Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 139

Thread: Tappan Zee Bridge Alteration or Replacement

  1. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    Yeah, waste of money. Forget Stewart. Any direct rail link should focus squarely on JFK or Laguardia
    Absolutely, for a lot less than it would cost to build rail to Stewart over a new Tappan Zee Bridge you can extend the PATH directly to the Terminals at EWR, extend the N Train directly to LGA, and directly connect JFK to both Lower Manhattan (via the Atlantic Ave branch) and to Mid Town. Plus each on of these projects would accommodate many times more passengers in a day than Stewart airport would ever.

  2. #107

    Default

    First of all, Acela averages higher from Washington to NY, and the speed will be increased in the future for certain segments of the line.

    Now, there may come a day when NYC could very well be running to Stewart once passenger demand (if every) reaches above what the current big 3 airports can sustain and the economy starts to lose out.

    So to rule out Stewart as a future 4th airport option is absurd unless you think they have the balls to propose another runway or two at the current big 3 which seems very difficult and unlikely to occur. Even if they found a way to get another runway done, they may need Stewart as a reliever some day in the distant future once that becomes saturated in turn.

    So to rule out future rail connections seems shortsighted. They should at least allow for future rail over the bridge if a time ever came to make Stewart the de-facto 4th airport. A fast non-stop rail link with a decent top speed (100mph) could get you to Stewart from Manhattan in 45 minutes if new tracks were constructed from the Tappan Zee crossing up the interstate to Stewart, connecting with the Hudson line into NYC.

    And the rail line could make sense just for commutes into NYC from a growing county.

    So, at least, they should allow the possibility of FUTURE rail retrofitting. Otherwise, it may come back to bite them and cost billions more to construct new runways or a new airport somewhere else. It may not be possible to build a new rail bridge due to NIMBY issues, so its best to hit 2 birds with one stone.
    Last edited by futurecity; February 24th, 2012 at 01:46 PM.

  3. #108
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by futurecity View Post
    First of all, Acela averages higher from Washington to NY, and the speed will be increased in the future for certain segments of the line.

    Now, there may come a day when NYC could very well be running to Stewart once passenger demand (if every) reaches above what the current big 3 airports can sustain and the economy starts to lose out.

    So to rule out Stewart as a future 4th airport option is absurd unless you think they have the balls to propose another runway or two at the current big 3 which seems very difficult and unlikely to occur. Even if they found a way to get another runway done, they may need Stewart as a reliever some day in the distant future once that becomes saturated in turn.

    So to rule out future rail connections seems shortsighted. They should at least allow for future rail over the bridge if a time ever came to make Stewart the de-facto 4th airport. A fast non-stop rail link with a decent top speed (100mph) could get you to Stewart from Manhattan in 45 minutes if new tracks were constructed from the Tappan Zee crossing up the interstate to Stewart, connecting with the Hudson line into NYC.

    And the rail line could make sense just for commutes into NYC from a growing county.

    So, at least, they should allow the possibility of FUTURE rail retrofitting. Otherwise, it may come back to bite them and cost billions more to construct new runways or a new airport somewhere else. It may not be possible to build a new rail bridge due to NIMBY issues, so its best to hit 2 birds with one stone.
    For a lot less money NY State could become a partner in a new Hudson rail tunnel with NJ, problem solved.

  4. #109

    Default

    I don't know if the Gateway project would help, probably not.

  5. #110
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    On the Rails in North NJ
    Posts
    2,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by futurecity View Post
    First of all, Acela averages higher from Washington to NY, and the speed will be increased in the future for certain segments of the line.

    Now, there may come a day when NYC could very well be running to Stewart once passenger demand (if every) reaches above what the current big 3 airports can sustain and the economy starts to lose out.

    So to rule out Stewart as a future 4th airport option is absurd unless you think they have the balls to propose another runway or two at the current big 3 which seems very difficult and unlikely to occur. Even if they found a way to get another runway done, they may need Stewart as a reliever some day in the distant future once that becomes saturated in turn.

