1 new york state department of transportation mta metro-north railroad new york state thruway...
TRANSCRIPT
1
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
TZB/I-287 Environmental Review
TEA / TUG Conference
Bridge and Transit Recommendations
October 6, 2008
TZB/I-287 Environmental Review
TEA / TUG Conference
Bridge and Transit Recommendations
October 6, 2008
2
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
SubjectsSubjects
1. Rehabilitate or Replace TZB
2. Transit Mode Recommendation
3. Next Steps Finance
Process
1. Rehabilitate or Replace TZB
2. Transit Mode Recommendation
3. Next Steps Finance
Process
3
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Part 1Rehabilitate or Replace the Bridge
Part 1Rehabilitate or Replace the Bridge
4
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Hudson River Main Channel
5
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria
Engineering
Structural Integrity
Vulnerability
Seismic
Redundancy
Emergency Response
Navigation
Construction Impacts
Life span
Environmental
Land Use
Displacements and
Acquisitions
Historic and Archaeological
Resources
Parklands & Section 4(f)/6(f)
Ecosystems and Water Resources
Visual Resources and
Aesthetics
Transportation
Travel Time
Roadway Congestion
Alternative Modes Not in Mixed Traffic
Mode Split
Transit Ridership
Non-Vehicular Travel
Reserve Capacity
Rail Freight
Transportation System Integration
Traffic Safety
Cost
Capital Cost
Operating and Maintenance
Costs
Life Cycle Cost
Discriminating Criteria
Notable Criteria
6
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
5 Bridge Sections 5 Bridge Sections
Segment 4: East Deck TrussSegment 4: East Deck Truss
Segment 2: West Deck TrussSegment 2: West Deck Truss
Segment 3: Main SpansSegment 3: Main Spans
Segment 1: CausewaySegment 1: Causeway
Segment 5: East TrestleSegment 5: East Trestle
7
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Subsurface Conditions Subsurface Conditions
200-250 feet to rock
Approx 700 feet to rock
8
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Concrete pile caps (Causeway)Concrete pile caps (Causeway)
9
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Buoyant Foundations Buoyant Foundations
10
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Overview of TZB Status
• The TZB is currently safe but will not last into the future without major upgrade
11
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
What does ‘safe’ mean?
AASHTO Bridge Specification
1. Strength
2. Serviceability
3. Fatigue/Fracture
4. Extreme Events
Complies (but with reducing factors of safety)
Does not comply
Complies (but with reducing factors of safety)
Does not comply
12
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Why is the bridge suffering?
• Structure was designed ‘thin’ (thin deck, timber foundations, reduced thicknesses, open sections)
• Structure was designed ‘flexible’ (200 joints opened the bridge to chloride attack)
• The number of components is high (almost 100,000 pieces)
13
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Overall Condition Rating Vs. Cost
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Average condition rating
Year
Insp
ectio
n R
atin
g
3 - Serious Deterioration
5 - Minor Deterioration
7 - New Condition
1 - Failure
Def
icie
nt
$0
$200
$400$500
$300
$100
Co
st o
f R
epai
r (M
illio
ns)
Bi-annual condition rating
14
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Notable Radar Discontinuity (Blue) Notable Radar Discontinuity (Blue)
Major Radar Discontinuity (Pink) Major Radar Discontinuity (Pink)
Hollow Sound (Green)Hollow Sound (Green)
Spalled Concrete (yellow)Spalled Concrete (yellow)
Causeway – Deck DeteriorationCauseway – Deck Deterioration Causeway – Deck DeteriorationCauseway – Deck Deterioration
15
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Punch-Through Failure of the Deck
(Under Repair)
Punch-Through Failure of the Deck
(Under Repair)Causeway – Deck RepairCauseway – Deck Repair
Note deck thickness 6.75
inches
Note deck thickness 6.75
inches
16
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
TZB Causeway Piers and FoundationsTZB Causeway Piers and Foundations
17
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Underneath Causeway Cracked Concrete Under Drainage Outlet at Top of Pier(Repaired)
Underneath Causeway Cracked Concrete Under Drainage Outlet at Top of Pier(Repaired)
18
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Underneath Causeway Cracked Concrete Under Drainage Outlet at Top of Pier(Repaired)
Underneath Causeway Cracked Concrete Under Drainage Outlet at Top of Pier(Repaired)
19
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Underneath Causeway Cracked Concrete at the Base of the PierUnderneath Causeway Cracked Concrete at the Base of the Pier
20
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Causeway FoundationsCracking at Side of Pilecap Causeway FoundationsCracking at Side of Pilecap
21
