Late last week, MTA honchos and various elected officials gathered underground at 63rd St. to celebrate the end of tunneling for Phase 1 of the Second Ave. Subway. Adi, the tunnel boring machine, broke through to the existing tube just east of Third Ave., and it seems as though there is, after seven decades of starts and stops, no turning back. There will be a part of the Second Ave. Subway sometime this decade.
Despite the accolades and photo ops, though, the subway is a long way off. The MTA has billions to spend and years of construction work ahead. It has to construct numerous auxiliary buildings and three stations, and although the MTA thinks construction will wrap in December 2016, the feds still say construction could last until 2018. That’s a long time for a two-mile extension of a preexisting subway tunnel with a $4.5 billion price tag.
The TBM then provided Carolyn Maloney, the House representative from the Upper East Side, with the perfect opportunity to unveil her third annual report card for the project. After giving the subway project a B- in 2009, she graded it a B last year. This year, it gets another B. Said Maloney:
“The MTA finished digging all the tunnels for the Second Avenue Subway this week – a huge breakthrough for the project and for our mass transit system. The MTA should be congratulated for achieving that milestone five months ahead of schedule. The project continues to score high marks on merit, given that it will serve 213,000 riders on its first day of operation; high marks on economic benefit, since it is providing 16,000 construction jobs at a time of economic hardship; and good marks on communication with the public and on construction management, as more than half the contracts for the subway have been awarded.
“However, the project continues to have a significant, negative impact on the community, with the emergence of new environmental concerns, and the MTA needs to improve its planning, adherence to budget, completion of entrances and ancillary facilities, and progress toward completion. But most of all, the MTA needs to stick to its current completion target of December 2016. Overall, we are awarding the MTA a ‘B,’ buoyed by the completion of the subway tunnels, the economic benefits of the project, and significant progress in awarding contracts.”
As it has been in past years, much of the 2011 report card is fairly obvious. Maloney still loves the project’s merit and potential long-term economic benefits. She also applauded the MTA’s completion of the tunnel boring earlier than anticipated.
Yet, other concerns remain. In grading construction management a B-, she said, “Failure to do due diligence on a contractor at 72nd street has delayed demolition of the Falk buildings; problems with environmental mitigation have sent dust clouds onto the streets near 72nd Street; and problems with engineering of an entrance at 69th Street has residents concerned about possibly experiencing damage to their heating system and other utilities.”
Furthermore, she has called upon the MTA to improve planning (B-) and mitigation of construction impact (C-). Staying on budget gets a C+ when, in reality, it should probably be graded an F. After all, the MTA once thought Phase 1 would cost around $3.8 billion. But ultimately she seems to like the project and wants the MTA to devote enough resources toward its completion:
“The MTA has an ambitious construction schedule, and it needs to put its full attention to making sure that this project is moving forward with all deliberate speed. However, without a new Chair who is committed to complete the subway and without assurance that state funding will be forthcoming, this project may never be finished. The completion date for the project has been extended significantly over the years, but there were no further delays in 2011 or 2010 – a welcome development. Future delays would make this project more difficult and costly to complete. The MTA must take all steps necessary to ensure that it does not exceed its current project completion date.
Completion of the tunnels brings great hope that early problems are being resolved and that this project will stay within its current timetable and budget. There is a lot more work to be done, but there is also a growing sense that a Second Avenue Subway may soon be a reality.
One day, someone with study the MTA’s planning process for the Second Ave. Subway. We’ll find out why it costs so much and why it’s taking so long to complete. That isn’t Maloney’s report though. Hers is an effort to get the MTA to fix its process and its relationship with the neighborhood. It’s a admirable goal but one that only gets us halfway there.
28 comments
So this city’s biggest transit accomplishment of this new century is taking 10 years and going over budget to build two couple-of-miles-long subway line extensions. I think Tokyo built another full-length subway line on budget while I typed this…
You know a weird thing about Tokyo and I don’t quite understand why this is … but it takes probably 3x as long to build a private building in Tokyo has it does in NYC. I was reading recently about a new building in Tokyo that people were amazed it took 5 years from property purchase to opening day. Quotes in the article were marveling that it took less than 10 years. And it was a small building.
I could chalk this up to public versus private but the Tokyo Metro is private as well. Although perhaps because of government rules is given more leeway to build faster than building new buildings. (They have two systems one is public and one is now private.)
Of course we still have twice as many many stations and lines as Tokyo. And started only 23 years earlier.
Tokyo has many, many more stations and lines than New York. What are you talking about?
Only if you count JR commuter lines. The Toei Subway and Tokyo Metro combined still don’t hit outnumber the NYCS’ track milage and 468 stations.
From a passenger’s point of view, there is no meaningful disinction in Tokyo between a “subway” and a “commuter line” (note that there are many lines besides those operated by JR) except whether they are below or above the surface — they use the same scheduling frequencies, operating practices, and rolling stock. It’s essentially all one giant system, which operates pretty much like the subway does in NYC (with the notable exception of 24h service of course!).
Indeed, subways and surface rail lines are highly interlined, with trains from a commuter line on one end running into the subway (owned by a different company), crossing the city in normal service, and then onto a 3rd company’s surface line. [and in the case of the Tokyu Toyoko line, trains are interlined with another subway on the other end of the track as well, in Yokohama]
So the “metro” / “non-metro” split often seen on websites, while it may fit U.S. cities well, makes no sense for Tokyo.
Tokyo’s rail-transport system is way bigger than NYC’s. Ignore the “subway” vs. “non-subway” distinction, it’s not meaningful in Tokyo.
