Tappan Zee Bridge Alteration or Replacement

[Kris]

July 24, 2003

From 156 Options, Down to 15 Ways to Go on Tappan Zee

By YILU ZHAO

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/07/24/nyregion/brid.184.jpg
The Tappan Zee Bridge, now 48 years old, was meant to last 50 years and to accommodate 100,000 vehicles a day, but it now handles 130,000.

Engineers and planners designing an alteration to or replacement for the Tappan Zee Bridge to ease congestion at one of the region's most notorious bottlenecks have narrowed 156 options down to 15.

At a meeting yesterday morning in Nyack, officials presented the proposals — which range from preserving the current bridge to building a six-mile Tappan Zee tunnel — to about 100 people, including residents and members of community groups who have been following the the study since it began more than a year ago.

The Tappan Zee Bridge, which is three miles long and connects Nyack, in Rockland County, to Tarrytown, in Westchester, stretches across one of the widest sections of the Hudson River. It was built 48 years ago and was expected to last about 50 years, though officials say it is still safe. Designed to accommodate 100,000 vehicles a day, the bridge now handles 130,000.

Four of the options presented yesterday include building a tunnel, an option that has gained support among many residents in Rockland and Westchester Counties.

The 15 options that survived the initial round of screening can be divided into five categories.

¶The preservation of the bridge with routine maintenance.

¶A complete rehabilitation of the bridge to enhance its ability to withstand earthquakes.

¶The construction of a new bridge in the same location that is 50 feet wider than the current one.

¶The construction of a tunnel to handle commuter rail and supplement a new or rehabilitated bridge.

¶The construction of a tunnel to handle both trains and vehicles.

"Their choices are rather reasonable and rational," said J. Jeffrey Anzevino, a regional planner with Scenic Hudson, a nonprofit group that seeks to control suburban sprawl.

Alexander Saunders, a Garrison resident who has been advocating a tunnel extending to Long Island, however, said he was frustrated by what he saw as the team's refusal to consider a plan that goes beyond Westchester and Rockland.

In the next phase of study, the team of engineers and planners will further winnow the options to about five based on ability to handle traffic, impact on the environment, cost and the demands of the community. Christopher A. Waite, an engineer with New York State Thruway Authority who heads the project team, said he expected to announce the finalists around the beginning of next year.

"Some options might not work as well," Mr. Waite said. "Some might be too expensive. In the next few months, we'll assess each one of them using computer models."

While the project team has received $11.5 million to conduct the study for a final choice, the state has allocated no money for the construction. Given the current state budget crisis, many participants at yesterday's meeting raised questions about financing.

The project team said it was still too early to apply for any grants, and it does not yet have a price tag on a new tunnel or a new bridge. To rehabilitate the bridge completely would cost about $1 billion, Mr. Waite said.

The options eliminated in the last round include the construction of a bridge at a different location like Yonkers, the building of a tunnel from Suffern to Port Chester and the addition of commuter rail to the existing bridge.

The team will present the 15 options to the public next week in two workshops. They will be held from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Power Authority in White Plains on Tuesday and at the Palisades Mall in West Nyack on Wednesday.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[STT757]

"One proposal would bury it all, with eight lanes of traffic, two bus lanes and the commuter railroad in six tubes under the Hudson."

Not likely, the only feasible option to include rail would be a bridge with three levels. Two for cars, trucks, buses and a third for rail.

[ZippyTheChimp]

From 1010 WINS Radio:

Cost To Replace Tappan Zee Bridge Soars

Apr 16, 2004 7:50 am US/Eastern

(Nyack, New York) -- The cost to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge with a new bridge or tunnel and some form of mass transit could exceed 20 (B) billion dollars. That's more than four times what was initially estimated when the idea was floated four years ago.

State consultants conducting an environmental review of the overworked Interstate 287 corridor laid out costs of various alternatives at a special meeting yesterday.

The state has about 15 options including, refurbishing the 48-year-old bridge between Rockland and Westchester, building a new bridge or building a seven-mile long tunnel from West Nyack to Elmsford.

The consultants will choose four or five options to study in depth during the next two years. A final decision will be made at the end of 2005. An informational meeting for the general public is expected to be held in June.

Many of the plans would provide a train from Orange and Rockland counties that would go to Manhattan without transferring. People on the west side of the Hudson River liked that idea. However officials from Westchester want a light rail train to run parallel to Route 287 from Suffern to Port Chester.


© MMIV Infinity Broadcasting Corp. All Rights Reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Kris]

April 17, 2004

Bridge Awaits a Makeover, or a Successor

By BARBARA WHITAKER

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/04/17/nyregion/brid.184.jpg
Consulants anticipate that traffic on the Tappan Zee Bridge will increase by about 48 percent by 2025.

It's an aging bridge, choked by traffic, and state planners agree that the Tappan Zee is badly in need of an extreme makeover, or at least the engineering equivalent of a tummy tuck.

Now they have new price tags to go along with the menu of options for preventing the bridge and Interstate 287 from going the bumper-to-bumper way of the Cross-Bronx Expressway. A cool $20 billion would fetch the deluxe plan - a tunnel that would carry both highway and rail traffic. At the opposite end of the spectrum, simply renovating the existing bridge would cost $3.5 billion.

The $20 billion figure, which was revealed by planners with Metro-North Railroad and the New York State Thruway Authority at a public hearing Thursday in Nyack, is about five times the cost projected four years ago. The planners traced much of the discrepancy to the fact that initial numbers were based on preliminary engineering estimates, which have changed as details have been refined.

For the past year, planners with Metro-North Railroad and the New York Thruway, charged with developing a plan to resolve the traffic problems and chart a future for the bridge, have been holding public hearings on scenarios to best resolve those issues. That process is winding down with 15 options, down from 156, currently being discussed. Officials expect to thin that list to no more than five options, which they will unveil by July for further consideration. An environmental impact study would follow the choice of a plan and would take about two years to complete.

"It's still not over, but we're getting closer," said Janet M. Mainiero, deputy project manager for the Tappan Zee/I-287 Project.

Beyond the construction of a tunnel, the alternatives being examined include building a new bridge, rehabilitating the existing bridge, and adding a mass transit component to the crossing like commuter or light rail or bus rapid transit. The new cost projections were reported yesterday in The Journal-News of Westchester.

Although the Tappan Zee Bridge, which stretches three miles across the Hudson River connecting Rockland and Westchester counties, is still considered safe, it is handling far more traffic than it was designed for when it was built 48 years ago. About 130,000 vehicles a day use the bridge, which was designed to carry about 100,000 vehicles. At the time of its construction, the bridge was expected to last about 50 years.

Project consulants anticipate that traffic will increase by about 48 percent by 2025 and predict that if nothing is done, I-287 will look like the Cross-Bronx Expressway does today.

In putting a price tag on the options, planners projected it would cost $4 billion to $5.5 billion to create a commuter rail line linking Suffern to the Hudson Line of Metro-North and would take an additional $1 billion to $3 billion to continue across Westchester to the New Haven line in Port Chester.

High-speed light rail was estimated to cost $4 billion to $5.5 billion with rapid bus service costing $2 billion to $2.5 billion.

A budget has not yet been set for the project and it is anticipated that what ultimately will be arrived at is a mix of solutions.

"The one that seemed to best address improved mobility and was over all the most economical was a new bridge with a commuter light-rail element," said Thom Kleiner, supervisor of Orangetown, which sits at the base of the bridge in Rockland County.

That alternative _ - with light rail running from Suffern to Port Chester - _ has an estimated cost of $8 billion to $10 billion.

While the tunnel option is estimated to cost about twice that amount, it also creates the most disruption on both sides of the bridge, requiring block-long vents on both shores and overshooting two exits on Interstate 287. It would also have to be at least nine miles long, making it one of the longest tunnels in the world.

Whatever option is chosen, Mr. Kleiner said he hoped officials would be careful about how much capacity they create for new traffic.

"We want to improve mobility without contributing to sprawl," he said.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Deimos]

A commuter rail line is far superior to a light rail system. Land values in Orange and Rockland counties will go up significantly overnight when the commute to the city becomes 1 seat, and less than an hour during the rush (from Suffern).

[BigMac]

Newsday
April 16, 2004

New bridge, $4 billion; with all the extras, $20 billion

Associated Press

A new Tappan Zee Bridge would cost at least $4 billion and incorporating any new form of mass transit would add billions more, consultants say.

In an early, tentative estimate of the costs involved in reducing congestion on the Interstate 287 corridor in Westchester and Rockland counties, officials said Thursday that the grandest plans, which would add commuter trains and light rail, could top $20 billion.

However, none of the 15 "scenarios" put forward last year by the state Thruway Authority and the Metro-North Railroad, including a possible tunnel to replace the 49-year-old bridge, will be eliminated from consideration until July, when four or five will be chosen for further study. No final decision is expected before late 2005.

The cost estimates included:

- Between $6.5 billion and $8.5 billion for adding a commuter rail line from Suffern to Port Chester, linking to existing lines; it would cost about $3 billion less to bring the rail line only as far east as Metro-North's Hudson line.

- Between $4 billion and $5.5 billion for a light rail line across Rockland and Westchester.

- Between $2 billion and $2.5 billion for a dedicated busway from Suffern to White Plains.

Officials acknowledged that the estimates do not include what could be the significant costs of acquiring land, solving environmental problems and financing the package

Copyright 2004 Newsday, Inc.

[Bob]

Funny, isn't it? How Florida can easily and quickly build seven mile-long bridges at will, how a parallel Chesapeake Bay Bridge can be built without any fuss, and how Canada can build the collosal Confederation Bridge, but somehow -- somehow -- a new Tappan Zee Bridge is estimated to cost $20 billion and will probably NEVER get done?!!

Building a new Zee Bridge should not be a big deal. Even though the bridge will be lengthy, most will be trestle over shallow water. There is NO engineering challenge to cross the deep water channel. As for the finances of this project, not an issue. The bridge will pay for itself!

What we need here is leadership. Governor Pataki needs to MAKE A DECISION TO BUILD, and START BUILDING. Put the hard hats to work, and let's get rid of the 20 mile traffic jams.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I don't think replacing the bridge, without the expensive mass transit options, will solve any traffic problems. It will just replace an old bridge. It amazes me how easily this country spends money on road building, but getting money for any mass-transit projects is like pulling teeth.

[Bob]

Even though I will admit to being Atilla the Hun when it comes to building more highways, I actually am equally in favor of building better (and more) mass transit. The more people we have sitting in a train means less people clogging my lane of traffic. The root issue is SPEED, and all of us want to get where the heck we are going, pronto. Right now, we don't have much of either, regardless of our choice of travel. The result is millions of hours wasted, and an unnecessary drag on the efficiency of society and our economy. Expenditures on transportation of all kinds is an investment that, in my book, typically pays some whopping dividends. So how about we get to replacing the Tappan Zee, and use some foresight for a change, and design a second deck specifically for rail? This way, the drivers who use the bridge subsidize the mass transit component.

[NYatKNIGHT]

I agree, they need the rail line for sure.

I would also prefer an hour on the train to 40 minutes in a car. The time is not wasted since you can do other things or even just sleep.

[TomAuch]

A better solution than simply improving the bridge would be to rebuild the old West Shore Line in Rockland Co. Until the 1950s Rockland used to have a communter line just as good as Westchester's, but the line is now closed for commercial use. I have a great uncle who worked with the railroads and lives in Rockland, and he's complained for a long time about how they shouldn't of torn down that line. The tracks are still standing, but they are used for non-commuting purposes only.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Right, I know exactly how much residents of northeastern Bergen County also desire reinstated West Shore Line service. Tie that into a would-be line across the Tappan Zee and that opens up many more commuting options to so many more people.

West Shore Corridor DEIS (http://www.fta.dot.gov/legal/federal_register/2001/361_1569_ENG_HTML.htm)

[lostnyc]

...or even just sleep.

Not in NYC you don't, not if you want to wake up still retaining your wrist watch, wallet and cash!!!!!

[ryan]

Not in NYC you don't, not if you want to wake up still retaining your wrist watch, wallet and cash!!!!!

Um, have you ever been to New York? It's not a cartoon. The suburban trains are very safe, and yes, many people sleep on them. I lived in Connecticut for a while, and had a relative visit and ask - as he boarded a train in Greenwich - if he had to worry about gangs on the train. Yes, gangs of stockbrokers, bankers and Martha Stewart clones...:rolleyes:

[BronxBoy]

I live in the Bronx and take the 6 train almost everyday. If i'm tired, I have no problem grabing some shut eye. The people who assume that you are going to get mugged on the train are those who don't ride them.

[Deimos]

I commuted using the Hudson Line of Metro North for 7 months before moving into the city... the commuter trains are completely safe at any hour of the day any day of the week. The only fear that I had was sleeping through my stop.

[Deimos]

http://www.tzbsite.com/newsroom/pressrel/2005/2005-09-29-tzb-review.html

For Immediate Release: September 29, 2005

Contacts:
Daniel J. Gilbert, Director of Public Affairs, New York State Thruway Authority, 518-436-2983
Marjorie Anders, Corporate & Media Relations, MTA Metro-North Railroad, 212-672-1200
Peter Graves, Public Information Officer, New York State Department of Transportation, 518-457-6400

New York State Thruway Authority, MTA Metro-North Railroad, and New York State Department of Transportation Recommend Six Alternatives for Further Study in Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Environmental Review

Albany, NY, September 29, 2005 -- The New York State Thruway Authority, MTA Metro-North Railroad, and the New York State Department of Transportation released recommendations for six potential corridor-wide alternatives (PDF, 1 page/1.12 MB) to evaluate in greater detail in the next phase of the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Environmental Review.

The overall goal of the study is to improve mobility now and in the future in a safe, secure, and cost-effective manner.

The draft recommendations include alternatives ranging from maintaining the existing Tappan Zee Bridge to building a new structure with commuter rail that spans the entire I-287 corridor. The draft recommendations were released to the Inter-Metropolitan Planning Organization (or IMPO), an organization made up of government agency officials from the federal, state, and county levels that is guiding the study process. Also, the recommendations were released to the Westchester Rockland Tappan Zee Futures Task Force formed by county executives Andrew J. Spano and C. Scott Vanderhoef.

Once these draft alternatives are accepted by IMPO, the agencies will begin an extensive public outreach effort to gain input about these alternatives from stakeholders and the general public. Following that effort, an Alternatives Analysis report will be issued, which will contain the alternatives that will be carried forward into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and will be subjected to rigorous evaluation as part of the DEIS process, resulting, ultimately, in the selection of a locally preferred alternative and a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

“All parties that have a vested interest in the I-287 corridor are encouraged to participate in this study. So that we may make the best decisions for the traveling public, residents, and the corridor, input from the public is essential during this process,” said Thruway Authority Executive Director Michael R. Fleischer. “While the study is progressing, the Authority will continue to fulfill its responsibility to maintain and operate the Tappan Zee Bridge by continuing to make the necessary investments to assure safe and efficient travel for the millions of motorists that use the Bridge annually.”

“This study offers an excellent opportunity for transportation planners to take a hard look at the I-287 corridor to identify the present and future needs,” said Peter A. Cannito, President of Metro-North Railroad. “With involvement from all stakeholders in the region, we will work together to find the best solution - a solution that will reduce the current and projected congestion in the corridor, provide transportation choices, and strengthen the economies of Rockland, Westchester, and Orange Counties.”

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Acting Commissioner Thomas J. Madison Jr. said, "As leader of the State Transportation Federation, NYSDOT is working to promote effective management of critical transportation corridors such as the I-287 corridor. The anticipated growth of passenger and rail traffic in the Hudson Valley over the coming decades means that we must prepare today to effectively meet the needs of tomorrow. Working closely with our Federation partners, transportation stakeholders, elected officials, and the general public, we will develop a plan for the I-287/Tappan Zee corridor that will improve mobility and reliability, enhance the environment, and promote safety, security, and economic competitiveness."

Presented in no order of preference, the six corridor improvement alternatives (PDF, 1 page/1.12 MB) are:

Alternative 1: No Build This alternative is required as part of the EIS process. The seven-lane Tappan Zee Bridge and I-287 would be maintained in existing condition in order to avoid unacceptable levels of deterioration. The No Build Alternative also includes transportation improvements in this corridor that have already been approved. Cost estimate in 2004 dollars: $0.5 – 0.7 billion

Alternative 2: Rehabilitation of the existing Tappan Zee Bridge with some new low-cost transportation improvements This alternative would include rehabilitation and seismic retrofit of the seven-lane Tappan Zee Bridge and some relatively low cost highway and bus transit improvements, such as new park-and-ride facilities, ramp metering, and bus priority access. Cost estimate in 2004 dollars: $2.0 – 2.5 billion

Alternative 3: New bridge with highway improvements in Rockland County and a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that runs from Suffern to Port Chester This alternative would replace the current facility with a new bridge featuring 8 general purpose (mixed-traffic) lanes, shoulder lanes for breakdowns, and 2 special lanes for high occupancy vehicles (Bus Rapid Transit, carpools, vanpools) and other vehicles willing to pay a higher toll to cross the bridge faster. (These are commonly called HOT lanes, or High Occupancy Toll lanes.)

BRT would provide service between Orange and Rockland Counties and employment centers/office parks in Westchester County and Connecticut, as well as serve intra-county trips. Transfers at Tarrytown, White Plains, and Port Chester would increase access from Orange, Rockland, and Westchester Counties to Metro-North’s rail lines serving Manhattan. The new bridge could also include a pedestrian/bike path and wider areas that could allow for viewing, fishing, or picnicking and new climbing lanes (for slow moving uphill traffic) in Rockland County. Cost estimate in 2004 dollars: $5.0 – 6.5 billion

Alternative 4A: New bridge with highway improvements in Rockland County and a Commuter Rail Line that runs from Suffern to Port Chester A new Commuter Rail Transit (or CRT) line would connect to the Hudson Line in the Tarrytown area, as well as run across Westchester County through White Plains, connecting to the New Haven Line at Port Chester. It would offer Orange and Rockland County riders a one-seat ride to employment centers and office parks in Westchester, Connecticut, and Manhattan. A new station would be built near the current Tappan Zee Bridge toll plaza to serve this new line. A transfer would be provided at White Plains to allow passengers to access the Harlem Line.

This alternative would provide increased transit mobility within Westchester County, as well as increased access to Metro-North’s rail lines serving Manhattan. The new rail line would cross the Hudson River on a new bridge featuring 8 general purpose (mixed-traffic) lanes, shoulder lanes for breakdowns, 2 HOT lanes, and two commuter rail tracks. Cost estimate in 2004 dollars: $11.5 – 14.5 billion

Alternative 4B: New bridge with highway improvements in Rockland County, a Commuter Rail Line that runs from Suffern to Tarrytown, and a Light Rail Line (LRT) from Tarrytown to Port Chester This alternative would include the same new bridge facility described in Alternative 4A and a CRT extending from Suffern through the new rail station near the existing Tappan Zee Bridge toll plaza with a connection to the Hudson Line. This commuter rail service would allow for a one-seat ride from Orange and Rockland Counties to Manhattan, and a transfer to a new cross-corridor light rail line at the new Tappan Zee rail station for travel eastward to White Plains and Port Chester, serving employment centers and office parks in Westchester and Connecticut. A transfer at White Plains would be provided to access the Harlem Line, and at Port Chester for the New Haven Line.

LRT in Westchester County would provide for increased mobility within the county, as well as increased access to Metro-North’s rail lines serving Manhattan. Upper Hudson Line customers would transfer to the light rail at the existing Tarrytown Station, where the light rail would originate. Cost estimate in 2004 dollars: $10.0 – 12.5 billion

Alternative 4C: New bridge with highway improvements in Rockland County, a Commuter Rail Line from Suffern to Tarrytown, and a Bus Rapid Transit System ((BRT) from Tarrytown to Port Chester This alternative is the same as Alternative 4B but with direct rail service from Orange and Rockland Counties to Manhattan and a transfer to a new cross-corridor BRT service at the new Tappan Zee rail station for travel eastward to White Plains and Port Chester serving employment centers and office parks in Westchester and Connecticut.

BRT in Westchester County would provide for increased mobility within the county, as well as increased access to Metro-North’s rail lines serving Manhattan. It would also allow Upper Hudson Line customers to transfer to the BRT at the existing Tarrytown Station, where the BRT would originate. Cost estimate in 2004 dollars: $9.0 – 11.5 billion
The DEIS process will analyze all relevant environmental impacts of these alternatives. However, in the course of the analysis, there may be a real benefit to travelers and/or communities in combining elements of one alternative with those of another alternative. In that event, the environmental impacts of one or more “hybrid” alternatives will be fully analyzed.

In the course of developing the six alternatives described above, a number of proposed concepts were eliminated, following in depth analysis. Among these, a highway tunnel and rail tunnel under the river were eliminated from the alternatives list, due to concerns related to environmental and community impacts, construction risks, safety and security concerns, and higher cost.

[NIMBYkiller]

NJT has wanted to reopen the West Shore line for a while, I believe up to Haverstraw. Hopefully they'll be able to do this soon, but I doubt it will since CSX doesn't really feal like playing ball.

As for the Tappan Zee, hopefully they'll rebuild it with the commuter rail line, and extend the COMMUTER rail down I278 all the way to the New Haven Line. It'd be stupid to make someone take the train to Westchester, transfer to the light rail to Port Chester, and then transfer AGAIN to the New Haven line.

Run 2 services. One from Port Jervis(or someplace south of there) to Suffern, then east towards Spring Valley area via the existing tracks. From there, along the highway, over the bridge, and along 278 to White Plains. From there, run them south to GCT. The other service would start maybe in Suffern or someplace south of there, run the same route to White Plains, but continue along I-278 to Port Chester, and then up to New Haven. So basically:
Port Jervis/Suffern-White Plains-GCT
Suffern-White Plains-Stamford-New Haven

[Deimos]

I like your idea of the two lines, however instead of running to White Plains and then down to Grand Central, the GCT line should branch south at Tarrytown. It will cut 10 minute off the commute without impacting people who are going to White Plains, as they'll still have the Port Jervis-Suffern-White Plains-New Haven line to use.


Run 2 services. One from Port Jervis(or someplace south of there) to Suffern, then east towards Spring Valley area via the existing tracks. From there, along the highway, over the bridge, and along 278 to White Plains. From there, run them south to GCT. The other service would start maybe in Suffern or someplace south of there, run the same route to White Plains, but continue along I-278 to Port Chester, and then up to New Haven. So basically:
Port Jervis/Suffern-White Plains-GCT
Suffern-White Plains-Stamford-New Haven

[NIMBYkiller]

If it is a tunnel, that MAY be possible. However, if it is built via a bridge, it will be impossible. The approaches to the bridge will have to start VERY far south of the bridge. I would say miles south, but I am not sure exactly how far south b/c I don't know how high the new bridge would be at that exact point. That and the exact maximum allowable gradient for commuter railroads escapes me at the moment.

I also realized that this could be an alternative to the Cross Harbor Tunnel. Just build connections to the NH line going towards/comming from the Hell Gate Bridge side. That way the trains no longer have to go all the way up to Selkirk to cross the Hudson. Still, a crossing at the southernmost possible point would be the best option....but it's something to think about as a possibility.

[TomAuch]

If I were a Rockland resident I wouldn't mind having that line back. I would rather go down to Secaucus or Hoboken and transfer to Midtown or Downtown via PATH, then take some stupid tunnel/bridge train that forces me to transfer twice in Westchester alone! As far as I'm concerned, CSX should STFU and allow for the residents of Rockland County to actually have some convenience in their lives.

NJT has wanted to reopen the West Shore line for a while, I believe up to Haverstraw. Hopefully they'll be able to do this soon, but I doubt it will since CSX doesn't really feal like playing ball.

As for the Tappan Zee, hopefully they'll rebuild it with the commuter rail line, and extend the COMMUTER rail down I278 all the way to the New Haven Line. It'd be stupid to make someone take the train to Westchester, transfer to the light rail to Port Chester, and then transfer AGAIN to the New Haven line.

