Talk:Tappan Zee Bridge (1955–2017)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Hudson Valley

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as High-importance).

Civil engineering Mid‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crossing removal comment[edit]

Would anyone mind if I removed {{NYC Hudson River crossings}}? --Chris 19:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:NYC Hudson River crossings[edit]

Template:NYC Hudson River crossings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:NYC Hudson River crossings. Thank you. --Chris 16:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toll[edit]

I just went over this bridge today (and yesterday), and the cash toll was $4.00, not $4.50 as the previous entry read.

Layout[edit]

This page's layout is messed up (as of 4/4/06). There is a large blank area at the top of the article. This needs to be fixed.

The Tappan Zee in popular culture[edit]

How did the TZ Bridge figure into Die Hard III? I don't recall it playing any role at all, and certainly not a significant role. If someone can point to the scene I'll restore it. Irishdevil 14:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main image[edit]

I changed the main image to an aerial photo I took. I think it provides a view of more of the bridge User:Pilotbob

The new picture in the infobox doesn't show much of the main span, I think it should be reverted to the previous image. VerruckteDan 02:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nrbelex ^(talk) 04:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the consensus, then it should be done. ~~Pilotbob

Why Build It There?[edit]

If the Tappan Zee is the Hudson's widest point -- or even if it is merely wider than other points nearby -- why was a bridge built there at all? I'm no engineer, but I would think narrower portions of the river would be better sites if only so the bridge could be shorter. A shorter bridge would usually require less material and take less time to build. What advantage did the Tappan Zee site offer that could justify the additional materials and time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.232.225.11 (talk • contribs)

I think there were a couple reasons. Further south would have been between NJ and NY, which means the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey would have had jurisdiction instead of New York State. Also the area where it was built is not in the protected area of the Palisades Interstate Park, which is present to the south. If it was built further to the north, it would not be as useful for commuter traffic from the west to New York City, or for those on the I-287 loop going northeast around the city. Of course this is just my speculation.. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This 2000 article in The New York Times states that the bridge was constructed there "at the Hudson's widest point to escape the 25-mile jurisdiction of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey". I'm looking for earlier sources and will report back... Alansohn (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added details to the article about the wrangling between the Port Authority and New York State Thruway as to a site for the bridge, which ultimately fell in favor of Governor Dewey's Thruway. Look for more to come on issues regarding the specific site and community opposition, especially in Rockland. Alansohn (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, one error: "its jurisdiction, which reached to a point one mile south of Nyack and across to Piermont." Both Nyack and Piermont are on the west side. Is that supposed to be Nyack and Tarrytown or perhaps Piermont and Irvington? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W.K. McGrath[edit]

I am told he is the man behind the construction/engineering of the bridge. Can anyone confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrenmich (talk • contribs) 04:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Costs[edit]

This article at RiverKeeper arguing for restoration and not a new bridge said that restoration would be 2.5 billion and plans for building a new bridge would cost 12 billion. I am curious if we can get good citations for the prices of the plans and the original price of the bridge (and adjust it for inflation). gren グレン 04:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Nywaterwaylogo.png[edit]

The image Image:Nywaterwaylogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only highway between Beacon and GW?[edit]

The Bear Mountain bridge is between Beacon bridge and the George Washington. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveInAustin (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Bridge?[edit]

There is a relevant discussion over here: Talk:New Tappan Zee Bridge#Name of Bridge?. Much appreciated if you could comment. Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: has it really been almost 8 years since this page had a new section? lol.

Demolition[edit]

It seems a bit premature to speak of this bridge in the past tense. We don't even have a source that says demolition has started. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Tappan Zee Bridge which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being built where it is to avoid PANYNJ jurisdiction: urban legend?[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=EpAuA5R3Ex8C&pg=PT12 gives many reasons for its location. Is it possible that the commonly-given one of being just outside Port Authority jurisdiction came about later as an urban legend, or is at least not the main reason for its location? --NE2 03:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony from the director saying that it was a factor but not a serious factor because the location was ideal due to traffic projections and shallowness of the river. --NE2 03:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide language[edit]

I changed the wording "people committed suicide on the bridge" to "people killed themselves by jumping from the bridge," because "committed suicide" is nowadays considered perjorative, victim-blaming language. The edit was reverted due to lack of consensus. Fair enough, let's MAKE some consensus. I propose we reinstate my language. Discuss. Riverhugger (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed extensively (you may want to start with Talk:Suicide/Archive 5#Revisit Commit language as Not Neutral), and there has never been an established consensus that "committed suicide" should be deprecated. If you want to establish a consensus for that, this isn't the page where you should launch such an effort as it would have widespread implications for the project. I believe at minimum an RfC would be required. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]