I read an interesting article on NYCRoads.com concerning the original plans for I-78 and its spur routes (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/unbuilt_NYC). For example, I-478 would not have gone through the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, but used the Manhattan Bridge and Westway instead, and I-78 itself would utilize parts of the Lower Manhattan (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/lower-manhattan/), Bushwick (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/bushwick/), Nassau (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/NY-878/) and Clearview Expressways (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/clearview/). Does anybody have any vintage maps showing the complete I-78 proposal through New York? This would be a great help!
Uh, NYCRoads has the maps you're looking for...
http://www.nycroads.com/history/expwy-map_city/
Quote from: Henry on September 23, 2012, 02:14:21 PM
I read an interesting article on NYCRoads.com concerning the original plans for I-78 and its spur routes (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/unbuilt_NYC). For example, I-478 would not have gone through the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, but used the Manhattan Bridge and Westway instead, and I-78 itself would utilize parts of the Lower Manhattan (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/lower-manhattan/), Bushwick (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/bushwick/), Nassau (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/NY-878/) and Clearview Expressways (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/clearview/). Does anybody have any vintage maps showing the complete I-78 proposal through New York? This would be a great help!
Steve Anderson has an unbelievably detailed number of maps, histories, political intrigues (it is New York, after all) and all sorts of information on what currently exists in New York City roads and what could have been, all on his website. I have spent many hours looking at the wealth of information.
Quote from: Henry on September 23, 2012, 02:14:21 PM
Does anybody have any vintage maps showing the complete I-78 proposal through New York? This would be a great help!
I have an official listing of the state route system from 1970, when some of the highways you describe were still proposed. It's available in the Document Library section of my site at http://www.greaternyroads.info/doclib.
Quote from: Henry on September 23, 2012, 02:14:21 PM
Does anybody have any vintage maps showing the complete I-78 proposal through New York? This would be a great help!
No, but: http://ny.curbed.com/tags/lower-manhattan-expressway
Quote from: NE2 on September 23, 2012, 04:28:38 PM
Uh, NYCRoads has the maps you're looking for...
http://www.nycroads.com/history/expwy-map_city/
Well, duh! I never thought of looking there until now.
Quote from: dgolub on September 23, 2012, 07:44:32 PM
I have an official listing of the state route system from 1970, when some of the highways you describe were still proposed. It's available in the Document Library section of my site at http://www.greaternyroads.info/doclib.
I'll take a look at that as well.
Quote from: empirestate on September 23, 2012, 10:59:59 PM
No, but: http://ny.curbed.com/tags/lower-manhattan-expressway
Which is just as good, if only because what you were referring to was basically a straight shot from the Holland Tunnel to the Williamsburg Bridge.
Quote from: empirestate on September 23, 2012, 10:59:59 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 23, 2012, 02:14:21 PM
Does anybody have any vintage maps showing the complete I-78 proposal through New York? This would be a great help!
No, but: http://ny.curbed.com/tags/lower-manhattan-expressway
That's one funky structure at the bottom left. It's like the Lincoln Tunnel helix on steroids.
Looking at the real Moses plans for the LOMEX, there would have also been an additional loop exiting the Holland Tunnel, which I imagine would have made for a very slow interstate connection in the middle of an already-congested area.
And here's a somewhat related link to a page that features a map of the Mid-Manhattan Expressway as completed:
http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2009/03/18/google_maps_the_way_robert_moses_intended_.php#more
As there is no freeway (ahem, expressway) connection between the Lincoln and Queens-Midtown Tunnels, this is why I-495 no longer exists on the NJ side.
And here's yet another article featuring the aforementioned maps of the LOMEX and Mid-Manhattan Expressways:
http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2009/02/unbuilt-robert-moses-highway-maps/
somewhere I have a photo of a New York I-78 shield that survived in the wild until the mid-2000s!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 24, 2012, 09:24:17 PM
somewhere I have a photo of a New York I-78 shield that survived in the wild until the mid-2000s!
Early. It was gone by mid.
Quote from: empirestate on September 23, 2012, 10:59:59 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 23, 2012, 02:14:21 PM
Does anybody have any vintage maps showing the complete I-78 proposal through New York? This would be a great help!
