Skip to content

Recent Comments



    Enormous lanes that encourage illegal double-parking also encourage speeding.



    I’m not sure we’ve changed at all in that time. We’ve ridden a wave of economic growth that brought two decades of prosperity. None of that had to do with reform because not a single area of NYC government has seen meaningful reform in 40 years. Our leaders are biased toward the simple, heuristic solutions rather than long term game plans. That’s why we get consultant-peddled crap like broken windows, charter schools, BRT (and now a streetcar where it does the least good), draconian attacks on social services, and sell-outs to McJob-peddling private industries like convention centers and stadiums.

    And no shit, the people who come up with this stuff travel the world selling these ideas and how to implement them. They’re poverty pimps. Crony capitalists can’t innovate, but they can take a dump in a box and call it artisan chocolate.



    Awesome plan! This will serve a lot of people. Well done, DOT!

    Anyone know the rationale for two 13′ parking lanes? Couldn’t they both – or one – be made a tad smaller? There has to be a way to accommodate double parking while making a bike lane big enough to account for future ridership growth.



    The Screenline count measures every crossing at 50th street. Aside from people working above 50th st, the DOT count is capturing them.



    To broaden the scope: the discussion on the ridiculous waterfront streetcar has quickly moved to the smart “why not BRT?” position. What do you think the highest priority dedicated-lane bus routes should be if the city were to make a push in that direction?


    Joe Enoch

    Speak for yourself. The transverses — especially 86th — are incredibly dangerous. It’s a consequence-free speedway for drivers with blind turns and narrow shoulders. I do it only in extreme scenarios (maybe a dozen times in five years of biking in NYC).

    Also, there are three bike-approved crosstown paths through the park excluding the north/south perimeter — 72nd, 96th (north of the transverse) and 102nd. I hope for your sake you try those before the transverses.



    In the 70s and 80s, New York city government would send teams to Toronto to marvel over the city as one of the few in North America that actually functioned and was not falling apart. Then, in the 90s and 00s, Toronto hit a rough patch and had to watch NYC figure out how to revitalize waterfronts and build bike lanes. Now, maybe both cities can learn from each other as Toronto shares its modern streetcar knowledge (seriously, talk to the TTC, not some baby system from Portland or Seattle) and NYC shows how to redesign big city streets for people.


    Alexander Vucelic

    the number of hard Working people who commute from above 96th to mid town on bikes Is staggering. DOT bike Counts miss these riders entirely. The Economics of cycling as normal transportation especially favours the backbone of NYC. This impriovement will greatly benefit tens of thiusabds of riders.



    See image.


    Brad Aaron

    I don’t know the details either.



    Same issue really. The service the subway gives you matters, not just your proximity to it.



    The Transverses are soooo unsafe.



    I liked to vary my route, but sometimes I’d use Onderdonk (which was somewhat north of me, but VERY peaceful) to Metropolitan, sometimes would use Wyckoff and go through that industrial area. I’d often use Johnson. Sometimes I’d go down Flushing to Broadway.

    This was several years ago though. I’m sure infrastructure has improved since then. I still live near enough and cycled that area in the past summer for the hell of it, but unfortunately most of my commuting now is by intercity bus and rail. :-


    Aunt Bike

    Yup, that’s it.



    I still don’t know where this property is, unless they’re talking about building only where the bus ramps are (which would actually be a good use of empty space). The community seems to think any construction would involve taking a lot of private property, and I haven’t heard anyone deny that.



    Funny how the Times writers run all its stories with this quote: “Not everybody rides bicycles,” observed Richard Ravitch, the former lieutenant governor. Of course they couldn’t find anyone to say, “Not everybody drives cars.”

    This streetcar plan is a result of the De Blasio-Cuomo conflict, not smart transportation planning. Why else would the first Times piece be written by Michael Grynbaum, Mr. Inside Politics, and not a transportation writer?


    Joe R.

    I’m not sure you completely understand the concept I’m proposing here regarding the car-free superblocks. I’m not talking about making streets like Queens Boulevard car free. Major arterials would remain intact. It’s all the little shitty side streets which would be part of the new superblocks. If we did this in Manhattan for example, then all minor side streets would no longer be open to motor traffic. You would still have the major cross streets every ten blocks or so, and all the avenues open to motor vehicles. The goal here is to have contiguous areas where a person can walk or bike for 1/4 mile in each direction without needing to cross streets with motor vehicles.



