Slashdot Mirror
Why the West Coast Is Suddenly Beating the East Coast on Transportation (nytimes.com)
The subways on the East Coast that allowed New York, Washington and Boston to thrive are showing their age and suffering from years of neglect, while cities on the West Coast are moving quickly to expand and improve their networks. From a report: The Los Angeles area, the ultimate car-centric region with its sprawling freeways, approved a sweeping $120 billion plan to build new train routes and upgrade its buses. Seattle has won accolades for its transit system, where 93 percent of riders report being happy with service -- a feat that seems unimaginable in New York, where subway riders regularly simmer with rage on stalled trains. "It's a tale of two systems," said Robert Puentes, the president of the Eno Center for Transportation, a nonpartisan research center in Washington. "These new ones are growing and haven't started to experience the pains of rehabilitation."
In New York, Polly Trottenberg, New York City's transportation commissioner, returned to a laundry list of messes: a subway crisis, buses that move at a snail's pace, the looming shutdown of the L train between Manhattan and Brooklyn, and the rebuilding of the dilapidated Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. "There is a political will to invest in expansion" on the West Coast, Ms. Trottenberg said in an interview, though she noted that New York's system was still the country's largest by far. Its daily subway and bus ridership of nearly 8 million dwarfs Los Angeles's 1.2 million riders. Still, transit systems on the East Coast are losing ridership. New York's subway has not expanded in decades, besides a handful of new stations in Manhattan -- one on the Far West Side and three on the Upper East Side.
In New York, Polly Trottenberg, New York City's transportation commissioner, returned to a laundry list of messes: a subway crisis, buses that move at a snail's pace, the looming shutdown of the L train between Manhattan and Brooklyn, and the rebuilding of the dilapidated Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. "There is a political will to invest in expansion" on the West Coast, Ms. Trottenberg said in an interview, though she noted that New York's system was still the country's largest by far. Its daily subway and bus ridership of nearly 8 million dwarfs Los Angeles's 1.2 million riders. Still, transit systems on the East Coast are losing ridership. New York's subway has not expanded in decades, besides a handful of new stations in Manhattan -- one on the Far West Side and three on the Upper East Side.
Back in the 50s, when the interstate highway system was planned and construction began, did anyone budget for future maintenance? Does anyone consider the long term cost of maintenance when they build roads, bridges, and other infrastructure like subways?
Those folks in Seattle are happy because the system is new and working fine. I'll bet people in NYC were happy with their system when it was new. Let's see how people in Seattle feel about the system when it is as old as the NYC subway system.
In NYC there is an attitude of taking routes that would be good for transit and building parks on them. The high line could have been an surface level extension of the 7 line from its current Hudson Yards terminal to the 14st area of Manhattan (and duck into a tunnel from there). Or, allowed LIRR to run to a Lower Manhattan terminal without much tunneling (relieving pressure in overcrowded Penn Station by providing more places in Manhattan to get off).
There's a similar argument going on in Queens about what to do with the former LIRR Rockaway Beach branch: one side wants a linear park (despite the fact that it runs through Forest Park, which is already pretty big, and through people's back yards who don't want random people walking by all day), another wants to restore it as an an extension of the subway (connecting the Queens Blvd Line to the A train). The route runs through a transit desert in Queens, and in any of the west coast or midwestern cities with budding new rail systems the population centers being connected would be an automatic no-brainer to put transit there.
Ok so they approved a plan. Wake me when they actually have a well functioning mass transit system that actually causes a reduction in the number of cars needed. I'll be especially impressed if they actually do it on time and under budget.
Naah. You'll be happier in your slumber.
The LA metro system is well functioning (I use it to commute to work, and I use it any time I go downtown - I would never drive there any more).
And by definition when people from the suburbs take the metro they aren't driving. So, yeah, it does cause a reduction in the number of cars on the freeways and surface streets.
I know, I know. You'll be now be setting new, higher bars you demand to be cleared for your satisfaction.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Suburban sprawl happens because Americans have been conditioned to exercise their "freedom" to spend countless hours of their lives trapped in little wheeled boxes travelling at the breakneck speed of 5 MPH down long strips of asphalt.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So exactly like every other form of infrastructure that not everyone uses equally. Deal with it -- it's part of the cost of a modern civilization.
LA Metro works well if you are close to a station and can get to where you need to go with at most one transfer. Metro has 93 operational stations, or roughly one per 50 square miles of LA County. The system would need to increase by an order of magnitude in track miles and stations to be on par with NYC.