An intriguing idea to expand La Guardia Airport with expanded runways achieved by new landfill displacing Rikers Island, with a new set of entryways in the Port Morris area of the South Bronx, accompanied by upgrades to the passenger rail system- all well and good.
Would establish new supplemental entryway to La Guardia in the South Bronx, thus traffic from the north would no longer need to cross the Triborough or Whitestone Bridges, with access to the rest of the airport via a dedicated rail loop
Would expand runway capacity via new landfill displacing Rikers Island
Would connect with all three northern radial Metro North Railroads, thus travellers from the north could arrive by any of the three Metro North railroad lines.
The train station would include a new stop for Amtrak.
Includes the idea of a new convention center replacing Javits Center.
That's an idea that builds upon late 1800s and early 1900s planning proposals to develop this Port Morris area, such as an 1883 proposal for a new convention center, and latter with the idea of continuing the denser development seen in Manhattan further forth, for which the New York, Westchester & Boston railroad, which opened in 1911 had anticipated.
The Re-Think NYC site notes:
The area north of the convention center would be built at an urban
scale. To the west is the Bruckner Expressway, which prevents
connection between Port Morris and neighborhoods to the west. We would
bridge this divide through a proposed new "ambassador" building on the
west side of the Bruckner at 142nd Street, which would allow people to
enter on that side of the expressway, but the building would also serve
as a bridge over the Bruckner that would connect to the entire complex.
This proposal needs further work regarding the highway network, particularly as the Bruckner segment along this area is an unsightly elevated freeway- hence placing a building atop it in this configuration would be ungainly.
Should ultimately include a complete replacement-reconstruction of the southern Bruckner Expressway- an unsightly elevated highway.
What To Do About The Bruckner Expressway:
This elevated freeway, with 3 lanes in each direction is unsightly, locally divisive, lacks shoulders, lacks access ramps to this proposed airport entryway complex, and is under-capacity for accepting traffic from the northbound Willis Avenue Bridge from Manhattan.
It does provide a fantastic view through the windshield for travellers heading south.
To the west it is paralleled by a 4 lane wide southbound surface Bruckner Boulevard.
To its east it is paralleled by a 2 lane wide northbound Bruckner Boulevard with buildings, from its southern end to 142nd Street, where the railroad then meets it to run immediately alongside. That railroad is at a lower grade.
Ideally there should be a new line of buildings designed to reconnect Port Morris with the neighborhoods to the west in the place now occupied by the elevated freeway structure, which should be torn down, with new parallel freeway roadways, with either both directions within new cut and cover tunnel(s), or with the northbound direction in a new cut and cover tunnel, and the southbound direction elevated as the roof of a new line of buildings.
Because the existing elevated freeway must remain in operation throughout the construction project, the first stage would be constructing a new cut and cover freeway tunnel beneath the surface road to the west.
As the Re-Think NYC proposal envisions demolishing the buildings already along the Bruckner's eastern (northbound) side, it could likewise construct a cut and cover tunnelway there as well. To the north of 142nd Street, this could be done via the existing railroad right of way with the tracks relocated eastward, and with this rail corridor planned to be decked over. The historic New York, Westchester & Boston RailRoad Station at the north side of Hunts Point Avenue should not be demolished but rather propped up with new supports and retained either in its exact same location or slightly re-indexed eastwards.
Each of these cut and cover tunnels should ideally be at least the of 4 full width lanes plus shoulders. This might involve some building removal on a brief section of the north side in addition to that one the south side already envisioned by the Re-Think NYC proposal. This should likewise be designed to tie into the existing 4 lane short tunnel for Bruckner Boulevard traffic beneath the Bruckner Expressway-Deegan Expressway interchange with the approach to the Triborough "RFK" Bridge. That tunnel should be lengthened both to the south-west to Brown Place, with local street access and a gentler curve displacing the gasoline station there. And it should be extended to the north-east, with at least one full lane joining into and continuing via an additional lane of the reconstructed Bruckner Expressway.
