News:

The revamped Archives section of AARoads is live.

Main Menu

I-78 New York City

Started by Henry, September 23, 2012, 02:14:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

mgk920

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


empirestate

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?

Duke87

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...
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Henry

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!
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Duke87

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.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Alps

Latest proposals for a Rye crossing are to be privately funded and operated.

Interstatefan78

#31
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. 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

empirestate

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/ 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).

Interstatefan78

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



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.