More Government Hypocrisy

[BrooklynBus]

http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2014/10/commute-government-hypocrisy/

[Union Tpke]

Great post! I hope these guys actually start listening to you.

[BrooklynBus]

Thanks for the support.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I'm not sure where the hypocrisy is.  MNRR and LIRR commuters should get their due share seeing how much we pay for the service.  I was looking at my Metro-North station this morning, and it needs some TLC... For what it's worth numerous stations along the Brighton Line were redone in the last few years, and I remember when the Sheepshead Bay station was re-done, as I was still living in Sheepshead Bay at the time.  

[BrooklynBus]

I'm not sure where the hypocrisy is.  MNRR and LIRR commuters should get their due share seeing how much we pay for the service.  I was looking at my Metro-North station this morning, and it needs some TLC... For what it's worth numerous stations along the Brighton Line were redone in the last few years, and I remember when the Sheepshead Bay station was re-done, as I was still living in Sheepshead Bay at the time.

 

Yes, the Brighton and West End lines were redone. But the Sea Beach line stations are still literally crumbling. I also believe the Concourse Line among others are still in horrible shape although I haven't been there in many years. No one is saying the commuter lines also do not need work. But the subways and buses account for the greatest ridership and that's where most of the money needs to be spent.

 

The hypocrisy is that with record ridership which will continue, more is not spent on system expansion especially in the outer boroughs especially since the job trend has been from Manhattan to the other boroughs. We keep upzoning. Look at what they are doing to Downtown Brooklyn. New skyscrapers are planned for virtually every vacant parcel. Other than the expanded Barclays Station which didn't even include escalators to aid in transferring, what are we doing to increase capacity in Downtown Brooklyn? We could restore the Nassau Street - Montague St connection and bring back the F express, among other improvements.

 

Instead we are expecting the existing system to absorb new upzoning. All system expansion is Second Avenue and East Side Access, all to benefit those travelling to Manhattan. Even if a subway extension is built to La Guardia, it is also to make it easier to get to Manhattan. The only thing that is being done to improve non-Manhattan travel is Select Bus Service, nothing with rails.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yes, the Brighton and West End lines were redone. But the Sea Beach line stations are still literally crumbling. I also believe the Concourse Line among others are still in horrible shape although I haven't been there in many years. No one is saying the commuter lines also do not need work. But the subways and buses account for the greatest ridership and that's where most of the money needs to be spent.

 

The hypocrisy is that with record ridership which will continue, more is not spent on system expansion especially in the outer boroughs especially since the job trend has been from Manhattan to the other boroughs. We keep upzoning. Look at what they are doing to Downtown Brooklyn. New skyscrapers are planned for virtually every vacant parcel. Other than the expanded Barclays Station which didn't even include escalators to aid in transferring, what are we doing to increase capacity in Downtown Brooklyn? We could restore the Nassau Street - Montague St connection and bring back the F express, among other improvements.

 

Instead we are expecting the existing system to absorb new upzoning. All system expansion is Second Avenue and East Side Access, all to benefit those travelling to Manhattan. Even if a subway extension is built to La Guardia, it is also to make it easier to get to Manhattan. The only thing that is being done to improve non-Manhattan travel is Select Bus Service, nothing with rails.

For what it's worth, LIRR & MNRR are also experiencing record ridership, and we need our fair share of upgrades to our stations and service improvements. You can't expect LIRR & MNRR riders to pay more and more and not receive anything.  That's just absurd.  The Hudson Line needs new cars and station improvements.

 

As for the city, I personally support SBS service.  We need to encourage more ridership on buses and not cram people into subways.  How can you support more expansion when the can't even handle the current 468 stations that it has? When they can start managing those stations better, then we can talk about expansion, but what needs to happen is more renovations, and less money on art work.  Parts of Grand Central still look like a third world country even though they've spent so much money in renovations... Completely inexcusable. The focus should be on renovations first, and less money to artwork. I know there is some stupid clause that forces them to spend "X" amount of dollars in artwork, but we have more important things to worry about than mosaics and other nonsense.  Crumbling stations along the Sea Beach line should be repaired.  Can't get they get funding from private donors or something for the artwork?  That's MILLIONS of dollars that are wasted.

[LTA1992]

Sea Beach rehab begins next year.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Sea Beach rehab begins next year.

Supposedly... I'm not sure if the funding is actually there for it...

[MHV9218]

Supposedly... I'm not sure if the funding is actually there for it...

It is. It wouldn't have been announced were it not.

[Union Tpke]

Yes, the Brighton and West End lines were redone. But the Sea Beach line stations are still literally crumbling. I also believe the Concourse Line among others are still in horrible shape although I haven't been there in many years. No one is saying the commuter lines also do not need work. But the subways and buses account for the greatest ridership and that's where most of the money needs to be spent.

