How Cuts in Basic Subway Upkeep Can Make NYC Commutes Miserable(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
How Cuts in Basic Subway Upkeep Can Make NYC Commutes Miserable
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/nyregion/system-failure-new-york-subway-maintenance-misery.html?mabReward=CTM3&recid=0y1C7Vbd7V6qb02UQ5zYHiw4x64&recp=3&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine
210 comments
D.C.'s metro is plagued with problems: didn't stay on top of upkeep, no dedicated funding, semi-unworkable governance, service cuts in the last couple years. We just exited a year long "Safe Track" maintenance program earlier in 2017, but they weren't able to get nearly enough done and service on many lines in the evening will still often be 20-25 minute headways with single tracking for additional maintenance. During rush hour, it will fairly often be an 8+ minute wait for a train in some core stations. . . it's crazy. Having grown up in and around Chicago, I would take the L+Metra over the Metro any day. Every time I go home to visit friends and family I'm reminded of how disappointing transit is in the nation's capital.
If you're out in the evenings or need to work early in the morning on the weekends you're also out of luck. Train service ends early Sunday-Thursday, and starts late Saturday-Sunday. Going to a concert is an eternal crapshoot, the last train on our line during the week can be as early as 10PM. This all disproportionately affects service workers and people without consistent access to personal transit as well, which bothers me on a more fundamental level than the personal inconvenience in my life; I perceive it as a failure of the urban social contract.
Also, LA is basically the only one of the largest American cities that is actually expanding their system in a meaningful and relatively quick way. Alexandria (where I live) has been trying to get an infill station in Potomac Yards added for something like 20+ years.
If you're out in the evenings or need to work early in the morning on the weekends you're also out of luck. Train service ends early Sunday-Thursday, and starts late Saturday-Sunday. Going to a concert is an eternal crapshoot, the last train on our line during the week can be as early as 10PM. This all disproportionately affects service workers and people without consistent access to personal transit as well, which bothers me on a more fundamental level than the personal inconvenience in my life; I perceive it as a failure of the urban social contract.
Also, LA is basically the only one of the largest American cities that is actually expanding their system in a meaningful and relatively quick way. Alexandria (where I live) has been trying to get an infill station in Potomac Yards added for something like 20+ years.
As someone who spends a lot of time in DC I'm not sure they have the best metro in the US. I personally like the NYC metro better for getting around the city. DC's metro is largely designed to get people into and out of the city during rush hour. Most people in the DC area don't use it for anything else and as a consequence it suffers from high ridership during rush hour and very little ridership at other times. Unlike NYC, there are few places you can live in DC without also owning a car.
The DC metro is absolutely NOT one of the best, for many reasons already explained by commenters. Many, many years of inadequate maintenance have caught up, to the point that this is a site that exists: https://ismetroonfire.com/
I live a half mile from a metro stop (out in the suburbs) and I STILL would rather drive into DC whenever I need to go into the city. It's faster, more reliable, and more convenient even with the hassle of driving in DC and finding/paying for parking.
I live a half mile from a metro stop (out in the suburbs) and I STILL would rather drive into DC whenever I need to go into the city. It's faster, more reliable, and more convenient even with the hassle of driving in DC and finding/paying for parking.
>D.C. is probably one of the best metros,
Oh dear -- that's a scary thought. Here in DC it's unanimously understood that the metro is a train wreck, literally and figuratively.
Oh dear -- that's a scary thought. Here in DC it's unanimously understood that the metro is a train wreck, literally and figuratively.
The DC metro, as other commenters said, has its own problems of delayed maintenance. A larger problem is its limited coverage. The time to build subways was when New York did, and it was less expensive. But then Washington had many fewer people and its suburbs were not particularly extensive.
The L mine has CBTC and the 7 will as well. The MTA has a plan to deploy this to all their lines but they have almost 900 miles of track with more than 6000 cars and it's an expensive and slow process - especially when the lines run 24/7 unlike everywhere else.
iirc Yurikamome in the gulf area of Tokyo is automated monorail. It's really nice -- well run, clean, peaceful.
While automation sounds elegant, it has nothing to do with the problems or solutions here. The core problem with the NYC subway system is a management culture that does not value long term problem solving, instead preferring quick fixes and short term band aids.
Many modern subway systems have similarly huge networks with far higher traffic than NYC but manage to maintain low failure rates and CLEAN tracks simply because they value and prioritize maintenance and quality of service. Some are private, some are public.
It truly baffles me why NYC and actually the SF BART both fail so utterly to even attempt to provide quality service.
Many modern subway systems have similarly huge networks with far higher traffic than NYC but manage to maintain low failure rates and CLEAN tracks simply because they value and prioritize maintenance and quality of service. Some are private, some are public.
It truly baffles me why NYC and actually the SF BART both fail so utterly to even attempt to provide quality service.
I live in Europe and to me it seems that its a general American mentality of everybody having a car, dislike of mass transit in any form (except planes) and as a result mass transit is meh and makes people even more miserable.
I live in Europe and to me it seems that its a general American mentality of everybody having a car
The problem seems more attitude wise. We want great infrastrure while paying low taxes. This contradiction, of course, isn't really solvable as can be seen in the generally pretty rotten state of infrastructure in the US.
Red herring. It doesnt cost arms and legs to maintain what we have, and last I checked, infrastructure is a small fraction of our federal/state budget.
We get crappy subway and infrastructure b/c of the efficient public sector workers and unions.
We get crappy subway and infrastructure b/c of the efficient public sector workers and unions.
New York has one of the highest state tax rates, 2nd to only California. It is absurdly high given the quality of public transportation. They cant have it both ways.
A good example of this issue would be the escalators in BART. BART installed these shitty escalators 30 years ago that don’t work well outside and are prone to breaking down, plus homeless defecate on them... Instead of replacing the escalators that constantly break (or installing a bathroom... they’ve all been closed since 9/11...) they just keep fixing the escalators over and over and over again. It’s a penny wise, pound foolish mentality. We refuse to make long term investments in our infrastructure and just use bandaid solutions that end up costing much more.
Oh and the person in charge of selecting the escalators for BART was eventually hired by the escalator company. It’s a perfect example of everything wrong with public goods in America.
Oh and the person in charge of selecting the escalators for BART was eventually hired by the escalator company. It’s a perfect example of everything wrong with public goods in America.
This reply seems to be a good illustration of the attitude described by its parent. The word they is telling.
I live in a city with one of the most cost-effective public transport systems. People in Tokyo tend to think of the railways as an extension of themself / their home / their city. Whereas I imagine most Americans tend to look at such systems from an external perspective: hence "they".
I live in a city with one of the most cost-effective public transport systems. People in Tokyo tend to think of the railways as an extension of themself / their home / their city. Whereas I imagine most Americans tend to look at such systems from an external perspective: hence "they".
... If my subway was cost-effective, timely, and orderly, I certainly would find it easy to consider it an extension of myself.
So there's nothing special about the Japanese (or bad about New Yorkers)
So there's nothing special about the Japanese (or bad about New Yorkers)
I think one of the core issues is the very heavy unionisation of the staff, much more extreme than anywhere else.
Apparently union labor rates are 3-5x more expensive in transit than Europe. Considering how labor heavy it is to do repair work on old subway lines it means you need an insane budget to do any more work. And guess what, as soon as the budget gets raised the union notice and want a larger slice.
So many examples of this. Another is the way NY subway cars have 3 staff minimum. Whereas London, Paris, Berlin have one. Assume they make 3x the money and you need 3x more than other cities and you have a 10x cost increase in operational labor costs. Plus the complexity of ensuring you always have 3 people there with no sickness etc, as if you lose one you can't run the train at all.
It's really insane and will take a mayor with serious backbone to fight.
Apparently union labor rates are 3-5x more expensive in transit than Europe. Considering how labor heavy it is to do repair work on old subway lines it means you need an insane budget to do any more work. And guess what, as soon as the budget gets raised the union notice and want a larger slice.
So many examples of this. Another is the way NY subway cars have 3 staff minimum. Whereas London, Paris, Berlin have one. Assume they make 3x the money and you need 3x more than other cities and you have a 10x cost increase in operational labor costs. Plus the complexity of ensuring you always have 3 people there with no sickness etc, as if you lose one you can't run the train at all.
It's really insane and will take a mayor with serious backbone to fight.
I'm generally very pro-union, but I've found unions in the US are a bit... strange.
I think union membersip is more widespread in western Europe than in the US, but I feel they could even be a bit more powerful here. They can barely keep the power balance in most industries, and have to fight long for modest raises (compensating inflation at best). Even when the economy is prosperous like in Germany, it seems they can't get many concessions.
But still there is some power balance between unions and employers, and this balance is considered the normal system how wages are negotiated in many fields.
In the US, unions seem a bit like rackets. For example, some places are only allowed to hire union members (per deal with the union). Woah, I wouldn't think this is allowed in Europe. Instead of painfully negotiating a 1% raise over a couple of years (by hinting at the possibility of announcing a warning strike), they seem to dictate ridiculous policies to make a few people rich.
Can someone explain this difference? Is it just anti-union propaganda that makes them look bad in the US? Or did they kill off the European style unions a long time ago and just left the rackets?
I think union membersip is more widespread in western Europe than in the US, but I feel they could even be a bit more powerful here. They can barely keep the power balance in most industries, and have to fight long for modest raises (compensating inflation at best). Even when the economy is prosperous like in Germany, it seems they can't get many concessions.
But still there is some power balance between unions and employers, and this balance is considered the normal system how wages are negotiated in many fields.
In the US, unions seem a bit like rackets. For example, some places are only allowed to hire union members (per deal with the union). Woah, I wouldn't think this is allowed in Europe. Instead of painfully negotiating a 1% raise over a couple of years (by hinting at the possibility of announcing a warning strike), they seem to dictate ridiculous policies to make a few people rich.
Can someone explain this difference? Is it just anti-union propaganda that makes them look bad in the US? Or did they kill off the European style unions a long time ago and just left the rackets?
In the US, everything is war. Businesses went to war with the unions, and the unions that are left are the ones that won the war in their industries.
>Can someone explain this difference? Is it just anti-union propaganda that makes them look bad in the US?
