Is there really no way to walk from JC to Manhattan?

Submitted by XIFOD1M t3_z7il0j in jerseycity

I mean when you think for even half a second, it’s obvious. And a sidewalk in the tunnels would be stupid, but still. Lame.

Edit: Is it really not a problem for people that there’s no free way of spanning the less than a mile that separated the two cities?

59

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Zealousideal_Egg5071 t1_iy6s30l wrote

Of course there is; straight up to Fort Lee and take GWB to upper Westside of Manhattan, no sure of walking but doable with ebike

12

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_iy6uzt1 wrote

Walk over the George Washington bridge, only a 7 hour 20 minute detour.

172

XIFOD1M OP t1_iy6x0b0 wrote

Replying to HappyArtichoke7729 (#754,797)

I was gonna say. I appreciate the answer but its not really a feasible solution to the problem of “walking from JC to Manhattan”.

Yet, still more helpful than the answers that say it’s very easy to walk from JC to Manhattan so long as you’re ok with using a mode of transit other than walking.

−18

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_iy6x6ia wrote

Replying to XIFOD1M (#755,179)

I actually typed 2 hours then looked it up and was gobsmacked. Just to walk to the closest point across the river would be 20 minutes without the water, but going over the GWB is SEVEN HOURS FORTY MINUTES

23

a_trane13 t1_iy6xtjj wrote

Man discovers large rivers

28

bubandbob t1_iy6ywi5 wrote

For various reasons, it's not possible to build a bridge between Manhattan and JC/Hoboken without demolishing lots of buildings, therefore no walkway. And given how awful the air is inside the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels is.....

24

XIFOD1M OP t1_iy6z0nl wrote

Replying to a_trane13 (#755,340)

Yeah you’re right. It’s foolish of me to expect there to be any mode of free transit between the country’s largest city and one of its most populous direct neighbors. Also, you’re gonna lose your mind when you hear that the solutions that allow a car to traverse that body of water (i.e. bridges and tunnels) also afford pedestrians the same ability under normal circumstances

24

Knobbies4Ever t1_iy6z5s3 wrote

Where’s that kid who used to post about digging a pedestrian tunnel?

103

mad_dog_94 t1_iy70b1j wrote

Holland Tunnel if youre ballsy. otherwise not really because urban planning in 99% of america is a nightmare

27

Select-Relationship4 t1_iy720zx wrote

Unless you’re Jesus Christ or Buddy the Elf, I don’t think there’s a direct way to walk from nyc from jc…

52

spoof_berries t1_iy7migu wrote

Walk to down to the path train, sit down. Walk into nyc

8

Relative_Chef_533 t1_iy7sjrx wrote

yes, it‘s a problem. but i suspect if a pedestrian/bikeway existed, housing costs would increase.

−2

Positive_Debate7048 t1_iy7vx6h wrote

Replying to bubandbob (#755,564)

Air inside the tunnels isn’t that bad unless there is lots of traffic, they have very good ventilation systems. They can totally refresh the air inside the tunnel every 90 seconds, they were designed to keep tunnel goers safe from car exhaust before catalytic converters were invented. At the time the tunnel was built vehicle exhaust was substantially more dangerous.

36

lovelybitofsquirrel3 t1_iy7x0vq wrote

Pass through the seven levels of the Candy Cane forest, through the sea of swirly twirly gum drops, and then walk through the Lincoln Tunnel

55

a_trane13 t1_iy7x5m9 wrote

Replying to XIFOD1M (#755,581)

You’re being sarcastic, but I am right. There is no feasible way to build a bridge below the George Washington, and a new tunnel would cost hundreds of billions. It’s just an entirely unrealistic expectation and would be a huge waste of money.

The amount of people that want to walk to Manhattan is tiny - We’d be better off using that money to literally make the path free for everyone for years.

There’s no room in the current tunnels for walking, and even if we could get a lane back in from vehicles, it would be obvious to make it a two way bike lane, not for pedestrians.

18

ManchurianPandaDate t1_iy80olm wrote

Replying to XIFOD1M (#755,592)

I GOT IT !! Rent a box truck, like a UHaul. Put a treadmill in the back. Hire someone to drive or get a friend. You get in the back and hop on that treadmill and start walking as your friend or rent a friend drives into the city

13

MrPeanutButter6969 t1_iy82p8u wrote

Replying to XIFOD1M (#755,581)

I’m a pretty big anti-car guy but it’s not a new issue that you can’t walk across rivers. Any pedestrian bridge would have to be as high as the GW to let ships through. It’s just not practical. The ferry or PATH is inexpensive and convenient.

13

G00d_One t1_iy836s0 wrote

I read a few years ago, someone was out drinking late and walked through the path tunnel from wtc to exchange place.

1

lizarny t1_iy836wx wrote

Walk to Staten Island via the Bayonne Bridge to the free ferry to Manhattan .

15

assanza t1_iy86kbw wrote

Buy a kayak or a SUP. One time investment. A lifetime of free crossings from JC to Manhattan. With a SUP you won't be walking, but at least you'll be standing.

12

sutisuc t1_iy8946c wrote

If you want to get really depressed about the lack of pedestrian crossings here pull up Pittsburgh on google maps. So many pedestrian crossings on all the bridges there.

