March 28, 2006
MTA Plans to Reinforce Underwater Tunnels
It's not just Grand Central being secured these days. Oh no, the MTA wants in on that action too. They may not want bomb-proof garbage cans (sorry Weiner!) but that doesn't mean they don't want security, or at least the image of it.
Hence the story in today's News on the MTA's recently approved plan to have a Staten Island marine firm "bolster underwater subway tunnels with layers of concrete and dirt to stop any flooding from a bomb blast." The $17.1 million contract was approved along with an $80 million surveillance program that expands on the $212 million security contract the Authority signed with Lockheed Martin last year. Sounds like a dam good idea to us!
But we save the best for last because really, who believes anything the MTA says anymore, right? Thanks to the strike, the never-working L train, the never-built Second Avenue subway line and the seemingly daily other fiascos that befall it, the MTA has in the past few years managed to lose whatever slim amount of integrity that it might have ever had in the eyes of the public. Which is why we just love the idea that they have hired an "integrity monitor to help weed out corruption and other malfeasance on major construction sites before it happens." About time!
Subway tunnel from deltacbravo's flickr stream.
|
Hah! Underwater -- "dam good idea," I get it!
That was an intentional pun, right? That's your story and you're sticking to it. ;-D
Damn straight it was intentional!
As usual, Gothamist never passes on a chance to take a swipe at the MTA, even when the swipe is incoherent.
The reason the strike occurred is that the MTA needs more money. The reason the L train doesn't work is that the MTA needs more money. The reason the Second Avenue subway hasn't been built? The MTA needs more money. The ongoing maintenance problems? The MTA needs more money.
The stock Gothamist response to this is, "Well, why don't they just make better use of the money they have?" Like, you mean, maybe try to allocate employees more efficiently, and reduce redundancy? This would involve renegotiating the contract with the transit union, and if the MTA were to dare take a stand on this issue that resulted in a strike, guess who Gothamist blames? The MTA. Or maybe the MTA could reduce trains at off-peak hours? Or introduce technology to reduce the number of employees per train by half? Gee, glad you thought of it.
You're probably going to pipe back with, "But the MTA had a surplus of almost a billion dollars!!!" Yeah, and that was a one-time thing, not recurring funds. Half of it went to the transit worker pension fund, which was in debt, and the remainder doesn't buy very much in transportation. How much does it cost to drill a hole under Manhattan for a new Second Avenue line? BILLIONS.
Or, you're probably going to make some broad accusation of corruption and inefficiency in the MTA that is devoid of any actual numbers. While I'm sure there's some of that going around, it doesn't account for the billions-with-a-b that the MTA would need to build a new line, or completely revamp its infrastructure (which is long overdue).
Well, if the MTA can't reduce spending, maybe they can boost their income by increasing fares. Whoa! "I don't see why they should raise their rates when they can't do X, Y, or Z," they say, apparently ignoring the point that if they could raise their rates, maybe they would be able to do those things. The criticism is the same: The MTA should manage its money more efficiently, they say, without explaining exactly what this means or how this would be done in ways that the MTA hasn't already thought of.
Look, I'm just as fed up with the subway system as the next New Yorker. I've been overseas and I've seen the beautiful subway systems other cities have. I want our city to have that. But let's try to speak intelligently about what is wrong with the system, and how it can be fixed, rather than just take potshots at the MTA.