4 ms·

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 su

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.

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.