Governor Paterson’s budget, released last [...]]]>

Gov. Paterson has proposed $7 billion in NYSDOT capital funds for the next 2 years, far less than the agency says it needs. Few things are as symbolic of New York's deteriorating infrastructure as upstate's Champlain Bridge, which was demolished last year after it was declared unsafe and beyond repair.

Governor Paterson’s budget, released last Wednesday, could mean doomsday times two for transit riders and even poorer road and bridge conditions for drivers.

$104 million less than expected will come to the MTA in 2010, according to MTA Chairman Jay Walder, adding to the $383 million deficit announced late last year. The widening gap is due to further declines in tax revenues, including $63 million less than anticipated from the payroll tax enacted last summer.

Paterson’s budget does include $25 million specifically for NYC student MetroCards but this is much less than the $214 million the MTA has said it needs to continue free student passes.  Even with the small increase for the student fares, the proposal brings the agency’s operating funding gap to nearly $500 million.

Without additional city, state or federal aid, the MTA could decide to solve the looming budget gap with service cuts. This would require a second round of service cuts nearly as deep as those announced by the MTA on Friday, which are expected to save about $129 million per year ($62 million in 2010, since they will be phased in over the spring and fall).

Other transportation news from the budget:

A proposed $7 billion two-year New York State Department of Transportation capital program. This keeps state funding relatively constant from previous years, but is considerably smaller than the $25.8 billion, five-year program which NYSDOT had proposed (that program called for $8.4 billion in investment during its first two years). It’s unclear what this means for the MTA’s construction program. Traditionally, the two programs are dealt with in tandem, with similar time periods and dollar amounts.

Highway speed cameras. The budget calls on the Legislature to approve cameras to issue speeding tickets in 50 locations statewide — 40 in work zones and 10 in other areas. Tickets of $100 in work zones and $50 on highways are expected to raise $71 million in its first full year.

Cuts to operating assistance for non-MTA systems. The NYSDOT’s proposed capital program outlines the major operating shortfalls facing suburban and upstate transit carriers.  Paterson’s budget, which cuts $13 million in state aid to these carriers, will only make their situation worse.

Paterson’s proposal is just a starting point, and the next few months will see intense debate in Albany as legislators and advocates fight to stop cuts to their transportation network.

Image: Photograph of Champlain Bridge demolition by Associated Press/Mike Groll.

As MTR reported on Tuesday, the New York State DOT has decided to rehabilitate a stretch of the Major Deegan Expressway in the Bronx instead of adding capacity. “The NYSDOT is committed to developing project plans in close consultation with local communities,” Acting Commissioner Stan Gee said in a press release. [...]]]>

The Deegan project area.

As MTR reported on Tuesday, the New York State DOT has decided to rehabilitate a stretch of the Major Deegan Expressway in the Bronx instead of adding capacity. “The NYSDOT is committed to developing project plans in close consultation with local communities,” Acting Commissioner Stan Gee said in a press release. “We take the feedback we receive seriously, and work to assure that projects like the Major Deegan rehabilitation are in keeping with local goals.”

The expansion plan would have increased traffic in the area, cut off access to the waterfront and stifled a NYC redevelopment plan. Choosing the rehabilitation will save up to $100 million, money that can be spent on necessary projects like bridge repair, pedestrian safety, and the redevelopment of the Sheridan Expressway. Instead of widening ramps and adding auxiliary lanes, NYSDOT will work with New York City DOT to retime signals on local roads to ease congestion.

Local elected officials praised the decision. “I am pleased that NYSDOT made the effort to truly listen to our community’s concerns in the west Bronx regarding the Major Deegan project,” Assemblywoman Vanessa Gibson said. “This new plan will preserve our Bronx businesses and local jobs while easing traffic congestion and setting the stage for future commercial and residential development along the Harlem River waterfront.”

