3 ms·

Infrastructure schminfrastructure. Dig deeper. That's what we did in Los Angeles. When you get on the Red Line, you descend down something like 60-90 feet of st

Infrastructure schminfrastructure. Dig deeper. That's what we did in Los Angeles. When you get on the Red Line, you descend down something like 60-90 feet of stairs/escalators, compared to 18-30 feet in NYC.

gipp 10y ago
Geology and hydrology are enormously different between those locations. Not saying you definitely can't do that, since I'm no expert either, but it's kinda silly to just say "dig deeper" like it's a no-brainer.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> Dig deeper The Vox article [1] specifically cites depth as a contributor to the Second Avenue Line's increased cost: "the majority of the Second Avenue subway’s price tag actually comes from the stations rather than the tunnels. The line is being built unusually deep for a subway tunnel, which doesn’t do much to change the basic logistics of boring a tunnel, but does make excavation of station caverns unusually difficult." [1] http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new-york-second-avenue-subway-phase-2 http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new...
savoytruffle 10y ago
2nd avenue subway is muuuuch deeper than most of the 100 year old stations in manhattan, for just this very reason. And also because no one would stand for cut and cover anymore.
- ams6110 10y ago
  "Cut and cover" being what exactly? Trenching down from the surface and then filling in above the tracks? Hardly seems practical beyond a fairly shallow depth.
  - slededit 10y ago
    Yet with the exception of London, that's how most of the world's pre-existing subways were built. London is a bit of an outlier as it was very highly developed even in the late 19th century and there was a great fear of damaging existing "tall" buildings. Although even there a large amount of cut and cover tunneling exists.
hackuser 10y ago
What happens when you build the next infrastructure project? Then you have to dig even deeper to be beneath this one.

gipp 10y ago

Geology and hydrology are enormously different between those locations. Not saying you definitely can't do that, since I'm no expert either, but it's kinda silly to just say "dig deeper" like it's a no-brainer.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> Dig deeper The Vox article [1] specifically cites depth as a contributor to the Second Avenue Line's increased cost: "the majority of the Second Avenue subway’s price tag actually comes from the stations rather than the tunnels. The line is being built unusually deep for a subway tunnel, which doesn’t do much to change the basic logistics of boring a tunnel, but does make excavation of station caverns unusually difficult." [1] http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new-york-second-avenue-subway-phase-2 http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new...

savoytruffle 10y ago

2nd avenue subway is muuuuch deeper than most of the 100 year old stations in manhattan, for just this very reason. And also because no one would stand for cut and cover anymore.

ams6110 10y ago
"Cut and cover" being what exactly? Trenching down from the surface and then filling in above the tracks? Hardly seems practical beyond a fairly shallow depth.
- slededit 10y ago
  Yet with the exception of London, that's how most of the world's pre-existing subways were built. London is a bit of an outlier as it was very highly developed even in the late 19th century and there was a great fear of damaging existing "tall" buildings. Although even there a large amount of cut and cover tunneling exists.

hackuser 10y ago

What happens when you build the next infrastructure project? Then you have to dig even deeper to be beneath this one.