Revised timeline for new tappan zee bridge

[Duke87]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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?

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. 

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).

[hbelkins]

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?

[NE2]

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.

[mc78andrew]

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. 

[cpzilliacus]

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.   The Record of Decsion for the project is here (.pdf, 282KB)

[Alps]

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.

[Duke87]

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.

[dgolub]

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.

[hbelkins]

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?

[Duke87]

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).

[mc78andrew]

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

[froggie]

Water is a very powerful thing.  Especially when considering the Tappan Zee is effectively a 3-mile-wide lake with a strong current.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[NE2]

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

[Jardine]

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.

[AsphaltPlanet]

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.

[vdeane]

I think they only did that because of the Korean War.

[cpzilliacus]

N.Y. Times: A Colossal Bridge Will Rise Across the Hudson

David 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.

Now 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.

"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.

[cpzilliacus]

I think they only did that because of the Korean War.

I think that had something to do with it.