AsidesView from Underground

Once more unto the MTA’s trash cans

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 31, 2012

The MTA’s announcement yesterday that they would be eliminating trash cans at eight more stations throughout the city was not exactly met with applause. Despite the fact that the pilot has apparently led to fewer rats and lower trash collection costs without a corresponding increase in litter or track fires, New Yorkers seem to fear counterintuitive change, and press coverage is replete with riders outraged at being asked to carry their garbage all the way up a flight of stairs to the nearest Department of Sanitation receptacle on the street. I can’t say I’m too surprised there.

What is surprising though are some of the excuses transit rider advocates are putting forward. In covering the story today, Matt Flegenheimer of The Times spoke with Straphangers’ head Gene Russianoff. As is the nature of his organization, Gene is very defensive of changes to the subway system that could impact riders whether these changes lead to a net gain or not. His take: “If you have a big, drippy ice cream cone, what are you going to do? Stuff it in your purse?”

Besides the fact that, as a long-time reader noted, one eats the container when devouring a big drippy ice cream cones, I had another question: What is anyone doing eating a big drippy ice cream cone on the subway in the first place? The subways — not exactly known for cleanliness — are hardly the spot for a meal, let alone something that’s going to cause a mess, and it’s debatable whether someone should be eating anything that requires much clean up while traveling around.

So perhaps we’re looking at this the wrong way. Perhaps the solution is to examine why people are eating underground, what they’re eating underground and whether we should continue to allow people to eat underground. Plenty of subway systems — DC, Singapore and even our own PATH system — don’t allow food and don’t have trash cans, or rodents, all over the place. No one yet has succumbed to a subway food ban-induced starvation.

42 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
TWU

Amidst private negotiations, a public statement on OPTO

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 31, 2012

For months now, the MTA and TWU Local 100 — its largest union — have been coexisting in a steady state of unease. TWU members have been working without a contract since mid-January, and MTA CEO and Chairman Joseph J. Lhota has been working with TWU President John Samuelsen, in private, to hammer out a deal. After vowing to keep negotiations out of the press, though, Samuelsen broke that vow in a big way yesterday while bringing the issue of one-person train operations back into the open.

The details are sketchy, but apparently, the MTA recently broached the topic of OPTO with the TWU. In response, Samuelsen and, for some reason, two reverends from Brooklyn took to Huffington Post to voice their objections. While also speaking out against part-time bus drivers, Samuelsen voiced his objections to OPTO on the same old grounds we’ve been hearing for years:

While the MTA currently uses OPTO on shuttles and on the G train during nights and weekends, these trains only use four cars when in operation. Expanding OPTO to full length trains increases the risks to passengers while they are entering or exiting the trains, greatly raises the difficulties and hazards involved if a train has to be evacuated, and makes it harder for a passenger who needs assistance to get it. This is especially important at a time when crime on the subways is rising. We believe that the presence of uniformed conductors on our trains is vital for the safety and assistance of passengers, especially in our full-length trains.

In response, the MTA had nothing to say. Lhota offered up a statement while taking a shot at the union: “Unlike John, I’m going to honor my promise not to negotiate in the press.” I don’t blame him; penning an open letter and publishing it to the Huffington Post isn’t only a trite cliche but a rather public statement. But at least it gives us a glimpse into the negotiations, and it appears as though the MTA is at least trying to exact work-rule changes that most sensible transit agencies adopted years ago.

And what of Samuelsen’s arguments? First, let’s do away with his appeal to rising crime rates. The numbers are going up because people’s gadgets are getting lifted at a higher rate. With a strong sense of safety, straphangers are more willing to play it faster and looser with high-priced electronics than they should, and petty thieves can snatch and grap. No amount of on-train personnel will change that.

His other arguments are an appeal to personal fear. If a train has to be evacuated, having one person on board makes it that much harder. Of course, that’s true, but how often do trains have to be evacuated? The last time a train ran into such an emergency was during the blizzard of December 2010, and even then, having a train conductor and a train operator did little to get customers out of the system any faster. It’s a spurious argument at best and one that can be dismissed with a simple cost-benefit analysis. The cost of employing two people on every single train the MTA runs far outweighs the minor benefits of one extra person during an extremely rare evacuation.

