IAF Tappan Zee Bridge Report 11.16.12

The Tappan Zee Bridge Report
for the
Industrial Areas Foundation
Larry Filler
President
LF Consulting
November 16, 2012
1 Table of Contents I -­‐ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 2 – HISTORY OF TAPPAN ZEE BRIDGE 5 3 – PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT 7 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9 5 – FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS 10 6 – PROJECT IMPACTS 11 7 -­‐ PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 14 8 – OPEN ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 17 9 – COMPARABLE PROJECTS 19 10 – CONCLUSION 20 2 I -­‐ Executive Summary The Tappan Zee Bridge (TZB) is a critical link in the transportation network that
serves the Lower Hudson Valley, the region and New York State. It was built in
1955 as part of the construction by the New York State Thruway Authority
(NYSTA) of I-287 connecting Rockland County to Westchester County over the
Hudson River. Since that time it has served the transportation and economic
needs of the region as its population and economy has grown. It serves the local,
regional and interstate markets, is used heavily by commercial and individual
users and is important for business and leisure travel. However, the continued
use of the TZB faces difficult challenges.
The TZB was designed with a life expectancy of approximately 50 years. It has
required significant investments to maintain it in a safe condition for travel since
the 1980s. Over the last two decades more than $750 million has been spent on
the TZB for maintenance and rehabilitation purposes. It is estimated that another
$1.3 billion will be required over the next decade to keep it safe. The TZB was
also not built to current structural and safety standards. For example, its 7 traffic
lanes vary in width with many being narrower than the standard 12’ width. It was
not built to withstand extreme conditions such as earthquakes and hurricanes
undermining its role as an emergency evacuation route for the region. It also
lacks shoulders making it difficult to handle accidents and emergencies without
causing substantial traffic delays and interruptions in service. And of great
concern to the neighboring communities, it does not accommodate multi-modal
uses such as transit making it a bottleneck to supporting the mobility needs of the
region.
In light of the shortcomings of the TZB, the State of New York began work on
finding a solution to the deficiencies of the TZB and other transportation needs in
the Corridor served by the bridge and I-287. A Governor’s Task Force finally
recommended in 2011 a major $16 billion program to replace the TZB with a new
bridge and to make other improvements such as a new transit system. This
proposal was deemed financially unworkable and the State decided to focus only
on a replacement bridge that would be financially viable. The result was the
decision to fast track a bridge replacement project through the required
environmental review process.
The solution selected by the State to build a replacement bridge is estimated to
cost approximately $5 billion. To save on costs the bridge would be “transitready” allowing for the future development of a new transit system. The
replacement bridge would have a dedicated pedestrian/bicycle lane and it could
accommodate a bus-only lane for peak hour service along the bridge’s
shoulders. The State also fast tracked the bidding process to construct the new
bridge and expects to have it finished in 2017.
3 During the expedited environmental review process, the State undertook an
extensive albeit compressed outreach effort to the impacted communities and
their representatives as well as to other interested parties such as community
and public interest groups, unions and state and federal elected representatives.
The environmental review analyzed twenty different areas of impact. The final
Record of Decision by the Federal Highway Administration approved the Final
Environment Impact Statement (FEIS) and its recommendation to build a
replacement bridge as proposed on September 25, 2012.
However, there remain a number of unresolved issues that are of interest to the
impacted communities. Among them is the lack of a clear and unequivocal
commitment to provide for new transit services across the replacement bridge.
The Governor committed during the process to set up a task force to make
recommendations on transit options within a year, but the task force has not
been constituted. The Governor also agreed that the existing bus services
between Rockland and Westchester could use a dedicated bus lane during peak
hours when the bridge opens but the FEIS does not make that commitment.
There are many mitigation measures recommended concerning noise and
vibration as well as for other negative environmental impacts but these remain to
be implemented by the contractor. The dedicated pedestrian/bicycle lane lacks
full utility since it does not connect with existing trails on the mainland. And the
Governor has reported that 45,000 jobs will be generated but there is lack of
specificity as to whether these jobs will provide local workers with employment
and no commitment to work with the local communities to achieve this.
The NYSTA has entered into a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with the labor
unions that includes an enhanced apprenticeship program. And the NYSTA is
requiring bidders to meet minority and women owned business goals for the work
that will help promote greater employment opportunities. The Governor has
publicly committed to having approximately $400 million of the $5 billion project
cost used for disadvantaged businesses particularly minority and business
owned enterprises (M/WBE).
There may be opportunities to address these unresolved issues. As one way to
determine what actions may be effective in doing so is to look at other major
bridge projects that have faced similar issues. Although this Report does not
evaluate these types of programs in other states, it does identify a number of
possible candidate projects that should be further investigated. These include a
major rehabilitation of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Northern Virginia, the
reconstruction of the San Francisco Oakland Bridge, and the new Mississippi
Bridge being built between St. Louis and East St. Louis, among others.
