Chapter 16: Equity and Environmental Justice A. INTRODUCTION The proposed project alternatives would traverse a large study area that contains a wide range of neighborhoods, residents, and workers. The chapters above identify a number of impacts that would likely occur during construction and operation of each alternative. The purpose of this chapter is to consider whether the project impacts are distributed equitably. For a transit project, service to transit-dependent population (older, lower income) is particularly important. In addition, Executive Order 12898 (signed in 1994) requires that FTA also assure itself that impacts and benefits are equitably distributed among all population groups that minority or lowincome areas are not overburdened with the adverse aspects of proposed project alternatives. If a project alternative would have high and disproportionately adverse effects on minority or low-income populations, special mitigation would be required, or FTA would have to show clearly that no practicable mitigation or feasible alternative was available. The discussion below first locates minority, elderly, and low-income groups and then reviews the benefits and adverse impacts of each alternative to those particular populations. Community participation is an important factor when environmental justice is a concern. The outreach program is described in Chapter 23, Public Participation. B. MINORITY, ELDERLY, AND LOW INCOME POPULATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA As noted in Table 4-2 (see Chapter 4, Social Conditions ) and summarized in Table 16-1, racial and ethnic minorities in the study area are concentrated primarily in Tribeca/Civic Center (Asian), Lower East Side/Chinatown (Asian and Hispanic), East Village (Hispanic), and both Southern and Northern East Harlem (Black and Hispanic). Areas with a higher than average (for Manhattan and the study area) proportion of residents age 65 and over include the Lower East Side/Chinatown, Lower Fifth, East Midtown, and Upper East Side/Medical Center. Households with low median annual incomes (less than $24,200, which is 75 percent of the median for New York City) are located in the Lower East Side/Chinatown and both Southern and Northern East Harlem. Concentrations of population (more than 20 percent of residents) with incomes below the poverty level were found in the Financial District, Lower East Side/ Chinatown, East Village, and both Southern and Northern East Harlem. This study also addressed the project s secondary study area the portion of Manhattan not in the primary study area but that would be affected by the change in service on the N and R lines proposed in Build Alternatives 1 and 2. This area includes portions of Clinton, West Midtown, and Greenwich Village neighborhoods. Clinton and West Midtown were found to have concentrations of minority (Hispanic) residents. 16-1
Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS In addition, the area close to the 36th-38th Street Yard in Brooklyn was also studied. In this area, the population is predominantly minority and low-income. The majority of residents are Table 16-1 Location of Minority, Elderly, and Low-Income Populations in the Primary and Secondary Study Areas Percent of Percent Median Population 65 Years Annual Below Percent Percent Percent and Household Poverty Neighborhood Black Asian Hispanic* Older Income Level** Financial District 17.4 10.5 12.2 12.8 $50,172 23.0 Tribeca/Civic Center 8.1 39.1 7.3 2.1 $46,755 15.7 Lower East Side/Chinatown 10.1 44.3 30.2 15.3 $17,780 28.6 East Village 10.7 7.6 28.4 10.4 $29,154 25.4 Lower Fifth 4.9 7.9 5.6 19.2 $47,660 5.8 Midtown South/Medical Center 8.6 7.3 10.5 10.2 $39,160 14.2 Murray Hill 2.1 6.7 4.7 14.3 $48,398 4.9 Grand Central/United Nations 3.8 10.7 5.2 14.5 $53,088 7.0 East Midtown 1.7 5.2 4.6 20.5 $56,255 5.7 Upper East Side/Medical Center 1.7 4.3 4.5 18.1 $60,633 5.0 Southern East Harlem 40.8 2.7 57.0 11.8 $17,238 36.6 Northern East Harlem 58.6 0.5 46.3 11.5 $13,231 43.0 Study Area 12.8 12.2 19.9 14.1 $42,473 17.8 Greenwich Village 4.1 4.5 6.0 12.1 $41,292 9.6 West Midtown 11.5 5.8 19.6 11.5 $34,663 17.8 Clinton 8.8 7.2 17.2 14.9 $32,736 15.1 Secondary Study Area 8.0 5.8 14.1 12.9 $36,206 11.8 Manhattan 22.0 7.4 26.0 13.3 $32,262 20.5 Notes: Values that are not shaded indicate the location of a concentration of minority, elderly, or low-income population. * An ethnic group that can include members of any racial category, including African American and Caucasian residents. ** Percent of persons with incomes below the established poverty level; income level varies depending on household size. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1990. Hispanic, but there are concentrations of Asian residents as well. The median household income is low-income (below $24,400, which is 75 percent of the median income of New York City) and approximately 26 percent of the population is living below the poverty level. 16-2