 

The hypocrisy is that with record ridership which will continue, more is not spent on system expansion especially in the outer boroughs especially since the job trend has been from Manhattan to the other boroughs. We keep upzoning. Look at what they are doing to Downtown Brooklyn. New skyscrapers are planned for virtually every vacant parcel. Other than the expanded Barclays Station which didn't even include escalators to aid in transferring, what are we doing to increase capacity in Downtown Brooklyn? We could restore the Nassau Street - Montague St connection and bring back the F express, among other improvements.

 

Instead we are expecting the existing system to absorb new upzoning. All system expansion is Second Avenue and East Side Access, all to benefit those travelling to Manhattan. Even if a subway extension is built to La Guardia, it is also to make it easier to get to Manhattan. The only thing that is being done to improve non-Manhattan travel is Select Bus Service, nothing with rails.

One of my fantasy plans is to have 125 St Crosstown that connects with two of the Tracks on the Hells Gate then has a branch to the Astoria Line for BQ Crosstown service, and then it continues with a branch from the Astoria line into LGA then runs along GCP then the Van Wyck through Jamaica and to JFK.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It is. It wouldn't have been announced were it not.

I'll wait and see with my own eyes... That project has been pushed back quite a few times now.

[BrooklynBus]

For what it's worth, LIRR & MNRR are also experiencing record ridership, and we need our fair share of upgrades to our stations and service improvements. You can't expect LIRR & MNRR riders to pay more and more and not receive anything.  That's just absurd.  The Hudson Line needs new cars and station improvements.

 

As for the city, I personally support SBS service.  We need to encourage more ridership on buses and not cram people into subways.  How can you support more expansion when the can't even handle the current 468 stations that it has? When they can start managing those stations better, then we can talk about expansion, but what needs to happen is more renovations, and less money on art work.  Parts of Grand Central still look like a third world country even though they've spent so much money in renovations... Completely inexcusable. The focus should be on renovations first, and less money to artwork. I know there is some stupid clause that forces them to spend "X" amount of dollars in artwork, but we have more important things to worry about than mosaics and other nonsense.  Crumbling stations along the Sea Beach line should be repaired.  Can't get they get funding from private donors or something for the artwork?  That's MILLIONS of dollars that are wasted.

No one is saying that LIRR and MNR riders should not see improvements. All I am saying is that the money spent on LIRR and MNR has to proportional to the numbers of riders they have as compared to the subways and buses.

 

I will support SBS when I actually see numbers that prove more people are helped by it, not hurt by it and that includes non bus users as well.

 

I disagree with you about the artwork. It definitely beautifies the stations. Would you rather we return to doing the bare minimum like covering up the tile with cheap block tile like we did in the 1970s or the ugly extensions of the 1960s? Yes it would be better if we ok'd get the private sector to fund the artwork and the MTA should be trying to do that.

 

As for Grand Central, the station was entirely rehabbed. In fact, I was the contract manager for soliciting bids for it around 1984. All the bids came in too high, so the project mezzanine was cut out from the scope and another contract for that was let years later. The MTA studied 15 types of floor tile for durability. Something certainly went wrong because the one they chose started crumbling in a few years. The same is true at many other stations. The MTA didn't seem to purchase any spare tile so as soon as one failed it was replaced with a look a like tile rather than a matching one. Then they stopped using tile altogether and started relying on temporary cement like patching. That's why so many rehabbed stations already look like shit after only 10 years when the original stations lasted 50 years before they started to look bad. That's why it looks like a third world country. The MTA does whatever it likes with little oversight.

 

Still that is not a good reason why there shouldn't be system expansion.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

No one is saying that LIRR and MNR riders should not see improvements. All I am saying is that the money spent on LIRR and MNR has to proportional to the numbers of riders they have as compared to the subways and buses.

 

I will support SBS when I actually see numbers that prove more people are helped by it, not hurt by it and that includes non bus users as well.

 

I disagree with you about the artwork. It definitely beautifies the stations. Would you rather we return to doing the bare minimum like covering up the tile with cheap block tile like we did in the 1970s or the ugly extensions of the 1960s? Yes it would be better if we ok'd get the private sector to fund the artwork and the MTA should be trying to do that.

 

As for Grand Central, the station was entirely rehabbed. In fact, I was the contract manager for soliciting bids for it around 1984. All the bids came in too high, so the project mezzanine was cut out from the scope and another contract for that was let years later. The MTA studied 15 types of floor tile for durability. Something certainly went wrong because the one they chose started crumbling in a few years. The same is true at many other stations. The MTA didn't seem to purchase any spare tile so as soon as one failed it was replaced with a look a like tile rather than a matching one. Then they stopped using tile altogether and started relying on temporary cement like patching. That's why so many rehabbed stations already look like shit after only 10 years when the original stations lasted 50 years before they started to look bad. That's why it looks like a third world country. The MTA does whatever it likes with little oversight.

 

Still that is not a good reason why there shouldn't be system expansion.

