Yonkers, N.Y. Hudson River Bridge/Northern Metro Regional Bypass

 

The George Washington Bridge NEEDS alternative routes- the NYC Metro Area must have additional trans Hudson River crossings.  Northwards to the Tappan Zee Bridge, Yonkers is the best, for connecting with the existing east-west Cross County Parkway- a freeway reconstructed during the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s that excludes trucks.

Yonkers, NY authorities appear to suggest the preferred site, marked by the naming of "Bridge Street" at the east west axis of Ludlow Streets, where it would land, with its approach eastwards into a hill by Route 9, where the highway would continue within tunnel, with connections to and from the north to the Cross County Parkway.

 

Extend that Yonkers, Ludlow Street axis to New Jersey, where it would land.  It would have connections with the Palisades Parkway.  And it must have a minimum of 6 lane mainline continuing west, as simply linking to the Palisades Parkway is problematic given the lack of a continuous traffic light free link to I-95.  Years ago, 1940s-1950s, the Yonkers, N.Y. - Alpine, New Jersey bridge was proposed to have an all new freeway continuing west, which was not built.  Instead, have a tunnel that arcs southward to follow the Northern RR, to connect with I-95/I-80.  

The I-80/I-95 to bridge link would be via tunnel, cut and cover along the Northern Line., and then curved towards facing Yonkers, with portal by the Palisades Parkway.  Curved portion would be bored to avoid surface disruption, emerging just past Montammy Golf Club, at the Palisades Parkway, to the bridge to Yonkers, N.Y., along Ludlow Street.  A minimum 6 travel lane facility could be either a single tunnel with two levels, or a pair of single or two level tunnels.  Existing 57 foot diameter TBMs require a pair of tunnels, each with a single 3 lane roadway, with only about 6 feet of shoulder space, or a double level 2 lane roadway with the 6 foot shoulder space.  Larger tunnels, 62, 67, 72 feet diameter would be preferable, particularly for line of sight within tunnels that are curved.

 

In Yonkers, this moled land approach tunnel might be a short segment, that emerges to cross atop the Saw Mill River Parkway, elevated over the valley, before entering a second tunnel further east as the topography rises, that extends further east to cross I-87, the Raceway Park parking lot, and the Bronx River into the City of Mt. Vernon, transitioning to cut and cover tunnel along 2nd Street.

 

Or instead it could be continuous with the west Yonkers segment descending to pass beneath Saw Mill River.

 

In Mt. Vernon, this cut and cover tunnel follows 2nd Street before turning south along the old N.Y., Westchester & Boston RR corridor, and continuing in the Bronx alongside that same RR's currently extant Dyre Avenue IRT line, to connect to and from the south with I-95 via an augmented 222nd Street exit, extending to the Throggs Neck Bridge Expressway, and providing a valuable new traffic corridor for handling potential emergency situation evacuation traffic.

 

 

Tri State Transportation Campaign Continuing Pretense

TSTC Continues to Pretend to Support Comprehensive Transport Including Rail

http://blog.tstc.org/2015/12/15/can-tappan-zee-bridge-replacement-reverse-legacy-of-the-60-year-old-span/comment-page-1/#comment-728722


Can Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement Reverse Legacy of the 60-Year-Old Span?

 
excerpt

The Tappan Zee Bridge shaped the region in a car-dependent fashion. If the bus system recommended by the Governor’s Mass Transit Task Force is fully implemented, the New NY Bridge could help to re-shape the region with less emphasis on the automobile. In addition to simply providing an alternative to driving, exclusive bus lanes, along with transit oriented, mixed-used development near transit can transform the future of the Hudson Valley into one that is more equitable, more environmentally friendly and more sustainable.

They should write "automobile" dependent rather than car dependent, as trains include train cars.

Nonetheless the article pretends that groups as TSTC have consistently lobbied for rail when in actuality they threw in the towel with the change in planning cir 2012.

