.
Feedback

Doing It Their Way: The Tappan Zee Bridge

A new Tappan Zee Bridge will serve the interstate highway system, but not the river communities in South Nyack and Tarrytown

By Arthur H. Gunther III

thecolumnrule.com

columnrule.blogspot.com 

--

How would you feel if someone with clout and cash decided to throw a party in your home, didn’t invite you, left a mess and couldn’t remember your name? 

That’s about to happen in South Nyack, N.Y., and Tarrytown, just across the mighty Hudson River, a National Historic waterway that itself should get more respect. I mean Henry Hudson explored this part of America, right? 

He found the river though he was seeking the Northwest Passage, but it now appears transportation gurus in Washington and at Albany, directed by a president and governor, can’t find post-exploration settlements on the Hudson’s shore. And they have GPS. If they could, taxpayers at South Nyack and Tarrytown would like them to come visit, sit a spell and tell them what to expect when a new bridge is built joining the communities. 

Actually, a crossing already exists – the , named by a newspaper editor (Norman R. Baker of The Journal-News) but since 1994 officially termed the Gov. Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge. Built in 1955. it was constructed on the cheap to save money and to get it up  quickly. It was designed as the New York State Thruway’s “cash register on the Hudson,” to pay off the bonding. 

The bridge, carrying far more traffic than originally expected and requiring super-costly renovation, is now said to be failing, though there is dispute over this, and special interests like the trucking lobby and construction unions want it replaced.

A nearly $6 billion, two-bridge choice is to be designed as quickly as the last one.

That’s where the disrespect for South Nyack and Tarrytown comes into play. 

It seems the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, not required in the 1950s but now at least an attempt to address land, water, air and people issues, has not properly examined the effects on either side of the Hudson.  

Why not? The Thruway backs up daily in both locations and vehicle emissions fill the air. Trucks are a special problem, their diesel exhaust clearly visible as a tripling of pre-1990 truck traffic continues. The new crossings’ landfall also will affect property values and quality of life during and after construction, and promises even more traffic.  

President Obama and Gov. Andrew Cuomo have fast-tracked bridge replacement, contending it will create jobs in an economy in need of re-invention as well as assure the soundness of the interstate system. So they will occupy South Nyack and Tarrytown to get the job done, hardly caring if they make a mess of life there.

It’s their party, though the bridge jobs will be temporary and the new crossings will be as impotent in moving increasing traffic as is the present bridge.  

Decades ago, the interstate system should have constructed a major connector road between I-84 and I-95, so that trucks bound for New England go north and east and do not need to take the Tappan Zee. That should have been done before I-287 opened in the early 1990s, almost doubling Tappan Zee truck traffic overnight. Also, a one-seat ride should have been provided for commuters west of the river. And a dedicated bus lane should have been established on the bridge.

Those two moves would have reduced auto traffic. 

Now, with fast-track design, bidding and construction ever so rapidly approaching, these old issues still have not been resolved. South Nyack, which lost hundreds of homes and its entire downtown through state seizure in the first Tappan Zee build, will get another sock in the jaw. And that punch will vibrate over the Hudson at Tarrytown, too. 

Nice when some have friends in high places. Not so nice if those friends are your enemies.

