Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Metro Area Transportation Wish List

The infrastructure repairs to be addressed by the NY Transportation Bond Act include the following:
In New York City, the major projects include:

¶$286 million to replace the Willis Avenue Bridge between the Bronx and Manhattan.

¶$149.2 million to replace a bridge on the Bronx River Parkway that runs over East 180th Street and East Tremont Avenue in the Bronx.

¶$148.4 million to replace interchange ramps on the Alexander Hamilton and High Bridges between Manhattan and the Bronx.

¶$141.1 million to rehabilitate the deck of the Gowanus Expressway in Brooklyn from 24th Street to 52nd Street and from Prospect Avenue to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel.

¶$81.3 million, as part of $171 million in total financing, to improve the Kew Gardens interchange, which links the Van Wyck Expressway, the Jackie Robinson Parkway and the Grand Central Parkway in Queens.

For Long Island, the bond act would include $60.5 million to widen, and build an interchange on, Route 110 in Huntington; $57.2 million to reconstruct Route 112 in Brookhaven; and $50 million for improvements to the Nassau Expressway and the Southern State Parkway. The act also would provide $45.1 million toward a $110 million rail and highway freight terminal in Brentwood.

In Westchester, the projects include $91 million for reconstruction of Interstate 287 in Harrison and $60.6 million for safety improvements on that road from Greenburgh to White Plains.


Here's a question for the NY Times. How come you can't include links to the source documentation, which include the summaries of the Transportation Bond Act?

If you actually read that document, you'd know that the Bond Act would also include the following MTA Projects:

$450 million for East Side Access;
$450 million for the 2nd Avenue Subway;
$100 million for the JFK Rail Link; and
$450 million for Core Infrastructure Needs.
For a paper of record, doesn't it make sense to break down the entirety of the bond act, and not just a few sections? What purpose is being served by treating the Act in a piecemeal fashion?

No comments: