Note: The following article was written before the pandemic and the resurgence of interest in climate change. It will provide historic context to subsequent posts in this space.

“HOW TO BUILD A BRIDGE – THE POLITICAL ROUTE TO TAPPAN ZEE II”

or “How a Musician took on the NYSDOT”

Maureen M. Morgan

INTRODUCTION – This is the story of how a stunning new Tappan Zee Bridge came to span the Hudson River. It details the struggles of wealthy and influential Westchester County as it attempted to solve growing congestion on 1-287, the Interstate that bisects Westchester County, while bucking up against politically powerful New York City. The region was clearly outgrowing its hub and spoke layout. A large scale project would be required to solve the region’s growing gridlock. But who really decides what mega structures are to be built in the metro area and what data is used to make those decisions? This is the core of this drama. It is also my improbable story.

ACT ONE

Westchester County, just north of New York City, is home to around 900,000 residents, of whom more than 130,000 regularly commute to four of the five boroughs of New York City, an employment hub for the many communities surrounding the city. By the 1980’s however, commuting patterns were becoming more complex. In the metro area the final link of Interstate 287 was nearing completion in New Jersey, which would funnel traffic around New York City, over the aging Tappan Zee Bridge, through Westchester County to Connecticut. Meanwhile, in New York the so-called ‘reverse commute’ was expanding, meaning that 75,000 Manhattan residents were opting for jobs in Westchester County, while still living in the city, a consequential symbol of the changing patterns of commutation.

In the 1980’s the growing congestion on I-287 was stirring the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Region 8 to come up with a way to mitigate the problem. In the early nineties I became involved in that problem in what would become a major metro area drama, largely unknown to the general public.

After a lifetime as a musician in the church, mostly in NYC, I was looking for other arenas to explore. After completing a SUNY Purchase Environmental Management Certificate I joined the Federated Conservationists of Westchester County (FCWC) in 1992, an umbrella group of environmental organizations. In late 1993 I was appointed president of FCWC when the current president was unable to continue. Early on I met FCWC’s executive director – Gudrun LeLash (Goody) who would become an invaluable partner in the enterprise we were soon to embark upon.

 At the second board meeting I chaired representatives from the TriState Transportation Campaign, a group of environmental and transportation organizations in Manhattan, presented us with a request – that FCWC lead a campaign to kill the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane proposed by the regional DOT. TriState’s concern was the consistent expansion of roadways, offering no alternative to the car and therefore creating more congestion. Their motto was “Fix it First”. But what is an HOV and why isn’t it a solution to congestion?

The High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane project, fundamentally a car pool plan, never popular with the commuting public, was purported to solve the growing congestion on Interstate 287. In order to access the restricted lane one must have two or more people in the vehicle. Vans and buses would obviously qualify. The HOV lane would follow 1-287 from Port Chester to Suffern in Rockland, crossing the Hudson River on the TZB. TriState considered the HOV project a road expansion project and therefore should be opposed. There was no time to lose. The public comment period for the HOV project had already occurred in 1989 before the Clean Air Act was passed. The Department of Transportation (DOT) appeared to have put the project on a fast track for approval.

The Planning Director Rich Peters for the region had been working on the HOV plan for nearly ten years and was clearly very proud of his ‘magnum opus’. Initially it appeared to be a more advanced solution for coping with traffic congestion because it did not merely expand the roadway. It became clear, however, once we understood how an HOV lane actually worked, that this project would not accomplish what it promised. The fatal flaw was its reversible design, which required gates at either end of the HOV to reverse the flow of traffic twice a day to favor the perceived direction of peak travel. A visit to the regional DOT’s office in Poughkeepsie to view the actual drawings confirmed our suspicion that the HOV was a non-starter.

To this point there had been no discussion of how the very limited Tappan Zee Bridge would accommodate the HOV project. It was barely able to carry the current traffic. In fact the mere mention of a new bridge raised the hackles of environmentalists, particularly those living in Tarrytown and Nyack. It was the untouchable third rail.

The HOV concept depended on the public’s ability and willingness to carpool even though most people travel alone and have widely divergent work schedules. A driver with a passenger would have to get into a restricted lane with few exits, leaving heavy congestion behind with no solution for the single occupant vehicle. An unintended consequence of the project, experienced in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston and other cities where the HOV had been sold as the solution to everything, was that it pulled ridership away from mass transit options while at the same time adding more vehicles to the existing highways.

Someone had to involve the public in discussing the perceived benefits of this project and so I became the face of the campaign to kill the HOV, under the banner of FCWC. An OpEd I wrote for the Reporter-Dispatch entitled – “Alternatives needed to disastrous HOV plan” became the kick-off for the campaign.  It covered all the negatives of the DOT plan but also described the many ways gridlock could be mitigated without resorting to highway expansion, material supplied by TriState experts. Summing up – “The car culture we all know and love has run its course. We are overdue in developing an equal opportunity transit system, giving the entire population choices in how to get from here to there in a timely fashion.”

There was an immediate response from Al Bauman, Director, DOT Region 8, seemingly surprised at the rational traffic solutions coming from a member of the public. Mr. Bauman’s objections to my analysis resulted in his simply repeating the stated benefits of the HOV proposal in another OpEd, thereby offering me further material for rebuttal.