No, but: http://ny.curbed.com/tags/lower-manhattan-expressway
Screw that. www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/i-78
Didn't a black-lettering-on-white-background freeway sign for the Nassau Expressway linger around JFK into the nineties as well?
What I don't understand about any of this (especially including the LoMEx) is why there appears to have been no consideration given to low-impact urban freeway construction methods, in particular a bored tunnel? Stockholm, Sweden has completed one short underground motorway, with another under construction, with one in final engineering and design and one still in the discussion phase.
In Paris, France, the A86 autoroute was routed through a "duplex" low-ceiling tunnel (no vehicles over 6 feet tall) to avoid impacts on the Palace of Versailles and its grounds.
Quote from: hubcity on September 25, 2012, 10:08:48 AM
Didn't a black-lettering-on-white-background freeway sign for the Nassau Expressway linger around JFK into the nineties as well?
Not quite - it was for the Linden Boulevard exit, just mounted in the median.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2012, 11:09:00 AM
What I don't understand about any of this (especially including the LoMEx) is why there appears to have been no consideration given to low-impact urban freeway construction methods, in particular a bored tunnel?
Because then not even the most deluded would be able to claim that roads pay for themselves.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2012, 11:09:00 AM
What I don't understand about any of this (especially including the LoMEx) is why there appears to have been no consideration given to low-impact urban freeway construction methods, in particular a bored tunnel? Stockholm, Sweden has completed one short underground motorway, with another under construction, with one in final engineering and design and one still in the discussion phase.
Well, this thing was being proposed in the '40s, at which time I don't think the phrase "low-impact urban freeway" had ever entered anyone's mind. In postwar America, the general theme seems to be that any major public infrastructure project should by its nature have a significant impact. Surviving public works from the time are distinctive for their utilitarian, yet aggressively progressive aesthetic, and of course Robert Moses was a subscriber to that school.
By the mid-'60s and until its cancellation in 1971, opposition to this kind of project had begun in earnest, Moses was too set in his ways to rethink it, and his influence was in decline. There just wasn't the will to built it except among its old champions, so nobody bothered to consider things like tunnels. It simply wasn't worth worrying about.
Today, there's no doubt that anyone who seriously proposes reviving Lomex will consider European-style methods like tunneling, but these days the option of just not building it has gained a lot of credence as well. Just because there's a connection that can be made, doesn't mean it
ought to be made, so goes the current thinking.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2012, 11:09:00 AM
What I don't understand about any of this (especially including the LoMEx) is why there appears to have been no consideration given to low-impact urban freeway construction methods, in particular a bored tunnel?
Nothing done underground in Manhattan can reasonably be described as "low impact." The proposed LoMEx, if run underground, would have crossed about half a dozen subway lines, all of which would have to be kept running during and after the road's construction, not to mention all the public utilities (water, gas, steam, sewer, electricity, telephone, cable TV, and in more modern times Internet backbones, both copper and fiber) which would be disrupted. It was the kind of challenge Robert Moses would gladly have accepted, but it would have disrupted life in lower Manhattan for years, if not decades. It would have been much cheaper to elevate the highway as he originally proposed.
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2012, 11:12:48 AM
Not quite - it was for the Linden Boulevard exit, just mounted in the median.
got a photo? was it a 40s-50s porcelain, or a 60s button copy?
there was a porcelain pair for the Douglaston Parkway on a 1930s-looking art deco post which survived into the early 2000s, and I believe there is still one porcelain sign for Atlantic Beach somewhere out in Long Island. at least, it was there in 2008.
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 25, 2012, 02:47:16 PM
Nothing done underground in Manhattan can reasonably be described as "low impact." The proposed LoMEx, if run underground, would have crossed about half a dozen subway lines, all of which would have to be kept running during and after the road's construction, not to mention all the public utilities (water, gas, steam, sewer, electricity, telephone, cable TV, and in more modern times Internet backbones, both copper and fiber) which would be disrupted. It was the kind of challenge Robert Moses would gladly have accepted, but it would have disrupted life in lower Manhattan for years, if not decades. It would have been much cheaper to elevate the highway as he originally proposed.
how far down the subways, utilities, etc. go? would it be feasible to bore the road
even further down underneath all of that? too steep a set of approaches?
I know in Norway there are some under-fjord tunnels which descend pretty heavily from ground level, so it is technically possible.
