New York

[froggie]

I'd prefer tunnels being constructed to bridges. However, I understand that neither will be built anywhere.

A combination, like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, might be more likely, to allow mega-ship traffic without the danger of a collapse like the Key Bridge.

According to whom?  Has such infrastructure been proposed across the Sound, or are we in fictional territory?

Didn't Cuomo's study from a handful of years back include a tunnel option?  I recall hearing something about such.

[kalvado]

I'd prefer tunnels being constructed to bridges. However, I understand that neither will be built anywhere.

A combination, like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, might be more likely, to allow mega-ship traffic without the danger of a collapse like the Key Bridge.

According to whom?  Has such infrastructure been proposed across the Sound, or are we in fictional territory?

I just mean that if something ever gets built, it may be a combo, for the same reason that the CBBT is.

Are there any big ship routes - or even feasible destinations for future routes - in LI sound?

[Rothman]

I'd prefer tunnels being constructed to bridges. However, I understand that neither will be built anywhere.

A combination, like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, might be more likely, to allow mega-ship traffic without the danger of a collapse like the Key Bridge.

According to whom?  Has such infrastructure been proposed across the Sound, or are we in fictional territory?

Didn't Cuomo's study from a handful of years back include a tunnel option?  I recall hearing something about such.

Sure, and never forget the submarine ferry a nutty developer proposed some years ago now.  I haven't heard of a bridge-tunnel, though...which doesn't mean there hasn't been one, just haven't heard it.

[kalvado]

I'd prefer tunnels being constructed to bridges. However, I understand that neither will be built anywhere.

A combination, like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, might be more likely, to allow mega-ship traffic without the danger of a collapse like the Key Bridge.

According to whom?  Has such infrastructure been proposed across the Sound, or are we in fictional territory?

Didn't Cuomo's study from a handful of years back include a tunnel option?  I recall hearing something about such.

Sure, and never forget the submarine ferry a nutty developer proposed some years ago now.  I haven't heard of a bridge-tunnel, though...which doesn't mean there hasn't been one, just haven't heard it.

Proposing something is pretty easy - especially since a few controlled substances are now widely available.
Design and construction are often more complicated.

[vdeane]

submarine ferry

Sounds like even the real proposals are in Fictional territory.  Was there a reason for it beyond "it sounds cool"?

[pderocco]

I'd prefer tunnels being constructed to bridges. However, I understand that neither will be built anywhere.

A combination, like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, might be more likely, to allow mega-ship traffic without the danger of a collapse like the Key Bridge.

According to whom?  Has such infrastructure been proposed across the Sound, or are we in fictional territory?

I just mean that if something ever gets built, it may be a combo, for the same reason that the CBBT is.

Are there any big ship routes - or even feasible destinations for future routes - in LI sound?

New Haven has a tanker terminal. The Throgs Neck and Whitestone bridges near the city have high clearances, suggesting the possibility of big ships.

[Rothman]

submarine ferry

Sounds like even the real proposals are in Fictional territory.  Was there a reason for it beyond "it sounds cool"?

No.

[kalvado]

I'd prefer tunnels being constructed to bridges. However, I understand that neither will be built anywhere.

A combination, like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, might be more likely, to allow mega-ship traffic without the danger of a collapse like the Key Bridge.

According to whom?  Has such infrastructure been proposed across the Sound, or are we in fictional territory?

I just mean that if something ever gets built, it may be a combo, for the same reason that the CBBT is.

Are there any big ship routes - or even feasible destinations for future routes - in LI sound?

New Haven has a tanker terminal. The Throgs Neck and Whitestone bridges near the city have high clearances, suggesting the possibility of big ships.

Whitestone bridge has a clearance of 130'.  Bridge across the Hudson river carrying Berkshire bypass  just south of Albany, has 139' clearance,  higher than Whitestone - that is to enable access to a major ocean gateway, The Port of Albany.  That is compared to 190' required by Panamax ships. 139' looks ok for Seawaymax,  but that's not a "big ship" league. Same with New Heaven port planning to increase channel depth from 35' to 42'.
Overall, looks like whatever happens in LI sound would have to be as high above water as Tappan Zee bridges (both old and new) to fit the system. Nothing extreme.

 

[Roadgeek Adam]

A bridge/tunnel idea, tied with a 4th jetport was rejected outright by the Port Authority in 1969. But yes, it has been proposed before.

[The Ghostbuster]

You would see Star Trek-like "Beam us up, Scotty!" teleporters built before a bridge or tunnel built over the Long Island Sound. Sad, but true.

[Rothman]

A bridge/tunnel idea, tied with a 4th jetport was rejected outright by the Port Authority in 1969. But yes, it has been proposed before.

By a nutty lawyer in Queens, no less.

Sounds like a frivolous lawsuit.

[SignBridge]

I'd prefer tunnels being constructed to bridges. However, I understand that neither will be built anywhere.

A combination, like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, might be more likely, to allow mega-ship traffic without the danger of a collapse like the Key Bridge.

That might be an excellent solution, but again probably nothing is going to be built anyway.

[Rothman]

Come to think of it, it's kind of a sad state of affairs if we consider some rich lawyer with time on his hands able to make an "official proposal" just because he sues the Port Authority to consider it and is shot down by the judge...

[Roadgeek Adam]

Come to think of it, it's kind of a sad state of affairs if we consider some rich lawyer with time on his hands able to make an "official proposal" just because he sues the Port Authority to consider it and is shot down by the judge...

Yeah, by January 1970, he was told no by the court.

[RobbieL2415]

If no one wants to invest in a bridge or tunnel, then why not invest in more frequent high speed ferries, ones that go 30+ miles per hour?

[Rothman]

If no one wants to invest in a bridge or tunnel, then why not invest in more frequent high speed ferries, ones that go 30+ miles per hour?