John Gromada May 6, 2012 at 02:00 am
The new bridge will be much wider, two spans, with more traffic lanes and shoulders that will almost certainly be turned into traffic lanes eventually (you know of any bridges in the region that still have shoulders?) This wider bridge will generate more traffic and congestion that will create more pollution that WILL cause more earliy deaths for people living near the thruway. Rockland's air quality is already terrible- pollution already exceeds federal air quality standards, and this is because of pollution generated by cars and trucks. The new bridge will just make things worse. We should be trying to get people out of their cars and into less polluting transportation alternatives. Cuomo's current plan is a disaster for Rockland County- and doubly so for South Nyack
John Gromada May 6, 2012 at 02:11 am
Also-you need only look at the DOT's data to see that the TZ bridge is not in such dire shape- many more bridges that you use every day in Rockland are in MUCH worse shape and require attention now- here's their rating list: https://www.dot.ny.gov/main/bridgedata/repository/RocklandBridgeData.pdf
You can see that the TZ is rated FO- Functionally obsolete, along with scores of other bridges in the area. There are many worse that are labeled SD, or structurally deficient- these are the ones you should worry about and there are many. What functionally obsolete means is that they think it should be able to carry more traffic- not that it's falling down. They just want to make it wider- it is in fine shape, particularly with the hundreds of millions that have been put into it in the last years with deck replacement, pier protection, etc. it ain't falling down and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
John Gromada May 6, 2012 at 02:13 am
what issues? the bridge is not falling down.
Mystery Man May 6, 2012 at 07:47 am
This bridge is rusting away and falling apart and for years people have wanted a new bridge to be built. With mass transit it would cost over $16 billion to build but the slimmed down version is $5.2 billion which we can't pay for let alone a bribge that would cost $16 billion. Mass transit is not incorporated in the design because Westchester and Rockland did nothing to set up an plan or funding for a railroad system on their sides of the bridge. Now the tree huggers don't want to have it built because it might upset the fish. How about not building the bridge, tear this one down and having everyone use the Washington bridge.
Walt May 6, 2012 at 09:48 am
$10 billion more for mass transit seems like a ridiculous number, perhaps it was put out there as a scare tactic by those that are against it. The corridor through Rockland (being the NYS Thruway) is already in place and linking it to the existing Metro North Lines in Westchester should not be that difficult. It will be incredibly short sided if mass transit is not included in this bridge.
mike sullivan May 6, 2012 at 11:36 am
the bridge is falling apart,i have worked out there.The bridge needs replacement,can only band-aid it so much.
all of a sudden you have become a expert.
art gunther III May 6, 2012 at 12:03 pm
John Gromada and Mike Sullivan offer contrasting views on what might/might not be wrong with the Tappan Zee Bridge, but both might agree that the taxpayers who will fund new crossings and the local people who will be most affected by placement, construction and operation, have not been given the full story. All should be told, with video/stills and easy-to-understand science, just what is "wrong," to what extent and how long the bridge would last without replacement. The media must demand this and so must the people. And, certainly, so must our leaders.
On John's point that the new "wider" bridge, with a break-down lane and pedestrian/biking corridor, might be restructured soon after it opens to accommodate more traffic, especially trucks (the real reason for a new TZB), I bet he is right. The irony is that most complaints about new crossings at South Nyack/Tarrytown could go away overnight with a transit/vehicular tunnel, so wonderfully built by more enlightened interests elsewhere in the world. That irony is compounded by a metaphor for modern America versus the one that existed during World War II: No one thought a bridge could be built across the Tappan Zee, but the genius engineer who designed the Mulberry harbors that effectively secured victory on the D-day beaches, sketched out what we have now, albeit the cheaper version of the bridge he planned. Why isn't there a better plan that is a model, not a deterrent, for the environment and the people therein?
Maria Daggett May 6, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Is there a solution that won't take people's homes? Putting a rail carrier in that traverses the same corridor as the thruway and meets up in Tarrytown sounds like a wonderful plan however how would that affect people who own homes and businesses along the thruway in Rockland County? How could connecting it to the existing lines be done with as little destruction to existing property? I am curious about a tunnel. How does one build a tunnel when there are already homes and roads above? This is Rockland County named so for the abundance of rocks... what is the underside of the proposed route like... could it be done? Not being a civil engineer I would ask those questions.
