4 ms·
Given everything they’ve done on the increasingly bizarre LA tunnel, I think NYC is just fine without their input. (In any case, the answer here isn’t a techni
by untog 7y ago
Given everything they’ve done on the increasingly bizarre LA tunnel, I think NYC is just fine without their input.
(In any case, the answer here isn’t a technical one, it’s political. And NYC/New York State lacks the political will or desire. A third party private company won’t solve that)
- shmerl 7y agoFrom the article, looks like the problem isn't political, but financial. It costs a lot, and there is a lack of expertise which only drives the cost up even more. So it would make sense to hire someone who wants to retain the expertise.
- untog 7y agoIt costs a lot because of political reasons. There’s no technical reason why NYC subway construction should cost 10x what it does in Paris, and yet, it does.
- shmerl 7y agoDeteriorating infrastructure that drains all the resources is not a political reason, but quite practical. Though what caused that in the first place could be political in the past. I.e. bad planning and poor management. Today it's not political. Someone just has to deal with huge existing mess.
- scarejunba 7y agoIt's political today. These projects are given to friends of politicians at inflated prices and are used as sops to specific communities to stop them from kicking up a fuss or backing someone else. Here's the classic story of how costs can spiral without reason https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
- TurningCanadian 7y agoNYC has more skyscrapers above to worry about below.
- untog 7y agoParis has more historical buildings to worry about. Is there data on the relative added cost of either?
- Tokkemon 7y agoParis isn't built directly on bedrock either.
- jcranmer 7y agoBut the trains run underneath the streets, not the skyscrapers.
- TylerE 7y agoYes, but the foundations of the skyscrapers (which can go as much as 250ft underground) are where you'd want to build the subway. So you can't. You either have to go deeper ($$$$) or around (longer, again $$$). Plus, you have to make sure you don't dig out too much in the wrong place and cause a building to fail.
- jcranmer 7y agoUh, no they aren't. Look closely at maps of the NYC subway: with very few exceptions, the lines run directly underneath the streets themselves. Even many of the curves to traverse to following a different street occurs underneath the street right-of-way or the underneath parks. I count just five places where the subway runs underneath a tall building, and I believe in all but one of those cases, it's the subway that predates the building.
- Tokkemon 7y agoThat's not the point. Digging a massive hole in the ground directly next to a skyscraper's foundation changes the physical properties of that foundation, and requires some very complicated engineering to get around it. That and all the Manhattan Schist that needs to be excavated. New York certainly isn't built on mud.
- objektif 7y agoWhats bizarre about the LA tunnel?
- trianglem 7y agoBizarre gives me no information on what's wrong with it. Care to elaborate?