|
|
| Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX (1645093) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Nov 12 16:31:49 2025, in response to Re: Middle Village and Maspeth NIMBYs come out to oppose IBX, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Nov 12 07:22:28 2025. I don't know if this is consensus.Basic economics 101. A capital expenditure is supposed to pay for itself either by increasing income (more passengers) or by decreasing expenditures. That way a company can go into debt. The completed project will pay off the debt and generate increased profit after the debt is paid off. In Paris 97% of all buildings within the city of Paris (20 arr.) are within 800 meters (1/2 mile) of a Metro entrance. The figure for Greater Paris is only 27%. The current Grand Express expansion is designed to increase rail access outside of Paris. Most of the people live and work outside of Paris. The NIMBY's won in Paris. The Montparnasse Tower was enough. Skyscrapers were relegated to La Defense. Let's compare Paris with the IBX. First Paris is saturated with subway access. NYC isn't. Only 43% of the buildings in NYC are within 800m of a subway entrance. The Grand Express construction is concentrated in regions were only 27% of the buildings are within walking distance of rail. 83% of the buildings within 800m of an IBX station are already within 800m of an existing subway station. The Grand Express is providing walk to rail access areas that are ill served; the IBX is doing the opposite. There are already well established travel patterns that the Grand Express connecting. The IBX hope is that such patterns might come into being, in the future. Both projects avoid the center city. That's where the similarity ends. |
|
|
|