You must log in or register to comment.

CarlCarbonite t1_j9uqc5y wrote

The cantilever will be fixed when it collapses and kills people. If I’m wrong I will be shocked.


drpvn t1_j9ugo3z wrote

This seems like a project that would get finished in 70 years.


The_Lone_Apple t1_j9umdp2 wrote

After multiple lawsuits brought by fake community groups and cost overruns that surpass the GDP of Latvia.


rustyclown617 t1_j9vx74s wrote

It would make the Big Dig in Boston look like a well-managed endeavor.


Vdawgp t1_ja5oj4s wrote

Ahem; as a Bostonian parachuting in I would like to say that in the context of what was being done, the Big Dig was well managed. They used the existing Elevated Artery as support struts to tunnel underneath, extended 90 under Fort Point to Logan, reconnected the North End to Boston, all while not shutting down any roads. They performed the equivalent of brain surgery on a patient while still awake. Is there certain things I’d like them to have done better? Yes (don’t source screws from a negligent contractor, actually build NSRL while your at it, built housing on the useless green space). But by and large, I think you can argue it was the most successfully run mega project in the US since LBJ.


koreamax t1_j9ujxut wrote

It'll be beachfront property by then, at least


snackandsmack t1_j9y5nv0 wrote

Or just wait til its eventual collapse and 1000 deaths. Bet it'll be finished in 2 years.


solo-ran t1_j9vbadj wrote

I hate the BQE with a passion because I have to drive a truck on it. Trucks bring in almost every bite of food everyone in the city eats, etc. trucks keep the city alive. Truck drivers are tortured in New York, especially on the BQE. Whatever the solution, a BQE tunnel with few on or off ramps and maybe ezpass congestion pricing for commercial traffic would help defray costs. I would pay a $30 toll to get the cars out of there and do my route.


Bertie_Woo t1_j9yqjvm wrote

I think we should fund a 6+ lane tunnel with bonds purchased by Brooklyn Heights residents and charge tolls to private drivers, but not trucks.


Grass8989 t1_j9vgr4n wrote

Why not do your deliveries by bike?


solo-ran t1_j9vhd1e wrote

Wouldn't work for my business - trust me. And I don't know about getting products into a grocery store either. But some e-bike on bike lane deliveries will be faster and cheaper I'm sure - and then businesses will need local warehouses which cost millions and that'll be another deal breaker. Conceivably, you could have a warehouse close to Brooklyn or way out in an affordable part and then deliver products on bike lanes if the infrastructure was there but you'd still need trucks to bring the products to the warehouse from far away. Somehow, the city has to accommodate trucks. The city does not have to accommodate private personal vehicles for trips that could be made with public transport.


Grass8989 t1_j9vjwd9 wrote

I was being ironic because people would actually suggest that and be serious.


TeamMisha t1_j9wdo46 wrote

No one (reputable, that I've seen anyways) is suggesting we entirely replace trucks with bikes, come on lol. The use cases being studied and considered are expanding what we already do, such as Amazon using cargo bikes for neighborhood level last mile delivery. UPS is piloting it too. This is private enterprise doing this btw, no one is forcing them, Amazon is all about money so IMO it says a lot they favor using this method when possible meaning it's probably quite cost effective.


Grass8989 t1_j9wiuz2 wrote

Amazon is quickly transfering their fleet to EVs, so they’re already significantly decreasing costs. I’ve been seeing their rivian based vans all over the place.


TeamMisha t1_j9wj7bh wrote

Yes they use the vans as well. The bikes they use in Manhattan all over the place and also via Whole Foods. This is in essence studying "mini logistics" systems, you send the truck to unload at a mini warehouse and then use cargo bikes or other sort of micro vehicles to ship out the goods. Gorilla and Getr use(d) this model as well. It doesn't necessarily make sense to use a van or truck for all cases.