4 2 – History of Tappan Zee Bridge The Tappan Zee Bridge (TZB), known officially as the Governor Malcom Wilson
Bridge, was built over 50 years ago by the New York State Thruway Authority
(NYSTA) as part of its construction of I-287 from Suffern, New York through
Tarrytown. It opened in 1955, is 3.1 miles long and is the only interstate bridge
between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s George Washington
Bridge (part of I-95) and the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge (part of I-84) 48 miles
north of the GWB.
The TZB was designed to carry six lanes of traffic but in 1992, NYSTA converted
the median lane during peak periods into a travel lane in the direction of peak
period traffic. The TZB serves local, regional and interstate transportation needs.
It serves as a vital link between the population and employment centers of
Rockland and Westchester counties. It’s also a major route for freight movement
and serves as an emergency evacuation route. As a result, TZB is considered to
be a critical transportation link in the State’s highway system and important to the
economy of the region and its mobility needs.
Traffic has grown significantly over the years. In 1990, the TZB carried 112,000
vehicles on an average day while in 2010 it carried 134,000 with peak traffic of
170,000 vehicles per day. In addition, the condition of the TZB continues to
deteriorate and has required significant investment to maintain it. In the mid1980s significant deterioration of the bridge was identified and since then NYSTA
has invested considerable monies to keep the bridge safe for the traveling public.
Between 2000 and 2010, NYSYTA spent over $500 million to maintain the
bridge.
In order to address the structural deficiencies of the bridge and its growing
maintenance costs, the NYS Governor in 1999 convened an I-287 Task Force to
examine the long term needs for the I-287/TZB corridor. In April 2000, a Long
Term Needs Assessment and Alternatives Analysis was completed by the Task
Force that concluded that there was no preferred solution for addressing the
corridor’s transportation needs. However, all of the alternatives considered
included a replacement for the TZB since it was felt that a rehabilitation of the
existing bridge would be very disruptive, as costly as a replacement and would
not address the mobility needs of the Corridor.
Since 2000, various alternatives have been considered for the replacement of the
TZB and other improvements such as improved transit alternatives to address
the Corridor’s mobility needs. The NYSTA worked with NYS Department of
Transportation (NYSDOT), US Department of Transportation through its Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and
5 MTA Metro-North Railroad to examine the alternatives. These agencies
participated in numerous public forums and outreach activities. Two community
outreach offices were established, one in Nyack and the other in Tarrytown. Five
Stakeholders’ Advisory Working Groups were established to guide project
development efforts and hold meetings with elected officials, community groups
and interested individuals.
The project elements that were advanced during this period were for a 30-mile
Corridor improvement project that included a bridge replacement, major
improvements to the highway system and new transit service possibly a new
commuter rail line connecting Rockland County over the new bridge into
Westchester’s Metro-North Service. The cost for this project was estimated to be
approximately $16 billion. In 2011, however, it became clear that the cost for this
full improvement program was not financially feasible and that only the financing
of a new crossing was practical. Therefore, FHWA and FTA issued a Notice of
Intent on October 12, 2011, to rescind the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Corridor
Project under consideration and instead to begin a process to consider
alternatives for a new Hudson River Crossing to replace the TZB. The FHWA
was designated as the lead federal agency with NYSTA and NYSDOT assuming
joint leadership responsibilities for the State. On October 11, 2011, the State
obtained from the federal Administration a designation for the project as one of
national significance and allowed to be expedited through the permitting and
environmental review processes
The environmental review process is required by the federal National
Environmental Policy Act and the New York State Environmental Quality Review
Act. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared that examines
alternatives to the current TZB and to assess the environmental impacts of these
alternatives. It must be prepared by NYSDOT and NYSTA in order to obtain
approval from FHWA and other federal agencies to proceed with the project.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared by NYSDOT and
NYSTA. After approval by FHWA, it was published on January 18, 2012 for
public comment. The comment period ended March 30, 2012, although
comments received after that date were also considered in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
The DEIS recommended a TZB replacement bridge adjacent to and north of the
existing bridge. NYSTA and NYSDOT engaged in an extensive public outreach
program that included public meetings, open houses, meetings with
stakeholders, the set-up of a project website and put together a mailing list of
over 5,000 interested parties to provide notices of meetings and project
information.
Based on the DEIS and comments received, an FEIS was prepared and
approved by FHWA, and then published on August 3, 2012, for a 30-day
6 comment period. The public outreach during this process was extensive with
over 1,100 people attended hearings and over 3,000 public comments received
and responded to. Following the end of the comment period, the FHWA prepared
its final decision document known as a Record of Decision, that was issued on
September 25, 2012, approving the FEIS and the construction of a replacement
bridge for the TZB.
