From: grammatim@verizon.net   
      
   On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 6:48:23 PM UTC-4, John Levine wrote:   
   > >I remain at a loss why the subway itself, only a two track line, costs so   
   much money and is taking so   
   > >long.  I don't know comparable costs to building the IND, adjusted for   
   inflation, but I can't help but   
   > >suspect that Second Ave is costing many times as much.  Admittedly, it   
   probably has better fire   
   > >safety, handicapped access, and brighter lighting than the IND originally   
   had, but that still can't   
   > >account for the differnetial.  But, as said, I don't know the gory details.   
   >   
   > I believe that most of the IND was cut and cover, while most of 2nd   
   > ave is bored tunnel, largely through rock.   
      
   Just what I was going to say ...   
      
   Also I think the IND got plenty of WPA money. Then they decided to have a war   
   instead, and it never got finished. Plus we lost our trolleys.   
      
   > I'm also guessing that the buildings along 2nd Ave now are larger and   
   > more valuable than the ones along IND routes in the 1930s, so the   
   > costs if they're damaged are greater, and the abutters' attitudes are   
   > likely different.  How happy were the IND's neighbors to have it built   
   > vs. the 2nd ave neighbors?  The latter seem to view it as a huge   
   > inconvenience and imposition, even though once it's running they'll be   
   > unable to imagine how they ever lived without it.   
      
   The 2nd Ave. subway was planned before the 3rd Ave. el was torn down, so   
   all the development it experienced over the next 50 years was done keeping   
   the need for the infrastructure not to interfere with its planned route in   
   mind. If you peeled the pavement off the two avenues, they'd look quite   
   different.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)