The MTA spent twice as much on Second Ave subway consultants as it did on its construction.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority spent almost twice as much on consultants for the Second Avenue subway than it did to dig a tunnel between 63rd and 96th Streets, a new estimate showed on Monday.

The 400-page report by NYU researchers also found that the MTA’s failure to properly supervise outside firms pushed up costs in other key areas: Contractors and unions hyped the project, dug caves for platforms that were twice the size needed, and developed the designs. stations are so individual that each of the three new stops has escalators from different manufacturers.

The analysis is important for thong wearers because the transportation giant’s inability to complete projects on time and on budget ends up leading to higher rates and taxes as it also makes service improvements impossible, and long-promised improvements are scaled back or canceled to free up money.

“Elsewhere in the world, Madrid built 80 miles of metro in four years,” said Eric Goldwyn, one of the authors of the report. “We only built a mile.

“We are doing significantly less and spending significantly more, so future projects are at risk,” he added. “With Phase 2 [of the Second Avenue Subway]they are still trying to raise all the funding.”

The MTA currently has more than $40 billion in debt and spends more than $3 billion annually on these bond payments.

Goldwyn and his colleagues used the first phase of the Second Avenue subway—the most expensive subway project in the world at the time—as an example to study how the MTA was built.

They compared it to other major cities in the world, including London, Paris, Rome, Stockholm and Istanbul, where new public transport lines are being built and done at a fraction of the cost.

They found that among their global peers, the MTA is uniquely dependent on consultants and contractors for design, engineering, and project management. It then fails to properly manage hired aid, allowing projects to bloat in size and get bogged down in delays.

The Second Avenue Line was to be the first major New York subway extension in generations, from Hanover Square in the Financial District to 125th Street in East Harlem.

So far, the MTA has only built the first section across the Upper East Side and spent $4.5 billion on it.

Three-quarters of that amount, $3.8 billion, was spent on the design, engineering, and construction of the tunnel: $655 million was outsourced to consultants and outside firms; a total of $378 million was spent drilling the tunnel itself from 63rd Street to 96th Street.

That’s double the 5-10 percent that transport authorities across Europe – whether in Paris, Rome or Madrid – spend on project development and design.

European transit agencies carry out most of their design, engineering and construction management projects with the help of the agency’s full-time employees, instead of relying on third parties. And when they hire third-party firms, they keep them on a short leash.

Boston took a cue from the European scenario when it restarted a failed project to dramatically expand its tram system – the Green Line – after skyrocketing costs and repeatedly missing deadlines.

The Transit Authority has hired a dedicated team to keep a close eye on the consultants. Officials and contractors told NYU researchers that the new team is needed to keep the revamped program on track and speed up decision making when problems arise.

In New York, the MTA has further engaged outside firms in an attempt to better control costs. The new system, known as design-build, puts a single company in charge of designing, engineering, and building a project.

The researchers say the switch had the opposite effect and pushed costs even higher as the firm shields its profits from a potential increase in risk.

Every subway project built by the MTA in the past 20 years has broken the previous world record for cost:

• A 7-train Hudson Yards expansion cost $2.4 billion and officials abandoned plans to build a 42-train station^th Street and 10^th Avenue to contain expenses.
• The first phase of the $4.5 billion Second Avenue subway through the Upper East Side was even more expensive per mile.
• The second leg of the Second Avenue subway through East Harlem is expected to cost $6 billion, double the cost per mile of the first leg.

In addition, NYU’s Second Avenue subway inspection revealed a host of other factors, including design decisions, that drove up costs dramatically.

Each of the three new stations has platforms approximately 600 feet long, but contractors have dug up twice as much space at the stations at 86th and 96th Streets to house the station’s mechanics, provide staff locker rooms and office space.

European transit agencies tend to place mechanicals above the station to save money, but New York City takes the place for the sprawling mezzanines that typically run the length of the station.

MTA officials said they needed the mezzanines to expedite evacuations in the event of a station fire, but Spain and Turkey have nearly the same fire safety regulations and waive the emergency costs associated with all the extra earthworks.

In Europe, transit agencies have standardized their station designs to reduce engineering costs, speed up construction, and make maintenance and repairs easier and cheaper.

However, each of the three new stations built as part of the Second Avenue subway has unique designs and components, with little in common between them. The escalators for each station were built by different companies.

“Second Avenue Subway brings tremendous benefits and value to New York City and is more cost-effective per passenger than similar projects in other cities,” said MTA spokesman Sean Butler.

“This project was planned and built under different management, and the MTA has successfully improved project delivery since the establishment of MTA Construction and Development in 2019.”