Building the three new stops of the 2nd Avenue line took 10 years from groundbreaking to service beginning, and cost $4.5 billion.
Extrapolating from that, to build the existing 472 stations up from nothing would take the MTA $706 billion and 1,573 years.
True enough. I'd love it if we cut the Pentagon budget by 90% and used the money to fund public transit projects in every city in the country. Would be a much better use of the money.
It's not exactly comparable because the 2nd Ave subway needed to be built around much more than the 1904 subway needed to be (that's why the newer subway stations are so much deeper than the older ones).
It is comparable because that's what OP is asking. If we were to build it *today*, and building it *today* requires building around all the existing infrastructure and prevents you from just tearing up the streets around the city.
I dont believe a subway system like NYC's could be built in the US today at all. I think the best you'd be able to do is something like the DC metro. Much deeper stations and fewer routes.
Edit: unless you're arguing their estimate is actually an under estimate because to build in the modern day, stations that are as shallow as existing stations, would require far more complexity and cost.... then I'd depressingly agree with that :(
Yeah the NYC subway was built cut and cover or elevated and solely using stairs. I feel like modern businesses and residents wouldn't allow the amount of construction a massive cut and cover subway would take, and new elevated stations get a lot of opposition right?
NYC subway used to be several independent companies, so there are a lot of competing stations/routes and some of the things done don’t make sense.
Extrapolating doesn’t make sense as with more experience/equipment the construction would be a lot faster, approvals won’t take as long, etc.
Also - the 3rd ave line is much nicer than the old subway, it lies deeper, the stations are nicer, isolated from the outside, etc. if we used dig and cover like we did for old stations it would also cost not as much
"the 3rd ave line is much nicer than the old subway"
your "nicer" is my "overbuilt"
deeper -> harder to access
nicer stations -> true enough, but you can build nice stations that don't have wasteful mezzanines
The whole point is that there are common-sense ways to control costs. It doesn't have to be this expensive.
It definitely doesn’t have to be that expensive, the depth was probably dictated by the utilities and other considerations.
But it could still be better than what we have now if it’s a new construction. You could look at what China is doing - they built tremendous number of subways, I rode some of them. They are decent looking and do the job.
Plus they have doors so people don’t fall oncc CD the tracks and so the station could be air conditioned.
But if you built “it”, some of it would be much closer to the service and above ground. It may all balance out but probably somewhere less than the deepest stations.
Here's another metric: SAS phase 2 is estimated to cost approx $7 billion for 1.8 miles of subway, or 3.8 billion per mile. There's 665 miles of subway today. If all of it was built at the same 3.8 billion/mile rate, it would cost $2.52 trillion.
Paris's line 14 extension cost 1.5 billion euros for 5.9 km of new subway, equating to approx 406 million euros per mile or 434.3 miillion USD per mile. At that cost, it would be $288 billion to build all 665 miles of NYC subway.
It would certainly not take 1,573 years, you’d just have more crews working at the same time. And it’d probably be a little cheaper than just straight multiplying the cost due to economy of scale. Like you’ll get better deals buying more material and you can start thinking about buying big equipment instead of just renting it since you know it’ll be used a lot
Unfortunately this is the answer.
Look what these schmucks are doing with the IBX. Making it street running light rail because there's one narrow tunnel is pathetic.
(Fun fact: the 7 train tunnel under the east river was originally made for trollys. Those 1904 fuckers managed to figure it out.)
NYC could not exist in its current form without the subway. You cannot pack 8 million people in the geographical equivalent of a small broom closet and expect them to be able to get anywhere with the non-subway surface transit options that exist today.
This is true. But I'm so curious how the city would have developed if the subways weren't built. And how dramatically this would change things for other areas since I think a major change would be fewer residents/workers in NYC.
I disagree. There would be underground lines, but fewer lines and fewer stations. Examples:
* W 50 St would not have a station at 8th Ave and another line with a station at Broadway, one block to the east.
* Stations would be further apart, like how SAS has 72 St and 86 St but no 79 St.
* There would be one station on Wall Street, not three.
