EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

S.1 OVERVIEW

The New York metropolitan area holds a key place as a global center of finance, commerce, culture and entertainment. The coming decades will test the region's ability to continue to thrive and compete in a growing world market. Population and employment growth of this conurbation beyond the turn of the century will create more travel demand, placing greater burdens on the highway system, river crossings, railroad terminals and airports. Furthermore, the emergence of new and changing travel patterns — among suburban counties and from New York City and the inner suburbs to outlying employment centers (reverse commuting) — is overloading existing suburban highways as well as roads serving the primary New York City oriented travel corridors. Public transportation capacity and service expansion is becoming essential to relieve increasing congestion, enhance mobility by linking affordable housing with employment centers and recreations areas, sustain continued economic growth in New York City and the surrounding counties, and preserve the quality of life in the region.

In response to these trends, and to improve rail service from Orange and Rockland Counties to New York City and suburban employment centers, Metro-North undertook the Hudson River Rail Crossing Feasibility Study. This report represents the completion of the four-year study of the feasibility and costs and benefits of a new Hudson River rail crossing which would provide direct rail service between Orange and Rockland Counties and Grand Central Terminal, and feasibility, costs and benefits of inter/intra-county rail service in the east-west Suffern/White Plains/Stamford corridor. Such a major new investment in the Metro-North system would be a dramatic, effective action to keep the New York region competitive in the world market by upgrading its internal connectivity — through the provision of high quality public transportation throughout the Metro-North service area.

The study area encompasses Orange, Rockland, Dutchess, Putnam and Westchester Counties with a current population of roughly two million: 32 percent residing west-of-Hudson and 68 percent east-of-Hudson. It also extends over southwestern Connecticut and northeastern New Jersey. According to the most recent forecasts, this will continue to be the fastest growing area in the region.

The first year of the study was devoted to the development of over 30 conceptual alternatives (west-of-Hudson routes, river crossings, east-of-Hudson routes to Grand Central Terminal and along I-287), and the narrowing down of these to six alternatives and three river crossing locations for more detailed analysis. The alternatives include various optional services, such as a link to Stewart Airport, West Shore feeder service from Newburgh to West Nyack and a connection from the Upper Hudson line to the east-west I-287 line at Tarrytown. The final three years of the study included development of more refined capital costs, ridership estimates, operating and maintenance costs, revenues, development of service scenarios, assessment of the potential for rail freight and high speed rail service, identification of environmental issues and a detailed cost/benefit analysis of the six alternatives and options.

This conceptual study, conducted at the sketch planning level of detail, has determined that the six alternatives are feasible and would result in substantial benefits and opportunities for the study area and the region. The alternatives are likely to have overall positive effects on the economy, quality of life and sensitive environmental resources of the lower Hudson Valley. The alternatives have varying degrees of potential to:

• Improve regional mobility by providing direct rail access to Midtown Manhattan and inter/intra-county rail service (for certain alternatives)

• Link affordable housing with employment centers in New York City and in the suburbs

• Help control growth and development consistent with county and local goals

• Dramatically reduce current rail and auto travel times by 30 to 60 minutes from Orange/Rockland Counties to Midtown Manhattan

• Divert autos from the George Washington Bridge, Tappan Zee Bridge, I-287 and other facilities, and complement highway improvements such as an HOV lane on I-287

• Help meet Clean Air Act requirements

• Provide potential rail access to Stewart Airport primarily from the northern suburbs as well as from Manhattan

• Provide opportunities for new multimodal regional transportation facilities, such as high-speed rail and rail freight

• Provide specific local benefits to study area counties and municipalities, such as commercial and residential development at existing and new rail stations, greater accessibility and reduced local area congestion.

