Why New York City Stopped Building Subways (citylab.com) 219
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).
Because tunnel companies (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Because tunnel companies (Score:5, Funny)
Actual work is so boring.
Nothing about corruption? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no way the rampant corruption and cronyism around construction in New York City does not have a massive role to play in all this.
It's a real shame, as other cities now have much nicer metro options and I don't nee NYC getting better at all, anytime soon.
Re:Nothing about corruption? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing about corruption? (Score:4, Informative)
Tokyo Metro carries double the number of passengers of NYC, and is extremely reliable.
Re:Nothing about corruption? (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, if it is ever late, the conductor commits hara-kiri:
https://www.worldofbuzz.com/in... [worldofbuzz.com]
Re: (Score:3)
And is still being expanded with refurbished stations, new stations and entire new lines. When I lived there (Shibuya ward) I could walk ten minutes in any direction from my apartment and encounter stations on for different lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nothing about corruption? (Score:2)
Re:Nothing about corruption? (Score:5, Insightful)
For US cities, NYC's is probably the most functional metro system. It runs 24/7/365 for one thing, and is extensive enough to be useful. If you're comparing to London or Berlin, you may have a point, though those systems aren't 24h.
Berlin's U-Bahn (subway) might not be 24h/7 but only 20h/5 + 24h/2, but has tram systems and S-bahn (above ground commuter trains) that are both running 24h/7.
That is the not the problem with NYC. The problem is the reluctance to spend state and city money on it like they do on highways. It doesn't seem to register to US politicians that people that take the train, doesn't drive and thus takes up less capacity on the roads, saving highway costs. The cost of roads and rails are deeply connected.
Re:Nothing about corruption? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It shouldn't be depressing; it is about being politically active for more than the ribbon cutting of new infrastructure and supporting ongoing maintenance and upgrades of the system as a spending priority!
Properly maintained systems work better, and the key to that is careful funding.
The alternative is what is depressing-- needing to start over every 20-50 years because the system goes to shit. That is a real concern for many of the newer systems, where maintenance isn't as glamorous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Roads are only partially covered by fuel taxes. It's been many years since fuel taxes covered more than 50% of the cost of road maintenance and construction in most areas of the US. The rest comes from general funds at whatever levels of government are doing the maintenance.
Re:Nothing about corruption? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree that the city is doing a very good job upgrading and maintaining the system, despite budget issues.
Indeed not 24/7 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For US cities, NYC's is probably the most functional metro system. It runs 24/7/365 for one thing, and is extensive enough to be useful. If you're comparing to London or Berlin, you may have a point, though those systems aren't 24h.
Not sure about Berlin, but TfL (Transport For London) is definitely a 24/7 operation. Up until recently the Tube (Underground) was 18/7 and busses ran 24/7 but this changed in 2016. Berlin only has a population of 3.5 Million though while NYC and London have 9 Million. .
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nothing about corruption? (Score:5, Insightful)
They call it the "New York premium": When your tunnel workers are all getting six-figure salaries plus cushy retirement, the city couldn't afford to build the system if all those tunnels were being drilled through a gold lode.
Re: Nothing about corruption? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cause only techies building social media crap should opt for six figures salaries....?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nothing about corruption? (Score:4, Informative)
There's no way the rampant corruption and cronyism around construction in New York City does not have a massive role to play in all this.
This article, from the New York Times, supports your point:
The Most Expensive Mile of Subway Track on Earth [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nothing about corruption? (Score:2)
And hundreds & hundreds of non-union but quite handsomely compensated lawyers / political commissars.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. (Score:3, Funny)
NYC is currently in the middle of its largest subway construction project in history, but don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative!
Re: (Score:2)
"with the caveat that no history is fully complete"
Yeah, they were (past tense) necessarily writing about how things were (past tense).
Or at least CityLabs tends to look backwards, decry the failures, and then look forward to a Utopian recovery.
Well, they don't have to pay for it, so sure they do. Surely city planners worldwide hang on their every syllable.
Re:Uh, no. (Score:5, Funny)
Probably the Second Avenue Subway. Started in the 1920s, so if they're in the middle of it now, we can expect it done by the early 22nd century. Which is about par for the course given (union heel-dragging|Republican budget cuts).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you really just blame that on Republicans?
You are a fucking moron if you think it lays at the feet of anyone except Democrats, who have been in complete control for 15 years, and 89% of the last century.
I know you're a troll, and I'm not American but I'd just like to point out that all you're illustrating is that the damage a Republican does in one year of power takes in excess of ten years of Democrat rule to repair.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Entropy. It's a bitch.
