The Cuomo administration's draft EIS for the new Tappan Zee Bridge makes a mockery of New York's smart growth law.

Passed in 2010 under David Paterson’s administration, the Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act requires any state infrastructure project to meet 10 smart growth criteria. Under the law, the state should only build projects that support sustainability and downtown revitalization, not sprawl.

Nowhere is the Cuomo administration’s hypocrisy regarding the Tappan Zee Bridge project more clearly displayed than in its arguments that the new bridge complies with the smart growth law. In its draft environmental impact statement, the state walks through each of the 10 smart growth criteria, arguing that a new Tappan Zee with no transit and twice the width of the current bridge fits the bill. In the process, the fact that Cuomo’s Tappan Zee is really not a smart growth bridge becomes painfully clear.

Criterion 6, for example, requires the project to “provide mobility through transportation choices including improved public transportation and reduced automobile dependency.” The state argues that since the new bridge will “improve mobility” with highway improvements, it’s consistent with this requirement. “In addition,” reads the draft EIS, “the bridge would be designed not to preclude transit.” Not precluding transit, of course, is hardly the same as improving it. Instead of reducing automobile dependency, the project does the opposite, spending billions to improve car commutes and double the width of the bridge.

Criterion 5 calls for infrastructure “to 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.” In a brazen affront to common sense and empirical evidence, the Cuomo administration denies that transportation decisions even affect the way regions develop. “Not Applicable,” the DEIS says. “The Replacement Bridge Alternative would be a transportation infrastructure improvement project” and “would not directly affect community development.”

If smart growth means anything, it means understanding how a cars-only bridge promotes dispersed, sprawling development while including transit would help promote growth in town centers. It means acknowledging how automobile-dependency isolates low-income and elderly people who rely on transit.

It goes on like that. The smart growth law requires projects to “promote sustainability by strengthening existing and creating new communities which reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” The Cuomo administration ticks that one off its list by touting the emissions reductions from reducing the number of congestion-causing accidents and eliminating the need to move the median barrier with a diesel engine. (The median barrier is moved every day so that the seven lane bridge can always have four lanes in the peak direction.) The state claims that the Tappan Zee project is exempt from a requirement to participate in “community-based planning” because it “is a large-scale regional transportation initiative.”

In claiming that the Tappan Zee Bridge meets the requirements of the smart growth law, the state elegantly shows just how much this bridge fails to meet the state’s purported development goals. A bridge with room for seven lanes of traffic on each span but no space for transit is exactly the kind of 1950s sprawl generator that the smart growth law should prohibit.

Each span of the new Tappan Zee Bridge would be as wide as the current bridge, leaving room for future administrations to convert eight traffic lanes into ten or more lanes. Click to enlarge.

The Cuomo administration’s plan for the new Tappan Zee Bridge, described in yesterday’s draft environmental impact statement, is more than a missed opportunity to provide New Yorkers with faster and greener commutes using transit. It also foreshadows a potential environmental disaster, as the state prepares to spend huge sums on a span that can funnel much more traffic than the current bridge.

The new Tappan Zee will be more than twice as wide as the existing one. While the state government says the new bridge will carry the same amount of traffic as today’s bridge, the designs in the DEIS include enough pavement to carry far more cars, which could lead to more pollution and more sprawl, and will certainly incur hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary spending. The one silver lining is that a more transit-friendly administration could use the extra space to add bus rapid transit service in the future.

Together, the two spans of the proposed Tappan Zee Bridge would measure a full 183 feet across, while the current bridge is 91 feet wide. Where the current bridge has seven travel lanes, the new bridge will have eight. A shared bicycle/pedestrian path adds a few more feet. But the lion’s share of additional asphalt comes from the addition of wide shoulders bracketing the traffic lanes in each direction, and an additional “emergency access” lane in each direction.

The reason to make the bridge so incredibly wide, according to the DEIS, is to ensure that either span on its own can carry as many cars as the current bridge, in case one span has to close for whatever reason. “In the event that an incident or extreme event would require the closure of one structure, the second structure could remain open to traffic,” reads the DEIS. “To provide adequate capacity for such short-term traffic operations, each of two road decks would need a minimum width of 87 feet to provide for a minimum of seven temporary highway lanes, shoulders, and an adequate buffer for two-way traffic operations.”

The extra lanes are an extraordinary concession to the automobile, predicated on the idea that we should build roadways so that even a rare disaster won’t cause any reduction in traffic capacity.

Building each span with the full capacity of the existing bridge — up to 14 total lanes, if need be — is incredibly costly. A back-of-the-envelope calculation by Streetsblog based on the state’s 2006 financial numbers puts the cost of the emergency access lanes at around $825 million, or about one-sixth of the entire project budget.

Emergency lanes are unheard of on even the newest bridges. On the Port Authority’s planned Goethals Bridge replacement, Minnesota’s I-35 Bridge over the Mississippi River, Oregon’s proposed Columbia River Crossing, and California’s new Bay Bridge, no such emergency access lanes exist, only shoulders.

The DEIS suggests that the “emergency access” lanes won’t be set in stone: “The additional width, however, could be converted to HOV or BRT lanes in the future if appropriate studies deemed this corridor and alignment appropriate. If this conversion did take place in the future, emergency access could revert back to the use of the full shoulders.”

In other words, the space set aside for “emergency access” is primed to be converted into extra capacity: The only question is whether that will end up being used for buses or for cars. If a future administration wanted to run bus rapid transit across the Tappan Zee, the emergency lanes would provide space to do so. However, if a future administration instead caved in to motorists complaining of congestion and opened up the space to private automobiles, even carpoolers, the result would be more driving and more of the pollution and sprawl that comes with it.

There’s a long history of state DOTs taking spare room on highways and converting it into traffic lanes. Private vehicles have been allowed onto shoulders, sometimes only during rush hour, in Massachusetts, Virginia, Washington, Hawaii, Florida, and Minnesota, according to the Federal Highway Administration. The ability to turn “emergency lanes” into traffic lanes might be too tempting for New York State DOT to pass up. Quite recently, NYS DOT gave in to political pressure and let carpoolers use the bus lane on the Staten Island Expressway.

The State DOT has not replied to Streetsblog inquiries about the emergency lanes.

The problem with Cuomo’s Tappan Zee blueprint isn’t just that it preserves the transit-free status quo. Under the Cuomo plan, New York might be left with a bridge that’s ten lanes or wider, where it used to have a seven-lane bridge — a major commitment to continued car dependence. A future with no new transit is bad enough — Cuomo is also poised to spend huge sums on a project that could easily generate more traffic and sprawl.

The Cuomo administration doesn't envision advancing transit on the Tappan Zee in the foreseeable future. Photo: Angel Franco/Newsday

The release of the DEIS presents three new obstacles for bus service across the Tappan Zee:

• The Cuomo administration has stopped planning for bus service while it moves forward with a highway-only bridge.
• The state has significantly inflated its cost estimates for BRT without a clear explanation.
• Some elected officials who have supported transit now seem willing to go along with the Cuomo plan for the bridge.

While the Cuomo administration continues to tout the fact that its plans for the new Tappan Zee Bridge do not preclude the construction of transit at some later date, the DEIS makes clear that the date in question will be significantly later, if it ever comes to pass at all. “The previous corridor project has been rescinded and the State Sponsors do not intend on advancing it in the foreseeable future,” the document states.

The state will not continue to study or plan transit improvements, the DEIS reveals. A Tappan Zee transit project won’t continue along some parallel, slower track; under Cuomo, it isn’t moving forward at all.

In justifying the elimination of transit, the DEIS presents new cost estimates for transit far out of line with previous calculations. In 2009, a state report [PDF] pegged the cost of building a full BRT corridor at $897 million, with the system running in HOT lanes in Rockland and on a mix of dedicated lanes and a separate busway in Westchester. The more expensive alternative, which entailed building separated busways through Westchester, was estimated to cost $2.5 billion.

Now, estimates in the DEIS say the first design will cost $4.6 billion and the second $5.3 billion. The document provides no explanation for the dramatic increase in projected costs, and the state has not responded to Streetsblog’s inquiries regarding the matter. One possible explanation, though, is that the state is calculating the cost of both transit improvements and construction projects on the I-287 roadway, and then attributing the total entirely to transit.

In releasing the DEIS, the state DOT and Thruway Authority put out a press release filled, as is usual, with supportive quotes from elected officials and interest groups. Though the pro-transit coalition is growing rapidly — 14 Westchester municipalities signed on in support of transit just yesterday — the press release includes a political setback for a multi-modal Tappan Zee as well.

