3 ms·
It wasn't intended as a promotion, more of a "we can't drop everything and start a new city; there's a lot of stuff here." I don't think we disagree materially
by woodruffw 2y ago
It wasn't intended as a promotion, more of a "we can't drop everything and start a new city; there's a lot of stuff here."
I don't think we disagree materially about the city's general lack of coordination (or demonstrated incompetence) with respect to construction. But the example in the article is a pretty bad example, all things considered.
(I'll note, however, that the comparison between NYC and European metro areas is typically faulty, for reasons that you probably already know: the Subway runs 24/7, is pathetically underfunded relative to its size, and hasn't benefited - perversely - from a reconstruction period following a global war. European metros tend to have all of these things going for them, in addition to better and less incompetent governance.)
- scrubs 2y agoGotcha - let's meet in the middle. As I was writing orig comment I knew euro spends way more on trains; maybe Europeans think their stuff darn well be better. So point taken. I think we're pretty much on the same page as you write.