Officials: Tappan Zee Tunnel Not Practical
Thruway authorities note tunnel would be costly, congested
Photos
The proposed new Tappan Zee Bridge—expected to be complete by 2017 to the tune of $5.2 billion—was given the go-ahead after a tunnel option was deemed unsuitable, officials have said.
Experts studied the tunnel alternative before president Obama green-lit the plan for a new above-ground span. The tunnel, officials said, would likely have consisted of five underground tubes, each with two lanes. Another tunnel option was one underground unit with two chambers.
The tunnel would have stretched seven miles and required "extensive shoreline and in-water work," reports said.
The concept was dismissed for a number of reasons, mainly due its cost and effect on the region's environment. Experts noted the tunnel "would take longer to construct at a higher cost," and the required bells-and-whistles—like ventilation—would impact nearby shorelines and swamps.
Another cardinal reason for its dismissal? An inability to accomplish its main goal—better transportation. Traffic flow would be often impaired, trucks would have trouble tackling steep grades and emergency vehicles would have longer response times, the report notes.
A tunnel would not allow for pedestrian and cycling paths either, a planned addition to the coming crossing. Some politicians want to take the plan further and transform the current bridge into a car-free walkway, but Thruway officials and the Governor have yet to endorse the idea.
Still, the tunnel option retains supporters—mainly due to the possibility of reducing pollution. The Tappan Zee Bridge sees approximately 135,000 vehicles daily, and Richard Kavesh, Nyack's mayor, believes that transitioning that traffic underground would make for cleaner air.
Residents are also upset about the proposed bridge's lack of mass transit options. Although installing rail and bus lanes would just about triple the cost and bring the price tag to $16 billion, many Rocklanders say it is long overdue.
"We do not want the bridge of 1955, but the bridge of 2055," said Jen Laird-White, Nyack's deputy mayor, at a scoping meeting last week. "It will be expensive, it will be difficult to achieve... but we need to bring back the money for mass transit."
Barry Kornfeld
8:54 am on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
This is an absolute lie!!! No tunnel options were explored! The tunnel was dismissed without consideration. Just go back and check out the minutes of the meetings. The political chronies getting a bridge contract were clearly not versed in tunnel technology and that is why the idea of a tunnel was rejected. They are building tunnels all over the world! This is just a matter of contract payola for political lobyists. If they looked at the tunnel option then why is there no cost comparison! Certainly the environmental review would have been in support of a tunnel. Was a review even done. This is criminal the way it is being shoved down the throats of the tax payer. We had meetings and meetings and meetings and none of the discussed options were actually incorporated. When ever the tunnel option was mentioned it was dismissed without consideration.
Kevin Zawacki
10:26 am on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Hi Barry, thanks for reading & writing. Do you know where I can find a copy of the minutes?
Ned Visser
2:58 pm on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
I agree. Robert Moses always fought tunnels because they were less of a monument to his building prowess but there are many advantages to tunnel building especially an immersed tube tunnel
The main advantage of an immersed tube is that they can be considerably more cost effective than alternative options – i.e. a bored tunnel beneath the water being crossed (if indeed this is possible at all due to other factors such as the geology and seismic activity) or a bridge. Other advantages relative to these alternatives include:
Their speed of construction
Minimal disruption to the river/channel, if crossing a shipping route
Resistance to seismic activity
Safety of construction (for example, work in a dry dock as opposed to boring beneath a river)
Flexibility of profile
A tunnel would be much friendlier environmentally to both shores and rapid transit could just take the form of a parallel tunnel devoted soley to rail transit. It could be much cheaper to assemble and then float into place when complete.
Where are the numbers that say a bridge is cheaper, especially since the bridge would probably have to be floated on pylons like the current one is. Most people don't know that the current bridge has a unique aspect in its design in that the main span is supported by eight hollow concrete caissons who's buoyancy is maintained by immense pumps that must be maintained and adjusted around the clock.
John Gromada
4:15 pm on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The tunnel is a dead horse that's been beaten for years and years now, and was thoroughly studied in the EIS process. The big problem is there is 180 feet of silt on the west side of the river before you hit bedrock- you can't have a stable tunnel in silt. In order to get a road down to a tunnel as low as it would need to be at this section of the river, it would need to stretch from Elmsford to West Nyack, because of the grade. These facts have been out there for years.
Tammy Kay Kuiper
1:54 pm on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Not having mass transportation over the new bridge is a serious mistake in planning for the future. Lack of public transportation feeds increased traffic and congestion, does not service a segment of the population that does not use a car, and ensures an increase in pollution due to car traffic. It’s really the same mistake as before all over again...cheaper solution now for a more expensive fix (retro-fit) later. The fact that the plan also does not include what happens to the old bridge is more short-sightedness. The plan needs to be comprehensive and well thought out BEFORE work begins not after.
John Gromada
4:02 pm on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The tunnel option has been ruled out now for many years. Besides the costs and geographic impracticality, a tunnel would be an economic disaster for the Nyacks; because of topography and geology, the tunnel entrance would need to be in West Nyack, meaning we would lose exits 10 and 11, isolating our community from the Thruway. I'm sure many would say that's a great thing, but unfortunately our local economy now relies on those exits, and easy access to the Thruway.
E. Loughran
2:09 am on Sunday, November 6, 2011
A tunnel from West Nyack to Elmsford.....sounds great! Restores the village of Nyack to the resort-town destination it was historically. Keeping the current bridge as a pedestrian walkway would make it a tourist destination year round. Put a world- class (P. Kelly?) restaurant in the middle....Chesapeake Bay/Bridge did it. Develop our local economy around a re-imagined "village", known for its scenery, sailing, food & arts. Instead of traffic...performances: musical or theatrical, over the Hudson.
Isolating the community from the thruway could be the best thing to happen since the bridge was built. The current bridge could be maintained, only used by emergency vehicles...and maybe jitney service to the Tarrytown station. Start a pedicab business like the one in Time's Square. Loads of possibilities......
John Gromada
4:25 pm on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Kevin's article states: "Although installing rail and bus lanes would just about triple the cost " This is very misleading- the bus rapid transit option would add under $3 billion to the cost of the bridge- about 45% more than the bridge without transit. They're trying using the most costly transit scenario to scare people into accepting a new bridge with no transit
Chris
5:46 pm on Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The BRP (Bus Rapid Transit System) does not work you do the full thruway corridor project. The thruway must be widened to its right-of-way limit. BRP stations and road and exit enhancements must be made as well. The cost of this is more then 3 billion. As with most mass transit systems. The system could be revenue self sustaining.
Mercedes Kent Ross
12:08 pm on Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Why do they keep reminding us of the walk and bike path?? Is that what they are serving up instead of some sort of mass transit?