LOL what? How does what they have NOW matter to what they are building? Sure NYC is spending more money, but that's only because they are spending it less efficiently. Los Angeles has far more projects under construction than NYC does.

seriously doubt you could post the same post any harder than the every single post you are already doing it lol.

but instead of your one note ranting, hows about some actual facts and discussion?

lets take that high design cost you can see on the chart i had put up, it's over a billion dollars. now the typical commercial rate for architectural design averages 20%. so lets say, oh i dk, 25% for something complicated like sas? that would make the $4.5B sas phase II design costs between $800M-ish and $1.2B-ish, depending on costs included or costs added. as we see, the actual design cost was $1.35B, but that includes both design and environmental work. meaning, sas design cost is right on par with free market architectural design rates. so as the subway architects are also unionized, right there is an example of high costs that have nothing to do with unionized workers. ;)

Challenge accepted.

you meant challenge dodged :haha:

What have I dodged? I've pointed out several times that nobody really knows what exactly drives high costs. It's a topic that hasn't been researched. The fact that Spain could build like 18 miles of subway for the cost of NYC planning and utility relocation of one small line is, well, shocking.

I'm sure a lot of people understand, but it's not politically expedient to point out what the issues are since a lot of them are due to the politicians themselves.

As for union labor rates I supervise union labor in New Jersey and many of the people I supervise make over $200,000 a year (including overtime of course). I doubt people in Spain are making anything close to that. New York does have some unique challenges, but the real issues are simple things like labor rates and regulations that give NIMBYs too much power.

Labor isn't cheaper in Los Angeles, Japan, and Western Europe though. I don't think prevailing wages has much to do with it.

You're definitely right about the unions though, which I think could partly explain the LA-NYC differential. Because we only just began building ours we're not stuck with old, outdated union work rules which drive up cost and drive down productivity.

New High-Tech Big Board At Penn Station Experiencing Technical Difficulties

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C44K4HXXUAALqec.jpg

Source: https://twitter.com/jpketterer/statu...063489/photo/1

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C44NSISUoAAO3mq.jpg

Source: https://twitter.com/bkleinNYC/status...348544/photo/1

Read more: http://gothamist.com/2017/02/17/big_...kout_of_17.php

I think labor is somewhat cheaper. That isn't the only reason, but union labor in NYC earns some of the highest wages on the planet. I think people would be shocked what certain union jobs pay.

If you stay an a NYC hotel with union rules (which would be most hotels), the people cleaning your room are making salaries higher than many of the guests. In LA the people cleaning your rooms are undocumented immigrants making minimum wage.

NYC is still a union town, and unions in NYC deliver serious wages/benefits.

^^^

Its true. Just take a sanitation worker. People might say they would never like to be one, but those guys make serious cash. We're talking 90-120k +. NY Unions are fantastic. Hell, even you average construction worker is making $35-45 an hour. Depending on seniority, and position, the potential is there. For the kind of money they are giving, shit, I'd pick up garbage to.

Those LIRR and MTA employees have it the best.

Another lot of folks that makes good money are FDNY employees.

no, you reposted where you alleged sas phase I was expensive due to union labor costs. i just showed you it where it was not. its unionized design costs were in line with market rates. so where is it expensive then? its on you now to prove whatever point you are trying to make about costs, but you show no interest in examining anything rationally.

uhh, 20% of a massively inflated number. It shouldn't cost $6 fucking billion dollars to build just 3km of subway...

thats on you to show. you said it was inflated because of unions and you were wrong.

last chance to complain is approaching, for whatever good it will do:


L train shutdown explained: Facts, figures, proposals and more
By Lauren Cook lauren.cook@amny.com March 1, 2017

Freaking out about the L train shutdown? You're not alone. The L train plays an integral role in getting hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers between Manhattan and Brooklyn every day.

In 2012, superstorm Sandy’s storm surge flooded the 100-year-old Canarsie Tunnel under the East River with millions of gallons of saltwater, causing severe damage.

In response, the MTA announced it would need to shut down the L train between Manhattan and Brooklyn for 18 months beginning as early as January 2019 so that it can make critical repairs.

The MTA is holding two more public meetings about the L train shutdown, one in Brooklyn and one in Manhattan.

Below, find out more about the meetings and what the shutdown could mean for New Yorkers.


http://www.amny.com/transit/l-train-...ore-1.11761564

I have shown it, many times. It cost 5x to build subways in NYC than the world average. You are in denial.

And I never said it was inflated due to unions, I said outdated union work rules could be a possible explanation for some of the cost differential between NY and LA.

If you read what I wrote, however, you'll notice I'm just speculating because "Nobody really knows what drives high costs." It's a topic that hasn't been studied and has only recently gotten attention.

no, you only say it over and over. you haven't shown anything. i gave you the official breakdown for sas phase I. i did the design portion research for you. that covered one quarter of the costs and it turns out its not that. so now what exactly was so overly expensive about all the rest? go. to. work.

Read my entire post.

Hello everybody,

I recently found this map on nyctransitforums.com, and it outlines a fundamental reconfiguration of the subway system. It essentially removes the mixing and matching of services in the outer boroughs, removing interlining with minimal new construction. It would result in far fewer delays, and each route running trains far more frequently, but would force more transfers. What do you all think?
http://i.imgur.com/jtFbh.png

^
I'm not so sure I would want more transfers.

I like that map, though, in that the SAS is actually fully completed.

If building a connection or removing interlining clears a bottleneck and allows better frequency on an underserved line, then it makes sense. However, I don't think simplifying service patterns in NYC by removing interlining, which this map seems to suggest, would be a self-evident improvement by itself.

One thing I do like is that it folds PATH into the Subway. It shows the PATH - Lexington Ave Local (6) connection which was proposed by some groups after 9/11. That would be challenging to construct, but tremendously useful.

The PATH midtown line, however, retains its current 33rd street terminal. Likewise, The 7 line on that map is shown extended down its existing tail tracks to the vicinity of Chelsea Piers, but still ends with a stub-end terminal there.

Others have suggested extending the 7 into New Jersey with a new, dedicated tunnel under the Hudson. But how about just connecting the 7 to the PATH instead? Would that be the most direct route to NJ, well, not really... but I still think it would be useful, and a 3/4 mile connector to link the 7 line on 11th Ave to the PATH line on 6th Ave would be heck of a lot cheaper than a brand new tunnel to NJ.