Can't get the link to work from news 12, but the new timeline is dec 2016 for westbound traffic and February 2017 for eastbound traffic, with the old bridge being ripped down by april2018.
Seems like and aggressive timeline, but a welcomed relief.
Have any contracts been awarded as of yet?
Quote from: mc78andrew on December 23, 2013, 09:44:44 PM
Can't get the link to work from news 12, but the new timeline is dec 2016 for westbound traffic and February 2017 for eastbound traffic, with the old bridge being ripped down by april2018.
Seems like and aggressive timeline, but a welcomed relief.
Found this (http://hudsonvalley.news12.com/news/donald-trump-disapproves-of-state-plan-to-replace-tappan-zee-bridge-1.6664499), with Certified Bloviator Donald Trump asserting that the existing bridge needs a "facelift," not a total replacement.
Here (http://westchester.news12.com/news/new-tappan-zee-bridge-to-open-in-dec-2016-1.6649341) is the story that you were speaking of above.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 23, 2013, 10:45:13 PM
Quote from: mc78andrew on December 23, 2013, 09:44:44 PM
Can't get the link to work from news 12, but the new timeline is dec 2016 for westbound traffic and February 2017 for eastbound traffic, with the old bridge being ripped down by april2018.
Seems like and aggressive timeline, but a welcomed relief.
Found this (http://hudsonvalley.news12.com/news/donald-trump-disapproves-of-state-plan-to-replace-tappan-zee-bridge-1.6664499), with Certified Bloviator Donald Trump asserting that the existing bridge needs a "facelift," not a total replacement.
Here (http://westchester.news12.com/news/new-tappan-zee-bridge-to-open-in-dec-2016-1.6649341) is the story that you were speaking of above.
Trump probably hasn't ever driven on his own in suburban traffic.
Did Trump ever go into detail about what his idea of a facelift entails?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 23, 2013, 11:28:08 PM
Did Trump ever go into detail about what his idea of a facelift entails?
Covering it with a dead animal.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 23, 2013, 10:45:13 PMCertified Bloviator Donald Trump asserting that the existing bridge needs a "facelift," not a total replacement.
And his degree in civil engineering is from...where again? (Hint, Donald: the Close Cover Before Striking University doesn't count.)
Quote from: mc78andrew on December 23, 2013, 09:44:44 PM
Can't get the link to work from news 12, but the new timeline is dec 2016 for westbound traffic and February 2017 for eastbound traffic, with the old bridge being ripped down by april2018.
Seems like and aggressive timeline, but a welcomed relief.
I'll believe it when I see it. The reconstruction of the Roslyn Viaduct, a section of Northern Boulevard (NY 25A), was supposed to only take a year. They started it in 2006, and they're still not finished. (OK, the new bridge itself is finished and they're now doing the approaches, but still.)
Quote from: SidS1045 on December 24, 2013, 09:36:28 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 23, 2013, 10:45:13 PMCertified Bloviator Donald Trump asserting that the existing bridge needs a "facelift," not a total replacement.
And his degree in civil engineering is from...where again? (Hint, Donald: the Close Cover Before Striking University doesn't count.)
MIT, of course - Mailorder Institute of Technology.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on December 23, 2013, 10:34:58 PM
Have any contracts been awarded as of yet?
Sorry, was so busy talking about The Donald's hot air.
To answer your question, yes, I was across the Tappan Zee back in September, and work was well under way.
Project Web site: http://www.newnybridge.com/ (http://www.newnybridge.com/)
Quote from: dgolub on December 24, 2013, 10:57:03 AM
Quote from: mc78andrew on December 23, 2013, 09:44:44 PM
Can't get the link to work from news 12, but the new timeline is dec 2016 for westbound traffic and February 2017 for eastbound traffic, with the old bridge being ripped down by april2018.
Seems like and aggressive timeline, but a welcomed relief.
I'll believe it when I see it. The reconstruction of the Roslyn Viaduct, a section of Northern Boulevard (NY 25A), was supposed to only take a year. They started it in 2006, and they're still not finished. (OK, the new bridge itself is finished and they're now doing the approaches, but still.)
Who is building that one? I'm operating off some vague memory here, but the public private partnership for the new tappan zee bridge has substantial financial disincentives to miss deadlines. I am sure thee are examples of public private partnerships not working, but I think you have a better shot of finishing on time when someone has something real to lose as opposed to the thruway being left on their own.
