Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Best_Line6674 OP t1_j88nrep wrote

Reply to comment by rick6787 in Bronx is snubbed as MTA pursues IBX plan by Best_Line6674

Density? Better traffic flow is what matters to me, and thats something NYC doesn't always have, for the most part. I would rather we try to build somewhere else instead of Oyster Bay.

−2

rick6787 t1_j88pndx wrote

When you increase access to a place, you increase population. What is it you're trying to accomplish with a long island sound bridge/tunnel?

2

Best_Line6674 OP t1_j88qls8 wrote

Less traffic on I-95 mainly through the Cross Bronx expressway, on the Whitestone, the Throgs Neck Bridge, any bridge/tunnel going Manhattan to Queens/Brooklyn, I don't think it will make a big difference in population from a new tunnel, since everyone's mainly just passing through. It would save time for people from Northeastern states above us from having to go through the Bronx and Manhattan, to get to Queens/Brooklyn, just to get to NJ on the most left side. Do that, and traffic flow should be a bit if not a lot better for New Yorkers.

3

rick6787 t1_j88tmna wrote

You think building an entirely new route is cheaper/simpler/more feasible than just expanding I95, if that's your goal?

1

Best_Line6674 OP t1_j8a9r6h wrote

Of course not, but say that you expand I-95, the Throgs Neck and Whitestone will still have just more traffic, and the GWB? Well skip that, just the bridges and tunnels connecting from Manhattan to Queens/Brooklyn would definitely receive less traffic from Connecticut/Northern Westchester

1

EquivalentBarracuda4 t1_j88zw7y wrote

Have you heard about the term “induced demand”?

Less traffic -> motivates new development -> more population -> more traffic.

1

Best_Line6674 OP t1_j8a7gqv wrote

Well, I've heard of new roads/bridges being opened to lessen traffic on an existing road way or so, and so say that they did build a tunnel on LI. Would people really care to live there now if the tunnel is completed? They could've been wanted to live there, why now with a tunnel?

1

EquivalentBarracuda4 t1_j8a7v5a wrote

Please read how induced demand works. There are plenty of videos on YouTube about this topic. Adding more lanes, bridges, etc solves traffic only on the near term. In the long term it will never work.

Ask yourself: how come that we still have traffic with those fancy multi lane highways? How come adding more lanes did not solve the traffic?

1

Best_Line6674 OP t1_j8abn4i wrote

It does work long term? Extra lanes doesn't do much, no, but more roadways/bridges have shown to reduce traffic, depending on where traffic really wants to go. Adding more lanes didn't do much because everyone's going that same way. Add another road, you'll have less people going that way. I've played Cities Skylines (which doesn't mean much), but adding more lanes does change a bit, but definitely not enough at all. For example, have one highway in a city for people to get in and out. You'll get traffic.

Adding a lane won't change anything because it will just allow more cars to fill in, but still traffic. Add another highway on the city's border going a bit of a different direction of that highway, but still having a similar route, more cars that are closer to that roadway, or people living near said roadway, are more likely to go on that route, reducing traffic on the other highway.

Say that you live on LI, now you have to drive all the way down through NYC, to get to Connecticut, instead of simply just going to Connecticut. Add an extra lane on the bridges, it won't change much, you're still going to add on to the rest of the cars on the road. Tunnel? Avoid those bridges, won't even need an extra lane, because you're one less car on the road.

1