Today’s Headlines

  • Boris

    “A four-year construction period during an economic recession that will coincide at some point with the two-year-long reconstruction of the Brooklyn Bridge and the simultaneous construction in Chatham Square on the city’s Third Water Tunnel…”

    And 10 years after that’s all done, half of it will be ripped up to build the 2nd Avenue Subway and its Chatham Sq. station. And that’s actually the best-case scenario.

  • Rhywun

    RE: Chatham Sq

    Why don’t they do a roundabout or–and I’m just throwing this out there–an actual Square? Something like Trafalgar Square. Is it really so crucial to provide a smooth path in as many directions as possible for cars to speed through? And if so, why not throw a tunnel under there?

    Frankly, both the current design and the conceptual design are awful. Both put the convenience of cars over people.

  • Re. “Even Car Makers Want to Set a Floor Beneath Gas Prices”:

    Heh. Yeah. They want gas to be expensive so people will buy electric cars, not for some altruistic reason.

    Re. Chatham Square:

    “The question is whether the Manhattan Bridge has the capacity to handle a doubling of traffic at certain times when Brooklyn Bridge traffic is diverted, he said. The issue also involves intersections like Flatbush Ave. and Tillary St. in Brooklyn, as well as the Bowery and Canal St. in Chinatown, Ketcham added.”

    From having lived right by the Brooklyn side of the bridges for a couple of years, I can tell you that that whole area tends to become a massive clusterfuck anytime there’s a problem involving one of the bridges.

  • Boris

    Josh,

    It’s bad when there is a short-term, unexpected problem. But when drivers know in advance, especially if the closing is long-term, they will find other routes or not drive at all. Most people still don’t understand that.

    Whenever I drive over the Manhattan Bridge in the evenings, I’m amazed at how empty it is, and I suspect that’s because (1) the upper level is closed and (2) the bridge mostly connects local streets, so little highway traffic goes there. So, the more closures/driver inconveniences there will be, the less traffic will use the route.

    This also applies to the “don’t toll the bridges because they are extensions of local streets” claim. If they are to be like local streets, the highway ramps and second levels should be destroyed- to match bridge capacity to street capacity.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Here’s one you missed — Democrats and Republicans in California want to eliminate all funding for mass transit in perpetuity.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-ed-transit12-2009jan12,0,7796651.story

  • From the Villager article:

    The city claims most couples will come by public transport, Ketcham noted.

    “I told [the city agencies] I’ve never seen anyone in a wedding gown on the subway,” he added.

    My wife and I got married at the Bronx County Courthouse and took the Bx1 bus home. She didn’t wear a wedding gown, and I think only one of the six or so other brides we saw that day wore one. The city is trying to attract couples who want a more glamorous wedding to the courthouse; why not try to attract them to transit as well?

    Ketcham is usually pretty good on these issues, but I guess when he’s paid to argue against pedestrian issues he does.

    This also applies to the “don’t toll the bridges because they are extensions of local streets” claim. If they are to be like local streets, the highway ramps and second levels should be destroyed- to match bridge capacity to street capacity.

    Don’t destroy them – convert them back to transit use!