|
|
| Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... (1157802) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1157803) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 21 23:04:21 2012, in response to Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 23:00:30 2012. Um, what? |
|
|
| (1157806) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Andy on Mon May 21 23:24:56 2012, in response to Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 23:00:30 2012. No, No, No - for all three possible locations. Stops would slow down train traffic and could result in fewer trains in and out of Penn. The bigger challenge is building a new station in an existing deep tunnel, which would require much blasting and related heavy construction. Where do you put the trains (Amtrak, NJT, LIRR) when doing the construction? Could have been built in 1910 but now, no.The only somewhat similar construction project in Manhattan occurred about 50 years ago, when the lower level express stop at 59th St on the Lex 4 and 5 trains was built in a similar environment. For that, express trains were rerouted to the local tracks every night to accommodate the construction. There is no such alternative in the existing LIRR/Amtrak tunnels under 32nd/33rd Streets. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1157809) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 22 00:23:30 2012, in response to Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 23:00:30 2012. In addition to being extraordinarily expensive and an operational nightmare for Amtrak, this station would have done nothing to increase the number of trains which can be operated into Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1157830) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue May 22 04:57:40 2012, in response to Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 23:00:30 2012. And how would that have opened up necessary slots for necessary more trains? |
|
|
| (1157843) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Tue May 22 07:31:25 2012, in response to Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 23:00:30 2012. It would have been a lot cheaper if people who work on the East Side simply moved to West Chester. |
|
|
| (1157845) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 07:38:11 2012, in response to Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 23:00:30 2012. It wouldn't be One Billion over budget if they had used some of the existing tracks in Grand Central !One of the stated reasons is that M-N wouldn't give up the tracks ... hmmm isn't M-N also part of the MTA ? |
|
|
| (1157849) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue May 22 07:55:41 2012, in response to Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 23:00:30 2012. The money wasted on ESA can put into good use towards Phase II of SAS. LIRR has yet to build a third track on the main line between Hicksville and east of Floral Park, let alone starting work on the RNK double track project. |
|
|
| (1157858) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 22 08:54:54 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 07:38:11 2012. It wouldn't be One Billion over budget if they had used some of the existing tracks in Grand Central ! Wow. Have you been following this project at all? That's not the reason it's over budget! |
|
|
| (1157871) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 22 10:30:50 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 07:38:11 2012. No. More terminal tracks are needed in NYC. |
|
|
| (1157872) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 22 10:32:01 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue May 22 07:55:41 2012. Those are relatively quick and inexpensive additions. You have to have a terminal for trains to go to before you just add more tracks to the mane lion. |
|
|
| (1157874) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 22 10:33:14 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 22 08:54:54 2012. The turtle is right. The extra expense is being caused by delays in Queens. Every extra day is maybe a million dollars in extra wages.ROAR |
|
|
| (1157880) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 11:10:01 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 22 10:30:50 2012. Yes, I agree, but at what cost ?This project has turned into a boondoggle ... A snowball that is rolling down the hill, it can no longer be stopped & gets bigger everyday. Back in 1998 or at least back in 2006 someone, either the MTA Chairman, Governor, Feds, etc. should have gotten a much better control of the project. Can we blame the MTA Pres. of Capital Construction ... when did he get his job ? |
|
|
| (1157882) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by andy on Tue May 22 11:21:13 2012, in response to Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 23:00:30 2012. All of the armchair critics who have been responding to these posts fail to realize the complexity and difficulty of building ESA. Yes the 63d St. Tunnel was already there, completed. Connecting it to the LIRR at Harold involves building under Sunnyside Yard in spongy unstable soil, underpinning the BMT Astoria El, the IND subway under Northern Blvd., and the street itself. Harold will be rebuilt for the new connections under traffic, a tough feat in itself.On the Manhattan side the deep tunnel route was chosen because it won't disturb the warren of utility pipes and conduits underground, plus the subways below 60th Street, 53rd Street, and Lexington Ave. Existing Grand Central tracks can't be shared because of different third rail types. Buildings will not need underpinning. And Metro North did give up about ten yard tracks on the north side of its lower level to allow LIRR to build a separate concourse for its riders. As an aside, one side benefit is that subway riders will no longer have to share crowded trains with LIRR riders at Hunterspoint (7) or Penn (E, 1/2/3) who are travelling to the East Side now. And some eastern Queens residents bound for the East Side who now take buses to the 7 or E or F trains may elect to take a faster LIRR train to GCT. There is really no blueprint for a job like this - it's literally a once every 100 years project. So be patient and let it get done. The benefits will be worth it. |
|
|
| (1157886) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue May 22 11:43:30 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 11:10:01 2012. Back in 1998 or at least back in 2006 someone, either the MTA Chairman, Governor, Feds, etc. should have gotten a much better control of the project. Can we blame the MTA Pres. of Capital Construction ... when did he get his job ?2008 |
|
|