See Fast Ferry from Rochester to Canada's failure...

[froggie]

If no one wants to invest in a bridge or tunnel, then why not invest in more frequent high speed ferries, ones that go 30+ miles per hour?

See Fast Ferry from Rochester to Canada's failure...

In fairness, that one involved an International border crossing.  A Long Island Sound ferry wouldn't.

[Rothman]

If no one wants to invest in a bridge or tunnel, then why not invest in more frequent high speed ferries, ones that go 30+ miles per hour?

See Fast Ferry from Rochester to Canada's failure...

In fairness, that one involved an International border crossing.  A Long Island Sound ferry wouldn't.

The "Fast Ferry" had support from both countries, so I don't think the international crossing was the biggest variable in its failure.

It's not like there aren't ferries across the Sound already (e.g., Port Jeff or Orient Point).  Proposals for fixed crossings or additional ferries fizzle out or, at best, just generate a lot of NIMBYism and then die (I can imagine Long Islanders thinking of the CT side as "riff raff" as well). 

If there was a dire need, I would expect there to be less opposition to it.  Therefore, I suspect a new ferry, if built, would suffer from similar demand issues to the Fast Ferry (albeit less severely).

[vdeane]

The "Fast Ferry" had support from both countries, so I don't think the international crossing was the biggest variable in its failure.

It's not like there aren't ferries across the Sound already (e.g., Port Jeff or Orient Point).  Proposals for fixed crossings or additional ferries fizzle out or, at best, just generate a lot of NIMBYism and then die (I can imagine Long Islanders thinking of the CT side as "riff raff" as well). 

If there was a dire need, I would expect there to be less opposition to it.  Therefore, I suspect a new ferry, if built, would suffer from similar demand issues to the Fast Ferry (albeit less severely).

Perhaps not all the support it needed, though.  IIRC, they were counting on revenue from freight trucks to be solvent, but never actually got approval for it, and customs was for some reason reluctant to let trucks use the ferry.  Of course, there was also the issue that Rochester wasn't a big draw for people from Toronto.  It ended up being used mainly by people from Rochester looking to bypass the QEW, or who thought traveling by boat would be nifty.

[Rothman]

The "Fast Ferry" had support from both countries, so I don't think the international crossing was the biggest variable in its failure.

It's not like there aren't ferries across the Sound already (e.g., Port Jeff or Orient Point).  Proposals for fixed crossings or additional ferries fizzle out or, at best, just generate a lot of NIMBYism and then die (I can imagine Long Islanders thinking of the CT side as "riff raff" as well). 

If there was a dire need, I would expect there to be less opposition to it.  Therefore, I suspect a new ferry, if built, would suffer from similar demand issues to the Fast Ferry (albeit less severely).

Perhaps not all the support it needed, though.  IIRC, they were counting on revenue from freight trucks to be solvent, but never actually got approval for it, and customs was for some reason reluctant to let trucks use the ferry.  Of course, there was also the issue that Rochester wasn't a big draw for people from Toronto.  It ended up being used mainly by people from Rochester looking to bypass the QEW, or who thought traveling by boat would be nifty.

Ah yes, I forgot about the freight debacle.

[roadman65]

It be interesting to see how far this guy gets in his pursuit.   Many have tried and failed.

I know that He won't succeed, but I will take he does try harder than others. Rich people usually have more influence.

[Rothman]

It be interesting to see how far this guy gets in his pursuit.   Many have tried and failed.

I know that He won't succeed, but I will take he does try harder than others. Rich people usually have more influence.

Psst:  Rich people have been behind every Sound crossing proposal...

[Roadgeek Adam]

The entire purpose is to build a bridge by rich people in areas of rich people for rich people who can afford it.

Look. We could be shovels in the ground tomorrow. There's gonna be a lawyer next to it with a stop work order. Is it fun to give NIMBYs what they want? No. Do we have to think realistically? Yes. I'm not inherently opposed to a bridge across the sound. I'm inherently opposed to wasting tax money (and even a private project would have tax money involved) on something that will never happen because Little Soccer/Track/Basketball/Archery Mom doesn't want a bridge near their 7br 6ba mansion on the south end of the sound.

At some point, the Throggs Neck and Whitestone are gonna need upgrades. And those will be taxpayer funded. I'd rather invest the taxpayer money on bridges that already exist to guarantee them 75 or more years of later life if possible (or replacement with 75 years of life). Needed upgrades could be made to those bridges.

[pderocco]

The entire purpose is to build a bridge by rich people in areas of rich people for rich people who can afford it.

Look. We could be shovels in the ground tomorrow. There's gonna be a lawyer next to it with a stop work order. Is it fun to give NIMBYs what they want? No. Do we have to think realistically? Yes. I'm not inherently opposed to a bridge across the sound. I'm inherently opposed to wasting tax money (and even a private project would have tax money involved) on something that will never happen because Little Soccer/Track/Basketball/Archery Mom doesn't want a bridge near their 7br 6ba mansion on the south end of the sound.

Waitaminnit, is the proposed bridge something rich people support or oppose?

[kalvado]

The entire purpose is to build a bridge by rich people in areas of rich people for rich people who can afford it.

Look. We could be shovels in the ground tomorrow. There's gonna be a lawyer next to it with a stop work order. Is it fun to give NIMBYs what they want? No. Do we have to think realistically? Yes. I'm not inherently opposed to a bridge across the sound. I'm inherently opposed to wasting tax money (and even a private project would have tax money involved) on something that will never happen because Little Soccer/Track/Basketball/Archery Mom doesn't want a bridge near their 7br 6ba mansion on the south end of the sound.

Waitaminnit, is the proposed bridge something rich people support or oppose?

Rich people can do whatever they want!