In November, Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch issued an eye-opening review of the state’s huge transportation funding challenge. As a call to action, Ravitch repeatedly cited the need to fix aging bridges like the Kosciusko and Tappan Zee. His report described the Tappan Zee as costing “between $6 and $10 billion.” But the bridge is part of a larger project to add bus rapid transit (BRT) and commuter rail in the I-287 corridor between Port Jervis and Suffern, officially estimated at $16 billion. The discrepancy in the Ravitch report probably means nothing — but there are plenty of other signs that the state’s plans for the Tappan Zee are bumping up against its financial difficulties, potentially to the detriment of a planned bus rapid transit system.
Transit Timelines Slipping
NYSDOT has already said that it has no construction timeline for the pricey Rockland-Manhattan commuter rail system, even though the agency is building a rail-ready bridge and reserving space for rail right-of-way in the I-287 corridor. The timeline for cross-corridor bus rapid transit now appears to be slipping as well. Project officials had been saying the BRT line would open at the same time as the new bridge. But during a fall update, they described having the BRT line open simultaneously with the bridge as a “goal” instead of a certainty, and said they would “focus on funding for the Transit-Ready Bridge and Highway first followed closely by funding for BRT.”
Low Estimates for BRT
During the same presentation, project officials offered a tentative breakout of project funding: $8.3 billion for the bridge and highway component, $1 billion for bus rapid transit, and $6.7 billion for commuter rail. The use of a $1 billion estimate for the bus system suggests project officials are leaning or being pushed towards lower-cost bus improvements that could mean a less effective transit system:
NYSDOT began the latest phase of the study by weighing four possibilities for bus transit in the corridor. In Rockland, bus rapid transit would run either in a car-free separated busway, or in carpool/high-occupancy toll lanes along I-287. In Westchester, the agency is looking at a “busway” alternative where buses would travel mostly in a physically separated busway, and a “bus lanes” alternative where less physical separation would be provided. Cost estimates for these alternatives are not available yet, and project officials’ recommended transit alignment will probably combine parts of all four.
But cost numbers from an earlier document seem telling. In its 2009 “Transit Mode Selection Report,” NYSDOT similarly compared an alternative with a physically separated busway to an alternative which relied more on painted bus lanes. The busway alternative was estimated at $2.5 billion; the bus-lane alternative at $0.9 billion. Neither of those alternatives was as well defined as the four which project officials are now studying. But the fact that NYSDOT is using an estimate close to the bottom of that range suggests the agency is leaning away from a busway.
Clear Thinking Needed
A financial study has come up with few recommendations beyond “get federal money,” and state officials have at times seemed a little desperate. Last month, then-Gov. David Paterson suggested having the Port Authority take over the Tappan Zee project, a half-baked proposal that would need New Jersey’s approval and was almost immediately dismissed by NJ Gov. Chris Christie. The idea may still have legs, since Gov. Christie has since announced his own plan to use billions of dollars in Port Authority money for state transportation projects. But there are limits to the extent to which the PA can act as a cash cow for the region.
What the Tappan Zee project needs is some clear thinking from the Cuomo administration. In a letter sent last year, Tri-State asked Gov. Cuomo to “consider scaling down the Tappan Zee Bridge project.” By eliminating highway-oriented parts of the project like truck “climbing lanes” and dropping the prohibitively expensive rail portion, New York could end up with a leaner, better-designed project that it can afford to build.
[…] TSTC Sees Trouble Ahead for BRT on the Next Tappan Zee Bridge (MTR) […]
The backstory on every transportaion story is this: because of all the debts run up by Generation Greed, the future tolls collected on the Tappan Zee Bridge have already been spent.
The other backstory is that for 15 years the construction industry has over-run cost estimates released during the bidding process, leading to higher estimates, leading to higher bids, etc. The costs are now ridiculous.
I’m confused by this article. You’re worried about “financial difficulties, potentially to the detriment of a planned bus rapid transit system,” but think it’s a good idea to drop “the prohibitively expensive rail portion”? As far as the bridge itself is concerned, there ought not to be a cost advantage to BRT. Meanwhile, there is substantial rail mileage on both sides of the river that could stand to be connected, needing little in the way of additional ROW. Thanks to ARC’s cancellation, there is little other hope within a generation of seeing west of Hudson NYS counties get a one-seat ride to Manhattan. On the other hand, there is no BRT system in place anywhere in the region. So why prefer more expensive, lower-capacity buses to rail?
If someone were intelligent, the BRT system would be scrapped, the rail line would connect to the Harlem Division line and have stations where connections are made to local buses and the fare structure would in effect treat the rail line within Rockland and Westchester counties. The trains could run every 15 minutes to half hour 18 – 20 hours a day.
and dropping the prohibitively expensive rail portion, New York could end up with a leaner, better-designed project that it can afford to build…..
SCALING BACK the rail portion to simply a one-stop extension over the Bridge would reduce the cost of the rail component, allow for future expansion and yet still effectively serve a new market of 400,000 people.
Taking advantage of rail lines that already exist a short connection from the bridge to the existing line can be built and through service can be extended to Suffern as a precursor to a line to Stewart Airport. By having a rail line that charges bus fares and is integrated with the local bus system we take advantage of rail’s lower operating cost and people’s willingness to transfer to it for the trunk portion of their journeys. Indeed rail can be a catalyst for a number of things.