(also a consideration: the exits into Manhattan - those would, by definition, have to be snarled through existing infrastructure. how useful would this freeway be for local traffic vs. through traffic?)
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 02:29:11 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2012, 11:09:00 AM
What I don't understand about any of this (especially including the LoMEx) is why there appears to have been no consideration given to low-impact urban freeway construction methods, in particular a bored tunnel? Stockholm, Sweden has completed one short underground motorway, with another under construction, with one in final engineering and design and one still in the discussion phase.
Well, this thing was being proposed in the '40s, at which time I don't think the phrase "low-impact urban freeway" had ever entered anyone's mind. In postwar America, the general theme seems to be that any major public infrastructure project should by its nature have a significant impact. Surviving public works from the time are distinctive for their utilitarian, yet aggressively progressive aesthetic, and of course Robert Moses was a subscriber to that school.
Though Moses was the guy that designed and built some pretty nice parkways, even though it was decades before anyone ever heard of "context-sensitive" design. Still, you are correct (consider the New Jersey Turnpike north of New Brunswick or the Capital Beltway as examples).
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 02:29:11 PM
By the mid-'60s and until its cancellation in 1971, opposition to this kind of project had begun in earnest, Moses was too set in his ways to rethink it, and his influence was in decline. There just wasn't the will to built it except among its old champions, so nobody bothered to consider things like tunnels. It simply wasn't worth worrying about.
I think you are also correct about that.
Still, the
need is still there today (though the consensus and political will are definitely not). Nor is the money.
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 02:29:11 PM
Today, there's no doubt that anyone who seriously proposes reviving Lomex will consider European-style methods like tunneling, but these days the option of just not building it has gained a lot of credence as well. Just because there's a connection that can be made, doesn't mean it ought to be made, so goes the current thinking.
Agreed. Though we are thinking differently (in spite of strong opposition, Caltrans and the L.A. MTA are seriously considering a tunnel for the "missing link" of I-710 through South Pasadena).
And Maryland used a load of nice design (including a short cut-and-cover tunnel) to reduce the impact of its Route 200 toll road on the surroundings and the built environment.
Though neither I-710 nor Md. 200 go through an area as intensely-developed as Manhattan.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 25, 2012, 02:50:47 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2012, 11:12:48 AM
Not quite - it was for the Linden Boulevard exit, just mounted in the median.
got a photo? was it a 40s-50s porcelain, or a 60s button copy?
http://streetlights.tripod.com/signs/phhwsgn1.htm
The Linden Boulevard exit is off to the right in the background.
The Goog (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=40.672965,-73.857586&spn=0.007421,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.672943,-73.857495&panoid=OrXwa5UuNbhKRhIcl7LdZQ&cbp=12,89.2,,0,1.35) shows the post is still there as of September 2011, but the signs are gone. Never forget.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2012, 03:41:03 PM
Though Moses was the guy that designed and built some pretty nice parkways, even though it was decades before anyone ever heard of "context-sensitive" design. Still, you are correct (consider the New Jersey Turnpike north of New Brunswick or the Capital Beltway as examples).
Apples and oranges. The parkways are "pretty nice" mainly for drivers, while context-sensitive design is about the concerns of others who use the area.
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2012, 03:49:40 PM
http://streetlights.tripod.com/signs/phhwsgn1.htm
The Linden Boulevard exit is off to the right in the background.
The Goog (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=40.672965,-73.857586&spn=0.007421,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.672943,-73.857495&panoid=OrXwa5UuNbhKRhIcl7LdZQ&cbp=12,89.2,,0,1.35) shows the post is still there as of September 2011, but the signs are gone. Never forget.
porcelain indeed. elsewhere on that guy's site is the photo of the Douglaston sign pair.
http://streetlights.tripod.com/signs/phliesgn.htm
that one also has the gantry preserved, with new green signs installed onto it, as of 2008.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2012, 03:41:03 PM
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 02:29:11 PM
Well, this thing was being proposed in the '40s, at which time I don't think the phrase "low-impact urban freeway" had ever entered anyone's mind. In postwar America, the general theme seems to be that any major public infrastructure project should by its nature have a significant impact. Surviving public works from the time are distinctive for their utilitarian, yet aggressively progressive aesthetic, and of course Robert Moses was a subscriber to that school.
Though Moses was the guy that designed and built some pretty nice parkways, even though it was decades before anyone ever heard of "context-sensitive" design. Still, you are correct (consider the New Jersey Turnpike north of New Brunswick or the Capital Beltway as examples).
He sure did, and I think that's partly as an earlier phase in his interesting evolution of aesthetic and civic principles. But how he got all these projects accomplished shows a definite through line, from the early parkways to the later bridges, expressways and housing projects. He's actually a marvelous character to study as far as representing the changing attitudes of America through the viewpoint of a single man with a long and powerful career.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2012, 03:41:03 PM
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 02:29:11 PM
By the mid-'60s and until its cancellation in 1971, opposition to this kind of project had begun in earnest, Moses was too set in his ways to rethink it, and his influence was in decline. There just wasn't the will to built it except among its old champions, so nobody bothered to consider things like tunnels. It simply wasn't worth worrying about.
I think you are also correct about that.
Still, the need is still there today (though the consensus and political will are definitely not). Nor is the money.
"Need" will always be subjective; it depends who you ask. If the Holland Tunnel "needs" to bring people into Lower Manhattan, it already does that, and to improve on that need, efforts would be better spent on the New Jersey end. But if it "needs" to be connected to the Williamsburg and Manhattan Bridges by an arterial so that NJ will be connected to Brooklyn, then yes, that's missing. "Consensus" is probably more important: when the fact that NJ and Brooklyn aren't connected becomes too much to bear, the will will develop to fix it. I don't think that's true here and now.
It's like a fire "needs" oxygen...if you're camping, you'll nurture that need, but if you're a firefighter, you obstruct it at every turn.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2012, 03:41:03 PM
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 02:29:11 PM
Today, there's no doubt that anyone who seriously proposes reviving Lomex will consider European-style methods like tunneling, but these days the option of just not building it has gained a lot of credence as well. Just because there's a connection that can be made, doesn't mean it ought to be made, so goes the current thinking.
Agreed. Though we are thinking differently (in spite of strong opposition, Caltrans and the L.A. MTA are seriously considering a tunnel for the "missing link" of I-710 through South Pasadena).
And Maryland used a load of nice design (including a short cut-and-cover tunnel) to reduce the impact of its Route 200 toll road on the surroundings and the built environment.
Though neither I-710 nor Md. 200 go through an area as intensely-developed as Manhattan.
CA and MD are definitely places more likely to want to address a highway need than Lower Manhattan, that's for sure.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 25, 2012, 02:52:16 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 25, 2012, 02:47:16 PM
Nothing done underground in Manhattan can reasonably be described as "low impact." The proposed LoMEx, if run underground, would have crossed about half a dozen subway lines, all of which would have to be kept running during and after the road's construction, not to mention all the public utilities (water, gas, steam, sewer, electricity, telephone, cable TV, and in more modern times Internet backbones, both copper and fiber) which would be disrupted. It was the kind of challenge Robert Moses would gladly have accepted, but it would have disrupted life in lower Manhattan for years, if not decades. It would have been much cheaper to elevate the highway as he originally proposed.
how far down the subways, utilities, etc. go? would it be feasible to bore the road even further down underneath all of that? too steep a set of approaches?
The subways in that area are all pretty shallow (as are most subway tunnels in New York). The problem from a tunneling perspective is that the Nassau Street subway (JMZ) already goes from the Williamsburg Bridge to a tunnel under Delancey Street. So getting from the existing bridge roadway to something below that is not possible without swinging the roadway to the side(s) and knocking a bunch of buildings down.
Similarly, once you get west of the end of Delancey Street, there is no ROW that a tunnel could be built under, and you'd have to knock buildings down above ground to dig underneath or go deep enough as to not disturb their foundations.
All this to connect two already heavily congested crossings, and naturally requiring some narrow, tight turns to do so. Such a freeway if it existed would only be a parking lot 20 hours a day much the way the surface streets in the area already are. If you want to build a link between Brooklyn and New Jersey, you're better off going under the harbor and bypassing Manhattan entirely.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 25, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
knocking a bunch of buildings down.
You just made a bunch of geeks smile diabolically.
One of three ways to "solve" this (unneeded) problem.
