As New York’s transit-minded community has analyzed Jay Walder’s departure, our city’s infrastructure deficit has come under the microscope. With obstructionist politicians and mounting debt, the future is hazy for New York City’ transit system. Hong Kong’s MTR, on the other hand, is thriving.
In The Daily News today, Alex Marshall of the RPA looks toward Hong Kong for some transit lessons. The MTA would be wise to imitate the MTR with regards to development. In Hong Kong, the MTR has maintained its real estate holdings while developing and monetizing them. In New York, the MTA gave up the Atlantic Yards land in a below-market deal.
Ultimately, New York will have to reform the way it interacts with its transit network before we can truly move forward. But will the debt lead to a collapse before that time comes? Jay Walder, for one, isn’t sticking around to find out.
19 comments
The MTA has proven time and time again that they cannot manage construction nor real estates properties – 2 Broadway and 370 Jay Street being prime examples. They simply don’t have the capabilities to imitate Hong Kong’s system, which is run by a profit and results driven publicly traded company in a city where people understand the importance of public transportation.
…and public ownership of 90% of the land.
There’s an article in Saturdays Times about the Cuomo/Walder relationship. Cuomo seems to be a scumbag.
Off topic for a moment, but looking back about the recent post Ben did about UBS leaving Connecticut, news recently came out that they will be laying workers off. So they complained that they cannot recruit top talent due to being all the way in Connecticut, yet they are laying people off. Perhaps a follow up post can be done?
The Daily News article shows yet again that people think the MTR and the subway are comparable systems even though the latter is over 60 years older than the former, was built with state-of-the-art technology at the time, and is a much simpler and smaller system. That’s not to say the MTA can’t learn anything; the MTA should be investing in property, but it’s unfair to claim that it’s an easy fix.
First, let go of the “We’re older” red herring. It doesn’t actually mean anything.
Second, New York and Hong Kong have subways of comparable size. New York’s is a little larger, but not enough to make those systems fundamentally different.
The main difference between New York and Hong Kong is how they reacted to the spread of cars. Although New York built the subway at an earlier stage of motorization, it later embraced the car and built expressways with low or no tolls; Hong Kong instead taxed cars, viewing them as competing with people for scarce space. The result: car ownership in Hong Kong is about the same as that of New York in the late 1910s. And it’s been stable for the last 20-30 years.
I just Googled the Hong Kong subway map, and their system certainly looks smaller.
http://www.travelchinaguide.co...../metro.jpg
A little larger? 337 km vs. 175 km in route mileage, and 468 vs. 84 stations. New York’s system is much larger.
“We’re older” actually means a lot. It means that we have a century-old physical plant to maintain and upgrade. It means that we’re stuck with technological decisions made a century ago. (You’ve noticed, perhaps, that I mention signals a lot?)
Interesting point regarding car usage.
The ridership is very close – New York’s is 1.6 billion per year, Hong Kong’s is 1.4 billion.
The MTR has an additional 36 km of light rail, not counted in the above ridership number.
Ridership isn’t what determines the extent of the physical plant that needs to be maintained.
NYCT’s physical plant is immense. It is much larger than MTR’s. It’s also much older, with many more components that are failing due to age.
The 100 year old excuse needs to go. Nothing except the concrete of the walls and ceiling are 100 years old in the subway. Semaphore subway signals are long gone. How many towers from opening day are now closed? Incandescent bulbs gone. Gravel trackbeds almost gone. Jointed rail? Wooden token booths gone. Pnumatic doors gone. Nothing has been changed in 100 years except the train cars, come on.
To be fair, the signal system is a pathetic old antique. Obviously the NYC budget crises of the 70s and 80s helped contribute *a lot* to the current level of disrepair. One could imagine that with the push for high-tech cars (R44/46) and 2nd Ave subway in the 70’s, the MTA would’ve eventually upgraded our subway to a more advanced version of the type of signal system WMATA/BART/MARTA have. As is, the 100-years-old excuse is pretty valid. The system damn near collapsed in the 80’s and has since then still struggled to recover due to budget issues. The damage done to certain downtown lines on 9/11 and the subsequent years of clean-up and repair didn’t help. And after years of trials, CBTC is still not trouble free on the L, and years away from being operational on the 7 and eventually Culver and Queens Blvd. lines.
The signals aren’t old. If the MTA replaces them at par every 5 years or whatever their maintenance schedule is, they are new. There is no way the MTA uses 100 year old relays that have never been overhauled/repaired over the years.
All the signals are computerized by now anyways.
http://www.mta.info/nyct/hr/ct.....center.jpg
http://www.mta.info/nyct/hr/ctep/index.html
The 100 year old excuse makers should just be frank and admit that they are talking about CBTC (track talks to train electronically).
I’m sorry, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Signals aren’t replaced every 5 years. They aren’t even replaced every 50 years. Most of the IND still has its original signals from the 1930’s. I think the Canarsie line, still not in its final CBTC configuration, still has some of its original (1920’s) signals in place. And I believe the Flushing line, which will be getting CBTC soon, still has some of its original signals from 1917.
