No, the NYC Subway was Not Built by Private Companies | Mythbusters
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июн 2023
- To celebrate the 83rd anniversary of unification, we will debunk a common myth about the IRT and BRT that is held by railfanners: the NYC Subway was mostly built by the IRT and BRT.
Sources/Further Reading
archive.org/details/fiftyyear...
www.ushistory.org/us/46a.asp
ti.org/antiplanner/?p=19544
www.nycsubway.org/wiki/The_Du...)
m. nytransitmuseu...
www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_in...
Fares Study
www.apta.com/wp-content/uploa...
The year the dual contracts were signed was also the year the Federal Reserve act was pushed through congress. Prior to 1913 productive capacity since the 1870s allowed the US dollar to gain purchasing power which allowed prices to fall. The BRT and IRT thought this trend would continue which is why they somewhat welcomed the provision of keeping the 5 cent fare locked in. Then came the Fed and thus began the decline of the dollar, the cost of WW1 not withstanding.
Was going to talk about deflation, but decided against it because it was a bit too complex for a history video. But you summarized my entire point into a coherent paragraph. Great job!
Just one of the many reasons why the Fed sucks and needs to be eliminated.
I don’t think anyone would say that the original subway was privately built given that the city would retroactively handicap both IRT and BMT by both constructing the independent and kneecapping them at 10c fare.
Once the IRT/BMT agreed to this and the dual contracts they sealed their own fate.
Strangely enough, the civic handicap is something we see prevailing across the country with both rapid transit and streetcar networks. In LA, we handicaped the LARy with a 5c fare for the longest time, and coupled it with requirements to use eclipse fenders long after cheaper alternatives came about along with a short lived two man crew requirement in the late 30's and early 40's
@@btomimatsucunard given the nature of how the dual contracts were negotiated and how much was compromised for both companies they would have been better off rejecting the contracts and letting the city continue to burn money duplicating their lines.
There are libertarian circles that falsely claim that the NYC Subway was built by private companies like John Stossel, and that always rubbed me in the wrong way. So, as a railfan, I did some digging on what Contracts No. 1 and 2 said, plus Dual Contracts, and it contradicted what Stossel said. Consider this video as a response to those who say that the NYC Subway was privately built and operated.
@@jointransitassociation Our transit history is always much more complicated than what is commonly said. I commend you for trying to give a more truthful and whole picture of how NYC got and ran its subways
It's also worth noting the ELs ran much shorter trains at much slower speeds than the subway. While the subways (and new elevated sections) would whisk you at 50 mph, the old elevated trains trotted along at 15 mph. The old elevated lines were built cheaply, with thin columns that couldn't support heavier subway trains, and they were also deteriorating, so they would need to be replaced. It would make sense for the replacement to be underground in densely populated Manhattan and above ground in the less dense outer boroughs.
Depends on the elevated structure in question. To the best of my knowledge, the Jamaica route is oldest. in 1930's aluminum & stainless steel electric passenger railcars were manufactured specifically for elevated structures, but operated on other lines for a brief time before retirement, and headed to the scrapper. They were built by Budd, Clark Equipment & Pullman. Also, consider the elevated structures that were demolished had stations at close distance to each other.
I had no idea they were THAT poorly built
The subways could have been built cheaper by simply being dedicated express routes with the ELs retained for local service.
@@qjtvaddict they were the most bare bones elevated rail lines you could think of.The columns were extremely thin, with pieces simply bolted together. The rails simply rested atop the structure. They were exposed to the elements and degraded very quickly, to the point that they would have collapsed without improvements. NYC upgraded many El lines to subway standards, but unofrtunately tore down the rest instead of upgrading them. Some of the Els could have been torn down since replacement subways were built, but many (like the Myrtle Ave El and Third Ave El) never got replacements.