Finally, the State moved to make the TZB replacement project part of the
region’s Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), a requirement to proceed with
the project. The TIP is under the authority of the regional planning agency, the
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC). NYMTC is governed
by all major transportation agencies and political entities in the region. On
August 20, 2012, NYMTC’s board approved amending the TIP to include this
project.
3 – Purpose of the Project The need for the replacement of the TZB was documented in the following areas.
a. Structural Deficiencies – The TZB design and condition falls short of
current standards and conditions. It cannot withstand a major event from
an extreme natural event like a hurricane or earthquake that is required for
all critical bridge structures by the NYSDOT. It’s existing condition has
required extensive repairs since the late 1980s. $750 million has been
spent to maintain and repair the bridge and will require an additional $1.3
billion over the next decade to keep the bridge safe for vehicular use
b. Operational and Safety Deficiencies – The bridge was not designed to
meet current bridge and highway standards such as lane and shoulder
widths. Current design standards require 12-foot lane widths compared to
the widths of from 11 feet, 2 inches to 12 feet for the seven lanes on the
bridge. In addition, the bridge lacks any shoulders for emergency
purposes. This has resulted in higher than normal accident rates and
emergency responses are compromised by the lack of adequate
shoulders. This also undermines the bridge’s ability to serve as an
evacuation route.
c. Security Deficiencies – The bridge is one of only a few trans-Hudson
crossings and must function to protect the communities on both sides of
the River. The bridge requires structural and service redundancies that
can avoid extreme events and lacks safety measures to aid in the event of
an extreme event.
d. Mobility Deficiencies – The bridge does not support the mobility needs of
the region or the State. According to the FEIS it “is susceptible to
incidents and high levels of congestion with frequent travel delays and a
poor level of service due to non-standard land widths and lack of
shoulders, particularly during the evening commuter period.” Traffic back-
7 ups occur regularly on weekends when the majority of vehicles do not pay
with E-ZPASS and the bridge lacks sufficient cash handling toll collection
lanes. And, the bridge does not allow for transit and other multi-modal
uses. There are no dedicated bus lanes nor can pedestrians or bicyclists
use the bridge.
The State’s goals for the replacement TZB is to:
1. Ensure the long-term vitality of this Hudson River crossing – the structure
must be built with sufficient strength and stability to be able to withstand
extreme conditions to fulfill its role as a critical transportation link in times
of need.
2. Improve transportation operations and safety – the bridge must meet
current design and operations standards such as adequate lane widths
and available shoulders to accommodate vehicular use in a safe and
adequate manner
3. Maximize the public investment in a new Hudson River crossing – ensure
that the structure is cost-effective over its life by minimizing maintenance
costs, reducing the impact on existing highways, maximizing the use of
the existing rights-of-way and providing access for dedicated multi-modal
uses such as for pedestrians and bicyclists and for future dedicated transit
use.
Furthermore, the TZB is a critical part of a 30-mile transportation corridor that
runs from the I-287/I-87 split in Suffern, east to I-287/I-95 in Port Chester. This
corridor includes significant portions of both Westchester and Rockland Counties
including the communities of Port Chester, Rye, Harrison, White Plains,
Greenburgh, Elmsford, Tarrytown, Nyack, West Nyack, Nanuet, Spring Valley,
and Suffern.
As one of the region’s critical transportation linkages it must be able to support
the population and economic growth of communities it serves. Forecasts for
population and economic growth between 2010 and 2047 show that the
populations of Rockland and Westchester Counties are expected to increase by
50,000 and 134,000 residents, respectively. Employment is projected to increase
by 47,000 in Rockland County and 160,000 in Westchester for the studied
period. The regional planning agency, the New York Metropolitan Transportation
Council, projects that the Corridor served by the TZB will experience a 17%
increase in population and a 33% increase in jobs over the next 30 years. It is
expected that this growth in population and jobs will increase daily volumes
across the bridge over the next 30 years requiring a facility that is able to meet
these needs safely and in conformity with the goals of such a critical
transportation linkage.
Finally, the State identifies other benefits of the Project that may be relevant to
IAF. Governor Cuomo represents that the Project will generate 45,000 jobs.
8 Assessments done through the environmental impact analysis provides a more
detailed breakdown profile of the jobs impact. According to an analysis done in
the Final Environmental Impact Statement, construction of the replacement
bridge will result in 2,819 full-time jobs over the estimated five-year construction
period in Rockland and Westchester counties. Additional indirect jobs generated
from businesses associated with the construction project needs such as in
industries that provide goods and services to the contractors would total about
679 in these counties and another 158 throughout the state. Induced jobs from
the impact of household spending from the salaries earned through the additional
direct and indirect employment would generate an additional 922 in the counties
and 396 throughout the State. Thus total job generation over the five years will
generate on average 4,974 jobs.
