Gang of Four

[Peter Schleifer]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:17:15 -0400, Ruben <ruben@www2.mrbrklyn.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:59:24 -0400, Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> The city, not the MTA, is financing the 7 Train extension with bonds
>> specifically issued for that purpose. It doesn't make a difference to
>> the MTA if it's yanked. They'll just be operating it.
>
>Even better. They can kill the LIRR and the & train extention both and
>use funds for both to keep and improve current service.

No they can't*. It would be illegal to do so, and in the case of the
LIRR connection, the MTA would have to reimburse the feds for all the
billions spent so far.

* OK, they could kill the projects, but the money that would have been
spent does not belong to the MTA and would (for the LIRR) simply be
spent on capital projects in other cities. Federal capital funds
cannot legally be used for operations. Maybe if people tell you this
enough times it will sink in.

--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"

[Bolwerk]

Ruben wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:59:44 -0400, Bolwerk wrote:
>
>>>>> Then the digital and radio switching system.
>>>> That's already implemented. And it *saves*, or at least will save,
>>>> money. Maintaining wayside signals is expensive. Cutting costs is what
>>>> the MTA should be doing.
>>> No system wide it isn't. I was just talking to an electrical engineer on
>>> that project and almost none of it is currently done.
>> Okay, and it would save money system-wide too. Again, maintaining
>> wayside signals is expensive. It also has the potential to cut
>> extremely high labor costs, if the TWU and MTA would allow one-person
>> train operation (at least where it's safe to have OPTO).
>
> Then you pay for it. tax 100% of your income.

I should be punished because the MTA is planning something that will
save money, and I think that should be encouraged? What kind of logic
is that?

[Bolwerk]

Ruben wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:34:38 -0500, Peter Schleifer wrote:
>
>>> Even better. They can kill the LIRR and the & train extention both and
>>> use funds for both to keep and improve current service.
>> No they can't*. It would be illegal to do so, and in the case of the
>> LIRR connection, the MTA would have to reimburse the feds for all the
>> billions spent so far.
>
> Yes - They could. There is nothing illegal baout stopping a project you
> don't have money for....duh...
>
> I hate stupid people.

They *have* the money for it. They don't have the money for covering
their operating expenses. That's the problem.

>> * OK, they could kill the projects, but the money that would have been
>> spent does not belong to the MTA and would (for the LIRR) simply be
>> spent on capital projects in other cities.
>
> A good chunk of it is and that is OK. Let Chicago spend 15.2 billion
> dollars. I don't want the project PERIOD. I don't whant GCT ripped up. I
> don't want the city streets ripped up. I don't want LIRR traffic
> streaming through GCT.

None of that is happening. GCT is just being expanding vertically
downwards. It won't affect current GCT traffic.

> And I don't want to pay for it.

Get over yourself. There are lots of things I don't want to pay for but
have to. Including your driving.

>> Federal capital funds cannot
>> legally be used for operations. Maybe if people tell you this enough
>> times it will sink in.
>
> Check your facts on this project again. Your so wrong its mind numbing.
> This wasn't free money.

Are you hydrocephalic? The Wikipedia article you pasted below proves
his point. See that $2.6 the feds put up (your cite, not his)? That
will need to be returned if the project is stopped. Whatever percentage
of it has been spent will still need to be returned, which means
spending more money to not have something.

