On Friday, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) announced a request for $18.6 million in federal transportation funds to begin preliminary engineering work on the Tappan Zee Bridge project.

The amendment to the [...]]]>

Governor Cuomo and NYMTC still have the opportunity to make transit part of the Tappan Zee project. Photo: Patja

On Friday, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) announced a request for $18.6 million in federal transportation funds to begin preliminary engineering work on the Tappan Zee Bridge project.

The amendment to the downstate New York Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)—the basic blueprint for downstate transportation spending—would “program funding for preliminary engineering work for the Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project in Westchester and Rockland counties to include steel pile procurement, installation, testing and removal.” The plan calls for $18.6 million in federal “Interstate Maintenance” support.

This means that the project is moving forward despite the elimination of public transportation, which the County Executives of Westchester and Rockland originally wanted on the bridge. Officially, the project is in the first phase of the environmental review, but there’s clearly a lot going on behind closed doors.

In order for the amendment to make it onto the TIP (and thereby get federal funding), there must be a consensus among the voting members of NYMTC. Although the NYMTC typically approves all of its members’ proposals, council members have previously vetoed particularly objectionable plans.

A public comment period runs from Dec. 12-21. Those interested in seeing changes to the project should contact Governor Cuomo and their local elected officials.

This month, Gov. Paterson announced the release of $77 million for [...]]]> While states like New Jersey have already allocated their transportation stimulus funds, New York is piecemealing out its funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in small increments that make it harder to understand how the state is spending the stimulus overall.

This month, Gov. Paterson announced the release of $77 million for transportation projects in the lower Hudson Valley, $66 million for Long Island projects, and additional millions upstate in the Capital Region, Rochester region, North Country, Western New York, Central New York, and Southern Tier. This is a considerable sum but not close to the $1.1 billion in Surface Transportation Program money which the state is receiving from the stimulus. There is no public schedule for when additional projects will be announced.

New York's economic stimulus website is informative, but determining how much transportation money the state has actually allocated to projects is not that easy.

Earlier this month, the state also announced the release of $81 million in Transportation Enhancement funds, which are used for pedestrian, bicycle, and “nontraditional” projects; $34 million of these funds came from the stimulus while the rest were part of normal federal appropriations. Notable TE projects in the downstate region include streetscape improvements in Haverstraw and Oyster Bay, $2.5 million for NYC’s Bronx River Greenway, and a $3.1 million bike/pedestrian path in Riverhead, Suffolk County.

Reading the separate press releases makes it clear that New York has so far prioritized maintenance over road expansion projects. But given the scattered nature of the state’s stimulus process, it would be helpful if the state’s economic recovery website at least kept a running total of how much stimulus money had been allocated and a list of the projects it was going to. (One model for how design a stimulus website? Pennsylvania, whose site is comprehensive, easy to use, and has project-level detail.)

By contrast, New York City has offered a full accounting of its $261 million in transportation stimulus funding, with a full list of projects funded by ARRA and a list of projects funded with “displaced” city funds freed up by the stimulus money (many of which are innovative bicycle and pedestrian projects).

Comment Period Open on Transit Projects

MTA stimulus projects are also together in one place, a $1.35 billion list that includes rehabilitations of subway stations in Brooklyn and the Bronx, East Side Access, and the Second Avenue Subway.

The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council is accepting written public comment on a list of transit projects from the MTA, Bee-Line, Transport of Rockland, Suffolk County Transit, and Putnam County at NYMTC-Public-Info@dot.state.ny.us until 4pm on April 29. Hearings will be held in White Plains today from 4:30-6pm, in Islip tomorrow, and in Manhattan on April 28; more information here.

Yesterday at the NYMTC Annual Meeting, Timothy Gilchrist was once again dubbed “Captain Asphalt.” It’s the second time MTR has heard the title be used to describe New York State’s Senior Advisor for Infrastructure charged with distributing $2.3 billion in transportation stimulus funds; the first was in [...]]]>

Captain Asphalt at a recent meeting.

Yesterday at the NYMTC Annual Meeting, Timothy Gilchrist was once again dubbed “Captain Asphalt.” It’s the second time MTR has heard the title be used to describe New York State’s Senior Advisor for Infrastructure charged with distributing $2.3 billion in transportation stimulus funds; the first was in a quote from Gilchrist himself in a New York Times story earlier this month.

Sorry to be the transportation spoilsport, but it’s time to move on and find a new moniker for Mr. Gilchrist.

