Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's you.  A lot of others like seeing the artwork and so forth and the has to earmark 1% of money towards it by law.

 

I do agree on the mezzanines.  116th would be better to build two side platforms and keep the third track already in place for storage and emergencies (if you later do an extension to The Bronx, you can add an additional station at 126th Street/2nd Avenue past the curve for Lex).  

 

Some of this can be remedied by building a new 79th Street tunnel that can be done as the QB bypass with a three-track station done at 79th/York-1st Avenues that can be a short-turn terminal for the line with a new lower level of 72nd built underneath the existing platform (with connections to the Broadway Line where the current ones are). 

Artwork is nice, but most people are too busy running to get their train anyway, so it shouldn't be a priority.  I mean so we have wonderful artwork and a station with peeling paint, rats running around, etc.  I think if given the choice, most people would prefer a cleaner station with trains running more efficiently.  That earmark should be changed and I'm going to look into how exactly that works and why.  That 1% could be earmarked for more important things.  

 

Look at a lot of the stations in Europe.  They are minimalist in style overall, but the trains are punctual and get you from one place to another promptly.  

Edited January 23, 2017 by Via Garibaldi 8

[LTA1992]

Not really. Now that we do TBMs (because, theoretically speaking and not accounting for labor agreements, they are less staff-intensive), you would either need to double tunneling time or buy more TBMs, which would make the project take longer. Not to mention you would need to dig the stations deeper, when the stations are so expensive because they are so large. (I don't think that Second Avenue is wide enough for two SAS platforms side by side.)

Doubling the amount of TBMs will reduce time. Which baffles me as to why the MTA won't do that. Crossrail 1 had, what, six? Grand Paris Express originally had 9. I think it was brought down to 7. And that's for Line 15 South alone. Line 14s Saint-Ouen extension has two I think.

 

I mean, why can't they be proactive on this? The longer something takes to build, the more it's gonna cost eventually right? So why not spend the extra money now to finish the project quicker, and thus avoiding many cost overruns expected with longer running projects?

 

I'm 50/50 on the thought on how much money would be saved. But I do think that getting a project like this done with haste would reap the returns in quicker. Not just for the system, but the surrounding neighborhoods.

 

But I'm not a number crunching man. So this could just be a wild theory.

Edited January 23, 2017 by LTA1992

[Wallyhorse]

Doubling the amount of TBMs will reduce time. Which baffles me as to why the MTA won't do that. Crossrail 1 had, what, six? Grand Paris Express originally had 9. I think it was brought down to 7. And that's for Line 15 South alone. Line 14s Saint-Ouen extension has two I think.

 

I mean, why can't they be proactive on this? The longer something takes to build, the more it's gonna cost eventually right? So why not spend the extra money now to finish the project quicker, and thus avoiding many cost overruns expected with longer running projects?

 

I'm 50/50 on the thought on how much money would be saved. But I do think that getting a project like this done with haste would reap the returns in quicker. Not just for the system, but the surrounding neighborhoods.

 

But I'm not a number crunching man. So this could just be a wild theory.

Good points.  If you can speed up the process AND add more trackage with TBMs, that will work too and might very well be cheaper in the long run. 

[rbrome]

TBMs come in different sizes, of course. You can up the diameter and fit two or even four tracks in one tube. I don't understand why they don't just drill one giant tunnel for each new line and have a lower level they can use for future express tracks, etc. 

[LTA1992]

TBMs come in different sizes, of course. You can up the diameter and fit two or even four tracks in one tube. I don't understand why they don't just drill one giant tunnel for each new line and have a lower level they can use for future express tracks, etc. 

Yeah. Double-O and larger Multifaced TBMs are a thing. But money over future need I guess.

[m7zanr160s]

I actually like the mezzanines. I think their point is to get people off the platform as quickly as possible. You'd rather have people waiting on the platform, as opposed to moving around looking for a particular exit--with the potential to bump into each other. Sometimes people are more focused on way-finding than watching where they're going--especially when not familiar with your surroundings. Lexington Ave/59 Street during peak time is a perfect example of what conditions a mezzanine alleviates. That station's kind of dangerous during peak times. Passing people by near the edge of the platform is unavoidable in some spots. It's not a very comfortable situation.