This exchange generated a flood of OpEds, interviews, letters to the editor, both pro and con. But the critical response came from Kay Carsky, a member of the Westchester Board of Legislators. She alerted the chairman of the board, Steve Tenore, to the fact that the Board’s Environment Committee should look into the issues raised in my OpEd. To quote from her letter – “Five years ago the chief consideration was to move traffic faster; today it’s to move less traffic!” The Environment Committee then set up a meeting to dig into the issues I had raised. I wound up debating Westchester County’s Acting-Transportation Commissioner, Joe Petrocelli. The committee room was packed with members of the public and county officials. For me the encounter was thrilling. I knew I had the answers to any defense Mr. Petrocelli might offer for the HOV project. That day the battle was joined. The TriState people were also thrilled to hear of my success in the first head to head debate on the HOV.

By now it was clear that the HOV project was in trouble and I was perceived to be the troublemaker. Lynn Oliva, County Planning Commissioner, invited Goody and me to a meeting to discuss the matter. We thought we were meeting with Lynn but we were soon led into a conference room full of men – all the Westchester County commissioners ready to take me apart. Clearly an ambush designed to get me in line with the county position, I said we were not prepared for such a meeting and Goody and I walked out. It was now clear that Westchester County was now split: the legislators were moving to oppose the HOV while the commissioners, including the County Executive, Andrew O’Rourke, were in favor of it and were preparing to hang tough.

Meanwhile, Tom Abinanti, a legislator from Greenburgh, taught me how to write a Resolution, an essential document for legislators to ponder and then act upon. It would be the first step on the way to Governor Pataki’s office where the future of the HOV would be decided.

To get to the governor’s office, however, the opinion of the business community, conservation groups, both counties involved and local governments had to be brought around to the point of view that the HOV was a bad idea, that real mass transit was the only solution to congestion on the corridor. Mark Kulewicz of AAA of New York came down vigorously on the side of the HOV for predictable reasons. Also predictably the construction unions backed the HOV, not analyzing the failings of the project but seeing jobs for their members. The members of the Building and Construction Trades Council and the Laborers’ International Union of North America joined them.

The TriState Campaign people, with board members who understood the mechanics of advocacy, became my mentors initially. With my music director background it was an unexpectedly compatible fit since I was trained to get everyone to sing on the same page. The first few months I accompanied John Kaehny, a Tri-State board member from Transportation Alternatives, a bike advocacy group in the city, as we made the rounds of the movers and shakers of Westchester County. Getting up to speed in an entirely new field required understanding a flock of acronyms, and getting acquainted with a new cast of characters all of  whom had their own agendas.

One of the early characters was Robert Weinberg, then-president of the Robert Martin Company (now Mack-Cali), the construction company that built the first office park on I-287. Many more office parks would follow, creating the Platinum Mile and driving the congestion on I-287 we are dealing with today. Though interested in several mass transit options for I-287[M1] , Mr. Weinberg was a passionate backer of the HOV, becoming my most prominent opponent in the HOV debate. By January 1995 the debate on the merits of the HOV project had spread far and wide, pulling Rockland County into the fray.

A campaign cannot be maintained for long if it is mainly to oppose something. We needed a new approach to the HOV project. In the spring of 1995 FCWC hosted three forums designed to consider the implications of this scenario: “The HOV has already been built and we still have impossible congestion on I-287.”  It was miraculous! People immediately stopped talking about the HOV and began to focus on possible rail options including bus rapid transit, a bus system with its own lane. It was around this time I began to use my upturned left hand as an illustration of the five rail lines in the region, two in Rockland and three in Westchester, drawing a line with my right hand across my fingers to illustrate the obviousness of an east-west rail line creating a regional rail network. Curiously, neither Rockland nor Westchester County knew much about existing rail lines in the other county. We had a lot of basic work to do.

One thing was clear – that Rockland commuters were hoping for a one-seat ride to the city. I found this hard to believe – to move to a suburb not on a rail line and then expect one to be built to your specifications was stunning. But there was another side to the story. Rockland County was in MetroNorth’s legally designated rail territory but it had no rail to connect to it, nor a bridge that could handle a rail facility it. Never mind that New Jersey Transit had been serving the territory quite adequately. Nonetheless, MetroNorth’s dream was always to have a rail connection on a new bridge though these dreams would severely impact the rational direction of studies on a new bridge going forward.

Meanwhile, Paul Noto, chairman of the Environment Committee, and I produced a Resolution to oppose the HOV. In November 1995 fourteen of the seventeen members of the Westchester Board of Legislators used the Resolution to oppose the reversible HOV lane on I-287. Each legislator stood up individually and made comments as to why they were opposed to the HOV project. It was a great moment for FCWC and profoundly satisfying to me.

In December 1995 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement appeared, a state document containing options for the I-287 corridor – to build the HOV or merely to improve the roadway, the no-build option, for example. The public hearing was scheduled for the Westchester County Center in White Plains. Goody pulled strings to get permission to set up an FCWC display in the lobby of the Center, a cavernous space that allowed for a lot of action. We had prepared a large board listing all the organizations that were now opposed to the HOV. By this time it was an impressive list, filling the entire board. Also impressive was the demonstration put on by the construction unions and the teamsters in the same space, a lot of burly guys bent on getting in our faces. The members wouldn’t talk to us or allow us to talk to them. I made a few attempts at conversation with the men but I just got stony glares. Our display got a lot of positive attention from those attending the hearing, however.

