Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have much of a problem with the amount per se as it's a large system and NYC is a major economic engine for the state and country while good transit projects are usually economic multipliers overall--it's more than warranted given how much federal revenue and state revenue is derived from the city and metropolitan area. My problem with MTA is usually the efficacy in the projects they choose to fund and how well they can get things done compared to other major metropolitan areas in developed countries.
In terms of the efficacy of the projects this is supposed to fund, the priorities of signal upgrades, remaking the bus network, changing out old and failing rolling stock, continuously welded rail, making better use of the existing commuter rail network, etc. are all important and fairly good and many of these upgrades actually mean lower operating costs in the future such as electric buses and getting rid of very proprietary and old equipment for which sourcing of replacement parts is virtually impossible.
At the very least, the good thing is that there doesn't appear to be completely boneheaded moves like those in recent capital improvement plans such as not combining the first and second phase of the Second Avenue Subway or opting to go for a massive two deep bore terminal stations with two levels of decking each and a massive interlocking for East Side Access instead of something like a single bore, single deck with tail tracks and diamond crossovers and putting the money into expanding as far south with express stops as possible with the idea of eventually tailing into Atlantic Terminal for through-running.
This still leaves me with the latter question about MTA costs per miles, costs per station, and the loose delivery schedule of recent years which have been woefully out of step with improvement and expansion costs in places like London and Paris. If MTA generally costs three to four times per mile of track or per station for like projects in those also expensive and dense cities, then this means that the same amount could have paid for three or four times the amount of improvements made here. I think MTA needs to really make the case for why this time around the efficacy isn't going to be ridiculous like the past many years.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 09-17-2019 at 09:37 AM..
I don't have much of a problem with the amount per se as it's a large system and NYC is a major economic engine for the state and country while good transit projects are usually economic multipliers overall--it's more than warranted given how much federal revenue and state revenue is derived from the city and metropolitan area. My problem with MTA is usually the efficacy in the projects they choose to fund and how well they can get things done compared to other major metropolitan areas in developed countries.
In terms of the efficacy of the projects this is supposed to fund, the priorities of signal upgrades, remaking the bus network, changing out old and failing rolling stock, continuously welded rail, making better use of the existing commuter rail network, etc. are all important and fairly good. At the very least, the good thing is that there doesn't appear to be completely boneheaded moves like the last round of capital projects such as not combining the first and second phase of the Second Avenue Subway or opting to go for a massive two deep bore terminal stations with two levels of decking each and a massive interlocking for East Side Access instead of something like a single bore, single deck with tail tracks and diamond crossovers and putting the money into expanding as far south with express stops as possible with the idea of eventually tailing into Atlantic Terminal for through-running.
This still leaves me with the latter question about MTA costs per miles, costs per station, and the loose delivery schedule of recent years which have been woefully out of step with improvement and expansion costs in places like London and Paris. If MTA generally costs three to four times per mile of track or per station for like projects in those also expensive and dense cities, then this means that the same amount could have paid for three or four times the amount of improvements made here. I think MTA needs to really make the case for why this time around the efficacy isn't going to be ridiculous like the past many years.
This new leg of 2nd Avenue Subway promises to beat the record as the most expensive project per mile in the world again. I hear it's at $6.9 billion now, and they don't even have shovels in the ground yet. It promises to be another 10+ year $10+ billion debacle again. Overall, however I think this plan is actually quite good, IF they get all of that money.
By the way, Albany hasn't even supplied the money they promised for the last capital plan. To execute the plan, MTA was borrowing money against State funding promises...
This new leg of 2nd Avenue Subway promises to beat the record as the most expensive project per mile in the world again. I hear it's at $6.9 billion now, and they don't even have shovels in the ground yet. It promises to be another 10+ year $10+ billion debacle again. Overall, however I think this plan is actually quite good, IF they get all of that money.
By the way, Albany hasn't even supplied the money they promised for the last capital plan. To execute the plan, MTA was borrowing money against State funding promises...
Yea, and I really hate that they released such a high number, because it is inconceivable that it really does need to be that high while stating such a number virtually guarantees that the bids are going to hit in that range (though not necessarily final costs). That's a number that should have built the entire second avenue subway from phase 1 to phase 4 so stating that for phase 2 was a boneheaded move.
Yea, and I really hate that they released such a high number, because it is inconceivable that it really does need to be that high while stating such a number virtually guarantees that the bids are going to hit in that range (though not necessarily final costs). That's a number that should have built the entire second avenue subway from phase 1 to phase 4 so stating that for phase 2 was a boneheaded move.
In any other first world city in Europe, this project would cost $1-2 billion max.
In any other first world city in Europe, this project would cost $1-2 billion max.
In any other first world city abroad:
- the amount spent on the first phase of the second avenue subway probably would have covered making the entire line and not have gone through assembling and taking apart the tunnel boring machines multiple times along with the various teams.
- the amount spent on the East Side Access would have been--lol, just kidding, they wouldn't have done that project at all. Instead they would have spent the equivalent or less on something a lot more useful like the Crossrail program in London to make the commuter rail through-run in the urban core instead of another terminal station and interlocking. In this case, for the same amount and probably less time, it would have been running LIRR past Grand Central to downtown Manhattan with a few stops in between and then over to Atlantic Terminal to do through-running which would have also lowered operational costs per mile. Probably would've had a station on 63rd street where LIRR will be running right under the 63rd street F/Q station for a transfer.
- the amount spent on the new WTC station would have been far less and they maybe would have used those funds and excavation to have merged the PATH-WTC and 6 train lines and improved service along the new combined route.
The capital programs in the recent past aren't just failures of cost control--they're failures in lost opportunity in basic planning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antinimby
With better quality and shorter amount of time too. Everything about NYC nowadays is so dysfunctional.
The US as a whole has had a terrible track record with infrastructure and mass transit for decades now. The price differential is worse in NYC than other US cities, but it's that way across the board when compared to other developed countries.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 09-17-2019 at 12:19 PM..
This plan eventually will result in higher fares....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
