The topic line of this Thread is the headline of an article in the New York Post
dated 08/25/2018 by Conor Harris. Many people tend to make the extrapolation that 'everything' costs more in NYC (?). It sure seemed that way when I was traveling there some yars back, and apparently has not gotten any better.
This article has to do with the 'whys' of the costs for tunnel construction inNYC, and to whom it lays some of the blame.
FTA:"...Later in 2011, at a conference on infrastructure, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer cited Levy’s comparison of the London Underground’s Jubilee Line extension, which cost a high-by-world-standards $720 million per mile, with the 7-train extension and Second Avenue subway in New York, which were three to four times costlier. Stringer identified New York’s excessive costs as a severe threat to the city’s prosperity.
Indeed, more difficult water crossings in Japan and Europe have cost far less than Gateway. For example, the Seikan Tunnel, built between 1971 and 1988 to carry trains between the Japanese islands Honshu and Hokkaido, runs 33.5 miles, 14.5 of them underwater, and cost 538.4 billion yen, or about $6.7 billion with Japanese inflation and present exchange rates. The Øresund Bridge connects Copenhagen, Denmark, to Malmö, Sweden, by means of a 4.9-mile bridge and a 2.5-mile tunnel joined on an artificial island. The link, carrying a two-track railway and a four-lane motorway, required the cooperation of two national governments with different currencies and languages, and cost 19.8 billion Danish kroner at 2000 price levels, or $4.3 billion with Danish inflation and present exchange rates.
The 2.3-mile Gateway tunnel is far simpler than the Seikan Tunnel and Øresund Bridge, but its $11 billion projected cost ($4.7 billion per mile) could pay for both of them together.
Further, in part the article says:[FTA:]"... Another part of the high costs lies in New York’s penny-wise but pound-foolish contracting. New York state procurement law usually requires that contracts be awarded to the lowest-bidding firm that passes a minimal check of “responsibility.”..." Over all, a pretty interesting article on tunnel construction costs in NYC.
Here is a direct link to the article: https://nypost.com/2018/08/25/why-nyc-is-priciest-city-in-the-world-for-infrastructure-projects/Regards, Volker
Not being a CE, I have no idea how the location of New York City affects the geological costs of tunneling. My understanding is the NYC is built upon some of the hardest, densest bedrock that has been found around the world. That bedrock forms the stable foundation for all the Skyscraper buildings that call New York home, in contrast to the Millenieum Tower in San Francisco that is well on its way to becoming a tower to rival that of Pisa.
Hasn't New York been constructing a water tunnel for over 50 years to supplement the existing Water Tunnel's #1 & #2. Hard rock doesn't surrender easily.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Did someone say hardrock? Bring it on.
While Manhattan Island has hard bedrock, IIRC the substrate under the Hudson River bottom has much mud. I don't know what the water tunnel workers are drilling thru, but they are nicknamed "sand hogs".
The Hudson is tidal in the area proposed for the Gateway crossing, so there is considerable sediment in its bed; even if it is built at lower depth to overcome the 'breathing' problem noted in the PRR tunnels, that part of the tunnel will be relatively easy to bore.
However, if you look at the proposed route (which is partially determined by an air-shaft location) a great deal of the route is through the rock of the Palisades formation, and this will involve hard-rock costs, including those associated with faulting and water drainage.
That's in New Jersey, not in New York, but practical costs will be comparably high, and access to most of the tunnel ROW in that area is expected to be difficult as only one end is accessible and the only other shaft also involves rock through considerable depth.
BaltACDNot being a CE, I have no idea how the location of New York City affects the geological costs of tunneling. My understanding is the NYC is built upon some of the hardest, densest bedrock that has been found around the world. That bedrock forms the stable foundation for all the Skyscraper buildings that call New York home, in contrast to the Millenieum Tower in San Francisco that is well on its way to becoming a tower to rival that of Pisa. Hasn't New York been constructing a water tunnel for over 50 years to supplement the existing Water Tunnel's #1 & #2. Hard rock doesn't surrender easily.
