Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MantyMadTown]

So lately I've heard that engineers want to tear down and rebuild the triple-cantilevered stretch of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in NYC that includes the Brooklyn Heights Promenade and the Brooklyn Bridge Park. I've seen multiple proposals for it, from reconstructing the BQE in its original form to tearing down the BQE entirely. Here are some of the proposals I read about for rebuilding this highway:

• Reconstructing the BQE in its original form, with multiple ways of doing so:
  a. constructing a temporary 6-lane highway over the Brooklyn Heights Promenade while work is being done and rebuilding a wider Promenade when work on the BQE is complete.
  b. reconstructing the BQE lane by lane
  The former would take 6 years to build and the latter would take 8, while also diverting traffic to city streets. I've also seen another proposal from the Brooklyn Heights Association to build a temporary two-level bypass of the BQE directly west of the highway, over the parking spaces for the Brooklyn Bridge Park.
  
• Turning the BQE into a truck-only highway, while building green space on top
  https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/03/14/comptroller-scott-stringer-wants-the-bqe-for-trucks-only/
• Turning the BQE into a 3-level linear park, building a highway tunnel underneath the Brooklyn Bridge Park
  https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2019/03/21/listen-where-do-we-stand-with-the-bqe-rehab-plan/
• Tearing down the BQE entirely
  https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/03/05/council-speaker-johnson-joins-calls-for-knocking-down-the-bqe/

You can also read about the proposals here:
https://ny.curbed.com/2019/3/12/18248873/brooklyn-heights-bqe-repair-dot

I'm pretty saddened by the fact NYCDOT only announced the first two options at their public meeting in 2018, when there are so many other options out there. The new options (including the ones presented by Comptroller Scott Stringer and Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who I heard were also running for mayor) were announced just recently, and personally I think they are much better than the options given by NYCDOT. I'm wondering which proposal you think is best, or if there's something else you have in mind, you can share it here as well.

[Alps]

There were also other tunnel proposals, none of which are financially feasible.

[Ben114]

Personally, I'd want either 3 or 4.

3 because I think the High Line was a success.

4 because there are other ways for traffic.

[AMLNet49]

#4 will never happen because that would be the end of 278 which was a very difficulty interstate to patch together, but it was done for a reason, so that there is a through-route that goes through the city.  They can't just arbitrarily get rid of something so macro because some people on a certain part of its route don't like it. Totally different scenario than I-895 in the Bronx, where the road was basically a stub, or I-81 in Syracuse, where alternative routings for I-81 are possible

[Mergingtraffic]

I can't stand this crap....you can't just tear down an expressway and magically go back to a time when there was less traffic and be in happy land. 

Most interstates were built in cities b/c most cities had bad traffic even before they were built! And now, where would all today's traffic go!?!  NYC doesn't have enough expressways as it is, some sections aren't even served by one. 

[MantyMadTown]

I can't stand this crap....you can't just tear down an expressway and magically go back to a time when there was less traffic and be in happy land. 

Most interstates were built in cities b/c most cities had bad traffic even before they were built! And now, where would all today's traffic go!?!  NYC doesn't have enough expressways as it is, some sections aren't even served by one.

Most people in NYC don't even drive, so I'm sure they're not gonna want another expressway tearing through their neighborhood like in the days of Robert Moses. Building another expressway isn't going to magically solve NYC's traffic problem; if anything it's going to make it worse.

I agree though that option #4 isn't really feasible, given the truck traffic using the highway.

[DJStephens]

Moses' personal statements and behaviors at times did not help.  "Chopping Through with a Meat Axe" is a statement attributed to him.   Have always believed NYC would have been better off overall if the crossmanhattan and Lomex facilities had indeed been built, as either tunneled or depressed routes as much as possible.   

[1995hoo]

I can't stand this crap....you can't just tear down an expressway and magically go back to a time when there was less traffic and be in happy land. 

Most interstates were built in cities b/c most cities had bad traffic even before they were built! And now, where would all today's traffic go!?!  NYC doesn't have enough expressways as it is, some sections aren't even served by one.