In January of 1996 Goody and I decided it was time to take our message over to Rockland. As we crossed the old Tappan Zee Bridge it felt like we were invading a foreign country and, indeed, we were received by some Rocklanders as invaders of their territory. We set up shop in the Nyack Library and sent out the word that we wanted to talk about the TZB and the HOV. Goody brought grapes and cookies. The people who showed up, however, wanted to rant about the Thruway Authority and a proposed ferry from Nyack to Tarrytown. Over the months we dealt with an underlying hostility yet we learned a lot about conditions in Rockland and they learned something about regional transportation issues. Over time we developed real ties in Rockland because we were willing to listen to each other. The result – In September members of the Rockland Board of Legislature passed a resolution opposing the HOV on I-287.

The campaign to kill the HOV was definitely going well but there was still a year to go before Governor Pataki would pull the plug on the project. The agencies, transportation entities plus the MTA and Thruway Authority were flailing around trying to figure out how to get out of the bind they were in – solving growing congestion on I-287 without the HOV. Various groups were assembled to address the dilemma, all involving public and private entities from both counties.

Meanwhile, In March 1997, in spite of the massive opposition to the HOV project, including the negative votes of both Westchester and Rockland legislators, New York State DOT, now the official spokesman for the regional DOT, decided to move forward with the plan for the HOV by seeking designers for the project before it had even been approved by the Federal Highway Administration. This move enraged everyone, confirming the inherent arrogance of the DOT culture.

In June 1997 the “Road to Ruin” report came out with the HOV project named as one of 36 projects deemed the most wasteful in the entire country. To quote from the report -“The HOV project is a one-dimensional pork barrel solution to a multidimensional congestion problem.” The report was written by Taxpayers for Common Sense and Friends of the Earth. It was the ultimate put-down for this project.

As 1997 wore on there were distinct signs that Governor Pataki was getting the message that the HOV project was simply not a feasible solution for the congestion on I-287. In the upcoming Westchester County Executive election all three contenders were opposed to the HOV, nudging the governor a little more.

Finally in October I was called to the ninth floor of the Westchester County office building on Martine Avenue White Plains for a meeting with the Governor. In the conference room was a most amazing assemblage – Westchester County commissioners, those who wanted my head a while back, the Westchester County Association executive director Larry Dwyer, in whose office I had spent a large amount of time with no buy-in, Harold Vogt, head of the County Chamber of Commerce, another hold-out, and other state and local luminaries.

As Governor Pataki sat at the head of the conference table, with County Executive O’Rourke in the next room, still backing the HOV project, those around the table were proclaiming how opposed they had been to the HOV all along, like a bunch of rats jumping off a sinking ship. The scene was quite comical. After a lot of back and forth about the technicalities of killing a project that still had Federal support the Governor lowered the boom on the HOV. A week later Governor Pataki made it official on a blocked off entrance ramp to I-287 in Elmsford – the HOV was dead! He also announced the appointment of a task force to look into the next step for this troubled interstate. I was appointed to the Task Force as a representative of FCWC. There had still been no mention of a new Tappan Zee bridge as an integral part of the solution.

FCWC had planned a benefit for November but with the demise of the HOV it became a vehicle to honor my work in killing the project. It was held at the Westchester Country Club and the attendees included many of those who had made the success possible. The keynote speaker was energy expert, Charles Komanoff, one of the most well-known on the TriState board. He sang my praises. It was a most satisfying end to a project I never imagined I would be a part of. But as it turned out the drama was just beginning.

ACT TWO

Governor Pataki’s I-287 Task Force began its work early in 1998, meeting in MTA headquarters on Madison Avenue. It was a diverse group – Eddie Doyle, representing the union perspective, but never showing up; Terri Hekker, former Nyack mayor, who provided the rare moments of levity in the proceedings; Jim Tripp, Environmental Defense Fund, and Jeff Zupan, Regional Plan Association, both Tri-State members with a secret agenda; Rockland representatives plus the usual state bigwigs – John Platt, executive Director of the Thruway Authority; representatives from State DOT, Environment and Economic Development, sixteen members in all. E. Virgil Conway, MTA chair, led the Task Force. Mr. Conway also had a not-so-secret agenda. There was a microphone in front of every member, indicating the need to record the proceedings.

While the Task Force was at work FCWC continued to host conferences, one on rail in June 1998 included Ramesh Mehta, the Thruway’s man in charge of the TZB, who very firmly stated that rail would not work on the current bridge. It was the first reality check on the limits of the TZB.

The next conference in September 1999 changed everything – “The Meeting of the Minds”. The event took place in the old Hilton Hotel in Tarrytown, right next to the bridge. It was based on the ‘open space’ system in which individual attendees wind up leading the discussion on what interests them. When the discussion is led by a private citizen, probably known by others in the group, the dynamic is more collegial, like neighbors discussing an issue. The topics ranged from ‘Quality of Life in Tarrytown,’ ‘Pricing the Tappan Zee Bridge (tolls) Right’ to ‘A Light Rail Transit Option on I-287’ and numerous other contentious topics. The attendees at this conference had a lot on their minds. A large contingent of Thruway engineers were in attendance, clearly hoping for a break through.

One of the first sessions on the topic – “No New Bridge Construction” – was very animated after a few Thruway engineers present threw the facts of the degradation of the bridge into the discussion. They gave a vivid account of the status of the pilings on the Rockland side being eaten up by borers who have found the now cleaner Hudson River more to their taste. The causeway is nearly half the length of the entire bridge and not seismically safe. The men also leaned in on the escalating cost of maintaining this old bridge. Ultimately, it was not a clear-cut win for a new bridge but reality was clearly setting in during this session.

