WPCNR Tappan Zee Bridge Brief By Renee Marks Cohen. July 23, 2007: This reporter, a writer/editor and former member of the White Plains Design Review Board, attended the recent [July 18] Tappan Zee Bridge/I-287 “Environmental Stakeholder Advisory Working Group” meeting at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, in White Plains.

The consultants and volunteer members attending were thoughtful, thorough, dedicated, and professional. But, a tunnel alternative to the bridge is not now being considered in the alternatives under study by this working group, and three other working groups (Traffic/Transit, Land Use, and Bridge Design). At an earlier environmental stakeholder meeting, the higher cost of a tunnel, various impeding logistics, and affect on wetlands were noted as restraints.

Troubled Bridge Over Big Water. A Tunnel Replacement for the Tappan Zee Bridge is not being considered.

The alternatives to the bridge being studied by the review groups, which are under the auspices of the New York State Dept. of Transportaion, the New York State Thruway Authority, and MTA/Metro North Railroad, are:

1)      the No Build alternative keeping existing bridge and highways

2)      Bridge Rehab with Demand Management and Transportation Systems Management

3)      Full Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) replacing the TZ with a new bridge with eight general purpose and two high-occupancy, higher speed toll lanes for BRT between Suffern and Port Chester.

4)      Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) in Rockland and in Westchester plus a new bridge

5)      CRT in Rockland, Light Rail in Westchester plus a new bridge

6)      CRT in Rockland, BRT in Westchester plus a new bridge.

[The latter three with direct connections to the Hudson Line]

There was no evidence of the directions the bridge project will take although 2015 was mentioned as the “build year,” the date of completion.

Who will make the decisions about repairing or replacing the bridge and creating supplementary, complementary transportation systems? The Federal Transit Authority, the Federal Highway Administration, and the three New York entities noted earlier.

The public’s input is encouraged. This Stakeholder Advisory Working Group will meet every 4 to 6 weeks until 2008; will publish a draft statement, circulate it, ask for public input, and have a public hearing. It will analyze existing conditions and the impacts of alternatives, and hear about appropriate “mitigation” measures while working with relevant agencies and doing research and computer modeling.

The Web site, including study documents, for the entire bridge review process is www.tzbsite.com. The public can sign up for news releases and updates, and offer comments.

Because geographical transportation extensions/improvements may be included in the discussions, White Plains’s registered historical sites (e.g., the Armory, the Good Council complex), those having the potential to be registered, and many other sites (e.g., the bridge itself, the Bronx River Reservation, the Old Croton Aqueduct) have been noted.

Other topics in active discussion include cultural resources, air quality, noise, wildlife, river ecology, socioeconomic concerns, and environmental justice. At the meeting, this reporter sat next to an anthropologist whose role, if necessary, is to denote hidden historical sites that may never even be excavated!

Volunteers are sought by the reporter to substitute for her at future meetings she cannot attend. Please contact the reporter through the CitizenNetReporter Editor.