[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8740-8743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2741]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Environmental Impact Statement: Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Corridor
Between Suffern, NY (Rockland County) and Port Chester, NY (Westchester
County)
AGENCIES: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), United States Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA and FTA are jointly issuing this Revised Notice of
Intent (NOI) to advise the public of modifications to the environmental
review process for the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Corridor Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). These revisions include the intent of FHWA and
FTA to use a tiered process to facilitate project decision-making, and
the intent of FHWA and FTA to utilize the environmental review
provisions afforded under Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU). The EIS will build upon the extensive alternatives
analysis, environmental and technical studies and public comments and
outreach conducted to date, which are available online at the project's
Web site (www.tzbsite.com). This NOI revises the NOI that was published
in the Federal Register on December 23, 2002.
The proposed tiering approach will allow the joint lead agencies to
focus on both broad overall corridor issues in a Tier 1 transit
analysis of general alignment and mode choice while simultaneously
assessing site specific impacts, costs and mitigation measures in a
Tier 2 bridge and highway analysis. The scope of analysis in the Tier 1
and Tier 2 will be appropriate to the level of detail necessary for
those documents and will receive input from the public and reviewing
agencies. The intent of the joint lead agencies is for the Tier 1 and
Tier 2 analyses to be developed concurrently in order to maximize the
efficiencies and potential for multimodal solutions.
The Tier 1 transit analysis will provide the basis for a corridor
level decision on transit mode(s), alignment(s), and logical termini
within the Corridor and sufficient detail of impact assessments and
preliminary engineering to allow the Tier 2 highway and bridge elements
to proceed to final design and construction. Because the transportation
needs of the corridor require a multimodal solution, the highway,
bridge, and transit elements are intricately tied to one another and
require iterative and concurrent development, analysis and
consideration up to the decision on mode and alignment. Once the
transit mode and alignment decisions are made, the analysis can focus
on the needs of the corridor which includes the structural needs of the
existing Tappan Zee Bridge and associated highway network, while
preserving the transit corridor within the existing right of way.
Additional purposes of this revised NOI are to:
Advise the public of lead agency roles.
Outline how the provisions of SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 will
be met.
Update interested parties regarding the current approach
to preparing the EIS.
Provide updated information on the proposed project,
purpose and need for the project, and range of alternatives.
Re-invite participation in the EIS process, including
comments on the refined scope of the EIS proposed in this notice.
Announce the dates, times and locations of upcoming
scoping update meetings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael P. Anderson, Project Director,
NYSDOT, 660 White Plains Road, Suite 340, Tarrytown, NY 10591,
Telephone: (914) 358-0600; or Willet Schraft, Senior Operations
Engineer, FHWA, New York Division, Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building, 7th
Floor, Clinton Avenue and North Pearl Street, Albany, NY 12207,
Telephone: (518) 431-4125; or Donald Burns, Senior Planner, FTA, One
Bowling Green, Room 429, New York, NY 10004, Telephone: (212) 668-2170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 23, 2002, the FHWA and FTA, in
cooperation with the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) and the
Metro-North Railroad, a subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (MTA/MNR) issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an
Alternatives Analysis (AA) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the I-287 Corridor in Westchester and Rockland Counties, NY (FR
Volume 67, No. 246). Extensive AA public involvement activity has been
conducted since publication of that NOI such that a revised tiered
approach is warranted. Of considerable note, is that the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has become a sponsoring agency
and taken on the role of lead State project manager. As a sponsoring
agency, NYSDOT, as well as NYSTA and MTA/MNR, are considered Joint Lead
Agencies for the project under SAFETEA-LU.
1. Scoping
In January 2003, after the December 2002 NOI was published, three
scoping meetings were held: one in Westchester County; one in Rockland
County; and one in Orange County. Public and agency comments received
during those scoping meetings have been incorporated into the AA. As a
result of the initial scoping process which included a Level 1 and
Level 2 alternatives screening process, the alternatives have been
reduced from 150 alternative elements to six alternatives. As a result
of the changes in the project conditions and approach that have
precipitated the issuance of this revised NOI, scoping update meetings
will be conducted to obtain current comments on the scope of the EIS.