    So to rule out future rail connections seems shortsighted. They should at least allow for future rail over the bridge if a time ever came to make Stewart the de-facto 4th airport. A fast non-stop rail link with a decent top speed (100mph) could get you to Stewart from Manhattan in 45 minutes if new tracks were constructed from the Tappan Zee crossing up the interstate to Stewart, connecting with the Hudson line into NYC.

    And the rail line could make sense just for commutes into NYC from a growing county.

    So, at least, they should allow the possibility of FUTURE rail retrofitting. Otherwise, it may come back to bite them and cost billions more to construct new runways or a new airport somewhere else. It may not be possible to build a new rail bridge due to NIMBY issues, so its best to hit 2 birds with one stone.
    Relax once the Gateway Project is eventually built , The Regional Rail system can be extended / restored just about everywhere.....there still proposing an Airport link to Stewart.....You could Electrify the Port Jervis line , and other Hoboken Diesel Division lines and with some Grade separate along the Main line you can hit 100mph.

  6. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
    Relax once the Gateway Project is eventually built , The Regional Rail system can be extended / restored just about everywhere.....there still proposing an Airport link to Stewart.....You could Electrify the Port Jervis line , and other Hoboken Diesel Division lines and with some Grade separate along the Main line you can hit 100mph.
    The port jervis line is very curvy... i don't know if it could handle a fast link to Stewart.

  7. #112
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    On the Rails in North NJ
    Posts
    2,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by futurecity View Post
    The port jervis line is very curvy... i don't know if it could handle a fast link to Stewart.
    Well it would be a branch , from Harrimen to the NJ border its straight for the most part with some curves...

  8. #113
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    A green TZB sounds nice... until you realize how much money it costs to keep something like that save and (literally) viable.

    Also, in all reality, how many people would actually USE the bridge? It is a LONG bridge with not much on either side, so even though they SAY pedestrian, how many would actually hike it?

    This is primarily for bikers, and are we willing to pay millions (?) a year to keep it rust-free for the thousand or so people that would use it?

  9. #114
    Senior Member DMAG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Trumbull, CT
    Posts
    255

    Default

    I drive that bridge very often...it is very long (3 miles). But if they could find some way of making it economically viable (how?), I do think it would be utilized.

  10. #115
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Dmag, I think that is the key.

    It is not that it would not be used, but I seriously do not think they will be able to afford it.

  11. #116

    Default

    Report on Ch 5 tonight saying there will be no Greenway on the old span & it will be torn down. Feds told local officials that two spans would make it too dangerous for navigation, as well as detrimental to wildlife in the river. No mention of whether the new span will be expanded to accomodate more pedestrians.

  12. #117
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,478

    Default

    In Tappan Zee Replacement, Location Adds to the Cost

    By SAM ROBERTS


    Meyer Liebowitz/The New York Times
    he Tappan Zee Bridge, seen here in 1955, was built at one of the wider points
    along the Hudson River, which had made replacing it an expensive project.

    If this were a docudrama, it might be called “A Bridge Too Far.” If it were a television game show, it would be “The $4 Billion Question.” Instead, it’s a timely real-life, stranger-than-fiction answer to a decades-old anomaly: Why did New York State build the Tappan Zee Bridge at one of the wider points on the Hudson River?

    The question is more than a mere historical footnote. It is integral to why the planned replacement for the decrepit 56-year-old span that connects Westchester and Rockland Counties is expected to cost more than $4 billion and why visionary state officials are now stuck with what may seem like a short-sighted political decision made a half century ago.

    At roughly $250,000 a linear foot, the difference between a three-mile-long-bridge at the gaping mouth of Tappan Bay and one farther south where the river narrows to just a mile or two in width is apparent.

    Because the bridge is already stretched beyond its projected 50-year lifespan and carries 40 percent more vehicles daily than the 100,000 originally anticipated, the Cuomo administration is accelerating its replacement.

    On Monday, the state’s Thruway Authority voted to accept a $3.1 billion bid from a consortium called Tappan Zee Constructors. Another $600 million or so will be spent on managing and financing the project.