1: Everything east of I-95 on I-78 in Elizabeth becomes a US highway for remainder I-78 since its surface streets on both sides of the Hudson river. Which would be the second dumbest thing going due to people not wanting to lose their interstates.
2: Turn I-278 south of I-87 into I-87(with 3 full set of exit numbers, why not 4, or better yet, mileage based exit numbers for the whole road) into New Jersey to make it a true Interstate(I know it goes into Canada but hear me out). I-278 north of I-87 currently becomes I-487. I-678 becomes I-795. Thus all there I-78 spurs are connected to their parent by rules.
3: Breezewood West st and a few other side streets until the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, since there no way in hell to turn any of that into a highway, nor the funds to build ANYTHING around the WTC or under it. Which would be the dumbest thing I can think of.
Truthfully, I would leave it as is. If nothing was built by 1965, it isn't going to get built in that area. And after the twin towers were built, NO buildings are being moved or touched in that area.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 25, 2012, 02:52:16 PM
Quote from: SidS1045 on September 25, 2012, 02:47:16 PM
Nothing done underground in Manhattan can reasonably be described as "low impact." The proposed LoMEx, if run underground, would have crossed about half a dozen subway lines, all of which would have to be kept running during and after the road's construction, not to mention all the public utilities (water, gas, steam, sewer, electricity, telephone, cable TV, and in more modern times Internet backbones, both copper and fiber) which would be disrupted. It was the kind of challenge Robert Moses would gladly have accepted, but it would have disrupted life in lower Manhattan for years, if not decades. It would have been much cheaper to elevate the highway as he originally proposed.
how far down the subways, utilities, etc. go? would it be feasible to bore the road even further down underneath all of that? too steep a set of approaches?
I know in Norway there are some under-fjord tunnels which descend pretty heavily from ground level, so it is technically possible.
(also a consideration: the exits into Manhattan - those would, by definition, have to be snarled through existing infrastructure. how useful would this freeway be for local traffic vs. through traffic?)
Over the years, and I have mentioned these musings many times before, I've pondered the idea of drilling a deep-bored trans-Manhattan tunnel (a 'completed' I-495) that would bypass both the Lincoln and Midtown tunnels to connect the Long Island Expressway (I-495) at the BQE (I-278) with the NJTP (I-95) at about interchange 16E, with the existing tunnels to then become 'odd' 3DI spurs ('I-995' for the Lincoln and 'I-978' for the Midtown?) off of that for traffic that is actually bound to and from Manhattan. In my vision, it would be bored below everything use that is currently under Manhattan's streets.
I suppose that something similar could also work for the I-78/LOMEX connections.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on September 30, 2012, 11:36:33 AM
Over the years, and I have mentioned these musings many times before, I've pondered the idea of drilling a deep-bored trans-Manhattan tunnel (a 'completed' I-495) that would bypass both the Lincoln and Midtown tunnels to connect the Long Island Expressway (I-495) at the BQE (I-278) with the NJTP (I-95) at about interchange 16E, with the existing tunnels to then become 'odd' 3DI spurs ('I-995' for the Lincoln and 'I-978' for the Midtown?) off of that for traffic that is actually bound to and from Manhattan. In my vision, it would be bored below everything use that is currently under Manhattan's streets.
I suppose that something similar could also work for the I-78/LOMEX connections.
To me, the question is still always this: to what extent should we seriously consider connecting New Jersey and Long Island? Yes, Long Island is a highly developed place and goods do need to move in and out of it, but at what point do we say, realistically, that it is still and island and so will always be inaccessible to some extent? Conversely, is there a stage at which we decide that the immense undertaking of vertically bypassing Manhattan with a deep bored tunnel–that is, bypassing one island in favor of another–has now become a reasonable and prudent venture, if not indeed essential?
Long Island, after all, was developed because of its proximity to New York City, with all of its goods and services and jobs. Long Island's viability was never due to its proximity to New Jersey, just as Phoenix's viability was never due to its access to water. Where is the balance between improving our infrastructure to provide for the needs of a populace, and accepting the limitations that our chosen settlements have by their very nature?
Realistically, if you wanted to better connect Long Island to the rest of the country, you'd bypass the city entirely with a Sound crossing. This would be of more benefit to Nassau and Suffolk counties than a tunnel under Manhattan or under the harbor. The latter would better benefit Brooklyn, but then a lot of people in Brooklyn don't own cars, so...
