A decision looms for the Tappan Zee crossing and it may be an epic mistake

The study into a possible replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge is proceeding to the next step. A verdict is coming soon on what type of mass transportation will span the Hudson River. And the NYS Department of Transportation now says that it may be ready to start construction in a short four years, if all goes well. Now, what had seemed like a long, drawn out process, seems like it's being made in haste. Residents, politicians, and environmentalists on both sides of the river are not happy, and they seem especially upset on the Left of the Hudson.

Choosing which form of mass transit — bus, commuter or light rail or a combination — would best help alleviate the traffic that plagues the bridge and Interstate-287 is on tap first, transportation officials said. That decision is expected within weeks.

Some lawmakers, environmentalists and residents, however, said reaching such a verdict now would be premature.

Selecting a form of mass transit while even larger questions — including whether the bridge should be repaired or replaced — are looming could have damaging effects on the surrounding communities, critics said. They say no decision of this scope should be made without a comprehensive, regional environmental review that fully incorporates community concerns.

Addressing the project in stages would minimize its potential impact and could threaten public input by speeding up the process, critics said.

I also believe that we're at a crossroads in our nation's history in regards to energy and transportation. Four dollar a gallon gasoline may soon give way to $5, $6—and some analysts even say $12—very soon. And remember that as gasoline is part of the commodities market, other sources of energy, whether they be diesel oil, nuclear, coal will all more or less track the price of gasoline. And we are far away from developing any viable and inexpensive alternatives to oil to counteract an energy crisis.

The shortsighted assumption is that technology will progress and we'll start driving more fuel-efficient vehicles across the bridge. Another assumption, also short-sighted is that mass transportation will become increasingly popular as people from Rockland and Orange Counties continue to commute into Westchester and the city.

But those assumptions are based on past behavior and any decision that's made on mass transportation better be as viable of a decision in 50 years as it is today. There's no sense in being hobbled with a mass transportation system, whether it be rail, light rail, or bus rapid transit, that won't prove to be financially sound or convenient for generations to come.

It's not even a question of the fuels that we'll be using in the future; it's a question about how our lifestyles may change. For example, our energy choices may become a determining factor on where people live and how products are shipped.

Already, many employers are allowing for telecommuting or short workweeks. This is only the first step in a move away from the commuter lifestyle. It's reasonable to expect that employment choices in the future will be made with a stricter definition of what is a reasonable commuting distance.

Taking a job in New York City may not make as much sense as trying to find a job in Rockland or Bergen Counties. Commuters may see 25-mile commutes to be too expensive and unbearable and may either opt for the more local job or may even move to be close to their place of employment.

Also, long-distance commerce may have reached its apex. We are nearing a point where it becomes better for our local economies and even less expensive for consumers to buy goods and foods that are produced and grown regionally. As as far as long distance shipping is concerned, railways are becoming a much less expensive alternative to long-distance trucking and will soon become more efficient than air cargo.

Eventually, what we'll likely see is an entire redefinition of how we do business and how we live. You'll see municipalities with much better integrated local economies. You'll see whole industries die off while you'll see others emerge. You'll find some municipalities thrive while others become ghost towns as local employment will be the determining factor in the welfare of towns and cities. The day of the bedroom community has passed.

As far as mass transportation is concerned, who knows if we'll need a rail line to extend from Suffern to Port Chester? Who could possibly predict if there will be enough demand for a rail system to take commuters into New York City? There's no way that we can extrapolate today's commuting behavior into the future and any attempt to build any business corridors along a cross-Westchester rail line might just be stymied by local economies that have organically redefined themselves.

It doesn't take a soothsayer to predict that big changes are coming in the next decade, and they're not necessarily going to be centered on alternative, renewable, and less expensive forms of energy, they'll likely be focused on dealing with the realities of limited and expensive transportation. Way before the day we'll be driving hydrogen fuel-cell cars and riding in energy efficient trains and buses, there will be a natural—but significant—shift in our lifestyle priorities. These shifts will be global and will emerge without and despite progress in fuel and transportation technologies.

And considering the realistic and psychological three mile span of the Hudson, Rockland may be an early adapter in regards to this shift.

In addition to this, I think that there are many other good reasons to delay making this mass-transit decision so soon. And many are others are cited in today's New York Times article as being concerned:

Selecting a form of mass transit while even larger questions — including whether the bridge should be repaired or replaced — are looming could have damaging effects on the surrounding communities, critics said. They say no decision of this scope should be made without a comprehensive, regional environmental review that fully incorporates community concerns.

Addressing the project in stages would minimize its potential impact and could threaten public input by speeding up the process, critics said.

“All of us want to move forward,” said Assemblyman Adam Bradley, a Democrat from White Plains. “But the question isn’t whether we should move forward. The question is whether we should move forward in a way that allows for the rights we hold dear to us to be upheld.”

I agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments, however I think the grave uncertainty of a looming energy crisis is an even more compelling argument. We have to be forward-thinking when making this decision and we can't make it assuming that new energy technologies will minimize the impact of a major shift in our new economic priorities.

No matter what the recommendations of the State Department of Transportation will be, they will be premature. We cannot make many assumptions in preparing for the mass-transportation needs of a new or restored bridge.