Early concepts and the Moses era
The concept of a bridge across the Sound dates to the 1930s. A 1938 proposal by U.S. Senator Royal Copeland for an 18-mile bridge from Orient Point to Connecticut and Rhode Island was never realized following his death that same year. [7] In 1957, Charles H. Sells, a former New York State Superintendent of Public Works, formally proposed two crossings: one from Oyster Bay to Rye and another from Orient Point to Watch Hill, Rhode Island. The plan was rejected by Governor W. Averell Harriman after a feasibility study questioned its traffic projections. [7] [8]
By the mid-1960s, congestion on Long Island's east-west highways and the New York City bridges had become severe. Robert Moses, chairman of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, commissioned a feasibility study in 1964. In 1966, Moses and Governor Nelson Rockefeller championed a 6.1-mile-long (9.8 km) bridge from Oyster Bay to Rye. The bridge was promoted as the final link in the I-287 beltway, connecting the Seaford–Oyster Bay Expressway on Long Island with the Cross Westchester Expressway on the mainland. [11] The project received strong political support but faced immediate local opposition. According to Moses's biographer Robert Caro, Rockefeller repeatedly delayed the project to avoid political damage in gubernatorial and legislative elections, as communities in both Westchester and Long Island were strongly opposed. After Moses was removed as chairman of the TBTA in 1968, the project stalled due to financing difficulties and mounting community and environmental concerns. [5]
1972 Environmental Impact Statement
In November 1972, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Federal Highway Administration, released a comprehensive Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Island Sound Crossing. The report focused primarily on the Oyster Bay to Rye bridge but also analyzed numerous alternatives. [3]
The main objectives of the project were to increase Long Island's accessibility, reduce traffic congestion on the East River bridges, and improve economic conditions by lowering freight costs and expanding regional markets. [3]
Rye–Oyster Bay proposal
The report detailed the engineering, environmental, and socio-economic aspects of a four-lane, 16.5-mile (26.6 km) bridge and highway corridor connecting I-287 in Rye to NY 135 in Syosset. The bridge was designed as a cable-stayed structure with a main span providing 135 feet (41 m) of vertical clearance, consistent with East River crossings. [3]
For the Westchester approach, four alternatives were proposed. Three of these alignments (W-1, W-2, and W-3) routed the highway through the eastern, largely undeveloped portion of Playland Park and Manursing Island. A fourth alternative (W-4) proposed a route through Port Chester Harbor, which was identified as having more significant visual and navigational impacts. [3]
For the Nassau approach, three alternatives were detailed. These routes (N-1, N-2, N-3) originated at different points on the North Shore—Oak Neck Point or Ferry Beach—and converged south of Mill Neck to connect with an extended Seaford–Oyster Bay Expressway. The alignments involved constructing the highway through a mix of wooded estates, residential areas, and wetlands, primarily in the villages of Bayville and Mill Neck. [3]
Alternatives assessed in 1972
The 1972 study also evaluated and dismissed several other concepts. Five potential routes east of the Rye–Oyster Bay corridor, such as Port Jefferson to Bridgeport, were found to be financially unfeasible and ineffective at relieving traffic in the core metropolitan area. These crossings would serve only 25–40% of the traffic of the Rye–Oyster Bay proposal. A full tunnel was deemed financially prohibitive, costing over $200 million per mile with substantially higher annual operating costs. A bridge-tunnel combination was also rejected due to high costs and severe environmental impacts from the construction of artificial islands for the portals in the middle of the Sound. Other western crossings, from Sands Point to New Rochelle and from Glen Cove to Rye, were found to cause more severe community disruption. [3]
Cancellation and 21st-century revivals
Despite extensive planning, growing opposition from communities in both Westchester and Nassau counties, coupled with environmental concerns, led Governor Rockefeller to officially cancel the plan on June 20, 1973. [4] A key tactic used by opponents in Oyster Bay was the donation of 3,000 acres of waterfront land to the federal government, creating a national wildlife refuge directly in the bridge's path. The opposition also escalated to the federal level, where Connecticut officials and members of Congress successfully passed legislation to prohibit the use of federal funds for the bridge's access roads. In his cancellation announcement, Rockefeller cited a shift in public values, stating that citizens had "gradually come to adopt new values in relation to our environment" and were willing to "forego certain economic advantages to achieve these values."
The concept re-emerged in the late 1970s but faced continued political opposition. In March 1978, Connecticut Governor Ella Grasso reaffirmed her staunch opposition, stating, "I am unalterably opposed to the idea of a bridge or tunnel." [14] In 1979, New York Governor Hugh Carey commissioned a new study of five potential eastern crossings, but state planners concluded that existing ferry services were preferable, citing the high costs of any of the bridge proposals. [7]
The idea was revived again in 2008 when developer Vincent Polimeni proposed a privately financed 16-mile (26 km) tolled tunnel between Oyster Bay and Rye. [15] The project, estimated to cost $10 billion, was designed by engineering firm Hatch Mott MacDonald, which had worked on the Channel Tunnel. [7] The plan featured two tubes with three lanes of traffic each and a central service tube. [7] It was to be funded entirely with private capital and supported by a $25 toll each way. [16] The project failed to advance after the 2008 financial crisis and the collapse of its prospective financial partner, Bear Stearns. [7]
In 2016, Governor Andrew Cuomo launched a new $5 million feasibility study for a crossing. [17] The study, completed in December 2017, concluded that a tunnel was the most viable option, dismissing a bridge-only proposal as too environmentally disruptive. It estimated the cost of an 18-mile tunnel between Rye and Oyster Bay to be between $31.5 and $55.4 billion. [17] In January 2018, the state issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) to gauge private-sector interest in the project. [18] Six developers responded, concluding that the tunnel was feasible. [19] However, the proposal was met with fierce opposition on Long Island, where a consortium of local municipalities was formed to block it. [19] Citing the high cost and community opposition, the Cuomo administration shelved the project later in 2018. [7] While supporters have argued a crossing is "as inevitable as death and taxes," opponents have dismissed it as "a bridge too far."
In 2024, developer Stephen Shapiro proposed a 14-mile bridge from Bridgeport, Connecticut, to Suffolk County, though this concept remains in the preliminary stages. [21]