Chapter 16: Equity and Environmental Justice C. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES ASSOCIATED WITH MINORITY, ELDERLY, AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS The potential impacts of the project alternatives are outlined in Chapters 3 through 15 and 17 of this document, and mitigation measures are summarized in Chapter 18. Those impacts and their particular effect on minority, elderly, and low-income populations are summarized below. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build alternative there would be no adverse impacts of project construction or operation. However, the study area s low-income and minority populations (Lower East Side/ Chinatown, East Village, Southern and Northern East Harlem) would continue to have poor access to the East Side s rapid transit system. TSM ALTERNATIVE The TSM Alternative, which would include designated bus lanes on First and Second Avenues and modifications to bus routes on the Lower East Side, would improve travel speeds and bus service throughout the study area. Adverse impacts would be as follows:! Significant worsening or significant impact on traffic at locations along 14th, 23rd, 42nd, 59th, 62nd-64th, 72nd, 79th, 92nd, and 96th Streets.! Elimination of some on-street parking spaces along the priority bus route.! Noise impact predicted for Avenue D, between 7th and 8th Streets, and 14th Street, between First and Second Avenues, from increases in bus traffic. EFFECT ON TARGET POPULATIONS Although the TSM would create traffic, parking, and noise impacts along and near the proposed bus routes, these effects would not be inequitable or disproportionate, because most impacts could be mitigated, and the people who would be affected would also get the benefits of improvements to public transportation. BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1 Build Alternative 1, which would install a subway on Second Avenue from 125th to 63rd Street, with through express service on the N and R lines south of 63rd Street, would improve travel convenience in East Harlem, Upper East Side, East Midtown and Clinton/West Midtown, and Lower Manhattan. The alternative would also support public initiatives to revitalize East Harlem neighborhoods and Lower Manhattan and improve neighborhood character there. Construction and operation of the system would result in some adverse environmental impacts, as summarized below. IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Since construction of the subway from 63rd to 125th Street would involve sections of cut-andcover activity as well as deep bore tunneling and mining, it would have the following impacts: 16-3
Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS! Disruption to land uses, community facilities, and businesses along Second Avenue, particularly where cut-and-cover would be required (station areas near 72nd, 86th, 96th, and 106th Streets) and at the tunnel access shaft site used during construction. As detailed in Chapter 15, the sites being considered for this use are as follows: the site being considered for the access shaft for the construction of the Long Island Rail Road s East Side Access project (this site is on the east side of Second Avenue between 62nd and 63rd Streets); on private property on the east side of Second Avenue between 65th and 66th Streets; and on private property now a lumber yard on the southwest corner of 97th Street and Second Avenue. One site must be selected for use during construction.! Potential displacement and relocation of businesses at two of the possible alternative shaft sites.! Potential for minor property impacts near 36th-38th Street Yard in Brooklyn (depending on subway operation plan there, to be determined for FEIS).! Visual impact at the tunnel shaft sites.! Potential impact to a historic structure at the shaft site between 65th and 66th Streets (depending on the determination made by the State Historic Preservation Office).! To prevent impacts on historic resources, underpinning of four buildings at 125th Street and Lexington Avenue would be required.! Potential impacts to archaeological resources, depending on the outcome of additional research.! Some vehicular and pedestrian diversions (temporary) due to construction activity.! Increased noise levels from construction activity.! Health and Safety Plan and additional investigation required to eliminate risk to workers, pedestrians, and residents from excavation in areas with potential for the presence of hazardous materials. IMPACTS DURING PROJECT OPERATION! Requires vibration mitigation to eliminate impacts at stations.! Potential for noise impact near the 36th-38th Street Yard in Brooklyn, depending on the subway operations there (this will be examined in further detail in the FEIS). EFFECT ON TARGET POPULATIONS Overall, the impacts of the Build Alternative 1 would not be considered inequitable or disproportionate to minority, elderly, or low-income populations. As noted in Chapter 4, a wide variety of income groups and neighborhoods would experience similar impacts. In addition, target groups residents of East Harlem (minority and low-income), Upper East Side/Medical Center (elderly population), and Lower Manhattan (minority and low-income) neighborhoods would also reap the benefits of improved transit service. Those areas that would not benefit (e.g., East Midtown and Lower Fifth, which have elderly populations) would also not experience adverse impacts. 16-4