Once the new cut and cover tunnels are in place, the elevated Bruckner should be demolished, and replaced with a line of new buildings. Optional would be the idea of an elevated roadway upon its roof; as the purpose of that would be to continue the tradition of the southbound vista through the windshield, this might done only for the southbound direction. A variation of this would be to have an arial tunnel within one of this structure's upper levels, ala the "Choppway" proposal a few years ago for the replacement of Seattle Washington's elevated double decked Route 99 Freeway.
However, because of the need to retain the existing elevated freeway throughout the reconstruction, this project would have to include at least one cut and cover tunnel on one or both sides of the existing structure- a basic design configuration furthermore favored by the practicalities of establishing on ramp and off ramp access. Also, the construction could be staged to add an additional cut and cover carriageway between the two new outboard tunnelways once the existing elevated Bruckner is removed.
To the north, the new cut and covers could do wonders for removing the blight of the existing roadways at the mouth of the Bronx River, for both the continuation of the Bruckner and for its connections to the Sheridan.
Such a cut and cover tunnel Bruckner Expressway reconstruction should extend to Boynton Avenue, thus eliminating the elevated berm segment to the west, meeting the existing Bruckner corridor where the freeway is at ground level, and has the option of transitioning to the service roads to access the Bronx River Parkway.
Such a cut and cover connection for the Sheridan should extend to Westchester Avenue, which is build-able via re-indexing the adjacent railroad to the east. Further north, portions of the Sheridan should be decked over taking advantage of the topography of the hill to its west to better connect that area with the Bronx River waterfront, such as between E 172 and 173rd Streets.
The new Bruckner Expressway would of course have greater capacity than the existing 3 lane in each direction facility. The new set of outboard cut and cover tunnels with 4 lanes apiece flanking an inner set with 2 lanes per direction built after the demolition of the elevated structure would provide an upwards of12 lanes, thereby accommodating continuous on lanes for traffic from the northbound Willis Bridge and to and from the new airport access ramps. Of this, 8 lane would continue to surface at Boynton Street, with a lane apiece to and from the service roads, the remaining 6 lanes with the 6 lane surface Bruckner Expressway, and 4 lanes to the north for the Sheridan. Providing this extra capacity would allow more traffic to be underground, thus allowing for a more pedestrian friendly Bruckner Boulevard.
With this thought, the project should include such ramp connects into the Hunts Point Market.
Other Ideas:
With the additional of such a significant amount of landfill displacing Rikers Island, another idea comes to mind- what about taking advantage of that to create new roadway crossings between the Bronx and Queens?
With the Triborough "RFK" Bridge heavily used, even though the "Re-Think NYC" plan would divert some of its traffic by no longer requiring its use from the north to access La Guardia Airport, it would be prudent for long term planning to ultimately seize the opportunity provided by the landfill for the new runway space.
Regarding highways, two ideas come to mind:
- extending the Bronx River Parkway
- extending the Deegan
The logical place would be the area of the Grand Central Parkway-Brooklyn Queens Expressway interchanges.
Not simply as the junction of these two highways, both of which are heavily used.
But because that's the location of a rail corridor that has already been studied and proposed as the location of a new interstate highway running roughly north-south between the two roughly parallel highways of the BQE and the Van Wick Expressway. As planned during the 1960s it was to be known as the Interboro Expressway, and would connect directly with the contemporaneously planned Cross Brooklyn Expressway.
For a good historic overview of the previous planing for the Interboro Expressway, see the account by NYC Roads Steve Anderson:
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/queens-interboro/
Accordingly it was canceled by 1973. As planned during the late 1960s-early 1970s it would have included reconstructing a portion of the existing elevated IRT as a subway with the below ground level freeway. As I have not seen any detailed plans, I don't know if any of the latter planning included any segments as coverways (cut and cover tunnels), rather than simply as an open depressed freeway.
A revival of the Interboro Expressway has been proposed by Peter Samuel's via his publication TollRoads.
