Full 14th St Shutdown Cancelled

[LTA1992]

Ferrer seems to think so. Transcript from SAS:

 

TROTTENBERG: As the MTA has gone off and put up signs that said L train shutdown averted, the board has had no vote on changing the contract or any of the terms here. Is the decision made? Do we have any actual role here? I’m not hearing that we do?

FERRER: I can address that commissioner. See there isn’t a change in a contract before us because there is no actual change to a contract at this point. Once there is, I am happy to have that brought before the board if I am still acting chairman. That’s my job, that’s my responsibility to consider it. If we have to consider an amendment to a contract or any other action, at the appropriate moment that will be brought before us and we’ll vote yes or no and abstain.

TROTTENBERG: So you’re saying we could vote no. What would that mean? The L train shutdown isn’t averted.

FERRER: You vote whichever way you like. I’ve never suggested how you should vote.

TROTTENBERG: You think in the end it will be the board’s decision?

FERRER: That’s what I’m saying.

TROTTENBERG: Maybe it’s premature to announce it before the board has made a decision, isn’t it?

FERRER: Decision on what? You’re asking about a contract. Stop, stop. Let’s not conflate these things. You’re asking about board action relating to a change in a contract. If there is any other service change than we will deal with that at the appropriate moment.

TROTTENBERG: But will those service changes be subject to the review of the board?

FERRER: [Frustrated sigh]

VERONIQUE HAKIM: Contracts come to the board based on our procurement guidelines. Change orders at certain levels come to the board. Service changes I think the term in the board approved service guidelines is “major service changes” also comes to the board.

TROTTENBERG: This seems like this is a major service changes. If we’re making major changes to the contact in terms of scope, in terms of price tag, in terms of liability, those are things that come to the board. I’m not saying we wouldn’t be in favor of all of this, I’m just confused: Does this plan need approval by the board or not? I am confused about it.

FERRER: The purpose for this meeting was to share information. Once there is a change, a plan, it becomes before the board again. We’re not going away.

TROTTEBERG: So if the signs says shutdown averted, it should have a footnote that says “subject to board approval”?

Then Ferrer shuts his mic off to respond. Fitting from one of our illustrious governor's chronies.

This is literally what the Board has complained about for a long time, laid out bare on the floor. Why are they there if they can be stepped over and ignored?

[Wallyhorse]

Sounds like Ferrer doesn't want to PO Cuomo, knowing he'd likely at least get the blame if the original plan went through and in Cuomo's mind it cost HIM any chance of running for President in 2020 (not that Cuomo has any realistic chance of actually being the Democratic Nominee). 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

1 hour ago, LTA1992 said:

Ferrer seems to think so. Transcript from SAS:

 

TROTTENBERG: As the MTA has gone off and put up signs that said L train shutdown averted, the board has had no vote on changing the contract or any of the terms here. Is the decision made? Do we have any actual role here? I’m not hearing that we do?

FERRER: I can address that commissioner. See there isn’t a change in a contract before us because there is no actual change to a contract at this point. Once there is, I am happy to have that brought before the board if I am still acting chairman. That’s my job, that’s my responsibility to consider it. If we have to consider an amendment to a contract or any other action, at the appropriate moment that will be brought before us and we’ll vote yes or no and abstain.

TROTTENBERG: So you’re saying we could vote no. What would that mean? The L train shutdown isn’t averted.

FERRER: You vote whichever way you like. I’ve never suggested how you should vote.

TROTTENBERG: You think in the end it will be the board’s decision?

FERRER: That’s what I’m saying.

TROTTENBERG: Maybe it’s premature to announce it before the board has made a decision, isn’t it?

FERRER: Decision on what? You’re asking about a contract. Stop, stop. Let’s not conflate these things. You’re asking about board action relating to a change in a contract. If there is any other service change than we will deal with that at the appropriate moment.

TROTTENBERG: But will those service changes be subject to the review of the board?

FERRER: [Frustrated sigh]

VERONIQUE HAKIM: Contracts come to the board based on our procurement guidelines. Change orders at certain levels come to the board. Service changes I think the term in the board approved service guidelines is “major service changes” also comes to the board.

TROTTENBERG: This seems like this is a major service changes. If we’re making major changes to the contact in terms of scope, in terms of price tag, in terms of liability, those are things that come to the board. I’m not saying we wouldn’t be in favor of all of this, I’m just confused: Does this plan need approval by the board or not? I am confused about it.

FERRER: The purpose for this meeting was to share information. Once there is a change, a plan, it becomes before the board again. We’re not going away.

TROTTEBERG: So if the signs says shutdown averted, it should have a footnote that says “subject to board approval”?

Then Ferrer shuts his mic off to respond. Fitting from one of our illustrious governor's chronies.

This is literally what the Board has complained about for a long time, laid out bare on the floor. Why are they there if they can be stepped over and ignored?