Nobody does propaganda quite as well as Americans.
Nobody does propaganda quite as well as Americans.
"NY subway cars have 3 staff minimum"
Actually, it is a 2 person crew for full-length trains and a single person for half-length trains.
"It's really insane and will take a mayor with serious backbone to fight."
The MTA is a state agency and the mayor has almost no say in contract negotiations.
Actually, it is a 2 person crew for full-length trains and a single person for half-length trains.
"It's really insane and will take a mayor with serious backbone to fight."
The MTA is a state agency and the mayor has almost no say in contract negotiations.
Public transport unions are very strong in Europe, because their strikes can be very effective. However, strong unions can be a good thing - and if they are not, possibly there are more faults within the system. Maybe the labor rates are so high, because health insurance is expensive, schools are expensive, things like that, which are mostly provided by the state and cheaper in Europe?
Unions are far more widespread and far stronger in Europe than they are anywhere in the US. By your logic, then, transit maintenance in Europe should cost unbelievable amounts of money.
(there are plenty of well-documented reasons why NYC comes up short on money for its transit system, and "unions are the devil" is an insufficient explanation for them)
(there are plenty of well-documented reasons why NYC comes up short on money for its transit system, and "unions are the devil" is an insufficient explanation for them)
American unions are different. People from Germany have come to visit me in Maryland and remarked on road construction sites and how many guys that are just standing around. Here, you'll have multiple guys just standing directing traffic. In Germany, they put up some cones and a signal light.
Do labor unions have an extremely combative relationship with business in Europe, and have they been traditionally associated with city/state corruption and criminal families? If not, I'd say there are cultural differences here that can't be simply explained by 'unions are big'
Of course, part of the problem is that our subway system is run not by the city but by a state government dominated by car culture types. And heck, even our current mayor gets driven around in a black SUV all day and didn't know when questioned last week that less than half of New York households own cars.
If the MTA provided service to more than the NYC metro region, this would be less of a problem. Half the population the state is paying for a system they never use, so they are understandably upset. If the MTA operated commuter systems around Albany, Buffalo, and other towns and cities in New York, people would be less apt to cut their budget.
State funds are not a major portion of the budget:
http://interactive.nydailynews.com/project/mta-funding/
(the Petroleum tax and State & Local operating assistance combined are less than 10%)
http://interactive.nydailynews.com/project/mta-funding/
(the Petroleum tax and State & Local operating assistance combined are less than 10%)
The MMTOA is 10% on its own, so I am not sure I see your point.
The way I read
Metropolitan Mass Transportation Operating Assistance Fund: This is a pot of tax money collected for the MTA and other downstate transportation systems. It’s made up of revenue, such as statewide tax on petroleum companies, a sales tax in the 12-county MTA region and corporate franchise taxes and fees both statewide and in the MTA region. MMTOA this year will collect a total of $2.3 billion - 72% of which goes to the MTA.
That fund isn't "purely" statewide.
But the broader point still holds if statewide taxes are contributing all of 20%, the MTA is quite locally funded.
Metropolitan Mass Transportation Operating Assistance Fund: This is a pot of tax money collected for the MTA and other downstate transportation systems. It’s made up of revenue, such as statewide tax on petroleum companies, a sales tax in the 12-county MTA region and corporate franchise taxes and fees both statewide and in the MTA region. MMTOA this year will collect a total of $2.3 billion - 72% of which goes to the MTA.
That fund isn't "purely" statewide.
But the broader point still holds if statewide taxes are contributing all of 20%, the MTA is quite locally funded.
Not to mention that the MTA-served regions of the state already put in a lot more money in state taxes than they get back from the state in services. The opposite is true of the rest of the state.
Upstate depends on the MTA region's economic engine for its tax base. Making sure that economy runs smoothly (and that the employees and consumers necessary to that economy can get to and from their jobs and stores) should be a priority for rational, well-informed actors.
I would guess, though, that only a tiny percentage are well informed about what percentage of state taxes come from vs go to various regions. Can't comment on rationality, but with the wrong assumptions, rationality can be counterproductive and irrationality is no better.
Upstate depends on the MTA region's economic engine for its tax base. Making sure that economy runs smoothly (and that the employees and consumers necessary to that economy can get to and from their jobs and stores) should be a priority for rational, well-informed actors.
I would guess, though, that only a tiny percentage are well informed about what percentage of state taxes come from vs go to various regions. Can't comment on rationality, but with the wrong assumptions, rationality can be counterproductive and irrationality is no better.
In a state like NYC where you have one large population center that overwhelms the rest of the state the only time that the dominant population center does not get its way is when its way is so abhorrent to the rest of the state that they are unified against it and even that doesn't happen often.
NY safe is a great example how far the influence of NYC goes in state government and it wound up getting done despite practically the entire rest of the state being opposed to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Green-Star-Map-05-Feb-14....
NYC blaming NY for it's problems is an incredibly out of touch with reality attitude. If something NYC wants isn't getting done at the state level it's probably because NYC's goals do not line up with those of its own elected representation, not because the rest of the state is standing in your way.
NY safe is a great example how far the influence of NYC goes in state government and it wound up getting done despite practically the entire rest of the state being opposed to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Green-Star-Map-05-Feb-14....
NYC blaming NY for it's problems is an incredibly out of touch with reality attitude. If something NYC wants isn't getting done at the state level it's probably because NYC's goals do not line up with those of its own elected representation, not because the rest of the state is standing in your way.
Actually, it doesn't overwhelm the rest of the state.
The city proper (served by the subway) represents about 20% of the population.
The metro area including parts of Connecticut and NJ (not represented in NY State gov't) is about 20M people. Even if they were all in state, that's still a bit under half the state's total population. And the metro area outside the city proper is still heavily dominated by car culture.
NY State also has several other much smaller but still significant population centers, including Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo. These areas are not served by the MTA and are also automobile-centric, despite having been founded and initially become boom towns in part due to the Erie Canal (that is, before the railroad dominated shipping and travel, let alone cars).
Some things the city gets its way about, especially when its interests align with those of its suburbs or the smaller urban centers of the state. When it comes to non-car-centric transportation initiatives, however, it generally doesn't.
The city proper (served by the subway) represents about 20% of the population.
The metro area including parts of Connecticut and NJ (not represented in NY State gov't) is about 20M people. Even if they were all in state, that's still a bit under half the state's total population. And the metro area outside the city proper is still heavily dominated by car culture.
NY State also has several other much smaller but still significant population centers, including Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo. These areas are not served by the MTA and are also automobile-centric, despite having been founded and initially become boom towns in part due to the Erie Canal (that is, before the railroad dominated shipping and travel, let alone cars).
Some things the city gets its way about, especially when its interests align with those of its suburbs or the smaller urban centers of the state. When it comes to non-car-centric transportation initiatives, however, it generally doesn't.
I would add that SF is even more different in that nobody owns cars and the transit network isn’t rxtensive enough for one to rely on it for all parts of the city. So people end up taking uber and lyft everywhere.
> SF is even more different in that nobody owns cars
70% of SF households own a car, so still a majority by a long shot [1].
[1] http://www.governing.com/gov-data/car-ownership-numbers-of-v...
70% of SF households own a car, so still a majority by a long shot [1].
[1] http://www.governing.com/gov-data/car-ownership-numbers-of-v...
Many of those households have more than one person in them (2.3 by the 2010 census) so I'm not sure it's a majority.
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty....
40% drive alone, while a bare majority 51% use a car, bus or van for transport (including carpools).
It's so popular, nobody does it anymore.
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty....
40% drive alone, while a bare majority 51% use a car, bus or van for transport (including carpools).
It's so popular, nobody does it anymore.
Interesting. At 1.10 cars per household, and 2.26 people per household, about 47% of SF residents own cars. (Though subtracting out the under-18 population means 55% of driving-age residents own a car.) Also, given there must be some people who own more than one, the actual percentage is probably lower. Still, that's a lower number than I imagined.
SF also has like 1/10 the population of NYC.
> So people end up taking uber and lyft everywhere.
People also cycle a lot. Most Caltrain services almost always have two bike cars.
People also cycle a lot. Most Caltrain services almost always have two bike cars.
It's part of the general "Starve the beast" policy. Underfund everything public so its miserable to have to rely on. Then use that as proof that everything government is bad.
MTA spends 60% more of operating costs per mile of track than the London Tube system: https://www.google.com/amp/s/ny.curbed.com/platform/amp/2017.... MTA also gets far more ofnits budget from the government (40%) than the Tube (25%).
New York City operates on an 84 billion dollar budget. The beast is not starving.
[deleted]
[deleted]
But a lot of mass transit infrastructure in Europe is just as bad, if not worse. Save a few 'showpiece' systems.
For example, in Spain we high speed rail between major cities which is great but regional and local rail is terrible.
For example, in Spain we high speed rail between major cities which is great but regional and local rail is terrible.
Non-NYC-er here:
> The core problem with the NYC subway system is a management culture that does not value long term problem solving, instead preferring quick fixes and short term band aids
Do they have the time and budget horizon to do long-term planning ?
To me it seems like SF and NY subways are underfunded
> The core problem with the NYC subway system is a management culture that does not value long term problem solving, instead preferring quick fixes and short term band aids
Do they have the time and budget horizon to do long-term planning ?
To me it seems like SF and NY subways are underfunded
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-mayors-budget-2017-18.pdf
Transport for London budgeted 2.26 billion pounds for the London Underground in 2016. Even at peak exchange rates from 2014, that's $3.8 billion. The MTA spent $8.18 billion on the subway in 2017. The London Underground handles about 5 million rides per day, versus a bit under 6 million per day for the NYC subway. So the NYC MTA spends 120% more to serve about 20% more subway riders.
Transport for London budgeted 2.26 billion pounds for the London Underground in 2016. Even at peak exchange rates from 2014, that's $3.8 billion. The MTA spent $8.18 billion on the subway in 2017. The London Underground handles about 5 million rides per day, versus a bit under 6 million per day for the NYC subway. So the NYC MTA spends 120% more to serve about 20% more subway riders.