pompcaldor t1_j9ymk6t wrote


TeamMisha t1_j9yxp1d wrote

Don't mean that, no. I mean a physical building. Amazon, unfortunately, uses trucks as the logistics center and will have up to a dozen workers unpack and sort the contents right there in the street or sidewalk and often, as you mention, block bike lanes, bus lanes, or the road itself. There is some discussion about moving this behavior to actual logistics centers, and discussions about zoning that would allow this, since "warehousing" is technically a different zone type then retail. In the case of Whole Foods, however, they park bikes outside the store where they load them and send them out, that's the more ideal model, or if they were to rent space to use as storage hubs. I'm opposed to their truck model, unless, they can park it safely. That's another discussion though about curb management.


solo-ran t1_j9w9tyo wrote

I should have guessed… instead I thought: could we make deliveries with a cargo ebike? Sometimes maybe. And if we had a building and safe efficient bike paths, did small deliveries… maybe it would be better in some ways. It’s actually a good idea - without replacing sitting in a truck on the BQE wishing there were more to life. The truck still would have to get to the warehouse.


ReadItUser42069365 t1_j9wypeo wrote

Yea people are fairly ignorant (myself included) of what is it last mile delivery? In a perfect would we would have invested more in rail and then doing lasting delivery from train station adjacent warehouses. How better rails into nyc would have looked? Fuck if I know but this shit right now sure is a mess. Thanks for bringing in my shit tho. I'll be letting you zipper merge only to have BMW or Acura cut us off


Arleare13 t1_j9unk5x wrote

A tunnel would certainly be the best solution, but getting there seems utterly impractical. How do you conceivably build a tunnel through some of the densest areas of Brooklyn (including through the Atlantic Terminal transit complex) without impossibly enormous cost and disruption?

The article says that proponents claim that current tunneling technology would allow it to be built without disturbing properties at ground level, but I can't help but be skeptical.


throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j9w5ug2 wrote

I have that flavor of autism that compels me to watch promotional technical product demonstration of Swiss tunnel boring machines.

It can be done.


KosherSloth t1_j9xiz63 wrote

Can be done? Absolutely.

Can be done in Nyc? Lmfao


birthdaycakefig t1_ja2ulg3 wrote

It’s sad that this is just the default, not only in nyc but as a country. We’ve stopped progress and have become ok with saying “nah, it’s too hard”.


Important-Ad1871 t1_j9uquw4 wrote

Dig a deep tunnel in stable ground. That’s what they’re doing on 2nd Ave. I don’t know if they can do it without enormous cost, though.


akmalhot t1_j9wmljz wrote

You mean what they've been trying to do for a century ?


Serious_Historian578 t1_ja57bhq wrote

Deep tunnels work for trains that people take stairs/elevators down into. It's not realistic for a road that people need to get on and off of


Edwunclerthe3rd t1_j9x3pz1 wrote

I'm curious as to if this is easier or harder for queens, due to the geology. Manhattan is very close to bedrock while parts of BK Queens is up to 250 feet to bedrock


DeathLeopard t1_j9uqa81 wrote


oreosfly t1_j9uvqx7 wrote

WA 99 is a brand new tunnel that was built when the existing WA 99 elevated structure was still in use. When the tunnel was ready, the old highway closed and traffic was seamlessly redirected to the new tunnel.

The BQE has no existing alternate roadway to reroute traffic during construction. That probably adds immense complexity to this project compared to Seattle’s


TeamMisha t1_j9wd6rd wrote

> The BQE has no existing alternate roadway to reroute traffic during construction

Indeed, this is why the original plan was going to spend multiple billions of dollars to literally build a massive temporary highway lol. That was deemed, obviously, as insanity, and thankfully we did not go through with it. This is all known as "MPT" or maintenance and protection of traffic, and is usually one of the most complex pieces of any large traffic engineering project. A great example is the construction at LaGuardia (and soon JFK), how roadway access was maintained through each construction phase with a myriad of temporary roadways and structures.


WorthPrudent3028 t1_j9xh47r wrote

Couldn't you force trucks onto Furman street and cars through the tunnel to the FDR? Maybe pause toll collection to encourage that route.

Furman may have to close too. So build a new temporary trucks only road through the park. That park is going to be nearly inaccessible during construction anyway.