The new transit improvements presented in this report represent major long-term investments in the region's transportation infrastructure. Any of the six alternatives would involve additional planning, design, environmental assessment and approvals as well as construction, over a twenty year period, with an estimated cost ranging from $1 billion to over $4.7 billion. These alternatives incorporate a range of service and investment strategies, from providing a direct one-seat ride from west-of-Hudson locations in Orange and Rockland Counties to Grand Central Terminal (Alternatives 1 and 2) linking Orange and Rockland Counties with Westchester County and southwestern Connecticut. Alternative 6 focuses on expanding economic development in northern Orange County and providing service from Orange County to White Plains and Stamford. Options are included which explore specific market opportunities (such as Stewart Airport), the use of potentially available rail freight lines, (such as Conrail's West Shore line) for new passenger rail service (Alternative 5, or optional service for Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4), or the connection from the Upper Hudson line to the east-west line, which would link Metro-North's Port Jervis, Hudson, Harlem and New Haven lines.

As shown in Figure S.1, all alternatives make extensive use of existing transportation rights-of-way and minimize the need for new property acquisition or community disruption. For example, all alternatives incorporate all or part of the Port Jervis line in Orange County, and most new alignments are within the highway right-of-way of either I-684 or I-287, with a two mile section proposed for the Palisades Interstate Parkway. Certain options make use of active and abandoned New York, Ontario and Western Railroad and the active West Shore freight line. Stewart Airport property is also an integral part of Alternative 6, and the optional Stewart rail link is incorporated in all other alternatives.

All sections of the routes would be grade-separated, and extensive use is make of overpass structures and tunnels to avoid difficult situations such as highway interchanges. Three types of river crossings are investigated: bridge, immersed tube tunnel and bored tunnel at three separate locations associated with the six alternatives:

• Alternative 1 Palisades-Hastings (tunnel)
• Alternatives 2,3,4 and 5 Nyack-Tarrytown (bridge or tunnel)
• Alternative 6 Newburgh-Beacon (bridge)

The above designations represent the approximate vicinity of the river crossings, and do not imply new construction in the midst of these shorefront communities. For example, the Alternative 1 crossing would have its west tunnel portal within the Palisades Interstate Parkway right-of-way near the Orangeburg-Palisades area, with the east portal within Metro-North's Hudson line right-of-way between Hastings and Greystone stations.

The following process used to analyze the benefits and costs of the six alternatives and options:

• Development of service plans designed to provide comparable service among alternatives (high speeds, 20 to 30-minute peak headways, limited stop zone express service).

• Forecast of year 2010 ridership based on relative travel time, cost and convenience of the alternatives compared to future auto and bus trips and future auto and bus trips and future rail service with and without Secaucus Transfer and other improvements).

• Estimate of operating and maintenance costs based on the physical characteristics and service plan for each alternative.

• Estimate of revenues based on ridership forecasts and assumed fare structure.

• Development of capital cost estimates, including estimates of equipment and property requirements.

• Determination of "other benefits," such as value of travel time savings and diversion of autos from affected highway and bridge facilities.

• Identification of multimodal opportunities, such as coordination (transfer points) with express buses using the proposed I-287 HOV lane, improved rail freight access to New York City, and compatibility with high speed rail.

• Identification of potential environmental issues.

• Analysis of benefits/costs to determine the cost effectiveness of each alternative and service option, based on capital and operating costs, revenues and other benefits.

(Figure S.1)

METRO-NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD	Feasibility and Cost-Benefit Study of Cross-Hudson and Stewart Airport Rail Links	Six Crossings For Further Study in Phase II
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, INC.		Not to scale

 

S.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Service: All alternatives can provide peak zone express service to New York (and to White Plains/Stamford where applicable) with 20 to 30-minute headways, and hourly off-peak/weekend service. Service to Hoboken/Secaucus via the Port Jervis line could continue as well or require a transfer at a new Suffern North station with Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4. No east-west inter-county service is provided with Alternatives 1 and 2. Inter- and intra-county service levels are similar, but markets served vary among Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6. Optional Hudson Connection (Croton-Harmon to Stamford) service and West Shore service levels would also be similar to the basic services. Special Stewart Airport service was assumed to be hourly to White Plains/Stamford and to New York City. Stewart Airport is viewed by NYSDOT as a regional reliever, rather than a fourth airport for New York City.