4 – Project Description The FEIS recommends that the TZB be replaced with a new bridge that has the
following characteristics.
A. The new bridge will be located adjacent to and north of the existing
structure
B. It will have structural redundancy and hardening to allow it to withstand to
the extent practicable extreme events. It will also have service
redundancy through a twin bridge structure to allow it to function during
routine maintenance and extreme events. The structures would meet all
current seismic and safety design standards.
C. It will be comprised of two parallel structures (twin bridge structure) each
carrying 4 lanes. The south structure will carry vehicles in the eastward
direction from Rockland County to Westchester County. The north
structure will have 4 lanes that carry traffic in the westward direction.
D. The traffic lanes will be the standard 12-foot width. There will be one
shared use dedicated land for pedestrians/bicyclists on the northern edge
of the north structure. There will be right and left shoulders on each
structure with extra wide shoulders on the left side of both structures
which could be used to accommodate bus-only service during peak
periods.
E. The two structures will be separated by a gap that will be adequate to
build a new highway structure for a dedicated future transit use such as a
Bus Rapid Transit system or commuter rail line to connect Rockland and
Westchester counties. The two highway structures will be strengthened to
support the additional load of a new structure built within the gap between
the two highway structures.
F. A dedicated bus lane for current bus services (Tappan Zee Xpress and
the Orange-Westchester Link or OWL) on the left shoulders of the
replacement bridge but only after a separate environmental review takes
place.
9 G. Tolls collected in the eastbound direction at a modified Westchester toll
plaza to accommodate 10 traffic lanes, three of which will be for high
speed E-ZPass users
5 – Funding and Construction Process Funding the Project
The replacement bridge is estimated to cost according to the FEIS between $4.6
and $5.4 billion dollars and to be completed in 2017. As this will be part of the
NYS Thruway, the cost of the bridge will be paid by the NYSTA and funded
through bonds backed by toll receipts, revenues from the existing TZB and a
federal loan, if available. Bonds will require that the toll receipts be adequate to
repay the bonds.
Governor Cuomo initiated a requested to the USDOT on August 20, 2012, for a
loan under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
program for a low cost loan to pay for 49% or approximately $2.4 billion to $2.9
billion of the project costs depending on the final cost of the project.
The way the project is financed will impact the tolls that will be charged when the
new bridge is built. The purpose of applying for a federal loan through the TIFIA
program is to lower the borrowing costs for the project so that the tolls required to
repay the costs of the project will be as low as possible according to the State.
The State has projected a number of toll scenarios that will be required to pay for
the cost of the project. It projects that tolls for the project will be approximately
$8.40 for E-ZPASS commuters and $14 for cash tolls. Currently, the tolls for the
GWB (and all other PA trans-Hudson crossings) are $9.50 for E-ZPASS users
during the peak hours and $12 for cash tolls. However, the Governor also stated
that he would look to expand discount programs to benefit Westchester and
Rockland counties. Presumably, he will look to toll discount programs offered by
such agencies as the Port Authority that provides toll discounts to residents of
Staten Island who pay a flat rate of $4.75 at all times to use the PA’s transHudson facilities.
Construction Process
The State is using a unique process called a design-build approach in which the
company that wins the bid to build the bridge will design and build the bridge at a
fixed cost. This process will allow the State to share with the successful bidder
significant construction risks lowering the State’s liability. This approach is
expected to result in a shorter timeframe than through a normal design first and
then build later process and will transfer more risk to the contractor. In order to
use this new approach, the Governor introduced and successfully obtained
10 legislative authority in 2011 for bidding out the design and build work in one
contract. The milestones for this construction process are.
1. Issue Request for Proposals – Completed in March 2012
2. Received three bids - July 2012
3. Award contract by end of 2012
As part of the selection process, the Governor announced that the selection
committee would include renowned architects and artists, local history and
cultural representatives, environmental experts and international design experts
to help create a unique structure of lasting value. Local officials made the
following designations for the committee. Tarrytown Mayor Drew Fixell
designated village resident David Aukland; Rockland County Executive C. Scott
Vanderhoef designated County Commissioner of Planning Thomas B.
Vanderbeek, P.E.; Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino designated
County Department of Planning Commissioner Edward Buroughs; and South
Nyack Mayor Tish Dubow designated Richard L. Kohlhausen. The Governor also
committed to create a New NY Bridge Community Action Team to work with the
community through the construction period. A new office will be opened in
Tarrytown and the State will continue to hold public meetings on the progress of
the project throughout the region.