You know why they can not replace the Thrid Avenue Elevated line because nothing can not run or take over the Thrid Avenue Elevated line anymore. Millions and millions and millions of people are very very disappointed and very unhappy that the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line and all the extra elevated lines including Brooklyn culture elevated lines because of Governor LaGuardia and Robert mosses could not stand for no extra elevated lines to be the way it is today. I tell you one thing. The ninth Ave Elevated and Thrid Avenue Elevated lines will definitely come back I tell you that right now. No matter how much they tair down extra elevated lines down because until this day the 8 is definitely still in the system and the 9 trains. God sits high and look low. When they do dirty business God will bring it to pass. Governor LaGuardia and Robert mosses is no longer on this earth anymore. We definitely have to move on and bring back the extra elevated lines back except for Manhattan because they are under ground instead elevated lines.
The similar thing happened in Paris, France.
The City built most* of the lines but it was opered by a private company CMP who provided all the rest (trains...).
It's after WW2 in 1949 that the CMP was taken over by a public company, the current RATP. Note that the RATP while a public owned company was (and still is) independ of the municipal govenrement.
*Most of current line 12 and the north of line 13 were built by a private company Nord Sud in early 1910s. This company was taken over by CMP in 1930 after its bankruptcy.
THANK YOU! Everyone who reads Ayn Rand must see this! And don't forget the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad... there were 4 companies!
Who would have thought that private companies don’t like investing in capital projects?
Uh...Brightline? Aviation? Maritime?
they do if the environment is right
@@rapunzel1701 Aviation and maritime infrastructure is mostly paid for by governments. Brightline is notable exactly because private companies hardly ever build something like that.
@TonboIV Sorry, no. It's more complicated than that. Many airports and seaports are privately operated albeit on gov land. They also are under enormous competitive pressure unlike transit agencies.
@@rapunzel1701 Public funds are usually what builds the infrastructure. They are then often operated by private companies but with plenty of government involvement.
There's also a lot more to aviation and maritime infrastructure than airports and seaports, and all that other stuff is even more likely to be publicly funded.
Also idk why u guys keep saying that the IRT Flushing Line stations are the worst the BMT Nassau St Line stations are 10x worse imo…
The Flushing Line has platforms that are literally falling apart. 52nd St always has an exit closed because of "emergency repair." I won't deny that BMT Nassau St Line stations are terrible, but at least they have some good structure.
@@jointransitassociation I still don’t get why the MTA didn’t include 90 St - Elmhurst Av in the Flushing rehabilitation project as it is in just as worse of a condition as the other stations on the IRT Flushing Line. And I think this rehabilitation should be take more seriously and they should rehabilitate three stations at a time instead of just two.
@@St4rBoyRailfanning Yeah that is fair. 90th St needs some decent upgrades and they could definitely speed things up by closing down more stations. The MTA probably doesn't want to do that because when they shut down a series of stations for rehab on Sea Beach, people complained.
weren’t the stairs at 82nd Street literally warped and falling apart, like gaps in the stairs where it shouldn’t be?
i have to admit Chambers could look pretty if it had a deep clean but Bowery is just straight up ugly, Canal Street is kinda rusty but it’s not as bad as Bowery and Chambers and Fulton and Broad aren’t too bad, Broad is actually clean
Elevated lines weren’t throwing ash onto the ground after being electrified in the early 1900s, steam engine els mostly ran before 1904. After that they were just electrified coaches. It should also be noted that some of the elevated subways are converted elevated lines. The Fulton Street, Broadway, and Lexington Avenue El were absorbed into the subway and reinforced. You can still see where the IND severed the Fulton Street El from what is now the A
Great video! Very informative
I like how most of these true private lines are railroads and the BRT and there’s randomly the 7 under the East River
Pls tell me what song this was at 1:20
Los Angeles' old transit system *was* built by private companies, and that was its' downfall. They were built by real estate interests and once the streetcar suburbs that required them were built out they had only the farebox which wasn't enough to keep things in good operating condition leading to the sale to the infamous GM-led coalition which replaced worn-out streetcars and light rail with sleek new buses that promptly got stuck in traffic. Flash forward decades, and every inch of operating subway LA has was built by a government agency which had to fight NIMBYs empowered by policies put in as a backlash against midcentury freeway projects and Urban Renewal.
So it was privatised on the British model.
Yes, most of the system always been built and owned by The City of New York and is now leased to the MTA, just like it was leased back then to the IRT & BRT (later BMT).
