Agreed. This feels like a classic causation v correlation problem.
Of course when a substitute improves, some people will switch. However, the root cause is the declining quality and lack of improvements to the system that even gives a substitute the chance to compete.
I honestly don't understand how 100 years ago nyc was able to build an expansive subway system and today it takes decades to add a new station. I know it's a combination of land costs, labor costs, corruption, regulation, underground congestion (and that the original lines were built by private companies) but I still don't really understand the situation.
Many of the world's oldest subways have solved this problem through the use of specialized technology transition teams whose sole job is to develop minimal downtime solutions to upgrading technology. I'm no expert on these technical teams...I merely know of their existence through my own personal obsessive curiosity about infrastructure. But at least in terms of having relatively modern performance and technology, Paris, Madrid, Hamburg, Tokyo, Berlin, Osaka, Barcelona, and even Moscow don't seem to have any problems. Some might run what appears to be really old equipment...but it runs on time without any significant downtime. And with the exception of Tokyo (which has severe overcrowding problems which exceed the natural limits of subways) and London (which has extreme geographic, geological, archeological, electrical, and real estate constraints), they have mostly never let these problems impact the daily service.
New York is probably the most easily upgraded of these legacy subway systems, due to the insistence of the original subway companies on triple tracking. Not only does the triple track allow for express trains, but it also allows for zero downtime maintenance during non-peak hours. The electrical systems aren't a barrier like those in some cities. Even Tokyo and London, which have worse constraints, have fared better. If technology transition teams exist, I haven't heard of them. Upgrade engineering appears to be outsourced. The costs that the MTA quotes for transition seem absurd. Once again, I'm no expert on the engineering involved, but the upgrade costs are approaching new construction costs in other countries.
We know we have a major cost problem in US transit infrastructure construction. But this is not just construction. We also have a problem with maintenance costs, operating costs, capital costs, etc. Everywhere you go in America, we have critical transit infrastructure that is hobbled by costs. Where is the cost management? Why can't we get system-wide cost audits? If annual audits are required of publicly listed companies, why isn't it required of public organizations funded by tax dollars?
I'm sick of the explanation that our problem is funding...its not. Our problem is mismanagement. When you manage your systems well, nobody has any problem sending money your way. The demand curve exists for government funding just as much as it does for markets. When you provide more for a given amount of money, you generally get more money. Give us better management.
The connections aren't the problem under discussion. The problem is that it's a crumbling subway system that is having trouble operating at the capacity the city requires. For a city as rich as New York, you would expect something much better.
Look at how much trouble NYC has had building new subways over the last few decades. That's a system that already works (pretty) well, that people trust and believe in and are invested in, and yet they can barely get enough fiscal buy in to do maintenance.
The problem is that the alternative is not necessarily better. The Second Avenue Subway stub took about a decade to build, and even though New York opted to use less disruptive surface methods, it ended up taking much longer. 3 years is better than 10.
The technology on the NYC subway is so old that they have to pay through the nose for replacement parts. I also assume that you have a hard time finding people willing to work at a place where they learn few transferable skills, because nobody else uses century old stuff. Especially if the pay is so-so and you don't guarantee a job for life.
Yet upgrading the system to modern signals and interlockings is even more expensive, especially since maintenance is extremely hard when the system has to run 24/7.
But there is one type of delay that’s gotten exponentially worse during that time: a catchall category blandly titled “insufficient capacity, excess dwell, unknown,” which captures every delay without an obvious cause.
This smacks of corruption or of elements of society deciding that systems aren't going to simply work anymore. The population of New York City when I lived in Queens was 7.3 million when I lived there in 1989. The subways pretty much worked back then. The figure for population of New York City in 2017 I found was 8.5 million. Population increase can't account for the difference. There must have been considerable systemic decay.
that is no excuse. it's called maintenance. other cities manage to maintain their transit system . NYC has zero excuse . See Tokyo's transit history for how often they've upgrade the entire system a piece at a time.
Some American cities get it, but even those are struggling because their systems are full of legacy problems that are expensive to fix yet don't provide any visible benefits.
Changing the wiring on your subway so it doesn't catch on fire is really expensive, but nobody's going to notice if the subway doesn't catch on fire.
London and New York have subway systems that are extremely complex and on the verge of self-destruction most of the time due to budget constraints. Other, newer systems have decades to go before they face the same crunch.
It’s too many compromises. Metro refuses to build subway stations by anything other than cut-and-cover, which means we end up with this massive stations with 20’ ceilings that cost way too much.
There’s also too much backlash from the population for any kind of transit. The local zeitgeist still hasn’t accepted the need.
I agree that Metro has been making lots of mistakes. But I also am grateful that they are at least TRYING despite the incredible opposition they face. And while right now the train lines are still kind of useless, they also recognize the need to improve the last mile infrastructure; Metro is generally favorable of scooters and bike docks for example, and they are revamping the bus lines.
