCRIPTION OF LEVELS-OF-SERVICE AND CRITERIA FOR PEDESTRIANS:
                  PLATOON FLOW CONDITIONS

                Average Pedestrian Unit   Average Space for
  Level-of-           Flow Rate              Pedestrian
   Service            (p/min/ft)               (ft2/p)                           Description
     “A”             ≤ 0.5                  > 60              Unrestricted pedestrian flow
     “B”             > 0.5 and ≤ 3          > 40–60           Slightly restricted pedestrian flow
     “C”             > 3 and ≤ 6            > 24–40           Restricted, but fluid, pedestrian flow
                                                              Restricted pedestrian flow; necessary to
     “D”              > 6 and ≤ 11           > 15–24
                                                              continue alter walking stride and direction
      “E”            > 11 and ≤ 18            > 8–15          Severely restricted pedestrian flow
                                                              Forward progress only by shuffling; no reverse
      “F”            > 18                     ≤8
                                                              movement possible



Sidewalk space on Canal Street was affected by its physical attributes and types of activities. The
width of the sidewalk varied along Canal Street from as narrow as seven feet to as wide as
20 feet. However, the space is also affected by street furniture such as newsstands, garbage
receptacles, subway stairways and elevators and telephone booths. These obstruct pedestrian
movement to varying degrees.

Activities on Canal Street are mostly related to retail and tourism. Merchants with storefronts on
Canal Street were observed extending their goods onto the sidewalk and conducting sales in the
pedestrian space. Street vendors, legal and illegal, occupy the sidewalks and corners. Shoppers,
who stop to browse or buy, create an obstacle for other pedestrians. Tourists, who may be
unfamiliar with the area, stop in the sidewalk to consult maps or ask for directions. These
conditions were taken into consideration in the analysis of sidewalks on Canal Street.

The first step was to determine the effective sidewalk widths on Canal Street, or the actual space
allotted to a pedestrian walking on Canal Street. Effective sidewalk widths varied by the analysis
time period. While characteristics such as street furniture, light poles, telephone booths and
subway entrances/elevators were fixed, the analysis took activities that depend on time of day or
day of week into consideration.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                              13
                                                               Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE II-2:   PEDESTRIAN COUNT LOCATIONS




14                                          Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



In the AM, effective sidewalk widths were primarily affected only by street furniture. In the PM,
effective sidewalk space was additionally reduced by street vendors and merchants using the
pedestrian space. In the Sunday midday, as pedestrian volumes reached their peak on Canal
Street, effective sidewalk widths were narrowest as the number of street vendors increased and
merchants conducted more business in the pedestrian walkway.

II-2.1     Pedestrian Conditions

II-2.1a    AM Peak Period
Sidewalks
There were relatively few pedestrians on Canal Street between 7:00 AM and 10:00 AM.
Combined with few street vendors and merchant displays, Canal Street’s relatively narrow
sidewalks and crosswalks accommodated pedestrian demand. Study walkways exhibited LOS B
or better, with most pedestrian traffic generated by the subway entrances along Canal Street.

Crosswalks
Since there was a relatively low volume of pedestrians in the AM peak period, crosswalks
exhibited LOS B or better, except for the south crosswalk at Canal Street and Broadway, which
operated at LOS C.

II-2.1b PM Peak Period
Sidewalks
Between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM, licensed street vendors were selling from the sidewalks as
residents and tourists circulated in the Canal Street corridor. This led to a reduction in sidewalk
space. Combined with the higher pedestrian volumes, pedestrian conditions on sections of Canal
Street deteriorated as shown in Table II-3. The south sidewalk between Lafayette and Centre
streets and the north sidewalk between Broadway and Lafayette Street, where many street
vendors and souvenir shops are located, operated at LOS D. The south sidewalk between
Elizabeth Street and the Bowery, where local residents shop for fruits and vegetables, also
deteriorated in the PM to LOS C. Other segments of Canal Street continued to operate at LOS B
or better.

Crosswalks
As with sidewalks, pedestrian LOS at crosswalks in the PM also deteriorated along the busier
segments of Canal Street. As shown in Table II-4, the north crosswalks at the intersections on
Canal Street, from Mulberry Street to Mott Street, deteriorated to LOS D and E, which represents
restricted pedestrian flow and capacity. The east and south crosswalks at Canal Street and
Broadway deteriorated to LOS C and D, respectively




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                   15
                                                                                        Canal Area Transportation Study



TABLE II-3:         LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR REPRESENTATIVE SIDEWALKS (PM PEAK PERIOD)

                                                                       PM
                                    NORTH SIDEWALK                                 SOUTH SIDEWALK
                                       Effective                                      Effective
                            Peak 15    width at                            Peak 15    width at
                            minute    constraint                           minute    constraint
                            volume      (feet)   P/M/F*           LOS      volume      (feet)   P/M/F*              LOS
Canal Street btwn
6th Avenue and W.              277              8.2       2.25     A        132           7.1            1.24        A
Broadway
Canal Street btwn
Broadway and                   668              3.0       14.84    D        628           6.0            6.98        B
Lafayette
Canal Street btwn
                               629              6.7       6.27     B        755           3.6            13.98       D
Lafayette and Centre
Canal Street btwn
                               394              6.5       4.04     A        681           6.8            6.68        B
Mulberry and Mott
Canal Street btwn
Elizabeth and                  317              5.1       4.14     A        315           9.0            2.33        C
Bowery
*    P/M/F – Pedestrians per minute per linear foot



TABLE II-4:         LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR REPRESENTATIVE CROSSWALKS (PM PEAK PERIOD)

            Crosswalk                                 North       East         South            West        -Fifth Leg
                                        ft2/p         > 60.0      > 60.0       > 60.0           > 60.0
Canal & Greenwich
                                        LOS             A           A            A                A
Canal & Ave. of the                     ft2/p         > 60.0      > 60.0       > 60.0           > 60.0           > 60.0
Americas/Laight Street                  LOS             A           A            A                A                A
                                        ft2/p          59.6        38.7         22.8            > 60.0
Canal & Broadway
                                        LOS             B           C            D                A
                                        ft2/p          55.8       > 60.0        33.6             49.1
Canal & Lafayette
                                        LOS             B           A            C                B
                                        ft2/p          29.4        58.5         40.7             33.0
Canal & Centre
                                        LOS             C           B            B                C
                                        ft2/p         > 60.0       19.4        > 60.0           > 60.0
Canal & Walker/Baxter
                                        LOS             A           D            A                A
                                        ft2/p          14.0       > 60.0        42.8            > 60.0
Canal & Mulberry
                                        LOS             E           A            B                A
                                        ft2/p          15.5        19.2         32.1             35.2
Canal & Mott
                                        LOS             D           D            C                C
                                        ft2/p          32.3        31.8        > 60.0            35.3
Canal & Elizabeth
                                        LOS             C           C            A                C
                                        ft2/p         > 60.0      > 60.0       > 60.0           42.33
Canal & Bowery
                                        LOS             A           A            A                B
* ft2/p – square foot per pedestrian




16                                                                Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



II-2.1c     Sunday Peak Period
Sidewalks
The Sunday midday, between 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM, represented the most congested pedestrian
conditions on Canal Street. Pedestrian demand was highest during this period as many residents
and tourists shopped and ran errands. With the high pedestrian volume, there were
correspondingly more street vendors on the sidewalk. Additionally, store owners extended their
merchandise further out into the sidewalk, and illegal vendors displayed their merchandise in the
middle of the sidewalk, corner and even crosswalk. Shoppers who stopped to view or buy also
restricted available sidewalk space.

As a result, pedestrian operations along representative sidewalks on Canal Street generally
exhibited LOS C, D or F, as pedestrians were often forced to break stride, shuffle and/or wait to
walk. Additionally, pedestrians were observed making contact with each other and street
furniture. Field observations revealed that pedestrian shared the traffic lane with moving or
standing vehicles, which poses a safety risk.

As Table II-5 shows, Canal Street, on both the north and south sidewalk between Broadway and
Centre Street, exhibited poor LOS. The north sidewalk between Broadway and Lafayette Street
and the south sidewalk between Lafayette and Centre Streets deteriorated to LOS F. Other
representative sidewalks deteriorated to LOS C or D, except for the western section of Canal
Street between Avenue of the Americas (6th Avenue) and West Broadway and the south
sidewalk on the eastern section between Elizabeth and the Bowery.

TABLE II-5:        LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR REPRESENTATIVE SIDEWALKS (SUNDAY PEAK PERIOD)

                                                                     Sunday
                                        NORTH SIDEWALK                         SOUTH SIDEWALK
                                         Effective                              Effective
                                 Peak 15 width at                       Peak 15 width at
                                 minute constraint                      minute constraint
                                 volume   (feet)   P/M/F* LOS           volume   (feet)   P/M/F* LOS
Canal Street btwn 6th
                                    338            8.2   2.75    A        101    7.1     0.94    A
Avenue and W. Broadway
Canal Street btwn
                                   1164            3.0   25.87   F        849    6.0     9.43    C
Broadway and Lafayette
Canal Street btwn Lafayette
                                   1088            6.7   10.84   D        1233   3.5    23.48    F
and Centre
Canal Street btwn Mulberry
                                    777            6.5   7.97    C        1072   6.8    10.51    D
and Mott
Canal Street btwn Elizabeth
                                    596            5.1   7.79    C        684    9.0     5.06    B
and Bowery
* P/M/F – Pedestrians per minute per linear foot



Crosswalks
On Sunday, high pedestrian volumes in conjunction with a high volume of turning vehicles
caused conflicts that significantly decreased LOS. As Table II-6 shows, the worst conditions
occurred towards the eastern end of Canal Street in the Chinatown area because of high


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                          17
                                                                              Canal Area Transportation Study



pedestrian volumes and conflicts with turning vehicles. As seen in the traffic volume flow maps,
higher turning volumes conflicted with high pedestrian volume in the eastern end of Canal
Street.

TABLE II-6:         LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR REPRESENTATIVE CROSSWALKS (SUNDAY PEAK
                    PERIOD)

                 Crosswalk                        North        East       South       West       -Fifth Leg
                                           2
                                          ft /p   > 60.0       > 60.0     > 60.0      > 60.0
Canal & Greenwich
                                          LOS        A           A          A           A
                                          ft2/p   > 60.0       > 60.0     > 60.0      > 60.0       > 60.0
Canal & Ave. of the Americas/Laight
                                          LOS        A           A          A           A            A
                                          ft2/p    45.6         29.0       20.6        28.9
Canal & Broadway
                                          LOS        B           C          D           C
                                          ft2/p    20.2         44.9       17.9        16.5
Canal & Lafayette
                                          LOS        D           B          D           D
                                          ft2/p    19.1         53.8       42.7        42.2
Canal & Centre
                                          LOS        D           B          B           B
                                          ft2/p   > 60.0        17.9      > 60.0       31.4
Canal & Walker/Baxter
                                          LOS        A           D          A           C
                                          ft2/p    12.0         26.8       17.1        20.3
Canal & Mulberry
                                          LOS        E           C          D           D
                                          ft2/p     9.2         11.2       12.8        12.9
Canal & Mott
                                          LOS        E           E          E           E
                                          ft2/p    32.1         31.6       46.2        44.3
Canal & Elizabeth
                                          LOS        C           C          B           B
                                          ft2/p    59.6         39.6      > 60.0       30.5
Canal & Bowery
                                          LOS        B           C          A           C
*    ft2/p – square foot per pedestrian



II-3         TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND CONDITIONS
II-3.1       Traffic Volume Patterns
Traffic volume data was compiled from secondary sources as well as from manual and
Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) counts performed for this study. A substantial amount of
existing data in the Canal Street area was available for the weekday AM and PM peak periods.
Full traffic counts (all movements) at selected locations, like Broadway and Canal Street, were
performed to calibrate the existing data (which came from a number or sources and years) to
base conditions. Partial counts were performed at other locations, e.g., movements entering or
leaving Canal Street. Full and partial counts were performed for the 3-hour peak weekday
periods of 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM. In addition, CATS II undertook an
extensive Sunday peak-period turning movement count program, performing full or partial
counts along the Canal Street corridor. The traffic counts were performed between March and
May 2005. (Additional traffic data was collected in September 2008 as part of the extension of
the traffic simulation model.)




18                                                         Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



From the counts taken, the peak one hour of traffic activity during each of the peak periods was
identified. These analysis peak hours were as follows:

                  Weekday AM Peak Hour:             8:00 to 9:00 AM
                  Weekday PM Peak Hour:             5:00 to 6:00 PM
                  Sunday Peak Hour:                 3:00 to 4:00 PM

Subsequent counts were performed when the traffic simulation model was expanded further
north and south of the Canal Street corridor. The traffic volumes for the overall area indicated
that PM peak hour traffic between 5:30 and 6:30 was slightly higher (0.3 percent) than between
5:00 and 6:00.

Traffic flow maps were developed for each peak hour and are presented in Figures II-3 through
II-5. Data from previous studies and other sources in conjunction with CATS II data collection
were used to develop the balanced flow network. Overall, volumes varied by intersection and
analysis peak hour, i.e., there was no discernable pattern of high volumes for one peak hour and
low volumes for another peak hour due to the effect of roadway congestion.

II-3.1a AM Peak Hour
Figure II-3 shows the balanced traffic volume network for the weekday AM peak hour. Although
volumes were balanced for the peak hour, data collected for the three-hour peak period was used
in the modeling phase of CATS Track II.

II-3.1b PM Peak Hour
Figure II-4 shows the balanced traffic volume network for the PM peak hour. Travel time and
delay surveys and aerial identification of queues showed that the PM peak hour had more
congested conditions than the AM.

II-3.1c Sunday Peak Hour
Figure II-5 shows the balanced traffic volume network for the Sunday midday peak hour from
the results of CATS Track II data collection. Travel time and delay surveys, as well as the aerial
photography identification of queues, indicated that, of the three analysis periods, this was the
most congested peak hour on Canal Street.

II-3.2     Overview of Traffic Congestion
The following is an overview of traffic data collection to quantify the extent of congestion in
each of the three peak periods. Although traffic volume data was collected in the CATS II data
collection program, travel time and delay information and aerial photography may be better
indicators of conditions on Canal Street when there is congestion. Additionally, origin-
destination patterns may provide insight into the reasons for congestion.

Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) Counts and Turning Movement Counts (TMC) have
limitations when there are high levels of congestion, such as on Canal Street. ATR counts and
TMC record the through traffic, and do not account for unmet demand or queues. Therefore,
ATR and TMC recorded volumes may be high when there are low levels of congestion and low
when there are high levels of congestion. Recorded traffic volumes in the CATS II study area


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                  19
                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



were qualified by travel time and delay surveys and aerial photography, which provided
information on the speed of traffic and queues, respectively. Quantifying the extent of traffic
congestion in the Canal Street corridor was important to gaining a better understanding of the
problem and performing preliminary analysis.

Canal Street serves a dual role as a regional connector and a local main street for vehicles. As a
result, the Canal Street corridor accommodates a high vehicular demand as regional traffic
travels between the Holland Tunnel and Route 9A in the west and the East River Crossings in the
east, while local traffic uses Canal Street to traverse or circulate in Lower Manhattan. However,
Canal Street has a limited capacity, with two to three lanes in each direction and high pedestrian
volumes. Alternate streets are limited and also constrained. As a result, demand exceeds capacity
at certain locations at different times of the day and days of the week. Input from the CATS II
Steering and Stakeholder Committees, Community Meetings and CATS II data collection
program indicated that this situation results in delays and slow speeds in the Canal Street
corridor.

II-3.2a AM Peak Period
The AM peak period did not display congestion in the Canal Street corridor. ATR counts showed
that volumes peak in this time period and TMC also reflected high volumes. However, since
ATR and TMC record through traffic, this condition was good. Other indicators, such as travel
time and delay surveys and aerial photography, showed that vehicles generally travelled at
speeds of 21-30 mph and that there were few queues. Queues that did exist in this period were
mostly due to construction. However, Worth Street displayed high levels of congestion and low
speeds. This was likely because commuters used Worth Street, which is located in the Civic
Center, to commute to work. Other sources of congestion were the Brooklyn Bridge and the
Manhattan Bridge. However, overall, levels of congestion in the study area were low. The origin-
destination survey confirmed that 61 percent of traffic using the Canal Street corridor in the AM
peak period was traffic bound for the Manhattan Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge, or Civic Center.
About 39 percent of traffic was coming from or going to the study area. The absence of
pedestrian activity also reduced the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians that may slow
traffic and cause delays.

II-3.2b PM Peak Period
The majority of congestion in the PM peak period was related to commuters bound for
residences in New Jersey, Brooklyn and points east. ATR and TMC data showed that eastbound
volumes reached the same level as the AM peak period, but westbound volumes were lower than
the AM peak period. Travel time and delay surveys and aerial photography suggested that the
westbound volumes were lower in the PM and the AM because congestion constrained through
traffic. Slow speeds and long queues characterized routes that approach the Holland Tunnel.
Streets that cross these routes were also affected. Additionally, an increase in pedestrian activity
in the PM created conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians that may have slowed speeds.




20                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



FIGURE II-3:          2005 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR [8–9 AM])




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                         21
                                                                                                  Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE II-4:   2005 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR [5–6 PM])




22                                                                             Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



FIGURE II-5:          2005 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SUNDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR [3–4 PM])




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                            23
                                                              Canal Area Transportation Study



     THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.




24                                         Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



 Travel time and delay surveys showed that most corridors in the study area had speeds of 11-20
mph, with the exception of the routes approaching the Holland Tunnel, which typically had
speeds of less than 10 mph. This corresponded with the aerial photography, which identified
queues up to 7 blocks long on routes approaching the tunnel. Origin-destination information
confirmed that 72 percent of the traffic in the study area was not local. Survey results for
individual intersections indicated many vehicles were trying to access the Holland Tunnel,
which, according to speed and queue information, acts as a bottleneck.

II-3.2c Sunday Peak Period
Congestion in the Sunday peak period was widespread in the study area. ATR data indicated that
the volumes were high from 12:00 PM to 12:00 AM. TMC data showed that some intersections
processed low volumes compared to the AM and PM peak periods. For this period, travel time
and delay surveys and aerial photography were better indicators of traffic conditions in the study
area. Aerial photography suggested that queues on the approaches to the Holland Tunnel were
similar to that in the PM peak period. However, travel time and delay surveys indicated that
speeds in the Canal Street corridor slowed considerably so that the majority of streets had
operating speeds of less than 10 mph. Aerial photography showed that queues developed along
Canal Street in both directions from Route 9A to Mulberry Street. Pedestrian activity was highest
in the Sunday peak period and affected vehicle operations at intersections along Canal Street at
Broadway, Lafayette Street and Centre Street. Origin-destination information confirmed that 51
percent of traffic in this period had an origin or destination in the study area. The higher volume
of circulating traffic on local streets, as well as the greater frequency of parking maneuvers and
illegal parking, contributed to the traffic congestion. This generally high level of congestion and
pedestrian activity led to numerous vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-pedestrian conflicts.

II-3.3     Travel Time and Delay Surveys
Travel time and delay surveys were performed to quantify the average speed of traffic along
Canal Street and the corridors that directly affect traffic operations on Canal Street. This
information was used to qualify the traffic volume data collection, e.g., if a low volume was
counted by ATR and TMC along with a low speed, it was inferred that the low volume
corresponded to congestion. Correspondingly, if a low volume was counted by ATR and TMC
along with a high speed, that low volume indicated low demand.

To establish this relationship, travel time and delay surveys were performed for two midweek
days for a twelve-hour period (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM), concurrently with the ATR and turning
movement counts. Speed data was also collected on one Sunday during a six-hour peak period
(1:00 PM to 7:00 PM), concurrently with the ATR counts. Travel times were recorded between
pre-established checkpoints utilizing the “floating car” technique. In this method, one or more
vehicles are driven the length of the facility several times during the analytical period and the
mean travel time is computed. Probable causes of delays, such as delays due to signals,
congestion, pedestrians, or turning movements were noted. Travel time and delay surveys were
performed along the following corridors:

•   Canal Street between Route 9A to Manhattan Bridge/the Bowery;
•   Walker Street between West Broadway and Mulberry Street;
•   Grand Street between Varick Street and the Bowery;


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                   25
                                                                        Canal Area Transportation Study



•    Worth Street between Chatham Square and Hudson Street;
•    Broome Street/Watts Street between the Bowery and Varick Street;
•    Centre Street between Broome Street and Worth Street;
•    Lafayette Street between Broome Street and Worth Street;
•    Broadway between Broome Street and Worth Street; and
•    Delancey Street between Clinton Street and Centre Street.

As part of the CATS II travel time and delay surveys, GPS technology was used to increase
accuracy and simplify the data collection and reduction process.

II-3.3a AM Peak Period
Figure II-6 shows the average travel speeds on surveyed routes for the weekday AM peak period,
when most vehicles traveled at speeds of more than 10 mph. Vehicles on Canal Street between
Broadway and the Holland Tunnel; Broome Street between Broadway and Avenue of the
Americas; and Broadway north of Canal Street, traveled at speeds between 21 and 30 mph.
These routes showed high levels of congestion in the PM and Sunday peak periods.

Though there were isolated segments of each street that showed slow speeds (less than 10 mph),
the majority of segments of Worth Street, in both directions, had speeds of less than 10 mph. A
possible cause of this was Worth Street’s proximity to the Civic Center, which contained more
office jobs than Tribeca, Chinatown or Little Italy. Since most office jobs begin at 9:00 AM,
congestion on Worth Street may have been due to commuter work trips. The other surveyed
routes in the study area traverse neighborhoods with employment related to retail, dining and
cultural activities, which have different operating hours than office employment. It should be
noted that the travel time and delay data confirmed that the streets around the Holland Tunnel
were not congested in the AM peak period, as vehicles on Canal Street and Broome Street
(which are direct routes to the Holland Tunnel) were generally traveling at speeds of more than
10 mph. The volume of traffic onto eastbound Canal Street was likely metered by the Holland
Tunnel.

II-3.3b PM Peak Period
Figure II-7 shows the average travel speeds on surveyed routes for the weekday PM peak period.
In the PM, speeds slowed on routes approaching the Holland Tunnel. Broome Street and
westbound Canal Street began to show speeds of less than 10 mph, and fewer segments operated
at speeds of 21–30 mph. Most of the traffic in the PM peak period was bound for the Holland
Tunnel as commuters traveled to their residences in New Jersey. However, speeds decreased on
routes not affected by the Holland Tunnel, such as Walker Street and segments of Canal Street.
Congestion on Walker Street may have been caused by the high volume of vehicles bound for
Brooklyn that merged onto eastbound Canal Street to access the Manhattan Bridge. Walker
Street was noted as a one-lane street with limited capacity. Worth Street, situated near the Civic
Center, continued to display slow travel speeds as commuters left work and were bound for
home. Major cross-streets like Broadway, Lafayette, Centre and other streets in Chinatown also
had decreased speeds. This may have been caused by increased volume on these major north-
south corridors, or by interaction with the increased volume of pedestrians at intersections on
Canal Street. All sections of Delancey Street and Kenmare Street had operating speeds of less
than 10 mph in the eastbound direction towards the Williamsburg Bridge. Speeds on


26                                                  Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



Delancey/Kenmare Street in the westbound direction were generally more than 11 mph. Though
there were more segments with operating speeds of less than 10 mph in the PM peak period, the
majority of routes had operating speeds of 11 to 20 mph.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                             27
                                                                              Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE II-6:   AVERAGE VEHICULAR SPEEDS (AM PEAK PERIOD)




                                              KENMARE ST




28                                                         Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



FIGURE II-7:          AVERAGE VEHICULAR SPEEDS (PM PEAK PERIOD)




                                                     KENMARE ST




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                     29
                                                                       Canal Area Transportation Study



II-3.3c Sunday Peak Period
Figure II-8 shows the average travel speeds on surveyed routes for the Sunday peak period.
Average speeds of less than 10 mph were common on routes in the Canal Street area. This was
confirmed by aerial photography, which showed extensive queues on these routes. The slowest
routes in the study area were Canal Street approaching the Holland Tunnel and Canal Street
approaching the Manhattan Bridge; eastbound Walker Street; southbound Broadway from
Broome Street to Canal Street; northbound Centre Street from White Street to Spring Street; and
eastbound Worth Street from Chatham Square to Hudson Street. For the Sunday peak period,
most of the trips in the study area were not work-related. Traffic volumes increased and speeds
decreased on most streets. Routes approaching the Holland Tunnel (eastbound Canal east of
Hudson, westbound Canal west of Hudson, and Broome Street) and the Manhattan Bridge
(eastbound Canal and Walker Streets) had slow traveling speeds, similar to the PM. Additionally,
traffic coming from the Williamsburg Bridge, on westbound Delancey/Kenmare Street, was
traveling at speeds of less than 10 mph on all segments. However, shopping and dining in the
area were observed to start attracting more vehicles to their locations. Parking, both legal and
illegal, began to affect traffic operations. Additionally, an increased number of pedestrians at
crosswalks and in the curb lane caused conflicts that forced vehicles to slow; few segments of the
surveyed routes had operating speeds of 21-30 mph. Field observations and discussions with the
NYPD and the Port Authority, indicated that Traffic Enforcement Agents (TEAs) usually staff
intersections along Canal Street. The TEAs were observed to meter the volume of traffic along
Canal Street, which would affect travel speeds.

II-3.4   Aerial Photography to Identify Areas of Congestion
Aerial photography was used to qualify the traffic volume data collection by identifying the
existence and extent of congestion, e.g., if there were low volumes and long queue seen from the
photography, the low volume was a result of congestion. The aerial photography was used to
identify congested areas within the overall study area.

The aerial survey was performed during the period from March to May 2005, concurrently with
turning movement, pedestrian and automatic traffic recorder counts, in each of the three analysis
peak periods. Figures II-9 to II-11 show areas of congestion as identified by aerial photography
in the AM peak hour (8:00AM to 9:00 AM), PM peak hour (5:00 PM to 6:00 PM) and Sunday
midday (3:15 PM to 5:00 PM), respectively.

II-3.4a AM Peak Period
As Figure II-9 shows, traffic flowed well in the Canal Street area during the AM peak hour.
There were significant queues shown on the Brooklyn Bridge, Williamsburg Bridge and
Manhattan Bridge as vehicles entered Manhattan. However, the queues from the Manhattan
Bridge and Williamsburg Bridge were associated with construction. The queue on the Brooklyn
Bridge was likely due to the high volume of traffic that attempted to merge onto lower capacity
streets such as Centre Street and Chambers Street. Most of the streets in the study area showed
no queues.




30                                                  Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



FIGURE II-8:          AVERAGE VEHICULAR SPEEDS (SUNDAY PEAK PERIOD)




                                                     KENMARE ST




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                         31
                                                                        Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE II-9:   IDENTIFIED AREAS OF CONGESTION (AM)




32                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



II-3.4b PM Peak Period
In Figure II-10, congestion levels became higher in the PM, especially at the approaches to
outbound routes in the study area. For instance, the approaches to the Holland Tunnel, including
eastbound and westbound Canal Street, Hudson Street and Broome/Watt Streets, displayed
significant queues that were as long as 8 study area blocks. Streets that intersect with these
routes, such as Avenue of the Americas and Greene Street, displayed queues in the vicinity. The
approach to the Brooklyn Bridge and the FDR also displayed a significant queue, likely carrying
commuters who were leaving work and bound for Brooklyn and points east.

II-3.4c Sunday Peak Period
In Figure II-11, congestion spread to streets all over the Canal Street area on Sunday, including
westbound and eastbound Canal Street, major intersecting streets and nearby parallel streets.
Additionally, shopping and dining in the area started to attract more motorists to the area.
Parking, both legal and illegal, began to affect traffic operations. An increased number of
pedestrians at crosswalks and in the curb lane also contributed to conflicts. These conflicts may
have disrupted vehicle operations as heavy pedestrian crossing volumes prohibited vehicles from
turning. This condition was prevalent along Canal Street in Chinatown and on major cross streets
like Broadway. Coupled with a general increase in volume, queues developed throughout the
study area. This data was supported by the travel time and delay surveys and clearly depicted
Canal Street as carrying the most demand on Sunday.

II-3.4d Comparison with Results of Travel Time and Delay Surveys
Aerial surveillance to identify areas of congestion in Lower Manhattan was based on time-lapse
aerial photography. The aerial survey was designed to identify locations where large queues form
and persist. Travel time surveys generated average travel speeds, a fundamental parameter of
traffic flow. Furthermore, travel time surveys were used to identify streets that deliver poor level-
of-service even when demand is light, which may be caused by long red signal phases or poor
signal progression. Along congested corridors, where dense queues match long delays, the two
methods would be likely to flag the same links. This would normally suggest that demand for the
link was relatively near to or exceeded capacity. However, travel time surveys can be expected to
flag more bottlenecks since, as noted above, they also would identify problems along
uncongested routes where demand did not approach capacity but signal timing or coordination
caused significant delay. Additionally, results may have differed because of the dynamic traffic
conditions on Canal Street and the presence of Traffic Enforcement Agents.

For example, the travel time and delay surveys showed an average travel speed of less than 10
mph on sections of Worth Street in the AM, PM and Sunday peak periods. However, the aerial
photography did not identify Worth Street as having queues. A closer investigation of the
reasons for delay in the travel time and delay surveys indicated that delays were generally caused
by signals (stopping at red lights). Average run time results, which did not include time stopped
at red signals, indicated a speed of 11-20 mph on most links. This condition would not appear as
congestion in the aerial photography. However, average travel time, which did include time
stopped at red lights, generated an overall travel speed of less than 10 mph on some links. This
may have explained why the travel time and delay surveys portrayed more extensive congestion
than the aerial photography.



Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                     33
                                                                       Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE II-10: IDENTIFIED AREAS OF CONGESTION (PM)




34                                                  Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



FIGURE II-11: IDENTIFIED AREAS OF CONGESTION (SUNDAY)




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010           35
                                                                        Canal Area Transportation Study




II-4     FIELD INVENTORY
Intersection geometry and physical roadway characteristics were inventoried in the field at all
intersections and sidewalks along Canal Street between the Bowery and Route 9A, and at
intersections one block north and south of Canal Street. The field inventory included street
directions, roadway widths, number of lanes and lane widths, pavement markings, crosswalk
widths, stop lines, signage, location and type of traffic control devices, traffic signal timing,
location of bus stops for transit vehicles and tour buses, turn prohibitions, location and types of
pedestrian amenities, sidewalk width, etc. Figure II-12 is an example of the types of information
collected during the inventory.

FIGURE II-12: REPRESENTATIVE CROSS SECTIONS




36                                                  Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study,



The inventory also included the identification of the sidewalk widths along Canal Street in the
study area. Table II-7 identifies the sidewalk widths based on roadway improvement plans that
were prepared for Canal Street

TABLE II-7:       SIDEWALK AND ROADWAY WIDTHS ALONG CANAL STREET (EAST TO WEST)




II-5       SAFETY
The interaction of vehicles and pedestrians in the study area leads to conflicts and potential
safety impacts. Input from the CATS II Steering and Stakeholder Committees, and gathered at
community meetings indicated that safety is a priority. As part of the CATS II data collection
program, crash information was obtained and analyzed to quantify crashes and identify possible
contributing factors.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                               37
                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



II-5.1     Overview of Study Area
The police accident database for the study area was obtained from the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for the then most recent available 3-year period, from
June 1, 1999 to May 31, 2001. As shown in Figure II-13, Canal Street between West Street and
the Bowery experienced as low as 29 crashes over the 3-year period at the intersection with
Watts Street, to as high as 368 crashes at the intersection with the Bowery. Other major
intersections along Canal Street that experienced a relatively high number of crashes during the
3-year period were Broadway (221 crashes), Hudson Street (188 crashes), and Center Street (171
crashes).

Some trends emerged from the analysis of crashes in the study area:

•    The intersections with the most crashes involving pedestrians occurred along the Bowery,
     which carried high volumes of traffic. The Bowery is a relatively wide street with no median.
•    Five of the ten intersections with the highest crashes were on Delancey Street, where high
     volumes of traffic were coming from or accessing the Williamsburg Bridge.
•    Four of the ten intersections with the highest crashes were on Canal Street, although crashes
     on Canal Street were typically fewer than crashes on Delancey Street.
•    Canal Street at the intersections of Broadway and Lafayette Street reflected a relatively high
     number of crashes involving pedestrians. Although field observations showed a high number
     of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at these intersections, traffic was usually traveling at low
     speeds and operations were monitored by Traffic Enforcement Agents.
•    Houston Street also experienced a high number of crashes.

Crashes are referred to as “reportable” in accordance with Section 603 of the New York State
Vehicle and Traffic Law. All accidents involving death or injury must be reported to the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) by police agencies. Section 605 of the Vehicle and
Traffic Law requires that drivers involved in accidents resulting in death, injury, or property
damage only (PDO) in excess of $1,000, must also report the accident to DMV.

“Non-reportable” accidents contain less detail than reportable accidents, and are entered and
retained in the computerized accident file by DMV. PDO accidents reported by police agencies,
but not by the involved motorists, are filed by the DMV as non-reportable. PDO accidents filed
by a motorist are considered non-reportable if the property damage reported is less than $1,000,
or the amount of damage is not provided. The reportable crashes are further classified as fatal,
injury, and PDO.

Figure II-14 presents pedestrian crashes for the entire study area that occurred during the 3-year
period from 1999 to 2001.




38                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



FIGURE II-13: TOTAL CRASHES




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010   39
                                                      Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE II-14: PEDESTRIAN CRASHES




40                                 Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



II-5.2     Intersections with Highest Number of Crashes
Table II-8 lists the 10 intersections that had the highest number of total crashes in the CATS
study area for the most recent available 3-year period (1999-2001). The table lists the
classification of the crash (“reportable” or “non-reportable”), whether there were fatalities,
injuries, and/or property damage only, as well information about any pedestrians that were
involved in the crash.

For the reportable crashes, information was available for the type of crash (left-turn, right-turn,
rear-end, etc.) This information, field observations, and information from previous studies
helped to identify possible contributing factors to crashes.

II-6       GOODS MOVEMENT
Canal Street not only serves a dual role as a regional connector and a local main street for
automobiles, but also serves as a designated through truck route for Lower Manhattan. As a
result, the Canal Street corridor accommodates a relatively high demand of commercial vehicles
that are making regional and local trips. However, the use of Canal Street as a regional
connector, local Main Street and through truck route requires that trucks, automobiles and
pedestrians share a limited space. Input from the CATS II Steering and Stakeholder Committees,
community meetings and CATS II data collection program indicated that this situation resulted
in delays and safety and quality-of-life concerns in the Canal Street corridor. The CATS II data
collection program was designed to quantify the extent to which trucks use the Canal Street
corridor as a basis for further analysis of these issues.

Screenline vehicle classification counts were conducted concurrently with the origin-destination
survey in the AM (6:30 AM to 10:30 AM), PM (3:00 PM to 7:00 PM) and Sunday (2:00 to 6:00
PM) periods to help identify the percentages of autos, for-hire vehicles, jitney vans, transit buses,
private buses, light trucks, and heavy trucks in the Canal Street corridor. As a through truck
route, the corridor carries more freight vehicles than the surrounding streets, which are
designated as local truck routes or prohibit truck travel. (See Figure II-15 for Lower Manhattan
truck routes.)

A ban on tractor trailers in both directions of the Holland Tunnel may have affected the presence
of those vehicles along Canal Street. Additionally, at the time of data collection in March and
April 2005, all commercial vehicles were banned eastbound in the Holland Tunnel, from New
Jersey to New York. This ban was lifted on January 3, 2010 for small trucks (i.e., 2 or 3 axle).
Origin-destination survey information indicated that eastbound commercial vehicles destined for
Canal Street used the Lincoln Tunnel and Route 9A for access.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                     41
                                                               Canal Area Transportation Study



TABLE II-8:   TYPES OF CRASHES AT SELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA
              (NYS DMV DATA FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD, 1999 TO 2001)




42                                          Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



FIGURE II-15: NEW YORK CITY TRUCK ROUTES IN LOWER MANHATTAN




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                 43
                                                                     Canal Area Transportation Study




II-6.1   Composition of Traffic Stream

II-6.1a AM Peak Period
During the AM peak period, automobiles comprised 71 to 84 percent of total traffic on Canal
Street. As shown in the pie charts below, westbound Canal Street generally carried a
higher percentage of commercial vehicles as compared to eastbound Canal Street. The ban on
tractor trailers in both directions and on eastbound commercial vehicles at the Holland Tunnel
was reflected in the vehicle mix on Canal Street.




                              Canal Street east of Hudson Street




                                Canal Street east of Broadway


44                                                Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II




                                        Canal Street west of the Bowery

II-6.1b PM Peak Period
During the PM peak period, automobiles represented 77 to 91 percent of the total traffic, which
corresponded to a decrease in commercial vehicles relative to the AM peak period.




                                      Canal Street east of Hudson Street




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                               45
                                          Canal Area Transportation Study




     Canal Street east of Broadway




     Canal Street west of the Bowery




46                     Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



II-6.1c Sunday Peak Period
On Sunday, the most congested period, very few commercial vehicles used the Canal Street
corridor. Automobiles made up about 85 to 95 percent of total traffic.




                                      Canal Street East of Hudson Street




                                            Canal Street east of Broadway




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                        47
                                                                          Canal Area Transportation Study




                                  Canal Street west of the Bowery

II-7       PARKING
CATS II and other initiatives identified that parking is a major issue related to the transportation
system in the study area. As a result, the scope of CATS II was expanded to include the
collection of parking data that could be used for subsequent analysis in other initiatives and
studies.

II-7.1     Typical User Characteristics
To gain a better understanding of transportation users in the study area, a user survey was
performed. The study gathered information on the following travel characteristics:

•    The form of transportation used to get to the study area
•    Home location, in terms of New York City boroughs or surrounding counties in New York
     State and New Jersey
•    Trip purpose
•    Trip frequency
•    The number of locations that were planned to be visited in the study area as part of the trip

In addition to the above travel characteristics, the level of difficulty that drivers faced in finding
parking and the inclination to change mode were assessed through respondents’ answers to the
following questions.

•    If a travel mode other than private vehicle was used, the respondent’s inclination to drive if
     more or less expensive parking was made available?


48                                                    Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



•   If respondents drove to the study area, where did they park, for how long, and how much did
    they pay?
•   If respondents traveled to the study area as a passenger in a private vehicle, what did the
    driver do after discharging the passenger (e.g., parked in area, circulated in area, or continued
    to travel elsewhere)?

Two forms of surveys were conducted:

•   In-site surveys with questionnaires placed in stores, offices, community facilities, etc.
•   On-street intercept interviews with pedestrians at selected locations in SoHo,
    Chinatown/Little Italy and the Lower East Side

Approximately 1,000 completed in-site survey forms were received and intercept interviews
were conducted. The survey results led to the following conclusions:

•   A large proportion of respondents in all surveyed neighborhoods were from Manhattan,
    Brooklyn and Queens. In all surveyed neighborhoods, more respondents on weekends came
    from outside of New York City than on weekdays.
•   Subway was the most popular of all travel modes, including bus, taxi, personal vehicle,
    bicycle and walking.
•   During weekdays, work was the more significant reason for people to come to the study area.
    Many respondents also came to for shopping or recreation/entertaining/dining purposes,
    especially during weekends.
•   More respondents came to the study area on a daily basis during weekdays, which coincides
    with work being the predominant trip purpose on those days. More visitors came to the
    surveyed neighborhoods during weekends.
•   The number of locations people visited on one single trip appears to be related to the land use
    of the neighborhood. The survey showed that there was a greater proportion of respondents
    visiting 5 or more locations on weekends than on weekdays.
•   Fifteen percent more respondents parked off-street on weekends than on weekdays, which
    likely corresponded with more trips during weekends made for non work/school/personal
    business purposes.
•   Nearly 50 percent of on-street parkers searched for more than 20 minutes before finding an
    on-street parking space on weekdays.
•   Among the respondents willing to switch to driving, 77 percent on weekdays and 66 percent
    on weekends were current subway riders.

Of respondents willing to switch to driving, a higher percentage was willing to pay less than $5
for parking on weekdays and a higher percentage was willing to pay more than $20 for parking
on weekends.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                     49
                                                                          Canal Area Transportation Study



II-7.2    On-Street and Off-Street Parking Surveys
Parking activity at more than 230 block faces in the study area was surveyed. The block faces
surveyed are shown in Figure II-16. The collected data included parking regulations, usage, types
of vehicles parked, and duration.

In addition, surveys were performed of selected off-street parking facilities. Figure II-17 shows
the locations of off-street parking locations in or near the study area. Table II-9 provides
information related to the off-street parking facilities. Some 35 of these facilities were surveyed
to identify parking utilization, turnover, and accumulation.

II-8      LAND USE
This section presents a description of existing land use conditions and recent trends affecting the
project study area. Canal Street traffic and pedestrian conditions are attributable in part to
surrounding land uses, as well as its status as a connector to both the Manhattan Bridge and the
Holland Tunnel. Residential population and local employment are two factors affecting the
number of vehicle and transit trips into and out of the study area, just as the locations and density
of retail establishments affect nearby pedestrian activity. As land uses change, transportation
issues may change as well. Therefore, it is important to understand existing policies controlling
land use and development, since these will influence future conditions.

The precise delineation of the land use study area is based on the boundaries of traffic analysis
zones (TAZs) that approximate it. Neighborhoods are an important focus of the land use studies
and CATS overall. Although neighborhoods in the study area may lack distinct boundaries, they
represent differences in community identity, built form, and traffic and transportation issues. For
the purposes of this study, the boundaries of neighborhoods within the study area are delineated
according to the TAZs that approximate them, as indicated on Figure II-18.

II-8.1    Existing Land Use, Development Density, and Zoning

II-8.1a Land Use
As is generally characteristic of lower Manhattan, industrial, commercial, residential, and
institutional uses are all present and integrated throughout the study area (Figure II-19-2005).
The eastern half of the Lower East Side features larger parcels than the remainder of the study
area, and accordingly, larger expanses of single use residential. Large housing projects, including
Baruch Houses, Samuel Gompers Houses, and Corlears Hook Houses are located here,
dominating the easternmost portion of the neighborhood.

Residential uses, both with and without ground-floor retail, are present throughout the remainder
of the study area. Dense mixtures of commercial uses, along with residential and industrial, can
be found throughout Chinatown and Little Italy. Similar commercial and residential patterns line
Chrystie, Eldridge, Allen, Orchard, and Ludlow Streets, which run through the western portion
of the Lower East Side. There, building parcels are smaller than those located further east. Dense
commercial and residential mixtures can also be found in the central portion of SoHo between
Avenue of the Americas and Mercer Street.




50                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



FIGURE II-16: BLOCK FACES INCLUDED IN ON-STREET PARKING SURVEY




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                    51
                                                                                              Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE II-17: OFF STREET PARKING LOCATIONS IN OR NEAR CATS II STUDY AREA




52                                                                         Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
         Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



                           TABLE II-9:       OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES IN OR NEAR CATS II STUDY AREA

                                                                                                                                                 Garage/
Facility No                      Address                                                      Operator                 License No.   Capacity   Surface Lot                      Open
     1         62-64 MULBERRY ST                                 CHAMPION MULBERRY LLC                                   1163769       191           G          24/7
     2         101 WORTH ST                                      CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF NY, INC                       1135017       226           G          24/7
     3         2 DIVISION ST                                     CHAMPION CONFUCIUS, LLC                                 1146910       300           G          24/7
     4         180 PARK ROW                                      CHATHAM PARKING SYSTEMS INC                             0368910       130           G          24/7
     5         89-93 CHRYSTIE ST                                 MTP OPERATING CORP                                      0977117       116           G          6am-2am, 7 days
     6         123-129 BAXTER ST                                 125 VERTICAL PARKING GROUP, LLC                         1251237        99           G          24/7
     7         106 MOTT ST                                       HESTER PARKING CORP.                                    1250880       154           G          24/7
     8         44 ELIZABETH ST                                   RAMP PARKING CORP                                       0904481       120           G          24/7
     9         224 MULBERRY ST                                   KINNEY PARKING SYSTEM INC.                              1201681       150           G          24/7
    10         349 CANAL ST                                      WOOSTER PARKING CORP                                    0901637       225           G          24/7
    11         335 CANAL ST                                      CANAL DEVELOPMENT CORP                                  0369905        89          SL          7am-6pm, 7 days
    12         360 WEST BROADWAY                                 SAM PARKING, L.L.C.                                     0926039       180           G          24/7
    13         56 N MOORE ST                                     KINNEY PARKING SYSTEM, INC                              1137052       220           G          24/7
    14         88 LEONARD ST                                     LEONARD STREET PARKING LLC                              1261900       225           G          24/7
    15         174 CENTRE ST                                     EDISON NY PARKING LLC                                   0926757        93          SL          24/7
    16         165-167 MERCER ST                                 MERCER PARKING GARAGE CORP                              0428016       120           G          N/A
    17         111-115 VARICK ST                                 PINE PARKING CORP                                       1141698       183           G          24/7
                                                                                                                                                                7am-10pm, M-F
    18         135 DELANCY ST                                    LOWER EAST SIDE DISTRICT MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION INC    1220509        294           SL
                                                                                                                                                                8am-10pm, Sa & Su
    19         14-18 CHARLTON ST                                 KINNEY PARKING SYSTEM INC                              1204606         63           G          7am-8pm, Mon. - Fri.
    20         107 ESSEX ST                                      DELANCY AND ESSEX MUNICIPAL PARKING GARAGE               N/A          357           G          24/7
    21         24 COLUMBIA ST                                    AREA GARAGE LLC                                        0429851        457           G          24/7
    22         59 ALLEN ST                                       59 ALLEN STREET GARAGE CORP                            1192853        200           G          24/7
    23         14-24 KENMARE ST                                  BUZZ PARKING II LLC.                                   1241099        100           G          24/7
    24         280 BROADWAY                                      280 BROADWAY CAR PARK LLC                              1118320        149           G          5:30am-1am, Mon.-Fri.
    25         351, 376 GREENWICH ST                             PATRIOT PARKING LLC                                    1159595        318           G          24/7
    26         38 HENRY ST                                       10 ST. PARKING CORP.                                   0925245        150           SL         24/7
    27         49-59 HENRY ST                                    HENRY OPERATING CORP.                                  1039024        114           SL         6am-1am, 7 days

         TABLE II-9:       OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES IN OR NEAR CATS II STUDY AREA (CONTINUED)

                                                                                                                                                 Garage/
Facility No                     Address                                                       Operator                 License No.   Capacity   Surface Lot                       Open
    28         336 BROADWAY/95 WORTH ST                          95 WORTH LLC                                            1039043       114           G          24/7
               42-52 BAYARD ST/
    29         30-38 BOWERY/                                     QUIK PARK REGENT LLC                                   1192997        140           G          24/7
               2-8 ELIZABETH ST
    30         395 BROOME ST                                     395 PARKING CORP                                       0469630         85           SL         24/7
    31         44-54 SUFFOLK ST                                  SUFFOLK PARKING INC                                    1226909        100           SL         24/7
                                                                                                                                                     SL
    32         551 GREENWICH ST                                  GREENWICH STREET PARKING LLC.                          1076703         91                      M-Th 24 Hr, Fr open 'til 12, Sa & Su closed
                                                                                                                                                 (with lifts)
    33         299 PEARL ST                                      ROPETMAR GARAGE INC                                      N/A          310           SL         24/7
    34         80 GOLD ST                                        ROPETMAR GARAGE INC                                      N/A          351           G          24/7
    35         184 LUDLOW ST                                     EDISON NY PARKING LLC                                  0926761        182           G          N/A
    36         75 KENMARE ST                                     PARK IN AUTO SERVICES, INC                             1100556        175           G          24/7
    37         24 LEONARD ST                                     LOUIS PROVENZANO INC                                   0427264        217           G          24/7
    38         227 CHERRY ST                                     CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF NEW YORK, INC.               1124929         90           SL         N/A
    39         118 CLINTON ST                                    BROOME STREET PARKING LOT LLC                          1234764         48           SL         24/7



         Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                                                                                      53
                                                                                                                                               Canal Area Transportation Study



    40        26 FORSYTH ST                             BRIDGE VIEW AUTO SERVICE CENTER INC         0954225         42            SL          8am-11pm
    41        47 HENRY ST                               HENRY OPERATING CORP                        1057433          8            SL          N/A
    42        85-89 HENRY ST                            LAN TIAN GARAGE, INC                        1129975         50            SL          11am-4pm
    43        148 MADISON ST                            KAYLEE OPERATING LLC                        1155046         66            SL          N/A
    44        88 MADISON ST                             MADISON STREET OPERATING CORP               0908352         50            SL          6am-11pm
    45        220 SOUTH ST                              EDISON N.Y. PARKING LLC                     1134501         63            SL          24/7
    46        200 CHAMBERS ST                           CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF NEW YORK, INC.    1253687         60            G           24/7
    47        105 DUANE ST                              KIDS PARKING CORP                           0908285         72            G           24/7
    48        301 ELIZABETH ST                          COMFORT PARK LLC                            0953176         39            G           24/7
    49        258-262 LAFAYETTE ST                      258-262 LAFAYETTE LLC                       1248479         60            SL          Mon-Fri 7am-12am, Sat&Sun 7am-10pm
    50        81 MERCER ST                              ASPIRE ONE LLC                              1217279         21            SL          Mon-Sat 7am-10am, Sun 8am-8pm




         TABLE II-9:   OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES IN OR NEAR CATS II STUDY AREA (CONTINUED)

                                                                                                                               Garage/
Facility No                       Address                                             Operator     License No.   Capacity     Surface Lot                     Open
    51        284 MOTT ST                               MOTT PARK LLC                                1155049        62             G          24/7
    52        259 MULBERRY ST                           MEAT MARKET GARAGE INC                       0469196        15            SL          N/A
    53        298 MULBERRY ST                           VIP CAPITAL PARKING CORP.                    0962302        21             G          24/7
    54        146-148 WOOSTER ST                        ALBRO PARKING CORP                           0924435        34            SL          8am-6pm
    55        76-80 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS              MAC GARAGE LLC                               1033843        50             G          N/A
    56        95 BAXTER ST                              FORLINI'S DISCOUNT PARKING                   0902515        28            SL          Mon-Fri 8am-10pm
    57        98-100BAYARD ST                           MARGARET E PESCATOREPARKING INC              0765883        12            SL          8am-6pm
    58        411-413 BROADWAY                          CHAMPION TRIBECA LLC                         1089680        60            SL          7:30am-9pm
    59        432-436 BROOME ST                         LPARK 1 LLC                                  1181102        40            SL           7am- 12am Mon-Fri
    60        489 CANAL ST                              684 WAREHOUSE CORP                           1231226        25            SL          6am-6pm
    61        510 CANAL ST                              WASHINGTON PARKING CORP                      1103091        31            SL          N/A
                                                                                                                                              Mon-Fri 8am-6pm Other Times When
    62        43 DOMINICK ST                            CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF NEW YORK, INC     1243911         49            SL
                                                                                                                                              Attended
    63        98-100 FRANKLIN ST                        512 PARKING CORP                            0925684        36             SL          8am-5:30pm
    64        27-31 GRAND ST                            MAC GARAGE LLC                              1033846        23             G           N/A
    65        61-69 GRAND ST                            PINE PARKING CORP                           1141705        45             SL          7am-12am
    66        308-332 GREENWICH ST                      PATRIOT PARKING LLC                         1159592        232            G           24/7
    67        454-456 GREENWICH ST                      TRIBECA PARKING CORP                        0981738        55             G           6am-12am
                                                                                                                                              Mon-Fri 8am-6pm Other Times When
    68        272-296 HUDSON ST                         CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF NEW YORK, INC     1243909         43            SL
                                                                                                                                              Attended
                                                                                                                                              Mon-Fri 7am-7pm Other Times When
    69        74 HUDSON ST                              74 HUDSON STREET PARKING CORP               0367908         99            SL
                                                                                                                                              Attended
    70        412-422 GREENWICH ST                      DIAMOND PARKING CORP                        1157668         23             G          24/7
    71        40 MERCER ST                              RL MERCER STREET LLC                        1310031        100             G          24/7
                                                                                                                                              Mon-Fri 8am=10pm; Fri and Sat, 8am-
    72        114-116 MULBERRY ST                       KENNEE PARKING CORP                         0427071         42            SL
                                                                                                                                              12pm; Sun 8am-10pm
    73        121 READE ST                              SKY PARKING CORP.                           0981503         89            G           24/7
    74        6 RENWICK ST                              VESTRY PARKING CORP                         1210081         56            G           N/A
    75        272-276 SPRING ST                         EDISON NEW YORK PARKING LLC                 0925848         63            SL          24/7
    76        114-122 VARICK ST                         VARICK STREET PARKING LLC.                  1076689         86            SL          24/7




         54                                                                                                                 Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
         Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II




         TABLE II-9:       OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES IN OR NEAR CATS II STUDY AREA (CONTINUED)

                                                                                                                                Garage/
Facility No                             Address                                         Operator      License No.   Capacity   Surface Lot                    Open
    77         20-24 VARICK ST                              KINNEY PARKING SYSTEM, INC.                 1196587        92          SL        7am-9pm
    78         88 WALKER ST                                 CHINATOWN PARKING CORP                      0924211        35          SL        7am-7pm
    79         90 LAIGHT ST                                 EMPIRE PARKING, CORP.                       1200653        90           G        24/7
    80         432 WASHINGTON ST                            WEST SIDE PARKING CORP                      1135161        25           G        Mon-Fri 7am-7pm
    81         281-287 WEST ST                              ERIK PARKING CORP                           0915103        75          SL        8am-6pm
    82         14 WHITE ST                                  512 PARKING CORP                            0922578        42          SL        7am-12pm
    83         84 WHITE ST                                  CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF NEW YORK, INC     1102229        59          SL        Mon-Fri, 7am-8pm; Sat Sun, 9am-5pm
    84         15 WORTH ST                                  EDISON NY PARKING LLC                       0926752        98          SL        24/7
                                                                                                                                             Mon-Thu 24hours,
    85         561-565 GREENWICH ST                         GREENWICH STREET PARKING LLC.              1076708         51          SL        Fri, until 12am,
                                                                                                                                             Sat & Sun closed
    86         375 HUDSON ST                                375 HUD PARKING LLC                        1010916        100          G         24/7
    87         115 LEROY ST                                 CALIENTE CAR PARK, LLC                     1096607         98          SL        24/7
    88         100 MORTON ST                                CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM OF NEW YORK INC     1185987        140          G         N/A
    89         575 WASHINGTON ST                            ELBA OPERATING CORP                        1148944        400          G         24/7
    90         PIER 40 WEST ST                              STANDARD PARKING CORPORATION               1158659        3500        G/SL       24/7
    91         38-42 HENRY ST                               10 STREET PARKING CORP.                     954225          42         G         8am-11pm
    92         49-59 VARICK ST                              HERRY OPERATION CORP                       1039024         114         G         6am-1pm




         Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                                                                55
                                                                                                      Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE II-18: STUDY AREA NEIGHBORHOODS, CENSUS TRACTS AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES




56                                                                                 Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



FIGURE II-19: EXISTING LAND USE




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010   57
                                                                                        Canal Area Transportation Study



Dense arrangements of commercial uses can be found along both sides of Broadway and Crosby
Street in SoHo and the TriBeCa/Civic Center neighborhoods, Varick Street in SoHo, and the
Bowery and Chrystie Street, which run through the Lower East Side, adjacent to Little Italy and
into Chinatown. Large commercial parcels characterize Broadway in the southern extent of the
study area, in the Civic Center neighborhood. Canal Street is largely commercial along its central
segment, from Avenue of the Americas to the Bowery.

Industrial uses (e.g., manufacturing and warehousing) are scattered throughout most of the study
area (except for the Lower East Side). The largest industrial parcels are concentrated near West
Street in SoHo and in the TriBeCa/Civic Center district, particularly along Canal Street and
Broadway.

Parkland is present throughout the study area, especially in large swathes along both the Hudson
River and East River. There is a smaller strip of parkland that runs north-and-south between
Chrystie and Forsythe Streets in the northwestern area of the Lower East Side, crossing Grand
Street and extending south into Chinatown. Some pocket parks are situated within the Lower
East Side housing projects. Otherwise, scattered, small neighborhood parks are typically less
than one acre in size.

II-8.1b Development Density
The Lower East Side covers a large area, and so it is reasonable that it represents more than a
third of all buildable surface area in the study area (Table II-10). However, over 40 percent of
commercial floor area is in TriBeCa/Civic Center (where medium and high-bulk buildings are
typical), and about 30 percent of it is in SoHo. Nearly half – 46 percent – of all residential units
in the study area are located on the Lower East Side, which is defined by multiple housing
projects and dense blocks of tenement buildings, and about 29 percent of the residential units are
found in SoHo and TriBeCa/Civic Center combined. Although TriBeCa/Civic Center contains
13 percent of the residential units in the study area, it accounts for 22 percent of the total
residential space, reflecting typically larger dwelling units.

The largest amount of office space is found in TriBeCa/Civic Center (56 percent), followed by
SoHo with 29 percent. SoHo features the largest amount of retail space in the area (33 percent),
followed by TriBeCa/Civic Center (25 percent)

II-8.1c Zoning
Zoning districts generally correspond to the land uses present throughout the study area.
Residential zoning, which typically allows only residential uses, is common only in the
easternmost portion of the study area. Commercial zones, which allow a more liberal mix of
uses, can be found throughout the study area, and not only where there are heavy concentrations
of retail establishments or offices. Maximum floor area ratios1 (FARs) are generally higher in
commercial zones than others (Table II-11). With some restrictions, commercial zones typically
1
     The Floor Area of a building is the sum of the gross area of each floor of the building excluding cellar space,
     floor space in open balconies, elevator or stair bulkheads and in most zoning districts, floor space used for
     accessory parking that is located less than 23 feet above the curb level. The Floor Area Ratio is the total floor
     area on a zoning lot divided by the lot area of that zoning lot. Each zoning district classification contains an
     FAR control which, when multiplied by the lot area of the zoning lot, produces the maximum floor area
     allowable on such lot.


58                                                              Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



allow for retail and offices uses as well as residential uses, community facilities and recreational
uses. Similarly, manufacturing zones may allow community facilities and limited retail and
office uses, as well as manufacturing uses. While the manufacturing zoning in SoHo (M1-5A and
M1-5B) allows joint living-work units for artists, it restricts certain retail uses.
Some discrepancies between zoning and land uses do exist, however. For example, although
residential uses are present throughout the study area, there are only a few designated residential
zones. This is in part due to the presence of housing prior to current zoning designations, which
took effect in 1961 and allowed many existing uses to remain even though they would not be
permitted as-of-right if newly constructed.
In 1998, the Lower Manhattan Mixed Use District (which covered approximately 62 blocks
south of Canal Street) was renamed the Special TriBeCa Mixed Use District (TMU). As in other
special districts around the City, this designation was applied in addition to the standard zoning
(e.g., M1-5, C5-3, etc.) as a way of further directing development to meet public policy goals for
the area. Like the M1-5A and M1-5B zoning, the TMU allows certain older manufacturing lofts
to be converted to special loft dwellings and joint living-work quarters for artists. Additionally,
the district allows certain large retail facilities (exceeding 20,000 square feet of floor area) by
permit from the City Planning Commission in the northern portion of the zone, between Beach
Street to the south and Canal Street to the north, Broadway on the east and the West Side
Highway/Miller Highway on the west.
The Special Little Italy District (LI) is another special district found within the study area. It is
aimed at protecting the district’s existing “character” through bulk and use provisions unique to
the district, storefront design controls, and protection against the demolition of characteristic
buildings that contribute to the vibrant street life for which Little Italy is known.
Recent zoning changes in and around the study area have primarily been related to residential
conversions in former industrial and commercial buildings, as well as special permits that have
allowed residential and mixed use construction in areas such as SoHo and TriBeCa. North of the
study area, the New York City Department of City Planning (NYCDCP) rezoned a 14-block area
of the far western part of Greenwich Village (Far West Village Zoning), two blocks north of
Houston Street along West Street. The rezoning allows for the continued development of
residential buildings and neighborhood-oriented retail, at densities and heights consistent with
the existing scale of the neighborhood. It changed much of the area's zoning to contextual
zoning.2 This rezoning proceeded in tandem with Landmarks Preservation Commission efforts
to expand the Greenwich Village Historic District, which is aimed at protecting the character of
the lower and medium density residential neighborhood.
The Hudson Square Rezoning, also in the vicinity of the study area, is a response to land use
changes, increasing development pressure, and a growing number of Board of Standards Appeals
variance applications to allow residential use. This rezoning applies to approximately 34 blocks
bounded by the Route 9A on the west, Morton and Barrow Streets on the north, Avenue of the
Americas and Hudson Street on the east, and Canal Street on the south. The purpose of the
rezoning was to preserve the existing built character and retain manufacturing and commercial
uses within Hudson Square, while providing opportunities for new housing development.
2
    Contextual zoning regulates height, placement and scale of new buildings so that they fit the character of the
    neighborhoods in which they are located.


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                        59
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Canal Area Transportation Study



TABLE II-10: RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (2005)

                                                 Total Buildable                                                                                                                                                                  Number of
                                                    Lot Area            Total Building   Commercial       Residential       Office Floor     Retail Floor   Garage Floor    Storage Floor   Factory Floor     Other Floor         Residential
             Neighborhood                          (surface)*            Floor Area      Floor Area       Floor Area           Area             Area           Area             Area            Area             Area               Units
Subtotal SoHo                                       5,901,228            32,376,591      23,151,196        9,202,814        11,657,609        3,672,559        467,296        5,300,605         166,829        1,831,282               9,239
– percent of total                                       20.4                   24.3           29.9             16.5               29.1             32.8          27.3             47.8            46.6             14.2                15.4
Subtotal TriBeCa and Civic Center                   6,175,820            43,472,738      31,367,309       12,105,429        22,397,149        2,753,856        491,820        3,332,091           6,283        2,374,384               7,902
– percent of total                                       21.3                   32.7           40.6             21.7               56.0             24.6          28.7             30.0              1.8            18.5                13.2
Little Italy                                        1,252,408             5,068,990       2,511,075        2,557,915           474,241          879,901         87,579          621,575          78,144          369,635               3,913
– percent of total                                         4.3                   3.8             3.2              4.6               1.2              7.9            5.1              5.6           21.8               2.9                 6.5
Subtotal Chinatown and Two Bridges                  5,212,491            19,965,029      12,495,115        7,469,914         4,954,556        1,833,068        327,941        1,142,384          37,493        4,199,673              11,127
– percent of total                                       18.0                   15.0           16.2             13.4               12.4             16.4          19.2             10.3            10.5             32.7                18.6
Subtotal Lower East Side                           10,454,417            32,148,593       7,785,039       24,363,554           544,788        2,059,700        337,053          693,718          69,050        4,076,242              27,637
– percent of total                                       36.1                   24.2           10.1             43.7                1.4             18.4          19.7               6.3           19.3             31.7                46.2
           TOTAL FOR STUDY AREA                    28,996,364           133,031,941      77,309,734       55,699,626        40,028,343       11,199,084      1,711,689       11,090,373         357,799       12,851,216              59,818
Source: NYCDCP, PLUTO File, December 2004.
*   Excludes Parks and Transportation/Utility uses.