The title sends the wrong impression about the state’s priorities and is a sloppy move by a representative of Governor Paterson. The Governor is facing intense anger from the state’s environmental community. He recently reopened negotiations with power plants participating in the 10-state greenhouse gas trading program and has been accused of “impoverishing” the state’s Environmental Protection Fund. Groups like New York League of Conservation Voters and Environmental Advocates have launched campaigns to oppose these moves. The last thing he needs is a Captain Asphalt running (or driving) around.

Perhaps more importantly, the description is not even true.  New York State is actually receiving more transit money ($1.2 billion) than so-called “highway” money ($1.1 billion).  And in fact, the “highway” money is not highway money at all, but transportation money that can be used on any surface transportation project whether it be bridge repair, crosswalk painting or transit signal upgrades.

It’s worth noting that there are some who deserve the title Captain Asphalt.   First on the list is Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy, who breathes the words “road building” every time he is asked about transportation investment.  Yesterday at the NYMTC meeting, he once again explained how Suffolk desperately needs money for road expansion. “We have nothing to repair,” he said. “I’m one of those people who believe we need new construction.”

So, let’s move on. Mr. Gilchrist, surrender your nickname to County Executive Levy, and find a new one. How about Captain Fix-It, Captain Transit, or Captain Pothole (it’s been used before)?

First introduced was the Mayor’s original plan with revised projections due to a recent update of [...]]]>

At Monday’s Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission meeting, an agency research team led by NYCDOT presented ten scenarios (out of several hundred possible scenarios) to the commissioners showing modifications or alternatives to Mayor Bloomberg’s original congestion pricing plan.

First introduced was the Mayor’s original plan with revised projections due to a recent update of the NYMTC (New York Metropolitan Transportation Council) model. The revised model raises the reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled under the Mayor’s plan from 6.3% to 6.7% and increases annual net revenue to $420M from initial projections of $380M.

(The graphic is an excerpt from a comparison of pricing scenarios distributed at Monday’s meeting; the excerpt compares the Mayor’s original plan with the four cordon pricing scenarios which raise the most annual net revenue for transit. For the entire table, click here.)

Two particularly intriguing scenarios included variable tolling. The first would charge a one-time fee for cars entering the pricing zone only (60th Street is defined as the northern boundary in this scenario). Cars leaving the zone would not be charged. The fee would be in effect for 12 hours (6 am to 6 pm) but the amount of the fee would vary depending on the time of day: $10 between 6-10 am; $8 from 10 am – 2 pm; and $6 from 2 pm – 6pm. According to the NYMTC model, this scenario would reduce VMT by 6.8% (0.1% above the city’s plan) and generate $464M in net revenue (an increase of $44M from the original plan). The costs of both implementing and operating this option are significantly less, $73M and $62M respectively, than the original proposal which put costs at $224M and $229M.

A 24-hour variable tolling option applies the same fee structure and adds a $4 fee after and before peak period (6 pm to 6 am). The cost of implementing this scenario is the same as the previous scenario ($73M) and the operating costs increase to $99M. However, the projected net revenue would be $519M, a nearly $100M boost from the Mayor’s plan.

The Tri-State Campaign has long advocated for variable tolls on MTA bridges and tunnels as a way to ease toll plaza traffic, reduce pollution, and increase safety (see “Variable Tolls Could Save Fare,” and MTR #s 564, 475, 374, etc.) It’s interesting that NYCDOT is investigating variable pricing; could it join the Port Authority and NJ Turnpike Authority in the variable-pricing club before the MTA?

In a third scenario, those driving across tolled MTA and Port Authority crossings would have their tolls either partially deducted or not deducted at all from the congestion fee. This scenario would raise $615 in net revenue and reduce VMT by a lofty 8.3%, but it is far better policy to charge everyone entering the zone the same amount. While some elected officials have attacked the toll offset as a break for “New Jersey drivers,” eliminating the offset would mean that users of tolled crossings from Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Staten Island – and yes, New Jersey, Long Island, and upstate New York – would pay more to enter the zone than Manhattanites and users of free bridges.

The last scenario is the most impressive and ambitious, but also the most politically infeasible. It involves a 24-hour toll to enter the Manhattan CBD below 60th Street. Though this is projected to reduce VMT by 13.4% and generate $1 billion annually, a two-way toll (rather than a once-daily fee) which bisects Manhattan may be the most controversial of the pricing options.

The commission’s ultimately recommended plan will likely combine one of the modified scenarios described on Monday with some of the suggestions, such as more expensive CBD parking, that were discussed at last week’s commission meeting (for more information on that meeting, see Streetsblog). Both the modified congestion pricing scenarios and the alternatives discussed last week have their origins in the testimony of elected officials, private citizens, and advocacy groups who spoke at commission public hearings several weeks ago.