Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation United States Technology

Why the West Coast Is Suddenly Beating the East Coast on Transportation (nytimes.com) 273

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
The subways on the East Coast that allowed New York, Washington and Boston to thrive are showing their age and suffering from years of neglect, while cities on the West Coast are moving quickly to expand and improve their networks. From a report: The Los Angeles area, the ultimate car-centric region with its sprawling freeways, approved a sweeping $120 billion plan to build new train routes and upgrade its buses. Seattle has won accolades for its transit system, where 93 percent of riders report being happy with service -- a feat that seems unimaginable in New York, where subway riders regularly simmer with rage on stalled trains. "It's a tale of two systems," said Robert Puentes, the president of the Eno Center for Transportation, a nonpartisan research center in Washington. "These new ones are growing and haven't started to experience the pains of rehabilitation."

In New York, Polly Trottenberg, New York City's transportation commissioner, returned to a laundry list of messes: a subway crisis, buses that move at a snail's pace, the looming shutdown of the L train between Manhattan and Brooklyn, and the rebuilding of the dilapidated Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. "There is a political will to invest in expansion" on the West Coast, Ms. Trottenberg said in an interview, though she noted that New York's system was still the country's largest by far. Its daily subway and bus ridership of nearly 8 million dwarfs Los Angeles's 1.2 million riders. Still, transit systems on the East Coast are losing ridership. New York's subway has not expanded in decades, besides a handful of new stations in Manhattan -- one on the Far West Side and three on the Upper East Side.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why the West Coast Is Suddenly Beating the East Coast on Transportation More

Why the West Coast Is Suddenly Beating the East Coast on Transportation

Comments Filter:

  • The big question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mark_reh ( 2015546 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2019 @10:53AM (#57891804) Journal

    Back in the 50s, when the interstate highway system was planned and construction began, did anyone budget for future maintenance? Does anyone consider the long term cost of maintenance when they build roads, bridges, and other infrastructure like subways?

    Those folks in Seattle are happy because the system is new and working fine. I'll bet people in NYC were happy with their system when it was new. Let's see how people in Seattle feel about the system when it is as old as the NYC subway system.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 )
      >> Back in the 50s, when the interstate highway system...did anyone budget for future maintenance?

      Yes, often.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_roads_in_the_United_States

    • Back in the 50s, when the interstate highway system was planned and construction began, did anyone budget for future maintenance? Does anyone consider the long term cost of maintenance when they build roads, bridges, and other infrastructure like subways?

      Those folks in Seattle are happy because the system is new and working fine. I'll bet people in NYC were happy with their system when it was new. Let's see how people in Seattle feel about the system when it is as old as the NYC subway system.

      I bet they did originally, then people wanted tax breaks and pension funding and all the planned money went elsewhere. Kind of like most of my work projects.

    • Back in the 50s, when the interstate highway system was planned and construction began, did anyone budget for future maintenance?

      Yes, it is part of the Federal tax on fuel ($0.184 gallon). Cars and trucks actually pay more in than they use [bts.gov], with transit (in particular, rail) being heavily subsidized in cost. In Seattle, fares cover about 40% of the cost of the Link light rail [soundtransit.org], and only 20% of commuter buses. Seems that roads were properly budgeted for, but transit was not.

  • Relative utility. (Score:5, Informative)

    by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2019 @11:06AM (#57891852)
    You can get around NYC on foot, by bus, or by subway. LA is so sprawled that even 100 more miles of subway won't actually cover much ground. The subway hasn't expanded much, but the area's transit coverage has actually increased since the late 80s. NJ Transit built the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, Montclair connection (enabling weekend service on the Montclair line), and Midtown connection (connecting Hoboken trains to Penn Station). Airtrains to JFK and EWR were built in the past 25 years. PATH is being expanded to EWR.

    • You can get around NYC on foot, by bus, or by subway. LA is so sprawled that even 100 more miles of subway won't actually cover much ground.

      This - exactly. To put numbers on it, the greater New York City area is 302 square miles. And it's basically flat (about 400 feet of elevation change).

      The Los Angeles Metro area is around 4,850 square miles (about 16 times the area) and is quite hilly (Santa Monica mountains reach over 3000 feet) with lots of steep grades (I don't think you can find a grade over 3% in NYC). NYC is geologically stable; the LA Metro area has 27 major fault lines through it.

