A NY Times/Brooklyn Heights Journal article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/nyregion/25metjournal.html) from yesterday discussing the tunnel proposals that are under consideration for replacing oft-discussed, oft-maligned BQE section through Brooklyn Heights.
I found the fourth, resident-submitted, option a bit intriguing, though I can see needing to retain spurs of the existing BQE to ensure access to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (from the southwest) and Tillary St (from the northeast).
I find the first and second proposals to seem worth while. I think the fourth is interesting but I don't know how well it could be implemented while trying to keep access to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, Downtown Brooklyn and the bridges into Lower Manhattan. Perhaps, a combination of the fourth proposal with the others could be created, that is if enough money was doled out for the project.
With any of these proposals, you still run into the connection issue - the tunnels are well below ground and the bridges are well above. There's no way to completely rebuild the BQE at once - some amount of traffic will have to be maintained for connectivity, and it will actually be quite high because most of the I-278 traffic mixes on/off in this area. They may come to the conclusion that there's no effective way to tunnel, but this is still in the conceptual stage. Traffic analysis will paint a complete picture in the next stage of the project.
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on September 25, 2010, 09:52:19 PM
I find the first and second proposals to seem worth while. I think the fourth is interesting but I don't know how well it could be implemented while trying to keep access to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, Downtown Brooklyn and the bridges into Lower Manhattan. Perhaps, a combination of the fourth proposal with the others could be created, that is if enough money was doled out for the project.
I'm thinking that that last one would maintain the existing BQE (other than for the cantilevered segment in question) as 'odd' 3di spurs, the south one to connect those downtown Brooklyn neighborhoods to the Gowanus and the Battery Tunnel and the east-west northern part to connect those neighborhoods and the two bridges to the BQE (I-278) towards Queens. It could also be designed to fit seamlessly into a potential tunnel replacement for the Gowanus.
As I have posited many times in the past, I can see building a similar deep-bored tunnel between the NJTP (interchange 16E) and the LIE/BQE interchange with that tunnel becoming a 'completion' of I-495 for through traffic between the mainland and Long Island (including Brooklyn and Queens) and the existing Lincoln and Midtown tunnels becoming 'odd' 3di spurs off of that to provide local access to and from Manhattan.
Yes, I'm VERY intrigued by that last idea.
:nod:
Mike
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on September 25, 2010, 09:52:19 PM
I find the first and second proposals to seem worth while. I think the fourth is interesting but I don't know how well it could be implemented while trying to keep access to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, Downtown Brooklyn and the bridges into Lower Manhattan. Perhaps, a combination of the fourth proposal with the others could be created, that is if enough money was doled out for the project.
I could imagine a "tunnel spur" going from Manhattan bridge to reach the 1st and 4rd tunnel option who could be part of a future "LOMDIG".
After how much of a debacle the big dig in Boston turned out to be, I doubt we'll be seeing any major urban highway tunnel projects in the near future. Besides, who has the money?
What's going to happen is that the existing structures are just going to be rehabbed, and most of the geometric deficiencies will remain in place because nothing can practically be done about them.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 26, 2010, 11:28:46 AM
After how much of a debacle the big dig in Boston turned out to be, I doubt we'll be seeing any major urban highway tunnel projects in the near future. Besides, who has the money?
Seattle, Washington apparently. And wasn't there a big tunnel project somewhere around Dallas, TX?
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 26, 2010, 11:56:04 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 26, 2010, 11:28:46 AM
After how much of a debacle the big dig in Boston turned out to be, I doubt we'll be seeing any major urban highway tunnel projects in the near future. Besides, who has the money?
Seattle, Washington apparently. And wasn't there a big tunnel project somewhere around Dallas, TX?
Well, Seattle doesn't have much of a choice, the Alaskan Way Viaduct might not survive another earthquake.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 26, 2010, 11:56:04 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 26, 2010, 11:28:46 AM
After how much of a debacle the big dig in Boston turned out to be, I doubt we'll be seeing any major urban highway tunnel projects in the near future. Besides, who has the money?
Seattle, Washington apparently. And wasn't there a big tunnel project somewhere around Dallas, TX?
I-635 through DFW Airport was a tunnel though I don't know how long it was.
California's biggest upcoming (so, 20-30 years from now it MAY be finished, if the money and political will ever arrive) tunnel project would be I-710 between Pasadena and Monterey Park.
Personally, I find the 1st option to be the best and most direct, and would totally support something like this.
The only problem I could foresee would be tunnelling so deep (because of all the stuff underground) while providing access to the Brooklyn-Battery Bridge, Downtown Brooklyn and Bridges to Lower Manhattan. That makes me like the fourth option. It seems easier to provide a new route for the BQE while leaving the viaduct up in a reduced capacity. I suppose if that were to happen it could be narrowed and cause people to stick to the new route.
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on September 27, 2010, 09:43:17 PM
The only problem I could foresee would be tunnelling so deep (because of all the stuff underground) while providing access to the Brooklyn-Battery Bridge, Downtown Brooklyn and Bridges to Lower Manhattan. That makes me like the fourth option. It seems easier to provide a new route for the BQE while leaving the viaduct up in a reduced capacity. I suppose if that were to happen it could be narrowed and cause people to stick to the new route.
I would expect the cantilevered part to be removed in its entirety (except for the promenade), which would eliminate its usefulness as a through route, with the rest of the current BQE between the new tunnel portals being '3di' spurs off of that new BQE tunnel routing.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on September 28, 2010, 02:26:37 AM
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on September 27, 2010, 09:43:17 PM
The only problem I could foresee would be tunnelling so deep (because of all the stuff underground) while providing access to the Brooklyn-Battery Bridge, Downtown Brooklyn and Bridges to Lower Manhattan. That makes me like the fourth option. It seems easier to provide a new route for the BQE while leaving the viaduct up in a reduced capacity. I suppose if that were to happen it could be narrowed and cause people to stick to the new route.
I would expect the cantilevered part to be removed in its entirety (except for the promenade), which would eliminate its usefulness as a through route, with the rest of the current BQE between the new tunnel portals being '3di' spurs off of that new BQE tunnel routing.
Mike
But wouldn't that just funnel the traffic that access Downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan through the streets of Brooklyn Heights??
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on September 28, 2010, 09:43:27 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on September 28, 2010, 02:26:37 AM
Quote from: iwishiwascanadian on September 27, 2010, 09:43:17 PM
The only problem I could foresee would be tunnelling so deep (because of all the stuff underground) while providing access to the Brooklyn-Battery Bridge, Downtown Brooklyn and Bridges to Lower Manhattan. That makes me like the fourth option. It seems easier to provide a new route for the BQE while leaving the viaduct up in a reduced capacity. I suppose if that were to happen it could be narrowed and cause people to stick to the new route.
I would expect the cantilevered part to be removed in its entirety (except for the promenade), which would eliminate its usefulness as a through route, with the rest of the current BQE between the new tunnel portals being '3di' spurs off of that new BQE tunnel routing.
Mike
But wouldn't that just funnel the traffic that access Downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan through the streets of Brooklyn Heights??
Yeah it would, onto bridges that could hold the load to a point, but then be worse than the BQE if it was still there.
I dust-off this topic but mentionning those 2 articles from Tollroadnews
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5650
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5635
Quote from: Duke87 on September 26, 2010, 11:28:46 AM
After how much of a debacle the big dig in Boston turned out to be, I doubt we'll be seeing any major urban highway tunnel projects in the near future. Besides, who has the money?
Sweden does:
Stockholm Southern Link (Highway 75) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B6dra_l%C3%A4nken) (opened to traffic in 2004)
Stockholm Northern Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norra_l%C3%A4nken) (under construction now)
Stockholm Western Bypass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6rbifart_Stockholm) (in final engineering)
So does Finland (though I don't have any substantive links online, substantial sections of the Helsinki Ring II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_II) "Super-2" highway is in tunnel, as is the easternmost part of Ring III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_III))
So does Spain:
Autopista de Circunvalación M-30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopista_de_Circunvalaci%C3%B3n_M-30) (Madrid orbital motorway)
So does France:
French low ceiling tunnelways of Duplex A86 comfortable to drive, "not claustrophic" (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3906) (this tunneled toll road is for passenger cars and other light vehicles only - large trucks are prohibited (and don't fit anyway))