|
|
| Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch (12718) | |
 |
|
| Home > The Reef | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 8 of 17 |
||
|
| (13068) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 23:30:11 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jul 23 23:29:04 2006. Very nice thinking by you. |
|
| (13069) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 23:39:00 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 22:21:55 2006. "You said removing the entire enbankment (which is improved, grade separated railroad ROW) then remove an additional 12 or more feet further was a viable use of that line. "No. I said sink the train into the ground. You could leave it in the embankment - just sunk into the embankment itself, that's all, surrounded by a concrete box. |
|
| (13070) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 24 00:05:21 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 23:39:00 2006. But this doesn't sound psycho-cocaine to you?What do you propose to do at the road intersections where there are currently tressles cut into the enbankment to allow for all the cross streets passing through the ROW? |
|
| (13071) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 00:14:35 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jul 23 22:09:43 2006. Old Doggy Style has more courage then ron. |
|
| (13072) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 24 01:03:54 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 20:43:27 2006. When people buy a house or condo along an existing el or embankment they are fully aware of the noise. The people who bought or built property along the Rock ROW after cessation of service did so with the so-far accurate assumption that service would never resume. Not only that, but they have some nice and rare wilderness in their backyards for their families and pets to play. This is not a good reason to never re-activate the line but a small concession like not running late night trains is not unfair, especially since the line's value to the greater system during late hours would be close to nil. Would you buy a house along the Rock at today's price if they announced that they would re-activate the line 24/7? As much as I favor mass transit, I wouldn't but I would definitely be more interested in one that's a few blocks away from the ROW then I would now. |
|
| (13073) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 24 01:13:18 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 20:40:18 2006. Point taken, but I would make sure that the A would still run to Rockaway Park during peak hours, otherwise you would have the kind of never-ending discussion similiar to the Lefferts situation. (which I favor to keep as is) Note that I favor turning the C (or better, the V if the Rockaway line were extended to 63rd, QB) north onto the Rock viaduct (via a new flyover) if that line were ever re-activated. |
|
| (13074) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 24 01:16:31 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 20:59:41 2006. Absolutely correct! |
|
| (13075) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 24 01:31:38 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jul 23 21:50:45 2006. Long live Jane Jacobs, the only great NIMBY. |
|
| (13076) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 24 01:34:45 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 23:13:20 2006. and the best part was that FDR did it with trickery. I think Mayor La Guardia played a role too. |
|
| (13077) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 24 01:42:20 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 21:20:05 2006. I wonder if Ron ever worked with Army or Naval Preventive Medicine or the Army Veterinary Service. Epidimiology is their bread and butter. |
|
| (13078) | |
Re: You win - we'll restore it |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 24 01:46:57 2006, in response to Re: You win - we'll restore it, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 22:38:44 2006. They made a mistake when they closed Fort Ord too. What a great location to be stationed. Well at least the Presidio of Monterey is still there. I say re-open Fort Ord AND re-activate the Ol' Rock! |
|
| (13079) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Mon Jul 24 05:38:17 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Sun Jul 23 22:20:37 2006. No system can be implemented without problems. Even when all of the bugs out there will still be errors. Before OPTO there were train crashes, people stuck in equipment, etc. After OPTO (and possibly ATO), there will still be train crashes, signal problems, etc. It is all of matter of which system will provide fewer incidents. However, this cannot be known until OPTO is further developed and the bugs are worked out. At that point, OPTO could prove to be a success or it could be a massive failure |
|
| (13080) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 08:59:57 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 24 00:05:21 2006. Good question. You can use bridges, upgraded to deaden sound or even enclosed where NIMBY is less; in other places you might have to sink the line further so you can really go underground."But this doesn't sound psycho-cocaine to you?" If we didn't have a NIMBY problem, transit planning could be very rational, and and you and Will and I would be much happier with the results. |
|
| (13081) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 09:00:34 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 00:14:35 2006. Is Old Doggy Style the next Snoop Dogg or something? |
|
| (13082) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 24 09:06:23 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 24 01:31:38 2006. Unfortunately, she just passed away a few months ago. |
|
| (13083) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 09:14:02 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 24 09:06:23 2006. Don't worry...she had an understudy...several in fact... |
|
| (13084) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 09:15:19 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 24 01:42:20 2006. I have, as a matter of fact, though not exactly as you worded it. But you are in the ballpark. |