      Much bigger, much more elevation changes, much mor

      • Everything you say is correct except the 3% grade -- Duffy's Hill is 12.6% grade, if only for a few hundred feet.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Fort George Hill is also 12-13%...

        None of these hills are like the mountains in LA, but still not 3%.

        • Wow - had no clue that NYC had anything close to a steep incline! Of course, being 1 block long - it's more of a big speed-bump than a hill. But folks out East keep talking about "mountains" that are a few thousand feet high; until it's at least a mile up - it's no mountain!

  • New versus old (Score:3)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2019 @11:07AM (#57891856)

    The Los Angeles area, the ultimate car-centric region with its sprawling freeways, approved a sweeping $120 billion plan to build new train routes and upgrade its buses.

    Ok so they approved a plan. Wake me when they actually have a well functioning mass transit system that actually causes a reduction in the number of cars needed. I'll be especially impressed if they actually do it on time and under budget.

    Seattle has won accolades for its transit system, where 93 percent of riders report being happy with service -- a feat that seems unimaginable in New York, where subway riders regularly simmer with rage on stalled trains.

    Seattle's system is still new. Really new. Sound Transit was commissioned in 1996. Link Light Rail began service in 2009. Etc. I'm sure their system works great compared with mass transit systems many decades older. Maintenance is a harsh mistress. Most transport networks work fairly well when new.

    • Re:New versus old (Score:5, Interesting)

      by crunchygranola ( 1954152 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2019 @11:20AM (#57891900)

      Ok so they approved a plan. Wake me when they actually have a well functioning mass transit system that actually causes a reduction in the number of cars needed. I'll be especially impressed if they actually do it on time and under budget.

      Naah. You'll be happier in your slumber.

      The LA metro system is well functioning (I use it to commute to work, and I use it any time I go downtown - I would never drive there any more).

      And by definition when people from the suburbs take the metro they aren't driving. So, yeah, it does cause a reduction in the number of cars on the freeways and surface streets.

      I know, I know. You'll be now be setting new, higher bars you demand to be cleared for your satisfaction.

  • I see a million of these articles, none of which even mention the obscene amount of unnecessary overhead in many of these systems. The politicians bullshit about there not being enough taxes or fees, but they (and their media lapdogs) ignore the egregious amount of waste involved. A starter....

    https://ny.curbed.com/2017/12/... [curbed.com]

    • The politicians bullshit about there not being enough taxes or fees, but they (and their media lapdogs) ignore the egregious amount of waste involved.

      You seriously didn't already know that New York unions drive the costs of any public works into the stratosphere?

  • Unpopular opinion: no more linear parks... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PrimaryConsult ( 1546585 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2019 @11:17AM (#57891886)

    In NYC there is an attitude of taking routes that would be good for transit and building parks on them. The high line could have been an surface level extension of the 7 line from its current Hudson Yards terminal to the 14st area of Manhattan (and duck into a tunnel from there). Or, allowed LIRR to run to a Lower Manhattan terminal without much tunneling (relieving pressure in overcrowded Penn Station by providing more places in Manhattan to get off).

    There's a similar argument going on in Queens about what to do with the former LIRR Rockaway Beach branch [wikipedia.org]: one side wants a linear park (despite the fact that it runs through Forest Park, which is already pretty big, and through people's back yards who don't want random people walking by all day), another wants to restore it as an an extension of the subway (connecting the Queens Blvd Line to the A train). The route runs through a transit desert in Queens, and in any of the west coast or midwestern cities with budding new rail systems the population centers being connected would be an automatic no-brainer to put transit there.

    • I've been to the Highline park and it is hugely popular. You may be right it would be better to use those lines for transport, but there's no arguing that people deeply love the Highline park and building of elevated parks like that will (literally) soar... it makes a tone of sense for dens cities since it lets you have a larger park without disrupting traffic while enabling lots more pedestrians in a narrow corridor.

      I honestly think Musk has the right idea here. Leave the surface to people and just buil

      • No doubt it's popular, and its far-west location makes it less useful for transit than it would be if it were more towards the center, which is why there wasn't much resistance.
        The issue with deep tunnels is getting to/from them - long escalators or cramped elevators. The subway stations that can be reached with 2-3 flights of stairs are always better. The only time I've had a pleasant-ish experience with a deep one was Forest Glen DC metro station where they have 6 high speed high capacity elevators to g

        • I hesitate to hold out Russia as a positive model for anything, but they have very deep subway stations and the escalators I rode in St Petersburg worked really well, carrying a ton of people (basically one very long escalator down).

