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
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments