Full 14th St Shutdown Cancelled

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, VIP said:

This thread shouldn’t have been made. It needs to be merged with one of the TWO  shutdown threads. What purpose does thread serve? 

To be honest I've lost track of all these threads. Thought a new one would ease the confusion a bit.

[GojiMet86]

A little foreshadowing, perhaps?...

http://gothamist.com/2019/01/18/tappan_zee_bridge_debris.php

Quote

 

Parts Of Hudson River 'Saturated With Junk' From Tappan Zee Bridge Demolition

BY JEN CHUNG IN NEWS ON JAN 18, 2019 1:11 PM

The east anchor span of the Tappan Zee Bridge, made useless with the introduction of the Mario Cuomo Bridge, was demolished on Tuesday, to the delight of implosion fans gathered along the Hudson river (and watching the video stream online). Contractors did put nets into the river to catch debris... but it seems like not all of it made it into the nets.

NBC New York reports, "Hours after demolition, resident Liam Hatch said he saw remnants of the bridge start washing up ashore, near Matthiessen Park."

Hatch said, "The whole river was saturated with junk... Masks, googles, buckets, planks of wood, even pieces of metal floating throughout." He even spotted some debris as big as a door. He also filmed the debris washing up:

Residents are upset, and the Town of Irvington is trying to calm them down, "The contractors on the bridge are well aware that it is their responsibility to clean it up and they're doing it right now. We are overseeing things to make sure it's done right."

WABC 7 notes, "The original plans were to avoid the use of explosives that could have an impact on fish habitats, but experts determined the old bridge was structurally unsound, preventing workers from continuing a piecemeal takedown." That's why the bridge was exploded with materials like goggles still left behind on it.
Well, for all the havoc to the fish habitats, at least the other parts of the old Tappan Zee have been reefed.

The western span of the old bridge remains standing, and will not be imploded. Lohud reports that workers will "pick apart the remains of the bridge piece by piece with the assistance of massive waterborne cranes" some time later this year.

 

 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

10 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I have contacted my representatives State Senator Addabbo and Assemblyman Hevesi, and I urge others here to do the same.

I contacted Addabbo two weeks ago, and I didn't get much. He basically said that the legislature will address it. The others gave me better responses (my Council member actually responded in less than 20 minutes).

[RR503]

I don't know what to think about the silica dust. It is indeed quite the carcinogen, but every time you run a train over skeletonized track, you are by necessity running over an area that has been recently polluted with silica. There's a degree thing here, of course (and I think this is the question that the MTA has to answer), but I think we need to be clear on terms.

Setting aside the disgusting circumvention of process that has been this change in plans and the engineering stuff that's been discussed to death, I worry about service impact. What happens when the caravan of work trains necessary for this work hit's Canarsie's virtually nonextant AWS system without CBTC capability? This is every weekend for 20 months, and early in the night too. What happens when contractors find *something* that doesn't fit plan, and the tunnel can't 'wake up' on Monday morning? What happens if something isn't set right in the tunnel, and weekday service is interrupted?

My point here is that I like predictability. It is without question that a full shutdown is, in isolation, more disruptive, but the inherent risk of doing massive work like this in a piecemeal fashion is large. Every time you restart service, you're introducing a point of failure. I'd rather be predictably inconvenienced than unpredictably saved. 

[LGA Link N Train]

19 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Like I said in the other thread, I think it's still possible to reverse the non-shutdown. I personally think there needs to be more to convince me that the Cuomo plan is final. But that is just my opinion.

 

18 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

It’s sad that politics and personal interests (in this scenario) get in the way over guaranteeing public safety. I feel there should be a balance in both or else the world (especially in NY) won’t proceed without some trouble. Under the chance that the project to avert the  shutdown turns out to be a failure, the future generations will take the blame hard, and Cuomo will be way out of harms reach.

