Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
How about finding a cheaper solution short term? Instead of building two new tunnels and refurbishing the two existing tunnels later - let's build one of the new tunnels now, refurbishing one existng tunnel later, then the second exisitng tunnel after that. Then one could debate whether building the second new tunnel is even needed, or when it should be built. That alone should reduce the immediate short term costs in half - from $15 Billion to $8 Billion. Note: the dollar amounts I used above are just examples pulled out of thin air for argument purposes, not based on any real numbers. Although I will still insist building one new tunnel should be significantly cheaper than building two new tunnels with the amount saved in the short term over Billions of dollars, possibly in double digits.
With three tunnels in service after the refurbishing has been completed, there will be a 50% increase in capacity. Do we even need a 100% increase in capacity in the short term?
|
I think I had proposed this a while back. One single track relief tunnel that will let the existing tubes be taken out of service in turn for rehab seems like the minimum cost option. I'd put one guy in charge of it who has ultimate authority and gives no f's about the politics. Do design-build, put the CM at risk, benchmark to euro staffing levels, forbid consultants, and require 24 hour turnaround on change orders by the dude in charge with hard $ limits on anything not life safety. Do it fast, cheap, and bare bones.
The extra capacity afforded when all tunnels are complete can't even be utilized since Penn is so constrained. The shitty concourse design because of MSG/2 Penn limits how fast you can move people on/off the narrow platforms.