10 Despite spittle-flecked right wing screaming, Democrats eventually manage to stop the bleeding and get the budget on course to stabilize
20 Liberals begin to take functional government for granted and forget to vote
30 Republicans immediately destroy any progress made towards a stable budget and dig the financial hole even deeper this time -- WE ARE HERE
40 Liberals realize that you have to vote for non-lunatics if you want the government to work
50 GOTO 10
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RTP, also known as Russian Troll Project.
Re:Uh, no. (Score:5, Informative)
the second ave subway
7 train extension
L train tunnel rehab
rebuilding dozens of stations
East Side Access for LIRR to Grand Central
Re: (Score:3)
7 train extension: An single extra station that hardly anyone uses (watch at 42nd st, on a packed rush hour car maybe 1-2 people continue to hudson yards); with the plan for a 2nd station axed, an even more useful plan to ex
Re: (Score:2)
A more accurate depiction of the subway's status.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The statement...
... today's six million daily riders are facing constant delays, infrastructure failures, and alarmingly crowded cars and platforms.
should read...
New Yorkers should visit places like Dubai, Shanghai, St Petersburg in Russia or even Singapore City, to see what a subway should look like and function.
Sadly, Americans still think they have the best and greatest in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't seen the bi-directional cattle car that is the Austin metro rail.
Its nothing more than a single ~15 mile stretch of rail that goes from downtown Austin to a couple towns north. 2 cars. 6 stops. 1 hour waits. Imagine a single line between Brooklyn and Manhattan to service all of New York, and you get the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
The fuckers didn't even put it through to the airport, which would probably quadruple ridership.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, Americans still think they have the best and greatest in the world.
You mean New Yorkers?
Few other Americans care about subways.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A more accurate depiction of the subway's statu (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd have to pay me to get me to ride a subway instead of just driving
And in cities like New York, London, Seoul, Paris, Mexico City, Barcelona, Berlin and others I've visited you'd have to pay me to drive.
I have better things to do in my life than sit in a car in gridlock traffic for two hours when I can get there in 20 minutes on the subway. Life's too short.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the Morlocks eat the Eloi.
Re: (Score:2)
I have. I somehow accidentally ended up in the wrong lane and failed to stay on... 95, IIRC. It reminded me of driving in San Francisco, but with more pedestrians, slower traffic lights, and fewer "oh, sorry, you had to be in the left lane five blocks and three turns ago if you wanted to turn right on that street" events. And an MTA bus cut me off and nearly caused a wreck, so I guess it wasn't all that different from San Francisco in the grand scheme of driving atrocities. The random piece of furnitur
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, how many of those mass-transit systems run 24/7365?
I remember visiting Paris which had a lovely Mass transit system ... and then running through the subway grabbing the last train before being stranded in the city Center with no way (except an expensive cab ride) back to the suburb house of our friends where we staying.
Re: (Score:3)
New Yorkers should visit places like Dubai, Shanghai, St Petersburg in Russia or even Singapore City, to see what a subway should look like and function. Sadly, Americans still think they have the best and greatest in the world.
Leave those richer countries. Kolkata Metro (new name for Calcutta) India is cleaner than NYC subway. I can't believe it either.
But the mosquitoes in the subway have speciated and they are distinct species from the mosquitoes above ground in New York. Evolution in action. Deny that creationists.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I've never met an American that thought we had the best mass-transit system in the world. In fact, every time I've ever had a discussion it's quite the opposite, how much our transit system sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
The statement...
... today's six million daily riders are facing constant delays, infrastructure failures, and alarmingly crowded cars and platforms.
should read...
New Yorkers should visit places like Dubai, Shanghai, St Petersburg in Russia or even Singapore City, to see what a subway should look like and function.
Sadly, Americans still think they have the best and greatest in the world.
Those countries have better mass transit than NY because their governments heavily invested in public transportation. Government investments in mass transportation and other urban development projects have been the bane of republicans since the 1970's. NY state legislator was dominated by upstate republicans for a long time so there were no new investments into NYC transit infrastructure. As a matter of fact the NYC MTA was operating with budget deficits because of NY State under funding the agency. However
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, Americans still think they have the best and greatest in the world.
Yeah, you know who never makes fun of America? Americans.
what's there to "learn"? (Score:3, Insightful)
In different words, subways are too expensive to build and maintain and voters are not willing to approve either the fare increases or the tax increases to pay for them. It's unclear what the authors want to "learn" from that. In fact, it's more likely that more subway lines will get closed over time, instead of new ones getting opened.
Re: (Score:2)
In different words, subways are too expensive to build and maintain and voters are not willing to approve either the fare increases or the tax increases to pay for them. It's unclear what the authors want to "learn" from that. In fact, it's more likely that more subway lines will get closed over time, instead of new ones getting opened.
