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.
Our stupid developers keep building wider cities.
I think that is because of a lack of planned development; not because developers design them that way. Suburban sprawl is not planned by cities... it just happens when cities and counties don't regulate growth.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
In for all the "I have a car so public transportation does nothing for me" comments.
I live in a mid-sized city with very little public transportation (might as well be none)... so it really does do nothing for me. :)
That said, public transportation helps everyone even car drivers in cities that have functioning public transportation by:
a) Driving up desirability of location- thus helping your property value
b) Removing congestion from the streets.
c) slowing the deterioration of roadways meaning less frequent need to repave and delay your trip in.
Public Transportation may cost more to run than governments recoup but it's a net win if you figure in all the fringe benefits.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
For the first half of the twentieth century, a lot of transit systems in the US were private companies. They actually worked fairly well until they started to be bought up by a consortium of General Motors, Firestone and Standard Oil. Efficient trolley tracks were torn up and replaced by buses (which benefited the consortium). Eventually, even the buses were neglected to encourage the purchase of private cars. Local governments had little option but to buy and run the (intentionally) failing transit systems. In short, corporations can't be trusted to serve the public, because someone will always find a way to game the system and make it more profitable to not serve the public. Why do libertarians think they are so god damn brilliant for digging up old ideas that have been tried and failed in the past?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Actually, it's not a lack of planning, it's really bad planning, and far too much of it. Minimum parking requirements incentivize people to drive everywhere, filling the roads and streets with cars which require more, costly infrastructure which doesn't pay for itself by half.
The parking lots themselves also pay hardly anything in taxes compared to the businesses and residences that could be put there, and because they are non-destinations, they contribute to longer travel distances between actual destinations A and B. This makes walking and transit infeasible (not that cars are feasible, see above).
Building codes like height limits, minimum setbacks, and maximum floor area ratios also create sprawl and limit a city's productivity, jobs per acre and tax revenue per acre. So to make up the difference, cities expand out until they can't, and because they never budget for maintenance 30, 40, 50 years down the road, the more they build, the poorer they get!
So it's a huge, misplanned mess, not an unplanned one.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.