It seems like IF it were possible to create an underground corridor it would be wonderful. How would that affect the large boats that travel up and down the hudson? I also wonder about the need to really repace the bridge. Could portions be replaced and the bridge still be in use? I'm sure all of these questions have been asked and answered already and I"m a litte late in jumping on the bridge bandwagon, however here I am.
art gunther III May 6, 2012 at 02:08 pm
Maria asks fine questions about a tunnel. Given Rockland’s geography, the tunnel would REPLACE the Thruway from the Palisades Center mall in West Nyack all the way to the Hudson and to a point where it would rise out of the river to a causeway so as to climb the elevation approaching Tarrytown. An open trench would be dug, as was done forsome of New York City’s subways and for Boston’s “Big Dig,” and then the land, the old Thruway, would be sold for residential/commercial use, for green space, for a restored South Nyack downtown. Some of this income would help fund the tunnel, and there would be more savings since tunnels are cheaper to maintain.
Train connections could be made at the mall from new tracks linking the Pascack Valley Line (Pearl River to Spring Valley route) and the Main Line (Sloatsburg, Hillburn, Suffern). These tracks would run along the Thruway, in its large right of way. With proper planning, few properties would have to be taken. Private investment would help pay for parking lots and stations by building town house/shopping communities near them, in reasonable size, of course. The tracks would also carry freight, reducing highway trucking and helping pay the high cost of laying track. An alternative would be cheaper light rail.
Ross Revira May 6, 2012 at 03:35 pm
The tunnel as described would be perfect except for the tremendous costs associated with it. A project of that size from planning to land acquisition to completion might take as long as 25 yrs. In today's America price and political pressures would never allow such a brilliant project come to fruition. Unfortunately we have already spent the money for our future infrastructure.
art gunther III May 6, 2012 at 04:04 pm
Ross raises the BIG question on the tunnel idea and succinctly notes that future infrastructure needs have been non-invested for so very long.
The tunnel could at least be partially funded by rail freight use, new development around to-be-built train stations and sale of existing Thruway land plus reduced future maintenance. But think of the enormous payout in 100-year regional planning by building a tunnel that opens up the Northeast to improved transit while actually improving quality of living for the locals, who usually get a kick in the rear when interstates are built. The nation has long advanced because we always chased a frontier. The building of the transcontinental railroad was one such endeavor. We must return to thining big, to be brilliant again rather than have special interests keep us in blinders.
Ross Revira May 6, 2012 at 06:37 pm
Art everything you say is right on. If the people who built America had the same political leadership and mind set of today's society we would be no bigger than the original 13 states. The United States of America has been in a terminal state for the last 30 plus years. The best we can hope for is a less steep decline. Like all great cultures three things have contributed to their failure; over extended military , excessive taxation , and the decadence of the populous. Every day I look for signs that I am wrong.
Mike May 6, 2012 at 08:11 pm
Certainly is an alternative given the fact that the USA and NYS are broke. Of course, aside from the massive inconvenience, one would also need to question the impact on the already depressed hoping market in RC and WC. Unfortunately, lack of political leadership on this issue back when government had money is now coming home to roost. As others have eloquently indicated, there are several better alternatives both to locals and to our overall economy, but they are simply not economically viable. We are stuck with a half-assed solution and likely will have to live with it.
Lawrence A Fisher May 7, 2012 at 12:57 am
Art...Great lively community forum with this article. 20 years ago my brother in law was Deputy Director of the Budget of NYS and I sent a suggestion through him to the governor (M. Cuomo) that they should use "by pass" architecture , like in communications technology , where major traffic is routed around congestion points. My suggestion, since I was told THEN that the new bridge was INEVITABLE, was to create major collection points at NYS Thruway and The Palisades Pkwy in West. Nyack, and build an elevated, high speed EXPRESS bridge that feeds into a super exchange where the Thruway meeting the Hutch in Harrison...this eliminates feeding all that super commuter traffic through local facilities...you keep the Nyack- Tarrytown link for localized and the W.Nyack-Harrison link for the primary commuter traffic...I loke Art's idea of the tunnel and the 50-100 year plan....remember, we will run out of oil in 50-100 years, so cars will either disappear or run on different fuel, or more likely, be replaced by self driving cars and advanced public transportation...whatever the future, the current bridge and its current planned replacement will NOT do!
