What if they build a tunnel? I heard that worked out great in Boston.
Translation: "We need $150 Billion ASAP. Send it now."
the reason they don't build a new one is because of the NIMBYs on either side who don't want it. they block it, and tie it up in the courts with environmental impact studies - while the current bridge decays.
I went to high school just one town south of the Tappan Zee Bridge (go Bulldogs) and I still go up to Westchester/Rockland as often as I can, using the TAppan Zee Bridge fiarly often. I haven't seen any problem with it. It's a great bridge, and if you look to your right crossing from the west, you can see the skyline. (Of course, there seem to be a couple of things missing from the skyline.)
Reason #1317 why I am not in charge of anything:
Declare it unsafe and close it!
If you look at the aerial photo in the first post, you'll notice the bridge has an odd S-shaped horizontal alignment. Anyone who knows the geography of that area might also wonder why the bridge was built across the widest point along the Hudson River (the term "Zee" is Dutch for "sea"). The bridge was built at that location because it is just outside the northern boundary of the official Port Authority of New York and New Jersey region (roughly defined as a region within a 25-mile radius of the Statue of Liberty) -- so the New York Thruway Authority didn't have the legal authority to collect tolls on a bridge that was constructed any further to the south.
Drivers better be prepared to Tappan Zee brakes...
New York ping.
Sorry, but I don't care. After the slamming AK took because someone came up with a catchy phrase about a "Bridge to Nowhere"....well, ignorance travels REAL fast in the MSM and cyberspace.
No offense to you, neverdem. :)
After being told that a bridge connecting Alaska's biggest city to the fastest growing area of the state is a "bridge to nowhere," I'm amused to throw back East some of dumb comments made about our own bridge. (I don't agree with any of these comments - it's just sarcastic fun to apply the arguments to the Hudson River.)
1. A deteriorating bridge is your own damn fault. Move away from upstate New York is you need a job or home "across the river."
2. New Yorkers should pay for it. Don't waste my money on your projects.
3. The money is better spent helping people in New Orleans.
4. Nyack, New York, is nowhere. I've been there.
5. The politicians from New York are just moneygrubbing scoundrels.
6. Don't they make a ton of money in New York? Why should we have to help them?
7. It's not my job to support your need for economic development.
Sarcasm off.
Now my REAL opinion. If the government was actually operating as it was supposed to - in a limited manner, with specific, enumerated duties - we would have enough money to build and maintain roads, bridges, and other projects that support our economy. In fact, as someone who's driven much of the interstate system from coast to coast, a lot of those roads are pretty well made. Road building is specifically mentioned in the Constitution for the simple reason that good roads mean efficient commerce. Unfortunately, our government has also decided to spend our tax money on... well, you name it, there's a program, and when there's a program, there's a jealous little constituent group attached to it. I wish somewhere someone would actually express sympathy for the idea of limited government. Maybe the next time a people opt for the idea of a republic a few thousand years from now.
An elderly friend of mine who died a few years ago won a full university scholarship (when he was in high school) by winning an essay contest. The subject for the essays was: "Should bridges be built across the Hudson River?".
That bridge swayed bigtime last time we crossed it some years ago. I had no idea it was that rickety but I guess a lot of suspension bridges have this frightening feature. We used to love to cross it as kids, or the GW bridge. Ah...the good old days!