Well my question is how do you expect the to expand when they can't budget properly and run construction projects as they should be run?  It's a rarity that any of their projects come in on budget or under budget, even with the tactics that they use (i.e. accepting the lowest bidder).  It's amazing to me as someone that worked in the construction industry how an agency that has so many project managers doesn't seem to have enough competent ones that understands the ins and outs of how to run large construction projects.  Do they hire GC's General Contractors) as consultants, or do they actually hire them to run the projects?  I've always heard that they aren't big enough and experienced enough to handle large construction projects, and that seems rather strange given how many projects they have to undertake across the city.  It would make sense to me for them to have more in house folks, hire them and pay them what is necessary and then they could do more in house work which would allow for more consistency from project to project.

 

I know they usually look to large construction companies like SKANSKA, which is one of the biggest construction companies around, but somewhere they aren't getting the process right.

 

As for LIRR and MNRR, I don't see how service improvements and construction projects could be that expensive.  Most of the stations are outdoors, and consist of a simple platform, with some lighting and a few machines for tickets, which aren't even staffed.

 

As for SBS, there simply isn't enough funding nor time for new subways to be erected quickly enough to meet the needs of commuters, and for now I believe that's the short term solution.  We need to also invest more in our waterways to expand ferry service where possible and try to alleviate the strain on our subway system while the continues to procure funding to improve and expand the system.  

[bobtehpanda]

Well my question is how do you expect the to expand when they can't budget properly and run construction projects as they should be run?  It's a rarity that any of their projects come in on budget or under budget, even with the tactics that they use (i.e. accepting the lowest bidder).  It's amazing to me as someone that worked in the construction industry how an agency that has so many project managers doesn't seem to have enough competent ones that understands the ins and outs of how to run large construction projects.  Do they hire GC's General Contractors) as consultants, or do they actually hire them to run the projects?  I've always heard that they aren't big enough and experienced enough to handle large construction projects, and that seems rather strange given how many projects they have to undertake across the city.  It would make sense to me for them to have more in house folks, hire them and pay them what is necessary and then they could do more in house work which would allow for more consistency from project to project.

 

I know they usually look to large construction companies like SKANSKA, which is one of the biggest construction companies around, but somewhere they aren't getting the process right.

 

Well, to be fairly honest, New York doesn't build as efficiently as it used to, simply because we haven't built subway in significant amount in decades. MTACC is good at doing what it does a lot of (signals, track replacement, etc.) but has very little experience building tunnel and brand new stations. MTACC was also formed from a merger of the construction divisions of each agency in 2003, so it may have lost institutional experience that way too. (This was back when the MTA was planned to be reorganized into Subway (NYCT Subway + SIR), Regional Bus Operations (NYCT Bus, MTA Bus, and MTA LIB Bus) and Railroads.)

 

MTA hires them to do either or both (it has both options) but a lot of the issues have to do with the subcontractors, who are also hired doing lowest bid. Lowest bid is actually probably causing most of the problems, since lower cost figures tend to be unreliable and contractors bite off more than they can chew, etc, but the MTA can't really factor in reliability as a factor when picking bidders because it's not legally allowed to by State law.

 

Would it make sense for MTA to hire more people? Sure. But even if they wanted to, they probably couldn't offer competitive salaries; MTA management has had pay freezes for several years now starting during the Walder MTA.

 

As for LIRR and MNRR, I don't see how service improvements and construction projects could be that expensive.  Most of the stations are outdoors, and consist of a simple platform, with some lighting and a few machines for tickets, which aren't even staffed.

 

As for SBS, there simply isn't enough funding nor time for new subways to be erected quickly enough to meet the needs of commuters, and for now I believe that's the short term solution.  We need to also invest more in our waterways to expand ferry service where possible and try to alleviate the strain on our subway system while the continues to procure funding to improve and expand the system.  

 

Most of the cost of LIRR and MNRR expansion is East Side Access. It is literally the most expensive tunneling project in the world (somewhere around $8.5B for two miles) because we are blasting a giant eight-track, three-level station cavern into Manhattan bedrock, and at this point stopping it would be really stupid, because the approach tunnels and station shell are all being done excavated, and that would just be a huge waste of money and an unused maintenance item on the MTA budget (because if the tunnel or station collapses, goodbye Park Avenue and GCT).

 

Agreed with SBS. However, waterways are not really workable as a solution, since New York City does not have intensive waterway development in the way that North Jersey does, and outside of Manhattan and gentrifying Brooklyn there isn't really development next to the river. Also, subsidy for ferry service is huge; if I remember correctly, the Rockaway ferry that was running on and off had a subsidy approaching $20 a rider, and at this point transportation options like SBS or CitiBike expansion become significantly cheaper.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well, to be fairly honest, New York doesn't build as efficiently as it used to, simply because we haven't built subway in significant amount in decades. MTACC is good at doing what it does a lot of (signals, track replacement, etc.) but has very little experience building tunnel and brand new stations. MTACC was also formed from a merger of the construction divisions of each agency in 2003, so it may have lost institutional experience that way too. (This was back when the MTA was planned to be reorganized into Subway (NYCT Subway + SIR), Regional Bus Operations (NYCT Bus, MTA Bus, and MTA LIB Bus) and Railroads.)

