[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