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.
Many of the world's oldest subways have solved this problem through the use of specialized technology transition teams whose sole job is to develop minimal downtime solutions to upgrading technology. I'm no expert on these technical teams...I merely know of their existence through my own personal obsessive curiosity about infrastructure. But at least in terms of having relatively modern performance and technology, Paris, Madrid, Hamburg, Tokyo, Berlin, Osaka, Barcelona, and even Moscow don't seem to have any problems. Some might run what appears to be really old equipment...but it runs on time without any significant downtime. And with the exception of Tokyo (which has severe overcrowding problems which exceed the natural limits of subways) and London (which has extreme geographic, geological, archeological, electrical, and real estate constraints), they have mostly never let these problems impact the daily service.
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.
Can New Yorkers make ballot propositions? If so it might make sense to make the MTA responsible directly to voters who live in the counties that are served by MTA. The current situation where it exists halfway between the governor and mayor seems like a governance structure where everyone can just blame the other person, similar to the governance structure dysfunction plaguing Washington, D.C.'s metro.
And part of the dysfunction of the DC metro is the lack of dedicated funding.
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.
> 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.
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.
Any sufficiently complex system will always run in degraded mode, because the individual mtbf rates for distinct elements will compound. Even a stop-the-world overhaul can't fix that, it will reduce the failure rate but it won't get rid of it. The trick to running such a system is to assume it is broken and still figure out ways of providing continuous service.
Case-study, large raid arrays. Last time I worked with one, it was exactly as you say, it was always degraded, and disks were constantly being replaced and arrays were constantly rebuilding.
It's not the track that breaks down, it's what runs on it. I don't see a reason why the electricity or signaling infrastructure can't be redesigned to have redundancies built in. If the aim with modernization is to replace old signals by new signals and still have just a single signal, that is still inviting calamity.
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.
I don't agree with your diagnosis for one simple reason: The Carnarsie line (AKA the L train). The L train is unique because it is the only line in the system that doesn't share track with any other line. It is well used but if it shut down for a day (or even a week) the effect on the system wouldn't be so bad. Yet attempts to upgrade the L line have still failed. How do you explain this?
That's not true. The L line is by far the most advanced line in the system because of the reasons you said. When I lived in Williamsburg, I remember coping with weekend shutdowns all the time for upgrades.
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.
A related problem is the political pressure to keep the single trip price artificially low, under the excuse that it's on behalf of the working poor.
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.
Not a New Yorker, but what I heard was that the tunnels only have two tracks, and both are needed for daily operations. So you can't replace one when it wears out because of the service interruption. If they had made the tunnels wide enough for three tracks, they'd have a spare for when they do repairs on one of them. And give them a place to do a rolling-upgrade of old middle-20th century signaling equipment.
Actually, NY subway has 3 or even 4 tracks portions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_Subway_l...
I think that's the reason why the New York's subway can operate during all night, because maintenance operations can happen on the other set of tracks.
Two-track subways are the norm generally, at least in the US. In fact, New York's is unusual in that many trunk lines have more than two tracks, mostly separate express tracks so that express trains can pass locals stopped at a station.
(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.)
There is enough redundancy between portions of the 7th and 8th ave lines to permit partial shutdowns and yet five years in they still can't seem to finish their hurricane repairs.
They have been doing shutdowns of particular lines for planned maintenance, but almost always with replacement service in place (either other nearby subway lines, or for more isolated lines, buses). And then there are major tunnel repairs, which can lead to shutdowns of over a year. (There's an upcoming shutdown on the L which a lot of people are dreading, as there is no good replacement service of anything like the same capacity.)
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.