> > The core problem with the NYC subway system is a management culture that does not value long term problem solving, instead preferring quick fixes and short term band aids
The management culture you're referring to stems from the TWU, which actively fights efforts to impose long-term planning and solutions, in favor of quick, short-term responses that pad their bills.
The government doesn't push back against these, because (for a variety of reasons that are beyond the scope of this article), New York city and state government are not really accountable to their own constituents. To give you an idea of how bad it is, the mayor of New York hasn't ridden public transit regularly in decades and doesn't even know basic transit ridership facts[0].
The former Speaker of the NYS Assembly (who was convicted for corruption a few years ago) was one of the strongest advocates for cutting the bus service that his own district was entirely dependent on[1]. Because of said corruption, he was essentially untouchable, so there was no democratic avenue for holding him accountable.
Corruption in NYS is widespread; it's the most corrupt state in the country[2], and it's no surprise that this corruption impacts the public transit infrastructure.
[0] https://twitter.com/2AvSagas/status/943158489064624128
[1] His district has essentially no subway coverage
[2] http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/sep/19/el...
The management culture you're referring to stems from the TWU, which actively fights efforts to impose long-term planning and solutions, in favor of quick, short-term responses that pad their bills.
The government doesn't push back against these, because (for a variety of reasons that are beyond the scope of this article), New York city and state government are not really accountable to their own constituents. To give you an idea of how bad it is, the mayor of New York hasn't ridden public transit regularly in decades and doesn't even know basic transit ridership facts[0].
The former Speaker of the NYS Assembly (who was convicted for corruption a few years ago) was one of the strongest advocates for cutting the bus service that his own district was entirely dependent on[1]. Because of said corruption, he was essentially untouchable, so there was no democratic avenue for holding him accountable.
Corruption in NYS is widespread; it's the most corrupt state in the country[2], and it's no surprise that this corruption impacts the public transit infrastructure.
[0] https://twitter.com/2AvSagas/status/943158489064624128
[1] His district has essentially no subway coverage
[2] http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/sep/19/el...
The biggest problem here is MTA is government run. Return the subway to the private sector. Get rid of the union.
The union took the city hostage many times. Enough is enough.
The union took the city hostage many times. Enough is enough.
> The biggest problem here is MTA is government run. Return the subway to the private sector. Get rid of the union.
You're going to get downvoted for this because there's a very strong pro-union contingent on Hacker News, and most people reading Hacker News aren't from New York.
That said, it's true that many of the problems that New York transit faces stem from the extreme incompetence and greed of the TWU. It's not even about protecting their members' interests; it's about the TWU protecting its own interests as a corporate entity.
You're going to get downvoted for this because there's a very strong pro-union contingent on Hacker News, and most people reading Hacker News aren't from New York.
That said, it's true that many of the problems that New York transit faces stem from the extreme incompetence and greed of the TWU. It's not even about protecting their members' interests; it's about the TWU protecting its own interests as a corporate entity.
> American cities are so far behind. D.C. is probably one of the best metros, but NYC and Chicago, while having quite extensive systems for very large cities, have no budget to expand or move them into the future.
Related to this. We're finally starting to get rid of the stupid metrocards and switching to a tap/scan system. I saw one at 34th on the A/C/E line (34th & 8th West side entrance), just one turnstile had it so guessing they are just testing it there. Baby steps.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/nyregion/metrocard-subway...
Related to this. We're finally starting to get rid of the stupid metrocards and switching to a tap/scan system. I saw one at 34th on the A/C/E line (34th & 8th West side entrance), just one turnstile had it so guessing they are just testing it there. Baby steps.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/nyregion/metrocard-subway...
You realize that the article admonishes exactly this kind of modernization? Switching to a different ticket system does nothing for poorly maintained infrastructure, except sucking away much needed budget.
In The Netherlands, the transit card create a great deal of budget. By having a digital card that you need to top up. You end up with money on a card that isn't used. Thus the transit company suddenly has €20-€50 extra cash available per train user. The intrest even generates pretty good money I can imagine
In the London Underground (and on the london buses) you can literally tap your contact-less debit or credit card. Just charged the cheapest rate for the route you took, which automatically caps per day or week on how much you pay, if you do multiple journeys, to be like an "all-day" or "all-week" pass.
Yup, I even got a refund the other day automatically. Not sure why as the tube wasn't really any worse than usual but hey, it was a free journey.
Surely that's mostly a one-off cash injection though? Once all the regular commuters have their cards, you're not going to get much more. There will still be some extra from visitors, and new commuters over time but it doesn't seem like long term you'd see that much revenue increase.
Don't forget tourists and other visitors. They buy cards with too much money and then never spend it. It is a constant source of revenue.
They can't do zone pricing with metrocard. Tap to enter and exit does.
The technology on the NYC subway is so old that they have to pay through the nose for replacement parts. I also assume that you have a hard time finding people willing to work at a place where they learn few transferable skills, because nobody else uses century old stuff. Especially if the pay is so-so and you don't guarantee a job for life.
Yet upgrading the system to modern signals and interlockings is even more expensive, especially since maintenance is extremely hard when the system has to run 24/7.
Yet upgrading the system to modern signals and interlockings is even more expensive, especially since maintenance is extremely hard when the system has to run 24/7.
"I also assume that you have a hard time finding people willing to work at a place where they learn few transferable skills"
You assume wrong; the MTA has no difficulty finding people to work on the old equipment (I have a close relative who actually works on this equipment, there has never been trouble finding willing workers). Also note that the old technology is mostly restricted to interlocking machines and telephones; everything else (train sets, radios, MOW equipment, etc.) is much more recent.
You assume wrong; the MTA has no difficulty finding people to work on the old equipment (I have a close relative who actually works on this equipment, there has never been trouble finding willing workers). Also note that the old technology is mostly restricted to interlocking machines and telephones; everything else (train sets, radios, MOW equipment, etc.) is much more recent.
Signals are expensive? That kind of blows my mind. A chaveut dj LED light that responds to dmx commands can be had for a few bucks
Signals are expensive because of their safety guarantees (and because of lack of competition). That LED light you can buy for a few bucks doesn't guarantee eight nines of uptime if you keep to the maintenance schedule. You also can sue the manufacturer if a train runs a red because the LED broke. Signals and other trackside equipment make up a large part of the costs of building rail.
"You also can sue the manufacturer if a train runs a red because the LED broke"
FYI, MTA operating procedures require trains to stop when a signal is not lighted, then coordinate by radio before proceeding. There is also a defense-in-depth strategy: the interlocking maintains 4 red signals between trains, so a collision in theory would require 4 failing signals, 4 failing stop arms (which automatically stop trains that ignore red signals) and a train operator ignoring the rules.
FYI, MTA operating procedures require trains to stop when a signal is not lighted, then coordinate by radio before proceeding. There is also a defense-in-depth strategy: the interlocking maintains 4 red signals between trains, so a collision in theory would require 4 failing signals, 4 failing stop arms (which automatically stop trains that ignore red signals) and a train operator ignoring the rules.
Exactly what I was thinking: certification and insurance
Not really, it is all because you have this crazy idea that mass transit systems should be profitable and/or self-sustaining so with the intent of getting profit they cut corners.
Most other countries have subsidized or even free mass transit systems and they realistically don't expect them to be profitable, but helping people/goods to be moved is considered more important.
It is one of those natural monopolies where privatizing stuff doesn't really work.
Most other countries have subsidized or even free mass transit systems and they realistically don't expect them to be profitable, but helping people/goods to be moved is considered more important.
It is one of those natural monopolies where privatizing stuff doesn't really work.
> Most other countries have subsidized or even free mass transit systems and they realistically don't expect them to be profitable, but helping people/goods to be moved is considered more important.
Here is a good map of "farebox recovery ratio" (the percentage of operating costs funded by fares): https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/gallery/Map_World%20.... Quite a few asian systems recover more than 100% of operating costs, and a couple of European systems do, but no American ones. London's public transit system, for example, gets 25% of its funding from the government. The NYC MTA is at 45%.
Here is a good map of "farebox recovery ratio" (the percentage of operating costs funded by fares): https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/gallery/Map_World%20.... Quite a few asian systems recover more than 100% of operating costs, and a couple of European systems do, but no American ones. London's public transit system, for example, gets 25% of its funding from the government. The NYC MTA is at 45%.
Generally I'd agree that it's better to just let the government subsidise it (or just run it) and accept the cost in exchange for the economic benefits.
However, there is one way to make it work privately, and that's to capture some of those economic benefits by buying the land around stations. If someone buys some relatively cheap land near a city and then builds a train line from there to the centre, the value of that land increases and so they can charge higher rents on any housing, offices or shop units built there.
However, there is one way to make it work privately, and that's to capture some of those economic benefits by buying the land around stations. If someone buys some relatively cheap land near a city and then builds a train line from there to the centre, the value of that land increases and so they can charge higher rents on any housing, offices or shop units built there.
This is illegal nearly everywhere but China, as the rail company becomes the 500 pound, rent seeking gorilla that has dominion over large chunks of a city, or state.
No, it is not. Plenty of examples around the world, and it generally works better. Copenhagen and Hong-Kong come to mind.
Japan as well, If you go outside major train stations in the large city there are big department stores run by the train company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kintetsu_Department_Store https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isetan#Subsidiaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kintetsu_Department_Store https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isetan#Subsidiaries
Not sure who "you" is here but nowhere in the USA is public transit expected to be profitable (excluding private coach and shuttle services, airlines, etc. as those are not "public") or even self-sustaining. The general problem is like most government services they are money pits with incompetent, corrupt management.
The US subsidizes mass transit systems. The biggest subsidies go to the highway system.
That and actually not killing a great many people, as that dj light signal would inevitably do sooner or later. Rail signaling isn't just a convenience and throughput optimization like road traffic lights are, with little consequence in the case of failure. Failing rail signals are more deadly than falling air traffic controls.
The legacy parts manufactured half a century ago have eight nines of uptime?
Relays are pretty reliable if you exchange them regularly enough. Just because the stuff is old it doesn't mean that you can't build machines with enough redundancy to make them very dependable. It's not so clear that complex software solutions as in modern interlockings are more dependable than the comparably simple electromechanical solutions of yore. Cheaper, yes, more capable, sure, but more reliable?
