Second Ave Subway vs M15 SBS

[LTA1992]

Really, all of this comes down to the MTA and its shitty cost control. No other city would consider doing subway extensions if they cost more than $1B/km - London's Crossrail does this, but it links mainline railroads and heads through the center of London, tunneling through clay, water, burial grounds, and what have you. Paris is literally built on top of a graveyard made of skulls, but it builds tunnels at only $230M/km.

 

If MTA could make its money go further by removing conflicts of interest in its procurement process, abandon the taking of so much expensive real estate, and drop the obsession with full-length mezzanines through Manhattan's bedrock, then we wouldn't have such a huge problem. It's stupid that the 34th St station on the will have not one, but two full-length mezzanines - a lower one and an upper one, connected by inclined elevators.

You have to remember, Manhattan contains some of the worlds hardest rock, Manhattan Schist. It should not be a surprise that it costs so much. Another thing too is that with the whole ADA thing, entrances have to be bigger so the stairs and elevators are in the same spot. For that to happen, you have to demolish a few buildings. A double full length mezzanine for 34th Street is pretty stupid. They might as well be one level. Also remember, The Euro is more valuable than the Dollar, so Paris can obviously do things more economically. That is, if they are still building subways. Aaaand, it's not bedrock they're digging through.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You have to remember, Manhattan contains some of the worlds hardest rock, Manhattan Schist. It should not be a surprise that it costs so much. Another thing too is that with the whole ADA thing, entrances have to be bigger so the stairs and elevators are in the same spot. For that to happen, you have to demolish a few buildings. A double full length mezzanine for 34th Street is pretty stupid. They might as well be one level. Also remember, The Euro is more valuable than the Dollar, so Paris can obviously do things more economically. That is, if they are still building subways. Aaaand, it's not bedrock they're digging through.

LOL... I'm sorry but a cheaper US dollar means that work should be able to be done more cheaply, not the other way around...  The lacks oversight on its projects and the contractors take advantage by milking them where they can.  It's not rocket science.  I worked in the construction field with a GC for a few years on the insurance side and anytime I had to on site with a Project Manager you could get a feel for how guys worked on the site.  If there is minimal supervision, contractors will take advantage and do the bare minimum, simple as that and so the project runs longer, gets delayed further and costs more.  

[Quill Depot]

 

I think that the Nassau Street connection option would be the perfect solution as opposed to a straight TBM tunnel through to the South St Seaport as currently considered as the phase 4 option that will happen in an estimated thousand years once we have flying cars. The Nassau Street line has lots of room to handle additional capacity from the . 4 tracks on the Nassau St line is plenty. As currently the is the only line utilizing the Montauge St tunnel during peak and midday hours ( late nights of course), this should work. They did have and AND ( M ) utilize the tunnel simuntaneously before so it can work. Instead of blowing another 7 billion plus inflation costs added in to send a TBM to tunnel through.

 

 

 

I had a proposal for this one day as well. I'd propose the running along the Nassau St tracks on the middle (express tracks) and the and running on the outside. South of Chambers these lines could come together and run to Bay Pkwy (via West End) during rush, and other times 's terminating at Chambers.

[itmaybeokay]

To be fair, while I think they could have done a better job of keeping these capital construction projects on budget, but it's completely unfair to compare them to the construction of the original IND, BMT and IRT. Besides the fact that labor was cheaper, regulations were lighter - most of those systems are cut and cover. Cut and cover, by comparison, is cheap as hell. 

 

 

You think they could get away with building subways like that these days? (spoiler alert: No.)

[realizm]

To be fair, while I think they could have done a better job of keeping these capital construction projects on budget, but it's completely unfair to compare them to the construction of the original IND, BMT and IRT. Besides the fact that labor was cheaper, regulations were lighter - most of those systems are cut and cover. Cut and cover, by comparison, is cheap as hell. 

 

You think they could get away with building subways like that these days? (spoiler alert: No.)

 

Actually the way it works with TBMs is that initially it is VERY expensive to set up, like you were saying, that's absolutely true....... However once you get a TBM moving in drilling a tunnel, by the mile, the costs actually becomes less as opposed to the drilling and blasting methods conventionally used in cut and cover methods, as well as the costs of concrete lining as the TBM does that automatically. Labor costs are slashed as well. Not to mention that the duration of time to drill tunnels in this way are less, more savings.

 

......But it depends on the scope of the construction.