Quote from: Duke87 on September 30, 2012, 11:00:25 PM
Realistically, if you wanted to better connect Long Island to the rest of the country, you'd bypass the city entirely with a Sound crossing. This would be of more benefit to Nassau and Suffolk counties than a tunnel under Manhattan or under the harbor. The latter would better benefit Brooklyn, but then a lot of people in Brooklyn don't own cars, so...
I'd love to know how you'd get this done!
Quote from: Henry on October 01, 2012, 11:12:49 AM
I'd love to know how you'd get this done!
Well, neither is happening anytime soon! But the Sound crossing would be of greater benefit if built, 'specially since it'd probably be cheaper.
Latest proposals for a Rye crossing are to be privately funded and operated.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 30, 2012, 11:00:25 PM
Realistically, if you wanted to better connect Long Island to the rest of the country, you'd bypass the city entirely with a Sound crossing. This would be of more benefit to Nassau and Suffolk counties than a tunnel under Manhattan or under the harbor. The latter would better benefit Brooklyn, but then a lot of people in Brooklyn don't own cars, so...
I do think the best highway for your Long Island Sound crossing will be I-287, since it's New York City's beltway. Steve Anderson has an article about the Long Island Sound Crossing. The link is [http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/oysterbay-rye (http://[http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/oysterbay-rye). This will solve the congestion on I-495 from the Queens-Midtown Tunnel down to Calverton. The Oyster Bay Rye Crossing will help Long Island to upstate New York traffic, bypassing the 5 boroughs. :D
Moderated to proper English and one font
Quote from: Interstatefan78 on October 02, 2012, 10:57:44 PM
I do think the best highway for your long island sound crossing will be I-287 since it's New York City's beltway and Steve Anderson has an article about the long Island Sound Crossing the link is http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/oysterbay-rye/ (http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/oysterbay-rye/) this will solve the congestion on I-495 from Queens Midtown tunnel down to Calverton. Oyster Bay Rye Crossing will help Long Island to Up State New York by passing the 5 boroughs. :D
I'm not sure about that. The Throgs Neck Bridge is the current upstate-to-Long Island crossing, and the worst congestion on 495 is already west of it, in Queens. I'm pretty sure most of that traffic is originating in Queens or Manhattan, not from upstate, or else comprises commercial traffic coming from the south and west (via I-278). You do of course get congestion east of the TNB on 495 through Nassau County, but that's primarily intra-island traffic following commute patterns, not an influx from the northwest. A new sound crossing at Rye would do far more to alleviate congestion in the Bronx than anywhere on Long Island, but even so, I commute regularly from the Bronx to eastern Long Island, and it is by no means the predominant traffic pattern in the borough.
In other words, the five boroughs' traffic woes are their own. A new Long Island sound crossing will benefit those crossing Long Island Sound. It won't solve NYC congestion (and would probably make it a lot worse wherever it touches down on the island).
Quote from: Perfxion on September 25, 2012, 10:25:57 PM
One of three ways to "solve" this (unneeded) problem.
1: Everything east of I-95 on I-78 in Elizabeth becomes a US highway for remainder I-78 since its surface streets on both sides of the Hudson river. Which would be the second dumbest thing going due to people not wanting to lose their interstates.
2: Turn I-278 south of I-87 into I-87(with 3 full set of exit numbers, why not 4, or better yet, mileage based exit numbers for the whole road) into New Jersey to make it a true Interstate(I know it goes into Canada but hear me out). I-278 north of I-87 currently becomes I-487. I-678 becomes I-795. Thus all there I-78 spurs are connected to their parent by rules.
3: Breezewood West st and a few other side streets until the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, since there no way in hell to turn any of that into a highway, nor the funds to build ANYTHING around the WTC or under it. Which would be the dumbest thing I can think of.
Truthfully, I would leave it as is. If nothing was built by 1965, it isn't going to get built in that area. And after the twin towers were built, NO buildings are being moved or touched in that area.
I do think that US-22 should remerge with I-78 for the Second time in New Jersey this time from Exit 57- Holland tunnel since I-78 is a surface street on the NJ and NY side of the Holland tunnel, and this will make US-22 and I-78 run for 67 milies from Phillipsburg up to NYC