A new Tappan Zee Bridge is still years away for Tappan Zee commuters, despite a recent news cycle about the sorry state of the span.  But at least the Thruway Authority and Metro-North have settled on six alternatives, with four including new transit service along the corridor – either commuter rail, bus rapid transit (BRT) and two options combining commuter rail with BRT or light rail.

   But with Metro-North Railroad — a purely commuter rail outfit — directing the review of transit alternatives, can an innovative proposal like bus rapid transit get a fair shake?  The Tri-State Campaign attended a recent Tappan Zee presentation by Metro-North to the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee and found the agency unsurprisingly biased toward commuter rail, with the BRT alternative appearing to represent an afterthought.

   Metro-North handed out detailed schematics for each of the alternatives under consideration.  These showed the approximate route for each mode, proposed stations, and some engineering details such as tunnel locations. As planned, rapid bus service would travel along I-287 from Suffern, across the Tappan Zee Bridge in HOT lanes, making 4 stops west of the Hudson.  Once across the river, the rapid buses BRT would travel on dedicated lanes on  Route 119 in Westchester, making 11-12 stops.

   Unfortunately, the Tappan Zee bus rapid transit scheme appears to take no advantage of the flexibility inherent in that mode. Although we have heard conflicting accounts about this from the study team at several points, commuters traveling across the bridge to work in White Plains office parks (the largest commuter market according to a recent origin-destination survey) will apparently have to transfer to a loop bus to reach their offices from downtown White Plains. With BRT, it certainly doesn’t have to be this way. As global transit analyst Robert Cervero has noted about Ottawa, Canada’s large bus-based system, “the Transitway allows the integration of mainline and feeder services in a single vehicle.”  One can easily envision a BRT system which has a variety of separate services that depart from Rt. 119 and the I-287 service roads to serve the corporate office parks with a coveted, rider-attracting, efficient one seat ride.

   Further, the proposed BRT system makes only marginally more east of Hudson stops than the proposed commuter rail system, and fewer stops than the Westchester light rail plan.  Again, this plan fails to take advantage of BRT’s flexibility – BRT infrastructure requirements and service versatility are so minimal that a station can be put nearly anywhere.

   Metro-North and its partner agencies should not shortchange bus rapid transit to make commuter rail look more attractive.  In planning terms, there is no reason Rockland-Westchester bus rapid transit cannot co-exist with Rockland-Manhattan commuter rail, which Metro-North has termed its “holy grail” for the project (MTR #451).  The agencies should consider a viable east-west transit option very carefully, since Manhattan-destined commuter rail will do little to alleviate Tappan Zee Bridge congestion. 

   Preliminary ridership figures show commuter rail attracting significantly more commuters than the BRT option, though for Rockland-Westchester trips BRT significantly outperforms rail, even in the limited configuration currently proposed.

   The Tri-State Campaign will insist the agencies consider a more worthwhile BRT option.

   Public meetings on the alternatives will be held Monday and Tuesday, December 12 and 13th (see calendar for details). The agencies say they will complete the environmental review of the alternatives in two to three years.  

r.  

MTR back issues:

Go to index of all Mobilizing the Region back issues.