    “The old Tappan Zee Bridge simply wasn’t built to last or serve the growing region around it which is why Governor Cuomo is building a 21st century bridge that will ease congestion, include a path for pedestrians and bikers, be mass transit ready and be built to last over 100 years without major repair,” Brian Conybeare, a special adviser to the governor, said.

    A new twin-span, to begin construction in 2013 and completed about six years later, will have eight traffic lanes (instead of seven), shoulders and an emergency lane.

    Since the Pataki administration announced plans for a replacement in 1999, Mr. Cuomo’s office said, the state has held 430 public meetings, explored 150 concepts and spent $88 million without agreeing on a final plan, much less beginning construction. Building a replacement bridge or tunnel further south where the river narrows was not considered a practical option for two reasons.
    First, it would leave the existing two links of the New York State Thruway, in Tarrytown and South Nyack, dangling fecklessly at the shoreline.

    And, second, it might prompt a jurisdictional dispute with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey — just the sort of conflict that resulted in the original decision by Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, to build the bridge at Tarrytown, the river’s second widest spot after nearby Haverstraw Bay.

    Actually, the debate can be traced to 1890 when Congress chartered a private company to build a toll bridge across the Hudson. It never happened. The company’s proposal to span the river from West 57th Street was finally abandoned in the 1930s after objections from Manhattan property-owners and from the Port Authority, which argued that it would obstruct navigation and compete with revenues from the new George Washington Bridge and the Lincoln Tunnel.

    In mapping the proposed Thruway less than two decades later, transportation planners had several options and a more sparsely populated canvas than they do today. They could go due south from Albany and connect with the New Jersey Turnpike, or cross the river into Westchester to link with the New England Thruway. Dewey favored the New England connection.

    Meanwhile, the Port Authority was mulling another bridge of its own near Dobbs Ferry, just across from the New Jersey border and where the river is only about a mile wide. The Dobbs Ferry site was within the 25-mile radius from the Statue of Liberty, which defined the authority’s domain.

    Thruway engineers asked the authority to waive its jurisdiction, but were told that its bondholders had been promised that the authority would have exclusive rights to construct a Hudson River bridge or tunnel within its own territory.

    Dewey was not inclined to share toll revenue with New Jersey and wanted all the tolls from a new bridge reserved to help finance the Thruway. He vetoed the Port Authority plans to build a span of its own, and decided to place the new bridge as far south as possible, but just outside (by less than a mile) the authority’s turf on a site that 14 years before had been deemed too expensive and “beyond any self-liquidating possibility.”


    Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times The Tappan Zee Bridge will be replaced by a
    new span that will be wider and will accommodate a much larger volume of traffic.

    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...e/#more-443749

  13. #118
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,478

    Default

    Cheapest Proposal Chosen for the New Tappan Zee Bridge

    by Jessica Dailey



    Here's some unsurprising news: the Post is reporting that the state Thruway Authority is supporting the least expensive proposal for the new Tappan Zee Bridge. The design is pictured above, and, interestingly, this was also the proposal most liked by Curbed readers, so perhaps that swayed the state's decision. The new bridge would cost around $3.14 billion, and the state is banking on approval of a $2.9 billion loan from the federal government to cover the majority cost of construction.



    The Journal News/LoHud.com reports that the winning bid was submitted by Tappan Zee Constructors, a team that consists of Fluor Enterprise and American Bridge Co., the firm that built the original Tappan Zee Bridge.



    State Chooses Cheapest Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement [NYP]

    http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/1...zee_bridge.php

  14. #119
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,133

    Default

    Tappan Zee Constructors Corp.? I sure hope liability extends to its member firms

  15. #120

    Default

    That's not a bad looking design but the lack of mass transit is downright criminal. One politically driven shortsight begets another.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Queensboro (59th Street) Bridge
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: March 10th, 2015, 06:10 AM
  2. Manhattan Bridge
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: April 28th, 2014, 09:35 AM
  3. Triborough Bridge
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2011, 11:35 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 26th, 2011, 05:09 AM
  5. The gantry of the float bridge of New York Central Railroad
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: March 21st, 2011, 05:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software