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.
There are plenty of times when the bridges and tunnels to Manhattan are backed up. You always hear of "30 minute delays at the Holland Tunnel" and things like that. From what I've seen, the East River bridges and tunnels aren't too much better.
In the morning, there is a bus lane in the Lincoln Tunnel, and the times when I've gone into Manhattan on the express bus we end up passing all of the cars sitting in the regular lanes. I don't go to Manhattan too often (and when I do, I usually take the SI Ferry, which probably is slower than driving), but when you give mass transit a dedicated right-of-way to bypass the traffic, it will be faster than driving.
If he thought there was an opportunity for one of his ultra-wealthy pals to profit from it, don't worry--he'd be the first one to ignore the reality of the situation and promote such a plan. (The City Time scandal, currently costing tax-paying New Yorkers more than $800 million and counting--and backed solidly by our esteemed Mayor--proves the point).
It rains and snows in New York State...the Hudson allows that water to drain away, has for many millions of years.
Probably easier and wiser to remove PEOPLE instread. Instead of removing rivers perhaps a more sensible and FAR easier plan would be a national policy to HALVE the population of the U.S. by 2112?
Macadam and concrete from sea to shining sea doesn't seem like a particularly good idea especially with that pesky bit of water that would keep intruding...the ATLANTIC OCEAN.
P.S. Diverting the Hudson down the East River would flood half of Brooklyn, Queens, and a good bit of Manhattan.
Man is too stupid to make even the tiniest changes in nature without catastrophe. Should he try to divert rivers the resulting comedy would put the Keystone Kops to shame.
Yes, it has, for many millions of years. Scroll down to see where it used to go, now underwater:
A canyon, comparable in depth to the Grand Canyon, exists 100 miles off the coast New York City. It’s a submarine canyon. Maybe that’s why most New Yorkers don’t know about it. It also has been under water for awhile. The canyon dates to the Pleistocene and is actually an ancient extension of the Hudson River. During the Pleistocene, sea levels were 400 feet lower (in part because of all the water locked up in glaciers). The reduced sea level meant that the Hudson flowed 100 miles further east of its present location at the terminus of Lower Manhattan.
No , its faster in most of Brooklyn , Queens , The Bronx and the NJ Gold Coast , Newark and the Inner suburb rings of this region....congestion is the reason why.
Never mind the East River. You would first have to force the entire flow of the Hudson into the Harlem River. That could never happen without destroying huge sections of the Bronx.
Never mind the East River. You would first have to force the entire flow of the Hudson into the Harlem River. That could never happen without destroying huge sections of the Bronx.
Besides, who want's to be connected to Jersey?
Apparently your fellow New Yorkers on Staten Island ALL do, since they keep bitching and moaning about the tolls on the NY-NJ crossings.
ROTFL. I've posted about paving the Hudson before, but I was kidding. I mean, really, have you SEEN the Hudson? It's a whole lot bigger than the East River. To "divert" it would require totally innundating large parts of the Bronx and Brooklyn and Queens (assuming you were trying to preserve all of Manhattan). And moving the amount of earth it would take to fill in the riverbed would be ridiculous.
And if that wasn't all, consider the number of lawyers it would take to resolve the EPA issues and the NY/NJ jurisdictional issues. Though if you threw them all in the riverbed that might solve two problems at once.
How about a WIDE viaduct from Tarrytown to the Atlantic Ocean...it could probably be done with $15 TRILLION. In essence the river would be carried OVER Manhattan.
But heck, it would all be worth it to walk from Greenwich Village to Jersey City.
Then if we could just pave over the Hackensack, Delaware, and Passaic Rivers we could walk all the way to Pennsylvania.
How about a WIDE viaduct from Tarrytown to the Atlantic Ocean...it could probably be done with $15 TRILLION. In essence the river would be carried OVER Manhattan.
But heck, it would all be worth it to walk from Greenwich Village to Jersey City.
Then if we could just pave over the Hackensack, Delaware, and Passaic Rivers we could walk all the way to Pennsylvania.
Actually there are some parts of the Delaware North of Trenton that are only 2-4ft deep....so an average person could walk across it.. Same with the Hackensack which is a stream near me , only a foot deep in spots... and the Passaic is the same with in Morris county.
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.
