Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Farrell-Mars t1_j5yotyc wrote

Absurdly small-minded hot take on why a huge new train station is irrelevant.

130

Thursty t1_j5yqarx wrote

I had to give up reading because I couldn’t find any factual information half way in.

46

anonyuser415 t1_j5zhjdk wrote

There are 15 links in the article and factual information in the second paragraph

4

joyousRock t1_j60as4l wrote

"Grand Central station, the one we all know and love, has 43 passenger tracks on two levels and is one of the biggest train stations in the world in terms of track capacity."

2

joyousRock t1_j60ajn8 wrote

I don't agree with the article's extremely pessimistic tone. but they're right to raise the point that building this terminal 16 stories underground instead of figuring out a way to incorporate it into the massive already existing Grand Central was a terrible misallocation of billions of dollars.

11

Farrell-Mars t1_j60etoa wrote

Amazing that now we are to imagine turning GCT into a construction site for 20 years to avoid some time on an escalator.

2

zipzak t1_j61qyaf wrote

I think the issue is that to bring the new line to the same grade as the existing terminal would have required some other exceedingly expensive tunnel so the trains could wind their way up to the correct elevation. This is the same reason that the F train, which uses the same tunnel, has such deep stations under midtown east

2

bankofgreed t1_j63lm8l wrote

To your point, how does the F train eventually end up at the 57 street station? I checked the depth and the 63rd street station is 155 feet deep but the 57 street stop is only 30.

How can the subway do it but not the LIRR? I’m sure there is a good answer someplace but genuinely curious.

2