Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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

295

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. “

137

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.

127

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.

15

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.

45

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.

14

volkommm t1_j7khcfk wrote

Consider lead times too. One manufacturer may not be able to produce 3

5

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.

10

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.

1

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.

7

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.

0

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.

3

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".

3

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.

43

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

30

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.

15

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.

35

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?

7

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.

10

bajarneb t1_j7k3abb wrote

Ah, good catch. That’s a super poorly written sentence.

4

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]

2

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.

0