Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 89

Thread: South Ferry Terminal

  1. #61

    Default

    It all depends if you think the station needed to be updated.

    There was no free transfer to the R/W. It was only half a station, accommodating 5 subway cars. It had limited entry/exit, and was overcrowded.

    The other alternatives considered were either just as expensive, or as in the case of a new 3 track station under Battery Park, too far away from the ferry. The cheapest alternative was to lengthen the station northward and reduce the curve, but would have eliminated the crossover tracks between the #1 and the #4/5. The crossover is needed for flexibility in service disruptions, and for maintenance. So that option was not viable.

  2. #62

    Default

    News



    Late But Not Lost, New South Ferry Subway Station Opens

    by Matthew Schuerman

    NEW YORK, NY March 16, 2009 —Today, a familiar cry at the southern end of the Number 1 subway line will cease at last.

    A new, longer South Ferry station means that conductors no longer have to tell passengers to move to the first five cars to get out. Federal September 11 aid is paying for most of the cost of the $530 million station, which includes a platform where all of the 10 cars of a typical subway train can fit.

    It was supposed to open in January, and the MTA even gave the media a preview late last year. But at the last minute, workers discovered that the gap between the new platform and the train cars was up to four inches wide, which was greater than federal law allows. The authority had to install wider rubbing boards to narrow that gap to three inches or less, adding about $150,000 to the total bill.

    The station, the first new subway station in the city to open in 20 years, opens to riders at noon.

    http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/126360

    ©2009 WNYC Radio

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    Don't forget they were also behind schedule for two years.
    The final documents were issued in the spring of 2004, with construction to begin in the fall of that year. The schedule called for a little over three years of construction, with completion at the end of 2007. Construction began in the fall of 2005, so the completion date was end 2008.

    Three months late.

    Costs more than anybody else and also taking longer than everybody else to do anything.
    As far as I know, the general contractor completed the project on budget, and bore the cost of repairing the too-wide gap.

  4. #64

    Default

    How much is the entire first first section of the 2nd ave line supposed to cost? I seem to remember it being 2 billion? So four of these stations = a 30 block subway line?

  5. #65

    Default

    1. The federal funds for phase one of the SAS cover 1/3 of the entire cost. The number I remember is $1.5 billion, so it's at least $4.5 billion in 2007 dollars. The projection at that time was for completion of phase one by 2014. Since not all the contracts are in place, you can be sure the final cost will be higher than $4.5 billion.

    2. Federal money is procured by project, not "here's the money, do what you want with it." South Ferry was almost entirely paid for with post 09/11 federal funding.

    3. As an example of my point about whether or not the station upgrade was needed: Let's say the IRT #1 station at 18th St was never built. So you would have a station at 14th, and the next at 23rd. Someone at 18th street would have to walk to 14th or 23rd.

    A discussion about whether or not to build a new station at 18th st would involve the need for the station justifying the cost. I doubt that it would be built today because of the short walk to 14th or 23rd. That argument would still be valid 20 years from now.

    Can the same argument be made for South Ferry? Should we have permanently left it the way it was?

  6. #66

    Default

    I understand the arguement but its seems to me alot of money to plough into one project when alot of the subway system needs some work. If I had 530 mil to spend on the subway id spread it around the whole system but I understand the money it was paid for with couldnt be spread around. When you look at it in general terms it wasnt that bad to have to move to the front or be in a cramped station, definitely not a desperate situation. It would have been better for the city to have that money spent on the rest of the system.

  7. #67
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    The final documents were issued in the spring of 2004, with construction to begin in the fall of that year. The schedule called for a little over three years of construction, with completion at the end of 2007. Construction began in the fall of 2005, so the completion date was end 2008.

    Three months late.
    Please cite your source for these dates. The news media is saying they're two years late.

    Quote Originally Posted by brianac View Post
    Originally scheduled to open in 2007, the MTA had hoped to open the station this past January, and even hosted a press tour of the terminal in anticipation of a ribbon cutting.
    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    As far as I know, the general contractor completed the project on budget, and bore the cost of repairing the too-wide gap.
    Again, please cite your source.

