News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Consultants, The real reason it costs so much to build ne... by bluGill on Monday February 27, 2023 @09:35AM (#34956862)
Maybe NYC doesn't need to build more. However there are a lot of cities that don't have nearly the metro system that NYC does. Minneapolis could use one downtown (they have light rail, but downtown it is just buses), and this could go to St Paul (ie make the green line a subway). Kansas City, Denver, Dallas are just a few of the large cities that could use a subway system but don't have it. Des Moines has more population than Stockholm when Stockholm started building their subway - that enabled a transformation of Stockholm's build form to become much denser (as opposed to become a car first city as the people got rich enough to afford more)
Re:Consultants, The real reason it costs so much to build ne... by bobthepanda on Monday February 27, 2023 @04:49PM (#34962374)
NYC needs to build more.

Transport networks really benefit from network effects; each additional line benefits from connecting to the existing network. The IBX rail project was recently proposed in New York and found to have 100k+ daily riders, which blows pretty much everything else in the US out of the water.

The other issue is that land use planning in the US except in a select few places like New York is really bad for transit. Transit can certainly be "build it and they will come", but also the land around transit needs to legally permit that as well. Rail is only really efficient at high utilization, and most US cities refuse to permit the development that makes rail useful.

This comparison picture really brings home the point that in most US cities the land use is causing rail value per dollar spent to be really low: Atlanta and Barcelona had similar population numbers and metro lengths in 1990. https://ti.org/images/AtlantavBarcelonametro.jpg