Retired NYC Subway Cars Creating a Reef off the Coast of Delaware
by Andrew Posner, Providence, Rhode Island 
on 04.14.08
Image Credit: Tim Shaffer for The New York Times
If you think subway cars are only useful so long as they are efficiently carrying urban travelers from point A to point B, well, you're wrong! It turns out that hundreds of retired New York City subway cars have been finding a second home--80 feet underwater, and 16 nautical miles off the coast of Delaware. There they are helping to transform "a barren stretch of ocean floor into a bountiful oasis, carpeted in sea grasses, walled thick with blue mussels and sponges, and teeming with black sea bass and tautog." So far, 666 subway cars have already made their way to the ocean floor, and the results have been impressive: "a 400-fold increase in the amount of marine food per square foot in the last seven years," and "In the last several years, the reefs have drawn swift open-ocean fish, like tuna and mackerel, that use the reefs as hunting grounds for smaller prey. Sea bass like to live inside the cars, while large flounder lie in the silt that settles on top of the cars." This is great news, as ocean acidification from climate change and other human disruptions are harming reefs around the world.
So what about the environmental impacts from the subway cars themselves?
Some environmental groups, such as the American Littoral Society, "opposed the use of the Redbird cars because they have small levels of asbestos in the glue used to secure the floor panels and in the insulation material in the walls." However, "State and federal environmental officials approved the use of the Redbirds and other cars for artificial reefs in Delaware and elsewhere because they said the asbestos was not a risk for marine life and has to be airborne to pose a threat to humans."
The only significant problem, it seems, is that other states are catching on to the trend, but unfortunately there is only a limited number of retired subway cars available. As a result, "States have experimented with other types of artificial reef materials, including abandoned automobiles, tanks, refrigerators, shopping carts and washing machines." But none have worked very well; the fish seem to like the roominess of the subway cars, and their weight ensures that the structure stays stably anchored to the sea bed. Besides, while the environmental impacts of dumping subway cars are, at worst, minimal, it doesn't seem like a great idea to begin throwing all our abandoned appliances in the sea in the hopes of restoring aquatic ecosystems...
Via: ::NY Times
See Also: ::Coral Reef+Cruise Ship=Conservation?, ::Coral Reef Deaths: Could Bacteria Be Just as Culpable as Global Warming?, ::New Research Indicates Some Corals Are Taking the Heat and Surviving, ::Subway Systems of the World, and ::The World's Newest (and Cheapest) Subway
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Focus on Focus Earth: Coral Reefs in Trouble
- Green Glossary: Benthic Trawling
- Top 10 Things to Bring On Your Cross-Country Bus Trip
- No Sew Breezy Beanie Hat From Scrap Fabric
- Track Buses by Phone, Internet, Bus Stop
- Focus Earth: May 15, 2009: Coral Reefs in Trouble and Melting Tundra
"States have experimented with other types of artificial reef materials, including abandoned automobiles, tanks, refrigerators, shopping carts and washing machines."
Experiment? Sounds more like an excuse to dump our excess in the sea. What a terrible idea. I hope after their "experiments" failed, they collected all the junk they dumped in the ocean.
What about all of the mothballed air craft? Seems like they would work as well.
Why can't they recycle the full car? Its made from metal, it isn't as if this is a renewable resource.
Fish love structure. They should build reefs between offshore wind turbines.
That's the worse thing i've read so far...
I just did a PowerPoint presentation on "Ocean Debris" today. I talked on how much man trows, dumps, and liter de oeaces, it can be by accident or deliberate.
I'm just speachless...
No more questions on why the water level of the Oceans are rising.
Roger- I assume the reason they are not recycling the entire car is that it provides a greater benefit by being sunk, as opposed to being melted down. Keeping more fish in the sea is a very good idea :)
Steven
@wolfspirit
I hope you aren't that naive. They are doing it because it's the cheapest easier means of disposal for them. Not because it's better for the fish.They are just riding on this "benefit" to rationalize what they are doing. The ocean makes its own reefs, if there weren't any there, there was probably a good reason. On the other hand those cars are resources that we could use instead of mining more metal and plastic. Giving the fish some extra homes is not THAT great of a benefit.
It seems a shame that the rail cars aren't being used as rail cars.
On this side of the Pacific, most Australian cities' public transport systems are stretched to the limit. The waiting period for new rail cars is long and the acquisition costs are high. While I realise that the proposal wouldn't be without its problems, it would make sense to me to use the railcars in other cities, after making the required conversions & alterations. They wouldn't have to be sent to Australia, they could be sent to anywhere that needed them.
I was also surprised at how many were being thrown away. I would have expected dozens, but hundreds?!?
One can't claim that it keeps more fish in the sea, that depends on what the limiting factor is--habitat or actual fish. My guess is that in new england, the limiting factor isn't habitat, it's that there aren't enough fish reproducing, dumping the cars just spreads out the population.