Project Labor Agreement
The State has negotiated a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) that was approved in
July 2012 covering the terms and conditions under which labor unions would
work during the TZB replacement project. The PLA, signed by 14 labor unions
and 26 locals, covers hours, pay, an expanded apprenticeship program and other
matters critical to the conduct of the project. The State claims that the PLA will
save it $452 million. According to a statement released by the Governor’s office
on June 18, the PLA creates employment opportunities for union members
across the region. James Cahill, President of the New York State’s Building
Construction Trades Council was quoted as saying that it will lead to thousands
of construction jobs for New Yorkers. The Governor’s statement also says that
the State will make approximately $400 million available for Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises (DBE) contractors with a sizable amount going to Minority
and Women Owned Businesses. The PLA will also encourage increased
employment of women and minority construction workers. Veterans would also
get preference for jobs under the PLA. The PLA is a required component of the
final construction contract.
6 – Project Impacts 11 The environmental impact studies undertaken for the project through the DEIS
and FEIS looked at a variety of project impacts within the scope of the law.
There are twenty areas that were examined as follows:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
Transportation
Community Character
Land Acquisition, Displacement and Relocation
Parklands and Recreational Resources
Socioeconomic Conditions
Visual and Aesthetic Resources
Historic and Cultural Resources
Air Quality
Noise and Vibration
Energy and Climate Change
Topography, Geology, and Soils
Water Quality
Ecology
Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials
Construction Impacts
Environmental Justice
Coastal Area Management
Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Other NEPA/SEQRA Considerations
Final Section 4(f) Evaluation (avoidance of the use of public areas like
parks or adversely impacting an historic landmark structure)
Of these considerations, it appears that only a handful may be of relevance to the
interests of the IAF. The following provides some explanation and the State’s
assessment of these relevant areas.
Transportation
The impacts of the TZB replacement bridge were examined in the areas of traffic,
traffic diversions, marine transportation, transit, and pedestrians and cyclists.
The analysis in the FEIS found that the new bridge would be adequate to handle
current and future traffic demand. Higher tolls than are now charged are
expected in order to pay for the project costs. These higher tolls are assumed to
be no higher than the highest rates charged among the three bridges in closest
proximity to the TZB (George Washington Bridge, the Bear Mountain Bridge, and
the Newburgh Beacon Bridge) and the two Port Authority tunnels. The traffic
studies show that these higher tolls would generate only minor diversions to
those facilities at the worst with most of the diversion going to the GWB.
There would be no impact on marine transportation. There would be immediate
and longer-term positive impacts on transit as the bridge would result in less
delays for the current bus services using the TZB due to safety and operational
improvements. In the midterm, if the extra-wide shoulders were permitted to be
12 used for dedicated bus service (see section 7 on Public Involvement), some
transit improvements would be achieved. And in the long term, if a dedicated
transit facility were constructed either in the gap between the structures or as a
free standing separate structure, significant transit benefits could be achieved.
Finally, pedestrians and cyclists would gain immediate benefits from the
dedicated pedestrian/bicycle lane on the northern structure. However, the
dedicated lane would not connect within the parklands on either side of the
bridge nor would it directly connect with recreational trail systems. No mitigation
measures were required from these transportation impacts.
Community Character
An assessment was done to look at the potential impacts on land use, zoning,
public policy, neighborhood character and community facilities and services.
Since the bridge would replace and use most of the existing right of way of the
current TZB, the potential impacts were seen to be short lived and only during
the construction period. The analysis does not find any adverse impacts.
The assessment reviews the land use and zoning ordinances and requirements
of the impacted area and finds that overall the project would not cause a
substantial change in the type of intensity of land uses. It also states that the
project would make improvements that would benefit access, mobility and safety
as well as fewer instances of traffic delays. It would also not introduce any new
residents or permanent workers to the surrounding area. Therefore, there would
be no increase in demand on educational facilities, religious facilities and
community centers, government facilities or emergency services.
Socioeconomic Conditions
An assessment of the projects impact on population, workforce and business
characteristics was conducted. This includes potential changes in neighborhood
or community cohesion for social groups, changes in travel patterns and
accessibility, and direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts resulting from
displacement and highway safety. The assessment also looked at potential
impacts on specific demographic groups including populations with limited
English proficiency, elderly citizens and people with disabilities. The assessment
concludes that since the project would not alter highway capacity or traffic
volumes, and it would provide benefits to local and regional populations and
workforce in terms of improved operational mobility and safety, there are no
anticipated project-related effects on long-term population or workforce
characteristics of the affected area. Finally, the assessment does not see any
adverse impact from the increased tolls that would be required to finance the
replacement bridge as tolls have always been present and the toll structure
would not exceed those of the GWB or MTA facilities.
