3 ms·

Asking for truck-only transit routes does not necessitate a 6-lane BQE. But that’s a good first step. Lot’s of other Moses era boondoggles also need to be re-

Asking for truck-only transit routes does not necessitate a 6-lane BQE. But that’s a good first step. Lot’s of other Moses era boondoggles also need to be re-imagined

steveBK123 3y ago
The problem is no one is proposing tenable truck infrastructure when proposing "knock it down". We have dangerous enough roads all over the city, especially Brooklyn & Queens. Look at the tragedy recently in south Brooklyn. Keeping trucks/trade vans/people transiting the borough on a highway and off surface streets is beneficial. There's lot of infrastructure & services I don't directly use that I don't demand be torn down. I am also aware that I indirectly use lots of infrastructure when I order goods online, buy groceries at the store, have a plumber service my sink, buy furniture, etc. No one alive in the city today can say the BQE was suddenly foisted upon them. I live right next to a bridge in the city, I'd have a better view, quieter life, and higher property value if they tore down the bridge. I work remotely so I don't even use it. I don't believe I have the right to tear it down though.
- master_crab 3y ago
  No one is asking for bridges to be torn down. But asking to maintain a 60 year old (at its youngest) 6 lane elevated highway through a city is costly (both in dollars and quality of life). So you need to examine what the end goal is. Elevating (both literally and figuratively) car culture ain’t it. Also, you aren’t getting rid of truck traffic on surface streets. They still need that last mile. Better traffic control designs on streets will go a longer way then shuttling all trucks to another superhighway in Brooklyn. (Admittedly though, the situation is different in North NYC. The cross Bronx expressway needs to be re-examined, and a new, possibly larger route, for interstate trucking to CT, RI, and points North is needed.)
  - master_crab 3y ago
    Actually I’m advocating the removal of the cross-Bronx and something in a less dense area or a truck-only traffic pattern. So not quite the same thing as what you are alluding too.
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    I fail to see the distinction between tearing down urban highways and tearing down urban bridges used by cars. Obviously, the last mile is always going to be on the local road.. but do we want all those trucks going local surface road from the Verrazano to say Greenpoint or Bushwick? Further, it seems a little too convenient to want highways you live near to be torn down but concede that the other highways far from your neighborhood are necessary, good and in fact.. need expansion?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Asking for truck-only transit routes does not necessitate a 6-lane BQE. But that’s a good first step. Lot’s of other Moses era boondoggles also need to be re-imagined

steveBK123 3y ago

The problem is no one is proposing tenable truck infrastructure when proposing "knock it down". We have dangerous enough roads all over the city, especially Brooklyn & Queens. Look at the tragedy recently in south Brooklyn. Keeping trucks/trade vans/people transiting the borough on a highway and off surface streets is beneficial. There's lot of infrastructure & services I don't directly use that I don't demand be torn down. I am also aware that I indirectly use lots of infrastructure when I order goods online, buy groceries at the store, have a plumber service my sink, buy furniture, etc. No one alive in the city today can say the BQE was suddenly foisted upon them. I live right next to a bridge in the city, I'd have a better view, quieter life, and higher property value if they tore down the bridge. I work remotely so I don't even use it. I don't believe I have the right to tear it down though.

master_crab 3y ago
No one is asking for bridges to be torn down. But asking to maintain a 60 year old (at its youngest) 6 lane elevated highway through a city is costly (both in dollars and quality of life). So you need to examine what the end goal is. Elevating (both literally and figuratively) car culture ain’t it. Also, you aren’t getting rid of truck traffic on surface streets. They still need that last mile. Better traffic control designs on streets will go a longer way then shuttling all trucks to another superhighway in Brooklyn. (Admittedly though, the situation is different in North NYC. The cross Bronx expressway needs to be re-examined, and a new, possibly larger route, for interstate trucking to CT, RI, and points North is needed.)
- master_crab 3y ago
  Actually I’m advocating the removal of the cross-Bronx and something in a less dense area or a truck-only traffic pattern. So not quite the same thing as what you are alluding too.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  I fail to see the distinction between tearing down urban highways and tearing down urban bridges used by cars. Obviously, the last mile is always going to be on the local road.. but do we want all those trucks going local surface road from the Verrazano to say Greenpoint or Bushwick? Further, it seems a little too convenient to want highways you live near to be torn down but concede that the other highways far from your neighborhood are necessary, good and in fact.. need expansion?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]