As it is a relatively narrow railroad corridor that is generally below grand level, passing through residential area, it would have to be constructed primarily within a tunnel box, and covered with new linear parkland.
Connecting with a Cross Brooklyn Expressway likewise built primarily by tunnelways, this Interboro Route would provide a valuable link into Brooklyn and towards Staten Island and Long Island.
A could be connected to the Bronx by a curved tunnel contained beneath the Re-Think NYC La Guardia Port Morris facility, directly into the Deegan. Optionally that could include ramp connects to and from the new Bruckner and the Hunts Point Market.
A tunneled extension of the Bronx River Parkway could connect with the BQE-Interboro-Grand Central Parkway, though its logical connection with the latter as a parkway would be best done in conjunction with a demolition-reconstruction of the western portion of the existing La Guardia complex, owing to the geometry.
Such a connection would thus establish a seem-less link between the southern end of New York's longest Parkway -- the Bronx River - Sprain Brook - Taconic which are all really one freeway from the South Bronx towards Albany -- and the Grand Central - Cross Island - Northern State Parkways.
None of these projects would have to be all built at once or together.
Rather they could be built in stages, starting with the incorporation of their initial segments within the "Re-Think NYC" La Guardia expansion project, and within the reconstruction of the adjoining Bruckner.
Including the tunnel box within the new clearing and landfill would be comparably easy compared to failing to plan them and adding later. As these would be additions between the existing 8 lane Triborough/"RFK" and 6 lane Whitestone Bridges, they could suffice with a minimum of 2 lanes in each direction apiece.
The Deegan-Interboro Connection would provide a valuable bypass of the Triborough "RFK" Bridge and its antiquated Queens approach. Of course the Deegan should be rebuilt to full 8 lane specifications, as I have previously written about, and its east west segment from Willis Avenue to at least towards Brown Street, should be decked over. Serious consideration should be given to reconstructing this freeway further to the east at a lower elevation to be likewise decked over as far as practical for connecting with the Triborough"RFK" Bridge, with new parkland atop, more consistent with the spirit of the 1883 Port Morris planning.
Because of their use of the footprint of the La Guardia expansion project, most of this new tunnel crossing construction would not disturb existing neighborhoods nor traffic.
Streetsblog New York City » A Reason to Give Thanks: State DOT Won’t Widen the Deegan
24. Nov, 2009
[...] Opposition to expanding the highway was widespread. Community activists, city officials, and electeds — including Congressman Jose Serrano — condemned the proposal as a threat to redevelopment planned for the Harlem River waterfront. Transportation advocates warned that the project would attract more traffic, negating the promised reductions in congestion. [...]
Douglas Willinger
24. Nov, 2009
Wow! Wait until the area is all built up, making the highway rehab more expensive to taxpayers, but oh well, orchestrate and steer a controversy for some powerful entity that wants to build its towers more quickly, bringing in 1,000s of new residences and vehicles, behind a wall of an elevated highway separating themselves and the waterfront from the inland. Mark Gorton serves his masters at Credit Suise. Nice how they have that one meeting that though barely advertised to the public, is filled with opponents and apparantly none of the road’s users. And then, you have NYSDOT [first] issuing not a press release, but rather a call to Streetsblog?
MottHavendude
01. Dec, 2009
Douglass your comment is spoken like the typical DRIVER WHO DOESN’T LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY. People actually live here, and are forced to deal with the Major Deegan that plows through the community. And you are complaining that the community doesn’t roll over as the development plans to FINALLY open the waterfront, build affordable housing (did you notice we need more of that?), parkland (yeah we don’t have much of that either), decrease car traffic/exhaust (we have a bit of an asthma problem here due to the significant amount of cars/trucks on that Deegan), have just been approved and will be crushed so that YOUR commute from who knows where is slightly better? I mean really? Is this your argument? It has ZERO to do with Credit Suisse, and EVERYTHING to do with OUR COMMUNITY. But what do you care…you don’t live here. If you cared enough about the expansion of the Deegan ramps, you should have made it your business to be informed and attend the meeting. Feel free to come to ANY of the Community Board 1 meetings and voice your opinion about the issue. We would be happy to hear how you know whats best for the community and the city of NY.
