4 ms·

The idea that we can do better and save money by ignoring context is utterly and shamefully stupid. This piece highlights the Second Avenue subway. That line

The idea that we can do better and save money by ignoring context is utterly and shamefully stupid. This piece highlights the Second Avenue subway. That line was first proposed roughly a hundred years ago. It was decided then that the level of complication from utilities and other subway lines made it unreasonably expensive to build. Over the years the Second Avenue line was repeatedly proposed and the conclusion was always the same. The level of complication made it completely impractical. The costs of construction would be astronomical. So then it was decided that new tunnel boring technology would make the project pencil out. So the project moved forward. Sure enough, the complications caused costs to explode. If only someone had consulted the extensive literature on the subject that had accumulated over the last hundred years. Now researchers look at what went wrong and have decided that more careful control of contractors would fix things. That is false. The Second Avenue subway has always been impractical. Basic research shows that has been demonstrated at length many times. Making generalizations about transit construction based on a project that was ruled out repeatedly over a period of a hundred years makes no sense. The Second Avenue subway did not break records with its expense because we don't know how to build. The Second Avenue subway cost a phenomenal amount because it is an impractical project with a huge amount of complications. No amount of clever design or management could possibly make the Second Avenue subway cost a reasonable amount. And this has been solidly understood for a hundred years.

MontyCarloHall 4y ago
None of this is true. >That line was first proposed roughly a hundred years ago. It was decided then that the level of complication from utilities and other subway lines made it unreasonably expensive to build. The utility density under Second Avenue is not any higher than any other avenue. There are very few other neighboring subway lines to contend with (especially when the line was first proposed). In fact, the only other subway tunnels that the actually completed portion of the Second Avenue Subway contends with already had built-in provisions to connect to a future SAS tunnel (63rd Street tunnel, finished in the late 80s). >Over the years the Second Avenue line was repeatedly proposed and the conclusion was always the same. The level of complication made it completely impractical. The costs of construction would be astronomical. Other cities with equally complex underground infrastructure (e.g. Paris) manage to complete cut-and-cover subway construction at a fraction of the cost. >So then it was decided that new tunnel boring technology would make the project pencil out. So the project moved forward. Sure enough, the complications caused costs to explode. Again, other cities manage to construct deep bore tunnels at a fraction of the cost. For example, Korea is building a deep bore (50m underground) high speed rail line under Seoul (GTX A) with several underground stations at a fraction of the cost of the SAS. This line will carry heavy rail trains at 180 km/h, so it is a considerably more complex undertaking than a regular subway tunnel. (It’s not just the SAS, by the way; insane construction costs are rampant in the NYC Metropolitan Transit Authority. For example, it cost $30M and took 3 years to build a single staircase: https://www.amny.com/transit/30-million-subway-stairs-times-square-subway/ https://www.amny.com/transit/30-million-subway-stairs-times-...)
- sofixa 4y ago
  > Other cities with equally complex underground infrastructure (e.g. Paris) manage to complete cut-and-cover subway construction at a fraction of the cost. No offense to New York and New Yorkers, but Paris is surely much more complex underground. The area has been continuously inhabited for more than 2000 years, and has seen a lot of change. There are centuries old buildings and underground Infrastructure that need to be worked around.
  - MontyCarloHall 4y ago
    Absolutely! Pretty much any European city will have underground infrastructure at least as complex as NYC, yet they still manage to build subways far more cheaply than New York.
rayiner 4y ago
Here is a good article where people responsible for recent transit mega-projects in Paris and London mock the excuse that tunneling under NYC is especially complicated: 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-... London’s subway work has to stop for freaking Roman ruins. The Second Avenue subway is cake in comparison. It’s just that Americans, specifically New Yorkers, are incompetent at projects that require collective action. More disorganized than the French! There should be some sort of award for that.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jcranmer 4y ago
Alon Levy has written extensively on reasons why the MTA builds at roughly 10× the rest of the world in subway construction costs. (The short answer is that, when you have cost premiums in that ballpark, everything is going wrong to some degree). I could go into detail, but I'll focus on one particular detail to show why your following quote is wrong: > No amount of clever design or management could possibly make the Second Avenue subway cost a reasonable amount. Roughly half of the cost of the 2nd Avenue subway phase 2 is in the station costs. (I don't have the most recent precise cost breakdown in front of me to give you precise numbers). If you want to cut the cost down considerably, looking for any inefficiencies in station construction costs is a good place to start, then... and it turns out there are glaring inefficiencies. One of the most obvious contenders is the use of full-length mezzanines, which are unusual, unnecessary, and extremely expensive in a mined station design (as opposed to cut-and-cover, where the volume needs to be excavated anyways). That's one design change that can give cost savings on the order of at least 10%, and it's not even particularly clever design. Ultimately, the main reason why it's so expensive is that people like you, who are completely incurious about why anything may be expensive, are in charge of these projects.
- m0llusk 4y ago
  Completely incurious? NYC has a lot of subway miles. This particular subway was repeatedly proposed and rejected as being too costly. And when it was finally built it turned out to be hugely expensive just as predicted. And now this unusually expensive line is being used as an example of all subway construction. That is kind of like trying to explain the cost of food by reviewing the menu at a top rated restaurant or calculating the cost of driving by focusing on luxury sport vehicles. Anyone who actually cares about calculating and comprehending costs needs to be careful with outliers. And what is with this "people like you" remark? If I had input into the NYC subway system then I would focus on deferred maintenance instead of building a fabulously expensive new line that will never produce a return on the money spent on it. The verifiable fact is that the Second Avenue subway line was known to be hugely expensive from the start. Cut and cover construction was not an option in this case. I make a point about there being a hundred years of detailed analysis describing why the Second Avenue subway could not be constructed for a reasonable cost and that makes me completely incurious? Have you ever bothered to investigate the previous proposals which were rejected? Not even realizing that you are committing to a "It's different this time" strategy creates problems.