> --
> wikipedia:
>
> The current East Side Access Project represents the construction effort to
> complete the line to Grand Central Terminal. After voters in New York
> approved a bond issue to provide state funds to the project, the federal
> government committed to provide $2.6 billion to help build the East Side
> Access project by signing a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) in
> December 2006.[3] The construction contract for a one-mile tunnel in
> Manhattan west and southward from the long dormant lower level of the 63rd
> Street rail tunnel to the new station beneath Grand Central terminal was
> awarded on July 13, 2006, to Dragados/Judlau, a joint American-Spanish
> venture (the American company is located in College Point, Queens, NY).[4]
> The total contract award is $430 million,[4] and is utilizing two large
> tunneling devices owned by the Spanish firm.[5]
>
> The East Side Access project cost has increased from $3 billion in
> 1998[citation needed] to US$6.3 billion in 2006.[4] Construction work is
> ongoing and a 2015 completion date is projected.
>
> Given the massive size of the project, the plan has aroused concerns and
> opposition. In 2005, businesses and Edward Cardinal Egan began to express
> concerns about the tunneling process. Egan in particular is concerned
> about the impact on St. Patrick's Cathedral, which faces Fifth Avenue with
> its back on Madison Avenue north of 50th Street. The project is proposing
> that an air vent be placed south of 50th Street and east of Madison
> Avenue, just outside the existing trainshed.[15]
>
> [edit] Side effects
>
> East Side Access is likely to affect commuting patterns in Manhattan and
> put greatly increased passenger loads on the already overcrowded IRT
> Lexington Avenue Line, the sole East Side subway line, as well as on
> surface bus routes on the East Side. The project has, therefore, focused
> attention on the long-delayed Second Avenue Subway along the far East Side
> of Manhattan, which is now under construction. It is expected to relieve
> north/south commuting pressure emanating from Grand Central Terminal.
>
> At the same time, East Side Access will reduce the load on morning
> northbound rush-hour E service between Pennsylvania Station and Midtown
> East.
>

[Bolwerk]

Ruben wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:30:34 -0500, Peter Schleifer wrote:
>
>> If you don't understand that the existence of the commuter trains
>> benefits everyone in the city then there really is no possibility of
>> reasoning with you.
>
> If you don't understand that it doesn't help those of us in NYC then
> your completely clueless.

He already explained to you why it helps people in NYC. And many people
in NYC even reverse-commute to Long Island and the northern suburbs now.

> I need the G train, not the LIRR at ALL.
> If they what the LIRR let THEM pay for it, and pay the city access rights.

Your arguments basically consist of spouting "me me me me me." You
probably don't need the E Train, but somebody does.

[Dymphna]

It's not like New York follow the rules. The Twin Towers were build with harbor transit moneys. They condemned perfectly good businesses and homes in order to build it.

[Bolwerk]

Peter Schleifer wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:25:22 -0400, Bolwerk <no@way.org2> wrote:
>
>> Ruben wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 07:30:34 -0500, Peter Schleifer wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you don't understand that the existence of the commuter trains
>>>> benefits everyone in the city then there really is no possibility of
>>>> reasoning with you.
>>> If you don't understand that it doesn't help those of us in NYC then
>>> your completely clueless.
>> He already explained to you why it helps people in NYC. And many people
>> in NYC even reverse-commute to Long Island and the northern suburbs now.
>
> I would even find occasional use for the LIRR from GCT, and I do not
> commute to LI regularly.

I tend to think it's probably not as important a project as, say, the
SAS. Also, I would think there are plenty of non-discussed Subway
routes that would make much more sense (Bronx <=> Queens?).

But, on the merits, it still moves 150k people/day, and has the
potential to move many more, including within Queens. It also adds
value to the regional transportation network.

> I just read today that a developer wants to build a station for
> Metro-North at W. 60th, which they would be able to use once some
> Hudson line trains are able to run into Penn Station (which depends on
> the LIRR moving some runs to GCT). Of course, since Ruben doesn't
> need this, it's obviously not a good thing

That's interesting. Got a URL?

[grammatim]

On Mar 31, 11:24*pm, Ruben <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:

A 22-line signature on a 1-line comment.

[Bolwerk]

Ruben wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:58:34 -0400, Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> Here are the dots: money gets assigned under city, state, or federal
>> law, usually earmarked directly by City Council, the New York
>> Legislature, or Congress. To get the money, they have to spend it as
>> was written in the law.
>
> Here is the dots. Don't spend the money and save it since the MTA is
> broke and has to throw in a ton of its own money

Connect: If they don't spend it, they lose it, and will be just as broke
or even more broke.

[grammatim]

On Apr 1, 10:51*pm, Ruben <ru...@www2.mrbrklyn.com> wrote:

a 22-line .sig on a one-word message.

[Peter Schleifer]

On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:52:15 -0400, Ruben <ruben@www2.mrbrklyn.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:50:03 -0400, Bolwerk wrote:
>
>>
>> Connect: If they don't spend it, they lose it, and will be just as broke
>> or even more broke.
>
>aside which I don't want it anyway

Why should anyone care what you want when you show no apparent
interest in what anyone else wants?

--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"