
Why New York City Stopped Building Subways - jseliger
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/04/why-new-york-city-stopped-building-subways/557567
======
temuze
NYC should stop building subways with tunnel boring. Instead, tear up the
street, build the darn thing and then rebuild the street over it. This method
is called cut and cover and it's what many countries do because it's
substantially cheaper and faster:

[https://ny.curbed.com/2017/9/19/16335068/nyc-subway-mta-
stat...](https://ny.curbed.com/2017/9/19/16335068/nyc-subway-mta-state-of-
emergency-solution)

Imagine if the 2nd ave line was done this way - sure you'd get a lot of pissed
Upper East Siders, but their property value is going to skyrocket from the
project anyway. As far as I'm concerned, they could deal with a year of
inconvenience instead of getting it built over decades for magnitudes of money
more.

Of course, the City Council would never agree to this plan. It's easier for
them not to disturb anyone if they want to be re-elected...

~~~
Joeri
You may be overestimating how easy cut and cover is. I live in the city of
Antwerp where they decided to dig up the central crossing that connects the
main shopping street with the main traffic hub, to redesign it so cars would
go underneath and shoppers can walk across the crossing unimpeded. It was
planned for 18 months, and now is projected to be closer to 3 years.

This is what it looks like when you do such a thing:

[https://gvacdn.akamaized.net/Assets/Images_Upload/2017/08/18...](https://gvacdn.akamaized.net/Assets/Images_Upload/2017/08/18/12224bba-837c-11e7-b40e-532a965b2906_web_scale_0.0592116_0.0592116__.jpg?maxheight=465&maxwidth=700)

The stores in the neighborhood are complaining that they'll probably go out of
business before the works are done.

~~~
jwilliams
> You may be overestimating how easy cut and cover is.

You're right. In fact, the Market Street passage of BART/Muni in San Francisco
was a cut and cover. The closure of Market Street and delays in construction
caused a lot of damage. Not the least of which the collapse of businesses[1]

The Theaters went out of business, became porn cinemas and liquor stores. Much
of what Civic is today was a result of that era.

Not to say Cut and Cover was the 100% cause - but it was a major, major
contributor.

1: [https://hoodline.com/2016/07/in-their-words-the-
convergent-h...](https://hoodline.com/2016/07/in-their-words-the-convergent-
histories-of-mid-market-and-civic-center)

~~~
turbografx16
Vancouver too. The Canada line expansion killed the vast majority of cambie's
family owned / small businesses.

~~~
bdamm
Having recently witnessed the boom in construction around the Canada Line
stations, I'm not sure I agree. Many businesses on Cambie are doing very well,
including some that hung on through the difficult time when the line was being
built. Yes, some went out of business and that is sad, but many survived and
fortunes seem to be up as a result.

~~~
kridsdale1
These are the vultures who got fat on the carcasses of those that didn’t
survive.

------
chrisaycock
Beyond the constant delays and overcrowded trains, the biggest impediment I
experience is the lack of _subways to the airports_. LGA doesn't have any
train lines, while JFK and EWR have "airtrains" separate from the MTA or PATH.

Chicago's "L" goes directly to both ORD and MDW. My brief time there showed
that things could be far more connected than New York's system.

~~~
nostromo
American cities are the worst when it comes to this.

Seattle just built a train to the airport (yay) but for bureaucratic reasons,
it doesn't actually go _in to_ the airport. It goes to the far edge of the
airport, so you have to lug your luggage outside through the entire parking
lot.

Meanwhile, everyone who took an Uber can step right into the departures area.

And, as you mention, New York is much much worse in this regard. The AirTrain
from JFK costs $5, more than it costs to go from _anywhere to anywhere else_
in all of NYC on the subway.

~~~
potatolicious
Airport transit investments are, sadly, incredibly hard to justify. Since
airports tend to be located in far-flung, less-populated parts of cities (or
entirely outside of cities), it faces the deadly combination of being
expensive to build (greater length/mileage of line) and having low ridership
(relative to the rest of the transit system).

It's a highly salient point of failure for visitors, and generally is bad PR.
But besides _looking bad_ , it's not clear that investing in single-seat-to-
terminal trains to the airports are actually the best use of very limited
dollars.

The JFK AirTrain for example has a ridership of ~11,000 per day. There's an
argument to be made that those riders have greater economic impact than
average, but ultimately that ridership resembles some of the more far-flung
residential neighborhood subway stations (see: Graham St L, Bergen St F, 145th
St 1 in Harlem, etc).

Compare that with parts of the system that are in dire need of
maintenance/renovation with much greater ridership (see: Herald Square -
125,000 riders a day, Union Square - 106,000 riders a day, Times Sq - 202,000
riders a day).

In a world where costs are under control and funding abundant, I am all in on
airport links, but right now? Right now I'm not convinced this is where money
should be going, as much as it sucks for someone who flies a lot like me.