TABLE II-11: GENERAL ZONING DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS

                                                                                                              Maximum FAR
          Zoning District                               Residential                      Community Facility                     Commercial                      Manufacturing                   Maximum # of Dwelling Units per Acre
                R6                                          2.43                               4.80                                 -                                -                                         156
                R7                                          3.44                               6.50                                 -                                -                                         220
                R8                                          6.02                               6.50                                 -                                -                                         354
               C2-8                                        10.00                              10.00                                 2.00                             -                                         551
               C5-3                                        10.00                              15.00                                15.00                             -                                         551
               C6-1                                         3.44                               6.50                                 6.00                             -                                         220
               C6-2                                         6.02                               6.50                                 6.00                             -                                         354
               C6-3                                         7.52                              10.00                                 6.00                             -                                         443
               C6-4                                        10.00                              10.00                                10.00                             -                                         551
               C8-4                                          -                                 6.50                                 5.00                             -                                             -
              M1-4                                           -                                 6.50                                 2.00                             2.00                                          -
              M1-5                                          *                                  6.50                                 5.00                             5.00                                         *
              M1-6                                           -                                10.00                                10.00                            10.00                                          -
              M2-4                                           -                                  -                                   5.00                             5.00                                          -
*    M1-5A and M1-5B districts allow joint living-work quarters for artists




60                                                                                                                                                                                            Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II




                                                THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                         61
                                                                          Canal Area Transportation Study



II-8.2    Historic Districts and Resources
The study area features a rich inventory of individual historic resources, including locally
important City-designated landmarks such as historic houses, buildings, and monumental
architecture. Development actions proposed in proximity to any of these resources may be
subject to certain restrictions. The designation of historic districts, however, is another way that
the City manages development throughout broader areas. Historic districts provide a means for
the City to guide development according to guidelines carefully tailored to protecting the
integrity of important historic architectural resources that characterize particular neighborhoods.
Historic district designations also can be applied to protect archaeological resources.

Six locally and nationally significant historic districts cover substantial areas of SoHo and
TriBeCa/Civic Center. The study area includes all four of the TriBeCa Historic Districts
(TriBeCa South, TriBeCa East, TriBeCa West, and TriBeCa North), which cover more than 30
blocks in TriBeCa. TriBeCa became New York City’s first residential neighborhood in the early
1800s. The residential development was followed by commercial development. The TriBeCa
historic districts are designated to protect the late-19th Century commercial and industrial
architecture that characterizes TriBeCa today. Marble and iron are common façade materials, and
many facades are designed in Renaissance and Romanesque Revival styles.

The large SoHo Cast Iron Historic District is located between Houston and Canal Streets,
roughly between West Broadway and Crosby Street. This is a commercial district developed in
the mid- to late 19th century as the City’s center of the wholesale dry goods trade. The district
contains the world’s largest collection of buildings with cast iron fronts – a popular design at that
time. In recent decades, SoHo has become a world-known art center and locale for upscale
shopping.

The African Burial Ground and the Commons Historic District is found in the southern part of
the study area in the Civic Center. It incorporates land associated with the Commons laid out by
the Dutch government in colonial New Amsterdam, as well as the site of the 18th-century
African Burial Ground. The area east of Broadway, south of Chambers Street and west of Park
Row, which includes City Hall and surrounding parkland, was originally part of the Commons.
The area north of Chambers Street and south of Duane Street, between Broadway and Centre
Street, is an extant portion of the African Burial Ground.

II-8.3    Other Applicable Policies and Plans
In addition to zoning and historic resource policies, development within the study area
neighborhoods is also guided by several other plans and policies. The study area includes
portions of Community Districts 1, 2, and 3, each of which prepares an annual Community
District Needs Statement, outlining development concerns and policy initiatives. The City has
also developed waterfront plans. A review of these plans and policies as they apply to the study
area and transportation concerns and the Canal Street Corridor, in particular, informs the overall
assessment of development trends and potential.

Community District 1 (CB1) includes TriBeCa and the Civic Center, as well as Battery Park
City, the Financial District, and the South Street Seaport (outside the study area). As stated in the
Community District Needs Statement issued by CB1 (FY11), signs of progress for the residents


62                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



and workers of the District are evident, but still many challenges remain to both provide for the
physical and social infrastructure necessary to support surging population in the District, and
ensure that the major development projects in the area are managed such that their impact is
mitigated and quality of life in the area does not suffer. Among the District’s highest priorities is
to make sure there are enough schools, community centers and facilities for seniors to
accommodate the area's rapidly increasing population. CB1 is committed to maintaining a strong
mixed use community where the quality of life is valued by residents and businesses thrive.

The Hudson River Park is a major open space along the Hudson River waterfront in the study
area; additional parks are on Canal Street at Laight Street and at Canal Street and West Street.
The East River Waterfront Plan developed by CB1 and the Downtown Alliance is reflected in
the NYCDCP East River Waterfront Study (June 2005), which calls for the renovation of the
waterfront and areas beneath the FDR Drive to create extensive public open space. The
Community Board stresses that plans to improve both the East and Hudson River waterfronts be
brought to full fruition so that they can provide this rapidly growing community with recreational
space and other needed amenities.

Community District 2 (CB2) includes SoHo, Greenwich Village and NoHo to the north, Little
Italy and a portion of Chinatown. As stated in the Community District Needs Statement (FY11),
CB2 expresses concern that ancillary services have not keep pace with the rapid population
growth that the District has experienced in the last decade. The Statement points out the high
demand for community services such as day-care facilities, social service facilities, public high
school and elementary school expansions as well as additional open space. The District supports
the New York City Department of Transportation’s (NYCDOT) Plaza Program and bicycle
initiatives.

Community District 3 (CB3) includes the Lower East Side and a portion of Chinatown, both
within the study area, and also the East Village to the north. As stated in the Community District
Needs Statement (FY11) the community states the need for affordable housing, is working to
build a consensus around proposals for the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area, encourages
greater regulation in the use of parks, completion of the reconstruction of East River Park and an
increasing need for youth and education programs.

CB3 highlights the need for increased transit service in the area. Changes CB3 supports include
the return of the Grand Street cross-town bus, the preservation of service on the M-21 and
extension of bus service to the East River.

In addition, Community Boards 1, 2 and 3, in conjunction with the Chinatown Working Group,
under authority granted by Section 197-a of the Charter of the City of New York, intend to
submit a proposed community plan, Chinatown Working Group: Community Planning Its
Future, in mid-2010.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                     63
                                                                            Canal Area Transportation Study




        CHAPTER III – COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
NYMTC and the study team were committed to engaging community members and other
stakeholders in the outreach area in a continuing, inclusive, and productive dialogue. Extensive
public participation helped ensure that issues and concerns of stakeholders and the public shaped
and informed the decisions and recommendations of CATS .

III-1      GOALS AND STRATEGIES
The goals of the community involvement effort were:

•    To ensure that the public is adequately informed about the study and its implications for their
     communities.
•    To convey NYMTC’s and the study team’s commitment to community involvement.
•    To ensure that public input influences recommendations and decisions for the Canal Street
     corridor.
•    To build a consensus between communities and agencies about issues of importance and
     workable solutions.
•    To create a shared vision for transportation and land use improvements in the study area.

Achieving the goals of the community involvement plan required the fulfillment of the following
objectives:

•    Creation of a multi-faceted effort to advise the community of the study progress and findings.
•    Meaningful dialogue between a broad cross section of the population and the various
     agencies involved in the study.
•    Identification of the current transportation deficiencies in the Canal Street corridor.
•    Community and agency commitment to creating a workable vision for the future.
•    Identification of feasible solutions to meet the area’s needs.
•    Provision of a forum for community review of alternative future scenarios and evaluation of
     findings.
•    Creation of a feedback mechanism for the public to express issues and concerns.
•    Coordination with other studies in the Canal Street area to avoid duplication of effort, share
     findings, exchange ideas, and build on successes.

A variety of strategies and techniques were employed to achieve the goals and objectives of the
community involvement plan. Broadly, these strategies identified key groups and interests,
enabled face-to-face interaction, developed a comprehensive set of communication tools, and
publicized the study.



64                                                     Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



Strategy: Identified key groups and interests in the outreach area.

Key groups and interests were identified early in the study to provide comprehensive
representation of community issues and concerns. Particular attention was given to finding those
groups who traditionally do not participate in the transportation decision-making process.

Techniques
• Creation of a Stakeholder Committee. Through active participation of its members, the
   Stakeholder Committee provided an opportunity for community voices to be heard, helping
   to ensure that a wide range of opinions were considered throughout the study. A diverse
   cross-section of interests and organizations, representing constituents who may be impacted
   by any proposed improvements to the Canal Street area, were invited to participate on the
   CATS II Stakeholder Committee including:
        − Elected officials (national, state, city, and Hudson County, NJ)
        − Community Boards (Manhattan, Brooklyn and Staten Island)
        − Business Improvement Districts
        − Chambers of Commerce
        − Auto Associations
        − Trucking Associations
        − Shipping Associations
        − Transportation Advocates
        − New York City Agencies
        − Port Authority of NY&NJ
        − Metropolitan Transportation Authority
        − Uniformed Services
        − Community Organizations
•   Development of a mailing list of organizations, interest groups and residents for participation
    in public involvement activities. The study team conducted research on the outreach area
    neighborhoods to identify important community leaders and organizations and encourage
    their participation in the study. The study team relied on input from the Stakeholder
    Committee, the Steering Committee, other studies in the area and local organizations to
    support this effort and enlarge the mailing list.

Strategy: Enabled face-to-face dialogue with the study team

Meetings, workshops, and open houses gave the public opportunities to meet directly with the
study team and helped to ensure that the community’s opinions and concerns were being heard,
understood, and addressed.

Techniques
• Stakeholder Committee meetings on March 16, 2005 and May 25, 2005 provided an open
   forum for discussion, encouraged interaction among key stakeholders, allowed committee



Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                   65
                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



     members to voice the issues and concerns of their represented constituencies to the project
     team, and gave members information to take back to their constituencies.
•    Coordination meetings with other organizations conducting studies in the Canal Street area
     helped avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and maximize the exchange of ideas and
     findings. Meetings with groups such as the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation
     (LMDC), the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (CCBA), and Asian Americans
     for Equality (AAFE) were held.
•    Visioning workshops allowed the general public to help identify problems for the Canal
     Street corridor and provided an opportunity for the project team to engage directly with the
     public. The result was a dialogue to develop a full understanding of the current deficiencies,
     determine possible enhancements to the transportation system, and begin forging a consensus
     about a vision for the area. Two workshops were held in June 2005, one in the late afternoon
     and one in the early evening.
•    Alternative scenario and modeling workshops were facilitated to allow study participants to
     review and gain an understanding of the assumptions and the overall modeling procedures as
     well as study improvement options. These workshops helped the public understand the
     process and kept them engaged in it, and provided a forum for them to convey concerns. Two
     workshops were held in November 2007.
•    Flexible small group meetings provided an opportunity for the study team to engage people
     and/or organizations who might not ordinarily participate in larger workshops. These
     meetings were facilitated in smaller settings and involved the team attending community
     meetings already scheduled, or initiating new meetings in the outreach area.
•    Open house community meetings were held in November 2007 to educate the public on
     study findings and solicited feedback. These meetings were scheduled in the late afternoon
     and early evening to allow for maximum participation. Board stations were created, team
     members were available for informal discussions, presentations were given, and group
     discussions were facilitated.

Strategy: Developed a variety of communication tools

Recognizing the cultural, linguistic, and economic diversity of the outreach area, several
communication tools were used to ensure dissemination of information to the largest possible
portion of the population.

Techniques
• A fact sheet was developed for stakeholders and the public at the beginning of the study. The
   fact sheet described the purpose and process of the CATS Track II study. It was available on
   the study Web site and at community meetings.
•    A study website became a focal point for the public and the media. The site explained the
     CATS Track II study, provided up-to-date information and allowed site visitors to provide
     comments to the study team. The website was updated with current information and included
     community involvement materials, the community involvement plan, meeting presentations,
     handouts, and summaries, and a calendar of events.



66                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



•   Translation services were available to allow the large segment of the outreach area’s
    population who do not speak English fluently to engage in the community involvement
    process.
•   Graphical visual aids including maps, graphics, slide presentations, and animations were
    used to further enhance communication to assist the public and stakeholders in understanding
    the proposals being put forward by the study team.
•   Handouts were distributed to participants at meetings and workshops. These handouts
    included discussion topics, study updates and copies of presentation materials.

Strategy: Created a program to publicize meetings and encourage participation

Integral to achieving public participation in the study was a well-designed and effective media
campaign to publicize the study and generate interest in its outcome among the public.

Techniques
• A calendar of events was distributed at meetings and workshops, and was available on the
   study website to inform the public of opportunities to participate in the study.
•   A mailing list was used to publicize community meetings, and disseminate study information
    to the public.
•   A media list of local and regional outlets was maintained by NYMTC to keep the media
    apprised of the study’s progress and to provide information to the public.

•   Email marketing was used to send information about the study and upcoming events to those
    individuals who indicated a preference for receiving such information electronically.
III-2      COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
A series of three community meetings for the Canal Area Transportation Study Track II (CATS
II) was conducted to provide the community an opportunity to provide input to the study team
regarding the vision for Canal Street, the study’s Guiding Principles, relevant concerns to be
addressed, and potential improvement options.

Attendees had the opportunity at the beginning of each meeting, to interact with the study team
and review board stations covering the following topics:
• Study Overview
• Physical Characteristics
• Vehicular Traffic – Study Area
• Safety
• Canal Street – Main Street and Regional Link
• Land Use, Population and Employment
• Transit Service
• Parking
• Neighborhood and Community Places
• CATS Track I Accomplishments
• Preliminary Traffic Volume Flow Maps


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                67
                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



The study team presented the draft Guiding Principles to the community and asked attendees for
input, stressing the importance of public input in developing these principles. The Guiding
Principles served two main purposes – identify improvement scenarios to be progressed forward,
and then assist in the evaluation of these scenarios. The draft Guiding Principles were built on
previous community input and the values and themes that have guided other related studies.
They were organized into the following five themes: quality of life, accessibility, mobility,
safety, and implementability. They were refined based on the feedback received at the
community workshops. (Guiding Principles are presented in a subsequent chapter of this report.)

The workshops also involved a presentation on Neighborhood and Community Places that
focused on five main subjects:
• Neighborhood Character
• Neighborhood Connections
• “Architecture” of the Community Space
• Canal Street Character
• Safety and Comfort

There was a facilitated group discussion, which identified numerous issues, concerns, and
suggestions. The discussion was guided by asking attendees the following questions:

•    What aspects of Canal Street work well and why? In other words, what would you like to
     preserve?
•    Changes on Canal Street may have an impact on the regional transportation system. Let’s
     consider the greater study area. What is working well in this larger region? In the evaluation
     of possible alternatives, what regional issues does the study need to take into account?
•    What do you like and dislike about changes that are happening in the Canal Street area?
     What has gotten better, and what has gotten worse? How do you think these changes have
     impacted the region?
•    Do you agree with the problems the study team identified? Are there others that we missed?
     Do you have different perspectives of the problems that we’ve presented?
•    What long-term future do you currently foresee for the area?
•    What would you like to see as part of NYCDOT’s Canal Street reconstruction project?
•    Are there changes to the pattern of development, such as land use/zoning, that you feel would
     improve the study area?

A summary of the discussions and feedback is available at the NYMTC CATS website,
http://www.nymtc.org/catsII/index.html. The guidance received from the workshops was used
throughout the study process in the development and evaluation of alternative improvements.




68                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II




         CHAPTER IV – DEVELOPMENT AND
         SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS
         AND SCENARIOS
CATS Track II developed recommendations for medium- and long-term transportation
improvements for the study area to address both vehicular and pedestrian issues, through the
collaborative effort of NYMTC, the consultant, an Interagency Steering Committee, a
Community Stakeholders Committee and a public outreach program. Key components of travel
demand forecasting, a study element of CATS, are socio-economic characteristics, such as
population and employment, which are largely determined by land use. Therefore, the study also
investigated alternative future land use scenarios.

The process of identifying potential transportation improvement concepts began with the
assimilation of feedback and suggestions received from members of the Community
Stakeholders Committee in March and May of 2005, and from the public at community meetings
held in June 2005. Significant suggestions were made by organizations active in the study area,
such as the TriBeCa Organization and Asian Americans for Equality (AAFE) with its Rebuild
Chinatown Initiative, as well as members of Community Boards 1, 2 and 3 and elected officials.
Recommendations developed by prior studies, such as the Lower Manhattan Development
Corporation’s Chinatown Transportation Study and the CATS I study, were also integrated into
the process along with the findings of the data collection and analyses performed for CATS II by
the study team.

Concurrently, study Guiding Principles were developed to help guide the development,
evaluation and selection of improvement concepts and scenarios. A multi-step screening process
that incorporated the Guiding Principles was used to screen the ideas and suggestions derived
from CATS I and other studies, the CATS II Steering and Stakeholder Committees and the study
team, the CATS II community meetings, CATS II data collection and analyses and other sources.
A key component of the screening process was the fatal flaw analysis based, among other
criteria, on the statutory and regulatory authority of the Steering Committee member agencies
responsible for transportation systems and/or services in the region. Specific research described
below was undertaken as part of CATS II to document this authority.

Three land use forecasts were considered for the subsequent transportation scenario testing
process, which involved use of a planning model (the NYMTC Best Practice Model) and a
corridor traffic operations model (VISSIM). These forecasts include the baseline condition for
land use anticipated if current trends continue, which is defined for modeling purposes as the
NYMTC 2030 series socioeconomic forecasts, adjusted as necessary based on the findings from
the land use analysis in coordination with NYMTC and NYCDCP, and up to two alternative land
use scenarios.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                 69
                                                                        Canal Area Transportation Study



IV-1      GUIDING PRINCIPLES
It was determined that CATS Track II transportation improvement concepts should be based on a
clear statement of values and principles. In addition, future decisions pertaining to the physical
development of improvements should also reflect the Guiding Principles established in this
study. Key to establishing appropriate Guiding Principles was that consensus be reached
regarding the identification of issues and a shared vision for the study area.

The Guiding Principles reflect the diverse functions of Canal Street. Though the study is focused
on the Canal Street corridor, other areas that are affected by conditions on Canal Street were
considered including Brooklyn, Staten Island and portions of New Jersey.

The CATS Track II Guiding Principles, presented below, were built on previous community
input, and the values and themes that have guided other related studies. These principles were
used as standards for identifying, evaluating and determining the appropriateness of future
actions and initiatives proposed in CATS, and as such played a key role in the development and
screening of improvement concepts.

The Guiding Principles are grouped under the overall themes of:
•    Quality of Life
•    Accessibility
•    Mobility
•    Safety
•    Implementability

Quality of Life - Enhance the community and livability within the community
Guiding Principles:
1       Protect and reinforce community identities
        Definition: The potential of the proposed action to reflect that the neighborhoods of the
        CATS Track II study area are some of the most vibrant and distinct in New York City
        and that Canal Street serves as a Main Street. The special identity of these neighborhoods
        should be addressed in the context sensitive transportation alternatives considered in
        CATS Track II.
2       Enhance the pedestrian environment
        Definition: The potential of the proposed action to enhance the pedestrian environment
        through various means, involving access, mobility and safety, while recognizing the need
        to preserve the character of neighborhoods along Canal Street.
3       Minimize traffic intrusion into residential neighborhoods and other sensitive areas
        Definition: The potential of the proposed action to reduce the volume of through-traffic
        in residential neighborhoods or in proximity to other sensitive areas.
4       Support economic vitality and growth in the study area
        Definition: The potential of the proposed action to support or enhance the area’s
        economic vitality and growth.



70                                                  Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



5        Reduce vehicle emissions
         Definition: The potential of the proposed action to improve air quality both locally and
         regionally and as related to traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle operating characteristics
         and local geometry. Poor air quality is recognized to have an adverse effect on health.
6        Reduce noise
         Definition: The potential of the proposed action to reduce noise as it relates to traffic
         volume, vehicle mix (bus and truck), vehicle operating characteristics (horn honking) and
         local geometry.


Accessibility - Improve circulation within the study area
Guiding Principles:
1        Improve pedestrian movement
         Definition: The potential of the proposed action to improve pedestrian movement,
         including that in crossing streets, on sidewalks and circulating within the study area.
2        Reduce traffic congestion
         Definition: The potential of the proposed action to reduce traffic congestion through
         demand management, increasing capacity, improving traffic operations or promoting the
         efficient usage of the roadway system.
3        Improve the efficiency of goods delivery
         Definition: The potential of the proposed action to improve the efficiency of goods
         delivery by reducing congestion and increasing the availability or certainty of
         loading/unloading space. A proposed action also can reduce travel time and congestion
         by managing goods delivery in terms of location and timing.
4        Improve transit access
         Definition: The potential of the proposed action to improve transit access, including the
         availability and functionality of stops/stations, and ease of circulation by transit within
         the study area.
5        Improve parking conditions
         Definition: The potential of the proposed action to improve parking conditions, including
         increasing the availability of on-street or off-street parking for visitors, employees or
         residents either through supply, pricing or regulation or the more efficient use of existing
         parking capacity. Parking cost is also a factor.


Mobility - Improve travel within the region and into and out of the study area
Guiding Principles:
1        Improve travel to and from the rest of Manhattan
         Definition: The potential for the proposed action to improve the connectivity of the study
         area to the rest of Manhattan.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                      71
                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



2      Accommodate regional travel (i.e., trips with both an origin and destination outside
       of Manhattan)
       Definition: The potential for the proposed action to improve mobility as it relates to the
       regional roadway network as well as connecting the study area to the rest of the region.
3      Enhance transit service/connectivity
       Definition: The potential of the proposed action to improve transit service and
       connectivity of the study area to the rest of New York City and the region.
4      Enhance travel reliability
       Definition: The potential of the proposed action to enhance travel reliability as related to
       improving the predictability of completing a trip within a specific time period.
5      Promote efficient and balanced usage of the regional transportation system
       Definition: The potential of the proposed action to promote a more balanced and
       efficient usage of existing roadway or transit capacity.

Safety - Enhance safety for pedestrians and motorists
Guiding Principles:
1      Reduce vehicle/pedestrian conflicts
       Definition: The potential of the proposed action to reduce conflicts between pedestrians
       and vehicles (including trucks, buses and automobiles) at crosswalks and mid-block to
       result in fewer crashes and potentially increase capacity for both pedestrians and vehicles.
2      Reduce vehicle/vehicle conflicts
       Definition: The potential of the proposed action to reduce vehicle/vehicle conflicts at
       intersections and at mid-block to result in fewer crashes and potentially increase capacity.
3      Promote safe street environments
       Definition: The potential of the proposed action to maintain a safe environment through
       sidewalk and roadway design, lighting and promoting amenities and land uses that attract
       pedestrian activity in an effort to discourage illegal activities and encourage a safer
       atmosphere.


Implementability - Develop realistic, constructible and feasible solutions
Guiding Principles:
1      Reflect existing physical constraints
       Definition: The extent to which the proposed action is contained within the public right-
       of-way, causing minimal disruption to the community.
2      Be financially affordable and conform to study budget
       Definition: The estimated cost of the proposed action should be judged affordable by the
       implementing agency, should not conflict with agency budgetary or fiduciary
       requirements, and should not be more costly than another alternative that achieves the
       same objectives.




72                                                  Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



3        Fit into medium (3-10 Years) or long-term (10-20 Years) time frame
         Definition: The proposed action can be adopted or constructed within these time frames.
4        Conform to existing statutes, institutional policies and practices
         Definition: The proposed action should not conflict with existing Steering Committee
         agency policies, governing regulations, and/or enabling legislation.
5        Avoid adverse impacts locally and regionally
         Definition: The proposed action should not exhibit the potential to generate adverse
         impacts within the study area or shift a problem to another area.

IV-2       STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY RESEARCH
Transportation system management (TSM) concepts are those which, in general, modify the use,
regulation, fee-for-use or service provided by a transportation system element. In order to
consider transportation system management concepts in CATS Track II that demonstrate a
reasonable possibility of implementation, it was accepted that concepts developed be within the
institutional and jurisdictional authority of the Steering Committee member agencies responsible
for study area transportation systems and/or services.

Steering Committee member agencies with jurisdiction for transportation operations,
infrastructure and/or services that may be considered for transportation management concepts as
part of CATS Track II comprise the following agencies with general authority as noted.

•   New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) – streets, limited access highways,
    sidewalks, traffic signals, bridges and general traffic operations and regulations thereon
•   New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) – state designated arterial
    highway system, with authority shared with NYCDOT
•   Port Authority of NY&NJ (PANYNJ) – river crossings between New York and New Jersey,
    and PATH
•   Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) – New York City Transit subways and buses,
    as well as MTA Bridges and Tunnels facilities, including the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel,
    Queens Midtown Tunnel and Verrazano Narrows Bridge.

IV-2.1 Transportation System Management Concepts
Transportation system management concepts are varied and far ranging. In order to undertake a
logical approach to the research of the authority of Steering Committee member agencies to
implement TSM concepts, it was necessary to identify the areas of TSM concepts that might be
considered and examples of measures that might be applied in each area. The following is a
description of general TSM concept areas and the specific potential TSM measures, which when
compared with agency authority, were found to meet the agencies’ regulatory authority. It should
be noted that actual recommendations could overlap the operating jurisdiction of several
agencies, which would complicate authority and feasibility of implementation.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                   73
                                                                            Canal Area Transportation Study



IV-2.1a Facility Use Management
This area of transportation system management generally relates to traffic operations and
regulation, either with regard to a specific location, facility, multiple facilities or on an area-wide
basis. Certain general concepts, such as traffic calming or preferential use lanes, which can
encompass wide-ranging elements, are included in this category. The specific measures which
meet the agencies’ regulatory authority are:

•    Reversible traffic lanes or streets – typically operated on a time of day basis
•    Changes in traffic flow direction – establishing one-way streets or changing the direction of
     one-way streets
•    Preferential use lanes – such as bus, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) or commercial vehicle
     lanes
•    Facility occupancy restriction – exclusive limitation of the use of a facility to vehicles with
     specific occupancy requirements
•    Traffic calming – a general traffic concept involving measures to reduce traffic speeds and/or
     volumes and improve pedestrian safety within a corridor or area
•    Auto free zones – restriction of vehicular access to an area
•    Traffic surveillance and management – generally encompasses intelligent transportation
     concepts, such as incident and congestion detection, motorist information systems
•    Turn prohibitions – generally at specific locations for all traffic, but could be permissive for
     certain vehicle classes and by time of day
•    Turn lanes – to establish a lane reserved for vehicles turning right or left
•    Signal system upgrade – could encompass adaptive real time control, bus priority and other
     design options
•    Vehicle class restriction – typically based on vehicle type, weight or registration
     (commercial)

IV-2.1b Parking Management
Parking management generally encompasses curb use regulations, but also pricing as noted
below in a separate category. The specific measures which meet the agencies’ regulatory
authority are:

•    Parking regulation changes – varied, including commercial vehicle, loading and unloading,
     bus stops, stopping and standing and the time related aspects of parking restrictions

IV-2.1c Transit
Can include on-street operations improvement measures, new routes, service or fare structure
changes. The specific measures which meet the agencies’ regulatory authority are:

•    Bus stop modifications – could be on a corridor or area basis, based upon frequency of stop,
     service management and traffic operations considerations


74                                                     Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



•   Route changes or additions – modifying existing or adding new routes
•   Service enhancements – such as adding additional service

IV-2.1d Vehicle Use Pricing
This concept includes establishing or changing user fees for traversing a specific facility or
groups of facilities, occupying a specific facility or space or entering a designated area. The
specific measures which meet the agencies’ regulatory authority are:
• Commercial parking zones – charging commercial vehicles to park in designated areas
•   Changes to parking rate structure – modifying existing parking rates
•   Changes to toll level and variable pricing by time of day

IV-2.1e Other
Assumed in this case to include measures for non-motorized traffic. The specific measures which
meet the agencies’ regulatory authority are:

•   Pedestrian safety and circulation enhancements – could be location specific or area-wide
•   Bike lanes – could include the establishment of bike lanes on streets or reserved right of way

IV-2.2 Summary Findings
Table IV-1 provides a summary of the findings of this research conducted as part of CATS Track
II to define the institutional and jurisdictional authority of CATS II Steering Committee member
agencies to implement transportation system management concepts. It is clear that the agencies –
the New York State Department of Transportation, New York City Department of
Transportation, MTA Bridges & Tunnels, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and MTA
New York City Transit – have broad powers under their jurisdictional authority to implement
most TSM concepts, including those related to priority lanes, vehicle class restriction, flow
direction, turning lanes and prohibitions, traffic signal operations, traffic calming, auto free
zones, pedestrian safety and circulation, parking regulation and rates, and transit service
enhancements.

Based upon the federal, state, bi-state and local laws described herein, the following TSM
concepts are not permitted under current laws:

•   Changes to existing toll policies: MTA Bridges and Tunnels does not have the authority to
    change the direction of toll collection at the Verrazano Narrows Bridge; this change would
    require Congressional action.
•   Imposing tolls or fees: New York State and New York City Departments of Transportation
    do not have the statutory authority to enact tolls. For both agencies, new state and/or local
    legislation would be required to grant such a power. In 2007, as part of PlaNYC 2030, New
    York City developed a proposal for a cordon congestion pricing program. Later that year,
    the New York State Legislature passed legislation establishing a Congestion Mitigation
    Commission to examine this proposal. The Commission recommended a Congestion Pricing
    Program to the State Legislature, which chose not to bring the bill to a vote. A subsequent


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                   75
                                                                           Canal Area Transportation Study



     state commission appointed by Governor Paterson recommended implementation of tolls at
     the East River bridges, but no further action was taken on this proposal.
•    Residential parking permits: New York City has not been granted the power to implement
     residential parking permits by the State. This change would require an amendment to state
     law. Residential parking permits were investigated as part of the Congestion Mitigation
     Commission’s examination of congestion pricing. The congestion pricing bill that was
     introduced included authorization for the City to enact a residential parking permit program.
     However, this proposal did not advance because the Legislature chose not to vote on the bill.

