News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?

Started by Ian, April 16, 2009, 09:29:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bryant5493

^^ Well, to piggy-back on that a bit, the Clash of the Gods episodes were a bit off from the way I read the myths and the pronunciation of names (i.e., Demeter). I've alwasy said it "Dee-me-ter," not "Dee-muh-tur" like one of the experts said. But that just might be semantics.

But I still like looking at the channel, despite the inaccuracies.


Be well,

Bryant
Check out my YouTube page (http://youtube.com/Bryant5493). I have numerous road videos of Metro Atlanta and other areas in the Southeast.

I just signed up on photobucket -- here's my page (http://s594.photobucket.com/albums/tt24/Bryant5493).


agentsteel53

Quote from: Michael on September 02, 2009, 02:11:01 PM

The Tappan Zee is rated at 3.708 (7 is the best, 1 is the worst). 

I can't believe they rounded off at only three digits past the decimal point.  If it's really a 3.70793421879, I would feel significantly less safe crossing it than if it were a 3.70801548792.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Michael

^^^  :-D :-D :-D

I wondered why they have three decimal points too.  What exactly is the difference between a 3.708 and a 3.709?

mightyace

Quote from: Michael on September 03, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
^^^  :-D :-D :-D

I wondered why they have three decimal points too.  What exactly is the difference between a 3.708 and a 3.709?

A 3.708 bridge will fall into the river on March 12, 2012 while the 3.709 bridge will last until March 13th.  :-D  :sombrero:  :poke:
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

Chris

They probably calculate the average of several dozen grades they give while inspecting the bridge.

City

I say that the Tappan Zee Bridge should be replaced.

Maybe a nice looking suspension bridge would suffice. Something that looks way better than the current bridge, at least.

Dougtone

Keep in mind that one of the reasons why the Tappan Zee Bridge needs to be replaced is because of its 50 year shelf life.  It was built quickly in the mid 1950s, during a steel shortage due to the Korean War.

Nexis4Jersey

I don't want to Replace this , its a nice structure sure its old and everything falling apart but just needs some fixing and you can throw extra lanes on the side of the Bridge.  For Rail reasons, i don't see why they need it, 80% of Orange / Rockland County residents commute using the Pascack Valley / Main Line into NYC , so rail isn't needed!

froggie

No, you can't "throw extra lanes on the side" of the superstructure.  Just doesn't work that way.

The only reason I've seen people want for keeping the existing bridge is "it looks neat" or some other aesthetic reason.  Which IMO does not trump the safety issues and maintenance nightmares of the existing bridge.  It needs to be replaced, beyond a doubt.

Duke87

Quote80% of Orange / Rockland County residents commute using the Pascack Valley / Main Line into NYC , so rail isn't needed!

I find that figure hard to believe. Although people certainly do use it.

QuoteNo, you can't "throw extra lanes on the side" of the superstructure.  Just doesn't work that way.

You can, however, build an adjacent span.


Honestly, though, the traffic on that bridge would be helped far more by putting some high-speed EZPass lanes at the toll plaza than by adding extra lanes. Especially considering that it's a seven lane bridge connecting to eight lane highway on either end. What difference would a ten lane bridge make? Not much, I'd imagine. It's not the rate limiting step anymore at that point.

Still, the bridge is a decrepit hunk of junk and it needs replacing regardless.
With eight full lanes and actual shoulders. Rail or BRT service would be extra but not useless.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Alps

Quote from: Duke87 on September 18, 2009, 10:00:54 PM

Honestly, though, the traffic on that bridge would be helped far more by putting some high-speed EZPass lanes at the toll plaza than by adding extra lanes. Especially considering that it's a seven lane bridge connecting to eight lane highway on either end. What difference would a ten lane bridge make? Not much, I'd imagine. It's not the rate limiting step anymore at that point.


Spoken like someone who's not familiar with the bridge.  It backs up in BOTH directions, often at the same time.  The bridge itself can be the constraint on capacity.  Also, if there's an incident in any lane of the bridge, it propagates backwards like lightning because there are no shoulders and narrow lanes.  Would eight lanes with full shoulders be sufficient?  Probably with the current roadway network.  But if there are any plans to increase the number of lanes on the western side or to run a full ten lanes to the 287/87 split (if there aren't already), then it should be built with ten lanes for the future capacity.

Duke87

QuoteIt backs up in BOTH directions, often at the same time.

All the traffic problems I've ever had with it have been southbound, but then again, I can't offhand think of an occasion I've been over it that wasn't on the weekend.
The toll plaza is by no means the only problem, but when with four lanes going towards it it still backs up, it's obviously a big one. A new bridge won't fix that no matter how many lanes it has.
Though, I suppose some modification would have to happen to the toll plaza for a new bridge regardless, so that's probably a moot point, anyway.

And I hear what you're saying about future expansion. The current proposals do have two HOT lanes in addition to the normal eight.