Environmental Justice
13 An assessment was done on the potential impacts on minority and low-income
populations to determine whether the project would result in disproportionately
high and adverse impacts on these populations compared to the general
population. The assessment looked at adverse impacts resulting from the
operation of the bridge, from the construction of the bridge and due to toll
adjustments. It concludes that the adverse impacts would be felt equally
between minority and non-minority populations. The assessment also noted that
public participation was available to low–income and minority communities
through the publication of notices in English and Spanish and Spanish translation
services were available at the scoping briefings. Specialized notices were
provided to significant communities of Chinese in Westchester County and
Jewish/Hasidic communities in Rockland and Orange Counties. Finally, some of
the meetings were held in locations that were accessible by public transportation.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The assessment indicates that indirect effects are usually of the type caused by
major changes in regional access and mobility such as a new highway, new
bridges to currently undeveloped areas and the like. This project is unlike these
types of projects, as it would replace an existing bridge to improve the structural
deficiencies of the current structure, to improve safety and provide multi-modal
access. No new access points are included. The assessment points to the likely
increase in tolls as a possible concern for indirect effects but concludes that
given the comparable tolls in neighboring facilities and the presence of tolls on
the current structure, no impact is expected. Nor is there seen to be any
cumulative impact by combining the effects of the project with other major
projects planned for the region. However, since there is no direct or indirect
effect on regional traffic capacity or VMT, there is no cumulative impact.
Other NEPA and SEQRA Considerations
The assessment looks at various other considerations of which only one appears
to have interest to the IAF. This element concerns a recent New York State law
that requires public infrastructure projects to be in conformity with the New York
State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act. This Act establishes ten
criteria intended to limit sprawl, maximize efficiency, and promote
environmentally- and socially-conscious development. These criteria include
advancing projects located in municipal center, advancing projects for the use,
maintenance or improvement of existing infrastructures, preserving the state’s
resources, etc. A Smart Growth Impact Statement (SGIS) is required. NYSTA
developed and submitted a SGIS on July 18, 2012d that found the project
compliant with the Act.
7 -­‐ Public Involvement NYSTA and NYSDOT conducted a number of outreach activities to involve the
public during the course of the project. In developing the first TZB/I-287 Corridor
14 improvement project, the FHWA, FTA, NYSDOT, NYSTA and Metro-North
Railroad conducted numerous public meetings and one-on-one meetings, set-up
two community offices one in Nyack and the other in Tarrytown, put up a website
for information and comments, sent out newsletters to interested parties,
established five stakeholders’ Advisory Working Groups that met regularly to
guide the project, meet with all the impacted local elected officials and
community groups, . Large public forums including workshops were held several
times at various locations. A mailing list of 5,000 interested individuals and
organizations was compiled and used to send out information and notices. An
effort was made to reach out to Spanish speaking members of the communities
through dual language notices and translation services available at certain
meetings. The meetings were held at times at locations accessible to transit.
Following the abandonment of the corridor improvement project in 2011, as part
of the DEIS and FEIS process the State held several public hearings at which
over 1,100 people attended. They received 3,000 comments to which they
responded in writing or by email.
A number of unresolved issues emerged during the final process that led to the
approval of the FEIS in September 2012. This included the demand for a firm
commitment to make transit improvements and to commit to the building of a Bus
Rapid Transit System. On August 16, an agreement was reached between the
Governor and the county executives for Putman, Rockland and Orange counties
to address these issues. The Governor committed to setting up a Tappan Zee
Transit Task Force to examine transit options and to report back within one year.
In addition, the State committed to use the extra-wide shoulders on the new
bridge for dedicated bus lanes when the bridge opens for service. A number of
organizations remain concern with the failure of the Governor to address longerterm transportation issues. The Tri-State Transportation Campaign, Good Jobs
New York, Natural Resources Defense Council, NYPIRG, and Transportation
Alternatives submitted their concerns in a letter dated March 30,2012, during the
DEIS process. And, the failure of the Governor to appoint members of the transit
task force concerns many.
Although the State committed to a number of mitigation measures to minimize
the impact of construction on the surrounding communities in terms of noise and
traffic, several communities remain concerned. For example, Tarrytown has
been meeting with the State about concerns that Irving neighborhood residents
have over the construction of the new bridge without firm commitments from the
State to protect their homes and community. Mayor Drew Fixell and Tori Weisel,
president of the Irving Neighborhood Preservation Association, have been in
talks with the State’s Project Community Liaison, Brian Conybeare. South Nyack
has raised similar concerns.
Environmentalists remain concerned about the impact of the construction on the
Hudson River. Some want the current bridge to remain standing and be
15 designated as a park. Riverkeeper has been one of the critics of the project as
well as Scenic Hudson, both of whom have submitted comments during the DEIS
and FEIS process and continue to believe there are major unresolved issues with
the impact of the bridge on the River ecology and wildlife.
