Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pulaski should be expanded to 3 lanes on each side. So much traffic during rush hour.
The end destinations can't handle more traffic, it wouldn't really accomplish anything. You'd just have more cars sitting in gridlock on a bridge. The Holland Tunnel is 2 lanes, more lanes going into it does not produce more cars going through it. Both the NYC street grid, and the Hoboken/JC waterfront street grid, are pretty well traffic-choked regardless. And the Turnpike Extension is also running into here, as is 1&9T, Route 7, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshflakes757
The largest metro area can't get the funds together to replace this POS?
]
More lanes aren't going to help, because the cars will have nowhere to go. Shoulders and better ramps at Broadway + 139 would help, but are not worth billions of $ difference.
And it would be billions of $ difference, especially if you aren't willing to close the road for half a decade or more to demolish the whole thing and rebuild in place. As it is, it's extremely tightly bound on both ends, you'd need huge amounts of eminent domain and reconstruction of other infrastructure to do the normal way to build a bridge (build a parallel span, shift traffic to new one, demolish old one).
Quote:
If that's the truth, then this is pathetic. I can't wait to see how much duct tape they put on this thing to take up 2-years worth of time.
The end destinations can't handle more traffic, it wouldn't really accomplish anything. You'd just have more cars sitting in gridlock on a bridge. The Holland Tunnel is 2 lanes, more lanes going into it does not produce more cars going through it. Both the NYC street grid, and the Hoboken/JC waterfront street grid, are pretty well traffic-choked regardless. And the Turnpike Extension is also running into here, as is 1&9T, Route 7, etc.
]
More lanes aren't going to help, because the cars will have nowhere to go. Shoulders and better ramps at Broadway + 139 would help, but are not worth billions of $ difference.
And it would be billions of $ difference, especially if you aren't willing to close the road for half a decade or more to demolish the whole thing and rebuild in place. As it is, it's extremely tightly bound on both ends, you'd need huge amounts of eminent domain and reconstruction of other infrastructure to do the normal way to build a bridge (build a parallel span, shift traffic to new one, demolish old one).
I think you are living in neverneverland if you think that duct tape is going to solve the ongoing issue of traffic problems and infrastructure on the pulaski skyway. It's actually extremely stupid that NJ is waking up only now to fix an 82 year old bridge.
I think you are living in neverneverland if you think that duct tape is going to solve the ongoing issue of traffic problems and infrastructure on the pulaski skyway.
Traffic problems? No. The point is nothing you do to the Pulaski Skyway is going to really fix traffic problems. The primary problem is that the main end destinations can't handle the existing traffic, much less more of it. And unless you're widening the Holland Tunnel, Route 139 Lower, etc, widening the Skyway would do nothing more than make a bigger elevated parking lot.
Anyway, they're putting the bridge back in a proper state of repair, and they're making the Broadway/JSQ on-ramp less of a deathtrap.
Traffic problems? No. The point is nothing you do to the Pulaski Skyway is going to really fix traffic problems. The primary problem is that the main end destinations can't handle the existing traffic, much less more of it. And unless you're widening the Holland Tunnel, Route 139 Lower, etc, widening the Skyway would do nothing more than make a bigger elevated parking lot.
Anyway, they're putting the bridge back in a proper state of repair, and they're making the Broadway/JSQ on-ramp less of a deathtrap.
Indeed. Widening the skyway would only create a bigger bottleneck near Tonnele Circle. That is, unless you also widen Tonnele Ave, the 139 covered roadway, the Holland Tunnel, and tear down Soho and Greenwich village to build a super expressway across Manhattan, a la Robert Moses vs Jane Jacobs.
Indeed. Widening the skyway would only create a bigger bottleneck near Tonnele Circle. That is, unless you also widen Tonnele Ave, the 139 covered roadway, the Holland Tunnel, and tear down Soho and Greenwich village to build a super expressway across Manhattan, a la Robert Moses vs Jane Jacobs.
The area of the Tonnele Ave circle is being rebuilt under a NJDOT project called something like St Pauls Ave with flyovers and new ramps.
NYC itself has not been friendly to cars for as long as I can remember. I-78 was supposed to go across lower Manhattan as the Lomex, Lower Manhattan Expressway to the Willy Willliamsburg Bridge then across Brooklyn to JFK airport.
I-78 stopped at the NYC end of the Holland Tunnel and there was a small part of I-78 near JFK that got renumbered many many years ago to something like I-678, the rest never happened.
Traffic problems? No. The point is nothing you do to the Pulaski Skyway is going to really fix traffic problems. The primary problem is that the main end destinations can't handle the existing traffic, much less more of it. And unless you're widening the Holland Tunnel, Route 139 Lower, etc, widening the Skyway would do nothing more than make a bigger elevated parking lot.
Anyway, they're putting the bridge back in a proper state of repair, and they're making the Broadway/JSQ on-ramp less of a deathtrap.
the work that they did around Jersey Ave in 2006/07/08 was great. it was basic changes but it really improved the flow of traffic there. now the changes they're making for the tonnelle ave interchange and the 1&9 approach is also helping to greatly improve the flow of traffic. the problem is, as you stated, the choke point that is the Holland Tunnel. it can't handle the volume, and even if it could, the area it spills into in NYC can't, so it really doesn't matter what is done to the approaches to it. without more options, we're just in need of maintaining the existing infrastructure. there's really no expansion for car traffic that would do anything in that area.
The area of the Tonnele Ave circle is being rebuilt under a NJDOT project called something like St Pauls Ave with flyovers and new ramps.
NYC itself has not been friendly to cars for as long as I can remember. I-78 was supposed to go across lower Manhattan as the Lomex, Lower Manhattan Expressway to the Willy Willliamsburg Bridge then across Brooklyn to JFK airport.
I-78 stopped at the NYC end of the Holland Tunnel and there was a small part of I-78 near JFK that got renumbered many many years ago to something like I-678, the rest never happened.
and how could it ever happen? unless there was some massive ramp or a "big dig" like project. both of which would be cool, but we need alternative transportation at this point....and a lot of it.
I commuted - our bus took the Extension - I made it to work quicker than I ever have taking the bus - no traffic whatsoever - Could be a combination of things though - people scared to take the Holland tunnel the first day and many schools in NJ are closed this week so alot of parents take the week off.
this sucks, it's really a pain going to chinatown now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
