East Side Access to open in July 2022

[Union Tpke]

Screen Shot 2019-07-24 at 7.17.56 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2019-07-24 at 7.17.32 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2019-07-24 at 7.17.10 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

[N6 Limited]

Would it have been cheaper to just build through tracks from Grand Central to Atlantic Terminal instead of a cavern terminal?

[Lex]

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Would it have been cheaper to just build through tracks from Grand Central to Atlantic Terminal instead of a cavern terminal?

Sure, assuming that we disregard the tunnels surrounding Atlantic Terminal...

[N6 Limited]

 

13 hours ago, Lex said:

Sure, assuming that we disregard the tunnels surrounding Atlantic Terminal...

Aren't there existing LIRR tunnels that go to the Ferry Landing under Old Fulton St?

[bobtehpanda]

On 7/24/2019 at 4:51 PM, N6 Limited said:

Would it have been cheaper to just build through tracks from Grand Central to Atlantic Terminal instead of a cavern terminal?

At the original 2004 estimation, no. Knowing what we know now, almost certainly. Making the individual tunnels and stations smaller would've reduced impact and complexity.

17 hours ago, Lex said:

Sure, assuming that we disregard the tunnels surrounding Atlantic Terminal...

LIRR to WTC was a Pataki pet project with decent ridership estimates (100k+ per day, which is pretty good especially compared to current Atlantic ridership). The tunnels aren't a major issue; go deep enough and you don't disturb them, and you have to be pretty deep to go under the river anyways. A fast surface connection to Atlantic Terminal is not especially important.

If anything the hard part would've been between 42nd and WTC/Fulton, particularly the Union Square area.

4 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Aren't there existing LIRR tunnels that go to the Ferry Landing under Old Fulton St?

So yes, but they almost certainly do not meet modern standards, and they're very shallow.

[Lex]

 

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

LIRR to WTC was a Pataki pet project with decent ridership estimates (100k+ per day, which is pretty good especially compared to current Atlantic ridership). The tunnels aren't a major issue; go deep enough and you don't disturb them, and you have to be pretty deep to go under the river anyways. A fast surface connection to Atlantic Terminal is not especially important.

And that simply drives up the cost to the point of hardly being cheaper, which is what I was actually talking about...

[bobtehpanda]

40 minutes ago, Lex said:

 

And that simply drives up the cost to the point of hardly being cheaper, which is what I was actually talking about...

I mean, there were $8B worth of overruns. A deep two-track station is a routine thing that exists in a lot of places. In fact, we did it for the 7 Line extension and that definitely wasn't $8B.

East Side Access f**ked up because no one builds massive terminals underground.

[Lex]

58 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I mean, there were $8B worth of overruns. A deep two-track station is a routine thing that exists-

Let me stop you right there. Is the station what you're concerned about? If not, why bother mentioning it?

[bobtehpanda]

13 hours ago, Lex said:

Let me stop you right there. Is the station what you're concerned about? If not, why bother mentioning it?

Most of the cost of building new subway and rail lines is the station.

The actual tunneling is not very expensive as a proportion of cost; a deeper tunnel is not really more expensive, in the same way that the 7 Line Extension was not meaningfully more expensive relative to SAS despite its greater depth.