State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Member Kenneth Zembrowski, both of whom had signed on to a December letter demanding transit on the new Tappan Zee Bridge from the start, were each quoted applauding the DEIS for moving the project forward. “While the mass transit component of a new Tappan Zee Bridge is important, it obviously cannot eclipse the need to provide stability to our infrastructure, a boost to the economy and much needed jobs,” said Stewart-Cousins.

In a better sign for transit, county executives Rob Astorino and C. Scott Vanderhoef were conspicuously absent from the state’s press release. Both elected officials have demanded transit across the bridge, and it looks like Cuomo couldn’t pick them off for this media moment. If New York is going to overcome the Cuomo administration’s shortsighted decision to build a Tappan Zee without transit, these two county leaders may have to lead the charge.

Private financing may expedite the replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge, but it doesn't eliminate the need for infrastructure funding streams. Photo: Wikimedia

Governor Andrew Cuomo sent out an “editorial” this weekend putting infrastructure investment at the center of his job creation agenda. In a rough outline, the governor touted public-private partnerships (or PPPs, as they’re known) as a key mechanism to pay for “the repair and development of highways, bridges and major construction projects.”

It also happens that major players in the state’s construction industry were discussing the very question of how to fund infrastructure at a conference last Friday. Since Cuomo revealed the week before that he wants union pension funds to finance the new Tappan Zee Bridge, PPPs were the hot topic. Most speakers agreed that PPPs won’t solve the state’s transportation funding crisis.

New York’s transportation system is essentially broke, with both transit and road networks in precarious condition. PPPs can be politically appealing as a way to pay for transportation projects without directly tapping public budgets. But while certain kinds of PPPs might help speed projects along or reduce costs, the private sector doesn’t provide something for nothing. The public will eventually pay for these projects somehow.

“We need to guarantee those private investors, especially if they’re a pension fund, a rate of return,” explained Denise Richardson, the managing director of the General Contractors Association. “Without a discussion of where the revenue stream to fund those loans is coming from,” she said, “we mislead the public.”

The New York Times, for example, reported that Cuomo plans to fund the new Tappan Zee Bridge with $3 billion in bonds backed by toll revenue and $2.2 billion with loans from union pension funds and the federal government. It is not clear, however, how pension funds would be repaid.

“We try to pretend that the bill will never come due,” said Richardson. “We need to find a way to fund, not finance, these incredibly important projects.”

With the state’s gas tax frozen for years, officials unwilling to implement tolls or other forms of road pricing, and Cuomo shunting the cost of the MTA’s capital plan onto straphangers’ credit cards, both New York’s transit and highway systems are increasingly bankrupt. Revenue of some kind is necessary, whether it pays back traditional bondholders or direct investors.

Though not a panacea, new ways of involving the private sector can benefit transportation projects.

One form of PPP, the “design-build” contract, had the support of every panelist, nearly all of whom work in the private sector. Design-build allows the same company to develop the plans for a project and construct it, hopefully providing more accountability and allowing for a faster and more integrated process. New York is one of only five states that does not allow design-build. According to Gannett’s Albany Bureau, the state’s recently-issued request for qualifications for the Tappan Zee called for a design-build contract, suggesting that the Cuomo administration will push the legislature to change that law shortly.

Some panelists touted private financing highly. Christophe Petit, president of infrastructure investing firm Star America Infrastructure Partners, claimed that in Canada, PPPs of all kinds proved to be on average 30 percent cheaper than traditionally managed projects. The big savings, he argued, come from ensuring that the risk of cost overruns falls on those most able to prevent them and from speeding up the construction timeline, not from private capital per se. “The private sector cost of financing will always be more expensive than the public sector cost of financing,” said Petit. “PPPs are about getting the project done.”

Tawan Davis, the VP for real estate transaction services at the New York City Economic Development Corporation, had a similar assessment. He estimated that private equity costs around five percentage points more than public financing but that it was often worth it, especially for more complicated and risky projects. “If you put in cheap money, you haven’t made the risk go away,” he argued. “It’s more expensive to pay for [cost overruns] than to pay for more expensive debt up front.”

In addition, private financing might make fiscal sense if cheaper bonding isn’t an option. In rebuilding the Goethals Bridge, for example, the Port Authority opted for a partnership in which the private sector will design, build, maintain and finance the new span. The price tag for the bridge actually went up between $30 and $100 million as a result of the partnership, but the Port Authority believes it will save money in the long-term. The PPP allowed the Port to build the bridge sooner — the authority doesn’t have the capacity right now for more bonding — saving money on upkeep in the interim. “The Port Authority can finance it cheaper, that’s always the case, but the Port Authority is constrained,” said Tony Cracchiolo, a senior VP at engineering firm STV.

When successfully applied — not always the case — those benefits are real. As Richardson argued, however, they aren’t a substitute for public funding. “At the end of the day, these monies need to be paid back,” said Ira Levy, an executive with engineering company AECOM. “This is not funding, this is financing.”

Taking a step back, Baruch College professor Jack Nyman urged the state to think as much about long-term goals as about financial mechanisms. “The obvious things are we want to increase mass transit funding,” he said.

Moreover, private financing is primarily of use for projects like toll roads or airport terminals that produce revenue streams. “We don’t have tolls on any of our state highways, so we don’t have revenue generating mechanisms for many of the projects,” said Robert Zerrillo, the acting director of policy and planning for the state Department of Transportation. “PPPs will not be a panacea for the types of projects we are doing at NYS DOT.”

There’s definitely room for new ways to finance infrastructure or contract out projects. But as Cuomo prepares for a major infrastructure push, New Yorkers need to ask, “Where’s the money?”

Friday’s conference also indirectly touched on major questions surrounding the financing of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which Streetsblog will explore in a follow-up post.

Workers redeck the Gowanus Expressway. Plans to overhaul the road completely were cancelled due to budget shortfalls. Photo: NYS DOT

The state Department of Transportation announced yesterday the cancellation of plans to rebuild 5.3 miles of the BQE and the Gowanus Expressway. It wasn’t a new round of freeway revolts that killed these projects but the state’s busted transportation budget.

“The economic downturn has affected all areas of government and Transportation is not an exception; recent projections show insufficient funds to meet our infrastructure needs,” reads the official notice of the projects’ demise in the Federal Register. “The cost of the alternatives being evaluated do not fall within NYSDOT’s funding constraints.”

This marks a decided change of tone from the state DOT, which until very recently was calling the repairs “critical needs” for public safety, as the New York Post reported today. Together, the two projects could have cost between $2.3 billion for rehab work alone and $35 billion for the most expensive tunnel alternatives, according to NYSDOT’s estimates.

At Streetsblog, we’re not going to shed tears about a major highway project being cancelled or delayed, especially not while transit is being stripped off the Tappan Zee Bridge and the MTA is being forced to put necessary repairs onto straphangers’ credit cards. But it’s interesting that in the absence of any political will to put a price on driving, even infrastructure projects designed to benefit motor vehicles, are falling by the wayside.

Not that New Yorkers won’t still be paying for the BQE. Even without the reconstruction projects, these are expensive roads. The ongoing redecking of just the Gowanus — meant only to be an interim solution — costs around $680 million, according to the state. Canceling the major rehab could end up costing much more in the end if expensive upkeep stretches on for decades, though it would let the state kick the can down the road during a time of fiscal duress.

The situation would be different if new tolls were on the table. Putting a price on the BQE would require federal approval, but Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has expressed a clear willingness to allow tolls on interstate highways where appropriate. Had tolls been on the table for the BQE and Gowanus, there would have been any number of different outcomes possible.

By reducing traffic, tolling the BQE and Gowanus would also reduce maintenance costs. If the tolls were set high enough, the lighter traffic load might even make engineers and politicians more comfortable with fewer lanes on the highways, cutting costs even more. A free road for drivers is an expensive road for taxpayers.

Tolls wouldn’t just cut costs, of course; they would also raise revenue. If the state wanted the toll to be a strict user fee, it could reinvest the revenue into the two highways. That might be enough for a cheaper tunnel option; a 1996 RPA report estimated the cost of a Gowanus tunnel at between $1.5 and $2.5 billion ($2.2 to $3.6 billion in 2011 dollars). That alternative, which would open up new land for development and knit neighborhoods back together, had widespread community support.

