New book explores the politics behind the $4B Tappan Zee

Talk of replacing the Tappan Zee Bridge first began in the 1970s.

That conversation continued for decades as building a new crossing ultimately became a "self-fulfilling prophecy" for the state Thruway Authority, says Philip Mark Plotch, author of "Politics Across the Hudson: The Tappan Zee Megaproject" (Rutgers University Press).

His new book chronicles the history — featuring turf battles, political jockeying and behind-the-scenes compromises — that ultimately led to the $4 billion twin span rising today. It will replace a bridge that likely won't reach age 65.

Plotch, a former manager of planning with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and a political science professor at Saint Peter's University in Jersey City, N.J., said he wanted to learn more about the decision-making behind the Tappan Zee project, one the largest public works jobs in the nation.

"I hope people have a better understanding of how hard it is to actually make any changes," Plotch told The Journal News.

He interviewed three former governors — George Pataki, Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson — about how they made their choices about the bridge, where they got their information and their motivations. He also spoke with transportation leaders, engineers, Obama officials and community activists.

The Journal News interviewed Plotch by phone and email about his new book.

***

Question: Do we really need a new bridge? Could the existing one have been fixed?

Answer: In the 1990s, the state did not need to replace the bridge. Today, it does.

Once the Thruway Authority decided to replace the bridge, it cut back on some of the capital projects and maintenance that would have been performed if it expected the bridge to stay up for several more decades. You can't blame the Thruway Authority officials. Pouring a lot of money into a bridge that is getting replaced is not a very efficient use of resources.

But, the bridge started to deteriorate much faster than it otherwise would have. That means replacing the bridge became a self-fulfilling prophecy: the bridge now has to be replaced because the Thruway Authority wanted to replace it.

Q: You point out the Thruway Authority wanted to replace the Tappan Zee or build another crossing two decades before Pataki seriously took up the issue in the 1990s. What were its concerns?

A: In 1996, Thruway Authority officials wanted to replace the bridge for numerous reasons, starting with capacity constraints. They thought that a wider bridge would reduce traffic along a key bottleneck and entice more cars and trucks to use the Thruway. In turn, more traffic would generate more revenue for the authority without it having to raise tolls.

Q:Why was Gov. Andrew Cuomo able to advance the project when so many before him had failed?

A: The Pataki, Spitzer and Paterson administrations had a very ambitious goal. They wanted to build a commuter rail line that would connect New York City with Orange, Rockland, and Westchester counties. For better or worse, Gov. Cuomo said let's just focus on what we can afford now, and let's get it started as soon as possible.

Cuomo figured out how to get meaningful results before the end of his first term. During his re-election campaign, he could point to visible construction progress and take credit for generating hundreds of new jobs.

You have to give him credit for securing White House support, obtaining a huge federal low-interest loan, and organizing a public relations blitz. But, to meet his timetable, he also had to make decisions behind closed doors, eliminate transit and keep his financing plan a secret.

Q: What's your best guess on how much tolls will go up to pay for the bridge?

A: I'll guess that regular commuters who are now paying $3 to cross the bridge are going to spend more than $10 per trip in 2023. That is when the Thruway Authority will probably have to start paying back its $1.6 billion dollar federal loan. The toll is going to depend on many factors, including how the political winds are blowing at that time.

Q: You conclude your book with the point that the final version of this project is fraught with ironies. Please share a few.

A: In the 1980s, the state DOT wanted to build an HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lane because they wanted to reduce the number of people driving alone. Now, there will be no HOV lane, but rather a wider bridge that will attract more people driving alone.

In the 1990s, environmental groups led Gov. Pataki to kill an HOV lane because they thought it would increase sprawl west of the Hudson and harm the environment. Now, the state is building something they consider far more detrimental to the environment — a wider bridge with few incentives to encourage carpooling and public transportation.

A rail project that required a new bridge became a bridge project without any rail.

Some of the information was compiled and lightly edited for clarity and space.

Twitter: @ksaeed1