Stakeholders Briefing
Slide 1: Tappan Zee Bridge/ I-287 Corridor, Level 2 Screening, Step 1 Evaluation Results
Slide 2: Objectives: Describe the Analytical Toolbox - Scenarios and Elements, Evaluation Criteria, Transportation Modeling; Present Results of the Analyses - No Build and Build Conditions, Transportation Performance, River Crossing, Capital Costs, Environmental Screening; Discuss Next Steps in the Process.
Slide 3: Scenarios and Elements
Slide 4: Alternatives Screening Process: Graphic showing process from the long list of 150 alternative elements, through Level 1 and Level 2 screening and into the EIS.
Slide 5: Presentation of Results: Highway Improvements, Commuter Rail Cross Corridor, Commuter Rail to Manhattan, High-Speed Light Rail, In-Street Light Rail, Exclusive Busway, Bus in HOT Lanes, Multimodal (e.g., CRT/LRT)
Slide 7: Level 2 Screening Criteria: Transportation Performance, Environmental Impact, River Crossing, Costs
Slide 8: Transportation Modeling
Slide 9: The Best Practices Model (BPM): NYMTC Developed and Approved Model, 28 counties - NY, NJ, CT, 3,586 Transportation Analysis Zones, 53,000 highway links, 900 commuter rail routes, 2,300 bus routes, 50 ferry routes, 73,000 transit stops, Sidewalk network in Manhattan
Slide 10: BPM Inputs, Suffern to Port Chester: table showing transit related BPM inputs for schedule, stations, and fares
Slide 11: BPM Inputs, Suffern to Manhattan: table showing transit related BPM inputs for schedule, stations, and fares
Slide 12: Job Distribution – Major Destinations, (Year 2025): Graphic showing employment statistics for the areas around Pennsylvania Station and Grand Central Terminal, and central Business Districts in White Plains and Stamford
Slide 13: Transportation Performance Measures: Roadway Congestion, Travel Time, Mode Split, Transit Ridership, Support to Efficient Land Development, Transportation System Integration
Slide 15: Tappan Zee Bridge Daily Traffic Growth: Graph showing bridge traffic capacity and the past and projected traffic growth
Slide 16: TZ Bridge - Demand vs. Capacity (Eastbound): Graph showing daily variations in eastbound traffic across the bridge and projected demand
Slide 17: TZ Bridge - Demand vs. Capacity (Westbound): Graph showing daily variations in westbound traffic across the bridge and projected demand
Slide 18: Travel Time Comparison (AM Peak Period): Graphic showing existing and 2025 No-Build projected drive and bus travel times from Suffern to White Plains and from Stamford to White Plains
Slide 19: Travel Time Comparison (AM Peak Period): Graphic showing existing and 2025 No-Build projected drive and bus travel times from Suffern to Port Authority Bus Terminal and from Nanuet to Port Authority Bus Terminal
Slide 20: Change in Total Corridor Daily Transit Ridership, Existing (1996) to No Build (2025): Graph showing projected increase in traffic in the corridor
Slide 21: Transit Implications-No Build: Significant expansion of Pascack Valley, Port Jervis, and Main Bergen Lines in NY & NJ required, Major yard expansion required in Spring Valley and on Port Jervis Line, Major stations and parking expansion required at existing stations, Potential grade crossing eliminations in NY & NJ, Potential double tracking required in NY & NJ, Potential expansion required at Hoboken Terminal
Slide 22: Evaluation Results, Build 2025
Slide 23: Highway Elements: Graphic showing possible highway improvements
Slide 24: High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes: Graphic showing possible location of HOT lanes
Slide 25: High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes: Graphic showing possible highway section and location of HOT lanes
Slide 26: High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes: Graphic showing photos of HOT lanes in use
Slide 27: Congestion Pricing: Table showing a photo of the George Washington Bridge and the Passenger Vehicle Toll Rates used for congestion pricing.
Slide 28: E-ZPass Usage Weekends: Graph showing 2003 Weekend E-ZPass usage versus time of day in the eastbound direction.