Douglas Willinger
03. Dec, 2009
Dude-
You can have the development.
But why must it infringe on the much needed ramps? Do you think it makes any sense to add 10,000 residents to an already overcapacity interchange without even leaving room to upgrade the ramps?
And why jam in an elevated highway rather then what Cincinatti did that would really open up the waterfront, rather then create the cul de sac comminty that you shill for?
http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-87-cromwell-avenue-tunnel.html
Why do you state that you are concerned with asthma when you will create even more of a traffic jam by not doing the Fort Washington Way with cover and filtration. The “Streetsblog” position is all about the public be damned just to make a development project a bit more sprawling?
That NYSDOT has a single meeting announced reportedly 3 days beforehand, and makes a decision on that shows that it is simply cherrypicked with paraochialists.
http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2009/11/chock-deegan.html
Any meeting about the Deegan ought to be better announced, including the people using the highway.
A decision based on such an obviously cheery picked audience, and one so obviously steered to make this cul de sac development a bit larger is clearly invalid. So does that fact that the matter is unreported by the major newspapers- to keep the general public uninformed. Its all about hoodwinking the public, which the parochialists are good at.
But yes, the ruling class tool Mark Groton does his work well, as do the handlers of this “community” based opposition that would have Mott Haven become further walled off from the waterfront for the sake of a cul de sac development obviously pushed by something towards the top of the political pyramid.
A development along and atop a depressed. covered filtrated Deegan would be far better for everyone.
But again, as perhaps with the Washington, D.C. South Capitol Mall being canceled for that Nationals Stadium, when the top of the pyramid wants something, the unthinking minions just say yes.
Douglas Willinger
03. Dec, 2009
“If you cared enough about the expansion of the Deegan ramps, you should have made it your business to be informed and attend the meeting.”
I do care and I do follow transportation.
But my, a single meeting barely announced (and even them only afterward by TSTC and Streetsblog) and obviously cherrypicked and unannounced to the using public, and you treat it like gospel.
By that logic, lets have decision made on a transit project upon as sole barley advertised meeting. By defending the cherry picking process you essentualy state that you favor decisions made by the elite, suger-coated with rhetoric (but not logic) about serving existing communities.
That is the mark of a top down directed mission where the politicians relied upon their handlers, and not any independent analysis.
MottHavendude
04. Dec, 2009
Douglas your opinions are tragic indeed. The new development that we “shill” for is NOT in lieu of new Deegan ramps, it is just coming FIRST. The community does not want to jeopardize in any way the future redevelopment of the site, or the access to the waterfront, so they are redeveloping the community FIRST, at which time the Deegan ramps, should they be necessary in the future, very well can be built and will likely be revisited at some point. HOWEVER, if we build the ramps FIRST, it compromises what can/can’t be done to redevelop the area and will cut-off the waterfront. So why would someone choose to do that first? So your 45 minute commute down the Deegan from Sleepy twig, NY will be 2 minutes faster? Really?
The community is already shaped enough by highways, off ramps, truck traffic, and commuters like yourself. We do not live around the highways, they live around us…and as such the redevelopment is being built based on the community’s needs and the city’s interests, not your commute.
What you fail to realize, as most far-flung commuters with no knowledge of the community do, is that they are redeveloping along this site because A: It has substantial underutilized land that is perfectly situated adjacent to Manhattan, and with the benefit of opening the entire waterfront for the FIRST time. and B: It is along TRANSIT routes, including Metro-North, 2/4/5/6 train lines so that those that move into the area are NOT those that are dependent on cars or expect to have driveways. The car traffic that come with an increase of 5,000 people of which you speak of is typical of new developments in suburbia (where you live), NOT NYC transit based development, which is what we have here.
