Old solutions (and some new) to new (well, kinda old) problems

Thomas Pope's 1811 vision for a trans-Hudson bridge

New York may not be as synonymous with bridges as Amsterdam, Hamburg, Pittsburgh, or even San Francisco. But with almost three times as many people as those three cities combined--and 2,000 bridges in the five boroughs--New York probably should be the de facto "City of Bridges". Without an intense network of bridges, the city wouldn't function as a metropolis, regional hub (22 million people live in the tri-state area), or global nexus. These are historical roles for this city, and creating the best infrastructure to effectively function in them is not a new problem. The harbor was the entry point and chief advantage to New York at it's founding, and the port and defenses followed suit. A certain upstate canal intensified the transportation of commodities--imports and exports--and the demands on that port. The prospect of real estate development and a growing populations led to an organized system of streets and properties. Then rail lines and ferries and more growth, then Brooklyn Bridge, then other bridges, then airports and Robert Moses and ... Basically, the infrastructure of New York is essential to New York's existence, functionality, and identity. (There are other factors, of course, but since I'm writing about bridges, we'll ignore them.)

So then there's a recent article about what to do about making the recently (2004) public-ized Governor's Island more accessible. Currently a free ferry serve visitors from May through September. And new construction on the southern portion of the island will make their visits more enjoyable and more likely. But, as Mark Vanhoenacker opines, a pedestrian/bicycle bridge would make the island accessible year-long and for the majority of the day, just like any other city park. How this bridge would be designed and funded are the next important questions after the obvious, "do we really need one?" Even if you (or the majority of New Yorkers, or the next mayor) think we don't, this potential bridge is a great opportunity to reconsider the movement of people in cars and goods in trucks throughout this city. And this then entails the locations of tolls on bridges and tunnels and how that influences transportation in the city.

In 1867, the New York York Bridge Company faced similar. They sought to replace the system of ferries on the East River with a bridge that allowed for foot traffic, roadways, and a trolley system. And it was assumed the fares and tolls would pay for the construction of the bridge in three years (and continue to fatten the coffers of both cities). But the project ran seven years longer than assumed, and more expensively than imagined--not least because of certain "gentlemen" either extracting bribes for influence or gleaning exorbitant construction contracts. See, nothing's new. And with new New York bridges on the mind, it seems like there might just be an audience entertained by a story of the first one.