Who knows, maybe it was a lost cause. I hope they can figure it out!
* Labor costs and construction material costs have grown faster than inflation.
* There are more amenities in subways (such as handicapped access in stations) now than 100 years ago, and new construction accounts for them from the beginning.
* The underground infrastructure has become more crowded, which increases the number of pipes and the like that need to be relocated or avoided during construction.
* Planning and permitting requirements have increased, so you need to spend money showing, e.g., that you aren't harming any migratory fowl resting areas, or ensuring that you can expeditiously evacuate the station in case of an emergency.
* The agencies in charge have been doing worse and worse jobs at cost-control and project management.
The proposed price tag of the second phase of the 2nd Avenue subway is absolutely ludicrous--and so far, the MTA's justification [1] for the insane cost premiums is "fire codes." Seriously. For 10× over, say, Paris Metro construction costs. The public really needs to take MTA and the New York state government to task for allowing that sort of bullshit to stand.
you're right in that the subway isn't falling apart, but it's definitely gotten significantly worse over the past couple years. See https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/28/nyregion/subw... for data of significant decreases in on-time peformance and number of delays over the past couple of years.
I'm tired of hearing people make excuses for the NYC subway system such as age and complexity, seemingly ignorant that there's plenty of large cities in other first-world countries in the 10+ million range that do a much better job. Tokyo was bombed to the ground in WW2 and still manages to do better.
I think the actual explanation is that the NYC system was not properly maintained during the postwar period, when America focused on car transit instead.
Although plenty of people complain, there is no political will to fix the problem, either at the top or at the bottom.
The 24/7 operation and fixed ticket price don't help.
I live in NYC. For a couple of years I'd be reading NYTimes articles about the system is having problems from overcrowding, yet you'd see articles that more people took subways in the 1950's - 1960's.
Within the past few months there was a NYTimes article that stated that after an accident in the mid 1990s (?) that they slowed the system down. Thus, the problem wasn't overcrowding, but slowing the system down.
The system has been underfunded for maintenance. When the city went broke in the 1970s (?), the financing was transferred to the state from the city. NY State taxes the city but does not returned the taxed funds to the city for the MTA. Transferring management of the MTA back to the city would help with holding the Mayor accountable, something to think about if they want to be re-elected.
A good example of this is the DC Metro. It was in a complete maintenance crisis a few years ago and has been playing an extremely expensive game of catchup to avoid killing any more passengers. Service quality and price have suffered while they try to rush all of the deferred maintenance.
The DC Metro also has the same problem of being a jobs program for inner city residents, so efficiency upgrades are fought tooth and nail by the union.
I don't think there's much point in thinking about that change, because in the US there isn't the political will to operate and maintain such systems on an ongoing basis.
The NYC subway + DC metro, while far from perfect systems, are basically built on the desirable "traditional city" model. In both cases, actually maintaining and funding the system to operate to a reliable and acceptable standard, instead of running it into the ground, is a controversial idea with limited political support.
Unless and until such things can be operated as a going concern on an ongoing basis, there is no point building any more.
While automation sounds elegant, it has nothing to do with the problems or solutions here. The core problem with the NYC subway system is a management culture that does not value long term problem solving, instead preferring quick fixes and short term band aids.
Many modern subway systems have similarly huge networks with far higher traffic than NYC but manage to maintain low failure rates and CLEAN tracks simply because they value and prioritize maintenance and quality of service. Some are private, some are public.
It truly baffles me why NYC and actually the SF BART both fail so utterly to even attempt to provide quality service.
That unfortunately is an American centric problem, it’s particularly bad in NY but other parts of the country aren’t immune to it either. There’s a lot written about that elsewhere.
My point in this instance is that even at the inflated construction costs you could still accomplish a lot more with better planning and linking these systems up. A tunnel and new stops in manhatten connecting them is going to accomplish a lot more for the same price as capping a huge rail yard. Building new tunnels that terminate three separate systems in different locations. And building a new Penn station.
> having trouble operating at the capacity the city requires.
It's not just having trouble. The capacity the city requires is far beyond what it's currently running at. Meeting current demand would've meant planning for it two decades ago.
Anyone who lives here will tell you that the subway is wildly unreliable. Huge time gaps between trains, train cars that are dangerously overcrowded, random line shutdowns, local trains randomly going express and vice versa, straight up train direction reversals, "signal problems", "mechanical issues", sick passengers who can't get medical help because there's no medical staff in that station, "police investigations", etc are all part of daily life here.
Of course when a substitute improves, some people will switch. However, the root cause is the declining quality and lack of improvements to the system that even gives a substitute the chance to compete.
I honestly don't understand how 100 years ago nyc was able to build an expansive subway system and today it takes decades to add a new station. I know it's a combination of land costs, labor costs, corruption, regulation, underground congestion (and that the original lines were built by private companies) but I still don't really understand the situation.
reply