MontyCarloHall 4y ago

None of this is true. >That line was first proposed roughly a hundred years ago. It was decided then that the level of complication from utilities and other subway lines made it unreasonably expensive to build. The utility density under Second Avenue is not any higher than any other avenue. There are very few other neighboring subway lines to contend with (especially when the line was first proposed). In fact, the only other subway tunnels that the actually completed portion of the Second Avenue Subway contends with already had built-in provisions to connect to a future SAS tunnel (63rd Street tunnel, finished in the late 80s). >Over the years the Second Avenue line was repeatedly proposed and the conclusion was always the same. The level of complication made it completely impractical. The costs of construction would be astronomical. Other cities with equally complex underground infrastructure (e.g. Paris) manage to complete cut-and-cover subway construction at a fraction of the cost. >So then it was decided that new tunnel boring technology would make the project pencil out. So the project moved forward. Sure enough, the complications caused costs to explode. Again, other cities manage to construct deep bore tunnels at a fraction of the cost. For example, Korea is building a deep bore (50m underground) high speed rail line under Seoul (GTX A) with several underground stations at a fraction of the cost of the SAS. This line will carry heavy rail trains at 180 km/h, so it is a considerably more complex undertaking than a regular subway tunnel. (It’s not just the SAS, by the way; insane construction costs are rampant in the NYC Metropolitan Transit Authority. For example, it cost $30M and took 3 years to build a single staircase: https://www.amny.com/transit/30-million-subway-stairs-times-square-subway/ https://www.amny.com/transit/30-million-subway-stairs-times-...)

sofixa 4y ago
> Other cities with equally complex underground infrastructure (e.g. Paris) manage to complete cut-and-cover subway construction at a fraction of the cost. No offense to New York and New Yorkers, but Paris is surely much more complex underground. The area has been continuously inhabited for more than 2000 years, and has seen a lot of change. There are centuries old buildings and underground Infrastructure that need to be worked around.
- MontyCarloHall 4y ago
  Absolutely! Pretty much any European city will have underground infrastructure at least as complex as NYC, yet they still manage to build subways far more cheaply than New York.

rayiner 4y ago

Here is a good article where people responsible for recent transit mega-projects in Paris and London mock the excuse that tunneling under NYC is especially complicated: 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-... London’s subway work has to stop for freaking Roman ruins. The Second Avenue subway is cake in comparison. It’s just that Americans, specifically New Yorkers, are incompetent at projects that require collective action. More disorganized than the French! There should be some sort of award for that.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jcranmer 4y ago

Alon Levy has written extensively on reasons why the MTA builds at roughly 10× the rest of the world in subway construction costs. (The short answer is that, when you have cost premiums in that ballpark, everything is going wrong to some degree). I could go into detail, but I'll focus on one particular detail to show why your following quote is wrong: > No amount of clever design or management could possibly make the Second Avenue subway cost a reasonable amount. Roughly half of the cost of the 2nd Avenue subway phase 2 is in the station costs. (I don't have the most recent precise cost breakdown in front of me to give you precise numbers). If you want to cut the cost down considerably, looking for any inefficiencies in station construction costs is a good place to start, then... and it turns out there are glaring inefficiencies. One of the most obvious contenders is the use of full-length mezzanines, which are unusual, unnecessary, and extremely expensive in a mined station design (as opposed to cut-and-cover, where the volume needs to be excavated anyways). That's one design change that can give cost savings on the order of at least 10%, and it's not even particularly clever design. Ultimately, the main reason why it's so expensive is that people like you, who are completely incurious about why anything may be expensive, are in charge of these projects.

m0llusk 4y ago
Completely incurious? NYC has a lot of subway miles. This particular subway was repeatedly proposed and rejected as being too costly. And when it was finally built it turned out to be hugely expensive just as predicted. And now this unusually expensive line is being used as an example of all subway construction. That is kind of like trying to explain the cost of food by reviewing the menu at a top rated restaurant or calculating the cost of driving by focusing on luxury sport vehicles. Anyone who actually cares about calculating and comprehending costs needs to be careful with outliers. And what is with this "people like you" remark? If I had input into the NYC subway system then I would focus on deferred maintenance instead of building a fabulously expensive new line that will never produce a return on the money spent on it. The verifiable fact is that the Second Avenue subway line was known to be hugely expensive from the start. Cut and cover construction was not an option in this case. I make a point about there being a hundred years of detailed analysis describing why the Second Avenue subway could not be constructed for a reasonable cost and that makes me completely incurious? Have you ever bothered to investigate the previous proposals which were rejected? Not even realizing that you are committing to a "It's different this time" strategy creates problems.