~~~
gumby
> Airport transit investments are, sadly, incredibly hard to justify.

Somehow other countries manage to justify it. Tokyo, London, Paris (TGV too!),
Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Beijing... the list goes on. But somehow building
infrastructure is hard to justify in the US. Pennywise and pound foolish.

~~~
bobthepanda
Very few of those places built the airport extension first, or spent the
entire bank account on just the airport extension. Given limited dollars,
airports are at best a middling concern.

~~~
noobermin
Limited dollars you say? How are the limited for the most powerful country in
the world with the strongest economy?

~~~
bobthepanda
A combination of low appetite for taxes, poor spending, and the disadvantages
of being the first movers when it comes to infrastructure.

China is able to rapidly build infrastructure because it didn’t have very
much. In twenty to fifty years when everything is dur for replacement, that
will be the true test of infrastructure.

------
Nav_Panel
This article touches on but doesn't explore in great detail the history of
elevated lines in NYC. Some of their traces have been incorporated into the
current system, most notably as the 7 train in Queens and the J/M/Z (including
the Ridgewood/Middle Village spur), but many were torn down.

Some lines in Brooklyn that people aren't even aware of (beyond the 2nd and
3rd Ave lines):

* The Myrtle Ave elevated, running from Downtown Brooklyn down Myrtle and connecting with the M's Ridgewood spur. Torn down in the 1960s.

* The Lexington Ave elevated, running from the Brooklyn Bridge waterfront across Downtown Brooklyn and Bed Stuy, connecting to the current J/Z line near Broadway Junction. Torn down in the 1950s.

* The Fulton St elevated, since replaced by the A train, that ran over Fulton St all the way into Downtown Brooklyn. Torn down in the 1940s.

You can see these elevated lines crossing Northern Brooklyn in this map from
1949:
[https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1...](https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1948.gif)

I personally would have found these lines quite useful, but what took their
place was a collection of bus routes, running along old streetcar routes
(read: weird routes that stop suddenly at borough and neighborhood
boundaries). And NYC buses cannot be trusted...

~~~
anonu
> You can see these elevated lines crossing Northern Brooklyn in this map from
> 1949:
> [https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1...](https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1948.gif)

One of the commuter tips is "Try to shop between 10 and 4". Were shoppers
overwhelming the peak-hour commuters?

EDIT: other interesting things on the map: the 5-digit telephone number.

~~~
tmm
> other interesting things on the map: the 5-digit telephone number.

It's not 5 digits, it's 7: MAin 5-6200. The first two digits are 6 (M) and 2
(A): 625-6200. Telephone exchanges used to be named, this particular one was
called MAin.

See also
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_exchange_names](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_exchange_names)

------
rmason
As a native Detroiter one of the saddest things to me was that the city never
got a subway. I don't believe you can have a truly world class city without a
subway.

There were multiple efforts to create a Detroit subway starting in 1910 but
each one fell short. Finally in late 1928 the subway was approved! Two
stations were built but construction stopped with the great depression. Today
sadly no one even knows the location of the two stations.

Here's the winner of a dream subway contest for Detroit:

[http://jackson-woods.net/transit/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/...](http://jackson-woods.net/transit/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/DM1800_b.png)

~~~
rdiddly
I don't know the detailed history at all, but in an intuitive & oversimplified
way, I wouldn't think big transit projects ever had much of a chance in the
home of the auto industry. Seems like they would want to demonstrate what an
automobile utopia looks like.

~~~
rmason
Well the auto industry did fight the subway which is why despite overwhelming
support it took so long.

Detroit did have an extensive trolley system. I found out that when the
trolley's were secretly purchased and discontinued by GM in 1956 that 25% of
Detroit families didn't have a car. The majority switched over to the bus
lines which were expanded. Course the buses were made by GM ;<).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

~~~
gascan
My god, did that happen to _every_ trolley line? Makes me want them back all
the more.

~~~
Symmetry
That makes sense to me? Buses are environmentally equivalent to trolleys,
cheaper, both have to deal with traffic, etc. In most cases the fact that
buses are more flexible is good but inflexibility can sometimes be useful in
terms for getting people to believe you're really going to stick with a new
route and therefore it makes sense to start a business on it.

Now if they were replacing subways or light rail with buses that would be
horrible.