As for trump, I have still yet to hear a better plan other than " we cannot afford it". I suppose when there is a commuter revolt he say, "let them eat cake".
Quote from: mc78andrew on December 24, 2013, 08:24:31 PM
Quote from: dgolub on December 24, 2013, 10:57:03 AM
I'll believe it when I see it. The reconstruction of the Roslyn Viaduct, a section of Northern Boulevard (NY 25A), was supposed to only take a year. They started it in 2006, and they're still not finished. (OK, the new bridge itself is finished and they're now doing the approaches, but still.)
Who is building that one? I'm operating off some vague memory here, but the public private partnership for the new tappan zee bridge has substantial financial disincentives to miss deadlines. I am sure thee are examples of public private partnerships not working, but I think you have a better shot of finishing on time when someone has something real to lose as opposed to the thruway being left on their own.
Not sure. My understanding is that it's officially two separate projects, one for the bridge itself and one for the approaches. There was a gap of about a year between them.
Aesthetically, the current bridge is quite handsome. Love the sweeping curves, symmetry, and the setting.
Hope the new one looks as sharp. (saw the artwork, but I really need to see it completed to form an opinion)
Quote from: Jardine on December 24, 2013, 08:41:25 PM
Aesthetically, the current bridge is quite handsome. Love the sweeping curves, symmetry, and the setting.
Hope the new one looks as sharp. (saw the artwork, but I really need to see it completed to form an opinion)
I'm not convinced that it will. Personally, I think that these more modern-style bridges (like the Zakim Bridge in Boston) are tacky and prefer the more traditional style. That said, it seems like the New York area is going to be getting a few of them, since both the new Tappan Zee Bridge and the new Q Bridge in New Haven will be of that style. I believe that the new Kosciuszko Bridge will as well.
I agree. Cable-stayed is not my thing.
To me, the two tower cable stayed are nicer looking than the single tower (at each end) variety, and that bizarro thing in Oakland CA, OMG!
And the longer cable stayed ones look better than the short ones.
I do like Caltravas with the single inclined tower, btw, but it's more art than bridge.
Anything with a modern look sticks out in the northeast. The backdrop is old, the infrastructure is old, it's all old.
This is a rare beautiful spot on the Hudson River. It's nice and wide and not within site of any major structures, so maybe the more modern look will mesh better.
The one advantage of the cable stay, less steel to rust compared to a cantiliver or traditional suspension span
Function over form, people. And the existing Tappan Zee is rapidly losing function.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 26, 2013, 12:53:06 AM
The one advantage of the cable stay, less steel to rust compared to a cantiliver or traditional suspension span
Until somebody discovers the inevitable fatal flaw with segmental concrete bridge design. Now, I'm not a structural engineer, but my bet is that said flaw will be when - several years from now (hopefully) - random 3 foot segments of these bridges will start having deck failures that, unlike a more traditional concrete deck on a steel underframe, cannot be easily repaired without requiring major reconstruction of the entire span.
Quote from: roadman on December 26, 2013, 09:45:32 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 26, 2013, 12:53:06 AM
The one advantage of the cable stay, less steel to rust compared to a cantiliver or traditional suspension span
Until somebody discovers the inevitable fatal flaw with segmental concrete bridge design. Now, I'm not a structural engineer, but my bet is that said flaw will be when - several years from now (hopefully) - random 3 foot segments of these bridges will start having deck failures that, unlike a more traditional concrete deck on a steel underframe, cannot be easily repaired without requiring major reconstruction of the entire span.
Just like how people who don't want a cell phone antenna near their home/school will say that cell phone towers cause brain damage, and that 25 year's worth of data proving that the claim is worthless still isn't enough time to know the true effect?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2013, 09:59:21 AM
Just like how people who don't want a cell phone antenna near their home/school will say that cell phone towers cause brain damage, and that 25 year's worth of data proving that the claim is worthless still isn't enough time to know the true effect?
...and, of course, most of those people have cell phones and hold them right up to their ears, thus (by their own logic) causing damage to their own brains. Yet they're the first ones to bitch and moan when there's little or no usable signal at their homes. Ask them how they think cell phones work, and you'll hear nothing but crickets.