Most people in NYC don't even drive, so I'm sure they're not gonna want another expressway tearing through their neighborhood like in the days of Robert Moses. Building another expressway isn't going to magically solve NYC's traffic problem; if anything it's going to make it worse.

I agree though that option #4 isn't really feasible, given the truck traffic using the highway.

"Most people in NYC don't drive" is probably inaccurate unless you equate "Manhattan" with "NYC." In the other four boroughs a lot of people own cars, especially because there are plenty of areas that are poorly served, or not served at all, by the subway. It's fair to say city residents might be less likely to drive for routine errands than is the case in many other places, but to say they "don't drive" isn't really accurate.

[MantyMadTown]

I can't stand this crap....you can't just tear down an expressway and magically go back to a time when there was less traffic and be in happy land. 

Most interstates were built in cities b/c most cities had bad traffic even before they were built! And now, where would all today's traffic go!?!  NYC doesn't have enough expressways as it is, some sections aren't even served by one.

Most people in NYC don't even drive, so I'm sure they're not gonna want another expressway tearing through their neighborhood like in the days of Robert Moses. Building another expressway isn't going to magically solve NYC's traffic problem; if anything it's going to make it worse.

I agree though that option #4 isn't really feasible, given the truck traffic using the highway.

"Most people in NYC don't drive" is probably inaccurate unless you equate "Manhattan" with "NYC." In the other four boroughs a lot of people own cars, especially because there are plenty of areas that are poorly served, or not served at all, by the subway. It's fair to say city residents might be less likely to drive for routine errands than is the case in many other places, but to say they "don't drive" isn't really accurate.

Ok that's a fair argument. But from what I heard, people in NYC as a whole still don't drive as much as people in other cities, especially because of the people living in areas widely served by transit.

I found that the majority of car owners in NYC live in Queens and Staten Island, and even they don't regularly commute by car as much as people in other cities. Here's the data I found:
https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-their-cars

[1995hoo]

I can't stand this crap....you can't just tear down an expressway and magically go back to a time when there was less traffic and be in happy land. 

Most interstates were built in cities b/c most cities had bad traffic even before they were built! And now, where would all today's traffic go!?!  NYC doesn't have enough expressways as it is, some sections aren't even served by one.

Most people in NYC don't even drive, so I'm sure they're not gonna want another expressway tearing through their neighborhood like in the days of Robert Moses. Building another expressway isn't going to magically solve NYC's traffic problem; if anything it's going to make it worse.

I agree though that option #4 isn't really feasible, given the truck traffic using the highway.

"Most people in NYC don't drive" is probably inaccurate unless you equate "Manhattan" with "NYC." In the other four boroughs a lot of people own cars, especially because there are plenty of areas that are poorly served, or not served at all, by the subway. It's fair to say city residents might be less likely to drive for routine errands than is the case in many other places, but to say they "don't drive" isn't really accurate.

Ok that's a fair argument. But from what I heard, people in NYC as a whole still don't drive as much as people in other cities, especially because of the people living in areas widely served by transit.

I found that the majority of car owners in NYC live in Queens and Staten Island, and even they don't regularly commute by car as much as people in other cities. Here's the data I found:
https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-their-cars

Oh, I definitely don't disagree with any of that. My only quibble was with "most people in NYC don't drive." I construed that as "don't drive at all."

[MantyMadTown]

I can't stand this crap....you can't just tear down an expressway and magically go back to a time when there was less traffic and be in happy land. 

Most interstates were built in cities b/c most cities had bad traffic even before they were built! And now, where would all today's traffic go!?!  NYC doesn't have enough expressways as it is, some sections aren't even served by one.

Most people in NYC don't even drive, so I'm sure they're not gonna want another expressway tearing through their neighborhood like in the days of Robert Moses. Building another expressway isn't going to magically solve NYC's traffic problem; if anything it's going to make it worse.

I agree though that option #4 isn't really feasible, given the truck traffic using the highway.

"Most people in NYC don't drive" is probably inaccurate unless you equate "Manhattan" with "NYC." In the other four boroughs a lot of people own cars, especially because there are plenty of areas that are poorly served, or not served at all, by the subway. It's fair to say city residents might be less likely to drive for routine errands than is the case in many other places, but to say they "don't drive" isn't really accurate.

Ok that's a fair argument. But from what I heard, people in NYC as a whole still don't drive as much as people in other cities, especially because of the people living in areas widely served by transit.

I found that the majority of car owners in NYC live in Queens and Staten Island, and even they don't regularly commute by car as much as people in other cities. Here's the data I found:
https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-their-cars

Oh, I definitely don't disagree with any of that. My only quibble was with "most people in NYC don't drive." I construed that as "don't drive at all."

Well certainly some don't drive at all. For those that live in an area with good subway access, why drive when you can just take the subway?

[1995hoo]

Well certainly some don't drive at all. For those that live in an area with good subway access, why drive when you can just take the subway?

Maybe they want to go places the subway doesn't go, including places outside New York City? One of my aunts used to live in Bay Ridge about three blocks from the last stop on the RR, but she drove regularly enough, including if she wanted to visit her daughter (my cousin) in New Jersey. (My aunt now lives in a part of Queens that's not particularly close to either a bus or subway stop.)

[Plutonic Panda]

Here I am hoping that someday the Midtown Manhattan freeway is built albeit in a new elevated form like Tokyo’s urban freeways.

Absolutely no to any proposal tearing down the freeway; that is extremely shortsighted. I’m more open to ideas about tunneling it and building an urban BLVD or green space on top. I like the idea of rebuilding it better. Even more so would be rebuilding it and adding capacity with a double deck possibly being tolled express lanes, but in todays political climate when it comes to adding freeway capacity in urban cities, that is a non starter. I support Alt. 1.

As for the fact they don’t want a freeway “tearing” through their neighborhoods, most people don’t. But it is a necessary piece of infrastructure and it has to go somewhere. If it bothers you that much there are other places to live. This freeway is obviously well used and needed.

[MantyMadTown]

As for the fact they don’t want a freeway “tearing” through their neighborhoods, most people don’t. But it is a necessary piece of infrastructure and it has to go somewhere. If it bothers you that much there are other places to live. This freeway is obviously well used and needed.

If the construction of a new freeway causes hundreds, if not thousands, of people to move, where would they all go? It's not that easy to find new housing in big cities nowadays, especially with the affordable housing crisis we have today. We don't have enough new homes and apartments being built to match the ones potentially being torn down by new freeways, at the same price that homeowners and renters currently have.

Some people don't want to or can't afford to move somewhere else because of the rent they're currently paying, and some of them might have jobs close by so if they have to move somewhere farther away they might not be able to get there easily. There are people who have spent their lives in these neighborhoods and don't want to leave. There's a lot more to building freeways through cities than you realize. This is why urban planners and highway engineers try to avoid as much displacement as they can while thinking about these sort of highway projects.

If you're suggesting to expand the BQE I don't think there's any place you could feasibly expand it in without cutting into the Promenade or Brooklyn Bridge Park.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ the issue of housing shortages merits its own debate entirely, but in short, Ive always wondered why if demand is so high that developers aren’t building more than they currently are. It isn’t the governments job to provide housing but it is their job to provide infrastructure. One could make an argument that by not adding the proper capacity and alternative transit modes to urban and suburban areas(allowing for more sprawl) that the government is partially to blame for the housing crisis by this fact alone.

I don’t support government build housing nor do I support rent control. With that said, we as a society will need to address the issue of urban housing costs as they are getting out of control. It’s a matter of time before flyover cities see the same insane housing costs that plague the coastal cities. This can only go on for so long. Eventually something is going to give.

[froggie]

Ive always wondered why if demand is so high that developers aren’t building more than they currently are.

Far more often than not, the reason is a combination of zoning limitations and NIMBYs.

[The Ghostbuster]

I would support replacing the existing BQE with a tunnel, but since that will never happen (like the actually-proposed Gowanus Expressway tunnel being canceled in 2011), hopefully something will be done to improve the expressway (possibly wider lanes, improved off and on ramps, etc.). 

