AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: Ian on April 16, 2009, 09:29:34 PM

Title: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Ian on April 16, 2009, 09:29:34 PM
I read in the Wikipedia aritcle for the Tappen Zee Bridge (I-87/I-287) and I read that it was going to be replaced with a new 8 lane bridge with a possible trasit line accross it!! Anyone heard of this because its my first time hearing it??!!

-i
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Hellfighter on April 16, 2009, 10:19:55 PM
That would be pretty cool, I-87 and a Acela Line crossing the Hudson.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Ian on April 16, 2009, 10:21:46 PM
Though I don't really want it to be replaced. I love that bridge. I cross it like 8 times a year. Its a cool bridge!
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Alps on April 16, 2009, 11:00:42 PM
If you like it so much, go back in time, because it's falling down.  It's from an era when bridges were built to last 40 years, when we thought we finally knew what we were doing.  Contrast with the GWB, where we vastly overbuilt it for what it had to do and as a result it's still around with an extra level.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: yanksfan6129 on April 16, 2009, 11:07:42 PM
 . . . and the GWB is not falling apart!

Yeah, this is a bridge that desperately needs to be replaced. And finally extending a rail line into Rockland County could perhaps ease some congestion a little bit, b/c now everyone commuting to New York from Rockland County crosses that bridge in the morning (although I guess some take the PIP down to the GWB).

I think that Rockland needs a rail line, and it would make sense to include such a rail line with a new Tappan Zee Bridge.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Chris on April 17, 2009, 04:37:46 AM
Do people in Rockland County all commute all the way to New York City? Seems like quite a commuting distance to me...
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: yanksfan6129 on April 17, 2009, 11:01:00 AM
Chris, it's really not that bad.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Chris on April 17, 2009, 01:27:40 PM
Well, New City to Midtown Manhattan is like 40 miles if you want to avoid the GW Bridge. But maybe I'm too used to my own 1.5 mile commute  :) I used to commute 6 miles, which took me half an hour by car.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: yanksfan6129 on April 17, 2009, 03:05:10 PM
commutes of an hour are common here.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: mightyace on April 20, 2009, 01:53:35 PM
There are people in the Poconos that commute to New York!

There is talk of extending commuter rail all the way to Scranton.

There is an existing line that runs from Port Jervis, NY.

The Port Jervis commute or coming from Monatauk Pt. on Long Island is a 2 hour commute.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Michael on April 22, 2009, 12:15:05 PM
See my post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=775.msg20076#msg20076) in the "Bridges You Would Like To See" thread for information about the possible replacement bridge.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Duke87 on April 22, 2009, 04:10:27 PM
Interesting technical note about the existing Tappan Zee Bridge:

The soil on the riverbed there is very poor. So poor that, if the river wasn't there, you couldn't walk on it. You'd sink knee deep into the muck. Thus, the majority of the bridge piers are supported on piles. However, the main span (the high part) rests on hollow caissons. About a third of its weight is supported by buoyancy. If one of those caissons were to spring a leak...
...well, there is a pump system in there to deal with that, but if the leak was too big for the pumps to counter, the bridge would likely collapse.

Given that, it's no wonder they want to replace it. :ded:
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Nexis4Jersey on May 08, 2009, 08:47:53 PM
I hope they don't replace it , its a beautiful bridge , I love the Colors at night, I would like to see a double Bridge built next to it, maybe 3 or 4 lanes , if the do replace it don't build a Suspension , it would look ugly , build a Cable Stayed Bridge.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: vdeane on May 09, 2009, 04:18:13 PM
That's odd, I've always though of suspension as beautiful.  Cable-stayed doesn't really do it for me.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Alps on May 09, 2009, 10:55:30 PM
Echo deanej - not to mention, the current bridge is ugly as sin.  There are some very nice trusses out there, but this isn't one.  The Mississippi River has some of the best trusses in the world, for example.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: OracleUsr on August 29, 2009, 12:33:42 AM
The bridge itself isn't that pretty, but the view of the Hudson Valley from the bridge to me rivals that of the Hudson River from the GWB.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Bryant5493 on September 01, 2009, 05:14:54 PM
I was looking at History (Channel) last night, and there was a two-hour special detailing the U.S.'s  deteriorating infrastructure. The show talked about the levees in Sacramento; the busting pipes in Montgomery County, Maryland; the dam in Kentucky that holds back the Cumberland River; I-64 through St. Louis; and the Tappan Zee Bridge.

