Over at the Infrastructurist today, Yonah Freemark took a slideshow look at the ten most expensive North American transit projects from the past decade. Number one was the $2.63-billion, 10.7-mile Tren Urbano, and the list includes New Jersey’s HudsonBergen Light Rail, Los Angeles’ $1.9 billion red line extension and the New Jersey River Line. Missing from the list is the Second Ave. Subway, and it’s staggering, really, to think about Phase I of the SAS in this context. The MTA’s subway spur north from 57th St. is going to cover approximately two miles and will cost somewhere close to $5 billion while these other projects cost half as much and cover miles of ground. Is the Second Ave. Subway truly worth it?
On the ten most expensive transit projects of the decade
previous post
21 comments
Maybe the Bush years have jaded me but we spent what a Billion a week in Iraq? Somehow 5 billion just doesnt seem like that much to me anymore.
s the Second Ave. Subway truly worth it? Adding more transit capabilities in densely populated areas, allows for more density to be built right where it’s needed most. Sure, it’s easier to build a freeway to nowhere. That’s why we did it with aplomb for decades. But the enivornmental and social cost of sprawl is immense. We just can’t afford to build like that anymore. Those projects go through remarkably list dense areas and so cost less. Would it make it more sense to build better transit in Queens, Jersey City, Newark and Brooklyn and add to the density there? It might, but remember that still ends up stretching the dense central core. And that will encourage more people to move even farther out.
It’s actually not easier to build a freeway. Freeway tunnels cost much more than subway tunnels, because of the need for a wider right of way and for ventilation structures. The difference is, with freeways the government didn’t mind demolishing entire neighborhoods to build them at-grade or in trench. With subways, it does.
I’m sorry Alon, but as an engineer, that generalisation doesn’t work. The volume of a freeway tunnel may be greater. But a large piece of the costs are fixed start-up, not dependent on material removed. Rail will need a much stronger foundation since the weights are so much more. Additionally you have to build a power infrastructure, and while that’s not visible to the rider, it’s not cheap. All new rail construction includes ventilation fans for emergencies, car tunnels need them depending on legnth and depth.
All urban construction is expensive. But the volume of a tunnel is less of a factor than you think.
But is there political and community support for increasing density around the SAS stations? The East Side of Manhattan is already among the most densely populated parts of the US and I didn’t think there was any major rezoning effort from the city to allow 60 story highrises as-of-right on 96th Street or in the East Village.
The density was added in the 1970s, when the area was upzoned in anticipation of the completion of SAS then.
There’s no real need for further TOD on the Upper East Side, which is the most densely populated neighborhood in the developed world that isn’t in Hong Kong. The blocks abutting 2nd Avenue have densities in the 60,000-80,000/km^2 range.
My excitement about the SAS is what drew me to this blog in the first place. But the more I learn about other options, the less I’m sure it is worth it. Really well done BRT would be so much cheaper, and what about an elevated line? Couldn’t they build a quieter, nicer-looking elevated train than the existing ones? What about elevating the SAS for the second and third phases?
Yes, I think you could argue that BRT done right would provide more bang for the buck than a subway. I don’t have all the data, but it’s the right question to ask.
I am as certain as I can be that there will never be another elevated train built in Manhattan, or in any other densely populated NYC neighborhood. Outside of railfans, elevated lines face practically 100 percent community opposition.
The AirTrain was built elevated, but it passed through areas that already had so much infrastructure that almost nobody cared. You can’t, and won’t, get that done on Second Avenue.
As a bit of history, the people out in Queens did care about the Airtrain, but the PA ignored them.
Rudy and the Queens boro president pushed that plan to extend the N train towards LGA, elevated, and the locals there did help beat it down. Plus the lack of funds.
BRT doesn’t provide the capacity that a subway does, and more capacity is what is needed.
An elevated line is very difficult to build through a developed area. Because the existing els in NYC are steel structures, rather than concrete, they are very noisy. People assume that a new el will also be noisy. Also, if the width of an el is too wide as compared to the width of a street, it will block out too much sunlight. People like quiet and sunshine.
I think that it is possible to build els through developed residential neighborhoods in NYC, but it won’t be easy. Public perceptions first need to change. To make this change, I believe that the MTA needs to find someplace where they can build a short el, through a residential neighborhood, so that people can see what a modern one is like. That would give people a new frame of reference, which I believe would make new els more attractive.