Your rhetoric of a ‘cul de sac” community is quite laughable, and reflects your inability to look past your suburban life. What the city is creating here is NOT a closed off waterfront community, it is an OPEN waterfront with parks, green space, outdoor restaurants, pavilions, bike trails, and pedestrian zone. Your are demonstrating a total lack of information regarding this redevelopment, as well as a complete ignorance of the community and how it will reshape the Southern Bronx and move the city forward. But then again, how much would one know about either when they are simply driving through in the mornings and evenings.
Motthavendude
04. Dec, 2009
(contd)..
It should also be noted that if you feel so strongly regarding the new Ramps, why don’t you come to the community board #1 monthly meetings and express your opinion. If you believe it is that important, why not educate us and convince us otherwise? You clearly expressed an interest and claim the meetings were “held in secret”, but had you been INVOLVED in the community from the beginning, you would have known all about these meetings. They were not held in secret, they were publicized to EVERYONE with ANY interest. Here is a great way to keep abreast of other such events: Involve yourself with the community instead of relying on random blogs for information and you just might discover alot more that you are missing, and you hopefully will be more capable of forming an educated opinion about the community and its goals.
If I don’t see you at the next community board #1 meeting, I am sure I will see you sitting in traffic on the Deegan.
Douglas Willinger
07. Dec, 2009
You defend a meeting that was essentially unannounced to the general public, filled with a group of people steered to protect the maximum amount of space for the development, disregarding the fact that there is plenty of space for development and the ramps.
But some entity at the top wants to jam in a cul de sac development- why don’t you look at the development plans on the NYSDOT site which show it as such?
If you really care for the community (defined as more the general public rather then the developers and their shillers) why no mention of the Fort Washington Way style tunnel with filtration, which would help everyone?
The shilling for making this development have more space and happen quicker ought to be a textbook example of elitism running amock all for a wealthy cul de sac enclave wedged between the waterfront and an elevated highway that I would like to bring down.
Motthavendude
08. Dec, 2009
Douglass why do you keep repeating that the meeting was unannounced to the general public. IT WAS ANNOUNCED, as are ALL NYSDOT hearings…so please take responsibility for not being informed. It was a full house of people who made it their business to be informed about the project and state their opinions. Had you been involved in the community you would know this, but you are not. So why are you voicing your nonsensical complaints on this website now?
There is NO entity at the top that is dictating this development. This clearly demonstrates your profound ignorance as to who is shaping this development: THE COMMUNITY. How many Community Board #1 meetings have you attended? The answer is ZERO. How do I know this? Because this project has been discuss ad nauseum for over a year with the community, local, city, and state officials. Had you attended any of these meeting you would A: Have known when the hearings were and B: Would not be making ignorant, uninformed comments on this website.
Elitism is not what governs the Mott Haven community, it is the community. Secondly, I would like to know how one could possibly describe this redevelopment as “wealthy.” IT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, with parks, bike trails, pedestrian zones, and retail. There is NO “luxury” component/housing of any kind..why? THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT WANT IT. How do I know this? I GO TO THE MEETINGS. And again you describe it as a “cul-de-sac” when in fact it OPENS the waterfront, NOT closes it! You are welcome to keep repeating lies, but it doesn’t make them true.
The fact remains you know nothing of the community, you do not live in the community, you care nothing for the community, and your sole interest is in shaving 2 minutes off your 45 minute commute down the Deegan from Sleepy Twig, NY. Until you educate yourself about this redevelopment and attend ANY meetings, please refrain from spewing nonsense.
Douglas Wilinger
08. Dec, 2009
Your sole interest is increasing the available land that is quickly available for this cul de sac development. The NYSDOT report itself has it has a cul se sac recommended in the area of the ramps- perhaps because of the heavy traffic.
The meeting was hardly advertised — what on a Friday 3 day before the meeting — and filled with people mouthing the exact same thing (apparently- as I am going by the meger reports) with NONE mentioning the Fort Washington tunnel-filtration concept?
Why would no one mention these things is they were so concerned or informed?