Been there, done that...don't want the T-shirt.
Quote from: roadman on December 26, 2013, 09:45:32 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 26, 2013, 12:53:06 AM
The one advantage of the cable stay, less steel to rust compared to a cantiliver or traditional suspension span
Until somebody discovers the inevitable fatal flaw with segmental concrete bridge design. Now, I'm not a structural engineer, but my bet is that said flaw will be when - several years from now (hopefully) - random 3 foot segments of these bridges will start having deck failures that, unlike a more traditional concrete deck on a steel underframe, cannot be easily repaired without requiring major reconstruction of the entire span.
I am not a structural engineer either, but I do know that there are plenty of cable-stayed bridges that have pretty conventional-looking steel under the bridge deck.
Why do you think there is a flaw in the design of segmental bridges?
The Pennsylvania Turnpike has two of them now, and the "signature" structure on the Blue Ridge Parkway (Linn Cove Viaduct) is such a structure (which dates back to the 1980's). As is the new South Norfolk Jordan Bridge.
Over on one of the NYC-area forums on Facebook, someone's yelling about design changes and calling for Cuomo's impeachment over the changes. What's up with that?
QuoteOver on one of the NYC-area forums on Facebook, someone's yelling about design changes and calling for Cuomo's impeachment over the changes. What's up with that?
Given who the individual in question is, I wouldn't take it very seriously...
The new bridge was originally supposed to have a lower level which would initially be unused but would be designed to carry as many four train tracks in the future. This would have been used as part of a hypothetical future rail line along the I-287 corridor from Suffern (Erie RR/Metro-North Port Jervis line) to Port Chester (Northeast Corridor/Metro-North New Haven Line), with potential connections to the Pascack Valley, West Shore, Hudson, and Harlem lines along the way, which could have both been used for freight and allowed for a better passenger rail connection between Orange and Rockland counties and New York City (the existing routes are slow, low capacity, and lack a direct connection to Manhattan).
A lot of transit advocates and railfans, naturally, loved this idea. But it was always problematic considering that the existing I-287 ROW on both sides of the river (like most freeway ROWs in hilly areas) has some grades that are too steep for heavy rail, which would have required expensive and high visual impact (read: extreme NIMBY fodder) measures to mitigate.
When President Obama and Governor Cuomo decided to take the project which had already been being talked about for over a decade and fast track it to construction, the lower level for rail was removed from the design to cut costs, simplify the EIS, and expedite construction... to the collective wails of every transit advocate in the northeast, who have since been screaming about how we're missing out on a once in a lifetime opportunity to improve cross-Hudson rail capacity.
I don't see how this is grounds to impeach anyone but it is possible there was some official document at some point which said the new bridge would have rail, which if it's convenient to your beliefs you could construe as a mandate that's being violated.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
The new bridge was originally supposed to have a lower level which would initially be unused but would be designed to carry as many four train tracks in the future. This would have been used as part of a hypothetical future rail line along the I-287 corridor from Suffern (Erie RR/Metro-North Port Jervis line) to Port Chester (Northeast Corridor/Metro-North New Haven Line), with potential connections to the Pascack Valley, West Shore, Hudson, and Harlem lines along the way, which could have both been used for freight and allowed for a better passenger rail connection between Orange and Rockland counties and New York City (the existing routes are slow, low capacity, and lack a direct connection to Manhattan).
It certainly makes sense in terms of adding to a deficient railroad network leading to New York City. But in terms of meeting demand for transit capacity, would it be any better than express bus service?
Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
A lot of transit advocates and railfans, naturally, loved this idea. But it was always problematic considering that the existing I-287 ROW on both sides of the river (like most freeway ROWs in hilly areas) has some grades that are too steep for heavy rail, which would have required expensive and high visual impact (read: extreme NIMBY fodder) measures to mitigate.
I suspect that those railfans
also expected that Thruway customers (alone) were going to fund all of the construction costs
and all of the inevitable operating deficits.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
When President Obama and Governor Cuomo decided to take the project which had already been being talked about for over a decade and fast track it to construction, the lower level for rail was removed from the design to cut costs, simplify the EIS, and expedite construction... to the collective wails of every transit advocate in the northeast, who have since been screaming about how we're missing out on a once in a lifetime opportunity to improve cross-Hudson rail capacity.