TeamMisha t1_j9z0ay4 wrote

> Couldn't you force trucks onto Furman street

Potentially, but the turn at Old Fulton may be problematic for trucks, it would need to be studied. Any truck diversion route would of course get pushback from local communities as well, complicating the problem. Trucks going northbound on Furman can't re-enter the BQE until Sands Street, which again could be problematic but may be the best option.

> So build a new temporary trucks only road through the park.

Definitely not possible, Parks dept would absolutely not allow destruction of park property for such a use case, nor is park land suitable for trucks. It may also be impossible given the terrain and geography of the park, as well as multiple buildings in the way. I think 'environmental disaster' would be the headlines used for such a proposal lol. Much of the park includes piers and water front activities that should remain accessible regardless of construction, so it's not as if the park will be vacated.


ctindel t1_j9wna1c wrote

Because they were idiots and didn't take the time during March and April of 2020 when almost nobody was driving to just close the BQE entirely and bang it out 24x7 nonstop like a Vegas casino project.


fuchsdh t1_ja47qf8 wrote

Hindsight is 20/20. Not going to blame the city in the middle of a massive pandemic for not fast-tracking road fixes (especially since you'd need workers in a time before vaccines and high Covid lethality to do it.)


ctindel t1_ja4lmn5 wrote

It’s not a “road” is a massive arterial highway that is falling down. They should have ready to go plans on the shelf like Moses did so when an opportunity arises they can jump on it quickly. Construction work was one of the necessary jobs like grocery stores and first responders IIRC and it was outdoors so it was pretty safe.


WikiSummarizerBot t1_j9uqbxj wrote

State Route 99 tunnel

>The State Route 99 tunnel, also known as the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel, is a bored highway tunnel in the city of Seattle, Washington, United States. The 2-mile (3. 2 km), double-decker tunnel carries a section of State Route 99 (SR 99) under Downtown Seattle from SoDo in the south to South Lake Union in the north. Since the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct had been the source of much political controversy demonstrating the Seattle process.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


KaiDaiz t1_j9vcxu1 wrote

Also love that we considering a pricey tunnel to improve the neighborhood, and air quality in one of the priciest parts of Brooklyn when we still debating capping highways in poor areas of Bronx that's been asking for a long time.

Tunnel idea basically a want idea to boast their land values & remove the unsightly expressway blocking their views. Fix that road as is, if they want a different route do it and we think about capping it in the future.


TeamMisha t1_j9wgiap wrote

I agree, CBE seems more pressing tbh when there is already a proposal for the BQE to rebuild the cantilever into a basic and cheaper to maintain box-structure with park space on top. DOT is kicking off a multi-million dollar study for the CBE but I don't foresee capping ever happening really


Bertie_Woo t1_j9yq1li wrote

The Brooklyn Heights section is also uniquely owned by the city. I think the wealthy Brooklyn Heights residents should buy bonds to fund the tunnel/park. The completed project would benefit everyone.


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_ja0jbwz wrote

great, let's set the precedent that neighborhoods only get the infrastructure they can directly fund, that definitely won't backfire


Bertie_Woo t1_ja0li20 wrote

I don't think they even have enough money to directly fund it fully. All the NY Moses highways were originally funded by bonds. Seems fair that they would be buried with a similar mechanism.


shant_jan t1_j9uuci4 wrote

if we could do this, it would be absolutely the best case scenario. something about tunnels make new yorkers actually drive kinda of sanely vs the bqe today which people treat like a pot holed rainbow road


TeamMisha t1_j9wgtwo wrote

It's a phenomenon of traffic calming principles: narrower roadway makes you wanna drive slower and more carefully cause you feel like you're gonna clip the walls or adjacent vehicles. Tunnels do that quite well. You could get similar effects on a highway if you narrowed each lane and even put overgrowing shrubs and trees along the walls that make you feel like the road is even smaller.


azspeedbullet t1_j9ur5rz wrote

boston has the big dig, what do we call this?


femaiden t1_j9uxk5o wrote

The Brooklyn Burrow


rayhiggenbottom t1_j9v3zds wrote

You son of a bitch, I'm in.


D_Ashido t1_j9v8b6x wrote

Second that.

