MTR 318, Spano Postpones Tappan Zee Study Approval

Issue 318

May 21, 2001

Spano Postpones Tappan Zee Study Approval

Last week, Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano requested that the NY Metropolitan Transportation Council delay approval of the “Tappan Zee Bridge Alternatives Analysis,” stating that he wanted more details on what the study would examine. The Council, which operates on a consensus basis, duly postponed the action.

In recent weeks, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign wrote to Spano and Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef, urging them to attach conditions to the study before approving it at NYMTC.

Such conditions could include:

1. That any project will not include widening the Thruway, and may include a written agreement that the Thruway will forego such widening in the future.

2. No new bridge will be built without a concurrent, funded mass transit project.

3. A new bridge will not have any more than eight lanes of vehicular traffic.

4. Bridge structural issues, transit feasibility, induced traffic effects and land use impacts will be clearly examined in the alternatives review.

5. Restoration of West Shore rail passenger rail service will be supported and funded by the Metropolitan Transit Authority.

In requesting the delay, Spano’s office took pains to state that it wasn’t against the study going forward, but that the county executive wanted a clearer picture of what the study would cover. Westchester officials said Spano would meet with Thruway staff this week to go over concerns. Hopefully, Spano will also meet with Metro-North and MTA officials as well. The Thruway’s prominent public profile on the Tappan Zee replacement issue, and the relative invisibility of top Metro-North and MTA officials adds to the perception that the transit talk associated with the project is window dressing for a highway initiative.

Both Spano and Vanderhoef underscored their commitments to a transit solution in comments to the Journal-News. A Spano spokesperson said, “He’s not in favor of widening I-287.” Vanderhoef reiterated earlier statements that he would not support a new crossing unless it included mass transit.