Metro North WOH Rail Options Using the Tappan Zee Bridge TZB

There was a story in yesterday's Journal News about the TZ Bridge replacement/repair planning process. Turns out, there is no money and there won't be for many years, unless there are big changes in public policy. The article said most of the transportation money is spoken for till 2030. One thing I didn't realize is that now the Feds pay 50% of approved projects (rather than 90% as in the past). So, even if the project got approved, NY State and the counties would have to come up with $7 billion for the rail alternative, not counting inflation and cost overruns.
Here's the link to the article:Journal News on TZ replacement

With the current administrations new Transportation Bill you would think that they could easily spend a few extra billion for a worthwile project. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00223.html http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/ ... ex_np.html

JoeG wrote:There was a story in yesterday's Journal News about the TZ Bridge replacement/repair planning process. Turns out, there is no money and there won't be for many years, unless there are big changes in public policy. The article said most of the transportation money is spoken for till 2030. One thing I didn't realize is that now the Feds pay 50% of approved projects (rather than 90% as in the past). So, even if the project got approved, NY State and the counties would have to come up with $7 billion for the rail alternative, not counting inflation and cost overruns.
Here's the link to the article:Journal News on TZ replacement

I think that article takes the funding issue out of context. I think of the currently allocated transportation funding to New York, most of it is spoken for until 2030. Congress could jam funding for the bridge into their next appropriation bill if necessary (and the required votes were there).

Nester

One other thing: The best place to get accurate information on the state of the project is at the DOT's website:

http://www.tzbsite.com/index.html

Nester

Well, Nester, the site you cite is the official website of the TZ project, but it says nothing about the politics involved, and this project's fate and scope are almost entirely determined by politics. Aside from everything else, politics determine the amount of money, if any, available for a project. Right now, Pataki's transportation bond issue is in trouble, and even if it passes it won't fund all of the projects it is advertised as funding. Some of his projects, such as Lower Manhattan-JFK, seem to be both very expensive and of dubious value.
The most likely TZ replacement seems to me to be a wider bridge with no rail but with some kind of bus transit on it. I hope I'm wrong.

Any politician or bureaucrat who purports to know what is "going on" with the project is usually talking out of both sides of their mouth. Appropriations (which are usually the result of politics) are what determine funding levels.

The Transportation Bond Act has no funding for the TZ Bridge replacement on either side of the bond (MTA or NYS DOT). This makes sense when you consider that the study group hasn't figured out what they need, much less what they want. Unless you want study/feasability funding, it's hard to demand appropriations (from the bond act or anywhere else) unless you can quantify what it is that you're going to wind up with. "Earmarking" the funds at this point is just asking for them to be squandered on something else -- look at how much money has been set aside for the Second Avenue Subway project, going back to the 70s.

Speaking of the bond act, one of the biggest reasons it may fail is because the DOT has done a HORRIBLE job of promoting the non-MTA benefits. Half of the 2.9 billion in bonds they are looking to float is earmarked for transportation improvements around the state.

If you read the project lists (and I will provide both below), the worst project across both agencies has to be the 100 million for the downtown JFK link. Any real solution will involve 30-40 times that amount (to pay for new tunnels into Manhattan)

Back to the topic: The reason I listed the site was to show the official progress of the site, including all the rail options that may be included. The official press release and supporting documents provide details of interest to readers of this board that may be misinterpreted or not disclosed by journalists covering the story.

Since they are still in the enviornmental review phase (and the site makes it clear), discussions on funding are premature at best.

Nester

DOT Project List: http://www.dot.state.ny.us/files/bond_act_alpha.pdf

MTA Project List: http://www.mta.info/mta/bondact.htm

Thanks for posting the list, Nester. It's clear they can't pay for the projects listed with just the bond issue. The JFK-Lower Manhattan link is so bad, I'm thinking of voting against the bond issue.

Another thing to consider now that we've been reminded of the "politics" of this... it's a classic case of negotiation.