    Note they had several tiers.

    I don’t think you understand what tiers mean in this context. From 1994, Tier 1 covered everything under 8500lbs, Tier 2 took effect in 2001, etc…

    but emissions controls deal with quantities of certain pollutants, not necessarily with noxious odors.

    Exhaust smell is sulphur and pm, both of which are controlled. the rest like co2 and carbon monoxide, which are odorless.

    In suburbia any type of development is going to be devoid of street life….Some cities in Europe have closed off parts to cars. That’s a lot closer to what I’m thinking of here.

    Again, I urge you to go to suburbia and see for yourself. There are plenty of communities not devoid of street life, and they’re not the super-blocks you’re talking about.
    Having car free areas makes lots of sense, but not outside of the core. Think more like a car free Broadway and less so like a car free queens blvd.

    If you reduce volumes of motor traffic enough, then you don’t need traffic lights or roundabouts.

    That doesn’t work, and is unsafe at any densities you’re likely to find in greater nyc.


    Brad Aaron

    The Port Authority’s October board meeting minutes showed that its four-member working group mulled possibilities for the replacement project, with three out of four members agreeing that the “most promising approach” would be to build the new terminal on Port-Authority owned property between Ninth and 11th avenues.

    In its letter, the Community Board 4 called the proposal “unacceptable.”



    “Don’t Build New PABT on Port Authority-Owned Property”

    I don’t understand this statement. Does the PA own the blocks between 9th and 10th Avs? There are a whole bunch of residential and commercial buildings, theatres, and a hotel currently under construction, which I doubt would be happening if there were any possibility of putting the bus terminal there.



    Thats amazing,

    On parole, using a cell phone, veering across two lanes, running away after killing someone.

    For you a slap on the wrist.


    Joe R.

    It looks like there would be room to do a ramp with two switchbacks. Yes, the grade is much too steep to do a ramp without switchbacks. It’s a 63 foot climb in only about 250 feet. But with two switchbacks you increase that distance to about 750 feet. That puts the grade right around 1 in 12, which incidentally is also the maximum for wheelchair ramps.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    That priniciple is undoubtedly correct. And anything built now would surely be constructed so as to provide universal access.

    But, with respect to this particular existing stairway, to ask that it be retro-fitted with an elevator or an escalator is a bit much, I think.

    Joe mentioned a ramp. As I said in response to that comment, the grade seems a little steep for that. But, if the grade is manageable, then a ramp should have been included.


    Joe R.

    The emissions standards were still far less rigorous for larger vehicles back then. Note they had several tiers. I don’t even need to read this because my nose knows the difference. When SUVs pass by, I often gag on the fumes. Most passenger cars, not so much. SUVs made until the mid 2000s smelled nearly as bad as 1960s cars. They may have been technically “cleaner”, but emissions controls deal with quantities of certain pollutants, not necessarily with noxious odors.

    Eh, I’ve seen these sorts of developments in suburbia; they’re really devoid of street life, and feel dead in general, surprisingly. I much prefer the park slope-type streetscape than that. I urge you to look for yourself and see if this is the type of thing that makes a complete city.

    In suburbia any type of development is going to be devoid of street life. For one thing, the low population density means you just can’t get a critical mass of people who all want to be out in one area at the same time. For another, walking or biking in suburbia is usually hostile. That means the locals really have no easy way to get there other than driving. If you have to accommodate cars, then you no longer have what I envision.

    Some cities in Europe have closed off parts to cars. That’s a lot closer to what I’m thinking of here.

    Unless you want to demolish a lot of houses for roundabouts, or switch everything to stop signs, won’t happen.

    If you reduce volumes of motor traffic enough, then you don’t need traffic lights or roundabouts. You just need yield signs on the secondary cross streets. The primary streets would be essentially nonstop.

    This I can get behind. It’s expensive though.

    Of course it’s expensive but if we want to make cycling a serious option NYC has to think in terms of more than paint. In my opinion given the current political inability to significantly reduce car traffic or take much space for other uses, grade separated bike lanes are the only viable way we can get safe, efficient cycling routes in the more congested parts of the city. Expensive, sure, but look how many potential users they’ll serve. Or better yet the number of cars they might eventually get off the streets once biking is faster than driving. They’ll also serve as a redundant network should the surface streets be flooded by hurricanes.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    The whole thing might be too steep for that; but, if the grade allows, then yes, a ramp should have been included.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    It might greatly help both cyclists and drivers if construction crews would post signs in advance of sections of cut road detailing where they begin and end. It’s far easier to do alternate routes when you know exactly where you can get back on to the street you were originally on.

