AARoads Forum

The New York Times had an article today on the progress (or lack thereof) on getting the ailing, ancient Tappan Zee Bridge replaced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/nyregion/tappan-zee-bridge-plan-draws-complaints-and-questions.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

They're still arguing over whether it will be built to carry trains, or whether that will have to be cut for budgetary reasons.  No wonder nothing gets built in NY anymore.

Someone channel the spirit of Robert Moses...stat!  This kind of procedure over production setup has gone on for too long.  Remember folks, we built the entire Alcan Highway in less than one year.  Too bad it took a war to get the sense of urgency up so Things Got Done.

Rick

Quote from: nexus73 on June 27, 2012, 12:27:28 PM
Someone channel the spirit of Robert Moses...stat!  This kind of procedure over production setup has gone on for too long.  Remember folks, we built the entire Alcan Highway in less than one year.  Too bad it took a war to get the sense of urgency up so Things Got Done.

Rick

The problem with the current environmental review process - apart from the fact they consider WAY TOO MANY things that have very little to do with true environmental issues (like the  "but you're able to see the new bright shiny bridge from a house that may potentially be on the National Register some day" type of arguments) - is the whole "the project developer is presumed guilty until proven innocent" mentality when it comes to the environmental study and public review process.

If they changed the process so that anybody raising objections to the design had to prove their objections beyond a reasonable doubt, instead of forcing the DOT and their consultants to waste time, manpower, and money addressing non-issues, that alone would greatly streamline the process.

Putting the burden of proof on the opponent, as opposed to the proponent, would also eliminate much of the NIMBY factor.

Sadly, it is unfortunate that "environment" has become such a buzzword in today's political climate that nobody in government has the fortitude or will to seriously re-evalute the current regulations.  And it's equally sad that nobody in the media has the courage to truly investigate how much time and taxpayer money is being wasted by these rules, procedures, and regulations, most of which do nothing to actually preserve the air, land, and water we use.

In the meanwhile, I just hope NY State doesn't face the "sense of urgency" that Minnesota was faced with a few years back.

As a transportation professional who deals with this "crap" every single working day, roadman could not be any more correct.  It can take many years just to upgrade a traffic signal, if you are using federal money for it.

Let the current bridge fall in, then they will get the replacement done quickly.

Quote from: roadman on June 27, 2012, 07:04:12 PM
The problem with the current environmental review process - apart from the fact they consider WAY TOO MANY things that have very little to do with true environmental issues (like the  "but you're able to see the new bright shiny bridge from a house that may potentially be on the National Register some day" type of arguments) - is the whole "the project developer is presumed guilty until proven innocent" mentality when it comes to the environmental study and public review process.

Look up the term "environmental justice". The EA/EIS process covers not only the impact on the natural environment, but on the human environment too.

Speaking of NIMBYs, I heard a few times on the news a while ago about the residents of Tarrytown and Nyack were complaining about the test piles the engineers were pounding into the river (specifically the rhythmic ping every time the hammer hit the pile) and I always question if they'd be complaining about the noises made when/if the present Tappan Zee collapses into the river.

Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 27, 2012, 10:38:04 PM
Speaking of NIMBYs, I heard a few times on the news a while ago about the residents of Tarrytown and Nyack were complaining about the test piles the engineers were pounding into the river (specifically the rhythmic ping every time the hammer hit the pile) and I always question if they'd be complaining about the noises made when/if the present Tappan Zee collapses into the river.

At that point, they'll complain that New York didn't build the new bridge in time.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 27, 2012, 08:55:57 PM

Quote from: roadman on June 27, 2012, 07:04:12 PM
The problem with the current environmental review process - apart from the fact they consider WAY TOO MANY things that have very little to do with true environmental issues (like the  "but you're able to see the new bright shiny bridge from a house that may potentially be on the National Register some day" type of arguments) - is the whole "the project developer is presumed guilty until proven innocent" mentality when it comes to the environmental study and public review process.

Look up the term "environmental justice". The EA/EIS process covers not only the impact on the natural environment, but on the human environment too.

With respect, the concept of "environmental justice" is a big part of the current problem.  So abutters have to look at a shiny new bridge.  Guess what, they'll get used to it quickly.

And, IMO, studying such subjective issues do not justify wasting the DOT's time and the taxpayer's money delaying necessary infrastructure projects.

Quote from: Steve on June 27, 2012, 11:41:43 PM

Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 27, 2012, 10:38:04 PM
Speaking of NIMBYs, I heard a few times on the news a while ago about the residents of Tarrytown and Nyack were complaining about the test piles the engineers were pounding into the river (specifically the rhythmic ping every time the hammer hit the pile) and I always question if they'd be complaining about the noises made when/if the present Tappan Zee collapses into the river.

At that point, they'll complain that New York didn't build the new bridge in time.

Most NIMBY's will indeed do as you say, but in private will high 5 themselves and get a free lawyer to make sure a replacment is newer built.  Then get on thier private ferry boat to Wall Street

Quote from: roadman on June 27, 2012, 07:04:12 PMI just hope NY State doesn't face the "sense of urgency" that Minnesota was faced with a few years back.

My understanding is that they've already come close several times.  The metal structures underlying the pavement were failing at an alarming rate for quite some time, causing "punch-outs" of the pavement, where a hole will suddenly appear where a chunk of the metal fell into the Hudson and the asphalt couldn't hold itself up with nothing under it.  I think they've now brought this under control, but for a while people were very nervous about crossing that bridge.

Considering that the next bridge north of the TZ is the Bear Mountain, which is on local roads and could not possible handle Thruway traffic, and the next one south is the George Washington, you would think there would be some sort of urgency on getting the TZ replaced quickly.  But....nooooooooooooooooooooo...  Heck, even California, one of the worst when it comes to environmental reviews of major infrastructure projects, gets their act together in emergencies (like after earthquakes) and rebuilds roads in a hurry when they need to.

My understanding is that if you rebuild something the way it was before, no environmental review is necessary.  At least that's how NY got the Lake Champlain bridge rebuilt.

However, the Tappan Zee is also going to be widened and expanded significantly to handle current traffic levels.

Quote from: deanej on June 29, 2012, 11:32:47 AM
My understanding is that if you rebuild something the way it was before, no environmental review is necessary.  At least that's how NY got the Lake Champlain bridge rebuilt.

However, the Tappan Zee is also going to be widened and expanded significantly to handle current traffic levels.

When Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia agreed that the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95 between Oxon Hill, Maryland and Alexandria, Virginia) needed to be replaced and widened, a long and detailed environmental impact statement process had to be followed, even though the proposed new (and wider) bridge was replacing an old and inadequate crossing.   

Once the environmental impact statement was complete, the Sierra Club filed suit in federal court for the District of Columbia to remand the document for more work, and Sierra won at the district court (trial court) level, but they trial court's remand was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  All of this litigation took several years to complete.

Edit:  Added what Md., Va. and D.C. agreed about.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 29, 2012, 06:22:34 PM

Quote from: deanej on June 29, 2012, 11:32:47 AM
My understanding is that if you rebuild something the way it was before, no environmental review is necessary.  At least that's how NY got the Lake Champlain bridge rebuilt.

However, the Tappan Zee is also going to be widened and expanded significantly to handle current traffic levels.

When Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia agreed that the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95 between Oxon Hill, Maryland and Alexandria, Virginia), a long and detailed environmental impact statement process had to be followed, even though the proposed new (and wider) bridge was replacing an old and inadequate crossing.   

Once the environmental impact statement was complete, the Sierra Club filed suit in federal court for the District of Columbia to remand the document for more work, and Sierra won at the district court (trial court) level, but they trial court's remand was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  All of this litigation took several years to complete.

So, how long has the new bridge been in now?  And the world hasn't gone boom yet.  At least the appeals process resulted in a victory for the good guys.

Have the infamous NYC area unions decided how much of a cut there going to take yet?  :-D

Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 29, 2012, 06:22:34 PM

Quote from: deanej on June 29, 2012, 11:32:47 AM
My understanding is that if you rebuild something the way it was before, no environmental review is necessary.  At least that's how NY got the Lake Champlain bridge rebuilt.

However, the Tappan Zee is also going to be widened and expanded significantly to handle current traffic levels.

When Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia agreed that the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95 between Oxon Hill, Maryland and Alexandria, Virginia), a long and detailed environmental impact statement process had to be followed, even though the proposed new (and wider) bridge was replacing an old and inadequate crossing.   

Once the environmental impact statement was complete, the Sierra Club filed suit in federal court for the District of Columbia to remand the document for more work, and Sierra won at the district court (trial court) level, but they trial court's remand was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  All of this litigation took several years to complete.

I wasn't talking about replacing something with a more modern or wider structure... I was talking about replacing something with a structure that's nearly identical to the old one.  When NYSDOT and VTDOT replaced the Lake Champlain Bridge, they were able to get it fast tracked because the new bridge was nearly identical to the old one.  In fact, they specifically avoided doing any improvements to the area to avoid doing an EIS.

I read this thread and think of the irony of new commercials on some cable channels promoting New York State. In the ad, New York is a "great place to do business". Reality, not so much. It's a miracle any road related project gets done.

Quote from: deanej on June 29, 2012, 08:55:54 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 29, 2012, 06:22:34 PM

Quote from: deanej on June 29, 2012, 11:32:47 AM
My understanding is that if you rebuild something the way it was before, no environmental review is necessary.  At least that's how NY got the Lake Champlain bridge rebuilt.

However, the Tappan Zee is also going to be widened and expanded significantly to handle current traffic levels.

When Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia agreed that the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95 between Oxon Hill, Maryland and Alexandria, Virginia), a long and detailed environmental impact statement process had to be followed, even though the proposed new (and wider) bridge was replacing an old and inadequate crossing.   

Once the environmental impact statement was complete, the Sierra Club filed suit in federal court for the District of Columbia to remand the document for more work, and Sierra won at the district court (trial court) level, but they trial court's remand was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  All of this litigation took several years to complete.

I wasn't talking about replacing something with a more modern or wider structure... I was talking about replacing something with a structure that's nearly identical to the old one.  When NYSDOT and VTDOT replaced the Lake Champlain Bridge, they were able to get it fast tracked because the new bridge was nearly identical to the old one.  In fact, they specifically avoided doing any improvements to the area to avoid doing an EIS.

And it's not that the bridge design is identical, far from it. I know they reused the same approaches, I wonder if they reused the pier locations as well.

Probably.  What the bridge aesthetics are probably doesn't factor into the need to do an EIS as long as they aren't too different.  The main thing is that the bridge fits in the foot print of the old one.

Quote from: roadman on June 29, 2012, 07:15:35 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 29, 2012, 06:22:34 PM

Quote from: deanej on June 29, 2012, 11:32:47 AM
My understanding is that if you rebuild something the way it was before, no environmental review is necessary.  At least that's how NY got the Lake Champlain bridge rebuilt.

However, the Tappan Zee is also going to be widened and expanded significantly to handle current traffic levels.

When Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia agreed that the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95 between Oxon Hill, Maryland and Alexandria, Virginia), a long and detailed environmental impact statement process had to be followed, even though the proposed new (and wider) bridge was replacing an old and inadequate crossing.   

Once the environmental impact statement was complete, the Sierra Club filed suit in federal court for the District of Columbia to remand the document for more work, and Sierra won at the district court (trial court) level, but they trial court's remand was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  All of this litigation took several years to complete.

So, how long has the new bridge been in now?  And the world hasn't gone boom yet.  At least the appeals process resulted in a victory for the good guys.

The replacement Woodrow Wilson Bridges have been open for several years now (the old six-lane span was torn down [good riddance]), though the very last part of the project, a reconstruction of the interchange at Va. 241 (Telegraph Road, I-95 Exit 176, is just now nearing completion, and the freeway has been narrowed to three lanes each way (and less than three lanes during non-commute times [causing miles-long queues of vehicles]).

You are absolutely correct - the good guys did win this one, much to the rage of the Sierra Club and the Washington, D.C.-area Smart Growth industry.

Tolls going to $14 bucks a day.  That's a little more than $3000 a year.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-03/tappan-zee-bridge-tolls-seen-almost-tripling-when-new-span-opens

I wonder how much research was done for this:

QuoteCuomo has previously said the tolls would be in line with other Hudson River crossings. When the new Tappan Zee opens, which is expected in 2017, tolls on the George Washington Bridge will be at least $14, Schwartz said.

Meanwhile, the crossings to the north will only be $1.

Quote from: deanej on August 03, 2012, 09:47:01 PM
I wonder how much research was done for this:

QuoteCuomo has previously said the tolls would be in line with other Hudson River crossings. When the new Tappan Zee opens, which is expected in 2017, tolls on the George Washington Bridge will be at least $14, Schwartz said.

Meanwhile, the crossings to the north will only be $1.

Well, my father and I when going to Rhode Island used to bypass the GWB by using the Tappan Zee. Now I guess we'll have to use the Bear Mountain. However, we rarely go to Rhode Island anymore, so that's not really an issue either.

I have to believe this may get the Bear Mountain more use, we'll see though.

Quote from: deanej on August 03, 2012, 09:47:01 PM
I wonder how much research was done for this:

QuoteCuomo has previously said the tolls would be in line with other Hudson River crossings. When the new Tappan Zee opens, which is expected in 2017, tolls on the George Washington Bridge will be at least $14, Schwartz said.

Meanwhile, the crossings to the north will only be $1.