Reddit; if this project moves forward we will all call this The Brooklyn Burrow.


femaiden t1_j9w1xaj wrote

I want my reddit username on the plaque.

Edit: if it catches on I'm telling my kids and grandkids I came up with the name and they'll never believe me


D_Ashido t1_j9z60ej wrote

Yes, we have to make sure they don't do you dirty with size 6 font on the bottom while traffic is speeding by 😆.


ctindel t1_j9wnetg wrote

Or the Brooklyn Boondoggle


Bertie_Woo t1_j9yu1ba wrote

This would be the least of them. It has a clear goal.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j9vumgb wrote

A capped highway would be a lot cheaper and simpler to construct than a tunnel. This may be an example of the "perfect" being the enemy of the good.

And it would still be transformative.

>Time could be an issue if the city chooses to build a tunnel. In Boston, the "Big Dig" construction project was plagued by delays and overruns — causing their tunnel project to take more than a decade and cost $24 billion.
>The other option, called the "capped highway plan," calls for the BQE to be replaced by a street-level roadway with a deck over it. That plan would expand Brooklyn Bridge Park, making it one of the largest in the borough.
>The latter plan would cost $3.5 billion and take six years to complete.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j9w0ksl wrote

I partially agree with this.

Capping might be a better compromise from all perspectives. It gets rid of the big variable that is tunneling and replaces it with something NYC has done for a century with success (covering). It’s effectively how most of the subway was built. But the cut part of cut/cover is already done. Rebuild the roadway and cap it. Then turn that cap into a park.


MrNewking t1_j9wg777 wrote

But then how would we turn that into a trillion dollar project that takes 80 years?


Bertie_Woo t1_j9ytqrv wrote

I think boxing it in could be cool, but keep in mind it is already capped by the Promenade, and Brooklyn Bridge Park has a large sound barrier. Tunneling could also be completed while the current structure is in operation.


neutralpoliticsbot t1_ja52l6k wrote

in the end Big Dig was worth it that area in Boston is so nice now and prices for property went up 1000x


D_Ashido t1_j9v9feo wrote

Tunnel is a great idea, but having it be two lanes only the entire run is suicide.


mowotlarx t1_j9vfbyq wrote

Good luck getting the Brooklyn Heights/DUMBO NIMBYs to allow any project to fix the BQE to go forward. They'd let the cantilever collapse totally before they agree to make any small sacrifice to fix it.


honest86 t1_j9vp8nz wrote

Seems like an overly expensive project which primarily benefits a handful of wealthy homeowners in Brooklyn Heights. If we're going to spend this kind of money on the neighborhood we have to open it up for more families to live there.


KaiDaiz t1_j9vvufb wrote

yup they also adamant to not do any changes that disrupt their promenade view


Bertie_Woo t1_j9yul71 wrote

Some of the proposed rebuilds have a light rail line.


ohwhatj t1_j9vyprs wrote

So basically, not in our life time?


The_Question757 t1_j9vne6k wrote

Not going to happen. Here's the truth. The BQE will remain shit and get various patch jobs and we will have to live with that because no grand project such as funneling the BQE would ever get off the ground in this day and age


KidAstoria t1_j9wvhua wrote

Bad idea. Too much money to waste on this which could go to better things. Plus it will disrupt the community and the park.


neodymiumPUSSYmagnet t1_j9vrn6h wrote

I'm curious to know what the proposal's solution is to navigating 5 underground subway lines, Atlantic Terminal and at least one aqueduct. Not trying to be cynical and say it's impossible but it sounds like a hell of a feat.


TeamMisha t1_j9wibq0 wrote

I can't find the detailed study (if it was done or just a prelim conceptual review) but it looks like they proposed 350-500 feet tunnel depth which maybe would clear the subway tunnels. I imagine they couldn't ignore these conflicts so maybe that was what led to this depth.


gh234ip t1_j9wtpqs wrote

That's 35 - 50 floors below the ground, and you'd also need to add ventilation shafts, and emergency exits.