The problem with using the Millenium Tower in San Francisco is using a poor example. The problem with that building is the owners/builders DID NOT even put the support columns deep enough in the ground to reach bedrock, which most other high rises in San Francisco do, that is the basis of the problem with that building...in other words, it would have ended up tilting whether the Transbay Terminal was built or not. However, that still has nothing to do with the cost of construction in NYC, it's mostly labor that causes such bloated prices for projects in that area as has been pointed out in numerous other posts and articles around the web.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR BaltACD Not being a CE, I have no idea how the location of New York City affects the geological costs of tunneling. My understanding is the NYC is built upon some of the hardest, densest bedrock that has been found around the world. That bedrock forms the stable foundation for all the Skyscraper buildings that call New York home, in contrast to the Millenieum Tower in San Francisco that is well on its way to becoming a tower to rival that of Pisa. Hasn't New York been constructing a water tunnel for over 50 years to supplement the existing Water Tunnel's #1 & #2. Hard rock doesn't surrender easily. The problem with using the Millenium Tower in San Francisco is using a poor example. The problem with that building is the owners/builders DID NOT even put the support columns deep enough in the ground to reach bedrock, which most other high rises in San Francisco do, that is the basis of the problem with that building...in other words, it would have ended up tilting whether the Transbay Terminal was built or not. However, that still has nothing to do with the cost of construction in NYC, it's mostly labor that causes such bloated prices for projects in that area as has been pointed out in numerous other posts and articles around the web.
BaltACD Not being a CE, I have no idea how the location of New York City affects the geological costs of tunneling. My understanding is the NYC is built upon some of the hardest, densest bedrock that has been found around the world. That bedrock forms the stable foundation for all the Skyscraper buildings that call New York home, in contrast to the Millenieum Tower in San Francisco that is well on its way to becoming a tower to rival that of Pisa. Hasn't New York been constructing a water tunnel for over 50 years to supplement the existing Water Tunnel's #1 & #2. Hard rock doesn't surrender easily.
If you don't get to bedrock - you build caca.
You don't get to and through bedrock on the cheap. Millenium Tower was built on the cheap and the performance of the building shows it. The builders 'thought' they coudl pull a fast one, save money, die and dissolve the corporation before their scheme was found out. Mother Nature didn't sign up for that series of events.
Bedrock construction is not done on the cheap. I have no idea what the price differential would be between New York and San Francisco.
As we understand. Millenium tower the originally submitted design to authorities was as a steel frame building with friction piling not going to bedrock. Instead construction used the friction piling but used a building made of concrete making the building almost twice as heavy.
Will leave the speculation to others of how that whole change slipped by ? ? ?
Now we do not care how light the building was planned. To not take a skyscraper in earthquake country down to bedrock seems the height of foolishness ? ? What is amazing is that not one person who bought an apartment there did not do due dillengence ??
It's not just near fault lines that you go to bedrock. In Chicago, tall buildings were routinely constructed on foundations that went 100+ feet below ground level to reach bedrock.
BaltACDIf you don't get to bedrock - you build caca.
There are number of proven types/ state-of-the-art pile foundation.
- end bearing pile foundation, driven into the bedrock. Floating pile foundation. These piles don't reach into the bedrock. The load is transferred through friction along the pipe surface into the ground. And combination of the two: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tgtAuAm-OZk/UIh0MCiEFqI/AAAAAAAAApI/5Zgz1Tlswg0/s1600/1.gif
And there is the so called combined pile and raft foundation. In contrast to the first mentioned pile foundations, where the piles transfer all loads into the ground, in combined pile and raft foundations piles and a foundation slab share this task.
Each foundation has its own limitations.
IIRC correctly the Millenium Tower has a combined pile and raft foundation with the bedrock in about 300 ft depth.
Not everywhere lies the bedrock horizon so convenient that one can use end bearing piles.
So your cited remark is nonsense.
What went wrong in San Francisco I don't know.
Here is an example for a combined pile and raft foundation: Messeturm Frankfurt
https://docplayer.org/docs-images/40/3951051/images/page_15.jpg
The bedrock lies about 600 ft deep.Regards, Volker
I believe some of the increased cost is that it is being dug in a builtup area. I've been to Copenhagen and the bridge/tunnel there was built on/under undeveloped land. You don't have to worry about buidings, underground utility lines, etc.
The postings replying to the original post are interesting but none of them mention what to me is the most preventable costs. Namely, $111 an hour labor costs and quadrupple weekend overtime combined with many unneeded staffing positions. I know many will say that is picking on the workers but those findings are ridiculous. Those also provide an incentive to work as slow as possible.
Everything costs more in New York City. It's just the way it is. We can't change it.
About 40 years ago, I called on a client on Long Island and went to lunch together at Burger King (it wasn't a sales call, but a technical issues meeting). I was stunned to discover that whoppers go for about 15% more on Long Island than in Milwaukee, where I lived at the time.