$1.50, actually. I do see a lot more traffic heading up to Bear Mountain Bridge, but "a lot more" in the context that there is never a traffic jam there now that I've seen. Problem is, there could easily be one with another few hundred vehicles during peak times. I would certainly plan to use it to head east, via US 6 or 202/I-684 to I-84.

I would watch Newburgh-Beacon to be honest.  It provides a great bypass for upstate traffic via I-684.

Here's some of the discussion over on Facebook (which is the most I've ever seen for a single post in a road group there):

QuoteIf the Thruway Authority decides to go cashless, as some of its peer toll road agencies are headed, should it return to 2-way tolls at the T-Z? If the PANYNJ and the NYSBA do as well? No reason to stay with one-way if there is no cash collection.

-> My guess is that the toll would become two-way, but after the inevitable cost overruns and unforeseen construction delays, who knows: the toll might be $14 EACH way by the time construction is finished...
-> My guess is that it stays one way, as I haven't heard any rumblings from any of the agencies regarding "unconverting" one-way tolls. That includes MTA, PANYNJ, NYSTA, NJTA.
-> The MTA's one-way toll can't be undone, it's mandated by congress now...
-> I believe the Congressional mandate is limited to the Verrazano Bridge.
-> Two way tolls require double the amount of equipment to collect the tolls electronically. I believe there is still less overhead for the agencies to collect tolls in a single direction.
-> Agreed regarding overhead - but - I assert (but cannot prove) that the amount of revenue to be collected from two-way all-electronic tolling will make up for the additional cost.
-> For the situation such as the westbound WillyB/Holland Tunnel routing to avoid the VZ westbound, the loss TODAY is substantial for the MTA, which is why they were against the one-way tolling from the start. For the TZ and the PANY/NJ crossings, I don't see any real gain going back to two-way, since twice the amount of vehicles would need "enforcement" on a daily basis. With the TZ tolls to essentially match the PANY/NJ, there is no incentive to use one bridge or tunnel over another toll wise crossing the Hudson.

QuoteAs far as using the Bear Mountain Bridge to avoid the TZ toll increase, I'm sure there will be a LOT MORE eastbound if the TZ goes up to $14, but I believe it will not be gridlocked... the Bear Mountain Bridge has poor high speed access on the Westchester side and it is a single lane span.

-> I have driven across the Bear Mountain Bridge several times (great views), and you are absolutely correct about the operational problems on the Westchester County side of the crossing.
-> Still however, if there's an alternate route to a $14 toll, most motorists would be willing to try it, even if the road conditions aren't ideal. (especially those coming from Harriman/Woodbury and points north and west) motorists already have proven that they can go to extremes to bypass tolls discrepancies that are much less than that. while a large increase in truck traffic at Bear Mtn can be avoided by placing weight restrictions on the Westchester side (there may already be such a restriction in place), it won't necessarily prevent cars and smaller commercial vehicles from driving the extra distance to save what for some, adds up to be about an hour's wage...
-> I've seen 3 mile backups on the Palisades coming down into the circle. I have no doubt in my mind that that will become a routine Friday evening occurrence once the toll hike occurs. The southern approach from US 9W/202 will also become clogged as anyone relatively local tries to come that way. I-84 will consequently also see an uptick in traffic, but at least that road's built to handle it. Also, that's far enough north and difficult enough to get to that I think it's mostly going to see a local diversion with limited volume. My route of choice will probably have to end up being 17-32-9W to get around the Bear Mountain area, unless I'm traveling off hours.

Quote from: Steve on August 04, 2012, 10:35:39 PM
Here's some of the discussion over on Facebook (which is the most I've ever seen for a single post in a road group there):

Thanks for posting here.  In my opinion, it generated so much commentary because this is an infuriating topic to those that know something about it - especially given the age and documented seismic vulnterabilities of the existing T-Z span, something needs to be done, and done sooner rather than later. 

I have a hard time imagining what the cost of a closure of the Thruway at the Hudson River would be to the economies of New York (and probably New Jersey and Connecticut as well).

And it is a crisis that can be avoided, but like so many things going on in Washington, D.C. that involve difficult choices, there seems to be an overwhelming desire to "kick the can down the road" if the parties involved don't get excactly what they want.

Quote from: Steve on August 04, 2012, 10:35:39 PM

QuoteIf the Thruway Authority decides to go cashless, as some of its peer toll road agencies are headed, should it return to 2-way tolls at the T-Z? If the PANYNJ and the NYSBA do as well? No reason to stay with one-way if there is no cash collection.

-> My guess is that the toll would become two-way, but after the inevitable cost overruns and unforeseen construction delays, who knows: the toll might be $14 EACH way by the time construction is finished...
-> My guess is that it stays one way, as I haven't heard any rumblings from any of the agencies regarding "unconverting" one-way tolls. That includes MTA, PANYNJ, NYSTA, NJTA.
-> The MTA's one-way toll can't be undone, it's mandated by congress now...
-> I believe the Congressional mandate is limited to the Verrazano Bridge.
-> Two way tolls require double the amount of equipment to collect the tolls electronically. I believe there is still less overhead for the agencies to collect tolls in a single direction.
-> Agreed regarding overhead - but - I assert (but cannot prove) that the amount of revenue to be collected from two-way all-electronic tolling will make up for the additional cost.
-> For the situation such as the westbound WillyB/Holland Tunnel routing to avoid the VZ westbound, the loss TODAY is substantial for the MTA, which is why they were against the one-way tolling from the start. For the TZ and the PANY/NJ crossings, I don't see any real gain going back to two-way, since twice the amount of vehicles would need "enforcement" on a daily basis. With the TZ tolls to essentially match the PANY/NJ, there is no incentive to use one bridge or tunnel over another toll wise crossing the Hudson.

I suppose all of the Hudson River crossings would need to convert to two-way (cashless) tolling if the  Thruway Authority did so at the Tappan Zee. 

But since nearly all of the Hudson River crossings are tolled one-way eastbound only now, I suppose it makes sense to stay that way, since diverting to a (non-tolled) eastbound crossing is not really an option.

Quote from: Steve on August 04, 2012, 10:35:39 PM

QuoteAs far as using the Bear Mountain Bridge to avoid the TZ toll increase, I'm sure there will be a LOT MORE eastbound if the TZ goes up to $14, but I believe it will not be gridlocked... the Bear Mountain Bridge has poor high speed access on the Westchester side and it is a single lane span.

-> I have driven across the Bear Mountain Bridge several times (great views), and you are absolutely correct about the operational problems on the Westchester County side of the crossing.
-> Still however, if there's an alternate route to a $14 toll, most motorists would be willing to try it, even if the road conditions aren't ideal. (especially those coming from Harriman/Woodbury and points north and west) motorists already have proven that they can go to extremes to bypass tolls discrepancies that are much less than that. while a large increase in truck traffic at Bear Mtn can be avoided by placing weight restrictions on the Westchester side (there may already be such a restriction in place), it won't necessarily prevent cars and smaller commercial vehicles from driving the extra distance to save what for some, adds up to be about an hour's wage...
-> I've seen 3 mile backups on the Palisades coming down into the circle. I have no doubt in my mind that that will become a routine Friday evening occurrence once the toll hike occurs. The southern approach from US 9W/202 will also become clogged as anyone relatively local tries to come that way. I-84 will consequently also see an uptick in traffic, but at least that road's built to handle it. Also, that's far enough north and difficult enough to get to that I think it's mostly going to see a local diversion with limited volume. My route of choice will probably have to end up being 17-32-9W to get around the Bear Mountain area, unless I'm traveling off hours.

The difference between a $14 toll to cross the T-Z and a $1 toll to cross the Bear Mountain Bridge is going to "move" a lot of eastbound traffic north, even if the highway network there cannot support a huge increase in traffic.  For trucks, I-84 will become an even more attractive option for crossing the Hudson.  Wonder if the Thruway Authority or NYSDOT have asked one of their consultants to model the traffic impact of a $14 toll eastbound at the T-Z?

You would think that NYSTA could raise their tolls everywhere rather than just at the bridge to distribute the stress. The mainline tolls are pretty low as is. Compare about $20 from Woodbury to Buffalo with about $50 for about the same distance on the PA Turnpike.

But of course, New York politics dictates that money must be funneled from NYC metro to upstate, never the other way around.

Quote from: Duke87 on August 05, 2012, 10:51:25 AM
You would think that NYSTA could raise their tolls everywhere rather than just at the bridge to distribute the stress. The mainline tolls are pretty low as is. Compare about $20 from Woodbury to Buffalo with about $50 for about the same distance on the PA Turnpike.

But of course, New York politics dictates that money must be funneled from NYC metro to upstate, never the other way around.

Good point.  The Tappan Zee Bridge is part of the Thruway system, isn't it?

On a related note, it seems to me that it would be a good idea if the Thruway started to collect tolls from all passing traffic at the Spring Valley barrier (northbound I-87, westbound I-287) not just commercial vehicles.  That would collect a few dollars that could be used to help pay for the new bridge.

If memory serves, wasn't that once the southern limit of the Thruway ticket system?

Spring Valley used to be a barrier toll for all traffic. Politics switched it to commercial vehicles only in 1997.

Even further back, though, it was the beginning of the ticket system. Exits 14B and 15A were built after it was changed to a barrier toll.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 05, 2012, 01:47:07 PM
Spring Valley used to be a barrier toll for all traffic. Politics switched it to commercial vehicles only in 1997.

I've not been near Buffalo since I was a child (roadgeek), but didn't "politics" scuttle at least one toll barriers on the I-190 part of the Thruway system?

The excuse repeatedly raised by anti-toll "activists" and elected officials that pander to them is that toll barriers (like the one at Spring Valley and on the Garden State Parkway) "cause congestion," which was true before the advent of electronic tolling, but should not any longer.

Quote from: Duke87 on August 05, 2012, 03:03:36 PM
Even further back, though, it was the beginning of the ticket system. Exits 14B and 15A were built after it was changed to a barrier toll.

That's what I thought (I think I drove through there at least once when it was the start of the ticket system).

I suppose that Thruway Exit 15 (to N.J. 17, pre-I-287) must have looked different when it was "inside" the ticket system.

In 2006, NYSTA agreed to stop collecting tolls on I-190 for one year in exchange for a lump sum of cash from Albany. They then agreed to make the removal permanent and, to offset the loss in revenue, maintenance of I-84 was transferred back to NYSDOT. I'm not sure exactly what the politics of this were but that's how it happened.

The barriers on 190 in Buffalo are completely gone now (Grand Island Bridges remain tolled), but Rand McNally thinks they still exist.

Quote from: Duke87 on August 05, 2012, 07:14:26 PM
In 2006, NYSTA agreed to stop collecting tolls on I-190 for one year in exchange for a lump sum of cash from Albany. They then agreed to make the removal permanent and, to offset the loss in revenue, maintenance of I-84 was transferred back to NYSDOT. I'm not sure exactly what the politics of this were but that's how it happened.

The barriers on 190 in Buffalo are completely gone now (Grand Island Bridges remain tolled), but Rand McNally thinks they still exist.

In my opinion, it is pretty asinine to have a toll agency maintaining a section of highway that is "free."

And New York is not the only state guilty of this. 

Maryland comes to mind, especially with the part of I-95 that's the JFK Highway between Md. 43 (White Marsh - present-day Exit 67) and Md. 279 (Elkton - present-day Exit 109).  Yes, politics were involved - in the early 1980's, the General Assembly ordered MdTA to stop collecting money at the ramp tolls (always unstaffed exact change coin drop toll gates) along the (formerly tolled) JFK Highway.

I've never driven it, but doesn't West Virginia give away a lot of free trips on its (in theory) tolled Turnpike?

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2012, 06:27:01 PM

Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 05, 2012, 01:47:07 PM
Spring Valley used to be a barrier toll for all traffic. Politics switched it to commercial vehicles only in 1997.

I've not been near Buffalo since I was a child (roadgeek), but didn't "politics" scuttle at least one toll barriers on the I-190 part of the Thruway system?

The excuse repeatedly raised by anti-toll "activists" and elected officials that pander to them is that toll barriers (like the one at Spring Valley and on the Garden State Parkway) "cause congestion," which was true before the advent of electronic tolling, but should not any longer.

Actually, the excuse for the Buffalo was that it was the only upstate city where motorists had to pay a toll to drive downtown.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2012, 06:39:59 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on August 05, 2012, 03:03:36 PM
Even further back, though, it was the beginning of the ticket system. Exits 14B and 15A were built after it was changed to a barrier toll.

That's what I thought (I think I drove through there at least once when it was the start of the ticket system).

I suppose that Thruway Exit 15 (to N.J. 17, pre-I-287) must have looked different when it was "inside" the ticket system.

Check Historic Aerials. It was a trumpet with some neat features vis-a-vis NY 17.

State to demolish T.Z. bridge; construction of new span may begin late this year
7:41 AM, Aug 2, 2012

Written by
Jim Fitzgerald
Associated Press

WHITE PLAINS – The state plans to demolish the current Tappan Zee Bridge and use innovative measures to protect fish and people during the construction of the new bridge that will make road commutes easier, according to a new report.

Construction is expected to begin late this year or early next year and to last about five years. But first, a builder has to be chosen from among three that submitted bids.

Residents will be able to go online to check noise and air quality levels. Fish in the Hudson River will be protected from the acoustic effects of pile driving by underwater "bubble curtains."

The updated environmental impact statement – like a draft released in January – concludes that the bridge will have no major, lasting environmental effects. Dredging will affect some life forms in the riverbed, however, and builders will have to undertake environmental programs elsewhere in the river to compensate, the report said.

The report continues to call for demolition of the existing bridge, disappointing enthusiasts who had been calling for it to become a car-free greenway, like Manhattan's High Line.

The report also reveals no change in the plans for rapid transit, a concern for many who felt train or bus systems should be incorporated. The bridge will be built strong enough to handle commuter trains, but no new transit lines are being built to take advantage of that. Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office has promised that at least during rush hour, there will be lanes dedicated to buses.

Adding even a bus rapid transit system to the bridge – and the 30-mile corridor it anchors – would double the cost of the project, now estimated at $5.4 billion, the administration said. A commuter train line would cost billions more.

For auto commuters, however, the bridge should be a big improvement once it replaces the current Tappan Zee, an aging and overused span built in 1955 that carries Interstate 87, the New York State Thruway. The new span between Tarrytown and Nyack will have more lanes, shoulders to handle breakdowns, and several toll lanes that cars can use at highway speed. Its steep climb over the Hudson will be more gradual, helping trucks maintain their speed.

Currently, accidents and breakdowns cause big delays at rush hour, partly because disabled cars block traffic and emergency vehicles have no lanes available.

The report said the bridge will be safer and air pollution will be reduced because of less congestion.

It said the state no longer plans to take anyone's property. Nine households had been targeted in the draft, but design changes were made.

Monitors measuring noise and particulates will be placed throughout the area and they can be checked in real time online, the report said. It said excessive noise has to be stopped an hour after it's reported.

"We are making every effort to limit negative impacts on residents and the environment,"  Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday.

The report said pile driving would generally be prohibited between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. A method that uses vibration rather than pounding to get piles in place will be used when possible.

When there is pile driving, underwater devices will pump out curtains of air bubbles – not unlike air stones in a fish tank – to minimize the acoustic effect on animals. Dredging will be limited to August, September and October to avoid peak migration and spawning.

During dredging, a fish expert will be present to make sure any captured shortnose or Atlantic sturgeon – both endangered – are released, the report said.

In October, President Barack Obama declared the bridge eligible for fast-tracked federal approvals. Funding has yet to be detailed, but the state is hoping for federal aid.

Copyright © 2012 www.poughkeepsiejournal.com
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/viewart/20120802/NEWS01/308020009/T-Z-fall-no-transit-new-span?odyssey=nav|head

N.Y. Times:  Cuomo Against $14 Tappan Zee Toll (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/nyregion/cuomo-against-14-tappan-zee-bridge-toll.html)

QuoteThe $14 toll proposed by the administration of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo for a new Tappan Zee Bridge is too high, the governor said on Friday.

QuoteIt would nearly triple the current $5 toll on the existing bridge. When it was announced by the governor's staff last week, it caused an outcry in the New York City suburbs that rely on the bridge.

Quote"We must find alternatives, revenue generators and cost reductions that reduce the potential toll increases,"  Mr. Cuomo said in a letter Friday to the State Thruway Authority.

Quote from: SidS1045 on June 28, 2012, 02:42:49 PM
Heck, even California, one of the worst when it comes to environmental reviews of major infrastructure projects, gets their act together in emergencies (like after earthquakes) and rebuilds roads in a hurry when they need to.

Not always.  The Loma Prieta earthquake was in 1989, and the new Bay Bridge east span isn't expected to be open until September 2013.

Quote from: kkt on August 11, 2012, 01:02:15 PM

Quote from: SidS1045 on June 28, 2012, 02:42:49 PM
Heck, even California, one of the worst when it comes to environmental reviews of major infrastructure projects, gets their act together in emergencies (like after earthquakes) and rebuilds roads in a hurry when they need to.

Not always.  The Loma Prieta earthquake was in 1989, and the new Bay Bridge east span isn't expected to be open until September 2013.

Had the eastern (cantilever) bridge section of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge entirely collapsed, it would have been replaced much more rapidly (the damage was repaired in about a moth, if memory serves). 

I understand that some of the delays in replacing the eastern bridge were due to arguments about aesthetics and cost.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2012, 01:23:23 PM

Quote from: kkt on August 11, 2012, 01:02:15 PM

Quote from: SidS1045 on June 28, 2012, 02:42:49 PM
Heck, even California, one of the worst when it comes to environmental reviews of major infrastructure projects, gets their act together in emergencies (like after earthquakes) and rebuilds roads in a hurry when they need to.

Not always.  The Loma Prieta earthquake was in 1989, and the new Bay Bridge east span isn't expected to be open until September 2013.

Had the eastern (cantilever) bridge section of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge entirely collapsed, it would have been replaced much more rapidly (the damage was repaired in about a moth, if memory serves). 

I understand that some of the delays in replacing the eastern bridge were due to arguments about aesthetics and cost.

So they were.  But, the original cantilever bridge is still in place and being used and no stronger than when one section of it collapsed in 1989.  The next pretty big earthquake doesn't care if the delays were due to arguments over cost or aesthetics or environmental concerns or construction delays.

Quote from: kkt on August 12, 2012, 01:03:11 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2012, 01:23:23 PM

Quote from: kkt on August 11, 2012, 01:02:15 PM

Quote from: SidS1045 on June 28, 2012, 02:42:49 PM
Heck, even California, one of the worst when it comes to environmental reviews of major infrastructure projects, gets their act together in emergencies (like after earthquakes) and rebuilds roads in a hurry when they need to.

Not always.  The Loma Prieta earthquake was in 1989, and the new Bay Bridge east span isn't expected to be open until September 2013.

Had the eastern (cantilever) bridge section of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge entirely collapsed, it would have been replaced much more rapidly (the damage was repaired in about a moth, if memory serves). 

I understand that some of the delays in replacing the eastern bridge were due to arguments about aesthetics and cost.

So they were.  But, the original cantilever bridge is still in place and being used and no stronger than when one section of it collapsed in 1989.

You are correct.  And it is clearly a hazard, since nobody knows when the next quake might happen along the San Andreas or one of the other faults in the Bay Area.

Quote from: kkt on August 12, 2012, 01:03:11 PM
The next pretty big earthquake doesn't care if the delays were due to arguments over cost or aesthetics or environmental concerns or construction delays.

I don't know Bay Area politics all that well, but I do wonder why the state of California did not step in and say to the local elected officials involved something like this:

Get it built.

Now.

Or else the highway and transit dollars that come to you from elsewhere will stop and be spent in some other part of California.

Maybe they have plans and are waiting for an earthquake so they can say "we told you so, now we're going to build the bridge ourselves and you will have no say".

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2012, 09:38:47 AMThe difference between a $14 toll to cross the T-Z and a $1 toll to cross the Bear Mountain Bridge is going to "move" a lot of eastbound traffic north, even if the highway network there cannot support a huge increase in traffic.  For trucks, I-84 will become an even more attractive option for crossing the Hudson.  Wonder if the Thruway Authority or NYSDOT have asked one of their consultants to model the traffic impact of a $14 toll eastbound at the T-Z?

IIRC, there are already BGS' (2, I believe) along I-287 northbound south near the NY-NJ state line that read *paraphrased* New England USE NORTH 87 TO EAST 84; the BGS' (one done in NJDOT specs, the other located closer to the state line in either NYDOT or NYSTA specs) were likely erected when the I-87/84 interchange was completed several years ago. 

If that toll increase indeed takes effect as currently proposed; many more drivers (myself included during my holiday trips to New England) will indeed heed those BGS' more often.

Quote from: Duke87 on August 05, 2012, 10:51:25 AM
You would think that NYSTA could raise their tolls everywhere rather than just at the bridge to distribute the stress. The mainline tolls are pretty low as is. Compare about $20 from Woodbury to Buffalo with about $50 for about the same distance on the PA Turnpike.

Yeah, that would logically make more sense; and in the wake of Gov. Cuomo's reversal on the $14 new TPZB toll (his re-election bid is just 2 years away BTW), that could very well happen if more federal funding can't be obtained/secured.

It's worth noting (though off-topic, but since you mentioned it) that the PA Turnpike tolls now funds other transportation projects in the state besides the Turnpike itself... courtesy of Act 44 enacted by then-Cov. Rendell.  The upshoot; Turnpike users in the Keystone state have been getting shaken down to fund other projects that they may never see or use.

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 13, 2012, 09:37:52 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2012, 09:38:47 AMThe difference between a $14 toll to cross the T-Z and a $1 toll to cross the Bear Mountain Bridge is going to "move" a lot of eastbound traffic north, even if the highway network there cannot support a huge increase in traffic.  For trucks, I-84 will become an even more attractive option for crossing the Hudson.  Wonder if the Thruway Authority or NYSDOT have asked one of their consultants to model the traffic impact of a $14 toll eastbound at the T-Z?

IIRC, there are already BGS' (2, I believe) along I-287 northbound south near the NY-NJ state line that read *paraphrased* New England USE NORTH 87 TO EAST 84; the BGS' (one done in NJDOT specs, the other located closer to the state line in either NYDOT or NYSTA specs) were likely erected when the I-87/84 interchange was completed several years ago. 

Actually, those signs were there long before work even started on the I-84/Thruway interchange project.  When I was working down in NJ frequently, I would see them on the way home on I-287NB.  This was during the 2001-2004 era. 

Personally, I didn't like going the I-84 route.  Back then, the speed limit on I-84 in NY was 55 east of the Newburg-Beacon Bridge (as we used to say, you had to pay to go 65) and the traffic on I-84 in CT in the afternoon sucks.  But what was our alternative?  The turnpike wasn't so great either.

Quote from: shadyjay on August 13, 2012, 03:24:58 PMActually, those signs were there long before work even started on the I-84/Thruway interchange project.  When I was working down in NJ frequently, I would see them on the way home on I-287NB.  This was during the 2001-2004 era.

Thanks for the update/clarification.  That was one reason why I stated likely erected as opposed to definitely erected in my earlier post.   

Quote from: shadyjay on August 13, 2012, 03:24:58 PM
Personally, I didn't like going the I-84 route.  Back then, the speed limit on I-84 in NY was 55 east of the Newburg-Beacon Bridge (as we used to say, you had to pay to go 65) and the traffic on I-84 in CT in the afternoon sucks.  But what was our alternative?  The turnpike wasn't so great either.

My only experience with going that route was one Thanksgiving weekend many years ago (before the I-87/84 direct-connection) after receiving word that the Thruway heading towards the Tappan Zee was an absolute parking lot; while that alternate was not perfect, it avoided a major traffic headache.

Is the speed limit along I-84 between I-87 and I-684 and I-87 north of I-287 now 65?  I know the I-87/287/Thruway multiplex and I-287/CWE is still posted 55.

While I-84 through CT can be a traffic headache at times, I-95 along the CT coast is usually worse.

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 14, 2012, 09:00:33 AMIs the speed limit along I-84 between I-87 and I-684 and I-87 north of I-287 now 65?  I know the I-87/287/Thruway multiplex and I-287/CWE is still posted 55.

Sometime around 2002 or 2003, the speed limit was raised to 65 on I-684 for pretty much its entire length, except about a 1/2 mile on either side of its termini.  Shortly later, I-84 went to 65 from a point east of the Newburgh/Beacon Bridge to a point near the I-684 interchange, remaining 55 east to the CT state line and west across the bridge to a point west of the Thruway.  Also sometime around that later timeframe, the speed limit on the Thruway was raised to 65 MPH from the Spring Valley toll barrier to just past Exit 15A, so now that includes a portion of the I-87/I-287 multiplex.

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 14, 2012, 09:00:33 AM
While I-84 through CT can be a traffic headache at times, I-95 along the CT coast is usually worse.

Absolutely true. They still have the ridiculous bottleneck between Exits 25 and 25A, now with three lanes each way on either side. I-84 is a clusterfuck with a lack of any east-west connectivity in another corridor. You'd have to go way up to 202 and over to 44 to get away from 95/Merritt and 84 both.

Is there a particular reason that 84 near Danbury jams up so badly as to be the stuff of legends?

At least twice on a Peter Pan bus coming back from New York City, the driver stayed on I-684 one extra exit and opted for US 6/US 202 East...once all the way until they join I-84 at Exit 4. :(

Quote from: hbelkins on August 14, 2012, 09:40:44 PM
Is there a particular reason that 84 near Danbury jams up so badly as to be the stuff of legends?

Truth be told, I haven't had problems with Danbury. Waterbury is the typical jam, and then along the way between Danbury and Waterbury the 2-lane section is often slow going. The problem in Danbury is the merge and diverge with US 7, which is a 2+2=3 and 3=2+2 zipper with a couple of exits between.

Traffic was heavier in Danbury than Waterbury when I went to New Haven last year, though there was some construction and it wasn't to levels to cause delays.

Quote from: hbelkins on August 14, 2012, 09:40:44 PM
Is there a particular reason that 84 near Danbury jams up so badly as to be the stuff of legends?

Here are some:

1.  There is a mall (Danbury Mall(?)) located near Exit 3 (US 7 South).  During the holidays, traffic leading to mall can literally back up onto I-84.  Note: Exit 3 is also a Left Lane Exit from I-84 West.

2.  West of Exit 7 (US 7 North & US 202 East), I-84 drops from 6 lanes to 4 lanes w/an occasional climbing lane.  Exit 7 is a Left lane Exit from I-84 East.  Given the amount of through-traffic this highway gets, this part of I-84 (west of Exit 7) needs to be wider than just 4 lanes.

3.  US 7 traffic multiplexing with I-84 between Exits 3 and 7.

In my experience, Danbury itself wasn't as bad as the stretch climbing up to Waterbury, and of course Waterbury itself.  Of course on a Friday afternoon, it didn't matter what road you took - I-84, I-95, or the Merritt... they were all bad.

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 15, 2012, 02:35:09 PM
There is a mall (Danbury Mall(?)) located near Exit 3 (US 7 South).

Technically known as the "Danbury Fair Mall", though everyone I've ever talked to calls it "the Danbury mall"... unless you're from Danbury, in which case it's just "the mall".

TOLLROADSnews: New York Governor gets metro area OK for new Tappan Zee Bridge - now after TIFIA loan (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6139)

Quote2012-08-21: A new Tappan Zee Bridge plan championed by the governor of New York State Andrew Cuomo got the unanimous approval of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Commission (NYMTC) in a special meeting Monday allowing the New York State Thruway Authority owner of the bridge to apply for a federally supported TIFIA loan. Immediately after the vote the state Governor emailed US sec-trans Ray LaHood urging his support for the project.

QuoteCuomo said in a statement: "After over a decade of delay caused by political dysfunction, this letter demonstrates that we are making real progress towards constructing a stronger, transit-ready bridge that will reduce congestion for year to come."

I know there was a discussion somewhere about the Port Authority district and how the Tappan Zee was built outside it, but I can't find it. Anyway, here's a map of the district boundaries: http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/PortAuthorityDistrict1979/index.htm
Yep, it crosses the Thruway just east of the bridge.

Quote from: NE2 on September 15, 2012, 10:12:52 AM
I know there was a discussion somewhere about the Port Authority district and how the Tappan Zee was built outside it, but I can't find it. Anyway, here's a map of the district boundaries: http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/PortAuthorityDistrict1979/index.htm
Yep, it crosses the Thruway just east of the bridge.

District for what? It crosses through the middle of Westchester Co. Airport and includes some other ones (Passaic County) that aren't PA property. If it's just bridges, why not just show the Hudson?

Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2012, 02:52:58 AM
District for what?

The "Port of New York District" in which the PA has jurisdiction: http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/port-of-new-york-authority-154.21/

Interesting. I was told by someone who works for the Port Authority that their jurisdiction was defined as a circle with a radius of 25 miles centered at the Statue of Liberty, and I've definitely heard similar from other sources. Must be a common misconception.

Quote from: Duke87 on September 16, 2012, 10:20:24 AM
Interesting. I was told by someone who works for the Port Authority that their jurisdiction was defined as a circle with a radius of 25 miles centered at the Statue of Liberty, and I've definitely heard similar from other sources. Must be a common misconception.

Why would they know any better than anyone else? Employees aren't in charge of monitoring ports. I guess the map is only good for water mapping, and doesn't cover other PA facilities?

Quote from: Steve on September 17, 2012, 07:33:00 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on September 16, 2012, 10:20:24 AM
Interesting. I was told by someone who works for the Port Authority that their jurisdiction was defined as a circle with a radius of 25 miles centered at the Statue of Liberty, and I've definitely heard similar from other sources. Must be a common misconception.

Why would they know any better than anyone else? Employees aren't in charge of monitoring ports. I guess the map is only good for water mapping, and doesn't cover other PA facilities?

And Stewart Airport (http://www.panynj.gov/airports/stewart.html), which is now run by the PANYNJ is rather far beyond that boundary near Newburgh, in Orange County, N.Y.

Federal approval of the environmental impact statement for the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement has been announced.  On to the next stage now...

http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Feds-approve-impact-report-for-NY-s-new-Tappan-Zee-3894075.php (http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Feds-approve-impact-report-for-NY-s-new-Tappan-Zee-3894075.php)

Quote from: Dougtone on September 26, 2012, 07:29:24 AM
Federal approval of the environmental impact statement for the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement has been announced.  On to the next stage now...

http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Feds-approve-impact-report-for-NY-s-new-Tappan-Zee-3894075.php (http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Feds-approve-impact-report-for-NY-s-new-Tappan-Zee-3894075.php)

Is it safe to assume that the Sierra Club and the TSTC will be filing suit in federal court in a bid to force a remand of the environmental impact statement?

Bloomberg Op-Ed: Don't Build a New Tappan Zee Bridge (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/don-t-build-a-new-tappan-zee-bridge.html)

QuoteThe Tappan Zee Bridge up the Hudson River from New York City should never have been built in the first place. Spanning three miles between Rockland County in the west and Westchester County in the east, about 20 miles north of Times Square, the bridge is built at one of the widest points in the Hudson, defying basic precepts of good engineering.

QuoteThe bridge was built to suit New York politicians, who didn't want to have to share the bridge with New Jersey. If it had been built south a few miles, as geography dictates, it would have connected two states and been under the control of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

QuoteNow the bridge is congested with traffic and, in its old age, has become expensive to maintain. So New York has decided to replace it with a new, wider bridge, at a cost of $5.2 billion.

It would cost far more to build a new bridge somewhere else and have to rout I-87/287 to meet it. Not to mention that the article is wrong about why the bridge wasn't built farther south. We just discussed the Port Authority circle of influence, but fact is, there was an agreement just to the south, and the Thruway wasn't going to have the Port Authority in charge of one of its bridges. (Good idea.)

Quote from: Steve on September 28, 2012, 08:08:57 PM
It would cost far more to build a new bridge somewhere else and have to rout I-87/287 to meet it.

And consider the impact on the built environments of Westchester and Rockland Counties.

Quote from: Steve on September 28, 2012, 08:08:57 PM
Not to mention that the article is wrong about why the bridge wasn't built farther south. We just discussed the Port Authority circle of influence, but fact is, there was an agreement just to the south, and the Thruway wasn't going to have the Port Authority in charge of one of its bridges. (Good idea.)

I don't know enough about how the Port Authority runs its crossings to make any statement either way, though they seem to me to be in decent enough condition (I hate the Port Authority's three big airports (JFK, LGA and EWR), and won't use them under any circumstances after too many bad experiences with overseas connections - fortunately, there is decent overseas service out of IAD (a vastly better airport than anything run by the Port Authority) and to a lesser extent out of BWI (still, a much better airport than the ones run by the Port Authority)).

Regarding the Thruway, it seems to maintain its highways well, and as a practical matter, it would be stupid to have the two sections of the Thruway "interrupted" by a crossing under Port Authority jurisdiction.  Though didn't we have something like that when "free" I-84 was maintained by the Thruway Authority with the Beacon Bridge "in the middle" over the Hudson River at Newburgh?

Thanks to LoHud.com and the New York State Archives, we get an oldie, but a goodie.  This is a road video from yesteryear, well actually a promotional film from the 1950s regarding the New York Thruway's Tappan Zee Bridge.
http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2012/09/27/video-the-tappan-zee-bridge-in-1955/ (http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2012/09/27/video-the-tappan-zee-bridge-in-1955/)

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2012, 09:19:24 PM

Quote from: Steve on September 28, 2012, 08:08:57 PM
Not to mention that the article is wrong about why the bridge wasn't built farther south. We just discussed the Port Authority circle of influence, but fact is, there was an agreement just to the south, and the Thruway wasn't going to have the Port Authority in charge of one of its bridges. (Good idea.)

I don't know enough about how the Port Authority runs its crossings to make any statement either way, though they seem to me to be in decent enough condition (I hate the Port Authority's three big airports (JFK, LGA and EWR), and won't use them under any circumstances after too many bad experiences with overseas connections - fortunately, there is decent overseas service out of IAD (a vastly better airport than anything run by the Port Authority) and to a lesser extent out of BWI (still, a much better airport than the ones run by the Port Authority)).

Regarding the Thruway, it seems to maintain its highways well, and as a practical matter, it would be stupid to have the two sections of the Thruway "interrupted" by a crossing under Port Authority jurisdiction.  Though didn't we have something like that when "free" I-84 was maintained by the Thruway Authority with the Beacon Bridge "in the middle" over the Hudson River at Newburgh?

That latter point is the spirit of my statement - that one state agency (other than DOT) does NOT like it when another state agency tries to tread on their turf. The reason it's a good idea to avoid that situation is all the interagency coordination that's needed down the road. Let's say the NYSTA was ready to widen the Thruway to 5 lanes each way on either side, but the Port Authority said nah, we like our 6-lane Tappan Zee the way it is. At least this way, one authority maintains one continuous road.

You have to love op-Ed's like this.  The author states that both counties are irredeemably auto oriented yet still fantasizes that people will be better off without a new bridge.  I'll say what I always say about people who do not live in the real world. "Must be nice"!

4 kilometers long, 8 lanes wide, over a shipping channel, designed by Parsons, built in America. (http://www.cooperriverbridge.org/) Price tag: $700 Million.

As long as the Tappan Zee exceeds that figure eightfold, and will likely increase in price as construction starts, the financially responsible answer is a clear no-build. Unless and until the cost can be knocked down to under 2 Billion (still nearly thrice as much as the Cooper River bridge), then any new bridge will be little more than welfare spending to unions and politically favorable corporations.

The Tappan Zee isn't even considered structurally deficient, nor are trucks restricted. Fears that the bridge will collapse like I-35W are overblown, and groups spreading that lie are generally those who will receive the welfare check.

If the problem is a capacity issue, then it can be fixed by converting the toll booth to license plate tolling like E-470 in Denver or 407 in Toronto feature (sorry unionized overpaid toll collectors, you're out!), and extending the fourth lane westbound to the Palisades Interstate Parkway. Furthermore, additional buses could be operated, perhaps even converting the reversible lane in the center to HOV only.  There are very easy and cost effective ways to add capacity without spending billions on a new bridge.

The cooper river bridge is a beauty and a bargin too. 

This isn't sc though and it never will be.  I have no real bid for the unions as I agree they make things more expensive.  That said, they are never going away.  So it's either pay them now or pay them later IMO. 

Having drivin this bridge on weekedays twice a day for 3.5 years your suggestion for continuing that 4th lane to the palisades pkwy makes a great deal sense.  Although I would guess that cost would run into the high several hundred millions.  Clearly eliminating the toll booths would help, but there are no toll booths headed westbound now and traffic is a disaster. 

Unfortuneatly, your two additional approach enhancements combined with the new bridge are the only real answers.  Status quo is just not an option at almost any real cost....5B, 10B or whatever. 

I know we are not really debating sprawl here, but you have to consider the cost of housing in westchester versus rockland and beyond. Commuting is the only option for most people given the high cost of housing.  I moved from northern nj to westchester to be closer to my job once the TZB commute got to be too much.  I pay triple the property taxes in westchester and my house is not a nice but cost about the same.  I can afford it, but most cannot.  Even a crushing 14 dollar toll is still cheaper than moving to westchester, thus another reason the 5B is worth it IMO.

Metro ny can be a nightmare, but it's home.

Quote from: Zmapper on September 29, 2012, 10:15:15 PM
4 kilometers long, 8 lanes wide, over a shipping channel, designed by Parsons, built in America. (http://www.cooperriverbridge.org/) Price tag: $700 Million.

Hmmm. River depths are the same too (40 feet). Fuck unionized AARoads modding for changing sarcasm into apparent agreement.

Consider not just the river depth but the soil conditions underneath. Can't speak for Cooper River, but the bed of the Hudson at the Tappan Zee has such poor soil that it can't support the bridge on top of it and thus about a third of the current bridge's weight is supported by buoyancy with hollow caissons. I'd imagine that adds significantly to the cost of building a new bridge there.

Not going to deny that union work rules (you must have at least three guys standing around watching for every one guy actually doing something) balloon costs around here though. As does the fact that the cost of living is higher, though that can't be helped.

Quote from: NE2 on September 29, 2012, 11:12:59 PM

Quote from: Zmapper on September 29, 2012, 10:15:15 PM
4 kilometers long, 8 lanes wide, over a shipping channel, designed by Parsons, built in America. (http://www.cooperriverbridge.org/) Price tag: $700 Million.

Hmmm. River depths are the same too (40 feet). Fuck unionized AARoads modding for changing sarcasm into apparent agreement.

If you didn't violate our policies on excessive swearing, we wouldn't have had to moderate your post in the first place. Please take that to heart.

Quote from: Zmapper on September 29, 2012, 10:15:15 PM
4 kilometers long, 8 lanes wide, over a shipping channel, designed by Parsons, built in America. (http://www.cooperriverbridge.org/) Price tag: $700 Million.

I've been over that bridge. It is in South Carolina, where even Davis-Bacon "prevailing" (union) wagers are significantly less than they are in the New York Metropolitan Area.

Quote from: Zmapper on September 29, 2012, 10:15:15 PM
As long as the Tappan Zee exceeds that figure eightfold, and will likely increase in price as construction starts, the financially responsible answer is a clear no-build. Unless and until the cost can be knocked down to under 2 Billion (still nearly thrice as much as the Cooper River bridge), then any new bridge will be little more than welfare spending to unions and politically favorable corporations.

I strongly disagree.  The Tappan Zee was cheaply built to begin with, and is vulnerable to an earthquake. It is definitely not the George Washington Bridge.

Quote from: Zmapper on September 29, 2012, 10:15:15 PM
The Tappan Zee isn't even considered structurally deficient, nor are trucks restricted. Fears that the bridge will collapse like I-35W are overblown, and groups spreading that lie are generally those who will receive the welfare check.

Trucks were not restricted on the I-35W bridge before it failed, were they?

And similar arguments were used to obstruct and delay the reconstruction of the  old Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95 between Va. and Md., crossing the extreme southern tip of D.C.).

And note that I was personally in favor of collecting tolls from traffic crossing the reconstructed bridge.

Quote from: Zmapper on September 29, 2012, 10:15:15 PM
If the problem is a capacity issue, then it can be fixed by converting the toll booth to license plate tolling like E-470 in Denver or 407 in Toronto feature (sorry unionized overpaid toll collectors, you're out!), and extending the fourth lane westbound to the Palisades Interstate Parkway. Furthermore, additional buses could be operated, perhaps even converting the reversible lane in the center to HOV only.  There are very easy and cost effective ways to add capacity without spending billions on a new bridge.

Or Maryland's Route 200.

Time-of-day tolling might make some sense here, but the bridge needs to be replaced anyway. 

As far as cashless tolling goes, the T-Z is part of the New York State Thruway system, and as such, a decision to go cashless should be made for the entire Thruway, not just this crossing.

As a person who been over this bridge many of times, avoiding the dreaded Cross Bronx expressway, I can fully state that this damn bridge needs to go! The bridge wasn't built like the GWB or the Brooklyn Bridge. It isn't in that great of shape. Hell, it has been stated that it is in worse shape the one on I-95 in Cos Cob, CT that fell into the Sound back in 1983.

It needs to be at least 8 lanes wide, maybe 10, and it needs one reversible HOV lane. Anyone who says that this bridge does not need to be rebuilt does not live or has lived in greater NYC.

Quote from: Perfxion on September 30, 2012, 10:40:10 AM
As a person who been over this bridge many of times, avoiding the dreaded Cross Bronx expressway, I can fully state that this damn bridge needs to go! The bridge wasn't built like the GWB or the Brooklyn Bridge. It isn't in that great of shape. Hell, it has been stated that it is in worse shape the one on I-95 in Cos Cob, CT that fell into the Sound back in 1983.

It needs to be at least 8 lanes wide, maybe 10, and it needs one reversible HOV lane. Anyone who says that this bridge does not need to be rebuilt does not live or has lived in greater NYC.

Don't forget that many of the persons and groups opposed to a new T-Z are opposed to any and all highway improvements, regardless of merit (two T-Z-specific examples here (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2012/01/who-will-stop-tappan-zee-project.html) and here (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2011/12/five-reasons-why-tappan-zee-sprawl.html), and an even more craven and egregious example here (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/p/myths-about-tappan-zee-bridge.html)).

Quote from: Perfxion on September 30, 2012, 10:40:10 AM
As a person who been over this bridge many of times, avoiding the dreaded Cross Bronx expressway, I can fully state that this damn bridge needs to go! The bridge wasn't built like the GWB or the Brooklyn Bridge. It isn't in that great of shape. Hell, it has been stated that it is in worse shape the one on I-95 in Cos Cob, CT that fell into the Sound back in 1983.

It needs to be at least 8 lanes wide, maybe 10, and it needs one reversible HOV lane. Anyone who says that this bridge does not need to be rebuilt does not live or has lived in greater NYC.

I can go for a reversible HOV lane, providing there are two non-reversible ones, and I think the HOV lanes should be separate from the rest of the traffic. I might've been willing to consider a scenario like I-95 south of DC, but I'm not sure about that idea anymore.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 30, 2012, 11:31:06 AM
Don't forget that many of the persons and groups opposed to a new T-Z are opposed to any and all highway improvements, regardless of merit (two T-Z-specific examples here (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2012/01/who-will-stop-tappan-zee-project.html) and here (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2011/12/five-reasons-why-tappan-zee-sprawl.html), and an even more craven and egregious example here (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/p/myths-about-tappan-zee-bridge.html)).

Screw 'em. After all, they've been screwing us for the past 40-50 years, by stopping road improvements. I wonder what "farms" they think would be lost by replacing the rickety Tappan-Zee with something more solid. Or maybe somebody should enlighten "Cap'n Transit" about how long the Thruway was in Orange County before those farms were lost in 2010.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 30, 2012, 09:14:15 AM

Quote from: Zmapper on September 29, 2012, 10:15:15 PM

The Tappan Zee isn't even considered structurally deficient, nor are trucks restricted. Fears that the bridge will collapse like I-35W are overblown, and groups spreading that lie are generally those who will receive the welfare check.

Trucks were not restricted on the I-35W bridge before it failed, were they?

And similar arguments were used to obstruct and delay the reconstruction of the  old Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95 between Va. and Md., crossing the extreme southern tip of D.C.).

And note that I was personally in favor of collecting tolls from traffic crossing the reconstructed bridge.

The I-35W bridge was rated structurally deficient, so it should have been replaced. If you are worried about unsafe bridges, there are about 72,000 bridges more important to replace than the Tappan Zee.

The Tappan Zee is considered "functionally obsolete", meaning that it wouldn't meet standards for road geometry if it were built today.

Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 30, 2012, 11:33:05 AM

Quote from: Perfxion on September 30, 2012, 10:40:10 AM
As a person who been over this bridge many of times, avoiding the dreaded Cross Bronx expressway, I can fully state that this damn bridge needs to go! The bridge wasn't built like the GWB or the Brooklyn Bridge. It isn't in that great of shape. Hell, it has been stated that it is in worse shape the one on I-95 in Cos Cob, CT that fell into the Sound back in 1983.

It needs to be at least 8 lanes wide, maybe 10, and it needs one reversible HOV lane. Anyone who says that this bridge does not need to be rebuilt does not live or has lived in greater NYC.

I can go for a reversible HOV lane, providing there are two non-reversible ones, and I think the HOV lanes should be separate from the rest of the traffic. I might've been willing to consider a scenario like I-95 south of DC, but I'm not sure about that idea anymore.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 30, 2012, 11:31:06 AM
Don't forget that many of the persons and groups opposed to a new T-Z are opposed to any and all highway improvements, regardless of merit (two T-Z-specific examples here (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2012/01/who-will-stop-tappan-zee-project.html) and here (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2011/12/five-reasons-why-tappan-zee-sprawl.html), and an even more craven and egregious example here (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/p/myths-about-tappan-zee-bridge.html)).

Screw 'em. After all, they've been screwing us for the past 40-50 years, by stopping road improvements. I wonder what "farms" they think would be lost by replacing the rickety Tappan-Zee with something more solid. Or maybe somebody should enlighten "Cap'n Transit" about how long the Thruway was in Orange County before those farms were lost in 2010.

Cap'n Transit is a bit 'out there', I agree. In the past I have made efforts to engage (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2011/10/tappan-zee-bridge-is-sprawl-generating.html?showComment=1319241172264#c3359645959852233440) with him (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-missed-opportunities-of-northern.html?showComment=1343016852132#c2206595909507403666), but he seems rather set in his ways.

Quote from: Zmapper on September 30, 2012, 12:53:19 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 30, 2012, 09:14:15 AM

Quote from: Zmapper on September 29, 2012, 10:15:15 PM

The Tappan Zee isn't even considered structurally deficient, nor are trucks restricted. Fears that the bridge will collapse like I-35W are overblown, and groups spreading that lie are generally those who will receive the welfare check.

Trucks were not restricted on the I-35W bridge before it failed, were they?

And similar arguments were used to obstruct and delay the reconstruction of the  old Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95 between Va. and Md., crossing the extreme southern tip of D.C.).

And note that I was personally in favor of collecting tolls from traffic crossing the reconstructed bridge.

The I-35W bridge was rated structurally deficient, so it should have been replaced. If you are worried about unsafe bridges, there are about 72,000 bridges more important to replace than the Tappan Zee.

The Tappan Zee is considered "functionally obsolete", meaning that it wouldn't meet standards for road geometry if it were built today.

Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 30, 2012, 11:33:05 AM

Quote from: Perfxion on September 30, 2012, 10:40:10 AM
As a person who been over this bridge many of times, avoiding the dreaded Cross Bronx expressway, I can fully state that this damn bridge needs to go! The bridge wasn't built like the GWB or the Brooklyn Bridge. It isn't in that great of shape. Hell, it has been stated that it is in worse shape the one on I-95 in Cos Cob, CT that fell into the Sound back in 1983.

It needs to be at least 8 lanes wide, maybe 10, and it needs one reversible HOV lane. Anyone who says that this bridge does not need to be rebuilt does not live or has lived in greater NYC.

I can go for a reversible HOV lane, providing there are two non-reversible ones, and I think the HOV lanes should be separate from the rest of the traffic. I might've been willing to consider a scenario like I-95 south of DC, but I'm not sure about that idea anymore.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 30, 2012, 11:31:06 AM
Don't forget that many of the persons and groups opposed to a new T-Z are opposed to any and all highway improvements, regardless of merit (two T-Z-specific examples here (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2012/01/who-will-stop-tappan-zee-project.html) and here (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2011/12/five-reasons-why-tappan-zee-sprawl.html), and an even more craven and egregious example here (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/p/myths-about-tappan-zee-bridge.html)).

Screw 'em. After all, they've been screwing us for the past 40-50 years, by stopping road improvements. I wonder what "farms" they think would be lost by replacing the rickety Tappan-Zee with something more solid. Or maybe somebody should enlighten "Cap'n Transit" about how long the Thruway was in Orange County before those farms were lost in 2010.

Cap'n Transit is a bit 'out there', I agree. In the past I have made efforts to engage (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2011/10/tappan-zee-bridge-is-sprawl-generating.html?showComment=1319241172264#c3359645959852233440) with him (http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-missed-opportunities-of-northern.html?showComment=1343016852132#c2206595909507403666), but he seems rather set in his ways.

The Tappan Zee was built in the Korean War during a stell shortage.  As such, it's very cheaply done, and only had a 50 year design life.  The general consensus is that it could collapse into the Hudson any day now, and yet you say it's fine.

The congestion won't go away either.  As was mentioned, this is a car-centric area.  People aren't going to give up the freedom of a car for a bus corridor just because some anti-auto groups tell them to.

Furthermore, comparing it to that SC bridge is just folly.  The new Tappan Zee will be nearly twice as long, wider, and in a state that actually pays workers semi-decent wages, at a time when construction costs are more expensive in general.  Of course it's going to cost a lot more.

Quote from: deanej on September 30, 2012, 01:39:06 PM
The Tappan Zee was built in the Korean War during a stell shortage.  As such, it's very cheaply done, and only had a 50 year design life.  The general consensus is that it could collapse into the Hudson any day now, and yet you say it's fine.

If it is going to collapse any day now, then why is it not on the "structurally deficient" list? Surely for such a politically popular project the powers-that-be would direct the engineers to make sure it ended up on the list, but they still haven't listed the bridge as structurally deficient.

Quote
The congestion won't go away either.  As was mentioned, this is a car-centric area.  People aren't going to give up the freedom of a car for a bus corridor just because some anti-auto groups tell them to.

How many people are willing to pay the $25+ tolls to drive over the new bridge? Granted, Rockland and Orange county is a rich area, but there still would be plenty of people that are willing to change their habits by using transit, changing jobs, or even moving out if it meant they could save $25 each day.

Quote
Furthermore, comparing it to that SC bridge is just folly.  The new Tappan Zee will be nearly twice as long, wider, and in a state that actually pays workers semi-decent wages, at a time when construction costs are more expensive in general.  Of course it's going to cost a lot more.

I highly doubt that the workers in SC are being paid crap wages relative to the cost-of-living there. Last I checked, SC is still part of America, and are still subject to the same federal worker protection laws and minimum wage laws that New Yorkers receive.

The Tappan Zee is only a 1/2 mile longer, and will have the same lane width as the New Cooper River bridge. What the SC bridge lacks is the gold-plated emergency lanes and shoulders, which almost certainly will be converted to additional lanes the minute the bridge opens. Both bridges are over a shipping channel, both rivers spanned have about the same depth (as NE2 pointed out), both are being designed by Parsons, both are being built in America. There is no reason why one bridge should cost at least 8 times as much as the other.

People would change jobs to save 25 dollars a day?  Don't think so...not in ny anyway.  I would pay 25 dollars a day just to know I had my job though the end of the year, but I work for a mega bank so maybe that's unique to my industry.  But wait, pretty much every job is directly or indirectly linking to the banking industry in ny, so maybe I speak for the majority?

Also, see my point on moving from my earlier post. Ny aint sc nor is it Colorado.  I use to live in colorado and there you could just pave over a few hundred acre farm and throw up some track housing to lessen people's commutes. The average price of a home on the westchester side of the bridge is well north of 1 million bucks in many towns...and that's post the real estate bubble.  My point is 25 bucks will not change people's behavior.  And if you throw out a higher number many New Yorkers would support the thruway or another authority even the state general fund taking on some of the cost to defer the toll.  Even those hat don't use the bridge often would like to get the heck out of metro ny sometimes without the headache of hours returning on Sunday night. 

Quote from: Zmapper on September 30, 2012, 02:12:45 PM

Quote from: deanej on September 30, 2012, 01:39:06 PM
The Tappan Zee was built in the Korean War during a stell shortage.  As such, it's very cheaply done, and only had a 50 year design life.  The general consensus is that it could collapse into the Hudson any day now, and yet you say it's fine.

If it is going to collapse any day now, then why is it not on the "structurally deficient" list? Surely for such a politically popular project the powers-that-be would direct the engineers to make sure it ended up on the list, but they still haven't listed the bridge as structurally deficient.

Quote
The congestion won't go away either.  As was mentioned, this is a car-centric area.  People aren't going to give up the freedom of a car for a bus corridor just because some anti-auto groups tell them to.

How many people are willing to pay the $25+ tolls to drive over the new bridge? Granted, Rockland and Orange county is a rich area, but there still would be plenty of people that are willing to change their habits by using transit, changing jobs, or even moving out if it meant they could save $25 each day.

Quote
Furthermore, comparing it to that SC bridge is just folly.  The new Tappan Zee will be nearly twice as long, wider, and in a state that actually pays workers semi-decent wages, at a time when construction costs are more expensive in general.  Of course it's going to cost a lot more.

I highly doubt that the workers in SC are being paid crap wages relative to the cost-of-living there. Last I checked, SC is still part of America, and are still subject to the same federal worker protection laws and minimum wage laws that New Yorkers receive.

The Tappan Zee is only a 1/2 mile longer, and will have the same lane width as the New Cooper River bridge. What the SC bridge lacks is the gold-plated emergency lanes and shoulders, which almost certainly will be converted to additional lanes the minute the bridge opens. Both bridges are over a shipping channel, both rivers spanned have about the same depth (as NE2 pointed out), both are being designed by Parsons, both are being built in America. There is no reason why one bridge should cost at least 8 times as much as the other.

It's probably not on the structurally deficient list because NYSTA pays to have it rehabilitated 24/7/365.

The highest proposed toll I have seen is $14, and Governor Cuomo is on record as saying he will pursue any and all options to reduce it.  Note that this is about the same as many other NYC area bridges, though it would be the first north of the Bronx-Westchester county line.  As mentioned, the tolls are eastbound only, so removing tolls would not do anything to make it less connected.  The toll plaza also has two 35mph E-ZPass lanes, the only ones of their kind on the Thruway, and I'm betting that the only reason the Thruway Authority hasn't made them full ORT is because having cars whiz by at 55 mph while the rest are in bumper to bumper traffic is NOT safe.  Also of note, the Thruway is not considering going cashless, not now, not ever.  We don't even have E-ZPass only ramps, though having a couple for I-87 on exit 24 was considered (and given that they aren't a part of the widening in the area, I would assume rejected).

The New Copper bridge is 2.6 miles long, if you include the portions that are on land, which are really just glorified elevated freeways rather than a bridge IMO.  If you include just the parts that look like a bridge, it's only 1.4 miles long.  The Tappan Zee is a full 3 miles long, 99% of it over water, much of it floating because, as noted before, the bottom cannot support the bridge weight.  It will certainly be wider than the New Copper bridge, as the New Copper bridge is only four lanes each way with no shoulders.  I believe the new Tappan Zee is supposed to have five each way with space available to run trains through it.  Also, note that it would also have to be brought up to modern standards, which means shoulders.  The New Copper bridge does not carry interstates, so it doesn't have to adhere to as strict a standard as the new Tappan Zee does.  I HIGHLY DOUBT the shoulders will be converted into additonal lanes the minute it opens.  Bridges are typically built to handle tomorrow's traffic loads, not yesterday's.  At least that's how we do it in NY.

Minimum wage is not enough to live off of.  Businesses are known for exploiting non-union workers, and forcing them into the crappiest circumstances the law will allow.  If you don't like unions, go work in a Chinese factory and tell me how you like it.  That's what the US would be like without unions.  While unions do often go too far, the same is even more true of businesses, and unions are a necessary part of the system to balance this out.

Quote from: deanej on September 30, 2012, 08:05:21 PM
Minimum wage is not enough to live off of.  Businesses are known for exploiting non-union workers, and forcing them into the crappiest circumstances the law will allow.  If you don't like unions, go work in a Chinese factory and tell me how you like it.  That's what the US would be like without unions.  While unions do often go too far, the same is even more true of businesses, and unions are a necessary part of the system to balance this out.

Many U.S. states have little or no unionization, and their trade workers do fine financially.  Unionization <> good pay.

Quote from: deanej on September 30, 2012, 08:05:21 PM
It's probably not on the structurally deficient list because NYSTA pays to have it rehabilitated 24/7/365.

You don't spend $50 to save 50 cents. While rehabilitation costs are higher than ideal, replacing the bridge for the sake of replacing the bridge is even more expensive.

Quote
The highest proposed toll I have seen is $14, and Governor Cuomo is on record as saying he will pursue any and all options to reduce it.

According to an independent analysis by Charles Komanoff (http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/01/26/cost-of-tappan-zee-mega-bridge-could-cause-tolls-to-triple/), with some basic math the toll to repay the bond could be as little as $9, or as high as $30. Traffic could fluctuate between 165,000 or 82,000, which is dependent on toll rates.

If Cuomo steps in, and I fully expect he will, then now the whole population of New York is on the hook for an overpriced, gold-plated bridge.

Quote
Note that this is about the same as many other NYC area bridges, though it would be the first north of the Bronx-Westchester county line.  As mentioned, the tolls are eastbound only, so removing tolls would not do anything to make it less connected.  The toll plaza also has two 35mph E-ZPass lanes, the only ones of their kind on the Thruway, and I'm betting that the only reason the Thruway Authority hasn't made them full ORT is because having cars whiz by at 55 mph while the rest are in bumper to bumper traffic is NOT safe.

Also of note, the Thruway is not considering going cashless, not now, not ever.  We don't even have E-ZPass only ramps, though having a couple for I-87 on exit 24 was considered (and given that they aren't a part of the widening in the area, I would assume rejected).

By full ORT, I mean NO tollbooths whatsoever, just gantries. It is absolutely ridiculous that in the 21st Century old fashioned tollbooths are still planned. 407 in Toronto has had full ORT for over a decade now, E-470 in Denver has had it for almost five years, and many other toll roads are being opened up without tollbooths. The technology already exists, it is a matter of initiative  by the NYDOT.

Quote
The New Copper bridge is 2.6 miles long, if you include the portions that are on land, which are really just glorified elevated freeways rather than a bridge IMO.  If you include just the parts that look like a bridge, it's only 1.4 miles long.  The Tappan Zee is a full 3 miles long, 99% of it over water, much of it floating because, as noted before, the bottom cannot support the bridge weight.

According to Google Earth, the distance over what appears to be poor soil (riverbed) plus water is a little over 3 kilometers. I would consider the segment over land to be more challenging, because not only do you have likely poor riverbed soils to deal with, you also have to use eminent domain on the housing below, demolish the homes, construct the bridge, and tie it into existing busy roads, all without shutting down anything for any significant amount of time.

Quote
It will certainly be wider than the New Copper bridge, as the New Copper bridge is only four lanes each way with no shoulders.  I believe the new Tappan Zee is supposed to have five each way with space available to run trains through it. Also, note that it would also have to be brought up to modern standards, which means shoulders.  The New Copper bridge does not carry interstates, so it doesn't have to adhere to as strict a standard as the new Tappan Zee does.  I HIGHLY DOUBT the shoulders will be converted into additonal lanes the minute it opens.  Bridges are typically built to handle tomorrow's traffic loads, not yesterday's.  At least that's how we do it in NY.

Other than minor highway overpasses, I don't recall seeing any bridge with full left and right shoulders, plus an 'emergency access' lane. I could accept perhaps an 8' shoulder on one side, but anything beyond that is little more than frivolous gold-plating and contractor welfare.

Excluding the bicycle path, each span will have 82' available to allocate. If each lane is 11' 5" wide, it is possible to squeeze in 7 lanes in each direction. While they only promise striping four lanes, I give it until the first traffic jam that some politician proposes to re-stripe the shoulders as additional lanes. Remember that the seventh lane originated in a similar process.

Quote
Minimum wage is not enough to live off of.  Businesses are known for exploiting non-union workers, and forcing them into the crappiest circumstances the law will allow.  If you don't like unions, go work in a Chinese factory and tell me how you like it.  That's what the US would be like without unions.  While unions do often go too far, the same is even more true of businesses, and unions are a necessary part of the system to balance this out.

If you honestly believe that unions are the only thing separating us from China, you really need to get out of NY more! Only 12% of all employees are unionized. Furthermore, only 5% of the nation is paid minimum wage (though to be fair, 10% is paid below minimum wage, mostly because they are paid "under the table" or they work on tips.) Of those 5% that are being paid minimum wage, half are under 25. Other than suck $50 out of your paycheck every month and give it straight to the Democrat Party, there is little purpose to unions in the modern world.

The federal funding process helps to insulate decision makers from any consequences. If the Obama administration is just going to give you more money no-questions-asked, who cares if the bridge costs more by a factor of five, eight, or ten? The FHWA will just give you more money, and you won't be under any pressure to change your ways. Abuses of the system like is common in the Northeast are a blatant slap in the face to all taxpayers, and any DOT or city government that does make an attempt at cost control.

Quote from: Zmapper on September 30, 2012, 10:20:33 PM
You don't spend $50 to save 50 cents. While rehabilitation costs are higher than ideal, replacing the bridge for the sake of replacing the bridge is even more expensive.

Those 50 cents will equal 50 dollars after the 100th time you have to pay them.  Simple math.

Quote
According to an independent analysis by Charles Komanoff (http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/01/26/cost-of-tappan-zee-mega-bridge-could-cause-tolls-to-triple/), with some basic math the toll to repay the bond could be as little as $9, or as high as $30. Traffic could fluctuate between 165,000 or 82,000, which is dependent on toll rates.

If Cuomo steps in, and I fully expect he will, then now the whole population of New York is on the hook for an overpriced, gold-plated bridge.

The whole population of New York is already subsidizing the Cross-Westchester Expressway (and formerly I-84) in the form of increased Thruway tolls.  This would be nothing new.  In fact, upstate taxpayers nearly got the bill for a $1 billion football statium in Manhattan a few years ago.

Quote
By full ORT, I mean NO tollbooths whatsoever, just gantries. It is absolutely ridiculous that in the 21st Century old fashioned tollbooths are still planned. 407 in Toronto has had full ORT for over a decade now, E-470 in Denver has had it for almost five years, and many other toll roads are being opened up without tollbooths. The technology already exists, it is a matter of initiative  by the NYDOT.

That is never, ever going to happen on the Thruway.  Also, you just lost all credibility with that last sentence.  There is no such thing as NYDOT.  We have NYSDOT, which maintains just about every state highway except the Thruway, and NYSTA, which maintains the Thruway (and a plethora of other, more minor, agencies), and none of the agencies have anything to do with the others.  Any coorperation that happens between agencies is 100% voluntary.  Perhaps you should bother to inform yourself of the way things work in NY before ranting about gold plated bridges.

Quote
According to Google Earth, the distance over what appears to be poor soil (riverbed) plus water is a little over 3 kilometers. I would consider the segment over land to be more challenging, because not only do you have likely poor riverbed soils to deal with, you also have to use eminent domain on the housing below, demolish the homes, construct the bridge, and tie it into existing busy roads, all without shutting down anything for any significant amount of time.

As was mentioned earlier, the Hudson River soil is likely poor compared to the stuff for the New Copper Bridge, but I guess poor soil doesn't exist in NY in your mind. :rolleyes: Also, take a look at the satellite imagery.  Eminent domain will be needed for the new Tappan Zee as well.  They aren't going to just shut the bridge down for 5 years.

Quote
Other than minor highway overpasses, I don't recall seeing any bridge with full left and right shoulders, plus an 'emergency access' lane. I could accept perhaps an 8' shoulder on one side, but anything beyond that is little more than frivolous gold-plating and contractor welfare.

Excluding the bicycle path, each span will have 82' available to allocate. If each lane is 11' 5" wide, it is possible to squeeze in 7 lanes in each direction. While they only promise striping four lanes, I give it until the first traffic jam that some politician proposes to re-stripe the shoulders as additional lanes. Remember that the seventh lane originated in a similar process.

The seventh lane lane was not added immediately and came from the left shoulders and median.  The Tappan Zee never had right shoulders to begin with.  And if you had ever been on the Tappan Zee through an accident, you wouldn't be complaining about it.  Even a minor fender bender causes 2-3 HOUR traffic jams.  If an ambulance is needed, the person who needs it will likely die before it arrives.  I could see the emergency lane becoming HOV or bus though, and there will likely be a restriping at some point, but hardly immediately.  Traffic jams are a fact of life in the entire state.  You don't design a road to handle rush hour, at least not here.

Quote
If you honestly believe that unions are the only thing separating us from China, you really need to get out of NY more! Only 12% of all employees are unionized. Furthermore, only 5% of the nation is paid minimum wage (though to be fair, 10% is paid below minimum wage, mostly because they are paid "under the table" or they work on tips.) Of those 5% that are being paid minimum wage, half are under 25. Other than suck $50 out of your paycheck every month and give it straight to the Democrat Party, there is little purpose to unions in the modern world.

And you need to get out of "right to work" (more like "right to be fired") states more.  Have you ever read a history book on the guilded era?  If you think that businesses won't behave like that again the nanosecond that checks on their power are removed, you're insane.

QuoteThe federal funding process helps to insulate decision makers from any consequences. If the Obama administration is just going to give you more money no-questions-asked, who cares if the bridge costs more by a factor of five, eight, or ten? The FHWA will just give you more money, and you won't be under any pressure to change your ways. Abuses of the system like is common in the Northeast are a blatant slap in the face to all taxpayers, and any DOT or city government that does make an attempt at cost control.