They are not too expensive compared to roads. If you invest in them and make them work, you have to invest less in expanding roads, saving you money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's like saying that a Tesla is not too expensive compared to a Ferrari. If you can't afford either, you'll have to make due without either.
NYC may simply be living on borrowed time. That is, NYC's problems may not fixable in the long term and the city will gradually decline. Cities die.
Re: (Score:2)
In different words, subways are too expensive to build and maintain
Uh huh. So tell me what's the alternative? Roads? If you think so, then grap a copy of google maps and show us where you'd build new roads in NYC.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does there have to be an alternative? What NYC and what it will become is determined by its geography, by available technology, and by population movements. If New York can only function with more subways but New Yorkers can't pay for it, then the city will slowly decay. For some reason, that seems to bother you. Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Why does there have to be an alternative?
Well, I guess there's always* a worse option...
What NYC and what it will become is determined by its geography, by available technology, and by population movements. If New York can only function with more subways but New Yorkers can't pay for it, then the city will slowly decay.
The city alone would sit comfortably as the #3 state in terms of GDP, so they can and apparently now are deciding to afford it. So fret not, those un american city types will continue to exis
Re: (Score:2)
No, there is simply often no option at all; that is, economics and technology determine outcomes, and government intervention can't change it.
And that's why attempting to change NYC's future through government intervention is futile. It's like trying to stop a sixteen wheeler with police tape before it goes off a cliff.
Re: (Score:2)
In different words, subways are too expensive to build and maintain and voters are not willing to approve either the fare increases or the tax increases to pay for them. It's unclear what the authors want to "learn" from that. In fact, it's more likely that more subway lines will get closed over time, instead of new ones getting opened.
But what then? The city gradually grinds to a halt as people can't actually get around? They might be expensive but there's not a whole lot of other options for a dense urban environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Cities are in an equilibrium between the cost of infrastructure and the benefits of proximity, and there are diseconomies of scale that limit the size and complexity of cities. As the article indicates, NYC may be at a point where the cost of new infrastructure isn't justified by its benefits; that is, if they raise taxes f
It's quite evident (Score:5, Funny)
There's already way too many Subways, just like there's too many Starbucks, too many McDonald's, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not my fault +Funny gives Karma. Talk about it to the ones in charge.
"with the caveat that no history is fully complete (Score:2)
Huh? This is an immutable law, or just what you write when you aren't sure what you wrote won't offend someone?
Gawd, now my American History AND World History teachers are spinning in their graves.
Because (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Talk about the new subway as well (Score:2)
The shmucks decided to make it pretty.
So they built HUGE stations, with ceilings that are 30ft above the tracks. I could see making them wider, but the idiots made them tall. Minimal benefit for massive expenses.
And they build these huge monstrosities deep underground.
The subway stations accounted for most of the cost over runs.
Re: (Score:3)
They were meant to double as bomb shelters hence the extra space for breathing air
Alarmingly crowded cars and platforms? (Score:2)
the companies went bankrupt (Score:3, Informative)
The subways were originally built by private companies but the fare was set by the city. This caused financial problems as costs rose.
After a while these companies went bankrupt and now they along with the commuter railroads who were also originally private companies were all bought out by the state and turned into the MTA. A state sponsored private corporation that the state, the city and other counties control.
In the 80's the private companies who ran the bus system were also integrated into the MTA
The lesser known reason (Score:2)
There was an attempt to expand the system, but it was never explained why the workers packed their equipment, and just rejoined the crowded surface.
A few nights later, one late night talk show host mentioned something along the lines: There is that awful smell of piss in the subway, and it is never going away
There may be a connection between the two.
If nw subterranean. construction is so hard (Score:2)
Why not a series of monorails?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It put North Haverbrook on the map!
Re: (Score:2)
It put North Haverbrook on the map!
If NYC doesn't want it, ok, it's more of a Boston idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not a series of monorails?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
No one wants an above ground rail system. The feeling is that an above ground rail system brings blight. Should the government attempt such a solution there will be a hard push back from the community affected.
I'm sure this had nothing to do with it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct. Taxis had nothing to do with it, since the idea of the subway predates the automobile, and both are targeted toward different user groups.
At least, that's what I think your pro-Uber anarcho-capitalist rant seems to say,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't let the thought of civic duty, quality of life get in the way of license revenue.. - Bureaucrats
Pee you (Score:2)
Fat hobos got too lazy to go down stairs to pee, so more subways not needed.
At least NYC has something... (Score:3, Interesting)
What would NYC subway fares cost if they self-fund (Score:2)
,,,the subway system? I'm assuming that subway rides are subsidized, that the fare does not cover the operation of the subway system. Riders pay $5 for a fare, but the actual cost to provide that fare is more, maybe 1.5-3x more.