Many comments were received about the noise, vibrations and traffic created by
construction staging areas to be located on both sides of the new bridge during
the construction period. For example, the Village of Tarrytown, Nyack and South
Nyack all expressed this concern. The response of the State was that the
design-build contractor would address this issue and that mitigation measures
have been recommended. However, there is no resolution to these issues as the
contractor has not been selected.
And, in general, there were a number of complaints that the comments raised
during the DEIS and FEIS process were ignored or poorly addressed from
representatives of Tarrytown, South Nyack, Riverkeeper, Tri-State transportation
Campaign, among others.
Stakeholders
There were many stakeholders who were involved in the public involvement
process. While the number is quite high, a few of the major individuals and
organizations that participated in the public comment process contained in the
project records are listed below.
Elected Officials
Congressman Eliot Engel
Robert A Astorino, County Executive, Westchester County
Edward A. Diana, County Executive, Orange County
MaryEllen Odell, County Executive, Putnam County
C. Scott Vanderhoef, County Executive, Rockland County
Patricia DuBow, Mayor, South Nyack
Drew Fixell, Mayor, Village of Tarrytown
Thomas M. Roach, Mayor, City of White Plains
Christopher Sanders, Mayor, Village of Piermont
Jen White, Mayor, Village of Nyack
Paul Feiner, Town Supervisor, Town of Greenburgh
George Hoehmann, Councilman, Town of Clarkstown
Nancy Low-Hogan, Councilwoman, Town of Orangetown
Michael C. Mills, Village Administrator, Village of Elmsford
Martin Malavé Dilan, New York State Senate
Suzi Oppenheimer, New York State Senate
16 Thomas Abinanti, New York State Assembly
Ellen Jaffee, New York State Assembly
Andrea Stewart-Cousins, New York State Senate, 35th District
Kenneth P.Zebrowski, New York State Assembly
Interest Groups
Bike Walk Alliance of Westchester & Putnam
Concerned Citizens for Responsible Development
Environmental Advocates
Environmental Defense Fund
Federated Conservationists of Westchester County
Good Jobs New York, Empire State Future
Irving Neighborhood Preservation Association
League of Women Voters of New York State
Natural Resources Defense Council
New York Bicycling Coalition
New York League of Conservation Voters
New York State Transportation Equity Alliance
NYPIRG/ Straphangers Campaign
Riverkeeper
Scenic Hudson, Inc.
Transportation Alternative,
Tri-State Transportation Campaign
Labor
Construction Industry Council of Westchester and Hudson Valley
IBEW Local 363 and Rockland County Building Trades
Local 417 Iron Workers and Rockland County Building Trade
Local Union No. 445
New York State Ironworkers District Council
8 – Open Issues and Opportunities A number of unresolved issues were raised during the public involvement
process that the FEIS did not adequately address. These issues are as follows:
A. Transportation – There are a number of open issues that have
consequences to the local communities and region. These include
a. Commitment to provide dedicated bus lanes – While the Governor
in an agreement with the county executives of Putnam, Rockland
and Westchester counties, in August committed to the bus-only
lanes, the FEIS still qualified the use of the bridge for this purpose.
Further efforts will be required to ensure that this commitment is
kept.
17 b. A dedicated pedestrian/bicycle lane is part of the project design;
however, the lane is seen as a through lane with no connections to
the park and/or trail system on either side of the TZB. Further
efforts will be required to create a connected system that will further
the recreational uses. Further, consideration should be given to
how to make this link part of a bicycle route for commuters as well.
c. The most controversial part of the project is the failure to provide a
meaningful new transit system for the impacted Corridor. The first
study effort undertaken in 2000 resulted in an ambitious plan to
include with the replacement bridge either a bus rapid transit
system or a commuter rail link. Due to the estimated cost of $16
billion for a comprehensive project that would improve the 30-mile
Corridor, the State decided to reduce the scope of the project to
replacing the TZB and to commit to building a “transit-ready” bridge
that would not prevent the building of a BRT or CRT system. Many
commenters during the DEIS and FEIS expressed disappointment
with this decision and felt that it is a lost opportunity to finally get a
good transit option. There was also a feeling that the estimated
costs to build a complete 30-mile BRT estimated at $5 billion or a
limited system connecting Rockland to Westchester counties over
the new bridge for about $2 billion was excessive and out of line
with costs of BRT systems elsewhere. Also, the State projected
tolls of over $16 to $24 to pay for a project that included the BRT,
an amount that was clearly unacceptable to the surrounding
communities. The commitment by the Governor to create a transit
task force was due in large part to the pressure of the communities
to do more to improve transit options than a commitment to
dedicate the shoulder of the new bridge for buses during peak
hours. Since the task force has still not been constituted, this is an
area where further work is required.