 On the second day the ‘Facts on the Tappan Zee Bridge’ session, again led by a private citizen, went through its usual arguments against a new bridge but the material shared by the Thruway engineers the previous day influenced the direction  of the comments eventually winding up with the inevitable conclusion – the old Tappan Zee Bridge had to go. Citizens had come together to decide that the Thruway should start planning for a new crossing. I have never seen happier men, smiles all around. For too long the Thruway men have been struggling to accommodate the growing flood of traffic wanting to get across the Hudson River with a totally inadequate and unsafe bridge. Incredibly, a new Tappan Zee Bridge was still twenty years away.

IT ALL COMES APART

Just when the future was looking positively rosy it all came apart. On December 7, 1999, just two months after the exhilaration created by “The Meeting of the Minds” conference, TriState held its annual retreat in the Princeton Club in mid-town Manhattan. I had worked harmoniously with this organization for five years. I had been paid a stipend for my work by TriState, lauded for my success in killing the HOV, for the strongly worded articles that had appeared everywhere and my determination in the face of opposition. It was becoming more and more apparent that a new TZB and an east-west rail would be looked upon favorably by the Task Force. Jim Tripp and Jeff Zupan, active members of the Task Force, now adopted a quite different position on the Tristate board.

The guillotine fell – on the first evening of the two-day retreat. Janine Bauer, the executive director of TriState, began the attack, telling me that I had ‘made a pact with the devil’ because I had backed the concept of a replacement bridge and new mass transit in the corridor. The entire TriState board then chimed in on the effort to cut me down to size, including Tripp and Zupan. It is hard to exaggerate the viciousness of this attack and the shock of its seeming to come out of nowhere.

Though I was internally numb from this sudden turn-around I attended the entire second day of the retreat, to demonstrate my ability to stay the course. However, on the way home on MetroNorth I confess to shedding a few tears. This attack on my character was followed by rampant misinformation in publications put out or influenced by TriState, their allies in Rockland taking up the call.

It took some time for me to realize that the TriState attack was actually a compliment, that my direction, pushing for the east/west rail did not fit what had been TriState’s secret agenda, to have any rail on a new TZB, passing up the opportunity to create a regional rail network. I had to have been perceived as a threat to that agenda and had to be disarmed. But I still wondered who the devil was that I had made a pact with.

By this time I was no longer president of FCWC and the east/west rail project was becoming untenable for FCWC to be the sponsor. I was soon to be without portfolio, as it were. But new alliances were emerging.

Once the HOV project disappeared Bob Weinberg, who had vigorously backed the project, decided that I might have something worthwhile to say. He invited me to join his monthly lunch, called EXPO, a gathering of developers, bankers, politicians, PR firms and corporate lawyers. I became a star speaker for a period of time as the discussion on the feasibility of rail on 1-287 became a hot topic in the county, whether it should be directed to the city or cross the county, commuter rail or light rail. A representative of MetroNorth was a guest at one gathering, predictably wanting to connect the city to Rockland County. Though I disagreed with Bob’s perspective on occasion, I was interested in his perspective. In between the lunches we had intense discussions via email on the future of rail in Westchester and where the stations should be. Mr. Weinberg was so persuasive I began to feel that it could actually happen.

The new millennium revealed a new campaign emanating from TriState – to undermine anything the Thruway might claim regarding the need for a new span. Their campaign was timed to distract from the Task Force report before it even surfaced. They focused their attention on the Rockland factions which were more easily stirred up. The long-festering hostility in Nyack was easily brought to life.

As the sound and fury was whipped up in Rockland by TriState, the Thruway came under increasing fire for its lack of transparency on the safety and durability of the bridge. On January 7, 2000 John Platt, the executive director of the Thruway, a rather grandfatherly sort, was the featured speaker in the Community Center in Nyack, a converted church. It was packed to the walls and balconies. Boos and catcalls were heard throughout Mr. Platt’s talk as he struggled to defend the Thruway positions. I would not have believed the outrageous behavior of the Rockland crowd that night had I not been there. There were a few moments when I even wondered if the crowd was controllable.

There were continual calls for an independent assessment of the status of the bridge, not trusting anything paid for by the Thruway. To be sure the Thruway had not felt good PR was a priority over the years. It’s an ‘Authority’ after all. No need to pay attention to the public. After Mr. Platt’s disastrous talk in Nyack I began a regular correspondence with him, providing another perspective of the endless attacks and heated interchanges. I underlined the need for the Thruway to become more transparent about the physical state of the TZB and its hopes for a new span. There were many follow-up phone calls from Mr. Platt. He was very receptive of my views and I needed to hear his perspective on the drama unfolding. I had led the “Meeting of the Minds” conference that had finally broken through the resistance to even discussing the need for a new bridge so I was held in high esteem in the Thruway offices. About a year later, near the end of his tenure at the Thruway, Mr. Platt took me to dinner at a Portuguese restaurant in Tarrytown, his way of thanking me for giving the Thruway new perspectives on the constant attacks it was under. He died of cancer within the year.

Then on April 20, 2000, only five months after the TriState retreat and the unfortunate event in Nyack, the Task Force issued its recommendations – to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge and build a commuter rail line running from Stewart Airport, across the new bridge to Port Chester, linking the five north/south lines. I had actively participated in all the meetings, feeling very much an equal partner in the deliberations. TriState members Jim Tripp and Jeff Zupan were also at the table, concealing their true intent to undermine the work of the Task Force.

