Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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.

29

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.

6

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.

21

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

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.

2

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?

11

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).

6

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.

−9

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

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.

−10

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.

−1

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_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.

24

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.

1

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.

−1

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.

9

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

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.

5

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.

4

archiotterpup t1_jarfeo7 wrote

I'm shocked. SHOCKED Adams only cares about more cars on the road.

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

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.

6

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.

4

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)

5

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”.

1

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.

10

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

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.

3

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.

8

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

0

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.

1

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.

3

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".

2

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.

3

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?

2

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.

−1

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.

6

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.

3

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

Grass8989 t1_jat9ksn wrote

If you work the midnight shift from southern Staten Island it would take probably close to 3 hours to get to northern Brooklyn by public transportation. It’s like a 45-50 min car ride at that time of night.

3

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.

1

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.

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