To assist interested parties in formulating their comments, a scoping
informational packet will be prepared and made available upon request
from the NYSDOT representative identified above or online at the
project's Web site (www.tzbsite.com). The scoping packet will include
the project's purpose and need, goals and objectives, range of
alternatives, environmental issues that will be addressed during the
course of the study and the public and agency coordination plan,
pursuant to SAFETEA-LU. In addition, the scoping packet will include
the evaluation criteria that will be used to conduct a third level
(``Level 3'') alternatives screening process, which will further
analyze the remaining alternatives.
In early 2008, three additional public scoping update meetings will
be conducted, one each in Westchester, Rockland and Orange Counties, to
solicit additional public comments on the scope of the EIS. Each
meeting will run from 4 to 9 p.m. and consist of an informal open house
setting and two formal presentations. Formal presentations will be made
at 5 p.m. and again at 7 p.m. After each presentation,
[[Page 8741]]
the public will be provided the opportunity to comment. Those wishing
to speak must sign up by either 5:30 p.m. or 7:30 p.m., respectively. A
court reporter will be available to record the formal meeting and
public comments. The public meetings will be held in the following
locations:
Westchester County Public Scoping Update Meeting: Tuesday, February 26,
2008, The Performing Arts Center, Purchase College, State University of
New York, 735 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase, NY 10577
Orange County Public Scoping Update Meeting: Wednesday, February 27,
2008, Orange-Ulster BOCES Campus, 53 Gibson Road, Goshen, NY 10924
Rockland County Public Scoping Update Meeting: Thursday, February 28,
2008, the Palisades Center, 1000 Palisades Center Drive, West Nyack, NY
10994.
The public comment period will be open for a maximum of 30 days
following the February 28 meeting. Comments will be accepted until
Monday, March 31, 2008.
Written comments on the scope of the project can be sent to Michael
P. Anderson, Project Director, NYSDOT, Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Project
Office, 660 White Plains Road, Suite 340, Tarrytown, NY 10591
(Telephone: (914) 358-0600). The meetings will be accessible to persons
with disabilities. If special needs such as an interpreter or sign
language services are needed please contact Michael P. Anderson.
2. Description of the Project Area
The Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Corridor (Corridor) is approximately 30
miles in length, extending from the I-87/I-287 Interchange in Suffern,
NY to the I-287/I-95 interchange in Port Chester, NY and includes the
Tappan Zee Bridge. Maintained by NYSTA, the Corridor encompasses the
entire length of the Cross Westchester Expressway (CWE) in Westchester
County, connecting two of the most rapidly growing communities in the
New York region, Rockland and Orange County with Westchester County, a
major employment destination just east of the Hudson River. The
Corridor also intersects with the five MTA/MNR commuter rail lines
(Port Jervis, Pascack Valley, Hudson, Harlem and New Haven) which run
north-south and none of which are oriented east-west through the
Corridor or cross the Hudson River. The Corridor is serviced in the
east-west direction through the following bus services, the Tappan
ZEExpress, Orange Westchester Link (OWL) and other bus services.
3. Purpose and Need
The purpose and need of the project is to address the
transportation safety, mobility and capacity needs of the Tappan Zee
Bridge/I-287 Corridor. At the conclusion of the scoping process, the
EIS will continue to evaluate the multimodal alternatives that meet the
purpose and need of the project. Of particular concern is the
structural design and integrity of the Tappan Zee Bridge, a vital
infrastructure element in the regional and national transportation
network. Numerous goals and objectives for proposed improvements have
been developed and refined through public and agency coordination since
inception of the original NOI in 2002. Primary goals include providing
improved transit service within the Corridor including connections to
existing transit service, decreasing congestion and travel times within
the Corridor, and addressing the structural integrity and traffic
safety of the Tappan Zee Bridge. Further refinement or modification to
these goals and objectives and the purpose and needs of the project may
be made by the joint lead agencies once the scoping update meetings
have been conducted and comments received.
When opened to traffic in 1955, the Tappan Zee Bridge carried
approximately 18,000 vehicles. Today, the bridge carries approximately
135,000 vehicles daily with volumes as high as 170,000 on some peak
days. During the past 20 years, traffic volumes have grown
significantly in the Corridor, by over 50 percent on the CWE and by
more than 70 percent on the Tappan Zee Bridge. As a result, the
Corridor experiences varying levels of traffic congestion throughout
the 30-mile length. The steady increase in traffic demand over the
years, together with only limited increases in roadway capacity and
limited east-west modal alternatives, have resulted in continual
increases in travel time and delay. The problems are most severe during
the eastbound morning peak and the westbound evening peak periods,
particularly within the vicinity of the Tappan Zee Bridge.