And so we are left at an impasse. The MTA wants to enact a net-zero wage increase when this TWU contract is eventually renewed, and the TWU wants more jobs and more money for its employed union members. OPTO has been a sticking point for the better part of a decade, but it’s also a future that New York needs. A mess of public negotiating though doesn’t help anyone.

186 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New York City Transit

Transit adds eight stations to trash can-less pilot

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 30, 2012

Signs posted in the pilot stations urge riders to take their trash with them.

Amidst a healthy dose of New York City skepticism, Transit unveiled a pilot program late last year that saw trash cans disappear. In an effort to cut down on litter and trash collection costs, the MTA believed that without trash cans, straphangers would simply carry their garbage out of the system with them. While many pointed to those rude enough to throw garbage on the tracks, the vast majority of people aren’t such pigs, and Transit’s pilot program has, according to the agency, been a success.

Now, the MTA announced this morning that eight more stations will see their garbage cans removed. The expansion of the project is still being billed as a pilot. Transit wants to “get a better understanding of the impact of removing trash cans,” and these eight additional stations will have no receptacles for six months. The locations — two stations in each of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens — are a mix of elevated and underground stations that are “average-sized.”

The list is as follows. Interestingly, a few of these stations are fairly low-ridership stops:
Bronx:

  • 238th Street 1 station
  • East 143rd Street 6 station

Manhattan:

  • 57th Street F station
  • Rector Street 1 station

Brooklyn:

  • 7th Avenue FG station
  • Brighton Beach Q station

Queens:

  • 111th Street A station
  • 65th Street MR station

In addition to cost savings, Transit hopes eliminating trash cans will cut down on the underground rodent population as well. One of the issues facing the MTA involves the removal of trash bags from the subway. Often, these bags sit on platforms or in storage rooms for days on end, creating food sources and homes for the myriad rodents that scurry about underground. Short of an outright food ban — controversial in its own right — cutting down on the volume of trash that accumulates could help control the number of subway rats. Or so the thinking goes.

31 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Subway Maps

The signaling from subway map design

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 30, 2012

The way a subway map displays transfers can impact rider behavior.

From the looks of today’s subway map, transferring amongst trains at Fulton St. appears to be a piece of cake while traversing the distance from the 2 or 3 to the A or C, let alone the E, at Park Place/Chambers St. would require a very long walk. There might be some truth to the distance, but that up-and-down trip between trains at Fulton St. is hardly convenient. Thus, enter the “subway map effect.”

We last heard of the subway map effect in May of 2011 when NYU Professor Zhan Guo released a study on map design. By examining London’s schematic map, Guo determined that map design can impact travel choices to a rather extreme degree. Commuters in London were willing to travel inefficiently because they believed making a transfer would get them closer to their destinations than walking would. The distortions of the schematic map rule how otherwise-sophisticated travelers plan their rides.

So what happens when you start tweaking the map design? Can transit agencies control behavior by adjusting design? Perhaps by making a transfer look shorter, transit planners can siphon riders into a less trafficked area. Guo now plans to find out. He spoke to Jessica Gross for a piece on The Atlantic Cities about his current research, and here’s how Gross described it:

Which leads to Guo’s big question: “Can we change the map in order to change people’s behavior?” If we believe maps over our own knowledge, and we do, the answer is likely yes. In a new study of D.C.’s Metrorail system, Guo is measuring the difference. He’s collaborated with Wyman to produce three variations on the Metro map, all of which increase the apparent length of the Blue and Orange Lines at the point that they cross the Potomac River. One increases to the west, one to the north, and one in both directions. Comparing reactions to these maps to the current one, and to a real geographic map, will help Guo better understand how both route length and directionality can factor into passengers’ decisions.

Can Guo and Wyman encourage people, through design alone, to transfer to the Yellow Line over the river instead of staying on the Blue? This isn’t just a matter of intellectual interest: The Rosslyn tunnel is overcrowded, so rerouting some human traffic would make a difference. “Even if you can switch one or two percent of passengers from the Blue to the Yellow Line, that’s a big success, because the cost is zero,” Guo says.

That is, altering infrastructure is expensive, and since many transit agencies, including WMATA, face big budget shortfalls, it’s often difficult, if not impossible. But changing a map—making this crowded line look longer and less convenient, or replacing that complex-looking transfer with a dot—could change usage patterns practically for free. Mapmakers could nudge us to not only use less crowded lines, but also get out and walk, transfer at less trafficked stations, or even use alternate transit systems.