TABLE IV-1: AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORITY - SUMMARY

                                                                 Agency
             Concept Area
                                      NYSDOT       NYCDOT       MTA B&T      PANY&NJ        MTANYCT
       Facility Use Management
Reversible traffic lanes or streets    Probably      Yes            Yes          Yes            N/A
Changes in traffic flow direction        Yes          Yes           Yes          Yes            N/A
Preferential use lanes                   Yes          Yes           Yes          Yes            N/A
Facility occupancy restriction            No          No        Probably Not Possibly Not       N/A
Traffic calming                          Yes          Yes           Yes          Yes            N/A
Auto free zones                          N/A          Yes           N/A          N/A            N/A
Traffic surveillance and management      Yes         Yes            Yes          Yes            N/A
Turn prohibitions                        Yes          Yes           Yes          Yes            N/A
Turn lanes                               Yes          Yes           Yes          Yes            N/A
Signal system upgrade                    N/A          Yes           N/A          N/A            N/A
Vehicle class restriction             Contingent   Contingent    Contingent   Contingent        N/A
         Parking Management
Parking regulation changes               N/A          Yes           N/A          N/A            N/A
Resident parking permits                 N/A          No            N/A          N/A            N/A
                 Transit
Bus stop modifications                   N/A          Yes           N/A          N/A            Yes
Route changes or additions               N/A          N/A           N/A          N/A            Yes
Service enhancements                     N/A          N/A           N/A          N/A            Yes
          Vehicle Use Pricing
Commercial parking zones                N/A           Yes           N/A          N/A            N/A
Changes to parking rate structure       N/A           Yes           N/A          N/A            N/A
Area access pricing                     N/A           No            N/A          N/A            N/A
Imposing tolls or fees                  No            No            Yes          Yes            N/A
Changes to toll level                   N/A           N/A           Yes          Yes            N/A
                  Other
Pedestrian safety and circulation        Yes          Yes           N/A          N/A            N/A
enhancements
Bike lanes                               Yes          Yes           N/A          N/A            N/A
N/A – Not applicable



IV-3        SCREENING PROCESS
A multi-step process was applied in CATS II to screen the suggestions and concepts derived
from CATS I and other studies, the CATS II Steering and Stakeholder Committees and the study
team, the CATS II community meetings, CATS II data collection and analysis and other sources.


76                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



The process, described below and illustrated on Figure IV-1, involved organizing the ideas and
suggestions obtained in the study, reviewing issues and concerns, assessment of the suggested
actions in reference to various criteria including the Guiding Principles, and grouping of the
actions into multi-modal transportation improvement scenarios. The purpose of this process was
to develop scenarios that are implementable and consistent with the Guiding Principles.

FIGURE IV-1: SCREENING PROCESS




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                              77
                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



IV-3.1 Step 1 – Organize Ideas and Suggested Actions
The study team categorized the ideas and suggestions as to whether they represent suggested
actions or issues and concerns (which are addressed in Step 2). Suggested actions were further
subdivided into short-term actions (requiring less than 3 years for implementation), medium-term
actions (requiring 3 to 10 years to implement) and long-term actions (requiring more than 10
years for implementation). Additionally, duplicative actions were combined. Duplicative actions
are those that are the same except for language, are identical in concept, or differ only in details
that can be addressed in a subsequent engineering phase. Actions were then classified as to the
focus of the action, whether regional, study area, corridor or local; the primary and secondary
issues addressed as related to the Guiding Principles; and the designation of the action into
general categories.

IV-3.2 Step 2 –Review Issues and Concerns
The study team reviewed the list of issues and concerns for consistency with the Guiding
Principles. Issues and concerns that were consistent with the Guiding Principles were then
translated into actions when possible.

IV-3.3 Step 3 –Major Flaw Screening of Suggested Actions
Step 3 of the screening process basically resulted in the disposition of a suggested action into one
of four categories:

•    Assessment resulted in a “yes/no” result for suggested actions that are deemed feasible or not
     feasible, i.e., a major flaw
•    Assessment resulted in a decision to forward a short-term suggested action to the responsible
     agency for consideration.
•    Assessment resulted in a decision to forward a medium- or long-term suggested action to the
     responsible agency for inclusion in its planning process.
•    Assessment resulted in a decision to designate the suggested action for further analysis in
     CATS Track II and assembly into scenarios as appropriate

The study team performed the initial screening for review by the Steering Committee. The basis
of major flaw screening criteria is the Guiding Principles within the Implementability theme.
Table IV-2 presents an overview of the major flaw criteria. If any one of the five major flaw
criteria was met, a suggested action was not be progressed. Where appropriate, the team made
minor refinements to retain as many of the actions as possible for further screening.

Input from the operating and implementing agencies represented on the Steering Committee was
particularly valuable in identifying major flaws and suggesting refinements.

Products
Lists of suggested actions that were retained for assembly into scenarios in Step 4, eliminated or
submitted to agencies for consideration.




78                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



TABLE IV-2: APPLICATION OF MAJOR FLAW CRITERIA

                                   Major Flaw Criteria                                 Measurement System
Is planned as part of Transportation Improvement Program                                     Yes/No
Represents short-term (<3 years) implementation time frame                                   Yes/No
Does not conform to the existing regulatory and statutory authority of implementing
                                                                                             Yes/No
agencies, or conflicts with existing agency policies
Has fatal flaws that would make the physical implementation of the suggested actions
                                                                                             Yes/No
impossible in practical terms
Not consistent with study’s Guiding Principles                                               Yes/No



IV-3.4 Step 4 –Assemble Suggested Actions Into Scenarios
In Step 4, the study team grouped the suggested actions into multi-modal transportation
improvement scenarios for subsequent testing using transportation models where appropriate, as
discussed in Chapters V and VI of this report. The potential multi-modal transportation
improvement scenarios developed by the study team were then reviewed by the Steering
Committee to help ensure that the scenarios meet the study’s Guiding Principles on an overall
basis. The study team refined the scenarios to address comments and concerns.

Products
Descriptions of the multi-modal transportation scenarios. List of suggested actions submitted to
agencies for further consideration.

IV-4       POTENTIAL ACTIONS FOR SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT
The CATS study team compiled, identified and developed nearly 120 potential actions to
improve transportation and mobility for vehicular traffic and pedestrians in the area. These
actions were then screened by the CATS study team and the Steering Committee using the
process discussed above.

Table IV-3 lists the twenty actions selected through the screening process for scenario
development as well as the focus of each action, the primary and secondary issues addressed as
related to the Guiding Principles, where the suggested action originated in the study, the general
categories addressed and the next step undertaken in CATS Track II. Actions A1 through A6 are
designated as Primary Actions. These are actions which have the potential to significantly reduce
or alter the distribution of traffic in the CATS study area. These actions were evaluated as
scenarios individually and also combined for further evaluation as part of a Level 1 and Level 2
analysis, as discussed in Chapter V. Actions A7 through A20 were incorporated into the Canal
Street improvement scenarios for further evaluation.

Listed in Table IV-4 are actions deleted from further consideration. In addition to the
information provided in Table IV-3 for each action, Table IV-4 provides the findings of the
specific review of the CATS study team for each action and the CATS Steering Committee for
each action.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                           79
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



TABLE IV-3: ACTIONS FOR SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT
                                           Secondary
                         Primary Issue
     No       Focus                          Issue                               CATS II Potential Actions                               Source          Category 1      Category 2                        CATS Action
                          Addressed
                                           Addressed
             Primary Actions
                       Pedestrian                          One-way pair: Canal Street Eastbound, between Varick Street and         CATS II Study
     A1    Corridor                      Safety                                                                                                       Traffic           Policy        One- way Canal Street scenario to be evaluated
                       Mobility                            the Bowery, and Grand Street Westbound, between Chrystie Street         Team
                       Traffic           Regional                                                                                                                                     HOV lane scenario in Holland Tunnel to be
     A2    Regional                                        Implement HOV Lane in Holland Tunnel                                    Various            Traffic           Policy
                       Congestion        Mobility                                                                                                                                     evaluated
                        Traffic          Regional          Encourage use of Brooklyn Battery Tunnel as alternative to Manhattan CATS II Study
     A3    Regional                                                                                                                                   Traffic           Policy        Investigate feasibility
                        Congestion       Mobility          and Brooklyn Bridges for trucks and passenger vehicles               Team
                                                           Integrate ITS Information Systems: Motorist information systems in
                        Traffic          Regional
     A4    Regional                                        Brooklyn, New Jersey, Route 9A and other approaches to Canal            Various            Traffic                         Coordinate with A3 above
                        Congestion       Mobility
                                                           Street to notify drivers about delays and possible alternate routes
                        Traffic          Regional                                                                                  CATS II Study                                      Integrate with evaluation of HOV lane scenario in
     A5    Corridor                                        Install HOV lanes on Manhattan approaches to the Holland Tunnel                            Traffic           Policy
                        Congestion       Mobility                                                                                  Team                                               Holland Tunnel
                                                           Implement HOV Lane on the Manhattan Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge or
                        Traffic          Regional          Williamsburg Bridge (subsequently limited to Manhattan Bridge)                                                             Investigate feasibility (subsequently implemented on
     A6    Regional                                                                                                                Various            Traffic           Policy
                        Congestion       Mobility                                                                                                                                     Manhattan Bridge by NYCDOT-see Table IV-6)

             Operational and Medium Capital Improvements for Pedestrians
                                                                                                                                                                                      Pedestrian improvements at the intersection of
                        Pedestrian                         Improve east-west connectivity for pedestrians at Canal Street and the CATS II Study
     A7    Study Area                    Quality of Life                                                                                              Pedestrian                      Canal Street with the Bowery to be incorporated into
                        Mobility                           Bowery (provides connection to Allen Street improvements)              Team
                                                                                                                                                                                      Canal Street improvement scenarios
                                                                                                                                   Canal Street
           Intersection/                 Pedestrian        Provide mid-block crossing on Bowery between Canal Street and                                                              To be evaluated as part of Canal Street
     A8                  Safety                                                                                                    pedestrian and       Pedestrians     Traffic
           Location                      Mobility          Bayard Street                                                                                                              improvement scenarios
                                                                                                                                   traffic safety study
           Intersection/                 Pedestrian        Close channelized movement from Manhattan Bridge to northbound          CATS II Study                                      Options to be evaluated as part of Canal Street
     A9                  Safety                                                                                                                         Pedestrians     Traffic
           Location                      Mobility          Bowery                                                                  Team                                               improvement scenarios
         Intersection/                   Pedestrian        Reconfigure intersection of Canal Street with the Bowery to improve                                                        Modifications to be incorporated into Canal Street
     A10               Safety                                                                                                      Various            Pedestrians       Traffic
         Location                        Mobility          vehicular and pedestrian safety                                                                                            improvement scenarios
         Intersection/                   Pedestrian        Provide curb extension on north side of intersection at Varick Street   CATS II Study                                      Options to be evaluated as part of Canal Street
     A11               Safety                                                                                                                         Pedestrians
         Location                        Mobility          and Canal Street to reduce pedestrian crossing distance                 Team                                               improvement scenarios
         Intersection/                   Pedestrian        Eliminate curb lanes to enable widening of north and south sidewalk     CATS II Study                                      Options to be incorporated into Canal Street
     A12               Safety                                                                                                                         Pedestrians       Traffic
         Location                        Mobility          on Canal Street between Broadway and Lafayette Street                   Team                                               improvement scenarios
                        Pedestrian                                                                                                 CATS I - Sub C:                                    Options to be incorporated into Canal Street
     A13 Corridor                        Safety            Widen sidewalks along Canal Street                                                      Pedestrians
                        Mobility                                                                                                   People's Issues                                    improvement scenarios

                                                                                                                                   Canal Street
                                         Pedestrian                                                                                                                                   To be considered on a case by case basis as part of
     A14 Corridor       Safety                             Implement leading pedestrian intervals                                  pedestrian and       Pedestrians
                                         Mobility                                                                                                                                     Canal Street improvement scenarios
                                                                                                                                   traffic safety study

                                         Transit                                                                                   LMDC Chinatown
                                                                                                                                                  Public                              Options to be incorporated into Canal Street
     A15 Corridor       Safety           Accessibility/M Construct sidewalk bulbouts                                               Access and                           Traffic
                                                                                                                                                  Transportation                      improvement scenarios
                                         obility                                                                                   Circulation

             Operational Improvements for Vehicles
                       Traffic                                                                                                     CATS II Study                                      Options to be evaluated as part of Canal Street Two-
     A16 Corridor                   Safety         Identify intersections where turn lanes or turn phasing are needed                                 Traffic
                       Congestion                                                                                                  Team                                               way Scenario
                     Traffic                                                                                                                                                          Options to be evaluated as part of Canal Street Two-
     A17 Corridor                        Safety            Prohibit left turns at selected locations along Canal Street            RCI                Traffic
                     Congestion                                                                                                                                                       way Scenario
           Miscellaneous
                                         Traffic                                                                                                                                      Options to be considered as part of Canal Street
     A18 Corridor       Safety                             Provide consistent roadway geometry on Canal Street                     RCI                Traffic
                                         Congestion                                                                                                                                   improvement scenarios
             Independent Actions
                        Traffic          Pedestrian                                                                                                                                   To be considered on a case by case basis as part of
     A19 Corridor                                          Create gridlock boxes at all intersections along Canal Street           RCI                Traffic
                        Congestion       Mobility                                                                                                                                     Canal Street improvement scenarios
                        Pedestrian                                                                                                 CATS II Study                                      To be considered as part of Canal Street
     A20 Corridor                        Safety            Remove or relocate street furniture                                                        Pedestrians
                        Mobility                                                                                                   Team                                               improvement scenarios




80                                                                                                                                                                    Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



TABLE IV-4: ACTIONS REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION
                      Primary         Secondary
 No      Focus         Issue            Issue                               CATS II Potential Actions                                     Source                 CATS Study Team Review
                     Addressed        Addressed

                    Transit                                                                                                                           PANYNJ concluded other less capital intensive
                                                                                                                                    CATS II Study
 B1    Study Area   Accessibility /                Extend PATH north from WTC to Canal Street area                                                    options need to be initially explored to connect
                                                                                                                                    Team
                    Mobility                                                                                                                          Trans-Hudson service with Canal Street corridor
                                                                                                                                                      Outside of institutional and/or jurisdictional
                    Traffic                                                                                                         CATS I - Sub B:
 B2    Study Area                                  Impose higher fines for moving violations                                                          authority of the CATS Steering Committee
                    Congestion                                                                                                      Access
                                                                                                                                                      member agencies
                    Traffic
 B3    Study Area                                  Simplify street pattern of one-way streets                                       RCI               To be addressed as part of specific actions
                    Congestion
                                                                                                                                                      System elements outside of institutional and/or
                    Traffic                        Automatic vehicle guidance (advanced vehicle control systems) on                 CATS II Study
 B4    Regional                                                                                                                                       jurisdictional authority of the CATS Steering
                    Congestion                     Manhattan Bridge or in Holland Tunnel                                            Team
                                                                                                                                                      Committee member agencies
                                                                                                                               CATS II Study          Determined not feasible due to operational and
 B5    Regional     Parking                        Construct parking garage in air rights at Holland Tunnel Manhattan exit rotary
                                                                                                                               Team                   local impacts
       Intersection/                  Traffic    Realign Church Street with Greene Street to eliminate right and left jog from CATS II Study          NYCDOT concluded not a significant issue nor
 B6                  Safety
       Location                       Congestion Canal Street (requires acquisition of parking lot)                            Team                   cost effective
                                                                                                                                    CATS I - Sub A: NYCDOT concluded application does not conform
 B7    Corridor     Safety                         Place speed bumps on smaller feeder streets leading to Canal Street
                                                                                                                                    Traffic         to Street Design Manual raised crossing criteria

                                                                                                                                    CATS II Study     NYCDOT concluded does not conform to Street
 B8    Corridor     Safety                         Construct raised crosswalks along Canal Street
                                                                                                                                    Team              Design Manual raised crossing application criteria
                    Transit                                                                                                                           MTA concluded other less capital intensive
                                                   Construct Lexington Avenue express stop at Canal Street to provide               CATS II Study
 B9    Corridor     Accessibility /                                                                                                                   options need to be initially explored to improve
                                                   express service from east side of Manhattan and the Bronx to Canal Street        Team
                    Mobility                                                                                                                          subway service within Canal Street corridor
                                                                                                                                                      NYCDOT concluded roadway capacity issues
                    Transit                                                                                                                           restrict the implementation of light rail or people
                                                                                                                                    Councilmember
 B10   Corridor     Accessibility /                Explore options for implementing Light Rail or People Mover                                        movers on Canal Street. Other less capital
                                                                                                                                    Gerson
                    Mobility                                                                                                                          intensive options need to be first explored to
                                                                                                                                                      improve transit service in the Canal Street Corridor
                    Traffic
 B11   Regional                                    Implement HOV Lane on other East River Crossings                                 Various           Consolidated with HOV Lane on Manhattan Bridge
                    Congestion
                    Pedestrian                     Convert Canal Street to a one-way eastbound street east of Varick Street         CATS II Study     Consolidated with One-way Alternative under
 B12   Corridor                       Safety
                    Mobility                       and establish a one-way westbound route to enable wider sidewalks                Team              evaluation
                    Transit
                                    Traffic    Construct intermodal facility (bus/subway) in vicinity of Holland Tunnel             CATS II Study     Determined not feasible due to operational and
 B13   Regional     Accessibility /
                                    Congestion Manhattan exit rotary                                                                Team              local impacts
                    Mobility
                    Transit                                                                                                         CATS I - Sub B:
                                                                                                                                                     Consolidated with other transit options see
 B14   Regional     Accessibility /            Implement water transit service                                                      Access / CATS II
                                                                                                                                                     "Actions Referred to Others"
                    Mobility                                                                                                        Study Team
                                      Pedestrian                                                                                                      Consolidated with other time of day street closure
 B15   Study Area   Quality of Life                Experiment with time-of-day closings of streets                                  RCI
                                      Mobility                                                                                                        options -See "Actions Referred to Others"

                                                                                                                                    LMDC Chinatown
                                      Pedestrian                                                                                                   Consolidated with other time of day street closure
 B16   Corridor     Quality of Life                Implement time of day closure on selected cross streets                          Access and
                                      Mobility                                                                                                     options- See "Actions Referred to Others"
                                                                                                                                    Circulation
                    Pedestrian                     Make striated parking lane available to pedestrians during pedestrian peak                       Need for mitigated by geometries proposed under
 B17   Study Area                                                                                                             RCI
                    Mobility                       hours                                                                                            Canal Street improvement alternatives
       Intersection/                  Pedestrian   Widen north and south sidewalk on Canal Street with bollards depending on CATS II Study          Need for mitigated by geometries proposed under
 B18                 Safety
       Location                       Mobility     time of day or week by using curb lane                                     Team                  Canal Street improvement alternatives
                                                                                                                                                    Consolidated with Canal Street Two-way
                    Traffic                                                                                                         CATS I - Sub A:
 B19   Corridor                       Safety       Establish turning light system at all major Canal Street intersections                           Alternative- See list of Actions for Scenario
                    Congestion                                                                                                      Traffic
                                                                                                                                                    Development
                    Traffic                      Provide reversible through lanes and establish necessary turn prohibitions         CATS II Study
 B20   Corridor                                                                                                                                     NYCDOT concluded not feasible
                    Congestion                   along Canal Street                                                                 Team
                    Regional          Traffic    Provide direct link between Williamsburg Bridge and FDR/Route 9A (would
 B21   Regional                                                                                                                     FDR Loop Study NYCDOT concluded not feasible
                    Mobility          Congestion provide alternate route to Holland Tunnel)
                                                 Extend landscaped median from Canal Park/Washington Street to Hudson
       Intersection/                  Quality of                                                                                    CATS II Study
 B22                 Safety                      Street, by reducing westbound Canal Street between Hudson and West                                   NYCDOT concluded not feasible
       Location                       Life                                                                                          Team
                                                 Street
       Intersection/ Pedestrian                  Construct pedestrian bridge on the Bowery to cross Canal Street and                CATS II Study
 B23                                  Safety                                                                                                          NYCDOT concluded not feasible
       Location      Mobility                    connect to Manhattan Bridge pedestrian/bike path                                   Team
                                                                                                                                    LMDC Chinatown NYCDOT concluded not feasible. Would require
       Intersection/                  Pedestrian
 B24                 Safety                        Widen sidewalks on Mott between Canal and Chatham Square                         Access and     parking removal on one side, reconstruction of
       Location                       Mobility
                                                                                                                                    Circulation    Mott Street not funded
                                                   Focus on making Canal Street office-friendly (asthma rates make it non-                            NYCDCP concluded not compatible with land use
 B25   Corridor     Quality of Life                                                                                                 RCI
                                                   resident friendly) by upzoning - same for Bowery                                                   plan




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                                                                                                          81
                                                                                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



TABLE IV-4: ACTIONS DELETED (CONT’D)
                      Primary       Secondary
 No      Focus         Issue           Issue                              CATS II Potential Actions                              Source                    CATS Study Team Review
                    Addressed       Addressed
                    Traffic         Regional   Provide upper level inbound lanes, lower level outbound lanes on Manhattan CATS II Study
B26   Corridor                                                                                                                                   NYCDOT concluded not operationally effective
                    Congestion      Mobility   Bridge to meter westbound flow on to Canal Street                            Team
                    Traffic                                                                                                 CATS II Study        NYCDOT concluded not operationally
B27   Corridor                                 Install HOV lane on Canal Street
                    Congestion                                                                                              Team                 enforceable
                                                                                                                            Canal Street
                                                                                                                                                 NYCDOT concluded not a standard practice.
                                                                                                                            pedestrian and
B28   Corridor      Safety                     Install textured and colorized paving in critical intersections                                   Pavement to conform to NYCDOT Street
                                                                                                                            traffic safety
                                                                                                                                                 Design Manual
                                                                                                                            study
                                    Traffic    Install signage to direct visitors to available government center parking on
B29   Study Area    Parking                                                                                                 RCI                  NYCDOT concluded not operationally effective
                                    Congestion weekends
                                                                                                                                LMDC
                                                                                                                                Chinatown        NYCDOT concluded that below grade
B30   Study Area    Parking                      Construct park and parking lot on Collect Pond
                                                                                                                                Access and       construction on this site is not feasible
                                                                                                                                Circulation
                                                 Convert Canal Street to a one-way westbound street between Baxter Street
                                                 and Avenue of the Americas to enable wider sidewalks. Walker Street                             NYCDOT has concluded that a one-way
                    Traffic    Pedestrian                                                                                   CATS II Study
B31   Corridor                                   could carry eastbound traffic. Canal Street remains two-way east of Baxter                      eastbound Canal Street option will be
                    Congestion Mobility                                                                                     Team
                                                 Street and west of Avenue of the Americas. (Re-routing would be required                        evaluated
                                                 for traffic bound for the Manhattan Bridge from Route 9A.)
                    Quality of                                                                                              CATS I - Sub A:
B32   Study Area                                 Plant more trees                                                                                Would be realized under MillionTreesNYC
                    Life                                                                                                    Traffic
      Intersection/                 Pedestrian
B33                 Safety                       Construct pedestrian bridge across Delancey Street at Allen Street             RCI              NYCDOT concluded not feasible
      Location                      Mobility
                                                                                                                                CATS I - Sub
                                    Pedestrian                                                                                                   NYCDOT concluded that space for sidewalk
B34   Corridor      Safety                       Provide median along Canal Street                                              C: People's
                                    Mobility                                                                                                     expansion is greater need.
                                                                                                                                Issues
                                    Pedestrian                                                                                  NYCDOT           NYCDOT concluded not feasible on a large
B35   Corridor      Safety                       Install bollards on sidewalk to preclude parking or standing on the sidewalk
                                    Mobility                                                                                    LMBCO            scale basis
                                                 Eliminate WB through movement on Canal Street at Canal Street and
      Intersection/ Traffic                      Hudson Street. Also eliminate crosswalks on north side of intersection       CATS II Study
B36                                                                                                                                              NYCDOT concluded not operationally feasible
      Location      Congestion                   (Holland Tunnel entrance) to allow more green time for WB right turn and EB Team
                                                 left turn on Canal Street.
      Intersection/ Traffic                                                                                                   CATS II Study      Deleted due to limited capacity on Walker
B37                                              Divert some eastbound traffic from Canal Street to Walker Street
      Location      Congestion                                                                                                Team               Street
                                                 Eliminate Laight Street Holland Tunnel exit onto Canal Street and redirect
      Intersection/                 Pedestrian   that traffic via Beach Street to West Broadway to help address 1) pedestrian CATS II Study
B38                 Safety                                                                                                                       Partially addressed in two-way alternative
      Location                      Mobility     issues at Avenue of the Americas and 2) issues associated with left turn     Team
                                                 from eastbound Canal Street to West Broadway
                                                                                                                              Canal Street
                                                                                                                                                 NYCDOT deploys offsets that are most
                    Traffic                                                                                                   pedestrian and
B39   Corridor                                   Implement simultaneous signal timing to create vehicle platoons                                 operationally efficient from a systems
                    Congestion                                                                                                traffic safety
                                                                                                                                                 perspective
                                                                                                                              study
                                                                                                                              Canal Street
                                                                                                                                                 Turn prohibitions on Canal Street incorporated
                    Traffic                                                                                                   pedestrian and
B40   Corridor                 Safety            Designate through lanes and establish turn prohibitions                                         in the Canal Street Two-way Alternative -See
                    Congestion                                                                                                traffic safety
                                                                                                                                                 list of Actions for Scenario Development
                                                                                                                              study
      Intersection/ Traffic                      Allow left turns from eastbound Canal to Avenue of the Americas during       CATS II Study
B41                                                                                                                                              Deleted as per NYCDOT
      Location      Congestion                   Laight Street phase for 1) Trucks Only 2) All vehicles                       Team
      Intersection/                 Traffic    Prohibit pedestrian crossing at Canal Street and Centre Street by pedestrian CATS II Study
B42                 Safety                                                                                                                       Inconsistent with selected scenarios
      Location                      Congestion fence or bollards to allow for left turn from eastbound Canal Street         Team
                                                                                                                                Canal Street
                                    Pedestrian   Provide temporary neckdown and sidewalk extensions with thermoplastic          pedestrian and   Need for mitigated by geometries proposed
B43   Corridor      Safety
                                    Mobility     and flexible bollards (time of day and day of week)                            traffic safety   under Canal Street improvement alternatives
                                                                                                                                study
                                                 Relocate center line on Chrystie Street to increase number of northbound
      Intersection/ Traffic                      lanes to accommodate Manhattan Bridge traffic; can be combined with            CATS II Study
B44                                                                                                                                              Inconsistent with NYC Bicycle Program
      Location      Congestion                   restricting upper level movements onto Canal Street (restriction of            Team
                                                 movement already done at peak times by enforcement agents)
      Intersection/ Traffic
B45                            Safety            Turn Chrystie and Forsyth into one-way pair                                    RCI              Inconsistent with selected scenarios
      Location      Congestion
                                                                                                                                LMDC
                    Transit                                                                                                                      Was considered in the development of the
                                                 Provide crosstown bus service either on Canal Street or on Grand/Broome        Chinatown
B46   Study Area    Accessibility                                                                                                                Canal Street one-way and two-way alternatives.
                                                 Street                                                                         Access and
                    / Mobility                                                                                                                   Inconsistent with selected alternatives.
                                                                                                                                Circulation
                                                 Eliminate left turn from eastbound Canal Street to Holland Tunnel by 1)
      Intersection/ Traffic                      relocating southbound Route 9A traffic to left turn on Spring Street 2a)       CATS II Study    NYCDOT determined not feasible from
B47
      Location      Congestion                   relocating northbound right turn onto Harrison Street, or, 2b) relocating      Team             community perspective
                                                 northbound right turn onto Spring Street
                                                                                                                       LMDC
                    Transit                  Consolidate commuter van stops at the Bowery and Pell Street, The Bowery
                                                                                                                       Chinatown                 Recommendation of consolidated commuter
B48   Study Area    Accessibility            at the Confucius Statue, Market Street between East Broadway and Division
                                                                                                                       Access and                van stops was rejected by Community Board 3
                    / Mobility               Street
                                                                                                                       Circulation
                                                                                                                       LMDC
                    Transit                  Construct Forsyth Street Bus Plaza at foot of Manhattan Bridge (with      Chinatown
      Intersection/               Traffic                                                                                                        Forsyth Bus Plaza is no longer under
B49                 Accessibility            delineated zones for buses and pedestrians, a combination ticket and      Access and
      Location                    Congestion                                                                                                     consideration by NYCDOT
                    / Mobility               information kiosk)                                                        Circulation /
                                                                                                                       RCI
                                                                                                                       LMDC
      Intersection/ Quality of               Implement time of day closure on Walker Street to create Baxter/Walker    Chinatown
B50                                                                                                                                              Inconsistent with other scenarios
      Location      Life                     Triangle                                                                  Access and
                                                                                                                       Circulation




82                                                                                                  Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



Table IV-5 indicates actions which have been referred to other agencies and/or organizations for
further study and evaluation. In many cases, these actions are the subject of ongoing study by
one or more Steering Committee member agencies, either as related to the specific action or as
part of their continuous management of operations, service and regulations. Many actions also
are of the character that would involve issues of policy and enforcement that are most
appropriate for agencies with jurisdiction over the specific action area to consider further.

Lastly, Table IV-6 lists actions which have been implemented or programmed to be
implemented.

TABLE IV-5: ACTIONS REFERRED TO MEMBER AGENCIES

                                        Secondary
                      Primary Issue
 No       Focus                            Issue                          CATS II Potential Actions                                Source       Lead Agency                      Comment
                       Addressed
                                        Addressed
                     Traffic           Regional       Add capacity to Holland Tunnel by constructing new tube                                                 Referred to PANYNJ long range trans-Hudson
 C1    Regional                                                                                                          Various              PANY&NJ
                     Congestion        Mobility       (possibly HOT lanes)                                                                                    planning - not under consideration
                                                      Delineate sidewalk zones for retail and vending, pedestrian
                                       Pedestrian                                                                        LMDC Chinatown
 C2    Corridor      Quality of Life                  movement, and curbside loading, using distinctive paving                                  NYCDOT        Entity for maintenance needed
                                       Mobility                                                                          Access and Circulation
                                                      materials or colors
       Intersection/                                  Establish public market on Allen between Canal and East                                                 Pike Street between East Broadway and Division
 C3                  Quality of Life                                                                                     RCI                  NYCDOT
       Location                                       Broadway                                                                                                Street to be evaluated by NYCDOT
                                                                                                                                                              NYC has initiated action to reduce number of
                                       Traffic                                                                           CATS I - Sub B:
 C4    Study Area    Parking                          Identify Extent of Permit Parking                                                       NYCDOT          permits. Before and after studies conducted by
                                       Congestion                                                                        Access
                                                                                                                                                              NYCDOT
                                                      Allow sidewalk sales and dining on streets closed to traffic. Start
                                       Pedestrian     with Pell, Doyers and Mosco Streets (were not originally
 C5    Study Area    Quality of Life                                                                                      RCI                 NYCDOT          Refer further study to NYCDOT
                                       Mobility       designated as vehicular streets), proceed to Bayard, Elizabeth,
                                                      Mott or Mulberry Streets (in combination, but not all together)
                                       Pedestrian     Implement time of day street closures to enable night market
 C6    Study Area    Quality of Life                                                                                     RCI                  NYCDOT          Refer further study to NYCDOT
                                       Mobility       akin to Singapore and Hong Kong
                                                      Legalize Chinatown's signage which contributes to cultural
 C7    Study Area    Quality of Life                                                                                     RCI                  NYCDOT          Refer further study to NYCDOT
                                                      expression, lighting, design. (Much of it violates city codes).

