The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) recently released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement. Despite popular demand for better public transit in the I-287 corridor, the project’s DEIS makes few provisions for public transportation in the Lower Hudson Valley. Many residents want a bus rapid transit (BRT) system, and Tri-State has set up a website to advocate for BRT’s place in the project.

This is the fourth installment of a series of Mobilizing the Region posts that explains why the state is wrong to conclude that the Tappan Zee should be built without bus rapid transit. Today, we examine how a bridge without transit falls short of the state’s sustainability goals.

The 2010 New York State Smart Growth Infrastructure Public Policy Act directs state agencies to incorporate 10 smart growth criteria into their infrastructure projects. “[N]o state infrastructure agency,” the law reads, “shall approve, undertake, support or finance a public infrastructure project…unless, to the extent practicable, it is consistent with the relevant [smart growth] criteria…”

Yet, by omitting public transit and smart growth planning from the Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project DEIS, the project fails to satisfy the sustainable development criteria outlined in this law (Noah Kazis has pointed this out in a Streetsblog post). Below, we review the law’s provisions and explain why the proposed bridge falls short of the Smart Growth Act mandate.

Smart Growth Criterion D: infrastructure projects must “protect, preserve and enhance the state’s resources, including agricultural land, forests, surface and groundwater, air quality, recreation and open space, scenic areas, and significant historic and archeological resources.”

The DEIS asserts that the project meets this criterion, since “by reducing the frequency of accident and incident delays on the bridge, traffic flow would be improved and air quality emissions reduced.” But the minor improvements and reductions, if any, that would result from fewer accidents can hardly be said to “protect, preserve and enhance” the state’s air quality in the way envisioned by the Smart Growth Act. However, a 2009 report reviewing transportation options in the I-287 corridor identified a better way to improve air quality: the installation of a bus rapid transit system, which would prevent over 12,000 tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

Smart Growth Criterion E: infrastructure projects must “foster mixed land uses and compact development, downtown revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, the enhancement of beauty in public spaces, the diversity and affordability of housing in proximity to places of employment, recreation and commercial development and the integration of all income and age groups.”

The proposed project does not incorporate any of these development methods, because the DEIS asserts that this criterion is “[n]ot [a]pplicable,” as the project “would not directly affect community development.” But such a statement misses the point. The purpose of this criterion is to force agencies to consider how their infrastructure projects affect surrounding land use patterns and encourage the incorporation of smart growth principles into infrastructure planning. Because of transportation’s overwhelming impact on surrounding development, this criterion is always applicable to transportation infrastructure projects. By omitting public transit and the consideration of transit-oriented development, the project does not meet this criterion’s requirements.

Smart Growth Criterion F: infrastructure projects must “provide mobility through transportation choices including improved public transportation and reduced automobile dependency.”

Although the state asserts that “the bridge would be designed not to preclude transit” and would “improve mobility and efficiency,” the mobility increase, if any, will be minimal. It also fails to provide additional transportation choices. Simply stated, the failure to include public transportation and reduce automobile dependency renders the project inconsistent with the clear language of this criterion.

Smart Growth Criteria G/H: infrastructure projects must “coordinate between state and local government and intermunicipal and regional planning,” and also must “participate in community based planning and collaboration.”

The DEIS asserts that the project is “[c]onsistent” with criterion G because the authors anticipate coordination with local and regional agencies, and it asserts that criterion H is not applicable because “this is a large-scale regional transportation initiative.” The opinions of Rockland and Westchester residents, however, are very applicable, and the state’s actions have not been sensitive to them. Many Lower Hudson Valley constituents and elected officials have called for public transit to be part of the Tappan Zee replacement project, but the state continues to refuse to include it. Refusal to listen to and compromise with elected officials and community members is not consistent with these criteria.

Smart Growth Criterion J: infrastructure projects must “promote sustainability by strengthening existing and creating new communities which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and do not compromise the needs of future generations, by among other means encouraging broad based public involvement in developing and implementing a community plan and ensuring the governance structure is adequate to sustain its implementation.”

The state asserts that this criterion is “[n]ot [a]pplicable.” If it were, the state continues, the project would lower greenhouse gas emissions through “a reduction in accidents and congestion,” along with the shutdown of the machine that currently moves the barrier between eastbound and westbound traffic on the Tappan Zee. But fewer accidents and the elimination of the barrier-moving machine are not enough to promote sustainability. Minor emissions reductions do not constitute a plan that meets the needs of future generations. This criterion requires a project that takes a broad-based look at the real problem – traffic throughout the corridor – and addresses it in a way that protects the environment and quality of life in the corridor. By including public transit, the project could meet the mobility and economic needs of future generations.

The provisions of the Smart Growth Infrastructure Public Policy Act can only be met by a project like the one that Governor Cuomo cancelled last year. The new project, by eliminating the transit and smart growth planning that were included in its predecessor, clearly does not maximize the social, economic and environmental benefits that transit and smart growth provide.