For a bit more, check out this abstract on Guo’s own site. On the surface, it makes sense. We use a subway map for visual cues to help us plan our journeys. If we’re not familiar with a system, we’ll seek out the map for assistance.

What intrigues me about Guo’s research though are the long-term implications. Will riders continue to follow the cues from the map if they know one route is shorter than the other even if it doesn’t appear that way on the subway map? New York’s system doesn’t have quite the same number of transfers as some others; you can thank the City, the BMT and the IRT for that. But it has enough. We’ll have to check back in with Guo once he’s wrapped up his investigation of Washington. For now, it’s food for thought.

13 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA Economics

Ratings agencies warn of MTA Payroll Tax ruling fallout

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 29, 2012

S&P’s and Moody’s warned Monday that fallout from the ruling that overturned the Payroll Mobility Tax could have a negative impact on the MTA’s bond ratings if the decision is upheld by a higher court. Moody’s issued a so-called credit-negative yesterday while S&P’s statement warned of a “weakened” financial position for the authority “absent added support from the state, fare increases, or service cuts to offset the loss of revenue.”

A Moody’s analyst warned against reading too much into the statement, for now. “It doesn’t mean there is a ratings change,” David Jacobson said to Transportation Nation. “What we are saying is that the court case, could — key word ‘could’ — have a negative impact, but it is not enough to warrant a change in the rating or the outlook.” However, if these agencies decide to lower the MTA’s rating, the costs of borrowing will increase, and that is a spike the MTA can ill afford right now.

Meanwhile, as the MTA continues its offensive against the controversial ruling, Joe Lhota sat down last week with Transportation Nation reporter Alex Goldmark to review the authority’s finances. According to the Chairman, the MTA more heavily subsidizes commuter rail trips over the subway. The MTA spends $7 to each LIRR ride, $4 per Metro-North rider and $1 per subway rider. Of course, with far more subway riders than anything else, the $1 quickly adds up, but it’s more expensive to provide that commuter rail service on a per-rider basis than it is to keep the subways going. Just some food for thought.

19 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
AsidesMTA

A $65 million insurance request from Irene

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 28, 2012

The MTA drew criticism last year for being overly cautious when it shut down subway service in the face of Hurricane Irene. While New York City Transit was spared the brunt of the storm a year ago, Metro-North’s Port Jervis line suffered a wash-out, and the agency incurred significant planning costs. Yesterday, the MTA announced that it has submitted a $65 million claim to FEMA for reimbursement of these expenses.

So far, the MTA has recovered approximately $27.7 million in insurance proceeds and is targeting around $50 million as its total recovery. Of the $65 million, $21million will cove repairs of the Metro-North washouts west of the Hudson River, and New York City Transit has submitted a request for $22 million. That breaks down as $8 million in overtime costs for storm preparedness and $14 million in lost revenue when the subway system shut down for the first time in its history.

Meanwhile, as the one-year anniversary of the storm comes and goes, it’s tough to say that the MTA is any better prepared long-term for shifting ocean levels, major weather catastrophes and a changing environment. A request to FEMA to cover last year’s expenses helps the budget, but comprehensive long-term planning will help avoid shutdowns in the future.

3 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Construction

The steep costs of capital construction

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 28, 2012

Apologies for the silence on Monday. I was out of town for the weekend and forgot to put up a note on Friday’s post along with the service advisories. I did get to experience the rains and storms along the outer bands of Tropical Storm Isaac. It’s dumping an impressive amount of rain down south.

The 7 line extension is just one of the city’s many overly expensive transit expansion projects. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)

So over the years, as I’ve followed the progress of the MTA’s current (and future) megaprojects, I’ve returned regularly to the issue of cost. It’s no secret that the current subway and rail construction costs in New York City are out of control. The projects are billions of dollars over budget as well as years behind schedule, and that doesn’t even begin to account for the fact that these budgets are bloated to begin with.

Here’s a sampling of the problem: On Manhattan’s West Side, we’re getting a one-stop subway extension from 41st St. and 8th Ave. to 34th St. and 11th Ave. (with some tail tracks) for $2.1 billion. The project is set to wrap up a few months late, and we lost a golden opportunity to build a station at 40th St. and 10th Ave. over half a billion dollars. The Second Ave. Subway promises to deliver two miles of subway for nearly $4.5 billion. It is up to four years late depending upon which scoping document you read. East Side Access is an unmitigated cost disaster.

