tzb/i-287 environmental review tea / tug conference bridge and transit recommendations

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




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




Part 1Rehabilitate or Replace the Bridge

Part 1Rehabilitate or Replace the Bridge

4




Hudson River Main Channel

5




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




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




Subsurface Conditions Subsurface Conditions

200-250 feet to rock

Approx 700 feet to rock

8




Concrete pile caps (Causeway)Concrete pile caps (Causeway)

9




Buoyant Foundations Buoyant Foundations

10




Overview of TZB Status

• The TZB is currently safe but will not last into the future without major upgrade

11




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




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




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




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




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




TZB Causeway Piers and FoundationsTZB Causeway Piers and Foundations

17




Underneath Causeway Cracked Concrete Under Drainage Outlet at Top of Pier(Repaired)


18






19




Underneath Causeway Cracked Concrete at the Base of the PierUnderneath Causeway Cracked Concrete at the Base of the Pier

20




Causeway FoundationsCracking at Side of Pilecap Causeway FoundationsCracking at Side of Pilecap

21




Causeway FoundationsTimber Piles Below Pilecap Causeway FoundationsTimber Piles Below Pilecap

22




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




Steel Corrosion(Repaired)

Main Spans – Maintenance ChallengeMain Spans – Maintenance Challenge

24




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




Main Spans – Maintenance Challenge

26




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 StateThruway AuthorityMovie

Example of model used for

seismic assessment of

the existing TZB main spans

Soil layers

SeismicSeismic

28



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




Seismic - Buoyant Caisson Replacement

New Transfer Structure

Existing Caisson

New structure

30




Buoyant Caisson Replacement

Existing Replacement

31




Rehabilitated Main Spans

New Structure

10-20% of members to be retrofitted

32




Construction Impacts Criterion – Riverbed Disturbance Construction Impacts Criterion – Riverbed Disturbance

Rehabilitation Option 3 (BRT)

Replacement Option 2 (BRT)

33




Construction Impacts CriterionConstruction Impacts Criterion

Rehab

New Structure Replacement Option 1

Rehabilitation Option 2


34




Construction Impacts CriterionConstruction Impacts Criterion

Rehab Structure

New Structure


Replacement Option 3

Replacement Option 2

35




Seven TZB Options

Option 3Option 1 Option 4Option 2

Rehabilitation Options

Replacement Options

Option 3Option 1 Option 2

36




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




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




Part 2Transit Mode Recommendation

Part 2Transit Mode Recommendation

39




Inventory of Transit AlternativesInventory of Transit Alternatives

40




• 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




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




Most Total Trips on New ServiceMost Total Trips on New Service

43




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




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




• 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




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




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




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




Air Emissions Reductions Air Emissions Reductions (tons in the AM peak period in 2035)(tons in the AM peak period in 2035)

50




Net Fuel Savings – Gallons (AM Net Fuel Savings – Gallons (AM Peak Period)Peak Period)

51




• 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




• 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




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




• 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




• 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




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




Next Steps

• Publish Final Scoping Summary Report

• Open House – Alternatives in DEIS

• Publish DEIS

• Public Hearing

• Publish FEIS

• Records of Decision

58




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

tzb/i-287 environmental review tea / tug conference bridge and transit recommendations

Documents