 C8    Study Area    Quality of Life                  Embrace Feng Shui in Urban Design                                  RCI                  Various         Incorporate as feasible
                                                      Pursue "Main Street Management" for Grand Street/ Upper Mott                                            Grand Street to be analyzed as part of Canal
 C9    Study Area    Quality of Life                                                                                  RCI                     NYCDOT
                                                      Street                                                                                                  Street One-way Alternative
                                                      Construct grand entries at subway stations to showcase cultural
 C10   Study Area    Quality of Life                                                                                  RCI                     MTA             Refer further study to MTA / NYCDOT
                                                      heritage, including Grand Street station
       Intersection/ Traffic
 C11                                                  Provide double street lights on Canal Street like on 23rd Street   RCI                  NYCDOT          Lighting to conform to Street Design Manual
       Location      Congestion
                                                      Run non-MTA circulator bus in conjunction with Downtown
                     Transit                                                                                                                                  AAFNY/CCBA Chinatown Parking and Access
                                                      Connection to connect East River Park, Hudson River Park,
 C12   Study Area    Accessibility/    Parking                                                                           CATS II Study Team   NYCDOT          Study will conduct an analysis of a Chinatown
                                                      parking garage, intercity bus stop at Canal Street and the
                     Mobility                                                                                                                                 shuttle bus- referred to NYCDOT
                                                      Bowery, other central Chinatown locations
                     Transit
                                                      Provide weekend bus service from areas not well served by
 C13   Regional      Accessibility/                                                                                      CATS II Study Team   MTA             Refer further study to MTA / NYCDOT
                                                      subway
                     Mobility
                     Transit
                                                      Initiate express bus service to meet demand now served by
 C14   Regional      Accessibility/                                                                                      CATS II Study Team   MTA             Refer further study to MTA / NYCDOT
                                                      jitneys
                     Mobility
                     Transit
                                                      Provide ferry service to Canal Street area by extending existing
 C15   Regional      Accessibility/                                                                                      CATS II Study Team   NYCDOT          Refer further study to NYCDOT
                                                      Lower Manhattan ferry routes
                     Mobility
                     Transit
 C16   Regional      Accessibility/                   Implement ferry service between Flushing and Chinatown             CATS II Study Team   NYCDOT          Refer further study to NYCDOT
                     Mobility
       Intersection/                                  Implement time of day street closure at Mercer Street and Canal
 C17                 Quality of Life   Safety                                                                         CATS II Study Team      NYCDOT          Refer further study to NYCDOT
       Location                                       Street
       Intersection/                   Pedestrian     Implement time of day closure on Mulberry Street between
 C18                 Quality of Life                                                                                  RCI                     NYCDOT          Refer further study to NYCDOT
       Location                        Mobility       Bayard and Hester Streets
       Intersection/                   Pedestrian     Implement time of day closure on Mott Street between Worth
 C19                 Quality of Life                                                                                  RCI                     NYCDOT          Refer further study to NYCDOT
       Location                        Mobility       Street and Grand Street
                     Transit
                                                      Improve street-to-transit interface, improved subway               CATS I - Sub B:
 C20   Study Area Accessibility /                                                                                                             MTA             Refer further study to MTA / NYCDOT
                                                      entrances/exits, elevator (ADA) access                             Access
                     Mobility
                     Transit
                                                      Extend proposed Grand Street station on 2nd Avenue subway to
 C21   Study Area Accessibility /                                                                                  CATS II Study Team         MTA             Refer further study to MTA
                                                      Canal Street
                     Mobility
                                       Transit
                     Traffic                           Organize the volume of buses as there is no coordinated routing   CATS I - Sub B:
 C22   Study Area                      Accessibility /                                                                                        MTA/NYCDOT      Refer further study to NYCDOT
                     Congestion                        (Private, Express, Local, & Tour) that services the area          Access
                                       Mobility
                                       Traffic                                                                           CATS I - Sub B:
 C23   Study Area    Safety                            Install more red light cameras in the study area                                       NYCDOT          Refer further study to NYCDOT
                                       Congestion                                                                        Access
                     Transit
                                                      Integrate fare collection among different transit operators,       CATS I - Sub B:
 C24   Regional      Accessibility /                                                                                                          MTA/PANY&NJ     Refer further study to MTA
                                                      accelerate plans for ADA compliant stations                        Access
                     Mobility




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                                                                                                  83
                                                                                                                                           Canal Area Transportation Study



TABLE IV-5: ACTIONS REFERRED TO OTHERS (CONT’D)
                        Primary       Secondary
 No       Focus          Issue          Issue                      CATS II Potential Actions                              Source          Lead Agency                   Comment
                       Addressed      Addressed

                       Traffic
 C25   Study Area                                   Identify parking regulation changes to improve bus flow      CATS II Study Team       NYCDOT         Refer further study to NYCDOT
                       Congestion

                                                    Improve pedestrian crossings near existing Canal Park,
       Intersection/ Pedestrian
 C26                                 Safety         proposed improved Hudson River Park/Pier, and north and CATS II Study Team            NYCDOT         Refer to NYCDOT / NYSDOT
       Location      Mobility
                                                    south sides of Canal Street at West Street/Route 9A
       Intersection/                 Pedestrian     Construct landscaped median on Bowery between Canal
 C27                 Safety                                                                                      RCI                      NYCDOT         Refer to NYCDOT
       Location                      Mobility       Street and Chatham Square
                       Traffic    Goods             Restrict freight deliveries along Canal Street by time of day                                        Refer to NYCDOT ongoing street
 C28   Corridor                                                                                                   CATS II Study Team      NYCDOT
                       Congestion Movement          or day of the week                                                                                   management efforts
                                                                                                                 Canal Street
                       Traffic    Goods                                                                                                                  Refer to NYCDOT ongoing street
 C29   Corridor                                     Identify loading and unloading locations on side streets     pedestrian and traffic   NYCDOT
                       Congestion Movement                                                                                                               management efforts
                                                                                                                 safety study
                                                                                                                                                         Refer to NYCDOT ongoing street
 C30   Study Area      Parking                      Add diagonal parking                                         RCI                      NYCDOT
                                                                                                                                                         management efforts
                                                    Provide remote or satellite parking on weekends
 C31   Study Area      Parking                                                                                   CATS II Study Team       NYCDOT         Refer to NYCDOT
                                                    (combined with circulator bus)
                                                                                                                 CATS I - Sub B:                         Refer to NYCDOT ongoing street
 C32   Study Area      Parking                      Analyze Parking Supply                                                                NYCDOT
                                                                                                                 Access                                  management efforts
                                                                                                                                                         Refer to NYCDOT ongoing street
       Intersection/ Pedestrian
 C33                                                Implement wayfinding improvements in CATS Study area         RCI                      NYCDOT         management efforts in Lower
       Location      Mobility
                                                                                                                                                         Manhattan
                                                                                                                 LMDC Chinatown
       Intersection/                 Traffic
 C34                 Safety                         Reconfigure Chatham Square                                   Access and               Various        Under consideration by City
       Location                      Congestion
                                                                                                                 Circulation




TABLE IV-6: ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED OR PROGRAMMED FOR IMPLEMENTATION

                         Primary       Secondary
 No        Focus          Issue          Issue                     CATS II Potential Actions                              Source                                  Comment
                        Addressed      Addressed
                                                                                                                                            Muni-meters have been installed extensively in the
 D1    Study Area       Parking                      Provide muni-meters                                        RCI
                                                                                                                                            study area by NYCDOT
                                                                                                                                            NYCDOT Commercial Parking Program
 D2    Corridor         Parking                      Implement NYCDOT Commercial Parking Program                Various                     implemented in conjunction with muni-meter
                                                                                                                                            implementation.

                                                     Consolidate police or institutional parking in municipal LMDC Chinatown Access
 D3    Study Area       Parking                                                                                                     Implemented by NYPD
                                                     garage beneath one police plaza                          and Circulation

                                                                                                                                      Midblock crosswalk on East Broadway between
       Intersection/                   Pedestrian    Install mid-block crosswalk on East Broadway               LMDC Chinatown Access
 D4                     Safety                                                                                                        Catherine Street and Market Street installed by
       Location                        Mobility      between Catherine Street and Market Street                 and Circulation
                                                                                                                                      NYCDOT in 2007
       Intersection/                   Pedestrian    Provide new crosswalks on Worth Street at Baxter           LMDC Chinatown Access NYCDOT installed new traffic signal and crosswalk
 D5                     Safety
       Location                        Mobility      Street                                                     and Circulation       on Worth Street at Baxter Street in 2008
                                                                                                                                            As part of NYCEDC's East River Waterfront
       Intersection/                                 Provide bicycle and vehicle parking at East River                                      Esplanade additional bicycle racks will be installed.
 D6                     Parking                                                                                 RCI
       Location                                      Waterfront park site                                                                   NYCDOT policy is that no additional parking will be
                                                                                                                                            allowed under FDR Drive
                                                     Install pedestrian standard lighting for the purposes of                               Pedestrian lighting was installed on Canal Street in
                        Quality of
 D7    Study Area                                    illuminating sidewalk, not streets (perhaps encourage RCI                              2009 with Chinatown Partnership LDC as City's
                        Life
                                                     stores to use mesh gates and buildings to use night                                    partner
       Intersection/                   Pedestrian    Provide median on the Bowery between Hester Street                                     NYCDOT will install planted median on the Bowery
 D8                     Safety                                                                          CATS II Study Team
       Location                        Mobility      and Chatham Square                                                                     between Canal Street and East Broadway in 2010
       Intersection/    Quality of                                                                              LMDC Chinatown Access Restoration of James Madison Park will be
 D9                                                  Restore and improve James Madison Park
       Location         Life                                                                                    and Circulation       completed in 2010
                                                     Implement Park Row Improvements (Reduce from
                                                     four lanes to two lanes, improved pedestrian
       Intersection/    Pedestrian     Quality of    environment with trees and other plantings, improved       LMDC Chinatown Access
D10                                                                                                                                   Park Row pedestrian improvements in design
       Location         Mobility       Life          street furniture with benches, bollards, berms, lighting   and Circulation
                                                     and garbage receptacles, restore access to Chatham
                                                     Green and Chatham Towers)
       Intersection/                   Pedestrian    Construct bulbouts on East Broadway between                LMDC Chinatown Access Bulbouts constructed along East Broadway as part of
D11                     Safety
       Location                        Mobility      Chatham Sq and Forsyth St                                  and Circulation       NYCDOT School Safety Program
                                                     Connect Chinatown to the waterfront and create a                                 NYCEDC began construction on the East River
       Intersection/    Quality of     Pedestrian    waterfront park (build off of Battery Park and East                              Waterfront Project in 2009. NYC Department of
D12                                                                                                             RCI
       Location         Life           Mobility      River Park) at Catherine Street, Pike/Allen Street and                           Parks and Recreation to begin construction of East
                                                     Rutgers Street                                                                   River Access Projects in 2010
                                                     Implement HOV Lane on the Manhattan Bridge,
                        Traffic        Regional                                                                                             HOV Lane on Manhattan Bridge implemented by
D13 Regional                                         Brooklyn Bridge or Williamsburg Bridge                     Various
                        Congestion     Mobility                                                                                             NYCDOT in summer 2007
                                                     (subsequently limited to Manhattan Bridge)




84                                                                                                  Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



IV-5       LAND USE SCENARIOS
This section describes the approach used and information analyzed to review and adjust, if
necessary, the NYMTC 2030 baseline socio-economic forecast for the CATS study area and to
develop two alternate land use scenarios considered for use in travel demand forecasting and
alternatives analysis.

IV-5.1 Planned Development Projects
A list of known development projects expected to be completed in the study area within the next
ten years was compiled by Census tract and traffic analysis zone (TAZ). These projects were
translated into population and employment and then compared to the net change projected by the
NYMTC 2030 socioeconomic forecasts in relation to the 2002 base year, as shown in Figure IV-
2 and Figure IV-3.1 In each of the five study area neighborhoods, the NYMTC projected
increase exceeded growth attributable to identified development projects, which is reasonable
given its longer forecast horizon. It should be pointed out that the NYMTC projections of
employment growth in SoHo and Chinatown/Two Bridges were substantially higher than those
projected from known development projects in these neighborhoods; this is most likely
attributable to more intense use of existing development relative to 2002 levels.

The following sections describe significant developments and general land use characteristics for
each of the study area neighborhoods (see Figure III-19 for an illustration of study area
neighborhoods, Census tracts and traffic analysis zones).

IV-5.1a TriBeCa and Civic Center
This neighborhood has been experiencing a very rapid increase in residential development. Many
former manufacturing buildings have been converted to residential uses with loft apartments
through the provisions of the Special TriBeCa Mixed Use District zoning. This trend is expected
to continue into the future. NYCDCP is also proceeding with its proposed North TriBeCa
Rezoning to rezone all remaining manufacturing districts in the Special TriBeCa Mixed Use
District to a contextual Commercial District. There are some limitations to development in some
areas because the neighborhood includes all four of the TriBeCa Historic Districts (TriBeCa
North, TriBeCa South, TriBeCa East, TriBeCa West), which encompass nearly half of the area
between Chambers and Canal Streets.

IV-5.1b SoHo
A small area in western SoHo (Hudson Square) was recently rezoned to allow residential uses in
a former manufacturing area. In 2003, several blocks north of Canal Street and west of Hudson
Street were rezoned to a commercial district in response to land use changes and increasing
development pressure. Additional residential development in SoHo is anticipated east of
Broadway and south of Houston Street.


1
    Population was derived based on existing household sizes in the Census tract or Traffic Analysis Zone;
    employment was derived based on the following assumptions: 1 employee per 22.5 residential units, 1
    employee per 400 sf retail, 1 employee per 250 sf office, and 1 employee per 450 sf institutional/community
    facility.



Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                     85
                                                                                Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE IV-2: COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD POPULATION PROJECTIONS

                     16,000

                     14,000

                     12,000
     New Residents




                     10,000

                      8,000                                                                   Planned New
                                                                                              Development
                      6,000                                                                   Projects
                                                                                              (2002-2015)

                      4,000
                                                                                              NYMTC
                                                                                              Projections
                      2,000                                                                   (2002-2030)


                         0
                              TriBeCa   SoHo    Lower East    Little Italy   Chinatown
                                                   Side
                                               Neighborhood


FIGURE IV-3: COMPARISON OF EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

                     20,000

                     18,000

                     16,000

                     14,000
     New Employees




                     12,000

                     10,000                                                                  Planned New
                                                                                             Development
                      8,000                                                                  Projects
                                                                                             (2002-2015)
                      6,000
                                                                                             NYMTC
                      4,000                                                                  Projections
                                                                                             (2002-2030)
                      2,000

                          0
                              TriBeCa   SoHo    Lower East    Little Italy   Chinatown
                                                   Side
                                               Neighborhood




86                                                      Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



IV-5.1c Lower East Side
Nearly half of the study area’s residential units are located in the Lower East Side, a
neighborhood that is defined by large housing projects and dense blocks of tenement buildings.
Gradual redevelopment of this neighborhood has occurred including conversions and renovations
of tenement buildings, the addition of new restaurants and retail stores, and the construction of
luxury condominiums. The City recently approved a rezoning plan that will protect the
neighborhood’s existing character.

The Lower East Side also includes the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area (located south of
Delancey Street between Ludlow and Ridge Streets), the largest tract of undeveloped City-
owned land in Manhattan south of 96th Street. A plan to redevelop these sites with affordable
housing and commercial space was proposed in 2003, but was canceled due to a lack of
community consensus.

IV-5.1d Little Italy
Limited development is expected in this area as nearly the entire neighborhood is subject to the
Special Little Italy District zoning. This zoning designation was created to protect the existing
character of the district through bulk and use provisions, and also protects against the demolition
of characteristic buildings.

IV-5.1e Chinatown – Two Bridges
Chinatown’s economy was adversely affected by the events of September 11, 2001, which
forced the closure of many small businesses including small garment factories. To stimulate
economic growth in the area, New York State established an Empire Zone in Chinatown in
January 2006. These areas offer tax breaks and other incentives to attract new businesses and
enable existing businesses to expand and create more jobs. The Lower Manhattan Development
Corporation (LMDC) earmarked federal disaster recovery funds for Chinatown to improve
traffic circulation, promote tourism, and renovate parks.

IV-5.2 Baseline Land Use Forecast
The baseline forecast represents the anticipated future land use conditions if current development
trends continue. For this reason, the NYMTC 2030 socioeconomic forecasts were further refined
based on the current patterns indicated in the list of known development projects. The revisions
primarily involved adjusting the distribution of new households to TAZs within the study area,
as summarized in Table IV-7. The projected growth in the number of households was increased
in SoHo, the Lower East Side and Little Italy, and decreased in TriBeCa/Civic Center (to correct
an apparent anomaly in TAZ 17) and Chinatown/Two Bridges. Additionally, the average
household size in TAZ 17 was modified to better reflect data from the 2000 US Census.
Household population forecasts were subsequently adjusted for each TAZ by multiplying the
number of households by the average household size. No revisions were deemed necessary for
the employment forecasts.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                   87
                                           Canal Area Transportation Study




     THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.




88                      Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



TABLE IV-7: ADJUSTMENTS TO NYMTC 2030 HOUSEHOLD POPULATION FORECASTS

  Traffic                                         Household Population                                                         Number of Households                                       Household Size
 Analysis Census        Census      NYMTC        2030 Forecast         2002-2030 Increment       Census    Census    NYMTC         2030 Forecast      2002-2030 Increment       Census   NYMTC      2030 Forecast
   Zone      Tract       2000        2002      NYMTC Adjusted NYMTC Identified Adjusted           1990      2000      2002       NYMTC Adjusted NYMTC Identified Adjusted        2000     2002    NYMTC Adjusted
  TAZ 9                               1,300      3,063     3,947     1,763     1,710     2,647                           694       1,782     2,296  1,088       995     1,602             1.87     1.72      1.72
              21           2,256                                                                    856      1,104                                                              2.04
  TAZ 10                                956      1,878     4,449       922     2,275     3,493                           410         979     2,319    569     1,186     1,909             2.33     1.92      1.92
  TAZ 11      39           4,292      4,292      5,244     7,034       952     1,805     2,742     2,096     2,175     2,175       2,763     3,706    588       951     1,531    1.97     1.97     1.90      1.90
  TAZ 16                                  -          -         -         -          -        -                             -           -         -      -          -        -                  -         -        -
              31             579                                                                     83       296                                                               1.96
  TAZ 17                                777      7,876     3,277     7,099     1,090     2,500                           777       6,953     1,672  6,176       556       895             1.00     1.13      1.96
  TAZ 18                              1,589      1,750     3,301       161     1,084     1,712                           791         890     1,678     99       551       887             2.01     1.97      1.97
              33           3,696                                                                   1,129     1,839                                                              2.01
  TAZ 19                              2,107      2,319     3,895       212     1,139     1,788                         1,048       1,179     1,980    131       579       932             2.01     1.97      1.97
      TriBeCa/
                          10,823      11,021    22,130    25,903    11,109     9,103    14,882     4,164     5,414     5,895      14,546    13,652    8,651    4,818    7,757    2.00     1.87      1.52     1.90
    Civic Center
  TAZ 21      45           1,066      1,079      1,145     1,166        66       35        87        408       469       480         495      504       15       15       24     2.27     2.25     2.31      2.31
  TAZ 22      47           2,463      2,492      2,645     2,828       153      163       336      1,333     1,415     1,445       1,490    1,593       45       92      148     1.74     1.72     1.78      1.78
  TAZ 23      49           4,988      5,047      5,356     5,454       309      160       407      2,616     2,960     2,981       3,073    3,129       92       92      148     1.69     1.69     1.74      1.74
  TAZ 24      43           4,823      4,880      5,178     5,662       298      398       782      2,162     2,409     2,463       2,540    2,777       77      195      314     2.00     1.98     2.04      2.04
  TAZ 27      51           1,624      1,643      1,744     1,893       101      126       250      1,092     1,019     1,032       1,064    1,156       32       77      124     1.68     1.59     1.64      1.64
  TAZ 28      53             335        339        360       513        21      102       174        200       199       218         225      321        7       64      103     1.68     1.55     1.60      1.60

        SoHo              15,299      15,480    16,428    17,516       948       984     2,036     7,811     8,471     8,619       8,887     9,480      268      535      861    1.82     1.80      1.85     1.85
  TAZ 45          6      12,060      12,225     13,165    13,304       940       453     1,079     3,736     4,011     3,955       4,096    4,140       141     141      185    3.01      3.09     3.21      3.21
  TAZ 46        2.01      3,320       3,365      3,624     3,661       259       123       296       998     1,045     1,027       1,063    1,074        36      36       47    3.18      3.28     3.41      3.41
  TAZ 47        2.02      6,602       6,692      7,207     7,285       515       249       593     3,411     3,109     3,383       3,504    3,541       121     121      158    2.12      1.98     2.06      2.06
  TAZ 49       14.01      2,861       2,900      3,123     3,156       223       107       256     1,661     1,574     1,658       1,717    1,735        59      59       77    1.82      1.75     1.82      1.82
  TAZ 54         18       9,888       9,888     11,508    10,165     1,620     1,126       277     2,666     3,089     3,089       4,089    3,612     1,000     400      523    3.20      3.20     2.81      2.81
  TAZ 55       14.02      3,015       3,056      3,291     5,237       235     1,574     2,181     1,195     1,301     1,306       1,353    2,153        47     647      847    2.32      2.34     2.43      2.43
  TAZ 56       10.01      1,361       1,380      1,486     1,501       106        50       121       951       725       798         826      835        28      28       37    1.88      1.73     1.80      1.80
  TAZ 57       10.02      6,353       6,440      6,935     7,009       495       238       569     2,436     2,292     2,308       2,390    2,415        82      82      107    2.77      2.79     2.90      2.90
  TAZ 58         12       3,409       3,456      3,721     4,031       265       334       575     1,619     1,649     1,722       1,784    1,931        62     160      209    2.07      2.01     2.09      2.09
  TAZ 59       22.01      6,632       6,723      7,240     7,314       517       248       591     2,439     2,646     2,625       2,718    2,747        93      93      122    2.51      2.56     2.66      2.66
  TAZ 63       30.01      4,265       4,323      4,656     4,753       333       196       430     1,539     1,985     2,019       2,091    2,134        72      88      115    2.15      2.14     2.23      2.23
  TAZ 64       36.01      3,222       3,266      3,517     4,361       251       738     1,095     1,046     1,294     1,293       1,340    1,661        47     281      368    2.49      2.53     2.63      2.63

  Lower East Side         62,988      63,714    69,473    71,777     5,759     5,436     8,063    23,697    24,720    25,183      26,971    27,978    1,788    2,136    2,795    2.55     2.53      2.58     2.57
  TAZ 20         41        8,614      8,716      9,249     9,610       533      397       894      3,184     3,461     3,525       3,635    3,776      110      156      251     2.49     2.47     2.55      2.55

      Little Italy         8,614       8,716     9,249     9,610       533       397       894     3,184     3,461     3,525       3,635     3,776      110      156      251    2.49     2.47      2.55     2.55
  TAZ 14                              4,948      6,630     5,766     1,682         -      818                          2,241       3,215    2,796      974        -      555              2.21     2.06      2.06
            29             5,571                                                                   2,162     2,246                                                              2.48
  TAZ 15                                739        991       861       252         -      122                            335         480      418      145        -       83              2.21     2.06      2.06
  TAZ 42    25            5,159       5,229      5,632     5,547       403         -      318      1,872     1,882     1,876       1,943    1,914       67        -       38    2.74      2.79     2.90      2.90
  TAZ 43    27            1,477       1,497      1,612     1,589       115         -       92        616       663       675         699      689       24        -       14    2.23      2.22     2.31      2.31
  TAZ 44     8           10,907      10,907     11,960    11,180     1,053     1,810      273      3,453     3,644     3,644       4,294    4,014      650      650      370    2.99      2.99     2.79      2.79
  TAZ 48    16            9,583       9,714     10,461    10,307       747       154      593      2,650     3,146     3,140       3,252    3,204      112       48       64    3.05      3.09     3.22      3.22
    Chinatown/
                          32,697      33,034    37,286    35,250     4,252     1,965     2,216    10,753    11,581    11,911      13,883    13,035    1,972      698    1,124    2.82     2.77      2.69     2.70
   Two Bridges

        Totals          130,421     131,965    154,566   160,056    22,601    17,884    28,091    49,609    53,647    55,133      67,922   67,921    12,789    8,343   12,788   2.43      2.39     2.28      2.36




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                                                                                                                         89
                                                              Canal Area Transportation Study




     THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.




90                                         Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



IV-5.3 Alternative Land Use Scenarios
Two alternative land use scenarios were developed based on the objectives and policies of
rezoning and land use studies under consideration or recently enacted by NYCDCP (Alternative
Scenario 1) and the broader community visions of residents and business people regarding the
future of the study area (Alternative Scenario 2). The characteristics of each neighborhood were
also reviewed to determine the potential for other future changes in land use patterns. Because
many parts of the study area were found to have constraints that restrict significant land use
changes from occurring (such as the presence of historic districts and public housing projects, a
lack of vacant land, and a community desire to maintain existing levels of development), only
one other major rezoning proposal was identified that could cause a significant change in
population and employment estimates: a community-based planning proposal developed by the
Rebuild Chinatown Initiative (RCI). A comparison of household population and employment
estimates between the baseline and these alternative land use scenario is also provided in Table
IV-8.

TABLE IV-8: COMPARISON OF BASELINE AND ALTERNATIVE LAND USE SCENARIOS

                                      Household Population Projections
                        2002       Baseline Condition    Alternative Scenario #1 Alternative Scenario #2
                       NYMTC     2002-2030      2030     2002-2030       2030     2002-2030      2030
   Neighborhood        Baseline Increment     Forecast   Increment     Forecast   Increment    Forecast
      TriBeCa             11,021     14,882       25,903      21,814       32,835      21,814      32,835
        SoHo              15,480      2,036       17,516       2,967       18,447       2,967      18,447
   Lower East Side        63,714      8,063       71,777       8,063       71,777      17,513      81,227
      Little Italy         8,716        894        9,610         894        9,610         894       9,610
     Chinatown            33,034      2,216       35,250       2,216       35,250       6,458      39,492
        Total            131,965     28,091      160,056      35,954      167,919      49,645     181,610

                                            Employment Projections
                        2002       Baseline Condition    Alternative Scenario #1 Alternative Scenario #2
                       NYMTC     2002-2030      2030     2002-2030       2030     2002-2030      2030
   Neighborhood        Baseline  Increment    Forecast   Increment     Forecast   Increment    Forecast
      TriBeCa             94,892      18,777     113,669      19,652      114,544      21,736     116,628
        SoHo              56,404      10,634      67,038       9,685       66,089      11,525      67,929
   Lower East Side        15,506       2,709      18,215       2,709       18,215       3,367      18,873
      Little Italy         6,850       1,291       8,141       1,291        8,141       1,836       8,686
     Chinatown            34,600       6,198      40,798       6,198       40,798       7,521      42,121
        Total            208,252      39,609     247,861      39,535      247,787      45,984     254,236

    *    Note: Baseline condition excludes North TriBeCa and Hudson Square rezonings.



Figure IV-4 and Figure IV-5 provide a comparison between the baseline and the alternative land
use scenarios for household population and employment estimates, respectively.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                               91
                                                                                              Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE IV-4: COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD POPULATION IN LAND USE
             SCENARIOS

                             90,000

                             80,000

                             70,000
                                                                                                    2002 NYMTC
      Household Population




                             60,000                                                                 Baseline

                                                                                                    2030 NYMTC
                             50,000                                                                 Baseline

                             40,000                                                                 2030 Alternative
                                                                                                    Scenario #1
                             30,000                                                                 2030 Alternative
                                                                                                    Scenario #2
                             20,000

                             10,000

                                 0
                                       TriBeCa   SoHo    Lower East     Little Italy   Chinatown
                                                            Side
                                                        Neighborhood


FIGURE IV-5: COMPARISON OF EMPLOYMENT IN LAND USE SCENARIOS

                             140,000


                             120,000


                             100,000
                                                                                                    2002 NYMTC
                                                                                                    Baseline
      Employment




                              80,000
                                                                                                    2030 NYMTC
                                                                                                    Baseline
                              60,000                                                                2030 Alternative
                                                                                                    Scenario #1
                              40,000                                                                2030 Alternative
                                                                                                    Scenario #2

                              20,000


                                  0
                                       TriBeCa   SoHo     Lower East    Little Italy   Chinatown
                                                             Side
                                                        Neighborhood




92                                                                    Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II




         CHAPTER V – ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC
         DIVERSION/REDUCTION SCENARIOS
Four scenarios were developed from those actions listed in Table IV-3 for assessment using the
New York Best Practice Model (NYBPM). These scenarios were considered as those with the
potential to reduce or alter significantly future traffic volumes in the study area and consisted of:

•   Implementation of an HOV3+ lane in the Holland Tunnel
•   Implementation of HOV lanes on the Manhattan Bridge
•   Creation of a one-way pair with Canal Street converted to one-way eastbound between the
    Avenue of the Americas and the Bowery, and Grand Street converted to one-way westbound
    between Chrystie Street and Avenue of the Americas.
•   Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) measures to increase use of the Brooklyn Battery
    Tunnel as an alternative to the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges. This would include using
    variable message signage and other traffic management measures to notify drivers in
    Brooklyn destined for the Holland Tunnel and the west side of Manhattan of comparable
    travel times, and encourage them to consider using the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel as an
    alternative to the Manhattan and Brooklyn bridges, with a reciprocal arrangement for drivers
    in New Jersey approaching the Holland Tunnel en route to Brooklyn, providing information
    on the travel time to Brooklyn via Route 9A and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel versus Canal
    Street and the Manhattan Bridge.

The NYBPM was the study tool utilized to identify traffic patterns, to quantify the extent of
potential diversion for this assessment and to provide a planning level of analysis of the effect of
such traffic diversions upon roadway traffic demand to capacity ratios under 2030 No Build or
No Action traffic forecasts and traffic forecasts with the above scenarios in-place. Three
scenarios were assessed individually and in combination (the assessment using the NYBPM of
measures to encourage increased use of the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel was judged to be not-
feasible). Based upon the results of these studies and subsequent input from the Steering
Committee, scenarios were selected for testing with the traffic simulation model developed for
CATS, along with the future baseline, as described in Chapter VI. The assessment findings are
provided below.

V-1        TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING
The NYBPM is a state-of-the-practice multi-modal regional travel demand model encompassing
28 counties in the Downstate Region in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Following its
development by NYMTC, the NYBPM has been made available for and applied to a number of
transportation studies and projects of various types in the downstate area. CATS Track II used
the NYBPM as the primary travel demand forecasting model.

The NYBPM’s travel forecasts are developed utilizing 11,000 regional household interview
surveys and comprehensive traffic and travel data in the region. The model utilizes long-range


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                     93
                                                                          Canal Area Transportation Study



regional socio-economic forecasts and incorporates all planned future highway/transit
improvements to represent future travel demand on the region’s transportation systems. Activity
and tour-based journeys form its basis for trip generation and distribution based upon socio-
economic data (population, households and employment), household data (size, income, number
of non-working adults, number of workers and children) and auto ownership. The model
simulates how future travelers will choose their destination and mode of travel based on
attractions at the destination, multi-modal accessibility and household income characteristics.
Travel modes (auto by vehicle occupancy, bus/ subway, commuter rail, walk/bicycle, etc.) are
chosen based on car availability and household income, travel time, wait time, cost, distance,
transit accessibility, access to highway paths, bus routes, subway lines, etc. Vehicle trips consist
of single occupancy vehicles (SOV), high occupancy vehicles (HOV 2 and 3+ occupants), taxi,
trucks, commercial vans, and external vehicle trips assigned to the roadway network based on
factors such as travel time, cost, and eligibility (e.g. truck routes). Transit trips consist of
subway, bus, commuter rail, and ferry trips assigned to respective transit networks based on
factors such as in-vehicle time, wait time, number of transfers, cost, and parking availability.