From here on the communications between Jeff Zupan and me, which had been quite collegial and informative, became quite tense. Jeff was a well-respected researcher in transportation issues, dealing in numbers – who is going where and when and using which means of transportation and the first consideration in any infrastructure proposal – what will it cost. He lived in Rockland County which would suggest that he has a regional perspective but over time it became clear that his loyalty was to Manhattan and the Regional Plan Association, his employer.  Some background on the RPA and its significance to the metro area – it was formed in 1929 presumably to give some direction to the unruly city of New York. The RPA board members have a similar profile to those in Bob Weinberg’s EXPO lunch only more powerful – developers, bankers, real estate lawyers, people that make things happen, or in some cases, keep a project from happening if it did not suit their agenda. (The east/west rail in Westchester comes to mind.) RPA has offices in Connecticut and New Jersey but none in Westchester. Its focus is basically on improving mobility in, or to Manhattan. RPA did not appear to be interested in the ‘outer’ boroughs meaning Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten Island.

Jeff’s role in the ensuing months and years was constant – to appear to be raising reasonable questions and offering factual information on the I-287 corridor when in fact they were designed to discredit the need for a new bridge or a rail.

On June 12, 2000 Marian Rose, a highly respected scientist, hydrogen energy enthusiast and a major figure in the Westchester Sierra Club, received a letter from Adelma Lilliston, a member of the TriState team. Apparently, FCWC’s and my independent stance had caused the TriState campaign to attempt to enlist another environmental organization in Westchester to back their no-build position. The letter is stunning in its misinformation and innuendo.  Adelma claimed that since the majority of Rockland commuters head to Manhattan there would not be sufficient riders on an east/west rail, apparently unaware that NYSDOT has plans to realign Exit 8, the second exit in Westchester Count and a complicated interchange. This multi-million dollar project is to reflect that the bulk of the bridge traffic is actually heading east, rather than south to the city, as the original designers had assumed. Origin Destination studies show that only 7% of Rockland commuters head to Manhattan, 16% head to the Bronx and 46% head to White Plains, precisely what the east/west rail was meant to serve.

My deepening frustration with TriState’s misinformation campaign caused me to write a letter to Peter Herman, then-president of RPA, complaining of the lack of regional thinking on the part of RPA when it came to the larger metro area. My letter was probably a bit intemperate. Jeff said it was insulting to RPA, not deferential enough, apparently.

Meanwhile FCWC continued to carry on, sponsoring five conferences, the first in October 20 exploring all the possibilities of a connecting rail. A key discussion in these gatherings centered on the question of whether commuter rail or light rail was the better choice. Commuter rail is like MetroNorth, with limited ability to climb, many cars and infrequent service. Light rail systems were being built all over the country and usually had two cars and frequent service, more ability to climb. Because of the difference in weight commuter rail and light rail were not allowed to share the same tracks. There is no doubt that these were difficult issues to be resolved.

In February 2002 the Alternative Analysis/Environmental Review, (a confusing title for a straightforward purpose) sponsored by New York Thruway Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) was given the go-ahead to determine what should be built in this corridor – new bridge and a rail facility, or other solutions to congestion on the corridor. Both county executives signed off on the project. It was expected to take three years. Both authorities (The Thruway Authority and the MTA) had their own agendas going in of course – the Thruway wanted a new bridge, the MTA wanted to connect Rockland to Manhattan by rail.

Parallel to the Environmental Review process stakeholders meetings were to be held regularly so that the public could be made aware of what was going on and able to provide input. They began meeting in June 2002. Because of all the uproar stirred about the very thought of a new bridge two community representatives, Michael Meth from Rockland and Sherwood Chorost from Tarrytown, were selected to be a part of the Review process. Both men had vigorously opposed a new bridge.

The responses from the stakeholders were frequently a replay of positions expressed through the whole process with one notable exception – the head of the Hudson River Fishermen’s Association wanted to be sure that a new bridge would be really beautiful. It was a heartwarming request.

As the Review process got under way my involvement in the process was effectively ended. I was now merely a stakeholder in the audience. But it was the MTA role in the process that required challenging and I continued to be the only one to speak up. In its efforts to make the connection to Rockland so it could lay claim to its legal territory the MTA went to outrageous lengths to prove why it was a rational direction for the project. The claim that the majority of Rockland commuters were Manhattan-bound was disputed several ways. An origin/destination diagram was given to members of the Review and, as already mentioned, the numbers tell the story, that only 7% are headed for Manhattan. The MTA position was apparently “Don’t bother us with the facts”. At one very large stakeholders meeting the growing insanity of the MTA position was vividly illustrated. Arrows represented all commuters crossing the Hudson, the width of the arrow indicating the size of the group crossing. The display included commuters crossing the George Washington Bridge. This arrow was necessarily extremely wide and the MTA apparently decided they needed that group of commuters to cross the TZB to bulk up their persistently puny numbers. In this particular diagram the very wide arrow was swung north to show the George Washington Bridge commuters heading over the TZB instead of the GW, the benefit to these commuters being that there would be a one-seat ride to the city. No more sitting in traffic on the GW. A truly bizarre display.  

The lack of ridership to Manhattan was not the only insurmountable problem.  MTA’s desire to physically connect to the Hudson Line was virtually impossible. It would have required building an elevated rail in front of million dollar homes and historic sites in Irvington because of the 130 foot drop from the bridge to the Hudson line and commuter rail does not descend or climb well. A connection to the Harlem Line, which runs through Scarsdale, Bronxvile and the middle of the Bronx, terminating in Grand Central Terminal, was actually feasible but never considered. It would also have benefited the large number of commuters going to White Plains but no one was interested in their well-being. It would have given MetroNorth its dream connection to Rockland County, reduced the traffic on I-287, created a regional rail network that served New York City and linked three states. What’s not to like?