Meanwhile, New York’s projects are orders of magnitude more expensive that similar projects throughout the globe. Forgetting China where costs have crept up, New York’s subway construction costs trump any other comparable city’s. So why? That’s the question Stephen Smith tried to tackle in a piece on Bloomberg View last week. It’s worth a full read, but I’ll excerpt.

A huge part of the problem is that agencies can’t keep their private contractors in check. Starved of funds and expertise for in-house planning, officials contract out the project management and early design concepts to private companies that have little incentive to keep costs down and quality up. And even when they know better, agencies are often forced by legislation, courts and politicians to make decisions that they know aren’t in the public interest.

Comparing American transit-construction practices with those abroad yields a number of lessons. Spain has the most dynamic tunneling industry in the world and the lowest costs. In 2003, Metro de Madrid Chief Executive Officer Manuel Melis Maynar wrote a list describing the practices he used to design the system’s latest expansion. The don’t-do list, unfortunately, reads like a winning U.S. transit-construction bingo card.

Perhaps the most ostentatious violation of Melis’s manual of best practices is expensive architecture in stations. “Design should be focused on the needs of the users,” he wrote, “rather than on architectural beauty or exotic materials, and never on the name of the architect.”

American politicians have different priorities. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is spending $3.8 billion on a single subway station at the World Trade Center designed by Santiago Calatrava, a Spanish architect known for his costly projects. If New York could build subways at the prices that Paris and Tokyo pay, $3.8 billion would be enough to build the entire Second Avenue subway, from Harlem to the Financial District.

So that, you might be saying, is nothing new. What about the causes? Smith pinpoints a number of culprits. First up is the problem of a conflict of interests. U.S. transit agencies love their consultants, and the consultants can then bid on their own projects. Cross-pollination, in which transit officials move back and forth between the private sector jobs, also leads to inflated budgets and excess spending. Finally, lowest-price bidding systems often lead to project budgets that do not and cannot align with reality or a lack of quality control. Somehow, the new South Ferry station cost $500 million and is already still leaking. No one can be held responsible without timely and costly lawsuits.

Escaping this morass isn’t easy. It will require a full-scale overhaul of the contracting system and contracting laws. Plus, Smith doesn’t even touch work-rule laws in the piece which are clearly another source of extraneous spending and bloated budgets. Larry Littlefield, a frequent SAS commenter and former Transit budget analyst, sees some hope, albeit just a faint glimmer. “Remember how fast and how cheap they rebuilt the 1 train after 9/11? That’s what they’re capable of,” he said. “But it just doesn’t happen otherwise.”

In times of crisis, the MTA can do it right. The 1 train returned to service far faster than it should have, and the IND 8th Ave. line was up and running after far quicker than otherwise expected following a 2005 signal fire. But the big-ticket items that we need to improve transportation throughout the region are suffering. Bring down the costs, and the system can expand. It’s not an easy path to follow.

74 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Service Advisories

Weekend work impacting 12 lines

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 24, 2012

Enjoy the weekend.


From 4 a.m. Saturday, August 25 to 10 p.m. Sunday, August 26, downtown 2 trains run express from East 180th Street to 3rd Avenue-149th Street due to track panel installation south of Prospect Avenue.


From 6 a.m. Saturday, August 25 to 10 p.m. Sunday, August 26, there is no 3 train service between Franklin Avenue and New Lots Avenue due to switch renewal south of New Lots Avenue and track panel installation at Sutter Avenue-Rutland Road.

  • 3 trains operate between 148th Street and Franklin Avenue and then via the 2 line between Franklin Avenue and Flatbush Avenue.
  • Free shuttle buses operate between Utica Avenue and New Lots Avenue.
  • Take 4 trains between Franklin Avenue and Utica Avenue (making local stops).
  • Transfer between 4 trains and free shuttle buses at Utica Avenue.

Note: During overnight hours (12:01 a.m. to 6 a.m.), the 3 operates between 148th Street and Times Square-42nd Street only.


From 4 a.m. Saturday, August 25 to 10 p.m., Sunday, August 26, there are no 4 trains between Utica Avenue and New Lots Avenue due to switch renewal south of New Lots Avenue and track panel installation at Sutter Avenue-Rutland Road.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, August 25 to 5 a.m. Monday, August 27, downtown 4 trains skip 138th Street-Grand Concourse due to station rehabilitation at 149th Street-Grand Concourse.