What would a fare on the NYC subway cost if it payed to operate the subway?
I'm not opposed to mass transit subsidies, either. Lowering the price to get people into mass transit is a worthwhile goal, but if you let the subsidy get out of control it distorts the economics and you wi
Re:What would NYC subway fares cost if they self-f (Score:4, Interesting)
$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.
Re:What would NYC subway fares cost if they self-f (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
More than they currently do. What would be the cost of driving if it was self funded?
Re: (Score:3)
,,,the subway system? I'm assuming that subway rides are subsidized, that the fare does not cover the operation of the subway system. Riders pay $5 for a fare, but the actual cost to provide that fare is more, maybe 1.5-3x more.
What would a fare on the NYC subway cost if it payed to operate the subway?
I'm not opposed to mass transit subsidies, either. Lowering the price to get people into mass transit is a worthwhile goal, but if you let the subsidy get out of control it distorts the economics and you wind up with funding shortfalls because you're dependent on outside support.
Is it possible NYC's subway is approaching the point of being not economically viable? 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, but once the investment sizes are taken into considering it makes sense to think outside the box.
Would people be willing to pay $10 or $20 per fare for a system that self-funded, including upgrades and expansions? I bet a lot would switch to cabs or Uber for that money.
In America our physical infrastructure (roads, bridges, power lines, utility lines, etc) are crumbling. NYC subway is no exception to America's crumbling infrastructure problem. NYC subway issue is part of a national problem with our infrastructure that everyone recognizes and agree that something must be done. Good luck fixing America crumbling infrastructure considering the national budget will expand by over 1.5 trillion dollars in a few years because of the recent tax cuts. There is little political wil
Re:What would NYC subway fares cost if they self-f (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
How could anybody? (Score:2)
Mass-transit is fundamentally flawed (Score:2)
Mass-transit suffers from a major utilization problem in that to be attractive to riders, it must be reasonably fast, but also be easily accessible.
A mass-transit system with a small number of stops can run faster, but many people will refuse to use it due to the lack of accessibility.
The problem is that the more stops that are added to increase the accessibility, the slower overall
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is called an "Express Train". For traveling short distances, you hop on the local train. For traveling long distances you take the express. You can even have multiple kinds of express train:
1. Simple express that only hits major stations.
2. Half-express that hits local stations in one half but expresses on the other half (with a mirror twin that serves the opposite halves).
3. Skip-stop trains that stop at every other station or every third station (with 1-2 other trains that mirror the behavio
Re: (Score:2)
A better approach, IMO, is what I call the parallel express, or zipper express (because it resembles a giant zipper). You have an express line that makes every fourth stop or so, and then you have parallel lines with a larger number of slower trains on parallel lines timed to depart and arrive at the same time as the express trains do, so that passengers on one can switch quickly to the other and vice versa. Depending on which train you're on, you either get off at the stop before or after your desired s
Why NYC Stopped Building Subways (Score:2)
Labor Unions increase costs (Score:2)
I major factor that stymies expansion is the high cost of construction in NYC due to the labor unions. This has been mentioned elsewhere, it takes twice as much money than it does to build similar tunnels of similar complexity and difficulty in cities such as Paris.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html [nytimes.com]
"Blame" OSHA (Score:2)
If you look at the construction of tunnels the death rate between workers was really high, and of course problems with absestos and dirt produced during the boring process wasn't cosidered. Add to this the fact that nowadays a station not equipped for people on wheelchair or without heating isn't a viable oprion, and of course the costs of building are high.
Why it costs so much more now... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too crowded for me....I like to have some "elbow room".
I'd rather have a house with driveway and garage/car port, and a back yard where I can keep my grills, my smoker, my set up for home brewing or crawfish boils, etc.
I really also prefer to NOT share walls with neighbors, so that when either they or myself want to watch the Flintstones at concert volume, it won't bother anyone else.
I spent a lot of years and $$ building a great AV system, and I like to listen to it at vo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Density 28,491/sq mi (11,000/km2)
Straight from Wikipedia.
i'd say that's pretty damn crowded.
Re: (Score:2)
Density 28,491/sq mi (11,000/km2)
i'd say that's pretty damn crowded.
Meh. Metro Manila has four times that.
List of cities by population density [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So what?
You can't say "X is not crowded because Y is more crowded" - it makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
London is in the process of building a big new cross-city tunnel in the form of Crossrail.
And they are building a new extention to the Northern Line and talking about other extentions.
Unlike New York, London doesn't have some of the problems (union demands for example) that make both new construction and existing system maintanence so expensive.