    I definitely agree with that. I actually ran into this problem in Philadelphia during one of the two three-day stays that I did in that city last summer. One day I found Broad Street south of City Hall ripped up; but I couldn’t tell for how long. I dealt with it for a block or two before I bailed out.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    I pass right by there on my daily trip into Manhattan from Woodhaven. Any of those diagonal Ridgewood avenues are a good choice up to Flatbush Avenue. I imagine that you used one of them. (This would have been before the bike lanes on Woodward and Onderdonk Avenues; but I am guessing that those streets were east of you anyway.)

    Did you ever discover how useful Johnson Avenue is, from its inception at the Brooklyn/Queens border at the three-way intersection with Flatbush and Cypress Avenues, all the way to its termination at Manhattan Avenue in Williamsburg? Johnson is a truck route; but I think that that activity is most prevalent during the midday hours. During commuting hours, like at 8am and at 6pm, there are not so many trucks; so bicyclsts can make good use of that street’s direct trajecetory. (And it has recently been repaved!) From Johnson’s end at Manhattan Avenue, the Williamsburg Bridge is just a short ride away on Meserole Street, which becomes S.4th Street.

    Anyway, the L train closure could have a good side, as it might lead to a further boom in bike riding for people who are going to Manhattan. (Though, admittedly, the closure will certainly be difficult for those comparatively few people for whom riding is not an option on account of physical disability.) How nice it would be if this event that is related to hurricane repairs wound up turning a significant amount of people on to bike riding, just as the hurricane itself did, when the Williamsburg Bridge was more packed than at any other time.

    (And, if I may allow myself to take an optimistic view, perhaps this imagined uptick in riders will finally convince the some of the more intransigent pedestrians to walk on the side of the Williamsburg Bridge that his reserved exclusively for them, rather than on the bicycle side in amongst the bicyclists and skateboarders — not to mention the people on scooters and even motorcycles who illegally use the bicycle side.)

    So perhaps the closure won’t be all bad, as it will lead people who don’t already know to realise just how bikeable the City really is.


    Joe R.

    Honestly, I had no idea of the length of the cut pavement when I hit it. I may have sought an alternate route just to save time, since sidewalk riding is kind of slow, had I known I would be on the sidewalk for over a mile but I didn’t.

    First: at 234th Street, Union Tpke. is only a couple of short blocks from Hillside Avenue.

    Union Turnpike wasn’t an option here at all because of the hill near the GCP. I take Union going out of the city but Hillside or Jamaica Avenue going back in. My only option then was Jamaica Avenue, but as I said I wasn’t about to do a long detour like that because I didn’t know how long the cut pavement was going to be. It could have only been a few blocks. Also, not being familiar with the cross streets in that area, I wasn’t sure which streets I needed to take to reach Jamaica Avenue.

    Thus there is no justification for long-range sidewalk riding. If the street you want is ripped up, just pick another one.

    And I did exactly that the next time I headed out that way. I took Jamaica Avenue all the way, but that’s a slighty different, somewhat longer ride than what I did on the day I mentioned. I usually do one of two rides out of the city. Going out both involve going out of the city on Union Turnpike till it ends at Marcus Avenue, then taking that to Hillside Avenue. The shorter version involves going right on Hillside Avenue and coming back into the city on that. That longer version is where I go left on Hillside Avenue, take that to Glen Cove Road, go right until I hit Jericho Turnpike, then take Jericho Turnpike/Jamaica Avenue back into the city.

    My usual way of dealing with cut pavement is to just ride on the sidewalk the first time I come upon it, then seek alternate routes next time once I know how long the part under construction is. At the time I ride sidewalk riding is a complete nonissue. That night I didn’t see one pedestrian on the sidewalk.



    Plus, if a cyclist gets doored, NYPD can look at the rider on lying on the ground, say “You were in the door zone. What do you you want us to do about it?” then shrug..


    Brian Howald

    Hey, it’s Bay Street Landing!