We now have an extraordinarily beautiful new bridge but no mass transit, even though the new structure is capable of carrying a MetroNorth type train between the two spans. Even the promised Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) was recently deemed too expensive for the region. The congestion on the new bridge now includes two million more trucks escaping the high tolls and delays of the George Washington Bridge and opting for the cheaper TZB.

In spite of the serious condition of the old Tappan Zee Bridge no money had been set aside for this critical link affecting the mobility of the entire eastern seaboard. Undeterred, the Thruway just started building the bridge and miraculously the money materialized. The MTA has a similar approach to expanding its system. Design mega billion dollar projects and then expect the money to be found.

Looking at the drama that led up to the construction of the new Tappan Zee Bridge there was never any known regional plan as a guide to the discussions. The DOT had a crack at solving congestion in the corridor through an HOV plan and failed. Then the authorities stepped in – the Thruway Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, free to operate without any apparent oversight of elected officials. For example, over 94% of all State-funded debt was issued by public authorities without voter approval. The power of the authorities appears to be unchecked even today in the absence of a regional plan

As an active participant in the early stages involving the I-2887 corridor and then more of an observer as the decisions on the bridge came about it was both a thrilling and disheartening experience.

###

---

 [M1]r. Weinberg

High residential property taxes often occur when the commercial segment of a community is under developed or not developed in a way that serves the entire community. Most of the factors that raise the property tax rate are the result of decisions made by local boards, with little consideration as to possible unintended consequences. Here is a run-down of common actions (or inactions) that tend to saddle municipalities with increasingly high residential property taxes.

A. Don’t provide appropriate housing for adult singles, the fifty percent of the population who tend to support local restaurants, bars, entertainment and arts events. To keep taxes high, be sure to pass restrictive ordinances on studio rentals and accessory apartments in private homes that could serve the housing needs of single people, many of whom are over age fifty. Homeowners living on site can assure that these rooms would not be abused by overcrowding, and older citizens are encouraged to stay in the community by renting a room or two.
B. Don’t set aside housing for artists as that would make them feel welcome in your community. Don’t promote the arts activities that do occur in your community as that would encourage growth in the commercial sector which tends to lower taxes. A community cannot be successful without a thriving arts presence, as evident in Peekskill.
C. Reduce the number of trees in the downtown because they create an inviting ambience, encouraging people to hang out and support your local businesses. Trees enhance an urban setting by providing welcome shade while cleaning the air pollution caused by vehicular traffic – one tree per four cars is considered a proper ratio.
D. Make sure that cars are the only way to get around town. Don’t provide jitneys connecting the train station to the downtown or to residential areas as that would lower traffic congestion and demand for parking. Condo developments with a jitney to the station have allowed people to give up their second car, a big economic benefit.
E. Be sure to remove small local businesses so that big box stores like CVS and Walgreens can move in. These large national chain stores traditionally provide a lower per square foot tax rate than the businesses they replace, shifting a further tax burden onto residents.
F. Finally, make sure the main road through town is designed for speed rather than a street that encourages one to stop, park and explore your town. Make sure that there is inadequate parking in front of the struggling businesses on that highway. This discourages further development of this invaluable commercial real estate, again increasing the tax burden on residential properties.

Decisions surrounding most of the points above are made locally. If nothing is done to turn these situations around, they are sure to produce yet higher residential taxes. However, they can be reconsidered by the community and its elected officials.

“And God said unto them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.’” Genesis: Chapter 2, verse 28.

And there it is – the command that has energized the Judeo-Christian world through the millennia – to take charge of the earth’s riches. And take charge we did, managing to destroy major portions of God’s great gift.

Wake-up calls began to be sounded more than sixty years ago with Rachel Carson’s radical-at-the-time book – “Silent Spring”, chronicling the effects of DDT on the natural world; “Limits to Growth” sounded an even more serious alarm forty years ago on the carrying capacity of the earth. Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, detailing the alarming rise of CO2, was considered just too inconvenient at the time and it too slid into history.

Mother Nature now seems to be preparing to take back the gift of the earth and one wonders how many cataclysmic events it will take to get our attention. Here’s a far from complete tally of recent events: a devastating tsunami in the South Pacific; another tsunami and earthquake in Japan, knocking out nuclear power in that country; Katrina, a hurricane that nearly took out a major American city; Hurricane Irene that destroyed a number of towns in upstateNew York. Or finally, Hurricane Sandy, a storm that took out countless coastline communities in the Tri-state area, plus the much vauntedNew York Citytransit system. The earth is talking back. Is anyone listening?

Climate change is a looming disaster that we could have mastered had we been able to admit a role in its creation early on. To be sure, dramatic alterations in global climate have been the profile of the earth since the beginning but the relentless rise in carbon dioxide directly related to the increased use of fossil fuels is a difficult trend to ignore.  Nonetheless, there is still disagreement about the severity, if not the reality, of global climate change as it relates to the use of fossil fuels. No agreement on a solution at the federal or the global level is likely any time soon. The latest DOHA (Qatar) UN climate conference has settled into its typical doldrums, with most major questions unresolved as the conference winds down.