Run 2 services. One from Port Jervis(or someplace south of there) to Suffern, then east towards Spring Valley area via the existing tracks. From there, along the highway, over the bridge, and along 278 to White Plains. From there, run them south to GCT. The other service would start maybe in Suffern or someplace south of there, run the same route to White Plains, but continue along I-278 to Port Chester, and then up to New Haven. So basically:
Port Jervis/Suffern-White Plains-GCT
Suffern-White Plains-Stamford-New Haven

[Deimos]

TomAuch, The rail crossing would make for a nonstop commute from rockland to Grand Central, unless I've misread the proposals. My support for this project stems 100% from this prospect.

I've taken the train from Suffern (my hometown) to hoboken, then transferred to the PATH, and also taken the train to secaucus and transferred to Penn. As much as I hate buses, I now exclusively go through the port authority when travelling home to visit my parents because of the extra steps involved to take the train.

If I were a Rockland resident I wouldn't mind having that line back. I would rather go down to Secaucus or Hoboken and transfer to Midtown or Downtown via PATH, then take some stupid tunnel/bridge train that forces me to transfer twice in Westchester alone! As far as I'm concerned, CSX should STFU and allow for the residents of Rockland County to actually have some convenience in their lives.

[TomAuch]

TomAuch, The rail crossing would make for a nonstop commute from rockland to Grand Central, unless I've misread the proposals. My support for this project stems 100% from this prospect.

I've taken the train from Suffern (my hometown) to hoboken, then transferred to the PATH, and also taken the train to secaucus and transferred to Penn. As much as I hate buses, I now exclusively go through the port authority when travelling home to visit my parents because of the extra steps involved to take the train.

Will residents closer to the Hudson, particularly in Haverstraw, have direct train acess? I would be open to supporting the plan if that part of the West Shore Line could be revived and connected.

[NIMBYkiller]

West Shore Line I believe is expected to operate to Hoboken via the Meadowlands.

As for Rockland to GCT, it will be a ONE SEAT RIDE. NO transfers necesary.

[NYatKNIGHT]

From Access to the REgion's Core DEIS:

The West Shore Line project includes commuter rail service from West Nyack, NY through Secaucus Junction and terminate in Hoboken (West Shore Line) and extension of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail on the CSX line between Tenafly and Hoboken (Northern Branch) and on the NYS&W corridor between Passaic county and Hoboken (Bergen-Passaic Light Rail). DEIS documents will be prepared for each of the proposed lines. Development of the West Shore/Sports Complex Rail Spur will be coordinated with proposed redevelopment of the Meadowlands Sports Complex. The project is sponsored by NJ TRANSIT, Bergen County, and Rockland County.

http://www.accesstotheregionscore.com/whatWillrelatedProjects.html

[TomAuch]

I don't think that there's been any serious talk of reviving the West Shore Line since 2001-2002, judging by the DEIS.

[NYatKNIGHT]

I think you're right, I haven't either. Too bad, a lot of people would benefit from it.

[NIMBYkiller]

I haven't heard any talk for over a year either

[LeCom]

Yes, gangs of stockbrokers, bankers and Martha Stewart clones...:rolleyes:
They got ex-cons riding the trains, eh?

Anyway, I hope they build a replacement. The brige is ALWAYS a pain in the ass to cross.

[Deimos]

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051127/NEWS02/511270359/1018

Tappan Zee Bridge inspection shows years of deterioration

By BRUCE GOLDING AND JORGE FITZ-GIBBON
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: November 27, 2005)

Design flaws, corrosion and years of neglect have damaged the Tappan Zee Bridge so badly that an inspection report warns the beams supporting its safety railings could fail and more holes are likely to puncture its roadway.

Photos from the 2,929-page report show cracked columns, steel beams eaten clear through by rust, and off-center support bearings missing as much as 40 percent of their concrete footings.

The New York State Thruway Authority, which owns the bridge, initially refused to release the 10-volume report to The Journal News, but relented under pressure from the newspaper and government officials.

The report's findings are "most alarming," said Clarkstown Town Board member Catherine Nowicki, who commutes daily over the Tappan Zee and is co-chairwoman of an advisory task force on the bridge.

"We all don't like what we see, and then we're assured by the engineers that (they) are keeping up with repairs," she said. "People who have to go to work have no choice but to be assured."

Thruway officials say the Tappan Zee remains safe, even though it will reach its planned 50-year life expectancy Dec. 15.

"The bridge is not in a state of disrepair," said Ramesh Mehta, Hudson Valley division director for the Thruway Authority. "Of course, the condition is not like a new bridge. But its condition is safe."

The inspection report was compiled last year after a federally mandated, biennial review of the bridge, which provides a vital link for about 140,000 vehicles travelling between Westchester and Rockland counties every day. State officials are now weighing six options to repair or replace the 3.1-mile span over the Hudson River.

Those choices carry price tags as high as nearly $15 billion, not including the more than $100 million for planned repairs during the next two years. Added to those figures is more than $316 million spent on various fixes between 1995 and 2004 — spending that failed to keep the bridge's safety ratings from recently falling to some of their lowest levels in a decade, according to Federal Highway Administration data.

As part of last year's inspection, engineers issued 47 new "flags" identifying structural flaws, including three "red flags" indicating imminent danger, statistics provided by the authority show. Another 11 flags were reissued because earlier problems had not been fixed.

Specific findings included

• Steel beams that support the bridge's safety walks and railings were in poor condition, and probably would fail if the railing was hit by a truck.

• Parts of the roadway deck had deteriorated since the previous inspection, with areas of loose and cracked concrete that could open up into "punch-through" holes. Such holes now occur about once a month.

• Buckling was found in some steel bracing beams, although earlier inspections "did not indicate any reference to any buckled" beams.

Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef, one of the officials who called for release of the report, said immediate action was needed by the Thruway Authority.

"Their bridge is falling apart," Vanderhoef said. "They're racing to repair it, which is good. And they're ensuring that it's safe. But it's overused and it's got continuing defects that will crop up as a result of its age."

Routine maintenance and repair operations regularly close portions of the seven-lane bridge, to the frustration of Lower Hudson Valley drivers who jam the bridge approaches, sometimes for miles at a stretch.

The Tappan Zee's major design flaw is its drainage system — it essentially has none. Water from the roadway simply flows through slots under the curbs and onto the steel and concrete below. Water, road salt and dirt have washed over the bridge's substructure for decades, corroding steel and "spalling," or deteriorating, the concrete.

"Most of the problem was the drainage that we had on the bridge," said Mehta, the authority division director. "About 80 percent of the flags are as a result of those problems, drainage problems."

Retired Lehigh University engineering professor John Fisher, who worked as a consultant during a 2003 inspection of the Tappan Zee, also blamed the inadequate drainage for most of its problems.

"I think you've got this corrosion because up to now they haven't done anything about controlling the water," he said. "I guess somebody has made the decision they are going to ignore it and let it keep continuing, perhaps with the thought that the bridge is going to be replaced or seriously rehabbed."

Photos and flag reports from the 2004 inspection report detail dozens of bearings, beams and columns compromised by the roadway runoff — damage, Fisher said, that took years to occur.

Fisher said the deterioration did not appear to jeopardize the bridge's support structure, but it needed to be addressed before it became more severe.

"You wouldn't get this degree of corrosion without maintenance problems," he said. "Maintaining and controlling the water: That's a maintenance problem. ... Allowing dirt and debris to stay on the structure for large lengths of time: Those are maintenance problems."

Thruway officials contend they can keep the bridge up and running safely with continued repairs and upgrades.

"It's not a battery," project engineer Jim Morrow said. "We can recharge the bridge."

That assertion was challenged by Vanderhoef, the Rockland county executive.

"You got a C battery for a D-battery job," he said. "No matter how much you recharge it, it simply is not going to do the trick. It's designed for 100,000 vehicles and it's at 140,000 vehicles and climbing. So even if you use the analogy, the D battery is required now."

To solve the problem, the Thruway Authority, the Metro-North Railroad and the state Department of Transportation in September pared down to six the number of potential long-term fixes for the bridge, ranging from a $500 million plan to keep it in service as-is to a $14.5 billion proposal for a new span that would also carry both heavy- and light-rail lines. The short list eliminated controversial plans for a tunnel crossing to replace the bridge.

Still, the Thruway Authority is now planning the next interim upgrades. Last month, it announced plans to spend more than $100 million over two years to replace much of the roadway deck and some steel beams. An additional $4 million will be used to repair parts of the substructure.

The repairs include a plan to correct the drainage problem: installing a small lip under the bridge where the water drains off the roadway to interrupt the flow onto the substructure, and cause the water instead to drip directly into the river below.

The Thruway Authority concedes that the bridge was cheaply built, constructed amid steel shortages during the Korean War.

Although earlier bridge inspection reports were routinely available for public inspection, the Thruway Authority refused in June to release the latest report to The Journal News. After an appeal under the New York Freedom of Information Law, the authority turned over just 25 heavily blacked-out pages from the 2,929-page report, saying the withheld material could be used by terrorists to target the bridge for attack.

Public criticism of the authority's action — including allegations of a cover-up — led officials to reconsider their decision.

After details that could be used to identify specific locations on the bridge were blacked out, the newspaper was allowed to review the entire report.

The authority also developed a computerized picture show on the bridge's condition that it presented to the newspaper, county leaders from Westchester and Rockland and members of an advisory task force created by the counties in the wake of the newspaper's reporting.

After seeing the presentation, Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano said that the bridge had clearly been neglected for decades, and that he would never allow a county-owned bridge to deteriorate as badly as the Tappan Zee.

"Anytime you have a government, a state government that's constantly in turmoil financially, this is what happens," Spano said. "This is the stuff that gets left by the wayside."

But Spano also said he had faith in the Thruway Authority's commitment to maintain the bridge. "I have confidence that now it's being done thoroughly," he said. "I don't have any confidence that it was being done thoroughly prior to this."

Marsha Gordon, president of the Westchester Business Council and co-chairwoman of the task force, also said she felt reassured after seeing the presentation.

"I think people felt that the Thruway Authority is very much on top of the issue and they have extensive programs in place to make sure that the bridge stays safe until it's no longer needed," she said.

Tarrytown Mayor Drew Fixell, who sits on the Tappan Zee advisory task force, said the widespread deterioration of the bridge made dealing with it something of a "double-edged sword" for the Thruway Authority.

"They don't seem to have a very strong interest in repairing the bridge long-term. They do seem to want to replace it," he said. "On the other hand, they also have a definite interest in not alarming the public, not looking like they're not doing their job."

[Deimos]

Dear Tappan Zee Bridge Subscriber,

Attached is a press release that was issued this morning, Monday, December 5, 2005.

If you are not able to open the attached public workshop meeting announcement, the information has been cut and pasted below.

For the latest project information, please visit the Tappan Zee Bridge website at www.tzbsite.com.

Sincerely,
The Department of Public Affairs


===================text version====================

For immediate release: December 5, 2005

Contacts:
Daniel J. Gilbert, Director of Public Affairs, New York State Thruway Authority, 518-436-2983 Marjorie Anders, Corporate & Media Relations, MTA Metro-North Railroad, 212-672-1200 Peter Graves, Public Information Officer, New York State Department of Transportation,
518-457-6400

TAPPAN ZEE BRIDGE/I-287 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WORKSHOPS SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 12 & 13
Public invited to attend sessions in Westchester & Rockland Counties

The New York State Thruway Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro-North Railroad and the New York State Department of Transportation today announced they will hold public workshops in Westchester and Rockland Counties on December 12 and 13 as part of the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Environmental Review. This round of workshops, the fifth in the study thus far, will focus on the six alternatives that will be carried forward for further analysis in the next phase of the study. These meetings are open to the public.

* The first workshop will be held in Westchester County, Monday December 12 from 4 to 8 p.m. at the New York Power Authority - Jaguar Room, 123 Main Street, White Plains, NY.

* The second workshop will be held in Rockland County, Tuesday December 13 from 4 to 8 p.m. in the Palisades Mall - Adler Room, 1000 Palisades Center Drive, West Nyack, NY.

The Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Environmental Review is the forum for developing a solution to the problems of congestion, mobility and structural issues related to the Tappan Zee Bridge and I-287 corridor. After extensive study, and four rounds of public meetings, six alternatives have been identified for more detailed technical and public scrutiny. This round of workshops is an opportunity for the public to join the project team in a discussion of the six alternatives that will be thoroughly studied in the next phase of this effort, known as the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) process.