    I’ve ridden the 84/86 tranverse perhaps several dozen times in my life on a bike averaging around 20mph. Not fun. Riding slower would be terrifying.

    I don’t think you’re right about the width.



    I’m reasonably sure as late as 2008 vehicles over 5,000 pounds weren’t counted in the CAFE. And SUVs at the time had no required emissions controls

    That’s incorrect. 8500 lbs was the limit. They had emissions controls on all vehicles starting in 1994. Easy way to check: look under a car/truck! Do you see a Cat? If you do, trust me, the car company didn’t put it there out of the goodness of their heart. As someone who reads car and driver, I figured you knew that?

    The emissions controls got stricter every few years, and the categories shifted somewhat:
    But for over 20 years, all cars have had emissions controls of some sort.

    In concept what you might end up with is something resembling a medieval town….Getting to within 1/4 mile of your destination by motor vehicle is good enough.

    Eh, I’ve seen these sorts of developments in suburbia; they’re really devoid of street life, and feel dead in general, surprisingly. I much prefer the park slope-type streetscape than that. I urge you to look for yourself and see if this is the type of thing that makes a complete city.

    eliminate most traffic lights

    Unless you want to demolish a lot of houses for roundabouts, or switch everything to stop signs, won’t happen.

    we need to just grade separate bike routes

    This I can get behind. It’s expensive though.



    So he is probably getting some “professional courtesy” from others in law enforcement. How nice.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    I was coming back into the city on Hillside Avenue once and a one mile plus stretch was cut for repaving. In that case there really wasn’t any viable alternate route.

    I grew up in QV; so I know that area well. (All too well. I was happy to escape it.)

    Going north anywhere to try and hook up to Union Turnpike (and you can only do that via Winchester Blvd. or Springfield Blvd.) meant climbing that awful hill…

    Wrong on two counts.

    First: at 234th Street, Union Tpke. is only a couple of short blocks from Hillside Avenue.

    Second: the hill is not bad. I did this many, many times as a kid in order to get up to Alley Pond Park. I am very hill averse, probably as a consequence of frequently going north up Francis Lewis Blvd. from Hillside Avenue, and of feeling cursed by what I later understood to be the Terminal Moraine. So believe me when I tell you that the hill going north at 234th St. is not at all a severe one.

    Jamaica Avenue is nearly a mile south in that area.

    So then you go a mile south. Problem solved.

    I’m afraid that you have not made the case that there was no other route which forced you to ride on the sidewalk. Clearly, in the situation you mentioned, Jamaica Avenue was the alternate route to use. A one-mile detour in each direction to get to the next best through street is but a minor inconvenience in a trip that must have been in excess of 25 miles.

    Even if parts of Queens can seem disturbingly suburban-ish, the fact remains that this is a city, with a network of streets that offers multiple routes to any conceivable destination. Thus there is no justification for long-range sidewalk riding. If the street you want is ripped up, just pick another one.


    Aunt Bike

    Where’s your streetcar, James Oddo? You don’t want a streetcar. You want potholes filled, you want to ignore traffic violence, you want streets free of bike lanes. Your public rhetoric and your record shows that.

    If you and the rest of the panderers in Staten Island made half the noise about public transit as they did about driver’s concerns, and if you acted as if you wanted to be part of this city instead of staying a suburban backwater stuck in the middle of the last century, you might get a streetcar.

    Here’s your version of a waterfront esplanade right near your office. The only wonder is that somebody actually shoveled the sidewalk. You want what Brooklyn’s getting, start paying attention to how they go about getting it.


    Don Wiss

    Shanley’s father was a cop: Police Officer Thomas Shanley, died of a heart attack while on the job in July 1986.

    Shanley’s mother, Lorraine Shanley, is very active in Survivors of the Shield, a support group for police widows and orphans and she currently serves as the Secretary/Treasurer of this organization. There are a lot of photos online showing Lorraine Shanley posing with various NYPD biggies.

    Lorraine Shanley’s name also shows up as a Board of Trustees member for the New York City Police Museum.


    Alexander Vucelic


    are you familiar with the TV series ‘The Sopranos’ ? That might help you understand why it costs so much to build subways in the US


    Alexander Vucelic

    Larry – call it covered bike storage. It Sounds so Much cheaper :). You Idea is Absolutely correct for Solving the transit desert Challenge at lnil cost. In The civilized World there are always covered bike storage areas next to transit. its trivial to bike a mile to transit.


