.
Feedback

Look: Costs Rise Exponentially for New TZ Bridge Over the Decades

Data from the '30s and '50s shows bridge construction was cheaper back in the day; also, a history of bridge bickering.

Some things never seem to change when it comes to pricey public projects—escalating costs, bitter opposition and contentious views.

Consider the coming new Tappan Zee Bridge: plenty of people presume the saga began in the 1950s, when the existing bridge first opened. But the effusive ruckus goes back to at least the 1930s, when it was proposed that viaducts in Tarrytown and Nyack be connected by a sunken tube.

And it didn’t take long for divisiveness to erupt.

Objections to the Hudson River span included intense opposition to shrinking the size of the navigable channel for shipping vessels. Residents worried that the heavy tide would force large ships to navigate through dangerous waters, creating a possible hazard for both bridge and boats.

Paul Windel, president of the Regional Plan Association, opposed building a crossing at the widest part of the Hudson—and declared the proposed span a “freak design never before attempted in a structure of this length,” according to a New York Times story in the '30s.

Although many motorists were chomping at the bit for a more efficient Hudson crossing that skirted New York City traffic congestion, locals were not too happy. South Nyack in particular had much to gripe about in the 1930s, since the village was about to be obliterated.

Still, commuters wishing to cross the Hudson were ferry-dependent prior to bridge construction. But the ferries didn’t run throughout the night—and forget about crossing during the winter, when the river was replete with ice floes.

After considering both tunnel and bridge options, the Rockland-Westchester Hudson River Authority opted to pursue the bridge option. Proponents claimed motorists would welcome a new Hudson River crossing, thereby eliminating the congestion at ferry crossings, and traffic on Boston Post Road.

Down-state travelers headed to the New England seashore would be able to avoid the confusing network of NYC traffic, too.

Eventually, the War Department approved the span, dubbed the Nyack-Tarrytown Hudson River Bridge.

But the bridge was never constructed. 

The battle over the bridge escalated into near warfare over the course of the '30s. Questions from Grand View residents over the viability or sense of building a bridge at such a wide point of the Hudson constantly arose. Residents suggested that a shorter bridge could be constructed further south.

Governor Herbert Lehman even received a telegrap, signed by hundreds of Nyack protesters citing why the bridge should be relocated, according to period reports. The leader of the citizens’ organization, Elmer Hader, suggested that he was soon to add famous stage actresses—and local area residents—Katharine Cornell and Helen Hayes as telegram signatories.

And then things snowballed. It wasn’t long before the Hudson River Conservation Society, the village of South Nyack and residents from both Westchester and Rockland joined the fray. Opponents of the bridge even went so far as to hold a protest in a ferry, mid-Hudson, according to the New York Times.

The nautical protesters eventually passed a resolution asserting that the bridge construction was a “flagrant disregard of principles of natural conservation,” according to the Times.

In November of 1936, the Tarrytown-Nyack Bridge Authority abandoned the project, claiming they would pursue a nearby location at a future date. Their reasons: excessive constructions costs (building estimates rose from $7 million to at least $10 million), and construction difficulty (particularly with anchoring the foundation in bedrock).

End of story? 

Not quite—enter the 1950s.

Buzz regarding bridge construction arose again in 1950, with the initial suggestion of a span just south of Dobbs Ferry. Plans accelerated in early 1951 when Robert Moses, the famed urban planner, emerged as a huge supporter for a new Hudson River bridge. 

But again, a bitter dispute arose as protesters and supporters aired their respective viewpoints. Still, it didn’t take long for Governor Thomas Dewey to sign a bill clearing the way for construction of a bridge estimated at $50 million.

By 1952, the projected price for steel was alone was $37 million, and there were no bidders on the construction of the bridge design, due to its complexity.

Even the name of the bridge posed controversy. Several of the names bantered about included names such as the Thomas Dewey or George Clinton (both one-time governors of New York), the Tarrytown-Nyack Bridge and the Headless Horseman Bridge.

