Comments
pk10534 t1_j7jdv8t wrote
I mean some of this does sound pretty bad though:
“The 400-page report from researchers at New York University also revealed that the MTA’s failure to properly supervise the outside firms allowed costs to spiral in other key ways: contractors and unions overstaffed the project, dug caverns for platforms that were double the necessary size and drew up station designs so bespoke that each of the three new stops has escalators made by a different manufacturer. “
oreosfly t1_j7jefwv wrote
> drew up station designs so bespoke that each of the three new stops has escalators made by a different manufacturer
That is fucking insane.
Glitch5450 t1_j7jfper wrote
Sounds like competitive bidding. You can’t let one manufacturer get all the work bc you’re too lazy to manage 3.
KingofthisShit t1_j7jhfdc wrote
Don't think it's competitive bidding since each station should have similar escalators, so one manufacturer should have the capacity to make the 3 of them for the same price. If you're getting them from 3 different manufacturers, the price very likely varies between them and you could've gotten more cost savings by ordering the 3 of them in bulk from the same manufacturer.
homeworld t1_j7k7u2u wrote
Sounds like 3 different contractors installed each one.
PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7kctba wrote
Bingo.
TheGazzelle t1_j7kivbd wrote
Each of those stations were probably bid separately and went to different Sub-contractors. Could the city have gone to just one Sub? Yes. But there are multiple factors that could stop that from happening. MBWE requirements or bonding and insurance requirements that are based on the value of your work vs the worth of the company.
​
Could the city have used one manufacturer and saved 5-10%? maybe; but these other regulations for minority/women/small businesses would need to go away.
volkommm t1_j7khcfk wrote
Consider lead times too. One manufacturer may not be able to produce 3
chuckysnow t1_j7ky4um wrote
Meh, If you can't build three stations worth of escalators with a year's lead time you probably shouldn't be building escalators.
volkommm t1_j7l39mo wrote
It's not that simple, this is a fairly complicated system. They also have other projects and may not have the ability to scale easily.
chuckysnow t1_j7l9jcc wrote
Do you know the AMC Lincoln square theater? I was involved in the construction of that place. Ten escalators that I can think of, including, at the time, the longest unsupported escalators in the city. All one company, all installed pretty much at the same time. Contractors did everything else- all the escalator guys had to do was install the escalator into the space provided by the contractor. Despite different lengths and widths, it was all pretty straight forward, and even the free standing unit was off the shelf stuff. I didn't personally work on the escalators, but I remember them showing up in crates and getting assembled pretty damn fast. The four story free standing ones were the only units that took over a week to build.
The guts looked for all the world like giant erector sets. Build the frame to length, choose the right size motor, assemble the links in the stair chain, cut the railing to size. It seemed pretty universal to me, and quite the opposite of bespoke.
Important-Ad1871 t1_j7lmtvl wrote
I’m not trying to discount your experience at all, but in my experience the general supply chain doesn’t really work the same way it used to. Things that used to be readily available off-the-shelf have a 4 to 26 week lead time now, including specialty fasteners, electronic components, mechanical components for electronics, etc..
Companies are quoting me 6-9 months for small testing equipment, PCBA’s were over a year lead time, etc..
This is more a manufacturing perspective than a construction perspective, but IMO it’s just more difficult/takes longer/more expensive to make things right now.
oreosfly t1_j7m4tjl wrote
These stations were built between 2007 and 2016. I don’t think the supply chain issues of the past 3 years were applicable back then.
[deleted] t1_j7mqokr wrote
[deleted]
Important-Ad1871 t1_j7mr2dz wrote
Yeah you right
freeradicalx t1_j7l2o77 wrote
The Post always mentions who's in a union the same way that slightly racist guy you know always mentions if someone is black in his anecdotes.You know, "Just to make sure you had the full picture".
oreosfly t1_j7jeb1s wrote
Did you continue onto the next sentence?
> That’s double the 5 to 10 percent that transit authorities across Europe — whether in Paris, Rome or Madrid — spend on engineering and designing projects.
> European transit agencies perform the bulk of their project design, engineering and construction management with white-collar agency staff instead of relying on outside entities. And when they hire outside firms, they keep them on a short leash.
Disused_Yeti t1_j7jnstu wrote
Yes and that figure is based on the same numbers that contradict the claim that consultants cost double the construction. It is double what others pay not the double construction costs
655M/3.8B=17.2%
Like I said, lots of wasted money, but not what the headline claims
ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j7jwhl0 wrote
I thought when I read it something seemed off. You are 100% right the headline is clickbait. The MTA spends twice the amount on design and consultants. Which is about an extra 9% of the project cost. Though they don't say how the in-house people in Europe are budgeted for. Is the fully loaded costs of consultants and designers added. You can't just take the engineers hourly rate and say how many hours are allocated to a project. An engineer working for the government will have downtime between jobs, vacation and sick, benefits costs like Healthcare and pension, that worker uses other government workers who's costs are not included like government payroll and HR, IT workers to keep their computers running, office space such as rent amd electric costs. What about management costs all the way up the food chain. Plus when the project is over is Europe adding the fact that municipal workers are impossible to fire. Even if there is no work they will sit at their desks getting paid till they retire or just milk whatever they are working on to look busy. When you write a check to a consultant or private engineering firm 100% of the workers payroll and benefits costs and all the costs included to keep the worker working is included.
[deleted] t1_j7k7ix0 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j7kjun9 wrote
[deleted]
PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7kcl23 wrote
I was one of those consultants on the GC side. It turned into a change order job which immediately means that consultants and lawyers are going to be involved. It’s a symptom of the current construction industry. There is no risk sharing model between owners and GCs. There’s no money in pre-bid inspections. Contractors are expected to bid on drawings and reports that allow you to formulate a bid. When the site conditions deviate from you’re expected drawings, that result in additional costs. It turns into a blame game between the owner and the GC. Owners say ‘you messed up the construction. Your means and methods were flawed’. While the GC says ‘no. There was a differing site condition from what was reasonably expected by the drawings.’
If the two parties can’t agree to share the cost. It goes to claim. Which means lawyers and consultants are hired by each side to prove each other wrong.
I was hired on the Geotechnical side proving the the Geotechnical Baseline report was fundamentally different from the site conditions and that no reasonable bidder could have anticipated the conditions.
Ultimately successful. But a nightmare for the project. What ends up happening is everyone loses money except the consultant and lawyers.
bajarneb t1_j7jzztx wrote
An earlier part of the article provides some context you might have missed:
“So far, the MTA has built just the first leg through the Upper East Side and spent $4.5 billion in the process.
Three quarters of that, $3.8 billion was spent on the design, engineering and construction of the tunnel: $655 million went to consultants and outside firms; just $378 million was spent boring the tunnel itself from 63rd Street to 96th Street”
Total was $4.5b. The $655m that went to consultants and outside firms is part of that amount, not the $3.8b. Tough to say exactly what we got from that, but it’s worth investigating why we’re spending double the normal rate when the MTA is calling for faire hikes, congestion pricing, service reductions, etc. If we could have cut that amount in half to the normal rate, what else could have been done to improve the system?
