Submitted by psychothumbs t3_11goj5i in nyc
Comments
Colombia17 t1_japn9c7 wrote
Yea it’s mind boggling that there’s no train going from Queens to Brooklyn directly
anchoviepaste4dinner t1_jaqy9ks wrote
The g train has enters the chat
twelvydubs t1_jarbsvg wrote
The G train has like 1 station at the tip of queens, it barely counts
dust1990 t1_jargf17 wrote
It used to and still can run to Forest Hills on the QB branch.
twelvydubs t1_jarl7aw wrote
Oh I know, so dumb that they stopped running it to Forest Hills
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.
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.
jonnycash11 t1_jartwie wrote
G Train used to provide service all the way to Forest Hills
OrpheusNYC t1_jar8i44 wrote
Things that never happened for 100
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.
[deleted] t1_jasscll wrote
[deleted]
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.
webswinger666 t1_japnmb4 wrote
it was already a bottleneck and now it’s even worse.
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.
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.
nyny909 t1_jas9euz wrote
Also bottlenecks cause more pollution
thebruns t1_jasntkc wrote
By the time construction is done no one will remember what gas cars were
signal_tower_product t1_japm4s1 wrote
That lane is very narrow but ok
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
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.
dytele t1_jaqzc1b wrote
Correct, thew new design is working better than the old
Pool_Shark t1_jar4ahw wrote
Because it added more lanes!
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.
socialcommentary2000 t1_jareuod wrote
The ergonomics of the bridge complete changed. And they changed how it interacts with the LIE.
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.
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
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.
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
signal_tower_product t1_jas2skj wrote
Bay ridge doesn’t have 3rd rail 💀
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.
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
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.
signal_tower_product t1_jas2ou5 wrote
I said south Brooklyn tf
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.
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
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.
signal_tower_product t1_jb4kjyb wrote
You sure? Theoretically there’s multiple ways
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".
signal_tower_product t1_jb4o7kw wrote
The BQE is literally environmental racism 💀
Grass8989 t1_japfjiq wrote
Lol at a news source starting with the word “SHOCKER”.
Also, anyone who has driven on the BQE knows that the lane reduction at the triple cantilever section has led to more idling vehicles and stop and go traffic which has an adverse effect on these communities. The BQE is a major artery for commercial traffic for the city, it’s not going anywhere, and a permanent reduction in lanes will not solve any issues besides advocates “checking” a box.
mowotlarx t1_japh16l wrote
Grass8989 t1_japh7oe wrote
This isn’t increasing lanes, it’s reinstating a lane that was/is already there and was reduced to two lanes.
elprophet t1_jarknzq wrote
Reinstating those lanes will literally kill people when the increased loads lead to a collapse on that section.
notlodar t1_jaroe31 wrote
Apparently, this is rebuild that is necessary so it doesn’t collapse? Hopefully
elprophet t1_jars8o3 wrote
Yeah there's two conversations happening here- should the rebuilt section have three lanes or two? Three is what it had before and the rest of the BQE has three, so that's the status quo. While I personally push for lowering the entire thing to two it's entire length and replacing that with non-road alternatives, that's a massive undertaking and rebuilding of the city on the scale of the original highway system. I get that.
The other conversation in this thread is "just reopen those lanes now" and that notion is what I was responding to.
notlodar t1_jaru0by wrote
The 3 lanes now already spill over to residential lanes - see Columbia and Park as an example. Add in the factor that the majority of this traffic is caused by Staten Island and New Jersey commuters, will have to work on the public transit in those areas first.
Any study that to any study that touts the benefit of public transit over additional lanes of Highway needs to be scrutinized and contextualized properly in order to compare it to the complex systems we have a New York City.
elprophet t1_jas4kd5 wrote
Absolutely. SI and NJ are hugely transit underserved, as much as the outer borough loops. And then take in context of the risk of catastrophic structural failure of the current cantilever. The correct answer was "rebuild the entire thing in 2010" but there was one of those decadal "once in a lifetime" global recessions going on. We're long past that date, the current cantilever is somewhere between "likely to collapse" and "imminently collapsing".
Evening_Presence_927 t1_jarrfk7 wrote
I don’t trust city contractors to get the job done.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_japorrb wrote
Out of curiosity why did reducing the lane dramatically increase traffic? Couldn’t you say induced demand is only true to a degree, as some people / professions / purposes require driving so there’s a minimum number of cars “necessary” at any given point?
b1argg t1_jarfp0c wrote
It created a bottleneck causing larger traffic jams at more hours of the day. Demand stayed pretty much the same because there aren't many great options for getting to the Verrazano to leave the city for Brooklyn and Queens residents.
StrictDare210 t1_jaqw1uj wrote
Traffic as in cars moving very slowly if they’re moving at all. Not just volume of vehicles.
koji00 t1_jau9qrp wrote
Same number of cars, but now sitting idle for much longer. Great for the environment.
b1argg t1_jarfanr wrote
It's already 3 lanes each way. The reduction was an emergency political football to buy time before the thing collapses, and has added a bottleneck causing massive backups at all times. Rebuilding with 3 lanes is maintaining the current size, not an expansion.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jarrgza wrote
Yup, adding lanes induces demand. But it also benefits more drivers...
[deleted] t1_jash7t9 wrote
[deleted]
Grass8989 t1_jasu61o wrote
People that commute from Staten Island, parts of queens and Brooklyn would literally have to add hours to their commute.
[deleted] t1_jasvx2f wrote
[deleted]
Grass8989 t1_jat3bqq wrote
Still would add hours to a commute of someone living in southern Staten Island, eastern Brooklyn or eastern queens. They could also just reinstate the lane and things would be fine.
[deleted] t1_jat3k77 wrote
[deleted]
anarchyx34 t1_jau1p3b wrote
The ferry to where? Fidi? How the fuck does that help someone commuting to Queens?
[deleted] t1_jau20ok wrote
[deleted]
anarchyx34 t1_jau2f2q wrote
Train to where? There is no train that leaves SI. The fucking bus that runs to Brooklyn which is the only way we can access the R train doesn’t even run at night.
[deleted] t1_jau2kkm wrote
[deleted]
anarchyx34 t1_jau2rrd wrote
And that’s how you get a 3 hour commute.
[deleted] t1_jatvwl2 wrote
[removed]
dytele t1_jaqzm5o wrote
Anyone complaining about 3 lanes please come to Columbia street between Atlantic and Hamilton aves anytime Monday through Friday. Since the reduction to two lanes a lot of traffic spills onto Columbia Street and has made Columbia the "third lane" ... it's a mess from sun up to sun down.
CrazyStallion t1_jarfyz2 wrote
Worse is Hicks heading north, since every single person wants to turn left onto Atlantic to then get on the BQE. Constant traffic all day.
dytele t1_jargrmu wrote
Yes. Both horrible and made significantly worse by the lane reduction.
Grass8989 t1_jarbxly wrote
Yea the traffic on local streets in that area have been insane since they reduced the lanes. I’m surprised the people who live in that area haven’t complained or maybe a bigger deal out of it.
don-mage t1_jas2640 wrote
That was the intent of closing the 3rd lane. Unfortunately it diverts traffic through the neighborhood and less stress on the bridge.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_jas2cb1 wrote
Pretty much every time I am on Columbia I see some nut bag driving in the opposite lane of traffic to try and beat the logjam.
thebruns t1_jasnxs3 wrote
Then fix the problem there. Add speed bumps. Force turns.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_japjgtn wrote
I mean reducing the lanes clearly didn’t fix anything and hasn’t had the effect they wanted it to. There has to be a better solution.
ObjectivePitiful1170 t1_japo3su wrote
It did! There is less stress on infrastructure by weight, so perhaps it won't collapse killing hundreds before the electeds decide to fix it.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_japomdh wrote
Is it really less weight when cars are just parked on it basically all the time? I’m not physicist so have no clue, but I’m guessing the reduced lane makes up for the increased average duration of car there?
doodle77 t1_jar1fqy wrote
Traffic moves slightly faster than before in the 2 lane section. The queue is before that section in both directions.
https://marcel.dejean.nyc/bqe/
Besides, the engineering assumption is that the entire highway will be loaded bumper-to-bumper with maximum weight minimum length trucks.
Grass8989 t1_japqet8 wrote
I doubt it’s making a noticeable difference, like you said, 18 wheelers are just sitting in stop and go traffic on the cantilever section way more than they did when it was 3 lanes. Atleast they used to only be on it for a brief period of time (barring any accident of construction).
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_japqu9o wrote
Yeah I literally have no clue. I feel like that’s an easy question for a structural engineer or likely someone better at high school physics than my dumb ass
don-mage t1_jaqmcth wrote
Did they close the outer most lane? If so, weight on the farthest end of the cantilever will induce more moment and stress on the support.
kwyjibo555 t1_jas4jag wrote
They technically closed it, but practically it's still a driving lane to countless cars that use it as a lane still because of 0 enforcement
Grass8989 t1_japslze wrote
Indeed, not sure why they’re dragging their feet repairing it.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_japsput wrote
Wealthy powerful neighbors don’t want the inconvenience
b1argg t1_jargm0f wrote
The cantilever section itself moves pretty well because it's after the bottleneck caused by the reduction. The backups are before the cantilever.
ZeePM t1_jare1kl wrote
It’s less weight on the outer most lane which reduces the stress on the support. The road acts like a lever in that section. Hold a stick out and hang a shopping bag with a can of soup in it. As you move the bag further out it gets heavier.
elprophet t1_jarkibo wrote
I would say it gets "torqueir" rather than heavier, but either way lots more stress. Reducing that to two lanes with no other changes will extend the useful lifespan significantly. Going back to three lanes will kill people when it collapses.
b1argg t1_jargfu1 wrote
The weight concern was specifically on the cantilever section which is crumbling and heading to collapse without major rehabilitation/reconstruction. The weight of the traffic backups on the other sections aren't an issue (or are much less of an issue)
[deleted] t1_jardzyp wrote
[deleted]
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_jarfhkg wrote
Oh boy, I’ve gotten some straightforward answers that have made me think this is pretty settled science. Are you telling me it’s more complex?
[deleted] t1_jari6kl wrote
[deleted]
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_jaria98 wrote
Thank you that’s all I need! I’ll give it a watch
b1argg t1_jarg5xn wrote
Yeah it was an emergency move to buy time to pass the political football and kick the can down the road. The reduction caused other problems, such as creating an artificial bottleneck resulting in massive traffic backups. It was always meant to be temporary.
yakofnyc t1_jas4viu wrote
> resulting in massive traffic backups
Too many cars using the roads at the same time is what causes massive traffic backups. Add 6 new lanes and you'll still have massive traffic backups, as we see in LA. The solution to massive traffic backups is improved alternatives to driving, and more disincentives to driving such as congestion pricing.
decafcovfefes t1_jas7khd wrote
This. You really want to solve traffic on the BQE? Limit it to freight/business vehicles, taxi/uber, and emergency vehicles during peak hours. 80% of the cars I see entering the BQE at Atlantic during the morning rush are driver-only commuters who would be better served by a mass-trans solution.
b1argg t1_jasqug7 wrote
What about Queens and Brooklyn residents traveling somewhere outside the city? The BQE leads to the Verrazano
TeamMisha t1_jatbcyp wrote
We truthfully can't accommodate every single trip, so there may not be an answer you or others like unfortunately to this question. There's still an entire network of roads to drive wherever you want, so would it be impossible, no, could it take longer depending where you are coming from? Yes. I am sure there are residents all over the place who would want a better route to their out of city destination but that's just not possible. I myself for example wish I didn't tend to take Ubers to certain transit routes due to the annoyance of getting to the station, but I know that's just how it is due to where I chose to live.
b1argg t1_jaudxah wrote
All I'm saying is that they shouldn't reduce the number of existing lanes
Jimmy_kong253 t1_jaqgoh4 wrote
If they make it wider I would hope they have half a brain and example the weight bearing aspect as well
TeamMisha t1_jatbgm6 wrote
Proposed plans for reconstruction will completely remove the cantilever and build in-place a simple box structure to support the roadways. Much easier and simpler to maintain and weight is less of a concern.
b1argg t1_jari2a6 wrote
A lot of the people on here are missing the fact that the BQE is a primary way to get to the Verrazano and on to NJ to get to a destination outside the city, where a car is a necessity. Simply expanding transit (which I support) instead wouldn't do anything for people leaving the city.
thebruns t1_jaso25f wrote
What if, and you might need to sit down for this, we could expand transit beyond the city borders?
b1argg t1_jasr5dv wrote
Then you're at a train station in the suburbs with no car. Though by the time it would take to actually do that we'll have self driving cars.