    Besides, I'm talking about the MTA's reputation and innate propensity to require more money to do anything versus other more efficient and better run organizations not whether they met their estimated construction costs. I think most people already know that and if you ask the MTA themselves, they would tell you that, too. LOL.

  8. #68
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Should we have permanently left it the way it was?
    No one said that. I don't think there is anyone that didn't want that station fixed up. We're just lamenting that the MTA is the one to do it.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    Please cite your source for these dates. The news media is saying they're two years late.
    It's a little disingenuous for you to ask for documentation that's a matter of public record. We also have a thread on this station that tracked it from the beginning. Go to the EIS filed in 2004, look under Construction Methods for scheduling. Total run time was projected to be a little over three years. Construction began in late 2005, and was halted soon after for a month or two when the colonial walls were found.

    Again, please cite your source.
    The federal grant covering the majority cost was $420 million. It's all over the internet. The target cost was about $500 million, so this was 6% over budget. That's not bad over three years, considering what happened to construction costs.

    Besides, I'm talking about the MTA's reputation and innate propensity to require more money
    And I'm talking about this one project, not the MTA's track record. You're confusing this project with Fulton Transit. The problems there are from cost overruns relating to issues about design changes, and not putting contracts out. The Dey St tunnel progressed because the job went to contract, and the builder took over. That's why South Ferry got completed on time.

    to do anything versus other more efficient and better run organizations not whether they met their estimated construction costs.
    This is a capital project. It goes out to bid. Contractors respond. The selected contractor builds the project, not the MTA. That's the way it works.

    No one said that. I don't think there is anyone that didn't want that station fixed up.
    My remark was directed to Alonzo, who seems to think it wasn't necessary.

    We're just lamenting that the MTA is the one to do it.
    What exactly is it they did that you're lamenting?

  10. #70
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,777

    Default

    3. As an example of my point about whether or not the station upgrade was needed: Let's say the IRT #1 station at 18th St was never built. So you would have a station at 14th, and the next at 23rd. Someone at 18th street would have to walk to 14th or 23rd.

    So?

    I think the 18th street station is a waste of time and money.

    Busses go every 2 blocks. Subways don't need to go every 5. (I know, OT)

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post
    So?

    I think the 18th street station is a waste of time and money.
    Well, duh. I think that was my point.

  12. #72
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,777

    Default

    Your point was a little muddled Zip, that's all.

    I could not tell whether you were defending or decrying the money spent on the SF Station, so I was confused as to the intent of the example of frivolous spending.


    Question though, what made the original designers think that 18th was a great place to have a stop when they were making it? Some were because of the distance between stops, but others (like Port Authority and Penn Station) were there because of the obvious need.

    Others were there because of amenities (Union Square) or junctions (West 4th?) but I just do not see anything useful about the 18th street stop......


    Is there any history?

  13. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge View Post
    Question though, what made the original designers think that 18th was a great place to have a stop when they were making it? Some were because of the distance between stops, but others (like Port Authority and Penn Station) were there because of the obvious need.

    Others were there because of amenities (Union Square) or junctions (West 4th?) but I just do not see anything useful about the 18th street stop......

    Is there any history?
    When the IRT was getting built 100 years ago, subway trains were very short - only 4 cars long - and platforms were only about half as long as today too. That's why on the Midtown IRT lines stations were spaced only about 5 blocks apart, which today seems ridiculously close because of the modern 10-car trains and the respectively elongated platforms.

    In fact, there also used to be an 18th Street station on the Lexington IRT line as well but it was abandoned in 1948 because 14th and 23rd were so close after platform elongation. I don't know why the 7th Ave/18th St station remained though.

    http://www.nycsubway.org/abandsta.html

  14. #74
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    It's a little disingenuous for you to ask for documentation that's a matter of public record.
    Whoa, I'm disingenuous for asking you where you are getting your information?