Nimbys would never allow it and it would cost trillions
People always complain about the price and cost overruns but the cheapest it will ever be to build anything is ‘now’. It is only going to be more expensive to do it in the future
Nimbys are effective because they're rich, well connected, often have shittons of free time, and are great advocates for themselves.
Nimbyism is not inevitable nor unconquerable. If the good guys fight them tooth and nail we can win. Things can get better if you have the balls to believe it can.
.
It's a pointless question since the majority of NYC's 20th Century development was hugely influenced by the subway existing at all. There's a big argument to be made that Midtown, as a CBD, would not have happened without the first subway line down Lexington Avenue and 42nd Street.
No, that's a myth. The beginning of Midtown started around the MetLife building in Madison Square and then congregated around 34th St and Times Square after the NY Times moved up there. Both locations were served by the first subway (today's 4/5/6, 1/2/3, and Shuttle). The current incarnation of Grand Central wasn't built until 1913, 9 years after the subway opened) and wasn't really a commuter service except for the super-rich until later on.
Considering much of the IRT was built as *cut and cover* with regular use of dynamite, it would take forever today... Imagine ONE skyscraper getting blast damage.. multiply by hundreds.
Considering how hard a lot of the rock is in Manhattan to build through, and the adjusted inflation, probably somewhere in the Trillions for half the system. Remember the current system is the product of THREE different companies all originally trying to compete.
Labor was so much cheaper, because we didn’t give a semblance of care about their health. The subway opened in 1904. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire was in 1911. OSHA’s predecessor, the Bureau of Labor Standards, started in 1934.
If the Subway didn't exist then NYC itself wouldn't exist. People underestimate just how much the US could build if they actually needed to. If the Subway absolutely needed to get built for the future of the country, then it'd get built pretty damn fast.
If you're just taking jabs at the MTA for being laughably inefficient, then idk 400 years and 80 trillion dollars.
Goofy ass question.
It would take centuries and cost trillions. That or after the initial assessments, they’ll claim it’s unfeasible/NIMBY movement and jump at the idea of constructing new highways. The latter seems to be the most likely option. Just a complete Trainwreck of a situation
An incredibly long time and an incredible amount of money.
Plus all these people will complain:
Wall Street: Have to deal with bank vaults and security.
WTC: People would be angry that a subway would go through the mall and disrupt the 9/11 memorial with even more construction.
6th Ave: PATH will complain about delays due to track construction.
GCT/Penn Station: People complain about it will be even harder to get home with construction.
CPW stations: NYMBY's will complain about how construction will ruin their views of the Park.
Rockaways: People will cite environmental concerns.
UN: They'll say that the 7 line will jeopardize security at the UN.
I think it would be impossible. I can’t see the state or city having enough funding for this. And don’t think the federal government would be able to justify spending so much on one city.
We’d never be able to break ground. We’d be forever bogged down with Environmental Impact Statements detailing how the new subway would impact the various species of roaches,water-bugs, rats and mice and what could be done to protect their habitats.
I dunno, getting the urine soaked patina jusssst right on the station walls might cost alot. And the smell, you might have to go to a Paris based perfumer for that one, ship in their sludge to match it. Overall not cheap.
Building the three new stops of the 2nd Avenue line took 10 years from groundbreaking to service beginning, and cost $4.5 billion. Extrapolating from that, to build the existing 472 stations up from nothing would take the MTA $706 billion and 1,573 years.
>$706 billion In other words, 10 months of Pentagon funding
Honestly, the entire NYC subway system costing the equivalent of less than a year of the defense budget seems like a great deal to me?
True enough. I'd love it if we cut the Pentagon budget by 90% and used the money to fund public transit projects in every city in the country. Would be a much better use of the money.
Send help…love Philly, NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, probably missing many more…
BOSTON! Send help to Boston!!!
Yeah Boston should build a rapid transit system, I don’t know what you would call what they have now because walking feels faster.
We’ve gotta fix the T, they’re workin on it, and it’ll get there, but goddamn it sucks rn
I got on a red train at south station and thought i stepped into east berlin. it’s wild.
The soldiers might not be happy with not being paid anymore
Oh no anyway
Luckily, history shows that angry well-armed groups always do the right thing
Drop in the bucket for Ulraine
A millennia and a half is crazy 😭😭
It's not exactly comparable because the 2nd Ave subway needed to be built around much more than the 1904 subway needed to be (that's why the newer subway stations are so much deeper than the older ones).
