Who Will Fix the Tunnel?

Assemblyman Latimer Proposes Plan For Funding Tunnel Fix

by Harriet Kline & Judy Silberstein

(November 9, 2005) Town residents have been asking "Who will fix the tunnel?" for a number of months. Meanwhile, the Village of Larchmont and New York State Thruway Authority have been debating whether the tunnel extension from the Larchmont train station to the Town of Mamaroneck requires capital improvements (the Thruway’s responsibility) or merely maintenance (Larchmont’s obligation).

Now, after walking the tunnel this week with Larchmont’s Mayor Ken Bialo, Assemblyman George Latimer is proposing to sidestep the responsibility issue and find fix-up funds through the NY Multimodal Program. He appeared before the Village board on Monday, November 7, to sketch out his plan.

tunnel under station
In the 1950's, the Thruway apologized for conditions in the train tunnels due to construction. From the Larchmont Public Library Miscellaneous Historical Photograph Collection. See: Larchmont Historical Society Photo Archive

Calls to clean the tunnel are nothing new (See Letters: Pedestrian Tunnel Disgrace), but in recent months George Roniger, president of the Larchmont Gardens Civic Association, has made repeated requests at both the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont boards. This summer he handed both boards a petition signed by more than 60 residents asking for a tunnel cleanup. (See: Residents Petition to Improve Railroad Tunnel.) Mayor Bialo reported that the Village did clean the wall flaking and improved the lighting this summer, "but that won't cure the basic problems," he said.

As explained by Town Supervisor Valerie O’Keeffe, the Village of Larchmont is contractually bound to maintain the Town side of the tunnel as part of an agreement with the New York State Thruway Authority going back to 1957 when the parking plaza over I-95 and the tunnel extension underneath were first constructed. (See: Text of 1957 Thruway Agreement. ) Mayor Bialo had hoped that the Thruway Authority would consider the remedy a “capital” project and renovate the tunnel as they did the parking deck.

"They basically rebuilt the parking deck in the past five years – after 50 years of service," said Mayor Bialo. "Well, the tunnel went in at the same time as the parking deck – but the Thruway Authority says it doesn’t need to be rebuilt,” he reported.

Thruway spokesperson Chris Waite inspected the tunnel last month and observed in an October 27 email to the Gazette, “ Agreements where one party is charged with maintenance and the other has capital responsibilities are often problematic.” He agreed that ”eventually something that is not maintained deteriorates to the point where it has to be replaced and then it becomes a capital project.” However, he concluded, “In my opinion, the tunnel is not at the stage where discussions of capital expenditures is required.”

Mayor Bialo disagrees. "You can see rings of saturation on the asphalt floor," though not necessarily this summer during a dry spell – which was when the Thruway’s inspection occurred, he pointed out. “It’s not just the walls and the floors that are damp, but the steel treads on the stairs are worn away,” said the mayor. As he was inspecting the tunnel this week, a two-inch piece of the wall fell off into his hand. At this Monday's board meeting, the mayor held up the memento and gave Assemblyman Latimer a section of the chunk as an early birthday present.

A separate part of the tunnel that runs under the train tracks has already been overhauled by Metro North during its still ongoing station renovation. Mayor Bialo reported that similar work on Larchmont's portion of the tunnel would cost an estimated $228,000, according to figures supplied by Metro North's contractor.

How To Resolve this Impasse?

So, even though the tunnel goes to the Town of Mamaroneck, it’s not the Town’s job to fix it. Mr. Waite says it’s not a Thruway capital issue, and Mayor Bialo says it’s much more than a Village maintenance problem.

Assemblyman Latimer said, "It's clear that the problem today is not just maintenance - there is a capital project needed," but to get around the impasse over who is responsible, he is proposing an alternate route. He he told the Village Board on Monday that he would be meeting with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to request $250,000 through the Multimodal Program, a separate discretionary fund specifically for this category of projects. With the proposed $2.9 billion Transportation Bond Act (now passed by the voters in the Tuesday election), Mr. Latimer said, “I’m hopeful I’ll have a shot at getting funds for the tunnel.”

If he’s successful – and Assemblyman Latimer stressed the conditional here – the tunnel could be brought up to standard. Once the tunnel is up to par, the Village of Larchmont would be responsible for ongoing maintenance – such as removing graffiti and garbage or regular painting.

Assemblyman Latimer expects it will take at least a few weeks or more to get his proposal heard and considered, and if he gets a positive response, it's unclear what the timing would be after that.

When apprised of this latest development, Mr. Roniger was not completely willing to absolve the Village of its obligation. "Most people seem to think maintenance of the tunnel is the Village's responsibility," he commented, "but if George Latimer suceeds in finding some money at the state level, then we'd have to thank Assemblyman Latimer for finding a way around the problem."