STATE oF NEw YORKDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Huliens POINT PLAZA47-40 21sr STREET

LoNG ISLAND CITY, NY 11101

STANLEY GEE

AcnNG CoMt4tssioNERPHILUP ENG, P.E.

REGToNAL DIREcroR

TO:

FROM:

RE:

September 29, 2010

Kosciuszko Bridge Project Stakeholders

Robert Adams, Project Manager S

New York State Departrnent of Transportation

Kosciuszko Bridge Project Open House Report

On behalf of the New York State Department of Transportation, I would like to share this copyof the Februmy 2010 Kosciuszko Bridge Project Open House Report wilh you and other meetingattendees. The Report documents community input received at the Open Houses, as well asduring the corrment period that ended in May 2010. As a significant component of the project'spublic participation program during final design, it details the Main Span bridge tlpe preferencesthat were expressed by a broad range of constituents at the Open Houses, at Community Boardpresentations, and via email. The Report therefore serves as a critical element of the Main SpanSelection process tlat is currently under way. Details on the selected main span option will beprovided to you as soon as a decision has been finalized.

In the interim, if you have any questions about the Report or the project in general, please do nothesitate to contact me at (7I8) 482-4683 or kosciuszko@dot.state.ny.us or Helen Neuhaus, HelenNeuhaus & Associates at (212) 532-417 5 or helen@hnaI971 .com.

PHoNE: (718) 482-4683 FAX: (718) 4aZ-6319 E-MAIL: kosciuszko@dot.state. ny. usWEBSnE: https://www. nvsdot.oov/reg ional-offices/reoion 11/projects/kosciuszko-bridoe- proiect

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONKOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT

REPORT ON OPEN HOUSESFebruary 18, 2010 - Queens

February 24,2010 - Brooklyn(3:00 - 8:00 p.m.)

The New York State Deparlment of Transportation (NYSDOT) held Public Open Houses for theKosciuszko Bridge Project on February 18, 2010 at Christ the King Regional High School (68-02Metropolitan Avenue, Middle Village, Queens) and February 24,2Ot0 at St. Cecilia's Church(84 Herbert Street, Brooklyn). In preparation for the Open Houses, a newsletter that featured thefour main span bridge types under consideration for the new Kosciuszko Bridge, was mailed tonearly 1,000 individuals, organizations, public officials, community facilities. agencies and mediaoutlets. At the request of several individuals and civic organizations, including QueensCommunity Boards (CB) #2 and, #5 and Brooklyn CB #1, over 2,000 copies of the newsletter inEnglish, Polish and Spanish were also provided for local distribution. Display adverlisementswere placed in eight community and foreign language (Polish) newspapers. Meeting announce-ments were also sent to four local television stations, and community calendar announcementswere distributed for posting in community newspapers and on organizational websites.

The Open Houses were scheduled to update the public on Final Design activities for the KosciuszkoBridge Project and to receive input on the main span bridge design options under consideration.The project is focusing on the l.1-mile section of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (BQE)between Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn and the Long Island Expressway (LIE) in Queens thatcrosses Newtown Creek. Both meetings opened with an informal session at which people couldview informational displays, including graphics and 3D visualizations of the bridge design options,and speak with members of the project team. Videos illustrating each main span bridge typehelped meeting attendees envision the bridge from a variety of viewpoints: the BQE, local streets,the new bridge's bikeway/walkway and the waterfront. During the presentation (same presentationgiven at 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. at both venues) that fo11owed, project team members provided aproject update, focusing on Final Design activities, with an emphasis on the main span bridge typealternatives under consideration. Each session concluded with a question and discussion period.Meeting attendees included residents, business owners and representatives of community groups,agencies and elected officials, with over 45 people attending the Queens Open House and over 70people attending the Open House in Brooklyn. (See Attachment A for the attendance listl.)

Comment Cards offering pafticipants the opportunity to register their bridge type preferences,identify bridge features of impoftance and record other project-related comments weredistributed to al1 meeting attendees. Additional copies of the project newsletter were alsoavailable. Participants at the Brooklyn Open House were given the opportunity to complete theBrooklyn Parks Survey that had previously been distributed by members of the ParksSubcommittee of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC). This survey was prepared inorder to ascertain community preferences regarding park features in the expanded Sgt.Dougherty and New Active Park areas in Brooklyn.

t NOTE: Not all attendees registered on the sign-in sheets.