          There's at least one other city I've been in (I think in Europe) that also had very good deep subways, though which city it was eludes me...

          However with Musk's tunnels you don't have very deep entry stations. You get in at a station maybe two stories down, and for longer trips

      • How do you account for the fact there are 27 major fault lines in the LA Metro area? And those are just major fault lines; there are literally hundreds of minor fault lines. Additionally, about half the valley and the main metro area are at risk of liquefaction in a strong earthquake. Earthquakes/liquefaction and tunnels don't combine really well...

        • How do you account for the fact there are 27 major fault lines in the LA Metro area?

          That's EXACTLY why tunnels are the future in places like LA, because they are way safer than surface structures in an earthquake [wa.gov].

          As Musk pointed out, rescue workers were able to get inside Mexico City after the huge earthquake there by using the UNDAMAGED subway lines.

          You could almost imagine a large network of tunnels under a city as a vital emergency services access measure.

          • You're comparing a tunnel against the Viaduct which was condemned in 2001 Seattle earthquake. Now about a tunnel against surface streets? That's more applicable to the LA area.

            • The lower you are underground the safer you are, because there is less motion. The closer you get to ground level, and then beyond that, the more the waves from earthquakes amplify motion.

              I am not comparing anything, I am explaining how earthquakes work!!!!!!

  • Until the west coast has their infrastructure installed it cannot crumble to ruins. That's the first fundamental step.

  • Only written by someone who knows nothing about Seattle transit. What kind of misleading comment is "Seattle has won accolades for its transit system, where 93 percent of riders report being happy with service" Right all few thousand of them? At the same time, I5 through downtown Seattle has the same chock point it's had for the last 40+ years. Brilliant idea to build a convention center over the freeway, so nothing can be upgraded. The wonderful light rail system is waaaay over budget and cost by far

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 )

      Only written by someone who knows nothing about Seattle transit. What kind of misleading comment is "Seattle has won accolades for its transit system, where 93 percent of riders report being happy with service" Right all few thousand of them?

      You claim to be familiar with Seattle but obviously aren't. Transit use is popular - and growing. Fewer people drive to work in Seattle than take transit, bike, or walk - and that's been true for a number of years.

      As of February 2018: [curbed.com]
      48% of Seattle workers are taking transit
      25.4% are driving solo
      10% car or van pool
      8% walk
      3% bicycle to work
      6% "other"

      Back in February 2013: [seattletimes.com]
      43% of Seattle workers rode either the bus or the train
      34% drove solo
      9% car or van pooled
      6% walked
      4% telecommuted
      3% biked

      I've been taki

  • Mass transit is very important to my family. My spouse and I are professionals, with jobs in different cities. We cannot (won't) live somewhere where there isn't decent mass transit. Spending a large part of our lives sitting in automobiles is not something we'll consider. Right now, we can live in Europe or the NE US. If the West Coast gets some reasonable mass transit, we'd consider living/working there, too.

  • $ spent != success and leadership (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kreplock ( 1088483 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2019 @11:49AM (#57892054)
    I was hoping the article might have comparisons of average commute times, distances covered, safety factors, and possibly some other non-intuitive customer concerns. Instead it lists money spent, voting results, years of service, and number of commuters carried. We're not getting important parts of the story.

    • We're not getting important parts of the story.

      Those missing bits likely tell a different story,

  • Self driving electric cars are going to make most of this moot before long. Especially when we're talking about the time frames in the comparison between, say NYC Subway (started 110 years ago) and Seattle's more modern transportation system.

    Self driving cars, when fully realized (IE 100% of the vehicles on a roadway are self driving), will be a sight to behold. The density that can be achieved with a networked system of vehicles that communicate one with another is extremely high - they can practically b

    • Hyperloop is too narrow to transport existing vehicles. "Loop" may do this, but "Loop" is basically underground personal rapid transit -- subway with trains one car long aka a people mover. Self-driving vehicles won't operate "practically touching each other" or move immediately when a light turns green. Slight differences in braking distances between vehicles would make this impractical, plus system designs would have to account for pedestrians.

    • IOW sort of like a train except about 1000 times more expensive, 100 times more complicated, and 1000 times less efficient.

    • The biggest impact of self-driving cars will be:

      1) 4 daily rush hours instead of one: to work, home (empty) to park for free, to work (empty) to pick up, and to home.

      2) people using city streets as free parking lots by having their car do laps around the block (especially after driving empty from home to work, while waiting for passenger to arrive.