In general, when the NYBPM is used for a sub-area transportation study, it undergoes further
refinements and enhancements focused within the study area to replicate more closely the travel
characteristics of the study sub-area (relative to the overall regional model). In an effort to enable
the model to more accurately replicate the trips affecting the CATS study area, a recalibration of
the NYBPM was undertaken. This effort encompassed conducting further refinements and
enhancements of the model for the study area, as well as adopting the pertinent subregional
model enhancements contributed by other NYBPM applications. Within the CATS study area,
these enhancements included detailed representation of selected limited-access highway
interchanges, the addition of roadway links for improved network connectivity and continuity,
and replacement of highway links with more refined link systems. The attributes of highway
links in the study area were carefully reviewed and their selected attributes were corrected or
enhanced, if necessary.

Within the NYBPM, trips are routed from origin zone to destination zone, with each zone or
centroid connected to the network by one or more centroid connectors. Because the NYBPM
uses an “automated” centroid connecting procedure, it must generate connectors for more than
3,500 zones representing 28 counties in the model region. While the automated procedure is
sufficient for regional modeling, sub-area modeling, such as for CATS II, requires a more
refined coding of centroid connectors for a localized study area. Therefore, based on detailed
review of the centroid connectors, existing land use characteristics, and roadway topology,
centroid connectors were also further refined for CATS through their addition, deletion, or
relocation.

V-2       DETAILS OF FUTURE IMPROVEMENT SCENARIOS
The following detailed characteristics were developed and incorporated as assumptions related to
each scenario in this analysis.

V-2.1     HOV3+ Lane in the Holland Tunnel
Under this scenario, an inbound tunnel lane to Manhattan would be designated for HOV 3+ use
only (vehicles with three or more occupants, including buses) during the AM peak period.


94                                                    Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



HOV3+ and buses would use the priority HOV lane that already exists from Jersey Avenue to
the toll booth, and one of the two inbound lanes of the tunnel would be restricted to HOV 3+
vehicles and buses, leaving only one lane for other vehicles. This would expedite HOV3+ travel
through the tunnel using the north inbound tunnel lane. Non-HOV3+ traffic would use the south
lane.

For travel outbound from Manhattan during the PM peak period, a system of HOV 3+ priority
access routes would be implemented, with designated and signed HOV lanes leading to the
existing Varick Street tunnel access ramp, which would be restricted to HOV 3+ vehicles.
Northbound buses from Avenue of the Americas would also use the Varick Street access ramp.
Varick Street outbound traffic would be rerouted to the Watts Street access ramp. This plan is
illustrated on Figure V-1. Outbound traffic operations within the Holland Tunnel would not be
modified.

V-2.2      HOV Lanes on the Manhattan Bridge or other East River Crossings
This scenario was limited to the Manhattan Bridge and consists of the conversion of the lower
level of the Manhattan Bridge to HOV2+ only operations inbound to Manhattan during the AM
peak period1.

V-2.3      One-Way Pair – Canal Street Eastbound/Grand Street Westbound
Under this scenario, Canal Street would be one-way eastbound between Avenue of the Americas
and the Bowery; and Grand Street would be converted to one-way westbound from Chrystie
Street to Avenue of the Americas. Motorists traveling on Grand Street westbound to the Holland
Tunnel would turn right at Avenue of the Americas and left to Watts Street and proceed to the
tunnel. Buses traveling on Avenue of the Americas would continue to turn left at Watts Street to
access the right lane of the tunnel.

V-2.4      Traffic Diversion to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel
This scenario encompasses the provision of variable message signs to advise drivers of potential
travel time savings that could be achieved for certain trips by diverting from Canal Street
to alternate routes. The target travel segment would be through traffic on Canal Street traveling
between Brooklyn and New Jersey or the west side of Manhattan. One component would be that
of one or more variable message signs for motorists from New Jersey, providing information on
the travel time to Brooklyn via Route 9A and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel versus Canal
Street and the Manhattan Bridge. In the reverse direction this concept would provide variable
message signs on the approaches to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel from the Gowanus Expressway,
advising motorists of the estimated travel time to the Holland Tunnel via the Brooklyn Battery
Tunnel and Route 9A versus the Manhattan Bridge and Canal Street. A motorist could then make
a more informed decision concerning which route to take, considering tolls and travel time.
Because of the NYBPM’s process of assigning traffic based upon shortest travel time, the model
was not used to quantify the potential diversion that may be achieved under this scenario.


1
    NYCDOT subsequently implemented HOV 2+ on the upper level of the Manhattan Bridge Manhattan-bound
    from 6:00 am to 10:00 am weekdays. New truck access regulations were also introduced and are in effect from
    5:00 am to 3:00 pm weekdays. Both of these operational changes took effect on October 1, 2007.


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                95
                                                                              Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE V-1:   HOLLAND TUNNEL HOV 3+ PRIORITY ACCESS PLAN




96                                                         Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



V-3        TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND EVALUATIONS
The adjusted year 2030 future baseline land use scenario, as described in Chapter IV and
developed in consultation with NYCDCP, was selected for use in CATS and incorporated in the
NYBPM to develop travel forecasts for the future 2030 No Action (No Build) condition and
travel forecasts for each scenario, except that of encouraging increased use of the Brooklyn
Battery Tunnel, as noted above. The results of the NYBPM forecasts are discussed below with
respect to the extent of traffic diversion/reduction that was forecast for each scenario in
comparison to the year 2030 No Build condition and a planning level assessment as to the effect
such a change in traffic patterns would have on study area roadways. Forecasts were prepared for
each scenario on an individual basis (First Level Analysis) and then in combination with each
other (Second Level Analysis) to identify complementary effects, if any.

V-3.1      First Level Analysis

V-3.1a HOV3+ Lane in the Holland Tunnel
With an inbound lane of the Holland Tunnel reserved to vehicles with three or more occupants
during the weekday morning peak period (6:00 AM–10:00 AM), it was projected that eastbound
AM peak period total traffic in the tunnel would be reduced 31 percent from No Build and 15
percent from existing traffic levels. Eastbound AM peak period Holland Tunnel non-HOV3+
traffic would be reduced 51 percent, while HOV3+ traffic levels would be increased 143 percent
from No Build levels. It was forecast that some traffic would divert to other crossings. AM peak
period eastbound traffic levels were projected to increase 8 percent at the Lincoln Tunnel and 7
percent at the George Washington Bridge in comparison to No Build levels. Details of the AM
peak period traffic forecasts at Hudson River crossings developed for this scenario are provided
in Table V-1 with the crossing values and percentage changes shaded in the travel direction of
the proposed modifications. It was also projected that some eastbound traffic would divert from
the Holland Tunnel to Staten Island crossings from New Jersey. It was projected that during the
AM peak period, eastbound traffic would increase by approximately four and five percent,
respectively, at the Goethals Bridge and Outerbridge Crossing.

TABLE V-1:        HOLLAND TUNNEL HOV 3+ AM
                  CROSSING VOLUME CHANGES – HUDSON RIVER CROSSINGS




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                97
                                                                          Canal Area Transportation Study



Morning four hour peak period (6 AM-10 AM) traffic levels that were projected on city streets in
the study area relative to the No Build following implementation of a one lane HOV3+
restriction in the Holland Tunnel reflected both the reduced level of tunnel traffic under this
scenario that would be dispersed from the tunnel area and an in-fill of new traffic attracted to the
area. Most significant traffic reductions were projected northbound on Hudson Street and
southbound on Varick Street. However, these reductions would be dampened by projected
increases in traffic upstream on these two streets as a new equilibrium in traffic levels is attained
within the area’s oversaturated street network. On Canal Street, a reduction in eastbound traffic
relative to the No Build was projected, ranging from 300 to 600 total vehicles over the four hour
AM peak period, a level which would not result in a significant improvement in Canal Street
traffic operations.

During the PM peak period, overall traffic volume changes projected due to the HOV3+ priority
access plan were minor. Reduced traffic was projected on Broome Street and Varick Street north
of Broome Street. A slight increase in traffic was forecast on Hudson Street and Canal Street
eastbound and westbound due to diverted non-HOV3+ traffic.

Summary
•    AM Peak Period HOV 3+ Tunnel Lane
        − Significant reduction in inbound Holland Tunnel total traffic
        − Operations improvement on streets in tunnel area dampened by additional traffic
          attracted to area
        − Limited change along eastern Canal Street
        − Anticipated reduction in inbound delay for HOV 3+
        − Increase in HOV2/SOV delay at Holland Tunnel and total delay at other Hudson
          River and New Jersey to Staten Island crossings
•    PM Peak Period HOV 3+ Tunnel Priority Access
        − No significant change in outbound Holland Tunnel traffic demand
        − Reduction in traffic on Broome Street and Varick Street
•    Overall
        − Significant traffic pattern changes limited to Holland Tunnel area.
        − Could be considered as part of a trans-Hudson traffic demand management plan

V-3.1b HOV2+ Lanes on the Manhattan Bridge
Under this scenario, with the lower level of the Manhattan Bridge reserved for HOV2+ vehicles
inbound to Manhattan during the morning peak period, AM peak period HOV traffic on the
bridge was projected to nearly double relative to No Build levels while single occupant vehicles
(SOVs) were projected to decrease 22 percent from the No Build, as shown in Table V-2.
However, total westbound Manhattan Bridge AM peak period traffic volumes would remain
approximately the same as under the No Build condition. Generally, HOV2+ vehicles would
shift to the Manhattan Bridge from other East River crossings and SOVs would shift to other
crossings with no significant overall volume change projected on any crossing.


98                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



TABLE V-2:        MANHATTAN BRIDGE HOV 2+ AM
                  CROSSING VOLUME CHANGES – EAST RIVER CROSSINGS




Generally, no significant changes in traffic volumes relative to the No Build were projected on
streets near the Manhattan Bridge. Similar findings were projected along Canal Street, i.e., no
significant change in traffic volumes relative to the No Build.

Summary
•   Significant increase in Manhattan Bridge HOV 2+ traffic
•   Anticipated reduction in HOV 2+ delay on Manhattan Bridge
•   Little change in total East River Bridge traffic on each crossing
•   No significant change in study area street traffic levels
•   May be considered as part of an East River HOV priority plan

V-3.1c One-way Pair–Canal Street Eastbound/Grand Street Westbound
Traffic forecasts under the scenario with Canal Street restricted to one-way eastbound flow
between Avenue of the Americas, assuming five eastbound lanes, and Grand Street one-way
westbound west of Chrystie Street, assuming two westbound lanes, indicated no significant
change in East River crossing volumes – less than 100 vehicles per hour average, and also no
significant change in Holland or Lincoln Tunnel crossing volumes, as shown in Table V-3.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                               99
                                                                       Canal Area Transportation Study



TABLE V-3:    ONE-WAY PAIR–CANAL STREET EASTBOUND/GRAND STREET WESTBOUND
              CROSSING VOLUME CHANGES – EAST AND HUDSON RIVER CROSSINGS




However, traffic forecasts indicated that significant changes in traffic volumes would occur on
city streets under the one-way pair scenario relative to the No Build. During the four hour AM
peak period, eastbound traffic on Canal Street was projected to increase relative to the No Build
from between 1000 vehicles and 2700 vehicles (varying by street segment) in the one-way
section, and by up to 800 vehicles eastbound in the two way section west of Avenue of the
Americas. However, total traffic within the one-way section (considering total two-way traffic in
the No Build condition and one-way eastbound traffic in this scenario) was projected to decrease
from 3000 to 6000 vehicles over the four hour period. Forecast traffic levels on Grand Street
were projected to increase between 1700 vehicles and 2500 vehicles east of Lafayette Street
relative to the No Build during the AM peak period. However, traffic levels at approximately the
same or slightly less than those for the No Build were projected on Grand Street west of
Lafayette Street.

Projected traffic levels during the AM peak period between the one-way pair scenario and the No
Build were also compared on other streets in the study area. A slight reduction in eastbound
traffic on Walker Street relative to the No Build was indicated as was a slight increase in
westbound traffic on Broome Street. Northbound traffic levels on the Bowery and Chrystie Street
between the Manhattan Bridge and Grand Street were projected to increase by 1700 and 1300
vehicles, respectively, over the AM peak period. Traffic on Worth Street was forecast to increase
by 600 vehicles to 800 vehicles east of Church Street and no significant change was indicated on
Chambers Street.

During the PM peak period (3:00 PM to 7:00 PM), eastbound traffic on Canal Street was
projected to increase between 1,000 vehicle and 4,200 vehicles (varying by street segment) in the
one-way section relative to the No Build. However, total traffic on the Canal Street one-way
section was projected to decrease from 1300 vehicles to 3400 vehicles relative to the No Build.


100                                                Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



West of the one-way section, eastbound Canal Street traffic volumes were projected to increase
by up to 1,100 vehicles. On Grand Street, PM peak period traffic levels were projected to
decrease relative to the No Build from between 100 vehicles and 2,700 vehicles over the four
hour period.

During the PM peak period, a slight reduction in eastbound traffic levels was forecast on Walker
Street. Broome Street traffic forecasts were slightly higher or slightly lower relative to the No
Build by street segment. Similar to AM conditions, northbound PM peak period traffic was
forecast to increase 1,000 vehicles and 1,800 vehicles on the Bowery and Chrystie Street,
respectively, between the Manhattan Bridge and Grand Street. On Worth Street, PM peak period
assigned traffic volumes would increase by 800 vehicles to 1,000 vehicles east of Church Street
and no significant change in traffic volumes were projected on Chambers Street.

Summary - Canal Street
•   Total traffic volume on Canal Street would be reduced significantly in the one-way section
•   Would potentially allow for wider sidewalks
•   Would potentially allow for other operational and safety improvements

Summary- Other Roadways
•   AM traffic volumes would increase on Grand Street east of Lafayette Street and would
    decrease on Grand Street west of Lafayette Street relative to the No Build
•   PM Grand Street traffic volumes would decrease overall relative to the No Build
•   PM Holland Tunnel queue would affect Grand Street
•   Operational issue could occur for the northbound left turn on the Bowery at Chrystie Street
•   Slight reduction in traffic is projected on Walker Street relative to the No Build
•   AM Broome Street traffic levels would increase east of Centre Street relative to the No Build
•   Operational issue could occur at the westbound Watts Street entrance to the Holland Tunnel
•   Westbound Worth Street traffic was projected to increase relative to the No Build

V-3.2      SECOND LEVEL ANALYSIS
Second level scenarios were developed as combinations of the above scenarios considering the
affects upon future traffic levels and operations in the study area as forecast by the NYBPM, as
discussed above, and the possible synergy that might be realized from combinations of scenarios.
The following combinations of scenarios comprised the second level analysis that was performed
using the NYBPM:

•   Holland Tunnel HOV3+ Priority Lane Inbound, PM HOV 3+ Priority Access Plan Outbound
    plus One-way Pair Canal Street Eastbound/Grand Street Westbound
•   Manhattan Bridge AM HOV2+ Lower Level Inbound plus One-way Pair Canal Street
    Eastbound/Grand Street Westbound



Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                 101
                                                                       Canal Area Transportation Study



•     Holland Tunnel HOV3+ Priority Lane Inbound, PM HOV 3+ Priority Access Plan Outbound
      plus Manhattan Bridge AM HOV2+ Lower Level Inbound plus One-way Pair Canal Street
      Eastbound/Grand Street Westbound.

V-3.2a Hudson River and East River Crossing Traffic Volumes
The first evaluation performed focused upon the potential effect of second level scenarios upon
Hudson River and East River crossing traffic volumes. To facilitate this evaluation, comparisons
were made of traffic forecasts developed for second level scenarios with traffic forecasts for the
scenario that was determined to produce the maximum level of change at each crossing, i.e., the
Holland Tunnel HOV3+ Scenario at the Hudson River Crossings and the Manhattan Bridge AM
HOV2+ Lower Level Inbound Scenario at the East River Crossings, plus a comparison to the No
Build.

Table V-4 presents the comparison of second level scenarios with the No Build and the Holland
Tunnel HOV3+ Scenario at the Hudson River crossings. Generally, traffic volume forecasts at
the Hudson River crossings for the second level scenarios that include the Holland Tunnel
HOV3+ Scenario closely approximate the first level forecast for that scenario, indicating that the
Holland Tunnel HOV3+ Scenario would influence to a large degree the Hudson River crossing
traffic levels for second level scenarios much more than the one-way pair Canal Street
Eastbound/Grand Street Westbound Scenario. Traffic volume forecasts at the Hudson River
crossings for the Manhattan Bridge AM HOV2+ Lower Level Inbound plus one-way pair
combination showed no significant change from the No Build, indicating that neither the HOV2+
nor One-way Pair in combinations without the Holland Tunnel HOV3+ Scenario would affect
the distribution of traffic at Hudson River crossings.

Table V-5 presents the comparison of the second level scenarios with the No Build and the
Manhattan Bridge HOV2+ Scenario at the East River crossings. Little is forecast in total
westbound traffic levels across the Manhattan Bridge under either of the second level scenarios
in comparison to the No Build, as was determined in the first level analysis, although forecasts
for any second level scenario that includes the Manhattan Bridge AM HOV2+ Lower Level
Inbound component generally impacted the vehicle occupancy pattern across the Manhattan
Bridge of that scenario.

V-3.2b City Street Traffic Volumes
Forecast AM and PM peak period traffic volumes on city streets were also compared for each
second level scenario to the No Build and also to the forecasts developed for each first level
scenario component of the second level scenarios, as discussed further below.




102                                                 Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



TABLE V-4:             SECOND LEVEL SCENARIOS COMPARISON WITH THE
                       HOLLAND TUNNEL HOV3+ SCENARIO AT THE HUDSON RIVER CROSSINGS

                                                                                                                                                Future Year (2030) Scenario
                                                                                         No Build                                                     Holland Tunnel HOV3+                              Holland Tunnel HOV3+
                                                                                                                                                                                                 Canal St./Grand St. Oneway Operation
                                                                   AM                   PM                AM             PM                AM          PM           AM           PM             AM          PM          AM         PM
          Crossing Facilities                 Dir                                                     % Diff (1)     % Diff (1)                                  % Diff (2)   % Diff (2)                             % Diff (2)   % Diff (2)
 Hudson River Crossing
 George Washington Bridge                  EB Total                    53,744               40,207           33%            13%             57,329      39,946           7%            -1%      57,377      40,077           7%           0%

                                          WB Total                     40,028               53,943           16%            28%             40,266      56,562           1%                5%   39,987      56,361           0%           4%

 Lincoln Tunnel                           EB Total                     23,409               11,433           21%            15%             25,397      11,583           8%                1%   25,387      11,566           8%           1%
                                          WB Total                     10,237               21,988           19%            20%             10,298      23,244           1%                6%   10,207      23,052           0%           5%

 Holland Tunnel                          EB_GUL(3)                     12,202               12,642           28%            16%              5,941      12,536         -51%            -1%       5,509      12,555        -55%           -1%
                                        EB_HOV3+(4)                     1,389                                 0%                             3,374                     143%                      3,414                    146%
                                          EB_Total                     13,591                                24%                             9,314                     -31%                      8,923                    -34%
                                            WB                         11,368               14,675           13%            16%             11,084      15,268          -2%                4%   11,075      15,382         -3%            5%
                                            EB                         90,744               64,282           29%            14%             92,040      64,065           1%                0%   91,687      64,198          1%            0%
  Total                                     WB                         61,632               90,606           16%            24%             61,648      95,073           0%                5%   61,269      94,795         -1%            5%


                                                                                                             Future Year (2030) Scenario
                                                                          Manhattan Bridge HOV2+                                       Holland Tunnel HOV3+, Manhattan Bridge HOV2+
                                                                    Canal St./Grand St. Oneway Operation                                    Canal St./Grand St. Oneway Operation
                                                                   AM             PM          AM         PM                             AM            PM          AM            PM
          Crossing Facilities                 Dir                                                     % Diff (2)     % Diff (2)                                  % Diff (2)   % Diff (2)
 Hudson River Crossing
 George Washington Bridge                  EB Total                    53,261               40,427            -1%             1%            57,013      40,121           6%                0%

                                          WB Total                     39,977               53,734             0%             0%            39,908      56,056           0%                4%

 Lincoln Tunnel                           EB Total                     23,486               11,482             0%             0%            25,629      11,613           9%                2%
                                          WB Total                     10,260               21,851             0%            -1%            10,283      22,784           0%                4%

 Holland Tunnel                          EB_GUL(3)                     13,520               12,655                            0%             5,687      12,606         -53%                0%
                                        EB_HOV3+(4)                                                                                          3,587                     158%
                                          EB_Total                     13,520                                 -1%                            9,274                     -32%
                                            WB                         11,416               14,722             0%             0%            11,150      15,777          -2%                8%
                                            EB                         90,268               64,564            -1%             0%            91,915      64,340           1%                0%
  Total                                     WB                         61,653               90,307             0%             0%            61,341      94,617           0%                4%


                                Note: (1) Represent % change in peak period travel demand from Base Year to Future No Build (2030).
                                      (2) Represent % change in peak period travel demand from Future No Build to Future Build Scenario.
                                      (3) GUL Represents General Use Lane.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                                                                                                                                          103
                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



1. Holland Tunnel HOV3+ Priority Lane Inbound, PM HOV 3+ Priority Access Plan
Outbound plus One-way Pair Canal Street Eastbound/Grand Street Westbound.
AM peak period traffic volumes projected in the Holland Tunnel area generally reflected a
blending of the traffic patterns forecasted for each component of this second level scenario.
Likewise, a further reduction in Canal Street eastbound traffic levels by approximately 500
vehicles and a slight traffic reduction on Walker Street relative to first level analysis were also
forecast. AM peak period traffic projections on Grand Street relative to the No Build indicated
traffic increases from 2600 vehicles to 2800 vehicles east of Lafayette Street, which is higher
than that forecast for the one-way pair alone and approximately the same or slightly less than No
Build levels west of Lafayette Street. Broome Street AM peak period traffic levels were
projected to increase slightly relative to the No Build and were forecast to be approximately the
same as traffic levels forecast for the one-way pair alone. Northbound AM peak period traffic
volumes were projected to increase 2300 vehicles and 1300 vehicles on the Bowery and Chrystie
Street, respectively, relative to the No Build, which is higher than that forecasted for the one-way
pair alone. On Worth Street, eastbound AM peak period traffic forecasts were lower relative to
the one-way pair alone, westbound forecasts were about same, while eastbound forecasts on
Chambers Street were slightly lower.

PM peak period traffic forecasts reflected the combined pattern of the PM HOV 3+ Priority
Access Plan to the Holland Tunnel and one-way pair in the western part of the study area and
that of the one-way pair alone in the eastern portion of the study area.

Summary - Canal Street
•     Additional reduction in eastbound AM peak period traffic relative to one-way pair alone
Summary- Other Roadways
•     Slight increase in westbound traffic on sections Grand Street and the Bowery relative to one-
      way pair alone
•     Additional reduction in eastbound AM peak period traffic on Worth St and Chambers St
      relative to one-way pair alone




104                                                  Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



TABLE V-5             SECOND LEVEL ANALYSIS - COMPARISON WITH THE MANHATTAN BRIDGE HOV2+ SCENARIO AT THE EAST RIVER
                      CROSSINGS

                                                                                                                                                     Future Year (2030) Scenario
                                                                                                 No Build                                                Manhattan Bridge w/ HOV2+                           Holland Tunnel HOV3+
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Canal St./Grand St. Oneway Operation
                                                                           AM              PM               AM                PM                AM             PM            AM            PM         AM           PM         AM        PM
                   Crossing Facilities                Dir                                                % Diff (1)       % Diff (1)                                      % Diff (2)    % Diff (2)                          % Diff (2) % Diff (2)
                   East River & New York Bay Crossing
           Brooklyn Battery Tunnel                    EB                      3,065          10,822              24%               17%                2,994      10,859           -2%           0%      2,938      11,093        -4%          3%
                                                     WB                      12,674           7,525              11%               25%               12,706       7,507            0%           0%     13,032       7,504         3%          0%

           Brooklyn Bridge                              EB                   13,628          17,741              19%               16%               13,701      17,653            1%           0%     13,109      18,198        -4%          3%
                                                        WB                   17,806          17,577              17%               26%               17,694      17,506           -1%           0%     18,396      17,235         3%         -2%

           Manhattan Bridge                          EB                       7,415          11,609              31%               19%                7,337      12,172          -1%            5%      7,040      11,710        -5%          1%
                                                  WB_GUL(3)                   8,642           6,583              14%               12%                6,780       6,620         -22%            1%
                                                 WB_HOV2+(4)                  2,201                              29%                                  4,330                      97%
                                                   WB Total                  10,843           6,583              17%               12%               11,110       6,620           2%            1%     11,618       6,606         7%          0%

           Williamsburg Bridge                          EB                    9,056          16,205              23%               31%                9,129      15,980            1%           -1%     8,575      16,324        -5%          1%
                                                        WB                   15,426          11,421              21%               26%               15,337      11,312           -1%           -1%    15,821      11,166         3%         -2%

           Queens Midtown Tunnel                        EB                    5,684          12,213              16%               11%                5,674      12,667           0%            4%      5,736      12,506         1%          2%
                                                        WB                   15,347          12,043               9%               14%               15,480      11,997           1%            0%     15,648      11,981         2%         -1%

           Queens Borough Bridge                        EB                  15,539           27,740              29%               23%           15,343          27,628           -1%            0%    15,165      28,065        -2%          1%
                                                        WB                  28,859           23,035              18%               30%           28,839          22,800            0%           -1%    29,510      22,784         2%         -1%
                                                        EB                  54,387           96,331              24%               20%           54,178          96,959            0%            1%    52,563      97,896        -3%          2%
           Total                                        WB                 100,956           78,184              16%               24%          101,166          77,743            0%           -1%   104,025      77,276         3%         -1%


                                                                                                                    Future Year (2030) Scenario
                                                                                  Manhattan Bridge HOV2+                                   Holland Tunnel HOV3+, Manhattan Bridge HOV2+
                                                                            Canal St./Grand St. Oneway Operation                                Canal St./Grand St. Oneway Operation
                                                                           AM          PM          AM          PM                             AM            PM          AM           PM
                  Crossing Facilities                 Dir                                                % Diff (2)       % Diff (2)                                      % Diff (2)    % Diff (2)
                   East River & New York Bay Crossing
           Brooklyn Battery Tunnel                    EB                      2,998          10,947               -2%              1%                 3,011      10,497           -2%           -3%
                                                     WB                      13,054           7,493                3%              0%                13,356       7,456            5%           -1%

           Brooklyn Bridge                              EB                   13,516          17,760               -1%               0%               13,211      18,465           -3%            4%
                                                        WB                   17,678          17,329               -1%              -1%               18,394      17,117            3%           -3%

           Manhattan Bridge                          EB                       7,516          11,802               1%                2%                7,147      11,594           -4%           0%
                                                  WB_GUL(3)                   6,005           6,484             -31%               -2%                6,672       6,543
                                                 WB_HOV2+(4)                  4,513                             105%                                  4,453                    102%
                                                   WB Total                  10,518           6,484              -3%               -2%               11,125       6,543          3%             -1%

           Williamsburg Bridge                          EB                    8,787          15,882               -3%              -2%                8,701      16,084           -4%           -1%
                                                        WB                   15,534          11,180                1%              -2%               15,921      11,191            3%           -2%

           Queens Midtown Tunnel                        EB                    5,700          12,510                0%               2%                5,738      12,452           1%             2%
                                                        WB                   15,414          11,949                0%              -1%               15,539      11,960           1%            -1%

           Queens Borough Bridge                        EB                  15,376           27,368               -1%              -1%           15,333          27,882           -1%            1%
                                                        WB                  28,785           22,590                0%              -2%           29,292          22,480            2%           -2%
                                                        EB                  53,892           96,269               -1%               0%           53,140          96,975           -2%            1%
           Total                                        WB                 100,983           77,025                0%              -1%          103,629          76,747            3%           -2%

                                          Note: (1) Represent % change in peak period travel demand from Base Year to Future No Build (2030).
                                                (2) Represent % change in peak period travel demand from Future No Build to Future Build Scenario.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                       105
                                                                          Canal Area Transportation Study



2. Manhattan Bridge AM HOV2+ Lower Level Inbound plus One-way Pair Canal Street
Eastbound/Grand Street Westbound.
This second level scenario would differ operationally from the first level one-way pair scenario
only during the AM peak period when the Manhattan Bridge HOV restriction would be in affect.
Therefore, significant differences in traffic projections from the first level one-way pair scenario
would be expected only during the AM peak period.

During the AM peak period in the Manhattan Bridge area, the general traffic pattern of the one-
way pair alone was evident in the forecasts, although a higher traffic flow on the Bowery was
projected along with a lower flow on Chrystie Street, which likely resulted from the reallocated
assignment of vehicles between the upper and lower levels, with vehicles on the lower level
(HOV2+) exiting the bridge to the Bowery. Generally similar traffic levels were forecast on
Grand Street and Broome Street as that of the one-way pair scenario. On Worth Street and
Chambers Street, slightly lower westbound traffic levels were forecast than that of the one-way
pair scenario.

Summary – Canal Street
•     Reduction in total traffic very similar to one-way pair scenario

Summary – Other Study Area Roadways
•     Similar pattern to one-way pair scenario with some variation in vicinity of Manhattan Bridge

3. Holland Tunnel HOV3+ Priority Lane Inbound, PM HOV 3+ Priority Access Plan
Outbound plus Manhattan Bridge AM HOV2+ Lower Level Inbound plus One-way Pair
Canal Street Eastbound/Grand Street Westbound.
During the AM peak period in the vicinity of the Holland Tunnel, traffic volume forecasts for
this second level scenario were similar to those of the HOV 3+ plus one-way pair second level
scenario. Similar volume levels were projected on the Bowery as for all second level scenarios,
and the traffic levels projected on Chrystie Street were similar to second level scenarios that
include the HOV2+ Scenario on the Manhattan Bridge. Traffic projections on all other roadways
in the study area were similar to those projected for the combination of the Holland Tunnel
HOV3+ Priority Lane Inbound plus one-way pair.

Because the Manhattan Bridge HOV2+ restriction is only in effect during the AM peak period,
this second level scenario would be operationally the same as the HOV 3+ Priority Access Plan
Outbound plus one-way pair in the PM peak period.