Not just dependable in terms of systems engineering, these things were also massively "overdesigned" to be extremely reliable no matter what.
> Just because the stuff is old it doesn't mean that you can't build machines with enough redundancy to make them very dependable.
I can do the same with 1-dollar modern parts.
I can do the same with 1-dollar modern parts.
That's exactly what the companies building these things do. It's not the material that's expensive, it's all the paperwork necessary to prove that it actually provides the guarantees that it does.
The context was you saying "they have to pay through the nose for replacement parts" and exabrial's downvoted reply, to which you replied "That LED light you can buy for a few bucks doesn't guarantee eight nines of uptime if you keep to the maintenance schedule". I don't know anything about this stuff, but your arguments have not been coherent.
Solid-state electronics from 1967? Eight nines for individual components doesn't sound at all implausible to me.
Have you ever looked at industrial-grade hardware? You know, stuff that is actually certified to work for years on end in the worst conditions imaginable? If someone asked you, how much do you think a 12V power supply costs, would you say $5-10, because that's how much they go for on ebay? Try a National Instruments 12V supply - it's about ~$1200 for a power supply slightly larger than your phone charger. Why? Because it's certified to work in -80C and +120C without failure, in environments where explosive gases are present and in very high humidity environments. You can't use consumer hardware in industrial/commercial environments, and for a good reason.
That was the story told by SGI execs. It was also a story told by Sun execs. And it was a story told by Unisys execs. But I'm sure it is different this time around.
I mean sure, in a lot of cases, yes, a normal iPad is a lot better than this super custom commercial terminal for $10k/each. But if you work in an oil refinery where you can't risk an explosion of millions of gallons of petrol, or if you run a metro system that carries hundreds of thousands of people a day, you can't be using consumer grade electronics.
Have you heard of this company called "SpaceX"?
Also, in case you do not actually know this, a metric crap load of this special electronics that NY metro uses have Windows 98 running IBMs inside.
Source: Neighbor MTA grunt
Also, in case you do not actually know this, a metric crap load of this special electronics that NY metro uses have Windows 98 running IBMs inside.
Source: Neighbor MTA grunt
Running two subway lines at two nines of reliability would be better for passengers than running one line at four nines, and might well be cheaper.
A signal failure can lead to dead passengers, so maybe you want to reconsider that statement.
If you are thinking about "verified" systems spent way too much in academia.
Fundamentally, verification system is a traffic light problem. In case you do not know, the blinking yellow is "i crashed". That condition is not checked via code verification of Red/Yellow/Green state machine. It is checked via crossed green detector: a circuit that checks for a condition "green energized" on both and should that condition occur it crashes the Red/Yellow/Green state machine. That state machine will never recover until Bob shows up at a traffic box, looks to see if a sensor is dead, looks to see if box is OK and resets it by hand.
Fundamentally, verification system is a traffic light problem. In case you do not know, the blinking yellow is "i crashed". That condition is not checked via code verification of Red/Yellow/Green state machine. It is checked via crossed green detector: a circuit that checks for a condition "green energized" on both and should that condition occur it crashes the Red/Yellow/Green state machine. That state machine will never recover until Bob shows up at a traffic box, looks to see if a sensor is dead, looks to see if box is OK and resets it by hand.
Signalling is always fail-safe - as far as I can tell this is the case even when there are e.g. multiple redundant ways of detecting train presence, a failure of any one is treated as a reason to stop trains. Something like a cheap LED that burns out more frequently is not unsafe, it just means there would be more cases of trains having to stop because the signal light was out.
It must be one of those things that's harder than it looks - China had a train crash because they decided to roll their own signals.
Agree, it's obviously much different than a lighting effect in practice. What I'm trying reconcile is the hardware and software. Are there truly that many differences physically? The cost of signals probably comes from certifications I'm guessing
Did you take any computer science courses on software verification? That is, proving your program does what you intend.
It's complicated, difficult, and the people who can do this are expensive. Railway signaling systems, alongside air and spacecraft, and sometimes consumer devices that would be expensive to firmware update during the warranty, are the few places software verification is used.
The specification we are verifying the software against must also be proven to be correct, including failing safe.
The hardware also has to perform, at all reasonable temperatures, humidities, with vibration, poor power, and for an expected life of at least 50 years.
The people installing the hardware must be checked, to ensure the work is done correctly. A crossed wire is a critical fault, I imagine there's a long and detailed procedure for connecting every wire.
[1] is an interesting read, a retrospective on a bad crash in 1988 in Britain which led to many improvements in signaling safety.
https://www.railengineer.uk/2014/01/06/25-years-after-clapha...
It's complicated, difficult, and the people who can do this are expensive. Railway signaling systems, alongside air and spacecraft, and sometimes consumer devices that would be expensive to firmware update during the warranty, are the few places software verification is used.
The specification we are verifying the software against must also be proven to be correct, including failing safe.
The hardware also has to perform, at all reasonable temperatures, humidities, with vibration, poor power, and for an expected life of at least 50 years.
The people installing the hardware must be checked, to ensure the work is done correctly. A crossed wire is a critical fault, I imagine there's a long and detailed procedure for connecting every wire.
[1] is an interesting read, a retrospective on a bad crash in 1988 in Britain which led to many improvements in signaling safety.
https://www.railengineer.uk/2014/01/06/25-years-after-clapha...
But most of that work can be reused, you're not building the whole software from scratch each time, so those fixed costs get diluted.
According to Wikipedia[1], there are about half-dozen commercial systems that get heavily reused.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_con...
According to Wikipedia[1], there are about half-dozen commercial systems that get heavily reused.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_con...
Unfortunately its not, yes framework is reused but business logic part is written from scratch most of the time and it is that part where most errors usually occur. That is why you can't just install SAP or Dynamics you need to program your logic and workflows into if first, the fact that framework itself is reused saves some time sure, but error probability increases with the amount of customization framework provides.
I'm talking about software designed for railway signaling, like SelTrac, not generic business platforms like SAP.
I don't know, but presumably there's still a lot of work
- planning and then (re)locating points/switches
- planning and then (re)locating signals or balises
- updating trains
- configuring the software to reflect the track and signals
- verifying the final configuration
- planning and then (re)locating points/switches
- planning and then (re)locating signals or balises
- updating trains
- configuring the software to reflect the track and signals
- verifying the final configuration
Seltrac will not be accepted by MTA. They have their own CBTC specifications and Thales (seltrac supplier) is engaged in a large program to create a compliant product.
The signalling system probably has an extremely small amount of software in it, and if it's old the logic will be electromechanical; if a train is in the block, the entry signal will be red, because a particular relay is closed.
The signal lamp itself is probably a small part of the cost compared to all the wiring and the time spent installing it.
Edit: googling for "cost of railway signals" produces this very comprehensive PDF on the subject: www.credo-group.com/downloads/tco_of_rail_signalling_systems.pdf
The signal lamp itself is probably a small part of the cost compared to all the wiring and the time spent installing it.
Edit: googling for "cost of railway signals" produces this very comprehensive PDF on the subject: www.credo-group.com/downloads/tco_of_rail_signalling_systems.pdf
If you just look at the signals as "a little red light that tells the driver to stop", then its not that complex.
However in the rail world signals encompasses much more than that red light. There's sensors on the track which detect when a train enters a section of the line and when it leaves, and on modern systems there's communication with the train itself to force the brakes on if the driver runs a red light, making it near impossible to enter a section with a train already in it.
All those parts need to communicate with each other, and they need to be ridiculously reliable, and capable of self-reporting when they fail, because in the worst case a failure in any one of those components results in a few hundred people dying in a dark underground tunnel.
However in the rail world signals encompasses much more than that red light. There's sensors on the track which detect when a train enters a section of the line and when it leaves, and on modern systems there's communication with the train itself to force the brakes on if the driver runs a red light, making it near impossible to enter a section with a train already in it.
All those parts need to communicate with each other, and they need to be ridiculously reliable, and capable of self-reporting when they fail, because in the worst case a failure in any one of those components results in a few hundred people dying in a dark underground tunnel.
You are thinking of signals as just the lights telling the driver what to do, but the signals used in the subway are much more complex and include the hardware to know, for example, whether another train is on an upcoming stretch of track, or how a switch is set up ahead, which affects what tracks the train is routed onto. These aren't just electronic systems, they include mechanical hardware to detect the necessary information. The design of some of the signals still in use basically hasn't changed in 100 years!
Ring-fenced yearly upkeep budget + years of sustained funding for improvements = great subway system.
London Underground in the 1980s was like NYC Subway now - but after sustained 15-20 years of funding it improved immensely (while passenger levels more than doubled, if not tripled).
Of course this could not last - with the current Conservative government Underground is getting less and less money, so starting to defer upgrades... Politicians are incapable of learning.
London Underground in the 1980s was like NYC Subway now - but after sustained 15-20 years of funding it improved immensely (while passenger levels more than doubled, if not tripled).
Of course this could not last - with the current Conservative government Underground is getting less and less money, so starting to defer upgrades... Politicians are incapable of learning.
That doesn’t help. The MTA’s problem is decidedly not money. The MTA’s spending on subway is about double per passenger as Transport for London spends on the underground.[1] Having a ring fenced budget wouldn’t do any good as it gets eaten away by inefficiency and waste.
What the MTA needs to do is:
1) Disband the union
2) Cut service overnight to increase maintenance times
3) Double fares (Tube fares are 15-100% higher depending on distance; using exchange rates from a few years ago, minimum Tube fare was like $5 versus $2.75 for the NY subway)
[1] http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-mayors-budget-2017-18.pdf (page 10) versus http://web.mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/MTA%202017%20Adopted%20Bu.... (page II-A). Just look at the Underground versus the subway + the Staten Island Railroad.
What the MTA needs to do is:
1) Disband the union
2) Cut service overnight to increase maintenance times
3) Double fares (Tube fares are 15-100% higher depending on distance; using exchange rates from a few years ago, minimum Tube fare was like $5 versus $2.75 for the NY subway)
[1] http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-mayors-budget-2017-18.pdf (page 10) versus http://web.mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/MTA%202017%20Adopted%20Bu.... (page II-A). Just look at the Underground versus the subway + the Staten Island Railroad.
> 2) Cut service overnight to increase maintenance times
Absolutely not! Overnight service is an essential element of the NYC subway system. It's what makes the subway go from being a convenience to being a utility. Knowing that I can absolutely rely on subway, or at least a shuttle bus, at any time of the night, is a completely different experience than living in a city where I have to plan might night around the train. Even if it very slow at night, I know it will be there. Like a road.
Besides, I doubt that shutting down all 400 miles of the network will significantly improve maintenance efficiency. They already severely cut back service to a few trains an hour, and they coordinate with maintenance crews pretty well, and crawl past them at 5mph. And the system is big enough so that they can shut down parts of it.
I think the only time the city completely shut down service was during 9/11, but they had partial service again a few hours later, to areas that did not pass through the neighborhood.
But I can tell you that proposing we shut down all service after a certain hour is as ludicrous as saying we should close most of our bridges after a certain hour. The subway is not an add-on for NYC like in it is in most cities, it is an essential feature.
Absolutely not! Overnight service is an essential element of the NYC subway system. It's what makes the subway go from being a convenience to being a utility. Knowing that I can absolutely rely on subway, or at least a shuttle bus, at any time of the night, is a completely different experience than living in a city where I have to plan might night around the train. Even if it very slow at night, I know it will be there. Like a road.
Besides, I doubt that shutting down all 400 miles of the network will significantly improve maintenance efficiency. They already severely cut back service to a few trains an hour, and they coordinate with maintenance crews pretty well, and crawl past them at 5mph. And the system is big enough so that they can shut down parts of it.
I think the only time the city completely shut down service was during 9/11, but they had partial service again a few hours later, to areas that did not pass through the neighborhood.
But I can tell you that proposing we shut down all service after a certain hour is as ludicrous as saying we should close most of our bridges after a certain hour. The subway is not an add-on for NYC like in it is in most cities, it is an essential feature.
The subway shuts down in nearly all the major cities with much better and often times more expansive systems than NYC, Tokyo in particular stands out. People against shutting down the subway usually argue against it because they just want to be able to go out drinking at night and not have to pay for a Lyft or Taxi back home.
Theres a few things that NYC could do that would easily alleviate this:
1. Run a night owl bus service that replaces all or most lines like Philly. Don't know why this isn't more common. Theres less traffic at night, so the people relying on the subway for work will not be inconvenienced significantly.
2. Have overnight service Friday and Saturday for the party crowd. Apparently there are systems in Europe that do this.
Theres a few things that NYC could do that would easily alleviate this:
1. Run a night owl bus service that replaces all or most lines like Philly. Don't know why this isn't more common. Theres less traffic at night, so the people relying on the subway for work will not be inconvenienced significantly.
2. Have overnight service Friday and Saturday for the party crowd. Apparently there are systems in Europe that do this.
To live without a car is to make a complete and total surrender of your movement through life to the government. Even for the BDSM community, that's an extreme level of power exchange.
The MTA is exceptional among American institutions in receiving this level of trust in large part because it's neutral. Sure, you can only move around at the government's whim, but the government is happy to take you anywhere at any time.
If it starts to get moralizing and opinionated, i.e. "you don't really need to go out drinking at night," that trust will evaporate rapidly. As it should.
Systems that merely augment car cultures, or that serve collectivist societies which already trust government with even greater degrees of control over their lives, are not useful precedents. New York is basically singular in getting Americans to surrender to central planners so thoroughly.
The MTA is exceptional among American institutions in receiving this level of trust in large part because it's neutral. Sure, you can only move around at the government's whim, but the government is happy to take you anywhere at any time.
If it starts to get moralizing and opinionated, i.e. "you don't really need to go out drinking at night," that trust will evaporate rapidly. As it should.
Systems that merely augment car cultures, or that serve collectivist societies which already trust government with even greater degrees of control over their lives, are not useful precedents. New York is basically singular in getting Americans to surrender to central planners so thoroughly.
I actually have no problem with it. I enjoy going out to bars and drinking and in the US that's my main use case for the subway late at night. But I've also seen around the world how proper continuous maintenance can make public transportation clean and almost a joy to ride. I'm willing to give up some of my fun for a better system that runs smoothly. NYC has the largest system in the US, but DC had one of the best and their lack of maintenance has nearly destroyed it. Subways are barely profitable as is, but I would never want to live in a city without one. I find the weekend schedule in Europe and the night owl system to be a pretty fair compromise for something that will benefit everyone as opposed to just wanting it open for my own selfish reasons.
> The subway shuts down in nearly all the major cities with much better and often times more expansive systems than NYC, Tokyo in particular stands out. People against shutting down the subway usually argue against it because they just want to be able to go out drinking at night and not have to pay for a Lyft or Taxi back home.
Or, you know, people who actually have to travel those hours for work or other reasons. NYC is a 24-hour city in a way that cities like London are not.
> 1. Run a night owl bus service that replaces all or most lines like Philly. Don't know why this isn't more common.
Bus service, even with optimal traffic, is way slower than subway service.
> Have overnight service Friday and Saturday for the party crowd. Apparently there are systems in Europe that do this.
Yeah, London just introduced this. It's pretty terrible compared to what we have in NYC. I wouldn't trade it for what NYC has now.
Or, you know, people who actually have to travel those hours for work or other reasons. NYC is a 24-hour city in a way that cities like London are not.
> 1. Run a night owl bus service that replaces all or most lines like Philly. Don't know why this isn't more common.
Bus service, even with optimal traffic, is way slower than subway service.
> Have overnight service Friday and Saturday for the party crowd. Apparently there are systems in Europe that do this.
Yeah, London just introduced this. It's pretty terrible compared to what we have in NYC. I wouldn't trade it for what NYC has now.
> NYC is a 24-hour city in a way that cities like London are not.
I highly doubt that’s true.
I highly doubt that’s true.
> I highly doubt that’s true.
Having lived in New York for a decade and also spent time in London, there's absolutely no comparison. Heck, even just looking at the nightlife: pubs in London shut down before midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. That's completely unheard-of in most of NYC, even bars in the relatively residential areas.
NYC also tends to have other businesses open earlier and close later than London (or most of Europe). In order for that to happen, it's necessary to have people who work the early/late/graveyard shifts, and those people are incredibly dependent on overnight service.
It's unfortunate that you're mixing in overnight service with the rest of the points you make, because you're correct about the rest - the fares are a little too low right now, and rampant corruption at the TWU wastes what little money they do have.
Having lived in New York for a decade and also spent time in London, there's absolutely no comparison. Heck, even just looking at the nightlife: pubs in London shut down before midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. That's completely unheard-of in most of NYC, even bars in the relatively residential areas.
NYC also tends to have other businesses open earlier and close later than London (or most of Europe). In order for that to happen, it's necessary to have people who work the early/late/graveyard shifts, and those people are incredibly dependent on overnight service.
It's unfortunate that you're mixing in overnight service with the rest of the points you make, because you're correct about the rest - the fares are a little too low right now, and rampant corruption at the TWU wastes what little money they do have.
So you admit that you want to go out drinking and this is the only reason you want the trains to run all night? Bars, izakayas, and clubs in Tokyo also stay open extremely late like in NYC and yet the city doesn't grind to a halt when the subway system closes.
So what if they do want to go out drinking? What's your beef about this? Are bars and restaurants only OK to go to before a certain time?
This citizen lives in a city where LOTS of stuff is open late and he/she would like to participate in this city. Not just bars. But even the bars have workers who still need to get there. And I'd guess the nightlife sector of NYC's economy is MUCH larger than any other city in the US.
This citizen lives in a city where LOTS of stuff is open late and he/she would like to participate in this city. Not just bars. But even the bars have workers who still need to get there. And I'd guess the nightlife sector of NYC's economy is MUCH larger than any other city in the US.
> So you admit that you want to go out drinking and this is the only reason you want the trains to run all night?
I guess that's a way you could interpret my comment, if you read only the first paragraph and ignore the sentence that literally comes next.
I guess that's a way you could interpret my comment, if you read only the first paragraph and ignore the sentence that literally comes next.
See, when ever some reasonable proposal is raised, someone with absolutely the strongest push back jumps out.
Who defines essential? The cost of overnight running, does it justify the value?
The biggest cities in the world does not have overnight sub, and they carry far more people around the city, is that a problem? No, of course not.
Who defines essential? The cost of overnight running, does it justify the value?
The biggest cities in the world does not have overnight sub, and they carry far more people around the city, is that a problem? No, of course not.
> The biggest cities in the world does not have overnight sub, and they carry far more people around the city, is that a problem? No, of course not.
I don't think we want to use Guangzhou, Shanghai, Nanjing, Delhi, Jakarti, Beijing, Mumbai, São Paulo, or Lagos[0] as models for New York City's transit. A casual observer might claim Tokyo is a decent model, except that Tokyo is structurally a radically different city, to the point where the comparison doesn't provide much of value.
> The cost of overnight running, does it justify the value?
It absolutely does. Shutting down the subway overnight would cripple the entire city. Even though overnight service is limited compared to daytime service, it's an essential part of the city's infrastructure.
Moreover, eliminating overnight service isn't actually necessary for providing the improvements that the subway needs, so talking about eliminating overnight service is a red herring.
[0] the nine cities in the world, excluding Tokyo, whose metropolitan area is larger than New York City's.
I don't think we want to use Guangzhou, Shanghai, Nanjing, Delhi, Jakarti, Beijing, Mumbai, São Paulo, or Lagos[0] as models for New York City's transit. A casual observer might claim Tokyo is a decent model, except that Tokyo is structurally a radically different city, to the point where the comparison doesn't provide much of value.
> The cost of overnight running, does it justify the value?
It absolutely does. Shutting down the subway overnight would cripple the entire city. Even though overnight service is limited compared to daytime service, it's an essential part of the city's infrastructure.
Moreover, eliminating overnight service isn't actually necessary for providing the improvements that the subway needs, so talking about eliminating overnight service is a red herring.