| (1157899) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 22 13:02:17 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 22 10:33:14 2012. The turtle is right. Correct. |
|
|
| (1157900) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 22 13:03:09 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue May 22 11:43:30 2012. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (1157901) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 22 13:03:42 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 11:10:01 2012. Wow. Have you been following this project at all? That's not the reason it's over budget! |
|
|
| (1157904) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Fisk ave Jim on Tue May 22 13:10:19 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by andy on Tue May 22 11:21:13 2012. "Connecting it to the LIRR at Harold involves building under Sunnyside Yard in spongy unstable soil, underpinning the BMT Astoria El, the IND subway under Northern Blvd., and the street itself. Harold will be rebuilt for the new connections under traffic, a tough feat in itself."They knew all this goin in. The MTA consulted with geologists & hydrologists prior to turning the first spade in LIC. They knew about the subsoil & underground springs that are unique to Long Island v/s the solid (Manhattan Schist) rock thats found on the west side of the East River. Their original opening date projections took this into account "Existing Grand Central tracks can't be shared because of different third rail types" Thats a bit of an oversimplification. The technology exists for using a 3d rail shoe compatable with both over/underriding rails. One reason that can't be overlooked as to why a shared terminal would not work are the different union aggrements between LIRR/MNR (workrules, wage scales etc.) & lets not forget the signaling. AFAIK, cab signals are not compatable with each other Not to mention the dwarf waysides protecting the interlockings which are unique to Metro North. They have their own seperate station & everybodys happy. Anyway, from the armchair, allow me to "oversimplify" somewhat, Im not an engineer, but if they can build the 6th avenue subway with all the obstructions encounted along that route and with 1930s construction technology, they can build anything. That project set the bar IMO for underground projects. |
|
|
| (1157908) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 13:22:05 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue May 22 11:43:30 2012. The MIS (Major Investment Study) was done by April 1998.There was also a major presentation by the MTA in 2002. Wikipedia & Daily News both claim it was 2006 when the $6.3B figure came out with a completion date of 2013. You can find more detail then you want to know on RailRoad.net, i.e. the ESA topic under the LIRR section. I just printed the 2002 document which has a lot of nice maps of Option 1 & 2, i.e. using existing tracks at Grand Central was still being considered. |
|
|
| (1157910) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue May 22 13:24:22 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Andy on Mon May 21 23:24:56 2012. For that, express trains were rerouted to the local tracks every night to accommodate the construction. There is no such alternative in the existing LIRR/Amtrak tunnels under 32nd/33rd Streets.MAYBE, it can be a little less arduous if the station faced only two of the tracks? Then at night, trains can run on the other 2. |
|
|
| (1157911) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue May 22 13:26:36 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 07:38:11 2012. From what I heard here, M-N already gave up storage tracks for this. The tracks were demolished to make way for the terminal. |
|
|
| (1157912) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue May 22 13:29:49 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 22 13:03:42 2012. Isn't the MTA involved with the Harold Interlocking project as well? Maybe better coordination between the two projects would have helped? |
|
|
| (1157916) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue May 22 13:38:02 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Fisk ave Jim on Tue May 22 13:10:19 2012. I think you are correct on both counts. Sad that stupid politics have caused mega billions in unnecessary work. Paying off the workers to clean up the rules should have been cheaper. |
|
|
| (1157918) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 22 13:42:43 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue May 22 13:38:02 2012. Sad that stupid politics have caused mega billions in unnecessary work. Paying off the workers to clean up the rules should have been cheaperYou contradicted yourself. Don't get angry because you see socialism in action and don't like it. |
|
|
| (1157919) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue May 22 13:44:19 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 13:22:05 2012. The MIS (Major Investment Study) was done by April 1998.There was also a major presentation by the MTA in 2002. Wikipedia & Daily News both claim it was 2006 when the $6.3B figure came out with a completion date of 2013. Exactly. MTA Capital Construction was formed in 2003, with Mysore Nagaraja as its first President. Horodniceanu took the job when Nagaraja retired in 2008. |
|
|
| (1157920) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 22 13:46:35 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 13:22:05 2012. Mr RT,Why do you keep assuming that we know less than you about this stuff? |
|
|
| (1157927) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue May 22 14:09:53 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue May 22 11:43:30 2012. The responsibility would still be on the current President of Capital Construction, since he would be in charge of coordinating with related projects, like Harold Interlocking. |
|
|
| (1157932) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 15:11:14 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue May 22 13:44:19 2012. OK so that's what the 2008 relates to ! |
|
|
| (1157934) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 22 15:13:57 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue May 22 13:44:19 2012. MysoreGo to the doctor. |
|
|
| (1157944) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Tue May 22 17:03:38 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Andy on Mon May 21 23:24:56 2012. That reminds me of a suggestion I made a few years ago about the SAS. I had posited that if the MTA did not want to build the SAS, it might try to alleviate crowding on the Lex local above Grand Central by building express stations at 68th, 77th and/or 86th Streets. If people knew that the expresses made the same stops as the local between GC and 96th, fewer people would transfer and the load would be equalized. |