 

How is it cost effective? Well as the cost benefit is less then cut and cover depending on the length and scope of the tunneling work, think of it this way: If the MTA Capital Construction Comittee hires a contractor to utilize a TBM to drill a brand new new tunnel under the East River all the way to Fulton Street in BK  then it's cost effective and efficient. However if the MTA hires the same contractor using a TBM to drill a miniscle distance from 86th Street to 125th Street then it is a waste of money, might as well go cut and cover method. (Which they must anyway because of the sections of SAS construction that already exists from the capital construction plans already implemented in the 60's and 70's that brought us the Chrystie St Cut, 6th Ave Express tracks, the 63rd St line, Archer Ave extension and so forth)

 

So a TBM vs Cut and Cover? Depends. If it's a large scale project, then it's cost efficient. If it's just a small segment of tunnel, then in that case it becomes self defeating, overkill, and prohibitively expensive. It's like trying to crack a nut with a jackhammer.

[QM1to6Ave]

Actually the way it works with TBMs is that initially it is VERY expensive to set up, like you were saying, that's absolutely true....... However once you get a TBM moving in drilling a tunnel, by the mile, the costs actually becomes less as opposed to the drilling and blasting methods conventionally used in cut and cover methods, as well as the costs of concrete lining as the TBM does that automatically. Labor costs are slashed as well. Not to mention that the duration of time to drill tunnels in this way are less, more savings.

 

......But it depends on the scope of the construction.

 

How is it cost effective? Well as the cost benefit is less then cut and cover depending on the length and scope of the tunneling work, think of it this way: If the MTA Capital Construction Comittee hires a contractor to utilize a TBM to drill a brand new new tunnel under the East River all the way to Fulton Street in BK  then it's cost effective and efficient. However if the MTA hires the same contractor using a TBM to drill a miniscle distance from 86th Street to 125th Street then it is a waste of money, might as well go cut and cover method. (Which they must anyway because of the sections of SAS construction that already exists from the capital construction plans already implemented in the 60's and 70's that brought us the Chrystie St Cut, 6th Ave Express tracks, the 63rd St line, Archer Ave extension and so forth)

 

So a TBM vs Cut and Cover? Depends. If it's a large scale project, then it's cost efficient. If it's just a small segment of tunnel, then in that case it becomes self defeating, overkill, and prohibitively expensive. It's like trying to crack a nut with a jackhammer.

well put

[realizm]

LOL... I'm sorry but a cheaper US dollar means that work should be able to be done more cheaply, not the other way around... The lacks oversight on its projects and the contractors take advantage by milking them where they can. It's not rocket science. I worked in the construction field with a GC for a few years on the insurance side and anytime I had to on site with a Project Manager you could get a feel for how guys worked on the site. If there is minimal supervision, contractors will take advantage and do the bare minimum, simple as that and so the project runs longer, gets delayed further and costs more.

 

Exactly, you would be in the know in regards to this. Sciavone Construction Company did that with bare minimum cheap construction on the new South Ferry station, and now look at the results, a leaky station in terrible shape with dozens of structural flaws. Of course then Sandy came with indiscriminate destruction of Lower Manhattan but that's another story....

 

well put

 

Thanks!

[CenSin]

Actually the way it works with TBMs is that initially it is VERY expensive to set up, like you were saying, that's absolutely true....... However once you get a TBM moving in drilling a tunnel, by the mile, the costs actually becomes less as opposed to the drilling and blasting methods conventionally used in cut and cover methods, as well as the costs of concrete lining as the TBM does that automatically. Labor costs are slashed as well. Not to mention that the duration of time to drill tunnels in this way are less, more savings.

 

......But it depends on the scope of the construction.

 

How is it cost effective? Well as the cost benefit is less then cut and cover depending on the length and scope of the tunneling work, think of it this way: If the MTA Capital Construction Comittee hires a contractor to utilize a TBM to drill a brand new new tunnel under the East River all the way to Fulton Street in BK  then it's cost effective and efficient. However if the MTA hires the same contractor using a TBM to drill a miniscle distance from 86th Street to 125th Street then it is a waste of money, might as well go cut and cover method. (Which they must anyway because of the sections of SAS construction that already exists from the capital construction plans already implemented in the 60's and 70's that brought us the Chrystie St Cut, 6th Ave Express tracks, the 63rd St line, Archer Ave extension and so forth)

 

So a TBM vs Cut and Cover? Depends. If it's a large scale project, then it's cost efficient. If it's just a small segment of tunnel, then in that case it becomes self defeating, overkill, and prohibitively expensive. It's like trying to crack a nut with a jackhammer.

So it should be quite cheap when the MTA decides to tunnel a multi-mile long segments of express track without intervening stations.

[realizm]

So it should be quite cheap when the MTA decides to tunnel a multi-mile long segments of express track without intervening stations.

 

Yes for the reason that it's a long segment of tunnel as opposed to a few blocks of added tunnel. Of course stations are needed and that will be cut and cover construction, that's unavoidable. Now imagine cut and cover methods for the same distance all the way home. This is why the MTA opted for TBMs with the construction and for SAS Phase 1 in the first place.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Exactly, you would be in the know in regards to this. Sciavone Construction Company did that with bare minimum cheap construction on the new South Ferry station, and now look at the results, a leaky station in terrible shape with dozens of structural flaws. Of course then Sandy came with indiscriminate destruction of Lower Manhattan but that's another story....