[bobtehpanda]

Doubling the amount of TBMs will reduce time. Which baffles me as to why the MTA won't do that. Crossrail 1 had, what, six? Grand Paris Express originally had 9. I think it was brought down to 7. And that's for Line 15 South alone. Line 14s Saint-Ouen extension has two I think.

 

I mean, why can't they be proactive on this? The longer something takes to build, the more it's gonna cost eventually right? So why not spend the extra money now to finish the project quicker, and thus avoiding many cost overruns expected with longer running projects?

 

I'm 50/50 on the thought on how much money would be saved. But I do think that getting a project like this done with haste would reap the returns in quicker. Not just for the system, but the surrounding neighborhoods.

 

But I'm not a number crunching man. So this could just be a wild theory.

 

It costs more to do a project quicker. It costs "more" to make the project stretch out longer, but most of that is accounting for inflation, not actual increases in cost.

 

Doubling the amount of TBMs means doubling the amount of TBMs being leased/purchased, doubling staffing, etc, etc. which is far more than the 2% inflation rate we've been hovering below for the past five years.

 

TBMs come in different sizes, of course. You can up the diameter and fit two or even four tracks in one tube. I don't understand why they don't just drill one giant tunnel for each new line and have a lower level they can use for future express tracks, etc. 

 

The problem with giant TBMs is that the greater size results in more surface area, resulting in greater pressure differentiation across the boring head, and more potential for complications; most projects using large-diameter TBMs, such as Barcelona L9/L10 or Seattle's SR-99 project, have come in way late and way over budget. SAS did not actually exceed the budget set for it in 2007, and most of the delay in construction can be attributed to the fact that it took til 2007 to get all the money in place.

[Italianstallion]

Why exactly do we need those ridiculous mezzanines? I don't see the point.  More crap to clean and replace and more potential for the homeless and music performers to clog up space... Waste of money.  I don't give a damn about artwork when my train is delayed.  The should focus more on prompt service and less on beautification.  Make stations that are functional, CLEAN with elevators, escalators and the like that work.  I was just watching the news this morning and they showed 72nd street with an entrance already closed for repair.  Their already doing repair work on a station that has been open for less than a month.  Ridiculous!

 

Every New Yorker who goes abroad and uses their metro systems aways remarks on how beautiful the stations are. Art is a wonderful amenity, and adds no more than 1% to the cost. The mezzanines may be overkill though. Partial mezzanines at each end might have been enough.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Italianstallion

[BayParkwayW]

I actually like the mezzanines. I think their point is to get people off the platform as quickly as possible. You'd rather have people waiting on the platform, as opposed to moving around looking for a particular exit--with the potential to bump into each other. Sometimes people are more focused on way-finding than watching where they're going--especially when not familiar with your surroundings. Lexington Ave/59 Street during peak time is a perfect example of what conditions a mezzanine alleviates. That station's kind of dangerous during peak times. Passing people by near the edge of the platform is unavoidable in some spots. It's not a very comfortable situation.

You're right about the Lexington Avenue situation; not only that, but there's only one direct transfer staircase from the Downtown to the . But when it comes to mezzanines, sure we're "building for the future", but I think it's a waste of money to start making giant mezzanines at every new subway stop. In essence, every additional square foot is another square foot of maintenance.

[CenSin]

For various reasons most transit agencies outside of NA don't run into frequent operating problems because they have overnight hours for upkeep, so they're not common around the world.

Here’s a problem overnight maintenance can’t fix: sick passengers and man on track. I’m surprised that they learned nothing from the .

Edited January 24, 2017 by CenSin

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Every New Yorker who goes abroad and uses their metro systems aways remarks on how beautiful the stations are. Art is a wonderful amenity, and adds no more than 1% to the cost. The mezzanines may be overkill though. Partial mezzanines at each end might have been enough.

Oh please. I've used plenty of stations abroad and they didn't have any artwork. Just the bare basics. The stations were clean and the trains were generally punctual. I don't mind artwork at all but we should prioritize.

---

Speaking of SAS, I've been hearing that the has been plagued considerably at those three stations with delays due to signal problems.  What's the story with that?

[R10 2952]

There were several signal incidents during the first ten days of operation or so.  Most likely nothing more than teething troubles.