But an earlier suggestion of Tappan Zee—as that part of the Hudson was known—prevailed. In the mid-90s, it was officially renamed the Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge.

The Tappan Zee officially opened in December 1955 with a toll of $.50. The new toll is expected to be $14.

Kevin Zawacki (Editor) February 5, 2013 at 03:41 pm
I'm curious as to what caused such a tremendous uptick in the cost. Higher wages? Pricier materials? Or maybe just waste.
Bob February 5, 2013 at 04:09 pm
Good history lesson.
JM February 5, 2013 at 10:57 pm
Too bad tunnels weren't favored back then. So odd they never considered a bridge crossing just north of Nyack and over to vacant (at the time) area at Philipse Manor, then down what became Saw Mill. By today it would have simply meant 287 was north a bit and save Tarrytown the headache.
Nonetheless, as you say, some things never change. No forethought, no planning -- that is our motto in the U.S. Fast, furious, move on and never look back. This new hideous thing stretched across the Hudson will cost $1 trillion in the end, the mob will get its share, and the best part of all, it will not be maintained and need to be replaced in 20 years. I'll be dead then, as will most of those planning the bridge now. Maybe that is why folks simply don't care?
RyeDad February 6, 2013 at 01:40 am
http://rye.patch.com/articles/councilman-s-call-for-civility-criticizes-the-critics

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
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.
drostan June 19, 2013 at 03:13 pm
A Response to the Response Mr. Michael Pointing, writing on behalf of United Water, opined in theRead More Journal News (June 7) and the Nyack Patch (June 11) that an Issues Conference on the pending desalination project is unnecessary. When it is so greatly to his personal and professional benefit to support this project, how can he expect to be taken seriously? Comments on the "desal" plant have only rarely mentioned that the radioactive tritium, which each day leaks into the Hudson from Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant - just 3 miles upstream from the plant - will end up, in diluted form, in our drinking water. Problem is, although highly diluted, there's no way to filter out tritium since it is chemically identical to water. Worse, there's no known safe exposure level. Like "normal" water, tritium goes into your body as fast as you drink it. Good news: about half of the tritium you do drink is filtered out by the kidneys within about ten days. Bad news: When your kitchen faucet keeps providing you with small amounts of tritium day after day, it tends to keep whatever levels you have in your body elevated. Welcome to your future, Rockland. Say, how about cracking open a nice plastic bottle of Deer Park for mixing up that baby formula? Why does United Water want this project to go forward so quickly as to necessarily preclude a thorough public education process in which all the variables and all the options can be openly discussed? What if one day you decided you don't like UW anymore and you wished the water utility was still owned by the government and not the private sector, because at least that way through your vote, you could democratically elect new people who would shut the plant down (whereas you can never "vote out" a private corporation from owning the pipes that carry your drinking water)? Let's just say arbitrarily that for the first ten years following completion of this more or less irreversible project there was an average of 500 additional picocuries of tritium per liter showing up in drinking water in Rockland County that was not there before. Even the NRC says Indian Point emits tritium into the ground water and presumably into the Hudson as well, since Hudson water is what flows - 24 hours a day - into and out of the power plant, cooling the atomic reaction that creates electrical power). In 1976 the EPA decided (more or less arbitrarily) that 20,000 picocuries of radioactivity would be roughly the "safe" upper limit for human consumption (due to drinking tritium or any other radionuclide). I say "arbitrarily" because I am aware of no one who has actually tried this since then, to see if it really turned out to be safe. Whose insurance policy would make Rockland homeowners whole again if at some future point tritium (or other radionuclide) levels skyrocketed while property values plummeted? Maybe something so terrible could never, ever happen. I certainly hope it couldn't. But why are we residents the guinea pigs, and how come we pay more - not less - for our water just so UW can do more business and, of course, collect more in utility bills? By the way, Fukushima was also never ever supposed to happen. Human health is not something you go back and study all over again once you realize you've lost it. Doesn't Rockland County have enough cancer already? Dan Rostan Nyack