I don't see how this is grounds to impeach anyone but it is possible there was some official document at some point which said the new bridge would have rail, which if it's convenient to your beliefs you could construe as a mandate that's being violated.
What governs in these matters is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Record of Decision (ROD).
Those are legally binding on FHWA, NYSDOT and the NYSTA.
I have frequently disagreed with the Obama Administration over matters of transportation, but the Obama USDOT did the right thing when it pushed this through. In spite of claims from wannabe engineers like Donald Trump, it's pretty clear that a total replacement of the Tappan Zee is the correct approach (and the seismic risks associated with the current span alone probably justify complete replacement).
Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
When President Obama
This isn't a political question, but what does he have to do with the construction of a bridge on a state toll system?
For that matter, what would he (or any president) have to do with a highway project on a non-toll system?
Quote from: hbelkins on December 26, 2013, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
When President Obama
This isn't a political question, but what does he have to do with the construction of a bridge on a state toll system?
For that matter, what would he (or any president) have to do with a highway project on a non-toll system?
I have no idea. Highways are self-contained and never have any impact on non-users, and certainly never cross navigable waters under federal jurisdiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Significance_.E2.80.93_federal_rights_in_navigable_waters).
Quote from: hbelkins on December 26, 2013, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
When President Obama
This isn't a political question, but what does he have to do with the construction of a bridge on a state toll system?
For that matter, what would he (or any president) have to do with a highway project on a non-toll system?
TIFIA loan? Pretty much need his blessing for one of those from what I understand.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 26, 2013, 08:52:30 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
When President Obama
This isn't a political question, but what does he have to do with the construction of a bridge on a state toll system?
For that matter, what would he (or any president) have to do with a highway project on a non-toll system?
It
still needs Section 404 [of the Clean Water Act] permitting from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard approval - and
many other federal laws still apply, such as Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act.
mc78andrew correctly stated above that the Thruway Authority is borrowing federal dollars, which presumably means that (more) federal strings come attached.
The FEIS is online here (http://www.newnybridge.com/documents/feis/). The Record of Decsion for the project is here (http://www.newnybridge.com/documents/rod/00record-of-decision.pdf) (
.pdf, 282KB)
Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
When Congress and Governor Cuomo decided to take the project which had already been being talked about for over a decade and fast track it to construction, the lower level for rail was removed from the design to cut costs, simplify the EIS, and expedite construction... to the collective wails of every transit advocate in the northeast, who have since been screaming about how we're missing out on a once in a lifetime opportunity to improve cross-Hudson rail capacity.
Trust me, Obama doesn't care about one project over another, so I've edited the quote above. That said, rail isn't coming to this corridor before 2030 at the earliest, if at all (likely not). The bridge had to get built now. They did leave some room to add transit lanes, and I've heard conflicting information as to whether those lanes would support rail, instead of only being convertable to BRT. While it's a great idea to get another rail connection across the Hudson, how about reconnecting across Staten Island and actually giving freight a way to get from southern New England and the ports and industries of southern NY to the rest of the country, especially the ports and industries of New Jersey and Philadelphia? Short haul rail is very viable. Transit budgets are tight right now, 2nd Ave. subway notwithstanding. I agree with not wasting money and more time no one has on provisions that may never be used.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 26, 2013, 08:51:23 PM
It certainly makes sense in terms of adding to a deficient railroad network leading to New York City. But in terms of meeting demand for transit capacity, would it be any better than express bus service?
Infinitely. For one thing, the train will never get caught in highway or city traffic at any point along its journey. For a bus in rush hour, it would be inevitable.
Also, it takes at least half a dozen buses to match the capacity of one train, and the demand to support rail
is there - and it isn't fully realized on the Pascack Valley and Port Jervis lines because they are slow and inconvenient to use. But I do still think improving those routes and building a new tunnel into Penn Station which they can use is a better way to serve commuter rail needs.
For freight, a rail tunnel from Bay Ridge to Bayonne would be very useful, although that would permanently torpedo the idea of running any meaningful level of passenger rail along the Bay Ridge LIRR. The fact that there is currently no place a freight train can cross the Hudson River south of Castleton (yes, next to the Berkshire Thruway bridge, almost in Albany)
is a major gap in the nation's rail network.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 27, 2013, 12:15:30 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 26, 2013, 08:51:23 PM
It certainly makes sense in terms of adding to a deficient railroad network leading to New York City. But in terms of meeting demand for transit capacity, would it be any better than express bus service?