Past-Passenger9129 t1_j7k2ic2 wrote
Not how that sentence is phrased. The colon after the first half of the sentence that sets the the price at $3.8B implies that what follows is a breakdown of that number. Where that missing quarter was used for is unclear.
bajarneb t1_j7k3abb wrote
Ah, good catch. That’s a super poorly written sentence.
whiskeytango55 t1_j7knoko wrote
First time reading the Post?
ThatGuyinNY t1_j7kwwh5 wrote
Yup. The headline is literally a lie. A lie that is shown by the reporting in the article.
Not to say the project couldn't be managed better, but leave it to the Post to just straight up lie to stir people up.
[EDIT: a word]
Beerbonkos t1_j7kczd6 wrote
Shhh. This sub is for hating everything nyc
Reallynoreallyno t1_j7kvy9d wrote
As soon as I saw the post, I clicked off. NY Post is the "Enquirer" of this generation, just click-bait, twisted bullshit. I wish it would get banned as a "news" source, should be like fox not-news and be categorized as entertainment, like the Enquirer was.
KingofthisShit t1_j7jhq0q wrote
There has to be more oversight and regulation on how contractors can spend their money working on public projects, this is a ridiculous waste of money spending so much on "consulting", overstaffing, and unnecessarily expensive add-ons that aren't the norm anywhere else.
PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7kdcqk wrote
More oversight?
I take it you don’t work construction.
Much less NYC Construction.
Why would an owner care if you overstaff your job? They don’t pay them. In fact they prefer you overstaff it. You’re paid based on a schedule of values. Not your staffing.
The consultant fees (mine included) is a result of change orders. The only reason the MTA was on the hook for it was because the GC was able to prove, through the help of the consultants, that the owner provided insufficient information to make a reasonable bid.
As per usual, the owner and misappropriation of their funds is what cost the city more money. Not the contractor and consultants.
SuperTeamRyan t1_j7khnfk wrote
I was under the impression the consultant should be the one providing the information to the contractor and the state(owner) pretty much just says we want X done. At this point in my understanding all the contractors make impossibly low bids to get the job and then once the have the job delay slow and stall work to milk the project because the state compared to them generally have unlimited funds and they know the state will not allow a public works project to just stall out once ground has been broken.
airvqzz t1_j7kj9l9 wrote
Not how it works at all
Jeff3412 t1_j7kzrw7 wrote
>I was under the impression the consultant should be the one providing the information to the contractor and the state(owner) pretty much just says we want X done.
Correct. I am a design consultant.
We meet with clients, architects, or owner reps and ask them what their needs are with regards to our trade and then we make specs and drawings that go out to bid to contractors. Depending on the job and contract we may help review the bids and point out which bids are missing scope where.
>At this point in my understanding all the contractors make impossibly low bids to get the job and then once the have the job delay slow and stall work to milk the project because the state compared to them generally have unlimited funds
A contractor winning a job with too low of a bid (whether intentionally or unintentionally) and then trying to create as many change orders as possible even in places that the documents are clear is always a concern, but public sector jobs are usually worse because often legally they have to go with the low bid.
In the private sector you can say to the end client, the architect, or owner's rep that contractor X has a slightly lower bid than contractor Y but based on past jobs contractor Y is more reliable (and their bid is actually capturing all their needed scope). Then the client can choose to spend slightly more upfront to pick the contractor that their consultant advised them too.
But on a public job letting agency officials pick a higher bid could also end up being a recipe for enabling corruption.
mrpeeng t1_j7l5gqg wrote
My old company did this for various gov. inspection jobs. They'd undercut the bids just to win them for the cash flow to pay for other higher paying jobs. Gov. payment was always reliable so that kept the business running when it was slow. When they lost a job to some one else due to a lower bid, they'd have them audited to see how it was possible and fight it. There are a bunch of stupid rules that inflate the bids though like some jobs had requirement where you HAVE to use a company that is women owned for 20% of your supplies. You find them and they ALL charge 200% the normal rate of something like a ream of paper.
atyppo t1_j7lc1fd wrote
Yep. It's insane. If the government is literally required to discriminate 30% of the time (NYS standard) for MWBE owned businesses, then I have no hope for our legislators, since they clearly lack any sort of self-awareness. Shocking news: women aren't typically particularly interested in running tunneling companies, for example (yes, I'm aware this is a very simplified example). The ones that are can now charge whatever they want since they have little to no competition, yet the state is obliged to contract them.
vidro3 t1_j7lcixd wrote
> In the private sector you can say to the end client, the architect, or owner's rep that contractor X has a slightly lower bid than contractor Y but based on past jobs contractor Y is more reliable (and their bid is actually capturing all their needed scope). Then the client can choose to spend slightly more upfront to pick the contractor that their consultant advised them too.
Isn't the standard something like lowest qualified bid or lowest responsible bid? I forget the exact wording. I've definitely seen bids for city projects that all came in a pretty tight range and the absolute lowest was not selected. Sometimes it's some reasoning like well Skanska already built these 7 bridges so they can more easily build the next 5 even though their bid is 4% higher.
nychuman t1_j7ln94j wrote
Lowest leveled bid.
PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7km2ih wrote
This is logical to you?
For a general contractor to win a $3B job and from the get-go. Drag their feet. Hoping it’ll lose money, so they can sue the owner and get MAYBE 20 cents on the dollar?
SuperTeamRyan t1_j7koc2z wrote
Yes.
Underbid > get contract > start work > make slow progress > go over budget > still get paid as essential infrastructure is essential.
PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7kwflz wrote
Ok. I think I see your confusion now. As a general rule of thumb most companies, in every industry, across the entire globe don’t try to lose money on their work.
[deleted] t1_j7kz6pn wrote
[removed]
Jeff3412 t1_j7kzqo3 wrote
You talking about change orders from a contractor or from a design consultant?
The design consultation are the ones making the specs(In my experience not actually on the MTA job I did) and drawing sets that are supposed to give the contractor all the information they need to bid on the project. If that information is incomplete then the consultants really need to raise the alarm before they issue documents for bid or there's no point in bringing in outside consultants.
I say that about the specs because when I have worked on an MTA job instead of us writing the specs as we usually do they gave us a huge master spec that the MTA uses for all jobs and we just included word for word the relevant sections. I never felt more useless on a job. They essentially paid us to tell them what parts of their own specs to use which is something they could have easily done themselves.
PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7m0xgl wrote
A Change order is a shared contract change. It's the legal amendment of the contract to reflect the changes made to the work.
A Design consultant is not writing the specifications per se (assuming we're talking about Civil projects and that there are no special specifications). What happens, as you've pointed out, is that we're conforming the drawings to the agency's state specifications. These will change agency by agency with a lot of overlap. Sometimes the DDC will use the NYSDOT's specifications and vice versa.
Why re-invent the wheel. This is all public domain as well, there would be no need to write a specification unless the drawings require special specifications.
I've only every work for Civil construction, we would never be expected to write specifications but more to conform to their state issued ones.
There's too much bloat in this industry. I come from a scientific background. I tend not to accept 'that's just the way it is' as we continue on an unproductive role. Something has to change in the lowest bid sphere.
Of course there's Best Bid and Design-Build which seems to be a step in the right direction, but it comes with its own set of special failures.