If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

papaT10932

Does anyone know why the TZ bridge was built at that location? The "Tappan Zee" is the widest point of the Hudson River and thats exactly where the bridge was built. Upriver or downriver about a mile in each direction would offer much narrower waters to be spanned.

froggie

According to Steve Anderson, a crossing further south near Dobbs Ferry was considered, but this location would have been within the jurisdiction of the Port Authority, not the Thruway.  Another things to consider is that it ties more or less directly into the location of the Cross-Westchester Expwy, which was already planned by that point.

Another big issue is the topography along the river.  You can't go south of the existing location because by the time you get to a location where the bluff on the west side is favorable, you're in Port Authority jurisdiction.  And they couldn't go immediately north of the existing location because the town of Nyack was in the way, with unfavorable bluffs north of the town.

IMO, the next reasonable location for a bridge to the north would be near Haverstraw/Croton-on-Hudson.  But this wouldn't have worked for the Thruway because of the very unforgiving terrain to the west within the Harriman State Park/Bear Mtn State Park/Palisades Interstate Park area.

froggie

A bridge study update:  both a NYSDOT press release and a NYC transit blog mention that, on Friday, project stakeholders had narrowed down both the transit options and the number of bridge configurations, with the goal of having the Draft EIS completed by spring.

Not much in the way of new details, but the transit blog article includes graphics of the two bridge configurations now being considered.  The main difference between the two is the placement of the Metro-North tracks.  One option has them in the median (supported by horizontal supports from each bridge direction.  The other option places them underneath the highway lanes of one travel direction...theoretically with the two bridge directions being separate bridges (i.e. like what was done with I-35W Minneapolis).

Both bridge configurations appear to offer the same travel features:  4 general lanes in each direction, a 5th bus-only lane in each direction (I've also seen references that these would be HOV or HO/T lanes), two Metro-North RR tracks (for a new line connecting from the Hudson Line south of Tarrytown to the Port Jervis line near Suffern), and a bike/ped path.  From other documents I've seen, I believe the bike/ped path would be on the westbound side, as would the Metro-North tracks if they're built underneath the highway lanes.

Of course, the big issue will be how to fund the project.  The whole nine yards is on the scale of $16 billion....$8.3 billion just for the bridge, plus another $1 billion for the BRT and $6.7 billion for the Metro-North line.

Chris

Why do you need a bus lane while you have a transit line already? $ 1 billion for BRT while there will be a metro-north line already seems like a waste of money to me.

$ 8.3 billion for the bridge only seems like an awful lot of money... Do they need to acquire a lot of new land for the bridge approaches?

For comparison, the planned Fehmarn Belt Bridge between Germany and Denmark includes a 4-lane freeway, 2-track railway and is 11 miles long. It is estimated at € 3.5 billion or around $ 5 billion. (plus another € 1.5 billion for rail upgrades further inland).

Alps

Chris - in the NYC area, density spreads so far in so many directions that a BRT line just 5 miles from a railroad line will get substantive ridership and be justified.

english si

Chris, don't forget that building a new bridge is a different thing to replacing an old bridge - with a new bridge, you can just build it. With a replacement you have traffic management, demolition of the old bridge and such like. That said, it still sounds pretty high for under 3 miles of bridge, even with what it's carrying.

Adding bus lanes, etc for the length planned is about what it would cost in the UK to do that. If you note, the rail line is about three times the cost, for 2/3rds the length - given the plan to connect the Metro North lines that go through NJ to Penn Station wouldn't have cost much more, and the BRT covers it, that if you wanted to save costs, ditch Metro North along there and use half of the money saved to pay a larger share towards ARC, given that costs are the only reason why NJ is not doing it.

Bus rapid transit and Metro North do different things, serving different purposes, so it's not silly having both along the same corridor for a few miles (Suffern to just east of the Hudson). BRT would serve more local journeys along there (especially as tickets will be cheaper), whereas Metro North would be about getting people into NYC. Also, given that they would have radically different routes east of the Hudson, with Metro North heading into NYC, and the BRT continuing to skirt the edge, then that furthers the 'different roles'.

Interestingly, the most comparable BRT schemes (not serving major cities, high level of segregation) in the UK, Fastway in the Crawley/Gatwick area and Fastrack in the Dartford/Gravesend area run roughly parallel to a rail line with high frequencies.

iwishiwascanadian

It would make sense to have the MTA foot the bill for the rail portion of the project (which would raise fares in NYC/Metro-North outside of CT, LIRR), and to have the Thruway Authority cover the rest (which would raise tolls).

I like the Tappan Zee Bridge, I dislike the congestion, but overall I'd rather use the TZB than the GWB.  I wonder if the clip-ons that are used on the Auckland Harbour Bridge could be used on the TZB, I doubt it, but wouldn't it be a short term fix?

Dougtone

From today's lohud.com...