~~~
noobermin
Having a dedicated line to travel on helps and preference at traffic lights
helps a bunch. I think you underestimate the amount of delays buses have to
deal with when they also have to be in traffic.

~~~
Symmetry
Both trolleys and buses can have dedicated lines of travel or you can force
them to share their lanes with other traffic. And both both buses and trolleys
can be given light priority or they can wait with everybody else. The issues
you're raising are totally orthogonal to bus versus trolley. Cities with good
bus or trolley systems do these and cities with worse but cheaper systems
don't. And another good way to speed up buses or trolleys is not forcing them
to pull out of traffic when they stop to pick up customers by having special
islands or having the curb extend into what would otherwise be parking spaces.

~~~
noobermin
It probably does depend on the infrastructure choices the city implements. I
don't see a lot of buses systems that have isolated islands, dedicated lanes,
etc. I do see them frequently for street trolleys.

------
erentz
One of the things the NYC region could do is unify operations and planning of
NJ transit, LIRR, and Metro North into one through running network with a
tunnel from GCT south with two more Manhattan stops then across the Hudson to
another main station where the Hoboken terminal is (a bit more inland likely).
Overtime the systems and fleets can merge.

Instead you get this absurd patchwork of expensive stand alone projects, ARC,
the huge building over of of a cap on the LIRR Hudson railyards which required
maybe a billion in spending. Talks about a new Penn Station. Etc.

As a plus you reduce the demand on the existing Penn tunnels used by Amtrak.

If this had all be planned as one system the money already spent or being
proposed to be spent on these disparate/disconnected things could provide do
wonders.

~~~
wil421
Does any cross state combined public transit effort even exist in the US?
Maybe DC, I am not familiar with Washington DC.

It’s a nightmare in my city just between neighboring counties. Only 2 counties
were included in the initial build out of public trains and not any
significant expansion since. The other counties vehemently reject any such
proposals. One county is going through expansion talks again but the train
will only go one stop to their bus hub. I bet they will end up rejecting all
of it.

NIMBYism isn’t very strong in my city but it certainly is regarding public
transport, trains especially.

~~~
jcranmer
There's not a lot of places in the country with "true" interstate integrated
transit needs. Places like Chicago have far suburbs and exurbs within the
commute shed in other states but are still generally within state. Even cities
like St. Louis generally have a clear dominant locus in one state, which
limits the ability of the other state(s) to play off the other state.

The general exceptions to this rule are Kansas City and Washington, DC, where
the workplace loci are truly distributed among multiple jurisdictions so that
no one state is dominant. In DC, the standard subway (WMATA) runs across all
three jurisdictions, although there is some amount of political football over
funding. The commuter rail systems are not integrated, but that is largely due
to limited capacity over the Long Bridge. (MARC, the Maryland system, is
participating in the Long Bridge replacement project in part because they do
intend to extend service to Alexandria once there's capacity to do so).

NYC is a truly special case because it's simply so massive. In terms of
geographical boundaries, there are roughly three natural independent sheds:
trans-Hudson, trans-East, and trans-Harlem rivers. Each of these sheds is
massive enough to let each of the three commuter systems that focus on their
own sheds to not have to coordinate. These sheds also happen to largely
coincide with different states: NJ is trans-Hudson, NY (or, rather, Long
Island) is trans-East, and CT (as well as parts of NY) is trans-Harlem.

~~~
c5karl
Even in DC, there is a lot of public transit not managed by WMATA. While WMATA
runs the MetroBus system, each jurisdiction also has its own bus system beyond
that, in part because none of the jurisdictions wants to have to negotiate
with all their neighbors to make service changes to routes that start and end
within their own borders.

DC's MetroRail system has a very large share of rides that begin in one
jurisdiction and end in another, so it makes a lot of sense for it all to be
managed centrally by WMATA. But I suspect there aren't a lot of commuter train
rides that begin in Connecticut and end in Suffolk County (or that start in
Baltimore and end in Prince William County). Given that, just how would a
MetroNorth/LIRR merger help riders?