|
|
| (1157945) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Tue May 22 17:16:51 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 22 13:02:17 2012. changing your name to turtle is correct |
|
|
| (1157946) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue May 22 17:25:47 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 11:10:01 2012. Let's put $8B in perspective.$4B is being spent on a vanity project called Fulton Transfer that adds no functionality at all to any of the trains. |
|
|
| (1157950) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Tue May 22 17:39:49 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Gold_12TH on Tue May 22 17:16:51 2012. You are incorrect. Good work. |
|
|
| (1157956) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 22 18:06:33 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Joe V on Tue May 22 17:25:47 2012. $4B on Fulton Street? Absolutely not. Where did you get that from? |
|
|
| (1157959) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue May 22 18:18:30 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by J trainloco on Tue May 22 18:06:33 2012. What is it now ? |
|
|
| (1157961) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 22 18:36:13 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 22 10:30:50 2012. Not really. GCT has an abundance of tracks. What it lacks is reverse capacity during the peak hours that would permit better utilizationnof existing platforms. As others point out: this is not the result of the current cost overruns, but using existing tracks would have lowered the initial cost. I know that has its disadvantages, but so did tunneling underneath an existing station. |
|
|
| (1157962) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 22 18:40:06 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Joe V on Tue May 22 18:18:30 2012. If you mean this, the price tag is $1.4 billion. |
|
|
| (1157963) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue May 22 18:41:38 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Joe V on Tue May 22 17:25:47 2012. The aboveground structure, not really. The underground stuff is supposed to cut down on crowding and dwell times for the 4/5, among other things. |
|
|
| (1157967) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 22 18:59:07 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Joe V on Tue May 22 18:18:30 2012. 1.4B, which it has been since at least 2007. I know that isn't a tiny number, but do keep in mind:-A good chunk of the funding came from federal money earmarked for Lower Manhattan. It could not be spent on ESA or any other project. -The project is far from just a glass building with a dome on it. It also includes an underground connection to PATH and the future WTC, removal of the confusing, non-ADA compliant, A/C mezzanine, ADA access throughout the complex to all of the lines, none of which were previously compliant, escalators throughout the complex, and, most importantly, a significantly improved transfer, which may improve dwell times on the N/B Lexington line and remove the need for the current platform conductor. Is FSTC how I would have spent $1.4B? No. But saying it has no merit and improved nothing is not true. |
|
|
| (1157970) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 22 19:06:12 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 22 10:32:01 2012. If you add terminal capacity without having main line capacity to feed it, that doesn't work. LIRR already had PLENTY of terminal capacity in Brooklyn and Queens, some of which they intend to stop using. They should have tried to invest in the third track project simultaneously. |
|
|
| (1158049) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed May 23 08:12:44 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 15:11:14 2012. OK so that's what the 2008 relates to !Sorry... it was in answer to "when did he get his job ?" |
|
|
| (1158050) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed May 23 08:14:46 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by 3-9 on Tue May 22 14:09:53 2012. The responsibility would still be on the current President of Capital Construction, since he would be in charge of coordinating with related projects, like Harold Interlocking.Sure, but he can't be blamed for a faulty construction estimate on a contract that had already been advertised. I wouldn't even necessarily say anyone is to blame, because field conditions can only be guessed at until you're actually building the project. |
|
|
| (1158205) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Mr RT on Thu May 24 07:31:02 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed May 23 08:14:46 2012. That is a reasonable observation, however we are talking about a $2B under estimate :-( |
|
|
| (1158206) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Mr RT on Thu May 24 07:32:06 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by 3-9 on Tue May 22 13:26:36 2012. If true, then what the Capital Construction folks wrote was damage control :-( |
|
|
| (1158235) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Thu May 24 12:09:25 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Mr RT on Thu May 24 07:31:02 2012. Why do you ignore so much? Plus you obviously have no idea what some of the main causes of the delay/incr cost are. |
|
|
| (1158236) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Thu May 24 12:11:11 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by 3-9 on Tue May 22 13:26:36 2012. That happened years ago. And it's a fact, not just a rumor. |
|
|
| (1158237) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Thu May 24 12:11:55 2012, in response to Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Mr RT on Tue May 22 07:38:11 2012. Link to this stated reason please? |
|
|
| (1158241) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu May 24 12:41:27 2012, in response to Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 23:00:30 2012. You know what would have been even cheaper? An above ground terminal physically connected to the #7 line in Hunters Point. They could then use the lower 63rd St. tubes for subway service. |
|
|
| (1158247) | |
Re: Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if... |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Thu May 24 13:51:44 2012, in response to Wouldn't LIRR East Side access have been a lot cheaper if..., posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 23:00:30 2012. No, it would slow down the trip and the construction would be too disruptive for LIRR and Amtrak service. Stations aren't cheap neither. It's cheaper building a tunnel without stations. |
|
|
