It seems that it's time to change the standard government answer from "NO" to "YES" or at least to "MAYBE." I was reminded of this great need after reading an article from USA Today about the possible construction by Elon Musk of highway tunnels under Los Angeles. The article is not sure if Musk is joking, but he has said that he would like to build tunnels in the LA region in order to reduce the pervasive and massive traffic congestion there. The reporter than points to the recently opened first phase of the Second Avenue Subway in New York as proof that tunnels are "hard to build" and "extremely expensive."
It's worth taking a closer look at the Second Avenue Subway. It was originally proposed in the 1920s, but then it kept getting delayed. Construction actually began in the 1970s but was then abandoned after the only a few segments of the line were completed when the money ran out. In this century, construction was restarted with the work limited to a first segment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. That first segment opened just about a month ago, only roughly ten years behind schedule and at a cost about four times the original estimate. No one seems to know the reason for the delay and cost overrun. Having worked for years with the MTA (which built the line), my guess is that no one at the agency knows those reasons either. Nothing seems ever to get built on time or on budget once the "experts" at the MTA get involved.
One thing, however, is certain. The engineers and managers at the MTA (like other government officials) refuse to think outside the box. I say this from personal knowledge. One of the main reasons for the huge cost of the Second Avenue Subway is that it had to go under a major thoroughfare in Manhattan. That means it had to go under water line, electric wires, gas pipes, and all manner of other utilities and building foundations that were in place prior to construction. Also, the traffic on Second Avenue had to be maintained during construction. These requirements cost billions, but it didn't have to be that way. Back when resurrection of the subway line was being considered, a New York professional engineer came up with a much better albeit quite different idea for the project. The engineer in question was a brilliant man named Irwin Toporoff. No one knew more about the construction of tunnels than he did. He suggested to the MTA that instead of building the line under Second Avenue, they relocate the tunnel to run under the East River a few blocks to the east of the planned location. Toporoff said that it would be relatively easy to dig a trench along the edge of the river, build tunnel sections off site, bring them to the site on barges and then sink them and connect them inside the trench. Entrances to the subway stations could be on First and Second Avenue and linked underground to the new subway by moving sidewalks. The estimate at the time was that this sort of construction would reduce the cost of the project by 75% to 80% and cut the time for construction by a similar figure. The immediate answer from the MTA was a rejection because the East River route would require agreement from the US Corps of Engineers. The end result was major delays and extraordinary costs. The MTA wouldn't even discuss the possibility with the Corps of Engineers.
I mention this bit of history, because it shows how a government bureaucracy stuck to the standard plans without even investigating an intelligent alternative that could have given major benefits to New York City and its people.
It is really time for the stodgy bureaucrats who refuse to consider change or any sort to have their worlds shaken up. America needs new approaches, new ideas and new directions. Hopefully, we will get some of that with the new administration.
It's worth taking a closer look at the Second Avenue Subway. It was originally proposed in the 1920s, but then it kept getting delayed. Construction actually began in the 1970s but was then abandoned after the only a few segments of the line were completed when the money ran out. In this century, construction was restarted with the work limited to a first segment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. That first segment opened just about a month ago, only roughly ten years behind schedule and at a cost about four times the original estimate. No one seems to know the reason for the delay and cost overrun. Having worked for years with the MTA (which built the line), my guess is that no one at the agency knows those reasons either. Nothing seems ever to get built on time or on budget once the "experts" at the MTA get involved.
One thing, however, is certain. The engineers and managers at the MTA (like other government officials) refuse to think outside the box. I say this from personal knowledge. One of the main reasons for the huge cost of the Second Avenue Subway is that it had to go under a major thoroughfare in Manhattan. That means it had to go under water line, electric wires, gas pipes, and all manner of other utilities and building foundations that were in place prior to construction. Also, the traffic on Second Avenue had to be maintained during construction. These requirements cost billions, but it didn't have to be that way. Back when resurrection of the subway line was being considered, a New York professional engineer came up with a much better albeit quite different idea for the project. The engineer in question was a brilliant man named Irwin Toporoff. No one knew more about the construction of tunnels than he did. He suggested to the MTA that instead of building the line under Second Avenue, they relocate the tunnel to run under the East River a few blocks to the east of the planned location. Toporoff said that it would be relatively easy to dig a trench along the edge of the river, build tunnel sections off site, bring them to the site on barges and then sink them and connect them inside the trench. Entrances to the subway stations could be on First and Second Avenue and linked underground to the new subway by moving sidewalks. The estimate at the time was that this sort of construction would reduce the cost of the project by 75% to 80% and cut the time for construction by a similar figure. The immediate answer from the MTA was a rejection because the East River route would require agreement from the US Corps of Engineers. The end result was major delays and extraordinary costs. The MTA wouldn't even discuss the possibility with the Corps of Engineers.
I mention this bit of history, because it shows how a government bureaucracy stuck to the standard plans without even investigating an intelligent alternative that could have given major benefits to New York City and its people.
It is really time for the stodgy bureaucrats who refuse to consider change or any sort to have their worlds shaken up. America needs new approaches, new ideas and new directions. Hopefully, we will get some of that with the new administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment