A Rockland County summit held last week proved a reminder of just how daunting the financing of the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Corridor project will be. Representatives from the study team and the state comptroller’s office updated local elected officials and other stakeholders on the progress of the project’s financial study, which is a few months into its five-year timeline. Study team members had no easy solutions for the $16 billion project to replace the bridge and build Rockland-Westchester bus rapid transit and Rockland-Manhattan commuter rail.
The overarching federal transportation legislation, SAFETEA-LU, was scheduled to expire last month. It has been extended until the end of October as legislators continue to work on a new law that could have several implications for the Tappan Zee. Because of the Tappan Zee’s high traffic levels and national security importance, the bridge replacement could be near the front of the line for money from any merit-based federal investment program, like an infrastructure bank or a reformed and expanded “Projects of National and Regional Significance” program. The new legislation is also likely to include more money for transit and might ease the strict and lengthy process most transit projects must go through before winning federal aid.
New York State’s ability to contribute, on the other hand, is seriously constrained. Assistant Comptroller Joseph Ruggiero told attendees that by 2013, when construction on the bridge and bus rapid transit system is set to begin, the state will be paying $7.8 billion in annual debt service, just $650 million under a statutorily imposed debt cap. As a general rule, bonding $1 billion increases annual debt service by $60-90 million. Ruggiero urged the state to make a strong case for federal aid.
Study team members said they were “looking under every rock” for new funding sources, though the magnitude of the funding gap meant none would be sufficient alone. For example, raising tolls on the Tappan Zee to $15 would provide only $3 billion in bonding capacity. Financing for the project could also come from a portion of all Thruway toll revenues. Other options being studied include parking fees, tax increment financing districts, gas or even income taxes, and some form of public-private partnership.
In response to an audience question, financial study manager Phil Ferguson said that removing Rockland-Manhattan commuter rail from the plan would reduce the total cost by $6 billion. As murmurs swept across the room, he emphasized that this option was not being studied, although commuter rail will be built only as funds allow.
The financial team has previously said that, including inflation and other costs, the true cost of the Tappan Zee project could be as high as $23 billion. It will release an “emerging” financial plan at the same time as the draft environmental impact statement, an “enhanced” plan coinciding with the final EIS in 2011, and a final plan in 2013 before construction begins. The project website is www.tzbsite.com.
BRT will be a waste of money. A rail line that connects with Metro-North on the New Haven Region, goes through White Plain and terminates in Suffern with provision for extension to the airport in Newburgh will give far better value for the money. Even with current staffing rules a two person, two or three car train of M8 style cars could operate every 15 minutes throughout the day to provide connectivity with existing buses and also enable routes at the nodes to connect with each other. At 213 seats in a two car train, this gives the equivalent of 4 regular buses or 3 articulated buses. If you can persuade the Federal Railway Administration that cars meeting European Body Strength Rules EN15227 and EN12662 are as safe as US cars, then the trains could be noticeably lighter and thus put less strain on the bridge. Depending on the overhead line voltage chosen, you can even run the cars in the street as NICTD is doing daily in Michigan City, Indiana. The Rhaetian Railway in Switzerland is doing it with 11 or 12 thousand volts, 16 2/3 cycles AC in Switzerland, a country noted for safe, punctual operation of passenger trains.
Seriously, Steven, wouldn’t transit riders, pedestrians, cyclists and New York State taxpayers be so much better off if they never found funding for this thing? I’m still honestly baffled that Tri-State supports spending billions to widen this bridge by three lanes. Why did no one ask how much it would reduce the cost if the widening were scrapped? Just kill the thing already!
[…] TriState Transportation Campaign (TSTC) blog says officials are leaving no stone unturned in seeking funds for the […]
Cap’n’,
No new bridge, no radically improved transit for the I-287 corridor. You are not going to get the Suburban populations of Rockland and Westchester to give up a general use lane to bus only especially considering the current backups. I seriously doubt that commuter rail could be added to the existing bridge. Moreover, the bridge likely needs to be replaced one way or another as it was built on the cheap in the first place. If the bridge is going to be replaced, 3 additional lanes (IIRC, only one additional general use lane) are going to represent a marginal increase in cost for the project.
Moreover, adding that single general use lane makes it so that the reversible lane is no longer required.
Cap’n, this project will result in a much improved transit system that has the potential to target development in the Hudson Valley around transit stations instead of in open space. As you may know, at our urging NYSDOT has begun a training program for towns to do just that (the program is managed by Regional Plan Association, Project for Public Spaces, and Reconnecting America, all highly professional organizations). The new bridge will also provide pedestrian and bicycle access, which the current bridge does not. The existing bridge has 4 general purpose lanes in the peak direction already, so the expansion is primarily adding transit capacity.
While we support this project, we don’t support it passively. We continue to work with the study team and in the stakeholder working groups to improve the project. For example, in the Draft EIS the study team is now examining a busway option that replaces the Rockland HOT lanes/Westchester bus lanes with a separate dedicated transitway.
Steven, thanks for TSTC’s continued coverage. It is very hard to see how this $25b bridge happens. This seems like a Gowanus, rebuild in place over decades fiasco. The political will to pay does not appear to exist. The state is broke, the MTA capital plan is still more hole than plan and federal infrastructure support is small. The National Significance fund gets less than $500m/ Yr for the whole nation. Like it or not, the bulk of the money will have to come from tolls on the bridge and Thruway and local taxes. Regarding a PPP, private equity firms don’t give money away. They raise tolls to levels government is unwilling too. They sell bonds based on toll revenue just as governments can and do and rake off a profit. Lastly, has there been any cost benefit analysis of the transit spending proposed for the TZ? Is there really a justifiable TOD benefit? If so, how much of a subsidy per unit of TOD housing would it be? What is the opportunity cost of spending $6 to $8 billion of scarce NY transit capital dollars here instead within the MTA?