Meant to say anytime I had to go on site...

 

Now back to Schiavone... Schiavone is one of the biggest if not the biggest players in the construction field, particularly with transit projects and other very large scale projects.  I was actually approached by a recruiter to work for them so I'm quite familiar with them.  I'm thinking both parties are at fault... Schiavone took short cuts and cut corners and the put too much trust in them and maybe did a few other things... I'm sure that job was put out to bid and I wonder if the bid was put out in a way to favor Schiavone... Wouldn't be surprised... The way the has protected them leads me to believe that something more went down then they're willing to admit because if it was all on Schiavone, the would've been all over them.

[LTA1992]

LOL... I'm sorry but a cheaper US dollar means that work should be able to be done more cheaply, not the other way around...  The lacks oversight on its projects and the contractors take advantage by milking them where they can.  It's not rocket science.  I worked in the construction field with a GC for a few years on the insurance side and anytime I had to on site with a Project Manager you could get a feel for how guys worked on the site.  If there is minimal supervision, contractors will take advantage and do the bare minimum, simple as that and so the project runs longer, gets delayed further and costs more.  

No. A less powerful US dollar means even the "cheapest" of construction will still be extremely expensive. Manhattan has become a lot more built up and traffic heavy as time went on. You can't do it the "cheap way" anymore.

 

An example of this is when the IND First system was built, the entire thing cost almost 340,000,000 dollars. That included equipment, property, and labor costs. Today, that could be closer to half a trillion.

 

And to realizm, I wasn't comparing anything. I was explaining the fact that as time went on, and labor laws got more strict. And the falling value of the dollar, subway construction in thic city has taken longer and longer with the price BOOMING over the years.

[bobtehpanda]

So it should be quite cheap when the MTA decides to tunnel a multi-mile long segments of express track without intervening stations.

 

Well, depending on how you construct it. If it's two tracks stacked on top of each other, you can use two TBMs, but if you have four side by side, you'll most likely need four. You'll also need to do cut and cover at stations, at the very least for entrance areas.

 

Actually the way it works with TBMs is that initially it is VERY expensive to set up, like you were saying, that's absolutely true....... However once you get a TBM moving in drilling a tunnel, by the mile, the costs actually becomes less as opposed to the drilling and blasting methods conventionally used in cut and cover methods, as well as the costs of concrete lining as the TBM does that automatically. Labor costs are slashed as well. Not to mention that the duration of time to drill tunnels in this way are less, more savings.

 

......But it depends on the scope of the construction.

 

How is it cost effective? Well as the cost benefit is less then cut and cover depending on the length and scope of the tunneling work, think of it this way: If the MTA Capital Construction Comittee hires a contractor to utilize a TBM to drill a brand new new tunnel under the East River all the way to Fulton Street in BK  then it's cost effective and efficient. However if the MTA hires the same contractor using a TBM to drill a miniscle distance from 86th Street to 125th Street then it is a waste of money, might as well go cut and cover method. (Which they must anyway because of the sections of SAS construction that already exists from the capital construction plans already implemented in the 60's and 70's that brought us the Chrystie St Cut, 6th Ave Express tracks, the 63rd St line, Archer Ave extension and so forth)

 

So a TBM vs Cut and Cover? Depends. If it's a large scale project, then it's cost efficient. If it's just a small segment of tunnel, then in that case it becomes self defeating, overkill, and prohibitively expensive. It's like trying to crack a nut with a jackhammer.

 

^This. what pisses me off the most is when people automatically assume that TBMs automatically cost more because of East Side Access, SAS, and the former ARC, when most of those costs were land acquisition and blasting mall-sized holes into bedrock.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

No. A less powerful US dollar means even the "cheapest" of construction will still be extremely expensive. Manhattan has become a lot more built up and traffic heavy as time went on. You can't do it the "cheap way" anymore.

 

An example of this is when the IND First system was built, the entire thing cost almost 340,000,000 dollars. That included equipment, property, and labor costs. Today, that could be closer to half a trillion.

 

And to realizm, I wasn't comparing anything. I was explaining the fact that as time went on, and labor laws got more strict. And the falling value of the dollar, subway construction in thic city has taken longer and longer with the price BOOMING over the years.

You're a bit confused... A cheaper US dollar is usually indicative of a weak American economy and one of the economic engines is construction, which is the case with a lot of countries.    A weaker dollar should mean American goods will be cheaper which means materials may cost less.  Also, construction is dictated by demand... A weak market means less work which means more competitive bidding and the slashing of prices to make the big the winning one, so like I said construction costs should go down not up here.  Europe is also seeing a slowing Euro and the construction boom that occurred there has sense cooled off, esp. in Spain and France is no different since there is less money available for infrastructure projects due to the weak economy in those countries, esp. in the case of Spain, which is on the verge of requesting a bailout.  France is in better shape but not exactly on solid ground either.

[bobtehpanda]

LOL... I'm sorry but a cheaper US dollar means that work should be able to be done more cheaply, not the other way around...  The lacks oversight on its projects and the contractors take advantage by milking them where they can.  It's not rocket science.  I worked in the construction field with a GC for a few years on the insurance side and anytime I had to on site with a Project Manager you could get a feel for how guys worked on the site.  If there is minimal supervision, contractors will take advantage and do the bare minimum, simple as that and so the project runs longer, gets delayed further and costs more.  

 

Yep. Madrid was, at the height of its bubble, expanding its system massively, with 56 km of new track and rolling stock at $65m/km. While this is on the obscenely low spectrum for subway construction around the world, Madrid has several do's and don'ts when it comes to its construction projects, all of which New York seems to violate. Number one would be the allowance for the same firm to design and build the project - this increases costs because the designer, who wants to presumably build the thing, wants to add as many bells and whistles to increase profits. It's sort of like handing a car salesman your credit card and going, "Pick me any car in the lot that you think is good for me - I don't know much about anything."

 

(If this was unclear, the calculations use PPP and not exchange rates, and PPP accounts for local costs-of-living differences. Spain and France had (and in the case of France, still have) awfully rigid labor markets, where firing is nearly impossible, so it can't just be labor costs.)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yep. Madrid was, at the height of its bubble, expanding its system massively, with 56 km of new track and rolling stock at $65m/km. While this is on the obscenely low spectrum for subway construction around the world, Madrid has several do's and don'ts when it comes to its construction projects, all of which New York seems to violate. Number one would be the allowance for the same firm to design and build the project - this increases costs because the designer, who wants to presumably build the thing, wants to add as many bells and whistles to increase profits. It's sort of like handing a car salesman your credit card and going, "Pick me any car in the lot that you think is good for me - I don't know much about anything."

 

(If this was unclear, the calculations use PPP and not exchange rates, and PPP accounts for local costs-of-living differences. Spain and France had (and in the case of France, still have) awfully rigid labor markets, where firing is nearly impossible, so it can't just be labor costs.)

LOL... Yep.... The thinking here in the city is well if you have one firm doing everything, they can minimize costs, but in reality it allows them to rake in more profits because they can hide markups better.  Just about every firm does this unless you're savvy enough to know the costs of materials and the general costs to perform certain trades.  Some folks actually hire a consultant to help to ensure that they aren't ripped off... In the case of the a lack of oversight is one problem that drives up their costs, but also the bidders often mark up the prices to inflate costs.  They know they have the money so they take advantage of it.

 

As in the case of France, this is indeed true... The fact that firing is extremely difficult and the power of the unions there makes labor costs difficult to cut. However, they are quite productive compared to say the U.S.  The French may only work say 35 hours a week but they're generally more productive than the Americans who work many more hours and some of that is due to so called overtime and other nonsense where guys are slacking off instead of actually working on the job.

[46Dover]

Getting off subject lol but guess that's the reason why road projects A'la BQE from Prospect Expwy to Battery Tunnel take all of 4 years to complete

[Fresh Pond]

Getting off subject lol but guess that's the reason why road projects A'la BQE from Prospect Expwy to Battery Tunnel take all of 4 years to complete

That's actually cuz Robert Moses had a "f**k you, your house, and neighborhood" mentality and built them without caring about the people in the way

[bobtehpanda]

Getting off subject lol but guess that's the reason why road projects A'la BQE from Prospect Expwy to Battery Tunnel take all of 4 years to complete

 

Roads have their own issues, but most of them have to do with stupid design (a Kosciuszko Bridge replacement with 8 lanes, even though the approaches on both sides only have 6 lanes, with no shoulders, a Tappan Zee that is literally twice as wide as the existing one but only adds one more lane)

 

Road contractors need to make money, too.

 

But, back to topic, SAS Phase III and IV will happen, if only because they probably have favorable cost/rider and other things FTA likes to look at, and because Lex below 63rd will be dead after East Side Access.

[QM1to6Ave]

That's actually cuz Robert Moses had a "f**k you, your house, and neighborhood" mentality and built them without caring about the people in the way

 

LOL. We could use a *little* more of that attitude today. Just a little. 

[LTA1992]

LOL. We could use a *little* more of that attitude today. Just a little. 

For rapid transit and pedestrians. We don't need anymore cars. I don't even drive and want to punch people in the face.