This presentation is two years old, but it touches on the problem:
http://www.inspior.com/MTA_NYC.....tation.pdf
Scroll down to page 13. A quarter of the system still has signals over 70 years old!
I’m not sure what your links are supposed to demonstrate. Most of the A Division has ATS, a train tracking system overlaid on top of the preexisting relay-based signal system, much of which dates back to the 1960’s. Except for the Canarsie line – the only line with a computerized signal system – none of the B Division has ATS.
So while new systems can spend their capital dollars on expansion, old systems like New York’s have to spend most of their capital funding in keeping their existing physical plant in working order.
Furthermore – and this is the primary point I was trying to make yesterday – even where the signals have been upgraded recently, the basic signal technology (except on the L) is over a century old. It does its job, but it has limitations, and making any sort of change is quite expensive. For instance, one common suggestion is to speed up the trains. Nice idea, but the design of the signal system is predicated on worst-case stopping distances. If trains can go faster, then worst-case stopping distances have to be recalculated for each signal. Wherever the existing signal logic isn’t safe at the new top speed, control lines have to be extended to ensure safety. But wait! Extending control lines can hurt capacity, by requiring trains to be spaced farther apart. Now that has to be mitigated – probably by installing even more signals, at even greater cost.
Another common suggestion: Install more crossovers between tracks. In addition to the signal issues – interlockings are where signals are most complex (and pricey) – there are usually physical constraints, most notably the columns between tracks holding up the subway tunnel. To remove enough columns to install a crossover, the entire support structure has to be replaced.
It’s not just signals. Only a few of the stations were built with elevators in mind. Even retrofitting a handful of old stations with elevators has proven to be a challenge. That’s a challenge that new systems don’t have to deal with.
And this all has to take place on an operating railroad, in most cases with no more than 53 hours at a time to do work before Monday morning pops up and the trains have to be running at rush hour frequencies.
For instance, one common suggestion is to speed up the trains. Nice idea, but the design of the signal system is predicated on worst-case stopping distances. If trains can go faster, then worst-case stopping distances have to be recalculated for each signal. Wherever the existing signal logic isn’t safe at the new top speed, control lines have to be extended to ensure safety. But wait! Extending control lines can hurt capacity, by requiring trains to be spaced farther apart. Now that has to be mitigated – probably by installing even more signals, at even greater cost.
You claim adding/changing signals it is so expensive. So what about all the GTs added over the last 20 years especially post Williamsburg Bridge? The GTs were there on day 1? Sure. STs were there on day 1? Sure. Lets ignore the effectively banned key-by.
The signals were manufactured a 100 years ago, but they are refurbished/whatever much more often. If they MTA puts back the old parts rather than screw in something new, thats the MTAs fault. Its not that the signal boxes haven’t broken down or been opened in 100 years.
http://gothamist.com/2011/03/1.....on_fak.php
Signals regularly get maintained/replaced/overhauled.
NIMBY lawsuits ban opening up the cut and cover tunnels to increase the speed of switches.
When were the IRT generation stations decommissioned? The system is very different today from 1904, on all 1904 tunnels.
Furthermore – and this is the primary point I was trying to make yesterday – even where the signals have been upgraded recently, the basic signal technology (except on the L) is over a century old.
Fixed block signals have been around more than 100 years. Even the celebrity example of railroads, the TGV uses fixed block signaling. Fixed block signals aren’t obsolete.
Lets compare the DC Metro’s signals to NYCT, both are fixed block. DC has cab signals and exact MPH. NYCT has trip cocks and wayside signals, and timers instead of exact MPH limits. Its still the same concept of fixed blocks, yet DC Metro is considered a “modern” system.
The MTA could have piecemeal upgraded the system during routine maintenance over the years, but there is too much institutional inertia and special interest fiefdoms (unions, white collar, etc) to do that.
MetroRail’s signal system has the advantage of cab signaling and automatic speed orders. In case of an issue with ATP malfunctioning and holding trains there aren’t trip-cock’s to tie down. Slow speed orders can be issued directly to trains and have the train regulate its speed in construction zones rather than our system of placing flags. Nobody suggested it’s a leap in technology like CBTC, it’s just suggested that it’s better. Though in hindsight I suppose we lucked out since we’re getting CBTC…any decade now.
[…] tip – 2nd Ave. Sagas Share this:FacebookDiggPrintEmailReddit Categories : Alberta, Calgary, Calgary Politics, Canada, […]
For profit system — didn’t the post office try to do that recently?
https://liteblue.usps.gov/news/link/2007feb20extra.htm
How did that work out?
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/008107.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....5-day.html
While the system does have problems due to being 100 years old, those aren’t the serious problems — the serious problems are political.
How do we know this? The London system is now *over 150 years old*. And originated as *more* competing systems. And it’s in better condition. And better run. *By Walder himself*.
It even went through a similar period of disinvestment once, though not quite as bad.
The problem lies in City Hall and in Albany.