What's even sadder is that people are impatient and only think the short term. No matter what, there will be people who won't be pleased with anything. Now were stuck with what will make a current day problem (The train tubes) and even bigger problem. Maybe this is a downside of Public Speaking if you really think about, but eh, the emperor wants what he wants and no one trusts the  nowadays. If only the was just able to get it done and over with without Cuomo intervention.

[Deucey]

5 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 

What's even sadder is that people are impatient and only think the short term. No matter what, there will be people who won't be pleased with anything. Now were stuck with what will make a current day problem (The train tubes) and even bigger problem. Maybe this is a downside of Public Speaking if you really think about, but eh, the emperor wants what he wants and no one trusts the  nowadays. If only the was just able to get it done and over with without Cuomo intervention.

It's only because myopia is the rule rather than the exception.

But that's why I don't trust today's "socialists" - they claim to want to invest in the future but only so long as it doesn't inconvenience them. They voted Cuomo but avoided Hillary because she and the other dumbass from Queens were the "same cheek off the same ass."

Greater good means we all suffer now for more joy or less suffering later. They're not interested in suffering.

[Deucey]

8 hours ago, QM1to6Ave said:

Thank you! I really think the negativity level around this is more about people hating Cuomo than actual details of the plan

I'm an insurance agent by trade. All it takes is one person catching it and that's a bankruptcy for

[MysteriousBtrain]

https://nypost.com/2019/01/18/cuomo-accused-of-ramming-through-l-train-plan-to-avoid-mta-panel/

Quote

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s L-train shutdown aversion plan was rammed through without MTA board approval because agency management knew it stood little chance of passing, board members told The Post on Friday.

“It shows that they have a lack of certainty that this would get board approval if it were presented for a vote,” said Veronica Vanterpool, a Mayor Bill de Blasio appointee to the board.

“It shows fear.”

The board was expected to vote on Cuomo’s 11th-hour miracle cure for repairs to the L-train’s damaged tunnel, but the agency declared Thursday that it’s already a done deal and doesn’t need the panel’s approval after all.

The announcement came just two days after board members bashed the plan during a heated “emergency” meeting and during which they say agency management failed to answer their many questions about the new scheme — such as how safe it is, how long it will take and how long the fixes will last.

“We spent three to four hours in an emergency board meeting, and we were told we’d get an independent reviewer and we’d get to select who that was. Obviously, this was all for naught,” said Andrew Albert, an MTA board member who heads the Transit Riders Council. “We had really great questions. Everyone on the board has these question and everyone in the public has these questions. We want to do what’s safest and what’s best for the public.”

Board member David Jones said the agency is just pushing the governor’s agenda.

“Clearly this is something the governor wants,” said Jones, another de Blasio appointee. “This is not appropriate.”

The governor cried ignorance about the controversy Friday, saying he doesn’t know how the board works and that the new plan isn’t his, even though he approves all of its members and sat center stage at the press conference where the plan was introduced. “I believe the status is the MTA has accepted the new design plan, which will not require a closure,” Cuomo said.

“But I don’t know how the board works to that level.”

Council Speaker Corey Johnson slammed the lack of transparency.

“At this point, the speaker is as confused about this plan as many members of the MTA board appear to be,” said his spokesman, Jacob Tugendrajch.

“What is clear is that this is no way to run a mass transit system.”

[LTA1992]

Accused if ramming this through? It's almost like they haven't been paying attention.

Then again, what does evidence mean in today's America?

[Deucey]

32 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

Accused if ramming this through? It's almost like they haven't been paying attention.

Then again, what does evidence mean in today's America?

To be fair, accused is the fair term to avoid libel since the maneuver used hasn't been determined to be illegal - technically or officially.

[CenSin]

5 hours ago, LTA1992 said:

Then again, what does evidence mean in today's America?

The mere threat of a lawsuit chills all free expression, even if it’s mentioning something obvious.

