Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

signal_tower_product t1_japkhmr wrote

Reminder that adding lanes doesn’t fix traffic, extending the G train and having it come more frequently + Interborough Express are the alternatives

96

Colombia17 t1_japn9c7 wrote

Yea it’s mind boggling that there’s no train going from Queens to Brooklyn directly

29

anchoviepaste4dinner t1_jaqy9ks wrote

The g train has enters the chat

30

twelvydubs t1_jarbsvg wrote

The G train has like 1 station at the tip of queens, it barely counts

27

dust1990 t1_jargf17 wrote

It used to and still can run to Forest Hills on the QB branch.

13

twelvydubs t1_jarl7aw wrote

Oh I know, so dumb that they stopped running it to Forest Hills

12

TeamMisha t1_jat9clk wrote

Didn't it stop running due to headway issues with the QB line (already many trains?) Maybe the situation is different now that I get literally one fucking R train per 15 minutes lol, would be curious about a feasibility study on re-activating service.

3

koji00 t1_jau8x7a wrote

It's because they added trains on QB via the new connection to the 63rd Street Tunnel, so something had to give.

3

jonnycash11 t1_jartwie wrote

G Train used to provide service all the way to Forest Hills

5

IIAOPSW t1_jarbt5b wrote

The G, J, and technically the M. Though there is a noticeable transit desert which can and should be bridged. The tracks are there ffs.

8

Grass8989 t1_japllu7 wrote

Again, this isn’t adding lanes, it’s reinstating a lane that already exists and was lessened to 2 lanes for a small portion of the BQE which creates a bottleneck at all times of the day.

28

webswinger666 t1_japnmb4 wrote

it was already a bottleneck and now it’s even worse.

21

Grass8989 t1_japq7mi wrote

This is true, but it used to be fairly clear after 7 or 8pm, now theres always some sort of traffic in the reduced lane section, regardless of the time of day/night.

21

LiterallyBismarck t1_jarijc5 wrote

If the lanes were re-opened, traffic would immediately improve along the route. People would notice the lack of traffic, and start driving more, since now it's convenient. The number of cars driving would increase until traffic was so unbearable that people are encouraged to use other methods of getting around, changing when they make their trip, or just don't make the trip at all. If the bottleneck isn't in this section of road, it'll be somewhere else along the route, but somewhere is going to be completely choked in traffic. This plays out over and over again with every freeway widening project, I don't see why we'd expect this to be different.

11

Grass8989 t1_jas9mdl wrote

Not everyone is on the BQE for the same amount of time. Before this bottleneck traffic was significantly better. It would improve traffic flow, period.

2

nyny909 t1_jas9euz wrote

Also bottlenecks cause more pollution

5

thebruns t1_jasntkc wrote

By the time construction is done no one will remember what gas cars were

2

Pool_Shark t1_jaq7t6i wrote

Tell that to the Kosziosko bridge. After they increased the lanes there the bottle neck on that part of the BQE is not even a fraction as bad as it used to be.

NY is a unique city and those studies done elsewhere don’t always translate

22

cdavidg4 t1_jaqzgms wrote

I don't think that project is a good example of disproving induced demand as its purpose was more to reduce weaving at a poorly designed interchange than add a long stretch of additional capacity.

I also am not fully convinced the lane reduction on the small section of the BQE is a good representation of induced demand either as the capacity was maintained at either end.

17

dytele t1_jaqzc1b wrote

Correct, thew new design is working better than the old

14

Pool_Shark t1_jar4ahw wrote

Because it added more lanes!

−5

b1argg t1_jarcml8 wrote

It reduced the incline grade so the climb is easier for large trucks. They also reworked the LIE interchange. No lanes were added to the through BQE, just the LIE ramps.

15

socialcommentary2000 t1_jareuod wrote

The ergonomics of the bridge complete changed. And they changed how it interacts with the LIE.

7

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_japtubt wrote

That would only work if freight trains could run on the G line instead of passenger only service.

But as long as the MTA is opposed to sharing right of way, that’s not an alternative.

0

signal_tower_product t1_japu0rz wrote

You don’t need to use the IND crosstown line, the bay ridge branch exists just build the cross harbor tunnel

7

socialcommentary2000 t1_jarfjo2 wrote

We do not have the transload facilities anywhere in the city or Nassau County to have this work and you're not fitting well cars anywhere along that branch. That type of wagon also cannot go on any lines with 3rd rail or you no longer have a working 3rd rail (because it will be smashed to pieces). Also, all locomotives that would be used on this line have to be specially modified, again, to not destroy the 3rd rail on the line. Same issue with CSX dispatching from Selkirk down to Oak Point and over the Hell Gate...Special power is needed and you're constrained to standard bulk hauling rail cars, not wells.

I'm as much of an intermodal freight transit dork as anyone, but unless you can scale it up to Plate H double stacks and have the facilities to handle them, it's not gonna happen. If not, you're putting standard boxes on flat cars and running them in single strings and at that point, you might as well use a truck. In addition, I you can even put high cube boxes on flatcars and have them work on the ancient tunnels along the Branch. The clearance is just too low.

8

signal_tower_product t1_jas339o wrote

Also just build the facilities, truck transportation is not the future & not sustainable. All of the problems you just pointed out can easily be solved but that involves change which nobody likes

5

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_japu566 wrote

That only solves one destination. You still need places to load/unload to trucks along the line in Brooklyn.

7

signal_tower_product t1_japuamt wrote

You could probably build some new freight/distribution center in south Brooklyn somewhere where freight could be offloaded from trains to delivery (not semi) trucks to their final destination

0

Dont_mute_me_bro t1_jaqu0lp wrote

Real estate is hugely expensive. The only places are along Sunset Park's 1st and 2nd Avenues and the trucks would have to take the BQE to get to much of the rest of Brooklyn and/or Queens.

4

signal_tower_product t1_jas2ou5 wrote

I said south Brooklyn tf

0

Dont_mute_me_bro t1_javj9po wrote

Shouldn't it be "South Brooklyn" then? Either way...where? Real estate is too expensive. You could in Red Hook but the trucks have to get out and about, no? And they'll be....on the BQE.

2

signal_tower_product t1_jaw4u1z wrote

OR you could build a rail line replacing the BQE (would be underground & freight rail only). I love how you’re so BQE-Centric about freight transport in Brooklyn it’s astonishing

0

Dont_mute_me_bro t1_jb4k3gj wrote

There's only two roads to get from Douglaston to Red Hook. One is the BQE throughou Brooklyn Hts. The other is the Belt Parkway which is closed to trucks. That's that.

0

signal_tower_product t1_jb4kjyb wrote

You sure? Theoretically there’s multiple ways

1

Dont_mute_me_bro t1_jb4n5ni wrote

On highways, yes. GCP is off limits to trucks, too.

There's no other major roadway. Unless you're suggesting that trucks go through streets like Atlantic Avenue, Ft Hamilton Parkway, Kings Highway, the Conduit, etc. Sure there's the Van Wyk but you have to get access somehow and the last thing it needs is more trucks. Moreover, all those trucks in poorer areas with high asthma rates is "environmental racism".

0