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.
I don't understand why they don't build streetcars or light rail instead. it would be far cheaper. NY doesn't seem to have any grade-level rail to speak of. no offense but imo NY has the ugliest, dirtiest subway system in the world that looks more like a dungeon than a modern subway. why would they want to expand on that? does the subway travel at grade or above at all? New Yorkers do seem to have an aversion (is it hate?) for light rail for some reason. do they just enjoy being down in the dark dungeon? I don't understand what they could be thinking.
CK you need to visit New York sometime. The density and congestion is beyond your comprehension. There would be no advantage of surface rail on 2nd avenue over a bus.
The idea is to move people quickly, not just build a train. The only way to accomplish that in NY, true as it was 110 years ago, is to put the system underground. Ultimately the idea is to get people from A to B and the quickest and most efficient manner possible. If you can find away to match the speed of underground subway with a surface light rail not in a dedicated right of way, without restricting cross traffic, please show me.
And, do you think they will construct the new subway line to look as if it was 110 years old to match the rest of the lines?
And, New York had plenty of streetcars... in a way, they were made obselete by the subways, which could offer higher capacities and operate at higher speeds.
Different modes are needed for different situations.
CK you need to visit New York sometime. The density and congestion is beyond your comprehension. There would be no advantage of surface rail on 2nd avenue over a bus.
The idea is to move people quickly, not just build a train. The only way to accomplish that in NY, true as it was 110 years ago, is to put the system underground. Ultimately the idea is to get people from A to B and the quickest and most efficient manner possible. If you can find away to match the speed of underground subway with a surface light rail not in a dedicated right of way, without restricting cross traffic, please show me.
Elevated rail would also accomplish the same thing.
Between the New Haven line and Shore line East which runs yards from I-95 in some areas , they both move another 125,000 riders who could all be driving... The full build of the CT system will move between 630,000 and 700,000 daily riders...
The feeder system needs to be improved. Many people who live inland have to drive a considerable distance to a train station. There also should be better integration with Hartford and Springfield.
I'm intrigued by some of the monorail projects which offer connections of medium-sized cities to their 1st-tier suburbs. They could be run above existing highway lanes without requiring additional land acquisition or removing surface lanes. This would be a great option for cities like New Haven and Hartford and could work in conjunction with surface rail providing high speed long-distance service between cities.
Anyways, if you think the problem with subways is that they're dirty, it would probably make more sense to clean them up than build a less effective form of transit.
How come the 2nd Ave subway is so expensive though? Other subways are much cheaper, and the 2nd Ave subway shouldn't need any bridges or other complicated infrastructure...
Anyways, if you think the problem with subways is that they're dirty, it would probably make more sense to clean them up than build a less effective form of transit.
How come the 2nd Ave subway is so expensive though? Other subways are much cheaper, and the 2nd Ave subway shouldn't need any bridges or other complicated infrastructure...
The fact that NY has the highest-paid organized labor in the nation is likely to be the partial answer here...
I believe there are quite a few engineering complexities involved, also. There's a reason it was never built, despite being on the drawing board for 70 years.
The fact that NY has the highest-paid organized labor in the nation is likely to be the partial answer here...
Europe isn't known for cheap non-union labor either, but their construction costs for both transit and highways are much lower. And the highest costs seem to be throughout the US. See my old post and the link:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Look at this link for some cost comparisons:
US Rail Construction Costs | Pedestrian Observations
similarly high costs occur in other cities, just the projects are above ground. Portland’s light rail Milwaukie extension and Washington’s predominantly above ground Silver Line both have cost ranges of about $100-150 million per km, enough for a full subway in many European cities.
another comment from author:
I don’t want to offer explanations for the high costs; the only one I’m even mildly sure about is that US contracting procurement, especially in New York, is so byzantine that the only bidders are too incompetent or corrupt to get private-sector work. I don’t think it’s really because of capitalism-socialism issues, because the costs in both Scandinavia and Singapore are stunningly average. However, I’ve heard either from the MTA’s Making Every Dollar Count report or from a comment on said report that the specific rules in New York force about 50-100% overstaffing, something that at least elsewhere I know does not exist in Scandinavian transit.
New York aslo hosts the world's most expensive building (One World Trade Center). Though part of its costs come from security theater and additional government bureaucracy. I know someone who works for a cleaning company in Manhattan who mentioned that doing bids for government buildings (such as the old World Trade Center) was unpleasant and they attached excessive rules.
Europe isn't known for cheap non-union labor either, but their construction costs for both transit and highways are much lower. And the highest costs seem to be throughout the US. See my old post and the link:
.
Interesting. I made what is probably a common assumption.
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.