[Wallyhorse]

11 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

https://nypost.com/2019/01/18/cuomo-accused-of-ramming-through-l-train-plan-to-avoid-mta-panel/

This to me says Cuomo fears a full shutdown as planned derails his Presidential campaign as either he knows he'll lose votes in NY, NJ, CT and PA because of it OR his donors would not fund such a campaign unless he did this.

[Trainmaster5]

18 hours ago, Deucey said:

I'm an insurance agent by trade. All it takes is one person catching it and that's a bankruptcy for

I must correct you Deucey.  The MTA is self-insured.  That means that the State of New York  (every taxpayer)  is on the hook for settlement money one way or another. 

[RR503]

Just now, Trainmaster5 said:

I must correct you Deucey.  The MTA is self-insured.  That means that the State of New York  (every taxpayer)  is on the hook for settlement money one way or another. 

FMTAC for the win!

Just now, Wallyhorse said:

This to me says Cuomo fears a full shutdown as planned derails his Presidential campaign as either he knows he'll lose votes in NY, NJ, CT and PA because of it OR his donors would not fund such a campaign unless he did this.

Literally no one was complaining about the shutdown as if it were something that shouldn't happen before this debacle -- it was an accepted inconvenience. 

Cuomo probably did this because he wants to look irreverent of bureaucracy, and because he thinks running roughshod over procedure makes him look like a red tape-cutter. Remember, his governorship lives in the shadow of his father's; to make himself his own entity, he has to differentiate himself from Mario's more intellectual style -- hence all the 'git it done fast' stuff. He wants to be the 'doer' to his father's 'thinker.' 

It also can't hurt that he can paint himself as an 'innovator' now. 

[Wallyhorse]

That is something we can forget.  We know his father's legacy and he wants to separate himself from his father.  

[Lance]

Both of the non-sticky threads have been combined.

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, Lance said:

Both of the non-sticky threads have been combined.

Thank you!

[LTA1992]

On 1/19/2019 at 7:30 AM, Deucey said:

To be fair, accused is the fair term to avoid libel since the maneuver used hasn't been determined to be illegal - technically or officially.

So even though there are clear mechanisms in place to approve such things (and said mechanism has asked to be more informed because let's not kid ourselves, this plan is shit), even though that in this short of a timeframe while the plan itself is still largely incomplete and thus not possible to give actual answers too (thus morally and ethically unsound) upper management has been treating it like it's a-go, and all under the directive of one man whose subordinates have clearly been attempting to get over on the first point in this run-on sentence, we are going to soften that reality simply on the grounds that we aren't even sure if it's legal?

Don't you think that should have been figured out FIRST?

Critical thinking be damned.

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. Perfectly clear as there are sometimes truths we cannot see so easily.

Logic itself, however, doesn't agree.

[Around the Horn]

3 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

So even though there are clear mechanisms in place to approve such things (and said mechanism has asked to be more informed because let's not kid ourselves, this plan is shit), even though that in this short of a timeframe while the plan itself is still largely incomplete and thus not possible to give actual answers too (thus morally and ethically unsound) upper management has been treating it like it's a-go, and all under the directive of one man whose subordinates have clearly been attempting to get over on the first point in this run-on sentence, we are going to soften that reality simply on the grounds that we aren't even sure if it's legal?

Don't you think that should have been figured out FIRST?

Critical thinking be damned.

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. Perfectly clear as there are sometimes truths we cannot see so easily.

Logic itself, however, doesn't agree.

News outlets are not allowed to call something illegal unless its been determined as such in a court of law IIRC. No matter how obvious it may be, they have to say accused.

[Deucey]

2 hours ago, LTA1992 said:

So even though there are clear mechanisms in place to approve such things (and said mechanism has asked to be more informed because let's not kid ourselves, this plan is shit), even though that in this short of a timeframe while the plan itself is still largely incomplete and thus not possible to give actual answers too (thus morally and ethically unsound) upper management has been treating it like it's a-go, and all under the directive of one man whose subordinates have clearly been attempting to get over on the first point in this run-on sentence, we are going to soften that reality simply on the grounds that we aren't even sure if it's legal?