Team members for the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Environmental Review will make presentations on the six alternatives at 4:30 p.m. and again at 6:30 p.m. at each workshop, with question and comment periods following. Project displays will be available before and after the presentations, along with literature about the project and comment sheets for those who prefer to submit written comments. Light refreshments will be provided.

The alternatives have also been reviewed by IMPO, the Inter-Metropolitan Planning Organization guiding the study; the Westchester Rockland Tappan Zee Futures Task Force, a group appointed by the County Executives in Westchester and Rockland County; and by the Stakeholder Committee, a project-related group of 240 individuals and organizations in the region.

Directions to the Westchester County workshop at the New York Power Authority: From Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess, and Tappan Zee Bridge: I-287 (Cross Westchester Expressway) east to Exit 6, taking right turn at light onto Route 22 South, North Broadway. Proceed south on Route 22 taking right turn onto Martine Avenue. Proceed on Martine Avenue and at the third traffic light, take right turn onto Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Take right at next traffic light onto Main Street, and immediate left onto William Street, into parking garage. Directions to the workshop facilities may be obtained by calling Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates at 917-339-0488.

Directions to the Rockland County workshop at the Palisades Mall: From Westchester: Tappan Zee Bridge West (87 North/287 West) to Exit 12 of the NYS Thruway - West Nyack - Palisades Center. From New York City: George Washington Bridge to the Palisades Interstate Parkway North to Exit 9E to the NYS Thruway (87 South/287 East) to Exit 12 - West Nyack - Palisades Center. To Palisades Center Community Rooms: Enter Palisades Center at mall entrance between Lord & Taylor and Filene's. Take Elevator to 4th Floor and follow signs for Skating Rink/Community Rooms.

Additional information on the six alternatives has been placed on the project website at www.tzbsite.com. Please keep checking the site for updates and announcements.

[TonyO]

Engineering Record

Possibility Grows for New Cable-Stayed Span on the Hudson

12/12/2005
By Richard Korman in Nyack

Three key transportation agencies in the planning behind a possible replacement for the Tappan Zee Bridge across the Hudson River north of New York City say they have eliminated tunnels as an option, increasing the likelihood that a new bridge will be built. A cable-stayed bridge has the greatest potential of being built, suggest engineers involved in and observing the planning process.
The possibility of a cable-stayed bridge became apparent at a Dec. 6 briefing for stakeholders in Nyack, N.Y., where representatives of the New York State Dept. of Transportation, which recently took over the leadership of the project, the New York State Thruway Authority and Metro North Railroad, told civic leaders, preservationists and others that all options are being considered. Mark Roche, an associate of Arup, the bridge engineers working for the Thruway Authority, also said he is agnostic on the issue of bridge type.


Officially, the three transportation agencies unveiled recommendations that will be refined after community input and submitted for environmental review. In addition to eliminating tunnels, the three agencies dropped the idea for a light-rail spur on the western, or Rockland County, side of the span but continue to consider a plan for the new bridge to contain a commuter-rail line. It would connect with the region’s existing network and a light-rail line from Tarrytown on the eastern, or Westchester County, side to Port Chester, N.Y.

The main goal is to alleviate traffic that is choking the entire I-287 corridor and the deteriorated 50-year-old causeway and truss structure. Possibilities include high occupancy lanes and a new intermodal connection near Tarrytown.

Planning will take another five years and construction five more, estimates Michael Anderson of the Dept. of Transportation.

A cable-stayed structure is increasingly likely for several reasons. Adequate anchorages are lacking for a suspension bridge, notes Neal H. Bettigole, a Saddle River, N.J.-based engineer. And Hudson River Valley residents and political leaders are calling for a beautiful bridge. "Esthetics are important," says Orangetown Supervisor Thom Kleiner. A truss bridge not only is hard to maintain, says one engineer working on the project, "It’s out of the question because it won’t be beautiful."

[NIMBYkiller]

Cable-stayed bridges are really becomming popular, and they are really nice too.

Hopefully this will get built, and with the commuter rail.

[lostnyc]

Um, have you ever been to New York? It's not a cartoon.

Yes I have been to NYC, lived there in fact from 1969 till 1984, had numerous bikes, wallets, one camera, watches and other things stolen from my person, one burglary and three attempted burglaries that I knew of- including a daring dude who climbed the fire escape by my loft at 611 Broadway to the 7th floor and skinnied himself along the 7th floor exterior window sills, opened my window, removed the screen, discovered ME and went back the way he came.

Also had the glass window in the door of my loft smashed in.

[MidtownGuy]

I hope you know that New York is not the place it was from '69 to '84. that was a very bad crime era and it's a different scene now. 22 years!
I feel safer at home in Manhattan than I do in most cities I visit.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Pardon my soapbox on TZB, but ...

By ARTHUR H. GUNTHER
agunther@thejournalnews.gannett.com (agunther@thejournalnews.gannett.com)

THE JOURNAL NEWS
Published: December 28, 2005


Nobody asked me, but if I were His Omnipotence and could arbitrarily decide on a replacement for the Tappan Zee Bridge, this is what would be done. I write this from the perspective of both a third-generation Rocklander but also a fellow who has an opinion, just like anyone else.

Acknowledging that the 50-year-old existing span was (1) deliberately built on the cheap so a cash register could quickly be in place to pay off Thruway bonds and maintenance, and (2) that the zestful, giddy nature of 1950s interstate highway road planning, mostly head in the sand, continues even after the I-287 connection at Hillburn in the early 1990s was allowed to greatly increase truck traffic through and about Rockland, the resolve would be that we do not repeat the mistakes. At least not so very badly.

Therefore, any new structure or tunnel or combination would have to last as long as the Brooklyn Bridge (since 1883) but would not carry any additional traffic than now endured. Less, I would hope. There can be no added air, noise and visual pollution in what the highway people like to call the "Rockland Corridor," as if we were just an alleyway of others' convenience. Which we are all too often.

Now, be it resolved, according to His Omnipotence

• The crossing would be both tunnel and bridge, a two-way, multiple-lane vehicular/rail tunnel, with trains running fully by tunnel from Rockland to the Hudson Line tracks near Tarrytown and thus offering the illusive one-seat ride to Gotham.

Vehicles, though, would emerge from the tunnel while still in the river, exiting via a causeway ramp to a bridge that would continue to the present connection at Tarrytown.

• The Thruway in Rockland would end above ground just pass Route 303 in West Nyack and then the road and new rail would drop into the tunnel. All present Thruway land to the Hudson would be cleared for open space, river parks and restoration of old downtown South Nyack, with Victorian and other period-style housing and shops. A fortune could be made by the Thruway on this land sale.

• Before a new crossing is built, require that all trucking bound for New England shore area cities and communities take the Thruway north to the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge, then Route 84 and, via a new connector interstate highway in Connecticut, to Route 95. Regular motorists would be strongly encouraged to do so as well. A new bridge or tunnel might be necessary at Newburgh.

• Trucks going to New York City, Westchester and lower Connecticut would travel night hours only.

• Regular commuters would get a fast-track lane and be required to use 55 mph EZ-Pass.

• No maintenance work could be performed during peak travel time.

• How to pay for it all? Well, "Homeland Security" and Defense Department money, that's how. Take a leaf from history. For years after the Thruway was built, Nyack tried to get an entrance northbound (westbound) near Route 59. The Thruway never answered, until the late Virginia Parkhurst, our fine, longtime Nyack area reporter, found out that the section of the Thruway from roughly Spring Valley over to the TZB area was part of the initial Eisenhower Defense Highway network and so the exit could be funded federally. It was built in the late 1960s. Also, the bridge itself was permitted by a 1930s War Department permit, again recognizing the crossing's place in our national defense.

Therefore, construct any new Hudson crossing using Defense Department and Homeland Security funds, to continue the vital Eisenhower Defense Highway network. (Ike began the U.S. interstate system after his experience with the German Autobahn during World War II, and he realized the military and civilian benefits.)

Finally, people, all you well-intentioned ones who want to do it right this time, don't build anything that will route even more traffic and thus woes through the "Rockland Corridor." If you do, you will give us misery and you will still need another, wider crossing in just a generation or so, as bigger highways bring more traffic. As for the crossing itself, use the best and most-lasting materials this time.

(Pardon my soapbox, but this is what I would do.)


Copyright 2005 The Journal News, a Gannett Co (http://www.gannett.com/). Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.

[ZippyTheChimp]

January 17, 2006

A Bridge That Has Nowhere Left to Go

By PATRICK McGEEHAN

The Tappan Zee Bridge, the most critical transportation link across the Hudson River north of New York City, is not even half as old as the Brooklyn Bridge, but its warranty has already expired.

Started on the cheap during the Korean War, the Tappan Zee was deliberately built to last just 50 years. It passed that milestone last month, just days after transportation planners began gathering public advice about how to fix or replace it.

But the decaying, overburdened span's anniversary was more bitter than sweet. Little love has been lost between the Tappan Zee and the tens of thousands of commuters who depend on it. They complain about the poor condition of its roadway and the backups caused by every breakdown and flat tire.

Even before it was built, the bridge's own designers said it would be one of the "ugliest" in the region. Half a century later, the Tappan Zee has not aged gracefully. There are cracks in its concrete columns, its superstructure is rusting away and its deck is nearly worn through.

The New York State Thruway Authority, which owns the 3.1-mile-long bridge carrying the Thruway over the Hudson, has said that the deck, some structural steel, the concrete walkway and electrical systems have "deteriorated significantly." The authority plans to spend more than $100 million next year just to patch the bridge's holes and replace some of its corroded steel, a process sure to make travel even slower for commuters.

Catching daily glimpses of the long cracks in the bridge's superstructure frightens Brett Ruskin, who drives from his home in Monsey across the Tappan Zee to Tarrytown, where he catches a Metro-North train to Grand Central Terminal. "My biggest concern is not so much the traffic, because the big problem with the Tappan Zee Bridge is it's falling apart," Mr. Ruskin said. "Every morning I go out there and I pray. I say, 'Please God, don't let the bridge come down today. Let me get across it first.' "

After years of dawdling while the bridge crumbled, state officials say they are rushing to complete a review of the most feasible solutions to the problem of the Tappan Zee. But a decision is still two years off and a new bridge would require eight additional years and as much as $14.5 billion to build, they say.

To help defray the cost, Gov. George E. Pataki intends to renew his call for giving the private sector a role in the project when he presents his budget tomorrow, people who have been briefed on his plans said. Selling the bridge, in whole or in part, to one or more companies would require legislative changes that were rejected in Albany last year.

For many elected officials and transportation planners, the Tappan Zee, which carries about 140,000 vehicles per day, cannot be replaced soon enough. It was built between Tarrytown, in Westchester County, and Nyack, in Rockland County, at what is nearly the widest part of the Hudson River, in the 1950's, when Rockland was still largely rural and just beginning to attract New York City commuters.

The bridge, which cost just $81 million - the equivalent of about $550 million today - was built using a naval construction technique that incorporated a set of hollow concrete caissons to support the main span.

Unlike other bridges in the region - The Brooklyn Bridge is 122 years old, and the George Washington Bridge will turn 75 this year - the Tappan Zee was not built to last, because of wartime pressures, according to Ramesh Mehta, the divisional director of the Thruway Authority in charge of the southern Hudson Valley.

"The fact of the matter is that the bridge is past its usable life and no matter what repairs are done it must ultimately be replaced," said C. Scott Vanderhoef, the Rockland County executive. "It's reached its age limit and it's reached its capacity. We're just pouring money into a bridge that ultimately will not be there."

Mr. Vanderhoef's counterpart at the other end of the span, Andrew J. Spano, the Westchester County executive, blames the bridge's poor condition on the benign neglect of "screwed-up government." State officials consistently refused to level with the public about how much money was required to maintain critical infrastructure, like the Tappan Zee, he said.

"First of all, it wasn't built properly," Mr. Spano said. "Second of all, it wasn't maintained."

Governor Pataki first mentioned the possibility of replacing the bridge in 1999, but by early last year, scant progress had been made.

When the Thruway Authority and the two other agencies that had been charged with proposing solutions, the Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Metro-North Railroad, fell a year behind schedule last summer, Mr. Spano and Mr. Vanderhoef created a task force to spur the state into action.

"We thought they were dragging their heels," Mr. Spano said.

