Yes, 2010 document was over-optimistic about timetable to revamp railyard, and about platform too (everything always takes longer)

Two days, in writing about the milestones for the future platform over the Vanderbilt Yard, I cited is the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC, now simply ESD) response to a state Supreme Court’s November 9, 2010 Order, arguing that no Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was necessary to assess the impacts of an extended buildout. (Ultimately, a SEIS was ordered.)

The document (bottom) is also inadvertently instructive regarding project timing: with this project, elements always take longer than announced, and deadlines get stretched.

Consider the revamped Vanderbilt Yard, used to store and service Long Island Rail Road trains. The document contains a reference to the Vanderbilt Yard Relocation and Construction Agreement:

That agreement imposes a deadline of 2012 for the commencement of construction and an outside date for substantial completion of the Yard of 2016. At the same time, it calls for the submission of a “proposed preliminary schedule” by FCRC, showing “the approximate date that Developer expects to begin construction,” as well as the “anticipated duration” for construction of various critical elements of the New Yard. As with the other MTA agreements, there is nothing that ties the proposed actual schedule for the performance of the work to the outside date in 2016.

(Emphases added)

So, 2016 was an "outside date," the absolute latest? 

The deadline was extended multiple times, albeit in part to allow for additional scope of work, and was described last year as essentially finished, though without final acceptance from the MTA. Perhaps we'll learn more about that schedule at the Quality of Life meeting next Tuesday.

The railyard and the platform

The document contains an intriguing admission that the schedule for the platform was unrealistic at the time:

Moreover, the commencement date of October 30, 2012 assumed for the construction of the platform on Block 1120 in the 2009 construction schedule precedes that schedule’s completion date for the New Yard by approximately eight months. This sequence of activities does not, in one respect, conform to the requirements of the MTA Agreements as finally negotiated, which require that the New Yard be constructed before work begins on the platforms. (This information about the MTA Agreements – which were negotiated after the 2009 MGPP was approved – was not available to ESDC at the time it approved the 2009 MGPP because this term was not included in the MTA staff summary.) Although eight months is not on its face a significant discrepancy, the 10-year schedule for construction assumed in the 2009 Technical Memorandum would require adjustment to correct that discrepancy. Accordingly, as of the date of these findings, it is likely that the 10- year schedule for construction of the Project will be extended.

In other words, the agreement with the MTA required the railyard to be finished before platform work could begin, but the ESD had assumed the platform would start eight months earlier! Indeed, that "does not, in one respect, conform to the requirements."

The ESD, in its 2009 Technical Memorandum analyzing project timing, "indicates that the commencement date for platform construction on Block 1120 under the 10-year schedule is 2011, but that table uses the term “platform” broadly to encompass both the demolition of the remaining buildings on Block 1120 and the construction of the platform. The more detailed underlying schedule upon which Table 2 was based did not assume that the actual platform on Block 1120 would commence construction until October 30, 2012."

That is a very broad use of the term.

From the Technical Memorandum

That document states:

As detailed in the table, the duration of construction of most project elements would not change as a result of their modified start date within the overall construction schedule. Rather, with the exception of project elements whose construction has already commenced, the schedule’s overall timeline reflects a shift by approximately three years from what was presented in the FEIS. The duration of the LIRR rail yard’s construction—as well as the duration of construction for the site preparation and platforms on Blocks 1120, 1121, and 1128—would be longer than anticipated in the FEIS.

As can be seen in the table below, the railyard was once supposed to be done by 2010, but that was extended to 2013. Now 2019 or 2020 will mark its completion.

The railyard platform over Block 1120, between Sixth and Carlton avenues, was once supposed to be done by 2011, and extended to 2014, with a 23-month buildout. It has not even started, and has an estimated three-year construction schedule, according to a document I saw.

The platform over Block 1121, between Carlton and Vanderbilt avenues, was once supposed to be done by 2012, and then extended to 2015, with a 20-month buildout. Given that it's a much larger structure, I can't imagine it wouldn't take longer than the first phase of the platform; an unofficial schedule suggests three years. Based on the project's history, I'd bet it will take longer.

ESDC Response to Remand Ord... by Norman Oder on Scribd