The Tappan Zee Bridge has non-standard safety features, narrow lane
widths (11 feet 8 inches), no shoulders and a narrow median; operates
at or near full capacity in the peak hours; has long periods of stop
and go traffic; areas of notable traffic turbulence and an average
collision rate four times greater than the average rate (per million
vehicle miles), when compared to the whole of the Thruway system. On
the highway segment of the corridor, 39 locations on the mainline and
various entrance and exit ramps have accident rates in excess of
statewide averages.
In addition to its capacity constraints, the structural design and
integrity of the bridge requires consideration. While the structural
condition is safe to the public, several structural deficiencies also
need to be addressed. The bridge is located in a moderate seismically
active zone, and was not designed in accordance with the current
seismic code. The seismic vulnerability of the bridge is an area of
great importance to the project.
Today bus transit, car and van pools operate in mixed traffic and
are subject to the same congestion and travel delays. The bridge's
current capacity constraints do not allow for dedicated lanes that
would accommodate higher capacity vehicles and increased transit bus
services. One of the most significant findings in the AA analysis to
date is that traffic forecasts clearly demonstrate a demand for travel
in the corridor that cannot be accommodated by highway improvements
alone. The need to include transit improvements in the corridor is
strongly indicated.
As a result of these conditions, the EIS will evaluate alternatives
that address the following needs of the Corridor:
Preserve the existing river crossing as a vital link in the
regional and national transportation network
Provide a river crossing that has structural integrity, meets
current design criteria and standards, and accommodates transit
Improve highway safety, mobility, and capacity throughout the
Corridor
Improve transit mobility and capacity throughout the Corridor
and travel connections to the existing north-south and east-west
transit network
4. Alternatives
The alternatives under consideration involve different combinations
of bridge, highway and transit elements. Transit modes currently
undergoing additional evaluation as a result of ongoing analysis
include the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail Transit (LRT), and
Commuter Rail (CRT). The Alternatives Analysis Report issued in 2006
identified six alternatives for further study in the EIS. These six
alternatives were the result of Level 1 and Level 2 alternatives
screening and include the following:
No Build Alternative
Bridge Rehabilitation with Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) measures
Full Corridor BRT with a new bridge and highway improvements
in Rockland County
[[Page 8742]]
Manhattan-bound Full Corridor CRT with a new bridge and
highway improvements in Rockland County
Manhattan-bound CRT with LRT in Westchester County, a new
bridge, and highway improvements in Rockland County
Manhattan-bound CRT with BRT in Westchester County, a new
bridge, and highway improvements in Rockland County
The above six alternatives are currently still under evaluation.
However, the EIS will include the results of a Level 3 alternatives
screening which may result in the elimination, combination or
modification of one or more of the alternatives considered to date. The
evaluation criteria used to conduct this further screening will be made
available for public and agency comment and finalized as part of the
scoping process, consistent with the refined and updated purpose and
needs, goals, and objectives. If the Level 3 alternatives screening
results in the elimination, combination or modification of one or more
of the alternatives, this will be disclosed as part of the revised
environmental review process and documented in the EIS, affording the
opportunity for public and agency review and comment during the DEIS
public hearings. Alternatives retained for full evaluation in the EIS
will be compared to the baseline conditions of the No Build Alternative
in terms of their social, economic, and environmental impacts.
5. Probable Effects
The environmental impact assessment of alternatives will be
conducted at various levels of detail throughout the environmental
review process. In the initial alternatives screening phases of the
project conducted to date, the analysis has focused on major
differentiating factors amongst the bridge, highway, and transit
elements and alignments. This level of analysis will continue in the
Level 3 alternatives screening process and will be documented in a
Scoping Update Summary Report to be developed. As alternatives are
screened to a reasonable range for detailed study in the DEIS, the
analysis will become more detailed and dependent upon additional
studies and reports.