Don't you think that should have been figured out FIRST?

Critical thinking be damned.

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. Perfectly clear as there are sometimes truths we cannot see so easily.

Logic itself, however, doesn't agree.

That's what courts are for - to resolve legal ambiguities.

Technically, if the board doesn't have to approve vendor changes, or it delegated responsibility for intermediate approvals to subordinates, it doesn't have to be consulted. Likewise, if they just authorized or issued a "Notice to proceed" then as long as the work in that order is done, the scope is immaterial. 

A crude example would be a fare evasion ticket. If you swiped your MetroCard but the turnstile didn't unlock to let you through, so you hopped it, your ticket can be thrown out because you did your part but the system didn't recognize it.

I'm guessing the loophole Cuomo is using is that the board have a blanket "Get it done" approval but didn't do a specific "replace the entire substructure and mount wiring in 'x' location" notice to proceed.

If so, that'd explain the bulk of cost overruns on  projects, but I'll defer that assumption's efficacy to @Via Garibaldi 8 and @RR503's knowledge of construction and TA's contracting.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

21 minutes ago, Deucey said:

That's what courts are for - to resolve legal ambiguities.

Technically, if the board doesn't have to approve vendor changes, or it delegated responsibility for intermediate approvals to subordinates, it doesn't have to be consulted. Likewise, if they just authorized or issued a "Notice to proceed" then as long as the work in that order is done, the scope is immaterial. 

A crude example would be a fare evasion ticket. If you swiped your MetroCard but the turnstile didn't unlock to let you through, so you hopped it, your ticket can be thrown out because you did your part but the system didn't recognize it.

I'm guessing the loophole Cuomo is using is that the board have a blanket "Get it done" approval but didn't do a specific "replace the entire substructure and mount wiring in 'x' location" notice to proceed.

If so, that'd explain the bulk of cost overruns on  projects, but I'll defer that assumption's efficacy to @Via Garibaldi 8 and @RR503's knowledge of construction and TA's contracting.

 

2 hours ago, LTA1992 said:

So even though there are clear mechanisms in place to approve such things (and said mechanism has asked to be more informed because let's not kid ourselves, this plan is shit), even though that in this short of a timeframe while the plan itself is still largely incomplete and thus not possible to give actual answers too (thus morally and ethically unsound) upper management has been treating it like it's a-go, and all under the directive of one man whose subordinates have clearly been attempting to get over on the first point in this run-on sentence, we are going to soften that reality simply on the grounds that we aren't even sure if it's legal?

Don't you think that should have been figured out FIRST?

Critical thinking be damned.

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. Perfectly clear as there are sometimes truths we cannot see so easily.

Logic itself, however, doesn't agree.

A couple of things to note:

1.  With the current project, this tunnel should be in good standing for another 40 years. The tunnel is already a 100 years old so it would then be a 140 years old. It would make sense at that point to build brand new tunnels, but that's 40 years from now. Who knows if they'll even be an MTA at that point.  With global warming rapidly intensifying, hell a lot of the subway system may not even exist. I'm not joking either.  Even the flood mitigation plans being implemented are looking at 2050 or so at best and they won't start construction on such projects for another few years, so calling for tunnels to last another 100 years versus 40 seems like a big to do over nothing.  Too many uncertainties...

2. Cuomo can overrule the Board because he noted that the subways are in a state of emergency (hence the $836 million dollar plan currently in place to address chronic problems), thus allowing him to use his power as governor to override what the board says. He took a similar action during Hurricane Sandy when he allowed riders to use the express buses and commuter rail trains for free because the subways were knocked out.

3.  The bidding process with the  has some stipulations in place which drive up costs, even with them going with the lowest bidder.  Given the vast amount of requirements that the  demands its vendors meet, most of them don't want to be bothered or can't meet them, so you have only a handful of the same vendors bidding on various projects, and they know this, so they drive up the price.  