|
| (13085) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon Jul 24 09:37:42 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jul 23 21:22:56 2006. Right..and Brian is doing a terrible injustice to him..which gives him EVERY RIGHT to sue his ass for slander.Ron can't sue for slander. Slander is spoken. And he can't sue for libel, because Brian hasn't libelled him. |
|
| (13086) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 24 10:50:21 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 08:59:57 2006. You'd have to sink it even deeper at any road crossing. Right now you're saying to put it IN the embankment. If you do that, the line becomes at grade, meaning it will cross streets AT GRADE. So then you have to go down further just to avoid the streets just because you wanted to put the line in the ground. Seems like an expensive proposition to me. |
|
| (13087) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 24 10:51:12 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 00:14:35 2006. MC Pee Pants has more courage than Ron |
|
| (13088) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 10:59:52 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 22:33:47 2006. People who will likely object more to a cut and cover tunnel being built in their back yards then running an LRV on the current ROW which would need minimal work. |
|
| (13089) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 11:01:31 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 10:59:52 2006. Sorry-- Poorly worded-Meant: Running the LRV on the ROW is likely significantly less offensive then the construction of a cut and cover tunnel would be to those living around it. Cut and cover is PAINFUL to be around when its built. |
|
| (13090) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 11:01:54 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 10:59:52 2006. That is true. But construction-related NIMBY offers one advanrtage: It's (the construction) temporary and you can buy people off with goodies... |
|
| (13091) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 11:05:32 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 11:01:54 2006. But, what you dont seem to understand is, Construction takes a decent amount of time, and LRVs are EXTREMELY unoffensive. They dont make much noise.Also as was mentioned earlier, More noise comes out of tunnel gratings then comes out of an embankment(remember, this is fairly high up for its length) |
|
| (13092) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 24 11:13:37 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by NIMBYkiller on Mon Jul 24 10:50:21 2006. Right, that's why it's comlpletely psycho-cocaine to destroy an existing, improved, grade eliminated ROW on enbankment. |
|
| (13093) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Jul 24 11:55:21 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 23 10:12:36 2006. I do believe you're right. If everyone had a NIMBY attitude, nothing would ever get built! |
|
| (13094) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 12:02:20 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 11:05:32 2006. "and LRVs are EXTREMELY unoffensive"Ask the idiots in South Pasadena Calif., what they think of LRVs. Salaam Allah posted links to a number of articles about it. Yes the line got done (and that's good) but not before a lot of payoffs were made and some of these people almost threatened self immolation. You would have thought the world was ending. |
|
| (13095) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 12:03:54 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Jul 24 11:55:21 2006. True. |
|
| (13096) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 12:04:51 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 12:02:20 2006. I doubt that those LRVs were on fully developed ROWs. |
|
| (13097) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 12:05:56 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 12:04:51 2006. Makes no difference. |
|
| (13098) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 12:09:20 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 12:05:56 2006. Yes it does.CONSTRUCTION is often the major objection in nimbyism. Using the current ROW requires VERY LITTLE construction. |
|
| (13099) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 12:15:07 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 24 11:13:37 2006. Is there another kind of cocaine? :0) |
|
| (13100) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 24 12:54:09 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 12:05:56 2006. Again, the Rockaway Line was NOT some sort of mickey Mouse railroad ROW like let's say the old unimproved Whitestone or Bushwick branches. This was an improved ROW, high up on enbankment. It's more improved than many current LIRR lines. |
|
| (13101) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 13:01:54 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 24 12:54:09 2006. Agreed. |
|
| (13102) | |
Re: Logic vs. NIMBY |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 24 13:15:12 2006, in response to Re: Logic vs. NIMBY, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 18:08:05 2006. This is going to be a "tough sell" as we ALL know that after the rail service alot of things happened along the ROW. For starters, LIRR had told homeowners on certain sections on the ROW that they could "extend" their backyards. Also as the ROW crosses Park Lane South, it passes a building that was converted from a factory to a residental building. Who now wants to listen to a train rumbling so close by. Overall, no one wants any kind of construction disruption that would have to take place to improve and rebuild the ROW. A Light Rail would probably be a better solution since it offers flexablity over heavy-rail applications. Or something like the Norristown train that uses one car over a 3rd rail application. Any thoughts? |
|
| (13103) | |
