Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Trainlover1279 t1_ixj4ina wrote

The wait will be the same since it's the same amount of lanes going across the Hudson.

31

DerSturmbannfuror t1_ixjfhvj wrote

tbf with the way investment is going in JC, mmany of those cars would never cross the HUdson

8

Trainlover1279 t1_ixjfo6g wrote

Gotta invest in some of the busier local roads with all the development going on around here.

2

DerSturmbannfuror t1_ixjgzck wrote

walking around downtown and esp Journal Square, there isn't really much they can to vis a vis easing the coming auto nightmare in those areas, except for making more of those roads one way (which is something i guess) the roads are too narrow to be widened without using current pedestrian ROWs, not to mention the great bike lanes that they've instituted. JC needs to invest in better public transit into the city, they need express bus lanes on their north/south routes (JFK blvd, Palisade ave, Bergan, Westside, Garfield aves, hopefully a light rail thru journal square somehow or something. upgrade the jitneys, give them priority or something but the Last thing i'd want to do is commute there via car in say, 3 years. as bad as it is now the traffic is going to be muy merde once the a lot of those buildings are done. all imho of coiurse

8

skinnylemur t1_ixp57j5 wrote

It used to take me 90 minutes to get from my apt in JC to the garage at 43rd & 8th. It would take me 7 minutes to get home.

1

44moon t1_ixjc7kn wrote

show me a city that has consistently less congestion because it did highway goatse...

27

thrshptwon t1_ixku7h3 wrote

A train pls get some cars off the road

20

Datiya t1_ixj5hov wrote

No, please just keep adding more car infrastructure. Not like there’s a climate crisis going on.

18

fatandlean t1_ixl8rlb wrote

It’s clear after a number of uncanny predictions that we should be using the Simpsons as a guide for what is to come in the future.

I therefore propose a monorail.

9

CPT_Shiner t1_ixm0s70 wrote

"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haberbrook, and by gum it sure put them on the map!"

2

DerSturmbannfuror t1_ixjfc95 wrote

if they want to spend that much money, they should just shoot their shot and propose putting Bayonne/Jersey City protion underground

8

Atuk-77 t1_ixkuxn5 wrote

There is no need for new traffic into the city, in the other hand mass transportation improvements would be more effective

5

stevenfrijoles t1_ixipvro wrote

Those people should be laughed off the face of the earth.

−12

InnovativeFarmer t1_ixj4by1 wrote

Unless we can widen the ways across the Hudson or add more crossing, making the the NJTP wider just means more cars get to the bottlenecks faster. There are four ways to cross the Hudson. 3 are connected to the NJ Turnpike. The Tappenzee Bridge is a bit north but still acceptable sometimes to avoid traffic, especially if you are going north of the city.

I hope more crossings are added.

11

stevenfrijoles t1_ixjblcy wrote

If the bottleneck into NYC still exists, then there won't be any difference on the NYC side, which is why their complaint is silly. And if they're complaining about this, oh boy, just wait until they get the opportunity to complain about improving actual real crossing capacity

−2

InnovativeFarmer t1_ixjf56k wrote

I mean they need to build more crossings along the Hudson. I have crossed over quite frequently since I have family and friends that live in MA and I lived there for a bit. The traffic is bad in the vicinity of the crossings and during busy hours. I recently crossed over the GW and it was smooth both ways around mid-morning to mid-day but I did hit traffic going north near Connecticut. Really bad traffic. But thats typcial for CT.

We need more way to cross the Hudson.

5