The toll revenue need not be used only for a highway project, especially if the tolls are already saving the highway system money. Investing some of the toll revenue in rail freight infrastructure could be a win-win, helping take heavy trucks off the busy expressways and cutting maintenance costs even further (it wouldn’t hurt to restore two-way tolling on the Verrazano, either). Bay Ridge commuters might prefer spending the money on the Triboro RX circumferential subway line rather than the Gowanus. Staten Islanders might prefer new light rail lines connecting them to New Jersey and the ferry.

Once tolls are part of the conversation, there are a lot of options for the BQE and Gowanus. Without them, we’re stuck with what we’ve got.

According to state transportation commissioner Joan McDonald, Governor Andrew Cuomo hasn't slowed down down the construction of transit across the Tappan Zee Bridge, despite all evidence to the contrary. Photos: Richard Yeh/WNYC Kate Hinds/Transportation Nation

State transportation commissioner Joan McDonald deserves an award for chutzpah. In the face of overwhelming opposition from local elected officials to the state’s decision to build the new Tappan Zee Bridge without transit, McDonald has, incredibly, taken the stance that the state did no such thing.

Here’s McDonald, quoted twice by Transportation Nation’s Kate Hinds:

The transit has not gone anywhere. I think it’s very important to clarify that. We’re speeding up construction of the bridge, we’re not slowing down transit. The project that’s on the table now will be built to not preclude transit in the future, when it is financially feasible.

Claiming that the state isn’t slowing down transit simply isn’t true.

One year ago, under Governor David Paterson, state officials were telling audiences in Westchester and Rockland Counties “New Transit is only way to relieve congestion and improve mobility in the corridor.” Working with Metro-North, state agencies were actively pursuing both cross-county bus rapid transit and new commuter rail into Rockland County. Now, under Andrew Cuomo, the state is moving forward with a plan to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge without any transit, though they promise to design the bridge in such a way that transit could be added later.

It’s theoretically possible for the state to prioritize the construction of a new bridge for cars and trucks while simultaneously moving forward on transit plans. That isn’t what’s happening here, however.

As Hinds reported, the MTA wasn’t invited to either of Cuomo’s two publicly stated meetings on the Tappan Zee Bridge. They aren’t even part of the discussion.

Perhaps more importantly, Cuomo definitely “slowed down transit” when he allowed transit to be stripped from the federal environmental review process.

In 2002 and 2008, a team including both the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration began the environmental review process for a project covering the full I-287 corridor and including transit. On September 26 of this year, however, the FHWA, the state DOT and state Thruway Authority rescinded that environmental review process. Note the absence of any transit agencies.

“Because of the current economic realities which severely limit financing capability, FHWA, NYSTA, and NYSDOT propose to terminate the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Corridor Tiered EIS and advance a project that will address the needs of the Tappan Zee Hudson River crossing alone,” read the notice in the Federal Register. “Transit improvements will not be considered.”

No transit can be added to the Tappan Zee Bridge without an ongoing environmental review process. Last year that process existed for transit; now it does not. This is the very definition of “slowing down transit” and at least for now, killing it.

Nor should the capability of adding transit to the Tappan Zee at a later date be considered sufficient.

When the George Washington Bridge was first built, designer Othmar Ammann imagined that the entire lower deck would eventually be used for light rail, as Rutgers professor Michael Aaron Rockland tells it in his 2008 history of the bridge. By 1962, when the lower deck was actually built, six of the eight lower deck lanes were given to automobiles. The other two were left empty, theoretically for future use by transit.

Today, the lanes are still empty, but Vicky Kelly, then the director of tunnels, bridges and terminals for the Port Authority, told Rockland that if they’re ever built out they would be for automobiles, not transit. Rockland concluded that “the G.W.B. may be thought of as representative of the triumph of automotive vehicles over mass transit in the twentieth century.”

History isn’t doomed to repeat itself. Transit could be added to a new Tappan Zee Bridge. Without a proactive effort to build transit, however, it’s just as likely that the extra capacity on the bridge will be used by some future administration for more traffic lanes.

If Joan McDonald wants to claim that she didn’t kill transit and if Andrew Cuomo wants to claim that he’s a smart growth supporter, they need to do more than just talk. Restore the plans for bus rapid transit: At $1 billion, it’s actually a bargain. Restart the environmental review process and bring the MTA back to the table, even if it takes a few more years.

If they’re not going to work for transit, however, McDonald and Cuomo need to come clean to New York residents and admit that they gave transit the axe.

Two weeks ago, every option for reconstructing the Tappan Zee Bridge posted on the state's project website showed both a bus line and a rail line. Now, all the documents showing transit across the bridge have disappeared. Image: Tappan Zee Bridge website, captured by Streetsblog

Call it the mystery of the missing transit. One of the state’s biggest transit projects, in the works for nearly a decade, was canceled overnight and no one will explain why, or even claim responsibility for the decision.

Two weeks ago, each of the four alternatives for replacing the Tappan Zee Bridge included a new Metro-North commuter rail line and some form of bus rapid transit. The design, which widened the highway but also included a major expansion of transit in Rockland and Westchester counties, was the product of nine years of study and a whopping 280 public meetings. The whole process was thoroughly documented, with information about each alternative — along with hundreds of pages generated by the environmental review process and public commentary — easily found on the state’s Tappan Zee Bridge website.

On October 11, the Federal Highway Administration and Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office announced that the bridge project had been selected for expedited federal review. The project they promised to speed up, however, was vastly different from the one vetted over the course of nearly a decade. The new plan for the bridge promised to add space for car traffic but left the transit component to be completed at an unspecified future date. Transit advocates are skeptical that the commuter rail and BRT lines will ever see the light of day.

At the same time that transit was removed from the plan, the state expunged from the public record all information about the nine-year public process and the four design alternatives that included rail and bus lines. The Tappan Zee website no longer displays the documents it did two weeks ago, as blogger Cap’n Transit first noted. The endorsement of transit, the extensive environmental analysis, the history of public input — all of it gone, replaced by three short documents chronicling the brief history of the transit-free project.

So much for transparency. Kate Slevin, executive director of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, said she couldn’t recall a single example of this kind of wholesale document scrubbing.

In addition to hiding the history of the Tappan Zee project, the state and federal agencies in charge won’t disclose how they reached the decision to build the bridge without transit.

When the Cuomo administration touted the selection of the Tappan Zee for expedited federal review, the announcement failed to mention that the project being expedited had also been utterly transformed. And it remains unclear who ultimately decided to abandon the transit component. Some media outlets reported that the federal government made the call; others implied it was the state. The New York Times reported that federal officials pushed for the transit elements to be postponed, while Transportation Nation noted that Cuomo hadn’t invited the MTA to his meetings on the Tappan Zee Bridge for months.

When Streetsblog asked the U.S. Department of Transportation which agency decided to remove transit from the bridge’s design and why, they directed us to the New York State DOT, which the feds said had “rescoped the project.” NYS DOT told us that the matter was being handled by the governor’s press office. Inquiries to Cuomo’s office were not answered.

A document jointly produced by the Federal Highway Administration, the New York State Department of Transportation and the New York State Thruway Authority provides the only public explanation for removing transit from the bridge design [PDF]. The joint explanation reads, in full:

In 2011, while advancing financial analysis, it was determined that funding for the corridor project (bridge replacement, highway improvements, and new transit service) was not possible at this time. The financing of the crossing alone, however, was considered affordable. Therefore, it was determined that the scope of the project should be limited, and efforts to replace the Hudson River crossing independent of the transit and highway elements should be advanced.

The aforementioned financial analysis, however, is not available on the Tappan Zee website. Why did the agencies consider it affordable and cost-effective to build a highway-only bridge — projected to cost $5.2 billion — while an estimated $1 billion more for bus rapid transit lines was too much? It’s impossible to tell.

Slevin called the statement “ten years of study and consensus erased by three sentences.”

One of the region’s most important transit projects was effectively canceled overnight, upending years of preparation for a high-quality transit option between Rockland and Westchester counties that could shape development, improve commutes, and decrease traffic congestion. New York residents deserve to know why the plans changed and who’s responsible, but so far the Cuomo and Obama administrations have denied them an explanation.

All the alternatives currently being studied for the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement include both commuter rail and bus rapid transit. Advocates are concerned that the state may try to delay construction of the transit components, however. Image: Tappan Zee environmental review website

For nine years, the state of New York has been studying how to replace the aging Tappan Zee Bridge. The bridge, which is more than 50 years old, requires ever more expensive repairs to stay structurally sound and was never intended to carry the volume of traffic that pours over it every day. Since 2002, an extensive public process has led to the development of four alternative plans for the Tappan Zee and the I-287 corridor. Each of them would rebuild the bridge, widen the roadway and include both a new Metro-North commuter rail line and bus rapid transit service across the bridge.