You forgot to include the Fulton St El in the private companies map
But that was mostly torn down and the section in use today was built using Dual Contract money.
so what I'm getting from this is that it was operated fairly similarly to how systems in Japan are operated: private companies build, own, maintain, and operate lines in the suburbs, and the more expensive infrastructure in the core is operated by the government with through running of suburban trains through the core.
The 9th Avenue El, and the other Manhattan Els, didn’t come under IRT control until after construction started on the subway. Also, the title of this video should be “No the NYC subway was not OWNED by private companies,” not “Built,” because to this very day, the subways are privately built. The 2nd Avenue subway was built by Skanska, a Swedish construction company.
Okay, the els were not part of the system today, so they are not included. Second of all, who funded the Second Ave Subway? The Federal Government. Without the federal government, the SAS won’t be built.
So is this a one time thing or is this the start of a new series?
what year a train built in queens
This question has little bearing on building lines today. The government does not have the money or the competence to properly build a subway line.
Tell that to other countries.
@@jointransitassociationhe's still somewhat right. The NY government has the money, but does not have the competence to properly build a subway line. Then you have Barcelona, Madrid, Stockholm building kms upon kms of high quality metro lines for cheap. Paris isn't as cheap, but still definitely competent.
🤯
Rolling stock of New York City Transit System is obviously NOT "subway cars". The name "electric passenger railcar" is a more accurate description, and the official terminology is Electric Multiple Unit (EMU). EMU's have the capability of operating most anywhere on the planet, provided the necessary infrastructure is in place. Subway, open-cut, at grade, elevated, tunnel, bridge, &c. is simply where they'd operate.
6:45 while I learned new information about the subway construction, I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the transit companies could not foresee inflation. Even without WWI, inflation is inevitable.
The City of New York built the subways, but it was accomplished via Public and Private funding and cooperation.
The IRT had to equipment the lines it operated,as well as the BRT/BMT.
The BMT owned its elevated lines in Brooklyn as well as its surface routes to Coney Island and Jamaica Queens.
The Dual Contracts allowed the expansion of the system, with the city building the lines..again with public private funds.
In the 1920s,the dynamic changed.
The City of New York decided that it was being taken advantage of by the "private operators",and decided to start building All subways independently..
That was a toss up,since when construction was underway for the IND system, the city asked the BMT to operate it,but they refused because it didn't link to Their system.
The City's Board of Transportation decided to operate the line itself.
Since the government was able to pull off dirty tricks Legally, time was running out for the private companies.
1940,the BOT assumes control of the subway Elevated system, through buyouts and hostile takeover.
So was it actually at first built and owned by private entities?
119 years later, blizzards are a thing of the past and subways are permanently unsustainably expensive, Rebuild the EL with modern structure. Improve upon the Market St line model.
Great video, but the spoken portions of the audio has too much high pitch noise (especially the 's' sound) and was unpleasant to listen to, hope you can fix it for future videos
Noted, though for this video, you can turn down the volume.
All Subways and concept of so called “public transport” was solely a product of private enterprises, natural persons, not the government. First subways like Paris, London as well AS NYC subway was solely built, owned and operated by private entities. Then government pulled some legal tricks to get the power(if you do not know, “permit” is not gwm “help”, it’s a money-making barrier) and the result is properly illustrated by the current MTA. Network decreased while population increased and it led to the situation of today. In the future the network will deteriorate further until it will either “cut corners” up to total closure or government will hand it out to private or somewhat private hands.
And you will further try to put up history in your own wishes for … I don’t know what for actually, but all of that will lead to lots of wasted resources in useless projects and negative growth in ridership. And then political trend shifts and there will be practically no spending for public transit at al.
And yeah, not a one meter of NYC metro was built by the government. Everything gets built by private companies, to this day
Did you watch the video? Did you not read Contract No. 1 or 2? Nor the Dual Contracts?
In case you missed it, the initial subway was funded and built by the NY government (look up the Rapid Transit Act of 1894), the Dual Contracts was mostly funded by NYC money, and the IND was funded by New Deal money.
And I won't say the private operators were good either. They had multiple deadly accidents, like the Malbone St wreck, because they wanted to cut corners by making an inexperienced motorman run a train.
@@jointransitassociation you have said yourself that first lines were built on private money (actually till 1900). Grade separated transit was built like from 1868 without government(or even earlier I don’t remember exact date). Why history start only from 1904 is for me unknown, even from 1914 actually as till then info and documents are rare.
There is the thing that many does not understand. Any government considers everything what is located on its territory like its own property. Doing business, especially big business is impossible without government interest. It’s even worse when they are interested in it. NYC is no stranger to this “feature”. They do not intervene in many things(however they can as they could destroy the whole Manhattan, only political support and ‘no’ resistance are needed) simultaneously, but they always are interested in the “big” things that are not going anywhere.
Subway is an amazing political tool and they always see such advantageous things for them from the start. The first (overground)lines were solely built by private money, “licences”, etc, etc is not “help”, it is a barrier. Government can ban absolutely anything, especially in cities, you have to “negotiate” with system to be able to build absolutely anything. If a politician won’t take part in such a big thing like a subway he or she will be outraged. No, first subways(overground systems) were built on private money. Yes, they introduced in 1900(or 1894)the “contracts”, and city payed for the construction(contract A were not financed solely by the city). The thing is, private money will not build anything that they can not control, and NYC made it impossible to build any new rails without them, overground were prohibited in Manhattan, underground were only possible with government contracts. No one will risk to build anything in such condition, that is why NYC became the only “sponsor” after 1914. Private money nevertheless wanted to make a profit(surprise) and accepted half-measure(gvm offer) to be able expand and make profit(however it is a German socialism that has less in common with private sector) agreeing at the fix contract price for passengers, and building expenses mainly on government, however I could not find contracts type A to read them to know how they could engage the companies into this, only type B were available to me. Prices was “fixed” in all contracts type B since 1914 at 5 cent, while federals introduced FED in 1913, money lost gold-bound, and FED started to print. “Inflation” came. 5 cents became not a 5 cent and operators had to invent something to be able to keep 5 cent ticket price, cutting cost on operations, as the whole thing became unprofitable, that’s the cause of accidents(company did not have any responsibility as it had limited-liability provided by the government). The city did not allow for any price changes for operators(companies had contracts for 50 years) and surprise-surprise- took over, as it was the main goal since like 1918(that is publicly available info, maybe in reality even earlier). And in less than a month changed ticket price to 10 cents as were asked by companies. It s a question how could they last till 1940 with 5 cents.
If one check the expansion of New York rail transit lines since their start it will look like a joke - like 90% of the network was built before 1940.
@@redakteur3613
Although it was true that the els of the 1800s were built by private companies, the subways were built by the government and leased to private operators. I made this video because libertarians love to claim the subways were built by private companies when evidence shows the opposite.
And the private operators were absolutely hated by literally almost everyone. There is a cartoon from the 1900s that depicted the IRT as the Interborough Rattled Transit. Because to an extent, they were parasites. The head of the IRT, August Belmont, refused to expand the system, as he viewed more expansions as more operating costs. There were an insane amount of accidents prior to the signing of Dual Contracts, which set the fare at 5 cents. For example, the 1905 derailment near the “Suicide Curve.” So trying to limit the liability of the NYC Subway to the government and government only is a shortsighted and myopic view.
The privates abolsutely wanted elevateds, not subways because of costs. No one liked elevateds, so guess what happened? Sometimes, you have to realize that whatever corporations want are at odds with what the American public wants. Because the IRT and BRT wanted els, and they were viewed as noisy and ugly (modern els aren’t, but that is a discussion for another day), expect a backlash. Just because it is a corporation, it does not mean they have your best interests at heart.
Finally, no one forced the IRT and BRT to sign the Dual Contracts. They did so on their own. Once they signed it, they sealed their own fate. And it wasn’t all bad for them, they were supposed to pay the government back for the construction costs. But at the last minute, they changed the wording to avoid paying millions of dollars.
And yes, we must expand the system. There are many ways to do it. And yes, the government can be efficient if you let it be. Taipei, Paris, Madrid, all built out a great system with the help of governmental planning. There is an obsession of right wingers to purposely break government and public goods so that you can claim the government isn’t efficient. That is just plain wrong.