After presenting the expansion plan earlier this month, NYSDOT heard opposition from local residents, advocates, and elected officials. The Tri-State Campaign set up a webpage through which dozens of residents e-mailed Acting Commissioner Gee and the Deegan project engineer. Those residents received e-mails from the project team today, telling them about the changes to the plan.

Image: Deegan project documents from NYSDOT.

Tri-State has just received the “Draft Design Report” for NYSDOT’s plan to expand a section of the Major Deegan Expressway in the Bronx, a plan that is opposed by [...]]]> [Updated 11/24 - MTR has learned that NYSDOT has selected the "rehabilitation only" alternative, a victory for local residents and advocates. We'll have more on this shortly.]

Tri-State has just received the “Draft Design Report” for NYSDOT’s plan to expand a section of the Major Deegan Expressway in the Bronx, a plan that is opposed by many because it will cut off access to the waterfront, increase traffic, and divert money from more important state priorities. Local elected officials, community groups, and residents have opposed the project. MTR has uploaded the chapters of the Design Report here, since the document is not available online and was not provided at last week’s hearing on the project.

• I: Executive Summary
• II: Project Identification, Evolutions, Conditions and Needs, Objectives
• III: Alternatives
• IV: Social, Environmental, and Economic Considerations
• V: Evaluation and Comparison of Alternatives
• VI: Project Coordination

While presenters at the hearing said the project would cost $250 million, and NYSDOT’s proposed 2010-15 capital program allots $266 million for the project, the Design Report predicts that the total cost will balloon to $343 million when construction is complete. A “rehabilitation alternative” would shave $60 million off of the cost, but even this option would lengthen acceleration lanes, add an “auxiliary lane” between E. 138th and E. 149th Streets, and widen the elevated highway so that no traffic lanes are closed during construction. A true rehabilitation alternative could save further millions.

The report also includes plenty of the myopic statements that are typical when transportation planning fails to consider land use. For example, even though NYC’s Department of City Planning has said the Deegan expansion is “in direct conflict” with city plans for waterfront redevelopment, NYSDOT concludes that the project “would not result in any significant adverse impacts on regional and local economics.” The report also says that “all social groups would benefit from improved vehicular safety resulting from the reconstruction. No harm to any social group is anticipated.”

Tell NYSDOT Not To Expand the Deegan

[Updated 11/24 - NYSDOT has reportedly agreed to choose a rehabilitation-only option for the Deegan.]

On Tri-State’s website, you can now send e-mails to New York State DOT Acting Commissioner Stan Gee and the Deegan project team telling them you do not support this project. As a NYSDOT spokesperson told the Mott Haven Herald last week, “We won’t do it [the Deegan] if we hear from the community and elected officials. We’ll take the money elsewhere.” Tell NYSDOT that’s exactly what they should do.

Letters that are sent before 5pm on Monday will make it into the record as official comments. Afterward, letters will continue to be sent on to Commissioner Gee.

(Alternately, comments can be directed to Syed Rahman by fax at (718) 482-6391, or by mail at NYS Dept. of Transportation, Region 11, 47-40 21st Street, Long Island City, NY 11101.)

[Update 11/20: You can now tell NYSDOT Acting Commissioner Stan Gee that you oppose this project via e-mail. TSTC has also made available the project's Draft Design Report. Read more here.]

The New York State DOT had a hard time defending a [...]]]>

NYSDOT would add an auxiliary lane to the Major Deegan (Click for larger image).

[Update 11/20: You can now tell NYSDOT Acting Commissioner Stan Gee that you oppose this project via e-mail. TSTC has also made available the project's Draft Design Report. Read more here.]

The New York State DOT had a hard time defending a proposal to extend and expand ramps on the Major Deegan Expressway in the South Bronx at a hearing this Monday. The plan met opposition from government, advocacy groups and residents alike for its dubious traffic assumptions, negative impact on waterfront access, and misplaced funding priorities.

