3 ms·

This article promulgates the myth that the MTA is underfunded. In fact the MTA has lots of money which is spent incredibly wastefully. For example, it costs the

This article promulgates the myth that the MTA is underfunded. In fact the MTA has lots of money which is spent incredibly wastefully. For example, it costs the MTA $1B/km to build underground, compared to $100-200M/km in the rest of the world. I discuss in more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10247109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10247109 This article even hints at it: Installing the system on the L train took over six years, with multiple delays and cost overruns reaching $288 million. The so-called "robot trains" require far fewer operators, too, which drew ire from the Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union of America.

mattzito 11y ago
I'd be interested in seeing a better comparison - it seems odd to compare a metro commuter rail vs. one stop through one of the most congested, densely populated infrastructures in the world. Presumably there are economies of scale at building a long metro commuter train that extends aboveground outside of the city. It's hard to compare construction and maintenance costs between two different cities where one has 30% more track and 10x the square mileage AND is 24hours in operation.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Building underground in the most congested, densely populated infrastructures in the world? You mean like the undergrounds of Hong Kong ($500M/km), Fukuoka ($300M/km), Singapore ($500M/km), Cairo ($300M/km), Sao Paolo ($250M/km) and Seoul ($100M/km)? https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comparative-subway-construction-costs-revised/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comp... (Admittedly, one of the Sao Paolo lines is 16% above ground.)
  - zeroxfe 11y ago
    But the cost of labor in those countries is much lower than in the US, no? (It actually makes sound $1B/km in the US sound way better than $500M/km in HK.)
    - eru 11y ago
      GDP (and thus wages) in Singapore and Hong Kong are pretty high. If they can get cheaper labour for construction, than only because they make it easier to import cheap labour, because they have saner visa policies.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      On average, no. If you adjust for PPP (as my source did), Hong Kong and Singapore are wealthier than the US. https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_pp_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:HKG:SGP:KOR:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&... However, due to exceedingly powerful transit unions, labor costs are higher in the specific case of infrastructure. As I said, waste.
  - mattzito 11y ago
    I feel like you took only one part of my comment to disagree with out of context with the rest- I'm not even disagreeing that the MTA is inefficient, I'm just saying that by looking at only one data point (cost/mile), you're disregarding many others. I think NYC is a bit of a perfect storm situation: - 24 hour operations - High labor costs, coupled with strong unions - Legacy infrastructure to maintain (vs. new subways) - extremely dense infrastructure to manage (NYC under-street infrastructure is famously messy/complex) - Huge distance of track to maintain - Large square mileage of city area to contend with Surely this has to play a big part in the cost of building subways in NYC vs. simply, "The MTA wastes money"?
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      While size and square mileage would make things worse per km (or per km^2), they shouldn't affect unit costs. See also these tweets (also from the linked thread) and various others by MarketUrbanism: https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/639265131885686784 https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/639265131885686784 https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/639445006084886529 https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/639445006084886529 Apparently turf wars ("Your job is to keep the LIRR out of Grand Central") and union contracts do contribute a lot to this perfect storm. I don't understand why you disagree with my use of the word "waste" to describe this.
briandear 11y ago
Spend some time with union relations and you'll find that you are more right than you know.
bradleyjg 11y ago
Both are true. The MTA is terribly inefficient in its capital and operating budgets. It is also underfunded on a per capita and per $ GDP basis. Very similar things can be said about the NYC area roads, bridges, tunnels, and airports. The second avenue subway is way over-budget, will take far longer than it should have to build, and is poorly designed. But when it is finally done it will bring a lot of value to a lot of people's lives. The same cannot be said of the F35.
Angostura 11y ago
I think you may be promulgating a myth yourself - that building underground is the same, irrespective of location. The fact that London's Crossrail costs similar amounts per km may have something to do with the peculiar challenges of building under cities like London and New York.

mattzito 11y ago

I'd be interested in seeing a better comparison - it seems odd to compare a metro commuter rail vs. one stop through one of the most congested, densely populated infrastructures in the world. Presumably there are economies of scale at building a long metro commuter train that extends aboveground outside of the city. It's hard to compare construction and maintenance costs between two different cities where one has 30% more track and 10x the square mileage AND is 24hours in operation.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Building underground in the most congested, densely populated infrastructures in the world? You mean like the undergrounds of Hong Kong ($500M/km), Fukuoka ($300M/km), Singapore ($500M/km), Cairo ($300M/km), Sao Paolo ($250M/km) and Seoul ($100M/km)? https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comparative-subway-construction-costs-revised/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comp... (Admittedly, one of the Sao Paolo lines is 16% above ground.)
- zeroxfe 11y ago
  But the cost of labor in those countries is much lower than in the US, no? (It actually makes sound $1B/km in the US sound way better than $500M/km in HK.)
  - eru 11y ago
    GDP (and thus wages) in Singapore and Hong Kong are pretty high. If they can get cheaper labour for construction, than only because they make it easier to import cheap labour, because they have saner visa policies.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    On average, no. If you adjust for PPP (as my source did), Hong Kong and Singapore are wealthier than the US. https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_pp_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:HKG:SGP:KOR:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&... However, due to exceedingly powerful transit unions, labor costs are higher in the specific case of infrastructure. As I said, waste.
- mattzito 11y ago
  I feel like you took only one part of my comment to disagree with out of context with the rest- I'm not even disagreeing that the MTA is inefficient, I'm just saying that by looking at only one data point (cost/mile), you're disregarding many others. I think NYC is a bit of a perfect storm situation: - 24 hour operations - High labor costs, coupled with strong unions - Legacy infrastructure to maintain (vs. new subways) - extremely dense infrastructure to manage (NYC under-street infrastructure is famously messy/complex) - Huge distance of track to maintain - Large square mileage of city area to contend with Surely this has to play a big part in the cost of building subways in NYC vs. simply, "The MTA wastes money"?
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    While size and square mileage would make things worse per km (or per km^2), they shouldn't affect unit costs. See also these tweets (also from the linked thread) and various others by MarketUrbanism: https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/639265131885686784 https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/639265131885686784 https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/639445006084886529 https://twitter.com/MarketUrbanism/status/639445006084886529 Apparently turf wars ("Your job is to keep the LIRR out of Grand Central") and union contracts do contribute a lot to this perfect storm. I don't understand why you disagree with my use of the word "waste" to describe this.

briandear 11y ago

Spend some time with union relations and you'll find that you are more right than you know.

bradleyjg 11y ago

Both are true. The MTA is terribly inefficient in its capital and operating budgets. It is also underfunded on a per capita and per $ GDP basis. Very similar things can be said about the NYC area roads, bridges, tunnels, and airports. The second avenue subway is way over-budget, will take far longer than it should have to build, and is poorly designed. But when it is finally done it will bring a lot of value to a lot of people's lives. The same cannot be said of the F35.

Angostura 11y ago

I think you may be promulgating a myth yourself - that building underground is the same, irrespective of location. The fact that London's Crossrail costs similar amounts per km may have something to do with the peculiar challenges of building under cities like London and New York.