    The news media (which I've shown) is saying they're two years late and you say it's not. All I wanted to know was how you got your information.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    The federal grant covering the majority cost was $420 million. It's all over the internet. The target cost was about $500 million, so this was 6% over budget. That's not bad over three years, considering what happened to construction costs.
    Again, you're using their estimated or target costs as you put in, as a comparison. I'm saying that even that target cost is still way too high to begin with. If let's say it was some other, better run and more efficient organization, then they could have gotten it done for less.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    And I'm talking about this one project, not the MTA's track record. You're confusing this project with Fulton Transit. The problems there are from cost overruns relating to issues about design changes, and not putting contracts out. The Dey St tunnel progressed because the job went to contract, and the builder took over. That's why South Ferry got completed on time.
    I was talking more about the MTA's reputation:

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    It's the MTA. Did you expect anything else?
    Don't forget they were also behind schedule for two years. That's also another one of their traits.
    Costs more than anybody else and also taking longer than everybody else to do anything.
    It's not my fault you jumped and changed the premises of the topic and now turn around and questioning me about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    This is a capital project. It goes out to bid. Contractors respond. The selected contractor builds the project, not the MTA. That's the way it works.
    Quite often, we hear how government or at least non-private institutions due to bureaucracy or inefficiencies just take more time and money to get a lot of things done. The MTA is known as being one of the worst ones for that in the city. That was my point.

    That over half-a-billion dollar figure seems very high for just a subway station, even given its somewhat moderate complexities. That's the point I was making.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    My remark was directed to Alonzo, who seems to think it wasn't necessary.
    I didn't get that impression at all. He was, like myself, questioning the costs, not whether or not it was necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    What exactly is it they did that you're lamenting?
    I don't know why you are having trouble understanding what I said. I thought it was quite straightforward.

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    We're just lamenting that the MTA is the one to do it.
    Of course, there really isn't anyone besides the MTA to do it but then again, I was talking more theoretically than realistically.

  15. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    Whoa, I'm disingenuous for asking you where you are getting your information?
    You're right; I shouldn't have said that.

    Again, you're using their estimated or target costs as you put in, as a comparison. I'm saying that even that target cost is still way too high to begin with. If let's say it was some other, better run and more efficient organization, then they could have gotten it done for less.
    Unless you have some inside information, the true cost of a complex project is unknown. You're speculating. I based my opinion on the amount of the contract, which was not appreciably revised upward.

    As a further aid to determining if the cost is a correct ballpark figure: The tunnel stretches from Greenwich St north of Battery Pl to the ferry terminal - 1500 feet. It was dug under streets, through old utilities, while maintaining service for three subways. It took three years. Compare the $500 million to other comparable projects.

    It's not my fault you jumped and changed the premises of the topic and now turn around and questioning me about it.
    The topic is the South Ferry station. There are plenty of threads where we question the MTA's financing. But construction of capital projects is undertaken by private contractors. If you're challenging the bid, then you really should provide a basis for comparison.

    I didn't get that impression at all. He was, like myself, questioning the costs, not whether or not it was necessary.
    I understood Alonzo's point He was not questioning the project cost, but that the money should have been spent elsewhere.

    I wasn't sure what you were driving at, since you stated that the project was beneficial, but didn't clearly state that the cost was too high, only that the project was two years late. I got angry because I assumed that a conclusion that the project was over budgeted or appreciably late would have been preceded by a look at the documents.

    In the final analysis, the station upgrade was a few months late, and cost local government about $120 million. It was a success. The contractor gets the credit, not the MTA.

    If you want to criticize a project, a better subject would be the SAS. Bad enough that it wasn't designed with express tracks, or at least a third layover track, but now the third track has been removed from the 72nd St station. This will be regretted in 20 years when a train breakdown shuts the entire line.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is the South Bronx Hip?
    By ASchwarz in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: March 16th, 2015, 10:58 PM
  2. 69th street Ferry - Old pictures
    By BILL in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2008, 10:33 AM
  3. Barretto Point Park in the South Bronx
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 4th, 2008, 02:02 AM
  4. West Midtown Ferry Terminal on Pier 79
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For Visitors
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: November 12th, 2005, 02:23 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software