TeamMisha t1_j9wuprk wrote

Article mentions emergency egress shafts, yes, says they would need 4k sq ft for it.


grandzu t1_ja3k2on wrote

Hey, how about fixing up the other parts of the BQE not surrounded by millionaires?


ehsurfskate t1_j9y5c0t wrote

This is an insane idea. It would easily cost multiple billions of dollars and take 10-15 years. Half of that same money could create 10,000s of truly city owned affordable housing units (not just subsidized but privately owned).


SachaCuy t1_j9yukli wrote

even dollar I would take that over the 2nd ave subway extension.


gobeklitepewasamall t1_ja5rv6j wrote

There’s a huge stretch of empty “sound proofing” mounds in that stupid privatized park along furman, the city allowed to go to a private developer with a public easement. It’s crying out for eminent domain.

Unless we can do a pontoon bridge bypass.


Dont_mute_me_bro t1_j9y75nt wrote

The financing and after that the cost is what concerns me. We're paying over $10 to cross the Verrazano and GW Bridges each way. The Verrazano is 60 years old. Surely it's paid for itself by now.

As to the Big Dig...The original estimated cost was $2.8 billion. The final project cost was $14.6 billion. The Boston Globe estimates the Big Dig will ultimately cost $22 billion (with interest) and that it won't be paid for until 2038. With inflation being what is is, I can't imagine that in current dollars.


Even_Acadia3085 t1_j9z1uv5 wrote

Big Dig was expensive but had major technical issues this project would not have. Also, even with the huge costs, it surely has created over $22B in value to the city of Boston already. Getting rid of BQE in front of Brooklyn waterfront might do the same, although since the vast majority of the area is already very expensive and landmarked (justifiably) this might not create the sort of building boom seen up north.


Dont_mute_me_bro t1_j9z7keg wrote

Between the subway lines, the water being Brough in from the Catskills, and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, I don't see how it's done without being astronomically expensive.


KaiDaiz t1_j9v474y wrote

Building a expensive tunnel next to coast that's likely to flood in future due to rising sea levels ...great idea and never will be done on time/budget


newestindustry t1_j9v8xan wrote

Everyone knows a tunnel under water is completely impossible


KaiDaiz t1_j9v96cy wrote

not impossible, question is it worth the money and time given the difficulties - right now its not


newestindustry t1_j9v9pmk wrote

True, it will probably be a lot cheaper in the future


KaiDaiz t1_j9vaesa wrote

when has govt infrastructure projects especially major ones ever get cheaper? either patch it up or build a new expressway along coast or elsewhere


Grass8989 t1_j9v51dz wrote

Not to mention the inevitable significant pushback from the residents of bay ridge/sunset park and beyond when the hear about the constant jackhammering digging that will be taking place for 20+ years.


newestindustry t1_j9v9ho9 wrote

Sunset Park and Bay Ridge? Where in the article does it talk about tunneling down there?


Grass8989 t1_j9vbzqp wrote

That’s where the raised portion of the BQE begins? Regardless any neighborhood that would be impacted by this construction that will likely take decades is probably going to push against it.


TeamMisha t1_j9webrc wrote

The city only has jurisdiction over what is referred to as "BQE Central". The section is basically what's in Brooklyn Heights and Dumbo (the triple cantilever and a bit north of it). The rest is state owned which the city cannot change on its own. There has been discussion recently about encouraging the state to join discussions about the future of the entire corridor, but right now the city basically is just looking at its own section.


newestindustry t1_j9ve6h7 wrote

Ok so you didn’t read it


Grass8989 t1_j9vfo4s wrote

It’s even more unrealistic than I thought. Trying to dig a tunnel through the densest part of Brooklyn would displace many people as well a ruin their quality of life for decades. Not to mention has the feasibility of this been studied with subway tunnels also being in those areas?


YaksInSlax t1_j9vp5c7 wrote

Why would building a tunnel (under the ground) displace people (above the ground)?


Bertie_Woo t1_j9yvwt8 wrote

I agree, the tunnel is the least disruptive option with the best result. Brooklyn Heights residents should help pay for it before the current structure collapses. Otherwise their shield from construction noise will be gone.


