The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #103749   Message #2246481
Posted By: JohnInKansas
27-Jan-08 - 05:10 PM
Thread Name: BS: News of Note (was 'I Read it . . .')
Subject: RE: BS: News of Note (was 'I Read it . . .')
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS HEADLINE?

Long Island-New England tunnel proposed

A brief excerpt from the article:

Drivers would pay $25 for shortcut, but towns worry about extra traffic
The Associated Press
updated 12:22 p.m. CT, Sun., Jan. 27, 2008

OYSTER BAY, N.Y. - It would be the world's longest highway tunnel, running more than 16 miles under the west end of Long Island Sound.
The cost is estimated at $10 billion — and it wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime. A developer wants to build the tunnel with private money, recouping his costs by charging drivers $25 each way and by selling advertising.

Comment:

Whoever wrote the headline didn't read the article and/or is totally ignorant of US geography.

An 18 mile long tunnel is proposed from Long Island, NY to Rye, NY.

The closest "New England" town to New York City (that shows on a normal highway map) is Hopkinton, RI which is 138 miles from NYC. (And there's not really much reason anyone would want to go there.)

The "developer" proposing this project states with fair accuracy:

Developer Vincent Polimeni says the tunnel between Oyster Bay and Rye on the New York mainland would let travelers going between Long Island and New England avoid crowded New York City highways and help alleviate traffic congestion.

Comment: The existing "preferred route" from Oyster Bay (Long Island) to Rye, NY is about 40 miles, so the 18 mile tunnel would be shorter. HOWEVER, Oyster Bay is now nearly 20 miles via "city streets" from the nearest "highway." (For the arithmetically lazy: 20 miles on back streets + 18 miles in the tunnel = 38 miles vs 40 miles on existing major arteries) So the developer is apparently expecting NY State to provide 20 miles of new "superhighways" to feed his tunnel on the Oyster Bay end. Infrastructure required to support feeding/dumping traffic at the other end would be somewhat less, but would still require significant "new roadwork" - from public funds and not included in the developer's "no cost to the public, privately funded project."

Response from "public officialdom" reportedly has been "tepid" at best.

John