0

JCwhatimsayin t1_iy89p6d wrote

Adding another FREE method that is not 100% walking. The walk portion is shorter than over the GW, but you can walk over the Bayonne bridge and proceed to the Staten Island Ferry which is free. If you were itching for steps, you can lap the boat. It's pretty big.

8

murphydcat t1_iy8njwz wrote

I kayaked from the Morris Canal to the World Financial Center 10+ years ago. With all of the power boat traffic in that area of the Hudson River (much of it alcohol-fueled, probably), I found the experience quite terrifying. Thankfully, I wasn't run down by a jetski.

2

PS_Alchemist t1_iy923fq wrote

its just 2 bucks for the train to get you there in 10-20 minutes...

2

BookOfMormont t1_iy94fh1 wrote

Even if you built such a thing, it wouldn't get much use. People just don't like to walk that far, even New Yorkers. The GW Bridge gets about 200,000 pedestrian crossings per year, compared to 100,000,000 vehicle crossings per year. Put another way, more vehicles cross the GW every day than pedestrians do in a year, almost 40% more. Even if a JC - Manhattan pedestrian crossing was somehow an order of magnitude more successful than the GWB and managed 2 million pedestrians per year, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the 14 million vehicles that go through the Holland Tunnel, 19 million vehicles that go through the Lincoln Tunnel, or the PATH's 34 million annual riders.

There are just much better transportation investments to make.

6

Plastic_Radio_5092 t1_iy9r1ec wrote

Wait til the hudson freezes up during the winter...Best time for it if you don't want to take the gwb reroute... I use to watch a man do it as kid in the 80's

1

jotjotzzz t1_iy9ug8n wrote

Unless you're Jesus, otherwise you will need to swim it or take the ferry.

2

ICarlosRoberto t1_iy9usmz wrote

They want to get rid of cars so bad they should have a bike and walking path as well as a monorail

1

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_iyaak80 wrote

Replying to RebeccaLoneBrook29 (#779,980)

We’ve estimated the math here before. It would be more financially responsible to helicopter people across than build/maintain a bridge with even the most ambitious usage. And not even bothering with the realities of hot summers and cold winters which would impact usage.

The ramps alone you’d need to get to that height and be walkable/bikeable would be absolutely massive and consume multiple blocks on each side. And no, you couldn’t rely on just elevators as you’d have security/safety/maintenance issues.

The scale is just insane.

1

fulanita_de_tal t1_iyag7t8 wrote

Above ground: Yes, it's disappointing when you consider other major cities have cross-river paths but we have the 3rd largest port in the country, which they do not. Because of the size of the ships, this bridge would need to be monstrously tall, which would sort of defeat the purpose. It wouldn't be that easy/fast to get across, and probably wouldn't have the chill "I'll go for a nice walk" vibes we imagine when we think of being able to walk across the river (see: GWB). That said, I'm no cargo/marine traffic expert, but I assume there's a logical reason we can't pull this off.

  • EDIT: The Walkway Over the Hudson and the GWB actually both have the same clearance height so IDK shit. Now I'm actually curious about the logistical feasibility of this existing from JC to Manhattan. I imagine no one wants to fund it because it won't generate any revenue, unless you make it accessible to cars and charge tolls, which would then make it a behemoth of a project and create more traffic and get local opposition and back to square one we go.

Below ground: The thought of it gives me claustrophobia and phantom pee smells and I'd rather take the PATH.

5

neighbor_ryan t1_iyan3bj wrote

My understanding is:

  1. Ped/Bike bridges are much easier and cheaper than car bridges
  2. It wouldn't require demolishing anything, you could do switchbacks in a tiny footprint on infill
  3. A tunnel would arguably be even better: less elevation change needed, cheaper to build (apparently), ventilation is easy, they're common in Europe.

A few of us pitched Rob Menendez Jr. on it at a JSQCA meeting a few months ago. My angle was that it would be pretty easy to build, and someone would get to put their name on it. It should be a slam dunk for some local or regional pol, it would be extremely popular.

7

flapjack212 t1_iyas1uk wrote

Replying to fulanita_de_tal (#782,397)

walkway over the hudson is built into a cliff / elevation (at least on the western side, i didn't go to the end of the eastern side) whereas both ends of the theoretical bridge we're discussing is at sea level

1

amrech t1_iyaz5t0 wrote

It’s a valid question, but they want your money to cross

2

PsychologicalAd1153 t1_iyb2kmc wrote

I'd say within the next 100 years, a pedestrian / bike bridge will have to be built. And within 2 years of it opening, it will become a TOLL pedestrian / bike bridge.

1

objectimpermanence t1_iyctzh2 wrote

Replying to sutisuc (#784,417)

A lot of large cargo ships and cruise ships use the Hudson. Enough that it would be impractical to build a bridge here that isn’t 200 ft tall.

Source: I can see the river from my window.

Also, the Monongahela and Allegheny rivers in Pittsburgh are much narrower than the Hudson is here.

A fairer comparison is probably the Mississippi River in New Orleans, where the river is really wide. There are only two bridges that cross the river there and because they have to be tall enough to accommodate large ships, they are massive bridges with long approach ramps that no sensible person would want to commute on by foot.

2