I'm rambling at this point but just to summarize, yes you're absolutely right. Contracts are written for the contractor to conform to their specifications, which opens risk to the Owner when their specifications can not be met.
seenew t1_j7m25zn wrote
can y'all please fix this. it's embarrassing.
PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7m9iee wrote
I wish man.
philmatu t1_j7lbv1w wrote
I see time and time again that the agency doesn't have adequate staff (both in numbers and competency) to create clear requirements and contracts. This leads to vendors bidding for that set of requirements and a markup (to deal with the agency's incompetency), then when the project fails, change orders ensure further revenue streams. Then the agency does soul searching to figure out where it went wrong. It's a vicious cycle that costs all of us in the end.
PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7lz9w9 wrote
Without a doubt. I’d have no consultations if owners got their shit together.
I’ve presenting risk sharing models at ASCE that I believe would be the best solution for differing site conditions and design flaws. Even the questions at the end of the presentation were adversarial.
Every Job has change orders. And every owner and contractor seems to be looking for ways to make or save money. Both sides want to shift risk instead of addressing the issue that COs WILL happen. Instead of working out the semantics beforehand on what constitutes a ‘shared change’ they live in denial until they’re hiring consultants and design engineers to prove their side right. Once the smoke clears. The only profitable parties were the lawyers and consultants.
Nobody, and I mean that literally, Nobody can predict how the earth will behave in subterranean NYC. Meaning that you will always have a DSC. Why not accept this upfront and share the risk? Why? Because the owner wants to claim means and method and the contractor wants to pretend like they didn’t foresee the CO.
It’s all reactive instead of proactive. Because you can’t claim you didn’t see it coming if you try to be proactive.
Keep in mind this is a very broad generalization. Every CO is different. Some are slam dunks by the contractor and some are just wishful thinking.
The truth is that it’s never one party’s fault. But it is one party’s responsibility to build the structures. That means there’s an inherent opposition in what is supposed to be civic duty.
philmatu t1_j7m154o wrote
Surprisingly in 2011 my agency hired some MIT grads to design a system internally and become the integrators... mind you this system failed 6 times before. That model was so successful and cheap that it was transferred to 10 other projects, but most of the engineers left and weren't replaced with equally intelligent people. I'm the last of that wave and I'm simply too overwhelmed and overworked to keep up with the contract demands, so stuff naturally slips through the cracks. I care, but there isn't enough of me to keep up. As a result, many contracts are going up in cost and COs are happening, simply because I don't have time (nor resources) to create proper requirements to meet the deadlines imposed on me. It's purely become reactive. I agree
PsuedoSkillGeologist t1_j7mcsqi wrote
Sorry you gotta deal with this man. Why is it happening? I keep seeing the same names moving up to higher agency positions and the people I felt were competent engineers are now going Private or working for the contractors.
It’s a problem on both ends and of course my experience is anecdotal. But it seems like they push away talent to the higher paying private sector because they’d rather get 2 incompetent engineers for the price of 1 competent one.
Either way I appreciate what you do. I know it’s extremely difficult. And my resentment against agencies (much like corporations) is in their leadership. Those that seem to be ‘cruising’ when the reality is they have the ultimate responsibility to taxpayers.
Same can be said with my side. The nefarious GCs that intentionally start a project anticipating COs and find ways to double dip on contract work and CO work. They ruin it for everyone that believes in the concept of civic duty.
SleepyHobo t1_j7nx196 wrote
I work with contractors all the time on private and public projects. A lot of the time, especially on public projects, the change order is the result of nefarious intentions on the contractor's side to squeeze as much money as possible out of the owner because the government pays out big once a project is in the construction phase. CSI Format Specs were born out of the result of gross, shady contractors and increase project costs.
Lack of oversight leads to shit like this:
​
- Public contracts go to the lowest bidder i.e. the lowest common denominator. So you're already off to a bad start.
- Contractor (bidder) intentionally bids as low as possible, hiring consultants to substitute as much equipment and materials as physically possible to decrease their bid. If you're lucky, sometimes they "accidentally" miss things in the contract and try to get a change order for those things later on, delaying construction.
- Contractor will go behind the designer/engineer/architect's back straight to the owner or your client, violating the chain of command set up in the contract mind you, and say "Hey I can do Z instead of X and save you (and the contractor themselves) $$$$!" Owner/Client then comes to you and is eager to move forward with this substitution or design change which puts pressure on you to approve an inferior product that may not work as good.
- This usually leads to RFIs down the road from the contractor to the designers when something goes wrong with their substitution and throws their hands up saying "Well what should we do now??? You approved it!" even though the contract stipulates the contractor is responsible for added costs due to substitutions.
- Contractor has now spent a shit ton of money on consultants that was not part of their bid. They now need to make money on the contract and recoup the costs of the consultants.
- Contractor will continuously wear designers/architects/engineers down, sending in submittals that keep getting rejected for the same reason hoping they just relent. Sometimes they just give you submittals that have the completely wrong products for the spec or are just massively incomplete. They never send the full submittals if you do a partial approval.
- Contractor will submit products for review that don't meet the specs 99% of the time. Sometimes they change a minor detail that you can easily miss during review. Boom. They want a change order for the correct product. Nah sorry, you submitted a substitution. That's on you Mr. Contractor. Get bent.
- Contractors generally install things however they want, treating design drawings (the contract) as recommendations. Time after time I see contractors cut corners to save costs violating the contract. When these cuts get caught in inspections, it constantly delays construction.
- Will submit products for approval, but not buy them and secretly substitute with something else.
- Will not install equipment with proper clearances even though the design accounted for them. Here comes the RFIs, change orders, and inspection failures!
- The worst contractor I saw was for a brand new HVAC system for a building.
- He just reused the existing system, installed a few pieces of flexible ductwork, and put in some cheapo Home Depot fans (not powered or ducted) hoping he'd get away with it and call it a day. LOL. Lawsuit.
- Will just not install items that allow for a complete, operational system.
- Change orders pour in as a result of a contractor's inexperience in installing projects of certain designs. They don't know how to do it so they think they deserve more money to figure out how.
I really could go on and on. Can I also say that CBRE is the worst consulting group I've ever worked with?
[deleted] t1_j7kxcq8 wrote
[removed]
ken81987 t1_j7qod4h wrote
The subway costs 10x more than it should because the MTA didn't anticipate change orders well enough? Sounds unrealistic
williamwchuang t1_j7kngmy wrote
The federal government should give the DOJ an extra $10 billion a year just to root out public corruption and corruption in public contracts on both the state and federal levels, and in the administration of government benefits programs. I bet that would make huge returns on investments.