I know they showed how holes in the bridge (Tappan Zee) would appear in the concrete; how the bridge had to be painted periodically, and how termites were eating away at the untreated wood foundation.

In short, wow!


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 01, 2009, 05:38:56 PM
I have a film detailing the the construction of a Cantilever bridge, which the Tappan Zee is one of. Its from the early 50s, its 28 minutes long, but I only have 23 minutes of it due to a transfer problem. It showed how a Cantliever Bridge is made and some of how the Tappan Zee was made. Looked really cool.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: signalman on September 02, 2009, 04:07:32 AM
I also watched that special on the History Channel.  The potential termite damage to the wooden pilings is disturbing.  Pieces of the bridge deck falling into the Hudson doesn't sound too appealing either.  I've only crossed the Tappan Zee once just to say I've done so, but after seeing what I saw on tv, I doubt I'd do so again. 
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Chris on September 02, 2009, 06:02:23 AM
Quote from: signalman on September 02, 2009, 04:07:32 AM
I also watched that special on the History Channel.  The potential termite damage to the wooden pilings is disturbing.  Pieces of the bridge deck falling into the Hudson doesn't sound too appealing either.  I've only crossed the Tappan Zee once just to say I've done so, but after seeing what I saw on tv, I doubt I'd do so again. 

A 135,000 people think otherwise by crossing the bridge every day  :colorful:

But yeah, it's not like there's a nearby alternative...
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: mightyace on September 02, 2009, 12:16:22 PM
Quote from: signalman on September 02, 2009, 04:07:32 AM
I also watched that special on the History Channel.  The potential termite damage to the wooden pilings is disturbing.  Pieces of the bridge deck falling into the Hudson doesn't sound too appealing either.  I've only crossed the Tappan Zee once just to say I've done so, but after seeing what I saw on tv, I doubt I'd do so again. 

I also watched this History Channel special.  While I didn't detect any out and out lies, I think that they sensationalized the issue.

<rant>
This is one of one of many shows that while interesting, I don't think belong on the History Channel.  This special should have been on the Discovery Channel, The Science Channel or something similar.  Also, the reality shows, Ice Road Truckers, Pawn Stars, Extreme Trains, Ax Men, etc. belong on television but somewhere else.  Then there are the speculative shows like Monster Quest and UFO Hunters.
</rant>
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Michael on September 02, 2009, 02:11:01 PM
Quote from: signalman on September 02, 2009, 04:07:32 AM
I also watched that special on the History Channel.  The potential termite damage to the wooden pilings is disturbing.  Pieces of the bridge deck falling into the Hudson doesn't sound too appealing either.  I've only crossed the Tappan Zee once just to say I've done so, but after seeing what I saw on tv, I doubt I'd do so again. 

Yeah, I saw that too, but it was a while ago.  The Tappan Zee is rated at 3.708 (7 is the best, 1 is the worst).  See page 3 of this PDF (https://www.nysdot.gov/main/bridgedata/repository/RocklandBridgeData.pdf).

The special was called "The Crumbling of America".  Another bridge covered was even worse than the Tappan Zee.  The Dover Bridge in Idaho received a sufficiency rating of 2 out of 100.

