Comments on: Walder vows to end cost overruns, but at what price?

By: Fritz

Fritz — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:08:22 +0000

Cost overruns are a big problem because they are seen by the public as failures of managements. Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t. The problem with what I see happening is if I pay $100,000 for a Porsche and it costs $120,000 I am unhappy. If I pay $100,000 for a Porsche and I get a Chevy I may not have cost overruns but the situation isn’t any better… maybe worse. I don’t know how he’s going to stop cost overruns on SAS or any major capital problems, but if it’s removing a third track needed for increased capacity or not implementing a station then that’s not exactly good either. It’s about getting the most you can for the least money not about setting an arbitrary amount and getting whatever for it. (And I don’t want a Porsche of a Chevy… I want the east side to be better served alleviating pressure on the other lines).

I would be curious what’s driving the overruns. Is it poor estimates from MTA? Is it contractors getting what they can because they know the MTA will pay? Is it poor design leading to having to redo expensive work? A little more nuance and investigation in the mainstream news coverage would be nice…

By: Jerrold

Jerrold — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:00:22 +0000

Nicole Gelinas in the Post makes an excellent point when she says:
“As the Citizens Budget Commission notes in a new report, design costs on the No. 7 extension have doubled because the city and state decided to drop one station — a short-term decision we’ll pay for later.”

As OTHER people have pointed out, the distance between the Times Sq. and Javits Center stations will be the LONGEST gap between any two consecutive “local” stations in the system, except where you cross a river.

By: don anon

don anon — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:32:56 +0000

You’re always right! How could we have questioned your wisdom, oh great purveyor of sublime and awesome truths!

We are not worthy!!!!!

By: Mike HC

Mike HC — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:10:46 +0000

Maybe he will start to actually make real changes, but so far it is still all talk. I tend to take a wait and see approach with stuff like this.

By: Scott E

Scott E — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:56:28 +0000

I agree with Ben. With Walder, it’s like the old Gov. Eliot Spitzer campaign promise – “On Day One, everything changes.” (only I suspect he’ll be more successful than Spitzer, though, in the long run). He’s showing the agency that it’s not Business as Usual anymore. Lets just hope the agency adapts to his ways, and that he doesn’t adapt to the old ways of the agency.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:36:56 +0000

He’s been in office for all of 22 days and hasn’t even had an MTA Board meeting yet. What exactly do you want him to do in that short time?

In fact, I’d say he’s doing exactly what he’s supposed to be doing. Politically, he needs to show that he’s ready to take the bull by the horns. As cliched as it is, these public comments show exactly that.

By: Mike HC

Mike HC — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:12:32 +0000

The only thing this guy has done so far is bring in his friends from London, and posture and pose about changing the culture of the MTA. It is like he is trying to put his “mark” on the system, without actually doing anything yet. He is drawing the line in the sand for a relatively small overrun when the real problems are with the billion dollar projects. What some people may call symbolic and “sending a message,” I see as talking a big game while actually doing nothing.

By: Boris

Boris — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:46:07 +0000

In it’s not about whether a tax is new or old; it’s who gets the money. The disconnect between things like congestion pricing and paying for MTA projects stems from the differences in how we value our time. Congestion pricing will save me (say) $20, but the union or contractor will put a value of $50 on doing the construction that saves me this time. Of course, considering the economies of scale inherent in mass transit, this improvement should cost less than $20.

If construction projects were presented on the open market, this problem would be priced away. I don’t know exactly who is to blame- unions or management- so I would prefer to blame Albany for creating such an inefficient system.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:39:55 +0000

But that’s the point, no one is taking concerned about the management of the project because they have this fail safe measure of “well if we didn’t get this right at this point, we’ll just figure that out later.” That’s bad management and bad fiscal discipline. Walder is saying look, you get it right at the beginning or we don’t do it at all. There’s not second chance to get this right.

I’m a graphic designer, and I’m always SHOCKED at clients that seem to think that the printer bluelines is an appropriate place to fill in details. No. You do all the work up front, and get it right. And when the project is being printed, all you are doing really is looking over the details of the printing process.

Now does that mean we should stop building large scale projects? Absolutely not. We need more subway lines, light rail, and better technology throughout. And we should be investing heavily in upgrading stations. What do need to do is figure how to build get our estimates and project management in line at the beginning. And how to increase the funding stream to be ambitious. Let’s not kill ambition, but let’s make our cost systems more efficient.

By: peter knox

peter knox — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:15:56 +0000

Soon I will again be proven to be a soothsayer. Without fail, if I make a prediction about the SAS, it comes true. It’s uncanny. Since reality ultimately bites every time, the fact that the SAS fiasco will be not 2 million, but, oh, about 2 billion overbudget, will mean drastic cut backs in the design of the stations. The whole project was a boondoggle from the beginning, but I was a Cassandra crying out in vain. And yet I never get the thanks I deserve.