6 ms·

The first subway in New York City cost about $100 million per kilometer in 1900 (adjusted for inflation of course). The new subway line being opened this year c

The first subway in New York City cost about $100 million per kilometer in 1900 (adjusted for inflation of course). The new subway line being opened this year cost $2.2 billion per kilometer. This is despite over a century of improvements in technology. Here's an interesting HN post, "Forty Percent of the Buildings in Manhattan Could Not Be Built Today" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11736696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11736696 In that article is a statistic that three fourths of the square footage of Manhattan was built between 1900 and 1930. If a freak hurricane somehow destroyed New York, we would be literally unable to rebuild it. For both cost and legal reasons. Someday soon we might be like the later generations of Romans. Living amongst the great crumbling structures built by our ancestors. Wondering how on Earth they could have achieved such things.

gnud 10y ago
And the answer, much as it was in ancient times: By exploiting workers - and often letting them die.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Europe and Korea still manage to build subways 10-20x cheaper than New York. As far as I know they don't have tons more worker deaths. With all our modern technology, we should be able to achieve what our ancestors did. Even with our higher standards for safety.
  - distances 10y ago
    Helsinki is currently building a metro expansion for $103 million per kilometer, at least if I got the numbers right. Of course the setting is very different in New York vs. outskirts of Helsinki, but yes, it's cheaper.
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      Building on the outskirts of New York City is also cheaper than building in Manhattan.
  - gipp 10y ago
    It is far from 10-20x difference. And many or most of those nations have stronger worker protections than the US, calling into question the idea that labor law is really the main driving force there. It's probably more like propertyholder protectionism (i.e. NIMBYism) dominating local politics. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-infrastructure-costs-so-much https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-i... http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/03/31/high_costs_may_explain_crumbling_support_for_us_infrastructure_1249.html http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/03/31/high_costs_ma...
    - memmcgee 10y ago
      Those nations also have stronger social safety nets, including health and retirement benefits provided nationally rather than by the employer. Your first article mentions that operating costs per ride in the NYC metro are $4.11, compared to $2.61 in London. It also estimates though that $1 of that is health and retirement benefits.
      - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
        The strong welfare state in these countries essentially subsidises employers in this way. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind you.
- astrodust 10y ago
  So many "accidents" over the last century, and most of them were because the construction companies just didn't care. The life of a sandhog was probably the worst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhog).
astrodust 10y ago
We're still fascinated by the properties of Roman concrete which has, in many cases, survived 2000 years mostly unscathed. Meanwhile brutalist buildings from the 1950s are crumbling.
- T-hawk 10y ago
  Careful of survivorship bias here. Of course we don't see any Roman buildings that crumbled 50 years after construction.
  - clock_tower 10y ago
    They really did use better construction, though. Unreinforced opus caementicum (with particular kinds of Italian volcanic ash) can't be built as tall as reinforced OPC, but lasts infinitely longer. Of course, OPC could last longer if it didn't use ferrous reinforcement...
mypalmike 10y ago
A big difference in subway costs is that subways used to be built by closing roadways and digging from above ("cut and cover"). But now it's almost always done by very slow, very expensive to operate underground boring machines.
- walshemj 10y ago
  And a lot of ultra cheap semi expendable navvies
- maxmcd 10y ago
  http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new-york-second-avenue-subway-phase-2 http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new... NYC subway construction costs exceed costs of similar projects in different countries, by quite a bit.
pinot 10y ago
A tunnel built in 1900 looks nothing like a tunnel built in 2017. Strength, longevity, safety systems, dimensions, computer controls, power etc etc are all massively upgraded. It's not a fair comparison. That's like saying this electric car [1] from the 1902 would be far cheaper to build than a Telsa in 2017, therefore Teslas are over priced. [1] http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/41483/media/f4.jpg http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/41483/media/f4.jpg
- pcurve 10y ago
  Here's a subway line in South Korea that was built for $100 million / km. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE87IPJqW4M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE87IPJqW4M Granted, it's not the most fair comparison, but the cost of subway construction in NY is abomination. https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r...
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  Yes, but he's noting that a century of technological advancement has not been able to keep the costs to less than a 22x increase. It must be something other than the technology.

gnud 10y ago

And the answer, much as it was in ancient times: By exploiting workers - and often letting them die.

Houshalter 10y ago
Europe and Korea still manage to build subways 10-20x cheaper than New York. As far as I know they don't have tons more worker deaths. With all our modern technology, we should be able to achieve what our ancestors did. Even with our higher standards for safety.
- distances 10y ago
  Helsinki is currently building a metro expansion for $103 million per kilometer, at least if I got the numbers right. Of course the setting is very different in New York vs. outskirts of Helsinki, but yes, it's cheaper.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    Building on the outskirts of New York City is also cheaper than building in Manhattan.
- gipp 10y ago
  It is far from 10-20x difference. And many or most of those nations have stronger worker protections than the US, calling into question the idea that labor law is really the main driving force there. It's probably more like propertyholder protectionism (i.e. NIMBYism) dominating local politics. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-infrastructure-costs-so-much https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-i... http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/03/31/high_costs_may_explain_crumbling_support_for_us_infrastructure_1249.html http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/03/31/high_costs_ma...
  - memmcgee 10y ago
    Those nations also have stronger social safety nets, including health and retirement benefits provided nationally rather than by the employer. Your first article mentions that operating costs per ride in the NYC metro are $4.11, compared to $2.61 in London. It also estimates though that $1 of that is health and retirement benefits.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
      The strong welfare state in these countries essentially subsidises employers in this way. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind you.
astrodust 10y ago
So many "accidents" over the last century, and most of them were because the construction companies just didn't care. The life of a sandhog was probably the worst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhog).

astrodust 10y ago

We're still fascinated by the properties of Roman concrete which has, in many cases, survived 2000 years mostly unscathed. Meanwhile brutalist buildings from the 1950s are crumbling.

T-hawk 10y ago
Careful of survivorship bias here. Of course we don't see any Roman buildings that crumbled 50 years after construction.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  They really did use better construction, though. Unreinforced opus caementicum (with particular kinds of Italian volcanic ash) can't be built as tall as reinforced OPC, but lasts infinitely longer. Of course, OPC could last longer if it didn't use ferrous reinforcement...

mypalmike 10y ago

A big difference in subway costs is that subways used to be built by closing roadways and digging from above ("cut and cover"). But now it's almost always done by very slow, very expensive to operate underground boring machines.

walshemj 10y ago
And a lot of ultra cheap semi expendable navvies
maxmcd 10y ago
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new-york-second-avenue-subway-phase-2 http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/new... NYC subway construction costs exceed costs of similar projects in different countries, by quite a bit.

pinot 10y ago

A tunnel built in 1900 looks nothing like a tunnel built in 2017. Strength, longevity, safety systems, dimensions, computer controls, power etc etc are all massively upgraded. It's not a fair comparison. That's like saying this electric car [1] from the 1902 would be far cheaper to build than a Telsa in 2017, therefore Teslas are over priced. [1] http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/41483/media/f4.jpg http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/41483/media/f4.jpg

pcurve 10y ago
Here's a subway line in South Korea that was built for $100 million / km. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE87IPJqW4M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE87IPJqW4M Granted, it's not the most fair comparison, but the cost of subway construction in NY is abomination. https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r...
clarkmoody 10y ago
Yes, but he's noting that a century of technological advancement has not been able to keep the costs to less than a 22x increase. It must be something other than the technology.