FuglySlut t1_j7l02xb wrote
Is anyone breaking laws? A great deal of the "waste" is due to following regulations. More govt to reduce govt is a little sus.
planning_throwaway1 t1_j7lbr42 wrote
yeah. so frustrating reading any comments thread about infrastructure
one of the chief reasons stuff is so expensive in the US is the insistence on using consultants and private contractors for literally every little thing
and to control costs, all these laws and regulations were created, very reasonable sounding, that were supposed to prevent govt waste and corruption
things like being forced to always take the lowest bid, always bidding on the end of every single contract, blind bids, etc
in a sane world, if you had a contractor who did a great job, you'd keep them. in the land of govt contracts, they're often forced to re-bid for the work, and often lose out. no way for them to lower their bid to match, they're just out. never mind that the new consultant is gonna burn 6 months of cash just getting up to speed, we're saving!
or on literally any infrastructure project. if someone bid honestly, i guarantee you the planners/engineers etc could tell you they're the ones to go with. but in reality, a shitty contractor can underbid on purpose, the choice is completely out of the hands of anyone competent, and once they have the job what is the govt going to do? build half a tunnel? switch contractors halfway through?
the entire system has been designed to fail, all because our main assumption about public employees is they can't be trusted to make good decisions. that private industry always does it better, and to prove that we're going to take away all agency from those awful government bureaucrats and give it to private consultants... at 3x the cost.
and if you are a competent govt employee, this system is almost certainly going to drive you out - why work somewhere where nothing you do matters and everyone hates you?
How does Paris build so much, so cheap, with heavily unionized 1st world labor in a densely packed, old, catacombs riddled city? They let boring public bureaucrats handle the planning and engineering, and then when they're ready to build they keep their contractors on a tight, tight leash. That's how
hak8or t1_j7l4g5b wrote
I think the issue here is what is defined as corruption.
I instead would favor, on a federal level, an agency created solely to find inefficiencies in our government on a micro scale (not macro).
Make their department be funded by a minimum of a few hundred million a year, give them a huge swath of authority to levy fines on an individual person basis rather than agency/department basis, and let them keep 10% of all fines given, one third of which gets contributed to their employers pension funds, one third to the agency itself, and one third given to all tax payers via a seperate line item on their tax return, so the agency is very visible to everyone.
And when they find actual corruption, give them a mini DOJ so they can throw actual criminal charges at individuals themselves, rather than wait for the DOJ.
And lastly, the agency would only receive oversight from a very constrained group of people, be it the president himself, or the Supreme Court justices, or similar, meaning don't let congress touch it.
williamwchuang t1_j7l8bhk wrote
I'm sure that even if we stick to "violation of existing laws" we will still root out a lot of corruption. The MTA hasn't even gotten all their workers using time clocks.
LuisTheCool t1_j7kmit6 wrote
You should read The Last Subway, unfortunately it’s been like this for decades only back then you could lie more easily about spending costs and people would be none the wiser
[deleted] t1_j7kuudb wrote
[deleted]
lunaoreomiel t1_j7kc815 wrote
Make it free market and all this graft goes away
donttouchthirdrail t1_j7kffa3 wrote
This is the free market. Do you think these contractors are run by the government?
TheGazzelle t1_j7kh6pc wrote
It is not free market when you have MWBE requirements on every job and have to hire incompetent people to "run" money through in order to meet your % requirements.
Look at JFK, the state wants 30% MWBE. Each of those businesses are a racket with no competition and drives up the overall price of construction.
nychuman t1_j7lnghh wrote
Anybody downvoting this does not work in construction. You’re absolutely correct.
Colorfulgreyy t1_j7kholu wrote
What kind of free market we talking about?
donttouchthirdrail t1_j7mpd1m wrote
Which are also free market firms?
TheGazzelle t1_j7nsoiu wrote
Except the state mandates their use and keeps them in business. So no. They are not free market. It’s like capitalism with a noose around the neck.
ArcticBeavers t1_j7kjtax wrote
You want the method the federal government takes by giving projects to the lowest bidder? Half-assed work that doesn't last or needs constant replacement. MBWE is the least of our concerns with spending inefficiencies.
TheGazzelle t1_j7kndis wrote
What are you talking about? I am not saying that at all, it should all be competitive. Right now I see 20-30% of projects budgets I work on get grifted out of existence to some rich MBE owner who never turns up to the jobsite and is completely incompetent. The only reason they exist is to live off the grift of the bureaucracy that forces everyone to use them.
​
I have friends applying to JFK opening MWBEs and getting hired as consultants for triple their normal salary because the agencies need a way to spend $6 billion of the $18 Billion total budget on "Minority" enterprises. Workers get "borrowed" from one parent company to MBEs as a way to divert money and skim an extra 20%. It is ridiculous. MWBEs are 99% GRIFT.
vidro3 t1_j7lcx4n wrote
Ask consultants and it is well known that such and such MBWE is in a wife's name but basically run by a guy who is a lead at another firm.
TheGazzelle t1_j7lkl02 wrote
Yeah exactly. Put a regular or noncompetive company in your wife's name (or give 51% to a random minority owner) and now all of a sudden they get $30m-100m contracts on these government projects, then they drag out construction and make mistakes because they aren't very good but the government is forcing us to use them. Happens on literally every government job.
lickedTators t1_j7kn37c wrote
It's by definition impossible to have the government engage in free market deals.
Casamance t1_j7jzalr wrote
This will always be one of the most frustrating and irate-inducing problems of this city. Projects that would be a tenth of the cost elsewhere are subject to endless bureaucracy, back-scratch deals, blatant misuse of funds, and lack of proper planning and strategy. Richest city in the world and we can't even upgrade a subway in a semi-smooth manner.
butchudidit t1_j7ktnkm wrote
Were fucking trash. Japan built a overhead bridge highway in 4 hours
Unclebilbo2000 t1_j7oaz9q wrote
Best country I’ve ever been to, amazing efficiency, pride and work ethic
YouWantMySourD t1_j7ktmff wrote
Sorry for being pedantic but 'irate' is an adjective, if you want something being induced you want the noun version, 'ire'
Casamance t1_j7kusti wrote
My mistake!
NordCPA88 t1_j7latrs wrote
Glad somebody said it!
Virtual_Low83 t1_j7nozxs wrote
Yeah, but how much $$$ will u/YouWantMySourD charge for the consultation? 🧐
Ok_Raisin_8796 t1_j7m8fu0 wrote
This isn’t even a problem exclusive to New York. every goddamn infrastructure project in the country is plagued with excessive contractors it’s ridiculous
columbo928s4 t1_j7mdyqp wrote
yep this has been one of the main issues with the california HSR too
Im1337 t1_j7loyum wrote
This is just a way of moving public funds into the pockets of private companies
sutisuc t1_j7l4v7v wrote
Yup all the downsides of government regulation/bureaucracy with few of the upsides.
Papa--Mochi t1_j7l7ks1 wrote
And yet every time they turn up with their begging bowl, everyone on here says: "Give them the money."
It doesn't end until we start starving the beast.
[deleted] t1_j7t0df2 wrote
[deleted]
k1lk1 t1_j7j2xos wrote
> That’s double the 5 to 10 percent that transit authorities across Europe — whether in Paris, Rome or Madrid — spend on engineering and designing projects.
> European transit agencies perform the bulk of their project design, engineering and construction management with white-collar agency staff instead of relying on outside entities. And when they hire outside firms, they keep them on a short leash.
But where is the opportunity for grift? How does anyone grift there? Do they just let the grifters starve?
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7ka6x3 wrote
I'm waiting for the stupid comments that end up popping up when you compare NY transit construction to Europe AKA NY subway is so old, NY subway is 24/7, and the one that never gets old, NY subway is really hard because of the bedrock in Manhattan and the skyscrapers.
I forgot there were no tall buildings in Paris, no deep river, no catacombs making the ground under it like swiss cheese and the subway wasn't over 100 years old... /S Yet somehow Paris can complete full subway line 10x faster for a fraction of the price, and it's nicer...