The agencies had hit an impasse on the question of whether a tunnel that could carry commuter trains should receive serious consideration as an alternative to a new bridge, transportation planners and officials said.

"In my experience, it's always good to put some person or entity in charge that can be held accountable," Mr. Vanderhoef said. By the fall, Mr. Pataki "did the right thing and said, 'Enough,' " he said, referring to Mr. Pataki's decision to hand control of the review process to the Transportation Department.

In late September, the three agencies announced that they had whittled the original list of about 15 alternatives down to six. Two of them involve keeping the old bridge and repairing it, either a little or a lot. A complete rehabilitation of the Tappan Zee would cost at least $2 billion, the planners estimated.

The four remaining options call for a new bridge, which would be built alongside the old one, just north of the existing span. Each involves a different configuration of mass transit - either commuter trains, light rail or express buses - sandwiched between the traffic lanes. The estimates for a new bridge range from $9 billion to $14.5 billion.

The planners ruled out a tunnel because it would cost considerably more, would have more harmful effects on the ecology of the river and would disrupt traffic patterns in Rockland County, they said. But Michael Anderson, the Transportation Department official who was installed as the team leader for the review, said no decisions have been made about what type of bridge would replace the Tappan Zee.

At a presentation last month in Nyack, Mr. Anderson said the planners expected to choose one of the alternatives by the end of next year. If a new bridge is built, he said, it would probably be completed in 2015. In the meantime, he assured the audience that "the roadway is safe and will be safe for the foreseeable future."

So far, not a dollar of the design and construction costs has been pledged by the federal government or by any state or local agencies. The bridge will vie for funding with a long list of major projects that would enhance the region's transportation network, not provide a transplant for one of its vital organs.

The competitors, each of which is expected to cost more than $5 billion, include the Second Avenue subway, connecting the Long Island Rail Road to Grand Central Terminal and a proposed second passenger-train tunnel between New Jersey and Midtown Manhattan.

Already, the Tappan Zee planners are assuming that the tunnel to Midtown, a pet project of Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Jon S. Corzine, the state's incoming governor, will be built. Mr. Anderson said the Tappan Zee project would be "in competition for a limited amount of funds available for the next 25 years." To improve its chances, he said, the planners would soon take the unusual step of conducting a study of potential sources of funding, instead of waiting until they have a specific plan for the bridge.

The federal government does not usually allocate money for projects before local officials have settled on a proposal and conducted full reviews of its economic and environmental impacts. But some elected officials have criticized Governor Pataki and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for not demonstrating a stronger commitment to replacing the Tappan Zee.

Ryan S. Karben, a Democratic assemblyman from Pearl River, in Rockland County, said he was disappointed that no money has been included in the latest capital budgets of the Transportation Department or the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for replacing the bridge.

Mr. Karben, who is an ardent proponent of adding commuter train service from Rockland County to Manhattan, said he wrote to Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials asking them to "give us at least a symbolic commitment, a symbolic set-aside of funds to encourage this process." But his appeal failed, he said. "I find it strange to have a conversation about what the best way to replace the Tappan Zee is, independent of an available funding stream, because the funding stream inevitably constrains our planning," Mr. Karben said. "Without a realistic financial strategy, the planning is for naught."

To secure federal funding for mass transit, the planners need to prove that the project would be cost effective, said Jeffrey Zupan, senior transportation fellow at the Regional Plan Association. He said he has pressed Mr. Anderson to be more forthcoming about estimates of how many people would ride trains or buses across the bridge and how much extra it would cost to connect trains running over the bridge directly to Metro-North tracks in Westchester for a "one-seat ride" to Manhattan.

"What they need to do is to be very open in public about the situation and not string people along who see the holy grail, which is the one-seat ride," Mr. Zupan said.

The voice of Mr. Vanderhoef, the county executive, who was born in Orangetown and graduated from Tappan Zee High School, carries no trace of sentiment when he talks about the future of the old bridge that sparked a boom in Rockland. The county's population has more than tripled, to 290,000 residents, since 1950, and is projected to increase by more than 25 percent in the next 25 years.

"I don't think it's that ugly," Mr. Vanderhoef said of the Tappan Zee, adding that he did not care about the appearance of its replacement.

"The key is that it operate, that it handle the traffic," he said. "If that requires a lack of aesthetic approach, then so be it. I'm not suggesting that we build an ugly bridge, but if it requires that, then fine."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/01/16/nyregion/17tappan_graphic_lg.gif

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[NYatKNIGHT]

"The key is that it operate, that it handle the traffic," he said. "If that requires a lack of aesthetic approach, then so be it. I'm not suggesting that we build an ugly bridge, but if it requires that, then fine."

Right, it might require that it be ugly. Moron.

[ryan]

I followed a similar stupid conversation regarding the Peace Bridge from Buffalo to Fort Erie, Ontario. Ugly meant steel, which was being pushed as part of a backroom deal. Steel is just not an appropriate material for a bridge in our climate, and I read many many arguments to that effect. Most any cable-stayed concrete bridge would be beautiful.

[Ninjahedge]

I followed a similar stupid conversation regarding the Peace Bridge from Buffalo to Fort Erie, Ontario. Ugly meant steel, which was being pushed as part of a backroom deal. Steel is just not an appropriate material for a bridge in our climate, and I read many many arguments to that effect. Most any cable-stayed concrete bridge would be beautiful.

Steel or concrete would work, although you would need to go to additional lengths to ensure weatherability.

A precast concrete plank system might be better, but even concrete has problems with the ocean you know.

Between that and the salt from the winter servicing, it will leech and corrode the reinforcement in the bridge just as sure as it will get into a steel bridge.


Also, steel is cheaper to erect, in general, than concrete. So more could be spent on overdesign rather than manpower hours....


They would have to look into all possibilities and truly figure out what would last the longest.


Oh, BTW, not ALL steel bridges are ugly you know. That, and if it wasn't for the overdesign of the BB to begin with, and it's reinforcement (10 years ago?) it would be in trouble now as well.

We could never afford another BB in these times.

[JCMAN320]

I think a suspension bridge would be a apporpriate or even a cabel statyed bridge given the fact that it is at a wide part of the Hudson. Cable stayed bridge would be my favorite like the Zakum Bridge in Boston and also over in France they completed the tallest bridge in the world and it goes over an extremely large distance and also I think its the Sunshine Birdge or something down in Florida which is similar to the current Tappen Zee except that arch is cable stayed and no steel and the roadway goes over a long distance over the water. If anyone can find a pic of cable stayed to show everyone what Im talking about. Thx

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable-stayed_bridge

[TLOZ Link5]

Just out of curiosity, what are the projected lifespans of the major NYC bridges?

[NIMBYkiller]

Yes, I believe it is the Sunshine Skyway running from Tampa, Fl to St Pete, Fl. The original bridge collapsed in 1980 when a tanker slammed into it, taking a few cars and a packed Greyhound bus with it. 35 dead, including everyone on the Greyhound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Skyway_Bridge

[ablarc]

"The key is that it operate, that it handle the traffic," he said. "If that requires a lack of aesthetic approach, then so be it. I'm not suggesting that we build an ugly bridge, but if it requires that, then fine."
Not sure there's any such thing as an ugly bridge. Bridges are poster boys for the theory that if something's design is functional it's simultaneously bound to be beautiful.

A bridge design is nearly 100% generated by structural (i.e. functional) considerations; as in a Calatrava building, the beauty is in the math, and we all respond to it because instinctively we can tell it is correct. If a person thinks a bridge design is ugly, chances are it's because he knows too much that ain't so. For example, some of us know that exposed steel trusswork is ugly because our grade school teachers or mothers told us so.

[Bob]

Ugly bridge: I-95 overpass, Bridgeport Harbor. Original 50s-era design was OK, but during the recent five-year overhaul and expansion of the original bridge, CT Department of Transportation selected a curious combination of beam widths for the structural steel. Further, the original detailing of the concrete work was wholly eliminated. The current bridge is an eyesore. Just what Bridgeport really needed, eh?

The old bridge (pre-renovation) is featured prominently in a movie that was filmed in Bridgeport in the early 1970s. I don't recall the name of that movie, sorry.

Ugly Bridge # 2: Tomlinson Avenue bridge, New Haven. Simply an atrocious pile of somebody's nightmare! It's downright laughable! Immediately adjacent to and south of the Q-Bridge, I-95.

[Deimos]

Has it really been a whole year since any new information on this project was revealed? That's just depressing.

[TimmyG]

This seems like one of those projects that will take decades to start.

[DOUGLASTONQUEENS]

The reason state/county planners dont want to install a rail/bus lane is the fear of urban sprawl. Rockland and Westchester County are proud and very protective of their suburban environment and with effective public transportation comes urban sprawl. Therefore, the Tappan Zee Bridge will take years to get fixed and i doubt a tunnel for train passage will be built. (possibly a bus route).

[ablarc]

^ What's "urban sprawl"?

[ramvid01]

^ What's "urban sprawl"?

Spawl thats more urban :D .

Of course that doesn't make any sense. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Not the best source, but i guess it explains it better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl

[antinimby]

So in other words, it's just another way of saying suburbs?

So why not just say suburbs instead?

Anyway DOUGLASTONQUEENS, to simply state it, those folks wanting to "protect" Westchester and Rockland are just anti-growth.

[Deimos]

The reason state/county planners dont want to install a rail/bus lane is the fear of urban sprawl. Rockland and Westchester County are proud and very protective of their suburban environment and with effective public transportation comes urban sprawl. Therefore, the Tappan Zee Bridge will take years to get fixed and i doubt a tunnel for train passage will be built. (possibly a bus route).

I disagree with that statement, as a former resident of Rockland county. Suffern greatly benefitted from the rail line down to Hoboken. The Wall St. people seeking a new home with actual land exceeding an acre represent a rather large proportion of residents. Commutes to WTC are around an hour.

A rail link across the hudson would have the same effect for the rest of rockland. Before you bring up resistance to land values skyrocketing and people kvetching about change in character, it's already happening. I'm hearing stories from my parents about people in their late 20s who grew up in Rockland and work in the area having to move up to Orange County to find an affordable place to live.

[DOUGLASTONQUEENS]

I disagree with that statement, as a former resident of Rockland county. Suffern greatly benefitted from the rail line down to Hoboken. The Wall St. people seeking a new home with actual land exceeding an acre represent a rather large proportion of residents. Commutes to WTC are around an hour.

A rail link across the hudson would have the same effect for the rest of rockland. Before you bring up resistance to land values skyrocketing and people kvetching about change in character, it's already happening. I'm hearing stories from my parents about people in their late 20s who grew up in Rockland and work in the area having to move up to Orange County to find an affordable place to live.

I am talking about Urban Sprawl. Rockland County doesnt want big satellite cities to develop like in Westchester. And Northern Westchester doesnt want Urban development either. Rockland is the definition of Suburban Sprawl.

P.S. Isnt the commuter rail from Suffern to Hoboken long gone??

[NYatKNIGHT]

^No, it runs regularly. That rail line goes through rural areas as far as Port Jervis.

Just because a place has access to rail transit doesn't mean it becomes urban.

[Deimos]

Just because a place has access to rail transit doesn't mean it becomes urban.

Exactly... zoning laws can prevent this from happening quite easily. Such things as restrictions on multi-family dwellings and/or minimum sizes for a parcel of land will ensure a suburban community remains exactly that.


As for the line to Hoboken... all trains from Port Chester through Suffern stop at both Secaucus Junction and Hoboken.... most Rush Hour express trains only stop at these 2 locations.

[NIMBYkiller]

You mean all the lines from Port Jervis? Port Chester is in NY on the CT border. Also, the Suffern service is a joint operation between Metro North and New Jersey Transit, but all service north of there to Port Jervis I believe is strictly Metro North(though I think occasionally you'll see NJT coaches on the train).

So basically what you're saying is that there is fear in Rockland that someplace will end up being the Stamford or White Plains of Rockland County. Reasonable fear. That place I'd say is most likey Suffern given the fact that it will end up having rail from the north, south, and east.

I don't think this is a good enough reason though to shun a good opportunity for enhanced public transportation. 287 can really use the help and bus lanes will probably just be over the bridge and that's it, forcing the bus to get caught up in the same traffic.