Infinitely. For one thing, the train will never get caught in highway or city traffic at any point along its journey. For a bus in rush hour, it would be inevitable.
Although that issue could be reduced substantially with dedicated bus lanes.
Quote from: Steve on December 26, 2013, 11:45:41 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 26, 2013, 07:02:35 PM
When Congress and Governor Cuomo decided to take the project which had already been being talked about for over a decade and fast track it to construction, the lower level for rail was removed from the design to cut costs, simplify the EIS, and expedite construction... to the collective wails of every transit advocate in the northeast, who have since been screaming about how we're missing out on a once in a lifetime opportunity to improve cross-Hudson rail capacity.
Trust me, Obama doesn't care about one project over another, so I've edited the quote above.
That makes much more sense, but are there federal dollars going to this project or is it self-funded by the Thruway?
Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2013, 12:24:06 PM
That makes much more sense, but are there federal dollars going to this project or is it self-funded by the Thruway?
Sort of. The federal government is
loaning New York $1.6 billion dollars for the project. But the matter of how to actually pay for it is not yet finalized. Tentative plan is for the new bridge (and possibly the entire thruway) to have higher tolls once it opens, but for political reasons Albany is being intentionally vague about the details. So in addition to a new bridge at the end of 2016, you can probably look forward to paying a price similar to the Port Authority crossings to drive over it (eastbound, anyway).
I don't get why securing a barge is so tough for these guys. This is the second incident since September.
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-news/20140104/contractor-suspends-work-on-new-tappan-zee-bridge-because-of-storm-two-barges-break-away
Water is a very powerful thing. Especially when considering the Tappan Zee is effectively a 3-mile-wide lake with a strong current.
Quote from: froggie on January 07, 2014, 07:57:02 AM
Water is a very powerful thing. Especially when considering the Tappan Zee is effectively a 3-mile-wide lake with a strong current.
Agreed. Not the first time (and probably not the last) that water will cause problems for bridge builders.
Someone (
might have been you) told me that the Hudson River has Atlantic Ocean tides to a point north of the Tappan Zee Bridge.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 07, 2014, 11:44:37 AM
Someone (might have been you) told me that the Hudson River has Atlantic Ocean tides to a point north of the Tappan Zee Bridge.
Troy: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4923.html
A lash up of barges will always be somewhat more fragile than what we might desire. The relative motion of it's various elements cannot be eliminated, and the repetitive (and to a degree random) motion is always working the tow and 'looking' (if I may) for the weakest connections.
How long would the Tappan Zee (or almost any other bridge) stand if one pier was moving at random intervals in random directions 3 feet ?
Even the mighty Golden Gate bridge as designed was envisioned to withstand only a single sudden shift of one of it's major components (anchorages or towers) 6 feet, or 12 feet gradually.
This may be off off topic, but it seems crazy that a bridge with as much significance as the Tappen Zee could have originally been built with only a proposed 50 year lifespan. Imagine if, for example, the Brooklyn had have been built with such a short design life.
I think they only did that because of the Korean War.
N.Y. Times: A Colossal Bridge Will Rise Across the Hudson (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/nyregion/a-colossal-bridge-will-rise-across-the-hudson.html)
QuoteDavid Capobianco was a toddler in 1964 when the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge slowly soared over his neighborhood of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, and tethered it to Staten Island. As he grew up, the improbable notion of assembling something so big and of such gossamer design propelled him to become a civil engineer.
QuoteNow after years of public argument and indecision, the first new colossal steel bridge in the New York area since the Verrazano is finally beginning to rise over one of the most spacious stretches of the Hudson River, a replacement for the decaying Tappan Zee, the longest bridge in the state, and Mr. Capobianco, 51, is its project manager.
Quote"All other projects I've worked on are dwarfed by this – the size of the equipment involved, the enormity of what we're doing, the number of people involved," he said.
Quote from: vdeane on January 20, 2014, 03:17:02 PM
I think they only did that because of the Korean War.
I think that had something to do with it.