The LGA EIS has been torn to shreds already, but I just want to hone in on the reasons they chose for rejecting Alt 8B (N to LGA over 31 St and 19 Av) for one sec. They're....lol.
The formal reason for rejecting this alt is that it has the potential to disrupt infra during its construction. Specifically, the report writers are concerned about impacts to NEC service, and to sewer infrastruction. 
The former line of reasoning has me perplexed. This is the detail they give on the potential impacts to the NEC, but folks, no new-build section of this route crosses the NEC! The NEC crosses the N just south of Ditmars; the new stretch of track would begin beyond it.
As for the sewer issue: the analysis cites irresolvable conflicts with sewer infra on the tunneled section, provides a list and refers the reader to Appendix E for further info. I went to Appendix E. The cited document claims *POTENTIAL* impacts! The alts analysis misconstrues!
Anyway, we all already know this process is, euh, biased, but I'm still amazed at the brazenness with which this sort of stuff is pursued.
Also, get a load of this: the EIS cites @alon_levy in a footnote which justifies their extremely high construction cost estimates and NY exceptionalism. I get that "reforming construction practices" isn't in the most narrow definition of scoping/estimating processes, but...agh!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
