In 2012, Superstorm Sandy infiltrated the Canarsie Tunnel, which carries the L train under the East River between Brooklyn and Manhattan. Seven million gallons of corrosive saltwater damaged the tube structure, the tracks and ties, and signal and other electrical equipment.
The repairs needed on the tunnel are extensive, and the engineering plans to make it more resilient in future storms are complex and took considerable time to develop.
The solution identified by the engineers and consultants of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, who have expertise with both subways and under-river tunnels, was designed to evaluate the integrity of the tunnel and produce a permanent fix. That project, involving shutting down the tunnel for 15 months, was supposed to begin in April.
Last week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that he was recommending an alternate plan of action for the Canarsie Tunnel. That plan calls for hanging cables from straps on the tunnel walls instead of embedding them in the benchwall itself, and using a fiberglass polymer to repair the wall, among other recommendations. The plan suggests the tunnel could be fixed without shutting down service.
As the former president of New York City Transit — a part of the M.T.A. responsible for the city’s buses and subways — and someone who witnessed firsthand the level of destruction and its impact on subway infrastructure as a result of Superstorm Sandy, I am concerned that the decision to change course on the Canarsie Tunnel project is premature and uninformed. This new plan has not been fully evaluated in terms of costs, available M.T.A. resources and, most important, safety.
Nor am I aware that the technology recommended to repair the benchwall has ever been used in an under-river environment. As president of New York City Transit, I would have found this new course of action completely unacceptable.
It is totally understandable that for those living in the communities affected, this news is wildly popular, as it will allow for trains to run through the tunnel during construction. However, since transit engineers were not consulted as part of this new plan, the lack of in-depth knowledge of what’s at stake leaves me concerned for the future safety and reliability of this under-river tunnel.
The decision to reconstruct the tunnel after the storm was not made lightly. Transit leadership and the M.T.A. board knew the effects on the community would be extraordinarily difficult. We looked at every possibility before deciding to shut down the entire tube. We modeled numerous operation and construction scenarios short of a total shutdown, but all had significant safety and operational concerns and fell well short of a long-term fix.
Believe me, transit decision makers would have seized on a viable solution that would have accomplished the task and still allowed for adequate and safe train service — but that solution did not materialize. While a total shutdown is painful to the community and businesses alike, the pain was measured in months rather than years, and safety and the long-term viability of the tunnel were at the center of that decision.
While I respect the knowledge of the team the governor brought together to give this a fresh look, the proposed plan falls far short in so many ways, especially regarding safety. How can this decision be made without a hazard assessment?
A list of important questions to be reviewed needs to include the following: What are the risks to employees and customers should a fire occur or if a train needs to be evacuated? What impact will the new plan have on maintenance in the years ahead? Does it even meet industry standards for the United States? Without a hazard assessment, we cannot answer those critical questions.
Keep in mind this is a subterranean environment well below the East River. Even in the best conditions, under-river tubes present some of the greatest operational and engineering challenges to transit leaders. In confined spaces like these, in a tube that is nearly a mile long, ventilation is complicated, and emergency egress is more difficult, with passengers and employees having to travel longer distances to safety in a compromised environment. The space is also narrow, making it difficult for employees to work.
There is no room for error when it comes to the lives of our customers and employees, and every decision needs to be carefully evaluated.
While many details about the new plan have not been made public, on its surface, this new approach appears to be a Band-Aid that does not fundamentally address the long-term structural needs of the tube. The result? We’ll be right back here in the same situation in 10 to 20 years, when customers will have to endure additional service disruptions and taxpayers will have to foot the bill for work that should have been done now.
I believe this decision illustrates politics colliding with sound leadership and management. In several years those associated with this decision will be gone and transit leadership and the community will be living with this decision for decades. This is a decision we could live to regret.
Carmen Bianco was the president of New York City Transit from 2013 to 2015.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.B:
—————— 【听】【言】，【玄】【漓】【开】【口】【道】，“【苍】【松】【长】【老】【给】【的】【提】【示】【说】，【火】【焰】【兽】【喜】【住】【在】【沙】【荒】【绿】【洲】。【只】【要】【我】【们】【找】【到】【了】【它】【们】【的】【窝】，【自】【然】【能】【遇】【见】。” “【可】【是】，【我】【们】【怎】【么】【知】【道】【哪】【些】【才】【是】【真】【正】【的】【沙】【荒】【绿】【洲】【呢】？”【嘉】【措】【想】【起】【方】【才】【一】【幕】【都】【心】【有】【余】【悸】。 【若】【是】【来】【多】【几】【头】【那】【些】【绿】【毛】【怪】，【他】【还】【真】【的】【吃】【不】【消】。 【季】【青】【附】【和】【道】，“【说】【得】【没】【错】。【只】【是】【没】白小姐传密正版自动更新【这】【些】【郦】【潇】【能】【叫】【一】【声】【哥】【哥】【姐】【姐】【的】【人】【看】【到】【尚】【且】【是】【个】【小】【朋】【友】【的】【陈】【潇】，【不】【禁】【发】【出】【一】【阵】【阵】【的】【惊】【呼】。 “【这】【么】【小】【啊】。” “【是】【啊】，【才】【只】【有】12【岁】【呢】。” “【潇】【潇】【还】【是】【厉】【害】【啊】，【今】【年】【才】12【就】【已】【经】【突】【破】【了】【修】【炼】【的】【第】【一】【道】【门】【槛】【了】【呢】。【看】【上】【去】【竟】【像】【是】【我】【们】【这】【些】【人】【的】【子】【辈】【了】。” “【对】【啊】，【看】【着】【就】【年】【纪】【小】，【真】【是】【英】【雄】【出】【少】【年】【啊】。”
【按】【照】AI【的】【说】【法】，【这】【些】【仅】【剩】【的】【自】【然】【人】，【别】【的】【本】【事】【没】【有】，【藏】【匿】【的】【本】【事】【就】【太】【强】【了】，【在】【失】【去】【了】【主】【能】【源】【之】【后】，【天】【象】AI【仅】【能】【依】【靠】【就】【是】【这】【儿】【一】【处】【备】【用】【的】**。 【但】【就】【这】【么】【点】【的】【能】【源】，【根】【本】【做】【不】【了】【太】【多】【的】【事】【情】，【哪】【怕】【是】【它】，【也】【必】【须】【在】【大】【部】【分】【的】【时】【间】【陷】【入】【到】【休】【眠】【模】【式】【中】，【用】【以】【节】【约】【能】【源】【的】【消】【耗】。 “【你】【知】【道】【的】，【某】【种】【程】【度】【上】，【机】【器】【就】
“【慕】【容】【将】【军】，【天】【边】【那】【坠】【落】【的】【水】【仙】【花】【好】【像】【是】【玲】【珑】【姑】【娘】？”【有】【只】【妖】【揉】【了】【揉】【眼】【睛】，【忍】【不】【住】【好】【奇】【说】。【还】【有】【句】【话】【这】【只】【妖】【没】【敢】【说】【出】【来】——【那】【朵】【花】【儿】【可】【真】【漂】【亮】。 【慕】【容】【邪】【闻】【言】，【眨】【了】【眨】【惺】【忪】【的】【双】【眼】，【下】【一】【瞬】【他】【人】【就】【不】【在】【原】【地】【了】！【一】【条】【巨】【龙】【冲】【天】【而】【起】，【朝】【着】【那】【流】【光】【婉】【转】【逐】【渐】【绽】【放】【的】【水】【仙】【花】【儿】【飞】【去】。 【玉】【玲】【珑】【骤】【然】【离】【开】【舒】【适】【的】【保】【护】【圈】，【被】