The special is on again on Saturday, September 21st at 5:00 pm.  Click here for the show website (http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=452430).
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: mightyace on September 02, 2009, 02:15:59 PM
Quote from: Michael on September 02, 2009, 02:11:01 PM
The Tappan Zee is rated at 3.708 (7 is the best, 1 is the worst).  See page 3 of this PDF (https://www.nysdot.gov/main/bridgedata/repository/RocklandBridgeData.pdf).

The special was called "The Crumbling of America".  Another bridge covered was even worse than the Tappan Zee.  The Dover Bridge in Idaho received a sufficiency rating of 2 out of 100.

If states/highway authorities want to get more support for toll facilities, they need to get this information out to the public.  That, and close unsafe bridges rather than keeping them open and hoping nothing happens.  Or, if you close the XYZ bridge, it might be easier to get tolls on the XYZ's replacement.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: signalman on September 02, 2009, 04:24:48 PM
True, there isn't a close alternative.  But fortunately my travels never take me up that way much.  I do agree with you, mightyace that I'm sure it was dramatized to some extent.  Regardless, it's in need of replacement.  The bridge in Dover, ID was indeed in worse shape, but that does have a replacement in the works according to the documentary.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Terry Shea on September 02, 2009, 04:37:35 PM
Quote from: mightyace on September 02, 2009, 12:16:22 PM


I also watched this History Channel special.  While I didn't detect any out and out lies, I think that they sensationalized the issue.


That's typical for The History Channel.  Just because they have the name "The History Channel" doesn't necessarily mean that all their information is factual and/or historically accurate.  Have you ever noticed that on every story from the Bible that they analyze, they have the same panel of 4 or 5 "Biblical experts" that (eventually) contradict the stories? 

My favorite was the program they aired about Noah's Ark.  They concluded that there was a flood but it wasn't world wide, there weren't any animals on board and Noah and his family were able to survive because he had a brewery on board and they survived by drinking beer!

Sorry about getting off subject.  I'm not trying to derail the thread, but I thought this ws rather amusing.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Bryant5493 on September 02, 2009, 04:51:24 PM
^^ Well, to piggy-back on that a bit, the Clash of the Gods episodes were a bit off from the way I read the myths and the pronunciation of names (i.e., Demeter). I've alwasy said it "Dee-me-ter," not "Dee-muh-tur" like one of the experts said. But that just might be semantics.

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


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2009, 01:32:11 AM
Quote from: Michael on September 02, 2009, 02:11:01 PM

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

I can't believe they rounded off at only three digits past the decimal point.  If it's really a 3.70793421879, I would feel significantly less safe crossing it than if it were a 3.70801548792.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Michael on September 03, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
^^^  :-D :-D :-D

I wondered why they have three decimal points too.  What exactly is the difference between a 3.708 and a 3.709?
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: mightyace on September 03, 2009, 02:10:16 PM
Quote from: Michael on September 03, 2009, 09:32:51 AM
^^^  :-D :-D :-D

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

A 3.708 bridge will fall into the river on March 12, 2012 while the 3.709 bridge will last until March 13th.  :-D  :sombrero:  :poke:
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Chris on September 03, 2009, 02:20:33 PM
They probably calculate the average of several dozen grades they give while inspecting the bridge.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: City on September 07, 2009, 09:24:55 PM
I say that the Tappan Zee Bridge should be replaced.

Maybe a nice looking suspension bridge would suffice. Something that looks way better than the current bridge, at least.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Dougtone on September 08, 2009, 12:50:07 AM
Keep in mind that one of the reasons why the Tappan Zee Bridge needs to be replaced is because of its 50 year shelf life.  It was built quickly in the mid 1950s, during a steel shortage due to the Korean War.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Nexis4Jersey on September 17, 2009, 03:17:58 AM
I don't want to Replace this , its a nice structure sure its old and everything falling apart but just needs some fixing and you can throw extra lanes on the side of the Bridge.  For Rail reasons, i don't see why they need it, 80% of Orange / Rockland County residents commute using the Pascack Valley / Main Line into NYC , so rail isn't needed!
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: froggie on September 17, 2009, 07:04:34 AM
No, you can't "throw extra lanes on the side" of the superstructure.  Just doesn't work that way.