PresentationThe Queens sessions were opened by Harold Fink, Acting Director of Structures, NYSDOT. InBrooklyn, Mr. Fink and Adam Levine, Director of Public Affairs, NYSDOT, opened theafternoon and evening sessions respectively. Foilowing welcoming remarks, Robert Adams,Project Manager, NYSDOT was introduced for an update on Final Design activities.

Using a PowerPoint presentation2. Mr. Adams provided a brief recap ol rhe environmenlal reviewprocess, noting that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that identified BridgeReplacement Alternative BR-5 as the preferred alternative was published in December 2008. TheFederal Highway Administration (FHWA) signed the Record of Decision on March 9, 2009,thereby approving BR-5 and ganting NYSDOT authorization to proceed with Final Design of thisalternative.

Mr. Adams illustrated construction staging of the new bridge by explaining that initial workwould involve construction of a new, permanent structure on the eastbound side of the existingbridge. Al1 traffic would then be shifted to the new structure, allowing the existing bridge to bedemolished. The westbound portion of the new bridge would be built within the footprint of theexisting bridge. In describing Alternative BR-5, Mr. Adams highlighted the following featuresof the new bridge:

o lower elevation to improve roadway grades and sight distances. standard lane and shoulder widthso auxiliary lanes in each direction to improve merging and weaving conditionso new bikeway/walkway on Brooklyn-bound side of roadway

Mr. Adams emphasized that six lanes of traffic would be maintained throughout construction,resulting in no planned detours or diversion of traffic to local streets.

Mr. Adams continued with an update on Final Design activities that have been undertaken duringthe past year:

- Field Surveys - to identify the locations of physical features and gather topographicinformation needed to ensure that Final Design of the bridge accurately reflects fieldconditionsGeotechnical Investigations - collection of subsurface information, including soilsamples, rock cores and test pits at locations in Brooklyn and Queens needed toprogress design and construction of the new bridge

- Environmental Investigations - collection of soil and groundwater samples, conductof asbestos surweys of the bridge and buildings to be removed or modified duringconstruction, and identification of materials to be handled and disposed of duringconstructton

- Right-of-Wa)' Acquisition - initiation of the process to acquire private propertiesneeded to complete construction of the new bridge. Mr. Adams explained that thisincludes three types of acquisitions: Fee Acquisition (property is acquired by the

. State), Petmanent Easement (cwrcnI owner retains ownership of the property, but theState has the right to enter the propefty for maintenance purposes throughout the life

' A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is available on the project website(www.nysdot. sov/regional-offices/region 1 1/plqiects/kosciuszko ) or by contactingRobert Adams at (l18\ 482-4683.

of the bridge) ond Temporary Easement (cunent owner retains ownership, but theState can enter the propefiy during construction of the bridge).Parks and Open Space Planning - extensive ongoing coordination with the New YorkCity Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the SAC regarding plans for anew and improved Sgt. Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn and proposed new openspace in Brooklyn and Queens. Mr. Adams illustrated the locations for the proposedparks, along with possible boat launch areas, the new bikeway/walkway and areasalong local streets that are targeted for enhanced streetscaping.Selection of a Main Span Bridge Tlr:e - detailed review of possible options for themain span of the new bridge (the pofiion that crosses Newtown Creek). Although themain span is a small porlion of the l.l-mile project, it is significant because of itsvisibility. Mr. Adams explained that the aesthetics of the main span is therefore one ofthe primary criteria that NYSDOT will use in the selection process. He added thateight possible main span options were presented to the SAC for review at itsOclober 22,2009 meeting. NYSDOT subsequently decided to advance the SAC's threemain span choices: the Deck Arch, Through Arch, and Cable-Stayed options. Inaddition, the Box Girder altemative will be advanced as a baseline alternative. Thesefour options are being presented for public review and cornment at the Open Houses.[See photos below.]

Box Girder kteel or concrete)

Through Arch (steel)

Cable-Stayed

Before turning the presentation over to Steve Bennett, Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), Mr. Adamsexplained that the project team cannot proceed with detailed design of the bridge until a main spanoption is chosen. He emphasized that NYSDOT is seeking input from the public prior to makingits final selection.