Look whos talking (and being ignorant again).  The northeast states are net donors to the federal government.  States like South Carolina and Colorado are net recievers.  YOU'RE the one that's abusing the system, not us.  As far as I'm concerned, the feds should just cut all financial aid to "small government" states that recieve more money than they pay back in taxes.  That should change their tune.

I don't have that much time, so I will stick to just the points that really make you look dumb...

NYSTA can go cashless if they want. There is absolutely no logical reason other than agency incompetence and inertia to not do so. I have to wonder why you defend failure...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ritholtz.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Fgive-take-small-final.png&hash=aba50caede19672d16443d723e4a8519b25e8b79)

Would you look at that! New York actually gets more from DC than Colorado per dollar taxed. I know reality takes a while to set in, but the facts don't lie.

Regardless, a big portion of federal spending is national projects that benefit the whole nation, like national defense. Should I put you down in support of storing our missiles under Times Square, just so NY gets its "fair share"? Or would you rather place them in Wyoming, where damage can be minimized if something went wrong.

Speaking of looking dumb, the Cooper River Bridge is in Colorado :banghead:

Quote from: Zmapper on October 01, 2012, 01:34:09 PM
I don't have that much time, so I will stick to just the points that really make you look dumb...

Translation: you're losing the argument, so you're looking for ways to save face while throwing insults.

QuoteNYSTA can go cashless if they want. There is absolutely no logical reason other than agency incompetence and inertia to not do so. I have to wonder why you defend failure...

I never said they can't.  I said they won't.  There are no plans to do so, and even the highway speed E-ZPass lanes are moving at a glacial pace.  It's not failure, it's just a matter of priorities.  Why should cash users (which still comprise a majority of weekend traffic on the Thruway) be forced to get a transponder or face a huge toll hike in the form of "processing" fees?  Why should NYSTA spend lots of money, no doubt forcing a toll hike (the Thruway is still the cheapest area toll road), just because ORT is the shiny new bandwagon that lots of states are jumping on?  NYSTA maintains roads to a higher standard than interstate standards yet spends money very judiciously; there are very few major reconstruction projects, and sign rehabs are unheard of, which NYSDOT does both frequently, so they wouldn't be spending lots of money on the new Tappan Zee if they didn't believe it was needed.  If you knew more about NY, you'd realize that we're generally the last state to get pretty much anything transportation related (though the Thruway does have an exception with clearview signs).  We let other people be the beta testers.

Quote
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ritholtz.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Fgive-take-small-final.png&hash=aba50caede19672d16443d723e4a8519b25e8b79)

Would you look at that! New York actually gets more from DC than Colorado per dollar taxed. I know reality takes a while to set in, but the facts don't lie.

OK, I admit I was wrong about Colorado.  Funny how you stay silent on South Carolina here... perhaps because your map proves my point there.  Facts don't lie, but it might take a while for reality to sink in. ;)

QuoteRegardless, a big portion of federal spending is national projects that benefit the whole nation, like national defense. Should I put you down in support of storing our missiles under Times Square, just so NY gets its "fair share"? Or would you rather place them in Wyoming, where damage can be minimized if something went wrong.

Don't put words into my mouth.  For the record, I believe the defense budget should be cut by a LOT.  Go take those missiles and put them on the moon for all I care, just stop spending money on them when we have more important things to do!

Quote from: NE2 on October 01, 2012, 01:43:43 PM
Speaking of looking dumb, the Cooper River Bridge is in Colorado :banghead:

The New Cooper River Bridge being discussed here is the local name for the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge in Charleston, SC.

Whoosh.

Alright, time to give your response the proper reply it deserves.

Quote from: deanej on October 01, 2012, 11:49:57 AM

Quote from: Zmapper on September 30, 2012, 10:20:33 PM
You don't spend $50 to save 50 cents. While rehabilitation costs are higher than ideal, replacing the bridge for the sake of replacing the bridge is even more expensive.

Those 50 cents will equal 50 dollars after the 100th time you have to pay them.  Simple math.

Which means that some time exists before replacement is absolutely necessary. Plenty of time remains to sort out the incompetence problem plaguing mega-projects in the Northeast.

Quote

Quote
According to an independent analysis by Charles Komanoff (http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/01/26/cost-of-tappan-zee-mega-bridge-could-cause-tolls-to-triple/), with some basic math the toll to repay the bond could be as little as $9, or as high as $30. Traffic could fluctuate between 165,000 or 82,000, which is dependent on toll rates.

If Cuomo steps in, and I fully expect he will, then now the whole population of New York is on the hook for an overpriced, gold-plated bridge.

The whole population of New York is already subsidizing the Cross-Westchester Expressway (and formerly I-84) in the form of increased Thruway tolls.  This would be nothing new.  In fact, upstate taxpayers nearly got the bill for a $1 billion football statium in Manhattan a few years ago.

I don't find the cross-subsidization that has come to be common to be very acceptable.

Quote

Quote
By full ORT, I mean NO tollbooths whatsoever, just gantries. It is absolutely ridiculous that in the 21st Century old fashioned tollbooths are still planned. 407 in Toronto has had full ORT for over a decade now, E-470 in Denver has had it for almost five years, and many other toll roads are being opened up without tollbooths. The technology already exists, it is a matter of initiative  by the NYDOT.

That is never, ever going to happen on the Thruway.  Also, you just lost all credibility with that last sentence.  There is no such thing as NYDOT.  We have NYSDOT, which maintains just about every state highway except the Thruway, and NYSTA, which maintains the Thruway (and a plethora of other, more minor, agencies), and none of the agencies have anything to do with the others.  Any coorperation that happens between agencies is 100% voluntary.  Perhaps you should bother to inform yourself of the way things work in NY before ranting about gold plated bridges.

Alright, there are two agencies; I messed up here. Regardless, it is absurd that whoever the alphabet soup agency responsible can't figure out how to enter the 21st century.

Quote

Quote
According to Google Earth, the distance over what appears to be poor soil (riverbed) plus water is a little over 3 kilometers. I would consider the segment over land to be more challenging, because not only do you have likely poor riverbed soils to deal with, you also have to use eminent domain on the housing below, demolish the homes, construct the bridge, and tie it into existing busy roads, all without shutting down anything for any significant amount of time.

As was mentioned earlier, the Hudson River soil is likely poor compared to the stuff for the New Copper Bridge, but I guess poor soil doesn't exist in NY in your mind. :rolleyes: Also, take a look at the satellite imagery.  Eminent domain will be needed for the new Tappan Zee as well.  They aren't going to just shut the bridge down for 5 years.

River soil tends to be rather poor for building, and this is mostly true regardless of where you are. If SC can build over river soil at reasonable costs, why should I not expect the same from the Northeast?

According to the EIS, the bridge can be built almost exclusively within the confines of the existing ROW; if I am reading the map right it appears that the bridge can be built without demolishing any structures.

Quote

Quote
Other than minor highway overpasses, I don't recall seeing any bridge with full left and right shoulders, plus an 'emergency access' lane. I could accept perhaps an 8' shoulder on one side, but anything beyond that is little more than frivolous gold-plating and contractor welfare.

Excluding the bicycle path, each span will have 82' available to allocate. If each lane is 11' 5" wide, it is possible to squeeze in 7 lanes in each direction. While they only promise striping four lanes, I give it until the first traffic jam that some politician proposes to re-stripe the shoulders as additional lanes. Remember that the seventh lane originated in a similar process.

The seventh lane lane was not added immediately and came from the left shoulders and median.  The Tappan Zee never had right shoulders to begin with.  And if you had ever been on the Tappan Zee through an accident, you wouldn't be complaining about it.  Even a minor fender bender causes 2-3 HOUR traffic jams.  If an ambulance is needed, the person who needs it will likely die before it arrives.  I could see the emergency lane becoming HOV or bus though, and there will likely be a restriping at some point, but hardly immediately.  Traffic jams are a fact of life in the entire state.  You don't design a road to handle rush hour, at least not here.

The seventh lane came out of lane narrowing, and the median. Basically, another lane was crammed in by removing existing safety features.

Quote

Quote
If you honestly believe that unions are the only thing separating us from China, you really need to get out of NY more! Only 12% of all employees are unionized. Furthermore, only 5% of the nation is paid minimum wage (though to be fair, 10% is paid below minimum wage, mostly because they are paid "under the table" or they work on tips.) Of those 5% that are being paid minimum wage, half are under 25. Other than suck $50 out of your paycheck every month and give it straight to the Democrat Party, there is little purpose to unions in the modern world.

And you need to get out of "right to work" (more like "right to be fired") states more.  Have you ever read a history book on the guilded era?  If you think that businesses won't behave like that again the nanosecond that checks on their power are removed, you're insane.

QuoteThe federal funding process helps to insulate decision makers from any consequences. If the Obama administration is just going to give you more money no-questions-asked, who cares if the bridge costs more by a factor of five, eight, or ten? The FHWA will just give you more money, and you won't be under any pressure to change your ways. Abuses of the system like is common in the Northeast are a blatant slap in the face to all taxpayers, and any DOT or city government that does make an attempt at cost control.

Look whos talking (and being ignorant again).  The northeast states are net donors to the federal government.  States like South Carolina and Colorado are net recievers.  YOU'RE the one that's abusing the system, not us.  As far as I'm concerned, the feds should just cut all financial aid to "small government" states that recieve more money than they pay back in taxes.  That should change their tune.

You have not answered my argument, instead focusing on average donor flows. Do you agree or disagree that the federal funding process insulates decision makers from the consequences? Do you agree or disagree that you will just get more money no-questions-asked? Do you agree or disagree that abuses are a blatant slap in the face to the rest of us?

As I showed, Colorado donates more per-capita than your state does. You are right on South Carolina though. Regardless, averages are irrelevant when discussing specific projects. The Tappan Zee is eight times more than comparable bridges, and most of the additional expense will flow not to the workers but to the corporations as pure welfare.

This is probably the biggest difference between the two of us. I don't ask why; I ask why not. Why not break free from the stranglehold of incompetent project managers? Why not consider 21st Century tolling methods like the rest of the country has done? Why not rebuild our failing infrastructure, but do so in a fiscally, environmentally, and socially sustainable way? Why not have the Northeast be a leader; not a follower?

At current costs, it would take $1,000,000,000,000 (that is with a B) to completely build the New York City Subway from scratch. Could any corporation or government afford to build the subway at current extortion-level project costs? Almost every project in the Northeast is under investigation by the feds for corruption.

Cities like Denver, Houston, Phoenix, Minneapolis, and Dallas are building hundreds of miles of new track and new lanes for a fraction of what the Northeast spends on a single project. If you think this is because they are new (they aren't), or because of the weather, or whatever the BS excuse of the week is, you are wrong! The rest of the country and the globe is evolving, modernizing its infrastructure (NOT at extortion-level rates like the NE pays), all while the Northeast sits on its hind and whines about why they are stagnating.

For your convenience, I have underlined all the ad-homiem attacks in your post. Please refrain from any more baseless attacks, and I will do the same.  :nod:

Will there be any federal gas tax revenue spent on the new Tappan Zee Bridge, or will the cost be paid through Thruway tolls?

Quote from: Zmapper on October 01, 2012, 10:27:39 PM
I don't find the cross-subsidization that has come to be common to be very acceptable.

Both Long Island and upstate NY would like to kick the rest of the state out for that reason.

Quote
By full ORT, I mean NO tollbooths whatsoever, just gantries. It is absolutely ridiculous that in the 21st Century old fashioned tollbooths are still planned. 407 in Toronto has had full ORT for over a decade now, E-470 in Denver has had it for almost five years, and many other toll roads are being opened up without tollbooths. The technology already exists, it is a matter of initiative  by the NYDOT.

That is never, ever going to happen on the Thruway.  Also, you just lost all credibility with that last sentence.  There is no such thing as NYDOT.  We have NYSDOT, which maintains just about every state highway except the Thruway, and NYSTA, which maintains the Thruway (and a plethora of other, more minor, agencies), and none of the agencies have anything to do with the others.  Any coorperation that happens between agencies is 100% voluntary.  Perhaps you should bother to inform yourself of the way things work in NY before ranting about gold plated bridges.

Quote
Alright, there are two agencies; I messed up here. Regardless, it is absurd that whoever the alphabet soup agency responsible can't figure out how to enter the 21st century.

I'm not sure why full ORT is "entering the 21st century".  When I see ORT, I see roads that people who don't have whatever proprietary transponder that works only on that road either have to pay unreasonably high fees or can't use the road at all.  While that works for bypasses, it won't for the primary arteal of the entire state (which the Thruway is), especially since there are a lot of people who refuse to get E-ZPass.  In the past my Dad has stated that he is dead set against E-ZPass, though recently his views seem to be changing.  Many people don't like the idea of putting money into an account and having their credit card automatically billed, especially if they can remember when the road was supposed to become free in 1995 (which would have happened were it not for the I-84 deal with NYSDOT).  If the PA and NJ Turnpikes go ORT it might start being talked about, but I don't think the MassPike or anyone else in New England has ORT plans either.  Many of the E-ZPass lanes still have gate arms (though not on the Thruway), and most of the international bridges are cash only.

Quote
River soil tends to be rather poor for building, and this is mostly true regardless of where you are. If SC can build over river soil at reasonable costs, why should I not expect the same from the Northeast?