I've never actually thought the day would come when I would praise the DOT commissioner on something...

Of course, given that she works for DeBlasio, I would expect her to ask such questions, especially since DeBlasio and Cuomo are still arguing over the MTA (and Ferrer, well, is appointed by Governor Cuomo).

[MysteriousBtrain]

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Oh?

There's no way sidestepping the board like this is legal...

So plan 2 is going to happen? Isn't there a way to take these guys to court for doing this as well?

[Enjineer]

Oh boy, I'd get some popcorn ready for next week's board meeting if Ferrer has just decided to cut the board out of the decision outright. If the city-appointed members are just going to be stripped of any methods of countering Albany's actions, I can only see this fueling Corey Johnson's push to consider splitting NYCTA off from the MTA. I'm sure Polly Trottenberg is going to have some choice words for Ferrer next week. 

[MysteriousBtrain]

Something to share regarding yesterday's meeting:

https://amp.gothamist.com/amp/articles/create?article_id=5c3f76a7162dfa000162baaa

[Lawrence St]

I am so lost. First they weren't going to do it, now they are going to do it? 

[Enjineer]

15 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

First they weren't going to do it, now they are going to do it? 

What I understand is that Ferrer basically said "suck it" to the board, and made it seem like they're going to do the new plan, and pretty much remove the board from having a say on the matter. No clue how that's going to go down with the board members itself next week, though...

[Deucey]

51 minutes ago, Enjineer said:

What I understand is that Ferrer basically said "suck it" to the board, and made it seem like they're going to do the new plan, and pretty much remove the board from having a say on the matter. No clue how that's going to go down with the board members itself next week, though...

See, all this just reeks of a scam. The way this is being pushed down throats with the non-Cuomo board members being disregarded and the damn President of the Authority being sidelined...

I foresee an FBI investigation in future, and wonder if in that Gateway Tunnel summit with the other dipshit from Queens, Cuomo got told to do "this" or some unpleasant information gets released.

[N6 Limited]

On 1/15/2019 at 3:58 PM, Union Tpke said:

I was the second speaker–after Gale Brewer. I am not convinced that the shutdown will be stopped, but the right questions were asked. I am on the W at Whitehall so I will comment further when I am home.

Perhaps you should have started your say iwth "This is Union Turnpike" LOL j/k

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, Enjineer said:

What I understand is that Ferrer basically said "suck it" to the board, and made it seem like they're going to do the new plan, and pretty much remove the board from having a say on the matter. No clue how that's going to go down with the board members itself next week, though...

So were choosing to do the fastest way possible over passengers safety? Why did the majority of New York vote for this guy again?

[Deucey]

44 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

So were choosing to do the fastest way possible over passengers safety? Why did the majority of New York vote for this guy again?

Devil you (think you) know > the one you don't.

Except in this and the other case we've learned not to elect anyone from Queens to the Executive branch - for some reason public safety is less important than ego and personal glory.

[Around the Horn]

52 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

So were choosing to do the fastest way possible over passengers safety? Why did the majority of New York vote for this guy again?

I bet a bunch of people are regretting their primary vote.

[Lawrence St]

Well remind me to steer clear of the  during and after the weekend/late night work. It is virtually impossible to remove all that silica dust within that allotted time frame, not to mention the chance of those new wires/old benchwall falling onto that track.

[Around the Horn]

I'm just waiting to see the TWU do nothing when a T/O inadvertently hits a new wire and RTO blames them for it...

[Wallyhorse]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

See, all this just reeks of a scam. The way this is being pushed down throats with the non-Cuomo board members being disregarded and the damn President of the Authority being sidelined...

I foresee an FBI investigation in future, and wonder if in that Gateway Tunnel summit with the other dipshit from Queens, Cuomo got told to do "this" or some unpleasant information gets released.

If anyone told him, it would likely IMO have been a donor threatening not to fund a Presidential campaign in 2020.  Otherwise, I think this is all about Cuomo not wanting a full-bore shutdown happening in the middle of the 2020 Presidential race as what would be happening otherwise, with HIS likely thinking it would cost HIM votes in New York and to a lesser extent New Jersey and Connecticut and an even lesser extent Pennsylvania, the four states to some degree this does matter if at all.  

[Lawrence St]

12 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

I'm just waiting to see the TWU do nothing when a T/O inadvertently hits a new wire and RTO blames them for it...

You wanna know what makes it worse? That's a high speed area. If a wire falls...lord help us.

[Enjineer]

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

If a wire falls...lord help us.

Just remember the 2015 G train derailment was caused by a faulty bench wall...hmmmm....

[LTA1992]

What I can't believe is that people are actually defending this because of "cost savings". COMPLETELY disregarding the facts and questions at hand. These aren't professionals, but they ain't laymen.

I work in the film industry. I see far too often how cutting corners can hurt projects and can definitely imagine it being magnified when it comes to large construction projects.

