Comments on: A call for inspections with 181st closed indefinitely

By: Jason B

Jason B — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:07:08 +0000

And funding was clearly the problem here. The MTA actually just got approved for funding last Friday to get the station roof fixed after proposing it in 2008. According to the MTA press release issued today they had been quite aware of the problem and had modified the 2005-2009 Capital program to include repairs, even installing protection over the pedestrian bridge. I understand that the agency should be more on top of its own system, but we are also talking about a system quite old and quite large. In nearly every aspect of infrastructure (any type) there will reach a point where routine maintenance is no longer enough, and replacement/overhaul is needed, and while replacement is needed in a lot of places now, they money just isn't there to address it at once. Hopefully more focus on the urgency of bringing the entire system to a state of good repair will result from this.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:36:44 +0000

A nitpick: the 181st Street station has 11,000 boardings per weekday, not 25,000 (link). Total ridership on the 1 north of 168th is 58,000 per weekday. But even if you use the 1 strictly south of 181st, as most people do, the accident means longer headways. I saw a sign at 110th saying that people should expect to wait 8-12 minutes longer.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:14:42 +0000

I spoke to the foreman myself. He said that they are not allowed to have accidents especially ones with an injury. An employee ended up reporting the accident to his supervisor and that contractors crew wasn’t seen on that job again. They had been there every weekend for weeks at that point.

By: Scott E

Scott E — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:03:33 +0000

It makes sense that they have in-house employees to handle the routine stuff, even “routine emergencies” (track work, signal failures, etc). But I seriously doubt that they have a crew on standby that reinforces concrete and builds ceilings when they collapse. It happens so rarely that it wouldn’t make sense. And I doubt the contractor, in this case, was a low-bidder; there simply wasn’t enough time to carry-out the bid process. I’m sure they just went to one of their preferred contractors, explained the problem, and quickly negotiated payment terms. Perhaps they already had them on a “retainer” in the event of something like this.

Tony, I don’t doubt what you said you saw at Chambers Street happened, but I seriously doubt it was for the reasons stated.

By: Jerrold

Jerrold — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:39:31 +0000

My comment was:

For a change I totally agree with Bloomberg about something.
He said something today about how it was lucky that nobody was killed when that ceiling collapsed.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:33:11 +0000

The TA does have extremely qualified workers to handle all work that needs to be done. There is a infastructure department with skilled tradesman. The main reason the TA opts for the contractors is because they aren’t required by the TA to follow the same safety procedures that the in-house employees must follow. By not having to follow these safety protocols you can work faster with less overall employees. When the contractors get injured they do everything possible to hide the injury and not report it. I witness a contractor at chambers street fall off a ladder and crack his head open on the tracks. His foreman demanded the other workers to lift him off of the tracks and carry him to the street where he will take him to a doctor. This man needed an ambulance and should not have been moved.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:32:15 +0000

Jerrold: There’s no sign of a comment from you. I was having server problems a few hours ago. Perhaps if you resubmit it, it will show up this time. It was nothing targeted to you and nothing personal. I can assure you of that.

By: Jerrold

Jerrold — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:28:43 +0000

HOW COME THE COMMENT THAT I POSTED DISAPPEARED?

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:56:02 +0000

It is surely a gross exaggeration to suggest that work done by contractors is never done correctly.

And if ever there were a job that ought to be handled this way, it’s this one. I mean, it’s not as if station ceilings collapse every day. No agency could be expected to have permanent staff capable of repairing this type of problem.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:38:50 +0000

A key part of this story is that the MTA has hired a contractor to fix the damage. This means that it is most likely not going to be done correctly. The MTA takes the lowest bidder on the contracts and then those companies sub out the work to contractors that do it for even less with poor safety procedures and low paid not as skilled workers.