I made this comment, which simply disappears:

Let us not forget how groups as TSTC threw in the towel on comprehensive rail capacity expansion regarding the new TPZ Bridge project, and why:

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2013/03/e-groups-throw-in-towel-on-tpz.html

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2012/12/tpz-eis-fails-to-address-lower-deck.html

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-hidden-overly-influential-opposition.html

 Other links regarding this:

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2012/02/tpz-lower-deck-in-jeopardy.html

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2012/12/tpz-lower-deck-inexplicitly-eliminated.html

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/search/label/Tappan%20Zee

This was ignored by TSTC and the other supposedly 'progressive' liberal environmentally oriented groups involved with influencing transportation policy.


 

.

The Hidden Overly Influential Opposition

Back in the day, opposition movements to road projects were on the up and up.  We knew who the opponents were, and we knew of their arguments, such as the I-480 Embaradero freeway blocking the view of the waterfront in San Francisco, or the mis-routed 1964 North Central freeway project in Takoma Park, MD and Washington, D.C.

In response, road planning has evolved, with a far far greater deference to local concerns, leading new proposals to include significant design alterations, such as being underground and or designed to include transit.   Cases in point in New York-  the proposed Cross Sound Tunnel, and the replacement Tappan Zee Bridge project- both involving I-287.  The former is a replacement proposal for Robert Moses' Cross Sound Bridge which was never built- canceled in 1973.  The latter replaces a span built during the mid 1950s with 6 lanes plus a 12 foot median.  Neither the canceled Cross Sound Bridge nor the existing Tappan Zee bridge were designed to accommodate transit asides from buses in mixed traffic.

The concept of tunneling for both links has been studied, and for the Tappan Zee, discarded due to the grade requirements as that crossing involves a high buff on the Westchester side, but adopted for the sound crossing.

The concept of a design for rail transit, not included in the initial 2007 Cross Sound Tunnel proposal was later added by increasing the size of the center maintenance bore.   The new Tappan Zee bridge for years was to include a commuter rail line extending from Suffern New York to Rye NY, latter cut back to White Plains and then Tarrytown.  The method of including rail upon the new Tappan Zee Bridge included placing it in the median between the proposed twin spans, and better yet, a design featuring space for a lower deck= far superior for providing extra space for separate commuter and FREIGHT rail.

NY has NO rail freight crossings of the Hudson River south of Sedkirk just outside Albany.  freight trains must detour 160 miles north then south in order to cross from New jersey into the New York metropolitan

The design with the lower deck would have the best cost benefit ratio, which is essentually why both the George Washington and Verrazano Narrows Bridges were so designed.

The Tappan Zee Bridge replacement designs in 2011 featured the option of the lower deck.

Yet for 2012 the designs were changed, with an EIS that excudes the lowerdeck option from its cost benifot anylysis.

I have been following this project planning for year, and have searched the internet without success to find out about who/what brought this change in planning.  Try searching the interest for Tappan Zee Bridge- lower deck or double deck and one will find nothing asides from my blog posts here at Cosmobile.  My comments left at various transportation and environmentalist organizations as the Tri State Transportation Campaign, which acquiesced, and even encouraged to this bad planning decision, and to "Riverkeeper" go unansweed.

The town closest to the Tappan Zee Bridge is Nyack.

I have been told that the parties involved with scrapping the lower deck on the Tappan Zee Bridge replacement was the celebrity Rosie O Donnel, who had a house in Nyack and formerly of the tv show 'the View'.  Yet nothing so far in any internet search of Rosie O'Donnel, Tappan Zee Bridge, and protests.

Likewise with who ever is getting away with thwarting the proposed Cross Sound Tunnel- despite what has already been noted about this and the concocted former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer sex scandal: aka 'client #9' at a brothel service named 'Emperors Club' from which we never heard about Clients #1-8 and 10+.

This is secreted planning by cloaked elites who KNOW their strident opposition would be laughed at if placed in an open and widespread public light, and is facilitated by a political process in serious need of reform.