All alternatives save from 30 to 60 minutes of travel time to the Grand Central Terminal (GCT) area from Orange and Rockland Counties, compared to today's rail trip via Hoboken/PATH, and compared to auto and bus, depending upon the specific origin and destination and the particular alternative. For example, today's rail trip from Harriman to Midtown-east takes about 105 minutes, and involves a transfer to PATH at Hoboken (90 minutes via future Secaucus Transfer). A direct one-seat ride to GCT on most crossing alternatives would take only 60 minutes. Similar travel time savings are possible compared to auto trips to Midtown-east.

East-west rail trips would take about 45 minutes from Harriman to White Plains, or from West Nyack to Stamford, saving 20 to 30 minutes versus today's drive on the congested Tappan Zee Bridge and I-287/I-95 during peak periods (not taking into account potential improvements from automatic toll collection or HOV lanes).

Ridership: Total annual ridership on the crossing alternatives would range from 1.0 million (Alternative 6) to 7.1 million would add another 0.4 million (Alternative 6) to 1.7 million (Alternatives 3 and 4). The optional Hudson Connection would increase east-west riderhip by 0.5 million, and the optional West Shore line service would also add 0.5 million trips. Preliminary estimates of Stewart Airport ridership are in the 0.3 to 0.6 million range, but may be as little at 50 percent of these figures based on new (October 1993) NYSDOT projections of airport usage. With the exception of Stewart, the above estimates are conservative because a number of potential markets are not included (e.g., northern Bergen County to New York City), and the amount of induced travel (trips generated by the alternatives over the long term) is estimated with much caution (12 percent).

The impact of Secaucus Transfer on rail crossing ridership was examined. It was determined that construction of Secaucus has little impact on overall rail crossing ridership. However, total Metro-North west-of-Hudson ridership will be higher with both the crossing and Secaucus, compared to total ridership with just the crossing.

Secaucus Transfer should be evaluated by Metro-North as a separate project, and analyzed with or without a crossing. Secaucus is a nearer-term project, while the crossing (unfunded and not a certainty) would not be in place for at least fifteen years after Secaucus is constructed. Even with a crossing, Secaucus will still be the most direct, and in certain cases fastest, route to west Midtown. Any accelerated development/increase the benefits of Secaucus Transfer. In addition, Secaucus Transfer will provide a convenient link to the Long Island Rail Road at Penn Station, and to NJ Transit and Amtrak at either Penn Station or Secaucus.

The alternatives will have a substantial benefit, as up to 65 percent of all new riders to NYC on the rail alternatives would be diverted from cars and as much as 25 percent from express buses. This would raise the present rail market share of work trips from Orange and Rockland Counties to New York City from about 20 percent today to about 60 percent in 2010 (for Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4).

An estimated 1.7 million annual riders would be diverted from the existing Port Jervis/Pascack Valley (with Secaucus) and Hudson lines with Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4. This diversion would be less with Alternatives 5 and 6. Alternative 3 would divert the most cars from existing Hudson River crossings: up to 4,000 AM peak period cars from the George Washington Bridge (about 8 -9% of projected auto traffic and equivalent to about a lane of traffic), and 350 NYC-bound AM peak period cars from the Tappan Zee Bridge. The crossing and east-west I-287 line in Westchester could divert an additional 750 single-occupant autos from the Tappan Zee Bridge in peak periods, for a 5-6% reduction in future single-occupant auto trips.

Operating Costs and Revenues: Operating and maintenance costs (in 1992 dollars, excluding debt service and future replacement costs) would be in the range of $23 million/year for most alternatives for service to GCT, and about $9 million/year for east-west service. Optional Hudson Connection service would add about $2.5 million/year and optional West Shore service about $7.5 million/year. Stewart operations would cost about $6 million for New York City service and an additional $6 million for service to White Plains/Stamford.