The only one I'll foncede it's that NY subway system is 24/7. Nobody prevents them to close it from 1am to 5am like the Parisian one during construction though you know...
Jeff3412 t1_j7l12r7 wrote
>The only one I'll foncede it's that NY subway system is 24/7. Nobody prevents them to close it from 1am to 5am like the Parisian one during construction though you know...
Subway being 24/7 shouldn't matter for building new tracks. Would only matter if they were trying to add tracks directly next to in use ones but that's not what we're talking about with the 2nd Ave subway.
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7l1swc wrote
Yes, I preemptively rebuke the stupid arguments people make to try to say it's not the same as other systems...
Edwunclerthe3rd t1_j7kkusq wrote
Well if we're going there Paris doesn't have buildings taller than the Eiffel tower, so they cap at like 750ft
lickedTators t1_j7knja7 wrote
How much affordable housing does the Eiffel tower provide? If a minimum age worker can't afford a 1-bedroom in the tower then I don't think it should be built. Let's turn the space into a depot for horses.
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7kp8ss wrote
Try to tell that to the La défense neighborhood...
wutcnbrowndo4u t1_j7l2qpz wrote
Pedantic, but La Defense isn't a neighborhood of Paris. It's outside the city of Paris.
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7l8y0o wrote
"Paris" includes the suburbs for most people though. It's like saying Brooklyn is not NY city 😂 And La défense has one of the major subway, RER, Transilien hub underground.
CactusBoyScout t1_j7kqkb6 wrote
That’s just in the old parts of Paris. They put all the skyscrapers in a designated business district called La Defense.
Edwunclerthe3rd t1_j7kwqj1 wrote
Of which the tallest building is tour first at 738 feet
[deleted] t1_j7l3r5l wrote
[deleted]
down_up__left_right t1_j7l5m27 wrote
What does this matter when we generally build subways under streets not skyscrapers?
If we were building a new line under WTC 1 then the height of it could be relevant.
Creative_username969 t1_j7n3spn wrote
My guess would be lateral/shear forces. Tall buildings are subject to a great deal of wind-related shear forces. If those forces lead to outward force being applied to sides of the foundation, then the ability of the ground surrounding the sides of the foundation to resist those forces matters.
volkommm t1_j7kh2rx wrote
Cost per rider for MTA projects is significantly lower than most of the European projects people compare to. It's like being surprised that a bus costs 10 times as much as your car. "But my smart car cost 30 grand!"
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7kiici wrote
(actual facts and prices at the bottom) You're so wrong, and I'm tired of people spreading misinformation, please scroll down to compare actual prices. But I assume you're saying that from the US having not experienced the Parisian subway system for example. You're comparing single ride tickets. This is for tourists, and they're still lower, but do you know that weekly and monthly passes are SIGNIFICANTLY lower to advantage residents? Like, you get an actual discount for getting a weekly or monthly pass where in NY it's basically the regular price of 2 rides a day (at the price of the NY unlimited MetroCard you get about 46 rides at regular price, basically 2 commutes a day for 23 days AKA the number of business days in a month...)
But let's actually compare the facts:
- NY single ride: $2.75
- NY monthly pass: $127
- Paris single ride: 2.10€
- Paris navigo monthly pass: 84,10€ (all zones including suburbs) and it can go as low as 72.90€ if you only go two zones. Oh, and you can choose to buy it annually which make sit only 77€ a month.
volkommm t1_j7kipy1 wrote
Cost of project per rider who uses that project. Not cost per ticket.
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7kow1y wrote
Again, wrong. I mean, that's barely true if you only count the subway system inside Paris, which would compare to the weekly ridership of the NY subway in Manhattan only. The RER system that goes in the suburbs is as wide as the subway lines in BK, Queens and Bronx.
Ok, facts now:
- Daily ridership of Paris subway system: 4.1 million a day
- Daily ridership of NY subway system: 2.4 million a day
You have to stop repeating these "facts" you heard without checking sources...
volkommm t1_j7kx5pw wrote
Don't compare the whole system. Compare just the ridership of an improvement per people who use it.
Your ridership stats are also incorrect. Nice facts, idiot.
Stop trying to own people on Reddit when it comes to topics you just Google for five seconds to verify.
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7kykws wrote
Stop trying to tell a Parisian who's been living in NY for decades how the Parisian system works 😂 The "facts" you Google are only about the subway inside Paris. That's like Manhattan. Queens, Brooklyn and The Bronx are like the Parisian suburbs, where we have the RER network and the Transilien network going there. Anyone living in the suburbs commutes using these all the time and they're included in the monthly pass. Look it up.
If you want the mileage data:
- Parisian Subway: 365 miles of track
- Parisian RER: 141 miles of track
- Parisian Transilien: 807 miles of track
- NY subway: 665 miles of track
volkommm t1_j7l3jqe wrote
Ok so let's compare French light rail to the subway? It's a glorified bus service lol. Compare heavy rail to heavy rail, which is what is being compared. Of course suburban light rail will be cheaper than SAS 2 lol.
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7l9dkt wrote
Are you saying Transilien is light rail. If anything it's the biggest rail of all 😂 There's a bit of tram yes, but most of the Transilien network is old rail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transilien?wprov=sfla1
[deleted] t1_j7l9yg6 wrote
[deleted]
doughie t1_j7klhx9 wrote
It’s pretty clear they are saying that overall ridership is much higher in NYC, nothing about the price that the rider pays. Like building a bridge for 10,000 cars a day would cost more than for 100 cars a day even if the river is a similar size.. I’m no construction expert but it makes plenty of sense to me
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7kpblw wrote
But it's not true though... Daily ridership in Paris is 4.1 million and NY is 2.4 million...
doughie t1_j7kz6wr wrote
I was just pointing out you were making very different arguments than him. What's your source?
I'm seeing 1.3bn NYC and 1bn in Paris on wikipedia. And double the overall length, plus it runs 24/7. But again, I'm no expert. IMO the main reason Paris gets it done cheaper is because they do the entire thing top to bottom within the government, not layer after layer of "free market bidding" which just results in profit motives, corruption, and a bunch of lawyers passing around the blame for why things are slow. If it were labor laws or 'lazy workers' surely France would be more expensive and slower.
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7l09ye wrote
Your link doesn't work. You see that because you only look at the subway inside Paris. Paris has 3 track systems (Metro, RER, Transilien) covering Paris and its suburbs just like NY covers Manhattan and the other borough, except they only have one system which is less efficient. My argument is that we need to stop trying to make excuses about why the maintenance and construction of the NY system is so corrupt, slow, and wasting money because it's SOOOOOOO DIFFERENT when in reality it's not. Your free market argument though is completely accurate, and that's the problem, nothing to do with the age of the system, the mileage, the price of the ticket or the ridership. It's like as soon as you mention how other system manage perfectly fine, people here immediately jump to cover the people who fuck the system because they want to make it sound so exceptional.
