NYC Roads

[crispy93]

There's a STATE SPEED LIMIT 35 sign with the STATE covered up on this service road in Queens, which is interesting because there are no 55 mph zones in NYC. Zoom in closely and you can make out the word STATE: https://goo.gl/maps/Cgbd21dctEkD1kjh8 and there's another one a short distance after

[storm2k]

There's a STATE SPEED LIMIT 35 sign with the STATE covered up on this service road in Queens, which is interesting because there are no 55 mph zones in NYC. Zoom in closely and you can make out the word STATE: https://goo.gl/maps/Cgbd21dctEkD1kjh8 and there's another one a short distance after

Guessing that was a contractor error when that stretch of the LIE and the interchange were redone. Those are certainly not NYCDOT installs (which have the Speed Checked by Radar legend at the bottom.

[Duke87]

The city was smoking something with the Grand Concourse (B/D) line, because it is a block away from the Jerome Avenue (4) line...especially when you learn that a line was planned along 3rd Avenue.

They weren't smoking anything, they built subway lines right next to existing elevated lines quite deliberately, for two reasons:
1) The IRT and BMT at the time were still separate private companies, and the city was trying to compete with them in order to drive them into insolvency so they could take them over. This plan worked and is why we have one subway system today rather than three.
2) In the 1930s people looked at elevated subway lines the way a lot of people now look at elevated freeways: as hideous ugly things that needed to be torn down. So a lot of IND subways were intended to replace nearby els. This played out in many places elsewhere: the 6th and 8th Ave subways in Manhattan replaced the 6th and 9th Ave els, the Fulton St Subway in Brooklyn replaced the Fulton el. The Concourse subway was likewise potentially intended to replace the Jerome el, however unlike in other such cases the el was never removed because there was enough ridership to support both existing in parallel.

[ixnay]

"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"

It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.

Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

find me a bridge entirely in Brooklyn

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6938232,-73.9988344,3a,75y,290.98h,90.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgYvv_h2xWWGQBB7d1DzYWw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Looks like it's just south of the Brooklyn Heights Promenade (notice the northbound [higher] BQE deck preparing to go above the southbound deck).

ixnay

[1995hoo]

"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"

It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.

Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

find me a bridge entirely in Brooklyn

https://goo.gl/maps/U9VDJM27Urh9BWcx7

Not a road bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/jkaGGtbuvhZqDEAz8

https://goo.gl/maps/TLE4rer5mUETT5JH8

[fmendes]

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6760309,-73.9019538,3a,90y,252.39h,105.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so3cEyZ_yAP8Qq_2qqN63XQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
Atlantic Ave @ East NY Ave

[crispy93]

Someone posted this very faded sign in Brooklyn to Reddit, anyone know what it said? Some guesses were SOUTH BROOKLYN, THURS- ???

https://old.reddit.com/r/nycHistory/comments/o9t096/spotted_this_old_sign_on_flatbush_avenue_just/

[crispy93]

Saw this pic of the Brooklyn Bridge car lane being turned into a bike lane: https://i.imgur.com/dGQxtVS.jpeg
Sounds like a congestion nightmare

[mariethefoxy]

ohh yes, but the people running NYC are virulently anti-car that doesn't matter to them.

[empirestate]

ohh yes, but the people running NYC are virulently anti-car that doesn't matter to them.

"Anti-car", perhaps, in the same way that airplane pilots and engine mechanics are "anti-bird". Probably not a precise enough term to use without further context, however. (Also, there are a lot of people running NYC, and without even checking, it is almost certainly incorrect to ascribe any single viewpoint to all of them!)

[crispy93]

ohh yes, but the people running NYC are virulently anti-car that doesn't matter to them.

I can't even take the anti-car people seriously because they're so extreme. I said to reduce the toll at the battery tunnel to take the pressure off the BQE and the BB and I'm getting everything should be tolled and prohibitively expensive, all parking should be eliminated, all driver's license applicants must be flogged at the DMV (ok maybe not that)... I don't need a car so neither do you (well, I don't either but they have no way of knowing that lol)

[Roadgeekteen]

New York City is one of the rare places in America that you probably shouldn't be taking a car into downtown.