Description of Bridge TvpesMr. Bennett explained that a1i options under consideration provide safety, operational andstructural improvements; mitigate environmental impacts; and incorporate environmentalenhancements. He reiterated Mr. Adams' earlier comment that six lanes of traffic will bemaintained throughout construction.

Mr. Bennett then briefly described the segments that comprise a bridge structure:- Connectors - These segments are located at each end of the project limits. They may

be constructed using retained earth and steel girder spans (similar to what currentlyexists).

- Approaches - Regardless of the main span option selected, the approaches (the sectionsleading to the main span) will likely be box girders constructed of either steel orconcrete.

- Main Span - [Discussed above]

He continued his presentation with a discussion of the selection criteria to be used for evaluationof the main span options. These include:

o Constructabilityo ConstructionDurationr Safety/Securityo Construction Costo Life Cycle (Maintenance) Costo Visual Aesthet icsr Other Evaluation Factors, including impacts on existing wildlife and flight pattems

Mr. Bennett explained that the first three criteria are essentially the same for all bridge types. Henoted that all options are constructible, have an estimated five-year construction period, andprovide the same level of safety and security. Although construction costs vary slightly, thedifference in total construction costs (main span, connectors and approaches) between the fouroptions is only x4%o. Mr. Bennett reiterated that the main span segment is a relatively smallsection of the total project. He also noted that life cycle costs (regulzu inspection and maintenanceof the bddge, including roadway resurfacing) are factored into each option. However, somemaintenanca differences exist depending on the type of sflucture - e.g., steel bridges requireperiodic painting, the Through Arch and Cabte-Stayed options would eventually requirereplacement of cables. Mr. Bennett noted that all bridge types under consideration have aminimum 75-year service lile.

Bridge-Type SelectionThe primary purpose of the February Open Houses was to receive public input on the four marnspan bridge options under consideration. Input received at the Open Houses and during thecomment period that was extended to mid-May 2010 is highlighted below:

. Comment Cards: Bridqe-Tvpe Preferences. As of May 14, 2010, 84 Comment Cardsindicating a bridgetype pref'erence were received by the project team.

'76 CommentCards (26 in Queens and 50 in Brooklyn) were returned at the Open Houses. Threepersons expressed an either/or preference, which is reflected in the tally of 87 votesprovided in Attachment B.

In addition, input was recorded on Comment Cards completed at two Community Boardbriefings held subsequent to the Open Houses: Queens Community Board #2 -

Transpoftation Committee on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 and Brooklyn CommunityBoard #l - Transpofiation Committee on Thursday, May 13, 2010. At both meetings, Mr.Adams presented the PowerPoint presentation, along with video clips of the bridge typeoptions. Five Comment Cards indicating a preferred main span option were received atthe Queens meeting and three were received at the Brooklyn meeting. The breakdown ofpreferences is also provided in Attachment B.

r Email Comments: Bridse-Typg JrgfelgneE!. Subsequent to the Open Houses, the projectteam received 34 comments (as of May 14, 2010) recording a bridge type preference.These were forwtuded to the Kosciuszko Proiect email address(kosciuszko @ dot.state.nv.us).

Al1 Comment Card and email preferences are included in the overall tally of 121 votes detailedin Attachment B. The Cable-Stayed main span option was the preference of 44Vo or 53 of thepeople who expressed a choice, followed by the Through Arch, which was favored by 3lVo or 37of the respondents.

Additional Bridse-Tvpe CommentsThe Comment Cards provided space for participants to ofler more detailed comments on the mainspan options (see Attachment C). A number of people who weighed in on bridge type selection byemail also expanded on their reasons for favoring a specific alternative.

Ouestions and DiscussionIssues raised during the Open House discussion periods primarily focused on constructionimpacts, environmental concerns, cost, bridge maintenance, traffic, parkland and other amenities,and the bikeway/walkway. Questions and comments are summarized, by borough, below:

Queens. ln response to a question from San Vargas, representing Assemblywoman Catherine

Nolan, regarding costs, Mr. Adams explained that project funding is an 8O% federal/207ostate split. He added that project costs are included in NYSDOT's Five-Year and 12-Year Capital Programs.

. A question was raised concerning whether possible teruorist activities were consideredduring design of the structure and if one bridge type would be more vulnerable thananother. Mr. Bennett emphasized that all bridge types are equal in terms of safety andsecurity. However, it was noted that the existing bridge is a non-redundant structure; thismeans that failure of one bridge element could result in coliapse of the entire structure.