Important-Ad1871 t1_j9uqkip wrote

Can we just get rid of it? New York was fine for 200 years without it and other cities have experienced success just eliminating waterfront highways (Seattle & SF) + west side elevated highway


Grass8989 t1_j9v2xxl wrote

The BQE has no viable alternative and is part of the interstate highway system(I-278) It also is major commercial thoroughfare for the entire city, so no.


D_Ashido t1_j9v8sdu wrote

BQE is actually I-278. One of the few highways that was built from the controversial Interstate 78 NYC project.


[deleted] t1_j9v93q0 wrote



D_Ashido t1_j9vaimh wrote

> The city survived just fine before the BQE, and would be able to do so again if it went away.

When the city was fine with it, we didn't have the population it does today AND we didn't debilitate our Borough's railroad infrastructure yet. Bay Ridge Branch was catenary electrified and multi track service with stubs to directly serve vendors for freight; solving the need for all of the trucks traveling to reach areas in Brooklyn. (Not subway)

We've done very little to boost up other modes of transportation outside of automobiles and now when we need alts we are screwed.


TetraCubane t1_j9vbhbn wrote

Congestion on the Van Wyck and Cross Island would skyrocket.


b1argg t1_j9vaj2j wrote

by "served by" you mean barely even entered


riotburn t1_j9v1q22 wrote

Does San Francisco have other highways? How do you eliminate the only highway in the city's largest borough?


blakeley t1_j9v510z wrote

SF had the Embarcadero that collapsed in an earthquake, they didn’t rebuild and things there seem fine with street cars along the waterfront.


riotburn t1_j9v6oz6 wrote

SF has less than half the population density of Brooklyn, and from Google maps appears to have a lot of wide avenues. And you're saying the highway ends at the terminus for prob most of where people are going to.


LiterallyBismarck t1_j9vxte9 wrote

Cities don't need highways to function, there's plenty without them in Europe and Asia. Even in North America, Vancouver does just fine without a highway.


riotburn t1_j9vzxox wrote

They don't have highways circling the city?


LiterallyBismarck t1_j9w1k05 wrote

The BQE doesn't circle the city, it goes right through the heart of downtown Brooklyn.


riotburn t1_j9w7pa0 wrote

I mean it doesn't go through downtown Brooklyn...only bisects Williamsburg and Greenpoint.


LiterallyBismarck t1_j9x6h6k wrote

I don't know what your definition of "downtown Brooklyn" is, but when I look on Google Maps, the BQE next to the Manhattan Bridge is literally a block away from the "Downtown Brooklyn" bridge, and it basically divides Dumbo from the rest of Brooklyn. I'm struggling to imagine what you think would qualify as going through downtown Brooklyn, if you don't think this counts.


b1argg t1_j9vac84 wrote

it's a necessity for Brooklyn, and some Queens, residents to leave the island. Especially with congestion pricing coming.


Important-Ad1871 t1_j9vfw62 wrote

I’m not sure I see your point re:congestion pricing


b1argg t1_j9vgcbc wrote

because the BQE is the way to bypass manhattan


oreosfly t1_j9vjsv3 wrote

If you want to go from Queens/Bk/LI to New Jersey, the cheapest way is to take one of the free East River crossings into Manhattan and then cross the island to the Holland/Lincoln/GWB. This is a toll free route. Once you start charging drivers $23 to enter the CBD, they will begin diverting around the CBD and take either go north via RFW or Cross Bronx to the GW (which will cost about $7), or they will take the BQE south to the Verrazzano and leave via the Goethals/Outer Bridge (cost about $7 as well).

If you have all this extra traffic going onto the BQE to go around the CBD and the BQE is not able to handle that extra load, you can see how this quickly spirals into an unmitigated clusterfuck


Important-Ad1871 t1_j9vovs3 wrote

Oh, then just make all of the roads cost the same and the traffic situation won’t change


I do appreciate the breakdown, though


oreosfly t1_j9yvyxb wrote

The point is to route traffic around the CBD, though. If you make all roads cost the same, then people will say "well, I'm paying the same shit anyways so I might as well continue cutting through Manhattan". The entire purpose of congestion pricing is to route people around Manhattan rather than through it.