Even after the extensive public process and environmental review, however, those transit components could end up on the scrap heap.

The Obama administration selected the Tappan Zee replacement today as one of 14 major infrastructure projects for federal fast-tracking. A report from Gannett’s Albany bureau refers to the project as “replacing the Tappan Zee Bridge, along with the option of adding bus rapid transit and passenger rail.” Gannett’s report suggests that the state may have decided to build the bridge with room for transit to be added later, rather than constructing the transit components at the same time as the roadway. This would run against the four alternatives that have already been vetted, all of which include transit in the initial construction of the bridge.

If Governor Andrew Cuomo is considering postponing the construction of the transit components, New Yorkers would be left with a major highway expansion that skirted the entire public review process. The governor’s office has not responded to Streetsblog’s inquiry about transit on the Tappan Zee.

Including transit on the bridge has run into some local political resistance lately. This July, Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino called for the removal of transit from the plans for the bridge in order to lower costs and speed up construction. As the Tri-State Transportation Campaign reported at the time, the bridge and highway components of the project are projected to cost $8.3 billion. Building the bridge with rail would add $6.7 billion, while the bus system would cost around $1 billion. Astorino’s office told Streetsblog that they hadn’t heard that the transit component had been postponed and that it was too early for any design to have been selected.

Transportation and environmental advocates called for Cuomo to commit to building transit at the same time as the highway is rebuilt, even if only the bus service is installed to start.

“If transit isn’t added now, we worry it never will be,” said Kate Slevin, Tri-State’s executive director.

“This raises concerns that the state may be missing a once in a lifetime opportunity to reduce traffic and greenhouse gas emissions and create a transit backbone for future development in the Hudson Valley.” Slevin noted that past promises to add transit to bridges at a later date — a similar pledge was made for the George Washington Bridge — rarely materialized.

“Clearly, the Tappan Zee Bridge needs replacing — and the sooner, the better. But let’s not forget that a key reason for the bridge’s poor condition is overuse, partly because there are few attractive mass transit alternatives to driving,” added Dan Hendrick, the communications director for the New York League of Conservation Voters. “Commuters and local residents have been calling for mass transit to be added to the bridge for decades, and bus rapid transit represents exactly the kind of smart, sustainable infrastructure investments that will help New York’s environment and economy. We strongly encourage the Obama and Cuomo administrations to sharpen their pencils and ensure that bus rapid transit keeps pace with the roadway replacement on the new Tappan Zee Bridge.”

According to the state’s own website, the transit components are included in order to “help minimize corridor travel delay, reduce travel times, provide travel choices, improve local and regional mobility, foster economic growth and improve air quality.”

Added Slevin: “Since 2002, hundreds of residents, civic leaders, and local elected officials have worked together to develop a list of alternatives for a bridge replacement. There has consistently been support for transit to be included as part of the project, which is why all five options currently being studied in the state environmental review (except the ‘No Build’ alternative) include transit. None of those alternatives studied by the State Department of Transportation included a bridge replacement without a transit component.”

Streetsblog Capitol Hill reported earlier today that the Obama fast-track process seems to favor road maintenance and transit projects rather than wider highways, and that it won’t skirt environmental reviews. If the Tappan Zee project includes a transit component, it’s a good fit for such a program. If Cuomo decides to drop transit, however, the Tappan Zee will be exactly the kind of sprawl-generating boondoggle that Obama is trying to avoid.

New York City agencies will study a much broader area when evaluating the potential removal of the Sheridan Expressway. The city's study will also go far beyond a transportation analysis to include a more holistic look at the benefits of new development for the area. Image: NYC DCP

When the state Department of Transportation studied removing the lightly-used Sheridan Expressway, it considered two scenarios. One predicted conditions with the Sheridan kept as is. The other imagined closing the highway to traffic without making any other changes — simply fencing off the 1.25 mile structure.

Making a decision about the Sheridan’s future by comparing a traffic-carrying highway to an empty-but-still-standing highway was clearly inadequate, so with the help of a federal TIGER grant, New York City has launched a comprehensive and holistic study of the area. The new study includes not only an expanded transportation analysis looking at the area’s broader highway system, but also issues like access to the Bronx River, which is cut off from neighborhoods by the Sheridan, and the development of housing and jobs. That study is now well underway, and after some initial bumps, advocates for replacing the highway with new development are feeling encouraged.

So far, the city has already hosted an introductory meeting of the large working group set up to bring together stakeholders like elected officials, local activists and residents, businesses and city agencies. Walking tours of the neighborhood are being next Thursday and on August 20 (you can register by e-mailing sheridan_hp@planning.nyc.gov). The Department of City Planning has also set up a website to provide updates on the study and put information about the project in one location.

Ashwin Balakrishnan, the coordinator of the Southern Bronx River Watershed Alliance, acknowledged the broad scope of the study so far. “If you’re just looking at it from a transportation perspective, as the state DOT was, you’re not going to have any benchmarks or expertise for how it’s going to be benefited by other land uses,” he said. Including agencies like the Department of Parks and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, which are both now part of the working group, provides “more expertise and more breadth,” he said.

Even the city’s transportation analysis, said Balakrishnan, should improve on the state’s efforts. Whereas the state studied only the Sheridan itself and two interchanges on the Bruckner Expressway, the city is studying a number of other highway exchanges as well as local roads near the Sheridan and the Hunts Point market. That means the city can study, among other alternatives, whether trucks headed to the market from New Jersey could take the Major Deegan to the Bruckner and then use new off-ramps headed directly to the market — planned whether the Sheridan is removed or not — rather than the Sheridan. Moreover, the state’s data are eight years old, while the city is collecting new data now.

Perhaps most encouragingly, the DCP website promises that the city’s plan will include “a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of different options incorporating traditional and sustainable measures.” So the high cost of maintaining a highway will figure into the city’s calculations, with the social and economic benefits of new housing, jobs or parks figuring into the other side of the ledger.

That said, Balakrishnan also worried that the un-quantifiable benefits of replacing the Sheridan with development — things like better walking access to the river, which one might lump together under “quality of life” improvements — could still get short shrift. “The things that are harder to study are often devalued,” he said.

When the study and community outreach were just beginning a few months ago, advocates were less impressed with the city’s approach. As reported on Mobilizing the Region yesterday, early outreach efforts gave little emphasis to features like the new off-ramps to the Hunts Point market. Those off-ramps and other highway improvements, which are part of all remaining options for the area, are essential to maintaining business support; the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center directly employs 10,000 people and the cluster of food businesses surrounding it tens of thousands more.

The DCP website also originally claimed that 160,000 vehicles used the Sheridan each day; the correct count, now displayed, is only 35,000. Those kinds of errors have been corrected, however, in response to feedback from the SBRWA. Now, said Balakrishnan, the city’s “general tone seems very open.”

Whether in rural or urban contexts, complete streets make sure there is room for all users to have safe space on the street. Image: TSTC

Complete streets legislation passed both houses of the state legislature unanimously yesterday. With Governor Andrew Cuomo expected to sign the legislation, safer and more inclusive road design should be coming soon to streets across the state.

“Everyone knew that something had to be done,” said AARP New York legislative director Bill Ferris, “so the political will was there.” In the five largest upstate counties, a pedestrian is killed by a car every ten days. On Long Island, a pedestrian is killed once a week, and in New York City, once every two and a half days. Older pedestrians are disproportionately killed in traffic crashes.

Complete streets legislation would require planners to take account of all users, including those on foot, on a bicycle, or with limited mobility, when designing a road that receives state or federal funds.

After stalling out in the Assembly in the past, the complete streets bill passed this year due to some changes to the legislation’s language and support from the governor’s office, said Ferris. “The argument that it was an unfunded mandate was put to bed,” he explained, by including a provision clarifying that municipalities wouldn’t have to spend more on complete streets projects than what was already allocated from state and federal funding. Since the governor’s office participated in the crafting of that language, explained Ferris, “we believe that the governor will sign this into law.”

In addition to support from Cuomo’s office, the complete streets bill was able to continue forward in the Senate despite the change Democratic to Republican control, thanks to support from the new chair of the transportation committee, Charles Fuschillo. “Senator Fuschillo picked up the reins on this issue from last year and pushed it over the top,” said Ferris.

Assuming that the complete streets bill is signed into law, Ferris said that AARP will next be looking into ensuring that there is sufficient funding for pedestrian and bike projects and the state DOT’s Safe Seniors program.