[0] the nine cities in the world, excluding Tokyo, whose metropolitan area is larger than New York City's.
> It absolutely does. Shutting down the subway overnight would cripple the entire city. Even though overnight service is limited compared to daytime service, it's an essential part of the city's infrastructure.
> Moreover, eliminating overnight service isn't actually necessary for providing the improvements that the subway needs, so talking about eliminating overnight service is a red herring.
I see statements & 0 facts... Please check your references and come back with data.
> Moreover, eliminating overnight service isn't actually necessary for providing the improvements that the subway needs, so talking about eliminating overnight service is a red herring.
I see statements & 0 facts... Please check your references and come back with data.
> I see statements & 0 facts... Please check your references and come back with data.
For starters, I provided facts that debunked your un-cited and inaccurate claim about subways in other large cities.
If you're going to make the claim that overnight service is the root of the MTA's current problems, the burden is on you toprovide evidence that
(a) temporary closures for routine maintenance are not sufficient, (b) something changed drastically in the last 15 years, because the MTA has run overnight for most of the subway's existence without a problem; and (c) the problems that overnight service allegedly causes are somehow more significant than the other problems the MTA has (which are discussed extensively in this article and comment thread).
For starters, I provided facts that debunked your un-cited and inaccurate claim about subways in other large cities.
If you're going to make the claim that overnight service is the root of the MTA's current problems, the burden is on you toprovide evidence that
(a) temporary closures for routine maintenance are not sufficient, (b) something changed drastically in the last 15 years, because the MTA has run overnight for most of the subway's existence without a problem; and (c) the problems that overnight service allegedly causes are somehow more significant than the other problems the MTA has (which are discussed extensively in this article and comment thread).
Reducing maintenance cost and more room for other improvements, I see no need to justify this reasoning at all.
It's your responsibility to show that the saved maintenance cost is hurting the "essentials" of NYC subway.
It's your responsibility to show that the saved maintenance cost is hurting the "essentials" of NYC subway.
> Reducing maintenance cost and more room for other improvements, I see no need to justify this reasoning at all
Yeah, see, that's the thing: you're making a pretty big fallacy assuming that the costs of providing overnight service actually impact maintenance work in any meaningful way.
As it turns out, overnight service is relatively inexpensive to provide, and temporary disruptions to evening or weekend service for maintenance (which already happen) are sufficient to address most maintenance problems that can't be handled during working hours. Cutting overnight service wouldn't solve the problems that are actually preventing the maintenance that's needed.
I'm not going to bother to go into more specifics, because they're well documented, not just in this comment thread but also the exact original article. If you're interested, those are both excellent places to start.
Yeah, see, that's the thing: you're making a pretty big fallacy assuming that the costs of providing overnight service actually impact maintenance work in any meaningful way.
As it turns out, overnight service is relatively inexpensive to provide, and temporary disruptions to evening or weekend service for maintenance (which already happen) are sufficient to address most maintenance problems that can't be handled during working hours. Cutting overnight service wouldn't solve the problems that are actually preventing the maintenance that's needed.
I'm not going to bother to go into more specifics, because they're well documented, not just in this comment thread but also the exact original article. If you're interested, those are both excellent places to start.
Hmm, I am curious where are the documented evidence about overnight subway
I don't think those are valid comparisons. And I running overnight buses can be much more expensive. Think about the ratio of passengers and energy per driver.
And also, providing all night service adds to the value of working in the city. Knowing that I can stay at my office until 3AM makes living in NYC such a good value. And it also makes transportation something you don't have to think about; you just know it will be there. It would be really inconvenient if I had to wait until 5 or 6AM for the first morning train. I should have the option to get a train at 4:30AM if I want.
Finally, NYC's subway is unique, and, for various reasons I mentioned in another post, would probably be more expensive to shut down at night.
And also, providing all night service adds to the value of working in the city. Knowing that I can stay at my office until 3AM makes living in NYC such a good value. And it also makes transportation something you don't have to think about; you just know it will be there. It would be really inconvenient if I had to wait until 5 or 6AM for the first morning train. I should have the option to get a train at 4:30AM if I want.
Finally, NYC's subway is unique, and, for various reasons I mentioned in another post, would probably be more expensive to shut down at night.
> Besides, I doubt that shutting down all 400 miles of the network will significantly improve maintenance efficiency. They already severely cut back service to a few trains an hour, and they coordinate with maintenance crews pretty well, and crawl past them at 5mph.
I don't think you're right about this. There's just a lot of maintenance work that needs to be done that can't be done even with slow-moving trains going by a few times an hour. Signals need to be replaced, rail surface need to be smoothed, ballast needs to be cleaned and redistributed, ties break and need to be replaced, signals need to be replaced, etc. London and Hong Kong crews can do something like replace a section of rail overnight. It's very hard to do that in NYC.
I don't think you're right about this. There's just a lot of maintenance work that needs to be done that can't be done even with slow-moving trains going by a few times an hour. Signals need to be replaced, rail surface need to be smoothed, ballast needs to be cleaned and redistributed, ties break and need to be replaced, signals need to be replaced, etc. London and Hong Kong crews can do something like replace a section of rail overnight. It's very hard to do that in NYC.
They have been doing extensive maintenance on the F near me and shutting it down every weekend. I can either take the shuttle bus, but it's usually faster to walk 20 minutes to the B/Q line.
They are also doing massive upgrades and maintenance on the L line, but the J/M/Z parallels much of the L's route.
This is fine, it makes sense to do that. It is not as useful to shut the entire system down each night. It makes much more sense to shut parts of it down piecemeal.
NYC's subway network is vast. It actually used to be three different systems that were merged together. The numbered and lettered lines have separate maintenance facilities and hardware.
What's truly unique about NYC's subway, is how redundant it is. Most neighborhoods are serviced by more than one line. When I lived in Washington Heights (northern Manhattan) the 1 line needed emergency maintenance when a roof in a station collapsed, and I believe that reconstruction took almost a year, but the A/C parallels the 1 by only a few blocks.
They are also doing massive upgrades and maintenance on the L line, but the J/M/Z parallels much of the L's route.
This is fine, it makes sense to do that. It is not as useful to shut the entire system down each night. It makes much more sense to shut parts of it down piecemeal.
NYC's subway network is vast. It actually used to be three different systems that were merged together. The numbered and lettered lines have separate maintenance facilities and hardware.
What's truly unique about NYC's subway, is how redundant it is. Most neighborhoods are serviced by more than one line. When I lived in Washington Heights (northern Manhattan) the 1 line needed emergency maintenance when a roof in a station collapsed, and I believe that reconstruction took almost a year, but the A/C parallels the 1 by only a few blocks.
Who says overnight service is an essential element? We could keep bus services all night -- and only if there is a compelling argument for it -- but having worked over-night shifts for a couple of years in college, it's waste of money for all of us tax-payers.
> Even if it very slow at night, I know it will be there. Like a road.
Sure, the subway rails aren't going anywhere either. Perhaps you'd like drive your own car underground? While I see little or no utility in keeping lights on all night, MTA will find other ways to waste money and won't save much money.
> Even if it very slow at night, I know it will be there. Like a road.
Sure, the subway rails aren't going anywhere either. Perhaps you'd like drive your own car underground? While I see little or no utility in keeping lights on all night, MTA will find other ways to waste money and won't save much money.
If MTA's problem is decidedly not money, then why does the MTA need to double its fares?
It's complicated. There's different sources of revenue for a system like that. Does Greyhound increase it's fare if the roads need to be repaved?
The funding for the tracks and the other parts of the system come from different places, with the farebox only having to partially pay for their upkeep. And there's a lot of politics involved because the rest of the state of NY helps pay for the subway.
The funding for the tracks and the other parts of the system come from different places, with the farebox only having to partially pay for their upkeep. And there's a lot of politics involved because the rest of the state of NY helps pay for the subway.
The MTA’s current problems are not the result of underfunding in the past. But overcoming the backlog will require more money in the short term than a well-maintained system would need. Also, raising fares will allow MTA to reduce dependency on the State, which in NY tends to be an unpredictable and unstable funding source.
There is no reason for the NYC metro to be cheaper than the London Tube. They should raise fares to what the market will bear, and use the money for expansion or save it for a rainy day.
There is no reason for the NYC metro to be cheaper than the London Tube. They should raise fares to what the market will bear, and use the money for expansion or save it for a rainy day.
"what the market will bear" isn't necessarily appropriate for a public good, though.
It might maximize ticket revenue if they priced some people out of taking the train. Doesn't maximize good for the city, or even revenue for the city if some marginal person decides to stay home instead of going to work.
It might maximize ticket revenue if they priced some people out of taking the train. Doesn't maximize good for the city, or even revenue for the city if some marginal person decides to stay home instead of going to work.
Maximizing ticket revenue allows the system to offer better service for everyone who uses it. To the extent that people are priced out at the margin, that can be addressed through targeted subsidies (or guaranteed minimum income). In any event, whatever the desirable range may be, having fares that are only about half as much as in the closest comparable city with a well-functioning subway (London), is clearly outside that range.
>Maximizing ticket revenue allows the system to offer better service for everyone who uses it
So only rich people will ride the subway but those who do will have a better experience?
> To the extent that people are priced out at the margin, that can be addressed through targeted subsidies (or guaranteed minimum income).
Please provide examples of this working in practice.
It doesn't seem to work for healthcare, education, etc.
The places with "good" healthcare, education, transportation, internet, etc, don't make it expensive and then hand out vouchers to poor people. They make it free or so cheap everyone can afford it.
So only rich people will ride the subway but those who do will have a better experience?
> To the extent that people are priced out at the margin, that can be addressed through targeted subsidies (or guaranteed minimum income).
Please provide examples of this working in practice.
It doesn't seem to work for healthcare, education, etc.
The places with "good" healthcare, education, transportation, internet, etc, don't make it expensive and then hand out vouchers to poor people. They make it free or so cheap everyone can afford it.
> So only rich people will ride the subway but those who do will have a better experience?
Most people can afford a $5 subway ticket.
> Please provide examples of this working in practice.
London Tube fares range from 2.4 to 5.1 pounds. That’s $3.50-$8.00 using typical exchange rates, versus just $2.75 for the NYC metro. Somehow non-rich people in London manage.
