A Verrazano Bike/Ped Path Doesn’t Have to Cost as Much as the MTA Claims

A Verrazano bike path would work perfectly well without this hulking ramp connecting to the Shore Parkway Greenway. Image via MTA/Parsons Brinckerhoff

How much will it cost to build bicycle and pedestrian paths on the Verrazano Bridge? A lot less than the MTA says it will, if the agency removes unnecessary ramps from the project, according to advocates and engineers who’ve reviewed the options.

Last year, the MTA and engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff released a preliminary cost estimate of $300 to $400 million for the bridge paths [PDF]. It was a steeper price than advocates with the Harbor Ring Committee, which has built momentum for the car-free paths, had been expecting. Back in 1997, engineering firm Amman & Whitney had pegged the cost at $50-60 million (in 2016 dollars).

In an interview published yesterday on Urban Omnibus, Harbor Ring Committee chair Paul Gertner attributed the MTA’s high pricetag to the design for the Brooklyn approach, which includes elaborate ramps connecting to the Shore Parkway Greenway. It’s not clear how much the ramp system adds to the MTA’s cost estimate, but the structures would be substantial, with concrete columns supporting a winding bikeway that touches down on the greenway.

“As far as we can tell, [Parsons Brinckerhoff] started with the assumption that it had to start at the waterfront greenway, and then proceeded to design this huge ramp system,” Gertner said.

A greenway landing isn’t worth the extra cost, Gertner told Streetsblog, since it would compel anyone who’s not planning to use the greenway to take a long detour. In the Amman & Whitney plan, the path touched down at 92nd Street by Fourth Avenue, a much more direct connection to the street network.

The bike and pedestrian ramps from the vantage point of the Shore Parkway Greenway. Image via MTA/Parsons Brinckerhoff

A greenway connection could still be implemented using much cheaper on-street bike lanes. “You could stripe four or five blocks easily, and get cyclists to the greenway if they want to go to the greenway,” Gertner said. “In terms of people really using this for traveling around the city, there are a lot of really good reasons for putting it closer to the street network.”

Skeptical of the preliminary design work released last year, Gertner took retired bridge engineer Joseph Pullaro on a tour of the Brooklyn side of the Verrazano. Until 2014, Pullaro owned the firm Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers, which restored Manhattan’s High Bridge and helped rebuild Minneapolis’ I-35 Mississippi River Bridge after it collapsed in 2007.

“He read the Ammann & Whitney report, he looked at the Parsons Brinckerhoff report, and we drove around together,” Gertner said. “He said that the Ammann & Whitney plan for the lower level was still viable from an engineering standpoint.” Gertner said Pullaro is willing to share his analysis — which estimates a lower level path would cost about $50 million — with the MTA, but the agency has yet to take him up on the offer.

The MTA has floated either a lower level option or an upper level option, but both include the Brooklyn ramps.

The MTA says Parsons Brinckerhoff’s final master plan for the bridge should be released by the end of this year, two years behind schedule.

  • Pat

    Solution: Just build a stadium that connects to the ramp.


  • ItsEasyBeingGreen

    Connecting into the Brooklyn Street network at the end of the bridge approaches at 92nd or 94th Street seems like the best option anyway, regardless of the cost. The fact that it’s potentially a lot cheaper makes it a no-brainer.

    Even if they wanted to add a Greenway connection, why wouldn’t they just widen the auto ramp they’re already re-building to the Belt Parkway and put a multiuse path on the side of it? A path on the outside of the ramp would lead directly into the Greenway.

  • Hudson cyclist

    A similar thing is happening at the Henry Hudson Bridge, a link in the Hudson River Greenway. The Greenway plan is to spend $30 Million to create a cantilevered bike path off the side of the bridge. But this plan came before the removal of the toll plaza via electronic tolling rendered the southbound bridge roadway unnecessarily wide (it has 4 lanes). The southbound approach to the bridge has 2 lanes, and the departure from the bridge has 3 lanes. No need for 4 on the bridge.
    It would be quick and easy to put some Jersey Barriers down to create a protected 2-way bike path. This way cyclists could use the bridge immediately instead of waiting a decade or so for the cantilever.

  • Emmily_Litella

    Your suggestion makes too much sense and its implementation would send the wrong signal to the auto mafia.

  • Riley 1066

    Two Words: Bike Catapult

  • Guest

    The references to cost estimates need some clarification. What type of estimates were they? Engineer’s estimate of construction cost or total project cost? This could be apples and oranges.

  • AMH

    That is brilliant!

  • AMH

    One word: Gondolas

  • MatthewEH

    You do realize the HHB already has a bike/ped path, right? Eastern side of the lower level. It’s a narrow path, but it’s not a long bridge and sees very little use. (It is also hard to find the access point, particularly if approaching from the Manhattan side.)

  • MatthewEH

    I’m very skeptical building out a Verrazano path would be the best bang for the buck.

    That plan to more than double the width of the Brooklyn Bridge path, for example, would be much more impactful. Or building any of the 3 bike/ped-only bridges that Sam Schwartz proposed as part of the Fair Plan way back in the day, for that matter. The Jersey CityManhattan cross-Hudson connection from that plan would be amazingly transformative.

  • The section of greenway under the bridge where they would build this ramp is pretty narrow. It’s a shared space there versus the designated bike and pedestrian lanes elsewhere on the promenade. Also, to access the greenway at the closest point to this ramp, you have to walk or bike along an onramp to the Belt Parkway. There’s a sidewalk, but no bike lane or barrier separating accelerating cars from everyone else.

    92nd St. seems like a better option. Repurposing the entrances to the lower level for bike and Pedestrian access seems like it would be cheaper and have minimal impact on traffic using the bridge.


Tomorrow: Rally for a Verrazano-Narrows Path, Now a Real Possibility

Supporters of building a bicycle and walking path across the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge are gathering tomorrow in Bay Ridge to rally for the project. The MTA released a preliminary report this week evaluating the prospects for a path, and it depicts a more complex undertaking than many advocates expected. The advocates working for walking and biking access […]

MTA Tests Bike Racks on Bus Across Verrazano

An anonymously-sourced New York Post story yesterday might leave readers with the impression that new bike racks on the front of Staten Island buses will lead to late trips and a liability nightmare for the MTA. The MTA, however, says it’s still studying the racks — a tried-and-true amenity in every other big American city […]