The plan was originally conceived as an effort to rehab the elevated Deegan from Macombs Dam to 138th Street, where the highway has deteriorated to the point where nets and timber beams are in place to support the underside of the roadway and catch falling debris.  (The DOT has stressed that the structure is safe for driving and is not in danger of collapse.)  But the focus has shifted to an old-fashioned highway capacity expansion plan. The NYSDOT presenter stated plainly that “congestion relief,” not rehabilitation, is now “the primary objective of the project.”

NYSDOT plans include a doubling of the exit ramp lanes from one to two and an extension of the ramps to fit more vehicles. A striking feature is the addition of an “auxiliary” lane in each direction to match the new lane on the ramps. By any name, these additions amount to widening the highway’s footprint under the false promise of congestion relief.

At the hearing, NYC’s Department of City Planning registered its opposition to the current design, calling it “in direct conflict” with city plans to redevelop the waterfront and the lower Grand Concourse and explicitly asking NYSDOT to refine the Deegan project.  Congressman Jose E. Serrano, Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., and Bronx Community Board 1 have all come out against the project for its conflict with the waterfront plans.

On Tri-State’s website, you can tell NYSDOT Acting Commissioner Stan Gee and the Deegan project team that this is a waste of money. Comments can also be directed to Syed Rahman by fax at (718) 482-6391, by mail at NYS Dept. of Transportation, Region 11, 47-40 21st Street, Long Island City, NY 11101, or by email at srahman@dot.state.ny.us.

Misplaced Priorities

One wonders about NYSDOT’s priorities, particularly given Gov. Paterson’s insistence that the state cannot afford a large transportation capital program. How can a $340 million highway expansion in the South Bronx, that is opposed by the city and local residents, take precedence over much needed pedestrian safety improvements and critical infrastructure needs?

According to the recent T4America report Dangerous by Design, pedestrians accounted for over 31% of all NYC traffic fatalities, yet New York State spent only 1% of its $5.6 billion in federal transportation dollars for pedestrian safety projects between 2005 and 2008.  During the same time period, Grand Concourse and Broadway in the Bronx saw 6 pedestrian deaths each and 5 pedestrians were killed on E. Gun Hill Rd.

There are also urgent needs statewide to fix crumbling infrastructure that represent a better use of funds.  Upstate, the Lake Champlain Bridge was allowed to deteriorate to such a degree that it was closed last month and must be demolished and a new bridge constructed in its place. Across the state, 110 bridges have lower safety ratings than the Champlain Bridge had before it was closed, according to the Albany Times Union.

Image: Photo of NYSDOT information board by Kyle Wiswall/TSTC.

As is customary in New York, the program amounts to the same funding level as the transit portion of the MTA’s proposed five-year capital program, about $25 [...]]]> NYSDOT may be lacking money and political support for its newly released 2010-2015 capital program, but the program shows the agency is moving slowly toward a more sustainable policy.

As is customary in New York, the program amounts to the same funding level as the transit portion of the MTA’s proposed five-year capital program, about $25 billion. Of this, the vast majority of the program is going to existing roads, bridges, and public transportation.

The tone of the program is very different than that of the last proposal released by then-Commissioner Astrid Glynn in 2008 during the NYC congestion pricing debate. It presents a picture of an agency that is struggling to keep up with basic maintenance needs, is forced to postpone projects, and is increasingly using capital funds to pay for transit operations. A few notable highlights (or lowlights?) from the 71-page document:

In 1998, dedicated tax revenue ("PTOA Receipts") covered almost 90% of non-MTA transit appropriations, but this year it will cover less than half. (Click for larger version.)

Revenue shortfalls for transit operations. NYSDOT repeatedly refers to struggling suburban and upstate bus carriers: “In recent years, there has been a significant disparity in the availability of State operating revenues to support non-MTA public transportation systems,” it says.

The program goes on to say that only a small portion of the tax revenues collected for transit operations is dedicated to suburban and upstate systems. With revenues dwindling, this dedicated source is covering less than half of the state allocation to these systems. Instead, they are increasingly relying on one-shot transfers from the general fund and capital fund, or fare hikes and service cuts. Downstate, transit advocates have fought for Long Island Bus and Westchester Bee-Line bus riders who face the impacts of this shortfall.