Re: Logic vs. NIMBY |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 13:26:43 2006, in response to Re: Logic vs. NIMBY, posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 24 13:15:12 2006. "LIRR had told homeowners on certain sections on the ROW that they could "extend" their backyards."They did? I'll take your word for it since I don't know. My thoughts are that the current plan to make a trail is fine. |
|
| (13104) | |
Re: Logic vs. NIMBY |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 24 13:38:14 2006, in response to Re: Logic vs. NIMBY, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 13:26:43 2006. Yes..in certain parts of the ROW, homeowners were allowed to "extend" their backgrounds to the ROW. That is most likely why these homeowners dont want to have the ROW activated. A fear that they would loose what was given to them and or the noise level that might come with the ROW. |
|
| (13105) | |
Re: Logic vs. NIMBY |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 24 13:45:33 2006, in response to Re: Logic vs. NIMBY, posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 24 13:38:14 2006. Here is a good website on the ROW:http://www.oldnyc.com/rockaway/contents/rockaway.html |
|
| (13106) | |
Re: Logic vs. NIMBY |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 24 13:49:00 2006, in response to Re: Logic vs. NIMBY, posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 24 13:38:14 2006. Were they officially given permission to use that land or is it just unsupervised use?your pal, Fred |
|
| (13107) | |
Re: Logic vs. NIMBY/Rockway Beach Greenway |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 24 14:13:27 2006, in response to Re: Logic vs. NIMBY, posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 24 13:45:33 2006. Here is website for those wanting to convert the ROW into a walkway/bikeway:http://rbbgreenway.tripod.com/ |
|
| (13108) | |
Re: Logic vs. NIMBY |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 24 14:15:15 2006, in response to Re: Logic vs. NIMBY, posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 24 13:49:00 2006. I read this somewhere in one of the websites that basically said to homeowners along the ROW that they would be allowed to extend their backyards to the ROW if they wanted to. |
|
| (13109) | |
Re: Logic vs. NIMBY |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 24 14:26:14 2006, in response to Re: Logic vs. NIMBY, posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 24 14:15:15 2006. I don't think that's accurate information. We would have to come up with a more reputiple source than some website. Remember, "Everything you read on the internet must be gospel". |
|
| (13110) | |
Re: Logic vs. NIMBY |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 24 14:44:39 2006, in response to Re: Logic vs. NIMBY, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 24 14:26:14 2006. I am sure if we all took a walk along the Row passed Whitepot we could see for sure if it was valid. |
|
| (13111) | |
Re: Logic vs. NIMBY |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 24 14:48:55 2006, in response to Re: Logic vs. NIMBY, posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 24 14:44:39 2006. I have done that, and there's nothing "major", sometimes an occasional vegetable garden or something, or mostlly owners just throwing their leaves or branches from their own hard over the fence onto the bottom of the enbankment. But then again, even in the cases were people may have "claimed" a piece of ROW, that doesn't mean it was done legally, other than some guy saying I am going to grow a few tomato plants there. |
|
| (13112) | |
Re: Cut and Cover explanation |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon Jul 24 14:55:15 2006, in response to Re: Cut and Cover explanation, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Jul 23 12:11:43 2006. I would note the link to www.cowi.com wasnt't the best example. The company is in Denmark and has not done any US work. |
|
| (13113) | |
Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jul 24 15:16:23 2006, in response to Re: My Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Jul 23 14:00:05 2006. No.Youre wrong YET AGAIN. Cut and cover uses gratings, Look at the 63rd line as Mr. Edwards says. Ventilation plants have ALWAYS been used for deep bore tunneling. was true in the early 1900s and is true today. As the 47/50 tower says, Think before you post(or something like that... ). |
|
| (13114) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Jul 24 16:09:36 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 12:02:20 2006. Those LRVs are "offensive" because they had to constantly sound their horns at intersections with grade crossings.The Rockaway line has no grade crossings, therefore no LRV horns will be sounded and nothing is offensive. |
|
| (13115) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 16:27:01 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Jul 24 16:09:36 2006. Which is why they are nogiating quiet zones.But that's not the only source of NIMBY problems for them. Racism is too. "we don't want riff-raff coming into our neighborhood with these trains." It's ugly and I hate it. |
|
| (13116) | |
Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Jul 24 16:46:46 2006, in response to Re: Ron's Route Suggestion of the Old Abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jul 24 16:27:01 2006. You are a moron. He already said that quiet zones would not be an issue with a Rockaway line LRT, yet you insist on continuing to cite from an example which has already been proven moot.If you're going to fall back on the NIMBY line about racism as a reason that an LRT won't be built then nothing will be built. I could honestly give a shit what you think about it, it's a blade that cuts both ways, and if it kills an LRT project then it'll kill your supremely poorly thought out grade level subway between two berms plan. |
|
| (13117) | |
Re: Cut and Cover explanation |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Jul 24 16:48:29 2006, in response to Re: Cut and Cover explanation, posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon Jul 24 14:55:15 2006. Why the hell does that matter? The technique remains the same, or do you think that soil behaves in some radically different way in Europe that their experience is not applicable over here? |
|
|
Page 8 of 17 |
||