Most people can afford a $5 subway ticket.
> Please provide examples of this working in practice.
London Tube fares range from 2.4 to 5.1 pounds. That’s $3.50-$8.00 using typical exchange rates, versus just $2.75 for the NYC metro. Somehow non-rich people in London manage.
I’m not sure what point the comment was intending to make, but doubling fares may reduce ridership while not necessarily increasing revenue.
There's also quite a bit of corruption in the MTA... I've heard multiple first-hand accounts of construction kick-backs, intentional sabotage, and other awful things going on internally at the MTA. The problem isn't money, it's awful leadership and politics.
I don't like your suggestion that the union should be disbanded. Union workers are safer than non-union workers, and the US needs safety right now. "This is the third consecutive increase in annual workplace fatalities and the first time more than 5,000 fatalities have been recorded by the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) since 2008." https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
I'm not sure how much you know about the relationship between Unions and city/state government in NY, but an example of the increased costs of such a relationship include the fact that unions outsource the jobs to non-union subcontractors and the city budget is $84 Billion, 10X that of Los Angeles.
> Union workers are safer than non-union workers
More accurately, unionized working relationships enforce safer working conditions (both by contracting for conditions better than the legal minimums and providing better avenues for addressing situations which don't meet the legal and contractual minimums) than non-unionized relationships.
More accurately, unionized working relationships enforce safer working conditions (both by contracting for conditions better than the legal minimums and providing better avenues for addressing situations which don't meet the legal and contractual minimums) than non-unionized relationships.
America has been sending a lot of dangerous manufacturing jobs to oversea competitors for decades now. The data likewise show that about 2/3 of all occupational fatalities are caused by transportation incidents ("road incidents") or by "persons or animals," not by unsafe, dangerous working condition we often associate with industrial manufacturing (and already outsourced to poorer nations).
I don't see why we need the union today -- especially when the NYC city transportation employees are known to earn more than $100K in wages alone.
I don't see why we need the union today -- especially when the NYC city transportation employees are known to earn more than $100K in wages alone.
> Cut service overnight to increase maintenance times
Yea... that's a real bad idea. This city operates 24 hours a day, pretending otherwise is a mistake.
Yea... that's a real bad idea. This city operates 24 hours a day, pretending otherwise is a mistake.
jesus christ your suggestions would literally cripple NYC
The social infrastructure is a bank account paid into by previous governments. They are pilfering it because it's easy and the fallout will probably land on someone else.
'.. with the current Conservative government Underground is getting less and less money...'
Welcome to the world as seen by most UK residents, who don't live and work in London.
Welcome to the world as seen by most UK residents, who don't live and work in London.
For MTA: labor expenses are higher than revenue, there is no easy way out.
How are they paying for everything?
Sounds like they take the prevailing wage and multiply it by two!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
"...average total compensation for subway managers has grown to nearly $300,000 a year."
It's important to note that no train system in the world is covered by fairs. They are always subsidized by the state. In most cities, fairs make up 20% ~ 30% of costs (tolls are about the same for toll roads).
Cities with expensive transit typically have mandates that x% of costs must be paid by fairs. In Wellington, NZ and Chicago, US, this is 50%, leading to some pretty high fares or low service.
Just having transit makes revenue though, in taxes from the increased commerce. Access to transport is also the single largest factor in escaping poverty. It's difficult to measure those numbers in revenue though.
But transport always must be subsidized by the State, going back to the roads of Rome.
Cities with expensive transit typically have mandates that x% of costs must be paid by fairs. In Wellington, NZ and Chicago, US, this is 50%, leading to some pretty high fares or low service.
Just having transit makes revenue though, in taxes from the increased commerce. Access to transport is also the single largest factor in escaping poverty. It's difficult to measure those numbers in revenue though.
But transport always must be subsidized by the State, going back to the roads of Rome.
> It's important to note that no train system in the world is covered by fairs. They are always subsidized by the state. In most cities, fairs make up 20% ~ 30% of costs (tolls are about the same for toll roads).
This is demonstrably false. There are plenty of systems where fares make up close to 100% (or even exceed 100%) of their costs with fares: https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/gallery/Map_World%20...
This is demonstrably false. There are plenty of systems where fares make up close to 100% (or even exceed 100%) of their costs with fares: https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/gallery/Map_World%20...
Agree with the spirit but this isn't strictly true. Some in Japan do, even London will be paid for fully by fares in next couple of years as the government pulls the grant.
Kind of why I wish public transit was just made free..
Once the rail lines are paid for, the cost per passenger is very low. Hence, we should maximize value by making it free.
Once the rail lines are paid for, the cost per passenger is very low. Hence, we should maximize value by making it free.
Once the rail lines are paid for, the cost per passenger is very low
You also need massive capital investments into the rolling stock and all this requires significant maintenance.
An argument can certainly be made if public transport should be free, but stating that the costs are low and essentially paid for once the (very expensive) infrastructure stands is just ludicrous.
Now I'm wondering what a Freemium transit system would look like.
Charge property owners for the ability to own property near the transit stations.
Cars that you have to pay to enter, which take high-speed premium routes, get given priority by signalling systems, or just plain show up more frequently?
Easy: sell seats to commuters who want to get work done (currently seats are allocated to those who board closest to the beginning of the line).
You could pay for Wi-Fi on trains! The system exists in Moscow and Saint Petersburg metros, you can either watch long ads or pay $2-3 monthly for ad-less Wi-Fi.
> Once the rail lines are paid for, the cost per passenger is very low.
If that were the case, the whole reason for this article wouldn't exist, because NYC wouldn't need any maintenance for its subway system.
If that were the case, the whole reason for this article wouldn't exist, because NYC wouldn't need any maintenance for its subway system.
If a transit system is paid for or subsidized by the state then the transit system workers cannot be covered by the union. Otherwise, there's this fantastic game a union can play "We take X% of your revenue for our wages. No negotiation" and there's nothing that the other side can do.
Private railway operators in Tokyo aren't subsidized by the state, though I think they get a not-insignificant portion of their income from property rents around stations.
This would make sense. If the real estate could be owned by the operators of the subway, the subway could capture that value created* and distribute it to upkeep of the whole system.
Since this is not the case in NYC and Chicago - private individuals / the city owns the property adjacent to transit, there needs to be some other way to capture that value. Enter a sane, necessary taxation / subsidization mechanism.
* The value is real. Property adjacent to transit was insulated from the 2008 crash: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/03/22/study-homes-near-tran...
Since this is not the case in NYC and Chicago - private individuals / the city owns the property adjacent to transit, there needs to be some other way to capture that value. Enter a sane, necessary taxation / subsidization mechanism.
* The value is real. Property adjacent to transit was insulated from the 2008 crash: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/03/22/study-homes-near-tran...
Simple: factor the distance and access to public transit into the taxable valuation of property. If the state is subsidizing transit, and transit makes the land more desirable, it stands to reason that the land is more valuable and should pay higher property taxes.
Did the private railway operators purchase the land and build the railway too?
They purchased the assets (including land) from the government who purchased the land and built the railway.
The word is fare, and you’re wrong. There are quite a few agencies that cover >100% of their costs with fares, and 20-30% is only “typical” in the US.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
What? A recovery ratio of over 100% is rare worldwide (your link shows 7, with the Las Vegas, USA monorail at 100% even).
Why was this comment downvoted? It's factually accurate.
But transport always must be subsidized by the State, going back to the roads of Rome.
Ironically many car drivers object to the public subsidy of rail, arguing transit should never be publicly subsidized.
Ironically many car drivers object to the public subsidy of rail, arguing transit should never be publicly subsidized.
Car drivers are subsidized by the entirety of population. The roads they run on are built by public.
Not really. While it varies, in most states the majority of the costs of roads are borne by users in the form of gax tax, tolls, and user fees. [0] In my state, (MI), the legislature recently substantially increased the annual vehicle registration fees to pay for infrastructure upkeep.
[0] https://taxfoundation.org/state-road-funding-2017
[0] https://taxfoundation.org/state-road-funding-2017
> in most states the majority of the costs of roads are borne by users in the form of gax tax, tolls, and user fees
Your link seems to prove the opposite. It says that Colorado has the 24th largest share of roads paid for by gas tax, tolls and user fees with 49.9% paid for in that manner. That means that only 23 states have a majority of road spending paid for by gas tax, tolls and user fees, so most states (>50%) have less than half of road spending paid for by gas tax, tolls and user fees.
Your link seems to prove the opposite. It says that Colorado has the 24th largest share of roads paid for by gas tax, tolls and user fees with 49.9% paid for in that manner. That means that only 23 states have a majority of road spending paid for by gas tax, tolls and user fees, so most states (>50%) have less than half of road spending paid for by gas tax, tolls and user fees.
(Yes, I was alluding to exactly this irony)
Many Tokyo rail systems are privately run, profitable, and world-class.
https://www.citylab.com/amp/article/370337/
https://www.citylab.com/amp/article/370337/
Their daily ridership is also many times higher than the average of pretty much any city.
They are subsidized by the local government mostly and get some from fares. You have to consider the alternative when talking about the fare ratio though. It would either mean building more roads, or another form of public transit. So even if fares were free and the subway cost a billion a year, if it would cost more than a billion a year for roads it saves money
Farebox rev is ~40% the rest of funding comes from a variety of taxes (RE, payroll, etc) and a few state and local subsidies.
Do not that this is a problem nationwide with rail transit. Both heavy and light rail variants suffer the same issue, deferred upkeep. Throw in the elevated expense in deploying such solutions and the money just vanishes. While NYC has issues specific to it many cities slight their bus travelers to support rail lines to the point of changing bus routes to be less advantageous. LA lost nearly four bus riders for every new rail rider because they cut routes to pay for the train.
when it comes to deferred maintenance, if you were to look into the 2015 DOT reports there is nearly a hundred billion dollar backlog on rail maintenance. This is on top of the tens of billions spent building it and building new rail.
the estimates to bring just DC's Metro system back up to maintenance date is over twenty billion.