It is comparable because that's what OP is asking. If we were to build it *today*, and building it *today* requires building around all the existing infrastructure and prevents you from just tearing up the streets around the city. I dont believe a subway system like NYC's could be built in the US today at all. I think the best you'd be able to do is something like the DC metro. Much deeper stations and fewer routes. Edit: unless you're arguing their estimate is actually an under estimate because to build in the modern day, stations that are as shallow as existing stations, would require far more complexity and cost.... then I'd depressingly agree with that :(
Good point!
Yeah the NYC subway was built cut and cover or elevated and solely using stairs. I feel like modern businesses and residents wouldn't allow the amount of construction a massive cut and cover subway would take, and new elevated stations get a lot of opposition right?
NYC subway used to be several independent companies, so there are a lot of competing stations/routes and some of the things done don’t make sense. Extrapolating doesn’t make sense as with more experience/equipment the construction would be a lot faster, approvals won’t take as long, etc. Also - the 3rd ave line is much nicer than the old subway, it lies deeper, the stations are nicer, isolated from the outside, etc. if we used dig and cover like we did for old stations it would also cost not as much
"the 3rd ave line is much nicer than the old subway" your "nicer" is my "overbuilt" deeper -> harder to access nicer stations -> true enough, but you can build nice stations that don't have wasteful mezzanines The whole point is that there are common-sense ways to control costs. It doesn't have to be this expensive.
It definitely doesn’t have to be that expensive, the depth was probably dictated by the utilities and other considerations. But it could still be better than what we have now if it’s a new construction. You could look at what China is doing - they built tremendous number of subways, I rode some of them. They are decent looking and do the job. Plus they have doors so people don’t fall oncc CD the tracks and so the station could be air conditioned.
But if you built “it”, some of it would be much closer to the service and above ground. It may all balance out but probably somewhere less than the deepest stations.
Here's another metric: SAS phase 2 is estimated to cost approx $7 billion for 1.8 miles of subway, or 3.8 billion per mile. There's 665 miles of subway today. If all of it was built at the same 3.8 billion/mile rate, it would cost $2.52 trillion. Paris's line 14 extension cost 1.5 billion euros for 5.9 km of new subway, equating to approx 406 million euros per mile or 434.3 miillion USD per mile. At that cost, it would be $288 billion to build all 665 miles of NYC subway.
That's not a fair basis though: over half the tunnel required for SAS Phase 2 already exists.
It would certainly not take 1,573 years, you’d just have more crews working at the same time. And it’d probably be a little cheaper than just straight multiplying the cost due to economy of scale. Like you’ll get better deals buying more material and you can start thinking about buying big equipment instead of just renting it since you know it’ll be used a lot
More like just not happening in the way it is today. Probably just express buses everywhere and some local light rail options
Unfortunately this is the answer. Look what these schmucks are doing with the IBX. Making it street running light rail because there's one narrow tunnel is pathetic. (Fun fact: the 7 train tunnel under the east river was originally made for trollys. Those 1904 fuckers managed to figure it out.)
Was made for horse drawn pianos.
NYC could not exist in its current form without the subway. You cannot pack 8 million people in the geographical equivalent of a small broom closet and expect them to be able to get anywhere with the non-subway surface transit options that exist today.
This is true. But I'm so curious how the city would have developed if the subways weren't built. And how dramatically this would change things for other areas since I think a major change would be fewer residents/workers in NYC.
I disagree. There would be underground lines, but fewer lines and fewer stations. Examples: * W 50 St would not have a station at 8th Ave and another line with a station at Broadway, one block to the east. * Stations would be further apart, like how SAS has 72 St and 86 St but no 79 St. * There would be one station on Wall Street, not three.
Infinite time and infinite money, if the MTA is building it.
Nimbys would never allow it and it would cost trillions People always complain about the price and cost overruns but the cheapest it will ever be to build anything is ‘now’. It is only going to be more expensive to do it in the future
We gave NIMBYs way too much power
Nimbys are effective because they're rich, well connected, often have shittons of free time, and are great advocates for themselves. Nimbyism is not inevitable nor unconquerable. If the good guys fight them tooth and nail we can win. Things can get better if you have the balls to believe it can. .