State DOT Commissioner Joan McDonald had positive words for progressive transportation planning at today's NYMTC annual meeting. Photo: NYMTC.

Coming two days after her confirmation as the new commissioner of the state DOT, Joan McDonald’s keynote speech at today’s annual meeting of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council offered her the chance to lay out her agenda for statewide transportation policy. McDonald’s remarks should provide cause for optimism among New Yorkers hoping for a more progressive transportation system: She strongly endorsed smart growth principles and indicated to Streetsblog after her speech that she welcomes the planning process that could advance the Sheridan Expressway teardown.

“I am a very strong proponent and advocate for those smart growth principles,” McDonald announced in her keynote, citing the fact that transportation accounts for nearly 40 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

She said that the state DOT has the responsibility to ensure that last year’s smart growth law is implemented and that she believes there is a real movement within the department to embrace it. “It’s going to take a little bit to get to the practical side of it,” she said after the event, “but I am committed to pushing that envelope as much as we can.”

In particular, McDonald highlighted the department’s nationally-recognized GreenLITES certification system as a model around which to build. “We are expanding it to all areas within the department,” she said. “We know that we need to go further.”

Substantively, McDonald said making NYS DOT a smart growth agency is “pedestrian improvements, it’s bike improvements, it’s always looking and making safety our top priority.” During her speech, McDonald also singled out high-speed rail as a necessary investment for the state.

Though she cautioned that she hasn’t reached any conclusions on the fate of the Sheridan, her comments suggest that her administration will be more in tune with neighborhood activists seeking to replace the under-used highway with new housing, jobs, and open space.

“I’m thrilled that the city of New York is undertaking a land use study,” said McDonald, adding that conversations have begun about the Sheridan between the state DOT, the city DOT, and the city Department of City Planning.

The land use study, which was funded by a federal TIGER grant, is the key to an honest accounting of the costs and benefits of a Sheridan teardown. Last year, state DOT officials said that they could only compare the current Sheridan to a shuttered but still standing highway, because no officially sanctioned plan existed for what would replace it. If McDonald is excited about working with the city on the plan, she would seem to be open to the idea that replacing the Sheridan with a new mix of uses would add more value to the community than the highway does.

There was one worrisome contradiction in McDonald’s remarks, however. While she said that “we need to address our aging infrastructure through fix-it-first strategies,” implying that repairs would take precedence over making more room for cars at the cash-strapped agency, McDonald also expressed support for three road capacity increases in the downstate area: on the Staten Island Expressway, on the Gowanus and BQE, and on the Tappan Zee corridor. “I think society demands it,” she explained after the event.

The Port Authority will pay extra for a new Goethals Bridge to be built under a public-private partnership so that it can be completed sooner. Image: Port Authority via SI Advance.

Public-private partnerships, or P3s, have been repeatedly held up as a way for New York and other states to replace crumbling infrastructure despite enormous budget deficits. The Port Authority recent announced that it will use a P3 to finance the new Goethals Bridge, an important development that’s sure to be closely watched by the state’s transportation officials.

The Port Authority will be paying a premium to get a new Goethals sooner, which will in turn save the agency from spending large sums to maintain the old bridge. It’s a Plan B made necessary by the authority’s inability to use traditional financing methods immediately. It’s not a source of free money or huge efficiencies.

Under a public-private partnership, a private company would design and build the new Goethals and maintain it for a set period of time. The Port Authority wouldn’t put up any money up front, but instead would pay back the company a bit each year. The Port Authority would still own the bridge and have the ability to set tolls.

According to agency spokesman Steve Coleman, the Port Authority received eight proposals when it put out a request for qualifications last year. Now it is working to whittle those eight down to four finalists and will ask them for formal proposals later this year.

In terms of financing, said Coleman, there isn’t a major difference between this particular P3 approach and traditional bonds. In both cases, the Port Authority would get a capital infusion up front and pay it off, with interest, over decades.

The problem is that the recession has battered the Port Authority’s revenues, which determine how much it can borrow on the bond market. “Our capacity for bonding or capacity for doing capital projects has been reduced by $5 billion over ten years” said Coleman. Given current revenues, the Port Authority wouldn’t be able to issue the bonds for a new Goethals for some time.

Under a P3, said Coleman, “the advantage is you get a new bridge built now.” It’s a safe assumption that revenues will come back when the economy eventually improves, he explained, and a P3 allows the Port Authority to use that expected income to finance the bridge immediately. With bonds, the Port Authority would have to wait until that revenue was at hand.

Of course, the private sector won’t offer that service for free. “It’ll cost more,” said Coleman. “There’s no doubt that we’ll pay a premium.” In a recent AP story, Port Authority Executive Director Chris Ward estimated that using a P3 could increase the price tag of building the new Goethals by $30 million to $100 million.

That premium might be worth paying, however. Every year that the Goethals isn’t replaced, it needs more and more expensive repairs. Depending on how much those repairs would cost and how much a P3 accelerates the project, it could be the case that the Port Authority can’t afford not to pay an extra $100 million for the financing.

There’s also the issue of the cost of construction and maintenance. Coleman wouldn’t say whether he thought that construction and upkeep costs would be lower or higher under a P3 until bids came in. At that point, though, we will find out whether the private sector thinks it can find savings in infrastructure construction and maintenance compared to publicly overseen projects.

Coleman did note that the Port Authority will be signing a contract to pay a fixed sum; if the project comes in over budget, the private firm will have to pay for the overrun.

The details of the Goethals plan raise real questions about the ability of public-private partnerships to fix New York’s transportation infrastructure crisis. This deal allows the Port Authority to pay right away for a bridge that it expects to be able to afford later on, once revenues return to more typical levels. In contrast, the New York State DOT is currently facing enormous deficits that don’t seem likely to disappear on their own. If there isn’t the ability to pay for, say, a new Tappan Zee Bridge at a future date, a P3 along the Goethals model can’t conjure it up. The math of faster projects for pricier financing may make sense on some projects, but this P3 model won’t balance the state’s transportation budget.

SBRWA will make a presentation about the state DOT’s two plans for the Sheridan and Hunts Point area, one of which would tear down the Sheridan and one of which would keep it in place. Afterward, participants will break into groups to discuss the details of each proposal.

The federal government gave the teardown option some momentum when it provided a $1.5 million TIGER II grant for the city to create an official land use plan for the area, something that could help make the state DOT realize the potential benefits of redeveloping the land now occupied by the Sheridan. Now local activists need to organize to push the teardown option over the finish line.

Tonight’s town hall will be held at 6:00 p.m. at the East Bronx Academy for the Future, 1716 Southern Blvd. Food and childcare will be available.

Though New York is the least car-dependent state in the country, the state DOT isn’t known for championing for the state’s millions of non-drivers. In some corners of the large and decentralized agency, however, progressive ideas have taken root and new programs are being developed. At yesterday’s Rudin Center conference on livability, two DOT officials embraced the state’s extremely ambitious climate plan and outlined a course to expand the state’s much-praised GreenLITES certification system. The challenge for new DOT commissioner Joan McDonald will be to embrace the good thinking already coming from within the department and turn it into statewide policy.

John Zamurs, a 30-year veteran of NYSDOT, is head of the sustainability and climate change section in the agency’s statewide policy bureau. At a panel on the connection between livability and climate change yesterday, Zamurs walked through the goals of the New York State climate action plan, including a $25 billion transit expansion, immediate anti-sprawl measures, complete streets, congestion pricing and parking reform. Zamurs not only said that those kinds of policies would make the state more livable, but that we need what he called “a radical change in how travel is done in the state.”

Plans to expand DOT’s GreenLITES program also offered grounds for optimism yesterday. As Paul Krekeler, the GreenLITES program manager explained, GreenLITES is a rating and certification mechanism for NYSDOT to use internally. As in the LEED program to rate green buildings, DOT projects can earn points for hundreds of different sustainability features, from wetland preservation to separated bike paths and transit signal prioritization, which add up to a ranking from basic certification to “evergreen” status. “Our real goal here,” said Krekeler, “is transportation in support of a sustainable society.”

GreenLITES is on track to expand in a number of ways, according to Krekeler. Two new assessments are currently being rolled out, for example. Right now, there’s one GreenLITES certification for project design and another for ongoing operations. Just added, however, is a new project selection tool, which could move GreenLITES from helping staff include sustainability goals in their projects to helping the department as a whole set priorities. Use of the tool is still voluntary at this point, said Krekeler, but “if every [metropolitan planning organization] looks at this, now we have a standardized way of looking at projects within an MPO and between MPOs.”