[Deimos]

You mean all the lines from Port Jervis? Port Chester is in NY on the CT border. Also, the Suffern service is a joint operation between Metro North and New Jersey Transit, but all service north of there to Port Jervis I believe is strictly Metro North(though I think occasionally you'll see NJT coaches on the train).

So basically what you're saying is that there is fear in Rockland that someplace will end up being the Stamford or White Plains of Rockland County. Reasonable fear. That place I'd say is most likey Suffern given the fact that it will end up having rail from the north, south, and east.

I don't think this is a good enough reason though to shun a good opportunity for enhanced public transportation. 287 can really use the help and bus lanes will probably just be over the bridge and that's it, forcing the bus to get caught up in the same traffic.


Oops, you're right, port Jeff, not port Chester... i always get them mixed up. As for the trains, the line from Suffern to Hoboken is NJ Transit w/MNRR leasing space... the off peak trains are local from port jeff all the way down for the most part, and NJ Transit has a rail yard less than a mile from the suffern station in NY.

[NIMBYkiller]

Port JERVIS. Port Jeff is north shore Long Island in Suffolk County, NY. Port Washington is north shore Long Island in Nassau County, NY. Port Chester is Westchester County, NY, on the CT border. Lots of ports...I guess it's what we get for living near water.

[DOUGLASTONQUEENS]

If any place in Rockland was to become "urbanized" i'd say Nyack. Suffern is too far in-county.

[Deimos]

Port JERVIS. Port Jeff is north shore Long Island in Suffolk County, NY. Port Washington is north shore Long Island in Nassau County, NY. Port Chester is Westchester County, NY, on the CT border. Lots of ports...I guess it's what we get for living near water.

Whoops... you're right, it's Port Jackson... ok, i'll shut up now. I seriously always got that place's (Port Jervis) name wrong even in the 23 years that I lived in Suffern.

As for the development of Rockland... It would take a lot of re-zoning for Suffern to become the next White Plains. It's also too small geographically. Nyack and really any other area that could be thought of is too far from current transit hubs to become an effective city.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Proposals for a new Tappan Zee outlined
February 14, 2007

BY JIM FITZGERALD
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Replacing the Tappan Zee Bridge would not require seizing new land along the Hudson River, planners said yesterday, and encroachments on private property would be minimal even if a mass transit line were added to the project.

However, a new commuter rail line would require extensive tunneling at both ends of the bridge and beneath White Plains, they said.

Officials acknowledged that all the plans are "iffy" because no decision has been made to replace the existing bridge and no funding is in place for the project, which could cost up to $14.5 billion in 2004 dollars.

But consultants presented details for two proposals, one stressing buses and one stressing trains, that might be implemented for the Interstate 287 corridor, from Suffern to Port Chester, if a new span gets the go-ahead.

Other, less grand, possibilities range down to simply keeping the existing, overburdened, 51-year-old bridge - which carries an average of 140,000 vehicles a day - maintained at a safe level without any bridge or transit improvements.

The briefing showed extensive efforts to prevent the projects from spilling onto private property: moving bus lanes from one side of the highway to the other, taking advantage of old rail lines, using existing park-and-ride lots and keeping trains directly below the highway in tunnels or above it on elevated tracks.

But Michael Anderson, of the state Department of Transportation, the project leader, said some private land may have to be taken, especially where train or bus stations are built along the route.

Most of that property would be commercial land, some of which is vacant or underused, he said.

Property owners at the ends of the bridge need not worry about losing their property, consultant Mark Roche said.

Although the new bridge would be built slightly north of the current Tappan Zee, it would be within the New York State Thruway's right of way when it reached land at Tarrytown on the east side of the river and Nyack on the west side, he said.

The new bridge would be built in two stages, he said, one for eastbound and one for westbound traffic, each about as wide as the current bridge and possibly with two levels. One section would be completed first, and all the traffic from the current bridge would be routed onto that section temporarily while the old bridge is demolished and the second stage is built.

Most of the briefing focused on the highways leading to a new bridge rather than the bridge itself.

"Our focus is on getting the approaches right," Roche said.
There would be four train stations along the line in Rockland, seven in Westchester.

If corridor improvements call for buses rather than trains - a move that would be billions of dollars cheaper - dedicated bus lanes would be built along I-287, sometimes in the middle, sometimes on the north or south side.

In White Plains and some other areas, buses would run on local streets but would have some advantages over private cars. For example, at some intersections the bus driver would be able to change the traffic light.
Anderson said he hoped one plan for the corridor would be chosen by August and approved in time to start digging in 2010. He said the project could be finished by 2015.

[TonyO]

NY Times
February 25, 2007
Our Towns

A Creaky Bridge, Too Far From the Days of a Power Broker’s Rule

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/25/nyregion/600-town.jpg
Talk of rebuilding the overloaded Tappan Zee Bridge, north of New York City, has gone on for years.

By PETER APPLEBOME
NYACK, N.Y.

Suddenly, in another reminder that the pendulum of public favor never stops swinging, we’re in the middle of a Robert Moses boomlet, with museum events, lectures and scholarship taking a new look at the past century’s megabuilder.

A visionary who masterfully created much of the world we know in New York, or a Godzilla stomping on the poor and dismissing mass transit to build his roads, bridges and parks? Twenty-six years after Moses’ death, it’s as relevant a debate as it was in 1974 when Robert Caro published his acclaimed and fiercely critical book on Moses, “The Power Broker.”

You can argue Moses round or flat. But you can’t look at perhaps the region’s most complicated, vexing and important public works project, the reconstruction and re-imagining of the Tappan Zee Bridge, and ponder the imperial world of Moses without two thoughts. First, that era seems as ancient as Byzantium. Second, was its passing an entirely good thing?

There’s not much monumental about the Tappan Zee (which Moses did not build). Constructed on the cheap between Rockland and Westchester Counties and opened in 1955, it’s a mess: overloaded, poorly engineered, in chronic need of extensive maintenance and potentially dangerous. It’s well known for commuting surprises like an epidemic of “punch-throughs” — holes in the roadway where a chunk gives way and you can see the river below.

The necessity for rebuilding or replacing the three-mile-long bridge took hold in the late 1990s, and a formal planning process began in 2000. Planners eventually took 150 concepts for a new bridge or tunnel and mass transit system and boiled them down to six options, and details of some of the options were unveiled last week. There will be open sessions at Purchase College in Westchester on Tuesday and at the Palisades Center mall in Rockland on Wednesday to view the proposals.

Almost everything seems more complicated than in Moses’ heyday, with building a bridge the least of it.

What kind of mass transit — bus and/or rail, and which of multiple options for either? Where to? Rail links from Rockland to Manhattan, or a transit plan covering the corridor from Suffern to Port Chester with connections beyond, or something in between? How to come up with as much as $14.5 billion for the most ambitious plan? From the public sector, a private consortium or a public-private partnership?

How best to get public comment and to navigate between the various parties involved, including two counties with different mass transit agendas and the three major players: the New York State Department of Transportation, the New York State Thruway Authority and the Metro-North Railroad? How to do anything without riling citizens groups and environmentalists?

Peeved at the pace of progress and failures in communication, the Westchester County executive, Andrew J. Spano, and his Rockland County counterpart, C. Scott Vanderhoef, fired off a plea last week to Gov. Eliot Spitzer to intercede in the process, saying it can’t continue as is.

“The process now in place is confusing, unresponsive, and in several ways unreliable,” they wrote. “It comes across as bureaucratic, provincial and lacking any sense of regional vision.”

Mike Anderson, who heads a team of engineers, planners and other experts working on detailed versions of the six proposals, says he knows there’s frustration at the pace of progress, but that’s not necessarily bad. “It’s important,” he said, “for us to do this as conscientiously and with as much public input and discussion as possible, because selecting a design as a solution and then having to defend it is the way of the past.”

It’s a good thing that a public agency can no longer bulldoze neighborhoods willy-nilly in the name of progress. But just as it’s crucial to get this right — it’s a project meant to work for a century — it’s also important to get it done, or at least started.

The bridge now carries 135,000 vehicles a day, though it was designed for 100,000. There’s a desperate need for east-west transit options in Rockland and Westchester beyond the automobile. Add in plans for a Catskill casino and Stewart Airport becoming the fourth major airport in the region, and Mr. Anderson may be right when he says there’s no other project in the country on this scale in such a sensitive and vital corridor.

“This is the opposite of Robert Moses,” said Mitchell L. Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University. “Here you have a project in search of a decision-maker. There you had a decision-maker in search of a project.”

THE goal is to start construction in 2010 and, depending on how grandiose the plan is, finish by 2015. It seems pretty optimistic, especially with no idea where the money will come from. There won’t and probably shouldn’t be a Moses, but if there’s going to be a Moses Lite, someone who can knock heads while respecting process, it will probably be Mr. Spitzer or someone he picks to be his designated hitter.

It’s going to be a long, bumpy road no matter what; but, Moses or no Moses, someone needs to be sure the whole thing doesn’t fall through one of those nasty punch-throughs.

E-mail: peappl@nytimes.com

[jarod213]

I think the train across Rockland County is pretty much set in stone for the project; since the county needs a one-seat ride to Manhattan. What's up in the air is whether Westchester will get an east-west rail line from Tarrytown to Port Chester. I'm hoping for it, but it looks like, for now, it's up in the air between light rail, bus rapid transit, and of course commuter rail. Think COMMUTER RAIL! As for the extension up to Haverstraw... there's already significant ferry development there and the tunnel just south of Haverstraw is too narrow to fit freight and commuter traffic through. This service is unlikely, but with high demand one day it might happen. I found a sweet website about Haverstraw; and it seems that the population there, which is already high, is about to explode as it revitalizes. The website is: www.HaverstrawLife.com (http://www.haverstrawlife.com)

As always, THINK COMMUTER RAIL!!!! Or better yet, high speed rail like in Europe.

[jarod213]

Speaking of Suburban Sprawl, as many people said Rockland is defined by...Haverstraw is the OPPOSITE OF SPRAWL. It's relatively small, and wickedly compact. There are about 30,000 people living on 1.5 square miles...denser than some parts of NYC.

[H-man]

port chester has roughly 35 thousand residents (counting illegals) compacted into 2 sq miles as well

[jarod213]

Well then, if we're counting illegal aliens, then I can't even give you a population number for Haverstraw; a lot of them squeeze up to 10 in one-bedroom apartments... otherwise, the burbs are actually pretty dense in some areas and can surely support more mass transit options.

[NIMBYkiller]

I definately would not say the rail is set in stone, especially not because of the one seat ride. It's not even promised that it would be a one seat ride. Basically, ARC wants to build a loop at Secaucus. That's a rediculous idea because trains will run through the BRAND NEW secaucus transfer station TWICE without having any reason to stop, rendering the new station completely useless.

Cross Rockland doesn't promise a one seat ride because the Pascack Valley Line also doesn't go to NYP.

Cross Westchester is the closest bet Rockland has for a one seat ride, and even then, it'd be faster to ride to Secaucus and transfer. And a Manhattan connection for the cross Westchester isn't even guaranteed either. The Hudson line is probably impossible because of the great height difference. Harlem line may be possible. Right now though, they should just focus on cross westchester and save the one seat ride option for later, if ever. At this rate, it's looking like they're gonna have to eliminate commuter rail because that would require tunneling under downtown White Plains, which aint happenin.
Besides, most bridge traffic is cross westchester bound, not Manhattan bound.

