BHA Has Two New BQE Plans

By on June 2, 2019 2:09 pm in 11201, BQE rehab, Brooklyn Heights

It’s not quite to the point that there are more alternative plans for the rehabilitation of the cantilevered portion of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway below Brooklyn Heights than there are aspirants to the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. As the Eagle’s Mary Frost reports, the Brooklyn Heights Association has presented two new plans, both by the firm of Marc Wouters Studios, which also did the first design presented by the BHA early this year.

The new designs differ from the BHA’s earlier one in that they would, in one proposal, use the temporary bypass roadway as the base for expansion of Brooklyn Bridge Park, or in the other, create a new level of parkland in place of the present northbound BQE lanes. According to the Eagle

BHA says that both of these new concepts offer several distinct advantages from other recent proposals, since neither would require the costly relocation of other major infrastructure (including MTA facilities, the park’s headquarters or a major sewer trunk line under Furman Street) and neither would affect the condominium building at 360 Furman St.

Renderings of both of the new proposals can be seen in the Eagle story linked at the top of this post. Meanwhile, the work of the committee appointed by Mayor de Blasio to study alternatives for BQE rehabilitation or replacement continues, and the committee seeks comments from the public.

Share this Story:

, , ,

  • W.R.

    When will these be shared with the community via the website? I’m curious how they navigate the pinch points and deal with noise and pollution as well as the Atlantic ave crossings

  • Jorale-man

    It’s good to see fresh thinking on the redesign continues. A plan that doesn’t involve moving the sewer line or MTA structure would probably be more palatable to the city. And the Highline-Brooklyn design is nice in that it adds some green space. Still, burying the highway under the park – as a couple of the plans have proposed – would be the most appealing in my book.

  • BrooklynHeightzer

    It all sounds and looks fine at first blush, but will inevitably hit the snag with implementation, feasibility, budget, engineering, et,etc,etc…

  • BrooklynHeightzer

    It all sounds and looks fine on the paper at first blush, but will inevitably hit the snag with implementation, feasibility, budget, engineering, et, etc, etc…

  • Eddyde

    Sadly, that’s the problem whit most of these alternate proposals, they look great in section at the Promenade but run out of gas south of Joralemon Street.
    I’m surprised the BHA hasn’t put forth the tunnel as a viable option, considering its more feasible than some of these proposals.

  • Nomcebo Manzini

    The BHA website is clearly not nimble – important issues on it haven’t been updated in several years. Neither is Mr. Wouters’ company website detailed, and the couple of drawings that publications like the Eagle have featured require more imagination than most people possess.

    In short, you raise an excellent point or question.

    As it happens, Mr. W. did a very fine presentation at the Town Meeting & it IS available via Youtube:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzA6zMQtFvU

    Obviously, the BHA could be a very powerful proponent, even in the absence of an Executive Director. BIG is either working “behind the scenes” or has all but given up on their (in my opinion) excellent proposal.

    Mary Frost has been excellent in “keeping track” of a growing number of alternatives, and she makes excellent points re “how green is each plan.”

    Until/unless electric vehicles “take off” – candidly, it could happen within 5 years … or not for 25, I don’t know – separating residents from automobile exhaust seems as common sensical to me as measles vaccination.

    The Wouters plan (slightly amended recently) fails on that count. BIG’s plan, OTOH, is all aces there – plus, it “greens” the Heights maximally.

    To me, this repair-or-replace conundrum might be a close call except for these 2 realities –
    a) traffic in this stretch will probably be less in this stretch 20-40 years from now. Why throw more money at a “permanent” cantilever “solution?
    b) it didn’t WORK as long (i.e., as well) as intended the first time. Several billion dollars to re-do it strikes me as “not learning from a mistake.” Subway tunnels have been in place (and working fine) for over 100 years. How nuts is it to tilt toward something where you KNOW the next generation will get to see “Cantilever – Our Third Try WILL Get It Right!”