The only reason I've seen people want for keeping the existing bridge is "it looks neat" or some other aesthetic reason.  Which IMO does not trump the safety issues and maintenance nightmares of the existing bridge.  It needs to be replaced, beyond a doubt.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Duke87 on September 18, 2009, 10:00:54 PM
Quote80% of Orange / Rockland County residents commute using the Pascack Valley / Main Line into NYC , so rail isn't needed!

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

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

You can, however, build an adjacent span.


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

Still, the bridge is a decrepit hunk of junk and it needs replacing regardless.
With eight full lanes and actual shoulders. Rail or BRT service would be extra but not useless.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Alps on September 18, 2009, 11:28:56 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 18, 2009, 10:00:54 PM

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


Spoken like someone who's not familiar with the bridge.  It backs up in BOTH directions, often at the same time.  The bridge itself can be the constraint on capacity.  Also, if there's an incident in any lane of the bridge, it propagates backwards like lightning because there are no shoulders and narrow lanes.  Would eight lanes with full shoulders be sufficient?  Probably with the current roadway network.  But if there are any plans to increase the number of lanes on the western side or to run a full ten lanes to the 287/87 split (if there aren't already), then it should be built with ten lanes for the future capacity.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Duke87 on September 19, 2009, 01:43:16 AM
QuoteIt backs up in BOTH directions, often at the same time.

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

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

Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: papaT10932 on February 23, 2010, 11:26:53 PM
Does anyone know why the TZ bridge was built at that location? The "Tappan Zee" is the widest point of the Hudson River and thats exactly where the bridge was built. Upriver or downriver about a mile in each direction would offer much narrower waters to be spanned.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: froggie on February 24, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
According to Steve Anderson (http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/tappan-zee/), a crossing further south near Dobbs Ferry was considered, but this location would have been within the jurisdiction of the Port Authority, not the Thruway.  Another things to consider is that it ties more or less directly into the location of the Cross-Westchester Expwy, which was already planned by that point.

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

IMO, the next reasonable location for a bridge to the north would be near Haverstraw/Croton-on-Hudson.  But this wouldn't have worked for the Thruway because of the very unforgiving terrain to the west within the Harriman State Park/Bear Mtn State Park/Palisades Interstate Park area.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: froggie on October 18, 2010, 10:21:36 AM
A bridge study update:  both a NYSDOT press release (https://www.nysdot.gov/news/press-releases/2010/2010-10-151) and a NYC transit blog (http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/10/18/for-the-tappan-zee-rail-renderings-but-no-funding-yet/) mention that, on Friday, project stakeholders had narrowed down both the transit options and the number of bridge configurations, with the goal of having the Draft EIS completed by spring.

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

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

Of course, the big issue will be how to fund the project.  The whole nine yards is on the scale of $16 billion....$8.3 billion just for the bridge, plus another $1 billion for the BRT and $6.7 billion for the Metro-North line.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Chris on October 23, 2010, 09:57:27 AM
Why do you need a bus lane while you have a transit line already? $ 1 billion for BRT while there will be a metro-north line already seems like a waste of money to me.

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

For comparison, the planned Fehmarn Belt Bridge between Germany and Denmark includes a 4-lane freeway, 2-track railway and is 11 miles long. It is estimated at € 3.5 billion or around $ 5 billion. (plus another € 1.5 billion for rail upgrades further inland).
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Alps on October 23, 2010, 11:55:41 AM
Chris - in the NYC area, density spreads so far in so many directions that a BRT line just 5 miles from a railroad line will get substantive ridership and be justified.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: english si on October 23, 2010, 01:00:42 PM
Chris, don't forget that building a new bridge is a different thing to replacing an old bridge - with a new bridge, you can just build it. With a replacement you have traffic management, demolition of the old bridge and such like. That said, it still sounds pretty high for under 3 miles of bridge, even with what it's carrying.

