Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The United States just does not have any money to reinvest into their own infrastructure. When compare with China t(ese days, US looks more like a 3rd world country.
It's not that we don't have the money to invest in infrastructure, the real issue is that infrastructure costs so much more to build here than everywhere else. New subway lines in Madrid, Spain cost $58 million per kilometer to build. In notoriously unionized France, new Paris subway lines cost $250 million per km. Here in NYC, the recently completed phase 1 of the Second Avenue line cost $1.7 billion per km while the proposal for phase 2 costs over $2.2 billion per km (assuming no budget overruns). We certainly would be able to afford to invest more in infrastructure if our costs were similar to those in Spain or France.
You can't compare a "mile" in New York to other cities. The trains are much larger in New York than almost everywhere else, so the station structures are larger, as are the storage facilities for spare trains. There is much less space to stage construction equipment. I remember when the Second Ave. line was under construction, they had 2 lanes of traffic blocked off just to stage equipment. In a more spacious city (like Los Angeles) there is much more space to stage materials and gear.
Also, NYC is without equal in the world with regards to 3 and 4-track lines. Only short areas in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Tokyo have 4-track lines. It was a bit of a mini-disaster that the Second Ave. line was not built as a 4-track line. The distances in New York are larger than they appear -- largely because we are so accustomed to riding the express lines. Almost nobody traveling from Harlem to Wall St. will use the 2-track Second Ave. line when it is finished. They will walk to the Lexington Ave line and take the express like they do now.
Reading this article makes you fuming that how quickly China is building their Subway infrastructure non-stop while we wait for our lazy fat bureaucrats figure out how to spend our tax money on lazy disenfranchised folks and not put them to work on re-building our current infrastructure like China is doing.
Shanghai system runs 99.8% on time. It costs only about $0.67 per ride.
Look at the crap MTA is using to monitor their train lines vs China's.
While the MTA worker use outdated heavy machinery, Chinese workers have advanced tunneling drilling machines.
It's simple, NYC spends a lot of money on social services while Shanghai spends it on their infrastructure.
Not necessarily: that tunnel boring machine looks identical to the one that they used for the last decade boring out the Second Avenue subway.
The agency ignoring infrastructure is the U.S. government whose moronic lawmakers are content to spend every available penny of the war machine instead of the boring machine.
Also, it's worth noting that the NYC Subway doesn't travel into New Jersey at all, or Staten Island, and service to Queens is minimal. In short, the subway does not fan in a 360 degree network from Manhattan, but less than 180, when large land masses exist east and due south.
Yes, PATH exists, but it is far from a comprehensive network. As a thought experiment, imagine the Second Ave. line extended south to Lower Manhattan, then west under the Hudson to Jersey City and then express to Newark. Instead of being limited to 45mph (seemingly less for PATH), the trains would travel at 75mph like the Washington Metro or BART to Newark. Suddenly Newark becomes an "outer borough" and much more developable land is brought into Manhattan's orbit.
Also, it's worth noting that the NYC Subway doesn't travel into New Jersey at all, or Staten Island, and service to Queens is minimal. In short, the subway does not fan in a 360 degree network from Manhattan, but less than 180, when large land masses exist east and due south.
Yes, PATH exists, but it is far from a comprehensive network. As a thought experiment, imagine the Second Ave. line extended south to Lower Manhattan, then west under the Hudson to Jersey City and then express to Newark. Instead of being limited to 45mph (seemingly less for PATH), the trains would travel at 75mph like the Washington Metro or BART to Newark. Suddenly Newark becomes an "outer borough" and much more developable land is brought into Manhattan's orbit.
Service is not "minimal" in Queens, it goes pretty much everywhere up to Jamaica going East. It even goes to Far Rockaway!
Also, it's worth noting that the NYC Subway doesn't travel into New Jersey at all, or Staten Island, and service to Queens is minimal. In short, the subway does not fan in a 360 degree network from Manhattan, but less than 180, when large land masses exist east and due south.
Yes, PATH exists, but it is far from a comprehensive network. As a thought experiment, imagine the Second Ave. line extended south to Lower Manhattan, then west under the Hudson to Jersey City and then express to Newark. Instead of being limited to 45mph (seemingly less for PATH), the trains would travel at 75mph like the Washington Metro or BART to Newark. Suddenly Newark becomes an "outer borough" and much more developable land is brought into Manhattan's orbit.
Most parts of Queens are served by NYC transit. There's the Queens Blvd Line, the Flushing Line, the Astoria line, the Jamaica line, the Myrtle Avenue line and the Rockaway line.
Keep in mind Northern and Eastern Queens have The LIRR.
You can't compare a "mile" in New York to other cities. The trains are much larger in New York than almost everywhere else, so the station structures are larger, as are the storage facilities for spare trains. There is much less space to stage construction equipment. I remember when the Second Ave. line was under construction, they had 2 lanes of traffic blocked off just to stage equipment. In a more spacious city (like Los Angeles) there is much more space to stage materials and gear.
Also, NYC is without equal in the world with regards to 3 and 4-track lines. Only short areas in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Tokyo have 4-track lines. It was a bit of a mini-disaster that the Second Ave. line was not built as a 4-track line. The distances in New York are larger than they appear -- largely because we are so accustomed to riding the express lines. Almost nobody traveling from Harlem to Wall St. will use the 2-track Second Ave. line when it is finished. They will walk to the Lexington Ave line and take the express like they do now.
4 and 5 service during rush hours is crowded and full of delays to the point where you might as well take a local. Being that the city and state can barely build new two track lines, new four track lines are simply totally out of the question.
The 4-track line wasn't built because funding was not in place for building all 15 miles at once. That would have required an act of congress because there is no way the FTA could award the funds necessary to build it within their existing budget.
So if they had built segment 1 as a 4-track the express tracks would have gone completely unused, possibly for decades, since the Republican party retains a stranglehold over Congress. They might have been minimally used with construction to 125th St., but really weren't going to be of much utility until the whole line is completed to Wall St.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