After that, said Krekeler, the next step is to ask DOT’s eleven largely autonomous regions to chart a course toward sustainability. Using a “regional sustainability assessment table” currently under development, regions will lay out their current state of sustainability, their desired state, and then “tell us how you’re going to get there,” said Krekeler. One year from now, said Krekeler, a conversation about GreenLITES will sound very different.

Expanding GreenLITES has been a top recommendation from transportation reformers and environmentalists, so Krekeler’s remarks are a welcome first step toward a 21st century NYSDOT. Of course, there’s much more to be done. It’s up to Commissioner McDonald to take these progressive seeds and put them at the heart of DOT’s agenda.

- Allen Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT and Chair, AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways

Every state Department of Transportation (DOT) is led by a chief executive. In some states, they’re called the “secretary.” In others, the “director.” In New York, we call the state DOT chief “commissioner,” and last week, Governor Cuomo named Joan McDonald as the next Commissioner of New York State DOT.

NYSDOT staff have already demonstrated a strong inclination to support community-based transportation projects, like the redesign of State Route 376 in Poughkeepsie as a complete street. Commissioner McDonald needs to make projects like this the centerpiece of her administration. Photo: Project for Public Spaces

Although they have been reluctant to play an active role in land use planning, state DOTs have a huge impact on how their states grow and develop. Since the dawn of the post-WWII freeway era, the vast majority of state DOTs have declined to address concerns which we now group under the banners of sustainability and livability. The result has been unsustainable growth (sprawl) and precarious dependence on a single mode (driving).  This in turn has produced extreme vulnerability to rising fuel prices, mounting emissions that have us on a course for catastrophic climate change, and alarming declines in public health.

Ironically, single-minded spending on high-speed freeways has not even accomplished transportation goals. Congestion has grown exponentially worse; more than 1,000 people lose their lives on New York’s roads each year; and the physical condition of transportation infrastructure is declining.

It is time to accept that transportation investments in livability and sustainability are essential to New York’s future, and incoming Commissioner McDonald must lead the way. DOT chiefs have enormous capability to set agendas, shift billions of dollars in transportation investments, and change agency culture. Commissioner McDonald can help New York pick itself up and get back into the race with other states leading the way on 21st Century transportation policy. In so doing, she can build on the foundation for smart transportation and land use solutions that the previous administration began to create, before getting sidetracked by financial woes.

Will McDonald follow the innovative path set by New York City’s own Janette Sadik-Khan, or will she run a state DOT content with business-as-usual planning? In the hopes that the Cuomo Administration recognizes that in tough financial times, New York needs more progressive transportation planning and investment, not less, below are a series of recommendations based on my work with state DOTs around the country.

1. Take the nationally trend-setting GreenLITES program to the next level

The NYSDOT GreenLITES program is a brilliant effort to integrate principles of livability and sustainability into transportation projects from start to finish, which has already received national recognition. Early GreenLITES initiatives have retrofit roads to prevent pollution from stormwater runoff and, in partnership with the Nature Conversancy, targeted invasive species in the Adirondacks.

GreenLITES can be powerful because it begins at the beginning, with the selection of projects. We have to start feeding smart, sustainable transportation projects into the state DOT pipeline, otherwise we’re just dressing up 20^th Century solutions to make them appear like 21^st Century solutions. For instance, some have called the application of complete streets and sustainability principles to the widening of Route 347 in Long Island a case of transportation greenwashing.

Expanding and refining the GreenLITES program would help ensure that sustainable design is part of a project's DNA, rather than being added on top of a road widening as on Long Island's Route 347. Image: Times Beacon Record.

As one of her first steps, Joan McDonald should reconsider the wisdom of continuing to pour precious capital dollars into hugely expensive road widening projects, like the conversion of Route 17 into I-86. Think of it this way: Would you use the money you need to stop your roof from leaking to buy glitzy new kitchen appliances instead? We can no longer hope that channeling hundreds of millions into projects like the I-86 “upgrade” or the extension of Route 219 in Erie County will magically revitalize economies in various parts of New York state, while critical infrastructure crumbles in areas where most of New York’s existing population and economic wealth already reside. Instead, Commissioner McDonald should expand the GreenLITES program into agency-wide policy, practice and guidelines.

2. Enact performance-based goals and policies

Building on the GreenLITES pilot and programs such as STARS in Portland, Oregon, NYSDOT needs to evaluate its performance based on a broader range of goals than moving traffic. Success should be judged according to the agency’s effect on the environment, energy conservation, housing affordability, land use, and social equity.

3. Implement the land use and transportation program that Astrid Glynn started

Former DOT Commissioner Astrid Glynn came into power with the Spitzer administration in 2007, tasked with building a transportation and land use planning program to foster smart, compact growth. A new initiative modeled on NJDOT’s innovative Future in Transportation program seemed primed to launch with 12 full-time transportation and land use planners to implement it.  It was aborted due to funding issues, which is unfortunate, because a well-run land use planning initiative, pursued in partnership with local communities, could save NYSDOT hundreds of millions of dollars that will otherwise be spent widening roads and chasing sprawl.

4. Foster the creation of NGOs around the state to oversee implementation of transportation and land use visions

The state DOT’s internal transportation and land use program should be complemented by parallel programs outside the agency. Why? Because even when state, regional and local government agencies successfully coordinate their planning efforts, they can still have trouble implementing them. Without a third party to hold individual agencies accountable to each other and to sticking to the joint vision, communities quickly succumb to the pressures that destroy livable places. A smart plan for sustainable growth can fall apart, for instance, if one municipality starts chasing after the tax receipts generated by big box development.

These watchdog organizations would have to be entities outside of government, so that they can avoid being dominated by politics.

5. Fully engage the public in long range planning

Every state DOT formulates and adjusts a long-range plan in collaboration with the various regions throughout that state. Engaging the public so that real decision making is shared with citizens during the long range planning process will be essential to the success of transportation agencies in the 21^st Century.  Due to the abstract nature of the planning process, which involves lots of ideas but few details, it has been difficult to figure out how to accomplish this. In this author’s opinion, this is a major reason why transportation agencies can no longer muster public support for tax increases to build and maintain infrastructure.

There is one superb model for the incoming Commissioner to borrow from: the 2004-05 New Hampshire DOT Long Range Business Plan.  Instead of following the conventional top-down process, then-Commissioner Carol Murray turned it upside down, enlisting the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation to organize a public constituency. NHDOT provided participants with data on the state’s transportation needs and funding resources. These people then shaped the plan, relying on professional planners for direction and specific advice.  In other words, the state DOT used its expertise to support and nurture public goals, instead of dictate them.  The result: For the first time in decades, New Hampshire residents advocated for increased revenues for the DOT.

6. Trust and engage your career staff

New administrations often come into power with a mistrust of career staff, imposing change from the top down. The incoming administration should understand that there are many enlightened change agents in the state DOT bureaucracy, who if engaged, can dramatically accelerate reforms thanks to their competence and understanding of how to get things done. Having worked closely with or trained a number of NYSDOT staff over the years, I know for a fact that they already have a wealth of such committed talent.

For the new Tappan Zee Bridge to actually carry transit riders, the state DOT must do more than leave room on its bridge for buses and trains. Image: Tappan Zee Bridge Website.

7. Operate and oversee the entire system, not just the segments under the control of the state DOT

NYSDOT must evolve into a truly multi-modal agency that can influence the operations and performance of the entire transportation system, not just the portion of the state highway system that is under their jurisdiction.  For instance, it needs to make itself responsible for seeing that transit in corridors like the I-287 Tappan Zee Bridge project actually gets done, instead of simply leaving room on the bridge for someone else to build it. To meet the challenges of the 21^st Century, we need to knit together the operations of the multitude of transit services as well as the street and highway capacity of state, county, local and toll jurisdictions.  To the citizens of New York, the system needs to appear seamless and legible.  I recognize that this will pose all sorts of political problems, having lived through several attempts at accomplishing this in New Jersey. Nevertheless, we can no longer be daunted by the obstacles.

8. Transform NYSDOT’s mission from “building transportation through communities” to “building communities through transportation”

All of the above strategies should be employed according to the principle that transportation is not an end to itself, but a means to support the places we inhabit. Planning transportation through the prism of place is the key to busting the silos that all transportation agencies and jurisdictions now operate within.  It is also the key to integrating transportation with land use, creating location-efficient housing, helping health departments address obesity and diabetes, and improving the quality of our watersheds and solving other ecological problems.