[D-Dey65]

"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"

It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.

Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

I can do the same if you tell me how Moses stopped the IND Culver Line and IND Fulton Street Line from connecting to the BMT Culver Line and BMT Fulton Street Line. Oh wait. That never happened.


Since Robert Moses died in 1981, only two highways have been built. The JFK Expressway. and the still unfinished Nassau Expressway. And that's not even a real expressway southeast of Farmers Boulevard. Since then, traffic has just gone from bad to worse, and the city has gone anti-car. Now the congestions is considered worse than Los Angeles. To make matters worse, you've got the demolition of the Sheridan Expressway and some people are even talking about doing the same thing to the BQE!

Also, Moses endorsed the northern extension of the IND Rockaway Line north towards Rego Park.

[storm2k]

"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"

It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.

Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

I can do the same if you tell me how Moses stopped the IND Culver Line and IND Fulton Street Line from connecting to the BMT Culver Line and BMT Fulton Street Line. Oh wait. That never happened.


Since Robert Moses died in 1981, only two highways have been built. The JFK Expressway. and the still unfinished Nassau Expressway. And that's not even a real expressway southeast of Farmers Boulevard. Since then, traffic has just gone from bad to worse, and the city has gone anti-car. Now the congestions is considered worse than Los Angeles. To make matters worse, you've got the demolition of the Sheridan Expressway and some people are even talking about doing the same thing to the BQE!

Also, Moses endorsed the northern extension of the IND Rockaway Line north towards Rego Park.

Plenty of wealthier NYC residents have gotten very good at weaponizing laws such as the NEPA to torpedo both road and transit projects that they don't like and don't feel like are in their best interests. Moses got most of his work done before laws like this existed so he could just have them drive roads wherever he and his benefactors thought they would not disrupt. Also, the city's fiscal crisis in the early 1970s torpedoed their major plans for transit expansion that would have been very helpful all across the board. And yes, the city is fairly anti-car, for good reason. Congestion sucks, and everyone's grand plans here to magically get massive freeways built will never go anywhere, and even if they avoid legal scrutiny, would cost too much money to build. The city is better off working towards figuring out how to build better transit infra without it costing as much as it does, but that's not much more likely than roads becoming affordable.

[SignBridge]

Storm2k, I think you pretty much nailed it.

[D-Dey65]

Of course, congestion sucks. But being anti-car and anti-road makes things worse, not better.

I'm old enough to remember the financial crisis of the 1970's, but other factors screw up transit expansion too. Back in the 1970's the MTA tried to build the 2nd Avenue Subway, but too many activists claimed it was only going to be for rich white people, which was total BS. Even in the 1950's there was talk of eliminating the curve on the BMT Jamaica Line (J/Z) between Cypress Hills and Crescent Street stations. One plan involved a new alignment east of Crescent Street which required tearing down houses, while the other involved another alignment along Jamaica Avenue west of Cypress Hills station. Both were shot down by public opposition, and to this day, trains still have to slow down to go around that curve.

In the 1930s people looked at elevated subway lines the way a lot of people now look at elevated freeways: as hideous ugly things that needed to be torn down. So a lot of IND subways were intended to replace nearby els. This played out in many places elsewhere: the 6th and 8th Ave subways in Manhattan replaced the 6th and 9th Ave els, the Fulton St Subway in Brooklyn replaced the Fulton el. The Concourse subway was likewise potentially intended to replace the Jerome el, however unlike in other such cases the el was never removed because there was enough ridership to support both existing in parallel.

There's a guy on YouTube who insists that the demolition of the el was only done to benefit big business and real estate. I know that the MTA wanted to replace the last segment of the 3rd Avenue El with a subway, but the financial crisis of the 1970's killed that.

[Duke87]

Regarding the new Brooklyn Bridge bike lane, this is very much a question of pick your poison.