From 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, August 25 and Sunday, August 26, there are no 5 trains between East 180th Street and Bowling Green due to track panel installation south of Prospect Avenue. 5 trains operate between Dyre Avenue and East 180th Street. For service between:

  • East 180th Street and 149th Street-Grand Concourse, take the 2 instead.
  • 149th Street-Grand Concourse and Bowling Green, take the 4 instead.

Note: Downtown 2 trains run express from East 180th Street to 3rd Avenue-149th Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, August 25 to 5 a.m. Monday, August 27, uptown 6 trains run express from 3rd Avenue-138th Street to Parkchester (stopping only at Hunts Point Avenue) due to ADA work at Hunts Point Avenue.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, August 25 to 5 a.m. Monday, August 27, Manhattan-bound A trains are rerouted via the F line from Jay Street-MetroTech to West 4th Street, then run local to 59th Street-Columbus Circle due to track work at Fulton Street.


From 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday, August 25 and Sunday, August 26, uptown C trains are rerouted via the F line from Jay Street-MetroTech to West 4th Street due to track work at Fulton Street.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, August 25 to 5 a.m., Monday, August 27, there are no D trains between Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center and 34th Street-Herald Square due to NYC DOT Manhattan Bridge inspection, truss-bearing replacement and graffiti removal. D service will operate as follows:

  • Between Norwood-205th Street and 34th Street-Herald Square
  • Between Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue and Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center, and then via the R between Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center and Whitehall Street
  • Special shuttle service operates every 20 minutes between Grand Street and West 4th Street with a stop at Broadway-Lafayette Street.

Note: Trains run local in both directions between 36th Street (Brooklyn) and Whitehall Street (Manhattan).


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, August 25 to 5 a.m. Monday, August 27, uptown D trains skip 182nd-183rd Sts. due to column base and steel repairs.


From 10 p.m. Friday, August 24 to 5 a.m. Monday, August 27, Jamaica-bound F trains are rerouted via the M line from 47th-50th Sts to Roosevelt Avenue due to work at the Lexington Avenue station for SAS.


From 12:01 a.m. to 5 a.m. Saturday, August 25, Sunday, August 26 and Monday, August 27, Coney Island-bound F trains run local from Roosevelt Avenue to 21st Street- Queensbridge and Jamaica-bound F trains run local from the Queens Plaza E, M station to Roosevelt Avenue due to switch renewal at 179th Street.


From 10 p.m. Friday, August 24 to 5 a.m. Monday, August 27, downtown N trains run express from 34th Street-Herald Square to Canal Street due to electronic system installation.


From 12:01 a.m. Saturday, August 25 to 5 a.m. Monday, August 27, uptown Q trains are rerouted via the R from DeKalb Avenue to Canal Street due to track maintenance and a concrete pour at DeKalb Avenue. Q trains stop at Jay Street-MetroTech, Court Street, Whitehall Street, Rector Street, Cortlandt Street and City Hall.


From 10 p.m. to 12 midnight, Friday August 24 and from 6:30 a.m. to 12 midnight, Saturday, August 25 and Sunday August 26, downtown R trains run express from 34th Street-Herald Square to Canal Street due to electronic system installation.

3 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
MTA Economics

The aftermath of the payroll tax court ruling

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 24, 2012

As hyperbolic as it sounds, it’s no stretch to say that the MTA’s world was rocked by Judge R. Bruce Cozzens, Jr.’s shocking ruling Wednesday overturning the payroll tax and a slew of other fees and taxes that support the MTA. After four other cases were tossed out, a Nassau County judge elected to his position on the same party line as key payroll tax opponents fulfilled the wishes of suburban politicians and torpedoed up to $1.8 billion in annual MTA money — or over 16 percent of the agency’s budget. The ruling left transit advocates fretting, and many wondering what comes next.

So what does come next? First up, the MTA isn’t going to see its revenues decrease in the short term. According to agency officials and Gov. Cuomo, the state will continue to collect the tax while suffering through the appeals process. “There won’t be any disruption in the MTA funding,” the governor said yesterday. “We believe the ruling is wrong and we believe the ruling is going to be reversed.”