[HenryB]

From my observation,   puts a lot more people to keep the SAS stations clean than others in the rest of the system

[LTA1992]

It costs more to do a project quicker. It costs "more" to make the project stretch out longer, but most of that is accounting for inflation, not actual increases in cost.

 

 

Thank you captain obvious, I distinctly remember saying that.

 

But when I consider cost, it ain't about just the money. But confidence from the People to get approval for new projects, and from the government to provide the money. Showing you can get things done so there's the will to continue further. And costs technically do increase with inflation if the monies they receive don't reflect that.

 

If the project overran by 500 Million+, it ain't because "things cost the same" due to inflation. Because those dollars in 2006 are now worth less than they are in 2016. So costs DO go up because now there is less than what was originally there. Two 2016 dollars (hypothetical example) are now worth what a single 2006 dollar was. And now, to cover the gap, more money is requested to complete a project in a timely manner. Completion dates would not slip if it wasn't for that factor, I think. I know there are others. But when I think back to the many slipped dates of the 1970s SAS plan where it slipped from 1981 to 1992. And then they were just like, "Let's just say that at this point, it may not even get done". They were trying to stretch the money. 

Edited January 24, 2017 by LTA1992

[Via Garibaldi 8]

From my observation,   puts a lot more people to keep the SAS stations clean than others in the rest of the system

And they somehow manage to keep the vagrants and "musicians" out too.

 

Source: http://gothamist.com/2017/01/21/buskers_protest_nypd_crackdown_at_s.php

 

Thank you captain obvious, I distinctly remember saying that.

 

But when I consider cost, it ain't about just the money. But confidence from the People to get approval for new projects, and from the government to provide the money. Showing you can get things done so there's the will to continue further. And costs technically do increase with inflation if the monies they receive don't reflect that.

 

If the project overran by 500 Million+, it ain't because "things cost the same" due to inflation. Because those dollars in 2006 are now worth less than they are in 2016. So costs DO go up because now there is less than what was originally there. Two 2016 dollars (hypothetical example) are now worth what a single 2006 dollar was. And now, to cover the gap, more money is requested to complete a project in a timely manner. Completion dates would not slip if it wasn't for that factor, I think. I know there are others. But when I think back to the many slipped dates of the 1970s SAS plan where it slipped from 1981 to 1992. And then they were just like, "Let's just say that at this point, it may not even get done". They were trying to stretch the money. 

Really? As someone who worked in the construction field, I can assure you that there is a lot that goes on during a construction project, and the delays aren't always related to mo.  I had meetings to go onsite for all sorts of things that were unexpected.  Those things can lead to changes in the budget, but some things can be reworked or scrapped completely to keep the budget in line.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Via Garibaldi 8

[CenSin]

Doubling the amount of TBMs means doubling the amount of TBMs being leased/purchased, doubling staffing, etc, etc. which is far more than the 2% inflation rate we've been hovering below for the past five years.

It also means halving the time each TBM has to work, meaning the staff work half as long, etc. etc.

[bobtehpanda]

If the project overran by 500 Million+, it ain't because "things cost the same" due to inflation.

 

Which is hilarious, because SAS Phase I didn't actually exceed its initial budget (although the most pessimistic projections did have them doing so.)

 

If you told any accountant today that spending money in the present is cheaper than spending money later, they'd laugh in your face. Spending more money today on extensions means less money for buying new trains, cleaning new stations, etc., or diverting it from schools, our decrepit roads, water, sewers, policing, etc.

 

The notion that the government should raise more money for transit, in this state, by just "finding it" is laughable. Cuomo can't account for the money he's gonna spend on the existing projects we have, like next-gen fare payment, cashless tolling, the Tappan Zee replacement, the Capital Plan, etc., and he's going to spend more money? This just means more debt and more IOUs down the road. The State budget is already essentially operating as an austerity budget (ask anyone in a SUNY or CUNY this and they can confirm it), and raising taxes is not an option, as people are already leaving parts of the metro area because their tax burden is too high, even compared to other blue states.