John Gromada May 7, 2012 at 01:08 am
I am not offering a contrasting view, but suppliying data supplied by the DOT itself. It is not my opinion that the bridge is not structurally deficient, but the opinion of the engineers who inspect our bridges and rate their condition bases on objective criteria. All you need to do is look at the data sheet to see how the TZ compares to other bridges in Rockland. There many bridges that ARE "structurally deficient" but the TZ is not one of them. Is anyone rushing to replace these structurally deficient bridges? Is anyone concerned about them? Those are the bridges that should be dealt with immediately, but none of them is going to get Cuomo headlines.
Skip May 7, 2012 at 01:10 am
If I-91 is an interstate, then it cannot have lights like on Route 17. THe Route 17 thru the Catskills to Binghamton will become an interstate (I-cant remeber the number) when they complete the roads that bypass any intersections or lights
art gunther III May 7, 2012 at 01:25 am
I stand corrected -- Skip is correct. I meant Connecticut Route 9, not I-91, is the present connector from I-84 to I-95. I have taken that, and it has lights, so is not favored by truckers. John is right about local and area bridges needing work. Many sure do, as we have found out to our dismay in recent years. Lawrence had a fine idea a while back, with his "high-speed express" approach. Boy, I wish D.C. and Albany thought as well as all our commenters.
John Gromada May 7, 2012 at 01:28 am
The problem with the tunnel lies in the geology of the riverbed under the current crossing. As I understand it, there is approximately 180 feet of mud until you reach bedrock. The tunnel must be built in bedrock. In order to get down to a tunnel that deep at a proper grade, you must start way back in West Nyack and come up somewhere past Elmsford. This makes it not only incredibly expensive (many multiple times a bridge) but also would cut off access to the thruway from many communities that rely on it (like it or not). This is why the tunnel alternative was eliminated in the early rounds of the previous scoping process. I think S. Nyack would have a better chance getting them to build a cover park and effort would be best focused on that rather than a tunnel which has no chance of happening anytime soon.
John Gromada May 7, 2012 at 01:57 am
There is a serious case to made for just tearing the bridge down and not replacing it. And it has been made by a transportation blogger and found here:
http://capntransit.blogspot.com/p/myths-about-tappan-zee-bridge.html Here's a summary lifted from his page: Here are eight reasons to tear the bridge down - and not replace it: 1) The Tappan Zee Bridge is a huge waste of money. 2) The Tappan Zee Bridge replacement project will be an even bigger waste of money, anywhere from $5 billion to $18 billion. 3)The Tappan Zee Bridge competes with existing transit. Taxpayers currently pay 90% of the operating cost of buses over the bridge, and we will continue to do so as long as the State makes it easy for people to drive. 4)The Tappan Zee Bridge is a sprawl-generating machine. The sprawl created by this bridge in Orange, Rockland, Bergen and Westchester counties is bad for everyone in the area. The bridge sprawl puts teens, seniors, the poor and the disabled at a disadvantage. 5)The Tappan Zee Bridge sprawl increases the pressure for hydrofracking. 6)The Tappan Zee Bridge sprawl keeps Nyack, Suffern and the other towns from being Strong Towns with sustainable budgets. 7)The Tappan Zee Bridge sprawl adds to pollution 8)The Tappan Zee Bridge sprawl kills.
art gunther III May 7, 2012 at 09:47 am
John, the tunnel has been deemed possible by one European designer and strongly refuted by others here in America. In the 1930s, a Hudson tunnel was authorized a bit downstream through the efforts of Assembly Ferd Horn, but politics reversed the decision. Others have said a partial river tunnel and causeway could work in the present location.
I just don't think the engineering has been studied as well as it could be, though I have little hope of seeing serious thought arising or perhaps any innovation at all in this steam-roller push to give the interstate system barely any more vehicular space while slapping Rockland silly. And, yes, the Tappan Zee opened the door to very poor planning, often no planning at all. Now we have the graying of the suburbs and a whole bucket full of problems to come.
J Philip Faranda May 7, 2012 at 03:23 pm
I once had a real estate transaction fail to go together in South Nyack because of the proximity to the bridge and the possibility that expansion might be too close for comfort.