Bikes and peds were previously confined to a shared walkway which... was very crowded and could not be navigated efficiently because of this. Adding a separate bike lane so that peds can have the formerly shared walkway is, from the perspective of a bicyclist or a pedestrian, some much needed congestion relief.

Ideally, this would have been done by simply constructing a wider walkway, which there is certainly room to do. But that would have taken longer, been more expensive, and involved some structural modifications which when you're dealing with a 140-year-old bridge is a little tricky/touchy. So they went the quick, cheap, easy route and just took out a traffic lane for it.

And yes, there are definitely some groups who see the fact that this takes a lane away from cars as a feature rather than a downside, but it's not gratuitous - the demand for more bike/ped space on the bridge is quite real.

[vdeane]

The thing I really don't like about it is the asymmetry.  There isn't much of a directional split in the AADT; certainly not anything that warrants one side having one more lane than the other.  If they really wanted to take lanes rather than widen the walkway, they should have taking one from each side, with one direction of bike traffic on each direction and the rest of the space used for wider lanes and/or a shoulder.  They way they did it is half-assed at best.

[lovertravel]

How joyful it is to see that the city is changing for the better. However, there is still a lot of work to do. It is a pity that now it all stops because of the global pandemic. I know that some projects are being postponed, and some are being closed altogether because all funds are being allocated to combat the consequences of the virus.
But it's nice to see that some entrepreneurs in the service sector are strenuously supporting their business. For example, a new branch of the Westgate network has recently opened in New York https://www.westgateresorts.com/hotels/new-york/midtown-manhattan/westgate-new-york-grand-central/ . I was always surprised how they adjust the design of the hotel to the architecture of the city.
I hope that the city continues to change for the better.

[crispy93]

What's everyone's opinion on signing I-695 (Throgs Neck Expressway) in the Bronx? It's only a mile long and has one unnumbered exit along it. Since every 695 shield seems to be paired with a TO 295 SOUTH or TO 95 NORTH assembly, I almost don't see the point of signing it.

The Exit 10 sign from 295 North in particular always seemed like it could just say "TO 95 NORTH" since 695 is a glorified exit ramp: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8200539,-73.8117227,3a,75y,294.61h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7B_qcvDiiiRtCHB0tfz91A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Plutonic Panda]

Regarding the new Brooklyn Bridge bike lane, this is very much a question of pick your poison.

Bikes and peds were previously confined to a shared walkway which... was very crowded and could not be navigated efficiently because of this. Adding a separate bike lane so that peds can have the formerly shared walkway is, from the perspective of a bicyclist or a pedestrian, some much needed congestion relief.

Ideally, this would have been done by simply constructing a wider walkway, which there is certainly room to do. But that would have taken longer, been more expensive, and involved some structural modifications which when you're dealing with a 140-year-old bridge is a little tricky/touchy. So they went the quick, cheap, easy route and just took out a traffic lane for it.

And yes, there are definitely some groups who see the fact that this takes a lane away from cars as a feature rather than a downside, but it's not gratuitous - the demand for more bike/ped space on the bridge is quite real.

The demand for the car lane is equal to if not greater than that of the ped/bike demand. A separate bridge needs to be built for cyclists and pedestrians. Give the lane back to cars once it's completed.

[Duke87]

The demand for the car lane is equal to if not greater than that of the ped/bike demand. A separate bridge needs to be built for cyclists and pedestrians. Give the lane back to cars once it's completed.

I was curious about this assertion so I looked it up. Turns out NYC has automated bicycle traffic counters on the east river bridges so there's actually some really solid data for this available. Here's May 2021. The maximum number of cyclists per day crossing the Brooklyn Bridge is just over 3000, though the average is only a bit over 2000 (it varies with the day of the week and the weather). But this is all with the constrained path that's miserable to have to use in place - the nearby Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges, with proper dedicated cycle lanes, commonly see counts in the range of 7000-9000 cyclists per day (also varying), which may be some indicator of what the potential for a proper dedicated cycle lane on the Brooklyn Bridge is.

