Second Avenue Subway Scene: Chaos Crosses the Road

1.

Any locals or long-time transplants remember what Columbus Avenue looked like in the early 90's (I think) when they did that huge water-main replacement? Those businesses choked. That was a warm-up to what 2nd Avenue is going to resemble.

2.

I'm sorry for those businesses but this is long overdue. In fact, the city should be expediting this. Those MTA contractors are lazy and slow. Just look at downtown for examples of that.

3.

I live right over there myself, and was surpiresed to see them already doing the other side of the street.

For the second time (the first being when I saw the huge Absoulte ad) i felt like this thing is coming relly soon. I know how fast 5 years can go, especailly in this city.

Their progres so far has been amazing, as they actualy have workers who dotn all just stand around all day.

4.

#3 You lost all credibility when you said "as they actually have workers who don't all just stand around all day."

I find that VERY hard to believe. What you're saying is that the city hired union labor that actually "labors." Impossible.

Perhaps the UES correspondent could send pics of union guys actually working - doubt he has any though.

5.

Yeah. Every time I walk past that stretch the only guys I see in hard hats and orange construction vests are staring up at the menus in the Chinese food place or the Taco Bell.

Unions have cost the American economy over $4 trillion over the last 30 years.

6.

At least the construction's beginning.
F-in whiners.

7.

#5 - can you document that number from somewhere other than another blog.

8.

I'm ok with this.

9.

The slow progress shouldn't surprise anyone. But yeah, at least it's underway.

http://mikeelliottsblog.wordpress.com

10.

Hey idiot #7--learn to do your own research like, you lazy bastard. You must be in some sort of union. Here's a freebie, though:

"The Economic Effects of Labor Unions Revisited," by R Vedder, L Gallaway, in the Journal of Labor Research, January 2002.

Oh--and you're right that my numbers were off from what was quoted in this article--it's actually $50 Trillion over 50 years.

"Using a variety of statistical techniques, we conclude that labor unions have reduced U.S. output by significant amounts -- trillions of dollars over time. Additionally, the employment-population ratio and the unemployment rate have been adversely affected by the presence of unions. From the very beginning, unionization materially lowered employment in the auto and steel industries, and union militancy in coal mining has contributed importantly to largely eliminating employment in this once large industry. While some individual workers have profited from unions, the aggregate economic impact is strongly negative."

This article is subscription-only, so I can't print more of it here, but you can always hit up the library.

11.

Mike Elliott, you fucking looser, stop putting putting a link to your stupid blog on every curbed post already!

12.

Hey, I hate unions, too, but how much of that $50T was sacrificed in order to keep 11 year olds from working double-shifts?

As for progress, I live on the same block as the Fulton transit center, and I would say:

A) Demolition is going rather quickly by my untrained eye. The old TGIFriday's days are severely numbered at this point, and the rest of the corner of Bwy and Fulton is totally flattened.

B) I haven't heard a peep from that construction site except when I'm standing right next to it. Granted, I'm on the opposite corner, but I was expecting much worse. Also, they've kept traffic moving right along on Broadway throughout.

Really, I can't find much to complain about when it comes to construction activity in the Financial District. The roadways are improving, slowly but surely. The subways are improving, too. Fulton street redevelopment will be a welcome change. (Aside: Who cares about Maiden Lane's languishing redevelopment?) Wall Street is getting spruced up in record time. Broad street, too. I don't mean to sound all optimistic and shit, but I find the whole thing a little confidence-inspiring, and I'm right on the front lines.

Oh, yeah, and fuck the UES...I haven't visited in years.

13.

Sunchild:

Considering how much more expensive it is to fund full pensions for MTA workers after letting them retire at age 55, and to pay MTA bus drivers an average salary of $63,000 a year, than to hire an 18-year-old instead of an 11-year-old to do the job, I'd say very little of that $50 Trillion goes to child labor/ worker safety improvements.

Hell, 50 years ago child labor was already banned, as were most other egregious labor practices.
Most of the money goes to:

--Absurdly long/common breaks and vacations
--Absurdly early retirment ages
--Absurdly expensive pensions
--No-show jobs and tenures that make it difficult to fire workers

Which is all fine and dandy if you're lucky enough to be on the inside; wages for union workers are 30 percent higher than they would be if there were no unions. But for the 80% of non-union workers, the economic stagnation that resulted has dented wages 15 or 20 percent.

In other words, the pay hikes that are the primary reason that people join unions would have happened ANYWAY, and to ALL workers across the board, if unions hadn't held back economic growth for selfish inefficiency reasons.

14.

I actually just drove by and was amazed at the number of workers

15.

I just drove by and was surprised by the number of standers/watchers dressed in "workers" clothes.

16.

All the sidewalk cafes on the east side of 2nd avenue have been removed

17.

Can't believe they have to do all this work to build a new Subway, especially when there already is one on Second Avenue in the 90s. I had a turkey club sandwich there yesterday.

18.

#5 and #10 - Sorry i'm not going to go pay for that research or go to the library to check something on a blog. I work in a capitalist job so that i can make some money, buy an apartment and fund my own retirement.

These studies say that unions have cost america net $50 trillion in unrealized benefit? That's the equivilent of 10% of current annual GDP per year. However, if you look at the years when unions were necessary and beneficial to get the economy jump started - late 30s through late 60s - those years provided the foundation for the growth we have now.
All the construction that took place necessitated unions because without a union, those jobs would have experienced insane amount of turnover (think construction worker deaths lacking union safety requirements). The regulation of certain groups of skilled manuel workers was the best thing that you could do for that period.
To your point, you're right, unions at this point in time are a drain on the economy as they provide job stability and ensure equality among their workers rather than promotion by performance and threat of demotion/firing for poor performance. The teachers union is probably the most egregious, since good teachers deserve more money (generally they find it in a private sector job); we would have more good teachers if they were paid more based on how good they were rather than based on number of years of just showing up.
Unions have outlived their usefulness, but you can't definitively put a price on the money they've cost the economy without first acknowledging the growth we wouldn't have or that would have been delayed without union presence in the 50s and 60s. The money lost from delays and inability to build would have surely cost the economy as well. It doesn't seem that these articles do account for that or they are vastly understating union importance from 50 or 60 years ago, while overstating the drain from the last 40 years. Thus, your "evidence" is going to be biased and i can't accept a ridiculous reactionary number like $50 trillion.