Here is a link, and it's from 2011: https://www.planetoscope.com/Mobilite/443-.html
doughie t1_j7l2o2b wrote
Hm.. the link works for me. Wikipedia's data is from 2021-22 and i didn't include LIRR or PATH or anything connecting. I think people do like to make weird excuses about why this city should be fundamentally more expensive. The answer seems pretty obvious to me, the same reason we spend 10X on military and the DOD can't even pass an audit.. waste, fraud, abuse and 3rd party contracting/grift dressed up as 'the free market'. It makes no sense to me that with so much to maintain that we shouldn't have dedicated people, sort of like the Army Corps of Engineers, who handle things and can't pass the buck or dissolve the company and reform under a different name.
Another example is Barclay's Center. We let some contractor promise a bunch of bullshit, deliver nothing that wasn't personally profitable to themselves, then sell it off to Chinese developers with the project overbudget and behind schedule. Privatized profits and socialized costs, and we still don't have half what we paid for. In France they'd riot (as we should).
[deleted] t1_j7kmg33 wrote
[deleted]
lickedTators t1_j7knb67 wrote
> JUST COMPARE PROJECT COST TO TOTAL INCOME LIKE A NORMAL PERSON.
Total income of the service? This is a public good. Income shouldn't matter.
[deleted] t1_j7kpo5m wrote
[deleted]
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7kpgun wrote
Ok, but what if I told you there are 4.1 million daily rider in the Parisian system and only 2.4 in the NY one? How does that compare now?
[deleted] t1_j7kpkju wrote
[deleted]
volkommm t1_j7l8miu wrote
Spending 1 billion on a station that serves 10 million riders is different than spending 35 million on a station that serves 15k riders. These projects scale up to their service needs. All stations and projects are not equal.
Stop comparing nominal cost.
[deleted] t1_j7l97uk wrote
[deleted]
volkommm t1_j7l9nwa wrote
????? You can't be serious right?
Whats the better value: Station 1 that costs 100 dollars and serves 1 person Station 2 that costs 200 dollars and serves 200 people.
Are you going to build station 1 because it's cheaper?
Capadvantagetutoring t1_j7kkb34 wrote
I think you can’t really compare them. The sheer size and coverage of the NYC subway system dwarfs the Parisian one. Different types of cities ( I would assume ) have different needs (Zone systems so if you have a short commute it may be cheaper Vs the one price for all no matter the difference. Either way it’s not horrible that you can get to anywhere (I assume Paris one covers the whole city also ) in the city for a few bucks
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7kp4f2 wrote
You guys have to stop comparisons the whole NY subway system to the one INSIDE Paris. The Parisian system is as wide, if not wider, than the NY one. Or compare it to Manhattan only...
Capadvantagetutoring t1_j7kpvlm wrote
Why? The NYC system covers the entire NYC not just one Borough. Paris is around 140 miles vs 7-800 miles for NYC. For the sheer size of the NYC system it’s pretty damn efficient.
If the systems we’re self contained by borough I’m sure the Manahattan one would be pristine and the other ones would get so little funding that they would be horrible
I agree they shouldn’t be compared but then you say you think the Paris one is as wide or wider than the NYC one ? That part is confusing. You can’t be saying the Paris one is bigger ?
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7kwlff wrote
The Parisian system covers Paris AND all the suburbs.
- NYC square mileage: 302.6
- Grand Paris square mileage: 314.3
Capadvantagetutoring t1_j7kyfj4 wrote
Should we count all of the MTA system? Counting Long Island and Westchester county ? Sounds like that’s what you are doing. Subway is just one part of the whole system. Since you want to compare.
Let’s do miles of track just in the city 140 vs 250 (800 miles if you count double used tracks )just in NYC not including the rest of the system
I’ll use your metric the greater nyc area is 6720 square miles. Let’s take off 60% because some of that is NJ. That’s still 2600 sq miles. Paris system is dwarfed by NYC MTA. If you compare apples to apples and even when you compare JUST NYC vs Paris city only system (not outside ) still a big difference. Nobody is shitting on the Paris one it’s just comparing the NYC one to Paris is not really relevant
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7kz05b wrote
Miles of track:
- NY Subway 665
- Parisian Subway 141
- Parisian RER 365
- Parisian Transilien 807
Regardless, are you telling us that there's no waste in the construction of the NY system and that its efficiently run?
Capadvantagetutoring t1_j7l1519 wrote
Never said there wasn’t waste (tons of it ) are you saying there is none in Paris
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7l1w4c wrote
Well, we circle back to: compare the price and time it takes to build a line in Paris vs NY...
NetQuarterLatte t1_j7kz1gq wrote
Compared to NYC, Paris is almost a circle.
So perhaps the solution to public transit efficiency is to change the shape of NYC so that the outer edges of the city are roughly equidistant from the center.
youcantfindoutwhoiam t1_j7kzjkt wrote
I'm tired of those arguments trying to tell me that there's no corruption in the way the MTA budgets and spends and that they are only spending that much because of the rock, the mileage, the shape now apparently.... Believe what you want and refuse to compare to how other countries can maintain and expand a similar system for cheaper and faster...
NetQuarterLatte t1_j7l2bm1 wrote
I have no doubt there's corruption.
There's a lot of inefficiencies too.
I think you might like this article: How to build back under budget (maybe) | The Economist
>But unfortunately the agency drawing up the contract does not have enough qualified staff to conduct a full review of construction proposals. The lowest bidder wins the job, as is typically the case in America. After winning, however, the contractor quickly tacks on additional costs, and the government is again in over its head. Unable to manage such a big project, it ends up relying on contractors and consultants who botch key segments of the Wilson line, requiring expensive do-overs. Inter-agency turf battles and co-ordination problems worsen the situation.
TheSpaceBetweenUs__ t1_j7k7fvj wrote
The grifters have to get real jobs
[deleted] t1_j7kpdpi wrote
[removed]
binghamtonswag t1_j7k68e1 wrote
And yet i constantly hear the huge cost in MTA construction is related to the union construction workers 🤔
Die-Nacht t1_j7kbzz3 wrote
I used to think the same thing but then I learnt that Paris doesn't have this issue.
And the French are known for their insane unions and worker protection laws.
mizzenmast312 t1_j7l62j0 wrote
> I used to think the same thing but then I learnt that Paris doesn't have this issue. And the French are known for their insane unions and worker protection laws.
That's kind of a misunderstanding, though. The US doesn't have as big of a union presence, no, but unions like the TWU are much more powerful in their industry than the equivalent ones in France - workers here get paid several times what they would in France.
TeamMisha t1_j7pd7ky wrote
It is a huge part of the problem. Google 'NYTimes 2nd Ave Expose', they explicitly mention union staffing. They found I believe on 2nd Ave and ESA a huge amount of make work jobs and over staffing. One comical note was apparently break rooms need a paid supervisor lol
akmalhot t1_j7k7oyh wrote
Mentions overstaffed mtiple times. Last week I went by a site where they had one minicat w a jackhammer thing in it. One guy operating it and 8 other guys standing around
ObjectivePitiful1170 t1_j7kbsy6 wrote
Right, and 15 minutes later all of them had something to do when the bobcat is done. Do you expect them to go home while the bobcat is operating? Do you have any idea how things work?
akmalhot t1_j7kcxro wrote
There was zero other equipment or trucks at the site. Literally nothing
TheGazzelle t1_j7ki3w0 wrote
There are union and Osha regulations that need to be followed depending on weights of materials.