Summary – Canal Street
•     Similar forecasts as the Holland Tunnel HOV 3+ plus one-way pair second level scenario
•
Summary – Other Study Area Roadways
•     Similar forecasts as Holland Tunnel HOV 3+ plus one-way pair second level scenario except
      on Chrystie Street




106                                                    Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



V-4        CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the findings of this assessment of traffic reduction/diversion scenarios using the
NYBPM and other considerations, the One-Way Pair scenario was advanced to a supplemental
analysis using a traffic micro-simulation model to reveal any fatal flaws with the concept. This
supplemental analysis compared the forecasted operation of the One-Way Pair scenario to a “No-
Build” forecast of conditions if no improvements are made and an Adjusted Two-Way
Alternative incorporating traffic and pedestrian operations safety improvements and left-turn
restrictions. The results of this supplemental analysis are detailed in Chapter VI. As noted
previously, subsequent to the assessment of traffic reduction/diversion scenarios reported above,
the New York City Department of Transportation implemented an HOV2+ lane on the upper
level of the Manhattan Bridge inbound to Manhattan weekdays between the hours of 6:00 AM
and 10:00 AM, and the Port Authority established standing restrictions for all hours in both
directions at the Holland Tunnel, limiting access to trucks of no more than three axles and
prohibiting tractor trailers.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                107
                                                                        Canal Area Transportation Study




         CHAPTER VI – SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS:
         DEVELOPMENT OF CANAL STREET
         ALTERNATIVES
Two basic alternatives were progressed for supplemental analysis using simulation micro-
simulation traffic model: an Adjusted Two-Way Alternative and a One-Way Alternative. The
supplemental work involved detailed analysis of the one-way pair alternative in relation to a No
Build analysis and an analysis of an adjusted two-way alternative. This supplemental analysis
was undertaken at the request of the community and member agencies, and included a parking
analysis. Within each alternative, operational and physical elements comprised each basic
alternative with possible design options that responded to specific corridor objectives. Also,
design options for certain corridor segments were applicable to both the Two-Way and One-Way
Alternatives, although certain adjustments were necessary to conform to the geometric
requirements of each alternative. Both alternatives provided 11-foot lanes along Canal Street
wherever possible.

The design options identified in this document were reviewed by NYCDOT and other agencies
on the CATS II Steering Committee. Agency comments were used to refine the configuration of
the Two-Way and One-Way Alternative for testing with the VISSIM traffic simulation model
that was developed for CATS II. The simulation modeling of each alternative is discussed in
Chapter VII.

This chapter provides the details associated with the Two-Way and One-Way Alternatives. The
concept plans for the two alternatives were developed and are available in the Transportation
Scenarios Technical Memorandum.

VI-1       ADJUSTED TWO-WAY ALTERNATIVE
The Two-Way Alternative includes the following elements that are further described in the
sections that follow:

•     Left-turn restrictions along Canal Street between Elizabeth Street and Lafayette Street, and
      on Eastbound Canal Street at West Broadway and at Greene Street, and on Westbound Canal
      Street at Broadway
•     Curb extensions along Canal Street between Elizabeth Street and Mulberry Street
•     Curb extensions along Canal Street between Baxter Street and Lafayette Street
•     Modification of Canal Street cross section between Broadway and Avenue of the Americas
•     The number of lanes along Canal Street between Avenue of the Americas and Elizabeth
      Street would vary between two and three lanes in each direction.



108                                                  Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



VI-1.1 Left-Turn Restrictions along Canal Street between Elizabeth Street and
       Lafayette Street
The constrained width of Canal Street limits the opportunities to provide for left-turn lanes along
Canal Street. Certain intersections provide traffic signal phases to facilitate left-turn movements
from Canal Street. However, even where a left-turn lane (e.g., eastbound at Elizabeth Street) or
left-turn phasing (e.g., West Broadway, Centre Street, Lafayette Street and Broadway) is
provided, conflicts with pedestrians often limit the effectiveness of the left-turn treatments. The
left-turn phasing holds the opposing vehicular traffic, but conflicting pedestrian crossings
continue even when signaled to wait. When the left-turn movement cannot be completed due to
conflicting pedestrians in the crosswalk, other vehicles are blocked, (either following in the same
direction or approaching in the opposite direction) reducing the number of effective through
lanes on Canal Street. As a result, left turns along Canal Street adversely affect traffic operations
as well as pedestrian and motorist safety.

As indicated in The New York City Pedestrian Safety Study and Action Plan (August 2010), left-
turning crashes that involved pedestrian fatalities or severe injuries outnumbered right-turning
crashes by a margin of 3 to 1. The report noted that: “When turning left, the driver’s visibility is
partially blocked by the A-pillar (the support between the windshield and side window), making
it harder to see pedestrians in the left crosswalk. In addition, the left-turning maneuver requires
more mental effort than a right turn, leading to more driver error.” Therefore, by eliminating left
turns at certain locations, the Two-Way Alternative would reduce conflicts involving pedestrians
and vehicles and improve pedestrian safety along the Canal Street corridor.

The Two-Way Alternative incorporates prohibiting left-turn movements on Canal Street
approaches between Elizabeth Street and Lafayette Street. These prohibitions would need to be
in effect on weekdays and weekends. Although the detailed operational periods of these
prohibitions would need to be determined, it was assumed that they would be in effect during the
weekday and Sunday hours analyzed in this study and likely during extended hours (e.g., 7 AM
to 12 midnight), and they could potentially be in effect at all times. In addition, for the VISSIM
traffic simulation, peak-period left turns were prohibited on eastbound Canal Street at West
Broadway and Green Street and on westbound Canal Street at Broadway.

The potential benefits of implementing left-turn restrictions would include:

•   Improved pedestrian safety by eliminating conflicts with left-turning vehicles.
•   Improved traffic safety by eliminating left-turn vehicle conflicts.
•   Improved traffic operations/increased capacity by eliminating conflicts and lane changes
    related to left-turn movements.
•   Opportunity to remove a peak period moving lane and increase sidewalk area by installing
    bulb-outs.

There were, however, potential issues that needed further consideration, including:

•   Availability of alternative routes to accommodate prohibited left turns, and operational
    implications of additional traffic. Figures VI-1 and VI-2 show potential rerouting of


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                    109
                                                                             Canal Area Transportation Study



      prohibited left turns for eastbound and westbound left turns, respectively, on Canal Street. In
      most cases, this rerouting would involve making a right turn at the upstream intersection and
      utilizing the parallel east/west street to turn onto the north/south street. Traffic data indicated
      that many of the vehicles making the eastbound left turn from Canal Street onto West
      Broadway were coming from the Holland Tunnel. An alternate routing for these vehicles
      would be available by using Exit 3 on the tunnel rotary (Ericsson Place/eastbound Beach
      Street). Table VI-1 presents 2005 left-turn volumes at each location for the AM, PM, and
      Sunday peak hours.
•     Potential to reduce pavement width and widen sidewalks to improve pedestrian mobility.
•     Possible provision of right-turn lanes to maintain traffic throughput.

In the Two-Way Alternative, the benefits of eliminating selected left turns appear to outweigh
the disbenefits of increasing right-turn associated delay with the rerouted traffic desiring to turn
left. As a result, overall conditions along Canal Street in the Two-Way Alternative could
improve as compared to future No-Build conditions.


FIGURE VI-1: EASTBOUND LEFT-TURN PROHIBITIONS & POTENTIAL
             ALTERNATE ROUTES




110                                                     Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



FIGURE VI-2: WESTBOUND LEFT-TURN PROHIBITIONS & POTENTIAL
             ALTERNATE ROUTES




TABLE VI-1: SUMMARY OF PEAK-HOUR LEFT TURN VOLUMES AND
            POTENTIAL ALTERNATE ROUTES IF MOVEMENT WAS PROHIBITED

                                      Volume                         Potential Alternate Route(s)
      Movement                 AM      PM SUN
EB LT at Greenwich Street       50      10   10        Rt. 9A NB RT onto EB Spring St. to NB Greenwich St.
                                                       EB RT onto Varick St. south to EB Beach St. to NB W.
EB LT at West Broadway*        285     245       205
                                                       Broadway
                                                       EB RT onto Broadway south to WB White St. to NB Church
EB LT at Greene Street           25         20    25
                                                       St.
                                                       EB RT onto Lafayette St. south to EB Walker St. to NB
EB LT at Centre Street         165     220       285
                                                       Centre St.
                                                       EB RT onto Baxter St. south to EB Bayard St. to NB
EB LT at Mulberry Street         30         45   70
                                                       Mulberry St.
                                                       EB RT onto Mott St. south to EB Bayard St. to NB Elizabeth
EB LT at Elizabeth Street        55         70    80
                                                       St.
                                                       WB RT onto Elizabeth St. north to WB Hester St. to SB Mott
WB LT at Mott Street             80         80    80
                                                       St.
                                                       WB RT onto Mulberry St. north to WB Hester St. to SB
WB LT at Baxter Street           60         40    45
                                                       Baxter St
                                                       WB RT onto Centre St. north to WB Howard St. to SB
WB LT at Lafayette Street        85         45    75
                                                       Lafayette S
                                                       Option 1: WB RT onto Centre St. north to WB Howard St. to
                                                       SB Broadway
WB LT at Broadway                70         85   55
                                                       Option 2 WB RT onto Greene St. north to EB Grand St. to
                                                       SB Broadway
WB LT at Varick Street           80         50    35   WB THRU to WB LT at Greenwich St. south


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                111
                                                                                                 Canal Area Transportation Study


*     Traffic data indicated that many of these left turns are from the Holland Tunnel and could use Exit 3 on the tunnel rotary
      (Ericsson Place/eastbound Beach Street) to access northbound West Broadway


Right-turn lanes would be provided on eastbound Mott Street, Baxter Street, and Lafayette Street
and on westbound Elizabeth Street, Mulberry Street, and Centre Street to limit the impact of the
traffic reroutings.

VI-1.2 Curb Extensions along Canal Street between Elizabeth Street and
       Mulberry Street
The sidewalks on the north and south sides of Canal Street in this section accommodate a large
volume of pedestrians. At intersections, pedestrians often overflow the sidewalks at the corners.
The proposed modification involves the construction of curb extensions at selected corners along
Canal Street intersections and eliminating the use of the curb lane as a peak period through lane.

The benefits of the curb extensions would include:

•     Improved pedestrian mobility by widening the sidewalks in this area.
•     Improved pedestrian safety by reducing pedestrian overflow into the curb lane.

However, the potential effects of the curb extensions on traffic operations in the corridor needed
to be considered.

Curb extensions would be constructed at the following locations:
• On the northwest and southwest corners of Canal Street and Elizabeth Street, and on the
      northeast, northwest, and southeast corners of Canal Street and Mott Street. Curb extensions
      would range from approximately eight to ten feet wide.
•     On the northwest corner of Canal Street and Mulberry Street. Curb extension would be up to
      five feet wide.
•     On Canal Street and Mulberry Street. Curb extensions would be about 11 feet wide on the
      southwest corner and 8 feet wide on the southeast corner.


VI-1.3 Curb Extensions along Canal Street between Mulberry Street and
       Lafayette Street
The sidewalk on the north side of Canal Street on both sides of Lafayette Street is obstructed by
the subway elevators that reduce the effective walking width for pedestrians. The width is further
reduced by the location of the elevator opening and the merchandise displayed by retailers
opposite the elevators. As a result, some pedestrians use the westbound adjacent travel lane to
get around the obstructions.

The modification involves construction of curb extensions on the northwest and southeast
corners of the intersection of Canal Street and Lafayette Street, and widening the northern
sidewalk between Lafayette Street and Centre Street.



112                                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



Potential benefits would include:

•   Improved pedestrian mobility by widening the sidewalk in this area.
•   Improved pedestrian safety by reducing pedestrian overflow into the curb lane.

There are, however, potential issues that needed further consideration, including:

•   Effects of the removal of the curb lane from usage as a travel lane during certain hours of the
    day on traffic operations in the corridor.
•   Tradeoff between an additional curb extension on the northeast corner at Canal Street and
    Centre Street versus providing a westbound right-turn lane approaching Centre Street.

Curb extensions would be constructed at specified locations along this section of Canal Street.
Curb extensions would range between 6 to 12 feet in width.

VI-1.4 Modification of Canal Street Cross Section between Broadway and Avenue
       of the Americas
The existing Canal Street cross section between Laight Street and Broadway is four eastbound
lanes and three westbound lanes. This configuration may have resulted from traffic needs years
ago when all eastbound Holland Tunnel traffic may have entered directly onto Canal Street. This
may not be the optimal cross section under current conditions.

This modification would involve revising the cross section to provide wider sidewalks on the
segment between Broadway and West Broadway. In addition, a westbound left-turn lane onto
Varick Street would be provided.

The potential benefits of this modification would include:

•   Improved pedestrian mobility by widening the sidewalks in this area.
•   Improved pedestrian safety by reducing pedestrian overflow into the adjacent travel lanes.
•   Improved operations and safety by providing a westbound left-turn lane onto Varick Street.

A potential issue related to this modification involved the number of eastbound lanes on Canal
Street east of Laight Street that would be possible. Maintaining four eastbound lanes on this
section to minimize potential queuing to the Holland Tunnel rotary was not possible if the lanes
along Canal Street were widened to 11 feet.

The modified cross section would allow widening the northern and southern sidewalks by
eliminating the fourth eastbound lane. The northern sidewalk was estimated to be widened
between three and four feet. The southern sidewalk was estimated to be widened between two
and seven feet.

VI-2       ONE-WAY ALTERNATIVE
The One-Way Alternative consists of Canal Street operating one-way eastbound (between
Varick Street and the Bowery) paired with a shift of traffic flow to one-way westbound on Grand


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                    113
                                                                          Canal Area Transportation Study



Street between Chrystie Street and Varick Street. A primary objective of the One-Way
Alternative was to create an opportunity to modify the cross section of Canal Street by reducing
the total number of traffic lanes and increasing sidewalk widths.

In this alternative, Canal Street would have three eastbound lanes at all times between Broadway
and Mulberry Street and parking on both sides. Auxiliary lanes would be provided at
intersections to facilitate turns. Canal Street west of Broadway would consist of four travel lanes
during peak periods and three travel lanes during other times. Parking would be allowed at all
times along the north curb. Canal Street between Mulberry Street and the Bowery would consist
of four travel lanes during the PM peak period and three travel lanes during other times. Parking
would be allowed at all times along the north curb. Parking supply along Canal Street would
increase under this alternative through the elimination of peak period restrictions along certain
block faces. Parking use restrictions along those blocks on Canal Street where parking would be
permitted either part or full time, such as to commercial vehicles only and the hours of such
restrictions, would need to be defined further.

The One-Way Alternative would require modifications to the Bowery, Chrystie Street and Grand
Street. For purposes of running the VISSIM traffic simulation model, the following network
changes were reflected in the concept plan:

•     A northbound exclusive left-turn lane on the Bowery at Grand Street. This would require
      prohibiting parking at all times along the east curb approximately 200 feet south of, and 100
      feet north of, Grand Street. The traffic signal phasing and timing also were modified.
•     A northbound exclusive left-turn lane on Christie Street at Grand Street. The traffic signal
      phasing and timing were also modified.
•     Relocation of the bicycle lane from Grand Street to an alternate location to be determined.
•     AM peak period – provided three travel lanes on Grand Street from Chrystie Street to Centre
      Street by prohibiting parking on both sides; provided three travel lanes from Centre Street to
      Broadway by prohibiting parking on the north side (left lane, left-turn-only at Broadway);
      and provided two travel lanes from Broadway to Varick Street by prohibiting parking on the
      north side.
•     PM peak period – provided two travel lanes on Grand Street from Chrystie Street to Centre
      Street by prohibiting parking on the north side; provided three travel lanes from Centre Street
      to Broadway (left lane, left-turn only at Broadway) by prohibiting parking on the north side;
      and provided three travel lanes from Broadway to Varick Street by prohibiting parking on
      both sides.
•     Sunday peak period – same as PM peak period.
•     Parking restrictions at other times to be determined.
•     Designate Grand Street as through truck route from Chrystie Street to Varick Street.
•     Holland Tunnel access from Grand Street via southbound Varick Street to westbound Canal
      Street using two right lanes separated by stanchions.




114                                                    Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



The potential benefits of this modification would include:

•   Increased pedestrian sidewalk area along Canal Street.
•   Opportunity to develop enhanced urban design type concepts along Canal Street.
•   Head-on left-turn conflicts eliminated, increased throughput and improved safety.

There are, however, potential issues that needed further consideration including:

•   Loss of parking along Grand Street.
•   Relocation of Grand Street bike lane.
•   Change in character of Grand Street, higher proportion of through vehicle trips, including
    potential for additional trucks.
•   Queue of traffic approaching outbound Holland Tunnel may extend onto the western end of
    Grand Street.

The following are the design details associated with the One-Way Alternative:

•   Canal Street from Varick Street to Broadway:
       − Four lanes during the AM and PM peak periods, with parking allowed all times on the
           north side of Canal Street east of Avenue of the Americas.
       − Parking possible on the south side of Canal Street during off-peak periods east of
           Avenue of the Americas.
       − Lane configuration from north curb:
           8 foot parking lane
           2-11 foot lanes
           1-12 foot lane
           1-11 foot curb lane
       − Right lane drop at Broadway (right turn only)
       − Approximate sidewalk width increment – 12 feet on the north side plus bulb outs
           where indicated, 5 feet on the south side
       − Possible sidewalk encroachment at the northwest corner of Canal Street and Varick
           Street to better facilitate the double southbound right-turn lanes onto westbound
           Canal Street.
•   Canal Street from Broadway to Mulberry Street:
         − Three lanes at all times plus turn lanes where indicated
         − Parking at all times on the north and south curbs except where turn lanes are provided
         − Lane configuration from north curb:
           8 foot parking lane
           2-11 foot lanes
           1-12 foot lane
           8 foot parking lane



Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                115
                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



         − Exclusive 10 foot right-turn lane at Lafayette Street and exclusive 10 foot left-turn
           lane at Centre Street
         − Approximate sidewalk width increment – 7 feet on the north side plus bulb outs
           where indicated, 4 feet on the south side plus bulb outs where indicated
•     Mulberry Street to the Bowery:
         − Four lanes during the PM peak period, with parking allowed all times on the north
           side.
         − Parking possible on the south side except during the PM peak period.
         − Lane configuration from north curb:
           8 foot parking lane
           2-11 foot lanes
           1-12 foot lane
           1-11 foot curb lane
         − Significant expansion of Baxter Street triangle possible
         − Exclusive left- and right-turn lanes at the Bowery
         − Realignment of Manhattan Bridge approach necessary
         − Approximate sidewalk width increment – 11 feet on the north side plus bulb outs
           where indicated, 10 feet on the south side plus bulb outs where indicated

VI-3       COMMON ELEMENTS: TWO-WAY AND ONE-WAY ALTERNATIVES
There are modifications that would be common to both the One-Way and Two-Way
Alternatives. These include:
• Reconfiguration of the Intersection of Canal Street at the Bowery/Manhattan Bridge
•     Modification of Canal Street Cross Section between Hudson Street and Washington Street

VI-3.1 Reconfiguration of the Intersection of Canal Street at the
       Bowery/Manhattan Bridge
A high volume of pedestrians is present on the north side of Canal Street east of the Bowery.
Canal Street in this area is a major desire line for pedestrian movement between Chinatown, the
Lower East Side, Allen Street Mall, and indirectly to the East River waterfront. Pedestrians in
this area have difficulty crossing at the eastern end of the triangular island opposite the
Manhattan egress from the Manhattan Bridge lower level. This difficulty is caused by the
uncontrolled traffic movement proceeding northbound onto the Bowery from the Manhattan
Bridge lower level and the movement from westbound Canal Street (i.e., from the upper level).

This modification encompasses reconfiguration of the triangular island to eliminate the through
movement along the eastern side of the island to the northbound Bowery. To accommodate the
rerouted traffic that would be turning right at the signalized intersection with the Bowery, the
island was reconfigured to accommodate a right-turn lane on the westbound approach. Two other
modifications were included in this area: (1) the installation of a midblock pedestrian crossing
and traffic signal on the Bowery between Canal Street and Bayard Street and (2) the


116                                                  Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



reconfiguration of the right-turn movement from northbound Canal Street to the Manhattan
Bridge upper level to reduce vehicular speeds and improve pedestrian safety.

The potential benefits associated with these modifications include:
• Improved pedestrian safety by eliminating the conflicts with the vehicles destined for the
   northbound Bowery at the eastern end of the triangular island.
•   Improved pedestrian mobility on this key pedestrian route on Canal Street.
•   Reduced conflicts between vehicular movements entering Manhattan from the upper and
    lower levels of the Manhattan Bridge.

There was a potential issue involving the possible queue spillback from the traffic signal at the
Bowery to extend onto the Manhattan Bridge.

The design details related to this modification were:
• Added 12-foot westbound right-turn lane at the Bowery.
•   Striped westbound center lane as shared through/right-turn lane.
•   Narrowed the right-turn lane from the northbound Bowery to the Manhattan Bridge upper
    level to 16 feet.
•   Provided a midblock pedestrian crossing and traffic signal on the Bowery between Canal
    Street and Bayard Street.

VI-3.2 Modification of Canal Street Cross Section between Hudson Street and
       Washington Street
Since this section of Canal Street is west of the Holland Tunnel entrance, westbound traffic
volumes are very low along this segment. The section to the west between Washington Street
and Route 9A includes Canal Park with median channelization along Canal Street. In addition,
there are stanchions in the median area to the west near the Holland Tunnel entrance. As detailed
below, Canal Street in this section was reconfigured to provide a median for improving
pedestrian safety and to enhance aesthetics. In addition, a left-turn lane was added for westbound
Canal Street at Greenwich Street in the median treatment.

The following were the design details associated with this modification:

•   Retained eastbound lane configuration on eastbound Canal Street.
•   Reconfigured westbound Canal Street to widen the northern sidewalk by about nine feet
    between Hudson and Renwick Streets.
•   Provided 6-foot wide median between the eastern end of Canal Park and Greenwich Street.
•   Added 11-foot wide median on the section of Canal Street east of Hudson Street.

VI-4       URBAN DESIGN
The development of two Canal Street alternatives for further analysis was interwoven with the
CATS II efforts to develop an urban design framework plan. The purpose of this plan is to


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                 117
                                                                       Canal Area Transportation Study



complement the CATS Track II efforts with a "high level road map" of opportunities and
preliminary urban design criteria for the Canal Street corridor. The Urban Design Framework
Plan was built on the community input, values, and themes to apply in the development and
evaluation of the alternatives. The plan identifies typical street section conditions along Canal
Street based on the two alternatives and illustrates opportunities for improving pedestrian flow
and streetscape.

Table VI-2 provides sidewalk widths for each street segment along the corridor under existing
conditions and for each of the two Canal Street. The plan also identifies urban design elements
that could be improved and new elements introduced along Canal Street to enhance quality of
life within the community as defined in the Guiding Principles.




118                                                Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



TABLE VI-2: ESTIMATED MIDBLOCK SIDEWALK AND ROADWAY WIDTHS ALONG CANAL STREET (EAST TO WEST)*
                                     No Build Width (feet)                  Width (feet) in Two-Way Concept Plan                  Width (feet) in One-Way Concept Plan
                          North                    South                North                      South                      North                      South
    Cross Street         Sidewalk    Roadway     Sidewalk      Total   Sidewalk    Roadway       Sidewalk     Total          Sidewalk    Roadway       Sidewalk      Total
Bowery Street
                            11.4        74.2           12.5     98.1     11.4         74.2           12.5          98.1         23.6         52.0        22.5         98.1
Elizabeth Street
                            13.6        73.5           12.6     99.7     13.6         73.5           12.6          99.7         25.4         52.0        22.3         99.7
Mott Street
                            13.5        73.1           12.8     99.4     13.5         73.1           12.8          99.4         24.2         52.0        23.2         99.4
Mulberry Street
                                                    Bax/
                            19.0        66.1        Walk        85.1     19.0         50.0           16.2          85.1         26.0         41.0        18.1         85.1
                                                    Triangle
Baxter Street
                            17.4        59.0           20.5     96.9     17.4         59.0           20.5          96.9         24.4         49.1        23.4         96.9
Centre Street
                            18.5        59.9           19.5     98.0     27.8         50.7           19.5          98.0         25.0         51.5        21.5         98.0
Lafayette Street
                            14.8        62.0           18.5     95.3     14.8         62.0           18.5          95.3         23.1         49.1        23.1         95.3
Cortland Alley
                            18.2        59.3           19.1     96.6     18.2         59.3           19.1          96.6         24.7         48.9        23.0         96.6
Broadway
                            12.7        70.4           12.3     95.4     15.4         61.0           19.0          95.4         22.6         55.2        17.6         95.4
Mercer Street
                            12.3        70.8           13.0     96.2     16.5         63.9           15.8          96.2         23.7         54.7        17.8         96.2
Greene/Church Streets
                            11.6        70.7           14.6     96.8     15.3         63.9           17.6          96.8         24.3         52.0        20.5         96.8
Wooster Street
                            14.2        69.5           12.7     96.4     16.4         67.1           12.8          96.4         25.1         52.0        19.3         96.4
W. Broadway
                            18.4        67.1           17.6    103.1     18.4         67.1           17.6        103.1          24.3         53.0        25.8        103.1
Thompson/ Ave of the
Americas
                            17.5        69.4            8.2     95.1     17.5         69.4            8.2          95.1         25.5         61.4         8.2         95.1
Varick Street
                            18.3       110.3            5.8    134.4     18.3        110.3            5.8        134.4          18.3        110.3         5.8        134.4
Hudson Street
                            16.1        63.4           17.8     97.3     24.7         54.9           17.8          97.3         16.1         63.4        17.8         97.3
Renwick/Watts Streets
                            17.9        63.1           17.8     98.7     17.9         63.1           17.8          98.7         17.9         63.1        17.8         98.7
Greenwich Street
                            18.6        64.4           16.1     99.1     18.6         64.4           16.1          99.1         18.6         64.4        16.1         99.1
Washington Street
Shading indicates segments with widened sidewalks                                            * Does not reflect curb extensions at intersections



Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                                                                           119
                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



      THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.




120                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II




         CHAPTER VII – SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS
         USING A MICRO-SIMULATION MODEL
A VISSIM micro-scale traffic simulation model was developed and used for traffic operations
evaluations of the three future alternative scenarios (i.e., No Build, Two-Way Canal Street with
Turn Prohibitions and Geometric Changes, and Canal Street One-Way Eastbound). To evaluate
and properly simulate the One-Way Alternative, the model (which originally included only
Canal Street and immediately adjacent streets as well as the entrances and exits to/from the
Holland Tunnel) was extended north to Spring Street and south to Franklin Street. Dynamic
assignment methodology within VISSIM was used to provide the opportunity for choice in paths
through the traffic network during the assignment in response to network congestion. Figure VII-
1 depicts the area modeled in VISSIM.

FIGURE VII-1: MICRO-SIMULATION MODEL COVERAGE AREA




The model was developed and calibrated for three time periods in the base year:

•   Weekday AM peak period (6 AM–10 AM)


Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                               121
                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



•     Weekday PM peak period (3 PM–7 PM)
•     Sunday midday peak period (2 PM – 6 PM)

VII-1      DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2008 BASE-YEAR MODELS
The base-year models used networks representing early fall 2008 conditions. It should be noted,
however, that the model calibration was based on a combination of traffic counts that were taken
in 2005 and in September 2008 (almost all the 2008 counts were in different locations than the
2005 counts). There were no major operational changes in between these two times (except for
certain turn restrictions imposed weekday mornings and Sundays at the exit from the upper
roadway of the Manhattan Bridge at the intersection of Canal and Chrystie Streets).

VII-1.1 2008 Network Development
The following tasks were performed to develop the VISSIM network for CATS II:

•     The network simulation area was defined for this project.
•     Geometry, lane usage, and operational characteristics (such as turning restrictions) were
      established and refined using aerial photographs and field observations.
•     All signal timings and offsets were determined using information provided by NYCDOT.
•     The interaction of pedestrians and vehicles at selected intersections along Canal Street was
      explicitly modeled.

VII-1.2 2008 Peak-Period Demand Matrix Development
As part of the development of the base-year models, it was necessary to develop peak-period
vehicular origin-destination (O/D) trip matrices for autos and trucks which, when assigned to the
model network using a peak-period temporal demand profile, produce peak-hour traffic volumes
and operating conditions which replicate observed volumes and conditions.

The development of the O/D trip matrices for the weekday AM and PM peaks involved three
major steps:

•     Establishment of “seed” trip table matrices for input to a matrix estimation process. This
      involved extracting AM and PM peak-period trip matrix information from the NYMTC
      NYBPM, and converting the resulting matrices to the more detailed zone system used for the
      CATS II VISSIM model.
•     Application of a matrix estimation process that incorporates observed traffic volumes.
•     Further adjustments to better match observed traffic volumes and conditions. Particular
      attention was paid to roadway segments that were identified as “priority links” in
      consultation with the Steering Committee.

For the Sunday midday peak period, information from the NYBPM was not available since there
is no NYBPM Sunday model. Traffic volumes and conditions (including areas of congestion) in
the Sunday midday peak period are more similar to those found during the weekday PM peak
period than during the weekday AM peak period. As a result, the weekday PM peak period trip


122                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



table matrices were used and modified to reflect the differences between weekday PM conditions
and Sunday midday conditions. Extensive traffic counts and aerial surveillance of Sunday traffic
volumes and conditions were applied throughout the process to derive the Sunday O/D trip
matrix for the Sunday midday peak period.

VII-1.3 2008 Model Validation
The VISSIM CATS II model accuracy was verified to ensure that it realistically replicates base-
year traffic volumes and conditions in the study area. Accuracy was measured in several ways:

•   Screenline traffic volume comparisons
•   Percent Root-Mean Square Error (%RMSE) by volume group and GEH Statistics
•   Goodness-of-fit (R2) of traffic volumes
•   Modeled versus field speed observations
•   Modeled versus field queue observations

Supporting materials prepared for this study provide the results of the validation efforts. Figures
VII-2 through VII-4 show plots of modeled versus observed traffic volumes for each of the three
peak hours.

The resulting estimated growth in PM peak trips was also applied to the Sunday peak trip
matrices.

VII-2      COMPARISONS OF AREA-WIDE AND SEGMENT-LEVEL TRAVEL TIMES:
           2030 NO-BUILD, TWO-WAY, AND ONE-WAY ALTERNATIVES
As noted in Chapter V, the One-Way Alternative was modeled using the NYMTC Best Practice
Model in the assessment of Level 1 and 2 scenarios. The traffic projections of future conditions
indicated no significant change in East River crossing traffic volumes and also no significant
change in Holland or Lincoln Tunnel crossing traffic volumes in comparison to traffic volumes
with two-way Canal Street operations.

To quantify the effects of the Two-Way and One-Way Alternatives on the Canal Street corridor
relative to a No-Build condition, statistics were collected from the VISSIM model runs
corresponding to the following scenarios:

•   2030 No-Build condition
•   2030 Two-Way Alternative
•   2030 One-Way Alternative




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                  123
                                                                                                 Canal Area Transportation Study



FIGURE VII-2: MODELED VS. OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WEEKDAY AM
              PEAK HOUR)

                                     AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Comparisons (Est vs Obs)

                  3,000




                  2,500




                  2,000

                                                                                           R² = 0.9588
      Estimated




                  1,500




                  1,000




                   500




                      0
                          0   500             1,000         1,500            2,000                  2,500         3,000
                                                           Observed




FIGURE VII-3: MODELED VS. OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WEEKDAY PM
              PEAK HOUR)

                                    PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Comparisons (Est vs Obs)

                  3,000




                  2,500




                  2,000


                                                                                   R² = 0.9605
      Estimated




                  1,500




                  1,000




                    500




                      0
                          0   500            1,000         1,500           2,000                 2,500         3,000

                                                           Observed




124                                                                Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



FIGURE VII-4: MODELED VS. OBSERVED TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SUNDAY MIDDAY
              PEAK HOUR)

                                     Sunday Peak Hour Traffic Volume Comparisons (Est vs Obs)
                       3,000




                       2,500




                       2,000
           Estimated




                       1,500



                                                                    R² = 0.9403
                       1,000




                        500




                           0
                               0   500         1,000        1,500                 2,000   2,500   3,000

                                                            Observed




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                             125
                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study




The networks for each of these alternatives contained the following operational changes that
have been made since September 2008:

•     Grand Street improvements, including addition of bicycle lane and removal of parking to
      create turning bays (modified with plan for westbound Grand Street operation in One-Way
      Alternative)
•     Chrystie Street improvements, including addition of bicycle lane and removal of parking to
      create turning bays
•     Prohibition of turns from the inbound Upper Level of the Manhattan Bridge onto westbound
      Canal Street, and from southbound Chrystie Street to westbound Canal Street (both in the
      AM and Sunday peaks)
•     Prohibitions of left turns onto northbound Bowery from both Grand and Kenmare Streets (in
      the One-Way Alternative the Grand Street prohibition did not apply)

NYCDOT will be installing a median on the Bowery between Canal Street and East Broadway.
This improvement was not incorporated into the model, since it is not expected to result in a
significant change in traffic conditions in the modeled area,

The Two-Way and One-Way Alternatives were described in detail in Chapter VI of this
document. When coding the One-Way Alternative in VISSIM, the following treatments were
included:

•     Turns were prohibited from northbound Sixth Avenue onto westbound Grand Street to
      facilitate the westbound flow on Grand Street.
•     A 20-second northbound left turn signal phase was added at the intersection of Bowery and
      Grand Street.
•     The signal at Grand Street and Varick Street was modified to provide an additional 10
      seconds per cycle to the westbound Grand Street approach.