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

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

Interestingly, the most comparable BRT schemes (not serving major cities, high level of segregation) in the UK, Fastway in the Crawley/Gatwick area and Fastrack in the Dartford/Gravesend area run roughly parallel to a rail line with high frequencies.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: iwishiwascanadian on October 24, 2010, 12:04:31 AM
It would make sense to have the MTA foot the bill for the rail portion of the project (which would raise fares in NYC/Metro-North outside of CT, LIRR), and to have the Thruway Authority cover the rest (which would raise tolls).

I like the Tappan Zee Bridge, I dislike the congestion, but overall I'd rather use the TZB than the GWB.  I wonder if the clip-ons that are used on the Auckland Harbour Bridge could be used on the TZB, I doubt it, but wouldn't it be a short term fix?
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Dougtone on October 11, 2011, 06:45:45 PM
From today's lohud.com...

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

http://tinyurl.com/434fmv8 (http://tinyurl.com/434fmv8)
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: connroadgeek on October 12, 2011, 09:46:53 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 24, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
According to Steve Anderson (http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/tappan-zee/), a crossing further south near Dobbs Ferry was considered, but this location would have been within the jurisdiction of the Port Authority, not the Thruway.  Another things to consider is that it ties more or less directly into the location of the Cross-Westchester Expwy, which was already planned by that point.

Kind of weird how many little road/bridge commissions exist in and around NYC. Anyone know the point of having them or the history behind it? Seems kind of strange that something like Port Authority owns part of the state of New York such that a new bridge can't be built on what would likely be state land. What are the powers granted to these essentially glorified mini-DOTs?
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: empirestate on October 18, 2011, 06:42:52 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 12, 2011, 09:46:53 PM
Kind of weird how many little road/bridge commissions exist in and around NYC. Anyone know the point of having them or the history behind it? Seems kind of strange that something like Port Authority owns part of the state of New York such that a new bridge can't be built on what would likely be state land. What are the powers granted to these essentially glorified mini-DOTs?

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

The Great Bridge by David McCullough does a good job of explaining how the New York and Brooklyn Bridge Company came to be and about the contentious politics even then regarding such agencies, which seemed to enjoy the best powers of both private companies and public authorities.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Alps on October 18, 2011, 06:44:15 PM
Quote from: connroadgeek on October 12, 2011, 09:46:53 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 24, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
According to Steve Anderson (http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/tappan-zee/), a crossing further south near Dobbs Ferry was considered, but this location would have been within the jurisdiction of the Port Authority, not the Thruway.  Another things to consider is that it ties more or less directly into the location of the Cross-Westchester Expwy, which was already planned by that point.

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

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

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

I could see SJTA getting taken over, certainly, and mergers between the three Delaware River bridgeholders. Further mergers are more difficult because they are bi-state agencies. Given the difficulties in having two agencies manage one bridge, they would have to somehow split costs or responsibilities with agreements - and then it just becomes easier to have an agency overseeing it. The reason they all exist is that they were created to oversee certain transportation projects (pending or existing) that did not fall neatly under any other agency. Granted, other states have bridges between them without special commissions, but I can't think of another case where there is a toll bridge linking two states. So NJ is just the odd man out in this great nation.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 18, 2011, 07:38:45 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 18, 2011, 06:44:15 PMI can't think of another case where there is a toll bridge linking two states.

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

were those generally operated by a private ferry company?  if so, did they just incorporate in whichever state their accountants told them to, and received operating permits from, and paid taxes to, both as necessary?
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: hbelkins on October 18, 2011, 09:00:26 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 18, 2011, 07:38:45 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 18, 2011, 06:44:15 PMI can't think of another case where there is a toll bridge linking two states.

