Mouse wrote:
I think those advocating the road extension are missing an important factor: quality of life.

Open space is being removed from Liberty State Park (LSP). Where we once had a "Great Lawn" now sits a marina. We have had the addition of a golf course. There is development impinging on LSP from all sides.

jmiz wrote:

The marina is in the water, the great lawn is on land? How did the marina affect the lawn, aside from the western-most end where boats are stored? Is your problem with the restaurant on the Great Lawn, which helps draw thousands of people each year to the park?

There was once a marina in the Morris Canal at the foot of Marin after the canal's closure and prior to the area becoming a State park. A great lawn there was not. So if anything, the marina is a restoration to how things once were, much like the CRRNJ Terminal.

Maybe you didn't read the thread, but Liberty State Park is not what's in question here. In fact, the proposed road is just outside of the park's boundaries, which is why the city is proposing the construction of the road and not the State DOT.

Mouse wrote:
I think those advocating the road extension are missing an important factor: quality of life.

Open space is being removed from Liberty State Park (LSP). Where we once had a "Great Lawn" now sits a marina. We have had the addition of a golf course. There is development impinging on LSP from all sides.

I really hope we get the footbridge re-built and keep LSP as-is ..... It is important that we retain what little of an oasis that still exists in LSP.

Mouse wrote:
I think those advocating the road extension are missing an important factor: quality of life.

Open space is being removed from Liberty State Park (LSP). Where we once had a "Great Lawn" now sits a marina. We have had the addition of a golf course. There is development impinging on LSP from all sides.

I really hope we get the footbridge re-built and keep LSP as-is. We have plenty of roads and traffic and pollution in the area. We have the Turnpike and we have the Holland Tunnel, and we have more traffic than is healthy. Isn't this enough chaos?

It is important that we retain what little of an oasis that still exists in LSP.

jmiz wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

jmiz wrote:
For every percentage of extra road, you get that much extra percentage of vehicles on the road. Now, what percentage would a 100 foot road extension be compared to the total amount of roads in Jersey City? What percentage of vehicles would this tiny extension add? If we go by the statistics in the article you quoted, that number is next to insignificant.

There's a huge difference between adding additional or widening existing roads and connecting existing roads.

Sorry, but I think you're being deliberately dense. The statement was illustrating a minimum, not a maximum. A bridge is in a different category. If you opened a new bridge from NJ to Manhattan, do you really believe the traffic would only increase as a proportion of that bridge's road surface to all of NYC's roads?

If I'm being dense, you're being equally outlandish by comparing a road extension between a park and a downtown neighborhood with a massive multi-billion dollar capital project between two states.

And, just to humor you, when the Lincoln Tunnel added its 2nd and 3rd tunnel, it did not double the amount of vehicular traffic through the tunnels over night or even over the course of a year! (See tunnel statistics to see how long it took to DOUBLE the traffic) It instead eased congestion on the single existing (and then two existing) tunnels and actually made it easier to get across the river! Imagine that, increased roadway capacity helps ease traffic congestion!

brewster wrote:
Quote:

jmiz wrote:
For every percentage of extra road, you get that much extra percentage of vehicles on the road. Now, what percentage would a 100 foot road extension be compared to the total amount of roads in Jersey City? What percentage of vehicles would this tiny extension add? If we go by the statistics in the article you quoted, that number is next to insignificant.

There's a huge difference between adding additional or widening existing roads and connecting existing roads.

Sorry, but I think you're being deliberately dense. The statement was illustrating a minimum, not a maximum. A bridge is in a different category. If you opened a new bridge from NJ to Manhattan, do you really believe the traffic would only increase as a proportion of that bridge's road surface to all of NYC's roads?

jmiz wrote:
For every percentage of extra road, you get that much extra percentage of vehicles on the road. Now, what percentage would a 100 foot road extension be compared to the total amount of roads in Jersey City? What percentage of vehicles would this tiny extension add? If we go by the statistics in the article you quoted, that number is next to insignificant.

There's a huge difference between adding additional or widening existing roads and connecting existing roads.

JCbiscuit wrote:
studies show that Brewster has a point, and more / wider roads actually increase traffic:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/09/1377087 ... -pave-way-to-more-traffic

"What we found was that in cities where there was more roads, there was more driving," economist Matthew Turner, a co-author of the study, tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz. "In particular, if you had 1 percent more roads, you had 1 percent more driving in those cities."

JCbiscuit wrote:
studies show that Brewster has a point, and more / wider roads actually increase traffic:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/09/1377087 ... -pave-way-to-more-traffic

brewster wrote:
Quote:

jmiz wrote:
The extension would relieve unnecessary traffic on BL streets by removing that neighborhood from the equation. The quote does NOT say those 5000 vehicles will be "added" to DTJC. Those 5000 cars are already directed in to DTJC at the one-way right hand turn at the end of Pacific and on to Grand.

That's a quaint belief you have that everyone that currently uses Pacific will change to Jersey and not be replaced by new drivers looking to avoid sitting for an hour on the ramp to 14th. Unless there was a plan to block off Johnson that I missed.

So to answer your question, it increases the traffic to Downtown by creating another inlet, rather than a replacement inlet as you believe. This is not a zero sum game, there will always be more commuters weighing whether it's worth it to drive, and which route is least painful. Make a new route, and it will fill to the point of diminishing returns. Every time.