E Groups Throw in the Towel on TPZ

 Nothing from these environmentalist organizations about safeguarding the rail component of the Tappan Zee Bridge corridor.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20130327/news/303270049?source=nletter-top5

Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson may no longer be enemies of the new Tappan Zee Bridge but the two environmental groups said they are still watchdogs of the massive construction project in the Hudson River.

The former foes of the $3.9-billion undertaking that is expected to bring years of disturbance to the river agreed on today to support the new bridge.

They signed on after the state strengthened its oversight of the project, boosted an environmental mitigation fund and created a special account to help communities near the construction with riverfront improvements.

http://www.riverkeeper.org/tag/tappan-zee-bridge/

By doing so, groups as "Riverkeeper" have surrendered, and can not be rationally seen as protectors of our transport corridors.  Failing to build the design with the structure for the lower deck at a cost of $200 now means having to spend $1 billion or more additional to add such space by a connected or separate structure with the "Honda" style towers infringing upon the median space vertical clearance thereby preventing double stacked rail cars.

Tappan Zee EIS FAILS to Address Lower Deck
 http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2012/12/tpz-eis-fails-to-address-lower-deck.html

TPZ EIS Fails to Address Lower Deck Option

EIS Stresses cost savings against parallel span while ignoring those for lower deck

 

 

It talks about the superiority of the concept of a gap between the two spans to hold a deck for transit, compared to building an altogether seperate parallel span.

But it does not talk about the differences in cost effectiveness between the single and duel deck designs, the latter providing more then twice the space.

Whereas the median gap provides a total of 40 feet of width of roadway, the duel deck provides 60 feet in each direction.

From the EIS:

http://www.newnybridge.com/documents/feis/vol1/02-project-alternatives.pdf

Options 1, 2, 3

Gap

The gap between the two structures would affect the manner in which potential future transit modes could be provided in the corridor. As described in the Chapter 1,“Purpose and Need,” one of the project’s objectives is to provide a crossing that “does not preclude future trans-Hudson transit services” in the corridor. The following are options that would not preclude future transit on this corridor:

1) Allow for the incorporation of future transit on the new highway structures without reducing the number of general traffic lanes;

2) Provide for future transit across a third parallel bridge that would be constructed at a later date and that would serve as an exclusive transit right-of-way; or 

 3) Provide additional structural support within the new highway structures as well as a gap between the new highway structures to allow for future transit modes to operate on a new deck that would span the gap at a later date.

These options are illustrated in Figure 2-1.

The Replacement Bridge Alternative would accommodate existing bus services across the Tappan Zee Hudson River crossing; however, the implementation of any options for future transit modes would require a separate and independent environmental review process when and if a proposal for transit services is foreseeable and financing is available. Implementation of future transit services would require modifications at the bridge landings to tie in to upland infrastructure for bus and/or commuter rail operations.

There are various options for such upland connections.

Option 1 would allow for exclusive bus lanes within the left shoulders of the replacement bridge, but infrastructure to support the upland connections to these bus lanes would be needed in Rockland and Westchester Counties.

Option 2 could provide for a new exclusive or combined bus or commuter rail bridge across the Hudson River. However, Option 2 would be costly ($2 to $3 billion) and would result in work in the Hudson River (i.e., dredging and pile driving) for additional foundations to support piers for the new structure that could be avoided with implementation of either Option 1 or Option 3.

Option 3 would allow for either or both bus and commuter rail service across the Hudson River; however, additional strengthening of the new bridge would be required to support the additional loads from any potential transit service within the gap between the new structures. The additional current cost for strengthening the replacement bridge under Option 3, to allow for any future transit service within the gap between structures, would be approximately $200 to $300 million. Should implementation of transit occur in the future, an additional approximately $340 to $620 million (in 2012 dollars) would be required to implement the future infrastructure across the bridge, with an additional $4.4 to $4.6 billion for the commuter rail infrastructure, connections, and stations. In total, the current and future structural cost for transit service within the gap would be $540 to $920 million. In comparison, a new, exclusive transit bridge across the river (i.e., Option2) would cost between $2 and $3 billion just for the new structure. In short, Option 3 would save between $1.5 and $2 billion as compared to Option 2.

