dumberthenhelooks t1_j5yyozg wrote
Things like this are kind of funny to me. I grew up on the ues and now live there again. Pre the second avenue subway it would be easy to have looked and been like all that money and time for 4 stops. Total boondoggle. The reality is the 4/5/6 we’re awful in terms of crowding. The Q has made it much easier to get to different parts of the city easier and without extensive transfers. All the new stations are ada compliant. Pre pandemic o would have said that I definitely used the q to go places I would have taken a cab. It has definitely improved the lives of senior citizens who live around the stations. I look at gcm the same way. It may not feel like it’s going to make much of an impact, but it will reduce some crowding. Make access easier. And maybe just maybe it will convince some more of the nearly 3mm people who live on Long Island to take the train in instead of driving. Plus we should be building more transit options regardless. We should already be thinking about the next big projects that will make commuting into and getting around the city easier. And while we probably wont ever have a unified transit system. One that dovetails with each branch is multiple ways is certainly better
RepresentativeAge444 t1_j6260cx wrote
I’ve lived on the UES for 15 years and the time BQ(Before Q) and after are night and day. I went from a 45 mins or more commute to my midtown office to 25 mins. Not to mention all the connections I can now make. I love it. However as the article points out because urban residents are so starved for better public transportation infrastructure doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be criticisms of projects - especially 11 billion dollar ones that run 14 years over schedule. The article makes salient points and because the Q is an example of a good project doesn’t necessarily mean this one is.
[deleted] t1_j658rcq wrote
[removed]
spring_ways t1_j6g91ea wrote
I think people are appreciative of transport improvements but cost is the issue. Why must we spend BILLIONS for 3.5 stations. I agree that SAS made a lot of journeys faster and better, there were also some operational improvements. While GCM has fewer improvements, the number of additional trains is minimal and some journeys will take longer.
We should spending more efficiently. There should be better value for money.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments