|
|
| Re: LIRR East Side Access (256779) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:56:15 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:31:57 2006. The lack of an expensive tunnel. I thought that was a given.You're not going to get around that at NYP. The LIRR needs a new tunnel under the East River if they are to increase terminal space and thus trains per hour into Manhattan. Ugh. Yes, you can. You can get permission to build on Amtrak's property. It is not a law of physics that you can't build on property you do not own. In addition to the bureaucratic hurdles which Dan laid out and which as you note are not insurmountable it would be difficult from a structural engineering approach to add platforms at NYP. You'd be doing a fairly shallow excavation next to a 100 year old structure which may well have an unknown weakness or problem which could lead to a structural failure. As you say they could add platforms in a separate deep bored cavern under or adjacent to NYP as NJT plans to do, but you really wouldn't see any savings there. You'd be paying for the tunneling in Queens, a new tunnel under the East River, and then the boring across Manhattan to reach that terminal cavern, which itself would have to be constructed. This is likely almost the same thing that'd be done for the ESA terminal, but in that case there is no tunnel under the river to build since that was done in the late 1960s. So not only is it cheaper to build to GCT it also provides those commuters with a separate terminal and a choice in destinations. Thus: Why should money be wasted on this? At the same time, trackage exists to do the same for MNRR, thus doing it cheaper and you are against it! There's no reason to spend billions to bring LIRR to the east side if you don't think there's a reason to bring MNRR to NYP for a fraction of the cost. It isn't wasted money, it is money saved when compared to building a station adjacent to NYP. And while it'd be nice for the MTA to bring MN into NYP it's very possible that the incompatibilities and the scarcity platform slots (remember, I said I think NJT and Amtrak are constrained by the Hudson tubes) would make the service too difficult to run for what benefit it'd provide. I'd imagine you'd only be looking at maybe 4 to 5 peak hour trains a day into NYP, and does that really justify the cost to bring the MTA into Amtrak and NJT's side of NYP? Maybe after ESA is implemented the MTA will lean on the LIRR to give up a half dozen peak hour slots and they'll work with Amtrak to implement through service into NYP via Coop City and such on an all day basis (presuming that during peak hours NH line trains could fit into NYP with few problems), but until then we're pretty well SOL. That or else pull off a railroading hat-trick and get the MTA, ConnDOT, Amtrak, and NJT to agree to NJT's operation of the ConnDOT Shoreline East service. NJT has the slots through the East River tunnels and NYP, and if ConnDOT were to put up a few more cars and locomotives NJT could simply have a few trains run past Sunnyside to Old Saybrook or New London. All of this is exacerbated by the fact that now the governor wants to bring LIRR to Lower Manhattan as well. If that does happen, ESA will be the biggest waste of money on a rail transit project we've ever seen. Paturkey isn't going to get his choo-choo and Spitzer has come out against it. However, the LIRR into Downtown, along with NJT and MN is a very good idea. Maybe if we can actually find the 10 or so billion dollars to build something like Elias has suggested, but with a tunnel for LIRR to Flatbush of course, then we could get everything (other than the Hudson line, which could now use NYP if NJT withdrew a bit) into Manhattan at one point. The Harlem and New Haven Lines could come across the Hell Gate with dual voltage equipment and run right into either NYP or this Downtown Transit Terminal. |
|
|
|