Slide 29: Ramp Metering: Photos of examples of ramp metering
Slide 30: Commuter Rail: Graphic showing possible northern and southern CRT cross- corridor alignments
Slide 31: Commuter Rail: Graphic showing possible rail connections in Suffern
Slide 32: Commuter Rail: Graphic showing possible use of the Piermont Line
Slide 33: Commuter Rail: Graphic showing a possible rail connection to the Pascack Valley Line
Slide 34: Light Rail Transit: Graphic showing possible initial segment from Palisades Mall to White Plains
Slide 35: Light Rail Transit: Graphic showing possible route of a cross-corridor LRT system, and the highway section, and photos of LRT in use.
Slide 36: In-Street LRT: Graphic showing local roadway section and location of LRT
Slide 37: Bus Rapid Transit: Graphic showing possible route of cross-corridor BRT in HOT and exclusive lanes with photos of BRT in use
Slide 38: Travel Time Comparison, Suffern to White Plains, AM Peak Period (6-10am): Bar chart showing travel times for existing conditions, 2025 no-build projections, and 2025 projections for all the build options
Slide 39: Travel Time Comparison, Stamford to White Plains, AM Peak Period (6-10am): Bar chart showing travel times for existing conditions, 2025 no-build projections, and 2025 projections for all the build options
Slide 40: Travel Time Comparison, Suffern to Manhattan , AM Peak Period (6-10am): Bar chart showing travel times for existing conditions, 2025 no-build projections, and 2025 projections for all the build options
Slide 41: Travel Time Comparison, Nanuet to Manhattan , AM Peak Period (6-10am): Bar chart showing travel times for existing conditions, 2025 no-build projections, and 2025 projections for all the build options
Slide 42: Commuter Rail Daily Trips (2025): Graphic showing projected ridership for CRT in the corridor.
Slide 43: Ridership Comparison: Graphic comparing 2025 projected CRT ridership from Orange County to Manhattan across the TZB to 2003 Hudson and Harlem Lines ridership
Slide 44: High Speed LRT Daily Trips (2025): Graphic showing projected ridership for High Speed LRT in the corridor.
Slide 45: In-Street LRT Daily Trips (2025): Graphic showing projected ridership for In-Street LRT in the corridor.
Slide 46: Exclusive Busway Daily Trips (2025): Graphic showing projected ridership for BRT in exclusive busway in the corridor
Slide 47: Daily Person Trips on New Transit Services (2025): Bar chart showing projected new and diverted ridership for various transit modes
Slide 48: Transit Market Share – Rockland/Orange to White Plains (2025 AM Peak Period): Bar chart showing projected market share for various transit modes
Slide 49: Transit Market Share – Rockland/Orange to Manhattan CBD (2025 AM Peak Period): Bar chart showing projected market share for various transit modes
Slide 50: Evaluation Results, River Crossing
Slide 51: Crossing Evaluation Criteria, Principal Criteria: Property Impacts, Transportation System Integration, Construction Impact (Land and River), Cost
Slide 52: Crossing Types: Existing Bridge - Preserve or Rehabilitate, Add LRT, BRT on bridge, Add supplemental CRT Tunnel; Replacement Bridge - Highway, BRT, CRT, LRT, Supplemental CRT tunnel; New Tunnel - Highway, BRT, CRT, LRT
Slide 53: Existing Bridge, Preserve: Graphic showing existing bridge with inset showing repairs to causeway required.
Slide 54: Existing Bridge, Rehabilitate: Graphic showing rehabilitated main spans and replacement of causeway adjacent to existing
Slide 55: Existing Bridge, Add LRT and CRT - Example cross section: Graphic showing bridge widened for LRT with CRT in supplemental tunnel
Slide 56: Existing Bridge, Add LRT – Example Alignment: Graphic showing route of LRT across the rehabilitated bridge with inset showing widened bridge.