No, the private railroads, which had built their systems to the Yamanote Line by the 1940s, were private. Tokyo Metro was public in the relevant time period, though (1950s-80s).
Of course Tokyo subways sometimes go over budget and take forever too … still cheap and timely compared to the 2nd ave subway of course!
Just think of all the cool subways NYC could build if they could bring prices down to semi-rational levels…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....1929-1940)
This, pretty much. Depression and WWII killed that.
It brings to mind Kzaral’s “too positive” tokyo rail map (the real map is here)…
[I always get a kick out of the title… :]
I don’t think you can say the Depression and World War II killed subway expansion when, from 1930 onwards, we instead saw a huge expansion of the highway network. It wasn’t a lack of money, it was a change in priorities.
It was both, really. In 1930s’ New York, planners wanted to build both subways and expressways; the full Robert Moses mode war only began later. But there was a huge bias against els, which is why most IND construction was just el replacement rather than new routes. There was also a preference for overengineered designs: 55 mph curves, full-length mezzanines, underground flying junctions, flyovers at terminals. Sixth Avenue Line, built around the Hudson Tubes and below the el, was the single worst. The budget for the Second System was used up in the cost overruns for the initial IND, the Depression and then the war made it impossible to get more subway expansion funds, and the rest is history.
I almost always prefer the ride the IND over the IRT or BMT because it was “overengineered.” I hate how the IRT and BMT always go so slow around corners and they always have such uncomfortably narrow stairs, and their platforms are often too narrow as well. They feel 3rd world in comparison to the IND. Compared with the DC Metro or BART, even the IND is under-engineered.
WMATA, BART and MARTA had the advantage of learning from NYC and modern design and construction. In addition to that, their systems have much larger distances between stations and had the advantage of not really dealing with the ultra-dense street grid that NYC had to deal with, allowing for longer curves and higher speeds.
I almost always prefer to ride the IRT, because it gets me to where I want to go, and has local/express transfers that are mildly useful. On the Upper West Side, the B/C is usually faster than the 1, much less frequent, and farther from where most people live.
Planners may have wanted both, but those who held the pursestrings decided to pay for expressways instead of subways.
I would imagine life on the street would improve slightly, now that there won’t be dump-truck after dump-truck hauling away the “muck” pulled out by the TBM, not to mention the dust it caused.
No they still have to excavate the caverns for the stations.
Understood, but it won’t be the steady rate that they got from the TBM (which also generated tiny, dusty pieces)… plus, it won’t all come out at the launch box at (or near) 96th St. I’d imagine the stuff mined out of 86th St will come out at that location. So I guess for the folks in that area, it may get worse.
Maloney should ask whether the pols are part of the problem.
The years of planning, and all the concern about construction effects, have limited construction impacts to be sure. But it also extended those impacts over a much longer period of time. And people aren’t happier anyway.
Perhaps the MTA should learn the lesson of “you can’t please anybody” and take a “rip the band aid off quick” approach to future construction, if there is any. The worst part about this for the UES is how long it went on. The worst part overall is how much this and ESA cost.
Larry, completely agree. Having lived one block from the launch box now for 4 years, a “rip the band aid off” approach would’ve been better than the slow pace.
that being said, I think we are all underestimating the cost and complexity of building an ADA-compliant deep station vs. a cut&cover, non-accessible station
It makes sense that deep vs. cut and cover would add complexity and cost. But I don’t think I buy that ADA compliance is that onerous. (And if it is, we should consider scaling back the legislation.)
ADA compliance might be pretty onerous from one perspective: real estate acquisition.
That said, an ADA-compliant cut & cover is probably a reasonable compromise. It’s cheaper, follows the “rip the band-aid off” model, and ADA compliance can be achieved with some strategically placed elevators. I would expect elevators are generally preferable to ramps anyway.
Most new subways today are wheelchair-accessible and deep-level. (However, best industry practice for cutting construction costs, in Madrid, is to build as close to the surface as practical.)
Why either or? I’d always thought a shallow, cut-and-cover station would be more accessible.
I was at the deep 53rd & Lex when it’s upward escalator was down and everyone *had* to climb. Folks either raced up the stairs or went one step at a time. I raced and my calves got a workout, but a woman that I passed by, who took her time, was wheezing and was barely catching her breath. That’s the outlook for the SAS stations, I guarantee it.
Maybe new shallow stations could have low-maintenance wheelchair ramps (like 8th Avenue on the L, if that is indeed a wheelchair compliant grade) instead of high-maintenance escalators.
The ramps at 8th Avenue lead to stairs. They are not for wheelchairs. Wheelchairs have an elevator to the platform.
Shallow stations don’t normally have escalators at all – except for ADA, which requires elevators (or ramps, but ramps are usually impractical), they only have stairs.
Elevators are almost always a boon though, as they help many people besides the “ADA folk” — e.g. those with bulky and awkward luggage. The ADA may sometimes result in absurdities, but I don’t think elevators are among them.
As predicted, the TBM has finished its work, and on the surface the utilities are still being relocated. The utility work at all the station location could have started earlier and work done more diligently. Instead, the contracts were awarded with delay, after the contracts were awarded no real work was done for years in some cases, though fencing and materials were in place. The Sandhogs are professionals, and worked as they should have. The pace of the surface work is unreasonably delinquent. So now we have tunnels and much of the rest of the project has barely broken ground. Unreal.
I hope there are independent management studies of this project. So many of the major decisions (start with the design criteria) and the management (in every aspect) is goofy. It might help future projects come closer to the norms of the rest of the world. Ok, I’m an optimist.