Any why is NYSDOT making decisions on a single basically unadvertised meeting apparently without the users? Why no billboard along I-87 advertising it to the users? No meeting on a transportation artery should lack advertisement to the people using the facility- but they apparently do not matter to parochialists such as yourself.
What you will accomplish is hemming in the highway, making it 3x expensive to underground, hence confirming the existing highway wall. By definition this screws the existing community. but the new development will sit behind its elevated highway and its presumable heavy sound glass. You will increase pollution and health problems by further over taxing the ramps and making it far more difficult, expensive and unlikely that the highway would be buried and filtrated. Why is it that the upper west side and the Gowanus area advocate for a longer term tunnel solution while the Mott Haven community gets steered to sanction keeping up the wall of the elevated highway?
You ought to tell the Jesuit Fordham “new urbanists” that we can do far better for Mott Haven.
How does it feel to sell out your area for pleasing some $#%@& at the top of the political pyramid who wants to get how tower up before he dies?
Douglas Willinger
09. Dec, 2009
A small group of people discussing something used by a great deal more people, and discussing it particularly without anything posted to the internet where users are likely to find about it in this day and age, is elitism. If there is to be a discussion about any transportation artery, that must include BOTH those alongside it and those using it- the latter for instance with signs-billboards announcing the meeting at least 30 days in advance.. Otherwise its is something that NYSDOT has no business basing a decision upon.
Telling me that I “care nothing for the community” is a strange charge considering that I am the one addressing concerns about noise pollution with proposing a “Fort Washington Way” ultimate tunnel solution allowing even more development space, while you instead would choose remaining oblivious to anything other than maintaining the existing WALL of an elevated expressway for the sake of building the development a few years quicker- and disregard how much more expensive this sort of anti-development makes burying and filtering the highway in the future. What you are advocacy is placing developer profit above the broader social good. Apparently by “community” you certainly mean far fewer people then do I. Everyone else should suffer merely to make the development a bit larger more quickly.
Compared to the Riverside South Boulevard and Gowanus Tunnel projects why do you insist upon the extra and quicker space of cramming in the existing elevated highway -placing some 10,000 new residents in such close proximity to the exposed highway and continuing to expose the area to the unfiltered vehicular exhaust?
Can the future generations of people living there sue the government for allowing such planning?
MottHavendude
09. Dec, 2009
Douglass I am very sad to see you are still here making pointless complaints. Why are you here alleging a conspiracy and elitism by the NYSDOT because YOU did not stay abreast to what is happening in MY community? If you have a problem with the standard procedures/announcements the NYSDOT uses to advise the public about hearings, PLEASE TAKE IT UP WITH THEM. Those that cared enough about it made it their business to stay informed, and attended the meeting. Had you attended any Community Board #1 meeting, or this meeting, you would note “elitism” is the last word used to describe those contesting the Deegan ramp extension.
If it were up to me I would eliminate the Sheridan, greatly limit truck traffic and have 90% of distribution done by rail/barge in and out of Hunts Point, NOT expand any other highways in the city, bury all highways, and filter accordingly. However, life is not fair, and as a result, you must pick and choose your battles…welcome to the real world. The “Fort Washington Way” is a great idea, and if it were up to me I would do it, but let’s get back to reality. The redevelopment will NOT proceed should that requirement be implemented because it is too costly when combined with this new redevelopment.
So as a community we had a decision to make: Is it more important to redevelop the area, provide a significant amount of new quality, affordable housing, parkland, retail, pedestrian zones, bike trails, open waterfront, and improved infrastructure, OR Is it better to expand the Deegan ramps first, which would cut off the waterfront and permanently diminish the potential for this development. The community chose to move forward with this development, and to revisit the extension of the Deegan ramps later, because we have the opportunity RIGHT NOW to make this dream happen. It may not happen again in our lifetimes…as it has taken decades just to get to this point.
Would the community like to have all highways buried and filtered? YES. Will we kill this development for possibly our lifetime just so that we can get a stretch of the highway buried? NO.