Several years later, I was on a contract at a nationally known insurance company writing a major medical insurance pricing program for the then-new IBM PCs (in BASIC, no less!). I was surprised to note that based on ZIP code(s) of the insured, premium prices would go up as much as 30% or more. Simply put, having an apendectomy in Fargo ND is far less costly than an apendectomy in New York City. Chicago wasn't cheap, either.
I also discovered (and coded) that prices for women were maybe 4-5% higher than for men as men don't need maternity care. But there were two states at the time that had 'unisex' pricing...men and women pay the same rate. To my surprise, it was about 70% of the 'gap' between male and female prices. I guess I should see a maternity doctor since I'm paying for it here in Massachusetts.
blue streak 1 ...Millenium tower... What is amazing is that not one person who bought an apartment there did not do due dillengence ??
...Millenium tower...
What is amazing is that not one person who bought an apartment there did not do due dillengence ??
due dilligence:
The plans were reviewed and accepted by the Building Department.
The construction was inspected by the Building Department.
The Building Department issued a certificate of occupancy.
Of course, the change from steel frame to not-steel frame, if true, might have been too subtle for the inspectors to catch.
Ed
If you buy a building, new home, anything don't you hire someone for an independent inspection and in the case of multi million codo hire an engineer to vet the plans ? Let the buyers beware ! We have a case here where 2 different persons backed out of a purchase after results of an inspection !
?a
blue streak 1If you buy a building, new home, anything don't you hire someone for an independent inspection and in the case of multi million codo hire an engineer to vet the plans ? Let the buyers beware ! We have a case here where 2 different persons backed out of a purchase after results of an inspection !
Sounds good. For small buildings.
The Millennium Tower and San Francisco has a combined pile and raft foundation (CPRF). It is complicated to calculate as you need to get right the pile-soil interaction, pile-pile interaction, raft-soil interaction, raft-pile interaction.
I think that is out of reach for a civil engineer not being a specialist in geotechnology.
I have more than 30 years experience as civil engineer in structural design including pile foundations but not CPRF. I could check the input into the software and must then believe that the software calculates correctly.
Part of the input are soil properties. Here I need to believe that they are correctly evaluated. I can only check if they are out of the ordinary for the area.
And again, a correctly executed CPRF is as good as piles on bedrock.Regards, Volker
Edit: in July 2017 a study was published that state at the tower is safe at that time but settlements have to be monitored: https://sfgsa.org/sites/default/files/Document/MillenniumTowerSafetyReviewReport.pdf
blue streak 1 If you buy a building, new home, anything don't you hire someone for an independent inspection and in the case of multi million codo hire an engineer to vet the plans ? Let the buyers beware ! We have a case here where 2 different persons backed out of a purchase after results of an inspection !
If you buy a used building, you have no idea whom the various owners might have hired to work on it. Or the level of competence of those workers. Or the level of building knowledge the owners had who judged those workers. Or whether the work was done with permit.
So, yes, a professional should evaluate the state of the building for the buyer.
For a new building, plans are submitted for approval of the Building Department. A new building is inspected by the building inspector. Not just after it is done, which is what happens with a used building. There are multiple inspections. Since the building inspector and the department he works for are presumed competent, what do you gain with ANOTHER final inspection?
Still does not explain how everyone missed that the plans of millenium stated steel and it was built with concrete.
blue streak 1 Still does not explain how everyone missed that the plans of millenium stated steel and it was built with concrete.
It's not meant to.
I think we'd both like an answer on that one.
7j43k blue streak 1 Still does not explain how everyone missed that the plans of millenium stated steel and it was built with concrete. It's not meant to. I think we'd both like an answer on that one. Ed
I don't think it was missed. I came to this conclusion after reading this article. https://modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/the-big-sink
It was known that the Millennium Tower was built in concrete. A similar building in the neighbourhood was rejected after a peer review that revealed unacceptable settlements. A peer review was rejected by the developer and San Francisco's Department of Building Inspection (DBI) had not the power to enforce a peer review.
The chosen combined pile and raft foundation is able to carry concrete buildings. I linked the Messeturm Frankfurt which is a 846 ft high concrete building.
There seem be some heavy mistakes in the foundation's structural analysis.
And something else went wrong: The developer got the DBI's approval thought it was already known that the settlements were much higher than anticipated at that building state.