[jarod213]

The one-seat from Rockland, which will come either as a result of the Trans Hudson Express Tunnel, or from this Tappan Zee project, since Metro North is a major player in the final decision...will definitely be routed from Rockland, across the TZB, and onto the Hudson Line. That is the only option that they even have on the table. The train would enter into a tunnel at Tarrytown and into a downward loop (still in the tunnel), under Sunnyside and possibly come out at level with the Hudson Line at Mathiason Park in Irvington. Again, this is the only rail option there is. And since all agencies, in all levels of government up to federal, have committed to a "one-seat" from Rockland; it will surely come, with from NJ Transit, or from Metro North across the TZB. AND, HALF of the 6 alternatives proposed contain commuter rail from Rockland to Grand Central on the Hudson Line. Of the three that do not are: No build, Rehab, and full corridor Bus Rapid Transit, which is unlikely. I would say the one-seat is pretty much a sure deal, unless something unexpected should go wrong...which is entirely possible when dealing with the State of New York. Look at the alternatives here: http://tzbsite.com/tzb/tzblibrary/stage1/aa/chapter8.pdf

[jarod213]

Can someone tell me what's going on with NJ Transit and the Northern Branch and West Shore Line? Where are they in planning? Are they set on DMUs? How far up the West Shore Line do they want to go; to Haverstraw? I know that just south of Haverstraw is a tunnel that is too narrow to fit both freight and passenger service through; the freight trains on this line can be as long as 2 miles. Could they tie the West Shore Line, north of the Palisades Mall in West Nyack, into the rail line that will hopefully be built across the Tappan Zee? Check it out on google maps...it looks like a no brainer to get more rail riders, if CSX will even allow it. Also, why not attach the NJ Transit system to a cross-Westchester rail link? This would open up the worker pool in north Jersey to job markets on the "Platinum Mile" and in White Plains. They are already planning a station at the Palisades Mall, why not include a transfer here from the West Shore and Northern Branch, assuming the rail line across the TZB gets built...

[NYatKNIGHT]

There is a link for West Shore Line on page 1 of this thread, but it is dated.

[jarod213]

something wrong with the link. . .

[NIMBYkiller]

Go to the Tappan Zee Bridge. Stand there, and then look at how far down the Hudson line is. Do you know how many miles it would take for even the maximum allowed incline for a train? Unless they go with a tunnel, which last I heard has been eliminated, Rockland via the Hudson is physically impractical and nearly impossible.

NJT is intending on doing West Shore up to Havestraw, but right now, that project is on the back burner as far as I can tell. There has been no news of it at all in over a year. And the problem isn't that the tunnel can't fit both freight and passenger trains. They are the same practically. The problem is it's wide enough for only one track. CSX has been giving NJT a hard time.

And what are you talking about with connecting the West Shore line to the Tappan Zee? You want trains comming from Havestraw running over the bridge, or trains comming from the south running over the bridge? If it's Havestraw, I don't think you'll have enough passengers to make it worth the expense of running the service. The only towns you'd have are Havestraw, Congers, and West Nyack before hitting the bridge, and West Nyack will already have bridge service via the cross county line.

I think the best hope you have for either two is, like you said, a transfer station at the West Shore line.

The Northern Branch I think was going to be LRT to Tenafly, but recently they said it's going to be DMU. Personally, I think that's an absolutely idiotic choice since now everyone will be forced to transfer to HBLR instead of just having it as an extension of HBLR from Tonelle Av.

As far as physically combining NJT and MN, even just at the employment level, you are looking at SERIOUS legal issues which I'm not even going to try to get into. It's partly why no one has actually tried to get a regional system going, as helpful as it would be.

[jarod213]

The current plan for rail across the TZ includes a downward spiraling tunnel from the bridge deck to connect to the Hudson Line. If this is impossible, why are they pushing it for half of the alternatives? Does this mean that the rail alternative is unlikely? Do you think they'll opt for BRT?

In terms of the West Shore, I meant tying it into the cross-tappan zee (cross county) rail line, from both the north and the south. To make that line viable (the West Shore), I would run the line as far north as Newburgh, with stops in Haverstraw, West Haverstraw, Stony Point, Bear Mountain, Fort Montgomery, Highland Falls, West Point, Cornwall, and finally Newburgh. A spur in Newburgh could be created and it could run along the I-84 ROW to Stewart International Airport. This would obviously be an alternative to running the Port Jervis line up to Stewart. The Palisades Mall station would be the main transfer station, or rail link. The line would provide Orange-Westchester, Orange-Jersey, Rockland-Orange, and Rockland-Jersey links.

This rail scenario would, however, compete heavily with the ferry operations that exist in Haverstraw and Newburgh. Although, the Water Taxi service from Haverstraw to Lower Manhattan (WFC) is providing to an entirely different market as rail (GCT).

Doesn't Metro North already deal with NJ Transit when it provides service on the Pascack Valley Line, say, from Pearl River? This is what I'm talking about; the downward spiraling tunnel at Tarrytown to the Hudson Line (I'm sure you've seen this):

http://villageofhaverstraw.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/alternative-4a_layer-1.jpg

[jarod213]

I did a little tinkering with a GIS system that I have access to. Here's how it IS POSSIBLE to make the grade and minimum radius of curvature requirements for a Tappan Zee to Hudson Line rail link. Yes, it does seem like a severe elevation change (it might seem impossible to the naked eye).

The minimum curve radius for commuter rail is 1146 feet, let's say 1200 feet to be conservative. The maximum grade change for commuter rail is around 1.5% (conservative), depending on the type of locomotive and coaches. In a tunnel from the bridge, the rail line could definitely make up to a 2000 foot radius (again, overly conservative). The elevation change between the toll booths and the Hudson Line is about 100 feet (conservative). The rail line would likely be located on a lower deck, and enter the hillside significantly below the road level. So, we can estimate that train would enter the tunnel at 80 feet. In a 2000 foot radius curve down to the Hudson Line, the train would have traveled 6280 linear feet. Therefore, the grade of the tunnel would likely be around 1.27%, which is definitely in range of the maximum. Again, this is overly conservative, the actual elevation change is less, and a larger radius can be fit in the area. It is realistic to assume that this can be done. The task force would not use this scenario for half the alternatives if it wasn't possible.

[clubBR]

well done jarod213

[NIMBYkiller]

I must say you do some EXCELLENT research. I'm glad to see posters who actually DO research and take the time to add things up. Thank you.

I'm still saying though, I remain highly skeptical. Things are only in the proposal stage(towards the end, they're slowly knockin off proposals one by one), not the planning stage. I am hoping they don't go with BRT. I think BRT should've been eliminated a long time ago. I think it should be either between LRT and commuter rail.

Now, the West Shore line. I think Newburgh is a REAL stretch, but I'd love to see that. Still, I don't think that even with Newburg you'd have enough ridership to justify construction of a junction. A transfer station sure, but not a junction. If it's LRT, it HAS to be a transfer station since you can't run commuter and LRT on the same tracks. Even a Stewart Airport connection from Newburgh is useless since you already will have White Plains to Stewart Airport via Suffern.

Looking at conenction options(both from Newburg and Port Jervis line):
Newburg requires trains to run I-84, then down south, around the runway, and back up to the terminal. Port Jervis line is a straight shot into the terminals.

I wouldn't be so quick to call the ferry service passengers a different market than potential rail to GCT passengers. You still have the Water Taxi stop at midtown for a crosstown bus connection to the GCT area, and then you have subway riders from GCT to downtown. I think you're better off with the ferry service and letting West Shore run to Hoboken via the Meadowlands.

And yes, MN and NJT work together I believe on PVL and Port Jervis service. I don't know the details though. It might just be NY state slappin some MN logos on a few cars. Subchat folks probably know better.

[jarod213]

great, good info. I totally agree that BRT should be nixed; it's a horrible idea.

[jarod213]

So I'd like to know, what is everyone's opinion on the possible decision for the corridor? BRT? Commuter Rail? What do you think the government will pick? Will they go the utterly cheap and uninformed route and pick BRT? I really have no idea. I'm leaning towards commuter rail, but it is very hard to gauge the project.

[clubBR]

they will choose the cheapest. it is their way.

[Pheenix]

I realize that the idea of using a tunnel to replace the TZB has been proposed and rejected. However, I have yet to read a good explanation about why a tunnel is not a good idea. I suspect it is mostly political.

Tunnel Pros:
1. Tunnel technology very advanced today. Construction has little to no impact on surface.
2. Flexibility on routing and size.
3. Reclaim above ground real estate, especially the 287 corridor from Tarrytown to Port Chester). This may even pay for a lot of the tunnel costs.
4. Road bed not subject to weather (plowing, freeze, thaw, salt, etc.)
5. Possibility to extend tunnel across LI sound to provide a route bypassing the congested Whitestone and Throggsneck.
6. Controlled ventilation, scrub pollution before released above ground.

Tunnel Cons:
1. A lot more above ground contractors than below ground. Politics as they are, the bridge lobby will beat with tunnel lobby by simple numbers.
2. Tunnel is not aethetic. Purely functional. Hard sell for something you can't see in the sunlight.
3. Boston's Big Dig still a sore memory.
4. Claustrophobics?
5. Geology?

Paul

[clubBR]

What is their final proposal? Any news?

[NIMBYkiller]

All I know is that they recently eliminated LRT for Rockland County, which will probably mean no LRT for the entire project. They said it was too slow. Yeah, LRT is too slow, but BRT is plenty fast. Okay

[Deimos]

well, hopefully that will mean that BRT will be the next to go... leaving just do nothing and CRT as options :)

[NIMBYkiller]

And then that will probably end up being eliminated b/c of the expense of having to tunnel 13 miles under westchester

[Deimos]

Ok, so I'm a little ticked off as I write this.... I've heard from a reliable source that the residents of Montebello are going to fight a train stop should the CRT proposal pass. They're argument is that the stop will increase the urbanization of their village which the residents are aggressively protecting. Of course they're not taking into account the fact that they can via zoning regulations completely control every aspect of building that can occur on any private property in the village!

As for why I'm so upset; The Airmont/Montebello CRT stop is the stop that I'd be using to go visit my parents... I'm sitting on a bus going to the Port Authority as I write this, and place Coach USA one rung above Microsoft on the list of companies i loathe.

[TomAuch]

Ok, so I'm a little ticked off as I write this.... I've heard from a reliable source that the residents of Montebello are going to fight a train stop should the CRT proposal pass. They're argument is that the stop will increase the urbanization of their village which the residents are aggressively protecting. Of course they're not taking into account the fact that they can via zoning regulations completely control every aspect of building that can occur on any private property in the village!

As for why I'm so upset; The Airmont/Montebello CRT stop is the stop that I'd be using to go visit my parents... I'm sitting on a bus going to the Port Authority as I write this, and place Coach USA one rung above Microsoft on the list of companies i loathe.

I've heard that argument made before as a reason why Rockland and Orange shouldn't have decent commuter rail. While more people may be inclined to move to Rockland and Orange due to the fact that Westchester is less affordable, pre-emptive zoning laws could prevent monster sprawl from happening. Over on the other side of the Hudson, Putnam and Dutchess Counties are absorbing more residents and more sprawl (and higher taxes as a result). People in western Rockland and in Orange would be wise to limit new growth while accepting viable transit for those who will inevitably move into their towns.

BTW, expanding commuter rail to Ulster and Columbia County would also help. It would be nice to be able to live in or around a place like Hudson or New Paltz and be able to commute daily to NYC. Unfortunately, this probably won't happen, and highspeed rail would be needed in order to bring down commuting times.

[jarod213]

You're wrong: we need higher density development around train stations. It's called New Urbanism or transit-oriented development. I'm talking about traditional, walking villages with mixed uses and incomes densely packed around train stations, or ferry docks. We need to limit the use of automobiles and the proliferation of McMansions, Big-Box stores, and parking lots. We need to protect and preserve open space, and the only way to do this is by limiting development to high density, compact developments in downtown areas. We need to expand our state parks and conservation land. We need to stop building roads and build trolleys on existing roads. We need to stop the spread of suburbia, a cancer that is infecting all of the metropolitan area. Sprawl is the direct effect of the automobile. We need to restrict auto use indefinitely.

[clubBR]

You're wrong: we need higher density development around train stations. It's called New Urbanism or transit-oriented development. I'm talking about traditional, walking villages with mixed uses and incomes densely packed around train stations, or ferry docks. We need to limit the use of automobiles and the proliferation of McMansions, Big-Box stores, and parking lots. We need to protect and preserve open space, and the only way to do this is by limiting development to high density, compact developments in downtown areas. We need to expand our state parks and conservation land. We need to stop building roads and build trolleys on existing roads. We need to stop the spread of suburbia, a cancer that is infecting all of the metropolitan area. Sprawl is the direct effect of the automobile. We need to restrict auto use indefinitely.

Public transit is more prevelant in the NYC metro area than in any city in America. This above post is restricted to the NYC metro area.

[BigMac]

The Journal News
December 13, 2007

Bronx man in critical condition after jumping from Tappan Zee Bridge

By NICOLE NEROULIAS AND LESLIE KORNGOLD

A Bronx man rescued after jumping from the Tappan Zee Bridge into the Hudson River this morning is in critical condition at the Westchester Medical Center, State police said.

