Slashdot Mirror
Why New York City Stopped Building Subways (citylab.com)
New York City, which once saw an unprecedented infrastructure boom -- putting together iconic bridges, opulent railway terminals to build the then world's largest underground and rapid transit network in just 20 years -- has not built a single new subway line in more than seven decades. As New York's rapid transit system froze, cities across the globe expanded their networks. A closer inspection reveals that things have actually moved backward -- New York's rapid transit network is actually considerably smaller than it was during the Second World War, and due to this, today's six million daily riders are facing constant delays, infrastructure failures, and alarmingly crowded cars and platforms. This raises two questions: Why did New York abruptly stop building subways after the 1940s? And how did a construction standstill that started nearly 80 years ago lead to the present moment of transit crisis? The Atlantic's CityLab explores: Three broad lines of history provide an explanation. The first is the postwar lure of the suburbs and the automobile -- the embodiment of modernity in its day. The second is the interminable battles of control between the city and the private transit companies, and between the city and the state government. The third is the treadmill created by rising costs and the buildup of deferred maintenance -- an ever-expanding maintenance backlog that eventually consumed any funds made available for expansion.
To see exactly how and why New York's subway went off the rails requires going all the way back to the beginning. What follows is a 113-year timeline of the subway's history, organized by these three narratives (with the caveat that no history is fully complete).
To see exactly how and why New York's subway went off the rails requires going all the way back to the beginning. What follows is a 113-year timeline of the subway's history, organized by these three narratives (with the caveat that no history is fully complete).
Sydney, a fairly low density sprawl of some 5m people all trying to get to a single hub (on the east side) made a valiant start on a subway system in the late 1800's and then....stopped pretty much. Some original platforms and entire stations have never been used and some terminals were just meant to be a temporary 'breather'. I envy cities like Tokyo, London and indeed NYC for what seems to me the possibility to pick a destination in the city and 'just got there' pretty quickly in a way that's impossible in Sydney. Here, it's the total self-interest that has permeated both sides of politics. What's the point in a politician sticking their neck out for a 10+ year build when someone else might get the thanks down the line? That said, there is actually a decent new line being constructed now, but it's a drop in the ocean and no more seem to be in the planning, instead stupid light rails that are slower than walking in some cases, and certainly slower than a taxi or driving. Perhaps NYC has gone the same way, but at least you got a good start.
Only big ligs use sigs.
The bottom line is that you need to re-invest about 3-5% of the system replacement cost every year for maintenance and upkeep for real outcomes. When the money isn't spent on keeping the system operating at peak efficiency you build a funding deficit very quickly.
Not sure if NYC should invest more in expansion or if they need to create a 20-year maintenance master plan (which would likely require some expansion as part of the process). But, without doing something it is hard to imagine how traffic is going to get any better.
$20 billion would put 5000 new electric cabs on the street and pay each driver $50k for the next 26 years.
So that's an extra 5000 extra cars on the city roads, inefficiently moving people one at a time through slightly worse traffic than current. I haven't even attempted to do the numbers but I've a feeling this would be a non starter as a replacement for mass transit. I would however say that the future of transport will be a hybrid approach. Trains can still play an important role complimented by medium and mini autonomous vehicles + feet for the last mile.
Only big ligs use sigs.
comparing 5000 cars with a subway is wrong because the cars and trains aren't the expensive part, the streets and tunnels and railways are.
comparing 500 miles of street with 500 miles of subway is right.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
If it takes $20 billion to fix it right, is there a better transportation system that could be bought for that kind of money? $20 billion would put 5000 new electric cabs on the street and pay each driver $50k for the next 26 years. I'm not saying its better,
I mean, good, because it's very plainly very much worse. Subway trains carry hundreds of passengers each. Tens of thousands per hour at the very least. Adding 5000 cabs, even if they all took several people and ran constantly, is a drop in the ocean. Even if they could travel as fast as trains, which on the congested roads they just can't. Vehicles are nowhere near as efficient as trains.
People take up finite physical space. Unless you want to redefine who travels where, there are a limited number of ways to do that. Thinking outside the box is not magic.