Consistent with and in furtherance of the project’s goal to “maximize the public investment in a new trans-Hudson crossing,” planning for additional strengthening and a gap between the two new structures to facilitate Option 3 for transit service is considered prudent at this time. To that end, the Design-Build Contract Documents (Part 3 § 11.3.1.10.3) include specific provisions for a potential future load, assuming the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering

(2012) requirements for commuter rail service.

Furthermore, a 40-foot gap would be provided between the highway structures at the main span towers. The gap would narrow as it approaches landings, but the transit structure and its connections could be provided at a lower elevation (i.e., below the highway deck) at this location. As noted above, the tie-in at the Rockland and Westchester landings may require future modification of highway infrastructure

" In short, Option 3 would save between $1.5 and $2 billion as compared to Option 2. "

Then what about Option 1? 

Rather then simply a 40 foot gap accomadating at best two rail tracks, Option 1 would provide about 62 feet of roadway width in each direction, easily accomodating space for 4 rail trackways allowing a much needed east-west rail freight line, something lacking in the New York City metropolitan area, at an initial cost as I was told by a NYSDOT representative at a recent TPZ bridge meeting, of $200 million (about 7% of a $3-4 billion overall project).

The TPZ EIS strangely ignores the extra economy of provided by the dual deck design, and even its potential, completely failing to assess the cost benifits of the duel deck option versus the mono-deck - listed by officials respectively as the long and short span options.

Likewise strangely: the design approved December 17, 2012 provides a 40 foot wide gap that is intruded upon to some degree of vertical clearance by the outwards canted towers - selected for some obscure or blatant symbolism rather than any utilitarian function - to ensure space for only 2 tracks, half of what we would have with the duel deck that was squashed for reasons that remain obscure.

 

TPZ Lower Deck Inexplicitly Eliminated

 

The official option #1

a dropped option #4

The newest designs for the replacement Tappan Zee Bridge all feature a single deck- eliminating the previously proposed lower deck.

http://www.newnybridge.com/thruwaybridgedesignpresentation.pdf

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gov_cuomo_unveils_leading_contender_EGapkbrh9WYOJXsNAC3uAP

As I previously reported, I was told that the lower deck design added $200 million to the initial construction costs, which would be far less expensive than the other options of adding such capacity by a parallel structure.  I've yet to see any numbers to even attempt to justify eliminating the lower deck design.

So if we are to ever add passenger and freight rail capacity by such a parallel structure instead costing 5x the amount- for what?  The preferences of a handful of houseowners so concerned about the height?  Have they noticed the artfully done supports of these previous proposals now being replaced by those less graceful than the NJ Turnpike's elevated viaduct section atop the Meadowlands?

TPZ Lower Deck In Jeopardy

Useful for Passenger & Freight Railway
Currently in Jeopardy with continuing consideration of "Short Span" Option WithOUT Lower Deck


Two Sets of Choices Remain: "Long Span" With Lower Deck;"Short Span" Mono-Deck, and Cable Stayed Versus Arch




According to what I was told at the February 28, 2012 public meeting for NYSDOT's Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement Project, it will not preclude adding a separate transitway, with options to place it upon a separate parallel span, or attached between the new twinned spans.

When I asked about how the transitioning of the transitway to one side of I-87/I-287 (as it would not be in the median), I was told it could be suspended below. That would avoid a lengthy transition in the median. But that left a new unanswered question that since the renderings showed the monodeck being somewhat lower than the double deck, then would not the mono deck need then be raised highway to maintain the same clearance for river traffic. I was told that the double-deck would cost $200 million more, while providing space for at least two sets of twin tracks for separate commuter and freight train cars, which may well be less expensive than affixing a railway suspended between the spans with capacity for only a single set of tracks.