~~~
jcranmer
The main benefit from the proposed merger would be solving issues with Penn
Station: you could eliminate some of the separate concourses, easing
overcrowding; by through-running trains, you could also increase the number of
trains serviced without having to build an expensive new station.

------
abalone
It's a decent article but at the end I found it glaringly silent on the
current state of the "lure of the suburbs." Isn't that waning? That seems
important here.

To summarize, the article is premised on "three broad lines of history":

\- lure of the suburbs

\- battles over control

\- deferred maintenance costs

It concludes by noting how battles and costs are still big factors, but
nothing on the "lure of the suburbs." It just mentions in passing that the
city population is growing, but doesn't connect any dots. The diagram makes it
seem like that yellow "line of history" is still sky high off the charts.

But there is in fact a big migration back into the cities. People don't want
McMansions in the burbs as much. Empty nester baby boomers are moving back
too. This is undoubtably why the article is written in the first place and
what is placing more pressure on overcoming the other two problems.

~~~
majormajor
Everyone slices the numbers differently, but it's pretty hard to say the
suburbs are dying out based on the data.
[https://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7871687/death-suburbs-
myth](https://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7871687/death-suburbs-myth)

"This shows that at almost every age level, the country continued to de-
urbanize from 2000 to 2013. Various trend pieces about empty nesters moving to
the big city simply aren't reflected in the data."

My experience is that people are overall more willing to trade space for urban
convenience than they used to be, but still not so willing/able to trade both
space and _affordability_ for it. In places where the suburbs are also
stupidly expensive - NY and CA - you don't see it as much. Everywhere else in
the US - where property in the suburbs gets dramatically cheaper once you're
five, ten, fifteen miles outside the city center - that's hard to resist.

~~~
abalone
Didn't say that. I said that _lure_ of the suburbs is waning. Skyrocketing
costs in cities are a symptom of that and the Vox article concedes as much.

~~~
majormajor
You said "there is in fact a big migration back into the cities" and that's
the part that the numbers disagree with.

Instead, there has been a slowdown in the continuing move to the suburbs. And
a suburb-centered population is one that still won't move so quickly on
transit and the like, at a state and national level.

~~~
abalone
No, population growth in the burbs alone does not disprove migration into the
cities. As I said, skyrocketing costs in the cities are evidence of this. With
respect to city transportation infrastructure, wealthier people moving in and
developers building up capacity are significant forces in affecting policy.

------
spikels
What’s fascinating to me about this history is that most of NYC’s subways
system was built by two private competing firms, the IRT and BRT. The city
then became heavily involved first by creating the competing but government
financed IND, then with price controls, and finally a full takeover. Once it
was a publicly owned monopoly the NYC Subway’s long decline began.

Pretty much the same thing happened in SF but with street cars instead of
subways.

~~~
malandrew
This is spot on and the same observation I had, yet I'm puzzled as to why it
was downvoted. A system that profits simply runs better. The best rail systems
in the world in Japan are for-profit.

[https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/05/secret-
tokyos...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/05/secret-tokyos-rail-
success/2044/) (<\-- also from citylab.com)

[https://www.quora.com/Is-Japan-rail-profitable](https://www.quora.com/Is-
Japan-rail-profitable)

~~~
rayiner
The big difference is not for-profit status, but the fact that Tokyo's and
Hong Kong's subway operators own much of the property around the stations, and
make a ton of money leasing it: [http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/news/hong-
kong-mtr-subway-pr...](http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/news/hong-kong-mtr-
subway-property/index.html). Economically that makes a lot of sense. Transit
infrastructure creates a positive externality: it benefits not only the rider,
but the shop or office that the rider goes to. NYC's MTA can only recover from
one side of the transaction: the rider. JR and MTR, as major landlords around
the stations, can recover from both sides, capturing some of the positive
externality.

------
BasHamer
A name mentioned twice might have warranted a paragraph. Robert Moses, the
subject of "The Power Broker" a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography (worth an
audiable credit).

He ran the Triborough and build a lot of bridges, parks, parkways etc. Most of
those bridges do not have rail decks, because he also believed the future was
cars, and rail would compete with his source of revenue, toll fees.

It is hard to overstate the impact that one person had on the NY
infrastructure, but this article very much understates his impact.

------
titanomachy
User costs for transit were pretty low in the early 1900's. The article says
that in 1947 they finally increased the fair from 5¢ to 10¢ -- $0.61 to $1.12
in 2018 dollars. New York's fare is now $2.75, and in my city it's closer to
$5.

~~~
zanny
On one hand, transit should be heavily subsidized and not profitable because
profit motives in infrastructure choke the force multiplier economic effects
of having said infrastructure. You need some kind of mechanism to
disincentivize overuse though, so the 5 or 10c fare worked at the time for
that purpose.

On the flipside, the NY metro is so decrepid and underbuilt for its demand if
you didn't have inflating fares driving potential travelers to clog up other,
less efficient transit systems the lines for trains would be out in the
streets nearly 24 hours a day.

~~~
pzone
Profit motives in infrastructure don't necessarily choke anything. If you want
cheap fares, ensure there is some competition. And if you really want to, you
can subsidize fares. They don't need subsidies in Tokyo though, all of the
companies running train lines are generally profitable.

------
CryptoPunk
It's remarkable that an article that in-depth managed to not make a single
mention of the word "union", when unions played the central role in driving up
costs.

I think that points to the meta problem hamstringing development of subways,
and so many other things: the hold unions have over not just politics, but
culture, and especially academic culture.

------
reconbot
This was an April fools joke but hit's every good policy idea NYC could do
spot on. [https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/04/01/new-york-
area-...](https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/04/01/new-york-area-
governments-to-form-a-coordinated-transportation-planning-agency/)

From a local controlling agency, from unifying our commuter rails, from
joining with the path. All these things would be good for the city and people
who live here but I cry because I'll never see a sliver of it in my lifetime.

------
flatfilefan
If you want to compare the development of Moscow subway from 1935 till now and
planned 2020
[https://stroi.mos.ru/mobile/metro](https://stroi.mos.ru/mobile/metro)

And the map as a pdf
[https://stroi.mos.ru/uploads/media/file/0001/61/81fbd34f4412...](https://stroi.mos.ru/uploads/media/file/0001/61/81fbd34f4412d3cdbb341d4f3589e1820974344c.pdf)

------
misterbowfinger
Apologies for the strong tone, but how many articles do we need to actually
get something done? It's exhausting to see article after article without
action.

~~~
allengeorge
Ah. You've not lived the experience that's Toronto transit:

1\. Eglinton Crosstown started in the 1990s. They started boring, and when
Mike Harris became premier he cancelled the project, so they filled in the
existing tunnel.

2\. Sheppard subway (aka. the Stubway) built despite objections of planners,
who said that it would be woefully underused. Built anyways because of
political pull. 16 years later, still woefully underused.

3\. Transit City proposed and supported by provincial government. First,
funding was reduced by the provincial Liberals. Then, Rob Ford, claiming a
"war on the car!" cancelled it, pushing all the money into...

4\. The Scarborough Subway. Originally estimated at a 3-stop 2B line, it's now
a 1-stop 3.5B+ line - and its cost keeps climbing. All politicians support it
because Scarborough is vote-rich territory, despite its ridership projections
being _lower_ than that of the Sheppard subway. It's a frickkin mess.

5\. Meanwhile, the Relief Line (which everyone acknowledges is needed)
languishes because of the perception that it'll serve the "downtown elite".

I mean - it's not all doom and gloom I suppose: the Crosstown is finally being
built, again, 25 years later.

------
shmerl
That's a pity. NYC subway could greatly benefit form circular lines or lines
that go from west to east in addition to those from north to south. It's often
required to take completely convoluted subway routes because of lacking
connections.

------
chiefalchemist
Is there an possibility of a smarter above ground (read: bus) system? What
would be the effect of small buses running more often? Perhaps with a
technology component that allows them to effect the timing of the traffic
lights?

If you could cut back on car traffic - which is a positive regardless - then
buses are going to benefit.

~~~
ordinaryperson
A bus can carry about 100 people max. A subway train can carry 1,000.

About 5.7 million people ride the NYC subways every day, buses aren't going to
cut it.

For a real-world NYC example, check out the planning for buses to temporarily
replace the L train: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/nyregion/l-train-
shutdown...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/nyregion/l-train-
shutdown-14th-street.html)

~~~
chiefalchemist
Yes. But other than rush hour or special events how often is that 1000 ppl
capacity reached? Shouldn't the whole system be more flexible? Does everyone
have to leave work at the same time? How economical is it to run subway trains
with few passengers?

It seems that a whole lot of resources (i.e., money, including ongoing
maintenance) is being tossed at outlier situations.

~~~
ordinaryperson
> But other than rush hour or special events how often is that 1000 ppl
> capacity reached?

A single train can carry 1,000 people. It's not a "rush-hour event."

> Shouldn't the whole system be more flexible? Does everyone have to leave
> work at the same time?

The work day is still roughly 9-5, nothing the MTA does is going to change
employers' opinions on scheduling. Good luck telling your boss you want to
come in 2 hours late to avoid subway overcrowding.

> How economical is it to run subway trains with few passengers?

Train frequency is slowed down significantly during non-peak hours.

Don't get me wrong, there are efficiencies to be had -- like not having a live
human at every station 24/7 -- but unions fight those measures.

> It seems that a whole lot of resources (i.e., money, including ongoing
> maintenance) is being tossed at outlier situations.

I'm not sure what you're proposing. Buses? Again, buses won't work -- see
above.

They could massively increase fares but that is essentially a tax on poor
people.

What they need is for both the state and city to cough up more money to
address crumbling infrastructure and overcrowding.

~~~
chiefalchemist
> A single train can carry 1,000 people. It's not a "rush-hour event."

> Train frequency is slowed down significantly during non-peak hours.

Agreed. So with the exception of the outlier events there is A LOT of idle
capacity. Capacity that was VERY expensive to build and maintain.

Traditional buses? Or a rethinking of above ground transportation, congestion,
flexible work hours, whatever, etc.

BTW, I didn't notice anything here about off-hours / peak-hours pricing.

[http://web.mta.info/metrocard/mcgtreng.htm](http://web.mta.info/metrocard/mcgtreng.htm)

Given the cost to add more (excess) subway capacity, I don't see the warm in a
pause and asking "what if"? What they tried once, where the only goal was a
twist on the status quo, isn't the type of mindset I'm proposing.

p.s. If climate change goes as planned, (lower) Manhattan is going to be prone
to more and more flooding, etc. Does it make sense to sink more money into the
ground, for unrealized capacity?

I understand your example. Unfortunately, it's red ocean. We need a blue ocean
approach at this point.

~~~
ordinaryperson
> there is A LOT of idle capacity

The MTA's biggest problems right now are overcrowding and old, crumbling
infrastructure, not idle capacity.

This article just pointed out we're chasing our tails so much on those 2
problems we don't even think about (gasp) adding new subway lines, although it
argues because we're more committed to cars as a form a transit.

> rethinking of above ground transportation, congestion, flexible work hours,
> whatever, etc.

Since the Bloomberg Era the city transportation dept has added thousands of
miles of bike lanes but there's not much more it can do to "rethink" above-
ground transportation.

Flexible work hours are just a nonstarter for most companies. Starbucks going
to let you start your shift late? Goldman Sachs? No.

> where the only goal was a twist on the status quo,

What constitutes a twist? What specific policy proposals would change the
reality of public transit? DeBlasio proposed a Brooklyn trolley line -- the
kind of "out of the box" thinking you're proposing -- and it's gotten nowhere.

> I didn't notice anything here about off-hours / peak-hours pricing

The pricing is always the same it's just that the trains run at different
frequencies. During rush hour they can come every 3-4 minutes, in the middle
of the night every 30 minutes.

There are no magical fixes to NYC's transit problems. It just requires more
money (via higher taxes) and better management.

------
deevolution
I suspect that once we have switched fully to autonomous cars on the road, the
subway will cease to exist.

~~~
noobermin
If recent events are any signal, that won't happen for a while. Here's a good
sobering reading[0].

[0] [https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-
think/transportation/sel...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-
think/transportation/self-driving/toyota-gill-pratt-on-the-reality-of-full-
autonomy)

------
zeristor
Private US money didn’t just build NY subway lines, London’s Central Line was
also built by an American.

------
jdlyga
On the average morning or evening commute, there's at least 2 - 3 lines with
delays, and even a couple with "planned work". My commute tends to blow up
twice a month, and I have to take a Juno/Uber/Lyft.

------
stmfreak
Cost per mile has risen 10-20x in inflations adjusted dollars? That's your
problem right there.

------
francisofascii
Why not just dedicated bus lanes to avoid the need to go underground?

~~~
moate
There are already bus lanes. The bus can't move people nearly as far nearly as
fast as an underground transit system.

------
greatamerican
CMD + F "union" 0 results CMD + F "corruption" 0 results

~~~
zethraeus
Could you write the article which explains the problem through those lenses?

~~~
jcranmer
The NYT already did so: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-
subway-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-
construction-costs.html)