Place-based – or “upside down” – planning involves shifting the focus of transportation and land use planning so that it no longer simply reacts to entrenched patterns and trends, treating traffic and sprawl like irresistible forces that must be accommodated. Instead, a place-based approach involves collaboratively setting a course based on the outcomes we want to see for our communities. Then transportation planning and projects can be used to shape and support the future that we want. Organizing around place will elevate transportation to be a positive force in the growth of New York State.

Gary Toth is currently director of transportation initiatives at Project for Public Spaces. Previously, during his 34-year career with the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), Gary become one of the architects of the transformation of NJDOT to a national leader in context-sensitive transportation planning. Gary’s work has brought him into contact with the operations of many state DOTs around the country. He is one of the leading experts on what “makes DOTs tick,” and how to engage the transportation planning, funding, project development and design processes to achieve sustainable and livable outcomes.

Joan McDonald, the new head of the state DOT. Image: CT.gov

Joan McDonald will serve as the next commissioner of the state Department of Transportation, Governor Cuomo announced this morning (after the General Contractors Association spilled the beans in its own press release praising the pick).

McDonald has a lengthy resume of government service in the Tri-State region. She is currently the commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Economic and Community Development. Prior to that, McDonald served as the senior vice president of transportation at the New York City Economic Development Corporation between 2003 and 2007 and the deputy commissioner for planning and traffic operations at the city DOT under Giuliani. In the early 1990s, McDonald worked as a special assistant to State Assembly Speaker Saul Weprin and director of capital and long-range planning for the Metro-North Railroad.

The late 90s weren’t a period of extensive innovation at the city DOT and McDonald wasn’t known for rocking the boat. That said, when McDonald was rumored to be the pick for city DOT commissioner in 2007, she was described as “sympathetic to pedestrian, traffic-calming and livable streets issues” and was greeted with enthusiasm by livable streets advocates. Four years ago, of course, expectations for transportation bureaucrats were not as high as they are today.

No matter what, McDonald has a full plate. As Richard Ravitch laid out in a report last year, the state’s Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund is essentially bankrupt, with most of its revenues going toward debt service and the rest to administrative costs and some basic operating expenses. It’s billions of dollars short of even maintaining a state of good repair on the roads, much less tackling mega-projects like a new Tappan Zee Bridge.

McDonald and the rest of the Cuomo transportation team also have important policy decisions facing them. Will McDonald vigorously implement the state’s new smart growth bill and stop wasting scarce dollars on destructive sprawl? Will she support replacing the under-used Sheridan Expressway with housing, jobs, and parkland?

Cuomo also announced today that Yomika Bennett will be the state’s next assistant secretary of transportation. She is currently the director of state and local relations for the state DOT and before that was the executive director for Assembly Transportation Committee chair David Gantt.

Since being sworn in on Saturday, Andrew Cuomo has already made moves with big implications for transit. Photo: Andrew Cuomo Flickr account.

To begin with, Cuomo is drawing a line in the sand over public sector compensation. Yesterday, a top administration official revealed that Cuomo will ask the state’s unions to accept a salary freeze for all state employees. And today, Cuomo announced that he and senior aides would take a five percent cut.

As Ben Kabak notes in a post today, New York City’s transit workers can’t help but get drawn into this battle. TWU Local 100′s contract with the MTA expires next January, meaning negotiations will start in 2011. Whether because the state budget is intertwined with the MTA’s or because one public contract sets standards for another, Cuomo’s stance will affect those talks. Concludes Kabak:

For better or worse, labor pressures will be one of the top transit storylines for 2011. If workers’ salaries and benefits keep going up, riders will be outraged. If the unions are battered or broken by Albany, the workers will be very unhappy. No matter what, this story will be have a bumpy ride and an ending that can’t be happy for everyone.

Cuomo has also started to make some top appointments, and the Times-Union’s Rick Karlin teases out what one of them might mean: privatization. He writes:

They may not call it that, but watch for deals in which infrastructure, buildings or even bridges and roads are “sold” and then leased back to the state, or operated by concessionaires. It will be controversial, but could raise lots of cash in a hurry. Cuomo has hired Paul Francis, who under Spitzer helped develop a plan — which wasn’t enacted — to securitize or sell future lottery proceeds to investors for a large chunk of cash to help create a fund for higher education.

During the campaign, Cuomo’s policy books didn’t say much about this specific type of privatization, but they did reveal a strong interest in using public-private partnerships to finance infrastructure. However, not all experiences with monetizing transportation assets have been a success — Chicago’s lease of its parking meters is widely considered a disaster for the city — and private sector money never comes without a price tag.

In this cost-conscious environment, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign has some other advice for the governor. On transit funding, Tri-State’s Kate Slevin and Veronica Vanterpool suggest a congestion pricing plan for New York City in order to finance the MTA’s capital program, which still has a $9 billion gap. Cuomo could make the state DOT more efficient and more sustainable by streamlining the agency’s eleven regional offices and investing in more cost-effective smart growth solutions, they write.

Perhaps more controversially, Tri-State also suggests scrapping plans for commuter rail across the Tappan Zee Bridge in order to free up funds for other important projects. Write Slevin and Vanterpool:

On the capital side, the next Governor should also support the LIRR third track project (key for Long Islanders to reap the benefits of East Side Access) and plans for bus rapid transit in the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 corridor. Additionally, plans for Tappan Zee Bridge replacement could be scaled down and proceed without the commuter rail connection from Rockland to NYC. Most commuters using the Tappan Zee are traveling to suburban destinations, not ending their trips in Manhattan, so the bus rapid transit connection, which provides much greater utility at the most affordable cost, should be retained.

The Cuomo Administration is young, but one thing’s already clear. For the foreseeable future, it’s all about making ends meet.

This intersection, the most dangerous in Syracuse, can't inspire too many people to walk or bike. If Albany passed a complete streets law, one of many green transportation policies they haven't acted on, it could be safer. Image: Google Street View.

“Getting Back on Track,” a new report by Smart Growth America and the Natural Resources Defense Council, ranks New York 21st of all the states when it comes to environmentally friendly transportation policy, right between Nevada and New Mexico (check out Streetsblog Capitol Hill for a national perspective on the report). Though the state does a decent job of spending its money in the right places, New York lacks almost all the legislative cornerstones necessary to move our transportation system towards sustainability.

Transportation accounts for a full 32 percent of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. American transportation emissions alone are greater than the total greenhouse gas emissions of any other country except China and Russia. State policy is crucial to cutting that figure. The report cites one study which found that if Maryland built a new outer beltway through the D.C. suburbs, those 18 miles of tolled highway would increase the total greenhouse gas emissions of the entire Washington region by 11 percent.

But because of Albany inaction, New York is an embarrassment when it comes to policies other than spending and investment. At 44th, our infrastructure policies are rated worse than South Dakota’s (consolation prize: we just barely edge out North Dakota).

Thanks to the State Assembly, we don’t have a complete streets law, so in many areas, people don’t feel safe making even the shortest trips without getting in a car. We’re one of only nine states that doesn’t allow pay-as-you-drive insurance, which creates a big financial incentive to drive less. We don’t offer incentives to carpool or telecommute and we don’t offer incentives for transit-oriented development.

The report’s authors made special note of New York’s poor performance. “One of the states that fared less well than I might have expected is New York State,” said Smart Growth America’s Neha Bhatt on a conference call with reporters. “It was outperformed by a lot of rural states.” The Assembly’s killing of congestion pricing in 2008 received special attention from the report authors as a case study in state-level obstructionism.

When it comes to state spending, at least, New York does much better, beaten out only by Rhode Island and Delaware. New York earns top marks for being the only state to spend more on transit than highways. On top of that, more of that highway spending goes toward maintenance, as opposed to trip-inducing road expansions, than in any other state.

Even so, “Getting Back on Track” finds that New York State is failing to adequately fund transit, leaving riders reliant on what comes from local governments and the feds. These days, that means the numbers just don’t add up. And New York was one of 15 states given the lowest ranking on using federal road money for bike or pedestrian infrastructure. Despite the state’s relatively high score on spending, we’re not doing nearly as well as we could be in terms of the budget; it’s just that most states are doing even worse.

To be fair, New York isn’t getting all the credit it deserves. Our newly passed smart growth law wasn’t counted because it hadn’t taken effect when the report was being prepared. “If they pull the implementation of that off well, it’s going to become a model state policy for the entire country,” said Bhatt. If effective, the smart growth law would bump New York up a few slots, though it would still be well outside the top tier of states.