B. Jobs – The Governor has pointed to this project as important to the
economy by providing 45,000 jobs. The analysis done for the FEIS shows
that the counties of Westchester and Rockland should see approximately
4,400 new jobs create on average over the five years of the project. In
addition, another 550 jobs are estimated to be generated for the same
period statewide. The State through the NYSTA has also executed its
Project Labor Agreement with the trade unions that sets out the working
conditions and an enhanced apprenticeship program that will be
implemented during the project. There are a number of issues that are
relevant.
a. Local jobs are not guaranteed for this project. In fact, federal law
prohibits requiring that the jobs be guaranteed for local workers as
being anti-competitive, discriminating against workers from other
states and undermining the ability to get the best price for the work.
However, other projects around the country that have used federal
funds have found ways to provide local jobs. There has been
18 litigation in this area as well concerning the legality of guaranteeing
a certain percentage of local jobs. This is an area that needs to be
further researched
b. Jobs for minorities and women are another area that needs further
examination. Federal law does encourage achieving certain goals
for minority and women participation. In the contract being bid out,
22.6% and 6.9% of the construction work in each trade has to be
for minorities and women, respectively. Also, the Governor has
indicated that approximately $400 million of the $5 billion will be
available for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, principally
minority and women owned businesses. It may be that these types
of businesses will employ local workers. This is not a unique
situation and labor unions and contractors have experience in
meeting these goals. However, there may be best practices used
elsewhere that would help ensure these goals are achieved and
perhaps exceeded through third party efforts.
C. Construction Impacts – There was significant attention to this aspect of the
project as many commenters were concerned with the impact on their
communities and homes from the construction that would take place over
the 5-year period. Some complained that the initial engineering work like
taking borings in the River has already created unpleasant conditions for
residents due to the noise. The areas of concern included the noise and
vibrations, hazardous materials, traffic created by the workers, disrupted
access to businesses and residents, elimination of parking, interruption of
utility services, and the impact of construction staging areas on both sides
of the bridge needed for materials and the workers. While the FEIS
recommended a number of mitigation measures and tried to address
these concerns it is clear that this is an area that requires constant
monitoring and a working relationship with the NYSTA and the contractor.
9 – Comparable Projects There are several recent projects that are similar in size and scope as the TZB
replacement bridge project. They include
A. Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project, Northern Virginia – This $2.5 billion
project replaced the existing structure with a wider spans and included
improvements to the adjacent interchanges. One notable aspect of this
project was there was funding for programs to handle the traffic caused by
the construction project. See project details at www.wilsonbridge.com
B. Mississippi River Bridge Project, St. Louis, MO – This $667 million project
will build a new bridge across the Mississippi River and will include
interchange improvements. See www.newriverbridge.org
C. San Francisco Bay Bridge – This $6.3 billion project involves the
reconstruction of an existing bridge to make it earthquake resistant and
19 improve mobility. It connects San Francisco to Oakland. More
information at www.baybridgeinfo.com
D. Ohio River Bridge – this $2.6 billion project will construct a new bridge
across the Ohio River between Louisville, KY and Indiana. There has
been a lawsuit filed against the states on historic preservation grounds.
More information at www.kyinbridges.com
Other projects should also be added to this list. However, on a surface
examination of the public websites, no information was available concerning
commitments by the project sponsors to address local issues such as jobs,
transit improvements, traffic relief, etc. Further investigation needs to be done to
determine whether and to what extent strategies were employed by the
communities impacted to mitigate adverse impacts or to achieve objectives such
as commitments for local jobs, local transportation improvements and the like.
10 – Conclusion The TZB Replacement Project is a major project for the State of New York and of
great importance to the Lower Hudson Valley. The process to develop a project
to replace the TZB has been conducted in an unusually expedited manner and
appears to have the personal support and interest of the Governor who was
visibly involved in major steps of the project’s development. While the overall
project has been perceived as a positive one, many stakeholders have
expressed reservations about a number of aspects of the project such as the
transit improvements, environmental factors and construction impacts. In
addition, given the speed with which the project has progressed after the
decision by the State to abandon a more ambitious project to address longer
term needs of the I-287 Corridor, there has been little time to organize and find
effective ways to address fully local needs. While projects of this size are not
common there are sufficient other major projects around the country that might
yield information as to successful efforts to organize and obtain commitments to
address local problems. One area of particular interest is obtaining a
commitment to ensure that local jobs are available for this project. It is,
therefore, recommended that the next step should be to investigate further with
the appropriate stakeholders examples of how other areas have successfully
dealt with similar issues.
20