This is, unfortunately, smoke that cannot be put back in the pipe. The region is very dependent on that span and we cannot undo the hubris that caused prior generations to choose the widest part of the river for the site.
william hart May 8, 2012 at 11:38 am
More a request for info than a rhetorical point: not so long ago (within the last 8 years), there was a large renovation project undertaken on the existing bridge-- it appeared that massive, pre-fab steel structures were being put into place to replace the roadbed, and possibly some of the superstructure (I'm not an engineer, so excuse my possible misuse of terminology). I had the impression that this was not meant as a 'band-aid' but a real replacement of structural elements. Am I wrong? And if so, why is this not possible? Rebuilding the existing bridge in place using 'modules' that can be prefabricated off-site and moved in situ on the river by barge? No one really believes building a bigger bridge will ease traffic- that much was made clear in the Robert Moses biography some years ago. And yes, it is all politics. We have not had a bad winter- probably the lightest winter I have experienced in 50 years here in the Northeast. But the roadbed of that bridge seems worse than ever- is there a deliberate effort not to maintain it, to force the issue?
art gunther III May 8, 2012 at 11:41 am
William Hart, I wish a determined, well-funded media or public interest group would hire an engineer and give the people an independent report on the condition of the TZB. Are the causeway pilings in good shape? Is the bridge superstructure (the main span) holding together without long-term worry? Are wood borers destroying the floating caisson elements that "hold up" the superstructure, or is that a red herring? Why is the roadbed in poor shape when it seems there is constant replacing of its sections? What guarantee is there that the new crossings won't require the same, continual, expensive repair?
John Gromada May 8, 2012 at 02:52 pm
William- a little history about the deck replacement: back in 2000 when the DOT and Thruway were beginning to defined the scoping process for the bridge, they made many claims about the condition of the bridge, and offered many excuses for why they couldn't renovate the existing structure. One of these claims was that the deck needed to be replaced, and it couldn't be done without shutting down entire portions of the bridge for weeks at a time. I did a little research and found that a new system of modular deck panels was being employed by other agencies in the country, and put Ramesh Mehta, NYS Thruway head for our region, in touch with an engineer at RPI who developed this system. I assumed it wouldn't amount to anything but a few years later they began to replace the deck of the bridge using this exact system that I had suggested. (similiarly it was S. Hazard Gillespie of Grandview who informed them of the moveable barrier system). But yes the deck is being replaced permanently. One of the other reasons they said they needed to replace the bridge was the return of marine borers who would eat the wood pilings. A scientist at Lamont-Doherty who we were working with found a solution to that: zip-up rubber sleeves that could easily be used on the pilings. I don't know if that system has been employed, but it could be done for less money than a new bridge. Many 100s of millions have been spent retrofitting the bridge already on the deck and pier protection (another concern)
art gunther III May 8, 2012 at 03:10 pm
Based on what John and William are writing, there is even more reason for an independent study of this bridge's condition. We cannot depend on the "official" report alone. If some group -- environmental, citizen, river-protective -- could raise the funds and have an engineering study done, perhaps the bridge could be properly fixed and not rebuilt. If so, I would combine that a ban on trucking in peak rush, using that space for a dedicated HOV/bus transit; the required re-routing of New England-bound freight through the I-84 corridor; and the reconfiguration/reduction of the overbuilt 1950s South Nyack cloverleaf to allow for a village downtown, partially paid by private investment.
william hart May 8, 2012 at 03:20 pm
It seems like you- and several posters here- are in the know. What needs to happen to address this is a massive undertaking, though, and requires coordination. Is there a single website that is a portal for news and information? I gather there are various groups opposed to the 'new' bridge for various reasons, but is there any coordination? There needs to be a liason to government, and one to the mainstream media.