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

A number of the Ohio River bridges were toll in the past. You can see quite a few of them on old maps.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: Alps on October 18, 2011, 09:28:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 18, 2011, 09:00:26 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 18, 2011, 07:38:45 PM
Quote from: Steve on October 18, 2011, 06:44:15 PMI can't think of another case where there is a toll bridge linking two states.

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

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

Yes, some, such as the Newell Toll Bridge. But in those cases there's no bi-state agency, each operates on its own (similar to Dingmans).
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: NE2 on October 19, 2011, 03:59:51 AM
Quote from: Steve on October 18, 2011, 06:44:15 PM
I can't think of another case where there is a toll bridge linking two states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabash_Memorial_Bridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Harmony_Toll_Bridge

There was a toll bridge between Iowa and Missouri until ca. 2004, when the new Avenue of the Saints bridge opened: http://www.iowahighwayends.net/ends/ia27.html http://www.iowadot.gov/historicbridges/detail.asp?id=120
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: 1995hoo on October 19, 2011, 09:33:59 AM
Quote from: Steve on October 18, 2011, 06:44:15 PM
.... I can't think of another case where there is a toll bridge linking two states. So NJ is just the odd man out in this great nation.

US-301 crossing of the Potomac near Dahlgren, Virginia, is a toll bridge, toll collected one-way southbound (i.e., from Maryland to Virginia). As you note, it's not a bi-state toll agency operating it, primarily because the entire Potomac River is within Maryland's borders (this due to the original colonial charters issued back in the 1600s).
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: newyorker478 on October 20, 2011, 09:36:40 PM
Quote from: Chris on April 17, 2009, 01:27:40 PM
Well, New City to Midtown Manhattan is like 40 miles if you want to avoid the GW Bridge. But maybe I'm too used to my own 1.5 mile commute  :) I used to commute 6 miles, which took me half an hour by car.

Most people commuting to NYC will use the GWB..as the Palisades Parkway entrance is not  usually too bad...better than Tappan Zee to the Deegan, which is always bad.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 05, 2012, 08:08:46 AM
TOLLROADSnews: New York Governor Cuomo pushing ahead for new Tappan Zee Bridge on state Thruway but no finance plan yet (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5686)

QuoteAfter more than a decade of wishful thinking about transit as the centerpiece of reconstruction of the Tappan Zee Bridge  (TZB) over the Hudson River north of New York City plus rail and bus in some 30 miles of the corridor, state governor Andrew Cuomo has slimmed the project down to replacing the highway bridge - which has a chance to be substantially funded with toll revenues. The State Thruway is procuring a design-build contractor for a new bridge to built alongside the existing 1955 steel truss structure that is seriously deteriorated as well as obsolete.  It would then be removed from the shallow muddy bed of this wide estuarial river.

Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: HaleMoana on January 05, 2012, 11:32:39 PM
Fantastic news.  Even though it's on the expedite list, this will still be a very long project most likely taking SEVERAL years.    :banghead:

Great stuff though... can't wait.   :clap:
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 06, 2012, 01:27:04 PM
Quote from: HaleMoana on January 05, 2012, 11:32:39 PM
Fantastic news.  Even though it's on the expedite list, this will still be a very long project most likely taking SEVERAL years.    :banghead:

Great stuff though... can't wait.   :clap:

Agreed.

I don't live in New York (or anyplace close), but the Tappan Zee Bridge is one of those bridgecrossings that is vital to the national transportation network, and the impact of the loss of this link, even for a little while, would ripple to many states besides New York (and nearby New Jersey).

And more than once credible source has said that the T-Z might not withstand even a (smallish) earthquake, especially alarming given the impact of the recent (small) quake in Mineral, Virginia. 

So the Governor of New York is right to get this going.  Sooner rather than  later.
Title: Re: Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement?
Post by: vdeane on January 06, 2012, 01:29:59 PM
Yeah; taking out just one lane of it creates backups that are hours long.  Imagine taking out the whole bridge!