Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc
|
I saw that.
The East River would have many more bridges if it weren't so wide, IMO. It's a completely different situation from Chicago with its their narrower Chicago River with bridges all over. There is a definitive geographic separation between nearly all landmasses in NYC. There aren't too many narrow crossings available, and nearly all of the wide crossings need extra clearance to allow larger ships to navigate.
Nearly all bridges in NYC suffer from the same problem - they are currently designed and allocated for automobile traffic. Any time you cater to automobile traffic, your area becomes one of two things:
- a destination for automobile users.
- a pass-through for automobile users.
I think it would be more useful and less exclusionary if these bridges also included a lane or two for some form of mass transit. Maybe a shuttle light rail (or trolley), or maybe just a bus. By itself, a pedestrian-only bridge wouldn't provide the total number of daily users really move needles. There will be many people who feel that the walk across the river is way too long. But if there were mass transit, it would provide more meaningful daily user numbers. It would certainly help revive cloistered neighborhoods by making them more accessible.
The proposal is ok, but it feels like the 3 bridges being proposed are in already well-to-do areas. I wonder what bridges in less wealthy areas could do to improve the lives of its residents.
For example, the only bridge connecting the Bronx to Randall's Island is the Triborough Bridge. But why must pedestrians from the Bronx be forced to climb up along an intimidating stretch of automobile-only road, then climb on down to get to Randall's Island? The Bronx Kill, the waterway separating the two, isn't navigable by boats or ships. Why not put a few low elevation bridges crossing the Bronx Kill? It would allow Bronx residents far easier pedestrain access to a large recreational island.