    Larry Littlefield

    Bicycle parking garages.

    On a bicycle, take your thinking about distance and multiply by three. A mile and a half is nothing.


    Joe R.

    Part of the idea here is also to make transit for Queens trips better. A grid of N-S trains connecting to E-W trains could facilitate that. Transit for Queens trips is at present lousy because most of the time that transit is bus. Bus is slow and uncomfortable compared to rail. A lot of drivers who wouldn’t even think of taking a bus will use a subway. The usual ways to make buses faster, like bus lanes, are often opposed by drivers. With subways there is really no such downside. You’re not taking away lanes or parking. Then you also have the fact subways usually keep running in weather which brings surface streets to a standstill.

    Note that it doesn’t take all that many cars to congest streets. It’s true a minority drive all the way into Manhattan from points east. But it’s still enough to significantly increase traffic at points in between. That’s traffic which could largely go away with better subway service to Manhattan. Once we do that, we can start tackling the intra Queens trips. We can’t make it feasible for everyone who drives to jobs in Queens to take transit, but if we can get 50% on transit that’s another big traffic reduction. The idea is to use more carrot than stick to get people out of their cars, at least in the beginning.


    The Overhead Wire

    This is part of what Yonah and I discussed in the podcast last week. Are streetcars/lightrail/urbanrail or whatever you call them viewed in a pure transportation mode sense or are they viewed as a way to switch over land uses with an acceptable carrot. This is a perfect example of that since from all I’ve seen it looks like a way to get in behind zoning changes to get more development, affordable housing or otherwise.



    I can’t seem to get a pdf with all the columns on one page so the transit is cut off and listed below, but if you go to the census factfinder site you can get that if you want. Transit is used by ~35% of commuters in your zip. Most drive or carpool. Almost half overall work in Queens. A bit more than a quarter of transit commuters worked in Queens. Transit to Manhattan might not be great, but it’s worse for lots of intra Queens trips. Especially off hours. People who drive to work are less likely to leave during the 6-9am peak than those who take transit. Making transit to Manhattan better isn’t enough to get people to give up their cars. Notice that almost 85% of those who take transit to work live in a household with at least one vehicle. Improving transit to Manhattan can appeal to people who won’t necessarily support anything that makes driving for other trips more difficult. Whether it’s your proposals to reduce car usage or the added traffic and parking trouble that comes from increased density.


    Joe R.

    I think the issue here is more the number of potential users than anything else. Had this been in an area with heavy foot traffic, I’m sure an elevator would have been seriously considered. As things stand now, suppose you go through the expense of building an elevator ($1 million+ easily with today’s inflated construction costs), and you get two people a day who actually use it. Now assume the elevator lasts 25 years before needing replacement. $40K per year plus ongoing maintenance costs to serve under 1,000 users annually. That’s not a good use of limited city funds. And then you have the fact this is NYC, with its wonderful track record of maintaining things. I’ll bet the elevator would be out of service 300 out of 365 days.

    ADA requirements were well-meaning but really more suited to a world where we have virtually unlimited funding for capital projects. Building expensive accommodations which might only serve a tiny number of people means those funds can’t be used elsewhere. Even in really dense areas, it seems these things don’t get much use. For example, I’ve never once seen the elevator at the Main Street subway station being used by anyone.


    Joe R.

    I kind of agree but we should have at least put in a ramp.


    Joe R.

    Zip is 11365. I’m pretty sure a majority here take public transit to work. As for concerns about a subway, a lot of those complaints seem nonapplicable here. There were concerns about people driving to the last stop on the line, parking, and taking the train in. If NYC did things right, any new subway line or extension would end at, or even slightly past, city limits.

    For a lot of them their parents didn’t buy the house in the ~50s, they chose the suburban style much more recently. If they wanted to live in a denser area they would have moved to one instead. They might not like it if their neighborhood changes.

    If anything I tend to think those who have lived here for decades might object more to changes than those who moved here recently. Most of the people here moved to the area in the last 20 years. By then there was already considerable infill development compared to when I moved here in 1978. If they really wanted a suburban type atmosphere, they probably would have chosen east of Springfield Blvd.

