|
|
| Re: SAS - Myopic MTA (974106) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: SAS - Myopic MTA |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Sep 2 00:06:41 2010, in response to Re: SAS - Myopic MTA, posted by 7th Avenue Express on Wed Sep 1 21:44:09 2010. Regardless of whether your opionion is right or wrong, it certainly seems, at least in my opinion, to have been formed with little or no input from what is actually transpiring. With the TBMs now in the ground it would cost the MTA a lot of money to cancel the contract to bore the tunnel up to 96th St. Once they reach 96th it should be relatively simple to rehabilitate the former cut and cover segments and complete the SAS up to around 110th. From there 125th shouldn't be all that hard. Cancelling the northern end of the line at this late in the gam would create (ironically enough given the thread title) a myopically shortsighted disaster of public finance.You can say that the case for ridership south of 63rd isn't there, and that in that case it makes more sense to build an LRT, particularly with the potential access multiple streetcar routes open up in the Lower East Side. However, for your opinion to have any merit, it has to be backed up with at least some sort of fact as opposed to some anecdotal garbage about how something will never be completed. But then none of this addresses Mr. Bauman's original post. I can't say I'm entirely comfortable with the prospect of the MTA's ventilation structures on the UES being integrated into residential, commercial, or mixed-use structures. People sharing space with the machinery which will move the millions introduces a degree of risk which a single use ventilation structure avoids. Will we suspend the SAS if some grandmother on the tenth floor forgets her cooking and starts a grease fire? And just how liable will the MTA be for the byproducts of any fires that may be vented through these ventilation structures? I realize that the neighboring structures share the same proximity and thus anything affecting a shared use ventilation structure should affect the surrounding buildings, but it will be those people living in the structure who have a legal link with the MTA and its potential millions waiting to be tapped by the right lawyer. It seems less myopic and more pragmatic to accept the slight reduction in residential and commercial space and in doing so avoid the potential problems a combined ventilation/residential unit would bring with it. |
|
|
|