Comments on: Doctoroff Sets Stage for Something Bold, Creative & Expensive

By: Ace

Ace — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:14:15 +0000

I also agree with the wasted cost of deep cavern stations. One of the joys of the NYC subway, as compared to D.C. for example, is the ease and speed of entering and exiting.

By: Angus Grieve-Smith

Angus Grieve-Smith — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:33:18 +0000

Lawrence, all the things you list as objections are just as true (if not more so) in Madrid, Paris and the other European cities that are expanding their transit systems. They're not only extending their metro lines, but they're also building light rail and reviving commuter lines, as New Jersey Transit is doing.

Meanswhile contrast the New York State agencies' reactions to complaints about eminent domain in the Atlantic Yards project vs. the LIRR third track.

And Crzwdjk, I totally agree about all these deep cavern projects, especially the LIRR-Grand Central link.

By: crzwdjk

crzwdjk — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:48:51 +0000

And of course since building is so much trouble, might as well get as much out of it as possible, by making it as expensive as possible. Look at the plans for LIRR to Grand Central and the new Hudson tunnel. Both involve building new deep cavern stations rather than using existing track space, which adds billions to the cost, for absolutely no benefit. Look at the ridiculously overdesigned Second Avenue Subway, with its deep tunnels and huge stations and 11 story ventilation buildings. The original subway system was built in cut and cover tunnels, which did require shoring up buildings, and yet it was built much more quickly and cheaply, with much more primitive tools than we have today. Isn't technology supposed to make things cheaper and easier to build? And how is it that unions are more of a problem here in America than they are in the supposedly socialist Europe?

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:47:04 +0000

I don't think you can compare costs in two different places unless you know the specific realities of each. Many things effect the cost of construction, and $2 billion may buy a whole lot more in one place than another.

As an architect, I can tell you that construction - of any type - is tremendously expensive in NYC. Labor rates are high (not even including union labor, which government contracts often require), access and material transportation are difficult and therefor expensive, strict building standards, high insurence costs, etc, etc.

Think of the difficulties of building a subway that may not exist in Madrid. NYC is a very dense city:

- There are layers of utilities beneith the streets that the new tunnels will either have to avoid (impossible) or the utilities will have to be rerouted. The cost of the rerouting and the temporary utilities will have to be added to the project (since you can't leave the buildings without utilities).

- There are existing buildings on either side of the street that are in the way of the construction causing difficult site access conditions. Difficult site access adds to the cost of the construction, as does limited staging and material strorage areas. Rule of thumb: more difficult = more expensive

- The cost of shoring up existing building foundations will have to be added. I bet there are hundreds of buildings along the route that will be affected

- Site security so materials and tools don't 'walk'

- The added fees to consultants for coordinating the demands and requirements of multiple agencies and community groups. I have worked on several projects (four senior centers, one SRO housing/senior center) for the City, and I can tell you the time requirement here can be tremendous.

By: crzwdjk

crzwdjk — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:17:18 +0000

$2 billion buys you a whole new subway line in Madrid. Why not in Manhattan? Madrid manages to build about 30 miles of subway every four years. New York hasn't built that much, total, since the 1940s. As for light rail, I think the streetcar option is the best for New York, and it can be done relatively cheaply and quickly. Portland built theirs for something like $20 million per mile.

By: Angus Grieve-Smith

Angus Grieve-Smith — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:36:06 +0000

I have to disagree, JK. I've been convinced that BRT as a concept is not worth fighting for by the arguments on this page:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt.htm

I'm happy to see "Quality Bus" improvements like bus bulbs, signal priority, branding, etc., but I think anything that's specifically presented as a "BRT project" is too easy to water down until there's nothing left but a name and a bunch of expensive studies.

I'd like to see an estimated price for a really nice light-rail line in the same corridor, also.

By: JK

JK — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:46:06 +0000

Anybody have transpo infrastructure spending/person numbers for NYC, LA, Chicago, Denver, Phoenix etc? Are other USA metros really spending more than NYC? Our infrastructure is much denser, older and more expensive. However, NYC/ metro NYC has an immense tax base and bondable funding streams compared to anywhere else. One thing that is hurting NYC badly is the insane per mile cost of new subways. $2b/mile is about what a whole new light rail line costs out west, and dwarfs the cost of high end BRT. Speaking of which, I'd like to see NYC cost out a really nice E/W BRT line from Nassau through Qns into Manhattan. Surely it couldnt be more than $250mil/mile.

By: Boon Doggle

Boon Doggle — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:11:23 +0000

Ben - I think his point there was that you have to make the tough choices to get the money lined up to see such projects that should be built get built. Not that it shouldn't be built.

By: Ben K.

Ben K. — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 07:35:23 +0000

Of course, Doctoroff also compared the 2nd Ave. subway to the debacle that is the Freedom Tower and said "We've seen how these things play out before." That's hardly a vote of confidence from a skeptical deputy mayor considering a subway line the city really needs to have completed.

By: TG

TG — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:03:53 +0000

Our situation is not unique. We're hardly the only part of the country that's experiencing growth pains. On a percentage basis, we're growing a lot more slowly than other major metro regions. Those places are facing similar challenges about how to finance the infrastructure they need for growth. The one major difference is that in many of those other regions (especially in the West), political leaders have been willing to step forward and say: infrastructure is vital to our economic prosperity... here's how we should pay for it. In New York, until recently, all we've seen are promises to spend money without any concrete plans for how to raise it. Hopefully Bloomberg can provide some leadership here, stick his neck out, and put a plan on the table. He will no doubt face some political pain for doing so, but hopefully the civic groups will provide him with political cover.