I know, having lived in Brooklyn Heights many years ago, that -long before the Internet, and the ability to access government files, that neighborhood successfully thwarted Robert Moses' plan to gut the neighborhood by running the highway through the middle of it. Compare Sunset Heights for a neighorhood that did not have the resources to oppose- it was cut in two, and to my knowledge, never recovered. The question is largely one of organization, money, time commitment and coordination of resources- lot's of smart, earnest folks around here who could pitch in. And, it is not just about stopping progress- any plan must take account of mass transit, in addition to all the other concerns that are being raised. Me, I'm planning to move. Not because of this, but we are relocating to Austin as soon as our house in Grandview sells. I'll miss this neighborhood- and am glad to contribute some time and a little money. But, I think we all need a little direction, so it's not just pissing in the Internet wind. Best, Bill Hart
John Gromada May 8, 2012 at 03:22 pm
Art, the problem is that the condition of the bridge is really not at issue- except when used occasionally as a scare tactic by some people who have a stake in replacing it. The Thruway Authority has said many times that the bridge is safe to cross, and people should feel confident that it is not falling down. Cuomo wants to replace it as a jobs program and apparently an ego boost. The DOT and Thruway Authority still seem to harbor the outdated idea that building wider roads and bridges eases congestion when in fact the opposite has been shown to be true. Back in 2000 we pushed for an independent review of the bridge condition data- don't know if it's possible or fruitful. At this point I thing the best hope for us is the endangered species act and the sturgeon- which the state seems to care nothing about. Their environmental 'review' is a joke, and is leaving the project open to all sorts of legal challenges which could slow or stop the project
art gunther III May 8, 2012 at 03:50 pm
Well, it was an environmental argument that killed the awful plan to build yet another massive interstate slicing up NYC -- the original West Side Highway replacement under Mayor Koch that, in Robert Moses-fashion would have destroyed Chelsea and other neighborhoods now being revived. So, who knows? Perhaps the ecology approach might bring a least sufficient pause in the TZB juggernaught for better planning to happen.
As a retired newspaper editorialist, I am merely repeating arguments made over and over, often reinforced by the public but ignored by government and its special interests.
George Datino May 8, 2012 at 03:57 pm
"... ignored by government and its special interests". Aren't they one and the same???
art gunther III May 8, 2012 at 04:41 pm
George, Abe Lincoln said it was "government of, by, for the people," but that was before so much big money began to finance campaigns, keep people in office and really run things. If there is ever another American revolution, it will be to fund all elections by public money only.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Nyack-Piermont Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Lisa Buchman (Editor) June 13, 2013 at 11:09 am
Congratulations to Nyack Boat Club and member Justin Coplan! Would love to see photos of the team inRead More action!
Aerial of United Water's proposed water treatment plant location
West Nyack June 13, 2013 at 07:03 pm
This issue is not whether Rockland County will need more water in the future which it may nor is itRead More the fact that Hudson River water can be made drinkable which it can. The primary issue is the company that wants to run the project. United Water has been a lousy corporate neighbor to West Nyack allowing old homes to deteriorate then tearing them down and doing nothing to stop the flooding south of the reservoir. If we allow them to construct the Haverstraw project they will do nothing to protect the area and if anything goes wrong they will blame someone else. When United Water starts to take responsibility for its actions and manages their facilities so as to have a minimal impact on the community then maybe they should be allowed to build Haverstraw but don't count on it.
Caleb June 13, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Untrue. Perhaps if United Water wasn't sending over 2 million gallons a day from Deforest Lake toRead More they're customers in Bergen County we would not have this shortage. Hydrologists have shown that there is enough water regularly collected in Rockland's reservoirs and aquifers for our current and growing needs. Many of the "facts" that United Water is putting forward are outdated, and are based on they're own mismanagement of our water basin. Lets remember that United Water has repeatedly been removed as a water provider of major cities throughout this country (6+ last time I checked, notably even from Camden NJ) for mismanagement of water resources. I think its a prudent choice to look into a plant that we will be stuck paying for for the next 4 years from a company that has repeatedly lied and provided water with toxin levels high above legal limits to they're customers. Better safe than sorry.
John Taggart June 13, 2013 at 11:59 pm
Rockland has grown to the point that it needs more water. Terminating the flow of a river and takingRead More the water resources away from other communities (stealing what we need) isn't going to happen.