Revenues will exceed operating costs by about $1 to $9 million/year for GCT service for all alternatives except Alternative 6 (where costs exceed revenues by $6 million). For east-west service, revenues will cover about 95 percent of costs (and would likely exceed costs if ridership estimates were less conservative). Hudson Connection revenues will cover about 75 percent of costs, and West Shore Option revenues will only cover 40 percent of costs. Stewart revenues would cover about 40 percent, based on the preliminary ridership estimates and service plan.

Capital Costs: For service to GCT only, capital costs (in 1992 dollars) will range from about $1 billion (Alternative 6, bridge) to $2.5 billion (Alternative 5, bored tunnel). The east-west Cross-Westchester line from the east shore of the Hudson River to the New Haven line along I-287, with a connection to the Harlem line and a tunnel under downtown White Plains, would cost about $1.3 billion. Construction can be phased in Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6 in order to spread total project costs over a longer period. For example, Alternative 3 could be designed/constructed with west-of-Hudson links and the new Hudson River crossing for $1.7 billion (bored tunnel option), with the capability to add the $1.3 billion I-287/Cross-Westchester line at a later date.

A new Hudson River rail bridge would cost about $300 million less than the deep bored tunnel, but might have potentially greater environmental effects, especially during construction. The Hudson Connection would cost about $160 million, the Stewart Airport links about $200 million, and the West Shore Option about $1.3 billion.

All costs include equipment (rolling stock), support facilities (yards and shops), acquisition of non-transportation right-of-way (the current analysis assigns no cost to Thruway Authority, Stewart Airport, Conrail, or Palisades Interstate Parkway rights of way; such cost or value of land will be evaluated in the future) and 52 percent add-ons for contingency, design and construction management.

Environment: The Hudson River is one of the most sensitive and protected environmental resources in the nation, receiving much public attention. The bridge and tunnel river crossing options presented in this study provides the basis for continued detail investigation leading to the most appropriate solution. Overall, the alternatives are expected to have a positive impact on the environment, especially in terms of improved air quality be diverting auto drivers to rail transit. The alternatives will address positively the need to concentrate future growth and development around existing and new transit stations, thus providing greater mobility and accessibility between residential areas and employment sites. Extensive use of existing railroad and highway rights-of-way will reduce impacts on private property, wetlands and parkland. However, some new right-of-way will be required with all alternatives, resulting in impacts at various locations, depending on the alternative. It is anticipated that most of these impacts can either be avoided by more detailed engineering design or successfully mitigated.

The three river crossing options (bridge, immersed tube tunnel and bored tunnel) are likely to have their greatest potential impact on the Hudson River during construction. For example, an immersed tube tunnel would require temporary disruption to the river bottom in the channel area. The bridge option would involve less disruption to the river bottom and be more localized. The deep bored tunnel would have no impact on the river itself, but requires ventilation shafts at both shores. It is expected that potential temporary impacts on the river could be mitigated, or eliminated, depending on the river crossing location and option selected. The bored tunnel would have the least overall environment impact, but it is the most expensive option.

Multimodal Opportunities: The six alternatives provide opportunities for joint facility use with rail freight, high speed rail, light rail transit and highway modes. A new Hudson River rail crossing would provide opportunities for improved rail freight access to New York City/Long Island, the northern suburbs, Stewart Airport and Connecticut from Conrail's Southern Tier (Port Jervis line0 or West Shore line. The incremental cost of a joint rail passenger/freight river crossing is estimated to be roughly $200 million, for service to the Hudson line.

The Port Jervis line from the vicinity of Mountainville in Orange County to Suffern, and the I-287 corridor from Suffern to the Hudson line, a distance of 38 miles including a new river crossing, can be designed to accommodate high speed rail (up to 150 mph) at an incremental cost of about 75 percent, or $725 million, and can be integrated with a high-speed line along the Thruway to Albany.

Under certain scenarios, a light rail transit line serving portions of the I-287 corridor, such as the segment from Tarrytown to White Plains, could be compatible with a new commuter rail river crossing. Similarly, a multimodal service in the I-287 corridor is feasible, with riders transferring from rail to express bus in Rockland County and with the buses utilizing the proposed HOV lane to destinations in Westchester County.