Just remember in the US most transit rail lines are for the purpose of politicians to cut ribbons.
when it comes to deferred maintenance, if you were to look into the 2015 DOT reports there is nearly a hundred billion dollar backlog on rail maintenance. This is on top of the tens of billions spent building it and building new rail.
the estimates to bring just DC's Metro system back up to maintenance date is over twenty billion.
Just remember in the US most transit rail lines are for the purpose of politicians to cut ribbons.
But roads are faring so much better? Or water infrastructure (Flint)? Or electricity infrastructure (PR)?
Our western society seems to find ways of fund investments but when it comes to maintenance there is a void. Why the US is particularly bad at this and what needs to change across the board is the question. The current course is not sustainable.
Our western society seems to find ways of fund investments but when it comes to maintenance there is a void. Why the US is particularly bad at this and what needs to change across the board is the question. The current course is not sustainable.
I always wondered what would happen if you just remove the trains and the track and just let people cycle through the tunnels.
Why does such a troubled metro still run 24/7? Most of the best-performing metros in the world (HK, SG, Tokyo) close at midnight.
There are a lot of people who ride at night -- not just party goers, but also people with late night jobs. The MTA does change the service pattern at night and there are often closures/reroutes for maintenance.
Also note that the MTA's troubles have nothing to do with running the system 24/7. The subway has run 24/7 for a century, and for most of that century maintenance was not a problem. What happened recently was that the state started cutting the MTA's subsidy, so maintenance started to slip and the system fell apart -- something which happened in the 1980s, but people have no ability to learn from past mistakes.
Also note that the MTA's troubles have nothing to do with running the system 24/7. The subway has run 24/7 for a century, and for most of that century maintenance was not a problem. What happened recently was that the state started cutting the MTA's subsidy, so maintenance started to slip and the system fell apart -- something which happened in the 1980s, but people have no ability to learn from past mistakes.
Because the city itself is 24/7?
Yeah but at night there's significantly less traffic, so it's ok to stop the trains and rely solely on the bus network because it has enough capacity to handle night traffic.
Where I live is an example of that: during weekdays the light rail closes IIRC between midnight and 6, they only keep it running on weekends because of all the people going out at night (the metro always runs but that's fully automated). Just because the bus system isn't enough to handle a city's peak load, it's usually fine for handling the load on periods where the load is the smallest.
Where I live is an example of that: during weekdays the light rail closes IIRC between midnight and 6, they only keep it running on weekends because of all the people going out at night (the metro always runs but that's fully automated). Just because the bus system isn't enough to handle a city's peak load, it's usually fine for handling the load on periods where the load is the smallest.
Dude. Not moving a "sick passenger" off the train is the biggest issue of NYC subway commute.
It really isn't. It is an issue, sure, but decrepit signals have far more of an effect every single day.
No, this is the issue. A sick passenger on union sq on N Q R in a rush hour means for twenty minutes trains are stopped. A sick passenger on the L, means trains are stopped in both directions. It takes hours for the train service to get back to normal. This happens nearly daily. If we still had Gothamist, we would have still had daily articles about what caused the delay.
No, it is an issue. In any case, a new signal system would allow the subway to recover from a sick passenger much quicker, and allow it to run many more trains per hour than it currently does, which would cover many sins. The decrepit signals are a far bigger issue, and a far more solvable one (how do you solve sick passengers?)
> and a far more solvable one (how do you solve sick passengers?)
You move them off the train ( 2 minutes ) and let the train continue moving.
Improving signal system won't fix delays. The article is about what about makes commute terrible. MTAs customer does not give a flying f!ck about why there are the delays. MTA customer wants to have no delays. MTA's solution? Contractless payments! New L cars with folding seats!
Subway in NYC runs on electricity. It is not possible to run more trains on most of the lines than already run. MTA got a stupid grant from feds of several hundred million dollars to upgrade one of the L substations. It will add two or maybe three additional trains in the rush hour when trains already come every 3-4 minutes. No improvement in switching infrastructure would fix it. A train stopping for twenty minutes on Bedford St would affect the system for hours because of the idiotic 8th St design.
Oh how about someone having an episode in a tunnel, followed by a dumb-ass passenger pulling emergency brake. In a tunnel. Guess what happens? The conductor has to check every car before the train moves forward even though he or she knows where the emergency brake was pulled. So you now have a sick passenger in a tunnel and entire system again stops. Fun, huh? But sure, through the magic of signal system improvement we will totally address dumb design ideas.
You move them off the train ( 2 minutes ) and let the train continue moving.
Improving signal system won't fix delays. The article is about what about makes commute terrible. MTAs customer does not give a flying f!ck about why there are the delays. MTA customer wants to have no delays. MTA's solution? Contractless payments! New L cars with folding seats!
Subway in NYC runs on electricity. It is not possible to run more trains on most of the lines than already run. MTA got a stupid grant from feds of several hundred million dollars to upgrade one of the L substations. It will add two or maybe three additional trains in the rush hour when trains already come every 3-4 minutes. No improvement in switching infrastructure would fix it. A train stopping for twenty minutes on Bedford St would affect the system for hours because of the idiotic 8th St design.
Oh how about someone having an episode in a tunnel, followed by a dumb-ass passenger pulling emergency brake. In a tunnel. Guess what happens? The conductor has to check every car before the train moves forward even though he or she knows where the emergency brake was pulled. So you now have a sick passenger in a tunnel and entire system again stops. Fun, huh? But sure, through the magic of signal system improvement we will totally address dumb design ideas.
[deleted]
The problem with that is that it means a delay. There is no easy answer for when to delay the train for everyone, or when to keep moving until it is handled with a smaller delay.
London Underground sometimes has posters up, "If you feel unwell, seek a member of staff on the platform" and "when ill on a train, if possible, wait until the train is in a station, where help is more easily available".
Also, most of the emergency communications buttons now connect you to speak with the driver. They presumably have a procedure, depending on the problem, but for someone sick they will call ahead "passenger in front of carriage 3".
Also, most of the emergency communications buttons now connect you to speak with the driver. They presumably have a procedure, depending on the problem, but for someone sick they will call ahead "passenger in front of carriage 3".
I suspect they are talking about homeless and/or people under influence of alcohol or other substances, not people with health issues that is why "sick passenger" is in quotes.
Police probably given up on throwing them out.
Police probably given up on throwing them out.
They are treated the same. "Sick passenger" = train stops, vacate the car, wait for EMT to diagnose.
Now they're also talking about stopping the L train for a year or more. And my major issue is, these people who have the time to go out and protest - and the city literally is not allowed to say, "You want this to get fixed? Either convince the rich folks to actually pay their taxes, or be willing to volunteer and do the work we need done down there."
The L shutdown has nothing to do with funds - it's mostly covered by federal Sandy money. The issue is the tunnel needs to be essentially gutted and replaced after being submerged in salt water for days post Sandy. There's no reroutes available so the only option is a shutdown. It can either be done all at once in less than 18 months (and MTA actually has a good track record coming in under time for repair work) or done one direction at a time over three years with a fraction of the current brooklyn-manhattan service level.
A full shutdown is absolutely the best option as much as it sucks for people dependent on the line (like me and my neighbors).
A full shutdown is absolutely the best option as much as it sucks for people dependent on the line (like me and my neighbors).
> and the city literally is not allowed to say, "You want this to get fixed? Either convince the rich folks to actually pay their taxes, or be willing to volunteer..."
That sounds like an excellent campaign poster.
The city is a public institution it shouldn't have opinions. But the politicians who govern it are very much encouraged to do so.
I suggest you try to run on a political platform of taxes and better services. Then you'll see of Americans want that.
That sounds like an excellent campaign poster.
The city is a public institution it shouldn't have opinions. But the politicians who govern it are very much encouraged to do so.
I suggest you try to run on a political platform of taxes and better services. Then you'll see of Americans want that.
No need. The current tax bill exposed the positions of American limo liberals quite well - no one wants their "but i already pay taxes in New York so of course I deduct them from my federal tax liability" to go away.
One thing that shocked me when going to the US, that still shocks me now, are those adds: "Injured? Cellino & Barnes".
Apparently, when you're injured in the US, the first thing to do is not go to the hospital, but call your lawyer. I'm not sure what to think of it, but it does make me feel uneasy.
Apparently, when you're injured in the US, the first thing to do is not go to the hospital, but call your lawyer. I'm not sure what to think of it, but it does make me feel uneasy.
America's courts unlike the UK routinely award punitive damages. Suing someone for causing you injury in the UK may only net you the cost of your medical bills (which might be negligible) and the cost of missed work.
Given the US health care system, I understand why someone might need punitive damages.
Needing punitive damages is a contradiction by definition. If you could show injury then they would be normal damages The point of punitive damages is that they're not necessary to compensate the injured party but to send a message that a certain behavior is not acceptable.
For example: "$person was burned by your hot coffee so we're awarding them $smallnumber for medical expenses, lost wages, suffering, etc. and $bignumber in punitive damages because you shouldn't be serving coffee that hot in that manner in the first place"
For example: "$person was burned by your hot coffee so we're awarding them $smallnumber for medical expenses, lost wages, suffering, etc. and $bignumber in punitive damages because you shouldn't be serving coffee that hot in that manner in the first place"
I know what "punitive damages" mean. I was just pointing out that in the US, one might lose one's ability to get health insurance at all because of an injury (many conditions will cause most insurance company to refuse your application).
The possible prejudice for that can range in the millions. Even if those aren't punitive, they sure feel like it.
The possible prejudice for that can range in the millions. Even if those aren't punitive, they sure feel like it.
>I was just pointing out that in the US, one might lose one's ability to get health insurance at all because of an injury (many conditions will cause most insurance company to refuse your application).
That is no longer true as a result of the ACA.
That is no longer true as a result of the ACA.
I didn't know about the affordable care act, that's wonderful news! Anyway, I stand corrected, thanks.
Andy Byford has his work cut out for him.
American cities are so far behind. D.C. is probably one of the best metros, but NYC and Chicago, while having quite extensive systems for very large cities, have no budget to expand or move them into the future.
For cities that large, these systems have to be maintained. They cannot afford to cut train lines, unless they want to end up with grueling traffic like you have in LA.