The program also notes that the state will require additional operating funds to run new high-speed rail service. Since high-speed rail is a federal initiative, it would be logical for the federal government to provide operating assistance as well, as the NY State Transportation Equity Alliance (which includes TSTC) has argued.

Smart growth corridor planning program. Perhaps most notable for smart growth advocates is the inclusion of $25 million for “community and corridor land use planning initiatives” that will provide technical assistance and land use planning for three to five corridor investment strategies and 50 smaller “livable community planning grants.”  The program has increased from $12 million since its first appearance in the agency’s 2008 capital program.  (TSTC has encouraged NYSDOT to take this step since NJDOT announced a similar program in 2003.)

Curtailing of major projects. Projects that have been moved to the uncertain fate of “needing additional revenues outside the 25 billion dollar capital program” include the Sheridan Expressway/Bruckner interchange (the project that will determine whether or not the Sheridan Expressway will be removed), future phases of Route 347 in Suffolk County, Kosciusko Bridge replacement and a few road expansion projects like the conversion of Route 17 to I-86 in Westchester and the upstate Peace Bridge project.

More support for high-speed rail. The program includes $300 million for high-speed rail, including upgrades to service from New York City to Niagara Falls and Albany to Montreal. The overall amount is twice as high as the 2008 proposal, presumably to ensure New York has money to match any possible federal stimulus allocations.

While the agency’s policy goals seem to be improving, its ability to explain projects and programs in a plain-English way has not and the program leaves many questions. It lists $1.5 billion for transit and highway expansion projects, but its unclear which projects these dollars will pay for.

The phone-book-like appendix lists individual projects, but doesn’t provide much detail about them. For example, is the Route 347 project on Long Island still the “green vision” announced by former Commissioner Astrid Glynn? Are “LIRR grade crossings” part of the worthy Main Line third track project to expand transit service for Long Islanders, or it is something else?  Why is no funding listed for the environmental review for the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement or the SafeSeniors program (which is specifically mentioned in the capital program)?

Seeking Budget Leverage, Gov. Paterson Threatens Capital Program Veto

Last week, Gov. Paterson called the NYSDOT and MTA capital programs “simply unaffordable given New York’s current fiscal condition,” and said he would veto both if state legislators did not work with him to help close a $3 billion budget deficit.

In response, the Empire State Transportation Alliance, a coalition which includes Tri-State, said that “critical programs for state infrastructure, including public transit, roads and bridges, cannot be sacrificed because of the state’s budget mess.  If left unfunded and unapproved, the State will signal an abandonment of its future.”

State Sen. Martin Dilan, who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, has said he will hold hearings on the capital program anyway.

Image: Edited graph from NYSDOT capital program. The graph reflects all-non MTA systems although the label uses the term “upstate.”

The MTA’s draft 2010-14 capital program is online, with all 231 pages available for public review and comment. Later this month, the capital program will be presented to the MTA board in a [...]]]>

The voting members of the Capital Program Review Board (left to right): Sen. Johnson, Assm. Wright, Commissioner Gee, and Deputy Mayor Skyler.

The MTA’s draft 2010-14 capital program is online, with all 231 pages available for public review and comment. Later this month, the capital program will be presented to the MTA board in a meeting that is open to the public and will be webcast live. But once the process leaves MTA headquarters and heads to Albany, that transparency ends.

The last step before the capital program is adopted is approval by the state’s Capital Program Review Board. The Board’s four voting members represent the governor, State Senate, State Assembly, and New York City mayor, and each has veto power over the capital program. While the Board is an important check on the MTA, it has no website and its members only sometimes explain the logic behind their decisions. In the past, capital programs have been vetoed over concerns both relevant (such as funding and regional equity) and less so (wage disputes over upstate airport projects). To help illuminate this little-known part of the political process, MTR offers some information about the Board members below:

State Sen. Craig Johnson (D-Nassau), the newest member of the Board, was nominated by Senate President Malcolm Smith and officially appointed last month. A second-term Senator, Johnson showed his commitment to transit by voting for the transit rescue plan that staved off the MTA’s “doomsday budget” earlier this year. Unfortunately, he has consistently opposed the LIRR’s Third Track project, though this is largely a moot point for now. Whether for financial, political, or other reasons, the Third Track is not included in the MTA’s draft 2010-14 capital program.