This isn't a cost savings. This is cutting corners. Cutting corners always leads to more money spent. And that's far more likely here than any other project I've had the ability to watch form.

Keywords, "Had the ability to watch form".

One must make that clear lest any of the know-it-alls wanna add in things like East Side Access.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Cuomo might of found a loophole:

https://nypost.com/2019/01/16/cuomo-has-the-power-to-force-through-l-train-plan-mta/amp/

[T to Dyre Avenue]

20 hours ago, Enjineer said:

What I understand is that Ferrer basically said "suck it" to the board, and made it seem like they're going to do the new plan, and pretty much remove the board from having a say on the matter. No clue how that's going to go down with the board members itself next week, though...

Ferrer wants to cut out the Board from the decision-making now? What’s next, they cut the Board on fate hikes?

And the fun continues...

[Lawrence St]

36 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Cuomo might of found a loophole:

https://nypost.com/2019/01/16/cuomo-has-the-power-to-force-through-l-train-plan-mta/amp/

Oh dear god...

[Enjineer]

2 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Oh dear god...

I'd get the popcorn ready for next week's board meeting. It's going to be...interesting, to say the least. 

[Lance]

7 hours ago, LTA1992 said:

What I can't believe is that people are actually defending this because of "cost savings". COMPLETELY disregarding the facts and questions at hand. These aren't professionals, but they ain't laymen.

I work in the film industry. I see far too often how cutting corners can hurt projects and can definitely imagine it being magnified when it comes to large construction projects.

This isn't a cost savings. This is cutting corners. Cutting corners always leads to more money spent. And that's far more likely here than any other project I've had the ability to watch form.

Keywords, "Had the ability to watch form".

One must make that clear lest any of the know-it-alls wanna add in things like East Side Access.

People are supporting this plan not due to cost savings, well not entirely, but rather because it allows the to continue to run when they need it. Sure, it won't run on nights and weekends, but for the past few years off and on, that's been the case either way, so nothing is really lost here. This entire closure was painted as the worst thing to happen to the city and its transportation network ever. And with good reason too. Anything to avoid that massive headache is going to be seen as a boon to riders across the board.

The way Cuomo announced the change in plans was nothing short of genius. Do a little PR walkthrough the tunnel and talk about reworking the plans to prevent a full closure, bring in a couple of experts to support the claim and make an announcement that sidesteps the big, bad MTA, stating that the repairs can be done without sacrificing peak-period service, contrary to earlier MTA reports. Anyone stating otherwise that a full closure is necessary, including the MTA's rank and file and the agency's board members, are going to be seen as the opposition here. Cuomo and his supporters get to paint these naysayers as pro-shutdown and against the wishes of the people who just want to get from A to B without a roundabout trip. This is likely the reason we haven't seen much if any pushback from city officials on this.

Do I believe this modified plan is the way to go? Absolutely not. Are we sparing riders of pain now, only to deal with it later? Probably. We've seen what half-assed, incomplete work leads to around here way too often to be ignorant of this fact. On the other hand, am I surprised by how well-received the new plan is? Nope. People want things and they want them now. Tomorrow's problems can be faced at a later date, preferably when we're not around to be inconvenienced. That's the ideology for most people regarding most things these days.

[N6 Limited]

33 minutes ago, Lance said:

People are supporting this plan not due to cost savings, well not entirely, but rather because it allows the to continue to run when they need it. Sure, it won't run on nights and weekends, but for the past few years off and on, that's been the case either way, so nothing is really lost here. This entire closure was painted as the worst thing to happen to the city and its transportation network ever. And with good reason too. Anything to avoid that massive headache is going to be seen as a boon to riders across the board.

The way Cuomo announced the change in plans was nothing short of genius. Do a little PR walkthrough the tunnel and talk about reworking the plans to prevent a full closure, bring in a couple of experts to support the claim and make an announcement that sidesteps the big, bad MTA, stating that the repairs can be done without sacrificing peak-period service, contrary to earlier MTA reports. Anyone stating otherwise that a full closure is necessary, including the MTA's rank and file and the agency's board members, are going to be seen as the opposition here. Cuomo and his supporters get to paint these naysayers as pro-shutdown and against the wishes of the people who just want to get from A to B without a roundabout trip. This is likely the reason we haven't seen much if any pushback from city officials on this.

Do I believe this modified plan is the way to go? Absolutely not. Are we sparing riders of pain now, only to deal with it later? Probably. We've seen what half-assed, incomplete work leads to around here way too often to be ignorant of this fact. On the other hand, am I surprised by how well-received the new plan is? Nope. People want things and they want them now. Tomorrow's problems can be faced at a later date, preferably when we're not around to be inconvenienced. That's the ideology for most people regarding most things these days.

I feel that it was going to be like "Carmageddon" in LA when they closed the 405 for a few days and they thought it was going to be a congested nightmare and everything was "normal".