Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Union Tpke

Queens Depot Property and Environmental Prep – Casey Stengel

Recommended Posts

http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/allframenew_pi.php?PROJNUM=t7120419&PLTYPE=6

This project is for property acquisition for a potential new bus depot due to planned work in the vicinity of Mets-Willets Point station. The proposed work is for a portion of the existing "Tully'' property be converted to an interim bus parking lot. Some schedule dates are not available, due to project being under development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they do have the land to build another depot so it does make sense to rebuild CS. Question is will they take forever building it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

How about the site of the original Flushing? Airport? From what I hear that area is basically a marsh now.

Building a depot on a marsh doesn’t seem like a good idea. At a minimum they should conduct a EIS.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Building a depot on a marsh doesn’t seem like a good idea. At a minimum they should conduct a EIS.

Bloomberg wanted to develop that site into a food distribution center for the Asian markets. The local elected officials cried NIMBY based on increased truck traffic on the Whitestone service road at Linden Place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

Bloomberg wanted to develop that site into a food distribution center for the Asian markets. The local elected officials cried NIMBY based on increased truck traffic on the Whitestone service road at Linden Place.

Well I can see that. Linden Place can be pretty bad traffic wise at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Building a depot on a marsh doesn’t seem like a good idea. At a minimum they should conduct a EIS.

GunHill was built on Marsh and a dump. Just drill some pylons down shouldn't  be to crazy   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

GunHill was built on Marsh and a dump. Just drill some pylons down shouldn't  be to crazy   

It wouldn't be the first time. Doesn't change the situation though and the (MTA) doesn't have a good track record in this area.  Construction isn't their strong point to say the least.  Lots of places have been built on swamp land, including Co-op City hence the sinking.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It wouldn't be the first time. Doesn't change the situation though and the (MTA) doesn't have a good track record in this area.  Construction isn't their strong point to say the least.

Yukon,Charleston, Zerega, Gunhill even Stengel.. All somewhat new depots on Marshy land.. A bus depot is fairly simple from a support standpoint easy to fill in, compact and add pylons to solid rock for support. Gas Reservoirs and piping are bit complex but straightforward. Not to many ways to mess that up.. physically. Funding and spending a different story. 

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RailRunRob said:

Yukon,Charleston, Zerega, Gunhill even Stengel.. All somewhat new depots on Marshy land.. A bus depot is fairly simple from a support standpoint easy to fill in, compact and add pylons to solid rock for support. Not to many ways to mess that up.. physically. Funding and spending a different story. 

That's not the point.  Lots of things are built on marsh land.  The issue here is whether or not precautions will be taken in advance to mitigate issues arising from building on marsh land.  The agency has a history of not using commonsense when taking on such projects, which in essence means money thrown down the drain (taxpayer dollars at that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That's not the point.  Lots of things are built on marsh land.  The issue here is whether or not precautions will be taken in advance to mitigate issues arising from building on marsh land.  The agency has a history of not using commonsense when taking on such projects, which in essence means money thrown down the drain (taxpayer dollars at that).

Any issues with any of the depots named?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RailRunRob said:

Any issues with any of the depots named?

They already have flooding issues at other depots, Yonkers being one of them.  I find it hilarious that they've fought the city of Yonkers tooth and nail to hold on to land that constantly floods.  Sell it and get it out of their hair and build a depot elsewhere.  As for the others I wouldn't know, but they should take all necessary precautions to not have another depot with such headaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

They already have flooding issues at other depots, Yonkers being one of them.

That's an inherited depot can you count that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RailRunRob said:

That's an inherited depot can you count that?

I'm counting it because they could've sold it and are still holding on to it.  Yonkers wants the land, land that floods regularly. Find a way to make a deal and get rid of it.  Anyway their track record isn't that great, and even they admit that construction is not their strong point, so while yes it shouldn't be an issue for most, it may be for the (MTA) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also with flooding that's a major change outside of the MTA control and foresight. Entire areas 30 years ago that weren't as prone to flooding now are anything post-Sandy build and flood mitigation has been updated code wise.

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Also with flooding that's a major change outside of the MTA control and foresight. Entire areas 30 years ago that weren't as prone to flooding now are anything post-Sandy build and flood mitigation has been updated code wise.

The real question is will the (MTA) hire the right people to do the job, not the fact that they're building on marsh land.  What may seem obvious isn't always obvious to the (MTA) .  South Ferry terminal is a perfect example of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Building a depot on a marsh doesn’t seem like a good idea. At a minimum they should conduct a EIS.

This is kind of a different thing from the competency of the MTA altogether, but the Flushing Airport site is a known danger area for West Nile Virus due to all the mosquitos being there.

At this point I would be inclined to do something to the site, to remove the health hazard. It is worth noting that most of New York used to be marshland, but most people don' t get flooded on a regular basis outside of Sandy-type events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is kind of a different thing from the competency of the MTA altogether, but the Flushing Airport site is a known danger area for West Nile Virus due to all the mosquitos being there.

At this point I would be inclined to do something to the site, to remove the health hazard. It is worth noting that most of New York used to be marshland, but most people don' t get flooded on a regular basis outside of Sandy-type events.

Well I think this is just an example of mitigation efforts that need to be employed and whether or not the agency will take the measures needed to address such issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The real question is will the (MTA) hire the right people to do the job, not the fact that they're building on marsh land.  What may seem obvious isn't always obvious to the (MTA) .  South Ferry terminal is a perfect example of that.

I'd hope they'd know who to vent the proper contractor/builder. But I also have to acknowledge the major difference between building a bus depot. Add building a major underground station just mere feet from the Bay using geotechnical principles.  Night and Day difficulty wise.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RailRunRob said:

I'd hope they'd know who to vent the proper contractor/builder. But I also have to acknowledge the major difference between building a bus depot. Add building a major underground station just mere feet from the Bay using geotechnical principles.  Night and Day difficulty wise.   

Their motto is to pick the lowest bidder... That says enough in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Their motto is to pick the lowest bidder... That says enough in my book.

It's not the motto. It's NYS law. And Albany and their friends wouldn't have it any other way.

Quote

The MTA is fine with hiring contractors with histories of corruption — because the transit agency wants to help them mend their ways, a top official claimed Monday.

“New York City Transit and the MTA as a whole for many, many, many years — for the 30 years that I’ve been here and for many before that — have looked at this as a rehabilitative organization,” senior Vice President Stephen Plochochi said.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Their motto is to pick the lowest bidder... That says enough in my book.

That means the City and state inspectors are dropping the ball as well there are definitely code and standards to build by. The lowest bidder seems pretty American capitalistic to me no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say... In other words, you're trying to excuse the fact that this practice occurs by saying that it's state law? That doesn't make it any better. In fact it's even worse, and it's a prime example of taxpayer dollars wasted. 

2 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

That means the City and state inspectors are dropping the ball as well there are definitely code and standards to build by. The lowest bidder seems pretty American capitalistic to me no?

Using the lowest bidder isn't always the wise thing to do.  Having the lowest bidder is certainly American from a competition standpoint but that's about it. Not exactly the same thing being discussed here.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.