The folks who assembled the bills and bonds may not really want rail on the bridge, but they added it in there because a good negotiator always asks for WAY more than they really need to get the work done. Why? Because you know there will always be someone on the other side, trying to trim out various "extras" ... so they can look like they did a good deed by reducing the costs of the project.

But the folks who wrote the bill KNOW things like rail are "extras" -- but they don't mind seeing them get cut because they know they'll still at least get the bridge itself approved. If by some streak of luck, the "extras" aren't touched, then that's just a great bonus for all.

I still think adding rail -- or at least designing the bridge to add rail later -- would be the wisest option, but now that you mention politics, I wouldn't be surprised to see it get cut.

A recent Mileposts West summarized long term proposals for rebuilding the Tappan Zee Bridge to include a rail link from Suffern and Spring Valley to the Hudson Line. This sounds exorbitantly expensive and if Metro-North is dead set on a one seat ride into Manhattan, why pursue another megabucks project in addition to the one New Jersey eventually hopes to build at Secaucus with the "THE" Tunnel? The chances of assembling funding for both seems nil. What was the consensus with you guys, if one was reached?

If this was discussed at length in a recent thread, please direct me. I'm a new member and I didn't see anything on this topic in the first few pages of posts. ^^;

Yes, we have covered this recently. Please read this first, and if you feel the topic warrants further discussion, continue.

MTA, Rail, and the Tappan Zee

Nester

I was curious if any of you had the plans for the study of cross weschester county NY. I can't find it anywhere online

Did you check... the Internet? They have all sorts of crazy stuff on there... like this site I found when I typed in "tappan zee corridor study" into a search engine:

http://www.tzbsite.com/

-otto-

I like the commuter rail Idea the most. speeds of 100... the Inter ciy Rail sounds way too expensive but that would be the best.

Otto Vondrak wrote:Did you check... the Internet? They have all sorts of crazy stuff on there... like this site I found when I typed in "tappan zee corridor study" into a search engine:

http://www.tzbsite.com/

-otto-

The Tappan Zee study is quite a piece of work. They do a good job of trying to guess all sorts of different impacts that the various options would have, although the variables are mind-boggling. Now if Govs. Spitzer and Rell can put some $$ toward the project, maybe it would speed things up so that we'll get something done before, say, 2025.

I prefer the commuter rail option that connects the west of Hudson lines with the New Haven line. If anything I would think the study underestimated the number of cars that would take off the highway.

NH Chris

I think a big part of the idea of commuter rail over the Hudson idea is to get Rockland / Orange commuters a one-seat ride into GCT, which compared to Penn, as pointed out on another thread, is under-utilized. Still, isn't the one-seat ride into Manhattan going to be satisfied by ARC? Or is NJ going to eat up all that capacity for its own service expansions?

Assuming commuter rail is built between Suffern and Westchester, then, the questions are: how far east, and where to connect to the east-of-hudson lines?

I think a connection with the Hudson is fraught with complicatons since the road is at river-level. If the new bridge is built with the same approaches and next to the existing TZB, you miss a connection at Tarrytown, unless you build some type of loop, either above land (the visual impact will never pass EIS) or over the river (through the old GM site?). I don't think it works, especially if you continue the line through Westchester.

I don't think a connection with the Harlem is efficient, either, not for NYC commuters. Even with a transfer, staying west of Hudson would probably be quicker. Some have suggested connecting with the old Put, but also as noted elsewhere in this forum, that will never happen for various reasons. I think I've seen it elsewhere as well here - continuing the line down the Thruway is probably the best way for a connection, and a little more populated than the Saw-Mill or Sprain path. I don't think you gain any additional riderhship in Westchester this way, just divert from Harlem and Hudson.

For the line to be worth anything, it needs to run though White Plains, assumedly along a combination of 287 and 119. How do you get the line through downtown White Plains and back to the 287 corridor to get the connection to New Haven? Do you even try or just follow 287? It does seem like there's a need to connect Stamford and WP.

While I prefer commuter rail, the ROW clearance and infrastucture may be too great a hurdle. My guess is they end up with NJT type light rail, especially if they want to get into downtown WP. At least, that's what they'll need east of Hudson, for the non-NYC connection.