|
|
| Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) (1163600) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1163603) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 26 21:48:11 2012, in response to Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jun 26 21:22:15 2012. Looks like Schiavone wins this one then ... if the "detailed specifications" did not specify waterproofing, then Schiavone was not obligated in any way to do anything other than pour cement down there. Un-ficking-believable. :( |
|
|
| (1163605) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Tue Jun 26 21:59:10 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 26 21:48:11 2012. The solution is not as bad as it looks... long term solutions could be as simple as using a waterproof liquid rubber sealant throughout the station then back it with with a hard rubber membrane then seal it with another sealant, the tiles in that station were meant to be easily replaceable. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1163607) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 26 22:01:52 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by ClearAspect on Tue Jun 26 21:59:10 2012. That may be ... but you sure do have to wonder what putz of an MTA bid writer couldn't figure out that 40 feet down below the water might get wet and set specs for waterproofing. That stuff should have gone down before anything got poured. Doing it after the fact will be neither cheap or effective for the long term.Lenox line, anyone? |
|
|
| (1163610) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jun 26 22:07:03 2012, in response to Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jun 26 21:22:15 2012. Who is responsible for drawing up the specifications that failed to require waterproofing? Didn't the MTA know they were working below the water table, and that without the waterproofing, water damage like what we are now seeing was going to occur? To think that if they had gotten the specs right, this could have been avoided is very disheartening. But if anyone at Schiavone saw it coming, couldn't they have passed the word to the MTA people in charge, saying something like "Don't you think we should add waterproofing, otherwise this will soon look like a mess?" Or would that be considered an improper solicitation of extra work? |
|
|
| (1163612) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 26 22:10:06 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jun 26 22:07:03 2012. That would be a major "change order" to the contract and would likely have required it to be rebid with several years worth of delays. And Schiavone couldn't undertake it themselves, they'd never get paid for it since it wasn't in the bid specifications if what we're hearing is true.No, this one's entirely on MTA ... |
|
|
| (1163617) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Tue Jun 26 22:17:04 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 26 22:01:52 2012. Hey now, thats like asking the plumber why did don't always complete the job fully... its called job security :) us public employees cant do that, but those private companies can! |
|
|
| (1163619) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jun 26 22:18:16 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 26 22:10:06 2012. Which is why the contractor has paid for the short term repairs. Uh huh... |
|
|
| (1163634) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Jun 26 22:47:16 2012, in response to Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jun 26 21:22:15 2012. Reopen the loop station until this problem is sorted! |
|
|
| (1163636) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 26 23:05:38 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by TERRapin station on Tue Jun 26 22:18:16 2012. Well ... given your extensive engineering career and your expertise in it, case closed. :) |
|
|
| (1163668) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 27 09:13:10 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 26 21:48:11 2012. Looks like Schiavone wins this one then ... if the "detailed specifications" did not specify waterproofing, then Schiavone was not obligated in any way to do anything other than pour cement down there.That's generally how contracts work. If there's no item in the contract for waterproofing, the contractor isn't going to provide waterproofing. In this case, though, the article says "funding was secured from the contractor to address the leaks," so Schiavone did end up on the hook. |
|
|
| (1163669) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 27 09:17:29 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jun 26 22:07:03 2012. Who is responsible for drawing up the specifications that failed to require waterproofing?Stantec 
|
|
|
| (1163684) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jun 27 14:35:51 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 26 23:05:38 2012. In other words you were completely wrong but you won't admit it. |
|
|
| (1163687) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jun 27 14:45:34 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 27 09:13:10 2012. In this case, though, the article says "funding was secured from the contractor to address the leaks," so Schiavone did end up on the hook. Well SelkirkTMO is convinced that it is COMPLETELY the MTA's fault. Link: 1163612 |
|
|
| (1163784) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Jun 29 00:37:01 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Jun 26 22:47:16 2012. Better Idea:Re-open the loop station, but for a combination of the 5/6/BG-SF shutte that would give Lex riders the same access to SF 7th Avenue riders get. |
|
|
| (1163788) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Fri Jun 29 01:38:29 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Jun 26 22:47:16 2012. To my knowledge, the gap filler mechanics have been removed, although they're physically still there. |