    Not sure there’s many people left whose parents bought houses here in the 1950s. Given the way housing prices are, most of those who inherited a house from their parents likely would have sold it.

    No subway project will be built east of the Van Wyck unless it comes with a significant increase in density. Your car free fantasy won’t be a part of the transit expansion. The streets will be far more crowded.

    This is interesting:

    When plotted on a map, the data make a striking picture, showing that some of the densest concentrations of auto commuters are from the outer fringes of Queens and Brooklyn, where access to subways is limited.

    It makes some sense that this is the case. We seem to have a lot of through traffic during the day, mostly people coming from the east. I can’t help but think if we make commuting into Manhattan by subway viable for these people peak traffic levels will drop significantly. Subway service isn’t going to impact those who drive on local errands much, but then again I won’t expect it to. It may or may not reduce the numbers who drive to jobs in Queens. I think if we also add significant N-S service to the E-W extensives we could cut into that number a bit.

    I’ve been in lots of neighborhoods. Those with subway service seem to have less traffic on off-peak hours than my neighborhood, other than Manhattan which seems congested nearly all the time. So I’m skeptical subway service would make traffic worse even with density increases. It might not be much better, either. The general trend though is fewer people driving to work, so long term we might see significant traffic reductions everywhere. NYC needs to have a citiwide policy in place to discourage auto use. Congestion is costing us big time.



    Does anyone know if the pay-by-phone meter system will enable variable pricing?



    Totally. It’ll probably hit prices a little, and most of that would be a herd reaction.



    Seriously, why would any of my neighbors complain about transit improvements like that?

    The same reasons that were used to block connecting the 63rd street tunnel subway to the montauk line in the 80s, extending the astoria line to LGA and SE queens extensions in the 90s.

    Many of your neighbors like where they live and don’t want it to change.

    “People who live here want a suburban-type atmosphere. A subway in the
    neighborhood brings a lot of negatives,” said City Councilwoman Juanita
    Watkins (D-Laurelton)

    “Why dig up a lovely community? We have a tranquil area. I like it like that and so do the residents.”

    The streets here are horribly crowded.

    No subway project will be built east of the Van Wyck unless it comes with a significant increase in density. Your car free fantasy won’t be a part of the transit expansion. The streets will be far more crowded.

    Life will also be much easier for those who current take public transit to Manhattan

    Most in your neighborhood don’t work in Manhattan. Don’t know your zip, but in much of Queens east of the Van Wyck the majority drive to work. For a lot of them their parents didn’t buy the house in the ~50s, they chose the suburban style much more recently. If they wanted to live in a denser area they would have moved to one instead. They might not like it if their neighborhood changes.



    Have you considered the following?

    There are 20 L Trains crossing into Manhattan during the peak hour. Somehow, these 20 train sets must be matched by 20 additional train sets on the alternate routes. Except for people who can walk to Bwy-Jct, Myrtle-Wyckoff or Lorimer, these people will now require 2 train sets instead of the previous single train set.

    MTA policy has been to equalize rush hour loads throughout the system. There isn’t much unused capacity on the A/C/J/M/Z rush hour trains to absorb more than the current passenger load without more trains. Running the L Train between Canarsie and Bedford Ave would free up 5 of the 24 train sets required during the morning rush hour. That still leaves about 15 trains sets to find for the peak hour.

    Most systems have 20% or more spares available. NYCT is efficient in its rolling stock use. It operates with only 16% spares. The downside for this efficiency is that it lacks the capability to operate more trains than it currently does during the peak period.

    There’s no point if hoping the cavalry will arrive with new rail cars. The delivery of new R-179 cars is in limbo because of Bombardier’s impending bankruptcy. In the meantime, current peak hour schedules are dependent on the continued use of the 222 remaining R-32 cars. These were delivered in 1964 and have survived over 50 years of MTA maintenance.



    Supporters of this project need to keep in mind that Tax Increment Financing or value capture doesn’t mean free. The “free” money is solely from the increase in property value due solely to the creation of the new streetcar. Otherwise, this is property tax revenue that would go to the general fund for schools, police, fire etc. As Ben Fried has pointed out, the value of the land in this corridor has skyrocketed over the last decade, and there has already been a ton of development. This matters because the research on TIFs is very mixed, and it remains unclear if they promote growth, or are viable only in places that were already growing. Point is, it is way too early to claim this project will come at no cost to tax payers.