Construction on the Tappan Zee Bridge could start as early as next year with President Barack Obama's announcement Monday night that replacing the structure is one of 14 projects nationwide chosen for expedited federal review and approval.  A requirement for selection was that the significant steps remaining before construction are within the federal government's control and can be completed within 18 months.  The selection of the Tappan Zee Bridge project means the timeline for the work could be reduced by a number of years.

http://tinyurl.com/434fmv8

connroadgeek

Quote from: froggie on February 24, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
According to Steve Anderson, a crossing further south near Dobbs Ferry was considered, but this location would have been within the jurisdiction of the Port Authority, not the Thruway.  Another things to consider is that it ties more or less directly into the location of the Cross-Westchester Expwy, which was already planned by that point.

Kind of weird how many little road/bridge commissions exist in and around NYC. Anyone know the point of having them or the history behind it? Seems kind of strange that something like Port Authority owns part of the state of New York such that a new bridge can't be built on what would likely be state land. What are the powers granted to these essentially glorified mini-DOTs?

empirestate

Quote from: connroadgeek on October 12, 2011, 09:46:53 PM
Kind of weird how many little road/bridge commissions exist in and around NYC. Anyone know the point of having them or the history behind it? Seems kind of strange that something like Port Authority owns part of the state of New York such that a new bridge can't be built on what would likely be state land. What are the powers granted to these essentially glorified mini-DOTs?

Actually, much fewer than there used to be. Remember that pretty much every major infrastructure project, like a bridge, tunnel, railroad or transit system, was originally built in the old days under its own unique company chartered by the state legislature. It wasn't until later that many of them were consolidated under new quasi-governmental agencies. (The early NYC bridges predate the concept of a department of transportation.)

The Great Bridge by David McCullough does a good job of explaining how the New York and Brooklyn Bridge Company came to be and about the contentious politics even then regarding such agencies, which seemed to enjoy the best powers of both private companies and public authorities.

Alps

Quote from: connroadgeek on October 12, 2011, 09:46:53 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 24, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
According to Steve Anderson, a crossing further south near Dobbs Ferry was considered, but this location would have been within the jurisdiction of the Port Authority, not the Thruway.  Another things to consider is that it ties more or less directly into the location of the Cross-Westchester Expwy, which was already planned by that point.

Kind of weird how many little road/bridge commissions exist in and around NYC. Anyone know the point of having them or the history behind it? Seems kind of strange that something like Port Authority owns part of the state of New York such that a new bridge can't be built on what would likely be state land. What are the powers granted to these essentially glorified mini-DOTs?

Here are the major players. I'm not including isolated cases like Dingman's Ferry.

AuthorityRoad purposeCould road(s) be absorbed by another?Non-roads left behind if road(s) absorbed
NJ Tpk. AuthorityBuild/operate NJ Tpk., GS Pkwy.No - powerful, profitable, major toll road operatorNone
South Jersey Transp. Auth.Operate AC Expwy.Yes - rumored for NJTA takeoverAirport - would go to DRPA or PANYNJ?
Port Authority of NY/NJBuild/operate all NY-NJ crossingsWould have to be split to NJTA and either NYSTA or MTAPATH trains (would go to NJ Transit), airports
Del. River and Bay Auth.Operate Del Mem BridgeWould have to be split to DelDOT and NJTAFerries, including Cape May-Lewes, and local airports
Del. River Port AuthorityOperate Del River bridges over navigable watersWould merge with DRJTBC, could then be split to PA Tpk. Comm and NJTAPATCO, RiverLink ferry
Del. River Joint Toll Br. Comm.Operate Del River bridges from Trenton northWould merge with DRPA, could then be splitNone
Burlington Co. Br. Comm.Operate NJ-PA 73 and 413 bridgesWould merge with DRJTBC/DRPA? This is really just part of Burlington County, thoughNone

I could see SJTA getting taken over, certainly, and mergers between the three Delaware River bridgeholders. Further mergers are more difficult because they are bi-state agencies. Given the difficulties in having two agencies manage one bridge, they would have to somehow split costs or responsibilities with agreements - and then it just becomes easier to have an agency overseeing it. The reason they all exist is that they were created to oversee certain transportation projects (pending or existing) that did not fall neatly under any other agency. Granted, other states have bridges between them without special commissions, but I can't think of another case where there is a toll bridge linking two states. So NJ is just the odd man out in this great nation.

agentsteel53

Quote from: Steve on October 18, 2011, 06:44:15 PMI can't think of another case where there is a toll bridge linking two states.

what about historically?  though I cannot think of any bridges either, and therefore refer to toll ferries - say, crossing the Mississippi River.  

were those generally operated by a private ferry company?  if so, did they just incorporate in whichever state their accountants told them to, and received operating permits from, and paid taxes to, both as necessary?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

hbelkins

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 18, 2011, 07:38:45 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 18, 2011, 06:44:15 PMI can't think of another case where there is a toll bridge linking two states.

what about historically?  though I cannot think of any bridges either, and therefore refer to toll ferries - say, crossing the Mississippi River.

A number of the Ohio River bridges were toll in the past. You can see quite a few of them on old maps.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.