From: ahk@chinet.com
Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
>On 6/10/2014 12:42 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
>>>I don't think anyone really believes that the EWR station was a
>>>boondoggle. PANYNJ might want to operate it sufficiently incompetently
>>>to make it look like a boondoggle given their inherent anti-rail bias,
>>>and they may be succeeding at it at least with hancock.
>>According to Amtrak's Great American Station site, it opened in 2001,
>>and cost more than $400 million. This New York Times articles says
>>$415 million for terminal, track for AirTrain extension to the Corridor,
>>and six new consists. I've got to believe the $415 million included the
>>Corridor train station.
>>The original intramural route cost $354 million when it opened in 1996,
>>and had needed substantial repairs over the first several years, one of
>>which cost $25 million and shut it down for three months.
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/22/nyregion/road-and-rail-newar
-s-train-to-the-plane.html
>>I'll call it a boondoggle; haven't seen the price tag on the most recent
>>repair work. I think your suggestion about routing intercity trains directly
>>to air terminals would have been cheaper.
>The Airtrain is a boondoggle. I was not talking about that. It should
>have been PATH from the getgo, eventually enhanced with a mainline
>station. But as I said all that is water under the bridge. PATH will now
>get built to only the EWR rail station. The first opportunity to fix
>this will come if they ever go forward with the third runway project.
I really don't see how the rail station and AirTrain can be seen as
separate projects. If the station had been built in the early '90's as
a shuttle bus terminal without AirTrain, then it might have been cost
effective.
I prefer the idea of routing railroads through airports; it makes
so much more sense.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