Specifically, the DEIS and FEIS will: summarize the results of
coordination with federal, state, and local agencies and the public at
large; present the appropriate federal, state, and local regulations
and policies; inventory and compile previous studies; describe the
methodology used to assess impacts; identify the affected environment;
predict and analyze the construction-related (short-term) and
operational (long-term) impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) of
reasonable alternatives; and identify opportunities and measures for
mitigating significant adverse impacts. Specific scopes for the
environmental studies to be used in the Level 3 alternatives screening
process and subsequent tiered analysis in the DEIS and FEIS will be
established during the public and agency scoping update process.
6. FHWA and FTA Procedures
The EIS is being prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and implemented by
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR parts
1500-1508), the FHWA/FTA Environmental Impact regulations (23 CFR part
771), and the FHWA/FTA Statewide Planning/Metropolitan Planning
regulations (23 CFR part 450), as well as the requirements of Section
6002 of SAFETEA-LU. In addition, this EIS will comply with the
requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, section 4(f) of the 1966, U.S. Department of Transportation
Act, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Executive Order 12898 on
Environmental Justice, Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands,
and other applicable statutes, rules, and regulations. The EIS and the
environmental review process will also satisfy requirements of the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (consistent with 6
NYCRR 617.15 and SEQRA regulations, Part 15 Title 17 of NYCRR); this
NOI eliminates the need for a positive declaration under that statute.
Regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), as well as
certain provisions of SAFETEA-LU, call for enhanced agency and public
involvement in the EIS process. Several of the pertinent provisions of
Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU that are reflected in the revised approach
to the processing of the EIS include: (1) Extend an invitation to other
Federal and non-Federal agencies and Native American tribes that may
have an interest in the proposed project to become ``Participating
Agencies''; (2) Provide an opportunity for involvement in helping to
develop the purpose and need for the proposed project, as well as the
range of alternatives for consideration in the EIS, and analysis
methodologies and level of detail in any such analysis; and (3)
Establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation and
comment on the environmental review process. As related to item 3,
while the project already has a public and agency coordination plan, it
was developed pre-SAFETEA-LU and will be amended to reflect specific
requirements set forth in Section 6002 of that legislation. An
invitation to all Federal and non-Federal agencies and Native American
tribes that may have an interest in the proposed project will be
extended. In the event that an agency or tribe is not invited and would
like to participate, please contact the Project Manager listed under
Contact Information above. A Coordination Plan will be developed
summarizing how the public and agencies will be engaged in the process.
This plan will be posted to the project Web site (www.tzbsite.com). The
public coordination and outreach efforts will include public meetings,
open houses, a project Web site, Stakeholder Advisory Work Groups, and
public hearings.
Compatible with and contributing to the functionality of the
overall project, some elements of the Build Alternatives may be
functionally independent of other elements. Although the current plan
is to evaluate all of these geographically contiguous elements of the
alternatives retained for evaluation in the EIS, as the project
elements are developed and as schedules and construction phasing plans
develop, it is possible that some of the independent elements may be
advanced via separate environmental evaluations under NEPA and SEQRA.
In addition, New Starts funding may be pursued for a transit component
of the proposed project under 49 U.S.C. 5309. If so, any such transit
component identified in the Tier 1 analysis of this would be a separate
project subject to additional Tier 2 level NEPA environmental review
and New Starts regulations (49 CFR Part 611).
The project sponsors may identify a preferred alternative in the
Draft EIS when made available for public and agency comment. Public
hearings on the Draft EIS will be held within the study area. On the
basis of the Draft EIS and the public and agency comments received, the
design of the preferred alternative and other feasible alternatives
will be further refined in the Final EIS. The Joint Lead Agencies will
identify the preferred alternative in the Final EIS and the Final EIS
will serve as the basis for federal environmental findings and
determinations needed to conclude the environmental review process
related to:
Tier 1 analysis findings on the transit mode and alignment
associated with the preferred alternative.
[[Page 8743]]
Tier 2 analysis findings on the bridge facilities and
transit elements from the Tier 1 analysis, approaches and associated
highway network improvements within the Corridor associated with the
preferred alternative.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.)
Jeffrey Kolb, New York Division Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, Leo W. O'Brien Building, 7th Floor, Clinton Avenue and
North Pearl Street, Albany, NY 12207.
Brigid Hynes-Cherin, Region II Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration, One Bowling Green, Room 429, New York, NY 10004.
Dated: February 6, 2008.
Jeffrey W. Kolb,
New York Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Brigid Hynes-Cherin,
Region II Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-2741 Filed 2-13-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P