U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > Long Island
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-06-2018, 08:07 PM
 
1,250 posts, read 1,094,228 times
Reputation: 1736

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cooncat View Post
I saw the plans in Newsday. It is going to do massive damage to that area of the north shore. You would have to build the roads as well. It will do tremendous damage to the beautiful Long Island Sound as well.
That's the problem. There is NO plan yet. They're not even 100% if or where it would be built.

Any "plan" being published is done so with an agenda to either support or argue against the project.

If such a plan would involve destruction of "the entire area" of Oyster Bay and Bayville along with "countless businesses" it would mean the use of Eminent Domain on a massive scale. I don't see that happening. Either they find a way around it, or the project doesn't happen (after years of legal battles where the taxpayers pay the legal fees).

The likely concepts I have seen - at least for the most logical crossing from Rt 135 to Rye - involve starting the underground portion further south.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2018, 04:35 AM
 
2,454 posts, read 2,432,971 times
Reputation: 1704
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooncat View Post
Some of you pro-tunnel people need to take a drive up to Oyster Bay/Bayville area to see how much destruction these tunnels would do to the area. It would destroy the beaches, the roads, the downtown of Bayville, Oyster Bay, the entire area. It would also destroy countless businesses up there as well.
Since the TUNNEL would begin (underground) in south Syosset and emerge in Rye/Port Chester it would not have that effect.

I am not saying the tunnel is a great idea, but much of the recycled opposition to the highway/bridge plan of 40 years ago simply no longer applies.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2018, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,966 posts, read 31,102,262 times
Reputation: 7619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Commenter View Post
Since the TUNNEL would begin (underground) in south Syosset and emerge in Rye/Port Chester it would not have that effect.

I am not saying the tunnel is a great idea, but much of the recycled opposition to the highway/bridge plan of 40 years ago simply no longer applies.
That's almost 5 miles of tunneling under communities from Syosset to the Oyster Bay (body of water, not community).

The traffic spillover into arterial roads in Syosset leading to the tunnel entrance will be significant, if one looks at the TNB. The CIP north backs up approaching the TNB. Sometimes, I've gotten lucky and the back up starts after the Totten Ave exit. Other times, it is much further back.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2018, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,966 posts, read 31,102,262 times
Reputation: 7619
I stumbled onto an NPR article which I found interesting: why the original Tappan Zee was built at a wide part of the Hudson. Governor Dewey wanted the toll money to help pay for the Thruway. If he had built it further south, it would have fallen into Port Authority territory; toll money would have gone to the Port Authority instead. Dewey wanted the toll money, the TZ was built 2/10 of a mile north of the Port Authority territory.

Port Authority territory is an approximate 25 mile radius of the Statue of Liberty.

Looking at the a new Sound bridge or tunnel, Oyster Bay falls outside of the Port Authority territory while Rye is inside of it. This is not about convenience for us as much as it is about money for Albany and the PANY off the backs of Long Islanders.

https://www.npr.org/2014/05/14/31252...he-rivers-wide

Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Little Babylon
4,586 posts, read 8,019,682 times
Reputation: 2078
Long Islanders have more moochers on their backs than anyplace else.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 02:04 PM
 
1,250 posts, read 1,094,228 times
Reputation: 1736
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave View Post
at the a new Sound bridge or tunnel, Oyster Bay falls outside of the Port Authority territory while Rye is inside of it. This is not about convenience for us as much as it is about money for Albany and the PANY off the backs of Long Islanders.
Port Authority operates these toll crossings:

Bayonne Bridge
George Washington Bridge
Goethals Bridge
Holland Tunnel
Lincoln Tunnel
Outerbridge Crossing

All of which connect NY and NJ.

MTA Bridge and Tunnels operates these toll crossings:

Bronx-Whitestone Bridge
Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel
Cross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge
Henry Hudson Bridge
High Bridge
Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge
Queens Midtown Tunnel
Throgs Neck Bridge
Robert F. Kennedy (Triborough) Bridge
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

All of which are within the 25 mile PA radius. These all connect NY-NY points.

Whether one of the above two, or NYSDOT or another newly created agency would operate any proposed new tunnel isn't really an issue. It would still be a high toll cost, a high construction cost and payoffs to the right campaign contributors.

I understand the reasoning behind the original TZ/Thruway/Dewey story but wonder if that is now outdated. PA territory goes that far north due to the NJ/NY border. It wouldn't make sense for them to cover an intra-state crossing.

A tunnel from Syosset to Rye would go under two MTA lines (Metro North and LIRR), making MTA the likely candidate for ownership.


If the project connected NY with a point in CT, there would likely be a new agency formed, similar to PA, but to cover both NY-CT. A new agency - if anything like the bloated Port Authority, would be another money pit for taxpayers. It would also mean that NY and CT would have to split the profits and provide patronage positions to people in two states. IMO, that's what makes a crossing to CT less likely. (Either way, a CT make less sense than connecting to Rye where it could tie into both 95 and 287. A CT crossing would simply dump all traffic onto an already overloaded 95).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 02:41 PM
 
720 posts, read 735,777 times
Reputation: 1029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe461 View Post
Port Authority operates these toll crossings:

Bayonne Bridge
George Washington Bridge
Goethals Bridge
Holland Tunnel
Lincoln Tunnel
Outerbridge Crossing

All of which connect NY and NJ.

MTA Bridge and Tunnels operates these toll crossings:

Bronx-Whitestone Bridge
Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel
Cross Bay Veterans Memorial Bridge
Henry Hudson Bridge
High Bridge
Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge
Queens Midtown Tunnel
Throgs Neck Bridge
Robert F. Kennedy (Triborough) Bridge
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

All of which are within the 25 mile PA radius. These all connect NY-NY points.

Whether one of the above two, or NYSDOT or another newly created agency would operate any proposed new tunnel isn't really an issue. It would still be a high toll cost, a high construction cost and payoffs to the right campaign contributors.

I understand the reasoning behind the original TZ/Thruway/Dewey story but wonder if that is now outdated. PA territory goes that far north due to the NJ/NY border. It wouldn't make sense for them to cover an intra-state crossing.

A tunnel from Syosset to Rye would go under two MTA lines (Metro North and LIRR), making MTA the likely candidate for ownership.


If the project connected NY with a point in CT, there would likely be a new agency formed, similar to PA, but to cover both NY-CT. A new agency - if anything like the bloated Port Authority, would be another money pit for taxpayers. It would also mean that NY and CT would have to split the profits and provide patronage positions to people in two states. IMO, that's what makes a crossing to CT less likely. (Either way, a CT make less sense than connecting to Rye where it could tie into both 95 and 287. A CT crossing would simply dump all traffic onto an already overloaded 95).
I don't think this is true (the bold and underlined part above). If anything, there would be an incentive to make the border further south - to not include river crossings from NY (Rockland) to NY (Westchester).

But the PA jurisdiction map angle doesn't make sense today. Stewart airport and the one down near Atlantic City are way outside this so-called jurisdiction, and as you have stated, there are many bridges, etc within NYC that are within the boundaries but are not PA facilities. I think its just a case of whoever wants to build it can build it (and pay for it).

In any event, I have no idea what it means to be within the PA jurisdiction map. Seems to mean nothing, at least in 2018.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 03:40 PM
 
1,250 posts, read 1,094,228 times
Reputation: 1736
Quote:
Originally Posted by 987ABC View Post
I don't think this is true (the bold and underlined part above). If anything, there would be an incentive to make the border further south - to not include river crossings from NY (Rockland) to NY (Westchester).

But the PA jurisdiction map angle doesn't make sense today. Stewart airport and the one down near Atlantic City are way outside this so-called jurisdiction, and as you have stated, there are many bridges, etc within NYC that are within the boundaries but are not PA facilities. I think its just a case of whoever wants to build it can build it (and pay for it).

In any event, I have no idea what it means to be within the PA jurisdiction map. Seems to mean nothing, at least in 2018.

I agree that the jurisdiction map posted doesn't make much sense. My comment about the NJ border was a guess since the line on the map roughly followed the Hudson to cover any potential crossing between the two states.

Port Authority is a two-state authority. All the locations they operate are either NY-NJ interstate (bridges/tunnels) or airports (interstate traffic).

They do not operate any intra-state facilities, and it wouldn't make sense for them to do so. This seems to hold true with the bridges/tunnels they do not operate.

Who builds it and where the money comes from is pretty much dictated by Albany. DOT is going to be involved and Albany is going to sign off on the project (and probably Trenton, if PA is involved). It is unlikely that PA is going fund any such tunnel, but that's not to say Albany won't cut a deal where PA gets to operate it.


Again, I don't think any of that matters. It's all a political shell game either way.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 04:42 PM
 
720 posts, read 735,777 times
Reputation: 1029
Ironically, its NYC (and its residents) who should want this the most. A lot of the traffic on the MTA bridges and various highways is not originating from NYC, nor traveling to NYC. Its people getting off and onto LI. This tunnel will help keep those vehicles entirely outside NYC, stop NYC from being a "cut through" for many travelers. Also, it will not have a terminus in NYC, nor will it require any digging or construction in NYC.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Confines of the 101 Precinct
25,698 posts, read 39,042,965 times
Reputation: 11198
Quote:
Originally Posted by 987ABC View Post
Ironically, its NYC (and its residents) who should want this the most. A lot of the traffic on the MTA bridges and various highways is not originating from NYC, nor traveling to NYC. Its people getting off and onto LI. This tunnel will help keep those vehicles entirely outside NYC, stop NYC from being a "cut through" for many travelers. Also, it will not have a terminus in NYC, nor will it require any digging or construction in NYC.
Hey, you're right! I want it now!
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence

Forum TOS: //www.city-data.com/forumtos.html
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > Long Island

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top