The area-wide statistics are summarized in Tables VII-1 through VII-3.

TABLE VII-1: AREA-WIDE NETWORK PERFORMANCE (WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR)

                                                                     ALTERNATIVE
                                             2008          2030           2030              2030
                Parameter                    Base        No Build      Two-Way            One-Way
Average speed (mph), All Vehicle Types        12.09         10.25          10.05              9.66
Total delay time (h), All Vehicle Types      679.55        943.58         961.36          1,035.18
Total travel time (h), All Vehicle Types   1,242.79      1,526.40       1,540.81          1,619.09




126                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



TABLE VII-2: AREA-WIDE NETWORK PERFORMANCE (WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR)

                                                                    ALTERNATIVE
                                              2008        2030           2030            2030
                Parameter                     Base      No Build      Two-Way          One-Way
Average speed (mph), All Vehicle Types          7.38        5.88           5.44            4.94
Total delay time (h), All Vehicle Types     1,376.75    2,075.33       2,276.06        2,500.00
Total travel time (h), All Vehicle Types    1,985.35    2,724.59       2,921.24        3,133.91



TABLE VII-3: AREA-WIDE NETWORK PERFORMANCE (SUNDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR)

                                                                    ALTERNATIVE
                                              2008        2030           2030            2030
                Parameter                     Base      No Build      Two-Way          One-Way
Average speed (mph), All Vehicle Types          8.14        7.03           7.77            7.35
Total delay time (h), All Vehicle Types     1,117.72    1,556.06       1,362.86        1,434.71
Total travel time (h), All Vehicle Types    1,795.32    2,274.36       2,091.91        2,148.33



Under the No-Build scenario, area-wide traffic delays were projected to increase by 50 percent
during the weekday PM peak hour and by nearly 40 percent during the weekday AM and Sunday
midday peak hours. In addition, the existing pedestrian overcrowding along the Canal Street
corridor could only be expected to worsen.

When examining the overall performance for the entire street network, there was less than a 1-
mile per hour variation in speed among the three alternatives. However, an examination of the
projected performance of individual segments on key streets in the network provided insights
that enabled an assessment of the three alternatives. Tables VII-4 and VII-5 present summaries
that compare peak-hour speeds and traffic volumes for each alternative on key segments of the
modeled street network. Supporting materials prepared for this study include speed maps
showing VISSIM results by street segment and peak hour for each alternative (No Build, Two-
Way and One-Way) during each simulation peak period (weekday AM, weekday PM, and
Sunday midday). Also included in supporting materials are maps with one set of bar charts
comparing speeds and a second set comparing travel times by peak hour within each simulation
period (separate maps are included for east/west and north/south streets). These materials related
to the VISSIM model are included in VISSIM Traffic Simulation Model Technical
Memorandum.

The weekday AM peak hour did not exhibit congestion levels as extensive as occur during the
other peak hours, except for westbound Delancey Street entering the area (which is extremely
congested in all alternatives). The projected AM peak conditions did not distinguish significantly
between the One-Way and Two-Way Alternatives.

Several key findings were identified based on the VISSIM weekday PM peak results:

•   No-Build conditions would represent a continued deterioration in traffic congestion with no
    improvement for pedestrian and traffic safety.



Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                 127
                                                                                                         Canal Area Transportation Study



TABLE VII-4: PROJECT PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC SPEED (MPH) COMPARISONS (SEGMENTS ALONG SELECTED SCREENLINES)

                                                                 AM                      PM                       Sunday
                                                             ALTERNATIVE            ALTERNATIVE                ALTERNATIVE
Direction   Street/Roadway            Block
                                                         No-     Two-   One-    No-     Two-   One-        No-     Two-   One-
                                                        Build    Way    Way    Build    Way    Way        Build    Way    Way
  NB        Bowery            Canal St to Delancey St   10.0     12.8    6.7    9.8     11.7    8.5       11.2     13.9    5.9
  SB        Bowery            Delancey St to Canal St   13.2     12.5   10.5    3.8      4.3    2.6       13.4     13.1    5.7
  WB        Broome St         Chrystie St to Broadway   11.5     13.1    8.2    9.9     10.3   10.1        5.5      4.8    9.8
  WB        Broome/Watts St   Broadway to Varick St     11.9     12.4   11.2    1.0      1.2    0.9        1.4      1.3    3.9
  EB        Canal St          Hudson St to Broadway     18.3     12.9   12.3   12.8     11.0    3.1        4.0     13.7   11.4
  EB        Canal St          Broadway to Bowery         9.6     10.6   12.5    8.9      6.1    5.1        3.9      4.4    7.6
  WB        Canal St          Bowery to Broadway        13.9     15.9    NA    11.5     14.0    NA        12.9     15.6    NA
  WB        Canal St          Broadway to Hudson St     12.6     12.0    NA     4.6      2.8    NA         3.0      3.1    NA
  EB        Grand St          Varick St to Broadway      6.5      6.4    NA     2.5      4.0    NA         7.1      7.0    NA
  EB        Grand St          Broadway to Chrystie St   10.6     10.2    NA    10.0     11.5    NA        11.5      9.1    NA
  WB        Grand St          Chrystie St to Broadway    NA       NA     7.8    NA       NA     7.6        NA       NA     7.1
  WB        Grand St          Broadway to Varick St      NA       NA     6.2    NA       NA     3.9        NA       NA     8.0
  EB        Spring St         Hudson St to Broadway      8.6      7.9    8.1    4.2      4.6    0.6        6.0      4.4    0.8
  EB        Spring St         Broadway to Bowery         6.6      6.3    4.8    6.0      7.1    1.3        4.1      4.6    3.0
  EB        Walker St         Varick St to Canal St      9.2      9.8    9.3    6.1      2.4    4.0        8.0      8.3    4.0




128                                                                                   Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II




TABLE VII-5: PROJECT PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISONS (SEGMENTS ALONG SELECTED SCREENLINES)

                                                                AM                        PM                      Sunday
              Street/                                      ALTERNATIVE               ALTERNATIVE               ALTERNATIVE
Direction                            Block
             Roadway                                  No-      Two-    One-     No-      Two-    One-     No-      Two-    One-
                                                     Build     Way     Way     Build     Way     Way     Build     Way     Way
   NB        Bowery         Hester St to Grand St      837       845   1,103     672       689     509     606       559   1,133
   SB        Bowery         Grand St to Hester St      559       515     473     717       673     660     721       669     577
   WB        Broome St      Bowery to Elizabeth St     600       487     393     236       302     130     576       404     359
   WB        Broome St      Broadway to Mercer St      870       747     884     634       611     576     711       696     697
   WB        Watts St       East of Varick St          796       792     794     634       641     732     951       854   1,068
   EB        Canal St       East of Varick St          639       565     733     626       410     822     573       303     635
   EB        Canal St       Mercer St to Broadway    1,072     1,060   1,336     926     1,010   1,289     969       867   1,019
   EB        Canal St       Elizabeth St to Bowery   1,010     1,006   1,040   1,323     1,299   1,287   1,024     1,037   1,041
   WB        Canal St       Bowery to Elizabeth St     932       859     NA      733       617     NA      761       764     NA
   WB        Canal St       Broadway to Mercer St      784       857     NA      775       802     NA      798       840     NA
   WB        Canal St       East of Varick St        1,009       989     NA      944       922     NA      963     1,006     NA
   EB        Grand St       East of Varick St          107        77     NA      134       188     NA      167       238     NA
   EB        Grand St       Mercer St to Broadway      298       229     NA      500       558     NA      376       609     NA
   EB        Grand St       Elizabeth St to Bowery     276       298     NA      393       414     NA      347       339     NA
   WB        Grand St       Elizabeth St to Bowery     NA        NA      727     NA        NA      558     NA        NA    1,048
   WB        Grand St       Mercer St to Broadway      NA        NA      762     NA        NA      693     NA        NA      835
   WB        Grand St       East of Varick St          NA        NA      810     NA        NA      952     NA        NA      861
   EB        Spring St      East of Varick St          381       445     375     245       282      94     321       353     132
   EB        Spring St      Mercer St to Broadway      314       377     439     321       273     225     438       383     283
   EB        Spring St      Elizabeth St to Bowery     150       112     254     170       176     246     318       207     167
   EB        Walker St      East of Varick St          432       500     409     562       616     767     447       615     770
   EB        Walker St      Mercer St to Broadway      426       319     324     656       599     886     469       367     778




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                                 129
                                                                           Canal Area Transportation Study



•     In the Two-Way Alternative, which eliminates selected left turns from Canal Street, the
      model projected some sections of Canal Street would operate at a higher speed as compared
      with the projected future No Build condition, while other sections would operate at a lower
      speed. The lower speed on eastbound Canal Street was generally due to an increased volume
      of right turns (associated with the rerouted traffic desiring to turn left to travel northbound)
      combined with high pedestrian volumes. However, the lower speed was related generally to
      the right-turning traffic only and did not appear to adversely affect the eastbound through
      traffic on Canal Street. In the westbound direction on Canal Street, the higher throughput
      caused by the left-turn prohibitions along the eastern section appears to have resulted in a
      longer queue extending from the Holland Tunnel along the western section.
•     In the Two-Way Alternative, the model projected that a significant number of the eastbound
      vehicles, desiring to turn left (north) during the weekday PM peak period, would use Walker
      Street as part of the rerouting. Walker Street is already used heavily during weekday PM
      peak periods. The model, therefore, projected that in this alternative Walker Street would
      become extremely congested in the blocks approaching Centre Street. This is shown on
      Figure VII-5 which is a simulation screen shot from the VISSIM model. Otherwise, the
      model did not project significant impacts on traffic operations as a result of the Two-Way
      Alternative.
•     Pedestrian-vehicle left-turn conflicts have been significantly reduced in the Two-Way
      Alternative. Left-turn vehicular conflicts with pedestrians are problematic along Canal Street.
      A motorist initiating a left turn based on a gap in the opposing vehicular traffic often
      encounters pedestrians. As a result, a motorist may need to stop for pedestrians and
      consequently, may block vehicles approaching in the opposing traffic lane(s).
•     In the One-Way Alternative, where the direction of Grand Street was reversed from
      eastbound to westbound to compensate for the removal of westbound traffic from Canal
      Street, the model indicated that there is clearly insufficient remaining eastbound capacity
      within the area covered by the model to handle the expected eastbound demand during
      weekday PM peak. This was most prominently indicated by the projected extreme congestion
      along the entire length of Spring Street, as illustrated on Figure VII-7. Canal Street was also
      negatively impacted approaching Centre Street due to the increased left-turn volumes
      combined with conflicting high pedestrian volumes. This is shown on Figure VII-7

Findings related to Sunday midday peak conditions based on the VISSIM results are:

•     No-Build conditions would represent a continued deterioration in traffic congestion with no
      improvement for pedestrian and traffic safety.
•     During the Sunday midday peak, the Two-Way Alternative was projected to function well
      relative to the future No-Build condition. However, the One-Way Alternative still would not
      provide sufficient eastbound capacity, although congestion was not quite as severe as in the
      weekday PM peak. This was most prominently indicated by the projected extreme congestion
      along the entire length of Spring Street. This is shown in Figure VII-7. The western end of
      Spring Street was more congested than the eastern end; east of Lafayette Street, motorists
      were able to access Kenmare/Delancey Street via Lafayette Street and Mott Street to avoid
      congestion on eastbound Spring Street extending from the Bowery.



130                                                    Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II



•   In the Two-Way Alternative, the benefits of eliminating selected left turns appear to
    outweigh the disbenefits of increasing right-turn associated delay with the rerouted traffic
    desiring to turn left. As a result, operations along Canal Street were projected to improve as
    compared with the projected future No Build condition.
•   In the Two-Way Alternative, the model projected that a significant number of the eastbound
    vehicles, desiring to turn left (north) during the Sunday midday peak period, would use
    Walker Street as part of the rerouting. It appears that during this period there was sufficient
    residual capacity available to accommodate the rerouted left-turning traffic.
As observed during the PM peak, pedestrian-vehicle left-turn conflicts were significantly
reduced in the Two-Way Alternative.

Table VII-6 provides a qualitative assessment of the two build alternatives relative to the guiding
principles that were established early in CATS Track II. (The Guiding Principles were presented
and discussed in Chapter 4.) The Guiding Principles are grouped under the overall themes of:

•   Quality of Life
•   Accessibility
•   Mobility
•   Safety
•   Implementability

The assessment reflected the sidewalk widening in the One-Way Alternative was at least
partially offset by the potential negative impact of the one-way street operations on Grand Street
and Spring Street communities. It also reflected that the left-turn prohibitions in the Two-Way
Alternative may increase traffic volume on certain side streets. As a result, both alternatives were
expected to enhance the pedestrian environment along Canal Street but offered mixed results
regarding several of the other guiding principles related to quality of life. Similarly, in terms of
accessibility, both alternatives were expected to enhance pedestrian movement, but have mixed
results regarding other guiding principles.

The Two-Way Alternative may improve mobility along Canal Street, but adversely affected
operations along certain side streets that needed to accommodate the rerouted left-turn
movements. Mobility appeared to be adversely affected in the One-Way Alternative due to the
congestion that resulted due to the insufficient eastbound capacity within the area covered by the
model to handle the projected demand. Both alternatives were expected to have a positive impact
on pedestrian safety due to wider sidewalks and the elimination of certain conflicts involving
turning vehicles. In addition, both alternatives appeared to be implementable within a time frame
consistent with a future Canal Street reconstruction project. The One-Way Alternative would
require the relocation of the Grand Street bicycle lane.




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                   131
                                                                                      Canal Area Transportation Study



 TABLE VII-6: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE ALTERNATIVES IN RELATION TO CATS
              II GUIDING PRINCIPLES*
                                                      Canal Street Alternative
            Theme/Guiding Principle                   Two-Way         One-Way                   Comments
                                                  QUALITY OF LIFE
                                Enhance the community and livability within the community
Protect and reinforce community identities                 0             --/++      Potential negative impact of one-
    Definition: The potential of the proposed                                       way operation on Grand Street
    action to reflect that the neighborhoods of the                                 and Spring Street communities.
    CATS Track II study area are some of the
    most vibrant and distinct in New York City
    and that Canal Street serves as a Main Street.
    The special identity of these neighborhoods
    should be addressed in the context sensitive
    transportation alternatives considered in
    CATS Track II.
Enhance the pedestrian environment                        +              ++         Along Canal Street, major
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                        sidewalk widening in one-way
   action to enhance the pedestrian environment                                     alternative and some sidewalk
   through various means, involving access,                                         widening in two-way alternative.
   mobility and safety, while recognizing the
   need to preserve the character of
   neighborhoods along Canal Street.
Minimize traffic intrusion into residential                -              --        Turn prohibitions in the two-way
   neighborhoods and other sensitive areas                                          alternative may increase traffic
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                        volumes on side streets. One-way
   action to reduce the volume of through-traffic                                   alternative increases traffic
   in residential neighborhoods or in proximity                                     volume on residential/commercial
   to other sensitive areas.                                                        corridors of Spring Street and
                                                                                    Grand Street.
Support economic vitality and growth in the                0             -/+        One-way alternative has positive
   study area                                                                       impact from wider sidewalks that
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                        may be offset by negative impact
   action to support or enhance the area’s                                          of increased circuity and increased
   economic vitality and growth.                                                    congestion on certain streets.
Reduce vehicle emissions                                  -/+             -         Impact of two-way alternative on
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                        vehicle emissions may be mixed.
   action to improve air quality both locally and                                   In one-way alternative, vehicle
   regionally and as related to traffic volume,                                     emissions would likely increase.
   vehicle mix, vehicle operating characteristics
   and local geometry. Poor air quality is
   recognized to have an adverse effect on
   health.
Reduce noise                                              -/+             -         Increased congestion related to the
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                        one-way alternative may lead to
   action to reduce noise as it relates to traffic                                  more horn blowing.
   volume, vehicle mix (bus and truck), vehicle
   operating characteristics (horn honking) and
   local geometry.
 * Relative to the No-Build Alternative
 Legend
 ++ Very Positive      + Positive       0 Neutral     - Negative         -- Very Negative        -/+ or --/++ Mixed



 132                                                            Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II




TABLE VII-6: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE ALTERNATIVES IN RELATION TO
             CAT II GUIDING PRINCIPLES* (CONTINUED)

                                                             Canal Street
                                                              Alternative
                                                                         One-
           Theme/Guiding Principle                      Two-Way          Way                Comments
                                                 ACCESSIBILITY
                                      Improve circulation within the study area
Improve pedestrian movement                                  +             ++     Along Canal Street, major
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                      sidewalk widening in one-way
   action to improve pedestrian movement,                                         alternative and some sidewalk
   including that in crossing streets, on sidewalks                               widening in two-way
   and circulating within the study area.                                         alternative.
Reduce traffic congestion                                    +            --      Two-way alternative, offers
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                      benefits related to eliminating
   action to reduce traffic congestion through                                    selected left turns that appear to
   demand management, increasing capacity,                                        outweigh disbenefits of the
   improving traffic operations or promoting the                                  related rerouting that would be
   efficient usage of the roadway system.                                         needed. One-way alternative
                                                                                  provides insufficient eastbound
                                                                                  capacity that results in traffic
                                                                                  congestion.
Improve the efficiency of goods delivery                      -           -/+     Two-way alternative may have
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                      negative impacts relating to left-
   action to improve the efficiency of goods                                      turn prohibitions and associated
   delivery by reducing congestion and increasing                                 need for providing right-turn
   the availability or certainty of                                               lanes. One-way alternative, may
   loading/unloading space. A proposed action                                     result in benefits related to
   also can reduce travel time and congestion by                                  provisions for curbside delivery
   managing goods delivery in terms of location                                   along Canal Street, but negative
   and timing.                                                                    impacts related to circuity due to
                                                                                  network changes.
Improve transit access                                        0            -      One-way alternative may result
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                      in greater circuity depending
   action to improve transit access, including the                                upon transit routing.
   availability and functionality of stops/stations,
   and ease of circulation by transit within the
   study area.
Improve parking conditions                                    -           -/+     Two-way alternative would
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                      result in decreased parking on
   action to improve parking conditions, including                                sections of Canal Street due to
   increasing the availability of on-street or off-                               need for right-turn lanes. One-
   street parking for visitors, employees or                                      way alternative provides
   residents either through supply, pricing or                                    additional on-street parking on
   regulation or the more efficient use of existing                               Canal Street, but reduces on-
   parking capacity. Parking cost is also a factor.                               street parking on Grand Street.
* Relative to the No-Build Alternative
Legend
++ Very Positive      + Positive       0 Neutral       - Negative       -- Very Negative       -/+ or --/++ Mixed




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                  133
                                                                                       Canal Area Transportation Study




 TABLE VII-6: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE ALTERNATIVES IN RELATION TO
              CAT II GUIDING PRINCIPLES* (CONTINUED)

                                                            Canal Street
                                                             Alternative
            Theme/Guiding Principle                    Two-Way One-Way                           Comments
                                                     MOBILITY
                          Improve travel within the region and into and out of the study area
Improve travel to and from the rest of                     -/+           -         Two-way alternative offers benefits
   Manhattan                                                                       related to eliminating selected left
   Definition: The potential for the proposed                                      turns, but has disbenefits related to
   action to improve the connectivity of the study                                 the rerouting that would be needed.
   area to the rest of Manhattan.                                                  One-way alternative provides
                                                                                   insufficient eastbound capacity for
                                                                                   travel to/from the rest of Manhattan.
Accommodate regional travel (i.e., trips with              -/+           --        Two-way alternative offers mix of
   both an origin and destination outside of                                       benefits and disbenefits. One-way
   Manhattan)                                                                      alternative provides insufficient
   Definition: The potential for the proposed                                      eastbound capacity that would affect
   action to improve mobility as it relates to the                                 travel between areas east and west of
   regional roadway network as well as                                             Manhattan.
   connecting the study area to the rest of the
   region.
Enhance transit service/connectivity                        0             -       One-way alternative may result in
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                      greater circuity depending upon
   action to improve transit service and                                          transit routing.
   connectivity of the study area to the rest of
   New York City and the region.
Enhance travel reliability                                 -/+           --       Two-way alternative offers benefits
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                      related to eliminating selected left
   action to enhance travel reliability as related to                             turns, but disbenefits related to
   improving the predictability of completing a                                   rerouting that would be needed.
   trip within a specific time period.                                            One-way alternative provides
                                                                                  insufficient eastbound capacity that
                                                                                  adversely impacts on travel
                                                                                  reliability.
Promote efficient and balanced usage of the                 0             -       One-way alternative may result in
   regional transportation system                                                 greater circuity depending upon
   Definition: The potential of the proposed                                      desired routing.
   action to promote a more balanced and
   efficient usage of existing roadway or transit
   capacity.

 * Relative to the No-Build Alternative

 Legend
 ++ Very Positive      + Positive         0 Neutral     - Negative        -- Very Negative        -/+ or --/++ Mixed




 134                                                             Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II




TABLE VII-6: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE ALTERNATIVES IN RELATION TO
             CAT II GUIDING PRINCIPLES* (CONTINUED)

                                                        Canal Street Alternative
              Theme/Guiding Principle                   Two-Way        One-Way                  Comments
                                                    SAFETY
                                   Enhance safety for pedestrians and motorists
Reduce vehicle/pedestrian conflicts                          +             ++           The reduction of turns in
   Definition: The potential of the proposed action                                     both build alternatives
   to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and                                          should reduce
   vehicles (including trucks, buses and                                                vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
   automobiles) at crosswalks and mid-blocks to                                         In addition, the one-way
   result in fewer crashes and potentially increase                                     alternative would result in
   capacity for both pedestrians and vehicles.                                          shorter crossing distances
                                                                                        than the two-way
                                                                                        alternative.
Reduce vehicle/vehicle conflicts                               ++         ++            The reduction of conflicts
   Definition: The potential of the proposed action                                     in both build alternatives
   to reduce vehicle/vehicle conflicts at                                               reduces vehicle/vehicle
   intersections and at mid-blocks to result in fewer                                   conflicts.
   crashes and potentially increase capacity.
Promote safe street environments                                +        -/+            The reduction of turns in
   Definition: The potential of the proposed action                                     both build alternatives
   to maintain a safe environment through sidewalk                                      should reduce
   and roadway design, lighting and promoting                                           vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
   amenities and land uses that attract pedestrian                                      However, one-way
   activity in an effort to discourage illegal                                          alternative increases traffic
   activities and encourage a safer atmosphere.                                         volume on
                                                                                        residential/commercial
                                                                                        corridors of Spring Street
                                                                                        and Grand Street.
* Relative to the No-Build Alternative

Legend
++ Very Positive      + Positive         0 Neutral      - Negative   -- Very Negative          -/+ or --/++ Mixed




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                                   135
                                                                                          Canal Area Transportation Study




TABLE VII-6: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE ALTERNATIVES IN RELATION TO
             CAT II GUIDING PRINCIPLES* (CONTINUED)

                                                           Canal Street Alternative
              Theme/Guiding Principle                     Two-Way          One-Way                   Comments
                                              IMPLEMENTABILITY
                                Develop realistic, constructible and feasible solutions
Reflect existing physical constraints                           0               0
    Definition: The extent to which the proposed
    action is contained within the public right-of-
    way, causing minimal disruption to the
    community.
Be financially affordable and conform to study                 0                0
    budget
    Definition: The estimated cost of the proposed
    action should be judged affordable by the
    implementing agency, should not conflict with
    agency budgetary or fiduciary requirements and
    should not be more costly than another
    alternative that achieves the same objectives.
Fit into medium (3-10 Years) or long-term (10-20               +                +            Both alternatives may be
     Years) time frame                                                                       implemented within a
     Definition: The proposed action can be adopted                                          medium or long-term
     or constructed within these time frames.                                                timeframe.
Conform to existing statutes, institutional policies           ++               +            One-way alternative would
   and practices                                                                             require the relocation of
   Definition: The proposed action should not                                                the Grand Street bicycle
   conflict with existing Steering Committee                                                 lane.
   agency policies, governing regulations, and/or
   enabling legislation.
Avoid adverse impacts locally and regionally                   -/+              --           Turn prohibitions in the
   Definition: The proposed action should not                                                two-way alternative may
   exhibit the potential to generate adverse impacts                                         increase traffic volumes on
   within the study area or shift a problem to                                               side streets. One-way
   another area.                                                                             alternative increases traffic
                                                                                             volume on
                                                                                             residential/commercial
                                                                                             corridors of Spring Street
                                                                                             and Grand Street.
* Relative to the No-Build Alternative

Legend
++ Very Positive      + Positive         0 Neutral     - Negative         -- Very Negative          -/+ or --/++ Mixed




136                                                            Final Report for Public Review: December 2010
Canal Area Transportation Study, Track II




        CHAPTER VIII – CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT
        STEPS
In summary, the Canal Area Transportation Study recommends that the adjusted Canal
Street two-way alternative be progressed for further consideration in the pending Canal
Street reconstruction project, As part of this preferred alternative, it is recommended that the
restrictions on large trucks promulgated by the Port Authority for the Holland Tunnel be
continued, in conjunction with the Manhattan Bridge HOV lane and additional traffic
management measures to encourage more optimal use of the available water crossings. In
addition, the Urban Design Framework Plan should be considered as planning for the
reconstruction project is initiated. CATS II also recommends that the additional action items
identified in the study be considered by their respective implementing agencies and that
the Parking Management Plan be used by NYCDOT in its ongoing parking management
efforts.

As detailed in Chapters I through VII of this report, CATS Track II was a regional, multi-
modal transportation study initiated in 2005 to identify and develop medium- and long-term
transportation improvements in the area bounded by Houston Street to the north,
Chambers Street to the south, and from the East River to the Hudson River. It included
examining existing conditions in the study area, holding public meetings within the
community as well as with a Stakeholders Committee, and developing and utilizing a
detailed planning and technical analysis process to identify and screen potential actions to
improve traffic, pedestrian and mobility conditions. The second track was borne out of the
shorter term CATS Track I, initiated in 2002, which involved outreach to the community and
the relevant agencies to identify significant short-term measures to improve safety,
infrastructure and mobility in the study area. Several measures were taken subsequent to
Track I including repaving Canal Street with high visibility crosswalks; retiming traffic signals
and repairing and cleaning streetlights along Canal Street; addressing signage issues at the
Holland Tunnel and Manhattan Bridge; exploring improvements to traffic enforcement;
defining the transportation elements of the new triangle park near Varick Street; and defining
short-term improvements along Allen Street.

As with Track I, a community involvement program was conducted throughout Track II to
gather and share information and build consensus on potential improvements. A series of
public meetings and workshops were held in the area to give the community an opportunity
to provide input to help produce a vision for Canal Street, including developing the study s
Guiding Principles; establishing and confirming relevant concerns to be addressed; and
identifying and reviewing potential improvement options. Additionally, members of a
diverse Stakeholders Committee provided valuable insight into community issues and
concerns from the perspective of their constituencies.

Extensive data was collected from the study area as part of Track II, including traffic and
pedestrian counts, travel time and delay information, aerial congestion mapping, an origin-
destination survey, on- and off-street parking surveys, and accident data. Through a
screening process, four future improvement scenarios were selected for evaluation based
on their potential to reduce or significantly alter future traffic volumes in the study area, which
was judged as critically important to the Guiding Principles defined for the study. The
improvement scenarios consisted of:




Final Report for Public Review: December 2010                                                  139
                                                                  Canal Area Transportation Study



   Implementing a High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane that would allow access for buses
   and vehicles with three or more passengers in the Holland Tunnel, while continuing the
   Tunnel s truck restrictions, which were enacted by the Port Authority of New York & New
   Jersey during the period of the CATS effort.
   Implementing HOV lanes on the Manhattan Bridge that would allow access for buses
   and vehicles with two or more passengers.
   Altering traffic regulations to create a one-way pair between Canal Street and Grand
   Street, with Canal Street converted to eastbound-only lanes between the Avenue of
   the Americas and the Bowery, and Grand Street to westbound-only lanes between
   Chrystie Street and Avenue of the Americas.
   Using variable message signage and other traffic management measures to notify
   drivers in Brooklyn destined for the Holland Tunnel and the west side of Manhattan of
   comparable travel times, and encourage them to consider using the Brooklyn Battery
   Tunnel as an alternative to the Manhattan and Brooklyn bridges, with a reciprocal
   arrangement for drivers in New Jersey approaching the Holland Tunnel en route to
   Brooklyn..

These scenarios were quantitatively evaluated using NYMTC s regional, multi-modal travel
demand model, the New York Best Practice Model (NYBPM), to simulate traffic conditions
and impacts in the study area for the 2030 horizon year of the study. The
Brooklyn/Manhattan traffic diversion scenario could not be quantitatively evaluated with the
NYBPM, but was assessed qualitatively.

A variant of one of these scenarios - the Manhattan Bridge HOV scenario, was
implemented by the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT)
subsequent to the evaluation and remains in place.

Based on outcomes of the modeling, one scenario – the one way pair scenario for Canal
Street -- was selected for more detailed traffic analysis using a micro-simulation model
relative to an adjusted two-way alternative. The scenario and its alternative were also
evaluated against a No-Action scenario, which projected future conditions with no significant
modifications to roadway or pedestrian facilities in the study area.

A qualitative assessment of the results of the detailed traffic analysis for the one-way pair
scenario, adjusted two-way alternative and No-Action scenario was then conducted relative
to the study guiding principles. Based on both a qualitative assessment and a quantitative
assessment using the microsimulation model results, the adjusted two-way alternative,
which incorporates left-turn restrictions and urban design and parking management
elements, was selected as the preferred alternative for further consideration in the Canal
Street reconstruction project, in conjunction with the restrictions on large trucks promulgated
by the Port Authority in the Holland Tunnel, with the Manhattan Bridge HOV lane and with
the traffic management measures to encourage more optimal use of the available water
crossings.

As noted in Chapter IV, thirteen actions identified in CATS Track II to improve traffic,
pedestrian and mobility conditions in the study area have been implemented or
programmed for implementation. Thirty-four additional actions have been referred to
implementing agencies for further consideration.




140                                       Final Report for Public Review: December 2010

								
To top