This decade has again been the warmest on record, maintaining its upward trajectory. Economists, corporate honchos and politicos can think quite comfortably about the global economy when it comes to business transactions and how to find the cheapest place to produce goods but have an excruciatingly difficult time accepting what else is going on in the world, such as what the weather might be doing beyond our borders and the possible implications for our own neighborhood. Scientists and policy makers without a vested interest in saying otherwise claim that we are headed for a catastrophe of unknown dimensions, that we had better start planning for a very warm and turbulent future.

Garrett Hardin, in 1968, used the concept of the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ to illustrate his concerns about the ability of the planet to survive the over use of its natural resources.  The basis for the ‘tragedy’ was found in a pamphlet in 1833 inEngland. The story goes like this: “Picture a theoretical pasture open to all. Herdsmen are allowed to use the ‘commons’, an unfenced pasture, without cost. Each herdsman soon realizes that he could keep as many cattle as he wants on the commons, with good return and no extra cost. Such an arrangement worked for centuries because tribal wars and disease kept the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning and the self-interest of the individual herdsman overcomes the ability of the commons to sustain itself. Because it is free the desire of the herdsmen to make full use of the resource is overwhelming, until tragedy occurs and the resource is lost to all.

Today, the National Parks present a contemporary instance of the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Parks are open to all at the moment but the number of people who want to enjoy them is soaring. Meanwhile, funding to maintain the parks is static or even dropping. The favorite vehicles in the parks are ATVs, snowmobiles and large SUVs causing further damage to the environment. The bottom line – our national treasure, the Federal Park System, is in serious decline – the 21^st Century example of the ‘tragedy of the commons’.

But there are more examples. The air is free to all. Hence in the industrial age there no one thought of the need for controls on the use of the air. Only with the passage of the Clean Air Act by Congress in 1972 was there any consideration of the price being paid for polluting the air that everyone breathes.  Recently the Supreme Court confirmed the need to include carbon dioxide as an air pollutant and therefore covered by the Clean Air Act. Efforts to continue cleaning up the air are ongoing.  Complex market systems are being devised to get control of CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, in China, when the sun shines through the dense layer of industrial pollution it is a day for celebration.

In this region water has been so little thought of as a finite resource that the residents of NYC were only metered for their water usage in the last few years. Fire hydrants are regularly opened on hot days for the children in spite of efforts to control the practice. A few years ago the tenuousness of the water supply came to the fore. A severe drought created the need to use Hudson River water to supplement the diminishing upstate reservoirs. The City of Poughkeepsie depends entirely on the Hudson for its water supply which is above the point of the brachish water from the sea. If too much Hudson river water is pulled out below the city the salt moves up river, endangering the Poughkeepsie water supply.

Globally, there is a permanent shortage. The water we have today is all we are ever going to have. Yet 85% of freshwater is now used for agriculture, largely as the result of inefficient subsidies and protections for agricultural interests. For instance,California, essentially a dessert, grows crops more appropriate for a tropical climate. Historic water rights make it possible. However, even in California market strategies are being introduced.

Meanwhile, the developing world is hoping for an equal share of the ‘commons’. However, for that dream to be realized the resources of two more planet earths would be required. As the discussion of global warming caused by our carbon footprint gains more attention, the uneven distribution of the earth’s treasures and the consequent greenhouse gases will be hard to ignore.

In preparing a talk recently on the making of applesauce I discovered that all the postings on the internet that described ways to make apple sauce this supposedly easy way, were actually far more time-consuming than the process used in the 1950s or even earlier. Today the dominant process involves peeling and coring the apple, cutting it in tiny pieces, then cooking the prepared apples to the desired tenderness, adding a bit of sugar maybe, and some seasoning such as cinnamon, basically the seasoning one might use for apple pie. To my mind this process is unbelievably tedious and time consuming.

Some personal background would explain my different take on the current process of apple sauce making. In the late 1950’s my family moved to a little house in Ardsley situated on an acre and a half with seven MacIntosh apple trees loaded with incredibly rosy colored mar free apples ready to be picked. The prior owner of this property, a scientist, had bought thousands of ladybugs to enhance his apple crop. And spectacular it was.

Even though I had two very young children and a third well on the way my frugal nature demanded that these apples be preserved in some way. A neighbor recommended the Foley Food Mill as the basic tool. Though this kitchen tool would have been standard a hundred years ago it is rarely found either in the home or in retail stores. It is available through Amazon at about $20. With the advent of an endless array of electrified kitchen appliances today’s homemaker, if that word is even appropriate any more, would prefer electronic power over the use of a little muscle power. Intriguingly, no modern appliance can do what the humble Foley Food Mill can do and here is why.

The first step in making applesauce my easy way is to acquire a good supply of somewhat tart apples. My favorite is Granny Smith. However, on one of the postings Granny Smith was NOT recommended because it was TOO tart! Obviously, personal preference plays a big role in applesauce making. No matter what type of apple you prefer the first step is to wash the apples. Gather a large pot, large bowl, sharp knife, sugar and seasonings, either jars for canning or containers for freezing.  Now the process – cut the apple in six pieces. No need to be neat about it. Just make the pieces reasonably uniform in size. Put them in a pot with about an inch of water in the pot. The time involved to this point is about five minutes for a large pot of cut apples. Put the pot on the stove and the heat on high. Stir the apples from time to time to be sure the water hasn’t boiled away.