 

MTA hires them to do either or both (it has both options) but a lot of the issues have to do with the subcontractors, who are also hired doing lowest bid. Lowest bid is actually probably causing most of the problems, since lower cost figures tend to be unreliable and contractors bite off more than they can chew, etc, but the MTA can't really factor in reliability as a factor when picking bidders because it's not legally allowed to by State law.

 

Would it make sense for MTA to hire more people? Sure. But even if they wanted to, they probably couldn't offer competitive salaries; MTA management has had pay freezes for several years now starting during the Walder MTA.

 

 

Most of the cost of LIRR and MNRR expansion is East Side Access. It is literally the most expensive tunneling project in the world (somewhere around $8.5B for two miles) because we are blasting a giant eight-track, three-level station cavern into Manhattan bedrock, and at this point stopping it would be really stupid, because the approach tunnels and station shell are all being done excavated, and that would just be a huge waste of money and an unused maintenance item on the MTA budget (because if the tunnel or station collapses, goodbye Park Avenue and GCT).

 

Agreed with SBS. However, waterways are not really workable as a solution, since New York City does not have intensive waterway development in the way that North Jersey does, and outside of Manhattan and gentrifying Brooklyn there isn't really development next to the river. Also, subsidy for ferry service is huge; if I remember correctly, the Rockaway ferry that was running on and off had a subsidy approaching $20 a rider, and at this point transportation options like SBS or CitiBike expansion become significantly cheaper.

lol... I would actually disagree with that... NYC is going through a huge development phase, and if the right GC and subcontractors are picked, they can get the job done and done right. When I worked in the field, I worked in both the commercial and residential end (both high-end) in which I was usually required to deal directly with the building managers in order to get any projects started, and they knew the right people to pick for the construction projects.  I wouldn't be surprised if you walked into a large department store and the prior companies that I worked for had a hand in it.

 

While the may not be able to offer higher salaries, they have other incentives to offer, and they should also look to hire from within with more programs for high schoolers and college students.  I worked for them for a few years that way in their old 370 Jay Street office. I wonder if they still have those people that go around in the afternoon with the snack cart?  I still remember that to this day. 

 

As for LIRR and MNRR expansion I wasn't thinking about East Side Access.  It's not as if we're going to be building mega projects like that every year. I was referring to service increases, and station rehabs more than anything.

 

I would think that would be able to do more than what they currently do to ensure that the contractors meet their obligations.  I mean after a while if the projects keep coming in over budget and they have to fire the contractor and hire another one, at some point changes have to be made at the State level.

 

I disagree about ferry service.  It's been quite popular in Williamsburg, DUMBO and Greenpoint, and the city should see why it's been successful and try to expand the service elsewhere.  That's the one thing that Quinn stated that I agree with.  We can't just try to pack everyone on to the subway.  We have to look at all options on the table, esp. given how fragile our subways are.

[Lance]

To touch on a few points that I've noticed and in no particular order:

 

This connection between cost and time overruns on non-emergency service restorations projects and subway expansion simply does not exist. The current halt in new subway construction has absolutely nothing to do with that and everything to do with a lack of political will on the city and state levels to actually build new lines. Even so-called shovel-ready projects like the restoration of the Rockaway Beach line are ignored in favor for other, less useful projects like the Queens Highline. Local and state politicians are too busy with their ferry fetish. I'm not discounting their popularity, but rather their ability to provide sufficient service in areas that have either limited transit options and/or overcrowded conditions on the subway and local buses. I'm not saying that ferries should not used be a transit option, but just like new subway lines or bus routes, it cannot be the be-all, end-all solution to the city's transit woes.

 

Concerning the costs of station and line repairs, as well as their costs and time overruns, the main problem behind this boils down to two words: lowest bidder. Sure, there are times when the MTA's design specifications leave us scratching our heads, like the fact they didn't call for waterproofing at the new South Ferry station, but more times than not, the MTA's decision (or mandate) to use the lowest bidder for these construction projects tends to hurt them in the long run. The shoddy workmanship the fact that some stations have to be repaired relatively soon after their first renovation are easy examples of this.

 

Touching briefly on the article itself, I will say this. If we are to improve our mass transit system, whether that's the subway or Metro-North/LIRR, the MTA will need to be adequately funded, especially on the capital side of the budget. There are way too many projects that desperately need to be done, from the big ticket items like Second Ave or East Side Access, to the behind the scenes ones like expanded CBTC signalling and interlocking repairs/rebuilds.

 

Oh, and one more thing, this "crusade" against the station artwork really needs to stop. I could care less whether it's in the stations or not. That isn't the issue at all, but there are a couple of things that should be know however. First, it's a mandate from either the state or the federal government. I forget which, but if anyone has a problem with the installations, those concerns should be taken up with elected officials. Secondly, those installations, as I mentioned before, are such a minuscule portion of the stations' renovation budget, it's barely worth the time to exclude it from said renovations.

[BrooklynBus]

I disagree with your statement regarding using the lowest bidder causing the problems. I used to work in the Contracts Division and there is no mandate or decision to use the lowest bidder. What the MTA usually does (unless it is a sole source procurement because it is believed that only one company can do the job), what the MTA does is choose the lowest qualified bidder. What that means is before the contract is awarded, the lowest bidder undergoes a vigorous examination of prior his prior history and is questioned extensively for several hours to determine if he is able to adequately and timely complete the job. If he does not pass, (because for example he does not have the required manpower or is involved in too many other projects at the same time to pay enough attention to the MTA's project) he is bypassed and the next lowest bidder undergoes the same process. I presided over many of those hearings. Since public monies are involved I can't think of a better alternative.

 

Now if the workmanship is shoddy, it is the MTA's fault for accepting it and not insisting it be redone. The other possibility is that the contract is at fault by not adequately specifying the work that is required. The MTA may think they are requiring certain work, but forgot to specifically specify how they wanted the work done. let's say the wall tile needs replacement and the contract says nothing about first inspecting the wall for possible water damage and repairing it. Or the contractor does an incomplete job repairing the water damage and installs the tile before MTA inspectors monitor how well the damage was repaired, or give the go ahead when the damage wasn't properly repaired. Of course, the new tile won't last long. But this could happen whether the lowest bidder or another bidder is chosen.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I disagree with your statement regarding using the lowest bidder causing the problems. I used to work in the Contracts Division and there is no mandate or decision to use the lowest bidder. What the MTA usually does (unless it is a sole source procurement because it is believed that only one company can do the job), what the MTA does is choose the lowest qualified bidder. What that means is before the contract is awarded, the lowest bidder undergoes a vigorous examination of prior his prior history and is questioned extensively for several hours to determine if he is able to adequately and timely complete the job. If he does not pass, (because for example he does not have the required manpower or is involved in too many other projects at the same time to pay enough attention to the MTA's project) he is bypassed and the next lowest bidder undergoes the same process. I presided over many of those hearings. Since public monies are involved I can't think of a better alternative.

 

Now if the workmanship is shoddy, it is the MTA's fault for accepting it and not insisting it be redone. The other possibility is that the contract is at fault by not adequately specifying the work that is required. The MTA may think they are requiring certain work, but forgot to specifically specify how they wanted the work done. let's say the wall tile needs replacement and the contract says nothing about first inspecting the wall for possible water damage and repairing it. Or the contractor does an incomplete job repairing the water damage and installs the tile before MTA inspectors monitor how well the damage was repaired, or give the go ahead when the damage wasn't properly repaired. Of course, the new tile won't last long. But this could happen whether the lowest bidder or another bidder is chosen.

LOL... Well I don't understand how they can question contractors for hours about their experience, expertise and ability to complete the job and then have so many botched projects. How does a situation like the South Ferry debacle occur? That's one that the seemed to try to cover the GC's @ss on...

 

To touch on a few points that I've noticed and in no particular order:

 

This connection between cost and time overruns on non-emergency service restorations projects and subway expansion simply does not exist. The current halt in new subway construction has absolutely nothing to do with that and everything to do with a lack of political will on the city and state levels to actually build new lines. Even so-called shovel-ready projects like the restoration of the Rockaway Beach line are ignored in favor for other, less useful projects like the Queens Highline. Local and state politicians are too busy with their ferry fetish. I'm not discounting their popularity, but rather their ability to provide sufficient service in areas that have either limited transit options and/or overcrowded conditions on the subway and local buses. I'm not saying that ferries should not used be a transit option, but just like new subway lines or bus routes, it cannot be the be-all, end-all solution to the city's transit woes.

 

Concerning the costs of station and line repairs, as well as their costs and time overruns, the main problem behind this boils down to two words: lowest bidder. Sure, there are times when the MTA's design specifications leave us scratching our heads, like the fact they didn't call for waterproofing at the new South Ferry station, but more times than not, the MTA's decision (or mandate) to use the lowest bidder for these construction projects tends to hurt them in the long run. The shoddy workmanship the fact that some stations have to be repaired relatively soon after their first renovation are easy examples of this.

 

Touching briefly on the article itself, I will say this. If we are to improve our mass transit system, whether that's the subway or Metro-North/LIRR, the MTA will need to be adequately funded, especially on the capital side of the budget. There are way too many projects that desperately need to be done, from the big ticket items like Second Ave or East Side Access, to the behind the scenes ones like expanded CBTC signalling and interlocking repairs/rebuilds.