BTW: Here in Germany a peer review is required by law for every building. It is usually done by government licenced check engineers.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Here is a direct link to the article: https://nypost.com/2018/08/25/why-nyc-is-priciest-city-in-the-world-for-infrastructure-projects/
Here is a direct link to the article: https://nypost.com/2018/08/25/why-nyc-is-priciest-city-in-the-world-for-infrastructure-projects/
As the article makes clear, the compensation packages and work practices of the city's unionized workforce are one of the many factors that drive up construction costs in New York. Having unneeded workers on a project and paying more than what similar work commands in similar environments is a major cost driver.
It is not just construction projects. Several years ago the NYTimes had an article that spoke to the cost of operating New York's subways. There too the unions demand staffing levels that are more than necessary.
I lived in New York City for eight years. My wife was born and reared in NYC. In many respects I loved it. But after 8 years of having to eat the high labor costs imposed on the city's residents in the form of higher prices for nearly everything, we moved to Texas. It was one of the best decisions we ever made.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
PJS1 VOLKER LANDWEHR Here is a direct link to the article: https://nypost.com/2018/08/25/why-nyc-is-priciest-city-in-the-world-for-infrastructure-projects/ As the article makes clear, the compensation packages and work practices of the city's unionized workforce are one of the many factors that drive up construction costs in New York. Having unneeded workers on a project and paying more than what similar work commands in similar environments is a major cost driver. It is not just construction projects. Several years ago the NYTimes had an article that spoke to the cost of operating New York's subways. There too the unions demand staffing levels that are more than necessary. I lived in New York City for eight years. My wife was born and reared in NYC. In many respects I loved it. But after 8 years of having to eat the high labor costs imposed on the city's residents in the form of higher prices for nearly everything, we moved to Texas. It was one of the best decisions we ever made.
It is terrible when mere laborers born in NYC want to live in NYC and be able to eat too.
BaltACDIt is terrible when mere laborers born in NYC want to live in NYC and be able to eat too.
Every employee should be respected and compensated fairly for a fair day's work in accordance with the cost structure of where they live and work. They should earn their compensation.
Paying for more workers than is needed to do the job, which is a common forced labor practice in NYC, as the article makes clear, lays an unnecessary expense on the community. It is just like the featherbedding that saddled the railroads with unnecessary labor expense for years.
My wife grew up in a working-class neighborhood in Queens. After marrying we lived in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. My in-laws still live in NYC. I visit them annually. Be there in two weeks as a matter of fact! I have a pretty good idea of what it is like to live and work in the Big Apple.
PJS1 BaltACD It is terrible when mere laborers born in NYC want to live in NYC and be able to eat too. Every employee should be respected and compensated fairly for a fair day's work in accordance with the cost structure of where they live and work. They should earn their compensation. Paying for more workers than is needed to do the job, which is a common forced labor practice in NYC, as the article makes clear, lays an unnecessary expense on the community. It is just like the featherbedding that saddled the railroads with unnecessary labor expense for years. My wife grew up in a working-class neighborhood in Queens. After marrying we lived in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. My in-laws still live in NYC. I visit them annually. Be there in two weeks as a matter of fact! I have a pretty good idea of what it is like to live and work in the Big Apple.
BaltACD It is terrible when mere laborers born in NYC want to live in NYC and be able to eat too.
Yep! Minimum wages for laborers - they are replaceable.
No one is saying anything about a minimum wage. What we are saying is that the $111 per hour cost is about double what the unions are making in other cities. Add in the "featherbedding" mentioned in the article and you have 2 very real reasons why taxpayers have a legitimate right to be upset.
alphas No one is saying anything about a minimum wage. What we are saying is that the $111 per hour cost is about double what the unions are making in other cities. Add in the "featherbedding" mentioned in the article and you have 2 very real reasons why taxpayers have a legitimate right to be upset.
Assuming a 35 percent payroll burden, i.e. health insurance, payroll taxes, 401k contribution, pension funding, etc.; a 35 hour workweek, which is typical for the constructions trades in NYC; $111 per hour translates into an hourly pay rate before deductions of $72.15, which would be $126,262.50 for 50 weeks - assumes two weeks of unpaid vacation. For a full 52 weeks it would be $131,313.
A nice two bedroom apartment in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, can be had for $1,800 to $2,500 per month or $21,600 to $30,000 a year, which would be affordable for someone earning $126,262.50 to $131,313 a year. If the goal is to buy a house in the NYC area, someone earning $131,313 probably is going to have to look in the suburbs.
Comparatively, according to Glassdoor, the average base pay for a New York City Police Officer is $88,595. My brother-in-law has three sons on the force. Both jobs involve some risk.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.