4 ms·

> don't forget that it's by far the largest subway system in the world Citation needed. It is the 6th largest after Shanghai (676km) , Beijing (628km), Guang

> don't forget that it's by far the largest subway system in the world Citation needed. It is the 6th largest after Shanghai (676km) , Beijing (628km), Guangzhou (478km), London (402km), and Moscow (397km). NYC has 380km in comparison. (1) NYC has a lot of stations compared to anywhere else, but in my experience the stations in NYC are often basically just a set of steps going down from the street, then a simple turnstile leading to a bare platform with basically no other facilities at all (e.g. you cant even change directions without going outside back up to the street and back down through the turnstile again ... I don't think there are even chairs?). Compare this to some stations elsewhere in the world where there is significantly more going on in a station (e.g. Paris, Moscow, London etc). Some of the larger stations in NYC have a bit more in terms of infrastructure, but a lot of the time there is basically nothing down there (and they are dark and filthy) and I can't imagine they are a significant source of strain on the system compared to the other parts (tracks, signals, rolling-stock, bridges, tunnels etc) 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems

madamelic 7y ago
>I don't think there are even chairs? It isn't that they didn't have chairs, it's that they can't have chairs. The homeless problem in NYC is bad and it just happens subway stops are better than above ground when winter comes. Call it mean, I think it is unfair but homeless people belong elsewhere than the subway.
- VWWHFSfQ 7y ago
  NYC's homeless problem isn't even as bad as comparatively tiny places like Seattle or Portland where it's completely disgusting and sad. I left Seattle in 2009 and went back for a month last year and the homeless population looked like it had doubled despite so much investment and modernization happening in downtown over the last decade.
  - delfinom 7y ago
    Because that investment and modernization drives out the less fortunate onto the streets. Nobody is investing in affordable housing, it's all luxury apartments to sell to foreign buyers and maybe that one kid who made a few million selling his startup. Then they dress up the surronding area to pump their investment's value.
    - javagram 7y ago
      Even on luxury housing the profit margin isn’t great. It isn’t really possible to “invest” in affordable housing without significant government subsidies. After all the difference between a normal apartment building and a luxury one is what? Hiring a concierge and buying a brushed metal fridge for the apartments instead of a white one? It doesn’t actually cost much different.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > Nobody is investing in affordable housing, it's all luxury apartments Please, tell me of a city in the US that's built affordable housing within the past 50 years - not luxury housing that got old and thus cheap, and not luxury housing that gets subsidized by the city.
    - bradleyjg 7y ago
      Street homelessness in US cities by and large isn’t about affordability, it’s about the inability and/or unwillingness to either cure or isolate the profoundly mentally ill or addicts that make up the vast majority of persistent street homeless. Homelessness in the broader sense which includes people sleeping on couches or in shelters is much more linked to affordability. Unfortunately there’s not great vocabulary to distinguish among rather distinct issues.
  - squeaky-clean 7y ago
    Sure NYC doesn't have the worst homeless problem, but it's still got one. And that's typically the reason for what may seem like otherwise stingy or stupid decisions.
- drngdds 7y ago
  A bunch of stations do have chairs though.
  - amoitnga 7y ago
    seating for 10, while there are hundreds, is barely anything. But I guess at least that's good for people who really need it
VWWHFSfQ 7y ago
yeah I'm referring to stations, not miles of track. nyc has a ridiculous number of stations that causes the whole system to be a lot more complicated and expensive than just running miles of track with nothing in between.
- barrkel 7y ago
  Where in the world are there subways with miles of track and nothing in between?
  - VWWHFSfQ 7y ago
    Well, all the cities with more miles of track but fewer stations than NYC.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  The expensive part is not really the stations, the expensive part is that the design prioritizes one seat rides over transfer connections. The station spacing is not really an issue in New York since the subway has express overlays and the commuter rail system for even faster travel. This is compared to Beijing or Shanghai, which have no/poor regional rail to speak of.
  - kccqzy 7y ago
    > This is compared to Beijing or Shanghai, which have no/poor regional rail to speak of. This is really curious. Cities like Beijing and Shanghai have subways optimized for short-distance travels, and high speed trains for long-distance travels, but not much for medium-distance trips like from one edge of the city to another. How so? Is it just because the demand isn't there?
    - bobthepanda 7y ago
      Most governments, when building out subways, will choose to build two lines out and get twice the coverage rather than build one local and one express line that serve the same location. New York was able to avoid this choice starting out, because its CBD and densest areas (Manhattan) are built out in a long, narrow fashion, and you can only thread so many lines through such a narrow space before you start having to make choices between missing transfers and building stops way too close, so the decision was made early on to concentrate tracks for easier transfer facilities. It's also worth noting that New York's subway was built in an era where buses and streetcars were slow (and in some cases still pulled by horses), so the local lines have stop spacing optimized for walking to a station and the express lines are the actual commuting heavyweights that people transfer to. More modern subways are designed with medium-speed last mile transfers in mind, either via cars that park and ride (BART, DC) or lots of bus transfers (Asian systems.) Eventually a city becomes too big and belatedly realizes that it needs to have regional express service running through the city, because transferring rail+subway+rail is way too slow. Cities that developed first during the Industrial Revolution can depend on the dense legacy rail networks that were developed during that time (Paris RER, Berlin S-Bahn, London Crossrail) and this mostly consists of building connecting tunnels through the city center with stops at major activity centers. Those cities that developed during the 20th century mostly don't have dense legacy rail networks, and have to new build after the fact, which can be hard and difficult. Seoul is building a similar network to the above cities, but it's a massively expensive project that they have to build 50-60m underground because no provisions were made to accommodate it before hand. I suppose Beijing and Shanghai will get around to building such a network when they reach a similar level of wealth and can afford it.
drngdds 7y ago
Who really cares about the quality of the stations, though? They seem fine to me. The number is more important. The more you have, the easier it is to get between any two points without taking a car or doing a ton of walking.
bobthepanda 7y ago
It has 380 route-km but a lot of it is four-tracks, two local and two express. Most other subways only have two-track lines and few express segments. As a result, NYC has 1182 track-km.
evanelias 7y ago
> a bare platform with basically no other facilities at all (e.g. you cant even change directions without going outside back up to the street and back down through the turnstile again ... I don't think there are even chairs?). This simply isn't accurate. You can change directions at most stations. Generally the only stations where you can't are local stops, with side platforms, and no lobbies... that configuration certainly exists but definitely isn't the majority. Regarding chairs, off the top of my head I can't think of a single station that has no seating whatsoever. I mean there's probably a small handful like this, but it's definitely a tiny tiny minority. > Some of the larger stations in NYC have a bit more in terms of infrastructure, but a lot of the time there is basically nothing down there (and they are dark and filthy) What's the appeal of large stations? Big lobbies just add significant walking time to get to the platform. Also means more space for the transit authority to maintain, clean, and police. As for cleanliness, personally I'd rather have a dirty 24/7 system than a clean part-time system.

madamelic 7y ago

>I don't think there are even chairs? It isn't that they didn't have chairs, it's that they can't have chairs. The homeless problem in NYC is bad and it just happens subway stops are better than above ground when winter comes. Call it mean, I think it is unfair but homeless people belong elsewhere than the subway.

VWWHFSfQ 7y ago
NYC's homeless problem isn't even as bad as comparatively tiny places like Seattle or Portland where it's completely disgusting and sad. I left Seattle in 2009 and went back for a month last year and the homeless population looked like it had doubled despite so much investment and modernization happening in downtown over the last decade.
- delfinom 7y ago
  Because that investment and modernization drives out the less fortunate onto the streets. Nobody is investing in affordable housing, it's all luxury apartments to sell to foreign buyers and maybe that one kid who made a few million selling his startup. Then they dress up the surronding area to pump their investment's value.
  - javagram 7y ago
    Even on luxury housing the profit margin isn’t great. It isn’t really possible to “invest” in affordable housing without significant government subsidies. After all the difference between a normal apartment building and a luxury one is what? Hiring a concierge and buying a brushed metal fridge for the apartments instead of a white one? It doesn’t actually cost much different.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > Nobody is investing in affordable housing, it's all luxury apartments Please, tell me of a city in the US that's built affordable housing within the past 50 years - not luxury housing that got old and thus cheap, and not luxury housing that gets subsidized by the city.
  - bradleyjg 7y ago
    Street homelessness in US cities by and large isn’t about affordability, it’s about the inability and/or unwillingness to either cure or isolate the profoundly mentally ill or addicts that make up the vast majority of persistent street homeless. Homelessness in the broader sense which includes people sleeping on couches or in shelters is much more linked to affordability. Unfortunately there’s not great vocabulary to distinguish among rather distinct issues.
- squeaky-clean 7y ago
  Sure NYC doesn't have the worst homeless problem, but it's still got one. And that's typically the reason for what may seem like otherwise stingy or stupid decisions.
drngdds 7y ago
A bunch of stations do have chairs though.
- amoitnga 7y ago
  seating for 10, while there are hundreds, is barely anything. But I guess at least that's good for people who really need it