      Some people will pimp out their cars with Uber, but most people won't want their BMW or Mercedes to get destroyed like a public bus & will just send it home e

  • Here's what's missing -- on the East Coast, you can go from NYC to Boston, DC, Springfield, MA, Harrisburg, Poughkeepsie, Philly, Eastern LI, many parts of NJ, all via frequent commuter or commuter-type rail service. California can't even get LA-SF rail built. There's one train a day that runs via Oakland, doesn't even pass through SF directly.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Etcetera ( 14711 )

      Technically you can take the Coaster in San Diego up to Oceanside, where you can link up with some other service (Metrolink?), but I can't imagine any normal person doing that for work.

      Southern California just doesn't have the density for that kind of regional rail, and in order to make it work financially you'd need to convert the relevant parts to something approaching that. No way that happens any time soon, and probably not ever here in San Diego.

      • As far as SD-LA, there's a direct train -- the Surfliner aka the San Diegan. It actually runs a fair bit north of LA as well, to San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara. No need to change in Oceanside unless you're taking local commuter trains the whole way.

        Surfliner is an acceptable service, though it really should be electrified between LA and SD. Problem is that train service is nil between SLO and SF, and the "high speed rail" project is turning into a joke -- overpriced and ridden with corruption. Had the

  • Seattle may be great now, but have you BEEN on a Caltrain recently anywhere around San Francisco? They are rickety and old and not that far behind NYC in a near state of going to fail soon.

    LA may have allocated a ton of money to improve transportation, but it's kind of optimistic to assume it will do anything to help when the can't even get an estimate for high speed rail in CA right within an order of magnitude...

    • New Federal standards allow basically unmodified European trains in the US -- lighter construction, more emphasis on crash avoidance vs crash safety. Caltrain is one of the first US railroads to be under contract to buy basically stock aluminium Stadler KISS train sets, the same equipment as Swiss Federal Railways uses on large parts of their network. Compared to overweight trains built to the dumb, old US standards, this hardware is amazing.

      https://www.railwayage.com/pas... [railwayage.com]

    • Seattle may be great now ...

      As a Seattle transit rider, I do feel somewhat obligated to point out that Seattle (and the greater Puget Sound east corridor) does have some great transit in place now - but, even in Seattle proper, there are areas which are very poorly served. And once you get outside of the city, there's a lot more areas which aren't served than are covered.

      I can take a train into Seattle, and then ride light rail up to UW - but I still have to drive to the train station because bus service around my house is just about

  • The real issue is: Which subway has the most excrement on it?
    The most feces and urine all over the station, in the train cars, and on the seats?

    And how much do you have to walk through when you get off the train?

  • Boston's problems come from the Big Dig. (Score:5, Informative)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2019 @02:07PM (#57892870) Homepage Journal

    The Big Dig was the most expensive mile of road ever constructed. It replaced the 1950s era elevated highway that cut off Boston from its waterfront. Which is nice, but the problem (aside from the astronomical cos) is that it violated the Clean Air Act.

    So the state cut a deal: they'd mandate the extension of the MBTA (the mass transit system for Boston and its suburbs) along with a number of facilities improvements like parking lots. That's nice too, except there was no funding for these things, forcing the MBTA to pay for these improvements out of money that would have gone to maintenance and replacing rolling stock.

    Consequently, the MBTA has some nice new facilities, but their core commuter services are old and breakdown-prone. They're particularly notorious for stranding commuters in extreme cold weather. The MBTA is also saddled with 125 million dollars a year in debt service to pay for stuff it had to build to make the highway possible.

    • The Big Dig was expensive, but that's partly because it involved a lot of untested new technologies developed & used for the first time (ex: freezing muddy land under railroad tracks and using hydraulic jacks to ram tunnels through the soggy mud below... or building an underground freeway big enough to play multiple football games in, side by side, while the elevated freeway above remained in use). Some things worked, some things didn't. But SOMEBODY had to be the first to try. Some of those technologie

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        Sure, but the fact that *somebody* has to be first doesn't necessarily justify a project you can't really afford.

        Everything the Big Dig tried to do -- reconnecting the city to its waterfront, extending and improving certain public transit facilities -- was desirable. But that doesn't make the project good engineering, economics, or public policy, because all of those things have to take *cost* into account. Especially opportunity costs.

        If we'd put the same amount of money, roughly 21 billion in todays ter

Slashdot Top Deals

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Close