The Tappan Zee/Interstate 287 study team’s decision to split the project’s environmental review into multiple phases — first selecting a transit alternative and finalizing bridge design, then finalizing the details of the transit system while the bridge is constructed, and finally building transit after completion of the bridge — is predicated on reasons which seem sound. The phasing will allow bridge construction to occur while NYSDOT goes through the time-consuming work of cooperatively developing a transit system that fits into local communities. Speeding up construction could also save money at a time when the cost of construction materials is far outpacing inflation. That being said, the announcement has reminded many advocates of the George Washington Bridge, which was designed to accommodate a transit system which was never built.

Begun in 1926 and completed in the fall of 1931, the George Washington Bridge was conceptualized by the Port Authority and designed by O.H. Ammann, who would go on to design five other bridges in New York City, including the Triborough and Verrazano. In a concession both to geological and political considerations, the bridge was located at considerable distance from work and population centers to the south, such as Hoboken. This location dictated that the bridge would first serve automobile traffic.

The bridge was financed by a $60 million bond issuance, and there was considerable pressure to begin collecting toll revenue as soon as possible. Because of this, the bridge was to be built in stages. In an article published in the Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1933, the project engineers wrote that the bridge “is designed to carry a 90 ft roadway flanked by two 10 ft sidewalks on the upper deck and 4 electric rail tracks on a lower deck. Only the upper deck has been built to date (1932) and the center portion is unpaved…”

The rationales for constructing the GW Bridge in phases included speed and cost, echoing those of the Tappan Zee project team. As Ammann wrote in Transactions, “A controlling aim in the development of the design has been to permit the later enlargement… of the bridge and its approaches… such an arrangement is of deciding economic advantage. It permits the opening of the bridge to traffic years in advance of the final completion, [and] effects a large saving in initial cost and interest during construction and after completion [emphasis added].”

Ammann was aware of the emerging primacy of car traffic but felt that “the more efficient and economical transportation of people by electric rail service will become a necessity.” These plans never came to fruition as auto-centric planning came to dominate NYC. By the time Robert Moses commissioned a study to add a new deck to the bridge in 1955, it was to consider the addition of lanes serving car traffic, not “electric rail” as originally anticipated.

It is easy to overstate the similarities between the GW and Tappan Zee projects. Though the GW Bridge was designed to accommodate transit, the transit system itself was not part of the project. By contrast, the Tappan Zee study included plans for I-287 corridor transit from its inception, and the agencies working on the project have invested years in studying and refining transit plans. Furthermore, there is strong sentiment among Hudson Valley policymakers that the I-287 corridor needs transit. Nevertheless, the George Washington Bridge stands as an example of transit intentions gone awry.

The Tappan Zee project team has announced that it will hold open houses on changes to the study, including additional transit alternatives and new alternatives combining transit with a rehabilitated bridge, on February 26, 27, and 28 in Purchase, Goshen, and West Nyack, respectively (details here).

Image: The George Washington Bridge in its original, single-deck configuration. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Paul Murphy is the Tri-State Transportation Campaign’s intern.