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.


cdavidg4 t1_j8eef5v wrote

A different scenario. A 6 year shoots his father with a gun.

Under your thinking, the headline should read "Father shot with gun" and not "6 year old shoots father with gun" as that's speculative.

We don't know intensions or if somehow the gun went off accidently or missfired or a strong gust of wind did it. A non-passive headline with all parties noted is more accurate.


cdavidg4 t1_j6ix7mw wrote

True, but I don't think the length of the name was a big factor to the OP above. Park is Fourth, and was rebranded to bring people back to the corridor once the steam trains were removed and reduce the historical bad image it had.

Complexity is for sure why I don't say Avenue of the Americas


cdavidg4 t1_j6is6ac wrote

I doubt removing the bike lane from the promenade is inducing that many more tourist trips. I think it's more that now that bikes are gone vendors see more space and expanded their operations, which limited the space for people walking and led to crowding.

Before the bike lane was moved there were times when the bridge became crazy crowded and was closed.


cdavidg4 t1_j6imhmf wrote

It's mentioned in the article but DOT is working on a rule change clarification explicitly calling out the bridge as a place that is not legal for any vending. Currently the rules for vending only call out streets and sidewalks. Is the bridge a street or a sidewalk? That clarification is being proposed to allow for clearer enforcement.

It's been in limbo for years as the previous administration didn't want to touch anything vending related due to politics.


cdavidg4 t1_j65p6l4 wrote

I put the slum part in quotes for a reason since it was his term, not mine.

I'm not judging, simply pointing out that he built homes while also tearing them down, so in my opinion it doesn't make him one of the biggest buildings of housing.

And I also want to note that the "towers in the park" model of low income housing has also been found to not be very successful.


cdavidg4 t1_j65c7we wrote

Please name a recent infrastructure project that bulldozed block and blocks of buildings other than highways.

And for transit, the city can't even build an elevated train line NEXT to houses without people freaking out. Not even bulldozing them. As was the case with extending the N to LaGuardia.


cdavidg4 t1_j652uyj wrote

Even if you use what's built and don't want it removed, you can also see why some people don't want more of this. Lots of people on this sub call out for new highways to be built to make their driving experience better. Well this is what you get, think they would volunteer their home for removal?


cdavidg4 t1_j34paok wrote

Bus routes across. Do they go up and over? Or do you still have to have the signals for cross traffic? If you need the signals for cross traffic what's the point of this?

And okay, we make Ocean Expressway a thing. It can process a lot more vehicles. Those vehicles get to the Prospect Expressway/Gowanus interchange. Now what? It's already congested. Now there's just more cars sitting around looking at each other in traffic. What an improvement!


cdavidg4 t1_j33thie wrote

On the flip side there are users on reddit who can't comprehend a world where your can't drive to each and every residence/business and park directly out front. You see it every time a small street closure is proposed or parking is repurposed. All of sudden that small block or parking spot is the most essential in the whole neighborhood.