That said, the AADT for the Brooklyn Bridge (2016) was 105k (see page 9 / PDF page 23). 1/6 of that is about 17,600.

So no matter how you slice it, the assertion is accurate: there is, currently, more demand for that lane as a vehicular traffic lane than as a bicycle lane. The theoretical maximum carrying capacity is greater as a bicycle lane, but indication is that that capacity will likely be highly underutilized - at least in the near term. The hope, of course, is that the principle of "induced demand" will apply here.

[SignBridge]

What's everyone's opinion on signing I-695 (Throgs Neck Expressway) in the Bronx? It's only a mile long and has one unnumbered exit along it. Since every 695 shield seems to be paired with a TO 295 SOUTH or TO 95 NORTH assembly, I almost don't see the point of signing it.

The Exit 10 sign from 295 North in particular always seemed like it could just say "TO 95 NORTH" since 695 is a glorified exit ramp: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8200539,-73.8117227,3a,75y,294.61h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7B_qcvDiiiRtCHB0tfz91A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I agree with you. DOT should just eliminate the 695 and 295 signage. It just makes the signs confusing. Interestingly, the original signs back in the 1960's were signed as just 95-North and 95-South with GW Bridge and New England as the destinations. Confusing technicalities have replaced common sense.

[Alps]

The demand for the car lane is equal to if not greater than that of the ped/bike demand. A separate bridge needs to be built for cyclists and pedestrians. Give the lane back to cars once it's completed.

I was curious about this assertion so I looked it up. Turns out NYC has automated bicycle traffic counters on the east river bridges so there's actually some really solid data for this available. Here's May 2021. The maximum number of cyclists per day crossing the Brooklyn Bridge is just over 3000, though the average is only a bit over 2000 (it varies with the day of the week and the weather). But this is all with the constrained path that's miserable to have to use in place - the nearby Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges, with proper dedicated cycle lanes, commonly see counts in the range of 7000-9000 cyclists per day (also varying), which may be some indicator of what the potential for a proper dedicated cycle lane on the Brooklyn Bridge is.

That said, the AADT for the Brooklyn Bridge (2016) was 105k (see page 9 / PDF page 23). 1/6 of that is about 17,600.

So no matter how you slice it, the assertion is accurate: there is, currently, more demand for that lane as a vehicular traffic lane than as a bicycle lane. The theoretical maximum carrying capacity is greater as a bicycle lane, but indication is that that capacity will likely be highly underutilized - at least in the near term. The hope, of course, is that the principle of "induced demand" will apply here.

I will also note that the bridge is probably not a bottleneck at 2 lanes vs. 3. The EB bottleneck is the ramp to I-278, where everyone tries to bunch up into that single lane. The WB side is constrained by the traffic signals on the roads feeding the bridge.

[fmendes]

"Robert Moses crusaded against the subways"

It's time to quit blaming Robert Moses. It's been more than 55 years since he was in a position of power. And the New York of today is vastly richer than it was in his day.

Richer, sure, but if you can find me popular support for roads then I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

I can do the same if you tell me how Moses stopped the IND Culver Line and IND Fulton Street Line from connecting to the BMT Culver Line and BMT Fulton Street Line. Oh wait. That never happened.


Since Robert Moses died in 1981, only two highways have been built. The JFK Expressway. and the still unfinished Nassau Expressway. And that's not even a real expressway southeast of Farmers Boulevard. Since then, traffic has just gone from bad to worse, and the city has gone anti-car. Now the congestions is considered worse than Los Angeles. To make matters worse, you've got the demolition of the Sheridan Expressway and some people are even talking about doing the same thing to the BQE!

Also, Moses endorsed the northern extension of the IND Rockaway Line north towards Rego Park.

u cant take down the BQE its to heavily traveled to even deblasio said its a crucial route if it wasnt as bad i would say ok maybe we can but its not feasible being theres no strong truck route or expressway options in brooklyn they should redo the promanade and realign the BQE section along hicks street through Red hook marine terminal and fix that merge by the battery tunnel