Chapter 16: Equity and Environmental Justice The potential minor property impacts and noise impacts at the 36th-38th Street Yard in Brooklyn could affect minority and low-income populations. However, these impacts would be very localized, affecting only a very small number of people, and mitigation would be available for the impacts. Overall, therefore, the potential impacts would not be considered high and disproportionate. In general, the impacts at the construction shaft sites would be more intense and of longer duration (10 years) than those along the route. For locations south of 96th Street, the impacts would be distributed among all income and ethnic groups. North of 96th Street, impacts would fall more heavily on target populations. The lumber yard site in this area would affect lowincome and minority populations, but since it is located for most efficient operation of the tunnel boring machine, and since those experiencing the impact would eventually benefit from the completed project, the use of this site for tunnel access would not be considered a high and disproportionate adverse impact on low-income and minority populations. BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2 Impacts of the subway portion of this alternative would be the same as that described for Build Alternative 1. Construction of the LRT in Lower Manhattan and on the Lower East Side would greatly improve accessibility to the Lower East Side and add access to Lower Manhattan, thus improving journey-to-work and discretionary trips, such as those made for shopping, entertainment, etc. The LRT would draw trips from the automobile to transit, particularly on the Lower East Side, where approximately 3.5 percent of traffic trips would be diverted. This would lead to small reductions in traffic flows in the neighborhood. However the LRT would also create a number of adverse impacts requiring mitigation, including the following. IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION! Short-term construction impacts on land use, community facilities, and some businesses along the route.! Requires care to prevent impacts to historic resources on the Lower East Side.! Requires archaeological investigation (archival research) to determine potential for disruption to such resources from construction of LRT and its ancillary facilities.! Potential traffic diversion and congestion increases requiring the loss of parking spaces as mitigation.! Short-term increases in noise levels. IMPACTS DURING PROJECT OPERATION! Joint development of the proposed underground LRT yard at Delancey Street with new uses above could benefit the city and the local community.! Adverse impact on businesses on Canal Street between Ludlow and Allen Streets because access to the tunnel portal would interrupt visual and pedestrian access between the two sides of Canal Street. Reduction in parking could affect businesses along the LRT route. 16-5
Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS! Change in visual character along LRT route from proposed stations and overhead wires. Design which maximizes transparency and visual amenities, such as landscaping, and minimizes visual obstructions (railings, light and power poles) would help mitigate visual effects.! Due to the presence of the LRT in the roadways, traffic patterns in the Lower East Side and portions of Lower Manhattan would change, creating significant impacts or significant worsening at a several nearby intersections. These would be mitigated by changes to signal phasing and elimination of parking in some locations. The greatest impact would be on 14th Street, where nearly 50 percent of its traffic would have to find other routes. This is anticipated to affect other crosstown streets, such as 23rd Street. Parking/standing would have to be reduced on 14th and 23rd Streets.! Requires mitigation to eliminate ground-borne vibration impacts along route. EFFECT ON TARGET POPULATIONS The impacts of the LRT alternative would not be considered inequitable or disproportionate to minority, elderly, or low-income populations, because these residents of Lower Manhattan and Lower East Side neighborhoods would also reap the benefits of improved transit service. D. MITIGATION No high and disproportionate adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations were identified as a result of any of the project alternatives. Those experiencing impacts from construction of the project would eventually benefit from the completed project. Therefore, no mitigation for impacts related to equity and environmental justice is required. 16-6