The 44-year-old man "just popped out of his car and took one great leap," said State police station commander Sgt. John Antonelli. "There was no chance to talk to him," he said witnesses told him.

The man stopped his north-bound 2006 Jeep Liberty so suddenly that the tractor trailer behind him nearly crashed into him, Antonelli said.

He was moving his arms in the water slightly after the jump, Antonelli said.

The jumper was reported at 8:51 a.m. from the westbound side of the bridge.

There was nothing in his car to explain his action, Antonelli said. There was a kitchen knife on the front seat, he said, but no blood anywhere.

Several lanes on the bridge were blocked briefly, causing heavy delays, but they reopened by 9:05 a.m. Nyack, Piermont and Tarrytown rescue boats responded to the scene.

Police are still in the process of contacting the man's family.

Over the past 10 years, nearly 30 people have jumped to their deaths from the bridge.

The last attempt came Nov. 10, when a 40-year-old Chappaqua resident was rescued from the Hudson River after jumping from the bridge.

The last fatality was on March 20, when 28-year-old Sean Michael McKeever of Sullivan County jumped to his death.

Copyright © 2007 The Journal News

[dtolman]

The New York Times - September 27, 2008
State to Replace, Not Rebuild, Tappan Zee Bridge

By WILLIAM NEUMAN

State officials announced an ambitious plan on Friday to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge with a new bridge with room for commuter trains and high-speed bus lanes. The price tag for a new bridge and expanded rail and bus lines: $16 billion.

Officials did not say how they would pay for the project; they said they would work with a financial adviser to come up with financing options. The state transportation commissioner, Astrid C. Glynn, said that the state would seek federal financing for part of the project and that a partnership involving some form of private financing would also be considered.

“This is obviously a very significant investment for the state,” Ms. Glynn said in a telephone interview after a formal announcement in Tarrytown. “At this point, all options have to be on the table.”

Officials said the bridge itself would cost $6.4 billion. A high-speed bus corridor running from Suffern to Port Chester would cost $2.9 billion. And it would cost an additional $6.7 billion to build a new rail line that would go from the Metro-North station in Suffern and across the bridge, connecting with Metro-North’s Hudson Line south of Tarrytown.

Gov. David A. Paterson did not attend the Tarrytown announcement, but a news release from the State Department of Transportation quoted him as saying that he was pleased that a decision had been made on how to proceed with the project.

The plan will now go through a two-year environmental review process as officials consider alternative designs for the bridge and the bus and rail projects.

Ms. Glynn said that if the state could stick to what she described as an aggressive schedule, construction could begin as early as 2012 and the bridge could open four or five years after that. She said plans call for the bus corridor to be opened at the same time. The rail component could take much longer, but the bridge would be built with room for trains to cross.

The new bridge would be built adjacent to the old one, which would remain open until the new one was completed.

Officials also looked at the possibility of rehabilitating the current bridge, which was built 52 years ago, but Ms. Glynn said that was a costly and complex project.

“The old bridge, although it is safe, is substandard,” Ms. Glynn said. She said that it did not meet today’s engineering standards, was in need of repairs and was costly to maintain. She also said that the population in the surrounding counties had grown substantially since it was built and that the transit component was necessary to accommodate future growth.

Discussion of the costly project came against the background of economic turmoil on Wall Street and looming state budget deficits.

“While it is difficult in today’s climate to look at that project, it’s an important part of how we are going to make sure we are well equipped to deal with the next century,” Ms. Glynn said.

The project has gone through a lengthy planning process involving state transportation officials, the State Thruway Authority and the Metro-North Railroad.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[NYC4Life]

This bridge is long overdue for a replacement, finally.

[Jasonik]

http://www.tzbsite.com/

For Immediate Release: September 26, 2008

Contact: Charles Carrier
New York State Department of Transportation
518-457-6400

PROPOSAL FOR TAPPAN ZEE BRIDGE & I-287 CORRIDOR UNVEILED
Team Recommends Bridge Replacement, Addition of Bus Rapid Transit & Commuter Rail

The leaders of the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), the State Thruway Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro-North Railroad (MNR) were joined today by Westchester County Executive Andrew J. Spano and Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef when the agencies announced their recommendations for the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Corridor. The three-agency team has recommended that the bridge be replaced with a transit-ready bridge and that bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit be added to the corridor.

The proposal was announced at a news conference in Tarrytown after the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 Corridor Environmental Review project team briefed the Westchester Rockland Tappan Zee Futures Task Force, which had been appointed by the two county executives. The proposal calls for a complete replacement of the existing bridge and the construction of a bus rapid transit system along the 30-mile highway corridor across Rockland and Westchester counties in the lower Hudson Valley. Bus rapid transit will be operational when the new bridge opens. The proposal also recommends a commuter rail transit system across Rockland County and the new Tappan Zee Bridge to provide New York City commuters access to Grand Central Terminal.

“The Tappan Zee Bridge is a vital link in the transportation network of New York State. It is a central part of life for people in this part of the state and, with planning and foresight, we can make even better use of this stretch over the Hudson River,” said Governor David A. Paterson. “I am pleased the project team and the county executives have come to resolution on the best way to move forward. Focusing on New York State’s critical infrastructure needs must continue even during this challenging economic time, as these projects keep our economies strong and our state thriving.”

Project staff will be hosting public information meetings on October 28, 29, and 30 in Westchester, Rockland and Orange counties, respectively, to explain the recommendations in detail. The project team will then move forward with the environmental study, while at the same time developing a comprehensive plan and innovative ways to finance the project.

“Improvements to the I-287 corridor are critical to the health of our region and the continued high quality of life in Westchester,” Westchester County Executive Spano said. “A new east-west transit link will provide the backbone for appropriate growth and continued revitalization of our downtowns. I commend the state Department of Transportation, the project team and the task force for their thoughtful and rigorous work. We are happy to see this project moving forward."

Rockland County Executive Vanderhoef said, “Rockland County will continue to move toward a bright and thriving future only if it is served by a comprehensive transportation infrastructure that includes more transit options. We believe the project team has come up with the right solutions for the region. We look forward to working with the team as it advances this project.”

Today’s announcement means that the project team will focus exclusively on studying the replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge with a transit-ready bridge and construction of cross-corridor bus rapid transit as well as commuter rail transit across Rockland County and on to New York City. The project team is made up of NYSDOT, MNR and the Thruway Authority and is led by NYSDOT.

Accompanying the announcement was the release of the project team’s two voluminous in-depth studies: “Alternative Analysis of Rehabilitation or Replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge” and “Transit Mode Selection Report.” Both documents are available on the project Web site (here at www.tzbsite.com).

Full implementation of the project team’s proposal would cost: $6.4 billion for a new bridge accepting bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit; $2.9 billion for bus rapid transit andhighway improvements; and $6.7 billion for the build-out of commuter rail transit in the future. The preliminary cost estimates may change as choices are made on alignment, bridge design and other details during the next few years. NYSDOT is finalizing a contract for a financial advisor to develop options for funding the project and will release the initial phase of a finance study soon.

In developing the recommendations announced today, NYSDOT, MNR and the Thruway Authority worked in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. Since last year, the project team has analyzed seven bridge rehabilitation or replacement options and eight transit mode alternatives. Those analyses, which also incorporated a lengthy public comment record, have been completed, resulting in today’s recommendations.

The recommendations announced today, once finalized in a Final Scoping Report to be issued after the public information meetings next month, will be the subject of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The DEIS is scheduled to be completed by late 2009, with a Final Environmental Impact Statement to be completed in early 2010.

The DEIS will evaluate the environmental impacts of various ways to implement the chosen plan, including alternative bridge designs, highway improvements and alignments, all of which will accommodate both bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit. The project team will present the final DEIS alternatives to the public at an open house early next year. The Record of Decision that will result in 2010 will identify the preferred alternative.

“After extensive planning, public outreach and analysis, the project team has developed an environmentally responsible proposal that will address the transportation needs of this critical interstate corridor for decades to come,” NYSDOT Commissioner Astrid C. Glynn said. “We have insisted on the utmost rigor in all the analysis that we are releasing today, and I and my partners at the Thruway Authority and Metro-North greatly appreciate the support the project team has received from county executives Spano and Vanderhoef throughout this process. We will continue to work with them as we move the project forward.”

Thruway Authority Executive Director Michael R. Fleischer said, “After intensive scrutiny of whether rehabilitation of the Tappan Zee Bridge could yield the engineering, environmental, safety and mobility goals set forth in this study, a new bridge is the best option for the traveling public, the corridor and the economic well-being of the region and state. While the process of finding the best transportation solution for this region continues, the Authority will continue to fulfill its responsibility to maintain and operate the Tappan Zee Bridge by continuing to make the necessary investments to assure safe and efficient travel for the millions of motorists that use the bridge annually.”

Metro-North President Howard Permut said, “This region will see enormous growth throughout this century and needs a transit system that will help it grow in a sensible and environmentally sustainable manner. Our recommendation that the cross-county corridor be served by bus rapid transit and that the huge travel market to and from New York City be served by new commuter rail service will provide a transit system for the 21st century. Our plan links new rail infrastructure with Metro-North’s existing network while providing an additional east-west transit solution to congested roadways, high energy prices and long travel times.”

The Bridge

In the analysis just completed, the project team’s objective was to determine which rehabilitation and replacement alternatives are reasonable options to be evaluated in the DEIS. Alternatives analysis found that replacing the bridge is the best way to provide better engineering performance, lower maintenance costs, shortest construction time, least environmental impacts and the longest life cycle for the bridge.

The Tappan Zee Bridge, constructed 52 years ago, was built according to prevailing standards in the early 1950s. While the bridge is safe, its design does not meet current national standards for structural elements and some of its deficiencies can not be addressed – even in the most robust rehabilitation scenarios – because of the structure’s basic design characteristics.

Bridge replacement options proposed for study include three scenarios designed to accommodate bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit, as well as bicycle-pedestrian access. The options feature single- or dual-level bridge designs.

The Transit Solution

The recommended transit solution calls for full-corridor bus rapid transit from Suffern to Port Chester with transfer points and new stations in between, as well as a new, two-track commuter rail transit service from the Port Jervis Line at Suffern, across Rockland County with several new stations and over the new bridge, connecting to the Hudson Line south of Tarrytown and thus providing direct service to Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan. Some bus rapid transit service routes would extend beyond the project limits and could be modified as demand changes.

Anticipated growth in travel demand in this region and the ability of the proposed transit modes to accommodate it were among the most important considerations in making this recommendation. The combination of bus rapid transit and commuter rail transit also would provide the most flexibility to accommodate multiple markets, including the cross-corridor and New York City travel markets. Completion of the Access to the Region’s Core project was taken into account in the developing the recommendation.

Public Meetings

Public meetings to present the recommendations in detail will be held at the following times and locations:

Westchester County – Tuesday, October 28, 2008, at 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (http://www.tzbsite.com/public-involvement/public-info-meeting/public-info-meeting-200810.html#westchester)
White Plains High School, 550 North St, White Plains, NY

Rockland County – Wednesday, October 29, 2008, at 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (http://www.tzbsite.com/public-involvement/public-info-meeting/public-info-meeting-200810.html#Rockland)
Rockland Community College, 145 College Rd, Suffern, NY

Orange County – Thursday, October 30, 2008, at 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (http://www.tzbsite.com/public-involvement/public-info-meeting/public-info-meeting-200810.html#OrangeCo)
Central Valley Elementary School, 45 Route 32, Central Valley, NY.

Comments

Submit written comments at any time during the comment period, which ends on December 1, 2008 to:
TZB/I-287 Environmental Review
660 White Plains Road, Suite 340
Tarrytown, NY 10591

Fax to: 914-358-0621

Email to: tzbsite@dot.state.ny.us

[futurecity]

I don't see how this solution could tie into the proposed NYC-Albany HSR and a fast link to Stewart airport?

The Albany HSR was proposed to be built along the Thruway and connect over the new TZ bridge.. The same line would have allowed Stewart airport access thus allowing the airport to be reached from NYC in reasonable time...

However, a two track link will not allow an express train over take local trains.. right? So, isn't this a little short sighted here?