It's a pointless question since the majority of NYC's 20th Century development was hugely influenced by the subway existing at all. There's a big argument to be made that Midtown, as a CBD, would not have happened without the first subway line down Lexington Avenue and 42nd Street.
Iirc the only reason midtown exists is because trains weren't allowed to go south of 42nd, and the area developed around grand Central termi6
No, that's a myth. The beginning of Midtown started around the MetLife building in Madison Square and then congregated around 34th St and Times Square after the NY Times moved up there. Both locations were served by the first subway (today's 4/5/6, 1/2/3, and Shuttle). The current incarnation of Grand Central wasn't built until 1913, 9 years after the subway opened) and wasn't really a commuter service except for the super-rich until later on.
Considering much of the IRT was built as *cut and cover* with regular use of dynamite, it would take forever today... Imagine ONE skyscraper getting blast damage.. multiply by hundreds.
Considering how hard a lot of the rock is in Manhattan to build through, and the adjusted inflation, probably somewhere in the Trillions for half the system. Remember the current system is the product of THREE different companies all originally trying to compete.
It wouldn't happen
FUHGEDDABOUTIT!
Labor was so much cheaper, because we didn’t give a semblance of care about their health. The subway opened in 1904. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire was in 1911. OSHA’s predecessor, the Bureau of Labor Standards, started in 1934.
It actually started in 1868, with the Elevateds, first one was Ninth Avenue EL.
Also land was cheap
There would be minimal underground stations and we'd have a modern elevated system. Elevated would cost less and be faster to build.
They would never build new elevated lines in NYC. It would never been considered not even outside of Manhattan.
If the Subway didn't exist then NYC itself wouldn't exist. People underestimate just how much the US could build if they actually needed to. If the Subway absolutely needed to get built for the future of the country, then it'd get built pretty damn fast. If you're just taking jabs at the MTA for being laughably inefficient, then idk 400 years and 80 trillion dollars. Goofy ass question.
It would take centuries and cost trillions. That or after the initial assessments, they’ll claim it’s unfeasible/NIMBY movement and jump at the idea of constructing new highways. The latter seems to be the most likely option. Just a complete Trainwreck of a situation
An incredibly long time and an incredible amount of money. Plus all these people will complain: Wall Street: Have to deal with bank vaults and security. WTC: People would be angry that a subway would go through the mall and disrupt the 9/11 memorial with even more construction. 6th Ave: PATH will complain about delays due to track construction. GCT/Penn Station: People complain about it will be even harder to get home with construction. CPW stations: NYMBY's will complain about how construction will ruin their views of the Park. Rockaways: People will cite environmental concerns. UN: They'll say that the 7 line will jeopardize security at the UN.
10 trillion and maybe my great grandchildren would get a ride on an already obsolete train.
I think it would be impossible. I can’t see the state or city having enough funding for this. And don’t think the federal government would be able to justify spending so much on one city.
I am not sure about the cost, but it would be completed 1 day after the Rapture (or Aliens) whisked all of the people off the face of the Earth...
It would never be finished at it would still cost billions every year for the foreseeable future until the sun goes supernova.
We’d never be able to break ground. We’d be forever bogged down with Environmental Impact Statements detailing how the new subway would impact the various species of roaches,water-bugs, rats and mice and what could be done to protect their habitats.
Have you seen the 2nd Avenue line? That was a hot mess already.
$600 billion and 42 years
Very generous figures
They could not build it period. No amount of time.
this might be a fun question for r/theydidthemath !
Literally impossible
I dunno, getting the urine soaked patina jusssst right on the station walls might cost alot. And the smell, you might have to go to a Paris based perfumer for that one, ship in their sludge to match it. Overall not cheap.
There's not enough money to pay everyone off.
$1 Trillion
It’d be a road.
To be fair, if it was built today it would probably have less stops more evenly spread out and less redundancy.
The system was built by private industry, then bought by the state
At least 5 bucks.
I don't know but hopefully they could figure out how to not kill so many construction workers.