Responding to a related question, Mr. Bennett explained that both New York Stateand City use site-specific seismic design criteria for new sfuctures. Accounting forseismic activity in new structures is easier than adapting an existing bridge.

. In response to several questions relating to maintenance, the project team provided thefollowing information:o All of the proposed bridge types would be designed with a minimum life of 75 years.o Steel bridges would need to be painted approximately every l5 years.o Over time, concrete structures would require maintenance to address cracks.o The new bridge wili include fuil-width shoulders on each side of the bridge. This will

limit the need for lane closures for maintenance operations, including replacement ofcables.

In response to a question, Mr. Bennett confirmed that there are no prohibitions onconstruction in Newtown Creek during specific times of the year. Mr. Adams added thatduring the EIS phase, it was determined that there is very little marine life in the Creek.A representative of the New York City Fire Department raised several questionsregarding future access to and from the roadway, with a specific interest in whether theproject will improve access. Mr. Adams explained that although entrance and exit rampswill remain in their current locations, a new twolane entrance ramp at VandervoortAvenue is expected to greatly improve access. He noted several other improvements:the addition of auxiliary lanes to minimize weaving; full-width shoulders; and dedicatedauxiliary lanes for motorists travelling from Brooklyn to the LIE and for motorists exitingat Meeker/Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn. He further explained that the final lane

configuration will include five eastbound lanes and four westbound lanes, with throughlanes in each direction for drivers traveling on the BQE, as well as the auxiliary lanesdescribed above.

. In response to a question concerning how construction overruns will be handled, Mr.Bennett explained that all State bids include a contingency for overuns. Mr. Adamsadded that as a result ol the vast amount of geotechnical investigation done to date, theproject team already has a good understanding of subsurface conditions, which shouldlimit the potential for costly unforeseen underground conditions.

. After noting that the Kosciuszko Bridge is part of a major roadway connecting Brooklynand Queens, Anthony Nunziato, resident/Maspeth Chamber of Commerce, emphasizedthat the community deserves a structure that 'iooks good.' He referenced the slight(+49o) cost differential between main span options and reiterated the need for communityamenities, including parkland in Queens and kayak launches. In a related comment, onemeeting attendee presented his view that crossing the span should be regarded as 'an

event.' He followed up by voicing his support for the Through Arch or Cable-Stayedoptions, since they create a more dominant impression than the other alternatives.

. In response to several questions and comments relating to open space issues, Mr. Adamsnoted that DPR will assume ownership of the parks following construction. He added thatthe project team is working with DPR on design issues, including the need to provideparking at the Queens site, since it is located in an area that does not have concentratedresidential pockets.

o One meeting attendee asked whether sculpture or historic monuments commemoratingthe original bridge or Thaddeus Kosciuszko could be installed as part of the City'sPercent for Art Program, il it is applicable. Mr. Adams responded that it is likely thatfuture parkland will display historic elements, including incorporation of the bridge's twoexisting plaques.

. Mr. Adams confirmed that the new structure will continue to be named the KosciuszkoBridge.

Brooklyne In response to a question from Jack Wallace, United Forties Civic Association, regarding

right-of-way acquisition, Mr. Adams explained that all impacted properties in Queens arelocated between the BQE and 43'd Street. This includes three residential propefties andapproximately a dozen businesses. He added that the residents have already been relocated,and negotiations are continuing with business owners.

o Several questions and comments referenced future traffic conditions, specifically thelocation of entrance and exit ramps. Mr. Adams reiterated that the location of the rampswill not change but that safety and traffic operations in the area will be improved. Inresponse to a related question from an Apollo Street resident, Mr. Adams explained thatimprovements to the Apollo Street intersection include a realigned, two-lane entranceramp and signal timing changes.

