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.
Simple. Ratner couldn't build them as wide as he wanted, and had to settle on 3 for the city. New Jersey however is a mystery, my guess is because the roads had to accommodate for existing structures or they had some historical paths or something that they built over or whatever.
People of course are saying "oh you don't need a car in NYC", but lo and behold when a hurricane eventually hits the city and it becomes a huge problem because the city can't evacuate everyone (or most people really)
Robert Moses wanted to demolish large chunks of Manhattan and ram through several freeway routes, including a "Mid-Manhattan Expressway" called I-495 that would have run directly north of 29th St.
Fortunately, these plans were shot down. Boston's experience with the Central Artery shows that it's a bad idea to slice and dice up dense, urban neighborhoods with freeways.
We weren't as fortunate in Buffalo either, we got an expressway and destroyed and Olmstead Parkway in the processes.
You are really lucky to not have had that happen. There have also been studies done that show more lanes don't move traffic that much faster and in some situations can can even slow it.
I am confused by the original post since NJ has highways that are more than three lanes in each direction, where they are necessary. Has the OP not heard of a little road called the NJ Turnpike? It has two spurs in Northern NJ and then has car and truck lanes in each direction, making for six. There are express and local lanes on I-78 as well.
The NY Metro area also has many parkways, which handle passenger cars only and are relatively efficient. There are also a good number of them that thread through Westchester and Long Island, and New Jersey. In the city, it's limited space, and as others have noted, Moses was stopped from his plans to put parkways and interstates across Manhattan. Rather than destroying huge swaths of Manhattan for highways, the avenues and through streets funnel traffic across the island as efficiently as allowed by the density.
I am glad that Moses' supposed improvements were defeated on the island of Manhattan, and put up with the traffic since I do drive more than most New Yorkers. The Cross Bronx is what put the nail in the coffin of the other roads, since that road fractured vibrant, middle class neighborhoods, setting the stage for decay and urban blight, which plauge some of those areas to the present day. And, it's a rotten road that I think has been congested since the day it was built, though I do hear rumors of the original traffic jam clearing every once in a while, but this could just be an urban myth.
Another thing to note is that parkways are not designed to be interstates as they were forerunners of the interstate system and are not easily retrofit with additional lanes, or even modern acceleration lanes. There are a few entrances on the Saw Mill and the Hutch, for example, where one basically has to floor the vehicle to come from a complete stop to prevailing traffic speed before the onslaught of traffic overtakes, but in the 1920s and 30s when these roads were planned/built, the same consideration was not an issue. And, most areas that have parkways in the NY region do not want an interstate as the parkways only allow passenger vehicle traffic, not truck or commercial traffic.
Robert Moses wanted to demolish large chunks of Manhattan and ram through several freeway routes, including a "Mid-Manhattan Expressway" called I-495 that would have run directly north of 29th St.
Not that he did not do a lot with the BQE and others.
Some people say his influence was one that drove people OUT of the city since it was now easier to get INTO the city from further away. He definitely ruined quite a few neighborhoods, and the benefit is still questionable (as you sit in traffic on the cross-bronx).
Quote:
Fortunately, these plans were shot down. Boston's experience with the Central Artery shows that it's a bad idea to slice and dice up dense, urban neighborhoods with freeways.
Meh, the CAT was an attempt to BURY the central artery, NOT add a new highway. So it does not really fot your argument. They were trying to bury what was already there and put smaller roads and parkways above. What went wrong with that was construction site and administrative corruption and mismanagement.
As for an answer to the original quesion. The answer is not mass transit. It is simply that there is no ROOM to put in an 8 lane highway. These places have had buildings on most of them for the past 100 years now. Building anything would require a lot of relocation, demolition, or expensive construction (overpass/bridgework/etc) and would really not serve much more than to bring more traffic to an island that simply does not have enough square footage to hold them all.
As for the surrounding area, just look up "new jersey turnpike" and see how wide a highway can get in the tri-state area.
NYC has as many REGISTERED cars, but not all of them are "on the road" at the same time. They just can't be.
Yeah a lot of people here have cars here just for the heck of it, as a luxury. They don't really use them during the week and that's why street parking is a nightmare in a lot of neighborhoods.
You are really lucky to not have had that happen. There have also been studies done that show more lanes don't move traffic that much faster and in some situations can can even slow it.
Yes, more lanes will transport more cars, but it is not as efficient per lane.
Say 3 lanes will get you 60 cars a minute. That is about 30 a lane. 6 lanes will not get you 120. 6 lanes may get you 100. Why? How many people stay in a lane? Even if people were all courteous, knew how to merge, kept safe following distances and went smoothly, you would still get "turbulence" due to people NEEDING to change lanes to get on and off the highway.
Also, more lanes just encourages more people to drive. People only stop driving when it is inconvenient. So the traffic levels will jump to similar levels because more peopel will start driving because traffic is just below what they find intolerable.....
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.