 

Oh, and one more thing, this "crusade" against the station artwork really needs to stop. I could care less whether it's in the stations or not. That isn't the issue at all, but there are a couple of things that should be know however. First, it's a mandate from either the state or the federal government. I forget which, but if anyone has a problem with the installations, those concerns should be taken up with elected officials. Secondly, those installations, as I mentioned before, are such a minuscule portion of the stations' renovation budget, it's barely worth the time to exclude it from said renovations.

Who said that ferry service is the be all end all?  I'd argue that you've argued the complete opposite: that the subway is the be all end all...

 

As for the "crusade" that you speak of, excuse me for thinking that the foundation and safety of stations are more important than artwork. It's amazing that some think that artwork is more important than unsafe stations like that the ones that exist along the Sea Beach Line.  We're talking about priorities here, and artwork is not a priority.  Whoever made it mandatory seems to think that it's a "priority" and they're troubled for thinking so. When we have projects that can't be fully funded but yet monies can be put aside for artwork, there's a major disconnect.  I for one would rather see stations that have been sitting for years like the 181st street station be rehabbed and safe, and CLEAN.  What's the point of having artwork if the quality of the work is shoddy and the station is filthy?  If anything the should lobby for those funds to be allocated for more important matters, and perhaps deals can be struck with private donors for the artwork if it's so necessary.

[bobtehpanda]

 If anything the should lobby for those funds to be allocated for more important matters, and perhaps deals can be struck with private donors for the artwork if it's so necessary.

 

The MTA has very little political power on its own, simply because the MTA has no public mandate. The best the MTA can do is try and educate the public; the last time the MTA proposed a coherent vision, it was talked about for about half a day and then never brought up by the media or politicians ever again. Every current project has had multiple political champions (or, in the case of the 7 Line extension, one uber-wealthy political champion). The last time the MTA tried building stuff on its own, SAS construction was tanked by the fact that Shelly Silver wanted all of the SAS done at once instead of Phase 1 to 125th and Phase II to Downtown.

 

Private donors sponsoring artwork is great, but then we run into the issue of equity; poorer communities probably wouldn't be able to get the money stumped up for artwork, and as it is they already have a deficit of public parks and leisure facilities due to Moses-era discrimination against poorer districts. In the grand scheme of things, the artwork also doesn't make a significant portion of the budget for a station rehab anyways.

 

LOL... Well I don't understand how they can question contractors for hours about their experience, expertise and ability to complete the job and then have so many botched projects. How does a situation like the South Ferry debacle occur? That's one that the seemed to try to cover the GC's @ss on...

 

GCs hire lots of subcontractors, and subcontractors have proven problematic before in public works projects (remember the Deutsche Bank deconstruction at Ground Zero way back?).

 

When I made a statement about New York not being able to build as well as it used to, that was strictly on the basis of building subways. We really haven't built a lot of subway since the IND was finished up, and the 1968 plans that managed to be actually carried out were also over budget anyways (as was the IND before it.)

[Lance]

Who said that ferry service is the be all end all? I'd argue that you've argued the complete opposite: that the subway is the be all end all...

 

As for the "crusade" that you speak of, excuse me for thinking that the foundation and safety of stations are more important than artwork. It's amazing that some think that artwork is more important than unsafe stations like that the ones that exist along the Sea Beach Line. We're talking about priorities here, and artwork is not a priority. Whoever made it mandatory seems to think that it's a "priority" and they're troubled for thinking so. When we have projects that can't be fully funded but yet monies can be put aside for artwork, there's a major disconnect. I for one would rather see stations that have been sitting for years like the 181st street station be rehabbed and safe, and CLEAN. What's the point of having artwork if the quality of the work is shoddy and the station is filthy? If anything the should lobby for those funds to be allocated for more important matters, and perhaps deals can be struck with private donors for the artwork if it's so necessary.

Please point out exactly where I said the subway was the absolute best solution to all of our transit woes, because I don't see it. You have this tendency to put words in people's mouths to suit your argument and it really needs to stop.

 

For politicians, ferries are the be-all, end-all solution as of late. From the Rockaways to crossing the East River to the recent proposals made by Cuomo to revitalize LaGuardia Airport, the ferry idea has been thrown about to solve the problem of limited transit options. They do not and will not solve the problem because most commuters don't live/work near the waterfront. This is just a cheap gimmick by politicians to get votes and say they did something without actually doing something.

 

Regarding Arts for Transit, I'm done with this circle jerk. The couple thousand dollars, if that, spent on stained glass or some type of mural wouldn't even make a dent in the costs of other rehab projects that need to be done. But if you want to fight that crusade, who am I to say otherwise?

[BrooklynBus]

LOL... Well I don't understand how they can question contractors for hours about their experience, expertise and ability to complete the job and then have so many botched projects. How does a situation like the South Ferry debacle occur? That's one that the seemed to try to cover the GC's @ss on...

BobtehPanda is correct. Most of the problems I believe occur with the subcontractors and there could be 75 or 100 of them. No way could the MTA question them all. That is the job of the contractor to make sure his subs are performing properly. All the MTA can do is sue the contractor if the subs do a poor job. That is probably going on now with South Ferry. Either that, or the contract specifications were severely deficient by not requiring flood proofing or inadequate flood proofing, and that would entirely be the MTA's fault. Believe me my response was not intended to remove the blame from the MTA because ultimately they are ones who are responsible. I was only responding to your assertion that shoddy workmanship is because ofthe process of choosing the low bidder, which I do not believe is the problem. All the car overhauls were done by the low bidder and they were successful. The only problem the MTA had other than countless change orders was that one contractor defaulted, the one who was supposed to overhaul the SIRTOA cars. I was also Project Manager for several car overhauls.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Please point out exactly where I said the subway was the absolute best solution to all of our transit woes, because I don't see it. You have this tendency to put words in people's mouths to suit your argument and it really needs to stop.

 

For politicians, ferries are the be-all, end-all solution as of late. From the Rockaways to crossing the East River to the recent proposals made by Cuomo to revitalize LaGuardia Airport, the ferry idea has been thrown about to solve the problem of limited transit options. They do not and will not solve the problem because most commuters don't live/work near the waterfront. This is just a cheap gimmick by politicians to get votes and say they did something without actually doing something.

 

Regarding Arts for Transit, I'm done with this circle jerk. The couple thousand dollars, if that, spent on stained glass or some type of mural wouldn't even make a dent in the costs of other rehab projects that need to be done. But if you want to fight that crusade, who am I to say otherwise?

Nobody is putting words in your mouth, but you and I know that you have a pro-subway stance, and I can quote you in that Bay Ridge thread where you vehemently spoke out against ferry service and express bus service as well to some extent, pointing to the train as if all residents live near the 95th, 86th, 77th or Bay Ridge Avenue stations.  It's cute however that you display this air that unless you say something directly that your stance isn't clear.  

 

I would also be curious in seeing how much money exactly is earmarked for artwork?  I would like to see some stats on it.  There are 468 total stations and depending on how much money is spent on artwork, that money could add up and be used for small rehabs here and there (i.e. new platforms, etc.). Given how many partial rehabs the is doing these days instead of the standard full rehabs, I think it would be worth exploring.

 

The MTA has very little political power on its own, simply because the MTA has no public mandate. The best the MTA can do is try and educate the public; the last time the MTA proposed a coherent vision, it was talked about for about half a day and then never brought up by the media or politicians ever again. Every current project has had multiple political champions (or, in the case of the 7 Line extension, one uber-wealthy political champion). The last time the MTA tried building stuff on its own, SAS construction was tanked by the fact that Shelly Silver wanted all of the SAS done at once instead of Phase 1 to 125th and Phase II to Downtown.

 

Private donors sponsoring artwork is great, but then we run into the issue of equity; poorer communities probably wouldn't be able to get the money stumped up for artwork, and as it is they already have a deficit of public parks and leisure facilities due to Moses-era discrimination against poorer districts. In the grand scheme of things, the artwork also doesn't make a significant portion of the budget for a station rehab anyways.

 

 

GCs hire lots of subcontractors, and subcontractors have proven problematic before in public works projects (remember the Deutsche Bank deconstruction at Ground Zero way back?).

 

When I made a statement about New York not being able to build as well as it used to, that was strictly on the basis of building subways. We really haven't built a lot of subway since the IND was finished up, and the 1968 plans that managed to be actually carried out were also over budget anyways (as was the IND before it.)

 

 

BobtehPanda is correct. Most of the problems I believe occur with the subcontractors and there could be 75 or 100 of them. No way could the MTA question them all. That is the job of the contractor to make sure his subs are performing properly. All the MTA can do is sue the contractor if the subs do a poor job. That is probably going on now with South Ferry. Either that, or the contract specifications were severely deficient by not requiring flood proofing or inadequate flood proofing, and that would entirely be the MTA's fault. Believe me my response was not intended to remove the blame from the MTA because ultimately they are ones who are responsible. I was only responding to your assertion that shoddy workmanship is because ofthe process of choosing the low bidder, which I do not believe is the problem. All the car overhauls were done by the low bidder and they were successful. The only problem the MTA had other than countless change orders was that one contractor defaulted, the one who was supposed to overhaul the SIRTOA cars. I was also Project Manager for several car overhauls.

 

This is true, but you take risks when you go for the lowest bidder... You have to question how such and such GC can pull off "X" type of project at "X" price... Well is the GC working with legit subs that have proper insurance and aren't hiring illegals?  I can think of a few subcontractors that we worked with when I used to deal with the management companies that proved to be a problem on the insurance end, but I get the impression that the main issue could be that there is very little oversight on these construction sites.  How often do personnel come on-site to these projects to see what's going on? I'm sure you know that in the construction world subs will ALWAYS slack off if no one is over them watching them like a hawk. I also wonder if the has estimators on staff that can review the construction numbers to see if they are fiscally possible.  Do they hire GC's outright, or do they hire GC's to take on the role of a consultant, advising the of budgets, and how to proceed?