. Commenting that Varick Street and other local roadways are in poor condition, HenryBurney, Superior Fiber Mills, a Lombardy Street business, asked if these streets would berepaired prior to the start of construction. In response, Mr. Adams noted that a recentletter from the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) indicated that

funds are not cuffently available for local street repairs. Responding to a follow-upquestion, Mr. Adams assured Mr. Burney that no detours are planned during construction.Noting his opposition to 'plain concrete columns,' Mr. wallace expressed interest in thevisual impact of the bridge and its approaches on the neighboihood. Mr. Bennettacknowledged the importance of the visual element and repofied that the project team'sarchitects are identifying opportunities for visual enhancements. In addition. SAC inouton aesthetics and visual corridors will continue to be incorporated throughout the designprocess.In response to questions on the height of the new structure, Mr. Adams explained thatalthough the new bridge will be lower, this will only be evident in rerms of viewing themain span and a few of the approach sections on either side of the span. The remainderof the approaches and connectors will appear basically the same as in the currentcondition. As a follow-up to these questions, Mr. Bennett added that opening theBrooklyn connector to provide parking was considered during early stug"s of th" prilect.The idea was discarded based on strong opposition from area residents.A number of questions and comments related to environmental issues, including noiselevels and air quality during construction. Mr. Adams and Mr. Bennett. alons wilh RickHart, Environmental Planning & Management, Inc., the team's en vironmentaiconsultant,provided the following information:

o Air monitoring will occur in the immediate vicinity of the work, as well as atdesignated stations within the community.

o Asbestos will be abated prior to demolition of the bridge and impacted buildings;asbestos monitoring will continue throughout construction.

o Air monitoring data is not currently being collected. As part of the community airmonitodng program, a baseline will be established prior to the stafi of work, anddata will be collected throughout construction.

o The new bridge will shift the BQE away from residences in Brooklyn by up to 50feet. This will reduce noise and vibration levels in the area. In addition, thecontractor will be required to meet all appropriate noise codes duringconstruction.

o Afier one resident noted the presence of oil beneath homes in the area, the projectteam explained that the oil is located approximately 40 feet below the surface,well below the area of bridge construction (i0-15 feet below ground).

o Commenting on the recent proposal to designate Newtown Creek as a superfundsite, Theresa Cianciotta, representing Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, questioned theimpact of designation on the bridge project. Mr. Adams indicated that based onthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,s (EpA) current schedule, bridgeconstruction will be completed before work begins on clean-up of the Creek.EPA, therefore, foresees no conflict between the projects.

In response to questions regarding construction and maintenance costs, Mr. Adamsreiterated that the projecr is being built with federal (807o) and stare (2ovo) funding.Following completion of the bridge, NYCDOT will be responsible for day-to_daymaintenance, including street sweeping; NySDOT will address any major repairs.Karen Beringer, resident, expressed concern about rodents during construction and thepotential for property damage due to construction. Mr. Adams indicated that the contractwill include provisions for extermination at the start of and throushout construction.

With regard to potential propefty damage, he explained that pre-and post-constructionphotographs will be taken of properties in the vicinity of the work area. This will protectproperty owners by ensuring appropriate documentation, if it is determined that apropefty was damaged due to construction. In a follow-up comment, one residentsuggested that two sets of pre-consfuction photographs--one each for the homeownerand NYSDOT-be prepared. After agreeing with this suggestion, Mr. Adams added that afull-time community liaison will be on site throughout construction to handle day-to-dayissues.

o In response to a question from a resident of Van Dam Street regarding new parkland inBrooklyn, Mr. Adams reiterated that designs are being discussed with DPR. He addedthat NYSDOT would build the parks; DPR would own and maintain them followingconstruction. In addition, the project team is working with the SAC on park design. Thishas already included SAC assistance with distribution of a parks survey to determine thecommunity's preferences regarding specific elements for each park. Mr. Adams notedthat copies of the Brooklyn Parks Survey were available at the Open House for anyoneinterested in completing the questionnaire.

r A number of questions and comments related to pedestrian and bicycle issues. Mr.Bennett indicated that the bikeway/walkway will be 13 feet wide. Although they will notbe physically separated, the areas will probably be demarcated by striping. Severalpersons commented that physical separation of bicyclists and pedestrians is needed forsafety reasons. One person asked whether "Walk Bikes Across Bridge" signs could beposted if physical separation is not possible.

o Evelyn Cruz, representing Congresswoman Nydia Yelazquez, raised several questionsregarding the service life of the bridge and maintenance issues. Mr. Bennett reiteratedthat all bridge types under consideration are designed for a 75-year life, adding that alloptions will require routine mainten:urce during that time.

o In response to a question, Mr. Adams noted that the contractor will be encouraged tominimize fuck traffic on loca1 streets by using barges for delivery of supplies. Off-loading of materials is expected to occur on both sides of Newtown Creek Mr. Bennettadded that debris removed from the site, which will be recycled, will also be transportedby barge. NYSDOT will work with NYCDOT to assign Traffic Enforcement Agents tokey intersections.

o In response to a question regarding construction staging, Mr. Adams indicated that trafficwill be transitioned between bridges at night in order to minimize impacts.