Had you attended any of the Community Board #1 meetings, you would have had the opportunity to state your case and convince people otherwise. But you chose not to…so you don’t care. If you did care, you would have made it your business to attend the meetings, but instead you choose to complain and whine on a blog.
We, as a community, and the city of NY, will move forward with this development because we have the opportunity NOW, and will revisit the Deegan ramps and possible “Fort Washington Way” proposal IN THE FUTURE. Don’t like this decision? Get off the keyboard, drive down to the Community Board #1 meeting, and state your case. Otherwise, why do you continue whining on these blogs?
Douglas Willinger
15. Dec, 2009
Why is “this” development– the specific proposal rather then the concept of the area’s redevelopment?
Doing the development first will make burying the highway later way more difficult and expensive- please refer to Brooklyn’s Gowanus Tunnel proposal (NYSDOT) that has evolved towards a waterfront tunnel rather then directly beneath the existing elevated highway. Why should a particular development plan proceed without study of alternatives, nor cost studies of different such alternative plans?
Why proceed with this particular plan without even considering a Fort Washington Way “Cromwell Avenue Tunnel” with configurations allowing greater flexibility and waterfront access. How after all is hemming in the existing ELEVATED Deegan making the waterfront more accessible for many people?
BTW- I support widening the highway right of way, but conditionally that it be undergrounded ala the Fort Washington Way.
As for you last point- because ‘telecommuting” is infinitely more practical- though I will gladly attend any future meetings provided at least some advance notice- again, why nothing upon the billboards along that stretch of I-87 if its a decision more broadly community based. Please don’t forget that the meeting was publicly announced only 3 day beforehand- and conspicuously not to the using public, and notably so far unreported by the major NY City newspapers!
MottHavendude
15. Dec, 2009
And here we go again Douglas. Can somebody please cancel this guy’s internet access [bold added]. Let’s try this one last time: HAD YOU BEEN TO ANY OF THE PAST 2 YEARS OF COMMUNITY BOARD #1 MEETINGS, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED ALL OF THESE OPTIONS IN DETAIL. YOU WOULD ALSO HAVE KNOWN WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS SPECIFICALLY WITH THE NYSDOT REGARDING ALL OF THESE ISSUES. YOUR IGNORANCE TO WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM RANDOM BLOGS AND NOT FROM THE SOURCE: THE COMMUNITY BOARD MEETINGS.
What you are seeing TODAY is the result of MANY meetings with MANY groups, and we have discussed it and made our decision. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY WE MADE OUR DECISIONS, COME TO THE COMMUNITY BOARD #1 MEETINGS, STATE YOUR OPINION, AND ASK WHY WE HAVE CHOSEN OTHERWISE. THE END.
And lastly, if you are unhappy with the NYSDOT’s standard procedures for notifying the public regarding their meetings, TAKE IT UP WITH THEM. The Bronx, nor the Community Board, nor anyone else, makes those decisions. IF YOU WANT THE NYSDOT TO PUT UP BILLBOARDS ON HIGHWAYS FOR COMMUTERS, GET OFF THE KEYBOARD, GO TO THEIR OFFICE, AND MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION.
Why are you continuing to waste everyone’s time with ill-informed arguments/recommendations on random blogs? INFORM YOURSELF. STOP BLAMING THE WORLD FOR YOUR IGNORANCE AND LAZINESS.
Douglas Willinger
17. Dec, 2009
Where was any of this done in public on the internet? I for instance frequently research the area highways, such as via Steve Anderson’s nysroads.com, and saw nothing about any meeting.
In this day and age, why should anyone defend having the discussions — for such an important matter — in such traditionally confined circumstances?
Did Robert Moses ever so strongly defend keeping the public so un-informed?
Motthavendude
17. Dec, 2009
TAKE IT UP WITH NYSDOT. THE END.
Douglas Willinger
18. Dec, 2009
Your evasiveness and defensiveness is quite telling, Mr. Shill for the wealthy, influential, & thoughtless.
The NYSDOT decision is baseless, and your attitudes admit it!