http://issendai.livejournal.com/572510.html
The system is too essential for a stop-the-world overhaul, but so far gone, that only a stop-the-world overhaul can part the clouds.
Without a hard flush of antiquated mission critical infrastructure, millions of turbulent eddies and vortices will ensure that the system is always afflicted by parasitic equipment and debris.
New York is probably the most easily upgraded of these legacy subway systems, due to the insistence of the original subway companies on triple tracking. Not only does the triple track allow for express trains, but it also allows for zero downtime maintenance during non-peak hours. The electrical systems aren't a barrier like those in some cities. Even Tokyo and London, which have worse constraints, have fared better. If technology transition teams exist, I haven't heard of them. Upgrade engineering appears to be outsourced. The costs that the MTA quotes for transition seem absurd. Once again, I'm no expert on the engineering involved, but the upgrade costs are approaching new construction costs in other countries.
We know we have a major cost problem in US transit infrastructure construction. But this is not just construction. We also have a problem with maintenance costs, operating costs, capital costs, etc. Everywhere you go in America, we have critical transit infrastructure that is hobbled by costs. Where is the cost management? Why can't we get system-wide cost audits? If annual audits are required of publicly listed companies, why isn't it required of public organizations funded by tax dollars?
I'm sick of the explanation that our problem is funding...its not. Our problem is mismanagement. When you manage your systems well, nobody has any problem sending money your way. The demand curve exists for government funding just as much as it does for markets. When you provide more for a given amount of money, you generally get more money. Give us better management.
It's gonna be hard considering how many independent and adversarial managers the NYC subway has.
Accountability and power need to stay in the same hands. Being held accountable for a task you are powerless to affect is a powerful recipe for dysfunction. In context, funding is power - the power to make decisions about who gets how much funding and resources to improve the system. If you have funding, but no accountability, then you will simply redirect that funding to projects which are are actually accountable for.
Electing an MTA head, without giving that head dedicated funding, will be a political nightmare.
Hogwash.
The "problem" is that you may have to invest for a long time , continuously before you see the result. This is politically untenable, not engineering untenable.
Not sure how you do this with subway tracks...
That raises the costs a bit though, if you actually had full service via 3 lines. Public transpo is already insanely expensive per rider over the 10-20 year term.
But the L now is (I believe) only one of 2 lines with modern signaling and CBTC (computer based train control), it was the first to have countdown clocks, and it runs with the least gap time (headway spacing) of any trains in the system.
That being said, it still is extremely overcrowded because of waterfront highrise development and the general shift to Brooklyn. This is why you're starting to see conversations about extending platforms (which for the underground stations is incredibly expensive).
And yes, I'm aware of the Sandy tunnel remediation work shutting it down for a year or so.
Still, the L is already upgraded (so is the 7 which also doesn't share much track). It's getting CBTC on the other lines with modern signaling that will be the hard jobs because of shared track.
And yet the working poor buying single trip tickets, because they can't afford monthly passes, end up paying more per trip than someone who can afford the monthly pass. So the policy doesn't even meet the goal that the policy purports to shoot for.
And still another problem is that the system capacity is insufficient for demand. The design has reached it's scalability limit. We need transporters in NYC, or something, at this point. A continuous running conveyor-belt "people mover" like in airports might be more efficient.
(And it is possible to shut down one track of a two-track line for at least part of the way, if you're willing to run only one train through the affected stretch of track at a time. It may condemn you to fifteen or twenty minute waits between trains, but you can do it. The Washington, DC metro has been doing this a lot lately on weekends.)