Also, transit will never meet everybody's needs. It's a large country and most of it is car dependent.
thebruns t1_jass10j wrote
Nebraska being an empty shithole shouldnt mean people in Brooklyn have to deal with your car fetish
archiotterpup t1_jarfeo7 wrote
I'm shocked. SHOCKED Adams only cares about more cars on the road.
Souperplex t1_jasztoh wrote
Standard position for a Republican like him.
crmd t1_japgf7n wrote
Didn’t vote for the guy, but if he does something about this 90 minute traffic jam from la guardia to Hamilton avenue that arises every day, I’ll take a second look.
stansvan t1_japn1bi wrote
Reducing it to two lanes is a nightmare. The BQE and Belt Parkway both need more lanes not less. Less lanes is causing congestion that adds pollution and cost to the products we buy. I also agree that part of the solution is adding public transit so that less people need to drive. And add freight lines so commerce can be taken off the roads.
No_Tax5256 t1_jas654l wrote
Why don’t we just make the BQE and Belt one lane? Wouldn’t this create less traffic since induced demand?
[deleted] t1_jat7fb9 wrote
[removed]
notlodar t1_jarliux wrote
ITT people don’t see where the BQE traffic is- near bridges and tunnels. Cross borough public transit won’t fix NJ, Manhattan and NJ commuting
mikemuscalaGOAT t1_japxlqd wrote
Fuck cars
Dont_mute_me_bro t1_jaqu4cg wrote
Well, I like to eat and our food has to be brought in, so....
[deleted] t1_jar2h9t wrote
[deleted]
KaiDaiz t1_jar8ha1 wrote
2 lane idea was silly to start with. Not much buffer if one lane slowed down/closed due to accident/repairs/etc.
HEIMDVLLR t1_japskgs wrote
Using induced demand as an argument against expanding the BQE, only means you’re also against building more housing because it attracts more residents.
Sad-Principle3781 t1_jarjh6a wrote
you dont' induce demand by making more of that thing. ie: building more cars isn't inducing demand of cars. you can say making new york more desirable to live is inducing demand for housing, but building more housing isn't inducing demand for more housing.
HEIMDVLLR t1_jarkwf0 wrote
Are we talking about adding more space or not?
TeamMisha t1_jaramwt wrote
One can support inducing different things. Inducing transit ridership for example usually is looked at as a positive.
HEIMDVLLR t1_jarhvyf wrote
See that’s the thing, it depends on who you’re talking to. Just like the the demand for more housing in Long Island near LIRR stations isn’t welcomed there.
Removing a personal mode of rapid transportation without expanding another alternative mode of rapid transportation is setting the city up for failure. The MTA can barely keep up, they experience “train traffic”.
Jimmy_kong253 t1_jaqglgg wrote
If you have a opportunity to make it wider then go for. Because eventually if the Democrats and environmentist plans come to reality we all are going to be all electric in the future. So you can have your earth saving benefits well also being realistic about the fact that traffic is going to always happen hence why the BQE should be wider.
dust1990 t1_jaqyw67 wrote
Underrated comment. The electrified future is fast coming; 10% of new cars sold last year were electric. Grid is switching to renewables with battery storage. Cars aren’t going anywhere as much as some militant f*** car advocates wish they would.
Jimmy_kong253 t1_jar0xd8 wrote
Well apparently from the downvotes I'm getting most people on this subreddit think the world's going to be a bicycle one.
dust1990 t1_jar2779 wrote
We need it all: highways, better subways, bike lanes and great pedestrian space. The new BQE is a 50 year investment. Crippling the major artery of queens and Brooklyn with two lanes in a metropolis of 20m is asinine.
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