Comments on: On building subway lines during recessions

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:56:23 +0000

Some of the confusion arises from the fact that Phase II could easily be split into a Phase IIA (to 106th and 116th Streets) and a Phase IIB (to 125th St.)

Phase IIA relies mostly on existing tunnels, consists essentially of building two stations, and will be *much* cheaper than Phase I.

Phase IIB involves entirely new tunnels, which must be curved and sloped (so, mined by hand largely), must feature bellmouths for a turnout to a future line to the Bronx, and terminate in a station underneath both the IRT tunnels and Metro-North viaduct — requiring extensive and complex underpinning. It’s not East Side Access, but it’s much more complex than Phase I.

By: Woody

Woody — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:28:24 +0000

According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, we’re spending $265 million a day in Afghanistan and about $400 million a day in Iraq. If we could get out of Iraq and Afghanistan for just three (3) days, the savings from peace would cover the unfunded $1.5 billion portion of Phase I, with enough left over for the usual cost overruns.

Pardon my daydreaming.

By: Julia

Julia — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:26:48 +0000

Congrats on the press coverage!

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:30:54 +0000

Ed: I hope you appreciate the amusing aspect of what you just did. You told me that Phase I is in “real jeopardy” by citing a Launch Box blog post that cited one of my posts from October. I’m well aware that not all of the SAS has funding yet, and I’m well aware that Paterson is hedging on fully funding the MTA’s capital plan. But the agency has the funding for two-thirds of the plan, and you can bet that this $20 billion will cover the rest of the Phase I budget.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:24:53 +0000

Benjamin – appreciate the post, but word in NYC political circles has it that Phase I is in real jeopardy right now, there are large and growing budget gaps even for this first phase – sucks but not hard to see.

The Launch Box recently mentioned this gap – $1.5B at least that is NOT funded:

“Page 2 of the report shows a budgeted amount of $1.487 Billion for the “Second Avenue Subway that has not yet been funded. This amount is part of the MTA’s proposed 2010-2014 Capital Program, and all of this amount is scheduled to be provided by “local sources,” which I assume means New York State.

As reported on 2nd Ave. Sagas in early October, Governor Paterson has called the MTA’s 2010-2014 Capital Program “simply unaffordable given New York’s current fiscal condition.” One has to wonder if there is any chance that construction could be held up, or even stopped, because of the current fiscal crisis – which would be just like what happened to the project back in the 1970s.”

http://thelaunchbox.blogspot.c.....-2009.html

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:08:45 +0000

When most people see your comment that Phase II relies on existing tunnel, and if they have not seen the FEIS, they conclude that it will be a lot cheaper to build. In that sense, I think you are misleading people.

The 10% cost difference is insignificant. It is normal for cost estimates to have at least a 10% error factor, so to a first-order approximation Phases I and II cost the same amount. You can therefore assume that the MTA will have as much trouble funding Phase II as it has had funding Phase I.

I say that as someone who wants all four phases to happen. But we need to understand that, realistically, the existence of an already-built tunnel for part of the route does not help very much.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:48:35 +0000

No one has said that Phase II will be “much” cheaper, but as your numbers point out, the initial estimates had Phase II more than ten percent cheaper than Phase I. Even with rising costs, that’s not insignificant.

Additionally, because of the existence of the tunnels north of 96th St., there will be a good amount of pressure on the MTA to make use of those through Phase II. I maintain that we’ll see it happen, and there’s nothing “highly misleading” about that.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:45:04 +0000

It is highly misleading to say that Phase II “relies on preexisting tunnel,” as if to suggest that this makes it cheaper or easier.

In the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the costs given for Phases I and II were $3.8 billion and $3.4 billion respectively. Obviously those costs are no longer accurate, but it gives an idea of the relative degree of difficulty of the two phases. The existence of a portion of the tunnel doesn’t make Phase II much cheaper.

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:24:14 +0000

Well done!