Metro North WOH Rail Options Using the Tappan Zee Bridge TZB

Spuyten Duyvil wrote:

Tommy Meehan wrote:Mr. Duyvil the bridge is NOT structurally sound. The serious problems were outlined as much as six years ago in this news report:

The [i]Journal News[/i] wrote: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.

Here's a link to the article.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20051127/N ... erioration

Your Lohud link--which is to an article written six years ago, before the $200+ million redecking project was greenlighted--proves my point. The experts quoted in the piece say that the bridge is safe, but that it will be extremely costly to keep it that way. The people who are sounding the alarm are politicians.

The re-decking project would have never seen the light of day if the structure was truly about to fall into the river. You can read more about the project and the expectations going forward at these two links.

http://www.thruway.ny.gov/projectsandst ... index.html
https://www.dot.ny.gov/recovery/sponsor ... ?nd=nysdot

Fear-mongering isn't helpful. When NYSDOT kicks trucks off the bridge or permanently shuts down lanes, then I'll buy the "she's gonna fall!" argument. Until then . . .

the redecking may have bought the bridge some time, but the structure remains on borrowed time. Plus, they had no idea that bridge on I-35W in Minnesota was in any danger of falling untill one day it just collapsed.

Nexis4Jersey wrote:

Adirondacker wrote:

Nexis4Jersey wrote:But compared to NJ and Westchester its just pure sprawl on LI , you have very few dense cores with the exception of Mineola. Your towns are mostly built around the car and most of Long Islanders have bad walkablity in there towns thus they use the car more then Westchester or Jersey. South of I-287 is where westchester is dense or where the Dense suburbs are... As for NJ the transit suburbs are inside the I-287 loop...

From the Census Bureau:
The 11th most densely populated place in the US is Great Neck Plaza. The population density in Nassau County is 4,704 people per square mile. The population density in Westchester is 2,204

South of I-287 and Along I-287 its about 10-15,000 per SQ mile , north of 287 its less....notice how many New Jersey towns are on that list vs the one LI town. LI is not that dense....its sprawl...

I don't know what list you are looking at but there are there are 12 towns, village, boros whatever the Census Bureau decides to call a separate municipality, on the list that are in Nassau county. They are, with their populations
Island Park 4,732
Manorhaven 6,138
Hempstead 56,554
Great Neck Plaza 6,433
Long Beach 35,462
South Floral Park 1,578
New Hyde Park 9,523
Williston Park 7,261
Floral Park 15,967
Mineola 19,234
Valley Stream 36,368
East Rockaway 10,414

Total 209664

The total population of Rockland county is only 311,687

Nassau is denser than Westchester, Bergen or Rockland counties. The busiest commuter railroad is the LIRR, or was until very recently.

Spuyten Duyvil wrote:....Your Lohud link--which is to an article written six years ago...

Yeah I know that.

Tommy Meehan wrote:... The serious problems were outlined as much as six years ago in this news report:

Spuyten Duyvil wrote:The crying wolf about 'it can fall into the river at any moment!"

Here we can agree. And I don't know of any responsible person who has said that.

You wrote that the bridge wasn't structurally deficient, only functionally obsolete. That is just not so.

Since any project of this magnitude will probably take almost 10 years to complete, many of those temporary fixes to shore up the bridge will have to be done anyway. While I don't think it is in danger of falling in to the river, it certainly needs to be replaced. It was built with that eventuality in mind.

While I'm certainly an advocate for rail, I do feel that this is a do or die time for rail on that bridge. While we can hope and pray that it will eventually be done, unless it begins life with rail going over it, it isn't going to happen. I also feel that BRT, while not ideal in the mind of a rail advocate, will certainly be cheaper and will accommodate the demand now and in the future. Personally, I feel that LRT is a better use on the bridge anyway. An extension of the HBLRT up and over the bridge in to Westchester County would better serve the market, which is not a "terminal" style transit market like NYC is.

^I agree with this sentiment, save for the LRT preference. It doesn't make sense with the market it needs to serve and what's there already. Even if you ran the Northern Branch all the way up, it would be better of connecting to whatever transit crosses the bridge rather than cross the bridge itself. It's not really a NYS mode of transit for Orange and Rockland, which has heavy rail already in place. NYS isn't looking to serve the NJ market.

BRT is a good start; although I'm not a fan of BRT it makes sense for the corridor as it seems now; decentrailized, with many possible destinations, no terminal point. CRT makes sense for connectivity, to the Hudson and eventually the New Haven, particularly connecting White Plains and Stamford.

As for the bridge and the need for transit now, I'd remind everyone of how the GW was built with the idea of transit: http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/george-washington/

The transit was to be in the middle of the upper deck in the form of street cars (LRT).

I wonder how much money could have been SAVED had this project started in a timely fashion; both in inflated construction, and upkeep of the old bridge.

Jeff if you've ever ridden Virginia Railway Express that is a system that serves multi-destinations. When I've ridden it I was struck by the fact lots of commuters were headed to Alexandria, Crystal City and L'Enfant Plaza. The trains were way less than half-full by the time we reached Washington's Union Station. So I don't see a line serving many destinations as a real problem.

As for BRT, to be successful it really needs a dedicated right-of-way, meaning it's not that much more flexible than rail as far as being able to extend and adapt to changing patterns of development.

To me that really gets to the heart of smart growth, what it's all about. Many people seem not to understand it or maybe they just don't agree with it. But if we want to develop a more sustainable business corridor, one that limits 1) sprawl and 2) air pollution and that doesn't require 3) fuel-extravagance to access it and 4) endless public highway projects to keep it viable, we need smart growth.

