Home · Maps · About

Home > SubChat
 

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]

 

view flat

Why Did The Archer Ave Extension Take So Long To Open? (Re: 9/10/77)

Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Tue Sep 14 23:17:12 2010, in response to Re: 9/10/77, posted by El-Train on Sat Sep 11 15:25:39 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
From my NYCTA in the 1980s page on www.nycsubway.org:

[Through the early 1908s], work on the 63rd St and Archer Avenue subway lines continued, although the MTA considered stopping work on these projects in October of 1980, and spending the money instead on maintaining the existing system. The Archer Avenue line was due to be completed in 1984, and the 63rd Street line in 1985. Progress of the Archer Avenue subway tunnel stopped in March 1982, when on March 5th, part of the tunnel caved in around the vicinity of Archer Avenue and 138th Street. One construction worker was killed, and three others narrowly escaped injury. This four-man crew was reinforcing the tunnel walls when this reinforcement gave way, causing the cave-in.

By July of 1985, political pressure on the MTA regarding the project was growing. Senator Alfonse D'Amato asked the Senate to investigate the tunnel project and the use of federal funds to ensure they were being spent appropriately. He also asked the US Attorney's Office to launch a grand jury investigation of the tunnel. Many probes did take place -- by the FBI (for criminal wrongdoing), the TA's inspector general and the Department of Transportation (because 80% of the money spent on the tunnel was federal funds). One of the subcontractors for the tunnel was defending itself against a fraud indictment. Early in the investigations, documentation regarding the project's major expenses was found to be inadequate. Water seepage became a very serious problem, with 6 feet of water in some tunnel sections. In fact, as early as 1974, the TA was made aware of these leaks but did little about them. Meanwhile, tracks rusted, concrete disintegrated and formed stalactites in the tunnel. Cracks appeared in the new tunnel walls. The 21st Street station, without seeing a single paid passenger, was tagged with graffiti. An incorrectly designed 5-foot thick support beam did not allow clearance for trains to pass beneath it; when it was altered to provide the necessary clearance, it may not have been reinforced adequately. The FBI was looking into allegations of bribery, where a TA engineer okayed the repairs instead of replacing the beam, which might have further delayed the project.

Despite everyone in the field of transportation examining the tunnel project for monetary and project management defects, the MTA also hired a firm to re-examine the tunnel for structural and engineering defects. Based on the results of this study, a decision would be made whether to finish completing the line. Construction Technology Laboratories of Skokie, IL, was hired to assess the structural integrity of the tunnel, and report back to the MTA within 90 days with a recommendation to keep the project going or stop work and abandon the project. The Federal Urban Mass Transportation Administration announced on July 22nd, 1985, that it would suspend federal funding pending the outcomes of the investigations. And why did it come to this? The water leakage problem, internal infighting, faulty record keeping, time-consuming attempts to obtain funding for repair work and the fiscal crisis of 1975 led to the situation. While all tunnels leak to some extent, excessive leakage has to be taken care of; the TA knew about this in 1974 but didn't do anything about the problem. This type of leakage accelerated corrosion.

In September of 1985, there was political pressure (again) placed on the TA to abandon the line, because the expected ridership would cover a very small amount of the line's operating costs. MTA figures on fare recovery indicated that between 1% and 6% of operating costs would be covered by fares, even if the line were to be extended to the IND Queens Blvd line.

In October of 1985, Construction Technology Laboratories found the 63rd Street tunnel structurally sound. One girder in particular, "G-4", was scrutinized because of the lack of train clearance underneath it; 13 inches of the girder were shaved off and its structural integrity was questioned. The engineering firm found the girder to be sound. The project would ultimately continue.

By the end of 1985, it was well known that the original intent of the 63rd Street subway, to run to eastern Queens, was never going to happen. It was also known that the current terminus of the line, at 21st Street in Queensbridge, was useless; 220 passengers an hour were the usage projections in 1984. The MTA was studying four options for making this line more useful:


  1. The Queens Express Bypass: extending the line along the LIRR to 71st / Continental Avenues in Forest Hills. It would be completed in 1998 and cost $931 million. This was the original plan for this line proposed in the 1968 MTA Program for Action. It was felt that only this option would relieve the overcrowding on the E and F lines.
  2. Connecting the line to the local tracks of the IND Queens Blvd line.
    It was the cheapest and fastest alternative to complete -- it would be done in 1993 at a cost of $222 million. But critics complained that it would do the least to relieve overcrowding on the E and F lines in Queens, the most crowded lines in the system. The line would leave two-thirds of the available capacity of this line unused and probably make any future expansion of this line unlikely.
  3. Extending the 63rd Street line through the Sunnyside Yard and the LIRR to the Archer Avenue subway. It would cost $594 million and be completed by 1997, but residents along the proposed route objected to this option.
  4. Extending the line to Sunnyside Yard in Queens and allow passengers to connect to a new LIRR service stopping in Rosedale and Queens Village. The route of the new LIRR service would be the Montauk branch, used mostly for freight service. It would cost $488 million and be completed by 1995, but like the proposal above, Queens residents along the proposed route objected to it.


--Mark

Responses

Post a New Response

Your Handle:

Your Password:

E-Mail Address:

Subject:

Message:



Before posting.. think twice!


[ Return to the Message Index ]