A New Port Authority Bus Terminal: One Small Piece of the Larger Cross-Hudson Capacity Conversation

Source: PANYNJ

Last week the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey released preliminary proposals for a new bus terminal. There were five proposals in total, estimated to take anywhere from 11 to 15 years to complete, with some estimated to cost as much as $10.5 billion. And while it’s very encouraging to see the Port Authority finally acknowledge the bus terminal’s real long-term needs, a new terminal is not a slam-dunk solution to the cross-Hudson capacity dilemma. There has been a serious dearth of vision for managing cross-Hudson capacity, which is poised to become a true crisis for all public transit modes if solutions and funding are not prioritized.

Port Authority Bus Terminal (PABT)

The PABT was built in 1950 at a cost of $24 million (approximately $233 million in today’s dollars), but quickly reached operating capacity by 1966, necessitating subsequent expansions. Today, the terminal is again operating above capacity, handling over 230,000 riders per day, with demand projected to grow to 330,000 by 2040. This is not a new issue. In fact, Tri-State has been sounding the alarm about cross-Hudson bus capacity since last decade.

PATH Train

Riding trains across the Hudson is also an increasingly daunting experience. Jump on any rush hour PATH train and you are sure to be far from alone. PATH ridership stands at roughly 250,000 passengers per day, an increase of nearly 50,000 passengers per day since 1994, and with even more development slated for Hoboken and Jersey City planned or under construction, capacity is and will continue to be a real problem.

» Continue reading…

Last Chance to Speak Publicly About the PANYNJ’s Cross-Harbor Freight Alternatives

Tomorrow is the last of seven public hearings hosted by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey to discuss the Cross Harbor Freight Program NEPA Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. While this is your last chance to provide verbal feedback on 10 alternatives to move freight across the New York Harbor, you can still […]

Don’t Miss the Chance to Learn More about the PANYNJ’s Cross-Harbor Freight Alternatives

The one upside to the severe weather of the past few weeks is that there are still three more opportunities to voice your thoughts about the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey’s Cross Harbor Freight Program. There are two more public hearings today and one more next week to solicit public feedback on ten alternatives […]

Come Out to Support Cross Hudson Rail Freight

This Friday, January 23, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey will be hosting the first of seven public hearings to solicit public feedback on ten alternatives to move freight across the New York Harbor.

The reason for the study is the current system, which is untenable. The lack of existing freight track infrastructure in downstate New York east of the Hudson River means freight must come in on a truck or barge from New Jersey or via trains that are rerouted 140 miles north to Selkirk, NY and then make their way back south toward New York City.

Source: Port Authority DEIS

Source: Port Authority DEIS

CURRENT PROBLEM: SELKIRK DETOUR

More than 90 percent of freight crossing the Hudson River is moved in trucks. As has been noted time and time again, large commercial trucks are a significant contributor to roadway congestion, poor air and water quality, and the deteriorating conditions of regional infrastructure. There is also a significant social cost, as trucks affect roadway and pedestrian safety and quality of life in residential communities.

There are ways to reduce our region’s overreliance on and the impacts of truck freight while improving the overall system of moving goods into and out of our region. Alternatives to the current system are being studied in the recently released Cross Harbor Freight Program NEPA Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Five of the “rail tunnel alternatives” being studied would create a direct connection across the harbor, allowing freight to move directly from New Jersey to Brooklyn and enabling goods to reach Brooklyn, Queens, and Nassau and Suffolk Counties by rail.

SOLUTION: RAIL TUNNEL DIRECT CONNECTION

Left Image Source: Port Authority DEIS | Right Image Source: Source: Cap’n Transit

Left Image Source: Port Authority DEIS | Right Image Source: Source: Cap’n Transit

This would be a significant improvement over the current system. Some of the rail tunnel alternative benefits are:

  • reduced truck emissions, which pollute our air and contribute to increased asthma rates,
  • project construction jobs,
  • port jobs,
  • protection of the current and future flow of goods, including the region’s food and clothing supply,
  • safer roads, especially for pedestrians, and
  • avoidance of costly repairs of roadway damage caused by large trucks (According to one report, road damage caused by a single 18-wheeler is equivalent to that of 9,600 cars).

» Continue reading…

A To-Do List for NYSTA’s New Leadership

State Budget Director Bob Megna, Photo: Times Union | Onondaga County Executive Joanie Mahoney, Photo: ongov.net

In the wake of resignations of the Chairman, Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer of the New York State Thruway Authority, Governor Cuomo has announced his appointment of state budget director Robert Megna as acting Executive Director and Onondaga County Executive Joanie Mahoney as Board […]

ABO Report Validates Transparency Concerns Regarding EFC Loan to Thruway Authority

ABO reportWith the recent release of the New York State Thruway Authority’s proposed budget, which includes a funding deficit of $305 million and $922 million in borrowing for the Tappan Zee replacement project, this is as good a time as any to revisit last month’s report detailing concerns about the approval of the Clean Water Funds loan to the Thruway Authority.

Public authorities like the New York State Thruway Authority or the Metropolitan Transportation Authority should be familiar to regular MTR readers, but readers may be surprised to know that there are 45 state public authorities, not to mention the even more numerous local public authorities, industrial development agencies and local development corporations. As Assemblyman Richard Brodsky said in 2009, “The lives of New Yorkers are impacted by the operations of state authorities to an infinitely greater extent than they are by the departments of state government”yet little is known about what they do or how they operate. Brodsky made that statement in support of legislation he sponsored that year that instituted a new fiduciary duty for authority board members and also created the Authorities Budget Office (ABO).