[RR503]

Not to derail too much, but the big drivers on MTA costs (I'm talking small projects -- megaprojects are a different ball game) are the bidding processes, liability, consultants, and access.

Beyond the misguided 'lowest bidder' dogma that VG8 mentions, the amount of (until recently, literal) paperwork that has to be filled out to even be considered on an MTA project defies imagination -- which of course means your contract lawyers are gonna be working overtime. That kills a bunch of bidders, and gives others reasons to increase costs beyond baseline.

Now in these agreements, the MTA frequently stipulates that bidders absorb full liability for nearly any damages -- even if the there root of the issue is clearly MTA. Got a problem with that? You can take that up with an MTA-run review board. There's another round of bidders out, and another round of premiums.

Then consultants. The MTA will usually (needlessly) assign some consultant to projects; said consultants generate a ton of material for little use. But if you're caught not following the consultant's engineering guidelines, you can be sued for breach of contract, meaning all 10,000 pages on what an outlet looks like have to be read by someone. And if you need to communicate with that consultant, or with their MTA boss? Good luck. MTA projects are famous for their lack of single point accountability. 

Then we get to access. For obvious reasons, many MTA contracts require some sort of trackway access. The MTA will tell contractors that they can have x track for y hours, but they will usually do that maybe a few weeks in advance, and even then, will frequently change their minds or cancel outright. Even if you do get your access, whether or not your crew goes from the platform onto the tracks is wholly contingent on the flagging crews having their end of the game together -- which is indeed quite the question. This is why I'm such a fan of Christmas Tree GOs, but that's a different story.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

49 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Not to derail too much, but the big drivers on MTA costs (I'm talking small projects -- megaprojects are a different ball game) are the bidding processes, liability, consultants, and access.

Beyond the misguided 'lowest bidder' dogma that VG8 mentions, the amount of (until recently, literal) paperwork that has to be filled out to even be considered on an MTA project defies imagination -- which of course means your contract lawyers are gonna be working overtime. That kills a bunch of bidders, and gives others reasons to increase costs beyond baseline.

Now in these agreements, the MTA frequently stipulates that bidders absorb full liability for nearly any damages -- even if the there root of the issue is clearly MTA. Got a problem with that? You can take that up with an MTA-run review board. There's another round of bidders out, and another round of premiums.

Then consultants. The MTA will usually (needlessly) assign some consultant to projects; said consultants generate a ton of material for little use. But if you're caught not following the consultant's engineering guidelines, you can be sued for breach of contract, meaning all 10,000 pages on what an outlet looks like have to be read by someone. And if you need to communicate with that consultant, or with their MTA boss? Good luck. MTA projects are famous for their lack of single point accountability. 

Then we get to access. For obvious reasons, many MTA contracts require some sort of trackway access. The MTA will tell contractors that they can have x track for y hours, but they will usually do that maybe a few weeks in advance, and even then, will frequently change their minds or cancel outright. Even if you do get your access, whether or not your crew goes from the platform onto the tracks is wholly contingent on the flagging crews having their end of the game together -- which is indeed quite the question. This is why I'm such a fan of Christmas Tree GOs, but that's a different story.

The other thing to consider as someone who has made bids on projects and had to complete RFPs (Requests for proposals) is some of them are written in such a way so as to exclude certain vendors and favor others. It's not that easy to prove either so there's that, and more times than not, it isn't worth exploring either from a legal standpoint.  I've only decided to bother with a few of them over the years. It's a lot of work and more times than not, not worth the aggravation. Even in my field, we have certain projects that require insurance and I'm no longer in the construction field. We chalk it up as the cost of doing business. If I'm going to bring in $20,000 worth of business for my department for a few meetings that last a few hours each then it's probably worth the risk.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

14 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Not to derail too much, but the big drivers on MTA costs (I'm talking small projects -- megaprojects are a different ball game) are the bidding processes, liability, consultants, and access.

Beyond the misguided 'lowest bidder' dogma that VG8 mentions, the amount of (until recently, literal) paperwork that has to be filled out to even be considered on an MTA project defies imagination -- which of course means your contract lawyers are gonna be working overtime. That kills a bunch of bidders, and gives others reasons to increase costs beyond baseline.

Now in these agreements, the MTA frequently stipulates that bidders absorb full liability for nearly any damages -- even if the there root of the issue is clearly MTA. Got a problem with that? You can take that up with an MTA-run review board. There's another round of bidders out, and another round of premiums.

Then consultants. The MTA will usually (needlessly) assign some consultant to projects; said consultants generate a ton of material for little use. But if you're caught not following the consultant's engineering guidelines, you can be sued for breach of contract, meaning all 10,000 pages on what an outlet looks like have to be read by someone. And if you need to communicate with that consultant, or with their MTA boss? Good luck. MTA projects are famous for their lack of single point accountability. 

Then we get to access. For obvious reasons, many MTA contracts require some sort of trackway access. The MTA will tell contractors that they can have x track for y hours, but they will usually do that maybe a few weeks in advance, and even then, will frequently change their minds or cancel outright. Even if you do get your access, whether or not your crew goes from the platform onto the tracks is wholly contingent on the flagging crews having their end of the game together -- which is indeed quite the question. This is why I'm such a fan of Christmas Tree GOs, but that's a different story.

We both know how this works. I'm sure it's legal that has the  doing that crap.  All about covering their @ss so they do it. In the end they say which will cost us more? Hiring consultants or perhaps us being dragged into court and being in the news to boot? I think you know which answer makes the most sense from a PR and cost standpoint, but I agree with you.  More of a question of them doing their due diligence.

[MysteriousBtrain]

https://nypost.com/2019/01/21/cuomos-mta-moves-show-what-a-real-dictator-looks-like/amp/

President Trump has backed off his threat to bypass Congress by declaring a national emergency to build his wall. Meanwhile, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is effectively seizing emergency powers to end-run the MTA board with his L-train repair plan.

And they call Trump dictatorial?

On Thursday, the MTA said it’s going ahead with the gov’s plan to make critical repairs to the tunnel without the previously scheduled 15-month total shutdown.

That preempts what had been an expected vote Thursday by the MTA board, some of whose members have raised concerns about the new plan. Now the agency says no vote’s needed after all, because it doesn’t expect the drastic change of plan to hike costs.

Which, as The Post reported Saturday, infuriated some of the board: “We spent three to four hours in an emergency board meeting,” one member, Andrew Albert, fumed. “Obviously, this was all for naught.”

Board members could sue over the dubious move — but even those appointed by Mayor Bill de Blasio have to fear the gov, since they have other interests he can threaten. (Nice nonprofit you have there; what a shame if its funding got cut off …)

Yes, the new approach devised by Cuomo’s outside experts may well turn out to be safe, efficient and the best way forward. So why the gov’s goonish refusal to allow normal scrutiny?

In fact, Cuomo’s allergy to oversight led to the Buffalo Billion scandals that sent several of his close associates to prison. A closer review of those contracts before they got the go-ahead might’ve prevented the corruption that ensued. Yet Cuomo hates the idea of returning pre-contract review authority to the state comptroller.

Heck, the MTA itself could’ve used more oversight of such megaprojects as the $11 billion East Side Access (plagued by huge cost overruns and delays) and the Second Avenue Subway — both of which wound up sucking up MTA resources and so contributed to the deterioration of the subway system.

Meanwhile, the gov wants even more power over the transit agency, via legislation to let him pick a majority of board members. (His appointees now get just six out of 14 votes.) Why bother, if he’s only going to bully and bypass the board anyway?

Cuomo may detest having boards or outside reviewers vet his ideas. But the record shows that New Yorkers are at risk whenever he gets away with tossing transparency.