.
Feedback

Cuomo: TZ Bridge as Pedestrian Walkway?

State looks into preserving old span when new one is built

When the is complete, could the old one be a pedestrian walkway?

The idea first gained attention , but few thought it had real traction.

Now, governor Andrew Cuomo and the state are pondering the project, too.

It's been done before—with the Manhattan High Line, or Walkway in Poughkeepsie—but this tentative walkway would be parallel to, and just neighboring, the proposed new Hudson crossing.

Demolition of the current bridge would run about $150 million, said Cuomo, a price high enough to considering preserving it, according to a New York Times report.

Paul Feiner, Greenburgh's town supervisor, since 2011. Feiner said it would wrangle tourists and connect Rockland and Westchester, exhaust-free.

--

Read what South Nyack homes may be demolished as a result .

Read about the current bridge's shortcomings .

Read about the possibility of a Tappan Zee tunnel .

Read about the call for mass transit on the new bridge .

Mystery Man February 23, 2012 at 08:45 pm
Very well said. It would be a money pit to say the least. The taxpayers would be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars( conservative figure). The view of the NYC skyline as you drove over would be impeded by a rusting pile of steel. it would cost a fortune to renovate it and then the up keep. Just think, if we have a winter like last year who would remove the snow
Blue February 23, 2012 at 08:50 pm
And please stop with the saving 150 million to take the old one down. That gets baked in with the price of the new one. CBS radio credits Paul Feiner with the original idea for the greenway which should tell you exactly how much common sense it makes!!!
wait a second people..lets give this some thought..we can use the downward slope for free sking in the winter!!!!!add some pools on the eastern side so the people from DA Bronx can use less gas to drive up here...then we can sk the Grand Rabbi living in nyack if he wants to add another residence say on the western side..we can have group jumps for those Unhappy with our politicans...huge crowd..lol..and we paint it PINK!!!!!
Robert Solari February 23, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Why not let Hollywood blow sections of the bridge in Die Hard 4 ?
Victoria Ficco-Panzer February 24, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Another terrible idea from Albany;Adrian is right,2 bridges(well,3 if you count the new dual span as 2)obliterating the Nyack skyline?I doubt if the Governor has seen the bridge with the steep rise to the superstructure!I thought he had more sense than that!
Brian Goldman February 24, 2012 at 01:34 pm
Hey Cuomo, not that you would care but what will it cost me in tolls to go see my mom in 2020 over this wonderfull span of ours? How about 2015?
Blue February 24, 2012 at 01:40 pm
Ladies and gentlemen if you look to the south you can kind of make out the NYC skyline if it weren't so smoggy and if you look to the north you can see , well if the new bridge weren't in the way , you could see the river and some trees. Oh look everybody another jumper!!!!
Blue February 24, 2012 at 01:45 pm
Oh and by the way this guided tour of our new greenway was provided by the NY taxpayer. As your guide I am a NY union employee currently making 65k a year with full pension and medical for life. There are 30 of us working here thanks to the taxpayer generosity.
Timothy Judge February 24, 2012 at 01:54 pm
Keeping the whole bridge as a walkway would be less than ideal. However, having a short promenade on the eastern side and a long pedestrian pier on the western side might not be bad. Keeping one mile (+/-) over the river on the eastern side would provide incredible views of NYC, and a half-mile long
section on the western side would provide additional river access and compliment the pier at Piermont. The majority of the span has to go for the reasons previously stated and beacuse of effects on marine traffic, both commercial and recreational. This might worth considering as an alternative.
Blue February 24, 2012 at 07:36 pm
I agree with Tim
Stephen February 24, 2012 at 07:59 pm
I think its a great idea to have a park on the bridge. Cycle and jogging paths, trees and grass. .play area for children...walk to Nyack..ect..
Bern February 24, 2012 at 08:17 pm
Let the park extend only a half mile out into the water from both sides. Less costly but very useful. No suicides because the water would not be deep enough. And, a half mile is certainly a large enough park.
Guest February 24, 2012 at 09:44 pm
Please read about NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act. It requires any state infrastructure project to meet 10 smart growth criteria. Quite clearly the 'new bridge' does not meet these criteria. Yet, this bridge is moving ahead without input from the communities (minimal). For a project this large, I do not see too much opposition and I am sure there is opposition out there. Do politicians care...no..blanket their agendas right over communities. Fix the existing bridge and move on. Perhaps to I 287... could be completed within the say next decade? I travel this route and I really do not see any difference or improvement...probably will be the same with the 'new bridge'. More traffic, more headaches, cost more for traversing.

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.