3 ms·

> If the center of the city isn't healthy the outer boroughs aren't going to be healthy either. It might be necessary (I'm not sure), but it's not at all suff

> If the center of the city isn't healthy the outer boroughs aren't going to be healthy either. It might be necessary (I'm not sure), but it's not at all sufficient. It's trickle-down economics. Investing in wealthy neighborhoods makes wealthy neighborhoods better. > where people pay taxes and don't trash the public investments in their neighborhoods Can you name specifics? It sounds like a stereotype of poor communities.

RockyMcNuts 10y ago
that was my point, the parent comment didn't provide any evidence better investments were available. if they built massively on the far east side and it's a subway void, and the Lex is maxed out, maybe that's where they should invest. they should also have decent transit to/from outer boroughs so people can get to jobs in Manhattan or elsewhere. if someone thinks 'rich white people' getting public services is automatically suspect, they can hardly complain if someone else thinks investment in services for 'poor non-white people' is suspect. anyway, guess what, there is some politics and cronyism and corruption in these transportation projects, there is graffiti and vandalism and drugs in public housing projects (even if 90+% of residents aren't involved and terrible management and incentives are why the projects suck), and the day there's a big investment in a subway in the outer boroughs, people will complain about that too, and say it's a line to nowhere, or it's driven by real estate interests and gentrification.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  "Better investments were available" is a hard one, given that construction on the 2nd Avenue line has been going on for many decades - it's a fair bit of sunk cost. But yes, it will help the Lexington Avenue line, which does suck at rush hour.
  - RockyMcNuts 10y ago
    strangely, I think all the tunnel that was previously dug is to the north and south of the route that's being opened now. maybe not as much sunk cost as one might think. although it looks like they will use existing tunnel north of the route as a maintenance area / train yard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway#1960s.E2.80.931970s:_Original_construction_efforts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway#1960s.E2....
briandear 10y ago
Just spend five minutes in a station in a poor area: lots of graffiti, urine, trash, feces in many cases. I live near Marseille and the stations in the poorer suburbs always look looted and vandalized while stations in less poor areas have a higher standard -- despite maintanence budgets being the same across the system.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I've been in plenty of stations in poor areas. Besides a lack of upkeep by the government, it doesn't seem much different to me. Maybe it depends on where in the world you are.

RockyMcNuts 10y ago

that was my point, the parent comment didn't provide any evidence better investments were available. if they built massively on the far east side and it's a subway void, and the Lex is maxed out, maybe that's where they should invest. they should also have decent transit to/from outer boroughs so people can get to jobs in Manhattan or elsewhere. if someone thinks 'rich white people' getting public services is automatically suspect, they can hardly complain if someone else thinks investment in services for 'poor non-white people' is suspect. anyway, guess what, there is some politics and cronyism and corruption in these transportation projects, there is graffiti and vandalism and drugs in public housing projects (even if 90+% of residents aren't involved and terrible management and incentives are why the projects suck), and the day there's a big investment in a subway in the outer boroughs, people will complain about that too, and say it's a line to nowhere, or it's driven by real estate interests and gentrification.

greglindahl 10y ago
"Better investments were available" is a hard one, given that construction on the 2nd Avenue line has been going on for many decades - it's a fair bit of sunk cost. But yes, it will help the Lexington Avenue line, which does suck at rush hour.
- RockyMcNuts 10y ago
  strangely, I think all the tunnel that was previously dug is to the north and south of the route that's being opened now. maybe not as much sunk cost as one might think. although it looks like they will use existing tunnel north of the route as a maintenance area / train yard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway#1960s.E2.80.931970s:_Original_construction_efforts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway#1960s.E2....

briandear 10y ago

Just spend five minutes in a station in a poor area: lots of graffiti, urine, trash, feces in many cases. I live near Marseille and the stations in the poorer suburbs always look looted and vandalized while stations in less poor areas have a higher standard -- despite maintanence budgets being the same across the system.

hackuser 10y ago
I've been in plenty of stations in poor areas. Besides a lack of upkeep by the government, it doesn't seem much different to me. Maybe it depends on where in the world you are.