In closing the sessions in Queens and Brooklyn, Mr. Adams encouraged meeting participants tosubmit their main span preferences.

Attachment A

QueensFebruary 18, 2010

Michael AbrahamsParsons Brinckerhoff

Robert Adams*New York State Depaftmentof Transportation

Vincent ArcurixQueens Community Board #5

Gregory AuraResident

Michael BarbagalloParsons Brinckerhoff

Marvis BelfonHelen Neuhaus &Associates

John BeloKaplon-Belo Associates, Inc.

Steve BennettParsons Brinckerhoff

Heywood BlaufeuxBrooklyn A.I.A.

Andy CampbellThe Brooklyn Paper

Leonard CotugnoResident

Lillian & Michael CyranJuniper Park CivicAssociation

Kosciuszko Bridge Project

Nicole DavisHardesty & Hanover

Nathan DukeTimes Ledger

Felice FarberGeneral ContractorsAssociation

C. FaniellaNew York Daily News

Harold FinkNew York State Departmentof Transportation

Gary FredericksenMartin Luther High School

Julie FrietasParsons Brinckerhoff

Welland FullerxOffice of AssemblywomanMargaret Markey

Joe GiuliettiCalvary Cemetery

C. Peter GoslettNew York City Depaftmentof Transportation

Keith GriesingHardesty & Hanover

Ted GruberLong Island CityCommunity Boathouse

Daniel GrulichxNew York City Departmentof Parks and Recreation

Jessame HannusTranspol1ation Alternatives

Richard HartEnvironmental Planning &Management, Inc.

Robert HoldenJuniper Park CivicAssociation

Joe IbrahimRight Time Realty

Gulrukh IraniNew York State Departmentof Transportation

Muhammad IzharSI Engineering

Samuel KingNY1

Sergey KadinskyQueens Chronicle

Greg LemkoResident (Brooklyn)

David LenkoResident

Adam LevineNew York State Departmentof Transporlation

* Denotes member of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC).

Genaro LozanoParsons Brinckerhoff

John MaierRidgewood Property Owners& Civic Association/QueensCommunity Board #5

Joe MalinowskiMJ Engineering andLand Surveying

Helen MengWorld Joumal

Kenny Mercado*Office of Senator MartinMalave Dilan

Mark MohrmannHardesty & Hanover

Casey MorganGeneral ContractorsAssociation

Angela MiragliaNew York State Departmentof Transporlation

Joseph E. Nelson, P.E.Calvary Cemetery

Helen NeuhausHelen Neuhaus &Associates

Anthony Nunziato*Resident/Maspeth Chamberof Commerce

Charles O'SheaNew York State Depafimentof Transpoftation

Donald PassantinoQueens Community Board#5 - TranspoftationCommittee

Gail PizzigatiParsons Brinckerhoff

Robert PozaryckiTimes Newsweekly

Domenick RafterQueens Tribune

Leigh RemizowskiNew York Daily News

Lillian RobertsonNew York State Depafimentof Transportation

Lary Rodriquez*Office of Senator MaftinMalave Dilan

Sobner Saint Dic*New York City Departmentof Transportation

Joyce SowinskiNew York State Depaftmentof Transportation

Manny SteierResident

Soren SuverPhelps Dodge RefiningCorporation

Walter SzuleckiResident

Jean Tanler*Maspeth Industrial BusinessSolutions

San Vargas*Office of AssemblywomanCatherine Nolan

Lawrence WatersResident (Brooklyn)

Don WestonResident (Brooklyn)

Christine WilkinsonNewtown HistoricalSociety

Anita WrightHelen Neuhaus &Associates

Carol WynperleParsons Brinckerhoff

Nicole ZaidiNew York State Depaflmentof Transportation

BrooklynFebruary 24, 2010

Michael AbrahamsParsons Brinckerhoff

Roberl Adams*New York State Departmentol Transportation

Alla AlbertBrooklyn Chapter AIA

Michael BarbagalloParsons Brinckerhoff

Rich BaroneRegional Plan Association

Charlotte BeetzResident

* Denotes member of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC).