When the apples are soft when punctured by a knife you are ready for the Foley. Place the mill securely on the large bowl. Use a large measuring cup with a handle to scoop the apples into the mill. They are very hot. Two measuring cupfuls should do it. Then start grinding the apples through the mill, turn the handle backwards regularly to reposition the apples in the mill. You may want to raise the handle of the mill when grinding to give more power to your effort. It’s a personal thing. When finished with that first batch only peel, seeds and stem are left. Scrape it all out and start another batch of cooked apples in the mill. When you are finished  milling all the cooked apples
season the apple sauce to taste, possibly adding a touch of salt if the apples are bland. No need for any more cooking. The sugar will dissolve in the hot apple sauce.

Now let’s compare the two systems – the time consuming  type –  peel and cut the apples in small pieces and cook until tender VERSUS the Foley Food Mill system – merely cut up apples in sixths and cook, no peeling or coring.  Neither system uses electricity except for the power used in the stove. It is a matter of taste and how much you have to spend.  Bottom line the Foley Food Mill is the appliance for the future – only human power drives it. It has stood the test of time.

To understand why we need to develop resilience we need to understand   how dependent we have become on services provided by other people. The service industry is the fastest growing sector in theUSeconomy and has been for some time. As manufacturing has declined in this country (though there is a slight rebound emerging), service has risen, quite dramatically. Simply put, the service economy covers those businesses that are designed to do something for those who either do not want or cannot do it for themselves. Health care and financial service industries are good examples. The steady rise of the service economy suggests that we, as a society, are steadily becoming less resilient and more dependent on others.

To illustrate the personal nature of the service industry consider that you may require that someone clean your home on a regular basis, walk your dog while you are at work. Someone will surely look after your kids at some point. Some individuals have even more personal needs, such as help organizing one’s life, cleaning out closets. It is a given today that someone will look after your car, fix whatever is broken in your house, all this help curiously giving you a sense of control in your castle. But there is no resilience in this life style. It is dependent on countless other people supplying services and your being able to pay for them.

In the business world there is even more dependency on outsourced services – to keep the sophisticated equipment in peak performance, the payroll properly calculated by an outside firm and the services needed to deal with the complexities of running a global business. And those who orchestrate all this complexity feel in complete control of their enterprises.

Then there is the absolute confidence on the part of the public that electricity will be when you flip a switch. Same situation with your car. Gas will always be available and affordable. Unless you have lost a job in the past you will assume that you (and your spouse) will have a job as long as you want it. Friends, a reality check is long overdue. For many the reality check has already arrived in terms of lost employment, uninsured health crises, the need to rely on local food banks, all this right here in Westchester.

Meanwhile, there are powerful trends going in the opposite direction in the country, particularly strong in our region where people are learning to do for themselves even when not required to. In an age of growing uncertainty the ability to grow one’s own food, feel comfortable with a hammer of gives one a sense of control. The powerful locavore movement has aroused the public to the need to shorten the supply chain, support local food growers and producers. It seeks to strengthen downtowns to again become the heart of the community, where entrepreneurs can find a niche, small businesses will be welcome, and neighbors can enjoy each other’s company. In turbulent times this encourages a sense that one is in control of one’s life, and survival might be a real option.

This is the core principle of the Transition movement – to create resilience in communities and individuals the better to withstand shocks to one’s way of life, to redevelop skills, create bonds with one’s neighbors in producing local food – vegetable, eggs, honey, fruit.  New businesses and restaurants are jumping on the local food trend. For now the locavore movement is just the latest trend but in the future it could well be a survival strategy.

It takes a lot to get the public’s attention and even harder to hold on to it. The corn crop failure in the Midwest may be hard to ignore. On average food travels 1500 miles to get to the consumer. Even with an active locavore movement (those favoring food grown locally) in our region it amounts to a small fraction of the food required to feed the millions who live in the metropolitan area. Corn has so infiltrated the US food system that a failure in this crucial crop will inevitably impact the price of beef, dairy products, soda products and virtually all processed foods.

Here’s where the annual US corn crop goes in an average year – one-third goes for feedstock, cattle, pigs, chickens, etc; 13% is exported, much of it for feedstock as well; a massive 40% of the corn crop goes to produce ethanol. The remainder of the corn crop goes for food and beverage production, that is, a mere 14%. (Note – it takes seven pounds of grain to make one pound of meat.

Even though Congress is not supportive of the ethanol program the Farm Lobby is sufficiently powerful to keep the ethanol industry alive, even though it takes nearly a gallon of fossil fuel to make a gallon of ethanol while generating a substantial amount of pollution in the process. In spite of claims to the contrary, corn based ethanol, or any bio-fuel for that matter, can in no way be considered an answer to this country’s dependence on foreign oil. Now that we will suffer a serious crop failure this season the very notion of tying up 40% of the corn crop to ethanol production is stunning.

Who will lose out in the coming short fall? Cattle are already being slaughtered or sold off ahead of schedule because of the lack of food or its high cost. Is it even possible to reduce the amount of corn designated for the ethanol industry given the government’s commitment to this industry? Stay tuned, folks. This is a drama that has just begun to play out. It really comes down to food or fuel.

An even stickier question is whether so much of the grain harvest should be devoted to supporting an American diet heavily dependent on meat, by any measure, not a healthy one- Sadly, the American diet is becoming ever more popular in the developing economies in spite of the high cost of producing it. Cattle are naturally grass-fed animals. Agribusiness has upended the natural order in pursuit of greater turn-over and higher profits. There is a high cost to messing around with nature – unhealthy cows, more disease, requiring heavy use of antibiotics to address the disturbance in the natural cycle.

Meanwhile, weather is becoming ever more erratic and we need to consider the possibility that the poor crop we have this summer may become more like the average crop for the future.