It appears that NYSDOT is about to go with the option providing LESS transit capacity yet at a potentially greater cost? Would have the George Washington and Verrazano Narrows Bridges been better values if not designed with lower decks?

NYSDOT must release plans that show the full approaches to these lower level decks, with the construction of this segment included in this project, whether or not the connecting transit segments are included, or deferred to a future project.

Groups stating their support for transportation including transit must demand the project to include the lower deck

TSTC Shortsightedness on N.Y.'s Tappan Zee

Writes letter to Gov Elect Cuomo asking to scale back the Tappan Zee Bridge Project, including deleting the rail component.

http://blog.tstc.org/2010/12/23/an-open-letter-to-governor-elect-cuomo/
excerpt

On the capital side, the next Governor should also support the LIRR third track project (key for Long Islanders to reap the benefits of East Side Access) and plans for bus rapid transit in the Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 corridor. Additionally, plans for Tappan Zee Bridge replacement could be scaled down and proceed without the commuter rail connection from Rockland to NYC. Most commuters using the Tappan Zee are travelling to suburban destinations, not ending their trips in Manhattan, so the bus rapid transit connection, which provides much greater utility at the most affordable cost, should be retained.

"Scaling back", without stressing modularity of design -- aka a design allowing components to be added in seperate stages -- for such a major corridor is simply asinine.

The project should include the rail component from Suffern to Tarrytown, with the design permitting a future extension to White Plains and Portchester, and eventually, via the proposed Cross Sound Tunnel, to Long Island and ultimately Jones Beach. Such would be extremely sensible later addition, for serving future desification-redevelopment of the I-287 Cross Westchester Expressway's numerous office parks, which would significently add potential risership.

Likewise, the project should include a barriar seperated 'busway' designed to be expandable to a minimum of two lanes in each direction, given the economics of scale (the 'busway' like any other seperate carriageway requires its own ramps), and serving as a seperate express truckway- more effectively providing additional east-west road capacity where it's scarce, and the ability to better seperate types of traffic.




The twin configuration variant with the best modularity of design
Indeeed, I-287 is Westchester County's sole east-west interstate highway, and one of two of the county's east-west freeways: the other, the Cross County Parkway does not permit trucks -- hence the 'parkway' designation -- and is missing its extensions east of the Hutchinson River Parkway and west of the Saw Mill River Parkway, let alone any bridge or tunnel connections to Long Island or New Jersey. A third planned east-west freeway -- the Bear Mountain Parkway, remains significently unbuilt, despite the proximity of the Indian Point nuclear power station.

Meanwhile, the two closest completed east-west interstate links are I-84 to the north and the heavily used and most difficult to widen I-95 George Washington Bridge/ Trans Manhattan Expressway/ Cross Bronx Expressway.

As the mid-point between I-95 and I-84, I-287 continues to the west of the Hudson River, yet currently has its eastern terminus at I-95 in Portchester/Rye, and currentl lacks a continuation to Long Island- now proposed in the form of the Cross Sound Tunnel. Yet despite the clear need for additional capacity upon the Westchester approach roads, there appears to be a lack of planning for improving the approaches to this new tunnel in Westchester

That the 'mainstream' organizations would rather chip away at a vitally important project for improving regionally scarce east-west high speed road capcity, including adding that which does not yet exist- the rail component, with not a word about designing to add other components later with minimal wasteful demolition (a strange and curious disregard), let alone dare suggest other projects to place less of a reletove burden upon the I-95 Cross Bronx Expressway, speaks volumes about these organization's nature as part of a broader effort to acclimatize people to expect less butter, and more security theater state, cigarette-pharma market protection 'drug war' nonsense.

Tappan Zee Long Term Solution Proposed

From an array of options:

the most capacity with the least direct river impact via design requiring fewer piers