[roadman]

Moses' personal statements and behaviors at times did not help.  "Chopping Through with a Meat Axe" is a statement attributed to him.   Have always believed NYC would have been better off overall if the crossmanhattan and Lomex facilities had indeed been built, as either tunneled or depressed routes as much as possible.   

A tunnel is merely a tiled vehicular bathroom smelling faintly of monoxide. - Robert Moses

[Beltway]

A tunnel is merely a tiled vehicular bathroom smelling faintly of monoxide. - Robert Moses

Carbon monoxide is odorless and colorless.

[froggie]

^ But will still poison you nonetheless...

I believe the quote was intended to highlight Moses' aversion to tunnels.  Remember, he wanted a bridge for the Brooklyn-Battery.

[D-Dey65]

^ But will still poison you nonetheless...

I believe the quote was intended to highlight Moses' aversion to tunnels.  Remember, he wanted a bridge for the Brooklyn-Battery.

This is true. Either way, when I was in Brooklyn recently capturing images of random subway stations, I found a bunch of posters and slightly larger ads for an advocacy group trying to stop the planned reconstruction of the BQE. They were posted mainly in the vicinity of the Hotel St. George, and their slogan was "We Need a Better Way Than a 6-Lane Expressway."
https://abetterway.nyc/

No, what you need is to stop trying to destroy 6-lane Expressways.

[Alps]

^ But will still poison you nonetheless...

I believe the quote was intended to highlight Moses' aversion to tunnels.  Remember, he wanted a bridge for the Brooklyn-Battery.

This is true. Either way, when I was in Brooklyn recently capturing images of random subway stations, I found a bunch of posters and slightly larger ads for an advocacy group trying to stop the planned reconstruction of the BQE. They were posted mainly in the vicinity of the Hotel St. George, and their slogan was "We Need a Better Way Than a 6-Lane Expressway."
https://abetterway.nyc/

No, what you need is to stop trying to destroy 6-lane Expressways.

No, they do need a better way than a 6-lane expressway. Like a 10-lane tunnel.

[Verlanka]

^ But will still poison you nonetheless...

I believe the quote was intended to highlight Moses' aversion to tunnels.  Remember, he wanted a bridge for the Brooklyn-Battery.

This is true. Either way, when I was in Brooklyn recently capturing images of random subway stations, I found a bunch of posters and slightly larger ads for an advocacy group trying to stop the planned reconstruction of the BQE. They were posted mainly in the vicinity of the Hotel St. George, and their slogan was "We Need a Better Way Than a 6-Lane Expressway."
https://abetterway.nyc/

No, what you need is to stop trying to destroy 6-lane Expressways.

No, they do need a better way than a 6-lane expressway. Like a 10-lane tunnel.

That's true, but where will they put the tunnel?

[ixnay]

^ But will still poison you nonetheless...

I believe the quote was intended to highlight Moses' aversion to tunnels.  Remember, he wanted a bridge for the Brooklyn-Battery.

Did Bob want a tunnel where the QMT is?

ixnay

[D-Dey65]

^ But will still poison you nonetheless...

I believe the quote was intended to highlight Moses' aversion to tunnels.  Remember, he wanted a bridge for the Brooklyn-Battery.

This is true. Either way, when I was in Brooklyn recently capturing images of random subway stations, I found a bunch of posters and slightly larger ads for an advocacy group trying to stop the planned reconstruction of the BQE. They were posted mainly in the vicinity of the Hotel St. George, and their slogan was "We Need a Better Way Than a 6-Lane Expressway."
https://abetterway.nyc/

No, what you need is to stop trying to destroy 6-lane Expressways.

No, they do need a better way than a 6-lane expressway. Like a 10-lane tunnel.

You know what, Steve? I actually don't mind the idea of a tunnel, even if it's 8-lanes. Give them a decent clearance level, and they could still work for higher trucks and buses. What I do mind is the idea of demolishing the expressway and creating a freeway gap in the false pretense of saving their neighborhood.