DEIS: Parking concerns; Waterfront garage alternative
Waterfront Garage Alternative
Draft EIS states:
Parking Garages A and C would be reduced in size and structured parking would be built on the waterfront in the location of Parking Lots 13A and 13B. Under the Waterfront Garage Alternative, it is estimated that 1,000 to 1,500 spaces would be removed from Parking Garages A and C as compared to the proposed project. Thus, the waterfront garage would need to accommodate the 852 spaces currently available in Parking Lots 13A and 13B as well as the spaces that would be removed from Parking Garages A and C for a total of 1,852 to 2,352 spaces.
...require at least a four-story garage at this location to fully accommodate the 1,852 to 2,352 spaces. It would also require that the garage be built over a small inter-pier area at the southern end of the site.
However, because the size of Parking Garage C would be reduced with the Waterfront Garage Alternative, it would be possible to locate its rooftop recreational facility at the level of the Macomb’s Dam Bridge Approach, would have the potential to reduce significant traffic impacts at intersections along Jerome Avenue and the Macomb’s Dam Bridge Approach that would be expected to occur under the proposed project. Under this alternative, up to 2,352 cars would reach their parking spaces via southbound Exit 6 off the Major Deegan Expressway to “Bronx Terminal Market,” and would not circulate on the local street network.
Under the Waterfront Garage Alternative, more pedestrians would need to travel the length of Ruppert Plaza and cross East 161st Street there than with the proposed project The Waterfront Garage Alternative would be inferior to the proposed project and was not selected for the following reasons:
• It would result in significant adverse impacts on historic and visual resources that could not be mitigated. (you wouldn’t be able to see the Macombs Dam Bridge) It would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Waterfront Revitalization Program.
This alternative is basically another version of the “preferred alternative” that would take some of the parking away from the parkland and place it on the waterfront. While it would allow a slightly more “hospitable” environment for the “replacement parks”, it would also place a parking garage directly on the waterfront, which is not a desirable waterfront use. Therefore, it is not much better than the “preferred alternative”.