Meanwhile, as State Senators such as Jack Martins, a Nassau County Republican who won election on an anti-MTA platform, gloated like a child over the court ruling and Westchester politicians from both parties celebrated, the MTA issued dire budgetary warnings. “The payroll mobility tax drives the entire economy of New York,” MTA head Joe Lhota said. “Without the MTA, New York would choke on traffic.”

And how do you solve a potential a $1.8 billion gap? Through cuts and fare hikes of course. As Lhota said during a press conference, “Without the payroll mobility tax, the MTA would be forced to balance its budget with a combination of devastating service cuts and ever-increasing fare hikes.” As a comparison, the MTA’s draconian budget in 2010 resulted in only around $90 million in savings from service cuts, and a fare hike generates around $50 million in added revenue per one percent increase. To cover this potential funding gap, the MTA would need a fare hike of nearly 30 percent. That’s far far worse than the payroll tax.

Downstate, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had already washed his hands of the MTA-related mess in Albany, did not have kind words toward those who had earlier torpedoed his congestion pricing plan. Again on Friday morning, he took to the airwaves to call for a renewed effort.

“Is there a plan in place? Let me see if I can work out a plan for you,” he said Thursday. “Why don’t we toll people, I got it! Let’s toll people coming into the city, OK? Because then it wouldn’t be anything outside the city, there’s no jurisdictional issues, and we could use the money to improve mass transit! And that would get fewer people on their cars and more people on the subways. The subways would be bettter, more reliable, more pleasurable, and it would be paid for by people coming in and out. That’s a good idea isn’t it? I think so. But wait, now my recollection … I betcha the legislature thinks they have a better plan. So my suggestion is you address your question to those people who think they have a better plan.”

It’s still stunning to think that a supposedly impartial state judge thought the MTA budget not a “substantial state state concern” and somehow twisted home rule jurisprudence to create this ruling. Still, that’s where we are. The MTA and New York State will “vigorously” pursue an appeal, and the money will still flow. But politicians have won a talking point without actually finding an adequate solution.

It’s unlikely an appeals court will uphold this ruling, but if they do, as Joe Lhota said yesterday, “it would be a catastrophe for the entire region, and for the entire state’s economy that depends on it.” The payroll mobility tax is far from an ideal solution for MTA funding, but until politicians are willing to take a serious look at transit support in the region, it’s what we have. No one can afford to lose it.

27 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Second Avenue Subway

Work set to resume at 72nd St. SAS site Monday

by Benjamin Kabak
written by Benjamin Kabak on August 24, 2012

A 1915 explosion amidst subway construction cost the lives of at least seven workers. (New York Public Library)

Satisfied with safety measures that have been implemented in the aftermath of Tuesday’s explosion, MTA Chairman Joe Lhota announced yesterday that work will begin again on Monday. SSK Contractors will not be allowed to blast until the MTA approves their plans, but the five-day hold on the project will be lifted.

The MTA, meanwhile, has released its preliminary findings on the accident. In a release, the authority explained the following:

Holes drilled at this shaft for the loading of explosives have normally been done vertically, allowing the blast pressure to dissipate horizontally. However on Tuesday, rock outcrops, which were being blasted at the top of a future escalator, needed to be drilled diagonally. When the blast occurred, debris hit the underside of the decking concentrated at the southeast corner of the site. The decking lifted and allowed rock to be propelled into the air and onto the street. In reviewing yesterday’s incident, we determined that the method used to keep the decking in place above the blast area was inadequate for this type of blast.

Luckily, it was a non-fatal accident that, thanks to safety precautions instituted at ground level, led to no injuries either. The worst of the damage concerned some blown-out windows a few stories above the work zone, and this lack of real impact highlights just how focused on safety the project had been so far. The neighbors nearby won’t be satisfied until this thing is wrapped up, and getting work moving again is the quickest way to ensure a speedier resolution.

Meanwhile, while facing questions from reporters on the Payroll Tax court case — more on the reaction to that misguided ruling later — Lhota defended SSK. “The contractor has been blasting for four years now,” Lhota said. “I do have confidence.”

And why wouldn’t he? Once upon a time, subway construction deaths and accidents were measured per mile, and along Second Ave., the only construction-related death concerned a tragic accident when a garbage truck hauling debris struck and killed a woman. The 7 line extension and East Side Access have suffered one death a piece. If anything, the system seems to be working generally fine despite the headlines, complaints and dramatic photos. This was a loud accident through and through with ultimately confined consequences.

3 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts