realizm Posted January 12, 2014 #1 Posted January 12, 2014 Photo credit: Craig Ruttle | People disembark from a Metro North train at Grand Central Terminal. Changes at the terminal will have an impact on LIRR riders, even at Penn Station, as work on the East Side Access project continues dozens of feet below these passengers. (March 20, 2013 Originally published: January 10, 2014 2:58 PM Updated: January 10, 2014 10:01 PM By ALFONSO A. CASTILLO alfonso.castillo@newsday.com It's probably going to take the MTA even longer, and cost more, to provide Long Island Rail Road commuters a one-seat ride to Grand Central Terminal. Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials revealed Friday that the massive East Side Access project -- whose price tag and timeline have been adjusted upward repeatedly over the last decade -- is again running late and over budget. The revelation came at a Manhattan oversight hearing of the New York State Assembly's Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions. Asked for the completion date and cost of the "megaproject," Craig Stewart, senior director of the MTA capital plan, said East Side Access -- last estimated to cost $8.3 billion and be finished in 2019 -- is "slipping a little bit further and could cost more." "We don't think we'll make 2019," Stewart said. A report reassessing the project's cost and timeline should be released next month, he said. It would be the latest setback of a project the MTA once expected to be finished by 2009 at a cost of $4.3 billion, according to the Office of the New York State Comptroller. In May 2012, MTA officials last pushed back the completion date by a year and increased the budget by $1 billion -- saying they were 80 percent certain they would hit the new targets.Read more: Source
Vistausss Posted January 12, 2014 #4 Posted January 12, 2014 Happens all the time over here, so no surprise that it happens in/around NYC too. Ah well, it's the result that counts. As long as ESA doesn't turn into the SAS of railroads then it's okay.
bobtehpanda Posted January 12, 2014 #5 Posted January 12, 2014 Happens all the time over here, so no surprise that it happens in/around NYC too. Ah well, it's the result that counts. As long as ESA doesn't turn into the SAS of railroads then it's okay. In terms of how expensive it is, it already reached that point. $4B per km is pretty disgraceful. It still boggles the mind as to why they went with the deep tunnel option, even though it was more expensive and more difficult to construct (and less convenient from a passenger perspective).
Vistausss Posted January 12, 2014 #7 Posted January 12, 2014 In terms of how expensive it is, it already reached that point. $4B per km is pretty disgraceful. What I meant was not the expense but the duration (that ESA gets finished 60 years after the start, like SAS). As long as that doesn't happen then it's kinda okay IMHO.
N4 Via Merrick Rd Posted January 12, 2014 #8 Posted January 12, 2014 I kinda think to myself: why so deep why so big? From tapatalk
bobtehpanda Posted January 12, 2014 #9 Posted January 12, 2014 What I meant was not the expense but the duration (that ESA gets finished 60 years after the start, like SAS). As long as that doesn't happen then it's kinda okay IMHO. It was part of the 1968 Plan for Action along with the Second Avenue Subway, which did actually sort of get started. So that's another way it's similar (Well, the proposal was commuter service to a "Grand Central South", but there is no way in hell the state would ever eminent domain a block of East Midtown for a train station; it'd bust their budget.)
Missabassie Posted January 13, 2014 #10 Posted January 13, 2014 This is New York... everything must be GRAND... While pissing away billions of dollars...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 13, 2014 #11 Posted January 13, 2014 What exactly is the attributing the cause to be for the delay and the additional cost?
Turbo19 Posted January 13, 2014 #12 Posted January 13, 2014 For a second I thought this was news... lol.
LIRR 154 Posted January 13, 2014 #13 Posted January 13, 2014 What exactly is the attributing the cause to be for the delay and the additional cost?Underperforming contractors and underestimating the size of the plan. I think the big is contractors. They hire one get rid of them and bring in another one and the cycle continues. I have heard this happening. They need to be me more strict with these contractors on schedules and make it clear they are not a cash cow.
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 13, 2014 #14 Posted January 13, 2014 Underperforming contractors and underestimating the size of the plan. I think the big is contractors. They hire one get rid of them and bring in another one and the cycle continues. I have heard this happening. They need to be me more strict with these contractors on schedules and make it clear they are not a cash cow. Well I think part of the issue is the bid process. A lot of the bids in the city expect contractors to deliver a lot for very little... Then they of course under deliver...
bobtehpanda Posted January 13, 2014 #15 Posted January 13, 2014 Well I think part of the issue is the bid process. A lot of the bids in the city expect contractors to deliver a lot for very little... Then they of course under deliver... The bidding process has a lot of random byzantine procedures written into it, mostly because way back when the reformers didn't want a repeat of the Tammany patronage machine. There's also the lowest bidder rules, and I wouldn't exactly be surprised if some firms were lowballing and then found out they couldn't do it.
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted January 13, 2014 #16 Posted January 13, 2014 The bidding process has a lot of random byzantine procedures written into it, mostly because way back when the reformers didn't want a repeat of the Tammany patronage machine. There's also the lowest bidder rules, and I wouldn't exactly be surprised if some firms were lowballing and then found out they couldn't do it. Yeah I know... I bid on jobs as well and sometimes firms are required to have a certain amount of bidders, so then there's the issue of just picking firms to bid just because when you know that the bid is written in a way to favor some firms over others.
realizm Posted January 13, 2014 Author #17 Posted January 13, 2014 The bidding process has a lot of random byzantine procedures written into it, mostly because way back when the reformers didn't want a repeat of the Tammany patronage machine. There's also the lowest bidder rules, and I wouldn't exactly be surprised if some firms were lowballing and then found out they couldn't do it. Thats correct. In the past I had to report to a bidding process within MTA headquarters representing an IT firm for computer hardware supplies and thats exactly how it works. The lowest bidder gets the contract but many times it backfires when the said firm cannot meet up with the requirements of the contract.
QM1to6Ave Posted January 15, 2014 #18 Posted January 15, 2014 Didn't the MTA bigwigs make big commotion about changing the biding process a while back, so that they did not just give it to the lowest bidder? Guess that didn't happen yet...
bobtehpanda Posted January 15, 2014 #19 Posted January 15, 2014 Didn't the MTA bigwigs make big commotion about changing the biding process a while back, so that they did not just give it to the lowest bidder? Guess that didn't happen yet... There's only so much the MTA can do; much, if not all, of the bidding process is determined by Albany. Keep in mind that processes are in place partially due to the widespread corruption during the Tammany years, and this risk has not exactly abated (how many pols in Albany and in the city have been under federal investigation in the past five years?)
QM1to6Ave Posted January 15, 2014 #20 Posted January 15, 2014 There's only so much the MTA can do; much, if not all, of the bidding process is determined by Albany. Keep in mind that processes are in place partially due to the widespread corruption during the Tammany years, and this risk has not exactly abated (how many pols in Albany and in the city have been under federal investigation in the past five years?) I see your point. It's almost a catch-22...you don't want the politicians corruptly choosing their favorite company for these jobs, but you also don't get good results if you pick the cheapest bid.
bobtehpanda Posted January 15, 2014 #21 Posted January 15, 2014 I see your point. It's almost a catch-22...you don't want the politicians corruptly choosing their favorite company for these jobs, but you also don't get good results if you pick the cheapest bid. The ideal solution would be for MTACC to do more stuff in-house (contractor supervision, design, etc.) and for the designers to be banned from bidding on construction (so that there's no incentive to over-design), but the MTA cannot afford market-rate salaries for anyone, particularly those who would be considered "management".
QM1to6Ave Posted January 16, 2014 #22 Posted January 16, 2014 The ideal solution would be for MTACC to do more stuff in-house (contractor supervision, design, etc.) and for the designers to be banned from bidding on construction (so that there's no incentive to over-design), but the MTA cannot afford market-rate salaries for anyone, particularly those who would be considered "management". I agree/ Obviously they couldn't do all of this in house, but as much as possible should be in house
qjtransitmaster Posted January 16, 2014 #23 Posted January 16, 2014 If it gets costlier it needs to just be cancelled save your money MTA 4B for a km is utter madness.
bobtehpanda Posted January 16, 2014 #24 Posted January 16, 2014 If it gets costlier it needs to just be cancelled save your money MTA 4B for a km is utter madness. Right, because it's not like there are two tunnels and a giant station pit that aren't already there, and leaving them alone is totally an option.
realizm Posted January 30, 2014 Author #25 Posted January 30, 2014 Update: According to the Wall Street Journal, the MTA has announced they are creating a 'steering commitee' to oversee completion of the long overdue project. Currently the captal Oversight Committee which also oversees NYC Transit gives a completion and start date for operation by 2021, (Yikes!) citing concerns with massive overruns in the projects original budget as well as delays in contruction (10 years and counting past its original estimated completion date). Source: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304007504579347290871453568 So in other words they are changing the management structure overseeing this project (as heads are rolling) because of the budget overuns out of control and this massive delay in the revenue service start date of this mega-project.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.