[BrooklynBus]

This is true, but you take risks when you go for the lowest bidder... You have to question how such and such GC can pull off "X" type of project at "X" price... Well is the GC working with legit subs that have proper insurance and aren't hiring illegals?  I can think of a few subcontractors that we worked with when I used to deal with the management companies that proved to be a problem on the insurance end, but I get the impression that the main issue could be that there is very little oversight on these construction sites.  How often do personnel come on-site to these projects to see what's going on? I'm sure you know that in the construction world subs will ALWAYS slack off if no one is over them watching them like a hawk. I also wonder if the has estimators on staff that can review the construction numbers to see if they are fiscally possible.  Do they hire GC's outright, or do they hire GC's to take on the role of a consultant, advising the of budgets, and how to proceed?

If you don't go with the lowest bidder, what do you suggest, automatically taking the second highest bidder?

 

The questions you ask are the exact questions asked at the qualification hearings. eg. How can you complete the job at that low of a price? Do you have proper insurance, etc. Of course the MTA has estimators on staff and they do review the numbers. I can't speak for construction sites but I am pretty sure MTA personnel are around frequently if not on a daily basis or even permanenttly stationed at the job site. They do not award the contract and then just forget about it.

 

Speaking for the Car Overhaul program where most of the cars were overhauled upstate, the MTA had inspectors who were permanently stationed there to supervise the work of the contractors. Additionally, it was my job to be in daily phone contact with them to make sure they were properly doing their job.

 

They do not hire GCs as consultants. Most don't realize how fabulously complex these jobs are and how many specialties must be involved. Then you have the issue of the unexpected. Although a 10% contingency is automatically budgeted, often the needs go above the contingency because of unforeseen occurrences. When the first subway cars were overhauled, no one expected to find asbestos after the flooring was removed. Fixing it resulted in a big change order. It is possible that some of the higher bidders did expect it and that's why their bids were higher. You never know. It's always easier to Monday morning quarterback.

 

But anyway you look at things, there is never an excuse for shoddy workmanship or approving it.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

If you don't go with the lowest bidder, what do you suggest, automatically taking the second highest bidder?

 

The questions you ask are the exact questions asked at the qualification hearings. eg. How can you complete the job at that low of a price? Do you have proper insurance, etc. Of course the MTA has estimators on staff and they do review the numbers. I can't speak for construction sites but I am pretty sure MTA personnel are around frequently if not on a daily basis or even permanenttly stationed at the job site. They do not award the contract and then just forget about it.

 

Speaking for the Car Overhaul program where most of the cars were overhauled upstate, the MTA had inspectors who were permanently stationed there to supervise the work of the contractors. Additionally, it was my job to be in daily phone contact with them to make sure they were properly doing their job.

 

They do not hire GCs as consultants. Most don't realize how fabulously complex these jobs are and how many specialties must be involved. Then you have the issue of the unexpected. Although a 10% contingency is automatically budgeted, often the needs go above the contingency because of unforeseen occurrences. When the first subway cars were overhauled, no one expected to find asbestos after the flooring was removed. Fixing it resulted in a big change order. It is possible that some of the higher bidders did expect it and that's why their bids were higher. You never know. It's always easier to Monday morning quarterback.

 

But anyway you look at things, there is never an excuse for shoddy workmanship or approving it.

Yeah I could imagine the size of those change orders... 

 

I don't see what phone calls would do though.  All they had to do was answer the phone when you called and after that who knows where they were. LOL

 

I'm curious as to why they wouldn't hire GC's as consultants?  You've mentioned numerous times now that the doesn't have that much expertise in the construction area, but when you hire a GC as a consultant, you use them to advise you on the budget and other issues with the project that ideally should save money down the road.  I would think that could perhaps help them from going overbudget so often.

[BrooklynBus]

Yeah I could imagine the size of those change orders... 

 

I don't see what phone calls would do though.  All they had to do was answer the phone when you called and after that who knows where they were. LOL

 

I'm curious as to why they wouldn't hire GC's as consultants?  You've mentioned numerous times now that the doesn't have that much expertise in the construction area, but when you hire a GC as a consultant, you use them to advise you on the budget and other issues with the project that ideally should save money down the road.  I would think that could perhaps help them from going overbudget so often.

I never said anything about the MTA not having much expertise in the construction area. I don't have any experience in that area so I wouldn't know one way or the other. You must be confusing me with someone else. As far as the phone calls, I wasn't calling just to make sure they are there. They were asked specifics about what they were finding regarding the contractors' work, asked to investigate problems the contractor's were alleging, etc. This happened a little under 30 years ago, so excuse me if I don't remember what all the calls entailed. But it certainly was more than just taking attendance. I belieive they also completed daily status reports describing all they were doing that day and what they were finding. There is a lot more oversight than you would expect. But it still doesnt't mean problems don't occur. How they are remedied and prevented from reoccurring are most important.