Assemblymember Keith Wright (D-Manhattan) represents the State Assembly Majority led by Speaker Sheldon Silver. Wright was first elected to the Assembly in 1992 after a career that included a stint as Assistant Director of Governmental Relations for NYC Transit. He sponsored legislation barring the MTA from closing station booths during a 2003 budget showdown and was one of the first state elected officials to publicly support congestion pricing in 2007, though he was not a vocal champion for the policy.

As is customary, the State DOT Commissioner, Stan Gee, represents Gov. David Paterson. As a political appointee, the Commissioner’s role on the board is largely to act as the governor’s proxy. His presence also reflects the state’s tradition of passing similarly sized MTA and NYSDOT capital programs at the same time.

Deputy Mayor Edward Skyler represents NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Of the deputy mayors, Skyler most directly works on transit issues, as he oversees the city’s Department of Transportation and the Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. The mayor’s representative does not vote on the Metro-North or Long Island Rail Road capital programs.

State Sen. Charles Fuschillo (R-Long Island), a nonvoting member, represents the Senate Minority. He is the ranking Republican member on the Senate Transportation Committee. Fuschillo opposed the MTA rescue package. Recently he helped direct state money to the town of Babylon to study a bus rapid transit system for Route 110.

Assemblymember Lou Tobacco (R-Staten Island), also a nonvoting member, represents the Assembly Minority and sits on the Assembly Transportation Committee. As elected officials debated new revenue sources for the MTA, Tobacco said it would be unfair to Staten Island to institute a payroll tax and raise tolls on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge without adding tolls to the free East River bridges. He is one of several Staten Island politicians who have opposed NYCDOT’s plans for bus rapid transit on Hylan Blvd.

Long Island civic groups have a timely opportunity to make their voices heard when it comes to the Long Island they would like to live, work and recreate in, in the 21st century.

The New York State Department of Transportation is [...]]]>

NYSDOT's capital program details the agency's priorities and the specific projects it chooses to fund.

Long Island civic groups have a timely opportunity to make their voices heard when it comes to the Long Island they would like to live, work and recreate in, in the 21st century.

The New York State Department of Transportation is accepting comments on its upcoming 2010-2015 Capital Program, the document that specifies the Department’s projects, programs and policies for the next five years.

Meetings have been held throughout the state to seek input on the Program. Seven of these were held with Long Island elected officials, advocates and other stakeholder groups.  Last week Tri-State participated in one of these meetings with NYSDOT’s Region 10 Long Island office, where we were informed that final comments on the program are due this Wednesday, August 26.

However, moving forward, Tri-State has serious concerns over the public participation process.  In addition to the unacceptably short time frame for public comment, it’s not clear how the new Capital Program relates to the existing one. Will the current program be wiped clean?  Will the comments result in a Capital Program amendment?

Either way, we hope the 2010-2015 Capital Program builds upon the strengths of the 2009-2014 document.  The current program supports a ‘fix-it-first’ policy that prioritizes repair of existing road and bridge infrastructure over road expansion, a Land Use Planning Initiative program which provides community planning grants and facilitates regional Smart Growth analyses, and funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Tri-State will urge NYSDOT to expand these successful policies by:

• Increasing funding for traffic calming projects through SafeSeniors, the Local Safe Streets Traffic Calming Grant program, and other programs,

• Continuing to abide by a “fix-it-first” transportation policy,

• Increasing funding for the Land Use Planning Initiative.

In addition, Tri-State will encourage NYSDOT to reprioritize investment of wasteful road capacity projects that promote sprawl toward projects that support traditional downtowns and main streets. The Campaign will urge NYSDOT to dedicate funding to develop and implement the conversion of carpool lanes to High Occupancy Toll lanes on the Long Island Expressway and develop a comprehensive plan for the Long Island Truck to Rail Intermodal project at Pilgrim State.

Individuals and organizations can submit comments via email to R10-PPM@dot.state.ny.us or by fax at (631) 952-6120.

Image: Via NYSDOT.

Members of the Southern Bronx River Watershed Alliance took to the Bronx’s Sheridan Expressway during yesterday’s afternoon [...]]]>

Clockwise from top left: TSTC's Kyle Wiswall, The Point's Adam Liebowitz, Julien Terrell of Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice, SBRWA's Melanie Bin Jung, Nos Quedamos's Anna Vincente, and Joan Byron of the Pratt Center for Community Development.

Members of the Southern Bronx River Watershed Alliance took to the Bronx’s Sheridan Expressway during yesterday’s afternoon rush hour and, well, you can see what “rush hour” looks like on the lightly used stub highway. The photo above was taken around 5:30 pm yesterday near 174th St. Alliance members are standing in the Sheridan’s northbound lanes (i.e. the peak direction!).

The gaps in the traffic weren’t quite long enough for a sit-down picnic, which is too bad because the South Bronx is sorely lacking parks and other places for families to recreate and relax. The needs of the area and the light traffic are just two of the many reasons why the Alliance is calling for a teardown of the 1.2-mile Sheridan, and why NYSDOT is studying it. A demapped Sheridan could be replaced not only with open space, but also affordable housing and mixed-use development.

The first photo was no fluke. SBRWA was able to take one group shot after another.

Finally, this should go without saying, but please don’t try this yourself (stunts like this should be performed by trained professional advocates only!).

The Sheridan isn't exactly the BQE at rush hour.

All images via SBRWA. The Alliance also includes Mothers on the Move, Sustainable South Bronx, and the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance.

On Staten Island, traffic congestion is both a way of life and a perennial complaint. Six of the 15 editorials in the Staten Island Advance this month have been about transportation, and the [...]]]>

The opening of the SIE bus lane to cars might be just the first of many poor transportation choices for Staten Island.

On Staten Island, traffic congestion is both a way of life and a perennial complaint. Six of the 15 editorials in the Staten Island Advance this month have been about transportation, and the paper — and Island citizens and elected officials — regularly call for both better transit and better roads.

But lately, transportation policy on Staten Island has been moving in a counterproductive direction, and the borough’s elected officials are to blame.

After meeting with borough officials, NYSDOT Acting Commissioner Stan Gee said this week that the agency will widen a 1.2-mile section of the Staten Island Expressway. But a project to extend the SIE bus lane to the Goethals Bridge has fallen out of the NYSDOT capital program; the lane will be extended only to Richmond Ave. The agency has already opened the bus lane to cars with at least two occupants during peak periods, and hasn’t publicly documented how the change is affecting bus commuters.

The city has gotten its share of pressure as well. This week Borough President James Molinaro held a rally calling for wider roads (some residents used the opportunity to call for more sidewalks). Meanwhile, many of the borough’s city, state, and federal elected officials are opposing a potentially transformative NYCDOT plan for a median busway on Hylan Blvd. City Councilman James Oddo recently called bike lanes on Staten Island an example of “misguided priorities.”

These are poor decisions that will worsen transit service and make it harder to get around on foot and by bicycle, driving borough transit riders back into their cars. As such, they probably won’t help traffic in the short run and certainly won’t fix congestion in the long run, especially with more traffic projected to come to Staten Island with the opening of a wider replacement Goethals Bridge. The Goethals replacement study shows that the most effective traffic-busting measures are transit improvements, like an SIE bus lane (or bus/carpool lane that requires at least 3 occupants in a vehicle) stretching from the Goethals to the Verrazano and beyond.