Marvis BelfonHelen Neuhaus &Associates

Steve BennettParsons Brinckerhoff

Karen BerengerResident

Estelle BlakitisResident

Henry BurneySuperior Fiber Mills, Inc.

Fred CarilloFMC Company

Talisa ChangGreenpoint Gazette

Michele ChesnickaResident

Jack ChiangResident (Queens)

Guido CianciottaConcerned Citizens ofWithers Street

Theresa Cianciotta*Office of AssemblymanJoseph Lentol

Louis ComoResident

Evelyn Cruz+Office of CongresswomanNydia Velazquez

Todd CulverStroock & Stroock & LavanLLP

Rev. Robert CzokSt. Anthony/St. Alphonsus

Nicole DavisHardesty & Hanover

Luke DePalmaxOffice of Brooklyn BoroughPresident Marty Markowitz

Noreen DevineResident

Cecilia DzirkoResident

Theresa DzirkoResident

Phillip EngNew York State Depaftmentof Transportation

Bernard EnteNewtown Creek Alliance

Harold FinkNew York State Departmentof Transportation

Lori Ann GeorgeResident

Charles GozdziewskiHardesty & Hanover

Keith GriesingHardesty & Hanover

Richard HartEnvironmental Planning &Management, Inc.

Laura* and Mike* HofmannGreenpoint WaterfrontAssociation forParks and Planning

Gerard KacynskiResident

Thomas KrupskiResident

Julie LawrenceBrooklyn CommunityBoard #1

L.Y. LetzkusResident

Gary LettyaResident

Adam LevineNew York State Departmentof Transpofiation

Vincent LomonteGraham Avenue BlockAssociation

Kerry LoweNew York City Depaftmentof Parks & Recreation

Michael LydonResident

Ali MallickNew York City Departmentof Design and Construction

Leopoldo ManziNational Grid

Evelyn MatechakResident

Anthony MatusewiczResident

Christopher McBridexAutomobile Association ofAmerica

Edmund Michaleski+Oak Street BlockAssociation

+ Denotes member of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC).

Mark MohrmannHardesty & Hanover

George J. MuellerStobierski LucasGardenview Funeral Home

Dorothy NearyUnited Fofties CivicAssociation

Helen NeuhausHelen Neuhaus &Associates

Charles O'SheaNew York State Departmentof Transportation

Nancy PetrulloResident

Alfonso PettenatoResident

Diane PiatkoResident

Gall PizzigatiParsons Brinckerhoff

Lillian RobertsonNew York State Depaflmentof Transportation

Tobias RussoOffice of Governor DavidPaterson

AnnMarie SacharskyResident

Sobner Saint DicxNew York City Depaflmentof Transportation

Patrick SbanoMTA-Bridges&Tunnels

Michael SeabrookParsons Brinckerhoff

Aaron ShortCNG Courier

Jorge SilvaJudlau Contracting

R. SmithSimple Math

David SummaJudlau Contracting

Dorothy Swick*St. Cecilia's Church

Grantley ThornhillAccurate Building Inspectors

Marin TockmanResident

Alton TreadwellNew York State Depaftmentof Transporlation

Andrea TorreResident

Andrew TurcoRegional Plan Association

Alvin UbellAccurate Building Inspectors

Vincent VespoleResident

Dzrmon VictorOne Stop Blue Printing

Jack WallaceUnited Forties CivicAssociation

Daniel WanHardesty & Hanover

Mitch WaxmanNewtown Historical Society/Newtown Pentacle

Lawrence WeissA.J. McNulty & Company, Inc.

Robert WeissA.J. McNulty & Company, Inc.

Ed WexellResident

Carol WierzbickiResident

H. WorlhMeeker Sales lnc.

Anita WrightHelen Neuhaus &Associates

Carol WynperleParsons Brinckerhoff

+ Denotes member of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC).

Attachment B

BRIDGE-TYPE PREFERENCES

COMMENT CARDS (87)*

Oueens Open House

Box Girder 3

Deck Arch 5

Through Arch 1 l

Cable-Stayed 9

Brooklvn Ooen House

Box Girder 8

Deck Arch 8

Through Arch 16

Cable-Stayed 1 9

Queens Community Board #2 (5)

Box Girder

Deck Arch

Through Arch 2Cable-Stayed 3

Brooklvn Communitv Board #1

Box Girder 1

Deck Arch

Through Arch

Cable-Stayed 2EMAIL COMMENTS (34)+

Box Girder I

Deck Arch 5

Through Arch 8

Cable-Stayed 20

TOTAL COMMENTS

Box Girder

Deck Arch

1 3

1 8

Through Arch 3'7

Cable-Stayed 53

TOTAL: 121

*Includes both preferences recorded by four respondents (Box Girder/Deck Arch; Deck ArcMThroughArch; Through Arch/Box Girder; Through Arch./Cable-Stayed)

Attachment C

Kosciuszko Bridge Open HousesFebruary 2010

Comment CardsBridge-Tnre Comments

Box Girder (BG)1. Keeping all structure below the deck would be desirable.

2. Cable-Stayed is most aesthetically pleasing but seems excessive and too expensive, consideringcurrent budget problems. Through Arch gives some nice visual interest. Deck Arch doesn'thave enough visual differentiation from Box Girder to be worth added expense and largeobstructing base. Box Girder is simple but fine.

3. Cleanest appearance with least visual impact (to drivers and view of city). Long-termmaintenance cost should be on the lower end ofthe choices.

Deck Arch (DA)1. Since it's concrete, maintenance should be less.

2. No adverse impact to bird flight/migration.

3. Planes follow the BQE and LIE to LaGuardia and fly low when clouds are low, so we don'twant anythhg sticking up to crash into. Deck Arch looks strongest in case of overweighttrucks.

4. Visually pleasing structure that does not extend too far over the deck.

5. Keep the skyline clearl Cable maintenance isabighassle (even if it's in75 years)

6. Ask that exits and approach supports be visually appealing on Brooklyn and Queens sides.

7. Appears to be more solid construction; least obstructs skyline; openness for the drivers is clearand crisp; appealing profile aesthetically.

8. Keeps the view of Manhattan open; no distraction when driving over bridge.

9. [See Box Girder Comment # 1]

Throueh Arch (TA)1. The Through Arch option presents a hint ofthe existing structue while presenting a new look

and a less ostentatious option than the Cable-Stayed span.

2. Deck Arch would be rny second choice.

3. Exit and entrance ramps on both sides.

4. View of skyline (How high is bridge?).

5. Oflers identity for the bridge while nof overwhelming the skyline.

6. Navigational red lights for LGA flight lair,1 navel guidance.

7 . Strong building-steel bridge; 3-dimensional driving over the bridge.

8. Like the 3 arches driving over the Kosciuszko Bridge; spectacular view.

9. Elegant but a lot less expensive than Cable-Stayed bridge.

10. [See Box Girder Comment #2]

1 1. Add a line down the bike/pedestrian lane (separating users) !

Cable-Stayed (CS)1. Could become al iconic image for Brooklyn and Queens, especially since it joins the two

boroughs and frames the Marhattan skyline when viewed from the east.

2. Cable-Stayed is an actual bridge and is an acceptable replacement for this old bridge.

3. Signature Bridge, to west City Skyline/Safety-Eliminate vertical curve/Structurally sound.

4. We need a modem look in our City, plus it will be something you can see from a distance.

5. The Deck Arch is not dramatic. If the Cable-Stayed is deemed too costly, better to be elegantand simple and go with a Deck Arch. However, I think the Cable-Stayed could become a partof the city's visual identity, gets people to look up, changes perspective, so it's my pick.

6. Aesthetically the best but hope it's not too high to interfere with air haffrc.

7. Many, many years ago, the Lenape Indians lived in this area (they were here first). The Cable-Stayed design reminds me of an Indian dancing with his headdress of feathers on, and eachcable represents one ofhis long feathers flowing from his costume. Also, the art deco designat the top ofthe bridge fits in with the feeiing.

Brooklyn needs another beautiful bridge ofcables - the three sisters: the Brooklyn Bridge, theYetazano Bridge, and now the Kosciuszko Bridge.

With a cable bridge you have a location on the bridge where you are. Also from a distance,we will see our new beautiful bridge to be proud of and even more so at night with the lightson (white cable and white lights)

8. The cables should be decorative similar to the one in Bradenton, Florida.

9. The design looks rich and complements the Newton Creek Water Pollution Control Plantdigesters, which are also becoming an attraction.

10. Kayaking on both sides.

11. As long as maintenance cost is same as second pick (TA)