If there is a construction task that day and it cannot be lifted with a piece of equipment I must staff a job so that the max weight lifted is less than 80lbs/ea. If there is equipment I am able to halve the number of men; but sometimes I still need manpower If I am handling something that is 2,000 pounds for 10 minutes at 6AM and the rest of the day the guys are sweeping. The guys are getting paid for the day regardless if they are there for 2.5 hrs or all 8. Sometimes there is nothing for them to do and they do busy work. Unless you want to deregulate OSHA there isn't a ton to be done.
akmalhot t1_j7ki9g8 wrote
And, that isn't a little ridiculous?
doughie t1_j7klwvv wrote
Kind of ridiculous to blame the laborers doing dangerous difficult work instead of the capitalist grifters making hundreds of thousands in consulting fees while sitting in an office. Corruption, needlessly complicated bidding, exorbitant lawyer fees so that the contractor and the city can sue each other. These are the big differences between the Parisian state run system and the NYC 'free market' system. You really think the French have looser labor laws and tougher working conditions?
akmalhot t1_j7kqilx wrote
I'm blaming all of them, but the comment I replied to implied the union contracts had no effect on the costs .
They've gone way to far with things , when they were redoing the intersection at 29th /9th Ave there was minimum 4 slow/stop people at all times during active construction.. I used to live close by so I saw it regularly. Sometimes there was 6. Sure it's a semi odd intersection bit it was insane.
doughie t1_j7l14fv wrote
Fair enough. I'd be interested in seeing an actual journalist/accountant dig into the labor breakdown rather than NY Post cherrypicked BS. I would guess the difference between NYC and other major metro systems around the world is more about how litigious and corrupt we are than our labor standards though.
ThinVast t1_j7mxubp wrote
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html
An accountant discovered the discrepancy while reviewing the budget for new train platforms under Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan.
The budget showed that 900 workers were being paid to dig caverns for the platforms as part of a 3.5-mile tunnel connecting the historic station to the Long Island Rail Road. But the accountant could only identify about 700 jobs that needed to be done, according to three project supervisors. Officials could not find any reason for the other 200 people to be there.
“Nobody knew what those people were doing, if they were doing anything,” said Michael Horodniceanu, who was then the head of construction at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs transit in New York. The workers were laid off, Mr. Horodniceanu said, but no one figured out how long they had been employed. “All we knew is they were each being paid about $1,000 every day.”
$200,000 grifted everyday for who knows how long.
doughie t1_j7nde4p wrote
Thanks for that article. I'm not sure if you're agreeing with my point or not. This still doesn't say that it's our labor or safety standards are the reason for expenses, instead it shows rampant corruption. Sounds like 200 politically connected people were getting absolutely insane rates off the government dime. I would love to see some real investigative journalism about who this money is going to. I guarantee those 200 imaginary laborers are giving money to political bosses. Short staffing the actual workers or cutting their safety precautions would not fix this issue, right?
binghamtonswag t1_j7ljd2l wrote
Anecdotes just aren’t very convincing in light of The data presented by the article.
ImHappierThanUsual t1_j7jjw1i wrote
And now they’re fretting abt how not to jack up fares because of turnstyle hoppers
FYM
undisputedn00b t1_j7jq2hd wrote
MTA wasting massive amounts of money? Yup, just checked water is still wet and the sky is still blue.
Ok-Strain-9847 t1_j7kbyu6 wrote
Tens of billions of dollars have been spent in the past decade in the subway and it is never enough. And after all that time, take a look at the Chambers Street Station on the J & Z line. Still looks like it hasn't been touched since the 1950's.
vanshnookenraggen t1_j7jml52 wrote
I think it's hilarious that we got here, in part, because the Republican controlled NYS (Pataki) thought big govt would waste money and wanted the MTA to use more "free market" consultants.
WheatonWill t1_j7kfrch wrote
I think it’s hilarious that you have to reach back 17 years to find a Republican to blame.
adhi- t1_j7kgp4l wrote
seriously lol, as a liberal democrat living in a state dominated by liberal democrats, it's extremely cringe to blame republicans
CactusBoyScout t1_j7kr3l9 wrote
The NYTimes did a great video on this.
Basically about how democrats love to blame republicans but then in deep blue states like California, Illinois, and Washington very little gets done to fix the major economic/inequality issues despite having solid Democratic majorities.
vanshnookenraggen t1_j7lwo7q wrote
Read this excellent book on the exact subject. What I mentioned is exactly what happened.
[deleted] t1_j7m0gmr wrote
[deleted]
Suhweetusername t1_j7kexmg wrote
It would help if the MTA’s design/build plan was even remotely accurate. Specialized consultants make sense to use because why would the MTA keep tunneling experts on staff? They are a transportation agency, not a construction agency.
lunaoreomiel t1_j7kco89 wrote
The issue is that its not funded via free market investment, so there is no accountability, people just take what they can
Tsuko17 t1_j7jr5vt wrote
"consultants" they're buddies. Please audit the entire MTA
w00dw0rk3r t1_j7klbat wrote
Would love this but it’s never gonna happen- at least to the extent that it’s going to make a difference.
drpvn t1_j7jc2ze wrote
This is what congestion pricing is going to fund.
Interesting_Total_98 t1_j7kszwn wrote
It at least helps reduce traffic.
drpvn t1_j7kt2cw wrote
I doubt it.
[deleted] t1_j7kt505 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j7kt6vx wrote
[deleted]
Interesting_Total_98 t1_j7kt7wg wrote
Sin taxes are effective. People don't like losing money.
drpvn t1_j7kt9p0 wrote
Ok
TeamMisha t1_j7pdh8z wrote
London saw real reductions when it was launched, we will likely see a a reduction but the amount will vary based on what toll scenario is chosen, and I believe London had quite a few exemptions and carve outs
NYCCentrist t1_j7k96gx wrote
Need to start using the appropriate name for congestion pricing - it's "road use tax."
What a scam this is going to be. Plus, after all the costs to manage it, it's going to be a fraction of the amount they expect it to generate.
CavediverNY t1_j7kcjzn wrote
I think congestion pricing is going to be a huge success primarily because it will be automated. See, all you need to do is put up the special cameras that can read license plates and… Oh, wait. Never mind. /s
HarkHarley t1_j7kfrb9 wrote
Measure twice, cut once
NetQuarterLatte t1_j7kuy2t wrote
The true New Yorker way would be:
- The NYC Council or legislative drafts the construction plan.
- Then, the contractor is supposed to follow exactly what the Council drafted or be liable criminally.
- Then, when half of a neighborhood collapses, they blame the contractors.
Pavswede t1_j7kpnle wrote
This is old news - the NY Times did a comprehensive piece about the costs years ago. Consulting is a big part of it, but construction is inflated as well. Everyone is shoving as much tax payer money into their fat pockets as they can.
GeoBk t1_j7ky1ch wrote
If you ever get a chance can to work at the MTA offices you will see how blatantly corrupt it is. They don’t even hide it.
Die-Nacht t1_j7kde89 wrote
This is what happens when you are penny-wise, pound foolish.
The govt thought it could save money (and shrink) by offloading all the work out of the MTA and into the "free market".
Sure, in theory, you just made the government smaller but in the process made everything more expensive.
