
The Best Place to Build a Subway - amortize
https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3390746
======
supernova87a
I observe that being able to build great infrastructure is when you have the
good fortune of having financial, political, and social forces that
incentivize it. That doesn't occur a lot these days. It also takes foresight
to build up a reserve of these, because projects are so easily cancelled.

One surprising thing I learned about the Japanese (Tokyo) metro system and its
complexity, and yet punctuality and adherence to precise schedules:

The Tokyo metro system didn't get as good as it is because of someone's simple
desire to have a really nice metro system, or some theoretical love of
schedules.

It became so well-timed and complex because _it had to be_. Due to the
constraints of land and existing infrastructure, there was no other way to
serve as many people as demanded train service than to build stacks and stacks
of rail networks, and have them operate (and interoperate between lines
efficiently) down to the second -- in order to be able to cram that many
trains into one space.

Versus in other places, people would say, those requirements are so
ridiculous, there's no way a metro system could ever be built to work!

Sometimes, the constraints produce progress. (Of course, this is subsidized up
the wazoo in Japan, but not crazily compared to other major metro areas.)

~~~
bobthepanda
I mean it can get overly ridiculous. Stress over schedule adherence was
considered a major factor in a Japanese train crash that killed 100+, and
injured 500+:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_derailment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_derailment)

------
lmm
A lot of this feels "citation needed". Unlike streets, building software that
can scale up is not necessarily more costly - often it means a cleaner
architecture that yields benefits from day 1. The examples of cut-and-cover
BART and freeway widening are in direct opposition to each other - sometimes
we use a cheap construction approach that involves disruption, or an expensive
one that reduces it. It's telling that the author doesn't even see anything
unusual in the idea that no expense should be spared for the roads, but
subways should be built as cheaply as possible.

------
simula67
I wonder what the authors thoughts are on the Moscow Metro. Schematic map:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Moscow_m...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Moscow_metro_ring_railway_map_en_sb_future.svg)

Seems like a bunch of concentric circles with lines going away from the
center.

I have never been to Moscow, but it seems like an interesting success story of
planning infrastructure projects properly.

~~~
prodent
For the context of this thread, a better representation of the Moscow Metro
would probably be this one

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Metro#/media/File:Mosco...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Metro#/media/File:Moscow_metro_lines_geographical.svg)

------
YesThatTom2
All these comments are about subways when the article is actually about
software engineering.

You all missed the point.

------
Markoff
> You can't easily build infrastructure where it's crowded, and you can't
> afford to build infrastructure where it's not crowded.

Isn't "easily" and affordable" pretty much the same thing? Surely you can
build subway pretty much anywhere, it will just cost you where it's crowded.
He is basically saying you can't afford to build infrastructure anywhere - no
matter if crowded or not crowded, which is quite dumb.

~~~
sdunwoody
I think by saying "you can't afford to build infrastructure where it's not
crowded", he actually means that it's not affordable because the ridership
will be too low, so it's not really viable in that sense.

~~~
Markoff
I understand what he wanted to say, but it is same in the end - where it's
crowded it is expensive to built and cheaper to operate, where it is not
crowded it's vice versa, but in the end you end up with both being not
affordable by his quote, so there is no difference between them really, they
are both not financially efficient.

------
AndyMcConachie
> Many of these massive projects have incurred various costs and challenges.
> In the 1950s and 1960s, the Fillmore redevelopment targeted a largely black
> part of town. A 36-block area was torn down including housing, a distinct
> lifestyle, and a world-famous jazz community. Most of the previous occupants
> could not afford to return.

> In many cases, these huge, multi-decade redevelopment projects bring new
> life to part of a city, but sometimes we can't foresee what we're going to
> lose.

This is disingenuous, and shows how little the author understands about the
history of American urban development. In many cases the purpose of
redevelopment in US urban environments has been to push out people of color.
To say that gentrification was an unforeseen consequence of redevelopment is
just wrong. Gentrification is often the entire point of redevelopment by city
officials.

They should read The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs or
read The Power Broker by Robert Caro.

To be completely serious, this article reads like someone had some ideas about
urban development, did absolutely no research, and then talked about those
ideas like they were some kind of expert. I don't understand why the ACM would
publish something like this.