|
|
| (1163802) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 07:04:23 2012, in response to Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jun 26 21:22:15 2012. The place will have that Chambers St. look soon. Cool :)your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (1163807) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 29 07:32:08 2012, in response to Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jun 26 21:22:15 2012. Typical government incompetence |
|
|
| (1163856) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jun 29 11:25:31 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 26 21:48:11 2012. You would think that the dead bodies that Schiavone had in the cement would have absorbed the water! |
|
|
| (1163873) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri Jun 29 12:16:56 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jun 29 07:32:08 2012. Do you think a private company would do better? |
|
|
| (1163877) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by BigBusDriver on Fri Jun 29 12:32:47 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 27 09:17:29 2012. Oh, that is BEYOND PRICELESS!!!Hey, BREE, STANTEC BLEW IT! HA HA HA HA HA! STANTEC!! So, quite possibly, The Turtle was involved in a monumental (and if BREE was involved, you can make it a monuMENTAL) foul up! STILL LOL@BOTCHED JOB BREE-ANNE |
|
|
| (1163880) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by BigBusDriver on Fri Jun 29 12:37:27 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 07:04:23 2012. I think they're trying for tha Adams Family look.STILL LOL@CREEPY CONSTRUCTION |
|
|
| (1163912) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Fri Jun 29 14:29:29 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 07:04:23 2012. Like!--Mark |
|
|
| (1163918) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jun 29 14:46:24 2012, in response to Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jun 26 21:22:15 2012. NOW it looks like a real subway station! |
|
|
| (1163920) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 14:53:25 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Mark S. Feinman on Fri Jun 29 14:29:29 2012. Hahahaha+1 your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (1163922) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Jun 29 14:54:12 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Mark S. Feinman on Fri Jun 29 14:29:29 2012. Facebook Bump.. |
|
|
| (1163928) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by The Flxible Neofan on Fri Jun 29 15:27:58 2012, in response to Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Gold_12TH on Tue Jun 26 21:22:15 2012. That is a crying shame! |
|
|
| (1163929) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by The Flxible Neofan on Fri Jun 29 15:30:24 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 27 09:17:29 2012. The team also performed geotechnical investigations and, finding the rock only occasionally permeable, eliminated the need for invert waterproofing on several hundred feet of the tunnel.Oops! |
|
|
| (1163935) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Jun 29 15:52:10 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by The Flxible Neofan on Fri Jun 29 15:30:24 2012. The team also performed geotechnical investigations and, finding the rock only occasionally permeable, eliminated the need for invert waterproofing on several hundred feet of the tunnel.Oops! Not really, since the leaks in question aren't at the invert. |
|
|
| (1163938) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jun 29 15:58:25 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by BigBusDriver on Fri Jun 29 12:32:47 2012. Turtle works for Stantec? |
|
|
| (1163990) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jun 29 18:27:44 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jun 29 11:25:31 2012. Too many voids ... that's what causes leaks. Maybe that's why they paid up. :) |
|
|
| (1164096) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jun 30 10:39:23 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jun 27 09:17:29 2012. Interesting. I had been thinking more in terms of "what person at the MTA?", but if it was an outside company, can they be sued for botching the job? |
|
|
| (1164097) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jun 30 10:44:05 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jun 29 15:58:25 2012. He did, in the mailroom. Perhaps some communication regarding water infiltration at the station site failed to be delivered to the proper recipient? :) |
|
|
| (1164102) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by BigBusDriver on Sat Jun 30 11:24:08 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jun 30 10:44:05 2012. Yup. BREE was probably too busy whining on SubChat and missed a CRUCIAL piece of mail! Or knew he was going to be let go to become Mr. MOM!STILL LOL@BREE BUFFOONERY |
|
|
| (1164123) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 30 13:38:43 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jun 30 10:44:05 2012. If I may dare to ask, what is he doing now? |
|
|
| (1164134) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 30 14:48:40 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jun 30 10:44:05 2012. I thought he only handled hate mail! |
|
|
| (1164430) | |
Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1) |
|
|
Posted by JRice on Mon Jul 2 12:58:20 2012, in response to Re: Water Damage Soils City's Newest Subway Station - South Ferry (1), posted by BigBusDriver on Fri Jun 29 12:32:47 2012. Wow. "Innovation". Leave out the waterproofing. The rock is only "somewhat" permeable. So, only "some" of the water is getting through. If the rock was not permeable, where did all the grout go? |
|
|