VWWHFSfQ 7y ago

yeah I'm referring to stations, not miles of track. nyc has a ridiculous number of stations that causes the whole system to be a lot more complicated and expensive than just running miles of track with nothing in between.

barrkel 7y ago
Where in the world are there subways with miles of track and nothing in between?
- VWWHFSfQ 7y ago
  Well, all the cities with more miles of track but fewer stations than NYC.
bobthepanda 7y ago
The expensive part is not really the stations, the expensive part is that the design prioritizes one seat rides over transfer connections. The station spacing is not really an issue in New York since the subway has express overlays and the commuter rail system for even faster travel. This is compared to Beijing or Shanghai, which have no/poor regional rail to speak of.
- kccqzy 7y ago
  > This is compared to Beijing or Shanghai, which have no/poor regional rail to speak of. This is really curious. Cities like Beijing and Shanghai have subways optimized for short-distance travels, and high speed trains for long-distance travels, but not much for medium-distance trips like from one edge of the city to another. How so? Is it just because the demand isn't there?
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    Most governments, when building out subways, will choose to build two lines out and get twice the coverage rather than build one local and one express line that serve the same location. New York was able to avoid this choice starting out, because its CBD and densest areas (Manhattan) are built out in a long, narrow fashion, and you can only thread so many lines through such a narrow space before you start having to make choices between missing transfers and building stops way too close, so the decision was made early on to concentrate tracks for easier transfer facilities. It's also worth noting that New York's subway was built in an era where buses and streetcars were slow (and in some cases still pulled by horses), so the local lines have stop spacing optimized for walking to a station and the express lines are the actual commuting heavyweights that people transfer to. More modern subways are designed with medium-speed last mile transfers in mind, either via cars that park and ride (BART, DC) or lots of bus transfers (Asian systems.) Eventually a city becomes too big and belatedly realizes that it needs to have regional express service running through the city, because transferring rail+subway+rail is way too slow. Cities that developed first during the Industrial Revolution can depend on the dense legacy rail networks that were developed during that time (Paris RER, Berlin S-Bahn, London Crossrail) and this mostly consists of building connecting tunnels through the city center with stops at major activity centers. Those cities that developed during the 20th century mostly don't have dense legacy rail networks, and have to new build after the fact, which can be hard and difficult. Seoul is building a similar network to the above cities, but it's a massively expensive project that they have to build 50-60m underground because no provisions were made to accommodate it before hand. I suppose Beijing and Shanghai will get around to building such a network when they reach a similar level of wealth and can afford it.

drngdds 7y ago

Who really cares about the quality of the stations, though? They seem fine to me. The number is more important. The more you have, the easier it is to get between any two points without taking a car or doing a ton of walking.

bobthepanda 7y ago

It has 380 route-km but a lot of it is four-tracks, two local and two express. Most other subways only have two-track lines and few express segments. As a result, NYC has 1182 track-km.

evanelias 7y ago

> a bare platform with basically no other facilities at all (e.g. you cant even change directions without going outside back up to the street and back down through the turnstile again ... I don't think there are even chairs?). This simply isn't accurate. You can change directions at most stations. Generally the only stations where you can't are local stops, with side platforms, and no lobbies... that configuration certainly exists but definitely isn't the majority. Regarding chairs, off the top of my head I can't think of a single station that has no seating whatsoever. I mean there's probably a small handful like this, but it's definitely a tiny tiny minority. > Some of the larger stations in NYC have a bit more in terms of infrastructure, but a lot of the time there is basically nothing down there (and they are dark and filthy) What's the appeal of large stations? Big lobbies just add significant walking time to get to the platform. Also means more space for the transit authority to maintain, clean, and police. As for cleanliness, personally I'd rather have a dirty 24/7 system than a clean part-time system.