That and the fact that the ocean is rarely "barren." Just because there aren't any reefs in the area doesn't mean that fish and invertebrates don't live there, especially buried in the sediment.
I wonder how long till they figure out nuclear waste makes a great reef too.
Why aren't they using these old cars and retrofitting them to function to house the homeless population. They have doors and windows and could be sectioned off to make 3 small housing units each. Wow what a waste.
Maybe it can work sometimes, but it still sounds like a slippery and steep slope toward an enthusiastic trashing of the undersea environment.
Fish are homeless people too, Fish are vagrants, let them have a nice caboose to roost in.
Why not convert them into submarines instead?
And they will make great dive sites when they are abundant with fishies. Tourism dollars can be reinvested into fish breeding programs.
or Drop them in shallower water and you will get an artificial surf break too. this thins out wave rage. just try not to cut yourself on a rusty roof..
I have been a certified PADI diver for more than 20 years, and have been diving in the US and Caribbean
There are currently operations in the US and abroad to create artificial reefs using aircraft, ships and other materials. Corals and other types of underwater animals and plants must have some type of solid surfaces to attach to. Reefs do not just appear out of a sandy ocean floor. Once these objects are placed underwater, they attract a multitude of undersea life and a reef can quickly form where it would not have been possible previously.
Unlike littering, all of the cases I'm familiar with have involved heavy state and federal regulations to ensure that any source of pollution (such as items which once contained oil or gasoline) are removed before the object is placed underwater. With the amount of man made reef damage and over fishing occurring in the world, creating new reef structures is a positive thing (if enacted properly).
I have been a certified PADI diver for more than 20 years, diving in the US and Caribbean.
There are currently programs in the US and abroad to create artificial reefs using aircraft, ships and other materials. Corals and other animal and plant life need large solid object to attach to. Solid sandy ocean bottoms do not promote the formation of reefs.
All of the artificial reef projects I am familiar with have involved numerous state and federal regulations to ensure any possible source of pollution (such as items which contained oil or gasoline) are removed before the object is placed underwater.
After all of the over fishing and reef destruction which as occurred over the past 20 years, the formation of new reefs is a positive thing (if implemented properly).
I don't know what you all are talking about, not haveing the subways cars being reefs, its a great idea. This is coming from a scuba diver who loves to go into wrecks and seeing all of the fish that live around them. Even if there were no reefs there before, that doesn't mean that we can't make some to increase the fish population because they need it with all of the overfishing that we do. I've seen cars, boats and even some navy ships sunk and have had life grow on it within a few short months. It is a great way to give back to the ocean, but i say lets keep the items large enough for divers to hgo through. And like the article even stated, the fish seem to like the roomier things then te more compact items. And no, by putting these artifical reefs in the ocean DOESN'T RISE THE OCEAN LEVEL. I repeat, it doesn't rise the ocean level. Give me stone cold proof that it does, then i might reconsider what i have said.
"Corals and other animal and plant life need large solid object to attach to. Solid sandy ocean bottoms do not promote the formation of reefs."
Exactly Right. In NJ, most of the coastline is sandy, essentially the ocean equivalent of a dessert. The Artificial reefs are a great way develop and sustain fish populations.
However, I remained concerned about the asbestos issue. New York does not use them for their own artificial reef program.
Another thing we have to be careful about tho- builiding artificial reefs should not be a substitute for cutting back on fishing effort- the real problem with our fisheries now.
We did an analysis that pegs the price of the scrap metal from of 1 R40 subway car at approximately $93,000. That's a very very rough estimate, but it's for the sake of argument.
So let's think about this.
Is New York’s subway system falling apart? (Yes)
Do city officials incessantly complain about not having enough tax money to modernize the system? (Yes)
Did New York just raise its subway fares? (Yes)
So why on earth doesn't NYC scrap the old cars and either (A) use the money to modernize the subway system or (B) refund the taxpayers?
http://www.commuteroutrage.com
I doubt that one car is $93000 of scrap metal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R40_(New_York_City_Subway_car) says they cost $111,793 new when they were built, and that's including interior and the machinery like trucks and engines and power units.
Besides, wiki also says they're made of stainless steel with fiberglass, probably hard to recycle.
It would appear that GUVMINT can do anything it wants to do! A total return to FEUDALISM! What about RECYCLING? If an individual or business dumped semi-trailers or any scrap metal into the oceans, a PERMIT would be required, along with a major investigation and possible legal challenge. The oceans were at one time considered "cesspools" but I thought that had changed.
GUVMINT gets more greedy and corrupt every minute. They cannot be trusted with anything. As Ronald Reagan said; "guvmint isn't the solution, guvmint is the problem"!