Janus_The_Great t1_j7ke5iz wrote
Sounds like time to be a consultant. What do you need consulting about. Let me know, I'm great at it.
[deleted] t1_j7kjm2q wrote
[deleted]
sokpuppet1 t1_j7ky8oc wrote
Wait until you hear what east side access cost and it’s minimal/imaginary benefit
Childrenoftheflorist t1_j7mftuw wrote
I worked on the tunnel boring machines from sunnyside yards in long island city to grand centeral 10 years ago and the jobs still not finished lol
[deleted] t1_j7j46pj wrote
[deleted]
Capadvantagetutoring t1_j7kj9jb wrote
“Measure twice,cut once “.
smp2005throwaway t1_j7kz32v wrote
If you want to read a view not by the NYPost about this: https://pedestrianobservations.com/ is the blog of one of the authors, who wrote about it yesterday.
onemanclic t1_j7ljf7v wrote
Standard reference that NYP is a trash rag that parrots the talking points of the rich and Republicans.
As such, the headline is misleading. The article reveals that the comparison is consultants to tunnel boring, not overall construction. That is a much bigger slice of the budget, as it should be.
Also, it says it relies on "consultants" for design. Would you rather have the MTA have full-time staff on its payroll for designing new stations and tunnels when they only do so once every generation or so? If you had that, no doubt the NYP would be complaining about an overstaffed bureaucracy.
Also, the stations were "twice as big as needed" because we wanted big stations and platforms, not the dangerous garbage where you have 1ft clearance between columns and tracks at old stations. This is the "minimum" that they are comparing to.
NYP and there backers don't want any public funds spent on anything that helps the masses. If they truly wanted to talk about cost-cutting or budgets, they could address this underlying lack of public investment in the projects. But whenever they talk about it, they talk about it as "gov'mnt is bad".
You want prices to be cheap like Euro cities? Easy - commit to building 80 miles of rails and stations and the world will open up to you. Demand volume is what drives competition and prices down - basic capitalism that NYP forgets because they have a political hit-job agenda.
ParadoxPath t1_j7mou52 wrote
Trying to be generous - measure twice and cut once ?
JesseRKnight t1_j7pjsch wrote
Bribe your friends twice. Do the job once.
mphats1972 t1_j7nq3bd wrote
And it's earthquake proof
AutoModerator t1_j7j1vjr wrote
Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/nyc, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a >responsibility to be skeptical, check sources and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find >evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_j7k072u wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j7kql68 wrote
[deleted]
SFH-N t1_j7kt1z2 wrote
Hopefully it's worth the tax money and doesn't break down
TreeAccelerationist t1_j7l2gzs wrote
I wonder how many of those consultants were related to city officials
[deleted] t1_j7l4rem wrote
[removed]
awayish t1_j7l6hvp wrote
I can get to the bottom of this problem at a rate of 600$ per hour
Jimmy_kong253 t1_j7l8fvw wrote
What happens is a lot of these government agencies hire ex employees usually management in general to act as consultants. People want to complain about unions and their greed. The consultant gig is a bigger money loser
[deleted] t1_j7lft3j wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j7ljr2x wrote
[removed]
joelekane t1_j7lv9ob wrote
Uh—I mean, those consultants are the engineers, architects and scientists who designed it, optimized it and made sure none of the 100 billion dollars worth of surrounding real estate and infrastructure collapsed. So yeah—that can be pretty expensive to knock out, but call me crazy—it’s worth it.
Do people think we just go out and start digging a big hole underneath 2nd Avenue?
[deleted] t1_j7n6r8r wrote
[removed]
Eviana27 t1_j7qnzsq wrote
Omg I legit know too much about the MTA …. Who is mismanaging the funds I know money isn’t the issue but you know what is?! Mismanaged funds
Sams_Butter_Sock t1_j7r3sus wrote
Now is the best time to build this though since east side access finished. We have the equipment and workers who are familiar with tunneling project now lets keep the ball rolling before we have to start at square one again
YoMommaSez t1_j7jky8d wrote
I'm not shocked.
mrnice420 t1_j7k5uol wrote
Anyone who works for the MTA and wears a suit to work should be fired immediately…
BreadBoxin t1_j7kcb3r wrote
The MTA shouldn't be allowed to spend a dime without someone checking on what they're doing. How many times do they need to be caught doing shady shit with money? Like 75% of what they do is lie about the state of the subway system and hoard money that never seems to be used for shit it should be
Danjour t1_j7kfxx7 wrote
Holy shit, I know there’s probably something going on that I don’t understand but, that’s horrible sounding.
unndunn t1_j7kgjdz wrote
So, essentially, the MTA doesn’t actually know how to build a subway line. And we’re going to make Manhattan drivers, everyday New Yorkers who aren’t using their services or facilities, pay them to go deeper into debt for this. Debt which they will no doubt use to justify ongoing fare hikes.
This also goes a long way to explaining why Andy Byford was forced out.
If you still support congestion pricing after this, you’re a fucking fool.
mizzenmast312 t1_j7l6grw wrote
Byford has nothing to do with this. He quit because Cuomo kept undermining him and preventing him from doing his job.
> And we’re going to make everyday New Yorkers, who aren’t using their services or facilities
"everyday New Yorkers" are literally the ones using the MTA facilities.
> If you still support congestion pricing after this, you’re a fucking fool.
The state needs to actually do its job and exercise oversight over the MTA. We also need congestion pricing, both to reduce car usage and to provide necessary revenue to public transportation. Both things are true.
Few-Artichoke-2531 t1_j7ko3ss wrote
Not surprised. Tomorrow we will find out that they spent twice as much on light bulbs for one station than they did on consultants for the entire project.
butchudidit t1_j7kt9n6 wrote
Lol consultants. I make stupid excel sheets and powerpoints that contribute to nothing but bs
newnewreditguy t1_j7lcl72 wrote
I've been saying this on this sub for a while now. There are a lot of consultants out there that are borderland useless. A lot of the construction we do now is essentially design-build; the contractors that build can also design.
ilovetolearnsocratic t1_j7noimg wrote
How does this go unpunished? Why isn't there civil unrest for these actions? Not asking from a place of innocence, I'm just perplexed at how certain crimes get instant media coverage and are plastered every where but this type of news doesn't really gather any traction. What am I missing here? Is there no independent auditors or netizens who go after these guys?
HEIMDVLLR t1_j7kajc3 wrote
Live here long enough you know the MTA loves to waste money. So anyone placing blame on fare beaters and praising congestion tolls, is a dead giveaway.
winstonpartell t1_j7l5q7r wrote
LOL why am I only moderately surprised
Disused_Yeti t1_j7j58kp wrote
Three quarters of that, $3.8 billion was spent on the design, engineering and construction of the tunnel: $655 million went to consultants and outside firms; just $378 million was spent boring the tunnel itself from 63rd Street to 96th Street.
soooo...
$3.8B on design, engineering and construction
$655M on design and engineering
that's $3.145B on construction, not $378M - that was just on boring. you don't just run trains as soon as the hole is dug
but no one reading the post will care about the actual math, just hear the OMG THEY WASTING MONEY! yeah they waste a shit ton of money, but the truth doesn't sound as dramatic in a headline