EPA press release on WTC cleaning hotline launch, June 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Bh, M InfyMnunur^

but requires allocating more of Lower Manhattan's limited street and curbside capac­ ity to buses during peak commuting hours, thus potentially impacting other vehicular operations.

A number of strategies are being considered to address the concerns regarding buses making Queutng passengers crowding Lower Manhattan sidewalks as stops through Lower Manhattan. MTA New they wait at their bus stop.

York City Transit is evaluating options for developing an Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS), which would allow information on the status of bus service, including bus arrival times, to be provided at each bus stop. Extensively used on European bus systems, ATIS is now being implemented in the United States, including the "Metro Rapid" bus system in Los Angeles, and a demonstration project on the 22-Rllmore bu.s line in San Francisco.

Opportunities may also exist to enhance the "street furniture" and aesthetic appeal at bus stops. In the same way that MTA's Fulton Street Transit Center will provide a gateway to subway service for the Lower Manhattan area, newly designed bus stops and waiting areas could potentially pro­ vide a gateway for surface transit services. Portland's Tri-Met bus system for example, which has outfitted downtown bus stops with distinctive bus stop pavilions providing sheltered waiting areas and comprehensive route information, suggests an approach which could benefit Lower Manhattan.

A second concept examined in the bus study focused on development of off-street, full service commuter bus terminal operations in Lower Manhattan, a perennial proposal that attracted renewed attention after the September 11th attacks. The consultant team determined that two facilities would be needed — one to intercept Brooklyn and Staten Island buses using the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, and another for Holland tunnel buses. These facilities would include berths for loading/unloading, ticketing and waiting areas for passengers, as well as bus storage. Passengers would exit and board buses at the terminals in lieu of on-street service for most routes. This approach would take buses off much of the local, street network, but require most passengers to walk further (unless the terminal concept incorporated shuttle bus services).

Though the consultant team concluded both options were viable, the interagency group agreed that the enhanced on-street operations concept offered a better level of service to passengers and supported more efficient bus operations, especially if buses were to be given priority treatment

38 l.ower Manhattan rnuisjwrtation Strategies

NYC-WTC_000143094