Instead of trying to have transit follow commercial development we need to turn it around. Have development follow transit. Concentrate it in a sensible location and allow the rest of Westchester to remain Westchester.

And you know Tommy, you're exactly right. Development used to follow the rail lines. And to an extent it still does (I'm thinking the Montclair branch on NJT?) and lifts property values as well. An option for Westchester would be a boon on the PJ line, especially in the less-developed area north of Suffern. More development + higher values = higher tax base! It's too bad some of the old Erie branches are gone (I know we talked about this in the EL thread).

Jeff I think the problem is, maybe we shouldn't keep expanding endlessly. Maybe that model doesn't work?

I'd like to see (and I'm sure many other people would too) the area north of Suffern stay pretty much the way it is. I think it's "smarter" to concentrate the development along the Rt.59 corridor. With upgraded roads, sewers, gas, water, electricity, mass transit concentrated in that area. Contain the associated issues, air quality, contaminated runoff, flooding due to building, etc, in that area as well.

its the below waterline that is real worrysome.
the bridge itself can be fixed and painted but footings and pillings under low part can not.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/11/17/d ... appan-zee/

State transportation commissioner Joan McDonald deserves an award for chutzpah. In the face of overwhelming opposition from local elected officials to the state’s decision to build the new Tappan Zee Bridge without transit, McDonald has, incredibly, taken the stance that the state did no such thing.

Here’s McDonald, quoted twice by Transportation Nation’s Kate Hinds:

The transit has not gone anywhere. I think it’s very important to clarify that. We’re speeding up construction of the bridge, we’re not slowing down transit. The project that’s on the table now will be built to not preclude transit in the future, when it is financially feasible.

Claiming that the state isn’t slowing down transit simply isn’t true.

...

It’s theoretically possible for the state to prioritize the construction of a new bridge for cars and trucks while simultaneously moving forward on transit plans. That isn’t what’s happening here, however.

As Hinds reported, the MTA wasn’t invited to either of Cuomo’s two publicly stated meetings on the Tappan Zee Bridge. They aren’t even part of the discussion.

Perhaps more importantly, Cuomo definitely “slowed down transit” when he allowed transit to be stripped from the federal environmental review process.


In 2002 and 2008, a team including both the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration began the environmental review process for a project covering the full I-287 corridor and including transit. On September 26 of this year, however, the FHWA, the state DOT and state Thruway Authority rescinded that environmental review process. Note the absence of any transit agencies.

A new Tappan Zee Bridge must contain mass transit options, Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino said Thursday.
A four-page memorandum from the Astorino administration to the state Department of Transportation said that a bridge without any mass transit component — such as rail and bus rapid transit — won't solve any of the traffic issues that exist, rendering the project incomplete.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20111118/N ... Zee-Bridge

This was in today's Westchester-Rockland Journal News. County Exec Rob Astorino is a conservative and a budget-cutter so if HE thinks the new bridge should have transit that's about as bi-partisan as you can get.

The guy who works with me in Elmsford lives in Rockland and crosses the bridge every day. The worst part of the traffic, he says, is it's so unpredictable. He heard me talking about the CRL or BRT. He says he has never had any intention of commuting by bus or train but if the new bridge had it he'd try it.

But I don't believe the new bridge will have transit. It should but there is just no money.

Tommy Meehan wrote:

A new Tappan Zee Bridge must contain mass transit options, Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino said Thursday.
A four-page memorandum from the Astorino administration to the state Department of Transportation said that a bridge without any mass transit component — such as rail and bus rapid transit — won't solve any of the traffic issues that exist, rendering the project incomplete.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20111118/N ... Zee-Bridge

This was in today's Westchester-Rockland Journal News. County Exec Rob Astorino is a conservative and a budget-cutter so if HE thinks the new bridge should have transit that's about as bi-partisan as you can get.

The guy who works with me in Elmsford lives in Rockland and crosses the bridge every day. The worst part of the traffic, he says, is it's so unpredictable. He heard me talking about the CRL or BRT. He says he has never had any intention of commuting by bus or train but if the new bridge had it he'd try it.

But I don't believe the new bridge will have transit. It should but there is just no money.

If there is a no transit it will be a total waste of billions of dollars and a huge failure. Do it right the first time otherwise forget about the whole thing.

so untill we know for sure if bridge gets track, entire topic is moot.

I'm wondering if it is a moot point. WCE Rob Astorino and others in office seem to be making one final push to get some transit included at the start but I don't know how serious this is.

Governor Andrew Cuomo seems dead set against it. His position seems to be that a vehicles-only bridge was selected by the Obama Administration to be fast-tracked -- part of the Get America Back to Work program -- and that (regardless of the merits), trying to include transit NOW will only succeed in having the federal government back off. Then we're back to what might be a very lengthy delay in having the project fully-funded and seeing work start.

Are Astorino and others privately resigned to a vehicles-only bridge, and their comments are simply to "put them on record" as being pro-transit? To protect themselves from what could be a future campaign issue?

Or is there still a chance we could have transit included AND still have the project fast-tracked?

At this point I don't think it's clear.

“I’m the cheapest guy around in government,” Westchester County Executive Robert Astorino recently told WNYC. “We’re cutting costs left and right. But if you’re going to spend money, spend it efficiently. And right now you’re going to replace this outdated bridge with another outdated bridge the day you cut the ribbon.”

The Cuomo administration argues that it is building a bridge capable of adding the popular features in the future, when there is money available, while keeping the structure from falling down now.

This column by Matt Chaban from yesterday's New York Observer does a pretty good job of illuminating some of the issues here.

http://www.observer.com/2011/11/raiders ... structure/