Slide 57: Existing Bridge, Possible CRT tunnel alignments: Graphic showing possible tunnel alignments across the river
Slide 58: Existing Bridge, Example Supplemental Tunnel Construction Method: Graphic showing an example CRT tunnel alignment with locations of ground strengthening, temporary construction shafts, and emergency ventilation shafts
Slide 59: Replacement Bridge, Example cross sections: Graphic showing three example cross section
Slide 60: Replacement Bridge, Example Bridge Alignments: Graphic showing possible north and south alignments
Slide 61: Replacement Bridge, Rockland Shore Impacts: Graphic showing shoreline impacts for example north and south replacement bridge alignments in Rockland County
Slide 62: Replacement Bridge, Westchester Shore Impacts: Graphic showing shoreline impacts for example north and south replacement bridge alignments in Westchester County
Slide 63: New Highway and Transit Tunnel, Example cross section: Graphic showing 6 tunnel bores
Slide 64: New Highway and Transit Tunnel, Example alignments: Graphic showing possible alignments of a new highway and transit tunnel
Slide 65: New Highway and Transit Tunnel, Example alignment and shaft locations: Graphic showing an example highway and transit tunnel alignment with locations of ground strengthening, temporary construction shafts, and emergency ventilation shafts
Slide 66: New Highway and Transit Tunnel, West Portal Location at Quarry: Graphic showing ramps and portal for highway tunnel
Slide 67: New Highway and Transit Tunnel, East Portal Location at Tallyrand Swamp: Graphic showing ramps and portal for highway tunnel
Slide 68: New Highway and Transit Tunnel, Example Vent Building from Boston “Big Dig”: Photographs of Vent Buildings
Slide 69: Crossing Type, Comparison: Table showing impacts of crossing options
Slide 70: Evaluation Results, Environmental Screening
Slide 71: Environmental Screening: Ecology/Water Quality, Land Use, Socioeconomics (Environmental Justice), Parks/4(f) Properties, Cultural Resources, Air Quality, Noise
Slide 72: Ecology/Water Quality, Hudson River Crossings: Table comparing types of crossings and acres of affected habitat
Slide 73: Overall Corridor Results: Most project construction occurs within the ROW - Most alignment impacts are comparable for modes, Exception being transit station/park & ride facilities; Multi-modal solutions have greater impacts; In-street LRT elements will involve significant traffic and/or land use impact; Potential impacts mitigatable through engineering solutions
Slide 74: Land Use: CRT and LRT modes offer the greatest opportunities for “smart growth”, Transit modes have greater property impacts because of station and park & ride locations, Potential significant community impacts with Piermont ROW compared to I-287 alignment
Slide 75: Socioeconomics: Transit modes link labor force with urban and suburban employment centers; Environmental Justice - Hillburn EJ properties potentially affected by a CRT Suffern alignment, Transit alignments potentially affect Elmsford EJ community
Slide 76: Cultural Resources and Parks: Lyndhurst/Sunnyside and parkland, Tibbets Park, Bronx River Parkway, and Capital Theatre, Minor and potentially avoidable impacts
Slide 77: Vehicle Mile Travel (VMT), Percent Change from No-Build, Per Day in the Region (2025): table showing changes in VMT due to improvements
Slide 78: Noise: Scenarios result in less than 10 percent increase in affected population compared to the No Build, No mitigation assumed, Noise mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with regulatory requirements, Incremental rail traffic on Hudson Line results in <3 dBA noise increase
Slide 80: Capital Costs: Order of magnitude costs, Includes 30-50% contingency and soft costs, Excludes mitigation, financing and ROW
Slide 81: Capital Costs – With Bridge: Bar chart showing costs for options
Slide 82: Capital Costs – With Tunnel: Bar chart showing costs for options
Slide 83: Crossing Capital Costs, Comparison of River Crossing Type: Bar chart showing costs for crossing options
Slide 84: Avoided Costs - $1.2 Billion: Capital investments precluded by corridor investments in transit, highway and bridges
Slide 85: Next Steps: Graphic showing remainder of environmental review process
Slide 86: Stakeholders Briefing, Level 2 Screening - Step 1 Evaluation Results: Closing slide