That's Why!! - part the second

Well... staff of the NYT has confirmed the main points of the earlier missive

The instrument approach for Runway 1 calls for a descending plane to cross over the helicopter corridor while the plane is at a much higher altitude, somewhere from 620 to 1,700 feet and more than a minute from landing. The approach for Runway 33, however, calls for a plane to cross over the helicopter corridor at a much lower altitude, because a plane is seconds from landing. The clearance between a helicopter in the corridor and a descending plane may be from 100 to 300 feet, which can result in close calls if there are severe fluctuations in the altitude of either aircraft.

So, the clearance on 1 is so much more than on 33. I don't yet know whether the CRJ would be advised to touchdown closer to the threshold on 33 than it would aim for on 1, but it seems logical given the shorter length of 33 and the CRJ's rollout. In any case, as stated, the height at the river's edge, where the two flight paths intersect, is quite different.

Not only that,

But the helicopter was at least a half-mile off of the approved route when it collided with the jet

Now, in which direction that half-mile is, makes a difference and isn't stated in the report. If a half-mile closer to the west bank of the river means the CRJ would be still closer to the ground at intersection. What isn't yet confirmed is why ATC sent the CRJ over to 33. Was it crosswind, or just convenience for ATC for some reason? So far, only The Shadow knows.