One of the many authorities, is the Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) which, with the Department of Environmental Conservation, jointly administers the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a fund that provides low-interest rate financing to municipalities to construct water quality protection projects such as sewers and wastewater treatment facilities. Although those purposes have no relation to bridge construction, on June 16, Governor Cuomo announced the EFC had decided to make $511.45 million in “low-cost” loans to the Thruway Authority for the New NY Bridge project. The problem with this announcement is that the EFC Board had not yet acted on the loans, but rather met ten days later, officially voting on the $511 million loans on June 26. But this official decision was ten days after the Governor’s announcement, creating a timing problem for the Board’s decision.

This problem, as well as other red flags, led several organizations, including Tri-State, to request an ABO investigation of the loan process. The results of the investigation were released last week, in which the ABO found:

  • Instances where the EFC Board’s actions did not meet the standards required by the state’s fiduciary duty law;
  • The EFC Board did not comply with Open Meetings Law requirements; of particular concern was the Board’s unwarranted use of executive sessions under Section 105 of that law; and
  • The EFC Board failed to ensure that the EFC complied with 40 CFR 35.3150 when it did not question why the project was added to the Intended Use Plan (IUP) on June 11, 2014 and why the public was denied a comment period.

» Continue reading…

PATH Riders’ Council Tackles Key Issues, but Concerns about Transparency Linger

Image: panynj.gov

Image: panynj.gov

Next week will mark the third meeting of the recently-formed PATH Riders’ Council, which gathered for a mostly introductory meeting in July, followed by a September meeting where the group began getting down to business. The meeting minutes list the following focus areas, which MTR called attention to in a post published prior to the September meeting:

  • Technology (displays, info, communication with riders)
  • Service (frequency, capacity, expansion)
  • Communications (communication with riders, feedback loop to riders)

The public minutes also reveal an interesting mandate from PATH Director/General Manager Stephen Kingsberry to the Council, who references the MTR post:

Reminded PRC members that they should not be responding to members of the Press directly as representative of PATH and/or divulging sensitive information discussed during closed session meetings; he referenced the article by Vincent Pellecchia, “A Full Plate for the PATH Riders’ Council

To be clear, the “article” referenced was not prepared nor written with input from anyone on the Council, but rather guided and informed via the public meeting minutes from the July meeting and published media coverage of the meeting.

» Continue reading…

A Full Plate for the PATH Riders’ Council

path2

The PATH Riders Council‘s first meeting, held in July, was a basic introductory meeting that didn’t touch on any substantive issues. The next meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, and the Council, chaired by (former Tri-State staff member) Ya-Ting Liu, will undoubtedly start getting down to business.

The most pressing issue facing the Council is the need for the Port Authority to meet the current and future challenges of population growth in the PATH ridership area. After explosive growth over the past decade in Hoboken and Jersey City, any PATH rider already knows that rush hour trains are too crowded, and any delay only compounds the problem. This problem, if unaddressed, will only get worse in a future that will see:

Capacity is a glaring near and long-term need for PATH, and the Council should focus its efforts on ensuring that the Port Authority understands that need.

The Riders Council must also address inadequate service levels, especially on the weekends. In recent history, transit ridership has grown dramatically at non-traditional commuting times resulting in a demand for service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

» Continue reading…

Public Authorities Control Board Must Get Answers to Important Questions Before Approving EFC TZB Loan

According to a 2008 report from the DEC regarding wastewater infrastructure needs of NYS, "The need documented in the [CWNS] 2008 survey is expected to be  significantly higher than the 2004 CWNS." | Photo: EPA's Clean Watershed Needs Survey, 2004.

According to a 2008 report from the DEC, “Looking at long-term capital costs, New York’s wastewater infrastructure needs continue to rise, as documented in EPA’s recently published CWNS.” | Photo: EPA’s Clean Watershed Needs Survey, 2004.

As the New NY Bridge construction project continues into its second summer season, questions persist about the transparency and legitimacy of the financial plan for the project. A few weeks ago, Governor Cuomo announced that the New York State Thruway Authority would be receiving $511.45 million in low- and no-interest loans from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). The fund is traditionally used to upgrade water infrastructure across the state – through the NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation, which jointly administers the funds with the Department of Environmental Conservation. The announcement that the loans would pay for many environmental mitigation projects related to the bridge project and the circumvented public review and legislative process to enable this loan riled up environmental, transportation and government groups statewide. The “unconventional” use was noted by EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck, scores of elected officials and seven newspaper editorials.

As noted by Tri-State and others in a letter to the EFC, projects receiving CWSRF funds must be included in the Intended Use Plan – the list of projects to be funded for a given year. The bridge construction project was not in the version made available for public review and comment earlier this year, but rather only added by amendment as a “minor modification” last month along with seven other projects totaling approximately $130 million, bringing the total request of funds to $641 million.
» Continue reading…

Groups Call on New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation to Reconsider Tappan Zee Bridge Loan

UPDATE: EFC Board of Directors approves loan with 5-0 vote. Yesterday, Tri-State and eight other environmental and good government groups sent a letter to New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation Board of Directors calling upon them to reject, or at least postpone a vote on, a $511 million no-interest and low-interest loan for the New NY Bridge construction project. The […]