I think Duke87's point is that the Hudson soil is even more poor than normal river soil.

Quote
According to the EIS, the bridge can be built almost exclusively within the confines of the existing ROW; if I am reading the map right it appears that the bridge can be built without demolishing any structures.

I was looking at the satellite view of Google Maps here.  They must be building the new one quite close to the existing one, or maybe those structures were owned by the state.

Quote
The seventh lane came out of lane narrowing, and the median. Basically, another lane was crammed in by removing existing safety features.

That's pretty much what I said: median and left shoulders; the right shoulders never existed.  Being from the northeast, I don't consider a median to be as important as right shoulders, having traveled often on many roads where the lanes are practically on top of each other with a jersey barrier or one lane width apart with just a guard rail.

Quote

You have not answered my argument, instead focusing on average donor flows. Do you agree or disagree that the federal funding process insulates decision makers from the consequences?

What kind of consequences?  Anything non-financial won't be insulated, and the feds have never paid 100% of anything as far as I know.  Believe it or not, NY has just done a lot of work to balance the budget (though mostly at the expense of passing the problem to lower levels of governemnt).

QuoteDo you agree or disagree that you will just get more money no-questions-asked?

I don't think that has ever happened in the history of government grants.

QuoteDo you agree or disagree that abuses are a blatant slap in the face to the rest of us?

Probably not.  I've never subscribed to the view that government money is "my money"; as far as I'm concerned, it ceases to be mine the moment the government cashes the check.

Quote
Cities like Denver, Houston, Phoenix, Minneapolis, and Dallas are building hundreds of miles of new track and new lanes for a fraction of what the Northeast spends on a single project. If you think this is because they are new (they aren't), or because of the weather, or whatever the BS excuse of the week is, you are wrong! The rest of the country and the globe is evolving, modernizing its infrastructure (NOT at extortion-level rates like the NE pays), all while the Northeast sits on its hind and whines about why they are stagnating.

We're quite bureaucratic up here, which is why it takes years for anything to get off the ground.  Even and EIS can take a decade to complete depending on how much will power is behind a project, and as far as transportation is concerned, there isn't much, especially for roads.  Lots of NIMBYs, combined with people who think we should ditch cars and use transit everywhere, just because it works for NYC.  Also, people are resistant to change here.  "That's the way it's always been" is good enough reason for anything.

I don't like the way transportation has been static in the northeast either; many times I've seen highway projects talked about only to die, but why attack this bridge, which at least offers an improvement over existing conditions, and there are more pressing problems with corporate welfare, like the bank bailouts from 4 years ago, federal tax policy, and court cases like citizen's united.  For some reason, many people seem to have this attitude that it is better to stick with the status quo than to allow an incomplete solution through.  Well, the only way you're going to get a complete solution is with a revolution, which I don't see coming, so I'll take incomplete solutions.

Quote from: Zmapper on October 01, 2012, 10:27:39 PM
....

At current costs, it would take $1,000,000,000,000 (that is with a B) to completely build the New York City Subway from scratch. Could any corporation or government afford to build the subway at current extortion-level project costs? Almost every project in the Northeast is under investigation by the feds for corruption.

....

FWIW, the number you typed there is $1 trillion (twelve zeroes), not $1 billion (nine zeroes).

I saw something once about how much money a billion dollars is that I thought was a great explanation:

We hear numbers like a billion and a trillion thrown around all the time in the context of the federal budget or the national debt, but none of us can relate to how much money that is. I think just about everybody has a sense for a thousand dollars, however.

Suppose somebody were to give you a million dollars (tax-free) with the stipulation that you must spend exactly $1,000 every day until the money is gone. It would take you a thousand days, which is approximately three months short of three years.

Suppose instead that person gave you a billion dollars, again tax-free, with the same $1,000-per-day stipulation. It would take you a thousand times longer to spend it–almost three thousand years. (That's an oversimplification, of course, because the "three months short" would add up every four years to knock a year off the period, and then there are leap years as well. But you're still talking about a couple of thousand years.)

If instead that person gave you a trillion dollars with the same conditions, it would take you somewhere between two and three million years to spend it all.

I meant to type trillion.

Um, one of the reasons it is cheaper for say Houston to build than New York is the price of the land. If a 2500 sq ft home in Houston goes from 125K, in NYC area its 900K. It is cheaper to build out, and not build up. And if its so easy to get projects done, explain the Grand Parkway in Houston( not even 3 segments done and that started in the mid 60s) or the "mass transit" train that seems to only go from minute maid park to the Astrodome. Nevermind, the rest of the city east and west inside the loop or any direct outside the loop for that matter.

One million isn't even one percent of one billion! WOW!

Quote from: Zmapper on October 02, 2012, 02:51:08 PM
I meant to type trillion.

To be fair, overseas, $1 billion would mean "$1 million million", as typed.

Quote from: Steve on October 02, 2012, 06:40:47 PM

Quote from: Zmapper on October 02, 2012, 02:51:08 PM
I meant to type trillion.

To be fair, overseas, $1 billion would mean "$1 million million", as typed.

It used to.  But the British government was about the last holdout, and they changed billion to 1000 million about 30 or 40 years ago for financial reports.

Quote from: kkt on October 03, 2012, 07:22:17 PM

It used to.  But the British government was about the last holdout, and they changed billion to 1000 million about 30 or 40 years ago for financial reports.

when I was learning numbers in Hungary in the 1980s, I learned that 1000 million was a number called a "milliard", and 1000 times that was a billion.

not sure how they are treating it these days.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 03, 2012, 08:40:48 PM

Quote from: kkt on October 03, 2012, 07:22:17 PM

It used to.  But the British government was about the last holdout, and they changed billion to 1000 million about 30 or 40 years ago for financial reports.

when I was learning numbers in Hungary in the 1980s, I learned that 1000 million was a number called a "milliard", and 1000 times that was a billion.

not sure how they are treating it these days.

Same when I learned French.

I learned 999,999,998, 999,999,999, 1,000,000,000, 1,000,000,001, etc. Never heard of a "thousand million" or something like that. :/

TOLLROADSnews: New York State Thruway to go cashless at three major barrier plazas - savings at TZ Bridge (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6413)

QuoteThe New York State Thruway is converting two mainline and one side toll plaza to all electronic or cashless toll collection. The board of directors of the Thruway Authority at their last monthly meeting authorized Thruway staff to develop detailed plans for conversion of the Yonkers, Tappan Zee Bridge and Harriman barrier toll plazas to all-electronic toll collection (AET).

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2013, 08:43:47 PM
TOLLROADSnews: New York State Thruway to go cashless at three major barrier plazas - savings at TZ Bridge (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6413)

QuoteThe New York State Thruway is converting two mainline and one side toll plaza to all electronic or cashless toll collection. The board of directors of the Thruway Authority at their last monthly meeting authorized Thruway staff to develop detailed plans for conversion of the Yonkers, Tappan Zee Bridge and Harriman barrier toll plazas to all-electronic toll collection (AET).

So what does this mean for long distance drivers without EZpass?  I'm guessing there will be some kind of photo option?  I can't imagine the Thruway mainline would become transponder-only.

Quote from: MrDisco99 on February 19, 2013, 01:21:36 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2013, 08:43:47 PM
TOLLROADSnews: New York State Thruway to go cashless at three major barrier plazas - savings at TZ Bridge (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6413)

QuoteThe New York State Thruway is converting two mainline and one side toll plaza to all electronic or cashless toll collection. The board of directors of the Thruway Authority at their last monthly meeting authorized Thruway staff to develop detailed plans for conversion of the Yonkers, Tappan Zee Bridge and Harriman barrier toll plazas to all-electronic toll collection (AET).

So what does this mean for long distance drivers without EZpass?  I'm guessing there will be some kind of photo option?  I can't imagine the Thruway mainline would become transponder-only.

Most cashless toll roads offer video tolling, though usually at a higher charge than having a transponder.

I am aware of at least one in Texas (Fort Bend Parkway) that requires a transponder, and the toll lanes on Ca. 91 (Riverside Freeway) and Virginia's part of I-495 (Capital Beltway) both require drivers to have the appropriate transponder.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2013, 08:43:47 PM
TOLLROADSnews: New York State Thruway to go cashless at three major barrier plazas - savings at TZ Bridge (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6413)

QuoteThe New York State Thruway is converting two mainline and one side toll plaza to all electronic or cashless toll collection. The board of directors of the Thruway Authority at their last monthly meeting authorized Thruway staff to develop detailed plans for conversion of the Yonkers, Tappan Zee Bridge and Harriman barrier toll plazas to all-electronic toll collection (AET).

Did Hell freeze over?  That said, I can understand converting Tappan Zee and Yonkers, but Harriman makes no sense considering that it serves some ticket system traffic.  I'd rather they convert the other non-ticket mainline barriers (New Rochelle, Tonawanda, and Niagara) first.  If personnel are the issue, they could also replace the people handing out tickets with machines, especially since they stopped issuing separate tickets for different vehicle classes recently.

I wonder if this is why there has been no movement on the Williamsville barrier replacement project in over a decade.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 19, 2013, 01:33:37 AM

Quote from: MrDisco99 on February 19, 2013, 01:21:36 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2013, 08:43:47 PM
TOLLROADSnews: New York State Thruway to go cashless at three major barrier plazas - savings at TZ Bridge (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6413)

QuoteThe New York State Thruway is converting two mainline and one side toll plaza to all electronic or cashless toll collection. The board of directors of the Thruway Authority at their last monthly meeting authorized Thruway staff to develop detailed plans for conversion of the Yonkers, Tappan Zee Bridge and Harriman barrier toll plazas to all-electronic toll collection (AET).

So what does this mean for long distance drivers without EZpass?  I'm guessing there will be some kind of photo option?  I can't imagine the Thruway mainline would become transponder-only.

Most cashless toll roads offer video tolling, though usually at a higher charge than having a transponder.

I am aware of at least one in Texas (Fort Bend Parkway) that requires a transponder, and the toll lanes on Ca. 91 (Riverside Freeway) and Virginia's part of I-495 (Capital Beltway) both require drivers to have the appropriate transponder.

The Thruway already has cameras in EZ-Pass lanes to handle violations, so it shouldn't be hard to make them handle bill by mail.

 

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2013, 08:43:47 PM
TOLLROADSnews: New York State Thruway to go cashless at three major barrier plazas - savings at TZ Bridge (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6413)

QuoteThe New York State Thruway is converting two mainline and one side toll plaza to all electronic or cashless toll collection. The board of directors of the Thruway Authority at their last monthly meeting authorized Thruway staff to develop detailed plans for conversion of the Yonkers, Tappan Zee Bridge and Harriman barrier toll plazas to all-electronic toll collection (AET).

As deanej notes, Harriman doesn't make sense unless they reconfigure it to use AET for northbound traffic while maintaining a cash option for southbound traffic coming off the ticket system. If instead the idea were that there would be cameras on all toll lanes and the system would locate where that vehicle entered the Thruway system, then why have toll tickets at all?


(Edited to fix messed-up quote)

Since the southbound exit has separate lanes at the toll booth, there's no reason they couldn't just leave those alone. Chances are it's just CP's favorite blog playing silly buggers.

It would still be silly for the people getting on to head north... they'd have to go through the all-electronic barrier, and then the traditional booth and pick up a ticket.  I assume they won't be demolishing the Woodbury barrier so soon after reconstruction.

Quote from: deanej on February 19, 2013, 05:09:22 PM
It would still be silly for the people getting on to head north... they'd have to go through the all-electronic barrier, and then the traditional booth and pick up a ticket.  I assume they won't be demolishing the Woodbury barrier so soon after reconstruction.

I had the same questions early in the process - it's going to be set up to make sure that there is a cash option for SB offramp and "grab-ticket" option for NB onramp from 17.

And that interchange gets more and more interesting with each modification... I still think they would get much more bang for their buck elsewhere, especially since whatever they do they'll have to scrap if/when the ticket system goes all-electronic.

Quote from: deanej on February 19, 2013, 10:31:53 PM
And that interchange gets more and more interesting with each modification... I still think they would get much more bang for their buck elsewhere, especially since whatever they do they'll have to scrap if/when the ticket system goes all-electronic.

This is a trial installation - before they would dream of implementing something systemwide, they want to make sure they are familiar with its operation and get the institutions in place to deal with it. That's common sense. So you could do that at Yonkers and Tappan Zee easily enough. As for Harriman... there were a couple of reasons there, but yeah, it would have been easier not to. *shrug*

Maybe it has something to do with NYSDOT's plans to reconstruct the NY 17/NY 32 interchange.

Quote from: Steve on February 20, 2013, 07:05:38 PM
This is a trial installation - before they would dream of implementing something systemwide, they want to make sure they are familiar with its operation and get the institutions in place to deal with it.

Isn't that essentially what the Florida's Turnpike is doing?

They flipped the entire Homestead Extension to cashless, even though they apparently still take cash (for now) on  the rest of the system.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2013, 12:45:07 PM

Quote from: Steve on February 20, 2013, 07:05:38 PM
This is a trial installation - before they would dream of implementing something systemwide, they want to make sure they are familiar with its operation and get the institutions in place to deal with it.

Isn't that essentially what the Florida's Turnpike is doing?

They flipped the entire Homestead Extension to cashless, even though they apparently still take cash (for now) on  the rest of the system.

Yep, and we actually looked at Florida's experience in doing the research for NYSTA.