From: gl4317@yahoo.com

In article ,
 Stephen Sprunk  wrote:

> On 22-Apr-14 08:58, conklin wrote:
> >
> > How nice 2% of stops might have something near them.  Now they need,
> > like the RRs, a $60 million station like Raleigh is planning at
> > public expense for a couple hundred passengers a day.
>
> If the local taxpayers want to build some extravagant monument to
> wasteful spending, as in Raleigh, that is their choice, but it's not
> _necessary_, nor should Amtrak be saddled with the cost of such
> wastefulness.


It's probably best to read about this supposed "extravagant monument"
before judging what George has written.

According to their web site:
http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/raleighunionstation/
the existing station is frequently overcrowded and has platforms that
are too short to serve longer trains.

There is also quite a lot of track work involved, which includes two new
passenger tracks so that freight trains no longer pass through the
station tracks and obstruct the platforms.  It also says that one
platform will have to be accessed from a tunnel under the tracks, so
that unlike the mess we have at so many Cascades stations you won't have
to worry about what to do when two trains are at the station at the same
time.

The project will also have to replace freight yard storage capacity that
gets removed when the new track work is completed.

It's probably a bit more than they really need for right now, but at the
same time if the current station is overcrowded then at some point they
need to do something.  Which is more wasteful?  Knocking down a wall and
expanding the existing station a few feet every few years, or building a
new station that has room for future growth?

--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)