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Causeway FoundationsTimber Piles Below Pilecap Causeway FoundationsTimber Piles Below Pilecap
22
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Full width of concrete deck to be repla ced over the 8,800 ft
length of Causeway
8,800 ft of fascia and impact protection barriers to be replaced
on each side of the deck
Concrete cross - beam repair from salt leaks through joints
at 166 piers
R epairs of outer column and cross - beam connection on all
166 piers
End of theoretical fatigue life of welding plates on 15 deck
stringers on each of 166 spans
Repeating repairs at base of columns due to corrosion
resulting from marine environment
Reconfiguration of drainage outlets along 8,800 ft along each
side of the highway
Concrete repairs to cracks on 166 pilecaps
1 2 3
1 2 9
1 5
1 3
1 4
Future risk of marine borers affecting condition and capacity of timber piles
Remaining 166 joints across highway are prone to failure
resulting in continuous leakage of road salts on to the structure
below and continuing deterioration of supporting pier
4
Modification of 8 column to beam connections on each of
the 166 piers
11
Connection betwee n timber piles and pilecaps unproven
in seismic event
10
Why the Causeway is Replaced Why the Causeway is Replaced
Extent of the concerns and modifications makes causeway replacement essential
23
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Steel Corrosion(Repaired)
Main Spans – Maintenance ChallengeMain Spans – Maintenance Challenge
24
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Example Plate Connecting Horizontal, Vertical and
Inclined Members (Repaired)
Example Plate Connecting Horizontal, Vertical and
Inclined Members (Repaired)
Main Spans – Gusset Plates Main Spans – Gusset Plates
25
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Main Spans – Maintenance Challenge
26
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
TZB Physical Condition - Summary TZB Physical Condition - Summary
1. TZB is in Safe Condition
2. Deterioration Became Significant in 1980’s
3. 20 Years of Major Investment to Date
4. Expenditure is Increasing
5. Cycle of Deterioration and Repair Continues
1. TZB is in Safe Condition
2. Deterioration Became Significant in 1980’s
3. 20 Years of Major Investment to Date
4. Expenditure is Increasing
5. Cycle of Deterioration and Repair Continues
27
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway AuthorityMovie
Example of model used for
seismic assessment of
the existing TZB main spans
Soil layers
SeismicSeismic
28
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway AuthorityMovie
SeismicSeismic
Corner of Buoyant caissonExample of local
model used to assess the extent of cracking in the existing buoyant
foundations
Cracking
29
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Seismic - Buoyant Caisson Replacement
New Transfer Structure
Existing Caisson
New structure
30
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Buoyant Caisson Replacement
Existing Replacement
31
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Rehabilitated Main Spans
New Structure
10-20% of members to be retrofitted
32
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Construction Impacts Criterion – Riverbed Disturbance Construction Impacts Criterion – Riverbed Disturbance
Rehabilitation Option 3 (BRT)
Replacement Option 2 (BRT)
33
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Construction Impacts CriterionConstruction Impacts Criterion
Rehab
New Structure Replacement Option 1
Rehabilitation Option 2
Rehabilitation Option 3
34
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Construction Impacts CriterionConstruction Impacts Criterion
Rehab Structure
New Structure
Rehabilitation Option 3
Replacement Option 3
Replacement Option 2
35
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Seven TZB Options
Option 3Option 1 Option 4Option 2
Rehabilitation Options
Replacement Options
Option 3Option 1 Option 2
36
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Cost Criteria (2012 dollars)Cost Criteria (2012 dollars)
$1.1$1.5
$1.2 $1.4$0.7 $0.7 $0.9
$3.4
$6.4
$5.1
$6.3
$5.2
$6.4 $6.6
Capital Cost
(Billions)
NPV 150-yearMaintenance
Cost (Billions)
Rehabilitation Options Replacement Options
37
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Replacement of TZB Recommended 1. Rehabilitation of existing bridge in-kind is not viable
• Does not meet project purpose and need
• Retains serious vulnerabilities
2. Rehabilitation options require extensive new work
• Costs are comparable to replacement options
• River impacts comparable in all options
3. Rehabilitation options retain serious vulnerabilities
• Existing main span retained is non-redundant
• Retained main span will continue to deteriorate
4. Replacement options have high life cycle (150 yrs)
Replacement of TZB Recommended 1. Rehabilitation of existing bridge in-kind is not viable
• Does not meet project purpose and need
• Retains serious vulnerabilities
2. Rehabilitation options require extensive new work
• Costs are comparable to replacement options
• River impacts comparable in all options
3. Rehabilitation options retain serious vulnerabilities
• Existing main span retained is non-redundant
• Retained main span will continue to deteriorate
4. Replacement options have high life cycle (150 yrs)
Executive Steering Committee Executive Steering Committee RecommendationRecommendation
38
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Part 2Transit Mode Recommendation
Part 2Transit Mode Recommendation
39
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Inventory of Transit AlternativesInventory of Transit Alternatives
40
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
• All alternatives were subject to a rigorous analytic processAll alternatives were subject to a rigorous analytic process• Transit ridershipTransit ridership• Highway impactsHighway impacts• Travel time benefitsTravel time benefits• Capital and operating costsCapital and operating costs• Preliminary environmental impactsPreliminary environmental impacts
• Not an FTA NEW STARTS Application Analysis; yet conciseNot an FTA NEW STARTS Application Analysis; yet concise
• Results in Results in Transit Mode Selection ReportTransit Mode Selection Report
Analysis of Transit ModesAnalysis of Transit Modes
41
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Alternative Alternative 4D4D is the best performing alternative, comprised of is the best performing alternative, comprised of the following components: the following components:
Regional Bus Rapid Transit networkRegional Bus Rapid Transit network• High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on bridge and highway in RocklandHigh Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on bridge and highway in Rockland• Exclusive bus lanes along Route 119 and Westchester AvenueExclusive bus lanes along Route 119 and Westchester Avenue• New BRT stations (may become joint bus/rail stations)New BRT stations (may become joint bus/rail stations)• Routes serve Orange/Rockland Counties, White Plains, I-287 Corporate Routes serve Orange/Rockland Counties, White Plains, I-287 Corporate
Parks, Port Chester, SW CTParks, Port Chester, SW CT
New two track Commuter Rail LineNew two track Commuter Rail Line• Links Port Jervis Line to Hudson LineLinks Port Jervis Line to Hudson Line• Tunnel, at-grade and viaduct sections in Rockland CountyTunnel, at-grade and viaduct sections in Rockland County• New Rockland County stationsNew Rockland County stations• Underground connection to Hudson Line in WestchesterUnderground connection to Hudson Line in Westchester
Best Performing AlternativeBest Performing Alternative
42
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Most Total Trips on New ServiceMost Total Trips on New Service
43
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Delivers Highest Ridership IncreaseDelivers Highest Ridership Increase
Alternative Ridership Increase:
Cross-Corridor
Ridership Increase:
To/From NYC
Total Ridership Increase
No Build 66,500 94,900 161,400
3A +14,500 +8,900 +23,400
3B +14,600 +9,200 +23,800
4A +8,700 +13,100 +21,800
4B +7,400 +16,600 +21,000
4C +7,500 +13,900 +21,400
4D +16,900 +14,300 +31,200
• Generates highest transit ridership (cross-corridor, to NY, total) compared to other EIS alternatives studied
Almost 40% of ridership (CRT, BRT) would be new to transit, thus diverting cars off the roadway network
44
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Diverts Most Trips from AutomobilesDiverts Most Trips from Automobiles
Alternative East Bound Auto Diversions
No Build NA
3A 6,700
3B 6,400
4A 7,300
4B 7,600
4C 7,900
4D 8,400
• Alternative 4D diverts 8,400 cars in the peak period which represents Alternative 4D diverts 8,400 cars in the peak period which represents about 21% of auto trips originating in Orange/Rockland and destined for about 21% of auto trips originating in Orange/Rockland and destined for ManhattanManhattan
45
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
• Delivers faster travel times to NYC than existing or currently planned (i.e. ARC) transit alternatives
As much as a 45 minute savings versus existing rail trips from eastern/central Rockland County to Manhattan’s east side
BRT saves 50 minutes on trips between Suffern and White Plains vs no-build
• Highest aggregate travel time savings 8,100 hrs/day in AM peak period
vs existing rail 4,200 hrs/day (AM peak) saved vs
bus from Suffern to White Plains
Delivers Fastest Travel TimesDelivers Fastest Travel Times
46
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Total Transit Capital CostTotal Transit Capital Cost(Year 2012 Dollars)(Year 2012 Dollars)
$1.0 B for BRT (Rockland/Westchester)$6.7 B for CRT (Suffern to Hudson Line)
47
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Net Cost per Passenger MileNet Cost per Passenger Mile
Annualized Capital + Annual Operating Costs = Total Annual Transit Cost
Total Passenger Miles
Net Cost per Passenger Mile =
Total Annual Transit Cost – Annual Fare Revenue
3A
3B
4A4B4C
4D
$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00
Average Net Cost per Passenger Mile--4D
$1.45
48
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Complements ARC ProjectComplements ARC Project
• Provides West-of-Hudson commuters with east/west Midtown Manhattan Provides West-of-Hudson commuters with east/west Midtown Manhattan terminal choiceterminal choice
• Adds track capacity for Manhattan tripsAdds track capacity for Manhattan trips
ARC SERVICE30% ARC riders divert
TZ SERVICE40% ARC riders60% New riders
49
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Air Emissions Reductions Air Emissions Reductions (tons in the AM peak period in 2035)(tons in the AM peak period in 2035)
50
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Net Fuel Savings – Gallons (AM Net Fuel Savings – Gallons (AM Peak Period)Peak Period)
51
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
• Project elements can be phased in in accordance with planning process and funding availability
• Construct transit-ready bridge• Implement BRT once bridge is completed• Commuter rail can follow immediately or at a later date
Facilitates Early Delivery of BRT ServiceFacilitates Early Delivery of BRT Service
52
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
• Cross corridor BRT provides the most one seat rides between Orange/Rockland and Westchester/Connecticut
• Increases capacity available for reverse commutation trips to Orange/Rockland; a growing travel movement in this region
• Allows Orange and Rockland commuters to Manhattan to choose either TZB service to GCT on Manhattan’s east side or Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) service directly to PSNY or continue to Hoboken/Path for trips to Lower Manhattan
• The commuter rail service in Alt. 4D will provide more frequent service to Manhattan than is currently planned or possible with the capacity-constrained route via ARC
• Can be implemented in phases, enabling BRT service to begin operations when the new crossing is completed and before the commuter rail is designed and constructed
Provides Highest Level of Transit ServiceProvides Highest Level of Transit Service
53
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Alternative Cost Estimates Alternative Cost Estimates 2012 Dollars 2012 Dollars
ALTERNATIVES / OPTIONS ROCKLAND WESTCHESTER 2012 COST
$8,027
$9,678
$22,091
$17,352
$15,755
$15,999
54
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
• Analyze Full Corridor Bus Rapid Transit And Commuter Rail from Orange / Rockland to GCT in the DEIS• Tier 1 Transit ROD; Tier 2 Hwy / Bridge ROD in 2010
• Begin design of highway / bridge in 2010
• Begin construction of highway / bridge in 2012
• Begin Tier 2 Transit DEIS in 2010
• Decide advancement of BRT / CRT in single or sequenced DEIS
• Implement Full Corridor BRT upon completion of Bridge
• CRT Advances as Circumstances and Finances Dictate
Executive Steering Committee Executive Steering Committee RecommendationRecommendation
55
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
• Full Corridor BRT (Suffern to Port Chester)• BRT in Median / Shared HOV / HOT Lanes in Rockland
• BRT in Exclusive Guide Way in Thruway ROW in Rockland
• BRT in Dedicated Lanes in Local Street System in Westchester
• BRT in Exclusive Guide Way in Westchester
• West-of-Hudson CRT to East Side of Manhattan (GCT)
• CRT in median of Thruway in Rockland
• CRT in South Side of Thruway ROW in Rockland
• CRT connection to Hudson Line via Shoulder Tunnel
Transit Alternatives Transit Alternatives To Be Studied in DEISTo Be Studied in DEIS
56
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Finance StatusFinance Status
Phase I Finance Study Available
Baseline Information
Case Studies
Basic Finance Projections
Retain Financial Advisor
On- board Fall 2008
Develop creative solutions
Analyze financing alternatives
Market expertise & guidance
Phase I Finance Study Available
Baseline Information
Case Studies
Basic Finance Projections
Retain Financial Advisor
On- board Fall 2008
Develop creative solutions
Analyze financing alternatives
Market expertise & guidance
57
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Next Steps
• Publish Final Scoping Summary Report
• Open House – Alternatives in DEIS
• Publish DEIS
• Public Hearing
• Publish FEIS
• Records of Decision
58
New York StateDepartment of Transportation
MTAMetro-North Railroad
New York StateThruway Authority
Project ScheduleProject Schedule
• Bridge Highway Design 2010 – 2012• Bridge Construction 2011 – 2016• Tier 2 Transit Study 2010 – 2012
M7
M7
M5 Open house: Final Alternatives in the DEIS
M6 Publish DEIS
M7 Public Hearings
M1 Publish NOI
M2 Scoping Meetings
M3 Announce Bridge & Transit Recommendations
M4 Scoping Summary Report
F Publish FEIS Preferred Alternative
R ROD