With so many transit riders — and perhaps more importantly, transit-riding voters — New York should be a leader in green transportation. “Getting Back on Track” shows that instead, we’re in many ways at the very back of the pack.

Plus, there’s the ultimate shame for New Yorkers. The third-place state to our number 21? New Jersey.

The State DOT disassembling an unsound bridge over Lake Champlain. Without new revenue streams, warns Richard Ravitch, this will be a common sight. Photo: Tri-State Transportation Campaign.

Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch opens his new report on transportation funding in his characteristically blunt fashion:

“New York State currently lacks the revenues necessary to maintain its transportation system in a state of good repair, and the State has no credible strategy for meeting future needs.”

It doesn’t get any cheerier from there.

Faced with aging infrastructure and saddled with billions in debt, both the MTA and the State DOT are staring down impossible deficits. Without billions more dollars over the next few years, New York will watch as its trains begin to grind to a halt and its bridges collapse. A crisis of that scale demands similarly aggressive solutions, and Ravitch pulls no punches. He calls for not only tolls on the bridges into Manhattan, but on all major bridges and highways in the state, as well as special tax districts for particular mega-projects and potentially controversial reforms to the planning process.

Ravitch starts by laying out just how bankrupt the state’s transportation system really is. The MTA, of course, has a $10 billion deficit in its $28 billion capital plan over the next three years.

Over at the DOT, the current capital plan is already so shorn back that it only repaves or reconstructs 2,000 lane miles a year, when it would need to repair 3,500 each year just to stay in a state of good repair. For it to meet that modest goal, the DOT needs at least another $8 billion.

Taking out the bonds to pay for those capital plans would require $600 million in new revenue for the DOT and $700 million for the MTA each year, according to Ravitch’s estimates.

It’s worth following Ravitch into the depths of each budget crisis, to understand how things have gone so awry. The chief culprits: irresponsible borrowing and dangerous budget gimmickry.

“Between 2000 and 2008, the MTA nearly doubled its debt burden from $13 billion to $24 billion,” writes Ravitch. Not only didn’t the state find the revenue for that borrowing, it backloaded the bonds, adding to the total cost in order to push back payments into the 2020s and 2030s.

DOT’s position might be even more perilous. All capital spending is supposed to be paid for out of the Dedicated Highway and Bridge Trust Fund, formed in 1991 for that purpose. The dedicated fund’s revenues currently add up to around $2 billion each year. Of that, $1.3 billion will be spent on debt service and just under $1 billion will be spent on administrative costs and operating expenses like snow and ice removal. “Paying out these amounts will consume almost all of the available revenues in the Fund before any new capital work is accounted for,” writes Ravitch.

In fact, DOT has only been kept afloat by massive infusions of cash from the state’s general fund. “In the current year, SFY 2010-11, despite New York’s enormous budget deficit, the State budget transferred $700 million into the Dedicated Fund,” writes Ravitch.

At the same time, the state has been skimming money from the MTA into the general fund, a point which Ravitch doesn’t mention at all. That happens both through outright raids on MTA dedicated funds, like the $143 million that Albany stole from the MTA last December, and through budget tricks like paying the state’s 18b general fund obligations with dedicated funds, which costs the MTA over $150 million annually. Essentially, Albany appropriates dedicated transit funds to pay for roads.

Having dug this ditch, however, Ravitch argues there’s essentially no way for the state to get out of those costs. Unless it finds the funds, New York is going to see more repeats of last year’s Crown Point Bridge fiasco, in which a bridge across Lake Champlain had to be closed for safety reasons, forcing those who would use it on a 100-mile detour. Ravitch says that can’t be allowed to happen on the rapidly deteriorating Tappan Zee or Kosciuszko Bridges, which will cost $6-10 billion and $1 billion to replace, respectively.

The big transit expansions can’t realistically be cancelled either. If New York cancelled the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access, it would have to repay over $1.5 billion to the feds. Chris Christie would look fiscally prudent in comparison. That means that basic repairs would get the axe, “gravely impairing the condition of the State’s transportation infrastructure system,” in Ravitch’s words, which he called “unacceptable.”

That leaves the state without many options. Ravitch presents a few strategies to keep costs down in the future. He suggests relaxing the environmental review process for projects that can be assumed to be green, like transit or rail, and changing state law to allow the same contractor to design and build a single project. He also suggests that both DOT and the MTA need to work more closely with other agencies to implement smart growth-style development that would allow the same infrastructure to serve more people.

At the end of the day, however, Ravitch argues it comes down to revenue, and lots of it. No longer is Ravitch calling for tolls just on the East and Harlem River bridges. Now he wants a “coordinated regional tolling strategy that includes all key bridges and statewide roads, especially the parkway system.” Ravitch also proposes creating special taxing districts where particular mega-projects would concentrate benefits in a certain area.

Now all that remains is to assemble the political coalition for tolling every important road in the state…

If, as expected, Cuomo defeats Carl Paladino in today’s election, the initiatives laid out in this agenda will provide a hint of what’s to come from the governor’s mansion over the next four years.

“There’s a potential for a lot of good policy,” said Tri-State Transportation Campaign director Kate Slevin. “Overall, it’s good to know that he’s trying to marry environmental issues and capital investments.” The worry, she said, is that beyond a few initiatives like the smart growth grants, it’s not always clear how Cuomo would turn his priorities into policy. “The question that many of us are asking is how all these good ideas are going to translate into action after today.”

The anti-sprawl argument in the green agenda is powerfully expressed: “Sprawling communities have a higher per capita use of energy, land and water, and every year encroach on 97,245 acres of farmland and open space. Unplanned, sprawling development is bad for commuters, taxpayers and the environment everywhere, but particularly in Upstate New York.” And the conclusion is clear. “Simply put: we need to have better land use plans.”

To switch from wasteful and environmentally destructive sprawl to smart growth, Cuomo has a few solutions. He praises the recently-passed smart growth bill and vows to enforce it, saying that “strong leadership is needed to effectively implement these smart growth principles.” As a first step, Cuomo suggests streamlining regional planning by eliminating the overlap between local and county planning agencies.

The green agenda also proposes a new “Cleaner, Greener Communities” grant program, presumably modeled on the federal Sustainable Communities program recently launched by the federal agency Cuomo used to run, HUD. Under the program, the state would award funding to regions with the best plans for coordinating housing, transportation, and environmental policies.

“Empire State Future is pleased to see the prominence and importance given to smart growth in the about-to-be-Governor-Elect’s Green Agenda,” said Peter Fleischer, that organization’s director and a leading smart growth advocate. “We agree that the indivisible concept of sustainable community and economic development is the precursor to New York’s revitalization.”

A full chapter of the report is devoted to sustainable transportation, in all its forms. “Transportation planning and regional development is no longer just about building roads and bridges,” Cuomo asserts. He connects a strong public transit system to both economic prosperity and environmental sustainability. “Advancements in sustainable development, urban renewal, and environmental conservation will falter or reverse if New York neglects its public transportation infrastructure,” says Cuomo’s agenda.

Of course, supporting transit in the abstract is valuable only insofar as it leads to concrete support for transit. And there, Cuomo’s stated positions are practically in conflict with these lofty ideals. He’s ruled out new revenue for transit, despite the fact that state transit funding has plummeted over the last 25 years and put transit agencies across New York in dire fiscal straits. He’s also spent his time bashing the state’s largest transit agency, the MTA, rather than offering constructive solutions.

Cuomo also lays out the case for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. “Sidewalks and bike paths provide the critical link to our transit systems,” the report says, “and provide alternatives to conventional gas vehicles. Half of all trips in metropolitan areas are three miles or less, and over a quarter are a mile or less.” He urges all state transportation agencies to “consider” features like bike lanes, crosswalks, and walk signals “to ensure New York’s streets are complete.” While that language is a bit vague, Cuomo endorsed state complete streets legislation, which failed to pass the Assembly this year, in an AARP survey this fall.

In one section, Cuomo promises to build a rail system that can average 100 mph between New York City and Albany and Albany and Buffalo, and eventually connect at high speeds with Toronto and Montreal. He also pledges to build the charging infrastructure needed for electric cars to be widely adopted, suggesting that charging stations be placed along the Thruway and other major state roads, and at commuter rail parking stations.

One thing Slevin said she’d have liked to see more of is discussion of how to reform the state DOT itself. “The agency is stuck in a 20th Century planning mode and we really need more vigorous leadership from the department,” she said. With a progressive state DOT, she argued, officials would fight for the priorities laid out in Cuomo’s green agenda without prodding from the governor’s office.