|
|
| Re: Case Against LGA Link (1335199) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Case Against LGA Link |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 23 12:12:46 2015, in response to Re: Case Against LGA Link, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 23 10:55:43 2015. We can sit here and debate why one project is more important than the other, but if we sit here and argue about why a different project is more important than whatever one we're discussing, nothing will ever get built.Many projects should not be built but are. The MTA attracts them like flies to flypaper. What's needed first is a plan that states what the objective should be. Paris decided in the early 20th century that every spot within the 20 arrondissments should be within 300 m of a Metro stop. That guided the Metro's expansion. NYC has no such objective, only projects and ways to fund them. The result has been a hodgepodge of projects that frequently conflict with one another. LGA contributes a portion of the traffic congestion. If the objective is to reduce traffic congestion, a LGA rail link is a poor method to achieve it. Its principal deficiency is that any contribution to reducing traffic congestion is capped. One should be considering rail links whose ridership will grow with increasing population, if long term traffic congestion reduction is the objective. That means expanding rail links to areas not currently served by rail and areas that can grow in population or business as a result of the rail link. |
|
|
|