A joint rail/highway immersed tube tunnel river crossing could be designed to accommodate a two track rail line and an eight lane highway to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge (seven lanes), at an incremental cost to the rail-only tunnel of approximately $1.6 billion.

Benefits vs. Costs: Despite the high cost of the project, the region, study area counties, Connecticut and New York City would benefit substantially from the rail crossing, to varying degrees depending on the alternative. These benefits include improved transportation service, accessibility and mobility, the opportunity for controlled growth, development and continued economic prosperity, and a high quality of life.

In terms of quantitative measures, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 have favorable benefit/cost ratios for service to Grand Central Terminal, calculated using the standard MTA Board approved methodology. The east-west I-287 line has a benefit/cost ratio less than 1.0 (unfavorable), as do the West Shore option and Stewart Airport link.

S.3 NEXT STEPS

This report presents the detailed findings of the feasibility and benefit/cost study of the six alternatives and service options. No preferred alternative has been selected at this time, however. The next step in the planning process is an Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS), during which the less cost-efficient alternatives may be eliminated from further consideration. The AA/DEIS process requires the analysis of other modal alternatives serving GCT (and options) as well (e.g., light rail transit for east-west service, expanded express bus or ferry service) and a review of the implications of the "no build" option.

However, based on the lower projected ridership, high capital cost and resulting unfavorable benefit/cost ratio, Metro-North will indefinitely defer further analysis of the cross-Westchester I-287 rail line. It is expected that the NYSDOT-proposed HOV lane(s), along with other improvements such as automated toll collection, will provide a nearer-term solution to reducing congestion from single-occupant auto traffic in that corridor.

Metro-North has included $5.3 million in its approved 1992-1996 Capital Program, for the AA/DEIS phase. This work will be divided in two phases: after the alternatives analysis phase, results will be presented to the MTA Board, and, if a rail crossing still appears to be cost-beneficial for service to New York City, the AA/DEIS process would be completed by Metro-North. During the AA/DEIS, ridership projections will be updated based on the most current data and certain construction elements, not evaluated in detail in the current study, will be costed in more detail.

In conclusion, a Hudson River rail crossing is more than Metro-North capacity/service expansion project; it is a far-reaching force for change in shaping the region's future physical configuration, financial health and quality of life. Costs and benefits will be viewed from a regional perspective including benefits of improved air quality, increased land values in suburban areas as well as Midtown Manhattan, overall increased mobility, increased economic vitality, overall reduced congestion, and improved quality of life.

In these terms, the analyses to date indicate that the benefits are likely to far outweigh the costs, particularly when the implications of the "no-build" scenario (increased congestion, decreased competitiveness, need to expand additional highway capacity, diminished quality of life) are fully evaluated in the coming AA/DEIS phase. Due to the magnitude of this project and its far reaching regional consequences, Metro-North will actively seek partnerships among other regional transportation agencies and will endeavor to develop a public and political consensus among local, state and federal agencies with a stake in the future of this region in order to make implementation of this project possible.

The MTA and its agencies (Metro-North, Long Island Railroad, New York City Transit Authority) have formed a Long Range Planning Working Group to identify and evaluate potential network expansion projects; each project will be analyzed using common criteria and background forecasts to ensure that each project is evaluated on a consistent basis, prior to consideration in future capital programs. The projects include Metro-North's Trans Hudson Crossing, Long Island Railroad's East Side Access, the Transit Authority's Second Avenue Subway and Brooklyn-to-Lower Manhattan Study and the MTA Long Island City Study.

In addition, the MTA will be entering into an interagency agreement with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and New Jersey Transit to conduct a joint Systems Planning/Alternatives Analysis for increasing transit and freight capacity between Queens, Midtown Manhattan and New Jersey. Many of the projects listed above, including Metro-North's Trans Hudson Crossing, will be evaluated.

Executive Summary, Prepared for Metro-North by Parsons Brinckerhoff in February, 1994