Sure it was bothersome, but it didn't seem to cause the city to collapse into itself, either.

> it didn't seem to cause the city to collapse into itself

Straw man. Nobody claimed these were existential threats.

OP said "I wouldn't be surprised if cost/passenger over useful lifetime still shakes out better for the trains." I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if the opposite came out–take the costs of the disruption and time value of money into account, and building a new train line anywhere in Manhattan is a worse use of resources than (a) increasing capacity on existing lines, a veritable forest of low-hanging fruit or even (b) eVTOLs.

	▲	timcobb 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Nobody claimed these were existential threats. Strawman: yes, but the point stands in its milder form that noise etc isn't substantial economic disruptive. But yeah the reality is that no one is going to be digging in NY substantially soon/ever because if you look at precedent that's been the case for the last 100 years. And building a tunnel to JFK would be huge