What's left out of the debate is the real sponsors of this road...developers of course. the developers of LHN & of the Jersey corridor south of Grand want easy and "unscary" access to the park as a selling point.

jmiz wrote:
The extension would relieve unnecessary traffic on BL streets by removing that neighborhood from the equation. The quote does NOT say those 5000 vehicles will be "added" to DTJC. Those 5000 cars are already directed in to DTJC at the one-way right hand turn at the end of Pacific and on to Grand.

GrovePath wrote:
As Brewster pointed out.. this will just increase the number of NYC commuters who try getting off at Exit 14B

Quote:

brewster wrote:

...Anyone who pays attention to traffic issues knows this will never work. When you relieve pressure at one point in a system with vast demand, the demand will always fill the void as people choose to take a route that now offers less friction...

"The main thrust of this effort is to relieve the Bergen Lafayette neighborhood of 5000 vehicular trips made daily by motorists which must travel through local streets to reach their destinations."

brewster wrote:

...The explicit purpose of this bridge is to divert rush traffic to Downtown, as noted in the JCRA study "The main thrust of this effort is to relieve the Bergen Lafayette neighborhood of 5000 vehicular trips made daily by motorists which must travel through local streets to reach their destinations." So the idea is to get all the people who leave the tpk at exit 14B to get around the traffic at 14C to use Jersey instead of Pacific to get to Downtown and the Tunnel.

brewster wrote:

...The explicit purpose of this bridge is to divert rush traffic to Downtown, as noted in the JCRA study "The main thrust of this effort is to relieve the Bergen Lafayette neighborhood of 5000 vehicular trips made daily by motorists which must travel through local streets to reach their destinations." So the idea is to get all the people who leave the tpk at exit 14B to get around the traffic at 14C to use Jersey instead of Pacific to get to Downtown and the Tunnel.

Anyone who pays attention to traffic issues knows this will never work. When you relieve pressure at one point in a system with vast demand, the demand will always fill the void as people choose to take a route that now offers less friction. You can lower the pressure in a bucket by adding another spigot, but not a dike on the ocean.

So the result will be that B-L will have the same traffic, that is to say bad to point it's barely worth the detour, while Downtown will have a big new flow onto local streets, entering at an already disastrous intersection of Jersey & Grand, that has a hospital and 2 schools, with several more nearby.

user1111 wrote:
In most cities I ever lived in downtown traffic was always heavy, you will get use to it.

jmiz wrote:
Quote:

The concern is that driving commuters on the Turnpike during the inbound rush will exit the Turnpike at 14B or Liberty Science Center and take the proposed bridge and local streets as a shortcut to the Holland Tunnel.

Already there are a lot of drivers who take the Columbus Drive exit to do exactly that. The Academy Bus to Wall Street routinely does that.

We're saying the same thing using different words.

I asked how an additional route will increase traffic. By that, I mean to ask how traffic will increase DOWNTOWN when both the existing Pacific route and the new proposed Jersey Ave route all dump in to the same place -- Grand.

Whether cars cut through DTJC starting on Jersey or starting on Pacific is not going to increase or decrease the traffic on side streets in DTJC. Cars still have to traverse the same route downtown (likely Grand -> Marin or Grand -> Jersey - CCBLVD -> Marin), they will just now get a two block head start.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
An additional roadway (from Downtown, no less, which is very accessible by foot via the coming soon footbridge) is a waste of money.

Driving to an urban park is also something that I find really silly.

Really? So the roadways through Central Park/ Prospect Park is a waste? Glad you are not a man in power.

The concern is that driving commuters on the Turnpike during the inbound rush will exit the Turnpike at 14B or Liberty Science Center and take the proposed bridge and local streets as a shortcut to the Holland Tunnel.

Already there are a lot of drivers who take the Columbus Drive exit to do exactly that. The Academy Bus to Wall Street routinely does that.

JamesBeard wrote:
Quote:

On_The_3rd wrote:
The last two weekends that I've gone it is still fenced off. If you cross the skate park and go left of the shipping container, you'll see several beaten paths where people have been cutting through the brush. If you skinny, you can probably walk along the fence line, but if you're with a bike like myself it easier to cut through the brush.

Why spend 18 million on a bridge when there's a perfectly good route that we could pave over and use right away?

user1111 wrote:
The footbridge connecting Jersey Avenue to Liberty State Park in Jersey City may be back up in time for Memorial Day, according to city officials.

The bridge, which was destroyed during Hurricane Sandy, may cost about $750,000 to replace, according to city Chief of Staff Rosemary McFadden. Federal disaster-relief funds should pay for 75 percent of the replacement costs, while the city is seeking grants or private funding sources for the remainder, McFadden writes in an email.

The news comes as officials at Liberty State Park, which was heavily damaged when Sandy devastated the region on Oct. 29, 2012, announced this week that another 139 acres of the state park were reopened on Jan. 29, bringing the total number of open acres 263. There are 600 upland acres in the park.

All of the roads, parking lots and most fields are open, but restrooms, playgrounds and parts of the walkway remain closed, according to the Friends of Liberty State Park website.

The city expects to put the footbridge work out to bid by the end of March, and hopes to have it replaced entirely by Memorial Day, or ?as soon as possible? after, according to McFadden.

The bridge will be located where the old bridge was, but there will be enhanced lighting, signs and safety provisions.

City officials do not know how old the bridge is. Friends of Liberty State Park President Sam Pesin said he believes the bridge was there when the park opened in 1976.

Liberty State Park attracts more then 5 million visitors annually.

750,000.00 really?