 

The MTA needs to rein in capital costs, period. I don't buy that these costs should be normal; if it's all because the UES has expensive property, why does Phase II, in an area with less expensive real estate and existing tunnels, cost hundreds of millions more per mile? Tokyo, a city that has to deal with lots of underground infrastructure, even higher railway congestion than us, can essentially issue unlimited amounts of debt, and has less broad avenues that they can just rip up and build under, says it's not financially feasible to build subways for more than $500M/km. The Europeans think that Amsterdam is crazy for building at $400M/km. Phase II of the SAS will be the most expensive subway construction ever recorded at a whopping $2.2B/km, and yet more money needs to be thrown at it. The MTA will have this terrible cost problem, and will have less capacity to build subways for it, because too many transit advocates are enabling these kinds of bad spending decisions.

It also means halving the time each TBM has to work, meaning the staff work half as long, etc. etc.

 

From an accounting perspective, it is cheaper to spend money later rather than now due to opportunity costs, which is pretty salient considering that two years ago they were talking about putting off Phase II due to lack of available money.

[CenSin]

From an accounting perspective, it is cheaper to spend money later rather than now due to opportunity costs, which is pretty salient considering that two years ago they were talking about putting off Phase II due to lack of available money.

If time is money, then that would be n years worth of phase 2’s existence given up to free up $m dollars for other opportunities. Opportunity costs don’t just apply to money.

[bobtehpanda]

If time is money, then that would be n years worth of phase 2’s existence given up to free up $m dollars for other opportunities. Opportunity costs don’t just apply to money.

 

The problem is that Phase 2's cost is so stratospheric that speeding it up would require a substantial amount of money, probably to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. If the City had that money lying around, it would be better going to a rainy day fund or funding more impactful social programs. Likewise, if the State had that money lying around, it would be better to ease off on the state's self imposed austerity. Not to mention, there's a debate to be had about whether that amount of money, if it goes to the transit system, should be going to Second Avenue specifically; after all, most stations are in horrid condition and are out of compliance with SAS, to list one of many competing priorities.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The problem is that Phase 2's cost is so stratospheric that speeding it up would require a substantial amount of money, probably to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. If the City had that money lying around, it would be better going to a rainy day fund or funding more impactful social programs. Likewise, if the State had that money lying around, it would be better to ease off on the state's self imposed austerity. Not to mention, there's a debate to be had about whether that amount of money, if it goes to the transit system, should be going to Second Avenue specifically; after all, most stations are in horrid condition and are out of compliance with SAS, to list one of many competing priorities.

As it stands, the city is flush with money, but de Blasio is spending like a madman.  Yet another reason he needs to go.  

[Caelestor]

The problem is that Phase 2's cost is so stratospheric that speeding it up would require a substantial amount of money, probably to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. If the City had that money lying around, it would be better going to a rainy day fund or funding more impactful social programs. Likewise, if the State had that money lying around, it would be better to ease off on the state's self imposed austerity. Not to mention, there's a debate to be had about whether that amount of money, if it goes to the transit system, should be going to Second Avenue specifically; after all, most stations are in horrid condition and are out of compliance with SAS, to list one of many competing priorities.

 

One could argue that the $6 billion for SAS Phase 2 could be redirected to signal replacement and newer rolling stock with walk-through cars to provide 5-10 percent additional capacity and better service reliability on the existing network. Replacements and upgrades have to occur anyway, so might as well accelerate that part of the capital program. Additionally, CBTC is relatively low-hanging fruit to add capacity on lines such as QBL.

[rbrome]

Big news: Trump's infrastructure plan is a list of 50 priority projects, and #18 is Phases 2 and 3 of SAS.

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article128492164.html

 

Gateway is #1. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Let's see what the big mouth liberals have to say... 

[rbrome]

Liberals have long championed more infrastructure spending, and the GOP has traditionally been opposed. Trump is breaking with "his party" on this. 

 

I am no fan of Trump, nor most of his nominees, nor the vast majority of his proposals. But that doesn't mean I can't applaud this infrastructure plan. My only criticism is that it doesn't go far enough. But if it's an increase in infrastructure spending, and it includes rail, that's a good thing. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Liberals have long championed more infrastructure spending, and the GOP has traditionally been opposed. Trump is breaking with "his party" on this. 

 

I am no fan of Trump, nor most of his nominees, nor the vast majority of his proposals. But that doesn't mean I can't applaud this infrastructure plan. My only criticism is that it doesn't go far enough. But if it's an increase in infrastructure spending, and it includes rail, that's a good thing. 

I think it's more than enough because Cuomo and de Blasio can open their pockets and contribute accordingly.