I agree entirely with the last paragraph. I really think what the MTA should do is pick one of the elevated lines somewhere in the system, and invest in converting it into a modern, concrete elevated line (forget the fact for the moment that the MTA has no money, we all know that). It would involve massive outages on that line (having to replace the structure segment by segment), but the result would be a prime example of what can be done with a modern concrete elevated line. The Culver Viaduct could have been a test case, but as its in progress and travels through an industrial area, it might not be the best test case. The Astoria line or the Myrtle Ave line, relatively short spurs through more residential communities, might make good trial runs for such an effort.
Such an effort could help to spur more elevated development in the future. I doubt elevateds would ever return to Manhattan, but never say never. Modern elevated line construction could be a solution to expanding the system in the outer boroughs.
There’s a long list of reasons why that could never happen. The most obvious is: if the MTA suddenly had money to burn, why spend it on replacing an old elevated line, merely as a “test case,” when there are many other neighborhoods with very poor or no transit access where the money could be invested far more usefully?
That is a problem. Also, once one steel el is replaced with a quiet concrete el, there would be demand for more steel els to be replaced.
I was thinking more of an extension. As an example, splitting the L line (it would still go to Canarsie,) south of New Lots Ave, so that it also runs to Starrett City. Linden Blvd, and Pennsylvania Ave. (south of Linden) are very wide, so a modern two track el would not be so visually obtrusive.
Heh… imagine telling the residents of America’s wealthiest ZIP code that their new subway was going to be an elevated…. They would suddenly decide they don’t need it anymore.
Well, do you mean, “Is the SAS truly worth it?’ or do you mean “Was the SAS truly worth it?”
It’s not like we have a do-over opportunity here. We’ve got a billion or so sunk in the ground with design work done, land condemned and purchased, contracts let, several blocks cut and barely covered, tunnel boring machines bought and ready to drop into that cut, and so forth. To me there’s no turning back.
Anyway, we turned back once in my lifetime already, and I’m in no mood to wait another 35 years. Take another little pause now and think it will get cheaper? They’ll use lasers to cut the rock next time or sumpin? Somehow I doubt it.
So I take your question as rhetorical. And I give thanks to Chuck Schumer for the $79 million (see above). Every little bit helps to close the gap and get this thing done.
The question is really about the alternatives. Light rail and/or a better BRT system would have cost far less and taken less time to build. I’m all in favor of the SAS, but it’s clear that (a) the full line is never going to happen because of the cost and (b) the costs are off the charts.
SAS isn’t just straight down the East Side. There is this blindness that the first phase really doesn’t go anywhere. But if you’ve every rode the Times Square Shuttle an awful lot of people go from the Upper East Side to the West Side Subways (IRT and BMT, I’m less sure how many take the hike at Times Square to 8th Ave). Just this phase of SAS will simplify those people’s commute by dropping one transfer. Many that now take the IRT will skip the 2nd transfer even if it’s a slightly longer walk at the destination.
It’s very expensive, yes, but will be worth it. None of the other alternatives gives you improved west side access. I hope when the southern portion is built (maybe another generation) they go 4 tracks (at least 3) for improved capacity and operational flexibility. Another part never mentioned is that the 63rd St tunnel has provision for trains to connect to SAS going south, i.e. service to/from Queens to 2nd Ave s/o 63rd St. That shouldn’t be ignored. Continuing a 2 track line is going to be capacity constrained.
I judge all transit projects on the Big Dig cost effectiveness sliding scale. A sprawl inducing $15 billion.
If you want to go in that direction, the Big Dig is small change compared to the Iraq War. There’s always a bigger waste. There’s always a bigger murderer, too, but it doesn’t mean you should go around killing people.
I think the full line can easily happen. Once the portion on the UES is complete, the Spanish Harlem tunnels are mostly built. All you need is the stations.
So once the second avenue subway is built to Spanish Harlem, as money comes in, the MTA will built it down to lower Manhattan.
A number of projects proposed in the 60s, were eventually completed many years later, such as the 63 street tunnel, the E to Archer Avenue, etc. The LIRR to grand central was also first worked on in the 70s, and now construction work on that has started.
Look at the new water tunnels being built to NYC. The city finds ways to find certain long term infastructure projects, and eventually FINISHES them.
It is clear that contractors have been charging too much and delivering too little on NYS transit projects, and that oversight has been incompetent.
But that’s all going to change with Jay Walder (yes, I’m an optimist), and I agree with Justin that the Spanish Harlem section is very likely to get built thanks to those existing tunnels. If they can’t get the cost for one station supervised properly, things are even wronger than I expect. So I expect that, one station at a time, it will get done. The push to 125th Street will then become overwhelmingly important, if only to relieve the Lexington line a bit more.